TRANSCRIPT

                          Public  Meeting
              on the Public  Participation Guidelines,
                      Section  7004(b)  of the
          Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act of 1976
                  July 1,  1977, Washington, D.C.
                This  meeting was  sponsored by EPA,
and the proceedings  (SW-24p) are  reproduced entirely as transcribed
      by the official  reporter, with  handwritten corrections
                  by the  Office  of Solid Waste
               U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                               1977
                           . IU-

-------
                                                           II-l


 1            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 2

 3                 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES

 4                             OF THE

 5          RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF  1976

 6

 7                                    Room  2409
                                     Environmental Protection Agen
 8                                    401 M Street, S.W.
                                     Washington, D. C.
 9

tO               The public hearing was convened at 9:15  a.m.,

11     pursuant to notice, Mr. Thomas F. Williams, Moderator.

12               APPEARANCES:

13               Mr. Thomas F. Williams
                Office of Solid Waste
14               EPA

15               Mrs. Gerri Wyer
                Office of Solid Waste
16               EPA

17               Mr. Lanier Hickman
                Office of Solid Waste
18               EPA

19

20

21

22

23

24

 25

-------
                                                           II-1A


  1                        CONTENTS^

  2    STATEMENTS OF:                                       PAGE

  3    Moderator's opening statement                        II-2

  4    Mr. David MaDeena
         Environmental Defense Fund                        11-19
  5
      Mr. Stephen Birch                    *
  6       Director,  Solid Waste Project
         For the National League of Cities
  7       and U.S. conference of Mayors                     11-22

  8    Mr. Donald Ray
         Executive  Director
  9       Municipal  Association of South Carolina           11-27

 10    Mr. John Yeagley
         EPA Region 8                         .             11-30
 11
      Mr. Paul Keough
 12       Public Affairs Director, Region 1                 11-34

 13    Mr. C.L. Jordan
         North Central Texas Council  of Governments        11-36
 14
      Miss Adela Awner
 15       National Wildlife Federation                     11-39

 16    Mr. Mark Sullivan
         National Wildlife Federation                     11-41
 17
      Miss Kay Pilcher
 18       Environmental Action Foundation
         Solid Waste Project                               11-47
 19
      Mr. Hector Mendiat
 20       Department of Health Resources, Texas             11-50

 21

 22 i

 23

24

 25

-------
                                                          II-2





J






2 I)             Mr.  Williams.    This is the first public




3 ||   participation  meeting  on the Public Participation Guidelines




      that are  being developed to help implement the Resource




      Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.




                I  am Tom Williams, the co-chairperson of the




      working group  that is  developing the guidelines, and I am




 8     accompanied  by Mrs.  Gerri Wyer, who is my co-chairperson,




 9     and by Lanny Hickman,  who is the Director of the Management




1°     and Information Staff  of the Office of Solid Waste, which




11     has the responsibility for developing these guidelines and




12     a number  of  other things.




13               We will be hearing from Mr. Hickman later on.




14               First, since the Administrator is too busy to be




15     here this morning, which seems .to be the case with many




16     other people,  I'm sorry to say, I thought I'd bring him here




17     in spirit by quoting from some recent remarks he made that




18     are very  pertinent to why we're holding this public meeting




19     and why we're  developing guidelines.  And I will be quoting.




20                Mr. Costle said "Public attitudes and practices




21     must be changed. Our historical view of what is waste and




22    what is not waste must be altered.




23               "It's no accident, therefore, that the Resource




24     Conservation and Recovery Act contains an unusually complete




 25    array of  provisions which make public participation an

-------
                                                          II-3






 1     integral part of the process of planning and implementation




 2     rather than after the thought add on.




 3               "Genuine public awareness and participation are




 4     essential for a number of reasons, two of which are of




 5     salient importance.




 6               "First, while the public has had first-hand




 7     experience with air and water pollution in their daily




 8     lives, the thousands of hazardous and somewhat less




 9     hazardous open dumps, pits, ponds and lagoons which exist




10     throughout our country leeching their witches'  brew into




11     the ground water and often contributing to surface water




12     and air pollution problems are hardly popular tourist




13     attractions.  And we must make a conscious effort to become




14     aware of them.




15               "Unless the public has a reasonable opportunity




16     to learn about them, the timely implementation of the Resourc




17     Conservation and Recovery Act will suffer.




18               "Second, the Act is the utter opposite of an




19     add-on.  Government at all levels, industry, and the




20     citizen and consumer must embrace the true significance of




21     its varied provisions and alter their perceptions and their




22     practices accordingly."




23               Thank you, Mr. Costle.




24               Now I'd like you.:to know that within EPA when a




25     guideline or almost anything else finally gets out of the

-------
                                                          II-4






      stockade, a lot of people representing a lot of different




      interests within EPA as well as without EPA have had their




 3    say in developing these guidelines which we're here to




 4    discuss.  We've had a working group made up of members of




 5    various different components of EPA and we've also had help




      through representatives of the divisions of the Office of




 7    Solid Waste who are concerned with implementing the Act.




 8              And I would like for Gerri Wyer to introduce those




 9    members of the working group and of our divisions who are




10    here today.




11              Mrs. Wyer.  Thank you, Tom.




12              As Tom mentioned, some people were not able to be




13    with us here today and some of our working group members




14    also could not come.




15              We had on the working group from Region 5 Lee




16    Botts, who is in the Public Affairs Office there.  She




17    couldn't come.




18              Marsha Caplin is on the working group.  She's from




jg    EPA's Office of Water Program.




                Mr. Terrell Hunt from the Office of Enforcement.




      And I believe he's also on leave this week because of the




22    holiday weekend.





23              From Region 1 the Public Affairs Director there,




24    Mr. Paul Keough.  Paul is here.  Would you stand, Paul?




25 I             Thank you.

-------
                                                           II-5







 1               From EPA's Office of Regional and  Intergovernmenta:




      Affairs, Claire Matassoni.




                From the Office of Public Affairs  here  in




 4     Headquarters, Mr. Leighton Price.




 5               And Miss Ellen Robinson has been a consultant




 6     with Mr. Price, Lu—uu from EPA's Planning and Evaluation




 7     Office^
                Tim Stanceugj he's coming in a little  late^vho  told




 9
1«              And from our Region  8 c»f f ice  in Denver, .Johrr




11    Yeagley, who is the Solid Waste representative.




12              we also-r-since these guidelines in  Section  7004




13    are to be published and developed by EPA in cooperation




14    with the states, we had Mr. William Bucciarelli, who  is




15    the Director of the Division of Solid Waste for the State




      of Pennsylvania — and I don't believe is able  to be here




      either, I'm sorry to sa^gs-hnve ^he three division




18    representativesffiiere that. wore working wiLh us;




19              We have Nancy Dunn from Systems Management




20    Division.




21              Hugh Kaufman from Hazardous Waste Management.




22              And we have two from Resource Recovery, Larry




23    McEwen and Susan Mann.




24              Mr. Williams.  Thank you, Gerri.




25  I            Let me say a word or two about the  fact that

-------
                                                          II-6







 1     we  are videotaping  this  meeting.   I hope it doesn't bother




 2     anyone.   This  is not NBC or CBS or ABC.   It's EPA,  courtesy




      of  Bill -C-lobli. •'  It is  a common practice in EPA to




      videotape a press conference and such matters as that here.




      We  are videotaping  this  in the hope that if an abbreviated




      version of this  meeting  can be edited that appears  really




      interesting and  shows strong public interest and public




 8     participation, we would  make it available to all of our




 9     regions who have videotape facilities and perhaps later to




10     the states to encourage  interest in the public participation




      portions of this Act.




12               i don't need to tell most of you, I hope, that




13     public participation is  something that unfortunately neither




14     bureaucrats nor  the public seem to be much accustomed to




15     in this city.    So we're going to do what we can to




16     encourage it.




17               If anyone has any real objection to having his




18     picture within the videotape that we're making, we'll be




19     unhappy but we will take you out.




20               I think now before I give you just the final word




21     on the guidelines for the meeting we ought to hear a few




22     remarks from Lanier Hickman who, as the Director of the




23     Management and Information staff of the Office of Solid




24     Waste, is very much involved in all aspects of all the




25     various complex processes that are going on within EPA to

-------
                                                           II-7




 '     implement all  the varied  provisions  of  the  legislation.


 2              I would like  for  Lanny  to  tell  us a little bit


 3     about  how the  rest  of the war  is  going, and that  is


 4     important because these guidelines,  as  we agree they ought


 5     to  be  at the end, will  be affecting  how everything else is


 6     done under the Act.

                 Cu
 7              L*rhny?


