PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION
CRITERIA FOR SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
APRIL 21,1978
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-38p) in the solid waste management series
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on Proposed Classification Criteria
for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
April 21, 1978, Washington, D.C.
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-38p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
PANEL MEMBERS
Dr. John H. Skinner, Chairman
Director, Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr . Truett DeGeare
Chief, Land Portection Branch
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Kenneth Shuster
Program Manager, Land Protection Branch
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Bruce Weddle
Chief, Special Wastes Branch
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Meridith Wright
Attorney, Water Quality Division
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Mike Roulier
Soil Scientist, Solid and Hazardous
Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
20
21
-------
2B
1
2
CONT.ENT.S_
Page
Mr. Burt Lynam
3 Chicago Metropolitan Sewage District 7
Chicago, Illinois
4
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing 10
Director, Research and Development
Metropolitan Sanitary District of
„ Great Chicago
Q
Dr. Dana Davoli 27
Staff Scientist, Citizens for a
Better Environment
Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Paul Emler 42
Chairman, Edison Electric
Institute Solid Waste Task Force
Washington, D. C.
Mr. David J. Damiano 57
Commissioner of Streets
]3 City of Philadelphia
Mr. William Anderson 64
American Consulting Engineers Council
15 Mr. James R. Greco 81
Director, Government and Industry Affairs
Browning-Ferris Industries
Houston, Texas
Mr, Lee Sommers 95
Regional Research Committee
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Wallace C. Koster 107
* Director, Solid Waste Division
Nassaux-Hensley Consultants
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Mr. A. Blakeman Early 114
Environmental Action
Washington, D. C.
24
25
-------
i j
! Mr. Cliff Cobb
2 ! Solid Waste Project Director
i National Association of Counties
3 j Washington, D. C.
i
4 j Dr. William H. Hallenbeck 135
Assistant Professor
5 University of Illinois Medical Center
j Chicago, Illinois
6
Mr. Marchant Wentworth 144
7 i Environmental Action Foundation
I Washington, D. C.
8 •
Mr. William F. Gilley 157
9 j Director, Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management
Virginia Department of Health
Richmond, Virginia
i
II
Dr. Marwan Sadat 162
12 | Program Director, Office of
Sludge Management and
13 Industrial Pre-Treatment
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
15 Mr. Mark Sullivan 170
Director, Solid Waste Project
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D. C.
Ms. Elizabeth M. Dollard 175
Policy Research Director
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
Washington, D. C.
20
21
22
25
-------
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Good morning. I would like to
welcome you to a public hearing conducted by the United States
4
Environmental Protection Agency on proposed regulation
entitled "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities".
This is a proposed regulation that is being issued
under the authority of Section 4004 of the Solid Waste
9 Disposal Act and also being proposed under Section 405fj)of the
10 Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean
!I Water Act.
This regulation was published as proposed in the
Federal Register on February 6, 1978. Copies of this proposed
regulation and also copies of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act are available at the Registration Desk.
The public comment period on this regulation was
originally scheduled to end on May 8, 1978. This has been
extended.
A draft Environmental Impact Statement has been
20 prepared and is available for public review. And, an
2i announcement of the availability of that statement and also
22 an announcement of the extension of the public comment period
23 will be published in the Federal Register today. The closing
date for the public comment period is June 12. All comments
on the proposed regulation and on the draft Environmental
-------
Impact Statement must be received by the close of business on
June 12.
This is one of five public hearings and a number of
public meetings we will be having on this proposed regulation.
5 |!
!i Announcement of the hearing dates and times and locations was
1
| published in the Federal Register on February 27th. And,
7 li
'' there will also be notification of an additional hearing in
8
9
TO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
today's Fjederal Register. The hearing dates for the remaining
hearings are April 24th in Kansas City, Missouri, April 26th
in Portland, Oregon and June 5th in Cincinnati, Ohio.
In the proposed regulation and also available at
the Registration Desk is an address which you should write to
or contact if you would like more information 6n the public
hearings and the public meetings. I will read this address
quickly, but if you miss it you can pick it up at the
Registration Desk. This is fierrj. Wyet-j Public Participation
Officer, Office of Solid Waste, U.S.E.P.A., Mail Code WH562,
401 M Street, S. W.,Washington, D.C. 20460.
EPA is maintaining an official record of all
comments received during the public comment period and this
record is referred to as Docket 4004 and all comments on
the proposed regulation should be sent to this Docket. The
address is also at the Registration Desk and also in the
proposed regulation, I will read it for you again. It should
be Docket 4004, Attention Mr. Kenneth Shuster, the same street
-------
address as the previous address given. That second address
2
should also be used for requesting copies of the draft
3
Environmental Impact Statement.
4
All major substantive comments received during the
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
H
1$
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public comment period will be addressed and considered in
final promulgation of the regulation.
This hearing today is being recorded and a verbatim
transcript will be placed in the Docket and copies of the
transcript will be issued by request. If you would like a
copy, you may request a copy at the Registration Desk during
the break.
The Docket and all comments made are available for
public review at EPA Headquarters during normal working hours.
The purpose of this hearing is for the public to
present their views on the proposed regulation. We will
start with statements to be made by those parties who have
requested to make a formal statement. We have 18 people who
pre-registered and requested to make a formal statement. We
may have other people registering and asking to make a
statement later on during the day.
The hearing is scheduled from 9:00 to 12:00. We
will take a break for lunch from 12:00 to 1:00 and reconvene
at 1:00 and try to finish up by 5:00.
In order to accommodate everyone, we would appreciat
it if you could summarize your statements in approximately
-------
eight minutes. That will provide approximately five minutes j
j
for questions by the panel following your statement. If we j
1
adhere to that time schedule, I think we will be able to get \
everybody in.
If you have a longer written statement/ you may
; submit it and it will be published in its entirety in the
' , transcript.
As I indicated previously, following each statement
'' this panel may ask questions of the people presenting state-
10 , ments. Also, if anyone in the audience would like to ask a
11 :'. question to people presenting statements, you can submit them
'^ '[ on cards which are being distributed or will be distributed
1 <3 ii
! shortly. Submit them to me and we will arrange for the panel
11 i: to ask those questions.
I,
'5 ji This is not a formal adjudicatory hearing with the
j
ls ji right of cross examination. Therefore, any response to such
11 ,j questions is voluntary. If time permits at the end of the
18 |! day, the panel will accept any questions and attempt to answer
|j
ly I} questions from the public.
j|
20 j| There is a list at the Registration Desk of the
ji
21 i people who have requested to make a public statement. The
I
22 j list is in order that we received these requests. We will go
23 Si down the list in that order. So, if someone is further down
24 I] the list and would like to come back later, he could judge
approximately when we would be getting to you. We estimate
-------
it will take 10 to 15 minutes for each statement.
2
I have been advised there is no smoking permitted
n
in this room due to &SA requirement. Also, -Cor all the
speakers, would you please give your name and affiliation
5 before making the statement?
6 Let me introduce the panel. My name is John Skinner
I am the Director of Systems Management Division in the Office
8 of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA. To my immediate left is Truett
DeGeare. Next to him is Mr. Kenneth Shuster, Program Manager,
Land Protection Branch. Next to him is Bruce Weddle, Chief
of Special Wastes Branch. Next to him is Meridith Wright, an
12 attorney with Office of General Counsel, U.S. EPA. At the
1 O
end of the table is Mr. Mike Roulier, a soil scientist with
14 the Office of Research and Development, EPA in Cincinnati.
15 All of these people were very closely involved in the
development and drafting of this regulation and will be very
interested in your comments and will be asking you questions
on your comments.
Starting now with the prepared statements, the
20 first witness is a representative from the Chicago Metro-
21 politan Sewage District and Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, Director,
22 Research and Development, Metropolitan Sanitary District of
23 Greater Chicago.
2-1 I MR. LYNAM: My name is Bart Lynam.
25 Mr. Chairman, I am wearing two hats this morning
-------
I and as a representative of the Board of Directors for the
2
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, I would like to
3
include in the official record the statement that was made
by our agency April 17, 1978 in Chicago, Illinois. I would
like to officially submit that for the record. So, we will
6 do that.
I would like to make a brief opening remark as to
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21!
23
U
25
our concern in the metropolitan area in addition to other
agencies across the country in terms of these proposed regu-
lations.
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, who is Director of Research
and Development Department, has a prepared statement and he
will submit that in its entirety for the record and will
abstract it for the panel.
In addition to the prepared statement we have a
number of appendeces that we will be submitting to the panel
in the future.
I would like to introduce members of our staff
and also Dr. Tom Hynsley from the University of Illinois who
is a soil ecologist. Mr. Forrest Neil, our Chief Engineer,
Mr. Raymond Rehnquist, Chief of Maintenance and Operations,
Mr. James Murray, Attorney from the Law Department.
The reason I introduce these people is that in
memory we cannot recall a regulation which will have a more
profound effect upon our agency than this proposed regulation.
-------
1
We have reviewed it with a great deal of specificity and with
2
a great deal of concern. Quite frankly, we are put between a
3
rock and a hard place. We have put into a position as an
4
agency involved in waste water treatment collection and
disposal of solids into a no-win situation. It was with that
overview that we have prepared our statement. We will continu
to work with the panel to discuss and look for solutions to
this problem.
g
The reason I brought with me this morning our top
staff people is that this involves long-range planning, long-
range expenditures. These projects have long lives. Our
12
present operations have seriously been curtailed. These
13
proposed regulations we have taken with a view towards chang-
ing our present operations drastically, costing millions of
dollars already since the initial publication of these
regulations.
I just wanted to share with you the gravest concern
I ft
that we have over these regulations and the promulgation of
1 9
any kind of regulation of this type without the most deep
* and sincere understanding of the ramifications that these
21 are going to have on an agency such as ours and such as our
sister agencies across the United States. We are dealing
with matters that I am not capable of expressing to this
panel. In our opinion, there lias been no regulation published;
25 or proposed rather, by the EPA that has the gravity of these.
-------
10
I would like to have an abstract of our prepared
statement given to you by Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing. I will be
3 !
prepared to answer questions today, tomorrow and forever j
4 '
I after on this subject matter.
i So, if I may, Mr. Chairman —
6 |j CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much.
DR: LUE-HING: Thank you, Mr. Lynam.
In the interest of responding to the time limitation^,
I will read some of the topics and our recommendations as
time permits.
On the Sludge Disposal Alternatives, we have listed
12 four: 1) Incineration followed by landfill; 2) ocean disposal
13
3) landfill operations; 4) land utilization.
14
Essentially we have just one option left since all
15 of the four or three of the four with landfill on its way out
in a couple of years. Anything we have got to do is we have
17 got to involve the land.
ID
Our recommendation following these alternatives:
That EPA recognize the distinction between disposal and
20 resource conservation and recovery systems. And, we recommend
21 that separate and distinct regulations should be promulgated
22 for these systems. We recommend that resource conservation
23 and recovery should be encouraged rather than penalized.
24 We also list Federal Specifications for Cadmium and
25 we recommend to the agency that steps be taken to reduce the
-------
11
Federal output of cadmium through contractors, those primarily
involved in defense work.
We also ask for flexibility in the regulations which
would permit states and regional agencies to be more
responsive to those special regional needs of the area. We
recommend that an exemption be given to projects which are
designed to retain strict acid soils.
'I
8 j| We also believe that pH selection, that of 6.5 or
above, is not supported by some scientific information. Under
the evolution of the regulations we discussed the history.
We will not go into that, but that also appears under
in
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Evolution of Sludge Utilization Regulations.
While the question of maximum rates of sludge
application is variable, results are soon to become available
after the research is done in many parts of the United States
I would like to point out here that quite recently your
agency invited us to participate in a long-term program
involving 17 universities and agricultural stations across
the country. We provided them the material and we worked
on the contract with the agency. We do believe that these
studies will answer many of the questions raised by the
regulations.
Some recommendations: We believe that a national
limit for metal concentrations should be established for
crops and feeds used for animal and human consumption, if, in
-------
:i 12
!l
ii
! fact, metals regulations are needed. The establishment of
2 I
ij metals regulations must be based on the following: a)
3 i
j; ultimate use of crops and feeds; b) distribution of these
products by timed release or by regional marketing; and c)
realistic appraisal of the actual food chain cadmium from
ft
feeds and crops, regardless of their mode of fertilization.
We have a long discourse on metals, but in this
discourse we primarily reject the rationale for using
cation exchange capacity as a means of controlling cadmium
uptake in plants.
We also reject the hypothesis that cadmium loadings
is the primary factor involving metal uptaklng.
We also reject the rationale that there are serious
problems resulting from residual effects of cadmium once
sludge applications are terminated.
We have listed a number of impacts of various
phases of our operation and the best information we have
currently is that many of our operational procedures will be
curtailed by as much as 85%. And, in fact, this has already
happened because of the appearance of the proposed regulations
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the Federal Register.
On page nine we have made some typographical
corrections for the benefit of those individuals who have
copies of this.
Under the metals discourse, we recommend that
-------
13
|'[ basically the data compiled from Dayton, Ohio and our own work
2
that sewage sludge farm that annual sludge application to
3
agricultural soils be limited by the nitrogen requirements of
4
the crops.
5
6
7
S
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That reclaiming stripped-mined land where the
buildup of the mumus content of the soil is critical for
establishing vegetation, should be such as to achieve a
three to five percent organic matter content.
Since CEC has been shown to be of little conse-
quence with regard to either the retention of the metals zinc,
cadmium, copper and Ni in soils or in controlling their
uptake by plants, the District recommends that the use of
CEC as a controlling parameter for sludge loading rates be
abandoned.
The agency specifically requests comments on the
pre-treatment comments that they proposed. We propose a
support for the concept but we reject the agency's belief
that the concept will solve anybody's problems. We have just
concluded a three-year study on the industrial input of
cadmium for the District's plants. We found that the non-
industrial input is approximately 60%. We have also deter-
mined if we told industry no more cadmium, period, we would
hoive
still^many fold higher in our sludge cadmium content than is
recommended by the agency.
These numbers that we have just gathered are similar
-------
14
to numbers gathered by the City of New York three or four
II years ago and the Alleghany County Pennsylvania Group more
3 I
] recently.
!!
/J j[
i We appreciate the agency's idea of comparability,
I!
!j but we find it difficult to redefine that term or to clean it
* ji up so to speak to make it liveable or workable.
T ri
There are two factors in here which give us serious
problems. One, comparability based on crops grown locally.
9 That is a very difficult situation. Comparability based on
the food and drug policy of no incremental cadmium. That is
an impossibility. If I go into a store to buy a product, the
cadmium content is not determined by the indigenous cadmium
13
14
15
content of a local crop. So, we cannot be held with that
comparability as another producer of food.
If we offer you regional marketing, what we will
have in the State of Illinois, for example, we could be
16
17 ; comparing our production of 40,000 bushels of corn with a
18 : state production of 1.25 billion or a county production of
ll
19 I 17 million bushels. However, while no one can measure any
21
22
23
2-1
25
jl incremental cadmium addition if we could homogeneously mix
these two qualities. I can always mathematically determine
an incremental cadmium addition. So, that puts us in a
position where we cannot redefine comparability to remain
operant.
We have discussed land reclamation and I don't think:
-------
15
I need to repeat that. There is one part of the criteria
2
that gives us some serious problem. It is on page 4949.
It says, "the criteria will be revised in the future to
-I
address other metals". We see this as slow death. Do we die
5
now or four years from now? The problem there is that we
fi
8
Cj
12
13
18
I *~)
20
21
25
cannot plan either short or long term.
For example, our agency,4n agency like San Francisco
Milwaukee and other agencies, if we decide to change direction^
today and have them unavailable, we would need ten years to
put anything on line for the scale.
You are also talking three, four, five million
dollars of capital expenditure and we cannot do this under
slow death.
I have mentioned some of the impacts and I indicate
that if we assume that the regulations go into effect right
now, while we currently are operating on 15,000 acres, the
regulations and the effect of them — We find that our
operation is immediately abolished under the regulations. Just
to be in compliance we would need immediately 82,000 additional
acres. By 1985 we would need an additional 331,000 acres
because of the progressively lower loadings. Our cost will
raise from 18 plus million to about $112,000/000 by 1985.
The curtailment caused just by the publication of
the regulations, or if they are implemented — Some of the
programs now in effect have to be reduced drastically. We
-------
i will then have an additional 143,000 dry tons a year to
2 I
j! manage. And, if we assume that we took it all from Fulton
.'! j
j County in that type of regulation we would need an additional
4 !
j 200,000 acres or a total of 613,000 acres at the levels of
| application following 1985. This is like the State of Rhode
6 i
ij Island.
Incineration in Chicago, I am not sure that that is
i.
something that we can be too optimistic about. I refer to
9
the Washington, D. C. situation in miniature.
The institutional considerations which we ask are
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very important. The current regulations are not based on
valid scientific information or at least are inefficient and,
in fact, contrary to research currently under way. We believe
that long-term regulations as are proposed are inappropriate
at this time.
The District, therefore, recommends certain actions.
1) A mandatory review five years after the promulgation of
these regulations because there is a tremendous amount of
information which will become available in a very short period
In addition to mandatory review, we would like to
recommend also some interim regulations. We know we have
made some regulations previously in the documents and it will
be difficult for the EPA to move that quickly and be respons-
ive. So, we are saying, here are some interim ideas.
In addition to mandatory review, we would also
-------
17
recommend that at the least the concept — Pardon me, without
I
the interim regulations we anticipate that these things will I
3 i i
| happen at the local level. We would find pretty much
i
4 I
' premature foreclosure of the land utilization option and
serious disruption of short and long-range planning by local
t
' governments, loss of funding since lopal agencies cannot fund
on a contingency basis, county governments' fear of increased
land holdings by a foreign government, and with specific
' regard to our project in Fulton County, and the loss of the
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nation's only long-term large scale controlled sludge recycled
project.
Interim regulations would also permit a more
orderly transition between options should the determination
be made that such transitions are necessary and desirable.
The District is currently preparing specific
recommendations for interim regulations which could be made
available to the agency prior to the conclusion of these
hearings.
Economic Impact: We recommend that the agency
conduct such a study if it has not already done so.
We estimate that if these regulations are not
promulgated in 1985 the annual sludge disposal cost would
amount to less than $1 billion. However, if proposed, we
estimate $6 billion inflation. The EPA regulations will rule
out economic viability for utilizing sludges on land.
-------
18
If the long-term cadmium restrictions become fully
effective during the next seven.years, the District's cost for
solid management will increase six fold. Thus, we believe
4
in accordance with Inflation Impact Statement Requirements
5 i
of Executive Order of 11821 and The Office of Management and
6 i
Budget's Circular A-107, the EPA has an obligation to conduct
7
an Inflation Impact Study prior to adoption of these regu-
8
lations.
9
Our last section is on planning. In the proposed
10 I
regulations, the agency expresses its intent to include
U
additional restrictions on other metals and organics. This
12
action will only serve to make the regulations more restrictive
13
and more difficult for municipal agencies to plan and design
sludge management projects.
15
The planning involved in the design and construction
IS
of public works facilities which must have useful life
17
spans, as long as 40 years, is difficult enough without having
18
to plan on the basis of regulations in a state of flux.
19
A typical example of the planning and design
20
difficulties imposed by changing EOA rules and regulations on
municipal sludge utilization projects is the situation that
22
exists at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant in
23
Washington, D. C. (See "Report to the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago on Sludge Disposal at the Blue
Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington, D. C. by
-------
19
1
Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., dated April 11, 1978,"
2
Appendix E).
3
The Blue Plains plant is a regional facility which
4
treats sewage from the District of Columbia, and adjoining
5
sections of Maryland and Virginia. The attempts at planning
rt
and implementing short and long-term sludge disposal and
utilization programs for this facility offer excellent samples
8
of the difficulties caused by changing Federal governmental
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regulations.
In 1972, a draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was prepared by the EPA for the Blue Plains plant.
The District of Columbia had requested that the Blue Plains
plant include multiple hearth incinerators for sludge dis-
posal. The final EIS prepared by the EPA requested a delay
of the planned incinerator complex, and that no costs be
incurred for incinerators. The EIS concluded that more time
was needed before the EPA could approve the installation of
incinerators.
Since the 1972 final EIS, there has been a series
of studies commissioned by the EPA and the District of
Columbia to evaluate sludge disposal or utilization techniques
such as land application, composting, flash drying, pyrolysis,
and incineration.
The present situation regarding sludge disposal at
Blue Plains is not significantly clearer than in 1972 when
-------
20
1
the final EIS was proposed. As of this date: a) No long-
2
term solution has been reached; b) Design and costing of the
3
proposed incinerators have not been finalized; c) Methods and
4
locations for short-term sludge disposal are not certain;
5
d) Methods and location for long-term disposal have not been
£•
decided; e) Lengthy proceedings will be required for
regulatory acceptance of incineration.
I could go on a little more on this but I think
Dr. Skinner has left me to leave.
10
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Not yet.
DR. LUE-HING: Thank you very much. Dr. Skinner.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much for a helpful
13
statement. I am sure we have some questions from the panel.
14
MR. WEDDLE: I have one. In development of the
proposed regulation two options were proposed for the manage-
ment of cadmium. The first option contains four management
controls that you have spent quite a bit of time discussing.
I A
That option was designed for less controlled situations.
19
For example, small farmers taking sludge or the community
20
olec'i4ft
-------
21
to minimize the addition of cadmium or I mean the uptake of
2
cadmium by crops.
It was the second option which we hoped -- In fact,
our intent was to provide flexibility to large facilities,
perhaps like yours, and at the same time provide for dietary
protection.
In your statement you dwelled on Option One to a
great extent and, indeed, stated pretty much that you would
9 have to follow the control establishment of Option One.
10 My question is why did you assume that you would be
11 forced to Option One and not be able to take Option Two as a
more desirable approach?
13
DR. LUE-HING: Perhaps I should have prefaced my
remarks by saying all my.statements are conditioned on reading
page 4954, Cadmium. Any site that is currently or in the
1 fi
future used for food chain crops comprised of items, sub-
17 paragraph one or subparagraph two — We have to interpret that
when we read it to mean all sites. The distinction — While
19 we appreciate the second option that you mentioned very much,
20 we could not interpret that as being a viable immediate option
21 we can live with or under which we can operate. It needs a
22 lot of cleaning up. We can clean it up only if the agency
23 either shifts or relaxes or becomes more viable in those
24 conditions which are already appearing in this Docket. With-
25 out that I don't think anybody can clean it up.
-------
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
59
20
21
22
23
24
25
9 ^
i ditta. w\ the impact of A regulation on Fulton County — I guess it
22
MR. WEDDLE: If that were then clean up, would it
be then true that many of your statements would not be as
strong and that you might support this regulation to a much
greater degree than your statement implies?
DR. LUE-HING: If- you could clean it up satisfactori .y
I would have to modify some of my statements.
MR. WEDDLE: Okay.
i
The second question is that you provided economic j
was a national figure of $6 billion. These numbers are
significantly higher than those that are in our EIS which will
be available next week. Would you please supply the rationale
and the backgroundj support data, that you used to
develop those figures so that we are able to compare the
approach you used and the figures you used with ours so we
can make a better determination of the impact of these
regulations?
DR. LUE-HING: Surely.
MR. WEDDLE: Did you, in calculating these regu-
lations and costs, assume that you would be forced to Option
One?
DR. LUE-HING: We made the assumption that much of
our operation would have to be geared or transferred into
Option One.
MR. WEDDLE: Okay.
-------
23
]'
i,
1 j.
!: If you were able to use Option Two, which is i
!•
2 !•
!| paragraph two under the section, would it be that both the ;
a |i
j; Fulton County cost and the national cost would be significantly
4 P !
If decreased? I
r. Si ,
DR. LUE-HING: Nevertheless significantly depends
c. i
on how well we rewrite paragraph A under the Section, page
4954. To the extent that we can modify that that would be
i
i*
! reflected in the changing cost.
10
tl i
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WEDDLE: I just want to be clear on this.
If paragraph two is rewritten, and let's assume that it is
rewritten to your satisfaction so that it does give you the
,i flexibility and the dietary protection necessary, then these
figures would be substantially decreased?
DR. LUE-HING: Yes. Our taxpayers would love that
in Chicago.
MR. WEDDLE: Can I ask one or two more questions?
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Yes.
MR. WEDDLE: Could you supply some of the data on
pre-treatment successes and the inability of your community
to get industrial concentrations of cadmium down any further?
You have a chart in your statement that shows two treatment
plants in the vicinity and talks about industrial flow.
Could you supply more data?
DR. LUE-HING: Verbally?
MR. WEDDLE: Either.
-------
3
4
5
G
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
, i
' DR. LUE-HING: Sure. In fact we are in the process
O i
i of finalizing a comprehensive report. Because of responding
to this we have put it aside. But, sometime after June we
will have a copy available.
MR. WEDDLE: After when?
DR. LUE-HING: June.
MR. WEDDLE: Okay, that will be satisfactory. But,
if it goes into July or August, there could be a problem.
DR. LUE-HING: If you are seriously interested, we
would make an effort to complete it at an earlier date. But,
our normal accomplishment time is June.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Any information that we
receive to consider for promulgation of the final regulation
has to be in by the end of the public comment period.
MR. WEDDLE: June 12.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: June 12.
DR. LUE-HING: We will make a special effort to
get a draft copy into you.
MR. WEDDLE: I have one more statement. You are
requesting that we review this regulation no later than five
years after adoption. Well, that regulation does require
review every three years so that we would even be doing better
than that.
DR. LUE-HING: I was just hoping that you were
aware of the regulation.
-------
|!
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I just have one comment and
that is with respect to your offer to submit an interim
regulation and you don't indicate what that interim regulation
4
would be. I would be very interested in receiving that con-
5
sidering that.
Also, I would like to know — Perhaps you can
answer or perhaps you would like to submit this at a later
time. I would like to know what your agency's recommendation
for revision of Option Two would be if you felt there was
an acceptable revision of Option Two, which is the comparability
concept. What the revision would be. And, I would also like
to know, if you feel there is no acceptable revision to that
option.
DR. LUE-HING: Well, we would be happy to work with
you on both comments, Dr. Skinner. We are in the process of
preparing some interim regulations for submittal. These
naturally are very difficult things to do because these will
impact not only our current operations but operations on the
drawing boards. They have to be worded very carefully so
that we don't tip the drawing boards and get everything off
t
of it or that we don't put the brakes precipitously on current
operations.
And again, in the area of Option Two, we are also
21
trying to develop some recommendations for submittal.
25
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much. Fine.
-------
26
MR. DE GEARE: Mr. Lynam, you indicated that you
ii
2
had already incurred costs as a result of the earlier proposed
3
regulations. Could you explain what those costs were?
4
MR. LYNAM: We have a program of local give-away of
5 1
what we call Nu Earth. We will be using the lagoon sludge.
6 I
We have been controlling the products by monitoring the sites.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
20
21
22
25
If there is a large quantity involved such as a golf course,
we continue to monitor those sites. Individual requests
throughout the year — We have developed a marketing program
in public relations, if you will, and we have discontinued
the distribution to local people because of the possible
implications of this regulation as it presently speaks.
Anyway, we are really reacting to what we thought
was a very successful program. I don't know if you are
familiar with our Nu Earth program. We have some very old
air-dried sludge which we have been mining out of some
disposal sites and have distributed free of site charge to
persons interested.
I think what we are doing is reviewing that in
terms of how can we achieve that distribution and still be
concerned about the dietary aspects of it. I think if we
could hone in on that and say if, in some way, whether it is
through a receipt slip, and recognize all the nuances involved
here. If somebody puts it on the shrubs and the leaves,
five years later they start to grow lettuce on it, those kinds
-------
27
|j of things. But, I think it gets to be, from a practical
2 ij
l| point of view, for a man to really use quantities of that
3 I
I material.
ii
il But, what we have — We have reacted to some of
il these so called give-away programs that we have of dis-
ij
|| tributing to local people.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much.
Our next statement will be from Dr. Dana Davoli.
Would you indicate your affiliation?
i
It
j| DR. DAVOLI: My name is Dr. Dana Davoli. I am
i! from Citizens for a Better Environment.
il
12
13
14
15!
16 i
Citizens for a Better Environment appreciates the
opportunity to file its report on the U.S. EPA's Proposed
Classification Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.
Our remarks will be limited to those sections of the proposed
rule dealing with the application of sewage sludge to
agricultural land.
i] I would first like to talk about application of
ii sludge on land used to grow crops directly consumed by humans.
^ jj Control of cadmium: In its proposed rule, the
|| |
21 j U.S. EPA has developed regulations for facilities that produce!
food chain crops; these include specific criteria for the
management of cadmium. Two approaches to control this metal
are proposed:
1. The first approach includes four criteria
22
23
-------
28
(limits on ddmium loading and pH) to minimize the uptake of j
2
2. The second approach relies on monitoring of
1 cadmium levels in crops grown on sludge-treated land.
!
11 After reviewing the available data, CBE feels that
neither of these approaches is adequate to protect,the public
health. Instead, we encourage EPA to prohibit the use of
sludge on agricultural land. Sludge application to land
3 should be permitted only for the purposes of land reclamation,
enhancement of parks and forests, and other non-agricultural
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
uses.
The toxicity of cadmium: Cadmium is a non-essential
metal that is absent from the body at birth, but which
accumulates with age, mainly in the kidneys and liver. The
major source of cadmium uptake for humans is through ftaods;
however, air, water, and cigarettes also contribute.
In humans, easily observable kidney damage occurs
when the level of cadmium in the kidney reaches 200 ppm; as
yet a "no effect" level has not been demonstrated. Laboratory
studies on rats have shown biochemical abnormalities in kidneys
at levels as low as 90 ppm.
The U.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group has
recently reviewed laboratory studies of animals and epidemio-
logical studies of humans and has concluded that cadmium is
an oncogen (a tumor-producing substance).
-------
29 ;
i
In addition, the Office of Special Pesticide Reviewsj
1
has prepared a position document on cadmium in which they have!
3
jj concluded that cadmium is a mutagen (causes chromosomal j
4 ii
j damage) and a teratogen (crosses the placenta to cause birth
5 i
! defects).
6 ii
I As a result of the conclusions that cadmium is an
7 I
! oncogen, a mutagen, and a teratogen, the U.S. EPA has published
8
a notice of a Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration
9
|| (RPAR) of pesticide compounds containing cadmium. This
10
represents the first naturally occurring substance for which
an RPAR has been issued.
Cadmium in the human diet: In 1972 the Joint
Committee of the World Health Organization and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations published a
report on cadmium. Based on the known effects of cadmium on
the kidney, this international group of experts concluded
that, ... the present day levels of cadmium in the kidney
should not be allowed to rise further ... It is therefore
proposed a provisional tolerable weekly intake of 400 ug -
500 ug per individual (57-71 ug per day).
The conclusions of this committee were based only
on the evidence that cadmium causes kidney damage, not on the
more recent data on oncogenicity, teratogeniclty, or
mutagenicity.
More recently Dr. Dord Kjellstrom conducted a study
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
-------
30
1
of a group of Japanese women in which he calculated the pro-
2
portion of women with kidney damage at age 50 as well as the
3
level of cadmium in their diet. Using such data, it was
4
possible to estimate the proportion of a population
5
(European and Japanese) that will have kidney damage at age
6
50 given the level of cadmium consumed daily in foods.
7
Assuming a weight of 70 kilograms for American males and 53
8
kilograms for American females, his data indicated that 2.5%
9
of the male population and 5.0% of the female population in
10
the U.S. Would develop kidney damage at age 50 if their diets
contained 80 ug and 76 ug of cadmium per day, respectively.
12
How does the average American's intake of cadmium
13
compare to the levels of ingestion known to cause kidney
14
damage? From its 1974 survey of heavy metals in foods, the
15
FDA has concluded that the average national dietary intake of
16
cadmium from food per person (teenage male) is 72 ug per day.
Therefore, a segment of our population is already ingesting
18
that amount of cadmium which the WHO/FAO say should not be
19
exceeded to protect against kidney damage; and, according to
20
Kjellstrom, we are already ingesting an mount of cadmium
21
which could result in kidney damage in a substantial pro-
rtrt
portion of the population. This doesn't include the amounts
* of cadmium absorbed from exposure to air and cigarettes.
From the data on kidney damage alone, it is obvious
25
that the levels of cadmium in the human diet should not be
-------
14
31
permitted to increase. The more recent evidence showing
2
that cadmium is an oncogen strengthens this position since
a "safe level" for chemicals which cause tumors has never
been demonstrated.
As will be shown, the A limits on metal loading and
e
pH are not adequate to prevent substantial increase in dietary
7
cadmium.
Q
Utilizing the results of Giordano and Mays and Chane
and coworkers, the average concentration of cadmium in crops
grown under their conditions (pH 6.3 to 7.0 soil cadmium of
0.40 to 2.73 ppm) was calculated and compared to the con-
12
centration of cadmium in foods in the FDA survey. As an
13
example, the average concentration of cadmium in leafy vege-
tables grown under the experimental condition is 5.78 ppm -
this is 1033% higher than the concentration of cadmium in leaf
Ifi
vegetables in the FDA survey. As evident, all five food
17
classes showed increased levels of cadmium that ranged from
18 74% to 8600%.
It is also possible to estimate the amount of
20 cadmium consumed each day in these five food classes when
21 grown under the conditions of Giordano and Mays and Chaney,
22 et al. A person consuming food grown on sludge-fertilized
23 land ingests 151 ug of cadmium from these five food classes,
24 while a person consuming food in the FDA survey ingests 17.7
25 ug. This represents a 133 microgram increase in cadmium
-------
32
1
consumed daily, assuming that all of the grains and vegetables
2
ingested are grown on sludge-treated land (soil cadmium of
3
0.40 to 2.73 ppm, pH 6.3 to 7.0). Many people's diets
4
include grains and vegetables not grown on sludged land;
5
therefore, the actual increase in cadmium uptake can be lower
6
than 133 micrograms and will depend on the proportion of the
7
diet that is composed of foods grown on sludged land. Since
Q
this proportion can vary drastically from location to location
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it is likely that in some areas of the country this 133 ug
increase would occur. This is especially true for vegetarians
whose diet contains much larger amounts of vegetables and
grains.
To control the entry of cadmium into crops grown on
sludge-treated land, the U.S. EPA has chosen to regulate three
of the most important variables: cadmium loadings, pH, and
crop selection. But there are other factors, such as soil
temperature, soil organic matter, hydrous oxide content, and
inbred line of crop grown, that are also important in limiting
cadmium availability. For example, Hinesly, et al., found
that cadmium accumulated by corn inbreds grown on sludge-
treated land varies 3-4 fold depending on the inbred line that
is used. It is difficult, then, to predict the amount of
cadmium that will be absorbed by a plant when grown on sludgec
land due to the numerous factors involved and limited research
performed to date. In addition, most of the experiments
-------
33
conducted thus far demonstrate that any addition of cadmium
2
to land will result in an increase in cadmium uptake into
plants, especially leafy vegetables and root crops.
4
Given the fact that:
1. Cadmium levels in the human diet are already
o
high enough to result in kidney damage;
ft
2. Cadmium is an oncogen - a "safe level" for
chemicals causing cancer has not been demonstrated;
3. The amount of cadmium taken up by crops is
" difficult to predict; and
4. There are other significant sources of cadmium
* in the environment: water, air, cigarettes - that contributes
13
to the cadmium loadings in the body;
the U.S. EPA must prohibit the use of sludge on agricultural
land on which crops consumed directly by humans are grown.
° Approach Two: In its second approach to minimize
17
the movement of cadmium from solid waste applied to the land
" into the crops, EPA has developed the following proposal:
"The land application of solid waste containing cad-
20 mium is acceptable if the resulting level of cadmium in the
21 crops ... marketed for human consumption are analyzed prior
22 to marketing and shown to be comparable to those levels
23 present in similar crops ... produced locally where solid
24 waste has not been applied. A contingency plan is necessary
25 which identifies alternative courses of action which may be
-------
34
taken if crop cadmium levels are not found to be comparable
(e.g., restrictions on crop marketing, future land use, and
sludge application rates). The contingency plan must also
provide adequate safeguards to preclude risks from alternative
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
land uses following the closure of the disposal site. This
alternative is only available to those facilities which
demonstrate that they possess the necessary resources and
expertise to adequately manage and monitor their operations.'
CBE feels that this approach is inadequate to protec
the public health. Given the extreme toxicity of cadmium,
the level of this metal in the human diet should not be permit
ted to rise. Because most of the experiments conducted thus
far demonstrate that any addition of cadmium to land will
result in increased levels of cadmium in plants, this appjroch
will not prevent increases of cadmium in the diet. This is
especially true if local conditions, such as burning of
fossil fuel and presence of cadmium industries, result in
high levels of cadmium in soil. EPA, in fact, seems willing
to permit the addition of large amounts of cadmium to
agricultural land until those high local levels present as
a result of industrial contamination are reached.
In addition, with this approach EPA will be permitti
the possible destruction of prime agricultural land. A
municipal owner or operator could, according to EPA's proposal
apply sludge to land owned by the municipality or by a private
-------
35
farmer until that level of cadmium is reached which precludes
2 further use of the land for agriculture. Regulations that
3 permit such a situation to occur are not acceptable.
4 Control of other toxins: Sludge contains many
5 toxic substances including heavy metals, pesticides, and
6 persistent organics such as PCBs. While adequate research
7 has been done to give an indication of the risks involved
g when crops absorb toxic metals from soil, information on the
9 other hazardous substances in sludge is virtually non-existent
10 Therefore, it is impossible to predict the levels of such
toxins that will be absorbed by crops grown on sludge-treated
12 land. This lack of data strengthens CBE's position that
13 municipal sludge should not be applied on land used to grow
14 crops directly consumed by humans.
Application of Sludge to Land Used to Grow Animal
16 Feed Crops and for Forage: Animal studies have demonstrated
17 that as dietary levels of cadmium are increased, animals
accumulate increasing levels of cadmium in their tissues,
especially in liver and kidney. Humans, consuming animal
2Q products with higher than normal levels of cadmium will, in
„, turn, ingest higher concentrations of cadmium. Other toxic
compounds, such as PCBs, DDT, and dieldrin, can also
accumulate in tissue when ingested by animals.
Because so few animal feeding studies have been
performed, it is difficult to assess the hazard that might
25
-------
result when humans ingest animal products from animals fed
2
contaminated crops. However, the available experimental data
o
demonstrate that even small increases in the level of: cadmium
in an animal's diet can result in higher concentration of the
metal in animal products. Until adequate research has been
/»
done to demonstrate that the application of sludge on land
used for forage or feed crops will not result in increases
in the level of toxic substances in the diet of humans, EPA
should prohibit the use of sludge for this purpose.
Support Data: When the proposed classification
criteria were published on February 6, CBE requested copies
of whatever support or background documents EPA had for the
cadmium loadings established in the Criteria. We first
14 received the Background Document in Washington on April 18,
1978, less than 72 hours ago. That document, entitled
"Background Document, Section 257.4-5 Land Criteria,"
(June 24, 1977) does not support the February 6 proposed
18 regulations. The Background Document concludes that:
19 1. No application of municipal wastewater sludge
20 to lands used to grow leafy vegetables, tobacco, or root
21 crops should be permitted;
22 2. Maximum cadmium annual loading of 1 kg/ha,
23 decreasing with time to 0.5 kg/ha be established;
24 3. Maximum cumulative cadmium loading of 10 kg/ha
25 be established.
-------
37
The February 6 proposed regulations permit:
2
1. Application of municipal wastewater sludge
3
below 25 mg/kg to land to grow leafy vegetables, tobacco, or
4
root crops;
2. Maximum cadmium annual loading, through
C
December 31, 1981, of 2.0 kg/ha, decreasing with time to
7 0.5 kg/ha;
Q
3. Maximum cumulative cadmium loading of 5-20
o
kg/ha depending on CEC.
Thus the Background Document does not support the
proposed regulations. Additionally, the support document
12
does not document or evaluate the oncogenicity, mutagenicity,
13
teratogenicity or fetotoxicity of cadmium, nor correlate
" these effects to the established loadings.
Thus it appears that EPA wishes to pick and choose
Ifi
among the adverse health effects it will consider in develop-
" ing regulations. This, CBE feels is totally unacceptable.
18
All adverse health effects must be considered.
*" EPA's Delay in Proposing Regulations for Give-away
20 and sale of Sludge: After several years of deliberation,
21 EPA has finally proposed regulations to protect the public
22 from the adverse health effects of sludge application on
23 agricultural lands. Yet, these regulations do not cover
24 programs in which sludge is given away or sold for home use,
25 such as Milorganite in Milwaukee and Nu-Earth in Chicago.
-------
38
1
The cadmium levels of Milorganite and Nu-Earth are
2
114 ppm and 180 ppm, respectively. Application of these
3
sludges to home gardens can result in extremely high levels
4
of cadmium in vegetables, especially since homeowners are
5
unaware of the need for control of pH and cadmium loadings.
6
An individual who consumes the majority of his or her vegetabl
from Nu-Earth or Milorganite-fertilized gardens could ingest
O
several hundred micrograms of cadmium per day.
Q
It is unclear as to why EPA has failed to include
regulation for home use programs in its Proposed Classificeitio
Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. The available
12
information, both toxicological and agricultural, is suf-
13
ficient to demonstrate that such programs are a threat to
" public health and must be discontinued.
CBE urges EPA to propose regulations for home use
programs immediately. EPA must prevent the public from
applying these hazardous sludges to their gardens again this
18
summer.
•*9 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you.
21 There are many tables and they will all be
22 incorporated into the record. We appreciate you providing
23 us with that great wealth of detailed information.
24 Are there any questions from the panel?
25 MR. WEDDLE: I have a few. I will start with the
-------
39
end of your statement and run forward.
o
On the issue of give-away/sale and home use, it is
o
not clear that RCRA authorities provided the necessary
authority to control that. Rather it is clear that in
* /Ut
0 Section 405 of the Clean WaterAAmendments they do and we are
now in the process of developing those regulations. They
will be proposed hopefully later this calendar year and almost
certainly will be proposed before the Section 4004 Criteria are
promulgated a* final regs. We feel that is a much better
way to write proposed regulations.
11 As far as the Background Document, the Background
12 Document that you have as you know does not support the
" existing regulation. In the development of regulations,
14 many, many drafts were produced on every section and the
Consideration
agency's preparation includedAthe various levels of protection
based on the economic impact that we had at the time; on
the scientific data that we had at the time. The document
18 that you have is about nine to twelve months old and we
19 will be updating that.
20 But, you are correct. It does not support the
21 ftyis+'im regulations. It is also correct to say that we did
-------
DR. DAVOLI: I guess I feel when you propose
2
regulations you should have the background document. In
order for us to criticize your regulation we have to know
what literature you have used, what literature you have
decided to use and your rationale behind it. I think we
6
7
8 MR. WEDDLE: Okay.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
deserve that and we don't have that. We have tried to get
it and we still don't have that.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Perhaps the Environmental Impact
Statement, which is now available or will be available next
week, will help in that regard.
MR. WEDDLE: It seems that you are most concerned
over the give-away/sale of sludge and also concerned about
the use of sludge on agricultural land use4 for the
production of crops and a little less concerned about animal
feed production.
The question I have is twofold. One, do you
f
accept market place dilution in a controlled fashionAan
acceptable way to control dietary impact of increased cadmium
uptake by crops?
Two, do you support the use of sludge on grains
that a.Te to be fed to animals?
DR. DAVOLI: The first question is do I accept
•bkecropdilution principle? Is that what you are asking? I
can see that these things are going to be diluted, but
-------
14
Kow fM/cK +He dilution u>jl I be depends «n tke locale ir\
2
41
1
U>Kl'cK O frefson lives. Sometimes it will be great, but
«>
other times not. But, even with the dilution, there would
4
be increased levels of cadmium in the diet and I can't agree
5 with that.
c
As to your second question, would I support the use
of sludge on lands where you grow feed crops? My answer to
Q
that would be no. The reason is because from the studies I
have seen, when you give increased levels of cadmium to
animals you see increased levels in the kidneys especially,
and it has gone on the market for sale, and as Dr. McGee
12
said in Chicago, there is no way you can control the
distribution of the livers and kidneys.
MR. MEDDLE: One last question. If our dietary
*" intake of cadmium is about 70 to 72 micrograms per day and
Ifi
if at approximately that level 2.5% of the male population
17 and 5% of the female population are likely to develop kidney
damage at the age of 50, why aren't we seeing at this time
kidney damage in the American population from just the
20 ingestion of normal foods?
21 DR. DAVOLI: Do you know that you are not seeing
22 that percentage? The answer is that I haven't seen a study
23 that we are not. How many people in the United States have
24 their urine checked for kidney damage? They may.
25
-------
42
1
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I have a question. It was
2
suggested previously that if cadmium is of concern from the
3
human health perspective, that the FDA should establish levels
4
of acceptable cadmium in food crops and that we should have a
5
national program to monitor food cadmium levels and to control
c
the distribution of those crops. They are bound to be
7
excessive.
o
DR. DAVOLI: I think it is a very good idea. The
g
problem is — There were hearings in Congress recently in
which the FDA testified that they are unable to adequately
monitor just the levels of pesticides in foods on the market
12
because they don't have the manpower and they don't have the
13
time. By the time they do find some food that
" has a hazardous level in it it is already out on the market.
' You not only have to set levels there, but you have to go
Ifi
back to the source, which in this case is the sludge, which
even further backwards is the industry.
18 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Fine. Thank you very much.
*" The next person is Mr. Paul Emler from the Edison
20 Electric Institute.
21 MR. EMLER: Dr. Skinner and members of the panel,
22 my name is Paul Emler, Jr. I am a Senior Environmental
23 Advisor for Allegheny Power Service Corporation in Greensburg,
24 Pennsylvania. I am also Chairman of the Edison Electric
25 Institute, EEI, Environment and Energy Committee Solid Waste
-------
43
1
Institute. EEI is the principal national association of
«
America's investor-owned electric light and power companies
4
and represents member companies who own and operate nearly
75% of the Nation's electric capacity and serve approximately
/»
79% of the ultimate electric service customers in the United
•7
States. Currently, the generation of electric power pro-
Q
duces fly ash and bottom ash in the approximate amount of
65 million tons annually. The industry's handling of this
material will be subject to review under the Criteria.
EEI has participated actively in the development
19
' of the RCRA regulatory framework. It has submitted comments
13
on the EPA Draft Proposed Criteria for Sanitary Landfills,
Draft Proposed State Planning Guidelines, Proposed Guidelines
for State Hazardous Waste Programs, Draft Strategy for
Implementation of RCRA, and Interim Guidelines for Public
* Participation. This involvement reflects EEI's commitment
" to work cooperatively with EPA in the implementation of
this important statute. We believe that while the proposed
20 Criteria represent an improvement over earlier drafts, a
21 number of critical issues remain to be resolved. My
22 comments will address those issues.
23 We are concerned that the overall cumulative
24 impact on the environment of restricting or prohibiting
25 disposal activities in environmentally sensitive areas
-------
44
(wetlands, floodplains, critical habitats, permafrost
2
areas and sole source aguifer recharge zones) and thereby
3
driving these activities to other areas will be extremely
adverse. Initially we believe that the approach of
restricting disposal activity in EPA designated environ-
r*
mentally sensitive areas should be modified. This approach
*7
would prohibit even well-designed facilities from being
o
located in these areas. A preferable approach, we believe,
q
would be for EPA to develop design and performance criteria
for these facilities that regulate environmental impacts.
This approach will ensure that the environmental impacts
12
will be within limits that will prevent unacceptable
13
environmental degradation. Additionally, this approach will
" minimize the severe economic dislocation that will result
from banning disposal activity in those areas.
Ifi
Limitation of disposal activity in each environ-
17
mentally sensitive area cannot be evaluated in isolation;
18
consideration must be given to the aggregate amount of land
*9 excluded as disposal siting alternatives by the Criteria
20 and the extent and environmental character of the potential
21 sites which remain after such exclusion. This type of
22 analysis is essential in view of the difficulties in siting
23 new facilities -- difficulties which EPA has acknowledged.
24 Given the existence of this siting problem, we feel that
25 the Regulations should contain greater guidance and provide
-------
45
greater flexibility as to the circumstances in which use can
2
be made of environmentally sensitive areas.
g
In our view, EPA must conduct a more thorough
cost/benefit analysis of the Criteria's application to
electric utilities, which takes cognizance of the very
e
significant transportation, energy, land use, environmental
and economic costs which would result from the blanket
exclusion of disposal facilities from the presently defined
environmentally sensitive areas. Such analysis should also
give consideration to the environmental impacts on alterna-
tive sites whose use effectively will be required by the
Criteria. All steam electric power plants are required to
13
operate close to large supplies of water and are thus often
" on or near floodplains and wetlands. Compliance with the
Clean Air Act Amendments may require the addition of
scrubbers to many new power plants. These scrubbers, of
course, will produce large amounts of sludge — the proper
1ft
disposal of which will be necessary. Typically, in the
past power plant waste disposal has been in proximity to
power plants (i.e., on or near floodplains and wetlands).
21 The Criteria's restrictions thus effectively
22 mandate a major shift of both current and future utility
23 solid waste disposal patterns. A very large volume of
24 sludge, estimated by the Electric Power Research Institute
25 to equal 60,000 acre feet per year by 1985 (an amount
-------
46
sufficient to cover 90 square miles one foot deep annually)
o
potentially is involved in this shift. If disposal activities
near power plants are restricted by the Criteria, there will
be significantly increased waste transportation requirements
to move these large quantities of sludge and ash to per-
missible sites. The sludge disposal program at the Bruce
Mansfield plant near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania provides an
8 insight into the impacts that may be involved with this
9 change. To dispose of the sludge produced by the scrubbers
10 at that plant, an eight-mile pipeline and a five-hundred
11 foot dam have been built at a cost of approximately
12 $90,000,000. The scrubber sludge from that plant is piped
13 through that pipeline and will, within twenty-five years,
14 fill a valley three miles long and over four hundred feet
15 deep. Annual operating costs of this sludge disposal
16 facility will be over $10,000,000. Obviously, the greater
17 the distance from the plant to the disposal site, the
18 larger the costs that are associated with waste disposal.
19 Significant energy costs, as well as economic costs, will
20 be incurred in this regard.
21 Another consequence of the mandated shift in
22 solid waste disposal patterns will be the creation of
23 severe land use-related problems. Limiting activities on
24 these EPA designated environmentally sensitive areas
25 obviously will increase the alternative site costs for new
-------
47
facilities, which will ultimately be paid by consumers.
Additionally, such restrictions will mandate the
use of lands with alternative potential higher priority
uses, such as farming or recreation. This alternative use
will involve opportunity costs of both an environmental and
6 land use planning type. In view of the transportation,
7 energy, land use, environmental and economic costs of
8 effectively imposing a blanket restriction on otherwise
9 acceptable solid waste disposal in EPA designated
10 environmentall sensitive areas, we think it is imperative
11 that EPA consider the dev«lopment of more carefully delineated
12 standards which not only protect environmentally sensitive
areas but also consider the environmental integrity of the
14 alternative disposal sites that utilities will be forced
15 to use if a blanket land use restriction is imposed.
16 Such delineation of standards should be reflected
17 in the Criteria in several specific ways. The current
18 definition of wetlands is so broad that it describes many
19 currently existing pits, ponds and lagoons utilized for
20 solid waste disposal by utilities. Many of these pits,
21 ponds and lagoons support naturally occurring vegetation,
22 and some have well established resident populations of
23 fish and other aquatic organisms. Under the definition of
24 "wetlands" in the Criteria, these pits, ponds and lagoons
25 could be deemed to be wetlands and be subject to restrictive
-------
48
use regulation. We believe such a result goes well beyond
2
the intended scope of RCRA. This specific problem could
be remedied by inserting the words "naturally occurring" in
4
the definition of "wetlands" so that it reads:
"Wetlands" means those naturally occurring areas
c
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
a
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
* vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
condition. Wetlands generally includes swamps, marshes,
11 bogs and similar areas.
in
The current proposed definiton of a solid waste
13
disposal facility is broad enough to include waste water
treatment facilities. These facilities, designed and
constructed to comply with other EPA requirements, have a
1" cumulative capital cost of several billion dollars. Only
recently have these facilities been completed and many of
them are located within the EPA-designated environmentally
19 sensitive areas. A specific exemption for these EPA
20 required facilities should be included in the Criteria.
21 In addition, we believe a distinction should be
22 drawn between current and future solid waste disposal
23 facilities in wetland areas. The economic and environmental
24 costs involved in prematurely closing otherwise environ-
25 mentally acceptable disposal facilities because they are
-------
49
located in wetlands will be substantial, and the specific
2
benefits to be obtained have not been documented extensively.
To avoid massive facility dislocation, the Criteria should
be addressed only to future facilities, except in those
instances where material environmental damage is demonstrated
to exist. Moreover, in the context of future facilities,
n
we believe a case-by-case approach is appropriate, in view
° of potential future technological developments which may
" present adverse environmental impacts to wetlands.
Precluding the siting of disposal facilities
within any one hundred year floodplain will have a signifi-
cant impact in utility solid waste disposal practices
13
because of the apparently vast amount of land removed from
available use. This impact should be carefully analyzed
15 and considered by EPA, and the criteria refined along the
lines suggested for wetlands.
Currently the criteria for floodplains exempt
18 certain landspreading activities. This exemption should
19 be extended to well designed non-hazardous landfill programs.
20 Such facilities are capable of and do support vegetation,
21 both during operation and when the site is completed, and
22 thus long-term impacts are minimized.
23 Finally, the groundwater requirements should be
24 modified. At present, several states (e.g. Pennsylvania)
25 have not designated groundwater uses. In those states that
-------
50
have not designated such uses, the proposed standard would
2
exclude large areas from consideration as disposal facility
sites, even though there is little, if any, likelihood
4
that much of the groundwater would be used for human
consumption. As EPA frankly acknowledges, the criteria are
c
drafted to motivate states to develop comprehensive water
use plans. While EEI agrees that state water use plans have
Q
value, we believe it is inappropriate to exacerbate the
already difficult siting problems presented by RCRA in
an attempt to force states to develop these plans. Some
alternative groundwater standard should be included in the
19
1 criteria, at least on an interim basis, to facilitate
13
disposal facility siting in states which have not yet
adopted groundwater use plans.
15 Unlike Subtitle C, Subtitle D of RCRA does not
Ifi
authorize EPA to impose a solid waste plan on a state if a
state chooses not to develop such a plan. This reflects
the Congressional intention that state plans reflect local
19 needs and priorities. By blanket designation in the Criteria
20 of those land areas where disposal activity is restricted,
21 EPA may preclude states from determining local priorities
22 in instances where environmental values may not necessarily
23 be jeopardized and other values of importance may be
24 impacted. For example, some midwestern states have restricted
25 activity on farmlands, the protection of which is of great
-------
51
importance. Yet, given the geology of these states, as a
o
practical matter the only lands left for disposal sites
o
once the environmentally sensitive areas (particularly
wetlands and floodplains) are eliminated, might well be
•* farmlands. In order to avoid unnecessary Federal-State
*> confrontation, EEI believes that the Criteria should be
? modified to give states greater flexibility to determine
8 land use priorities, subject to overall protection of the
9 environmental principles set forth in the pertinent
10 Executive Orders.
11 We are in the process of gathering additional data
12 that will, we believe, document the major impact these
13 Criteria will have on the electric utility industry. We
14 should complete the data collection and analysis process in
15 the near future and will submit the results of this study
16 to EPA in our written comments on the Criteria, as well
17 as other draft EPA regulations, where appropriate.
18 We believe that EPA has responded positively to
19 previous suggestions which EEI and other commentors have
20 made on RCRA draft regulations and proposed guidelines. It
21 is hoped that our comments today will assist EPA in modifying
22 these Criteria to reflect a broader consideration of environ-
23 mental impacts regarding RCRA implementation.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Emler.
-------
52
1
Are there questions from the panel?
2
MR. DE GEARE: You spoke in terms of an interim
3
groundwater standard for this proposed regulation as well as
4
other regulations. The agency has studied extensively over
5
the policy of groundwater standards and the approach we have
6
tried to take in this proposal is one of relating
7
quality to grounaw*.ter utilization. I would be very interestec
8
in finding out 6r receiving information as to what
g
specific standard you tK ink would be appropriate and the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rationale for this standard.
MR. EMLER: I think the question of an interim
standard is a very difficult one to address. I know our
subcommittee has hassled with this problem of just what do,
I can't
give you guidance on that today, but we will address that
question in comments prior to June 12th.
MR. DE GEARE: We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Any other questions?
MR. SHUSTER: The thrust of your comments on the
environmentally sensitive areas was on the restrictions that
were placed on environmentally sensitive areas. We do not
prohibit the use of any environmentally sensitive areas.
We recognize that these areas are more — That there are
areas that are more susceptible to environmental problems
than others. Basically, what you are saying is that we
-------
53
should develop operational standards. You don't like the
2
performance standards that we have established. If you could
submit to us more information on what types of operational
A
standards you have in mind in conjunction with the
performance standards, we would appreciate that.
MR. EMLER: We have no major objection to
performance standards themselves. The main problem that we
have is the tremendous restrictions that are placed on use
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of environmentally sensitive areas just by designation. For
example, the question of wetlands where the initial require-
ment is that you have to get an Wffr£S permit with extreme
reluctance. They issue one with extreme reluctance. This
is one of'the types of things that is creating problems in
industry today regarding present facilities and creating
major problems in the future for new facilities on the site.
MR. SHUSTER: De ^OV1 fnt|U(jft ^e frob|em that it
is cheaper for you, your utilities, to locate disposal sites
in environmentally sensitive areas? I wonder if you con-
sider the operational cost to protect these areas and I
wonder if you could submit the data and the impact and include
that cost as well as the traditional operational costs?
MR. EMLER: Yes, we will address that. But, I
will make a comment. Generally on well-designed and well-
operated disposal sites that the operating costs for a
facility located immediately adjacent to or very nearby a
-------
54
1
plant, those costs are lower than transportation costs in
2
going to a site several miles away yet operating the same
3
way.
4 •
MR. SHUSTER: That is truei 1* >S an environmentally
sensitive arelor any other.
c
MR. EMLER: Correct.
7
MR. SHUSTER: The example you used was eight miles
o
and $10 million. Was that for environmentally sensitive
9
areas or what?
10 MR. EMLER: No. Unfortunately, the Water Resources
Council's definition of floodplains would place almost any
12
facility within a floodplain because the definition is flood-
13
ing from any source regardless of size of the stream. So
" that would create, as in the case of Bruce Mansfield, a
disposal facility in a valley. If there is a stream in that
Ifi
valley, part of that is technically the floodplain.
