United States Office of Sohd Waste
Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460
Agency
Solid Waste
v°/EPA Public Hearing
on Proposed Landfill
Disposal Guidelines
Houston, Texas
May 17, 1979
Transcript
-------
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on Proposed Landfill Disposal Guidelines
Section 1008(a)
May 17, 1979
Houston, Texas
Tnis hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-54p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
1 OPENING REMARKS: Mr. Bill Hathaway
Chief, Solid Waste Branch
2 Air and Hazardous Materials Division
EPA Region VI
3 Dallas, Texas
4 PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:
5 Mr. Truett Deceare, chairman
Chief, Land Protection Branch
Land Disposal Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Mr. Bernard Stoll
Program Manager, Land Protection Branch
9 Office of Solid Waste, EPA
10
Mr. Bill Hathaway
Chief, Solid waste Branch
12 EPA Region VI Dallas, Texas
13
14 Mr. Wayne Tusa
Manager, solid Waste Group
Fred C. Hart Association, N. Y.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
I SPEAKERS
2 PAGE
3 Dr. Geoffrey Stanford 14
Director, Greenhills Foundation
4 Cedar Hill, Texas
5 S. Norman Keston 23
Assistant to the vice-president
6 ASARCO, Inc.
New York, N. Y.
7
Dr. David Marrack 33
8 Physician
Bellaire, Texas
9
Don Betterton 51
10 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Washington, D. C.
11
Bill Lewis 62
12 Chairman, Natural Resources & Energy Committee
House of Representatives
13 Phoenix, Arizona
14 Jack Westney 65
Houston chamber of Commerce
15 Houston, Texas
16 James R. Greco 69
Director, Government and Industry Affairs
17 Browning-Ferris Industries
Houston, Texas
18 !
Herbert C. McKee 76 & 80
19 Assistant Health Director
City of Houston, Texas
20
Enrique Quevedo 77
21 Chief, Public Health Engineering Bureau
City of Houston, Texas
22
Becky True , on behalf of 88
23 Angus MacPhee
President, Disposal industries. Inc.
24 Newberg, Oregon
25
-------
1 SPEAKERS (Continued)
PAGE
2 Steven Taub 90
Vice-president, Process & Engineering
3 Development
Stablex corporation
4
William c. Hutton 100
5 Texas Chemical council
6
Richard S. Barnett 105
7 Senior Geologist
J. M. Huber Corporation
g Houston, Texas
9
Leroy Chevalier 111
Northeast organization for Progress
Houston, Texas
11
12 Frances Jo Pelley 114
Texoma Regional Planning commission
13 Denison, Texas
14
Dr. James parker 130
La Marque, Texas
16
STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
Dr. Geoffrey Stanford, Director, Greenhills Center
Cedar Hill, Texas
18
D. Marrack, M.D., Bellaire, Texas
19
Don Better-ton, USWAG
20
Jack Westney, Houston Chamber of Commerce
James R. Greco, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
22 Becky True for Angus MacPhee, Disposal Industries, Inc.
23 W. Hutton, Texas Chemical Council
Richard S. Barnett, J.M. Huber Corp., Houston, Texas
Bruce McCandless-K. Orr, Houston Audobon Society
-------
1 .PROCEEDING^
2 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
3 Good Morning. If I could have your
4 attention, please, 1 would like to open the record for
5 this public hearing being held by the Environmental Pro-
6 tection Agency regarding proposed Guidelines for the
7 Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste.
8 My name is Truett DeGeare. I am with
9 EPA's Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D. C., and I
10 will be serving as Chairman of the Agency's Panel today.
11 I would like to first introduce Mr. Bill
12 Hathaway, who is chief of our Solid waste Branch in our
13 Region VI Office in Dallas, Texas.
14 Bill.
15 MR. BILL HATHAWAY:
16 Thank you, Truett.
17 Good Morning, and welcome to Region VI in
18 Houston.
19 I am not really sure how much of an en-
20 rollment we have from outside the Region, but, as you all
21 probably know, this is only one of two hearings to be held
22 on this particular set of regulations in the United States,
23 and this is the second of those two hearings, the first
24 being in Washington.
25 We in Region VI are very proud to sponsor
-------
1 this hearing. We have been very adamant throughout
2 regulation setting that some of the hearings be held in
3 our Region because we feel we have a very important Region
4 and that there are very important things to be said by
5 the people in the Region. So, I am glad for the turnout
6 for that reason. We had indicated that if the hearing was
7 held here, we would have a good turnout and, obviously that
8 is the case.
9 Mrs. Harrison could not be here this
10 morning and so she asked me to give the Opening Remarks
11 and to tell you that she also welcomes you here and
12 appreciates your involvement and co-operation and would
13 encourage you to co-operate and participate. she is very
14 big on public participation and supports it in every way,
15 as do the rest of us in the Region, and at Headquarters,
16 for that matter. EPA is very participation-oriented
17 and we are trying very hard to get everyone's comments
18 into the Record.
19 As you know, the Resource Conservation
20 and Recovery Act is some two and a half years old now
2i and is a very complicated Act.
22 The particular set of regulations that we
23 are dealing with today are the landfill criteria regula-
24 tions, not to be confused with the -- excuse me -- the
25 landfill guideline regulation, not to be confused with
-------
7
criteria regulation, which is to be promulgated under 4004
2 of the Act. I already got confused myself. So, it is
3 pretty obvious that it is not hard to do.
We have a whole series of regulations
5 that are being promulgated through the various stages of
, their life in this particular Act, and we are asking your
7 participation in all of them. They are all very im-
portant and only through a great deal of participation
can we gain good knowledge so that we can conduct our jobs
in a sound environmental and economical fashion.
So, with that, I would just say thanks
again for coming and do participate throughout the hearing
12 and after the hearing in all of our other activities.
Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
I would like to take care of a couple of
17 housekeeping chores, and, hopefully, introduce you a little
bit further to what we are doing today.
First, I would like to make sure that
20 all of you can hear me in the back of the room. At any
2) point in today's proceedings you cannot hear us, feel
22 free to just raise your hand and we will try to speak
23 up and accomodate you.
24 Today's meeting is scheduled to extend
25 until 4:00 P. M. and we anticipate a lunch break at about
-------
1 noon.
2 We have divided the room into Smoking
3 and Nonsmoking Sections and we would appreciate it if
4 the smokers could sit to my left and the nonsmokers on
5 my right.
j The guidelines that we are concerned
7 with today are proposed under the authority of Section
8 1008(a)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as Amended
9 by The Resource conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
10 that is. Public Law 94580, affectionately known as RCRA.
11 The guidelines were published as proposed
12 regulations in the Federal Register on March the 26th of
13 this year.
14 Copies of the proposed regulation and the
15 Act itself are available at the registration desk.
16 A draft Environmental Impact Statement on
17 the Proposed Guidelines has also been prepared and it
18 can be obtained at the registration desk, also. We are
19 running low on copies, but if we run out, we will be
20 happy to send you copies later from Washington.
2i The announcement of the availability
22 of the EIS was published in the Federal Register on
23 April the 6th, 1979.
24 The closing date for public comment on
25 the regulation and the draft EIS is May 25, 1979.
-------
9
] All comments on the proposed regulation
2 and the draft EIS must be postmarked on or before that
3 date.
4 In finalizing the guidelines, we will
5 be considering all written comments, as well as testi-
mony presented at the two public hearings.
You can contribute to our process either
8 by making a statement here today or by submitting the
9 written comments today or by mail before May 25.
Our meeting today is one of two public
hearings. Announcement of the hearings was published
12 in the Federal Register on March 26th, along with the
13 proposed regulation.
The public hearing today is being held
not primarily to inform the public, nor necessarily to
defend the proposed guidelines, but, rather, to obtain
,7 the public's response and viewpoints regarding the
proposed guidelines and the accompanying draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement. Thereafter, we will be con-
sidering the public's response and viewpoints in
21 revising the guidelines as appropriate.
22 promulgation of the guidelines in final
23 form will fulfill in part the requirement of Section
24 1008(a)(1) of RCRA, to promulgate guidelines which
"provide a technical and economic description of the
-------
10
1 level of performance that can be attained by various solid
2 waste management practices, including operating practices,
3 which provide for the protection of public health and
4 the environment.
5 In accordance with Section 1008 of
RCRA, this proposed regulation has been proposed as
"Suggested Guidelines" and are, therefore, advisory and
not mandatory.
In promulgating these guidelines EPA
is certifying that they represent sound solid waste
management practices.
12 In many cases, application of the
13 practices outlined in the guideline should enable com-
pliance with the Section 4004 criteria for classification
of solid waste disposal facilities. However, use of
the practices described in the guidelines does not
17 provide a general guarantee of a landfill disposal
18 facilities compliance with the criteria.
19 Similarly, in the case of landfills
20 for the disposal of hazardous waste, information con-
tained in the guideline is only relevant to a hazardous
22 waste disposal facility to the extent that it provides
23 an explanation or elaboration on practices which may
24 also be appropriate to Section 3004 of the Act.
25 Because of the relationship between
-------
11
these guidelines and the regulations of Section 3004 and
2 4004 of the Act, some of your comments may well relate to
3 those two regulations.
4 Your comments pertaining to the proposed
5 guidelines will, of course, be considered in developing
the final guidelines. However, since public comment
periods on both proposed 3004 and 4004 regulations have
closed, we cannot at this hearing entertain comments
9 or discussion on the 3004 and 4004 regulations.
10 EPA is maintaining an official record
of all comments received during the public comment
12 period. This record is referred to as Docket 1008.1.
13 All comments to be placed in the public record should
14 be addressed to the Office of Solid Waste, Mail code
WH 564, Environmental protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
16 20460; attention: Bernard stoll. Docket 1009.1. This
mailing address may also be found in the Federal Register
18 proposed Regulation.
This hearing is being recorded and a
2Q verbatim transcript will be placed in the docket for
our use in developing the final regulation.
22 The docket is available for public
23 review during normal working hours at EPA Headquarters
24 in Washington.
25 The purpose of this hearing is for the
-------
12
public to present their views on this proposed regulation.
2 We will start with those parties who have requested to
3 make a formal statement. I ask that each individual limit
his statement to approximately ten minutes. if you have
a longer written statement, you may submit it. It
will be published in its entirety in the transcript.
- We invite anyone here in attendance
to direct questions to persons making statements. in
order to do this, we would ask you to use the cards
which are available at the registration desk. On these
.. cards you should write your question and submit those
.. to the panel so that we can address those to those making
the statements.
At the end of the hearing, after we
have heard all of the statements, we will provide an
opportunity for those of you who wish to ask questions
17 of the members of the Panel, once again, we ask that
you submit your questions in writing on the cards which
are available.
20 We will supply transcripts of this
2] hearing to those of you who request one by contacting
22 our representatives at the registration desk.
23 In making your statements today, we
24 would ask that you please use the podium for your
25 notes and so that everyone in the room can hear you.
-------
13
1 If you have written prepared remarks, we
2 would ask that you please provide them in advance to your
3 making your oral remarks to the reporter for use in
4 providing an accurate transcript.
5 Also, we would ask that you please state
your name and affiliation.
I would like at this time to introduce
the other Panel Members. You have already heard from
9 Bill Hathaway. To his left is Bernard Stoll, who is with
10 our Washington, D. C. Office of Solid Waste; and to his
left is Mr. Wayne Tusa, who is with Fred c. Hart
Associates this firm was involved in assisting us in
developing the draft Environmental impact Statement and
they will also be working with us in developing the
15 final EIS.
Are there any questions regarding the
way we are going to proceed today?
(No response.)
)9 All right. We will go right ahead with
20 the individuals who have requested time to provide state-
ments at the hearing. The first is Dr. Geoffrey Stanford.
22
23
24
25
-------
14
1 STATEMENT OF DR. GEOFFREY STANFORD
2 DR. GEOFFREY STANFORD:
3 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Dr. Geoffrey
5 Stanford. I am trained and practice as a physician and
, surgeon and I now practice public Health and Preventive
, Medicine through Environmental Planning.
g I am Director of the Greenhills
g Environmental Research center in Dallas, we operate
,Q on a thousand acres of land under the patronage of
.. Fox and Jacobs, whom you know as housebuilders here
in Texas.
We do environmental studies and
research. For example, I am the fortunate recipient
of a research grant from the EPA to study the use of
refuse and sewage sludge on soils as a soil manure.
., As a matter of fact, our trial grounds are only forty
]8 minutes away from here, and I would be glad to show
our results to any of you today or tomorrow.
The crop yield, using those materials,
is about two and three quarter times greater than with
other wastes, than with chemical fertilizers presently.
_ we have another grant from the National
,. Center for Petro (phonetic) Technology to study a
-I novel way of generating bio gas from waste.
-------
15
Now, turn to your documents. I find them
2 excellent. Under "Back-up EIS,' it seems to me a most
3 eloquent idea to get more information before the public
4 in a practical and useful way -- a valuable document.
5 So, with that over-all comment, any other
i comments I made must seem to be rather like nit-picking,
7 to me, anyway. But we want to remind ourselves, in other
societies which are in better harmony with nature than
we are, nits are an esteemed article of diet. We now
know that nits and other insects provide in their skins
essential protein which is not readily available to
those societies in the food they have. And, for the
same reason, the Indians of San Francisco Bay ate
grasshoppers in large quantities. And suddenly one
realizes why our supermarkets, in the gourmet section,
,, offer us ants dipped in chocolate.
I hope that my intellectual remarks
18 today in the form of nit-picking are equally acceptable
to you for your intellectual activity.
So, I am turning now to Page 53 of
the EIS on the clay liner where you say that because
22 of drying out and cracking risks, the clay liner should
23 be installed only as spill construction progresses.
24 Now, that's sound logic, but, unfortunately, the
25 compactor working from below up the refuse space is
-------
16
1 backing, ensuing down at the bottom to take the next cut,
2 as you might say, the next compression line. So, it is
3 going to make the clay, break the clay lining and disrupt
4 the thickness layer quite considerably, and that will
5 require some further thought.
Then you realize that many landfills,
operators cut and fill where the spoil from the cut is
used to cover the fill and, therefore, it can only be
operated in this way. So, this recommendation, in many
landfills, is mandatory because of the way it works.
11 And, so even more must the matter be considered.
12 Then you have to recognize that the con-
13 tractor who is supplying the clay of the approved quality
cannot plan in his advanced contract with your city or
whatever to supply the clay at the rate at which your
arrival of refuse under weather conditions is bringing
17 it. And, so, his estimates may be upset. And then he
18 may be tempted to use material other than clay and
19 hope no one will notice or the landfill operator
2Q goes on filling even though the clay isn't there and
then you might just as well not have bothered with
22 the whole thing at all because the liner is now rancid.
23 Well, if you do get the right clay and
24 you do get it laid down in the right proportions and
25 the compactor does not tear it out, you have to remember
-------
17
1 that clay is readily focculated by some chemicals heavy
2 metals, for example. And supposing that bit of bad luck
3 the bottom of the fill, the first fill, happens to be
^ a crate of mercury batteries or some chunks of lead
5 acetate or something, the leachate flow may be highly
concentrated locally. Or you can think of a cavity, like
a refrigerator or a washing machine, which happens to
8 get filled up with a great concentration of some foul
9 fluid from a crate which was near it and then when that
finally collapses by rust or whatever, there is a straight
,, trickle down from this concentrated containment onto
.. a quite small portion of the clay floor and there
you are. It will effectively punch a hole by focculation
through the clay liner and destroy its integrity
., and you never know where that is. YOU can't find it
16 now the fill is full.
I7 In the same kind of way, the polymer
I8 liner, which we lay down in strips and then seal each
19 strip against the last, how are we going to insure that
2Q the contractor is there on the day that it has to be
21 sealed and can test it before we have already covered
22 it with the material?
23 So, it can, presumably, leak at the
24 joints. It is going to be quite a problem in practice
25 to make any of these liners work.
-------
18
1 And, then, further on, you talk about
2 flood plane sites and diking them, and you assume that
3 the diking and the liner together will prevent water
4 infiltrating or overflowing in. Well, if we ignore
5 my remarks so far, what happens when your water level
rises to near the top of the dike and the water table
below is lifting and cracking the liner by hydraulic
pressure and the water rushes in and, then, of course,
9 it is breached and it rushes out again forever.
10 So, flood plain practice should not be
11 condoned or even thought about by diking. It should be
12 forbidden, I suggest.
13 Now, coming out of Medicine, I am think-
ing about the nurses who, in my day, used to wear caps
on their heads so that the infection from their hair
could not fall into the open wound, well, now it is
17 very cosmetic and their hair is down to their shoulders,
13 but we feel safe if they have a hat on, if they are
wearing a cap. And I am wondering if this liner
recommendation is functioning similar to a nurse's cap.
It eases our conscience. We are doing our best, but
22 we are not helping the environment at all, really.
23 And, just because we have got to better solution to
24 offer yet, are we entitled to recommend these liners
25 in good faith at all? Would our children have to drink
-------
19
1 poisoned water as a result of our deluding ourselves?
2 And is this the same kind of whitewashing proc^^iure
3 which is going on with the nuclear power people who
4 are trying to hoist their nuclear waste into our
5 salt mines, pretending they are going to stay there
for twenty million years?
7 Why don't we admit openly that we don't
g know how to contain this material, and invite better
9 solutions. Even if they are more expensive short-term,
we must bear that short-term cost to protect our
children. But there is a solution which we duck.
12 And that is that industries that make or sell any toxic
13 or hazardous material that comes into the open must
14 be compelled to detoxify them at point of origin or
at point of disposal as part of their internal costs and
not externalize the costs, either the solid waste or
17 sewage stream and the taxpayer at large.
Now, I'm going to turn to revegetation
on Page 117 of the EIS where you say that naked grasses
have shallow root systems and I want to nit-pick
2] here. Prairie grasses, all the way from Texas up to
22 Nebraska, have root systems going down three, four and
23 more meters. So, that does need modifying.
24 And you might like to include a para-
25 graph on the methane generation in landfills which
-------
20
1 poison the roots of any plants which try to send down
2 deep roots. You can easily plant trees in landfills
3 whose roots will go down in the spoil cover of each
4 day's operation, but they are killed instantly by the
5 methane generation.
, So, you can look around for trees like,
7 for example, the ones which grow in estuaries which
don't mind methane in fact, which flourish on it.
And, then on Page 118, I would beg
you to include the list of Latin names for those plants
because plants have different names in different places.
12 And you may like because this book i s used by
13 engineers to include a very brief account of soil
14 preference and environmental preference. For example,
to my knowledge. New Jersey Key will only grow on bare
chalk. I expect there are people from New jersey here
today who see it thriving in their soils. I ha/e never
seen that. I have only lived down here and we have
. ours on acid bare ground. As soon as grass cover comes
2Q in, they are completely competed out.
The prairie Rose Grass only grows in
22 gumbo clay. Heathers will only grow in acid sand or
23 perhaps a little peat.
24 These kind of things, until I know
25 the Latin name, i cannot speak for certainty.
-------
21
1 And anybody who recommends kudzu is
2 going to hit some problems with some agriculturalists
3 in their listing. So, you ought to put it in in only
4 heavily forested areas ox something.
5 And you might like to consider adding
$ cucurbits. Melons and watermelons grow superbly on
7 landfills. The sweetest, largest watermelons you have *
8 ever seen came off of our landfill in our dump --
9 I shouldn't have said that, should I our unused
10 excess solid wastes which we incorporated in our trial.
11 Now, I am going to turn to a general
12 matter in conclusion and ask you perhaps to consider
13 putting in a run-in statement at the very beginning
14 to introduce people like me to what this regulatory
15 document is all about. And I thought that, like on
16 Page 18139 of the proffer of the thing, on Column 1,
17 to introduce directly under the title, "Discussion of
18 Proposed Guidelines" a new sub chapter, a new sub heading,
19 a new paragraph, too, which might run something like this:
20 "In the present time of contracting
2] energy supplies, the EPA appreciates ever
22 more intently that "A waste is a resource
23 in the wrong place'. The EPA appreciates that
24 resource recovery and recycling must be the
25 prime objective of any solid waste management.
-------
22
The EPA appreciates an integrated approach to
2 management of municipal resources, sewage,
, refuse and drinking water, and is mandated
to begin in Year 1980.
5 "Yet, there will probably always be a
. small residue for which no economic or social
6
_ use can be found locally.
"For managing this residue, one of our
most successful ways today, in the absence of
a better alternative, is the well-managed
sanitary landfill. These guidelines speak
to that.
., And, sir, they speak to it excellently.
]4 Thank you.
ls CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you.
Are there any questions from the Panel?
18 (No response.)
19 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
2Q Does the audience have any questions?
If so, feel free to bring your cards forward.
22 (No response.)
23 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you, sir. Thank you for your
25 remarks.
The next speaker is Mr. Norman Keston.
-------
23
1 STATEMENT OF S. NORMAN KESTON
2 MR. S. NORMAN KESTON:
3 Unfortunately, my testimony is not in
4 shape to give to the reporter to put into the record.
5 However, we will be making formal comments in writing.
My name is S. Norman Keston or ASARCO,
incorporated, where I am Assistant to the Vice-president
for Environmental Affairs. I am also chairman of a Solid
Waste Task Force of the American Mining Congress and I
appear here on behalf of that group.
The Members of the Panel and the public
12 must be wondering why the mining industry is presenting
13 testimony on the subject of landfills. I want to point
14 out that the definition of "landfill" in these proposed
15 regulations goes far beyond a mere garbage dump, which
is the common concept of the meaning of the term.
The definition given in Section 240.101(m)
18 on Page 18141 reads :
19 "'Landfill' means a facility for the
2o disposal of solid waste involving the placement
of solid waste on or into the land surface,
22 and usually involving compaction and covering
23 of the disposed solid waste, and which is not
24 a land spreading or surface impoundment
25 facility."
-------
24
1 That definition could be interpreted,
2 and we feel might well be interpreted, to include a
3 disposal site for mining and metallurgical waste.
4 The American Mining Congress is a
5 national association of companies that produce most of
6 the nation's supply of metals, coal and industrial and
7 agricultural metals.
8 While producing these essential products,
9 the member companies necessarily generate large quantities
10 of waste rock, waste materials from milling and other
11 forms of beneficiation, often called tailings, furnace
12 slags and other similar processing wastes from later
13 stages of total processing toward usual, usable products,
14 as well as other wastes in relatively small quantities.
15 The American Mining Congress is thus
16 very interested and concerned about the economic impact
17 upon the minerals industry of any regulations promulgated
18 for the purpose of implementing provisions of the Solid
19 Waste Disposal Act.
20 In addition, we want to try to insure that
2i during the formulation of such regulations, the Agency is
22 fully aware of technological limitations, that the very
23 nature of its waste products, of its wastes, places upon
24 the industry and takes into account the large number of
25 physical and chemical variables that tend to make each
-------
25
1 operation unique.
2 In general, the industry has a series
3 of special problems in complying with waste disposal regu-
^ lations because of the sheer volume of the wastes that
5 we generate, and the large areas of land that those wastes
must occupy.
Using copper and copper ores as examples,
new mine production, including beneficiation, smelting
9 and refining in this country, is of a magnitude that there
10 is also produced annually about six hundred millions tons
11 of mined waste rock, two hundred fifty million dry tons of
12 mill tailings, and about five million tons of furnace
13 slag.
Now, if that mine waste, that is, six
hundred million tons of it, were distributed into new
16 waste dumps, each of which covers six hundred and forty
17 acres, which is one square mile of land in a previous
18 hearing I used the word "a section of land" but I was
19 admonished that people in the South and East don't know
20 what a section of land is. Well, it's 640 acres and it
2i is one square mile. Anyway, these wastes, the six hundred
22 million tons of waste, would be built up to an average
23 height of thirty feet by the end of a year spread over
24 two sections of land, two square miles.
25 If tailings, that is, the two hundred
-------
26
fifty million dry tons of tailings, were in one new
2 tailings disposal site occupying this 640 acres of land,
3 they would be built up to a height of twenty-five feet
4 in a year.
5 The height of a pile of slag covering
640 acres would be somewhat less at the end of the year,
something like six to eight feet.
I used copper as an example. Obviously
the underlying principles are applicable to operations
involving most other non-fuel minerals, including mining
and beneficiation of f oxate rock and mining of uranium
12 ore-
12 The smelting of iron ore generates
twenty-four million tons of slag annually.
Despite the draft regulations, proposed
regulations that EPA has made available, member companies
of the American Mining Congress still have no idea what
the cost will be of solid waste disposal under the act.
19 If the term "open dump" and the term "sanitary landfill"
2Q are strictly applied and there will be a great deal of
pressure upon the Agency to apply them strictly then
22 very many piles of waste rock, tailing accumulations, and
23 slag dumps still being used might have to be classified
24 as open dumps, to be upgraded or closed within five
25 years.
