TRANSCRIPT
Public Meeting
on Proposed Program for
Resource Recovery Development Projects
under the President's Urban Policy
August 18, 1978, Washington, D.C.
This meeting was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-43p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2
3 PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR
AWARDING RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
GRANTS UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S URBAN POLICY
5
6 Auditorium
18th & F Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C,
8 Friday, August 18, 1978
9:10 A.M.
9
10 PANEL MEMBERS
11 STEVEN LINGLE
Chief, Technology & Markets Branch
12 Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste
K!
MURRAY NEWTON
14 Program Manager
Technical Assistance Branch
15 Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste
ifi
AL PETER
17 Director, Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste
18
GARY DIETRICH
19 Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste
20
GEORGE GARLAND
21 Chief, Assistance Branch
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
JOHN SETTLE
Attorney
Office of General Council
-------
1 AGENDA
2 PAGE
3 Welcome 3
GARY M. D3CTRICH
4 Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of solid Waste, EPA
5
Introductory Remarks 5
6 ALBERT A. PETER, JR.
Director, Resource Recovery Division
7 Office of Solid Waste, EPA
8 Summary of Program Announcement 10
STEPHEN A. LINGLE
9 Chief, Technology and Markets Branch
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
10
STATEMENTS:
11
MARCHANT WENTWORTH 16
12 Environmental Action Foundation
13 NANCY BELLON 26
Institute for Local Self Reliance
14
DR. CHARLES JOHNSON 32
15 National Solid Waste Management Association
16 MALCOLM CHASE 40
Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative
17
ARTHUR HANDLEY 53
18 American Consulting Engineers Council
19 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: 69
20 STATEMENTS :
21 G. CHRIS STOTLER 80
Ohio EPA
22
STEVEN WOOD 93
23 Southern Windsor County Regional Planning
& Development Commission
24
-------
2-A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AGENDA (Cont'd)
BART CARHART
N.J. Department of Environmental Protection
GEORGE ATKIN
NSEP, PEPP
CARL ABERS
ROBERT SCHOENHOFER
State of Maryland
MATT CAREY
City of Houston
Cliff C/sbb --MfftLO
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
STATEMENTS :
ART CURTIS
Department of Natural Resources , Kentucky
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
STATEMENTS :
DR. HERSCHEL CUTLER
Institute of Scrap Iron & Steel
_____
PAGE
94
101
107
110
116
133.
122
134
137
146
-------
2 MR. DIETRICH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,
3 welcome to this public meeting to consider the EPA's
4 proposal for managing resource recovery project development
5 grants program under the President's urban policy.
6 I am Garjjy Dietrich, Associate Deputy Administrator
7 for the Office of Solid Waste, EPA. Let me introduce the
S panel this morning.
9 On my right is Al Peter, Director of our Resource
10 Recovery Division who will be the moderator of this meeting.
11 On his right is Steve Lingle, Chief of our
12 Technology and Markets Branch who is a principal author of
13 the document that we are considering today and who will be
H the principal manager of the program that will be carried
15 out.
16 On the far end of the table is John Settle, an
17 attorney with our Office of General Counsel and who has been
18 assisting us in developing this program.
19 On my left is Murray Newton who is a program
20 manager, managing the technical assistance panel program
^ ^ •%. %•
21 which will play an essential role in the implementation of
22 the program we are considering today.
23 Later in the morning, George Garland will be
24 joining us. He is the Branch Chief in the area of state
25 planning assistance, managing our grant programs to give
-------
l financial assistance to the states to develop solid waste
2 implementation plans.
3 Before turning over to Al, let me make a few
4 remarks about the relationship of this program to the
5 President's urban policy program and how it relates to
6 EPA's other activities.
7 On March 27, 1978, the President announced a
8 comprehensive policy for assisting urban areas in order that
9 they may be better places to live and work. One element of
10 that policy was aimed at reducing solid waste disposal
ll burden on the cities and also expand jobs and businesses
12 and opportunities for encouraging resource recovery.
is He proposed that EPA carry out a program of grants
14 to the cities to aid in the planning of feasibility studies
15 and project development to accelerate resource recovery
16 systems.
n EPA had authority under its existing legislation,
is Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, to carry out a
19 program of grants to local governments. Thus, the proposed
20 program represents a marriage of that legislative authority
21 with the President's urban policy.
22 There are two goals under the Resource Conservation
23 and Recovery Act and these are protection of the environment
24 and conservation of resources. EPA is accomplishing these
25 goals through a combination of regulatory programs and
-------
1 activities, technical assistance and financial assistance.
2 The urban policy program is a part of this
3 comprehensive program. Its basic purpose will be to provide
4 financial assistance for the development of resource
5 recovery systems and with that will be available a good
6 amount of technical assistance from EPA to assist and
7 augment that financial proposal.
8 We looked at this program to develop local
9 resource recovery and conservation programs, not only to
10 help meet the environmental goals of the statute, but also
11 and very importantly, to provide alternatives to solid waste
12 disposal that can also achieve conservation of energy and
13 conservation of materials or resource conservation.
14 With that, let me turn the program over to Al who
is will explain the purpose of our meeting here.
16 MR. PETER: Thank you, Gary. Let me ask the
17 perennial — by speaking as softly as Gary has, can you all
18 hear me in the back of the room? Nod if you can.
19 Second point, GSA has truly taken the lead
20 apparently in energy conservation. If any of you are
21 uncomfortable with the air-conditioning as it is presently
22 set, feel free to shed your clothes as some of you have
23 already done and we might be doing the same up here.
24 As far as the purpose of the meeting is concerned,
25 it has but one objective and that is to get your comments.
-------
l We need comments from the public on the proposed manner in
2 which we intend to conduct this resource recovery urban
3 policy grant program as it was defined in the Federal
4 Register of July 31st.
5 We will also attempt to answer any question you
6 have about that program's structure. We fully expect that
7 there may be issued raised that we cannot respond to. Many
8 of these will require a lot more consideration, coordination,
9 in-house discussions and coordination with other agencies
10 perhaps.
n We will do that prior to issuing any final
12 announcements. We are still attempting to identify those
u issues which are in your mind and we want to be certain that
14 everything is brought forward before we go into final print
is and that is the purpose of the meeting.
IB As to the agenda this morning, we do have one.
17 It is not too rigid, it is more of an outline. The length
18 of the meeting will depend upon what comes forth, the number
19 of comments, questions that you have, discussions, and we
20 can break for lunch if necessary.
21 It is entirely up to the manner in which the
22 meeting goes but we will maintain that flexibility and if
23 lunch is in order, we will do that.
24 You will notice up front, we have the meeting
25 being transcribed. Copies of the transcript will be
-------
i available about 60 days after the meeting and they will be
2 sent to those of you who have registered at no cost. If
3 you want a copy of that, make sure that you have so noted
4 on your registration form.
5 We will break a little later in the morning to
6 give you an opportunity to do so. In addition to what we
7 discuss this morning and the comments we receive, we will
8 continue to receive written comment until August 25th.
9 A word about the status of the efforts in
10 developing this program and the planned schedule. The
11 appropriation was 15 million that we expect to administer
12 the program. It has been voted by the House and the Senate
13 as part of the EPA appropriations bill.
14 At the moment, we are waiting for conference
i."> committee action. I don't have an up-to-the-minute report,
'6 Gary, perhaps you do. I can only say at this point, the
n funding looks good and we expect no difficulties whatever
is in receiving that grant.
'9 Assuming that final congressional budget action
20 is favorable and forthcoming, we plan to publish the final
21 program rules and solicitation by September 30th. We make
22 another assumption of about 75 days to give adequate response
23 time so I would expect that proposals could be due back at
2-* EPA about December the 15th.
25 Again, making some nrojections on the uncertainties
-------
l the uncertainties being the number of responses we get and
2 the degree of review that is required, we still expect with
3 those uncertainties at this point to be able to make awards
4 of our first grants by April or May at the latest, perhaps
5 sooner, again depending on the uncertainties.
6 A little bit about program rationale. There are
7 some well-documented and widely acknowledge barriers to this
8 resource recovery effort. This program is intended to
9 respond to those barriers.
10 So-called institutional barriers that relate to
11 project planning and implementation have been a stumbling
12 block for many, many cities. Implementing resource recovery
13 is really a complex task. It is a complex task for which
14 most cities need strong project staff, adequate consulting
is expertise and overall technical assistance.
16 Again, we intend this program to provide that
n kind of support.
18 The program is action-oriented and we want to see
19 something come out of the pipeline. For that reason, you
20 will notice in the first announcements that appeared in the
21 Register that there is emphasis being given to those cities
22 who have done something in this respect but who may be
23 facing some difficulties.
24 Our efforts at this time will be directed to
25 helping them overcome those last barriers and get on with
-------
i some resource recovery programs. Again, it is action-
2 oriented.
3 I want to talk a bit about the integration of
4 this program with others. We believe very strongly that the
5 success of the program depends upon careful selection, good
6 management and integration and support of other programs.
7 We look upon the support of the technical
8 assistance panel's programs, which is authorized, integration
9 of state and planning efforts as particularly important.
10 Therefore, we feel the program should be viewed as part of a
11 larger EPA effort on state and local solid waste planning
12 and technical assistance.
13 We have also related this program to the
H demonstration program efforts of the Department of Energy.
ir, As noted in that solicitation on the 31st of July, the
16 initial planning and feasibility analysis that is required
17 of any project, including those which may be ultimately
18 supported by DOE as demonstrations, we believe they can be
19 funded under this program to assure continuity and
20 consistency of local planning for all projects.
21 A bit about the manner in which the project will
22 be managed. EPA's regional offices will have the primary
23 responsibility for managing the projects that are funded,
24 as well as the major role in the selection process.
25 At this point in time, we expect that the awards
-------
10
1 will actually be made in the regions but the door is still
2 open on that issue. EPA headquarters will have the
3 responsibility for developing the program and developing
4 the solicitations and will, along with the regions, provide
5 selection assistance in management as needed.
6 We will also review the progress and evaluate the
7 program impact and performance. We will also provide
8 guidance and information to assist the grantees. Steve will
9 have a lot more to say about that point.
10 I believe that's all I have by way of a preamble
11 and I will turn it over to Steve for a moment. Again, I
12 take pleasure in repeating what Gary has said, Steve has
13 been the principal author of this and will play a key role
14 in administering the entire program. Steve?
15 MR. LINGLE: Thank you, Al. What I would like to
16 do for a few minutes is briefly summarize and highlight the
n points made in the July 31st Federal Register announcement
is and I want to emphasize that this is only proposed at this
19 point.
20 The purpose of this meeting is to get your feedback
21 and comments on the points made in that document. I am
22 going to begin, if you want to follow in your copy of the
23 announcement, I will begin with Section E which is Cost
24 Sharing and highlight a few points as we go through here
25 for those of you who may not have had an opportunity to
-------
11
1 read this thoroughly.
2 First of all, in the point of cost sharing, I will
3 point out that consistent with the grant regulations that
4 have already been promulgated by EPA, this program will
5 provide funding for 75 percent of the total project cost.
6 We have made an additional restriction in terms of
7 the local funding. Of the 25 percent local share, we have
8 stated that no more than one-third of that should be in
9 kind contribution.
10 The reason for this is that we feel the
11 contribution of a certain amount of cash on the part of the
12 local government will provide an added incentive to the
13 local government and diligently and effectively through this
14 very complex implementation process.
15 This is another attempt to add something to the
16 system that will add to the effectiveness of the overall
n program.
18 On the next point, eligibility, Point F, the types
19 of government entities eligible for the program are listed
20 here and those are taken directly from the wording of the
21 Section 4002 of the Act.
22 There is a point made there regarding another
23 section of the Act, Section 4006, which I think is
24 particularly important. Let me remind you what Section 4006
25 does.
-------
12
Briefly, Section 4006 requires state and local
governments to make a decision in the designation as to
3 which entities and jurisdictions within the state have
4 responsibility for planning and implementation of various
areas of solid waste management including resource recovery.
6 Regarding that, the stated intent in this
7 announcement is to award grants only to those agencies
8 which have been designated through this process as having
9 implementation responsibilities.
10 This means a couple of things. It means that in
11 those states where this process may not yet be complete,
12 that it will be necessary for this action to be taken prior
i;i to the time that the application is made to EPA in order for
14 us to consider those applications.
15 It also suggests that those agencies that have
16 been designated not as implementation agencies but planning
17 agencies generally will not be eligible for receiving grants
18 under this program.
19 There may be some exceptions to that, there may be
20 situations where the agencies designated as having implemen-
tation responsibility will agree that a particular planning
agency should have responsibility for implementation of a
particular project and in those cases, exceptions can be
made.
This might be an example of where there is a
-------
13
i regional solution sought and a number of local jurisdictions
2 want to assign implementation responsibility through a
:i broader regional planning agency.
4 Again, the purpose of this is to try to add
effectiveness to the overall program in bringing about an
actual implementation. Confusion or competition over solid
waste implementation responsibilities at the local and
8 regional level is in itself one of the constraints to
9 effective implementation.
10 This is an attempt to remove that constraint and
at the same time be consistent with the requirement of
Section 4006 of RCRA. An additional factor related to
eligibility is size and as this document states, jurisdic-
tions of all sizes are eligible to apply under this program.
However, we believe the application of the
criteria which we spelled out will result in most of the
funds going to areas of roughly 50,000 population or more.
Incidentally, that population size is one which the Census
Bureau uses to define what is an urban area.
Now, I would like to move to the next point,
Point G, which is Programs and Activities Eligible for
Support.
TWO types of resource recovery activities are
24 eligible under this program, or the planning and project
2=1 development related to those activities, both the
-------
14
implementation of resource recovery plants and implementation
of source separation program are eligible under this program.
3 The types of activities which are eligible are
4 listed in the announcement in these phases and I will not go
5 through those, I think they are pretty clear. I will
6 emphasize that funding is not available for land,
construction, equipment or detailed engineering design.
8 In terms of the phases, we are asking that the
g project be defined in phases consistent with those listed.
10 This does not mean that the phases have to match those
ll listed here exactly.
12 However, we are saying that the elements listed
13 in these three phases should be accounted for somewhere
within the overall implementation process.
15 Funding under the program, the application under
IB the program can be for any or all of the phases and funding
17 under this program can be tentatively committed for all of
18 the phases but the actual funding, the follow-on phases from
19 that initially funded, will be contingent upon progress made
20 during those first phases and the output required under those
21 phases to determine those projects will be defined in the
22 work scope.
I would like to move now to Point H which is the
solicitation procedure and point out again that this is a
national competition and that competition is based primarily
-------
15
on potential for successful implementation.
The applicants will be asked to submit proposals
3 in a prescribed format as we have detailed in this July 31st
4 Federal Register and proposals will be due within 75 days
from the date of that final solicitation announcement and
we see that coming now as the end of September.
The criteria for award are spelled out in Section J
and I think they are pretty much self-explanatory. They are
9 based largely on factors which we feel define potential
10 success of a project and they also include a factor defining
ll the potential for supporting the objective of the President's
12 urban policy program.
13 I think that is pretty much all that I wanted to
14 point out on this, just highlighting some of the factors
15 which I think may be of particular interest to some of you.
16 MR. PETER: Thank you, Steve.
17 Murray, do you have any statements?
18 MR. NEWTON: No.
19 MR. PETER: If not, we can get into the formal
20 program. We have a tentative list of those who have
21 registered and intend to present a paper. I will call them
in order and if you will come forward to the microphone and
23 make your presentation.
24 I would ask, if you have a copy that you can leave
with the reporter, we would appreciate it to insure accuracy.
-------
The first one I have listed here is a
representative from Environmental Action Foundation,
Merchant Wentworth. Is he here?
MR. WENTWORTH: Good morning, Lois Florence, as
listed on the witness list is unable to be with us and she
has asked me to read her statement.
My name is Marchant Wentworth and I am research
director for Environmental Action Foundation's Solid Waste
Project.
I would like to thank the staff of the Office of
Solid Waste for this opportunity to comment on these proposed
procedures to implement the resource recovery project
development grants under the President's urban policy.
First, we would like to voice our support for the
President's proposal. The citizens in our urban areas are
particularly affected by our present solid waste problems.
Resources devoted to these heavily impacted areas is money
well spent. This program can not, of course, solve all of
our urban trash problems, but it does represent an effective
first step.
However, we do find an inherent contradiction
between the President's urban policy program and Section
4008(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The
President's policy centers exclusively on resource recovery
and source separation with scant mention of resource
-------
17
i conservation.
2 On the other hand, the legislation specifically
3 includes resource conservation in all of the programs
4 authorized under this section. Therefore, we strongly
5 believe that omitting resource conservation from this policy
6 would not only seriously weaken the program but would also
7 violate both the letter and the intent of the Resource
8 Conservation and Recovery Act.
9 We ask that the objective of the program be
10 altered to reflect this legislative mandate. Resource
11 conservation must be included as an integral part of the
12 urban policy.
13 in order to encourage cities to explore resource
14 conservation options, a study reviewing all possible local
15 resource conservation measures should be a required part of
16 every resource recovery strategy.
17 If the implementing authority chooses not to
18 initiate any resource conservation measures, they should be
19 required to thoroughly outline their reasons for not doing
20 so. This would ensure that all management options are
21 investigated equally.
22 The possible benefits of resource conservation
23 are immense. To ignore these benefits would be to discard
24 one of our most effective tools in our fight to reduce
25 waste. We therefore ask that the mandate of Section 4008(a)
-------
18
1 be carried out and resource conservation be included in
2 aspects of this important solid waste policy.
3 To further emphasize this change in policy, we
4 recommend that the statement of primary objectives be
5 changed and expanded. In our view, the first objective
6 should be to provide for environmentally sound alternatives
7 to solid waste disposal.
8 The second objective should be to accelerate
9 national progress in resource recovery and resource
10 conservation. The third and final objective should be to
11 assist economically distressed urban areas.
12 In keeping with our concern that resource
13 conservation be included within this program definition,
14 we recommend that solid waste management agencies identified
15 under Section 4002 of RCRA be awarded these grants instead
lfi of the narrowly defined resource recovery authorities
17 described in the President's policy.
18 In some areas, responsibilities for resource
19 recovery have been separated from the ongoing solid waste
20 planning effort under RCRA. These narrower agencies,
21 designed to deal with the nuts and bolts of building a
22 resource recovery facility, clearly are not in a position
2i to consider the broader policy options of resource
24 conservation.
25 Awarding grants to these isolated authorities
-------
19
1 would unnecessarily splinter overall solid waste planning.
2 For similar reasons, we would also recommend that the
3 requirement for a written agreement from resource recovery
4 authorities be eliminated.
5 We would, however, be the first to applaud EPA
6 for including source separation programs in the design of
7 this program. Early consideration of source separation as
8 outlined can not only provide necessary information on
9 markets, but it can ensure that source separation can be
10 designed to be compatible with resource recovery.
11 In terms of actually implementing the urban
12 policy, we recommend that the EPA regional offices be given
the burden of putting the program together as soon as
possible.
Unlike the current draft that calls for the
16 regions to assume responsibility only after the first year,
1" we recommend that the transfer occur immediately. We feel
18 that the bureaucratic advantages of decentralizing the
19 program immediately far outweight any lapses that are bound
20 to occur.
21 We apply the Agency for including public
participation in the urban policy. But, as the Agency is
well aware, merely including the concept of public
participation is not enough.
2ri Specific monies must be available to make public
-------
20
l participation a reality. An initial investment in public
2 participation at the beginning can help to insure public
3 support for future solid waste projects.
4 We recommend that the criteria for awarding grants
5 be rewritten to provide better guidance for potential
6 grantees. Are the examples listed below the criteria
suggested or are they required?
8 We would also add an effective public participa-
9 tion program as one of the criteria for an award. In
10 addition, we would ask that all ongoing projects be required
11 to demonstrate that they have thoroughly examined all
12 resource conservation and source separation alternatives.
These requirements serve a double purpose. They
help ensure public involvement in the program. But more
15 importantly, the requirements would provide an informed
16 citizenry for other phases of RCRA implementation. Their
17 tax dollars will ultimately be needed to support changes.
18 And this era of Proposition 13, the importance of citizen
19 support cannot be overemphasized.
20 But in spite of these problems, we believe that
this program does represent an important commitment to our
cities trash problems. We support this effort and hope
that this represents a continued commitment from the
Administration in the area of solid waste management.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
-------
21
important issue. I will be glad to answer any questions.
MR. PLTER: Thank you, "Ar. Uentworth. As I say,
a j we are not going to be too rigid in structuring this type of
4 meeting. If we went into any in-depth discussion of each of
5 the points you raise, it is possible we may run into late
6 afternoon and cut short the time of others.
However, I think it is appropriate that we comment
on some of the points you raised and make sure ipoe^
understand them. Let's do that and let's set a time limit
of 10 or 15 minutes and ensure that we near the other
speakers.
Do you anticipate being around the balance of the
13 day?
14 MR. WENTWORTH: No.
MR. PETER: I hoped that you would in the event
ifi that if we have time for more detailed discussion, we could
17 have you back at the microphone, but let's see if we can hit
some of tne points you raise right now.
19 As far as the conservation efforts and the scant
20 mention you made, you may have a point. We have directed
21 this issue towards post-consumer wastes. I don't think we
were intended to disregard those because the intent is not
to build up more post-consumer waste but to handle that
24 which is visible and that which is causing the problem at
25 the present time and that which is probably most feasible
-------
li
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
for implementing.
We have discussed this in-house so I am sure
Steve has some points to make.
MR. WENTWORTH: We would be the first to say, and
Steve and I have discussed this, of course, that finding
available resource conservation options, both in the national
and local level is not an easy task. It is difficult
politically.
We think one of the reasons for this is because it
is difficult, people have shied away from it. We have shied
away from it on a national level. Resource conservation is
one of those issues that it is very difficult to grab ahold
of and it becomes evident only through other local problems.
If people are having a problem with trash
generation on the streets, they say it is a litter problem
or a zoning problem, not a resource conservation problem.
When the problem gets out on the local level, we have a
problem with perception here.
It takes a lot of different forms and it's
difficult to get a handle on. But because it is difficult,
I don't think that is no reason to provide that alternative
for the local implementing authorities to look at this
problem.
Monies under this urban policy will provide that
opportunity.
-------
23
l MR. LINGLE: One comment on the area of resource
2 conservation. You pointed out it is specifically mentioned
i in Section 4008 and you are right. Unfortunately, resource
4 conservation is one of those words that always gives me a
5 lot of trouble.
6 When someone says resource conservation, one is
7 never quite sure whether they are referring to a goal, an
8 end, an objective or whether they are trying to define a set
9 of actions. Clearly, the kinds of programs that will be
10 carried out, resource recovery programs, source separation
11 programs, will achieve conservation of resources.
12 The issue is, are there some other kinds of actions
13 that should also be included in addition to those types of
14 programs that will achieve resource conservation? I believe
15 if I understand what you are saying , you are suggesting that
ie we should look a little bit more broadly and even suggest
17 more broadly that the local governments be part of this
18 program and try to explore other ways of getting to that
19 goal of resource conservation.
20 I think that is something we should look into but
21 I don't feel that we have necessarily been inconsistent in
22 what is stated in Section 4008, that the types of programs
23 being carried out do in fact achieve resource conservation.
24 MR. PETER: I did not make detailed notes of the
25 points you raised —
-------
24
1 MR. LINGLE: Could you repeat the point you made
2 about the eligible agencies defined under Section 4002? I
think I missed part of that.
MR. WENTWORTH: What I'm basically trying to get
at, Steve, is that in some circumstances, we have independent
resource recovery agencies that are not designated under the
guidelines for implementation. These agencies or boards are
8 charged specifically with getting this plan together.
9 We would like to see this program as an integral
10 part of the implementation effort and so going to your
resource recovery, many times they are an integral part of
12 that and we recognize that but in some cases, that's not
13 true, and we would like to see the money go through the
14 designated agency so that resource conservation alternatives
15 would be discussed.
16 These boards have their hands full trying to get
17 a plan together and we think that is not the best area to
lft have resource conservation considered. We would like to go
19 through a designated agency and assure that takes place.
MR. LINGLE: The designated agency for —
MR. WENTWORTH: RCRA, under the eligibility of
agencies, 4002. I think we're talking about the same thing
MR. LINGLE: Yes, I think we are.
MR. PETER: Let me clarify in my own mind your
concern about regions getting into it in the late game.
-------
25
l It was not our intent to have them get into it in
2 the late game but it was our purpose to get this program out
3 to them as soon as we can. The regions are looking on us at
4 this point in time for a lot of help in getting the program
5 established and conducting this kind of ground work, and
6 essentially we have been giving it to them to administer.
I don't see a concern in timing that you do.
8 MR. WENTWORTH: For example, I would like to
9 transfer the approval of work scope from headquarters to
10 the regional office and in keeping with the EPA solid waste
11 management strategies of certain movement to the regions, I
12 think this is one way you can accelerate that process.
MR. PETER: I have no problem with that.
MR. LINGLE: I think that's the intent. If it
doesn't sound like that — that is the intent.
MR. PETER: You referred to applause which we
appreciate on public participation. But what is the money
aspect you talk to?
MR. WENTWORTH: One alternative would be to
designate specific pieces of the award for public
participation. As you know, public participation guidelines
have been formulated and there will be public hearings on
23 them later in September.
24 These are very sophisticated guidances I think to
the states and local implementing authorities. They are not
-------
26
1 cheap and we would like to say that specific chunks of these
2 awards be designated for local efforts, in effect that it is
3 a line item.
4 MR. LINGLE: If I might comment on that, there is
5 included as eligible for funding in all of the phases,
6 interaction with the public through formation of advisory
7 groups and the like. That may be a little bit different
8 than public participation that you are talking about but it
9 probably is not very far off and it might be easy to extend
10 it to include that.
n MR. WENTWORTH: Yes, I think there would be no
12 problem. I'm not clear as to what form the guidelines would
13 take —
14 MR. PETER: I think those are the principal items
15 I have, is there anything more? Thank you, Mr. Wentworth.
16 MR. WENTWORTH: Thank you.
17 MR. PETER: The next one I have listed is a
ig representative from the Institute for Local Self Reliance/
19 Nancy DelIon. is she here?
20 MS. BELLON: Good morning. I am representing the
21 Institute for Local Self Reliance. I am the assistant to
22 the director of the waste utilization division. My comments
23 are directed primarily to the types of activities and
94 program that we would like to see receive the major parts of
25 the funding, if it becomes available.
-------
27
Also to the point of eligibility.
The President's appropriation request for
3 $15 million to assist urban areas in solid waste resource
4 recovery project planning and feasibility analysis comes at
5 a very critical time. There is an immediate need in the
6 field of source separation collection, materials handling,
7 public awareness and waste utilization technology.
Dr. Neil Seldman, Director of Waste Utilization
for the Institute recently submitted a report to the Economic
10 Development Administration which he did under contract with
11 them. His report entitled. The Economic Feasibility of
12 Recycling, was based on visits to numerous source separation
13 program sites around the country and shows the community
14 based recyclers, private haulers, secondary material buyers
15 and municipalities made tremendous strides in organizing
16 economically viable recycling process since 1970.
17 Their efforts have been vital in creating
18 employment, revenues, vocational training for managerial
19 level jobs and environmental education materials. We have
20 now within the communities of our cities the potential for
21 even greater contributions to community and economic
development but only if funding is made available.
23 The Institute is in contact regularly with
24 virtually hundreds of community based recycling program
25 coordinators from private entrepreneurs to community based
-------
28
program managers to state and local solid waste and
community development officials.
We are in constant touch with the Five-State
4 Recycling Association in New York cities. On the basis of
5 conversations with these people and groups and reports from
6 them, the Institute for Local Self Reliance urges that the
major portions of the $15 million funding program be set
8 aside for the development of material cycling,processing
9 and fabrication projects.
10 Such funds under Bill 650 will allow recyclers
ll to develop statewide utilization technologies to receive
12 the increased flow of recycleable materials expected as the
13 result of availability of capital loans under this statewide
14 program.
15 In late July, Dr. Seldman participated in a day
16 long seminar held in Chicago by the Department of Energy,
n the purpose of which was to advise DOE on how best to
18 commercialize capital intensive waste utilization technology.
19 Among the seven experts were a banker, an
industrialist, an energy utility representative, a solid
waste official from Chicago and a systems manufacturer.
Dr. Seldman learned a great deal about capital intensive
systems from that seminar.
24 One of the most interesting things that he
discovered was that not one of these practitioners felt
-------
29
dp
1 that it was necessary any longer for the federal government
2 to subsidize the development of capital intensive systems.
3 In fact, they viewed federal funding as a burden
4 to the efficient planning and implementation of capital
5 intensive systems. Industrial and banking sectors are now
6 confident that efficient plants yielding 20 percent return
7 on investment can build plants using their own funds or
8 funds from the bonding markets.
9 From this, we can conclude that over the past
10 decades, hundreds of millions of dollars of local, state
11 and federal public funds have been made available for
12 research development, implementation and evaluation of
13 capital intensive technology.
14 On the basis of the Chicago seminar and the report
15 by the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages, it
ig appears that this policy has achieved its purpose. The
17 private sector is now in a position to take over. But at
18 this time, another sector of the resource recovery field is
19 in need of the same kind of development assistance and this
20 sector, the recycling sector, has struggled for seven years
21 to promote these specific goals of the Administration's
22 urban policy, that is community preservation and local
23 economic development.
24 It has done so in direct cooperation with local
25 governments and community organizations, strengthening both
-------
30
groups in the process. EPA's resource recovery project
development grants and also DOE's urban waste technology
program should reflect this reality. It should reflect the
^
4 potential for continued community and economic development
5 in addition to energy conservation.
A report from the National Commission on Supplies
and Shortages reflects this when it states, "To subsidize
the recovery of energy but not of materials from solid waste
9 would be to compound pressures for the inefficient use of
10 resources. For example, use of old newspapers as fuel is
11 significantly less energy efficient than recycling of the
12 same newspapers into print."
1:5 If EPA's grant program is to be successful in
14 achieving the goals outlined by the Institute, that is the
15 same goals of the Administration's urban policy, we further
16 recommend that community development corporations be
17 included among those designated as eligible for funds as
is described in Section F of the draft program announcement in
19 the Federal Register.
20 Thank you very much.
21 MR. PETER: Thank you, Nancy. You raised some
good points.
Steve, have you --
24 MR. LINGLE: I have one question and that is in
terms of your point about most of the funds should be made
-------
31
available for materials recycling, I believe you said
including collection and recycling.
3 j Are you suggesting that grants be made available
4 to other than state and local government units?
5 MS. 0ELLON: Other than?
6 MR. LINGLE: Yes, are you suggesting that it be
7 made available to other than —
MS. 0ELLON: Suggest community development
9 corporations?
10 MR. LINGLE: Right.
11 MS. 0ELLON: Yes.
12 MR. PETER: I suspect there is one of our lawyers
13 burning with a thought to get across. Penny, have you a
14 comment on that -- this is Mrs. Hansen in the Department of
n,,, L,^.., i,,^,. -fe^-H,-^ <>
i r
15
16 MS. HANSEN: My only feeling on the subject would
17 be that it would be a bit administratively difficult to
18 filter these funds through to these kinds of organizations
19 but it could probably be done. There is no doubt that if
20 the money goes only to resource recovery planning or resource
21 recovery implementation organizations, that the types of
programs the Institute has been researching and is interested
in will probably be excluded.
24 MR. LINGLE: It would require a change in the
25 legislative authority to do that because those groups are
-------
not included in Section 4008(a)2 as those groups that would
be eligible.
MR. SETTLE: If such a group is actually a public
4 agency, I know you termed it a corporation, but if it is
5 termed a public agency under public law, it is possible.
6 MR. PETER: Again, many thanks for your
presentation.
The next one on my list, I don't have a check mark
indicating that he has arrived but it would be the
representative from Rhode Island Solid Waste Management
11 Corporation, Mr. Louis David. Has he arrived?
12 We will pass on to Cne next one, a representative
13 from the National Solid Waste Management Association, Dr.
14 Charles Johnson.
15 DR. JOHNSON: Good morning. The National Solid'
IB Waste Management Association, whose members consist of most
17 of the leading firms providing the service of solid waste
18 management including resource recovery, is pleased to have
19 the opportunity to comment on the resource recovery project
20 development grants program under the President's urban
21 policy.
22 Members of NSWMA are now participating in many
23 resource recovery projects including some that have been
24 operating for a number of years and others are now in the
various stages of the planning process. We are therefore
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
33
well prepared to comment on the subject of planning grants.
Providing planning grants for resource recovery
projects is not a new venture for the Environmental
Protection Agency. During 1975 and 1976 a dozen such grants
were awarded and there is a history of experience from which
to benefit in setting up a new program.
The history of the earlier program is disappointing
To our knowledge, out of a dozen grants, there has emerged
only one resource recovery project and that project is
recovering a bare minimum of resources.