 8              Mr.  Hickman.  Thank  you, Tom.


 9              RCRA is somewhat  unique in some of its


10     characteristics and provisions.   I say  unique from a


11     standpoint of  comparing it  against other  legislation that


12     EPA is responsible  for  the  implementation of ,WPCA,  the


13     Clean  Air Act, TOSCA and  other n«w pieces of environmental


14     legislation, the Pesticides Act,  referred to, from the


15     Safe Drinking  Water Act.


16              It's different  and unique  from  the standpoint that


17     unlike the Clean Air Act,fwPCA—the  Water Pollution  Control


18     Act, the stick aspects  of the  law is very,  very  limited.


19     It's different from those two'Acts,  from  the Water Pollution


20     Control Act, from' the care  standpoint because the financial


21     caiSc  portion  is also somewhat limited.


22              A good deal of  consideration  was  given  by  the


23     Congress over  a period  of,  oh, four  years,  enough hearings


24     and reports probably to fill this room, on  what makes sense


25     for a  Federal  piece of  legislation.   Given  both the  Agency's

-------
                                                          II-8







 1     viewpoint and the Congress1  viewpoint that the real




 2     responsibility for solid waste management is, first,  with




 3     local goverrment, in guidance and support of safe




 4     government,  and not a Federal responsibility.   Yet both the




 5     Agency and the Congress recognize that there is a need for




 6     certain Federal involvement because there are  conditions




 7     that override local territorial bounds and state




 8     territorial bounds.  And there are demands at  the _state and




 9     local level that jstate and local government are not




10     capable or able to produce within their own resources.




II               So RCRA is structured somewhat strangely because




12     of that, in my view.  It's structured differently because




13     it doesn't include strong regulatory functions by the




14     Federal Government, and it doesn't include strong financial




15     assistance from the Federal Government.




16               This is why the public participation parts of the




17     Act are so important because it allows us as a solid waste




18     management community—and I mean the people who are picking




19     it up and making it go away; the people who are generating




2o     it; and the people who try to figure out a better way to do




2i     it, all that community--to have to develop a high level of




22     awareness and commitment to wanting to do a better job




23     because we're being asked to do it ourselves without the




24     Federal stick or the Federal carrot.
25
                So RCRA is structured along that basic

-------
                                                           II-9






 1     philosophy.   It  has  principally  three  objectives:   One  is




 2     to  see  that  the  improper  land disposal practices  that all




 3     of  our  country follows  is eliminated over  a period of some




 4     five  years.




 5                The law makes it very  clear  that by the end of




 6     1983  the  practice of open dumping  as we now know  it is  to




 7     disappear.   And  yet  the law in its uniqueness does not




 8     require a large  Federal regulatory program to make that




 9     occur.




10                It asks the public to  become aware of the




11     problem,  and the state  government  to assume a major




12     responsibility in helping local  government and industry




13     change  their disposal practices.




14                The law also  recognizes  that there is a unique




15     amount  of our waste  stream which offer particular hazards




16     to  the  quality of our lives and  the quality of our




17     environment,and  does place on EPA  the  burden of assuming




18     a regulatory program if state government cannot take on that




19     responsibility.   But here again, the law is structured in




2o     such  a  way as to give the state  government every




2i     opportunity that they can have to  assume the regulatory




22  i   function  of hazardous waste management, and provides some




23  |   very  specific financial assistance for that.




24                And the last  objective of them all relates to that




05     nebulous  bird called resource conservation.

-------
                                                          11-10



 1              A goal that all of us believe makes sense, but a

 rt
      goal that none of us know how to achieve because of the


 *    complexities of our institutional arrangements in this


      country which make it very difficult to change the


      affluent-effluent attitude of America to a  saving attitude


      that we had, maybe our forefathers, three or four


 7    generations had.


 8              But the long-term purpose of the  law is to provide


      a mechanism for resource conservation to be equal—eager and


      willing partner—in the total solid waste management


11    picture of our country.


12              And it appreciates the fact that  that  is a long-


      term goal because of the institutional problems  we have.


14              So where are we now in implementing this law


15    which  was passed in October of  1976?


                Most of the firianical promises of the  law don't


      begin  until fiscal year 78, which  is October 1 of  1977.


18    But EPA, because of the fact that  there are some very,very


19    stringent calendar demands  in the  law, began immediately


20    after  that  law was signed by the President  to start to


21    implement most of the functions of record.


22              We went through a major  replanning and


23    reprogramming exercise within EPA  to redirect our  resources,


2-t    those  resources that we had.  They're limited, but every


25    bureaucrat  never has enough budget.  So when I say

-------
                                                          11-11
      "limited" that's perhaps from a bureaucratic standpoint
 2
      but probably from a realistic standpoint also^iroidequate


 q

      budget to do the job right now.


 A

                But we took what we had--the Agency gave us more —




 5     and we redirected our efforts to start implementing RCRA.




                Now if you've read the law or if you've read a




      synopsis of the law you know that there are certain




 3     requirements in the hazardous waste provisions of the law,




 ^     and in the land disposal and state program development




      provisions of the law that say by a certain date things have




      got to be done, and that's the issuance of regulations



1 9
      and guidelines.



13
                There are some eight to ten regulations under the




14     Hazardous Waste subtitle that have to be promulgated and




15     out by 18 months after the Act passed.  That's April, '78.




                There's a requirement that we must issue




 17     criteria of what is an open dump and a sanitary landfill,




 ^     and that has to be out by October of this year.




 19  I             And there's a requirement for other things that




 20     had to be out.




21               Public participation guidelines do not have a


                              have"

 22     mandated time when they bad- to be issued.  But we think that




 23     if indeed there is going to be the sort of local public




24     involvement in implementing this law that's necessary, these




 25    guidelines have to be on the street at the same time we

-------
                                                          11-12
      first start to flow money to state and local government
 2
      under the new authorities, so that the public can

      participate and support the decisions—the hard decisions--

      that state and local government will have to make in order
           *^-
      to find the resources, both manpower-wise and dollar-wise,

      to implement this law.
                So we are proceeding; we are underway.  You've
 °     seen the first fruits of Section 7004.  The first two

      six-months requirements:  the guidelines for regional
*     identification of solid waste management regions; and the
11     first report to the Congress from the Resource Conservation
      Committee.  Both are due in six months and they have been
13     issued.
                if you don't have copies and you want copies,
15     you can get them from us.

16               The land disposal criteria, the open dump sanitary

      landfill criteria is in draft and have been circulated

      widely in the country for review and is under development.

19     We are optimistic that we will make that 12-month deadline,
20     at least in an interim if not a final form.
21               All the hazardous waste regulations are under

22     the belt.  We are underway.

23               In the midst of all that we've done our planning
24     for  '78 and we're anxiously awaiting whatever money comes
                          ^T C  -
25     to us in  '78 then £rom  Lha% RCRA.  It won't be as much as

-------
                                                           11-13



      was  author!zed,but  that's  not  uncommon.  Very seldom do you


      see  appropriations  that /never  reach  the  level of  the


 3    authorization on  a  piece of  legislation.


                We  asked  for full, but we  do have  to keep in mind


      that you're not the only people  asking for part of the


      Federal  dollar.   And so we're  not going  to get all that we


      want.  No one else  does either,  even the people who make


      B-l  bombers.


 9              So  you  have to look  at this thing  in a  realistic


10    viewpoint that solid waste management, while it's important


11    to us, may not be the most pressing  interest to somebody


      else.  I can't understand  why, but it isn't.  But it is a


      recognized problem  and it  is a recognized problem that's


14    getting, hopefully, now the  right type of attention.


                we  anticipate that the states  under the authority


      of subtitle C and D will be  fully underway with their part


17    of the responsibilities by the end of fiscal year 78.


                Our intent is to provide everything we  can to


19    _s£ate and local governments and allow them to assume the


20    responsibilities  of  RCRA  because that's the way RCRA is


21    built.   It's  built  to try  to get maximum participation by


22    ^tate and local government^  And our guidelines are designed

      "SO
23 I   _tteert the public has a right  to participate in that state


24     and  local assumption of RCRA.  These guidelines are unique.


25    They're  tied  together with the grant regs which we had a

-------
                                                          11-14
      public meeting on yesterday, and they will be tied in with


      our state planning guidelines, both for the hazardous and

 •3
      the nonhazardous portions of the law.


                So we're very optimistic where we are right now,


      but we're really through only the easy part.  The real tough


      part is the next fiscal year.


                How well we are honestly achieving implementing


      RCRA will be how well we are and where we are by the end of


      fiscal year 78.


                We are going to continue to have a variety of


11    public participation activities.  This year alone we have


12    over a hundred meetings scheduled to talk to the public


*•*    about RCRA, to talk to the public about what we're doing and


14    where we are in our work.

                                      ~z^oa/c
                We appreciate .ovoryonc 'Who io here for coming.


      I hope that you're vocal in your comments on the public


17    participation guidelines, and critical where you think we're


13    wrong and laudatory where you know we are right.