-------
27
In many instances, upgrading may be
2 physically impossible or downright dangerous. Replace-
3 ment by new sanitary landfills would be so expensive
4 as to quickly impair, greatly impair, if not destroy,
5 the economic viability of the operations.
, If what is required of a disposal site
for wastes not designated as hazardous is that there
- be no reasonable probability of injury to human health
o or the environment, another dimension of uncertainty
.. is added. We would be dependent upon someone's assess-
,, ment of that probability and of what is reasonable and
of how much injury is permissible.
The result of such assessment could be
14 just as expensive and just as crippling as the direct
., application of the term "open dump."
16 Of course, I am speaking of cumulative,
,, worst case situations.
One frustrating thing is that we do not
know at this time, nor will we know at the time the pro-
2Q posed regulations become final, just what their effect
upon our industries will be.
22 Amidst all of this we feel that there
23 is a reasonable probability that our current methods of
disposal do not damage human health or the environment
except in minor, easily recognized instances. In fact.
-------
28
we think that EPA is justified in making that presumption.
2 In addition, we contend and are on record
3 to this effect that the legislative history of the Act
4 states unequivocally that mining wastes are at this time
5 exempt from the provisions of solid waste regulations.
, I refer you to the comments of the American Mining
Congress on Rules proposed under Section 4004 of the
Act.
The guidelines proposed in Section
257.l(c) under Section 4004(a) of the Act specifically
provides that overburdening resulting from the mining
12 and milling operations which is returned to the mine
is not subject to classification by the 4004 criteria.
The argument, of course, is what is overburden? And
,c what is the mine to which the overburden is returned?
Definitions.
The same exclusion also is contained
18 in the Hazardous waste Regulations under Section 3001
19 of the Act.
20 Our reading of the presently proposed
guidelines leads us to believe that the Office has taken
22 this exclusion into account because several of the
23 suggested recommended practices are not applicable to
24 mine wastes by any flight of imagination
25 We urge, however, that the exclusion
-------
29
1 found in proposed Section 257.1(c) proposed under
2 Section 4004 (a) of the Act be repeated or referenced
3 here for the benefit of the states to whom the guide-
4 lines are directed.
5 We feel that in this instance EPA has
dealt with the matter of site specificity in a
7 commendable manner. In the past, however, it has been
3 found that states have a tendency to translate guide-
9 lines directly into regulations without missing a beat.
10 We urge that the flexibility written
into some of the provisions be emphasized wherever it
12 is applicable as a means of discouraging states from
13 slavishly following the guidelines without substantial
14 change. The term "site specific" should be the pass-
word.
In our final written comments, we
17 will list examples of instances in which adequate
18 flexibility has been omitted.
19 It is an often repeated truism that
20 a mineral deposit is where you find it, and you have
2i to mine it where it is not somewhere else.
22 Furthermore, the economics of mining
23 are such that waste from a mining operation cannot be
24 transported very far before trucking or rail transporta-
25 tion charges eat up the margin. So that factors other
-------
30
than costs sometimes become irrelevant in site selection.
2 Furthermore, if the mine site and other
3 disturbed areas are to be reclaimed, as they most cer-
4 tainly are, most criteria for selection of land sites
5 also are irrelevant given normal and usual engineering
caution and care.
Cost effectiveness must be considered
by the Agency in designing regulations, but the cost
effectiveness of the future use of a landfill site by
the person who owns it is not a concern of the Agency.
Determination of future use is a business decision, to
be made by the owner within the limits imposed by
existing environmental laws and regulations. Future
use should not be a factor in a state's approval of a
location of a landfill unless that future use is con-
trary to zoning restrictions.
17 As noted earlier, many of the guidelines
18 are not applicable to mining operations and cannot be
made so, no matter how they are twisted or distorted.
2Q One example is in the admonition to avoid selecting a site
near an airport because birds attendant upon the waste
22 pose a danger to air traffic. The author should recognize
23 that this stricture cannot be applied to mining wastes
24 because no garbage is mixed with the relatively inert
25 overburden waste rock, tailings and slag that would
-------
31
attract birds. Other examples will be presented in our
2 formal comments.
3 There should be no overlap between the
4 landfill proposals and regulations proposed or promulgated
5 under other statutes.
It would be detrimental and ultimately
confusing to the judges to have to try the cases that
will arise out of the overlap if the Agency were to
persist in including regulations concerning such things
as air quality control and occupational safety and health
in these regulations when these matters are already ade-
quately covered under other statutes.
13 All that is needed and all that should be
permitted is reference to those other statutes and to the
necessity to conform with their requirements. To go
beyond that is to demonstrate one of the prime evils
of regulatory practice.
The American Mining Congress and its
member companies have and continue to be, have been and
continue to be appreciative of the opportunities that
the Office of Solid Wastes has afforded the public since
22 long before the statutes was passed and was enacted in
23 1976 to participate in the formulation of regulations.
24 No one was born in a mine and very many
25 people have no better idea of how one is operated and
-------
32
1 what it produces than can be read in a book. We hope that
2 our collective experience has been useful in the past and
3 we stand ready to continue to contribute that experience
4 to the Agency's decision-making.
5 Thank you.
^ Are there any questions?
7 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
g Thank you.
9 I wonder if you have information to
10 support your request that we presume that current
11 disposal practices in the industry do not pose any
12 reasonable or probability of a hazard to health or the
13 environment?
14 MR. S. NORMAN KESTON:
15 Not offhand, but the office of Solid
16 Waste, in co-operation with the Office of Research and
17 Development, are embarking upon very detailed studies
18 of mining waste, which I believe is scheduled to cost
19 over three million dollars and take three years, and I
20 am sure they will derive that information.
2i There are, of course, a lot of relatively
22 small operations -- I shouldn't say "a lot" some
23 relatively small operations where the practices may not
24 be up to snuff, but this does not affect the vast bulk
25 of the waste of which we dispose.
-------
33
1 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
2 I have received no questions from the
3 audience. Are there any?
4 (No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you, sir.
7 Next we would like to hear from DT.
8 David Marrack.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
34
1 STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID MARRACK
2 DR. DAVID MARRACK:
3 Good Morning.
4 It is nice to see you here, sirs.
5 I have protested many times to the EPA
4 that we don't have hearings in this area, and I am
7 pleased that you are here today, and please convey
8 that to Mrs. Harrison.
9 Secondly, I think it is only right
10 that a copy of the transcript of this proceeding be
11 brought to Houston or adjacent area, city in the area;
12 and, further, there ought to be a copy on the West
13 coast, San Francisco
14 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE (interposing):
15 Doctor, would you state your name and
16 affiliation, please.
17 DR. DAVID MARRACK:
18 Surely. I thought you had already
19 introduced me.
20 Dr. Marrack. I am a physician. I am
2i a Clinical Pathologist in the past. I am now a General
22 practitioner. My concern is public Health, and I object
23 to being blamed for the rising costs of medical care
24 at a time when we insist on doing practices which make
25 people ill.
-------
35
1 I noted this morning when I picked up an
2 envelope to stuff these few notes in that it happened to
3 be dealing from things from the Tomb of Tutankhamem. I
4 suppose in the many respects that that's one of the
5 ultimates in solid waste disposal.
I would like to point out right at
the beginning, apart from transcripts being elsewhere
than in Washington, which not everyone goes to, you know,
9 that there is little point in having recommendations if
10 they don't have any teeth. What we need are regulations,
regulations that are enforceable, and a real effort to
12 make them work. Later on in what I have got to say you
13 will see why.
14 Again, I strongly support the concepts
U that toxic chemicals should be followed and tracked
from cradle to grave. And, again, the cost of their
17 detoxification and disposal are part of the cost of
making the product. They don't externalize these costs.
19 You cannot make the. free market place
20 work if you don't put all the costs in. It is one of
our current society's problems. And here we have an in-
22 ability to make the selections of the market place work
23 because if you don't put all the costs in the cost of
24 detoxifying which you then pass on to ill health and
25 blame the medical profession for it.
-------
36
1 And, certainly, mining tailings should
2 be part of these regulations. I cite asbestos in Lake
3 Superior. There is just no justification, never was,
4 for putting asbestos particles into Lake superior,
5 municipal water supply for many communities around that
lake. There are equally unacceptable practices which
7 lead to the acid in streams in the mining areas of the
8 East. Why they are acid, we won't go into. The sulfides
9 in the ore are partly responsible.
Looking at landfill solid waste disposal,
11 it would seem that, in view of the increasing tax and
12 social burdens that these represent, we may take a holo-
13 listic look at the problem.
14 The risks and the costs of the past
laissez-faire appcoacih.-are -only too apparent -now because
the extremes are the hundred odd sites identified by
17 EPA which contain wastes hazardous to human welfare
18 I'm sorry which are hazardous to human welfare by
19 virtue of the solid or toxic wastes they contain, and
20 these are some hundred of them spread around the
country. There are at least two near Houston.
22 I would also submit, though, that the
23 aggregate effect of many lesser waste disposal sites
24 are in the end even more significant than those that
25 contain large quantities or even small quantities, for
-------
37
that matter, of very toxic waste compounds for they are
2 getting widely distributed into our water supplies and
3 into our food chains.
4 And these are the matters that concern
5 at least me and I think many other people, too.
, There seem to be a number of approaches
1 available, one is, obviously, to create less waste.
8 That's not so easy, but, as someone has pointed out, waste
is a resource in the wrong place. Maybe we need to do
some more recycling and make a useful function out of
our waste. All that can be done.
I submit that the continuation of the
present practices is unacceptable.
The approach, obviously, needs to be
., one of social mechanics and social decisions. One of
the tools we don't use in this respect very much is
the tax tool. I think one of the things we need to do
]8 is to take a more wider view of and it is difficult
19 for EPA with the present structure of our Agencies
2Q to effect a change in the patterns of habits and
practices through the tax system, but that is one of
22 the ways which is very effective when it is applied.
23 We need, to give more thought to health
24 care and prevention in the practices, both in the home
25 and in commerce.
-------
38
1 As an example, cans. Cans are always
2 thrown away for all practical purposes. If they are
3 made of magnetic material, it is relatively easy to
4 recover them from waste and it is relatively easy to
5 recycle them, what's more, they are versatile. You can
g use them for a number of purposes when you have got
7 recycled cans. That differs from those cans made from
g nonmagnetic materials, which all you can do with them is
9 make a lot of cans. And it seems to me you cannot
10 separate these aluminum cans particularly having
11 aluminum cans in mind from solid waste by magnetic
12 means. So, you fail to recover a resource simply by the
13 way you distribute can-making materials.
14 Again, glass is not easily recovered
15 by physical means from solid waste. It seems to me the
16 only way to recover glass and there is a need to, as
17 you will see in a moment from solid waste is simply
18 to do it at source. And, so, one needs to put a system
19 of social pressure on communities to get the glass out
20 of their solid waste and home and in commerce. The
2) glass can be recycled separately, but, more important,
22 the product remains. You can get the metal out of it,
23 at least the steel out of it, and you are left with
24 something that can be used either as a fuel or fermented
25 to make volatile compounds and used, and you cannot do
-------
39
those things too easily when you have chunks of glass
2 all through it. There is no reason for using syncloesis
3 (phonetic) using solid waste part of it, at least, to
generate electrical power.
And then look at the landfill disposal
, phase of waste disposal. There is a need for much
7 tighter surveillance and control in order to protect
health and water resources. Municipal waste today
commonly contains toxic chemicals. In this area, for
instance, two years ago the wide distribution by the
Tax Department of agriculture of five-pound bags of Myrex
to households who asked for them truckloads of 40,000
pounds were brought into the area of these five-pound
bags and distributed throughout Harris County. An
., unknown quantity of these found their way into municipal
,, garbage dumps over the subsequent ten to twenty months.
The amount is unknown, of course, but it surely was
18 significant. Now, this is a persistent chlorated hydro-
19 carbon pesticide, not only itself, but its degradation
20 products are both toxic and mutagenic it produces
birth defects and cancer, and the degradation process
22 also has these undesirable and destructive effect.
23 I cite Myrex in this instance simply
24 because of the bags was labeled and it was easy to find
25 them; and, secondly, because it is an example of the
-------
40
1 kinds of toxic chemicals which are widely distributed now
2 in our society and whose control, once they get into the
3 small user, is without any surveillance whatsoever. And,
yet, when you add it all together, they represent a
frightening total.
These sort of things need to be handled
and reviewed and a means found to prevent this type of
situation from arising and damaging our resources.
9 I think the lengths to which companies
10 go to avoid the responsible waste disposal is exhibited
by the recent contaminated oil sludge disposal on road
toppings in counties not very far from here. YOU may
be aware of the situation.
Now, here's the kind of ethics that we
are dealing with and it is not just limited to this situa-
tion. Illegal dumping is not that uncommon in this area.
,7 State and municipal wastes for these
above reasons must be handled as a toxic waste and no
waste which is not virgin soil or building masonry and
20 rubble should ever be permitted in the flood plain or in
the coastal zone which gets flooded by hurricanes. And
22 yet, you have at this time, just at this present time,
23 two such sites being considered. One of these is to the
24 west and north off the Katy-Hockley Road. Here we have
25 some 400 acres proposed in the flood plain of cypress Creek.
-------
41
The creek is interesting we will go back to that, it
2 involves a site where the endangered Bald Eagle, Southern
3 Bald Eagle, comes to winter. Also, the prairie chicken
4 is in the area. It is probably on the edge of the re-
5 charge aquifer, one of the recharge aquefirs for this
area. And yet there seems to be no attempt except
some protests from persons like myself. The State
Agencies have happily gone along so far. There is another
hearing on June the 5th by the Health Resources. Maybe
10 they have a little more sense.
Then you have another one down off
Galveston, 1-45, about seven miles west along the inter-
coastal Canal. Here industrial sludge application
has been made to put more industrial sludge by a dump
15 which is already present. It's in the wrong place, it's
in the hurricane surge area. The levees, if I remember,
are to be twelve and a half feet high. Hurricane surges
]8 in that area can go up to fifteen - thirty feet. And if
19 anyone thinks a hurricane does not do damage to levees
and the levee structure, you have only got to recognize
that hurricanes in recent living memory have swept
22 through the islands. Galveston Island is not four miles
23 away from this site and had a cut-through in the past
hundred years. You can see it in the geology formations
25 down there. It is filled in now it isn't there, but
-------
42
1 the remains are, and the tell-tale signs of a cut-through.
2 These are the sorts of problems that you
3 and your regulations and there should be regulations
4 need to address. This particular one down along the
5 Intercoastal Canal is to receive industrial sludge.
5 Now, the industrial sludge comes from a series of companies
7 and it is not that of a continuous uniform processed
g product but one that varies, depending upon what those
9 companies are doing at that particular time. No one
knows because no analyses are being done of any sig-
nificance to find out what high chlorated hydrocarbons
12 are in that sludge. We know something about the heavy
13 metals.
14 And the other thing that goes on in
these situations, of course, is that plants and industrial
plants have various breakdowns, excursions (phonetic),
17 and when they do, they inevitably produce waste and that
18 waste finds its way into the drains and will find its
19 way into the waste disposal system and, in due time,
part of it will be absorbed or trapped in the waste
and find its way to this dump.
22 Again, analyses of these materials should
23 be done with varied quality control and by parties who
24 do not have a vested interest in the favorable analysis.
25 I had difficulty in finding quality controls at the
-------
43
analysis of water supplies which are comparable to those
2 that are required today in our hospital laboratories,
3 and I see no reason why there should be a double
standard, you can have one quality analysis to poison
t people and a much higher quality to try to get them wel]
again. They should be the same.
o
Again, site selected. The geology and
the dynamics of the groundwater need to be studied and
studied effectively, in the case down in Galveston,
they are now looking at the groundwater after eight
years of dumping in the area and using this as a base
line to try to determinewhether there is leakage from
., this dump. Now, this is a totally ludicrous practice.
. . One needs to have good analyses done over a period of
time beforehand.
., The idea that there should be some
10
,, fifty-foot separation between a dump for toxic waste
, and groundwater has been recommended on one occasion.
. It seems not unreasonable, but the problems are that
20
there are, so frequently in this area, at least, lenses
21 (phonetic) of permeable material. Barker-Addicks Dam
22 was built by the corps of Engineers not twenty miles
23 from here. It was supposed to keep the water on the
top side of it. It has got a lens of sand underneath
25 it and now they are having to do restorative work to
-------
44
prevent the leaking of the water underneath. These are
2 problems
3 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE (interposing):
4 Your time is up, sir.
5 DR. DAVID MARRACK:
6 Sorry, sir. I was just about there, in
7 fact,
8 One last point. The rainwater off
9 in this area, the rainwater coming off these dumps needs
to be in some way collected and analyzed.
The idea that you should let leachate
permeate into the soil and not be seen and never be
12 aialyzed and not know where it goes to me is unacceptable.
You need a system that collects it up so you can see it
., and analyze it.
Again, there are the problems, as we
17 have already mentioned, from landfills where the leaching
is uncontrolled, never seen, never known; and, yet, we
19 wonder how our water resources get so contaminated.
2Q I think these are the sorts of matters
that need to be directed in what I think should be
22 regulations, and I notice a number of places here where
23 we fail to attack these matters. And particularly one
24 point I forgot to bring out is the fact that not only
25 the raw material goes into a dump, but the products
-------
45
that are derived from anaerobic digestion and bacterial
. action all need to be considered. It is not just the
, primary toxic chemicals that go in -- it's their
. products after bacterial and anaerobic processes that
. must be considered in every case.
Thank you.
o
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
g Thank you.
9 Any questions from the Panel?
MR. WAYNE TUSA:
. I have one comment.
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
., Go ahead.
u MR. WAYNE TUSA:
I am sure you are aware of that the
., Sub Title B requirements do not allow the Office of
lo
. Solid Waste
)8 DR. DAVID MARRACK (interposing):
. pardon?
MR. WAYNE TUSA (continuing):
-. The sub Title B requirements set up by
32 RCRA do not allow OSW to set these guidelines up as a
23 regulatory action, that is,
24 DR. DAVID MARRACK (interposing):
You are asking for public comment. I
-------
46
1 realize what is there, but, equally, I think it is not
2 satisfactory. It is a waste of time and effort, for
3 practical purposes, as I see it, and I point out to you
4 that you have in here land use controls we don't
5 have that in the State of Texas. There is no zoning.
6 MR. WAYNE TUSA:
7 Well, that is the intent of the law,
8 State Programs and control of solid waste disposal for
9 nonhazardous wastes.
10 DR. DAVID MARRACK:
11 I look at the product to see what
12 happens at the other end. That is what matters to
13 society.
14 MR. WAYNE TUSA:
15 I should like to also point out that
16 there is a Section in the Guidelines on surface run-off
17 control, which deals specifically with contaminated
18 run-off, which is essentially designed for control
19 catchment of any surface run-off which might be released
20 on site. That is certainly not the intent of the
21 Guidelines.
22 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
23 Are there any questions from the
24 audience?
25
-------
47
MR. CARL BRASOW:
2 My name is Carl Brasow. I am a
3 registered professional engineer, and my comments are;
4 I believe that the good Doctor really
5 has not followed the regulations as they are being pro-
posed right now because I personally know that a large
7 number of sites are being studied along the same lines
8 that the Doctor suggested they should be, that in fact
9 there are engineers and there are geologists that take
all these factors into account, and I don't believe
11 that all of them are as silly and stupid as you seem to
12 imply about studying base line water quality or even
13 conforming with the intent of the regulation. It is
almost an insult to our intelligence and our professional
ls integrity to say that this is not being done.
I guess my only comment would be, from
17 your age, where were you thirty years ago in starting
the same regulations that are now in fact being pro-
19 posed and promulgated? If you have been outraged for
20 so many years, then you should have been on the band
wagon thirty years ago as you saw the results and the
22 effects of toxic chemicals.
23 DR. DAVID MARRACK:
24 Are you suggesting I haven1t been?
25
-------
48
1 MR. CARL BRASOW:
2 I am not suggesting that you are not.
3 You didn't admit that you were, though.
4 You seem to believe that all of this
5 has come upon us suddenly. I believe that the intent
4 and the purpose of the environmental laws is to clean
7 up the very things that you suggested, and to think that
8 there are not professional ethics out there or even in-
9 dustrial ethics, I will grant you that there may be
10 certain industries and certain people within those
11 industries that neglect their, really, moral obligation
12 to the protection of the environment, but I do not be-
13 lieve you can make a blanket comment, and I think that
14 it is especially true in the Texas area where we realize
15 that there are problems, and I think that is being
16 attacked in the right direction.
17 Thank you.
18 DR. DAVID MARRACK:
19 May I respond, sir?
20 CHAIRMAN TRUETT BeGEARE:
2i pardon me?
22 DR. DAVID MARRACK:
23 Can I respond?
24 CHAIRMAN TRUETT D6GEARE:
25 I suggest
-------
49
DR. DAVID MARRACK (interposing):
2 One, I am glad to hear that there are
3 people concerned. I have been concerned for nearly
thirty years. I have been protesting, too. But,
5 more important, it only takes one bad spill or con-
. tamination to damage a water resource for all our
lifetimes and for a lot longer. This is the problem.
It isn't the good cats. I never said that the regula-
tions were not either new or the need for them having
been just recently recognized. The problem is to get
.. them enforced. And I deliberately cited two situations
.. which are current in this area which represent the kind
of problems which, in spite of regulations, we are not
]4 doing what I consider an adequate amount to protect the
._ health and welfare and our resources, particularly our
water resources and marine resources, in a manner which
I think we would be wise to do. And I throw no aspersions
against anyone's regulations they are surely needed,
but they need to be regulations, not guidelines, and
that is one of the reasons they are being wiggled around
at the present time.
22 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
I understand your point.
Thank you, sir.
25 Mr. Don Betterton, please.
-------
50
1 Just as a reminder, and with no reflec-
2 tion on the previous or upcoming speakers, we ask you to
3 keep your remarks to about ten minutes, please.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
51
1 STATEMENT OF DON BETTERTON
2 MR. DON BETTERTON:
3 Thank you, Mr. chairman, panel.
4 My name is Don Betterton. I am Manager
5 of the Environmental protection Department of Houston
Lighting and Power Company.
I am appearing this morning on behalf of
my company, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group,
known as USWAG, and the Edison Electric Institute,
known as EEI.
USWAG is an informal consortium of
12 approximately 65 utility operating companies and the
13 EEI. EEI is the principal National Association of
Investor-Owned Electric Light and power companies.
The principal fuel used for the generation
of electricity is coal. The combustion of coal creates
17 large volumes of solid waste, particularly fly ash,
18 bottom ash, and flue gas emission control sludges.
19 The control of these by-products under RCRA will
20 seriously affect the operations and economics of the
2) electric utility industry. Because of this significant
22 impact, and because of our responsibilities to operate
23 in an environmentally responsible manner while main-
24 taining an adequate energy supply for the nation,
25 USWAG and EEI have commented and testified on substantially
-------
52
all of the Agency's proposed RCRA regulations and guide-
2 lines.
3 We have also submitted comments on
4 environmental impact statements prepared in conjunction
5 with earlier RCRA rule-making proposals.
As you may recall, Mr. James King
7 of Florida Power and Light testified on behalf of
a USWAG and EEI on the proposed Landfill Disposal Guide-
lines hearing held in Washington on Tuesday. His comments
were directed at the guidelines themselves, that is,
the document published in the March 26th Federal Register.
12 I will not repeat those comments today. Instead, I will
address myself to the draft Environmental Impact State-
14 ment that was released in support of the proposed guide-
lines.
,, We expect to file written comments
17 covering both the proposed guidelines and the draft
Environmental impact Statement. I will, therefore, limit
my statement to a brief description of four of our major
2Q concerns with the draft EIS: First, we believe that this
2] document fails to meet the recognized standards for
22 Environmental impact Statements; second, we believe that
23 the document contains information that more properly
24 should be part of the guidelines themselves; third, we
2s believe that the document is potentially misleading in
-------
53
1 its technical descriptions of landfill technologies; and,
2 fourth, we believe that cost estimates presented are
3 simplistic and misleading.
4 A major concern with the draft EIS is
5 its failure, in our view, to meet the requirements of an
6 EIS.
7 An Environmental Impact Statement is
8 intended to be a document that will assist agencies in
9 making informed decisions and not a repository of
10 regulations, guidelines or general background information.
11 To serve its intended function, an
12 EIS must describe and objectively weigh all reasonable
13 alternatives to the proposed action.
14 Instead, this document describes the
15 state of the art in municipal landfill design and opera-
16 tion. It does not describe or assess reasonable
17 alternatives to the landfilling of solid waste, such as
18 land spreading, surface impoundments, and resource
19 recovery.
20 Moreover, it should assess those al-
2i ternatives separately for representative types of
22 municipal and industrial wastes, including utility waste.
23 Another major concern is that we believe
24 it is inappropriate for EPA to use the draft EIS to
25 provide the technical and economic description of the
-------
54
level of performance of solid waste management practices
2 that EPA is required to publish.
