PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION
CRITERIA FOR SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES

APRIL 26, 1978

PORTLAND, OREGON

-------
                       TRANSCRIPT

                          Public Hearing
                on Proposed Classification Criteria
                for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
                 April 26, 1978, Portland, Oregon
      This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-40p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
       by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
               U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               1978

-------
                 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES




              ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities




 Proposed Classification  Criteria
                  TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS








          BE IT REMEMBERED That the following proceedings




were taken before Frank R. Resales, a Notary Public for Oregon,




on Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 1978, beginning at 1:00




p.m. in the East Ballroom Conference Room of the Sheraton Hotel,



Portland, Oregon.




          BEFORE:  Dr. John Skinner, Chairman




                   MEMBERS OF THE PANEL




Mr. Truett DeGeare




Mr. Kenneth Shuster




Mr. Bruce Weddle




Ms. Meredith Wright




Mr. Donald C. Hansen




Mr. Kenneth Feigner

-------

1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10

11

12
13

14

15

16
17
18

19

20
21
22
23
24
25

Index i





Pag
8
21
22
33
40


44

49


55

61

80
84


87

97
110
113
122
126
130





»
Cohen
McCready
Mallory
McCormick
Norr


Ketterling

McGough


Nunamaker

Cvitanich

Scoltock
Carter


Schmidt

Koch
Coghill
Wells
Aspetarte
Brandt
Donaca
INDEX
TO
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
WITNESSES


California Water Resources Control Board
Portland Commissioner of Public Works
Public Works Admin. City of Portland
Solid Waste Program Dir. City of Portlan
Solid Waste Compliance Officer MSD
Portland

Manager of Engineering & Analysis MSD
Portland
Vice-president Product Development of
Resources Conservation Co. Renton, Wash.

Bureau of Sanitary Engineering Portland

Executive Secretary Washington Waste
Management Association
President Yamhill Valley Recyclers, Inc.
Acting Director Chemeketa Region Solid
Waste Management Program

Administrator Solid Waste Division DEQ
Oregon
President Oregon Sanitary Service Inst.

Washington State Department of Ecology
Clark County Solid Waste Advisory Commis












d

























-------
          MR. COATE:  Good afternoon.  My name is Ed Coate.  I'n




the Deputy Regional Administrator from Seattle.




     It's my pleasure to welcome you all here on behalf of Don




Dubois, our Regional Administrator, and staff and members from




Washington, D.C.



     It's a pleasure to welcome you all here this afternoon and




I'm really very pleased to see such a large turnout.  I think




that it's particularly important because that's the whole inten




of this afternoon's presentations and discussions.  It's a




chance for you to weigh dialogue to carry out and understand a




better way of implementing and handling the provisions of the




Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.




     As you all know, the act places heavy emphasis on the need




for public participation.  That is why you are here.




     I want you also to know that we really mean it and take




particular pride "in the responsive efforts that have been made




to encourage public participation.  The fact that the proposed




criteria are not final is proof of that.  That is why you are




here and we have made significant changes at your suggestions.



     I think that we all know pretty much about the Resource




Conservation and Recovery Act which we fondly call RCRA.  We




understand it was passed by Congress in 1976 and the act greatly




expanded  the federal role and responsibilities in the area of




solid waste management,   RCRA is extremely important to solid



waste management and has  an impact on all of you here.   That

-------
of course, is why you are here.




     The act, as you know by it's name, implies that it deals




with conservation and recovery of energy and materials from




solid waste stream.  However, it also places a great deal of




emphasis on the control of hazardous waste and on the need for




control of land disposal through the elimination of open dumping




practices.




     The criteria we will be discussing here today will form




the basis for constructing a nationwide inventory of disposal




sites.  Sites that are not in compliance with these criteria




will be classified as open dumps and must be either upgraded or




shut down.  Really, that in a nutshell is why we are here today.




     The Congress found the need for the federal technical and




financial leadership.  They recognize that solid waste disposal




is a function of the state, local and regional agencies.  EPA




strongly supports this concept.  So again, it's very critical




that we understand and learn more about your views and how you




will be impacted in carrying them out.




     With that brief introduction and over view, it's my plea-




sure again to welcome you here and at this time to turn the




program over to Mr. John Skinner who is the director of Systems




Management Division of our Washington, D.C. headquarters.  He




will be moderating the hearing.  John and his staff have been




assigned the responsibility of developing these criteria and




should be pleased to answer questions particularly after the

-------
formal hearing procedure is complete.  So at this time, John,




it's your show.



          DR. SKINNERr  Thank you.  Today's hearing will be held




in two sessions.  The first session will extend from 1:00 o'clock




until 5:30 and then there will be a second session which will




start at 7:00 this evening and extend until 10:30.  Registration




for this evening session starts at 6:30.




     This hearing is on a proposed regulation entitled Criteria




for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities which has




been disposed under the authority of Section 4004, the Solid




Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and




Recovery Act of 1976  (Public Law 94-580 and Section 405 (D),  the




Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean




Water Act of 1977  (Public Law 217).



     This proposed regulation was published in the Federal




Register on February 6, 1978 and copies of the proposed regula-




tion and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are avail-



able at the registration desk.



     We are now in the middle of a public comment period on this




proposed regulation.   This comment period will close on June 12




of this year.  A draft  Environmental Impact Statement had been




prepared on proposed regulation and is available on request.




If you would like a copy of the draft of the Environmental




Impact Statement,  please leave your name and address at the




registration desk.   All  comments  on the proposed regulation and

-------
comments on the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement must



be postmarked on or before June 12, 1978 and all comments



received will be considered and analyzed and reviewed before we



finalize the regulation later on this year.



     This is one of five public hearings and a number of public



meetings that we've held on this proposed regulation.  The



remaining public hearings, this is the fourth of five, is.on



June 5th in Cincinnati, Ohio, and at that time, we will not only



accept comments and remarks on the proposed criteria, but also



on the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement.  For further



information about that hearing, you should contact the name



listed in the draft regulation.  That address is also available



at the registration desk.



     We are maintaining an official file of all comments



received during the public comment period and this official file



is referred to as Docket 4004 and all comments should be addres-



sed to that docket.  The address is listed in the proposed



regulation and it's also available at the registration desk.



That address should also be used for requesting copies of the



draft Environmental Impact Statement if you don't leave your name




today.



     This hearing is being recorded and a complete transcript



of all remarks will be placed in the docket for our use before



finalizing the regulation.  The docket is available for public



review during normal working hours at EPA headquarters in

-------
Washington.  We have 18 people who have requested to make state-




ments at this afternoon's hearing.  We have one person who has




requested to make a statement at this evening's hearing.  I




would ask that you try and summarize your statement, limit your




spoken remarks to approximately 10 minutes and that will allow




the panel five minutes to ask you questions.  If we stay within




that time frame, I think we will be able to get all of those




18 people in this afternoon.  So  I'm going to ask you to please




cooperate in that regard.  A full statement can be submitted




for the record and will be included in the transcript, so there




need not be concern if we don't cover something in your oral




statement, it will be included and will be considered in the




record and printed with the rest  of the transcript.  But I would




ask that you do try and limit your actual remarks to approxi-




mately 10 minutes.  Also, if anyone wishes to ask questions of




any of the speakers after they make their formal statement, you




can write those questions down on cards that will be distributed




and bring them forward and the panel here will ask questions



that you would like proposed.  Let me now introduce the panel.




     To my immediate right is Ms. Meredith Wright, who is an



attorney in the Office of General Counsel in the EPA headquarter)




Next to her is Mr.  Bruce Weddle,  who is the Chief of the Special




Waste  Branch,  EPA Solid Waste Office in Washington.  Mr. Coate




is next to him.   Next  to him is Mr.  Kenneth Feigner, who is




from the Solid Waste Branch,  Chief of the Solid Waste Branch,

-------
EPA Region 10.  Next to him is Mr. Truett DeGeare who is the



Chief of the Land Protection Branch.  At the end of the table



is Mr. Kenneth Shuster, who is the Program Manager, Land Protec-



tion Branch,all in the development of these regulations and will



be asking questions of the people who present statements today.



     Now, just for some general housekeeping rules.  We have



reserved this side of the room, the left side, for smokers and



the right side of the room for nonsmokers.   So if anyone wants



to smoke, please sit on this side of the room.  Also, anyone



making a statement, please identify themselves and their affili-



ations and please speak directly into the microphone so that



your comments can be recorded.



     Also, any of the panel asking questions, would you speak



directly into the microphone so the reporter can hear your




remarks.



     There is a list of people who have preregistered to make



statements at the outside desk.  If you would like to get a copy



of that, you can see the order that we are going to proceed in.



We are going to proceed in the order we received requests to makje




these statements.



     In addition to the seven or ei^ht people, there are also



another  eight or nine people who signed up to make a statement



today.  We will follow with those people after we've finished



with the people that have preregistered.



     Let's begin.  The first person to make a statement today

-------
                                                           8





is Mr. David Cohen of the State of California Water Resources




Control Board.  Is he in the audience?



     Please come to the microphone and make your statement.



          MR. COHEN:  I'd like to preface my statement by meni-




ioning that another requested participant, Mr. Bill Davis, the




Project Manager for the sewage project in Los Angeles has




decided not to make a statement today because the Environmental




Impact Statement has not been received yet and reserves the




right to submit a written report.



          DR. SKINNER:  Yes.  Any comments received by June 12




will be accepted and received.




          MR. COHEN:  My name is David B. Cohen.  I am a Special




Consultant for Sludge Management for  the  California State




Water Resources Control Board, Division of Planning and Research




My comments are concerned with the issue  of Cadmium in sewage




sludge applied to land growing food chain crops.




     The proposed criteria, if adopted, may have tremendous




negative impact on  sludge management  alternatives in two major




metropolitan areas  of California which account for three-fourths



of all the sludge generated in the state.   Total annual costs




of the proposed solutions for the agencies represented in these




studies have been estimated to range between $50-$100 million




per year.   The market value of all the Nitrogen,  Phosphorous,



Potassium,  Micronutrients,  and organic matter  contained in the




total annual California sludge production  has  been estimated to

-------
exceed $20 million and could help defray a significant portion of



these costs.




     Present federal statutory and administrative policies are




clearly designed to force sludge residues onto the land.  The




encouragement of resource recovery of sludge and other solid




wastes by spreading on agricultural land must be accomplished




without posing a reasonable probability of adverse effects on




health.  A critical issue to be resolved by these hearings is




whether the proposed criteria unreasonably foreclose any re-




source recovery options, without any reasonable probability of




improving public health.




     Is there a clear and present danger that continued applica-




tion of increasing quantities of sewage sludge to farmland will




have a significant adverse impact on the kidney function of a




sizeable segment of the U.S. population?  The federal Food and




Drug Administration while recommending against any development




that could cause a significant increase of Cadmium in the food




supply has stated unequivocably (Jelinek and Braude,  1977)




"There is no evidence that present Cadmium levels in the U.S.




diet pose a health hazard."




     Only 207= of presently generated municipal sludge quantities




are applied nationwide on farmland.   If 1007o of all sludges pro-




duced were applied to farmland at the recommended nitrogen ferti-




lizer rate, less than 0.5% of present farmland would be impacted




Thus, over 99.97. of U.S. farmlands are today producing food

-------
without sludge.  If the 0.1% of total U.S. farmland receiving



sludge were to double in 20 years,  could this by any stretch



of the imagination pose a reasonable probability of significant!



affecting the public health via increased Cadmium in the national



diet?



     How much Cadmium are we presently consuming in our diets,



and how much Cadmium is it safe to  consume?  The Cadmium crisis



was precipitated by some preliminary reports which purported to



show that the average dietary  intake of  Cadmium in the U.S.



population varied  between 50-100 micrograms  (mrg)/day with the



upper  level exceeding the WHO/FAO recommended maximum tolerance



level  of  70 mrg/d  for a 70 kg  standard person.



     As more  information becomes available  concerning Cadmium



in diet,  the  "crisis" appears  to be diminishing.  In 1975, Brauda



of FDA reported U.S. adult Average  Daily Intake to be 51.2 mrg/



day.   In  1977, Pahren et all of the U.S.  EPA Health Effects



Research Laboratory - Cincinnati using most recent FDA data



reported that Cadmium median Daily  Intakes averaged 33 mrg/day



for U.S. men and 26 mrg/d for women.  If, as Pahren and some FDA



staff  suggest median values are more representative than mean



values of intake by ingestion, present dietary Cadmium intake



(from birth to age 50)  is apparently only 48% of the WHO recom-



mended tolerance level which,  in turn,  has a four-fold safety



factor built in to avoid adverse public health effects.  The



average daily dietary intake of lead (254 mrg PB/day)  has been

-------
                                                           11






calculated by FDA to be 60% of the WHO tolerance level of 430




mrg/day.  If 60% of the WHO tolerance level for lead is not



considered by FDA to represent a crisis situation, should the



48% level for Cadmium be considered a crisis situation requiring



stringent limitations on Cadmium in sludge applied to agricul-



tural land?  The controversy concerning the present U.S.



dietary Cadmium intake  (whether high mean or low median values



should be used), must be resolved before any meaningful risk



assessment can be made.



     The Food and Drug Administration has undertaken a three-



year crash program to establish appropriate levels of Pb and Cd



in important agricultural products.  Once this food basket



survey is completed and maximum permissible concentrations



of Cadmium established  for the various food type categories,



the need for sludge Cadmium regulations may or may not become



apparent.  Without such food Cadmium criteria, however, sludge



Cadmium limits are meaningless.  The implied threat of FDA to



confiscate food grown on sludged land from interstate commerce



can have no meaning, until quantitative food standards for



Cadmium are promulgated like those  for Mercury, Pesticides and



PCB's.  Such Cadmium in food standards would have to be applied



evenhandedly to all crops including those grown on non-sludged



soils, where Cadmium contents were  above average.



      If FDA, USDA, or EPA come to  the conclusion that present



dietary levels of Cadmium are a national health problem, they

-------
                                                           12






should declare Cadmium a. hazardous material (under the Toxic



Substances Control Act) and concentrate their efforts on con-



trolling commercial and industrial users of Cadmium rather than



attacking.the peripheral problem of sludge Cadmium.