Experience has shown that the planning phase of a
resource recovery project is in fact as much a promotional
e'ffort as it is one of actual project planning. The
promotional effort is often characterized by conflicts of
i-nterest, technological oversell, and a disruption of the
existing solid waste management system of the community.
The press and the general public often become involved,
prematurely we believe, before feasibility is even
established. Our comments today will address these and
other related points.
First, we are pleased that the Environmental
Protection Agency has proposed to require that communities
demonstrate their good faith in implementing resource
r.ecovery by providing some of the funding for the planning
process at the community level.
-------
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
34
But we question whether level of required local
funding is sufficient for the purpose. After deducting
in kind contributions, the local community would be required
to fund only 17 percent of the total project cost.
We would have preferred to see this number two or
three times that amount. Also we note that local
communities are not precluded from using state provided
funds for their contribution toward the project. We believe
that state funds should not be allowed as part of the local
matching funds.
As an important demonstration of local sincerity,
we urge that the Environmental Protection Agency require
each community receiving an award to assign a full-time
project manager to the project.
In several cities throughout the country this
seems to have made the difference between a successful and
an unsuccessful project implementation. Without a person
with decision making authority in charge of the project,
the community cannot complete those tasks which only it can
do.
For that reason we urge that each community
awarded a grant be required to assign to the project a
full-time project manager. The application for the grant
should be required to contain a position description for
this person including qualifications and responsibilities.
-------
35
l An important consideration in selecting a
2 community for an award should be an evaluation of the
3 position description so that the Environmental Protection
4 Agency can be assured that the incumbent will have the
5 requisite level of authority.
6 Applications for planning grants should be
7 required to contain a statement documenting the need for
8 resource recovery in the community and the purpose of the
9 proposed resource recovery project.
10 In selecting those applicants to be awarded grants,
ll the Environmental Protection Agency should place much weight
12 on the real need for resource recovery and whether the
13 stated purpose of the project will meet that need.
14 Communities which cannot document a need or which
15 state unrealistic objectives should be disqualified. For
16 example, seldom can a community reduce its cost of waste
17 management by implementing resource recovery.
18 An increase in cost is the usual experience. An
19 application which states cost reduction as its objective
20 should be suspect. Also a community cannot eliminate land
21 disposal by implementing resource recovery and such an
22 objective should be questioned. Planning grants should be
23 awarded to support well conceived projects which have a
24 reasonable chance of meeting the needs that have been
25 determined.
-------
36
i The matter of conflict of interest is of very
2 great concern to the private waste management industry and
3 it should be of equal concern to the general public. Most
4 often planning functions are carried out by private firms
5 under contract with local communities.
6 Sometimes these private firms have a business
7 objective that includes carrying out one or more of the
8 functions required to actually implement a resource recovery
9 project.
10 These could include engineering design,
11 construction, supply of equipment, or even operation of the
12 completed facility. Therefore it becomes a vested interest
13 of the firm to have the project move ahead. Under such
14 circumstances an objective planning function can hardly be
ir, assured.
16 We urge that the Environmental Protection Agency
17 place strict limitations on future participation in a
18 project by any firm that receives a contract funded under
19 the planning grant program. We believe that at a minimum,
20 contractors receiving grant funds directly or indirectly
21 should be precluded from carrying out any of the functions
22 indicated above.
23 I mentioned earlier that a resource recovery
24 planning effort can be disruptive on the existing waste
25 management system. These disruptions occur because of the
-------
37
l extensive p.ress coverage and public interest that often
2 occurs during the early stages of resource recovery planning.
3 Projects are often oversold even by those who
4 should be providing objective and unbiased analysis. We
5 doubt that neither the Environmental Protection Agency nor
6 any other agency is in a position to prepare written rules
7 to protect against this type of occurrence.
8 But we can ask that the EPA provide, as a condition
9 of the grant, close scrutiny of the activities funded under
10 the grant. EPA should retain the right to intervene with
ll firm suggestions if it appears that the community is
12 deviating from the conditions of the award.
13 One final point, the proposed grant procedures
14 state that "EPA will award grants to only the applicants
15 jointly identified by state and appropriate locally elected
is officials for plan implementation responsibilities in
17 resource recovery".
18 Some people have assumed that the agency
19 responsible for plan implementation would necessarily be
20 the owner and possibly operator, project manager or even
21 the designer, of a project and therefore planning grant money
22 would be available only for projects completely in the public
23 sector.
24 We do not believe this to be the intent of EPA
25 or RCRA but inasmuch as there is some confusion on this
-------
38
point, we urge EPA to clarify the possible different roles
of the implementing agency and the resource recovery
procurement options that might be used.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment
5 ' today on this important Environmental Protection Agency
6 program.
7 MR. PETER: Mr. Johnson, many thanks. You raise
some key points which we assure you, we are in total
9 agreement. We have seen evidence where projects are being
10 oversold and sometimes prematurely announced. Because my
11 thoughts are focused on the last points you make, I might
12 comment on a couple of those.
13 Rest assured that one of the reasons for setting
14 up the Phase 1 and 2 process with contingent funding was to
is assure that EPA will review these things step by step and
16 assure ourselves that the money is spent in the manner
intended and I see no conflict at all there.
18 On the matter of conflict of interest, you are
19 quite right, it is a sensitive issue and one in which we
20 have given an awful lot of in-house thought and discussion.
21 I would like Steve and Murray to address the point. Murray
22 is one who has been intimately involved in the development
23 of the technical assistance panel's program. Let me divert
24 to Murray for a. moment.
25 MR. NEWTON: I probably can't add anything too much
-------
38"
I beyond what Mr. Johnson said except that in the RFP , we
2 have used to procure consulting help for the regions, we
3 have stated in there that the consultants we use will not
4 be able to be considered for follow-on work on the projects
5 to which we assign them, which is what I understood you to
6 be saying anyway so I believe there is no problem there.
7 DR. JOHNSON: We would like to see the same
8 condition applied to the planning grants. Incidentally, we
9 might make an exception here for further management
10 consulting services, it might make sense to retain the same
11 consultant. I did not include that in my list of what I
12 would restrict.
13 MR. PETER: You also brought out the point that
14 we should scrutinize very carefully the manner in which
is these awards are made. As you stated here, the Environmental
16 Protection Agency placeSmuch weight on the real need for
17 resource recovery.
18 I assure you that is one of the factors that we
19 have weighed very, very heavily. Again, we appreciate the
20 emphasis.
21 Steve, do you have more thoughts?
22 MR. LINGLE: No, actually I think I agree with
23 many of the points Mr. Johnson made. I would like to plant
24 the seed here in terms of the point of conflict of interest
25 and the restrictions , that during the question and answer
-------
?*
section, I would like to encourage those in the audience to
comment on that point.
In other words, I would like to get some feedback
because I happen to personally agree with that point.
MR. PETER: You agree with that statement?
MR. LINGLE: Yes, I think it would be better to
do that during the question and answer period.
MR. PETER: As far as the requirement for
9 obtaining a full-time project manager, I have not seen
10 anything work yet that didn't have someone in charge so
11 I'll just take that —
12 DR. JOHNSON: That was basically my point.
MR. LINGLE: I think that is intended.
14 DR. JOHNSON: Incidentally, at a very responsible
15 level.
16 MR. LINGLE: Yes. In fact, the funding under
this program is specifically available for that purpose,
hiring a full-time project manager.
19 MR. PETER: It's a good point and we appreciate it.
20 Again, thank you very much.
21 Let me interrupt one second to remind you that we
have provided cards for your questions and we ask that you
23 write your questions down on those cards and pass them
24 forward. We will get to them as soon as we finish the
formal statements.
-------
1 Let me go back, has Kr. Louis David arrived yet?
2 I guess not.
3 The next representative I have listed is one from
the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Corporation, Mr. Malcolm
Chase.
MR. CHASE: Thank you very much. Ladies and
gentlemen, I would like to make a couple of off-the-cuff
statements, preliminary to my comments which were made
without the benefit of seeing your proposed plan, EPA's
10 plan. We had not received it and so our comments were made
n without the benefit of those statements of your's.
12 The other is to correct the word "Corporation".
13 The word should be "Cooperative" and not "Corporation".
14 MR. PETER: Thank you.
15 MR. CHASE: Ladies and gentlemen, I am Malcolm J.
16 Chase, Professional Engineer, formerly with the New Hampshire
17 Department of Public Works and Highways for many years and
18 presently, since my retirement from that organization,
19 engaged in the private practice of engineering.
20 In public life, I have been a Selectman in the
21 Town of Durham, New Hampshire for many years and am presently
22 a member of a number of state statutory organization,
23 including the Board of Registration for Professional
24 Engineers.
25 I am here to represent, as their chairman, a group
-------
1 of 12 communities in the seacoast area of New Hampshire,
2 who have, under state statutes, joined together in a
3 cooperative effort in meeting the federal and state air
4 pollution control and solid waste disposal requirements.
5 To comply with the standards presently in effect,
6 these 12 towns have established themselves as the Lamprey
7 Regional Solid Waste Cooperative and have committed
8 themselves to a 15 year program for the construction and
9 operation of an incinerator/energy recovery system on the
10 University of New Hampshire campus.
11 By their own efforts, the towns have further
12 obligated funds in direct proportion to the waste which
13 they generate to pay for both the cost of construction and
u operation. The project is currently in the design stage,
15 with construction proposed to start early in 1979.
16 In order that members of the panel and your Agency
17 may be appreciative of the precedent setting effort that has
18 been made in assembling this program, it seems appropriate
19 to take the time to develop a brief history of the
20 circumstances which led to its development.
21 In the past, the Town of Durham, and the
22 University of New Hampshire, have jointly owned and operated
23 a solid waste incinerator located on town property which
24 incidentally, was the prototype of a very efficient
25 incinerator system in the northeast.
-------
1 In 1976, the Joint Town-University of New Hampshire
2 Incinerator Committee decided it was necessary to formulate
3 a long range plan for operation of the solid waste
4 incinerator and the disposal of solid waste. A consultant
5 was engaged to evaluate the present operation and to develop
6 alternate plans for the future.
7 Specifically, the consultant was asked to consider
8 the feasibility of constructing a second incinerator on the
9 University Campus in Durham to permit heat recovery from the
10 incineration process and to involve several towns in the
11 surrounding areas in the cooperative program of solid waste
12 disposal.
13 The desirability of establishing a cooperative
14 venture for the disposal of solid waste became even more
15 apparent when the state advised many of the surrounding
16 communities that they wpuld have to discontinue sanitary
17 landfill operations and when the federal government, through
18 its EPA Office, notified the university and the Town of
19 Durham that its joint incinerator had failed emission
20 control standards, which probably could be remedied only at
21 considerable expense.
22 A committee was formed consisting of representa-
23 tives of the Town of Durham, the University of New Hampshire
24 and those towns which had indicated an interest in joining
25 a regional solid waste venture.
-------
1 A consultant was engaged to investigate the
2 feasibility of such an enterprise and the towns agreed to
3 share the cost of such a study. After considerable
4 investigation and numerous meetings with the representatives
5 of the University of New Hampshire and the several towns,
6 the consultant made the following basic findings which were
7 contained in a preliminary report.
8 These findings are essentially summarized as this:
9 The towns and the University of New Hampshire
10 could obtain an economical solid waste disposal management
11 system and the university could conserve fossil fuel by
12 generating steam from refuse combustion.
13 Second, a system of incinerators-boilers could be
14 sited behind the existing University of New Hampshire steam
15 plant in Durham which could feed steam directly into the
16 university's steam loop.
17 Third point, the steam generated by such a system
18 would significantly contribute to the university's steam
19 requirements and at the same time, would be small enough to
20 be in line with the minimum summer requirements.
21 Point four, both the University of New Hampshire
22 and the towns would obtain a substantial savings by
23 disposing of their solid waste through such a joint venture
24 compared to the cost of individual or commercial disposal
25 systems, and as far as the University of New Hampshire and
-------
l the Town of Durham are concerned, upgrading the present
2 incinerator.
3 The Towns of Harrington, Durham, Epping, Greenland,
4 Lee, Madbury, Newfields, Newington, Newmarket, Northwood,
5 Rollinsford and Stratham voted to form the Lamprey Regional
6 Solid Waste Cooperative.
7 The agreement whereby the cooperative was
8 established was approved at that time and formed in substance
9 by the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire as
10 required by law and by bond counsel.
ll The purpose of this statement to you today is to
12 solicit the assistance of your Agency in exploring possible
13 sources of funds which might be made available for both the
14 engineering and construction and even the operation, which
15 we qualify, of this unique regional program and thereby
16 reduce the costs being engendered by the communities
17 involved.
18 While we have been pursuing this matter for some
19 time, it seemed to us that members of your staff dealing
20 directly with energy conservation and recovery programs
21 might well suggest other avenues to explore in obtaining
22 assistance in funding the cost of the program.
23 it has seemed to us that we have established a
24 precedent for others to follow whereby 12 individual
25 communities have at two successive town meetings voted to
-------
He
1 commit themselves to a 15 year solid waste, energy recovery
2 program and appropriated funds for engineering, construction
3 and operation of the facility.
4 It would appear that this progressive approach —
5 that in this progressive approach that we have taken would
6 enable us to stand very high in the listing for participating
7 funds that might be available for this type of energy
8 conservation project and we would hope that you would give
9 us all assistance possible in furthering our investigation
10 of the availability of such funds.
11 I would ad-lib here a bit and say that we have
12 never in New Hampshire been able to get more than two towns
13 previously to agree on anything.
14 It is important to note at this point that our
15 experience and recommendations made at this hearing, are
16 related to the efforts of a number of small communities
17 situated in a rapidly growing, perhaps the fasted in the
18 United States, urbanized area.
19 Nearly 40,000 people were represented by this
20 vote at their individual town meetings to join together in
21 this program. Again, if you add the university's personnel
22 to it, we are over 50,000 using the system.
23 With this in mind, we wish to recommend the
24 following points wherein we believe that federal assistance
25 would measurably stimulate the development of similar
-------
46-
-47
1 programs in similar areas throughout the country.
2 Specifically, it is our recommendation that
3 federal and state assistance should be provided in the
4 following areas.
5 1. Planning. While the cost of a preliminary
6 planning program is not great, grants-in-aid to analyze the
7 individual problem of each town to include collection,
8 storage, transportation and of almost equal importance,
9 recycling and its impact on all of the foregoing would be
10 an incentive.
11 Financial assistance here would develop the kind
12 of understanding which we found at town meetings to be
13 essential for presentation to the voters for clear
14 understanding of the town's problems and for support in
15 authorizing further efforts.
16 The second point I would like to make is recycling
17 and I will ad-lib again. We have a recycling center on the
18 University of New Hampshire campus which has been in effect
19 for a number of years now and which is in and out of trouble
20 most of the time.
21 They have elected to collect recyclable materials
99
from a variety of towns and due to the fluctuating market of
00
the products, they are in trouble more than they are out of
24 it and we are trying to help them with this.
oc
The greatest support in New Hampshire in
-------
1 understanding and participation of recycling of certain
2 materials which we feel is an important factor in the end
3 product, the recovery of energy, is to develop a firmer and
4 higher rewarding program for recycled products.
5 Principally, in our experience in operating
6 incinerators are glass and metals and in some cases, high
7 quality newsprint. In many cases we believe the optimum in
g conservation of energy from newsprint may be in the productior
9 of heat and energy therefrom and we have substantial
10 evidence to prove this from our own operations.
11 The stabilization and enhancement of the price of
12 recyclables, in our opinion, would carry the major portion
13 of the financial burden of recycling. I think one of the
14 things I might mention here off-the-cuff is that this
15 cooperative did not mandate that all the communities be
ie directed to have recycling programs in town, that it not be
17 mandatory.
ig We felt that the program would not be passed if
19 we tried to '" this. There are a number that have mandatory
20 recycling by the vote of the town.
21 MR. PETER: May I ask for clarification on this
22 point about newsprint on combustion? What was your point?
23 MR. CHASE: My point is that we have found that
24 greater energy can be recovered from burning a ton of cheap
25 newsprint than can be gained by reselling it again. We have
-------
ff
l made $23 a ton equivalent fuel value and we have never yet
2 been able to get an average of over $12 to $15 for newsprint
3 in our country per ton and that's what we base our judgment
4 on.
5 The third point is planning and design for
6 regional energy recovery systems. In a cooperative venture
7 such as ours, the cost per community for engineering designs
8 is relatively small. However, financial support in this
9 stage of a program would measurably speed up the program
10 and avoid much of the delays which we encountered by a
11 necessity for the staged cooperative effort extending over
12 two town meeting years.
13 in other words, if we had been able to offer some
14 incentive initially, we could have gotten away with one year
15 but they had to go to two years to get the agreement
16 approved which I will leave with you and to raise the money
17 for actual construction.
18 The administrative costs can be substantial in
19 putting together a regional program such as ours.
20 Construction. From our experience, it would appear
21 that a tremendous incentive for the communities such as ours
22 to move ahead would be the funding of the incinerator/energy
23 recovery facility, either directly through grants-in-aid
24 such as those now in effect in the water supply and pollution
25 control programs or possibly through low interest, long
-------
1 range loan programs.
2 The latter arrangement would then permit
3 communities to participate in the ongoing program with funds
4 budgeted yearly in their regular operating budgets. The
5 high cost of the total package of incineration and energy
6 recovery is such that incentives as described above would
7 engender greater support by participating communities and
8 would tend to speed up the entire program.
9 Operations. One of the most difficult features
10 for people to understand we found at town meetings is that
11 the disposal of every day solid wastes is not a money-making
12 proposition. It does cost money to handle it and dispose
13 of it.
14 With this in mind, it is our belief, that the
15 participants in a program like ours should underwrite the
16 costs inherent in any element of the program to insure that
17 the operation is conducted in the most efficient and
18 economical manner possible.
19 To better understand the commitments made, I am
20 attaching a copy of the agreement printed in the town report
21 for voters in every town to vote on at their respective
22 town meetings, as well as a copy of the preliminary agreement
23 which we call a Declaration of Intent with the University of
24 New Hampshire which, incidentally, is now being used as the
25 basis for implementation of a series of programs in the area
-------
1 MR. PETER: Statewide?
2 MR. CHASE: Comparable to ours.
3 MR. PETER: Has the legislature expressed an
4 interest in your program, state legislature?
5 MR. CHASE: This program permits the towns to
6 cooperate in this manner, yes. We would appreciate hearing
7 from appropriate members of your staff as to the validity of
8 our request and if it appears appropriate , to advise us as
9 to the avenues which we should take to follow it further.
10 We would be more than pleased to provide your
11 people with the additional detailed information which has
12 been developed in our program. I do wish to thank you for
13 the opportunity to be here and I certainly will submit a
U written statement on the proposal you have made.
15 MR. PETER: Mr. Chase, we are grateful for the
16 story. A couple of points I would like to discuss with you.
17 First of all, it appears that we have the foundation for
18 debate but I think the party representing the opposition
19 side just left and maybe we can gather some information,
20 Nancy who spoke earlier on the resource recovery issues from
21 newsprint.
22 MR. CHASE: May I make a comment?
23 MR. PETER: Surely.
24 MR. CHASE: I think it is fair to state that we
25 have had the same debate in our own communities. It is far
-------
better, we find, to deal with those people actually doing the
work than those who are talking about it.
MR. PETER: So noted. As far as federal money
being available to you, on the planning side, yes, within
the criteria Steve mentioned earlier, certainly that is the
6 thrust of this effort.
7 On construction as we said earlier, that's not the
purpose of this program, we are not in a position to
9 subsidize and that would include the detailed design aspect.
10 The preliminary conceptual phase, yes, that's part of the
design.
12 Can you tell me what is the precise status of your
13 efforts now?
MR. CHASE: Yes, that is why I left the agreement
15 and Declaration of Intent. We are presently formally
16 organized under state statutes. We are formally funded with
for the total program of construction and operation. Each
18 town has committed itself to a 15 year program for under-
19 writing the bond issues and the operational characteristics
20 of the program.
21 The Declaration of Intent has been approved by the
22 university which permits the cooperative to build the
23 facility on the campus and operate it. It would be a joint
24 operational effort, obviously, because we are not going to
25 take over the steam plant of the university nor will the
-------
1 university take over the operation of the incinerator, at
2 least at present. We are not completely decided on that.
3 Each town now is developing its own process for
4 collection and transportation, if it needs change. Most of
5 us are not going to change. For example, Durham has
6 curbside pick-up and we intend to continue this and deliver
7 directly to the plant with closed vehicles.
8 We have established relatively severe criteria
9 for transportation because we are in the midst of an
10 educational campus, of course. We are legally organized
11 and have engaged a consultant and we are in the preliminary
12 stages of design with schedules set for final design and
13 production of contract plans and specifications about
14 February 1st.
15 MR. PETER: Have you tested the bonding market
16 for feasibility?
17 MR. CHASE: Yes, we have. We have a unique
18 situation in Durham. After dealing with the bond council,
19 Durham itself has a triple A rating. We thought at first
20 that the individual members of the cooperative would bond
21 themselves if necessary for their participating share.
22 It was deemed advisable on the advice of bond
23 council that possibly one town raise the entire bond issue
24 of 2-1/2 million. Durham, through its triple A rating, it
25 was not hard to sell at all, the town approved Durham
-------
1 raising and loaning it to the cooperative, so we are funded.
2 We are legally organized and funded and we are in
3 business and an ongoing concern right now.
4 MR. PETER: Any questions? The only thing I can
5 say in summary is that I appreciate your coming. It sounds
6 like EPA's efforts are directed toward insighting state and
7 regional governments to do the very thing you are talking
8 about and we commend you for your efforts.
9 MR. CHASE: Thank you very much.
10 (The statements follow.)
11 MR. PETER: From the American Consulting
12 Engineers Council, Mr. Arthur Handley. Is he here?
13 MR. HANDLEY: My name is Arthur Handley and I
14 am here this morning substituting for William C. Anderson,
15 Chairman of the ACEC Solid waste Task Force. Bill couldn't
16 be here and asked me to come in for him.
17 Mr. Anderson and I both made statements concerning
18 your implementation strategy in January of this year. On
19 that occasion. Bill was complimentary regarding your program
20 asking that the specifics be developed and I politely made
21 critical remarks, sort of a one-two punch.
22 I recall stating that your program strategy with
23 its emphasis on enforcement would delay resource recovery
24 implementation and that concrete steps should be taken to
25 assist regional and local governments with implementation.
-------
1 At that time, we envisioned a hasty enforcement
2 program that would summarily shut down facilities leaving
3 no substitute disposal means, with potential resource
4 recovery programs stranded out in left field. We are on a
5 different track today and we feel the constructive program
6 steps which your agency has taken since January are
7 welcomed and the current focus on assistance to regional
8 and local governments for implementation is most encouraging.
9 Our interest is that the efficient implementation of the
10 program will take place.
11 The following comments pertain to specific
12 sections of the draft grant program discussion.
13 (1) Eligible Organizations, Part F.
H Although states are included as eligible
15 governmental units under Section 4008(a)(2) of the Law,
16 there is no specific reference as to whether they will be
17 included in this particular program.
18 In our informal discussions with state officials,
19 and we have had opportunity to do this via our membership,
20 they have indicated on several occasions that they have
21 specific needs which could and should be handled through
22 this particular program.
23 Our next comment is in connection with the
24 solicitation procedure. Part H.
25 During the first year, applicants will have 75 days
-------
1 in which to submit proposals, whereas state, EPA regional
2 offices and headquarters, and DOE will then take 90 days to
3 evaluate. This is to be followed by 60 to 90 days to
4 develop a work scope and to further process the application.
5 It is unfortunate that about two-thirds of a year will go by
and the work has not yet started.
I know you will make every effort to shorten the
period but it looks like some of this may be dragged ,-out.
9 We feel also that there is a potential, and I say this a
10 bit dryly, that in the cases of small study efforts, the
11 cost of multi-agency evaluation and administration could
12 match the cost of the study that follows.
We suggest and earlier speakers have agreed, that
1* there is a need for administrative streamlining. While the
15 concept of a national competition is intriguing if "there, were
16 to be just a few multimillion dollar grants each year, it
does not accommodate to a situation in which the funds have
the potential of serving 100 to 200 legitimate applicants
19 each year.
20 Certainly, the national competition aspect should
21 more realistically be brought down to the level of an EPA
22 regional competition or better yet, a state competition,
23 just to simplify matters.
24 We are, of course, interested in procedures that
25 EPA will develop for consultant involvement in the program.
-------
l Our experience indicates that the engineering consultants
2 as well as legal and financial consultants should be
3 available to assist at the proposal stage.
4 We believe that this will result in a better
5 proposal definition and quality. Also, you might consider
6 that the proposer with the aid of his consultant prepare a
7 draft scope of work to speed the administrative process.
8 The next item is in connection with criteria for
9 award, Part J. We believe that it will be difficult to
10 equitably apply the single evaluation criteria proposed to
ll the two proposal types and the five study options described
12 in Section G, Programs and Activities Eligible for Support.
13 We are trying to make one evaluation cover two
14 somewhat different study efforts in five different phases of
15 the program. We believe that if the criteria is applied
16 uniformly, that the awards of the proposals received will
17 clearly go only to Phase III proposers.
18 These are the people who have done the work, the
19 preparatory work, they have made definite progress and are
20 ready to finalize, so to speak, Phase III. If you evaluate
21 them and put the numerical weights on them, we will have a
22 vast array of Phase III programs and nothing else.
23 Therefore, these problems might be alleviated by
24 developing independent criteria for each of the two proposal
25 types and by making an administrative decision as to the
-------
distribution of study phases for which grants will be awarded
Clearly if preliminary approval is given for a three phase
resource recovery study, you people have to have excessively
strong controls in order to stop the thing at the first or
second phase if the benefits are not evidenced.
Based on earlier discussion, I would like to go
back to a couple of points that Steve Lingle introduced in
his remarks first thing this morning. Steve, you indicated
that eligibility would be based on 4006. This as I recall
is in connection with areas designated for implementation.
We will have, and I think if you survey the states
and their progress in complying with RCRA, you will find that
a lot of states may have submitted a draft state plan which
takes care of designation and so on.
But the actual enactment of that plan approval
depends on legislative action. I am sure we will run across
many situations in which a state plan has been submitted but
from a strictly legal standpoint, that implementation agency
— perhaps people from other states and areas could comment
on that after.
The second point I would like to make based on
your remarks again, Steve, I'm really not picking on you,
you made a remark that planning agencies would be out.
That's the way I made my notes.
Based on our experience, engineering consultant
-------
1 in the field, you cannot, particularly when you are
2 interested in regional development, regional potential,
3 just throw out work that is associated with general planning
4 and initial plans and things of that sort.
5 We would not want or recommend a situation in
6 which a central core city, when it had emplanned its own
7 facility, not looking at the municipalities around it.
8 Sometimes the integration of municipalities can take place
9 if in a prior time and arena, a planning agency is delegated
10 to look at the regional aspects.
11 This will take more discussion but we would
12 appreciate your not just throwing out summarily again the
13 potential for planning agencies to take part in this
14 program.
is The ACEC and its Solid Waste Task Force greatly
16 appreciates the opportunity to cooperate with you and take
17 part in the formulation of your programs. The expertise
is and experience which we have gained in serving the solid
19 waste disposal and resource recovery needs of all levels
20 of government is readily available. The challenge to you
21 is to how best to use our resources. In the case of this
22 particular program, we believe that early involvement is in
23 order. i
24 MR. PETER: Thank you, Mr. Handley. I would like
25 to make one comment and I will ask the two staff people here
-------
1 to respond to a couple of specifics that you have. You made
2 mention of a suggestion that there be a need for streamlining
3 This is not a motherhood issue, but you are right.
4 We have been extremely sensitive to cutting the
5 time off at the earliest possible moment but experience
6 apparently has dictated that despite our best intentions,
7 final analysis and culling out do take time. I assure you,
8 if we can go to a shorter time frame, we will.
9 You further stated that while the concept of a
10 national competition is intriguing, there would be just a
11 few multi-million dollar grants each year. Let me say, first
12 of all, that again we are dealing with the planning process,
13 the front end of the work.
14 We felt we are probably talking of major grants,
15 three or $500,000 grants or so.
16 MR. HANDLEY: How much, sir?
17 MR. PETER: Three or $500,000 grants, ball park
18 figure. These are not multi-million dollar grants at the
19 front end. Also, we are trying to establish and assure
20 uniformity in which the game will be played from coast to
21 coast.
22 I do not think at this point that it is
23 appropriate to break it up into a regional type administra-
24 tion system. We will, once this is established on a
25 national level, but you need other points that I would like
-------
fifl"
1 the staff members to address.
2 Your reference to consulting engineers, Murray and
3 I both had a question.
4 MR. NEWTON: Mr. Handley , if you could clarify a
5 bit where you say it would be useful to have in the proposal
6 stage, to have the proposer with the aid of his consultant
7 prepare a draft scope of work to speed up the administrative
8 process.
9 MR. HANDLEY: Yes, one manner in which you can
10 interpret your regulations is that the municipality district
11 agency authority making the proposal would make such
12 proposal and it would then go to the federal government and
13 a work scope would be developed and then go through your
14 process of selecting a consultant.
15 We feel it would be much better if the
16 municipalities and these other agencies I referred to
17 would bring the consultant on as early in the game as
18 possible, acknowledging that not the federal government but
19 the municipality would pay for this, whether this is part
20 of the 30 percent is subject to debate.
21 From our standpoint in the practice of engineering,
22 the longer your term of working with the client and the
23 longer you have to learn about the project, indeed develop
24 a part of it, the better off you are.
25 One, we would not like to have these things set up
-------
1 and dollars conceived and the work scope and so on and then
2 thrust upon the profession and say do your best job. It
3 really should be in there earlier and this is a basic factor
4 with our practice.
5 MR. NEWTON: The concept with which we wrote the
6 draft might be useful here. We were concerned that proposers
7 not have invested too elaborate, too enormous an amount of
8 resources.
9 MR. HANDLEY: I'm glad you brought that up, go
10 ahead, please.
11 MR. NEWTON: Consequently, you read this correctly
12 with endorsing your phrasing that the concept as we see it
13 is a fairly simple and straightforward pre-proposal will be
14 submitted to EPA on which basis we would choose those with
15 whom we hope to work out grant agreements.
16 The reason for only then going to a detailed scope
17 of work is that we would, in effect, be trying to agree upon
18 the grant work to be done with those who were essentially
19 had been selected, subject, of course, to an agreement.
20 MR. HANDLEY: The point I wanted to make is that
21 you have another opportunity, the government has another
22 opportunity to get into the science of technology. In
23 reading your draft, it came across my mind that, with some
24 innocent people way out in the region far away from here,
25 might be impressed by the quality and thickness of the
-------
l proposal whereas you fellows really have the opportunity --
1 there were certain key things and you know what those key
3 things are and having a report on that, you can make your
4 decision.
5 MR. NEWTON: One time we talked about specifying
6 a 10 or 15 page application or less.
7 MR. LINGLE: I think we say 15 pages or less in
8 the application. May I ask one point? Do you think the
9 draft, as it is currently structured, prohibits consultants
10 from working with cities early in the process, helping with
ll their application or helping develop the work scope. Do you
12 think it prohibits it now?
13 MR. HANDLEY: I think with the time limitations
14 and the advent of another grant program that you will get a
15 lot of applications filled out with the greatest of intent
16 by people who do not have an understanding or ability to
17 clarify what their needs really are.
18 Therefore from our standpoint certainly, we know
19 engineering and other consultants should be represented
20 earlier and we will do from our end what should be done.
21 But I would ask you from your end in the interest of getting
22 the best quality programs, whether there isn't anything that
23 you could do, if you concur that consultants should be
24 involved as early as possible to thus state in your program.
25 MR. LINGLE: You are suggesting that we state in
-------
I there, I assume it is a suggestion rather than a requirement,
2 that that sort of thing take place?
3 MR. HANDLEY: Yes.
4 MR. LINGLE: I just wanted to clarify.
5 MR. PETER: I had a couple of quick points I
6 wanted to cover.
7 MR. LINGLE: Let me see if I understand your point
8 about involvement of the states. You said that although
9 states are included as eligible, there is no specific
10 reference as to whether they be included in this program?
u MR. HANDLEY: Yes.
12 MR. LINGLE: Let me answer that, but in answering
13 that, I might be asking you a question in terms of what you
14 mean by involvement. In the first place, in general, states
15 are already funded under other authority of the Act to carry
16 out broad planning and to develop state programs. That is
17 covered elsewhere.
13 In terms of this program which involves
19 implementation, state agencies or authorities, districts,
20 whatever, are eligible to the extent that for the project
21 being proposed, they have implementation responsibility and
22 it has been so designated and agreed .