3 By regulating the great bulk of the
substantive content of the guidelines to the draft EIS,
5 the Agency has implicitly diminished the importance of
, that information. It also has minimized the likelihood
o
of comprehensive public comment within the sixty-day
comment period. As a practical matter, fewer people will
see the EIS than will see the Federal Register. There-
fore, fewer people will comment. This is clearly con-
,, trary to the goals of the rule-making process and sound
.. public policy.
]3 We do not believe incorporation by
reference cures this defect. USWAG urges EPA to re-
propose in the Federal Register those portions of the
., draft EIS which are intended to be incorporated into the
lo
guidelines. This will give them appropriate visibility
,. and give their "technical and economic descriptions"
. meaningful exposure to public comment.
. we are also concerned that the technical
descriptions in the EIS are potentially misleading.
. We commented at Tuesday's hearing in
-. Washington that the proposed guidelines overemphasize
24 technologies primarily suited to municipal waste
25 landfills. That overemphasis raises our concern because
-------
55
some states may simply adopt the regulations as a check
2 list for sanitary landfill status under Section 4004(a)
3 Classification Criteria, and improperly apply this check
list to utility waste disposal facilities.
This same concern applies to the draft
EIS. Many of the unit technologies described in the
draft EIS are wholly inappropriate for utility wastes.
0 These include, for example, shredding, baling, com-
o
9 paction and daily cover for vector control. Similarly,
.. gas control measures would be pointless for inorganic
utility wastes.
There is no indication that leachate
,, recycling, another municipal waste technology, is useful
,. for landfills containing ash or scrubber sludge.
We urge that each description of an
16 alternative landfill technology in the EIS include a
,7 clear statement that it is to be applied to a particular
landfill only on an individual case-by-case basis.
The choice of what technologies and practices to apply
2Q must depend on the characteristics of the particular in-
tended landfill site.
22 With regard to the cost estimates con-
23 tained in the EIS, we would like to make two brief
comments.
25 First, these cost estimates appear to be
-------
56
based primarily on experience with municipal solid waste
facilities. The EIS should recognize and consider the
3 substantial variations in costs that result from differ-
4 ences in the character of the waste being landfilled,
5 and the substantial regional differences in the cost of
certain materials and labor.
Second, the draft EIS excludes the cost
of what may be the most expensive of the guideline
9 recommendations site selection. We have commented
10 several times on the enormous burden that will be im-
posed on utilities if we are restricted from siting in
12 potentially environmentally sensitive areas especially
13 flood plains and wetlands. We find it difficult to be-
lieve that a document that purports to be an Environ-
mental impact Statement can ignore the adverse environ-
mental, energy and cost impacts of these broad siting
17 restrictions.
18
I appreciate the opportunity to present
jo our comments. We will follow with detailed comments
2Q next week.
Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
23 Thank you.
24 Are there questions from the panel?
25
-------
57
MR. WAYNE TUSA:
2 Will your detailed comments
3 A VOICE (interposing):
4 Mr. chairman, I cannot hear this
5 gentleman.
MR. WAYNE TUSA:
7 Will your detailed comments provide
8 some suggestions as to which parts of the EIS you feel
9 are appropriate, as far as the guidelines?
10 MR. DON BETTERTON:
We will.
12 We are making a full review now, both
)3 technical and substantive review, and we will file those
with you by next Friday.
15 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
By the same token, would you, if
possible, include economic costs that you were re-
ferring to, such as the increased cost of site selection
in those detailed comments?
20 MR. DON BETTERTON:
Yes, s ir.
22 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
23 So that we can utilize those.
24 MR. DON BETTERTON:
25
Yes.
-------
58
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
2 I wonder if you could explain, given
3 that the job before us is development of guidelines for
4 landfill disposal of solid waste, why that the EIS
5 should weigh alternatives to landfills. I am afraid
. I did not understand.
7 MR. DON BETTERTON:
The substance of that comment is that
the EIS is used today to review alternatives, either
alternative landfill procedures and to study the cost
benefit relationships and make a decision on the most
12 appropriate one for a given case, and here I think the
EIS really is a good state of the art document, but
really does not look at the alternatives and weigh which
., ones will be applied on a cost benefit basis. It simply
presents the cost and the current technology and leaves
it at that. It is just a matter of the definition in
the present, current use of impact statements.
,9 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
2Q So, you would say that the EIS should
21 address recycling practices, for example?
22 MR. DON BETTERTON:
23 Yes, sir, resource recovery. This is
24 a very important aspect that we are working on today
25 with the fly ash from our generating units.
-------
59
1 We will give some additional detail on
2 this in our comments, also.
3 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
4 I wish you would because on the face of
5 the comment, it just is not clear why the EIS on the
proposed regulation should address those factors, those
7 kinds of alternatives.
8 I can understand how it should address
9 alternative landfill procedures which might be addressed
10 in the guideline, but my problem is why or how it should
address alternatives to landfill, given that the job
before us is to develop guidelines for landfill and not
]3 for resource recovery or collection or other processes.
14 MR. DON BETTERTON:
15 0. K. We will try to cover that more
in our written comments.
17 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
18 Thank you.
19 MR. DON BETTERTON:
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
22 Are there any questions from the
23 audience?
24 Yes, sir?
25
-------
60
1 MR. R. M. ROBINSON:
2 I am R. M. Robinson, Continental Oil
3 Company.
4 I fail to understand Mr. DeGeare's
5 question there, inasmuch as that seems to be the gut
6 issue. if you do things that do not require landfilling,
7 or how can you reduce the amount of landfilling you need,
8 it appears to me is part of what the EIS should speak to.
9 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
10 I guess I viewed it differently.
I think the Act, the Solid Waste
12 Disposal Act, in its entirety, is addressed to various
13 aspects of solid waste management.
14 The concern before us today is
development of a particular guideline for a particular
practice. Given that that is the practice and the job
17 before us, to develop a guideline for that practice, it
18 didn't seem appropriate to me, to be addressing other
practices in the draft Environmental Impact Statement
20 on that proposed guideline.
21 MR. R. M. ROBINSON:
22 This is now the Resource Conservation
23 Recovery Act. We have outlived the old Solid Waste
24 Disposal Act, I believe.
25
-------
61
1 CHAIRMAN TRUETT D6GEARE:
2 The Amendment is entitled The Resource
3 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. The Act still is
4 the Solid Waste Disposal Act as Amended by RCRA.
5 My point is that this draft EIS is not
a draft EIS on the Act. It is a draft EIS on the
regulation on a particular practice.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but
MR. R. M. ROBINSON (interposing):
The reduction of landfill seems to me
11 to be part of the reduction of need for landfills is
12 part of the issue.
13 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
14 Sir, we have, as mentioned in the intro-
15 ductory remarks, there are other mandatory regulations
\(> which have been developed under RCRA, and one of those
17 is the criteria for solid waste disposal facilities.
18 That document looks at all three forms of disposal and
19 alternative practices to disposal. We felt that that
2Q was an appropriate place to discuss alternative practices,
whereas, in this document which was supposed to be in-
22 formational in nature, we chose only to look at, if you
23 are going to landfill solid waste, what are the alterna-
24 tive practices for doing that?
25 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEAREs
Mr. Bill Lewis, please.
-------
62
1 STATEMENT OF BILL LEWIS
2 MR. BILL LEWIS:
3 Mr. Chairman, I am Bill Lewis, Member of
4 the House of Representatives, State of Arizona for the
5 last eleven years, and prior to that was Public Information
Officer with the State of Arizona Game and Fish Department
for nine years. So, I guess I have been an environmentalist
g of type for at least twenty years actively.
9 Mr. Keston, our second speaker, stole most
of my thunder.
Ours is a mining state, as I think most
of you know. it is one of our most important industries.
13 The gentleman from Continental oil could tell you more
about it. They have an extensive holding for a new copper
mine in Arizona, and we produce presently about 50 per
cent of the world's copper supply comes from our state.
., We have many mill tailings and slag dumps,
]g and we have pretty adequate laws to take care of them in
, Arizona, and I guess if I am going to say anything today
it is to urge EPA not to superimpose their regulations on
states that are already doing a good job.
.. We have our own problems. No two states
._ have the same problems. Our problem is different than the
State of Washington or the State of Maine or South
25 Carolina. There are no two states that have the same
-------
63
1 I problems.
2 We have done, I think, a very adequate
2 job in policing our own areas as far as solid waste is
^ concerned and its disposal.
, I would say that we can use some help
on new plans for garbage disposal and things like that
6
fine. But not in the way of mill tailings and smelter
refuse, if you will, slag dumps and things like this,
o
o because we have done a pretty good job and we have adequate
laws to protect our citizens from this sort of landfill
and solid waste disposal at the present time.
We have a new law that went into effect
just last summer, which I wrote and managed to get it
enacted the Governor signed it for radioactive waste
14
tailings, uranium dumps, if you will. That is becoming
a bigger and bigger operation in Arizona.
16
j We have some very extensive uranium ore
bodies, union 76 is working one of them right now that
18
falls under our Agencies. Shell Oil is also working one.
We have another one that is being explored at the present
time by EXXON. And West Germany, believe it or not, is
actively working a uranium field in Arizona.
23 So, I think we are on top of it. we haus
. very extensive regulations for these people.
Well, again, I say, please, if a state is
-------
64
1 doing a good job, don't make us do it your way let us
2 do it our way. I think that is the basis of my statement.
3 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
4 Thank you, sir.
5 Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you.
9 Mr. J. westney, Houston, Chamber of
10 Commerce.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
65
STATEMENT OF JACK WESTNEY
2 MR. JACK WESTNEY:
3 I am Jack Westney, representing the Houston
4 Chamber of Commerce, and I appreciate the opportunity to
, make this presentation on behalf of the Board of Directors
and the Membership of the Houston Chamber of Commerce.
o
The Houston Chamber of Commerce is a
o voluntary organization of approximately 6500 business and
9 professional establishments working together for the better
10 ment of our Houston area.
.. One of the chamber's goals is to enhance
.- the quality of the environment without unduly hindering
., the continued economic development that provides benefits
. and opportunities to all of the residents in this area.
15 The chamber appreciates this opportunity
of making specific comments on the EPA's guidelines, with
17 respect to locating solid waste management facilities in
environmentally sensitive areas. In these guidelines,
as well as in other proposed EPA regulations, the EPA
20 appears to be indicating to state and federal land planners
that solid waste should rarely, if ever, be disposed of
22 in coastal areas such as Houston.
23 Anyone who is familiar with the growth
24 and development of the Houston area is fully aware of the
25 tremendous efforts that people have made to establish this
-------
66
community in an area which once was nothing more than a
2 swamp. The community is proud of these accomplishments,
3 which are continuing today.
4 Along with this growth and development
5 has come an increasingly solid waste problem. We have
sought to deal with this problem with the same degree of
ingenuity and human creativity that went into the over-
all development of our community.
We are one of the few communities that
has attempted to incinerate our garbage as a means of
. disposal; and one of the country's first recycling
facilities was constructed here. However, through these
developments, we have learned that incineration and
resource recovery have not been developed to the point
of completely answering our solid waste problems; there-
., fore, we have found that, at least as an interim measure,
., landfilling of garbage is still a major means of solving
. the solid waste problem.
If we are unable to locate solid waste
disposal facilities within reasonable hauling distance
.. from our population centers, we will quickly reach a
-. crisis situation.
On the basis of our review of the
.. proposed guidelines for landfill disposal of solid waste,
we believe that the EPA staff, in their over-all development
-------
67
1 of these guidelines has used sound judgment. We must
2 compliment the staff on this practical experience approach
3 to the problem. This approach appears to have been aimed
4 at achieving the ends of the Act in the most cost-effective
5 manner, on a site-specific basis.
As a part of the consuming public, who
must pay for the facilities to be built under these regu-
lations, we applaud the consideration given to the site-
specific approach in these guidelines.
However, there are some parts of these
guidelines which we wish to emphasize that should remain
12 as guidelines. We are concerned that recommendations
12 such as those dealing with site selection in Paragraph
241.200-2, may eliminate consideration of all environ-
mentally sensitive areas as potential disposal sites,
even when reasonable alternatives to such sites may be
economically or practically infeasible.
Each site proposal should be considered
on its own individual merits, and without regard to
2Q opposition, which is unfounded by sound technical or
other applicable criteria.
22 The same reasoning applies to paragraph
23 241.207-2, which could force operators into large
24 expenditures for outside consulting advice, with little
25 justification and no guarantee that their operation would
-------
68
be approved.
2 We ask simply that these requirements would
3 be used as guidelines, and on a case-by-case, site-specific
4 basis.
5 In summary, we applaud the efforts of the
EPA staff in developing these landfill guidelines as
being a reasonable approach to managing the solid waste
problem in all areas of the country.
Only tnrough an effective and realistic
program of managing solid waste may we maintain the growth
and quality of life in the Houston area.
Thank you.
]3 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
I think there are no questions from the
panel.
I appreciate your being with us.
16
Are there any questions from the audience?
]g (No response.)
]9 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Jim Greco, Browning-Ferris
industries.
23
24
25
-------
69
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. GRECO
2 MR. JAMES R. GRECO:
3 My name is Jim Grejfo, and I am employed
by Browning-Ferris industries. Inc.
5 My responsibilities with Browning-Ferris
are those of the Director of its Government and industry
6
, Affairs program.
0 We have prepared formal testimony and I
o
q will generally follow that, but i will abbreviate it so
as to keep my remarks within the ten-minute time frame,
.. and we will be submitting written comments by the dead-
.- line next week.
.. We have reviewed the proposed 1008
Guidelines and we recognize the importance of such in-
formation to State Regulatory Agencies, facility
,. operators, and the general public.
lo
We feel that greater awareness, and
implementation of the guidelines will stimulate an
enhanced level of environmental protection.
Additionally, we commend the Agency for
expressing in the preamble to the Guidelines that:
"In promulgating these guidelines,
EPA is certifying that they represent sound
solid waste management practices ..."
We also commend the Agency for allowing
-------
70
, flexibility in many instances to fulfill the general re-
. quirements in the guidelines. An example is acknowledge-
3 ment is made in Section 241.202-1 of two differing
. approaches for managing landfill leachate.
, Pursuant to our review, some primary
concerns we wish to bring to the Agency's attention per-
6
tain to the uncertainty faced by disposal facility
designers and operators with respect to the interpreta-
8
tion of what may actually be required to obtain a permit
and maintain that permit. Numerous sections of the
guidelines are subjective or can lead to subjective
determination, such as the definition of "wetlands,"
the siting of facilities in environmentally sensitive
areas and the associated "alternatives" study, the
14
requirement for a "minimum allowable thickness for both
natural and artificial liner materials," and use of an
16
environmental impact statement.
17
We recognize that the proposed rule is
18
only a guideline; however, it is likely that State
Environmental Agencies, the public, and perhaps our
judicial system will employ or reference the guidelines
as exact measuring mechanisms. Hence, we hope that
reasonable, practicable and consistent determinations
will result when the guidelines are used.
24
Regarding specific recommendations, we
-------
71
1 suggest:
2 On Page 18139 revision of the fourth
3 paragraph under Site Section -- we suggest replacing
4 the word "may" with "can" so that paragraph will read:
5 "These guidelines, however, recognize
that location of a landfill disposal facility
in a generally unsuitable area (environmentally
sensitive areas, zones of active faults, and
karstterrain) can be possible through the
application of proper, and in some cases
sophisticated, engineering techniques for
design and operation."
On Page 18141 the definition for
"plans" we suggest be revised so that they are prepared
or approved by professionals. Right now it just requires
that they be prepared by professionals.
On Page 18142 we suggest that Section
18 241.200-2(a), which is pertinent to recommended
19 practices for site selection in environmentally sensitive
2Q areas, that that section be interpreted as a general
guideline and that a statement be added noting that a
22 landfill facility may be sited in such areas provided that
23 appropriate considerations be incorporated into the
24 design and operation of the facility.
25 Specifically the following is suggested
-------
72
1 for that section:
2 "In general, environmentally sensitive
3 areas, including wetlands, 100-year flood
4 plains, permafrost areas, critical habitats
5 of endangered species, and recharge zones of
sole source aquifers should be avoided, if
feasible, or receive lowest priority as
potential locations for landfill disposal
facilities. Location of a landfill disposal
facility in a generally unsuitable area can
be possible through the application of proper,
and in some cases, sophisticated engineering
techniques for design and operation."
]4 On page 18142 in Section 241.200-2(a)(1)
the statement, "Increased costs alone, should not be
,, sufficient grounds for dismissing an alternative ..." can
be inaccurate and inappropriate, if interpreted literally.
There may well be an occasion when the cost impact is
extreme, such that increased costs, alone, for an al-
2Q ternative, can be a sufficient reason for locating a
facility in an environmentally sensitive area.
22 On page"18143, we feel Section 241.201-2 (c)
is redundant and too all-encompassing. So long as back-
ground water samples are analyzed and the flood zones are
25 established, this recommended practice should not be
-------
73
1 necessary.
2 Lastly, on Page 18143 we feel that the
3 statement, "Landfill leachate generation cannot be
4 avoided except in some arid climates ..." is inaccurate.
5 We suggest that it read:
, "Leachate control measures for water
I
quality protection should be incorporated
in the site design, as required."
The above-noted recommendations, we feel,
can enhance the practicality of the proposed guidelines
and minimize the economic impact without sacrificing
safety or environmental protection levels.
We are pleased to participate in this
rule-making process and are supportive of the Agency's
., efforts to promulgate guidelines that will identify and
describe available practices which provide for the pro-
tection of public health and the environment.
Such conscientious efforts can well lead
19 to greater public understanding of and confidence in both
2Q the ability of environmental agencies to properly regulate
21 disposal practices and the capability of facility
22 operators to safely and soundly design, construct and
23 operate landfills.
24 Solid waste landfill disposal facilities
25 are a necessary part of an over-all solid waste management
-------
74
system, whether as the primary disposal method or a
*
2 compatible feature of a resource recovery program.
3 Whatever system a community implements, however, the
public demands protection of public health and the
5 environment. These guidelines, we feel, are a significant
, step in that direction.
We would be pleased to answer any ques-
tions from the Panel or which the audience may have
relative to these guidelines.
MR. BERNARD STOBL:
One of your comments, Mr. Greco,
. related to the analysis of alternatives, alternatives
., to locations in environmental sensitive areas, and you
commented upon our statement in the guidelines, "In-
creased costs, alone should not be sufficient grounds
for dismissing an alternative ...", you indicated that
16
you could perceive situations where increased costs,
, alone, of the alternative may be sufficient.
to
Could you elaborate on that a little
bit, please.
21 MR. JAMES R. GRECO:
22 The point I was trying to make is that
23 in a given community increased costs for an alternative
to a landfill disposal facility, such as a different
25 kind of waste processing facility or a resource recovery
-------
75
1 plant, the increased costs associated with that alternative
2 may be much too high for the community to accept or bear
3 i the burden; and, therefore, relative to incorporating
4 safe practices for locating a landfill in an environ-
5 mentally sensitive area, you can do it and you should
do it, but the increased costs alone of the alternative,
which may well be the reason for denying location of a
landfill in an environmentally sensitive area, that may
9 likely happen. We are saying that that is an extreme
10 requirement and should not be a determination, the only
11 determination.
)2 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
15 Any other questions from Members of
the panel?
17 (No response.)
18 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
19 Are there any questions from the
20 audience?
(No response.)
22 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
23 Thank you for your remarks.
24 Mr. Herbert McKee.
25
-------
76
1 STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. McKEE
2 'MR. HERBERT C. McKEE:
3 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
4 the panel.
5 My name is Herbert McKee. I am the
Assistant Health Director for the City of Houston, and
with me is Mr. Enrique Quevedo, who is the chief of the
Public Health Engineering Bureau within the City of
Houston Health Department. We would like to present our
comments together as a single presentation representing
the Health Department.
12 Mr. Quevedo will address specific
details concerning the proposed guidelines that were
published in the Federal Register of March 26 and I would
like to follow that with a few more general comments
about some of the problems of landfill management and
,-, control related to the guidelines, but not aimed at
specific details.
So, Mr. Quevedo will speak first.
20 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
All right. I see no reason to confine
you to a combined ten-minute time restriction. So, feel
free to take ten minutes each.
24 MR. HERBERT C. McKEE:
25 Thank you.
-------
77
1 STATEMENT OF ENRIQUE QUEVEDO
2 MR. ENRIQUE QUEVEDO:
3 Thank you.
4 My name is Enrique Quevedo. I am chief
5 of the Public Health Engineering Bureau of the Department
4 of Public Health of the City of Houston.
7 As you have probably noticed, I do have
8 a heavy accent and if you miss some of my remarks, please
9 don't hesitate to interrupt me.
10 In general, we were extremely pleased
11 to see the guidelines written as such. The positive
12 points are many.
13 Specifically, we were very happy to see
14 the guidelines recognize the social factors involved in
15 any landfill operation, specifically on an area such as
U Houston. They have become increasingly important.
17 Furthermore, we were very happy to see
18 an attempt to relate the guidelines and, therefore,
19 forthcoming regulations with Section 208 of Public Law
20 92500 in regard to the contaminated run-off, et cetera.
21 Nevertheless, in having in mind the
22 fact that we are still talking about guidelines, we
23 would like to refer to a couple of paragraphs and
24 attempt to make a point in behalf of the Public Health
25 of Citizens of the city of Houston.
-------
78
1 Specifically, it is our belief that the
2 regulations for coming criteria and, therefore, the guide-
3 lines should address perhaps in a stronger manner the
4 possibility of, for that matter, the denial of the
3 possibility, for landfill operations to be established
in environmentally sensitive areas.
We don't deny, as an engineer myself,
the engineering feasibility of such operations. What
9 we have learned, nevertheless, through a number of years,
10 is that regardless of engineering applications and all
proposals in practice such landfills may become quite
hazardous.
We are specifically talking about aquifer
possibilities in areas that tend to flood. These we
would like to see a stronger wording in the final guide-
lines and, for that matter, any regulations adopted by
the state, simply emphasizing that such landfills would
not be permitted.
,9 What we are talking about, as I just
heard about economic feasibility, this is an important
factor, specifically on these types of operations simply
22 because, regardless of whether a permit was granted on
23 a given engineering proposal, economics may bring about
the feasibility of the project itself. And here we
will be, as Public Health Officials, stuck with a
-------
79
so-called judicial case.
2 Regardless of how fast we may act upon
3 an individual case, the judicial system is such that if
any such case arises, the possibility of contamination
5 to aqudfer, drinking water supplies, et cetera, would
, then become a reality, or at least a significant possi-
o
bility.
Our main concern, again, emphasizing
that we do understand that we are talking about guide-
lines, is to make it feasible if not totally impossible
.. for sensitive and environmentally sensitive areas to
be used as possibilities for landfill site operations.
Landfill operations are here to stay
,. at least for some time. We do understand so. They can
be operated in a safe manner for any public health
,. considerations and/or standards. Nevertheless, we have
io
.- to emphasize, "as much caution as possible" and there-
fore, don't tempt Mother Nature and economics into
19 which could result in public health hazards.
Mr. Chairman, that is the extent of my
comments.
22 MR. HERBERT C. MCKEE:
Why don't we continue, then. We can
answer questions about the entire presentation, if there
25 are any.
-------
80
1 STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. MCKEE
2 MR. HERBERT C. McKEE:
3 The topic I would like to address is a
4 little broader in scope than some of the details in
5 the guidelines, and that topic is the responsibility
of different levels of Government in the fields of
7 environmental control, and, more specifically, solid
8 waste management and landfill licensing and operation.
9 First of all, I think the use of the
10 term "guidelines" in this instance is quite appropriate.
There are areas in which legal regulations are needed
12 which allow no flexibility, but there are also areas in
13 which regulations tend to be too inflexible and too
14 binding and where some flexibility is needed.
A set of guidelines such as we are dis-
cussing here makes it possible for local agencies to
17 utilize their knowledge of local conditions and local
18 problems and to develop the best control measures that
19 will meet the objectives of Federal legislation without
20 being bound by some of the legal requirements of regula-
2i tions that may not be completely applicable at the local
22 level.
23 There are two reasons why I think local
24 agencies are important and why their activities are
25 important.
-------
81
1 First of all, if a citizen has a complaint
2 about a landfill, whether it is a odor problem or water
seepage into a near-by waterway or whatever it is, he
may call EPA in the Dallas Regional office or in Washing-
ton, or he may call one of the state Agencies in Austin.
6 But in a great majority of the times he will call a
7 local governmental agency. in this particular area
g that means either the city of Houston Health Department
or the Harris County pollution Control Agency.
10 If we get a complaint of that nature and
11 if we happen to have a Field Inspector over on that
12 side of town in one of our radio-equipped cars, he may
13 be out there inspecting and investigating that problem
14 in as little as ten or fifteen minutes. Many times it
15 will take somewhat longer than that. But in almost any
case a local agency can get there quicker and investigate
17 sooner than a State or Federal Agency.