17 MR. SHUSTER: In this example you used — The
WfcS
18 costj\$10 million?
*9 MR. EMLER: That is the annual operating cost.
20 The installation cost of the pipeline and the dam and property
21 for the sludge was in excess of $90million.
22 MS. WRIGHT: Your additional comments you say you
23 will have into us by June 12th, will they include your
24 estimation and your description of what constitutes a well-
25 defined and operated disposal site as you mentioned?
-------
55
1
MR. EMLER: I had not planned on addressing that at
2
this point.
3
MS. WRIGHT: We would appreciate any description
4
of what your definition is of that sort of a site.
5
MR. EMLER: All right.
c
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: A question from the audience.
7
Was this question meant for the panel?
Q
VOICE: The panel or the speaker, either one.
9
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I will ask the speaker but I
think it should be directed at EPA. We will entertain it at
the end of all the speakers,
12 w*l|
The question is isn't it true that fly ash/lbe
13
classified as a hazardous waste under RCRA and would not be
subject to these Criteria but would be subject to hazardous
waste regulations? And, a similar question with regard to
16
scrubber sludge.
17
MR. EMLER: We have had a continuing question with
18
relation to hazardous waste materials not only •flu Ask and
19
scrubber waste materials, but, for instance, concrete from
20
buildings torn down could under the test procedures be
considered classified/jhazardous. We would hope that in our
22 further discussions with Mr. Corson and his people that we
23 would be able to convince them that fly ash and scrubber
24 sludge and many others, at least to this point in time, is
25 relatively innocuous. Materials are not hazardous. But, I
-------
56
1
think the panel may be the ones to answer that or they may
2
not be the proper ones from EPA to properly address it.
3
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: We will address it at the end of
4
all the statements.
Thank you very much, Mr. Emler.
There 'were question*sent up to me after Dr.
7
Lue-Hing finished his statement and he has agreed to come up
a
and attempt to answer them.
9
The first is what do you recommend as a lower pH?
10 DR. LUE-HING: Is that a question?
11 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Yes. I guess you indicated
that pH controls were not supported in the Criteria.
DR. LUE-HING: We believe that the pH limit, if
* there has to be one, ought to revolve around several factors:
the soil involved, the crop selected and so on. fln arbitrary
pH of 6.5 would summarily really exclude literally millions
of agricultural feet right now. Not -that we are interested
CfH]
in studying all those acres, but that/lnumber right now
19 excludes a number, a tremendous number of acres.
20 i think a better approach would be one geared to
w
21 the factors &t the utilization site and informationAcan be otito
22 through states or regional USDA offices or whatever.
23 if you have to have a minimum number it would have
24 to be less than 6.5. Today I don't have that number.
25 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: We would appreciate your comments
-------
57
We would like you to recorivi*e-i\cl a number.
There are two questions actually related and I will
3
ask both of them and you can address both of them. The first
4
is where does the non-industrial cadmium come from in the
Chicago area?
The second one is why don't you stress more stringen
pre-treatment as a means of removing cadmium or sludge?
8 DR. LUE-HING: Well, we would like to know the
q
answer to the first question and I am sure that your agency
would also. If your agency is interested and would want to
fund a study to specifically address that question we would
12
cooperate. We have not got the answer.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: The next speaker is Mr. David
Damiano, the Commissioner of Streets of the City of
15 Philadelphia.
1S MR. DAMIANO: Good morning.
My name is David Damiano, Streets Commissioner of
18
the City of Philadelphia. I am offering comments today on
the EPA Proposed Classification Criteria for Solid Waste
2° Disposal Facilities.
21 For the implementation of subtitle "D" of the
22 Resource Recovery Act of 1976, Section 4005 (b), within one
23 year after the promulgation of the Criteria the EPA is to
24 publish an inventory of all the facilities in the United
25 States that do not comply with the Criteria. Also many
-------
existing facilities not in compliance must be closed or
II
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
upgraded according to a State established compliance schedule
containing an enforceable sequence of actions leading to com-
pliance within five years.
This is totally unreasonable. The financial crises
of cities is a reality. Solid Waste is presently the second
highest municipal expenditure and it has a low priority when
considering the urban needs of housing, schools and health.
If Washington insists on regulations then Washington must
back up its muscle by sharing the cost burden. Cities cannot
be continually expected to face increasing costs when they
are presently Bankrupt.
The definition of Solid Wastes may be deficient in
the very near future if it implies that all residues of com-
bustion are automatically included as Solid Wastes. We could
not agree that residues are solid waste, thereby requiring a
disposal as prescribed under these criteria. The City of
Philadelphia in conjunction with Pennsylvania DER has, for
more than a year, been proving that residue when processed
properly can be utilized successfully as an earth cover
substitute in sanitary landfilling of refuse. We are looking
forward to the prospect that residue from energy plants may
be utilized as cover for landfills where cover is expensive
and/or unavailable. This represents a thoroughly compatible
combination of solid waste disposal objectives and should be
-------
59
allowed under the law in Pennsylvania and across the nation.
The Criteria stated that regional disposal
facilities will be developed to the maximum feasible including
4 jj technological and economic considerations. If this is the
li
" jl intent of the federal legislation then the courts do not agree
6 jj In the past year in New Jersey the Supreme Court ruled that
no federal preemption existed based on the Resource Recovery
Act of 1976 and now the United States Supreme Court will decid
on the constitutionality of the New Jersey State law banning
10 Pennsylvania refuse from being deposited in sanitary landfills
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in New Jersey.
The EPA Criteria lists prohibitions for site
selection of disposal areas primarily for environmental
reasons which is understandable. It is proposed that a
national policy be set to establish priorities for the
selection of disposal sites. For example, an undisturbed
vegetated and wooded area should not be selected as opposed
to an abandoned strip mine or quarry. A 1967 report titled
"Surface Mining in our Environment" identified 800,000 acres
of abandoned strip mined land from New England to Georgia.
The uncontrolled pollution from these mine areas is
phenomenal. It has been demonstrated that by sanitary
landfill disposal of our solid waste we may offset the
pollution in another industry. Therefore, a national priority
should be established for the reclaiming of strip mined land.
-------
60
The EPA Criteria does not reflect the political and
social realities of site selection. Long before the Criteria
should be permitted to close a site some relief should be
provided in establishing new sites. More often than not,
an
the new environmentally sound sites are inAadjoining political
jurisdiction. For example, under a $550,000 EPA grant in
1972, a task force consisting of the City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania DER, the Federal EPA and a technical consultant,
made presentations on Reclamation of Strip Mined areas to
twenty-seven counties in Pennsylvania. Twenty-two
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pennsylvania counties flatly rejected any cooperation,
interest, or consideration for the program. Two counties
who did cooperate initially later on turned out to be a
disaster when the general public voiced their opinion. The
institutional arrangements or mechanism to overcome political
and social objections has not been identified to date.
Thank you. We certainly need help.
CHAIRMAN-SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Damiano.
Let me "point out tfta't there'are -people from EPA
who will accept questions and carry them forward. If you
would like to write questions, the gentleman in the back will
be walking up and down the aisles taking questions.
Are there any questions from the panel? Truett?
MR. DE GEARE: Mr. Damiano, do you understand that
the Criteria as proposed would include utilization of the
-------
61
combustion residue as cover materials? Did you have that
understanding from the Criteria?
3 MR. DAMIANO: At the present time I believe that
4 both the State programs, and I am not quite sure of the
Federal program criterias, but the residues from incineration
or combustion have been classified as solid waste to be handle
by the method of sanitary landfill as described by the
8
9
10
n
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regulations.
What we are doing now is challenging that definition
by virtue of the demonstration program that has been on-going
now for the last several years between my department, the
City of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources and the results are promising.
MR. DE GEARE: It is not our attempt to preclude
that possibility, but we will look back to the criteria
and see what we have.
MR. DAMIANO: That is what we are suggesting.
MR. DE GEARE: You talk in your testimony about
the relief that should be established in allevia^-Hns
sites. Would you explain what you meant by relief?
MR. DAMIANO: The politics of garbage is a disaster.
There are very few successful programs on a nationwide basis
and the selection and establishment of new disposal sites.
Perhaps the only success story is the L.A. Sanitation District
under Prank Bowerman. However, as you move across the country
-------
62
it becomes a nightmare. Our own experience for the last ten
years, and perhaps specifically the Demonstration Grant, is
3 a demonstration that it is literally impossible to establish
4 a site.
5 Another example is that the present Governor of
Pennsylvania, Schapp, back in 1968 ran on a platform that he
^ would stop the reclamation of strip mine reclamation due to
8 sanitary landfill. He was successful and literally prohibited
3 the program from going ahead at that point in time.
10 Our own experience in Pennsylvania with the two
11 counties that cooperated was that once a public hearing was
12 held in Centre County on a program , proposed program,
13 accepted by the County Commissioners, the County Commissioners
14 were literally thrown out of office. In ScVwylKill County
15 the local township who accepted the program fully endorsed
16 and advanced that it should be implemented. It was decided
17 by the County Commissioners to place it on a ballot or
IS referendum. What happened was the township voted for the
program and the county voted against it. The vote was
three to one against the program. That experience, I think,
cost you and the City of Philadelphia in excess of $100,000
just to find out that we were going to get kicked out of two
counties .
CHAIRMAN SKINNER:
2
MS. WRIGHT: I think what we are trying to elicit
-------
63
is do you have any suggestions as to how a change in these
Criteria could help to remedy the situation we described?
MR. DAMIANO: I don't think you are going to have
to worry about criteria. You won't have any sites to apply
them to. What I am saying to you is that you won't locate
a site anywhere in any jurisdiction for disposal purposes.
That is in fact true. You may have to do it by emminent
domain perhaps, but that is perhaps the only way you will be
able to do it in the future.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there any other questions?
MR. ROULIER: On page three of your statement you
12 mentioned that landfill disposal of solid waste may offset
pollution in other industries.
14 [ MR. DAMIANO: Yes. The strip mine industry pollutes
15 in many ways. The main problem is sediment transport. It is
I
16 literally devegetating, you know, many of the areas downstream
17 j from the facilities. It is also filling in streambeds and it
18 is also a hazard because there are population centers within
19 reasonable distance, several miles, 15 miles of the site.
20 The problem is sediment transport, of course, by
21 the wind because there is no vegetation on these areas.
i
22 j So, the price tag, I believe, reported in 1967,
23 j just to stabilize these areas, was $5 billion, just to
24 stabilize. So, what we are now saying, just a strip mine
25 ji which literally pollutes can be reclaimed. It can be filled
-------
64
in by the method of sanitary landfill. You can take the
backfill, these large open excavations, return it to the
O
natural contours and terrains by correcting the surface water
flow and revegetate the area. It does a tremendous job and
5 there are dozens of examples that I know in the State of
Pennsylvania where this has been done.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there any other questions
from the panel?
Thank you very much, Mr. Damiano.
1() The next witness is Mr. Willi&m Anderson from the
American Consulting Engineers Council.
MR. ANDERSON: My name is William Anderson. I
am representing the American Consulting Engineers Council,
14 an organization of private consultants which serve munici-
15 palities, industry, and the engineering field.
IS i am responding to these Criteria. We have a
general position which we will present orally this morning,
18 we have detailed comments attached and the prepared statement
19 for the record,
20 The stated intent of the Proposed Criteria is to
21 provide a minimum standard for the protection of health and
22 the environment. Based on that intent we find the Proposed
23 Criteria serve to unnecessarily restrict the use of land
24 disposal and the ability of professionals to develop land
25 disposal systems which would meet the goal of protecting
-------
65
health and the environment.
* I] ACEC has long championed the same goals of the
|( Solid Waste Disposal Act - that is protection of health and
4 the environment. However, we do object to those actions which
5
6
7
8
a
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
create an unnecessary expense to meet those goals. The
Proposed Criteria will increase the costs to plan, construct
and operate land disposal facilities without a proportional
increase in benefits derived.
It is our position that a land disposal facility
should not degrade the environment or prevent adjoining
landowners from "reasonable use and enjoyment of their land".
Our position is founded on the principles that have evolved
over many years regarding riparian rights. We feel that such
principles, which have been well-argued and time-tested, are
applicable to all the environmental impacts of a land disposal
facility.
The Proposed Criteria provide for the "prevention of
endangerment". We believe the difference in the two positions
is significant, albeit a very subtle difference.
The Proposed Criteria will, if not actually
mandated, encourage and enable regulatory agencies to require
the implementation of control so as to surround a land
disposal facility with a protective cocoon without considera-
tion of the environmental effects - their magnitude and
frequency of occurrence.
-------
66
1
In our opinion, the Proposed Classification Criteria
2
are "Significant Regulations" as defined by Executive Order
3 1
12044 and therefore a Regulatory Analysis as described in that
4
Executive Order is warranted. And even if they are not
"Significant Regulations" the American people are entitled to
know the resultant cost of these regulations.
We are interested in EPA's economic evaluation of
8 all of the alternative methods considered in developing the
Criteria. More specifically, what is the incremental cost
that the users of a land disposal facility will incur if the
proposed approach of stopping all pollution of the facility
19
boundary is employed versus our recommended approach? What
1-1
are the costs associated with each of the control methods
'* proposed and their alternatives?
" Our approach provides for balancing the costs and
I fi
benefits of environmental control in the siting and operating
of a land disposal facility. Environmental regulations today
l" must recognize that our financial resources as well as our
19 environmental resources are limited. I do not believe we
20 can afford zero discharge.
21 Comments were specifically requested on the
22 proposed regulations for Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
23 Environmentally sensitive areas do exist which require special
24 consideration in the planning and cfesign of any man-made
25 facility. And without a doubt there exist areas where man
-------
67
and nature cannot co-exist and in those instances either man o :
2
nature must give way to the other.
After careful consideration we strongly believe that
4
the proposed approach of singling out certain environmentally
sensitive areas is a mistake for two reasons:
£•
Number one, regardless of the correctness of the
control strategies proposed for these areas the special
designation "environmentally-sensitive areas" will provide
" those who are bound to oppose the siting of land disposal
facilities, regardless of environmental impact, with a
significant tool to frustrate and block the efforts of those
1 9
who must manage the never-ending stream of solid waste. Its
public relations value to opposition forces is beyond measure,
to say nothing of the possibilities for chicanery present.
I might add parenthetically I can see the headlines now in
15 36-point type.
Siting a land disposal is extremely difficult -
not because of technical Ttasons but due to the lack of public
19 acceptance. A quote from the American Society of Civil
20 Engineers Manual of Practice on Sanitary Landfill says it
21 all: "While the public will generally resit attempts to locatf
22 any solid waste disposal facility hear their homes, they reserve
23 their most virulent opposition for land disposal sites".
2-1 I think there are people in this room who can attest to this
25 virulent opposition.
-------
68
If you do nothing else to respond to our comments,
2
please remove this designation.
The Proposed Criteria will, in practicality, preclude
4
the use of any of these areas for land disposal sites regard-
less of the actual site-specfic environmental impact. That is
f*
a mistake.
The opportunity to use any area should be provided.
a
And, regardless of the area classification — wetland or
9
flood plain, etc., or none of these — the design and
operation should be, in fact, it must be environmentally
sound and cost effective as determined on a site-specific
12 basis.
13
In our detailed comments we have provided recommenda
tions that would change the regulations in a manner that
would provide some of the solutions to the problems to the
criteria as presented.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue this
dialogue with you and we look forward to doing so in
succeeding months.
20 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much. Are there
21 any questions from the panel? Mr. DeGeare?
22 MR. DE GEARE: My question will be based on the
fact that I have not had a chance to look at your detailed
24 comments. I base my questions on your oral statement.
25 Can you explain how you see that our use of
-------
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
1
special provisions to try to protect the environment
2
provides significant tools to block solid waste
3
management practices?
4
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
5
First of all, as I addressed in my remarks, one is
just a public relations value of any of these areas. We have,
as one of the previous speakers testified, the use of the
word "wetlands" is a very loose interpretation. In New York
State in any green spot on a U.S.G.S. map is a wetland whether
or not it is a wetland which I think you had in mind or at
least I hope you had in mind when you were drawing up these
Criteria. Therefore, even if we had a "minimal wetland
situation" and that was the only technically acceptable area
•for land disposal, I think these regulations may get impossible
as a practical matter to end up using that. If not impossible
it is going to be a very difficult case to prove, taking much
time and data collection. I think that is a potential problem
The next problem is the sole source aquifer
situation. There are not many areas classified as sole source
aquifer areas. But, I would perceive, if someone wanted to
stop a landfill site in a regional nature, that an attorney
representing the opposition forces would take such steps as
to get areas classified as sole source aquifers. And, in
that way and which we are required to do in public partici-
pation and so on, I think the opportunity — It is a more
-------
i
complicated undertaking, one, which as others have testified,
2
as a practical matter impossible to use these areas.
3
MR. DE GEARE: Well, considering that we have not
really made it impossible or we really don't intend to do
make these areas this way, do you feel that additional cautions;
are necessary for areas such as sole source aquifers?
MR. ANDERSON: I think I said in my remarks that
a
you cannot make blanket statements regarding the use of these.
q
Neither can we think we should use them. I have not said that
10
1!
12
13
14
XS
16
IT
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
70
you can go ahead and throw solid waste in wetlands. It must
be determined on a site-specific basis. Neither can your
agency sfct down, in our opinion, criteria which are going to
blanket restrict the use of these lands.
I think those from a technical point of view, who
have been involved in solid waste for a number of years, have
difficulties when you talk about land disposal, land disposal
regulations because they are site-specific. If we are talking
about disposing five tons per day in a wetland area, if we
are talking about 10,000 tons a day, it is an entirely
different matter. It depends on all these site-specific
matters.
We perceive the manner in which these regulations
exist will, if they do not in fact from a Federal perspective,
eliminate these things automatically that the practical
effect as they are implemented by state agencies, as they are
-------
i 71
i!
I!
j tried by the pull and haul that exists from the people who
2 j
I want landfills and those who don't want them, that these
I
j areas will be ruled out and in certain cases in your develop- |
i ment document you acknowledge wetlands, for example, to be
" jj very difficult, at least as I read the wording that you
have written.
you refer to
MR. DE GEARE: On page four, number two,ftsite-
specific determination of the environmental adequacy and cost
|| effectiveness of design and operation. In the Council's
opinion, should it be charged with making that — Who, in
the Council's opinion, should be charged with making that
decision and do you have any guidelines?
MR. ANDERSON: I think in the first instance we
have got to answer your questions, Mr. DeGeare. We have two
conditions, two basic conditions; one, we have the existing
sites and, secondly, we have new ones. I think for existing
sites and the implementation of these Criteria and the
development of acceptable facilities from this point on,
that it should be your agency's responsibility or your
designee, if it is a state, to determine that the land disposa
facility is or is not in conformance with these criteria.
Our approach, as we go on in our detailed comments,
differs from yours in terms of saying we would like to see
the non-degradation theory, if you will. I think that is
going to make the job of the classifier more difficult. But,
10
1 !
12
J3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
-------
I 72
1 I
I think it goes back to the same testing procedures used and
2 !
were used in previous years in the Water Pollution Control
i !
Act. I think you must prove that there is environmental
harm, although in recent years we have gotten away with that
with specific standards legislating secondary treatment,
where communities have had to apply secondary treatment
without regard to its true effect on water quality.
o
I What we are saying is that we should look at the
(t
effect of the existing facility on the environment and if
you can prove degradation, all right then, there is a
problem that must be corrected and so on.
12 For new sites I think we have to establish — Since
13 most sites are going to be established and regulated under
14 state control and those regulations at least to some degree
15 are going to have to be upgraded if those states are going
'6 to receive your assistance so that after that the proponent
17 of that new site is going to have to establish the viability
*8 of that proposed site.
l£» And, I think by singling these things out, at least
20 in my experience and in other interactions between consultants
21 and regulatory agencies, you may get easier, shall we say,
22 for the regulatory agent reviewing plans and analyses that
23 we prepared to say, well, we are into a very difficult area
24 here and really if you come in with scads and scads of data
25 we might entertain your proposal.
-------
73
1
But, other than that, as a practical matter, I am
2
not telling you that you are precluded from doing this, but
3
as a practical matter, I think you are wasting your time
4
because we will never approve it. It is not consistent really
5
with our unwritten policies and therein lies part of the
6
difficulty I see with these things from a regulatory agency
viewpoint. I think it is nice to be able to s6t down certain
u
defineable things which your review agency and your personnel
g
can hold as sacred, whether or not that has any practical
matter or practical relevance at times or we can discuss the
practical relevance is immaterial. And, because they have
12
set forward straightforward guidelines I think we have
13
approached now in our environmental concerns. But, we cannot
14
afford the expense of that easier approach. It puts
regulatory agencies in a position of having to make more
key decisions to participate, if you will, the community and
with the consultant in the development and approval of the
1 S
site which is as, we feel, it should be. The responsibility
is really a mutual one and we feel it is the individuals
working on that project exercising their best professional
21 judgment. It is their job to work out a solution which
22 appears to be the best solution.
23 YOU know, everybody — I think one of the things
24 you are trying to guard against is the criticism that is going
25 to come from the Monday morning quarterback in the solid waste
-------
74
1
business, probably the five-year quarterback, who says, why
2
did you call the play that way five years ago? Everybody's
hindsight is always better than their foresight. But, I
just don't think that you can automatically and categorically
rule out certain areas.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: It is true that many considerations
are S>t«-specific and others could involve trade offs
between various other effects between sites.
It would seem that a state permitting official or
10 a local permitting official should have some basis for making
11 decisions. Are you proposing no basis, no standards, no
guidance to guide how that decision should be made?
13 MR. ANDERSON: I think we have and I think it is
also a Federal responsibility. You have probably the greatest
access to the most resources in this field potentially to
18 develop guidelines to encourage on-going research and to
discuss all of the various questions that have come out here
of a detailed technical nature and to provide a continulftCe,
as your agency has done, of research "to provide the
20 documentation and the data base which not only the state
21 officials but we consultants can rely upon as well.
22 But, we are lacking in specific data in many
23 instances to establish the correctness of our actions,
2-t Therefore, I see that the Criteria that will become Federal
25 I regulations are not the place to provide specific detailed
-------
75
guidance. I think the flexibility that we provide
2
should be incorporated into the regulations and if we do
3
that — I think it is very easily accomplished. Someone
suggested the wording change that we provided.
- otter
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Any/\questions?
C
MR. DE GEARE: I understand that you are suggesting
7 that there be no yardstick against which the environmentally
o
sound and cost effective determinations should be made. Is
9 that correct?
10 MR. ANDERSON: The yardstick is does the environ-
mental impact degrade the environment or prevent the adjoining
I rf
land owners from reasonable use of their land and enjoyment of
13
their land. Now, over that yardstick, there have been cited
many cases with respect to Tipftrian rights and those have
been sited on a site-specific basis as the action taken by
X to Y's use of his lands and resources. Now, if we have
17 a situation where we have a landfill sitting on top of the
] 3
community's well field, we can probably say, yes, you either
shouldn't put the landfill there or you had better wrap it
20 in a pretty tight container to make sure that nothing happens
to that water supply.
'
-------
76
DeGeare, much discussion over what happens to leach and where
2
it goes. But, if you look at the surrounding land use, it is
•}
a different case if that landfill is located next to acres
and acres of farm land, for example, or if it is situated
adjacent to an industrial site or something else. Okay?
That is the yardstick and you are asking how to do that
specifically and that is why I say it should be on a site-
specific basis and should be looked on by a case by case
basis and not rule things out right away.
I appreciate this, at least I think I do, because
I used to work for a regulatory agency. But, what we are
proposing is going to make the job of the regulatory agency
more difficult.
14 MR. ROULIER: Would you propose that the Criteria
deal with — What did you say they should have with respect
to leachate?
MR. ANDERSON: I think we are going to have to look
at the circumstances involved. In the long-term,future use
19 would have zoning, would have land use plans, etc.
20 Now, if you are going to attempt to establish a
21 situation where you are going to be preventing things
22 ad infinitum or in other words, protect the law for changes
23 to occur at a given point in time, I think that that is an
24 uneconomical goal.
a
25 What might happen is if we sitej\landfill at point X
-------
77
and 20 years from now we might want to use the adjoining land
2
for a high intense use which after that time is then precluded
3
because the landfill is already there or we are going to have
4
to say tough bounce because I think we cannot afford to charge
5
today's people, the people who are paying the bills today,
6
12
13
14
J Q
19
20
e) i
22
all of the costs for those that are going to come after.
•Now those that come after in that situation 20 years hence
maybe are going to incur some costs, different costs, at that
point in time because of the location sited and the landfill
is there and that land could not be used. But, those people
at that point in time, they are going to pay those costs,
not the people that existed and are dead today at this point
in time. Do you follow what I am saying? I am saying that
you must use reasonable efforts so that — I guess what I
am saying is that I find in every case we have the technology,
I think we have the technology or it seems so, that we can
control all these things at the property boundry. But, it is
with a price, it is with a price. In some cases that price
doesn't make sense and I can only see a way to examine that
question on a site-specific basis.
How much control are you willing to pay for how
much prevention of environmental d&n&qfi. ? What is the price
you are willing to pay? It is the case in the waste water
field, for example. We can achieve secondary treatment with
a reasonable amount of money and as we go on up with 85%
-------
78
removal we have an exponential increasing cost although we
2 are talking about the last 15% of pollutants.
We are saying we are not for or against putting in
landfills indiscriminately improperly operated out in the
environment, but there comes a time when the incremental cost
for control exceeds their reasonable benefits. So, I can't
see anyway that situation can be addressed in a blanket state-
ment either by me at this point in time or by you in a
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposed criteria.
i n youf statement ,f th» firiWi L
MR. SHUSTER: I am interestedAthat the costsAare
greater than the benefits, taking into consideration the
costs of environmental degradation when they occur. You may
not be able to respond to that now. I would like you to take
a close look at our Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. ANDERSON: I would like to do that because I
would say in the first instance — The American Consulting
Engineers Council is a private organization with , a limited
amount of funds to undertake that situation. It is a very
costly exercise. I think it is a Federal responsibility.
We would be very interested in reviewing your economic impact
analysis to make sure that our people feel it has been
properly done and fairly done and considers the alternatives.
But, I think you have the responsibility pursuant to the
President's Executive Order to spend whatever time and money
is necessary to convince us and everybody else that is
-------
79
concerned about these regulations of the correctness of your
decision, the cost/benefit trade off. You have the resources
or supposedly the access for the resources to do that.
4 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I think that is what he was
5 referring to, the statement that you made. Correct me if
6 this is not the statement. It was your opinion that the
costs exceed the benefits. That was your
statement.
9 MR. ANDERSON: Right.
10 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I think if that is your statement
11 we would appreciate any data you have to substantiate that
12 statement. I think we recognize our responsibility to
substantiate our analysis.
14 MR. ANDERSON: We will provide that.
15 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson
16 That was a very helpful statement.
17 MR. DE GEARE: Excuse me, one further question, John
18 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: All right.
19 MR. DE GEARE: You seem to speak on page two in
20 terms of objecting to the concept cjf the limiting or controll-
ing pollution to the confines of a facility property boundary.
22 Do you have any discussion that may explain what portion of
23 the pollution load should be bourne by the adjacent land
24 users? That is; what portion of the pollution should be
allowed to impact adjacent land users if it is
-------
not controlled or restricted to the property line.
10
11
12
13
U
15
18
17
18
J9
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
MR. ANDERSON: I can only repeat, Mr. DeGeare, what
I have said previously. It will have to be examined on a
site-specific basis. There may be instances where the
adjoining land use precludes that no water pollution should
go beyond the property boundaries. If we talk about ground
water, for example, we have leachate from the landfill
entering the ground water potentially. The land has a
recognized attenuating capability based upon the site-specific
situation, based upon soils involved in the site. Not all
the site or all the soils attenuate. Are we asking perhaps
one way around that would be for the operator to
buy up all the adjoining land so he could attain more use of
attenuation as a meara of leachate control before it got
beyond its boundaries. Maybe in some instances that might
make sense. In other instances, if the adjoining land use is
not of a critical nature or not one where certain levels of
leachate would impact — You know, if it runs into 500 feet
on somebody else's property at a certain level, so what?
So what if it doesn't do any harm in that situation.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Fine. Thank you again.
MR. ANDERSON: I would be pleased to discuss this
with you and your staff in greater detail as opposed to
taking up any more of this time. We could sit down and talk
about site-specific situations. I would be happy to do that.
-------
81
I
MR. DE GEARE: Thank you.
2
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you.
3
The next witness is Mr. James Greco with Browning-
4
Ferris Industries.
MR. GRECO: My name is Jim Greco and I am an
employee of Browning-Ferris Industries and my duties are the
environmental program for Browning-Ferris. I am accompanied
8
3
10
U
\'i
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by Gus Spetry and Mike Fuller. Mike Fuller is Vice President
in charge of all of our landfill operations.
Nearly three months have elapsed since publication
of the proposed criteria for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities pursuant to Section 4004(a) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. During this
time numerous meetings have been conducted by the U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste, soliciting widespread input and
perspectives of the general public and every conceivable
affected entity. Though lengthy and resource-demanding, the
rulemaking process undertaken by the Agency has been commendab
and will, we hope, result in the best practicable and most
effective methodology for determining which solid waste land
disposal facilities should be classified as landfills posing
no probability of adverse effects on health or the environ-
ment.
It is noted in Section 4001 of the Act that the
objectives of Subtitle D are to assist in developing and
e,
-------
82
encouraging methods for the disposal of solid waste which
are environmentally sound and which maximize the utilization
of valuable resources and to encourage resource conservation.
4
Furthermore, it is cited that such objectives are to be
accomplished through Federal technical and financial assistanc
c
to the States or regional authorities for comprehensive
planning pursuant to Federal guidelines designed to foster
cooperation among Federal, State, and local governments and
private industry. We recognize that such cooperation is of
' paramount importance among all levels of government and
11 private enterprise such that the fullest and most effective
* utilization of private sector resources can be applied for
I1}
assisting public sector needs. And eoneomitantly we are
14 pleased to have the opportunity to? participate in this rule-
55 making process.
Though Browning-Ferris Industries —a publicly
held company engaged primarily in providing solid and liquid
waste collection, processing/recovery, and disposal services
19 to commercial, industrial, residential and governmental
20 customers — is a large company, the preliminary evaluations
21 we have made regar-ding the proposed Criteria and concerns
22 we express, likely are shared by many other landfill
23 designers, operators, and managers — be they public or
24 private, small or large, independently-owned or publicly
25 held. Our experience derives from operating 63 landfills in
-------
83
| 25 states and Canadian provinces, comprising 9200 acres of
land, disposing of nearly 9 million tons of wastes annually.
Though impressive, these figures cannot even compare to the
estimated 5000-6000 or more sites reported to be licensed,
„ i
permitted, or otherwise recognized as sanitary landfills in
compliance with existing state regulations — which are
operated by numerous conscientious local government officials
and responsible private sector managers. And collectively
we face a continuing dilemma when attempting to secure new
site locations or extend existing operations.
We recognize the need for national standards for
the protection of health and the environment from solid waste
disposal facilities and we acknowledge the importance of
public participation. However, we suggest that EPA not
overlook the need and importance of public education and
understanding for waste disposal sites -- the role that land-
fills must play for comprehensive solid waste management.
At recent EPA meetings and seminars, EPA officials have
noted that even with the addition of 50 new operational
resource recovery facilities on stream by 1985, there will
likely still be an increase of approximately 15 percent in
the volumes of waste destined for land disposal. We suggest
that the Agency mention this need in its supplementary
information and declare its policy to be to foster the
development of environmentally sound sites to meet this need.
8
9
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
84
Nowhere throughout the draft criteria or supplementary
information is this need noted or provided for.
In April of 1973 the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
4
Management Programs issued a position statement on sanitary
landfill, which is worth noting: "Ih its current form, the
sanitary landfilling process is the most economically
feasible, acceptable method of solid waste disposal. Pro-
cessing methods such as incineration or resource recovery
still require sanitary landfills for their residue. Under
proper operation, a sanitary landfill is aesthetically accept-
11 able and free from public health and safety hazards. Thorough
12 planning and the application of sound engineering principles
I *i
to site selection, design, operation, and final use are
necessary for efficient operation. Sanitary landfill is an
acceptable method for disposal of solid wastes."
Generally speaking, sanitary landfills, when
conveniently located and in conformance with applicable
environmental standards, will still result in the least net
19 disposal cost to a community.
20 In Mid-1978 the EPA willUKely promulgate the much
21 needed Section 4004 criteria. However we feel very importantl
22 that a companion position statement will enhance public,
23 industry, and government understanding of the Criteria and
24 its application.
25 Accompanying these general, policy-related remarks
-------
85
are our specific detailed comments which you have up there.
2
We request also that be included as part of the formal record
of this meeting and likewise carefully considered by the
A
Agency. In summarized form they address the following with
supportive narrative given in that letter.
1. The publication of the inventory list should
7 initially be published as a proposed list, providing oppor-
tunity for public hearing and comment, consistent with
Section 7004(b) mandate of RCRA.
2. The NPDES permit requirement, as noted in
11 Section 257.3-1(a) we feel is beyond EPA's authority.
3. EPA's criteria for obtaining an NPDES permit,
13
as applied to existing sites, may be illegal.
4. EPA's determination that all landfills located
in wetlands result in water pollution is without any factual
basis, and is, therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable.
17 5. "Surface runoff" should be defined.
6. The regulations of Section 257.3-3 should apply
19 j to ground water in aquifers only.
20 7. We read Section 257.3-3 (b) to require minimum
21 ground water standards. Nothing in any statute, to the best
22 of our knowledge, including RCRA, gives EPA the authority
23 to dictate to the States what standards, if any, they set
24 for ground water quality.
25 8. Anything not included in an approved state
-------
86
implementation plan under sections 110, 219 and 161 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, cannot be enforced as a federal
3
requirement.
9. Workplace safety is OSHA's jurisdiction.
While we have outlined the above serious concerns
6
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and made reference to our reasons, we feel it important to
both express support for the concept of national standards
with Federal direction for ensuring the protection of health
and the environment from solid waste disposal facilities —
and appreciation for this opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Hopefully, soon effective, practical,
and economically-wise practices for the land disposal of solid
wastes will derive from the application of these criteria.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Greco.
Are there any questions from the panel?
MR. DE GEARE: Next to the last page, item number
six, I take that to mean regulations should apply to ground
water aquifers only as opposed to ground water in l/nsaturatej
zones. Is that correct?
MR. GRECO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Could you elaborate on the
points you made with respect to NPDES, that the requirement
noted in Section 257.3-1(a) is beyond EPA's authority and
that the NPDES permit may be illegal? ]
-------
87
MR. GRECO: Yes. I would like to refer to our
2 II .
!] written comments which I think five of the six people on the
3 !
stage do have. And, where I will begin is on page five.
4 i
i If I am getting into too much detail because of the time —
I will begin to read it. Near the bottom of the page that
we mentioned.
The NPDES permit requirement, we feel, is beyond
EPA's authority. We feel this because nothing in the Federal
9 I
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) specifically includes all
10
it
12
13
14
15
discharges into wetlands as discharges into navigable waters.
Furthermore, we feel the legislative history of RCRA clearly
indicates a very minimal role by the EPA in any Subtitle D
programs. And, then we present here the reasons and we quote
the legislative history of the committee on the House side.
If I go to page six, we interpreted this minimal
19
20
21
22
23
24
]| Federal role in this area, that if the NPDES permit require-
;i
;| ment, as it is written in this section of the proposed
regulations, appears to reflect the detailed type of Federal
overseeing that Congress specifically intended to preclude.
The criteria for obtaining an NPDES permit, as applied to
existing sites, may be illegal.
On page 4945 of the proposed Criteria it is stated
that "before any new site may be located or any existing
disposal site may be expanded in an environmentally sensitive
area, the facility must clearly meet certain criteria containe'
-------
88
in paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section 275.3-1."
2 However, in neither the regulations nor the later
specific preamble references to the NPDES permit requirements,
is there any indication that this policy is limited to new
or exapnded facilities. f-urthermore, it is our recollection
from the meeting on March 15th, the public meeting with EPA,
that the NPDES permit requirement was intended to apply to
8 existing, as well as new and expanded facilities. We feel
9 that insofar as the EPA's policy on the issuance of NPDES
10 permits to existing facilities that it appears to require
11 an Environmental Impact Statement. So, it is outside the
12 Federal authority.
13 We make mention of "only upon a showing of
14 extraordinary circumstances, including a demonstration of
15 alternative methods of disposal, an assessment of environmenta
18 impact for each alternative, an assessment of the technical
17 and economic feasibility of each alternative, and a justifi-
18 cation for the wetlands disposal alternative in view of the
19 environmental impact and feasibility, only then will an NPDES
20 application be considered and an NPDES permit issued."
If I go further, in Section 511 (c) (1) of the
22 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, it is noted that:
23 "Except for ... the issuance of a permit under Section 402 of
24 this Act for the discharge of any pollutant by a new source
as defined in this Act, no action of the Administrator taken
-------
89
I
pursuant to this Act shall be deemed a major Federal action
;
2
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act."
Thus, by the very wording of the law upon which EPA
' is relying upon for the NPDES permit requirement, it is
1 precluded from requiring the type of inquiry set forth in
7 I
1 Section 257.33-1(a)(2) for existing facilities as opposed
O
to what is stated early-on in the supplementary information
9
10
We further understand that EPA has issued criteria
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that such an inquiry would apply only to new or modified
facilities.
for determing what is a new source as defined by the FWPCA 40
C.F.R. Part 9. Until the EPA utilizes this criteria to make
a determination that any landfill is a new facility as defined
by FWPCA/ authority is lacking to require the EIS requirement
under RCRA.
Previously, it was noted in the supplementary
information on page 4946 (first column, bottom) that "this
approach conforms with the intent of Executive Order 11990
dated May 24, 1977, concerning protection of the wetlands"
which orders all federal agencies to perform an EIS for
activities in "wetlands". Secffcion 1 (b) of that Order
specifically excludes "issuance by Federal agencies of permits
licenses, or allocations to private parties for activities
involving wetlands on non-Federal property." Therefore, we
-------
90
propose that the regulations should be amended to define the
2
term "new facility" so as to incorporate the FWPCA definition
of "new source" and the'EPA's procedures for establishing what
4
is a new source under the FWPCA. Reference should be made
5 to Section 306 (a) (2) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1316(a) (2)
(which defines "new source"), and 40 C.F.R. Part 9 (which
contains EPA's criteria for determining "new sources" under
8 the FWPCA). Section 257.3-l(a) of the regulations should
Q
also be amended to make it clear that the EIS requirement
for NPDES permits applies only to "new facilities".
11 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much. That is
** a helpful elaboration of that point.
13
Are there any other questions from the panel?
14 MR. DE GEARE: It is my understanding that under
15 Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
"* discharges to waters of the United States are allowable only
M where permitted. Do you agree with that interpretation?
18 MR. GRECO: I will have to ask our legal man.
19 MR. SPEftRY: I am Gus Spelry.
20 In our specific written comments we elaborate a
21 little bit further on this and we make reference to General
22 Counsel's opinion written in July 1977 where he sets forth
23 the jurisdictional restraints of EPA in the wetlands area.
24 The point we are trying to make is by asserting
25 concern over your exercising authority, is that your
-------
91
regulations state NPDES permit would be required for all
2
facilities located in a wetlands area, whether that facility
actually discharges into or is periodically inundated b«f -t)\e
4
waters of the United States.
The General Counsel's opinion talks about existing
C
sites and that is assuming that you are going to apply this
NPDES permit for existing facilities, that existing sites
that have built up over time due to ground cover, so as to
9 actually not be the deposit of the solid waste from, —
For example, a garbage truck is not defined to be a discharge.
Now, strong water runoff, which maybe contaiminated with
12 leachate, may be an entirely different issue. We don't really
13
zero on.
But, what we zero in on is this limitation set
'5 forth in the General Counsel's report.
16 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Would this be correct in your
17
interpretation that an existing site which did not continue
to encroach upon wetlands or an existing site which, because
19 of a previous fill, had been made a vast land and no longer
20 a wetland and by the wefl.and definition should not be covered
21 by the criteria? That would be one question. And, the
22 second part of that would be would you agree that an existing
23 site that further encroached upon the wetland and took out
of productive use wetland by the wetland definition, would it
25 be covered by the criteria?
-------
92
MR. SPEflRY: Let me answer the first part of that
2
two-part question. It would be our position, I believe, that
any landfill that has no runoff, that is completely tight,
where there is no flooding in or runoff from the sitej would
not require a NPDES permit. If the storm water is being
collected and impounded and recirculated or otherwise disposed
7 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: If that site was continuing with-
in a dyked area?
MR. SPEflRY: I am assuming it has been built up
10 over time.
11 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: So, it is no longer a wetland?
MR. SPEflRY: Right, as defined by regulations.
To answer your second question, I think first of
all it would seem that a project to expand an existing
15 facility or to locate a facility is certainly going to
require some filling. I think there is no question that a
Corps of Engineers permit under 404 is going to be required
insofar — And, that is assuming that facility can get a
19 Corps permit. Then, I think you are going to have to assess
20 it again on a site-specific situation as to whether or not
21 in the filling pursuant to the Corps permit — In other words,
22 you haven't exceeded the parameters of the Corps permit in
23 developing that project, if they have built it up to the
24 same extent that it is no longer defined as a wetland, I
25 think your jurisdiction again would be restricted to runoff.
-------
93
1
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I understand.
2
Are there any further questions?
o
MR. SHUSTER: Could you elaborate on the seventh
summary statement that EPA doesn't have the authority to set
ground water quality standards?
MR. GRECO: This pertains to our feelings about the
' j existing standards that may be at the state and local level.
8 Is that right?
9 MR. SPEARY: Yes. It is basically a reiteration
of the position we took at the AISWAD public meeting, with a
little bit further elaboration and after a little more
1 °
" research on my part to further clarify the extent insofar
13
\ as it is the various statutory provisions for regulations of
ground water apply.
J MR. GRECO: That is on — I am sorry the pages
are not numbered, but on page 11 of the detailed comments.
Obviously many of these issues we cannot resolve
1 Q
I in a few minutes. We wanted to bring them to your attention
*" because we put in what we feel through our company effort
20 to try to understand your intent and how it would affect us.
21 We would be happy to meet at later occasions, at public
22 meetings, to further discuss this and seek some resolution
23 or clarifications.
2-1 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Why don't we read your detailed
25 } comments and if necessary we can ask for additional comments
-------
94
1
if it is appropriate.
2
Are there any other questions? If not, why don't
3
we break for lunch and we would like to start promptly at
1:00.
(Whereupon, at 12:04 o'clock p.m., the hearing was
recessed to reconvene at 1:00 o'clock this same day.)
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Let's begin. I have been asked
by a number of people to make a request that we try and stay
within the time frame indicated. I would like everyone to
please try and limit their statements to eight minutes. I
would like members of the panel to respect the time frame
12
although we may have to cut off questions and statements. I
13
would like to get everybody in by the end of the day.
"
I have also been asked by several people to move
them up on the list because they have planes to; catch. We
1 f?
will see if we can do this with^disturbing
17
other people. We will see if we can accommodate these people.
I will have to take everybody on good will about that. If
everybody says they have got a plane to catch at 2:30^ u)e
are not going to be able to do anything about that.
21 Let me also state again that a summary of your
22 remarks is more than sufficient. Your entire statement, if
23 it has been submitted, will be included in the record in its
24 entirety and full consideration will be given as well to
25 written remarks as well as oral remarks.
-------
I 95 I
1
The next witness is Mr. Wallace Koster. Mr. Roster.
2
MR. KOSTER: Yes. I come from a local area. I am
3
within driving distance. I will be glad to forfeit my time
4
until a little later if it will be more convenient to others.
5
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thanks. That will be very
6
helpful. We appreciate that.
7
Mr. Cobb, Mr. Cliff Cobb? Anybody from the
8
National Association of Counties?
9
Mr. Blake Early? Anybody from Environmental Action?
10
Mr. Hallenbeck?
DR. HALLENBECK: I am here, but could you put some-
12 I
body else on next?
13
MS. WRIGHT: Who has to leave early?
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I have on*request from a person
15
who has to leave early. Lee Sommers has indicated he would.
16
Would you like to make your statement now? And, if there
is anyone else we can handle them right after this.
18
MR. SOMMERS: I am Lee Sommers. The comments that
19
I will be making were prepared by a Cooperative States Research
20
Technical Committee which is studying the issue of application
•n -I
of sludge to agriculture land. The composition of this was
%2 such that it represented the Northwest, Southwest, North
23 Central, Northeast, and Southeast regions of the United States
24 The undertaking of the Solid Waste Disposal
25 Facilities Proposed Classification Criteria for Solid Waste
-------
96
Disposal on the basis of acceptability is admirable but it
becomes apparent that the inherent differences of environ-
O
mental and/or health considerations for the various disposal
4 options makes the Criteria vague and unmanageable from the
perspective of both the user and EPA.
The Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed
Classification Criteria apply to all forms of solid waste.
We are of the opinion that utilization of sewage sludge con-
sistent with agronomic crop production principles is
sufficiently unique to warrant either treatment in a separate
11 document or as an all—inclusive subsection in the proposed
12 Criteria. In the present document there are a number of
I'1 statements which apply exclusively to options other than
14 agriculture use. We feel that the ambiguity of the document
15 would be considerably lessened by subdividing it on the basis
16 of disposal options.
The proposed Criteria imply that annual applications
18 of sewage sludge to agriculture land will be based upon
19 limits set for cadmium. In the agriculture utilization of
20 sewage sludge, it is the judgment of this committee that
21 nitrate-nitrogen contamination of groundwater from sewage
22 sludge poses one of the major hazards to the environment.
2;j This very important consideration is totally ignored in the
24 proposed Criteria. There are well-defined procedures for
25 recommending rates of sewage sludge to be applied as a source
-------
97
1
of available nitrogen based upon crop requirements. Assuming
2
no other constraints, the committee recommends that sewage
q
sludges not be applied to agriculture lands at rates which
4 provide available nitrogen in excess of crop requirements .
This will assure control of nitrate-nitrogen contamination
of groundwater.
7 Those knowledgeable in the field believe that there
are insufficient data available at this time to establish
" long-term criteria for regulation of sewage sludge utilization
^ in agriculture. Currently there are a large number of project
11 underway throughout the United States which address the impact
of sludge utilization on environmental quality. These pro-
is
jects will provide additional data on the long-term impacts
14 of land application of sewage sludge and thereby provide a
sounder scientific basis for criteria. Therefore, the committ
recommends that a mandatory reassessment of the Criteria with
public hearings be conducted no later than five years
following issuance. Also any modification of the Criteria
19 should be subject to public hearings prior to implementation.
20 Sampling and Analyses: Owners and operators will
21 need additional guidance on acceptable methods to sample
22 sludges and to analyze for cadmium and other toxic substances.
23 Also, it is unclear specifically what other toxic substances
24 must be determined in the sludge.
25 The Criteria state that the operator >or owner must
-------
98
determine appropriate land application rates of sludge and
2
assure that these rates are complied with. In systems other
than owner-operator controlled operations, the committee
doubts that owners and operators can guarantee that users
' comply with appropriate application rates. Our interpreta-
c
tion of this section of the Criteria is that the owner-operato]
must control the disposal or utilization of sludge. The
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
Committee doubts that it is feasible for the owner-operator
to accomplish this for all options, but yet according to
the Criteria the operator must assume this responsibility.
This committee feels that procedures for sampling
and analysis of sludge must be treatment plant specific.
These procedures will be determined by the type of sludge
produced and the methods by which sludge is stored. For
example, sludge analysis of each load applied is not necessary
Page 4943, columns 2 and 3, state that "The owner or operator
must (1) analyze the sludge for cadmium and other toxic
substances." The committee feels that the statement "other
toxic substances" is unnecessarily vague and should be
addressed.
This committee does not recommend wide-spectrum
analysis of sludge by individual treatment plants. Toxic
compounds identified as being of concern should be screened
by EPA central laboratories.
The committee recommends that EPA more adequately
-------
99
i define and standardize sludge analytical methods. Any lab
i! performing sludge analysis should be subject to a routine
j) quality control program administered by EPA.
[j Groundwater Contamination: The criteria (pp. 4948)
j, state that groundwater has been contaminated by solid waste
i.
it
• disposal facilities on a local basis in many parts of the
I
. nation. Although the statement may be true for certain
8 '"
'! landfills and open dumps, the committee feels that it is not
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
j true for systems involving the use of sewage sludge at
I
! nitrogen fertilizer rates in agricultural operations.
Page 4948, column 2, indicates that "monitoring
only at the property boundary may not provide ample opportunity
for appropriate corrective actions because of time, economic
and technical constraints." "Some reviewers have suggested
that a specific distance (e.g., 1 km) could be used beyond
boundary of application." It is the view of this committee
that selection of a specific distance is not justified.
Dispersion of pollutants, if any, in groundwater, from sludge
application is highly dependent on ,site characteristics
(e.g., soil, geohydrology) as well as the pollutant in question
i e.g., NO -N moves into groundwater to a much greater extent
3
22 than heavy metals. While groundwater may need to be
monitored beyond the sludge application boundary site,
selection of the distance must be determined for each site.
25
I
The need for groundwater and other monitoring will
-------
100
ll
i I
vary greatly with whether or not the site is controlled or
fy
or dedicated. As long as sludge application rates do not
exceed nitrogen fertilization capacity of the crop, NO,-N
contamination of groundwater is not anticipated and ground-
water monitoring requirements will be reduced or eliminated.
Guidance for non-food chain cropland: The
Criteria (pp. 4949) state that users can obtain additional
guidance on maximum application rates for waste application
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to non-food chain crops from state and federal agriculture
departments. The committee feels that currently there are
no uniformly acceptable guidelines available for use of
waste on non-food chain crops and that most states and
federal agriculture personnel are not equipped to provide the
guidance implied.
Statement on daily intake of cadmium: The
statement on pp. 4949, third column, "This concern arises
from an FDA assessment of teenage males in this country (class
of individuals which consumes the most food), which concluded
that their average daily intake of cadmium from food and water
approximates the total tolerable daily intake level
recommended by the World Health Organization," is misleading.
FDA has determined that if a young adult male consumes his
normal diet (containing cadmium at the average concentration
determined by FDA's market basket survey), he would ingest
an amount of cadmium approximately equal to current World
-------
.
|| Health Organization (WHO) tolerable limits. Whether the WHO i
2 ii
!< tolerable limits should stay where they are or be raised is
3 i!
j the subject of considerable controversy.
4 i>
i! The statement in the proposed Criteria is based upon
5 l|
!j the assumption that the average adult male will consume a diet
fi i!
; which contains cadmium at the average concentration determined
I
ii by FDA's market basket survey. FDA, however, suggests that
« i
median concentrations of cadmium in the diet (which are
y
approximately one half of the mean concentration) is a more
10
II
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
realistic appraisal of the total dietary intake of cadmium
for a young adult male.
Also, the concentration of cadmium from solid waste
disposal on lands to grow foods which are part of the diet of
the young adult male is not known. Since in the near future
only a low percentage of the agricultural land would be requir
for agricultural utilization of all sewage sludge produced
in the U.S.A., the impact of sewage sludge derived cadmium
on the diet of the "average" young adult.male will be
insignificant. However, in localized situations where a
large percentage of an individual's diet for a few decades is
derived from sludge-amended soils there may be an impact.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Lee, could I ask you to summarize
that last few points you would like to make?
MR. SOMMERS: With respect to cadmium zinc ratio
it is recommended that the 6.5 or above pH — Probably the
two points the committee wanted to address was the cadmium
-------
102
ii issue and comparability. We believe that sufficient research
!!
j findings are available to show that if other site criteria
•i i
I are met, both the cumulative cadmium loading and the annual
loading limits pose a reasonable problem for adverse health
effects on the environment or supportive of these limits it
must be recognized that based on the limited number of studies
indicating small increase. Since research findings are
presently not extensive we do recommend that the specified
cumulative cadmium level be changed at this time, but they
should be evaluated in the future.
The need for further reducation to 1.25 kg cadmium
and then 2.5 has not yet been demonstrated as necessary or
possible for all cities. We believe this phased reduction
should be deleted. We emphasize that the 2.0 kg/ha cadmium
loadings are maximum, and that programs to minimize cadmium
additions to agricultural soils should be encouraged. If
the purpose of the Criteria is to require pretreatment of
cadmium bearing industrial waste, this goal should be so
stated rather than using cadmium application rates on
agricultural land as an indirect means of encouraging pre-
treatment. Such pretreatment may or may not be effective in
reducing sewage sludge cadmium to levels appropriate for
unregulated distribution.
Under 257.3 (a) (1) (iii), the Criteria state that
"Solid waste containing cadmium concentrations in excess of
to
11
12
13
U
15
IS
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
103
1
of 25 mg/kg dry weight is not applied to sites where tobacco,
2
leafy vegetables, or root crops are or will be grown for
3
direct human consumption. Since, in the opinion of the
4
committee, there is no conceivable way that those responsible
can guarantee that tobacco, leafy vegetables or root crops wi.
not be grown on a site at some future time, we interpret
257.3-5(a) to limit the concentration of cadmium in solid
waste destined for use on land (food or non-food chain uses)
Q
to be a maximum of 25 mg/kg.
Further, a specific numerical limit ("25 mg Cd/kg
dry weight") is arbitrary; sludge Cd concentration is influenc
12
considerably by sludge processing methods (the final sludge
13
containing product prepared from a raw sludge containing 25
ppm Cd could be less than 20 ppm) by dilution with other low
Cd organic materials) or greater than 50 ppm after anaerobic
digestion and greater than 70 ppm with further stabili-
zation) .
i a
Hence, EPA should clarify whether or not it wants
' to have sludge application controlled by (1) its cadmium
concentration, (2) amounts of cadmiun applied, (3) the
21 concentration in the crop produced, or (4) a combination of
22 the above. A note that slude processing technology may
23 dilute or concentrate sludge cadmium would also be appropriate
24 Comparability: The comparability concept to
25 determine sewage sludge application rates, is not acceptable
-------
104 |
i
j
to the committee. We found it impossible to define compar-
2
j ability. Use of a comparability approach to justify applica-
3
tion of sewage sludges to land does not appear practical.
4
Too many variables affect plant and animal elemental content.
For example, a leafy vegetable grown under one set
c
of conditions on a site which received no sludge may have a
higher cadmium concentration than the same crop grown on a
sludge-treated soil with EPA-stipulated management; conversely
the reverse may occur.
Controlled sites: We are concerned with the fact
that the proposed regulations encourage only short-term or
12
limited use of sludge application sites. The committee
13
believes that, based upon available research data, use of
4 "controlled sites" for municipal sludge applications should
be encouraged where feasible. Controlled sites are defined
as those sites which, through proper management and site
selection may receive sludge containing cadmium or other
18
hazardous substances at rates above those recommended in the
19 first apporach. Higher application rates may be used if an
intensive monitoring program is established to assure
21 acceptable crop quality and provide for the protection of
22 groundwaters, surface waters, and soil. If metal and/or
nitrogen additions exceed those recommended in the first
21 approach, priority considerations should be given to growing
25 crops that result in minimal metal uptake and are not
-------
105
\
directly consumed by humans.
2
Direct ingestion: There are sufficient data
available to show that many plants retain municipal sludges
beyond the application date. Although the statement re-
garding "freshly applied" municipal sludge may be suitable
for pathogens, it is not restrictive enough for heavy metals
and other sludge constituents. Animals ingesting specific
8 quantities of sludge associated with plant tissue are subject
to the same risk several weeks or months after application
10 as they were immediately after application.
11 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: We have got time for a few
12
questions.
MR. WEDDLE: I have got time for two questions.
The first one applies to nitrogen. You, I believe, suggested
15 that nitrogen should be covered in the criteria specifically..
My question is do you feel that the ground u>4t6T section
adequately covers the issue of nitrate contamination?
MR. SOMMERS: I think if application rates are
based on more of standardized procedures where the emulsive
20 nitrogen — essentially no nitrogen monitoring would be
necessary because this nitrogen uptake is in connection
22 with the amount of nitrogen applied. Therefore, the
monitoring required is minimal. There should be no more
24 monitoring for a sludge-treated site than a commercially
25 fertilized site.
-------
106
MR. WEDDLE: Your initial statement characterized
i
2
the initial thing as being vague and unmanageable to the
i
| user. In the rest of the statement you expanded upon that
point when you talked about the comparability approach so I
can understand a little bit better what you meant by vague
and unmanageable.
Could you give another example in a way that we
can fix that problem?
MR. SOMMERS: Another example is the fact of where
it says all sludges that are applied to food chain, leafy
vegetables and so forth, now or in the future must have
10
n
12
13
14
15
Ifi
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cadmium concentration less than 25 ppm. That can be
interpreted to mean all sites .because we cannot guarantee
that a leafy vegetable or other food chain crop will not be
grown on any site at some time in the future.
So, one way of interpreting the criteria, the 25 ppm
cadmium loaded on sludge can actually be then applied to all
systems that receive sludge. That is another example.
MR. WEDDLE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Any other questions?
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who has to make an early
plane who would like to be moved up? If not, we will return
to the original order.
Mr. Roster?
-------
107
1
MR. KOSTER: My name is Wallace Koster. I am a
2
[I Consultant Geologist with a Consulting Engineering firm
3 '
located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania called Nassaux-Hensley
Consultants.
S
from battle fatigue.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I have been more or less in the front line, so to
speak, for the last few years so you will have to bear with j
i
i
me if I am not as eloquent as the others. I may be suffering |
My comments are on the proposed criteria for this
classification of solid waste facilities as written in the
Federal Register.
The first comment has to do with the adequacy of
the criteria and providing for the protection of public
health and the environment. The disposal site inventory
overlooks the factor of remaining disposal capacity. Since
1970 states have actively been opposing disposal sites which
do not meet criteria for sanitary landfills because the permit
process is slow and replacement facilities are being used
more intensely. Unless we know of the rate the environmental1
safe landfills are being used up, the implementation of the
state plan become, in reality, a gamble, not a plan at all.
I feel that we should know what our disposal
capacity is before we can start setting realistic deadlines.
We may be in a horse race.
Number two, the practicality of implementation of
-------
1
108 i
the criteria, current comments regarding these aspects could
appropriately come from state environmental agencies. However
for your information, working under Pennsylvania regulations,
the total time to obtain a permit to operate a sanitary
landfill is about two years. We would estimate that the time
to evaluate a site for an impact on endangered species would
at least be six months. This does not include review time
|j of the Office of Endangered Species Fish and Wildlife. The
H '!
ii NPfcCJ permit takes about one year. It is not unreasonable
10
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
to think that the criteria will double the permit time, which
means that to replace a facility it requires four years lead
time. Right now we wouldn't bother with a site unless it
had at least five years longevity and implementation of these
plans.
