TRANSCRIPT
Public Meeting
Strategy for the Implementation
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976
January 19, 1978, Arlington, Virginia
This meeting was sponsored by EPA,
and the proceedings (SU-33p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections
» by the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In the Matter of:
PUBLIC MEETING
STRATEGY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
Rosslyn Room B
Ramada Inn
1900 North Ft. Meyer Drive
Arlington, Virginia
The above-entitled meeting was held, pursuant to notice, at 9': 00am
SPEAKER:
THOMAS JORLING
Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
PANEL MEMBERS:
STEFFEN PLEHN
Moderator
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
Stephen Lingle
Chief, Technology and Markets Branch
John P. Lehman
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, OSW
DR. JOHN SKINNER
Director, Systems Management Division,OSW
H. LANIER HICKMAN
Director, Management and information Staff, OSW
EILEEN CLAUSSEN
Chief, Program Management and Support Services, MIS, OSW
-------
!_ N_ D E_ X
STATEMENT OF: PAGE
Bill Anderson
American Consulting Engineers fou-rc.i\ 19
Commissioner David J. Damiano
Department of Streets, City of
Philadelphia 22
Marchant Wentworth
Environmental Action 42
Tom Conry
Technical Information Project 52
Mark Sullivan
National Wildlife Federation 56
William DeVille
National Governor's Association 63
Al Merino
NGA, California State
Solid Waste Management Board 74
Wiley Osborne, NGA
Texas Department of Health 90
Philip H. Taft, Director
Tire Retreading Institute 105
Arthur Handley
Malcolm-Pirnie, Inc. 109
Dr. Rgflfrcll Petrone, Director
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. 119
Cliff Cobb
National Association of Counties 125
-------
(Administrative Announcements by Mr. Lanier
Hickman>
MODERATOR PLEHN: Good morning, everybody. Welcome
to ©ur hearing on solid waste statagies.
I am Steffen Plehn, the Deputy Assistant Adminis-
trator of the Solid Waste Program, and we say we are very
happy to have all of you here this morning.
Let me just begin by explaining how we propose
to proceed with this meeting and then I will have the
SS
pleasure of introducing Thom^Jorling who is going to be
making some opening remarks.
We have received advance requests from, I believe,
nine individuals who wish to make statements. And we will
take those in the order in which we received them at EPA.
And I don't know how long that will take, but that
will be our first step.
After that, we will take statements from those
people who indicated on their registration form that they
would like to make a statement.
And after that, we will take written questions
from the audience. And we have a. supply of cards which will
be distributed.
And if you would put your question on a card, at
that point in the program, we will bring them up to the
-------
front and we will try to answer your questions.
We have a court reporter taking the transcript
and a transcript will be prepared. And copies of that
transcript will be made available to all of you that
registered.
We hope that that transcript will be available by
the end of February.
We will break for lunch at 12:00 o'clock, and we
will reconvene at 1:00 o'clock this afternoon.
I also would like to remind you that we will
accept prepared comments on the strategy through the first
of February, and those should be -- if you have that here
today and you would like to give us those copies, if you
would make that available to Gerri Wyer.
Well, at this point, I would like to introduce
Tom Jorling, the assistant administrator for air and waste
management -- here is Gerri Wyer in the brown suit. She
is the person to whom you should provide your statement.
And Tom will be making opening remarks for our
meeting this morning.
MR. JOKLING: Thank you Steff and good morning.
One of the fascinating features of a position that
I find myself in now is the notion of incorporating the
public and public participation in all of our activities
Prior to joining EPA, I was on the side of
-------
6
assisting of public participation and it is an important
concept, not made any easier, however, by its execution.
It's very difficult to continually involve the
public in activities without, then, subjecting yourself to
the criticism.
You send out a document and you get public partici-
pation. You change the document and you send it back out
and everybody says we're always one draft behind, or what
have you.
It's very difficult to work out the mechanics of
the sessions.
The Resource Recovery Act, like most of the statutes
that we now implement in EPA,calls for public participation
in all of the implementing elements of the statute.
And I think the exercise in RCRA and the implementa-
tion by the Office of Solid Waste has been the sort of
leading edge of public participation efforts in the Agancy.
I don't think anyone really contests that the
statute in Section 7004 provides a mechanism for public
participation.
Last week we published, in the Federal Register,
the guidelines for that public participation and it is a
program which we have been carrying out and will continue
to carry out.
So far, we have held 25 public discussions; hearings
-------
7
if you like, which have been transcribed and which the
public has been fully involved in the development of regula-
tions which we are now beginning to see emerge from the
Agency and will continue to emerge.
Today £e a continuation of that effort.
We have, as the subject, the Strategy Document,
which has been circulated for wide distribution all across
the country as well as to those who have identifiable
interests and which have recorded interest in the Agency
and in the subject of Resource Recovery.
The next test of public participation is some kind
of assurance that what, in fact, the public says and what
it recommends is, in fact, incorporated into the decision-
making processes as we go along.
I think, again, the history of the Office of Solid
Waste and the implementation in the regulatory process is
indicative that the answer to that question is decidedly
yes.
The regulations have been dramatically influenced
by the public meetings that have been held. And I hope
that we can continue to persuade people that these efforts
are not useless. They are not simply pro forma. That, in
fact, they are essential to the process and that the
activities are incorporated into the final documents which
emerge from the Agency.
-------
I think it's fair to say, also, that since this
document, while it represents a draft, it is just that
there have been no final or determinations made by me or
by Steff, and certainly not by the Administrator.
This do«u»ent-reflects the efforts of staff in
interacting with various interest groups in putting together
a document which we would then hope will sort of frame the
issues.
I should also urge that during the course of your
interaction with the staff, that you should not feel con-
strained by the document.
In other words, there might be some things that
are not touched on in this document that you think are
proper for a strategy document and that you should address
those.
This is by no means the four corners of the strategy
that will emerge from the Agency.
The problem of solid waste resource recovery is
growing in its dimensions. The strategy document is an
attempt to get ahead of that problem, and that, I guess,
we will call an issue of government.
The dimensions which are now becoming buzz words
are staggered. And let me just read through some of those.
In 1976, the nation produced something on the order
of over a hundred million dry tons of residential, commercia]
-------
9
and institutional waste? 375 million dry tons of industrial
waste of which 30 million tons are classified as potentially
hazardous; 7 million dry tons of waste water treatment
sludges, a number that will be growing rapidly as the
secondary treatment plants that we have been funding come
on line with increasing frequency over the next several
years.
The 30 million annual tons of potentially hazardous
waste, primarily industrial, contain toxic chemicals,
pesticides, acids, caustics, flammables and explosives.
The range of toxicity here is wide and the hazard
is wide.
We expect the tonnage to increase by over 30 per-
cent in the next decade, in part because of the application
of our regulatory mechanisms and other laws, the Clean Air
Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
the like, are all having the effect of generating increasing
amounts of these materials.
Another acute problem and one that I think we are
all beginning to recognize the dimensions of is the problem
of locating facilities for the management of hazardous
waste.
Most of you are probably aware of the difficulties
associated with the Rollins Plant in New Jersey and the
difficulties associated with convincing the public that we
-------
10
know enough to manage these materials in safe ways.
I spent some time this morning with the staff on
another issue related to this that basically daals with the
vessel without a country which is the Vulcanus.
Many of you are aware that the Vulcanus was used
under an EPA permit to burn herbicide orange in the Pacific
last late fall.
Well, one of the permit conditions was that the
vessel be free of dioxone before it entered any port.
So, for the assurance of freedom of dioxone have not been
given.
So the vessel is sailing from port to port trying
to find one that it can move into for necessary repair.
These kinds of issues are going to be growing.
At the same time, the Vulcanus is finding it unable
to undergo these repairs. The vessel was necessary for,
basically, the common market — the European nations, the
western European nations — disposal of organic and hazardou;
waste. And these now have been stored in Antwerp to the
maximum extent of the storage facilities there. The vessel
can't get into the port to receive them.
So the European community is suffering from really
acute problems of what to do with these hazardous wastes.
It's a difficult problem and one that we are all going to
have to deal with.
-------
11
I
1 The Congress was also specifically concerned with
the task of safely dealing with 135 million tons of ordinary
municipal solid wastes.
A survey conducted in '75 revealed that there were
more than 19,000 landfills and less than 6,000 of them met
existing state standards.
And finding environmentally safe ways to dispose
of sewer sludges is also a major problem for many cities.
The 7 million tons includes tons that are contaminated with
soi.3 toxic materials most commonly associated with the heavy
metal such as cadmium.
I think, also, we are moving from the conception
of the problem of one of disposal to recognizing the opportu
nitie® that are represented by this materials flow.
The municipal waste from large urban areas could
generate energy equal to 400,000 barrels of oil per day,
nearly a third of that capacity reflected in the Alaska
Pipeline.
Recovery of the materials from residential and
commercial waste could provide 3 percent of the nation's
lead fibers and of its copper, seven percent of its iron,
8 percent of its aluminum, 19 percent of its tin and 14
percent of its paper.
However, certainly, our traditional attitudes have
prevented that kind of recovery, that kind of source
-------
12
reduction from occurring.
And we have an attitudinal problem as well as
a technological systems problem to overcome.
The draft strategy which has been circulated and
which is the subject of this hearing established two broad
goals.
And those goals are to assure that all solid waste
and hazardous waste are managed in a manner that will pro-
tect the environment and public health.
The second goal is to conserve the natural resources
directly through the management revise and recovery of solid
and hazardous waste.
Consistent with these goals are six more specific
and measurable objectives. The following objectives have
been established :
To develop and enforce regulations to protect
human health and the environment.
To develop the research and development improved
technologies necessary to achieve environmentally acceptable
cost effective solid and hazardous waste management.
To establish federal and state and local programs
to carry out the objectives.
To establish solid waste disposal practices that
provide acceptable levels of protection of public health
and environment and to discontinue or upgrade existing
-------
13
unacceptab le practices.
To establish practices for the transportation,
storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes that
will eliminate present or potential hazards to human health
and the environment.
And to establish resource conservation and recovery
practices as the preferred solid waste management approach
wherever technically and economically feasible.
The strategy describes the constraints to implemen-
tation of these goals and objectives, all of the above
technological,institutional, economic and resource, and
the proposed four program priorities.
And it's on those priorities that I'm sure your
reactions will be directed and we invite.
The priorities that we have proposed are, first,
to control waste disposal as the highest priority activity
in the RCRA implementation over the next five years.
Second, in order to establish resource conservation
and recover the preferred solid waste management option,
certain programs will also be given high priority in the
next five years. These include economic incentives through
the resource conservation committee's work and the recom-
mendations that will be flowing from that activity assisting
in the development of state regional programs through
financial and technical assistance,the TA Panels.
-------
14
The third priority is that industrial waste should
receive priority emphasis in all solid waste management
activities.
And, fourth is the encouragement of state assump-
tions of the provisions of RCRA and the high priority
activities. And a center should be provided for that pur-
pose.
We are traveling over new ground with RCRA. The
federal involvement is not as historical and the result
of experience as is the case of the Water Pollution Control
Program, and now, to some extent, in the Clean Air Act
Program.
It's the first time that the Federal Government
has been directed,through statute, to be an active partici-
pant in the process of management of solid waste.
Working out that balance is a very difficult issue.
What we are doing is trying to bring back into
some sort of balance a long pattern of use of materials
in our society.
We do emphasize the resource recovery elements
and also the protection of public health. We are reflecting
the fact, I guess, that there is no longer a hill beyond
which we can throw material.
The oceans are no longer available to us. The
landscapes are becoming excluded from us. So we must come
-------
15
into a management scheme which reflects the natural system*s
refuse and recycle of material.
It's absolutely essential that this be done.
One of the interesting ways of focusing on this
program is to consider ourselves some 2,000 years hence
and examine our landscape for what we will describe as
pyramids.
The pyramids would be, in effect, portions of the
landscape that are dedicated forever for certain uses by
a given culture.
And if you look at the amount of those types of
landscapes that our society is generating, I'm sure that
those folks in several hundred or even fewer years are
going to look at our culture with some surprise, much as
we do at the pyramids, and wonder why a culture could
dedicate a landscape to that particular purpose.
But if you look around and examine the amount of
landscapes that are dedicated because of land filling of
materials because of the necessity to protect materials
from release into the environment for long periods of time,
both radioactive and otherwise, we see a tremendous increase
in the acreage.
That is not good public policy if we include a
time horizon that has any greater than a five-year period.
And I would hate to continue that process when
-------
16
there are alternatives available and those are the alterna-
tives, hopefully, the strategy will stimulate and produce.
As I mentioned, I'm urging you not to be con-
strained by the document, itself. To focus on issues that
you don't think have been properly raised in it. To con-
sider issues that we might be directed to better integrate
some of our processes.
The permitting processes, for instance, under the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Underground Ihjectioi
Regulatory Program under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Hazardous Waste Permanent Program that is established under
RCRA.
People have ideas on how the strategy can speak
to those issues. And we will certainly welcome them.
I hope that it will be a productive meeting. I
can assure you that the comments that you give will be
considered thoroughly, and I'm sure will have the effect
of changing the nature of this document.
That is our objective and I hope it's yours. And
I look forward to receiving the benefit of your views througf
this hearing exercise.
Thank you very much.
MODERATOR PLEHN : Tom, thank you very much.
I would gust like to mention, while I have the
Jnicrophone, that we have, out close to the registration desk
-------
17
a publication stapT»ed with some of the publications of
the Solid VJaste Program that you may want to take a look
at that and see if there's any there of interest to you.
We also have a terminal out there which connects
to the computer memory bank of our Solid Waste Information
Retrieval System. We're very proud of this system. It
really is a complete bibliography of the all of the world's
solid waste literature, at least all the world's solid
waste literature that comes regularly to our attention.
And we think, with this new computer terminal
capacity, that we're going to make that data base much more
accessible to ourselves and to any of you and anyone else
in the country who would like to use them.
So you might want to stop by and take a look at
that and get some sense for what that might be able to
help you with.
Now. I would like, now, to introduce my colleagues
here at the head table who really serve as the drafting
company for the preparation of this strategy.
And our idea here today is rather than having you
make statements and our receiving them, that we may be
able to get some kind of dialogue going and have you have
an opportunity to ask questions of this group and they, in
turn, have an opportunity to ask questions of you.
And in that way, to really have a dialogue about
-------
18
the issues before us.
Starting at the far end of the table, I would like
to introduce Steve Lingle who was the acting division chief
of the Resource Recovery Division this summer and is
currently the branch chief of the Technology and Markets
Branch of the Research Recovery Division.
Next to him is Jack Lehman who is the division
chief of the Hazardous and Waste Management Division.
And next to him is John Skinner who is the division
chief of the Systems Management Division.
And next to him is Lanier Hickrnan who is head of
our Management and Information Staff.
And next to him is Eileen Claussen who is head
of our Program Management Branch.
My relationship to this draft strategy is that
it really reached completion and was ready for distribution
at about the time that I physically arrived at the solid
waste office.
I read it over briefly and then we distributed
it to all of you. I consider this, really, a very timely
opportunity for me to use this strategy and its review as
an opportunity to really come to understand better what
some of the key issues are in the solid waste field.
So that I'm going to be really very interested in
what I'm able to learn today.
-------
19
So at this point, I would like to ask Mr. Bill
Anderson, who is Chairman of the Solid Waste Task Force
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, if he would
like to step up to the microphone and make his statement.
STATEMENT OF BILL ANDERSON, AMERCIAN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
I would like to correct a small announcement there.
This morning, I am representing the American Consulting
Engineer's Council, not to be confused with the American
Society of Civil Engineers.
MODERATOR PLEHN : I apologize for that.
MR. ANDERSON: That's quite all right. You have
a lot of different groups out there and it's difficult to
keep them straight.
In keeping with the idea of strategy development,
that is, long-range goals and objectives that you are
seeking to accomplish, our comments this morning from the
Consulting Engineer's Council are broad and general.
But I do think we offer some recommendations which
would be of value to you.
We compliment EPA on the development of a strategy
for RCRA implementation to guide your Agency's efforts.
This approach, which is an attempt, and, I think, a fairly
good one, to recognize the limitations, weigh alternatives
-------
20
and set priorities we feel has been too often lacking in
other developments of federal programs.
And so we compliment you on the efforts thus far.
We further concur with the general priorities
that you have established. Number one, to concentrate on
disposal in the near term while, secondarily, encouraging
resource conservation and recovery.
We may not, however, always agree with some of
the statements you have made in the strategy document lead-
ing up to the priorities that you have established.
But keeping my remarks of a general nature, I am
not going to nitpick with you this morning.
But most importantly, I find it difficult to com-
ment about the strategy because, to me, after reading this
document and coming down to the final conclusions in your
Chapter 8 or 9 where you set the priorities, I didn't find
specifics which would enable us, from our position, to
weigh exactly what you are going to do.
Words like considerable attention, more emphasis
or less emphasis, leave me in a position where I really can'
comment because I don't know what you are thinking.
I think the priorities that you've established, as
I said earlier, are a good beginning. And now we would
encourage you to articulate those priorities into some
target goals.
-------
21
I'm not asking for technical kinds of information
but long-range target goals; what levels of effort in terms
of manpower, in terms of dollars, recognizing all the
limitations that you defined to relate to these priorities.
And then I think ourselves and others would be
able to say this is the direction that we agree that the
federal program should proceed or we do not agree with the
direction based on a level of effort which you intend to
apply to each item.
I think such specifics are essential, not only for
our ability to comment, but also for effective program
management from your own viewpoint.
Finally, I would like to make one recommendation,
keeping with the general nature that I think should be
added to your list of major activities deserving major
emphasis.
And that would be to — for your office to under-
take a leadership role in coordinating the various legisla-
tive mandates of other programs which was addressed in
Section 1006 of the Act.
We, and everyone else, we consulting engineers and,
I think, everyone else involved in implementing directives
from the fderal level, are continually frustrated by the
lack of coordination between one agency and between sv<=»n
departments within an agency.
-------
22
I recognize that this is not going to be an easy
task. Big government has a lot of different pressures that
it has to speak to.
But we would encourage you to take a leadership
role in, at least, the solid waste field. And you articu-
lated the various areas in Chapter 10 or 11 of the document
where there is overlap before we proceed to implement to
resolve those overlaps into some kind of coordinated approach
I think that, by itself, the elimination of con-
flicating and duplicative regulatons, is going to enhance
the response to your efforts by those involved in actually
solving the problems; states, localities and private industry
We thank you for this opportunity to make a presen-
tation this morning and we intend to follow up with a
written document provided to you.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.
Our next speaker is Commissioner David Damiano
of the City of Philadelphia.
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DAVID J. DAMIANO,
DEPARTMENT OF STREETS, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
MR. DAMIANO: Thank you and good morning.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today.
As EPA knows, our City has been involved with prac-
tically every solid waste management issue confronting a
-------
23
major metropolitan area in the United States.
Moreover, in the case of the New Jersey importa-
tion ban, the pending action by the United States Supreme
Court, involving land disposal areas for Philadelphia's
refuse, will have the most profound effect on national,
state and regional plans for solid waste, whether municipal
or hazardous.
For these reasons, I am particularly happy to
address the document entitled, "Strategy for Implementation,
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976."
The course followed by EPA over the next several
years will materially affect the course of solid waste
management in this country, just as has been the case since
1965, following the passage of the first Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act.~
General Overview. The document acknowledges the
regrettable fact that Congress has not provided, nor will
probably ever provide, the resources to undertake the solvinc
of this national waste problem.
For many years, the financial and implementation
problems of urban and rural solid waste management plans
have been written off by the Federal Government as just a
local issue.
This is not true. Improper solid waste practices
impact our environment and our citizens from the Atlantic to
-------
24
the Pacific.
The detailed discussion on each of the four major
constraints presented in Chapter VI represents the most
accurate, cogent statement of the true problems of solid
waste management ever prepared by the USEPA.
The agency has correctly described the constraints
faced by local government, and states, and private enter-
prise in dealing with what still represents the toughest,
most unresolved environmental i^sue in the United States.
The facts and opinions presented in this strategy
document represent a marked departure from the EPA state-
ments of the last several years and, as such, are truly
welcome.
This strategy shows the hand of solid waste manage-
ment professionals and should be supported by we non-federal
people.
A copy should be required reading for all repre-
sentatives of Congress and Administration officials who shap<
and change our laws and the budgets to carry them out.
Hopefully, the implementation of RCRA can repre-
sent a turning point in recognizing solid waste management
for what it is: a truly national issue which transcends in
most cases the parochial interests of local, county and
state governments.
Goals and Objectives. While the two goals outlined
-------
25
in Chapter I are completely correct, a third goal is
needed : to assure that the goal of protecting and conserv-
ing our haalth, environment and natural resources is bal-
anced with the impact on human resources and needs, includ-
ing our economic capability for achieving these goals.
Our cities face hard choices between human and environmental
resources.
The USEPA should aid them in making educated
decisions among clashing public and political points of view
on this volatile sugject.
Local Government prospective - Public and Legis-
lative Attitudes. The federal strategy must be cognizant of
the fact that local government alone will not be able to
resolve the problems of adverse public reaction and siting
opposition.
Public education alone is no solution. It has neve:
worked on tough problems. It is not likely to work any
better on this new hazardous and toxic waste issue.
Guidance and direct assistance in overcoming
public opposition must be provided by the state and federal
governments.
The problem of urban areas in dealing with the
solid waste issue will be compounded immensely if the United
States Supreme Court upholds the right of the State of New
Jersey to ban importation of refuse into their state.
-------
26
This is especially true if done under the guise of
asserting that all landfills pollute but since they are
inevitable, the landfills in New Jersey must be reserved
for New Jersey citizens.
The impact of state importation bans (followed by
county and local importation bans) on the implementation of
a strategy for RCRA is enormous.
Such legislative actions by state^represent the
most serious threat to the Act imaginable.
EPA must face this threat and include methods
of dealing with the issue as part of its program for under-
taking the Congressional mandate of the current Act.
Funding Priorities. It is proper for the strategy
document to direct the limited resources of RCRA to State
and local funding.
State and local governments are on the firing line
in solving the solid waste problem.
Therefore, no large federal program is required.
The state governments,with the assistance of the federal
regional offices, must attack the problem where it exists;
local government.
Pennsylvania communities are fortunate that our
Department of Environmental Resources has been a leader
among state agencies involved in solid waste management.
Our state has a strong planning, management and
-------
27
£nforcEm3nt program. With new resources from RCRA, the
State will be able to continue and expand its program.
This is a proper course since improved solid waste
management must stem from state government initiative to
local government action.
Implementation of RCRA by EPA must emphasize
this fact.
In that light, I would like to identify a confusion
in priorities within the document.
Chapter IV, Subtitle D, provides that counties,
municipalities, and intermunicipal aoenci^s are only
afforded grants for feasibility studies, consultations and
market studies .
How=v°r, special communities with low population
and high levels of generation will receive grants for conver-
sion or construction of solid waste disposal facilities
and for rural communities to upgrade solid waste management
facilities.
This is a mixup of priorities.
The n=eds of cities versus rural communities do
not differ except by a. scale factor.
There is no valid reason for discrimination against
cities in favor of rural communities. In fact, the rsverse
is true.
Rural communities theoretically hav% more than ampli
-------
28
land resources which may be assigned to solid waste dis-
posal by the landfill method.
This is the most economically and environmentally
sound method of dealing with the problem.
However, cities have long exhausted their land
resources.
In addition, metropolitan areas account for greater
refuse quantities than rural areas.
Priority of funds could be directed to cities who
have a far greater need.
For example, without land resources in Philadelphia,
solving approximately one-third of our solid waste problem
requires a $120 million investment for a single energy
plant.
Hazardous and Toxic Wastes versus Municipal Wastes.
If emphasis on hazardous and toxic waste is to be a predomi-
nant strategy for RCRA, it is misguided and unsupported by
the facts presented in the strategy.
Only 30 million tons of potentially hazardous
waste are estimated to exist whereas over 380 million tons
of municipal and industrial waste exist with little or no
hazardous potential.
Concentration on hazardous and toxic waste as a
national strategy cannot be supported when the bulk of the
waste problem defies an adequate solution.
-------
29
We must not succumb to the lure of a new specia-
lized solid waste issue if it means turning our back on the
overwhelming problem of the disposal of all solid waste
materials.
We tried to ignore the larger issue in 1970 by
turning our attention to resource recovery.
As this document so dramatically details, progress
since 1965 in solid waste management has been slow to nil.
Turning to resource recovery or hazardous and toxic
wastes before providing needed relief for the overall solid
waste problems is a luxury we cannot afford.
For these reasons, assigning high priority to
hazardous and toxic wastes and medium priority to other
wastes is a reverse of the true needs and priorities for dis-
posal controls.
At the very least, a balance of emphasis in the
Disposal Control priority is required as stated in
Chapter VII.
If this activity includes methods of fostering
unproved disposal for municipal wastes, it would':
(1) Provide a positive public image through
specific examples of proper sanitary landfilling of solid
wastes.
(2) Increase the chance for financing higher
cost land disposal alternatives by equating the apparent
-------
30
low cost of unacceptable land disposal practices to the
indirect costs of deterioration of our land and water
resources.
Uniform Regulations. The waste disposal control
priority outlined in Chapter VIII should not omit as a focus
the need to establish uniform regulations by states and
local governments.
Such regulations should control municipal and
hazardous disposal while protecting the current best prac-
tices of the solid waste industry in states and regions of
the United States where these practices do not imperil the
environment and public health.
Different regions of the country have different
disposal control requirements based on many factors; e.g.,
geology, hydrology, soils, intended land use and public
priorities.
Constraints to implementation - status of
technology. Experience in our City over the last several
years tends to support the idsa that advanced technology
is not as readily available to local decision-makers as had
b^en previously assumed.
For example, Philadelphia was ordered to select
air control technology for its two incinerators in order
to comply with regulations.
We chose electrostatic precipitation as the only
-------
31
emerging technology likely to meet the stringent codes.
The devices were installed in 1974. We are still,
some four years later, testing and adjusting these devices
to meet the demands of the citizenry and conflicting state
and federal testing procedures.
Another case involves our plans for a large refuse-
to-energy facility to provide steam for the Philadelphia
steam loop serving downtown offices, businesses and insti-
tutions .
A $400,000 detailed feasibility study conducted
jointly by Philadelphia Electric and ourselves was necessary
to determine the most dependable technology for our purposes
Our choice of front fired boilers using shredded
refuse derived fuel has no extensive' service record and,
in fact, has only been tried in one or two full-scale plants
yet, this is the most dependable system disclosed during our
study.
This plant will only handle one-third of the City's
refuse generation.
Therefore, we would need over $360 million in
capital just to provide energy plants for all of our
refuse.
The City cannot raise such money. Cities are not
in a position to put such enormous dollar requirements on
the line for problems like solid waste.
-------
32
They couldn't do it for high priority problems.
The money just isn't there.
Even if less capital intensive solutions are
employed, we suffer burdensome cost increases.
For example, our railhaul program has been long
coming primarily due to adverse public reaction and fear of
large cost increases.
The cost of employing long distance railhaul to
solve the disposal problem of 1,000 tons per day (one-sixth
of the total generation) will be well over $25 per ton
including $19 a ton for the contractor and $6 per ton in
handling costs by our current facilities.
This represents a $12 per ton increase over cur-
rent costs to transfer, haul and dispose of refuse from our
City to state permitted landfills in Mew Jersey.
The increase may become as much as 100 percent.
VThere v/ill these resources come from?
The lack of available, demonstrated, full-scale
advanced technology has been, and continues to be, a
liability for metropolitan areas such as Philadelphia.
B. Resource Limitations — The limited resources
for capital investment in sophisticated facilities is the
single greatest impediment to progress in solid waste
management.
Our City is facsd with a need for $85 million to
-------
33
construct a 2,000-ton per day energy plant.
The actual cost of this plant is projected to be
SI20 million by startup of the plant due to interest on
borrowed capital prior to startup, fees for financing
negotiations and bonds required to secure the financing
arramgements.
C. Institutional Aspects — No city has tried hard*
than Philadelphia to overcome the "unbroken rule" of public
opposition to refuse disposal.
This is the case both inside the city and outside.
Opposition to the siting of a transfer station in the north-
eastern part of our.city prevented its construction.
Opposition by 27 counties in Pennsylvania has
prevented the land disposal of Philadelphia refuse outside
our city limits since 1972.
Opposition to the use of legally permitted land
disposal sites in New Jersey has thrust us into the United
States Supreme Court to determine,as much as anything else,
whether Philadelphia refuse is worse than Hew Jersey refuse
in terms of health or environmental effects.
Fragmentation of responsibilities and nonuniform
regulations is a central problem at both state and local
levels.
For example, some communities can negotiate solid
waste contracts while others are required, by law, to employ
-------
34
competitive bidding.