23 MR. HANDLEY: That is a clarification that I
94 appreciate, Steve. I had in mind statewide authorities, in
25 New York the FEC, QEC, Port of New York Authority. If they
-------
It 3
\ have the assigned responsibility --
2 MR. LINGLE: Yes.
3 MR. HANDLKY: There is one other minor area that
4 a state would be involved and that is certainly, they are
5 candidates for energy users and there is work involved in
6 looking at Pilgrim State Hospital, for instance, out on Long
7 Island in conjunction with surrounding municipalities.
8 They may qualify for a piece of the action or
9 something like that.
10 MR. PETER: On your statement of regret that two-
11 thirds of the year may be lost in this process, again I want
12 to say if we can cut that time frame shorter, we will.
is The last point you mentioned with respect to
14 criteria, again I would like to ask Steve to comment on
15 that.
16 MR. LINGLE: I think you have a point there. I
17 think what you are suggesting gives us something to think
18 about. If I might paraphrase, I believe the point you are
19 making is that those local governments who have progressed
20 through Phases I and II are going to score higher under
21 those criteria than anybody else.
22 On the one hand, we do intend to give preference
23 in the criteria, in fact one of the criteria relates to
24 this, giving preference to those who have made prior progress
25 because we feel they are more likely to move on from that
-------
1 point to successful implementation.
2 On the other hand, you are saying that those people
3 who have already progressed to Phase III are going to make it
4 anyway and are not likely to need that support as much as
5 other people. I think that's something we have to think
6 about.
7 I would say in my experience, there is a mixed bag
8 of evidence as to whether those people who have progressed
9 to Phase III do, in fact, progress quickly and effectively
10 from that point on. Even if the situation you describe
ll occurred, I am not sure there are all that many communities
12 out there who have reached Phase III.
13 Nevertheless, I think the point you have made is a
14 good one and is something we should think about and see if
15 there is a way to overcome a possible problem.
16 MR. HANDLEY: For instance, in your guidelines to
17 regions, administrative comments to regions, they have some
18 targets, a breakdown between source separation effort versus
19 resource recovery. You may have some further targets on a.
20 breakdown between Phase I, II, III studies versus Phase I or
21 II or III.
22 MR. LINGLE: I will just say among the many
23 alternatives and options we considered in going through this,
24 we considered breakdowns for all sorts of things in terms of
25 percentage funding. We considered breakdowns per size of
-------
Lei
I city, versus source separation versus resource recovery,
2 breakdown of phases.
3 The problem is we have to justify those breakdowns
4 and that's sometimes very difficult. What we keep coming
5 back to is the one single overriding criteria is that we
6 want to pick those situations where success and implementa-
7 tions is most likely and that seems to override all these
8 breakdowns but it is a good point and something we should
9 think about.
10 There is another aspect of your comment there and
ll that is if you get preliminary approval for all three phases,
12 it might be difficult to cut off funding if progress is not
13 sufficient in the first phase and you tentatively agree on
14 all three phases.
15 I agree with that point and the issue is, what is
16 the alternative? The alternative in that case is to approve
17 only one phase at a time and once the city has completed
18 that phase, they come in again under the next year of
19 solicitation for the remaining phases.
20 The difficulty with that approach is, it does
21 have the advantages you mentioned but the difficulty with
22 the approach is that the timing may not be right. A city
23 might finish Phase I and we may not be going out for
24 another solicitation for three or four months and the
25 selection award takes another three or four months so that
-------
1 city has now had to wait for six months. We wanted to avoid
2 that.
3 MR. HANDLEY: I guess what we were doing there,
4 Steve, was to have some empathy for your position. We can
5 all foresee an approval, provisional approval of a one, two,
e three study and you find that you really shouldn't go to
7 two but you will have fantastic pressures put on the agency
8 and you to go on and throw away some money on two.
9 Therefore, what we are saying constructively is
10 that in your contract agreement, your ability to shut off
ll continuation of a no-go situation has to be blunt and
12 enforceable.
13 MR. LINGLE: It's an excellent point.
14 You made a point about the problem of designation
15 of the process of state efforts.
16 MR. GARLAND; You remarked that the states efforts
17 jointly with the locals to having responsibility for Section
18 4006 of the Act might not be complete at this time and that
19 raises the question of whether we are going to stall this
20 program in its tracks until that requirement of the Act is
21 met.
22 That is not our intention. On the other hand, we
23 do not intend to ignore that phase of the state planning
24 requirements. What our intention is is to make sure that
25 the applicants under this program are coordinated with that
-------
l process.
2 The governor has made a tentative designation in
3 all of the states, I believe, at this time. What needs to
4 happen, if responsibilities for implementation and resource
5 recovery are not clearly spelled out now is for the governor
6 to make another tentative designation for that specific
7 purpose, for a specific geographical area.
8 This means that the potential grantees have to get
9 together and decide who will have what part of the action.
10 You made a remark that planning agencies are out
11 and we don't intend for planning agencies to be out in the
12 sense that there is no planning function. There is — a
13 planning function and we want that function to be carried
14 out.
15 However, with respect to who gets the grant, we
16 want the grant to go to the implementation agency which
17 presumes that at the local level, it will have to be decided
18 who will have the ball.
19 MR. HANDLEY: I would ask who is the implementation
20 agency in a region just commencing its planning?
21 MR. GARLAND: That is something for that region to
22 determine.
23 MR. HANDLEY: How can they determine it without
24 doing some planning?
25 MR. GARLAND: It is our position that that is
-------
7o
1 preliminary to this program.
2 MR. HANDLEY: This is a constructive discussion.
3 Obviously_ T rJcr.'t have answers and you don't have them and
4 I don't want to take all the time but I appreciate it and
5 would be delighted to meet with you at any time.
6 MR. PETER: I don't want to leave a Catch-22
7 answer dangling. Let's again, if you would restructure your
8 question, let's get an answer to it. What is your concern?
9 MR. HANDLEY: I will send it in to you.
10 MR. PETER: Fine, and it will be included in the
11 comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Handley.
12 I am looking at the clock and suggesting we take
13 a seventh inning stretch which would give you enough time
14 to run down to the coffee shop and bring back whatever you
15 might need.
16 Before doing so, it might be better to bring to
17 you the two questions proposed so far. The first one says
18 please comment further on, and there are two subtopics, the
19 interface with DOE and second, the use of loan guarantee.
20 Let me mention something on that score. We are
21 working very closely with the Department of Energy to
22 coordinate our respective programs. They have a solicitation
23 out for another program and we will have people serving on
24 their review panels and likewise, DOE representatives will
25 be assisting us in the review of the responses we get to our
-------
1 solicitation.
2 Their interest is to spot those projects that
3 might be received that have the potential for demonstration
4 projects which they can then assist through loan guarantees
5 and price supports and whatever. I might add at this point,
6 they have the authority and the financing for that is still
7 pending before Congress.
8 We don't have any readout on this at this point,
9 unless you do, Steve. There is a DOE representative in the
10 audience and if he can add any further to this --
n VOICE: We're still developing programs on
12 guarantees.
13 MR. PETER: I think you should be assured that
14 DOE will be present in the review process of all the
15 solicitations we receive. If any of these projects have a
16 potential for demonstration projects, you will hear
17 them.
18 That covers the second part, too, on lor
19 guarantees.
20 The second question I have received r
21 follows: it has to do with the conflict of interest issue.
22 It says, "It is understandable, even desirable to restrict
23 conflict of interest and even the appearance thereof, yf
24 situations in resource recovery. Obviously, someone who
25 stands to benefit from the recommendation to build a facility
-------
7L
1 should not be in the position to recommend construction of a
2 facility or select the technoloqy to be used, that is with
3 respect to equipment, manufacturers and so forth.
4 However, if this restriction is applied to
5 organizations that provide services rather than goods, (such
6 as consulting engineers, investment bankers, accounting
7 firms and so forth), there is little incentive for such
8 service organizations to participate in feasibility studies.
9 This would reduce the involvement of these service
10 organizations in feasibility studies or deprive the project
ll of valuable expertise. Would you comment on that one?"
12 My reaction here is that it was never intended to
13 preclude their services.
14 MR. LINGLE: I guess I would want a further
15 elaboration of that. Why is there little incentive to
16 participate in a feasibility study? Why is there less
17 incentive -- there may be less incentive, but that is
18 precisely the point.
19 There is still a job to be done in the feasibility
20 study and another job to be done in terms of engineering
21 design and construction.
22 MR. PETER: That came from Walt Hautman.
23 MR. HAUTMAN: Steve, the volume of work, the size
24 of the work to be done for investment bankers, for us as
25 counsellors, you get an investment banker in there to give
-------
1 you some assistance and whether or not you should proceed
2 with resource recovery and you tell him he's not going to be
3 able to bid on the bond issue, he will say that's a cost
4 that is too high for me to take.
5 Our role as auditors for a lot of municipalities,
6 we consider it a function to give financial advice to cities
1 we are working with. You are telling us that by being
8 reimbursed with grant funds even partially, we would be
9 precluded from helping them design an accounting system or
10 management study or whatever.
n There's just very little incentive for us to
12 participate.
13 MR. SETTLE: This is an issue the Department of
u Defense has been trying to deal with for the last decade if
15 not longer and the General Services Administration and
16 federal procurement regulations has a variety of different
17 clauses to deal with that problem.
18 You may have identified a tension we will have to
19 live with and that is that there is an irreconcilable
20 tension between avoiding a conflict of interest and
21 eliminating some incentives with some follow-on contracts.
22 I tend to think there may be an overreaction in the sense
23 that there probably is enough interest in the front end of
24 that project that interest at the back end, may not always
25 be a sufficient disincentive for involvement.
-------
MR. LINGLE: May I comment a little bit furtner
on that? I thinK the issue is simply that anyone who has an
interest in the outcome of a recommendation, anyone who has
4 a vested interest in the outcome of a recommendation is in a
5 very awkward position to make an unbiased recommendation.
6 This whole issue centers around that. The point
you brought up may be a good one but at the same time, it
illustrates the problem. Someone gave me an example once,
I won't say whether it was a consulting engineer, investment
10 banker or what, but tne point was made, gee, if one of our
11 group participates in the tront end of a project and knows
12 they can't participate on the follow-on phase of tnat project
13 which is much more lucrative, they might not be interested in
14 the front end pnase.
15 I said tnat exactly illustrates my point. The
16 fact that they are participating in advising the city is
colored by the fact that one or two of those options they
18 are advising on means that they will be involved in the
19 follow-on work which will be very lucrative and that puts
20 them in an awkward position.
21 I am not saying what the right answer is to this
22 but that is the issue as I see it that is being raised here.
23 MR. PETER: We have some questions on that one.
24 MR. JAVINSKY: My name is Richard Javinsky and I
25 am a consulting engineer. For the last few years, I have
-------
1 heard this argument concerning conflicts come up several
2 times and about a year and a half ago in a public meeting
3 such as this one, I made a statement to Dr. Skinner at that
4 time regarding the RCRA panels and I agreed at that time
5 that consulting engineers participating in the RCRA panels
6 should not be allowed to participate in the follow-on work
^ in those projects.
8 My reason for that at that time was that I saw EPA
9 getting into the business of marketing consulting services
10 and I did not think that was proper. Let me say though,
11 when I hear your words here, I doubt that we can find any
12 situation in our lives that does not involve conflicts and
13 compromises of some sort.
14 I don't want to sound nasty in any way but in fact
15 when EPA would recommend expansion of their programs, in
16 fact all of you do have a vested interest in the outcome of
17 that recommendation in terms of your own careers and whatnot.
18 We all have vested interests in the outcomes of our
19 recommendations.
20 i think it is the responsibility of the other
21 party in this situation, in that case the municipality or
22 whatever agency that is, to make sure that they have enough
23 of an understanding of what is going on so they can Keep an
24 eye on what this guy is doing, what this consulting
25 engineering is recommending so that they can nave enough
-------
75
\ understanding to agree with his recommendations.
2 Perhaps the most difficult thing to do is a good
3 job for a bad project manager when the client does not Know
4 what he is talKing about. I heard the recommendation a
5 minute ago that we should have good program managers on the
6 grantees part and they should be hired in the front of the
7 program and should nave the responsibility for reviewing the
8 consultants work and I think that's a great idea.
9 I also heard the comment, I believe it was the
10 comment from NSWMA who said that the consulting engineer
11 who did the feasibility study should not participate in the
12 next step ot the project. That's crazy.
13 You can taKe the situation where a consulting
14 engineer might make a recommendation but does not have to
15 live with what happens when it gets implemented, he just
16 wipes his hands of it and I think that's just as bad and
17 there's an argument for both sides.
18 I think we have to clear the air on this conflict
19 thing. I think it started when EPA wrote their procurement
20 paper —
2i MR. PETER: I think it started in George
22 Washington's time.
23 MR. JAVINSKY : In terras of the resource recovery
24 business , when we went through the arguments for a full
25 service approach and that sort of thing. I heard the
-------
77
1 conflict argument come up so many times, being a consultant
2 not only for resource recovery but to industries in solid
3 waste management, in those situations I have to recommend to
4 them certain programs.
5 But in those cases, I find that the industry has
6 in their employ someone who understands what I am telling
1 them, agrees with my conclusions, reviews my work and
8 implements things on that basis. Perhaps the crux here
9 should be that EPA should insist that municipalities or
10 whatever agencies are involved, hire a qualified project
11 manager full-time from day zero of the project and have
12 that guy account for what the consultant does and forget
13 about the business of conflicts.
14 MR. PETER: Your points are well taken and
15 appreciated. Let me just add that from my years of
16 experience in this bureaucracy, as contracting officer in
17 other responsible programs, there is this element of
18 accountability of public funds which is a horrendous
19 question to resolve at times.
20 Conflict of interest or the appearance of it is
21 most difficult to deal with. Your points are well taken
22 and I appreciate them. Was there anything else to add to
23 that?
24 MR. SCHOENHOFER: It seems to me that since we
25 are talking about a three phase program here that there
-------
n-
l would be an opportunity to make the first phase to the people
2 so with the assistance of their account administrators, a
3 qualified individual should be insisted upon, can make up
4 their minds which direction they want to go.
5 From the second phase on, after they completed the
6 first phase, they should select a consultant who could
7 implement what they previously have decided on that they
8 want. I really don't see the kind of danger being talked
9 about here, if you distinguish these phases as I indicated.
10 If a consultant is to build something or do
11 preliminary engineering , he should have involvement in
12 Phase II. However, he should not be allowed to push his
13 product in the first phase during which an accountant is
14 making up their minds as to which direction they want to go,
15 high technology , low technology , whatever they want to do
16 with their recyclable materials.
17 MR. PETER: That sort of dovetails what the
18 gentleman said here. A good project manager is vital from
19 day zero as you say. Also, in these days of citizen input,
20 you have a fine time not keeping that first decision from
21 the people.
22 MR. NEWTON: May we ask for purposes of the
23 transcript that you identify yourself?
24 MR. WETHERHORN: Yes, David Wetherhorn of Patchen
25 Mingledorff & Associates, Inc. The timing on this, Proposal
-------
l No. 1, the first phase, you will give them the money to hire
2 this project manager, is that correct?
3 MR. LINGLE: Yes, in Phase I.
4 MR. WETHERHORN: If you don't have them in, you
5 don't know whether you will get your money so you can't put
6 him on. Politically, this will not be very sound. We don't
7 want a consulting engineer now, we want a project man, but
8 until they get the money, they can't hire a project man so
9 who puts it in for the proposal?
10 MR. LINGLE: I'm not sure we are on the same
n wavelength. The funding for hiring the project manager
12 comes out of the EPA grant, could come out of the EPA grant.
13 MR. WETHERHORN: Right, but they have to submit
H this proposal before they can be awarded the grant, is that
15 not correct?
IB MR. LINGLE: That is correct, but as the document
17 is presently written, they do not have to have a project
18 manager on board at the time they submit that proposal. I
19 believe that was the recommendation from someone who commenteil,
20 that they should at least submit the job description of that
21 person.
22 As this is written now, if that is your point,
23 they do not have to have the project manager on board at
24 the time they make the application.
25 MR. WETHERHORN: Then who has the knowledge in a
-------
1 normal municipality to come up with the job proposal for
2 what you are asking? Don't they usually hire consulting
3 engineers to determine what it is they would like to do in
4 their area so they can apply for the money?
5 MR. LINGLE: They may or may not. That's up to
6 the city as to whether it has — many cities have very
7 sophisticated public works departments who know exactly what
8 they want to do and others might want to get consulting
9 assistance beforehand and that's totally up to them.
10 MR. WETHERHORN: Those cities will have a definite
n advantage over the average municipality, at least in the area
12 where I am from which is the south.
13 MR. NEWTON: Let me say also, we are open to your
14 comments and we are not asking the applicant to tell us
15 precisely what it is he is going to do in great detail to
16 get the money. If you look at Page 673, we are asking that
17 he describe certain aspects of his problem, the population
ig served, the current waste collection practices in the
19 community, private versus public, some tonnage figures and
2o so forth.
21 It would not be appropriate to speculate on
22 whether or not consulting help is necessary to fill out that
23 kind of application but we hope for a simple straightforward
94 kind of application which describes an existing situation.
25 MR. PETER: That is the point Steve and I were
-------
talking about here. What we are looking for in the
application is a statement of the problem as you see it in
3 the community and that's the evaluation we are going to make.
4 I don't think there is heavy consulting input required for
5 that.
6 But when the awards are made, there will be
available to those communities technical assistance from our
panels to develop the work scopes. The consultant's role
9 comes in a little bit later on and right now, we want to see
10 what are the problems out there and where can we lend a hand.
11 I suggest we take a short break.
12 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
13 MR. PETER: Is Mr. Steven Wood here? Is Mr.
H Cutler here from ISIS? Chris Stotler from Ohio Environ-
15 mental Protection Agency?
16 MR. STOTLER: My name is Chris Stotler and I am
Chief, Division of Planning and Technical Assistance, Office
is of Land Pollution Control, Ohio Environmental Protection
19 Agency. The copy of my presentation, I should advise you
2" I have several additional comments that don't appear on that.
The State of Ohio is probably one of the most
22 active states in the nation in resource recovery activities.
23 With adequate financial support for needed planning in
several of Ohio's urban areas, it is feasible for 75 percent
of Ohio's municipal solid waste to be going to resource
-------
1 recovery facilities at least committed to be going to them
2 by the mid-1980's.
3 That would be about 14,000 tons per day to eight
4 or nine facilities. Therefore, we are very interested in
5 the urban waste program and these criteria. This is a
6 program we need greatly, especially since RCRA, Subtitle D
7 has been so inadequately funded, at least concerning our
8 needs.
9 We agree with most of the program implementation
10 as presented in the July 31, 1978 Federal Register. The
11 rationale, types of activities and outputs, approach,
12 solicitation procedure look very good. I hope you keep the
13 scope of activities narrow as proposed.
14 With only $15 million, if you broaden the scope
15 of activities, you just don't have enough money. We applaud
16 U.S. EPA in trying to move this program to implementation
17 as quickly as possible. However, we do have some concerns
18 and questions with other parts of the proposal.
19 In Part B, relationship to other federal programs,
20 add some language on requiring coordination with local and
21 state plan activities being carried out Section 4008(a)(1)
22 funding.
23 If this section is better funded, many of the
24 local designated agencies will receive "pass through" funds
25 from states for solid waste planning, much of which will be
-------
! for the same activities shown as Phase I in Part G.
2 Close coordination is needed so programs will
3 supplement each other. For example, in FY '78, Ohio is
4 passing through $571,000 to 17 designated planning and
5 implementation agencies, but our need was at least double
6 that amount.
1 In all but one case, the money went to planning
8 agencies, but most of the work on resource recovery, 571,000,
9 is being done by county sanitary engineer's offices or other
10 implementation agency staff where implementation responsi-
u bilities have been clearly defined.
12 This leads to our other major concern which is in
13 Section F, eligible organizations. It appears you're
14 limiting funding to only agencies designated as implementa-
15 tion agencies under Section 4006(b). Designated planning
16 agencies should also be eligible.
JY Most activities in Phase I are planning, are
18 responsibilities assigned to planning agencies. We have
19 worked hard in obtaining local government agreement to agency
20 designations and obtaining memoranda of understanding
21 defining responsibility, don't cause the process to be
22 changed before it really starts functioning.
23 The memorandum of understanding should state
24 functions of planning activities or those responsibilities ^
25 functions of implementation agencies. For example, in
-------
Montgoraery County, the memorandum of understanding between
Montgomery County and Miami Valley Regional Planning Agency,
3 Montgomery County is the implementation agency and the
4 planning agency obviously is the planning agency.
5 We have a very clear understanding of what
6 activities should be carried out by that planning agency and
what should be carried out by the implementation agency.
8 Although the funds are going to primarily the planning
9 agencies, much of the money is funneled through and work is
10 being done by the implementation agency, if that is what is
11 appropriate.
12 The same situation exists, same memorandum of
13 understanding required for almost all of our major urban
14 centers where we know resource recovery is a concern. We
15 don't want some technicality to prevent responsible agencies
16 from obtaining the funds in this situation.
17 If it is a technicality involved in Section 4008
18 (a)(1) or (2), maybe we ought to work it on the oversight
19 hearings or something to try to clear up the language.
20 It should also be recognized that the implementa-
21 tion agency or owner may not be known until after many
Phase I activities are completed. In regional approaches,
this is a major area of evaluation, centered around who is
24 the owner in the real implementation agency, at least the
25 lead agency.
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
19
20
MR. PETER: That is one of the determinations
made in the early planning process.
MR. STOTLER: That's right, but that's really one
of the activities in Phase I, a Phase I activity. You
assume certain leads but you don't really know who is going
to own it and sometimes that is one of the things you must
evaluate, especially when you are looking at an urban center.
Let me give you an example, Cuyahoga County where
we just finished resource recovery implementation plan which
is essentially everything you've done in Phase I. The City
of Cleveland generates approximately 1,000 tons of waste a
day and the remainder of the county generates approximately
1,000 tons a day.
There are also 800 to 1,000 tons of commercial
waste not governmentally controlled. One of the points of
consideration is how do you structure this and it is a major
concern so that in identifying who the implementation agency
is and bring it to the necessary parties to come up with
their proper facilities.
We don't want situations so that we have identified
in this case, the county as being the lead implementation
agency but we would hate to see the proposal that designates
Cleveland the core city saying we can grab some money here
and let's re-look at this whole thing and build our own
plant.
-------
85' .
1 We have 1,000 tons of waste, that ought to be big
2 enough. We want one 2,000 tons a day or larger facility
3 there.
4 In Part H, it is stated EPA will work with the
5 applicant in developing detailed scope of work. Add the
6 state to the process. We have a better knowledge of what
7 is needed and how the program will coordinate with other
8 ongoing or past activities than anyone from EPA.
9 All I'm saying is, please involve us as you
10 develop a detailed scope of work.
11 In Part I, Paragraph a and b requests some
12 information that isn't always available. The reliability
13 of much of this information should be questioned, especially
H questions in (b) as applied to the private sector. I am
15 primarily referring to available future landfill.
16 It's very hard to get the private sector to say
17 where they are looking to purchase any additional land
18 nearby. That's something that the implementation agencies
19 or planning agencies can consider, land use evaluation.
20 if prior plans or feasibility studies didn't
21 thoroughly evaluate current practices, it should be required
22 in the project work program.
23 in Part I, Paragraph e, some institutional
24 information requested may not be known until after major
25 parts of the implementation plan is completed, I suggest
-------
you require the submittal of memorandums of understanding
between implementation agencies and planning agencies for
the project area and any similar agreements they may have
with the state agencies, in coordinating the 4006 process.
In Part J, I agree the potential and need for
resource recovery should be heavily stressed but this will
be the hardest area to evaluate. Data in these areas are
very subjective. Prior progress is closely tied to potential
9 I for success, it should receive a higher weighting (I suggest
10 20 percent).
I have one question concerning consultants
12 related to earlier questions raised here. In the State of
13 Ohio, if we look at most of the urban areas, they have been
H doing some work and therefore they are hiring or have hired
consulting firms.
16 In many cases, certainly this current year, they
17 are obtaining funding through us to be doing activities that
18 you have identified in Phase I. They will be looking for
19 this program to supplement these activities and carry them
20 further.
Obviously, the states through Subtitle D funds
22 does not have enough money to get into the Phase II type
2.') activities. Therefore, I hope you enable the city, county,
24 or whoever receives the grants to use the same consultants
25 if they have gone through proper procurement in the earlier
-------
87
phases.
MR. PETER: I think with the safeguards we've
built into the system —
MR. STOTLER: My concern would be that due to some
procurement requirements, they have to go out with another
request for proposal for your grant and this could delay the
whole project another three months.
What I see in terms of types of requests coming
from Ohio, a lot of it will be for evaluating proposals on
10 the full service contract and negotiation of contracts and
these types of activities.
I see several such projects coming to you because
we have at least three urban areas that are at the request
for proposal stage right now and they are looking for money
ir> in evaluating those proposals when they receive them during
16 the winter or spring months, next six months.
Finally, this has the potential of being a good
18 program. We don't want another program like that of two or
19 three years ago where EPA Washington staff made grants to
20 local government without consulting the states and few
,,l produced successful results. If these mistakes aren't
repeated, and we work together throughout the proposal
evaluation and project period, then this should be a good
,,4 program.
,,5 MR. PETER: Thank you, Mr. Stotler. I have a
-------
1 couple of points. First of all, Murray has a question with
2 respect to relationship with other federal programs.
3 MR. NEWTON: I wanted to ask about your suggestion
4 that we add in Part B in reference to working with the state
5 coordinating or state plan or similar and ask you if the
6 wording we currently have in Part H entitled. Solicitation
7 Procedure is sufficient or ought to be moved or changed,
8 where we now say that the review and selection will involve
9 the states and the state will review proposals, certify
10 consistency with state plans and so forth.
ll Is that phrasing adequate or in the wrong place?
12 MR. STOTLER: That's adequate. What I am saying
13 is that you then say as far as the detailed scope of work,
H you are going to do that with the entity that receives the
15 reward. We should be involved in defining the detailed
16 scope of work.
17 MR. NEWTON: I understand that but I'm curious
18 about your very first comment which was slightly different
19 in that you wanted reference to interagency coordination or
20 whatever that section —
21 MR. STOTLER: That was referring to —
22 MR. NEWTON: Relationship to other federal programs
23 MR. STOTLER: In (g). In your earlier discussions,
24 the first discussions, you did mention a relationship to
25 activities in 4008, 4006 and other things. I would only
-------
suggest that that be included in your language here because
2 you only talk about the DOE program.
3 MR. NEWTON: One additional thing, Mr. Johnson
4 earlier referred to the so-called implementation grants we
5 gave out two or three years ago, as you did at the close of
6 your statement. I want to reassure you and Mr. Johnson and
7 any others interested who remember that program that we are
now evaluating in considerable detail our experience in that
9 grant program.
10 There were, I believe, 17 grantees. Although it
is too early in my mind to characterize the program, please
12 be assured that we hope to learn from whatever was done
13 there, both good and bad, and not repeat whatever mistakes
14 we can identify and continue over whatever things we figured
out then.
16 But we have not forgotten and will not ignore the
17 lessons, such as they may be, of that earlier program.
18 MR. PETER: Excellent point. We have worked hard
19 in obtaining local government agreement to agency designa-
20 tions in containing memorandum of understanding —
21 MR. STOTLER: There I was referring to the
assignment responsibilities between implementation agencies
23 and planning agencies.
24 MR. GARLAND: I think I would like to address that.
25 MR. PETER: I wish you would
-------
MR. GARLAND: Legally, planning agencies are
eligible for grants under Section 4008(a)(2) so there is no
objection in the Act, no technical problem. Our thinking
was as follows.
5 For each of the projects that we will be receiving
6 applications for, there will be an associated waste stream.
Somebody is going to do something with some waste. There
will be a planning agency associated with that waste stream
and an implementation agency associated with that waste
stream.
11 For each of the projects, there will be a role for
12 the planning agency and a role for the implementation agency.
13 The question is, which one gets the grant? It was our
14 thinking and we would be happy to have your comments on it,
that it makes sense for the grant to go to the implementation
16 agency which assures that the implementation agency has
17 carefully thought through its role and has decided that
1s indeed it is time to rethink its role and have some plan.
MR. STOTLER: I will go along with that in
20 probably most situations, depending how far along they are
21 in the planning process. But my point was that I wanted to
make sure that you did not exclude them, whether the
implementation agency suddenly becomes the lead in terms of
planning or whether the planning agency maintains the lead.
We are handling 4008(a)(1) where right now, the
-------
91
l planning agency is in the lead.
2 MR. GARLAND: To get a chance to take my foot out
3 of my mouth on the earlier response, as you point out, you
4 are using 4008{a)(l) funds, state planning funds, to
5 establish responsibilities. I was thinking yes, that's the
6 appropriate money to be used for establishing responsibilitie
7 Then once the responsibilities are established,
8 and we decide we want to have implementation grants, we use
9 4008(a)(2).
10 MR. STOTLER: We are going a lot further than
ll that with 4008(a)(1) funds.
12 MR. GARLAND: That's fine and 4008(a)(2) funds
13 can augment what you are doing in 4008(a)(1). That's great.
14 MR. STOTLER: I don't think we are too far apart,
15 it's just a matter of which you're looking at it. I'm just
16 saying make sure the system is flexible to allow the two to
17 work together in the way we have structured it within our
18 state.
19 We see a role for both types of agencies and I
20 think our memorandum of understanding that we have developed
21 defines responsibilities and should satisfy you and us and
22 would not create any conflicts locally. That is the reason
23 I stress the importance of a memorandum of understanding
24 between agencies in a given region area of concern.
25 MR. PETER: One last point I had dealt with your
-------
1
2
li
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2]
92
suggestion that higher weighting be given to prior projects.
This has been the subject of an awful lot of in-house debate
and Steve might have a comment on that.
MR. LINGLE: Well, yes, it is interesting that if
we did that, we would tend to accentuate the problem Mr.
Handley brought up which is that it would give more impetus
to those agencies that have progressed through Stages 1 and
2.
This whole process is one of balancing alternatives
I think we are of the disposition that prior progress is
quite important because that in itself indicates a
commitment and a seriousness on the part of those applying.
It shows that they have with their own money and their own
initiative moved forward in a project and they are serious,
whereas those people who have done nothing, it's a little
easier for them to sit back and say, well, now that there
are federal funds, maybe it's time to look at this.
We are very much in sympathy as to the need for
that. The actual number of points we allocate to that is a
matter of trying to balance out these overall points and I
think it's something we should consider, perhaps we should
raise those points higher than what we have.
Again, we have to trade it off against the kinds
of thing Mr. Handley raised.
MR. PETER: It's a delicate balance.
-------
MR. STOTLER: I recognize that. Probably the
first thing here, the first area that receives 40 percent
is the need for resource recovery which I agree with. But
4 if you have not also done a fair amount of work, the data
5 they provide you on need may be very questionable.
6 In fact, what you sometimes do, you say my gosh,
1 you've got tremendous need and only three years of landfill
8 life or five years of landfill life but when you go through
9 the planning process and everything, you identify the need
10 for resource recovery in another area but in terms of your
11 weighting on landfill life and things like that, you find
12 out that landfill suddenly grows from three to five and five
13 to seven years of life and you've got to be very careful in
the weight you give that criteria.
15 MR. LINGLE: Good point.
16 MR. PETER: Thanks a lot, Mr. Stotler, we
1" appreciate your testimony.
May I ask, has Steven Wood returned? I am just
19 informed he did not want to make a statement but he has
something to submit for the record.
(The statement follows.)
24
-------
l MR. PETER: The next one I have note of is Bart
2 Carhart of the New Jersey Department Department of
3 Environmental Protection. Is he here?
4 MR. CARHART: Much of what is in my statement has
5 been commented on before.
6 My name is Bart Carhart and I am here representing
7 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The
8 Department of Environmental Protection has statutory
9 responsibility for supervising and coordinating New Jersey's
10 22 district solid waste management planning and implementa-
ll tion program and was designated by Governor Byrne as New
12 Jersey's lead agency under the Federal Resource Conservation
13 and Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580) under which the proposed
14 grant program will be administered.
15 The New Jersey Department of Environmental
16 Protection gives its support to the scope and objectives
n of the President's urban policy resource recovery project
"? Z- Z ^ 2
18 development grants program.
-f !* -&
19 We agree that there is a pressing need to address
20 the "institutional constraints" which have prevented the
21 widespread implementation of source separation and resource
22 recovery programs. The proposed grant program can go a
23 long way in meeting this need and in providing needed
24 economic stimulus to our nation's urban areas.
25 if resource recovery is to be successful anywhere
-------
1 in the nation, it most certainly will work in New Jersey.
2 Our state has the nation's highest population density, has
3 strong secondary material and energy markets, has excellent
4 transportation and port facilities and has a wealth of
5 resources which can be recovered from its waste stream.