18 The second reason why I think local
19 agencies are important is that they have already been
20 out in that neighborhood, perhaps looking at that landfill,
21 certainly looking at water quality problems along the
22 stream or river, looking at local industries and their
23 emissions into the atmosphere or their discharges into
24 that river, or looking at local environmental conditions
25 that are important. One illustration of the importance
-------
82
of that, Houston is the fifth largest city in the country,
2 with an urban population of about two and a quarter
3 million. it has all of the urban problems of any urban
area of similar size, but, in addition, we have a very
, large, heavy industrial manufacturing complex which
far exceeds in scope and complexity the manufacture
6
_ and operations in many other cities of similar size.
So, we are used to the urban problems and solid waste
o
disposal problems, the water supply problems, the
.. sewage treatment problems, and so on. But we are
.. also familiar with the industrial problems of the
.. Houston Ship Channel area and some of the other
problems of the Houston Region.
I think that perhaps a major omission
from the guidelines in the March 26th Federal Register,
insofar as we know, and omission from other EPA regula-
17 tions and publications, is a set of principles, or
18 perhaps a set of guidelines that will identify the
role and the responsibilities of State and Local
2Q Governments in more detail than they are defined at
the present time.
22 I think sometimes there is a tendency,
23 and perhaps it is in part subconscious, for a Federal
24 authority to pre-empt State and Local Agencies in
25 many areas. I suppose there are two reasons for that.
-------
83
1 One is the multi-million dollar budget of EPA, which
2 far surpasses the resources of State and Local Agencies;
3 and, second, perhaps, is the Constitutional primacy
4 of Federal authority over State and Local authority.
5 I would not imply that we have any objec-
6 tion to Federal authority and Federal responsibilities
7 in the environmental control field, we welcome those
responsibilities and those activities.
First of all, there are interstate
problems which Constitutionally are a responsibility
11 of the Federal Government. There are research and
12 development needs which can be met more effectively
13 by a single comprehensive national R and D Program than
specific State Programs or a large number of Local
15 programs.
We sometimes need a back-up when problems
17 exceed either our resources or our geographical area
of jurisdiction.
19 So, there are a lot of ways in which
20 the Federal authority is a very useful tool for us and
as an additional safeguard for the citizens of this
22 area.
23 But I think some spelling out, some
24 set of principles that specify how these different
25 levels of government react and interact with each
-------
84
1 other would be helpful.
2 I might mention that State Laws in Texas
3 makes this sort of a delegation with respect to Local
4 Governments. That has been true for a long time in
5 our health and sanitation legislation. In more recent
6 years, it has been true in the State Radiation Control
7 Act, the Texas Clean Air Act, the Texas Water Quality
Act, the Solid Waste Act, and other environmental
legislation.
One approach, perhaps, for making such
a statement of principles would be something comparable
to the so-called 208 Planning, which was a mandatory
13 part of Public Law 92500, the Federal Water pollution
Control Act. That planning was a very complex operation,
very frustrating, very long and drawn out for the people
who were involved in it. I guess if we started that
208 Planning all over again today, everybody involved in
it would do something different from what they did
before. And the implementation will be complex and
2Q frustrating and long and drawn out. But for all those
difficulties, there is a major advantage in this because
22 the 208 Plan for the Houston Region says who is going
23 to do what. It identifies and allocates the responsi-
24 bilities for a continuing planning operation, for the
25 construction of facilities, for the operation and
-------
85
maintenance of those facilities, for enforcement actions,
2 for financing, and we know what our responsibilities
3 are in the wastewater control field as the City of
4 Houston Health Department with far more certainty than
5 we know what our responsibilities are with respect to
. landfills or other solid waste disposal problems.
, I think we certainly do not need sotne-
thing as complex and as involved as the 208 Planning
process, but something on that approach which spells
out the responsibilities of different levels of Govern-
ment and to which those different Governmental Agencies
can agree would certainly be helpful in this area also.
13 Mr. chairman, that concludes our formal
presentation. We will be glad to answer any questions
that we can.
16 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Are there any questions from the Panel
Members?
(No response.)
20 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
I would just like to mention that we
22 don't have a regulation for everything, but we do have
23 a regulation that should be promulgated in June of this
year that will speak to planning and development of
25 State Solid Waste Management Programs under our granting
-------
86
1 system, and that regulation, I think you will find will
2 address the relative roles of Government to the extent
3 that you were speaking of. I hope that that will
4 satisfy the need that you indicate that you seek.
5 MR. HERBERT C. McKEE:
Well, thank you. I think that this is
important and we will look forward to that and would like
to comment on it when it is proposed.
9 I guess, to some extent, I would share
10 the concerns of the legislative representative from
11 Arizona. I think we have done a good job in Texas.
12 Our controls have become more and more complete and more
13 and more appropriate as they have been developed by
changes in legislation and by experience on learning
15 on the part of the Agencies involved, and I think we
have a reasonably good system right now for permitting
17 of landfills by the State Health Department and for
monitoring and surveillance of those landfills once
19 they are in operation.
20 I think we are in better shape now than
we have been at various times in the past and I don't
22 think we are creating anything analogous to Love Canal
23 today, but, certainly, as in any other city in the
24 country, there can be no absolute assurance that we
25 don't have something twenty or thirty years old
-------
87
1 lurking back in the shadows analogous to that that might
2 becoms more evident in the future. But I do not think we
3 are creating that type of a situation today, or at least
4 ~L think our chances of creating it are extremely remote.
5 Nothing is absolute, but I think we do have an effective
, system of controls that has been developed over a period
7 of years and at the moment, at least at the local level,
we are not aware of any major limitations or lack of
authority or lack of adequate control and surveillance
of landfills.
n CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
12 Thank you.
Are there any questions from the
audience?
15 (No response.)
,6 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you.
18 MR. HERBERT C. MCKEE:
19
Thank you, Mr. chairman.
20 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Mr. Angus MacPhee. Ms. Becky Drew
22 will be speaking for Mr. MacPhee.
23
24
25
-------
88
n
I STATEMENT OF BECKY ^
-------
89
landfill facilities in a manner that will protect public
2 health and the environment.
3 Furthermore, these guidelines, when
4 implemented and followed by operators of landfill dis-
5 posal facilities, should result in a general upgrading
of the state of the art for disposal technologies.
7 Regarding numerous particular sections
g of the guidelines, for example, as to design, leachate
9 control, gas control, operation, et cetera, I am pleased
10 with the flexibility allowed by the "recommended
11 practices" in order to achieve and fulfill the "general
12 requirements." Such flexibility is necessary as is the
13 reasonable and practicable interpretation of the require-
ments by regulatory agencies and the public.
15 To the extent practicable, I hope such
interpretation is also uniformly applied among the
17 States.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
20 Thank you very much.
2] Mr. Steven Taub.
22
23
24
25
-------
90
STATEMENT OF STEVEN TAUB
2 MR. STEVEN TAUB:
3 Thank you.
4 My name is Steven Taub. I am Vice-
5 President of Process and Engineering Development, Stablex
6 corporation.
We will submit our written remarks
prior to the deadline.
Stablex Corporation has since 1974
10 operated Land Reclamation Centers in the united Kingdom
11 I and Japan.
.. Raw materials necessary to produce
,, Stablex, an inert rock-like land reclamation material,
.. can be found in several areas as a result of industrial
14 I
activity. These raw materials are produced by various
,, industries as waste by-products of their operations.
17 Most of these, some of which are potentially toxic,
or hazardous, are often disposed of indiscriminately
._ in an environmentally unacceptable fashion.
in the early 1970's, Stablex researchers
and engineers discovered and developed what is now a
22 patented process that converts many of these by-product
23 wastes to valuable land reclamation material that
24 exhibits exceptionally good environmental compatibility
25 and structural integrity.
-------
91
1 The process through which Stablex
2 material is manufactured relies on a crystal capture
3 mechanism wherein waste by-product raw materials form
4 chemical bonds with additives, creating a polymer-like
5 matrix or rock-like substance.
6 Through its seal-a-safe service,
7 Stablex Corporation offers both industry and surrounding
8 communities an unusual opportunity -- for the former,
9 a method to eliminate a problem in an effective manner
10 with utmost safety; and, for the latter, a way to reclaim
11 and return to productive use otherwise derelict land.
12 Stablex Corporation proposes to es-
13 tablish seal-a-safe service throughout various parts
14 of the United states. Facilities will be erected to
15 manufacture Stablex material from process additives and
16 compatible pre-tested raw materials, including those
17 considered to be potentially toxic and hazardous wastes.
18 Stablex material will be used to reclaim
19 derelict land in areas contiguous to its conversion
20 facility.
21 Of major importance in the successful
22 conversion of potentially toxic and hazardous waste
23 materials to inert product is the screening and
24 determination of the material's compatibility with the
25 process.
-------
92
As with all processes, it is of crucial
2 importance to make certain that only materials of suitable
3 quality are received so that the end product meets all
desired specifications.
5 As is normal with production processes,
, raw material quality control must be maintained. There-
fore, prior to agreeing to accept a particular material
for conversion to the Stablex Land Reclamation Product,
a series of pre-process tests are performed to insure
the material's compatibility with the process, and to
. j insure that it can be successfully converted to high
.. quality land reclamation material.
,. When materials are received at the
facility, checks are made to determine that the materials
, received are similar to those already contracted for.
This saves in the quality control of the final product
and allows personnel at the plant to direct the material
,0 to the proper storage facilities.
lo
. From temporary storage, various materials
_- are brought together in a stock preparation area in which
21 pre-treatment additives are added to insure that the
final product meets all necessary specifications.
23 Finally, utilizing final processing
additives and the processing unit, the product is
25 produced.
-------
93
The product is utilized for a useful
purpose. For example, land reclamation.
There are many thousands of acres in
4 various parts of the united States, for example, strip
5 mines, abandoned quarries, et cetera, that are in need
of land reclamation. The price for clean fill in many
parts of the country is typically $4.00 per yard
minimum. At this price it is economically prohibitive
to restore an otherwise derelict land area to its natural
condition in which it could become produce and useful
again.
12 The product supplied by Stablex Corpor-
ation is utilized for land reclamation purposes, it
is not a waste product.
The product is a useful substitute for
expensive clean fill.
Traditional treatment of disposal
strategies for waste, including those potentially toxic
and hazardous, can result in unacceptable and problemati-
20 cal long-term solutions for the current waste disposal
problem.
22 The stablex facility actually converts
23 material to a useful product, whereas, landfills are
24 operated to store materials or hold partially converted
25 materials in earthen cells for many years, placement
-------
94
1 of materials into land and then buying the materials fits
2 the normal definition of landfill, which means as
3 defined in 40 CFR Part 241, "Facilities for the disposal
4 of solid waste involving the placement of solid waste
5 on or into the land surface, and usually involving
6 compaction and covering of the disposed solid waste,
7 and which is not a land-spreading or surface-impoundment
8 facility."
9 Further, "'Solid waste1 means any
10 garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant,
11 water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
12 facility and other discarded material, including solid,
13 liquid, semi-solid or contained gaseous material resulting
14 from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
15 operations, and from community activities ..." et cetera.
16 Stablex Corporation believes there is
17 a clear distinction between the ordinary definition of
18 "solid waste" and "artificial stone" which is used as
19 a valuable land reclamation product.
20 Stablex wishes to draw EPA's attention
21 to the fact that Stablex material is not a discarded
22 waste material. it is a valued product supplied to
23 return back land into productive use, whether it be used
24 for park land, low-grade agricultural purposes, or
25 building purposes.
-------
95
, The entire philosophy of the conversion
of waste materials into an inert nontoxic essentially
inorganic nonbiodegractable, nonflammable, noncombustible
material that is unattractive to pests and vermin is to
insure that wastes are truly converted and changed from
a noxious material into one that is environmentally
6
acceptable. It clearly delineates the difference between
an ordinary landfill operation and the seal-a-safe
service facility for land reclamation purposes. The
following factors must be considered:
For landfill, wastes received are placed
into cells either with or without processing and the
13 cells are subsequently covered over with earth to pre-
14 vent the incursion of water which, in turn, minimizes
,, leaching potential
Inorganic waste materials placed in
17 these cells remain in the state in which they are placed
or may deteriorate over years creating a long-term
potential environmental risk. Compare this with the
2Q Stablex product which is placed in a land reclamation
area in need of reclamation, and it is a material
22 comparable to ordinary construction materials; for
23 example, concrete, stone, et cetera.
24 EPA knows that problems of public
25 acceptance of facilities dealing with industrial by-products
-------
96
considered to be waste materials are immense. This is
2 especially so because of poor operating practices which
3 have occurred over the past years.
4 It is Stablex corporation's approach to
5 deal with unwanted waste by-products in a professional
, manner where each of these materials is converted into a
o
7 useful product, artificial stone, which typically finds
most value for land reclamation.
To categorize and/or classify the
Stablex product as a "solid waste" is incorrect.
Stablex corporation suggests that its
12 product, an artificial stone, be categorized as a land
reclamation material and not covered under the landfill
M rules.
15 All materials transported in trucks
must be manifested by EPA regulations or DOT regulations.
17 There is no reason that materials destined for conversion
at a seal-a-safe facility to Stablex product cannot be
manifested under DOT regulations in conformance with
2Q EPA's standards.
By so doing, the seal-a-safe facility
22 which would handle these materials would be required to
23 track each of the materials entering the facility and
24 document their fate, just like any other facility which
25 creates a product from a nonuseful or lower value raw
-------
97
material.
Every production facility in the united
States is fully familiar with raw material control forms,
quality control, on-plant maintenance, safety and product
disposition. In turn, the seal-a-safe service facility
operators are familiar with the methodology for con-
6
version of the materials to the final product at the
facility and know the fate of the final product. For
8
- example, where it is utilized for land reclamation pur-
poses, clearly, this particular type of operation is
.. not the traditional landfill operation nor is it a waste
. disposal facility. In a waste facility, the materials
that are received are disposed of in a fashion that they
, do not add value to the placement area. With the
14
seal-a-safe service approach placed materials add sub-
stantial value to the placement area and to the surrounding
16
._ community by returning otherwise unusable land to useful
I8 purposes.
. Stablex corporation proposes the following
to be considered by the EPA:
21 First, recognition that industrial by-
22 products are considered to be wastes under the various
23 operating measures may be raw materials to others.
24 Second, the land reclamation area at
25 which the final Stablex product is utilized is no longer
-------
98
1 a landfill because the area does not accept a solid waste
2 as defined under the Solid Waste Rules. The material is
3 not discarded, nor does it fit any of the other character-
4 istics of a material that has no substantial intrinsic
5 value.
5 EPA has stated several times that it
7 j wishes to encourage innovative and environmentally sensitive
g I technology when dealing with industrial waste products.
If a facility, such as a seal-a-safe service facility,
is labeled as a "treatment plant" and "landfill operation,"
11 ! area zoning ordinances, which would otherwise allow a
12 facility of this type, would have to be modified, making
13 it extremely difficult for a land reclamation business
14 which is environmentally acceptable and a desirable opera-
15 tion to become operational by being classed as a waste
disposal facility to satisfy EPA regulations.
17 I Stablex Corporation recommends that
18 j facilities which incorporate the utilization of processes
19 that actually convert industrial by-products to useful
20 land reclamation materials be either regulated in a
21 ! different fashion than the proposed regulations or
22 excluded from the regulations and included in their other
23 regulations.
24 We very much appreciate the opportunity
25 | we have had to present our views and trust they will be
-------
99
1 considered.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
4 Are there any questions from the Panel?
5 (No response.)
6 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
7 I Any questions from the audience?
g ; (No response.)
9 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
10 Thank you for an interesting presentation.
11 I Your views will be considered.
12 Mr. William Hutton.
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
100
1 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HUTTON
2 MR. WILLIAM C. HUTTON:
3 Gentlemen, my name is William C. Hutton,
4 and I am appearing here on behalf of the Texas Chemical
5 Council.
The Council is an association of 77
chemical companies with over 62,000 employees and repre-
senting approximately 90 per cent of the chemical industry
in Texas, over half of the nation's petrochemicals are
produced by member companies operating in Texas.
The Council has a long history of co-
operation with State and Federal Agencies in the further-
ance of responsible environmental legislation and regula-
tion. We appreciate this opportunity to make input into
15 the standards setting process for solid waste control.
We have followed the development of the
rules and regulations under the Solid Waste Act since the
law was enacted in 1976. Naturally, our effort has
focused mainly on Sections 3001 through 3010 dealing with
2Q hazardous waste materials. However, today we wish to
-, also express our interest in landfill regulations by
22 making a few comments on the proposed rules published in
23 the Federal Register of March 26, 1979.
24 The staff approach appears to be aimed
25 at achieving the ends of the Act in the most cost-effective
-------
101
1 manner on a site-specific basis.
2 We concur with the philosophy expressed
3 in Section 241.202-2(a), and I quote, "unless underlying
4 groundwater is determined to be unusable as a drinking
5 water or other supply source and therefore is not in need
of protection, the bottom of the landfill disposal
facility should be substantially above the seasonally
high groundwater table ...". This statement recognizes
an approach that we have taken in many long discussions
1Q with the EPA staff concerning Sections 3001 through 3010.
Groundwater and aquifers are not
necessarily the same thing in most instances. For
instance, in this area of the nation we are standing not
]4 many feet above sea level. The water table may be only
15 a foot below the surface of the ground. Since the
16 height above sea level is small, there is little driving
force or head, and, because the ground is mostly clay,
the horizontal movement of groundwater is very slow.
Because of the clays, the vertical movement of water,
20 according to the u. S. coast and Geodetic Survey people,
is in geologic time.
22 The aquifer under the Houston-Galveston
23 area is some 600 to 1,200 feet below us, protected by
24 clays and shale.
25 The recharge for this aquifer is in
-------
102
1 Montgomery County, some 50 miles north of where we are.
2 It is not our intent to casually dismiss
3 such groundwater and say absolutely no protection is
4 warranted.
5 Site-specific decisions should be made.
We think you have recognized this in the
proposed regulations.
Landfills should not be built where
9 there are known surface faults or active faults, and you
10 have recognized this in your regulations.
11 Very rigid and strenuous requirements
12 should be imposed for landfills needed in an aquifer
13 recharge area, and you have recognized this in your
regulations. Less stringent requirements are necessary
in areas such as the Gulf Coast area where the groundwater
is not usable, and we believe you have recognized this.
17 We concur that attenuation of leachate
18 in groundwater is experienced. In many cases, again on
19 a site-specific basis, this attenuation alone will
20 suffice to protect the brackish waters found in the Gulf
21 Coast area and other coastal areas.
22 We endorse the application of engineering
23 principles to minimize the contact of contaminated
24 materials in high groundwater areas.
25 The implication in Section 241.202-2(a),
-------
103
1 and I quote, "That pumping may be necessary to lower the
2 water table" suggests that alternative solutions will
3 be considered on a case-by-case, site-specific basis.
4 We concur that a site-specific approach
5 will offer the most effective solution to meet these
problems.
Furthermore, it is stated that: "A
groundwater monitoring system should be installed for
the purpose of detecting the impact of all landfill
disposal facilities, which have the potential for dis-
charge to an underground drinking water source."
12 This seems to say that where there is little or no
potential for the leachate to reach an aquifer,
a groundwater monitoring system is not required, we
endorse this practical approach and we believe this
16 alternative should be spelled out so the administrator
of the program will have a clear definition of choices
18 in site-specific decisions.
19 ' We appreciate the opportunity of making
20 these remarks, and if you have any questions we will
try to answer them-
4
22 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARY:
23 Are there any questions from the
24 audience?
25 (No response.)
-------
104
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARJ?:
2 There being no questions, I thank you
3 for your comments.
That ends the list of individuals who
5 had requested in advance to provide remarks at this
, hearing.
-. Are there any persons in the audience
who would care to make remarks at this point?
. I see a hand.
. Please come forward and state your name
and affiliation.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
105
STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. BARNETT
2 MR. RICHARD S. BARNETT:
3 Mr. DeGeare and Mr. Hathaway, I am
Richard Barnett, a professional geologist with J. M.
5 Huber corporation, representing the Environmental
Committee of the Houston Geological Society, a
6 |
professional organization of more than 4,000 members,
the world's largest such organization.
We did apply to make a presentation
... and our application was not received in time.
Our written comments concern the
selection of new sites for municipal type solid wastes,
not hazardous wastes of other kinds.
Geologists invite and support alterna-
14
tives to the burial and casual dumping of solid waste,
that is, waste avoidance, waste reduction, waste
16
reclamation, conversion and utilization. But these
18
are not directly geological matters. They are matters
of citizenship and economics.
2Q When all else fails, solid waste
disposal is the subject which comes directly into our
domain. The selection of new sites in the Greater
23 Houston Area is a matter of immediate concern to
everybody here now that the City of Houston is down
25 to access of one less site.
-------
106
1 Functionally speaking, a new site must
2 contain waste and, second, isolate waste from further
3 reaction with the environment.
4 The primary technical considerations in
5 evaluating the feasibility of a new site are directly
or indirectly geological. A site with satisfactory
geological properties is compatible with environmental
and public health concerns and can be made safe, hygienic
9 and socially tolerable in contrast with an open dump.
10 [ The former pattern of site selection
in empty places, undeveloped but environmentally
12 sensitive area or low-priced minority residential areas,
13 is not geologically satisfactory.
14 I welcome the proposed guidelines in
15 general as far as it concerns municipal type wastes. I
16 cannot comment on the blue environmental impact statement
17 which I have not received and examined.
lg j in regard to the recommended practices
in this publication. Paragraph 241.200-2, Page 18142,
20 Section A, Environmentally sensitive Areas, the paragraph
2i is correct. These areas should not be considered. They
22 should be forbidden. Proposals such as the Katy-Hockley
23 site, referred to previously, have no other technical
24 merit other than being out of sight and out of mind.
25 Environmentally sensitive areas are public resources
-------
107
1 which cannot be regenerated by sophisticated engineering.
2 paragraphs 241, 201 to 204, I generally
3 concur technically for municipal wastes, though I
4 cannot comment on the more hazardous wastes.
5 paragraph 241-205(b) on Page 1847,
referring to "Cover," it appears that as little as a
hundred and five centimeters or three and a half feet will
suffice. That figure is adequate only for inert con-
9 struction wastes, not municipal garbage or other more
10 hazardous and reactive wastes in this area in view of
the Beaumont clay's high shrink and swell potential.
12 The whole subject of "Cover" requires further research
13 and detail.
14 in conclusion, I welcome the efforts
15 that you have made in these guidelines. Regulations,
however scientifically correct and enlightened, however,
17 are of no use without a private and public conscience
18 in waste generation and disposal. You cannot impose one
by law.
2Q The prevalence of littering shows that
21 you have a long way to go.
22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 MR. WAYNE TUSA:
24 Could you talk just a moment again about
25 that "Cover" question you brought up and perhaps make
-------
108
1 some suggestions as to what you think is happening?
2 MR. RICHARD S. BARNETT:
3 I cannot make further comment without
4 additional research on that particular subject, but
5 the Beaumont clay, which is otherwise ideal in geo-
logical terms as a medium for burying wastes, is
notoriously susceptible to shrinking in prolonged
dry weather. Everybody who has a lawn to mow around
here will know that. Your yards crack to depths of
three and four feet in June, July and August, and that
renders sites susceptible to invasion by rodents or
it allows gases and leachates to escape. It is not
13 satisfactory.
,4 MR. WAYNE TUSA:
Are you referring to the issue of final
cover?
17 MR. RICHARD S. BARNETT:
Final cover.
19 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
20 Yes, sir.
21 MR. CARL BRASOW:
22 | Again, my name is carl Brasow. I am
23 a registered professional engineer, but my area of
24 expertise is in soil mechanics as opposed to geology,
25 which is a little bit more general.
-------
109
1 But your reference to the cover design,
2 I think is well-established that one of the more
3 critical areas of failure, if you want to define a
4 failure of a landfill, is the bathtub effect. If you
5 can properly design cover, then you can eliminate the
(, bathtub effect, which, in effect, is filling up the
7 landfill, overflowing the sides and contaminating the
8 surface water.
9 So, without getting into the specifics
10 of that, cover is the most important part of the design.
11 There are ways to properly design cover without just
12 using clay by itself. You can enhance the material; you
]3 can use other specific types of very high plastic
14 materials, such as bentonite, use composite designs,
15 or a combination of both natural soil and artificial
16 liners.
17 The whole aspect of cover design is
18 really in its infancy and if there is an area of
19 criticality or concern, it is in the area of cover
20 design. That is the area in which additional research
2i has to be done.
22 MR. WAYNE TUSA:
23 Are you in general agreement that the
24 cover type should be as impermeable as possible in
25 general?