     The difficulty with hazardous waste regulations where



concepts are in an evolutionary and fairly primitive stage, is




that early definitions may have more precedential  influence on




future decisions  than  the strict necessity of the  earlier




instance requires.




     For example, if these criteria are adopted as proposed,




they may lead to  even  more restrictive criteria for using




composted sludge  on agricultural land, thus effectively fore-




closing what appears to be the only remaining resource recovery




alternative for many of the major wastewater treatment agencies




in  California.




     If source control and pretreatment were accomplished, sludge




Cadmium levels would probably be reduced by the order of mag-




nitude (^50%) achieved in other urban areas.  In this respect




it is noteworthy that certain agencies in the San Francisco




Bay region already meet EPA's proposed pretreatment requirements




for Cadmium yet sludge from these agencies averages 40-50 rag/kg




dry wt (twice the proposed maximum allowable concentration}.




     Sewage sludge used in agriculture should be of commercial




fertilizer quality (i.e,  the concentration of hazardous materials




should be kept  within limits acceptable for widespread and

-------
                                                           13






continuous use).  Unfortunately, no one has yet defined "com-




mercial fertilizer" quality requirements.  Most superphosphate




used in California has a Cadmium content of -i60 mg/kg.  The




impact of superphosphate Cadmium on the total national food




basket may be far greater than the sludge Cadmium impact.  If




the philosophy of FDA staff that "zero additional discharge of




Cadmium to agricultural soils'1 is to be taken seriously, strict




regulation and ultimate phaseout of high Cadmium superphosphate




fertilizer should be pursued as vigorously as sewage sludge




regulations, yet no responsible federal Regulatory Agency has




suggested this to date.




     The Technical Bulletin issued by EPA's Office of Water




Program Operation (OWPA) in 1976 offered no numerical criteria




for sludge Cadmium application to farmland "Because of the




wide variety of conditions that can affect the level of heavy




metals toxic to...or taken up by crops and eventually consumed




by humans as part of their diet absolute numerical limitations




are not appropriate."  It was therefore recommended that pro-




jects conform to limitations (which do not yet exist) on trace




elements in food as established by FDA or USDA.  This approach




appears to be more reasonable than that of another office  of




EPA (OSW) having responsibility for sludge management.  These




contradictory approaches to sludge management should be resolved




within EPA before any proposed criteria for sludge for agri-




cultural land are adopted.

-------
                                                            14






     The phased approach to Cadmium management cannot be proper



evaluated until additional information is made available which



demonstrates how phased reduction  of maximum  allowable  sludge



Cadmium loadings will  reduce  food  basket  Cadmium.   Presumably,



such information will  be  forthcoming  in EPA's long-promised but



not yet received Environmental Impact Statement  (E1S).  If  the



intention of the phased reductions is as  stated  "to allow



immediate protection  to  the  human diet," it  should be  demon-



strated that  such  reductions  will  significantly  reduce  the



average daily  intake of  Cadmium which,  in turn,  should  reduce



the probability of proteinuria (which is  not  necessarily iden-



tical  with  kidney  damage).   If such significant  impact  cannot be



demonstrated,  the  credibility of the phased approach will be



open to serious question  and  this  section of the proposed criter



must therefore be  deemed  unreasonable.



     The phased approach  reconmends five  different means of



achieving reduced  Cadmium in  the human diet,  namely:



1.   Reduced annual  sludge Cadmium loadings to soil



2.   Restricted cumulative Cadmium loadings to soil



3.   Restricted crops grown on high Cadmium sludged soil



(excluding tobacco, leafy and root crops)



4.   Controlling sludged soil  pH (=>6.5)




5.   Restricting sludge Cd/Zn  ratio to less than 0.015.




     Items  3 and 4  are reasonable management tools and should



remain in the  criteria, but  there are insufficient scientific

-------
                                                           15





data to substantiate the numerical criteria in items 1, 2 and 5.



If FDA or another regulatory agency determines Maximum Allowable



Cadmium concentrations for all foodstuffs categories a re-examin



ation of criteria 1, 2 and 5 would then be warranted on a case-



by-case basis.



     The comparability approach, does permit greater flexibility



than the phased approach.  Before this approach can be supported



however, EPA must provide more precise definitions of local



market, comparable levels (t what standard deviations?), account



ing for dilution in the market place, and monitoring frequency



requirements.  If crops grown without sludge in naturally Cadmiuu



rich soils exceed the national foodbasket maximum permissible



concentrations, should they be considered as primary standards



for comparison with crops grown on sludged soils?  The implica-



tion of the comparability philosophy is that any sludge genera-



ting agency that wishes to use local background levels of



Cadmium in foodstuffs as justification for applying sludge



to agricultural land should be made to pay for the privilege by



having to conduct expensive research, demonstration and monitor-



ing programs.  Should a sewerage agency be involved in deciding



whether or not a particular food product should be marketed or



discarded?  Would it not be more advisable to have a single



regulatory agency monitor agricultural products for Cadmium as



is now routinely done for pesticides and pathogens in meat?



The setting of minimum national standards for Cadmium in all

-------
                          	16





foodstuffs would appear to offer a more manageable alternative




than the comparability approach.



     Monitoring of soils, groundwater, crop and animal (kidney)




tissues for Cadmium once a year should suffice to determine trenls




at the sludged agricultural site.  Sludge quantity and quality




determinations would be required more frequently to ensure




adequate records of annual and cumulative sludge constituents




loadings.



     In order to alleviate the possibility that municipalities




would not maintain a proper system of sludge management in the




field, state regulatory agencies responsible for sludge manage-




ment could require as an integral part of the NPDES permit, or a




waste discharge requirement, sludge landspreading record keeping




at each site where sludge was applied.




     In conclusion   until Cadmium is declared a hazardous




material/or Maximum Allowable Concentrations in foodstuffs




are promulgated, the FDA acknowledged minor public health risk




which prsent-day sludge application to agricultural land




represents can be satisfactorily controlled by a combination of




the following measures:




1.   Source control and pretreatment of wastewater from Cadmium




consuming industries




2.   Soil pH control  (above 6.5) there are relatively few acid




soils being farmed in California




3.   Sludge Application Rate Control (based on the nitrogen

-------
                                                           17






requirement of the crop)




4.   Monitoring of sludge, soil, and agricultural products




derived therefrom for trend analysis.




     By pursuing these measures diligently, the twin objectives




of resource conservation and public health protection can be




realized.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.^ If you would make a copy




of your statement available to the reporter, it will ensure




that it's included in the record in its entirety.  Are there




any comments from the panel?  Any questions from the panel?




          MR. WEDDLE:  I have two questions.  You make the




statement that if the criteria if promulgated the way they are




written now would lead to a more restrictive regulation on the




use of composted sludge.  I'm not sure what you are saying.




          MR. COHEN:  It's based on several factors.  First of




all, my experience with the regulation is in the Province of




Ontario, Canada where in fact the use of composted sludge was




much more regulated than use to agricultural land.  Based seconc




ly on the fact that after composting the metal--  so that in




order to get an equivalent nitro loading, additional would have




to be applied to the  land.



          MR. WEDDLE:  I see.  You didn't mean to imply that




states would subject  composted sludge to more restrictive regu-




lations?



          MR. COHEN:  I did imply that.  I tried to indicate in

-------
                                                           18






my first comment that tt is my experience that the Province of




Ontario, Canada, which granted is not your jurisdiction, in




directing the determining of the regulations for project sewage




application of agricultural land came up with much more restric




tive regulations for Cadmium than composted, methods of composted




primarily because composted might be applied to home vegetable




gardening.



          MR. WEDDLE:  My second question  is, you made a state-




ment that perhaps the Cadmium level, total amount of Cadmium




applied to  fertilizer would have a  greater impact on the diet




than if all or  some substances were--   do  you have  any data to




support that or are you aware of any study to support that?




          MR. COHEN:  I have some numbers  I  have not brought



with me, but as far as the total  amount of superphosphates used




 in agriculture in the United States and the range of Cadmium




 concentration, the total milligrams per year of superphosphates




 versus the total milligrams	




           MR. WEDDLE:   Did those figures include the uptake of




 Cadmium as  a result of those  additions?




          MR. COHEN:  No.   This  is  just based on loadings to



the soil, not the results.




          MR. WEDDLE:   Thank you.




          DR. SKINNER:   Any other questions?




          MR. SHUSTER:   Could you supply us with the documenta-




tion or the  information  that was used to develop your 50 to $10C

-------
                                                           19





million per year impact on the two metropolitan areas?




          MR. COHEN:  Yes, I could do that.




          MR. WEDDLE:  Was that an impact or was that current



cost?




          MR. COHEN:  That was the anticipated annual cost of




the various proposed solutions for the two major study areas in




California, Los Angeles and San Francisco.




          MR. WEDDLE:  As a result of these regulations?




          MR. COHEN:  These are the anticipated costs of the




viable solution, one of which includes composted.  The lower




cost alternative would appear to involve agricultural sludge to




agricultural land which might be limitable or non-allowable if




these would proceed.




          MR. WEDDLE:  We would be interested in any information




you might have on the impact those proposed regulations would




have on those two major metropolitan areas also.




          MR. COHEN:  Additional statements from the managers




of each of the separate projects will be forthcoming after the




Environmental Impact Statement.




          DR. SKINNER:  Your comments with respect to the aver-




age increase in Cadmium in the market basket or in the average




diet of the United States to summarize your comments, you felt




that you didn't feel there was a need for concern, that sewage




sludge could not contribute significant increases to the aver-




age diet.  What about individual diets where a significant

-------
                                                           20






portion of an individual's diet was made up of crops grown on




sludge-remanded lands, say, In a situation where there may be a



home garden where they use composted sludge with high Cadmium




levels, do you think there is a need for protection in that are,



          MR. COHEN:  Obviously the possibility is greater then




but in discussion with Dr. Pahren of the Health Effects Research



Laboratory, which is conducting a study for vegetarians, where




this is most likely to occur versus non-vegetarian, he indicated




that the order of magnitude of crisis is highly overrated.




There  are many medical arguments; one that the World Health




Organization criteria of  200 micrograms of--  is  a wrong figure




based  on some re-evaluation of the Japanese data.  So if you add




all the information together even  if the intake were to exceed,



there  is still  a queation as to whether in fact this would




cause  proteinuria and even that is not necessarily an indication




of pathological kidney condition.   I was  informed that all the




runners  of the  Boston Marathon had signs  of proteinuria, yet




they would not  show signs of kidney  damage.




           DR.  SKINNER:   Any other  questions?




     Thank you,  Mr. Cohen.




     The next several witnesses are  from the  City of Portland




and so that we  can consider  the City of Portland's comments in



their  entirety,  there has  been a request that we move Ms. Connie



McCready, who is the Commissioner of Public Works, up on the




agenda and allow her to speak next,  and  I  think we  will  accommo-

-------
                                                           21





date that.  So Ma. McCready.




          MS. McCREADY:  Thank you very much for allowing me to



come out of turn.




     As a matter of fact, Cowles Mallory graciously offered me




his spot and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact I'm



his boss.




     My name is Connie McCready.  I'm the Commissioner of Public




Works for the City of Portland and I'm a member of the Board of




the Metropolitan Service District as well.




     The statements that I make here this afternoon are my




personal views, but made as an elected official serving on the




governing body of both of these organizations.




     The state officials and staff officials from both the City




of Portland Public Works Department and the Metropolitan Service




District are here, as you testified, on specification of the




proposed rules.




     We basically have three major areas of concern with these




rules.  First, we find that they are ambiguous and subject to




widely differing interpretations.  Secondly, it's not clear who




has the final say in interpreting these rules.  And thirdly,




the rules do impose new programs on financial strapped local




governments without offering any monetary assistance to help




local governments meet the new requirements.  It appears to me




that the rules were written in language broad enough to cover




the tremendous variety of local jurisdictions met across the

-------
                                                            22





United States and by taking this approach, the rules have very




little meaning to local jurisdictions, per se.




     The rules in effect direct us to contact the regional  EPA




office to find out how the Resource Conservation and Recovery




Act of 1976 will be applied in our particular area.  It's my




opinion that local governments need clear and precise regula-




tions if we are to have regulations at all, a clear defined




system for interpreting those regulations and last, federal




government's financial support for implementing its rules.  As




I said, our Public Works Department as well .as the staff of




the Metropolitan Service District are here and will address




specific recommendations for changes in the rules and 1 thank




you very much both for putting me ahead and for coming to




Portland to listen.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.  Are there any questions fron




the pane!7  I 'm sure we will have many questions from the other




people from the City of Portland.




          MS. McCREADY:  Good.  I'll be listening.




          DR. SKINNER:  Mr. Cowles Mallory.  If you do have a




copy of your prepared remarks,  it would help if you would make




that copy available to the reporter especially if you are going




to read sections of it.  Then he can refer to it and need not




listen to every word.




          MR. MALLORY:   As an aside, 20 years ago, I was working




for the United States Public Health Service as an assistant

-------
                                                           23






sanitary engineer and I worked in a group that had, among its




other responsibilities, solid waste disposal.  There was one




person in that group at that time that worked full time on




solid waste.  In looking at the panel here this morning, I




think the ball game has changed and I think we've come a long




way and I also want to welcome all of you out here to Portland.




I've prepared my remarks for today's meeting earlier in the week




and yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with five EPA offi-




cials and to take them out to our sanitary landfill.  I think




the discussions that we had were very useful.  I learned some




things myself and I hoped that the federal officials who were




with me gained an understanding of our situation.




     There was a state law passed in the last session of the




General Assembly which says we shall go no further.




     I understand from my conversation yesterday that a thing




called Guidances are being prepared in Washington and the




Guidances would do essentially what I'm asking for in this




letter and I applaud that development.  I think it's excellent




and from my discussion, I think that is proceeding in a very




sound and sensible manner.  But I'm also told that it will take




three or four months before these Guidances are out.  The City




of Portland has been involved in this * long time.  We simply




can't wait for three or four months and we would request that




the specific letter dealing with our situation be addressed to




us now because I think all of the information is there somewhert

-------
                                                           24
in EPA to do that.



     After my discussions yesterday, I gained some new insight



into this and I understand the problem a lot better, but I'm




going to jump into this anyway because I think the proposal that




I have makes a lot of sense.



