SW47P
                       TRANSCRIPT

                         Public Meeting
                  on Policy Guidance Memorandum
              for Permits for Solid Waste Disposal
            Facilities in Waters  of the United States
               December 11, 1978, Washington, D.C.
     This meeting was sponsored by  EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-47p)  are reproduced entirely as transcribed
      by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION.AGENCY
                              1979

-------

-------
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
t
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                 Public Meeting

                       on

           Policy Guidance Memorandum

                       for

NPDES Permits for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities

         In Waters of the United States
                                 Waterside Mall
                              400 7th Street, S.W.
                                Washington, D.C.
                                     Monday
                                December 11, 1978
                                    1:15 p.m.
          Panel Members:
                    Jeffrey G. Miller, Chairman
                     Deputy Assistant Administrator
                     for Water Enforcement

                    Swep T. Davis
                     Deputy Assistant Administrator
                     for Water Planning and Standards

                    Steffen W. Plehn
                     Deputy Assistant Administrator
                     for Solid Waste

                    Scott L. Slesinger
                     Attorney, Office of Enforcement

                    Curtis Clark
                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

-------
1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24
                         CONTENTS
SPEAKER
PAGE NO.
James King
Utilities Solid Waste Advisory Group

Adam Jaffa
Environmental Defense Fund

Elizabeth Dollard
National Solid Wastes Management
  Association  (NSWMA)

James Greco
Browning-Ferris Industries,  Inc.

William DeVille
Governor's Office, State of  Louisiana

H. Lanier Hickman, Jr.
Government Refuse Collection and
  Disposal Association  (GRCDA)

Ruthanne Gordon
National Wildlife Federation

Johnny J. Swilley
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury
State of Louisiana

William Gilley
Health Department
Commonwealth of Virginia

Eulin Guidry
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury
State of Louisiana

Edward Giroir
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury
State of Louisiana

Donald Andres
Consulting Engineer
  15
  21
  33
  38, 64
  46
  51
  51
  55
  56
  56
  66
25

-------
 1                     PROCEEDINGS




 2             CHAIRMAN MILLER:   Why don't we get started?  We




 3   are waiting for Steffen Plehn,  but he is tied up.




 4             I am Jeffrey Miller.   I am Deputy Assistant Admin-




 5   istrator for Water Enforcement.  On my immediate left is




 6   Scott Slesinger.  He works  for  our Permits Division.   On his




 7   left is Swep Davis, who is  the  Deputy Assistant Administrator




 8   for Water Planning and Standards.  On his left is  Mr. Curtis




 9   Clark from the U.  S. Army Corps of Engineers.




10             Under the existing Corps of Engineer regulations,




11   the discharge of solid waste materials for the primary




12   purpose of waste disposal is to be regulated under the




13   NPDES program, under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.




14             In the event that a levee or other type  of  contain-




15   ment structure must be placed in the navigable waters as




16   part of the overall waste disposal plan,  the Corps will



17   process a Section  404 permit for dredge and fill.   However,




18   it  has been the Corps'  policy — and it is so enunciated



19   in  its regulations — that  it will not process a Section 404




20   permit application until  EPA or a delegated State  has made a




21    decision on the NPDES permit request.




22              Further,  the proposed Section 4004 criteria under




23    the Resource Conservation Recovery Act requires the obtaining




24    of  an NPDES permit for solid waste disposal site in a wetland




25    area.   Without such a permit, solid waste disposers in existin

-------
 i   sites would be violating RCRA criteria and their sites could




 2   be classified as an "open dump," and consequently, shut down




 3   within five years.




 4             This would be the case even if the State had a




 5   State-approved site and State-approved procedures.  The




 6   Section 4004 criteria contains a strong presumption against




 7   the issuance of an NPDES permit for new solid waste disposal




 8   in wetland areas.




 9             Therefore, at the request of representatives of the




10   waste disposal industry, EPA has developed a draft policy




11   guidance memorandum on the procedures to be followed  in




12   obtaining an- NPDES permit.  This Draft Guidance, the subject




13   of today's meeting, has been prepared by the Office of




14  i Enforcement with participation by the Office of Solid Waste




is   and the Office of Water Planning and Standards.



16             It has been distributed to the industry and to




i?   state representatives and printed in the Environmental



is   Reporter, and additional copies are available at the  registra-




19   tion desk.




20             We feel guidance is necessary because of the numer-




21   ous and complex factors to be considered when there is a




22   proposed disposal of solid wastes into wetland areas.



23             In the majority of cases, NPDES permits are issued




24   to industrial and municipal waste treatment processes.




25   Effluent guidelines are written to give guidance to permit

-------
t
L
 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
writers on the limitations that particular industries must

achieve.  If guidelines don't exist, as in the case here for

solid waste, the Agency must use its best judgment under the

authority of Section 402(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act to

set limitations on a case-by-case basis.

          To do that the Agency must consider the factors

listed in Section 304(b)(1)(B), and these include the

engineering aspects of the application of various types of

control technologies, process changes, non-water quality

environmental impacts, and such other factors as the

Administrator deems appropriate.

          The significance of wetlands, of course, cannot be

understated.  Historically, swamps and wetlands were once

considered wastelands, undesirable, offensive, and not at all

picturesque.  Later we learned that swamps and wetlands serve

a vital role in nature.  They are essential to our lakes and

streams for purification and natural flood control.

          They are a valuable public resource whose destruc-

tion would affect drainage characteristics, sedimentation

patterns, salinity distribution and other environmental

characteristics.

          Wetlands serve important biological functions

through which natural water filtration processes serve to

purify water, and they obviously serve as propagation grounds

for many of our water species.

-------
 i              The irreversibility of alterations and the con-




 2    sequent destruction of wetlands in the 48 contiguous States




 3    is serious,  and it continues. In the 1950's there was




 4    estimated to be 120 million acres of wetlands.   By 1976 that




 5    figure was estimated to have dropped to only 70 million




 6    acres and is decreasing at the rate of 300,000  acres a year.




 7              The disposal of solid waste in wetlands may




 8    unnecessarily alter or destroy them.  Such effects should be




 9    discouraged as contrary to the public interest.  Therefore,




10    the Agency,  in this draft document, has adopted a presumption




n    of "no discharge" based on the Section 304(b)(l)(B)  criteria




12    I mentioned earlier.




is              However, it is understood that in certain areas,




14    there exists no reasonable eilternatives for sanitary landfill



15    other than a wetland.  Therefore, the guidance  document,



16    based on Section 304(b)(l)(B) and our regulations that allow




17    us to consider additional information and requiring an




18    alternate study for all proposed disposal sites in wetlands.




19              Though many commenters question our authority to  .




20    require such a study, we believe our statutory  support is




21    sufficient and in the best interest of the disposal industry




22    and the ecology of the wetlands.



23              such an approach is consistent with the President's




24    Water Policy Statement of June 9, 1978, when he said that the




25    Federal] Government should not conduct, support, or allow

-------
 1    actions  in  floodplains  unless  there  are  no practical alter-




 2    natives.




 3             It  should  be  noted that if there is an existing




 4    site,  the Draft Guidance  does  not require an alternative




 5    study  if the  area  has significantly  been converted to dry land




 6    and  the management practices the Office  of Solid Waste




 7    requires for  such  facilities to  protect  against leachate




 8    are  followed.




 9             It  should  be  emphasized, nevertheless, that the




10    Draft  Guidance is  only  a  proposal which  has not yet been




11    adopted.  We  looked  for help to  your statements today and




12    your comments on our authority,  our  requirements and our




13    procedures  so that we may improve the Guidance.




14             In  response to  several requests for an extension of




is    time period to comment  and the Opportunity for a public




16    hearing, we have extended the  comment period 70 days beyond




17    the  original  date  to December  22nd,  and  have arranged this



18    hearing.



19             I would  like  to briefly explain the ground rules




20    for  this meeting.  It is  an informal discussion which is




21    open to the public.  Any  person  wishing  to make a statement




22    is encouraged to do  so, and we will  facilitate an orderly




23    process to  assure  that  all who wish  to speak may.




24             Written  statements are welcome today and after




25    this meeting.  They  may be addressed to  Scott Slesinger at

-------
                                                               8






 i    the address  shown in the  public notice of today's meeting,




 2    copies  of which are also  available at the registration table.




 3    Although this  is not a  formal hearing,  a transcript is being




 4    prepared of  the entire  session.




 5              Registration  cards have been provided at the




 6    registration desk.  Those who notified us before today that




 7    they wish to make a statement will be called on first. Others




 8    wishing to speak will be  given an opportunity following the




 9    first round  of statements.




10              Because of the  size of the group,  it is requested




11    that there not be interruptions.  Rather, please note your




12    comments as  the meeting progresses and bring them up sub-




is    sequently.




14              With regard to  questions, there will be available




is    throughout the day an EPA staff member, who  has been working



16    on  the  memorandum, and  will be able to give  you any background




17    you desire.  We will not  be able to address  specific cases




18    nor address  very detailed situations in this forum.




19              We are most interested to hear your comments




20    especially with regard  to the general directions you believe




21    the Guidance should take.  We recognize that more detailed




22    situations often point  to unexpected difficulties, and I




23    urge you to  bring those to our attention in  writing.




24              Before proceeding, let me introduce Mr. Steffen




25    Plehn,  whom  we have all been waiting for, who is the Deputy

-------
*
*•
 1   Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste.

 2             The first comment is  from Mr. James King  from the

 3   Utility Solid Waste Activities  Group.
              JAMES J. KING, FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
 4             MR. KING:  My name  is James J. King.   I am an

 5   Environmental Coordinator  for Florida Power and  Light Company

 6   in Miami, Florida.

 7             I am appearing today  on behalf of the  Utility Solid

 8   Waste Activities Group, the Utility Water Act Group,  the

 9   Edison Electric Institute, and  the National Rural Electric

10   Cooperative Association.   For purposes of this statement, I

11   shall refer to these groups collectively as the  "Electric

12   Utilities."
   *
13             Among other issues, Electric Utilities are concerned

14   with the development and implementation of EPA regulations,

15   guidelines and policies that  might affect, the treatment,

16   disposal and recovery of utility wastes, such as scrubber

17   sludge, fly ash and bottom ash.

18             EPA's Draft Policy  Guidance concerning the discharge

19   of solid waste into waters of the United States  may have a

20   direct impact on the treatment  and disposal of utility wastes

21   in ash ponds and similar facilities, where the wastes are

22   transported by truck or other vehicles.

23             Since Electric Utilities plan to submit written

24   comments on the Draft Policy  Guidance, I shall confine my

25   remarks to the high points of our submission.

-------
                                                              10
 l             Electric  Utilities  have  several  concerns  with the



 2    jurisdictional  authority  asserted  by  EPA under  the  Draft




 3    Policy  Guidance.  First,  we do  not necessarily  agree  that




 4    trucks  or transportation  vehicles  constitute  "point sources"




 5    within  the  meaning  of  the Clean Water Act.




 6             Second, as discussed  in  recent comments on  the




 7    proposed NPDES  rules,  we  believe that EPA's definition of




 8    "waters of  the  United  States" is overbroad.




 9             Third,  and most directly relevant to  the  Draft




10    Policy  Guidance,  we are concerned  that  EPA's  sweeping defi-




11    .nition  of  "waters of the  United States" may encompass utility




12    treatment and disposal facilities  such  as  ash and  scrubber




13    sludge  settling ponds.




14             These facilities represent  conventional  NPDES



15    "end of pipe" technology, yet they sometimes  have  been or



16    must be constructed in wetlands or by impounding an "inter-



17    mittent" or "wet-weather" stream,  or  a  dry swell or depression




18    that might  be classified  as such.   As a result  of  the Draft




19    Policy  Guidance,  such  a facility might be  subject  to  regula-




20    tion at the point at which waste is received, rather  than at




21    the point  from  which effluent is discharged.



22             However,  we  submit  that it is the discharges from




23    such facilities that  should be  and already are regulated by




24    the NPDES  system, not  discharges into the  facilities.  The




25    legislative history shows that  Congress did not intend 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
                                                                11
to become involved in direct regulation of treatment tech-




nology or internal plant processes.




          We believe that under the Draft Policy Guidance's




definition of "solid waste," most utility wastes would be




exempted since when discharged into such facilities, they are




"adequately controlled through conventional NPDES  'end of




pipe' technology."




          Nonetheless, the Draft Policy Guidance should make




it clear that neither the NPDES program nor the Section 404




program applies to the discharge of wastes into plant treat-




ment and disposal facilities.




          Another major concern with the scope of authority




asserted in the Draft Guidance is the indication in Footnote




2 that existing disposal facilities which had not completely




converted waters of the United States by October 18, 1972,



are subject to the NPDES program.



          Electric Utilities submit that the disposal of




solid wastes on areas that have been converted to dry land



does not constitute a discharge into waters of the United




States and thus should not be subject to the NPDES permit




program.




          In those cases where regulation of solid wastes




may be appropriate under the Draft Policy Guidance, Electric




Utilities are concerned that solid waste discharges which




cause fill would require both NPDES permits from EPA 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
                                                           12






dredge and fill permits from the Corps of Engineers.  Such




dual regulation conflicts with the structure and language of




the Clean Water Act, its legislative history, and EPA's own




prior interpretation and policy.




          The Water Act expressly exempts discharges of




dredged or fill material from coverage under the NPDES permit




program.  However, since discharges of dredged or fill mate-




rial may have significant environmental impacts, Congress




gave EPA an important oversight role in the Section 404



program.




          These responsibilities would be redundant if dual




permits under Section 402 and 404 were required.  Such dual




regulation would contravene the national policy that EPA




avoid "needless duplication and unnecessary delays" in its



implementation of the Clean Water Act.



          EPA itself consistently has taken the position that



the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 404 does




not overlap with EPA's NPDES authority.  We urge EPA to main-




tain this position in its final Policy Guidance on solid waste




discharges.




          The procedural and substantive requirements for




issuing NPDES permits to solid waste disposal facilities




under EPA's Draft Guidance pose several problems, which 1




will simply mention now but which will be analyzed at more




length in our written comments.

-------
 10





 11





 12





 13





 14





 15





 16





 17





 18





 19





 20





 21





 22





 23





 24





25
                                                                13
            First,  Electric Utilities question EPA's requirement



  that the owner or operator of a disposal facility, rather than




  the point source  involved, must obtain an NPDES permit.




            Second, Electric Utilities question whether the




  requirement that  alternative sites be analyzed is an appro-




  priate factor to  be considered under Section 304.  Even




  assuming that it  is appropriate, we question whether EPA can




  impose on permit  applicants the task of carrying out such a




  study.  Moreover, practical realities make it imperative that




  EPA, at the minimum,  limit the scope of the alternative sites




  and technologies  that must be analyzed.




            Third,  Electric Utilities have several concerns with




*  the best management practices approach taken in the Draft




  Policy Guidance.   We question EPA's authority to impose BMPS




  except where ancillary to discharges subject to effluent



  limitations.




            We also question whether BMPS may be imposed on



  the disposal area located "downstream" of the "point source"




  (the transportation vehicle)  being regulated.  Finally,




  several of the BMPS are directed at controlling leachate




  contamination of  groundwater,  as to which EPA and the Corps




  lack authority under  the Clean Water Act.




            Fourth,  the Draft Policy Guidance fails to auopt




  the proper substantive test and to make clear that the permit




  issuer must consider  all of the factors applicable under

-------
                                                               14






 i    Section 304(B)  of  the Water  Act,  including energy requirements




 2    and  non-water quality environmental  impact.




 3              Fifth, we  question whether EPA can properly create




 4    a  presumption that no NPDES  permit will be issued authorizing




 5    new  discharges  of  solid waste into waters of the United




 6    States.  In  the absence of a rulemaking record,  the burden




 7    should be on EPA to  justify  a zero discharge limitation in




 8    each case.




 9              Sixth, Electric Utilities  question whether existing




10    disposal facilities  should be regulated as stringently as




11    new  disposal facilities.




12    -          Seventh, Electric  Utilities are concerned by the




13    meaning of the  term  "substantially converted" that is used




14    throughout the  Draft Policy  Guidance.  While this term may



15    be understandable  with  respect to municipal landfills,



16    where "cells" of land are filled incrementally,  its meaning



17    is unclear in the  context of utility treatment facilities




is    such as ash or  scrubber sludge ponds.  Specifically, we are




19    concerned that  an  ash pond,  which has not been completely




20    filled, may be  deemed  "not substantially converted" and




21    thus subject to possible closure.



22    .          Finally, Electric  Utilities urge EPA to make clear




23    that existing disposal  facilities operating with NPDES or




24    Section 404 permits  are not  subject to the Policy Guidance




25    prior to the expiration of their current permits.

-------
                                                                15
 1             Electric  Utilities  appreciate the opportunity to

 2    submit  these  comments  today,  and will continue to follow with

 3    interest  EPA's  efforts to develop and implement policies

 4    relating  to the storage,  treatment,  and disposal of solid

 5    wastes.

 6             With  me today are counsel  for the Utility Group


 7    and one of our  Technical Committee Chairman.

 8             Thank you.

 9             CHAIRMAN  MILLER:  Thank you,  Mr.  King.

10             Would anybody like  to ask  any questions?

11              (No response.)

12             CHAIRMAN  MILLER:  Mr. Adam Jaffe  from the Environ-

13   'mental  Defense  Fund?
              ADAM JAFFE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE  FUND
14             MR. JAFFE:   Thank you.   My name is Adam Jaffe, and

15    I represent the Environmental Defense Fund.  EOF is a nation-

16    wide organization of 45,000 citizens dedicated to rational

17    and efficient management of our natural resources.

18             Ever  since the passage of  the Federal Water Pollutio^

19    Control Act Amendments of 1972, the  discharge of solid wastes

20    into the  waters of  the United States, unless specifically

21    allowed by a  permit granted under some section of that Act,

22    has been  illegal.

23             Nevertheless,  such  discharges have continued.  Now,

24    six years later, EPA proposes to regulate such discharges

25    comprehensively for the first time.   Needless to say, EOF

-------
                                                               16






 i    strongly supports this effort.  However, we are sorry to see




 2    that even now,  under the proposed Policy Guidance Memorandum,




 3    the illegal dumping of solid wastes into the waters of the




 4    United States will, in many cases, not be controlled, but




 5    rather be sanctioned by EPA through the issuance of an NPDES



 6    permit.