Many communities like Philadelphia are limited
by law in the term of a contract -- usually one to four
years.
This will force the City to create completely new
institutional arrangements to implement our railhaul con-
tract which calls for a term of sixteen years.
Our city does not assume responsibility for the
disposal of commercial and industrial waste (which may
include toxic and hazardous categories).
What will be the City's liability under RCRA for tl:
type of waste generated within the city limits? Who is
responsible for disposal? If the generator i£ responsible,
who will enforce the regulations? If the state or Federal
Governments enforce the regulations, what will be the
responsibility of the city?
D. Economic Implications - A "Cost of Compliance"
not mentioned in the strategy document is one which is
very real to cities like Philadelphia.
Requirements for upgrading solid waste practices,
particularly on industrial facilities, may mean a loss of
jobs, revenue base, and industry in our city.
This is a consequence of enforcement of RCRA which
must not be ignored.
Incentives to local government to stimulate
-------
35
implementation of RCRA should take the form of direct finan-
cial assistance since our cities are financially unable
to implement high capital cost resource recovery facilities.
Since RCRA does not provide for such assistance,
EPA should concentrate its efforts in this area in showing
local government how to successfully finance a contract
for such solutions.
The details of examples of successful programs must
be made available to our cities.
In addition, studies and demonstrations should be
undertaken to provide direction for overcoming this
economic constraint.
Summary. In summary, the strategy document details
the status of solid waste management in this country very
well.
Given the limitations imposed by Congress on
the USEPA, the strategy outlined appears proper.
The Agency must emphasize, however:
(1) Priority must be given to urban areas where
the problem truly exists.
(2) Hazardous and toxic wastes must not become
the "tail that wags the dog."
(3) State and local funding is the key to the
goals of RCRA.
(4) The solid waste industry needs federal
-------
36
incentives and guidance to remain viable.
Thank you.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Commissioner Diamiano, I might
say that, before you go, if you would see if the members
of the panel might have any questions or comments, or
anything of that sort.
MR. HICKMAN: I would like to ask you a question.
Earlier, on your statement, you talked about the
problems of local government that they face in trying to
respond to adverse public reaction to the whole solid waste
management issue, particularly the siting problem.
We share with you, obviously, the total frustration
that local government faces with a siting problem and in
trying to conceptualize, in our own minds, what best could
we do in the federal program in bringing about national
attention in trying to deal with this siting problem.
Do you have any specific suggestions that you
would like to make later on or today as to what we can
do as a federal agency with the limited authority and
resources that we have to help local government and state
government overcome the problems of siting?
COMMISSIONER DAMIANO: I think that is worthy of
some discussion.
At this point in time, I frankly do not know how
to address the institutional constraints. As you know,
-------
37
in 1967, when we attempted to implement railhaul, the State
of Pennsylvania passed Act 143 which gave the county commis-
sioners' to stop refuse to be hauled into the counties inside
Pennsylvania.
And that has never been tested in court. That is
one item that can be done to see if that particular legisla-
tion is, in fact, unconstitutional.
But let's move on before your Agency becomes involvi
in a lot of the detailed problems.
I think the most important thing is something we
accomplished in the last four or five years through a
grant from your agency, and that is, we were successful,
and this is highly unusual in the field of environmental
control, that we had the EPA, the Federal agency, the DER,
the state agency, and the City of Philadelphia agree that
we should handle our problem by railhaul.
That was a major milestone.
When you get those three agencies in one room,
one will say energy plant, the other will say resource
recovery, and so forth and so on.
Now. Going beyond that, since we got off the
ground, we did the next best thing. We created a team,
federal, state and local, who went to communities, talked
to the county commissioners and to talk to the local
officials, and, believe it or not, we were successful in
-------
38
Center County.
The county commissioner thought it was the greatest
thing going. He held one public meeting and he got blown
out of office. He is no longer a county commissioner.
We went to Zerby Township, and they thought it
was a great idea. It was ZIP, the Zerby people for the
program, which was another group against it. But they
put it on a ballot.
The Township and the County promoted for the pro-
gram where the trash was going. The County, countywide,
voted against the program three to one. It wouldn't be
permitted in their county or council.
These were the nuclsous of activities that ware
undertaken, and it took a lot of money, it took a lot of
time, it took a lot of effort.
We finally were successful, of course, by going
to bid.
But these are just some of the experiences. The
obvious problem is that I represent the City of Philadelphia
129 square miles, 2 million in population and a metropolitan
area of some 350 square miles, close to 6 million in popu-
lation, highly densely populated.
You couldn't find, within 30 miles of Philadelphia,
any zoning provision that will permit you to use land for
this purpose.
-------
39
Evsn if it is being used, it would only be per-
mitted for local purposes.
Therefore, I have no jurisdiction, authority or
power over the property in New Jersey or the property in
Pennsylvania.
Bierefore, I am incapable. There isn't any con-
ceivable way, institutionally, financially, or otherwise,
that I can ccanmand the use of a plant anywhere else outside
the City of Philadelphia.
But therein lies the problem. It's an institutiona:
problem from a governmental point of view, but it even goes
beyond that. It's also a program problem, from an agency
such as EPA's, because, for instance, I'm going to build,
hopefully, in the next five years, a $120 million energy
plant.
There's no way I can get a permit for that plant
because I have to demonstrate for the life of that plant,
which may be 25 to 50 years.
But I have the facilities or the resources to take
the residues from that plant which may be as high as a
couple of hundred thousand tons a year of ashes, unusable
materials, and place it into a sanitary landfill because
it's classified as solid waste.
There are no sanitary landfills in Philadelphia.
It's inconceivable that there ever will be. And, if I do
-------
40
not have, by the mechanism of railhaul or some other mech-
anisms, to be provided to urban areas like the City of
Philadelphia through this program or the state planning
program, if I don't have facilities for that residue, I'm
afraid we can't build the plant.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Commissioner, at one point in
your statement, you said that you thought it was important
for EPA to provide a. system to cities such as yours in
learning about others'experiences with resource recovery
facilities and in getting advice as to how to proceed in
that area.
I would just like to mention to you and to others
in the audience the existence of our Technical Assistance
Panels Program which, under RCRA, is to which we are to
apply 20 percent of our resources appropriated to us under
the Act, and, through which, we are able to extend the
assistance of consultants and experts from around the countr;
in providing just that kind of advice that you are seeking.
So, I would encourage you and any others, who
have similar kinds of problems, to contact our regional
offices.
We've now decentralized our Technical Assistance
Program to the regional offices and we do have considerable
information and capability in just the area you described,
and we are very eager to make it available.
-------
41
CO1LMISSIONER DAMIANO: Excellent.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Are there any other questions
from the panel?
We wish to thank you very much, Commissioner.
(Statement follows)
-------
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
DEPARTMENT OF STREETS
840 Municipal Sewices Building
PhilacHphro, Pa 19107
DAVID J DA
'XNO
REVIEW AND COMMENTS
ON THE
STRATEGY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT OF 1976
(USEPA DRAFT DECEMBER 16, 1977)
PRESENTED BY
COMMISSIONER DAVID J. DAMIANO
DEPARTMENT OF STREETS
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNA.
JANUARY 19, 1978
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
-------
INTRODUCTION;
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today. As you know, our City has been
involved with practically every solid waste management
issue confronting a major metropolitan area in the
United States. Moreover, in the case of the New Jersey
importation ban, the pending action by the United States
Supreme Court involving land disposal areas for Phila-
delphia refuse, will have the most profound effect on
national, state and regional plans for solid waste,
whether municipal or hazardous.
For these reasons, I am particularly happy to
address the document entitled, "Strategy for Imple-
mentation, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976." The course followed by EPA over the next
several years will materially affect the course of
solid waste management in this country, just as has
been the case since 1965 following the pnssage of the
first Solid Waste Disposal Act.
-------
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The document acknowledges the regrettable fact
that Congress has not provided, nor will probably ever
provide, the resources to undertake the solving of this
national waste problem. For many years, the financial and
implementation problems of urban and rural solid waste
management plans have been written off by the federal
government as just a local issue. This is not true.
Improper solid waste practices impact our environment and
our citizens from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The detailed discussion on each of the four major
constraints presented in Chapter VI represents the most
accurate, cogent statement of the true problems of solid
waste management ever prepared by the USij'PA. The agency
has correctly described the constraints faced by local
government, and states, and private enterprise in dealing
with what still represents the toughest, most unresolved
environmental issue in the United States.
The facts and opinions presented in this strategy
document represent a marked departure from the EPA state-
ments of the last several years and, as ouch, are truly
welcome. This strategy shows the hand of solid waste
-------
management professionals and should be supported by we
non-federal people. A copy should be required reading
for all representatives of Congress and Administration
officials who shape and change our laws and the budgets
to carry them out.
Hopefully, the implementation of BORA can
represent a turning point in recognizing solid waste
nt=Tageraent for what it is: a truly national issue which
transcends in most cases, the parochial interests of
local county and state governments.
-------
GOALS AND OBJECTIVKS
While the two goals outlined in Chapter 1 nro
completely correct, a third goal is needed:
to assure that the goal of protecting and
conserving our health, environment end
natural resources is balanced with the impact
on human resources and needs, including our
economic capability for achieving these goals.
Our cities face hard choices between human and
environmental resources. The USEPA should aid them in
making educated decisions among clashing public and
political points of view on this volatile subject.
-------
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE
A. Public and Legislative Attitudes
The federal strategy must be cognizant of the
fact that local government alone will not be able
to resolve the problems of adverse public reaction
and siting opposition. Public education alone is
no solution. It has never worked on tough problems.
It is not likely to work any better on this new
hazardous and toxic waste issue.
Guidance and direct assistance in overcoming
public opposition must be provided by the State and
federal governments.
The problem of urban areas in dealing with the
solid waste issue will be compounded iramedsely if the
United States Supreme Co..rt upholds the right of the
State of New Jersey to ban importation of refuse
into their state. This is especially true if done
under the guise of asserting that all landfills pollute
but since they are inevitable, the landfills in New
Jersey must be reserved for New Jersey citizens.
The impact of state importation bans (followed by
county and local importation bans) on the implementa-
tion of a strategy for RCRA is enormous. Such legislative
actions by state represent the most serious threat to the Act
-------
imaginable. EPA must face this threat and include
methods of dealing with the issue as part of its
program for undertaking the Congressional mandate
of the current Act.
B. Funding Priorities
It is proper for the strategy document to direct the
limited resources of HCRA to State and local funding.
State and local governments are on the firing line
in solving the solid waste problem. Therefore, no
large federal program is required. The state govern-
ments with the assistance of the federal regional
offices must attack the problem where it exists —
local government.
Pennsylvania communities are fortunate that our
Department of Environmental Resources has been a
leader among state agencies involved in solid waste
management. Our state has a strong planning, manage-
ment and enforcement program. With new resources from
RCRA, the State will be able to continue and expand
its program. This is a proper course since improved
solid waste management must stem from state government
initiative to local government action. Implementation
of RCRA by EPA must emphasize this fact.
-------
In that light, I would like to identify « confusion
in priorities within the document. Chapter IV, Subtitle
D provides that counties, municipalities, and interraunicipal
agencies are only afforded grants for feasibility studies,
consultations and market studies. However, special com-
munities with low population and high levels of generation
will receive grants for conversion or construction of solid
waste disposal facilities and for rural communities to
upgrade solid waste management facilities.
This is a mixup of priorities. The needs of cities
vs. rural communities do not differ except by a scale
factor. There is no valid reason for discrimination
against cities in favor of rural communities. In fact,
the reverse is true. Rural communities theoretically have
more than ample land resources which may be assigned to
solid waste disposal by the landfill method. This is the
most economically and environmentally sound method of
dealing with the problem. However, cities have long
exhausted their land resources. In addition, metropolitan
areas account for greater refuse quantities than rural area.
Priority of funds could be directed to cities who have
a far greater need. For example, without land resources in
Philadelphia, solving approximately one-third of our solid
waste problem requires a $120 million investment for a single
energy plant.
-------
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTES VS. MUNICIPAL WASTES
If emphasis on hazardous and toxic waste
is to be a predominant strategy for RCHA, it is mis-
guided and unsupported by the facts presented in the
strategy. Only 30 million tons of potentially hazardous
waste are estimated to exist whereas over 380 million
tons of municipal and industrial waste exist with little
or no hazardous potential. Concentration on hazardous and
toxic waste as a national strategy cannot be supported when
the bulk of the waste problem defies an adequate solution.
We must not succumb to the lure of a new
specialized solid waste issue if it means turning our
back on the overwhelming problem of the disposal of all
solid waste materials. Ue tried to ignore the larger
issue in 1970 by turning our at tention to resource recovery.
As this document so dramatically details, progress since
1965 in solid waste management has been slow to nil.
Turning to resource recovery or hazardous and toxic wastes
before providing needed relief for the overall solid waste
problem is a luxury we cannot afford.
For these reasons, assigning high priority to
hazardous and toxic wastes and medium priority to other
wastes is a reverse of the true needs and priorities for
disposal controls.
-------
At the very least a balance of emphasis in
the Disposal Control priority is required as stated
in Chapter VII. If this activity includon melhodn of
fostering unproved disposal for municipal wastes, it
would:
(l) Provide a positive public image through
specific examples of proper sanitary
landfilling of solid wastes.
(2) Increase the chance for financing higher
cost land disposal alternatives by equating
the apparent low cost of unacceptable
land disposal prctices to the indirect
costs of deterioration of our land and
water resources.
-------
UNIFORM REGULATIONS
The waste disposal control priority outlined
in Chapter VIII should not omit as a focus the need to
establish uniform regulations by States and local
governments. Such regulations should control municipal
and hazardous disposal while protecting the current
best practices of the solid waste industry in states
and regions of the United States where these practices
do not imperil the environment and public health.
Different regions of the country have different
disposal control requirements based on many factors;
e.g. geology, hydrology, soils, intended land use and
public priorities.
10
-------
CONSTRAINTS TO IHPLEMENTATION_
A. Status of Technology
Experience in the City over the last several
years tends to support the idea that advanced
technology is not as readily available to local
decision makers as had been previously nnnum'-d.
For example, Philadelphia was ordered to select
air control technology for its two incinerators
in order to comply with regulations. We cho.se
electrostatic precipitation as the only emerging
technology likely to meet the stringent codes.
The devices were installed in 197^. We are still,
some four years later, testing and adjusting these
devices to meet the demands of the citizenry arid
conflicting state and federal testing procedures.
Another case involves our plans for a large
refuse-to energy facility to provide steam for
the Philadelphia steam loop serving downtown offices,
businesses and institutions. A 5^00,000 detailed
feasibility study conducted jointly by Philadelphia
Electric and ourselves was necessary to determine
the most dependable technology for our purposes.
Our choice of front fired boilers using shredded
refuse derived fuel has no extensive service record
and in fact, has only been tried in one or two full
1 1
-------
scale plants — yet, this is the most dependable
system disclosed during our study.
This plant will only handle one-third of the
City's refuse generation. Therefore, we would
need over $360,000,000 in capital just to provide
energy plants for all of our refuse.
The City cannot raise such money. Cities ure
not in a position to put such enormous dollar
requirements on the line for problems like solid
waste. They couldn't do it for high priority
problems. The money just isn't there.
Even if less capital intensive solutions are
employed, we suffer burdensome cost increases.
For example, our railhaul program has been long
coming primarily due to adverse public reaction
and fear of large cost increases. The cost of
employing long distance railhaul to solve
the disposal problem of 1,000 tons per day (one-sixth
of the total generation) will be well over 325 r>er
ton including $19 a ton for the contractor and 36 per
ton in handling costs by our current facilities. This
represents a S12 per ton increase over current costs
1 2
-------
to transfer, haul and dispose of refuse from our
City to state permitted landfills in New Jersey.
The increase may become as much as 100%. Where
will these resources come from?
The lack of available, demonstrated, full
scale advanced technology has been, and continues
to be, a liability for metropolitan areas such as
Philadelphia.
B. Resource Limitations
The limited resources for capital investment
in sophisticated facilities is the single greatest
impediment to progress in solid waste management.
Our City IB faced with a need for 885,000,000 to
construct a 2,000 ton per day energy plant. The
actual cost of this plant is projected to be
S120.,000,000 by start up of the plant due to interest
on borrowed capital prior to start up, fees for
financing negotiations and bonds required to secure
the financing arrangements.
C. Institutional Aspects
No City has tried harder than Philadelphia to
overcome the "unbroken rule" of public opposition to
refuse disposal. This is the case both inside the
City and outside. Opposition to the siting of a
13
-------
transfer station in the northeastern part of our City
prevented its construction. Opposition by 2? countiec
in Pennsylvania has prevented the land disposal of
Philadelphia refuse outside our City limits since
1972. Opposition to the use of legally permitted
land disposal sites in New Jersey has thrust us into
the United States Supreme Court to determine as much
as anything else, whether Philadelphia refuse is
worse than New Jersey refuse in terms of health or
environmental effects.
Fragmentation of responsibilities and non-uniform
regulations is a central problem at both State and
local levels. For example, some communities can
negotiate solid waste contracts while others are
required by law to employ competitive bidding. Many
communities like Philadelphia are limited by law in
the term of a contract - usually one to four years.
This will force the City to Create completely new
institutional arrangements to implement our railhnul
contract which calls for a term of sixteen years. Our
City does not assume responsibility for the disposal
of commercial and industrial waste (which may include
toxic and hazardous categories). What will be the
City's liability under RCRA for this type of waste
generated within the City limits? Who is responsible
for disposal? If the generator is responsible, who
-------
will enforce the regulations? If the State or
federal governments enforce the regulations, what
will be the responsibility of the City?
D. Economic Implications
A "Cost of Compliance" not mentioned in the
strategy document is one which is very real to
cities like Philadelphia. Requirements for upgrading
solid waste practices, particularly on industrial
facilities, may mean a loss of jobs, revenue base,
and inductry in our City. This i •; ,\ c'>n:.equence of
enforcement of RCRA which must not be ignored.
Incentives to local government to stimulate
implementation of RCRA should take the form of
direct financial assistance since our cities are
financially unable to implement high capital coct
resource recovery facilities. Since RCRA docs not
provide for such assistance, EPA should concentrate
its efforts in this area on showing local government
how to successfully finance a contract for such
solutions. The details of examples of successful
programs must be made available to our cities. In
addition, studies and demonstrations should be under-
taken to provide direction for overcoming this
economic constraint.
-------
SUMMARY
In summary, the strategy document details the
status of solid waste management in this country very
well. Given the limitations imposed by Congress on
the USEPA, the strategy outlined appears proper.
The agency must emphasize, however:
(1) Priority must be giver to urban areas
where the problem truly exists.
(2) Hazardous and toxic wastes must not
become the "tail that wags the dog."
(3) State and loca funding is the key to
the goals of RCRA.
CO The solid waste industry needs federal
incentive and guidance to remain viable.
16
-------
42
MODERATOR PLEHN: Our next speaker is Marchant
Wentworth of Environmental Action.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARCHANT WENTWORTH,
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
MR. WENTWORTH: Thank you very much, Mr. Plehn.
Good morning. My name is Marchant Wentworth and I
am Research Director of Environmental Action Foundation's
Solid Waste Project.
We would like to thank the Office of Solid Waste
for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Strategy
for the Implementation of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
We commend the Office of Solid Waste for its ef-
forts to circulate this draft strategy.
This is an important step in continuing the public
participation process in the formulation of the Agency's
policy on this important issue.
This strategy effectively lists many of the op-
erating principles used to formulate the myriad of regula-
tions and guidelines required by RCRA.
This strategy offers a framework within which to
fit the logic of these various rules — a vital process
with a subject so diverse and wide-ranging as solid waste
management.
And because of this complexity and diversity,
the strategy represents an important first step in
-------
43
separating out the impossible from the probable and
concentrating resources where they will be most effective.
Overall, we find the strategy clear and well
written. Without an excessive amount of jargon, the docu-
ment sets forth the Agency's plans and priorities for the
implementation effort.
Turning to the specifics of the document itself,
we will summarize our views and will submit a more detailed
analysis for the record.
We call for EPA to be more realistic in considering
the draft strategy for the Act.
Jh the past, we've noted an "Emperor's New Clothes"
syndrome.
One group exclaims loudly how well the Act has
been faring — that the Emperor's new clothes are fine,
indeed.
On the other hand, there are beginning rumors
that the Emperor is nude — that the Act has problems that
could seriously impede its implementation.
In presenting this strategy, OSW may have succeeded
once again in promising too much for too many.
This fantasyland approach to regulation writing
only serves to disappoint and frustrate citizens who are
told again and again that they can make a difference.
In fact, the scarcity of money and manpower may
-------
44
have already determined many of the decisions that are
being presented to us.
While this document does represent a quantum
leap forward, more remains to be done.
Unfortunately, a gap exists between the national
solid waste management needs and the mandates of the Act.
For example, as we all know, RCRA gives precious
little direction to resource conservation efforts on a
national level.
Through its emphasis on disposal, the Act has
effectively concentrated on a. cure -- rather than preven-
tion.
Admittedly, the problem of avoiding the increased
generation of hazardous and other solid wastes is one of
the thorniest problems the Agency faces.
Yet, because the Act fails to provide a legisla-
tive underpinning, there are few concrete Agency programs
in this field.
There are other weaknesses in the Act that make it
difficult to equate RCRA with any comprehensive strategy
for managing solid wastes on a national level.
The ,ifotal lack of substantial funding for state
and local programs, inadequate technical assistance through
the Panels, and the lack of structure for promoting resource
conservation, are all significant problems with the Resource
-------
45
Conservation and Recovery Act.
These shortcomings make the Act l=ss-than-ideal,
and make the equation between the overall program and the
Act even more difficult.
Proceeding through the strategy, we find that the
Introduction and Problem Statements are fair, succinct
presentations that are useful in giving the reader an
overall view.
Combined with the summary of the Act, these chap-
ters bring together a lot of loose ends in ona effective
presentation.
Turning to the section on Constraints, we agree
with the explanation of the constraints that has been
presented.
In future drafts of the strategy, however, we would
hope to see a more detailed presentation of the research
needs in the area of resource conservation and recovery.
These might touch on such issues as the role of
advertising in changing consumption patterns, the role of
compatibility in selecting recovery systems, and include
greater investigations into the political and institutional
barriers that block increased reuse and recovery.
The section on hazardous waste management outlined
on page 33 appears to be somewhat incomplete.
The barriers to the development of new technologies
-------
46
for managing hazardous wastes should be presented in
greater detail.
We applaud the Office's acknowledgement that there
may be a significant difference between authorized and
appropriated funds under RCRA.
We also agree, wholeheartedly, with the options
that EPA has presented in response to the very real possi-
bility of inadequate funding by the Congress.
Similarly, we are glad to see mention of the fact
that major alterations in current institutional arrange-
ments will be necessary to properly implement the Act
(page 33) .
This is clearly true. However, the example cited
of fragmentation of state responsibilities misses the
mark entirely.
We believe that a more pertinent example may be in
the relationships between the headquarters and the regional
offices of EPA.
Clearly, major changes must occur here if the
Act is to work at all.
Headquarters personnel traditionally have been
reluctant to relinquish their authority and fiscal control.
Regional offices have often failed to connect
their programs to the broad policy set by the Agency. The
result has too often been a. splintered, fragmented approach
-------
47
that yields an ineffective program.
Changes in this relationship are more pertinent
and attainable than the problems mentioned with the states.
Differences in the legislative mandates among the
various states may not influence whether a state implements
the Act.
We believe that the amount of funding available to
the states for program administration will be the deter-
mining factor.
Briefly turning to the priorities, we were dis-
appointed to find that this process failed to answer many
of the questions that were raised earlier in the text.
For example, on page 35, the discussion of resource
limitations presents three options for meeting the
mandates of the Act.
Yet none of these options were selected or dis-
cussed later in the text.
We feel strongly that in considering these mandates
the issue of deadlines is less important than the need for
a thorough development of the regulations under the Act.
In effect, we feel that EPA should decide what
its program priorities are based not need on the basis
of deadlines.
Therefore, we feel that none of the options pre-
sented on page 35 are realistic and present somewhat of a
-------
48
false dilemma.
The problem of differing state programs raised
on page 38 presents other problems.
Although it is true that states are at different
stages of development, altering priorities to develop a
program that all states could implement would, in effect,
weaken the federal program and lead to substantially less
control over disposal practices.
Another reality is that if, in the future, addi-
tional money should become available, it would be virtually
impossible to go back and strengthen the state programs.
The chapter on priorities is key to the entire
strategy document.
Environmental Action Foundation does support the
program priorities as presented. However, we so find
that some of these priorities are somewhat less than real-
istic.
For example, it is questionable whether the Federal
enforcement of hazardous waste regulations where the states
fail to aet is possible.
In other areas, we are pleased to note that re-
source conservation and recovery is ranked as a preferred
option and that industrial wastes will receive priority
emphasis.
However, turning to priority number 4 on page 70,
-------
49
we cannot help but wonder if the financial and technical
assistance mentioned in the priority will be adequate to
encourage states to undertake the burden of implementing
the Act.
Indeed, this could be the most crucial question
for the entire future of the Act.
We are in general agreement with the emphasis
groupings presented on page 71.
However, we would recommend certain shifts to make
the program more realistic.
First, we would recommend that the Resource Conser-
vation Committee activities be dropped from major emphasis
to medium emphasis.
Although the Committee represents the sole bastion
of resource conservation in the Act, its lack of authority
to carry through on its recommendations would seem to argue
for decreased emphasis.
On the other hand, we would recommend that in-
creased emphasis be placed on the Section 6002 procurement
guidelines.
This is the sole provision of RCRA that may be
effective in enlarging the demand side of the recovered
materials equation.
With relatively few resources, this effort could
have a large impact on materials recovery.
-------
50
We would also recommend increased emphasis given
to public participation and information dissemination.
This will have the effect of generating needed
additional citizen support for local, state, and federal
solid waste programs.
Aside from these changes, we support these grouping,
and encourage EPA to preserve them as implementation
proceeds.
Turning to the chapter on Management Responsibilitii
we reiterate the need to transfer sufficient resources
to the regional offices to support their new activities
under the Act.
As we have previously observed, major changes may
be necessary to better coordinate the activities of Head-
quarters and the Regional Offices.
In the section on EPA Enforcement, the general
authority of the Administrator is discussed but the picture
may be unrealistic.
Providing for site inspections of hazardous waste
facilities may prove to be a difficult, if not impossible,
job.
Continuing inspections will prove even trickier.
In conclusion, we would like to commend the Office
of Solid Waste for their efforts in compiling this useful
strategy document.
-------
51
We will issue more detailed remarks for the record.
Thank you.
Are there any questions?
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much for your
statement.
I would like to ask, again, if there are any com-
ments or questions from the panel?
I guess not.
Thank you very much.
(Statement follows)
-------
environmental
action
foundation
The Dupont Circle Building
Suite 724
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone (202) 659-9682
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT STRATEGY
FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
TO THE
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 19, 1978
by the
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
-------
Good morning. My name is Marchant Wentworth and
I am Research Director of Environmental Action Foundation's
Solid Waste Project.
We would like to thank the Office of Solid Waste
for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Strategy
for the Implementation of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. We commend the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) for its efforts to circulate this draft strategy.
This is an important step in continuing the public
participation process in the formulation of the Agency's
policy on this important issue.
This strategy effectively lists many of the
operating principles used to formulate the myriad of
regulations and guidelines required by RCRA. This
strategy offers a framework within which to fit the
logic of these various rules—a vital process with a
subject so diverse and wide-ranging as solid waste
management. And because of this complexity and diversity,
the strategy represents an important first step in
separating out the impossible from the probable and
concentrating resources where they will be most effective.
Overall we find the strategy clear and well written.
Without an .excessive amount of jargon, the document sets
forth the Agency's plans and priorities for the imple-
mentation effort.
-------
Turning to the specifics of the document itself,
we will summarize our views and will submit a more
detailed analysis for the record.
We call for EPA to be more realistic in considering
the draft strategy for the Act. In the past, we've
noted an "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. One group
exclaims loudly how well the Act has been faring--that
the Emperor's new clothes are fine indeed. On the other
hand, there are beginning rumors that the Emperor is
nude—that the Act has problems that could seriously
impede its implementation.
In presenting this strategy, OSW may have succeeded
(ot-
once again in promising too much 4c too many. This
fantasy land approach to regulation writing only serves
to disappoint and frustrate citizens who are told
again and again that they can make a difference. In
fact, the scarcity of money and manpower may have
already determined many of the decisions that are
being presented to us. while this document does repre-
sent a quantum leap forward, more remains to be done.