     We discussed this issue yesterday.  I realize when this




letter was written your regional office did not have the benefit




of knowledge that Guidances were being provided in Washington




and I understand the rationale for  the process that we are going




through, but from a local official  looking from the outside




looking at the federal government as  a big entity,  it's very




hard  for us to get in there and pinpoint who  the  decider is and




who we should talk to and who has that kind of authority and




who has  that responsibility.



      Mr.  Chairman, my name  is  Cowles  Hallory.  I  am Public




Works Administrator  for the City of Portland. My address is




 400  S.W.  6th Avenue,  Portland,  Oregon,  97204.




      I  appear before you today to suggest  two changes in the




 proposed criteria for the classification of solid waste disposal




 facilities.   In particular,  I will  comment on the ambiguity of




 the  criteria  applying to the  landfilllng of environmentally




sensitive  areas.




      As you well  know,  Portland  and  Oregon have  been leaders




among the nation's cities and states  in preserving the environ-



ment.  I am not here to argue with  the intent of the regulation

-------
                                                           25





or the need for teeth in the law.  I am not here proposing




to cast aside Oregon's tradition and heritage.




     Portland agrees that wetlands and other environmentally




sensitive areas are natural assets needing protection.  We have




addressed landfilling of our wetlands in a cautious and environ-



mentally responsible manner.




     However, as written, these regulations could delay an appro/ed




and environmentally sound plan for the disposal of refuse from




the entire metropolitan area.




     We have two major areas of concern.  First, the excep-




tions to the criteria for the landfilling of wetlands are vague




and invite long time delays.  Second, the role of the state




government and the relationship of landfilling to an overall




environmental plan is not clearly defined.




     Let me deal with these points separately.  First, that




the exceptions to the criteria for filling of wetlands are toto




vague.



     The comment paragraph of Section 257.3-1 (p.4953 of the




Federal Register, February 6, 1978, Part II) states, "Only




upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances - Including a




demonstration of alternative methods of disposal, an assessment




of environmental impact for each alternative, an assessment of




the technical and economic feasibility of each alternative, and




a justification for the wetlands disposal alternative in view




of the environmental impact and feasibility will an NPDES appli-

-------
                                                           26
cation be considered..."



     That is a lot of words, it could mean a lot of time and a



lot of dollars.  It's ambiguous, open to interpretation and



arguments.  What is "economic feasibility"?  What  costs are too



much?  What does it take  to make a "justification  for the wet-




lands disposal  alternative in view of  the  environmental impact"?




For example,  are substantial energy savings  in fuel  consumption,




minimal  air pollution,  and the  preservation  of roads  by hauling




to a.  close-in landfill  enough  of a trade-off,  or does there need



to be more?




      Will the NPDES  permit application be  reviewed as part of an




overall  environmental strategy? If it will, what  type of consi-




deration is  to be  given to whether or  not  the  community is




implementing  resource recovery.




      As  will  be illustrated in  later testimony from our Bureau




of Refuse Disposal,  the City of Portland gained approval from 12




local, regional, state  and federal agencies  to expand its land-




fill  into 55  acres,  classified  as  wetlands.  This  expansion




completes the landfill.   It is  part of a plan  that provides




for the  eventual closure  of that landfill, initiates  resource




recovery,  provides recreational opportunities,  and preserves a




substantially larger wetland area.  The plan is coordinated with




an adjacent plan to provide flood  protection and sites for




industrial development that has been approved  by the  U.S. Corps



of Army Engineers.

-------
_^____	                                         27





      The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality made a




 thorough assessment of the expansion application for the landfil




 Its approval was granted only after careful consideration of




 all environmental issues, comments by other agencies and public



 hearings.




      I submit that EPA must more precisely address these "extra-




 ordinary circumstances'1 and develop a specific variance procedur




 We have already gathered 1,414 pages of studies and spent $906,0




 in our pursuit of an acceptable solution to the refuse disposal




 problem.  If these criteria remain ambiguous, we will be faced




 with additional time delays,  more studies, more expenses, and




 more frustrations as we argue with other governmental officials




 as to how much justification is enough.




      I understand the difficulty responding positively to this




 request.  Your regulations have gone through many drafts already




 The section to which I am referring has been changed from pre-




 vious drafts and a lot of people have been involved.




      However, the problem we face is the same problem we face




 with any new regulations.  New precedents have been established.




 The officials administering the regulations, lacking guidelines,




 are prone to be super cautious.  I have two very specific sug-




 gestions.  First, later testimony from our Metropolitan Service




 District will request wording changes in the second sentence of




 the comment in Sec. 257.3-1A.  The City of Portland supports




 their request.  Second, we request that EPA now, before the
10

-------
                                                           28






regulations are adopted, address a letter to the City of Portland



detailing what documentation would be required and what specific



standards need to be met for the City of Portland to proceed



with the landfill expansion as  approved by the State Department



of Environmental Quality.  Unquestionably, this  letter would




the City of Portland because we would know what  we had to do




and standards  against  which we  would be  judged.   I think it




would  also help  any other  community because  it would establish




at  least one  precedent to  aid in  the implementation of these



regulations.




     The second  point  I wish to address  is that  there is no




clear  definition of roles  between the EPA and state agencies




regarding  these  criteria.




     The proposed rules under the  section title, Approach (p.




4942,  par. 3  of  the Federal Register, February 6, 1978, Part II)




state:  "One  aim in developing  these criteria was to be as spe-




cific  as possible to facilitate the distinction  or classifi-




cation of  disposal  facilities,  without reducing  the flexibility




of state solid waste management and enforcement  agencies to




take into  account the  site-by-site variations and make assess-




ments based on local conditions."



     May I also quote  from an April 7, 1978  letter from Donald




Dubols, Regional EPA administrator,  to Mayor Neil Goldschmidt



of the City of Portland.   "The  Oregon Department of Environmental



Quality is approved to  issue NPDES  permits and such application

-------
                                                           29






would be made to them.  EPA would use these criteria in our




review and action on the DEQ permit."




     That statement goes to the top of my list of bureaucratic




doublespeak.  Who is going to be the decider?  Is it delegated




to the State Department of Environmental Quality, or is EPA




going to decide?  If EPA is going to decide, who in EPA?  Is it




a regional decision or a national decision?




     The criteria further state (257.3-1 Comment, p.4953 of the




Federal Register), "There is a. strong presumption against the




issuance of an NPDES permit for the discharge of solid waste




into wetland areas."



     Will the states actually have the flexibility and authority




to address site-by-site variations and to make assessments




based on local conditions?  On page 4942, the proposed rules




say the states should have that authority.  But in the comment




on Section 257.3-1, it effectively says they don't.



     A more specific definition of roles within the criteria




would enable those responsible for solid waste management to be




very clear about  the requirements and processes necessary to




responsibly address the criteria.  Again we have a specific



request.  We suggest that if a State Department of Environmental




Quality is doing  a good job within its own state of preserving




the wetlands and  if that Department of Environmental Quality is




basing its refuse disposal decisions on comprehensive environ-




mental planning,  then the federal government should leave the

-------
                                                            30






variances to the state.  The state government should be the



final decider.  This is not a new suggestion.  EPA  does it  now




in the construction grants program.



     One of the most important considerations in these criteria




is to assure that things can actually happen.  That refuse  can




actually be disposed of.  That local governments can actually




implement an environmentally sound plan.  Time is often importan:




I know it is. important to the City of Portland and  our metro-




politan area.  I fear that the lack of specificity  in the cri-




teria, the lack of precedence, and the ambiguity of the state's




role will further drag out the decision-making process, wasting




valuable time and costing the taxpayers money.




      In conclusion, the City of  Portland urges EPA  to take  a




hard  look at  these regulations as they affect the criteria  for




landfilling  of  environmentally sensitive  areas.  Let me reiterat




my  two  specific requests.   First, we  request that EPA address a




letter  to the City,  detailing procedures  and the criteria for




expanding our landfill in accordance with the plan  approved by




the state's  Department of Environmental Quality.  Second, we




request that  if a  state Department of Environmental Quality is




doing a good  job, EPA  should leave the variances to the state.




     We are proud of Oregon, and we are proud of our environ-




mental heritage.  We think the points we have raised are constru




tive and hope that you will give them very serious  consideration




     Mr.  Chairman,  we appreciate your time and your attention.

-------
                                                           31






Thank you.




     My suggestion is simply if the state's DEQ are doing a.




good job in environmental matters, that the decisions on excep-




tions to the filling of wetlands should be delegated to the




states.  There is precedent in EPA for this in the construction




grants program and I think this would simplify the situation




from the point of local governments.




     First, we request that EPA address a letter to the city




detailing a procedure and criteria that we have to use for



expanding our landfill.




     Mr. Skinner, we are proud of Oregon and we are proud of




our environmental heritage.  We think the points we've raised




are serious and we think they are constructive.  We hope you




will take them seriously.  Thank you for your time and attention




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.  Are there any questions




from the panel?




     I have a question.




     You indicated that some of the terms in the regulation




such as economically feasible and a number of other terms in




the comment statements were vague.  Could you or would you give




us suggestions as to how we could improve those terms?  How




should we define economic feasibility?  What sort of things




should go into that?  Should we, for example, come up with a




cost increase beyond which the project would not be considered




economically feasible?

-------
                                                           32






          MR.  MALLORY:   You bet I can.   I think in economic



feasibility there is a question of how much additional cost.



I think there could be some guidance or guidelines established



in that if it cost eight times as much or if it costs 1.2 times



as much there is  a big  difference.   I think in terms  of  the




wetlands  that are being filled,  there  can be some specific




guidance  as to  what  type of wetland it  is.   Is it a real super




good wetland  or is  it a marginal wetland, and  I'm sure there




are  good  technical  definitions for that which  I  don't know.




           DR.  SKINNER:   I guess the real problem is what level




of cost  increases should be considered  acceptable and what




 level of  cost increases should not be  considered acceptable.




 It's very difficult  for us to make a statement that would apply




nationwide in that  regard and if you could make  any suggestions,




either at this  point in time or later  on in time,  to help us,




we would  appreciate  that.




           MR. MALLORY:   We would be pleased to do that.  From




our  point of  view,  our  problem is what  increased cost do we




show in the Portland metropolitan area  before  we  can expect to




get  this  permit.  That's the type of decision  that we need right




away because we have a  contract  on our  landfill  that's about to




expire and have to go back out to bids.



          DR. SKINNER:   Fine.  Are there any questions from the




panel?  Thank you, Mr.  Mallory.




     Ms.  Jeanne McCormick  also from the  City of  Portland Solid

-------
                                                           33





Waste Department.  Before you start, there is an opportunity for




the audience to address any speaker.  There are cards outside.




If they haven't been distributed, I'll make sure they are and




you can place questions on them and send them forward.




          MS. McCOKMICK:  Good afternoon.  My name is Jeanne




McCormick.  I am here to talk more specifically about Mr. Mallorp's




number one point   that beitg "The,exceptions to the criteria for




filling of wetlands are too vague."  Let me illustrate the




problems they can cause.




     The Portland metropolitan area may soon face a solid waste




crisis that will be irreparable economically, and will be a




threat to the health and welfare of its citizens.



     The St. Johns Landfill has been in operation for 46 years.




It is currently operating with a DEQ permit to fill 178 acres




to the 52 foot m.s.l., City datum.  At the current rate of fill,




that level will be reached approximately spring of 1981.  It is




one of the two putrescible landfills serving a population




of 900,000 and is the only government owned landfill in the




region.



     In 1975 the City applied for a 55 acre expansion of its




landfill.  The application is consistent with local, regional




and state solid waste land use and environmental plans.  All of




the applicable local and state agencies have approved of the




expansion.  The  EPA has opposed the expansion.



     Twelve  agencies have reviewd and approved the expansion:

-------
                                                            34





Feb. 22, 1975      Portland Planning Commission held hearings



regarding expansion of the landfill.  They were held in St.



Johns.



Feb. 27, 1975      Planning Commission held a meeting regarding



expansion of the landfill.



Apr. 3, 1975       Was an extension of the meeting.



Apr. 23, 1975      Planning'Commission approves expansion pro-



posal.



Sep. 11, 1975      City Council approves an ordinance to expand



the landfill.



Dec. 5, 1975       A meeting was held in the Public Works Admin-



istrators Office - there was verbal approval of expansion by



the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Division



of  State Lands, State Fish  and Game, Department of Environmental



Quality.



Dec.  12, 1975       City  applies  to  DEQ  for  expansion.



Dec.  23, 1975       City  makes  expansion application to Army Corjs



of  Engineers.



Sep.  3,  1976       Multnomah County Health  and Sanitation



approves expansion.



Sep. 8,  1976      Metropolitan  Service  District  approves



expansion.



Nov. 30, 1976      DEQ approves  expansion.



Dec. 13, 1976      Oregon State Preservation Office, Parks and



Recreation Branch voices need for an archeological survey in

-------
                                                           35






accordance with Rivergate Environmental Impact Statement.




Dec. 16, 1976      U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and




Atmospheric Administration approves expansion.




Dec. 23, 1976      EPA opposes expansion.




Jan. 4, 1977       U.S. Fish and Wildlife approves expansion.




Jan. 25, 1977      Preliminary Environmental Assessment done by




Corps of Engineers, the Corps asks respondents to the public




notice if they have additional comments.  There are no additional



comments.




Feb. 11, 1977      Multnomah County Planning and Development



approves expansion.




Feb. 28, 1977      Governor Straub approves expansion.




     The Metropolitan Service District stated in a March, 1978




draft of their report titled Disposal Siting Alternatives:




"During the last 12 years, various jurisdictions and consultants




have undertaken numerous independent analysis of alternate




landfill sites."  These reports are:




Report on Refuse Disposal for Portland, Oregon, by Black and




Veach Consulting Engineers, Aug., 1968.




Study on Sanitary Landfill Sites for Washington County,  Oregon,




Clark and Groff Engineers, Jan., 1970.




Report on Sanitary Landfill and Refuse Disposal Costs for




Portland, Oregon, by Black and Veach, May, 1970.




The Final Report on the Portland Sanitary Landfill Hydrogeologi-




cal Studies, by Stevens, Thompson and Runyan,  Oct., 1972.

-------
                                                           36
Metropolitan Service District Solid Waste Management Action




Plan, Volumes I, II, and III, by Cor-Met, April, 1974.