If this does happen, the viable site will have to
have at least ten years.
The third comment, the third item, is the potential
impact on segments of our society and economy. The EPA wishes
to encourage resource recovery by deliberately forcing
up the cost of refuge disposal. Resource recovery will not
be undertaken at the disposal site unless there is a market
for these products.
The higher disposal rates, and they will be more
than likely passed on to the public and contribute to infla-
tion; Any play in anticipated or hoped-for resource recovery
-------
109
1
would only result in extreme pressure on the present disposal
2
site capacities.
3
We have noticed that private industry is dropping
4
out of the disposal industry. It is too much of a hassle for
s
them any more. If this trend continues more municipally
c
operated landfills will develop. As this trend continues
there will be a loss in tax revenue and an increased demand
H
for federal funding and an increase in general taxes or cuts
q
in public expenditures. Delays in permits will delay the
benefits of a cleaner environment resulting in inflation
from a loss of productivity due to corrosion and relatively
12
poor health, poorer health than otherwise would have been
13
realized.
I have a few comments on the criteria themselves.
The definition for an aquifer is not correct. All definitions
J fi
of an aquifer have two elements in common. Number one, the
aquifer is saturated and useable quantities may be obtained.
18
The EPA definition should include the word saturation. The
definition as it now stands — to see the horizon would be
* the aquifer. That is just underneath the dry soil. In other
21 words, dry land would be the aquifer. Wetlands are con-
22 sistently referred to as being areas of ground water regions.
23 Commonly wetlands are ground water discharge areas. This is
24 the reason why such areas are wet. A wetland is generally
25 - wet because it is a place where the ground water table
-------
j 110
i
!• truncates the ground surface. Now, the reason the ground
i
" i water table truncates the ground surface can be due to several
reasons, but always it is a point of ground water discharge.
[ There is no way that the ground water table or the underlying
ground water areas beneath the ground water tables can be
polluted. The pollution will discharge at the ground surface
in the wetlands.
8
9
10
! 1
!2
ll
15
16
17
18
in
20
The same implies with the floodplains in the context
of the criteria.
My last comment is that I know of no research or
documents that say sanitary landfills propose a threat on
any wildlife including endangered species. I would like to
know the basis for wanting to include sanitary landfills as
endangering species and wildlife.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any
questions?
I would like to ask a question on your comment
about the definition of aquifer. While the definition does
not include saturated soil conditions, it does say it is
capable of yielding useable quantities of ground water through
wells or springs. The implication is ground water in
quantities that could be used while I would say it would be
difficult from dry land or unsaturated soil to derive useable
quantities of ground water. Do you think that that qualifi-
j cation is sufficient or should we specify saturated soil
-------
13
13 j
11
15
111
conditions?
MR. KOSTER: I would like for you to remove that
part "capable of" so that the definition would read: Aquifers
means the geologic formation or a group of formations or a
part of a formation that is yielding useable quantities of
ground water.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Would this include aquifers
not being used as a water supply?
MR. KOSTER: What?
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Would that include aquifers
being used currently as a water supply?
MR. KOSTER: An aquifer, according to the strict
definition, is not an aquifer until it is a water supply of
some kind.
MR. DE GEARE: I would disagree with that if I may.
16 | An aquifer is a geological water-bearing formation regardless
il
l/ i| of whether the water is being used or just setting there and
been used to occupy the floor space.
MR. KOSTER: I have a list of the various
20 ! definitions of an aquifer and it says that feasible quantities
2i may be obtained. So, in my opinion, water-bearing formations
cannot be an aquifer until it is being used. It is a matter
of semantics.
MR. DE GEARE: You say water bearing?
95 MR. KOSTER: Yes, in useable quantities. An aquifer
-------
112
to a farmer, he only needs two to five gallons per minute
flow, but for a city they will need a million gallons per
minutes, a million gallons. So, it is all relative to who-
ever is using the water supply.
5 My point is that I would hate to have to justify
6 my design, protecting an daoifer, based on this definition
7 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any other
8 questions?
9 MR. ROULIER: Your comments on the drop out of
10 private industry, do you based that on a feeling that the
11 proposed regulations would tend to drive business in the
12 other way and if so do you have any data that you could
13 provide on the relatively impact?
14 MR. KOSTER: I can give you case histories which
15 is probably the best data to give. I would be glad to do so.
Let's see, I didn't mention any of the aspects of public
17 opposition because I personally feel that people should have
18 a voice in what goes on. I have often times been in a
19 position of defending landfill sites and I find that the
2o public opposition is very difficult to deal with. And, these
regulations, I think, would give the public opposition more
22 ammunition. And, just like Mr. Damiano said, if these are
23 carried through then you can forget about landfills. It will
24 just eliminate them. Right now, and we are operating under
25 current state regulations, Pennsylvania, which I think probably
-------
113
1
will be the same as far as the rest of the states go — It
2
has good regulations, private regulations. Private industry
3
is finding it too difficult to work with these regulations
4
and municipalities find the risks too great and they are
reluctant to oppose public opinion. So, even municipalities -
They do not want to get involved in the sanitary landfill.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Here is a question from the
audience. Can a wetland exist where the surface water body
q
discharges to the ground water table? If so, would this not
pollute the ground water and I guess that means if so not
the disposal of disposal wastes? Would those pollute the
12
ground water?
13
MR. KOSTER: I am talking about the wetlands as
occurs in nature, natural wetlands. Just like anything else
there are qualifications and exceptions. I have done a lot
of work in Illinois and there are wetlands that do reach our
17
ground water table. But, in my opinion, this is a rarity
18
and, in fact, I really ran into some odd things. I ran into
" an old swamp deposit above the Fox River and it definitely
was recharging. The reason it was there was because it was
21 probably dammed up by a piece of a glacier and it was
22 retreating. It is a relic swamp deposit.
23 Now, one other point, I have also run into wetlands
24 in the glacial till area, but I found out through investigation
25 that these areas were indeed perched and there was no
-------
114
1
hydraulic computivity between that wetland located in the
2
upper portion of the area and the water table.
3
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Pine. Thank you. Any other
questions?
5
Thanks very much.
6
Mr. Blake Early.
7
Again, we are asking everyone to summarize their
8
comments in approximately eight minutes.
9
MR. EARLY: I am glad you asked me for a summary
10
because that is all I have got.
n
My name is Blakeman Early and I am with
12
Environmental Action. I will summarize my comments.
13
Surface water, Section 257.3-2: The language of
14
this section does not take into account that the EPA has
failed to issue over 12,000 discharge permits to so-called
16
"minor" sources. The language should make it clear that no
17
discharge of pollutants is allowed unless a permit has
18
actually been obtained.
19
Ground water. Section 257.3-3: We do not think that
20
applying the concept of "endangerment" at the boundary line
21
of the facility is a practicable one. The concept is even
22
more tenuous when considered in conjunction with the
23 operational requirements for Case I aquifers. First, it
should be noted that the definition of endangerment makes a
' serious omission with respect to the recently proposed
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
| Interim Primary Drknking Water Regulations. As currently
proposed, these regulations would control the exposure of the
public to synthetic organic chemicals in public drinking
water supplies by requiring communities with a population of
75,000 or more to install a granular activated carbon filitra-
tion system unless such system can be shown not to be
contaminated by synthetic organics in significant amounts.
Communities with a population less than 75,000 are not requirec
to install such treatment. The definition of "endangerment"
in paragraph (h) of Section 257.1 is limited to contamination
which makes it necessary for a ground-water user to increase
treatment of the water. Since EPA is requiring treatment as
a substitute for establishing maximum contaminant levels
for synthetic organic chemicals, the definition of endanger-
ment in essence excludes the introduction of synthetic organic
chemicals into groundwaters used as public water supplies
for communities with a population of 75,000 or less, as well
as private drinking water supplies. As stated in the preamble
to the Proposed Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
"Although the concentrations of each synthetic organic compoum
when detected in drinking water, have been generally at the
parts per billion level or lower, the aggregate exposure to
such chemicals from a lifetime of water consumption is
significant in terms of potential risk to human health."
We submit that the introduction of synthetic organic
-------
116
chemicals into Case I ground waters should constitute an
2
"endangerment".
Limiting the endangerment to the ground water beyond
the boundary of the disposal facility is, in our view, fatal
to the "endangerment" concept. The "fenceline" limitation is
fi
even contradictory to the materials provided in the preamble
to this proposed rule, wherein it is stated: "Since
Q
removing the source of contamination still does not clean up
the aquifer once contaminated, the contamination of an
aquifer can rule out its usefulness as a drinking water
source for decades and possibly centuries. Also, cleanup of
1 ?
contaminated ground water may not be economically or
13 technically feasible."
14 As pointed out in the quote, the point at which
15 "endangerment" occurs may not make any difference at all to
the damage which has incurred. Furthermore, the operational
requirements are not worded so as to provide assurances that
"endangerment" will not occur. The operational requirements
19 permit "soil attenuation mechanisms .and/or recovery and
20 treatment of contaminated water". However, the preamble
21 states:
22 "The mechanisms of soil Cttenuation ... have a
limited capacity and are also reversible."
21 I have already quoted the portion of the preamble
25 that states that removable of the contaminated water may not
-------
• be feasible. Clearly, the Agency cannot contend that such
j an approach represents the "best practicable controls" approac^i
3 !
described in the preamble. The Agency should take the firm
| position that prevention of leachate from reaching the ground-
5 I
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water is the only means of ensuring that the groundwater is
not "endangered".
The problems described above concerning the
definition of "endangerment" and the inadequacy of its
application are particular concern with respect to pits,
ponds, and lagoons. While EPA acknowledges that these pro-
posed regulations will be applicable to such facilities, it
also indicates that it is really seeking another regulatory
mechanism to control them. The contamination of groundwater
from the disposal of solid waste in pits, ponds and lagoons
provided a major impetus for the passage of the RCRA. We
cannot understand how the Agency can avoid regulating these
facilities in very specific terms. We submit that the nature
of the threat posed by pits, ponds, and lagoons to ground-
water requires operational procedures that are far tore
specific than the current requirements.
While some of these facilities may be regulated undej:
the hazardous waste provisions of the RCRA, no one can really
predict what percentage will not be so regulated. Several
studies have documented the frequency of groundwater con-
tamination from pits, ponds and lagoons. Surely this record
-------
118
demands that the EPA issue specific requirements for these
2 facilities. The most controversial of these studies,
3 published by EPA in October of 1977, found that the ground-
4 water near 18 of 21 lagoons sampled in eight states had been
5 contaminated with organic or inorganic substances. Indeed,
<* of a total of 50 sites where the groundwater was tested, 43
7 sites were found to have contaminated the groundwater.
8 Application to land used for the production of food
9 chain crops, Section 257.3-5: We view this section as a class
10 case where a risk to the public health is being condoned by
U the EPA for the sake of economics. Let us review the
•2 historical background that brings us to the current dilemma.
13 In 1972, the Congress built in a bias which provided
14 an incentive for industrial wastewater dischargers to "tie-
15 in" to municipal waste water treatment systems. At that time
18 major concern focused on conventional water pollutants such
17 as fecal coliform, B.O.D., and suspended solids. The theory
18 was that the combined treatment of municipal and industrial
19 wastewater would be more cost effective since it would take
20 advantage of economics of scale.
2i Later it was discovered that the inclusion of
22 industrial wastewater dischargers in municipal systems was
23 resulting in the accumulation of industrial toxic pollutants
24 in the municipal sludge. Industry saw this as a boon, for
25 it reduced the amount of pre-treatment it would have to
-------
119
perform to prevent these pollutants from being discharged
2
into the receiving waters. During the consideration of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, some industries argued that pretreat-
ment requirements should not have the goal of reducing
industrial toxics in sludge since this would require
"duplicate treatment". To a large extent, the Congress agreed
7 with this argument. The Congress largely ignored the problems
such an approach posed for sludge disposal. Now we find that
the cost of sludge disposal is becoming so great that large
municipal systems must apply their toxic laden sludge to
croplands in order to keep such costs within "reasonable"
12 ranges. Environmental Action's position is that the toxic
13
problem belongs with the industrial wastewater dischargers
and it should remain with them until it is saved. These
regulations clearly subject the public to a higher than
necessary health risk in order to lower the cost of
industrial pollutant disposal.
EPA's approach to controlling sludge management is
clearly based on the assumption that the major human health
20 risk is the addition of cadmium to the body over a long
21 term through the consumption of crops grown on sludge amended
22 soil. Since it takes many years for the body burden of
23 cadmium to cause observable health effects, principally
24 kidney damage, the Agency clearly is allowing the application
25 of higher amounts of cadmium to croplands on the assumption
-------
120
that it can wait for the further accumulation of data on the
problem before taking more effective action. We disagree with
3 this approach principally because it ignores the political
and economic realities which indicate that once cropland
5 application of sludge becomes a major means of sludge, disposal
it will be very difficult and expensive to reverse such
practices.
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
However, the major problem with this approach is
that it ignores the recent data generated that indicates that
kidney damage is not the only health risk. Based on a review
of animal and epidemiological studies, EPA's Carginogen
Assessment Group has concluded that cadmium is an oncogen.
Furthermore, a position document prepared by the Office of
Special Pesticide Review found that cadmium is a mutagen and
teratogen. While we are not prepared to debate the dif-
ference between on oncogen and a carcinogen, it is clear that
the health threat posed to human exposure to cadmium is no
longer limited to long-term exposure to given levels.
EPA as well as the Food and Drug Administration,
the the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission have adopted policies of
limiting human exposure to carcinogens to the maximum extent
feasible. These policies are based on the understanding
that known threshold limit value below which exposure is
safe has never been established for a carcinogen, mutagen, or
-------
121
\
teratogen. While the data cited above is by no means con-
2
elusive, it clearly should provide a basis for extreme caution
3
in EPA's policies toward the disposal of cadmium-containing
4
sludge in such a manner that it might reach the human food
chain.
We do not find that Section 257.3-5 reflects such
a policy of caution. For instance, the annual application
limits of cadmium to the soil would allow a sludge containing
9 approximately 100 parts per million to be applied to a high
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nitrogen demand crop such as corn until 1981. Assuming
sludge application is designed to meet the nitrogen demand of
the crop, other crops could be applied with sludges containing
much higher concentrations of cadmium since application rates
would be lower and still meet nitrogen demand.
Since the medium concentration of cadmium in sludge
is 11-16 parts per million, the annual application limits for
cadmium are clearly designed to accommodate the needs of
large municipal systems with industrial sources of wastewater.
We recommend a limit of .5 kg per hectare by 1981, phased
down to .20 by 1987. This limit would accommodate the
application sludges containing 25 parts per million to a -high
nitrogen demand crop such as corn.
While EPA has yet to come forth with economic data,
a 1976 survey by the Office of Solid Waste found that such
limits would prevent the cropland application of 50 percent
-------
122
1
of the sludges surveyed. However, the sludges that would be
2
eliminated are highly polluted with a mean cadmium level of
3
255 parts per million. In addition, 64 percent of the
communities surveyed would be unaffected by such a limit.
Environmental Action opposes subparagraph 257.3-5
(a)(2) as being an unworkable. We do not think that it would
be possible to establish an effective system to monitor the
amount of cadmium and other contaminants taken up by food
crops grown on sludge amended soils. The institutional
difficulties of a state environmental agency regulating the
food monitoring activities of another. Since we presume only
12
state health departments would be competent to provide such
13
services appear to be overwhelming. This is particularly
true when one considers the technical difficulty of
establishing what in fact are "comparable" levels present in
similar food products produced in the region. Instead of
preventing the cadmium contamination problem at the source,
this approach attempts to deal with the problem at the last
opportunity prior to human exposure.
20 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Could you summarize your final
21 points?
22 MR. EARLY: Thank you. That is the end of my
23 presentation. I will provide more editorial remarks and
24 elaborate on those in my written statement.
25 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much. Are there
-------
123
• MR. DE GEARE: I have one. Mr. Early, you objected
'^ t
ji to the principle of controlling groundwater pollution at the
3 |:
j' appropriate groundwater facility. With that in mind the
-------
124
the state of the art is not such that that is probably
possible.
3
I would utilize such things as pumping the water,
the contaminated water out, in order to stop the movement of
" the contamination as a fallback approach once it had occurred.
6 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there any other questions?
7 MR. SHUSTER: You implied that \omdfUls should be
8 treated differently and that aquifers should be treated
differently and your argument was because there: were more of
them and they were liquid in nature.
11 MR. EARLY: You mean for pits, ponds and lagoons?
'2 Yes, I would recommend that the Agency consider being much
more specific in its requirements with regard to pits, ponds
14 and lagoons since the entrance of water is much, much higher.
15 The problem of leaching is much greater.
MR. SHUSTER: Given that then my question is how
I7 should we treat it. What differences in approach should we
use, one versus the other?
19 MR. EARLY: I think the technology available is
"10 fundamentally the same. What I am saying is spelling out
21 in particular what would be required. In essence you could
22 provide less flexibility with pits, ponds and lagoons than
23 you might with other disposal facilities.
21 MR. SHUSTER: Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there any other questions?
-------
i| 125
I
MR. DE GEARE: Yes. Do you object to the concept
2
of trying to ignore endangerment at the property boundary or
is it that you agree with that but you want something even
beyond that? My question arises because of your comments
with respect to the fallback position. And, the fallback
position you described, it seems to me that you say that can
7 be controlled at the property boundary.
MR. EARLY: Well, I guess what I am saying is that
once contamination of the groundwater has occurred, regardless
10 of whether that contamination has reached the property line
11 or not, that is when the procedures designed to prevent the
12 movement of that contamination should be required as currently
13
constructed in Case I specifically stated as an alternative
to prevent leachate from actually reaching the aquifer, our
procedures such as pumping out the contaminated water. I am
suggesting that that should not be an upfront requirement.
17
That should be a fallback requirement. In other words, that
18 the requirements in subparagraph (a) as opposed to — I can't
remember how it is numbered, but should be the primary require
20 ments.
21 The alternative requirements for protection in
22 Case I procedural requirements to me are really a fallback
23 if procedures in subparagraph (a) are proven to be unsuc-
24 cessful.
25 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Early.
-------
126
1 MR. COBB: Mr. name is Cliff Cobb. I am with the
National Association of Counties Research, Inc.
3 The fundamental purpose of the proposed landfill
criteria which have been promulgated under Section 4004 of
RCRA is to set standards which will be followed by counties,
cities, and private operators in their land disposal facilitie
The criteria should be based on a combination of factors
consisting of environmental protection and practical
9 feasibility. For urban areas, the proposed standards re-
10 present a fairly reasonable compromise between those two
II considerations. However, in rural areas, where daily compacti
12 and cover, plus final contouring and seeding would represent
a tremendous improvement at many sites, the situation calls
14 for a different trade-off. Even the best operated landfills
15 in rural areas will have difficulty meeting sone of the
16 requirements in the proposed criteria.
17 Recommendation: In order to achieve a better
18 balance between environmental safeguards and practical
19 limitations in rural areas, the following changes in the
20 proposed criteria should be considered. For landfills
operated by or for jurisdictions defined as rural in
Section 4009 of RCRA, the requirements should be limited to
those in 257.3-1, 257.3-5, and 257.3-6, unless a state
determines the need at a specific site for measures to protect
groundwater or surface water, prevent fires, explosions, and
-------
r 127
i,
i
i !'
i; toxic gases, or meet other standards. Burning of leaves,
2 ji
| brush, and tree stumps should be allowed if the state deter-
3 I
| mines that such burning would not interfere with public health
4 |!
h nor with its Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act.
5 I1
' The key point is to set the criteria at a level that will
provide a reasonable level of environmental improvement while
setting goals which are realistically attainable in the time
envisioned.
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There are two basic reasons for considering a
different standard for rural areas than for urban areas.
To begin with, EPA should consider whether environ-
mental hazards are as significant in rural areas. For
example, if water from an aquifer will be used almost entirely
for irrigation or mining, does it make sense to require
elaborate methods to protect its purity by preventing leachate
contamination? Is it reasonable to prevent a county of
5,000 population and 4,000 square miles from burning its
garbage? Should there be no distinction in methane gas
monitoring requirements between a one thousand ton per day
disposal site and a one ton per day site? These are only a
few of the questions that EPA should be considering in its
analysis of whether to require equally stringent standards
for urban and rural areas.
The technical and economic limitations of small
local governments in complying with these and other federal
-------
128
1
requirements provide the second rationale for allowing a
2
lower standard in rural areas. If standards are set at an
achievable target, county and city officials can get some
satisfaction out of taking the initiative to meet the goals.
However, if local governments are told that what they view as
K
their major accomplishments are futile efforts in the eyes of
state and federal officials, this may produce discouragement
and resentment which will be counter-productive in terms
9
of fulfilling the intent of RCRA. Why should a small county
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make any effort at all if it knows that it cannot possibly
change within five years from a network of loosely managed
open dumps to a comprehensive system of soundly engineered
disposal, plus, in all likelihood, a collection system of some
type?
The connection between improved landfills and the
availability of collection service is an important element
in the ability of a rural county to meet the criteria as
proposed. In places where residents have traditionally
taken their own garbage to the dump, it will require an
expensive public relations program and the provision of a
number of "green boxes" and collection vehicles to change
those behavior patterns after dumps have been closed and the
distance to an approved landfill has increased. Unfortunate!}
those expenses will need to be incurred at the same time that
landfill improvements are being made. It will not be easy
-------
; 129 :
: ji '
:( to win approval from voters/taxpayers for those programs i
II ;
* i; simultaneously. i
11 It is important to recognize that the successful j
!• !
1 i landfill operations in rural areas that exist today are the J
i
product of years of step-by-step improvements based on the j
initiative of concerned citizens and local government officials.
' || In some cases, it may be necessary to gain support for higher j
i! i
disposal standards by first providing better or cheaper servic
to households. If citizens are asked to pay higher taxes or
fees for garbage disposal, they will need to see some tangible
evidence that they are benefiting from the higher cost.
Political support at the local level for the visionary goals
that are conjured up in Washington requires patient
'•1 ji dedication to accomplishing one task at a time within the
'•> I budget constraints of those who pay for them.
'° I What is the appropriate response of the federal
17 >[ government to the plight of rural areas in solid waste
18 management? The obvious response is financial aid to purchase
technical services and heavy equipment. -However, money alone
is not enough. In addition, the federal government's rules
on acceptable disposal practices must appear fair and
ruatonable to those who are expected to obey them. Failure
to achieve agreement about what is fair is likely to lead to
inequities 'in practice as some states seek to enforce
stringent standards on everyone, while other states may be
19
20
21
22
23
24
-------
130
1
willing to relax those standards in recognition of mitigating
2
circumstances.
3
We hope that the Office of Solid Waste will not
make the same mistakes as have been made in EPA's water
pollution control efforts. Under the Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Program a number of small towns built
expensive sewage treatment facilities only to find that they
O
could not afford them. This was particularly true for those
Q
which built collection systems simultaneously with treatment
0 plants. Low cost alternative treatment methods are being
encouraged now in sparsely populated areas. EPA also event-
ually accepted less stringent requirements in low density
13
areas by allowing higher concentrations of suspended solids
"* in effluent from oxidation ponds or lagoons discharging less
than one million gallons per day.
Hopefully, similar modifications can be included
in the "landfill criteria" from the beginning, rather than
^ waiting until the situation reaches crisis proportions in
*9 rural areas.
20 Setting realistic standards that reward incremental
21 improvements in disposal practices would not only reduce
22 the potential burden on rural areas and increase their
23 willingness to comply with the law, it would also indicate
24 that EPA is sincere in its desire to solve problems rather
25 than develop pristine standards which ignore the very real
-------
131
1
frustration they may cause in practice.
2
Thank you.
3
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any
4
questions?
MR. DE GEARE: Mr. Cobb^Vi the second paragraph of
CJ
your comments you talk about limitations and requirements for
those facilities operated by jurisdictions under Section 4009
of RCRA. Do you think that limitation requirement should
q
then apply to privately operated facilities in rural areas?
MR. COBB: I am not clear what the question is.
Should they apply it to those already being operated properly?
12
MR. DE GEARE: Privately or proposed to be operated
privately.
14
MR. COBB: If a rural jurisdiction decides to
contract out, I believe that the contractor should be under
the same rules as a public operator.
17 MR. DE GEARE: I am led to understand then that
the allowance of limitations on the restrictions would be
19 I based on the waste source rather than on the type of operation
20 which is private or public?
21 MR. COBB: That is correct.
22 MR. DE GEARE: Do you think allowing the reduction
23 of the requirements for such operations would lead to
24 proliferation of small facilities rather than encouraging
25 regionalization of disposal facilities?
-------
132
1
MR. COBB: I am not talking about the size of the
facility. I am talking about the size of the community, the
incorporated city or county from which it comes. So, I am
not talking about making a proliferation of disposal sites
I around a city of 40,000.
i
i MR. DE GEARE: I think there is always a relation-
j ship between the size of the community in terms of the populat
i
! and the size of the disposal facility unless the disposal
facility is regionalized so as to serve multiple cities o"f
jurisdictions. My concern was that allowing exceptions for
facilities serving rural and small population jurisdictions
would proliferate the small disposal facility as opposed to
promoting regionalization which would be more cost effective.
That is my basic concern.
a MR. COBB: Are you asking a question or not?
0 I
9
Ki
II
12
13 I
IS
1?
18
13 |
20
21
MR. DE GEARE: I was trying to elicit some expres-
sion of concern one way or another from you regarding the
impact of such an exception for facilities operated in rural
areas.
MR. COBB: I am not clear how it would have a
great impact. In rural areas, they are not able to comply
22 for the most part. I am trying to minimize the frustration
level and maximize the actual accomplishments rather than
have a standard that many people realize they cannot meet.
We have a lot of people angry and I can perceive that
-------
j: 133
ji
i]
I] happening in a lot of cases and I am not sure that we are
I!
j accomplishing anything in terms of environmental pro-
3
tection by setting standards so far above their reach. I mean I
!' you are talking about setting standards which a lot of urban
j areas are going to have difficulty meeting. The county with
!
6 i 5,000 or 15,000 people is just going to be — I mean they
7
recognize they cannot meet it.
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are going to throw up their hands at it in any case and just
MR. DE GEARE: Do you think that there should be
different levels of environmental protection for communities
of varying sizes, communities with varying sizes?
MR. COBB: I am suggesting that if there is some
indication based on evidence that if they develop at a
specific site there is a necessity for higher standards then
those should be imposed. But, in general, I am suggesting
it should be based on population. Standards should be based
on population, yes.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Let me take that question a bit
further. One of the things that we tried to accomplish when
we were drafting the criteria was we tried to discuss the
effects of the disposal sites on the environment. Are you
suggesting that for rural areas we should allow greater
degradation of the environment and greater exposure to the
public in those rural areas to the impact of that disposal
site? Are you saying that the situation of rural areas is
-------
5
6
7
8
ft
10
n
12
13
14
15
1(5
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
1
such that the public is generally not near the site, therefore
we can get away with less stringent operational type of control
Is it the operational controls aspect of the criteria that
you deal with or the performance at the site relative to the
public and the environment?
MR. COBB: Well, I would like to say I want the
latter because it is much more logically neat. I am not
sure that it is a logically neat situation that we are facing
here. I guess I feel like it is -- You are developing
standards which in theory are great, but in przictice may not
get anywhere \and I believe part of it is in a generally
r
sparsely pcipulated area you will not be causing environmental
damage. If that Is what you are trying to get out of me,
I will say that.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there any other questions?
MR. DE GEARE: I have one. I am a little slow on
the draw.
I refer you now to the second page of your pre-
pared comments, the second paragraph under "Rationale".
It was our intent regarding the groundwater provisions in
the criteria to provide consideration oT the
utilization of water resources concerned — Well, I understand
from your second sentence of that paragraph that you did not
find that in the proposed criteria. Is that true or are
you providing an example of something we did provide for in
-------
!' 135
jj
!! Part II?
:j MR. COBB: I think you are probably correct. Case
ij II does cover that fairly well. It seems to me there might
I; be circumstances under which there was some potential future
5 i'
i| use as drinking water and that was primarily being used for
G i
! irrigation and lining at present. There are lots of gray
areas.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Fine, thank you.
9 Dr. William Hallenbeck.
10
H
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. HALLENBECK: My name is William Hallenbeck.
I am from the School of Public Health, University of Chicago.
I will be submitting a more complete draft of this
later on another date.
The objective of the following analysis is to
estimate the increase of cadmium intake in the human diet if
certain things are derived from the sludge soil.
A study conducted by the FDA in fiscal 1974 examined
the diet of a 24 year old male. Table One contains a summary
of the pertinent results. It can be seen that a diet derived
from non-sludge soil contains about 33 —
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there extra copies of your
statement?
DR. HALLENBECK: You have heard that 33 is a medium
and 73 is an average. I am taking the 33.5 medium dietary
cadmium per day from the F6A studies. Cadmium is a trace
-------
136
metal with known kidney toxicity and other toxicities in
2
humans. The World Health Organization has established a
limit for cadmium of 57 to 71 mg per day. The results in
4 " fiscal year 1974 total diet study showed that the diet of a
' I 15 to 24 year male shows the cadmium in the diet is excessive.
" Let us now examine the cadmium in the diet that may
7 J| result from the application of sludge to croplands. In order
to do an exhaustive calculation of the sludge increase in
dietary cadmium one would need to know the cadmium content
of a wide variety of foods derived from sludge-cimended soil.
" There are insufficient data to make a rigorous calculation.
*2 However, there are sufficient data to make an estimate of the
total increase, dietary increase, due to sludge-amended soil.
Table Two contains a summary of selected data from
a well-controlled study conducted by Mclntire, et al. In
1* order to estimate the dietary increment of cadmium I have
I7 used the Table Two Study.
Table Three contains a summary of my symptoms and
19 calculations. It can be seen in Table Three that the total
20 dietary increment due to the ,sludge-amended soil is
21 approximately 180 mg per day. This is assuming that the diet
22 is composed of foods derived totally from sludge-amended
23 soil. Added to the present medium intake of 33 mg per day,
21 the total cadmium intake may be about 210 mg per day or
25 about three times higher than the upper limit permitted by
-------
137
1 ! the WHO.
This increment, and I want you to bear this in
rt
mind for further discussion, is mostly derived — That is
4 the increment of about 180 mg was mostly derived from grains
" and cereals.
I would like to draw your attention to page 4954
7 of your proposed guidelines of February 6, 1978, Section
8 257.3-5, subparagraph (1), Section Three of the thing:
9 "Solid wastes containing cadmium concentrations in excess
of 25 mg per kg dry weight does not apply to sites for
tobacco, vegetables or root crops which will be grown for
12 direct human consumption." I would like to see included in
that some mention made to grains and cereals because my
14 calculations, and you will get a copy of those later, show
that they would be the most important crop, food stuffs,
for cadmium uptake as opposed to the ones you have listed.
I would like to make two closing recommendations.
18 Crop tolerances should be established in concert with FDA
19 and USDA which serve to maintain the current level of cadmium
20 in the diet. Tolerances should not be based on levels --
21 and here I want you to pick up on the bottom of page 4954 —
22 the ad hoc criteria proposed by EPA, which I think is somewhat
23 weak. The criteria proposed by EPA at the bottom right of
24 page 4954 states that "the land application of solid wastes
25 containing cadmium is acceptable if the resulting level of
-------
138
cadmium in the crops and meats marketed for human consumption
2
are analyzed prior to marketing and should be comparable to
those levels present to similar crops or meats produced
locally if solid waste has not been applied."
5 I think this is the wrong basis on which to
" establish a standard.
Furthermore, I think it would be in conflict with
the FDA by establishing ad hoc food tolerances because that
3 is what you are doing in effect. If FDA is unable or
10 unwilling to establish tolerances for metals in food, it may
11 fault EPA to take the lead in forcing the issue possibly
12 under the rubric of the Toxic Substances Act. Tolerances
should be based on dietary intakes of susceptible population
groups.
This is my recommendation. And, what do I mean?
I mean such groups as infants. Why infants? Because they
I7 have a high rate of gastro-intestinal absorption and if
18 cadmium is anything like lead, the rate of intestinal
19 absorption may be as high as 50%. In other words, another
20 reason for selecting infants is because they have an immature
21 detoxification system.
22 I think there may be research which addresses
this problem or there may not. But, in general, infants
24 [ have a very immature or poorly developed detox mechanism.
25 j The second group on which tolerances nay be based
-------
139 ;
are vegetarians because of their high rate of grains and
2
cereals. They form the highest increment of cadmium when
3
grains and cereals are grown on sludge-amended soils.
4
Vegetarians have a high vegetable and grain intake making them
5
a good level to such tolerances.
My third recommendation gets back to the total diet
study. The 15 to 24 age group has the highest intake of food
by mass or volume. To set tolerances for food stuffs it
would be necessary to determine the level of cadmium in raw
food which would prevent in increment of dietary cadmium.
Data can be obtained if the analysis of raw food stuff are
obtained to be sure that they do some raw food stuffs in
those studies, but they do not look at all raw food stuffs.
Many of the things FDA looks at are processed foods.
The second overall recommendation is cadmium levels
of crops raised on sludge-amended soil are elevated. Dilu-
tion factors must be developed and rigorously enforced in
order to dilute cadmium levels to those which meet tolerances
for raw foods . These tolerances are sorely needed now in
light of the discussions today.
There is a precedent for setting dilution factors
for contaminated crops. This year the corn crop is grossly
contaminated with toxins. The PDA has set up guidelines
by which they allow certain amounts of corn to be marketed
with non-contaminated corn and is, therefore, marketed.
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
140
1
That concludes my comments.
2
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you. Dr. Hallenbeck. It
would be very helpful to us to include for the record a copy
of your calculations and a copy of the tables and all of the
' data and the basis for that so we can review it when reviewinc
your comments.
7 !
DR. HALLENBECK: Okay. The draft I did submit
o
contains one, two, three tables. They will not change so
9 you will use that data now if you like. It is the narrative
10 that changed.
11 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Also the basis for the calcula-
12 tions and this should be submitted prior to the June 12th
13
closing date.
14 Are there any questions?
15 MR. WEDDLE: Yes.
* You are suggesting that tolerances be set for raw
'7 foods hopefully by FDA and if not by EPA. What benchmark
18 should we be using,should PDA be using? Should they be
19 looking at the critical concentrations of cadmium in the
20 kidney, say, 200 ppm, or should they be using the average
21 or perhaps the medium level of cadmium in the diet today or-.
22 is there another tolerance?
23 DR. HALLENBECK: I guess what I would hark back
24 to are my comments on susceptible groups. I would look at
25 those groups that would be getting the highest intake of
-------
141 ;
dietary cadmium, vegetarians, 15 to 20 year olds, or a very •
primal G.I. tract like infants and assess their level of j
cadmium intake assuming there is not much sludge-amended crop '
in the food chain. ;
Then I would work backwards to see whether or not —'
to see exactly what levels the raw foods were at with respect :
to cadmium. |
I think a better way to summarize this would be to !
ji take a total diet study as it stands now for the 15 to 20 j
J! year old age group. That the FDA conduct, with that being '
i! !
II the only comprehensive diet study we have, and work backwards •
I
12! '
|i and look at the raw foods that those cadmium and other levels j
13
H
9
10
II
14
15
16
IV
18
13
20
21
22
23
24
25
are based on and then you have a diet that is reasonable, a
raw diet that is 33.5 mg per day medium cadmium or 70 average.
To do it for vegetarians and infants would
necessitate a totally new FDA diet study and it would be hard
to work backwards. But, I would work with 15 to 20 year old
age group and work backwards to look at their raw foods. As I
Say that FDA does look at some raw foods in that study now, bu
not all raw foods, and once you see what raw foods are
producing, the 33.5 mg per day limit, I think it would be
pretty safe to set your tolerances on that dietary intake at
least for that age group.
MR. WEDDLE: I would be interested in your
prepared statement to address the issue, whether we should be
-------
142
1
using the medium cadmium concentration or the average because
2
there is a fair amount of debate about that.
3
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Before you comment there was a
4
comment from the audience that was along the same line and
maybe you could address this too. The 1974 FDA data for
£•
cadmium of 33 medium and 72 mean are from an individual food
survey, not a total diet survey, which is a separate yearly
o
study. That the 7-year average of the total diet study is
39 mg cadmium per day.
10 DR. HALLENBECK: I am unfamiliar with this seven-
year average mentioned, so I cannot address that. But, in a
real sense it doesn't matter whether you use medium or
average. What you really want to do is go back and look at
14
the raw foods that vent into that dietary study to be sure
l" if the average is the more health-conscious number then
indeed the raw foods now should be produced by no further
1 amendation by sludge. If 33 reflects a good health criteria
then looking at the raw foods that went into the dietary
study, it would be appropriate to set a tolerance from.
I think the controversy between 32 and 73 is a
21 hard one to answer. I would be inclined to not debate that
22 ad nauseam. I would just rather go back and look at the
23 raw foods whether you are talking about 33 or 72 and see
24 what went into making that diet at 72 or 33, whichever you
25 take because the argument could go on forever.
-------
143 i
I
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Here is another question. It
2
| says Mclntire's study was a low-cadmium sludge and a high pH.
3 |
j DR. HALLENBECK: Low pH. The pH was 6.1.
4 j
j CHAIRMAN SKINNER: The question is should he
5 I
|; consider the worst case acid soil and high cadmium soil rather
i,
i; than Mclntire?
jl DR. HALLENBECK: This is a fairly bad case. The pH
i on the test plot was 6. — i mean on the controlled plot it
i
! was 6.0 and on the test plot it was 6.1. The level of
1C! jl
!: cadmium in ftie sludge by dry weight was 15 mg per gram which
n j!
[I is pretty low. And, even using that data, that is a low
12 j|
|l sludge, a low cadmium in sludge test plot, I still got an
13 jj
II increment in the diet due to wheat crop of 148 mg per day,
grain and cereal using wheat as the index. The Mclntire
15
18
20
21
22
23
SM
ii study was done at a low pH which is biased towards getting
ii
an increased uptake and it was done with a low level of
sludge application, low level of cadmium in sludge appli-
cation and it still came out such that I have grave concern
about cadmium.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Dr. Hallenbeck, there is another
question from the audience that just came up.
The question is is the mean or medium cadmium
level intake important or vital to be determined since the
factor is only on the order of four and not on the order
of ten?
-------
1
144
DR. HALLENBECK: Actually there is no safety factor.
2
If the WHO upper tolerance recommended is 71, we are already
at that now if you use the average cadmium intake.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Is that 71 based on a safety
factor for a certain bodily accumulation?
DR. HALLENBECK: I am not familiar. Some people
on that question have said that that 71 is still open to
s i
much discussion. If you take the WHO'S standard as given,
10
11
12
13
16
I 7
18
19
20
21
22
2.'.
we are already up against it with the average.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I think WHO'S standard is
based on a safety factor of ten or a safety factor of four.
DR. HALLENBECK: I have no idea.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: There was some concern that the
availability of the EIS was not published in today's
15
Federal Register and we have checked that out and it has
been published in today's Federal Register if anyone is
interested in getting a copy. It is called "Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Classification". It is on pace 17046
and the citation is 43 FR 17046. So we have checked on
that and the availability was made public today.
The next witness is Mr. Merchant Wentworth from
the Environmental Action Foundation.
MR. WENTWORTH: Good afternoon. My name is
Marchant Wentworth. I am Research Director of Environmental
Action Foundation's Solid Waste Project. I would like to
-------
1
2
'i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
thank the Office of Solid Waste for this opportunity to
comment on these proposed Criteria for the Classification of j
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.
These proposed Criteria fall far short of providing
for the "protection of public health and environment" as manda ed
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Overly
vague and ill-defined, these Criteria fail to give proper
guidance to the federal, state, and
draft the supporting regulations. T'
courage States from developing more
programs. These Criteria fail to ou
system for their own enforcement, re
And finally, the Criteria fail to adi
groundwater and food chain.
It is unfortunate that the
Statement for these Criteria was not
hearings. Because of the nature of
background material would have been '
>cal officials who must
sse Criteria also dis-
tringent or innovative
.ine any workable
ision, or review.
quately protect our
Environmental Impact
available for these
he Criteria, detailed
elpful in preparing
these comments.
Environmental Action Foundation (EAF) believes
that these proposed Criteria will play a key role in future
solid waste management planning. Citizens, wary of past
poor management practices, often object to facilities near
their neighborhoods. This makes facility siting difficult.
But strong local and state regulations drafted in response
-------
S
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146 ;
l
to these C-riteria can help reassure citizens that their i
2 '
health and environment will be protected — not degraded. In !
i
this sense, these Criteria can make the job of facility
siting easier.
There is another leason why these proposed riteria
are so important. Unlike the performance criteria. Section
1008, that are advisory, these criteria are mandatory. There
is, therefore, an even greater need to make the goals in
these proposed criteria as specific and achievable as
possible. Unfortunately, these criteria fail to do this.
In drafting these vague guidelines, the Office Of Solid Waste
has ignored a vital enforcement tool under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
We would urge the Office to adopt specific
meaningful standards under these criteria required under
section 4004; with the performance criteria in section 1008
remaining as flexible as possible to allow for local
variations in operations.
Another overall problem is that these Criteria are
reactive rather than protective. In the case of groundwater,
for example, action is mandated only after the water -beyond
the boundary of the facility is endangered. We would recommen
that pre-hazard levels be established to provide warning befor 5
environmental degradation occurs — not afterwards.
Turning to the specific sections of the C-riteria,
-------
j: 147
i| we agree with the Scope and Purpose, Section 257.1, however,
i; EAF feels that the definition of "endangerment" that appears
|! in the Definitions section, Section 257.2 (h), falls far
1 ji short of providing adequate protection to groundwater.
i. Adapted from the regulations on State Underground Injection,
"' J! this definition is too narrow and fails to appreciate the
•': unique nature of the leachate problem. The definition, in
ij
* \\ effect, defines groundwater quality in terms of additional
treatment that may be necessary to meet National Primary
Drinking Water Standards. However, this ignores the fact
i
11 i] that many areas are reluctant to institute additional treat-
12
13
15
16
17
18
13
20
21
22
23
24
25
ment procedures. Indeed, under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
communities of less than 75,000 are exempted from testing
and monitoring their drinking water. Measuring the ground-
water quality in terms of additional treatment necessary is a
poor yard stick. We would recommend that this term be
broadened to include any degradation to present or future
water supplies measured by current water quality parameters.
In the definition of "periodic application" we
would recommend that the phrase "impede vectors" should be
changed to read "prevent vectors".
EAF does support the section concerning the use of
floodplains. We agree that any facility should not restrict
the flow of -the base-flood or 'reduce the water-storage capacit
of the floodplain. However, we are aware that strict
-------
148
1
interpretation would exclude all facilities under any cir-
2
cumstances. Therefore, we recommend that the phrase "cause
Q
environmental degradation" be inserted at the end of the
4
paragraph to allow for extreme circumstances.
Turning to the subparagraph on Critical Habitats
we feel that the present language offers little protection
against the degradation of these sensitive areas. In our view
considerable damage could occur before the "continued
existence" would be jeopardized. We recommend that this
phrase be deleted.
11 The section on surface water is one of the key
"2 sections of the Criteria. Yet, sadly, this section fails to
13
provide concrete goals or even provide the basis for adequate
14 future regulations. For example, the process of minimizing
15 non-point source discharges must be defined in greater detail.
" The amount that must be minimized is not mentioned. We
17 would hope that the forthcoming regulations under Section
1° 1007 will shed some light on this problem. However, without
19 specific goals from this section, the advisory procedures
20 under Section 1007 will be useless. We call for the Office
21 of Solid Waste to add sufficient detail to this section to
22 provide concrete guidance to state and local officials.
23 EAF strongly recommends that the section on
24 Ground Water be substantially rewritten. Not only is the
25 section unnecessarily complex, but many of the; terms are
-------
149
Si
I!
i
level of 10,000 mg/1 for suspended solid is a reasonable level
3
to designate possible drinking water supplies. However,
later in that same section it is not clear what level would
"endanger" the ground water beyond the property boundary.
We recommend that a monitoring level be established on the
site that would signal the problem before boundary waters
are endangered. The nature of groundwater contamination is
9 jj such that it is difficult to quantify or predict. To wait til
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the surrounding waters are "endangered" seems pointless.
We would agree that endangerment of the water should
be prevented as outlined in the same section (sec. 257.3-3(2))
but again, we would advocate specific goals for leachate con-
trol. The term "endangerment" is not adequate to protect
public health and environment.
We agree with the techniques outlined in the sub-
paragraphs of the same section for leachate control, and
feel that flexibility must be available to accommodate
various geologic and, climatic conditions. Yet, the term
"endangered" only clouds the issue. When shall monitoring
occur? When shall a contingency plan be developed? And,
most importantly, who determines when and why the ground
water criteria are to be at all workable.
Under the situation of Case II, we find no
incentive for the State to protect their groundwater to keep
-------
I !
! 150
1
it below the 10,000 mg/1 level specified in these criteria.
2
There is also no incentive to redesignate supplies to drink-
3
I ing water status. As water needs and technology change, so
4 I
must our water supplies. Yet this section encourages the
5 i
States to "write-off" the marginal ground water instead of
6
Ij instituting procedures to up-grade the water quality.
7 II
We applaud the Office for the stipulations outlined
o
in the same section that would require hearings to determine
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20 l
24
the availability of future water supplies. We would recom-
mend that hearings be held in any case of groundwater designa-
tion or redesignation.
Environmental Action Foundation feels strongly
that the Section concerning land application for food chain
crops falls sadly short of RCRA's proclaimed goal of pro-
tecting public health and environment. We find that these
criteria, particularly as they pertain to sewage sludge, omit
several key issues, and propose unrealistic programs. For
example, these criteria: fail to consider the immediacy of
the critical cadmium issue; ignore the problems of sludge
application to home gardens; fail to emphasize the
beneficial non-food chain applications on park land or strip-
mined areas; fail to address the problems of other heavy
metals; fail to provide a realistic mechanism for enforcement
and monitoring.
The indictment against cadmium is clear. The World
-------
151
1
Health Organization recommendation on cadmium, the present
2
background levels of cadmium, and well-established data on
kidney damage from cadmium, all demonstrate that great caution
must be used in applying sludge with high levels of cadmium
to the land. Coupled with the fact that EPA's own offices
have labeled cadmium an oncogen, tetratogen, and mutagen, it
seems even more incredible that the Office of Solid Waste
would now recommend an application rate four times that
9
JO
U
12
13
14
IS
16
17
id
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommended two years ago - long before this additional
damning evidence was known. It is clear that this application
rate should be lowered - not raised as EPA has proposed.
The proposed application rate for cadmium is unac-
ceptable. While the general concept of a phase-in scheme is
reasonable in order to allow communities to adjust current
practices, this present proposal allows too high an appli-
cation rate too quickly.
The system of crop and meat testing is also
unacceptable. Administratively, this program would pose an
impossible burden, pose mammoth technical hurdles, and be
unenforceable.
Environmental Action Foundation recommends that
the Office of Solid Waste return to its own original
proposal of 0.5 kg/hectare per year by 1981 and phase down
to 0.2 kg/hectare per year by 1986. According to a 1976 EPA
memo, these rates would not impinge on the sewage treatment
-------
152
I
construction program. In light of the compelling need to
2
restrict cadmium in the food chain, such a schedule is far
3
more in line with protecting the public health and environment
4
than this proposed schedule in these criteria. We will presen
j! a more detailed discussion of the sludge question for the
•s ii
j] record.
Ij
Turning to the section on Safety (sec. 257.3-7),
a
we find the emphasis on reacting to environmental problems
rather than protecting the environment. For example, in the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first paragraph of this section the effect seems to be
making -the facility in violation only when the concentration
of gas reaches the "lower explosive limits". Does this mean
that an explosion must occur to violate the law? We urge
that EPA consider lower levels of gas concentration - before
the hazard develops not after the accident happens.
Similarly, in paragraph (b) of the same section,
toxic gases are not allowed to accumulate in "concentrations
harmful to human, animal, or plant life." Doess this mean
that other concentrations are acceptable? Again, we urge
the Office of Solid Waste to adopt stringent criteria that
result in the control of methane and other hazardous^gases
before they pose a threat to public health.
This concludes the comments of Environmental Action
Foundation. We plan to submit additional material for the
record. Again, I would like to thank the Office of Solid
-------
1
153 i
M
IE
Waste for this opportunity to comment on these proposed
criteria.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there any questions?
MR. DE GEARE: In general I would like to ask you
if you could provide some specific suggestions. There were
some comments in here that were somewhat critical of what
]! we have proposed, but they don't go far enough to help us
!i in saying what would be better.
ij As an example, the last comment you made, we urge
J the Office of Solid Waste to adopt Criteria that result in
;| the control of methane and other hazardous gases before they
ii
| pose a threat to public health. There is a lot of involve-
j ment in doing that, consideration as to where such control
i
should be exercised and what kind of monitoring should be
provided or acquired and which gases should be concerned.
It would be very helpful to us if you could provide the
uq information along those lines. I am not trying to be
critical of your testimony.
MR. WENTWORTH: I would look first to your EIS
closely to hopefully provide us with some of those answers.
Again, going back to the principle that I would like to
take one step inside the boundary line and have some figure
that any person inside that boundary line could use as a yard
20
21
22
23
24
25
stick rather than outside the boundary line to look at the
-------
154
1
consequences
2
Well, now what level that would be in terms of
ground water, in terms of gas migration, there is no question
4
about it. It is a difficult, gray area. But, I really urge
you to consider it if only to grease the process of someone
fi
analyzing that, the ground water contamination.
7 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: One of the comments made earlier
today is that we should not give that sort of guidance and
should not set that specific type of criteria because these
types of considerations are site-specific and vary from site
to site and what the criteria should do is defer to profes-
12 sional engineering judgment in those situations.
1 ^
You are suggesting something opposite to that,
specifying specific limits and being as specific as possible.
Would you like to comment on that issue?
16 MR. WENTWORTH: I certainly would. I guess that
17 past experience has shown in regulations .that there is a
need for regulations, not only this area but other areas.
I guess our point would be that there is a lack of capability
20 on both the local and state level to draw strong standards
21 without adequate federal guidance and we have looked to
22 the Criteria to provide that guidance. Certainly we recognize
23 that there are site-specific problems, but we would feel very
24 strongly that these Criteria should be available to the
25 states to draw on to provide them with a maximum possible
-------
155
|
1
consideration if you will.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Fine. Are there any other
questions?
MR. DE GEARE: You provided one comment that the
{I criteria discouraged states from developing more stringent
criteria in their own programs. I believe that was far
7 from our intent. I would like to know where you got the
implication of that. Is there anything in particular that
you can remember?
MR. WENTWORTH: Generally states will go for the
easiest possible program and unless they are given firm
guidance they will not know where to go and without that
firm guidance they are forced to rely on the older methods.
We feel that older methods are not proving to be satisfactory
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2-1
25
methods.
MS. WRIGHT: I would appreciate it, when you file
your additional comments, if you would indicate how much of
that additional guidance you feel should be in the 4004
criteria. How much of that additional guidance would be or
should be provided to Section 1008 guideline program.
MR. WENTWORTH: That is a key program question.
We would hope that a great deal of flexibility should be put
into the 1008.
MS. WRIGHT: You don't have to answer that now.
MR. WENTWORTH: But, we see this as procedural.
Those would take ' ^u~ "=>--inng differences in the
-------
156
I
sites.
2
MR. WEDDLE: I have two questions. You said in
your statement great caution must be used in applying sludge
with high levels of cadmium to the land. And, in the next
page you talk about maximum cadmium annual additions per
fi
acre. Is that a precaution you are suggesting or are you
also suggesting that the concentration of cadmium solid
8 waste also be examined and if you are would you suggest in
9 that statement what that level should be?
MR. WENTWORTH: My comments are directed almost
11 entirely to sewage sludge and not solid wastes. So, I would
12
13
14
15
IS
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommend returning to the previous EPA guidelines.
MR. WEDDLE: So you did not imply that there should
be a maximum limitation on the concentration of cadmium in
these sludge-applied land? It is just solely based on the
total amount of cadmium applied to the land rather than the
concentration in the sludge.
MR. WENTWORTH: Actually you are not talking about
separate things. I think it is going to be difficult to
achieve the levels that you need without linking it to the
levels that you apply to the land. Is that your question?
MR. WEDDLE: Let me give an example. To reach the
level that you are talking about I could apply two megatons
of sludge with 100 ppm cadmium or I could apply perhaps 20
metric tons containing much lower levels of cadmium. I am
-------
157 !
'' just wondering if you meant that total annual' rate or if you
j! are talking about a lid on the cadmium concentrations of
3
4
5 •
6
|j sludge.
MR. WENTWORTH: In practical terms we would be
talking about the lid on the cadmium concentrations. We
see them linked very strongly to pretreatment which has been
II discussed earlier.
8 1
MR. WEDDLE: Would you suggest that in your comments
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: That is the number of questions
we can take on this. We must move on to other speakers.
Thank you, Mr. Wentworth.
Mr. William Brenneman. Is anybody here from the
Illinois Power Company?
Mr. William Gilley.
MR. GILLEY: I am William F. Gilley with the Bureau
of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management within the Virginia
Department of Health in Richmond.
I have a very brief statement to make this after-
noon. I would point out that these criteria will form a
very important basis of the state planning that we are
involved in at the present time. They will form a very
important basis for the regulations that will evolve as we
complete our state plan in implementing the Commonwealth of
Virginia's program in solid waste management.
The proposed criteria for classification of Solid
-------
7
8
n
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
1 j
Waste Disposal Facilities are important to the very success
2
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. They provide
3
a basis for classification and upgrading disposal facilities.
In this vane, I wish to express concerns and recommendations
on the .content of the criteria.
As statejin Section 257.1(a), the purpose of facility
criteria is to determine which facilities present a reasonable
probability of adverse effects on health or environment.
The terms "reasonable probability" and "adverse effects" are
most important then to the form and content of the document.
They imply application of professional judgment in specific
cases and conditions and this application is strongly endorsed
I commend such elements as the definition of "periodic
application of cover material" which embodies the very spirit
of what is "reasonable probability" and provides needed
flexibility in application.
These criteria should avoid fixed limits which are
not to be exceeded. They should be guidelines for State
implementation, not rigid regulations. At the very least,
an additional paragraph allowing for variance in application
of criteria for facility classification is recommended. This
would permit a case-by-case determination of those operations
for which no reasonable probability of adverse effects would
occur and minimize unnecessary open dump designation where
operations and conditions do not warrant.
-------
159
The RCRA in its application provides for integration
with other acts, such as Federal Water Pollution Control Act ,
: now amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977. The criteria !
defines sludge as solid waste for which the criteria apply. •
i It would seem appropriate to add a paragraph delineating the !
i i
i ]
; sludge disposal facilities for which these criteria apply '
i j
I clarifying the integration of these acts. Further, the j
application of these criteria to septic tank pumpage would
9
best be presented in such a paragraph on sludge or sludge
10
disposal facilities. My concern is that septic tank pumpage
11
could be classified as hazardous waste if not disposed of
properly. However, my concern is for the application of
j
the administrative restrictions that would be applied with
1
13
the Hazardous Waste Management Act for the manifest system
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for those carriers who pump out individual holding septic
tanks.
In Paragraph 257.3-3 (a) (2), it specifies the use
of artificial liners in the collection of leachate. Avail-
ability of natural materials and an appropriate structural
design might provide equivalent leachate collection. An
equivalency statement as an alternative to artificial liner
collection should be included.
The inclusion of limits for cadmium is understood
as it represents the element of greater human health hazard
because of plant uptake. I raise a question on the phased
-------
160
I
reduction of application rates; however, as in Paragraph
2
257.3-5. When applying sludges to soils having appropriate
3
cation exchange capacity and pH, cadmium uptake does not seem
4
to vary significantly with increased loading rates on some
5
crops such as rye and corn as reported in the March EPA-
6
sponsored seminar on Sludge Treatment and Disposal. With
7
performance requirements specified in the criteria, the
8
arbitrary reduction of loading rates in 1982 and 1986 is
g
premature. There is time before 1982 to collect appropriate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
supportirtg data to determine the level necessary to protect
public health. As this criteria document is to be used for
facility classification as open dumps in the immediate future,
why set 1982 standards now? With some crops, even those
loadings may be excessive based on product sampling. A
statement indicating continued study for possible reductions
in loading rates to the future levels would provide an
impetus for reducing cadmium at its source without locking
on an unrealistic, unnecessary limit.
Finally, safety is an important management con-
sideration and concern for collection, transport and disposal
of solid wastes. Access control is important to facility
management in both regulating wastes to be received at the
site and where disposal may occur. Access control alone
should not determine whether or not a facility is classified
as an open dump and reported as a prohibited facility.
-------
161
These Criteria will be helpful in determining on a
2
uniform basis those facilities requiring upgrading from an
3
open dump facility status as required by RCRA.
4 I
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these
5
criteria.
c
However, we do have in Virginia a variety of lands,
from wetlands to ground areas. We do have a variety of rural
Q
and urban areas that have different sets of circumstances
9
and would like to include within that criteria enough
flexibility that we can make an appropriate judgment as to
the facilities that qualify under these criteria.
12
Thank you.
\"\
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you. Any questions from
14 the panel?
15 Thank you, Mr. Gilley.
1 f\
Why don't we take approximately a ten-minute break
end we will reconvene a few minutes after the hour.
18 (Recess)
19 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: The next witness ds Mr. C.
20 Walter. Is Mr. Walter here? C. Edward Walter, President
21 of Urban Aggregates. Why don't we check outside? He may be
22 outside.
23 The next witness then would be Dr. Marwan Sadat fron
2/-! the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
25 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you. Go ahead with your
-------
162
statement, Dr. Sadat.
9
DR. SADAT: Ladies and gentlemen, I am Dr. Marwan
•>
Sadat from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
4 tection. I am the Director of Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pre-Treatment.
First of all, I would like to thank EPA for this
opportunity to present testimony and comments on the Proposed
8 Waste Disposal Facilities described here.
9 We have prepared a somewhat lengthier statement
which I have just submitted and we also intend to send
11 additional comments in the next week or so.
12 But, in summary what I would like to discuss today
is the section of the Criteria which applies to sludge
'4 application rates and sludge management in general.
15 In Jersey we have had substantial experience with
sludge management, probably more than any other state. We
have presently 13 major sludge management plans under way
under the 201 Program which totals over $4 million. As a
'3 part of our effort in Jersey we publish guidelines in all
20 201 facilities planned now and are required to submit a
21 separate and distinct sludge management plan.
