TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on Proposed Regulation for Development
and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans
October 26, 1978, Washington, D.C.
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-46p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------X
In the Matter of:
PROPOSED REGULATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
General Services Administration
Auditorium
18th and F Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Thursday
October 26, 19713
The public hearing in the above-entitled matter
commenced at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
Dr. John Skinner, Chairman
Director, Land Protection Division
Office of Solid ^Jaste, EPA
George Garland
Chief, Assistance Branch
Land Protection Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Susan Absher
Land Protection Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
David O'Brien
Land Protection Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Frank McAlister
Land Protection Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
-------
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
1A
BEFORE: (Continued)
David Gavrich
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Anne Allen
Attorney-Advi sor
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF: PAGE NO.
Oscar H. Adams 8
Carey P. Busbin 23
Chris Stotler 3g
John J. Dunn, Jr. 54
J. Rodney Edwards 60
Elizabeth Dollard 71
Thomas Cunningham gj
George Atkins 86
-------
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
DR. SKINNER: I would like to welcome you to a
public hearing on the Proposed Guidelines for Development
and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans.
My name is John Skinner. I am Director of the
Land Disposal Division in EPA.
Let me introduce the rest of the panel. Starting
at this end of the table is Susan Absher, who is one of the
primary authors of the Guidelines.
Next to her is George Garland, who is the Chief of
the Assistance Branch in the Land Disposal Division.
Next to him is David O'Brien. Next to him is
Frank McAlister. Both of them are in the Land Disposal
Division, and have worked on the Guidelines.
Next is Anne Allen, who is an attorney with our
Management and Information Staff.
Next to Anne is David Gavrich, who is with our
Resource Recovery Division.
This panel has just completed 10 public meetings
around the country, giving presentations on the Guidelines,
answering questions, and soliciting comments. So, these
are the people that actually worked on the Guidelines and
will be here today to hear your comments and testimony.
The proposed Guidelines are required by Section
4002(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
-------
Copies of them are available at the registration desk.
These Guideline's were published in the Federal
Register, as proposed, on August 28th, and there is 90-day
public comment period which will end November 27th of this
5 year.
6 The Guidelines set forth the requirements for State
plans, and they recommend methods and procedures to meet
those requirements.
9 The Guidelines address a broad spectrum of planning
10 and implementation activities, including the identification
11 of State and substate solid waste management responsibilities,
12 the encouragement of resource conservation and resource
13 recovery, and the application and enforcement of environ-
14 mentally sound disposal practices.
15 States are eligible for financial assistance under
16 subtitle D of this Act if they develop a State plan in
17 accordance with these Guidelines.
18 The Guidelines are organized into seven sections
19 and a preamble. The first section sets forth the general
20 requirements for State plans, and defines the terminology,
21 and also sets forth the procedures for submission of a State
22 plan and review and approval of that State plan by EPA.
23 The second subpart, Subpart B, lists the require-
24 ments and recommendations for the identification of State
25 and substate responsibilities for developing and implementing
-------
the State plan.
Subpart C relates to State regulatory programs
with emphasis on closing and upgrading open dumps, and
preventing new open dumps.
5 Subpart D discusses various aspects of State
6 resource recovery programs.
7 Subpart E discusses planning for resource recovery
and disposal facilities.
9 Subpart F deals with coordination with other
10 programs, including programs under the Clean Water Act and
n the Safe Drinking Water Act.
12 Subpart G sets forth the public participation
13 requirements for the State plans and other related activities
14 under the State plans.
15 The plan should cover a five-year time period.
16 It should be developed in accordance with the public partici-
17 pation procedures outlined in the Guidelines, and the plan
18 is to be submitted to EPA for review and approval within
19 18 months after final publication of these Guidelines.
20 The estimated or projected publication date for
these Guidelines in final form will be the middle of next
22 year, June of next year.
23 Let me describe how we will conduct this hearing
24 today. The purpose of this hearing is to obtain testimony
25 from interested parties on the Guidelines, so that we may
-------
l review that testimony and make modifications in the Guidelines
2 before final promulgation.
3 All substantive comments received at this hearing
4 will be addressed before final promulgation of the Guidelines.
5 Also, all comments received at public meetings and all
6 comments that are sent to us in writing before the closing
7 date, will also be considered before final promulgation of
8 the Guidelines.
9 This is not a ::ormal hearing. It is not an adjudica
10 tory hearing with cross-examination, but we will be asking
11 questions, and your answers to those questions are voluntary.
12 We will hear the witnesses and organizations that
13 have requested beforehand to make formal statements, first.
14 Following that, anyone who would like to make a stcitement
15 and has not registered tc do so, will be allowed to do so.
16 So that we may keep to our schedule, we would like
17 each speaker to limit his or her comments to approximately
18 10 minutes. If you have a longer statement, you can submit
19 that for the record, and we would appreciate it if you would
20 summarize it in approximately 10 minutes.
21 We will hear th<3 speakers in the order in which
22 they have registered. Before beginning the presentations,
23 the speakers should identify themselves and the organizations
24 that they represent.
25 The written statements from the speakers, as well
-------
l as any oral statements that they make, will be included in
2 a transcript of the hearing. We request that if you do have
3 a written copy of your comments, that you submit a copy to
4 the reporter. Also, if any of you have any extra copies,
5 if you could make them available to the panel, that would be
6 very helpful.
7 If there are any persons, who have not registered
8 to make a statement and would like to do so, please do so
9 rhjM" now with the registration clerk.
10 After each oral statement, the panel will ask ques-
11 tions of the speaker, and also the audience will be given
12 an opportunity to ask questions of the speaker, as well. We
13 would appreciate it if those questions could be submitted in
14 writing on white index cards, that are available out at the
15 registration desk. If you will just hold those cards out,
16 someone in the back will pick them up and bring them up
17 .here, and we will ask the question for you. That will provide
18 for a non—duplication of questions and will provide for a
19 speedy hearing.
20 we would appreciate it when you do ask a question,
21 that you indicate your name and your affiliation on the
22 question.
23 The statements, questions, and comments, that we
24 receive today, will become part of the public record for
25 this rul^making. This record is available for inspection
-------
1 in Room 2107, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
2 401 "M" Street, Southwest, Washington.
3 Also, a copy o.: the transcript will be available
4 upon request in approximately two to three months after the
5 hearing.
6 Again, let me remind you that any comments that
7 you would like to make either today, or comments that you
8 can make up until the closing date of the public comment
9 period, November 27, 1978, will be very helpful to us.
10 Are there any questions on how we are going to
11 proceed today? If not, the first speaker is Dr. Arthur
12 Morris. Dr. Morris, is he here?
13 (No response.)
14 DR. SKINNER: The next speaker is Thomas Cheeca or
15 Mr. Kevin Cooley.
16 (No response. )
17 DR. SKINNER: M,s. Sarah Biehle?
18 (No response.)
19 DR. SKINNER: I: these people come in later, we
20 will include them at the <>nd of the hearing.
21 Mr. Oscar AdamsV
22 MR. ADAMS: Good morning.
23 i am Oscar Adams;, Deputy Assistant Commissioner,
24 Office of Health Protection and Environmental Management,
25 Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, Virginia. My
-------
1 statement today is on behalf of the Department with State
2 responsibility for solid and hazardous waste management.
3 Mr. Gilley, the Director of the Solid and Hazardous
4 Waste Management Division, was scheduled to make this state-
5 ment today, but he is involved in a statewide public parti-
6 cipation effort on our State Solid Waste Management Plan, an
7 effort occupying the entire program staff for more than two
8 weeks. Last night I think they had a hearing at George Mason
9 in Fairfax.
10 I appreciate this opportunity to express our views
11 on the proposed Guidelines on State Solid Waste Management
12 Plans in view of our current efforts to adopt such a plan.
13 Management plans such as these are important in the develop-
14 ment of adequate programs even though the planning and program
15 development phases may have to take place over a prolonged
16 period.
17 The adoption procedure being followed is establish-
18 ed in Virginia's Administrative Processes Act and is consider-
19 ed for the State plan. The adoption process used is the same
20 as for a regulation. This process, similar to that of many
21 states, is adequate to accomplish the purposes of RCRA.
22 As asked in the supplementary information, more
23 specific approval requirements would seem to be inappropriate
24 and may in fact cause further administrative delays in plan
25 adoption. I would not recommend that the adoption procedure
-------
10
be more specific.
May I add, due to State administrative procedures,
it has taken several years: for states to qualify under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, additional, more spe-
cific requirements would make it most difficult for states
to qualify.
Another request for comment causes consternation
with our staff. It is suggested that EPA is considering
consolidation of State work program submissions for all
10 environmental programs into a single State/EPA agreement.
ll A State/EPA agreement would only be of value for
12 individual programs and meeting the contractual requirements
13 of EPA for each grant. Consolidation into a single agreement
14 is highly objectionable. All environmental program!; in
15 Virginia are not managed by a single department.
16 Lumping all programs would have the effect of
17 demanding that the State have an EPA equivalent structure.
18 Attainment of such structure would require legislative action
19 on the part of the General Assembly, an action which, in our
20 State, has been considered in the past and rejected.
21 in Virginia, RCRA activities, the Safe Drinking
22 Water Program, and TOSCA are within the Department of Health -
23 and I might add that we joiitly have responsibility under the
24 Clean Water Act — where appropriate emphasis is given to the
25 priority of health protection.
-------
11
l These programs are effectively coordinated now
2 with that of the Clean Water Act to the fullest extent, and
3 I fail to see how such a program submission consolidation is
4 going to bring about better coordination within the State.
5 By consolidation, one might assume that funds would also be
6 consolidated.
7 The danger then is that a program allocated a
8 smaller percentage than another might result in siphoning
9 of funds between programs or creation of new overhead require-
10 ments resulting in lower actual program funding.
11 The Conference of State Sanitary Engineers passed
12 a resolution in opposition to such consolidation which was
13 sent to the Administrator. The separate identity of RCRA
14 will be lost, and this can only result in a less effective
15 program.
16 Apparently, this is a decision that has already
17 been made since the Federal Register of October 12, Part III
18 on the final rules for grants for State Underground Water
19 Source Protection Programs specifies that all FY 1980
20 programs will be part of the single State/EPA agreement.
21 Such an action is contrary to the spirit of public
22 participation advocated by the Federal Government as the
23 requirement for State and local decisions, and indicates
24 a breakdown of proper communication at the EPA between
25 various programs. Burdening the State governments with work
-------
12
I program consolidation to cure EPA internal ailments seem
2 to penalize the wrong party.
3 The purpose of the proposed regulations stated in
paragraph 256.01(b) is to address the minimum requirements
for approval of State plans. Yet, the Guidelines go far
beyond these minimum requirements.
As an example, it is stated that hazardous waste
planning activities are to be included in the State plan.
9 Since this is an EPA responsibility under RCRA, it is
10 inappropriate to include on a mandatory basis until the
State decision to seek authorization to administer and
12 enforce the hazardous waste program has been made.
13 There is an error in paragraph 256.01 (b) (6) . One
14 might interpret it to be mandatory that plans require resource
15 recovery and disposal facilities in combination considering
16 what is environmentally sound. Disposal planning must be
17 allowed not in combination with resource recovery as stated
18 in the Act. Otherwise, we will see recovery projects
19 developed without an adequate economic basis.
20 The Guidelines require that State plans be sub-
21 mitted for approval within 18 months of promulgation.
22 Planning to the detailed level envisioned in the scope and
23 subsequent subparts, implementation of public participation
24 requirements, planning for a minimum of five years, and
25 full coordination with other programs will take more than
-------
13
two years.
2 Since it has taken EPA two years to develop these
3 proposed Guidelines, time phasing of planning should be
4 more than setting priorities. A waste category should not
be the only element of consideration in such plan phasing.
The annual work plan is an important element of
planning and implementation. The maintenance of flexibility
is essential in the guidance developed for these work plans
9 if the individual State needs are to be considered. The
10 same consideration should be incorporated in the planning
11 process itself.
12 Our proposed State plan uses similar language to
!3 that of paragraph 256.30(c), and therefore should comply
14 with this mandatory requirement. However, this places the
15 burden on individual states to develop materials procurement
16 specifications such as for paving or paper where Federal
17 funds are used. This should be reversed.
18 The Federal agency providing the funds should
!9 identify the materials to be procured by specification and
20 market source. My review of Section 6002 of RCRA would
21 require the Federal agencies to do this and EPA producing
22 procurement guidelines. Before implementing the require-
23 ment in this regulation, limit its application.
24 Throughout the document you see the terms "shall"
25 and "should." By your definition, "shall" is used for a.
-------
14
1 mandatory requirement to be included in the plan. My fear
2 is that by including recommendations in the regulation,
3 the "should" will translate to "shall" in plan preparation,
4 public review, and EPA approval.
5 This will happen through interpretation of what
g strategy of policy will encourage resource recover/. The
7 first recommendation includes training, financial support,
8 and market development. Virginia is financially limited in
9 its ability to undertake such efforts^ so why infer this
10 level of detail in the Guidelines for State plans?
11 The recommendation contained in the: Prearible, for
12 the States to have authority to acquire solid waste disposal
13 facilities or cause facilities to be acquired is totally
14 unrealistic in Virginia's legal context.
15 Even if the facilities could be acquired, who
16 would finance them and who would operate such a facility?
17 Are you considering the State dictating facility location?
18 Such a suggestion is totally unacceptable.
19 During the public meeting held in Annapolis,
20 Maryland, on October the 13th, the attendees were solicited
21 for comments on the advisability for public hearings prior
22 to the issuance of permit:? to operate solid waste disposal
23 facilities.
24 Such site selection, acquisition, and operation
25 of disposal facilities are; a local responsibility, and are
-------
15
1 accomplished with ample public participation in all stages
2 of the decision process for use permits and zoning.
3 Once the site has been selected and the operational
4 plans have been approved, holding additional public hearings
5 on the issuance of a State permit is highly redundant and
6 would result in totally unnecessary delays in addition to
7 a waste of taxpayer's money.
8 We have already objected to the expansiveness of
9 the public participation requirements in a previous hearing.
10 I consider these requirements to be arbitrary and capricious,
11 going far beyond the purposes of Section 7004 (b) of RCRA.
12 Virginia has an Administrative Process Act cover-
13 ing the necessity of public participation. The mandatory
14 requirements of paragraphs 256.60, 256.61, and 256.62 go
15 far beyond what is reasonable and essential for the involve-
16 ment of an informed public. I am enclosing a copy of our
17 previous comments for the record.
18 The mandatory inclusions within the annual work
19 program would seem to take away State flexibility. For
20 example, State planning for development of hazardous waste
21 management facilities may be beyond the financial abilities
22 and the policy of a State.
23 Developing regulations on hazardous waste manage-
24 ment, if the State elects to apply for the authority to
25 administer Subtitle C, is more appropriate. Only if it is
-------
16
a State policy to own ard operate such facilities or ser-
vices would paragraph 256.05(d)(2) be considered. If all
3 elements of the work program are mandatory, what will EPA
4 and the State negotiate?
5 Resource conservation and recovery are specified
6 in RCRA. To make a requirement that State and local govern-
ments shall not prohibit long -term contracts for resource
recovery is important. Yet, it will require legislative
action to authorize such contracts.
10 Such a plan element is of little value wh.ere a
11 customer for recovered energy is a Federal facility. Except
12 for a recent amendment to the Military Construction Appropria-
13 tion Act, Federal contracts are limited to one year. Under
14 the amendment of the Military Construction bill, the
15 military may contract up to 10 years for recovered energy.
16 Ten years may not yield bonds or project funding
17 at an economically competitive level. Resource recovery
18 without a sound economic base will become a community white
19 elephant with the taxpayers bearing yet another burden.
20 You are requiring States to plan for something
21 that is not possible within the Federal Government.
22 Thank you. If there are any questions, I will
23 try and answer them.
24 DR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Adams. Are there
25 any questions from the panel? Let me start. I have a few,
-------
17
1 and maybe some will develop.
2 Could you explain very briefly what the procedure,
3 the administrative procedure for adoption of a plan through
4 Virginia's Administrative Processes Act would be?
5 MR. ADAMS: Yes, sir. Well, under the Administra-
6 tive Process Act — and this is the result of our legislature
7 becoming disenchanted with the Federal programs and all the
8 Federal regulations that are emanating from Washington. They
9 have Made, it most difficult now for a State agency to adopt
10 regulations.
11 Under the present State law, it would be neces-
12 sary that we have, taking the State plan, go through public
13 participation, get the plan approved by the State Board of
14 Health, and then we must file it with the Secretary of the
15 Commonwealth. For the Board to adopt it, of course, we
16 have to go through public hearings. Then, the plan will
17 have to be filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth
18 and with the appropriate committees of the State legislature.
19 It will not become effective until after
20 February 1st of the following year.
21 We go beyond that because we would like to iron
22 out any differences before, and at the present time, we are
23 taking a draft plan, and we are setting up public hearings
24 in eight places over the State in the next two weeks, to
25 explain that plan, find out what the people feel about that
-------
18
1 plan. He have sent out over 350 copies of that plan, which
2 is another huge task.
3 Based upon those comments, we will try to draft
4 another plan. Then, we will go to the Board later on to
5 seek authority to go to the formal hearing that is necessary
6 for the adoption of the plan.
7 Then, after it is adopted by the Board, we file
8 it with the Secretary fo:r the Commonwealth, and finally,
g I guess if the legislature agrees, we will then have it
10 adopted.
11 DR. SKINNER: Is it approved by the legislature
12 or the Governor?
13 MR. ADAMS: No, it is not approved. It is sub-
14 mitted to the Secretary of the Commonwealth and sent to
15 the various committees. Now, we have to send it also at
16 that time to all the municipalities.
17 DR. SKINNER: That was another question I was
-h> as*,
18 going^ how you handle local government's review.
19 MR. ADAMS: We are doing that as we go along,
20 and we will have to send that to local governments.
21 DR. SKINNER: Fine. Thank you.
22 Questions from the panel? David?
23 MR. GAVRICH: I have a question dealing with
24 resource recovery and procurement specifically. There is
25 a statement in here that the proposed State plan uses
-------
19
1 similar language to the Guidelines language on procurement
2 of recycled materials.