Environmental Assessment, Solid Waste Milling-Transfer Stations
Cor-Met, 1974.



Regional Sanitary Landfill Report, by MSD, Nov., 1975.




Non Processible Solid Waste Disposal Program, MSP, Jan., 1977.




Disposal Siting Alternatives, by MSD, March, 1978.




     These reports total 1,414 pages and were accomplished at a




conservative estimate of $906,000.




     MSD further stated in its report,  "Based on previous




reports and attempted solid waste siting experiences, there are




probably no sites which meet all of the requirements of;




1.   local land use;  2.  environmental acceptability;  and 3.




economic reasonableness.  Given the existing situation, siting



of  future  landfills  may be impossible."




     Beginning in  1973 the City began  to  look to St. Johns for




expansion.   Several  comprehensive  studies  were  conducted.  Among



these  are:




Proposed Sanitary  Landfill Expansion,  Columbia  Blvd. Sanitary




Landfill,  by  Shannon and Wilson, Nov.,  1973.




Proposed Engineering Design  for Phased Expansion of the St. John
Landfill,  City  Engineers  Office.




Preliminary Environmental Assessment on Public Notice Mo.




071-2-002041. Fill Near Columbia Slough River Mile 3.2, U.S.




Army Corps of Engineers, Dec., 1976.

-------
                                                           37
Environmental Impact Statement for Expansion, St. Johns Sanitary
Landfill, City Engineers Office.




     This expansion was not planned in a vacuum.




     The residents of North Portland are interested in the prese|r




vation of the area.  In 1974 a citizen's conference was held




titled "Lakes, Land, Livability" where the understanding for




need of the landfill for at least 10 more years was addressed.




     The State Legislature in April, 1977 recognized the need




to protect wetlands and passed a bill which limited landfilling




to above the 11 foot m.H.l. in the Smith-Bybee Lake area.  This




law recognizes but does not include the expansion area in the




limitation.  The expansion of this landfill encompasses but a




small part of the wetlands.




     The Region is in the design phase of a resource recovery




facility planned to go on line in 1982.




     The Portland City Council has authorized drafting of an




ordinance that would, among other things provide on-route




collection of recyclable materials to every Portland household.




Accompanying this would be a city-wide recycling education pro-




gram.



     The landfill has been operating for 46 years without




environmental problems including water pollution, as identified




by the City's and DEQ's long term water sampling programs.




     The North Portland citizen's conference recommended a




passive recreation  land use for the landfill.   Both the Planning

-------
                                                           38






Commission and City Council have endorsed recreational use and




maintained a Farm Forest zoning.




     The Portland Park Bureau is currently making long range




park plans for the Columbia Slough, which would include the




landfill area.  The planning for the ultimate use addresses the




preservation of the natural characteristics of the area.




     My question is this:   How much more money do we need to




spend on reports that arrive at the same conclusions?  I sugges




that every dollar we spend after today to try to satisfy the




criteria could be better spent in resource recovery.




     Through the illustration of our problem. The City of Port-




land strongly urges the EPA to specifically address the excep-




tions to the criteria and to place the criteria in the overall




context of the preservation of the environment.




     Thank you for your time and interest.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.  Are you submitting this




material for  the record?




          MS. McCORMICK:  I would be more than happy to if you




would like to read it.




          DR. SKINNER:  Could we include it by reference in the



record?




          MS. McCORMICK:  Yes.




          DR. SKINNER:  I think we would save a lot of effort




from our reporter.   Are there any questions from the panel?




          MR.  DeGEARE:  You mentioned three factors, I believe,

-------
                                                                39






     which no land disposal  facility could satisfy, if I can recall




     your testimony properly, one of which was environmental accept-




     ability and other land  use.  Could you restate that and address




     how you think the priorities on those should be placed?




               MS, McCORMICK:  What I might do is defer to the NPDES.




     This was a quote from their report on siting alternatives.  But




     basically restated, it  says there are probably no sites which




     meet all the requirements of local land use environmental accep-




     tability and economic   reasonableness and if I may take the




10   liberty, Chuck, to indicate that I think that the point they




11   are trying to make is that there are many factors that we need




12   to look at in planning  for alternative landfill sites.  You




13   might have a situation  where a landfill could meet all the




14   criteria, but yet you have a local planning commission that's




15   simply not willing to have a landfill within their jurisdiction.




16   That is a very real situation and that's something that also




17   has to be taken into consideration when siting a landfill.




18             DR. SKINNER:  Any other questions?




19        I have a question.




20        As was indicated by the previous speaker, we are right now




21   in the process of trying to develop guidance information which




22   will be used by the EPA regional offices to permit facilities




23   in wetlands and also to be used by the states where they have




24   the NPDES permit program and one of the difficult problems that




25   we have to deal with is, we have to come up with guidances which

-------
                                                            40






are applicable nationwide:  How decisions  can be made,  what sor




of things need to be weighed in a decision with respect to loca




ting a landfill in a wetland area,  and having gone through this




very expensive research  that you have gone through,  you must




have considered many of  these  things and probably  have  a decisi




format laid out in good  detail and  we would  appreciate  any help




you could give us in the development of  that guidance,  those




things you think are important to consider,  how you trade off




economic factors, what environmental factors are  important,  wha




other environmental facts in looking elsewhere  we  should con-




sider, so anything else  you could provide  us in determining  that



would be very helpful.




          MS. McCORMICK:  Thank you.




          DR.  SKINNER:   Any other questions?  Thank you.




      The  next  speaker is Mr.  Paul Norr.




          MR.  KETTERLING:  Mr. Norr was  unable  to  be here




because of  some last  minute illness.  We are both  here  to testif




on behalf of the Metropolitan  Service District  and I intend  to



give  his  testimony  also.




     My name is  Paul  Norr.   I  am  the solid waste compliance




officer for  the Metropolitan Service District of Portland,




Oregon.  Our address  is  1220 S.W. Morrison Street, Room 300,




Portland,  Oregon, 97205,  phone (503) 248-5470.




     The Metropolitan Service  District (MSD) is a municipal



corporation charged with managing the disposal  of all solid

-------
                                                                41






 1    waste in the Portland metropolitan area, an area that covers



 2    three counties and includes 26 municipalities.  We are the




 3  .  agency with primary responsibility for how landfills are operate|d



 4    in our area.




 5         I am here today on behalf of the District to say that we




 6    generally agree with your proposed solid waste disposal facil-




 7    ity classification criteria, and that we have a few observations




 8    to make.




 9         You have solicited comments regarding the adequacy of the




10    criteria in providing for the protection of the public health




11    and the environment.  We feel that the proposed criteria do




12    offer a reasonable amount of protection, if the rules will be




13    interpreted along the lines described in the accompanying




14    "Summary'' published in the Monday, February 6, 1978 Federal




15    Register, Part II.  It is our feeling that, while the rules




16    themselves may be somewhat vague and uncertain, the summary




17    comments can provide us with the guidance we were hoping for.




18    Thus, we suggest, for your consideration, incorporating some of




19    the more explicit language of the summary comments into the




20    rules themselves.



21         We do, however, applaud the basic approach of designing




22    criteria to help assure "no reasonable probability of adverse




23    affects on health or the environment".  None of us can make any




24    guarantees, and all we can do is try- to predict where problems




25    are likely to occur and then design a system to prevent them,

-------
                                                            42





and then to react the best we can when unforseeable problems



occur.



     You have solicited comments regarding the practicality of



implementing these criteria, particularly whether  they  are



technically feasible, and able to be monitored and enforced.



Monitorable and enforceable?  Yes.  Technically  feasible?   Yes,



at a cost.



     We have attempted to develop a model of  the development



costs for a typical disposal site, assuming compliance  with



the proposed criteria.  We used what we  feel  is  not an  unusual



site, with the site not being located in a wetland, not being



located in the 100 year flood plain, not being a critical habi-



tat, not being in the recharge zone of a sole source  acquifer,



and not within 3,048 meters of an airport runway.  We assumed



a  leachate effluent  collection,  containment,  and treatment  sys-



tem to help reduce the  probability  of  adverse affects on the



surface  and ground water.   We  assumed  the practice of covering



all unshredded,  unstabilized,  putrescible wastes with dirt  covet



each day  that  the site  is  open,  as  suggested  by  the summary



comments, to help reduce the probability of fire,  litter, rodent



and vector infestation, odor,  to enhance site appearance, and



to help keep rain and surface water from draining  through the



fill.  And we assumed a gas collection and venting system to



help reduce the probability of the accumulation  or migration of



toxic or explosive gases generated in the fill.

-------
                                                                43





          We feel that all these precautions are technically



     feasible, and a site so designed should pose no reasonable



     probability of adverse affects on health or the environment.



     Technically feasible?  Yes, but at a cost.



          Our typical site has a capacity of about 2,800,000 tons.



     We added up the costs of developing our typical site-- includ-



     ing site evaluation costs, engineering costs, a leachate control



     system, a gas venting system, cover costs, including final cover



     plus what we feel are reasonable contingency costs--  and



10   determined that the total development cost of our typical site



11   today would be about $15,400,000, which would yield a site



12   development cost of around $5.50 per ton.  And that's before




13   operating expenses.



14        Now we're not saying that that's too much money.  If we



15   assume that adverse affects on health and the environment are



16   not good, and that we want to have a garbage disposal system



17   that poses no reasonable probability of these adverse affects,



18   then it might be worth the money.  But let's all understand



19   up front that such a system will cost money



          We  estimate the development costs of an existing landfill



21   in the Portland area to be in the neighborhood of $2.00 per



22   ton.  That means that if  the  criteria  adopted are similar to



23   those proposed, the site  development costs for a landfill in



24   the Portland  area will jump  from around $2.00 per ton to around



25   $5.50 per ton.  That is an increase of about two and three-

-------
                                                           44






fourths times over today's cost for site development alone.



     If EPA chooses to adopt these criteria, it should be  done



being fully aware that there are costs associated with meeting



the standards.  We at MSB  feel  that these  criteria, with per-



haps some minor adjustments,  should be adopted, with  the under-



standing that  what we  are getting for our money--  that  is,




what  every  person who  lives in our district is getting for their




money--  is no reasonable probability of adverse affects oh




health or the environment resulting from tossing all  of  our




 garbage into a landfill and covering it over with dirt.   If we




want to continue to landfill the waste we generate, we should




 be at least socially responsible enough to pay to prevent




 adverse affects.   To repeat, we support these types of criteria,




 but realize that there are costs associated with the  standards.




      To jump back a little to Section 257.3-1 of the  proposed




 rules, we do have a brief comment on the extent we ought to go




to protect  environmentally sensitive areas.   We would like




Corky Ketterling, manager of engineering and analysis, to




explain a  concern we have.




     My name is Cordell Ketterl-ing,  I am Manager of Engineering




and Analysis for  the Metropolitan Service District, Portland,



Oregon.




     I  am here to address specific wording in Section 257.3-la,




"Wetlands as Environmentally Sensitive Areas:.



     While we  have no argument  with the  development of a wet-

-------
                                                                 45





 1    lands policy and the efforts of EPA to protect wetlands through




 2    these proposed rules, we feel implementation of the draft rules,




 3    as published in the Federal Register on February 6, 1978 would




 4    be unfair to the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area.




 5         Earlier versions of the rules have been modified to be more




 6    explicit about environmentally sensitive areas.  However, in




 7    addressing wetlands, the present wording of the rules effectively




 8    provides no opportunity for "state solid waste management and




 9    enforcement agencies to take into account site-by-site variations




10    and make assessments, based on local conditions".




11         While the supplementary information provided with the rules




12    on environmentally sensitive areas seems appropriate-  that is,




13    a clear demonstration that there will be no significant adverse




14    impact and an analysis of the availability and practicality of




15    other alternatives- the actual rules and the specific supplemen-




16    tary information on wetlands refer only to technical and econ-




17    omical feasibility, not practicality.




18         While it is easy to recognize that lack of public reaction




19    may favor putting a landfill in a wetland, public reaction




20    cannot then be ignored as a factor in siting landfills.




21         Our concern is that the local jurisdiction responsible




22    for solid waste disposal may be able to find technical and




23    economical feasible alternatives to a wetland site, but local




24    land use processes and citizen attitudes make the otherwise




25    economic and technically feasible sites not practical.

-------
                                                            46






     To mitigate our concern, we request that the  second sentenc



of the Comment in Section  257.3-la be modified  to  read as follow



     "Only upon  a showing  of extraordinary circumstances, an



analysis  of  the  availability and practicality of alternative




existing  and potential disposal sites  in terms  of hydrogeologica



environmental,  economic and other pertinent factors, and a jus-




tification for the wetlands disposal alternative in view of




 this analysis, will an NPDES permit be considered and issued."




      The corresponding part of the supplementary information




 on wetlands needs to be similarly modified or deleted.




      Other word changes may accomplish the same purpose, but




 so there is no confusion, our objective is that the rules recog-




 nize feasibility is more than just economic or technical consi-




 derations and, although alternatives to wetlands disposal may




 be technically or economically feasible, the game alternatives




may not be practical.



      Thank you.




           DR.  SKINNER:  Thank you.   Are there any questions?




          MR.  DeGEARE:   I  believe that  in your discussion of




developments  costs, you indicated that  current   costs disposal




facility  development of $2.00  per ton and the estimate to these




criteria would be $5.50 per  ton.   I've  also come to understand




that requirements for  land disposal within the  State of Oregon




are more stringent than those we are proposing  in  this criteria.




So I wonder--  it causes me some surprise  that  you would come up

-------
                                                           47






with this differentiation attributed to this proposed regulation




Could you relate the $2.00 cost to the state requirements?




          MR. KETTERLING:  Well, I think the state may look at




this differently than I do, but the $2.00 per ton is associated




with a cost of developing landfill understanding that most of




these landfills-- I think there is eight different landfills




that operate now in our area began to operate at a time when not



all of the state regulations were in full effect and were being




enforced, so the present cost tends to indicate this.




     The existing landfills do not have a positive leachate




collection system and oth".r things that are in the criteria.




          MR. SHUSTER:  What you are suggesting then is that to




look at a new facility to comply with the state regulation would




be this $5.50 per ton?