22 In addition we feel the issue of industrial pre-
23 treatment is an integral part of sludge management. You
2't really cannot separate the two especially if you think in
-------
163
terms of sludge management as a broad term. Our experience,
2
I think, is somewhat unique and we would like to share with
3
you some of our thoughts and some of this experience which
we have had.
Sludge management guidelines which we puU'ishto in
ft
New Jersey last year pay particular attention to application
rates and heavy metals. Now, for many municipalities in
New Jersey application of sludge and composte of sludge
is the most cost effective method of disposal and at the
10 same time it is environmentally acceptable method of reuse
' which we encourage.
12
We feel in general that the annual cadmium limitatioi
13
which would become effective in 1981, is overly restrictive.
We see no basis for that limitation.
Now, in addition, we feel in many instances that
this would jeopardize our effort in New Jersey toward the
implementation of soft technology against hard technology.
.5 kg/ha would hinder incineration. As it is we have trouble
enough inducing municipalities to get involved with land
20 application of sludge in composte and you can see why.
21 One, it is institutionally difficult to implement. If you
22 want to argue that going into the sludge business is difficult
23 you can. And, two, the capital cost of composting facilities
24 are not extremely high and, therefore, the consultant fees
25 are substantially reduced.
-------
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
!
164
Therefore, when sludge management planners look
at the alternative the tendency is to look at the high cost
j! solutions.
]!
So, in addition to that, we make applications even
|j more difficult. The trend is going to separate between
6 I!
jl high technology and high capital investment.
_ ii
Now, with the reduction of the annual allowable
cadmium application rate from 2 kg/ha, which coincides with
ours, is based on the assumption that industrial pretreatment
measures can be instituted by 1981.
We, at the EPA last year, and I personally testified
in Boston, proposed industrial pretreatment strategies at
about this time. I think it was April 15, 1977. And, it is
a year later today and we still don't have a pretreatment
strategy. In fact, a pretreatment strategy, if I recall
correctly, was proposed on February 2, 1977. Some 14 months
later we still don't have a strategy.
The EPA, I believe, is the prime proirulgator of
the pretreatment guidelines. In general in my evaluation,
and I may be somewhat biased, the EP's effort in the pre-
treatment area is ahead of the EPA and I believe we will
have a strategy implemented prior to most other states.
So, we do believe in pretreatment. However, we think the
goal, the total cadmium reduction by 1981, is somewhat
unrealistic.
-------
165
Now, in addition to that, in New Jersey we have
just completed a number of heavy metal and waste surveys
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
under the 201 Program as part and parcel of these sludge
management studies. In New Jersey if you are going to do a
sludge management study you are also going to do a heavy
metal survey and an industrial waste survey. We are begin-
ning to see some results and I would like to share some of
these results with you, especially from the areas which are
highly urbanized.
Now, in many instances the results we have received
have been contradictory and in many instances sources of
cadmium just could not be isolated and located. Possibly
the consultants did not do as good a job as they could have.
But, because there were a number of studies that were done
by a number of reputable consulting firms, we tend to believe
at least the results are reasonable.
For example, one study which was published performed
for a joint meeting, 17% of the cadmium was of unknown origin.
Another study, 46% of the cadmium could not be identified.
Now, the two studies that I have mentioned were completed in
1977. The most recent study we have, which was completed in
February 1978, which covers most — It was estimated that the
total contribution of the cadmium in the sludge was only 26%.
All the remaining loadings were contributed to domestic
infiltration inflow of the water supply, industrial well water.
-------
166
1 ||
i| and combined sewage. In Jersey we do hav e some problem with
2
combined sewage. And, as you gentlemen are aware, that is
3
a somewhat difficult problem to deal with. I think it could
4 I
probably be safely assumed that in some of the larger systems
in New Jersey, such as the Save Valley, the combined sewage
is very substantial. Now, the pretreatment plants which
the three 201 areas, which I mentioned previously, located
Q
in areas which substantially had industrial contributions
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and highly urbanized areas — That is not to say that smaller
treatment plants in suburban areas do not have a problem. A
small treatment plant in New Jersey in Scenic Grove, it was
reported 1300 ppm of cadmium. So, they do not know how
much of this is from industry and how much is from non-
industrial sources. I would suspect in suburban areas the
majority of cadmium is from industrial areas.
Now, in addition to that there are some other
problems with sludge which I think should be considered.
For example, we have looked at sludge from a purely suburban
area in Boston Township. Boston Township is somewhat a
unique situation with three treatment plants, a contact
stablization plant and two others. We found out to our
dismay that biosludge had concentration per million. Biodisc
happens to be very efficient in removing cadmium levels of
metals from the water.
How do you measure that? You have a suburban
-------
167
community with sludge which theoretically is very clean. We
2
know of no industry in that community. We know of some
ij
dentists' offices which Viive been pointed out. We know where
4 they are coming from. But, because of the type of treatments
s that we have we have sludges high in heavy metals and in part
6 these sludges, according to the New Jersey criteria could not
7 be used for agriculture purposes of any kind. I think that
this sort of thinking should be introduced into your Criteria
I would like to point out that if the Criteria
are to become so distributed, as I said before, may be
defeating the purpose which is proper disposal of sludge.
Now let us assume in addition that we have reduced
1 ^
the cadmium down to the point of kilograms per hectare and
14 let's see what this could do.
Now, if we assume that there is a moderate amount
of cadmium, 20 parts per million and less than 1% of nitrogen
useful rate for compost, this compost could not be applied in
sufficient quantities to fill nitrogen requirements in crops
such as corn even if the total organic nitrogen is available
20 for plant uptake. It may be necessary to enrich the compost
21 to provide sufficient nitrogen. In effect this will result
22 in a price increase for compost. But, I think what is even
23 more detrimental from our point of view and from the public
24 health point of view is that it will encourage in fact the
25 use of digested sludge or road sludge instead of compost
-------
168
1
sludge, raw sludge. Raw sludge, based on your criteria,
2
could not be applied to land. One of the Jersey requirements
3
is that all sludge applied to land must be stablized.
4
However, it would certainly encourage the digested sludge to
5
land in contradistinction with the application of compost.
fi
We feel from the public health standpoint this is not a
terribly desirable side affect. So, that in general we feel
that the application of compost from public health point of
view, aesthetic facts and public acceptance should be the
preferred method of stablization. I think your criteria
would certainly be working against us.
12
In addition, yjur criteria does not consider the
13
very well documented fact that plant heavy metal uptake is
pH dependent and may even be substantially less compost
J than it is in digested sludge.
We also find that the proposed Criteria provides
no guidelines to the application rates for non-agricultural
uses. I think this is somewhat unfortunate because we see
19 that from a metal point of view. The application of sludge
and compost of sludge should be very actively encouraged
21 for agricultural purposes. Without guidance it makes it
22 difficult.
To sum up our position, we would like to see the
24 following changes. We would like to see the maximum annual
25 cadmium addition remain at this present until another bunch
-------
169 '
1 I :
I of research has been done to show that this is too hiah. ,
2
We would also like to see the lands on to which
.1
sludges are applied receive a separate classification as a
4
solid waste disposal facility because in many instances that
5
would contribute to the levy of tipping fees if that is to
6
be classified as a landfill. You are basically saying this
7
is a solid waste disposal facility and, therefore, it is a
a
landfill. Therefore, many states would have to end up paying !
i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a tipping fee. We have such instances in New Jersey actually
where you pay a solid waste administration — a tipping fee
for applying sludge on land he owns. We would like to see
some other kind of classification if classification must be
given.
And, thirdly, we would like to see guidance on non- j
food chain application. We would like the EPA to consider j
possibly a certification program for give-away of sludge.
We are working that in New Jersey and we would be glad to
share with you our experience and our thinking.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Could you summarize your final
remarks?
DR. SADAT: I am done. I would like to thank you
gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there questions?
Thank you very much.
Is Mr. C. Edward Walter here just to rake sure we
-------
didn1 t miss him.
Mark Sullivan, National Wildlife Federation?
3
MR. SULLIVAN: We appreciate the opportunity to
4
comment on the proposed classification of the solid waste
5 I
|j disposal facilities. Included with our written statement
6 II
j| will be copies of the NWF's formal policy statements on solid
waste management and materials policy. You have; already
8
received one set of comments, specifically those pertaining
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to Section 257.3-5, "Application to land used for the pro-
duction of food chain crops," from our staff. These
resolutions were enacted by the NWF in annual meeting and
represent sentiments expressed by our affiliate members through
their representatives from all fifty states, Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The NWF has over 3.5 million
members nationwide and is our country's largest Conservation
organization.
We feel that the publication of these Criteria are
an extremely important hallmark in the implementation of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, P.L. 94-580) .
We have been carefully following the development of the varioui
guidelines, criteria, standards and regulations by EPA under
RCRA with great interest. When it was enacted in the twilight
hours of the 94th Congress, RCRA offered great promise for
filling a major gap in our national environmental protection
program —
-------
-protecting our land from pollution due to
improper or inadequate waste disposal practices. We recognize
that RCRA was not the final, ultimate answer to our total
solid waste dilemma. It gave short shrift, for example, to
both the resource conservation and recovery so prominently
p ' displayed in its title.
"' ; RCRA also demonstrated a change in the congressional
;
* ;• strategy for achieving environmental protection goals and
u jj objectives. Congress intentionally omitted both a strong
10 I federal regulatory role and large federal construction grant
i
" l| programs which had been important elements of previous environ
12 ! mental legislation. Instead, Congress opted for a federal
i
1T •
1 ! role of minimum standard setter for state solid waste manageme:
I
i
H programs, meager authorizations for planning grants to states
15 and a few other small funding programs for special situations
16 such as financially handicapped rural areas.
17 We recognize also the severe constraints under
18 which EPA has been operating in its attempts to fulfill its
19 RCRA obligations. Actual appropriations for Office of Solid
20 Waste programs have annually turned out as mere fractions of
21 the authorizations Congress intended in passing RCRA. We
22 have noted with dismay continued Administration funding
23 requests far below the levels potentially available under the
24 Act-
25 The purpose of this brief history has direct ,
-------
172
relation to our specific comments on these "Proposed Criteria
2
for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities." We
o
recognize that the only way in which RCRA will accomplish
,1
the goals and objectives set forth by Congress will be if
criteria such as these are published in a form which assures
that no holes are left gaping to enable their intent to be
avoided. These particular (Criteria will be a major factor
for determining the efficiency of the forthcoming inventory
of open dumps, also required under RCRA, to adequately
catalog all disposal sites which either currently pollute the
11 environment or pose a threat to pollute the environment in
the future. We feel that throughout these Criteria, far too
1 Q
many such holes exist.
14 Too often the terminology used in these Criteria
are broad and left to interpretation or to the discretion
of the states to set according to special considerations of
their specific situations. While we appreciate the several
18 pages of explanatory language which accompany the Criteria,
19 we suggest that such language will have no actual force unless
20 incorporated into the actual Criteria. If the states could
21 have been depended upon to do an adequate job of cataloging
22 such sites on their own to close them or place them on a
23 compliance schedule, there would have been no need for federal
24 legislation in the first place.
25 We would suggest an expanded, more comprehensive
-------
173
1 list of definitions for these Criteria. Explain or place
2 identifiable, strict limitations on such terms as "adverse
3 effects" and "economically infeasible," and "minimize." If
determination of compliance under such language is left to
5 interpretation, we fear that the intent of the Criteria will
6 be subverted.
7 We recognize that EPA is somewhat constrained by
the language used by Congress in the Act. We specifically
9 refer to the term "no reasonable probability" as it applies
10 to adverse affects on health, safety, or the environment.
U We would like to see the strongest possible interpretation
12 of that phrase used by EPA and would welcome a strict de-
13 finition of it being issued in conjunction with final publica-
14 tion of these guidelines.
15 We noted also from our discussions with OSW
16 personnel that much of the siting and operation terminology
17 and practice references employed in these Criteria will be
18 explained by EPA in solid waste management guidelines still
to come. We are concerned, for example, about what criteria
20 should be used to determine whether or not monitoring wells
are needed at a give site. While we may anticipate strong
22 guidelines being issued, we suggest that as such they will
apply only to federal facilities and act only a?s suggestions
to the states for their requirements. We would prefer that
„. such interpretations not be left to such a later date, and
-------
174
then only as suggested guidelines.
2
In our written statement we will cite further
••>
specific examples of what we consider to be inadequacies of
these criteria. We feel that in many instances language
exists in the Criteria which can be strengthened or changed
slightly to make them acceptable. For example, we note
excellent language under the permafrost areas,, Subsection C
of Section 257.3-1, requiring maximum developrient of regional
facilities and consideration of various alternatives and
| methods for eliminating or significantly reducing the amount
|i
I' ji to be disposed. We suggest that such language should apply
il
12 to all environmentally sensitive areas, not just permafrost.
10
13
H
15
IS
17
18 |:
Aside from what we identify as clear congressional
intent under RCRA, we would like to emphasize another importan
practical justification for the strongest possible disposal
facility criteria. Perhaps the most significant impediment
of siting of disposal facilities nationwide has been
opposition by the public. This was emphasized earlier in Mr.
Damiano's statement. To a great extent such opposition has
20 | been based upon a perceived inadequacy of disposal technology
2i I and practices. Weak criteria will only serve to further
j|
22 I justify such perceptions and thereby further hinder disposal
23 || siting. We have heard many references to the economic costs
: f
24 !j of implementing these Uriteria. We suggest that the environ-
mental, public health, and yes, even the economic costs of
-------
175
1
not publishing strong criteria and then failing to see that
2
they are adhered to, would be far greater!
We hope that all of our comments, both those made
orally here today and those submitted in writing are useful.
We feel that they are constructive both to the ends of our
environmental concerns and to fulfillment of the congres-
sional mandate of the Act. We will be glad to discuss any
a
of our comments at length at your convenience. We con-
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gratulate the Agency for its excellent efforts to receive
public input to this process. We trust that this will be a
continued policy and that this input will find its way into
the final product.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any
questions?
Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
Elizabeth Dollard, NSWMA, is pleased to be here
and discuss proposed classification for solid waste disposal
facilities as required by Section 4004.
MS. DOLLARD: We believe our working group meeting
on March 15th was a particularly helpful mechanism for those
issues with which we are concerned. Our association is
interested, as is EPA, in the development of criteria which
will achieve the appropriate results by serving as guidelines
for the people in the states who will be conducting the
-------
176
|
1
inventory of all land disposal sites. Because the inventory
2 i
being conducted by a large group of people across the country
I with varying skills and backgrounds, it is essential that
4
the guidelines provided by EPA be as specific and clear and
5 f
j quantifiable as possible.
' The Criteria should allow minimum discretion to
those taking the inventory and assessing land disposal sites.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This uniformity of the application of the Criteria is
essential if the results of the survey are to have any useful
purpose on a national basis.
We believe that EPA concurs with this premise and
that it has attempted to make the Criteria as specific and
viable.
There are some aspects, however, where we believe
that the Criteria should be modified to better achieve this
goal. For the most part these are merely clarifications of
the intent. In a few instances we have disagreed with
EPA's position.
The most important aspect of the landfill regula-
tion is the ground water criteria. Certainly of all the
subcategories of the National Water Policy ground water is
the one regulated the least in the past and for this reason
our experience nationally with regulating ground water is
not as complete as we would hope. The drafters of the
landfill regulations have cited ground water into two
-------
177
i categories, Case I, present and future drinking water; and
2 i
i Case II, ground water used for other uses than drinking water.
h
We direct our comments to Case I. The regulations
require that underground drinking water supplies shall not
be endangered beyond the property boundary of the disposal
facility. The language of the regulation should make clear
that the standard is to be applied to the water in the aquifer
not to water anywhere in tie^saturation. While certainly it
may be desireable to monitor water in the soil, the regulation
10 should make clear that endangerment can occur only to ground
11 water in the aquifer.
12 The regulation also provides thatAleachate "may
I o
enter" and endanger the ground water, the landfill facility
operator must monitor the ground water, check migration and
have a contingency plan. It does not identify who makes
the subjective determination during the inventory, whethe'r
or not leachate may enter the ground water. How would a
person conducting the survey, for example, know whether there
59 remains a possibility of leachate entering the ground water?
20 He does not know this. He does not know whether the site
21 should include the monitoring of the leachate and this
22 contingency plan. Furthermore, the term "contingency plan"
23 has not been defined in the regulations.
24 We also have definitional problems with the term
25 "endangerment" which is the key to determining whether or not
-------
178
i
1
a landfill needs criteria. The definition states that the
2
Q
[9
19
20
21
22
2a
24
25
ground water cannot be contaminated to the degree that
additional treatment will be required for present and future
ground water users. What is a ground water user? We believe
that because of the intent of these regulations to protect
the public health and the environment endangerment should
refer only to drinking water standards.
Our concern here is that it is possible for someone
to interpret these regulations such that endangerment could
apply to any water quality parameter. For example, someone
may argue that for his particular industrial process, personal
diet or other non-drinking water use, that the ground water
must meet certain standards ftr more stringent than the
national primary and secondary drinking water standards.
If the landfill produces leachate which degrades
the quality of water below personal standards and yet still
meet the drinking water standard, would it be the intent of
EPA to classify a landfill as a dump. The logical extension
of such an argument would be that landfills could be any
shape whatsoever. We feel that this is an impractical
approach and does not add to the protection of the environment
Similarly, we object to defining endangerment as
making the water "unfit for human consumption". If the
reference Mere is the drinking water then it should be
sufficient for endangerment to be defined as degrading water
-------
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
179
below the drinking water standard. If "unfit for human
consumption" means something else, I believe it should be
included.
We are also concerned about Case II, those water
"* supplies currently used or designated for use other than
drinking water. We believe that it is the prerogative and
7 the responsibility of the states to make decisions about
8 designating ground water as a non-drinking water supply. A
9 decision about such designation will reflect the wide range
of considerations. We do not think that EPA should address
non-drinking water supplies for landfill criteria except to
acknowledge the rights of states to designate ground water
for non-drinking water purposes whatsoever.
With regard to the criteria for environmentally
sensitive areas, we are concerned about the requirement that
a facility in a wetland must obtain an NPDES permit because
there is no procedure for that permit except in a few cases
where a landfill has a discreet pipe for discharge. The
development of such procedure by EPA is essential and until
it is developed we do not believe it makes sense to require
a permit for which there is not even an application available
We did note in the comment on the regulations
regarding NPDES permits that the'issuance of such permits
would require an assessment of both technical and economic
feasibility of alternatives. We believe that this is an
-------
I
t
180
| important consideration because we have found cases in which
2
! a large portion of the state is a wetland and there well may
x i
|j be no technically or economically feasible alternative.
We would point out that the technology does exist
to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters from land-
fills which are in wetlands.
While we generally agree with the requirement
regarding floodplains in the Criteria, we believe that the
language could be interpreted more strictly than intended.
10 |j The regulation states that landfill shall not restrict the
flow of a base flood or reduce the temporary water storage
capacity of a floodplain.
We simply suggest that this regulation should be
qualified to refer only to specific affects on floods. Any
filling or excavating on a floodplain will have a finite
effect of the flooding. We regard a flood plan should be
used only if the landfill would cause a significant decrease
in the health of the environment.
The criteria on critical habitats currently
requires two things, both that it be demonstrated that the
option does not endanger species and that he obtain approval
22.
of the plan from Office of Endangered Species. We believe
that either one of these two requirements would accomplish
the samepjrpose.
The surface water criteria states that the point
-------
181
source discharge of pollutants should comply with the NPDES
2
permit. I believe it is appropriate to include the phrase j
i
"if an NPDES permit is required". Again, there is the
confusion about whether NPDES permits are required for all
landfills or whether all landfills have point source dis-
charges .
Regarding non-point source pollutants, we believe
8 that the requirements should reference the 208 Plans developed
9
10
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
under the Federal Water Quality Pollution Act of 1972.
208 plans developed by states are intended to address just
such issues as the leachate and sanitary landfills. We
believe management practices required by the 208 plan would
be the appropriate management practices for purposes of
l^he landfill survey.
We have said at the outset that we strongly support
criteria administered equitably across the country and for
this reason we oppose inclusion of criteria which adopt
loca-l or state standards as the Federal criteria. Therefore,
we cannot support the criteria for air quality supported by
EPA which states the facility must control air pollution to
comply with applicable Federal state and local air regula-
tions. We believe the criteria should reference standards
established by other Federal law and in this case it is
logical that a landfill comply with any applicable approved
state plan under the Clean Air Act.
-------
182
' Alternatively, it might be required that landfills
should not cause or contribute to contravention of ambient
air quality standards.
With regard to the safety criteria, we believe that
there maybe some overlap between these criteria and those
developed under Occupational and Safety Health Act. We
believe that the indoor safety aspect of toxic and gases
should be regulated under the OSHA standards.
We appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
10 discuss our views with the EPA and look forward to continuing
dialogue in the future. We anticipate a thorough review of
the Environmental Impact Statement on the lardfill criteria
and plan to submit further comments on that document.
In closing, however, we cannot stress strongly
enough the importance of the implementation of this criteria
and the landfill inventory and the need for clear and specific
17 communications as to how this inventory will be conducted
18 over the coming years.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are there any questions?
21 MR. DE GEARE: Yes, I have one. I understand you
22 to indicate, with regard to ground water as presently proposed
23 would allow the position of ground water standards more
24 stringent than the National Drinking Water Standards. You
25 have referred to those as personal standards.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
183
MS. DOLLARD: I may not have made that clear. We
think that the primary and secondary drinking water standards
should be standard. We just don't believe that they should
be in excess of —
MR. DE GEARE: I am concerned with the possible uses
of ground water for industrial purposes and the requirements
for ground water quality which might be more stringent than
j that required for drinking water purposes. Do you think
1
|| disposal facilities should be able to discharge into ground
water to the extent that it would preclude use of the water
resource for an industrial use?
MS. DOLLARD: We are concerned primarily in that
regulation that that standard is so ambiguous that it could
be used against landfill operators to the point that they
would essentially be having zero discharge standards. That
is what our primary concern is. If there are specific
industrial uses and certain specific standards that should
be used in the criteria to protect certain industrial use
we would like to see those specified.
Our concern is somebody coming up with some kind of
an arbitrary standard that would be very personal. The whole
purpose of imposing that standard would be simply to close
a facility. We don't object to any standards specifically
clear. The ones that are ambiguous we have trouble with.
MR. SHUSTER: In Case I you were critical of the
-------
184
1
wording that requires monitoring.
2
MS. DOLLARD: Oh, I am critical of the language
3
only that it is not clear what is required.
4
MR. SHUSTER: You seem to imply that we should
5
therefore require monitoring at all sites because it is
6
impossible to identify when endangerment is ni+«r'i«j p»iutor»
where the line is betweenA — What is going oriyand whatsis
required and, therefore, you implied that monitoring is
needed.
19 MS. DOLLARD: Is that what I said?
MR. SHUSTER: Yes. In one case you are saying
that you would monitor all sites.
22 MS. DOLLARD: The way the regulation is written it
23 is unclear as to when monitoring is required. If you are
24 saying there may be certain cases —
25 MR. SHUSTER: It leaves it up to the judgment of
-------
185
1
states to decide whether endangerment is a possibility.
2
Obviously if you don't have any rainfall you won't have any
3
infiltration unless you are sitting in the middle of a stream.
4
That is why the wording is like that because there are
certain states in which you wouldn't need monitoring. You
may have 150 feet of real ti^t
7
g
MS. DOLLARD: I believe that determination should
q
be made by the state environmental department. We would be
comfortable with it. Our concern is very much with the
conducting of the inventory.
12 CHAIRMAN SKINNER: One question from the audience.
13
It says with regard to your opposition to the adoption of
local standards, why is uniformity more important than
cooperation of existing and approved local programs?
» ft
MS. DOLLARD: We are not opposed to local and
state standards. We support the rights of state and local
1 Q
governments to come up with environmental standards for their
,
own purposes.
Our concern is that under RCRA, the purpose of RCRA
21 was to come up with a list of those sites that do not meet
22 a Federal criteria for the purposes of an inventory. I don't
23 think it makes very much sense to have or to list on a Federal
21 inventory those sites which pass the criteria in one place
25 and then there would be a different set of criteria in some
-------
186
1
other place. What RCRA does is allow people to take landfill
2 '
| operators into Federal Court. And, the standards adopted,
3
the local or state standards, you would be able to essentially
federalize those local or state standards. Someone then could
S
go to Federal Court for a local or state violation.
6
MR. SHUSTER: The second part of my first question
7
is are you saying that we should specify what, constitutes
aXplan for Case I?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
MS. DOLLARD: I think you should define contingency
plan correctly. You don't have the definition of it in it
right now.
MR. DE GEARE: Could you propose a definition?
Our concern was that that would be very site-specific and
other than just taking the words with their accepted meaning,
we saw no way of further specifying what was meant by a
contingency plan.
MS. DOLLARD: You could get into definitions that
were too specific and too limited. I think you do need to
set some kind of parameters so a landfill operator has some
sense of the level of effort that is required.
I could sit down and talk about that in general
detail, but some general level of effort indicated in that
definition.
MR. SHUSTER: Okay.
In the definition of endangerment, you criticized
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
the third part of that which is "unfit for human consumption".
2
The National Drinking Water Standards do not cover all
o
parameters. They cover those which are known to exist in
4 public drinking water supplies and because of that we put in
5 that additional phrase. How do you propose that we get
potent i ft 1)^
around this dilemma, that there are A constituents that
are not included in the primary drinking water standards?
MS. DOLLARD: I don't think you should include a
phrase as arbitrary as "unfit for human consumption". I
think until you have a specific criteria developed, they
should not be included for purposes of this inventory.
When the standards are developed, these other
parameters, then that should be incorporated into the
definition.
MR. SHUSTER: Do you think that we should set
additional standards for some of those parameters that we
could?
MS. DOLLARD: Do you mean EPA?
MR. SHUSTER: In the criteria.
MS. DOLLARD: I would say yes. We would prefer to
have a specific standard.
MR. SHUSTER: How do you feel about primary versus
secondary?
MS. DOLLARD: We would include them both.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Any other comments?
-------
188
7
We will now open to a public meeting and the panel will
a
accept any questions that anyone in the audience has.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
MS. DOLLARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: That concludes all the people
registered to give statements. Is there anyone who would
like to make a statement that I missed?
Okay, that concludes the formal public hearing.
The first question is ana industrial waste water
treatment lagoons constructed primarily to remove B.O.D.
subject to these proposed guidelines. Would you like to
answer that, Truett?
MR. DE GEARE: I would answer that if it is a
treatment vehicle and as an Affluent for further treatment
or disposal of the waste, it would not be subject to further
criteria.
MR. SHUSTER: Here is a question. The sludge
disposal from privately owned industrial waste water treat-
ment plant are subject to these guidelines? The answer is
yes.
MR. DE GEARE: This question is under what
circumstances will zero discharge be required. As the
criteria are presently written, there is not a requirement
for zero discharge in any particular situation.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I think that is the answer. In
-------
H
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i 189
|;
i l;
i' no area is there a discharge of zero required.
; MR. SHUSTER: Will a firm that presently has a
i
i permit for discharge into a navigable waterway require a new
i permit? The answer is no.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Not for that discharge. There
may be an additional permit requirement by a state agency
for other impacts of that facility.
Any further questions?
VOICE: A question came up repeatedly. Many of
the people considering the safety of sludge on farmlands
was the pH control statement in the proposed Criteria.
This was since EPA asserted that they would be controlled at
6.5. I am wondering how EPA wants to control pH of sludge
fields long after this application ceases. This is a very
important question. It is so important and it has been in
so many of the comments. It has been apart of at least six
of our different comments.
And, of course, EPA cannot control soil pH — If
EPA cannot control soil pH then all those pH contingent
statements saying it is safe at pH 6.5 cannot be asserted
to claim that it is safe.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: I would like Bruce to answer
that. The greatest control would be prior to the sludge
being applied. The control becomes very difficult after
the fact and in later years. We would expect that prior to
-------
j
190 ;
the sludge being applied, there would be a sampling of the
soil to determine the pH and the sludge would not be applied
unless the pH is within the range indicated. But, in later
years I don't believe we have to give this any authority if
the sludge is no longer applied. I don't think you have to
maintain the sludge at any particular level. [
MR. WEDDLE: I think you have answered the question,!
but that makes another question. The gentleman suggests !
i
that sludge should not be applied to farmlands because there
i
is a lack of control in future years of pH. j
I
VOICE: I know that OSDA will be responding to
that problem in their official comments. But, I particularly |
brought it up because I know that comments were? made that j
because you had to assume that the pH would be at a safe j
range we should make our comments around this as sumption.
| Again, the assertion of safety because of 6.5 and the many
! comments and statements probably are not supportable and the
| EPA cannot do a damned thing about it.
MR. WEDDLE: Could you suggest in your comments
what an appropriate time period would be for maintaining pH?
VOICE: Unfortunately the researchers today do
not show any time beyond which cadmium availability has
fallen off to zero. If the pH does subsequently become low,
it doesn't disappear at a certain pH. The uptake is increased
as far as we know, at least 30 years after application, and
-------
191
j by inference from mine surfaces it may be centuries. So, I
am particularly concerned that because in this proposed
; criteria you had the presumption of pH. Many people gave
, you comments that they did not say they were dependent on
ft
i that pH, but they meant were dependent on that pH control
which we cannot achieve.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Yes, sir.
j: VOICE: What landfill located at the highest point
!|
I in the county, at the junction of F-3 watersheds, requires
i
\
I an environmental plan study?
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Requires what?
VOICE: The highest point in the county of water-
13 Si
! sheds?
u i
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: Are you asking would that be
an environmentally sensitive area and require an alternative
| study? With respect to ground water the only areas which
!
i are environmentally sensitive areas are situations where \
I the aquifer is a sole-source aquifer under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. If that is the case -- I don't know whether
i this situation is a sole-source aquifer. If it was it would i
i
j require an analysis of alternatives prior to locating the
j landfill there. So, it depends on whether that area has been
i
i
i designated as a sole-source aquifer.
i
i VOICE: I would like to know what your opinion is T
5 ii regarding the possibility of requiring either liners or system^
-------
192
, at sludge application sites for strictly agricultural purposes.
;' CHAIRMAN SKINNER: You are talking about land
spreading sites requiring liners or monitoring?
:i MR. WEDDLE: Yes.
Under the first option, there is less control. The
; criteria would not require in all likelihood •— Althought the
: state could require it, I don't think there is any need for
', it.
! And, the second option, depending on the loading
', rate used, the total amount might imply first the type of
crop ground — the ground margin may indeed be required.
! The way it is set up now this would be a case by case decision
! probably and a state decision.
;; CHAIRMAN SKINNER: You are saying with Case I
with respect to cadmium the nitrogen limitations would
„ probably spread at levels that would not exceed the nitrogen
:; levels of the crop and there would probably bs no infiltration
1 to ground water.
ii
I; MR. WEDDLE: Yes. !
;j CHAIRMAN SKINNER: In the other case monitoring
i; might be required? .
'' MR. WEDDLE: Right.
i CHAIRMAN SKINNER: The ground water provisions of
, the criteria applied to land spreading operations as well as
; other operations and so the conditions which discuss controls,
-------
193
technologies, in order to insure ground water is not a danger
also implies a state that may require a lining in those
situations where they thought they might be in danger from
a land spreading site.
Yes.
VOICE: I noticed in the Criteria it calls for —
It indicates in the case of non-compliance with the Criteria,
it calls for the establishment for a state compliance
schedule. I was wondering if EPA has conducted any negotia-
i
' | tions with any of the states regarding the mechanism for
i
ii implementation for enforcement group and where the funds
12 i1
I would come from to finance an enforcement group and what
13 '
' recourse EPA would have if a particular state were lagging
14
in enforcing compliance? Obviously there is no construction
grant funds that can be cut off here as there are, say, with
P.L. IX-Soe.
!
MR. DE GEARE: The provision for enforcement in
18
the states is hoped for in the Act. In the criteria it was
19 just a summarization of Section 4005 of the Act. The Act
20 is set up in Subtitle D for state implementation of this
21 regulation which would be a Federal regulation. D does
provide for the state to submit plans to EPA for approval.
23 Those plans would address the mechanism that the state would
provide for enforcement actions and implementing the criteria.
25 EPA does have funds that would provide to the states which
-------
194
gain approval of their plans for execution of --he Subtitle D
Solid Waste Management Programs.
Just to be perfectly frank with you, those funds
that could be provided were not totally -- WouLd not carry
the program at the state level, but they would supplement
the state funds. It would be, I imagine, a grant situation.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: And, if there was not an
,' acceptable state plan, there is no provision ii Subtitle D
: for EPA to issue a state plan for those sites and enforce
K- ,'
those compliance schedules. But, there are provisions for
!! citizen suits where such sites that were found to be open
12 i!
| dumps and had no state approved compliance schedules would
j! be subject to suit in Federal Court.
U jj
jj Any other questions?
i VOICE: I wanted to inquire because of the language
16 ,j
!j dealing with the give-away regarding use and what-not of
IT ;1
i| sludges. Whether now you believe the statement about 25 ppm
18 'i
II sludge is no greater than that allowed on leafy vegetables,
:j etc. cropland, whether you would interpret that no matter
20 il
jj what, sludges to be used on gardens and vegetable crops and
21 I1
that kind of vegetable crop would come under these Criteria
22
even though you might at a later time establish separate
criteria for give-away products or retail products.
CHAIRMAN SKINNER: It is very difficult to see how
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which is oriented
-------
195
toward disposal facilities, would apply to home gardens
because the home garden would be in effect a disposal facility
and the actions would have to be enforced with respect to
that facility. So, how we would follow the criteria or
the standards could cover that situation. Implementation
would be very, very difficult. However, the Clean Water Act
Amendment provides for standards for sewage treatment plants
operation, publicly owned treatment plants. Therefore, we
I did promulgate these criteria under both Acts.
;i
i Also, we feel that there are probably more appropri-
'i
| ate criteria for bag products and give-away and sell of
l
j sludges which we intent to promulgate at a later point in
time which will be promulgated through the Clean Water Act j
14 | and the enforcement mechanism will be through the Sewage j
S
Treatment Plant. i
i
11 VOICE: How soon can that be expected? j
,- ii !
" ii CHAIRMAN SKINNER: We hope to have a proposed !
18 ii '
ij version of that part of 405D guideline published in proposed
'" || form before we go final with these regulations.
Any other comments from the panel on that?
Any other questions?
I would like to thank you for coming and partici-
pating. I think there are good statements made. We will
consider all of them before we finalize these regulations.
Thank you.
21
22
23
24
25 i
-------
196
1
(Whereupon, at 4:15 o'clock p.m., the hearing was
2
concluded.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
STATEMENTS
Mr. Bart T. Lynam
The Metropolitan Sanitary District Of Greater Chicago
Chicago, Illinois (23 page statement)
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
(16 page statement)
Dr. DarwDavoli
Citizens For a Better Environment
Chicago, Illinois
(16 page statement)
Mr. Paul Emler
Edison Electric Institute
Washington, D.C.
(10 page statement)
Mr. David J. Damiano
Commissioner, Departments of Streets
City of Philadelphia
(3 page statement)
Mr. William Anderson
American Consulting Engineers Council
(9 page statement)
Mr. James R. Greco
Director, Government & Industry Affairs
Browning - Ferris Industries
Houston, Texas
(18 oage statement)
Mr. Lee Summers
Regional Research Committes
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(21 page statement)
Mr. A. Blakeman Early
Environmental Action
(11 page statement)
Mr. Cliff Cobb
Solid Waste Project Director
National Association of Counties Research, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(6 page statement)
-------
Dr. William H. Hallenbeck
Assistant Professor
Environmental Health Sciences
University of Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
(8 page statement)
Mr. Merchant Wentworth
Environmental Action Foundation
Washington, D.C.
(9 page statement)
William F. Gilley
Director, Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
and Industrial Pre-Treatment
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(7 page statement)
Dr. Marwan Sadat
Program Director, Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pre-Treatment
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(7 page statement)
Mr. Mark Sullivan
Director, Solid Waste Project
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D.C.
(3 page statement)
Mr. Ron M. Linton
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Chicago, Illinois
(6 page statement)
Ms. Beatrice S. Tylutki
Director, Solid Waste Administration
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(3 page statement)
Mr. Edwin A. Crosby
Senior Vice President
National Food Processors Association
Washington, D.C.
(3 page statement)
Mr. Frank R. Reutiman
12436 Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(6 page statement)
Mr. Dale E. Baker
Professor of Soil Chemistry
Pennsylvania State University
(3 page statement)
Ms. Elizabeth M. Dollard
Policy Research Director, National Solid Wastes Management Association
Washington, D.C.
(6 page statement)
-------
NICHOLAS I. MELAS
PRESIDENT
Bart T. Lynam
General Superintendent
751-5722
JOANNE H ALTER
JEROME A COSENTINO
DELORIS M FOSTER
WILLIAM A JASKULA
NELLIE L. JONES
JAMESC KIRIE
CHESTER? MAJEWSKI
NICHOLAS J. MELAS
RICHARD J TROY
April 21, 1978
Mr. Shuster
Docket 4004
Office of Solid Waste (WH-564)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES - Proposed
Classification Criteria of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency - Federal
Register, Monday, February 6, 1978, Part II
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS of
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Dear Sir:
In response to the USEPA's request for comments to the
above referenced document, the Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago (District) has prepared a complete techni-
cal document which describes in detail the District's position
on the EPA proposed regulations (Appendix A). This document
also describes those areas where the District agrees and dis-
agrees with the proposed regulations, and supplies alternative
recommendations.
This cover letter is designed to summarize in executive
fashion the attached document, but is not intended to preclude
a thorough review of the attached document by members of
your technical staff.
The sections that follow briefly summarize the attached
technical document.
-------
-2-
Sludge Disposal Alt.ernatives Available to Municipalities
Today there are only four options for sludge management
available to public agencies treating wastewater. These are:
1. Incineration followed by landfill
2. Ocean disposal
3. Landfill operations
4. Land utilization
It is the opinion of the District that the use of sludge
for reclaiming stripped-mined land, for fertilizing row crops
or for the production of forage for grazing, represents the
most environmentally acceptable solution to the sludge dis-
posal problem facing large urbanized areas. The valuable
nutrients contained in the sludge are recycled to the soil
while the organic matter serves to recondition the soil.
Incineration and landfill methods essentially destroy the
organic matter, waste the fertilizer value, create a new
and unnecessary demand for energy to replace the fertilizer
value of these sludges following incineration, and possibly
cause water contamination if the resulting ash is improperly
disposed of in a landfill.
Data collected by the EPA (Olexsey, R.A. and J.B. Farrell,
1974) show that in 1972 the nation was consuming about 50 x 10°
gallons (19 x 107 liters) of oil annually for sludge incinera-
tion. If the nation is forced to adopt incineration because
of these regulations, the oil requirements would increase
to 900,000,000 gallons annually, using 1972 sludge production.
Current sludge production would increase this demand severalfold.
Clearly, sludge incineration is in conflict with the long-term
fuel conservation goals of this nation.
Ocean disposal also wastes the fertilizer content of
municipal sludges; and is not available to inland cities
and municipal agencies. In any event, this option will no
longer be available to any agency after 1981.
The proposed regulations largely ignore resource conser-
vation (utilization) and recovery facilities; and attempt
to classify all solid waste management systems, including
resource conservation and recovery systems, into the categories
of sanitary landfills or open dumps.
In the case of the District's Prairie Plan project in
Fulton County, Illinois, the District has already invested
$70 million through December, 1976. The proposed Regulations
would effectively terminate the District's efforts to recycle
plant nutrients to reclaim stripped-mined lands and necessitate
-------
-3-
total ultimate disposal in "conventional sanitary landfills."
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The District recommends that the EPA
recognize the distinction between
"disposal" and "resource conservation
and recovery systems."
2. Separate and distinct regulations should
be promulgated for these systems.
3. Resource conservation and recovery should
be encouraged—not penalized nor regulated
out of economic viability.
Federal Specifications for Cadmium
The District wishes to remind the USEPA that the U.S.
Government is a heavy consumer of cadmium. The nation uses
about 40% of the cadmium plating capacity for defense and
other government activities; and that for some defense-related
activities, cadmium plating is specified exclusively with
no substitution.
RECOMMENDATION:
The District recommends that the USEPA recog-
nize this fact and develop appropriate pro-
cedures for reducing cadmium inputs from these
activities, particularly as they relate to
the sewer systems of large urban areas where
most of the nation's defense contractors and
sub-contractors operate.
Flexibility of Regulations
The high degree of specificity included in the proposed
regulations, with regard to site location, design, construc-
tion, operation and maintenance, leaves virtually no room
for meaningful state participation in the development of
State regulations for their own special "site-by-site situations.1
RECOMMENDATION:
The District recommends that the proposed regula-
tions be adjusted such that states have the flexi-
bility to develop regulations suited to their own
special and regional needs.
-------
-4-
Soil/Waste pH
It is stated that the pH of the soil/solid waste mix-
ture is controlled to limit heavy metal uptake to plants.
However, the arbitrarily selected pH of 6.5 is not warranted
for grain crops, and involves unnecessary soil preparation
expenses which would eliminate the sludge utilization option.
The adjustment of soil pH based on the type of cropping
systems to be used and the type of soil receiving sewage
sludge is a more scientific and time-proven method.
Another major obstacle of the arbitrary pH of 6.5 is
the exclusion of the reclamation of surface-mined lands,
much of which have acidic pH's. For example, the U.S.
Forest Service is reclaiming acid soils at the Shawnee
National Forest in Illinois, using the District's anaerobically
digested sewage sludge for acid mine-spoil reclamation in
the Palzo Restoration Project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Soil/sludge pH should be established on
the basis of cropping systems and the
type of soil receiving sewage sludge.
2. Acid stripped-mined land reclamation
should be exempt from soil/sludge pH
limitations.
Evolution of Sludge Utilization Regulations
The evolution of sludge utilization regulations was
initially based on the belief that sludge-applied metals
were additive in their effect on the soil-crop system and
that the ultimate result of these sludge-applied metals
and their additive effect was to induce plant toxicity.
The early sludge utilization regulations expressed the addi-
tive metal effect in variations of the "zinc equivalent"
equation which was first expressed on a ug/g basis as:
Zinc equivalent = Zn + 2 Cu + 4 Ni.
Later revisions of this equation, as proposed by the British
National Agricultural Advisory Service (Chumbley, 1971) ,
included the soil cation exchange capacity (CEC). Research
has shown that there were several serious errors in the basic
philosophy of the "zinc equivalent" equation. Basic errors
of these equations were that: (1) the toxicity of Zn, Cu,
and Ni to plants is generally not additive; (2) the equations
greatly underestimated the amounts of sludge-borne metals
that can be safely applied on slightly acid, neutral, and
-------
-5-
calcareous soils; (3) the equations did not apply uniformly
to a wide variety of plant species; and (4) the equations
did not take into account that metal availability to plants
varies greatly with different sewage sludges, methods of
application, depth of incorporation, and the time period
between incorporation and growing of crops.
The latest sewage sludge guidelines being used in several
states are based on the maximum metal addition for five metals
to soils (Zn, Cu, Ni, Cd, and Pb) and soil cation exchange
capacity. This is similar to earlier versions of USEPA
proposed guidelines. Although the proposed USEPA solid waste
regulations address only Cd, the guidelines currently in
use by many states include the metals Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn,
as was earlier suggested by the USEPA, even though the inclusion
of these metals in such guidelines has been invalidated by
competent research findings.
The use of soil CEC as a basis for metal loading rates
is not supported by scientific data. The soil CEC has little
bearing on the plant availability of most trace metals once
they are added to the soil. The reason being that the soil
chemistry of many trace metals is largely controlled by reac-
tions with soil minerals, organic colloids and by precipita-
tion reactions.
While the question of maximum rates of sludge application
is complex, definitive answers to this question are soon
to become available from the results of large-scale agricultural
research underway in many parts of the United States. It
is thus inappropriate for the USEPA to adopt long-term sludge
application rates at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. A national limit for metal concentrations
should be established for crops and feeds
used for animal and human consumption, if,
in fact, metals regulations are needed.
2. The establishment of metals regulations must
be based on the following:
a. ultimate use of crops and feeds;
b. Distribution of these products by timed
release or by regional marketing; and
c. realistic appraisal of the actual food
chain cadmium from feeds and crops, re-
gardless of their mode of fertilization.
-------
-6-
Metals
The EPA proposed regulations limit the total amount of
cadmium application which occurs as the result of municipal
sludge application. Specifically, "The maximum cumulative
amount of cadmium applied to any hectare of land...(should)
not exceed: 5 kilograms on soils with a cation exchange
capacity (CEC) of less than 5, 10 kilograms on soils whose
CEC is between 5 and 15, and 20 kilograms on soils whose
CEC exceeds 15."
The above quoted regulation cannot be defended on the
basis of scientific evidence, either on the basis that these
amounts would adversely affect the productivity of soils, or
because such enforced levels present any potential health
hazard to animals. Furthermore, no direct evidence exists
to suggest that there is any basis for using CEC of soils
as a method of limiting the amounts of sludge-borne metals
to be applied to land.
The EPA and the District under EPA Grant Nos. D01-UI-
00080 and S-801356 have cosponsored a research project
which is currently being conducted by the University of
Illinois (U of I), Department of Agronomy. In this project,
the U of I has applied anaerobically digested sludge from
1969 to 1977 on Plainfield loamy sand having CEC of about
3 meq/lOOg and Blount silt loam soil with a cation exchange
capacity of 12 to 14 meq/lOOg. No differences were observed
in levels of Zn, Cu, Ni, Cd, and Pb accumulated in soil
surfaces, and no differences in metal contents were observed
in corn leaf and grain samples from field plots on the two
different soil types (unpublished data collected by T.D.
Hinesly, et al., Department of Agronomy, U of I; and also
University of Illinois Experimental Data: "Environmental
Changes and the Response of Corn (Zea mays L.) to Annual
Application of Digested Municipal Sewage Sludge - A Preliminary
Progress Report Prepared for The MSD of Chicago by T.D. Hinesly,1
in Appendix B).
Latterell, et al. (1971), found that for a given sludge
application rate, Cd, Zn, Cu, Cr, and Pb uptake by soybeans
remained constant as the soil CEC ranged from 5.2 to 18.5
meq/lOOg.
Cation exchange capacity is of little consequence with
regard to either the retention of the above metals in soil
or in controlling their uptake by plants, judging by the
results accumulated from the above referenced 7-year study
in which the same variety of corn was planted each year
and annually irrigated with digested sludge from the District's
treatment plants.
-------
-7-
The EPA proposed Regulations limit cadmium applications
from sludge to 2.0 kg/ha until December 31, 1981, and 1.25
kg/ha until December 31, 1985. After 1985, no greater amount
can be applied than 0.5 kg/ha/yr.
Considering the fact that this stringent requirement,
based on Cd applications, would limit all sludges from
municipal wastewater treatment plants receiving street
runoff waters and industrial discharges, and thus includes
the major portion of all sludge produced in the country, it
hardly seems worth the effort to write guidelines or regula-
tions. Sommers (1977) reported the mean concentration of
Cd in anaerobically digested sludge, in 98 samples collected
from some portion of 150 treatment plants, was 106 ppm.
Thus, if a sluge containing this mean concentration of Cd
was used to furnish supplementary nitrogen for non-leguminous
plants, more than 1 kg/ha of Cd would be applied. Therefore,
the average sludge cannot be applied on agricultural lands
at rates needed to provide supplemental fertility if the limit of
less than 2 kg/ha/yr is imposed as a condition.
The fact that sludge-borne Cd has been applied on
replicated plots annually for 10 years, that ranged from a
minimum of 4 kg/ha in 1972 to a maximum of 29 kg/ha in
1971, and where total accumulative amounts between 1968
through 1977 had reached 138 kg/ha belies the need for the
restriction of Cd applications of ultimately 0.5 kg/ha/yr
to protect soil productivity. Even with an average sludge-
borne Cd application over 14 times greater than the suggested
current limit, corn grain yields were significantly increased
by sludge application in 1977 when compared to those harvested
from well-managed control plots (See U of I Experimental
Data "Environmental Changes and The Response of Corn (Zea
mays L.) to Annual Application of Digested Municipal Sewage
Sludge - A Preliminary Progress Report Prepared for the
MSD of Chicago" in Appendix B).
If it is determined that the metal levels in grain produced
on sludge-amended soils are hazardous to human and/or animal
health, all that is needed to correct the situation is to
terminate sludge applications. On Blount silt loam soil,
which had received an accumulative sludge loading rate of
232.5 mT/ha before annual applications of sludge were terminated
after 1973, corn grain yields were significantly increased
in 1977 by residual sludge applications, as they were in 1976.
Concentrations of Zn and Cd in leaves of corn continued to
decrease during successive years after terminating sludge
application. By the third year after sludge applications
were terminated, both Zn and Cd concentrations in grain were
indistinguishable from background levels and continued to be
so during the fourth year (1977) after terminating sludge
applications (Hinesly et al., 1978, "Residual Effects of
Irrigating Corn with Digested Sewage Sludge," in Appendix C).
-------
If the intent of limiting sludge-borne Cd applications
to ultimately 0.5 kg/ha/yr is to protect animals from excessive
levels of the element, experimental evidence should be avail-
able which demonstrates that biologically incorporated Cd
from sludge-fertilized forage or grain can adversely affect
animals. Feeding corn grain containing enhanced levels of
Cd, as harvested from long-term sludge fertilized plots,
did not adversely affect the health of pheasants or swine
(See Hinesly, et al., 1978, "Effects of Feeding Corn Grain
Produced on Sludge-Amended Soil to Pheasants and Swine,"
in Appendix D).
Impact of Proposed Regulations on Municipal Sewage
Treatment Agencies
The District has conducted a (1974) statewide survey
in Illinois to compare the metal levels of municipal sludges
with the EPA proposed limitations of 5, 10 and 20 kg Cd/ha.
This study showed that 50% of the communities in Illinois
could not apply over 150 dry tons per acre of sludge to
soils with a CEC of 5 meq/lOOg. Since most crops require
10-20 tons of sludge/acre/yr to supply nitrogen require-
ments, this translates to a 7.5- to 15-year life span
for application sites, and is certainly not cost effective.
Similar data collected for the states of Wisconsin,
Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, Minnesota, New Hampshire
and Ohio show that for the limitations of 5, 10 and 20 kg
Cd/ha, 50% of the sludges from these seven states could not
be applied at rates exceeding 30 total dry tons of sludge
to soils with a CEC of 5 meq/lOOg over the life of the site.
Even soils with CEC values of 20 would be restricted to total
sludge applications of 120 dry tons or less for sludges
from 50% of the cities in the states surveyed.
Using the proposed 1.25 kg Cd/ha before 1985 and 0.5 kg
Cd/ha after 1985, the following table shows that only two
states could apply over 17 dry tons per acre of sludge to
land in any given year before 1985; and after 1985, only
the state of New Hampshire could utilize sludge at rates
which would satisfy nitrogen requirements.
These limitations would eliminate the option of land
utilization of municipal sludges.
-------
EFFECTS OF PROPOSED EPA REGULATION ON THE ANNUAL
SLUDGE APPLICATION RATES IN SEVEN STATES
Annual Loading Limit for Cd
STATE kg/ha
2 1.25 0.5
dry tons sludge/acre/yr
Wisconsin
Michigan
New Jersey
New Hampshire
Indiana
Minnesota
Ohio
11.
5.
30.
86.
5.
13.
6
6
4
6
5
8
7
3
teV
3
*
d
.25
.5
~t/ t *\
r- d
"/
-^
r*
_6-r6- -8-r25
4- .
^
•J
'?
2
1
7
21
1
3
1
.9
.4
.6
.7
.37
.45
.15
Data from a ten-year research program sponsored
in part by the EPA and conducted by the University of Illinois,
Department of Agronomy, at their Elwood Research Farm, seven
ye,ars of data from the District's Hanover Park, Illinois,
Research Farm, and five years of data from the District's
Prairie Plan Facility in Fulton County, Illinois, have been
compiled using digested sludge having higher metal levels
and at loading rates several times higher than the proposed
EPA regulations would permit.
This data has demonstrated that sludge-borne Cd, applied
at annual rates of from 4 to 29 kg/ha for total cumulative
loading reaching 138 kg Cd/ha, has not caused phytotoxic con-
ditions in corn plants; neither has it caused grain Cd levels
to be excessive. In addition, data from the Dayton, Ohio,
Sewage Treatment Plant Farm demonstrate that after 35 years
and 780 total kg Cd/ha sludge grown corn grain had virtually
identical Cd content as conventionally fertilized corn grain.
The Elwood, Hanover Park, Fulton County Prairie Plan,
and Dayton, Ohio, data clearly show that the heavy metal
levels in sludge are not the limiting factor in determining
sludge application rates to soil.
-------
-10-
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The District recommends that based upon
the data compiled and presented from
District and University of Illinois
research, and the Dayton, Ohio, sewage
sludge farm, that annual sludge appli-
cation to agricultural soils be limited
by the nitrogen requirements of the crop.
2. For reclaiming stripped-mined land where
the buildup of the humus content of the
soil is critical for establishing vegetation,
the initial rate of sludge application
should be such as to achieve a 3 to 5 percent
organic matter content; following which,
the application rate should be adjusted to
be the same as for productive agricultural soils,
3. Since CEC has been shown to be of little
consequence with regard to either the re-
tention of the metals Zn, Cd, Cu, and Ni
in soils or in controlling their uptake by
plants, the District recommends that the use
of CEC as a controlling parameter for sludge
loading rates be abandoned.
Pathogens
The District agrees that municipal sludges applied
for agricultural purposes should be stabilized.
However, the District wishes to emphasize that no inci-
dents of disease have been documented from a planned and
properly operated sludge or sewage utilization facility.
Examples of such facilities are the EPA sponsored Muskegon,
Michigan, Spray Irrigation Project, the District's Prairie
Plan sludge utilization facility in Fulton County, Illinois,
and the Melbourne, Australia, sewage farm.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The District recommends that for sludges
which have been pasteurized, heat-treated
or composted, that no time restrictions
be imposed between application of sludge
and harvesting of crops.
-------
-11-
2. The District recommends that for sludges
stabilized by anaerobic or aerobic diges-
tion or other similar processes with no
lagoon storage, that a minimum of 120
days elapse between time of application
and harvest of crops to be eaten raw.
3. The District recommends that sludges
stabilized as in "2)" above and followed
by storage in lagoons, drying beds or other
suitable means for a minimum of 120 days,
that a minimum of 30 days should elapse
between time of application and harvest of
crops to be eaten raw.
Feasibility of Using An Industrial Waste Control
Ordinance to Reduce Sludge Cadmium Levels
There is a suggestion in the proposed Regulations that
compliance with the 25 ug/g cadmium limit can be achieved
through vigorous enforcement of an industrial waste control
or pretreatment ordinance. This goal, however, is not achiev-
able by the District and most other large sewage treatment
agencies. In the table below are shown data on the indus-
trial and non-industrial cadmium inputs to the District's
WSW and Calumet plants.
Cadmium Loadings to
MSDGC Treatment Plants
WSW CALUMET
Total Entering Plant* (Ib Cd/day) 216 14
Estimated Industrial Contri-
bution** (Ib Cd/day) 94 3.7
Industrial Contribution
(as % of Total) 43% 26%
*Average of 1975 and 1976 raw sewage values.
**Based on industrial waste field measurements.
-------
-12-
As can be seen, the industrial contribution to the WSW
and Calumet plants is 43% and 26%, respectively. Thus, the
major portions of the cadmium inputs to these plants originate
from sources which are not controllable by industrial waste
control or pretreatment ordinances. The WSW plant produces
Nu Earth, lagooned sludge, and heat-dried sludge; all of which
have cadmium contents greater than 150 ppm (dry weight).
It is, therefore, obvious that even with zero industrial
inputs, the 25 ug/g cadmium limit could never be achieved.
This zero input of industrial cadmium would permit loading
rates at Fulton County to increase from 0.70 to 1.0 dry ton/
acre after 1985, which is rather insignificant when compared
to our current annual rate which exceeds 20 tons/acre.
On page 4949 of the proposed Regulations, we find:
"FDA has stated that: 'While there is no
evidence that the present cadmium level in
the U.S. diet poses a health hazard now,
prudence dictates that new developments
should not be established on a large scale
that could cause a significant and possibly
irreversible increase of cadmiun in the
food supply.'"
With respect to the above, we contend that if the FDA
has determined that cadmium in crops represents a hazard,
potential or otherwise, then this Agency has the responsi-
bility to establish cadmium limitations for these crops
regardless of their method of fertilization, in much the
same manner that they have established pesticide limitations
for crops.
Again, on page 4950, we find:
"NOTE.—Comments are requested on how to
define comparability. Specifically, what
analysis, if any, should be performed on
the local crop or meat cadmium level monitor-
ing data in order to establish the maximum
allowable crop or meat cadmium levels per-
missible at a land application facility?"
With respect to this item, we again renew our contention
that the FDA develop national cadmium limits for specific
crops regardless of the mode of fertilization.
-------
-13-
Comparability
Studies by the District,and others, have shown that metals
levels, including cadmium of a specific crop specie, vary
greatly from farm to farm, and from region to region. Thus,
national distribution and marketing practices make available
to shoppers in all 50 states specific food products with
vastly different concentrations of a given metal; for example,
cadmium. Currently, the availability of foods in any location
is not determined by the comparability of their metals content
with similar foods grown or produced locally, regardless of
the metals content of the imported (produced outside the local
purchase area) food items, even though the imported food items
may contain metals content manyfold greater than those of
similar food items grown or produced locally.
We contend that the EPA's proposed concept of comparability
with locally produced crops will only result in inequitable
enforcement. We further contend that comparability can be
equitable only if all crops are required to meet a specified
limit for cadmium content; and all crops are included, regard-
less of their region of origin, or their mode of fertilization.
Regional Marketing
The concept of regional marketing is implied in the pro-
posed regulations. However, this concept is workable only
if the EPA abandons the FDA's policy of no incremental cad-
mium addition. For example, the District could offer regional
distribution, which on a statewide or countywide basis would
compare 1253 and 16.97 million bushels of corn, respectively,
to the District's production of under 40,000 bushels. However,
while analytically incremental cadmium additions could not
be determined, one could always calculate mathematically such
incremental additions even with these large ratios.
While the combined concept of comparability and regional
marketing are desirable, they can be made workable only if
the obstacles cited are removed, namely: (a) comparability
must be on the basis of a single national standard for all
crops of the same specie grown nationally, regardless of the
mode of fertilization and not on the basis of crops grown
locally; and (b) regional marketing must be free from the
condition of no incremental cadmium addition.