19              Tom Williams has a thick skin.  He's an old


20    bureaucrat that's made it.  And a hard head.  And we'll be


21    very happy to receive all comments.   We welcome them, and


22    we encourage them.  And don't be shy.  Get right up to the


23    mikes, and we're ready for it, and give us whatever it is


24    that you think we need to know.  Because your participation


25 !   in developing this guideline is important and it's sort of

-------
                                                           11-15
      a foundation for the whole public participation effort  that


      RCRA intends to have occur and we intend to  see it does


      occur .


 4               And thank you for coming.


 5               Mr. Williams.  Thank you, Lanny.


                I'm sure you've all read the guidelines.  But just


      to refresh your minds about them and what we have done ,  I


 3     will make a few very, very brief comments on the


 9     guidelines.


10               First, we will incorporate whatever we learn


11     today with the information we receive  from  300 copies


12     that we have sent out for informal review.   The working


13     group will examine all that material and produce a new


14     draft which we hope to have in the Federal Register by


15     midAugust, maybe by the end of July if some  have their  way


16               At any rate, all of this is even preparatory  to


17     putting the guidelines in the Federal Register.  So I


18     emphasize that because it really means that  there's a lot


19     of opportunity for anybody to participate who wants to.


20               Now the main points of the guidelines, or the


21     ones that make them somewhat unique, I hope, are, one thing,

                               A-V>d
22     not only EPA but states or any local governments receiving


23     financial assistance of any kind under this  Act will be


24     required to carry out a public participation program modeled


25     along what is called for in these guidelines if they

-------
                                                          11-16






      prevail in  their current format more or less.




*              They also would call ^n for,  not only public




3     meetings, conferences  and workshop to be held  as the Act




4     unfolds, but they would al'so include the formation of




5     review groups, adhoc committees to review program plans,




6     and so forth.




7              And we've also defined in the guidelines, as you've




8     noticed, what we consider a relatively full spectrum of




9     public interest groups who want to avoid the kind of public




10     participation that sometimes occurs under other types of




11     legislation or under this type of legislation.  But only one




12     segment of  the public, usually from the full right^T




13     spectrum, has any input into what the Federal  agency is




14     doing.




15               It also would include—and this is an important




16     element—the development of basic public educational




17     programs for the public.




18               it is not uncommon, as you know, for only certain




19     experts or  certain strongly motivated and well-heeled




20     interest groups to really understand what a given regulation




21     says.  And  while computer print-outs may be fine for those,




22  I   we feel that information has to be boiled down, that the




23     technical  data base has to be understood by everyone—by all




24     voters—if  we're going to implement and act in a truly




25  I   democratic  fashion.

-------
                                                          11-17
                Also all other established mechanisms are laid

 n
 6    out in the guidelines, the Federal Register for the Federal


 "    level and similar provisions wherever they occur—and they


 4    do—in most___s,tates.   In other words, whatever mechanism


 *>    states have to .Jfnsure public involvement would have to be


      applied.


                And also—and this is the important thing that


      Lanny alluded to awhile ago, one of the things he alluded


      to—every other regulation or guideline issued by EPA under


      this Act would contain a specific subpart which would


11    require them to implement the requirements of this


12    particular guideline.


                Okay.  Enough on the guidelines.


14              Now just a couple of final words.


15              We're really hoping—the way we've laid the room


16    out this way—to have a discussion rather than a pure


17    question and answer session.  We will attempt to in some


18    instances, if we can, get persons' questions answered by


19    other people in the room.  As I said earlier, nobody seems


20    to be very much accustomed to public participation in this


21    Republic of ours but we'll try it.


22              If you have a prepared statement and it's long,


23    if you give it to the court reporter it will be included


24    in the official transcript of this meeting.


25 I             All of you will receive a copy of the official

-------
                                                           11-18






       transcript.




 2               If  you  want  to give a verbal or an oral




 3     presentation  of it,  please give me a five-minute summary or




 4     something of  that sort.




 5               Be  sure to speak into a microphone when you talk.




 6     Be  sure  to give your name and organization for the official




 7     record.




 8               We  plan to be  at it until 10:30, and we'll break




 9     for ten  minutes and  then continue until everybody has had




10     his or her say.




11               I've had two requests from people who cannot




12     stay very long who want to make official statements for the




13     record.   And  the  first one—we'll start the meeting with




14     that,  if you  don't mind—is Mr. David -MaPaerKr- from the




15     Environmental Defense  Fund.




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                          11-19



                                                    e
 1                   STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID HA DEBHA-


 „                   A1«2
-------
                                                          11-20
                If that section were merely precatory with respect




      to encouraging public participation, the notice and other




      provisions of the guidelines would be adequate.  But




      Congress also has required the Administrator and the States




 5    to assist as well as to encourage public participation.




 6              The best way of providing this assistance would




      be to include a reimbursement provision in the guidelines.




 8    Merely providing technical assistance and information does




 9    not go far enough.




10              it is true that no appropriations have been made




11    under this section of the Act.  However, the Comptroller




12    General in a May 10, 1976 letter to Congressman John E. Moss




13    stated his conclusion that EPA needs no additional




14    authority to provide funds for public participation.




15              There can be no doubt that a wide range of views




16    presented before an administrative proceeding will provide




17    the  opportunity for better decision-making and will be




18    helpful in restoring public confidence in the decision-making




19    process,




20              EOF, therefore, urges that a reimbursement




21    provision for public participation be included in these




22    guidelines.




23              EOF is also concerned that in some areas the




24    guidelines are so vague or imprecise that states already




25    reluctant to encourage public participation may not act at

-------
                                                           11-21



      all.


                Examples of this  include  an  absence  of  standards


 3     as to what constitutes adequate public participation in


 4     terms of funding or other assistance provided,  too much


 5     discretion given in approving  actions  taken  without


      adequate public participation, and  the lack  of a  general


      presumption in favor of holding hearings.


 8               Without stronger  guidelines  the  requirements of


 9     Section 7004(b) cannot be met.


10               Thank you for giving us an opportunity  to present


      our views.

                                               Mcrld \ /Ve,
12               Mr. Williams.  Thank you, Mr.
13               All right.  Do you have  to  leave  early,  too,  sir?


14               Are you the gentleman  from  the  Conference of


15     Mayors?  Steve itrPtTT  Do you have to leave early,  Steve?


16               Mr. Bir-lhfi Yes,  I'm afraid I do.


17               Mr. Williams.  Okay.   Mr. Steve Jfttrc+Tof  the  League


18     of Cities.


19


20


21


22


23


24


25

-------
                                                          11-22
                    STATEMENT OF MR . STEPHEN .&IRCH

                    Bi^t±
                Mr. B«?ctr.  Thank you, Mr. Williams.

                                 Suefe
                My name is Steve BirCrf and I'm Director of the


      Solid Waste Project for the National League of Cities and


 5     U.S. Conference of Mayors.


 6               I would like to read a short prepared statement


 7     that we have put together.


                The statement reflects, in part, a discussion


 9     that we had last week with a task force of nationally


10     recognized solid waste public officials at the municipal


11     level as well as our own reaction based on contacts with


12     other officials around the country.


13               The National League of Cities and U.S. Conference


14     of Mayors appreciates this opportunity to comment on the


15     Public Participation Guidelines of  the Resource Conservation


16     and Recovery Act of 1976  (RCRA) .


17               In general, we commend  the EPA Office of Solid


18     Waste for its emphasis on, and commitment to, the public


19     participation provisions of the new Act.


20               To date, we feel that EPA has been open and


21     forthright in seeking out and incorporating comments from


22     different groups and interests  in developing the RCRA


23     guidelines.


24               However, several aspects  of the proposed


25     participation guidelines require  clarification and/or change

-------
                                                          11-23







 1     if the law is to be smoothly and effectively implemented.




 2               The following comments are, in part,  drawn from a




 3     discussion of the public participation guidelines at a meet-




 4     ing of the NLC/USCM Solid Waste Task Force held last




 5     Thursday in Washington.




 6               First, the guidelines are both ambitious in their




 7     objectives and vague in their criteria and standards.  This




 8     leaves state and local governments without a clear sense of




 9     what constitutes a minimum program of public participation.




10               A_gtate or community may make a good faith effort




11     to comply with the guidelines, yet still be subject to




12     citizen suits.




13               Although we recognize that there is no easy




14     solution to this problem, we recommend hat more explicit




15     attention be given to the reasonable capabilities of




16     governmental bodies to perform these tasks.




17               Account should be taken of the administrative and




18     financial burden these guidelines will impose on states and




19     localities.




20               Accordingly, the League and Conference recommend




2i     that more attention be given in the guidelines  to the role




22     of existing institutions and procedures in involving the




23     public.




24               State municipal leagues are a good example of an




25     underused linkage mechanism for facilitating state and local

-------
                                                          11-24
      government communication and cooperation.

2
                Other types of coalition and clearinghouse

a
      organizations can be also brought into the participation


      process without placing undue strain on the system.


                The general point to be made is that the concept


      of public participation can quickly get out of hand, and


      can subject^state and local governments to endless


      litigation, if reasonable minimum levels of participation in


      the program are not made more explicit.