6 The timeliness of the proposed grant program is
7 welcomed. In New Jersey, for example, the state's 22
8 designated solid waste management districts are under a
9 statutory mandate to develop and implement comprehensive
10 solid waste management plans which provide for "...the
H maximum practicable use of resource recovery, including low
12 and high technology systems." (Guidelines for the
13 Development and Formulation of District Solid Waste
14 Management Plans", New Jersey Department of Environmental
ir> Protection, Solid Waste Administration, August 1977.)
16 The first of these district plans, which will
17 encompass New Jersey's most urban areas, are scheduled for
18 completion in January of 1979. Thus, the proposed grant
19 program is appropriately timed to provide needed funds for
20 resource recovery project development in New Jersey as well
21 as other states.
22 The Department of Environmental Protection does
23 have several specific comments and suggestions regarding the
24 proposed grant program. The first comment concerns
25 eligibility and criteria for grant award.
-------
It is widely recognized that there are a number
of critical factors which must be addressed before a resource
recovery project can be implemented. These factors include
4 waste stream control, authority to construct and operate
5 resource recovery facilities and programs, ability to
6 secure financing and an urban setting which generates
sufficient wastes to justify material and energy recovery
8 programs.
9 New Jersey's regional solid waste management
10 districts, which have Section 4006(a) and (b) designations,
11 have, under existing state legislation, broad powers to
12 plan and implement resource recovery programs.
13 These include, for example, authority to direct
14 waste stream flow, to finance facilities, and to enter into
long term contracts for securing waste supplies and markets
is for recovered materials and energy.
1" Within these districts are major urban areas
is which could receive economic benefits in terms of increased
19 ratables and job opportunities from hosting resource
20 recovery facilities and secondary materials industries.
In addition to these economic benefits, the urban
areas would also have a program to address their urban
solid waste problem. The Department of Environmental
24 Protection recommends that eligibility requirements and
grant award criteria be sufficiently specific to enable a
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1:")
16
IT
18
19
20
21
97.
district (or regional and statewide agency in other states),
which has the statutory power to implement resource recovery,
to be eligible to receive a resource recovery project
development grant to develop a resource recovery program
within an urban area.
The urban area, it should be noted, could encompass
more than one city. The applicant district should be
permitted to utilize data to support its grant application
(e.g., per capita income, rate of employment growth, etc.)
from the urban areas which will be serviced by and benefit
from the proposed resource recovery project.
Also, the Department of Environmental Protection
recognizes the need for interstate resource recovery
projects. In New Jersey, for example, the New Jersey-New
York Port Authority has request authorization to develop
resource recovery/industrial park projects and a similar
interstate arrangement is possible in southern New Jersey.
The Department, therefore, recommends that interstate
agencies be eligible to apply for resource recovery grants
that would benefit urban areas.
Throughout the draft program announcement, several
terms, including "city" and "communities", are used to
indicate eligible grant recipients. We are suggesting a
term (e.g., eligible applicant) should be substituted which
encompasses those eligible governmental units defined in
-------
96'- ,
1 Section F, Eligible Operations.
2 Also, since the program is specifically aimed at
urban areas, the Department of Environmental Protection
4 recommends that the weight of the third criteria ("Potential
5 for Supporting the Urban Policy Objectives") be increased
6 from 15 percent.
The second comment concerns the definition of
"urbanized area" used by the Census Bureau. "Section F,
9 Eligible Organizations" indicates that a major portion of
1° the funding will be allocated to areas of at least 50,000
population.
12 The Department of Environmental Protection
13 recommends that more specific urban criteria, such as a
14 density figure (persons/square mile), be substituted for
this raw population figure. Such a substitution would
ensure that urban areas are the program's beneficiaries.
l" The third comment concerns funding. The Department
IS of Environmental Protection supports the recommendation of
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee to appropriate
$30 million for tne grant program.
This level of funding, possibly more, will be
required to meet the objectives of the program.
23 Also, it is recommended that the draft program
24 announcement be amended to include some guidance either on
the maximum grant amount an individual applicant might
-------
expect to receive or on the maximum grant amount an
individual applicant might expect to receive on a particular
phase (e.g.. Phase I Feasibility Analysis - maximum $50,000
4 in federal assistance). This guidance would be useful to
5 applicants in preparing their grant application.
6 As IJew Jersey's designated solid waste agency
that will review and evaluate resource recovery grant
8 ! applications, the Department of Environmental Protection,
9 working closely with the state's Department of Energy, looks
10 forward to participating in this very necessary program.
n Thank you for the opportunity of presenting these
12 comments.
13 MR. PETKR: Thank you very much. I have no
14 questions on what you are suggesting.
15 Murray, Steve, any comments?
16 MR. LINGLL: I have one question of clarification.
17 This is the second time on this and I want to make sure
18 whether it is something we should clarify or if it is clear
19 as it stands.
20 You pointed out that the eligibility criteria
21 should be sufficiently specific to enable a district or
regional or other statewide agency that has statutory
authority to implement be eligible to receive a grant. I
think I stated before that that is our intent and I thought
tnat was indicated in here but you are saying, as it reads
-------
1 now, you don't think —
2 MR. CARHART: Yes, I think it should be made
3 clearer. I think the 4006(a) and (d) designation would
4 satisfy the state since our districts receive those
5 designations. For example, the New York/New Jersey Port
e of Authority, maybe something should be spelled out there.
7 MR. NEWTON: There is ample reference in reference
8 to interstate so I don't think there is any problem with
9 that. That's an inadvertent omission.
10 MR. LINGLE: You made the point that the applicant
11 should be able to use data such as per capita, employment
12 growth — I thought that was specifically mentioned in there
13 that that is one of the criteria that would be looked for.
14 Is there confusion on that?
15 MR. CARHART: There may be a problem in New Jersey.
16 We have 22 districts and 21 of these are counties. The
17 number of counties have suburban or even rural areas in
1S their outlying areas but have core center cities. What
19 we're saying is why can't a district apply for a grant to
20 construct a resource recovery facility in a large urban area
21 and utilize just the economic data from that core city for
22 its application?
23 MR. LINGLE: I see.
24 MR. CARHART: This facility might only serve as
o5 those core municipalities that are urban cities.
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'2'2
2.1
24
MR. LINGLE: I see, okay.
MR. PETER: Mr. Carbart, thank you very much.
George Atkin, is he here?
MR. ATKIN: I am representing the NSEP, PEPpSolid
Waste Committee.
MR. LINGLE: Could you explain what that is?
MR. ATKIN: It's the National Society for
Professional Engineers, professional engineers in private
practice. We have worked with Art Handley's group on this
^
and the reason I did not ask to be on the agenda originally
and the reason I don't have formal testimony is that we
thought we might not need to.
However, there are a few things that I would like
to comment on and I will forward a formal brief on it later
by the August 25th deadline.
My first -- I will restrict myself to three, four
comments which will be very brief. My first comment is on
the solicitation procedure. We feel that the combined
activity of the EPA central office, regional offices, and
the state environmental offices without any further
definition of responsibility in determining priorities
sounds a little too much like a decision by committee and I
am afraid you will get some camels.
We would refer to the water program where once
EPA has established the priority rating system, the state
-------
17
1,8
19
20
21
establishes the priorities and EPA largely lives with it
unless they see a violation of the system which they have
established. We think that has considerable merit in
everybody knowing where they are going without three layers
of people determining priorities and also three layers where
intervention from outside forces is possible.
At least this way, normally, that's pretty well
minimized or at least that's been our experience in the
water program.
MR. PETER: I might add that it was our intent to
proceed in concert with state priorities and in very rare
exceptions would we proceed otherwise.
MR. ATKIN: It's a matter of semantics, the
language is not nearly as tight as it is in the program of
the same kind of work. That program, I might add, you all
had three or four years of misadventure that started out like
this.
MR. PETER: Point well taken.
MR. ATKIN: The' second one is a minor point. I
think some localities may be faced with it and that is in
the area of eligible activities you have essentially dealt
with, too, which is source separation and recovery activities
We think that source elimination or minimization
should be considered in this program inasmuch as the
institutional and administrative and the legislative aspects
-------
1 would be where that would be involved and that would be the
2 things that would be developed in this program.
3 That is the possibility of eliminating certain
4 items from the waste stream by certain regions. The
5 disposable container is one item but minimizing packaging
6 and other items, we think properly belong in a program if
7 somebody wants to consider those as part of the total waste
8 management program.
9 There is no specific reference to those things as
10 an eligible activity in your eligible activities. I don't
11 think it's a big thing but I think there are locations that
12 will want to consider them and I'm sure states will want to
13 consider it on a statewide basis, although they may be able
14 to on their (a)(1) funding.
15 My third item, strangely enough, I would like to
16 put a little more input into the conflict of interest
17 discussion. First of all, a suggestion, and that is that
18 some of the implementing agencies, particularly when you
19 get to the rural community section of this Act, are going
20 to be pretty small.
21 I think the idea of finding a project manager in
22 all instances who has the capabilities to perform as you
23 would expect him to is going to be very limited. You want
24 to remember that every activity right now is sopping up
95 people with the capability to deal with these programs,
-------
your agency, state agencies, big national solid waste
management operations, consulting firms.
:i We think you should definitely leave room and
4 identify the possibility of consulting firms acting as the
5 manager of a program and they could definitely be eliminated
6 from participating in the results of any other activities
7 than the management activities.
8 In other words, they could not be involved in
9 design and could not be involved in — they would work
10 almost as the construction management contracts that are
11 available under your water programs but if that is going to
12 be the case, they should be in at the beginning.
13 They should be there to help select the first
14 people involved, the first consultants involved and see the
15 program through.
16 MR. PETER: Let me say again, those are workable,
17 they are sensitive.
18 MR. ATKIN: Our second comment is that if we
19 follow to its ultimate extreme this reservation, and I
20 think that's a kind word that EPA indicates about conflict
21 of interest, we would have a situation in the professions
22 where essentially a surgeon could not operate on an illness
23 he diagnosed, an attorney could not prepare a lawsuit after
24 he recommended to a client that there probably was a case
25 at law, an accountant probably could not pursue an
-------
l investigation after he decided someone stole some money
2 someplace.
3 I think carrying it to its furthest extreme, this
4 is damaging. I further believe that if you have proper
5 project management and very broad guidelines for conflict
6 of interest, the determination of whether or not a conflict
7 of interest exists should be left to a project specific
8 situation.
9 I think in some cases of very high technology
10 situations that possibly the people making the recommendation
ll may be the only ones qualified to deal with it and I think
12 the government has already faced that in their NASA programs
13 and various other programs.
H I think the idea of not letting EPA consultants
15 deal at a lower level as a result of their recommendations
16 is fine and not because of a conflict of interest from their
17 recommendations necessarily but because in many cases, they
18 will be viewed as an ideal consultant by virtue of their
19 relationship with EPA but I don't have a bad feeling about
20 their technical capability to deal with the problems, more
21 or less their sales capability in that respect.
22 That summarizes our comments that were not covered
23 by the ACEC presentation.
24 MR. PETER: The opportunity for overreaction on
25 this issue is real and it will have to be closely monitored.
-------
g
10
u
12
]3
14
15
,0
In
17
18
jg
20
21
22
I would submit on the other end of the spectrum,
there is a situation where a person is retained as project
manager and it is brought out later that it is found he is
a key stockholder, former president of and one who has a
continuing interest in the firm which is then retained as a
consulting firm.
MR. ATKIN: That's a legal thing rather than a
program thing, I would think.
MR. PETER: Most of them are but it's not so much
the conflict of interest but the appearance of in this
whole administration of public funds, the eligible of
accountability is difficult to administer. I have seen
people innocent as driven snow pushed out of office because
of appearances .
We will be superconscious of it but will not
over react.
MR. ATKIN: I might point out one other danger
and this we have seen in the water program. That is, if
enough issue is made of the possibility of conflict of
interest when it gets out to the state and regional levels ,
the implementation levels, quite often the obstructionists
to programs utilize it as a way to further obstruct programs.
You are playing into their hands in many instances
on that element.
MR. PETER: Good point, thank you.
-------
10T
i. '•*<
1 Carl Abers?
2 MR. ABERS: I am Carl Abers, a professional
3 consulting engineer and I work for the firm of Ellers,
Z£c^
4 Fenney, Boker, Chester and jJptTK. I have three comments.
5 I will submit them in writing before the deadline.
6 I have been involved on the front line of solid
7 waste and I understand it. It is a complex technical system
8 and one that is high risk and there are lots of opportunities
9 for failure. I think everybody recognizes that. It is
10 against that background that I make these comments.
11 We as consultants are dealing with many cities
12 currently on solid waste projects. One comment that I have,
13 the first one, is the participation, cash participation by
14 communities. The timing sequence may cause some communities
is to be in a position to not put in an application because
16 their budgets have already been established and they can't,
17 under the next cycle, come up with any cash commitments
18 legally.
19 You may not be aware that you are precluding
20 major cities of 400,000 population from actually submitting
21 an application. I can give you an example of one if you
22 would be interested.
23 They set a line budget last year which will carry
24 them through this whole phase which would not allow them to
25 apply or put in an application. That is Point No. 1.
-------
18
19
20
24
Point No. 2 is possibly not responsive entirely to
program but I will make the comment anyway. I am an advocate
of using proven technology. From a technical standpoint and
from an economic standpoint. We can do lots of things with
technology and they work but they are shut down because they
are financially not capable of continuance.
I feel it is important that the Environmental
Protection Agency take into account two items, one, technical
feasibility based on proven technology, perhaps with the
advancement in the state of the art for innovative features
to proven technology.
But I would encourage any program to get back to
the basics of proven technology of which bulk burning is one.
The third comment, and I don't mean to belabor the
conflict of interest but I have definite thoughts about that.
I think I have been to almost all projects in the United
States and Canada and members of our firm have been to a
lot of European projects and we have studied them in detail.
Not a casual visit but by clients, we have studied these
projects for various clients.
I think the overriding feature of conflict of
interest is continuity. It's awfully important to have
continuity from a technical standpoint on a project that
is highly technical. I believe that the program, as
indicated, can get around conflict of interest by having
-------
1 the city fully responsible for decision making with the
2 consultant being just that.
3 He makes recommendations but he certainly does not
4 make decisions. Further, I know our firm will not be engaged
5 in a project unless we are involved in it from start to
6 finish because as a consultant, the only thing we have to
7 sell is our reputation.
8 To be involved in only a segment of a project that
9 ultimately might fail, our name is very much on that project,
10 like it or not. So our firm has a policy of not engaging in
11 any project unless we are associated with it in a technical
12 capacity from start to finish.
13 But we do that with front end understanding that
14 to protect our client, we invite and insist upon our work
15 being reviewed by a national consulting engineering firm
16 that has demonstrated experience in the field at key points
n in the project development.
18 We don't want to force our client to be in the
19 position of trying to decide whether what we recommended is
20 right or not. We want him to subject our work to a review
21 engineer from a technical standpoint.
22 Secondly, we want the client, the municipality,
23 to subject our work from a municipality standpoint, again
24 from a nationally recognized consulting firm that has a good
25 basis of reviewing these kinds of projects.
-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
Hi
17
18
19
20
21
110
We feel that that approach definitely confronts
the potential conflict of interest on all counts and that
is our approach to the conflict of interest. It is real,
it's not imaginary. You have to look at it from an
appearance standpoint as well as a legal standpoint and
that is our approach and I offer that comment for your
review.
Those are the three comments that I had and in
summary, I want to compliment the EPA on their program. A
lot of communities are sitting ready and willing and able
to come into a resource recovery project. They know they
have to do it and this front end planning money is awfully
important to the small community because those funds are
very difficult to get from a city council concerned
primarily with picking up the garbage.
MR. PETER: Excellent point, thank you very much,
Mr. Abers.
Any questions?
Mr. Robert Schoenhofer from the State of Maryland.
MR. SCHOENHOFER: Ladies and gentlemen, my name
is Robert Schoenhofer and I represent the State of Maryland,
Department of Natural Resources and an interagency task force
that we formed in our state to implement the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
I have three major comments and all of those were
-------
Ill
' I '-'•
already made in one form or another but I think it is still
useful if I reaffirm the support of the state for certain
previously expressed positions.
4 I also want to state that, in competition with
5 Ohio, we are one of the leaders in this field. In addition,
6 two plans, we can boast two completed projects.
7 MR. PETER: In this context, we love to see
8 competition.
9 MR. SCHOENHOFER: Right. This is by means of
10 introduction. We feel in terms of the phases of activities
11 and outputs, the program is defined broadly enough to allow
12 for innovative approaches and for the continuation of
13 existing programs.
14 We however feel that public education has been
if, shortchanged to a certain degree. It says, for example,
under Phase I, you only beaame public participation and
17 education. We feel that if these resource recovery and
18 conservation approaches are to work, truly to work and not
19 only be expensive gadgets for certain high technology
20 believers, we have to bring the people along mentally and
21 in terms of attitudes during the development.
Since this is the kind of project oriented towards
23 laying the foundation for future management of solid waste,
24 this should be a component of it that receives more weight
and more emphasis.
-------
112-
/i;
l In terms of the criteria for award, the storing
2 system shown at the bottom of the proposal, we feel that
3 more emphasis should be placed on demonstrated commitment.
4 MR. PETER: Placed on what?
5 MR. SCHOENHOFER: Demonstrated commitment. The
6 reason I am saying this is because it is very easy for local
7 leaders to sign letters of support for a particular project
8 if it means federal dollars. It comes down to the fact that
9 only prior commitment really is a good measure of future
10 projects success.
11 Like the State of Ohio, we recommend the transport
12 of ten points from the category of project success factor,
13 project success into the category of amount of prior progress
14 This would strike more of a balance between the two
is categories.
16 It would weight progress five points more than the
17 other. We feel it would still be reasonable in terms of not
18 excluding people who did not have the opportunity to make
19 prior progress in this area, but £t would a little more
20 reward those who actually have engaged in this kind of
21 activity.
22 Thirdly, I want to say more about the eligibility
23 criteria. We feel the statements made in the proposal as it
24 stands are very unclear. I think we have to keep in mind
25 that even though we do not envision slick and polished
-------
150 page proposals for this effort, resources will go into
preparing these proposals.
On the other hand, it is not going to do EPA much
4 good to, let's say, receive 1500 applications, 1,000 of which
5 immediately have to be screened out because the entire loan
6 part does not qualify for this program. The arrangement in
use now implies two things at various places.
8 First of all, that anybody, any state, county,
9 municipality and interjurisdictional entity of any size is
10 eligible as long as they come under 4006(b). So far so good.
11 On the other hand, this is an urban program and reference is
12 being made to the census definition of an urban area with
13 50,000 or more.
14 The census is referenced here very loosely. The
ir, term used in the census is "place" and I would think any
16 municipality would know if they are a place recognized by
17 the census or not. If you want to go with this census
18 definition, that would be one way.
19 But .you might incorporate a criteria that realizes
20 population density as one factor. Secondly, on a population
21 of 50,000 or less, if that's the number you want to stay
with as a minimum population off that area with a certain
23 density simultaneously and on top of that the eligibility or
24 designation under 4006(b).
In terms of the State of Maryland's situation.
-------
the population density element, I got the impression in New
Jersey, it would be relatively important because we have
designated our counties as the management and planning
agencies under 4006(b).
If you go with a place definition, we would have
e great administrative difficulties internally. If you put it
7 on a density type of basis, there would be no problem for
our urban counties and some of the rural counties with major
9 population concentrations. I really think that would be the
10 way to go.
11 That completes my comments. I thank you for the
12 opportunity to speak to you.
13 MR. PETER: Thank you, Mr. Schoenhofer.
H MR. NEWTON: I would like to raise a point, it's
15 obvious from your comments as one or two previous that
IB defining an urban area has been a difficult point for us
17 and will be for many of you. Urbanized area is not the same
18 as urban area, not the same as city, not the same as
19 standard metropolitan statistical area and so forth.
20 Using density is an attractive solution to some
21 of us, but absent any existing census definition of
urbanized or urban area within those parameters, I think we
23 would be somewhat uneasy. That is not to say we will not do
24 it but somewhat uneasy in making our own definition of what
the President or Census Bureau means by urban in terms of.
-------
l if there is such a definition, we would be most grateful to
2 someone calling our attention to it.
3 MR. SCHOENHOFER: Can I make a suggestion? I know
4 that the Bureau of the Census maintains population
5 statistics for what they call places in various brackets,
6 1,000, 2,000, 10,000, 50,000 and they know the areas of
7 these places.
8 Why don't you have them prepare a national computer
9 run of the population density for those places and the people
10 that live in them and see if you can't get by with the
ll average or reduce it a little bit below the average? In
12 other words, I have a feeling you have to create your own
13 definition but that would be an expedient way of getting it,
U just looking at the existing situation out there.
15 MR. LINGLE: Excuse me, I would like to ask for a
16 little more clarification on that. Are you suggesting that,
17 if we make such a change or clarification, that we make that
18 a specific eligibility cutoff, rather than saying that anyone
19 is eligible but we think most of the funds will go to
20 communities with this population density?
21 MR. SCHOENHOFER: That is what I am suggesting.
22 Otherwise, efforts might be wasted. The community has to
23 have a clear-cut understanding of whether they qualify or
24 not before they commence or do not commence a detailed
25 proposal under this program. It's a very practical type
-------
consideration.
MR. LINGLE: You are suggesting making anyone
ineligible who does not meet this?
MR.SCHOENHOFER: That's correct. If you want to,
you could specify intentions but then you get into a bag of
worms. Those areas that have the potential intended by this
program will most likely meet your average population density
8 requirement.
9 Also, those would be the places that the President
10 means or wants to address under this program.
11 MR. PETER: Mr. Schoenhofer, thanks very much.
Did Dr. Cutler arrive from the Institute of Scrap
Iron and Steel? Is there anyone here from ISIS? I have a
14 note that he intended to speak in the afternoon but I have a
15 feeling he may be speaking to an empty auditorium the way we
16 are going.
17 I have one other party who has asked for rostrum
18 time but not with a prepared statement, he wanted to make a
19 few comments. He is representing the Mayor of the City of
20 Houston, Matt Carey.
MR. CAREY: My name is Matthew J. Carey,
Washington Rep, City of Houston. On behalf of Mayor McConn,
2.) we appreciate the opportunity to make some comments to you
24 today.
First of all, I would like to applaud the Office
-------
liT
1 of Solid Waste Management for a very diligent effort on this
2 effort. It's a very ambitious program, given the amount of
3 resources available to do what you would like to achieve.
4 I have some general comments first or a statement
5 in relation to the program. First of all, there has been
6 ' some discussion presently on density and the City of Houston
7 has a very strange situation. We are basically a composite
8 of cities within a city.
9 We have presently 550 square mile area covering
10 close to three million people. We have a growth rate of
11 ! 2,000 new residents per week and 6,000 new licensed vehicles.
12 MR. PETER: 6,000 new vehicles per week?
13 I MR. CAREY: 600. We just got a Metropolitan
14 Transit Authority approved this past week and so we are
15 playing catch-up on transportation.
16 Moving to solid waste, first of all, I think there
17 has to be some sensitivity at the central office, EPA level,
18 in addition to the state's role in sold waste management.
19 There are those states in the northeast region and the
20 midwest that have forged ahead in this area but there are
21 those states in the southwest, far west areas where
22 urbanization has recently taken place in tremendous leaps
23 and bounds in the last seven years.
24 I think in relation to solid waste management
25 practices, collection, disposal, resource recovery, resource
-------
l conservation, that there needs to be a sensitivity for that
2 particular area of the country in relation to targeting your
3 resources into the metropolitan area level.
4 I would caution that there may be an imbalance at
5 state levels as to their sensitivity to deal with solid
6 waste problems at the local level.
7 The second area is in relation to the role of
8 private contractors in this program. In Houston, we
9 contract out for all of our capital improvement public works
10 needs to AE general contracting firms. We also maintain a
11 control 0f direct relationship to federal government
12 compliance regulations and guidelines at the city level.
13 I would like to recommend that in this particular
14 program that the Agency look to the grantee being the city,
15 county or other entity that is the grantee as being the
16 entity responsible for compliance with the regulations and
17 guidelines, rather than contracting out that role to a
18 private contractor such as an AE firm or general contracting.
19 In that sense, I believe you will be able to
20 achieve the objectives of what you are attempting to do at
21 the local level.
22 MR. PETER: In my own mind, I've never considered
23 it any other way but I am wondering, is that a real
24 possibility?
25 MR. CAREY: I think in communities of less than
-------
1*9
l 150,000 population that don't have sophisticated staffs
2 built up to monitor regulations and guidelines, that there
3 are attempts to bring on private contractors. What I am
4 saying is in the larger metropolitan areas, I think that
5 situation is already resolved.
6 The one serious question that I have that relates
7 to one of your objectives in relation to the President's
8 urban policy, that urban policy is a comprehensive document
^ ^
9 addressing not only existing programs at the federal level
10 but new initiatives.
n It is meant to be delivered to all urban areas.
12 There are facets of it that deal with targeting resources
13 to older distressed, deteriorating economies. In the overall
14 policy objective itself, it is to deal with all urban areas.
15 Again, in the far west, southwest areas,
16 metropolitan areas, you have growth and development with
n pockets of distress situations. That would bring me to a
18 couple of your factors, one, the format for proposal
19 submission.
20 Item F discusses potential for relieving urban
21 economic distress. It hits trends in unemployment,per
22 capita, income and population. Again, in Houston, we have
23 a double activity occurring. We have a mushrooming pocket
24 of distress in about 102 square miles and 400,000 people.
95 We have a growth development occurring to the
-------
12V-
north and west with the potential annexed up to 2,000 square
miles without running into any incorporated entity that
3 would protest that annexation.
4 Given that situation, our solid waste management
need is a. double need. We need to address the management
problems in the pocket of distress which is more concentrated
densely populated per square mile situation and we need to
address the solid waste management problems in the growth
9 and development area.
10 Our nearest landfill site is 70 miles from the
1] central business district area. We have to, I think, be
12 sensitive in this program to not just growth and development
pockets in distressed cities, like Houston, but we're talking
about Omaha, San Jose, San Diego, Albuquerque, Oklahoma City,
Columbus, Ohio, to an extent, any city that has growth and
ig development coupled with pockets of distress.
17 MR. PETER: I don't know that there are any without
that issue. I'm not sure I get your point in that one.
19 MR. CAREY: I will try to relate this back to the
20 President's urban policy and what I see in this document.
Again, Item No. F under Format, I see a stressing of the
targeting of the resources for this program as a factor for
23 one, submission of the proposal and two, under Criteria for
24 Award, a 15 percent of total points going to those areas
that reflect the rate of growth in employment, rate of
-------
-1-21
, nr
\ growth in per capita income and rate of growth in population.
2 In other words, I think your approach to
3 implementing the President's urban policy initiative should
4 take into consideration southwest, far western communities
5 that don't have the distress factors citywide or the density
6 per square mile.
7 MR. PETER: Do I read you correctly, certainly
8 Houston does not have the fiscal problems New York City does.
9 Are you saying, don't look at that side of the issue, look
10 at these pockets of distress?
11 MR. CAREY: What I'm saying is like any other city,
12 with this program with limited resources, you can target your
13 resources there but even in New York City, in order to
14 generate support from the private sector, there 'has to be an
15 equitable approach in distribution of the funds of this
16 program.
17 Even though the unemployment rate in the city is
is low, 3.74 percent, in the pocket of distress, it is at a
19 minimum of 8.4 percent and above. You have a coupling
20 situation. Again, it is such a sprawled out demographic
21 city that your need there, in other words, the demonstration
22 that could happen there for resource recovery is very real.
23 Now would be the time to not only target funds to
24 older distressed communities but to growth and development
25 communities where resource conservation could be implemented
-------
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
1-22
now while the growth and development is taking place, rather
than after all has occurred.
I think those particular features in there as
point percentage features need to be looked at again in
relation to the overall urban policy objective rather than
targeting it to older distressed cities.
One other factor is that I think, again given the
amount of money available for this program and what you are
trying to achieve, I think you have to perhaps limit or
begin to consider where you want your resources to go. I
think larger metropolitan areas where the need of overall
solid waste management is totally necessary, at least in the
first round, a positive way to go.
MR. PETER: Is anyone here from Cave Creek,
Arizona — your point is well taken. The President had his
picture taken in the middle of a high density area, in a
very distressed area and this is where the problems are.
Thanks very much, we appreciate it.
I have a late request from a representative of
the National Association of Counties, Cliff Cobb.
MR. COBB: Most of ray comments are questions. I
want some clarification on different things. Regarding
agency identification — my name is Cliff Cobb and I'm with
the National Association of Counties.
In states where agency identification process has
-------
123
'. -• '/
l not been completed nor where identification of implementation
Z agencies is vague, what procedures must a local government
3 follow to assure its eligibility? Is a letter from the
4 governor sufficient or whatever document would constitute a
5 written agreement, understanding or other evidence?
6 is the designation process merely reference to
7 statutory authorities of cities and counties to carry out
8 solid waste programs, would such a general authorization be
9 sufficient or must a jurisdiction be sufficiently designated?
10 I would like that clarified now.
ll MR. LINGLE: I think the specific kind of
12 documentation we want, we have to decide on that. Yes,
13 specific designation is what we have in mind at this point.
14 Specific designation under the 4006 process. Whether that
15 means that a letter from the governor has to be included,
16 I'm not sure that that would absolutely be necessary.
i? We will sort that out and decide on some sort of
18 suitable documentation that an agency has been designated
19 under this process and we will reflect that in the final
20 round.
21 MR. COBB: My understanding is that in a number
22 of states, the definition made reference to statutory
23 authority and in that case, a city just said that according
24 to some code, all the cities or all the counties have
21 whatever statutory authority they had since that was passed.
-------
l I was wondering if in that case, if there is no
2 conflict, if the example was brought up between Cuyahoga
3 County and Cleveland, if there was no conflict, would there
4 need to be some specific written agreement between the
5 governor and that jurisdiction?
6 It seems to me there shouldn't have to be in that
7 case.
8 MR. LINGLE: If EPA accepts that designation as
9 acceptable under Section 4006, then it would be acceptable
10 under this program. If we don't feel that is acceptable,
ll we will go back to the state and inform them under 4006,
12 they are really different designation and a designation will
13 have to be made for that and for this program.
14 MR. COBB: Another point of clarification, I have
15 not quite understood the intention of the Phase I, II, and
16 III steps here. I am wondering if that is similar in function
17 to the Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3 grants in the waste water
18 construction grants program in which by completing one step,
19 that in a sense is an indication that there — that a city
20 or county is likely to get funding for the next step in
21 this planning program.
22 Is that the intention or am I reading something
23 into it?
24 MR. LINGLE: I think you are reading a little more
25 into it than is intended. There is no particular analogy to
-------
1 the water program system intended here. A major reason for
2 breaking it into phases is, since this is a fairly long and
3 complicated process and one which might require a lot of
4 funding, we don't think it is appropriate to fund that in a
higher process at one time.
6 A community may decide to stop and not proceed or
7 what have you and it is partly a control mechanism. It is a
way of making break points for those communities who have
9 achieved progress today and continue to another phase. It
10 does not suggest that a community will, by virtue of having
ll completed one phase, automatically get funding for another
12 phase.
13 If we approved all of those phases initially and
if progress on the ones completed is satisfactory, then we
15 would anticipate continuing the funding. But the fact that
16 progress has to be satisfactory is very important.
17 MR. CDBB: There is an implicit commitment in
18 that respect.
19 MR. LINGLE: There is an implicit commitment and
20 we will approve tentatively more than one phase of a project
21 initially. We will tentatively approve funding for all
phases depending on progress.
23 MR. COBB: I would like to make one other
24 correlation to the construction grant program on the conflict
25 of interest business. In that program, as I understand it,
-------
i it was possible to hire the same consulting engineer for
2 Step 1 and Step 2 and I'm not clear why there should be any
3 difference between these two programs, unless you have some
4 reason to believe it has not worked in that program.
5 MR. NEWTON: That's my understanding of the way
the construction program works.
MR. COBB: I believe it has worked well from my
8 knowledge of it. My tendency is to believe that you may be
g trying to over-protect the interests of local governments.
Local governments are also very wary of the conflict of
interest problem and I don't think you need to be carting
quite so heavily>against unscrupulous consulting engineers.
MR. LINGLE: Let me emphasize that we did not
14 suggest we were going to do that in this draft document,
15 The discussion is related around comments made from the
audience on whether we should do that or not.
17 MR. COBB: You suggest you will be very cautious
18 in that.
19 MR. LINGLE: Yes.
20 MR. COBB: Sometimes you may be too cautious.
21 MR. PETER: The overreaction issue.
MR. COBB: Another issue is the size of grants.
23 You said they would be in the neighborhood of 300 to $500,000
24 It seems to me at some point in here, you ought to make
explicit something about that so communities have some idea
-------
127
1 of the size —
2 MR. PETER: Cliff, as I indicated, that was an
3 early ball park guesstimate. We were trying to determine
4 what we were talking about in the way of number of grants
5 we will be administering and how well we allocate our
6 resources internally.