 7              In our view, the portion of the waters of the




 8    United States which are of utmost concern with respect to




 g    disposal of solid wastes are wetlands and the associated




10    shallow areas of rivers, estuaries, and bays.




n              While we are obviously not happy about the dumping




12    of solid wastes into deeper waters, wetlands and shallow




13    -areas are of particular ecological significance, and the




14    disposal of solid wastes in these areas not only pollutes



is    them, but may destroy completely their biological functions



16    and will eventually lead to their complete removal as a part




17    of the overall aquatic ecosystem.



18              The particular significance of these areas has been




19    recognized in law and in public policy by EPA's 1973 wetlands




20    policy, the EPA and Corps of Engineers regulations under




21    Section 404 of the Act, and President Carter's Wetlands




22    Executive Order.




23              Our primary concern with the Draft Policy Memorandum




24    is that it appears to enunciaite a policy with respect to the




25    disposal of solid waste in wetlands which is less protective

-------
                                                               17
 1    than  the  existing  regulatory  framework affecting other




 2    activities  in wetlands.   If this  memorandum becomes EPA




 3    policy, EPA will be  condoning destruction of wetlands through




 4    disposal  of solid  wastes  to a degree that would be considered




 5    unacceptable and illegal  if the destruction were to be




 6    carried out for some other  purpose.




 7             We do not  quarrel with  the decision that disposal




 8    of  solid  waste in  the waters  of the  United States should be




 9    regulated under Section 402 rather than Section 404 of the




10    Act.  However, the environmental  resource to be protected is




11    the same  regardless  of the  regulatory mechanism to be




12    employed; therefore,  the  same substantive policy standard




13    must  be applied with respect  to the  destruction of wetlands




14    as  would  be applied  under Section 404.




15             in other words, there is no legal or substantive



16    reason why, on the one hand,  we should prohibit the discharge




17    of  fill material in  wetlands  unless  the associated activity is



18    one,  water  dependent,  and,  two, there is no permanent unac-




19    ceptable  disruption  to the  affected  aquatic ecosystem, unless




20    we  intend to apply the same standard to disposal of solid




21    waste in  wetlands.




22             In our view, the  application of this substantive




23    standard  would lead  to a  clear EPA policy prohibiting t^e




24    permitting  of disposal of solid wastes in wetlands.




25             The Draft  Guidance  Memorandum makes a distinction

-------
                                                               18






 i    between waters of the United States "which have already been




 2    converted or substantially converted into a dry area" and



 3    all other waters.




 4              We would agree that if a wetland area has been




 5    filled with garbage to the extent that a functioning aquatic




 6    ecosystem is no longer present,  then continued disposal of




 7    solid wastes should be permitted, so long as it does not




 8    encroach further on the aquatic  ecosystem, and does not




 9    adversely impact water quality.




10              However, we would point out that, to the extent




11    that the waters have been "converted" since 1972,  such con-




12    version was blatantly illegal.




13              As a practical matter, we recognizes that redress




14    of this wrong is probably not possible.  However,  to prevent



15    continued encroachment on the waters of the United States



16    (which might in fact be encouraged by the knowledge that



17    continued disposal will soon be  permitted only in areas that




18    have been already "converted"),  we would urge EPA to allow




19    continued disposal of solid waste only in those wetlands




20    which have been "converted" as of August 23, 1978, when the




21    Draft Memorandum was published.



22              In place of the interim and final permit mechanisms




23    suggested by the memorandum, we  would suggest the following.




24    EPA should declare publicly, effective immediately, that any




25    continued discharge of solid waste into wetlands which

-------
 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
                                                               19
 currently function in any way as an aquatic ecosystem is




 illegal and will be subject to the enforcement provisions of




 the Act.  We would note that this is nothing new, and should




 have been the case since 1972.




           Facilities which are discharging solid waste into




 areas which were substantially converted to dry land (and




 therefore do not support an aquatic ecosystem) on or before




 August 23rd may apply for, and should be issued, NPDES permits




 which will allow the continued discharge into these converted




 areas, so long as no adverse water quality impacts result.




           In our view, the requirement for the alternatives




 study is not necessary, because continued discharge into




 previously converted areas should be permitted, subject to




 conditions, and discharge into functioning wetlands should




 not be permitted.




           If some party, either the operator of an existing



 facility or someone contemplating a new facility, can demon-




 strate in a specific case that a proposed disposal into a



 functioning wetland area would meet the requirements of




 the existing substantive wetlands policy, that is, there is




 no alternative to wetlands disposal and no permanent un-




 acceptable disruption of the affected aquatic ecosystem




will result, they could apply to EPA for a 402 permit fr „- this




 discharge.




           The burden of proof should be squarely on the

-------
                                                                20






 i    applicant to prove that violation of this wetlands policy




 2    would not result.




 3              Given the existence of previously converted areas,




 4    upland areas, and  proven technologies for recycling and




 5    resource recovery  with respect to solid wastes,  and the fact




 6    that disposal of solid wastes in a wetland system would




 7    almost inevitably  result in adverse ecological impacts, EPA




 8    should make it very clear that it is unlikely that this




 9    burden of proof would ever be carried satisfactorily.




10              If this  approach is properly implemented, disposal




11    of solid waste will belatedly be subject to the same restric-




12    tions on ecological destruction as have been implemented for




is    other activities.   However, we should not kid ourselves that




n    the regulation of  "facilities" will end the unregulated



15    disposal of solid  waste in the wetlands.




16              As often as not, such disposal is not at a



17    "facility," but consists instead of a truck going off the




is    road in a swampy area and unloading, with or without the




19    tacit consent of the owner of the land.  Such an action is




20    already illegal, but that does not mean that it does not




21    occur.




22              if EPA is serious about controlling the discharge




23    of solid waste into wetlands, a strong enforcement progrrm




24    capable of impacting this type of activity will be needed.




25    The legal mechanisms to carry out such a program exist; all

-------
                                                               21
 i   that is needed  is  the  effort  and commitment.

 2              In  summary,  the  basic  issue  before  us today is

 3   whether or not  to  continue to condone  the destruction of

 4   wetlands via  solid waste disposal in spite of our knowledge

 5   of their tremendous ecological importance and the existence

 6   of a legal mechanism to control  it.  I believe that the people

 7   of this country are ready  to  halt this destruction, and I

 8   urge EPA to act swiftly to do so.

 9              Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I

10   would be happy  to  answer any  questions.

11              CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do we have any questions?

12              (No response.)

13              CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.

14              Ms. Libby Dollard from the National Solid Wastes

15   Management Association?
    ELIZABETH  DOLLARD, NATIONAL SOLID WASTES  MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIO]
16              MS. DOLLARD:  Good  afternoon.  I am Elizabeth

17   Dollard with  the National  Solid  Wastes Management Association.

18              We  are here  today to discuss a Policy Guidance

19   Memorandum drafted by  the  U.  S.  Environmental Protection

20   Agency advising operators  of  sanitary  landfills in wetland

21   areas how  they  can comply  with the requirement that they

22   obtain an  NPDES permit under  Section 402 of the Clean Water

23   Act.

24              Before we comment on this  Policy Guidance Memo-

25   randum, we would like  to review  the  sequence  of events that

-------
                                                               22
 1    led to the drafting of this document.   In February 1977, in




 2    response to an inquiry from the Environmental Defense Fund,




 3    the General Counsel at EPA indicated that:  "The disposal




 4    from a vehicle of solid wasste such as garbage into wetlands




 5    or other waters of the United States constitutes a discharge




 6    of pollutants from a point source."




 7              The letter indicated that the truck was a "point




 8    source" within the meaning of the Clean Water Act and that




 9    wetlands are included in the definition of waters of the




10    United States.  The practice of discharging garbage from a




11    truck into a wetland would, thus, require an NPDES permit



12    ^under Section 402.




13              The letter also noted that:   "The process of fill-




14    ing wetlands with dredged or fill materials or with other



15    solid waste may remove such areas from jurisdiction under




16    the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  A wetland that has



17    been filled may thereby become an upland area, and no




18    longer be considered waters of the United States, although




19    the time in which this takes? place will depend on the circum-




20    stances of the particular Ccise."




21              Further, it was stated that, to the extent that




22    landfilling creates a fastland, the fill may be required to




23    obtain-a 404 permit from the Corps.




24              in July of 1977, a memorandum from the Deputy




25    Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement of the U. S.

-------
                                                               23
 i   EPA reiterated the point made by the General Counsel back




 2   in February:  "The disposal of solid waste such as garbage




 3   into wetlands or other waters of the United States is an




 4   unlawful discharge of pollutants unless permitted under




 5   Section 402."




 6             Further, a landfill in a wetland would likely be




 7   required to obtain a 404 permit for the construction of




 8   containment structures in the wetland.



 9             In July of 1977, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers




10   issued final regulations which related in part to permits




n   under Section 404 for dredge and fill activities.  That




12   document made official regulation the policy outlined by the




13   memoranda issued earlier by officials of EPA.




14             In the supplementary information section of those




15   regulations, the Corps noted:  "During the two years of




16   experience with the Section 404 program, several industrial



17   and municipal discharges of solid waste materials have been




is   brought to our attention whicii technically fit within our




19   definition of 'fill material' but which were intended to be




20   regulated under the NPDES program.  These include the disposal




21   of waste materials such as sludge, garbage, trash, and debris




22   into water."




23             The Corps notes that when the primary purpose of




24   the discharge is waste disposal, the discharge should be




2f>   regulated through the NPDES program.  The Corps thereby

-------
                                                               24






 i    excluded solid waste or garbage from its definition of fill




 2    material.   They note, however,  that Section 404 permits




 3    would still be required foir the containment structures.




 4              Finally,  no action would be taken on the 404 permit




 5    'until "a decision on the NPDES  permit has been made."




 6              In August of 1978, EPA proposed revisions to its




 7    NPDES program, which in part would revise its program to




 8    conform to the policy articulated by the Corps in July of



 9    1977.




10         .     Meanwhile, in compliance with the Resource Con-




11    servation and Recovery Act of 1976, Section 4004, the Office




12    of Solid Waste at EPA was developing criteria for classifica-




13    tion of land disposal facilities and elected to address in




14    the criteria certain kinds of "environmentally sensitive



15    areas."




16              Wetlands  were chosen  as one such environmentally




17    sensitive area because "EPA feels these areas are natural




18    assets  (have beneficial qualities)  which are not adequately




19    protected by the six other criteria."




20              Consequently, in those criteria, EPA states that a




21    sanitary landfill should not be located in a wetland unless:




22    First,  the facility obtains an  NPDES permit; and, secondly,




23    if there is a containment structure, that it obtain a pernit




24    under Section 404.



25              In August 1978, the EPA Enforcement Office drafted

-------
 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
                                                              25
a Policy Guidance document explaining how a landfill operator




can apply for an NPDES permit for a landfill in a wetland.




This Policy Guidance was developed in response to requests




from several groups, including the National Solid Wastes




Management Association, who were critical that although




landfill operators were required to get a 402 permit, there




was no procedure by which these permits could be obtained,




and further, it was not clear to landfill operators where




the point source is in a landfill.




          In this Policy Guidance Memorandum, however, EPA




did not seem to be primarily addressing the question of the




discharge of pollutants into the water.  They stated that




"Solid waste is not susceptible to the same kind of treatment




technology traditionally applied to industrial effluent waste




streams.  We are not dealing with a waste stream that can be




treated to reduce the amount of pollution entering the waters




of the U. S.  A decision to allow a discharge of solid waste




would have an irreversible adverse effect on the waters of




the U. S., i.e., the elimination of these waters."



          In other words, what EPA is regulating here is not




the transmission of polluted materials into the waters but




the protection of wetlands.  The NPDES permit, then, is being




used to prevent the filling of wetlands.




          It should be recognized that a responsible landfill




operator is not likely to site a new sanitary landfill in a

-------
                                                                26






 1    wetland unless there is no economically feasible alternative




 2    in accordance with Section 4004 of RCRA,.




 3              In reviewing this brief history of this issue, it




 4    appears that what may have: been an attempt to achieve con-




 5    sistency in regulations between the Permits Division at EPA




 6    with the Office of Solid Waste at EPA and the U. S.  Army




 7    Corps of Engineers has instead resulted in the evolution of




 8    a policy that runs far afield of the original problem.




 9              The development of this policy is akin to  a doctor




10    treating a sprained wrist with a cast and then adding succes-




11    sive layers of plaster long after the sprain has healed.




12              We should all reexamine the purpose of the wetlands




13    policy.  If we go back to the beginning and look at  the state-




14    ment made by the General Counsel, it appears that an attempt



15    was made by the environmental agency to protect wetlands




16    from the promiscuous and uncontrolled dumping of garbage




17    directly into waters or wetlands.




18              Control of such a. practice through the NPDES




19    program has a certain logic? a truck is a point source when




20    it is dumping garbage, which contains pollutants, directly




21    into a wetland which is a water of the United States.




22              And yet somehow from this rather singular concern




23    /has mushroomed a federal policy which makes a presumptio-<




24    against any kind of a landfilling operation  in a wetland




25    regardless of the actual transmission of pollutants to the

-------
                                                                27






 1    water.   This purpose seems contrary to what we perceive as




 2    the purpose of the NPDES program,  namely the prevention of




 3    discharge of pollutants into the water.




 4              It is certainly more cost effective for the land-




 5    fill operator to establish a site  in an area that is already




 6    dry. However, as you know,  in some parts of the country,




 7    notably the Southeastern United States, much of the land area




 8    is  wetland, and there may, in fact, be no alternative to a




 9    wetland as a landfill site.




10              Also, we recognize that  many years ago before the




il    environmental value of wetlands was recognized, landfills




12   ^were established in wetland areas, and today some of these




13    old facilities are still being operated.




14              In good operating practice,  the developer of a




15    landfill in a wetland, as his first step, will build a con-




16    tainment structure or dike and dewater the area.  Such



17    structures require a 404 permit.  It is only after the area



18  I  has been filled in with dirt or made dry that the operator



19    will begin to put garbage in the site.




20              In other words, he is not putting garbage in the




21    water;  he is putting it in a land  area that may have at one




22    time met the definition of a wetland but is no longer wet.




23              It should be noted that, in his February 9th letter,




24    the General Counsel of EPA stated  that the process of filling




25    wetlands with materials such as solid waste may make the

-------
                                                               28






 i   wetland  into a  fastland  and  thus  remove  the area from juris-




 2   diction  under the Water  Act.




 3              It is our  contention  that in a situation such as




 4   this/ when dewatering  takes  place,  the 404  permit may be




 5   applicable, but once the nature of  the land is  changed,




 6   the NPDES  is no longer applicable.




 7              In simple  language, it  is difficult to design a




 a   permit which will prevent the pollution  of  water where there




 9   is no water.  In those landfills  designed with  a leachate




10   treatment  and collection system,  where there would be a




11   discrete point  discharge into a stream,  we  would certainly




12   agree that the  NPDES permit  would be applicable for that




13   point source.




14              However, it  should not  be assumed that all landfills




15   in wetlands have a point source discharge.   Furthermore, it




16   should be  clear that the nescessary  permits  should be applied



17   for and  issued  in a  logical  sequence, which is  the reverse of




18   the procedure required by the Corps.




19              We believe,  in other  words, that  the  404 permit




20   should be  required for the preliminary construction activity;




21   once the facility is built and  a  discrete point discharge




22   has been identified, then, and  only then,, would the 402 permit




23   be required.



24              In the Policy  Guidance  Memorandum, EPA has switched




25   the focus  of the NPDES program  from the  prevention of water

-------
                                                                29
 i   pollution to the protection of wetlands.  We  contend  that  the




 2   Agency has no statutory authority  for  such  an action.




 3             While the  indiscriminate destruction of wetlands




 4   is certainly a practice to be avoided, wetlands are not  the




 5   only environmental resource, and who is to  say that they are




 6   the primary environmental resource to  be protected?




 7             A key point which seems  to have been lost in this




 8   entire procedure is  that sanitary  landfills should not




 9   automatically be placed in a class with industrial dischargers




10   Sanitary landfills provide an invaluable environmental service




11   Properly operated, they provide disposal of the waste in an




12   environmentally sound manner so that the public is protected




13   from exposure to pollutants.




14             The sanitary landfill criteria currently being




15   developed by EPA establish strict  standards for the prevention




16   of pollution of ground water, surface  water,  and air, and



17   for protection against fires, explosive gases, and disease



is   vectors.




19             Every state, in order to have a program which  is




20   approved by EPA, must adopt standards  at least as strict.




21   Additionally, states currently have regulations specifying




22   operational standards for sanitary landfills.  And, further-




23   more, where there is a discrete point  discharge into  surface




24   water, the federal NPDES permit is applicable.




25             In other words, there is adequate authority to

-------
                                                               30
 i    assure that all sanitary landfills,including those in wet-

 2    lands, are not a threat to public health or the environment.

 3    What is in question here is whether EPA has the authority to

 4    use the NPDES program as a protection of the wetlands, and

 5    we contend it does not.

 6              NSWMA urges the EPA to stop the issuance of a

 7    final Policy Guidance Memorandum until there is a resolution

 8    of the central issue of whether the 402 permit is required.

 9    We believe the Corps of Engineers should reevaluate their

10    position on requiring a 402 permit for a landfill in a wet-

11    land prior to their consideration of the 404 permit.

12              We see no justification for the Corps of Engineers
    ป
13    to exclude solid waste as one of the fill materials they

14    regulate.  We think that regardless of the purpose of filling

15    in a wetland, the, net result is the same.  It should not be

16    assumed, in other words, that solid waste is necessarily more

17    polluted than other materials put into a wetland.  For example

18    materials dredged from the bottom of a polluted river and

19    dumped into a wetland could contain materials far more toxic

20    than municipal refuse.