3 First of all, I want to say, in answering that
4 paragraph, we are developing Guidelines on procurement for
5 specifications of recycled material and the like, and those
6 will be available to the State beginning in June of next year
7 My question is, what type of language, what type
8 of procurement setup is there planned for in the State of
9 Virginia?
10 MR. ADAMS: I cannot answer that in any detail
ll at this time, but we are put into a position where we are
12 not in the chain of procurement even. The procurement is
13 done by others. You are putting the solid waste program
14 responsible for procurement action, and it has no real way
15 to exit or enter the chain.
16 MR. GAVRICH: I think part of the — just to
17 clarify one point — part of the Guidelines' recommendations
18 are that the State solid waste management plan take certain
19 steps to bring together those powers of procurement, the
20 Office of Administration, and the like, and not mandate.
21 We understand that the Solid waste plan can't mandate
22 procurement of recycled materials.
23 MR. ADAMS: Well, I still think that you have to
24 look at that regardless of what you have there in the law,
25 and I think you are being very unrealistic in that section
-------
20
1 of the law, that we are going to be able to tell City X
2 that you should use glass in your concrete because you are
3 building a sewage treatment plant under the Clean Water Act
4 grant.
5 The real thing is the specifications, and you are
6 getting into a very gra/ area, as far as I am concerned,
7 when you get down to tell Contractor X that he has got to
8 use 20 percent glass in his concrete. If the thing fails,
9 he is going to say, "Well, that glass is what made it fail."
10 MR. GAVRICH: That is one of the reasons why the
11 National Bureau of Standards and EPA are working on these
12 specifications.
13 MR. ADAMS: I think it has got to come out a lot
14 clearer than it has at the present time, of what the State's
15 responsibility is. This: is one of the things that I see.
16 We are doing the planning, and we are doing it a little bit
17 into a vacuum, because you know what you are going to do
18 on this type of thing, but it is not out for us to have the
19 advantage of it.
20 DR. SKINNER: On that particular point, the
21 Guidelines do say that that action can be deferred until
22 EPA comes out with further guidance on that area. So, we
23 are aware of that point.
24 Are there any other questions? Frank?
25 MR. MC ALISTER: In your statement, I was
-------
21
i concerned about the hazardous waste planning activities.
2 There is a statement here that is the responsibility of
3 EPA under RCRA. Would you clarify what you meant by this?
4 MR. ADAMS: What I feel is me*l»t t>H /*"_'* <•***"
5 under RCRA, and as I understand the law, EPA was given the
6 responsibility to do the planning and write regulations for
7 hazardous waste management. It is possible, if a State so
8 selects and has equally a stringent a program, that they
9 might apply and be given the responsibility for that
10 activity within the State.
11 What you are asking us to do is to buy a pig in
12 a poke with hazardous wastes, because I know that it is a
13 very difficult problem, and until your regulations are out
14 and we know a little bit what is going on, we can't make a
15 decision on it.
16 I might add that we want a law that will provide
n for our qualifying, and I think that we would like to qualify
18 because I think it is a State responsibility, and I think
19 most of the people will want us to do that job.
20 But, again, until you come out with some of your
21 regulations, and as I see it, if they are so burdensome,
22 maybe we can't and won't be able to qualify.
23 MR. MC ALISTER: Even in the absence of the regu-
24 latory part of RCRA, what would Virginia do for providing
25 facilities?
-------
22
1 MR. ADAMS: I just cannot answer that. I do not
2 know what the answer is.,
3 DR. SKINNER: I have another question. You
4 mentioned several points; on the concept of a total State/
5 EPA agreement, which would coordinate grant applications from
6 a number of programs.
7 The concept behind that is that there are a lot of
8 overlapping programs anc a lot of overlapping responsibilities
9 under the Clean Water Act and RCRA and the underground
10 injection control program of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
11 Many different agencies are involved in similar activities.
12 One vehicle for coordinating that would be through
13 a combined State/EPA agreement, where all the agencies get
14 together and submit a consolidated work program.
15 Short of such an agreement, do you perhaps discuss
16 how, in the State of Virginia, that coordination does take
17 place, or if there is such a need for such coordination?
18 MR. ADAMS: In my testimony there, I said I did
19 not see the need for it. Most of the programs that you have
20 got, or a good part of them, are in the Healbh Department
21 already. These are work plans that you are going bo develop,
22 and you are going to develop them with the other Sbate
23 agencies, knowing what they are doing and what you are going
24 to do under yours.
25 There isn't enough money to do everything, and we
-------
23
1 have to depend on the other State agencies.
2 For example, at the present time, we use the
3 geologists of the State Water Control Board in our evaluation
4 of the landfill sites. What you are assuming here is that
5 the States are like EPA, you don't talk to each other. We
g do talk to each other, and we do know what our programs are.
7 We do try to stay within what we are supposed to do and try
8 to help the other fellow out.
9 I just don't see that mandating it is going to help
10 us any.
u DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Any other questions?
12 (No response.)
13 DR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Adams. We appreciate
14 your comments.
15 Mr. Busbin?
lg MR. BUSBIN: Good morning. My name is Carey
17 Busbin. I am an Environmental Licensing Engineer with
is Southern Company Services, Inc., with specific responsibility
19 in the area of solid waste management.
20 I am appearing today as a representative of the
21 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, known as "USWAG," and
22 the Edison Electric Institute.
23 USWAG is a coalition of approximately 45 electric
24 utilities and the Edison Electric Institute, the principal
25 national association of investor-owned electric light and
-------
24
1 power companies.
2 USWAG was created in August 1978, as the suc-
3 cessor to the Solid Waste Task Force of Edison's Environment
4 and Energy Committee.
5 USWAG and its predecessor have participated
actively in EPA's efforts to date to develop regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
This involvement reflects both recognition that portions of
9 these regulations will :.mpact substantially upon the
10 electric power industry and a commitment to work coopera-
11 tively with EPA to insure that this important statute is
12 implemented in a reasoneible manner.
13 With this background, I am pleased to offer a few
14 of USWAG1s observations on EPA's proposed Guidelines for
15 the Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste
16 Management Plans under Section 4002 (b) of RCRA.
17 Since USWAG will file more comprehensive; comments
18 on these proposed Guidelines, I shall confine my remarks
19 today to the high points of our submission.
20 First, USWAG believes that the proposed State
21 planning guidelines do not give the States the flexibility
they need, and that Congress intended them to have, in
23 attempting to deal with the particular non-hazardous solid
24 waste disposal problems in their jurisdictions.
25 The report of the House Committee on Interstate
-------
25
l and Foreign Commerce states explicitly: "In formulating
2 a State plan, it is the Committee's intention to permit
3 wide flexibility on the part of the State developing such
-------
26
1 A second example: RCRA directs EPA to consider in
2 its Section 4002(b) Guidelines "the varying regional,
3 geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and other circumstances
4 under which different solid waste practices are required in
5 order to insure the reasonable protection of the ground and
6 surface water from leachate contamination, the reasonable
7 protection of the quality of the surface waters from surface
g runoff contamination, and the reasonable protection of
9 ambient air quality." We note that Congress emphasized
10 reasonable protection of the environment.
11 However, the proposed Criteria, which would be
12 incorporated in these Guidelines, generally would bar an
13 approved State from locating solid waste disposal facilities
14 in wetlands in the 100-year flood plains even though local
15 geologic, hydrologic, and other conditions are suoh that
lg the facility would be operated in a manner to insure reason-
17 able protection of the environment.
18 USWAG recognis:es the importance of wetlands,
jg 100-year flood plains arid other "environmentally Sensitive
90 areas." However, we believe that options short of blanket
2i exclusions are available to both insure the protection of
22 these areas and to give the States the necessary flexibility
23 to deal with their solid waste problems.
24 One such option, which we previously have suggest-
25 ed to EPA, is a formal variance procedure whereby States
-------
27
1 would be able to exempt specific disposal facilities from
2 the Criteria upon a showing of a reasonable protection of
3 the environment.
4 In summation, USWAG again urges EPA to reevaluate
5 its proposed Section 4004 Criteria which, when incorporated
g in the Section 4002(b) Guidelines, will not restrict the
7 States in formulating acceptable solid waste plans under
8 RCRA.
9 This brings me to USWAG's second point of concern,
10 which is also related to the need for State flexibility in
11 solid waste management.
12 We have serious doubts about the appropriateness
13 of proposed Sections 256.20(d) and 256.24(b), which require
14 the States to make use of a permit or registration program
15 to insure that the establishment of a new open dump is
16 prohibited and that all solid waste disposal is carried
17 out in compliance with the Section 4004 Criteria.
18 Under these provisions, permits possibly would be
19 required before any solid waste disposal facility, including
20 the smallest sanitary landfill, could commence operation.
21 USWAG does not believe this was the intent of
22 Congress. While we recognize that RCRA mandates a permit
23 program for hazardous wastes, we do not believe that Subtitle
24 D gives EPA the authority to require States to utilize
25 either a permit or registration program in managing
-------
28
non-hazardous wastes. We; submit that the States should be
free to select whatever programs they deem necessary, in
light of their particular problems and circumstances, to
comply with the requirements of Subtitle D.
USWAG's third point is an endorsement of EPA's
requirement that the State plan "provide for a policy and
strategy for encouragemert of resource recovery and conserva-
tion activities."
We wish to point out that in the electric: utility
10 industry, approximately 20 percent of fly ash and bottom
11 ash is today sold commercially for road base, subbctse,
12 structural fill material, and as an additive in concrete.
13 We believe that State plans under Subtitle D should
14 encourage the continued use of such resource recovery efforts.
15 Fourth, USWAG believes that the procedural protec-
16 tions under the proposed closure requirements should be
17 strengthened considerably in order to comply with the require-
18 ments of due process.
19 First, an owner or operator should be notified as
20 soon as it is determined that his facility is under study
21 for possible classification as an open dump. Second, we feel
22 that the owner-operator should be provided with all of the
23 evidence upon which the classification is based, rather than
24 only with the summary.
25 At this point, I would like to point out a few
-------
29
1 additional provisions of the proposed Guidelines that are
2 of concern to USWAG and its members,
We believe that where multiple agencies are in-
volved in implementing a solid waste management program, the
State plan should designate a single agency to coordinate the
administrative process in order to protect persons from
inconsistent and duplicative regulation. We urge EPA to
include this requirement in its Section 4002(b) Guidelines.
9 We submit that the proposed State plan approval
10 provisions should provide that notice to a State of plan non-
compliance, as well as withdrawal of State plan approval,
12 will be published in the Federal Register.
13 USWAG believes that several of the terms defined
14 in the proposed Guidelines need clarification. For example,
15 the meaning of "properly closed" is unclear. The use of
16 the phrase "et cetera" in the definition of "facility" is
17 confusing and inappropriate. The definition of "inventory
18 of open dumps" should specify that the list will be published
19 in the Federal Register.
20 USWAG generally supports EPA's recommendation that
21 the States should have greater authority and control over
22 facility acquisitions. Our experience has shown that local
23 authorities often are reluctant, or even refuse, to take
24 the necessary steps to obtain and establish adequate new
25 disposal sites.
-------
30
l Finally, we question the requirement that a State
2 must hold a public heariig on each permit application. USWAG
3 believes that this matter should rest in the discretion of
4 the States. We feel that, at most, EPA should require only
5 that a public hearing be held where the State finds a signif-
6 icant degree of public interest in the application.
7 USWAG apprecia-es the opportunity to submit these
8 comments today. We will continue to follow with i-nterest
9 EPA's efforts to implement the Resource Conservation and
10 Recovery Act.
11 DR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Busbin. Are there
12 any questions? Susan?
13 MS. ABSHER: You stated you thought it was inap-
14 propriate for the State planning Guidelines to require the
15 State to have a permit or registration program.
16 My question to you is, how would you suggest that
17 the State insure that new open dumps are prohibited, as the
18 Act requires, if this isn't done under a permit or registra-
19 tion program?
20 MR. BUSBIN: AEI best I remember, the way it is
21 stated, that an inventory be made. That does place
22 responsibility upon someone to do an inventory at that partic-
23 ular point in time.
24 If you require a permit, what you are actually doing
25 is saying the State does not need to make an inventory. It
-------
31
will tell everybody to come in. It will cause it to be an
action enforcing type situation. Whereas, I don't think that
is mandated under non-hazardous wastes. It is mandated under
the hazardous wastes program.
So, in effect, what you are saying is somebody do
an inventory, but then you turn around and saying everybody
apply for a permit. So, you are not, in effect, causing an
inventory to be made by the State or Federal agency.
9 DR. SKINNER: The inventory would be oriented
10 towards existing sites. The permit program would also apply
11 to sites before they were actually operated. Would you care
12 to comment on, in short of a permit program or a registration
13 program, how you could effectively deal with preventing
14 unacceptable facilities from being started?
15 MR. BUSBIN: I really hadn't addressed that com-
16 pletely other than our comments were reflecting the point
17 that we considered this to actually consider operating
18 facilities. Probably you could address it under your MPDES
19 permit program would be my thought from off the top of my
20 head.
21 DR. SKINNER: Are there any other questions? David?
22 MR. O'BRIEN: You mentioned in relation to flood
23 plains and wetlands, perhaps a formal variance procedure
24 would be useful. I am wondering exactly what you meant by
25 that. Is that during the inventory process, there should be
-------
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
32
some procedure incorporated into that process, or also during
the permitting of new sites, should there be some sort of
formal procedure incorporated in the State program, permit
registration program? Also, could you expand upon what you
mean — well, I am asking you to expand upon a little bit
what the Act says and what you interpret a showing of reason-
able protection of the environment to mean in this case.
So, there ore really three questions there.
MR. BUSBIN: Well, let's see, I think I will start
with the first one. Basically, any time you come up with a
one-sentence exclusion, it does not fit the entire country.
There are obviously areais of the country that it is inappro-
priate. I think that technically, I don't know where the
variance procedure should come in, but obviously, it will
need to be considered. You cannot just say "no 100-year
flood plains and no wetlands," and then go to an airea like
Louisiana, where a goodly portion of some of the major cities
are beneath sea level.
I do not know technically, where you would insert
a variance procedure in there. I think that would be more
administrative than the theory of it.
MR. O'BRIEN: So, your comments addressed established
sites, as well as proposed new sites?
MR. BUSBIN: Yas. I think our comments would have
to address both. At this particular point in time, as I read
-------
33
these regulations, those particular classifications would
cause almost every facility in New Orleans or in the State
of Louisiana to be designated as an open dump in an inventory.
Without a variance procedure, in fact, it could cause a shift
from all solid wastes to Texas or Mississippi. That is my
opinion.
DR. SKINNER: I have a question on your comment
with respect to adoption of the 4004 Criteria in the State
plan. Section 4003 of the Act, which sets forth the minimum
10 requirements for approval of State plans, says the State plan
11 shall prohibit the establishment of new open dumps. It
12 also says the State plan shall provide for the closing and
13 upgrading of all existing open dumps.
14 The definition of "open dumps" given in the Act
15 is a site for disposal of solid waste which is not a sanitary
16 landfill within the meaning of Section 4004.
17 How, in the face of such very strong, and I believe,
lg clear language, that an open dump is a facility which does
19 not comply with Section 4004, could a State prohibit open
20 dumps without adopting the 4004 Criteria?
2i MR. BUSBIN: Since you read that, I would like to
22 go back to the other question about the permit system, too.
23 That particular point basically states that the State shall
24 not require, or shall not allow, the establishment of new
25 open dumps. It does not say by use of a permit or registratior
-------
34
system. I think it would be specific if the Act would have
specifically stated thai point, as it did in the hazardous
section, which means to me, the State shall have the ability
to choose how they would like to eliminate open dumps. If it
is a permit system, it should be of their choice, not at
your direction.
DR. SKINNER: The second question was on the
adoption of the 4004 Criteria in the State plan. I pointed
out that one of the requirements is that they prohibit open
10 dumps, and open dumps are defined in the Act by the Congress
11 as facilities which do rot comply with the 4004 Criteria.
12 Your statement was that you felt it was inappropriate
13 for us to require the States to adopt the 4004 Criteria as
14 part of the State plan. I was pointing out the fact that I
15 believe that the Act says that we must, and perhaps if you
16 feel differently, you could explain why.
17 MR. BUSBIN: Well, I think it goes back to the
18 comments on the variance procedures. If you require them
19 to adopt the 100-year flaod plain and certain wetland provis-
20 ions as a blanket thing, without variance, then in fact you
21 preclude several States from the disposal of solid wastes.
22 In fact, then they have ;io solid waste plan or, at the very
23 least, you may find a few areas within their State political
24 boundaries that they can dispose of wastes.
25 So, with the variance procedure, I would think that.
-------
35
in fact, the 4004 Criteria could be used.
DR. SKINNER: I think your comments are really, then
about the 4004 Criteria themselves, on whether or not there
should be a variance procedure in those Criteria themselves,
rather than whether the State should have to pick them up.
MR. BUSBIN: In other words, what I am saying is
that if you use 4002(b) and then tell them they have to use
4004 without a variance, you, in effect, cut off several areas
of the country from disposal of any wastes. I think that that
10 is a point that needs to be addressed. I know that it is not
11 pertinent to central United States, but in coastal areas,
12 it is important.
13 DR. SKINNER: Are there any other questions? Anne?
H MS. ALLEN: Along that line, I just wanted to make
15 sure that you are not finding authority for not including
16 the 4004 as much as you disagree with the 4004.
17 MR. BUSBIN: I think I would rather not answer that
18 one right now. I am not sure if I have a good answer for
19 it. I think the 4004 Criteria, as they stand, are basically,
20 we feel, unacceptable. They are too matter of fact, and they
21 don't cover two specific instances. As the inclusion of the
State plans, what you are asking me is whether or not we
23 would prefer the State to make their own definition of what
24 an open dump is, or use the Federal definition. I am not
25 sure I can really answer that now.
-------
36
1 DR. SKINNER: David?
2 MR. O'BRIEN: VThat did you have in mind when you
3 mentioned that the State plan should designate a lead agency
to coordinate the administrative process?
5 MR. BUSBIN: Well, I am sure you realize that this
6 one has a lot of overlapping implications, RCRA does. Your
7 definition basically covers matter, which it probably should
have been stated that way.
9 In an instance where you are required to get a
10 permit from a State agency, as the gentleman from Virginia
11 said, there are many ageicies that feel they may have juris-
12 diction over certain sections.