-------
110
MR. CARL BRASOW:
2 Excuse me. Could you repeat that?
3 MR. WAYNE TUSA:
4 Are you in general agreement that the
5 cover type should be as impermeable as possible?
6 MR. CARL BRASOW:
7 Absolutely. Absolutely. Because if you
use a permeable cover material, you are just going to
fill up the bathtub. It is absolutely ridiculous to use
a permeable material such as a sand, for instance, or any
other material of that nature.
Really, you do get into problems when you
13 start using low plastic materials to minimize shrink-swell
potential because then you start to increase the
15 permeability. There are other ways of designing the
caps to enhance and maintain a relatively low permeability
and still maintain a low shrink-swell potential.
]8 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
, Any further questions from the audience?
2Q (No response.)
21 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
22 Thank you for your remarks.
is there anyone else who would like to
present testimony?
25 Yes.
-------
Ill
1 STATEMENT OF LEROY CHEVALIER
2 MR. LEROY CHEVALIER:
3 Mr. chairman and Audience, I am
4 Attorney Leroy Chevalier. I am representing the
5 Northeast Organization for progress.
My organization is primarily concerned
this morning with the location of landfills in or near
municipalities, the general consensus being that most
9 of these landfills up to this point here in Houston
10 that I am familiar with have been located in or near
minority communities.
12 I think the EPA should take a look
13 as to what the general consensus is throughout the
14 total community and where landfills should be located,
15 the distance from public schools. I stand to be
corrected, but I think the State of Texas holds that
17 no landfill can be located any closer than 500 feet
18 | from a school. Well, I don't know what type of an
19 education a student could get looking at a landfill.
20 | I live in Northeast Houston and we
21 I have had within the last five years three or four
22 I different landfills within this community, and this
23 ! is within, let's say, about 150,000 people living in
24 ! this area. Now, these have been small, maybe like,
25 let's say, four or five acres, but this is degrading,
-------
112
1 wretched and abject situations that we are being forced
2 to live under unless EPA or some other Federal
3 regulation comes in and sets some type of criteria for
4 the location of these various landfills. And I think
5 this burden does go toward the general welfare of the
6 community.
7 Now, this impact is national. it is
8 not only locally here in Houston, but it is something
9 that is being dealt with where, I think, the least
10 ; resistance is. you put up something where you don't have
11 very much fuss. 0. K. Typically, this has been a
12 minority community.
13 So, I am asking EPA to establish or
14 take some type of evaluation as to where general land-
15 fills are generally located and set a criteria that will
16 eliminate or alleviate this type of stigma toward
17 minority communities.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
20 Thank you for raising that point.
21 I personally would find it very diffi-
22 cult to generate such criteria, and if you could, in
23 the future before the May 25th deadline, provide us
24 with suggestions, I would appreciate it, so we could
25 consider them.
-------
113
1 MR. LEROY CHEVALIER:
2 Yes. I think that something feasible
3 could come out of this thing.
4 I think what I am dealing with here is
5 especially the urban areas where cities are establishing
, what is called refuse landfills and I am sure that it
6
can be determined from where each additional fill was
up to a prior time what the mode or apparatus that the
City has been using in order to establish this for
preservation of the establishment of landfills.
,, CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Are there any questions from the
,, audience?
14 A VOICE:
15 What organization are you representing?
16 MR. LEROY CHEVALIER:
Northeast organization for progress in
18 Northeast Houston.
)9 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
_0 Thank you, sir.
2, MR. LEROY CHEVALIER:
Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
24 Would anyone else care to make a
25 statement?
Yes, ma'am.
-------
114
I STATEMENT OF FRANCES JO PELLEY
2 MS. FRANCES JO PELLEY:
3 I am Frances Jo Pelley with the Texoma
4 Regional located in Denison, Texas.
5 I want to thank the EPA for giving me
this opportunity to come to a public hearing in Texas
in addition to the ones that are usually scheduled in
Washington, D. C.
9 j I really just have a few quick questions.
10 j The first one refers to the definition of an "aqu-ifer",
and that is Paragraph 241.101. It refers to a formation
12 that is capable of yielding usable quantities of ground-
13 waters to wells or springs, and I think that is open to
14 too much interpretation, as far as the word "usable."
, It could be clarified by maybe "usable to a certain
number of people." I do not doubt that in one particular
17 city in my area that two aquifers serve all the water
]g 1 supplies for that municipality, which is more than
19 30,000 people, and, which, incidentally, is on the out-
20 crop of which they decided to locate their landfill is
2i a usable aquifer, but at the same time there are
22 j formations that are considered minor aquifers that
23 ' cover a great expanse of the county up there that do yield
24 small quantities of water to, say, several rural
25 families. That term "usable quantities" does not say
-------
115
1 anything about the quality of the water. Whereas, the
2 aquifer may yield quantities of water, they may be un-
3 usable or unsuitable for public supply.
4 The same term type definition is re-
5 ferred to in Paragraph 241.202-2 and refers to leachate
6 control, and it starts out the paragraph:
7 "Unless the underlying groundwater is
determined to be unusable as a drinking
9 water supply or other supply source
10 I am concerned with who is going to
11 determine that source unusable, and what we may consider
12 unusable now may not be unusable ten or twenty years
13 from now when the quantity of water we need will warrant
14 the expense of economics necessary to treat that quality
of water.
Lastly, I would refer to the general
17 use of the term "shallow" and "deep" landfill. in
18 Paragraph 241-203-2 it talks about gas control and makes
19 reference to the rule of thumb in estimating migration of
20 gas from a shallow landfill and a deep landfill. If
2i you could quantify that as less than 20 feet or put
22 some type of number associated with it -- what is "deep"
23 to me may not be "deep" to someone else.
24 Thank you.
25
-------
116
1 MR. WAYNE TUSA:
2 Could you provide us with comments on
3 what you consider to be "usable"?
4 MS. FRANCES JO PELLEY:
5 0. K.
6 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
j Are there any questions from the
g audience?
9 (No response.)
10 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
1] Thank you for your comments.
Yes, ma'am.
13 A VOICE:
]4 Is it permissible to ask questions?
,5 ! CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
We just want to give everyone an
opportunity to make statements and provide testimony
and then we will get to that.
Are there any more statements to be
-0 made?
(No response.)
22 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
23 O. K. We will provide an opportunity
24 for you to ask questions of us, then we will take a lunch
25 break and we will be back here at 1:00 o'clock to see
-------
117
1 if there are others who could not make the morning session,
2 but who were planning on being with us in the afternoon.
3 We will see if anyone comes and see if myone wishes to
4 present testimony at that time.
5 Before you all leave, let me mention
6 again that there is a deadline for receipt of written
7 comments, and that is May 25th, and we are asking that
a you mail to the address indicated in the Federal Register.
9 I would like to now open the floor for
10 any questions that you may have that you would like to
]] ask.
12 Yes, ma'am.
,3 DORRIS McWILLIAMS:
14 I am a Police Juror, which is county
15 commissioner equivalent, from caddoparish, Louisiana,
16 and that is the parish in which the city of Shreveport
17 is located.
18 I just have one brief statement, and
19 that is that we all hope that when the permitting forms
2Q and processes are developed that they will be simple,
21 that we will have, you might say, one form with which
22 we can apply for all the necessary clearances, such as
23 the OSHA and other safety things as well as EPA landfill
24 siting and operation process, so that the paperwork
25 will be the smallest possible drain on our staff and
-------
118
capabilities.
2 The question I wanted to ask is this,
3 referring to Page 18147 -- and I have not seen the EIS
4 as yet and just had access to this this past week
but it is in the center column. Item 6 at the top of
the page, "Scavenging should be prohibited at all times
to avoid injury ...", et cetera, "... although controlled
salvaging operations may be permissible."
Would one of you all elaborate on just
how this might be feasible or what you mean by that?
MR. BERNARD STOLL:
Well, the reason we put in two definitions
was really the word "control" included in one.
"Scavenging" is normally or has been considered un-
controlled removal of wastes from a location; whereas,
,, "salvaging" is intended to imply that it is controlled
somehow through the operator of that facility.
]8 We invite comments on that because in
the past it is well known that some salvaging operations
2Q deteriorate into scavenging operations, but we were
2] j trying to draw a semantic difference between the two.
22 DORRIS MCWILLIAMS:
-, Any guidelines as to how this could be
24 accomplished safely to reduce the quantity of material
25 that will have to be landfill would certainly be
-------
119
appreciated.
Thank you very much.
3 MR. BILL HATHAWAY:
4 One comment. On your opening statement,
c relative to permits, EPA does not have provisions
within the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for
o
, permitting sanitary landfills other than hazardous
waste disposal facilities. So, there will be no per-
mitting activities by the Federal Government on solid
waste facilities other than that -- only State.
1, CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
.. Are there any other general questions?
Yes, sir
,, JACK DREIfH:
14
I am Jack Dreith with Shell Oil Company.
Would you elaborate a little bit on
16
the difference between "guidelines" and "criteria" and
what you expect to see when the criteria is published
and how you expect the States to utilize these guide-
20 lines?
2] [ CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
I cannot comment on what we expect to
23 see when the criteria are published in terms of what
24 the criteria will say. I might add that the criteria
25 are expected to be published in the Federal Register in
-------
120
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
late July of this year.
The criteria will be used by the States
to determine which facilities are sanitary landfills
or open dumps.
The guidelines are suggested technologies
that can be used at the state level, for example, as we
are doing applications for permits under the State
authorities that could be used by operators in designing
facilities or operating facilities. They could be
used by designers in their design efforts.
The guidelines are for general use as
opposed to a speed fie regulatory application, if that
helps to address the question you were asking.
MR. BERNARD STOLL:
To elaborate a little further on your
question as to how the State might utilize the guidelines,
we do expect and actually do encourage that since the
criteria for facilities or performance of standards we
urge state Agencies to adopt operating standards for
reviewing applications prior to award of the permit.
In that regard, these guidelines we would hope would be
considered by the states in modifying or updating their
own regulations and rules to have the best that we have
to offer incorporated into their standards. We do not
hope, on the other hand, that the States just taXe the
-------
121
recommended guidelines that we are offering and make them
2 a state regulation in toto.
3 JACK DREITH:
4 one other question. On the elimination
5 of land spreading and impoundments on the guideline
, coverage, was there a reason behind this?
7 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
The criteria for solid waste disposal
o
9 facilities under 4004 are intended to address all land
disposal of solid waste. We defined that as being three
methods, three distinct although not necessarily over-
12 lapping -- but there are three types of land disposal,
namely, landfilling, land spreading, and surface impound-
14 ment, some as site-specific and some as waste-specific,
., as to which name is more appropriate for a given facility.
The guidelines that we developed here
were to focus on the ones that the States have been most
interested in in the past and the ones we know most about,
namely, landfilling.
2Q We have intentions of providing in the
future a guideline document which will address land
spreading of solid waste and a separate guideline document
23 to address surface impoundment of solid waste. We did
24 not intend to exclude those other two practices, it is
25 just that we have not developed those other documents as
-------
122
1 yet.
2 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeQEARE:
3 Yes, ma'am.
4 BARBARA BAINE:
5 I have a question for the Panel. My
name is Barbara Baine. I represent myself.
I address this question to the panel:
Do you gentlemen know of any landfills
other than those that are exclusively construction
material operating in your definitions of an environmentally
sensitive area that are doing no damage? Is it possible
12 to name me one?
)3 A VOICE:
14 What was the last part of your question?
15 BARBARA BAINE:
Doing no damage. Go further -- minimal
damage.
]8 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
19 ! I don't know of any landfill operating
2Q in an environmentally sensitive area. Just from my
personal knowledge of such things, that does not mean
22 they do not exist, and if they do exist, they are
23 damaging or not damaging.
24 BARBARA BAINE:
25 I would suggest you visit New Jersey if
-------
123
1 you have never seen one operating in your definition.
1 They are there in swamps and wetlands and the habitat of
3 the endangered species.
4 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
5 One reason that we have a little diffi-
6 culty answering the question, other than limited knowledge
7 '. of facilities throughout the country, is: One, the
8 criteria classification has not been finalized as yet.
9 I As we say, they should be finalized in July, sometime in
10 July. So, we are talking against a moving target. And,
11 secondly, an action following promulgation is the inventory
12 of solid waste disposal facilities by the states to make
13 the determination as to its environmental acceptability
14 or not for specific facilities.
15 So, within about a year, about next year,
16 it should be possible to provide a more satisfactory answer
17 to your question.
18 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
19 Yes, sir.
20 JIM ANDERSON:
21 My name is Jim Anderson with Olan.
22 Did I understand you to say that the
23 regulations that would be proposed this July would be
24 performance criteria rather than design standards? And,
25 if so, how would they address the performance of the
-------
124
formation at the bottom of the landfill?
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
The regulation I mentioned is not to be
. proposed in July. It is to be published in final form.
It was proposed last February, February of 1978.
, JIM ANDERSON:
6
And these will be performance criteria
with no design criteria?
8
9 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
I am not sure I can draw the difference
between -- I can talk to the difference between per-
12 formance and operating, but either of those can be
design criteria.
The criteria included environmental
effects standards such as nondegradation of water or non-
,, pollution of the air as opposed to requirements for
16
placing a liner at the base of the landfill.
. So, the criteria or performance or
. environmental effects criteria, yes.
20 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you.
22 Any further questions?
23 (No response.)
24 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
25 There being none, we will close this
-------
125
session of the hearing and we will reopen the record at
2 1:00 o'clock for receipt of further testimony.
, (Whereupon, at 12:00 o'clock Noon,
. a recess was taken, to reconvene at
1:00 o'clock P. M., the same day.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
126
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 (1:10 P.M.)
3 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
4 Good Afternoon.
5 This is the continuation of a hearing
which we started this morning at 9:00 o'clock. It is
being held by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
on the subject of proposed guidelines for the landfill
disposal of solid waste.
we received testimony this morning
culminating with a Question and Answer period and we
12 I went through the entire list of persons who had requested
opportunity to provide testimony.
Now the question is: is there anyone
else present here this afternoon who would like an
,, opportunity to provide testimony on this proposed
regulation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
2Q I see no one requesting an opportunity
to provide testimony.
22 Are there any questions regarding this
23 regulation that you would like to ask the Panel?
Yes, ma1am.
25
-------
127
1 KATHLEEN ORR:
2 I am Kathleen Orr.
3 I have not received an EIS and I wonder
4 if the comment period will still be only the 25th, if
5 I don't receive it before that time?
6 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
When did you request it, ja'am?
KATHLEEN ORR:
Well, I didn't have one before. I
represent the Houston Audubon Society.
MR. BERNARD STOLL:
12 I see.
,, We announced in the Federal Register the
. availability of the environmental impact statement within
one week of publication of the regulations as proposed.
You may, of course, request in writing
prior to the May 25th close of public comment, may
18 request an extension of the public comment period. We
19 have received only one public comment to that effect to
20 date, but, of course, we cannot make a decision until
we approach the May 25th deadline.
22 Again, you have the opportunity to
23 request an extended comment period, but we have no in-
24 tention as yet to do that.
25
-------
128
} CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE :
2 were you able to receive a copy here
3 today?
4 KATHLEEN ORR:
5 NO.
6 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
7 0 We will make one available to you.
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
9 I Are there any further questions?
10 (No response.)
II i MR. BERNARD STOLL:
12 Any comments or observations?
13 (No response)
I4 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
15 There was one gentleman who had re-
quested an opportunity to talk with us. Out of courtesy
17 to him, we will extend the meeting a bit further.
He asked for an opportunity to go to his
car to obtain some materials that he had brought with him.
2Q We will stand in recess until 1:30.
(Recess.)
22 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
23 It being 1:30, I will ask the hearing
24 come back to order. We will proceed as we did this
25 morning with a time limitation of approximately ten
-------
129
minutes on presentations with an opportunity for
2 questions from the panel and the audience.
3 Let me ask again if there is anyone who
4 would like an opportunity to present a statement at
5 this time?
6 Yes, sir.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
130
1 STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES PARKER
2 DR. JAMES PARKER:
3 I am or. James Parker. I am from
4 LaMarque, Texas.
5 The area that I would present evidence
6 on today is in the Coastal Area of Texas extending from
7 the Louisiana State Line to the Rio Grande.
8 I have inspected on an aerial basis and
9 on a ground level most of the major points in the long
10 j Coastline of Texas.
11 i Generally speaking, the coast of Texas
12 is a flat, featureless plain. The elevation, of course,
13 will vary, but very little. It is generally very flat and
]4 the soil patterns are of particular importance and I
15 wish to stress these today.
16 i Starting at the Louisiana State Line
17 I and into the Houston area, we have a continuing repeti-
18 tion of soil types. Now, in the immediate marsh area
19 or near marsh areas, of course, we have the build-up
20 of a marsh cover type material, which is a very highly
2] porous material. How far inland this will extend
22 depends on the particular type you are looking at.
23 Now, in these areas we have a calciferous
24 material beneath the marsh area, or we have sand. Now,
25 the soil profiles must be considered very carefully.
-------
131
1 They are repetitive. There will be every few hundred
2 yards on the Gulf Coast of Texas outcroppings of sand.
3 Now, between these outcroppings there
4 may be a denser type of material. It will generally
5 be a clay type of soil, heavily interspersed with
calciferous and calcarious materials, all of which are
very porous and have a high degree of permeability.
Beneath, and encountered at a level of
perhaps 12 to 18 feet and certainly into the area of 15
to 25 feet, we approach a soil type of clay which is
11 highly variable and the permeability of this clay will
12 likewise be highly variable.
13 The one important characteristic, however,
14 of these deeper clay stratas, as will be shown in soil
profiles, is that they are all interspersed with pockets
of sand.
The actual distance of the pockets of
12 sand will vary.
Quite commonly they will be 15 to 20
20 feet apart. This is borne out by well drillers' logs
2i and by soil profiles pursuant to the various applicants
22 who seek to put pits in landfill sites.
23 What we look at, then, on the coast of
24 Texas, is a highly permeable layer of material extending
25 down perhaps to 30 feet.
-------
132
You will also, before that level of
2 30 feet, encounter one of your first useful water
3 strata.
In the Houston area and this is
5 pretty well, pretty general from the Rio Grande to
Louisiana -- your first useful water strata will be
6
around 23 feet. Now, this strata will not produce heavy
water, but it is used in agricultural purposes, par-
ticularly in ranching. That strata, however, will
percolate down into the deeper cisterns. In our area
we have the Alto Loma Sands and the Evangeline cistern.
The water in these deep cisterns may
be as a result of direct percolation or it may be
., primarily from a recharge zone. For example, I live
in the Texas City area. We have a recharge, major
,, recharge just south of Houston. However, a great deal
lo
of the water will be from direct percolation.
How does this fit into the question
lo
that we are addressing ourselves to, and that is
landfill sites?
In considering a landfill, and I must
admit that I did not know the parameters of your meeting
well today, we have a situation in which ditches will
be dug or trenches into the ground with the anticipation
24
of later covering them. We have this problem in our
-------
133
1 area of Texas City.
2 The land in this area, Texas City,
3 Beaumont, Port Arthur, Freeport, and perhaps at other
4 points down South, has undergone subsidence. It will
5 vary from a few inches to as much as ten feet. The
subsidence, whether the deep cisterns will continue to
be pumped or not, will continue for at least a decade.
What we look at today on a landfill site,
9 say at an elevation of four feet, we would in 1989 look
10 at a new marsh. Now, when we place a substance, whether
11 it is considered Class 1 toxic and hazardous or not,
12 into a system of that sort, you must consider that you
13 have beneath it a permeable material. You have above
it the stratification of the soils. You will have your
15 first major stratification at the topsoil down to the
sand and then between that layer and your clay you have
17 another major stratification. You intercept these strata.
18 You place the material into them, and this material will
19 travel down the Coast of Texas. And in this area we
20 have approximately 1300 tidal changes a year. These
21 tidal changes may be added beyond this if we consider
22 the effect of wind, which is one of the major factors
23 in our tidal workings in this area.
24 Each time a tide moves in the ground
25 water level is going to rise accordingly. I can give
-------
134
you the oceanographic engineering data on that.
2 As it rises with each of these tidal
, movements, you are going to have the contents of this
. landfill pushed to the surface, and the surface cover
being a very high permeable material.
Whatever may be in the landfill site
6
, is going to be exposed directly to the local environment.
Number two, by route of permeability
of the soils and the stratification, there will be
.. direct connection with the marine bodies of water or
other bodies, such as fresh water bayous that may run
12
. The basis that we see and I have seen
. . of people applying for a landfill site and this is
14
through the Texas Government will establish figures
based upon Type R fat clays which have a permeability
16
certainly you could select some in any given site in
Texas that have a permeability of ten to the minus seven
18
or better. That must be compared with the permeability
of a calciferous material, calcarious material, or a sand.
I would refer you to the work of Dorothy La Place (phonetic).
Dr. Zoggie (phonetic). Dr. casa Grande (phonetic), and
-, all of these authors who are familiar with the dynamics
of soil will tell you and show you conclusively that the
_, permeability differences between a type clay and, for
-------
135
1 example, a sand will vary by over one billion times.
2 Now, at these interfaces between a
3 soluble, highly permeable and a fairly nonpermeable
4 material, you have your interfaces develop, the piping,
5 the leakage, the seepage.
The other major problem that we encounter
in the Texas City area -- and I think it is probably
general, we have no control essentially over what goes
9 into a landfill site that might be tagged a Class 2 in
II
10 ! our Texas Code, Class 3, as nontoxic. we are approaching
11 a system today in Texas where there is a closing-in on
,2 the polluter, the industrial polluter. Representative
13 Eckhart's Committee is now, as of this week, required
14 50 major companies in the United States, chemical
U companies, to submit a list going back for 30 years that
1£ will require them to do what I have been yelling for
17 for over two years, and that ia to define in great
18 particularity, their waste streams and not call it a
19 commingled waste or tank bottoms, et cetera.
20 Now, this will lead to a lot of moon-
2i lighting, such as we have in our area, by small operators
22 handling class 1 materials.
23 I would anticipate that a great deal
24 of the cheating in the days ahead on the Texas coast
25 will indeed be in the form of taking drums, that we
-------
136
1 have seen at Love canal and many other points, the Texas
2 City Y, the old petro processors, these highly toxic,
3 dangerous materials being shipped to Texas from
4 Louisiana to our coast and as far away as Dallas and
5 Fort Worth, it will be hauled to, for example, the
Texas City landfill site that is proposed. The only
safeguard will be a city employee of minimal training
who only requires one thing Do you live in Texas
9 City or do you own property in Texas City? You have
10 totally no safeguard as to what will in fact go into
these systems. I have seen no recommendations for
testing subsequently as to what is there.
12 If you put mother's milk in this things
and it did seep into the marine environment, you will
have a demand, a biological oxygen demand. You will
compete with the marine organisms. Regardless of what
you put in there, it will seep into the marine waters.
18 It will have an adverse effect on the marine environment.
19 Now, gentlemen, in pursuance to our
2Q | stipulation, the color reversal films will be submitted
separately and I will explain them on a cassette tape,
22 and I am also sending all of this material to Judge
23 Casell's Court in Washington, D. C. I rather think that
24 the final determination of what we do will rest with
25 Judge casell, and I would encourage all of you to look
-------
137
1 at the suits that have been filed, that are on record,
2 pro and con, amicus curiae and whatnot.
3 I will say that the final determination
4 of what we are going to do on the entire spectrum here
5 will be in that fine gentleman's court.
I thank you.
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
Thank you, s ir.
9 Are there any questions from the Panel?
10 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
11 Yes.
Dr. Parker, I would like to request that
you provide comment, if you would, on those sections of
the guidelines, particularly dealing with cover and liner
materials, since soil mechanics was one of the things
that you were emphasizing, we would much appreciate
receiving written comment on that for incorporation
18 following the close of the public comment period.
19 DR. JAMES PARKER:
20 All right. I will do that, and I will
make you a present of a very fine recent book by Dr. Harry
22 Segrin of Sacramento, California, specifically dealing
23 with the futility of liners, whether they are plastic,
24 clay or whatnot.
25
-------
138
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeQEARE:
2 j Are there any questions from the
3 audience?
4 DR. JAMES PARKER:
I would be happy to go into any of these
factors. I might tell you people that I have flown now
22 missions over the Coast of Texas and will incorporate
this in a book later on, hopefully this year. i am
doing it the primary film I am using is infrared
color reversal, which I had hoped to show here today.
I am also paralleling these with the conventional color,
at times ordinary Kodachrome or Ectochrome.
I would think that by mid-July or later,
I will have documented the many thousands of pits on the
Gulf Coast of Texas.
16 I One thing I failed to tell you,
gentlemen, as we go further south we approach on soil
. types predominantly sand in contrast to where we are
here or to the east.
CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeQEARE:
-.
We do have one question.