1 We said, well, we'll talk about dollar size and a
8 number came up. It's not official and it was strictly ball
9 park.
10 MR. LINGLE: And it is an average, it was intended
11 as an average.
12 MR. PETER: Murray is asking if anyone will have
13 any substantive comment on that, what you think it should be
14 or what your prognosis would be?
15 MR. NEWTON: Your written comments, if not here,
16 as to how we might scale these grants on the basis of X
17 dollars per capita, population served or whether a city of
18 500,000 gets X dollars or something, it could be most
19 useful.
20 MR. COBB: I had in mind that it might be, if
21 there were no general guidelines on that, some city might
22 submit an application for two million and if you had a
23 hidden agenda that said we will not fund anything over
24 $800,000, that would exclude them and that would be unfair.
25 MR. PETER: The reverse is true.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-128
VOICE: Related to your question on size, numbers
of dollars, also time span. Are you talking one year and
coming back later or two years and coming back later or one
large grant to cover all phases with interim states?
Elaborate on that point. That is closely tied with the
number of dollars.
MR. LINGLE: The initial approval, as I said
earlier, would tentatively or could tentatively cover all
of the phases over a period of whatever time might be
appropriate and it might be more than one year. The actual
grant made for a particular phase will be limited to a
particular time frame but the limit will be made during the
time of the work scope.
Does that answer your point?
MR. PETER: Let me add something to your question,
if I may. Steve, are we saying we will reserve the funds
out of the 15 million appropriation to embrace the entire
process. Phase I, II and III, or will Phases II and III in
subsequent years be funded?
MR. LINGLE: We are saying the former, we are
saying we will reserve the funds.
SECOND VOICE: I think it is highly unlikely that
needs for funding in Steps 2 and 3 can be determined until
Step 1 is completed. I further think if you are going to
commit out of your current year's allocation the funds for
-------
l all three steps, you will find yourselves at a real deadlock
2 for project progress down the line. I think you are running
3 into serious problems there.
4 States on the water quality have already run into
5 that problem where they committed three steps and some high
6 priority Step 1's got tied up for legal or other reasons. I
7 think you are looking at the same kind of difficulties here.
8 MR. LINGLE: Let me ask for suggestions on that.
9 I agree with the problems associated with that but the
10 question is, what is the alternative?
11 SECOND VOICE: I would suggest you approve Step 1
12 and then approve Step 2 and Step 3 as a result of your
13 approval of Step 1.
14 MR. LINGLE: The question is, if you only allocate
15 or approve funds for Step 1, for Phase I initially, and
16 nine months down the road, the community has completed
17 Phase I and you've spent your first year's $15 million and
18 it's still six months before you have money in Phase II, or
19 maybe Congress does not appropriate more money, how do you
20 get that community to and through the next phases?
21 SECOND VOICE: I think if you provide for a
22 reimbursement capability from your next year's allocation,
23 you would solve that problem. I further think if these
24 programs have to be approved by state environmental agencies
2ft and your agency, to assume that one will get one through in
-------
130
I71
1 nine months is unbelievable.
2 MR. LINGLE: What is it that seems that we are
3 assuming that?
4 SECOND VOICE: You can assume anyone who enters
5 Phase I will not be ready for Phase II money within 12 months
6 The process itself says there's no way.
1 MR. LINGLE: That is not our assumption if that
8 would be the case.
9 SECOND VOICE: If you take a look — your state
10 agencies would have to review this in your own review
n process. A consultant would have to get it in in three days
12 to make it through the process of one year.
13 MR. NEWTON: Does it follow from your suggestion
14 that a community which completes Phase I would have to
is compete with other new grant applicants in the second year?
16 Perhaps Community B wants a Phase I grant the second year
n and Community A is coming back for its Phase II work and the
18 two would be competing?
19 SECOND VOICE: No, I think you would have to
20 allocate a. Phase I allocation and Phase II and III
21 allocations which I don't think would be a problem after
22 you are one year into the program. Anyone who estimates
23 the needs for the three steps of this program before they've
24 done Step 1 will undoubtedly be back for an amendment or
25 some other problem which may be bigger problems than just
-------
l not having committed those two steps of money.
2 There is also a go-no go provision here and you
3 will get some no go provisions and having that money
4 committed until the time you get a no go provisions means
5 someone else will not have the use of it for Step 1.
6 MR. LINGLE: That's right, and I still don't
7 understand the suggestion in terms of assuring — if you
8 only fund and allocate for Phase I, how do you assure that
9 a community will have funding available for this second
10 and/or third phases? What is the mechanism for doing it?
11 What if the timing isn't right?
12 There will either be a gap of so many months when
13 the community stops work or if there is no more funding at
14 all appropriated, then they may never get any funding for
i!i Phases II and III. What is the way of getting around that?
IB SECOND VOICE: I think you can deal with a general
17 commitment subject to availability of funds. I don't think
18 you will have many projects if you commit Steps 1, 2, and 3
19 funding out of your first go-around. I think you are
20 minimizing the number of projects you have and I further
21 think by the time you get your no-shows, the following year
22 you will have a big glob of money that will not be utilized
23 and some of this money will be committed for three or four
24 years.
2S MR. LINGLE: Then it can be used in the next year.
-------
8
9
10
16
17
18
19
20
Those who don't make sufficient progress or decide they
should not move ahead, that money initially allocated to
that project can be used for other --
SECOND VOICE: You have one other thing. You will
ask for a project schedule and will you de-fund projects if
they don't meet that schedule?
MR. LIMGLE: De-obligate the funds would be the
approach. The funds would not be awarded. The only funds
awarded would be for the phase funded. The other funds
would be tentatively approved. It just means that the
group would not have to go back through the same formal
national solicitation process, competing on a national
basis and waiting for allocation of funds in following years.
That's what it means.
MR. PETER: I don't think we want to spend too
much time.
VOICE: Two quick questions. Future obligated
funds laid out in FY'78 or '79, this first 15 million or is
that coming out of future congressional appropriations?
MR. LINGLE: The funds obligated for following
phases. It would be banked, in essence, and come out of
the first year's funding.
VOICE: My second question is, you are assuming
that the cities and counties, whatever, would follow the
same sequence you presented in your phases. Many of them
-------
1 have completed half or more what you have indicated in
2 Phase I and even a portion of Phase II. You can't lock the
3 funding, be strict in locking the funding into the phases
4 you have identified and allow them to come forward with the
5 project proposal and specify the time frame and where the
6 no go's should come and where you should pass on approval.
7 MR. LINGLE: That is clearly our intent.
8 MR. PETER: Cliff, we cut into your time here.
9 MR. COBB: I would like to comment on the set-
10 aside business. It seems to me if you bank it, you will be
11 tying up too much money. I would recommend setting aside
12 some money, say half a million dollars out of 15 million,
13 perhaps, for that contingency, if a city or county comes to
H the point where they need that money later on for the
15 second or third phase but not set aside for each one of
16 them separately.
17 On a statistical basis, not all of them may need
18 it. You are assuming there will be a crisis at some point
19 and that does happen so I think there needs to be some kind
20 of contingency fund but I would not do it for each of them
21 separately.
22 MR. PETER: That's a tormenting question within
23 the ranks and we don't want to line everybody up at the
24 starting gate and not open the gates to them. Those that
25 we have released the gates to, we want to make sure the
-------
l finish line is available to them.
2 It would be a terrible comment if for some reason
3 unforeseen, we would excite these communities into an action
4 program, fund Phase I and all of a sudden have it come apart.
5 As I indicated from the outset, these are actual programs
6 and we want to see them go.
7 Let's let Cliff finish.
g MR. COBB: I have one more comment which is that
9 we support your position on the limitation of funding only
10 to implementation agencies. We support that concept rather
11 than giving it to planning agencies. We believe those
12 agencies which will ultimately be responsible for construc-
13 tion of a facility, if it comes to that, should be the ones
14 who do the initial planning because they will be taking
15 political responsibility for it.
16 MR. PETER: Thanks very much.
17 Hold your questions for a moment and I have a
18 last representative from Kentucky, Department of Natural
19 Resources. Art Curtis?
20 MR. CURTIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
21 and I'm sorry. I checked that I wanted to speak and somehow
22 didn't get to you and I know you can do better planning if
23 you receive that. You are doing a super job keeping us in
2-1 line here.
25 Kentucky will be very brief with full respect to
-------
13*
I ; _•
1 the audience here.
2 Point No. 1, I am prepared to say that we applaud,
let me say that Kentucky salutes any and all resource
recovery activities.
Point No. 2, we do not wish to tie resource
recovery to the urban area. I disagree with the more urban
states that have preceded me here today. If we use the
8 1,000 per person population density, only Jefferson County
9 in Kentucky or only 20 percent of our population can be
10 served.
'•Je maintain that these urban areas have the
12 resources available to them to do this solid waste
management planning.
14 Point in hand, they have a thermal transfer
lr' plant in the design stage.
16 MR. PETER: They being —
17 MR. CURTIS: Jefferson County and that's the only
18 county that will be covered through population projection
19 to the year 2020 in the State of Kentucky.
20 On the other side of the coin, and we are looking
for definitions, I submit to you that if we have a definition
of a rural area in Section 4009, let's use that definition
to determine what is not an urban area.
If we use that definition, 39 counties or one-
third of Kentucky's counties will be eligible for this
-------
1 program, plus 68 percent of our population will be covered.
2 MR. PETER: For the benefit of the audience, you
3 might want to tell them what it is.
4 MR. CURTIS: That's 20 persons per square mile,
5 10,000 total population with a central city of 5,000.
6 Anything below that is a rural area.
7 Point No. 3, Kentucky is in the majority of states
8 that have not completed their solid waste management plan.
9 I submit to you that Kentucky will meet record deadline, we
10 will have our plan completed. Until we finish this plan, I
11 don't know how we can consider resource recovery.
12 We will not know what areas we are planning for
13 and consequently, we cannot get into those resource recovery
14 facilities.
15 Point No. 4, if you will allow the state to use
16 these resource recovery grant funds in concert with our
17 solid waste management planning, we can uncover the potential
18 resource recovery areas and need for facilities within our
19 state.
20 Point No. 5, we feel we are using RCRA outside the
21 intent of Congress if we tie it to the urban area. We think
22 it would best serve the population of the country if we
23 would use the definitions spelled out in Section 4009. Our
24 state's desire to use this is illustrated by the fact I am
25 here today.
-------
I-37,,
I -V'
l I hope I am brief enough and we will have a full
2 written statement by the 25th and I will be happy to answer
3 any questions.
4 MR. PETER: I have none. Any from the panel?
5 We appreciate your comments very much.
6 I have some questions and it is usually the case,
1 maybe some of these have already been answered by subsequent
8 commentary. Let me run through these and then I would
9 suggest if there is no more from the floor, we could adjourn.
10 Let's hit the questions.
ll Has Pennsylvania designated resource recovery
12 responsibility? Is the representative from Pennsylvania
13 still here? I don't know if it is appropriate to go on.
14 I think we will have to respond to the gentleman from
15 Pennsylvania —
16 VOICE: I am here but I am asking you the question,
17 whether you happen to know?
18 MR. PETER: I don't know if they have, I really
19 don't.
20 Let me ask your other questions. If not, would
21 resolutions for participating municipalities authorizing the
22 county to sell it waste management disposal, qualify the
23 county for the program?
24 MR. LINGLE: It has to be done through the 4006
25 process and that means the state has to be involved.
-------
1-3-fi
MR. PETER: What is required for a county to be
designated as the responsible agency? What legislative
state branch needs to be —
4 VOICE: You just answered that.
5 MR. PETER: Next question. Will current
0 applications to DOE being submitted by their present
solicitation, be considered automatically by EPA if such
application is rejected by DOE or will a separate application
9 be required and the answer is the latter.
10 A separate response to our own solicitation will
n be required.
12 Second part of the question, does DOE funding
13 preclude EPA funding for subsequent phases?
14 As I said at the outset, we are working jointly
15 with the agency. I'm not sure —
MR. LINGLE: It depends on what is meant there but
17 if you mean, let's take an analogy and see if this answers
13 the question. If you mean that somebody applies in the DOE
!9 program as funded for something that includes basically what
20 is in Phase I of our program and then DOE has no more
21 funding, could they later come to EPA and ask for funding
22 for Phases II and III?
23 I'd see no reason why they would be precluded from
doing that at all.
VOICE: DOE has the same three phases basically
-------
139
i that you've got and they also state they have the option to
2 fund Phase I and not II and III. The question was, if they
3 decide only on Phase I, would you fund II and III?
4 MR. LINGLE: Not automatically but we would
5 certainly consider it under appropriate application, assuming
6 we go out with additional solicitations.
7 MR. PETER: Next question, will municipal sewer
8 sludge solid waste co-disposal facilities be a high priority
g project under the proposed program?
10 Here DOE may enter the picture again. I think a
11 high priority on this per se is not the objective. It is
12 the solution to your problem, to the community that will
13 have the high priority. DOE may have an interest in
H supporting this further downstream as a demonstration
15 project but as I say, we are still coordinating with DOE
16 on that particular subject.
17 Next question, what will be the role of private
18 companies now handling solid waste disposal from municipal
19 regional solid waste agencies? Will any funding be
20 available for private companies to study a resource
21 recovery? Again, what will be the role of private
22 companies now handling solid waste disposal from municipal
23 and regional solid waste agencies?
24 I'm not sure, what will be the role in what
25 respect? Is the party here who raised the question?
-------
14-0'.,
MR. LINGLE: I'm not sure what the person meant
but clearly, private companies will be very much involved
3 in the ownership and operation of the facilities that are
4 hopefully going to come out at the end of the pike ultimately
5 of this program.
R || Naturally, the private sector consulting community
;i
" ! will be involved in the process itself. The only thing I
ij
8 can think might be implied is that perhaps this program only
9 applies in instances where there will be public ownership
10 and operation. Maybe that's what the question implies if I
ll can read between the lines and that is not the case.
12 We very much encourage the maximum participation
n of the private sector in this whole process.
u MR. PETER: In addition to technical assistance
15 panels, will the peer match groups be utilized and the
IB answer is yes. From the standpoint of internal grantee
n control, the most limiting factor in planning resource
is recovery is knowledge that is not dependent upon sophisti-
19 cated engineering principles.
'20 Peer match program as contracted with ICMA,
21 provides assistance based on experience of people who have
22 gone through the process. This is true and the generalists,
23 (non-engineer), is able to work with officials who must make
24 decisions on technical matters without having the technical
25 knowledge.
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ir>
16
17
18
19
20
21
141 '"!-'
This is one of the institutional barriers,
underlined. This is a comment more than a question but I
certainly don't take issue with it.
Murray has been deeply involved in the peer match
program we have. Anything to add to that?
MR. NEWTON: No.
MR. PETER: Where implementation agency is
centrally located, (county C) and no other cities are
designated, will the grantee be expected to include entire
SMSA, including rural and suburban areas?
MR. LINGLE: Not necessarily. We are not telling
anyone who or what they have to include in the area covered
by their project, that's their decision.
MR. PETER: It says if not required, will including
them along with the grantee allow for eligibility as a sub-
grantee? Sub-grantee, that's a new term.
MR. LINGLE: I must confess, I don't understand
that.
MR. PETER: It says, if not required, will
including them along with the grantee allow for eligibility
as a sub-grantee?
Sorry, everybody draws blanks on that one. The
author is not identified, is he in the audience, or she?
We will have to set that one aside. I don't have
the capability to respond or make further inquiry.
-------
1 Next one, regarding the need for resource
2 conservation, why not consider requiring grantees to address
3 how particular technology as a positive or negative trade off?
4 For example, ratio of energy input to output, although a
5 community may not have a major need because of sufficient
6 landfills and so forth, look at indirect disposal costs
7 such as mileage or other factors which might actually
8 increase waste flow? These are factors that come out in
9 the detailed analysis of waste stream, markets and whatever.
10 Trade offs are very much a part of the original
11 analyses and I don't see where that is an issue myself.
12 Do you have any comment?
13 MR. LINGLE: No.
14 MR. PETER: Suggest a specific criteria that a
15 grantee must implement, two parts. Part A, mandatory
16 collection policy, whether public or private. Part B, that
n they must implement — Part B, to insure the above, a user
18 charge which reflects the true cost of operation and
19 financing (similar to the waste pollution construction
20 grants program).
21 Well, I'm not sure we are in a position to mandate
22 those but these are factors which certainly come out in the
23 initial analyses. Again, it suggests a specific criteria
24 that a grantee must implement, the first part being
25 mandatory collection policy, whether public or private.
-------
14-3
• •','
1 MR. LINGLE: I'm not sure what that means.
2 VOICE: What should the grantee collect?
3 MR. PETER: I don't think it says he has to
4 collect but it says he must implement mandatory collection
5 policy.
6 MR. LINGLE: I don't understand what whoever wrote
7 this means by mandatory —
8 VOICE: I didn't write it but I will be glad to
9 tell you. I am from Scandia County in Florida and in that
10 i county, there is no requirement for anyone to subscribe to
H j a garbage collection setup. What the man is asking is if
12 | this is a political thing locally, might people have their
13 garbage picked up.
14 If you get into a resource recovery program, unless
15 you know the quality of what you are marketing and are
16 assured that you will get it, you're wasting your time.
17 What he's asking you to do is, does part of the grant
18 require that county, cities, whatever, require all the
19 people living in that political boundary to subscribe to a
20 garbage pickup service?
21 MR. PETER: This relates to the issue of control
22 of the waste stream which is the front end planning of the
23 process. I am curious, for those who don't subscribe down
24 there, what do they do with it?
25 VOICE: Couple of things, they can go to the
-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
19
20
21
landfill themselves or throw it into the woods or dump it
in your yard if you happen to be available.
MR. PETER: You do have a problem.
The next one is again a legal question submitted
by Michael H. Is he in the audience? It says, address the
issue raised in Akron, Ohio where a lawsuit introduced by a
private sector against the city for restraint of commerce.
That is the city's ordinance which requires the private
sector to dispose of their waste at resource recovery plant.
If the city cooperates or something, it could
have a severe impact on the efficiency and on efforts in
other areas. I'm not sure what the latter means but I'm not
familiar with this legal issues.
Is anyone in the audience?
VOICE: That issue and previous issue are most
important issues but not in this phase of what you're talking
about. You are talking about planning, a situation now
where those should be recommendations coming from that plan
as opposed to something imposed on a grantee to get that
grant.
Both of those functions should be addressed in
the plan you are going to get as a result of this activity.
They're very important but they're not important to obtain
in the grant but important to determine whether you go into
construction and have a feasible situation.
-------
145
1 MR. LINGLE: Waste stream control is not the same
2 major issue and it's reflected as one of the elements of the
3 phases. The grantees are going to obviously have to address
4 that and they will need funding to address it. It will be a
5 factor which we have asked them to address in even the
6 application to us.
7 What these people seem to be asking is to put some
8 particular restrictions in there saying you must do this or
9 that with your waste stream before you can be considered
10 eligible. We will consider those things.
ll VOICE: Those kinds of restrictions would probably
12 only be appropriate if you got into construction grants. If
13 you get into the water program, they are utilized in Step 3
H but not utilized in Steps 1 and 2.
15 MR. NEWTON: With respect to Akron, let me say we
16 are aware of the lawsuit and I think of the issues but let
17 me make clear that the Agency has not taken a position on
18 that and I think it would be inappropriate to do so just yet.
19 VOICE: That might be a state legislative issue
20 that has to be resolved by the state in order to take
21 advantage of the program.
22 MR. LINGLE: That's right.
23 MR. PETER: I understand Dr. Cutler has arrived
24 from the Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel but let me hit
25 this last question. It says, have you established a priority
-------
146
system for StiSAfdrog to Phase I, II and III or will each
2 application for whatever phase receive the same consideration
3 MR. LINGLE: We have not established a priority
4 tJther than the fact that the selection criteria indicate
5 that those who have made prior progress do get additional
points under the criteria. Implicitly, those who have done
some of the things defined in Phase I are likely to score
higher on that count than other people.
9 Other than that, there are no specific priorities
10 for Phases I, II and III.
11 MR. PETER: Dr. Cutler?
12 I might add that you are our last speaker.
13 DR. CUTLER: I understand the message, Mr.
14 Chairman.
15 MR. PETER: Please don't misinterpret.
16 DR. CUTLER: I will ask only that my statement in
17 its entirety be made part of the record.
18 MR. PETER: Absolutely.
19 DR. CUTLER: My name is Ilerschel Cutler and I am
20 Executive Director of the Institute of Scrap Iron & Steel
21 and obviously the statement is presented on behalf of the
more than 1500 member companies who belong to the Institute.
We are appearing here today to request that the
feasibility analysis contemplated in the grant procedures
as proposed specifically require a sufficient market analysis
-------
.147
of the potential competitive effects of the proposed projects.
This is important in our opinion, because it will provide a
far better basis for evaluating economic feasibility of any
particular product.
It is important to stress, and you will find it
stressed repeatedly in the statement that the material
7 recycled by Institute members is purchased metallic waste.
8 It has an economic value and an industry has developed by
reclaiming that material.
10 We are talking about in our case, material people
11 pay for, not material that must be disposed of.
12 Because of the obvious economic and environmental
13 savings involved with recycling, it clearly is sound public
14 policy to foster the maximum use of all recyclable
15 commodities. Accordingly, things such as we are talking
16 about here today, federal encouragement of new resource
17 recovery systems has appeal.
18 Before significant new efforts are undertaken to
19 encourage these systems, it is appropriate to evaluate what,
20 if any, net benefits, not gross, but net benefits will
21 result and what is the magnitude and degree of negative
22 side effects resulting from a precipitous movement toward
23 wholesale development of such systems.
24 The feasibility studies contemplated under this
program should insure that you get firm, honest, precise
-------
i benefits and costs so that people can study them in
2 significant and sufficient detail.
3 Present scrap availability, and here I am talking
4 to metallic scrap, and the capacity of existing and
5 foreseeable markets to absorb the process scrap is a very
6 important basic input that has to be in your economic
7 feasibility studies.
8 Thus it seems to us before any consideration is
9 given to new sources of processed scrap iron such as what
10 could come out of the system, an analysis of existing
il supply/demand conditions is in order. In that regard, the
12 leading analysis of scrap iron supply, a study performed
13 for the Metal Scrap Research and Education Foundation by
14 Robert Nathan Associates.
15 The Nathan study found a national backlog of
16 636 million tons of iron and steel scrap at the end of 1975,
17 waiting for a market. This reservoir could supply all the
18 total purchased scrap iron requirements at 1977 steel and
19 foundry operating levels plus the exports that we were able
20 to arrange in 1977.
21 The backlog would meet the entire American and
22 foreign need of scrap iron for 14 years without counting an
23 additional pound of the millions of tons of obsolute scrap
24 iron being generated every year. So the extent of this
25 backlog says to us, why?
-------
l Why, even in times of extremely high steel'demand
2 such as we had in 1973-74, why regardless of whether steel
a demand is high or low, do the accumulations continue at
4 these high levels? Since a profit making industry exists
5 to process the metallic value of this backlog and ptrepare
6 the old and current discards, there must be some repetitive
7 to the recycling that assumes a rate of consumption that
8 would at least utilize the current obsolete material, much
9 as reduce the backlog.
10 The fact that many firms, and we recommend in
11 excess of 1500 firms, the fact that those firms are ready to
12 process the material into usable forms, the fact that the
13 capacity to process is there and the fact that indeed we
H have unused capacity at the peak year of scrap iron sales
15 in this country, we are operating at a little over 50 percent
16 of our fixed capacity.
17 All of these things lead to the inescapable
is conclusion that something is wrong, not with supply but
19 rather with demand. A concomitant conclusion follows that
20 increasing the supply of processed scrap iron, be it as
21 private industry investor or from municipal waste stream,
whatever is done in the area of increasing the supply does
23 not address the problem.
24 The real problem is one of demand and not supply.
The reasons for inadequte markets which exist at the present
-------
1-St)
time should be analyzed by EPA as a nationwide problem. The
steel industry, for example, has stated that it would take
experimental levels of scrap iron from resource recovery
centers, but it has not said that it will increase the
overall percentage of recycled materials which it will
purchase.
In other words, consumers have generally said
that they will take these new metallic sources, but they
n
have not said that they will increase the total amount of
scrap that they will consume to produce a given amount of
11 steel.
1 9
That problem which has faced the scrap iron
industry for many years, is being faced more and more by
recycling centers, volunteer, low or no cost recycling
centers who find the same problem, that they can't sell the
material they are recovering.
I have attached to my statement an article in a
i n
recent August 14 American Metal Market which indicates this
19
problem very clearly. That volunteer recycling centers
cannot dispose of the cans they are recovering.
In evaluating the form and scope of federal
assistance for solid waste treatment and disposal centers,
it is important to reemphasize that the purpose of these
centers if to perform a legitimate public health function
which is the responsibility of government; environmentally
-------
23
24
25
151
sound waste disposal.
Care should be taken, however, that the disposal
system not impinge on the legitimate role of private
enterprise by forcing market substitution rather than by
creating new markets. Which is the answer?
In accord with the general policy objective of
limiting governmental competition with private industry,
the Institute strongly recommends that EPA adopt as a
general policy the proposition that no solid waste treatment
and disposal center receiving direct or indirect federal
assistance may seek to acquire for processing materials not
collected in the normal garbage and waste collection process
for the area served by the center.
If the material is flowing outside the normal
garbage and waste collection process, the center should not
be able to penetrate that other market.
In addition to this general policy recommendation,
the Institute believes and urges EPA to require a state or
local agency evaluating development of a new resource
recovery facility to consider the problem of available
markets as part of its feasibility study.
Specifically, the Institute recommends that EPA
require each grant recipient to describe in detail in its
feasibility study whether the scrap material which would be
recycled under its plan will replace existing supply or will
-------
152
\ '
serve a new market created for such material.
(The statement follows.)
MR. PETER: Thank you, sir, and those were very
pertinent comments.
Anything from the panel?
MR. LINGLE: Let me say, obviously market surveys
are required. The particular point you are making is that
the determination be made that no existing scrap flowing
will be replaced?
DR. CUTLER: What I am saying within the feasibility
study, there has to be a recognition that it is a trade off
for a new market.
MR. LINGLE: Right. I think you would recognize
that that is a difficult thing to do. That sort of analysis
is a very difficult thing to do, to determine whether or not
you are displacing scrap from another source. People have --
in the normal phase of competition between people in the
industry, one quy gets a little bit of another guy's
business and so forth and it's hard to make that determina-
tion.
DR. CUTLER: Not really.
MR. LI!JGLE: Your point is well taken and we will
certainly factor that into our considerations on this
program.
I would want to say in terms of your points about
-------
153
••-4
1 the backlog of scrap and that sort of thing, overall the
2 steel involved in the kind of program we are talking about
3 here, the ferrous metals, in the case of resource recovery
4 plant, we are talking about 8 percent of the materials
5 actually handled and in the case of source separation
6 programs involving multi material separation, we might be
7 talking about 16 percent of that total.
That's obviously only one part of the overall
9 effort. Also, what is in the municipal waste stream is
10 very heavily cans, maybe 60 or 70 percent cans. It's my
11 understanding that that is not the kind of ferrous metal
12 being handled and marketed and which is a part of this
inventory you are talking about for the most part.
14 That tends to flow to a very specific market in
i!> many cases, either detinning or copper precipitation rather
16 than to the markets served by the other steel. The question
1" I am asking in terms of clarification, my impression is that
is the kind of can stock recovered from municipal waste streams
13 is not really competing with what is mostly the marketed,
20 collected and marketed by current recycling in the steel
21 industry.
DR. CUTLER: You've made three separate points
and let me try to address them. You are correct, at the
moment, the general market for which the cans — to which
the cans are addressed is not a competitive market for most
-------
i of the scrap being recovered under present conditions.
2 At the same time, if you look at those markets
3 who realize they are at or near saturation, there is a
4 physical limit to how much leeching you will do in terms of
5 how much copper is available to do it. There is a physical
6 limit to how much ferral alloy production will utilize that
7 material for.
8 We're getting very close if we're not at the
9 limits of those markets, the classical markets. There is
in also the detinning process which will upgrade that material
n into a prime if not equivalent to the prime grade of scrap
12 iron available from the obsolete marketplace.
13 The product is received, when they reach the
H limit, and we think they are close to that now in copper
15 precipitation and ferral alloys, it has to be upgraded and
16 in fact, most of the processes talk about how far away is
17 the detinning plant.
18 As a theoretical and practical matter, the
19 material will be detinned. If it is going to be detinned,
20 it becomes a direct threat not only for the prime material
21 available in the marketplace but it creates all sorts of
22 distortions in the marketplace because if you add more
23 prime then obviously what you will do is, you can dilute it
24 with secondary materials but now you have good prime that's
25 not saleable.
-------
155
/"'--
You have changed the complexion if that is an area
that occurs from worrying about No. 2 bundles to worrying
about No. 1 melting. You will have good quality scrap iron
you could not sell at all and then you could sell secondary
grades because you could dilute it with the upgraded tin can
scrap.
I think your point is correct as far as it went
on that one, namely that to this point, yes, but those
9 marketplaces are being saturated and we're talking here
10 about a lot more tonnage. It might not seen a lot to you
11 in terms of 8 percent or 16 percent, I don't know what
Y2 number is presently used, but we hear anything from 4 to
13 14 million tons of ferrous fraction that could come out
14 into the marketplace.
lf) Whatever the number is, you have to put it as a
]fi percentage of 45 million tons overall being recycled every
17 year. It's anywhere from 10 percent to — 14 over 45 which
18 is more than 10 percent, closer to 30 percent. That's a
19 serious risk displacement problem unless we're talking
90 about an incremental market, unless we're talking about
21 overall buying of scrap will go up from 45 to 50, 55 or 60,
22 whatever the number happens to be and not on a hit or miss
93 basis but continually.
24 Again, the numbers have a way of creating some
problems. You have to take whatever number the fraction is
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
156
and put it over 45 million and suddenly you can see it's
important, it's very important.
Finally, whatever has been put into landfill
historically up to now, whatever tin cans, municipal waste,
ferrous fraction put into landfill up to now is not in the
636 million ton inventory. The concept, when the Nathan
people talked about the concept we considered with them in
some detail before they went out and implemented numbers,
historically, tin cans were not recovered other than the
few things you are talking about, Mr. Lingle, the
precipitation in particular, 97 percent of the containers
put into the economy were considered landfill and lost.
That being the case, they are not in the 636.
They are in the bigger number which is if you spent enough
money, you could recover landfill but that number is up
around 900 million when you start talking about what's in
the landfills.
I don't know if that answers your question.
-MR. LINGLC: Thank you very much.
MR. PETER: Excellent point. Are there any
questions from the audience with respect to Dr. Cutler's
statements?
If not, once again we thank you, sir, and if
there is nothing further from the audience, one last chance.
VOICE: I wonder if you could give some indication
-------
157
1 of your timing on revising grant procedures and final
2 issuance?
3 MR. PETER: The schedule I announced initially is
4 still open but it's September 30th for the issuance of final.
5 For the benefit of those who arrived late, we are looking
6 for September 30th as the issuance date on the final
7 solicitation. We expect responses to be in in about 75
8 days, around December 15th and we hope to be able to make
9 awards on this next April or May or sooner if conditions
10 dictate.
11 VOICE: One last question, do you plan to work
12 closely with the newly created interagency council headed
13 by Jack Watson in identifying available other resources and
H funding that could be a part of these kinds of projects?
ir, For example, community development monies of HUD
16 and EDA monies of the Department of Commerce.
17 MR. LINGLE: There is a task force within EPA
18 representing all of EPA's programs under the present policy
19 that has interacted regularly with the staff at the White
20 House on a whole series of issues. I can't tell you
21 specifically if it includes that but I suppose it probably
22 does.
23 VOICE: Second question is, what efforts will be
24 made with relation to higher disposal and resource recovery
25 efforts in relation to accumulated tires that are deposited
-------
15-8
in open space areas? Will anything be addressed as far as
project — technology in that area does not seem to be
moving very quickly.
MR. PETER: He has a ready answer because I asked
the same question most recently. It has not been a high
priority issue and has never been funded even though it is
contained within RCRA. As for the future, I have no Ouija
board, no crystal ball.
9 Murray, Steve — it was never funded and it is a
10 low priority issue.
ll Yes, sir?
12 VOICE: I am Don Stanz with Kepler Planning Council
in Austin, Texas and I have a question. To insure adequate
u coordination between planning and implementation agencies ,
should not the designated planning agency make application
lb on behalf of the implementation agency or agencies with
17 appropriate pass through of funds according to memorandum
18 of agreement as to how they would work together throughout
19 the study period?
20 MR. PETER: Are you a late arrival?
21 MR. STANZ: Yes — well, I have another commitment
during the noon hour.