13 Whether or not you have got an MPDES permit on
14 a discharge from a pond 'ihat, in fact, has some solid mate-
15 rials in it, when you get these overlapping things, we would
16 like to see us deal with one agency, rather than f.Lve or six
agencies.
is It is very hard when you get into these requirements
19 of public hearings and so forth, you end up with the traveling
20 road show going around arid around because each agency within
21 the State wants a public hearing on the matter.
If you had one agency, it would simplify considerabl;
23 our application process, with the other agencies directing
24 their thoughts into their own system, rather than us trying
25 to work with a half a dozen different independent agencies
-------
37
within a State. If one was designated as a lead agency, then
we could go to that one agency and say, "Please coordinate
your own people and provide the information, that we are
providing you, to them,"and then come back to us through
one point, rather than this shotgun affair where we are
going to everybody and end up with the same public hearing
over and over and over.
MR. O'BRIEN: I was wondering if you were addressing
the one-stop shopping concept within the solid waste agency
10 itself, or within overall, all environmental programs.
11 MR. BUSBIN: Well, I am sure if you have looked
12 in.this coordination, which some comments came out, in
13 4002 (b), with all the agencies and sections of specific Acts,
14 in the Federal end of it you want coordination with. We
15 would also like to see a clearinghouse for Federal coordina-
16 tion, when you come to the Federal agencies. My guess is,
17 right off the top of my head, you want coordination with
18 maybe 15 different Federal agencies in 4002(b), which, in
19 fact, requires us to go to 15 different agencies, as well as
20 State agencies.
21 We would like to see one agency with the Federal
22 Government, that can work in-house, and coordinate USGS,
23 Corps of Engineers, HUD, and all these other agencies up
24 here. We end up building an enormous staff doing the same
25 thing that we think that you should do.
-------
38
j DR. SKINNER: So, you are generally in support of
2 a concept where there i;j a single agency or a single permit,
3 where an industry could go to a single point in EPA or in the
4 Federal Government and obtain all the permit requirements,
5 and perhaps obtain his permit from that agency after meeting
6 those requirements?
7 MR. BUSBIN: ] would think yes, we would like the
g one-point contact. But, then again, if this one point is
9 going to become an impediment, if you can't get your one
10 point to work, we will just continue with our shotgun
n approach, and we will cover everybody.
12 DR. SKINNER: Any other questions?
13 (No response.)
u DR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Busbin.
15 The next speaker is Mr. Chris Stotler.
16 MR. STOTLER: 3ood morning. My name is Chris
17 Stotler. I am Chief of the Division of Planning and Technical
18 Assistance, Office of L.ind Pollution Control, Ohio Environ-
19 mental Protection Agency,
20 U.S. ^PA should be congratulated on the development
21 of these Guidelines. They are greatly improved from earlier
22 drafts. Most requirements and recommendations are realistic
23 and achievable, that is, assuming funding continues and
24 improves.
95 The organization of the Guidelines is much better
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
than most guidelines we have read in the Federal Register
in the past.
Although overall our Office views these Guidelines
favorably, there are several concerns and questions we have
about specific sections, and there are one or two items we
oppose. These specific comments follow. Sectionswhich I
will not be commenting on, in general, we haven't really found
a problem with them yet.
Before I do get into the specific comments, I would
like to agree with the gentleman from the State of Virginia
on his comments about State grants being consolidated under
some grandiose scheme. I feel that generally, that would
probably hurt our program. Also, some of his comments con-
cerning hazardous wastes, we are in agreement with.
We are currently evaluating what is needed in terms
of a hazardous wastes program, and it is really up to our
legislature to act upon our recommendations and the recom-
mendations of our consultants on that.
I would hate to see a plan that if the legislature
and everybody else said it is in the best interests of the
State not to get into the hazardous waste program, that,
therefore, your whole planning process, indeed, has been
killed,if in fact, your plan is that you shouldn't get into
it. I don't anticipate that happening in Ohio, but I think
it is something that some States, it is in their best interests
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
not to get into the haz
-------
41
us some type of a time frame, what you are really expecting
from the States, and not make it sound like everything has
3 to be done in the 18-month period.
4 Also, in 256.03, subparagraph (e), how often
5 should plans, especially local plans be revised? I don't
think you referred to local substate plans on the revision.
We are also concerned about adequate funds for such revisions.
We have heard rumors that everybody isn't in agreement on
the Continuing funding of Subtitle D beyond the next couple
10 of years.
We urge the continuation of funding of revision
12 of local plans.
13 In 256.06, the definitions of "planning" and
14 "implementation" are better here than in the Act. Also, in
15 your discussion section and preamble to the Guidelines,
essentially your definitions of "planning" and "implementa-
17 tion" are consistent with ours.
18 We still have the problem that the definition of
19 "construction" in the Act is not consistent, and is really
2o what we define as planning. In other words, the Act excludes
21 some things which we consider planning. I strongly encourage
22 you to work, as we are trying to work, with our Congressmen
23 in getting the oversight hearings to correct the situation
24 on the definition of "construction."
25 In 256.10, detailed definition of responsibilities
-------
42
1 concerning all areas of solid waste management and between
2 local government, designated planning and implementation
3 agencies and the private1, sector is of little value at this
4 stage, and would be very difficult and confusing to local
5 governments.
6 This wording sounds too much like 208. We suggest
7 the best solution to this is the development, of a memorandum
8 of understanding between planning agencies and major govern-
9 ment units or implementation agencies.
10 The MOU's are developed by the local agencies to
11 address their concerns on the assigning of responsibilities.
!2 Now, as they define "locally," who is going to be responsible
13 for what in terms of the planning work and the implementation?
14 They would follow the broad categories of responsi-
15 bility the State assigned earlier in the designation process.
ig They are most important where resource recovery projects
17 are being planned. Any tiling further is not needed until the
18 local problems and plans are better defined.
19 We don't really want to get into the situation of
20 having to — at this stage, it may sound like we are telling
21 every local government which individual unit of that local
22 government is supposed to take care of collection, and so
23 forth. It is already well-defined and understood locally.
24 So, we really don't thinl< that is necessary.
25 We do encourage- and, in fact, we require it in the
-------
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
State of Ohio, the development of a memorandum of understand-
ing. I think that meets your purpose.
Some of the same comments apply to 256.10. There
is just too much detail expected here — excuse me — 256.11
involves the same comments as made on 256.10.
In 256.20 and 256.21, most of these requirements
and recommendations are realistic and needed. Although we
support these elements, it may take several years to obtain
all the needed legislation to comply.
In 256.21(d)(4), requiring all facilities to be in
conformance with the plans, it should pertain only to new
facilities. You don't really have a grandfather clause in
there. Although this section is valuable, it is going to be
very difficult to sell to local governments and State
legislatures.
In 256.22(e), does this mean only facilities with
no alternatives are given compliance schedules? Elsewhere,
in 256.22 (g), it sounds like all facilities can receive
compliance schedules of up to five years.
If the first is true, how soon after publication
of the list of open dumps do the dumps with alternatives
have to close?
In 256.22(g), including all the compliance schedule
information in the annual work program will make annual
State grant proposals unnecessarily bulky. I don't think you
-------
44
i really want all those compliance schedules every year.
2 In 256.23, the term "evaluated" is confusing. The
3 Act says all sites must be evaluated. If the intent is
4 "detailed evaluation," -.hen insert the word "detailed." Who
5 must evaluate whether there are alternative sites, the opera-
6 tor or the State? Who pays for it, the operator of the State?
7 Could this be the responsibility of the substate units in
8 evaluating alternatives?
9 In 256.30, the: procurement requirements will be
10 hard to achieve and, therefore, this section should not be
11 required until after the publication of the 6002(e) regula-
12 tions, which I think you mentioned earlier you intend to do.
13 Also, this should only apply to the State. It
14 should not be carried on through to the local substate units
15 that may receive pass-through funds in the future. We are
16 having enough trouble trying to do something at the State
17 level without trying to mandate anything at the local level.
18 In 256.31, in general, there is a little too much
19 detail in these recommendations. For example, the review of
20 local legislation and conducting waste composition studies
21 and some of these other things are awfully time-consuming
22 and costly, and may not be of that much value for many
23 areas of the State.
24 Under Subpart E, much of the work expected in
25 facility planning cannot be completed until after the inventor
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
is complete. This subpart has greatest impact on local
planning agencies. This subpart is really needed more than
many other subparts in these Guidelines, and needs to be
funded over the next five years.
We oppose requiring all funding for hazardous waste
facility planning coming from Subtitle D. We would like to
see hazardous waste facility planning fundable under Subtitle
C, especially when you consider the limited funding that
Subtitle D has received compared to some other Federal programs
of lesser beneficial impact, and, well, even compared to
Subtitle C itself.
It should be to the discretion of the State as
how that would be handled on the funding, and an agreement
between the State and the regional office.
In 256.42, both (b) and (c), dealing with the
providing of facilities, we strongly support this as an
activity of substate units, and have given it our highest
priority for "pass-through" funding. This need emphasizes
the need for increased funding of Subtitle D over the next
four and five years to enable the completion of the local
plans.
In 256.42(e) and (f) , the State cannot require
local governments to obtain facilities. However, a stronger
State role, as recommended, may be desirable, especially if ii
is interpreted in terms of assisting local governments in
-------
46
l obtaining sites.
2 In (g) of the same section, what financial assist-
3 ance is referred to here? It sounds like you are referring
4 to a construction grants program. If this is only really
5 referring to rural assistance, so state it.
6 in 256.43, and other sections dealing with hazardous
7 waste, I think I made the; comment earlier it should be the
8 choice of the State working with the Regional Administrator.
9 In Subpart G, the amount of public participation,
10 hearings, meetings, et cetera, takes a considerable: amount
11 of time and money. I don't think Headquarters staff always
12 realizes what you are doing to the States. It is going to be
13 very difficult to meet many of these deadlines, and even
14 more difficult if we have to comply with all the public
15 participation requirements.
16 In 256.63, the Office of Land Pollution Control,
17 Ohio EPA, strongly opposes requiring public hearings before
is the issuance of all facility permits. Ohio law currently
19 provides for meetings or hearings if justified requests or
20 sufficient interest is shown.
21 We do advertise all proposed actions, whether they
22 be an approval or a denia] of a permit, and provide for a
23 response period. It is hard enough to get facilities approved
24 without waving any red flags such as what you are really doing
25 when you hold a public hearing quite often.
-------
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
I will be glad to answer any questions.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Stotler. Are there
any questions?
MR. O'BRIEN: I have a question. You suggested
that the wording in 256.10, related to identification,
that part of it or the whole section was much like 208.
As an alternative, you addressed memorandums of understanding
that are now in use in Ohio.
Could you expand on both of those points a little
bit? What are those memorandums of understanding and
exactly what is your problem with the wording?
MR. STOTLER: The wording sounds like we have to
go through essentially less or assign who is responsible
for collection, transfer stations, disposal of all types
of wastes, and stuff like that. And, generally, it is every
local unit of government has the authority to do the majority
of those things you speak of, you know, the lists of types
of wastes and types of activities. We really don't see that
as being necessary, to actually go into the detail of assign-
ing all of these responsibilities.
When we designate agencies, we designate them for
solid waste management planning, and the implementation
agencies primarily for solid waste disposal. However, we
weren't specific in the wording, just for disposal.
The most important thing in terms of the memorandum
-------
48
l of understanding is this Ls an agreement drawn up between
2 the designated planning agency and the implementation agency
3 or any local government which is subdesignated for planning
4 work. In Ohio, we have actually subdesignations, where we
5 may have them all like county planning agencies as a designat-
6 ed agency, but the individual county group will actually do
7 some of the planning in that county, or a majority of the
8 planning.
9 So, the memorandum of understanding is a document
10 which explains who is responsible for what work, how monies
11 would flow locally if we are in a pass-through situation,
12 and how the implementation is being interpreted.
13 I think this is especially useful where we: have got
14 metropolitan areas, where we are talking about, resource
15 recovery facilities being built, so we can identify a lead
16 agency. It is also a nice way of avoiding getting into
17 some real political fights locally.
18 MR. O'BRIEN: So, these memorandums of understanding
19 would occur previous to the actual planning?
20 MR. STOTLER: Yes, we require the MOU's before
21 any monies would go to the substate unit for the planning.
22 This was something I think I commented earlier on, under
23 the urban waste program, as being a way of defining who
24 should be doing the work, say, in the urban waste programs.
25 MR. O'BRIEN: And the implementing agencies are
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
agreeing to carry out the planning at the regional level?
MR. STOTLER: A person, who is designated as an
implementation agency, may be involved in doing some of the
planning within your jurisdiction. If that is the case, it
would be defined in the MOU.
DR. SKINNER: I have a question. Your comment about
the fact that the State plan cannot be developed within 18
months in order to comply with all of the requirements of
the Guidelines.
The Guideline itself discusses setting priorities
and laying out what can be done. The preamble discussed time
phasing of planning, and indicates that it would be difficult
to completely fulfill the requirements of the Guidelines in
the near term.
It talks about the time phasing of planning,
regulatory program implementation, and facility implementa-
tion. Does that get at your concern?
MR. STOTLER: The only thing is, yes, in the
preamble maybe it discussed it, but in the actual Guidelines
themselves —
DR. SKINNER: You feel that the wording should be
clearer?
MR. STOTLER: I think it should be stated a little
clearer in there. It is nice to read the preamble of these
things to try to figure out, you know, how you are interpreting
-------
50
i what you said in the Guidelines/ but when you get right down
2 to trying to get legislation and writing things, we have to
3 go and look at just what is in the body of the Guidelines.
4 DR. SKINNER: On your comments, or I guess it was
5 a question, on whether open dumps with alternatives would
6 have to be closed. If you look at Section 256.23 (c), when
7 we discuss alternatives, we mention that alternatives include
8 upgrading the open dump. Does that clarify that point, that
9 a facility does have the option of upgrading itself, and we
10 are talking about an alternative to the open clump, which
11 should be a facility that was brought into compliance, not
12 necessarily another site?
13 MR. STOTLER: Okay. I think there is still some
14 question in here on the wording between when a compliance
15 schedule is issued. We have interpreted any open dump can
16 receive a compliance schedule.
17 DR. SKINNER: Can?
18 MR. STOTLER: Can receive a compliance schedule.
19 DR. SKINNER: Yes.
20 MR. STOTLER: And the compliance schedule is either
21 upgrade or close regardless of whether there is an alternative
22 site or not. That is the rtay we want to interpret it.
23 DR. SKINNER: Do you feel that the Guidelines don't
24 allow that?
25 MR. STOTLER: I ,im not sure that they do because at
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
51
one point it says only where no alternatives have been found
do you give them a compliance schedule.
MS. ABSHER: Ves, but it leaves the determination
of those alternatives up to the State agency, the final
determination as to whether there is an alternative, and the
Guidelines list considerations for that. It actually will
be the State making that determination.
MR. STOTLER: Maybe I misunderstood your definition
of "alternatives" there, not that you are referring to
alternative sites.
DR. SKINNER: I think we should make that clear.
Anne?
MS. ALLEN: I just wanted to clarify a point. Under
256.42, did I understand you to say that you think that the
States should limit its involvement in facility siting to
perhaps passing-through monies?
MR. STOTLER: 256.42?
MS. ALLEN: The facility development, the role of
the State in assuring new facilities(involving the private
sector, whatever. Did you limit your own testimony to
21 passing-through monies, just financial support?
22 MR. STOTLER: We believe in the siting of facilities
23 planning for whether they are going to be running out of room
24 in three to five years, whatever, that is primarily the
25 responsibility of the local substate unit to plan for the
-------
52
facility and to provide for a facility. If I am sure I am
looking at the right section —
3 MS. ALLEN: Right, you are.
4 MR. STOTLER: Wo do not require the local government,
to say, "Look, local government, you have got two years of
life remaining. You must find a site." We cannot do that,
and I don't think we will ever get any legislation passed
where we can mandate that. What we can do is get them to
develop a plan, give them financial support so they can do
10 a facility plan, and determine what is needed so the.y can get i|t.
ll They have the authority in the State, through either
12 the municipality or the county, of appropriating property for
13 a facility if they can't get the private sector involved or
14 things like that.
15 That is the way we see it. We can assist them, but
16 we can't mandate that a site be selected, and I don't think
17 we ever want to get into tiat situation.
18 MS. ALLEN: Thaac you.
19 DR. SKINNER: Other questions? I have one or two
20 more. You said you opposed hearings on all permits and
21 that you hold hearings only if there is sufficient interest,
22 and that obviously raises a question as to who determines
23 when interest is sufficient.
24 Could you comment on a requirement, if the require-
25 ment was reworded, to hold hearings on permit upon request?
-------
53
MR. STOTLER: Well, it depends on where we are in
the review situation as to whether the situation on signif-
icant interest comes in, whether we hold a public meeting or
a public hearing.
When the Director makes final actions, that is, the
denial or approval, that is published. At that point, any-
body that is affected by that decision has a chance to request
an adjudication hearing, an administrative hearing, anybody
who is affected by that decision.
10 That type of language, we would go along with.
11 DR. SKINNER: Even a single request of an affected
12 party?
13 MR. STOTLER: Even a single request. We don't
14 like that entirely because you get some people that object
15 to everything. We would like to see really a better definitior
16 of aggrieved parties in there.
17 DR. SKINNER: I just have a comment on a point,
18 that you raised, for your information. You mentioned that you
19 felt the "construction" definition was troublesome. We
20 agree that the "construction definition," taken with the
21 "implementation" and "planning" definitions are somewhat
22 confusing.
23 We recently sent a memo to your regional office,
24 Region V, which I think might help you in that regard. In
25 any case, the State planning Guidelines will define what
-------
54
1 planning is and what implementation is, and what activities
2 are eligible for financial assistance for planning purposes
3 and implementation purposes. So, that should be the document
4 which you referred to, and that will, hopefully, try and sort
5 out some of those confusing points in the law.
6 MR. STOTLER: I am glad for that memo.
7 DR. SKINNER: Ara there any other questions?
8 (No response.)
g DR. SKINNER: Th.ink you.
10 Why don't we take a short break, and if we can come
11 back at 10:45, we can begin again.
12 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
13 DR. SKINNER: The next speaker is David Johnson.
14 Is he here?
15 (No response.)
IB DR. SKINNER: John Dunn?
17 MR. DUNN: Good morning, ladies, gentlemen,, col-
18 leagues. I am J. J. Dunn, Jr., Executive Secretary of the
19 Institute for Solid Waste, of the American Public Works
20 Association.
21 Thank you very much for the opportunity to come
22 and speak to you this morning. I am able to report siome
23 preliminary conclusions of our Executive Council on the
24 proposed State Planning Guidelines. We will be preparing
25 final comments by the written deadline date of November 27.