22 Yes , s ir .
23 MR. CARL BRASOW:
My name is carl Brasow. I am a
25 registered professional engineer. My area of expertise
-------
139
1 is soil mechanics.
2 I might mention that Professor George
3 Sauers (phonetic), who was professor at Georgia Tech
4 in Soil Mechanics, happens to be the senior consultant
5 for the firm that I work for.
6 I would like to make some statements
7 in the form of questions to you. Dr. Parker, that although
8 I would agree in general terms with your soil stratigraphy,
9 would you not agree that the fact you could classify the
10 lower coastal soils, say from Houston south, and that
11 is being very erratic, basically a clay body interspersed
12 and interconnected and sometimes discontinuous sand bodies,
13 and that in fact you cannot classify it as a laminated
14 continuous system consisting of clays, sands; clays, sands?
15 DR. JAMES PARKER:
16 I think I would have to agree with you.
17 - As we approach the area of, say, Aransas
18 pass and on down south of corpus Christi, we have tracts
19 of clay, but then we get into what is evidently sand from
20 the surface down for maybe 20 feet.
21 Now, the films that I have of the Aransas
22 ] area and Rockport area sort of bear this out on the
23 permeability that is being encountered.
24 we have somewhat better restraint of
25 things as we get into the heavy clays such as we find in
-------
140
\ our area.
2 MR. BERNARD STOLL:
3 Excuse me, gentlemen. I think you are
4 getting a little bit off the topic. I think you are
5 talking about a local situation. If you could direct
, your comments such that we could utilize those in
7 finalizing the guidelines, I would appreciate it.
3 MR. CARL BRASOW:
9 Well, my comment was directed to his
JQ comment that anything put into a landfill would in fact
j] leak out through the permeable layer, and in fact the
12 criteria that you mention in the guidelines here and are
13 basically promulgated in RCRA, especially the 3000 Sections,
,4 call for liner systems, that these liner systems will,
15 basically, be impermeable. So, in fact, you do not
16 have direct connection to some more permeable zones; that
17 in fact good engineering practice calls for slight over-
jo excavation or replacement of those zones.
. Furthermore, since we do mention the
2Q mechanics, I think it would be worthwhile to point out
2j that if you assume the worst condition of one of a very
22 high water level around, such as you would find in the
23 coastal plain, that, as a matter of mechanics, that you
24 have inward gradient. Water flows into the waste pits
25 and would do so for some time. Simple calculations.
-------
141
, based on Dorsey's Law, Laplace, or any of the other
land or fluid equations that you mention, show that
- time periods of up to perhaps half a century would be
, required to in fact just bring the water conditions in
a landfill site back to equilibrium. That is not even
considering the reversal of gradient that would cause
6
any leachate formed in the land pit to flow out. I think
it is a very important point and one that is not con-
8
sidered in any of the guidelines.
So, those comments should be considered, that
the direction and the magnitude of the gradients, formed
especially in the flatland areas, are much more important
than those areas of high relief where the gradient and
I permeabilities would in fact allow greater and faster
14
travel times.
15 |
Thank you.
16 I
j DR. JAMES PARKER:
I I would comment that the gradient on the
18
Gulf Coast of Texas in the immediate adjacent areas to
the bays, estuaries, and with the only exception being
in areas like the Houston-Galveston area, a lot of
subsidence, the gradient is always to the continental
Shelf on these patterns. Now, i would admit there has
been some reversal due to heavy subsidence which may pull
, it back into another direction.
-------
142
1 Secondly, we are all hopeful of liners.
2 The best authorities and what I have seen, I have never
3 seen one work, and I would put this in the category of the
4 crop that was never grown. If you are going to consider
5 them, you should concomitantly (phonetic) consider test
6 wells beside they must be an essential part of it.
7 CHAIRMAN TRUEST DeGEARE:
Are there any further questions?
9 (No response.)
10 CHAIRMAN TRUETT D6GEARE:
Thank you, sir.
12 Is there anyone who would care at this
13 time to present a statement?
14 (No response.)
15 j CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
There being no further requests for
17 testimony, let me ask if there are any questions?
18 i (No response.)
19 CHAIRMAN TRUETT DeGEARE:
20 I see no questions.
We will close the record for this
22 hearing. I appreciate your participation and would
23 again invite you to submit written comments as you see
24 fit prior to May 25. Thank you very much for participating.
25 (Whereupon, at 1;50 P.M., the hearing
was closed.)
-------
143
1 CERTIFICATE
2
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, in the Matter of:
6
7 PUBLIC MEETING OF:
8 PROPOSED LANDFILL DISPOSAL GUIDELINES
9
10 I Embassy Room
11 ! Shamrock Hilton Hotel
12 Houston, Texas
13 ' Thursday, May 11, 1979
14
15 j were held as herein appears, and that this is the
16 I official transcript thereof for the files of the
17 | Agency .
18
19
DannyE.Baldridge, >
20 Court Reporter and Notary Publicj
21
22
23
24
25
-------
E, P, A,
PROPOSED GUIDELINES
F 0 R
SANITARY LANDFILLS
COMMENTS OFFERED TO THE EPA
AT THEIR PUBLIC HEARING,
HOUSTON, MAY IT , 1979
by Dr Geoffrey Stanford,
Director, Greenhills Center.
-------
AFFILIATION
I am Dr. Geoffrey Stanford. I trained and practiced as a physician and
surgeon. I now practice public health and preventive medicine "by environ-
mental planning.
I am director of the Greenhills Environmental and Research Center. We
operate on 1,000 acres of land in Dallas, under the patronage of Fox &
Jacobs, Inc., home builders to Texas. They are building homes on such a
large scale that they recognize the problem of disposable wastes produced
not only by their own construction efforts, but forever after by their
homeowners. They have a real interest in our environmental studies and
research, and support us splendidly. We also work for other authorities,
for example, I am the fortunate recipient of a research grant from the
E.P.A. to study the use of refuse and sewage sludge as a soil manure.
In fact, our trial grounds are only forty minutes away from here, and I
would be glad to show our results to you: the crop yield is some 2 3/U
times greater with urban vastes than vith chemical fertilizer. We have
another grant from the National Center for Appropriate Technology to
study a novel way of generating biogas from wastes.
COMMENTS
Your "Proposed Guidelines" is an excellent document, and the E.I.S.
which accompanies it is an elegant idea for backup. Any comments that I
make about them must seem to be nit-picking. But other societies which
are in better harmony with nature than we are hold nits to be an esteemed
article of diet. We now know that many insects provide in their integu-
ment essential proteins which are not readily available from other
dietary sources amongst primitive peoples. For the same reason, the
Indians of San Francisco Bay used to eat grasshoppers. Is this why
Pacifica supplies us with chocolate-coated ants for the gourmet sections
in our supermarkets? In any event, I hope my contribution of intellectual
nits will be equally acceptable to you and prized by you. Here they
are: -
1. CLAY LINER
Page 53 of your E.I.S. says that: Because of drying out and cracking,
it "should be installed only as fill construction progresses".
1.1. a) This clay liner so installed is likely to be disturbed by the
compactor when it is backing and slewing as it works from the bottom of
the refuse mass uphill, and so uses this clay as its base-pad. That is
likely to churn up the clay, and may break its continuity. It, will
certainly spoil the evenness of its spread,
b) Many landfills are run as cut-and-fills using the soil from their
cut to cover the fill as they progress. So those must necessarily
install their clay liner "only as fill progresses".
c) The contractor who supplies the clay cannot plan a regular flow of
clay; he may have matched the estimated rate of available supply to his
estimated rate of the requirement. If his estimate is upset, he may
-------
be tempted to use material other than clay, while the landfill operator
may be tempted to proceed without benefit of clay liner. In either
case the integrity of the liner will be destroyed. How do you suggest
that these failures of the liner can be avoided?
1.2. My next points are about the clay material itself.
a) Clays are readily flocculated by chemicals, for example, heavy
metals.
b) If, for example, a case of mercury batteries, or a bag of lead
acetate is deposited near to the floor, leachates may flow from them and
be locally concentrated in a chance low point left by the operation of
the compactor.
c) Or a cavity in, for example, a washing machine or a refrigerator,
may suddenly disintegrate, and in collapsing discharge a heavy dose of
some flocculent material which will then run as a rivulet straight to a
local point of the liner.
d) Any of these will effectively punch a hole in the clay liner, and
destroy its integrity. And nobody will be able to know where, and
therefore how to plug it.
1.3. Now about the polymer lining membrane. When this is laid in
strips "as fill construction progresses" it must be sealed to the pre-
vious strip. Scheduling this skilled operation may be difficult or
impossible. The landfill operator may be tempted to proceed with his
fill even though the overlap has not yet been jointed. Once again, the
entire liner operation is destroyed.
2. FLOOD PLAIN SITES
The Guidelines provide for diking. This assumes that diking and liner
will together prevent water infiltrating or overflowing in the event of
flood. But what about the water table that is below the fill, when
floods occur? Hydraulic pressure will lift and crack the liner floor.
Then leachate will flow out when the water has settled again, and for-
ever after. How do you propose to prevent that?
In hospital practice we are accustomed to nurses wearing caps. These
originated as a means of keeping the infection in their hair from dropping
into open wounds. But the caps have now become smaller and smaller, and
the hair styles bigger and bigger. The caps no longer perform their
function, yet we feel safe because the nurse is wearing her cap. Are
these liners functioning similarly: as methods of easing our conscience,
but of no help to the environment? Just because we have no better
solution to offer yet, are we entitled to recommend these liners in good
faith? Is this not the same white-washing mentality that nuclear pro-
ponents use when they try to foist on the, public the idea that radio-
active wastes can safely be stored in salt mines for millions of years?
-------
-3-
Why does not the E.P.A. openly admit these disadvantages, and invite
better solutions? Even if more expensive short-term, we must bear that
cost to protect our children.
For example, an immediate solution which is entirely feasible is to
declare that any industry that makes or sells any toxic or hazardous
materials must detoxify them at their own, internal cost, both at point
of production and at points of disposal, and not externalize them into a
solid waste or sewage system at public expense. This puts the respon-
sibility where it belongs, and many toxic and hazardous materials would
be withdrawn from the market - as they should be.
3. REVEGETATION (Page 117 of the E.I.S.)
3.1« "Native grasses have shallow root systems". Native grasses on the
prairies, all the way from Texas through Nebraska and beyond, have roots
that go two, three and even more meters deep.
3.2. Should mention be made in this section of the poisonous effects of
methane on root formation? A tree could easily send its roots deeply
down into the landfill through the strata of soil which is used for
daily cover; but they are killed at once by the methane that is being
generated all around them. Perhaps some trees which are tolerant to
methane could be planted, for example, those that grow well in marsh and
riverine systems.
3.3. On page 118, you provide a fine starting list suitable for ground
cover.
a) I would like to invite you to provide also the Latin specific names,
since English names change from place to place.
b) Could you also add the soil preferences of some of these plants?
For example, in our area New Jersey tea grows only on bare chalk; it is
outcompeted by grasses. Do you have in the north a New Jersey tea which
grows in normal soil? Is it the same species as ours? Again, our
prairie rose grows only in alkaline gumbo clay, heather only grows in
acid sand.
c) I question the inclusion of Kudzu: here in Texas it is reckoned to
be a noxious invader, effectively impossible to eradicate. Its use is
best confined to areas where it is killed every winter by the cold.
d) You may like to add the Cucurbitaceae, which thrive on wet paper and
seem to tolerate the methane. We have grown the sweetest and largest
watermelons down here on the pile of refuse that was left over from
loading my trial grounds.
-------
-U-
U. GENERAL REMARKS
I would like to suggest to you that an opening remark that identifies
the status of these proposed guidelines might veil be added. It would
go well on page 18139, column 1, immediately following the heading
"Discussion of Proposed Guidelines". I offer the following as a
starting point for re-editing:
' SCOPE.
the
g
In the present time of contracting energy supplies, th
E.P.A. appreciates that resource recovery and recyclin
must be the prime obj ective of any wastes management
program. The E.P.A. appreciates that an integrated
approach to management of municipal resources sewage,
refuse, and drinking water, is mandated to begin in
FY 1980. Yet there will probably always be a small
residue for which no economic or social use can be
found locally. In managing this residue one of the most
acceptable ways today, in the absence of a better
alternative, is the well-managed sanitary landfill.
These guidelines speak to that."
And, may I add in conclusion, they do that excellently.
-------
FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD OP THE PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE EKVIROKMEI TAL PROTECTION AC-EMCY ON
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
HOUSTON, MAY 17,1979
From comments made after the Hearing, I apparently failed to make clear
several points in my ststPment. This is an expansion of some of these.
1) EPA end recommendations of others are having minimal effect on
the practices of waste disposal. The exennles of new permits
for waste dispose! which were referred to - though local because
I am familiar with many of their details - have a general
applicability. They show that, in spite of all the current law,
rules and reflations, new dutr.ps in the wrong nieces are being
permitted now.
Further, EPA's orcposed recommended guidelines would not have
changed these bad decisions, which are not in the longterm
best interests of the health and welfare of loctl communities
or national aouetic resources and the environment.
2) That in env rerulatory process, two components are essential for
cost-effectiveness and goel achievement:
a) Surveillance end spot checks of the -policing type.
b) "Examination of projects for possible failure to achieve the
intended goals and analysis to determine the reasons for not
achieving the goals with recommendations to make amendments
for nrevention of further deficiencies in achievement, if
needed.
In the absence of thesp tv.o components amongst others, sll rules and
recommendations are'busy-work', which is inflationary and raises costs
without significant benefits. In the case of waste disnosel, water
resources have only to be contaminated once to degrade them irrevocably
or for lonr neriods of time, hence the current concerns regarding all
waste disposal.
The rxsmles I cited offered the panel a chance to exEtnine and review
the resEnr.s for the poor deci sion-mfkinp and to develop improvements w >.-"
which T 111 have v.idr annlication and block the loonholes and inadeouecies
or irregularities in practice. I hope you will avail yourself of this
opportunity.
A stepulse improvement is needed in control of waste dif-posal. Guidance
by past and current events is essential to developing improvements.
Mechanisms for echievinr this should be part of the guidelines, possibly
as an appendix and reconvenestion by the nrnel.
Hay 18,1979 D. Karrack, I. .D. ,
420 Mulberry Lfne ;
"ellrire.Tx. 77401 ? / _
-------
Statement of Don Betterton
on behalf of
The Houston Lighting & Power Company
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
and
The Edison Electric Institute
Public Hearing on Proposed Guidelines for
the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste
under Section 1008(a)(l) of
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
May 17, 1979
Houston, Texas
My name is Don Betterton. I am Manager of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Department of Houston Lighting and Power
Company. I am appearing this morning on behalf of my company,
the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG"), and the
Edison Electric Institute. USWAG is an informal consortium of
approximately 65 utility operating companies and the Edison
Electric Institute, known as EEI. EEI is the principal national
association of investor-owned electric light and power companies.
The principal fuel used for the generation of elec-
tricity in the United States is coal. The combustion of coal
creates large volumes of solid waste, particularly fly ash,
bottom ash, and flue gas emission control sludges. The control
of these byproducts under RCRA will seriously affect the opera-
tions and economics of the electric utility industry. Because
of this significant impact, and because of our responsibilities
to operate in an environmentally responsible manner while main-
taining an adequate energy supply for the nation, USWAG and EEI
-------
have commented and testified on substantially all of the Agency's
proposed RCRA regulations and guidelines. We have also submitted
comments on Environmental Impact Statements prepared in conjunction
with earlier RCRA rulemaking proposals.
As you may recall, Mr. James King of Florida Power and
Light testified on behalf of his company, USWAG, and EEI at the
hearing on the proposed Landfill Disposal Guidelines held in
Washington on Tuesday. His comments were directed at the guide-
lines themselves that is, the document published in the March
26, 1979, Federal Register. I will not repeat his comments today.
Instead, I will address myself to the draft Environmental Impact
Statement that was released in support of the proposed guidelines.
We expect to file written comments covering both the
proposed Guidelines and the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
I will therefore limit my statement this morning to a brief descrip-
tion of four of our major concerns with the draft EIS: first, our
belief that this document fails to meet recognized standards for
Environmental Impact Statements; second, our belief that the
document contains information that more properly should be part
of the guidelines themselves; third, our belief that the document
is potentially misleading in its technical descriptions of landfill
technologies; and fourth, our belief that cost estimates presented
are simplistic and misleading.
!_/ See EEI Comments on Draft EIS for proposed Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, June 5,
1978; USWAG Comments on Draft EIS for proposed Hazardous
Waste Guidelines and Regulations, Karch 16, 1979, Appendix 7.
-------
A major concern with this draft EIS is its failure, in
our view, to meet the requirements for an EIS. An Environmental
Impact Statement is intended to be a document that will assist
agencies to reach informed decisions, not a repository of regula-
2/
tions, guidelines, or general background information. To
serve its intended function, an EIS must describe and objectively
weigh all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Instead,
this document describes the state-of-the-art in municipal landfill
design and operation. It does not describe or assess reasonable
alternatives to the landfilling of solid waste, such as landspread-
Ing, surface impoundments, and resource recovery. It should do
so. Moreover, it should assess those alternatives separately
for representative types of municipal and industrial wastes,
including utility waste.
Another major concern is that we believe it is inappro-
priate for EPA to use the draft EIS to provide the "technical
and economic description of the level of performance" of solid
waste management practices that EPA is required to publish.
By relegating the great bulk of the substantive content
of the guidelines to the draft EIS, the Agency has implicitly
diminished the importance of that Information. It also has
2_/ See National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") § 102(2)(B),
(C), 42 U.S.C. S 4332(2)(S), (C) (1976); Council on Environ-
mental Quality, Regulations Implementing NEPA Procedural
Provisions, 40 C.F.R. §g 1502.1, 1502.2, 43 Fed. Reg. 55978
(November 29, 1978); EPA, Procedures for the Voluntary Prepara-
tion of EIS S 3(c), 39 Fed. Reg. 37^19, October 21, 1974.
I/ RCRA § 1008(a)(l).
-------
minimized the likelihood of comprehensive public comment within
the 60-day comment period. As a practical matter, fewer people
will see the EIS than will see the Federal Register. Therefore,
fewer people will comment. This is clearly contrary to the goals
of the rulemaking process and sound public policy.
We do not believe incorporation by reference cures
this defect. USWAG urges EPA to repropose in the Federal Register
those portions of the draft EIS which are intended to be incor-
porated into the guidelines. This will give them appropriate
visibility and give their "technical and economic descriptions"
meaningful exposure to public comment.
We are also concerned that the technical descriptions
in the EIS are potentially misleading. We commented at Tuesday's
hearing in Washington that the proposed guidelines overemphasize
h /
technologies primarily suited to municipal waste landfills.'
That overemphasis raises our concern because some state regulators
may simply adopt the guidelines as a checklist for "sanitary
landfill" status under the Section l)004(a) Classification
Criteria, and improperly apply this checklist to utility waste
disposal facilities.
This same concern applies to the draft EIS. Many of
the unit technologies described in the draft EIS are wholly
inappropriate for utility wastes. These include, for instance,
V See Statement of James J. King, Public Hearing on Proposed
Guidelines for the Landfill Dispcsal of Solid Waste, May
15, 1979, Washington, D.C.
-------
shredding, baling, and compaction and daily cover for vector
control. Similarly, gas control measures would be pointless
for inorganic utility wastes. There is no indication that
leachate recycling, another municipal waste technology, is
useful for landfills containing ash or scrubber sludge. We
urge that each description of an alternative landfill technology
set forth in the EIS include a clear statement that it is to
be applied to a particular landfill only on an individual
case-by-case basis. The choice of what technologies and
practices to apply must depend on the characteristics of the
particular intended landfill site.
With regard to the cost estimates contained in the
EIS, we would like to make two brief comments. First, these
cost estimates appear to be based primarily on experience with
municipal solid waste facilities. The EIS should recognize and
consider the substantial variations in cost that result from
differences in the character of the wastes being landfilled,
and the substantial regional differences in the cost of certain
materials arid labor.
Second, the draft EIS excludes the cost of what may
be the most expensive of the guideline recommendations site
selection. We have commented several times on the enormous
burden that will be imposed on utilities if we are restricted
from siting in potentially environmentally sensitive areas
-------
especially floodplains and wetlands. We find it hard to
believe that a document that purports to be an Environmental
Impact Statement can ignore the adverse environmental, energy
and cost impacts of these broad siting restrictions.
We wish to express our appreciation to you for the
opportunity to present these comments.
Thank you.
5/ See EEI Comments on proposed Criteria for Classification
of Solid Vaste Disposal Facilities, June 1?, 1978, pages
2-10; USl.'AG Comments on proposed nm'delincs for Develop-
ment and Implementation of State Solid Waste franr,gorient
Plans, Docket iJ002(b), November 27, 1978, pages '1-7;
US'./AG aid Utility V'ater Act Croup CciM.ient s on proposed
Statement of Procedures Pegardlng Eloodplain I'ar.'igement
and Wetlands Fiotcction, April 5, 19 !9, pages 2-11,
-------
PUBLIC HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SHAMROCK HILTON HOTEL
HOUSTON, TEXAS
MAY 17, 1979
LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
PROPOSED GUIDELINES
STATEMENT OF THE HOUSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
-------
ROUGH DRAFT May 1**, IT/9
STATEMENT OF THE HOUSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
LAM)i ILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
I'ROPOSED iJUlDtLINES
MAY 1 /, iy/9
1 am Jack Westney, representing the Houston Chamber of Commerce, and I
appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the Bo^rd
of Directors and the membership of the Houston Chamber of Commerce.
The Houston Chamber of Commerce is a voluntary organization of approximately
6,500 busine>s and professional establishments working together for the b^tter-
ment of our Houston area. One of the Chamber's goals is to enhance the quality
of the env i runment without unduly hindering the cont i nued economi c devel Ojinieni
that provides benefits and opportunities to all of the residents in this .>rea
The Chamber appreciates this opportunity of making specific comments on tfe
EPA's guidelines, with respect to locating solid waste management fac i)i 11es
in environmentally sensitive areas. In these guidelines, as well as in other
proposed EPA regulations, the EPA appears to be indicating to State and Federal
land planners that sol id waste shouId rarely, If ever, be di sposed of in Cuas t>i I
areas such as Houston.
Anyone who is familiar with the growth ond development of the Houbton -area is
fully aware of the tremendous efforts that people have made to establish t'.is
communSty in ?n area which was once nothing more than a swamp. The c ommun,t y
is proud of these accompli shments, vvh i ch tire cont inuing today.
-------
S ta lenient of t he HDub ton Hi jmbe r of Commerce
Pm|f 2
Aluinj with this g ruwth and Jeve iopment has come an increasingly serious solid
waste problem. We have sought to deal with this problem with the same degree
of ingenuity and human creativity that went into the overa 11 development of
our commun ity. We- are one of the few coironuii ities thrjt has attempted to
incinerate our garbage as a means of di sposa 1 ; and one of the country' s f i r :>t
recycling facilities was constructed here. However, through these develop-
men ts , we have learned that incineration and resource recovery have not been
developed to the point of completely answering our solid waste problems.
Therefore, we have found that, at least as an interim measure, landfi11 ing
of garbage is still a major means of solving the solid waste problem. If we
are unable to locate solid woste disposal facilities within reasonable hauling
distance froit our population centers, we will quickly re^ch a crisis situation.
On the basis of our review of the Proposed Guidelines foi Landfill Disposal of
Solid Waste, we believe that the EPA staff, in their overall development of
these guidelines has used sound judgement. We must compliment the staff on
this practical experience approach to the problem. Th i s approach appears to
have been aimed at achieving the ends of the Act In the most cost-effective
manner, on a s i te-spec i f i c bas i s. As a part of the con^umi ng pub!i c, who
must pay for facilities to be built under these regulations, we applaud the
the
cons ideration given to/bite-specific approach in these guidelines.
However, there are some parts of ihese guidelines which we wish to emphasi/e
that should remain guidelines. We are concerned that recommendationb such
as those dealing with site selection in Paragraph 24),200-2, may eliminate
cons(deration of all envi ronmenta My sensitive areas as potential disposal
sites, even when reasonable alteriutives to such sites may be economically
or practically infeasible. Each site proposal should lu- considered on its
-------
ent of th-' Houston Chamber iM tuum't i ce
owd individual merits, and without regard to Opposition, which is
unfounded by sound techn i ca1 or other app I i cab I e criteria. The same reason inij
applies to Paragraph 241,207-2, which could force operators into large
expeditures for outside consuIting advice wfth little justification and no
guarantee thdt their operation would be approved. We asked simply that these
requirements would be used as guidelines, and on a case-by-case, site-specific
In summary, we applaud the efforts of the EPA staff in develop!ng these
landfill guide!ines,as being a reasonable approach to managing the solid
waste problem in all areas of the country. Only through an effective and
realistic program of managing solid waste, may we maintain the growth and
quality of life in the Houston area.
