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

-------

-------