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
So, I don't have a copy for you to read from today, but
comments, hopefully, will be pithy, to the point, and short.
We discussed the proposed Guidelines at a meeting
of our Executive Council on October 18th, in Boston. Our
first observation — and these are not necessarily in order
of priority, but just in random order — the first observa-
tion is on Section 256.63 — I think I have the number right
— which requires a permit —- a public hearing for every
permit issued by a State.
This particular paragraph was somewhat of a surprise
as it did not appear, to our recollection, in previous drafts
that we had reviewed.
The requirement for a public hearing on every
disposal facility permit issued may contribute .unnecessarily
to the paperwork and the red tape at a State level. Several
states have administrative procedures which require an oppor-
tunity for a public hearing on every permit, but only a
public hearing held when either requested or when it is
necessary.
This eliminates hearings for permitting facilities
which have no adverse impacts and which have attracted no
public attention. We think that this may contribute substan-
tially to efficiency in the State permitting processes.
We are concerned that, improperly administered,
the related implications for State permit processes may be
-------
56
1 overly complicated and add significantly to the amount of
2 time involved in implementation at the local level.
3 My second comment is positive in nature. ISW is
pleased that the Guidelines remain silent on how precisely
priorities should be set .:or the solid waste disposal facility
inventory. We recognize that priorities are essential to the
conduct of this inventory,, and we urge that the Federal Govern-
ment not recommend particular priorities; tnis, because we
9 are certain that priorities will vary from dtate to state,
10 and region to region, and that a national set of priority
11 categories would be a Procrustean bed into which no state
12 would comfortably fit.
13 However, on the question of the inventory itself,
14 we do recommend that it be phased in a manner similcir to
15 standard engineering practices in construction. Thcit is,
16 that a courtesy inspectior or a windshield inspection of
17 a facility be made, with any violations or deviations from
18 the landfill criteria noted, and that this information be
19 communicated as quickly as possible to the facility owner-
20 operator, with a time period allowed to bringing the facility
21 into compliance.
22 This would permit each State to allocate time to
23 those less tractable facilities. This type of procedure,
24 which we consider similar to a pre-final inspection, or
25 punch list, would provide for some due process considerations.
-------
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
Our third observation we have is that the State
planning Guidelines require an acceptable State plan to ack-
knowledge and coordinate all of the various regulatory programs
that may affect land disposal facilities. I refer here to
paragraph 256.50.
This is certainly a commendable instruction and one
that should be adhered to as religiously as possible. We
think, however, that the Guidelines should require each
acceptable State plan to go a step further,and create some
procedure whereby an applicant, be he public or private, for
a permit to operate a land disposal facility, will have a
single place to go to determine all of the requirements that
relate to that particular application.
These requirements should be set out in such a
fashion that the applicant can perceive, at a single time,
all of the steps necessary to successful compliance with all
applicable State and Federal regulations.
The Institute urges that the States not be allowed
to merely require coordination of various laws and regulations
without creating a mechanism whereby this coordination can be
accomplished.
I heard the phrase earlier this morning, a one-stop
shop, and that is what we are talking about. The specter of
having to go to several places to get what amounts to several
permit for a land disposal facility is one that is becoming
-------
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
58
more real each day. In tne state in which I live, it is very
close to being a reality iow.
Our fourth comment is on the general area of com-
pliance and notice. The Tnstitute notes that the Guidelines
do not presently require -:hat an acceptable State plan contain
some procedure for the removal of a facility from the List
of open dumps.
Equity would appear to require that the accomplish-
ment of compliance for a ifacility be promulgated no less
vigorously than the initieil noncompliance.
Our fifth comment is on Section 256.22. We think
that this section requires each and every compliance schedule
in any particular state negotiated by that state, to be a
part of the plan and its subsequent approval and adoption.
If this is, in fact, the intention of this para-
graph, it would appear to severely limit the flexibility of
the State and significantly impede timely progress in the
improvement of solid waste management.
It may be that that section doesn't mean that, and
we certainly hope it doesn't, and we would like to have that
section clarified.
As I indicated at the beginning of my comments,
these are our preliminary observations, and we will be making
detailed comments in writing before your closing date.
That is the end of my prepared statement, and I
-------
59
1 will answer any questions
2 DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any questions?
I have a question on the requirement for public hearing on
every permit. Would you comment on a concept of a requirement
for a public hearing on every permit by request by an
aggrieved or an affected party?
MR. DUNN: No. The wording that you used the
first time you asked that question, John, to the gentleman
from Ohio, seemed more appropriate. I am trying to recall
10 what it was. But what we are trying to say is that the
11 opportunity for a public hearing should certainly be allowed
12 every time a permit is issued, I think in advance of the
13 issuance of the permit.
14 But there are situations, and immediately there
15 comes to mind the situation of the renewal of a permit for
16 an operating facility, where a hearing is really not appropriat
17 and not necessary. So, what we are saying is that the plan
18 should allow to require the State to create an opportunity,
19 that is to say, to offer an opportunity for a public hearing
20 in advance of the issuance of the permit. The public hearing
21 opportunity decision can be made by the State, either if
22 there is a particular controversy about a site, or if there
23 is a request, you know, a reasonable request.
24 I don't think you need to constrain it any more
25 than that.
-------
60
1 DR. SKINNER: Fine. Are there any other questions?
2 Susan?
3 MS. ABSHER: I would like to refer to your comment
4 on the compliance schedules for facilities. The Guidelines
5 state that these shall be referenced in the annual work
6 program, which the State s.ubmits for its grant. They are
7 not part of the State plan and not subject to approval under
8 the State plan.
9 MR. DUNN: Good. I am glad I didn't understand
10 that right.
11 DR. SKINNER: Any other questions?
12 (No response.)
13 DR. SKINNER: Thank you.
14 Mr. Edwards?
15 MR. EDWARDS: I am J. Rodney Edwards, Vice President
16 American Paper Institute.
17 I am delighted to have this opportunity to present
18 this brief but important statement on waste paper recycling
19 in the United States as it relates to resource recovery and
20 solid waste management programs at the local level.
21 The point I wish to make is that in all solid waste
22 management programs, based on resource recovery, that is the
23 recovery of recyclable materials from municipal solid waste,
24 there should be a priority for source separation of re-
25 cyclable waste paper. Was-;e paper recycling is a large and
-------
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
61
expanding industry, and waste paper recycling mills must
have continued access to waste paper supply to survive.
In 1977, the waste paper recycling industry col-
lected 16.4 million tons of waste paper, of which about 11
million tons was post-consumer waste paper. All of this waste
paper was source separated from other solid waste, kept clean,
and collected separately for recycling in this country or for
export.
The collection rate in 1977 was 25 percent of all
the paper consumed in this country. This is a factor that is
frequently overlooked. Let me state it again. Of all the
paper consumed in the United States last year, 25 percent was
source separated and collected for recycling.
In any resource recovery program where municipal
solid waste is to be incinerated to recover its energy value,
those managing the program tend to want to maximize the
"put-through" of the combustible components in municipal
solid waste.
Waste paper is by far the largest combustible com-
ponent. Therefore, as resource recovery programs are being
developed, there must be a priority to preserve source
separation programs for the recyclable waste paper.
In some cases, municipal or regional resource
recovery programs have attempted to preclude separate col-
lection of recyclable waste paper, either by local ordinance,
-------
62
contracts, or in arrangements for financing, waste paper
collection has been precluded.
Sometimes preclusion of source separation of re-
cyclable waste paper is included in the consulting engineer's
proposal to the resource recovery authority. Let me just
quote from one such proposal, under the heading "Waste Most
Valuable as Fuel."
"Separation and recycling of paper from mixed solid
wastes is economically unwarranted. The waste paper has a
10 much higher value as fuel than as a raw material for re-
11 cycling paper. In addition, the advent of tree farms and
12 genetic improvements in tree stock assures the supply of
13 raw material for increasing paper consumption well into the
14 future. It seems far wiser to recycle paper as fuel to offset
15 our nonrenewable fossil fi.els that are being consumed."
16 Frequently, neither the consulting engineers not
17 city officials are aware cf the paper recycling industry that
18 exists in their area. Frequently, incineration of solid waste
19 is labeled recycling of solid wastes. We feel this tends to
20 discourage those millions of Americans who currently source
21 separate waste paper for recycling.
22 There are over 1,500 waste paper dealers in the
23 United States located in and around urban areas, and they
24 act as the recycling centers for the paper industry. They
25 buy waste paper from collectors and sell it to recycling
-------
63
mills. There are some 700 paper and paperboard mills in the
United States and almost every mill uses some recycled waste
paper. Two hundred of these mills depend exclusively on
waste paper as their raw material supply and depend on local
source separation programs.
Last year about 30 percent or 3.1 million tons of
all the old newspapers that were discarded after they were
read, were collected separately from other refuse, for recycl-
ing. Also, a little over 30 percent of the used corrugated
boxes in this country were separated from other wastes at
retail stores, factories and commercial buildings, and
collected separately to be recycled. These two post-consumer
grades should continue to be removed where a market exists
rather than incinerated to recover their energy value.
Of course, for some waste papers and in some
regions, recycling may not be economical, and in these cases,
incineration may have a higher economic priority. Recycling
waste paper is normally utilizing waste paper at its highest
economic value.
Also, as EPA studies point out, when the waste paper
that can be recycled is removed from solid waste, prior to
incineration, the BTU content of solid waste is reduced only
by a factor of 5 percent or less.
As the demand for waste paper increases, solid waste
authorities should be informed that the economics are much
-------
64
more favorable toward recycling than toward incineration,
and if the future demand for waste paper continues to increase,
where currently it is being incinerated, it should be allowed
to be source separated From the waste stream for recycling.
It is also important to point out that, as the
demand for waste paper .Increases from the mills located in
the United States, the demand is also increasing From mills
located overseas. In 1!>77, 1.5 million tons of the 16.4
million tons collected were exported to countries in Asia,
IQ Europe, and South America.
In August of 2978, exports were running at the
12 level of 2 million tons per year. August wets the largest
13 month for shipments, and in that month about. 178,000 tons
were shipped overseas.
15 Export demand will continue to increase as the
economy in foreign countries strengthen and new capacity to
recycle waste paper is added. Many foreign countries are
18 informing us of their future needs for waste paper, and as
ig the United States is the only major exporting country for
20 waste paper in the world, they will be looking to us to
21 collect waste paper and to export it to them.
22 We think it is most important that EPA establish
23 a priority for source separation of recyclable waste paper
24 in the form of a public statement that we, in the paper
25 recycling industry, can use to talk to State, regional, and
-------
65
l local solid waste officials.
2 Under Section D, subparagraph (e)(4), we support
3 the identification — we think that you should support in
4 finite language the ongoing source separation programs for
5 waste paper collection.
6 Also, we just note that in the Guidelines for
7 financial assistance, under paragraph (j), we would always
8 prefer that the words "material recovery" precede the words
9 "energy recovery," so that we put a higher priority on
10 recycling than burning.
11 We urge EPA to continue to develop municipal col-
12 lection programs for old newspapers such as those now ongoing
13 in over 200 cities in the United States. Many more such
14 programs will be needed to meet the increasing demand for old
15 newspapers, and we would like to continue to work with EPA
16 to develop more municipal collection programs.
17 The American Paper Institute has an ongoing Com-
18 munications Program which has, as its objective, to inform
19 the American public on the need to source separate recyclable
20 waste paper and make it available for separate collection for
21 recycling.
22 This message is aired on television and radio, and
23 included in news stories in the nation's newspapers and
24 magazines. In 1979, we will be expanding this program. In
25 some cases, there will be opportunities on talk shows to
-------
66
include EPA officials in the story that we hope to tell.
We will be reporting back to you, as we have in the
past, on how our story is being told in the nation's media.
Further, if there are any other opportunities to
work with EPA to expand waste paper recycling in this country,
we will welcome the opportunity.
Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any questions
from the panel? David?
10 MR. GAVRICH: First, let me say that the efforts,
11 that Mr. Edwards and the American Paper Institute are taking
12 up in the cause of recycling, are laudable, and EPA has
13 always looked to the American Paper Institute for that type
14 of leadership.
15 The panel here ha.C logged about 9,000 miles in the
16 last two months, talking to states and to our regions about
17 the State Planning Guidelines. I have had the responsibility
18 to talk about the resource recovery and conservation aspects,
19 and I have stressed continually that source separation and
20 the "high technology" solutions are not mutually exclusive;
21 that through our resource recovery seminars, we stress that
22 source separation and tho energy recovery projects can be
23 carried on at the same t.^me.
24 In fact, in the Guidelines, in the preamble, we
25 stress that source sepa^ition is a key part of the resource
-------
67
recovery definition in resource conservation.
We have also included, EPA has included source
separation as one of the two key eligible activities for
funding under President Carter's urban policy program; that
source separation, curbside collection type programs, the
type of things that will encourage separating paper and other
recyclables out of the waste stream are a key funding item that
we will be looking at when proposals come in for the Presi-
dent's program.
10 I We are also stressing markets first and economic
11 feasibility as the key. In light of that, the type of separa-
12 tion of paper, you say 25 percent has been separated, we would
13 like to increase that, and efforts by the Institute and
14 private companies such as Garden State Paper and the like
15 have helped to drive that message home, that it is economical-
16 ly feasible.
17 What I would like to ask you is how you suggest we
18 get the States involved in these type of source separation
19 efforts. We are talking about the State Planning Guidelines
20 here, and seeing as we can make recommendations for those
21 States, and we have made them, in general, for source separa-
22 tion programs, how do you think specifically we should get
23 them involved?
24 MR. EDWARDS: I think we need more of the seminars
25 such as we had in Orlando, Florida, and Atlanta, Georgia, where
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
we participated, with EPA,, to instruct local officials how
they can incorporate, in liheir solid waste management program,
a separation program and collection program for old news-
papers. We have urged, in almost 10 or 12 cities, seriously,,
the collection of old corrugated, where old corrugated is
currently not being collected, and we have never been able
to encourage even one city to experiment with it. Maybe the
funding that you offer will give us a new force that can
attract attention.
However, we are still concerned and extremely con-
cerned on the story of what you are doing — aind we are
pleased with what you are doing and what we are doing — is
not getting across to the consulting engineers and to the
solid waste officials, whc are working at the local level.
We are particularly now concerned about the finan-
ciers on Wall Street who are looking to finance the construc-
tion of a solid waste processing plant, which will make RDF,
or burn directly and generate even as far as electricity.
They do want to maximize the flow-through. They do want
to preclude the separate collection of any other combustible
material.
We were up just recently to the Bridgeport
facility, and the management there making RDF were completely
unaware of the number of waste paper dealers, the number of
mills located in and around the area of Bridgeport. They
-------
69
call their plant a recycling plant. They will be putting
out massive publicity to the people of the State of Con-
necticut, both on their accomplishment and how to deal with
it. And where we have a tremendous collection of old news-
5 papers in that southern suburban area of Connecticut, we are
6 afraid that people will say, "Well, I don't have to put it
7 out anymore. I don't have to string tie the bundle. I
don't have to drive it down to the recycling center. If I
9 put it in the -frAfJtCO-n and the Department of Sanitation picks
10 it up, they are going to recycle it into fuel."
11 In the meantime, the raw material supplies for the
12 local mills is jeopardized just by the years that we have
1,3 spent indoctrinating the American people on the need to source
14 separate old newspapers. In one •ftdo.l swoop, the Mayor and
15 the solid waste authority people and the State Government of
16 Connecticut, we have the risk of them telling the people that
17 burning is recycling, and we don't think that is the right
18 priority.
19 We think you should separate those materials
20 that have higher economic value,such as old newspapers. We
21 don't know how to fight it, but what we really need, through
you, is a monitoring of every city solid waste program, in
23 the planning stage particularly. We need to know where every
24 city is considering, in the early stages, incineration.
25 With the 1,500 waste paper dealers and the 200
-------
70
mill locations, we have people in most every major city in
the United States. We wa:it them to see the Mayor, to see the
city engineers, to see thu consultants who might be retained
by the city. YJ6 Yjoo\di vwotycV ~Vo Kfv&vv Cuooo"\ CxjATy-ajj^^,
We don't know how to monitor that. We think the
applications for assistance under your program will identify
some of these cities in the planning stage. We hope that
you will make those applicants or application names available
9 to us. We are not just interested in those that receive
10 money, but even those who apply.
11 We think that over in DOE, there is some money,
12 that we hope that we can work together again to identify in
13 the planning stages, solic waste management program at the
14 local level, particularly in those areas we haive a considerable
15 amount of waste paper collection ongoing now.
16 On the West Coast, where we are exporting so much
17 waste paper, to Taiwan, to Korea, and to Japan, we are most
18 interested that none of that waste paper now being collected
19 is lost because we have an ever-increasing demand for waste
20 paper in the Orient.
21 DR. SKINNER: Mr. Edwards, it would be very helpful
22 to us, perhaps if not today, at a later point in time,
23 you could make suggestions as to how the State Planning
24 Guidelines could be used in that area.
25 We have addressed source separation in several
-------
71
areas in the Guidelines. We have addressed the combination
of source separation with mixed wastes in energy recovery
facilities, and perhaps you would like to look at those
sections and see if those reflect your concerns, and if not,
make suggestions as to how they could be addressed.
MR. EDWARDS: I think the best thing for us to do,
because it would get complicated, is to see how we best
might work with you to identify where the recycling industry
is large and ongoing, and where it is threatened, and where
10 we are working. So that you know that we are working to
ll preserve the waste paper collection, as well as you are work-
12 ing to staff up studies to get into probably resource
13 recovery, which might lead to incineration.
14 DR. SKINNER: We are now considering the State
15 Planning Guidelines as the subject of this hearing. Any
16 comments that you would like to make pertaining to how they
17 could be changed to reflect some of your concerns, would
18 be helpful to us.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Well, in that Section D, I will
20 suggest to you in writing that we put in a priority for
21 waste paper.
22 DR. SKINNER: That is the type of thing that we
23 are getting at. Thank you.