Unfortunately, a gap exists between the national
solid waste management needs and the mandates of the
Act. For example, as we all know, RCRA gives precious
little direction to resource conservation efforts on
-------
a national level. Through its emphasis on disposal,
the Act has effectively concentrated on a cure—rather
than prevention. Admittedly, the problem of avoiding
the increased generation of hazardous and other solid
wastes is one of the thorniest problems the Agency faces.
Yet, because the Act fails to provide a legislative
underpinning there are few concrete Agency programs in
this field.
There are other weaknesses in the Act that make it
difficult to equate RCRA with any comprehensive strategy
for managing solid wastes on a national level. The
notable lack of substantial funding for state and local
programs, inadequate technical assistance through the
Panels, and the lack of structure for promoting resource
conservation, are all significant problems with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These shortcomings
make the Act less-than-ideal, and make the equation be-
tween the overall program and the Act even more difficult.
Proceeding through the strategy, we find that the
Introduction and Problem Statement are fair, succinct
presentations that are useful in giving the reader an
overall view. Combined with the summary of the Act,
these chapters bring together a lot of loose ends in
one effective presentation.
-------
Turning to the section on Constraints, we agree
with the explanation of the constraints that has been
presented. In future drafts of the strategy, however,
we would hope to see a more detailed presentation of
the research needs in the area of resource conservation
and recovery. These might touch on such issues as the
role of advertising in changing consumption patterns,
the role of compatibility in selecting recovery systems,
and include greater investigations into the political
and institutional barriers that block increased reuse
and recovery.
The section on hazardous waste management outlined
on page 33 appears to be somewhat incomplete. The
barriers to the development of new technologies for
managing hazardous wastes should be presented in greater
detail.
We applaud the Office's acknowledgement that there
may be a significant difference between authorized and
appropriated funds under RCRA. We also agree whole-
heartedly with the options that EPA has presented in
response to the very real possibility of inadequate
funding by the Congress.
Similarly, we are glad to see mention of the fact
that major alterations in current institutional arrange-
-------
merits will be necessary to properly implement the Act
(p. 33). This is clearly true. However, the example
cited of fragmentation of state responsibilities misses
the mark entirely. We believe that a more pertinent
example may be in the relationships between the head-
quarters and the regional offices of EPA. Clearly
major changes must occur here if the Act is to work at
all. Headquarters personnel traditionally have been
reluctant to relinquish their authority and fiscal
control. Regional offices have often failed to connect
their programs to the broad policy set by the Agency.
The result has too often been a splintered, fragmented
approach that yields an ineffective program. Changes
in this relationship are more pertinent-and attainable--
than the problems mentioned with the States. Differences
in the legislative manadates among the various States
may not influence whether a state implements the Act.
We believe that the amount of funding available to the
States for program administration will be the determining
factor.
"£y
Brief
-------
limitations presents three options for meeting the
mandates of the Act. Yet none of these options were
selected or discussed later in the text.
We feel strongly that in considering these mandates,
the issue of deadlines is less important than the need
for a thorough development of the regulations under
the Act. In effect, we feel that EPA should decide what
its program priorities are based not need not on the
basis of deadlines. Therefore, we feel that none of
the options presented on page 35 are realistic and
present somewhat of a false dilemma.
^,i.£^
The projppaa of differing state programs raised on
page 38 presents other problems. Although it is true
that states are at different stages of development,
altering priorities to developa a program that all
States could implement would, in effect, weaken the
federal program and lead to substantially less control
over disposal practices. Another reality is that,if,
in the future, additional money should become available,
it would be vitually impossible to go back and strengthen
the state programs.
The chapter on priorities is key to the entire
strategy document. Environmental Action Foundation
does support the program priorities as presented.
-------
However, we so find that some of these priorities
are somewhat less than realistic. For example,
it is questionable whether the federal enforcement
of hazardous waste regulations where the States fail
to act is possible. In other areas, we are pleased
to note that resource conservation and recovery is
ranked as a preferred option and that industrial
wastes will receive priority emphasis. However,
turning to priority no. 4 on page 70, we can not help
but wonder if the financial and technical assistance
mentioned in the priority will be adequate to
encourage States to undertake the burden of implementing
the Act. Indeed, this could be the most crucial question
for the entire future of the Act.
We are in general agreement with the emphasis
groupings presented on page 71. However, we would
recommend certain shifts to make the program more
realistic. First, we would recommend that the
Resource Conservation Committee activities be dropped
from major emphasis to medium emphasis. Although the
Committee represents the sole bastion of resource
conservation in the Act, its lack of authority to
carry through on its recommedations would seem to
argue for decreased emphasis. On the other hand,
-------
we would recommend that increased emphasis be placed
on the Section 6002 procurement guidelines. This is
the sole provision of RCRA that may be effective in
enlarging the demand side of the recovered materials
equation. With relatively few resources, this effort
could have a large impact on materials recovery.
We would also recommend increased emphasis given to
public participation and information dissemination.
This will have the effect of generating needed additional
citizen support for local, state, and federal solid
waste programs. Aside from these changes, we support
these groupings and encourage EPA to preserve them as
implementation proceeds.
Turning to the chapter on Management Responsibilities,
we reiterate the need to transfer sufficient resources
to the regional offices to support their new activities
under the Act. As we have previously observed, major
changes may be necessary to better coordinate the
activities of Headquarters and the Regional Offices.
In the section on EPA - Enforcement the general
authority of the Administator is discussed but the
picture may be unrealistic. Providing for site inspections
of hazardous waste facilities may prove to be a difficult
if not impossible job. Continuing inspections will
-------
prove even trickier.
">^n conclusion, we would like to commend the Office
of Solid Waste for their efforts in compiling this
useful strategy document.
Thank you.
-------
52
MODERATOR PLEHN : Our next speaker is Mr. Tom
Conry of the Technical Information Project.
STATEMENT OF MR. TOM CONRY, TECHNICAL
INFORMATION PROJECT
MR. CONRY: Thank you and good morning.
The Technical Informaiton Project, a nonprofit
research and sducation group based in Washington, D.C.,
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the implementation
strategy for the amended Solid Waste Disposal Act, particu-
larly in the arsas of hazardous wastejcitizen participation
and information dissemination.
First, under Subtitle C of the Act, a specific
coordinated strategy for recycling of hazardous wastes needs
to be established since their recycling will only occur in
a properly structured environment.
Pressures and incentives should foster as closed
a resource loop as possible.
Solid waste recycling efforts successes and
failures can help guide the hazardous waste strategy.
Thus, some of the strategy's components requiring
major emphasis should be:
First, hazardous waste recycling incentives.
Recycling can work, as demonstrated in Britain
where the Ministry of Industry established a highly success-
ful hazardous waste exchange data bank.
TIP encourages the EPA to act on its desires to
-------
53
further hazardous waste recycling by first assessing its
extant mechanism in view of the British model.
Second, Monitoring of Hazardous waste composition.
Efforts to control air and water pollution have
shown the absolute need for outside verification of pollu-
tant composition.
Thus, detailed listings of waste composition should
be obtained at the Federal level by the Hazardous Waste
Division.
Samples of selected wastes should be precisely
analyzed for complete chemical composition.
Third, public awareness.
Hazardous waste realities are not as apparent to the
general public as are land use issues and increasing costs
of trash collection.
Thus, serious efforts are required to further public
awareness and subsequently increase pressures on polluting
industries.
TIP believes that public participation and educa-
tion should receive high priority in the area of hazardous
waste.
Since hazardous waste inevitably becomes public
property, information regarding these wastes should also
be public property.
Trade Secrecy should have no bearing on this area.
-------
54
Thus, readily available public lists of all hazardous
wastes being produced in, disposed of, stored in or trans-
ported through given regions should be assembled>and kept
current.
This list is to include all results of the EPA
verifications.
Fourth, Waste hazard information system.
Specific hazards associated with and protections
necessary for regional wastes should be made available to
the local residents.
Fifth, Consumer hazardous waste disposal facilities.
Hazardous, even carcinogenic materials, some yet
to be identified, are in consumer products.
Disposal of these materials properly and expediently
is not possible for most consumers today.
Adequate and convenient disposal facilities should
be established.
TIP proposes the upgrading of local university
laboratory and safety and waste disposal facilities for this
purpose.
Concerning the sharing of hazardous waste informa-
tion, not only should the resource loop be closed, but also
the data loop.
Thus, waste stream composition data must be shared
with the Toxic Substances Office and particularly the
-------
55
Interagency Testing Committee,mentioned in Section 4e of
TSCA, and the Toxic Substance Advisory Committee.
Such information is necessary for the committees
to accurately establish target problem compounds as well
as in assisting tne Administrator in imposing a disposal
and use requirements under Sections 5f and 6a of TSCA.
The vital subject of sharing hazardous and toxic
substance information was well developed at TIP's 1977
International Conference on Toxic Substances and Trade
Secrecy.
The participants of this week-long forum were
generally in strong agreement on the principle that the
better the information sharing mechanisms in this area, the
better the chances of problem resolution.
Such sharing should certainly start at the in-house
level.
Thank you.
MODERATOR PLEHN : Thank you very much, Mr. Conry.
Are there any questions or comments?
Thank you.
(Statement follows)
-------
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROJECT
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 217 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-2954
Technical Information Project (TIP), a non-profit research and education group
based in Washington, D.C., appreciates the opportunity to comment on the imple-
mentation strategy for the amended Solid Waste Disposal Act, in the specific areas
of hazardous waste, citizen participation and information dissemination.
1) Subtitle C. A specific coordinated strategy for recycling of hazard-
ous wastes needs to be established, since their recycling will only
occur in a properly structured environment. Pressures and incentives
should foster as closed a resource loop as possible. Solid waste
recycling efforts successes and failures can help guide the hazardous
waste strategy. Thus, some of the strategy's components requiring ma-
jor emphasis should be:
a) Hazardous waste recycling incentives. Recycling can work,
as demonstrated in Britain where theHfnistry of Industry
established a highly successful hazardous waste exchange
data bank. TIP encourages the EPA to act on its desires
to further hazardous waste recycling by first assessing
its extant mechanism in view of the British model.
b) Monitoring of Hazardous waste composition. Efforts to con-
trol air and water pollution have shown the absolute need
for outside verification of pollutant composition. Thus de-
tailed listings of waste composition should be obtained at
the Federal level by the Hazardous Waste Division. Samples
of selected wastes should be precisely analyzed for complete
chemical composition.
-------
-2-
c) Public Awareness. Hazardous waste realities are not as
apparent to the general public as are land use issues
and increasing cost of trash collection. Thus serious
efforts are required to further public awareness and sub-
sequently increase pressures on polluting industries.
TIP believes that public participation/education should
receive high priority in the area of hazardous waste.
Since hazardous waste inevitably becomes public property,
information regarding these wastes should also be public
property. Trade Secrecy should have no bearing on this
area. Thus readily available public lists of all hazard-
ous wastes being produced in, disposed of, stored in or
transported through given regions should be assembled and
kept current. This list is to include all results of the
EPA verifications.
d) Waste hazard information system. Specific hazards associ-
ated with and protections necessary for regional wastes
should be made available to local residents.
e) Consumer hazardous waste disposal facilities. Hazardous
and carcinogenic materials, some yet to be identified, are
in consumer products. Disposal of these materials proper-
ly and expediently is not possible for most consumers.
Adequate and convenient disposal facilities should be
established. TIP proposes the upgrading of local universi-
ty laboratory safety/waste disposal facilities for this
purpose.
2) Sharing of hazardous waste information. Not only should the resource
loop be closed, but also the data loop. Thus waste stream composition
-------
-3-
data must be shared with the Toxic Substances Office and particu-
larly the Interagency Testing Committee (sec ^e-TSCA) »nd the Toxic
Substance Advisory Committee. Such information is necessary for the
committees to accurately target problem compounds as well as in assis-
ting the administrator in imposing disposal and use requirements
under sec. 5f and 6a of TSCA.
The vital subject of sharing of hazardous and toxic substance informa-
tion was well developed at TIP's 1977 Internationl Conference on Toxic
Substances and Trade Secrecy. The participants of this week-long forum
were generally in strong agreement on the principle that the better the
information sharing mechanisms in this area, the better the chances of
problem resolution. Such sharing should certainly start at the in-hoase
level.
Arthur H. Purcell, Ph.D., Director
Thomas J. Conry, M.S., Project Coordinator
January 19, 1978
-------
56
MODERATOR PLEHN: Our next speaker is Mr. Mark
Sullivan of the National Wildlife Federation.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK SULLIVAN, NATIONAL
WILDLIFE FEDERATION
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.
I am Mark Sullivan. I am director of the Solid
Waste Project at the National Wildlife Federation.
We will be submitting written comments later.
And noting the size of the audience and listening to the
previous statements, I will keep mine very short and I
will also make it very general. If we have any nitpicking -
MODERATOR PLEHN: Mark, let me make sure everybody
can hear you.
Is there a problem hearing Mark or can't you?
There is a problem —
MR. SULLIVAN: Can you hear me better now?
MODERATOR PLEHN: Yes.
As I said, I will try and keep it general and I
will leave our nitpicking —
MODERATOR PLEHN: Wait a second — can you hear
him now?
VOICES: Yes. But your microphone doesn't work.
MR. SULLIVAN: I'm rarely told that I can't be
heard.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you.
-------
57
MR. SULLIVAN: Again, I will keep my remarks short
and very general.
We find the strategy document to be commendable
and we would like to thank you for doing such a good job.
However, commendable under the constraints of
what you were working with, and that is basically the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act.
Although the strategy document speaks to what is
identified as long-range goals, I^think it's important
that we recognize that the strategy obviously is aiming at
what our short-range goals are.
What we're talking about is applying stitches to
very large gaps in our National Environmental Protection
Policy. And we aren't necessarily going to accomplish all
this with the limited resources that are available to the
Office of Solid Waste.
I would comment again that this strategy document
is saying that ws have very limited resources and we are
going to apply them where they will make the moat good.
In other words, investing what little bit we
have. If you've only got a few chips, you put them where
they will do the most good.
I have to take issue, however, with, particularly,
what one previous speaker this morning mentioned.
Availability of land is not necessarily a sanitary
-------
58
landfill.
For example, rural areas, just because there's a
lot of land available, does not necessarily mean that rural
areas, under this strategy document, are covered sufficient!
to ensure that solid waste management would be handled
properly in rural areas.
And I think this is a gap that the document needs
to address a little more fully.
Also, public participation. A couple of previous
speakers mentioned, and I won't go into details, but it
seems to me that public participation at, particularly, the
state and local level, is viewed more as an education
process. And I think this is the full thrust of the public
participation strategy.
Then it won't be successful because public partici-
pation must include the actual involvement of the public,
particularly a€ the state and local level in the decision-
making process.
I would like to commend the Office, again, on
the emphasis on the public health and environmental con-
cerns under the document that the limited resources will be <
plied specifically to those areas where there is the most
potential for danger to the public.
But, as a previous speaker also mentioned, the
very general nature of the language in the document still
-------
59
leaves many questions open about whether or not these will
really be attacked sufficiently.
And this isn't limited only to the public health
concerns.
I noted, for example, that in the very beginning
under the goals, it's listed that waste prevention and
recovery of resources should be emphasized as a preferred
option for solid waste.
Yet, in the course of reading the document, it
seems that there's a recognition of the fact that under
the Act, there is very little that can be done to actually
make these preferred actions, and the reliance seems to
be on natural phenomena because waste disposal will become
so expensive, therefore, prevention and recovery will be
desirable.
And I think that this is a gap, again, not so
much in the strategy document as it is in the Act.
I note, for example, on page 61, however, that the
document says that when developing the guidelines for —
when developing the guidelines for the state plans and
resource recovery and waste reduction should be properly
addressed, can't be written into these guidelines. And
I was surprised it didn't say will be written into these
guideliees as opposed to that.
And, again, finally, about the nature of the strata y
-------
60
document. I think it appears to be a resignation on the
part of the Office of Solid Waste to inadequate funding
and lack of resources to fulfill the mandate of the Act.
And, perhaps, this is a realization, on the part of
the Office of Solid Waste, that these resources will not
be coming. But I think it's rather pessimistic and it
sounds like a resignation to an unfortunate situation.
And, perhaps there is not enough fight in there to
get more of those resources that are needed.
However, I will just end by saying that, to me,
the major revelation of the document was that RCRA is
inadequate, that it leaves major gaps and that we, perhaps,
need further legislation.
And, perhaps, the so-called Comprehensive Solid
Waste legislation that we got in 1976 is far from Comprehen-
sive Solid Waste legislation.
Thank you.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much, Mark.
You make the point that public participation should
mean more than education and should include participation.
And it is my impression that the public participa-
tion section 'of the law really is a very strong one in that
regard.
And I just wanted to bring to the attention of
this audience that our proposed regulations for that section
-------
61
have been signed.
And as soon as the Federal Register people — they
are now available. I'm told they were publicized this
week so I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Would anyone care to comment?
Yes. John Skinner.
MR. SKINNER: I would like to comment on Mark's
observation that we really are just setting short-range
goals, that the goals we really can set are limited by
ths Act, itself.
I think that is a correct observation. And also
the observation that the Act does not do very much with
respect to encouraging resource recovery is also a correct
observation.
And that is why we placed the Resource Conservation
Committee as a high priority activity because, hopefully,
that committee would come up with recommendations for change
in public policy which would provide for incentives for
recovery in waste reduction.
And I was very surprised, and maybe Mr. Wentorth
would like to explain his comment that he made previously
on Environmental Action .foundation's recommendation to re-
place the Resource Conservation committee. I was surprised
at that statement.
MR. WENTWORTH: I am assuming in the statement that
-------
62
we're dealing with all the same amount of eggs in the basket,
John; that you have all of the finite resources.
What I did was assume, in that list of priorities,
that that was the amount of resources you had.
It's ironic, admittedly, that we have been, in the
past, a prime shaker for resource conservation and ironic
that I am, in effect, demoting it.
There are a number of reasons for that. Basically,
it's one of resources. And our view would be that the
Resource Conservation Committee is designed to make recom-
mendations .
It's very difficult to get a firm program out of
the Committee's activities and that, because of that, it
was after all a fair amount of thought that we take the
resources delegated to a wide activity in that Committee
and delegate it to other regions that would, we feel, be
more immediately productive.
Again, because of the tentative recommendation
type of committee that the Resource Conservation Committee
is, this is the basis for our recommendation.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much, Mr. Wentwortl
and thank you, Mark. We appreciate that.
The next speakers on the agenda are from the
National Governor's Association, and I don't know whether we
-------
63
have one or more speakers, but I gather that Bill DeVille
would like to at least start.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM DeVILLE,
NATIONAL GOVERNOR'S ASSOCIATION.
MR. DeVILLE: Thank you, Steff.
the goals of the Resource Conservation Recovery
?
Act of 1976 are protection of health and the environment
and the conservation and recovery of material and energy
resources.
These goals are concurrent achievements through
provision of adequate environmental safeguards to effectuate
protection of public health and environmental quality and
improved utilization of resources through conservation and
recovery.
Both goals are achievable primarily through
development and implementation of comprehensive state
solid waste management programs.
The methods are more appropriately the tools pro-
vided by the RCRA for goal achievement.
Our financial technical assistance guidelines and
regulations.
The national policy is the achievement of the
goals of RCRA and a strategy is a coordinated plan to fully
utilize all tools as provided in RCRA to achieve the goals
under the stated policy.
-------
64
A plan which utilizes but one tool or which fails
to properly balance the use of the tools provided, does
not constitute an appropriate strategy nor does it assure
achieving the goals of RCRA.
In the case at hand, it may guarantee only un-
focused activity with the force of Federal law. This may
become more detrimental to state programs than no law at
all.
By way of illustration, unskilled but anthusiastica:
he might choose to fabricate a product which he determines
he needs with a tool with which he is most familiar, in
this case, a hammer.
By contrast, a skilled artisan would determine his
needs,, design the desired product and carefully select the
processes, materials and tools available to him.
In this vein, EPA has predictably chosen over-
emphasis on the hammer, the regulatory mode with its attendee
coercive tool such as withdrawal of or withholding of
Federal funds to achieve but one facet of RCRA; the pro-
hibition of open dumps in order to control, primarily, one
concludes, industrial waste.
This seems to be the emphasis overall.
This unbalanced, uncoordinated strategy focuses
on one method of achieving one aspect of solid waste manage-
ment, but this is not the comprehensive solid waste
ly,
-------
65
management mandated in RCRA.
It is not, therefore, supportive of the national
policy. Unfortunately, the implementation of an inappropriate
strategy with inappropriate tools becomes the policy in
effect. One which is not consistent with Congressional
intent nor with the planning of program development needs
of the state,regional and local areas.
The states and Federal Government, included but
not limited to EPA, bear the responsibility for the achieve-
ment of RCRA's goals.
EPA cannot answer nor labor alone. RCRA imposes
primary responsibility on the state to determine solid
waste management needs.
And, hence, the products. In fact, the law states
that EPA should facilitate state efforts to achieve this
end by "providing technical and financial assistance as
opposed to regulatory controls to state and local government!
and interstate agencies for the development of solid waste
management plans including resource recovery and resource
conservation systems."
Therefore, the effort to achieve each state's
plan is of a team effort encompassing all levels of govern-
ment: state, federal, regional and local.
A federal regulatory strategy for implementation
for only portions of this law aborts this partnership, the
-------
66
basic responsibility, with or without RCRA, resides with
the state and local government to assure environmentally
adequate and economically sound waste management.
Waste management from collection through disposal
and/or re cove ry.
To strategize a federal program which has as its
primary aim to close open dumps without concurrently pro-
viding technical and financial assistance to state and
sub-state entities to plan for and assure provision for
alternative systems, only serves to inhibit state and local
fulfillment of existing responsibilities.
EPA's attempt to channelize the model states efforts
by EPA's selected methodology would place the goals of
RCRA in jeopardy.
If, indeed, the strategy at hand was devised in
relation to the available amount of funding with little
respect for given goals and without the guidance of policy,
it is predictable, moreover, it is certain that the efforts
it presumes to guide will be minimal at best and counter-
productive at worst.
Regardless of the available level of funding, the
emphasis of a productive strategy must be placed on efforts
which best enhance a comprehensive approach at the non-
federal level.
A comparative assessment should be made of, (a) the
-------
67
efficacy of expending monies to direct inspection, moni-
toring and enforcement until closure of open dumps by
prolonged litigation processes in most cases on a one-time
basis.
And this is a predictable result of this approach
versus, (b) the investment of financial resources and
technical assistance resources in equipping states and
localities to upgrade planning practices, improved technical
capabilities and institutional arrangements and revise
and strengthen regulatory and enforcement programs.
The latter investment will yield the greatest
long-term return commensurate with the long-range goals
of RCRA.
Initiation of the open dump survey is but one step
in a solid waste regulatory program, but does not, in and
ofitself, make a comprehensive solid waste regulatory
program.
Certainly, the publication of a list which ini-
tiates enforcement efforts and litigation is not the last
phase of a state program.
The unfortunate reality is that available funding
is insufficient to support achievement on the goals of
RCRA.
In the short run, it would be the heighth of
folly not to invest prudently in the longer range achievement
-------
68
of RCRA's goals.
An effective and long-lasting policy would en-
courage the institutionalization of RCRA's goals at the
state level.
This is consistent with Congressional intent and
can be accomplished on the state by state basis as deter-
mined by the respective state and its constituency.
The provision of technical assistance from the
federal agencies, coordinated by EPA, is essential to state
and local solid waste management and resource conservation
and recovery development.
Therefore, an effective strategy must address
mechanisms to provide assistance as identified and
requested by state and local governments.
One question that arises is, will there be only
one mechanism to provide federal technical assistance and
will that be the RCRA Panels.
Any plan to achieve RCRA's goals should deal vith
the coordination and the servicing of state and local needs
for technical assistance which will be generated by the
implementation of RCRA.
And, will cover a range of topics transcending the
traditional boundaries of solid waste management.
As a fundamental point, EPA is charged to provide
or to assure the provision of assistance as needed regarding
-------
69
the sources made within the federal establishment.
Since state and local needs for technical assistance
will transcent the boundaries or the jurisdiction of any
one federal agency, the strategy should address the investi-
gation, development and implementation of an overall tech-
nical assistance program on an interagency, multi-level
basis.
For this reason, serious concern arises concerning
the placement of responsibility for provision of RCRA
assistance and one narrowly defined branch of the Office of
Solid Waste.
The law charges the Administrator with the respon-
sibility for technical assistance including the RCRA Panels.
The strategy should fulfill the policy definition of EPA's
role as catalystic coordinator for providing technical
expertise.
The strategy must not ignore those impacts of
RCRA which go far beyond this regulatory effect.
The resultant plan should include specific strate-
gies to accomplish facilitation of federal, state efforts
to provide environmentally solid waste management, including
identification of obstacles, institutional, financial
or otherwise.
Repeating this partnership and developing processes
to overcome such obstacles.
-------
70
It should accomplish a preliminary investigation
of the need for and feasibility of a technical forum which
would become, perhaps, an established long-term RCRA panel
at the federal level.
The law provides EPA with great flexibility. And,
hence, a variety of options in devising a RCRA panel.
Nor does it limit their existence, i.e., to a short time
period.
It should accomplish the development of a method-
ology for determining funding levels necessary to achieve
the various facets of RCRA.
A fundamental point. It should accomplish encourag
ment of a resource conservation and recovery through, for
example, multi-agency cooperation to help effectuate procure-
ment of recovered materials as is mandated by the Act to
state and substate entities, e.g., by cooperative programs
for standard setting with the National Bureau of Standards.
And, lastly and most importantly, it should accom-
plish a long-term program towards your 'policy development
and evaluation in conjunction with RCRA implementation
including, for example, the utilization of the resource
conservation committee to consider and to make recommenda-
tions on national issue*.
I emphasize that a long-term program is to ensure
policy development because of the necessary and important
-------
71
feedback that must develop from the development of state
and local and regional plants and their implementation.
In short, the states recommend team play within
and without the federal establishment. And, beginning with
EPA, the Agency, the Administrator, must be responsive to
the offers of the states and other federal agencies to
assist in the development of such policies and plans.
This concern is particularly appropriate in the
RCRA Panel's efforts on the emphasis of gome Title C hazardoi s
waste management as a separable state program effort and
on the focus of the closure of land disposal sites without
consideration, perhaps, of available alternatives.
The implementation of RCRA, including some Title C,
hazardous waste management, is dependent upon state efforts.
And, consequently, federal policies and strategies should
reflect state priorities and planning and development.
Recommendations are made to recognize the need for
an overall policy for achieving RCRA's goals followed by
development of a plan and strategies to implement the policy
To develop a methodology for utilizing the per-
spectives and resources of state and. local governments, the
public and the private sector, in a constructive as opposed
to a reactive tnod«.
To continually evaluate the progress and needs,
especially technical and financial of state and local
-------
72
governments in order to facilitate coordination with other
environmental statutes.
And, to identify, at a national level, the neces-
sity for policy statements as identified in RCRA develop-
ment and implementation, particularly statements on resource
conservation and recovery.
Because the current strategy document is seriously
deficient in its addressing of fundamental issues of per-
spectives concerned with the implementation of RCRA, the
focus of these comments is upon those weaknesses and also
upon recommendations for their correction.
This approach has been adopted as the general
statement of the position of the Nati6nal Governor's
Association's standing subcommittee on waste management
as opposed to a line by line critique of the current
strategy document.
It should be noted that comments by the various
states which have participated in the evaluation of the
strategy include numerous specific points addressed by
the strategy.
EPA is, however, to be commended for seeking com^
ment on this strategy document. This is a first and
important requisite for development of policies and strate-
gies necessary to achieve RCRA's goals.
On behalf of Governor Edwards, the NGA Standing
-------
73
Subcommittee on the National Governor's Association, I
thank you for the opportunity to provide the state's
prospectives and recommendations for the achievement of
RCRA's goals.
MODERATOR PLEHN : Before asking the panel for
comments, I would just like to make the observation that
it is not entirely clear to me, from your statement, whether
your comments are directed — and I think they are directed
in some measure at all of these — at the, let's say, the
deficiencies in RCRA, as it exists, as against your con-
cerns about some of the constraints, particularly financial,
which were defined in the strategy as against how the
strategy, itself, tried to deal with the realities of the
Act and the constraints.
But, let me see if there's anyone here on the
panel who would like to make any comments or ask any ques-
tions .
Okay.
Well, as I understand it, you have several other
members of your group who would like to speak and the
a
next on my list is Al Mgrino of the California State
Solid Waste Management Board.
-------
74
STATEMENT OF AL M0RINO, SGA, CALIFORNIA
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MR. M0RINO: Thank you Steffen.
Distinguished panels, ladies and gentlemen.
First, let me say that yesterday when we talked
with Bill DeVille I understood what he was saying as the
National Governor's Association spokesman and agreed with
him.
But yesterday was in layman's language. He cleaned
it up and presented a very scholarly approach and I don't
know that I understood it.