-------
-14-
Land Reclamation
The EPA proposed annual and total cadmium application
limitations are area dependent limitations and do not relate
to the depth which the sludge-borne cadmium can be incorporated
into the soil. This dependence on area alone and the lack
of depth dependence only serves to illustrate the arbitrary
nature of the EPA regulations. Many municipalities, including
the District, are using or planning to use municipal sludge
for reclaiming stripped-mined lands where such sludge is
incorporated deeply into the soil. The proposed regulations
would preclude the reclamation of these lands.
Some provision for such incorporation must be provided
in the proposed regulations.
Soil Scientists consider the plow layer to be the top
15 to 20 cm (6 to 8 inches) of soil. This depth is the usual
extent of tillage for row crop production. The bulk of the
root growth is the top 15 to 20 cm of soil depth for field
crops, such as corn, and 8 cm for sod crops.
The proposed EPA total and annual cadmium application
limitations are surface-related and do not even address this
15 to 20 cm plow layer. The proposed regulations must provide
a mechanism to take into account depth of sludge incorporation
in the soil. This will allow the use of municipal sludge for
land reclamation activities.
District research indicates that about 300 T/a (624 mT/ha)
of sludge are required to restore the organic content of stripped
-mined soils to a level which will permit their return to
productive agricultural activities or maintain permanent
revegetation. With the amounts of barren and stripped-mined
land in the United States, the use of municipal sludge for
such purposes warrants consideration by the EPA. Without such
a. change in the regulations, they are arbitrary and will pre-
clude municipalities from land reclamation activities.
Institutional
On page 4949, we find the following:
"At this time the criteria only address cadmium,
pathogens, pesticides, persistent organic, and
direct ingestion of waste. The criteria will be
revised in the future to address other metals,
organics,and compounds as more information becomes
available on the human health implications of
their application to land..." (Emphasis added)
-------
-15-
The above procedure is simply a 1978 edition of the
Hydra-headed monster; which, in itself, is sufficient to
eliminate sludge utilization since no operating agency of
the size of Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Milwaukee,
etc. can afford to commit taxpayers money to facilities which
could cost upwards of $300 million when the effective operating
life of these facilities are likely to be far less than the
time required to design, fund, and construct them.
Cadmium is present in virtually all foods in the American
diet. Certain soils, particularly in the state of California,
which produce a great deal of the vegetables consumed in the
American diet have high natural cadmium content; and food
chain crops grown on these soils have been shown to produce
food products much higher in cadmium content than foods pro-
duced elsewhere. It certainly is discriminatory and at best
irrational for the EPA to single out sludge application to
land as the source to be controlled, if indeed there is a
need for control in the first place, in view of the fact
that less than 1% of the productive lands could ever be involved.
If cadmium in foods is a hazard, then the rational and
responsible approach would be for the EPA and/or FDA to establish
criteria for permissible cadmium levels in all crops. This
is the only approach which will insure that all producers of
foods will be equitably governed by standards designed to
"protect public health."
Current District Solids Utilization Program
It has been determined and so documented below that the
proposed EPA regulations will severely impact the Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago's (District) solids
utilization program. The District currently is utilizing
aged digested sludge from its WSW plant for land application
in Fulton County where mainly corn, wheat, and forages are
grown on former stripped-mined land. This amounts to about
200 dry tons/day. The District's Nu Earth program results
in a give-away of approximately 47,000 dry tons per year of
aged air-dried Imhoff sludge to local citizens for various
uses, including top dressing for lawns, nursery stock, and
vegetable gardens. Our lagoon sludge program involves the
distribution of 69,000 dry tons/year of stress dewatered,
lagooned sludge for various uses, including sod farming and
cover material for landfills. Heat-dried sludge from the
WSW plant, amounting to approximately 48,000 dry tons/year,
is sold to a broker for subsequent distribution to citrus
growers and fertilizer formulators. All of these programs
will be adversely impacted by the proposed EPA regulations.
-------
-16-
Impact Upon Fulton County Operations
Sludge application in 1977 at Fulton County averaged 23
dry tons per acre. If the EPA regulations are imposed, this
application rate will immediately drop to about 2.8 dry tons
per acre through 1981, 2.2 dry tons per acre from 1982-1985,
and 0.7 dry tons per acre after 1985. Total lifetime sludge
application for Fulton County where the soil CEC is greater
than 15 would be limited to 27.7 dry tons per acre. It is
obvious that most of the existing land at Fulton County could
not receive further sludge application without being in vio-
lation of the proposed regulations, and that new land would
have to be purchased immediately.
In Table 1 is a compilation of the cost impact of the
proposed regulations for Fulton County. As can be seen, cur-
rent Fulton County costs (using 20 dry tons/acre/year appli-
cation) are $8.67/wet ton or an annual (1977) cost of $18.8
million. In order to be in compliance through December 31,
1981, we would need to immediately purchase an additional 82,000
acres of land at Fulton County. By 1985, because of the pro-
gressively lower yearly application rate, 331,000 additional
acres would be needed; and unit costs would exceed $51.37/wet
ton or an annual cost of $111.7 million. The cost impact
would be severe, and would preclude any further consideration
of this sludge utilization method for the future. The present
Fulton County operation will become economically prohibitive
before December 31, 1981, if these proposed regulations are
adopted.
Impact Upon Nu Earth Program
The Nu Earth program in 1977 resulted in the distribution
of 47,000 dry tons to the public. Nu Earth contains cadmium
which exceeds the limitation of 25 ppm. Nu Earth is used
by local citizens as a top dressing for lawns, and for fertiliz-
ing nursery stock, vegetables, and root crops. Implementation
of the proposed regulations would result in the reduction
of current distribution to 7,000 dry tons per year, or less
than 15% of current levels.
Impact Upon Stress Dewatered, Lagooned Sludge
Lagooned sludge contains more than the proposed limit
of 25 ppm cadmium, and, therefore, would be impacted in a
similar manner to Nu Earth. Distribution of lagooned sludge
would be reduced from 69,000 to 10,000 dry tons/year, or less
than 15% of current levels.
-------
-17-
o
o
u
H
33
CJ
05
W
EH
W
CJ
fn
,~)
O
- (
,j
I
1
',i
tc!
rf
EH
H
r3
fS,
W
2
EH
H
O
a.
o
pq
g
^
4J
C
3
O
CJ
C
O
4-1
rH
3
^
O
01
4-1
01
O
CJ
e
i-H IB
^_j
W tr>
^ 0
CQ rl
CN
CM
ro
rH
CM
co o in
o
CM O CPi
rH
O CO
CN
(U >H
4J >H 13
(8 ^x £3 01
K 0) (8 CU
CO O
0 i T3 tT -H 15
an -d CD c \
•
k£
in
^t
•*
(N
*3*
t--
un
CO
CO
to-
ol ro
-P 0
01 rH
0
CJ X
rH (H
IB IB
3 Q)
C >H
C \
i< v>
•
M
IB
CU
^i
\
01
C
O
4-1
-P
CU
u
o
o
o
in
r—
""^
CM
C
O
•a
CU
01
IB
01
4-1
01
O
O
rH
IB
3
C
C
ft,
-------
-18-
Impact on Heat-Dried Sludge Distribution
Heat-dried sludge is sold to a broker for subsequent
distribution to various users where it is mainly used for
citrus crops, and as a base for various fertilizer formulations.
Because of the 25 ppm limit imposed by the proposed regula-
tions, heat-dried sludge distribution will be severely impacted,
since it contains cadmium exceeding this limitation. It is
estimated that heat-dried sludge distribution will be reduced
from 48,000 to 7,000 dry tons per year, or less than 15%
of current levels.
Alternative Disposal Methods
Reduced distribution of Nu Earth, lagooned sludge, and
heat-dried sludge will result in an additional 140,000 dry
tons per year of sludge to be disposed of. Available manage-
ment options here would include expansion of the Fulton County
operations or incineration with landfilling of the residue.
Expansion of Fulton County - Assuming that the Fulton
County operation continues despite the high costs noted pre-
viously, then expansion to accommodate this 140,000 tons
annually would require 200,000 more acres or 613,000 total
acres, and a total annual expenditure of about $144 million
as against the current (1977) $18.857 million.
Incineration - While this option is not now foreclosed
by regulations, its availability is purely academic since
the District's fuel allocation priority does not permit
consideration of this option; and further, since a new air
pollution source of this magnitude is not likely to be approved
within metropolitan Chicago.
Groundwater Quality
The District does not accept the concept of groundwater
monitoring on all sludge land utilization sites. The fact
that the sludge is being utilized as a crop nutrient at safe
agricultural rates will insure that there will be no mass
movement of excessive concentrations of pollutants to vital
aquifers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Only agricultural sites of greater than 500 acres
(200 hectares) be considered for periodic water monitor-
ing and that landfill and agricultural sites be clearly
differentiated in these regulations.
-------
-19-
Institutional Considerations
MANDATORY REVIEW
The current EPA regulations are not based upon valid
scientific information, and, in fact, are contrary to research
data being developed from many sludge application projects
throughout the United States. Thus, these long-term regula-
tions, as proposed, are inappropriate at this time. The
District, therefore, recommends mandatory revision of the
Regulations no later than five years after adoption with
ample provision for public scrutiny at open hearings.
INTERIM REGULATIONS
The District has recommended that the EPA and/or FDA
establish permissible levels of cadmium for various crops;
however, the District recognizes that it will take some time
to develop these permissible levels. Therefore, in addition
to mandatory review, we also recommend that the EPA develop
interim regulations. Without interim regulations, there
are likely to be serious national and local implications.
For example, at the national level, the Administration's
policies relative to energy conservation, resource recovery
and reuse, and reclamation of stripped-mined lands could
be frustrated.
At the local level, the implications are:
6 Premature foreclosure of the land
utilization option.
b. ^erious disruption of short- and long-
term planning by local governments.
c. Loss of funding, since local agencies
cannot fund on a contingency basis.
d. County governments' fear of increased
land holdings by a "foreign" govern-
ment, and with specific regard to
the MSDGC's Fulton County project.
e. The loss of the nation's only
long-term, large-scale controlled
sludge recycle project.
-------
-20-
Interim regulations would also permit a more orderly
transition between options, should the determination be made
that such transitions are necessary or desirable. The
District is currently preparing specific recommendations
for interim regulations, which could be made available to
the Agency prior to the conclusion of these hearings.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The EPA must also consider the national economic impact
of the currently proposed Regulations prior to adoption
and implementation. The District estimates that in 1985,
if these Regulations were not adopted, annual sludge
disposal costs would amount to less than $1.0 billion.
However, if these Regulations are adopted as proposed,
the 1985 sludge disposal costs are estimated for the
United States to be about $6.0 billion; or almost a five-
fold increase. Clearly, the EPA must consider these factors
before finalization of the proposed Regulations.
INFLATION
The EPA Regulations certainly will rule out economic
viability for utilizing Illinois sludges on land. In
fact, the District believes these restrictions are ab-
solutely inflationary.
If the long-term cadmium restrictions become fully
effective during the next seven years, the District's
costs for solids management will increase sixfold.
Thus the District believes that in accordance with
"The Inflation Impact Statement Requirements of Executive
Order of 11821 and The Office of Management and Budget's
Circular A-107," the USEPA has an obligation to con-
duct an Inflation Impact Study prior to adoption of
these regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The District recommends that the USEPA
conduct an Inflation Impact Study prior to
the adoption of these Regulations.
-------
-21-
PLANNING
In the proposed Regulations, the Agency expresses
its intent to include additional restrictions on other
metals and organics. This action will only serve to make
the Regulations more restrictive, and more difficult for
municipal agencies to plan and design sludge management
projects.
The planning involved in the design and construction
of public works facilities which must have useful life
spans, as long as 40 years, is difficult enough without
having to plan on the basis of Regulations in a state
of flux.
A typical example of the planning and design diffi-
culties imposed by changing EPA rules and regulations on
municipal sludge utilization projects is the situation
that exists at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant
in Washington, D. C. (See "Report to the Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago on Sludge Disposal
at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington,
D.C., by Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., Dated
April 11, 1978," in Appendix E).
The Blue Plains plant is a regional facility which
treats sewage from the District of Columbia, and ad-
joining sections of Maryland and Virginia. The attempts
at planning and implementing short- and long-term sludge
disposal and utilization programs for this facility offer
excellent samples of the difficulties caused by changing
Federal governmental regulations.
In 1972, a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
was prepared by the EPA for the Blue Plains plant. The
District of Columbia had requested that the Blue Plains
plant include multiple hearth incinerators for sludge
disposal. The final EIS prepared by the EPA requested
a delay of the planned incinerator complex, and that no
costs be incurred for incinerators. The EIS concluded
that more time was needed before the EPA could approve
the installation of incinerators.
-------
-22-
rfince the 1972 final EIS, there has been a series of
studies commissioned by the EPA and the District of Columbia
to evaluate sludge disposal or utilization techniques, such
as land application, composting, flash drying, pyrolysis,
and incineration.
The present situation regarding sludge disposal at
Blue Plains is not significantly clearer than in 1972 when
the final EIS was proposed. As of this date:
a. No long-term solution has been reached.
b. Design and costing of the proposed
incinerators have not been finalized.
c. Methods and locations for short-term
sludge disposal are not certain.
d. Methods and location for long-term dis-
posal have not been decided.
e. Lengthy proceedings will be required
for regulatory acceptance of incineration.
Further, delays in developing and implementing an accep-
table program for sludge disposal will cause delays in start-
iinj up the Blue Plains tertiary treatment plant, since sludge
quantities are expected to double.
During tne entire period since 1972, there was very
little support by the EPA. In the Blue Plains search for
a sludge disposal alternative, EPA took the position of promul-
gating regulations and reacting to actions of the principal
jurisdictions in the Blue Plains drainage basin. The EPA
consistently impeded the design and construction of sludge
incinerators for the Blue Plains plant because of possible
air pollution problems, while at-the same time raising objec-
tions to suggested alternatives such as land application and
composting. In short, the District of Columbia has been forced
\vith trying to plan, design and construct a sludge disposal
system in the face of ever-changing regulations. The end
result of this saga is the lack of an approved sludge disposal
plan for the Washington, D. C. plant even though the District
of Columbia sought EPA approval as early as April, 1972.
-------
-23-
The District welcomes this opportunity to comment on
the proposed regulations. If any questions develop, they
may be referred to my office.
Very truly yours,
Bart T. Lynam
General Superintendent
BTL:CLH:ema
Board of Commissioners/Mr. Farnan
Lue-Hing/Rimkus/Neil/Lavin
Mr. Harold Cahill, Director
Municipal Construction Div., WSME 1139
USEPA/Waterside Mall WH447
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mrs. Rome
-------
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
SUITE 200, 1015 18th ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C 20036 (202) 659-9161
City i
MEMBER AGENCIES
(March, IITf)
Grutir AKhiritt Are* Birtifk, AK
City if PMiiix, AZ
City if THIII, U
City it L.I Aifelii, CA
duty Smtitiai Districts if
in Aifiiti ctnty, CA
EMt In MMiCiplI Utility Diltrict
Oikliri. C*
CmtT Siutitiit Districts
if Orain ClMlty, CA
City if SicrameMi, CA
duty if SKFMeiU, CA
city if sn Dun, c*
City ni C.ntj if S» Fnietsci, CA
Citj if Sli Jill, U
MctripiliUi Oeivir Stwi|t
9np«»l District Hi 1. CO
Tfei MetTDMlitll Btttfttt
(KirtfirC Cmty), GT
MiiMi-Dilt Witcr IN
Stwtr AHthintl, FL
City if Atliitl, CA
CiuRty if HHilili, Nl
iMlitii SmUnr Dittrict
•f Greiter Chrcifi, IL
City if IriiMiphi, IN
City if Wichita, KS
Ltitiiillt >*t Jtffiftii duty
MitripihtM Sewer Dittrict, KY
City If Biltiain, MB
WisMltii (D C.) SMhirku
SinUrj CliMiitill, MD
Mitnptlitii District
CMmum (Diitii), MA
Ditriit Mitri Witir Dept, Ml
Ciuit} if Wiyn, Ml
Nttrepil'tn Sewtr MiN
(MiHtipalit-St fu\), MH
City if Kmii City, MD
MetnpiliU* SL Lint
Siwtr District, MO
City if OMihi, ME
Btr(» Ciiity Smr
Aithinty, NJ
MiMlesei duty
Sewirait Aitlwritr. NJ
P«snc Vilter Stwirifi
Cinmisinitri, NI
Citj if Htw Virk, NV
Ctty If Gruitkiri, NG
Mitriiilitii Sewer District
if Criitir Ciicnuti, OH
ClneDcf Re[nul Sewer District, OH
City if Cilnhm, ON
City if Diytii, OH
City if PirtlHl, OK
AiUinty, PA
City if Pkilifelphu, PA
City if PumtfeKi, II
City if Meapln, TN
Mitripilitin CcverMitt it
fillt U* Bmlsei Ciuity, TN
City it Dilln, TX
City if Firt Wtrtt, n
Git} if HiHstii, TX
HMptii Hirft
Sllititui District, VA
City if Ckirlistii, WV
Metropilitai Sewtr District
* till Ciuitf •( Uitwiukn, Wi
STATEMENT OF
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
REGARDING
"SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES -
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA OF THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -
FEDERAL REGISTER, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1978, PART II"
Presented at
Public Hearings
April 17, 1978
Chicago, Illinois
-------
STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
REGARDING, "SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES - PROPOSED
CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY - FEDERAL REGISTER,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1978, PART II"
Presented by:
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing
Director of Research and Development Department
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
at
Public Hearings
April 17, 1978
Chicago, Illinois
-------
STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
REGARDING, "SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES - PROPOSED
CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY - FEDERAL REGISTER,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1978, PART II"
Introduction
On February 6, 1978, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register (Vol.
43, No. 25, pages 4942-4955) its "Proposed Classification
Criteria; Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" (regulations).
These EPA regulations were promulgated under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as amended by the Resource and Recovery Act of
1976. Under the 1976 Act, all facilities which do not meet
these regulations are prohibited. Within one year of the
promulgation of the final regulations (the February 6, 1978,
regulations are proposed), EPA will publish a list of inventory
of all facilities which do not comply with the regulations.
All new facilities must comply with the regulations, while
existing facilities not in compliance will be closed or upgraded
according to a state-established compliance schedule, but the
time of compliance cannot exceed 5 years from the date of
publication of the EPA inventory. The existing facility not
in compliance must, however, first show that no alternative
which complies with the regulations can be utilized.
These regulations "apply to the land disposal of sludge
resulting from the treatment of domestic sewage." This is done
by defining solid waste to be "sludge from a waste treatment
-------
-2-
plant." Sludge is defined as "liquid waste . . . from a
municipal . . . wastewater treatment plant."
It is obvious that these regulations are intended to cover
both landfill and sludge utilization operations, and will have
a far reaching impact upon municipal wastewater treatment agencies,
since this will be the first comprehensive set of regulations to
be enacted at the Federal level which deals with these two issues.
Today, I will discuss those areas in the regulations which are of
concern to the membership of the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA).
Use of Landfill Regulations for Controlling Sludge Utilization
Projects
On page 4943 of the proposed regulations, the rationale for
establishment of the regulations is based upon possible "improper
disposal of solid waste" and the need to control such improper
disposal. In actuality, these reasons refer only to land filling
of solid wastes and not to municipal sludge application to land.
We can find no justification for using landfill regulations
for the purpose of controlling sludge utilization projects. These
two methods of dealing with municipal sludge are completely
different. Land fills are not sludge utilization sites but
rather sludge disposal sites. In landfills, sludges and other
solid wastes are merely stored at these sites where sludge/solid
wastes quantities are large and concentrated in a small area.
No beneficial use of the sludge occurs at landfills.
-------
-3-
The fertilization of crops and plants with municipal sludge
utilizes the nutrients present for a beneficial purpose. By
using appropriate nutrient loading rates, the requirements for
environmental protection are much different than those for land-
fills.
It is recommended that sludge utilization regulations be
separated from the landfill regulations and that sludge
utilization regulations reflect the beneficial utilization
aspects of sludge fertilization of crops.
Impact on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Agencies
Data collected from the States of Wisconsin, Michigan,
Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio show that for the EPA total
cadmium application limits of 5, 10, and 20 kg/ha, 50% of the
sludge from these states could not be applied at more than 30
tons/acre (lifetime) to soils with a CEC of 5 or less. Even
soils with CEC values over 20 would be restricted to total
sludge applications of 120 dry tons or less for 50% of the
cities in these states.
If one considers a sludge application rate of 15 tons/acre,
which is a moderate nitrogen application rate and subjects this
rate to the EPA annual application limit of 0.5 kg Cd/ha, then
the sludge cadmium concentration cannot exceed 15 mg/kg. In a
survey of the States of Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan,
Ohio, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, only about 30% of the
facilities in these states produced sludge with cadmium levels
-------
-4-
below 14 mg/kg. In other words, only about 30% of the facilities
could apply sludge (at 15 tons/acre) to satisfy crop nitrogen
needs.
The EPA regulations restrict applications for leafy vegetables,
root crops, and tobacco to sludges with a cadmium concentration
of 25 mg/kg or less. Only about 50% of the cities surveyed in
Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey and
New Hampshire could meet this restriction.
It should be clear that the proposed regulations will
severely impact a high percentage of municipal treatment agencies,
particularly those larger agencies which together produce the
major portion of municipal sludges nationwide.
Sale of Bagged or Bulk Dried Sludge
There are municipal agencies such as the Milwaukee
Sewerage Commission, the Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago, and the City of Houston, which market
a dried sludge product on a national basis. The proposed
regulations can be interpreted to mean that such marketing
must cease since these products have a cadmium level above
25 mg/kg.
The products are marketed nationally, and are utilized
on an insignificant portion of U.S. agricultural land. It
is recommended that such products be exempted from the
proposed EPA regulations.
-------
-5-
Impact on Agricultural Lands
It has been demonstrated that if all municipal sludge
produced in the U.S. were placed upon croplands at nitrogen
application rates, less than 1% of the croplands would be
involved. The actual impact would be even less, since some
sludge will always be disposed of by other means. For example,
in the state of Illinois, under similar circumstances, less
than 0.25% of available croplands would be impacted.
Alternative Sludge Disposal Methods
The impact from the EPA regulations as noted above will be
severe, and many municipalities will simply be precluded from
applying sludge for agricultural use since they generate sludges
with greater than 25 mg/kg of cadmium. Many municipalities will
be forced to other sludge disposal methods simply because it
will not be economical to apply sludge at the rates dictated
by the EPA proposed regulations. The regulations would force
these agencies to continuously acquire new lands when total
application limits are reached, and to supplement annual sludge
applications with chemical fertilizer, since they will not be
able to satisfy crop nutrient requirements. For many, the land
application alternate will no longer be viable under such
conditions.
Clearly, then, other means of sludge disposal will be
utilized; and, therefore, the impact of these alternatives, both
economic and public health, must be considered by the EPA as well.
-------
-6-
Incineration requires large amounts of energy, emits metals
to the atmosphere, and requires landfill area for ash disposal.
Studies conducted by the Rockford Sanitary District show that
at 1000°F (typical incineration temperature) over 90% of the
sludge cadmium is volatilized. Studies done by Williams et al.
at the Denmark Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University
indicate that at 1652°F over 85% of sludge cadmium is volatilized.
The data clearly shows that sludge cadmium will be emitted to the
atmosphere in large quantities if sludge incineration is utilized.
Ocean disposal is not available to many cities and will be
banned by the EPA after 1981. Landfilling destroys the nutrients
in the sludge, and there is often not enough land available in
and around large cities to dispose of even solid wastes let alone
municipal sludge.
This serves to illustrate the problems created when regulations
do not recognize the relative risks or environmental trade-offs
involved in establishing sludge management choices. Regulations
should prescribe reasonable protection of the environment and
public health, not overprotection to the point of elimination
of the most environmentally acceptable choice.
Feasibility of Using Industrial Waste Control Ordinance to
Reduce Sludge Cadmium Levels
There is a suggestion in the proposed regulations on page
4950 that compliance with the 25 ppm cadmium limit can be achieved
through vigorous enforcement of an industrial waste control or
-------
-7-
pretreatment ordinance. This goal, however, is not achievable
by many sewage treatment agencies and the suggestion is, therefore,
misleading. A survey of industrial waste inputs in Chicago, New
York, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, shows that about 60% of
cadmium inputs to treatment plants are from non-industrial sources.
Therefore, even if many sewage treatment agencies adopt a zero
industrial discharge limit for cadmium to the sewer, they will
still be unable to reduce cadmium levels to the proposed EPA
limit of 25 mg/kg or to benefit from any substantial increases
in yearly or total sludge application rates.
While the membership of AMSA supports the goal of reducing
metals through pretreatment, we believe that it is counter-
productive to attempt to achieve this goal by way of sludge
utilization regulations.
Comparison of Proposed Cadmium Restrictions with Available
Agricultural Research
Inherent in the regulations is the concept that plant cadmium
uptake can be controlled via annual and total cadmium applications
and that soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a significant
factor in crop metal uptake. Since 1968, the Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, the USEPA, the University
of Illinois Department of Agronomy, and more recently the East
Bay Municipal Utility District have conducted large-scale research
studies on sludge application to land. These studies have revealed
that total sludge application to land has little influence upon
-------
crop metal uptake and that soil CEC has little consequence with
regard to either the retention of cadmium in the soil or impacting
its uptake by plants. In other words, the bases for the regulations
which are designed to control sludge metal uptake by plants are
invalid.
Cadmium in the American Diet
The intent of the EPA regulations is to limit the amount of
cadmium in the diet and more specifically to prevent an increase
in the current levels. However, this aim is not consistent with
the regulations that are being adopted.
Cadmium is present in virtually all foods in the American
diet. Certain soils, particularly in the State of California,
which produce much of the vegetables consumed in the American
diet have high natural cadmium content, and food chain crops
grown on these soils have been shown to produce food products
much higher in cadmium content than foods produced elsewhere.
It certainly is discriminatory, or at best irrational, for the
EPA to single out sludge application to land as the source to be
controlled, if indeed there is a need for control in the first
place, in view of the fact that much less than 1% of the
productive lands could ever be involved.
If cadmium in foods is a hazard, then the rational and
responsible approach would be for the EPA and/or FDA to
establish criteria for permissible cadmium levels in all crops
-------
-9-
regardless of their mode of fertilization. This is the only
approach which will insure that all producers of foods will be
equitably governed by national standards designed to protect
public health.
Comparability
Studies have shown that metals levels - including cadmium -
in a specific crop specie vary greatly from farm to farm, and
from region to region. Thus, national distribution and marketing
practices make available to shoppers in all 50 states specific
food products with vastly different concentrations of a given
metal; for example, cadmium.
A comparability based upon a safe range of cadmium
concentrations in various food products on a national level
would be more realistic and achievable, since food products are
shipped throughout the nation from various agricultural areas.
These ranges could be set by the EPA and/or FDA and would be
designed to protect the American diet from the so-called cadmium
hazard. If the EPA or FDA has determined that cadmium in crops
represents a hazard, then these Agencies have the responsibility
to establish cadmium limits for all crops regardless of their
method of fertilization in much the same manner as limits have
been established for pesticides in foods and crops.
Land Reclamation
The EPA proposed annual and total cadmium application
-------
-10-
limitations are area-dependent limitations and do not relate to
the depth which the sludge-borne cadmium can be incorporated
into the soil. This dependence on area alone and the lack of
depth dependence only serves to illustrate the arbitrary nature
of the EPA regulations. Some municipalities have the opportunity
to use municipal sludge for reclaiming stripped-mined lands where
such sludge is incorporated deeply into the soil. The proposed
regulations would preclude the reclamation of these lands.
Some provision for such incorporation must be provided in
the proposed regulations. This will permit the use of municipal
sludge for the reclamation of stripped-mined lands.
Research indicates that about 300 dry tons/acre of sludge
are required to restore the organic content of stripped-mined
soils to a level which will permit their return to productive
agricultural activities or support permanent vegetation. With
the amounts of barren and stripped-mined land in the United
States, the use of municipal sludge for such purposes warrants
consideration by the EPA. Without such a change in the regulations,
they are arbitrary and will preclude municipalities from engaging
in land reclamation activities.
The proposed regulations require that soil pH be maintained
at 6.5 or above. This is a major obstacle to AMSA members with
programs to reclaim stripped-mined lands. Such soils will be
impossible to maintain at or above pH 6.5 during the reclamation
process and even after reclamation is accomplished. Depending
-------
-11-
upon the crop to be grown, it is not always necessary to maintain
pH above 6.5. It is recommended that soil/sludge pH should be
established on the basis of cropping systems, and the type of
soil receiving sludge application. Acid stripped-mined reclamation
should be exempt from soil/sludge pH limitations.
Groundwater
The EPA regulations on groundwater appear to be based upon
concern for groundwater pollution from sludge utilization
projects, and will severely restrict the location options for
sludge utilization projects. The evidence is clear from
several research studies that groundwater is not affected in
land application areas even if the sludge is applied above
crop nitrogen rates. There is no reason to prevent sludge
application to land based upon groundwater restrictions provided
that sludge is applied at crop nitrogen rates and that precautions
are taken, such as the sealing of abandoned wells and control of
excessive runoff, etc.
Flexibility of Regulations
The high degree of specificity in the proposed EPA regulations
leaves little room for meaningful state participation in the
development of regulations specific to their own situations. The
nature of sludge application to land is too complex to regulate
unless the states can be given flexibility in controlling
application for their own site-specific situation.
-------
-12-
INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Mandatory Review
We believe that the current EPA regulations are not based
upon valid scientific information and, in fact, are contrary to
research data being developed from many sludge application
projects throughout the United States. Thus,we believe that
long-term regulations as proposed are inappropriate at this time.
We, therefore, recommend mandatory revision of the Regulations
no later than 5 years after adoption with ample provision for
public scrutiny at open hearings.
Economic Impact
The EPA must also consider the national economic impact of
the currently proposed Regulations prior to adoption and
implementation and in this regard, AMSA would be happy to
cooperate in such a study. We estimate that in 1985, if these Regu-
lations were not to be adopted, annual sludge disposal costs would
amount to less than 1.0 billion dollars. However, if these
Regulations are adopted as proposed, we estimate the 1985
sludge disposal costs for the United States to be about 6.0 bil-
lion dollars, almost a fivefold increase. Clearly, the EPA
must consider these factors before finalization of the proposed
Regulations.
Inflationary Impact
In accordance with "The Inflation Impact Statement Requirements
-------
-13-
of Executive Order of 11821 and the Office of Management and
Budget's Circular A-107" we believe that the USEPA has an
obligation to conduct an Inflation Impact Study.
Certainly our estimate of a fivefold increase in sludge
utilization costs through the year 1985 indicates that these
Regulations will have a severe inflationary impact on the
wastewater treatment industry and ultimately the U.S. economy.
Planning
On page 4449 of the proposed regulations, the EPA states
that "—the criteria will be revised in the future to address
other metals etc.—." This statement only serves to preclude
any opportunity for meaningful long-term planning by AMSA
members involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Since AMSA
members cannot consider capital expenditure for facilities with
less than 25 years operating life, the proposed Regulations will
effectively eliminate the sludge utilization option.
CASE STUDY - IMPACT UPON THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO
My preceding arguments have been general in nature but serve
to illustrate what I believe to be the major objections of AMSA
members. However, I would like to conclude my remarks with the
discussion of a very specific situation.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
(District) is the largest municipal sewage treatment agency in
-------
-14-
the U.S. It treats over 1.4 billion gallons of sewage per day
and has sludge production of nearly 600 dry tons per day. I
am currently Director of Research and Development for that
Agency. In the sections that follow, I will illustrate some
of the impacts of the EPA proposed Regulations on the District.
This, I think, gives a case study of the impact of these Regu-
lations on a municipal treatment agency.
The District currently is utilizing aged, digested sludge
from its WSW plant for land application in Fulton County where
mainly corn and soybeans are grown on previously stripped-mined
land. This amounts to about 200 dry tons/day. The District's
Nu Earth program results in a give-away of approximately 47,000
dry tons per year of aged, air-dried Imhoff digested sludge
to local citizens for various uses, including home gardens, top
dressing for lawns, and use for nursery stock. Our lagooned sludge
program involves the distribution of 69,000 dry tons/year of
stress dewatered, lagoon sludge for various uses, including sod
farming and cover material for landfills. Heat-dried sludge
from the WSW plant - amounting to approximately 48,000 dry
tons/year - is sold to a broker for subsequent distribution
to citrus growers and fertilizer formulators.
All of these programs will be adversely impacted by the
proposed EPA regulations. Distribution of Nu Earth, lagooned
sludge, and heat-dried sludge will be reduced to 7,000, 10,000,
and 7,000 dry tons per year, respectively, or to less than 15
percent of the current levels for all three sludges.
-------
-15-
Impact Upon Fulton County Operations
Sludge application in 1977 at Fulton County averaged 23
dry tons per acre. If the EPA regulations are adopted as pro-
posed, this application rate would have to immediately drop
to about 2.8 dry tons per acre through 1981, 2.2 dry tons per
acre from 1982 to 1985 and 0.7 dry tons per acre after 1985.
Total lifetime sludge application for Fulton County - where the
soil CEC is greater than 15 - would be limited to 27.7 dry tons
per acre. It is obvious that most of the existing land at
Fulton County could not receive further sludge application with-
out being in violation of the proposed regulations, and that
new land would have to be purchased immediately.
Current Fulton County costs (using 20 dry tons/acre/year
application) are $8.67/wet ton or an annual (1977) cost of 18.8
million dollars. In order to be in compliance through December
31, 1981, we would need to immediately purchase an additional
82,000 acres of land at Fulton County. By 1985, because of the
progressively lower yearly application rate, 331,000 additional
acres would be needed; and unit costs would exceed $51.37/wet
ton or an annual cost of 111.7 million dollars, which is already
more than our total 1978 Corporate Budget. The cost impact
would obviously be severe and would preclude any further considera-
tion of this sludge utilization method for the future. The Fulton
County operation itself will become economically prohibitive
before December 31, 1981, if these proposed regulations are adopted.
-------
-16-
Mternative Disposal Methods - Chicago (MSDGC)
Reduced distribution of Nu Earth, lagooned sludge, and
heat-dried sludge will result in an additional 140,000 dry
tons per year of. sludge to be disposed of. Available management
options here would include expansion of the Fulton County opera-
tions or incineration with landfilling of the residue.
Expansion of Fulton County - Assuming that the Fulton
County operation continues despite the high costs noted previous-
ly, then expansion to accommodate this 140,000 tons annually
would require 200,000 more acres or 613,000 total acres and
a total annual expenditure of about 144 million dollars as against
the current (1977) costs of 18.857 million dollars.
Incineration - While this option is not now foreclosed
by regulations, its availability is purely academic, since the
District's fuel allocation priority does not permit considera-
tion of this option; and further, a new air pollution source
of this magnitude is not likely to be approved within the metro-
politan Chicago area.
-------
Land Application
of Sewage Sludge
April 1978
imenr
Suite2610 - 69E-.isJ VanBufon Stroet/Chicago IHmas6060*>'Admirtilr alive 312939 1984/Rese*cfi 3)2939-1530
-------
Report Filed
on Behalf of
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
by
DANA DAVOLI, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist
and
BILL FORCADE
Staff Attorney
on the
Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Classification
Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
April 21, 1978
Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), a not-for-profit corporation devoted to
eliminating pollution and achieving a healthy environment, appreciates this
opportunity to file its report on the U.S. EPA's Proposed Classification Criteria for
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Our remarks will be limited to those sections of
the proposed rule dealing with the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land.
Application of Sludge on Land Used to Grow Crops
Directly Consumed by Humans
CONTROL OF CADMIUM
In its proposed rule, the U.S. EPA has developed regulations for facilities that
produce food chain crops; these include specific criteria for the management of
cadmium. Two approaches to control this metal are proposed:
1. The first approach includes four criteria (limits on cadmium loading and
pH) to minimize the uptake of cadmium.
2. The second approach relies on monitoring of cadmium levels in crops
grown on sludge-treated land.
After reviewing the available data, CBE feels that neither of these approaches is
adequate to protect the public health. Instead, we encourage EPA to prohibit the
use of sludge on agricultural land. Sludge application to land should be permitted
only for the purposes of land reclamation, enhancement of parks and forests, and
other non-agricultural uses.
THE TOXICITY OF CADMIUM
Cadmium is a non-essential metal that is absent from the body at birth, but which
accumulates with age, mainly in the kidneys and liver. The major source of
cadmium uptake for humans is through foods; however, air, water, and cigarettes
also contribute.
-1-
-------
CBE-7811
In humans, easily observable kidney damage occurs when the level of cadmium in
the kidney reaches 200 ppm; as yet a "no effect" level has not been demonstrated.
Laboratory studies on rats have shown biochemical abnormalities in kidneys at
levels as low as 90 ppm (1, 2).
The U.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group has recently reviewed laboratory
studies of animals and epidemiological studies of humans and has concluded that
cadmium is an oncogen (a tumor-producing substance) (3). In addition, the Office
of Special Pesticide Reviews (U.S. EPA) has prepared a position document on
cadmium in which they have concluded that cadmium is a mutagen (causes
chromosomal damage) and a teratogen (crosses the placenta to cause birth defects)
(4).
As a result of the conclusions that cadmium is an oncogen, a mutagen, and a
teratogen, the U.S. EPA has published a notice of a Rebuttable Presumption
Against Registration (RPAR) of pesticide compounds containing cadmium. This
represents the first naturally occurring substance for which an RPAR has been
issued. (5)
CADMIUM IN THE HUMAN DIET
In 1972 the Joint Committee of the World Health Organization and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/WHO) published a report on
cadmium (1). Based on the known effects of cadmium on the kidney, this inter-
national group of experts concluded that,
...the present day levels of cadmium in the kidney should not be
allowed to rise further....it is therefore proposed a provisional
tolerable weekly intake of 400 ug - 500 ug per individual (57-71 ug per
day).
The conclusions of this committee were based only on the evidence that cadmium
causes kidney damage, not on the more recent data on oncogenicity, teratogenicity,
or mutagenicity.
More recently Dr. Tord Kjellstrom conducted a study of a group of Japanese women
in which he calculated the proportion of women with kidney damage at age 50 as
well as the level of cadmium in their diet. (6) Using such data, it was possible to
estimate the proportion of a population (European and Japanese) that will have
kidney damage at age 50 given the level of cadmium consumed daily in foods (Table
1). Assuming a weight of 70 kilograms for American males and 53 kilograms for
American females, his data indicate that 2.5% of the male population and 5.0% of
the female population in the U.S. would develop kidney damage at age 50 if their
diets contained 80 ug and 76 ug of cadmium per day, respectively.
-2-
-------
CBE-7811
How does the average American's intake of cadmium compare to the levels of
ingestion known to cause kidney damage? From its 1974 survey of heavy metals in
foods, the FDA has concluded that the average national dietary intake of cadmium
from food per person (teenage male) is 72 ug per day. Therefore, a segment of our
population is already ingesting that amount of cadmium which the WHO/FAO say
should not be exceeded to protect against kidney damage; and, according to
Kjellstrom, we are already ingesting an amount of cadmium which could result in
kidney damage in a substantial proportion of the population. This does not include
the amounts of cadmium absorbed from exposure to air and cigarettes.
From the data on kidney damage alone, it is obvious that the levels of cadmium in
the human diet should not be permitted to increase. The more recent evidence
showing that cadmium is an oncogen strengthens this position since a "safe level"
for chemicals which cause tumors has never been demonstrated.
U.S. EPA CRITERIA
Approach //I
In its first approach (257.3-5a) to minimize the movement of cadmium from solid
waste applied to the land into the food chain, EPA has developed the following site
management criteria.
i. The annual application of cadmium from solid waste does not exceed the
maximum additions below.
Maximum Annual Final Concentration
Cd Addition of Cd in Soil
Years (kg/ha) (ppm)*
Present to Dec. 31, 1981 2.00 0.90
Jan. 1, 1982, to Dec. 31, 1985 1.25
Beginning Jan. 1, 1986 0.50
ii. The maximum cumulative amount of cadmium applied to any hectare of
land does not exceed:
Final Concentrations
CEC kg/ha of Cd in Soil (ppm)
<5 5 2.25
5-15 10 4.50
>15 20 9.00
iii. Solid waste containing cadmium concentrations in excess of 25mg/kg
dry weight is not applied to sites where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or root crops are
or will be grown for direct human consumption.
iv. Solid waste containing cadmium is applied so that the pH of the solid
waste and soil mixture is maintained at 6.5 or greater.
*See Appendix 1.
- 3 -
-------
CBE-7811
As will be shown, these limits on metal loading and pH are not adequate to prevent
substantial increase in dietary cadmium.
THE LEVELS OF CADMIUM IN CROPS GROWN
ON SLUDGED AND NON-SLUDGED LAND
In its 1973 national survey, the Food and Drug Administration calculated the
concentration of cadmium in various food classes as well as the contribution of
each food class to the diet (8). The results for five of these food classes - those
likely to be grown on sludge-fertilized soil - are presented below:*
Food
Class
Grains
Leafy
Legume
Roots
Garden
Concentra-
tion of Cd
in FDA
Market
Survey in ppm
(dry weight)
.05
.51
.01
.21
Fruits .19
Concentra-
tion of Cd
in Crops
Grown on
Sludge in ppm
(dry weight)
.30
5.78
.87
1.11
.33
Increase in
Cd Concentra-
tions in Sludge-
Grown Crops
ug of
Cd/Day
in Normal ug of Cd/Day
Diet from in Diet from
Each Food Each Food
Class Class Grown on
(FDA survey) Sludged Land
500%
1033%
8600%
428%
74%
11.66
3.18
0.42
0.76
1.71
17.73
70
36
36
4
3
151
As an example, leafy vegetables contain an average of 0.51 ppm of cadmium
(column 2) and contribute 3.18 ug of cadmium per day to the average diet (column
5).
Experiments conducted by Giordano and Mays (10) and Chaney and coworkers (11)
demonstrate the resulting levels of cadmium in vegetables and grains grown on
sludge-fertilized soil. In the summary of these experiments (Table 2), it is evident
that:
(a) the soil cadmium concentration ranged from 0.40 to 2.73 ppm. Adherence to
EPA's proposed criteria (i) and (ii) can result in soil cadmium concentrations of 0.89
ppm after one application, and 2.25 to 9.0 ppm after several applications of sludge.
The limitation proposed in criterion (iii) would, depending on sludge application
rates, yield soil cadmium concentrations within the range found in the experiments
of Giordano and Mays and Chaney and coworkers.** (b) The pH ranged from 6.3 to
7.0. Criterion (iv) requires that pH be maintained at 6.5 or higher. However, the
lower pH values (6.3 and 6.4) in some of the experiments cited are still within those
limits that might be expected in an agricultural situation, even with attempts to
control pH.
*See Appendix 2.
**It was assumed that, as shown by Chaney and coworkers, cadmium is still
available for plant uptake years after sludge is applied. (11)
- 4-
-------
Utilizing the results of Giordano and Mays and Chaney and coworkers, the average
concentration of cadmium in crops grown under their conditions (pH 6.3 to 7.0, soil
cadmium of 0.40 to 2.73 ppm) was calculated and compared to the concentration of
cadmium in foods in the FDA survey. As an example, the average concentration of
cadmium in leafy vegetables grown under the experimental condition is 5.78 ppm -
this is 1033% higher than the concentration of cadmium in leafy vegetables in the
FDA survey. As evident, all five food classes showed increased levels of cadmium
that ranged from 74% to 8600%.
It is also possible to estimate the amount of cadmium consumed each day in these
five food classes when grown under the conditions of Giordano and Mays and
Chaney, et al. (column 6). A person consuming food grown on sludge-fertilized land
ingests 151 ug of cadmium from these five food classes, while a person consuming
food in the FDA survey ingests 17.7 ug (column 5). This represents a 133
microqram increase in cadmium consumed daily, assuming that all of the grains and
vegetables ingested are grown on sludge-treated land (soil cadmium of 0.40 to 2.73
ppm, pH 6.3 to 7.0). Many people's diets include grains and vegetables not grown on
sludged land; therefore, the actual increase in cadmium uptake can be lower than
133 micrograms and will depend on the proportion of the diet that is composed of
foods grown on sludged land. Since this proportion can vary drastically from
location to location, it is likely that in some areas of the country this 133 ug
increase would occur. This is especially true for vegetarians whose diet contains
much larger amounts of vegetables and grains.
To control the entry of cadmium into crops grown on sludge-treated land, the U.S.
EPA has chosen to regulate three of the most important variables: cadmium
loadings, pH, and crop selection. But there are other-factors, such as soil
temperature, soil organic matter, hydrous oxide content, and inbred line of crop
grown, that are also important in limiting cadmium availability. For example,
Hinesly, et al., found that cadmium accumulated by corn inbreds grown on sludge-
treated land varies 3-4 fold depending on the inbred line that is used (12). It is
difficult, then, to predict the amount of cadmium that will be absorbed by a plant
when grown on sludged land due to the numerous factors involved and limited
research performed to date. In addition, most of the experiments conducted thus
far demonstrate that any addition of cadmium to land will result in an increase in
cadmium uptake into plants, especially leafy vegetables and root crops.
Given the fact that:
1. Cadmium levels in the huma'n diet are already high enough to result in
kidney damage
2. Cadmium is an oncogen - a "safe level" for chemicals causing cancer has
not been demonstrated
3. The amount of cadmium taken up by crops is difficult to predict
4. There are other significant sources of cadmium in the environment:
water, air, cigarettes - that contribute to the cadmium loadings in the body
the U.S. EPA must prohibit the use of sludge on agricultural land on which crops
consumed directly by humans are grown.
- 5 -
-------
Approach //2
In its second approach to minimize the movement of cadmium from solid waste
applied to the land into the crops, EPA has developed the following proposal:
The land application of solid waste containing cadmium is acceptable
if the resulting level of cadmium in the crops...marketed for human
consumption are analyzed prior to marketing and shown to be
comparable to those levels present in similar crops...produced locally
where solid waste has not been applied. A contingency plan is
necessary which identifies alternative courses of action which may be
taken if crop cadmium levels are not found to be comparable (e.g.,
restrictions on crop marketing, future land use, and sludge application
rates). The contingency plan must also provide adequate safeguards
to preclude risks from alternative land uses following the closure of
the disposal site. This alternative is only available to those facilities
which demonstrate that they possess the necessary resources and
expertise to adequately manage and monitor their operations.
CBE feels that this approach is inadequate to protect the public health. Given the
extreme toxicity of cadmium, the level of this metal in the human diet should not
be permitted to rise. Because most of the experiments conducted thus far
demonstrate that any addition of cadmium to land will result in increased levels of
cadmium in plants, this approach will not prevent increases of cadmium in the diet.
This is especially true if "local" conditions, such as burning of fossil fuel and
presence of cadmium industries, result in high levels of cadmium in soil. EPA, in
fact, seems willing to permit the addition of large amounts of cadmium to
agricultural land until those high "local" levels present as a result of industrial
contamination are reached.
In addition, with this approach EPA will be permitting the possible destruction of
prime agricultural land. A municipal owner or operator could, according to EPA's
proposal, apply sludge to land owned by the municipality or by a private farmer
until that level of cadmium is reached which precludes further use of the land for
agriculture. Regulations that permit such a situation to occur are not acceptable.
CONTROL OF OTHER TOXINS
Sludge contains many toxic substances including heavy metals, pesticides, and
persistent organics such as PCBs. While adequate research has been done to give
an indication of the risks involved when crops absorb toxic metals from soil,
information on the other hazardous substances in sludge is virtually non-existent.
Therefore, it is impossible to predict the levels of such toxins that will be absorbed
by crops grown on sludge-treated land. This lack of data strengthens CBE's position
that municipal sludge should not be applied on land used to grow crops directly
consumed by humans.
- 6 -
-------
CBE
Application of Sludge to Land Used to Grow
Animal Feed Crops and for Forage
Animal studies (13-18) have demonstrated that as dietary levels of cadmium are
increased, animals accumulate increasing levels of cadmium in their tissues,
especially in liver and kidney. Humans, consuming animal products with higher
than normal levels of cadmium will, in turn, ingest higher concentrations of
cadmium. Other toxic compounds, such as PCBs, DDT, and dieldrin, can also
accumulate in tissue when ingested by animals.
Because so few animal feeding studies have been performed, it is difficult to assess
the hazard that might result when humans ingest animal products from animals fed
contaminated crops. However, the available experimental data demonstrate that
even small increases in the level of cadmium (<1 ppm) in an animal's diet can result
in higher concentration of the metal in animal products. Until adequate research
has been done to demonstrate that the application of sludge on land used for forage
or feed crops will not result in increases in the level of toxic substances in the diet
of humans, EPA should prohibit the use of sludge for this purpose.
Support Data
When the proposed classification criteria were published on February 6, L-bE
requested copies of whatever support or background documents EPA had for the
cadmium loadings established in the criteria. We first received the Background
Document in Washington on April 18, 1978, less than 72 hours ago. That document,
entitled "Background Document, Section 257.4-5 Land Criteria," (June 24, 1977)
does not support the February 6 proposed regulations. The Background Document
concludes that:
1. No application of municipal wastewater sludge to lands used to grow
leafy vegetables, tobacco, or root crops should be permitted;
2. Maximum cadmium annual loading of 1 kg/ha, decreasing with time to 0.5
kg/ha be established;
3. Maximum cumulative cadmium loading of 10 kg/ha be established.
The February 6 proposed regulations permit:
1. Application of municipal wastewater sluage below 25 mg/kg to land to
grow leafy vegetables, tobacco, or root crops;
2. Maximum cadmium annual loading, through December 31, 1981, of 2.0
kg/ha, decreasing with time to 0.5 kg/ha;
3. Maximum cumulative cadmium loading of 5-20 kg/ha depending on CEC.
Thus the background Document does not support the proposeo regulations.
Additionally, the support document does not document or evaluate the onco-
genicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity or fetotoxicity of cadmium, nor correlate
these effects to the established loadings.
- 7-
-------
CBE
Thus it appears that EPA wishes to pick and choose among the adverse health
effects it will consider in developing regulations. This, CBE feels, is totally
unacceptable. All adverse health effects must be considered. At the time of
proposing these regulations, EPA should have provided a background document
which cited all the data upon which EPA relied in setting limitations on cadmium
application to land for production of food chain crops and the rationale for those
limitations. This rationale must of necessity include:
1. EPA's best estimate of the maximum safe human intake of cadmium and
what health effects this is based upon;
2. EPA's Dest estimate of existing cadmium human intake;
3. EPA's best estimate of the effect of cadmium land application, at the
maximum permissible rate, on existing human intake of cadmium. None of this
data is in the BackgroundDocument.
Absent this information, CBE cannot comment on whether these regulations were
rationally derived or if they adequately protect human health.
EPA's Delay in Proposing Regulations
for Give-away and Sale of Sludge
After several years of deliberation, EPA has finally proposed regulations to protect
the public from the adverse health effects of sludge application on agricultural
lands. Yet, these regulations do not cover programs in which sludge is given away
or sold for home use, such as Milorganite in Milwaukee and Nu-Earth in Chicago.*
The cadmium levels of Milorganite and Nu-Earth are J.14 ppm and 180 ppm,
respectively. Application of these sludges to home gardens can result in extremely
high levels of cadmium in vegetables, especially since homeowners are unaware of
the need for control of pH and cadmium loadings. An individual who consumes the
majority of his or her vegetables from Nu-Earth or Milorganite-fertilized gardens
could ingest several hundred micrograms of cadmium per day. (20)
It is unclear as to why EPA has failed to include regulation for home use programs
in its Proposed Classification Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. The
available information, both toxicological and agricultural, is sufficient to demon-
strate that such programs are a threat to public health and must be discontinued
(20).
CBE urges EPA to propose regulations for home use programs immediately. EPA
must prevent the public from applying these hazardous sludges to their gardens
again this summer.
*CbE has offices in Chicago and Milwaukee.
- 8-
-------
Table 1
FOOD EXPOSURE
CALCULATED INTAKES (ug Cd/day) THAT MAY RESULT IN KIDNEY IRENAL TUBULAR
DAMAGE) AT AGE 50
RESPONSE RATE (PROPORTION WITH RENAL TUBULAR DAMAGE)
0.1% 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 50%
European
body 32
weight
70 kg.
Japanese
body 24
weight
53 kg.
60 80 100 148 440
44 60 76 100 325
GASTROINTESTINAL ABSORPTION RATE = 4.8%
- 9 -
-------
CBE
Table 2
Giordano and Mays (10) - In 1973, sludge was applied at a rate of 112 metric tons of
dry matter per hectare. Crops were grown in 1974 at a soil pH of 6.4 and a soil
cadmium concentration of 2.5 ppm.
CONTROL
(no sludge)
ppm (dry weight)
WITH SLUDGE
ppm (dry weight)
Bean Pods
0.04
0.23
Okra Pods
0.13
0.60
Pepper
0.09
0.40
Tomato
0.12
0.39
Squash
0.03
0.20
Turnip
0.42
1.30
Radish
0.29
0.92
Kale
0.63
2.30
Lettuce
1.00
8.60
Spinach
1.00
2.80
Chaney, et al. (11) - Sludge applied from 1961 to 1973. Crops grown in 1975 or 1976,
pH 6.3, total cadmium in sludge-treated soil of 2.73 ppm.
Control (no sludge) With Sludge
ppm (dry weight) ppm (dry weight)
Swiss Chard
1.20
5.5
Soybean Grain
0.28
1.51
Oats
0.04
0.38
- 10 -
-------
Chaney, et al. (II) - Sludge applied in 1973; Romaine lettuce grown in 1974 and
1975.
1974
1975
Control
With Sludge
Total Cd
in Soil
(ppm)
0.12
0.40
2.10
2.18
PH
6.2
6.5
6.7
7.0
Concentra-
tion - ppm
(dry weight)
1.27
4.17
5.94
3.19
Concentra-
tion - ppm
(dry weight)
0.65
7.37
8.32
3.01
Chaney, et al. (11) - Sludge applied in 1973; corn grown in 1976.
Total Cd
in Soil (ppm)
pH
Cd Concentration
in Corn Grain
(ppm)
Control
0.12
6.1
0.04
With Sludge
0.77
1.56
2.18
6.7
6.8
6.6
0.12
0.22
0.29
-11-
-------
UCBE^SPQGT
APPENDIX 1
It was assumed that an acre of land contains 2 x 10 pounds of soil in a depth of 7
inches. (7)
Since 1 kg = 2.2 Ibs and 1 hectare = 2.47 acres, therefore 1 kg/ha = 0.89 Ib/acre.
Therefore criterion (i) which permits an annual application rate of 2 kg/ha of
cadmium will result in a soil cadmium concentration of 0.9 ppm:
2 kg/ha = 1.78 Ib/acre
, 0 ,, . . , acre ,. 0.90 Ib cadmium
1.8 Ib cadmium/acre x * '
-------
APPENDIX 2
Column 1 - Food Classes
Grains - oat, corn
Leafy - kale, lettuce, spinach, swisschard
Legume - soybean, bean pods
Roots - turnip, radish
Garden Fruits - pepper, tomato, squash
Column 2 - Concentration of Cadmium in FDA Market Survey (ppm, dry weight) -
The concentration of cadmium in foods in the Survey is given in ppb wet
weight. (8) This was converted to ppm dry weight, assuming a certain
percentage of water content in each food class. (9)
Food
Class
Grains
Leafy
Legume
Roots
Garden Fruits
Cone, of Cadmium
in FDA Survey
(ppm) wet weight
.028
.051
.006
.021
.019
% Water
41%*
90%
50%**
90%
90%
Cone, of Cadmium
in FDA Survey
(ppm) dry weight
0.05
0.51
0.01
0.21
0.19
*Average of oat (10% water) and sweet corn (72% water)
**Average of soybean (10% water) and bean pods (90% water)
Column 3 - Concentration of Cadmium in Crops Grown on Sludge (from experiments
of Giordano and Mays and Chaney, et al.)
Food
Class
Grains:
Food
Subclass
Oats
Corn
Cone, of Cd
in Crops Grown
on Sludged Land
(ppm) dry weight
0.38
0.21
Average Value
for Class
0.30
Leafy:
Legume:
Roots:
Lettuce
Spinach
Swisschard
Romaine lettuce
Soybean
Bean Pods
Turnip
Radish
8.60
80
50
6.23
1.51
.23
1.30
0.92
5.78
.87
1.11
Garden Fruits:
Pepper
Tomato
Squash
-13-
0.40
0.39
0.20
0.33
-------
Column 4 - Increase in Cadmium Concentration in Sludge Grown Crops calculated
from columns 2 and 3
Column 5 - Micrograms of Cadmium/day in Normal Diet from Each Food Class -
from FDA Survey
Column 6 - Micrograms of Cadmium/day in Diet from Each Food Class Grown on
Sludged Land calculated from columns 4 and 5
-14-
-------
DCBE1R1POGT
REFERENCES
"Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and the Contaminants - Mercury,
Lead and Cadmium," Sixteenth Report of the Joint FAQ/WHO Expert Committee
on Food Additives, World Health Organization, Technical Report Series, No. 505.
2
L. Friberg, et al., Cadmium in the Environment, 2nd edition, CRC Press,
Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
"The Carcinogen Assessment Group's Assessment of Cadmium," U.S. EPA,
August 22, 1977, R. E. Albert, M.D., Chairman, unpublished.
4
"Cadmium: Position Document 1," Cadmium Working Group, Office of
Special Pesticide Reviews, U.S. EPA, 1977, Richard Troast, Project Manager,
unpublished.
Federal Register, Volume 42, Number 24 (October 26, 1977), p. 56574.
T. Kjellstrom, "Calculations of Exposure Limits for the Prevention of
Cadmium-Induced Health Effects," unpublished.
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Volume 12,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, 1971, p. 471; and personal communication
with R. Chaney, U.S. DA.
Q
"Compliance Program Evaluation, FY 1973," Heavy Metals in Foods Survey,
Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Foods. Cited in "ORD Assessment of
Health Effects Relating to Municipal Sludge Utilization," unpublished.
9
"Composition of Foods," Agriculture Handbook No. 8, Agricultural
Research Services, U.S.D.A., 1963.
P. M. Giordano and D. A. Mays, "Effect of Land Disposal Application of
Municipal Waste on Crop Yields and Heavy Metal Uptake," EPA-600/2-77-014,
April 1977.
R. L. Chaney, et al., "Plant Accumulation of Heavy Metals and
Phytotoxicity Resulting from Utilization of Sewage Sludge and Sludge Composts on
Cropland," in press.