24 Elizabeth Dollard?
25 MS. DOLLARD: Good morning. I am Elizabeth
-------
72
1 Dollard, Policy Research Director, with the National Solid
2 Wastes Management Association.
3 NSWMA especially welcomes the opportunity to comment
4 on the proposed Guidelines for Development and Implementation
5 of the State Solid Waste ^'anagement Plans developed under
6 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
7 The Association, which represents 2,000 members
8 in the fields of waste collection, disposal, resource recovery
9 hazardous waste management, and solid waste equipment, feels
10 that comprehensive State and regional planning will be an
11 important factor in assuring environmentally sound programs
12 for waste disposal and resource recovery in the future.
13 We are particularly pleased with the approach of
14 the supplementary information section of the Guidelines as
15 they appeared in the Federal Register on August 28.
16 The positions of the private waste management
17 industry are reflected in this introductory section. NSWMA
18 applauds the inclusion of the following points in the Guide-
19 lines:
20 First, a recognition that, despite all efforts to
21 promote resource recovery and conservation, there will be a
22 continuing need for sanitary landfills.
23 Second, a recognition that the State has a responsi-
24 bility to assure sound disposal capacity, and may need to
25 take a leadership position to overcome institutional problems
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
with the siting of sanitary landfills.
Third, a recognition that a strong State posture is
essential to assure the siting of hazardous waste treatment
and disposal facilities, and that the private sector has the
capability to provide hazardous waste management services.
Fourth, a recognition that the plan must be
developed with full participation by the public, including
the private sector, and, specifically, that "awareness of
private sector activities" is necessary for a State to
determine future facility needs.
While we support the framework and the approach of
these Guidelines, however, we do question some of the specific
provisions. We are first concerned with the coordination
between the open dump inventory to be conducted under Section
4005 and the development of State solid waste plans.
If the planning Guidelines are promulgated in
January of 1979, State plans would be due to be completed
by July 1980, 18 months later. The inventory will begin when
the criteria for sanitary landfills are completed, expected
by July of 1979.
This means that by July 1980, when the plans are
due, the inventory process will have been going on for only
one year. Although the law requires the open dump inventory
to be completed within one year, it is recognized by nearly
everyone, including the Guidelines document itself, that
-------
74
such a task is impossible to accomplish properly in that
time frame.
In the State plan, then, is the State required to
address only those facilities that have been inventoried to
date? Or will the State plan, instead, identify the procedure
for conducting this inventory but not include a list of sites
until the entire inventor;' is complete?
NSWMA has advised the U.S. EPA previously, with
regard to the landfill criteria, that we feel an inventory
10 should be published only eifter it has been completed in its
11 entirety for a given waste: shed. The Guidelines should make
12 clear to States exactly how they are to address, in the State
13 plan, these sites that have not been surveyed at th«s time
14 the plan is developed.
15 A second matter of concern to NSWMA relates to the
16 qualifications of those persons who will be conducting the
17 open dump inventory. The proposed State Plan Guidelines
18 recommend that "inspectors should be trained and provided
19 detailed instructions for checking on the procedures and
20 conditions that are specified in the engineering plan and
21 site permit," and, further, that "assessment and prescription
22 of remedial measures should be carried out by adequately
23 trained or experienced professional staff."
24 The identification of open dumps, and, conversely,
25 sanitary landfills, is central to the purposes of RCRA. The
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
U. S. EPA has agonized for the past two years, along with
public and private interest groups, over establishing land-
fill criteria that will be comprehensive, reasonable, and
precise enough to be measurable.
All such efforts, however, are of little value if
persons conducting the inventory are not required to be
trained for this purpose. NSWMA recommends that provisions
for training inspectors and other professional staff should be
a "requirement" for state regulatory powers under Section
256.20 rather than merely a "recommendation" as currently
indicated under Section 256.21.
Our third major comment relates to the provision
in the Guidelines and in RCRA that a site identified as an
open dump may obtain a compliance schedule if it "demonstrates
that it has considered other public or private alternatives
to comply with the prohibition on open dumping and is unable
to utilize such alternatives to so comply." That is the
language of the law.
This requirement that an open dump close when there
is an alternative available is most ambiguous. What is an
"alternative?" By what what standards and by whose judgment
is a determination made that another facility is available?
This provision in the Guidelines creates more prob-
lems than it solves. Clearly, a key goal of RCRA is to
provide environmentally sound disposal facilities. NSWMA
-------
76
believes that, to the maximum extent feasible, a disposal
site should be encouraged to upgrade and thcit closure should
be an approach of last resort.
The difficulty of siting new disposal fsicilities
is discussed in the State Plan Guidelines. In nearly every
case the opening of a new landfill or resource recovery
facility is an extremely time-consuming process, which can
be delayed for several years.
It should be the intent of EPA and the Spates to
preserve existing landfills; if they can possibly be upgraded,
they should be put on a compliance schedule rather than closed
To achieve this goal, the Planning Guidelines should
be expanded to define how the existence of an alternative is
determined. For an example, in evaluating the availability
of an alternative facility, the effect of increasing the
waste load on the alternative site should be quantified.
What would be the effect of additional truck traffic
and volumes of wastes coining to this alternative facility?
Would such activity so strain the resources of the alternative
site that it would be in jeopardy itself of becoming an open
dump?
Further, the cost of upgrading an existing facility
should be compared to the cost of changing existing trans-
portation and disposal patterns to reroute waste to the
alternative site. It should be noted that the cost of
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
upgrading a private facility are borne by the private
facility operator and not by the municipality.
Our fourth and final point, which relates to all
the issues raised, is that there must be an assurance of
adequate capacity in environmentally sound facilities to take
the waste that will continue to be generated.
Certainly it is not enough for a State plan simply
to close all facilities which do not meet the landfill
criteria. It may not even be enough to upgrade all existing
facilities.
The State and the substate regions, through the
planning process, must project the disposal needs into the
future and must assure that facilities will be provided which
can take these wastes in an environmentally sound manner.
While the supplementary information section of the
State Planning Guidelines emphasizes this point, the facility
planning and implementation section, Subpart (e) of the
proposed rules should include stronger requirements to
achieve this end.
For example. Section 256.41(e) requires that
"environmental, economic and other constraints on continued
operation of facilities should be assessed" as part of the
plan. It is not enough simply to identify the constraints.
NSWMA urges the EPA to include language that would
require the State also to identify options for overcoming
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
obstacles to facility siting. Such approaches could include
State override of local zoning, development of a. siting board,
and other mechanisms.
Further, Section 256.42(b), "Recommendations for
Assuring Facility Development," should be strengthened. The
section now states that "where facilities and practices are
found to be inadequate, the State plan should provide for
the necessary facilities and practices to be developed by
responsible State and substate agencies or by the private
sector."
The language siould be stated more positively that
the State plan shall provide for necessary facilities. This
is another recommendation that should be made a requirement.
Sanitary landfills may be an "endangered species."
The cooperation of the S:ates, regional planning agencies,
interest groups, and the private sector will be necessary to
assure that there will be facilities with sufficient capacity
to meet our future needs.
Once again, wh:.le resource recover;,' initiatives are
to be encouraged, we must not fool ourselves into believing
that large scale facilities will appear overnight or that
they will be able to take all the wastes of our communities.
EPA is encouraged to use the strongest language
possible in its planning Guidelines to emphasize the need
for a major State role in assuring that sanitary landfills
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
meet strict environmental standards, but moreover, that an
adequate number of facilities will be available to meet future
demands.
We appreciate the opportunity of sharing our comments
with you today and look forward to sharing in the development
of individual State and regional plans over the course of the
next several years.
Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any questions?
MS. ABSHER: I would like to make just one clari-
fication. The Guidelines do require the State plan to provide
for adequate disposal facilities. It is not just a recommenda-
tion; it is a requirement in Section 256.40.
MS. DOLLARD: It is interesting that it is restated
in the recommendations section. It seems that the more
specific language is in the recommendation section,and the
more general language is in the requirement section. It is
a fine point, but it is a matter of emphasis.
MS. ABSHER: Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: With respect to your comment on what
is an alternative to an open dump, that was raised previously,
and we refer to Section 256.23(c), which says, "For each
facility classified as an open dump, a determination should
be made as to whether there are any alternatives. Such
alternatives should include processing and disposal at other
-------
80
I facilities, upgrading the open dump, resource recovery and
2 resource conservation."
3 Does that get at your question as to whether or not
4 a facility can be upgraded or whether an alternative has to
5 be used and the facility ds not permitted to be upgraded?
6 MS. DOLLARD: I think that that would not be
7 adequate information to make a determination by a State
8 official. There are always alternatives. The question is
9 how far can you drive the waste for it still to be considered
10 an alternative.
11 DR. SKINNER: I *ras addressing another point that
12 you made as to whether or not upgrading a facility is an
13 alternative, not how do yoa determine when an alternative
14 exists.
15 MS. DOLLARD: In other words, your interpretation
16 of an alternative could be upgrading of an existing facility?
17 DR. SKINNER: The upgrading of the facility. An
18 alternative to the open durip is upgrading the facility so it
19 is no longer an open dump.
20 MS. DOLLARD: One1 of the problems that we have is
21 with the language of RCRA, and I realize that the Guidelines
22 have to reflect RCRA. If you can define an alternative as
23 upgrading an existing site, we are very happy with that.
24 DR. SKINNER: I think that is what we tried to do
25 in 256.23(c). So, perhaps you would like to look at that and
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
see if you feel that that gets at the point.
MS. DOLLARD: The reason that we bring this up
again, I think relates to discussions that we have had regard-
ing the landfill criteria. An understanding by some of the
people at EPA is that you are taking this quite literally,
and that they would not include upgrading as an alternative.
So, I guess our concern again is the coordination
between the landfill criteria and the State Planning Guidelines
DR. SKINNER: Other questions from the Panel? I
have one other. You discussed the section on recommendations
and requirements for insuring facility development, and you
said that this should be strengthened.
You also said that the State should take a stronger
role in assuring that the facilities do come on-line and
that the States shall provide for the necessary facilities.
In some of the meetings that we have had over the
past couple of months, people have read that to mean that the
State themselves should take the responsibility of acquiring,
or perhaps even operating and owning such facilities. You
didn't mention whether that was your interpretation of that
or not, or whether you felt that it was clear that that was
not necessarily the role that the State would have to take.
MS. DOLLARD: I don't believe that the Guidelines
really have to specify that. The position of the private
industry would be that if the State has mechanisms for
-------
82
overcoming institutional barriers, then it is the business of
the private sector to convince the State that the private
industry can do it, that ve can provide facilities and we
can operate them.
DR. SKINNER: I
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
I represent the National Center for Resource
Recovery, a nonprofit research organization involved in
programs to help extend the understanding and implementation
of systems to recover materials and energy from solid waste.
These include both source separation and capital intensive
systems.
It is my contention that in order to achieve the
basic objectives of RCRA — environmentally effective disposal
and conservation of resources — forms of resource recovery
must be considered as an essential element of solid waste
management planning by an increasing number of jurisdictions
that face waste disposal problems.
The rising costs of disposal, the difficulty of
gaining new sites, and the imposition of higher standards for
disposal are all factors that can only stimulate the search
for disposal alternatives.
Resource recovery offers the most substantive
alternative; significant quantities of residuals can be
diverted from disposal and conservation gains realized as
a bonus.
As a variety of systems and technological approaches
are now or soon to be demonstrated in large scale at a number
of locations, institutional problems will remain as some of
the major barriers to communities in considering recovery
options. I am particularly impressed with the recommendations
-------
84
in Section 256.31 of the Guidelines which address a number
2 of these such as contracting and procurement.
3 Resource recovery is, as is the solid waste disposal
problems to which it responds, local in nature and site
specific in regards, to planning and implementation. Yet the
complexity and magnituds of the undertaking are such that
municipalities need assistance and the support of State
8 government.
9 Overall, the Guidelines are realistic. It is
10 important that there be effective follow-through rand neces-
n sary resources in order to achieve the desired objectives.
12 I thank you.
13 DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any comments
14 or questions from the panel? David?
15 MR. GAVRICH: Let me kind of just reiterate what
16 I asked Mr. Edwards, if NCRR has any substantive recommenda-
17 tions for how we might have the States aid the municipalities
18 through these planning Guidelines, we would appreciate receiv-
19 ing those.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We don't have any now cit this
21 time. Supplementing what Rod Edwards said, we worked with
22 Penny Hanson and Steve llngiS and the other folks at EPA
23 in putting on those source separation and newspaper recovery
24 workshops in Orlando and in Atlanta. I understand that there
25 are some more planned for this coming year.
-------
85
As far as the implementation, we feel there are a
lot of problems, and it is difficult for all the states to
come up with good plans, and they are always fighting every-
body in many cases. It is politically involved and all kinds
of problems that, Dave, you are well aware, and the other
members of the panel.
Did I successfully evade your question?
MR. GAVRICH: If you have anything, or if Mr.
Petrone has anything in writing that you would like to submit
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, I will go back, and if we do
11 have anything substantive more than these brief comments,
12 which I just gave the reporter and which I just read, we will
13 be delighted to get them to you.
14 DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Any other questions or
15 comments?
16 (No response.)
17 DR. SKINNER: Thank you.
18 I will go back over the people, who were listed
19 to speak, but were not here when we got to them. Mr. Morris?
20 (No response.)
21 DR. SKINNER: Mr. Cheeca or Mr. Cooley?
22 (No response.)
23 DR. SKINNER: Ms. Biehle?
24 (No response.)
25 DR. SKINNER: Mr. Johnson?
-------
86
1 (No response.)
2 DR. SKINNER: That covers everyone who registered
3 to make a statement. Is there anyone here that would like to
4 make a statement, that has not registered for that purpose?
5 Yes, sir?
g MR. ATKINS: C am George Atkins, representing the
7 National Society of Professional Engineers.
g Our specific concern on this program is an impact
9 of some of the other regulations on it, as opposed to the
10 State program itself.
11 On the conflict of interest issue, which we previous'
12 ly discussed with you, and which you responded to, to some
13 extent, in your October 17th publication on financial assist-
14 ance, we don't feel that that is satisfactory, anc' particular-
15 ly as it might apply to the States solid waste management
16 plans.
17 The presumption is that the States and the substate
18 agencies are going to us 2 consultants. The way the conflict
19 of interest matter has boen left, it would be conceivable
20 that consultants working on State plans might not be able to
21 work on anything at a lower level, or consultants working on
22 substate plans might not be able to work for any oE the
23 implementation agencies within that substate area.
24 Outside of the self-interest aspect of it, we think
25 if this would be carried to the degree, which appears possible
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
under the present policy, I don't think you have got enough
consultants in the world to solve the situation, and certainly
not enough experienced ones. So, we really feel that either
you have to avoid the conflict of interest issue and allow
the State procurement policies and statutes to handle it,
or else you have to come up with a very clearly defined
policy which we can agree with or see what we can do about
getting it changed, rather than the matter of you giving
guidance to grantees with no further addressing of the issue.
That is about how it stands as a result of
October 17th.
DR. SKINNER: Fine. The State Planning Guidelines
themselves did not address the conflict of interest issue at
all. I assume that the October 17th transmittal to you is
either on the basis of the Technical Assistance Panel or
the Urban Grants Program, would that be correct, David?
MR. GAVRICH: That is right. It is through the
program announcement for a financial assistance program
under the Urban Grants.
It is in the very beginning of this program announce-
ment. It is an answer to the concerns and questions we
received at the public hearing on the Urban Policy Program.
What we have said in this document of October 17th is that
we will be giving the States and the grantees guidance on
conflict of interest with specific regard to the TA Panel's
-------
88
contractors. Now, that is our area of greatest concern, and
EPA is sort of in a tenuous position, in that the 10 regions
have been given — each region has hired a contractor, and
that was done by various contractors submitting proposals.
EPA is in a strange position in that now that we
have come out with the Urban Grants Program. We are asking
that those contractors be used to help develop work scopes.
In regions where the contractor helps a grantee to develop
9 a work scope, we see a potential conflict of interest if
10 that contractor is hired for follow-on work. So, that is
ll being worked on right now. That is the main area of concern
12 that EPA has shown in this document.
13 DR. SKINNER: With respect to the State plans, then,
14 that policy, that has been developed, has been developed for
15 EPA-hired consultants on the Technical Assistance Program
16 as those consultants pertain to applicants for the Urban
17 Grant Program. That policy was not developed for consulting
18 under the State plan, in general, or for any other activities
19 outside those two specific limitations.
20 MR. ATKINS: I think that should be clarified then
21 because if you read all af the regulations in their totality,
22 I don't see how you can avoid carrying, or how prospective
23 grantees will avoid carrying a conflict of interest provision
24 from a program, which addresses it, to a program, which does
25 not address it.
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
DR. SKINNER: That is a good point. We should
clarify that.
MR. ATKINS: You know, in addition to our self-
interest concern, if you stop and think about it, if you
can only use one consultant in a given area on one phase of
a program, just how many consultants do you think there are
around the world, that have solid waste experience? That is
one issue.
The other issue is that, in your water pollution
program, they^struggled with conflict of interest for eight
years now, and still, you know, consultants are doing 208
planning, they are doing 201 planning, and they are doing
implementation design.
I don't know what your feeling is, but ours is
that there hasn't been any major conflict of interest except
in those cases where clearly illegal things took
place, and the law handled them if they found them. If they
didn't, they will handle them.
I think that one other concern of ours is that
when you people publish regulations and when you hold a
carrot out -- and admittedly, the carrot is pretty damn small
— but when you hold a carrot out, the prospective grantees
are going to be sure that they proceed in what they see as
a way that will not endanger their possibility of getting a
grant. So, even though they may never get a grant, they
-------
90
also may follow your rules right down the line because they
hope to get a grant, which may rule consultants out of
situations where you ate not even involved, merely by the
implication that you may be involved.
DR. SKINNER: Fine. Are there any other comments
or questions from the panel on that?
(No response.)
DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who
would like to make a statement? Are there any questions
10 from the audience?
11 (No response. I
12 DR. SKINNER: If not, thank you for coming. We
13 appreciate your comments!. The public comment period will
14 remain open until November 27th, and anything that you send
15 to us postmarked before that date will be included in the
16 development of the final regulation.