MR. PETER: ;Jo problem, I was just trying to
retrace to the point where you may have come in. We've had
a couple of questions related to that one. Steve, why don't
-------
10
11
12
13
14
!.">
16
IT
18
19
20
21
you qo ahead?
MR. LIIJGLE: Let me say generally, there are a lot
of interesting suggestions made here which I am sure we will
certainly consider very seriously in coming up with our
final draft about ways of insuring coordination between
planning and implementation agencies and I think that is
very important.
Whether we do it as specifically as you suggested
which is that the planning agency apply on behalf of the
implementation agency, pass money through or vice versa,
which is the way we have been leaning which is to have the
implementation agency apply on behalf of the planning agency,
so to speak, I don't know.
I think the issue is well taken and we will
certainly try to come up with some logical way of coordinating
the appropriate roles of the two groups in the final
eligibility criteria.
MR. PETER: If you have any further on that, if
you want to expand on that recommendation, I would appreciate
having it in writing for the 25th. The point came up in a
variety of ways several times today and it's one we are
going to have to look at.
Any other questions? Yes, sir?
11R. BOZICK: lly name is Peter Bozick and I am
with a consulting engineering firm. My question is an item
-------
1 that might come under Criteria for Award that I don't see
2 specifically listed.
3 I can perceive where it might come under either
4 category and that would be where a certain implementing
5 agency or there was a certain unique facility — a certain
6 opportunity already in existence, certain unique advantage
7 that town would have to go into a resource recovery program.
8 Provided that some unique facility was already
9 there, would that be under the criteria of prior progress
10 because it is already there or would it be under a criteria
11 to insure success because you are already a step ahead of
12 the game by having something?
13 Do you follow that?
14 MR. PETER: I think — go ahead, Steve.
15 MR. LINGLE: I don't exactly understand what you
16 said. I think what you said is that somebody might already
17 have a facility. If they have a facility, they don't need
18 the help from this program.
19 MR. BOSICK: But they are not using the facility.
20 MR. PETER: That raises real questions.
21 MR. BOSICK: It's not a complete facility. It
22 would not be complete but it's halfway there or something.
23 You have a building structure but you don't have ecruipment
'
24 to go in. Would that be prior progress which is only 15
25 points towards criteria or would it assure more success and
-------
that would be 35 points?
MR. LINGLE: It sounds like the city is already to
the point of construction of a facility.
MR. BOSICK: They didn't construct it, it's just
there, they inherited it.
MR. LINGLE: Let me just say this. It depends on
whether the kinds of things that need to be done are
eligible under this program. It's not clear to me at this
point in time what kind of planning and project development
functions as opposed to purchasing equipment and so forth
would be involved in further progress.
Whether they inherited it or built it themselves,
it sounds like they have reached a point where they have a
partial facility and what they want to do is complete that
facility by putting raore equipment in it. It's just not
obvious at this point that the situation applies to our
program.
VOICE: Would that be determined in terms of
prior progress or more in terns of insuring success?
MR. LIHGLE: I think we will have to talk
individually and sort out exactly what you are talking
about.
MR. PETER: I think we will have to see how it is
submitted. If the community has a problem in solid waste
and has been considering resource recovery and been stymied
-------
1-6-2.,
and all of a sudden through the inheritance of a structure,
a solution now appears on the horizon, but a lot of spade
work has to be done, that's one thing.
Again, I really can't address it in specifics.
Are there any other questions?
If not, we are most grateful for the participation
and I'm sorry I've dragged you so far beyond lunch hour. A
lot of you came from some distance and EPA is most grateful.
9 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 P.M.)
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
•2}
-------
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
DOCKET NUMBER:
CASE TITLE: Resource Recovery Project Development Grants
HEARING DATE: August 18, 1978
7 LOCATION: Washington, D.C.
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence herein
are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me
at the hearing in the above case before the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
12
and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
lo
14 Date: August 24, 1978
15
16
-'Off
Acme Reporting Company
1411 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Official Reporter
11
18 1411 K Street N.W.
19
20
21
23
24
25
-------
environmental
action
foundation
The Dupont Circ'e Building
Suite 724
Washington, D C 20036
Telephone 1202) 659-9682
COMMENTS ON
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
UNDER THE
PRESIDENT'S URBAN POLICY
AUGUST 18, 1978
by
Citizen Coordinator
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
-------
Good morning. My name is-T76is Florence and I
KB°'Sf>KCH 2>/jf£Cft^
am -eltiaen—r ' ' r 1 i n i Lvr for Environmental Action Foundation's
Solid Waste Project. ,-,
I would like to thank the staff of the Office
of Solid Waste for this opportunity to comment on these
proposed procedures to implement the resource recovery
project development grants under the President's Urban
Policy.
First, we would like to voice our support for
the President's proposal. The citizens in our urban
areas are particularly affected by our present solid
waste problems. Resources devoted to these heavily
impacted areas la money well-spent. This program can
not, of course, solve all of our urban trash problems,
but it does represent an effective first step.
However, we do find an inherent contradiction
between the President's Urban Policy Program and section
4008(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The President's policy centers exclusively on resource
recovery and source separation with scant mention
of resource conservation. On the other hand, the
legislation specifically includes resource conservation
in all of the programs authorized under this section.
Therefore, we strongly believe that omitting resource
conservation from this policy would not only seriously
-------
-2-
weaken the program but would also violate both the
letter and the intent of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. We ask that the objective of the
program be altered to reflect this legislative mandate.
Resource conservation must be included as an integral
part of the Urban Policy. In order to encourage cities
to explore resource conservation options, a study reviewing
all possible local resource conservation measures
should be a required part of every resource recovery
strategy. If the implementing authority chooses not to
initiate any resource conservation measures, they
should be required to thoroughly outline tneir reasons
for not doing so. This would ensure that all management
options are investigated equally.
The possible benefits of resource conservation
are immense. To ignore these benefits would be to
discard one of our most effective tools in our fight to
reduce^waste• We therefore ask that the mandate of
section 4008(a) be carried out and resource conservation
be included in aspects of £*£ this important solid waste
policy.
To further emphasize this change in policy, we
recommend that the statement of primary objectives be
changed and expanded. In our view, the first objective
~&e- TV
should.provide for environmentally sound alternatives
to solid waste disposal. The second objective should Pf I &
-------
-3-
accelerate national progress in resource recovery
and res ource con sejr vat ion . The third and final objective
should be to assist economically distressed urban areas.
In keeping with our concern that resource conservation
be included within this program definition, we recommend
that solid waste management agencies identified under
section 4002 of RCRA be awarded these grants instead
of the narrowly defined resource recovery authorities
described in the President's Policy. In some areas,
responsibilities for resource recovery have been separated
from the on-going solid waste planning effort under RCRA.
These narrower agencies, designed to deal with the nuts
and bolts of building a resource recovery facility,
clearly are not in a position to consider the broader
policy opt ions of resource conservation. Awarding
grants to these isolated authorities would unnecessarily*
splinter overall solid waste planning. For similar reasons,
we would also recommend that the requi remen t for a written
agreement from resource recovery authorities be eliminated.
We would, however, be the first to applaud EPA
for including source separation programs in the design of
this program. Early consideration of source separation
as outlined can not only provide necessary information
on markets, but it can ensure that source separation
can be designed to be compatible with resource recovery.
-------
In terms of actually implementing the Urban
Policy we recommend that the EPA Regional Offices
be given the burden of putting the program together
as soon as possible. Unlike the current draft that
calls for the regions to assume responsibility only
after the first year, we recommend that the transfer
occur immediately. We feel that the bureaucratic advantages
of decentralizing the program immediately far out-weigh
any lapses that are bound to occur.
We applaud the Agency for including public participation
in the Urban Policy. But, as the Agency is well aware,
merely including the concept of public participation
is not enough. Specific monies must be available
to make public participation a reality. An initial
investment in public participation at the beginning
can help to insure public support for future solid waste
pro]ects.
We recommend that the criteria for awarding grants
be rewritten to provide better guidance for potential
£-XAnPl£S
grantees. Are the irftssps listed below the criteria
ii j j I 1 i ii n inn In or are they required? We would
also add ^n effective public participation program as
one of the criteria for an award. In addition, we would
ask that all on-going projects be required to demonstrate
-------
-5-
that they have thoroughly examined all resource conservation
and source separation alternatives.
These requirements serve a double purpose. They help
ensure public involvement in the program. But more
importantly, the requirements would provide an informed citizenry
for other phases of RCRA implementation. Their tax
dollars will ultimately be needed to support changes.
And this era of Proposition 13, the importance of
citizen support can not be over-emphasized.
But in spite of these problems, we believe that
this program does represent an important commitment
to our cities trash problems. We support this effort
and hope that this represents a continued commitment
eM
-i£ui the Administration in the area of solid waste management.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
important issue.
-------
^\JnlionnP ,Oo(W ^l
TESTIMONY
of
Charles A. Johnson
Technical Director
National Solid Wastes Management Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 930
Washington, D.C. 2003&
Presented at Public Hearing
Resource Recovery
Project Development
Grants Under The
President's Urban
Policy
Washington, D.C.
August 18, 1978
-------
1.
The National Solid Wastes Management Association, whose members consist
(Y<
of most of the leading firms"providing the service of solid waste manage-
ment including resource recovery, is pleased to have the opportunity to
comment on the Resource Recovery Project Development Grants Program under
the President's Urban Policy. Members of NSWMA are now participating in
many resource recovery projects including some that have been operating
for a number of years and others are now in the various stages of the planning
process. We are therefore well prepared to comment on the subject of
planning grants.
Providing planning grants for resource recovery projects is not a. new
venture for the Environmental Protection Agency. During 1975 and 1976
a dozen such grants were awarded and there is a history of experience
from which to benefit in setting up a new program. The history of the
earlier program is disappointing. To our knowledge, out of a dozen
grants there has emerged only one resource recovery project and that project
is recovering a bare minimum of resources.
Experience has shown that the planning phase of a resource recovery project
is in fact as much a promotional effort as it is one of actual project plan-
ning. The promotional effort is often characterized by conflicts of interest,
technological oversell, and a disruption of the existing solid waste manage-
ment system of the community. The press and the general public often become
involved, prematurely we believe, before feasibility is even established.
Our comments today will address th£se and other related points.
-------
2.
First, we are pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed
to require that communities demonstrate their good faith in implementing
resource recovery by providing some of the funding for the planning process
at the community level. But we question whether level of required local
funding is sufficient for the prupose. After deducting in-kind contributions,
the local community would be required to fund only 17% of the total project
cost. We would have preferred to see this number two or three times that
amount. Also we note that local communities are not precluded from using
state-provided funds for their contribution toward the project. We believe
that state funds should not be allowed as part of the local matching funds.
As an important demonstration of local sincerity, we urge that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency require each community receiving an award to assign
a full-time Project Manager to the project. In several cities throughout
the country this seems to have made the difference between a successful and
an unsuccessful project implementation. Without a person with decision-making
authority in charge of the project, the community cannot complete those
tasks which only it can do. For that reason we urge that each community
awarded a grant be required to assign to the project a full-time Project
Manager. The application for the grant should be required to contain a
position description for this person including qualifications and responsibi-
lities. An important consideration in selecting a community for an award
should be an evaluation of the position description so that the Environmental
Protection Agency can be assured that the incumbent will have the requisite
level of authority.
-------
3.
Applications for planning grants should be required to contain a
statement documenting the need for resource recovery in the community
and the purpose of the proposed resource recovery project.
In selecting those applicants to be awarded grants, the Environmental
Protection Agency should place much weight on the real need for resource
recovery and whether the stated purpose of the project will meet that need.
Communities which cannot document a need or which state unrealistic objectives
should be disqualified. For example, seldom can a community reduce its cost
of waste management by implementing resource recovery. An increase in cost
is the usual experience. An application which states cost reduction as its
objective should be suspect. Also a community cannot eliminate land disposal
•SL'CH
by implementing resource recovery and -ekaeto- an objective should be questioned.
Planning grants should be awarded to support well conceived projects which
have a reasonable chance of meeting the needs that have been determined.
The matter of conflict of interest is of very great concern to the private
waste management industry and it should be of equal concern to the general
public. Most often planning functions are carried out by private firms
under contract with local communities. Sometimes these'private firms have
business objective that includes carrying out one or more of the functions
required to actually implement a resource recovery project. These could
include engineering design, construction, supply of equipment, or even
operation of the completed facility. Therefore it becomes a vested interest
of the firm to have the project move ahead. Under such circumstances an
objective planning function can hardly be assured.
a
We urge that the Environmental Protection Agency place strict limitations
on future participation in a project by any firm that receives a contract
-------
A.
funded under the Planning Grant Program. We believe that at a minimum,
contractors receiving grant funds directly or indirectly should be precluded
from carrying out any of the functions indicated above,
I mentioned,earlier that a resource recovery planning effort can
be disruptive on the existing waste management system. These disruptions
occur because of the extensive press coverage and public interest that
often occurs during the early stages of resource recovery planning. Projects
are often oversold even by those who should be providing objective and un-
biased analysis. We doubt that neither the Environmental Protection Agency
nor any other agency is in a position to prepare written rules to protect
against this type of occurrence. But we can ask that the EPA provide, as
a condition of the grant, close scrutiny of the activities funded under the
grant. EPA should retain the right to intervene with firm suggestions
if it appears that the community is deviating from the conditions of the
award.
One final point, the proposed grant procedures state that "EPA will award
grants to only the applicants jointly identified by State and appropriate
locally elected officials for plan implementation responsibilities in
resource recovery." Some people have assumed that the agency responsible
for plan implementation would necessarily be the owner and
or ft /V-t TE<- r
possibly operator, project manager or even the designer.and therefore
planning grant money would be available only for projects completely in the
public sector. We do not believe this to be the intent of EPA or RCRA but
inasmuch as there is some confusion on this point we urge EPA to clarify
the possible different roles of the implementing agency and the resource
-------
5.
recovery procurement options that might be used.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment today on this important
Environmental Protection Agency Program.
-------
STATEMENT OF MALCOLM J. CHASE, CHAIRMAN
ON BEHALF OF: LAMPREY REGIONAL S.LID WASTE COOPERATIVE
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUGUST 18, 1978
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C.
GENTLEMEN,
I AM MALCOLM J, CHASE, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER-
FORMERLY WITH THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS FOR MANY YEARS, AND PRESENTLY, SINCE
MY RETIREMENT FROM THAT ORGANIZATION, ENGAGED IN THE
PRIVATE PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING. IN PUBLIC LIFE, I
HAVE BEEN A SELECTMAN IN THE TOWN OF DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE,
FOR MANY YEARS, AND AM PRESENTLY A MEMBER OF A NUMBER
OF STATE STATUTORY ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE BOARD OF
REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS.
I AM HERE TO REPRESENT, AS THEIR CHAIRMAN,
A GROUP OF TWELVE C OMMUNI TIE'S IN THE SEACOAST AREA OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE, WHO HAVE, UNDER STATE STATUTES, JOINED
TOGETHER IN A COOPERATIVE EFFORT IN MEETING THE FEDERAL
AND STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
REQUIREMENTS.
-------
-2-
TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS PRESENTLY IN
EFFECT, THESE TWELVE TOWNS HAVE ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES
AS THE LAMPREY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COOPERATIVE AND
HAVE COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO A 15-YEAR PROGRAM FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN I NC I N ER AT OR/ENERG'r
RECOVERY SYSTEM ON THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
CAMPUS. BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS, THE TOWNS HAVE FURTHER
OBLIGATED FUNDS IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE WASTE
WHICH THEY GENERATE TO PAY FOR BOTH THE COST OF CON-
STRUCTION AND OPERATION, THE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY IN
THE DESIGN STAGE, WITH CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TO START
EARLY IN 1979,
IN ORDER THAT YOU AND YOUR AGENCY MAY BE
APPRECIATIVE OF THE PRECEDENT-SETTING EFFORT THAT HAS
BEEN MADE IN ASSEMBLING THIS PROGRAM, IT SEEMS APPRO-
PRIATE TO TAKE THE TIME TO DEVELOP A BRIEF HISTORY OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO ITS DEVELOPMENT,
IN THE PAST, THE TOWN OF DURHAM, AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HAVE JOINTLY OWNED AND
OPERATED A SOLID WASTE INCINERATOR LOCATED ON TOWN
PROPERTY. IN 1975, THE JOINT TOWN -UNI VERSITY OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE INCINERATOR COMMITTEE DECIDED IT WAS
NECESSARY TO FORMULATE A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR OPERATION
OF THE SOLID WASTE INCINERATOR AND THE DISPOSAL OF
SOLID WASTE, A CONSULTANT WAS ENGAGED TO EVALUATE
THE PRESENT OPERATION AND TO DEVELOP ALTERNATE PLANS
FOR THE FUTURE.
-------
-3-
SPECIFICALLY, (HE CONSULTANT WAS ASKED TO
CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING A SECOND
INCINERATOR ON THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS IN DURHAM TO
PERMIT HEAT RECOVERY FROM THE INCINERATION PROCESS AND
TO INVOLVE SEVERAL TOWNS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS IN
THE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, THE
DESIRABILITY OF ESTABLISHING A COOPERATIVE VENTURE FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE BECAME EVEN MORE APPARENT
WHEN YOUR AGENCY ADVISED MANY OF THE SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES THAT TI^EY WOULD HAVE TO DISCONTINUE
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT NOTIFIED THE UNIVERSITY AND THE TOWN OF
DURHAM THAT ITS JOINT INCINERATOR HAD FAILED EMISSION
CONTROL STANDARDS, WHICH PROBABLY COULD BE REMEDIED
ONLY AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE.
A COMMITTEE WAS FORMED CONSISTING OF REPRESEN-
TATIVES OF THE TOWN OF DllRHAM, THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE/ AND THOSE TOWNS WHICH HAD INDICATED AN INTEREST
IN JOINING A REGIONAL SOLID WASTE VENTURE. A CONSULTANT
WAS ENGAGED TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF SUCH AN
ENTERPRISE AND THE TOWNS AGREED TO SHARE THE COST OF SUCH
A STUDY. AFTER CONSIDERABLE INVESTIGATION AND NUMEROUS
MEETINGS WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE SEVERAL TOWNS, THE CONSULTANT MADE
THE FOLLOWING BASIC FINDINGS WHICH WERE CONTAINED IN A
PRELIMINARY REPORT:
-------
1. THE TOWNS AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE COULD OBTAIN AN ECONOMICAL SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THE UNIVERSITY
COULD CONSERVE FOSSIL FUEL BY GENERATING STEAM
FROM REFUSE COMBUSTION,
2. A SYSTEM OF INCINERATORS-BOILERS COULD
BE SITED BEHIND THE EXISTING UNIVERSITY OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE STEAM PLANT IN DURHAM WHICH COULL FEED
STEAM DIRECTLY INTO THE UNIVERSITY'S STEAM LOOP.
3. THE STEAM GENERATED BY SUCH A SYSTEM
WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNIVERSITY'S
STEAM REQUIREMENTS AND, AT THE SAME TIME, WOULD
BE SMALL ENOUGH TO BE IN LINE WITH THE MINIMUM
(SUMMER) REQUIREMENTS.
1. BOTH THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND
THE TOWNS WOULD OBTAIN A SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS BY
DISPOSING OF THEIR SOLID WASTE THROUGH SUCH A
JOINT VENTURE COMPARED TO THE COST OF INDIVIDUAL
OR COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, AND AS FAR AS
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE TOWN
OF DURHAM ARE CONCERNED, UP-GRADING THE PRESENT
INCINERATOR.
-------
-5-
THE TOWNS OF HARRINGTON, DURHAM, EPPING, GREENLAND,
LEE, MADBURY, NEWFIELDS, NEWINSTON, NEWMARKET, NORTHWOOD,
ROLLINSFORD AND STRATHAM VOTED TO FORM THE LAMPREY
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COOPERATIVE. THE AGREEMENT WHEREBY
THE COOPERATIVE WAS ESTABLISHED HAS BEEN APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND SUBSTANCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, AND BY BOND
COUNSEL .
THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT TO YOU TODAY is
TO SOLICIT THE ASSISTANCE OF YOUR AGENCY IN EXPLORING
POSSIBLE SOURCES OF FUNDS WHICH MIGHT BE MADE AVAILABLE
FOR BOTH THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, AND EVEN
THE OPERATION, OF THIS UNIQUE REGIONAL PROGRAM, AND
THEREBY REDUCE THE COSTS BEING ENGENDERED BY THE
COMMUNITIES INVOLVED, WHILE WE HAVE BEEN PURSUING
THIS MATTER FOR SOME TIME, IT OCCURRED TO US THAT
MEMBERS OF YOUR STAFF DEALING WITH ENERGY CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY PROGRAMS MIGHT WELL SUGGEST OTHER AVENUES
TO EXPLORE IN OBTAINING ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE COST
OF THE PROGRAM.
IT HAS SEEMED TO US THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A
PRECEDENT FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW WHEREBY 12 INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITIES HAVE AT TWO SUCCESSIVE TOWN MEETINGS VOTED
TO COMMIT THEMSELVES TO A 15-YEAR SOLID WASTE, ENERGY
RECOVERY PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR ENGINEERING,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE FACILITY, IT WOULD
-------
APPEAR THAT THE PROGRESSIVE APPROACH THAT WE HAVE
TAKEN WOULD ENABLE US TO STAND VERY HIGH IN THE LISTING
FOR SUCH PARTICIPATING FINDS AS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR
THIS TYPE OF ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECT AND WE WOULD
HOPE THAT YOU WOULD QIVE US ALL ASSISTANCE POSSIBLE
IN FURTHERING OUR INVESTIGATION OF THE AVAILABILITY
OF SUCH FUNDS,
-------
-6-
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AT THIS POINT/ THAT
OUR EXPERIENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE AT THIS HEARING,
ARE RELATED TO THE EFFORTS OF A NUMBER OF SMALL COMMUNI-
TIES SITUATED IN A RAPIDLY GROWING (PERHAPS THE FASTEST
IN THE UNITED STATES) URBANIZED AREA, NEARLY FORTY
THOUSAND PEOPLE/ VOTE*' AT THEIR INDIVIDUAL TOWN MEETINGS
TO JOIN TOGETHER IN THIS PROGRAM. WlTH THIS IN MIND,
WE WISH TO RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING POINTS WHEREIN WE
BELIEVE THAT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WOULD MEASURABLY
STIMULATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIMILAR PROGRAMS IN
SIMILAR AREAS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. SPECIFICALLY,
IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION, THAT FEDERAL AND PERHAP S
STATE ASSISTANCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING
AREAS :
1, PLANNING - WHILE THE COST OF A PRELIMINARY
PLANNING PROGRAM IS NOT GREAT, GRANTS-IN-
AID TO ANALYZE THE INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM OF
EACH TOWN TO INCLUDE COLLECTION, STORAGE,
TRANSPORTATION AND, OF ALMOST EQUAL IMPORTANCE,
RECYCLING AND ITS IMPACT ON ALL OF THE FORE-
_i- (.A/ t~>i- >/ '''• -,>//s (.•'.*
GOING^ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE HERE WOULD
DEVELOP THE KIND OF UNDERSTANDING WHICH WE
FOUND TO BE ESSENTIAL FOR PRESENTATION TO THE
VOTERS FOR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AT THEIR TOWN
MEETINGS AND FOR SUPPORT IN AUTHORIZING FURTHER
EFFORTS .
-------
-7-
2. RECYCLING - THE GREATEST SUPPORT TO ENHANCE
AN UNDERSTANDING AND PARTICIPATION IN THE
RECYCLING OF CERTAIN MATERIALS, WHICH WE
FEEL IS A VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE END
PRODUCT, THE RECOVERY OF ENERGY FROM DISPOSABLE
MATERIALS, IS TO DEVELOP A FIRMER AND HIGHER-
REWARDING (FINANCIAL) PROGRAM FOR RECYCLED
PRODUCTS. PRINCIPALLY, THESE PRODUCTS ARE
GLASS AND METALS AND, IN SOME CASES, HIGH
QUALITY NEWSPRINT. IN MANY CASES WE BELIEVE
THAT THE OPTIMUM IN CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
FROM NEWSPRINT MAY BE IN THE PRODUCTION OF
HEAT AND ENERGY THEREFROM, THE STABILIZATION
AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE PRICE OF RECYCLABLES,
IN OUR OPINION, WOULD CARRY THE MAJOR PORTION
OF THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF RECYCLING.
3. PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR REGIONAL ENERGY
RECOVERY SYSTEMS - IN A COOPERATIVE VENTURE
SUCH AS OURS, THE COST PER COMMUNITY FOR
ENGINEERING DESIGNS IS RELATIVELY SMALL.
HCWEVER, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, IN THIS STAGE OF
A PROGRAM WOULD MEASURABLY SPEED UP THE
PROGRAM AND AVOID MUCH OF THE DELAYS WHICH
WE ENCOUNTERED BY A NECESSITY FOR THE STAGED
COOPERATIVE EFFORT EXTENDING OVER TWO TOWN
MEETING YEARS. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS CAN
BE SUBSTANTIAL IN PUTTING TOGETHER A REGIONAL
PROGRAM SUCH AS OURS,
-------
4. CONSTRUCTION - FROM OUR EXPERIENCE, IT
WOULD APPEAR THAT A TREMENDOUS INCENTIVE
FOR THE COMMUNITIES SUCH AS OURS TC MOVE
AHEAD WOULD BE THE FUNDING OF THE INCINERATOR/
ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY, EITHER DIRECTLY
THROUGH GRANTS-IN-AID SUCH AS THOSE NOW IN
EFFECT IN THE WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS, OR THROUGH LOW-INTEREST,
LONG RANGE LOAN PROGRAMS. THE LATTER ARRANGE-
MENT WOULD THEN PERMIT COMMUNITIES TO PARTI-
CIPATE IN THE ON-GOING PROGRAM WITH FUNDS
BUDGETED YEARLY IN THEIR REGULAR OPERATING
BUDGETS. THE HIGH COST OF THE TOTAL PACKAGE
OF INCINERATION AND ENERGY RECOVERY IS SUCH
THAT INCENTIVES AS DESCRIBED ABOV€ WOULD
ENGENDER GREATER SUPPORT BY PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITIES, AND WOULD TEND TO SPEED UP THE
ENTIRE PROGRAM,
5. OPERATIONS - ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT
FEATURES FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND 'THAT THE
/!
DISPOSAL OF EVERY-DAY SOLID WASTES IS NOT A
MONEY-MAKING PROPOSITION AND THAT IT DOES
COST MONEY TO HANDLE IT AND DISPOSE OF IT.
WITH THIS IN MIND, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THE
PARTICIPANTS IN A PROGRAM LIKE OURS, SHOULD
FULLY UNDERWRITE THE OPERATIONAL COSTS INHERENT
IN THE INCINERATION AND ENERGY RECOVERY ELEMENT
OF THE PROGRAM, TO INSURE THAT THE OPERATION
-------
-9-
IS CONDUCTED IN THE MOST EFFICIENT AND
ECONOMICAL MANNER POSSIBLE.
To BETTER UNDERSTAND THE EFFORT AND COMMITMENTS
MADE, I AM PRESENTING A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS
APPROVED BY THE COOPERATING TOWNS AT THEIR RESPECTIVE
MEETINGS, AS WELL AS A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT
(DECLARATION OF INTENT) WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE .
WE WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING FROM APPROPRIATE
MEMBERS OF YOUR STAFF AS TO THE VALIDITY OF OUR REQUEST
AND IF IT APPEARS APPROPRIATE, ADVISE US AS TO THE
AVENUES WHICH WE SHOULD TAKE TO FOLLOW IT FURTHER.
WE WOULD BE MORE THAN PLEASED TO PROVIDE YOUR PEOPLE
WITH THE ADDITIONAL DETAILED INFORMATION WHICH HAS BEEN
DEVELOPED IN OUR PROGRAM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MALCOLM" J . CHASE , P .E .
CHAIRMAN
LAMPREY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
COOPERATIVE
c/o MEWINGTON TOWN HALL
NEWINGTON, N.H. 03801
-------
AGREEMENT FOR FORMATION OF ' iMPKEY REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE COOPERATIVE
WHEREAS, the municipalities to this Agreement have the
duty to provide for the disposal of solid waste generated with-
in their respective territories; and
WHEREAS, the municipalities to this Agreement have det-
ermined that it will be a more efficient use of their powers
and to their mutual advantage to enter into this Agreement; and
WHEREAS,
-------
ARTICLE I I_
ORGANIZATION
The municipalities joining in this Agreement do hereby
associate together for the purpose of forming the Lamprey
Regional Solid Waste Cooperative to administer and operate
a solid waste disposal and energy recovery facility.
ARTICLE III
ADOPTION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall not take effect with respect to
the municipalities signing this Agreement unless all ol the
following occur:
A. The terms of this Agreement conform to the specific
requests of the Attorney General, provided that the failure
of the Attorney General to approve of this Agreement within
thirty days of its submission for review shall constitute
approval thereof as provided in RSA 53-A:3
B. This Agreement lias been filed with the Clerk of each
municipality voting to approve it and with the Olfice of the
Secretary of State.
C. The combined capital authorization of the municipalities
voting to adopt this Agreement at the 1978 annual meeting amounts
to $2,420,000; provided that the vote of each municipality to
adopt this Agreement and appropriate a pro-rata share of the
initial capital investment shall be deemed to continue until
July 1, 1978.
D. In the event the combined capital authorisation of the
municipal i ties voting to approve of this Ap, moment at the 1978
-------
ADOPTION OF AGREEMKNT continued
annual meeting does not amount to $2,420,000 this Agreement
shall be adopted as follows:
1. The Boards of Selectmen of the municipalities voting
to adopt this Agreement and voting to appropriate a pro-rata
share of the capital cost of the facility, shall each appoint
a director to serve on a provisional board which shall exist
until no later than July 1, 1978.
The provisional board shall have the limited authority to
(a) solicit the membership of additional municipalities
to the Cooperative;
(b) to determine the pro-rata capital contribution and
net operating contribution of new members; and
(c) to assess municipalities a pro-rata share of the
legal, administrative, and consulting costs associated with
the format ion of the Cooperative even though the solid waste
disposal and energy recovery facility is not construe Led.
2. A municipality or municipalities shall be invited to
join the Cooperative subject to such terms and conditions
as decided by a majority of the provisional board.
3. If this Agreement is approved by a majority vote of
the legislative body of the municipality seeking admission
to the Cooperative, said municipality shall become a 'ncmber
of the Cooperative subject to all the provisions of this Agree-
ment, any amendments thereto and such furt'ier conditions as
imposed by the provisional board.
-------
ADOPTION OF AGREEMENT continued
4. As soon as the combined capital authorization of the
municipalities approving this Agreement no later than July 1,
1978 amounts to $2,420,000, then an organizational meeting of
the directors of the respective municipalities shall be con-
vened and the process of financing the cost of construction
and the cost of operation of the solid waste disposal and
energy recovery facility shall be implemented as provided in
Articles VI and VII hereof.
ARTICLE IV
ADMTNISTRAT_IpN
The powers, duties and responsibilities of the Cooperative
shall be vested in and exercised by a joint board. Each munici-
pality joining in this Agreement shall be represented by one
director who, in the first instance, shall be appointed by the
Board of Selectmen of the respective municipality. Each direc-
tor shall have one ,vote.
The terms of office of the directors representing the re-
spective municipalities approving this Agreement shall be fixed
as follows:
Phase I. The directors for the towns of Barrington, Durham,
Epping, Greenland and Lee shall have an initial term of one year.
Subsequent directors representing said municipalities shall be
appointed by the Boards of Selectmen and shall serve for terms
of three years.
Phase II. The directors for the towns of Madbury, Newfields,
NewJngton and Newmarket shall serve an initial term of two years.
Subsequent directors representing said municipalities shall be
-------
ADMINISTRATION continued
appointed by the Boards of Selectmen and shall serve for terms
of three years.
Phase III. The directors for the towns of Northwood,
Rollinsford, Strafford and Stratham shall serve an initial
term of tnree years. Subsequent directors representing said
municipalities shall be appointed by the Boards of Selectmen
and shall serve for terms of three years.
In the event of resignation, incapacity or death of a
director, the Board of Selectmen of the municipality so
affected shall appoint an interim director to fill the un-
expired portion of the vacant office.
Any director may be removed from office by the municipality
which he represents for any reason which would justify the
removal of a public official under the law of New Hampshire.
Upon the effective date of this Agreement, or as soon there-
after as possible, the directors shall hold an organizational
meeting to elect officers, to appoint an operational committee
and to appoint such other committees as the joint board shall
deem necessary. The joint board shall at its annual meeting,
elect officers to serve for a term of one year. The terms of
committee members Khal] be for such periods as fixed by the
joint board.