Thank you
-------
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
FANNIN BANKBLDG. P.O. BOX 3151 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77001 (713)790-1611
Presentation
of
James R. Greco
Director
Government and Industry Affairs
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
for the
Public Hearing
Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste
Proposed Guidelines
(40CFR Part 2*1)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
on
May 17, 1979
Houston, Texas
pursuant to publication in the
Federal Register
March 26, 1979
Pages 18138-181*8
-------
We have reviewed the proposed 100S guidelines and recognize the
importance of such information to state regulatory agencies, facility operators,
and the general public. We feel that greater awareness, and implementation of
the guidelines will stimulate an enhanced level of environmental protection.
Additionally we cfcmmend the Agency for expressing in the preamble to the
guidelines that:
"In promulgating these Guidelines EPA is certifying that they represent
sound solid waste management practices..."
and also allowing flexibility in many instances to fulfill the general requirements.
For example, acknowledgement is made in Section 2^1.202-1 of two differing
approaches for managing landfill leachate.
Pursuant to our review, some primary concerns we wish to bring to the
Agency's attention pertain to the uncertainty faced by disposal facility designers
and operators with respect to the interpretation of what may actually be
required to obtain a permit and maintain the permit. Numerous sections of the
guidelines are subjective or can lead to subjective determination, such as the
definition of "wetlands" (Section 2*1.101(jj)), the siting of facilities in
environmentally sensitive areas and the associated "alternatives" study (Sections
2
-------
Regarding specific recommendations, we suggest:
(1) on page 18139 revision of the fourth paragraph under site selection
so as to read:
"These Guidelines, however, recognize that "location of a
landfill disposal facility in a generally unsuitable area
(environmentally sensitive areas, zones of active faults, and
karstterrain) CAN be possible through the application of
proper, and in some cases sophisticated, engineering
techniques for design and operation."
(2) on page 181*1 in Section 2itl.!0t(u) the definition for "plans" be
revised to read:
"...technical reports and engineering drawings, including a
narrative operating description, prepared OR APPROVED by
professionals..."
(3) on page 18 W2 that Section 2i»i.200-2(a) be interpreted as a
"general" guideline and that a statement be added noting that a
landfill facility may be sited in such areas provided that
appropriate considerations be incorporated into the design and
operation of the facility.
The following is suggested for Section 2i»1.200-2(a):
"IN GENERAL environmentally sensitive areas, including
wetlands, 100-year floodplains, permafrost areas, critical
habitats of endangered species, and recharge zones of sole
source aquifers should be avoided, IF FEASIBLE, or receive
lowest priority as potential locations for landfill disposal
facilities. LOCATION OF A LANDFILL DISPOSAL
FACILITY IN A GENERALLY UNSUITABLE AREA (E.G.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA) CAN BE POSSIBLE
THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF PROPER, AND IN SOME
-------
CASES, SOPHISTICATED ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES
FOR DESIGN AND OPERATION. If these areas are to be
considered the following subjects need to be addressed:"
(4) on page 18142 in Section 24i.200-2(a)(l) the statement "increased
costs, alone, should not be sufficient grounds for dismissing an
alternative..." can be inaccurate and inappropriate, if interpreted
literally. There may well be an occasion when the cost impact is
extreme, such that increased costs, alone, for an alternative can be
a sufficient reason for locating a facility in an ESA. We suggest
deleting this statement.
(5) on page 18142 in Section 241.200-2(g) be revised to read:
"Sites TO BE located in the vicinity of airports,..."
(6) on page 18142 reference is made in Section 241.200-2(1) to topics to
be addressed as to socio-economic effects, namely "other possible
nuisance conditions". We suggest deletion of "nuisance" since
"nuisance conditions" should be precluded if the site is properly
designed and operated.
(7) on page 18142 we suggest that Section 241.201-2(b)(2) be revised to
read:
"Establish the depth to the water table and the direction of
groundwater flow."
Proper design should preclude contact with groundwater.
Additionally to establish the "rate of groundwater flow with special
consideration of current and projected withdrawal rates by
groundwater users" would be very costly.
(8) on page 18142 that Section 241.201-2(b)(3) be changed to state:
"Establish GENERAL potential interactions of the landfill
disposal facility WITH its hydrogeology..."
-------
(9) on page 181<»3, Section 2 Section 241.202-2(g) is vague and necessarily
subjective and should be defined by identifying certain parameters.
The above-noted recommendations, we feel, can enhance the practicality of the
proposed guidelines and minimize the economic impact without sacrificing safety
or environmental protection levels.
-------
We are pleased to participate in this rulemaking process and are
supportive of the Agency's efforts to promulgate guidelines that will identify and
describe available practices which provide for the protection of public health and
the environment. Such conscientious efforts can well lead to greater public
understanding of and confidence in both the ability of environmental agencies to
properly regulate disposal practices and the capability of facility operators to
safely and soundly design, construct, and operate landfills. Solid waste landfill
disposal facilities are a necessary part of an overall solid waste management
system, whether as the primary disposal method or a compatible feature of a
resource recovery program. Whatever system a community implements,
however, the public demands protection of public health and the environment.
These guidelines are a significant step in that direction.
-------
Statement
of
Angus MacPhee
President
Disposal Industries, Inc.
for the
Public Hearing
United States Environmental Protection Agency
on
Proposed Guidelines
Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste
pursuant to
Section 1008(a)(l)
Amended Solid Waste Disposal Act
(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, P.L. 94-580)
May 17, 1979
Houston, Texas
-------
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, and in particular, its
Office of Solid Waste, are to be commended for developing these proposed
guidelines. Final promulgation of these guidelines and their widespread
dissemination should lead to increased awareness and recognition by the general
public that solid wastes can be disposed in landfill facilities in a manner that will
protect public health and the environment. Furthermore these guidelines when
implemented and followed by operators of landfill disposal facilities should result
in a general upgrading of the state-of-the-art for disposal technologies.
Regarding numerous particular sections of the guidelines, for example, as
to design, leachate control, gas control, operation, etc., I am pleased with the
flexibility allowed by the "recommended practices" in order to achieve and fulfill
the "general requirements". Such flexibility is necessary as is the reasonable and
practicable interpretation of the requirements by regulatory agencies and the'
public. To the extent practicable, I hope such interpretation is also uniformly
applied among the States.
-------
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED EPA RULES FOR
LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE,
FEDERAL REGISTER, MARCH 26, 1979
Gentlemen, my name is W. Mutton, and I am appearing here on behalf
of the Texas Chemical Council.
The Council is an association of 77 chemical companies with over 62,000
employees and representing approximately 90 percent of the chemical
industry in Texas. Over half of the nation's petrochemicals are
produced by member compan ies operat ing in Texas.
The Council has a long history of cooperation with state and federal
agencies in the furtherance of respons ible environmental legislation
and regulation. We appreciate this opportunity to make an input into
the standards-setting process for solid waste control.
We have followed the developrnent of rules and regulations under the
Solid Waste Act since the law was enacted in 1976. Naturally, our effort
has focused mainly on Sections 300'~lO dealing with hazardous waste
materials. However, today, we wish to also express our interest In
landfill regulations by making a few comments on the proposed rules
published in the Federal Register of March 26, 1979-
We compliment the staff on their over-all practical experience approach
to the problem as they developed these proposed guidelines. The staff
-------
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED EPA RULES FOR
LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE,
FEDERAL REGISTER, MARCH 26, 1979
approach appears to be aimed at achieving the ends of the Act in the
most cost-effective manner on a si te-speci f lc basi's.
We concur with the philosophy expressed in Section 241.202-2 (al "unless
underlying groundwater is determined to be unusable as a drinking water
on other supply source and therefore is not in need of protection, the
bottom of the landfill disposal facility should be substantially (.1.5
meters or more) above the seasonal high groundwater table...". This
statement recognizes an approach we have taken En many long discussions
with the EPA staff concerning Sections 3001-10,
Groundwater and aquifers are not necessarily the same thing tn most
instances. For instance, in this area of the nation, we are standing
not many feet above sea level. The water table may be only a foot below
the surface of the ground. Since the height above sea level is smal1
there is little driving force or head, and because the ground is mostly
clay the horizontal movement of groundwater fs very slow. Because of
the clays, the vertical movement of water, according to the U.S. Coast
and Geodet\c Survey people, is In geologic time. The aquifer under the
Houston-GaJveston area is some 6QO to 1,200 feet below us, protected by
clays and shale. The recharge area for this acqui far is In Montgomery
County, some 50 miles north of where we now are.
It is not our intent to casually dismiss such groundwater and say
absolutely no protect!on is warranted. Site-specific decisions should
-------
Comments On Proposed EPA Rules For
Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste,
Federal Register, March 26, 1979
be made. We think you have recognized this in the proposed regulations.
Landfills should not be built where there are known surface faults or
act i ve faults, and you have recognt zed this in your regulations. Very
rigid and strenuous requ i rements should be imposed for ]andf i1J s needed
in an aquifer recharge area, and you have recognized this in your
regulations. Less stringent requirements are necessary in areas such
as the Gulf Coast area where the groundwater is not usable, and we
believe you have recognized this. We concur that attenuation of
leachate in groundwater is experienced. In many cases, again on a site-
specific basis, this attenuation alone will suffice to protect the
brackish waters found in the Gulf Coast area and other coastal areas.
We endorse the application of engineering principles to minimize the
contact of contaminated materials in high groundwater areas. The impli-
cation in Section 2^(1.202-2 (a) "that pumping may be necessary to lower
the water table" suggests that alternative solutions wi11 be considered
on a ca se-by case s\te-spec i fIc bas i s. We concur that a site-specific
approach will offer the most effective solution to these problems.
Furthermore, it is stated that: "A groundwate r mon Storing system should
be installed for the purpose of detecting the impact of all landfill
d!sposal faci1i t ies, whi ch have the potent ial for discharge to an under-
ground drinking water source". This seems to say that where there is
little or no potential for the leachate to reach an aquifer a ground-
water monitoring system is not required. We endorse this practical
approach, and we believe this alternative should be spelled out so the
-------
Comments on Proposed EPA Rules For
Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste,
Federal Register, March 26, 1979
administrator of the program will have a clear definition of choices
in site-specific decisions.
May lit, 1979
-------
APPLICATIONS OF GEOLOGY TO HOUSTON' S PROBLEMS
3. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
1 2
Richard S. Barnett and James M. Eagan
INTRODUCTION
The cities of antiquity in Europe and Asia used to build themselves
upward on mounds of their accumulated wastes and refuse at a rate of
close to a foot per century. That was when people left their wastes
where they worked and lived. Although that ancient practice persists
in the form of uninhibited littering and unauthorized open dumping,
most Houstonians prefer to get rid of their solid wastes somewhere
away from where they live. The free-wheeling, throw-away economy of
Houston ensures that everyone contributes more than double the
1 J. M. Huber Corporation, Houston, Texas
2 Cities Service Oil Company, Houston, Texas
-------
Barnett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
national daily average of 3-2 pounds of solid wastes (the 19?U EPA
estimate). Houston's municipal refuse alone exceeds 1500 tons daily.
Although this mass of garbage, trash, rubbish, dead animals, abandoned
cars, and demolition and construction wastes is equivalent to less than
one percent of the daily sediment load of the Mississippi River, it is
more than enough to present obvious health, fire and safety hazards.
Manufacturing wastes, precipitates from air-pollution control equipment,
the residues of sewage treatment, and a variety of reactive petrochemical
wastes add to these hazards.
-------
Barnett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS
The conventional means of solid waste disposal include open
dumping, incineration and open burning, composting, feeding edible
garbage to hogs, and burial in sanitary landfills.
Many regulatory and economic circumstances combine in a process of
elimination which leaves the use of sanitary landfills as the inevitable
method of solid waste disposal in Houston. A major objective of the
Office of Solid Waste of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
to end all open dumping in the nation by 1983- Federal and state controls
in principle rule out open dumping. Big increases in the price of
natural gas obliged the City of Houston to give up incineration many
years age. Incineration and open burning elsewhere in the area are
closely restricted where not altogether forbidden by fire and E.P.A air
quality regulations. Composting is used to dispose of sewage residues
and organic wastes in many parts of Europe and Asia. Controlled bacterial
decomposition turns these wastes into a form of humus which can be used
for fertilizer and soil conditioner. In round numbers, the greater
Houston area generates 300 million gaULons of sewage daily, and each
million gallons yields a ton of solid residue. This residue is taken to
landfills without composting. The feeding of garbage to pigs is practical
in Houston only on a limited basis by private arrangement where a large,
institutional source can deliver a steady supply of fresh food wastes.
Unsorted and putrefying municipal wastes are unsuitable.
-------
Barnett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
Sites for sanitary landfill operations are therefore already in
demand in the Houston area, and they are likely to remain so even after
enlightened methods of solid waste management are adopted. Seventy-four
solid waste disposal sites of all sizes and descriptions were identified
in Harris County in 1976 (text fig.l). Many more unauthorized sites were
not listed. About a third of the seventy-four registered sites are now
closed, including the Holmes Road site which used to receive most of the
City of Houston refuse. Five new sites have been opened, and several
others are nearing capacity. Permits are being sought for new landfill
sites. The pressure to end open dumping and close unsatisfactory solid
waste disposal operations, the filling of available landfills, and the
growth of the solid waste supply all mean that new sanitary landfill
sites will be needed for a long time to come.
-------
-------
Barnett and Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
THE ROLE OF GEOLOGY
A sanitary landfill is an area of land where solid wastes may
be buried under controlled conditions which are designed to prevent
nuisances and hazards to health and safety. Sanitary landfills have
been in use in the United States since 190^ (the term dates from the
133C's). Their basic physical requirements for the protection of health,
safety and environment are now well established. They depend directly
upon the surface and subsurface geologic conditions at the landfill
site. The landfill must be able to retain buried wastes and keep them
isolated from any contact or reaction with the outer environment.
Chemical wastes may require burial in a medium with the capacity to
neutralize or absorb them. Above all, water has to be Xept out and
prevented from joining in chemical and bacterial reactions which would
form a poisonous discharge, termed a leachate, and poisonous gases.
The possible external sources of water are rain and floodwaters
that soak through landfill cover from the surface, groundwater moving
laterally from a water-bearing stratum breached by the landfill, or by
capillary action or artesian flow from a water-bearing stratum below.
-------
Barnett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
Three state agencies supervise the burial of solid wastes in
sanitary landfills. The Texas Water Development Board oversees industrial
waste management, and the Texas Department of Health regulates the
disposal of municipal and radioactive wastes. The Texas Railroad
Commission has the responsibility for wastes from oil field operations.
The regulations of all three agencies were formulate! under provisions
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, in consultation
with the Office of Solid Waste of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. All three sets of regulations include similar geological
specifications, and the three agencies have the geological expertise
needed to evaluate the data submitted in all applications for new
landfill sites.
The standards for new solid waste disposal sites vary according to
the nature of the wastes they are to receive. Class 1 wastes are
hazardous industrial wastes. Class II wastes include municipal and
commercial refuse. Class III wastes are inert materials like building
and demolition wastes.
The applicant for a sanitary landfill permit has the burden of
proving that a proposed site will be acceptable from every point of
view. Text-figure 2 is a flow chart for decision making in the site-
screening and selection process. It shows the primary place of geologic
factors, beginning with physiography, hydrology, and the characteristics
of soil and substratum. Other concerns to be taken into account are
-------
FACILITY OPERATIONS
GEOLOGICAL
ACTIVE FAULTS
SUBSIDENCE
KARST LANDFORMS
ETC.
HYDROGEOLOGIC
LOCATION ABOVE AQUIFER
PERCHED WATERTABLE
USE OF GROUNDWATER
SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT
HAVE/CAN MODIFICATIONS
BEEN/BE MADE TO CORRECT
CONDITION'
NO
-REJECT
NEXT DECISION YES
TOPOGRAPHICAL
FLOODING
EHROSIVITV
ONSITE RETENTION
CLIMATIC
PRECIPITATION
RUN-OFF
CULTURAL
VISUAL AESTHETICS
0
0
-0
CULTURAL
ACCESS LAND-USE
NOT ACCEPTABLE-REJECT
CULTURAL
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
NOT ACCEPTABLE-REJECT
PROCEED TO SITE SELECTION
NOT ACCEPT ABLE-REJECT
Rgurt 4 Dwicion TTM
-------
Barnett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
climate and prevailing winds, accesibility, nearness to source of waste,
availability of public utilities, population density, environmental
sensitivity, diversity and abundance of plant and animal life, the
value of the land for other purposes, and the social and political
climate. Disciplines other than geology enter into the consideration
of possible sites, and many of them are likely to bear more weight in
the final choice. Environmental and geological considerations are
complementary, but other criteria are very likely to conflict.
Nevertheless, the primary and unifying factors are geological, even if
they are claimed by technical specialists in hydrology, soil mechanics,
and civil and mechanical engineering. Having the advantage of an overview
of the subject should qualify geologists to coordinate »1 1 the
technical aspects of site selection.
A technically sound proposal may not necessarily win warm public
acceptance. Geologists should be able to apply their comprehensive
vision to this problem to the extent of helping the public to appreciate
the benefits of a properly planned site and to respect the hazards of
open dumping and improper solid waste disposal.
-------
Barnett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
SPECIFIC GEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
G-eology enters two primary aspects of the evaluation and selection
of sites for solid waste disposal. These are the surface and subsurface
characteristics of any potential site.
Hazards which can be avoided by geological evaluation of surface
conditions include flooding, surface water contamination, unstable
slopes, subsidence and active faulting. Suitable areas should be level
or gently rolling, open, undissected land which has enough elevation to
be above tracts which are subject to flooding by hurricanes or the
torrential downpours which accompany frontal systems. The environmental
geologic atlas by Fisher and others (1972) and the land resources maps
by StClair and others (1975) give valuable preliminary help in
identifying the areas which are most prone to coastal and inland.
floodirxg, faulting, or severe erosion by gullying and slumping. Unusual
circular elevations, two kilometers or so in diameter, mark the locations
of shallow piercement salt domes where mining or storage activities
could invite problems in landfill operations.
Technical information must be compiled and submitted to document
the natural relief and drainage in and near a proposed site in order to
show "that it is not prone to hazards. This information will be given
in the form of maps, aerial photographs, and legal descriptions, which
will also contain all sorts of other required information. Aerial
photographs from the U.S. Department of Agriculture or commercial
sources must show site boundaries and the area within two miles of a
-------
Barnett & Bagan
Solid Waste Disposal
site. The maps specified include a location map, a U.S.G.S. topographic
quadrangle map, a land use map, and a detailed topographic survey of
the site with plans of the operational layout. We strongly advise a
statement that the applicants have inspected the site and made sure
that they have not overlooked any unusual conditions.
The hazards which can be averted by proper geologic appraisal of
subsurface conditions include discharges into atmosphere or groundwater,
reactions with specific reactive substances, and susceptibility to
disruption by faulting. The containment of gas and leachates in a
landfill is accomplished by excavating it in an impermeable medium.
Clays and marls serve the purpose best, and the Beaumont Clay of the
Houston area is ideal as far as its impermeability and moisture retention.
It is notoriously heavy work to excavate, however, and it is deservedly
infamous for shrinking and cracking during dry weather. This characteristic
means that a better topsoil must be used for at least the final layer
of landfill cover. The maps by Fisher and others (1972) and StClair
and others (1975) again serve as a preliminary guide to areas of
impermeable clay soils and active surface faulting. Being surface maps,
they do not show the variable makeup of the Beaumont Clay or where it
reaches an effective thickness of fifty feet or more. As an alluvial
floodplain deposit, the Beaumont Formation naturally has some sandy
river channel and levee deposits in addition to the clay for which it
is named. These sandy units are porous and permeable, and they contain
-------
Barnett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
perched water tables which supply many shallow water wells. Landfill
excavations mast therefore avoid the sandy parts of the Beaumont
Formation.
A program of testing is required in order to show that a proposed
landfill can be opened in an impermeable substratum without endangering
groundwater supplies by breaching or stopping just short of a. water-
bearing stratum. An array of soil borings will be planned in
consultation with the appropriate state agency. The number of soil
borings depends on the size and purpose of the landfill. Their minimum
depth will be 5 to 20 or more feet below the proposed depth of
excavation, according to soil conditions. The practical depth of
excavation in the Houston area is not likely to exceed thirty feet, so
fifty to sixty foot borings are routine. Professional soils laboratory
reports must be prepared from the logs and samples of each boring. Report
data include the number, thickness, and classification of the soil layers
penetrated in each boring, the depth of the water table if reached, and
a soil analysis of at least one sample from each soil layer. The
laboratory report covers such soil properties as dry unit weight, grain-
size statistics, permeability, water retention, and plasticity. Permeabilty
_7
must not exceed 1 x 10 cm/sec. An alkaline soil pH and a high cation
exchange capacity are desirable for industrial waste disposal.
Assembling such comprehensive and detailed surface and subsurface
data in favor of a landfill site may very well seem burdensome when
non-technical considerations can prove to be more decisive in the
granting of permits. Even so, the need for application of good geology
-------
Barrett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
is fundamental and indispensable.
The majority of the solid waste disposal sites shown in text-
figure 1 happen to fall within the belt of exposure of the Beaumont
Clay. This fact is more a result of prevailing land use patterns than
a deliberate application of good geology. The location of so many sites
close to bayous and streams betrays their haphazard origin. Three sites
lie inside the meander belt of the San Jacinto River below Lake
Houston, for example, and twenty-four are located within one mile of
the Houston Ship Channel. Scarcely a dozen sites are more than a mile
away from one of the larger creeks and bayous.
-------
Barnett and Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The 1970 Resources Recovery Act and the 1976 Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act were enacted with the long range intention of
replacing solid waste disposal with solid waste management. The goal
is to develop the means to reclaim industrial raw materials from
solid wastes. Some of the systems being studied include using processed
refuse as a supplementary or primary fuel for generating steam and
electricity, waste heat recovery from incineration, pyrolysis, methane
production by anaerobic fermentation of organic wastes, composting,
source separation of recyclable materials, mixed-waste processing for
materials separation, the compaction of inert residues for building
and road materials, and the prevention of waste at its source. Pilot and
commercial examples of each system are in operation in other parts of
the country. Houston is not a leader in this respect. Ferrous scrap is
recovered from municipal refuse at one of the commercial landfill sites
used by the City of Houston. The City itself limits its role in solid
waste, management to collection and transportation. Source-separation of
a few recyclable materials like paper and aluminum cans depends on
the interest of a comparitively few enthusiasts and the indulgence of
a few companies who are able to put public interest first.
Solid waste management should really become one of Houston's next
growth industries. It will, however, require the application of new
personal outlooks and public policies to replace an economy that
depends on waste generation with one where waste reduction and waste
-------
Harriett & Eagan
Solid Waste Disposal
management are economic. Although geology has no direct application
here and discussion of specific systems is beyond the scope of this
article, we agree that geologists as enlightened scientists and citizens
would much rather direct themselves to solid waste management than
solid waste disposal.
-------
Solid Waste Disposal
REFERENCES
BALLAS, J. A., and S. KIDD, 1971, Regional atlas; Houston-
Galveston Area Council: Houston-Galveston Area Cour.cil
of Governments, 28p. of maps.
BARXES, V. E., Project Director, 1968, Houston Sheet: Univ.
Texas, Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology Geol. Atlas of Texas.
BETZ, F. , Jr., Ed., 1975, Environmental geology: Dowden,
Hutchinson £ Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 390p.
FARB, D., 1975, Land disposal technology for industrial wastes:
In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial waste
management - seven conference papers: U.S.Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, SW-156, p. 76-97.
FIELDS, T., and A. W. LINDSEY, 1975, Landfill disposal of
hazardous wastes: a review of literature and known
approaches: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, SW-165: 36p.
FISHER, W.L., J. H. McGOWEK, L. F. BROWN, Jr. and C. G. GROAT,
1972, Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas Coastal
Zone - Galveston-Houston area: Univ. Texas, Austin, Bur.
Econ. Geology, 91p.
FLAWK, P. T., 1970, Environmental geology: Harper 6 Row, New
York, 313p.
, L. J. TURK, and C. H. LEACH, 1970, Geologic considerations
in disposal of solid municipal wastes in Texas: Univ. of
Texas, Austin, Geol. Circ. 70-2, 22p.
-------
J. M. HUBER CORPORATION
OIL AND GAS DIVISION
cc: Kill fan
Blackwel1
Personnel file
TO Gulf Coast FROM J. S. Collins
ATTENTION Richard S. Barnett May 25, 1978
SUBJECT PERMISSION TO PUBLISH TECHNICAL PAPER
The Oil & Gas Division, J. M. Huber Corporation gives
its permission to publish a Technical Paper titled
"Applications of Geology to Houston's Problems, Solid
Waste Disposal". A copy of the draft is attached for
Division and Corporate files.