                Second, for all the openness of the proposed


11     process, and for all the records that are to be kept, there


12     is no provision for assuring that the comments received are

to
      incorporated into the decisions and policies that are


14     adopted.


                The role of public participation, in implementing


      RCRA, if it is to be given this much emphasis, should be


      more than an exercise in testimony gathering.  It should also


      have a direct and demonstratable impact on the policies that


19    are chosen.


20              Some type of mechanism should therefore be


21    included in the guidelines to assure that the information


22    received through the participation process is synthesized


23    into policy recommendations which are given serious


1\    attention by state and local decision makers.


25 !             Third, and finally, several specific sections of

-------
                                                          11-25
      the  guidelines  could  usefully  be  clarified.


               For example,  in  Section 249.6,  local governments


      have no role in reviewing  and  evaluating  the summary of


      public participation.


               What  recourse do local  governments have if they


      question  the regional or ^state administrator's decision on


      the  adequacy of participation?


               A review committee composed of  federal , state,
                                              •^-       -==:

      local  and private  sector representatives  might be more


10    appropriate for this  purpose.


11             In Section  249. 7 (b), how are "significant,


12    controversial,  or  complex  matters" to be  defined, and who


      defines them?


14             Again, a clarification  of the definition and the


15    process would be helpful and might avoid  later delays and


16    prolonged litigation


               in sum,  the League of Cities and Conference of


      Mayors supports the objectives of the public participation


19    guidelines, but recommends that greater attention be given


20    to:


21              (1)   Established procedures and mechanisms at the


22 !                 _s,tate  and local level that will keep the


23 !                  administrative  costs of the program within
   i

24                   reason;


25              (2)   The way  in  which the information received from

-------
                                                           11-26
                     such participation is going to be  used;  and,




 2               (3)  A more explicit and well defined role  for




 3                    local governments in the evaluation  of the




 4                    participation process.




 5               Thank you very much.




 6               Mr. Williams.  Thank you, Mr. -Brrrfi".




                Okay,it's wide open.  Does anybody have anything




      to say?




                Yes, sir.




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




13




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                          11-27






                    STATEMENT OF MR. DONALD RAY




                Mr. Ray.  Mr. Chairman, I'm Don Ray and I'm




      Executive Director of the Municipal Association of South




      Carolina.




                I would like, first of all, to associate myself




      with the remarks made by Mr.-Diifti in his statement with




      respect to the National League of Cities.




 8              The Municipal Association of South Carolina is a




 9    very active member of the National League of Cities.  I




10    would like to strongly underscore and urge EPA to develop




11    a one on one working relationship with the various state




12    leagues throughout the United States.  I believe there are




13    47 or 48 state leagues.




14              And just to give you an example in South




15    Carolina, we represent 263 municipalities.  We estimate that




16    200 of those municipalities are engaged daily in the




      collection and disposal of solid waste.




                They have some serious concerns about these.  And




19    we've got one heck of an educational problem or process on




20    our hands as state leagues to make sure that they understand




21    what their responsibilities are with respect to implementing




22    the provisions of this Act.




23              And I think it's a very natural linkage that you




24 i   develop.  Send the information out through the state




25    leagues.

-------
                                                         11-28
                I  believe  the  National Association of  Counties  --


 2

      and  in  each  state  you'd  find  that  there  are  county
                 ~^.


      organizations  similar  to ours.  And  these  are the people




      that have daily  working  relationships  and  contact with




      municipal officials.   And I think  it would be very  helpful




 6     to us.




                We,  as an  association, accept  the  responsibility




      that we have to  educate  our people on  what tht. provisions




 9     of the  Act are,  what the impact of the Act is, because they




      are  the final  implementors of this Act in  terms  of  what it




      would mean.




                And we would urge strongly that  you--with copies



13
      of the  guidelines; sometime we don't get them on time--




      develop a working  relationship through the state leagues.




                Thank  you  very much.




                Mr.  Williams.   Thank you,  sir.




                Mr.  Ray.  I  would also  like  to offer this one




      other comment for  what it's worth  of what  we're  trying to do




      in South Carolina.




20               Earlier  when this Act came out a number of local




21     officials, both  city and county,  got together and met with




22     the  Governor.  The Governor of South Carolina has created




23     an ad hoc committee  composed  of county officials,




24     municipal officials, Health Department officials,  and we're




25     going to add some  business officials who would probably be

-------
                                                           11-29







      in terms of being  involved  in  the  hazardous  waste  area.  And




      we're trying  to, as best we can, understand  this Act,  and




      have been given  the mission of trying to give some viable




      options to the Governor with respect  to  his  decisions.   I




      hope it works.




                Mr. Williams.  Thank you.   We  do,  too.




 7              Mr. Yeagley.  Tom, while someone else is coming




 8    to the mike I'd  like  to just reinforce what  he said.




 9              Mr. Williams.  Identify  yourself,  please.




10              Mr. Yeagley.  Okay.




11




12




13





14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                      Jort
 1                   STATEMENT OF MR . jeffR" YEAGLEY
                                                          11-30
 2               Mr. Yeagley.  -Jehu Yeagley, with the EPA Region  8.

 3               Just as a reinforcement of what this fellow has

 4      said, we, in Denver, Region 8, have made a very definite

 5      attempt to  contact the League of Cities and the Association

 6      of Counties in our six states,and have been supplying them

 7  |    with drafts of information and so on, and have been  able to

 8      develop what I think is a very good relationship with those

 9      people, and, in turn, foster their relationship with the

10      state solid waste agencies.   And it's worked out very well

11      for us and  I think it will continue to work out well.

12               And I just bring that up as support for what you

13      said there.

14               Mr. Williams.  Thank you.

15               Does anyone have anything to say about what has

16      been said or about what has not been  said?

17               Mr. Ray.  Would you want to comment to some of

18      the statements that the National League of Cities made with

19      respect to  their statements about the sort of things like

20      these variants could be very ambiguous in certain areas or

21      the lack of specifics in certain areas.

22               Would you want to comment with respect to  that?

23               Mr. Williams.  I'll take any comment  I can get

24      from anybody on any subject.

25               Mr. Ray.  My question was would you want to

-------
                                                           11-31
      comment from the  standpoint of  it, what was  just  said?


                Mr. Williams.  Would  I want  to  comment, me?


                Mr. Ray.  Yes.


                Mr. Williams.  And comment on the  allegation?


                Mr. Ray.  That's not  an allegation.   I  think a


      comment and observation may be  a better term.


                Mr. Williams.  On the assertion that  the


 8    guidelines are vague?  Is that  what you mean?


 9              Mr. Ray.  Yes, sir, his statement.


10              Mr. Williams.  I would agree that  they're  vague.


      And where the working group, of which  I'm a  member,  will


12    attempt to try to see if we can make them less  vague.


                But I think part of what we  wrestled  with  in


14    putting these together is that  it's very  difficult to be


15    too specific or really specific about  what you  mean


      precisely by public participation when you don't  have any


      good  idea of what the resources are.


18              What we're saying is  that — we're saying, in


19    effect, I think that there's no way to set up a watchdog,


20    no way to set up  a perfect system whereby everything can be


21    perfectly evaluated.  But we're talking about an


22    institutionalization of the idea of public participation.


23    We're talking about what we mean by that.


24              Let me  say in that regard that  most public

                                             J>or>a_ | ,-/T/
25    participation is  an empty exercise in  vainality/and  it's not

-------
                                                          11-32
      part of anything.  The public participation under this Act


      so far in EPA has been for real.  We put out a preliminary


      plan before we develop guidelines.  And our technocrats


      and our bureaucrats are running about the country doing


 5     their work and going to a lot more trouble to hold meetings


      and let others know what they're doing than they might have


      otherwise.  And then most people do who work for any level


      of government.


 9               But what we've done is to say unless — what


10     we've attempted to do is to say all right, if states or
                                                   ^3»-

      local governments are going to get financial assistance


12     under this Act for other things, they have a right to

-1 q
      request it for public participation.  And we have a right to


14     say yes,  if you do so and so to bring about public


      participation, that's a fundable part of your application.


16               I think that's a far step forward.


I7               But you're wanting to know how someone in EPA  is


18     going to  precisely evaluate that is a good question.


19               We'll have to work it out.  I don't know.  But


20     it's not  going to be something  that can necessarily be


21     spelled out totally in this guideline.  It will have to  be


22     perhaps in other guidelines.When the people who are


23     evaluating whether or not a given application, a given


24     state program, or regional program promulgated by a state,


 25    by a government, is acceptable  for financial assistance, the

-------
                                                          11-33
      people who are evaluting  that will have to be evaluating
 o
      whether or not they  have  the proper element to public
 Q
      participation.