But I think it's the same thing.
MR. HICKMAN: Myabe that's why we didn't ask ques-
tions .
MR. M0RINO : Again, I will join everybody else,
at least based on the relative difficult problem that EPA
has in the way RCRA is formulated and the way the guidelines
have come out.
But I think you've done an excellent job with the
strategy.
I do have some comments. Unfortunately, I don't
have a prepared statement and I might just suggest that,
in California, there are two new laws dealing with solid
was te management.
One is the enforcement of minimum standards on
-------
75
all solid waste facilities and putting them under a state-
wide permit, thereby upgrading everything, hopefully.
And, secondly, we just had passed a product disposa
tax and a tax on all retailers, wholesalers and manufac-
turers in the state of California which will raise something
like $25 million per annum which is earmarked to be allo-
cated through my board to local government for expansion
and creation of recycling centers, where feasible, towards
the planning and study for energy conversion systems and
a great sum of money towards cleaning up litter in Californii
which is probably our biggest insult.
And because we're trying to implement these, we
haven't had too much time to read the reams of material
that are flowing from EPA on RCRA and the Federal Government1
effort to catch up with the State of California.
I do represent the Board here today, primarily,
and its reaction to the strategy as it has come out. And
I just would highlight maybe some of the important things
that we have seen.
And our prepared statement that we will send to
you probably will go into more mundane type of editorial
remarks, et cetera.
But I think these are pretty much substantive
type remarks that I would like to make today.
First of all, to put those remarks in perspective,
-------
76
I want to say that the State of California has always, and
is certainly now, anxious and willing to work with EPA
towards bringing to the people of the nation, as well as
the State of California, the benefits to be derived from
that particular legislation.
However, the strategy that we are talking about
today, can and will be the bible for everyone who is in-
terested in solid waste management, including the regional
agencies, your regional directors.
And to that end, I think that the wording in the
whole document needs to be carefully reviewed. And, in
fact, some of the editorial changes could loom large in
importance as far as interpretation by everyone is concerned
I have two general comments to begin with, if I
may.
First of all, we have, in California, a severe
problem of the phasing of the schedules and deadlines that
are outlined in your guidelines and, of course, which have
an impact on the strategy.
And we feel that they are completely out of sync.
For example, Section 35.718-2 of your guidelines stipulate
that after Fiscal '78, applications for grants under RCRA
must be made with the idea of allocation of monies to the
local entities or agencies who will be implementing RCRA
in the state plan.
-------
77
That calls for the delineation of what the money
will be used for by those local entities as well as defining
the local entities that will get the money.
Now, unfortunately, in applying for grants for
Fiscal '79, we've got to do this around August of this year.
And around August of this year, we have no way of knowing
who needs how much money to do what because we don't have
the criteria, first of all, for the landfill surveys so
we can't do that yet.
We cannot set priorities based on RCRA because
of the fact that we haven't done the survey as well as
even a preliminary plan.
So it seems to me very difficult for us to satisfy
Region IX's request for delineating what the money will be
used for by the local agencies when, in fact, it is so
early in the game.
And what we had hoped was, whatever money was
coming, to be able to designate the fact or to stimulate
the fact that we have designated the agencies as part of
RCRA.
The money would be allocated to those agencies
in Fiscal '79 according to the priorities that will be
developed after you've come up with the criteria of the
landfill survey and, according to, at least, a preliminary
state plan that we hope to have accomplished.
-------
78
Now, without that understanding, it's difficult
to be able to apply for monies and it's difficult for
local entities to get too interested if, in fact, there
is not any money forthcoming to them.
In line with that, I think the gentleman from
Philadelphia talked about funding of the Hazardous Waste
Program. And I agree, wholeheartedly, that funding of
that program. Title C, should not be done to the exclusion
of Title D because if that should come about, there is not
a fair balance, an equitable balance of funding programs
as far as California is concerned and its local governments,
and probably Government Brown, though I haven't talked with
him.
I think it would be a failure of the Federal
Government, pulling the rag out from under everyone after
we've gotten everyone excited and involved, only because
it might be some monies coming for the environmental area
of solid wastes.
So, hopefully, that balance will come about in
the funding that is to be adopted.
The other general statement I want to make appears
on page 73 where you talk about the uniform interpretation
region to region, state to state, et cetera.
I think this is a very important aspect insofar
as the interpretation of the administrative procedures and
-------
79
functions under RCRA.'a concern.
I don't think it's "appropriate if we're talKing
about enforcing or priorities of anything else because
that has to vary from state to state and maybe from munici-
pality to municipality.
Getting into some of the more specific areas, I
just have a few, if you will bear with me.
On page 20, there is a statement about the funding
from the EPA Administrator, and it talks about funding to
counties and municipalities.
Now I understood that any funding would flow through
the state to those counties and municipalities or original
entities that were identified as the agencies under the RCRA
procedure.
And I don't understand if that means that the
director would be funding, directly, monies to local
governments and municipalities which, in one aspect, is
fine; but, in another aspect, it would raise havoc where
the state is involved in trying to Administer that which
it has planned.
On page 51, there is a statement talking about
energy conversion and materials recovery. And it just says
bluntly 75 to 80 percent can be feasibly processed in those
ways.
I think that it's important because of what it said
-------
80
about this being used as a bible and because of a hassle,
that I will explain in a minute, going on in California
that, when you say feasible, I think it ought to be stipu-
lated whether you mean technologically feasible because I
don't think it is economically feasible to be able to process
that much at this time.
Now, also, in that context, in California, there
is a real surge of interest in energy conversion systems.
We have six projects that we are hopefully going to have
the state put up some monies to support, at least in the
revenue guaranteed type of program to make bonding of those
projects a little easier, maybe as much as a hundred million
dollars.
That remains to be seen and nobody knows what the
outcome will be.
But we are on the threshold of that approach.
And, by the same token, there are many people, well-meaning
people, environmental groups, et cetera, who are saying
that pur emphasis is all wrong, that we should be looking
more to the material separation, source separation programs
and recycling.
I think your strategy would be very helpful if
it indicated the compatibility of those systems that one
does not necessarily preclude the other, and that they are
both important to the sum total of solid waste management.
-------
81
On page 54, the discussion goes on on materials
recovery and energy recovery.
Again, I think it's important to us, at least in
California, that when you talk about these programs, that
it be indicated or clearly understood that material separa-
tion, at least the way we see it in California, might lead -•
with the most optimum of conditions in markets — might lead
to a 20 to 25 percent reduction in what goes to landfills.
By the same token, I think it would be well to
stipulate that the energy conversion processes could lead
to 75 to 80 percent reduction in what goes to landfills,
so that there's a clear understanding of what we are talking
about when we talk about resource, recovery, recycling,
energy conversion, et cetera.
Because many people are interested, but many people
seem to feel that one is fighting the other. And I think
EPA, the way EPA strategy has come out, it doesn't necessari!
lena to that argument, but it certainly doesn't help clear
it up.
One very, very vital problem in this whole business
of utilizing waste, and we like to think in California that
it's a waste only because we regard it as such; that, in
fact, it is a resource — but one of the real problems is
the environmental box that we've managed to get ourselves
into. And I'm talking about the regulations and standards
-------
82
in one environmental area will not permit the utilization
of waste, for example, in the other environmental area
simply because of the air standards.
And I'm thinking more of the new tradeoff rule
whereby, if you're in an air basin that — what's the word
that it is beyond the minimum standards — and if one of
these energy projects was to go in, locate in one of those
air basins — and, incidentally, these are all in urban
areas — and those air basins are, in fact, under the gun.
They do not meet the standards.
The cost right now is very marginal as to the
economic feasibility of going with these plants.
And if the added cost of having to clean up
other industries' emissions in order for that project to
get a permit, would completely shutdown any potential for
energy conversion.
And I think that it's important.— I don't know
if the law requires this, but even if it does, I think it's
important that your strategy at least recognizes that prob-
l«a and speaks to the need for environmental tradeoffs from
the standpoint that, perhaps, fuel from solid waste might
have a low sulphur content while it may add a little more
particulate to the atmosphere.
Maybe that type of approach might be more intelligeift
and reasonable than the way it seems to be now.
-------
83
On page 55, in the same context of energy and
materials recovery, the way I read it, it came off a little
skeptical where it talks about that, perhaps, 27 million
tons in the next 10 years would be able to be taken out
of the landfilling by materials recovery and energy con-
version.
Now, if we're talking about 27 million total addi-
tional over the next 10 years, I think that's very low
because, in California, with the six projects that we have
on threshold »f going, dependent on financial assistance
plus the product disposal tax that has just been passed
will infuse monies into recycling programs, and everything
else.
We anticipate that in the next 10 years, if these
come ©ff, then we will be taking something like 21 million
tons »Ht of the solid waste stream alone/ in California,
total over the 10 years and not per annum.
So I don't know what that means. But if it means
net in a 10-year period, the net accumulation of that many
tons, I think it is way low.
Tfi« last two items that I think are very important,
at least to us, appear on pages 80 and 84.
On page 80, you talk about the regional plans that
are submitted to EPA should be reviewed and approved, et
cetera.
-------
84
Well, first of all, I didn't know that any regional
plans in solid waste should be submitted to EPA. I thought
thaywas part of the planning process in the state plan
where, if they are the designated agency under the state
plan, what they had done would become an element of the
state plan.
And I don't know why it would go to EPA or why
it should be so that there's no misunderstanding that
whatever agency is doing what it flows through the state
if, again, we are the responsible agency.
And incidentally, the Board has been designated
lead agency in California by the government.
More importantly, on page 84, it starts on 83,
I believe, is quite a lengthy discussion about the water
quality, water management plan. 1 forgot the initials
you used, relating to 208.
It talks about, on page 84, the 208 residual
solid waste program.
Now, over the last five years, I've been trying
to get a definition of just what^residual means in that
context. And I've had so many different definitions that
I gave up even trying to explain what it meant^to anybody
that asked me.
But from what I understood, it was primarily
involved in the 208 process, the looking at or planning for
-------
85
agricultural waste drainages, perhaps sewage sludge, things
of that nature that had a direct impact on the regional
basis on water quality.
And, incidentally, the 208 regions in California,
and I don't know if they are in all states, are established
on the basis of water drainages.
Now, how that could be substituted for a solid
waste plan, as page 84 seems to imply, leaves me very cold
unless we're talking about solid waste management only
from the standpoint of water quality protection, which I
know, at least I hope we're not.
At any rate, it does state that the 208 plan,
which was supposed to be done on a residual waste which
was supposed to be done all encompassing in solid waste
management, that it can be the solid waste plan under RCRA.
And to me, it seems very contradictory. It adds
more fuel to the fire. And in California, there's a hell
of a fire burning over what the role of the regions are
versus the role of counties and cities.
And, as you know, local government in California
is very strong. And we don't want to become part of the
fight. We would rather be able to give everybody his share.
The way this is worded, it just adds more fuel
to that fire.
I think that I had better stop here. I am getting
-------
86
into editorial things after this, so I will conclude and
hopefully get something in writing to you.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to make
this brief statement and wish you luck, and make sure that
you understand we want to work with you very closely.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Don't run away, Al, because I
think there are some of those questions and points that you
made that we ought to see if we can provide some response
to.
Your comments remind me, really, of a question
which I wanted to ask earlier, of which I would be intereste
in any comments of the rest of the day.
And that is, we have a chapter on constraints which
really kind of talks about our difficulties in moving ahead.
But I think what Al said and what others have said outlines
for us that we also have some real strengths on which we
are trying to build.
And we're not starting with a clean slate, we
have effective institutions and strengths on which to build.
And it may be appropriate that this strategy con-
tain a chapter, maybe only a short one, but which would
make that clear to the audience for the final document.
And, as I say, I would like to have any comments
on that thought.
John, would you want to respond to any of Al's poin
s?
-------
87
MR. SKINNER: Let me just answer two of the ques-
tions that you raised, Al. One is with respect to the
Fiscal Year '79 grants and the fact that identification of
agencies cannot be made until we finalize our regulations,
and until the state plan is developed.
We recognize that. And I think that if you look
at the guidelines, they allow you to phase such designations
over whatever time period is necessary.
But recognizing the fact that agreement between
local governments and state and local governments would
take some time to develop, we think that that activity should
start in Fiscal Year '78.
And whatever identifications and responsibilities
that you can make, you should make as soon as possible,
although recognizing the fact that all of the identifications
will certainly take a much longer period of time.
A
MR. M0RINO: John, excuse me.
That's beautiful, I hope. And this goes back to
what I said on page 73. From region to region, this is
understood and implemented, and I hon that your Region IX
understands this the way you're telling me.
MR. SKINNIER: We hope they do too.
The other point is on the 208 residual waste program
You are correct in that the 203 program, in general, where
they deal with solid waste management, are concerned.
-------
88
in about the service water quality impact of solid waste
management. And RCRA, of course, deals with much broader
impacts of solid waste management.
And the 208 program may not be, in many cases,
suitable for the RCRA needs.
But we do encourage that states and local govern-
ments look at what 208 is doing. And, certainly, not
duplicate their efforts and coordinate with those activities
Also, since we all acknowledge the fact that the
funding under RCRA might be much less than is necessary,
I think we should look at the 208 funding possibilities
to support some of the RCRA requirements as well.
MR. MORINO: John, I understand that. And I think
what I was really pleading for was on page 84 where you
talk about the 208. Rather than say where those activities
meet the intent of the Act, the state should consider
identifying the 208 agencies under 406 (b).
I think it ought to be clear the warning under
the intent of the Act insofar as regional problems are con-
cerned are something like that so we don't have the regions
coming back and say, see, EPA wants us to do all this.
And that's what they're saying.
And I could care less, except I'm in the middle.
MR. LINGLE: Al, I just wanted to respond to a
couple of the points that you made regarding various resource
-------
89
recovery issues in the strategy.
First of all, in terms of compatibility issues,
I agree and I think we agree as an office and have stated
in other publications, and so forth, your point about
compatibility of energy and materials recovery approaches.
And I think it is appropriate to point that out
in this strategy document.
I would also like to just clear up a couple of
points that you made.
First of all, in the nonattainment issue, in terms
of conflicting regulations, we recognize that and are
taking some steps within the Agency to address that.
Now. Just a clarification point.
You pointed out that 27 million tons seemed low.
And I read this again. I realize how confusing that was.
That was not intended to be a cumulative total over the
next several years. That was the actual amount in one
year, 1985, and that is a very good point.
MR. MERINO: Okay. That is fine.
Thank you very much.
MODERATOR PLEHN : Thank you very much, Al.
We have the next speaker who is also from the
NGA. Mr. Wiley Osborne of the Texas Deoartment of Health.
-------
90
STATEMENT OF MIU WILEY OSBOKfcE, NGA,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MR. OSBORNE: I think me and all the farmers are
up here in Washington out of the State of Texas. I didn't
know thare were that many down here. They get kind of
spread out down there, but they seem to be pretty well
congregated and represented here.
I also feel like a Rhode Island Red in a white
leg henhouse because I have many exceptions as I will speak
to, on the strategy document, contrary to the many points
that have been raised in the favor of the strategy.
I think I will do this, and we have prepared com-
ments that are addressed to Mr. Skinner, and these will
be forwarded to him. And I will just read part of an excerpt
from the eover letter that forwarded those comments.
The Act establishes the goals and objectives for
the program, and I believe — I'm speaking now for Jack
Carmichael wh'o is Director, Division of Solid Waste Manage-
ment at the Texas Department of Health — I believe the
priorities and emphasis should be developed from the require
ments of the states in obtaining these objectives.
The draft fails to recognize the individual state
requirements in an attempt to develop a consistent program
which does away with the state autonomy and the right to
tailor programs necessary to resolve their problems.
-------
91
The strategy clearly circumvents provisions of
the Act and puts emphasis on programs that are not con-
sistent with the overall objective of the Act.
The statement that the strategy does not have
the intent of the regulation or official rulemaking has
little meaning and when other statements clearly show that
the strategy will be followed in implementing the Act.
The process used in developing the priorities and
program emphasis does not follow the analytical approach
necessary to develop a recommended solution to a problem.
Alternatives are not explored, recognized or
given proper stature. And where considered, they were
downplayed or biased.
The document, in effect, supports what we consider
preconceived conclusions.
Now, it is recognized that the list of constraints
may be realistic. However, there are offsetting positive
elements not considered, nor was the remains, to circumstanci
some of the constraints explored.
And by and large, the success of RCRA depends on
the willingness of the state and local governments to accept
and implement the programs.
The degree of response from the state :and local
governments will depend on whether the program satisfies
their needs.
-------
92
Where state and local needs are consistent with
the objectives of the Act, these should be given full
recognition in establishing program priorities and emphasis.
The priority and major emphasis clearly support
a municipal solid waste management program to industrial
solid waste activities.
The segregation of industrial waste is not within
the intent of RCRA, nor is it a solution to the problem.
This is a major shift from the previous position
and is not supported by valid considerations. I would not
deemphasize the need to control and regulate the hazardous
waste, but the resources directed toward management activities
for hazardous solid waste generated by industry should
consider that industry must solve their problems from private
capital.
The resultant strategy reflects a major shift and
emphasis from positions previously expounded by EPA.
Mr. Costle has stated in a letter, dated October
19, 1977, that Congressman Rooney, that we anticipate very
little, if any, of these funds will be used for the inventory
of industrial solid waste disposable facilities or implementa
tion of plans and programs developed under Subtitle C or D,
or for pass-through to the local agencies for implementation
of plans under Subtitle D.
Our strategy calls for seeking funds for these
-------
y j
activities in FY '79 and subsequent years.
The guidelines for FY '78 establishes a priority
Subtitle D activities and these programs are now being
staffed and they involve local and regional governmental
units.
Governor Briscoe of the State of Texas has com-
mitted the state to involve local and regional agencies
in solving solid waste management problems.
I think that the local officials have responded
to this with a key interest. And they also have expressed
a desire to participate in the RCRA program for a solution
to their solid waste problem and to relegate Subtitle D
to a lesser emphasis and place on Subtitle C as a radical
departure from what is expected, and will result in a
serious loss of interest and support.
We do want to go on the record that the comments
are not intended to reflect adversely on criticism of the
staff.
It is obvious that they have worked hard on this
document and have raised many points. However, we are
critical of many of the results or the conclusions that they
have reached.
And now the specific comments are attached to the
letter, and I would like, perhaps, to just summarize these
for the benefit of those who are here and who may receive
-------
94
comments on them.
Overall, we find that the strategy supplants the
overall provisions of RCRA.
The strategy, that is not recognized, are to make
provisions of solution of problems as they exist in the
states.
The strategy omits discussion of relevant portions
of the Act.
The strategy draft, the goals and objectives, are
not consistent with the Act or actual problems.
The criteria used in establishing priorities are
biased toward EPA mandated programs and neglect the state
requirements.
Constraints are used to assess impact on program
implementation but positive support to programs is not
recognized.
This would consist of the existing state programs
and the current program being funded under RCRA. The major
choices are not supported by the fact.
I think the selection of the problems of the waste
stream and the quantity versus quality, the dichotomy of
the safe disposal versus conservation and recovery — resourcs
conservation and recovery is one of the goals of the Act,
but to temper it as a preferred means of disposal does not
take into account the other goal of the Act that is established
-------
95
that is one of safe disposal.
This is a major departure from the previous EPA
program priorities.
The strategy overemphasizes the relationship to
solid waste management to water oriented programs. The
implementation of sound solid waste management practices
will protect water quality as well as provide solutions
to many of the other related but poor solid waste management
practices.
Before we would recommend that EPA return to the
overall objectives of the Act and the requirements of the
states to establish objectives that are fully consistent
with the Act, that a strategy that considers the full
spectrum of the Act,and not just EPA mandated programs,
be developed.
That the strategy recognize the value of ongoing
state programs and grant-funded programs. That resource
conservation and recovery be recognized as a viable comple-
ment and eventual alternative to land disposal to be
encouraged, supported by financial assistance as well as
R&D effort.
And I agree with Al Merino on this point, that he
made, that the strategy should address conservation source
separation as well as material recovery and energy recovery.
And that a return of emphasis to Subtitle D to the
-------
96
development and implementation of the state plans and all
facets of solid waste management and support our rural
communities.
Also, the opened up inventory.
To recognize and support RCRA is separate from other
programs while recognizing the need to coordinate all pro-
grams.
I think that, Mr. Plehn, we've gone to a great
extreme to getting the people involved in the program. And
if not, the actual content, I believe the thrust of the
strategy diverts our effort from this and directs them toward
EPA mandated programs.
I believe the people, out in the communities, are
looking forward, at least the local elected officials are
looking forward to suoport for their solid waste management
problems.
And I think, if it is not given, they are going
to lose interest and we will lose support of the overall
objectives of the Act.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much, Wiley.
Here is a question from the Panel.
MR. HICKMAN: Wiley, one of your statements was
that the strategy does not recognize the problems facing
states.
In the detailed comments that you provide us on
-------
97
the strategy, do you articulate what the State of Texas
Public Health Department considers to be the problems facing
states that the strategy should address?
MR. OSBORNE: Not in detail, Lanier, but we can
give you those. I think our main intent here is that there
are a number of different needs and in different states.
That the state requirements are different in New
Jersey and Texas. And, that the strategy should recognize
this arid not try to develop consistent programs:that would
force resource, conservation and recovery in one area.
Where it might work real well in one area it would
not in another.
MR. HICKMAN: So what you are suggesting is the
strategy should indicate flexibility within the requirements
of RCRA for state and local governments to advance their
programs, consistent with the regional and state differences,
but still consistent with the basic requirements of the
Act?
MR. OSBORNE: Right.
And one of the things, I believe,that we're not
in disagreement with the strategy. We are not in disagree-
ment with the fact that you have a strategy.
MR. HICKMAN: You just don't like it. That's all.
MR. OSBORNE: But we feel that it is out of timing.
I think a lot of the contents of the strategy will
-------
98
depend on what the state plans -- how the state plans evolve.
The state plan, I believe, will recognize the needs of the
state and will detail the needs of the state.
And these should be used, then, I think, in develop-
ing the overall strategy.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Any other comment?
MR. LEHMAN: Let me just make a couple of comments.
That the last comment about the timing of the
strategy puts us in a difficult situation, I think, Mr.
Osborne, because we are under a great deal of pressure, as
you probably realize, to go forward with an overall strategy
so that state and local governments, and the Congress, and
the public will know what we are about.
If we had to wait until all the states' planning
were accomplished and then write a strategy, I think that's
a real tradeoff. But I think we are almost compelled to
.press on on this.
And on a more mundane point on that, if you want
to get into the internal workings of EPA, it is very difficul
for us to go forward with such things as the landfill criteri
and the hazardous waste regulations through the Agency clear-
ance process if we're not able to relate those individual
Acts to an overall strategy.
So there are a number of pressures to do that.
But my main point, my main comment. Both you and
-------
99
nr. DeVille raised what I consider to be essentially thA
same ooint. Maybe it isn't. Maybe that should be explored
here.
And that is that I heard — 1 believe I heard both
of you say basically the same thing, that the strategy
did not adequately reflect state perspectives.
And Mr. DeVille's comments were in the context of
the hazardous waste program, but yours were more general.
I wonder if you could comment on that or maybe
Mr. DeVille would like to comment on that a little bit
more as to how that could be accomplished.
In other words, how can this strategy be drafted
in such a way as state perspectives can be taken into
account to a greater degree?
MR. OSBORNE: I don't question the need for a
strategy in any management program.
I think what we have exception to is this particu-
lar strategy. And it's divorcing itself from the completion
of the state plan and the implementation of the state plan.
At Isast this is what I perceive it does.
What I believe that the strategy should now focus
on is on those elements that we have started and not cut
them off and leave them dangling while you pickup another
program.
I believe the completion of the state plan and the
-------
100
opened up inventory is of the utmost importance. That we
go ahead with that.
And then, from these, I believe we will be able
to develop many of the concerns and strategies after we
have recognized the problem.
I don't really believe we know what the problem
is at this time.
We can perceive, maybe, what some of the aspects
of the problem is, but until we do the complete state plan,
I don't believe we really recognize the problem.
MR. LEHMAN: Thank you.
MR. DeVILLE: John, I would like to make a couple
of points.
I appreciate your comments on the need to formulate
the strategy and I agree with it.
What I would like to emphasize, and one of the
points I was trying to make in the general tenure of my
comments is, this is not a one-shot strategy. It's going
to continue to evolve over time.
One of the reasons I think that Wiley and I are
concerned about some of the trends in this particular
strategy approach is that it seems to have, on a state
perspective, standing on one foot in Fiscal '78 and on the
other foot in Fiscal '79.
To give you an example. The governor's have put
-------
101
themselves on the line in a lot of ways in a lot of places
around the country with the designation of the regional
planning boundaries and with the ongoing movement that
is initiated in that direction.
Last week, we signed contracts from the governor
between our regional planning agencies contingent upon the
receipt of Federal funds. And we are trying to make some
money available to them on an intervening base.
We can't let that die because, again, this is why
I want to emphasize a comprehensive solid waste management
program.
If one tries to evaluate, for example, the relative
health risks nationwide or in a given state imposed by
industrial waste or by specifically hazardous waste or
by solid waste in general, one finds that in some states,
and Mississippi has emphasized, the governor feels that,
in Mississippi, the health problem and the environmental
problem is general solid waste.
Now, in Louisiana, we have a mix. We have a major
hazardous waste generation in our state, but we can't
neglect one program element for a little while and pick it
up and neglect the next one for awhile and come back and
pick it up.
We've got to have a coordinated ongoing consistent
evolution in the strategy.
-------
102
And that is what concerns me that we start something
drop it. And when we drop something, like regional planning
on a state solid waste plan developed comprehensively, we
lose a lot of inertia and, boy, are we going to have prob-
lems starting it up again later on.
MR. SKINNJ&R: I think there is a point of clarifi-
cation that is necessary and, obviously, we will have to
take this into account when we redraft the document.
While we talk about emphasis on industrial waste,
increased emphasis on industrial waste, we're not talking
only about Subtitle C. We're talking about Subtitle D
as well because most industrial waste, in terms of quantity,
probably will not be classified as hazardous, and may be
a better way of putting it would have been that, as we
develop comprehensive solid waste management programs under
Subtitle D, we should give emphasis to those industrial
wastes which will not be regulated under Subtitle C.
I think that is the point that we tried to make
and probably didn't make it as well as we should have.
It was not an indication that we should stop
everything we're doing under Subtitle D to build a hazardous
waste program.
Of course you are correct. A lot of activity has
taken place and we want to continue that and build it.
MR. DeVILLE: But one of the things that may concerr
-------
103
us, John, is, for example, in Fiscal '78, the program money
emphasis was on Subtitle D. Okay?
The anticipation was that Subtitle C would come
along in '79 and it would be not only funds for that but
probably increased funds for Subtitle D.
And let me tell you that a lot of the states have
designed their programs and have staffed up and are moving
forward.
And let me remind you of the political sensitivities
of the building relationships between the state and regional
planning groups.
Now, I have some reason to be concerned about what
the Fiscal '79 budget is likely to reflect in program
emphasis.
And I think we're going to be in serious trouble
if my concerns turn out to be true.
MR. LINGLE: Bill, before you sit down, I wonder
if I could ask you to clarify something which you said in
your opening statement.
You started off by talking about the use of dif-
ferent tools as reflected in the strategy. In particular,
you indicated that there seems to be a lot of emphasis on
the regulatory tool and perhaps not enough emphasis on
some of the other tools.
NOW, were you saying that that is a problem with
-------
104
the strategy or with the Act as it's written or both?
MR. DeVILLE: It's a problem with the strategy,
specifically. And it's also a problem in terms of resource
availabilities.
But let me comment. As I tried to emphasize in
that first presentation, granted, that we mav have insuf-
ficient resources to do everything.
I think that we^na^d to look at the option of
emphasizing one program element and dropping others. I'm
not sure that's the wisest course of action but it needs
to be looked at carefully or alternatively, trying to,
at a somewhat reduced level, maintain the overall emphasis.
And I think I would tend to opt at this time for
maintaining the comprehensive approach to the best stretching
of the resources.
MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
MR. MERINO: Could I add another little discourse
to the other two gentlemen's?
On this business of funding, in California, the
State Health Department is a responsible agency under
state law and under our negotiation as a lead agency under
RCRA to enforce the hazardous waste program from its genera-
tion to its final use or disposal.
Now if, in fact, the funding may come along, that
would put Subtitle D in a very low capacity to Subtitle C
-------
105
as far as funds are concerned, what would happen in Califor-
nia is this: local governments, right now, are very coopera-
tive and working very strongly with us and RCRA under
Subtitle D because they are the primary people that will
benefit from the funding to do what has to be done on a
local level.