The joint board shall choose a chairran by ballot from its
membership. It shall appoint a secretary and treasurer who
may be the same person, but who need not be members of the joint
-------
ADMINISTRATION continued
board, The treasurer shall receive and take charge of all
money belonging to the Coopeiative and shall pay any bill of
the Cooperative which has been approved by the joint board.
In the event the Treasurer is not a member of the joint board
he shall serve at the pleasure of the board, otherwise he
shall serve for a term of one year. The treasurer may by
vote of the joint board, be compensated for his services.
The directors shall appoint from their membership an oper-
ational committee consisting of three members. This committee
shall have the responsibility of making recommendations to the
joint board with regard to the ordinary operation and mainten-
ance of the solid waste disposal and energy recovery facility.
The joint board shall meet at least bi-monthly. A special
meeting of the joint board may be called by the chairman or by
any three directors. Unless otherwise provided by this Agree-
ment, all questions decided by the joint board shall be approved
by a majority vote of the directors representing all of the
municipalities belonging to the Cooperative. A quorum for any
meeting of the joint board shall consist of one more than one-
half of the directors representing all of the municipalities
belonging to the Cooperative.
The joint board may adopt by-laws for the conduct of busi-
ness as long as said by-laws do not conflict with the terms of
this Agreement or the provisions of RSA 53-A.
ARTICLE V
POWERS
The Cooperative shall have the following powers and duties:
-------
POWERS continued
I. To sue and be sued, but only to the extent and upon
the same conditions that a city or town may be sued.
II. To hold, purchase, convey or lease real or personal
property for the lawful purposes of the Cooperative and to
plan, construct, equip and operate a solid waste disposal and
energy recovery facility for the benefit of the member munici-
palities and to make any necessary contracts in relation thereto.
III. To receive and disburse funds for any lawful purpose
for which the Cooperative was formed.
IV. To assess member municipalities for any expenses in-
curred for the purposes for which the Cooperative was formed.
V. To create a reserve fund for operation from any surplus
remaining on hand at the end of any fiscal year, provided that
the amount transferred to said fund shall not in any one year
exceed five percent (5%) of the operating budget of the Cooper-
ative for the prior year.
VI. To create a capital reserve fund from any surplus re-
maining at the end of any fiscal year provided that the amount
transferred to said fund shall not exceed one percent (1%) of
the last year assessed valuation of the municipalities belonging
to the Cooperative.
VII. To engage legal counsel.
VIII. To submit an annual report to each of the member
municipalities containing a detailed financial statement and a
statement showing a method by which the annual charges assessed
against each municipality were computed.
-------
POWERS continued
IX. To engage employees and consultants to operate the
Cooperative.
X. To enter into contracts for solid waste disposal with
persons, corporations, non-member municipalities and any other
lawful political entities.
XI. To engage in any lawful act or activity for which a
"legal or administrative entity" as definod by RSA 53-A:3(II)
(b) may be organized and to do any and all of the acts herein
set forth or implied and such other acts as are incidental or
conducive to the attainment of the objects and purposes of the
Cooperative.
ARTICLE VI
CAPITAL COST
A. The capital cost for the solid waste disposal and
energy recovery facility, including equipment, construction,
engineering and startup expense, has been estimated at $2,420,000
which includes a ten percent (10%) overrun allowance.
B. The solid waste generated by the municipalities listed
in this paragraph for the year 1977 has been estimated by
the consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. and
set out on page 9 of a certain Final Report entitled "Feas-
ibility Study of Regional Solid Waste Incineration Plant for
Durham, New Hampshire (Lamprey River) Region, dated December 27,
1977. Said estimates are hereby ratified and affirmed by the
municipalities executing this Agreement. Based upon said
-------
CAPITAL COST continued
estimates the capital cost of the solid waste disposal and
energy recovery facility, including a ten percent (10%)
overrun allowance shall be apportioned as follows:
Municipality Pro-Rata Share Capital Cost Inc-
luding 10% Allow-
ance for Overrun
Lee
rrington
irham
eenland
^e
dbury
:wf ields
wington
wmarket
rthwood
llinsford *
rafford *
ratham
ping *
14.
22.
7.
6.
2,
3.
12.
14.
8.
5.
3.
7.
10.
54%
33%
28%
75%
86%
12%
98%
03%
57%
97%
12%
54%
04%
$ 351,868
540, 386
176,176
163,350
69,212
75,504
314,116
339,526
207,394
144,474
75,504
182,468
251,680
*The pro-rata capital contributions of the municipalities of
Strafford, Epping, and Rollinsford have been determined as follows:
The solid waste generated by Strafford, Epping, and Rollins-
ford in the year 1977 has been estimated by employing the same
method used by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. to estimate
the solid waste generated by the municipalities listed on
page 9 of said Final Report. The resulting estimates were
divided by the total estimate for the municipalities listed
on page 9 of said Fin il Report <385 tons per week) . These
percentages were multiplied by the figure of $2,420,000 to
-------
CAPITAL COST continued
arrive at the respectixe pro-rata capital contribution of
Strafford and Rollinsford.
C. In the event the Cooperative is established by the
process contained in Article III, Paragraph D, the capital
cost for the solid waste disposal and energy recovery facil-
ity, including equipment, construction, engineering and
startup expense, p]us ten percent (10%) allowance for overrun
shall be appottioned as follows'.
For those municipalities approving this Agreement at the
1978 annual meeting, the joint board shall determine the solid
waste generated by said municipalities in 1977 by using the
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. figures set out on page 9 of
said Final Report. For those municipalities adopting this
Agreement between the 1978 annual meeting and July 1, 1978,
the joint board shall determine the solid waste generated by
said municipalities for the year 1977 by employing the same
method of estimation used by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc.
in said Final Report.
The resulting figures shall be divided by the total figure
for all the municipalities approving this Agreement. The esti-
mated percent of solid waste generated toy each mui.icipality
shall be multiplied by the figure of $2,420,000. The result-
ing figures shall be the capital contribution of each munici-
pality for the initial year.
-------
CAPITAL COST continued
In the > vent the solid waste generated by any municipal-
ity in the irst full year of operation exceeds or is less
than the amount estimated by either Camp, Dresser and McKee,
Inc. or the joint board for the year 1977, there shall be no
reapportionment of the capital contribution of any municipality
made during the first year of operation of the facility.
ARTICLE VII
COST OF OPERATION
A. The term "net cost of operation" or "net operating
cost" shall mean all costs and expenses of the Cooperative
relating to the operation and maintenance of the solid waste
disposal and energy recovery facility, including without
limitation, all costs of accepting, processing, storing and
disposing of waste, labor, utilities and all costs associated
with spare parts, equipment, insurance, maintenance of equip-
ment and facilities, cleaning services, general outside ac-
counting service, consulting services and legal services, and
all costs and expenses relating to the payment of any bond
or indebtedness, including principal, interest and bonding
charges, whether incurred by one municipality or two or more
municipalities for the benefit of the Cooperative, minus any
revenues received by the Cooperative in exchange for the sale
of energy or from the sale of by-products recovered from the
processing of said waste.
Provided, further, that the costs incurred by the individual
-------
COST OF _0?ERATION continued
municipalities for transporting solid waste to the solid
waste disposal and energy recovery facility shall not be
considered in determining the net operating cost.
B. The net cost of operating said facility for the
first year shall be apportioned as follows:
Municipality Pro-Rata Share
Barr inytt n 14 . 54%
Durham 22.33%
Greenland. 7.28%
Lee 6.75%
Madbury 2.86%
Newfields 3.12%
Newington 12.98%
Newmarket 14.03%
Northwood 8.57%
Rollinsford 5.97% *
Strafford 3.12% *
Stratham 7.54%
Epping 10.04% *
*The pro-rata contribution of the municipalities of Strafford,
Rollinsford, and Epping to the "net cost of operation" of the
Cooperative for the first year has been determined as follows:
The solid waste generated by Strafford, Rollinsford, and
Epping (Art. VI-C) in the year 1977 has been estimated by employing
the same method used by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. to estimate
the solid waste generated by the municipalities listed on page 9 of
said Final Report. The resulting estimates were divided by the
-------
COST OF OPERATION continued
total estimate for the municipalities listed on page 9 of
said Final Report (385 tons per week). These percentages
shall be 1 he pro-rata contributions of the municipalities
of Strafford and Rollinsford toward the net operating cost
of the facility for the first year of operation.
C. The net cost of operating the solid waste disposal
and energy recovery facility during the following years shall
be computed as follows:
The joint board shall determine the solid waste actually
processed for each municipality j n the preceding year from
records maintained at the facility. The resulting figures
shall be divided by the whole figure of solid waste generated
«
by all the municipalities. This percent of solid waste gen-
erated by each municipality shall be multiplied by an estimate
of the net cost of operation for the next year as determined
by the joint board.
The resulting figures shall be the mandatory annual oper-
ational fee for each municipality.
D. The success of the Cooperative is premised upon the
assumption that each municipality shall process a minimum per-
centage of the total solid waste processed at the facility
each year. The failure of the Cooperative to receive a guar-
anteed percentage from each municipality during the term of
this contract will result in a loss of revenue from the sale
of energy and by-products and will produce a cot responding
increase in the cost of operating the facility. Accordingly,
after the second full year of membership in the Cooperative,
-------
COST OF OPERATION continued
each municipality approving this Agreement guarantees to pro-
cess annually a minimum percentage of the entire solid waste
processed at the facility which percentage shall equal the
average of the percentages processed by it during the first
and second years of membership.
In the event a municipality fails to process its guaranteed
percentage of the total amount of solid waste processed at the
facility, the joint board shall, nevertheless, assess said mun-
icipality its mandatory pro-rata operational fee based upon said
guaranteed percentage.
Furthermore, the joint board shall be permitted to assign
that portion of the guaranteed percentage which any municipality
fails to meet, to a member of the Cooperative or to a non-member
municipality upon such terms and conditions as the joint board
deems advisable. Any solid waste collected and processed pur-
suant to such an assignment shall not be credited to the mun-
iciaplity which fails to meet its guaranteed percentage.
E. Each member of the Cooperative shall be guaranteed that
during the term of this Agreement it shall be permitted to pro-
cess a certain percentage of the total solid waste processed
at the facility in any one year, which percentage shall at least
be equal to the average of the percentage processed by it during
the first and second years of membership in the Cooperative.
F. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agr. ement, the
Cooperative may, by a two-thirds majority vote of the joint
board, decide to adjust the relative pro-rata shares of the
members in regard to initial capitalization, net operating fees
-------
COST OF OPERATION continued
and guaranteed percentages.
ARTICLE VIII
OPERATING AGREEMENT
It 1^ anticipated that the Cooperative may enter into an
operating agreement with the University of New Hampshire for
the operation and maintenance of the solid waste disposal and
energy recovery facility. Each municipality joining the Co-
operative agrees th it it will be bound by the te.ms and pro-
visions of the operating agreement relating to, but not nec-
essarily limited to, such subjects as vehicular regulations,
liability for processing of hazardous waste, hours of operation
and health and safety regulations.
ARTICLE IX
PREPARATION OF ANNUAL BUDGET
Each year the joint board shall determine the amounts nec-
essary to bo raised to maintain and operate the Cooperative
during the next calendar year and the amounts required for
payment of debt and interest incurred by the Cooperative that
will be due in the next calendar year. The joint board shall
prepare a budget and make a preliminary apportionment of the
amount so dc-termined among the member municipal] ( ies in accord-
ance with the terms of this Agreement. Prior to December 31st
the joint board shall hold at least one public boaring at
some convenient place in the Cooperative on the imounts re-
quired in the budget and the preliminary apportionment of the
amounts lis'ed in the budget. At least seven dtiys notice of
the meeting shall l>e given by publicai ion of the- budget and
-------
PREPARATION OF ANNUAL BUDGET continued
apportionment in a newspaper or newspapers of general circul-
ation within the Cooperative and by posting a copy of the bud-
get and apportionment in a public place in each municipality
in the Cooperative.
After the hearing the joint board shall adopt a budget
and make a final determination of the apportionment among the
member municipalities. After the jo:nt board has adopted the
budget and.determined the apportionment of the expenses, the
Cooperative treasurer shall certify to the Boards of Selectmen
of the member municipalities in the Cooperative the amount of
money assessed each municipality. The selectmen of each mun-
icipality shall seasonably assess the taxes to be raised to
pay the apportionments. The municipality treasurer shall pay
to the Cooperative the amount so apportioned in quarterly in-
stallments each year.
The joint board shall cause a certified public accountant
licensed to practice in either the State of New Hampshire or
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to conduct an annual audit
of the accounts and records of the Cooperative.
ARTICLE X
ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS
After initial adoption of this Agreement, municipalities
may be admitted to the Cooperative by a majority vote of the
legislative body of the municipality seeking admission and upon
-------
ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS continued
such terms and conditions as established by a majority vote of
the joint board of the Cooperative. New members shall agree
to all ofth- provisions of the Agreement and any amendments
thereto, and any other conditions of admittance imposed by the
joint board.
ARTICLE XI
DURATION OF AGREEMENT
This Ag eement shall continue in force for a term of fif-
teen years. No municipality approving this Agreement may with-
draw from the Cooperative for any reason during the term of this
Agreement.
Each municipality approving this Agreement hereby agrees
to pay its lull pro-rata share of net operating costs of the
facility as defined by Article VII hereof.
ARTICLE XII
BREACH OF AGREEMENT
A municipality shall be deemed to be in breach of this
Agreement i '' it fails to appropraite or make timely payment
of its share of capital cost and mandatory operating costs
or if it fails to perform or comply with any of the terms,
provisions, or conditions of this Agreement. The joint board
shall give a municipality written notice of specific- acts or
omissions which constitute breach. The municipality so notified
shall have seven days to conform. If the municipality fails to
conform within the above mentioned time period, then the joint
board shall have the power to exclude the solid waste generated
-------
BREACH OF AGREEMENT continued
by said municipality from processing at the solid waste dis-
posal facility. No such exclusion shall render the Coopera-
tive liable for damages or relieve the municipality deemed
to be in breach from performance of its obligations hereunder
and the Cooperative reserves the right to insist upon .specific
performance by the municipality deemed to be in l.ieach of its
obligations under this Agreement or to claim mom \ damages.
Any municipality found to be in breach of this A{ reenu-jit by
a court of law shall be responsible to the Cooperative for its
reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in respect
to said breach.
ARTICLE XIII
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS
Assets of the Cooperative remaining at the time of term-
ination of this Agreement shall be divided among the munici-
palities according to their proportionate payments or
-------
AMENDMENT continued
paper or pa]ors of general circulation within the Cooperative
and polled in a public jlacc in oach member municipality. After
tho hearing, the joint board may adopt the amendment and certify
it to 1 he Board of Selectmen of each municipality. Tho adoption
of any amenuIK nt shall require approval by at least two-thirds
of the Boards of Selectmen of the member municipalities.
ARTICLE XI
SEP AH AHT LI "Pi
In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this
Agreement be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect,
the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining pro-
visions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or
impaired thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the municipalities of Harrington, Durham,
Greenland, Lee, Madbury, Newfields, Newington, Newmarket, Northwood,
Rollinsford, Strafford and Stratham have caused this Agreement to
be signed by a majority of their Boards of Selectmen as of the
dates hereinafter written.
WINTESS: THE TOWN OF HARRINGTON
on this day of
THE TOWN OF DURHAM
1978
on this
day of
1978
-------
WITNESS:
THE TOWN OF GREENLAND
on this day of
1978
THE TOWN OF LEE
on this day of
1978
THE TOWN OF MADBURY
on this day of
1978
THE TOWN OF NEWFIELDS
on this day of
1978
THE TOWN OF NEWINGTON
on this day of
1978
-------
THE TOWN OF NEWMARKl'.T
on this day of 1978
THE TOWN OF NORTHWOOD
on this day of 1978
THE TOWN OF ROLLINSFORk
on this day of 1978
THE TOWN OF STRAFFORD
on this day of 1978
THE TOWN OF STRATHAM
on this day of 1978
-------
THE TOWN OF EPPING
on this day of 1978
-------
DECLARATION OF INTENT
BETWEEN
THE UNIVERSITY OF MEW HAMPSHIRE
AND THE
LAMPREY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COOPERATIVE
Introduction:
In the past, the Town of Durham and the University of New Hampshire
have jointly owned and operated a solid waste incinerator located on Town pro-
perty. In 1976, the Joint Town - University of Mew Hampshire Incinerator
Cotmittee decided it was necessary to formulate a long range plan for operation
of the solid waste incinerator and the disposal of solid waste. A consultant
was engaged to evaluate the present operation and to develop alternate plans
for the future. Specifically, the consultant was asked to consider the feasi- |
bility of constructing a second incinerator on the University Campus in Durham
to permit heat recovery from the incineration process and to involve several
towns in the surrounding area in a cooperative program of solid waste disposal
The desirability of establishing a cooperative venture for the disposal of !
solid waste became even more apparent when the Environmental Protection Agency I
|| advised many of the surrounding cotnnunities that they would have to discontinue i
>i I
|| sanitary landfill operations and when the reoeral government notified the
University and the Town of Durham tnat its joint incinerator had failed KX.S-
i- sion control standard^, which probably could be remedied only at considerable
i!
I; expense.
I)
h A conmittee was formed consisting of representatives of the Town of
|i
if Durham, the University of "ew Hampshire and those towns which had indicated an
I interest in joining a regional solid waste venture. A consultant was engaged
jj to investigate the feasibility of such an enterprise and the Towns agreed to
i|
I; share the cost of such a study. After considerable investigation and numerous
I!
meetings with the representatives of the University of yew Hampshire and the
several tarns, the consultant made the following basic findings which were
contained in a preliminary resort: !
a. The Towns and the University of yew Hampshire could obtain ar
I
ij economical solid waste disposal nanagerrenc system 3r,d the University could con- i
!
serve fossil fuel by generating steam froo refuse combustion. j
-------
b. A system of incinerators-boilers could be sited behind the ex-
isting University of New Hampshire steam plant -"n Durham which would feed
steam directly into the University's steam loop.
c. The steam generated by such a system would significantly
contribute to the University's steam requirements, and, at the same time,
would be small enough to be in line with the minimum (summer) requirements.
d. Both the University of New Hampshire and the Towns would obtain
a substantial savings by disposaing of their solid waste through such a joint
venture compared to the cost of individual or conmercial disposal systems, and
as far as the University of *few Hampshire and the Town of Durham are concerned,
up-grading the present incinerator.
The concepts of the preliminary report were approved by the Campus
Physical Plant Development Committee which referred it to the President. The
preliminary report was reviewed by the President, who recomnended it to the
Property and Physical Plan Development Cocrmittee of the Board of Trustees. Cn
December 17, 1977, the Property and Physical Plant Development Committee of the
Board of Trustees voted to approve in principle the concept of the proposed
area wide solid waste disposal facility and authorized continued negotiations
with the representatives of the Towns involved so as to enable the Towns'
officers to approach their Town meetings for appropriations to solve the comon
solid waste disposal problem.
The Towns of Barrington, Durham, Epping, Greenland, Lee, Madbury,
Newfields, Newington, Newmarket, Northvood, Rollinsford and Stratham voted to
form the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative and to fund the capitalization
of the Cooper at _v-e. The agreement whereby the Cooperative was established has
been approved as to form and substance by the Attorney General of the State of
New Hampshire, as required by law, and by bond counsel.
1. Declaration cf Intent:
Considering that the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative has
been authorized to capitalize a solid waste disposal and energy recovery system
by the member Towns, the Cooperative and the University hereby deem it advisable
and necessary to set forth the procedure whereby the solid vaste disposal and
energy recovery system will be located, constructed and operated.
Page Two
-------
2. Location:
A system of nodular combustion units coupled to a waste heat boiler
together with related facilities will be constructed upon land of the University
of New Hampshire adjacent to the existing steam plant as depicted on "a. pre-
liminary lay-out prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., dated Decenber,
1977, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
The University will lease the land upon which the facility is constructed to
the Cooperative together with access, egress and storage space for an initial
term of^fifteen (15) years. Provision shall also be made for either a renewal
or renewals of the lease arrangement for the future.
3. Construction:
M agreement will be entered into between the Cooperative and the
University defining relative responsibilities and authority of the parties
during the design and constraction of the facility.
| The Cooperative will grant authority to the University System of
New Hampshire; Office of Physical Plant Development (USKH-FPD) to act as its
!agent during the construction phase of the project. The USNH-PPD will be re-
sponsible.to the Cooperative for supervising all construction activities,
((making.regular progress reports, maintaining records, making financial reports
ijand serv'jng as coordinator between the engineer, the contractor and the
i[
((University Office of Physical Plant Operation and Maintenance during the
li
'progress of the work.
ll
The Cooperative will appoint a Building Committee of its members to
rsee the USMi-PPD in the same manner as the Trustees now supervise University
capital construction. In addition, the Building Committee would serve as
liaison on policy matters involving design and construction between the
Cooperative, the University Trustees, the University Administration and the
USNH-PPD.
Payments to contractors will be made by the Cooperative after initial
review and approval of the I'SIH-PPD and final approval of the Building
Committee.
^_ie- vooperacive w^ engage an engineering consultant and seiect a
Page Three
-------
general contractor. The engineer will be directed to insure that the design
and location of the facility will be appropriately and aesthetically adapted
to the present physical plant of the University of New Hampshire. The -Univer-
sity of tfew Hampshire will have final approval of all questions relating -to the
proper and aesthetic inter-relationship of the new facility to the present'
physical plant.. The University will be reimbursed by the Cooperative for all
services rendered on behalf of the Cooperative during the construction phase.
4. Operation:
An agreement will be entered into between the Cooperative and the
University defining the relative responsibilities and authority of the parties
in respect to the operatino of the facility. The agreement shall contain the
following basic features:
|j a. The Cooperative will establish and maintain a separate working
1
I force to operate the plant, maintain the records of operation and conduct .all
'j the^ineidental.activities in connection with operation.
b. -Provision shall be made to allow the Cooperative- to utilize the j
technical staff of the University in a manner similar to the present arrange-
ment-in effect at the Durham - UNH incinerator and on the same cost basis.
c. The method of metering tht amount of steam used by the Universir
will be defined.
d. The formula for establishing the price for the steam used by
the University shall be set out.
e. The method of payment by the University to the Cooperative for
the steam purchased shall be devised.
f. Other regulations will be established to control the entire
operation and to preserve and protect the environment of the University Campus.
Dated at Durham, New Hampshire, this 30th. day of June, 1978.
The University of Mew Hampshire
Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative
-------
Comments on Resource Recovery Project Development Grants
Under the President's Urban Policy
Solid Waste Task Force of the American Consulting Engineers
Council
Presented by Mr. Arthur Handley
William C. Anderson, Chairman of the ACEC Solid Waste Task
Force asked that 1 fill,in for him today. Mr. Anderson and
(T-
I both made statements concerning your implementation stragegy
in January of this year. On that occasion. Bill was com-
plimentary regarding your program asking that the specifics
be developed and I politely made critical remarks. I
recall statincpthat your program strategy with its emphasis
on enforcement would delay resource recovery implementation
and that concrete steps should be taken to assist regional
and local governments wi~h implementation.
At that time, we envisioned a hasty enforcement program that
would summarily shut down facilities'leaving no substitute
disposal means, with potential resource recovery programs
stranded out in left field.
The constructive program steps which your agency has taken
since January are welcomed and the current focus on assistance
to regional and local governments for implementation is most
encouraging. Our interest is that the efficient implementation
of the program will take place.
-------
The following comments pertain to specific sections of the
draft grant program discussion.
(1) Eligible Organizations, Part F.
Although states are included as eligible governmental
units under Section 4008 (a) (2) of the Law, there is no
specific reference as to whether they will be included
in this particular program. In our informal discussions
W
with state of f icialsr-Tihey have had specific needs
aligned to implementation which they believe could
benefit the overall program goals if grants were available.
State eligibility should be clarified.
(2) Solicitation Procedure, Part H.
During the first year, — applicants will have 75 days in
which to submit proposals, whereas state, EPA regional
offices and headquarters, and DOE will then take 90
days to evaluate. This is to be followed by 60 to 90
days to develop a work scope and to further process the
application. It is unfortunate that about two-thirds of
a year will go by and the work has not yet started. (^)
(5 )
Also there is the potential that in the cases gf small
study efforts, the cost of multi-agency evaluation and
administration could match the cost of the study that
follows.
-------
We suggest^, that there is a need for administrative
dD
stream lining. While the concept of a national competition
is intriguing if there were to be just a few multimillion
dollar grants each year, it does not accommodate to a
situation in which the funds have the potential of _
serving 100 to 200 legitimate applicants each year.
Administrative streamlining could be achieved if the
competition were by State or at least EPA Region and
Regions were delegated controlled approval authority.
We are of course interested in those procedures which
EPA will develop for consultant involvement in the
program. Ouj^experience~ indicates that the engineering
consultants ,>
If the criteria is applied to resource recovery program
-------
implementation, it is clear that awards will go mainly
to Phase III proposers. If a municipality has progressed
to Phase III level activity it may be an indication
that they do not need a grant to continue.
These problems might be alleviated by developing
independent criteria for each of the two proposal types
and by making an administrative decision as to the
distribution of study phases for which grants will be
awarded. Clearly if preliminary approval is given for
a three phase resource recovery study,^excessively
strong controls will be required to stop the funding if
Phase I or II results are not satisfactory.
The ACEC and its Solid Waste Task Force greatly ap-
formulation of your programs. The expertise-"and
experience which we have gained in serving the solid
waste disposal and resource recovery needs of all
levels of government is readily available. The challenge
to you is to how best to use our resources. In the
case of this particular program, we believe that early
involvement is in order.
9/18/78
-------
COMMENTS ON THE "URBAN WASTE PROGRAM: NOTICE OF MEETING
AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS" FED. REG. JULY 31, 1978
SUBMITTED BY
G. CHRIS STOTLER, CHIEF
DIVISION OF PLANNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
OFFICE OF LAND POLLUTION CONTROL
OHIO EPA
AUGUST 18, 1978
o
THE STATE OF OHIO IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE STATES IN THE
NATION IN RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES. WITH ADEQUATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT
FOR NEEDED PLANNING IN SEVERAL OF OHIO'S URBAN AREAS IT IS FEASIBLE
FOR 75% OF OHIO'S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO BE GOING TO RESOURCE
©
RECOVERY FACILITIES BY THE MID-1980'S. THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 14,000
TONS PER DAY TO 8 OR 9 FACILITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE VERY INTERESTED
IN THE URBAN WASTE PROGRAM AND THESE CRITERIA. THIS IS A PROGRAM WE
NEED GREATLY, ESPECIALLY SINCE RCRA, SUBTITLE D HAS BEEN SO
INADEQUATELY FUNDED,
WE AGREE-"WITH MOST OF THE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AS PRESENTED IN
THE JULY 31, 1978 FEDERAL REGISTER. THE RATIONAL^ TYPES OF ACTIVITIES
AND OUTPUTS, APPROACH, SOLICITATION PROCEDURE LOOKi VERY GOOD.WE
&
APPLAUD U.S. EPA--TN TRYING TO MOVE THIS PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENTATION AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS
WITH OTHER PARTSQy
-------
-2-
IN PART B, RELATIONSHIPS) OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS, ADD SOME
-&iS~
MCGU3SION-ON REQUIRING COORDINATION WITH LOCAL AND STATE PLAN ACTIVITIES
BEING CARRIED OUT SECTION 4008(a)(1) FUNDING. IF THIS SECTION IS
BETTER FUNDED MANY OF THE LOCAL DESIGNATED AGENCIES WILL RECEIVE
"PASS THROUGH" FUNDS FROM STATES FOR SOLID WASTE PLANNING, MUCH OF
fofi
WHICH WILL BE^THE SAME •&# ACTIVITIES SHOWN AS PHASE I IN PART G.
CLOSE COORDINATION IS NEEDED SO PROGRAMS WILL SUPPLEMENT EACH OTHER•
IN FY'78 OHIO IS PASSING THROUGH $571,000 TO 17 DESIGNATED PLANNING
AND IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES, BUT OUR NEED WAS AT LEAST DOUBLE THAT
AMOUNT.
OUK MAJOR CONCERN IS IN SECTION F, ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS. IT
®
APPEARSYOU'RE LIMITING FUNDING TO ONLY AGENCIES DESIGNATED AS
IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES UNDER SECTION 4006(b). DESIGNATED PLANNING
AGENCIES SHOULD ALSO BE ELIGIBLE. MOST ACTIVITIES IN PHASE I ARE ^____
PLANNING ARE RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED TO PLANNING AGENCIES. WE HAVE
WORKED HARD IN OBTAINING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT TO AGENCY
DESIGNATIONS AND OBTAINING MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING DEFINING
RESPONSIBILITY, DON'T CAUSE THE PROCESS TO BE CHANGED BEFORE IT REALLY
/^**~
STARTS FUNCTIONING^-tF SOME TECHNICALITY PREVENTS THE RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY FROM OBTAINING THE FUNDS THEN WE BETTER GET THE LANGUAGE IN
-------
IN PART H IT IS STATED EPA WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT IN
DEVELOPING DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK. ADD THE STATE TO THE PROCESS. WE
HAVE A BETTER KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS NEEDED AND HOW THE PROGRAM WILL
COORDINATE WITH OTHER ONGOING OR PAST ACTIVITIES THAN ANYONE FROM
IN PART I, PARAGRAPH a AND ]r"REQUESTS SOME INFORMATION THAT ISN'T
ALWAYS AVAILABLE. THE RELIABILITY OF MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION
SHOULD BE QUESTIONED, ESPECIALLYQUESTIONS IN (b) AS APPLIED TO THE
PRIVATE SECTOR(^XF PRIOR PLANS^R FEASIBILITY STUDIES DIDN'T
THOROUGHLY EVALUATE CURRENT PRACTICES, IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE
PROJECT WORK PROGRAM.
IN PART I PARAGRAPH e. , SOME INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED
MAY NOT BE KNOWN UNTIL AFTER MAJOR PARTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
IS COMPLETED./' 5~
IN PART J I AGREE THE POTENTIAL AND NEED FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY
SHOULD BE HEAVILY STRESSED BUT THIS WILL BE THE HARDEST AREA TO
EVALUATE. DATA IN THESE AREAS ARE VERY SUBJECTIVE. PRIOR PROGRESS
IS CLOSELY TIED TO POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS, IT SHOULD RECEIVE A HIGHER
/^~-,
WEIGHTING (I SUGGEST 20%) / £ ^ J
THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL OF BEING A GOOD PROGRAM. WE DON'T
WANT ANOTHER PROGRAM LIKE THAT OF TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO WHERE EPA
WASHINGTON STAFF MADE GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITHOUT CONSULTING
THE STATES AND FEW PRODUCED SUCCESSFUL RESULTS. IF THESE MISTAKES
AREN'T REPEATED, AND WE WORK TOGETHER THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSAL
EVALUATION AND PROJECT PERIOD, THEN THIS SHOULD BE A GOOD PROGRAM.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM
COMMENTS - RE: FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 6560-01 (7/31/78)
TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
EPA HEARING 8/18/78
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Stephen A. Ungle
Sir:
The Southern Windsor County Regional Planning and Development Com-
mission welcomes this opportunity to offer comment on the rules proposed to
administer the Resource Recovery Development Grant Program. The Commission,
along with its principal communities, and the Sullivan County Board of Com-
missioners In New Hampshire, is presently engaged In an ambitious and somewhat
unique heat recovery facility feasibility study.
The Commission therefore, wishes to address itself to the program
being considered here today, as the Resource Recovery Development Grant Program
could offer a variety of opportunities important to the success of our endeavor.
The Commission is in agreement with the proposed rules (as published in the
Federal Register on July 31, 1978) with respect to:
-------
- 2 -
a.) Program rationale,
b.) The relationship with other federal programs,
c.) The objectives of the program,
d.) The proposed cost sharing formula, and to a large degree
e.) The activities eligible for support.
The Commission does, however, wish clarification of two issues raised in the
subsection of the Proposed Rules dealing with the eligibility of organizations.
To this end, we are prepared today to offer two suggestions.
The first issue we wish to address ourselves to is that associated with
the language which states,and I quote from the Federal Register, that the ...
"EPA will award grants to only those applicants jointly Identified by the State
and appropriate locally elected officials for plan implementation responsibili-
ties in resource recovery". It appears evident that confusion exists in New
England, and perhaps in other parts of the country as well, as to just what
action is necessary by State governments so that plan implementation responsi-
bilities in resource recovery can be vested in sub-state districts. Our sug-
gestion for removing this confusion is:
... that the Governor of each State may declare that the entire
-------
- 3 -
State la to be recognized as the appropriate jurisdiction with
plan Implementation responsibilities In resource recovery, and
that the State may, upon notice of agreement among localities
within the State, abdicate Its plan Implementation responsibility
to that organization of communities or sub-state districts.