 4              But I dare say  I  don't personally know how to
 "    quantify some of  those  things.
 6

 7

 8
 9
10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17

18

19
20
21

22

23

24
25

-------
                                                          11-34
 1                    STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL KEOUGH


 2               Mr. Keough.  My name is Paul Keough.  I am

 A
 0     Public Affairs Director for Region 1, the six New England


 4     states.


                And we did wrestle with the problem that the


      League did raise.


 7               One of the things that the New England states

                           tSoM
 8     expressed to me—and •Jehrt,Yeagley can probably speak for


      some of the states in his region—is that many of the _sj;ates


      solid waste offices that are to carry out these


I1     regulations are only one- or two-man operations at best,


12     and they're very understaffed  and underfunded.


l^               And one of the things that the cry that came to


14     us from the _s£ates was try not to be too specific, try not


      to be  set up rigid requirements that everyone would have to


      meet,  because each state program is different.  Each _state


      has devoted a different amount of resources to the solid


18     waste  area.


19               Mr. Bucciarelli, who is from. New Jersey?


20               Mr. Williams.  No, Pennsylvania.


21               Mr. Keough.  Pennsylvania


22               He also asked us to  try and give as much


23     flexibility  to the regulations as possible instead of making


24     rigid  requirements for each_state that would  have to  be met.


 25    And I  think  that was one of the primary reasons  that  we

-------
                                                          11-35







 1     tried to keep them — tried to give an idea of what public




 2     participation was, and lay down some what we thought were




 3     minimal requirements, although not specifying that every




      state had to carry out every option in there.




 5               So that was I think the primary motivating




 6     factor as to why we did not lay down each ^tate shall do




 7     A,  B,  C,  D,  which would be better from our point of view,




 8     because then we could just review the programs and say, well,




 9     you didn't do such and such, and therefore we're not going




10     to  be able to fund your program.




11               But because each_state's capabiliity was




12     different, that's why we purposely did not make them rigid.




                And that was the message that we got from the




14    _s_tates.   Now apparently we're getting a different message




15     from some of the other representatives, but the jtates did




16     give us that message, instead of spelling out.  They did not




17     want it spelled out that every step that they would have to




18     do.   They insisted on a little bit of flexibility.




19               Mr.  Williams.  Thank you.




20               Yes,  sir.




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                         11-36







 1                    STATEMENT OF MR. C. L. JORDAN




 2              Mr. Jordan.  My name is C.L. Jordan.  I'm with the




 3    North Central Texas Council of Governments.




               Very briefly, a little background.




 5              We've been in the solid waste planning business




 6    since  '71.  We have literally done handsprings, I think, in




     trying to get public participation.  We do real well as far




     as getting a _state as well as local officials that are




     involved in solid waste.  We do relatively well in getting




     what I would classify perhaps as environmental groups




     involved.  But getting positive participation, you know,




12    from the lay public is a very, very difficult thing.




I3              With the assistance of EPA we completed a very




14    detailed solid waste study in 1974 assisting our local




15    governments and attempting to implement using the plan  as  it




     were as a tool.  And I have been personally  involved in two




     major  efforts.  In fact, I'm into a third right now, of




     trying to assist the local governments and  just requiring  a




19    good old simple answer, but there's not anything simple




20    about  landfill.




21              The participation you get is never positive.  You




22    know,  you can get people out of the woodworks when you  finall




23    say this is the spot we wanted.  But you never get any




24    positive thing.




25              You don't get anyone  to  come out  and say, well,  you

-------
                                                          11-37




      guys  are trying real  hard.   You're doing the best job you


      can for  the money.   I don't know what that process is.


                As I say,  we've tried to do everything possible.


 *    We get newspapers, we get TV coverage.


 5              Recently  I  was on a program,  radio program, for


      the League of Women  Voters, which we're active with.  But


      getting  positive public participation just has evaded us.


                I would ask though the gentleman from Denver's


      comment, I don't think that we want the specific same


      criteria that we have to meet as far as obtaining public


11    participation.


12              Give us some suggestions.


13              i generally feel that the people in the solid


14    waste industry—and  I can only speak for those in the


15    North Texas Council  of Government area, including cities

                                           -Jeiipe/
      like the City of Dallas, and Mr. John -TaprnTn, who many of you


      may know; Jack Graham, from Fort Worth—we're all interested


13    in doing, I believe,  the correct thing as far as waste


19    disposal is concerned.


20              How we go about it, I don't think anyone—I don't


21    think the Federal Government, state or local—can really


22    say because we just have not yet accomplished that.


23              So give us some leeway, perhaps some suggestions


24    of things we've tried,that others have tried, so you can make


25    us aware of it.  And let us see if we can apply that to our

-------
                                                          11-38
      own situation,  because, as pointed out, even from one side




 2    to the next,  you have different problems.   Certainly you're




 3    going to have different problems from one jstate to the




      next, so make them as flexible as possible with valid




 5    suggestions for us to consider and try to implement.




 6              Thanks for your time, sir.




                Mr. Williams.  Thank you.




                Yes,  ma'am.




 9




10




11




12




13





14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                          11-39




 1                    STATEMENT OF MISS ADELA AWNER

 n
                Miss Awner.   I'm Adela Awner from the National


 3     Wildlife Federation.



                Our solid waste project—we have an EPA grant—


      just held some workshops in Montana, and I'm sorry that

          Me
-------
                                                          11-40






 1     a contact with the solid waste office seems to have a




 2     contact with an enforcer, someone that comes to criticize




      their landfill or to criticize what they're doing or to




      threaten them if they don't do something differently.




                It seems that there could be someone who is not




      an enforcer but just someone to talk to people, to talk




      about what their problems, who would go to the people, not




      expecting people to go to him.  This might at least start




 9     the process moving.




10               i think if people know that someone in the capital




      cares this would be at least a step in the direction.  Maybe




12     once this report is begun then they would start coming to




13     meetings.  But I think this would be a way to start




14     involving some of these people that should be involved and




15     don't come to meetings.




                I think that when you do get to them you find




17     that they are interested and concerned.  Most people just




13     don't go to meetings, you have to go to them.  I think




19     that's where we have to start.




20               Mr. Williams.  Thank you.




21               The working group I believe --




22               Mrs. Wyer.  There's another speaker coming up.




23               Mr. Williams.  All right.  Go ahead.




24




25

-------
                                                           11-41
                     STATEMENT OF MR. MARK SULLIVAN




                Mr. Sullivan.  I'm Mark Sullivan with  the




 3     National Wildlife Federation, and I work with Adela,  and




 4     I attended her Montana workshops.  And  I'd like  to add




 •>     that we also conducted workshops in the State of




      Mississippi, so Montana isn't in any way exclusive because




      of the participation that we got there  because we got the




      same identical kind of participation with the same




 9     procedure in the State of Mississippi.




10               Tom made a couple of  remarks  earlier about  how




11     do you get public participation?  The public is  not used to




12     it.




                I'd have to echo what Adela just said, that




14     public participation is there if you go about and ask for




15     it.




                When Lanny was making his remarks he said that




      we should laud EPA where they need it and give them a




18     nudge where they need it.




19               As I looked over these guidelines I had a very




20     difficult time trying to find anything  to give EPA a  nudge




21     about.  And if I want on and on about the things in here




22     that I like it might turn into  a love feast.




23               So I don't want to go into any great detail on




24     that.  We will submit a formal  statement, Tom.




25               I would like to point out a couple of  what  I  think

-------
                                                          11-42






 1     are very positive things in these guidelines.



 2               So, for example, just making the statement as they



 3     do under policy for the guidelines, conferring with the



 4     public after a final Agency decision has been made will not



 5     meet the requirements.



 6               I think that that right there is the basis of



 7     what public participation has been to far too many people



 8     in the past:  make the decision, and then go out and have



 9     the public say yes to it.  I think EPA is really biting



10     the bullet when they say this.



11               I would, however, echo what was said earlier,



12     repeat—and Adela made the point also—that getting people



13     to the meetings is the important thing.  And if you have to



      do things like EDF mentioned with reimbursing people,  you



      find they do come.



16               We had in our workshops in two states over 300



17     people.  I had John Dickenson from the Atlanta office  of



18     EPA  just come back from holding public participation



      meetings of RCRA.  He came up to me after our Biloxi




      workshop in Mississippi and  said  "I can't believe  this.  We



      held a public participation  meeting in Atlanta  for the



      entire region"--we have eight states,  I think it  is--"and



      we had 11 people show up.  And  I  come  to Biloxi, Mississippi
6O


      and  you have  65 people here.  And we went to Jackson the



      next day and  had 80."




                I  think  it has  to  do  with the way  you go out and

-------
                                                          11-43
 1     seek that participation.   I think these guidelines get to




 2     the heart of that matter,  that you make it accessible to the




 3     people and you remove the  obstacles wherever you can.