21              We are supportive of the provision in the 1977

22    Clean Water Act Amendments, which enables states to take over

23    the 404 permit process from the Corps, with the approval of

24    EPA.  We encourage EPA to establish procedures for transfer-

25    ring 404 permit authority to the states; we will encourage

-------
                                                               31
 1    states  to seek this authority.   The:integration of the permit


 2    process,  preferably at the state level,  will help to assure


 3    both that the environment will  be protected and that permits


 4    can be  issued expeditiously.


 5              Further,  we feel that the sanitary landfill criteria


 6    under Section 4004  of RCRA should not require a 402 permit


 7    for every landfill  in a wetland.  402 permits should be


 8    required  for all  landfills with a point  source discharge,


 9    but the location  of the landfill in a wetland is not relevant


10    there.


11              NSWMA appreciates the opportunity to address the


12    EPA and the  Corps today regarding the proposed NPDES process


13   "for landfills in  wetlands. We  recognize that this issue is


14    extremely complex and has far-reaching impacts.


15              We urge you to take the time to seek a solution


16    which is  consistent with the  mandate  of  existing environmental


17    legislation.   We  want to assure that  the environment is


18    protected, and that concern for one segment of the ecosystem,


19    such as wetlands, doesn't cloud our perspective on all other


20    aspects of environmental protection.


21              CHAIRMAN  MILLER; Are there questions?


22              MR.  DAVIS:   I have  two short questions just for


23    clarification.


               In your comments, at  a couple  different points,  you

(JC
    made mention of the fact that it generally is or would be

-------
                                                               32
1   more cost effective to create a landfill in an upland or




2   fastland area as opposed to a wetland, but also indicated  in




3   a few sentences later that there would be the concern that,




4   in some cases, this alternative simply doesn't exist in




5   areas where there may not be any fastlands or dry  lands




6   available.




7             The implication from that is that your concern is




8   not so much with the fact that there may be a consideration




9   of alternatives in evaluating whether a landfill should be



10   established in a wetland area, but rather whether  or not that




11   consideration recognizes the fact that sometimes the wetland




12   is the only alternative; and, secondly, more of a  question of




is   under which authority should this consideration take place,




14   402 or 404.



15             Is that a correct interpretation of what you are



16   saying?




17             MS. DOLLARD:  Our concern  is that  the process  of



18   filling  in a wetland for solid waste  should  be regulated under




19   404.   I  am not  sure I understand exactly what you  are  asking




20   me  in  the first part of  the question.




21             MR. DAVIS:  Well, you  implied  that it  is not so




22   much that you are concerned  that we  consider the  alternative




23   of  a dry land as opposed to  a wetland disposal  area.




24             MS. DOLLARD:   It seems  logical  that you would ask




25   to  look  at  alternatives.   Landfill operators certainly would

-------
:iS2
                                                                         33
 i    be  evaluating those alternatives.   What we take issue with is


 2    the use of  the 402  permit.


 3             MR. DAVIS:   As opposed to 404?


 4             MS. DOLLARD:   That is  correct.


 5             MR. DAVIS:   Okay.   The other question has to do


 6    with you  used the word "pollution"  several times throughout


 7    your comments.  Can you give a definition of what you mean by


 8    "pollution?"   Are you taking the definition straight from the


 9    Act,  from the Clean Water Act, or are you using some other


10    definition?


11             MS. DOLLARD:   I would  hope I am using the same one


12   ^that is in  the Clean Water Act.


13             MR. DAVIS:   Okay.


14             CHAIRMAN  MILLER:   Thank you.


15             Mr. James Greco, Director of Government and Industry)


16    Affairs,  Browning-Ferris Industries?                          1

              JAMES  GRECO,  BROWNING_FERRIS INDUSTRIES              !
17             MR. GRECO:   My name is Jim Greco.   I  am with


18    Browning-Ferris Industries.   My  responsibility  with Browning- j


19    Ferris is to  direct what we  call our Government and Industry


20    Affairs Department,  which is responsible for trying to under-


21    stand and reviewing the federal  and state legislation regula-


22    tions.


23             in  late August/early September,  an August 23rd


24    Draft Policy  Memorandum regarding the "applicability of the


25    NPDES program to facility operators who dispose of solid

-------
                                                               34






 i    waste in wetlands and other waters of the United States" was




 2    distributed for review and comment to a limited number of




 3    interested parties.




 4              On October 16th, comments prepared by Browning-




 5    Ferris Industries were forwarded to the U. S. EPA.  In the




 6    November 16th Federal Register issue, EPA announced that it




 7    would hold this public meeting.  We feel it important and




 8    noteworthy to recognize the Agency's decision to solicit




 9    greater public participation and input regarding the Draft




10    Police Memorandum and alternative approaches for permitting




11    solid waste disposal facilities located or planned to be




12    located in wetland areas.




13   .           Such public participation — even when not statu-




14    torily required and also when outside of the formal rule-



15    making process — can only enhance, in our opinion, sounder




16    Agency decision-making, more practical policy formulation,




17    and increased public understanding for the environmental



18    protection of our nation's waters, land, and public health.




19              We acknowledge the Agency's mandate pursuant to




20    the Clean Water Act and its amendments to restore and main-




21    tain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the




22    nation's waters.




23              We also recognize the objective of the Resource




24    Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 to prohibit future open




25    dumps on the land and to require the conversion of existing

-------
 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
                                                           35






 open  dumps  to  facilities  which do not pose a danger to the




 environment or to health.



          It is our understanding that regulations to be




 promulgated under Section 4004(a)  of Public Law 94-580 will




 establish criteria for determining which solid waste disposal




 facilities  shall be classified as sanitary landfills and which




 shall be  classified as open dumps.




          As you are likely aware, we have commented exten-




 sively on,  and expressed  concern about, the proposed 4004(a)




 criteria, particularly with respect to locating facilities




 in  environmentally sensitive areas, and the requirement that




•a facility  obtain an NPDES permit under Section 402 of the




 Federal Water  Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 or




 otherwise be classified as an "open dump."




          We have previously questioned both the legality




 and the practicality of this requirement and continue to do



 so.   Again,  as in our past comments, reference is made to the



 Prick letter of February  9,  1977,  wherein it is noted that an




 NPDES permit is not required unless it can be shown that there




 will  be garbage actually  deposited on "wetlands" or a dis-




 charge of leachate from the site into "wetlands."




          If garbage is actually deposited or leachate




 actually  discharged into  waters of the U. S., we feel me iy




 would concur that these practices would and should constitute




 "open dumping," be prohibited via the 4004(a) criteria,       j

-------
                                                               36






 i    and/or require an NPDES permit for these practices.




 2              We  suspect that in presenting these viewpoints,




 3    it is important that you recognize that we feel that a




 4    "wetlands area" is not always a "wetlands area."  In other




 5    words, there  may be an occasion when needs dictate the




 6    development of a new sanitary landfill  in what was formerly




 7    a wetlands area periodically inundated  with water, for




 8    example,  in southeastern Louisiana.




 9              However, we feel that an appropriate site  develop-




10    ment plan should require that the disposal area be first




n    converted from a "wetland" into a "dry  land" or "fastland,"




12    then constructed as a solid waste disposal facility  with




13    appropriate design features and best management practices  so




14    as to preclude any discharge of pollutants from the  site



15    directly  into waters of the U. S. and adjoining property not



16    converted into "fastlands."



17              In  this example, it would be  logical to require:




18    one,  a 404 permit for "filling" the wetland, thus making the




19    area no longer a "wetland" — I am not  referring to  filling




20    by solid  waste either — and, two, a state solid waste




21    disposal  permit incorporating the federal "sanitary landfill"




22    criteria.




23              Thus, it is our- opinion that  the current August  23rd




24    Draft Policy  Memorandum, while appropriate and applicable




25    for controlling discharges of solid wastes into waters of  the

-------
 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
                                                               37
U. S., is neither appropriate nor practicable for locating




sanitary landfills in former wetlands areas after those areas




have been converted into fastlands.




          As an alternative approach, the Agency might consid-




er the following:  One, for open dumps:  Renaming, rewording,




and then applying the August 23rd Draft Policy Memorandum




"NPDES Permits for Open Dumps in Waters of the United States,1




thereby assuring a process for the protection against the




discharge of pollutants into waters of the U. S. until the




effective application of the 4004(a) criteria, complete clas-




sification of solid waste disposal facilities, and the




prohibition of open dumping.



          Secondly,for sanitary landfills:  To be located in




wetlands areas, utilize the 404 permit process for converting




the area into a fastland, then employing the appropriate



state agency permit process for the design, construction,



operation, monitoring, and maintenance of solid waste




disposal facilities.  With this procedure, we feel it impor-



tant that the most appropriate state agency be the "lead




agency" regarding permit application for the entire process.




          Commensurate with these suggestions, but necessarily




part of another rulemaking process, we again reiterate our




concerns regarding Section 257.3-1 (a) (1) of the propose;.




4004(a) criteria, and recommend deletion of the requirement




for a facility to obtain a 402 NPDES permit.

-------
                                                                38
 1             We sincerely feซl these recommendations warrant


 2   consideration and that thesy are within the Agency's  legal


 3   authority, consistent with Congressional mandates, and  in


 4   pursuit of our nation's environmental goals.


 5             As in any decision-making process, questions  may


 6   arise regarding the interpretations and understandings  as


 7   perhaps I see them or we see them, and I would be happy to


 8   answer questions at this forum or at another, or respond


 9   further to any comments.


10             CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Are there questions?


11              (No response.)


12             CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Greco.


13             Mr. William DeVille from Governor  Edwards'  Office,


14   Louisiana?

              WILLIAM DE VILLE,  STATE OF LOUISIANA
15             MR. DE VILLE:  Thank you.  Forgive me, I am going


16   to start out a bit bluntly.  From Louisiana's perspective,


17   we must wonder if EPA understands very much  about either


18   solid waste or wetlands, or whether we are engaged in a


19   semantic exercise without any very clear analysis of the


20   subject or the purpose of the proposed Policy Guidance.


21             We question the premise for the requirement of


22   NPDES permits on solid waste facilities in wetlands  and,


23   therefore, for the regulatory proposal in the  first  instance,


24   We would question the apparent continuation  of  that  intent


25   in both the February 6th proposal of the  federal criteria

-------
 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
                                                               39
for the classification of solid waste disposal facilities




and the Policy Guidance Memorandum.




          I would like to ask that the comments previously




submitted by the State of Louisiana on the criteria and on




the Policy Guidance Memorandum be entered into this record.




          We find the NPDES permit requirement problematic




and a cause of serious concern for the following reasons:




First of all, we believe it is unnecessary.  Other federal




and state laws, including RCRA and including the Coastal




Zone Management Act which has been enacted at the state




level by my own state this year, provide a better basis, we




believe, for the actual decision making which should be




conducted as to siting and land use decisions.




          Indeed, clearly we have at the core of the concern




here a question of land use decision making and the rules for




it, as well as the purpose for it.  In that light, we think



that EPA's own role in the regulatory reform implementation




should involve a careful consideration as to the need for the




NPDES permit implementation, and we would argue that it is




not necessary.




          Again, we find that it is ambiguous so far as we




can determine in looking at the definition of "wetlands."




Our problem is what are the boundaries, if any, of the




definition?  Where, in short, in Louisiana are not the wet-




lands but the fastlands, because the potential application

-------
                                                               40






 i   of the definition, as proposed in the Policy Guidance Memo-




 2   random, is extremely open-ended from our perspective.   It




 3   covers, we think, potentially in excess of 75 percent of our




 4   state's land area in which we live and conduct our affairs,




 5   and, therefore, must make waste management decisions.




 6             We think it contains no rational or practical basis




 7   for the management of wetlands, and, hence, no basis for




 8   decision-making, and, again, that is the core of  concern.




 9   It doesn't seem to be a pollution control measure, but  a




10   wetlands protection or land use premise.




11             Again, we find that the premise doesn't seem  to




12   have any explicit analysis or development.  We find that it




13   would tend to preempt state and public decisions, which are




14   clearly necessary for the implementation of RCRA  in Louisiana.



15   The heart of that implementation obviously is the siting




16   question.



17             We are concerned ctbout, in that light,  some un-




18   fortunate effects.  We think if this Policy Memorandum  were




19   to be effectuated, that the impact in many areas  of our state




20   would be to make it far more difficult to improve solid




21   waste management decisions, and particularly  siting decisions,




22   while placing a premium on the maintenance of open dumps




23   already in existence and very hard to close,  if no good




24   alternatives, which may have to be in wetlands'., can be




25   developed in any realistic time  frame.

-------
                                                               41
              We see no reason for a federal NPDES permit.  If,




    however,  any permit is required under  92-500 — and we think




    this is appropriate — surely, the  404 permit alone could




    provide for the purposes of wetlands protection so far as




    they are spelled out and readily understandable to all




6   parties.



7             We question EPA's information about our understand-




    ing of wetlands1 management needs in Louisiana.  I must




    emphasize this.  We have repeatedly observed to EPA that




10 II there are various  types of wetlands with quite differing




n II values, uses, and  productivities, and,  therefore, quite vary-




12 || ing and different  fragilities and management needs.



13 II *          We don't think the  generic term  "wetlands," partic-




14 || ularly as ambiguously as it is proposed here,  is particularly




15 II enlightening as to how we  should operate our  affairs  or how




16 j| anyone can  make decisions.



              The  State of  Louisiana does  give significant atten-




18 II tion  to  the management  of  the wetlands in  which we  live,  and
19





20





21





22





23





24





25
we have, in fact, acquired or placed under management many




thousands of acres of wetlands as wildlife habitat.  We do




support the provision of guidance supportive of  state con-




sideration of wetlands1 management needs  in the  RCRA 4004




criteria, but we repeat the statement that we  are opposed




to the NPDES permit requirement  as stipulated  in the



proposed 4004 criteria or the Policy Guidance  Memorandum.

-------
                                                                42
 i              One of our concerns is that we hear that EPA has




 2    no capability and,  indeed,  no resources sufficient to make




 3    the kind of case-by-case decisions presupposed in the




 4    Policy Guidance Memorandum, nor do we think the processes




 5    that are set forth  in the memorandum do generate a proper




 6    basis for decision-making.




 7              The requirement which may, indeed, be rather




 8    onerous and costly  on the permit applicant to generate




 9    alternative studies and still more alternative studies may




10    be a mere paperwork ritualism in the context of many land




11    areas in the state  of Louissiana where local government has




12    no options outside  of a general wetlands area for disposal.




is              We were pleased to see the Policy Guidance Memo-




14    randum recognize the fact that there are areas of the



15    country, including  Louisiana, which have very large areas




16    of wetlands.  We find it difficult to understand why the



17    processes for decision-making set forth totally ignored




is    state government or local government, and why the RCRA




19    planning process was totally ignored, and, finally, why the




20    Coastal Zone Management Act, which is intended to support




21    a program and rationale for land use decisions in coastal




22    areas, was also ignored.



23              in short, I will  repeat the NPDES permit requi^.3-




24    ment, we think is not justifiable, nor does it serve the




25    purpose of encouraging either protection of the wetlands

-------
                                                              43
 l    or improved solid waste management, particularly in areas



 2    such as the State of Louisiana.




 3              Thank you.




 4              MR. DAVIS:  I would like to clarify one or two




 5    things you were saying in regard to the coastal zone manage-




 6    ment plans and their relationship to this problem.  Is it




 7    your position that in the case where a coastal zone manage-




 g    ment plan exists, which addresses the siting of dumps for




 9    disposal of solid waste, that any policy that did exist or




10    does exist regarding either 402 — not to prejudge the




11    outcome of this Guidance — but let's just assume either




12    case, either the use of 402 or 404 permits to deal with




13    those situations, that one aspect of that policy should be




14    that that policy should be consistent with the CZM plan?




15              MR. DE VILLE:  I think that would be the require-



16    ment of the law, yes.




17              MR. DAVIS:  Is the contrary also true, do you think?



18              MR. DE VILLE:  I do not think it is true on the




19    contrary.




20              MR. DAVIS:  In the sense that a CZM plan should not




21    be in conflict with other legislation?




22              MR. DE VILLE:  I think that we are going to find




23    a lot of interesting cases because of the complexity of




24    existing regulations and statutory authorities, federal and




25    state.

-------
 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
                                                               44
          MR. DAVIS:  You don't have a written text, so I




may have not understood one point you made.  But you did




indicate, I thought, at least some feeling that the 404 permit




was the more appropriate mechanism for dealing with this



as opposed to the 402 permit, is that correct?




          MR. DE VILLE:  That is correct.  For one thing,




the 404 permit decision process in wetlands is in place.




That is not the case with regard to EPA's development of this




new area of decision-making.




          MR. DAVIS:  A final question is how would you, in




a case where a 404 permit decision were to be reached that




would, say, deny the specification of a given area for pur-




poses of a dump, how would you reconcile that with some later




development of, say, a CZM plan which might have indicated



that was a preferred area for a dump location?



          MR. DE VILLE:  I think the CZM plan really should,




in the final analysis, be the more powerful decision-making




tool.  I believe that was the intent of the Congress in




involving both state and local government.




          MR. DAVIS:  How would you reconcile that with the




language which is in the Coastal Zone Management Act, which




implies that CZM plans should, in fact, not be in conflict




with other legislation?



          MR. DE VILLE:  I think that is no particular problem




We are going to, as I say, find that the complexities are

-------
                                                              45
 i   going to cause a very interesting decision to be made.  I


 2   think in terms of management and sound decision-making, we



 3   are going to have to cut the Gordian knot every now and then



 4   on this sort of thing.  Therefore, there may be a strict


 5   legalistic requirement for the NPDES.  I think that is debat-



 6   able, and I would argue against it.  But I think we have to



 7   get down to the premise of good judgment.


 8             MR. DAVIS:  Just one last point if you have a


 9   comment on this.  My concern or my interest is in many cases,


10   the Coastal Zone Management Plan may not get down to the


11   specificity of individual sites, of evaluations of the values



12   of a given wetland area.
    ป

13             MR. DE VILLE:  I don't think it should.


H             MR. DAVIS:  Well, in that case, then, how would you



15   round out the analysis needed to make a sound decision on


16   a disposal site location?


I?             MR. DE VILLE:  I would argue for an interface


18   between the RCRA plan development and the kind of siting


19   decisions which must be made there, and the CZM general



20   decisions on land use.