17 (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 11:41 a.m.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
91
2
„ REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
O
4 DOCKET NUMBER:
5
CASE TITLE: Proposed Regulation for Development and Implementa
tion of Stat
HEARING DATE: October 26, 1978
tion of State Solid Waste Management Plans
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
United States Environmental Protection Agency
12
and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
1.3
14
DatS! October 26, 1978
15
16
Official Reporter
Acme Reporting Company
1411 K street N.w.
Washington, D.C. 20005
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT
Docket 4002 (b)
on
Guidelines for Development and
Implementation of State Solid
October 26, 1978
-------
I am Oscar H. Adams, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Health Protection and Environmental Management, Virginia Department of
Health, Richmond, Virginia. My statement today is on behalf of the
Department with State responsibility for solid and hazardous waste
management. Mr. Gilley, the Director of the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Division, was scheduled to make a statement today but is
involved in a statewide public participation effort on our State Solid
Waste Management Plan, an effort occupying the entire program staff
for more than two weeks.
I appreciate this opportunity to express our views on the pro-
posed guidelines on State Solid Waste Management Plans in view of our
current efforts to adopt such a plan. Management plans such as these
are important in the development of adequate programs even though the
planning and program development phases may have to take place over a
prolonged period. The adoption procedure being followed is
established in Virginia's Administrative Processes Act and is con-
sidered adequate for the State Plan. The adoption process used is the
same as for a regulation. This process, similar to that of many
states, is adequate to accomplish the purposes of RCRA. As asked in
the supplementary information, more specific approval requirements
would seem to be inappropriate and may in fact cause further admi-
nistrative delays in plan adoption. I would not recommend that the
adoption procedure be more specific. May I add, due to State admin-
istrative procedures, it has taken several years for states to
qualify under Safe Drinking Water Act, therefore, additional more spe-
cific requirements would make it most difficult for States to qualify.
-------
Another request for comment causes consternation with our staff.
It is suggested that EPA is considering consolidation of State work
program submissions for all environmental programs into a single
State/EPA agreement. A State/r.pA agreement would only be of value for
individual programs and meetinci the contractual requirements of EPA
for each grant. Consolidation into a single agreement is highly
objectionable. All environmental programs in Virginia are not managed
by a single department. Lumping all programs would have the effect of
demanding that the State have an EPA equivalent structure. Attainment
of such structure would require legislative action on the part of
the General Assembly, an action which in our State has been considered
in the past and rejected. In Virginia, RCRA activities, the Safe
Drinking Water Program, and TOSCA are within the Department of Health
where appropriate emphasis is given to the priority of health protec-
tion. These programs are effectively coordinated now with that of the
Clean Water Act to the fullest <;xtent and I fail to see how such a
program submission consolidation is going to bring about better co-
ordination within the State. By consolidation one might assume that
funds would also be consolidated. The danger then is that a program
allocated a smaller percentage than another might result in siphoning
of funds between programs or creation of new overheaid requirements
resulting in lower actual program funding. The Conference of State
Sanitary Engineers passed a resolution in opposition to such con-
solidation which was sent to the Administrator. The separate identity
of RCRA will be lost and this can only result in a less effective
program. Apparently, this is a decision that has already been made
since the Federal Register of October 12, Part ill on the final rules
for grants for State Underground Water Source Protection Programs
-------
specifies that all FY 1980 programs will be part of the single
State/EPA agreement. Such an action is contrary to the spirit of
public participation advocated by the Federal Government as the
requirement for State and local decisions and indicates a breakdown of
proper communication at the EPA between various programs. Burdening
the State governments with work program consolidation to cure EPA
internal ailments seems to penalize the wrong party.
The purpose of the proposed regulations stated in paragraph
256.01 (b) is to address the minimum requirements for approval of
State plans yet the guidelines go far beyond these minimum require-
ments. As an example, it is stated that hazardous waste planning
activities are to be included in the State plan. Since this is an EPA
responsibility under RCRA, it is inappropriate to include on a man-
datory basis until the State decision to seek authorization to admi-
nister and enforce the hazardous waste program has been made.
There is an error in paragraph 256.01 (b)(6). One might
interpret it to be mandatory that plans require resource recovery and
disposal facilities in combination considering what is environmentally
sound. Disposal planning must be allowed not in combination with
resource recovery as stated in the Act. Otherwise, we will see
recovery projects developed without an adequate economic basis.
The Guidelines require that State plans be submitted for approval
within 18 months of promulgation. Planning to the detailed level
envisioned in the scope and subsequent subparts, implementation of
public participation requirements, planning for a minimum of 5 years,
-------
and full coordination with other programs will take more than two
years. Since it has taken EPA two years to develop these pro-
posed guidelines, time phasing of planning should be mare than
setting priorities. A waste category should not be th<} only element
of consideration in such plan phasing.
The annual work plan is an important element of planning and
implementation. The maintenance of flexibility is essential in the
guidance developed for these vork plans if the individual State needs
are to be considered. The same consideration should be incorporated
in the planning process itself.
Our proposed State plan uses similar language to that of
paragraph 256.30 (c) and therefore should comply with this mandatory
requirement. However, this places the burden on individual states to
develop materials procurement specification such as for paving or
paper where Federal funds are used. This should be reversed. The
Federal agency providing funds should identify the materials to be
procured by specification and uarket source. My review of Section
6002 of RCRA would require the Federal Agencies to do this and EPA
producing procurement guideline's. Before implementing the requirement
in this regulation, limit its application.
Throughout the document you use the terms "shall* arid 'should*.
By your definition "shall" is used for a mandatory requirement to be
included in the plan. My fear is that by including recommendations in
the regulation, the "should" will translate to "shall" in plan pre-
paration, public review, and EPA approval. This will happen through
-------
interpretation of what strategy of policy will encourage resource
recovery. The first recommendation includes training, financial sup-
port and market development. Virginia is financially limited in its
ability to undertake such efforts so why infer this level of detail in
the Guideline for State Plans?
The recommendation contained in the Preamble for the States to
have authority to acquire solid waste disposal facilities or cause
facilities to be acquired is totally unrealistic in Virginia legal
context. Even if the facilities could be acquired who will finance
them and who will operate such a facility? Are you considering the
State dictating facility location? Such a suggestion is totally unac-
ceptable.
During the public meeting held in Annapolis, Maryland, on October
13, the attendees were solicited for comments on advisability for
public hearings prior to the issuance of permits to operate solid
waste disposal facilities. Site selection, acquisition, and operation
of disposal facilities are a local responsibility and are accom-
plished with ample public participation in all stages of the decision
process for use permits and zoning. Once the site has been selected
and the operational plan has been approved, holding additional public
hearings on the issuance of a State permit is highly redundant and
would result in totally unnecessary delay in addition to a waste of
taxpayer's money. He have already objected to the expansiveness of
public participation requirements in a previous hearing. I consider
these requirements to be arbitrary and capricious, going far beyond
-------
those of Sec. 7004(b) of RCRA. Virginia has an Administrative Process
Act covering the necessity o£ public participation. The mandatory
requirements of paragraphs 255.60, 256.61 and 256.62 go far beyond
what is reasonable and essential for the involvement of an informed
public. I am enclosing a copy of our previous comments for the
record.
The mandatory inclusions within the annual work program would
seem to take away State flexibility. For example, State planning for
development of hazardous waste management facilities may be beyond the
financial abilities and policy of a State. Developing regulations on
hazardous waste management, if the State elects to apply for authroity
to administer Subtitle C, is more appropriate. Only if it is a State
policy to own and operate such facilities or services would paragraph
256.05 (d)(2) be considered. If all elements of the work program are
mandatory, what will EPA and tie State negotiate?
Resource Conservation and recovery are specified in RCRA. To
make a requirement that State and local government shall not prohibit
long-term contracts for resource recovery is important yet it will
require legislative action to authorize such contracts. Such a plan
element is of little value where a customer for recovered energy is a
Federal facility. Except for a recent amendment to the Military
Construction Appropriation, Federal contracts are limited to one year.
Under the amendment to the Military Construction bill, the military
may contract for up to ten years for recovered energy. Ten years may
not yield bonds or project funding at an economically competitive
level. Resource recovery without a sound economic base will become a
community white elephant with the taxpayers bearing yet another bur-
den. You are requiring States to plan for something that is not
possible within the Federal Government.
-------
Statement of Eric H. Bartsch, P. E., Director
Division of Water Programs
State Health Department
Richmond, Virginia
October 26, 1978
I am Eric H. Bartsch, Director of the Division of Water Programs,
State Health Department, Richmond, Virginia. I am here today repre-
senting both the Virginia State Health Department and the Conference
of State Sanitary Engineers. We appreciate this opportunity to
express our collective views regarding the proposed regulation per-
taining to public participation in programs under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, The Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Clean Water Act.
It is our belief that the EPA Administrator does not have
authority to promulgate such a far-reaching regulation as this in
reference to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. A reading of the safe Drinking Water Act and the
Congressional history of the Act does not infer nor require such
detailed and far-reaching public participation requirements upon the
primacy states. The Safe Drinking Water Act sets forth five conditions
for a state to assume primacy. A public participation program is not
one of these conditions. The Act itself through public notification
requirements probably is the ultimate in public participation but does
not require the extensive support staff that this proposed regulation
would require of each primacy state. Although this propsed regulation
may have applicability under the Clean Water Act, to make it appli-
cable to the Safe Drinking Water Act appears to be both improper and
excessive.
-------
-2-
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act basically addresses
three areas, solid waste management, hazardous waste management and
resource recovery. The solid waste portion of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act deals with guidelines to be prepared by
the D. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 4003 of the Act
sets forth the mandatory elements of state planning for solid waste
management in order to obtain approval of this program by the EPA
Administrator. Public participation is not one of the mandatory
requirements for state solid waste planning. The Act does, however,
authorize the Administrator 1:o promulgate minimal guidelines for
public participation in solid waste management, hazardous waste
management and resource recovery. We do not consider this proposed
regulation to be minimal guidelines, in fact, it goes far beyond the
scope and intent set forth ir the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
To make states that have already received primacy under the
Safe Drinking Water Act and those states in the planning and develop-
ment stage for assuming primacy under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
those states preparing to receive grant monies under the planning for
solid waste management to devE-lop the detailed public participation
program outlined in this proposed regulation is unreasonable,
excessive and unjustified and will cause further delay.
-------
-3-
Public participation is an integral part of any far-reaching
regulatory program. Its importance has become more evident as time
passes. As a result, most, if not all states, have requirements for
public participation in the development of its rules and regulations.
In Virginia, for example, we have an Administrative Process Act which
details the type and extent of public participation. These state laws
have been enacted to meet the needs of the individual states. To
superimpose a federal regulation over existing state laws will result
in needless conflicts and expenditures at state and local levels
without increased effective public participation.
The proposed regulation indicates that there would be a small
increase in cost and this may be true as it relates to construction
grant projects under the Clean Water Act, however, there is no
increase in funding to primacy states under the Safe Drinking Water
Act or to states receiving grant monies under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Therefore, all costs would have to
be borne by the state and local governments. Though these costs
appear to be small by federal standards, they may, in fact, be quite
large at the state and local government level.
Although this proposed regulation states that Advisory Groups
pertain only to the Clean Water Act, the inference is clear that these
would be required for the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. As the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are frequently managed at the
state level by agencies other than those supervising the Clean Water
Act a multiplicity of Advisory Groups would be required. Further-
-------
-4-
more, the ability of the Advisory Group to request an evaluation by
EPA Administrator of a state's program in effect, would make the
Advisory Group the state defacto program director. We also believe
that this authority of the Advisory Group is in direct conflict with
the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act which stcites that unless
a state fails to carry out its responsibilities under the Act, the EPA
Administrator has the authority to engage in program activities within
state.
In summary, we believe this regulation as it relates to the Safe
Drinking Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is
improper, unnecessary, and will place an undue burden upon the states.
In an era of attempting to decrease red tape and government involve-
ment this regulation proposes to increase red tape and government
involvement. We believe this proposed regulation is an attempt to
overregulate and will create a program activity which is not cost
effective.
In view of the above staged reasons we recommend that the
Administrator not promulgate "his proposed regulation.
Thank you.
-------
STATEMENT OF CAREY P. BUSBIN
ON BEHALF OF
THE UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES GROUP
Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Hearing on Proposed Guidelines for Development
and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans
Washington, D.C. October 26, 1978
My name is/Carey P. JSusbin./'I am an Environmental
Licensing Engineer wiWsouthern Company Services, Inc., with
specific responsibility in the area of solid waste management.
I am appearing today as representative of the Utility Solid
Waste Activities Group, known as '• USWAG ", and the Edison
Electric Institute.
USWAG is a coalition of approximately 45 electric
utilities and the Edison Electric Institute, the principal
national association of investor-owned electric light and
power companies. USWAG was created in August, 1978, as the
successor to the Solid Waste Task Force of EEI's Environment
and Energy Committee. A list of USWAG's members is attached.
USWAG and its predecessor have participated actively
in EPA's efforts to date to develop regulations under the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA ). This
involvement reflects both recognition that portions of these
regulations will impact substantially upon the electric power
-------
- 2 -
industry and a commitment to work cooperatively with EPA to
insure that this important statute is implemented in a reason-
able manner.
With this background, 1 am pleased to offer a few
of OSWAG's observations on EPA's proposed Guidelines for the
Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management
Plans under Section 4002(b) of RCRA. Since USWAG will file
more comprehensive comments on these proposed guidelines, I
shall confine my remarks today to the high points of our sub-
mission.
First, USWAG believes that the proposed state planning
guidelines do not give the states the flexibility they need,
and that Congress intended for them to have, in attempting to
deal with the particular nonhazardous solid waste disposal
problems in their jurisdictions. The report of the House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce states explicitly:
"In formulating a state plan it is the Committee's intention
to permit wide flexibility on the part of the state developing
such plan so that each state can plan for its particular
problems." (H.R. REP. No. 1491,, 94 Cong., 2nd Sess. 35
(emphasis added)). However, USWAG believes that the proposed
guidelines, by expressly incorporating EPA's proposed Criteria
under Section 4004 of RCRA (Proposed Sections 256.20(a),
-------
- 3 -
256.22(a), 256.22(d), and 256.24(a)), would deprive the states
of the flexibility they should have in coping with their parti-
cular problems of solid waste.
Two examples will demonstrate our point. Under the
proposed Section 4004 Criteria, solid waste disposal facili-
ties generally may not be iocated in "wetlands." (Proposed
Section 257.3-1). Vast areas of the country consist of "wet-
lands," as defined by EPA; indeed, the states of Florida and
Louisiana consist almost entirely of such areas. Thus, in
order to receive federal approval of their plans, these states
would be required to prohibit, or severely limit, the location
of solid waste disposal, facilities within their boundaries.
We do not believe that this approach is consistent with the
intent of Congress. This is not what the House Committee
meant by giving the States "wide flexibility" to develop a
solid waste management plan aimed at their particular problems.
A second example: RCRA directs EPA to consider in
its Section 4002{b) guidelines "the varying regional, geologic,
hydrologic, climatic, and other circumstances under which
different solid waste practices are required in order to
insure the reasonable protection of the ground and surface
waters from leachate contamination, the reasonable protection
of the quality of the surface waters from surface runoff
contamination, and the reasonable protection of ambient air
-------
quality. Section 4002(c)(J) (emphasis added). We note that
Congress emphasizes reasonable protection of the environment.
However, the proposed Criteria, which would be incor-
porated in these guidelines, generally would bar an approved
state from locating solid waste disposal facilities in wetlands
and 100-year flood plains even though local geologic, hydrologic,
and other conditions are such that the facility would be operated
in a manner to insure reasonable protection of the environment.
USWAG recognizes the importance of wetlands, 100-year
flood plains and other "Environmentally Sensitive Areas."
However, we believe that options short of blanket exclusions
are available both to insure the protection of these areas
and to give the states the nacessary flexibility to deal with
their solid waste problems. One such option, which we previous-
ly have suggested to EPA, is a formal variance procedure whereby
states would be able to exempt specific disposal facilities
from the Criteria upon a showing of reasonable protection of
the environment.
In summation, USWAG again urges EPA to reevaluate
its proposed Section 4004 Criteria which, when incorporated
in the Section 4002(b) guidelines, will not restrict the
states in formulating acceptable solid waste plans under RCRA.
I] .
This brings me to USWAG's second point of concern,
which is also related to the need for state flexibility in
-------
- 5 -
solid waste management. We have serious doubts about the
appropriateness of proposed Sections 256.20(d) and 256.24(b),
which rj!gin.j:e the states to make use of a permit or registra-
tion program to insure that the establishment of new open dumps
is prohibited and that all solid waste disposal is carried out
in compliance with the Section 4004 Criteria. Under these pro-
visions, permits possibly would be required before any solid
waste disposal facility, including even the smallest sanitary
landfill, could commence operation.
USWAG does not believe this was the intent of Con-
gress. While we recognize that RCRA mandates a permit pro-
gram for hazardous wastes, we do not believe Subtitle D
gives EPA the authority to require states to utilize either
a permit or registration program in managing nonhazardous
wastes. We submit that the states should be free to select
whatever programs they deem necessary, in light of their
particular problems and circumstances, to comply with the
requirements of Subtitle D.
III.
USWAG's third point is an endorsement of EPA's require-
ment that the State plan "provide for a policy and strategy
for encouragement of resource recovery and conservation acti-
vities." (Proposed Section 256.30(a)). We wish to point out
-------
- 6 -
that in the electric utility industry approximately 20
percent of fly ash and bottom ash is today sold commercially
for road base, subbase, structural fill material, as an
additive in concrete, and for other purposes. We believe that
state plans under Subtitle D should encourage the continued use
of such resource recovery efforts.
.IV.
Fourth, USWAG believes that the procedural protec-
tions under the proposed closure requirements (Proposed Sec-
tion 256.22(c)) should be strengthened considerably in order
to comply with the requirements of due process. First, an
owner or operator should be notified as soon as it is determined
that his facility is under study for possible classification
as an open dump. Second, we 1 eel that the owner/operator
should be provided with alj. of the evidence upon which the
classification is based, rather than only with a summary of
the evidence.
V.
At this point, I would like to point out a few
additional provisions of the proposed guidelines that are of
concern to USWAG and its members:
1. We believe that where multiple agencies are in-
volved in implementing a solid waste management program, the
state plan should designate a single agency to coordinate the
-------
- 7 -
administrative process in order to protect persons from incon-
sistent and duplicative regulation. We urge EPA to include
this requirement in its Section 4002(b) guidelines.
2. We submit that the proposed state plan approval
provisions (Section 256.04(b)) should provide that notice to
a state of plan noncompliance as well as withdrawal of plan
approval will be published in the Federal Register.