If there's no funding there, but it's for Subtitle C
because the Stats Health Department preempts hazardous waste,
the local health departments or the local counties and
cities have nothing to do with it, they're going to tell us
and we will tell you to take RCRA and shove it in file 16.
That's what it would amount to.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Plehn.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much, Wiley, and
thank you very much Bill and Al.
The next speaker is Mr. Philip Taft of the Tire
Retreading Institute.
STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP H. TAFT, DIRECTOR,
TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE
MR. TAFT: My comments are in one very specific
area, so I won't take as much time as those of you out there
who are not concerned with my area.
And, as noted, my name is Philip Taft. I'm the
Director of the Tire Retreading Institute.
And, as with the other speakers, I comment favorably
-------
106
upon your work in developing the strategy. I think it's
a commendable endeavor. I like the manner in which it
explains the rationale for arriving at your various program
priorities.
Your consideration of what emphasis should be
placed on the interaction of the several v.'aste streams, the
options of resource conservation versus disposal, and the
levels of control, we think, is a thorough and fair assess-
ment.
Now-, a document of this type, in our opinion, is
necessarily expressed in general terms.
There is, however, reference in the strategy docu-
ment to a specific item and that reference is Section 2004,
Grants for Tire Shredders.
And that's where most of you leave.
Had that item not been specifically identified, I
would not be here making a comment. But it has been, and,
therefore, I must speak up.
The 5 percent grant noted in the reference is such
a trifling amount that it might as well be forgotten, and
I'm sure it will be.
Now, because this single item has been identified,
there is some concern that there are other considerations
that have been brought into play.
Now, if those considerations are intended to downplakr
-------
107
the importance of tire recycling, we would be vitally con-
cerned.
Now, I would like to enlarge the subject of tire
recycling far beyond the subject of tire shredders.
In the fifteen months since the Act became law,
EPA would be hard pressed to identify specific actions
required by the Act that have become reality in physically
promoting protection of health and the environment and con-
serving valuable material and energy resources.
EPA needs a payoff.
EPA needs visibility.
It needs to show the public a program that identifie
accomplishment of the objectives of the Act.
I believe the seeds for such a program are presently
in place.
EPA should move forward in assisting the states to
organize a plan or plans to remove scrap tires from the
waste stream and concurrently, promote resource conserva-
tion by tire recycling; i.e., retreading.
Implementation of such a plan would orovide needed
visibility.
It would become apparent to the public that worn
tires had, in fact, been removed from the solid waste stream.
The EPA could then say, "Here is a working example
of wnat can Be done to promote the protection of health and
-------
108
the environment and to eonserve valuable material and energy
resources."
Now, attached to my short paoer is ^ very, very
brief outline of elements that must be considered in dsvelon-
ing a plan that incorporates both recycling and disposal of
worn tires.
I will not, at this time, describe the outline, but
we would be happy to discuss it, at your convenience.
And one added comment, not in the paper and in the
opening remarks, Mr. Jorling commentad on the figures in
the document on tons of material to be disposed of.
Now, also, on your section of about 8002, what is
it? About studies in the future? Tires are to come up
about October of '79.
Well, linking the two, tires are not a small amount
of weight in the stream.
Each year, better than a million tons of tires ar%
discarded. And when you discard a tire, it doesn't go away.
So I would say there's probably at least 30 or 40 million
tons of tires waiting for you to do something.
Thank you very much.
MODERATOR PLEHN : Are there comments?
Mr. Taft, thank you.
(Statement follows)
-------
TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE
A Division of
NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS and RETREADERS Association. Inc.
131,3 L Street, N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20005
Area Code (20t) 638-6650
DRAFT STRATEGY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT AS AMENDED BY
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AMD RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
Presentation to The Environmental Protection Agency
January 19, 1978
Ky name is Philip H. Taf t. I'm the Director of the Tire Retreading Institute in
Washington, D. C. We appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation relative
to the implementation of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Your development of a strategy to implement
the noted Act is a commendable endeavor. We like the manner in which it explains
the rationale for arriving at your program priorities.
Your consideration of what emphasis should "be given to the interaction of the
several waste streams, the options of resource conservation versus disposal, and
the levels of control, is t«=fec a thorough and fair assessment.
A document of this type must of necessity be expressed in general terms. There is,
however, reference in the document to a specific item. That reference is Section
200k, Grants for Tire Shredders. Had that item not been specifically named, I would
have no comments on the strategy document. The 5% grant noted in the reference is
such a trifling amount it just as well could be forgotten. Because this single item
has been identified in this strategy document, there is some concern that other
-------
Presentation to the Environmental
Protection Agency
January 19, 1978
considerations have been put into play. If those considerations are intended to
down-play the importance of tire recycling, we would be vitally concerned.
I would like to enlarge the subject of tire recycling far beyond the subject of
tire shredders. In the fifteen months since the Act became law, EPA would be hard
pressed to identify specific actions required by the Act that have become reality
in physically promoting protection of health and the environment and conserving
valuable material and energy resources. EPA needs a pay-off. It need.visibility.
It needs to show the public a program that identifies accomplishment of the ob-
jectives of the Act. I believe the seeds for such a program are in place. EPA
should move forward in assisting the states to organize a plan to remove scrap
tires from the waste stream and concurrently to promote resource conservation
through tire recycling; i.e. retreading. Implementation of such a. plan would pro-
vide needed visibility. It would become apparent to the public that worn tires
have been removed from the solid waste stream. EPA could then say, "Here is a
working example of what can be done to promote the protection of health and the
environment and to conserve valuable material and energy resources."
Attached to this paper is a very, very brief outline of elements that must be
considered in developing a plan that incorporates both recycling and disposal of
worn tires. I shall not at this time describe the outline. ¥e would be happy to
discuss our proposal in detail at an appropriate time that would be mutually
acceptable.
-------
TIRE RECYCTiIHG
Problem
How "best to fulfil] the requirements of the "Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976" as regards worn tires.
Facts
1. Worn tires are impediments in the solid waste stream.
2. Transportation of worn tires is expensive.
3. Markets for scrap tires are limited.
Discussion
The present tire recycling system, illustrated in Figure 1, is a "push" system
that tends to reject the flow of solid waste "by erecting barriers.
A proposed tire recycling system, Figure 2., is a "pull" one that is activated
toy positive economic incentives.
-;> Retread Shop -
Worn Tire Source
a. Individuals
"b. Tire Purchase site ^Disposal Site
c. Casing collectors
d. Other (as used car
dealer)
'Processing Site >Marketc
a. Shredding
b. Slitting
a. "As is'1 use
b. Fuel
c. Blended with other
products
Worn Tire Source -
a. Individuals
b. Tire purchase site
u. Dumps (until
exhausted)
d. Other
The proposed system would:
Figure 2
i Retread Shop 7Processing Center—^Markets
u. Shredding
b. Pulverizing
c. Bailing
a. Extraction of
elements
b. Fuel
c . B3 ended with other
products
1. Remove worn tires from the solid waste stream.
2. Reduce transportation segments from as many as eight to three.
3. Conserve energy and enhance the environment.
Conclusion
The proposed tire recycling system is deeply dependent upon the existence of
markets for scrap tires. Thus, when the Department of Commerce implements the
provisions of Subtitle E of the Resource Conservation and Recover;/ Act of 1976,
all worn tires can become a national asset.
National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, 13'i 3 L Street, B. W. , Washington,
D. C. 2Q005
-------
109
MODERATOR PLEHN : Now, the next speaker on my
agenda is Mr. or Dr. Rocco Petrone, but I think he was
expecting to come in the afternoon, so he is probably not
here.
So we will skip over him but we still have 20
minutes until our lunch break.
And the next name I have is Mr. Arthur Handley
of Malcolm-Pirnie,Inc. I'm sorry. I couldn't read the
handwriting.
STATEMENT OF MP. ARTHUR HANDLEY
MALCOLM-PIRNIE, INC.
MR. HANDLEY: I have a relatively brief statement.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear as the last
one in the morning. It gave me time to learn a format for
these presentations.
It seems to follow that, one, you thank the hard
working group in EPA for doing a wonderful job. I have
just done that and thev did just that.
We appreciate the work that they've done that per-
mits us to jump off and squabble with them and bring up
points. I admire their courage.
They've gone throuah the whole thing vary nicely.
The second thing that I noted was that some speakers
indeed, most of them, took the opportunity, which was
item number two, to plug either their countv, city, state or
-------
110
particular agency.
So I start off by reporting that Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., are consulting environmental engineers who have been
in business for more than seven decades, working with local
government, working with industry, deciding, managing the
construction and assisting with the operation of projects
at the local level for industry and for municipalities.
I've gotten past parts one and two, and now you
will bear with me while I read the rest of the statement.
Certainly, this is a draft statement, and I'm sure
that EPA will do much to consider the factors that have been
brought forth thus far and will continue this afternoon.
We, at NPI, as consulting engineers working at
the local level, have some general comments to make, areas
in which we feel this statement is deficient.
These include the following: some of it is, I
thought, strong language. Our vice president, C. C. Johnson,
who gave me the opportunity to come out of the cold today,
said that it wasn't particularly. So here we go.
In its overall context, the Strategy Statement
delays resource recovery implementation.
We feel that there are resource recoverv technol-
ogies which are proven and there are municipalities we know
and who we are working for who desire to move ahead now.
The Statement's failure to acknowledge that
-------
Ill
implementation can take place now, we fsar, could decrease
the momentum of many projects which are in the design stage
and could deter others from proceeding.
While the Statement is explicit in regard to regu-
latory effort, it is vague, we feel, regarding regional and
local implementation.
As in all environmental programs, the goals are
achieved only when facilities are constructed by local govern
ment or by industry.
We would urge, therefore, that the Strategy better
define how assistance might be provided by the states to the
regional and local governments and to industry, for it is
at this level that the goals are achieved and the job
accomplished.
While the concept of Federal and state technical
assistance for regions, local govenrment and industry is
fSt
comforting to the regulatory agencies, we consider, from
many standpoints, its effectiveness.
Local governments and industry are actually in an
adversary position with the regulatory agencies and this
prevents effective technical assistance by these same
agencies.
Technical assistance is more effectively utilized
if it's received from consultants employed by the municipali-
ties involved.
-------
112
I confess that it took me a good number of years
to find this out.
My early experience of 15 years with the New York
Stats Department of Health, and later with the Department
of Environmental Conservation, and then jumping to the New
York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, I was of
the opinion that those efforts that we spent at state levels
for so-called technical assistance was of value to the
municipalities.
One of the first things I found when I got on the
outside, and it was shocking, was that municipalities con-
sider the regulatory agencies as adversaries. That the
free handout, this assistance, really isn't as effective
as we all think.
People value assistance that they pay for and they
value it from consultants that they are able to select
on their own.
We found, also,that local government desires to
implement programs. And in so doing, they are guided by the
experience of their counterparts.
Local government officials studiously consider the
methods and experiences of their peers and use these find-
ings in their implementation decisions.
We urge, therefore, that the Strategy consider
methods to provide direct assistance to target regions and
-------
113
local government so that projects are developed now.
We assure you that once these projects are working,
they will be studied and other projects will follow.
It's really impressive, working day in and day out
with local government, with regional people, to find how
studiously they pursue the project development.
They are in the thick of the battle. They're the
people who shovel the sludge and get the job done. And
they learn,for the most part, we find, by observing and
talking to their peers, people who have been through similar
situations.
We know that a breakthrough can occur in resource
recovery and it would be accelerated if we could just get
more projects on line.
The efforts of the state government,of the Federal
Government do just this: to lend a hand, get it going,
get those six California projects moving. It would be appre-
ciated.
Finally, and this has been repeated earlier, since
the Statement is a first attempt to define a Strategy, it
would be constructive to know that EPA would regularly amend
the Statement as the further program definition is achieved.
The very fact of making this pledge that this will
be updated as we learn, and so on, is, indeed, a strategy
in itself.
-------
114
Now, we have several specific comments and concepts
which we suggest for consideration in the Strategy State-
ment. These are based, again, on our exoeriences with state
and local governments.
In regional solid waste planning, there has been
the unfortunate tendency to first dwell on the selection of
a technology.
Now we deplore this. Admittedly, we enjoy exploring
and testing varied technologies, but this really isn't the
way to approach regional solid waste planning, and it should
be avoided.
First,efforts should be directed toward establishina
quantity&nd quality of solid wastes and markets.
w
Indeed, we have found that these factors are known.
They define transfer needs,resource recovery, site locations,
and, for that matter, even type of technology.
Regional planning, as directed by the states, we
feel should follow this fundamental process.
Resource recovery is new to both regional and local
government from many standpoints.
One of the important new elements is that successful
resource recovery requires the practice of competitive busi-
ness principles and knowledge of the marketplace.
Government is not motivated by profit and business
practices are alien to government organization.
-------
115
That is a much watered down statement by the way.
The private sector, on the other hand, is experi-
enced in profit and you know they are experienced in loss.
They are experienced in risk-taking and technological develop
ment.
Hence, we would urge that facilities owned and
operated by the private sector be encouraged unless there
is a clear case where public ownership and operation is
there.
I realize that this is a rather controversial state-
ment, and I follow up, therefore, with a clear ca^se for
public ownership and operation.
And one of our recent projects, we recommended that
the City of Buffalo, New York proceed with a simple front
end separation system.
We felt that the city could own this and the city
personnel could be trained to operate it. We are not saying
that in every situation private sector is the way to go.
It seems to have, however, distinct advantages
in many cases.
If it is agreed that the private sector ownership
and operation is advantageous, as we have advocated, then
efforts should be made to advance their capabilities.
The state legislation, which is varied, of course,
should be reviewed to ensure that municipalities can enter
-------
116
into long-term contracts with Industry.
The strategy should more strongly acknowledge
current efforts to increase federal investment tax credits
for recycling of facilities from 10 to 20 nercent and should
acknowledge the advantages of co-aeneration credits.
They should, see that they become a reality.
In all cases, the Industrial Revenue Bond financing
alternate should be made available to finance resource
recovery.
It's encouraging to find that the resource recoverv
industry, which has finished evaluating 14 proposals for
a privately-owned facility to serve half of Westchester
County, New York, that the industry is becoming able to
advance equity funds and to obtain private financing.
These abilities, really, a^e based on marketplace,
in reality. And the fact that resource recoverv enterprises
are becoming able to do so,to achieve the private financing
route is most encouraging.
In summary, we believe that the Strategy Statement
overplays the difficulties inherent in reaching resource
recovery goals.
This may be a natural reaction tendency since the
Federal Government,and to somewhat a lesser degree, the
state governments do not manage the design, construction
and operation of facilities, and, hence, do not have personal
-------
117
knowledge of the administrative and political mechanics
involved.
We believe that a more constructive approach could
be achieved if EPA would recognize that program goals will
be reached only by regional and local government implementa-
tion with industry involved.
And, hence, should direct their program emphasis to
methods to facilitate such local imolementation.
Thank you.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much, Mr. Handley.
I would just like to make two points.
One, you said you felt it was important that this
strategy was that the Office of Solid Waste commit to
revise this strategy on a regular basis. And that is a
commitment that we will certainly meet.
That is obviously essential for a sound planning
process.
Secondly, you mentioned your feeling about the
importance and the effectiveness of consulting and assistance
by peers.
And I just wanted to underline, for this audience,
that a peer-matching program is going to be a major part --
already is -- and will be a major part of our technical
assistance program.
(Statement follows)
-------
Statement by Mr. Arthur Handley, Manager
of Solid Waste Programs, Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., Consulting Environmental Engineers,
White Plains, N. Y. at a public meeting
conducted by the USEPA at Arlington,
Virginia on January 19, 1978 to receive
testimony on a draft Strategy for the
Implementation of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976
My name is Arthur Handley. I am Manager of Solid Waste
Programs for Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Consulting Environmental
Egnineers, 2 Corporate Park Drive, White Plains, N. Y. 10602.
We at Malcolm Pirnie appreciate this opportunity to comment
on the draft. Strategy for the Implementation of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. Our firm has been involved with the
engineering design, construction and operation of environmen-
tal facilities for municipalities and industry for more than
seven decades. This experience has provided us with much
insight as to how project implementation should be, and is
accomplished. This long term experience with local government
and industry serves as the basis for our comments on the draft
Strategy Statement.
The Strategy Statement is in draft format and will be
amended based upon further consideration by EPA and the
statements received at meetings such as this. In a broad
-------
sense we believe that the Statement is deficient in the
following areas.
1. In its overall context the Strategy Statement delays
resource recovery implementation. There are resource
recovery technologies which are proven and there are
municipalities which desire to move ahead now. The
Statement's failure to acknowledge that implementation
can take place now, we fear, could decrease the
momentum of many projects which are in the design stage
and could deter others from proceeding.
2. While the Statement is explicit in regard to regulatory
effort, it is vague regarding regional and local im-
plementation. As in all environmental programs, the
goals are achieved only when facilities are constructed
by local government and/or industry.
>je Hprva—
guvernltiunh-.
We would urge therefore that the Strategy better
define how assistance might be provided by the states
-------
- 3
and directly to regional and local governments and
to industry for it is these entities that get the
job accomplished.
3. While the concept of federal and state technical
assistance for regions, local government and industry
is comforting to the regulatory agencies, we question
its effectiveness. Local governments and industry
are actually in an adversary position with the
regulatory agencies and this prevents effective
technical assistance by these same agencies. Technical
assistance is more effectively utilized if received by p"V)
consultants employed by the municipalities involved.
We have found that local governments desiring to
implement programs are guided by the experience of
their counterparts. Local government officials studiously
consider the methods and experiences of their peers and
use these findings in their implementation decisions.
We urge therefore that the Strategy consider methods
to provide direct assistance to target regions and local
government so that projects are developed now. We
assure you that once there are working projects, they
will be studied and other projects will follow.
-------
- 4
4. Finally since the Statement is a. first attempt
to define a strategy it would be constructive
to know that EPA would regularly amend the
Statement as the further program definition
is achieved. This on its own is a program Strategy.
We have several specific comments and concepts which we
suggest for consideration in the Strategy Statement.
These are:
1. In regional solid waste planning there is
the unfortunate tendency to first dwell on the
selection of a technology. This should be
avoided. First efforts should be directed
toward establishing quantity/quality of solid
wastes and markets. Indeed if these factors
are known they define transfer needs, resource
recovery site locations and type of technology.
Regional planning as directed by States should
follow this fundamental.
2. Resource recovery is new to both regional
and local government from many standpoints.
One of the important new elements is that
successful resource recovery requires the
practice of competitive business principles
and knowledge of the market place. Government
-------
- 5
is not motivated by profit and business
practices are alien to government organization.
The private sector on the other hand is skilled
in profit and loss, risk taking and technological
development. Hence we would urge that facilities
owned and operated by the private sector be
encouraged unless there is a. clear case for public
ownership and operation.
3. If it is agreed that private sector ownership
and operation is advantageous, as we have
advocated, then efforts should be made to advance
their capabilities. State legislation should be
reviewed to insure that municipalities can enter
into long term contracts with industry. Current
efforts to increase federal investment tax credits
for recycling facilities from the 10 percent to
the 20 percent level should be completed. Co-
generation credits should become a reality,
4. In all cases the Industrial Revenue Bond financing
alternate should be made available to finance
resource recovery. It is encouraging to find
that the resource recovery industry is becoming
able to advance equity funds and to obtain private
-------
6 -
financing. These abilities are based upon
the fact that resource recovery enterprises can
be viable business ventures.
In summary we believe that the Strategy Statement overplays
the difficulties inherent in reaching resource recovery
goals. This may be a natural reaction since the federal
government, and to a somewhat lesser degree state governments,
do not manage the design, construction and operation of
facilities and hence do not have personal knowledge of the
administrative and political mechanics involved. We
believe that a more constructive approach could be achieved
if EPA would recognize that program goals will be reached
only by regional and local government implementation with
industry, and hence should direct their program emphasis
to methods to facilitate such local implementation.
January 19, 1978
-------
118
MODERATOR PLEHN : I think it is almost 12:00
o'clock and I think it might be best if we -- yes, Steve?
MR. LINGLE: Nothing now.
MODERATOR PLEHN: I think it might be good if we
now broke for lunch and we will reconvene at 1:00 o'clock.
Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was recessed
to reconvene at 1:00 p.m.)
-------
119
AFTE_RN_g_0_N §_ E_ S_ S_ I_ O_ N_
(1 :00 p.m.)
MODERATOR PLEHN: I think we all may get started
and I hope you all had a nice lunch.
Let me just review -- go over again how we hope
to proceed.
We have a few more statements, then we've received
some written questions from the audience which we will then
proceed to answer.
And if any others of you have questions you think
of now, or in the course of the discussion, if you would
get a card from Gerri Wyer who is standing right there in
the brown suit, and she will make sure they get to us up
here.
As the first statement this afternoon, we will hear
from Dr. Rocco Petrone who is the Director of the National
Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROCCO PETRONE, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC.
DR. PETRONE: Thank you.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on
the proposed strategy for EPA's implementation of the
Resource, Conservation Recovery Act.
I am Rocco Petrone, president of the National Center
for Resource Recovery.
-------
120
And the interests, efforts and programs of the
National Center are solely to help advance a state of
recovery of compounds from solid wastes for further utiliza-
tion .
As
-------
121
On the other hand, I sun concerned that the demands
of implementing the mandated guidelines and the regulatory
aspects of the Act will be so demanding of available time,
personnel and funding that the resource recovery might not
receive the strongly needed support.
I hope that this will not be the case, and that
every effort is made to assure that this option to waste
disposal is pursued and stimulated.
In a very real sense and in an increasing number
of communities, the broad objectives of the Act cannot be
met without an inclusion of some form of resource recovery.
As is becoming recognized, this approach diverts
from disposal quantities of waste; complements of the landfil
lifetimes can be extended.
Plants are on line or to be operated from such
metropolitan areas as Milwaukee and Hempstead, New York,
will significantly reduce the amount of daily refuse going
to disposal areas.
As much as 80 percent or more. This can provide
positive bottom line implications for many communities.
I realize that how much a community spends on
waste disposal is not a direct responsibility of the Federal
Government.
But, if the provisions of RCRA for upgrading dis-
posal practices are to be met, there will be, by necessity,
an increase in costs for many jurisdictions.
-------
122
Resource recovery is an emerging means toward
stabilizing disposal costs.
There are also the conservation benefits to he
gained in the form of substitutes for virgin materials and
fossil fuels.
The energy implications alone of resource recovery
are impressive if not widely anpraciated.
Perhaps, if the energy source were a bit more
glamorous than trash or garbage, there might be more public
attention to it.
I havs no doubt that if they wer« to uncover a
natural gas fi^ld or oil field with the equivalent of over
200 million barrels of oil a year, there would be keen
excitement.
Y^t this is th» en°rgy potential that we can tan
from solid wast-= in our metropolitan areas.
In this decade of th<= '70s, there has been sig-
nificant progress in the develonment of recovery technologies
as well as in forming of specifications for th° material,
expandina markets and gaining experience and procurement an
-------
123
source separation programs are in effect and where ferrous
metals are regularly being magnetically reclaimed.
Although the total tonnage of recovered materials
in energy products from these present-day efforts do not
yet make a large dent in the total mass of municipal dis-
cards, it is important to note how far we have come in just
a few yp.ars.
And what has been accomplished so far is just the
beginning.
I believe that the implicit and not explicit intent
of RCRA is to nurture the recovery movement so that the
benefits can be more easily and rapidly be experienced arourc
the country.
It seems to me that resource recovery must be
recognized as an integral part of the prescription of the
Act to help make possible its prime environmental nublic
health and conservation objectives.
The draft document correctly recognizes the require-
ments for long lead times in planning for and establishing
resource conservation and recovery.
This means that jurisdictions should carefully
consider all options in solid waste management.
And as communities develop their particular strate-
gies, forms of resource recovery will increasingly become
one remedial agreement.
-------
124
It scorns to me one vital role of the Federal Gov-
ernment in this area is to facilitate the consideration
of and planning for resource recovery.
Perhaps the most difficult local task is the
initial planning phase. And technical assistance, either
directly from EPA or through state agencies, is an essen-
tial means to ensure an efficient local planning process.
I concur with the strategy document that major
emphasis be given to Section 2003 of RCRA for technical
assistance panels to assist in the development of state
programs.
I would urge, however, that major consideration
be given to elevating the median emphasis of Section 2003,
technical assistance teams, for local implementation, to
that of major emphasis.
It is at the local jurisdiction, or combinations
of local jurisdictions, that need counsel, guidance and
technical information, for it is there that the mandate
of solid waste is carried out and there that the greatest
assistance is needed in the initial planning stages.
Finally, I would hope that the Department of
Commerce be enabled to carry out those provisions of
Subtitle E relating to the development of specifications
for secondary materials, the development of markets for
recovery of materials, and the promotion of resource
-------
125
technology.
There are — these are areas naedinq prompt
attention so that the resource recovery can be expanded
in the more immediate time frame.
Again, I appreciate this opportunity to comment
on the implementation of this important legislation. EPA
has a challenging responsibility.
We, at the National Center, look forward to pro-
viding whatever support we can to help you in your mission
to improve the environment and stimulate conservation
through resource recovery.
Thank you.
MODERATOR PLEHN: Thank you very much, Dr. Petrone.
Our next speaker is Cliff Cobb of the National
Association of Counties.
MR. CLIFF COBB, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES
MR. COBB: I am Cliff Cobb of the National Asso-
ciation of Counties.
And on behalf of MAC, I want to extend our appre-
ciation to EPA for this unusual gesture on the part of
any Federal agency developing a comprehensive strategy
and then sitting here and listening to this criticism of
it which I think is a laudable thing to do.
Sinca we have complained in the past about having
-------
126
been left out on development of strategies and regulations,
we ^articularlv appreciate this today.
On the issue of funding, which has been raised
a number of times today, I would lik-s to be able to surprise
you by saying that counties are in such a great financial
stat- that thsy don't need any Federal assistance.
However, as we have hsard a number of times today,
that isn't the case.
If local governments are going to pay any atten-
tion to RCRA at all, it's going to be based upon the fact
that the Federal Government has to show a commitment equal
to the commitment that they are asking from local governments
NAG supported the passage of RCRA 3.976 because
counties believed in the need for state and federal regula-
tory programs which would assure equity among local govern-
ments .
However, NAG also vigorously supported those oro-
visions in Subtitle D which would have enabled counties
to meet those mandates and which have gone unfunded thus
far.
Even the smaller amount available for peer match,
which Mr. Plehn referred to, is going to be directed pri-
marily in states and not the local governments.
We are concerned that counties are going to find
themselves ooen to lawsuits from the states and the citizens
-------
127
for failure to comply with the requirement to closa open
dumps without being given adequate financial assistance
and technical assistance to meet those requirements.
I believe that the lessons of the Waste VJater
Construction Grants Program are instructive in this light.
From the 1950s until 1972, the Federal Government
first orovided loans, and, later, 55 percent grants to
build sewage treatment plants.
During that time, some communities built sewage
treatment plants, but a number did not. And it was not
until the combined force of the NPDES program, combining
75 percent grants, that local governments -- most local
governments are now attempting to comply with those re-
quirements .
We aren't suggesting that the Federal Government
should develop a similar construction grants program in
solid wastes.
We would only like a similar level of commitment
in terms of full funding of RCRA.
We find that the implication in this strategy
that local government, as a primary rule of local govern-
ment, should be to servo as an educational tool for their
citizens is absurd and somewhat insulting to them.
And as a last point on this issue of funding,
I would like to ask the Panel a question; perhaps a
-------
12B
rather naive question which is why is the Administration
placing such low priority on funding RCRA?
Is it because EPA believes that the planning
assistance programs in some Title D are not capable of
acsorbing the full funding which we would like to see?
Ana, when I finish my comments, I would like a
response to that if possible.
On the issue of the relative emphasis on the
control of municipal waste versus hazardous waste, I dis-
covered at the bottom of page 47 and top of page 48 the
statement that the total quantities of the leachate avail-
able to pollute the ground waters from residential sites
are not much different than from hazardous waste sites.
However, on page 52, discussing priorities, it
says that the highest priority group will be hazardous
and industrial waste.
Medium priority is residential, commercial and
institutional wastes.
And it seems to me that those two ars in conflict,
if they are of the full magnitude in terms of harm, then
they should be, presumably, of equal magnitude in terms
of priorities.
Finally, I would like to make a few recommendations
oh. One other comment was that we concur with Mr. Marino's
earlier comments on the coordination with Section 208 of
-------
129
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
We would like to see language in the strategy
3 document which discusses the drawbacks of tying RCRA in
4 with the 208 programs.
5 There is a question in our mind as to the effective-
6 ness of asking regional agencies, which do not have implemen-
7 tation authority,to carry out water quality planning, and
g we certainly do not want any of the failures of the 208
9 program if there be any carried over to the solid waste
10 program where local governments are already deeply involved
H in solid waste management.