12
T. D. Hinesly, et al., "Zinc and Cadmium Accumulation by Corn Inbreds
Grown on Sludge-Amended Soil," in press.
J. J. Doyle, "Effects of Low Levels of Dietary Cadmium in Animals A
Review," Journal of Environmental Quality, 6:111 (1977).
14
J. J. Doyle, et al., "Effect of Dietary Cadmium on Growth, Cadmium
Absorption and Cadmium Tissue Levels in Growing Lambs," Journal of Nutrition,
104:160 (1974).
- 15 -
-------
DCBB
REFERENCES (continued)
T. D. Hinesly, et al., "Selected Chemical Elements in Tissues of Pheasants
Fed Corn Grain from Sewage Sludge-Amended Soil," Agro-Ecosystems, 3:11 (1976).
A. K. Furr, et al., "Study of Guinea Pigs Fed Swiss Chard Grown on
Municipal Sludge-Amended Soil," Arch. Environ. Health, 2:87 (1975).
D. E. Baker, et al., "Cadmium in Sludge Potentially Harmful When Applied
to Crops," Science in Agriculture, 22:14 (1975).
1 fl
P. H. Williams, et al., Pennsylvania State University, 1976, unpublished
data.
19
R. L. Chaney, et al., "Heavy Metal Relationships During Land Utilization
of Sewage Sludge in the Northeast," R. D. Loehr (ed.), Land as a Waste
Management Alternative, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,
p. 283.
20"Milorganite Gardening - A Health Hazard," CBE Comment #7802, March
1978.
-16-
-------
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
114O CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N W - "WASHINGTON, DC 2OO36
(202) S62-380O
I am Paul Emler, Jr., Senior Environmental Advisor
for Allegheny Power Service Corporation in Greensburg, Penn-
sylvania. I am also Chairman of the Edison Electric Insti-
tute ("EEI") Environment and Energy Committee Solid Waste
Task Force, and my comments today represent the views of the
Institute. EEI is the principal national association of
America's investor-owned electric light and power companies
and represents member companies who own and operate nearly
75% of the Nation's electric capacity and serve approximately
79% of the ultimate electric service customers in the United
States. Currently, the generation of electric power produces
fly ash and bottom ash in the approximate amount of 65
million tons annually. The industry's handling of this mate-
rial will be subject to review under the criteria.
EEI has participated actively in the development
of the RCRA regulatory framework. It has submitted comments
on the EPA Draft Proposed Criteria for Sanitary Landfills,
Draft Proposed State Planning Guidelines, Proposed Guidelines
for State Hazardous Waste Programs, Draft Strategy for
Implementation of RCRA, and Interim Guidelines for Public
-------
- 2 -
Participation. This involvement reflects EEI's commitment
to work cooperatively with EPA in the implementation of this
important statute. We believe that while the proposed
criteria represent an improvement over earlier drafts, a
number of critical issues remain to be resolved. My
comments will address those issues.
We are concerned that the overall cumulative
impact on the environment of restricting or prohibiting
disposal activities in environmentally sensitive areas
(wetlands, floodplains, critical habitats, permafrost areas
and sole source aquifer recharge zones) and thereby driving
these activities to other areas will be extremely adverse.
Initially we believe that the approach of restricting disposal
activity in EPA designated environmentally sensitive areas
should be modified. This approach would prohibit even well-
designed facilities from being located in these areas. A
preferable approach, we believe, would be for EPA to develop
design and performance criteria for these facilities that
regulate environmental impacts. This approach will ensure
that the environmental impacts will be within limits that
will prevent unacceptable environmental degradation. Addi-
tionally, this approach will minimize the severe economic
dislocation that will result from banning disposal activity
in those areas.
-------
Limitation of disposal activity in each environ-
mentally sensitive area cannot be evaluated in isolation;
consideration must be given to the aggregate amount of land
excluded as disposal siting alternatives by the criteria and
the extent and environmental character of the potential
sites which remain after such exclusion. This type of
analysis is essential in view of the difficulties in siting
new facilities — difficulties which EPA has acknowledged.
Given the existence of this siting problem, we feel that the
Regulations should contain greater guidance and provide
greater flexibility as to the circumstances in which use can
be made of environmentally sensitive areas.
In our view, EPA must conduct a more thorough
cost/benefit analysis of the criteria's application to
electric utilities, which takes cognizance of the very
significant transportation, energy, land use, environmental
and economic costs which would result from the blanket
exclusion of disposal facilities from the presently defined
environmentally sensitive areas. Such analysis should also
give consideration to the environmental impacts on alterna-
tive sites whose use effectively will be required by the
criteria. All steam electric power plants are required to
operate close to large supplies of water and are thus often
on or near floodplains and wetlands. Compliance with the
-------
- 4 -
Clean Air Act Amendments may require the addition of scrubbers
to many new power plants. These scrubbers, of course, will
produce large amounts of sludge — the proper disposal of
which will be necessary. Typically, in the past power plant
waste disposal has been in proximity to power plants (i.e. ,
on or near floodplains and wetlands). The criteria's restric-
tions thus effectively mandate a major shift of both current
and future utility solid waste disposal patterns. A very
large volume of sludge, estimated by the Electric Power
Research Institute to equal 60,000 acre feet per year by
1985 (an amount sufficient to cover 90 square miles one foot
£M"^»J-U1f-
deep) potentially is involved in this shift. If disposal
activities near power plants are restricted by the criteria,
there will be significantly increased waste transportation
requirements to move these large quantities of sludge and
ash to permissible sites. The sludge disposal program at the
Bruce Mansfield plant near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania provides
an insight into the impacts that may be involved with this change.
To dispose of the sludge produced by the scrubbers at that
plant, an eight-mile pipeline and a five-hundred foot dam
have been built at a cost of approximately $90,000,000. The
scrubber sludge from that plant is piped through that pipeline
and will, within twenty-five years, fill a valley three miles
long and over four hundred feet deep. Annual operating costs
of this sludge disposal facility will be over $10,000,000.
-------
- 5 -
Obviously, the greater the distance from the plant to the
disposal site, the larger the costs that are associated with
waste disposal. Significant energy costs, as well as
economic costs, will be incurred in this regard.
Another consequence of the mandated shift in solid
waste disposal patterns will be the creation of severe land
use-related problems. Limiting activities on these EPA
designated environmentally sensitive areas obviously will
increase the alternative site costs for new facilities,
which will ultimately be paid by consumers. /Additionally,
such restrictions will mandate the use of lands with alter-
native potential higher priority uses, such as farming or
recreation. This alternative use will involve opportunity
costs of both an environmental and land use planning type.
In view of the transportation, energy, land use, environ-
>/
mental and economic costs of effectively imposing a blanket
restriction on otherwise acceptable solid waste disposal in
EPA designated environmentally sensitive areas, we think it
is imperative that EPA consider the development of more
carefully delineated standards which not only protect envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas but also consider the environ-
mental integrity of the alternative disposal sites that
utilities will be forced to use if a blanket land use restric-
tion is imposed.
-------
- 6 -
Such delineation of standards should be reflected
in the criteria in several specific ways. The current
definition of wetlands is so broad that it describes many
currently existing pits, ponds and lagoons utilized for
solid waste disposal by utilities. Many of these pits,
ponds and lagoons support naturally occurring vegetation,
and some have well established resident populations of
fish and other aquatic organisms. Under the definition of
"wetlands" in the criteria, these pits, ponds and lagoons
could be deemed to be wetlands and be subject to restrictive
use regulation. We believe such a result goes well beyond
the intended scope of RCRA. This specific problem could be
remedied by inserting the words "naturally occurring" in the
definition of "wetlands" so that it reads:
"Wetlands" means those naturally occurring areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration suffi-
cient to support, and that under normal circum-
stances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil
condition. Wetlands generally includes swaraps,
marshes, bogs and similar areas.
The current proposed definition of a solid waste
-------
- 7 -
disposal facility is broad enough to include waste water treatment
facilities. These facilities, designed and constructed to
comply with other EPA requirements, have a cumulative capital
cost of several billion dollars. Only recently have these
facilities been completed and many of them are located within
the EPA-designated environmentally sensitive areas. A specific
exemption for these EPA required facilities should be included
in the criteria.
\ In addition, we believe a distinction should be
drawn between current and future solid waste disposal facilities
in wetland areas. The economic and environmental costs
involved in prematurely closing otherwise environmentally
acceptable disposal facilities because they are located in
wetlands will be substantial, and the specific benefits to
be obtained have not been documented extensively. To avoid
massive facility dislocation, the criteria should be addressed
only to future facilities, except in those instances
where material environmental damage is demonstrated to
exist. Moreover, in the context of future facilities, we
believe a case-by-case approach is appropriate, in view of
potential future technological developments which may present
adverse environmental impacts to wetlands.
Precluding the siting of disposal facilities
-------
within any one hundred year floodplain will have a signif-
icant impact in utility solid waste disposal practices
because of the apparently vast amount of land removed from
available use. This impact should be carefully analyzed and
considered by EPA, and the criteria refined along the lines
/
suggested for wetlands.
Currently the criteria for floodplains exempt
certain landspreading activities. This exemption should be
extended to well designed non-hazardous landfill programs.
Such facilities are capable of and do support vegetation, both
during operation and when the site is completed, and thus long-
/ term impacts are minimized.
Finally, the ground-water requirements should be
modified. At present, several states (e.g., Pennsylvania)
have not designated groundwater uses. In those states that
have not designated such uses, the proposed standard
would exclude large areas from consideration as disposal
facility sites, even though there is little, if any, likeli-
hood that much of the groundwater would be used for human
consumption. As EPA frankly acknowledges, the criteria are
drafted to motivate states to develop comprehensive water
A /use plans. While EEI agrees that state water use plans have
value, we believe it is inappropriate to exacerbate
-------
- 9 -
the already difficult siting problems presented by RCRA in
an attempt to force states to develop these plans. Some
alternative groundwater standard should be included in the
criteria, at least on an interim basis, to facilitate
disposal facility siting in states which have not yet adopted
I
groundwater use plans.
Unlike Subtitle C, Subtitle D of RCRA does not
authorize EPA to impose a solid waste plan on a state if a
state chooses not to develop such a plan. This reflects the
Congressional intention that state plans reflect local needs
and priorities. By blanket designation in the criteria of
those land areas where disposal activity is restricted, EPA
may preclude states from determining local priorities in
instances where environmental values may not necessarily be
jeopardized and other values of importance may be impacted.
For example, some midwestern states have restricted activity
on farmlands, the protection of which is of great importance.
Yet, given the geology of these states, as a practical
matter the only lands left for disposal sites once the
environmentally sensitive areas (particularly wetlands and
floodplains) are eliminated, might well be farmlands. In
order to avoid unnecessary Federal-State confrontation, EEI
believes that the criteria should be modified to give
states greater flexibility to determine land use priorities,
-------
- 10 -
subject to overall protection of the environmental principles
set forth in the pertinent Executive Orders.
We are in the process of gathering additional data
that will, we believe, document the major impact these criteria
will have on the electric utility industry. We should
complete the data collection and analysis process in the
near future and will submit the results of this study to EPA
in our written comments on the criteria (as well as other
draft EPA regulations, where appropriate).
We believe that EPA has responded positively to
previous suggestions which EEI and other commentors have
made on RCRA draft regulations and proposed guidelines. It
is hoped that our comments today will assist EPA in modifying
these criteria to reflect a broader consideration of environ-
mental impacts regarding RCRA implementation.
-------
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
DEPARTMENT OF STREETS
TESTIMONY
E.P.A. PUBLIC HEARING ON
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
APRIL 21. 1978
WASHINGTON, D. C.
DAVID J. DAMIANO
STREETS COMMISSIONER
-------
- 1 -
For the implementation of subtitle "D" of the Resource
Recovery Act of 1976, Section 4005 (b), within one year after
the promulgation of the criteria the EPA is to publish an
inventory of all the facilities in the United States that do
not comply with the criteria. Also many existing facilities
not in compliance must be closed or upgraded according to a
State established compliance schedule containing an enforceable
sequence of actions leading to compliance within five years.
This is totally unreasonable. The financial crises of cities
is a reality. Solid Waste is presently the second highest munici-
pal expenditure and it has a low priority when considering the
urban needs of housing, schools and health. If Washington in-
sists on regulations then Washington must back up its muscle by
sharing the cost burden. Cities cannot be continually expected
to face increasing costs when they are presently bankrupt.
The definition of Solid Wastes may be deficient in the very
near future if it implies that all residues of combustion are
automatically included as Solid Wastes. We could not agree that
residues are solid waste, thereby requiring a disposal as pre-
scribed under these criteria. The City of Philadelphia in con-
junction with Pennsylvania DER has, for more than a year, been
proving that residue when processed properly can be utilized
successfully as an earth cover substitute in sanitary landfilling
-------
- 2 -
of refuse. We are looking forward to the prospect that residue
from energy plants may be utilized as cover for landfills where
cover is expensive and/or unavailable. This represents a
thoroughly compatible combination of solid waste disposal
objectives and should be allowed under the law in Pennsylvania
and across the nation.
The criteria stated that regional disposal facilities will
be developed to the maximum feasible including technological
and economic considerations. If this is the intent of the
federal legislation then the courts do not agree. In the past
year in New Jersey the Supreme Court ruled that no federal
preemption existed based on the Resource Recovery Act of 1976
and now the United States Supreme Court will decide on the
constitutionality of the New Jersey State law banning Pennsylvania
refuse from being deposited in sanitary landfills in New Jersey.
The EPA criteria lists prohibitions for site selection of
disposal areas primarily for environmental reasons which is
understandable. It is proposed that a national policy be set
to establish priorities for the selection of disposal sites.
For example, an undisturbed vegetated and wooded area should
not be selected as opposed to an abandoned strip mine or quarry.
A 1967 report titled "Surface Mining in our Environment"
identified 800,000 acres of abandoned strip mined land from
-------
New England to Georgia. The uncontrolled pollution from these
mine areas is phenomenal. It has been demonstrated that by
sanitary landfill disposal of our solid waste we may offset the
pollution in another industry. Therefore a national priority
should be established for the reclaiming of strip mined Hand.
The EPA criteria does not reflect the political and social
realities of site selection. Long before the criteria should
be permitted to close a site some relief should be provided
in establishing new sites. More often than not, the new
environmental sound sites are in adjoining political juris-
diction. For example, under a $550,000 EPA grant in 1972,
a task force consisting of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
DER, the Federal EPA and a technical consultant made presenta-
tions on Reclamation of Strip Mined areas to twenty-seven
counties in Pennsylvania. Twenty-two Pennsylvania counties
flatly rejected any cooperation, interest, or consideration for
the program. Two counties who did cooperate initially later
on turned out to be a disaster when the general public voiced
their opinion. The institutional arrangements or mechanism
to overcome political and social objections has not been
identified to date.
-------
COMMENTS
on
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
By The
American Consulting Engineers Council
As Represented By Its
Solid Waste Task Force
William C. Anderson-, Chairman
April 21, 1978
-------
GENERAL POSITION
The stated intent of the Proposed Criteria is
to provide a "minimum standard for the protection of health
and the environment". Based on that intent we find the
Proposed Criteria serve to unnecessarily restrict the use of
land disposal and the ability of professionals to develop
land disposal systems which would meet the goal of protecting
health and the environment.
ACEC has long championed the same goals of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act - that is protection of health and the environ-
ment. However, we do object to those actions which create an
unnecessary expense to meet those goals. The Proposed Criteria
will increase the costs to plan, construct and operate land
disposal facilities without a proportional increase in benefits
derived.
It is our position that a land disposal facility should
not degrade the environment or prevent adjoining landowners
from "reasonable use and enjoyment of their lands". Our
position is founded on the principles that have evolved over
many years regarding riparian rights. We feel that such
principles, which have been well-argued and time-tested, are
applicable to all the environmental-impacts of a land disposal
facility.
The Proposed Criteria provide for the "prevention of
endangerment". We believe the difference in the two positions
is significant, albeit a very subtle difference.
1 of 9
-------
The Proposed Criteria will, if not actually mandated,
encourage and enable regulatory agencies to require the
implementation of controls to surround a land disposal facil-
ity with a protective cocoon without consideration of the
environmental effects - their magnitude and frequency of
occurrence.
In our opinion, the Proposed Classification Criteria are
"Significant Regulations" as defined by Executive Order 12044
and therefore a Regulatory Analysis as described in that
Executive Order is warranted. And even if they are not "Significant
Regulations" the American people are entitled to know the resul-
tant cost of these regulations.
We are interested in EPA's economic evaluation of
alternative methods considered in developing the Criteria. More
specifically, what is the incremental cost that the users of a
land disposal facility will incur if the proposed approach of
stopping all pollution at the facility boundary is employed
versus our recommended approach? What are the costs associated
with each of the control methods proposed and their alternatives?
Our approach provides for balancing the costs and benefits
of environmental control in the siting and operating of a land
disposal facility. Environmental regulations today must recognize
that our financial resources as well as our environmental resources
are limited.
2 of 9
-------
Comments were specifically requested on the proposed
regulations for Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Environ-
mentally sensitive areas do exist which require special consider-
ation in the planning and design of any man-made facility. And
without a doubt there exist areas where man and nature can not
co-exist and in those instances either man or nature must give
way to the other.
After careful consideration we strongly believe that
the proposed approach of singling out certain environmentally
sensitive areas is a mistake for two reasons:
1. Regardless of the correctness of the control
strategies proposed for these areas the special
designation "environmentally-sensitive areas" will
provide those who are bound to oppose the siting
of land disposal facilities, regardless of environ-
mental impact, with a significant tool to frustrate
and block the efforts of those who must manage the
never-ending stream of solid waste. Its public
relations value to opposition forces is beyond
measure, to say nothing of the possibilities for
chicanery presented.
Siting a land disposal is extremely difficult -
not because of technical reasons but due to the
lack of public acceptance. A quote from the
American Society of Civil Engineers
Manual of Practice on Sanitary Landfill says it
all:
3 of 9
-------
"While the public will generally resist
attempts to locate any solid waste dis-
posal facility near their homes, they
reserve their most virulent opposition
for land disposal sites".
If you do nothing else to respond to our comments,
please remove this designation.
2. The Proposed Criteria will, in practicality, pre-
clude the use of any of these areas for land
disposal sites regardless of the actual site-
specific environmental impact. That is a
mistake.
The opportunity to use any area should be provided.
And, regardless of the area classification -- wetland or
flood plain, etc, or none of these -- the design and oper-
ation should be -- it must be -- .environmentally-sound
and cost-effective as determined on a site-specific
basis.
DETAILED COMMENTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the subsequent sections we have presented detailed
comments in those areas where the Task Force has experience.
Further, we have provided recommendations for changing the
Proposed Criteria consistent with our general position.
1. Section 257.3-1 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
The singling out of these areas, for all practical
purposes, precludes their use for solid waste
disposal, regardless of the impact of a specific
operation. While the opportunity exists to site
disposal facilities in such areas, those small scale
operations which due to size would probably have
4 od 9
-------
the least impact could not afford the exhaustive
studies required to prove their acceptability, even
if it was possible to overcome all practical
obj ections.
Part of the problem lies in the definitions used -
for example - the term "wetlands" as used in the
"Supplementary Information" discusses wetlands
in their true sense while others use broader
interpretations, i.e., in New York State any green
spot on a USGS Map is a wetland and therein lies
the problem.
We have not examined and/or are not personally
familiar with the "Critical Habitats" or "Alaskan
Permafrost" so that we can not comment on the need
for special regulations. However, we do have exper-
ience with wetlands, flood plains, and sole-source
aquifers. To eliminate these from consideration as
land disposal facilities is poor economy and poor use
of resources.
We are not suggesting that wetlands, flood plains,
and sole-source aquifer recharge zones do not
require special consideration in siting and design.
Rather, we believe that if use of any one of these
areas with a design which protects the ground and
surface waters is cost-effective then it should be
a viable site.
5 of 9
-------
For the reasons discussed in our general statement,
we strongly recommend that the classification of
"Environmentally-Sensitive Areas" be deleted. If
special requirements are required for critical
habitats or permafrost areas separate paragraphs
should be provided in the procedural manner
recommended for flood plains in the following
paragraphs.
Wetlands and Sold-Source Squifers should be protected
by the regulations applicable to surface and ground
waters. A new paragraph 257.3-8 should be added to
read as follows:
"257.3.8 Flood Plains
A facility which is located in a flood plain shall be
protected from innundation, excepting facilities applying
solid waste beneficial utilisation and shall not restrict
the flow of the base flood or reduce the temporary water-
storage capacity to the extent that upstream or downstream
flooding will be increased during the base flood".
2. Section 257.3-2 Surface Water
This Section is generally well written and to
the point. However, it would be clarified if
Paragraph (a) was reworded to read:
"Point source discharge of pollutants cornplies
with an NPDES Permit issued for the facility
according to Section 408 of the Federal Water
NOTE: Italicised words are proposed changes.
6 of 9
-------
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1976'
(PubtL. 92-500, 86 Stat.BOO 33 U.S.C.1342)."
and be improved if Paragraph (b) was reworded
as follows:
"Non-Point source, including surface leachate,
leachate seepage and surface runoff are controlled
so as to preclude the degradation of any off-site surface
water".
3. Section 257.3-3 Groundwater
We find this Section as written unnecessarily
complicated and restrictive.
For minimum criteria we suggest the following:
a. The facility shall employ such controls, either
natural, artiaicial or a combination of both, as
are necessary to prevent groundwater quality from
being degraded to the extent that adjoining land-
owners are prevented from reasonable use of the
groundwaters on their property.
b. The facility owner/operator shall monitor ground-
water quality as long as the facility is in use
so as to permit determination of the impact of the
facility on the groundwater and develop and maintain
a contingency plan for corrective action unless it is
determined that such monitoring is not required due
to site conditions.
7 of 9
-------
a. The facility oiltier /operator shall provide a means
of insuring that the groundwater quality is not
degraded as defined in Paragraph (a) for as long
as leachate presented the potential for depredation
of groundwater quality.
The reasons for our proposed changes follows:
Most groundwaters meet Case I criteria and if
not the degradation approach is equally applicable
It is our belief that the non-degradation approach
is in keeping with Congressional intent to prevent
groundwater contaimination.
Section ,257.3-4 Air
Paragraph (b) is duplicative and unnecessarily
restrictive. If the burning of agricultural or
silvicultural wastes is not already controlled
by the Clean Air Act and related state regulations
then there is no viable reason why open burning
should not be used as a solid waste disposal method.
Section 257.3-6 - Disease Vectors
Section as drafted is satisfactory.
Section 257.3-7 - Safety
We suggest the following re-visions to Paragraph (a)
(a) Explosive gases shall be controlled by appropriate means
(1) to prevent accumulation in on-site structures in
harmful quantities and
(2) to enable surrounding land users to have reasonable
use and enjoyment of their lands.
We find Paragraphs (b),(c),(d) and Ce) satisfactory.
8 of 9
-------
7. Although implementation of these Criteria is not
specifically addressed we believe that for existing
sites it should be the responsibility of the person
classifying the site to prove degradation. For
new sites the burden of proof should rest with the
Owner/Operator.
9 of 9
-------
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
FANNIN BANK BLDG. • P.O. BOX 3151 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77001 • (713)790-1611
Presentation
of
James R. Greco
Director
Government and Industry Affairs
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
on
April 21, 1978
Washington, D.C.
pertaining to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Proposed Criteria for Classification
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
pursuant to
Section 4004(a)
Criteria for Sanitary Landfills
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Public Law 94-580
as published in the
February 1, 1978 Federal Register
Volume 43, Number 25, Pages 4942 - 4955
-------
Nearly three months have elapsed since publication of the proposed
criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities pursuant
to Section 4004(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
During this time numerous meetings have been conducted by the U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste soliciting widespread input and perspectives of
the general public and every conceivable affected entity. Though lengthy
and resource-demanding, the rulemaking process undertaken by the Agency
has been commendable, and will, we hope, result in the best practicable
and most effective methodology for determining which solid waste land
disposal facilities should be classified as landfills posing no probability
of adverse effects on health or the environment.
It is noted in Section 4001 of the Act that the objectives of Subtitle D
are to assist in developing and encouraging methods for the disposal of solid
waste which are environmentally sound and which maximize the utilization of
valuable resources and to encourage resource conservation. Furthermore, it
is cited that such objectives are to be accomplished through Federal technical
and financial assistance to the States or regional authorities for comprehensive
planning pursuant to Federal guidelines designed to foster cooperation among
Federal, State, and local governments and private industry. We recognize that
such cooperation is of paramont importance among all levels of government
and private enterprise such that the fullest and most effective utilization
of private sector resources can be applied for assisting public sector needs.
And concommltantly we are pleased to have the opportunity to participate in
this rulemaking process.
-------
Though Browning-Ferris Industries — a publicly held company engaged
primarily in providing solid and liquid waste collection, processing/recovery,
and disposal services to commercial, industrial, residential and governmental
customers — is a large company, the preliminary evaluations we have made
regarding the proposed criteria and concerns we express, likely are shared
by many other landfill designers, operators, and managers — be they public
or private, small or large, independently-owned or publicly held. Our
Canadian
experience derives from operating 63 landfills in 25 states and/provinces,
comprising 9200 acres of land, disposing of nearly 9 million tons of wastes
annually. Though impressive, these figures cannot even compare to the
estimated 5000-6000 or more sites reported to be licensed, permitted, or
otherwise recognized as sanitary landfills in compliance with existing state
regulations — which are operated by numerous conscientious local government
officials and responsible private sector managers. And collectively we face
a continuing dilemma when attempting to secure new site locations or extend
existing operations.
We recognize the need for national standards for the protection of
health and the environment from solid waste disposal facilities and we
acknowledge the importance of public participation. However, we suggest
that EPA not overlook the need and importance of public education and
understanding for waste disposal sites — the role that landfills must
play for comprehensive solid waste management. At recent EPA meetings
and seminars, EPA officials have noted that even with the addition of 50
new operational resource recovery facilities on stream by 1985, there will
likely still be an increase of approximately 15 percent in the volumes of
-------
waste destined for land disposal. We suggest that the Agency mention this
need in its supplementary information and declare its policy to be to foster
the development of environmentally sound sites to meet this need. No where
throughout the draft criteria or supplementary information is this need noted
or provided for.
In April of 1973 the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
issued a position statement on sanitary landfill, which is worth noting:
"It its current form, the sanitary landfilling process is the
most economically feasible, acceptable method of solid waste
disposal. Processing methods such as incineration or resource
recovery still require sanitary landfills for their residue.
Under proper operation, a sanitary landfill is aesthetically
acceptable and free from public health and safety hazards.
Thorough planning and the application of sound engineering
principles to site selection, design, operation, and final
use are necessary for efficient operation. Sanitary landfill
is an acceptable method for disposal of solid wastes."
Generally speaking, sanitary landfills, when conveniently located and
in conformance with applicable environmental standards, will still result
in the least net disposal cost to a community.
In Mid-1978 the EPA will like promulgate the much needed Section 4004
criteria. However we feel a companion position statement will enhance public,
industry, and government understanding of the criteria and its application.
-------
Accompanying these general, policy-related remarks are our specific
detailed comments which we request also be included as part of the formal
record of this meeting and likewise carefully considered by the Agency. In
summarized form they address the following with supportive narrative:
(1) The publication of the inventory list should initially be
published as a proposed list, providing opportunity for
public hearing and comment, consistent with Section 7004(b)
of RCRA.
(2) The NPDES permit requirement, as noted in Section 257.3-1(a)
is beyond EPA's authority.
(3) EPA's criteria for obtaining an NPDES permit, as applied to
existing sites, may be illegal.
(4) EPA's determination that all landfills located in wetlands
result in water pollution is without any factual basis, and
is, therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable.
(5) "Surface runoff" should be defined.
(6) The regulations of Section 257.3-3 should apply to ground water
in aquifers only.
(7) We read Section 257.3-3(b)( ) to require minimum ground water
standards. Nothing in any statute, to the best of our knowledge,
including RCRA, gives EPA 'the authority to dictate to the States
what standards, if any, they set for ground water quality.
(8) Anything not included in an approved state implementation plan
under sections 110, 129 and 161 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
cannot be enforced as a federal requirement.
(9) Workplace safety is OSHA's jurisdiction.
-------
While we have outlined the above serious concerns and made reference
to our reasons, we feel it important to both express support for the concept
of national standards with Federal direction for ensuring the protection of
health and the environment from solid waste disposal facilities — and
appreciation for this opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Hopefully soon effective, practical, and economically-wise practices for the
land disposal of solid wastes will derive from the application of these criteria.
Thank you.
-------
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
FANN1N BANK BLDG. • PO BOX 3151 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77001 « (7131790-1611
April 18, 1978
Office of Solid Waste (WH-564)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Attention: Mr. Schuster, Docket 4004
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the publication of Proposed Criteria for Classification
of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities by the U.S. EPA in the February
1st issue of the Federal Register, we have carefully reviewed the
proposed criteria from a technical and legal perspective — taking
into consideration the issues of (1) the adequacy of the criteria
in providing for the protection of public health and the environ-
ment; (2) the practicality of implementation; and (3) the potential
impacts on segments of our society and economy.
We recognize the importance of fully considering the intent of Congress
with respect to interpreting and defining what the meaning is of
"At a minimum, such criteria shall provide that a facility
may be classified as a sanitary landfill and not an open
dump only if there is no reasonable probability of adverse
effects on health or the environment from disposal of solid
waste at such a facility."
as cited in section 4004(a) of P.L. 94-580. Furthermore, we feel that
the EPA has admirably solicited widespread input and perspective from
the public and every conceivable interested or affected entity most
notably with appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental auth-
orities, in the development of these criteria.
We support the role of the Federal government to develop minimum
national standards premised on the concept of uniformity when applied
throughout the country, the role of the various State regulatory
agencies for permitting and ensuring environmentally-sound wastes
disposal practices, and the role which can be undertaken by private
enterprise resources for solving public sector needs.
-------
Our comments focus upon both the supplementary information and preamble
presented on pages 4942-4952 and the criteria itself planned for in-
corporation as Part 257 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Though
we're generally supportive of the overall intent of the proposed criteria,
we have some serious concerns and doubts pertaining to the conduct of
the inventory, the over-extension of EPA legal authority with respect to
"environmentally sensitive areas" permit requirements, incorporation and/
or reference to State and local water quality and air emission control
regulations, and clarification of Federal OSHA jurisdiction for solid
waste disposal facility safety.
Our comments are listed sequentially as correlated with the proposed
criteria.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AND PREAMBLE
Adverse Effects (page 4943-4944). We feel it noteworthy
that an excerpt from page 37 in the House Report was cited:
"An open dump is defined as a land disposal site where dis-
carded materials are deposited with little or no regard for
pollution or aesthetics, where the wastes are left uncovered
and where frequently the use of the site for waste disposal
is neither authorized nor supervised. (Whereas), the effects
on human health and the environment from real sanitary landfill
should be slight." Additionally, perhaps it also should be
noted in this section that sites for the land disposal of solid
wastes can be operated in an environmentally — sound and accep-
table manner such that no reasonable probability of adverse
effects on human health or the environment result.
Implementation (page 4944). Both the Act requires and EPA
intends to publish an inventory-list of open dumps within one
year after promulgation of the criteria. Many individuals generally recog-
nize the improbability of evaluating all solid waste disposal
sites within one year's time — the numerous procedural pro-
blems which will likely develop. The National Governors
Association, we understand, has advocated a phased inventory.
The National Solid Wastes Management Association at the March
House and Senate RCRA oversight hearings drew attention to the
potential discriminatory possibilities which may derive if only
some sites (large or small, public or private) were evaluated
in a particular geographic area. We stress the need for a. fair,
impartial, and uniform evaluation of sites irregardless of size,
ownership, or operator. If all sites cannot be inventoried
within one year, we suggest delaying the publication of the
inventory. If this is not feasible, then at a minimum a list
should be published only if all sites within any given area are
evaluated.
-------
Furthermore, when published, the inventory list should be
published in "proposed form". Neither P.L. 94-580 nor
EPA's supplementary information indicates whether or not
the list will be published in proposed form, with oppor-
tunity for public hearing and comment. However, Section
7004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6974, mandates that the EPA
"provide for" public participation "in the development,
revision, implementation and enforcement of any regulation,
guideline, information or program under this Act." It
would seem that listing open dumps qualifies as a "program
under this Act" so as to make mandatory the publication in
the Federal Register of the list in proposed form and ade-
quate opportunity for public comment.
There is some danger of a facility designated as an open
dump being required to shut down (and the owner thereby
sustaining substantial loss of the use of his property).
Therefore, it would seem that the "due process" requirements
of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, U.S. Constitution
Amendment V, would dictate that at least the owner of the
facility be given an opportunity to contest the EPA's decis-
ion to list the facility before it becomes final.
While it is important to finalize the criteria and commence
the evaluation and inventorying process, it becomes crucial
that EPA publish, as soon as possible, the guidelines for
approval of the State Solid Waste Plans under Section 4002
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6942. This is because any facility listed
as an open dump can be placed on a "State-established compli-
ance schedule" under Section 4005(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
6945(c), "only where there is an EPA-approved State plan and
where it has been demonstrated that no alternative which com-
plies with the criteria can be utilized". Facilities desig-
nated open dumps and which cannot receive a State-imposed
compliance schedule (either because the State plan has not
been approved or because it cannot show feasible alternatives
do not exist) is subject to enforcement action by the EPA
under Section 7003 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973, or citizen's
suits under Section 7002 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6972. Thus,
if a state plan is not approved at the time of the publication
(and finalization) of the inventory list, then those facili-
ties which may be on the list are subject to being shut down
during any time period necessary to upgrade simply due to
government inaction and poor timing. This is patently unfair
and can easily be avoided by proper planning by EPA.
Determining Compliance (page 4945)• The first sentence cites
the application of the best practicable controls, technologies
-------
and practices, in conjunction with environmental monitoring
to determine if adverse effects do occur and if corrective
action is necessary. There are two thoughts on the environ-
mental monitoring: (1) some of this monitoring may not be
able to be accomplished on a timely basis and the results
of it may take longer than the year that's allowed, espec-
ially on sites that are surveyed in the last three-months
period of the year in question; and (2) it must be asked who
would determine what environmental monitoring is done and
the criteria for it, as well as who would pay the cost, once
it is determined what type of monitoring will be carried out.
Perhaps the 4002 guidelines will address these questions. If
not, we suggest they be included in the landfill criteria.
Discussion of Proposed Criteria —Definitions (page 4945).
The definition of "wetlands" is admittedly vague, which would
require quantification of such phrases as "a frequency suf~
ficient to support...", "...under normal circumstances...",
"...a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that...", and
"...saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions...".
Who and how will such judgements be made as to what legally
constitutes a "wetland" area?
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (pages 4945-4947). In the
subsection "Recharge zones of sole source aquiters" on page
4947, mention is made that "...when waste disposal facilities
are located in the recharge zones of aquifers...they must
be...designed, constructed...operated, maintained, and
monitored to prevent endangerment of the water source." We
concur but suggest deletion of the phrase "generally includ-
ing artificial liner(s)" since artificial liners have been
proven to be susceptible to failure. This would appear to
be consistent with Part 257.3-1(e)(2) where no reference is
made to liners.
Ground Water (pages 4947-4948). In the sixth paragraph sug-
gest deleting "(liners)" for reason given above.
Comments are requested about monitoring one kilometer from
the edge of the point of waste deposition of from the pro-
perty boundary of the disposal facility or some other
measured distance. It seems- that this may be fraught with
various concerns. One would be gaining and/or seeking the
right to monitor subsurface water on other people's property,
which may require purchase of the land or easements. In
most, if not all cases where landfills exist, the surrounding
property owners may resist one's gaining access to drill
monitoring wells on these properties. Additionally, other
contaminants could conceivably enter these wells that could
cause problems, which may not be related with the landfills.
-------
If Che criteria are to be amended to require remote monitoring, it
should contain the provision that access to adjoining land is possible.
Disease Vectors (page 4950). Under the subsection for "cover
material" caution should be exercised with respect to the
implication that shredded or composted wastes may not require
periodic application of cover material. Questions still
remain regarding the environmental soundness of landfilling
shredded wastes without daily cover.
PROPOSED CRITERIA - PART 257
Section 257.l(h) Definition of Endangerment (pages 4952-4953).
Suggest re-wording definition to read:
"Endangerment" means the introduction of any physical,
chemical, biological, or radiological substance or
matter into ground water in an aquifer in such a con-
centration that makes it necessary for a present or
future ground-water user to increase treatment of the
water (including treatment to meet any maximum con-
taminant level set forth in any promulgated National
Primary Drinking Water Standard).
Reasons (2) and (3) included in the prior definition were deleted
because of the impracticality of applying broad standards for any
foreseeable use. For example, the third reason in the definition
implies that "endangerment" may extend beyond health impacts to
include considerations such as color, taste, odor, etc.
Section 257.3-l(a) Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Wetlands.
(page 4953). The NPDES permit requirement, we feel, is legally
beyond EPA's authority. Nothing in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA), 33 D.S.C. 1251, et. seq., specifically
includes all discharges into wetlands as discharges into
navigable waters. Furthermore, the legislative history of
RCRA clearly indicates a very minimal role by the EPA in any
Subtitle D programs. Section 1002(4) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6901(4), states that "The collection and disposal of solid
wastes should continue to be primarily the function of state,
regional and local agencies". This point is made much clearer
by reference to the legislative history:
"It is the Committee's intention that federal assistance
should be an incentive for state and local authorities
-------
to act to solve the discarded materials problem. At this
time federal preemption of this problem is undesirable,
inefficient, and damaging to local initiative.
"Simply, the discarded materials problem is one of planning
and the Committee anticipates that federal guidelines for
planning will foster the necessary cooperation between the
federal government, states, and local regions, to meet very
broad and flexible objectives of this act. If those objec-
tives are not met, the states and local authorities within
the states will lose the federal or technical assistance.
However, the provisions of this legislation, specifically
do not authorize the federal government to take over the
responsibility for discarded materials disposal planning."
(emphasis added) H.R. Rep. No. 1491, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. 33
(1976).
The NPDES permit requirement, as it is written in this section of
the proposed regulations, appears to reflect the detailed type
of federal overseeing that Congress specifically intended to
preclude.
Additionally we feel that EPA's "criteria" for obtaining an NPDES
permit, as applied to existing sites, may be illegal. On page
4945 it is stated that "Before any new site may be located or any
existing disposal site may be expanded in an environmentally
sensitive area, the facility must clearly meet the criteria con-
tained in paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section 257.3-1." However,
in neither the regulations nor the later specific preamble re-
ferences to the NPDES permit requirement, is there any indication
that this policy is limited to new or expanded facilities. Further-
more, it is our recollection that the EPA responded at the NSWMA
public meeting that the NPDES permit requirement was intended to
apply to existing, as well as new and expanded facilities. We
submit that, in so far as the EPA's policy on the issuance of
NPDES permits to existing facilites appears to require an Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et. seq., it is outside their
authority.
At section 257.3-1 of the proposed regulations, there is inserted
a comment which reads, inter alia, as follows:
"Only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances - includ-
ing a demonstration of alternative methods of disposal, an
assessment of environmental impact for each alternative, an
assessment of the technical and economic feasibility of each
-------
1
alternative, and a justification for the wetlands disposal
alternative in view of the environmental impact and feasi-
bility - will an NPDES application be considered and an
NPDES permit issued."
This type of decision-making represents that required under JJEPA
for the issuance of an EIS. However, section 511(c)(l) of the
FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1371, reads, inter alia, as follows:
"Except for...the issuance of a permit under Section 402 of
this Act for the discharge of any pollutant by a new source
as defined in...this Act, no action of the Administrator
taken pursuant to this Act shall be deemed a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852)."
Thus, by the very wording of the law upon which EPA is relying
upon for the NPDES permit requirement, it is precluded from require-
ing the type of inquiry set forth at Section 257.3-l(a)(2) for
existing facilities as opposed to what is stated early-on in
the supplementary information that such an inquiry would be
applied only to new or modified facilities.
\ We understand that the EPA has issued criteria for determining
what is a new source as defined by the FWPCA 40 C.F.R. Part 9.
Until the EPA utilizes this criteria to make a determination that
any landfill is a new facility as defined by the FWPCA, author-
ity is lacking to require the EIS requirement under RCRA.
Previously, it was noted in the supplementary information on page
4946 (first column, bottom) that "this approach conforms with the
intent of Executive Order 11990 dated May 24, 1977, concerning
protection of the wetlands" which orders all federal agencies to
perform an EIS for activities in "wetlands". Section 1 (b) of
that Order specifically excludes "issuance by Federal agencies
of permits, licenses, or allocations to private parties for
activities involving wetlands on non-Federal property." Therefore,
we propose that the regulations should be amended to define the
term "new facility" so as to incorporate the FWPCA definition of
"new source" and the EPA's procedures for establishing what is a
new source under the FWPCA. Reference should be made to Section
306(a)(2) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1316(a)(2) (which defines "new
source"), and 40 C.F.R. Part 9 (which contains EPA's criteria for
determining "new sources" under the FWPCA). Section 257.3-l(a) of
the regulations should also be amended to make it clear that the
EIS requirement for NPDES permits applies only to "new facilities".
-------
Furthermore, we feel that EPA's determination that all land-
fills located in wetlands result in water pollution is without
any factual basis, and is, therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable.
The EPA's General Counsel memorandum of law indicating that
depositing garbage into a landfill located in a "wetlands" is
a "discharge" into "navigable waters" requiring an NPDES permit
clearly makes the qualification that only those sites which are
"periodically inundated with water" are subject to the require-
ment. The definition of "wetlands" in the regulations carries
this thought forward. However, the regulations do not make it
clear that only sites "periodically inundated with water" must
obtain an NPDES permit. They apply to any "facility...located
in a wetland". Not all facilities located in wetlands areas are
periodically flooded. They might have been already built up to
such an extent as to be above the mean high tide, etc., or they
might have existing dikes or dams which adequately hold back the
tide or flood waters. These types of sites do not necessarily
cause water pollution requiring an NPDES Permit. Therefore,
Section 257.3-1(a) should be revised to read as follows:
"No new facility shall be constructed or located on lands
constituting wetlands; nor shall an existing facility be
operated in such a manner as to constitute discharges of
pollutants onto wetlands...(etc.)."
The EPA's requirement under RCRA that a site located in wetlands
obtain (as opposed to apply for) an NPDES permit is arbitrary and
unreasonable. The timing of this requirement without coordination
with the Water Permits and Enforcement Branches of EPA could
result in some inequities. To require that all sites in wetlands
obtain an NPDES permit prior to being inventoried as an open dump
is unreasonable unless the Water Permits and Enforcement Branches
of EPA have established effluent limitations guidelines and other
criteria for issuing these permits. To our knowledge, no such
guidelines or criteria will be forthcoming in time to allow these
s-irps to obtain NPDES permits prior to being inventoried. It seems
that this whole problem could be resolved by the EPA making it a
requirement (at least during the initial inventory stage) that all
such sites have applied for an NPDES Permit where required by law.
If, at any time, application is denied, the site then can be
redesignated an open dump and closed. This seems to be more
realistic and certainly more reasonable.
-------
Section 257.3-1(b) Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Floodplains.
(page 4953). At the NSWMA public meeting, we suggested adding
the word "excessive" or "unusual" at appropriate places so as to
indicate that some reasonable waste disposal could occur in the
flood plains of the U.S. We recommend that the term be inserted
as follows:
"The facility will not excessively restrict the flow of the
base flood or excessively reduce the temporary water-storage
capacity of the flood plain so as to cause unreasonably in-
creased flooding upstream or downstream as a result of the
base flood."
Section 257.3-1(d) Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Critical
Habitats, (page 4954). This requirement should be clarified.
The redundancy in requiring a showing to both EPA and the Office
of Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
Interior that landfill operation in designated critical habitats
will not harm an endangered species, is duplicative, time-consum-
ing, and unnecessary. We recommend rewording the second sentence
as follows:
"...it is demonstrated that such disposal operation will not
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species
or approval of the disposal plan is obtained from the Office
of Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of Interior."
Section 257.3-2 Surface Water, (page 4954). There appears a sentence
which concerns us very much, which reads, "Accordingly, all point
source discharges of pollutants, including surface runoff, surface
leachate, or leachate treatment effluent, must comply with an NPDES
permit issued for the facility according to Section 402 of P.L. 92-
500". The inclusion in this sentence of the words, "including
surface runoff" could mean that any site that is used for a landfill
must collect all water that crosses it or falls on it due to rainfall,
regardless of whether it comes in contact with any waste streams.
This means that just because a site is a landfill and it may be
300 acres, even though no more than one or two acres is in use at
the current time, all runoff from the entire 300 acres will be
subject to an NPDES permit. "Surface water" should be defined.
When EPA published its series of regulations establishing effluent
limitations/guidelines for NPDES permits pursuant to Sections 301
and 304 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1314, it included the
requirement that the point sources to which the guidelines pertained
must collect, monitor, and possibly treat "storm runoff". E.g., 40
C.F.R. Part 419 (Refinery Effluent Limitations/Guidelines). The
-------
term "storm runoff" was not defined so as to distinguish between
uncontaminated runoff and contaminated runoff. Without any
factual basis for doing so, the EPA assumed that all storm runoff
from industrial plants would be contaminated as a result of the
plant's activities having completely contaminated all of its
surface areas. In doing so, the EPA was consistently reversed by
the courts. American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F. 2nd 1023,
9 ERG 1252 (10th Cir. 1977), and Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train,
541 F. 2d 1018, 8 ERC 1718 (4th Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds,
U.S. , 9 ERC 1753(1977). In the American Petroleum Institute
case, the court quite clearly expressed the following:
"The statement in the EPA brief of how the storm runoff regu-
lations is intended to work is interesting but unsatisfactory.
We have no definition of the term "storm runoff". The EPA
brief says, p.Ill, that "all storm runoff is to be collected
and monitored." Taken literally this means that the refineries
will have to collect diffused surface runoff in channels and
discharge it through a discrete source. There is no statutory
or record support for such requirement."
Therefore it should be noted that the only surface runoff which
might be contaminated would be either: (1) uncontrolled spills of
hazardous liquid substances; or (2) uncontained, contaminated storm
water runoff. The former are dealt with under EPA's recent hazard-
ous substance regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 116, 117, 118 and 119).
The latter should be dealt with under the NPDES program. All other
surface runoff is uncontaminated storm runoff which traditionally
comes from virgin lands. Something similar to the recent draft of
proposed hazardous waste regulations under Section 3004 of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6924 (40 D.F.R. 250.44(c) and (d), should be incorporated
so as to allow for the segregation of uncontaminated storm water
runoff from any system of surface runoff control.
According to the following cases the EPA has no explicit authority
under either RCRA or the FWPCA to regulate nonpoint source discharges:
Cf., Sierra Club v. Abston Construction., F. Supp. , 10 ERC
1416 (n.D. Ala. 1977); 42 U.S.C. 6906(a); and_H.R. Rep. No. 1491,
94th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1976). Regulation of water pollution from
nonpoint sources is the exclusive domain of state and local auth-
orities through the Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans
(AWTMP) established pursuant to Section 208 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C.
1288. The EPA may publish guidelines, etc. for regulating these
sources. However, they clearly do not have authority to regulate
them, absent controls in an approved AWTMP. See, Sierra Club, supra
and 33 U.S.C. 1288(a)(2)(c)(1) and 1288(e). See also, 33 U.S.C.
1314(e). Therefore, we suggest that Section 257.3-2 be revised to
read that all nonpoint sources will comply with any EPA-approved
AWTMP.
-------
Section 257.3-3 Ground Water, (page 4954). As mentioned at
the NSWMA public meeting, each reference to "groundwater" in
Section 257.3-3(a) should be followed by the phrase "in the
aquifer".
In Section 257.3-3(a)(3) we suggest the following wording:
"For as long as leachate may enter ground water in such
quantities and concentrations that the ground water
quality will be endangered,..."
Reference to ground water quality standards may be illegal.
Section 257.3-3(b)(2) appears to set forth minimum criteria for
ground water quality standards for anything other than a public
drinking water supply. There is no statutory authority basis
for this in either the FWPCA or the Safe Drinking Water Act,
42 U.S.C. 300f, e£ se£. Under Section 304(a)(2) of the FWPCA,
33 D.S.C. 1314(a)(2), the EPA must gather and distribute to
the states information pertaining to ground water quality. The
states then are to use this information to control deep well
injection and land disposal of pollutants pursuant to an AWTMP
under Section 208 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1288. The states also
may use this information to establish water quality standards
for "intrastate waters" under Section 303 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C.
1313. However, nothing in any statute (including RCRA) gives EPA
the authority to dictate to the States what standards, if any,
they set for ground water quality. Section 257.3-3(b)(2) should
be deleted entirely.
With respect to the reference in 257.3-3(a)(2)(1) of "artificial
liners", this option may encourage less responsible facility
operators to state that a liner was installed (when none may
have been) — consequently, exempting the operator from monitoring.
Section 257.3-4 Air.(page 4954). Anything not included in an
approved state implementation plan under section 110, 129 and 161
of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7471, cannot
be enforced as a federal requirement. If a state has decided,
under state law, to have requirements for air pollution control
which are more stringent than that required to meet National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated under Section
108 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7408, or the Prevention
of Significant Deteriation (PSD) Requirements promulgated under
Sections 163 and 164 of the federal requirements, then that is a
matter of state law and not federal law. The regulation should be
revised to reflect this by stating that only the requirements
of an EPA approved SIP need be met. To do otherwise would
-------
not only go beyond EPA's authority as outlined above, but would
also be counter to RCRA's dictates that EPA's programs under
that Act be consistant with its programs under the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
6909. It would also be arbitrary, unreasonable, unnecessary, and
discriminatory in violation of the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution,
Amendment V.
Section 257.3-5 Application to Land Used for the Production of
Food Chain Crops, (page 4954). In 257.3-5(a)(2) the first sentence
should read "The land application of solid waste containing
cadmium is acceptable if..." rather than "...is acceptable is..."
(A typographical error.)
Section 257.3-7 Safety, (page 4955). Workplace safety for employees
is OSHA's exclusive jurisdiction. In both the supplementary
information and the regulations, EPA appears to believe RCRA has
granted it authority to regulate the work place environment. It
is our understanding that EPA and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) have an agreement that work place
safety, etc. is OSHA's exclusive jurisdiction. If EPA has any
concerns regarding this, we suggest that Section 6003 of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6963 be utilized to solicit OSHA's full cooperation,
etc. in implementing EPA's RCRA programs. Otherwise, it is accept-
able to incorporate OSHA's requirements into these regulations by
reference.
With respect to Section 247.3-7(b) regarding toxic or asphyxiating
gases, it is our understanding that the EPA has the authority to
promulgate work place rules here only if toxic air emission
limitations are unfeasible. See, Adamo Wrecking Co. v. U.S.,
U.S. , 11 ERC 1081 (1978). These work place rules are to be
promulgated, after opportunity for public hearing, etc., under
Section 112(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(e). To circumvent this
statutory requirement (i.e. that the EPA make the determination as
to the feasibility, etc. rather than the source) is again contrary
to Section 112 of the CAA and Section 1006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6906.
It is also again unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.
In the February 6th issue of the Federal Register regarding these criteria,
it was mentioned that a draft enTironmental impact statement (EIS) and
economic impact analysis (EIA) on the criteria would be available for
public review. As of this date we have not had the opportunity to obtain
a copy from EPA but reserve the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS/
EIA, when available. It is our preliminary assessment that the potential
impacts on segments of our society and economy, practically speaking and
economically, will be of paramount importance.
-------
Ive are pleased to bring the above comments to your attention and
encourage your careful consideration thereof. Please feel free to
contact us if further clarification or elaboration is desired.
Sincerely,
James R. Greco, Director
Government and Industry Affairs
JRG:bt
Dr. John Skinner
Steffen Plehn
Tom Jorllng
Gene Wingerter
National Governors Association
-------
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
The comments and suggestions contained in this document were assembled
by a group of scientists associated with a Cooperative State Research
Service (CSRS) Technical Committee studying the application of municipal
sludge to agriculture land. The composition of the committee was such
that it represented the Northwest, Southwest, North Central, Northeast,
and Southeast regions of the United States. Names and addresses of the
committee members are as follows:
Dr. R. L. Chaney, USDA, Science and Education Administration,
Federal Research, Beltsville, Maryland
Dr. J. M. Davidson, Department of Soil Science, University of
Florida
Dr. R. H. Dowdy, USDA, Science and Education Administration,
Federal Research, St. Paul, Minnesota
Dr. D. R. Keeney, Department of Soil Science, University of
Wisconsin
Dr. T. J. Logan, Department of Agronomy, Ohio State University
Dr. A. L. Page, Department of Soil Science and Agriculture
Engineering, University of California at Riverside
Dr. J. A. Ryan, Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. L. E. Sommers, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University
Dr. V. V, Volk, Department of Soil Science, Oregon State University
-------
- 2 -
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL COMMENTS
The undertaking of the Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed
Classification Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal on the basis of accept-
ability is admirable but it becomes apparent that the inherent differ-
ences of environmental and/or health considerations for the various
disposal options makes the Criteria vague and unmanageable from the
/perspective of both the user and EPA.
The Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed Classification Criteria
apply to all forms of solid waste. We are of the opinion that utiliza-
tion of sewage sludge consistent with agronomic crop production principles
is sufficiently unique to warrant either treatment in a separate document
.*:
ja- .^
or as an all-incluirve subsection in the proposed Criteria. In the
^
»*•.
present document there are a number of statements which apply exclusively
to options other than agriculture use. We feel that the ambiguity of
/the document would be considerably lessened by subdividing it on the basis
of disposal options.
The proposed Criteria imply that annual applications of sewage sludge
to agriculture land will be based upon limits set for cadmium. In the
agriculture utilization of sewage sludge, it is the judgment of this
committee that nitrate-nitrogen contamination of groundwater from sewage
sludge poses one of the major hazards to the environment. This very
I important consideration is totally ignored in the proposed Criteria.
I/ There are well-defined procedures for recommending rates of sewage sludge
-------
- 3 -
to be applied as a source of available nitrogen based upon crop require-
ments. Assuming no other constraints OC'-g... Cd limits). the committee
recommends that sewage sludges not be applied to agriculture lands at
rates which provide available nitrogen in excess of crop requirements.
This will assure control of nitrate-nitrogen contamination of groundwater.
Those knowledgeable in the field believe that there are insufficient
data available at this time to establish long-term criteria for regulation
of sewage sludge utilization in agriculture. Currently there are a large
number of projects underway throughout the United States which address the
impact of sludge utilization on environmental quality. These projects
will provide additional data on the long-term impacts of land application
of sewage sludge and thereby provide a sounder scientific basis for
criteria. Therefore, the committee recommends that a mandatory reassess-
ment of the Criteria with public hearings be conducted no later than five
years following issuance. Also any modification of the Criteria should
be subject to public hearings prior to implamentation.
GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL UTILIZATION OF SEWAG^SLUDGE
The Criteria (pp. 4943) state thar guidelines for additional uses
of sludge including incineration./energy recovery, and giveaway or
sale of sludge or composted sludge will be proposed in the future.
Will these supersede the^Sriteria as outlined in the document? It is
our understanding that the Criteria apply to all sewage sludge including
bagged products. We interpret the proposed Criteria as prohibiting
-------
- 4 -
the^bse of certain commercially available products (e.g., Nitrohumus,
.) because the owner-operator cannot guarantee appropriate
sludge applicatiolvjrates are complied with (as is mandated in the
Criteria under sectionH§ludge Disposal and Utilization" on pp. 4943).
Also, the Criteria state thatxsludge containing cadmium greater than a
specific concentration is prohibiteMon tobacco, leafy vegetables, and
root crops. It is unclear how EPA will^insure compliance for sludge
products which are either sold or given away.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
Owners and operators will need additional guidance on acceptable
methods to sample sludges and to analyze for cadmium and other toxic
substances. Also, it is unclear specifically what other toxic
substances must be determined in the sludge.
The Criteria (pp. 4943) state that the operator or owner must
determine appropriate land application rates of sludge and assure that
these rates are complied with. In systems other than owner-operator
controlled operations, the committee doubts that owners and operators
can guarantee that users comply with appropriate application rates.
Our interpretation of this section of the Criteria is that the owner-
operator must control the disposal or utilization of sludge. The
Committee doubts that it is feasible for the owner-operator to accomplish
this for all options, but yet according to the Criteria the operator
must assume this responsibility.
-------
- s -
This committee feels that procedures for sampling and analysis of
sludge must be treatment plant specific. These procedures will be
determined by the type of sludge produced and the methods by which
sludge is stored. /Fox example7, a batch analysis may be adequate for
lagooned or filter cake sludge that has been stored in a given area. In
this case, sampling intensity within the batch must be adequate to
satisfactorily represent sludge composition variability. On the
other hand, liquid sludge removed periodically from digesters would
be sampled on a regular frequency that will adequately represent sludge
composition. Opposite sludges should be analyzed at regular intervals
depending on tile amount of sludge generated. Statistics of sludge
analysis should include a measure of control tendency (mean or median)",
probabilities of exceeding the mean, and periodic (e.g., seasonal)
variation/in sludge composition if evident. This_j-ninmittoc feels that
sludge analysis of each load applied is not necessary. Page 4943,
columns 2 and 3, state that "The owner or operator must (1) analyze
the sludge for cadmium and other toxic substances." The committee
feels that the_statement "other toxic substances" is unnecessarily
vague and shouldjbe addressed. It is the recommendation of this
committee that, in order to best utilize the nutrient benefits of
sludge in a crop production program, nitrogen (TKN and mineral-N) and
phosphorus content of sludge should be determined on the same
frequency as Cd, In addition, this committee also recommends
analysis of Cu, Ni, Zn, and Pb at the same frequency because of the
potential of these metals to impair crop growth.
-------
- 6 -
This committee does not recommend wide-spectrum analysis of sludge
by individual treatment plants. Toxic compounds identified as being of
concern should be screened by EPA central laboratories.//Individual
treatment plants Imay need to develop analyticil capability for a given
compound if it isVfound to be a persistent problem at the plant. The
committee recommends that treatment plants stork composite sludge
samples Sor one year after collection.
The committee recommends that EPA more adequately define and standard-
ize sludge analytical methods. Any lab performing sludge analysis should
/be subject to a routine quality control program administered by EPA.
NON-APPLICABILITY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS SECTION TO SLUDGE
The section on adverse effects (pp. 4943) is not applicable to land
utilization of sewage sludges. This should be stated, or the section
should be expanded to include adverse1 effects associated with this
option. The section (pp. 4944 and 4945) on Implementation, Integration
with Regulations for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities, and Integration
with Surface Impoundment Studies under the Safe Drinking Water Act also
do not apply to sludge utilization on agricultural land.