          'MR. KETTERLING:  Inasmuch as the state regulations




match this criteria and I think that there is other aspects of




it, too.  There is aspects of the way the state regulations as




well as these criteria are enforced and I think some of the




provisions of this criteria would make that enforcement agency




more mandatory perhaps than it is now.



          DR. SKINNER:  But your assumption of $2.00 for  develop




ment cost was not for facility and compliance with state  regula-




tions?



          MR. KETTERLING:  I'm sorry.



          DR. SKINNER:  The number of estimate of development

-------
                                                           48






costs for being in the range of $2.00 was not a cost for facilit



ies in compliance with state regulations?




          MR. KETTERLING:  That's correct.  It's an estimate of




the existing cost.




          DR. SKINNER:  I have a question.  Could you give us




some examples of what you mean by practical considerations out-




side the technical and economical considerations?




          MR. KETTERLING:  It may be the practical consideration




that I had in mind was the issue of land use in citizen reaction




I think at one of these kind of local meetings in a local juris-




diction and this local jurisdiction has the possibility to veto




your proposal; the citizens to complain against some kind of




constitutional rights and it's very difficult for us to overcome




that kind of thing and we feel that the present wording may not




take that into consideration.  We would like to assure that it



does .




          DR. SKINNER:  That's a very good comment.  Are there




any other questions?




          MR. SHUSTER:  Then you are just recommending that we




add the term practical?




          MR. KETTERLING:  Yes, I am.  I think that is basically




it.  I notice that the wording on environmentally sensitive




areas contains all those words and the words that I'm suggesting



apply to wetland areas.  I think when the wording was formulated




on the wetlands area somehow that wording got misplaced, althoug

-------
maybe it's there.




          MR. SHUSTER:  Is this another vague term that you want




it further defined or just leave it as is?




          MR. KETTERLING:  I think the guidance that's been




suggested--  I mean, they are only words and I'm sure the more




words you have, the more room for debate, but I guess from our




standpoint, we would like to make sure some of our words are



in there.




          DR. SKINNER:  I think that's a very good point.  The




site might not be available for other reasons and that certainly




has to be considered.  Are there any other questions?  Thank




you.   Mr. George Warren.




     I understand Mr. Bill Davis is not going to make a statement:.




Fine.




     Mr. Paul McGough.




          MR. McGOUGH:  My name is Paul S. McGough.  I am vice-




president   Product Development of Resources Conservation Co.




of Renton, Washington.  Resources Conservation Co.  is a joint




venture company owned by affiliates of The Boeing Company and




Reading & Bates Offshore Drilling Company.  Our company is




engaged in all aspects of design and construction of wastewater




and sludge treatment systems.   It is this latter area--  sludge




treatment--  about which our comments are made here this after-




noon.



     We are appreciative of the Environmental Protection Agency'

-------
                                                           50
desire to establish criteria for the discharge of wastewater




from waste treatment plants into lakes, rivers and streams and



the deposit of sludges which may contain hazardous materials on



land.  We share your concern.   But we  do have  some questions




and concerns  about the practicality  of some of the criteria



published here.




1.   According to the proposed criteria, the intent  is  to




regulate solid waste  disposal  to minimize  harmful effects to




health and  the environment.  The coverage  section of the criteria



states  that  the  criteria applies  to "all  solid waste"  and then




defines solid waste  to  include sludge from a waste treatment




plant  and defines disposal to  be an  all-inclusive term.




     Given  this  definition,  the criteria then  emphasizes the




applicability of  the  criteria  to "land disposal of sludge




resulting from the treatment  of domestic sludge."  This would




apply  to all  forms of treated  sludge,  wet  or dry, regardless




of their origin,  applied to  land.  But the scope also  specifi-




cally  excludes "land application of  domestic sewage."  This




distinction   is unclear  and confusing,  and appears to be contra-




dictory.  If  sludge is nothing  more  than treated domestic




sewage, then why  is it more of  a problem than  sewage, especiallj




in the light of an overriding concern  of cadmium contamination.




How can it be permissible to spray raw sewage  on land without




regard to the proposed limitations while restricting the spread-



ing of  dry,  pathogen-free, sewage solids?

-------
                                                           51






2.   The criteria is written so as to impose the responsibility




of ultimate disposal compliance upon the owner/operator of a




waste treatment plant.  In many cases, it is impractical to




require the owner/operator to assume this responsibility.  Where




large bulk sales are involved, tracking the product to its




final use is not feasible.  The responsibility of compliance




should be passed on to the purchasers so that it is the end




user who is ultimately responsible for disposal within the




established regulations.




     The EPA is stressing the recovery of material resources,




and we strongly prescribe to this philosophy.  Sludge obviously




has recoverable value but it must be applied within regulations.




To force owner/operator responsibility would negate the EPA'a




recovery policy since it would not be economically advantageous




for the owner/operator to provide downstream tracking to a




widely dispersed marketing area.



     Similarly, it  is impractical to govern cadmium or heavy




metal concentrations by areal methods to the individual user of




bagged fertilizer/soil admendments products.  The owner/operator




would have no  control over the ultimate use of a bagged product.




An appropriate method of  control would be to mark the bagged




product with a maximum allowable application rate.  This appli-




cation rate would  in turn determine the maximum allowable




cadmium concentration of  the product.  Together, these two para-




meters would insure that  areal loading would be within desired

-------
                                                            52






regulations.



3.   In regard to the application of  sludge  to  land to be used



for the production  of food  chain crops,  the  criteria recognizes



the vast range of factors that  vary from site to site--  such as




climate, hydrology, and geology.  This,  coupled with a wide




variety of crops which  have different assimilation rates to




various minerals and elements,  does not lend itself to the




application of a single standard geared to a worst-case conditio




An evident purpose  of the proposed criteria is to control the




cadmium in the food chain.   The amount of cadmium ingested by




human consumption is not solely dependent upon the level of




application of a sludge to the crop soil.  Soil conditions,




as well as crop characteristics, contribute significantly to




the degree Of cadmium exposure to the public.  Thus, what is  an




unacceptable level  of areal cadmium content in one region for




one crop  could be quite acceptable in another.  Again, in light




of the EPA's mandate to conserve and recover material resources,




the  establishment of a  worst-case standard seems inappropriate.




     We recommend that  a formula be developed that would include



all of the presently known  soil factors  such as cationic ex-




change capacity  (CEC),  PH,  etc.   This formula can then be used




to assess  the acceptability of  specific  sites to a given level




of cadmium.  In this manner, a  potential user can predetermine




the rates  and length of  time that he  can apply  a given sludge




to his land.  Different  loading  factor formulas  could be set  foi

-------
                                                           53





different crops.   Not only will this method provide adequate




protection for the public but will allow the ultimate fertilizer




user to plan his long term sludge needs.  In turn, this planning




will provide the long term forecasts required by owners/operators




of waste treatment plants for facility planning.  Without this




visibility, they will turn away from the fertilizer industry as




a viable market for sludge and thus defeat the concept of mater-




ial resource recovery.




     Resources Conservation Co. would welcome the opportunity




to discuss the points raised here and others in greater detail




with any interested persons.




     Thank you.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.  Are there any questions?




     I have a question about your suggestion that we include




a formula in the criteria for considering all of the different




factors which need to be considered in crop uptaking and allow-




ing that formula to be used for prediction of crop uptakes.   We




were not aware that the level of understanding in the state of




the art of and management of crops was to the point where such




an empirical relationship could be derived.  You apparently




feel that that is the case.  Could you, for the record, submit




such a formula to be used?



          MR. McGOUGH: I don't mean to suggest that a formula




currently exists.  I suggest that one should be developed and




I don't think that because one is not yet developed that one

-------
                                                            54






cannot be done.  I believe that there are enough scientists,



certainly enough people in the Department of Agriculture Sciencej,



those that know about this particular situation such that a




given formula can be developed.   I certainly do not suggest one




is developed.



          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.  My  other question is with




respect to your comments on  sewage,  sludge,  solid waste and




disposal and also your  comments on placing  the responsibility




on the owner and operator  of sewage  treatment  plants and I guess




it's  a statement as well as  a question.  Tho.se definitions are




not  definitions  that  EPA  came up  with.   Those are legislative




definitions  that  are  written into the law.   Are you suggesting




a change  in  the legislation because they are inappropriate?




          MR.  McGOUGH:   I guess maybe I am, sir, because I do




believe  that they are inconsistent in the interpretation or we




tend to  interpret  them differently.   If there is going to be  a




universal interpretation,  maybe my concern would be somewhat




alleviated,  but  the way they are  currently written allows varyinjj




interpretations  by different parties.   I certainly don't know of|




any manner in  which the legislature,  per se,  can be changed,




but  I 'm only concerned  about the  manner in which it can be con-




strued by various  sources.




          DR.  SKINNER:  Thank you.   Are there  any other question^?



Thank you.




     Dale Nunamaker.

-------
                                                                55





               MR. NUNAMAKER:  My name is Dale Nunamaker and I rep-




     resent the City of Portland, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.




     My comments will be very brief.




          The disposal or utilization of solid waste materials,




     including wastewater sludge, is a matter of major significance




     to municipalities nationwide.  The City of Portland welcomes




     the timely guidance for the solution of solid waste problems




     presented by the Environmental Protection Agency as the subject




     of this hearing.  The following comments are offered for consi-




10   deration.




11   SECTION 257.3-5, Subsection (a), Cadmium




12        Paragraph  (i) would reduce the maximum allowable annual




13   addition of cadmium to lands that are or will in the future be




14   used for production of food chain crops from 2.0 kilograms per




15   hectare in 1978 to 0.5 kilograms per hectare in 1986.  This




16   requirement is overly restrictive and should be amended.  If




17   2.0 kilograms of cadmium per hectare is safe in 1978, it would




18   seem wise to retain this limit until better information is




19   available regarding public health risks and the fate of cadmium




20   in various soils and plant tissues.




21        Paragraph  (iii) would prohibit using solid waste with a




22   cadmium concentration in excess of 25 milligrams per kilogram




23   on soils where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or root crops are or




24   will be grown for direct human consumption.  This restriction




25   should be deleted.  It addresses cadmium concentration in solid

-------
                                                            56





waste without regard for the quantity to be applied  to  the soil



     One important objective of the City of Portland's  Industri



Wastewater Monitoring and Control Program  is  the  reduction



of heavy metals entering the municipal  sewerage system.   This




effort will  continue and will  be  intensified  with respect to



cadmium.




     Attached to  this  statement  is  a critique of the proposed




criteria identified as  a  "consensus report" by the Cooperative




State Research  Service  (CSRS)  Technical Committee.  Membership




of the CSRS  Committee  includes soil scientists from  the U.S.




Department of Agriculture;  the Universities of Florida, Wisconsi




and  California; Ohio State  University,  Purdue University  and




Oregon State University.  The  professional expertise brought




by this committee to the  subject  of utilization of solid  wastes




on agricultural soils  is  unique  and represents a resource not




available within  municipal  agencies.  We urge the Environmental




Protection Agency to give careful  consideration to the  commit-




tee's report.




     We fully support responsible regulation  for the protection




of public health  and the environment  when  such regulation is




based on firm evidence  of risk.



     Thank you.




          DR. SKINNER:   Thank  you.  Can you tell  us  what  the




cadmium level of  the city sludge is?




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  Forty milligrams per kilogram at  the

-------
                                                            57





present time.




          DR. SKINNER:  And how is that sludge currently being



disposed of?




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  The primary sludge is  annerokicalljy




           digested and is being put on unimproved industrial




property.  This is sandy soil from Columbia River dredg'ing.




The secondary sludge is being aerobically digested and put into




our sewage lagoon.




          DR. SKINNER:  Are there any plans for using this




sludge in agricultural land?




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  Yes.  We have completed a 201 facility




plant in April of 1977.  The City Council narrowed the choice




of alternatives to two.  One would be to put in a sludge drying




system to come up with a bone dry, sterile product which could




be used locally or marketed.  The other alternative is to barge




up the Columbia River to eastern Oregon and aerobically digested




sludge for utilization on future farmland.  Our proposal would




be to operate a soil improvement site so that that land could be




enhanced for future agricultural use.




          MR. WEDDLE:  Under the second option that you are




considering, the criteria proposed two options and it sounds like




that second alternative that you have might meet the second




option for controlling cadmium.  Would you care to comment on




it, why you chose not to comment on that other alternative and




whether it could be used as an alternative for Portland?

-------
                                                            58





          MR. NUNAMAKER:  Well,  the  trouble I had with the othei




alternative is,  if  I understand  you  correctly, you are referring




to the one where the plant  tissues would be monitored.




          MR. WEDDLE:   Right.




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  We would propose initially to operate




what  I like  to  call a  soil  improvement site.  The only crops




that  would be grown in the  first number of years would be cover




crops which  would be cultivated back into the soil.   Therefore,




we would not have a marketable product to monitor.  Now,  those




cover crops  would be monitored.




          MR.  WEDDLE:   Under that plan, you wouldn't have to




comply with  the cadmium numbers in any case because you wouldn't




be marketing crops. But eventually, you do want to restore the




land  and sell the crops?



          MR.  NUNAMAKER:  We would not want to exceed the accumu-




lated metals  limit  nor, as  I read the criteria, would we  want




to exceed the  annual maximum allowable loading rate for cadmium




because  it says  to  lands  that  are or will in the future be used




for production of food chain crops.




          MR. WEDDLE:  Are you  suggesting that the annual  limita-




tions are appropriate  in  a  case  where you are not going to grow




crops during that first year?




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  No,  I'm not.   I'm suggesting that




probably 2.0 kilograms  per  hectare is appropriate.  I'm not that




much of an authority on either the health risks or the metals

-------
                                                           59





uptake of various crops.  I just feel that reducing from 2.0




down to 0.5 or a 75% reduction by 1986 should not be done unless




there aire conclusive and compelling reasons.




          MR. WEDDLE:  Could you sometime in the future, but




before the public comment period closes, perhaps submit comments




on the second alternative and whether that in after giving it




some extra thought would be a viable alternative in this situa-




tion?



          MR. NUNAMAKER:  Yes, I certainly can.




          DR. SKINNER:  Does the city currently have plans to




institute pretreatment programs to	




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  Yes, we have an existing pretreatment




program and I refer to it in my statement.  We are immediately,




and this really came out of our facility planning, going to inte|n




sify the efforts with respect to most metals, but especially




cadmium and zinc.  We have, incidentally, since 1975 managed




to reduce zinc by some 277=, but now we better pay attention to




cadmium.