12 Finally, I would like to make two recommendations,
13 specific recommendations on this, or one recommendation
14 which is, I would like to see something in the strategy
15 along the lines of a zero based budgeting format which would
16 describe with each increment of funding from Congress.
17 Specifically, say, for example, each additional
18 5 million or 1 million, or whatever, what programs that
19 would go into.
2Q Presumably, the agency has done that already
2i and I think it might make a valuable addition to the strateg;
22 document so that it would make it more explicit where the
23 priorities lie in terms of funding, if there were full
24 funding of RCRA.
And, if that were presented to Congress as well, it
-------
130
seems to me that might make Congress more amenable to
funding at a higher level if they realized what is being
cut out of it when they are in their appropriations process.
Finally, I would like to respond to Mr. Hickman's
question about how the Federal Government could be helpful
in siting facilities.
The comment I've heard most often from county
officials with respect to what they would most like from
Federal and state officials is that when they're having
a hearing, and they're on the firing line with the citizens,
with an audience full of citizens like this, all of whom are
up at arms about a facility being sited near them, what many
of our county officials would like would be to have a
state or Federal representative on the panel with them to
take some of the heat.
I realize that you folks have constraints in terms
of the time you have, and this is only a suggestion as to
how I think it might be helpful because it's awful lonely
to be up there defending Federal and state regulations when
you're not positive you agree with them, but you are required
to enforce them and you have a lot of angry citizens who
don't agree with them.
So, those are my remarks.
MODERATOR PLEHN: CtLff, thank you very much.
You asked a specific question on why does the
-------
131
Administration give low priority to the funding of RCRA,
and I guess it's my pleasure to answer that.
The President's budget, as you probably know, will
be -- I think it comes out on Saturday. So I'm really not
in a position to be able to talk about what it provides
for the implementation of the program we are discussing
today.
But I think that, probably, we have, here, a prob-
lem of perspective.
1 think that in terms of growth in funding and
percentage terms, when compared to many programs in the
U.S. Government, the funding for RCRA will be able to be
perceived as generous.
I think what you are saying to us here today is
that based on your knowledge of the needs that are out thers,
and the assumptions and commitments that have been made,
that it is your perception that really very significant
growth in funding will be necessary to meet those needs.
So I think that's the problem of perception that
we have with us today.
We have now exhausted the list of persons who
asked to speak.
However, if any of you change your minds in the
course of what follows, we will be very glad to receive
a statement from vou.
-------
132
And so we will now turn to the questions. And
I don't havs these in any particular order.
The first questions says, "Is the EPA qoinq to
discuss the strateqy for RCRA? A lot of us have come a
long way to hear this, not to hear prepared statements from
various Washington interest groups."
My suggestion would be that the best way to handle
that sentiment would be through questions.
If you have specific things that you would like
explained or elaborated on or commented on, if you would
give us one of these questions, that would be, I think,
probably the best way for us to respond to that request.
The next question I have is this: "Land applica-
tion of sewage sludges is currently being pushed by EPA.
Many of these sludges, especially in urban or highly indus-
trial areas, contain high concentrations of heavy metals.
"When land applied, these sludges could pose a
potential public health hazard and could contaminate the
ground water.
"Is not this strategy in direct conflict with
RCRA goals?"
John Skinner, perhaps you could address that ques-
tion .
MR. SKINNER: I think a better way of stating the
fjrfst statement in that question would be that we encourage
-------
133
the land application of municipal sewage sludges providing
that there are sits controls to ensure that crops for
agricultural use and for the food chain uses do not contain
heavy metals such as cadmium.
If you would look at our draft criteria for the
land disposal of solid waste, we would address that issue
and we place some levels of cadmium application which would
restrict the practices which would be or would cause health
problems.
In addition to that effort under RCRA, the agencies
will be, in the future, pushing very, very aggressively
for pretreatment of industrial discharges to remove heavy
metals and toxic materials from industrial discharges to
municipal sewers so that the resulting sludge that comes
out of municipal sewage treatment plants is of a quality
where it can be land spread safely.
And those materials that would be pulled out at
the industrial point of operation would then be subject to
the regulations under RCRA like the industrial waste
Hazardous waste Regulations.
VOICE: Can we offer questions on the responses
to the questions or do we have to wait?
MODERATOR PLEHN : Go ahead.
VOICE: That's an interesting point.
I came here for one reason and that'« to fina out
-------
134
is RCRA going to come up with specific, not guidelines, but
standards on metals content in sludges which would be
allowable for application on various types of soil?
HP. SKINNER: We have specific standards for
cadmium application rates. Not the cadmium application in
the sluda- because it doesn't determine whether the sludge
is qood or bad.
It's the rate at which the cadmium is placed on the
ground. So it's in kilograms of cadmium oer Hecter. And
we have specific standards in the land disposal criteria
as to those levels.
VOICE: Those will come out?
MR. SKINNER: There was an early draft proposed
last May which was circulated for public review and the
proposed regulation is on the Administrator's desk for
signing and should be available in the Federal Register
within the next couple of weeks.
VOICE: Thank you.
MODERATOR PLEHN: The next question is, "Was the
30 million ton estimate for hazardous waste based upon the
definition of hazardous as set forth in the 3001 criteria
r-?gs now being circulated in draft form?"
,3 i And I think this is part of the question. It says:
l!
,4 "Note: My concern is that part of the 3001 draft reg, if
adopted, would have, essentially, all industrial waste
-------
135
hazardous and create a much larger problem than you con-
template. "
Jack Lehman, would you speak to that?
MR. LEHMAN: The answer to the first part is that,
no, the estimates of 30 million metric tons of hazardous
waste are not based on the criteria under 3001 because we
didn't have those criteria when those studies were done
in 1975 and 1976.
They are based on the consultants or contractors
judgment as to what might constitute a potential hazard.
So there's a great deal of possible movement
one way or the other in that number, depending on how the
criteria for 3001 come out.
Now, to address the second part of that question,
the presumption or -- not the presumption so much -- but
the feeling that all of the industrial waste would become
hazardous under the criteria as now proposed, let me just
say that if it turns out that x^ay, we're going to change
the criteria because that is not our intent.
The law does make it clear that we are to address
significant public health and environmental problems. And
it uses words like significant and substantial hazards, and
things like that.
And we are taking that literally. And it is cer-
tainly not our intent to make all industrial wastes into
-------
136
hazardous waste.
MODERATOR PLEHN: This next question I think is
one that I might just handle.
The question is: "The thrust of many of the pro-
posed regulations seem to be to protect water resources.
But with the present EPA setup, solid wastes are under
a separate branch of EPA.
"Do you foresee a realignment within the EPA to
bring these two related functions under one branch? If not,
the strategy should address, to a much greater degree, the
mechanics for coordination of these two functions."
Up until, what was it, early summer, yes; it was
true that the solid waste program was in the Office of Air
and Hazardous or Air and Waste Management in association
with the radiation program, the noise program and the air
pollution control program.
And, at that time, I think this comment, this
question was really well put.
However, over the last six months, the Office of
Solid waste has been reorganized into the Office of Water
and Hazardous Materials under Tom Jorling who spoke to us
this morning.
And in addition to solid waste, he has responsibilit
for the water Pollution Control Program and the Drinking
Water Program.
-------
137
And this has made a great deal of difference in
our ability to work with other elements of the Agency that
are concerned with gound water and surface water protection,
and to coordinate our activities on a common interest such
as the management of sludge and other residuals on land.
Now, as Al Merino indicated from nis experience
in California, coordination is always not the easiest
thing in the world. And I wouldn't pretend that all of
our problems are solved.
But I think that the new structure really has
made an important difference in that we are now much
more capable of pulling our programs together into a co-
herent unit.
The next question is, it says this: "RCRA mandates
state and local government, as well as Federal, to consider
recovered or recycled material and products purchased.
"What plans does EPA have in providing technical
support, product performance criteria or test methods
for new products that will assist the public purchasing
community and industry to fill these procurement mandates?
"Where will the technical assistance come from?
How will industry be involved?"
And, Steve Lingle, would you speak to that, please?
Steve, if you would like to have the question, it
might be helpful to you.
-------
138
MR. LINGLE: I will use a little speed reading
here.
Okay. The first part of the question regarding
information of the types or opportunities for use of
recovered materials and various products, performance,
standards, and so forth.
We ara required, EPA is reauired, under Section
6002 of RCRA, to write guidelines to aid Federal, state
ana local agencies to comply with the requirement that
products be purchased with the maximum practicable quantity
of recovered materials.
So, basically, the guidelines will attempt to
define the opportunities in some of these specifications
as well.
Now, with regard to technical assistance, the
Panel mechanism is a legitimate means of state and local
governments getting assistance on the issue of how to
purchase products containing various products of recovered
materials.
How will industry be involved?
Well, industry will be involved in the development
of the guidelines that I just mentioned.
There will be meetings with industry, public
meetings, and so forth, in order to get their inputs on
the opportunities in this area.
-------
139
MODERATOR PLEHN: It's been suggested to ne that.
it might be more practicable for me to distribute the
questions to the person who anpropriately could answer it,
so that as they rsad it, they could be prepared to provide
you with the answer.
So we will do it. And what we might do is just
kind of go around among the group as w.= work our way through
these questions.
Jack, why don't you take the next one here?
MR. LEHMAN: One of the questions is, "Under the
Federal Pollution Control Act or RCRA, would the generator
of a chemical waste be subjected to continued liability
even if the waste removal is contracted out to a transporter
"If so, under what specific provisions of these
Acts would this take place?"
Well, I can't speak for the Federal water Pollution
Control Act because I'm not as familiar with it as I am
with RCRA.
But speaking for RCRA, it does not specifically
address the legal liability issue directly.
That is still, the province of the courts and not
of a regulatory agency to determine.
However, I might noint out that we ar° structuring
the regulatory program under the Hazardous Waste provisions
to ensure that it is the generator's responsibility to assur
-------
140
the prooer management of his hazardous waste.
This is to counter a current problem which is
that the transporter of the waste, as it goes off-site,
is the decisionmakar as to what happens to that waste.
We are going to change that. The generator is
going to be the decision-maker as to who transports that
waste and where it goes.
And the transporter becomes merely a common carrier
transporting it from point A to point B, and point B being
specified by the generator.
Now. As to the legal liability, getting back to
that, I think we should make the point that under common
legal cases that have — either have been decided recently
or are underway, it appears to point to -- an analysis of
those cases seems to point to a shared liability between
ten generator of the waste and the transporters and the
disposers.
Now that's the way it is now.
I think a further comment is that that's the way
it's operating where there are no rules. And, basically,
there are no rules.
Some states have rules, hut few. And so the judge
makes the rules when you get into court.
But under the advent of RCRA and the Hazardous
Waste Program, there will be a set of national standards
-------
141
upon which a court of law can have a more even judgment
as to liability.
And I would think that if a generator has followed
the rules, namely, has met, in all respects, his responsi-
bility under the Hazardous Waste Provisions once they
become effective, that he would have a pretty good case
in a legal liability situation.
We have a follow-on question.
Yes, sir.
VOICE: At present, the Department of Transportatioi
now, are we going to use the Department of Transportation's
definition of the hazardous material or the EPa's, such
as carcinogenicity or mutagenicity?
MR. LEHMAN: You've asked another question. Not
a follow-on to that one, but I guess I will handle it since
you've raised it.
And that is similar to another question that I have
and I will answer both of those at the same time.
And let me just state the other question too so
we will get it all out on the table. And that is: "What
progress or plans have been instituted to coordinate the
DOT's role'with the EPA regulations?"
That is similar to your question I think.
VOICE: It's my question.
MR. LEHMAN: We didn't forget you. We're going
-------
142
to get there.
The answer to that is, that substantial progress
has been made recently to coordinate the DOT'S responsibilit
under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and EPA's
responsibilities under RCRA.
We are in agreement now, after a number of nego-
tiations over the last several weeks, that is, DOT will
adopt the EPA requirements and promulgate EPA's require-
ments under the DOT authorities.
So that those that are impacted by both, mainly
the transporters, will be reading it all in the same part
of the Federal Register, namely, C.F.R. 49.
We will then adopt, by reference, the DOT require-
ments under RCRA. So you will have a dual authority there,
but it will be published under DOT.
We hope that that will resolve a lot of the prob-
lems that are possible in the transportation industry by
having EPA getting into it.
Now there is a timing problem in all of this,
however.
It is absolutely essential that the transportation
aspect of the Hazardous Waste Program go into effect
simultaneously with all of the other parts of the hazardous
waste regs.
So, as a fallback position, EPA is going to go
-------
143
ahead and propose the transportation regulations under
RCRA in the Federal Register under EPA aegis.
And so that if for some reason DOT is not able
to meet our schedule to get their regs out, then we will
be in a position to promulgate ours.
So I hope everyone understands what I'm saying
".here; it is that we want to go along in a fallback posi-
tion so that if this timing situation doesn't work out
right, we're not holding up the whole Hazardous VJaste Pro-
gram.
MR. LINGLE: I have a couole of questions here
relating to the technical assistance panels and how they
are going to function and, particularly, one of them is
how people or individuals will be selected to serve on
the panels, particularly those frora the private sector.
Let me explain the basic function of the technical
assistance panels. How they are set up to operate.
The resources that can he utilized at the technical
assistance panels are basically these: first of all, there
will be private consultants under contract to EPA in each
of our regions. They will be multidi/fciplinary in that
they will be able to provide assistance in all areas of
solid waste management, resource, recovery, land disposal
and hazardous waste collection.
So the consultants are one of the resources.
-------
144
The second resource is what we call peer matching,
which is something that was mentioned earlier this morning
which is simply, obviously, one city official helping anothe
and one state official helping another, and so forth.
And that is carried out through a series of grants
which we have with various of the public interest groups.
The third basic resource is the staff of EPA, both
regional and headquarters.
And the fourth resource is staff of other Federal
agencies.
And the fifth resource is people from the private
sector.
Now, the responsibility for putting together a
panel falls, in each case, on the team leader from the
region.
As was mentioned earlier, the panels are region-
alized. All requests go into the regions and the regions
carry out the response to those requests.
So, the regional -- a team leader will be named
for each of the requests which is going to be filled. And
that team leader will select from this pool of resources
the team that he thinks can best fulfill the TA needs.
Another part of the question was, how do cities
request assistance through the TA panel mechanism?
Requests will be made to each of EPA's 10 regional
-------
145
offices and the request should be m.ade in writing. And
thare is a list of points which should K° covered in the
request, which I won't go into here.
In some cases, the regional officers, depending
on the region you're going to request, or may request, that
requests go through the state before coming to EPA.
That is a decision that each regional office can
make on its own.
Ones the request reaches the regional office,
they will evaluate the various requests, prioritize then
and make decisions, obviously, on who can get assistance,
and so forth.
Okay. I think that orattv much covers the basic
elements of the panel orogram, unless somebody has a specifi
question or point of clarification on that.
MR. SKINNER: I have three questions on land
disposal which are somewhat related.
The first one is, "what statutory remedies are
available to citizens confronted by the construction of
a non-federally assisted landfill which may adversely
affect drinking of recreational waters?"
Under Section 4004, we nave to issue standards for
disposal sites, all disposal sites, including landfills,
and there should be. And the stafcss should be doing federall
assisted landfills and non-federally assisted landfills.
-------
146
I'm not sure why that was asked. There shouldn't
be a distinction, but these apply to all land disposal
sitss in the United States within a definition of solid
waste and disposal in the Act.
Those standards are implemented by the states, and
the states have to put together programs to ensure that
all nsw disposal is done in compliance with those criteria,
and, that all existing disposal facilities that do not
meet the criteria are either closed or upgraded over a
period of time.
In those situations, when there is not an approved
state plan and the state does not have the site in viola-
tion of the criteria under a compliance schedule to bring
it into compliance with the standards, the citizen's suit
provision of the Act could be invoked, and citizens could
sue, in Federal court, for the correction of that land
disposal site.
The next question in "What prioritv will mining
operations, including the overburdened lakes, settling
ponds, et cetera, be regulated, and is overburden, as well
as the settling ponds or treatment lake considered an
open dump?"
As you probably are aware, there is a Mining Waste
Study in the Act which is due for comnletion this October.
And the current draft of the Hazardous Waste Regulations
-------
147
exclude mining wastes from the Hazardous Waste Regulatory
aspects of the Act until that study is completed.
For the non-hazardous waste regulations, the legis-
lative history excludes mining and milling residues that
are returned to the mine.
And so, those have been excluded from the disposal,
the land disposal standards that are being prepared under
Subtitle D.
But all other disposal operations for mining wastes
will have to comply with the 4094 land disposal criteria.
And if a settling pond or a treatment lake for mining wastes
does violate those criteria, that is, if it has an adverse
impact upon surface water or ground water or violates any
of the other criteria that have been indicated, it would
be an open dump under the Act and then subject to the up-
grading or closure provisions of the Subtitle D state planning
activities.
In our guidance to the states, we have indicated
a relatively low priority to mining wastes in the next
year, mainly because we would like to complete the mining
waste study to get a better feel for the ways in which
mining wastes would be dealt with.
But the states do have the opportunity to use the
Subtitle D planning provisions on their own to regulate
mining wastes.
-------
148
And the final question which, again, is along
the same lines.
"Would you elaborate, in more detail, on how waste
water impoundments, equalization and aerated lagoons
will be regulated?
"What guidelines will be written and when would
they go into effect?"
Again, the Section 4004 land disposal criteria
would apply to such impoundments.
It would not apply to municipal waste water im-
poundments because those are explicitly excluded in the Act.
Solid waste does not include dissolved solids in domestic
sewage but industrial waste water impoundments would be
subject to the Section 4004 land disposal criteria.
And they would go into effect when they are final~
ized which we expect to be sometime toward the middle or
end of this year.
MR. HICKMAN: I will pick up with a couple of
more.
"For a metropolitan community in the southeastern
United States comprising of over approximately .300,000
persons, how much money and other assistance will be allotte
for employing consulting engineers to design or provide a
feasibility study for implementation of the solid waste
and resource recovery system?"
-------
149
The first part, of how much would be available
in Fiscal Year '78, none.
Perhaps, depending upon how the money — the budget
survives in '79 and how state agencies, themselves, will
utilize their resources, somebody might be available.
Most of the money in RCRA that goes to state and
local government is done on a population allotment basis,
and this money will flow to the regional office and, in
turn, will flow to the state government.
We have nothing in our plans in '78, or at the
present time in "79, to have any direct funding assistance
programs to local governments.
At present, the plan visualizes a passthrough
clown through state government.
As far as technical assistance in this sort of
area, I think Steve has described the technical assistance
program to some degree.
And our program, in technical assistance, will
not do design work nor will it do feasibility studies, per
se.
Now, we believe that we could be most effective
with state governments, and this is where our priorities
are in the next couple of years, and with local govern-
ments, also, in TA, to be involved with them in the early
planning phases so that when they go out to contract for
-------
150
a feasibility study with a qualified consulting firm, that
they lay out the necessary requirements within their work
scope to get the product back that they want to help make
decisions.
And then we will ride shotgun with them in that
decisionmaking process.
This has been our normal experience with other
cities to date.
A second question along the same line. "In additio
how soon will this assistance be made available?"
Our Technical Assistance Program is in place now
and it's available through the regional offices. And if
you have an interest in a particular regional office and
in contacting that regional office, if you will see Steve
Lingle, or me, or any of the members up here on the Panel
after this meeting, we will give you the right name and
address to contact.
MODERATOR PLEHN: One question was will EPA
strategy involve the Department of Commerce in assisting
and in market analysis?
I think the answer-to that is that we think that
the responsibilities assigned to the Department of Commerce
for such things as development of product specifications
for recycled material and their assistance in market
development are quite important to the future of resource
-------
IbJL
recovery in this country.
And w=* are very suopcrtive of -those. Anrt, in
assisting in that development.
I have two questions here relating to the; activities
of thri Kesource Conservation Committee which are related
One is, "Please comment on tn=» prospects for a
product disposal charqe similar to California's tax."
.And the second question is, "Under RCRA, the 7e
Conservation Committee lias responsibility to make recom-
mendations on implication of charcr°s on consumer nroducts
to reflect solid waste mananc-ment costs.
"RCRA authorizes EPA to conduct a pilot disposal
charge program.
"Does EPA plan to conduct that pilot program and
what is the timing of it?"
I think the answer to both of those questions is
that the Resource Conservation Committee is actively or
staff of the Resource Conservation Committee, which means,
primarily, staff of the Office of Solid Waste, is actively
analyzing ths concept of the product charge in some detail,
both to try to come to some resolution about very difficult
design issues that would be involved in such a oroposal
and, also, to define, as well as can be, what the economic
and environmental, and other imnacts of such a proposal are
Once that analysis is complete, that concept will
-------
152
be reviewed by the Resource Conservation Committee and it
will mak= the decision as to whether it wishes to make
a recommendationto the President and the Congress regarding
it.
We have no pilot program to — a pilot study to
test out the product charge underway in the office and
have no plans to undertake such.
VOICE: Do you have a target date for that analysis
MODERATOR PLEHN: Well, the Resource Conservation
Committee's statutory life expires sometime in the fall.
And the analysis, I think, is expected to be completed in
March, or Ppril or May. Sometime in that time period.
MR. LINGLE : I have another question here which
I think really relates to the Resource Conservation Com-
mittee too.
It regards the various state or Federal proposals
for deposits — beverage container deposit laws, and the
questions is, "Whether or not, with RCRA, what will EPA's
stand be on state bills or the national bill?"
The EPA does not take a stand on state bills of
this type.
With regard to a national bill, again, the Resource
Conservation Committee is charged to look at this and they
produced sort of an interim report on this issue about a
month ago.
-------
153
And in that report, they delayed a final decision
as to whether or not they would recommend a national law
of this type.
And a final recommendation will be forthcoming
some months into the future; maybe six months, or so, into
the future.
So, there is not a Federal resolution on the
national bill in terms of a recommendation from the Resource
Conservation Committee.
I also have a question here which relates back
to the one on procurement.
And the question relates to the responsibilities of
the Department' of Commerce and NBS. And it was pointed
out that both the Department of Commerce, particularly,
NBS, does have some responsibilities in their Section 5002
under RCRA which relates to the procurement of recovered
materials.
In particular, they are charged with developing
specifications for recovered materials under Section 5002.
Specifications meaning the kind of specifications that
materials would have to meet in order to be sold to a user
so that they could use it in the product;
So, yes, very definitely. Department of Commerce
and NBS does have a role in the procurement area.
And as Steff Plehn mentioned, they also have a
-------
154
broader role in the area of marketing.
And I might also mention at this time, although
it hasn't been brought up, that the Department of Energy
has a role in the area of resource recovery from waste.
And in the case of both the Department of Commerce
and the Department of Energy, we are working together with
those agencies in a cooperative way, and we've worked out
inttragency agreements with them and we're going to try
to tie the whols process togethsr so that we can have an
integrated Federal program frorr all of those agencies.
MR. LEHMAN: It's my turn again.
I have a blizzard of questions here. Why don't
I do this, Steff?
I will just continue to answer some of these until
you think I've had too long in the barrel and then you can
come back.
The first ones I would like to address are follow-
up questions on what I said before.
The first question: "Mr. Lehman stated that DOT
will adopt the EPA requirements for identifying and trans-
porting hazardous waste.
"Does that include resolution on the 100 degree
versus 140 degree flash point criteria? Which will prevail?
Let me comment on the first part first.
I did not mean to imply that DOT was going to
-------
155
adopt EPA requirements for identifying hazardous waste.
No, sir, or ma'am, as the case may be.
DOT is adopting the transportation requirements
of RCRA, but not the identification requirement. That is
a separate regulation and that will remain the sole province
of EPA to define what a hazardous waste is and to identify
it.
Wherever possible in that identification process,
we are trying to make the EPA definition of the criteria
and the DOT criteria ident>fical. And if not identical,
you know, very consistent.
Now, you've got to bear in mind, there, they
may not always be identical because the criteria for the
DOT hazardous materials transportation regulation are
based on transportation safety. Whereas, RCRA is aimed
at public health and environmental protection which are
similar but not identical goals.
And that gets down to this last point of that
question.
There is, in our current draft, a difference in
describing flash point. The DOT flammability criteria
cuts off at 100 degrees Fahrenheit flash point whereas we
are contemplating 140 degrees.
Nov.', this has relevance only whan the identificatio
-------
156
of whether a waste is a hazardous waste.
It does not necessarily change the shipping re-
quirements and all the placarding, and all of that. In
other words, you would use the DOT symbols for a waste
in accordance with the DOT criteria, once it's been identi-
fied as a hazardous waste.
I hope that answers that question.
Okay. Another questions. A similar followup.
"If the waste generator has a primary responsi-
bility for hazardous waste management and waste haulers
will have lesser liability if improper disposal exists,
would not a shared responsibility for either or, or both
gsnerator and haulers make both parties interested in com-
plying with regulations?"
Well let me just clarify that.
The transporters don't get off scottfres here
Either.
I mentioned there is a set of requirements under
HCRA National Standards for Transporters, and they have
to abide by those standards whether it's administered
ar.d promulgated under RCRA or promulgated under DOT. It
makes no difference.
And, this concept of liability is really, as I
said sarli?r, 1 think more a legal issue rathsr than a
regulatory issue.
-------
157
Ivnoth -r followup. "In your r--?pons- *~o an earlier
question, you discussed a concept cf s'iar = r! liabilities
existing between ths generator and the transporter.
"Can you name any specific court cast-:s addressing
ft
this concupt?"
Off the top of my head, I cannot. But if the
author would writs me, I will respond to this question
from our filss. I will dig out som-s stuff then.
A new qu-stion. "Thi objectiv=s of ths strategy
rifarrec to establishing a 'acctptablo l=vils of protection
for solid waste, generally' but uses the terra 'eliminate
present or potential hazards' in referenca to hazardous
waste.
"Docs the implementation strategy contemplate
a zero rislt concept for hazardous wasti?"
The answer is no. Arid, as a matter of fact, I
had the same comment on my copy of the draft strategy.
I caught that word "eliminate hazards" also bscause it's
a question of wording, and we certainly do not want to
imply a zero risk strategy because that is not the case.
A question. "Please comment on the developmet
of performance standards for specific substances under TSCA,
Toxic Substance Control Act, versus process standards for
general classes of waste under RCRA."
Okay. First of all, there is a slight misunderstan
ing
-------
158
her- in ths question because the RCRA standards arr per-
formance standards also.
I don't want to get into dstails, but w^ are.
basing the hazardous waste regulations on nerformanct-,
supplemented by process standards.
But the. primary standards are performance oriented.
To get at the meat of the question, I believe
ths questioner is referring to tho PCB disposal regulations
under TSCA which ar^ explicitly mandated, by TSCA and, you
know, how is that going to relate to -he overall issua
of control of the disposal and treatment and storage of
all hazardous waste?
Mow that's a good question.
I think our intantion hare is, well, first of all,
the Agency must respond to TSCA as well as RCRA. We really
have no choice. We have to develop both of those regulations
because the law requires that so that is bsing dons.
The intent is to fold in ths PCB disposal regula-
tions into the RCRA permit process at a latsr time when
the RCRA system goes into effect.
Now. As ro subsequent substances identified under
TSCA that need special regulations, we feel that the RCRA
Hazardous Wasts Disposal regulations will be generally
sufficient to cover all of those. And so you won't need
e.xplici-, specific disposal regulations under TSCA.
-------
159
However, if it turns out that there is some rationa]J.=-
that a particular toxic substance needs som-; special degre
of management or cart in the disposal or treatment or
storage phase, then that is certainly possible that one
could supplement the RCRA regulations with additional spe-
cific requirements. And, that could bi. done under the
authority of TSCA or RCRA.
Anyway, that's the general plan as to how to rr
those two requirements together.
Another questions. "What are the proposed rsgula-
tions to be published in the Federal Register for Subtitle C
and Subtitle D criteria for landfill?"
John Skinner really answered the last part of
that question already.
He mentioned that the proposed landfill criteria
are on the Administrator's desk awaiting signature and
should be published momentarily.
The Subtitle C schedule for proposed regulations
is that some of you may not realize that there are ssven
different regulations being prepared in parallel under
Subtitle C.
We intend to phase the proposed regulations over
time so that the public is not overwhelmed, and I think-.
that is an accurata word, not overwhelmed with seven
r2gulations to comment on simultaneously.
-------
160
Also, wfc' ra going to phase thsrn in tin;, because
of other reasons.
Ths first regulation or, it's actually a guide-
line under Subtitle C, is the one under Section 3006 that
deals with the critsria by which one will judg". whether
a state hazardous waste management program is equivalent
and consistent to the Federal hazardous waste program for
purposes of authorizing that state to carry on the program.
Now, that guideline is also in its final stages.