SOIL ATTENUATION
The committee disagrees witlT-the statement (pp. 4948) on mechanisms
of soil attenuation and that soils have a limited capacity to attenuate
contaminants. The attenuation capacity of a soil is site specific
-------
- 7
because it depends upon soil properties and is specific for the chemical
element or constituent in question. Daja-'presently available show that
soils are capable of attenuatinjp-Yery large quantities of many elements,
e.g., lead, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc., etc. Under the conditions
stipulated in the Criteria, the majority of the reactions are irreversible
and not reversible as stated in the document.
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
'The Criteria (pp. 4948) state that groundwater has been contaminated
by solid waste disposal facilities on a local basis in many parts of the
nation. Although the statement may be true for certain landfills and
open dumps, the committee feels that it is not true for systems involving
the use of sewage sludge at nitrogen fertilizer rates in agricultural
operations.
Page 4948, column 2, indicates that "monitoring only at the property
boundary may not provide ample opportunity for appropriate corrective
actions because of time, economic and technical constraints." "Some
reviewers have suggested that a specific distance (e.g., 1 km) could be
used beyond boundary of application." It is the view of this committee
that selection of a specific distance is not justified. Dispersion of
pollutants, if any, in groundwater, from sludge application is highly
dependent on site characteristics (e.g., soil, geohydrology) as well
as the pollutant in question, e.g., NO -N moves into groundwater to a
-------
- 8 -
much greater extent than heavy metals."] While groundwater may need to be
v
monitored byond the sludge application boundary site, selection of the
distance must be determined for each site.
/The need for groundwater and other monitoring will .vary greatly
with whether or not the site is controlled or dedicated. As long as
sludge application rates do not exceed nitrogen fertilization capacity
of the crop, NO,-N contamination of groundwater is not anticipated and
groundwater monitoring requirements will be reduced or eliminated.
GUIDANCE FOR NON-FOOD CHAIN CROPLAND
The Criteria (pp. 4949) state that users can obtain additional
guidance on maximum application rates for waste application to non-food
chain crops from state and federal agriculture departments. The committee
feels that currently there are no uniformly acceptable guidelines avail-
able for use of waste on non-food chain crops and that most states and
federal agriculture personnel are not equipped to provide the guidance
implied.
-------
- 9 -
IMPLIED ROLE OF EPA IN PROTECTING SOIL PRODUCTIVITY
On page 4949, second and third columns, the dociuneni^states, "Future
revisions of the Criteria will also address substan«s (in solid waste)
which could adversely affect the productivityIK agriculture land.
Although we believe that EPA is responsible for ensuring that surface
and groundwater, marine waters, and air are protected against environmental
/
contamination, we question the iajplied role of EPA to protect the soil's
/
capability to produce food and fiber. In the broadest sense, protection
/
of soil productivity includes management functions which are the
traditional roles of other governmental agencies (Soil Conservation
Service, Cooperative Agricultural Extension SErvice, U. S. Department
of Agriculture/ State Agricultural Experiment Stations, etc.). Because
of the lone/term experience and demonstrated performance of these agencies
in the protection of crop production, this committee sees no role for
EPA in/establishing criteria to protect soil productivity, per se.
STATEMENT ON DAILY INTAKE OF Cd
The statement on pp. 4949, third column, "This concern arises from
an FDA assessment of teenage males in this country (class of individuals
which consumes the most food), which concluded that their average daily
intake of cadmium from food and water approximates the total tolerable
i
daily intake level recommended by the World Health Organization," is
i/
V \ misleading. FDA has determined that if a young adult male consumes
-------
- 10 -
his normal diet (containing cadmium at the average concentration deter-
mined by FDA1 s market basket survey) , he would ingest an amount of cadmium
approximately equal to current World Health Organization (WHO) tolerable
limits. Whether the WHO tolerable limits should stay where they are or
be raised is the subject of considerable controversy.
The statement in the proposed Criteria is based upon the assumption
that the average adult male will consume a diet which contains cadmium at
the average concentration determined by FDA's market basket survey. FDA,
however, suggests that median concentrations of cadmium in the diet (which
are approximately one half of the mean concentration) is a more realistic
appraisal of the total dietary intake of cadmium for a young adult male
=^BB.
. Prngrmn Eva Inn firm, FY 74 Total Diet Studies (7320.08)
Also, the concentration of cadmium from solid waste disposal on
lands to gxow foods which are part of the diet of the young adult male
is not known. Since in the near future only a low percentage of the
agricultural land would be required for agricultural utilization of all
sewage sludge produced in the U.S.A., the impact of sewage sludge
derived cadmium on the diet of the "average" young adult male will be
insignificant. However, in localized situations where a large percentage
of an individual's diet for a few decades is derived from sludge-amended
soils there may be an impact.
-------
- 11 -
CADMIUM:ZINC RATld LIMITATIONS
It is recommended in,the document (pp. 4950), "...that the ratio of
cadmium to zinc in the solid waste be less than or equal to 0.015
(especially for high cadmium content solid wastes) where solid waste is
applied to naturally acidic soils." Criteria specify that the pH of
the waste-amended soil must be maintained at 6.5 or greater. Under
these conditions use of Cd/Zn ratio to prevent Cd accumulation in crops
is inappropriate. Therefore, this section should be deleted. Recom-
mendations such as the above tend to be adopted by other governmental
agencies and thereby place undue restrictions on owners and operators
of wastewater treatment plants.
DISPOSAL ON SITES LOCATED IN RECHARGE ZONES^ORySQLE SOURCE AQUIFERS
^
The Criteria state Cpp- 4954) that disposal sites should not be
located in recharge zones of sole source aquifers. Does this requirement
apply to agricultural utilization of sewage sludge? If so, this
requirement is too stringent because utilization of sewage sludge in
agriculture under proper management poses no greater threat to ground-
water than normal agricultural crop production practices.
METHOD FOR DETERMINING CEC
There are a number of widely accepted methods of CEC measurement
which give results similar to the pH 7 ammonium acetate procedure
-------
- 12 -
given in paragraph 257.2 (d). The ammonium acetate procedure has limita-
tions, particularly with vermiculitic soils which can irreversibly fix
ammonium ions. .These limitations should be recognized and references
to a more comprehensive discussion on CEC (such as Black, C. A., 1965,
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chapters 57 and 58) might be given.
Further clarification is required regarding when the site characterization
with respect to CEC is conducted, and the depth of soil sampled. We
recommend that soil CEC be measured on samples taken before sludge
incorporation, and that the depth of sample be the usual tillage depth
or the depth of sludge incorporation.
STABILIZATION
We feel this definition (257.2(cc)) is ambiguous and incomplete.
Specifically, what does the term "significant" reduction of pathogens
really mean? Further, sludges and other organic solid wastes are often
stabilized to minimize odor and BOD in addition to reducing pathogens.
This leads to a much more environmentally acceptable material for use
on cropland.
FUTURE USE OF SITES RECEIVING SOLID WASTES
The committee believes it is impossible to identify with certainty
whether a site "...will in the future be used for production of food
chain crops..." (pp. 4954:257.3-5(a)). We believe it is more expedient
and practicable to control application rates at the site or monitor
-------
- 13 -
environmental and toxic substance level in crops and meats prior to
marketing. This approach will remove the impossibility of an agency to
identify sites which may "in the future be used for food production."
Cd LOADING (pp. 4954, 257.5-5)
We support the use of areal (kg/ha) rather than concentration based
(mg/kg) Cd limits. It should be clarified in this section or in the
definitions that areal loadings limits are intended.
We believe that sufficient research findings are available to show
that if other site management criteria are met (in particular soil pH
control) both the cumulative Cd loading limits and the 2.0 kg/ha annual
Cd loading limits pose no reasonable probability of adverse effects
on health or the environment. While supportive of these limits, it
must be recognized that they are based on a limited number of field
studies indicating a small increase Cwihin normal Cd content of the same
crop grown without sludge) of plant tissue Cd on addition of 2 kg/ha of
sludge Cd to near neutral soils. Other data indicate that cumulative
Cd loading on near neutral soils has far less impact on plant tissue Cd
than the annual Cd loading rate. In light of these findings, we suggest
that the cumulative Cd loading limits may not be an appropriate means
to regulate solid waste applications to cropland. Since research
findings presently are not extensive, we do not recommend that the
specified cumulative cadmium loading limits be changed at this time.
-------
- 14 -
However, if and when the trends currently indicated by research are deter-
mined to be conclusive, we recommend that cumulative loading limits for
cadmium be re-evaluated and appropriate action taken.
The need for further reduction to 1.25 kg Cd/ha/yr by 1982 and
0.5 kg Cd/ha/yr by 1985 has not yet been demonstrated as necessary or
i possible for all cities. We believe this phased reduction should be
\7
deleted. We emphasize that the 2.0 kg/ha Cd loadings are maximum,
V
and that programs to minimize Cd additions to agricultural soils
I
V should be encouraged. If the purpose of the Criteria is to require
pretreatment of Cd-bearing industrial waste, this goal should be so
stated rather than using cadmium application rates on agricultural
land as an indirect means of encouraging pretreatment. Such pretreatment
may or may not be effective in reducing sewage sludge Cd to levels
appropriate for unregulated distribution.
We agree with the introductory comments on p. 4930, column 1,
paragraph 2, "other soil factors such as organic matter and hydrous
oxide content may be equally or more important in limiting metal
availability." Until and unless better methods of rapidly and easily
determining the soil's ability to retain metals (particularly Cd) are
available, we support the use of soil CEC as an index (as opposed to
a single Cd loading value for all soils).
-------
- IS -
We anticipate that the stepwise loading function for cumulative Cd
loading vs. CEG could lead to some problems, particularly when only a
small increase in measured CEC could result in a doubling of the
allowable maximum cumulative Cd loading. While a continuous function
equation such as "Cumulative Cd application (kg/ha) j^ 1.0 x CEC_to a
maximum of 20 kg Cd/ha" might be preferable, this approach implies more
knowledge of the relationship between CEC and Cd availability than
currently exists. We suggest that the present approach be maintained,
but that this topic be carefully considered in future revisions of
the Criteria.
The statement under paragraph (a). "Cadmium. Any site that is
currently or will in the future be used for the production of food
chain crop...," is interpreted by the committee in the strictest sense
to mean all sites.J/Under 2S7.3-5(a) (13(iii), the Criteria state that
"Solid waste containing cadmium concentrations in excess of 25 mg/kg dry
weight is not applied to sites where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or
^root crops are or will be grown for direct human consumption. Since,
in the opinion of the committee, there is no conceivable way that those
responsible can guarantee that tobacco, leafy vegetables or root crops
will not be grown on a site at some future time, we interpret 257.3-5(a)
to limit the concentration of cadmium in solid waste destined for use
on land (food or non-food chain uses) to be a maximum of 25 mg/kg.
-------
- 16 -
We believe that although a specific Cd concentration limit for
sludges which are freely distributed (where there is no control over
loading rates, soil pH, and crop selection) is supportable, it is
not supportable for general use cropland (which is supposed to be
governed by annual and cumulative Cd limits shown in other paragraphs).
Further, a. specific numerical limit ("25 mg Cd/kg dry weight") is
arbitrary; sludge Cd concentration is influenced considerably by sludge
processing methods (the final sludge containing product prepared from a
raw sludge containing 25 ppm Cd could be less than 20 ppm) by dilution
with other low Cd organic materials) or greater than 50 ppm after
anaerobic digestion and greater than 70 ppm with further stabilization).
Hence, EPA should clarify whether or not it wants to have sludge
application controlled by (1) its cadmium concentration, (2) amounts
of cadmium applied, (o) the concentration in the crop produced, or (4) a.
combination of the above. A note that sludge processing technology may
dilute or concentrate sludge Cd would also be appropriate.
pH OF SOILS RECEIVING SOLID WASTE
Research supported by EPA, federal and state funds has established
that the entry of cadmium into plants grown on sludge-amended soils is
minimized by maintaining the pH of the sludge-amended soil at or
-------
- 17 -
near neutrality. Because of the importance of soil pH and the dependency
of the results upon the analytical method, the document should specify
the method by which the pH of the soil is to be determined. Furthermore
the document should specify the method by which the soil should be sampled.
We suggest a representative composite of soil sampled to the depth of
incorporation of the solid waste.
In practice it is difficult and often not feasible to manage soils to
maintain pH at a specified value. Frequently following sludge applications
the pH of a near neutral soil will decrease. We suggest some flexibility
in pH control, which would permit the pH of the soil to decrease to a
specific level less than that specified for the site, and once this
level is reached then the operator would be required to implement
correction measures to bring the pH up to the original limit specified.
The committee also recommends that some controls be implemented
to ensure that the pH of soils which receive waste is maintained above
a certain level for a period of time after waste applications cease.
We suggest that should for any reason solid waste application to a
given site cease, if the soil at the site is non-calcareous, the
soil pH must be monitored at the site annually for a minimum of five
years following the last waste application. If during this time the
soil pH drops below a specified level, then corrective action must be
taken to increase pH of the soil to a specified level.
-------
- 18 -
COMPARABILITY (pp. 4954-55, 257.3-5(2).
/The comparability concept, as nOT.nd 111 SubpaiAgraph 2, to determine
sewage sludge application rates, is not acceptable to the committee. We
found it impossible to define comparability. Use of a comparability
approach to justify application of sewage sludges to land does not appear
practical. Too many variables affect plant and animal elemental content.
Elemental concentrations in plant materials are highly dependent upon
crop, crop variety, stage of growth at sampling, sample contamination by
atmospheric fallout, soil properties (particularly pH), climatic conditions
and general crop management. With these variables, which occur for both
sludge-treated and untreated land, it is difficult to determine the
"proper set of numbers to use to decide the issue of comparability."
Establishment of objectivity will be difficult.^] For example, a leafy
[vegetable grown under one set of conditions on a site which received
no sludge may have a higher cadmium concentration than the same crop
grown on a sludge-treated soil with EPA-stipulated management;
conversely the reverse may occur. A major problem is deciding what
conditions are used to obtain the control (non-sludged) value. A
regional or state average for a given crop might be used, or a value
obtained for the crop grown on an adjacent and similar soil with
similar management may be chosen. If the latter, how can this be
related to crops grown in another locality which may have a considerably
higher cadmium content? It does not seem practical or suitable to use
a nationwide crop cadmium concentration as the control because one
must then establish a mechanism to determine a nationwide median or
mean or acceptable value.
-------
- 19 -
Another problem associated with comparability involves the limits
which must be set. For example, does a significant increase mean
statistically significant, or does it mean 1%, 10%, or 100% greater than
the control? Further, even though there may be a significant increase
in crop cadmium concentration due to sludge application at a site, it
may not have a significant effect with respect to human health or the
environment. These limits are important because elemental concentrations
usually vary even within a given field.
The use of established elemental limits for a given edible foodstuff to
determine suitability for sludge application programs is recommended.
Although these limits have not been established, the committee strongly
recommends this approach rather than the comparability concept. EPA and
FDA should intensify efforts to develop the limits and upon their develop-
ment use them as one criterion for suitability of land application for
sewage sludge. Problem levels for elements or compounds in plant or
animal tissue must be identified prior to identification of unacceptable
levels.
CONTROLLED SITES
We are concerned with the fact that the proposed regulations
encourage only short-term or limited use of sludge application sites.
The committee believes that, based upon available research data, use
of "controlled sites" for municipal sludge applications should be
-------
- 20 -
encouraged where feasible. Controlled sites are defined as those sites
which, through proper management and site selection may receive sludge
containing cadmium or other hazardous substances at rates above those
recommended in the first approach. Higher application rates may be used
if an intensive monitoring program is established to assure acceptable
crop quality and provide for the protection of groundwaters, surface
waters, and soils. If metal and/or nitrogen additions exceed those
recommended in the first approach, priority considerations should be
given to growing crops that result in minimal metal uptake and are not
directly consumed by humans.
If human foods or animal feeds are grown and harvested on
controlled sites, higher than normally recommended sludge application rates
may be acceptable if resulting levels of cadmium in the crops or meats
marketed meet acceptable levels to be established by FDA. For example,
strip-mined land which has been reclaimed through high rates of sludge
application may be used for producing animal feeds; however, organs
(e.g., kidneys and livers) which may accumulate cadmium in animals fed'
such feed would not be sold for human consumption if their cadmium
levels exceed FDA limits.
DIRECT INGESTION (pp. 4955, 257.5-5(d))
There are sufficient data available to show that many plants retain
municipal sludges beyond the application date (i.e., "freshly applied").
-------
- 21 -
i Although the statement regarding "freshly applied" municipal sludge may
I be suitable for pathogens, it is not restrictive enough for heavy metals
and other sludge constituents. Animals ingesting specific quantities
lof sludge associated with plant tissue are subject to the same risk
/several weeks or months after application as they were immediately after
V I/application.
-------
Surface Water Sec. 257-3-2
The language of this section does not take into accoun
that the EPA has failed to issue over 12,000 discharge per-
nits to so-called "minor" sources. The language in-^ttris
ss-eAian should teak 3 it clear thax no ciacharge of pollutants
is allowed unless a p»rmit has actually been obtained.
Ground W^+.er Sac. 257.3-3
tfe doJi not think that applying the concept of "endager-
msn-t.^/at the "boundary line cf the facility is a, practicable
one. £ The concept is even more tenuous when considered in
conjunction with the operational requirements for Case I
aquifers. First, it should ba noted that the definition of
endage'rment mak'6.a,,a.serious emission with respsct to the
recently proposed Interim Primary Driniking Water Regulations
(See 43 rad. Reg. 5756 - 5780). As currently proposed,
these regulations would coiirolikthe exposure of the public
i public
to'synthetic organic chemicals in/drinking water supplies
by requiring communities with a population of 75.000 or
more to install a granular activated carbon filtration system
unless such system can be shown not to be contaminated by
-------
synthetic organics in significant amounts. Communities with
a population less than 75,000 are not required to intsill
such treatment. The definition of"endagerment" in
paragraph (h) of Section 257.1 is limited to contamination
which makes it necessary for a ground-water user to increase
treatment of the water. Since EPA is requiring treatment
as a substitute for establishing maximum contaminant levels
for synthatic organic chemicals, the definition of endagar-
rant in essence excludes the intnoduction of synthetic
organic chemicals into groundwaters used as public water
supplies for communitites with a peculation of 75iOO or less,
as well as private drinking water supplies. As stated in
te preamble to the Proposed Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, "Although the concentrations of each synthetic
organic compound, when detected in drinking water, have been
generally at the parts per billion level or lower, the ag-
gregate expousre to such chemicals from a lifetime of water
consumption is significant in terms of potential risk to
human health."
We submit that the introduction of synthetic organic
-------
chemicals into Case I ground-waters should constitute an
K
"endagerment."
n
Limitng the endagsrment to the ground water beyond the
boundary of the disposal facility is, in our view, fatal
to the "endagerment" concept. The "fenceline" limitation is
even KMSS contradictory to the naterials provided in tha
preamble to thia proposed rule, wherein it is stated,
"Ssince removing the- source of contamination still
does not claan up t-he aquifer once contaminated, the
contamination of an aquifer car. rule out its usefulness- as
a drinking water source for decades and possibly
centuras. Also," "cleanup of contaminated ground
water may not be economically or technically feasible."
As pointed out in the quote, the point at which "endager-
J&SJfct
occurs may not make any difference at all to the damage
which hasts incurred. Furthermore, the operational re-
quirements are not worded so as to provide assurances that
"endagerment" will not occur, the operational requirments
permif'soil attanuation mechanisms and/or recovery and
treatment of contaminated water." However, the preamble
states,
"The mechanisms of soil attentuation ... have a limited
capacity and are also reversible."
1 have already quoted the portion of the preamble that
states that removable of the contaminated v/ater may not
-------
be feasible. Clearly, the Agency can not contend that such
an approach represents the "best practicable controls"
approach described in the preamble. The Agency should
take the firm position that pravsntion of leachate from
reaching the groundwater is the only means of ensuring
the the groundwater is not "endagered1.1
The problems described above concerning the definition
of "endagerment" and th4 inadequacy of its application
are particular concern with respect tq pits, ponds, and
lagoons. While EPA acknowledges that these proposed reg-
ulations will be applicable to such facilities, it also
indicates that it is really seeking another regulatory
mechanism to control them. Ha The contamination of ground-
water from the disposal of solid waste in t>its, ponds, and
lagoons provided a major impetus for the passage of the RCRA.
We can not understand how the Agency can avoid regulating
these facilities in very specific terms. We submit that
the nature of the threat posed by pits, ponds, and lagoons
to ground-water requires operational procedures that are
far more specific ifcai than the current requirements .
-------
While some of these facilities may be regulated under the
hazardous waste provisions of the RCRA, no one can really
predict what percentage will not be so regulated. Several
studies have documented the frequency of ground-water
contamination frorn pits, ponds, and lagoons. Surely
this record demands that the EPA *aka issue specific re-
quirments for these facilities, vre nost corr-.rovp-rsial
^
of these studies, nublish^rl by £PA in October of 1977 found
that the arourid-uater near IF of 21 lasoons sa"wleg in ei etht
stjif^s h.?.^ b« = n conta'iina tpd \?itb or»?~lc or inorganic
substances. Indeed, of a total of 50 S-LUF-S tnriJ:x:--Fr"x
cont:->.ninated the
-------
In 1972, the Congress built in a bias which provided an
incentive for industrial wastewa''»r dischargers to "tie-in"
to municinal .syste-ns . At that ti~-> -najor concern focused
o.i conventional water pollutants such as fecal colifor'r,,
'.j. ,.D., and sv _; - ->n-'-'c' solids. '••-• theory was that the combined
treatment of fis. -nunicipal and industrial wasteiwacer would
'~nt it would have to
-orforin to prevent these pollutants fro~i h^-in^ d is charged
into the receiving; waters. During the consideration of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 , industry KBxkE argued that pre-
/l
treatment requirements should not have the goal of reducing
industrial toxics in sludge since this would require "duplicate
treatment '. r|"o ai larp,e extent, the Congress agreed with
this arptment. The Congress larp-ely ignored the orobl^^s
such an approach posed for sludge disposal. Now we find that
-------
jfhe cost of sludge disposal is becoming so great that large
municipal systems must annly their toxic laden sludge to
croplands in order to keep such costs witnia 'reasonable1'
ranges. ."nvironmental Action's position is that the toxic
problem belongs with the industrial wastevater dischargers
HAv/// if- '/$ St'f&f
and it should remain with them. Tnese regulations clearly
t\
subject the public to a higher tha~ n<=ces<;,Try h--^lt-. --isV.
xi:ra:nu ir. o-'r1^:: to LO'/sr tiif cost of industrial pollutnat
disposal .
"SPA's approach to controlling sludge mana,":eTient is
clearly based on the assumption th?t the major hu~inn health
ris!' is the addition of cadmium to the body over a long
term throu"h the consu:nr>t ion of crons arown on sludge amended
soil. Since it feakes many years for the body burden of
cadnium to cause observable health effects, princio'ally
c^
kidney damage, the Agency clearly is allowing the application
of higher amounts of cad.mlum to croplands on the assumption
that it can rait for
the accumulation of K ~*5f£v. d^ta on v-.e problem t~t— Htf - £^vrn •-
A ' '
before takin" more effoctive actior. ,'e disagree with this
-------
y
approach prinlcipally because it ignores the political and
economic realities which indicate that once cropland1
of sl^u)^" n"-:i-'"? =• -'-ijo" "i^ans of =lud
-------
policies of limiting human exposure to carcong.ens to the
maximum extent feasible. Thesp nolLci^s are based on the
uders f.pnrt in^ that knn;cn V.riow thrrsholr limit value below
which exposure is safe harfs ^sver been established fa for
a carcinogen, mutagen, or teratogen. :/hile the (>sfa^ cited
above ri333r.iK32xEn:s±3: is by no means cnnslueive, ic clearly
should provide a basis for extreme caution in ^FA's policies
toward the disposal of si cadmium-containing sludge in such
a nanner that it might reach t'-.e human food chain.
'Je do not find that Section 257.3-5 reflects such a oolicy
of caution. For instance, the annual ao^lication limits
of cadnium to the soil would allot; a sludge containing ap-
"roxi'iFitely 100 parts per million to be applied to a high
nitrogen demand crop such as corn until 1981. Assuming Sat
is application is designed to meet the nitrogen demand of
the crop, othor crops could ns be anplied \jith ssaeh sludges
containing much higher concentrations of cadmium, since
application rates would be lower and still meet nitrogen
i:ince the median concentration of cad-iiun in sludge is 11-16
-------
parts per million, the annual apnlication limits for cad~>LU">
'--« clo.?~ly K":ar"E;i dpsipn'-d to ace D-io^at-r. i-'"> rs«r!s of
l.Tge indiisZEZHi .-nunicioal systems with industrial sources
of "ast"'7pter. "? rpcomfind a li -i^ of .5 >;;» ner hectare
tuasniJ:cr>.nj5nx by 19£l, phased down to .20 by 1987. This
limit would accomadate the application sludges contain Ins;
25 parts per million to a high nitrogen den-ind crop
such as -c
'.fnile EPA has yet to come forth with HX economic data,
\ sa \-\iu,
1976 v^€irj^^fon saa£vwai.d by the Office of Solid Waste
found that such limits v/ould prevent thf>,aDDlic=>tion of
50 oercent of Che i sludges surveyed. Hox^ever, the sludges
that would be eliminated are highly polluted with a mean
cadmium level of 255 parts per million. In addition, 6^
percent of the communities surveyed would be unaf f ect&j1 by
such a limit.
Environmental Action opposes suparagraph 257.3-5(a) (2)
as being an unworkable. 'fe do not think that it would be
possible to establish an effective system to nonitoriHX
-------
the amount of cadmium ar.d other contaminants
taken up by food crops sxOtg'n on sludsre amended soils.
'Iho institutional difficulties of <£&£. stats agency regulating
food ^~-j s
thfi/nonitorin^ activities of another/ * :.r.cc we nrosuie only
r.ts would je coTX'terit to provide such
This is particularly
true whan ons considers the technical difficulty of establishing
'.jhat in fact are 'coT.nprnble •' 1"\'1~ -resent in similar forx*
products produced in the region.- Instead of preventing the
cad.tiiurn contaninat i on problem at t.-e source, this aooroach
attenots to doal witri tne oroble-n a. the last opportunity
prior to human expousro.
-------
i
National Association of Counties Research, hie.
Offices • 1735 New York Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 • Telephone 202/785-9577
April 20, 1978
Mr. Kenneth A. Shuster
Office of Solid Waste (WH-564)
USE PA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Shuster:
Attached are the comments of our organization on the Proposed Classifi-
cation Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. It is evident that the
Office of Solid Waste has devoted great effort in the careful development of
these criteria, and the authors are to be commended for their work. In
particular, we appreciate the degree of flexibility in the proposed criteria,
insofar as they are based on performance standards rather than specific design
or operating standards.
There are, nevertheless, some problems with the criteria as proposed from
the perspective of those who will have to comply with them. On a number of
specific legal and technical issues such as whether EPA has the statutory
authority to set criteria for safety or landspreading under RCRA, we would
generally tend to agree with the comments and questions raised by the National
Governors Association and the American Public Works Association. However,
rather than conducting a section-by-section analysis as they have done, we are
submitting comments on one general issue—the importance of taking into account
differences between urban and rural areas.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these criteria, and we hope
that you will find them useful in your deliberations on the final draft.
Sincerely,
(A).
Clifford W. Cobb
Solid Waste Project Director
CC:crm
Enclosure
-------
Comments on the Proposed Classification Criteria for Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities
Introduction
The fundamental purpose of the proposed landfill criteria which have
been promulgated under Section 4004 of RCRA is to set standards which will be
followed by counties, cities, and private operators in their land disposal
facilities. Thus, the criteria should be based on a combination of factors
consisting of environmental protection and practical feasibility. For urban
areas, the proposed standards represent a fairly reasonable compromise
between those two considerations. However, in rural areas, where daily
compaction and cover, plus final contouring and seeding would represent a tremendous
improvement at many sites, the situation calls for a different trade-off. Even the
best operated landfills in rural areas will have difficulty meeting some of the
requirements in the proposed criteria.
Recommendation
In order to achieve a better balance between environmental safeguards
and practical limitations in rural areas, the following changes in the
proposed criteria should be considered. For landfills operated by or for
jurisdictions defined as rural in Section 4009 of PCRA, the requirements
should be limited to those in 257.3—1, 257.3-5, and 257.3-6, unless a state
determines the need at a specific site for protection of groundwater or.
surface water, prevention of fires, explosions, and toxic gases, or other
standards. Burning of leaves, brush, and tree stumps should be allowed if
the state determines tliat such burning would not interfere with public
health nor with its Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act. The key
-------
point is to set the criteria at a level that will provide a reasonable
level of environmental improvement while setting goals which are realistically
attainable in the time envisioned.
Rationale
There are two basic reasons for considering a different standard for
rural areas than for urban areas.
To begin with EPA should consider whether environmental hazards are
as significant in rural areas. For example, if water from an aquifer will
be used almost entirely for irrigation or mining, does it make sense to
require elaborate methods to protect its purity by preventing leachate
contamination? Is it reasonable to prevent a county of 5,000 population
and 4,000 square miles from burning its garbage? Should there be no
distinction in methane gas monitoring requirements between a one thousand
ton per day disposal site and a one ton per day site? These are only a few
of the questions that EPA should be considering in its analysis of whether
to require equally stringent standards for urban and rural areas.
The technical and economic limitations of small local governments in comply-
ing with these and other federal requirements provide the second rationale for
allowing a lower standard in rural areas. If standards are set at an
achievable target, county and city officials can get some satisfaction out of
taking the initiative to meet the goals. However, if local governments are
told that what they view as their major accomplishments are futile efforts in
the eyes of state and federal officials, this may produce discouragement and
resentment winch will be counter-productive in terms of fulfilling the intent
of RCRA. Why should a small county make any effort at all if it knows that
-------
-3-
it cannot possibly change within five years from a network of loosely managed
open dumps to a comprehensive system of soundly engineered disposal plus, in
all likelihood, a collection system of some type?
The Relation to Collection
The connection between improved landfills and the availability of
collection service is an important element in the ability of a rural county
to meet the criteria as proposed. In places where residents have traditionally
taken their own garbage to the dump, it will require an expensive public
relations program and the provision of a number of green boxes" to change those
behavior patterns after dumps have been closed and the distance to an
approved landfill has increased. Unfortunately, those expenses will need to
be incurred at the same time that landfill improvements are being made.
It will not be easy to win approval from voters/taxpayers for those programs
simultaneously.
Need for Tangible Results
It is important to recognize that the successful landfill operations
in rural areas that exist today are the product of years of step-by-step
improvements based on the initiative of concerned citizens and local
government officials. In some cases, it may be necessary to gain support
for higher disposal standards by first providing better or cheaper service
to households. If citizens are asked to pay higher taxes or fees for
garbage disposal, they will need to see some some tangible evidence th"t
they are benefitting from the higher cost. Political support at the local
level for the visionary goals that are conjured up in Washington requires
-------
-4-
patient dedication to accomplishinq one task at a time within the budget
constraints of those who pay for them.
The Federal Response
What is the appropriate response of the federal government to the
plight of rural areas in solid waste management? The obvious response is
financial aid to purchase tc-chnical services and heavy equipment. However,
money alone is not enoujh. In addition, the federal government's rules on
acceptable disposal practices mist appear fair and reasonable to those who
are expected to obey them. Failure to achieve agreement about what is fair is
likely to lead to inequities in practice as some states seek to enforce
stringent standards on everyone, while other states may be willing to relax
those standards in recognition of mitigating circumstances.
Comparison with Water Pollution Abatement
We hope that the Office of Solid Waste will not make the same mistakes
as have been made in EPA's water pollution control efforts. A number of small
towns built expensive sewage treatment facilities only to find thar rhey could
not afford them. This was particularly true for these which built collection
systems simultaneously with treatment plants. Low cost alternative treatment
methods are being encouraged now in sparsely populated areas. EPA also eventually
accepted less stringent requirements in low density areas by allowina higher
concentrations of suspended solids in cifluent from oxidation ponds or lagoons
discharging less than ono million gallons oer day.
-------
Hopefully, similar modifications can be included in the "landfill
criteria" fron the beginning, rather than waiting until the situation
reaches crisis proportions in rural areas.
Conclusion
Setting realistic standards that rovjard incremental improvements in
disposal practices would not only reduce the potential burden on rural areas
and increase their wil1inqnesb to comply with the law. It would also indicate
that EPA is sincere in its desire to solv? problems rather than develop pristine
standards which ignore the very rcil frustration they may cause in practice.
-------
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT THE luIEJDICAL, CEITTER., CHICAOO
--- 8855
May 4, 1978
Mr. Kenneth Shuster
Office of Solid Waste
WH 564
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20406
Dear Mr. Shuster:
Enclosed you will find a slight revision of the presentation I made
in Washington April 21, 1978 regarding the Proposed Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. I hope you
find the critique useful.
Sincerely,
William H. Hallenbeck, Dr.P.H.
Assistant Professor
Environmental Health Sciences
-------
Attn: Mr. Kenneth Shuster
Docket 4004
US EPA
Office of Solid Waste
WH 564
401 M St. SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Revision of Statement
Presented at Public Hearings on the Proposed
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities, April 21, 1978
GSA Main Auditorium
18th S F Sts. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20406
Date of Submission: May 5, 1978
Dr. William Hallenbeck
School of Public Health
University of Illinois Medical Center
Box 6998
Chicago, 111. 60680
Phone: 312-996-8855
The objectives of this presentation are: (1) to estimate the increase
in cadmium intake in the human diet when certain foods are derived from
sludge-amended soil; (2) to critique certain aspects of the Proposed
Classification Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.
The Total Diet Studies conducted by the Food and Drug Administration
in FY 1974 examined the diet of the 15-20 year-old male. Table 1 contains
2
a summary of pertinent results. It can be seen in Table 1 that a diet
derived from non sludge-amended soil contains about 33.5 yg/day (median).
Cadmium is a trace metal with known nephrotoxicity and other toxicities
in humans and causes significant reproductive damage in mice fed at low
4
levels (10 ppm in drinking water). The WHO has established a limit for
cadmium intake of 57-71 yg/day. ' The results of the FY 1974 Total Diet
Studies show that the diet of a 15-20 year-old male contains a level of
cadmium which approaches 50% of the maximum tolerance.
Let us now examine the quantity of additional cadmium in the diet
which may result from the application of sludge to croplands. In order
to do an exhaustive calculation of the sludge-induced increase in dietary
cadmium, one would need to know the cadmium content of a wide variety of
foods derived from sludge-amended soil. There are insufficient data to
make an estimate of the dietary increase of cadmium due to sludge-amended
-------
soil. Table 2 contains a summary of selected data from a well-controlled
study conducted by Mclntyre, et al. In order to estimate the dietary
increment of cadmium derived from sludge, I have used the data in Table 2
as representative of the food classes in the FDA Total Diet Studies.
The EPA recommends that soil be maintained at a pK >_ 6.5. Mclntrye's
data were derived from crops grown at a pH of about 6. Although the
data in Table 2 can be improved upon, I am confident that they represent
a realistic estimate of cadmium uptake at pH = 6.5. Furthermore, compliance
with a pH requirement of >_ 6.5 will be quite difficult as most
soils have a pH of less than 6.5. Table 3 contains a summary of my
assumptions and calculations. It can be seen in Table 3 that the total
dietary cadmium increment due to sludge-amended soil is 178 yg/day
(assuming that the diet is composed of foods derived from sludge-amended
soil). If the 178 ug/day increment is added to the present median intake
of 33.5 ug/day, the total cadmium intake may be 211.5 yg/day or about
three times higher than the upper limit recommended by WHO.
Most of the increment in dietary cadmium results from grain and
cereal intake (Table 3). I would like to point out that Section 257.3-5
(a) (1) (iii) on p. 4954 of the proposed Classification Criteria
makes no mention of grains and cereals:
"Solid waste containing cadmium concentrations in excess of 25 mg/kg
dry weight is not applied to sites where tobacco, leafy vegetables,
or root crops are or will be grown for direct human consumption."
It is very important that the food categories of grains and cereals
be included in Section 257.3-5, (a) (1) (iii).
-------
Recommendations
Tolerances for metals in crops are urgently needed EPA appears
to be proposing ad hoc tolerances in Section 257.3-5(2) on pp. 4954-
4955:
"The land application of solid waste containing cadmium is acceptable
if the resulting level of cadmium in the crops and meats marketed
for human consumption are analyzed prior to marketing and shown to
be comparable to those levels present in similar crops or meats
produced locally where solid waste has not been applied."
I suggest that these are very weak criteria on which to base tolerances
for metals. For example, levels of cadmium in crops derived from local,
non sludge-amended soil may be at unacceptable levels. Tolerences should
be based on studies such as the lun Total Diet Studies. These studies
clearly indicate that the U.S. diet is already relatively high in its
content of cadmium. To set tolerances for raw foodstuffs, it will be
necessary to determine the levels of cadmium in raw foodstuffs which will
prevent an increment in dietary cadmium. Pertinent data can be obtained
if analyses of all raw foodstuffs are included in such studies as the
FDA Total Diet Studies.
If cadmium levels of crops raised on sludge-amended soil are elevated,
it will be suggested by many that the contamination can be reduced to
acceptable levels by admixture with un-contaminated crops. The practice
is currently permitted by the FDA regarding corn contaminated with
aflatoxin in the Southeast U.S. However, before dilution factors can
be developed and enforced, it will be absolutely necessary to establish
tolerances for cadmium and other trace metals in foodstuffs.
-3-
-------
Table 1
Food Class
I. Dairy
II. Meat, Fish, Poultry
III. Grains, Cereals
IV. Potatoes
V. Leafy Vegetables
VI. Legume Vegetables
VII. Boot Vegetables
VIII. Garden Fruits
IX. Fruits
X. Oils and Fats
XI. Sugars and Adjuncts
XII. Beverages
Totals
Results of the FY 1974
Average Daily
Intake of Food Class
(orams , wet weight)
763
267
422
183
55
69
33
92
221
72
82
712
FDA Tota] Diet Studies*
Median Cadmium
in Food Class
(yg/a wet weight)
0.0053
0.0140
0.0210
0.0470
0.0385
0.0053
0.0303
0.0127
0.0027
0.0143
0.0090
0.0030
Median Daily
Intake of Cadmium
(pg)
3.75
3.64
8.91
8.30
2.07
0.37
0.96
1.12
0.59
1.02
0.75
2.05
2,971
33.5
*There appear to be discrepancies in these data. For example, in the "Dairy"
food class: 763 g/day x 0.0053 pg/g = 4.04 pg /day as opposed to 3,75 yg/day
tabulated by FDA. For all 12 food classes, the discrepancies are small in magnitude.
-------
Table 2
Cadmium Levels in Crops Raised on Nor. Sludge-Sraended Soil (Control Plot)
and Sludge-amended Soil (Test Plot)*
Cadmium Cadmium
Control Plot Test Plot Difference
Foodstuff (yg/g dry wgt) (uq/g dry wgt) (yg/g dry wgt)
Wheat (grain) none detected 0.4 0.4
Potato (tuber) 0.2 0.3 0.1
Lettuce (leaf) 0.5 7.6 7.1
Beans (legume) 0.9 0.9 0
Carrot (root) 0.3 1.0 0.7
Tomato (garden fruit) 0.1 0.8 0.7
*Control plot: pH = 6.0, adjacent to test plot, no fertilizer added, irrigated;
cadmium in control soil was 0.1 pg/g soil (dry wgt). Test plot: pH = 6.1,
no fertilizer added, irrigated; sludge ^as mixed to a depth of 15 cm in a 1:1
ratio with the soil; sludge cadmium was 15 yq/g (dry wgt) and the sludge/soil mix
was, as expected, 7.6 yg/g (dry wgt); sludge was derived from a Livermore,
California wastewater treatment plant and applied at a rate of 84 dry tons per
acre, which, at 15 yg Cd/g (dry wgt) is equivalent to an application rate of 2.8
kg Cd per hectare.
-5-
-------
c
•H
•O
(0
u
•H
in
o
*
J>
^j
4-t
O
c
O
•H
4-J
1
•H
4->
CO
W
m M
O w
nj
4-* H
^ 0
H
•H
0
to
•a
•D
c
a
s
1
a)
(71
•a
en
0
0
0
l
a
Jx,
•o
c
(1)
0
HI
JJ
(y
e
0)
o
c
•rl
C
•H
4->
C
0)
g
s
o
c
i
CN ro r^
rH rH
It
i-J
^^
"^
^
1
Cn
Ci
•r-l
O
w
GJ
rc?
^ *~i ^ o ^ "^ S
o o r- o o •<
t3
r-H
CO
O
[fl
5
tp
*^
o
a
*-H r- co r- ^ in 4-)
r- ro • £
n CN 10 CD
<3
i-i
o
c
H
E
•H
g
(C
0
r~
I
c.
* CO O U") O CN \D >,
J CO CM rH rH H
(0
4J
(U
•H
Q
rH
fd
4-J
0
EH
S
(0
o
0)
O O 4-1 0
4-t 4-> p O 4-)
n3 fl3 4J C i~i fd
Q) 4J 4J 03 ^j £
.C! O 0) O O 0
S A4 iJ ffl O EH
01
H
(13
01
O
0
01
c
•H
18
M
O
01
O
a
.p
0
A4
a)
rH
3
4-1
tjl
,
in
(d
a
•-H
^5
^
0)
CJ
f,
J
W
a
2
|Q
J-l
0)
Di
O
>
4-J
£
01
4J
•H
3
M
b
C
0)
E
BJ
O
-------
References
1. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Proposed Classificaiton Criteria
(U.S. EPA). Federal Register. February 6, 1978, pp 4942-4955.
2. FY 1974 Total Diet Studies, Food and Drug Administration.
3. Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and the Contaminants Mercury
Lead, and Cadmium. World Health Organization Technical Report
Series No. 505. 16th Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee
on Food Additives, 1972, Geneva.
4. Schroeder, H.A.; Mitchener, M. Toxic Effects of Trace Elements on
the Reproduction of Mice and Rats. Arch Environ Health 23:102-
106, 1971.
5. Mclntyre, D.R.; Silver, W.J.; Griggs, K.S. Trace element uptake by
field-grown food plants fertilized with wastewater sewage sludge.
Compost Science May-June, pp 22-29, 1977.
f. Federal Register 43 (65) : 14122-14123, April 4, 1978.
7. Watt, B.K.; Merrill, A.L. Composition of Foods. Agriculture Hand-
book No. 8, United States Department of Agriculture, 1963.
-7-
-------
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CRITERIA
FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
TO THE
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APRIL 21, 1978
by
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
724 Dupont Circle Building
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-296-7570
-------
Good afternoon. My name is Marchant Wentworth
and I am Research Director of Environmental Action
Foundation's Solid Waste Project. I would like to thank
the Office of Solid Waste for this opportunity to comment
on these proposed Criteria for the Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities.
These proposed criteria fall far short of providing
for the "protection of public health and environment"
as mandated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Overly vague and ill-defined, these criteria fail
to give proper guidance to the federal, state, and local
officals who must draft the supporting regulations.
These criteria also discourage States from developing
more stringent or innovative programs. These criteria
fail to outline any workable system for their own enforcement,
revision, or review. And finally, the criteria fail to
adequately protect our groundwater and food chain.
It is unfortunate that the Environmental Impact
Statement for these criteria was not available for these
hearings. Because of the nature of the criteria, detailed
background material would have been,helpful in preparing
these comments.
Environmental Action Foundation (EAF) believes
that these proposed criteria will play a key role in
-1-
-------
future solid waste management planning. Citizens, wary
of past poor management practices, often object to
facilities near their neighborhoods. This makes facility
siting difficult. But strong local and state regulations
drafted in response to these criteria can help reassure
citizens that their health and environment will be protected—
not degraded. In this sense, these criteria can make
the job of facility siting easier.
There is another reason why these proposed criteria
are so important. Unlike the performance criteria (sec. 1008)
that are advisory, these criteria are mandatory. There
is, therefore, an even greater need to make the goals
in these proposed criteria as specific and achievable
as possible. Unfortunately, these criteria fail to do
this. In drafting these vague guidelines, the Office of
Solid Waste has ignored a vital enforcement tool under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
We would urge the office to adopt specific meaningful
standards under these criteria required under section 4004;
with the performance criteria in section 1008 remaining
as flexible as possible to allow for local variations
in operations.
Another overall problem is that these criteria
are reactive rather than protective. In the case of
groundwater, for example, action is mandated only after
-2-
-------
the water beyond the boundary of the facility is endangered.
We would recommend that pre-hazard levels be established
to provide warning before environmental degradation occurs -
not afterwards.
Turning to the specific sections of the criteria,
we agree with the Scope and Purpose (sec. 257.1), however
EAF feels that the definition of "endangerment" that
appears in the Definitions section (sec. 257.2(h)) falls
far short of providing adequate protection to groundwater.
Adapted from the regulations on State Underground Injection,
this definition is too narrow and fails to appreciate
the unique nature of the leachate problem. The definition,
in effect, defines groundwater quality in terms of
additional treatment that may be necessary to meet National
Primary Drinking Water Standards. However, this ignores
the fact that many areas are reluctent to institute
additional treatment procedures. Indeed, under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, communities of less than 75,000
are exempted from testing and monitoring their drinking
water. Measuring the groundwater quality in terms of
additional treatment necessary is a poor yard stick.
We woul'd recommend that this term be broadened to include
any degradation to present or future water supplies
measured by current water quality parameters.
In the definition of "periodic application" (sec. 257.2 (s))
-3-
-------
we recommend that the phrase "impede vectors" should
be changed to read "prevent vectors." This would serve
to assure greater control over vectors and infiltration.
EAF does support the section concezning the use
of floodplains (sec. 257.3-l(b)). We agree that any
facility should not restrict the flow of the base-flood
or reduce the water-storage capacity of the floodplain.
However, we are aware that strict interpretation would
exclude all facilities under any circumstances. Therefore,
K.
we recommend that the phase "cause environmental degradation'
be inserted at the end of the paragraph to allow for
extreme circumstances.
Turning to the subparagraph on Critical Habitats
(sec. 257.3-ltd)), we feel that the present language
offers little protection against the degradation of
these sensitive areas. In our view, considerable damage
could occur before the "continued existence" would
be jeopardized. We recommend that this phrase be deleted.
The section on surface water (sec. 257.3-2),
is one of the key sections of the criteria. Yet, sadly,
this section fails to provide concrete goals or even
provide tha basis for adequate future regulations. For
example, the process of minimizing non-point source
discharges must be defined in greater detail. The amount
that must be minimized is not mentioned. We would hope
-4-
-------
that the forthcoming regulations under section 1008
will shed some light on this problem. However, without
specific goals from this section, the advisory procedures
under sec. 1008 will be useless. We call for the Office
of Solid Waste to add sufficient detail to this section
to provide concrete guidance to state and local officals.
EAF strongly recommends that the section on
Ground Water (sec. 257.3-3) be substantially rewritten.
Not only is the section unnecessarily complex, but many
of the terms are vague and should be defined. For example,
we feel that the level of 10,000 mg/1 for suspended solid
is a reasonable level to designate possible drinking
water supplies. However, later in that same section it
is not clear what level would "endanger" the ground water
beyond the property boundary. We recommend that a monitoring
level be established on the site that would signal the
problem before boundary waters are endangered. The
nature of groundwater contamination is such that it is
difficult to quantify or predict. To wait till the
surrounding waters are "endangered" seems pointless.
We would agree that endangerment of the water should
be prevented as outlined in the same section (sec.257.3-3(2)),
but again, we would advocate specific goals for leachate'
control. The term "endangerment" is not adequate to
protect public health and environment.
-5-
-------
We agree with the techniques outlined in the sub-
paragraphs of the same section for leacheate control,
and feel that flexibility must be available to accommodate
various geologic and climatic conditions. Yet, the term
"endangered" only clouds the issue. When shall monitoring
occur? When shall a contingency plan be developed? And,
most importantly, who determines when and why the ground water
may be endangered? Greater definition is needed if these
criteria are to be at all workable.
Turning to the problems outlined in the situation
of Case II (sec. 257.3-3(b)), we find no incentive for the
State to protect their groundwater to keep it below the
10,000 mg/1 level specified in these criteria. There
is also no incentive to redesignate supplies to
drinking water status. As water needs and technology
change, so must our water supplies. Yet this section
encourages the States to "write-off" the marginal ground water
instead of instituting procedures to up-grade the water
quality.
We applaud the Office for the stipulations outlined
in the same section (sec. 257.3-3(2) that would require
hearings to determine the availability of future water
supplies. We would recommend that hearings be held
in any case of groundwater designation or redesignation.
-6-
-------
Environmental Action Foundation feels strongly that
the Section concerning land application for foo'd chain
crops (Sec. 257.3-5) falls sadly short of RCRA's
proclaimed goal of protecting public health and environment.
We find that these criteria, particularly as they pertain
to sewage sludge, omit several key issues, and propose
unrealistic programs. For example, these criteria:
- fail to consider the immediacy of the critical
cadmium issue.
- ignore the problems of sludge application to home
gardens.
- fail to emphasize the beneficial non-food chain
applications on park land or strip-mined areas.
- fail to address the problems of other heavy metals.
- fail to provide a realistic mechanism for enforcement
and monitoring.
The indictment against cadmium is clear. The World
Health Organization recommendation on cadmium, the present
background levels of cadmium, and well-established data
on kidney damage from cadmium, all demonstrate that
great caution must be used in applying sludge with high
levels of cadmium to the land. Coupled with the fact that
EPA's own offices have labeled cadmium an oncogen, tetratogen,
and mutagen, it seems even more incredible that the Office
-7-
-------
of Solid Waste would now recommend an application rate
four times that recommended two years ago - long before
this additional damning evidence was known. It is clear
that this application rate should be lowered - not raised
as EPA has proposed.
The proposed application rate for cadmium is unacceptable.
While the general concept of a phase-in scheme is reasonable
in order to allow communities to adjust current proactices,
this present proposal allows too high an application
rate too quickly.
The system of crop and meat testing (sec. 257 . 3-5 ( a) ( 2 ) )
is also unacceptable. Adminstratively , this program would
pose an impossible burden, pose mammoth technical hurdles,
and be unenforable.
Environmental Action Foundation recommends that
the Office of Solid Waste return to its own orginal proposal
of 0.5 kg/hectare. £os the — £.irst year and phase down
(X* [tM. by I 776
0.2 kg/hectare ua-h yrnr *-harnnftrr According to a 1976
EPA memo, these rates would not impinge on the sewage
treatment construction program. In light of the compelling
need to restrict cadmium in the food chain, such a schedule
is far more in line with protecting the public health and
environment than this proposed schedule in these criteria.
We will present a more detailed discussion of the sludge
-8-
-------
question for the record.
Turning to the section on Safety (sec. 257.3-7),
we find the emphasis on reacting to environmental problems
rather than protecting the environment. For example,
in the first paragraph of this section the effect
seems to be make the facility in violation only when
the concentration of gas reaches the "lower explosive
limits." Does this mean that an explosion ust occur
to violate the law? We urge that EPA consider lower
levels of gas concentration - before the hazard develops
not after the accident happens.
Similarly, in paragraph (b) of the same section,
toxic gases are not allowed to accumulate in "concentrations
harmful to human, animal, or plant life." Does this mean
that other concentrations are acceptable? Again, we
urge the Office of Solid Waste to adopt stringent criteria
that result in the control of methane and other hazardous
gases before they pose a threat to public health.
This concludes the comments of Environmental Action
Foundation. we plan to submit additional material for
the record. Again, I would like to thank the Office
of Solid Waste for this opportunity to comment on these
proposed criteria.
-9-
-------
STATEMENT
Public Hearing, April 21, 1978
Washington, D.C.
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION
of
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
(Docket NO. 4004; FRL 830-4)
William F. Gilley, Director
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Virginia Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
The proposed criteria for classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities are
important to the very success of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. They
provide a basis for classification and upgrading disposal facilities. In this
vane, I wish to express concerns and recommendations on the content of the criteria.
As stated in § 257.1 (a), the purpose of facility criteria is to determine which
facilities present a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or
environment. The terms "reasonable probability" and "adverse effects" are most
important then to the form and content of the document. They imply application of
professional judgment in specific cases and conditions and this application is
strongly endorsed. I commend such elements as the definition of "periodic application
of cover material" which embodies the very spirit of what is "reasonable probability"
and provides needed flexibility in application.
These criteria should avoid fixed limits which are not to be exceeded. They should
be guidelines for State implementation, not rigid regulations. At the very least,
an additional paragraph allowing for variance in application of criteria, fgr.
facility classification is recommended. This would permit a case~by-case
-------
- 2 -
of those operations for which no reasonable probability of adverse effects would
occur and minimize unnecessary open dump designation where operations and conditions
do not warrant.
The RCRA in its application provides for integration with other acts, such as
Federal Water Pollution Control act now amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977. The
criteria defines sludge as solid waste for which the criteria apply. It would seem
appropriate to add a paragraph delineating the sludge disposal facilities for which
these criteria apply clarifying the integration of these acts. Further, the
application of these criteria to septic tank pumpage would best be presented in such
a paragraph on sludge or sludge disposal facilities.
In Paragraph 257.3-3 (a)(2), it specifies the use of artificial liners in the
collection of leachate. Availability of natural materials and an appropriate
structural design might provide equivalent leachate collection. An equivalency
statement as an alternative to artificial liner collection should be included.
The inclusion of limits for cadium is understood as it represents the element of
greater human health hazard because of plant uptake. J raise a guestion on the
phased reduction of application rates; however, as in Paragraph 257.3-5. When
applying sludges to soils having appropriate cation exchange capacity and pH, cadmium
uptake does not seem to vary significantly with increased loading rates on some crops
such as rye and corn as reported in the March EPA-sponsored seminar on Sludge Treat-
ment and Disposal, with performance requirements specified in the criteria,
-------
- 3 -
the arbitrary reduction of loading rates in 1982 and 1986 is premature. There is
time before 1982 to collect appropriate supporting data to determine the level
necessary to protect public health. As this criteria document is to be used for
facility classification as open dumps in the immediate future, why set 1982 standards
now? With some crops, even those loadings may be excessive based on product sam-
pling. A statement indicating continued study for possible reductions in loading
rates to the future levels would provide an impetuous for reducing cadmium at its
source without locking on an unrealistic, unnecessary limit.
Finally, safety is an important management consideration and concern for collection,
transport and disposal of solid wastes. Access control is important to facility
management in both regulating wastes to be received at the site and where disposal
may occur. Access control alone should not determine whether or not a facility is
classified as an open dump and reported as a prohibited facility.
These criteria will be helpful in determining on a uniform basis those facilities
requiring upgrading from an open dump facility status as required by RCRA. Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on these criteria.
-------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
OFFICE OF SLUDGE MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
COMMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ON THE PROPOSED SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES CRITERIA
PRESENTED IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
APRIL 21, 1978
-------
HEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
COMMENTS OK SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROPOSED CRITERIA
Land-based alternatives for disposal of sewage sludge previously dumped in
the ocean must be implemented by 1981. As sewage sludge falls into the category
of solid wastes as defined in the proposed criteria, the provisions of these
criteria will have a direct effect on the sludge management programs in the
State of New Jersey. For many municipal authorities in New Jersey, the land
application of sludge or sludge-derived materials such as compost is* the most
cost-effective alternative, and in addition, provides beneficial reuse of organic
matter as soil conditioners or slow release low analysis fertilizers. The
restrictive annual cadmium limitations (2.0 kg/ha in 1978 and 0.5 kg/ha in 1981)
and other provisions in the proposed criteria for the classification of solid
waste disposal facilities thus relate directly to the application of these
residual materials to land and may jeopardize the whole program toward land-
based alternatives for sludge management.
The reduction of allowable annual Cd applications to land from 2.0 kg/ha
to 0.5 kg/ha is based presumably on the assumption that pretreatment measures
can be instituted by 1981. However, pretreatment measures will be difficult to
implement. In spite of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's
firm belief that pretreatment is a necessary component of the overall effective
waste treatment picture, we are skeptical that such drastic reductions of Cd
in wastewaters and sludges can be accomplished by 1981 to warrant the 75%
decrease in Cd levels allowed on land. In recently performed heavy metals
surveys, the sources of considerable amounts of metals have not been located.
The results of these surveys are often contradictory. In the Joint Meeting of
Essex and Union Counties Heavy metals study, 17.1% of the cadmium was of unknown
origin. In the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority study, the sources of 46% of
-------
-2-
the Cd could not be identified. An earlier heavy metals survey in the Middlesex
County Sewerage Authority service area suggested that significant amounts of
cadmium did not come from residential areas. However, in Bergen County, only
25.6% of the cadmium was estimated to come from industrial sources, while the
remaining loadings were attributed to domestic households, infiltration/inflow,
public water supply, and industrial well water. Medium-sized plants are not
exempt from the pretreatment problems. A treatment plant of 1.5 mgd design flow
at Cedar Grove, New Jersey has found 1,320 mg Cd/kg dry solids of sludge. Its
major industrial dischargers are now reducing their metals loadings by pretreat-
ment or segregation of wastes, but the majority of the 26 industries in the
service area are those industries for which EPA has not published pretreatment
standards.
ft few examples will emphasize the potential impact of the cadmium restric-
tions for agricultural/food chain sludge applications. Table 1 presents infor-
mation on the allowable application rates for sludges with various cadmium
concentrations based on the annual Cd applications in the proposed criteria and
the amount of total nitrogen being applied per acre. Assuming the 185-240
#N/A nitrogen requirement for corn from Sommers et al (1978) (Technology Transfer),
a compost containing a moderate amount of Cd (20 ppm) and less than 0.8 to 1.1% N
could not be applied in sufficient quantity to fulfill the N requirements, even
assuming complete availability of the nitrogen. (At 15 - 20% plant availability
of sludge organic nitrogen, these tonnages would be several times larger than
given here.)
The Linden-Roselle Sewerage Authority, an authority for which composting
has been found to be the most cost-effective sludge management alternative,
estimates that the compost produced from their sludge will contain 24 ppm Cadmium.
At the 0.5 kg/ha Cd annual loading rate, only 93-186 #/N could be applied
from the 9.3 T/A application of a 0.5 - 1.0% N compost. A compost of 46 ppm
-------
-3-
(estimated for Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority) could not be applied in
sufficient quantities to provide the N requirement if it contained less than
1.9 - 2.5% N. It may be necessary then to amend composts with nitrogen to
provide sufficient amounts when the 0.5 kg/ha cadmium restrictions are in effect.