          DR. SKINNER:  Do you have any estimate to what you




could bring the cadmium sludge down to in your treatment?




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  No, I really don't.  I feel that the




excess cadmium is from industrial sources.  I feel that we can




have  some appreciable affect on it.  The reason I have the ques-




tion  is that cadmium in our wastewater is at substantially lowei




concentrations than our zinc concentrations and, therefore, we

-------
                                                            60






may not enjoy the  spectacular  improvement  which we have experi-




enced with  zinc.   I would hope we could bring it down to 25



milligrams  per  kilogram, but  that's nothing more than a guess.




          DR. SKINNER:  The reason I'm asking that question  is




because that's  the purpose  of the sliding scale with respect  to




cadmium from 2.0 kilograms  down to 0.5 that we anticipated that




pretreatment programs would be instituted that would allow




improved  sludge to be spread in the future without precluding




those options.




          MR. NUNAMAKER:   I do not personally object to pre-




treatment programs.   In fact,  they seem wise, but to start out




to pin down a. limit,  1986,  I believe,  is going too far.




          DR. SKINNER:  Any other questions?




          MR, FEIGNER:   I'm only partially familiar with the




plans to  barreling the sludge, but it's my understanding that




the application rates at least in the  Environmental Impact




Statement I saw were  restricted  by nitrogen loadings as  opposed




to cadmium  loadings.  Would you  care to comment on that?




          MR. NUNAMAKER:  Yes.   Initially, if we were to start




between now and 1981,  I believe  our loadings would be determined




by nitrogen.  Once the  1986 requirement went into effect, then




cadmium would govern  and it would,  unless  we had been able to




diminish  the concentration  of  cadmium,  substantially cadmium




would be  the controlling element.




          DR. SKINNER:  Are there any  other questions?  Thank

-------
                                                            61
you.




     Mr. George Cvitanich.




          MR. CVITANICH:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee




For the record, my name is George Cvitanich and I am Executive




Secretary of the Washington Waste Management Association and I




reside at 3816 North 37th Street, Tacoma, Washington, 98407.




     Our Association represents approximately 907= of the private




waste management industry operating within the 39 counties loca-




ted in the state under certificates granted by and regulated




under provisions of the State of Washington Utilities and Trans-




portation Commission.  (RCW 81.77)  Our members are engaged in




the collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes,




resource recovery services, chemical waste treatment and disposa




     With the chairman's permission, I would like to take a




moment to provide the committee a very brief resume of my solid




waste background and qualifications.  I served 10 years as an




elected official (City Council, City of Tacoma) which has a




"garbage utility",  served as Pierce County Solid Waste Coordinati




(2nd largest county in the state) during the development of




their Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (1969-72),




assisted the EPA (Region X) in developing a Solid Waste Plan in




Anchorage, Alaska.   Consulted with and wrote Lewis County's




Solid Waste Management Plan and numerous other programs.  On




June 2 of this year, I will be starting my fifth year as Execu-




tive Secretary of the Washington Waste Management Association.

-------
                                                            62





     At this juncture, I would like  to point out that I do not




consider myself an "expert" in many  phases  of solid waste manage-



ment.  Having worn so many different hats and actively engaged




in various phases of solid waste management the past eight years




I feel that our suggestions are  timely,  of a constructive nature




and are based upon actual experiences and not theory.




     I am pleased to be  here  today to discuss the proposed




criteria for classifications  of  solid waste disposal facilities,




as required by  Section 4004 of the Resource Conservation and




Recovery Act of 1976.  In addition,  I will comment upon some




of our Association's concerns  and experiences in the State of




Washington, during the planning  and implementation phases of




the State Solid Waste Act which  was  adopted in 1969.  (RCW 70.95




     The officers and member  of  the WWMA commend the staff of




the Office of Solid Waste at  EPA for their efforts in hearing




the fullest and most complete views  of all parties who will be




affected by the landfill criteria which  will achieve the desired




results by serving as guidelines to  those people in the respec-




tive states who will be  conducting an inventory of all land




disposal sites.  Because the  inventory will be conducted by a




diverse group of people  across the country  with varying skills,




levels of education and  backgrounds,  it  becomes absolutely




essential that the guidelines provided by EPA be as specific,




clear and quantitative as possible.   In  our opinion, the criteri




should allow little or minimal discretion to those taking the

-------
                                                           63





inventory in assessing how a particular land disposal site meets



the criteria established by the federal government.  This uni-



formity of application of the criteria is essential if the



results of the survey are to have any useful or meaningful pur-



pose on a state of national level.



     As I indicated earlier, while developing Pierce County's



Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan, we utilized the 1969, National



Public Health Service Survey which had inventoried disposal



sites.  In an effort to determine the reliability and validity



of the survey, we contacted the appropriate .officials in each



of the 18 cities and towns located within the county to confirm



the data.  Much to our shock and dismay, most all erf the persons



contacted by our office had never heard of nor participated in



the survey.  Gentlemen, we cannot afford this type of inventory



under any circumstances 11  The reliability, validity and method-



ology utilized in developing the criteria and inventory must be



accurate and consistent.



     It has been nearly a year and a half since Congress enacted



the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  of 1976.  Our mem-



bership has and will continue to provide environmentally sound



waste management and resource recovery services which support



the intent of the Act, however, all of us must be very aware



of the cost factors involved and clearly understand that as an



industry we must provide the highest and best level of solid



waste services the citizens and taxpayers can afford--  cost

-------
                                                            64






effectiveness is    paramount.



     Although the subject for today's  public hearing is "Cri-




teria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" as




proposed under Section 4004 of  RCRA,  the inter-relationship of




various sections contained within the Act requires that I  direct




additional but brief  comments to several other provisions  that




are of concern to our industry  and  relate specifically  to  the




criteria in  providing for  the protection of public health, the




environment,  and the  potential  impacts on many segments of our



society and  economy.




     Section 1003  (3) "prohibiting  future open dumping  on  the la|nd




and requiring the conversion of existing open dumps to  facili-




ties which do not pose  a danger to  the environment or to health.




In principle  we support  the  initiative to eliminate open dumping.




Only through enforcement of effective anti-pollution standards




can environmentally-sound  disposal  sites be possible.   The law




requires EPA  to establish criteria  for classifying all  sites as




either "sanitary landfills" or  "open  dumps".  The dumps must be




closed or upgraded to meet the  environmental criteria.




     There is, however, a provision in Subtitle D which may




have an adverse, though unintended, effect on obtaining the goal.




Specifically, the section provides  that state plans establish a




compliance schedule for sites classified in the survey  as  "open




dumps",  not to exceed five years, but  such schedule may be




established only if there is no alternative complying site which

-------
                                                            65





can be utilized.




     Section 4005  (c) "Each such plan shall establish, for any




entity which demonstrates that it has considered other public




or private alternatives for solid waste management to comply




with the prohibition on open dumping and is unable to utilize




such alternatives to so comply, a timetable or schedule for




compliance for such practice or disposal of solid waste which




specifies a schedule of remedial measures, including an enforce-




able sequence of actions or operations, leading to compliance




with the prohibition of open dumping of solid waste within a




reasonable time  (not to exceed five years from the date of pub-




lication of the inventory under Subsection (b)."




     The law does not define the term "alternatives", but rather




in the proposed State Planning Guidelines, EPA asks the state,




in each case, to determine if there is a complying alternative.




The state may find itself in a difficult situation.  For example




when two landfills in close proximity are surveyed. Site A may




be determined to meet the landfill criteria while Site B fails




because, in our example, it does not have adequate vegetation




to fully prevent surface runoff.  If there were no nearby site,




the state would be empowered to establish requirements to




improve the condition of the non-complying site thereby making




this site a useful and environmentally sound facility.  As the




law is written, however, because Site A is in the vicinity, the




state must assess whether Site A is an "alternative" under the

-------
                                                            66





law.  If so, all the waste from Site B must  be redirected to



Site A.



     We feel that a state, when  it determines that a disposal



site does not comply with EPA criteria for  the purposes of  the



National Survey, should determine how the site can be brought



into compliance.  If the site cannot  be upgraded,  it should be



closed, the decision should  be made on the  basis of the conditio(n



of  the site in  question, and not on the existence of so-called



alternatives, the availability  of which would be difficult  to



evaluate objectively.   The  inspection of a  landfill and issuance



of  a compliance schedule must be consistent within a geographica



area.  Prior to the  issuance of  a compliance schedule,  all



sites  in the surrounding area should  be inspected—  consistent,



uniform and timely enforcement  of the regulations  are of primary



importance.



     A second problem  relates to the  inventory of open dumps



that EPA is required to publish  within one  year after the land-



fill criteria are finalized.  When the law  was drafted,  it  was



estimated that  there were approximately 17,000 disposal sites



in the nation.  As EPA interprets the comprehensive definition



of solid waste  in the  law, however, the landfill survey called



for in Subtitle D may  encompass  as many as  100,000 sites, or



more, including the previously uncounted industrial pits, ponds,



and lagoons.  We believe the  law should be  amended to allow the



states and EPA  a reasonable time to prepare a complete and  accui-

-------
                                                           67

ate inventory.  We sincerely believe, that no useful purpose
is served by a hasty evaluation in which some sites are ignored
totally and the balance surveyed with varying degrees of con-
sistency.  The EPA in its proposed State Planning Guidelines
has recognized the need to phase the survey over several years,
recommending that states set their own priorities.  In order to
comply with the language of the law, however, it is my understan-
ding EPA intends to publish a partial inventory one year from
finalization of the criteria, although a majority of sites will
not have been surveyed.  Such a policy decision represents a
serious problem if all sites within a given market area are not
surveyed within one year.  We feel that the physical limitations
of the states will inevitably cause delays.
     If a site is classified as an open dump, it may be put on a
compliance schedule, requiring corrective actions, such as mon-
itoring wells or gas venting systems which are costly and will
increase the disposal  costs at that site.  In other words, a
situation will be created in which a disposer may choose betweer
a facility which costs more to operate because it is complying
with federal regulations and a site which may have lower operating
costs because it has not been surveyed and is therefore not on
a compliance  schedule.   In effect, the government will be pen-
alizing  those facilities which are surveyed  first by making then
less competitive.
     It  is my understanding  Congress recognized  this  problem

-------
                                                            68





deferring the publication of the  list  of  open dumps until the




survey is completed.  Piecemeal publications  of the survey will



surely result in inequities in the data.   We  urge you,  the EPA




in its Annual Report  to  Congress  to only  report the status of



the  inventory,  indicating in aggregate data the number  of sites




in each  state inspected  and the number placed on compliance




schedules.




     A further  comment is in order regarding  the compliance




schedule required  for an identified open  dump under Section 4005




 (c).  It is  essential that EPA assures that states are  enforcing




this schedule.  RCRA  should be amended to require annually that




states,  to continue eligibility for solid waste grants,  certify




their enforcement  of  actions indicated on compliance schedules.




     Clearly, the  inventory of land disposal  sites is central




to RCRA's goal  of  prohibiting  open dupns.  Violators of federal




criteria are subject  to  citizens  suits.   This provision of the




law  could have  a tremendous economic impact on both public and




private  landfill operators.  The  regulations  should be  clarifiec




either through  amendment or administrative procedures to prevent




the nuisance or special  interest  suits.   We also believe mea-




sures must be taken to put the responsibility on the plaintiff




to absolutely prove a violation is  taking place prior to requi-




ring the landfill operator to  defend himself.   We are well-awarf




that states without plans to eliminate dumps  cannot receive




federal solid waste grants.  It is  imperative,  therefore,  that

-------
                                                           69





the inventory be an accurate and complete accounting of the




inadequate disposal sites in the nation.




     As I noted earlier in my presentation, we are concerned




that in some cases, the states and EPA in an attempt to achieve




flexibility, have proposed criteria that will allow for varying




interpretations in different areas.  For example,  a sanitary




landfill is defined as a site which complies with state and loca




air quality standards.  We have little or no objections to local




government developing their own standards, such as, (example)




a prohibition against odor emissions.  We do not believe,  howeve




that Congress intended that local standards be the basis for




federal court action.




     Another significant and major area of concern to our Asso-




ciation and industry is what we commonly refer to as the "double




set of standards".  Of course I am referring to political juris-




dictions and their imposition of arbitrary constraints, rules,




regulations and level of enforcement applied by recipients of




federal and state grants on the private landfill operators to




ensure their compliance with what is called in Washington "State




Minimum Functional" Standards (WAC 173-301) in landfill opera-




tions while permitting their respective political entities to




violate numerous federal and state laws.  Two examples which




may assist the committee in their deliberations and considera-




tions are the situations in Grays Harbor County, Washington,




where our landfill operator was required to cease burning in

-------
                                                            70
June of 1974.  Because of a number of reasons,  this  particular



site had been excluded from the county's  Comprehensive Solid




Waste Management Plan.  Only  after many months  of effort  on our




part was the plan amended to  include  this disposal site as an




option to the public.  This so  incensed one of  the County Com-




missioners at a meeting I attended he stated "to hell  with the




rest of the county,  I'm only  going to worry about my own  distric:




By Washington State  Law, the  Board of County Commissioners are




responsible for solid waste management in their respective




county.  Shortly thereafter,  this commissioner  in cooperation




with officials of the largest city in his district submitted a




request for a planning grant  to develop their own solid waste




plan and received state aid.




     This provision  was available as  one  of three options at the




time the county applied for their original planning  grant (Quote




from RCW 70.95)—They are burning at  this dump  at the  present




time—  A similar situation is  occurring  in Pacific  County where




the private operators discontinued burning in October  of  1977.




However, the county  continues to burn at  two disposal  sites:




1.  Nasell 2.  North Cove.  This double set of  standards, lack o




fiscal accountability and repeated efforts by our industry for




resolutions of these problems have been of no avail— Gentlemei




I urge you to use any means available to  eliminate this type of




inequity.




     While most refuse disposal sites are owned and  operated by

-------
                                                           71






local governments, newer sites tend to be owned and operated by



the private sector.  According to data collected by Columbia



University Researchers, 357= of disposal sites opened after 1970



were privately owned and operated, up from 307. for sites opened



in 1969 and earlier.  The rate at which government owned and



operated sites are being established on the other hand, has



fallen from 577. in 1969 and earlier to 457. after 1970.