21             MR. DAVIS:  How would the 404 evaluation, if you


22   preferred that over 402, how would that fit into that situa-


23   tion?



24             MR. DE VILLE:  That is going to be a complexity,



25   but we do recognize its need.

-------
                                                               46
 1             MR. DAVIS:  Okay.

 2             CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. DeVille.

 3             Mr. Lanier Hickman, Jr., Executive  Director of

 4   Government Refuse Collection and Disposal Association?
               LANIER HICKMAN, JR.,  GRCDA
 5             MR. HICKMANi  GRCDA is pleased to have an  oppor-

 6   tunity to comment on EPA's proposed policy relative  to  the

 7   Clean Water Act NPDES program of solid waste  disposal

 8   facilities,

 9             We are vitally  concerned with the form of  this

10   policy because it will have a direct  impact on  the membership

11   of GRCDA and the millions of Americans that our membership

12   serves.  The majority of  the membership of GRCDA are line

13   'managers of solid waste management systems.   They face  a

w   daily challenge of collection and disposal, an  increasingly

15   complex problem of trying to find places to dispose  of  our

16   solid waste.

17             Consequently, actions taken by EPA, which  impact

18   on the acquisition and operation of solid waste disposal

19   .facilities, are of grave  concern to us.  Henca, our  comments

20   are based on a recognition  that the environment must be

21   protected, but disposal is  an essential need  in solid waste

22   management and will not go  away.

23             The following is  the position of GRCDA,  therefo -*.,

24   relative to the EPA Draft Policy Guidance Memorandum being

25   considered today.

-------
                                                               47






 1              One:  The GRCDA supports the position stated in the



 2    Draft Guidance Memorandum relative to the requirements that




 3    a solid waste disposal facility sited in the waters of the




 4    U. S. should comply with the provisions of the Corps of




 5    Engineers, Section 404 permit program.




 6              Two:  GRCDA opposes the position policy, as stated,




 7    requiring solid waste disposal facilities sited in the waters




 8    of the U. S. to comply with the NPDES requirements of Section




 9    402 of the Clean Water Act.




10              While we can appreciate that discrete point source




n    discharges from solid waste disposal facilities should comply




12    with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, Section 402,




13   -we find it hard to comprehend that a facility per se is




U    considered a point source.




15              Further, once a facility is in compliance with




16    Section 404 and has reached the stage of construction where




17    it is dewatered and therefore dry, we find it difficult to




is    comprehend and consider that a site is still a wetland or



19    water.




20              We suggest, therefore, that EPA has misinterpreted




21    the definition of "wetland" and "water," and are attempting




22    t6 extend authorities of the Clean Water Act beyond both




23    the statutory limits and Congressional intent.




24              However, where a solid waste disposal facility




25    generates pollutants which are collected for the purposes

-------
                                                              48
 1   of treatment on-site, and which could result in a point




 2   discharge to the waters of the U. S., we are supportive of




 3   the need for an NPDES permit.  It must be recognized, however,




 4   that EPA has not issued standards for such discharges and




 5   plans to leave it to the best engineering judgment of EPA's




 6   Regional Office staff.




 7             While there is little track record to indicate what




 8   might be EPA's best engineering judgment, we are concerned




 9   that such judgment be long in forthcoming.  We suggest,




10   therefore, that if EPA requires a 402 permit for point source




11   discharges for solid waste disposal facilities, in the absence




12   of such standards for such discharges, EPA must issue to its




13   Regional Offices and other parts of the Agency guidance




14   relative to what is best engineering judgment.



is             Further, EPA should set a time limit by which such




16   permits should be considered and a decision rendered.  We



17   suggest 60 days is sufficient time to consider and make such




18   a judgment.




19             We are aware that EPA is preparing to start the




20   next round of NPDES permit approvals.  We are also aware that




21   EPA plans to fold the retrosection 3005, 3006, hazardous




22   waste facility permit programs and state hazeirdous waste




23   programs into the NPDES permit program.




24             We are concerned, therefore, that the addition also




25   of solid waste disposal facility permit requirements will

-------
                                                               49
 i    overburden the limited permitting staff of the EPA Regional




 2    Offices.  Consequently, we are concerned that permit applica-




 3    tions cannot be handled in an expeditious and timely manner.




 4              Recognizing that we are in tight budget times at




 5    all levels of government and we are not optimistic that




 6    new positions will be made available for EPA, we suggest that




 7    EPA consider seriously if there are adequate resources to




 8    assume this additional burden when it appears that the




 9    policy is an attempt to federalize state and local government




10    authority and is not a legislative mandate.




11              There is a portion of RCRA which, v/hen implemented,




12    will assure that the intent of the Draft Policy Guidance




13    Memorandum will be met.  This portion for the nonhazardous




14    waste part of our solid waste management stream is Section




15    4004, criteria for sanitary landfills.



16              While we object to the 402 provision in this




17    criteria, we submit that the solid waste disposal facilities,



18    that comply with the provisions of this criteria, and also




19    meet the requirements of the Corps of Engineers' 404 permit




20    program, except for that portion related to 402, will achieve




21    the well-intended provisions of the subject Draft Policy




22    Guidance Memorandum.




23              Further, utilization of the Section 4004 prov sions




24    of RCRA will assure that the capability of state government




25    in solid waste management and disposal will be utilized to

-------
                                                               50







 1    the  maximum extent possible.   Utilization of state government




 2    will also offer opportunities for the EPA to help meet the




 3    budget plans of the President.




 4              RCRA is  designed,  through technical and financial




 5    assistance, to build strong state hazardous waste land




 6    disposal and resource recovery programs consistent with




 7    national environmental goals.  To federalize land disposal,




 8    as proposed in the Draft Policy Guidance Memorandum, is not




 9    consistent with the Congressional intent of RCRA to keep the




10    federal involvement in solid waste management at a minimum.




11              We suggest, therefore, that the Policy recognize




12    Section 4004 and its supportive state program building




is    provisions, and not attempt to bring Section 402 into the




14    day-to-day development of solid waste disposal facilities.




15    Rather, limit the  scope of 402 to what it was really intended




16    for, the permitting of discharges, actual discharges of




17    pollutants into the actual waters of the U. S.




is              Thank you.




19              CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Hickman.




20              Ruthanne Gordon from the National Wildlife




21    Federation?



22




23




24




25

-------
                                                               51




 1             RUTHANNE GORDON, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION




 2  j           MS. GORDON:  I am Ruthanne Gordon.  I am appearing




 3   here today on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation




 4   and its counsel, Patrick Paranteau and Kenneth Kamlett,




 5   who are unable to attend today's hearing.




 6             The Federation strongly supports the regulation




 7   of solid wastes disposal into wetlands under the NPDES




 8   program of the Clean Water Act.




 9             I am submitting written comments on behalf of the




10   Federation in which we contend that EPA must establish




11   effluent limitations guidelines and issue NPDES permits for




12   these disposal activities.




13             The Federation stands ready to assist EPA in this




14   endeavor in any way possible.  Thank you.




15             CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Thank you.




16             Are there other comments?




17             JOHNNY J. SWILLEY, TERREBONNE PARISH POLICE JURY




is             MR. SWILLEY:  I was sent here by the Terrebonne




19   Parish Police Jury, which is the local governing agency in




20   south Louisiana,  to gather information from this thing.




21             The comments that I am about to make are not from




22   Terrebonne Parish Police Jury.  They are personal opinion of




23   the public from Terrebonne Parish, as a citizen living in




24   that area.




25             Some of the questions that I have jotted down to

-------
 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
                                                            52





ask have been answered.  I would like to reiteirate some of




them.  One of them is why duplicate a permit.  If you get




a Section 4004 permit, why would you have to get a 4002
permit.
          On page 4 in the draft guidelines that we  received,
it said that trucks might be considered a point source.   If




they were, would this mean that each and every garbage  truck




that you got would have to get a permit?




          And you go on to say that .logically they would not.




As a personal opinion, I'd like to know since when logic




has been used in promulgating Federal guidelines.   (Laughter)




          In this case, I do agree with you, though.   I do




.follow the logic and agree with it.




          On page 6, you start telling us what needs  to be




done for new facilities.  You mention extraordinary circum-




stances as the only way that you can get them.  You have




to study the alternatives.




          Reasonable and feasible, we'd like to know  whose




opinion reasonable and feasible would be.   What's reasonable




to you and what is reasonable to the Environmental Protection




Agency might even be two different things.




          And what is reasonable to the man who is  living




down on the bayou in Terrebonne Parish  is  definitely  going




to be different.




          You say on page  15  that the objective  is to

-------
                                                                53




 l   eliminate this disposal in the waters, or the whole  thing.




 2   My question is why go through 8 or  10 pages of telling how




 3   to apply for it if the objective is to eliminate  it.




 4             The interim permit for our present.  In Terrebonne




 5   Parish we have five open dumps, and we are present in the




 6   process of constructing a sanitary  landfill to eliminate




 7   these open dumps.




 3             We have already been told that we've got to close




 9   them down, from an air pollution standpoint, from   health




10   hazard standpoints and from other standpoints.  They are




n   just not feasible to keep operating them.




12             Since we are already in the process of  eliminating




13   them, now will we have to divert some of our resources to




14   filling out permits for them to keep them open until we get




15   it constructed rather than going ahead with the construction




16   of our sanitary landfill.




17             On page 9,you mentioned that you might  even require




18   restoration.  One of the people up here said that the




19   effective date of this was 1972, and then again you  mention




20   the date of this memorandum.




21             Well, which date would govern the restoration?




22   And who would have to pay for that restoration?   I tell you




23   that the public will have to pay for it, the people.




24             In our sanitary landfill, we will have  to  apply,




25   and have applied,  for a permit for the treatment  of  our

-------
                                                                54




 1   leachate.  How long will it be before we get this permit?




 2             As I understand it, and am told by sources  that




 3   are, I am sure, just as qualified as any I could hear from,




 4   that the Environmental Protection Agency has a backlog of




 5   NPDES permits for two or three years now.




 6             How are you going to handle new permits if  you




 7   can't handle the ones we already applied for?




 8             One good point in your favor, you do consider on




 9   page 16 the total cost of collection and transportation and




10   deposit at a sanitary landfill, and I submit to you gentlemen




11   that that cost is tremendous and that the local governments




12   have to bear this burden through the taxes that they  collect




13   from the people.




14             So any other costs, any other permits costs,




15   administrative costs for permits is just going to add to




16   the tax burden.




17             One final point that I would like to make that I




18   think other people have made, the definition in this




19   memorandum of wetlands would not — I am sure that Mr.




20   DeVille is right about 75 percent of Louisiana.




21             But I submit it would be 95 to 100 percent  of




22   Terrebonne Parish.  So we wouldn't have any place to  go.




23             Thank you.




24             CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Would you state your name for




25   the record?

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


16


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
champ,
          So one course of action for the citizens  in  this
                                                            55


          MR. SWILLEY:  John Swilley.


          CHAIRMAN MILLER;  Thank you,  Mr.  Swilley.


          Are there other .comments?


          WILLIAM G1LLEY., VIRGINIA STATE  HEALTH  DEPARTMENT


          MR. GILLBYs   I am William Gilley.   I am with the


State Health Department in Virginia.  I have  several  concerns, ซ


or two concerns, with this particular proposed memorandum.


          One? I believe by the definitions included  in it


where you define "waters of the U.S." and define "wetlands",


a major portion of Virginia, if not all of  it, will classify


under one of these definitions, in which  case it will become


very difficult —- and it is very difficult  right now  — to


site new or expanded landfills or sites that  can be suitably


used for landfills*


          In one case,  I have recently  have been working on


the elimination of an open dump, and under  this  particular


guideline, the alternative will be in an  area that could,


under your definition,  classify as a wetland, and it  would


become impossible to develop an alternative for  that  op^-n
                                                               1
particular county  would be to continue an open dump at risk   \

to public health and at further risk to some of the environ-

mental areas around it.


          I think what's happening with this particular

-------
                                                                56




 i   guideline is that we are beginning to superimpose a  second




 2   and third level of permitting and restrictions where we  are




 3   trying, under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act,  to




 4   develop a system that will, in fact, provide a single,




 5   all encompassing permit system for sanitary landfills.




 6             I think that what we are doing is adding still




 7   further difficulty by this administrative overhead,  so to




 8   speak, in obtaining new sites.  You are going to compound




 9   the cost for the public.




10             You are going to compound the difficulty in  many




11   areas in the state, or in the states, in obtaining new land-




12   fill sites.




13   -          CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Thank you.




14             EULIN GUIDRY, TERREBONNE PARISH POLICE JURY




15             MR. GUIDRY:  Gentlemen, I'm glad you all have  had




16   a chance to see me today.  It is not often that a Cajun




17   comes up to Washington.




is             I am here representing Terrebonne Parish Police




19   Jury as is Mr. John Swilley.  I have with me here Mr.  Edward




20   Giroir, who is a local official of the Policy Jury,  and




21   our consultant Mr. Horace Tibadeau.




22             CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Could you state your name, please?




23             MR. GUIDRY:  Eulin Guidry.




24             Gentlemen, in Terrebonne Parish, as was stated by




25   Mr. Swilley, we have about 95 percent of our land mass that

-------
                                                                57





 i   is wetlands, and according to  some definitions, maybe  100




 2   percent, depending on who is defining wetlands.



 3             We are concerned in  Terrebonne  Parish not  so much




 4   because of the requirements of NPDES permits but because of




 5   what is really happening as far as on my  perspective and




 6   the perspective of the  local Police Jury.



 7             We see this action by EPA not one of trying  to




 8   reduce pollution in our streams and in our waters  of the




 9   United States but as an action to try to  get into  the  land




10   use game.



11             Recently in the State of Louisiana,  two years ago,




12   I was on the opposing side of  a Coastal Zone Management Plan,




13   because, at that time,  we believed, and we still believe,




14   that coastal zone management is a land use program,  and most




15   Americans are against land use programs as we all  know.




16             Congress has  tried many, many times through  the



17   door to impose land use programs and they have failed.  So




18   we come through the back door  with Coastal Zone Management



19   Plans, Rocky Mountain Management Plans or whatever the




20   situation might be.




21             We believe in Terrebonne Parish that EPA is




22   trying to get into this game.  Now, if they want to  impose




23   NPDES permits on point  source  discharges, we have  had  some




24   problems adjusting to that, but we have accepted that.




25             And then we're coming back again with 4002 permittinc

-------
                                                                58




 1   for permitting garbage trucks.  It doesn't  seem  logical  to




 2   do that.




 3             We, living in Terrebonne Parish,  feel  that we




 4   are the best judge of our land use, because we have to live




 5   there and we have to make our livelihood there.




 6             And we produce a lot of the foods, a lot of the




 7   oil and gas that serves the rest of the nation,  and we




 8   believe that we should be the judge.




 9             That is why we have agreed in this past year to




10   a Coastal Zone Management Plan, because we were  promised




11   that we would have some voice in those decisions on the  local




12   level.




13   •         Now, it seems that the Environmental Protection




14   Agency wants to get in on the game, and we  can't understand




15   why.  Gentlemen, I think that the 4004 permitting process




16   by the Corps of Engineers is sufficient to  regulate in




17   the wetlands of Terrebonne Parish.



18             And I think with the proper Coastal Zone Management




19   Plan that we are in the process of adopting now, both on




20   the state level and on the local level, which I  am chairman




21   of the Coastal Zone Management Committee in my parish, will




22   do the job.




23             And honestly, we resent EPA getting in there and




24   trying to do it for us.  I think we can handle it.  That




25   is all I have to say.

-------
                                                               59




 1             MR. DAVIS:  I appreciate your comments about




 2   trying to reconcile some of these possibly overlapping




 3   legislative authorities.  It is true not only within the




 4   Clean Water Act, as you pointed out, but even between the




 5   Clean Water Act, CZM, and numerous other legislations.




 6             There is a point, and I asked this line of question-




 7   ing earlier, and I am still trying to add some clarification




 8   to it, that in CZM plans as well as numerous other planning




 9   activities, even under the Clean Water Act there are planning




10   activities that could do similar things to CZM planning,




11   they may not, in all cases, get to the level of detail that




12   would be needed to resolve a question of where a landfill




13   might be sited.  That's one point.




14             And the other point is that, as you indicated in




15   your comments, that the 4004 process which could play a role




16   here as in your case recommending that in lieu of the 4002




17   program — the question in my mind is do you see that the




18   4004 process, in indicating some preference for it, is a




19   way of getting more case specific and coming in and getting




20   into a greater level of detail in a case where the CZM plan




21   did not address that level of detail?




22             In other words, to the extent you expressed some




23   preference for 4004, do you see it as being one way or




24   rounding out a CZM plan in the case where it did not get




25   into the level of detail that might be needed in a case

-------
                                                                60

 i   like this?

 2             MR. GUIDRY:  Well, let me say a bunch of things

 3   in answer to that.  First of all, it all depends an where
                              if
 4   you are going.  If EPA wants to get into the protection  of

 5   the wetlands, then I think they should, by all means,  come

 6   up with the 4002 permitting process for protection of  the

 7   wetlands and should so state that, if that is what they

 8   want to implement.

 9             If EPA wants to control and protect our streams

10   and waters of the United States, then I think they are

11   pushing it the wrong way.  They should, maybe, develope

12   more stringent guidelines on discharge permits.

13   .          To say that dumping garbage in wetland is a  dis-

14   charge, you know, you are getting kind of broad.  The  other

15   answer that I would have as far as the 4004 permitting

16   process, I think, as we develop Coastal Zone Management  Plans

17   in the State of Louisiana, and particularly in my concern

18   in Terrebonne Parish, that we would develop a set of guide-

19   lines that would be consistent with the Federal Act and

20   the state act and, of course, utilizing the help from  the

21   Corps of Engineers and their 4004 permitting process.

22             I think the whole thing has got to be looked at

23   at one time, not taking parts of it.  The only objection

24   that we have in Terrebonne Parish, and that I have

25   particularly, is the fact that it seems like EPA is coming

-------
                                                               61





 1   in at this time and instead of trying to control pollution




 2   in the waters of the United States, they want to get into the




 3   land management game, the land use game.