 4               One other point  about if there is something




 5     negative in the guidelines or something missing, I would




 6     also add that you talk about putting together fact sheets,




 7  !   for example.  I think it's essential that in everything that




 3     is done as far as regulations, guidelines under this Act,




 9     that I'd like to almost see it in print here in the




10     guidelines fewest words with the fewest syllables.   Make it




11     as easy for people to understand as possible, not have to




12     rewrite it so that people  understand it.  When it's written




13     in the first place it doesn't have to be so bureaucratic.




14     And I think this is something we've heard in a lot of these




15     public meetings on RCRA.




16               But aside from that I really can't see -- there




17     will be some points in the guidelines that we'll point out,




18     but I think this is a marvelous commitment on the part of




19     the Agency.




20               Of course, the second element of this is getting




21     the funding to do it.  That's going to be an administrative




22     decision I imagine within  the Agency, within the office, but




23     we certainly would support that.




24               The National Wildlife Federation is the nation's




25   I  largest conservation education organization, and we

-------
                                                          11-44
 *     sincerely believe in and find it not only important but




 2     absolutely essential that the public be involved in these




 3     processes.   And if it requires a monetary commitment on the




 4     part of the Agency then we think the Agency should do that.




 5               So thank you for the opportunity to speak today.




 6               Mr.  Williams.  Thank you.




 7               I think the working group was very much aware of




 8     the fact that to get the public participation in a nation




 9     of over 200 million people who are encouraged in many ways,




10     particularly through television, to be passive,  to not get




11     involved—the day of the town meetings in New England has




12     long passed, and so on--it's a difficult thing to do.




13               Just as we have official representative government,




14     in a sense, we have unofficial representative government.




15     The Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, Conference of




16     Mayors, all kinds of trade associations, speak for millions




17     of people.




18               And so insofar as getting public participation as




19     the state level of government, as the federal level of




20     government is concerned, if you get -- really go through the




21     trouble and really try to make sure that all of the kinds of




22     interest groups and lobbying organizations are represented,




23     Y°u ars» in effect, involving the public.  But later on




24     under this Act it's going to be a different matter.  You're




25     going to have to really go out and get to the, directly to

-------
                                                          11-45
 1     the  public who are  going  to be  opposing  the way things




 2     look every attempt  to  establish a new landfill site at any




 3     place you  try to establish one.




 4               This Act  could  actually be completely stopped




 5     or or inhibited in  implementation by the automatic




 6     opposition to the establishment of landfill sites.




 7               So what is the  answer to this?




 8               Well these guidelines we think contain at least




 9     a  part of  the solution to this ,  and that is you have to have




10     public information. Let's face it, the  public has been




11     bamboozled for a long  time about the sanitary landfill.




12     They haven't ever been very sanitatary;  they've been




13     reaching into the ground  water  since they first began them.




14     A  little more aestetic pleasing in an open dump.  But as




15     far  as real environmental or potential public health




16     damage is  concerned, not  much better than an open dump.




 17               So it's easy then if  you're going to establish a




18     landfill site, even if you mean it for the public to assume




19     you  don't  mean it,  it's easy, too, for any environmentally




2o     concerned  consumer  organization in the town locality or




2i     county to  come automatically on their side because it's




22     always been true in the past.  Why isn't it true now?




23     Tremendous emphasis or the tremendous need in the emphasis




24     of the guideline for public information.




 25               People don't know what you mean.  Moreover, people

-------
                                                          11-46
      are not convinced.   And after we have defined the sanitary


 o

      landfil]  and the open dump--I hope they're different from

   I

 3
      the way they've been defined in the past—after we have




      defined what hazardous wastes are and put out various




      regulations, it will be up to EPA, I think, first, to put




      out information that people can understand—we  hope to




      provide enough of it for states to use, for local governments




 8     to use—at least that everybody can understand; hopefully




 9     written more or less the way Martha's asked for it, that




      will spread the information around.




11               I don't think there's going to be any simple way




      to do these things.  And there are just many, many reasons




      why the public is distrustful of all of us at almost all




      levels of government.  They're distrustful of industry,




15     et cetera.  We all know some of the hardened experiences of




      the past eight years which have underscored that sort of




17     feeling in our country.




                And we have a terribly difficult uphill fight to




19     make to attempt to implement this Act in full awareness.




20     And unless there is public awareness, forget it, it will




21     not be implemented.




22               End of editorial, I hope.




23               I would like for somebody else to follow up on




24     this.




25  |             Yes, ma'am.

-------
                                                           11-47
 1
                    STATEMENT  OF  MISS  KAY PILCHER
 2               Miss Pilcher.   My name is Kay Pilcher with




 3     Environmental Action Foundation Solid Waste Project.




 4               Basically,  I would just like to commend the




       EPA's  Office of Solid Waste for the guidelines on public




       participation that we've seen so far.




                 People have spoken here about the vagueness.




       From our perspective, they're pretty specific as far as




 9     anything I've ever seen  regarding public participation  and




10     yet it was a topic we've all decided today.




11               But if you look at some of the minor points,  I




12     think  there are some very innovative statements made in




       these  guidelines.  One,  of course, is having to do with




14     location of sites for public hearings and meetings, that




15     accessibility to public  transportation would be a factor




       to consider in locating  your meeting place, and that might,




       of course, encourage places in more urban areas, you know,




18     encourage people to come.




19               If you have problems of being out in a more




20     rural  area, then,of course, I would have to support EDF's




21     proposal that some sort  of reimbursement situation might




22     be helpful there.




23               The section I  particularly take great joy in




24     reading is 249.4, the Guidelines for Agency Programs.




25               They're pretty much spelled out,  A,  B, C, D,  E.

-------
                                                           11-48






 *     The  last  section,  "I.  Other Measures,"  is  of  particular




 2     interest  because basically what  EPA is  saying  is  that we




 3     have listed  here what we  see it  to  be necessary avenues




 4     to encourage public  participation:   hearings,  meetings,




 5     and  notification.




 6                But don't  limit yourself  to these.   There are




 7     other ways you can get public  participation.   You know your




 8     people, you  know your area.  So  don't limit yourself to




 9     these ways.   And I think  that's  important for  them to say




10     that because so often people try to follow the letter of




11     the  law and  say, well, we only have A through  D to follow




12     so we're  very limited.  We can't do more.  But they're




13     saying you can do  more.   Do as mud"1 as  you can and we can




14     help you.




15                And we'd just  like to  give our support  to that.




16                Thank you.




17                Mr. Williams.  Thank  you,  Mrs.  Pilcher.




18                Any dissenting view?




19                Well, we're going to break before the official




20     break unless somebody has something to  say.




21                Very good. I  congratulate the working  group for




22     having produced guidelines that  is  about perfect.




23                Yes, sir.




24                Mr. Mendiat.   Did you  say yoiyfare going to have




25     a break now  or terminate?

-------
                                                            11-49






 1               Mr. Williams.   Well if I don't get any more




 2     comments we're  going  to  terminate.




 3               Mr. Mendiat.   I'd like to make a little comment.




 4               Mr. Williams.   All right.




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




22




23




24




 25

-------
                                                          11-50
1                    STATEMENT OF MR. HECTOR MENDIAT




2               Mr. Mendiat.  I'm Hector Mendiat from the




3     Department of Health Resources in Texas.  And we've had




4     quite a bit of experience in public participation over the




5     last couple of years in our solid waste permitting




6     procedures.




7               We do get quite a bit of public participation.




8     In fact, every public hearing that we have we get more and




9     more participation, and mostly is in opposition to solid




10     waste landfills as you mentioned before.




11               But we have a procedure in Texas established by




12     the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act,




13     whereby all proposed rule-making activities, public hearings




14     are publicized at least 30 days ahead of time in the




15     Texas Register which comes out twice a week and receives




16     wide dissemination.




17               And one of the problems we have is the distances




18     in Texas.  We have approximately 5,000 incorporated cities,




19     254 counties, 26 councils of governments, and various




20     quasi-governmental authorities, that all of them are




2i     involved in these solid waste procedures.




22               So the best means of passing out the word is




23     through the Texas Register.  And everyone is given an




24     opportunity to participate in the hearings , submit written




25     comments.  After the hearings we develop a summary of the

-------
                                                           11-51






 I    hearings,  available  to  anyone.




 2               And,  as  I  said  before, we get more  and more




 3    participation.




 4               in  the rule-making  procedures, we have a  problem




 5    in  trying  to  establish  where  we're going to establish  the




 6    public hearing  sites because  of  the number of people




 7    involved,  the number of communities.   We try  to get as much




 8    of  a  cross section as possible and distribute the hearings




 9    across the state.




10               We're limited by  our funds  and the  time




11    available,  in most cases, as  to  how many hearings we can




12    have  or  how far we can  have them from the head office.




13    we  generally  try to  get as  much  of a  cross section  as  we




14    can.  And  we've been fortunate in getting fairly good




15    participation.   Not  as  much as you would expect in  a city




16    such  as  Dallas  where you  can  have a public hearing, and




17    you might  end up with 50  or 60 people.