     Information on who operates and regulates land disposal



sites in the United States is contained in Evaluating the



Organization of Service Delivery: Solid Waste Collection and



Disposal, the final report of Phase 1 of the major research



effort on refuse service practices being conducted by Dr. E.S.



Savas, Director, Center for Government Studies, Columbia Univer-



sity, under a National Science Foundation grant.  Unfortunately,



the land disposal section of the report has been almost comple-



tely overshadowed by statistics  on collection.



     According to the study's examination of regulatory control



over land disposal sites, counties are the most active level of



government in the field of waste disposal regulation.  County



governments have a virtual monopoly on the use of zoning and



eminent domain in either incorporated or unincorporated areas




and 657=, have zoning powers.



     States, on the other hand,  play a major role in  inspecting



disposal sites, reporting monitoring responsibilities in 687= of



the counties surveyd.  According to the report, the role of

-------
                                                            72





monitoring disposal facilities is shared by  state and county



governments but not coordinated between them.  Nearly 40% of



the counties surveyed reported monitoring  from two levels of



government and, the report concludes,  state  and  county govern-



ments make little attempt to  either  duplicate  efforts or to



avoid duplication.



     According to the report, government is  the  owner/operator i\



55% of land disposal sites surveyed  and private  industry owns



and operates 31%.  This  information  was drawn  primarily from



survey sent to the 281 counties which  compromise the  200 Standarl



Metropolitan Statistical Areas.   141 counties  responded.



     I have referred to  the "Columbia  Study" only to  indicate to



the EPA, that we have an excellent and comprehensive  base from



which all of us could obtain  important data  in meeting  what we



consider primary goals set by Congress in  passing RCRA:



     1.  prohibition of  open  dumps



     2.  control  of hazardous wastes



     3.  encouragement of resource recovery.



Although the criteria addresses a comprehensive  list  of perform-



ance factors, which include the impact of  a  land disposal site



on surface water, groundwater, air,  disease  vectors,  environment



ally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains and  recharge



zones of sole source aquifers, we feel that  one  of the  most



important aspects of the landfill regulations  is  the  groundwater



criteria because of the heavy precipitation  counties  in Western

-------
                                                           73
Washington and Oregon receive.  (Grays Harbor County 111 inches
average)  This and the unrelenting position of some DOE employees
in achieving zerb discharge of leachates at any landfill, at any
cost, is of major concern to all of us.
     Certainly of all the subcategories of our national water
quality policy, groundwater is the one that has been regulated
the least in the past and, for tKis reason, our experience
nationally with regulating groundwater is not as complete as we
might hope.  The drafters of the landfill regulations have
divided groundwater into two categories:  Case I, present or
future drinking water sources and Case II, groundwater used or
designated for use other than as drinking water.  We direct our
comments first to Case I.
     The regulations require that underground drinking water
supplies shall not be endangeredbeyond the property boundary of
the disposal facility.  The language of the regulation should
make clear that the standard is to be applied to the water in
the aquifer, not to water anywhere in the zone of saturation.
While certainly it may be desirable to monitor water in the soi]
before it reaches the aquifer, the regulation should make clear
that endaigerment can only occur to the groundwater in the
aquifer.
     The regulation also provides that if leachate ''may enter"
and endanger the groundwater the landfill facility operator must
monitor the groundwater, predict leachate migration, and have a

-------
                                                            74





contingency plan for corrective action.   It  is  not identified,



however, who makes the subjective determination during the  inven
tory whether or not leachate  "may"  enter  the  groundwater.  How



would the person conducting the  survey, for example,  know



whether there remains  a  possibility of leachate entering the



groundwater?  If he does not  know this, he does not know whether



or not the site should include monitoring, leachate predic-



tion and a. contingency plan.   Furthermore, the term "contingency



plan"has not been  defined  in  the regulation.



     We also have  definitional problems with  the term "endanger-



ment", which is the key  to determining whether or not a landfill



meets the criteria.  The definition states that the groundwater



cannot be contaminated to  the degree that additional  treatment



would be required  for  present or future groundwater users.  What



is a'groundwater user"?  We believe that  because the  intent of



these regulations  is to  protect  public health and the environment



endangerment should refer  only to drinking water standards.  Our



concern here is that it  is possible for somone to interpret



these regulations  such that "endangerment" could apply to any



water quality parameter.   For example, someone may argue that



for his particular industrial process, personal diet  or other



non-drinking water use that the  groundwater must meet certain



standards more stringent than the national Primary and Secondary



Drinking Water Standards.  If a  landfill  produces leachate



which would degrade the  quality  of  the water  below these personal

-------
                                                                75





     standards and yet still meet the drinking water standards,



     would it be the intent of the EPA to classify such a landfill



     as  a dump?  The logical extension of such an argument would be



     that landfills could emit no leachate whatsoever.   We believe



     that this is an impractical approach and does not  add to the



     protection of the environment.   Similarly,  we object to defining



     "endangerment" as making the water "unfit for human consumption"



     If  the reference here is to drinking water then it should  be



     sufficient for "endangerment" to be defined as degrading water



10 ,  below the drinking water standards.  If "unfit for human consump



11   tion1' means something else, we do not believe it should be



12   included in the definition.



13        We are also concerned about Case II, those water supplies



14   currently used or designated for use other than drinking water.



15   We  believe that it is the prerogative and the responsibility of



16   the states to make decisions about designating groundwater as a



17   non-drinking water supply.  A decision about such designation



18   would reflect a wide range of considerations.  We  do not think



19   that EPA should address non-drinking water supplies in the



20   landfill criteria except to acknowledge the rights of states to



21   designate groundwater for non-drinking water purposes for  any



22   reason whatsoever.



23        With regard to the criteria for "environmentally sensitive



24   areas," we are concerned about the requirement that a facility



25   in  a wetland must obtain an NPDES permit, because as yet there

-------
                                                            76





is no procedure developed for obtaining  such a permit,  except



in those few cases when a landfill  has  a. discrete pipe  or  condui




for discharge.  The development  of  such  procedure by EPA is




essential and until it is developed, we  do  not believe  that it




makes sense to require a permit  for which there is not  even an




application available.  We  did note in the  comment in the  regu-




lation regarding NPDES permits that the  issuance of such permits




would require an assessment of both technical and economic




feasibility of alternatives.  We believe this an important con-




sideration because we have  found cases in which a large portion




of a state is a wetland and there may well  be no technically




and economically feasible alternative to the existing landfill.




We would point out that the technology  does exist to prevent




pollution of surface and ground  waters from landfills which are




in wetland.




     While we generally agree with  the requirement regarding




floodplains, we believe that the language could be interpreted




more strictly than is intended.  The regulation states  that a




landfill should not restrict the flow of the base flood  or




reduce the temporary water  storage  capacity of the floodplain.




The site is above road into Aberdeen.  We would simply  suggest




that this regulation should be qualified to refer only  to  "sig-




nificant" effects on a flood.  Any  filling  or excavating in a




floodplain will have a finite if only a  trivial affect  on the




flooding.   We argue that a floodplain should be barred  from use

-------
                                                           77






only if the landfill would cause a significant increase in the




effect on health and the environment.




     The criteria on critical habitats currently requires two




actions on the part of the facility operator, both that he demon-




strate that his operation does not jeopardize endangered species




and that he obtain approval of his plan from the Office of En-




dangered Species.   We believe that either one of these two




requirements would accomplish the same purpose.




     The surface water criteria states that point source dischar^




of pollutants should comply with an NPDES permit; we believe it




is appropriate to include the phrase "if an NPDES permit is re-




quired".  Again, there is the confusion about whether NPDES




permits are required for all landfills or whether all landfills




have point source discharges.  Regarding nonpoint source pollution,




we believe that the requirement should reference the 208 plans




developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.




208 plans developed by states are intended to address just such




issues as the nonpoint source leachate and run-off from sanitary




landfills.  We believe that the management practices required by




those plans would be the appropriate management practices




required for purposes of the landfill survey.



     We have said at the outset that we strongly support criteri^




which can be administered equitably across the country and for




this reason we oppose inclusion of criteria which adopt local or




state standards as the federal criteria.  Therefore, we cannot

-------
                                                            78






support Che criteria for air quality proposed  by the  EPA which



states that the facility must control  air  emissions to  comply



with "applicable federal, state and local  air  regulations..."



We believe the criteria should reference the standard establishe I



by other federal law and in this  case,  it  is logical  that a



landfill should comply with any applicable approved State Imp'



lementation Plan developed under  the Clean Air Act.   Alternatively,



it might be required that landfills should not cause  or contri-



bute to contravention of an ambient air quality  standard.



     With regard to the safety criteria, we believe that there



may be some overlap between these criteria and those  developed



under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.  While  we acknow-



ledge that there are environmental dangers of  explosive and



toxic gases, we believe that the  indoor safety aspects  of these



gases should be regulated under the OSHA standards.



     Prior to concluding my formal statement,  I  would like to



point out several  areas that should be  considered by  the EPA



prior to grant approval or funding to  any  state.



1.   A mandatory annual update and review  of all county Compre-



hensive Solid Waste Management Plans, because  of rapidly develop



ing technologies and to provide the taxpayer the most cost



effective system.



2.   Serious consideration and a  greater emphasis on  land use



planning and use of buffer zones.



3.   Developers and real estate people  should  be required to

-------
                                                           79






notify purchasers of property what the future plans are for a




given area.  Verbally and in writing and be required to post a




bond.




4.   Mandatory requirement that citizens Advisory Committees




also be used during the implementation phases of a Solid Waste




Plan.




5.   Long terra liability--  How will this be enforced? and how




can the landfill operators prevent people from disposing of




hazardous or dangerous waste without their knowledge.--Product




charge?  Debatable.




6.   King County's solid waste budget went from $2.4 (m) to




$4  (m) $12.00/ton disposal.




     I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss




our Association's views with the EPA and look forward to the




opportunity of reviewing the EIS on the landfill criteria.




In  conclusion, I cannot stress strongly enough the importance




of  the implementation of these criteria in the landfill inventor^




and the need for clear and specific communications as to how




this inventory will be conducted over the coming years.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.




     I have a comment.  I've heard that statement before with




respect to alternatives, and I don't believe that that's our




interpretation of the law, that a site can be upgraded, if it




can be upgraded and an alternative facility doesn't need to be




evaluated if upgrading can be undertaken in a fairly straight-

-------
                                                            80





forward manner.  But that appears to be  a  common misunderstand!




Perhaps we should do something to clarify  that.



          MR. CVITANICH:  If  I understand  it,  it merely  indi-




cates that specific provision should be  clarified.




          DR. SKINNER:  Let's take  a 10-minute recess here.




                         (Whereupon  a 10-minute recess was held.




          DR. SKINNER:  If anyone would  like a card  to write




down questions,  I notice no one  in  the audience  has  asked ques-




tions of any of  the speakers, this  gentleman here has cards you




can write down questions on and  he'll be walking around  the




room and if you  would  like to write down questions you wish to




ask, you can write them on the card and  pass them to him and




he'll bring them up.




     We have nine more witnesses for this  afternoon, so  let's




get underway.




     The next witness  is Mr.  John Scoltock.




     We would again remind people to limit their presentation




to 10 minutes.   Go ahead, Mr. Scoltock.




          MR. SCOLTOCK:  I am John  Scoltock, President of




Yamhill Valley Recyclers, Inc.,  a nonprofit corporation  comprise



of citizens interested in solid  waste management and the enviroi




ment.  We believe we also represent the  special  interests of




the future generations of Americans who  will inherit the air,




soil, water and natural resources we leave to  them.



     The stated purpose of the criteria  for solid waste  disposal

-------
                                                            81





facilities is to protect the environment for the final dispo-




sition of solid wastes, at the same time making the economics




of resource recovery attractive.  Both objectives are frustrated




by the words "practicable'1 and "feasible'1 used throughout the




criteria.  We think it is practicable and feasible to take the




labels off tin cans, remove the ends, rinse them, and crush




them for recycling.  Others may not feel this is a practicable




or feasible alternative.  Because of this lack of concensus in




understanding the terms, we feel it is important to further




establish their meaning in the criteria.




     The following factors should be included in any considera-




tion of feasible or practicable alternatives to a siting or




disposal method.




1.   The environmental and economic impact of resource recovery.




More specifically, the value of recovered material plus the




value of the energy saved in reusing it plus the reduction in




environmental destruction necessary to obtain the virgin resourc




plus the decreased volume of solid waste needing ultimate dis-




posal.




2.   The economic and health implications of pollution on




future generations.  Suppose a solid waste disposal facility




is proposed for a floodplain area.  The solid waste industry




argues that there are no other economically feasible alterna-




tives, considering the high cost of compactors, transfer sta-




tions i resource recovery plants or transfer out of the area.

-------
                                                                 82





     If we, as citizens,  are  to  effectively challenge the site loca-



     tion, we must be  allowed to consider not just the visible,  short



     terra economic considerations,  but  also the real though less



     visible costs of  resource depletion and water pollution for



     future generations.



          We support the  inclusion of wetlands, floodplains,  perma-



     frost areas, endangered  species habitats,  sole source aquifers,



     active fault zones,  and  karst terrain as environmentally sen-



     sitive areas.  We support monitoring groundwater under the  dis-



10   posal site  to facilitate earlier detection of groundwater con-



11   tamination.  These inclusions will decrease the environmental



12   impact of solid waste disposal facilities  as well as make the



13   economics of resource recovery more attractive.



14        In summary,  we  feel that it is necessary for the EPA to



15   promulgate  sufficiently  specific and comprehensive criteria so



16   that any future solid waste disposal facilities will pose no



17   reasonable  probability of adverse  affects  on health or the



18   environment.  The EPA must  give the citizens of this country



19   a tool with which we may defend our natural resources from  the



20   economic self-interest of the solid waste  industry and the



21   occasional  myopia of local  governmental bodies.  Therefore  the



22   terms "practicable'1  and  "feasible" must be further defined.



23   The positive economic and environmental impact of resource



24   recovery as well  as  the  negative economic  and health impact of



25   pollution on future  generations must be figured into the equa-

-------
                                                            83






tlon when determining what is feasible or practicable for a




solid waste disposal facility.