 4             MR. DAVIS:  Let me just follow that point up for




 5   just a moment, if you don't mind, because I am trying to




 6   explore this idea of 4004 to the extent that has been put




 7   forth by a number of people as an alternative to 4002 in




 8   this case.




 9             I am trying to be sure that we don't have some




10   problems there that we haven't thought about and find out




11   that that doesn't work either.




12             You were getting close to what I was interested in.




13   1 think you are saying that the CZM planning and the 4004




14   permitting process, in the most desirable case, is that it




15   be done currently so that one doesn't come out with one




16   answer and then another one has to come along later and




17   conflict with it.




18             And I agree with that.  That would be, by far, the




19   preferable way to do it, but one of the problems I see,




20   though, is that CZM planning is —




21             MR. GUIDRY:  By getting more specific in specific




22   area, is that what you are trying to —




23             MR. DAVIS:  Well, that is the concern.  CZM planning




24   tends to be a one-time operation.  It doesn't mean that you




25   don't revise a CZM plan, but it is done, and it may take

-------
                                                                62





 1    several years  to  do  it  once,  and  it may  takes  several years




 2    to  revise it,  whereas 4004 permit applications  may be coming




 3    in  on  a monthly basis for different sites.




 4             MR.  GUIDRY:   Maybe  you  are  overlooking what a




 5    CZM plan is.   Of  course, not  too  many people  know what CZM




 6    is  all about yet.




 7             MR.  DAVIS:  That is true.




 8             MR.  GUIDRY:   As I envision  a Coastal  Zone Manage-




 9    ment Plan in our  Parish would be  to look at all the various




10    permitting processes that we  have now, look at  all the




n    various ordinances that we have,  putting that together




12    and then issuing  permits, what the Corps is doing now,




13    probably in a  lot of cases issuing the 4004 permit on the




14    parish level,  and in a  lot of cases,  maybe helping the Corps




15    out with those things.




16             I think it would be a constant watch  on all of




17    the permits we're issuing, especially when it comes to




18    destroying some of the  wetlands that  we  have  to make a




19    living in.




20             So who  is  going to  be closest  to it?




21             MR.  DAVIS:  I understand.   So  what  you are saying,




22    then,  is in the case where the CZM plan  goes  into the same




23    level  of detail,  which  might, in  fact, be the case in sore




24    areas  —




25             MR.  GUIDRY:   Probably more  details.

-------
 1





 2





 3





 4





 5





 6





 7





 8





 9





10





11





12





13  j





14





15





16





17





18 I!





19 i!





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                           63




          MR. DAVIS:  — and preferably would go into the




same level of detail or more than would be in the 4004




process and then it would be simply a matter of picking up




that information in almost a pro forma, rubber stamp process,




yoing to the 4004 permit.




          In a case where the CZM plan did not go into that




detail, the 4004 process could take the point where it stopped




and then continue with whatever is left to be done at that




point.




          I want to understand if that how you — because




you see this question of alternatives comes up, and in some




cases, the CZM plan might have looked at a given area and




raidy "Well, are there any alternatives?"




          And your answer in your case may be no.  But what




.if that question was not asked in a CZM Plan, would you




 nink it appropriate for the 4004 permit process to ask




hhat question in that case?




          MR. GUIDRY:  I think the 4004 permit already asks




tliat question, and I think the local CZM Plan would definitely




ask that question, because this is really what I think we




are going to be doing.




          I think right now, Horace, if I am right, that




in the solid waste disposal plan that we are putting together,




the sanitary landfill operation, we did look at alternatives,




and, in fact, found an alternative to disposing in the wetland.

-------
                                                                64





 i             And this is what we are going.  Gentlemen, you




 2   got to realize we live there, not you.  Thank you.




 3             MR. DAVIS:  Thank you.




 4             MR. DE VILLE:  Dp you mind if I comment on the




 5   line of questioning you were raising?




 6             MR. DAVIS:  So long as I can ask another question.




 7             MR. DE VILLE:  I wasn't contemplating having  4004




 8   get into tight decisions about how to site a solid waste




 9   disposal facility, what kinds of operations, requirements




10   should be made, et cetera.




11             That's the purpose, in the state, under the RCRA




12   Plan and the state solid waste permit process.  That is




13   where you get specificity.




14             Let's look at overlaps.  We are going to have




15   public participation under RCRA in state permit decisions.




16   There is the highly specific route to questions about




17   specific sites and alternatives.




18             4004 I think has a genuine value.  It is the  place




19   where we look at a lot of the impacts of an action which




20   is proposed, impacts on sheet flows, habitat.




21             This is the place where we get everybody's comments




22   fed into the record, Federal and state.  And specificity




23   has got to  go back not to 4004, not to NPDES but to  RCRA  on




24   management  and specific site decisions.




25             And coastal zone management, I think, gets us into

-------
                                                               65





i   the area of conscious decisions about just this kind of




2   question, wetlands management.




3             MR. DAVIS:  The thing I was trying to clarify,




4   and I would appreciate your reaction to this concept, because




5   I am trying to clarify in my own mind how this would work —




6   I hear you saying in the case where the CZM Plan — that




7   the CZM Plan should go into this level of detail, it should




8   be a process where the local decisionmakers look at their




9   available resources, decide where they want to put a landfill




10   in this case, ask the question of is there an alternative




n   to doing it outside the wetlands, and making some final




12   recommendation or conclusion on that.




13             My question, though, is what happens in a case




14   where in the CZM planning process they did not go into  that




15   level of detail.




16             MR. DE VILLE:  I don't think they need to




17   necessarily.  I think many times it will happen.  Again,




is   there is no need multiplying the decision process, j




19             Suppose CZM doesn't go into but sets a policy,




20   then the RCRA plan is going to have to be captured and  will




21   be captured in place that has both RCRA implementation  and




22   CZM implementation under state law and local regulations




23   as well.




24             MR. DAVIS:  But the point you still haven't clarifie




25   for me is that you seem to be implying that it is appropriate

-------
                                                               66





 1   to ask these questions about whether it's possible to  find




 2   an alternative outside of wetlands.




 3             MR. DE VILLE:  But that is at the state and  local




 4   area.




 5             MR. DAVIS:  But it is appropriate to ask the




 8   question, I guess is what 1 am trying to clarify?




 7             MR. DE VILLE:  Yes.  State and local preferably.




 8             CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Other comments?




 9             EDWARD GIROIR, TERREBONNE PARISH POLICY JURY




10             MR. GIROIR:  I am Edward Giroir.    I am a  Police




11   Juror from Terrebonne Pariah.  I am Chairman  of  the  Solid




12   Waste and Litter Committee.




13             I was told that Terrebonne Parish has  been studying




14   this problem for 12 years, and I think that a lot of it  is




15   because of indecision on permitting and different things.




16             So we finally embarked on this solid waste landfill,




17   and, gentlemen, we are still trying to get permits,  and  we




18   don't know whether we are doing the right thing  now.




19             So I think the deeper we get into all  this permittin




20   and  stuff, why,  I think instead of correcting the ills  that




21   we have, I think that they are just getting worse.




22             I think we need to simplify everything really.




23             DONALD ANDRES, CONSULTING ENGINEER




24             MR. ANDRES:  Genltemen, my name is  Donald  Andre_.




25   I am a consulting engineer.  I'd like to raise some  issues

-------
                                                                67


 1   that have occurred  in attempting to obtain  4002 permits

 2   and 4004 permits in today's world.

 3             I am concerned how  the draft  policy would  relate

 4   to such circumstances, particularly for existing disposal

 5   sites.  I have represented several clients  who are in  the

 6   business of disposing of solid wastes and who, in the  last

 7   several years, have received  letters from the Unites States

 8   Corps of Engineers  indicating that they must cease and desist

 9   immediately their operations.
10 ||           Any continued discharge of that waste beyond  the

11   date of receipt of that registered  letter is  subject  to
                                                         i/
12   removal of any wastes placed  from that date forward.

13             One does not immediately  relocate a solid waste

14   disposal facility, particularly when it has been  in use for

15   a long period of time, and you are  in a fairly urbanized

16   area.

17             The problem comes in attempting to  comply with

18   the permit provisions.  In this situation, the solid  waste

19   disposal sites have been decreed as nonpoint  sources,

20 II have been regulated by the state water quality agency for

21   some extended period of time, and,  in fact, did not allow

22   a discharge to waters of the  state.

23             In fact, the requirements state, "There shall be

24   no discharge to any water, either ground or surface water,

25 || from the disposal facility."

-------
                                                                68





 1             One of the problems is that they have asked  for




 2   dikes and protection around those facilities to protect




 3   against greater than a  100-year storm flow.




 4             Those dikes and other facilities fall within the




 5   jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, and it is  impossible,




 6   then, to get a 4002 permit to construct the facility that




 7   is required to provide  water quality protection.




 8             The deposition of this waste in lands that we




 9   always thought were fast is in jeopardy.  The question arises




10   as to whether it is fast or not.  It's been decreed a




11   wetland because there is a predominance of wet vegetation




12   that's supported by saturated soil  conditions.




13             These saturated soil conditions are caused by




14   several factors.  The predominant one of which is  the




15   tight clay soils underlying the site which prevent the




16   migration of any pollutants from the solid waste offsite




17   but at the same time cause water to be perched and make




18   this a wetland.




19             In fact, part of the water perching on this  is a




20   discharge from a waste  water treatment plant.  That water




21   enters the property under and NPDES permit and subsequently




22   then is discharged to the water.




23             I'm finding great difficulty in explaining to




24   my clients why, until the solid waste disposal site  is




25   extended in this area,  that we can  run cattle out  there.

-------
                                                                69




 1             They seem to think  a cow  is  a point  source  if  a




 2   truck is, and that the cattle ought to be  regulated in the




 3   same manner, because  they are, in fact, putting out a semi-




 4   solid waste and  that  adjoining two  of  these  facilities are




 5   sludge lagoons which  are not  receiving any permits.   Now,




 6   those are also solid  waste  facilities.




 7             Now, maybe  an expansion of those under  today's




 8   world would not  allow or they would not be allowed to expand




 9   under today's permits.




10             We have strong concerns where solid  waste facilities




11   have gone into operations,  where they  are  not  in  direct




12   continuity with  water, where  local  water pollution regulations




13   prohibit the discharge to water, that  we cannot now get




14   the required Federal  permits.




is             And whether they  come through with 4004 or  4002




16   first seems to matter little  if there  is a strong presumption




17   against getting  those permits and if the economic viability




18   of any continued operation  has to be amortized in five years.




19             In the general marketplace,  financing is not




20   available on that short a duration.  So the  proposed




21   regulations would severely  restrict and, in  fact, encumber




22   and confiscate many of the  existing facilities that I have




23   had the privilege of  being  associated with.




24             MR. CLARK:  Could I ask you one  question, please?




25             You said the Corps issued a cease  and desist order?

-------
                                                                70




 1             MR. ANDRES:   Correct.




 2             MR. CLARK:  Was it  for  the dike  itself  or  for the




 3   land disposal of  the solid, waste? What was  the basis  of




 4   the cease and desist order?




 5             MR. ANDRES:  Section  9  and Section 10 of the Rivers




 6   and Harbors Act,  Section 4002 and 4004.  The attorneys




 7   have not let the  thing out.




 8             In fact,  I raised the issue  that the dike  was




 9   constructed prior to 1967, and  therefore,  received a




10   national permit.  However, the  dike had to be raised to a




11   higher elevation, and that could  not be raised.




12             And if, in fact, we were allowed to get that in,




13   it was suggested  by a Corps representative that digging




14   cover material on the site would  be subject  to a  dredging




15   permit, and that  we would have  to go through the  whole




16   thing to get the  permit to dredge on the dry land.




17             MR. CLARK:  Was this  West Coast?




18             MR. ANDRES:  It certainly is.




19             MR. CLARK:  I was just  wondering.   That is what




20   I figured.   (Laughter.)




21             CHAIRMAN  MILLER:  Thank you.




22             Any further comments?




23              (No response.)




24             CHAIRMAN  MILLER:  The meeting is over.




25              (Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the proceedings  closed.)

-------
                                                        71
                     REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
4    DOCKET NUMBER:

5    CASE TITLE:  Public Meeting
C
     HEARING DATE:  December 11, 1978
7
     LOCATION:  Washington,B.C.
     I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence  herein
     are contained fully and accurately in the notes  taken by me
     at the hearing in the above case before the
      Environmental Protection Agency
12
     and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same,
lo

                                Date: December  28,  1978
15
16
                                  Official Reporter
i/
                                Acme Reporting Company
                                1411 K Street N.W,
                                Washington, D.C.  20005

20
21
99
23

24

25

-------
STATEMENT OF JAMES J. KING ON BEHALF OF




THE UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES GROUP,




THE UTILITY WATER ACT GROUP, THE EDISON




ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, AND THE NATIONAL




RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION




AT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY




PUBLIC MEETING ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL




FACILITIES IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES









           Washington, D.C.




          December 11, 1978

-------

-------
          MY NAME IS JAMES J. KING.  I AM ENVIRONMENTAL COOR-

DINATOR FOR FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY IN MIAMI, FLORIDA.

I AM APPEARING TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTI-

VITIES GROUP (USWAG), THE UTILITY WATER ACT GROUP (UWAG), THE

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE (EEI), AND THE NATIONAL RURAL ELEC-
                                    !/
RIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION  (NRECA).    FOR PURPOSES OF THIS

STATEMENT, I SHALL REFER TO THESE GROUPS COLLECTIVELY AS "ELEC-

TRIC UTILITIES."

          AMONG OTHER ISSUES, ELECTRIC UTILITIES ARE CONCERNED

WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA REGULATIONS,

GUIDELINES AND POLICIES THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE TREATMENT, DIS-

POSAL AND RECOVERY OF UTILITY WASTES, SUCH AS SCRUBBER SLUDGE,

FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH.  EPA'S DRAFT POLICY GUIDANCE CONCERNING

THE DISCHARGE OF SOLID WASTE INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF UTI-

LITY WASTES IN ASH PONDS AND SIMILAR FACILITIES, WHERE THE WASTES

ARE TRANSPORTED BY TRUCK OR OTHER VEHICLES.  SINCE ELECTRIC UTILI-

TIES PLAN TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT POLICY GUIDANCE,

I SHALL CONFINE MY REMARKS TO THE HIGH POINTS OF OUR SUBMISSION.
I/   USWAG is a coalition of approximately 45 electric power
     companies, while UWAG consists of approximately 68 elec-
     tric power companies.  EEI is the principal national
     association of investor-owned electric light and power
     companies.  NRECA is the principal national association
     of rural electric cooperatives.  Lists of USWAG1s and
     UWAG's members are attached.

-------
                            _ 2 —                         -



          A.  SCOPE OF JURISDICTION.


              1.  "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES."

          ELECTRIC UTILITIES HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS WITH THE


JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY ASSERTED BY EPA UNDER.THE DRAFT POLICY

GUIDANCE.  FIRST, WE DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE THAT TRUCKS OR TRANS-

PORTATION VEHICLES CONSTITUTE "POINT SOURCES" WITHIN THE MEANING


OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.  SECOND, AS DISCUSSED IN RECENT COMMENTS


ON THE PROPOSED NPDES RULES, WE BELIEVE THAT EPA'S DEFINITION
                                              2/
OF "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" IS OVERBROAD.



          THIRD, AND MOST DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE DRAFT POLICY  ,

GUIDANCE, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT EPA'S SWEEPING DEFINITION OF


"WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" MAY ENCOMPASS UTILITY TREATMENT

AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SUCH AS ASH AND SCRUBBER SLUDGE SET-


TLING PONDS.   THESE FACILITIES REPRESENT CONVENTIONAL NPDES

"END OF PIPE" TECHNOLOGY, YET THEY SOMETIMES HAVE BEEN OR MUST

BE CONSTRUCTED IN WETLANDS OR BY IMPOUNDING AN "INTERMITTENT"

OR "WET-WEATHER" STREAM (OR A DRY SWALE OR DEPRESSION THAT

MIGHT BE CLASSIFIED AS SUCH).  AS A RESULT OF THE DRAFT POLICY

GUIDANCE, SUCH A FACILITY MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION AT

THE POINT AT WHICH WASTE IS RECEIVED, RATHER THAN AT THE POINT


FROM WHICH EFFLUENT IS DISCHARGED.
2/  Comments on Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant
~~   Discharge Elimination System, submitted on behalf of UWAG,
    EEI, and NRECA, November 20, 1978, pp. 68-73.

-------
                             -  3  -
         HOWEVER, WE  SUBMIT  THAT  IT  IS  THE  DISCHARGES  FROM SUCH

FACILITIES THAT SHOULD  BF  AND  ALREADY ARE REGULATED BY THE NPDES

SYSTEM, NOT DISCHARGES  INTO  THE FACILITIES,   THE  LEGISLATIVE

HISTORY SHOWS THAT CONGRESS  DID NOT  INTEND  EPA  TO BECOME INVOLVED


IN DIRECT REGULATION  OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY  OR INTERNAL PLANT
          I/
PROCESSES.


          WE BELIEVE  THAT  UNDER THE  DRAFT POLICY  GUIDANCE'S


DEFINITION OF "SOLID  WASTE", MOST UTILITY WASTES  WOULD BE EX-

EMPTED SINCE WHEN DISCHARGED INTO SUCH  FACILITIES,  THEY ARE

"ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED  THROUGH CONVENTIONAL NPDES 'END OF


PIPE' TECHNOLOGY."  (APPENDIX A,  PAGE 2).  NONETHELESS,  THE


DRAFT POLICY GUIDANCE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NEITHER THE


NPDES PROGRAM NOR THE SECTION 404 PROGRAM APPLIES TO THE DIS-


CHARGE OF WASTES INTO PLANT TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL  FACILITIES.



          2.  APPLICATION  OF NPDES PROGRAM TO DRY AREAS.

          ANOTHER MAJOR CONCERN WITH THE SCOPE  OF AUTHORITY

ASSERTED IN THE DRAFT GUIDANCE IS THE INDICATION  IN FOOTNOTE

2 THAT EXISTING DISPOSAL FACILITIES  WHICH HAD NOT COMPLETELY

CONVERTED WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES BY OCTOBER  18, 1972


ARE SUBJECT TO THE NPDES PROGRAM.  ELECTRIC UTILITIES  SUBMIT
V  See, e. g. , 2 Leg. Hist. 1391  (Senator Muskie's statement);
~   T~Leg. Hist. 1477 (Senate Committee Report).