3. USWAG believes that several of the terms defined
in the proposed guidelines need clarification. (Proposed Sec-
tion 256.06). For example, the meaning of "properly closed"
is unclear. The use of the phrase "et cetera" in the defini-
tion of "facility" is confusing and inappropriate. The defin-
ition of "inventory of open dumps" should specify that the list
will be published in the Federal Register.
4. USWAG generally supports EPA's recommendation
that the states should have greater authority and control over
facility acquisitions. (Proposed Section 256.42(e)). Our
experience has shown that local authorities often are reluc-
tant, or even refuse» to take the necessary steps to obtain
and establish adequate new disposal sites.
5. Finally, we question the requirement that a
state must hold a public hearing on each permit application.
(Proposed Section 256.63). USWAG believes that this matter
should rest in the discretion of the states. We feel that
at most EPA should require only that a public hearing be held
-------
where the state finds a significant degree of public interest
in the application.
USWAG appreciates the opportunity to submit these
comments today. We will continue to follow with interest
EPA's efforts to implement the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
-------
MEMBERS OF UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES GROUP
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
Atlantic City Electric Company
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation
Central Illinois Light Company
Central Illinois Public Service Company
Central & South West Corporation
Central Power and Light Company
Public Service Company of Oklahoma
Southwestern Electric Power Company
West Texas Utilities Company
Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Company
Commonwealth Edison Company
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Duke Power Company
Duquesne Light Company
Edison Electric Institute
Florida Power & Light Company
Houston Lighting & Power Company
Illinois Power Company
Indianapolis Power & Light Company
Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Company
Iowa Power & Light Company
Middle South Utilities, Inc.
Monongahela Power Company
Montana Power Company
New England Electric System
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Northern States Power Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
Philadelphia Electric Company
Potomac Electric Power Company
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.
Southern California Edison Company
Southern Company Services, Inc.
Alabama Power Company
Georgia Power Company
Gulf Power Company
Mississippi Power Company
Texas Utilities Generating Company
The Detroit Edison Company
The Potomac Edison Company
Union Electric Company
West Penn Power Company
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Wisconsin Power & Light Company
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
Virginia Electric & Power Company
-------
COMMENTS OS STATE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLANS
_t4O_CEE_256) (DOCKET 4002(b)
CHIEF, >,< ff- (>(- **',«} .•wfTiJt-.'e-f A»i'.tft.c.i
U.S. EPA SHOULD BE CONGRADULATED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE
GUIDELINES. THEY ARE GREATLY IMPROVED FROM EARLIER DRAFTS.
MOST REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE REALISTIC AND ACHIEVABLE
(ASSUMING FUNDING CONTINUES AND IMPROVES). THE ORGANIZATION OF
THE GUIDELINES IS ALSO MUCH BETTER THAN MOST GUIDELINES WE
HEAD IN THK FEDERAL REGISTER.
ALTHOUGH OVERALL OUR OFFICE VIEWS THESE GUIDELINES FAVORABLY.
THERE ARE SEVERAL CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS WE HAVE ABOUT SPECIFIC
SECTIONS. THERE ARE ONE OR TWO ITEMS WE OPPOSE. THESE
SPECIFIC COMMENTS FOLLOW.
-------
S256.03 EIGHTEEN MONTHS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT
OF SUCH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GET IT ADOPTED BY THE
STATE. IN 18 MONTHS WE COULD ESTABLISH THE PLANNING
FRAMEWORK, TIME FRAMES AND ADDRESS THE MAJOR ELEMENTS.
tarn, DCCAPSp SOME ACTIVITIES CAN NOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL
AFTER THE OPEN DUMP INVENTORY WHICH WILL TAKE AT LEAST
TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE, ESPECIALLY THE LOCAL PLANNING FOR
ALL SITES WITH LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OF LIFE. THE PROJECT
LIFE OF MANY SITES WILL CHANGE (i.e. SHORTENED) WHEN THE
OPEN DUMP INVENTORY IS COMPLETE DUE TO CLOSINGS AND RE-
SULTING SHIFTS IN WASTE FLOW. THESE GUIDELINES SHOULD
STATE WHAT MUST BE DONE IN 18 MONTHS AND WHAT CAN TAKE
LONGER.
S256.03 (e) HOW OFTEN MUST LOCAL PLANS BE REVISED? WILL THERE BE
ADEQUATE FUNDS FOR SUCH REVISIONS? WE CAN NOT REQUIRE
WORK OF THE SUBSTATE UNITS UNLESS THERE ARE FUNDS TO
COVER THE COSTS.
S256.06 THE DEFINITIONS OF "PLANNING" AND'IMPLEMENTATION-
ARE BETTER HERE THAN IN THE ACT. WE STILL NEED CORRECTIONS
TO DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT, ESPECIALLY "CONSTRUCTION".
THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED AS PLANNING IN THE DISCUSSION/
EXPLANATION SECTIONS ARE CONSISTANT WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING
OF PLANNING ALTHOUGH WORDING IN THE ACT APPEARS TO PREVENT
THESE MEANINGFUL ACTIVITIES FROM BEING FUNDED. LETS HOPE
THE OVERSIGHT HEARING OF CONGRESS CORRECTS THE SITUATION-
-------
S256.10 DETAILED DEFINITION OF RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING ALL
AREAS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND BETWEEN ALL LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, DESIGNATED PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES
AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS OF LITTLE VALUE AT THIS STAGE
AND WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT AND CONFUSING TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. THIS WORDING SOUNDS TO^MUCH LIKE 208 WHICH
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULDN'T LIKE. WE SUGGEST THE BEST
SOLUTION TO THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEMORANDA OF UNDER-
STANDING BETWEEN PLANNING AGENCIES AND MAJOR. GOVERNMENT
UNITS OR IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES. THE MOU'S ARE
DEVELOPED BY THE LOCALfTO ADDRESS THEtR CONCERNS Ofif
ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY WOULD FOLLOW THE BROAD
CATEGORIES OF RESPONSIBILITY THE STATE ASSIGNED EARLY IN
THE DESIGNATION PROCESS. THEY ARE MOST IMPORTANT WHERE
A RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY IS BEING PLANNED. ANYTHING
£!'
FURTHER ISN'T NEED/ UNTIL THE LOCAL PROBLEMS AND PLANS ARE
BETTER DEFINED.
-------
S256.ll SAME COMMENTS AS 256,10 .APPLY TOO MUCH DETAIL EXPECTED.
S256.20
AND
S256.21 MOST OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE REALISTIC
AND NEEDED. ALTHOUGH WE SUPPORT THESE ELEMENTS IT tty tite-
MAgflg SEVERAL YEARS TO OBTAIN ALL THE NEEDED LEGISLATION
TO COMPLY.
3s
IN 256.21(d)(4) tUV IHIVH'I THIS TO PERTAIN TO ONLY NEW
FACILITIES? ALTHOUGH VALUABLE THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT
TO SELL TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE LEGISLATURE.
S256.22
(e) DOES THIS MEAN ONLY FACILITIES WITH NO ALTERNATIVES ARE
GIVEN COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES. ELSEWHERE (256.22(g)) IT
SOUNDS LIKE ALL FACILITIES CAN RECEIVE COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
OF UP TO 5 YRS. IF THE FIRST IS TRUE HOW SOON AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE LIST OF OPEN DUMPS DO THE DUMPS WITH
ALTERNATIVES HAVE TO CLOSE?
S256.22
(g) INCLUDING ALL THE COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE INFORMATION IN
THE ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM WILL MAKE ANNUAL STATE GRANT PROPOSALS
UNNECCESSARILY BULKY.
S256.23 THE TERM "EVALUATED" IS CONFUSING. THE ACT SAYS ALL SITES
MUST BE EVALUATED. TF THE INTENT IS "DETAILED EVALUATION"
THEN INSERT THE WORD "DETAILED". ^^MUST EVALUATE
WHETHER THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SITES - OPERATOR OR THE STATE?
WHO PAYS FOR IT? COULD THIS BE A RESPONSIBILITY OF SUB-
STATE UNITS?
-------
S256.30 THE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS WILL BE HARD TO ACHIEVE
AND THEREFORE THIS SECTION SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED
UNTIL AFTER 6002(e) REGULATIONS ARE PUBLISHED. THESE
REQUIREMENTS SHOULD APPLY ONLY TO THE STATE. WE MAY
ENCOURAGE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO FOLLOW THESE REQUIREMENTS
BUT WE CAN'T MANDATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO FOLLOW THE
PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS.
S256.31 THERE IS TOO MUCH DETAIL TO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, REVIEW OF LOCAL LEGISLATION AND CONDUCTING
WASTE COMPOSITION STUDIES ARE TOO TIME CONSUMING AND
COSTLY AND ARE OF LITTLE VALUE TO THE ST4TE.
SUBPART E MUCH OF THE WORK EXPECTED IN FACILITY PLANNING CAN NOT
BE COMPLETED UNTIL AFTER THE INVENTORY IS COMPLETED. THIS
SUBPART HAS GREATEST IMPACT ON LOCAL PLANNING AGENCIES. THIS
SUBPART IS NEEDED MORE THAN MANY OTHER SUBPARTS OF THE
GUIDELINES AND NEEDS FUNDING OVER THE NEXT 5 YEARS.
WE OPPOSE REQUIRING ALL FUNDING FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
PLANNING COMING FROM SUBTITLE D. HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
PLANNING SHOULD BE FUWDABLE UNDER SUBTITLE C, ESPECIALLY
c,'^'itc4
CONSIDERING THE BfcWSfSftE FUNDING SUBTITLE D H4S RECEIVED.
-------
S256.42 WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AS AN ACTIVITY OF SUBSTATE
(b) and (c)
UNITS, AND HAVE GIVEN IT HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR "PASSTHHOUGH"
FUNDING. THIS NEED EMPHASIZES THE NEED FOR INCREASED
FUNDING OF SUBTITLE D OVER THE NEXT 4-5 YEARS TO ENABLE
COMPLETION OF LOCAL PLANS.
S256.42
(e) and (f) THE STATE CAN NOT REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO OBTAIN
FACILITIES. HOWEVER A STRONGER STATE ROLE AS RECOMMENDED
MAY BE DESIRABLE.
c/
S256.42(g) WHAT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE^? IT SOUNDS LIKE A CONSTRUCTION
GRANT PROGRAM WILL BE AVAILABLE.
&
-------
S256.43 AND OTHER SECTIONS DEALING WITH HAZARDOUS VfASTE.
THESE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE FUNDABLE BY SUBTITLE C OR D
AND THE METHOD OF FUNDING A CHOICE OF THE STATE,
WITH THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS APPROVAL OF THE WORK
PROGRAM AS WITH AJL FUNDING.
?<*.<• t
THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION , HEARINGS,
MEETINGS, ETC. TAICES CONSIDERABLE TIME AND MONEY. IT
WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO MEET TIME DEADLINES AND COMPLY
WITH ALL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
S256.63 THE OFFICE OF LANE POLLUTION CONTROL, OHIO EPA, STRONGLY
APPOSES REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF
ALL FACILITY PERMITS. OHIO LAW CURRENTLY PROVIDES FOR
MEETINGS OR HEARINGS IF JUSTIFIED REQUESTS OR SUFFICIENT
EREST IS SHOWN. WE ADVERTIZE ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS
(APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF PERMITS) AND PROVIDE FOR A RESPONSE
PERIOD. IT IS HARD ENOUGH TO GET NEEDED SITES APPROVED
WITHOUT WAIVING MORE RED FLAGS IN FRONT OF PROJECTS.
£256\30Xc) REQgf5l)j£J£HESE GRANGES IN PBOCBHEMENTS WILIXBE DIFFICULT
/2<_ / .^ ^f^y / ^~^~^/ -
<^_^--"/4NBr'™ffi 0ONSUMING HT'GETTINJ^THE LEGISLATION ' *HE S^ATE
" /// --' /f. ' . ' .-^X
PLAN, CAKKONiY' RECOKMEND -^HE KIND jDF LEGISLATION NEEDED.
^Zi-^-^ - /; /^" / '
SHQIJLB^N^T HAtE T6 COMPLY^fTTH THIS REQUIREMENT
' QtflDELINES.
'THE,^ECOMMENDED AC^roNS IN S256.>r?) "ra/MEET/fBSE REQUIRE-
/ ^ ' ^
lENTS APEA»UCH WEAKER THAN THE l/P^UIREM^Wl'S, BUT ARE
MORE REALISTIC AND^gJiMENTABLE .
-------
Environmental Protection Agency Hearing
October 26, 1978
Washington , B.C.
__
. Rpdney"~Edwards_.
resident"
American Paper Institute
I am delighted to have this opportunity to present this brief
but important statement on waste paper recycling in the United
States as it relates to resource recovery and solid waste
management programs. The point I wish to make is that in all
solid waste management programs, based on resource recovery,
that is the recovery of recyclable materials from municipal
solid waste, there should be a priority for source separation
of recyclable waste paper. Waste paper recycling is a large
and expanding industry and waste paper recycling mills must
have continued access to waste paper supply.
In 1977, the waste paper recycling industry collected 16.4 million
tons of waste paper. All of this waste paper was source separated
from other solid waste, kept clean and collected separately,
for recycling in this country or for export. The collection
rate in 1977 was 25" of all the paper consumed in this country.
This is a factor that is frequently overlooked. Let me state
it again....Of all the paper consumed in the United States last
year, 25% was source separated and collected for recycling.
In any resource recovery program where municipal solid waste
is to be incinerated to recover its energy value, those
managing the program tend to want to maximize the "put-through"
of the combustible components in municipal solid waste. Waste
paper is by far the largest combustible component. Therefore,
-------
as resource recovery prograns are being developed, there must
be a priority to preserve source separation programs for re-
cyclable waste paper. In some cases, municipal or regional
resource recovery programs have attempted to preclude separate
collection of recyclable waste paper, either by local ordinance,
in contracts, or in arrangements for financing. Sometimes
preclusion of source separation of recyclable waste paper is
included in the consulting engineer's proposal to the resource
recovery authority. Frequently, neither the engineers or city
officials are aware of the waste paper recycling industry that
exists in their areas. Frequently, incineration of solid waste
is labeled recycling of solid waste. This we feel tends to
discourage those millions Americans who currently source
separate waste paper for recycling. There are over 1,500 waste
paper dealers in the United States located in and around urban
areas who act as the recycling centers for the paper industry.
They buy waste paper from collectors and sell it to the recy-
cling mills. There are some 700 paper and paperboard mills in
the United States and almost e'very mill uses some recycled
waste paper. 200 of these mills depend exclusively on ivaste
paper as their raw material supply and depend on local source
separation programs.
Last year about 30%, or 3.1 million tons, of all the old news-
papers that were discarded after they were read, were collected
separately from other refuse, for recycling. Also about a little
over 30% of all the corrugated boxes used in this country were
separated from other wastes at retail stores, factories and
commerical buildings and collected to be recycled. These two
-------
-3-
post consumer grades should continue to be recycled where a
market exists rather than incinerated to recover their energy
value. Of course, for some waste papers and in some regions,
recycling may not be economical and in these cases incineration
may have a higher economic priority. Recycling waste paper
is normally utilizing waste paper at its highest economic
value. Also, as EPA studies point out when the waste paper
that can be recycled is removed from solid waste, prior to
incineration, the BTU content of solid waste is reduced only
by a factor of 5% or less. As the demand increases for waste
paper, solid waste authorities should be informed that the
economics are much more favorable toward recycling than toward
incineration and if in the future demand for waste paper
increases, where currently it is being incinerated, it should
be allowed to be separated from the waste stream for
recycling.
It is also important to point out that as the demand for waste
paper increases from the mills located in the United States,
the demand is also increasing from mills located overseas. In
1977, 1.5 million tons of the 16.4 million tons collected, were
exported to countries in Asia, Europe and South America. In
August of 1978, exports were running at a level of 2 million
tons per year. August was the largest month for shipments,
about 178,000 tons were shipped overseas in just that one
month. Export demand will continue to increase as the economy
in foreign countries strenghten and new capacity to recycle
waste paper is added. Many foreign countries are informing us
of their future needs for waste paper, and as the United States
is the only major exporting country for waste paper in the
-------
-4-
world, they will be looking to us to collect waste paper and
export it to them.
We think it is most important that EPA establish a. priority
for source separation of recyclable waste paper in the form of
a public statement that we can use when talking to state,
regional and local solid waste officials.
We urge EPA to continue to dsvelop municipal collection programs
for old newspapers such as tiose now ongoing in over 200 cities
in the United States. Many more such programs will be needed
to meet the increasing demand for old newspapers, and we would
like to continue to work with EPA to develop more municipal
collection programs.
The American Paper Institute has an ongoing Communications
Program which has as its objective to inform the American
public on the need to source separate recyclable waste paper
and make it available for separate collection for recycling.
This message is aired on television and radio, and included
in news stories in the nations newspapers and magazines. In
1979, we will be expanding th;.s program. In some cases there
will be opportunities to include EPA officials in the story
and we hope you will be willirg to lend your support. We will
be reporting back to you as the story is told by the nations
media. Further, if there are other opportunities to work with
EPA to expand waste paper recycling in this country we will
welcome the opportunity to work together.
Thank you.
-------
taaC Softcf Pastes
-------
The National Solid Wastes Management Association especially welcomes the
opportunity to comment on the proposed Guidelines for Development and
Implementation the State Solid riaste Management Plans developed under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. The association,
which represents 2000 members in the fields of waste collection, disposal,
resource recovery, hazardous wasste management, and solid waste equip-
ment, feels that comprehensive state and regional planning will be an
important factor in assuring environmentally sound programs for waste
disposal and resource recovery Jn the future.
We are particularly pleased with the approach of the supplementary
information section of the Guidelines as they appeared in the federal
Register on August 28. The positions of the private waste management
industry are reflected in this introductory section. NSWMA applauds the
inclusion of the following points in the Guidelines:
1. A recognition that, despite all efforts to promote resource
recovery and conservation, l:here will be a continuing need for
sanitary landfills.
2. A recognition that the state has a responsibility to assure
sound disposal capacity, and may need to take a leadership
position to overcome institutional problems with the siting of
sanitary landfills.
3. A recognition that a strong state posture is essential to assure
the siting of hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities,
and that the private sector las the capability to provide
hazardous waste management services.
-------
-2-
4. A recognition that the plan must be developed with full
participation by the public, including the private sector,
and, specifically, that "awareness of private sector activities"
is necessary for a. state to determine future facility needs.