18               Other times,  depending, of  course,  on the matter




19    involved — other  times,  we can  go to a much  smaller city




20    and we have 250 people, depending on  what's being discussed.(




2i               But we feel that  the response has been rather




22    satisfactory  because we get both opposing and positive




23    views to the  action  involved.




24               But what I'm  trying to bring forth  is that we




25    should allow  a  little flexibility as  I think  is contained  in

-------
                                                          11-52



      the present draft.   And I don't want to see too much more

 *    specific criteria because in our situation it would really

      impose a hardship where we have to follow specific

 4    guidelines.  We'd like to leave the flexibility to conduct

 •>    hearings as we feel are necessary and where they're

      necessary.

                And I think reimbursements in our particular

 8    case, which would be out of the question because of the

 9    distances involved, the number of people involved, and so

10    on.

11              So, in short, I would just like to support the

12    present draft without any further modification.

                Mr. Williams.  Thank you very much.

14              I think something you said just now about getting

15    a few people to come to  a  meeting in Dallas, and the

      good numbers to come to a smarter setting, you ascribe it

      to a topic to be discussed which I guess is a very major

18    item.  But also, as we all know, there's some connection

19    between how many people come and how much trouble you go

20    to to get them to come, which the Wildlife Federation
            •
21    representatives were talking about awhile ago.

22              A long time ago when I worked in HEW in the Air

23    Pollution Program I had a man on my staff whom I would send
                  «
24    out to get people to come to meetings.  And I would tell him

25    how many people I wanted, and what kind, and where and when,

-------
                                                          11-53
      and, by and large, he produced.  It's just a matter of




      effort.   There was nothing illegitimate about it.  It was




      all legitimate.




 4               But, you know, normally a state or the Federal




 •>     agency will put a notice in the Register or put one ad in




      the newspaper somewhere, and then say the public doesn't




      care.  Nobody showed up.




                But if we're doing something important, like




      introducing a new brand of cigarettes or a new beer or a




      new aluminum container for the beer, my God, we spend in




11     our culture millions of dollars to insure that everybody




12     knows about it.  Here it is.  Here, it's important.  And so




13     on.




14               So it's a matter of what the culture thinks is




15     important




                And I know I talked with one of the representative




      of one of the major news media in Washington, D.C. about




      this particular meeting today, and I said "Why don't you




19     come over here?  The public participation is so rare in




20     Washington, D.C., you might even write a story about it




21     because if for no other reasons, there's been a meeting in




22     Washington, D.C."




23               And the person said, "Well, my readers wouldn't




24     care about it.  Well, they might, but my editors wouldn't




25     let me print it anyway," and so on.

-------
                                                          11-54
 *               At the same day that I made this call the paper


 2     was full of delicious tidbits about whether Amy Carter went


 3     to school that day or not and won the essay prize; every


 4     gorry detail of a Hanaifi murder trial, about which we all


 5     know enough; we want to know the outcome, and on and on.


 6               So I think we who are serious about public


 ^     participation and who work in or out of governments really


 8     have to go to some trouble to make certain that what we


 9     believe in is being sought.


10               Someone mentioned earlier about that the people


11     will come out for something negative, but not to come out


12     and be positive about something.  They're hardly accustomed


13     to coming out at all, I think.  And they come out when they


14     feel threatened.


15               And our public information efforts in this area—


16     the general media attention to many important matters—are


17     so minimal.  And if it's minimal in Washington, I mean it's


18     double minimal in Iowa City or wherever.  Excuse me, Iowa.


19     Then we shouldn't be surprised.  They come out when they fee


20     threatened.  So it's a terribly difficult challenge.


21               And I'd like some more comments.


22               Mrs. Wyer.  Tom, I have one comment.


23               Mr. Williams.  Good.

                                      sWKs
24               Mrs. Wyer.  When Mr. Bateh from the League of


25     Cities -- I think he gave two or three different points

-------
                                                          11-55






 1    that they were concerned with, and' one was that ho oaid they




 2    were concerned that there wars no provision in the guidelines




 3    assuring that the comments received were incorporated into




 4    the decisions and policies that are adopted.




 5              Well in the guidelines, in Section 249.5(c),there




 6    is a mechanism for that provision.




 7              It talks about the documentation of the public




 8 i   participation measures shall be maintained, et cetera.  The




 9    documentations will also reflect the measures taken by the




10    Agency regarding substantive public response and comments




11    on the regulations, standards or guidelines.




12              We may have to clarify that somewhat to mean that,




13    but I'm sorry he's gone, but that is provided in these




14     guidelines.  But it may need a little clarification.




15              Mr. Ray.    Mr. Chairman, one comment.




16              I think it would be helpful at these kinds of




17    meetings—and I understand your physical construction of




18    it—these kinds of hearings I think would be helpful if




19    they could be moved out occasionally into the regions.




20              I know it's easier to come to Washington.  Most




21     everyone is representing someone who is here, and I think




22    it would be very helpful—and maybe this is our fault that




23     we didn't have some mayors or some people here who are




24     really going to be the final implementors of this, and we




25    would accept that—but I think it might be helpful to see

-------
                                                          11-56
 1     if  some  of  these  kinds  of meetings  may be  moved out into




 2     the regions,  that kind  of an attempt made  to the regions.




 3              Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  sir,  that's  true.




 4              We  did  have an opportunity.  Miss Wyer had an




 5  I   opportunity last  week or the week before to talk about




 6     public participation guidelines to  a group of mayors and




 7     city managers.




 8              Mrs.  Wyer.  That  was at the League of Cities




 9     meeting.




10              Mr.  Williams.  League of  Cities  meeting.




11              And I guess of the 120 public meetings, hearings




12     and workshops that will have been held under this Act by




13     the end  of  this calendar year, probably 80 percent of them




14     at  least would have been held outside of Washington, D.C.




15     But I agree with  you, absolutely.




16              Anybody else  have anything to say?




17              Any working group members or division representa-




18     tives have  anything to  say?




19              Going,  going, gone.




20              Thank you very much.  We  will take seriously




2i  i   everything  you have said.




22               (Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m. the hearing was




23     concluded.)




24




25

-------
                                                                  11-57
      lh'-- )';.v.'-i Cirv-ntal ucren&e Fund is  a  non-profit,  nationwide



or  ,-v •• <-;_iej: c'  EcientiE'l'.s,  lawyers and economists working



to  pr.tcot LI.?  publ-ir interest.  EUF has  supported the concept



of  iuj1  public  purtvripj-t: on  in a'7iiiiiii strati vo proceedings




in  fj  verify r-f contexts and  jn principle supports-the proposed




gu:'loIJ:iLn r.?i]u-,ted under sootier 700-1 (b)  of the Rp.souree Con-




sc.i vi- Li'j.1 <;;jcl 1 ecovery Act of  ISVfi-



      tlDF \ ould  like to coinnent primarily  on  the omission of




anv prc./\° j-Tii) ro"  the roi^burGeraent of  soro  or all of  the COSTS



of  participation by individuals and groups.   The value of



crc-oj ing an administrative record with  the widest range of



vi cvs  c.:pres:r.c'"-iriod froiii paitdcipati on.




     E!)J"  bjlicAcr-  Lljpre r, 3 ~.-:niror:  i h.i AcV.ii'ii: t rotor a;jd  the States




to .. --'.it. ," -  '.,'•? 11  r^'.  to o- ..-Oi.r u •> ;'n'.-lic- ;;- "•' ticJ; •:. tion.   Th'1 bent

-------

-------
                     Statement by the                        11-59
                National League of Cities
                         and the
                U.S. Conference of Mayors

                       July 1, 1977


     The National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors

appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Public Participation

Guidelines of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976  (RCRA)

In general we commend the EPA Office of Solid Waste for its emphasis on

and commitment to, the public participation provisions of the new Act.

To date, we feel that EPA has been open and forthright in seeking

out and incorporating comments from different groups and interests

in developing the RCRA guidelines.  However, several aspects of the

proposed participation guidelines require clarification and/or

change if the law is to be smoothly and effectively implemented.

     The following comments are in part drawn from a discussion

of the public participation guidelines at a meeting of the NLC/USCM

Solid Waste Task Force held last Thursday in Washington.  A list of

Task Force members is attached for your information.