-------
                            - 4 -


THAT THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES ON AREAS THAT  HAVE  BEEN  CON-

VERTED TO DRY LAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DISCHARGE .INTO  WATERS

OF THE UNITE? STATES AND THUS SHOULD NOT BBS SUBJECT TO THE

NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM.



          B•  UNNECESSARY DUAL REGULATION.

          IN THOSE CASES WHERE REGULATION OF SOLID WASTES  MAY

BE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE DRAFT POLICY GUIDANCE,  ELECTRIC UTILI-

TIES ARE CONCERNED THAT SOLID WASTE DISCHARGES WHICH  CAUSE FILL

WOULD REQUIRE BOTH NPDES PERMITS FROM EPA AND DREDGE  AND FILL

PERMITS FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.  SUCH DUAL  REGULATION CON-

FLICTS WITH THE STRUCTURE AND LANGUAGE OF THE CLEAN WATER  ACT,

ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND EPA'S OWN PRIOR INTERPRETATION

AND POLICY.

          THE WATER ACT EXPRESSLY EXEMPTS DISCHARGES  OF  DREDGED
                                                               V
OR FILL MATERIAL FROM COVERAGE UNDER THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM.

HOWEVER,  SINCE DISCHARGES OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL MAY  HAVE

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, CONGRESS GAVE EPA  AN  IMPOR-

TANT OVERSIGHT ROLE IN THE SECTION 404 PROGRAM.  (SECTIONS 404

(B)(l); 404(C)).  THESE RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE REDUNDANT IF

DUAL PERMITS UNDER SECTIONS 402 AND 404 WERE REQUIRED.   SUCH
4/  Section 402(a)(l) provides that "Except as provided in Sections
    318 and 404 of this Act, the Administrator may  .  .  .  issue a
    [Section 402]  permit . . . ."  And the Section  301(a) prohibi-
    tion, which is the sole cause for need of either  a  Section 402
    or a Section 404 permit, is satisfied by the issuance of either
    Sections 402(k); 404(p).

-------
                            - 5 -

DUAL REGULATION WOULD CONTRAVENE THE NATIONAL  POLICY  THAT  EPA
AVOID "NEEDLESS DUPLICATION AND UNNECESSARY  DELAYS" IN  ITS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.   (SECTION  101(F)).
          EPA ITSELF CONSISTENTLY HAS TAKEN  THE POSITION THAT
THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION  404  DOES
                                       V
NOT OVERLAP WITH EPA'S NPDES AUTHORITY.    WE  URGE  EPA  TO  MAIN-
TAIN THIS POSITION IN ITS FINAL POLICY GUIDANCE ON  SOLID WASTE
DISCHARGES.

          C.  OBTAINING PERMITS___F_OR_ SOLID V^AS_TE_JDISPpSAL
              F"ACIL_I_TI_ES~
          THE PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR  IS-
SUING NPDES PERMITS TO SOLID WASTE  DISPOSAL  FACILITIES  UNDER
EPA'S DRAFT GUIDANCE POSE SEVERAL PROBLEMS,  WHICH I WILL SIM-
PLY MENTION NOW BUT WHICH WILL BE ANALYZED AT  MORE  LENGTH  IN
OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS.
          FIRST, ELECTRIC UTILITIES QUESTION EPA'S  REQUIREMENT
THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A DISPOSAL FACILITY,  RATHER  THAN
THE POINT SOURCE INVOLVED, MUST OBTAIN AN NPDES PERMIT.
          SECOND, ELECTRIC UTILITIES QUESTION  WHETHER THE  RE-
QUIREMENT THAT ALTERNATIVE SITES BE ANALYZED IS AN  APPROPRIATE
FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 304.   EVEN  ASSUMING  THAT
IT IS APPROPRIATE, WE QUESTION WHETHER EPA CAN IMPOSE ON PERMIT
APPLICANTS THE TASK OF CARRYING OUT SUCH A STUDY.   MOREOVER,
5/  ฃงฎ' ฎ_'9L'' Proposed Revision to NPDES, 43 Fed. Reg.  37079
    37091 (Aug. 21, 1978).

-------
                             -  6 -






PRACTICAL REALITIES MAKE  IT  IMPERATIVE THAT EPA, AT THE  MINIMUM,




LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITES AND TECHNOLOGIES  THAT




MUST BE ANALYZED.



          THIRD, ELECTRIC UTILITIES. HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS  WITH




THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES  (BMPS) APPROACH TAKEN IN THE DRAFT




POLICY GUIDANCE.  WE QUESTION  EPA'S AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE  BMPS  EX-




CEPT WHERE ANCILLARY TO DISCHARGES SUBJECT TO EFFLUENT LIMITA-




TIONS.  WE ALSO QUESTION WHETHER BMPS MAY BE IMPOSED ON  THE DIS-




POSAL AREA LOCATED "DOWNSTREAM" OF THE "POINT SOURCE" (THE TRANS-




PORTATION VEHICLE) BEING REGULATED.  FINALLY, SEVERAL OF THE




BMPS ARE DIRECTED AT CONTROLLING LEACHATE CONTAMINATION  OF GROUND-




WATER, AS 'TO WHICH EPA AND THE CORPS LACK AUTHORITY UNDER  THE




CLEAN WATER ACT.




          FOURTH, THE DRAFT POLICY GUIDANCE FAILS TO ADOPT THE




PROPER SUBSTANTIVE TEST AND TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE PERMIT  ISSUER



MUST CONSIDER ALL OF THE FACTORS APPLICABLE UNDER SECTION  304(B)




OF THE WATER ACT, INCLUDING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND NON-WATER




QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.



          FIFTH, WE QUESTION WHETHER EPA CAN PROPERLY CREATE




A PRESUMPTION THAT NO NPDES PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED AUTHORIZING




NEW DISCHARGES OF SOLID WASTE  INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED  STATES.




IN-THE ABSENCE OF A RULEMAKING RECORD, THE BURDEN SHOULD BE




ON EPA TO JUSTIFY A ZERO DISCHARGE LIMITATION IN EACH CASE.




          SIXTH, ELECTRIC UTILITIES QUESTION WHETHER EXISTING




DISPOSAL FACILITIES SHOULD BE REGULATED AS STRINGENTLY AS  NEW




DISPOSAL FACILITIES.

-------
                             -  7  -





          SEVENTH, ELECTRIC  UTILITIES ARE CONCERNED  BY  THE MEAN-




ING OF THE TERM "SUBSTANTIALLY CONVERTED" THAT  IS  USED  THROUGHOUT




THE DRAFT POLICY GUIDANCE.   WHILE THIS TERM MAY BE UNDERSTANDABLE




WITH RESPECT TO MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS, WHERE "CELLS" OF LAND ARE




FILLED INCREMENTALLY, ITS MEANING IS UNCLEAR IN THE  CONTEXT OF




UTILITY TREATMENT FACILITIES SUCH AS ASH OR SCRUBBER SLUDGE PONDS.




SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT AN ASH POND WHICH HAS  NOT BEEN




COMPLETELY FILLED MAY BE DEEMED  "NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONVERTED" AND




THUS SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE CLOSURE.




          FINALLY, ELECTRIC  UTILITIES URGE EPA TO  MAKE  CLEAR THAT




EXISTING DISPOSAL FACILITIES OPERATING WITH NPDES  OR SECTION 404




PERMITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY GUIDANCE PRIOR TO THE EXPIRA-




TION OF THEIR CURRENT PERMITS.




          ELECTRIC UTILITIES APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT




THESE COMMENTS TODAY, AND WILL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW  WITH  INTEREST




EPA'S EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES RELATING TO THE




STORAGE, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES.

-------
     MEMBERS  OF  UTILITY  SOLID JWASTE^ACTIVIT^IES GROUP,

Appalachian  Power Company
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 oE 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
Indiana and Michigan Power Company
Indianapolis Power & Light Company
Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Company
Iowa Power & Light Company
Kentucky Power Company
Los Angeles Department of Vlater and Power
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
Ohio 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
Virginia Electric & Power Company
West Penn Power Company
Wisconsin Electric Power Company  .
Wisconsin Power & Light Company
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

-------
                         UWAG Members
Allegheny Power Company, for
  Monongahela Power Company
  Potomac Edison Company
  West Penn Power Company
American Electric Power Company, for
  Appalachain Power Company
  Indiana & Michigan Electric Company
  Kentucky Power Company
  Ohio Power Company
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
Boston Edison Company
Carolina Power & Light Company
Central Illinois Light Company
Central Illinois Public Service
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company
Columbus 6c Southern Ohio Electric Company
Commonwealth Edison Company
Consolidated Edison Company
Dayton Power & Light Company
Detroit Edison Company
Duke Power Company
Edison Electric Institute
Florida Power & Light Company
Houston Lighting & Power Company
Illinois Power Company
Iowa Public Service Company
Kansas City Power & Light Company
Long Island Lighting Company
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
Madison Gas & Electric Company
Middle South Utilities, Inc., for
  Arkansas Power & Light Company
  Arkansas-Missouri Light Company
  Louisiana Power & Light Company
  Mississippi Power & Light Company
New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
Montaup Electric Company
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
New England Power Company
New York State Electric & Gas
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Northeast Utilities, for
  Holyoke Water Power Company
  Connecticut Light & Power Company
  Hartford Electric Light Company
  Western Massachusetts Electric Company
Northern States Power Company
Ohio Edison Company

-------
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
Philadelphia Electric Company
Potomac Electric Power Company
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Public Service of New Hampshire
Public Service Indiana
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Southern California Edison Company
Southern Company Services,Inc.,  for
  Alabama Power Company
  Georgia Power Company
  Gulf Power Company
  Mississippi Power Company
Tampa Electric Company
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Toledo Edison Company
Union Electric Company
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Wisconsin Power and Light Company
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

-------
       STATEMENT  OF  THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND ON THE  EPA
       DRAFT POLICY  GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM REGARDING NPDES
       PERMITS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN WATERS
                      OF THE UNITED STATES
                                  Washington, D. C.
                                  December 11, 1978
                                         by:  Adam B. Jaffe
                                              Science Associate
       Ever since  the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act Amendments of  1972 (P.L. 92-500), the discharge of  solid wastes

into the waters  of the United States, unless specifically  allowed

by permit granted  under the Act, has been illegal.  Nevertheless,

such discharges  have  continued.  Now, six years  later,  EPA proposes

to regulate such discharges comprehensively for  the first  time.

Needless to say, the  Environmental Defense Fund  ("EDF")  strongly

supports this effort.  However, we are sorry to  see that even now,

under the proposed Policy Guidance Memorandum,the illegal  dumping

of solid wastes  into  the waters of the United States vill, in many

cases, not be controlled, but rather be sanctioned by FPA  through

the issuance of  an NPDES permit.

       In our view, the portion of the waters of the United States

which are of utmost concern with respect to disposal of solid

wastes are wetlands and the associated shallow areas of rivers,
   Environmental Defense Fund, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016 (212) 686-4191
        OFFICES IN: NEW YORK, NY (NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS),- WASHINGTON, DC, BERKELEY, CA; DENVER CO

-------
estuaries, and bays.  While we are obviously not happy about the
dumping of solid wastes into deeper waters, wetlands and shallow
areas are of particular ecological significance, and the disposal
of solid wastes in these areas not only pollutes them, but may
destroy completely their biological functions and will eventually
lead to their complete removal as a part of the overall aquatic
ecosystem.  The particular significance of these areas has been
recognized in law and in public policy by EPA's 1973 wetlands policy,
EPA and the Corps of Engineers regulations under Section 404 of the
Act, and President Carter's Wetlands Executive Order.  Our primary
concern with the Draft Policy Memorandum is that it appears to
enunciate a policy with respect to the disposal of solid waste in
wetlands which is less protective than the existing regulatory frame-
work affecting other activities in wetlands.  If this memorandum
becomes EPA policy, EPA will be condoning destruction of wetlands
through disposal of solid wastes to a degree that would be con-
sidered unacceptable and illegal if the destruction were to be
carried out for some other purpose.
       We do not quarrel with the> decision that disposal of solid
waste in the waters of the United States should be regulated under
Section 402 rather than Section 404 of the Act. However, the
environmental resource to be protected is the same regardless of
the regulatory mechanism to be employed;  therefore, the same
substantive policy standard must be applied with respect to the
destruction of wetlands as would be applied under Section  404.  In
other words, there is no legal or substantive reason why we should
prohibit the discharge of fill material in wetlands unless the
associated activity is water dependent and unless no permanent

-------
unacceptable disruption to the affected aquatic ecosystem will

result, unless we intend to apply the same standard to disposal of

solid waste in wetlands.  In our view, the application of this

substantive standard would lead to a clear EPA policy prohibiting
                             i
the permitting of disposal of solid wastes in wetlands.

       The Draft Guidance Memorandum makes a distinction between

waters of the United States "which have already been converted or

substantially converted into a dry area" and all other waters.  We

would agree that if a wetland area has been filled with garbage to

the extent that a functioning aquatic ecosystem is no longer present,

then continued disposal of solid waste should be permitted, so long

as it does not encroach further on the aquatic ecosystem, and does

not adversely impact water quality.  However, we would point out

that, to the extent that the waters have been "converted" since

1972, such conversion was blatently illegal.  As a practical matter,

we recognize that redress of this wrong is probably not possible.

However, to prevent continued encroachment on the waters of the

United States (which might in fact be encouraged by the knowledge

that continued disposal will soon be permitted only in areas that

have already been "converted"), we would urge EPA to allow continued

disposal of solid waste only in those wetlands which have been

"converted" as of August 23, 1978, the date of the Draft Memorandum.

       In place of the interim and final permit mechanisms suggested

in the Memorandum,we would suggest the following.  EPA should

declare publicly, effective immediately, that any continued discharge

of solid waste into wetlands which currently function in any way as

-------
                             4





aquatic ecosystems is illegal and will be subject to the enforcement



provisions of the Act.  We would note that this is nothing new,



and should have been the case since 1972.  Facilities which are



discharging solid waste into areas which were substantially con-



verted to dry land (and therefore do not support an aquatic ecosystem)



on or before August 23 may apply for and will be issued NPDES permits



which will allow the continued discharge into these converted areas,



so long as no adverse water quality impacts result.  In our view,



the alternatives study is unnecessary, because continued discharge



into previously converted areas will be permitted, subject to con-



ditions, and discharge into functioning wetlands will not be



permitted.



       If some party, either the operator of an existing facility or



someone contemplating a new facility, can demonstrate in a specific



case that a proposed disposal into a functioning wetland area would



meet the requirements of existing substantive wetlands policy, i.e.,



there is no alternative to wetlands disposal and no permanent un-



acceptable disruption of the affected aquatic ecosystem will result,



they could apply to EPA for a 402 permit for this discharge.  The



burden of proof should be squarely on the applicant to prove that



violation of this wetlands policy would not result.  Given the



existence of previously converted areas, upland areas, and proven



technologies for recycling and resource recovery, and the fact that



disposal of solid waste in a wetland system would inevitably result



in adverse impacts, EPA should make it very clear that it is un-



likely that this burden of proof would ever be carried satisfactorily.

-------
       We would also like to make some comments on the conditions



to be included in final permits.  Generally, the conditions



described in the Draft Memorandum are excellent, including specific



boundary limits (limited to "converted" areas), the requirement for



404 permits for dikes, levee??, etc., and terms and conditions



necessary to insure compliance with 307, 311 and 405.  In the



context of the latter requirement, we note that the Draft Memorandum



says that "means necessary to prevent toxic and hazardous substances



from entering the environment outside of the disposal site" may



be included among the required technologies and management practices.



This should be a "shall," not a "may."  Also the permit should



include terms and conditions necessary to insure compliance with



all applicable water quality standards.



       If this approach is promptly implemented, disposal of solid



waste will belatedly be subject to the same restrictions on



ecological destruction as have been implemented for other activities.



However, we should not kid ourselves that the regulation of



"facilities" will end the unregulated disposal of solid waste in



wetlands. More often than not, such disposal is not at a "facility,"



but consists instead of a truck pulling off the road in a swampy



area and unloading, with or without the tacit consent of the owner



of the land.  Such an action is already illegal, but that does not



mean that it doesn't occur.  If EPA is serious about controlling



the discharge of solid waste into wetlands, a strong enforcement



program capable of impacting this type of activity will be needed.



The legal mechanisms to carry out such a program exist;  all that



is needed is the effort and commitment.

-------
      In summary, the basic issue before us today is whether or



not to continue to condone the destruction of wetlands via solid



waste disposal in spite of our knowledge of their tremendous



ecological importance and the existence of a legal mechanism to



control it.  I believe that the people of this country are ready



to halt this destruction, and I urge EPA to act swiftly to do so.



      Thank you for the opportunity to speak todciy.

-------
                                 So&d Pastes ^Management Association
                         1 120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW •  SUITE 930 • WASHINGTON, D C 20036
                                         TELEPHONE (202) 659-4613
EUGENE J WINGERTER
 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
                                Statement

                                   of

                          Elizabeth M.  Bollard
                        Policy Research Director

             National Solid Wastes Management Association
               1120 Connecticut Avenue,  N.W., Suite  930
                        Washington, D.  C.  20036


                                 to the            ;


             United States Environmental Protection  Agency

                               Regarding  the

                    Draft Policy  Guidance Memorandum

                                   For

              Permits for Solid Waste  Disposal Facilities
                     in Waters of the United  States
                             Public  Meeting




                            December 11,  1978

                            Washington,  D. C.
                   •  INSTITUTE OF WASTE TECHNOLOGY
                        •  CHEMICAL WASTE COMMITTEE
                        •  NATIONAL SANITARY LANDFILL COMMITTEE
                        •  RESOURCE RECOVERY COMMITTEE
                   •  WASTE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE

-------
We are here today to discuss a policy guidance memorandum drafted by




the United States Environmental Protection Agency advising operators of




sanitary landfills in wetland areas how they can comply with the require-




ment that they obtain an NPDES permit under Section 402 of the Clean




Water Act.  Before we comment on this policy guidance memorandum, we




would like to review the sequence of events that led to the drafting of




this document.  In February 1977, in response to an inquiry from the




Environmental Defense Fund, the General Counsel at EPA indicated that:






     the disposal from a vehicle of solid waste such




     as garbage into wetlands or other waters of the




     United States constitutes a discharge of pollutants




     from a point source ....