While we support the framework and the approach of these Guidelines,
however, we do question some of the specific provisions. We are first
concerned with the coordination between the open dump inventory to be
conducted under Section 4005 and the development of state solid waste
plans. If the planning guidelines are promulgated in January of 1979,
state plans would be due to be completed by July, 1980, eighteen months
later. The inventory will begin when the criteria for sanitary landfills
are completed, expected by July of 1979. This means that by July 1980
when the plans are due, the inventory process will have been going on
for only one year. Although the law requires the open dump inventory to
be completed within one year, it is recognized by nearly everyone,
including the Guidelines document itself, that such a task is impossible
to accomplish properly in that time-frame. In the state plan, then, is
the state required to address only those facilities that have been
inventoried to date? Or will the state plan, instead, identify the
procedure for conducting this inventory but not include a list of sites
until the entire inventory is complete? NSWMA has advised the U.S. EPA
previously, with regard to the landfill criteria, that we feel an
inventory should be published only after it has been completed in its
entirety for a given waste shed. The Guidelines should make clear to
states exactly how they are to address in the state plan these sites
that have not been surveyed at the time the plan is developed.
-------
-3-
A second matter of concern to NSWM4. relates to the qualifications of
those persons who will be conducting the open dump inventory. The
proposed state plan Guidelines recommend that "inspectors should be
trained and provided detailed instiuctions for checking on the pro-
cedures and conditions that are specified in the engineering plan
and site permit," and, further, that "assessment and prescription of
remedial measures should be carried out by adequately trained or experienced
professional staff." The identification of open dumps, and, conversely,
sanitary landfills, is central to tae purposes of RCRA. The U.S. EPA
has agonized for the past two years, along with public and private
interest groups, over establishing landfill criteria that will be
comprehensive, reasonable and precise enough to be measurable. All such
efforts, however, are of little value if persons conducting the inventory
are not required to be trained for this purpose. NSWMA recommends that
provisions for training inspectors aad other professional staff should
be a "requirement" for state regulatory powers under Section 256.20
rather than merely a "recommendation" as currently indicated under
Section 256.21. :
Our third major comment relates to tte provision in the Guidelines and
in RCRA that a site identified as an open dump may obtain a compliance
schedule if it "demonstrates that it has considered other public or
private alternatives to comply with the prohibition on open dumping and
is unable to utilize such alternatives to so comply." This requirement
that an open dump close when there is an alternative available is
most ambiguous. What is an "alternative"? By what standards and by
whose judgment is a determination mad£> that another facility is
available? This provision in the Guidelines creates more problems than
-------
-4-
it solves. Clearly, a key goal of RCRA is to provide environmentally
sound disposal facilities. NSWMA believes that, to the maximum extent
feasible, a disposal site should be encouraged to upgrade and that
closure should be an approach of last resort. The difficulty of siting
new disposal facilities is discussed in the state plan Guidelines: in
nearly every case the opening of a new landfill or resource recovery
facility is an extremely time-consuming process, which can be delayed
for several years. It should be the intent of EPA and the states to
preserve existing landfills; if they can possibly be upgraded they
should be put on a compliance schedule rather than closed.
To achieve this goal, the planning Guidelines should be expanded to
define how the existence of an alternative is determined. For example,
in evaluating the availability of an alternative facility, the effect of
increasing the waste load on the alternative site should be quantified.
What would be the effect of additional truck traffic and volumes of
wastes coming to this alternative facility? Would such activity so
strain the resources of the alternative site that it would be in
jeopardy of becoming an open dump? Further, the cost of upgrading an
existing facility should be compared to the cost of changing existing
transportation and disposal patterns to reroute waste to the alternative
site. It should be noted that the costs of upgrading a private facility
are borne by the private facility operator and not by the municipality.
Our fourth and final point, which relates to all the issues raised, is
that there must be an assurance of adequate capacity in environmentally
sound facilities to take the waste that will continue to be generated.
Certainly it is not enough for a state plan simply to close all facilities
which do not meet the landfill criteria. It may not even be enough to
-------
-5-
upgrade all existing facilities. The state and the substate regions,
through the planning process, must project the disposal needs into the
future and must assure that facilities will be provided which can take
these wastes in an environmentally sound manner. While the supplementary
information section of the state planning Guidelines emphasizes this
point, the facility planning and Implementation section (Subpart e) of
the proposed rules should include stronger requirements to achieve this
end. For example, Section 256.41 (e) requires that "environmental,
economic and other constraints on continued operation of facilities
should be assessed" as part of the plan. It is not eno'ugh simply to
identify the constraints. NSWMA urges the EPA to include language that
would require;the state also to identify options for overcoming obstacles
to facility siting. Such approaches could include state override of
local zoning, development of a siting board, and other mechanisms.
Further, Section 256.42 (b), "Recommendations for Assuring Facility
Development," should be strengthened. The section now states that "where
facilities and practices are found to be inadequate, the state plan
should provide for the necessary facilities and practices to be developed
by responsible state and substate agencies or by the private sector".
The language should be stated more positively that the state plan shall
provide for necessary facilities. This is another recommendation that
should be made a requirement.
Sanitary landfills may be an "endangered species." The cooperation of the
states, regional planning agencies, interest groups, and the private
sector will be necessary to assure that there will be facilities with
sufficient capacity to meet our future needs. Once again, while resource
recovery initiatives are to be encouraged, we must not fool ourselves
-------
-6-
into believing that large scale facilities will appear overnight or that
they will be able to take all the wastes of our communities. EPA is
encouraged to use the strongest language possible in its planning
Guidelines to emphasize the need for a major state role in assuring that
sanitary landfills meet strict environmental standards, but moreover that
an adequate number of facilities will be available to meet future demands.
We appreciate the opportunity of sharing our comments with you today and
look forward to sharing in the development of individual state and
regional plans over the course of the next several years. Thank you.
-------
V'\ STATEMENT OF DR. ROCCO A. PETRONE
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY
„ \ PUBLIC HEARING OIv PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR
V DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE
V^ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
^
\J OCTOBER 26, 1978
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the
proposed guidelines for the development and implementation of
state solid waste management plans, as required by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act .
I represent the National Center for Resource Recovery, a
non-profit research organization involved in programs to help
extend the understanding and implementation of systems to recover
materials and energy from solid waste. These include both source
separation and capital intensive systems „
It is my contention that in order to achieve the basic
objectives of RCRA — environmentally effective disposal and
conservation of resources — forms of resource recovery must be
considered as an essential eleuent of solid waste management
planning by an increasing number of jurisdictions that face waste
disposal problems. The rising costs of disposal, the difficulty
of gaining new sites and the imposition of higher standards for
disposal are factors that can only stimulate the search Eor disposal
alternatives. Resource recovery offers the most substantive
alternative; significant quantities of residuals can be diverted
from disposal and conservation gains realized as a bonus.,
-------
As a variety of systems and technological approaches are now
or soon to be demonstrated in large scale at a number of locations,
institutional problems will remain as some of the major barriers
to communities in considering recovery options. I am particularly
impressed with the recommendations in Section 256.31 of the
guidelines which address a number of these such as contracting and
procurement.
Resource recovery is, as is the solid waste disposal problems
to which it responds, local in nature and site specific in regards
to planning and implementation. Yet the complexity and magnitude
of the undertaking are such that municipalities need assistance
and the support of state government.
Overall, the guidelines are realistic. It is important that
there be effective follow-through and necessary resources in order
to achieve the desired objectives.
-------
STA'CEMENT BY
THE NGA SUBCQMMimEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
GOVERNOR EDWIN EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN
ON
"THE STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS, GUIDELINES
FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPU5MENTATION," FEDERAL REGISTER
Augus-i 28, 1978
AS PRESENTED BY
DAVE JOHNSON, STAFF DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENOTRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
TO
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING, OCTOBER 26, 1978
WASHING!™, D.C.
-------
Good morning (afternoon), ladies and gentlemen. I am
Dave Johnson, Staff Director, Committee on Natural Resources
and Environmetnal Management, National Governors' Association.
On behalf of Governor Edwin Edwards, Chairman, NGA Subcommittee
on Waste Management, I would present this statement on "State
Solid Waste Management Plans," Guidelines for Development and
Implementation, Federal Register, August 28, 1978.
The Subcommittee Chairman expresses his regrets that he
cannot be here to convey these remarks or to answer any questions
you might have but would be most glad to respond to any written
questions on either this presentation or the detailed statement
to be submitted.
The ultimate goal of the State planning process under
Subtitle D is the implementation of RCRA programs directly
affecting solid waste management at State and local levels of
government; assistance for State assumption of Subtitle C,
Hazardous Waste Management; and, the assurance that public and
private entities concerned with solid waste disposal adhere to
the environmental quality standards and criteria set forth in
Section 4004.
The NGA Subcommittee on Waste Management has attested to and
fully supported the full implementation of RCRA goals and programs
before Congressional oversight committees, in EPA public hearings
such as this one today, and in oral and written statements as part
the state consultation required in the law. One element that is
essential to the States' achievement of the planning requirements
set forth in the "Guidelines for Development and Implementation"
-------
is the Agency's overall strategy for implementation of RCRA—its
solid waste management, resource conservation and recovery and
hazardous waste management policies and expectations, as well as
intra-agency coordination activities with other environmental
statutes such as the Clean Wate'r Act, and the Safe Drinking water
Act. The Agency's proposed strategy for implementation was
released earlier and comments sought in the January 19, 1978
public meeting. The Subcommittee supported the development of
the implementation strategy and provided constructive comments
on revising that particular document to best reflect the State's
anticipated activities and capaailities under the state planning
functions outlined in Subtitles C and D. That strategy document
for implementation is still sorely needed and would complement
the document under discussion today. The Subcommittee, therefore,
strongly recommends that the comments received on the "Guidelines
for Development and Implementation" not only be reflected in the
final version of that document hut also be utilized in the re-
vision and release of the strategy for implementation document.
The Agency has released a proposed tentative schedule: for
release of the draft and final versions of regulations, guidelines,
and notices required under Subtitles C and D. This schedule
simply indicates the timeframe in which States can plan to
initiate, review and revise state and local solid waste plans
as well as state grant work outputs. However, the development
of the State plan and work outputs will be severely constrained
without the States' full knowledge and agreement to the Agency's
-------
policies and requirements for implementation of RCRA and
coordination and/or integration with other statutes. Consequently,
regardless of the final version of the document at hand and State
agreement and support for its particular requirements, States
will be hardpressed to fulfill the goals outlined.
In short, the States efforts to fulfill the spirit and letter
of the requirements in "Guidelines for Implementation" will be
measured by
• level and duration of the Agency's committment to
RCRA, especially Subtitle D;
• the release of the final version of the overall strategy
document for public review and comment;
• the flexibility provided the State to phase in the
activities under Section 4005 as determined by the
availability of federal technical and financial
assistance.
A major portion of the States' solid waste plans under RCRA
will be composed of regional/local solid waste management plans
developed by agencies designated under Section 4002. No direct
federal financial assistance for this effort was provided sub-
state entities in FY78. Consequently, several States "passed
through" monies to sub-State entities in order to initiate the
planning activities under Subtitle D. An increasing number of
States had indicated the intent to "pass through" additional
funds in FY79. However, under the EPA Administrator's directive,
this "pass through" will be prohibited in FY79. This directive
will directly and severely impact upon the achievement of the
scope and elements of the "Guidelines for Development and Implemen-
tation" at both the State and local levels. Therefore, the Sub-
-------
committee would urge the Agercy to fully consider this dilemma
in the allocation of the FY79 funds appropriated for either
Section 4008 or Section 175, Clean Air Act—for a total of $33
Million. The Subcommittee would suggest that the $4 Million of
these funds set aside for assistance to the State of New York for
management of the hazardous waste disaster in Niagara County not
be included in the total provided for federal assistance for local
planning efforts. While support for the hazardous management
situation in any State cannot be denied, it should not be given
at the expense of assisting local planning efforts under Subtitle D.
The Subcommittee has recommended and still supporbs adequate
federal financial and technical assistance to achieve the planning
and development requirements under Subtitles C arid D. To this
end the Subcommittee, though the state consultation requirements
of Subtitles C and D, would suggest a "Camp David" with the
Agency to discuss a 5 year resource management program as part
of the overall RCRA strategy, especially in the coordination and/
or integration of Subtitle D planning efforts with other environ-
mental statutes.
At this juncture I will simply highlight the specific comments
the Subcommittee will submit on the "Guidelines" and mention
that the comments were developed as the result of extensive efforts
of the Technical Task Forces, especially the State Solid Waste
Management Planning Task Force and the Landfill Technical Task
Force as well as the State Planning Work Group, which serve the
Subcommittee. Those comments are
o support for the clear delineation of state planning
functions from st.ite regulatory programs;
o public participat Lon requirements as required under
-------
State administrative procedures act;
• provision for adequate enforcement capabilities
within designated State agency but not incorpora-
tion of those activities or regulations in the
State plan;
« coordination of RCRA planning requirements with
other State environmental planning requirements
in order to better utilize fiscal and staff resources
and to avoid duplication of efforts; and
• allowance for maximum flexibility to the designated
state agency in the development of the plan: in short,
the plan should provide assurance of mechanisms to
achieve compliance with Section 4004 not actually
incorporate the specifics of the enforcement program
which will vary from State to State.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed guide-
lines and any questions you might have should be directed to
Governor Edwin Edwards, Chairman, Subcommittee on Waste Management.
-------
Attendees—Public Hearing
on Proposed Guidelines for Development and
Implementation of Sta;e Solid Waste Management
Plans
October 26, 1978
Atkin, George, Jr.
P.E. President
Northwest Engineering, Inc.
929 West Lacey Road
Forket River, New Jersey 08731
Austin, John D., Jr.
Counsel
American Mining Congress
1200 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Bagdan, Mark
NYS Energy Office
Policy Analyst
Agency #2
Albany, New York 12223
Baruch, David
Administrative Assistant
Howard County Maryland
Bureau of Environmental Services
3430 Court House Drive
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
Herman, Eugene
Legal Department
E.I. Dupont De Nemoure & Company
Wilmington, Delaware 191398
Beyer, Nelson
Research Biologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Laurel, Maryland 20811
Beygo, Turhan
Environmental Planner
Prince George's County Dept. of
Program Planning & Ecoromic Development
County Administration Blcg.
Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20870
Burns, O.B., Jr.
Director of Corporate
Environmental Activities
Westvaco Building
299 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
-------
Cambourelis, Peter J.
Manager
Raytheon Service Company
Spencer Laboratory
2 Wayside Road
Burlington, Mass. 01803
Clark, Elton L., Ph.D.
Director, Government Relations
Rhodia Inc.
600 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10022
Cobb, Cliff
Solid Waste Project Director
National Association of Counties
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dietz, Joseph F.
San Diego G&E
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, California 92112
Cunningham, Thomas J., Jr.
Senior Editor
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.
1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dollard, Elizabeth M.
Director, Policy Research
National Solid Waste Management Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Drance, Andrew
Washington Representative
Garden State Paper Company, Inc.
2020 North Fourteenth Street
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Dunn, J.J., Jr.
Executive Secretary
Institute for Solid Wastes
American Public Works Association
1776 Mass. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
Edwards, J. Rodney
Vice President
American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York City, New York 10016
Erk, Leyla
Research Assistant
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1901 Penn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2000i>
Gillman, Earl G.
Specialist, Regulatory Affairs
American Cyanamid Company
Engineering and Construction Division
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
George, Kathryn E.
Consultant to Occidental Resource
Recovery Systems
P.O. Box 19601
Irvine, California 92"'13
Gladbach, Edward G., C.E.
Department of Water & Power
City of Los ANgeles
Room 1034, 111 North Hope St.
Los Angeles, California 90012
Hasbrouck, Douglas C., P.E.
Director
State of New York Energy Office
Empire State Plaza
Agency Bldg. 2
Albany, New York 12223
Hickman, H. Lanier, Jr., P.E.
President, Hickman Associates
1629 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Jerabek, Sandy
Solid Waste Project
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
John, Douglas H.
Division of Solid Waste
State of Maryland Dept. of
Health and Mental Hygiene
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Laman, J.R., P.E.
Corporate Manager
The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company
1200 Firestone Parkway
Akron, Ohio 44317
Lindsey, Alan M., P.E.
Coordinator Air & Solid Waste
International Paper Company
P.O. Box 16807
Mobile, Alabama 36616
Morgan, Alan
Research Associate
NACO
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
McFadden, Robert H.
Senior ANalyst
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
1909 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Nelson, Robert J.
Coatings Engineer
National Paint Y Coatings Association
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Nessa, Scott
Staff Specialist, Solid Waste
League of Women Voters
1730 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Norton, Lawrence, Jr.
Manager, State and Regional Affairs
National Agricultural Chemicals Assoc.
The Madison Building
1155 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
-------
Pannell, Richard
JRB Associate
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
Peters, Robert A.
Environmental Planner
Vesar Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Rogers, Margaret
Legislative Assistant
Printing INdustries of Aiterica, Inc.
1730 North Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Shapiro, Marc F.
Staff Associate
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Smith, Earl E.
Division Superintendent
Portsmouth Public Works Department
#1 High Street
Portsmouth, Virginia 23704
Steen, Sharon L.
Debevoise & Liberman Associates
806 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Stotler, Chris
Chief Division of Planning
& Technical Assistance
Ohio EPA,
Columbus, Ohio
Taylor, Darold W.
Vice President
National Clay Pipe Institute
1130 Seventeenth Street, II.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tinnell, William R.
Manager, Secondary Fibre Department
The Chesapeak Corporation of Virginia
P.O. Box 311, Route 30
West Point, Virginia 23181
-------
Vignovic, Anne
Assistant General Counsel
United States Brewers Assoc., Inc.
1750 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Warren, Wayne L.
Technical Assistance Specialist
Veterans Administration
810 Vermont Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20420
Wyche, Brad
Attorney
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1320 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Woodson, D.L.
Solid Waste Disposal Manager
Roanoke Valley Regional Solid
Waste Management Board
P.O. Box 12312
Roanoke, Virginia 24024
Wiechmann, Richard J.
Director, Environmental Affairs
American Paper Institute
1619 Mass. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Young, James
AMSA Director of Legislative
Services
Associate of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies
Suite 200
1015 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
no 1759
SW-46p
Order Ho. 732
-------
-------
-------
------- |