This nitrogen addition will raise the price of compost preparation prior to
land application for agricultural purposes and will reduce the cost-effectiveness
of the land-based sludge management plans involving composting.
The very restrictive annual cadmium applications will have the side effect
of encouraging the use of sludges for land application rather than composts of
the corresponding cadmium content. The "dilution effect" of the heavy metals
due to the contribution of bulking agents (for example, wood chips) may not offset
the nitrogen consumed as the microbial activities of composting run their course.
The cadmium restrictions are giving impetus to land application of sludges
rather than composts because of the former's higher nitrogen content relative
to cadmium even though public health factors, aesthetic factors and public
acceptability of compost are more favorable. It has also been documented that
plant heavy metal uptake from soils amended with compost may be less than from
soils amended with sludge (Chaney et al, 1978.)*
Enhancement of parks and forests is considered a beneficial use of sludges
and composts, but no guidance is given on the application of solid wastes for
these purposes. If authorities elect to dispose of sludge or compost in this
way, they would be forced to comply with the 0.5 kg/ha criteria for cadmium
given in section 257.3-5 part li, assure comparability of crops or proceed
without guidance. For non-food chain uses such as application of parks or
forests, monitoring of plant tissue is inappropriate or impossible. The food
chain options allow only low application rates for these "urban" sludges and
*Chaney, R.L., P.T. Hundemann, W.T. Palmer, R.J. Small, M.C. White and A.M. Decker,
1978. Plant accumulation of heavy metals and phytotoxicity resulting from utiliza-
tion of sewage sludge and sludge composts on cropland. In composting of Municipal
Residues and Sludges, 1977 National Conference, Aug 23-25, 1977, Information Transfer.
-------
-4-
composts as shown in Table 1, in the range of 3-10 T/A. The recommended
compost application rates for certain non-food chain uses on various soils are
found in Table 2. It is immediately apparent that the allowable tons/acre for
these sludges and composts are far smaller than required for these non-food
chain uses, making these urban residues useless for what N.J. Department of
Environmental Protection considers a priority application.
The proposed criteria give the impression that agricultural land on which
sludge or compost is applied will be considered a sanitary landfill. If this is
the case, the tipping fees, special permits, adverse public opinion, and liners
for leachate control will cause considerable needless difficulty in the
implementation of land application programs.
The reduction of annual application of cadmium from 2.0 to 0.5 kg/ha will
greatly increase land requirements. Where land costs are high, as in Northern
New Jersey ($10,000 - 12,000 per acre), and site life is short, the requirement
for additional land will become a very expensive proposition. Additional land
for sludge or compost application incurs expenditures beyond land acquisition
costs. These include site preparation costs; groundwater monitoring wells
($500/well) and their operation and maintenance ($100/well/year); and additional
planting, growing, and harvesting costs ($170/acre/year).
If land application of sludges and composts becomes too difficult to im-
plement, and allowable application rates are very low, considerable impetus will
be given to the thermal reduction alternatives which may be considerably more
expensive. In some cases, the increased costs may exceed $60 per ton. The
ash which will result from these thermal reduction methods will have very high
concentrations of heavy metals and may be classified as hazardous wastes. These
sludge management options should not be pursued unless it can be assured that
there will be secured, lined landfills within reasonable transportation
distances to accept these hazardous materials.
-------
-5-
It is the opinion of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
that the following changes be included in the final criteria:
1. The maximum annual Cd addition remain at 2.0 kg/ha.
2. The lands on which sludges or composts are to be applied as
fertilizers or soil conditioners not be classified as sanitary
landfills.
3. Guidance be provided on the uses of sludges or composts for non-food
chain agricultural uses, parks and forest enhancement and reclamation
of disturbed lands.
-------
,»
en ho
to ^ <8
o in
•a •
o o o
i,
O t-H
ca n)
-------
L.
CO CO
CD 0)
CO ^
CC CD
i.
4J O
CO -a!
o •x
a n
B c
o o
U H
CO
a.
o
i.
o
t,
o
to
4-3
a
CO
rH
CD
rH
4-> CO
CD
Q t.
CD
I — 1 4J
•H CO
c?3
I
rH
•H
o
en
o
in
i
in
CM
CO
3
it
i.
o
CO
C/>
CO
o
60
c
•H
c
o >
4J t.
CD
• 4J
-P C
CM -H
-3- O
C
d
CO .C
-P -H
£
CO
W S-,
tu a>
rH -P
— Cfl
rH C '—
cd o MH
Jj SH O
CO fcO CO
^
CO co
4J £ —
to
CD .C C
t. -P -H
O -H C
3 s >
a- CD QJ
CD 4-> 4->
S) CO C
0 3 -H
,_,
0)
1
hfl
O
t3
CO
O
O
C\J
1
in
C\J
CO
to
co
o
g
rH
rH
5
CO
S CO
o c3
rH O
CO I>>
rH CO
O rH
O
CO >>
>, -P
CO rH
rH -H
O CO
O
o
OJ
I
o
o
rH
£
o
0.
CD
CD
Q
S-.
CD
a.
D.
3
CO
•g
CO
o,
CD
CU
-------
COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ON DOCKET #4004 "PROPOSED
CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES"
I am Mark Sullivan, representing the NWF.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the "Proposed Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" (docket #4004). Included
with our written statement will be copies of the NWF's formal policy
statements on solid waste management and materials policy. You have already
received one set of comments, specifically those pertaining to Section 257.3-5
"Application to land used for the production of food chain crops," from our
staff. These resolutions were enacted by the NWF in annual meeting and
represent sentiments expressed by our affiliate members through their
representatives from all fifty states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. The NWF has over 3.5 million members nationwide and is our
country's largest conservation organization.
We feel that the publication of these criteria are an extremely important
hallmark in the implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA, P.L. 94-580). We have been carefully following the development
of the various guidelines, criteria, standards and regulations by EPA under
RCRA with great interest. When it was enacted in the twilight hours of the
94th Congress, RCRA offered great promise for filling a major gap in our
national environmental protection program—protecting our land from
pollution due to improper or inadequate waste disposal practices. We
recognized that RCRA was not the final, ultimate answer to our total solid
waste dilemma. It gave short shrift, for example, to both the resource
conservation and recovery so prominently displayed in its title.
RCRA also demonstrated a change in the congressional strategy for achieving
environmental protection goals and objectives. Congress intentionally omitted
both a strong federal regulatory role and large federal construction grant
programs which had been important elements of previous environmental legis-
lation. Instead, Congress opted for a federal role of minimum standard
setter for state solid waste management programs, meager authorizations for
planning grants to states and a few other small funding programs for special
situations such as financially handicapped rural areas.
We recognize also the severe constraints under which EPA has been operating
in its attempts to fulfill its RCRA obligations. Actual appropriations for
office of Solid Waste programs have annually turned out as mere fractions of
the authorizations Congress intended in passing RCRA. We have noted with
dismay continued Administration funding requests far below the levels
potentially available under the Act.
The purpose of this brief history has direct relation to our specific comments
on these "Proposed Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities." We recognize that the only way in which RCRA will accomplish
the goals and objectives set forth by Congress will be if criteria such as
these are published in a form which assures that no holes are left gaping
to enable their intent to be avoided. These particular critieria will
be a major factor for determining the efficiency of the forthcoming inventory
of open dumps, also required under RCRA, to adequately catalog all disposal
-------
sites which either currently pollute the environment or pose a threat to
pollute the environment in the future. We feel that throughout these
criteria, far too many such holes exist.
Too often the terminology used in these criteria are broad and left to
interpretation or to the discretion of the states to set according to special
considerations of their specific situations. While we appreciate the several
pages of explanatory language which accompany the criteria, we suggest that
such language will have no actual force unless incorporated into the actual
criteria. If the states could have been depended upon to do an adequate job
of cataloging such sites on their own to close them or place them on a
compliance schedule, there would have been no need for federal legislation
in the first place.
We would suggest an expanded, more comprehensive list of definitions for these
criteria. Explain or place identifiable, strict limitations on such terms as
"adverse effects" and "economically infeasible," and "minimize." If deter-
mination of compliance under such language is left to interpretation, we
fear that the intent of the criteria will be subverted.
We recognize that EPA is somewhat constrained by the language used by
Congress in the Act. We specifically refer to the term "no reasonable
probability" as it applies to adverse affects on health, safety, or the en-
vironment. We would like to see the strongest possible interpretation of that
phrase used by EPA and would welcome a strict definition of it being issued
in conjunction with final publication of these guidelines.
We noted also from our discussions with OSW personnel that much of the siting
and operation terminology and practice references employed in these criteria
will be explained by EPA in solid waste management guidelines still to come.
We are concerned, for example, about what criteria should be used to determine
whether or not monitoring wells are needed at a given site. While we may
anticipate strong guidelines being issued, we suggest that as such they will
apply only to federal facilities and act only as suggestions to the states
for their requirements. We would prefer that such interpretations not be
left to such a later date, and then only as suggested guidelines.
In our written statement we will cite further specific examples of what we
consider to be inadequacies of these criteria. We feel that in many
instances language exists in the criteria which can be strengthened or
changed slightly to make them acceptable. For example, we note excellent
language under the permafrost areas, Subsection C of Section 257.3-1,
requiring maximum development of regional facilities and consideration of
various alternatives and methods for eliminating or significantly reducing
the amount to be disposed. We suggest that such language should apply to
all environmentally sensitive areas, not just permafrost.
Aside from what we identify as clear congressional intent under RCRA, we would
like to emphasize another important practical justification for the strongest
possible disposal facility criteria. Perhaps the most significant impediment
to the siting of disposal facilities nationwide has been opposition by the
public. This was emphasized earlier in Mr. Dainiano's statement. To a great
extent such opposition has been based upon a perceived inadequacy of disposal
technology and practices. Weak criteria will only serve to further justify
such perceptions and thereby further hinder disposal siting. We have heard
many references to the economic costs of implementing these criteria. We
suggest that the environmental, public health, and yes, even the economic
-2-
-------
costs of not publishing strong criteria and then failing to see that they
are adhered to, would be far greater!
We hope that all of our comments, both those made orally here today and those
submitted in writing are useful. We feel that they are constructive both
to the ends of our environmental concerns and to fulfillment of the congres-
sional mandate of the Act. We will be glad to discuss any of our comments
at length at your convenience. We congratulate the Agency for its excellent
efforts to receive public input to this process. We trust that this will be
a continued policy and that this input will find its way into the final
product.
Thank you.
-3-
-------
STATEMENT OF RON M. LINTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
APRIL 17, 1978, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
I am Ron M. Linton. As Executive Director of the Association of Metropoli-
tan Sewerage Agencies, I am here today to briefly explain why AMSA is so strongly
interested in the issue of today's hearings.
I will not go into great detail about the specific points our membership
feels need to be clarified or amended, since the technical questions we would
like further consideration of will be more ably posed by my associate, Dr. Cecil
Lue-Hing, Director of Research and Development for the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago.
Let me move into my remarks on the regulations themselves by telling you a
bit about the Association. As an aggregate, AMSA members provide sewage treatment
service to over one-third of this nation's sewered population, or approximately
60.4 million people. The 62 large, metropolitan treatment agencies that make up
AMSA include nine of the ten largest urbanized areas in the country, treating
some seven billion gallons of water everyday. As professionals in their chosen
field, AMSA members bear the frontline responsibility for making sure that the
high standards of pollution removal set by the Clean Water Act of 1972 are
achieved and maintained.
AMSA was formed originally by 13 metropolitan treatment agencies in 1969.
AMSA's major purpose was — and is -- to work for the reduction and elimination
of water pollution in the United States. Since that date, our membership has
been doing everything possible to attain that objective and still provide an
efficient, economical public service.
-------
-2-
Sewage treatment no longer means just cleaning the country's water. A growing
part of the regular responsibilities of any sewage treatment agency is the over-
seeing of how, when, and where sludges produced in the cleaning process are safely
disposed of. As treatment levels have risen, so have the amounts of sludge pro-
duced by the process. Increased awareness of water quality problems has expanded
state and Federal involvement in all aspects of wastewater management. No one is
trying to sweep pollution under the rug by transferring pollutants from one medium
to another.
Yet treatment plants are not black boxes that you pump wastewater into and
clean water out of. Nothing disappears in this environmental business any more
than it does in any other ecologically-related field. We don't "destroy" or
"eliminate" water pollutants; we change their form and we transfer them from one
place to another. The wastes and residues we take out of the water we must put
somewhere else. As you can appreciate, 62 large sewer agencies serving 60.4
million people and treating seven billion gallons of water daily produce a great
deal of sludge -- which, by 1985, will be some eight million dry tons annually-
For a treatment manager, the duty to dispose of sludge in an environmentally
sound manner now rivals the basic responsibility of sewage treatment operations —
cleaning the water used by our citizens. In fact, sludge management questions
represent the bell weather of coming water pollution control efforts. They are
the initial questions in the "second generation" of water pollution control. The
regulations under scrutiny today will have a crucial impact on how all of us here
handle this new set of problems, responsibilities, and opportunities.
For treatment agencies, sludge management is a "second generation" problem
for three reasons:
-------
-3-
First: It is the consequence of our solving the set of problems
that got us in this business at the beginning.
Second: Its solution involves a much wider range of factors and
forces then did the question of simply cleaning waste-
water flows...we need to know more.
Third: Although perplexing and difficult to resolve, if solved
properly, the issue will allow us to take even greater
steps towards the national goals set for us in 1972.
In the first generation of waste treatment management, our agencies were only
responsible for cleaning water in the strict sense -- once it was cleaned, our
primary goal had been achieved. Now clean water is considered part of a clean
environment and we are becoming more aware that short-range solutions in one area
are not always the best answers when evaluated from a wider perspective. In the
second generation of wastewater treatment, we will be wrestling with the problems
of sludge management, pretreatment, and advanced operations to name only the
most prominent issues confronting us.
Fortunately, with the second generation of problems comes a new set of oppor-
tunities. In the sludge management area, these opportunities involve recycling
the nutrients and residual material produced by the treatment process through land
application. In this way, we can return to beneficial use what has, up to now,
been considered a nuisance to dispose of in an unobtrusive way. AMSA members have
foreseen the coming of this second generation and, as Dr. Lue-Hing will tell you,
have moved ahead to exploit the opportunities I've touched on. Obviously, the
ramifications of the different sludge management methods under consideration are
not fully known -- by AMSA members or by anyone else. The solid waste disposal
-------
-4-
facility criteria concern us for precisely this reason. In certain respects, the
proposed regulations will prevent treatment agencies from fully investigating the
questions that need to be examined as we move into the second generation of waste-
water management.
To be both brief and specific on this point: the provisions in the regulations
pertaining to land application of sludges will, in our opinion, prevent many of
the major metropolitan agencies from using landspreading and subsurface injection
as long-term sludge management methods. If this fear is realized, the regulations
now proposed will subvert the purposes of the acts that created them. Since treat-
ment agencies have been told that they can no longer dispose of sludge in the ocean,
or in many cases incinerate it and landfill the ash, denying land application will
leave us all with a very messy problem on our hands.
The limits proposed for cadmium concentrations now and eight years from now are
so strict that they are an over-reaction to the unsubstantiated health problem Cd
intake might pose for human beings. If these limits had been developed from a firm
body of scientific research, they would at least be understandable if not bearable.
But they have not been developed that way. Scientific studies on the subject remain
divided over the answers to such questions as:
1. Cd concentrations in sludge;
2. The uptake of Cd and other metals by different links in the
human foodchain;
3. The behavior and persistence of Cd in our soils once they
are deposited there; and
4. The cumulative effect of Cd concentrations in the human body.
-------
-5-
Given the uncertainty that still exists in this and many other areas related
to the problems of sludge management, I am asking you today to make sure that the
opportunity of second generation-management is not shut off prematurely. Do not
over-regulate to compensate for a lack of sufficient knowledge. AMSA members are
involved in a number of practical studies to determine the answers to the questions
that confront us now. Indeed, members of our association spend more money on
research and development than does the Federal government in this area. If the
Environmental Protection Agency sets such strict standards that treatment agencies
can only meet the requirements for the first four years, what has been gained in
our joint efforts to integrate the need for environmental protection with the other
needs in our lives? Time is at the heart of the problem:
-- Time to bring our facilities up to speed with new and improved
treatment technologies;
-- Time to work out the kinds of local agreements and understandings
that will be needed to create effective, areawide solutions to
such second generation problems;
-- Time to get the research completed that may indicate the most
effective ways to solve these problems economically;
-- And time to educate the public about the effect all of the efforts
created by the 1972 Act and its 1977 amendments will have on their
lives not just their pocketbooks.
As those of you in this room who are familiar with AMSA or with its members
know, we don't object to the purpose of these regulations. We are concerned about
the means by which to reach them. Let us work together to solve the questions ahead,
-------
-6-
rather than wrestle with one another over arbitrary deadlines and policies that
seem to solve the problems but which, in fact, only compound them.
Thank you very much.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION
TRENTON. O8625
BEATRICE S TYLUTKI
DlHECTOH
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
The New Jersey Solid Waste Administration has the following comments
on EPA's Proposed Classification Criteria, arranged by section:
257.1 (a) The five (5) year period for completion of upgrading or
closure be included in this section as well as in the
preamble to the regulations.
(c) Hazardous waste disposal facilities should not be completely
exempted from the survey; rather, they should be included
but the inventory delayed until sub-title C regulations are
promulgated. The intent of this is to require that a full-
scale inventory evaluation be required for all hazardous
waste facilities, rather than some less stringent review.
257.2 (a) The definition of "aquifer" should be made more clear;,
specifically, the word usuable should be clarified as to
whether it refers to significant amounts of water, good
quality water, or both.
(d) In other sections of these criteria, EPA has shied away from
requiring specific test methods. We would like to know
why, in this instance, a particular test was specified.
257.3-1 (a) Although we are in basic agreement with the intent of this
section, we are concerend with the method of implementation,
especially, for existing sites. If these sites are required
to get NPDES permits immediately or face closure, the results
could be disastrous in states like New Jersey where many of
the largest landfills are located in wetland areas.
It has been indicated that EPA will establish different sets
of NPDES permit requirements for existing sites and new or
expanded sites, perhaps by following a "grace period" for
the former. We feel that this approach should be clearly
set forth in the criteria so as to clarify the intent of
this section.
-------
- 2 -
(b) Floodplain delineration as described in this section will be
quite difficult to determine accurately the short period of time
available. In New Jersey's case, a comprehensive floodplain
mapping system already exists, and to re-evaluate this in light
of EPA's proposed definition would prove extremely time-consuming
and of questionable value. As an alternative, we suggest that
those states with existing floodplain delineations be allowed to
submit their programs to EPA for review and, if acceptable,
utilize those programs in lieu of the definition in the criteria.
(b)(l) Increased flooding will result from any facility located on
floodplain.
Therefore, we suggest that a word such as "significant" or
"substantial" ne inserted before "increased flooding". Also,
with wetlands, there must be some differentiation in this requirement
as it applies to existing approved sites and new sites. This
should be clarified in this section.
257.3-2(a) Some clarification is needed as to what types of water, when
channelled, require NPNES permits as point source discharges.
Specifically, channelled surface runoff (as from a completed,
covered landfill) should be uncontaminated in relation to
channelled leachate seepage and either should not require a
NPDES permit or should be subject to less stringent permit
requirements. The primary purpose of channelling runoff is to
minimize leachate production through infiltration, and it seems
counterproductive to complicate this type of preventive measure
by requiring a permit.
257.3-3 The requirements of this section for state designation of
aquifers for various purposes pse major problems in implementation.
First, such a designation process would require very thorough,
expensive and time-consuming studies, and would involve
considerations far beyond the normal reach of solid waste concerns.
Neither time nor money has been made available for such a process,
and without sufficient amounts of both the effort would not
be worthwhile. Second, the option of case II (non-potable aquifers)
opens up the possibility of suits by landfill owners who feel
that they must bear unwarranted expense due to staste designations.
Unless the designations are made carefully and with sufficient
supporting date, such challenges may be difficult to defend.
As an alternative, we propose that only one groundwater
standard be established, thereby making all landfills subject to
the same groundwater requirements. If the water is already
unusable due to contamination, the criteria will still provide
protection (why add unncessary contaminants to any underground
water source?), but the criterion of "endangerment" will be
much more loosely construed.
-------
257.3-5 In this section, a distinction between sewage treatment
plant sludge and septic tank wastes is appropriate. First
of all, heavy metals (particularly cadmium) present very
little problem in domestic septic tank waste due to their
low concentrations, therefore making the requirements in
subparagraph (a) of this section entirely unwarranted. Sec-
ondly, while pathogens may be present in "significant" numbers,
experience has shown that contour application, daily plowing
or sub-sod injection, lime addition and planting selected crops
all serve to minimize the potential of food or groundwater
contamination. These "operational" methods serve essentially
the same purpose as stabilization - perhaps the definition of
stabilization can be broadened to include the above. (Regulations
in Maine and Pennsylvania permit farm use of septic waste under
certain operational conditions with very little monitoring or
treatment requirements, and officials seem to be pleased with
the results.)
Finally, septic waste is handled and disposed of on a much
smaller basis than is sewage sludge, and does not lend itself
to capital intensive monitoring or treatment programs. In many
cases, a farmer and a hauler working together can effect a small-
scale solution to a rural community disposal problem which would
not be possible under the proposed criteria.
In summary, subparagraph (a) on cadmium should not apply
to septic waste, and subparagraph (b) and/or the definition
of "stabilization: should be modified so as to allow land
spreading of spetic waste with the operational controls mentioned
previously.
257.3-7 (a) The problem of methane gas generation falls into this category
but safety is not the only concern. Methane damage to plants
is often a problem, and should be addressed more directly in
this or another section.
(d) This provision should not apply to airports planned to be
used by particular types of aircraft. This term is too borad and
may include long-term expansions, which should not automatically
exclude all future landfills in the area.
(e) Controlled entry should be clarified as to acceptable methods,
e.g. fences, signs, gates, etc.
-------
Now the National Food Processors Association
National Canners
Association
1133 Twentieth Street N W
Washington. D C 20036 Sior000""
202/331-5968
Raymond F Altevogt, Ph D
Assistant Director
Agricultural Allairs
202/331-5969
April 21, 1978
Mr. Kenneth Shuster
Office of Solid Waste (WH-564)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Regarding: Comments submitted for the record of the April 21, 1978,
Washington, D. C. Public Hearing on Docket No, 4004
Dear Mr. Shuster:
The National Food Processors Association (NFPA), formerly the National
Canners Association (NCA), is a non-profit trade association with approximately
500 members with processing plants in 41 states, Puerto Rico and American Samoa.
The members of our Association produce approximately eighty-five percent of the
Nation's supply of canned foods for human consumption.
We have reviewed and are pleased to comment on Docket No. 4004 as
published in the February 6, 1978 Federal Register. These comments are sub-
mitted for the record of the April 21, 1978, Washington, D. C. , public hearing
on this proposal.
INDUSTRY CONCERN FOR PROTECTION OF SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND
WATER QUALITY
The food processing industry has a long history of concern for protection
of surface and ground waters. In fact, food processors require large quantities of
potable water for use within their plants. In many cases, this water comes from
either surface or ground sources. Food processors therefore have a vested inter-
est in assuring that their source of water is not degraded.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FOOD PROCESSING WASTES
Liquid effluents from food processing plants generally consist only of BOD
and suspended solids resulting from the processing of food. Sanitary wastes are
generally discharged separately to publicly-owned treatment works. The industry's
solid wastes generally consist of food residuals (corn cobs, tomato pomace, etc.).
-------
Mr. Kenneth Shuster -2 - April 21, 1978
CURRENT FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRY DISPOSAL PRACTICES
We estimate that about 20% of the Nation's fruit and vegetable processing
plants utilize pits, ponds and lagoons as an integral part of their wastewater treat-
ment systems. Many of these facilities provide treatment necessary to meet
applicable NPDES permit requirements. Another 40% of the industry's plants dispose
of or treat their process wastewater through land application, generally spray or
furrow irrigation. Forty percent of the industry discharges process wastewater
to publicly-owned treatments.
We estimate that approximately 84% of fruit residuals and 76% of vegetable
residuals are utilized for animal feeding. Thus, most of the solid wastes result-
ing from processing fruits and vegetables are already recycled.
Solid food residuals not fed to animals must be disposed of in a proper
manner. Food processors recognize their responsibility to properly dispose of
these materials, and in cooperation with local and state officials have developed
environmentally sound disposal programs.
Many food processing plants have contracts with farmers to allow solid
residuals from food processing operations to be returned to the land. The industry
has many years of experience of returning food processing solid wastes to land
with no known adverse effects to soil or community.
STATES SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING UNDERGROUND WATER
PROTECTION REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Practically every state now has or is in the process of developing a program
to insure that disposal facilities for food industry solid and liquid wastes do not
adversely impact underground water supplies. We believe this is the proper
emphasis. States should remain the focal point for these regulatory programs.
The states are capable of undertaking this responsibility, as evidenced by the many
successful groundwater protection programs already in existence. As the states
and local communities staff up to meet this and 208 Agency requirement, further
successes will evolve. Thus we support the thrust of the regulations, placing
responsibility for developing and enforcing the Act's provisions with state officials.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Section 257. 3-3(a) Case I (2)(ii) Ground Water
We recommend that the phrase "and/" be deleted, that the word "and" be
added between the words "conditions," and "soil," that the words "by utilizing" be
added before "recovery, " and that the words "contaminated water" be replaced by
the word "leachate. " As written, "recovery and treatment of contaminated water"
could be required under all conditions. We believe that the intent of this provision
-------
Mr. Kenneth Shuster - 3 - April 21, 1978
should be to allow "the site's natural hydrogeologic conditions," and "soil attenuation
mechanisms to control the migration of leachate. " Further, the term "leachate"
more accurately expresses the water that might require collection and treatment.
The revised Section 257. 3-3(a) case I (2)(ii) would read as follows:
"The facility shall control the migration of leachate by utilizing the
site's natural hydrogeologic conditions and soil attenuation mechanisms,
or by utilizing recovery and treatment of leachate. Where appropriate,
infiltration of water into the solid waste shall be prevented or minimized
so as to reduce leachate generation. "
2. Section 257. 3-3 (a) Case I (3) Ground Water
This section requires "monitoring," where leachate may endanger ground
water quality. Because monitoring requirements will vary from site-to-site due
to differing hydrogeologic conditions, soil attenuation mechanisms, and types of
wastewaters being treated, and because state officials are in the best position to
evaluate these requirements on a case-by-case basis, we believe the final regu-
lations should not contain specific monitoring specifications.
Accordingly, we recommend that this section be modified to read as follows:
"(3) For as long as leachate may enter ground water in such quantities
and concentrations that the ground water quality may be endangered,
monitoring of ground water, prediction of leachate migration, and a
current and acceptable contingency plan for corrective action are
required on a case-by-case basis as determined to be necessary by
state officials. "
We appreciate this opportunity to participate in this proposed rule-making,
and after we have reviewed the soon-to-be-released draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Economic Impact Analysis Report, we may have additional comments.
Sincerely,
Edwin A. Crosby
Senior Vice Presiden
-------
Dear Neighbor:
In the mail on April 13, 1978, I received a letter dated
April 12, 1978, from the Director, Office of Comprehensive
Planning, Fairfax County Planning Commission, regarding the
application of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works to
expand the existing 1-66 Sanitary Landfill by means of aquiring
an addition 91.0 acres, 11.0 acres of which is proposed to be
leased from the State (part of the State Convict Camp No. 30)
and the remaining 80.00 acres by "aquisition" (presumably by
condemnation under the theory of eminent domain). For your
convenience and information, I have enclosed a copy of that
letter and the plat diagram accompaning it which shows the
proposed expansion, together with the directly affected land
adjacent thereto and the surrounding area.
It is my intention to oppose, in the strongest possible way
available to me, this proposal. I have, as I know most of you
also have, worked long and hard to realize the goal of most to
own my home and the benefits, both material and emotional, that
accompany that status: -too long and too hard to stand idly by
and watch a county government, elected to serve and advance the
interest of their consituency, destroy the fruits of that labor
without a tight.
While I and my family, as many of you, are directly
affected - the proposed expansion adjoining our property on two
sides - others, not as directly effected, will ce indirectly
effected. Some of the considerations, both direct and indirect,
are as follows:
i. A sustantial reduction in the value of the properties;
immediately adjoining tne proposed expansion;
2. A general lowering of property values in the surround-
ing areas;
3. Possible contamination of well-type water supplies;
4. Increased trash and debris outside the limits of the
landfill area caused Dy wind and careless or deliberate
dumping of trash and refuse;
5. Increased probability of vermin over a wider area;
b. Increased possibility of diseases being spread by tne
above-referenced vermin;
-------
7. A general denigration of the ambiance and 'quality
of the surrounding area;
8. Increased traffic along Lee Highway, and West Ox Road
especially trash trucks, and
9. A recognition that, if unchecked now, the next
expansion will, by necessity, involve the remaining
adjacent areas not included in the present proposal,
including my home, as well as others, further
Destroying the overall nature of our area.
Accordingly, I propose that we, the residents/property
owners of the effected area join, together to prevent what will,
if accomplished, result in the irretrievable loss of our right
to the quiet enjoyment, of that which, by effort, toil, and
emotional and monetary expense, we have earned.
There is, especially when dealing with our "representative"
lorm of gobernment, strength in numbers. And this may be a long
and expensive (on an individual, but not on a collective, basis)
fight.
Therefore, on the basis of my initial conversations and
contacts with those who I believe have an immediate interest in
this situation, I recommend and strongly suggest the following
course ot action.
i. A meeting to be held on April , 1978, at
at
to investigate the possible choices open to us.
2. The presence and participation of an attorney,
thoroughly versed and expert in the field of
zoning law, who can provide a critique and
evaluation ot:
a. Our chances to prevail at the hearing
D. our chances on appeal, should we not prevail at
the initial hearing, to the Board of Supervisors
c. Our chances on subsequent court action should a.
andab. above fail to obtain the desired result.
-------
J. To this end, I have taken the liberty of retaining
for this meeting only, and at my own expense, an
attorney hoghly recommended and qualified in this
particular field. Please note that there is no
financial obligation on the part of anyone expressing
an interest in or actually attending this meeting
other than by voluntary contribution. If it is decided
to pursue the matter through the legal forums available,
there will, of course, be an assessment of cost to
those participating; but, until such a decision is
jointly reached, no financial liability shall be attach
to anyone other than myself.
I fully realize that such a facility as proposed by the
County may be necessary and even desirable and my opposition
thereto, albeit personal in some regard, is not completely
personal, my opposition stems in large part from my personal
involvement, but also trom a sense of community, and are innate
belief that a government, elected to serve its constituency,
should, infact, serve and not confiscate without the thorough
consideration of viable alteratives or, if necessary, the
opposition of that concerned constituency.
it I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to
contact me at 631-9489.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Reutiman
12436 Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031
P.S. Please understand that time is of the essence since the
nearing is scheduled for April 26, 1978. I would also remind
those of you who were not here at that time that, when the
original landfill project was considered, the Commission and the
Board were somewhat less than honorable and representative in
their consideration of the views "of those they were elected to
serve (i.e., they precluded, oy administrative artifice, meaning
full consideration or even a fair hearing of opposing points of
view from the very constituency they were elected to represent
and serve.).
-------
_GMMCNWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX
4100 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
April 12, 1978
Mr and Mrs. Frank Reutiman
12436 Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Reutiman:
This is to advise you that the Fairfax County Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing under the provisions of Section 15,1 -456 of the Code of Virginia, as amended,
to consider the application of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works to expand
the existing 1-66 landfill. The expansion will include the leasing from the State of
Virginia of an additional 11 acres at the State Convict Camp No. 30 and the acquisition
of approximately 80 acres immediately south of the Camp 30 property. The existing land-
fill and the proposed expansion are located on the west side of West Ox Road (Route 608)
between 1-66 and Lee Highway (Route 29-211). Tax Maps 55-4 ((!)) 1 7 and 56-1 ((!))
part of 3, Springfield Magisterial District.
Our information shows that you are an adjacent owner to the property under consideration and
as such are entitled to be informed of this proposal and the opportunity to present your
views at the scheduled public hearing.
The public hearing win be held in the Board of Supervisors meeting room on the "A"
level of the Massey Building, 4100 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Virginia,on Wednesday,
April 26, 1978, ot 8:15 p.m. At that time you may present your views concerning the
proposal. Should you desire agenda time to present your views, you may call the
Planning Commission (691 -2865) to have your name placed on the list of speakers.
The Planning Commission may approve, disapprove or take no action on the application.
Failure of the Commission to act within sixty (60) days of the date of the applicant's
submittal, unless such time is extended by the Board of Supervisors, shall be deemed
approval of the application. Should the Commission approve the application, the afu^'i
property owner may appeal the Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors within
ten (10) days of the decision; a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors shall ov^rrule
the decision of the Planning Commission.
-------
April 12, 1978
Poge Two
If you should desire further information concerning this matter, it is suggested that you
contact John E. Hardy (691-3351) of the Office of Comprehensive Planning or Andy
Quigly (691-2105) of the Department of Public Works.
Sincerely,
Theodore J. Wessel
Director
Office of Comprehensive Planning
JEH:mgm
cc: John F. Herrity, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Marie Travesky, Springfield District Supervisor
Edward C. Gurski, Chairman, Planning Commission
John Kershenstein, Springfield District Commissioner
James C. Wyckoff, Jr., Executive Director, Planning Commission
Glen Ehrich, Director, Department of Public Works
-------
IRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS
>posed expansion of 91 .0 acres to
t 1-66 Sanitary Landfill
-------
Statement for Inclusion in the Official Transcript of USEPA
Public Hearings on the Proposed Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Dale E. Baker
Professor of Soil Chemistry
The Pennsylvania State University
The disposal of solid waste on land must be monitored to ensure the public
as well as the farmer that the use of wastes as substitutes for lime, commercial
fertilizer and animal manure will not have detrimental effects on the food chain.
After this monitoring program has been developed, the logistics of getting the
materials transported and applied to the correct crops or plantings, at the
optimum rate, and at the right time of the year for its incorporation into the
soil poses another important problem.
From six years of testing under laboratory, greenhouse and field condi-
tions at the Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agronomy, the follow-
ing conclusions have been reached with respect to the agricultural utilization
of sewage sludge:
1. Generally a ton of dry sewage sludge is equivalent to a ton of dry
cattle manure as a source of nitrogen for crop production. While
there is enough nitrogen in animal manure to meet half the require-
ments of the corn crop in Pennsylvania, the nitrogen in sewage
sludge could meet only 2-3 percent of the corn crop requirements
for nitrogen. Many farmers of Pennsylvania could greatly reduce
their nitrogen fertilizer requirements by more efficient utilization
of their animal manures.
2. The utilization of wastes as sources of nitrogen for crop production
is not performed efficiently by most farmers because of the diffi-
culties encountered in getting the material incorporated into the
soil to prevent losses of nitrogen by erosion, volatilization and
leaching before the crop is established. In addition, for the corn
crop, the best agricultural crop for sewage sludge utilization,
planting should start when soil temperatures are 50°F and increasing.
Each week of delay in planting results in a decrease in corn grain
yields of approximately 10 percent. Because of the difficulty of
incorporating sewage sludge into the soil at or near the time of
planting, and the heavy metal problems, operators of large, productive
farms have not accepted the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer.
3. Sewage sludges from different treatment plants are extremely variable
in percent solids and chemical composition. The fertilizer value of
sewage sludge is determined primarily by the percentages of solids,
nitrogen, and phosphorus. Where needed by the soil, some sludges
can be used to increase soil pH and the levels of the essential
trace elements zinc and copper.
-------
4. The guidelines for the use of sewage sludge on land must protect
animal and human health by controlling the relative abundance
of potentially harmful substances in soils to levels which are
acceptable with respect to their accumulation within the food
chain. The chemical elements frequently high in abundance in
sewage sludge compared with soils of Pennsylvania include cadmium,
zinc, copper, chromium and lead. Contrary to some reports, we do
not find levels for these elements in animal manures that are as
high as those found even in domestic sludge.
5. As agriculturalists, we accept the data of the Bureau of Foods
which indicate that cadmium in the food chain is relatively near
the upper level considered safe for the USA. We have developed
soil testing and plant analysis procedures to enable the monitor-
ing of the buildup in availability of cadmium and other heavy metals
in soils treated with sewage sludge. For example, a 1 ppm concen-
tration of cadmium in corn leaves is associated with 1 ppm Cd
extracted from soil and a pCd (analogous to pH) of 12 by the Baker
method. For the average soil of Pennsylvania, soil additions of
cadmium must not exceed 3 pounds per acre as a lifetime loading if
the 1 ppm Cd in corn leaves is used to represent "safe" levels of
soil cadmium.
6. Results from animal studies have shown that accumulations of cadmium
in liver and kidney are increased substantially from dietary levels
of 1 ppm cadmium as cadmium salts added to rations or from cadmium
accumulated in grain and stover grown on fields treated with sewage
sludge. Perhaps life-time loadings of 3 pounds of cadmium per acre will
lead to excessive levels of cadmium within the food chain in
Pennsylvania.
7. Plant uptake of cadmium is determined by soil loadings, soil pH and
other soil adsorption phenomena which are not clearly understood.
Therefore, a soil chemical monitoring program must be used to
measure both intensity as predicted by pCd, which is analogous to
pH, and adsorbed cadmium as performed by the Baker method.
8. For strip-mined lands or drastically disturbed land where adequate
top-soil is not available to return the soil to a productive state,
sewage sludge may be used to establish vegetation. More work is
needed on the use of sewage sludge for the production of turfgrass
and crops for biomass production. Crops for biomass production
have potential for the production of fiber and energy without increas-
ing the levels of cadmium and other substances within the food
chain. As for use on agricultural land, the use of sewage sludge
for biomass production must ensure safe levels of nitrate nitrogen
and potentially toxic substances in groundwater. For soils with
high percolation rates it is difficult to predict or measure the
quantities of water, ions and compounds moving vertically through
soil into groundwater.
-------
-3-
Until more is known about the health effects of cadmium and other
substances within the food chain, the "Solid Waste Management
Rules and Regulations" which became effective in Pennsylvania in
June, 1977 are highly recommended. They require permits for
municipalities and haulers who dispose of sewage sludge on land.
Disposal rates are determined by site evaluation, chemical analyses
of the sludge and soil characteristics with interpretations to
follow the Interim Guidelines of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. Similar programs in other states could
hasten the proper production, handling and use of sewage sludge on
land.
-------
SofrcJ ^lUastes ^Uanagement Association
1120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW • SUITE 930 • WASHINGTON DC 20036
TELEPHONE (202) 659-4613
Statement
of
Elizabeth M. Dollard
Policy Research Director
National Solid Wastes Management Association
1120 Connecticut 'venue, N.W., Suite 930
Washington, D. C. 20036
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Hearing
Proposed Regulation
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities
pursuant to
Section 4004
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
PL 94-580
April 21, 1978
Washington, D. C.
INSTITUTE OF WASTE TECHNOLOGY
• CHEMICAL WASTE COMMITTEE
• NATIONAL SANiTAqy .ANDR LL COMMITTEE
• =E30'-RCE PEC 3VE3Y COMMITTEE
WASTE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
-------
NSWMA is pleased to be here today to discuss the proposed criteria for
classification of solid waste disposal facitilies, as required by
Section 4004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
Both the staff and the members of NSWMA want to commend the staff of the
Office of Solid Waste at EPA for the efforts they have extended to hear
the fullest and most complete views of all those parties which will be
affected by the landfill criteria. We believe that our working group
meeting of March 15 was a particularly helpful mechanism for airing
those issues with which we are concerned.
Our association is interested, as is the EPA, in the development of
criteria which will achieve the appropriate results by serving as guide-
lines to those people in the states who will be conducting an inventory
of all land disposal sites. Because the inventory will be conducted by
a diverse group of people across the country with varying skills and
backgrounds, it is essential that the guidelines provided by EPA be as
specific, clear, and quantitative as possible. The criteria should
allow minimal discretion to those taking the inventory in assessing how
a particular land disposal site meets the criteria established by the
federal government. This uniformity of application of the criteria is
essential if the results of the survey are to have any useful purpose on
a national basis.
We believe that EPA concurs with this premise and that it has attempted
to make the criteria specific and quantifiable. There are some aspects,
however, where we believe the criteria should be modified to better
achieve this goal. For the most part these are merely clarification of
the intent but in a few instances we disagree with EPA's position.
-------
-2-
The most important aspect of the landfill regulations is the groundwater
criteria. Certainly of all the subcategories of our national water
quality policy, groundwater is the one that has been regulated the least
in the past and, for this reason, our experience nationally with reg-
ulating groundwater is not as complete as we might hope. The drafters
of the landfill regulations have divided groundwater into two categories:
Case I, present or future drinking water sources and Case II, ground-
water used or designated for use other than as drinking water. We
direct our comments first to Case I.
The regulations require that underground drinking water supplies shall
not be endangered beyond the property boundary of the disposal facility.
The language of the regulation should make clear that the standard is to
be applied to the water in the aquifer, not to water anywhere in the
zone of saturation. While certainly it may be desirable to monitor
water in the soil before it reaches the aquifer, the regulation should
make clear that endangerment can only occur to the groundwater in the
aquifer.
The regulation also provides that if leachate "may enter" and endanger
the groundwater, the landfill facility operator must monitor the ground-
water, predict leachate migration, and have a contingency plan for
corrective action. It is not identified, however, who makes the
subjective determination during the inventory whether or not leachate
"may" enter the groundwater. How would the person conducting the
survey, for example, know whether there remains a possibility of
leachate entering the groundwater? If he does not know this, he does
not know whether or not the site should include monitoring, leachate
prediction and a contingency plan. Furthermore, the term "contingency
plan" has not been defined in the regulation.
-------
-3-
We also have definitional problems with the term "endangerment", which
is the key to determining whether or-not a landfill meets the criteria.
The definition states that"" the groundwater cannot be contaminated to the
degree that additional treatment would be required for present or future
groundwater users. What is a "groundwater user"? We believe that
because the intent of these regulations is to protect public health and
the environment, endangerment should refer only to drinking water
standards. Our concern here is that it is possible for someone to
interpret these regulations such that "endangerment" could apply to any
water quality parameter. For example, someone may argue that for his
particular industrial process, personal diet or other non-drinking water
use, that the groundwater must meet certain standards more stringent
than the national Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards. If a
landfill produces leachate which would degrade the quality of the water
below these personal standards and yet still meet the drinking water
standards, would it be the intent of the EPA to classify such a landfill
as a dump? The logical extension of such an argument would be that
landfills could emit no leachate whatsoever. We believe that this is an
impractical approach and does not add to the protection of the environment.
Similarly, we object to defining "endangerment" as making the water
"unfit for human consumption." If the reference here is to drinking
water then it should be sufficient for "endangerment" to be defined as
degrading water below the drinking water standards. If "unfit for human
consumption" means something else, we do not believe it should be
included in the definition.
t.'e are also concerned about Case II, those water supplies currently used
or designated for use other than drinking water. We believe that it is
the prerogative and the responsibility of the states to make decisions
-------
-4-
about designating groundwater as a non-drinking water supply. A decision
about such designation would reflects wide range of considerations. We
do not think that EPA should address non-drinking water supplies in the
landfill criteria except to acknowledge the rights of states to designate
grounduater for non-drinking water purposes for any reason whatsoever.
Kith regard to the criteria for "environmentally sensitive areas," we
are concerned about the requirement that a facility in a wetland must
obtain an NPDES permit, because as yet there is no procedure developed for
obtaining such a permit, except in those few cases when a landfill has
a discrete pipe or conduit for discharge. The development of such
procedure by EPA is essential and until it is developed, we do not
believe that it makes sense to require a permit for which there is not
even an application available. We did note in the comment in the
regulation regarding NPDES permits that the issuance of such permits
would require an assessment of both technical and economic feasibility
of alternatives. We believe this an important consideration because we
have found cases in which a large portion of a state is a wetland and
there may well be no technically and economically feasible alternative
to the existing landfill. We would point out that the technology does
exist to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters from landfills
which are in wetlands.
While we generally agree with the requirement regarding floodplains, we
believe that the language could be interpreted more strictly than is
intended. The regulation states that a landfill should not restrict the
flow of the base flood or reduce the temporary water storage capacity o.f
the floodpl.iin. We would simply suggest,that this regulation should be
-------
-5-
qualified to refer only Co "significant" effects on a flood. Any
filling or excavating in a floodplai»-will have a finite if only a
trivial affect on the floo'ding. We argue that a floodplain should be
barred from use only if the landfill would cause a significant increase
in the effect on health and the environment.
The criteria on critical habitats currently requires two actions on the
part of the facility operator, both that he demonstrate that his
operation does not- jeopardize endangered species and that he obtain
approval of his plan from the Office of Endangered Species. We believe
that either one of these two requirements would accomplish the same
purpose.
The surface water criteria states that point source discharge of
pollutants should comply with an NPDES permit; we believe it is
appropriate to include the phrase "if an NPDES permit is required".
Again, there is the confusion about whether NPDES permits are required
for all landfills or whether all landfills have point source discharges,
Regarding non-point source pollution, we believe that the requirement
should reference the 208 plans developed under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972. 208 plans developed by states are
intended to address just such issues as the non point source leachate
and run-off from sanitary landfills. We believe that the manage-
ment practices required by those plans would be the appropriate management
practices required for purposes of the landfill survey.
We have said at the outset that we strongly support criteria which can be
administered equitably across the country and- for this reason we oppose
inclusion of criteria which adopt local or state standards as the
-------
-6-
quality proposed by the EPA which states that the facility must control
air emissions to comply with "applicable federal, state and local air
regulations...." We believe the criteria should reference the standard
established by other federal law and in this case, it is logical that a
landfill should comply with any applicable approved State Implementation
Plan developed under the Clean Air Act. Alternatively, it might be
required that landfills should not cause or contribute to contravention
of an ambient air quality standard.
With regard to the safety criteria, we believe that there may be some
overlap between these criteria and those developed under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act. We believe that the indoor safety aspects of
toxic and explosive gases should be regulated under the OShA standards.
We appreciate the opportunity to be here again today to discuss our
views with the EPA and look forward to continuing dialogue in the
future. We anticipate a thorough review of the environmental impact
statement on the landfill criteria and plan to submit further comments
on that document when it is available. In closing, however, we can not
stress strongly enough the importance of the implementation of these
criteria in the landfill inventory and the need for clear and specific
communication as to how this inventory will be conducted over the coming
years. Thank you very much.
-------
-------
ATTENDEE LIST WASHINGTON. DC APRIL 21, 1978
Abrahams, Edward D.
Industry Analyst
Office of Producer Goods
14th St. and Constitution Ave
Washington, DC 20230
Alpert, Mark
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
1800 K St NW
Washington, DC 20006
Anderson, William C.
Pickard & Anderson, Inc.
69 South St
Auburn, NY
Arery, Charles H.
Administrative Assistant
City of Huntsville
PO Box 308
Huntsville, AL 35804
Ascher, Stanley
President
International Industries
140 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10024
Austin, John D.
Counsel
American Mining Congress
1200 18th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Baker, Dale
Professor-Soil Chemistry
Penn State University
221 Tyson Blvd
University Park, PA
Balamoun, Samuel
Senior Engineer
Pennwalt Corporation
900 First Ave
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Balikov, Henry
Environmental Counsel
J.M. Huber Corporation
Thornall St
Edison, NJ 08817
Barta, J.W.
Project Chemist
Huntington Alloys, Inc.
PO Box 1958
Huntington, WV 25720
Bassuener, Barbara
Manager of Public Affairs
Water Pollution Control Federation
2626 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20037
Bauer, Madeline
Private Citiz'en Group
5385 Summit Ave
Fairfax, VA 22030
Bent, Charles
Environmental Engineer
Reynolds Metals Company
6601 W. Broad St
Richmond, VA 23261
Beygo, Turhan
Environmental Planner
Prince George County Government
County Administration Building
Upper Marlboro, MD 20870
Birckhead, Ron
Environmental Engineer
Vepco, Inc.
7th and Franklin Building
Richmond, VA 23206
Boltz, David G.
Pollution Control Engineer
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Martin Tower RM B-252
Bethlehem, PA 18016
Bryan, John F.
Director-Hazardous Wastes
American Recovery Company
1901 Birch Ave
Baltimore, MD 21226
Caddy, Orwin
Environmental Planner
Gannett, Fleming, Corddry
& Carpenter
PO Box 1963
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Capellini, Albert R.
Project Engineer
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
-------
Chaney, Rufus L.
Plant Physiologist
Department of Agriculture
Building 008 RM 101
Beltsville, MD 20705
Chicca, William E.
State of Maryland
Water Resources Administration
Taylor Ave
Annapolis, MD 21401
Cooper, Jack L.
Director-Environmental Affairs
National Pood Processors Assn.
1133 Twentieth St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Cobb, Clifford W.
Solid Waste Project
National Association Counties
Research
1735 New York Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
Coker, Craig S.
Project Manager
Toups and Loiederman
1370 Piccard Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Cummings, Russell
Russell E. Cummings & Associates
6491 Morris Park Road
Philadelphia, PA 19150
Damiano, David J.
Commissioner
Department of Streets
840 Municipal Services Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Davies, Larry G.
Versar, Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, VA 22151
Davoli, Dana J.
Staff Scientist
Citizens for a Better Environment
59 E. Van Buren Suite 2610
Chicago, IL 60605
Dawson, Russell A.
Senior Editor
BPI Newsletter Specialists
PO Box 1067
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dickinson, Robert H.
Pollution Abatement Coordinator
Westvaco, Inc.
Luke, MD 21540
Dollard, Elizabeth M.
Director of Policy Research
National Solid Waste Management
Association
1120 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dolloff, Dana B.
Environmental Quality Engineer
International Paper Company
1620 Eye St NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Drevna, Charles T.
Water Environmental Specialist
National Coal Association
1130 Seventeenth St.
Washington, DC 20036
Dyer, Jon
Principal
ETC
PO Box 2550
Springfield, VA 22152
Early, A. Blakeman
Environmental Action
1346 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Eastment, Katie
11 Keswick St #7
Boston, MA 02115
Emler, Paul Jr.
Senior Environmental Advisor
Allegheny Power System
Cabin Hill
Greensburg, PA 19406
Emrich, Grover H.
Vice President
A.W. Martin Associates
900 W. Valley Forge Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
-------
Engelman, C.H.
Assistant to Technology Manager
American Cyanamid Company
Berday Ave
Wayne, NJ 07470
Ford, Patricia
Private Citizen Group
14537 Lock Drive
Centerville, VA 22020
Florence, Lois
Citizen Coordinator-Solid Waste
Environmental Action Foundation
724 Dupont Circle Building
Washington, DC 20036
Gagner, Gerald
Manager-Resource Recovery
Waste Resources, Inc.
1721 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
George, Dr. Thomas
Director-Environmental Technology
TRW
2355 Euclid Ave
Cleveland, OH 44117
Gilley, William F.
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Health
109 Governor St
Richmond, VA 23219
Gilmore, Michael W.
Planner
Harrington, Lacey & Associates
7300 N. Ritchie Highway #909
Glen Burnie, MD 21061
Gorman, C.P.
Director-Environmental Affairs
Eli Lilly & Company
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Greco, James R.
Government Affairs
Browning-Ferris Industries
Fannin Bank Building
Houston, TX 77030
Hafner, Edwin A.
President
Hafner Industries, Inc.
Box 3923 Amity Station
New Haven, CT 06525
Hallenbeck, Dr. William
Assistant Professor
University of Illinois
PO Box 6998
Chicago, IL 60680
Harness, Robert L.
Manager Regulatory Affairs
Monsanto
1101 17th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Harris, Gladys
Citizen Activities Officer
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Hinesly, Thomas D.
Professor of Soil Ecology
University of Illinois
S-406 Turner Hall
Urbana, IL 61801
Hintze, Daniel L.
Environmental Coordinator
Union Oil Company
1650 E. Golf Road
Schaumburg, IL 60196
Hooper, Billy G.
Head-Sewage Sludge Section
Department of Health
201 W. Preston St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Hughes, Christopher F.
Environmental Project Manager
Edison Electric Institute
1140 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Jaffee, Edward L.
PPG Industries, Inc.
1730 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Jashani, Dr. I.L.
Senior Staff Engineer
Martin Marietta Corporation
1450 S. Rolling Road
Baltimore, MD 21227
John, Douglas H.
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Health
201 W. Preston St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
-------
Johnson, Richard L.
Chemical Engineer
Tennessee Eastman Company
PO Box 511
Kingsport, TN 37660
Kllleen, Michael
Property Utilization Specialist
GSA Federal Supply Service
Washington, DC 20406
Koster, Wallace
Geologist
Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc.
56 North Second St.
Chambersburg, PA 17201
Labovitz, Carl
Project Manager
Dravo Lime Company
650 Smithfield St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Lake, James
Water Quality Specialist
National Association of
Conservation Districts
1025 Vermont Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005
Laman, Joseph
Corporate Manager
The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
1200 Firestone Parkway
Akron, OH 44317
Lawrence, J. Richard
Manager-EIS Program
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Lazar, Emery C.
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
Office of Planning & Evaluation
Washington, DC 20460
Leonard, Bongers
Martin Marietta Corporation
1450 S. Rolling Road
Baltimore, MD 21227
Llndsey, Alan M.
Coordinator-Air/Solid Wastes
International Paper Company
PO Box 16807
Mobile, AL 36616
Lott, Harry
Senior Chemist
PPG Industries, Inc.
Barberton, OH 44313
Lucchesi, James
Marketing Communications
Combustion Equipment Associates
555 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10022
Lushg, Elaine
Environmental Specialist
Department of Environmental
Protection
32 E. Hanover St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
Lyndes, Gerald
Regional Planner
Central Virginia Planning
District
2511 Memorial Ave
Lynchburg, VA 24501
Martin, Revilee
Director of Planning
Far Southeast Community Organization
2041 Martin Luther King SE
Washington, DC 20020
Melberth, Rick
Assistant to Director
Montgomery County Environmental
Services
451 W. Third St.
Dayton, OH 45422
Miller, Robert B.
Project Engineer
Howard County Department of
Public Works
3430 Court House Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21043
-------
Mitnick, Steve
Management Consultant
CEXEC, Inc.
1911 N. Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22209
Moniot, J. David
Environmental Engineer
United States Steel Corporation
600 Grant St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Monroe, Captain Anthony
Sanitary Engineer
U.S.A. Environmental Hygene
Agency
APG, MD 21010
Morris, Merry L.
Environmental Specialist
Department of Environmental
Protection
Trenton, NJ 08625
Mulholland, Richard
Manager-Residual Process
Allied Chemical Company
PO Box 1139-R
Morristown, NJ
Mullen, Hugh
Director-Governmental Relations
14 Conversion Systems, Inc.
3624 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Muntz, David
Project Engineer
Continental Forest Industries
PO Box 1425
Augusta, GA 30903
Murphy, David
Environmental Coordinator
National Park Service
1100 Ohio Drive SW
Washington, DC 20242
Nace, Richard
Hazardous Wastes Section
Department of Health
201 W. Preston St.
Baltimore, MD
Neil, Forest C.
Chief Engineer
Sanitary District of Chicago
100 E. Erie St.
Chicago, IL 60611
Niles, Jay
Director-Technical Services
American Textile Manufacturers
Institute
400 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28285
Norvig, Karen
Research Associate
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
2 N. Ninth St.
Allentown, PA 18101
Oberle, F.N.
Executive Vice President
Ingram Barge, Inc.
1200 Harger Road
Oak Brook, IL 60521
Quigley, Andrew H.
Management Analyst
Department of Public Works
4100 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Reidbord, Charles
Legislative Research Analyst
National Solid Waste Management
Association
1120 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Reutiman, F.R,
12436 Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22030
Rey, Carlos
Embassy of Spain
1875 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20009
Rosenkranz, William
Director-Waste Management
Office of Research & Development
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Roulier, Michael
Soil Scientist
SHWRD-MERL
26 W. St. Clair St.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Sadat, Marwan
Project Director
Department of Environmental
Protection
Trenton, NJ 08625
Sathue, Therese
Environmental Analyst
American Can Company
American Lane
Greenwich, CT 06830
Scott, Robert
Manager-Corporate Affairs
Container Corporation of America
PO Box 1225
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
Semling, Harold
PO Box 2584
Arlington, VA 22202
Shaver, Robert
Vice President
Versar, Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, VA 22151
Shoemaker, George
Superintendent
Upper Potomas River Committee
PO Box 186
Westernport, MD 21562
Slagel, Gary
Sanitary Engineer
Consolidated Coal Company
924 N. Washington Road
McMurray, PA 15317
Slough, William
Management Specialist
South Carolina Appalachian
Council Government
211 Century Drive
Greenville, SC 29606
Smith, Earl
Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
1 High St.
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Sommers, Lee
Associate Professor
Purdue University
Lafayette, IN 4790?
Sommer, R.H.
Project Engineer
Martin Marietta Corporation
PO Box 430
Lewisport, KY 42351
Stein, Donald
Hamilton Standard, Inc.
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Stowe, David
Consumer Power Company
1945 Parnall Road #14106
Jackson, MI 49201
Sullivan, J. Mark
Project Director
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tennant, Liz
Editor-Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
724 DuPont Circle Building
Washington, DC 20009
Torosian, Joseph
Environmental Engineer
General Electric Company
1 River Road Bldg. 269-E2
Schenectady, NY 12345
Tracy, Charles
Project Engineer
Bechtel, Inc.
15740 Shady Grove Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20760
-------
Vaughn, David
Environmental Affairs
Olin Corporation
120 Long Ridge Road
Stamford, CT 06904
Wentworth, Marchant
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
1346 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Wilson, Douglas
Aluminum Company of America
Alcoa Center, PA 15069
rfinfieldj R.B.
President
Buckner Forest Land Development
5200 Winfield Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Woodson, Douglas
Solid Waste Manager
Roanoke Valley Regulation Board
PO Box 12312
Roanoke, VA 24021
Young, James
Legislative Services
Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies
1015 18th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
yalBVlb
SW-38p
Order No. 698
-------
-------
u
£
w
o
H
U
W
S
^
o
CO
Cl
. - CVJ 0)
CU_ CCVJ C -g.
.2 c 2 — 2 a>'
O> r- « ^ O)1*-
0)
D (0 <
_£Z'
= co Q.r
s
5
<
|O
55 do
»• O CVJ
c in co
S01*
<<«
i«i X£5S
;S glgj
'« S"° S s
i 2. a" wSi
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
|