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

-------