     First, the guidelines are both ambitious in their objectives

and vague in their criteria and standards.  This leaves state and

local governments without a clear sense of what constitutes a

"minimum" program of public participation.  A state or community

may make a good faith effort to comply with the guidelines, yet still

be subject to citizen suits.  Although we recognize that there is

no easy solution to this problem, we recommend that more explicit

attention be given to the reasonable capabilities of governmental

bodies to perform these tasks.  Account should be taken of the

administrative and financial burden these guidelines will impose

on states and localities.  Accordingly, the League and Conference

-------
                          - 2 -
                                                             11-60
recommend that more attention be given in the guidelines to the
role of existing institutions and procedures in involving the
public.  State municipal leagues are a good example of an underused
linkage mechanism for facilitating state and local government communic
tion and cooperation.  Other types of "coalition" and "clearinghouse"
organizations can be also brought into the participation process
without placing undue strain on the system.  The general point to
be made is that the concept of public participation can quickly get
out of hand, and can subject state and local governments to endless
litigation, if reasonable minimum levels of participation in the
program are not made more explicit.
     Second, for all the openness of the proposed process, and for
all the records that are to be kept, there is no provision for
assuring that the comments received are incorporated into the decisions
and policies that are adopted.  The role of public p?rticipation.in
implementing RCRA, if it is to be given this much emphasis, should be
more than an exercise in testimony gathering.  It should also have a
direct and demonstratable impact on the policies that are chosen.
Some type of mechanism should therefore be included in the guidelines
to assure that the information received through the participation
process is synthesized into policy recommendations which are given
serious attention by state and local decision-makers.
     Third, and finally,  several specific sections of the guidelines
could usefully be clarified.  For example, in Section 249.6, local
governments have no role in reviewing and evaluating the summary of
public participation.  What recourse do local governments have if
they question the Regional or state administrator's decision on the
adequacy of participation?  A review committee composed of federal,

-------
                          - 3 -




                                                             11-61



state, local and private sector representatives might be more approprit



for this purpose.  In Section 249.7  (b)  (on page 11), how are



"significant, controversial, or complex matters" to be defined, and



who defines them?  Again, a clarification of the definition and the



process would be helpful and might avoid later delays and prolonged



litigation.



     In sum, the League of Cities and Conference of Mayors supports



the objectives of the public participation guidelines, but recommends



that greater attention be given to (1) Established procedures and



mechanisms at the state and local level that will keep the administra-



tive costs of the program within reason, (2) The way in which the



information received from such participation is going to be used,



and (3) A more explicit and well defined role for local governments



in the evaluation of the participation process.



     Thank you very much.

-------
                                                                11-62
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
                                     UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
                        SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE MEMBERS
                           Mayor John Hutchinson
                           Task Force Chairman
                           City Hall
                           Charleston, West Virginia
                           (304)  348-8174
          25330
    Franchot Buhler
    Director
    Florida Resource Recovery Council
    Tallahassee, Florida  32301
    (904)  488-0140

    Mayor Wyeth Chandler
    125 North Main Street
    Memphis, Tennessee  38103
    (901)  528-2800

    Clifford Draeger
    Alderman
    City Hall
    200 East Wells
    City of Milwaukee
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53202
    (414)  278-2221

    Jerry Fairbanks
    Manager, Solid Waste Utility
    Room 606
    Seattle Municipal Building
    Seattle, Washington  98104
    (206)  625-2324

    William F. Farnam
    Director of Public Works
    One Manchester Boulevard
    Inglewood, California  90301
    (213)  649-7330

    Mayor Lee Fellinger
    City Hall
    Ames, Iowa  50010
    (515) 232-6210
Alan L. Foster
Resource Recovery Coordinator
Denver Regional Council
of Governments
1776 S. Jackson Street
Denver, Colorado  80210
(303)  758-5166

Mayor Harry Kessler
301 Safety Building
Toledo, Ohio 43604
(419)  247-6077

Richard Simmons
City Manager
P.O. Box 3366
West Palm Beach, Florida  33402
(305)  655-6811

Mayor Jack Smith
45 Spring Street
Auburn, Maine  04210
(207)  784-4532

Wayne Sutterfield
Traffic and Transportation
Administration
Department of Streets
1900 Hampton Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri  63139
(314)  647-3111

Mayor Harold A. Swenson
City Hall
423 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
(717)  255-3043
                  1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington D C. 20006 / 202-293-7300

-------
                                 -  2  -
                                                             11-63
John Tiejjul Teiptl
Director
Street and Sanitation Services
2721 Municipal Street
Dallas, Texas  75215
(214)  748-9711

Robert M. Wilkinson
Councilman
City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California  90012
(213)  485-3343

-------
                                                                         11-64
                                   ATTENDEES
William M. Amrhein
Attorney at Law
Cutchins, Wallinger, & House
415 Mutual Building
Richmond, Virginia  23219

Adela Awner
EPA Solid Waste Management Project
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.

Nancy Barbe
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Robert S. Becker, A.I.P.
Community Planning
4300 Rohe Road
Syracuse, New York  13215

Francis A. Bizzoco
Sanitary Engineer
HQ, Department of Army  (DAEN-FEU)
Washington, D.C.  20314

Linda Bonney
National Association of Counties
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Stephen Burks
Director, Solid Waste Project
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Luisa P. Cerar/Maria L. Rodguez
Inter-governmental Relations Office
Office of Commonwealth Puerto Rico
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Christine Curiel
Environmental Analyst
Arkansas Power 6 Light
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas  72203
Weyburn D. Davies
Environmental Engineer
AID-SER/ENGU/ENS
220 W. Cameron Road
Falls Church, Virginia  22046

Russell A. Dawson
Senior Editor
BPI
P.O. Box 1067
818 Roeder Road
Silver Spring, Maryland  20910

Alfred J. Eggers
National Association of Manufacturers
1776 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

C H. Engelman
nidustrial Chemical Company
American Cyanamid Co.
Berdan Avenue
Wayne, New Jersey  07470

W. T. Fullerton
Parish Engineer
Cuddo Parish Courthouse
Shreveport, Louisiana  71101

Thomas J. Gaye
Assistant Executive Director
The Ferroalloys Association
1612 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

John R. Getchey
Sanitary Engineer
Eastgate Development and
  Transportation Agency
1616 Covington Street
Youngstown, Ohio  44510

Susan T. Gill               «
Research Associate
Division of Legislative Services
The Capitol
P.O. Box 3-AG
Richmond, Virginia  23208

-------
                                                                         11-65
Robert B. Golden
Chief - Sanitation
522 Linnet Circle
Delray Beach, Florida
33444
Isidore Goldman, P.E.
Rober and Company Associates
2250 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida  33409

Karen Gordon
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

Edwin A. Hafner
President
Hafner Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 3923 Amity Station
New Haven, Connecticut  06525

Mary Jimmink
Manager, INDA
1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

C. L. Jordan
Regional Planner
North Central Texas
  Council of Governments
360 Place
P.O. Drawer COG
1201 N. Watson Road (Hwy. 360)
Arlington, Texas  76011

Jack S. Kendall
Environmental Engineer
Shellfish § Recreational Waters
  Division
South Carolina Department of Health
  and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina  29201

Richard Larsen
Regulatory Liaison
Can Manfacturers Institute
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036
B. Charles Malloy
Environmental Consultant
Jones-Malloy Associates
Central § Lancaster Avenues
Berwyn, Pennsylvania  19312

David Medine
Legal Assistant
Environmental Defense Fund
1525 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Hector H. Mendieta, P.E.
Chief, Facilities Evaluation Branch
Division of Solid Waste Management
Texas Department of Health Resources
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas  78756

Dale Montgomery
Land Planning § Strategy Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois  62702

J. Gregory Muldon
Legislative Research Analyst
National Solid Waste Management
  Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Robert C. Niles, P.E.
Director, Environmental Control
UNIROYAL, Inc.
Oxford Management § Research Center
Middlebury, Connecticut  06749

John O'Hara, Engineer
Howard County Department of Public Works
3450 Courthouse Drive
Ellicott City, Maryland  21044

Wiley W. Osborne
Engineer
Texas Department of Health Resources
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas  78756

Camilla Ostrowski
Information Specialist
Informatics, Inc. (SWIRS)
600 Executive Boulevard
Rockville,  Maryland  20852

-------
                                                                         11-66
Kay Pilcher
Environmental Action Foundation
724 Dupont Circle Building
Washington, B.C.  20036

Peter Reynolds
Room 3800
Commerce Department
Washington, D.C.  20230

Ellen Robinson
Public Information Specialist
Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Marissa Roche
Research Associate
Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Jeffrey Sama
Environmental Control Specialist
Department of Public Works
Town of Oyster Bay
150 Miller Place
Syosset, New York  11790

David S. Sampson, Attorney
Boasberg, Hewes, Finkelstein, and
  Klores
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006
Elizabeth Tennant
Editor, Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
Dupont Circle Building, Room 724
Washington, D.C.  20036

Hartsill W. Truesdale
Environmental Engineer
Solid Waste Management Division
South Carolina Department of Health
  and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina  29201

Richard Vickers
City of Akron, Planning Department
166 South High Street
Akron, Ohio  44310

Anne Vignovic
Assistant General Counsel
U.S. Brewers Association
1750 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006

J. McDonald Wray
Executive Vice President
Municipal Association of
  South Carolina
Suite 200
1213 Lady Street
P.O. Box 11558
Columbia, South Carolina  29211

Jon Yeagley, Chief
Solid Waste Section
EPA Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver Colorado  90232
                                                                      ua!558a
                                                                Shelf No. 627

-------