7ind the last I heard yesterday afternoon, that was finally
breaking loose. And it has already been through most of
the clearance processes and it also should be hsaded
towards the Administrator's desk today or tomorrow or
close to it.
So you should look for that particular proposed
reg which will be the first one under Subtitls C to be
in the Federal Register shortly. Soon afte.r the landfill
criteria.
From then on, all of the other regulations under
Subtitle C will be phased in at approximately monthly
intervals.
3010, on notification, we anticipate'to come out
in February; 3001 — well, 3003 on transport will be the
next one, and probably also in February or March; and then
3001, 3002, 4 and 5, in that order, hopefully.
-------
161 !
And hopefully, that answers your question. j
Well, 1st r.k= clarify, though, that while we may
propose thise in a staggered sequence, we intend to pro-
mulgate i.hera in final form simultaneously. All of them
simultaneously except for the first two I mentioned.
And we have th« ona dealing with the states and
one dealing with the notification. Those two can stand
alone.
The others are a set and have to go into affect
simultaneously so thiy will ba promulgated simultaneously.
VOICE: April 21st?
Ml. LEHMAN: The law requires that they be pro-
mulgated on April 1st, 1978, which is, if I look at; my
watch, hert, is approximately three months from today.
I doubt, seriously, that you will see that happen.
MODERATOR PLEIIN : I might just jump in there, Jack,
to givs you a short breather because we have a question that
is related to that which says: "The Act contained rathar
ambitious benchmark dates for accomplishment of objectives
of the regulations.
?7hsr= doss EPA stand on progress versus original
schedule?"
I think the short answer to that is w^ ars some-
where between six months and 10 months, probably, behind
various deadlines that art set in tlia Act.
-------
162
I think a major reason fox that was that the Act
was passed -- will, I think, probably a major reason is
that the requirements which the Act placed on EPA and
regulation d3vr.lopmant wsra exceedingly complex, and that
that problem was compounded by the timing with its occurring
as th=. Ag-.-ncy was going through ths transition between
the two administrations, which is not the tinu; that the
Agency generally does its bast work or most rapid wor!:.
And to give Jack just a little bit more of a rest,
I rniqht take or.™ mor-- question which is this : "The
strategics, as most EPA strategies, fails to addrsss tht
desirability of privat^ sector participation, particularly
in recycled (prevention).
"Does EP.A concern itself with s^rat-'gizing to
accomplish mor' effective and cost efficient results via
private sector involvement?
"Does EPA realize that its lack of W2ll-T^at = c]
goals and lad- of internal coordination seriously serves
to discourage major private sector participation?
"The private sector finds it difficult to risk
its resources to any —" let's s.ee — "sales...' I think
i1: is, "ether than sal- of Equipment to the municipalities
since we find it difficult to fathom the long-t=rm rul^s
of your game."
I think that's a sentim=nt which the Office of
-------
Soldo Waste is quit= sympathetic to.
1 know ir- was always a Major concern in th-_ ar_a
of hazardous wastt :r.anag=ment that thos-~; privat; enter-
prises which invested, made thu necessary ir.vesti.>,nt in
adequate, storage and treatment facilities, disposal facili-
ties, found that thtir market ware not th^r°. as expected
because there wsre unregulated low-cost alternative? which
Wore available to ths persons with hazardous wc.st=.c.
Hopefully, the regulatory program undir Subtitle. C
will constitute a major correction in that situation.
And I think, in that ar-a, rhat it will i>e thc-
actual promulgation of regulations and their criforc ,n-^nt
that I think v/ill provide the certitude of markets that
the private sector has bsen looking for.
MR. HICKMAN: Question. "Are th-.re any sunset
clauses within RCRA..." I gutss, "...for ths developing
regulations and are there any future decision points for
modification of RCRA and regulations and strategy?1'
I guess, to the legal sense, are there sunset
clauses that says if you don't do it by this date, the
door closes, thfvn the answer is no.
As Jack and Steff havs both indicated, there ar-^
deadlines for when the guidelines and criteria are sup-
posed to be out and we are running behind on thosu.
There is a requirement, under the law, that every
-------
164
three years, all regulations and guidelines promulgated
under the authorities of RCRA must be reconsidered and
raevaluated and reissued.
Thera is, as Steff has indicated this morning,
based on — already sent, but we received from you, it
makes sense to keep this strategy as a viable and a dynamic
sort of thing and look at it again as our experience in
implementing KCRA downstream begins to occur.
So the strategy will be reconsidered and revised
and reissued at some period of time yet unclear to us.
Let me take a couple more.
Here's a super question, and I wish I had a good
anser for it. "Several facilities, Federal facilities
will comply..." I'm glad to hear that. "Federal facilities
will comply with EPA guidelines.
"However, we are concerned, the state and local
agencies inspecting us, even though we're already being
inspected by EPA, will the Act consider this duplication
effort and sa/e us additional resources or services?"
"Or give us." I can't tell from the writing.
Well, the law says that Federal agencies must
comply with both Federal, state and local regulations and
guidelines for solid waste management.
And we've had discussions with the Federal agencies
with state agencies and with our own office of Federal
-------
165
Activities, and the way we see it/ one best way to deal
with this — and it is not resolved, yet, as to what is
the best way if there is one — that the regional adminis-
trators of EPA and state agencies, in concert, may arrange
that only one agency will do the inspection for all
environmental regulations.
And that inspection and monitoring would suffice
for all agencies that are concerned.
This is one way to do it. If that's not the case,
then, indeed, there may be state agencies inspecting facili-
ties as well as EPA agencies. But it makes sense that
we ought to be able to work something out in a joint partner
ship between Federal agencies, EPA regional offices and
state agencies to see that one process will take care of
the needs of all parties concerned.
Now, you have to recognize there is more to the
law than 3006. The land disposal criteria being developed
by John Skinner will also apply to the Federal agencies,
per se, due to the fact that state governments will have
to have regulations consistent with 4004 and Federal agen-
cies will have to meet those regulations.
Jack, do you want to respond to how you are going
to regulate the Feds?
MR. LEHMAN: Well, Section, I believe it's 6001,
that you were referring to, Lanny, concerning the applicatio
-------
166
of all requirements of RCRA on Federal facilities, certainly
applies to the hazardous waste provisions as well.
And so, if a state has an authorized hazardous
waste program, the Department requirements of that state
program would apply to Federal facilities within that state.
If the state does not have a program, then the
Federal requirements would apply. But there's no question
that the hazardous waste provision will be administered
to Federal facilities, as well as everybody else.
MR. SKINNER: I have a few other questions.
Another question about when the 4004 standards
will be issued.
And let me just use that as an opportunity to
indicate that when we do issue it, hopefully, within the
next few weeks, we will have a 90-day public comment
period.
We will also have at least three public hearings
in Washington, probably Kansas City and somewhere on the
West Coast, San Francisco or Seattle. And we encourage
you to attend the public hearings to testify at them and
also to submit written comments on these standards.
Another questions. "Why only regulations on
cadmium for land application? What about nickel, copper,
zinc, cyanide and other heavy metals?"
Most of the research that has been done with
-------
167
raspect to land fanning"and land application for agricul-
tural uses has been oriented around sewage sludge, or
municipal sewage sludge, and cadmium has been singled out
as the primary metal of concern.
It is uptaken in significant quantities and it's
also not vital toxic where it doesn't kill the plants.
So you can get high lav=ls of cadmium buildup in plants
where, with these other materials, it is less of a problem.
Pending further research and further investiga-
tions, we will modify the criteria and include restrictions
on the uptake of these other metals as well.
So, I just think more work has to be done along
those linss before we can do that.
"What role do you see in the present adequate
sanitary landfills playing in the future waste disposal
technology?"
I guass we all realize that land disposal is
here to stay. And most waste disposal, in the future, is
going to be on the land, one way or the other.
And while we certainly encourage resource recovery
and will push aggressively for it, there's always going to
be a residual to be disposed of on the land.
And W3 see sanitary landfilling being a key in
the future of waste disposal technology. And we hope that
it's done properly with minimal environmental impacts in
-------
168
confor^ianc" wj th thr. standards that vo issn" and tha states
issu . as w---ll.
Another question. "What coordination bas been made
between EPA and Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclama-
tion and Enforcement regarding disposal of byproducts of
the mining site?"
In th= mining study wnich we are currsntly carrying
out right now undir Section 8000 of the Act, the Dipartraant
of In-c=.rior and the Bureau of Mines are participating with
us in that study.
And they will review the results and we intend
to use their expertise with respect to mine waste disposal
as we develop our guidelines.
A final question, and I'm not sure I understand
it. I will answer it the way I think it is being posed.
"What will be the factors separating industrial
water treatment, ponds, lagoons and basins and those ponds,
lagoons and basins under Section 4004?"
And I don't know what you mean by the factors
separating.
If you're referring to the fact that certain indus-
trial discharges to surface waters require a 402 permit
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and that
the technology, the best management technology to comply
with that permit is also a condition of the permit, if that'
-------
169
the point you're getting at, thosi discharges requiring
such a permit would not bs covered by RCRA.
All other industrial impoundments, ponds, lagoons
and basins would b= covsred, both by the. Section 4004
criteria of the hazardous waste criteria if the basin,
pond or lagoon contained a hazardous waste.
MR. LINGLE: I have a couple of more questions here
related to resource recovery and the TA panels.
This question, with regard to the panel, says:
"Will the EPA Technical Assistance Program be limited to
resource recovery, high technology, land disposal and
exclude or deny requests for assistance in other areas such
as procurement and energy conservation and recovery?"
The Panel program is not limited to those items
such as high technology and land disposal.
It is applicable to a broad range of issues re-
lating ro solid waste management. The source separation
systems, resource recovery plants, land disposal, hazardous
waste management, collection.
It is definitely applicable to the procurement
area. And let me just give you an example there.
That's a good example of how groups outside of
EPA might be pulled into this and how peer matching might
be used.
In the procurement area, for example, the National
-------
170
Governor's Association has a committee of stata purchasing
officials. Some of these people could serve through the
peer matching program to inform other officials of how
they have been able to incorporate into their procurement
specifications the requirements for recovery of materials.
In addition to that, the Department of Commerce
is another Federal agency that could be brought into a
panel situation to advise on specifications relating to
procurement.
So, yes, it is definitely available.
Now, it is not available for areas outside of
solid waste management.
This mentions the general area of energy conser-
vation. It would not be available for energy conservation
in matters not relating to solid waste management.
Okay? Is that clear or are thare any questions
on that? Okay.
The other question is on a different thing, ami
it says: "IThat progress has bean made in studying the
marketability of various elements in the solid waste
stream? For example, glass, paper, tires and aluminum?"
Wall, that's a pretty difficult question to answer
succinctly here.
I will say that EP.A has been evaluating marketabilii
of thsss products for quite some tine. Several years, actually.
-------
171
And ws do have a number of publications on "them.
And I r?.fi;r you to the list of publications -hat
is on the table outsids. On the registration table.
W= do have information or. a r.umb?r of those .
There also is going to be increased emphasis on that through
for: example, the Department of Commerce involvement in the
Resource Recovery Act. And industry is very much involved
in this.
There's a committee of ASTM which is involvsd
with trying to set specifications so that they are fairly
uniform specifications for products recovered from the
waste stream.
So, we have looked at these, both EPA and other
groups, and there's a fair amount of information on them.
There will, obviously, be additional studies
and evaluations and market -- determining market locations,
and so forth, for all of these various products.
MR. LEHMAN: Okay. We have quite a few more
hazardous waste related qusstions, and let me get to those.
Before I do, however, I would like to also com-
ment, the same as John Skinner just did, that I mentioned
all of the Subtitle C regulations coming up in proposed
form in a staggered sequence.
We also will have at least three public hearings
on each of those during the proposal comment hearing. And,
-------
172
again, they will be sprinkled geographically around tht
country.
We hope to -- well, we intend to have a hearing
in at least every EPA Federal region.
So, let me start out with the cards again.
One individual, here, has made a very forthright
statement followed by a very perplexing question, and, so,
let me read the forthright statem&nt.
It says, "I have learned more since Q&R period
than all the morning session. Suggest in future that
statements be read last and questions Le first."
VOICES: Hear, hear.
MR. LEHMAN: The perplexing question.
We had reference to a sunset clausa, and this
one refers basically to a grandfather clause.
It says, "How will small outfits that oot to
abandon their facility rather than meet the provisions
of RCRA be closed and afforded long-term care?"
Well, as I mentioned, that is a perplexing ques-
tion because there is no grandfather clause in RCRA. It
goes back and picks up all of thii problems that society
has generated over the last 300 years in this country.
We are not unaware of that problem. We havs
considered what remedies we might hav~ to deal with that
issue. And, to be honest with you, we don't see any under
-------
173
RCRA at this tims .
And if you hav.-= some concepts about how RCRA could
be applied in those cases, please get in touch with us
b^causj we havt thought about it and not been abl-a to
corns up with any yet.
Ths n^xt questions. "Who will hav= the rpsponsi-
hility to ensure that no hazardous substances ars -snittTd
during th= burning of solid waste?"
Well, if the question refers to hazardous waste,
that is clearly covered under th« Control Program under
Subtitl-- C whir^ "missions of all sort, wh-x-thsr thsy he
into th'- air, in surface water or into ground water, v;ill
be covered by the perforir>anc.-- standards, th?. Rational
Standards, undsr Ssction 3004, and such facilities that
do incine:rats or burn hazardous waste will r-quir? a n-irni^
und-?r th:; regulations und-;r Sac^ion 3005.
And, as I mentioned, ths whol= concept of RCRA,
in general, and the hazardous xvasta provisions, in particula
is that the states ar« to take on this program. That is
the Congressional intent. It is vsry clsar.
And sc, assuming the state has that authority, it
would ba the state that would be carrying out the ^nforcc-
mant program ayainst such facilities.
In the cas-= whare states do not taks it on, it
would bu the Faderal EPA enforcament that would do that.
-------
174
LJOW, if the question refers to municipal solid
waste burning, there are two parts to that: one is, of
course, that if you arc rsferring to open burning, that
is prohibited by RCRA and by the definition of what an
op-_n dump is, and so on.
And, in that case, that would be, again, the- stata
responsibility to enforce against that.
If we're talking about municipal solid waste from
incinerators, here, again, essentially, the only standards
that apply in that cast, as I understand it, are the Clean
Air Act standards for emissions such as particulates and
SO and NO and so on. And that is generally enforced by
x x
a statt implementation plan under'the Clean Air Act.
I hope that covars all of the possibilities, thtre.
Perhaps we read more into that question than was intended.
This is a sort of u frustrated individual, I think.
Iz says, "Please provide somr, examples of nonhazardous
industrial waste that fall within the 90 percent of indus-
trial waste that would not require permits or disposal in
a hazardous waste management facility."
I got the feeling that nobody trusts us out there.
We -- well, I would be hesitant to say that a
specific waste will not be a hazardous waste.
However, thera is one particular waste stream
which I think I can safely say would not be hazardous waste
-------
175
because we have some test data on -that already which, I thini
wll illustrate what we mean. And that is, foundry sand.
Well, now, wait a minute. That's not as simple as it
sounds.
Foundry sand contains a substantial amount of
heavy metals. And, in other words, if you did a chemical
analysis of foundry sand, you would find that it does
contain a substantial quantity of heavy metals; toxic
heavy metals.
However, in the process of foundry operations, all
the material is essentially liquified into a mass which
cannot Isach or will not leach under normal conditions.
And, so, consequently, it is clear that that
material, and there's a substantial amount of foundry
sand in this country which is then, I can safely say,
probably a nonhazardous industrial waste.
But I think this is what I'm trying to get after
here. It is that there are a number of industrial wastes
that have some toxic materials in them, let's say. But
those materials are not available for emission into the
water or into the air.
And, so, that is the distinction, I think one
of the major distinctions about nonhazardous versus
hazardous.
There is sort of a ralated question. It says,
-------
17C
"Would ths Ames Test-- being proposed as a toxicity screening
procedure, and this is in the definitional aspect, do
you rsally =xpect that even municipal waste and sludge
would pass such a test, 1st alone most industrial wastes,
th-;r..by declaring most wastes to be hazardous?"
It1--? a slight; variation on the other question.
v.'tll, first of all, let m-3 comment on that.
r.unicipal waste, in our draft, ara exempted. In
ether words, v;= fas! that it is not the Congressional intent
to bring municipal waste under th- hazardous wasts control
system, so w; -^xt^nt them out cf hand.
As to tha Ames Test, the wording is being proposed
as j toxicity scresning procedure.
To b= mor° exact, it is under consideration. It
is being consi-IirerT by us as a toxicity serening proc--dur';.
and it is baing dons, not for toxicity, per se, but as
an indicator screening tast for g;-.n~tic change materials
and carcinogens.
Mow, 1st me r«it--rats. It has not bscn proposed
by EPA as a screening procedure. It is under consideration.
There are several other procedures and test protocols
being considered as well.
So, we have not reached any agreement on -chat.
But, to get to the thrust of the question, really, again,
I just reiterate that it is not our intent to bring most
-------
177
wast;: under the control of th& hazardous waste program.
Another question under Section 3005 permits.
"Why has a special —" "Vfliy have a special definition for
'resource recovery facilities' if there, is to be no special
limited permit provisions for such facilities such as
for product recovery facilities?"
Well, I think there's some confusion here because,
in fact, not .only is there a definition, but there are,
in the current drafts of Section 3005 reg, there; are special
limited permit provisions for such facilities.
And perhaps the confusion is in the two words.
For a time, we referred to resource recovery
facilities in our draft regs, and then we changed that
wording to product recovery facilities.
Perhaps that's ths root of this confusion. But,
in fact, what we arc attempting to do, here, is to respond.
And I think this was commented upon by some of the spsak&rs
this morning.
We rsally are attempting to address both aspects
of RCRA, namely, the public health protection and also
resource conservation and recovery in the hazardous waste
regulations.
We are making a valiant effort to do that and
this is oii<= way to do it is to make it easier for people
in the resource recovery cr product recovery business to
-------
173
get a permit than it would be otherwise under the hazardous
waste provisions.
So that'1; one of the concepts that we are seriously
considering and will probably be in the proposal and
would be interested in your response to that.
Another question. Tha ne:;d for perpetual care.
"IThat research has been done concerning perpetual
car-.--, for (a) hazardous waste sites, and, (b) municipal
landfills?"
Well, 1st me just comment, and we don't use the
term perpetual care in EPA; some people do but we don't.
v:~ recognize that perpetual is a long time and no one
can guarantee, in perpetuity, what's going to happen.
Me do ref?.r to long-term care, however, and that
distinction may escape you, but —
VOICE: It depends on your ago.
MR. LEHilAN : Yes, it does. And the comment
was, it depends on your age.
WE do feel that ones — no'-;, I'n talking specifi-
cally, now, about a hazardous vasts site, that one; you
havr- taken on the responsibility of accepting hazardous
waste in a land disposal facility or a land spreading
situation, that your responsibility continues after you
c=asr- operations because there still remains the possi-
bility that these materials can be leached out at a
-------
173
subs=-qu.--nt tims psriou.
So w= are talking ahou^ pos4: clormr^ rr rtuir =r:--n^s.
whic'i consist of a sampling of -xistina ground water,
monitoring v?lls, providing security to the facility to
prtvint unauthorized access, you know, this type of situa-
tion.
So, perhaps thc.r= is a misconception hsr-.. I an
not sure about what the questioner meant by saying what
research has b-ezn done, because it's not a technological
aspect of p=rpstual care so much as it is a hous5l--s = ping
or surviillanc^ type of operation hsrc. in which I think
is well understood and rtially doesn't rtquirr a great dial
of rbS'iarcli.
As to municipal landfills, whil= I guess I, per-
sonally -- I think John would agrss -- that's a good icl=a
for municipal landfills. It is not within the power, I
don't beli=v=, of TICRA, as it's written, for us to specify
post closure long-term cars for municipal landfill.
So we really haven't addressed that.
I will savi th-i best one for last, hers.
"Uhat measures are --'' or, is, I gusss, "...is
EPA taking to rssolve the question of statas closing
th=ir borders to shipments of waste from other statss?"
The importation ban issue. Thera was some dis-
cussion of this point this morning.
-------
180
As you probably are avare, that particular issue
is being addressed by the United States Supreme Court at
this point, and th=/'r- going to be issuing ^ ruling on
thi new Jersey case at some- p=riod during their court year
which ends in June.
So, we anticipate the Supreme Cour;; acting on
that one way or the other.
How, the point; is, though, that the N'ew Jersc-y
case isn't the whole issue.
When you're talking about closing borders to ship-
ments of waste, the New Jersey case doesn't cover all of
the possibilities there.
EPA has gone on racord as a policy of being
opposed to importation bans because we feel that you can
consider waste flow to be -- you can draw a parallel be.-
tw^en waste sheds and air sheds and water sheds.
There are often/times, when it just makes sense
for facilities to bs planned and built and operated to
serve a community v;hich has a national marketing ar^a,
namely, a waste, shed which can, and often does, cross
political boundaries. And Philadelphia is one example,
Chicago is another one and St. Louis.
There are a number of large Metropolitan areas
that crossed the barrisrs.
So what are we doing, then, to resolvt the- question
-------
1 SI
1'h- thing that w~. art going about; mostly is that;
under Section 3006 of :^CPJv, the Hazardous Waste, provisions,
wt ar= developing, as I mentioned ^arli^r, the criteria
for what constitutes an acceptable stat- program, one
that is equivalent and consistent with the- Federal program
for hazardous waste.
And we hav- a number of options concerning tht
importation ban issue that ar= discusstd in that draft or
proposed r=g that I mentioned that is clos= to being on
the /"idministrator' s d.~sk.
Mid so, what ws. hav.-; done h-=re is w= hava picked
one of those options and going to propose that option. But
we ar-j also going to name about five others that w& can
think of that cam- up in all of our public me.2tings, and
in discussions with the states, and so on, and ask for
public comment on all of them.
And we hope to get a s&ns= of what the public,
at large, feels about, you know, how the public at large
f--_els about this issui^ by this mechanism.
Depending on that outcome, then, we. will then
go forward with a final regulation or guideline under
Section 3006 which will incorporate th= best option.
I think I'm through and I will pass it on down
the panel.
!1R. HICKMAN: I have saved thr%t= very unsatisfactor
-------
182
questions Ii^r=.
So I will probably give you thres very unsatisfacto
answers b^caus, thsy are questions that I dor. ' t fesl thsrs
ar-; ar.s'Ji-rs.
"Th= waste problem has b^en around for a long
tin-. Why does EPA fsal compelled to press on with develop-
ing incompletely i=fin°d regulations '-Than ther-- art serious
probl-i'is of criteria setting, technology application and
start inpl-.-nen4-ation that dictati a nor -> dclihs-rate pacs?"
'V--11, based on the schedule for us issuing the
regulations and criteria, I would say that our delibera-
tions to develop those criteria and regulations hava been
delivered and w; ara not done- yet.
I don't zhink we hav= a fueling of compulsion.
The lav; requires us to do this and wa will do it. Ths
siiCi^t is doing it in such a v:ay that the public can be
involved so that the regulations and critaria that comt=
out make s=:ns;.
That's what we want.
Built within ths law are provisions to allow for
timely r^spons- to those regulations or comply with the;
Thar?, is an interim parmitting process within
Subtitle C that allows for deliverance schedule for com-
pliance with those requirements ; and for the land disposal
-------
183
requirements within Subtitle D, there is a. fivs-ysar allow-
ance of scheduling for compliance.
The law is directed with solving and helping deal
with some of the problems of solid wasta management. And
hopefully, if we, and all those who participate with us,
tak-., it Serious, we can help deal with those problems
without throwing the wholt; process out of kilter.
Hers's another question.
•"Would i^ be possible to hold a meeting such as
this, addressee! specifically to the management of industrial
waste? My interest in garbage is only peripheral.''
Well, one man's garbage is another man's money,
I guess.
We're hera to review the. solid waste management
strategy for implementing RCRA, and that is addressed
at all wasts- streams.
If whoever asked this question is concerned when
thf;y say by industrial wasta, their interest is in hazardous
waste.
And, as Jack just mentioned, as these regulations
are being proposed in the various forms, there will be
ample opportunity to participate in public meetings and
discuss what is in those regulations.
I don't believe we will be holding a public meeting
on industrial solid wasts, per s?..
-------
184
1 Th-: last qu- stion I have, "Since r;s-Jf>ch, develop
2 m-nt and demonstration is listed as top priority, and this
3 is consistent with t;.= technology being listed as u con-
4 s'rraint, when does EW plan tc de-finti ~ research project,
5 research project priorities and what judgments will be
6 used in distributing funding botwzen applied R&I3 that is
7 usually found in the privat- industry and basic nsn usually
8 found in Government and universities?"
9 First, w^ ar-- trying tc makf a conscious effort
10 v'ith cur o'-*n research and d.-v-lopner.t cffic-: within the
11 Agency to plan tc respond tc the demand that 7CHZ* does
12 plac_. upon th? solid wast? nanag m~nt corcnunit" for n-w
13 systrrs and -TChrologi^s .
14 The s^ra-^^gy, in its-lf, will lay out scn° guici = -
15 poFtr and some paths of direction for research and d-'V"lop-
16 n-nt.
17 Our interest, in th-' Offic'-. of Gelid ^ast-i, has
18 beer; nor-- of- t^? applied research and dr-v^lcpn^nt. "nd
19 w' brli"7v=" t^a4- our function is to s *: j T-IU I at - th~ ^volution
20 of technology syn't^ms fron th; beginning oilot concspt
21 of bench concent, to full demonstration.
22 Bu^- Ollr focus will ha working with industry and
23 with the developers at the full-scale aizs in evaluating
24 th-. systems and in making economic and environmental and
25 related information availabl - for th* industry and
-------
1S5
corraviuniti-s to make intullig :.nt decisions and s=l_cting
syst.-p.s.
At ta:. sarac. time, wording with th- r--sc-arch and
d-.v. lopnv-iit community through our Offic-v of F^siarch and
D.,v. loDia:.nr and EPA to iogin th^i cl=Vt-.lopnv..nt of new sys-j.ir.3
ol technology for th^ n=xt frontier of solid wasta manag^-
r.t.nt n^ids.
As far as exactly what judgments will b'= us^.d,
I tain!: that, short-ttrm, \i<-. will so- more mon=y invested
in th>i -Lmrncdiaci nsids rather than the long-term needs
and rry to piclcup and answer thb imrri^diat^ r^spons^ r^quirs-
itionts that ^CI-iT, places on us right novr.
iU1.. LIIIGLE: Oni mor=.. And I'm suro you'r-j all
glad to hear this is thi last one —
MODERATOR 1'LEHN : I've got ons mor_ too.
ilR. LIUGLE: This is a statement and a question
and I arisw-r-rd cha question previously but I did not
rsad the statement and I would liks. ~o do that.
It says, "The t'sdaral Highv/ay Aandnistration has
studied and tli- technology now exists to us.3 fus-=d and
unfusid incinerator residue for road bas^ with asphalt.
Howbvsr, ^ minimum of 33 p«rcant of this residue must be
glass if tho process is to b= successful.
"Several states have, enactsd tha so-called
bottle bill which limits the amount of glass going to
-------
186
incin-ra-iors, thereby t.iwartiiuj th-= recovery of this rc-.sourc
"V?ith UCUA, what will be F.PA's stand on these
state bottle bills and the proposed National Bottle Bill?':
I r-spond=d to the question earlier but I didn't
re-ad the statement regarding ths use of the incinerator
residu -.
My only comment on that is that I was ^ littlt.
surprised to read that because incinerator residue, in
Europe, is used fairly extensively for roadbed construction.
Anci thsy liav_ a pretty lov/ pcrc^ntay;-; of glass in their
wastB stream bj_causi; they do US5 r^fillable bottl.es to
g^ extent.
I would be interested, if thi person is still here
\.'ho wrot= this, if you would id=ntify yourself afterward,
and I would like to talk to you more about this and gat
whatever information you have on it.
Than): you.
MODERATOR PLEHl'I: I've got a last question and
it is, "Since seven-eigths of the world is water and only
one-eighth land, can it be assumed EPA will hold to its
present policy of land disposal for waste?"
VJell, I could go into the history of the Interna-
tional Ocean Dumping Convention and the U.S. Ocean Dumping
Law which is, as you may know, was recently artv.ndad by
the Congress so as to provide that all sewagp sludg= is
-------
1S7
co b-3 out of r,h:- oc,, really very strongly concern id about th-:-
prot-_ction of our oceans, not only in this country, cut
in th& otJuir nations ^_hat ar^. senators -,o ch~ Cc-an
Dumping Convention.
So, whil3 I can't giv^ you an answer, I think
it's going to be. guit._ awhili.
Veil, I would like, to i-o just two things. For
on.-; tiling, I wouic ] ike tc say that Eilr.cn Clauss^n, who
sat v;ith us today anc diCn't liav; an opportunity to say
much, was -Ji= principle author of this draft.