The letter indicated that the truck was a "point source" within the




meaning of the Clean Water Act and that wetlands are included in the




definition of waters of the United States.  The practice of discharging




garbage from a truck into a wetland would, thus, require an NPDES permit




under Section 402.  The letter also noted that:






     the process of filling wetlands with dredged or fill




     materials or with other solid waste may remove such




     areas from jurisdiction under the FWPCA.  A wetland




     that has been filled may thereby become a upland




     area, and no more longer be- considered waters of




     the United States, although the time in which this




     takes place will depend on the circumstances of




     the particular case.

-------
                                 -2-




Further, it was stated that, to the extent that landfilling creates a


fastland, the fill may be required to contain a 404 permit from the

                                               *.
Corps.




In July of 1977 a memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for


Water Enforcement of the U.S. EPA reiterated the point made by the


General Counsel back in February:




     ...the disposal of solid waste such as garbage


     into wetlands or other waters of the United


     States is an unlawful discharge of pollutants


     unless permitted under Section 402 ...




Also, a landfill in a wetland would likely be required to obtain a 404


permit for the construction of containment structures in the wetland.



In July of 1977 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued final regulations


which related in part to permits under Section 404 for dredge and fill


activities.  That document made official regulation the policy outlined


by the memoranda issued earlier by officials at EPA.  In the supplemen-


tary information section of the regulations, the Corps notes that:



     during the two years of experience with the Section


     404 program, several industrial and municipal dis-


     charges of solid waste materials have been brought


     to our attention which technically fit within our


     definition of "fill material" but which were intended


     to be regulated under the NPDES program.  These


     include the disposal of waste materials such as


     sludge, garbage, trash, and debris into water.   (Federal


     Register, July 19, 1977, page 37130)

-------
                                 -3-






The Corps notes that when the primary purpose of the discharge is waste




disposal, the discharge should be regulated through the NPDES program.




The Corps thereby excluded solid waste or garbage from its definition of




fill material.  They note however that Section 404 permits would be




still required for the containment structures which would be "placed in




the water as part of the overall disposal plan."  Finally, no action




would be taken on the 404 permit until "a decision on the NPDES permit




has been made."






In August of 1978, EPA proposed revisions to its NPDES program, which in




part would revise its program to conform to the policy articulated by




the Corps in July, 1977:






     Consistant with regulations promulgated by the U.S.




     Army Corps of Engineers to govern the Section 404




     permit program, these discharges are subject to the




     NPDES program if their primary purpose is the




     disposal of waste materials rather than changing




     the bottom elevation of a water body.  (Federal




     Register, August 21, 1978, page 37079)






Meanwhile, in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act




of 1976, Section 4004, the Office of Solid Waste at EPA was developing




criteria for classification of land disposal facilities and elected to




address in the criteria certain kinds of "environmentally sensitive




areas."  Wetlands were chosen as one such environmentally sensitive area




because "EPA feels these areas are natural assets (have beneficial




qualities) which are not adequately protected by the six other criteria."




(Federal Register, February 6, 1978, page 4945).  Consequently in

-------
                                 Bi-






section 257.3-1(a) EPA states that a sanitary landfill should not be




located in a wetland unless:






     (1)  the facility obtains an NPDES' permit under




          Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution




          Control Act Amendments of 1972 and






     (2)  if ...  a type of containment structure is




          to be placed in the water as part of the




          disposal activity,  the facility obtains the




          permit issued under ... Section 404.






In August 1978 the EPA Enforcement Office drafted a policy guidance




document explaining how a landfill operator can apply for an NPDES




permit for a landfill in a wetland.  This policy guidance was developed




in response to requests from several groups including the NSWMA who




were critical that although landfill operators were required to get a




402 permit, there was no procedure by which these permits could be




obtained, and further it was not clear to landfill operators where the




point source is in a landfill.






In this policy guidance memorandum, however, EPA did not seem to be




primarily addressing the question of the discharge of pollutants into




the water.  EPA stated (on page 8) that






     solid waste is not susceptible to the same kind




     of treatment technology traditionally applied to




     industrial effluent waste streams.  We are not




     dealing with a waste stream that can be treated




     to reduce the amount of pollution entering the

-------
     waters of the U.S.  A decision to allow a discharge




     of solid waste would have an irreversible adverse




     effect on waters of the U.S., i.e., the elimination




     of these waters.






In other words what EPA is regulating here is not the transmission of




polluted materials into the waters but the protection of wetlands.  The




NPDES permit, then, is being used to prevent the filling of wetlands.




It should be recognized that a responsible landfill operator is not




likely to site a new sanitary landfill in a wetland, unless if there is




no economically feasible alternative in accordance with Section 4004




of RCRA. -






In reviewing this brief history of this issue,  it appears that what may




have been an attempt to achieve consistency in regulations between the




Permits Division at EPA with the Office of Solid Waste at EPA and the




U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has instead resulted in the evolution of a




policy that runs far afield of the original problem.  The development of




this policy is akin to a doctor treating a sprained wrist with a cast -




and then adding successive layers of plaster long after the sprain has




healed.  We should all reexamine the purpose of this wetlands policy.




If we go back to the beginning and look at the statement made by the




General Counsel at EPA, it appears that an attempt was made by the




environmental agency to protect wetlands from promiscuous and uncontrolled




dumping of garbage directly into waters or wetlands of the United States.




Control of such a practice through the NPDES program has a certain




logic; a truck is a point source when it is dumping garbage which contains




pollutants directly into a wetland which is a water of the United States.




And yet somehow from this rather singular concern has mushroomed a

-------
                                 -6--






federal policy which makes a presumption against any kind of  a  land-




filling operation in a wetland regardless of the actual transmission of




pollutants to the water.   This purpose seems contrary to what we perceive




as the purpose of the NPDES program, namely the prevention of discharge




of pollutants into water.






It is certainly more cost effective for Llie landfill operator to




establish a site in an area that is already dry.  However, as you know,




in some parts of the country, notably the Southeastern United States,




much of the land area is wetland and there may be in fact no  alternative




to a wetland as a landfill site.  Also, we recognize that many  years ago




before the environmental value of wetlands was recognized, landfills




were established in wetlands areas and today some of those old  facilities




are still being operated.   In good operating practice, the developer of




a landfill in a wetland, as his first step, will build a containment




structure or dike and dewater the a.rea.  Such structures require a 404




permit.  It is only after the area has been filled in with dirt or made




dry that the operator will begin to put garbage in the site.   In other




words, he is not putting garbage in the water; he is putting it in a




land area that may have at one time met the definition of a wetland but




is no longer wet.  It should be noted that, in the February 9 letter,




the General Counsel of EPA stated that the process of filling wetlands




with materials such as solid waste may make the wetland into a  fastland




and thus remove the area from jurisdiction under the Water Act.  It is




our contention that in a situation such as this when dewatering takes




place the 404 permit may be applicable but that once the nature of the




land has been changed, the NPDES permit is no longer applicable.  In




simple language, it is difficult to design a permit which will prevent

-------
                                 -7-






the pollution of water where there is no water.  In those landfills




designed with a leachate treatment and collection system where there




would be a discrete point discharge into a stream, we would certainly




agree that the NPDES permit would be applicable for that point source.




However, it should not be assumed that all landfills in wetlands have a




point source discharge.  Furthermore it should be clear that the




necessary permits should be applied for and issued in a logical sequence,




which is the reverse of the procedure required by the Corps.  We believe,




in other words, that the 404 permit should be required for the preliminary




construction activity; once the facility is built and a discrete point




source discharge has been identified, then, and only then, would the 402




permit b"e required.






In the policy guidance memorandum, EPA has switched the focus of the




NPDES program from the prevention of water pollution toward the protect-




tion of wetlands.  We contend that the agency has no statutory authority




for such an action.  While the indiscriminate destruction of wetlands is




certainly a practice to be avoided, wetlands are not the only environ-




mental resource, and who is to say that they are the primary environmental




resource to be protected?  A key point which seems to have been lost in




this entire procedure is that sanitary landfills should not automatically




be placed in a class with industrial dischargers.  Sanitary landfills




provide an invaluable environmental service.  Properly operated, they




provide disposal of the waste in an environmentally sound manner so that




the public is protected from exposure to pollutants.  The sanitary




landfill criteria currently being developed by EPA establish strict




standards for the prevention of pollution of ground water, surface

-------
                                 -8-






water, and air and for protection against fires,  explosive gases, and




disease vectors.  Every state,  in order to have a. program which is




approved by EPA, must adopt standards at least as strict.  Additionally,




states currently have regulations specifying operational standards for




sanitary landfills.  And furthermore, where there is a discrete point




discharge into surface water, the federal NPDES permit is applicable.




In other words, there is adequate authority to assure that all sanitary




landfills (including those in wetlands) are not a threat to public




health or the environment.  What is in question here is whether EPA has




the authority to use the NPDES program as a protection of the wetlands




and we contend it does not.






NSWMA urges the EPA to stop the issuance of a final Policy Guidance




Memorandum until there is a resolution to the central issue of whether




the 402 permit is required.  We believe the Corps of Engineers should




reevaluate their position on requiring a 402 permit for a landfill in a




wetland prior to their consideration of a 404 permit application.  We




see no justification for the Corps! of Engineers to exclude solid waste




as one of the fill materials they regulate.  We think that regardless of




the purpose of filling in a wetland, the net result is the same.  It




should not be assumed that solid waste is necessarily more polluted than




other materials which are put into a wetland.  For example, materials




dredged from the bottom of a polluted river and dumped into a wetland




could contain materials far more toxic than municipal refuse.






We are supportive of the provision in the 1977 Clean Water Act Amendments




which enables states to take over the 404 permit process from The Corps,




with the approval of EPA.  We encourage EPA to establish procedures for

-------
transferring 404 permit authority to the states; we will encourage




states to seek this authority.  The integration of the permit process,




preferably at the state level, will help to assure both that the




environment will be protected and that permits can be issued expeditiously.






Further, we feel that the sanitary landfill criteria under Section 4004




of RCRA should not require a 402 permit for every landfill in a wetland.




402 permits should be required for all landfills with a point source




discharge - but the location of the landfill in a wetland is not




relevant.






NSWMA appreciates the opportunity to address the EPA today regarding the




proposed NPDES process for landfills in wetlands.  We recognize that




this issue is extremely complex and has far-reaching impacts.  We urge




you to take the time to seek a solution which is consistent with the




mandate of existing environmental legislation.  We want to assure that




the environment is protected - and that concern for one segment of the




ecosystem, such as wetlands, doesn't cloud our perspective on all other




aspects of environmental protection.

-------
              Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
         FANNIN BANK BLDG. • P.O. BOX 3161 • HOUSTON.TEXAS 77001 • (713)790-1611
                               Presentation

                                   of

                             3ames RfeGreco_
                                Director
                      Government and Industry Affairs
                       Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

                                  at an

                            EPA Public Meeting
                            December 11, 1978
                             Washington, D.C. .

                             with respect to

NPDES PERMITS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN WATERS OF THE U.S.
                United States Environmental Protection Agency
                        Policy Guidance Memorandum
                           August 23, 1978 Draft

-------
       In late August/early September an August 23rd draft policy memorandum
regarding  the "applicability of the NPDES program  to facility operators who
dispose of solid waste in wetlands and other waters of the United States" was
distributed for review and comment to a limited number  of interested parties.
On October  16th comments prepared  by  Browning-Ferris   Industries were
forwarded to the U.S. EPA.  In the November 16th Federal Register issue, EPA
announced that it  would hold this public meeting.  We feel  it important and
noteworthy  to  recognize the  Agency's  decision  to  solicit  greater  public
participation and input regarding  the draft policy memorandum and alternative
approaches for permitting solid waste disposal facilities located or planned to be
located in wetlands areas.  Such public: participation — even when not statutorily
required and also when outside  of the  formal rule-making process — can only
enhance,  in our opinion, sounder Agency decision-making, more practical policy-
formulation, and increased public understanding for the environmental protection
of our nation's waters, land, and public health.

       We acknowledge the" Agency's mandate pursuant to the  Clean Water Act
and its amendments  to restore and  maintain  the  chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.  We also recognize the  objective of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 to prohibit future open
dumps  on the  land and to require the conversion of existing open dumps  to
facilities  which do not pose a danger  to the environment or to health. It is our
understanding that regulations to be promulgated under Section 4004(a) of Public
Law 94-580  will establish criteria for determining which solid waste disposal
facilities  shall be classified as sanitary landfills and  which shall be classified as
open  dumps.   As you're likely aware we have commented extensively  on and
expressed concern about the proposed 4004(a) criteria, particularly  with  respect
to locating facilities in environmentally sensitive areas — and the requirement
that a facility obtain an NPDES permit under Section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution  Control Act Amendments of 1972 or otherwise be classified as an "open
dump". We  have previously  questioned both the legality and practicality of this
requirement and continue to do so. Again, as in our past comments, reference is
made  to  the Frick letter of February 9,  1977 — wherein i.t  is noted  that  an
NPDES permit is not required unless it can be shown that there will be garbage

-------
actually deposited on "wetlands" or a discharge of leachate from the site into
"wetlands".  If garbage is actually deposited or leachate actually discharged into
waters of the U.S.,  we feel many would concur that these practices would and
should constitute "open dumping", be prohibited via the 400
-------
      (2)    For "Sanitary Landfills"                             .
             To be located in wetland*; areas, utilize the 40* permit process for
             converting the area into & fastland, then employing the  appropriate
             state agency permit process for the design, construction, operation,
             monitoring,  and  maintenance  of solid  waste  disposal facilities.
             With this procedure we feel it important that the most  appropriate
             state agency be the "lead agency" regarding permit application for
             the entire process.

      Commensurate  with these suggestions, but necessarily  part  of another
ruiemaking process, we again re-iterate our  comments regarding Section 257.3-
l(aXO of  the  proposed  4004(a)  criteria,  and recommend deletion  of  the
requirement for a facility to obtain a 402 NPDES permit.

      We sincerely feel these recommendations warrant consideration  —  and
that they are within the Agency's legal authority, consistent  with Congressional
mandates, and in pursuit of our nation's environmental goals.
(As in any decision-making process questions may arise and interpretations may
warrant further clarification  — if so, we're willing to ...)

-------
ygggg

        National  Wildlife Federation
2 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C 20036                                 Phone: 202—7S7-6800
            COKM37TS CF THE NKEXCNAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION


               ON "THE DISPOSAL FACTXTITES IN WETLANDS


                    DRAFT POLICY GUIDANCE"


               CF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                          Prepared and sufanitted by:
                                               S. Ksralet
                                          Patrick A. Parenteau
                                          Counsel
                                          Decenfcer 11, 1978

-------
                             Introduction
     The National Wildlife Federation ("NWF") hereby contents on the "Disposal
Facilities in Wetlands" draft policy guidance of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") as solicited in the Federal Register (43, Fed.  Beg.,
53495, November 16, 1978).
Interest of the "NWF"
     The National Wildlife Federation is a nationwide conservation education
organization with headquarters in. Washington, D.C. and over two million members
in the fifty states, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.  NWF is the
largest conservation organization in America.  The Federations associate members
and members of its state affiliate organizations regularly -use and enjoy  fish,
waterfowl and other aquatic resources for fishing, birdwatching, hunting,
scientific research, photography and a wide range of aesthetic, educational
and recreational purposes^  The destruction or degradation of waters of the
United States including wetlands caused by the unregulated disposal of solid
waste directly and adversely affects the interests of these members.
                               Garments
     EPA is required by law to recognize the disposal of solid waste (including
garbage) as a point source discharge of pollution, and to regulate these  activities.
The disposal constitutes pollution per se in that it places pollutants (garbage
et. al,) into and irrevocably displaces and destroys wetlands (waters of  the U.S.).
Moreover, there are serious leachate and runoff problems associated with these
disposal activities which are also pollutant discharges.  Thus, NWF strongly
supports the regulation of the disposal of solid waste into wetlands through
the NPDES permit program -under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA")
 (Pub. L. 95-217) and the promulgation of effluent limitations under Sections
301 and 304.

-------
     The Federation further believes that EPA needs to address the disposal of
solid waste on a comprehensive level for all waters of the United States,  giving
consideration to Sections 403 and 40!i of the CWA and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub, L. 94-580) ("BCRA").  As EPA intensifies its
regulation of these other wetlands djjsposal activities, it should not let. solid
waste disposal slip through the crack.
      Applicability ~ Intent of the Discharge
     Any determination of whether the NPDES program appliess to a disposal activity
should not be decided based on the subjective intent of the discharger, but rather
should be based solely on the nature of the discharged material.  In the past,
the intent approach has led to unauthorized garbage disposal activities.  The
situation in north Biscayne Bay (Florida) is a good example.  The City of North
Miami was issued a ง404 permit by the Corps to fill in approximately 100 acres
of wetlands which eventually would begone a municipal golf course".  The under-
standing was that clean fill would be used.  In fact, North Miami has used the
site for garbage disposal resulting in the filling of 60 acres of wetlands.
•North Miami could argue that it is cornplying with applicable requirements because
it had the "intent to fill* and thus its activities were authorized by the 404
permit.  It can be seen that allowing intent to govern the applicability of the
NPDES program leads to regulatory ambiguity and often to a failure to regulate
at all.  Furthermore, the intent approach would allow the discharger to shop
around for the "best deal".  What is needed is a definition of solid waste as
a pollutant, subject to regulation under Section 402:  for openers, solid waste
would include such things as garbage  (domestic., rounicipal, industrial) , trash
and sludge.  These materials would be distinguished frcm "fill" materials
regulated under Section 404:  consisting of clean rock, sand, cellar dirt and
other materials similar in nature to dredged spoil,  A detailed regulatory

-------
 definition of the two terms en an objective basis would put everyone on notice



 regarding applicability of Section 402 of the CWA to solid viaste disposal



 activities and would go a long way toward diminishing unauthorized discharges



 of solid waste.