G. L. Bross
-------
GEOLOGY OF THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA
I. COVER
II. .FORWARD
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. INTRODUCTION
V. SUMMARY OF HOUSTON
A"RET1;EX)LOGY
VI. GEOLOGIC SETTING DeWitt Van Siclen
A. Surface Geology &
Active Processes
Part I Rufus LeBlanc
Tom Auld
Greg Larberg
Paul Lipinski
Part II DeWitt Van Siclen
B. Subsurface Geology Rex Travis
Clyde Williams
C. Life in the Geologic Ken Kodgkinson
Past
D. Ancient Vertebrates
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Oil £ Gas
B. Sulphur 6 Salt
C. Gravel E Sand
D. Shell £ Limestone
E. Clays
F. Uranium
G. Underground Storage
-------
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES (CONT'D)
H. Building Stones Used Alex Vandenberg
in Houston
I. Land £ Water Resources A. E. St.Clair
in the Houston- et al
Galveston Area Council
J. Water Supply £ Quality Bob Thornton
VIII. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Bob Thornton
A. Weather 6 Climate; Bob Thornton
Hurricanes
B. Soils 5 Natural John Ruggles
Vegetation
C. Hydrology Bob Thornton
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY Jim Lewis
A. Solid Waste Disposal Dick Barnett
Jim Egan
B. Liquid Waste Disposal Howard Hough
C. Flood Control 6 Bob Thornton
Drainage
D. Foundation Problems John Ruggles
E. Subsidence, Faulting 6 H. C. Clark
Earthquakes
F. Homebuyer's Guide John Ruggles
X. FIELD GUIDE Clyde Beckwith
__
XI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
XII. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
XIII. SELECTED REFERENCES
XIV. INDEX
CS - 10/78
-------
J. o. LEWIS
GEOLOGIST
IO919 WICKWILD
HOUSTON TEXAS 77O24
February 10, 1978
To: Members of H.G.S. Environmental Committee
The Houston Geologic Society is going to publish a "Geologic Guide
to the Greater Houston Area". Thi? publicaHnn will be written for the
non-professional geologist. At this time the publication date is spring, . ,
1979 in time for the AAPG Convention. The "Special Publications" com- * '**"*"
mittee headed by Cyrus Strong is in charge of this publication. The
"Environmental Committee" has been asked to write four sections of the
"Applications of Geology to Houston's Problems" These will include the
following:
1. Subsidence, Faulting & Earthquakes
2. Liquid Waste Disposal
3. Solid Waste Disposal ,^f.i' ^ti-'.cvf/"*
4. Underground Storage ^^.^ ^c ^x /*f«~
We need to start preparing the above four sections as soon as J^"'
possible. Each member of the Environmental Committee should indicate _ /
to me as soon as possible which of the above subjects they would care
to help prepare. Jf'
1 am asking all members of the Committee to meet at the Holiday
Inn - Medical Center at 11:00 prior to the HGS noon meeting of the HGS
on February 22. We will meet south of the elevators on the same floor
as the Tanglewood Room.
SineeTelv;
' ' f I / / f.B ~^-t ., <£ .
73T
JOL/dc
XW""«^ v7
-------
NOTES FOR AUTHORS - "GEOLOGIC GUIDE TO THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA"
1. Readers - Publication is written for the educated public with so^ie knowledge of
geology. The text level should be on a par with the fialional Grogr? nine cr the
earlier HGS publication "Geology of Houston Area (1961")." L'nfamil ipr terms
should be avoided wherever possible. Where not possible, they can be included
in the glossary section. (Put all these words separately on 3 X 5 cards.)
A good way to insure the text is at the proper level is to have it read
by your wife/husband, son/dauahtei , etc. This will quickly show up what
portions need to be rewritten, further illustrated, or made more interesting.
2. Glints to Ajthors
»
Refer to "Preparation of Manuscripts for the Bulletin" by Sherman Wengerd
(1966) AAPG Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 1848-1867 (attached).
3. II lustrations
Pipers should be illustrated with carefully chosen photns and diagrams
which help communicate and explain the ideas in the text. The text should not
be writcen around the illustrations. Examples of good illustrations are
contained in Scientific American and Tina-Li^e books.
Photographs shouTcTbe large, black" and white, glossy prints. Figuras
should be black and white line drawings or velox.
Illustrations will be reduced by the publisher to fit on a 1/1, 1/2,
or full sized 8-1/2 x, 11 inch page. Original lettering should be large
enough so that it will still be legible following tins reduction. Double
facing paces may be used for some illustrations, but tnese should be diLCusseu
with the committee as soon as possible. Fold-outs should be avoided. A large
map can be included in an envelope in the back if necessary.
4. Manuscripts
nar,,^ci-i|jt- should be typewritten on 8-1/2 x 11 i"ch "h-if ''o^ p?no-
They shoula be double-spaced wi'h a 6-1/2 inch line length. Two cop.es'of
the manuscript, tables and illustrations should be submitted to the editors.
Illustrations and photos should be kept flat and not rolled or foldea.
5. Abstracts
Not recniired.
6. Headings
Headings are very important as signposts to the introduction of new
topics in the text. Some of the manuscripts received so far h3ve ben dis-
organized and confusing. Proper use of headings will clarify the subject
both for the autiiors and the readers. See Wer.gerd's article, p. 1851 for
more information. The three-cl^ss subdivision of headings h?s proven helpful
to the AAPG & CCAGS in their publications.
-------
7. References
Specific references in the text should be kept to a minimum. A selected
reference list can be included at the end of each article for the reader who
wishes to learn more.
8. Final Format
The final page format will be similar to the GCAGS transactions and the
Transactions of the American Society of Cost Engineers (copy attached). The
manuscript will be typed on oversized paper in two columns (ragged edge),
reduced iT'ustrations will be affixed, captions added, and the entire camera
ready page will be reduced approximately 20?. to 8-1/2 x 11 inch page size.
All material published will be copyrighted by the Houston Geological
Society. Requests for permission to reprint privately any major or minor
article will have to be obtained from the society.
10. Metric System
Wherever inches, feet, miles, weights, temperature, etc. are used, the
metric equivalent should be placed in parentheses after the English unit. A
handy conversion table is included in the back of Wengerd's article.
The glossary will be typed up from the 3x5 inch cards submitted by
each author.
12. Authors' review
Xerox copies of the camera ready pages will be sent to each author for
final review prior to printing. Last minute changes should be kept to a
minimum.
-------
Lay 20,1979
Bt'"cC:kco
?o:-( ::.CL*JSION n: T;:L RECORD o? THE PUBLIC HLARIKG
OF THa bi,VIRul!i,.El TAL PHOTtCTIOlj ^iJhliC'X ON
SOLID i.ASTE iv^KAGEIv.KNT
HGUSTO!!, HAY 17,1979
The ?oust on Aucubon Society would like to make comment for the
EIS on the following matters:
1) Transcripts of the hearings should be available for the
public to read in Fouston as well as in V.ashinpton and perhaps
other locations fround the U.fc.
E) Recognition of municipal waste ss toxic is important because
of pesticide containers, leftover paint and paint thinners and
solvents, old batteries both lead and rercury, photographic cher-
icels, do-it-yourself supplies and other varied t-ypes of waste
vhjcb sre directly toxic or toxic cfter bacterial ard anaerobic
reactions. Mining tailings must be defined es waste in this
content.
3) Because of the above reasons all sites should be out of flood
plains, well above ground water and not exposed to hurricane and
storn surge water.
4) (a) Poisoned water in ground water resources will remain
poisoned for a long tire (tens of yetrs) and aquatic ecosystems
are also slow to recover once dama ged^-, fn»^*>~>.
(b) Contaminated water 'can affect not only man but cen also
affect livestock, crops and other plants, and wildlife.
(c) Kan and livestock can be effected by low chronic exposure
to toxins both directly and vie bioeccuraulation in his food chain.
£ ) For these rood reasons, all water resources rust be protected
effectively. Plastic liners for outrps have limited value for
containment because of breeches by animals, roots, mechanical
equipment, rround \v&ter Pressure chrnpes and faults. Precipita-
tion runoff water should be monitored for heavy metals and pesti-
cides regularly end not permitted into the environment until
shown to meet acceptible standards. Non-nonitored ground seepage
of water through the base of dumps should never be permitted.
6) i.aste disposal site selection must be more selective and the
current re-' ulations, or ones giving more protection to water
resource aquifers and the environment,rifioly applied without
exception snd greater care taken in site selection.
7) Economic factors should NOT be weighed in site selection
because so much of the, cost of adverse impacts is delayed end so
externalized that the real costs can never be adecmateiy assessed.
8) Cost of the disposal of toxic chemicals should be included as
part of the initial cost of sale by the manufacturer for his
eventual disposal. The community should not bear these costs es
a tax burden.
The Houston Audubon Society encourages the EPA to make and enforce
much more stringent safeguards for us all.
)'<^ >"'i,,.^u it* r,«i Bruce fucCandless, President
'"cC:kco (in, 'ul >"'i,,.^u // ,- r,>i Bruce fucCandless, President
HOUSTON AUDUBON SOCIETY . 44CrWiLCHESTER .(713)932-^392 . HOUSTON, TX. 77079
-------
AttendeesPublic Hearing
on Proposed Landfill Disposal Guidelines
Houston, Texas
May 17, 1979
Oscar J. Ackelsberg
Asst. Vice-Pres.
W.R. Grace & Co.
1111! Ave. of the Americas
New York, N.Y. 10036
Kismore T. Ajmera
Sr. Project Engineer
Solid Waste Facilities Eval.
Texas Dept. of Health
1100 W. 4gth Street
Austin, Texas 78756
Clark Allen, Ph.D.
Project Manager
South Central Environmental Center
NUS Corporation
900 Gemini Avenue
Houston, Texas 77058
Mabry Andrews
Superintendent-Street & Sanitation
City of Marshall
P.O. Box 698
Marshall, Texas 75670
James Anderson
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Olin Chemicals Group
P.O. Box 2896
Lake Charles, LA 70602
K.H. Applewhite, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Group Supervisor
Bechtel Power Corporation
P.O. Box 2166
Houston, Tex. 77001
Robert Arnold
Factory Superintendent
Cook Paint & Varnish Co.
2510 Summer
Houston, Texas 77007
John Austin
Counsel
American Mining Congress
1200 18th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Ms. Barbara Bain
13^39 Spreading Oak Dr.
Cypress, Texas 77129
Richard Barnett
Gulf Coast District
Senior Geologist
J.M. Huber Corporation
Oil & Gas Division
2000 W. Loop South
Houston, Texas 77027
Scott Barra
Staff Asst.
Lubrizol Corp
P.O. Box 158
Deer Park, Texas 77536
Walydn J. Benbenek
Staff Engineer, Environmental Control
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
P.O. Box 2170
Conroe, Texas 77301
D.R. Betterton, Manager
Environmental Protection Dept.
Houston Lighting & Power Co.
P.O. Box 1700
Houston, Texas 77001
W. Bill Booth
for James Boyd
Manager, Environmental Affairs
The Bunker Hill Co.
P.O. Box 29
Kellogg, ID 83837
-------
Mr. S. Z. Chamberlain Sr.
Monsanto Co.
P.O. Box 711
Alvin, Texas 77511
Paul Chaney
Toxic/Hazardous Environmental
Programs, Mobil Cl-emical Co.
One Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100
Houston, Texas 770^6
Leroy Chevalier
President
Northeast Organization for Progress
9555 Crofton Place
Houston, Texas 77016
Albert Connelly
Tech Rep.
Chemical Waste Mgt., Inc.
123 N. PT. Suite 130
Houston, Texas.
Bob Craton
Kerry Rock
Sales Manager
Davy Powergas, Inc.
6l6l Savoy Drive
Houston, Texas 77036
Tom Dabney
Resource Engineering Inc.
P.O. Box 22189
Houston, Texas 77027
John D'Antoni, D.E.
Manager, Water & Wastewater Engineering
NUS Corporation
11511 Katy Freeway, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77079
Michael Derrig
Mgr. Technical Services
Petrochemicals Division
Gulf Oil Chemicals Co.
P.O. Box 3766
Houston, Texas 770C1
Don Derby
Environmental Manager
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
P.O. Box 9608
Houston, Texas 77015
Mike Derdeyn
Browning Ferris Industries
Director, Special Projects
P.O. Box 3151
Houston, Texas 77003
Denise Deschenes
Junior Engineer
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.
P.O. Box 2521
Houston, Texas 77001
R.H. Dreith
Staff Engineer
Environmental Affairs
Shell Oil Co.
One Shell Plaza
P.O. Box 4320
Houston, Texas 77210
Robert Dyer
Asst. Gen. Manager
GCWDA, 910 Bay Area
Houston, Texas 77058
George Edema, Sr.
Director of Marketing
Illinois Region
Browning Ferris Industries
1827 Walden Office Sq.-Suite 107
Schaumburg, Illinois 60195
Gayle Edwards
Coordinator, Environmental Control
Jefferson Chemical Co.
Texaco, 4800 Fournace PI.
Ballaire, Tex 77^01
-------
R.B. Ellwood
Parnter, Dames & Moore
2020 North Loup West
Houston, Tex 77079
Paith Fielder, Ph. D.
Research Scientist
Hazardous Materials Section
Rice University
P.O. Box 1892
Houston, Texas 77001
William Ward Filgo
Environmental Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
415 Power Building
Chattanooga, Tenn 37^01
Lloyd Falnagan, Associate
Dannenbaum Engineering Corp.
Consulting Engineers
43113 Post Oak Place Drive
Houston, Texas 77027
James Frank
Environmental Consultant
Dupont
P.O. Box 2626
Victoria, Texas 77901
Ben Franklin
Environmental Affairs Analyst
A. Coors
12 & Ford Street
Golden, Colo 80401
Don Gates
Environmental Engineering
Corporate Facilities
Texas Instruments, Inc.
P.O.Box 225012, MS 483
Dallas, Texas 75265
Sam Gavande, Ph.D.
Soil Physicist & Agricultural
Engineer Natural Resources
Analysis Department
Radian Corp.
8500 Shoal Creek
Austin, Texas 78758
Robert Gonzales
Sanitation Supt.
City of Lubbock
P.O. Box 2000
Lubbock, Tex 79412
James Greco
Director
Government and Industry
Affairs, Fannin Bank Building
Houston, Texas 77030
Gary Groce
Officer
The Groce Co., Inc.
P 0. Box 31605
Houston, Texas 77034
Clifford Hall
Project Engineer
Texas Dept. of Health-Regionll
1110 Avenue G
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
Fred Hamilton
Engineer
Texaco Inc.
4800 Fournace Place
Ballaire, Texas 77401
J.W. Harris
Corporate Environmental Consultant
Environmental & Safety Services
International Minerals & Chemical Corp.
IMC General Office,
501 East Lange Street
Mundelein, Illinois 60060
-------
Henry Hefty, P.E.
Resource Conversion Systems, I
9039 Katy Freeway, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77024
Duane C. Helmberger
USAF, Civ. Eng.
1200 Bain Tower Suite 435
Dallas, Texas 75202
Edgar Henry
Sales Manager
Rollins Environmental Services
P.O. Box 609
Deer Park, Texas 77536
Dr. Richard Herbst
Enviromental Coordinator
Exxon Minerals Co. USA.
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001
Michael Holcomb
P.O. Box 685
LaPorte, Texas 77571
Trudy Holmes
Assoc. Ind. Specialist
Brown & Roots, Inc.
P.O. Box 3
Houston, Tx 77001
William Button
Air, Water and Waste
Program Manager
Environmental Services
Diamond Shamrock
Gulf Coast Area
1149 Ellsworth
Pasadena, Texas 77501
Lee W. Jennings
Executive Director
Governor's Office of Science
5790 Florida Blvd., Suite 201
Baton Rouge, La 70806
Ben Johnson, D.V.M.
American Animal Hospital Association
Area Director, Region IV
^917 South Willow Street
Houston, Texas 77035
Clarence E. Johnson
Texas Dept, Water Resources
2318 Center Street
Deer Parl, Texas 77536
Donald Johnson
Director, Department of Environmental
Sciences, Southwest Research Institute
3600 Yoakum Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77006
Benjamin Jones,III
Staff Scientis/Group Leader
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek
Austin, Texas 78766
J.W. Kachtick
Asst. Mgr., Environ. Engineer
P.O. Box 849
Pasadena, Texas 77501
W. Dennis Isaacs
Sulf Station Utilities Co.
Environmental Analyst
P.O. Box 2951
Beaumont, Texas 77704
-------
Tom Kearns
Field Representative
Texas Dept. of Water Resources
2318 Center Street
DeerPark, Texas 77536
S. Norman Kesten
Asst. to the Vice Pres.
ASARCO
120 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10005
Joe King
President
Liberty Waste Disposal
P.O. Box 3370
Baytown, Texas 77520
K.L. Kirksey
Supt. Quality Control
Stauffer Chemical
8615 Manchester
Houston, Texas 77012
Frank Knickerbocker, P.E.
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Engineering and Environmental Consultant
7616 L.B.J. Freeway
Suite 704
Dallas, Texas 75251
Robert Kratsas
Ecologist
Standard Oil Company(Indiana)
200 East Randolph Dr.
Chicago, II 60601
Bonner LaFlour
Environmental Project Engineer
Firestone Synthetic Rubber
P.O. Box 1361
Lake Charles, La 70601
L.A. Lakie
Air & Water Conservation
Process Division
Port Arthur Plant
Texaco, Inc.
P.O. Box 712
Port Arthur, Tx 77610
Lee Lasiter
Pollution Control Department
107 North Hunger
P.O. Box 6031
Pasadena, Texas 77506
Bill Lewis
Chmn., Nat. Resources & Energy Comm.
House of Reps.
203 House Wing-Capitol
Phoenix, Arz 85007
Ron Lieber
Advisor-Environmental Affairs
Gulf Oil Co. US
P.O. Box 2001
Houston, Tex 77001
Michael Lowe
Law offices: Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1300 Nineteenth St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 22036
Angus MacPhee
President
Disposal Ind. Inc.
104 S. River Rd.
Nerberg, Or 98132
R.W. Maeser, Jr.
Gen. Supt. Adra
Ethyl Corp
P.O. Box 472
Pasadena, Texas 77501
Larry Malone, Traffice Manager
Malone Company
P.O. Box 709
Texas City, Texas 77590
-------
T.J. Manthey
Dir. Public Affairs
Pickands Mather & Co.
1100 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Oh 41)111
David Mar-rack, M.D.
Physician
120 Mulberry Lane
Bellaire, Texas 77401
Robert Marshall
Director
AICHE
P.O. Box 472
Pasadena, Texas 77501
W.R. Martin
Environmental Coordinator
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
P.O. Box 816
Silsbee, Texas 77656
John Mayfield
Operations Env. Cont. Supt.
Aluminum Company of America
Point Comfort, Texas 77978
B. Jack McDaniel, P.E.
Director
City of Houston
Department of Solid Waste Management
Rm. 1012, City Hall
P.O. Box 1562
Houston, Tex 77001
Herbert McKee, Ph.D.
Assistant Health Director
for Pollution Control
City of Houston
Houston, Texas 77030
Mrs. Doris McWilliams
Police Juror, Caddo
134 Norwood
Parish, La
Shreveport, La 71105
Hector Mendieta, P.E.
Chief, Facilities Evaluation Branch
Division of Solid Waste Mgt.
Texas Dept. of Health
1100 W. 4gth Street
Austin, Texas 78756
M.L. Merrill
Environmental Protection Coordinator
Texaco, Inc.
P.O. Box 430
Bellaire, Texas 77401
Arthur Meyer
Denka Chemical Corporation
Supt. of Env. Control
8701 Park Place Blvd.
Houston, Tex 77017
P.P. Miller
Chemical Engineer
Manufacturing Process Division
4120 Southwest Freeway
P.O. Box 22085
Houston, Tex 77027
George Mills, Jr.
Senior Environmental Engineer
Kerr-McGee Corporation
Kerr-McGee Center
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Virginia Moore
Continental Oil Co.
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, Tex 77001
John Nesser
Environmental Control Engineer
Petro Tex Chemcial Corporation
8600 Park Place Blvd.
Houston, TX 77017
-------
Gary Oradat
Civil Engineer
Dallas Water Utilities Dept.
City Hall 4A North
Dallas, Texas 75277
Kathleen Orr
Houston Audubon Society
4617 Minosa
Ballaire, Texas 77101
M.P. Ownes
Manager, Project Services
Southwest Regional Engineer
Olin Chemicals
P.O. Box 2896
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Bob Oxendine
City Engineer
City of Alcoa
Minicipal Building, Hall Rd
Alcoa, Texas 37701
Mr. A.B. Parker
Senior Conservation Engineer
ARCO Oil and Gas Company
P.O. Box 2819
Dallas, Texas 75221
James Parker, MD
2830 Cedar Dr.
La Warfare, Texas 77568
Robert Parnell
Staff Buyer
Shell Oil Co.
Two Shell Plaza
Box 2462
Houston, Texas 77001
Frances Jo Pelley
Economic Development Planner
Texoma Regional Planning Commission
10000 Grayson Drive
Denison, Texas 75020
Robert Penland
Environmental Technician
ARCO Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 777
Channelview, Texas 77530
Paul Philbin
Attroney at Law
21111 Fountain View Drive
Suite 225
Houston, Texas 77057
Jack Piskura
Vice President
EMPAK, Inc.
2000 W. Loops, Suite 1800
Houston, Texas 77027
F. Paul Pizzi
Environmental Management Services
The Pace Company
Consultants & Engineers, Inc.
5251 Westheimer
P.O. Box 53173
Houston, Texas 77052
Kenneth S. Pope
Bechtel Power Corporation
Engineers-Constructors
520 South Post Oak Rd.
P.O.Box 2166
Houston, Tex 77001
John Robinson
Hgr. Environmental Services
Kirby Forest Ind.
P.O. Box 517
Silsbee, Texas 77656
Robert Robinson
Dlr. Regulatory Affairs
Continental Oil Co.
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, Texas 77450
Charles Reed
Chemical Engineer
Amoco Chemicals Corp.
P.O. Boxl488
Alvin, Texas 77511
W.E. Rouse
Right of Way & Solid Waste Admin.
Jefferson County, Alabama
A-202 Court House
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Peter Russian
Associate
Danninbaun Eng. Corporation Consult.
4543 S. Post Oak Place Dr.
Houston, Tex 77027
-------
Marvin Smith
Manager, Technical Services
Subsurface, Inc.
5555 West Loop South
Suite 616
Bellaire, Texas 77401
Dr. Geoffrey Stanford
Director
Greenhills Foundation
R 1, Box 861
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
David Stang
Special Project Engineer
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 609
Deer Park, Texas 77536
Mark Staton
Technical Sales Rep.
Rollins Environmental Services
P.O. Box 609
Deer Park, Texas 77536
Vicky Suazo
Comm. Sup.
Dow Chemical
P.O. Box BB
Preeport, Tx 77541
Imre Szekelyhidi, Jr.
Solid Waste Manager
Travis County
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78703
Steveh Taub
Stablex Corp
Suite 110, Radnor Corp. Center
Radnor, Pa 19087
Richard Rilon Thompson
Director
OK State Department of Health
Solid Waste Division
N.E. 10th St. & Stonewall
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Beckie True
Browning Ferris Industries
Administrative Assistant
Fannin Bank Building
Houston, Texas 77030
Bruce Tuma
Environmental Engineer
P.O. Box 9637
Houston, Texas 77015
Helen Vass
2430 Cedar Dr.
La Marque, Texas 77568
Kenneth Wyatt
Texas Air Control Board
5555 West Loop, Suite 300
Bellaire, Texas 77401
Warren Waggett
Capt. U.S.C.G.(Ret.)
Research Engineer
Rice University
P.O. Box 1892
Houston, Texas 77001
Charles Watts
Program Manager
Dept. of Health
2110 Crestwood
Richmond, Texas 77469
Linda Wells
Attorney
Coastal States Gas Corporation
Nine Greeneay Plaza, Ste. 890
Houston, Tex 77046
J. Westney
Mgr. Environmental Committee
Houston Chamber of Commerce
25th Fl, 1100 Milan Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Glenna Whitley
Reporter
Brazosport Facts
Clute, Texas
C.H. Van Metre
Enviromental Services Specialist
Dow Chemical/Oyster Creek Div.
P.O. Box BB
Freeport, Texas 77541
Robert Wilson
Attorney, McGinnis Lockridge and Kilgore
900 Congress Ave. Fifth Floor
Austin, Texas 78701
-------
Jenny Yang
Env. Health Spec.
Texas Air Control Board
5555 W. Loop, Suite 300
Bellaire, Texas
Robert Zoch, Jr. P.E.
Resource Engineering, Inc.
3^11 Marquart, Suite 204
P.O. Box 22189
Houston, Texas 77027
AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE- 1979 O 281-147/39
Order No. 774
-------
------- |