Ive ar.; really vary grat--:ful to her for e.11 r.he
worl:. Silt manages this very wcll, you s-^a, b^caus^- she.
has other people up front for her covering. But w= ar^
all very grat-ful to hsr for h.zr work on this.
And I v;ant to say, spsahing for the Office and
for EPA, that w-'re all very grat'-ful to all of you for
coming. V75 will consider all of your corronints and questions
v>;ry carcfullv and v;e will hop*., to bF. out; with a final
strategy which \->~ will, as I said ;arli.rr, be part of and
undr^r regular r-2vi_w and r-vision sor.ictims: in thB not too
distant futur- .
I thank you again vsry nuch for coming.
(Wh'jr- upon, th= hiarirg '.'as adjourned at 2:56 p.ri.)
-------
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
DOCKET NUMBER:
CASE TITLE: Public Meeting: Strategy for the Implementation
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
HEARING DATE: january 19, 1978
LOCATION OF HEARING: Arlington, Virginia
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence
herein are contained fully and accurately in the notes
taken by me at the hearing in the above cause before the
Environmental Protection Agency
and that this is a true and correct transcript of the
same.
DATED: January 24, 1978
Official Reporter
Acme Reporting Company
1411 K Street
Washington, D. C. 20(105
-------
COMMENTS
On
DRAFT STRATEGY
For The
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
By The
American Consulting Engineers Council
As Represented By Its
Solid Waste Task Force
William C. Anderson, Chairman
January 19, 1978
-------
The American Consulting Engineer's Council compliments
EPA on the development of a. Strategy for implementing the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 to guide the
Agency's efforts. This approach which recognizes limit-
ations, weighs alternatives and sets priorities has too
often been lacking in the development of federal programs.
We concur with the general priorities that have been
established.
1. Control waste disposal with emphasis on
eliminating open dumps and controlling
hazardous waste.
2. Establish resource conservation and recovery
as the preferred solid waste management option.
3. Control hazardous industrial wastes.
4. Encourage state implementation.
However, we do not always agree with the rationale
and/or background statements- leading to the priorities established
by EPA.
More importantly, it is difficult for ACEC to comment further
on the proposed strategy because the strategy document lacks
specifics. What is "considerable attention", "major emphasis",
"less emphasis". The priorities established are a good
beginning. However, they are not a complete strategy. We
strongly recommend that target goals be established based on
these priorities. In turn, the related effort and commitment of
resources necessary to meet those goals should be established in
specific yet general terms which will indicate more clearly the
-------
emphasis EPA will provide to each objective taking into account
all the limitations listed. With better definition we and
others can then provide meaningful comments on whether or not
the strategy for future EPA actions will address what we believe
to be the major problems. Such specifics are not only essential
for us to determine whether we agree with your priorities, but
also for your own specific management of the implementation
process.
We strongly recommend that "coordination with other legis-
lative mandates, which has been recognized by Section 1006
of the Act, be added to the list of major activities to receive
major emphasis. We, and everyone else involved in implementing
the directives from Washington are continually frustrated by the
lack of coordination. We recognize that the task is not easy
but the elimination of conflicting and duplicative regulations
will enhance response to your efforts by States, Localities
and Private Industry.
We are very concerned about the amount of effort that will
be applied to each area of activity. However, rather than
pre-judge what EPA intends to do we challenge EPA to expand
its strategy to include goals and allocations of resources, both
known and projected for the next five years. Provided this
kind of information we can then determine if, in our opinion,
EPA is providing the proper emphasis to the many activities
associated with the program.
-------
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 Phone' 202-797-6800
February 1, 19?8
Dr. John H. Skinner
Chairman, RCRA Strategy Working Group
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
1(01 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 2(*60
Dear John:
The National Wildlife Federation is pleased to have the opportunity to comment
on OSW's draft strategy for the Implementation of The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). We commend EPA on the open manner in which it
is attempting to design a method for the fulfillment of its RSRA obligations.
Furthermore, we view our opportunity to participate in this process as a vital
one.
Taking into consideration the unfortunate constraints placed upon EPA by virtue
of severely limited resources in terms of money and manpower and the less than
adequate authority provided by the Act, we commend OS¥ for the balanced and
practical approach to Implementation that it has developed to date. Our problems
lie more in the direction of the failings of RCRA as it applies to the overall
solid waste situation rather than in the manner in which OS¥ is trying to come
to grips with RCRA implementation. As has been pointed out many times, RCRA does
not by itself lay an adequate foundation from which to launch a "national solid
waste strategy." It is, however, an important beginning.
In general, we agree with the priorities which OS¥ has set, highlighting the
necessity of controlling waste disposal practices in order to eradicate the
immediate hazards to public health and the environment which are still very
much in evidence throughout the country. We recognize too, the critical, though
largely unnoticed role, that industrial wastes, both hazardous and non-hazardous,
play in this regard. While we understand and agree with the reasoning behind
placing industrial and hazardous wastes in the top regulation priority, we urge
that the momentum not be lost in developing the state programs that are underway
to close down or upgrade the innumerable open dumps that are overflowing with
municipal wastes.
Although the most significant waste problem, quantitatively, exists in and
around our nation's urban areas, we cannot afford to relegate our rural areas to
an era of neglect, in the handling of their wastes. In certain isolated cases
-------
National Wildlife Federation
Page 2
Dr. John Skinner
February 1, 1978
solid waste IB more of a threat to public health in rural areas (despite the
lesser quantities) than in urban areas. The ability to finance a comprehensive
or adequate management system just does not exist for large portions of rural
America. Moreover, the practicalities of rural living and service management
sometimes run in reverse of what works best for urban areas. For example,
incentives for resource recovery coming about as an indirect result of increased
regulation (i.e. higher disposal costs) may be the case in urban situations. IS
rural areas, however, where viable markets are far and few between and benefits
are still to be gained by economies of scale in sanitary landfill operations,
this strategy will not be effective. ¥e urge a. strategy which is both flexible
and sensitive to the conditions and priorities of rural areas if we are to design
and implement a strategy to cope with our waste problems that will be relevant
and effective in rural areas as well as the cities.
Although the greatest authority invested in EPA by RORA falls in the area of
hazardous waste management, thereby Justifying its designation as the number
one priority for the next five years, the frightening possibility exists that
under OSW's proposed interim authorization strategy, some states may be able to
slip through flimsy and inadequate programs that will receive authorization by
default. Despite the practical problems involved, ECHA's inundate for hazardous
wastes is clear: EPA must insure that a tightly run and effective program is put
into operation by the states or EPA must run the program itself. Flexibility may
be called for in the initial phases of implementation, but once full authorization
is considered, conditions must be set hard and fast.
Since technical assistance is viewed along with funding (when either exists) as
the most important federal lever in promoting state implementation, we urge that
extraordinary measures be taken to assure that the technical assistance panels
are useful, well-staffed, and effective. A ready mechanism for their quick
evaluation and the institution of any changes that are necessary should be provided.
Because of the limited funds available, however, we feel that if these panels are
not going to be organlZBd and managed effectively, mcmoy jaiiouiH nn-t- T^& Tjoq-hori in
doing an inadequate job.
¥e found it rather ironic, following the publishing of the excellent public par-
ticipation guidelines under ECEA, that this strategy document should totally
misinterpret the role of public participation and its importance to the success of
RCRA. The strategy document seems to view public participation only as "public
eduation," most precisely as an exercise in selling the public on the acceptance
of disposal sites. We caution that should OSW underestimate the necessity of public
particiaption in the entire solid waste management process from problem identifi-
-------
National Wildlife Federation
Page 3
Dr. John Skinner
February 1, 19?8
cation through solution implementation, not only will public opposition to
siting continue, the success of the entire national solid waste strategy will
also be in jeopardy. We urge OSW to involve the public, not try to modify its
behavior.
In general we support the concept that an indirect incentive for conservation
and resource recovery will result from the proper enforcement of the new reg-
ulations on waste disposal. However, if we are to move toward resource conser-
vation and recovery as the preferred solid waste imnagement options, then the
economic and market incentives being discussed by the Resource Conservation
Connittee and the procurement by the federal government of products made from
recycled materials must be implemented. Unfortvrvvtely, since the RCC has no
re_l authority and acts as an advisory boiy only, it is debatable as to how
nuch in the wsy of limited resources should be put into this effort. We urge
that state planning programs authorized under RCRA must address both resource
conservation and recovery.
Since so much of the urgently needed worktbat must be done in solid waste
management even as describee ard provided for by RCRA is to be left high aM
dry due to severely inadequate funding levels, we urge OSW to pursue with all
vigor, increased funding for RCRA within the Administration and from CongresB.
As the implementation process proceeds, it becomes more and more apparent that
without increased funding RCRA will be rendered impotent.
It is also apparent that the smooth and effective implementation of RCRA will
require extraordinary organizational coordination between EPA Headquarters and
its Regional Offices. We are confidenttbst this can be achieved.
We would again like to express our appreciation at youx invitation to comment
on the OSW RCRA implementation strategy and to be a part of this very open
process. We hope our consents have teen helpful.
Sincerely, . ,;.
7-Jla^J
J. Mark Sullivan
"'-^i.-t/ /• "i-;--M.C.
Richard Korris
UK? Solid V.:aste Project
Steffen Plehn
Eileen Claxtssen
-------
Attendees—January 19, 1978
Allen, Robert
Chief Hazardous Materials
U.S. EPA-Region III
6th & Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
Anderson, Anthony L.
Assistant Director
Government Relations
Sun Company
1800 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Anderson, Paul E.
Mgr. Energy Resources
Martin Marietta Aluminum
6801 Rocklodge Drive
Bethesda, Md. 20034
Anderson, William C;, P.E.
Chm., Solid Waste Task Force
Pickard and Anderson
69 South Street
Auburn, N.Y. 13021
Anderson, W. P . , P.E.
Asst. Dir. Environment &
Regulatory Affairs
Tenneco Chemicals
Park 80 Plaza West-One
Saddle Brook, N.J. 07662
Axelrad, Robert
SOS/208 Coordinator
The Izaak Walton League
of America
1800 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Austin, John D., Jr.
Counsel
American Mining Congress
1200 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Bahan, Cathleen M.
Director of Information
Inst. of Scrap Iron &
Steel, Inc.
1627 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Bain, Diane
12501 Swirl Lane
Bowie, Maryland 20715
Baker, Johnie R,
Regional Sales Manager
ILWD, Inc.
R. R. 5; Box 206
Nobelsville, In. 46060
Balick, San ford E.
Asst. Council
Transportation
FMC Corporation
Prudenti al PIaza
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Barta, J. W.
Project Chemist
Huntington Alloys Inc.
P. 0. Box 1958
Huntington, West Virginia 25704
Bassuener, Barbara
Manager of Public Affairs
Water Pollution Control Federation
2626 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Batchelder, Francis J., P.E.
Environmental Engineering Division
American Electric Power
Service Corporation
2 Broadway
New York, New York 10004
Baumblatt, Stanley
Attorney
Union Carbide Corporation
270 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Beale, John
Manager, Environmental Information
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48640
Bensky, Sy
Manager of Environmental Health
Occidental Chemical Company
200 South Post Oak Road
P. 0. Box 1185
Houston, Texas 77001
Benson, Barrett E. , P.E.
Sanitary Engineer
National Enforcement Investigations
Center; Bldg. 53; Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
-------
Bent, Charles
Environmental Engineer
Reynolds Metals Company
6601 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Berke, Joseph 6.
Project Director
National Governors'Conference
Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20001
Berman, Eugene
Legal Department
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
Bertini, Catherine
Corporate Affairs Manager
Container Corporation of America
One First National Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60670
Beygo, Turhan
Environmental Planner
Prince George's County
County Administration Bldg.
Upper Marlboro, Md. 20870
Bobrowski , Hans
First Secretary-Science & Tech.
Embassy of the Republic of Germany
4645 Reservoir Rd.
Washington, D. C. 20007
Boltz, Sherry
Government Regulations Specialist
N.P.C.A.
1500 Rhode Island Ave.,N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Booth, Federic H.K.
EnviroPlan, Incorporated
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22150
Bory, Laurence D.
Pol icy Analyst
N.V.P.D.C.
7309 Arc Boulevard
Falls Church, Virginia 22042
Bowman, Scott
Chemical Engineer
G. Avenue West Freeman Field
Seymour. Indiana 47274
Boyd, John A.
President
Environmental Utilities Corp.
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Brackett, David E.
Eastern Manager
Gypsum Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Bradd, Byron B.
Environmental Coordinator
Chemicals Group
Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.
P. 0. Box 538
Allentown, Pa. 18105
Brown, Jerry L.
Plant Chief Chemist
Monsanto Company
P. 0. Box 249
Anniston, Ala. 36202
Brundage, Joyce
Legal Assistant
P. P. C.
1800 K Street
Washington, D.C. 20006
Buck, Kathleen A.
Attorney
One Farragut Square South
Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20006
Cahaly, Richard F
Corporate Environmental Programs
Manager
Polaroid Corporation
565 Technology Square
Cambridge, Massachuetts 02139
Carr, Margaret
Asst. Director, Washington Office
Research-Cohrel1
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Gary, Matthew J.
Director. Federal Programs
American Consulting Engineers Council
1155 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
-------
Casey, Adrta Cv, Dp,
Label Administrator
Corporate l^trel tntj Department
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, Ct. 06880
Chicca, William E.
Chief, Industrial & Hazardous
Substances Sect.
Maryland Water Resources Adm.
Tawes State Office Blgd.
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Cinq-Mars, Robert J.
Environmental Coordinator
Cities Service Company
Cities Service Building
Box 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
Cirino, Michael
Planning Administrator
A.A. Co. Planning & Zoning
Calvert, Annapolis, Md. 21401
Clark, Wendall J.
Coordi nator
Environmental Protection Dept.
Texaco Inc.
P. 0. Box 509
Beacon, N. Y. 12508
Clouser, David L.
PI anner
Office of Planning & Zoning
Anne Arundel County
Arundel Center
Annapolis , Md. 21401
Cobb, Cliff
Project Director/Solid Waste
National Association of Counties
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Conry, Tom
Project Coordinator
Technical Information Project
1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Conrad, E. T., P.E.
President
SCS Engineers , Inc.
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, Virginia 22091
Cooper, Jack L.
Director, Environmental Affairs
National Canners Association
1133 Twentieth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Coughlin, Thorn H., Met.Engr.
Chief Environmental Engineer
The Bunker Hill Company
Box 29
Kellogg, Idaho 83837
Damiano, David
Commissloner
City of Philadelphia
840 Municipal Service Bldg.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Daniels, Stacy L., Dr.
Research Specialist
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
1702 Building
Midland, Michigan 48640
Darmstadter, Neill
Senior Safety Engineer
American Trucking Assoc.,Inc.
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Davis , Paul I.
Deputy General Manager
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Auth.
910 Bay Area Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77058
Dawson , Russel1 A.
Senior Editor
Solid Waste Report
B.P.I .
P.O.Box 1067
818 Roeder Road
Silver Spring, Md. 20910
De Melo, Jerome J.', Jr.
Staff Asst. Washington Operations
Boeing Engineering & Construction
955 L'Enfant Plaza.N. , S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Denton, Kent A.
Asst. Manager Transportation Safety
FMC Corporation
Chemical Group Headquarters
2000 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
-------
Denyes, Wells
tfashrngton Representative
Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.
500 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
DeVille, William B.
Research Director
Staff Chairman NGA Subcomm.
Louisiana Governor's Office
P 0. Box 44066
Baton Rouge, La. 70804
Dexter, Bob
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Legislation
Washington, D.C. 20460
Diem, Michael H., Maj.
Entomologi st
Solid Waste Management Division
U S Army Environmental Hygiene Div.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. 21010
Downey, Harry L., Jr
Washington Representative
The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
1730 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Downing, James M.
Di rector
Knox County Department
of Water,Sanitary Sewer,Waste-
water Treatment & Solid Waste
Facilities
701 East Vine Avenue
Knoxville, Tennessee 37915
Drance, Andrew
Washington Representative
Media General
2425 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Dunn , J . J . , Jr.
Executive Secretary
Institute for Solid Waste
American Public Works Association
1776 Massachuetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Eason, Charles F., Jr.
Office of Governmental Affairs
Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc.
1100-17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Echeverrta, Alfredo D.
Chief Policy & Legal Div. OEPM
D. C. Government-D .E .S.
415-12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Eger, David L.
Engineer
Department of Public Works
County of Fairfax
4100 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Emler , Paul , Jr.
Senior Environmental Advisor
Allegheny Power System
Cabin Hill
Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601
Engleman , C . H .
American Cyanamid Co.
Berdan Avenue
Wayne, N.J. 07470
Eri ckson, Frank
Deputy Law Director
City of Knoxville
City Hall Park
Knoxville, Virginia 37901
Erickson, Lee E.
Administrator
Environmental Control Dept.
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, Ct. 06880
Farrington, Edmond H.
Kerr-McGee Corporation
605 Commonwealth Bldg.
1625 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Fehsenfeld, Fred M. , Jr.
President
ILWD, Inc.
P. 0. Box 68001
Indianapolis, In. 46268
Feiger, Robert E.
Attorney
Betz
Somerton Road
Trevose, Pennsylvania 19047
Felix, Charles w.
Single Service Institute, Inc.
250 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
-------
Fenberg, Jan
Technical Assistant
Pennzoil Company
Pennzoil Place
Box 2967
Houston, Texas 77001
Fetterman, Victor M.
Vice-President
Labelmaster
44 Oak Shade Road
Gaithersburg, Md. 20760
Ford, Gary L.
Attorney-Law Department
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, Ct. 06880
Gilley, William F., P.E.
Department of Health
Commonwealth of Virginia
Madison Building
109 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Gleason, Thomas L.
Staff Toxicologist
U S EPA ORD (RD-682)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Goelz, John C.
Asst. Lab. Supervisor
Milwaukee Sewerage Commission
8500 So. 5th Avenue
Oak Creek, Wisconsin 53204
Gold, Harvey S.
Director Government Relations
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20006
Grasso, Rosalie T.
Director Waste Management Program
National Governors' Association
Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20001
Graziano, R.M.
Director
Bureau of Explosives
1920 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Gregoric, Albert L.
Regional Environmental Control
Manager
Diamond Shamrock Corporation
350 Mt. Kemble Avenue
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Guinan, Deborah K.
Environmental Chemist
Versar, Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Va. 22151
Haber, Daniel R.
Haleth Physicist/ Industrial
Hygienist
RAD Servcies , Inc.
500 Penn Center
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15235
Hackel , Helene J.
Manager Business Development
Resource Recovery Division
Combustion Equiptment Associates, Inc
555 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Hall , M.E.
Department Head Environmental
Protection
Union Carbide
P. 0. Box 2831
At. Albans, West Virginia 25177
Handley, Arthur
Manager, Solid Waste Program
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
2 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, N.Y. 10602
Harris, Gladys L.
Citizens Activities Officer (WH-562)
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Harvison, Clifford J.
Managing Director
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Helsing, Crai g R.
Regulatory Liaison
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
Herbst, Richard J.
Office of Assistant Secretary for
Science 8 Technology; Rm. 3419
Department of Commerce
14th & Constitution
Washington, D.C. 20230
Hewson, Tom
Engineer
Energy & Environmental Analysis
1111 N . 19th Street
Arlington, Va. 22209
H i n t z e , D . L .
Coordinator of Environmental
Activities
Union Oil Company of California
Eastern Regi on
1650 East Golf Road
Schaumburg, Illinois 60196
Hoebel , Charles L.
Washington Representative
Carrier Corporation
The Blake Building-Suite 510
1025 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
Houghton, James C.
Coordinator Government Relations
American Can Company
Suite 201--1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Houston , Betsy , Mrs.
Asst. Legal Di rector
American Inst. of Chemical Engineers
2000 L Street, N.W. Suite 520
Washington, D.C. 20036
Hewlett, Kip
Legi siative Counsel
Georgia Pacific Corporation
1735 I Street, N.W.
Washington , D.C. 20006
Hudgi ns , Amy L.
Legal Assistant
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan
1666 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Hughes, Christopher F.
Environmental Projects Manager
Edison Electric Institute
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Ives, Joseph S. , Jr
Environmental Counsel
National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association
2000 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washi ngton , D.C. 20009
Jarchow, Everett H .
Corporate Director of
Occupational Safety and Health
C P C International Inc.
Moffett Technical Center
P.O. Box 345
Argo, Illinois 60501
Johnson, Charles C., Jr
Vice President
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
8757 Georgi a Avenue
Silver Spring, Md. 20910
Jones , Edward
Admi n . Assist.
Calgon Corporation of Pittsburgh
Box 1346
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
Jones, Phillip W.
Technical Affairs
Ford Motor Co .
815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Jordan, David E.
Manager-Special Projects
Union Carbide Corp.
One River Road
Bound Brook, N.J. 08876
Kadelecek , John
Research Associate
A.S.R.C.- State University of
New York
1400 Washington Avenue-ES 324
Albany, New York 12222
Kadlubowski , Michael F.
Environmental Engineer
VEPCO
P.O. Box 26666
Richmond, Va. 23261
Karter, Patricia W.
Marketi ng Manager
Resource Recovery Systems, Inc.
50 Maple Street
Branford, Ct. 06405
-------
Katona , Alex, Dr .
Manager Environmental
Waste Disposal
222 Rainbow Blvd.
Niagara Falls, New York 14302
Kaufman, John M.
Environmental Geologist
Environmental Quality Control Dept.
Consolidation Coal Company
924 N. Washington Rd.
McMurray, Pa. 15317
Kavanagh, Joseph N .
Vice-President-Safety
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
Downingtown, Pa. 19335
Kearns, Dianne R.
Journal 1st
Environmental Reporter
1231 25th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Keiser, Kenneth D.
Reporter
Environmental Health Ltr.
1097 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
Kellogg, Stephen R., P.E.
Project Engineer
Weston
Weston Way
Wast Chester, Pa. 19380
Kerr, Edward R.
Customer Service Manager
RAD Services Inc.
9381 C Davis Avenue
Laurel , Maryland 20810
Kerst, Sandra L.
Federal Relations Assistant
Association for Home Appliance Mfg.
2033 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Kesten, Norman S.
Assistant of the Vice President
Environmental Affairs
ASARCO Inc.
120 Broadway
New York, New York. 10005
Kidwell , Alfred S.
Director of Governmental
Affairs
Inmont Corporation
1255 Broad Street
Clifton, N.J. 07015
& Environmental
Knight, Gary D.
Associate Manager
Resources and Environmental Quality
Division
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
1615 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20062
Knoeck, John W.
Director of Planning
Research & Development Department
Cryogenic Systems Division
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
P.O. Box 538
Allentown, Pa. 18105
Korpon , Kathleen
Professional Staff
Senate Environmental PW Committee
4202 Dirksen Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Kucharskt, William A.
Environmental Analyst
Environmental Department
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 West Michigan
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Landervil1e , Nancy
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Lane. Samuel M.
Manager
Environmental and Manufacturing
Services
Mobil Chemical Co.
Phosphorus Division
P.O. Box 26683
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Langer, B.W. , Jr. , Ph.D.
President
GTA, INC.
Annelidic Processing Specialists
506 Wilmington Trust Bldg.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Langford, Ellis C.
Vice President
UNZ & Co.
Government Relations
307 Yoakum Parkway, Unit 3-309
Alexandria, Va. 22304
-------
Langford, James B. Jr.
Staff Representative
Public Af f ai rs
P.O. Drawer 1734
Atlanta, Ga . 30301
Larsen , Robert D . , Dr
Planning Consultant
Texas Department of Health
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin , Texas 78756
Lazar , Emery C.
Environmental Scientist
Enviromental Protection Agency
Office of Planning & Evaluation
Headquarters PM-223
401 H Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Littlepage, Richard C.
Vice President and Assistant
to the President
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
P.O. Box 200
Downingtown, Pa. 19335
Leubecker , Daniel W .
General Engineer
Maritime Administration-Code 730.2
Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Li ndsey , Alan M., P.E.
Coordinator, Air & Solid Waste
Environmental Quality
International Paper Co.
P.O. Box 16807
Mobile, Alabama 36616
Marino , Al
Executive Officer
California State Solid Waste
Management Board
1109 11th Street
Sacramento, California 95806
Martin , Charles
Grants Coordinator
D.C. Government
Department of Environmental Services
415 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
McBain, James A.
Executive Staff
Petroleum Refiners
1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
McBride, Michael F.
Le Boeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae
1757 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
McCrary, Charles D.
Environmental Licensing Engineer
Southern Company Services, Inc.
800 Shades Creek Parkway
P.O. Box 2625
Birmingham, Alabama 35202
McDonagh, John M.
Senior Business Analyst
Corporate Planning & Development
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Westport, CT 06880
McGrath , Edward J.
51 Monroe Street
Rockville, Maryland 20850
McHenry, Mary D.
Public Information RCRA
Maryland Water Resources Adm.
Tawes States Office Bldg.
Annapolis, Md. 21403
McLaurin, Craig R.
Supervisor, Legal Research
Aspen Systems Corporation
20010 Century Blvd.
Germantown, Md. 20767
McLeland , Le-Nhung
Research Assistant
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
McManus , Frank
Editor & Publisher
Resource Recovery Report
1701 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
McMoran, Scott
Grants Policy Specialist
Environmental Protection Agency
GAD- PM-216
401 M Street, S.W.
Wasington, D.C. 20460
Michelsen, Donald L. ,Ph.D.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
P.O. Box 17186
Wasington, D.C. 20041
-------
Mi ngst, Barry C .
Nuclear Engi neer
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop 604-SS
Washington, D.C. 20555
Moir, Robert S.
Supervisor, Rates and Transportation
Data Section
American Cyanamid Co.
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
Honiut, J.D.
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Steel Corp.
600 Grand Street
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
Monroe, Anthony M., Captain
USA Environmental Hygiene Agency
USAEHA SWMD
APG,
Washington, D ..C . 21010
Montorio, Lois
Legal Representative
American Paper Institute
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Morris, Richard A.
EPA Solid Waste
Management Project
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mullen, Hugh
Director, Government Relations
IU Conversion Systems
3624 Market Street
Phila. , Pa. 19014
Mul1 on , Deborah
Administrative Assistant
The Society of the Plastics Industry
1101 17th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mulkey, Charles E.
Environmental Engineer
TVA
248 401 B-C, 4th & Chestnut
Chattanooga, Tenn. 37401
Naidu, Janakivam R.;
Ecologist
Brookhaven National Laboratory
535 Safety & Environmental Protection
Division
Upton, New York 11953
Norton , Lawrence
Manager, State Regulatory Affairs
NACA
115515th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Overby, Charles
OTA
U.S. Congress
Office of Technical Assessment
Washington , D.C . 20510
Osborne , Wi1ey W.
Chief, Plans & Programs Bureau
Division of SWM
Texas Department of Health
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin Texas 78756
Ott, Reuben C.
Engineering Associate
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc
Wilmington, DE 19898
Otto, Charles J.
Manager, Agricultural Sales
Royer Foundry & Machine Co,
158 Pringle Street
Kingston, Pa. 18704
Pase , James L ;
Chief of Planning
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
P.O. Box 981
Dover, DE 19901
Parker, Hampton M., Ph.D.
Technical Manager-Environmental
Affairs
Union Carbide Corporation
Health, Safety and Environmental
Affairs Department
270 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Patton, Robert V.
Facilities Specialist
Defense Logistics Agency
Cameron Station
Alexandria, Va. 22314
Pel 1i ssi er , Ri no L
Environmental Engineer
FMC Corporation
Chemical Group Headquarters
2000 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
-------
Wentworth, Marchant
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Willis, Durwood H.
Engineer, Industrial Programs
Commonwealth of Virginia
State Water Control Board
P.O. BOX 11143
Richmond, Va. 23230
Wimert, David C.
Assistant for Environmental
PT o g r a m s
American Chemical Society
1155 16th St, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Wolper, Edward
Legal Dept.-Counsel
Hercules Inc .
910 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
Whitney, Scott C.
Professor of Law
College of William and Mary
Wil1iamsburg , Va. 23185
Woolsey , John L .
Research Chemist
International Fabricare Inst.
12251 Technology Road
Silver Spring, Md. 20904
Young , Earle F. Jr.
Director-Environmental Affairs
American Iron and Steel Institute
100 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Young , James
A.M.S.A.
1015 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Young, Willard
Manager of Environmental Control
Texas-Eastern
Box 2521
Houston, Texas 77006
lack , Marie
Research Assistant
Energy 8 Environmental Analysis, Inc,
1111 West 19th Street
Arlington, Va. 22209
Zi egler , George A .
Manager, Gevernment Relations
National Lime Association
5010 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington D.C. 20016
yo!668
Shelf No. 673
------- |