      We understand that in sons cases Section 404 permits would be required for



 solid waste disposal activities subject also to NPDES review because of dredging



 activities conducted as part of dike installations.   Procedures should be de-



 veloped for joint review here to avoid unnecessary delays, while ensuring full



 consideration of the statutory factors.





 Regulations Ace Needed - Effluent Guidelines



      Even if EPA is successful in implementing the wetlands policy in the



 draft memorandum througn guidance to its regional offices as permit issuers,



 a potential loophole still exists.  There are 30 states which have been approved



 by EPA, under Section 402 of the CWA, to administer  the NPDES program.   Hie



 administrative authority granted the states includes the issuance of NPDES permits



 subject to EPA review.  Two recent circuit court cases support the reading that



' EPA has limited review authority under Section 402 (d)  over state-issued NPDES



 permits.  Ford Motor Coapany v. EPA, 567 F. 2d 661 (6th Cir.  1977);  State of



 Washington v. EPA, 573 F. 2d 583 (9th Cir. 1978}. In essence, EPA may only object



 to (veto) state permits if the permit violates a statutory or regulatory require-



 ment.  A policy guidance memorandum, according to the courts, is not such a



 regulatory requirement.  Should an approved NPDES state choose not to implement



 EPA's policy regarding solid waste disposal in wetlands it seems as though EPA



 would have difficulty keeping the state in line.



      The approach that must be taken by EPA to assure the effectiveness of



 regulation of solid waste disposal on a national level is through the issuance



 of regulations, in particular by prcraulgating effluent limitation guidelines for

-------
the solid waste point source category under Sections 301 eand 304  of the CWA,
Ill this regard, we support the "zero discharge" approach of the memorandum.
In support of zero discharge, it is important to note that the application of
zero discharge requirements was recognized by the Congress in enacting the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 95-200).f/  Alternative
means of disposal such as upland sanitary landfills, incineration and resource
recovery are examples of technologies; which, if applied to the disposal of
solid waste, would result in zero discharge and which therefore,  would justify
a zero discharge effluent limitation.
     There nay be technical and administrative problems associated with imposing
the suggested zero discharge limitation on a national scope.  Oftese problems,
though, should not rule out a no discharge limitation.  EPA's technology-based
exemption from the best practicable central technology currently  available
 ("BPT") may be a reasonable approach to this problem of regulatory rigidity.
The technology-based exemption from t:he guidelines allowing disposal  into
wetlands should be determined solely on the basis of no f easible  technical
alternative  (which would include the availability of alternative  upland sites).
The alternatives study concept of the; memorandum embodies such an approach.
The exemption should be interpreted narrowly and should be limited to technical
considerations as contrasted to econcanic factors.
     NKF is opposed to any cost exemption from the zero discharge guidelines
unless authorized by Section 301 (c) of the CWA.  Cost considerations  of this
kind are addressed in the development of the guidelines, not when the guidelines
are. applied to the discharge.
_/  93rd Congress 1st Session, Cfcrrmittee Print, A Legislative History of the
     Water Pollution Control Act. Amendments of 1972, prepared by the Environmental
     Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congres
     January, 1973, Serial No. 93-1, at 162, 163 and 260.

-------
     The "no alternatives" approach of the memorandum is deficient in one
important aspect.  If zero discharge is not technically feasible (e.g. there is
no practicable alternative upland disposal site),  EPA should require a compre-
hensive review of potential wetland disposal sites in each case.  Review of the
alternative sites should, at a minimum, include factors such as wildlife and
vegetation diversity, water quality, fish, shellfish and the recreational aspects
of the site.  The site selected should be the one  which causes the least adverse
environmental impact on these resources on an individual and cumulative basis.
Interim Measures
     The issuance of regulations to control solid  waste discharges may take EPA
months (perhaps years).  During this period the uncertainty which has existed
regaiding EPA*s authority and responsibility will  continue resulting in additional
unauthorized discharges.  In the meantime, to cover the gap between now and the
promulgation of regulations, we suggest that EPA take the following interim
actions to assure to the maximum extent possible that unauthorized solid waste
activities will not happen:
      (1)  Issue the draft policy meniorandum with changes suggested in these
     comments to establish a uniform EPA regulatory position.
      (2)  Enter into a "Memorandum of tfaderstanding" xvith the Corps which would
      (a) require EPA and the Corps to notify one another upon receipt of an
     application of a permit for solid waste activity, (b)  require EPA and the
     Corps to notify one another of any known unauthorized activities,
      (c)  establish among EPA and the Corps a national uniform approach to
     regulating these disposal activities, and (d)  clarify EPA/Corps jurisdiction.
      (3)  Encourage NPEES states to implement the  policies of the memorandum
     and to the degree possible, within legal constraints,  require state compliance.

-------
Overlap - Sections 402 and 404 of tba CWA
     As discussed above, EPA is required by law to regulate solid waste disposal
into wetlands under Section 402 of the CWA.  There are circumstances where the
disposal of solid waste is also subjesct to Section 404 of the CWA.   According to
Corps regulations, any material used for the primary purpose of replacing an
aquatic area with dry land or of changing the bottom elevation is "fill material"
and requires a Section 404 permit to be discharged into waters of the United States.
33 CFR งง323.3 Cm) and 323.3.  If a discharger wants to fill a wetland to alter its
use and wishes to accomplish this by filling the area with solid waste, a 404
permit must be obtained.  Apparently, in situations such  as thisr an NPEES permit
and 404 permit are required.  The issuance of the 404 permit does not excuse
EPA  (or an NPDES state) from meeting its statutory duties.
     The joint permit situation outlined above would require close  coordination
between EPA and the Corps to eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements,
duplicative paper works, and-overly burdensome permit issuance procedures.
Such problems could be ironed out in an EPA/Corps memorandum of understanding.
Section 404 (b) &tfcfc*l ines
     The draft memorandum recognizes joint EPA/Corps authority over solid waste
disposal tinder certain circumstances, but fails to realize the importance of the
alternatives approach to the Section 404 permit program,   thder Section 404 (b),
Corps-issued permits must comply with guidelines developed by EPA.   The guidelines
are based on environmental criteria found under Section 403 (c) of the CWA.
Cue  of tile. ITS*-*** criteria requires that the guidelines include "other possible
locations and methods of disposal or recycling of pollutants including land-
based alternatives'1  C Section 403 (c) (1) CF) of the CWA). This alternatives re*-
quirement directly supports and. requires the incorporation^ of the "feasible
alternatives" approach of the memorandum into the Section 404 (b) guidelines.

-------
     Wfe understand that EPA is in the process of revising the 404 (b)
guidelines (which are contained in 40 CFR Part 230).  We urge EPA to  .
include in the revised guidelines a feasible a3.ternatives approach to
the disposal of solid waste in wetlands including the concept that the
discharge of solid waste for the purpose of filling a wetland would not
comply with the 404 (fo) guidelines if feasible alternatives to wetland
disposal exist (eซ.g. upland disposal).

New and JSclsticig Facilities - rEhe Draft Memorandum Approach
     EPA's approach to disposal activities at new sites (as opposed to
ongoing operations) appears to be a satisfactory approach to minimize
future destruction of wetlands by the discharge of solid waste without
unreasonably burdening existing operations.  Our endorsement of course
is predicated on the issuance of regulations as discussed above.
     ?fe have a problem with the definitional distinction of new and .
existing facilities.  According to the draft roanorandunv, those areas
of an existing facility which are not "substantially converted11 are
new and are subject to the more stringent requirements for new facilities.
5nis is acceptable, however, EPA needs to clarify the tens "substantially
converted".  We suggest that if the area maintains any characteristics
ccranon to wetlands including the area's ability to support habitat similar
to adjacent or nearby wetlands, that substantial conversion has not
occurred.

-------
     EPA proposes to issue interim permits to existing facilities.  We understand
that the interim permit procedure nay !ซ necessary f ran a viewpoint of reasonable
exercise of regulatory responsibility lay EPA,  Reporting and compliance  schedules
would be iitposed in the interim permits requiring the preparation of an  alternatives
study by the discharger within one year of issuance of the  interim permit.  A
                      r
year is too long (we suggest 6 months or a shorter period if necessary,  based
on the rate and nature of the fill and, the area involved) unless EPA requires
that disposal at the facility be greatly curtailed or limited to areas which  have
been conpletely filled.
Enf
     NNF is concerned about EPA"s intentions regarding disposal activities which
have occurred since enactment of the [Federal Water Pollution Control Act of  1972
and were not authorized under Section 402 or Section 404.  NWP believes that
waters of the U.S. which are or were illegally filled remain waters of the U.S.  .
These discharges which have occurred since enactment of the  IWPCA- are  clearly
illegal and we urge that EPA consider appropriate enf orcanent actions  and
restoration of these wetlands on a case-by-case basis in consideration of the
damage done (acres filled) , nature of the disposal, material  and the dischargers
efforts to ccqply with the CWA.
     We appreciate the opportunity to content on the policy  guidance roenorandum.
We, encourage EPA to get on with it and fully meet its statutory responsibilities
by adopting regulations, issuing peimts and bringing appropriate enforcement
actions,  NWF stands ready to assist EPA in this effort in any way it  can.
                                                Patrick A. Parenteau
                                                Counsel

-------
                        Attendees  -  Public  Meeting
                   Draft Policy  Guidance  Memorandum for
                Permits  for  Solid  Waste Disposal Facilities
                      in Waters  of the United States
                             December  11,  1978
                             Washington,  D.C.
 Abbott,  Seth  J.,  Jr.
 Manager
 Conservation  Group
 Atlantic Richfield  Company
 Post  Office Box  2819
 Dallas,  Texas  75221

 Adams, O.H.
 Director
 Commonwealth  of  Virginia
 Department of Health
 Division of Engineering
 Madison  Building
 109 Governor  Street
 Richmond, Virginia  23219

 Andres,  Donald
 KMCON
 1420  Roll Circle
 San Jose, California   95112

 Austin,  John  D.,  Jr.
 Counsel
 American Mining  Congress
'1200  18th Street, N.W.
 Washington, D.C.  20036

 Bailey,  William  A., PhD.
 SCS Engineers
 11800 Sunrise Valley  Drive
 Suite 432
 Reston,  Virginia 22091

 Batchelder, Francis J. , P.E.
 Environmental Engineering  Division
 American Electric Power Service
   Corporation
 2  Broadway
 New York, New York  10004

 Boltz, David  G.
 Senior Pollution Control Engineer
 Industrial Relations  Department
 Bethlehem Steel  Corporation
 Bethlehem, Pennsylvania  18016
Burch, Carey W.
Enviroplan Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia  22151

Burnett, Barbara
Office of Congressman Long
Director, Special Projects
2445 Rayburn, HOB
Washington, D.C.  20515

Caple, Arthur
Maryland State Environmental
  Health Administration
Chief, Solid Waste
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland  20212

Carlson, Elaine
Congressional Research Service/
  Library of Congress
Research Assistant
10 1st Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C.  20540

Carpenter, Wally
Environmental Engineer
Division of Environmental Planning
Tennessee Valley Authority
272 401 Building
Chattanooga, Tennessee  37401

Ciavattieri, Frank
EPA Region I
Enforcement Division
Boston, Massachusetts  02103

Custis, Glenn W., P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Control Department
Reynolds Metals Company
6601 W. Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia  23261

-------
Dawson, Russell A.
Senior Editor
BPI
P.O. Box 1067
818 Roeder Road
Silver Spring, Maryland
20910
DeVille, William B.
Louisiana Governor's Office/OSTEP
Manager, Research and Development
P.O. Box 44066
Baton Rouge, Louisiana  70804

Dollard, Elizabeth M.
Director, Policy Research
National Solid Wastes Management
  Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 930
Washington, D.C.  20036

Doyle, John
Public Works Committee, U.S. House
  of Representatives
Minority Counsel, Subcommittee on
  Water Resources
Rayburn House Office Building 2165
Washington, D.C.  20215

Dunn, J.J. , Jr.
Executive Secretary
Institute for Solid Wastes
American Public Works Association
1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Farrington, Edmond H.
Kerr-McGee Corporation
605 Commonwealth Building
1625 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Florence, Lois
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036
Gilchrist, James E.
Counsel
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas  77001

.Gilley, William F., P.E.
Director
Division, Solid and Hazardous
  Waste Management
Commonwealth of Virginia
Madison Building
109 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia  23219

Giroir, E.A., Jr.
Police Juror
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury
Houma, Louisiana  70356

Gordon, Ruthanne
Student Intern
National Wildlife Federation
16th and 0 Streets, N.W.
Washington,, D.C.  20001

Greco, James R.
Director
Government and Industry Affairs
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc
Fannin Bank Building
Houston, Texas  77030

Guidry, Eulin
Police Juror
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury
P.O. Box 4035
Houma, Louisiana  70361

Gulledge, William P.
Engineering-Science
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia  22102

Harris, Jim
Attorney
General Portland, Inc.
2300 Republic Bank Building
Portland, Oregon  75201

-------
Hickman, H. Lanier, Jr., P.E.
Executive Director
Governmental Refuse Collection
  and Disposal Association
1629 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Israelsen, O. Allen, P.E.
Corporate Business Development
Bovay Engineers, Inc.
1730 North Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia  22209

Jaffe, Adam B.
Science Monitor
Environmental Defense Fund
475 Park Avenue South
New York, New York  10016

Jorgensen, Stan R.
Solid Waste Program
EPA Region 6
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas  75270

Kant, Edward J., P.E.
Loureiro Engineering Associates
20 Tower Lane
Avon Park South
Avon, Connecticut  06001

King, James J.
Environmental Coordinator
Florida Power and Light Company
P.O. Box 529100
Miami, Florida  33152

Kratsas, Dr. Robert G.
Ecologist
Standard Oil Company
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois  60601

Krug, Gene
Department of Energy
Policy Analyst
20 Massachusetts Avenue, Rm.6134
Washington, D.C.  20545
Lowrey, W.C.
Washington Representative
Shell Oil Company
Suite 200
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Matthews, Terry
National Governor3 Association
Director, Waste Management
  Project
444 North Capitol Street
Washington, D.C.  20001

McAnulty, John
Coast Guard
Chemical Engineering
100-2nd Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  22041

Moon, Daniel K.
Corporate Development
Rollins Environmental Services,
  Inc.
One Rollins Plaza
Wilmington, Delaware  19899

Moyer, William F.
Manager, Wetlands Section
Department of Natural Resources
  and Environmental Control
Edward Tatnall Building
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware  19901

Muth, Harold D.
Vice-President
Government Relations
The American Waterways
  Operators, Inc.
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia  22209

Palmer, Philip A., P.E.
Consultant
Environmental Engineering
E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company
Wilmington, Delaware  19898

-------
Parker, Hampton M.,  Phd.
Technical Manager, Environmental
  Affairs
Union Carbide Corporation
270 Park Avenue
New York, New York  10017

Parsons, Stanley
Attorney
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois  62706

Pogell, Suzanne
Public Affairs Director
Chesapeake Bay Center for
  Environmental Studies
137 Conduit Street
Annapolis, Maryland  21401

Quillin, Lieutenant
OCE
Reg. Functions
Forrestal Building
Washington, D.C.  20003

Rieker, Jim
Environmental Engineer
Mobil Oil
.150 E 42nd Street
New York, New York  10017

Rood, R. Fenton
Oklahoma State Department of
  Health
Industrial and Solid Waste Div.
N.E. 10th and Stonewall
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73105

Schneider
Senior Special Assistant
The Council of State Governments
Environmental Resources
Iron Works Pike
Lexington, Kentucky  40578
Schroeder, Stephen H.
Attorney
Natural Resources Defense
  Council, Inc.
917-15th Street, N.W.           '
Washington, D.C.  20005

Sebree, David B.
Energy and Environment Division
Legal Department
E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company
Wilmington, Delaware  19898

Segal, Harvey L.
General Physical Scientist
HQ USAF/LEEVP
Washington, D.C.  20330

Sexton, George L.
Coordinator
Environmental Controls
BETZ
Trevose, Pennsylvania  19047

Shaw, Judith G.
Senior Environmental Affairs
  Associate
American Petroleum Institute
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20037

Shelton, Lori
Trends Publishing
Writer/Editor
233 National Press Building
Washington, D.C.  20045

Sidbury, Anne
Solid Waste Project
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Simmons, Donald W.
Engineer-Environmental Control
National Steel Corporation
2800 Grant Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  15219

-------
Smalley, Daniel  H.
Staff Biologist
U.S. Fish  and Wildlife  Service
18th and C Streets,  N.W.
Washington,  D.C.   20240

Smith, Gabe
Attorney
Utility Water Act. Group
700 Main Street
Richmond,  Virginia  23225

Smith, Peter
Federal Agency Liaison
OFA-EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington,  D.C.   20460

Smith, Turner T.
Attorney
Hunton and Williams
Box 1535
Richmond,  Virginia  23212

Spiegel, Don
Environmental Engineer
Versar, Inc.
6621 Electronic  Drive
Springfield, Virginia   22152

Steen, Sharon L.
.Attorney
DeBevoise  and Liberman
1200 17th  Street,  N.W.
Washington,  D.C.   20036

Seilley, Johnny  J.,  P.E.
Director
Terrebonne Parish  Police Jury
Department of Public Works
500 School Street
P.O. Box 4035
Houma, Louisiana   70360

Thibodaux,  Horace  J.
T. Baker Smith & Son, Inc.
550 South  Van Avenue
P.O. Box 2266
Houma, Louisiana   70360
Toothaker, Anne M.
General Electric Company
Building 36, Room 120
Schenectady, New York  12345

Turgeon
HWMD, EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Wyche, Bradford W.
Attorney
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1320 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20035

Zoll, David F.
Attorney
American Petroleum Institute
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20037
                 ya!783
                 SW-47p
                 Order no. 742
                                                 GPO 938 308

-------

-------