We support this suggestion by pointing out that it would address both State and
local designation issues, yet not commit either party to designations not
mutually acceptable.
The second issue to which we wish to address ourselves is that which
is contained within the language (again quoting the Federal Register) that
states ... "it is anticipated application of the criteria will result in the
major portion of the funding being allocated to areas of at least 50,000 popula-
tion". It Is not that we disagree with the eligibility criteria or the results
that they produce. He do, however, make the following suggestion in this regard:
... that the eligibility criteria not produce a result which
discriminates against population groups of 50,000 people or
more, banded together to address solid waste and energy issues,
which do not constitute an arbitrarily defined political jurisdic-
tion, recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau. We contend that lines
-------
- A -
drawn on maps many years ago, often have little In common with
transportation facility development and settlement patterns -
two very important components to resource recovery projects.
Again, we wish to express our appreciation for having had thia op-
portunity to offer our comments and suggestions.
Steven G. Wood
Executive Director
Southern Windsor County Regional
Planning & Development Commission
Springfield, Vermont
8/18/78
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SOL'D WASTE ADMINISTRATION
TRENTON' O8G25
BEATRICE S TYLUTKI
August 18, 197
has statutory responsibility for supervising and coordi
twenty-two district solid waste r.ar.agement planning ar.d
and was designated by Governor Byrne as Kew Jersey's Le
Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 9
proposed grant program will be administered.
e "ev Jersey Depart-
ircnr-ental Protection
a^ir-o -Jew Jersey's
ir.plenentaticn program
i agency under the
p3r) under which the
The New Jersey I^epartr.ent of Snvironnental Protect
to the scope and objectives of the President's Urban Po
Project Development Grants ?ro~ran. We agree that tr.er
to address the "institutional constraints" which nave p
i-.plementation of source separation and resource recove
proposed grant program can go a lor.g way in meeting thi
needed economic stimulus to our nation's urban areas,
on gives its support
icy Resource Recovery
is a pressing need
esented the widespread
y programs. The
need and in providing
-------
If resource recovery is to "be successful anywhere in the nation, it
most certainly will work in New Jersey. Our State has the nation's highest
population density, has strong secondary material and energy markets, has
excellent transportation and port facilities, and has a wealth of resources
which can be recovered from its waste stream.
The timeliness of the proposed grant program is welcomed. In New Jersey,
for example, the State's twenty-two designated Solid Waste Management Districts
are under a statutory mandate to develop and implement comprehensive solid
vaste management plans which provide for "...the maximum practicable use of
resource recovery, including low ani nigh technology systems."* The first
of these District plans, which vill encompass flew Jersey's most urban areas,
are scheduled for completion in January of 1979- Thus, the proposed grant
program is appropriately tired 1:0 preside needed funds for resource recovery
project development in He;: Jersey as veil as other States.
The Department of En-ircrimental Protection does have several specific
comments and suggestions regarding tne proposed grant program. The first
comment concerns eligibility and criteria for grant award. It is widely
recognized that there are a number of critical factors which must be addressed
before a resource recover;.' project can be implemented. These factors include
vaste stream control, authority to construct and operate resource recovery
facilities and programs, ability to secure financing and an urban setting
which generates sufficient wastes to justify material and energy recovery
programs.
-------
- 3 -
Hew Jersey's regional Solid Waste Management Districts, which have
Section ii006(a) and (b) designations, have, under existing State legislation,
broad powers to plan and implement resource recovery programs. These include
for example, authority to direct waste stream flow, to finance facilities,
and to enter into long-term contracts for securing vaste supplies and markets
for recovered materials and energy. Within these Districts are major urban
areas which could receive economic benefits in terms of increased ratables
and job opportunities from hosting resource recovery facilities and secondary
materials industries. In addition to these economic benefits, the urban
areas would also have a program to address their urban solid waste problem.
The department of Environmental Protection recommends that eligibility require-
ments and grant award criteria be sufficiently specific to enable a District
(or regional and statewide agency in other states), which has the statutory
power to implement resource recovery, to be eligible to receive a Resource
Recovery Project Development Grant to develop a resource recovery program
within an urban area. The urban area, it should be noted, cculd encompass
more than one city. The applicant District should be permitted to utilize
data to support its grant application (e.g., per capita incc-ne, rate of
employment growth, etc.) from the urban areas which will be serviced by and
benefit from the proposed resource recovery project,
Also, the Department of Environmental Protection recognizes the need
for interstate resource recovery projects. In Hew Jersey, for example, the
New Jersey - New York Port Authority MOiiMiHMved to develop resource recovery/
industrial park projects and a similar interstate arrangement is possible in
southern New Jersey, The Department, therefore, recommends that interstate
agencies be eligible to apply for resource recovery grants that would benefit
urban areas.
-------
Throughout the draft program announcement, several terms, including
"city" and "communities", are used to indicate eligible grant recipients. w^-
Ok/term (e.g., eligible applicant) should "be substituted which encompasses
^
those eligible governmental units defined in Section F. Eligible Organizations.
Also, since the program is specifically aimed at urban areas, the Department
of Environmental Protection recommends that the weight of the third criteria
("Potential for supporting the Urban Policy Objectives") be increased from
fifteen percent.
The second comment concerns the definition of ''urbanised area" used by
the Census Bureau. "Section F. Eligible Organizations" indicates that a
major portion of the funding will be allocated to areas of at least 50,000
population. The Department of Environmental Protection recommends that more
specific urban criteria, such as a density figure (persons/square mile), be
substituted for this raw population figure. Such a substitution would ensure
that urban areas are the program's beneficiaries.
The third comment concerns funding. The Department of Environmental
Protection supports the recommendation of the Senate Appropriations Sub-
committee to appropriate $30 million for the grant program. This level of
funding, possibly more, will be required to meet the objectives of the program.
Also, it is recommended that the draft program announcement be amended to
include some guidance either on the maximum grant amount an individual
applicant might expect to receive or on the maximum grant amount an individual
applicant might expect to receive on a particular program phase (e.g., Phase
I Feasibility Analysis - maximum $50,000 in federal assistance). This
guidance would be useful to applicants in preparing their grant applications.
-------
- 5 -
As New Jersey's designated solid waste agency that will review and
evaluate resource recovery grant applications, the Department of Environmental
Protection, working closely with the State's Department of Energy, looks
forward to participating in this very necessary program.
Thank you for the opportunity of presenting these comments.f^_ }
-------
STATEMENT OF
THE
INSTITUTE OF SCPAP IRON AND STEEL, INC.
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Comments on Resource
Recovery Project Development Grants
Dr. Herschel Cutler
Executive Director
Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, Inc.
E. Bruce Butler, Esquire
Patton, Boggs & Blow
August 18, 1978 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
VJashington, D.C. 20036
-------
STATEMENT OF THE
INSTITUTE OF SCRAP IRON AND STEEL, INC.
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This statement is submitted on behalf of the Institute
of Scrap Iron and Steel, Inc. (ISIS), a national trade associa-
tion representing 1,540 member companies involved in metallic
scrap processing. Institute members process, ship, or other-
wise handle 90% to 95% of the iron and steel scrap purchased
in the United States and handle equally impressive percentages
of other metallics which are recycled in our economy.
This statement is submitted by the Institute to
suggest tn^t EPA focus on all aspects of solid waste manage-
ment and resource recovery before any action is taken which
might impair existing private resource recovery efforts.
In summary, the Institute recommends that EPA and
any municipalities involved in developing resource recovery
facilities consider the potential competitive problems created
by these facilities. The Institute believes that the procedural
framework suggested by EPA in its July 31, 1978 Federal Register
notice (43 Fed. Reg. 33670) provides a setting in which to
require those establishing such facilities to evaluate these
problems. The Institute is appearing today to request that
the feasibility analysis contemplated in the proposed grant
procedures specifically require a sufficient market analysis
of the potential competitive effects of proposed projects.
This is important because it will provide a far better basis
-------
- 2 -
for evaluating the economic feasibility of a particular project.
The ferrous scrap processors who are represented by
the Institute purchase abandoned automobiles, worn out appli-
ances , etc. and the metallic residue from manufacturing industries
and prepare them into over 30 grades of scrap iron for melting
by steel mills and foundries. It is important to stress at
the outset that the material recycled by Institute members
generally is purchased metallic waste. It has an economic
value and an industry has developed and prospered by reclaiming
this material.
The distinction between purchased metallic waste and
solid waste has been recognized in various state laws. For
example, the State of Wisconsin has developed a definition
of solid waste which provides that "solid waste does not
include . . . materials privately processed for reuse . . .."
[Ch. 305, §499.01(10), Laws of the State of Wisconsin].
The ferrous scrap industry is not interested
in Federal grants to assist it in processing commodities which it
has handled for hundreds of years. Indeed, EPA has recognized
industry efforts to reduce Federal intrusions which inhibited
the growth of the scrap industry, such as inequitable freight
rates and an inequitable tax structure, because EPA recognizes
the benefits of mineral and energy conservation and reduced air,
water and ]and pollution from increased recycling of ferrous
scrap.
-------
- 3 -
The Institute is appearing today to caution that
these desirable goals not be sacrificed to achieve other
desirable goals.
Because of the obvious economic and environmental
savings, it clearly is sound public policy to foster maximum
use of recyclable commodities. Accordingly, Federal encourage-
ment of new resource recovery systems has appeal. Before
significant new efforts are undertaken to encourage these
systems, however, it is aopcopriate to evaluale what, If any,
net benefits wall result and what is the magnitude and degree of
the negative side effects t -suiting from a precipitous u;o'/cment
toward wholesale development of such systems. The feasibility
studies contemplated under the grant program should insure that these
benefits and costs are studied in sufficient detail.
A solid waste management/resource recovery system
may have as many as three basic purposes. First, it iiccomplishes
solid waste reduction. Second, it affords a potential source
of energy. Third, it provides an opportunity for recovering
various commodities including metallic waste. Given the fact
that this nation is running out -of available landfill, reducing
the bulk of the solid waste obviously is necessary. In addition,
the present energy situation makes the energy production
potential of these systems very interesting. However, while
the ends seem admirable, a note of caution is necessary if the
economic feasibility of these facilities is based primarily or to
a major extent on metallic resource recovery.
-------
- 4 -
Present scrap availability and the capacity of exist-
ing and forseeable markets to absorb such processed scrap is a
most relevant basic input in evaluating such economic feasibility.
Thus, before any consideration is given to such new sources of
processed scrap iron, an analysis of existing supply/demand
conditions is in order.
The leading analysis of scrap iron supply is a
study for the Metal Scrao Research and Education Foundation,
the research arm of the Institute, prepared by Robert R. Nathan
Associates, which calculated a national backlog of 636 million
tons of iron and steel discards at the end of 1975. This
reservoir could supply the total purchased scrap requirements
(at 1977 levels) for the entire American steel and foundry
industries, plus exports, for nearly 14 years, not counting the
additional millions of tons of obsolete scrap being generated
each year.
The Foundation next week will release an update on
ferrous scrap availability as of December 31, 1977, which will
document that this backlog continues to increase. The extent
of this backlog poses the question of why, even in times of
extremely high steel demand, do the accumulations continue at
such high levels?
Since a profit-making industry exists to process the
metallic value from this backlog and prepare both the old and
current discards into a raw material for steelmaking, there
-------
- 5 -
must be impediments to such recycling which preclude a rate of
consumption that would at least utilize the current obsolete
material, much less reduce the mammoth backlog. The fact that
many firms are ready to process the material into usable form,
the fact that the processing investment exists, and the fact
that unused capacity in the processing industry is very high,
all lead to the inescapable conclusion that something is wrong
not with supply, but rather with demand.
A concomitant conclusion also follows that increasing
the supply of processed scrap iron — from private industry or the
municipal waste stream -- will not be addressing the problem. The
real problem is one of demand, not supply. The reasons for inadequate
I
marketfs--which exist at the present tume should be analyzed by EPA as
a nationwide problem. The steel industry, for example, has stated
that it would take experimental levels of scrap iron from resource
recovery centers, but it has not said that it will increase bhe
overall percentage of recycled materials which it will purchase.
In other words, consumers have generally said that they will take
these new metallic sources, but they have not said that they will
increase the total amount of scrap that they will consume to
'&
produce a given amount of steel.^—'The extent of this problem
is described in a recent American Metal Market article docu-
menting the lack of available markets even for recycling
centers which have virtually no expenses. A copy of the article
is attached to this statement.
-------
— 6 ~
The competitive market problem of concern to the
Institute can be illustrated by the following example. If a
community, where the scrap industry is presently handling
fifty thousand junk autos per year, were to commence a recycling
effort generating and selling ten thousand tons of tin cans
and other municipal scrap annually, the result could be a
decrease in the recycling of ten thousand junk cars. There
must be an incremental or additional market if recycling centers
are not merely to effect a trade-off of recycling one ton of
material at public expense for another ton of material pre-
viously supplied by private enterprise. Federal action is
needed to break the barriers to increasing the amount of
recyclable commodities actually utilized and into the appro-
priate methods for overcoming any economic or institutional
barriers to increased recycling which exist.
l^>)
In evaluating the form and scope-^f Federal assistance
for solid waste treatment and disposal centers, it is important
to re-emphasize that tha purpose of these centers is to perform
a legitimate public health function which is the responsibility
of government: environmentally sound waste disposal. Care
should be taken, however, that the disposal system not impinge
on the legitimate role of private enterprise by forcing market
(V
substitution rather than by creating new markets >-^ Such substi-
tution could result in the destruction of a segment of industry
unable to compete with the subsidized waste disposal system.
-------
- 7 -
Federal legislation previously has recognized that public funds,
either in the form of a loan or grant, should not be utilized
to foster competition with private industry unless the public
policy favoring such competition is overwhelming and then such
competition should be limited to the extent necessarv to meet
*J
this policy.
In accord with the general policy objective of limiting
governmental competition with private industry, the Institute
(Z''
strongly recommends that EPA adopt^fis a general policy the
proposition that no solid waste treatment and disposal center
receiving direct or indirect Federal assistance may seek to
acquire for processing materials not collected in the normal
garbage and waste collection process for the area served by
the center.'- 'For example, the Wisconsin law cited earlier pro-
hibits a recycling authority from collecting, bidding on or
paying for solid waste. Such a policy at the Federal level
would prevent any disposal center from diverting material which
normally would flow to private industry.
In addition to this general policy recommendation, vi-
the Institute believes and urges EPA to require a state or
local agency evaluating development of a new resource recovery
facility to consider the problem of available markets as part
of its feasibility study. Specifically, the Institute recommends
that EPA require each grant recipient to describe in detail
*/ See, for example, §3(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act.
-------
in its feasibility study whether the scrap material which
would be recycled under its plan will replace existing supply
or will serve a new market created for such material. ( ~3
-------
Soft Market Slows Scrap Can Buying
v EIHOOD MFS(lfltK
CHICAGO-Curtailed m-rkets are prompting Midwest scrap dealers
to linut their purchases of old cans, despite the wishes of local en-
iironmentahsts to rec>de that material
Citmg depressed demand for preci pilau on iron by cooper mine', and
smelters in the Rocky Mountain region, The Chicago Detmning Co,
here, said it is no longer buvmg used cans from a number of suburban
collection centers
Limited ourc hases of detained cans by steel nulls aLo w as said to be a
factor retarding the growth of a market for refuse-derived ferrous
scrap, also ca led ecology raite material
Of those steel mills contacted, only United States Steel indicated an
active interest in accepting this material (AMM March M) "But we
have exacting quality standards," said a spokesman "The material we
accept from dealers must be clean detinned and baled "
Reasons Varied
Other consumers are out of the market for varying reasons "At one
time we put loose unprocessed cans into hot metal Handling was very
expensive Because the cans were often full of water, garbage and con-
taminated with tramp metal, the cost of adjustmj; the metallurgy be-
came prohibitive," Sdid the scrap buyer for another steel mill
"The onlv place we ever used cans m any form was in electric fur-
naces, and the cans had to be cleaned, detinned and baled When we
realized that even detinned cans had undesirable amounts of residudl
tin, copper and other meUls, we had to stop using them " stated a
spokesman for st'll another consumer
The outlook for increased use of detnned crns in the copper industry
is cloudv, according to an industry >ource A Southern detinmni" plant
spokesman saicl that Ihe market for shredded, detnned cans for copper
runes was dormant 'We bought ecology-grade cans only when the
price of copper was high and the mines were active, and then oil> to
supplement our regular Sources Na'urally, \ve prefer to process
prompt scrap from tinpldte mills and can manufacturers," lie said
"We have long-term contracts wiiii the ccpper mines to supph pie-
cipitation iron If ntwlv developed lon-CAt^rige processes are poing to
replace the precipitation svstem, ,t may oe \ean, away In the mean-
time, the demand for p.ecipiution irwi will icspond prirnanlj to the
puce of copper " he predicted
Demand \iav Dimmish
But the vervlong run demand for precipitation iron m the mmci is
likelj tod-mimsh-ds u hfsdune in recent vea's- because of a trend to-
wards tismj' K •1-c\cli£'[ifi' -Mlhoj^h lon-f^cl jnge requues a Lr^e
capital outldv, it is said to DC IPSS tosth per pound of ccppe- produced,
as welt as more stahl. in dnh ei.pt "se so th« t ,Ls Uicrs can predict t>ieir
opniatmg costi miHi lvtt^rihQn h.ivmg tucc'itcnd with fluctuation in
the ienous scr -grade material ' It's
too early losay we have the answer We are in the scrap business, and
we hate to see useful materials go into landfill without studying this
situation \erv carefully," one dealer said
Government-sponsored research has indicated that refuse-derived
scrap is sufficiently rich m its feirous content to be on par with No 2
dealer bundles
Conservationists Bitter
Meantime, the reaction of suburban conservationists here was bitter
Keith Olson, chairman of the F.lmhurst Environmental Committee,
said, "It is very difficult to manage a refuse recycling program under
these conditions First they say recycle ' Then the market disappears
Next winter they will be back buying again and will etpect us to pro-
duce But they can't turn us on and off like, a faucet "
A spokesman for the ViOdjie of Glen Ellyn said they were still accept-
ing tin cans Hut if the ma: ket dries up and we must refuse tin cans it
will certain!v cut back on the volume of aluminum cans and on other
metals coming to our collection centers "
Express Concern
Other environmental groups expressed concern that years of edu-
cation and effort v, ill by lost if tin cans are no longer recycled, ior vf that
Hem no longer is marketable, many communities will lose interest m
collecting and preparing other scrap metals, thc> explained
One scrap industry observer noted that the insecure m-ikel for tin
cans facing coinrnuniU environmentalists here paralleled the problems
of the nation's professional sc'-ap pi ocessors To ^am more sta j!o roar-
era! police that v.oulri a
scrap metal
and fed-
arc the purchase of products m«de with
Robert THchell Named Manager
Of Superior Nonferrous Division
FORT WAYN!:, Ind -Roberts Titchell has been named manager
The position i<. new and filched will be responsible for Superior's non-
ferrous sciap operations nationwide
1 itrhell formt i !j was % ire-pi PMdont of Mlns Metals Inc , Ck>v e'and,
,md also worked ai the International druaion. R^nokla Metal- Co He
will join Supnior on Sept 5
I've
W-ile K
(change
aid to be suitable for different copper
i, ICE
ing a
aiket ii
ins, it
s noted
In the Chicago ixg.on, dotmners confirmed the general tiend in-
dicated that thev had ample stocks of (colo^v-grrtde scrap and said thej
were iwable to accept much more
"We pjrcnase abuut 25 tons a month of washed cans from rccjcli'ij;
groups 11 the southern suburbs, primarily as a public relations gcstu-v
Tliese are dnbblnl i.i'o our processing s\stt-n which uses tirif -te
charge ' said a spokesman at an area det.nrmg wtirks
IP compound the nvakelmg jroblem, Uuck tirnvs have either mr-
tailed their hauLng of tin cans, preferring denser loads, or have hiked
Cincinnati Dealers Increase
Over-Scale Copper Baying Tags
CINCINNATI- Nonferrous su ipdealcisr-ori h^ ;e i esoonded to Ihe
lalest upward spuit ir the New- York Coirmioditv Hrchange ((.umtJi)
copper prices b1. Loo&tin^ t^ei*1 o\er-the-scaie buM'ig prices for the red
n>elal) to2tt'n'sapoj'nl \-liencrmnaredv ith levels of Uo weeks d^o
No 1 copper brought 52 to 55
cell's a pjund Ahon de>i^ered to Le<-J 'crap prices stinng, ac-
piocessor jard=, with ino't of the cording to another trader who
smaller accumulations me."Jig a' ;aid he was quoting 23 rents a
the low e>id uf the ra'i^e pound for heaij soft mateuil\ a
On No 2 copper'Je.il.TS revised booM of 3 cents in the last two
change from mid-Juh prices
Ferrous Scrap Exports
June May April Yi In Dale Yr lo Bal
1978 1978 197E 197B 137
77662 873nr 72 SOI5 3i
10- H-1 1122^8 2'j 1?" 3
22 300
730-
4 ,'01
Metal Market Weekly Steel Scrap Price Composite
AMFfitCAH ME-TAL MARKET WETACWORKING NEWS AUGUST
Reprinted with the permission of American Metal Market/
Metalworking News, copyright 1978, Fairchild Publications,
a Division of Capital Cities Media, Inc.
-------
ATTENDEES LIST: RESOURCE RECOVERY
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
August 18, 1978, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, C.A.
President
Barker, Osha, Anderson, Inc.
860 U.S. #1
North Palm Beach, Florida 33458
Anderson, Robert H.
Vice President
Stanley Consultants
Premier Building
1725 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Atkin, George Jr., P.E.
President
Northwest Engineering, Inc.
Main Office
Route 62
Tidioute, Pennsylvania 16351
Avers, Carl E., P.E.
Project Manager
Ellers, Fanning, Oakley, Chester
and Rike, Incorporated
722 Falls Building
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Baker, John L.
Assistant City Manager
P.O. Box 2207
Greenville, South Carolina 29602
Barnett, Thomas M.
Gordian Associates Incorporated
910 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Baum, Michael A.
Coordinator Environmental
Affairs
City Hall, Room 613
218 Cleveland Avenue, S.W.
Canton, Ohio 44702
Bellon, Nancy
Staff Assistant to Dir.
Institute for Local Self
Reliance
1717 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Beygo, Turhan
Environmental Planner
Dept. of Program Planning and
Economic Development
County Administration Bldg.
Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20870
Bory, Laurence D.
Planner
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
c/o Research-Cottrell, Inc.
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Bozick, Peter A., Jr.
Civil Engineer
George, Miles & Buhr
724 East Main Street
Salisbury, Maryland 21801
Brand, Alex M.
Environmental Consultant
Gilbery/Commonwealth
P.O. Box 1498
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603
Breh±n, T.G.
Program Coordinator
Bureau of Environmental
Services, DPW
3430 Courthouse Drive
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
Butler, E. Bruce
Patton, Boggs & Blow
1200 Seventeenth Street
Washington, D.C. 20036
Butler, Kenneth W.
Governmental Affairs
American Consulting Engineers
Council
1155 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Capelline, Albert R., P.E.
Project Engineer
Weston Environmental Consultants
Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
-------
Carhart, B.
Sup. Envir. Specialist
N.J. Dept. of Environment
Protection
32 E. Hanover Street
Tranton, New Jersey 08625
Carlucci, Marcia
Coopers & Lybrand
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Cary, Matthew J.
Washington Representative
City of Houston
1717 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Chase, Malcolm J.
Project Coordinator
Wright, Pierce, Barnes
and Wyman
Engineers and Planners
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801
Cobb, Clifford W.
Solid Waste Project
NACO
1735 Hew York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Cole, Ray C., Jr.
Staff
U.S. Congress
2323 RHOB
Washington, D.C.
Collins, Brian P., P.E.
Director
Escambia County Dept. of
Utilities
28 W. Government Street
Pensacola, Florida
Cook, Guy K.
Intern
General Motors
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Cruz, Orlando R.
Administrator
Federal & State Assistance
One World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
Curtis, Arthur S., Jr.
Chairman
State of Kentucky
5th Floor Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Cutler, Herschel Dr.
Executive Director
Institute of Scrap Iron & Steel
1200 Seventeenth Street
Washington, D.C. 20036
c/o Bruce Butler
David, Louis C., Jr.
Executive Director
Rhode Island Solid Waste
Management Corp.
39 Pike Street
Providence, Rhode Island
Davis, Robert H.
Director
National Raw Material Development
111 N. Fourth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
DeCoursey, Paul J.
Mkt. Services Rep.
J.G. Rutter Associates
9th & Cooper Street
Camden, New Jersey 08101
Donahue, Edward J. Ill
Coopers & Lybrand
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Drance, Andrew
Washington Representative
Garden State Paper Company, Inc.
2020 North Fourteenth Street
Arlington, Virginia 22201
-------
Dugash, E. Andrew
Associate Planner
County Executive Office
1200 N. Telegraph Road
Fontiac, Michigan 48053
Dunn, J.J., Jr.
Executive Secretary
American Public Works Assoc.
1776 Mass., Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Eason, A.D., Jr.
Manager
Reynolds Metals Company
6601 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Edmond, Alan
Administrative Assistant to
the Board of Selectmen
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Eliopoulos, Phoebe
Board of Editors
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
1231 25th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
England, Thomas C.
City Representative
National League of Cities
and Unites States Conference
of Mayors
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Fagan, David M.
EPS
EPA/OSW/RRD
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Far*l
-------
Harris, Gladys L.
Citizen Activities Officer
OSW/EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Hemsley, J. Michael
Marketing Manager
Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc.
56 North Second Street
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201
Hickman, Lanny
Executive Director
GRCDA
1629 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Holland, Patrick J.
Manager
Sanitary Engineering Dept.
75 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Holloway, Robert
Env. Eng ineer
EPA/OSW/RRD
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Hundley, Keith R.
Public Relations Manager
Weyerhaeuser Company
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 902
Washington, D.C. 20006
Hunt, Timothy F., Jr.
Executive Director
Solid Waste Authority
120 South Olive Avenue
Suite 406
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Huelsman, Walter
Partner
Coopers & Lybrand
18th & M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Jenkins, John C.
Member
Jones & Henry Engineers, Ltd.
2000 West Central Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43606
Johnson, Charles A.
Tech. Director
NSWMA
1120 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Johnson, Floyd T.
Assistant County Administrator
236 S.E. 1 Avenue
Room 519
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Johnson, Spencer A.
Director of Government Relations
Paperboard Packaging Council
Suite 600
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Karter, Patricia W.
Marketing Manager
Resource Recovery Systems, INc.
50 Maple Street
Branford, Conn. 06405
Karter, Patricia W.
Consultant
Glass Packaging Institute
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Kendrick, Peter J.
Environmental Analyst
SCS Engineers
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive
Suite 432
Reston, Virginia 22091
Krzeminski, John
Editor
Business Publishers Inc.
818 Roeder Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
-------
Lafan, Peter
L.A.
James J. Florlo Member of Congress
1726 Longworth HOB.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Levy, Steven J.
Program Manager
Dept. of Energy
VWTB - Mallstop 2221C
D.O.E.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Lewis, Stephen G.
Department Head
MITRE
Box 208
Bedford, Mass. 01730
McGovern, Paul A.
Staff Services Engineer
The Port Authority
of New York & N.J.
One World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
McHenry, Mary D.
Public Participation Officer
State of Maryland
Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
McManus, Frank
Editor & Publisher
Resource Recovery Report
1707 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
MacEwan, Pam
Consultant
National Center for Productivity
2000 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Marshall, Stewart
Product Manager
Flakt, Inc.
1500 East Putnam Avenue
Old Greenwich, Conn. 06870
Martin, Charles R.
Grants Coordinator
DC. Dept. of Environmental Services
415 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Matthews, Michael R.
ENvironmental Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
248 401 Building
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Mills, Michael A.
President
Waste and Recycling Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 796
Frankfort, Kentucky 40602
Muench, Albert H.
Associate Economist
New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, Newjork 12233
Murphy, Anthony, Dr.
Exec. Assist.
Mayors's Office
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
Nelson, Luther D., P.E.
Director
Dept. of Environmental and
Energy
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Nobles, James
Cong. Bo Ginn
317 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, D.C.
O'Brien, David
Planner
EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Oliva, Lawrence M.
Resource Planning Assoc., Inc.
1901 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
O'Heill, T.F.
Director
Stevens Institute of Technology
Castle Point Station
Hoboken, New Jersey
-------
Pa:ryka, Joan
Assistant
Holyoke Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
142 Casino Avenue
Chicopee, Mass. 01013
Pawlukiewicz, Michael
Environmental Projects Manager
1700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, J).C. 20006
Pritsky, W.W.
The Aluminum Association
818 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Purcell, A.H.
Director
Technical Information Project
1346 Conne. Avenue, N.W.
Suite 217
Washington, D.C. 20036
Quigley, Andrew H.
Manager Analyst
Division of Solid Waste
County of Fairfax
4100 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, Virginis 22030
Rambo, H.R.
Solid Waste Administrator
County Admin. Bldg.
Camden, New Jersey 08101
Reed, Robert R.
Mechanical Engineer
Pope, Evans and Robbins
320 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Riordan, Emmet
John Adams Associates
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Rodriguez, Rod 0.
Greenleaf/Telesca, Planners
Engineers Architects, Inc.
1451 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
Kongo, C. Frederick, P.E., P.P
Coordinator
Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission
100 Meadowland Parkway
Secaucus, New Jersey 07094
Sasek, Gerald F.
Engineer
R.W. Beck and Associates
40 Grove Street
Wellesley, Mass. 02181
Schaeffer, J. Erik, P.E.
Manager Solid Waste
County of Delaware, Penna.
Curran Building
Second and Orange Street
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
Schoenhofer, Robert F.
Chief, Planning Section
State of Maryland
Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Schroeder, Stephen H.
Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
917 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Shapiro, Marc
Director
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20910
Steelman, Leon
Administrative Assistant
New Jersey Dept. of Community
Affairs
363 West State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Stence, Don
Capital Area Planning Council
611 South Congress
Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78704
-------
Stieber, Jane C.
Environmental Protection
Specialist
EPA
OSW/RRD/TABr.
Washington, B.C. 20460
Stock, Frank
Deputy Director
Burns and Roe
283 Route 17 South
P.O. Box 663
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Stotler, G. Chris
Chief, Division of Planning
and TechnicalAssistance
Ohio EPA
Box 1049, 361 E. Broad St.
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Stultz, Bobby E.
Senior Project Manager
Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10001
Swartzbaugh, Joseph T., Ph.D.
Manager of Research Engineering
245 N. Valley Road
Xenia, Ohio 45385
Tanenbaum, Alan
GSA
Office of Information
Washington, D.C.
Tennaftt, Elizabeth
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
1346 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Room 724
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tiller, John
Director
Intergovernmental Affairs
Wm. R. Toal Building
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
Tinnell, William R.
Manager of Secondary Fibre
Procurement
The Chesapeake Corporation of
Virginia
West Point, Virginia 23181
Tompkins, Christopher R.
Public Health Engineer
Virginia Div. of Solid & Hazardous
Waste Management
907 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia
Walters, Terry
Assistant to Vice President
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
Walton, John T.
Raw Materials Manager
Champion International
P.O. Box 3260
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
Wentworth, Marchant
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
1346 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Wetherhorn, David
Vice President Director,
Patchen, Mingledorff & Associates
699 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30902
Wlechmann, Richard
Director
American Paper Institute, Inc.
1619 Mass., Avenus, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Willey, C.R.
Chief Technical Services
Maryland Environmental Services
60 Ulest Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
-------
Willson, R.T.
Senior Vice President
American Iron & Steel Inst.
1000 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20036
Wommack, Roland
Marketing Engineer
UOP, Inc.
40 UOP Plaza - Alogonquin
& Mt. Prospect Road
Des Plaines, Illinois 60016
Wood, Steven G.
Executive Director
Southeastern Windsor County
Community Center, Room 18
139 Main Street
Springfield, Vermont 05156
Way, Douglas H.
Solid Waste Management Division
South Carolina Dept. of Health
And Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbus, South Carolina 29201
#1734
SW-43p
Shelf No. 716
AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 O—620-007/3724 REGION 3-1
-------
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Solid Waste Program
John F. Kennedy Bldg
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Section
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Solid Waste Program
6th and Walnut Sts
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-597-9377
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Solid Waste Program
345 Courtland St., N E
Altanta, GA 30308
404-881-3016
U.S EPA, Region 5
Solid Waste Program
230 South Dearborn St
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Section
1201 Elm St
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-2734
U S EPA, Region 7
Solid Waste Section
1735 Baltimore Ave
Kansas City, MO 64108
816-3743307
U S EPA, Region 8
Solid Waste Section
1860 Lincoln St
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U S EPA, Region 9
Solid Waste Program
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-4606
U S EPA, Region 10
Solid Waste Program
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1260
-------
------- |