     We appreciate the strong public participation guidelines




in RCRA that allow us to make this testimony.




          DR. SKINNER:  Are there any questions?




          MR. DeGEARE:  I understood you to indicate that the




purpose of the regulation we are talking about was to address




the economics of the resource recovery.  Could you explain that




further and where you derived that understanding?




          MR. SCOLTOCK:  I derived that from the first page




here.  Well, I can't find that right offhand, but it's on the




first page of the Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed Clas-




sification Criteria which is--  it's quite a weak statement,




but it seems to imply that if these criteria are promulgated as




set forth here,  it will enhance the economic feasibility of




resource recovery.  At least that is the way I interpret the




statement in here.




          MR. DeGEARE:   You indicated that you supported the




inclusion of karst terrain and aquifers in environmentally sensi




tive areas.   Do you feel that those areas are adequately protecti




by the groundwater provision in the criteria as proposed?




          MR. SCOLTOCK:  This I don't have any special expertise




in.  I guess all I can really say is that everybody knows the




karst terrain is a very--  well, it's quite hard to predict




exactly what the effects might be of something leaching into the

-------
                                                                 84





     water  and  it's  quite obvious,  I think, to most people that acti




     fault  zones  don't represent a good site for disposal of any




     waste  which  may be a contaminant to the environment.  I think




     these  things are possibly,  as  suggested in the Federal Register




     here,  adequately  covered in some states or possibly most states




     under  state  regulations,  but I don't see why that would prohibit




     their  being  included in your guidelines and mainly because I




     would  like to see the guidelines as strict as possible.




 9              MR. DeGEARE:   Would you suggest presenting the loca-




10   tion of  disposal facilities in those areas?




11              MR. SCOLTOCK:  You mean in all environmentally sensi-




12   tive areas?




13              MR. DeGEARE:   No.  In those two particular ones.  I'm




14   assuming from your statement	




15              MR. SCOLTOCK:  I can't really answer that completely




16   because  I'm  not a geologist and it's possible there is some




17   karst  terrain that's suitable for a solid waste disposal site.




18   I  don't  know.  I just can't answer that, really.




19              DR. SKINNER:   Thank you.  Any other questions?




20        Mr. Jerry  E.  Carter.




21              MR. CARTER:  The Chemeketa Region Solid Waste  Manage-




22   ment Program, as the coordinating agency for solid waste plarmin




23   in Benton, Linn,  Marion,  Polk  and Yamhill County, Oregon; would




24   like to  have some input as  to  criteria for the location  of solid




25   waste  disposal  facilities  in the environmentally  sensitive areas

-------
                                                           85





namely, 100-year flood plains.




     Though we have had relatively short time for review of the




proposed criteria for classification of solid waste disposal




facilities, we will be greatly affected by the criteria;  as we




now have four regional landfills located within the 100-year




flood plain.




     The Chemeketa Region Solid Waste Management Program Board




of Directors' meeting in Salem, Oregon, on April 20,  1978,  voted




to request:  1.  Proposed classification criteria be changed




so that:




     "The location of a solid waste disposal facility permit will




not be denied without specific evaluation of the site and its




effect within the 100-year flood plain."




     "That no solid waste disposal facility permit be withdrawn




without specific evaluation of the site and its effect within




the 100-year flood plain."




     We request the above provided there is protection from




flooding of the site and there is minimal restriction to the




flow of the flood stream; and unless there is an economically




feasible alternative for solid waste disposal available within




a reasonable hauling distance of the above location.




     We would like to thank you for the consideration of the




above as part of your review of classification criteria for




solid waste disposal facilities.




          DR. SKINNER:  Could you clarify that statement just a

-------
                                                            86





little bit?  Let me give you a  little background.   I believe




for the intent the way  that  part  of the criteria was written




was to allow continuation of flood plains  providing there  was




not a significant reduction  in  flooding and that the site  was




not inundated.  Are you suggesting further modification of that




or was that intent just not  clear?




          MR. CARTER:   I think  the intent  is not quite clear.




The consideration that  was put  before us and this  group is made




up of the governing body of  the Board of Commissioners and  these




five counties are sitting on it and a municipal  member of  a




city in each county is  a member of our Board of  Directors.  The!




concern was standard  flood plain  continuously updated on the




specific location or  site by checking with our local Corps of




Engineers flood plain zones,  they do not go out  and evaluate




these sites unless they are  specifically requested to do so.




Our experience, and we  have  one up before  the EPA  this Friday




for expansion, and we have had  them come in and  make a specific




evaluation of that site.  We have another  site in  the Chemeketa




Region that's going to  be coming  up very soon and  we hope we




also get the Corps of Engineers to go in and make  a specific




evaluation of that particular site,  and my discussion with the




local Corps office is that they are not totally  sure who is goin




to make that because there is another study being  made to flood




plains in relation to flood  plain insurance and  so the intent




or the direction of this determination of  flood  plains is some-

-------
                                                           87






what in question, at least in the local Corps of Engineers offic:




on flood plain.




          DR. SKIMMER:   Any other questions?




          MR. DeGEARE:   At the end of your suggested modification




I believe you used the phrase "reasonable hauling distance," and




I don't intend that as a. trick question, but we've had some




concern over that concept relating to various parts of the




criteria and the basic problem we've had is what is reasonable?




What is a reasonable hauling distance?  I would encourage you,




if you would, to submit for the panelists later to give that




some thought and if you have any kind of rationale you think




might be appropriate for us to use in considering what one would




interpret as a reasonable hauling distance, please provide that




to us.



          MR. CARTER:  I certainly will.  This is the actual




motion that was adopted by my board and it would be their inter-




pretation, again.



          DR. SKINNER:   Any other questions?  Thank you.




     The next speaker will be Ernest Schmidt from the Oregon




Department of Environmental Quality.



          MR. SCHMIDT:   Staff of the State of Oregon's Department




of Environmental Quality have actively participated on the Natioi-




al Governor's Association  (NGA) Landfill Technical Task Force.




We hereby affirm our support for and  concurrence with the




comments submitted by NGA  at the public hearing in Atlanta,

-------
                                                                 88





      Georgia,  on April 13,  1978,  regarding the proposed criteria.




      With  that affirmation,  we also submit the following comments




      which focus on those areas of the proposed criteria which are




      of  greatest concern to  the State of Oregon.




      1.    Scope:  We agree that surface water impoundments, pits,




      ponds,  and lagoons should be regulated to protect public health




      and the environment. We do not agree, however, that such fac-




      ilities should be described as "sanitary landfills" or ''open




 9    dumps"  within the meaning of this act.  A substantial number of




10    facilities of this type are components of wastewater treatment




11    systems and are therefore currently subject to regulation under




12    existing water quality  statutes.  We strongly recommend dele-




13    tion  of surface water impoundments, pits, ponds and lagoons




14    from  the definition of  solid waste as used in this criteria.




15    We  believe that the current definition will lead to confusion




16    and duplication and may seriously impede enforcement.




17    II.   Implementation:  It must be assumed that enforcement of




18    the criteria will primarily be through state programs  (except




19    for cases of imminent hazard or citizen suit).  In most cases,




20    existing state laws do  not conform exactly to the criteria.  In




21    Oregon,  for example, the existing solid waste management statute




22    are not directly applicable to pits,  ponds, and lagoons,  bird




23    hazards to aircraft, or designation of aquifers.  However, other




24    federal and state laws  do effectively apply to these subjects.




25         In theory,  state solid  waste management laws could be

-------
                                                           89





amended to conform exactly to the criteria.  There is no assur-




ance, however, that this will or can happen.  There are delays




built into the legislative process.  Also opening statutes




to legislative review can result in weaker rather than stronger




laws.




     We strongly recommend, therefore, that EPA consider adop-




tion of an ''equivalency'1 mechanism, whereby states could apply




equivalent existing standards and guidelines in conducting the




disposal site inventory.  With such a mechanism, it appears much




more likely that the disposal control sections of RCRA can be




implemented within the time frame and to the extent that




Congress intended.




                     SPECIFIC COMMENTS




1.   Section 257.1  Scope and Purpose:  As noted above, the




criteria should exclude pits, ponds, and lagoons.  At a minimum




the solid waste criteria should not apply to those surface




water impoundments which are components of wastewater treatment




systems.



2.   Section 257.2  Definitions:   (h)  "endangerment" - Part 2




of this definition, relating to future users seems unworkable.




No one  can be assured of what the possible future uses of a




water system may be.  Also, virtually any  contamination would




result  in the need for  "more treatment than would otherwise have




been necessary."  We believe that Parts 1  and 3 of this defini-




tion are realistic and  adequate and recommend that Part 2 be

-------
                                                                 90






 1    deleted.



 2         (ee)  "Wetlands"   The proposed definition is so broad as




 3    to  include all areas where saturated soil conditions exist for




 4    relatively long periods of time.  In Oregon, there are large




 5    areas  of the state where the annual rainfall rate exceeds the




 6    evapotransplration rate and which therefore could unrealistic-




 7    ally be  classified as wetlands due to the saturated conditions




 8    and vegetation.




 9    3.   Section 257.3-1  Environmentally Sensitive Areas:   (a)




10    Wetlands   An outright prohibition against filling in wetlands




11    as  presently defined would have a staggering impact in many




12    states.  We agree with the need to protect the unique ecosystems




13    as  tidelands, swamps, and marshes.  However, it must be recog-




14    nized  that not all wetlands are unique habitats or really




15    "environmentally sensitive" and in some areas are abundant.




16        The criteria do provide for controlled landfilling in




17    wetland  areas through the NPDES permit system.  Our concern




18    therefore  is not so much with this section of the criteria as




19    with EPA's intent as to how it will be applied.  In publishing




20    the proposed criteria, EPA has included the comment that permits




21    will only  be issued under "extraordinary circumstances" and




22    discussion with EPA staff indicates that permits may not be




23    issued under any circumstances.  The fate of existing disposal




24    sites  in wetland locations is unclear under the proposed



25    criteria.

-------
                                                           91





     This hard line approach seems unreasonably biased in view




of the wide variety of lands which could be classed as wetlands.




Preservation of wetlands is a land use issue best decided in




comprehensive land use planning with evaluation of all factors,




such as abundance of wetlands, surrounding land use, size of




the fill area, project duration and design; and realistic




evaluation of alternatives including timeliness, economics and




the political reality.  Outright prohibitions or placing of




unreasonable burdens of proof on permit applicants does not




seem to be in the best public interest.




     (b) Floodplains   a literal interpretation of Part 1 of thi|s




section as drafted, would prohibit all floodplain sites, since




any filling in a floodplain will result in some minimal decrease




in flow or storage capacity and some minimal increase in




flooding.  We suggest inserting the word ''significant" into




this definition so as to not prohibit needed landfills which




would have only a minimal or negligible impact.




4.   Section 257.3-2  Surface Water:  Part (a) of this section




is confusing, since it includes leachate seeps and surface water




runoff/discharges which are not normally considered to be "point




sources" and which should not require an NPDES permit.  We




recommend using the term ''point source" as defined in PL 92-500.




This definition applies only to manmade channels and does not




include surface water diversion ditches.



5.   Section 257.3-3  Groundwater:  Comments were specifically

-------
                                                                 92





     solicited on the point of measurement  to be used in applying  Che




     endangerment concept.  We recommend that the property boundary



     be used, as proposed.




          Under Case II of this  section on  groundwater,  EPA attempts




     to grant states authority to  designate groundwater  aquifers.




     We do not believe that RCRA should be  used to make  water quality




     laws and policy.  Other statutes more  appropriately address




     these issues.  Furthermore, we  do  not  believe that  Congress has




     in fact granted authority to  establish water quality laws and




10   policies under this act.  We  recommend that Cases 1 and II be




11   modified to avoid apparent  usurption of authority and that this




12   section simply state that groundwater  not be "endangered"




13   6.   Section 257.3-4  Air:  We  recommend that Farts (a)  and (b)




14   of this section be modified to  regulate open burning with exist-




15 i  ing local, state, and federal regulations.   The  outright prohi-




16   bition against burning materials such  as industrial woodwaste,




17   building demolition debris  and  other bulky,  non-putrescible,




lg   combustible wastes seems unwarranted.




19        Comments were specifically solicited on the advisability of




20   including specific emission or  air quality limits in the cri-




21   teria.   As stated above, we do  not believe that  RCRA should be




22   used to create new air or water quality standards;  and we do not




23   believe that the act grants authority  to do so.



24   7.   Section 257.3-5 Application to land used for the production




25   of food chain crops:

-------
                                                           93





     We have general concern about this section of the proposed




criteria.   We recommend that it be revised to simply require tha




sewage sludge be applied so as to not violate other sections




of this criteria and such that resultant food crops do not




exceed FDA standards.  If EPA decides to include specific cadmiui|n




concentration limits in the criteria, we would recommend 2.0 kg/




Ha.  We do not believe there is sufficient evidence at this time




to justify the proposed phased reduction of acceptable cadmium




concentration in sewage sludge.




8.   Section 257.3-7  Safety:




     The word "employees1' should be deleted from the first




sentence of this section.  Employee safety is administered under




OSHA and should not be included in the RCRA criteria.




     Part (d) of this section, relating to bird hazards to air-




craft, is the responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administra-




tion  (FAA) and should not be included in these criteria.  As




noted above, this state currently has no direct authority to




enforce these standards; and we doubt that other states do eithe




Finally, while we agree that new landfills should not be estab-




lished too near existing airports, we do not agree with the




circumstance whereby an existing landfill could be classified




as an open dump simply because someone proposes to establish a




new airport nearby.  We strongly recommend that Part  (d) be




modified to reference the control of the FAA.



                        IN SUMMARY

-------
                                                                 94





     1.   Defining  "pits,  ponds,  and lagoons" as "sanitary landfill"



     or open dump appears  ludicrous.



     2.   Ratification of  existing state solid waste programs as



     "equivalent" to RCRA  requirements would be very useful.



     3.   EPA's prohibitive stand on fills in wetlands goes unreason-



     ably beyond the wording of the President's Executive Order.



     4.   It is inappropriate to use RCRA to write extensions of



     water  and air  quality law and policy.



     5.   More work is warranted on the sludge spreading criteria



10   to support what now appears  to be arbitrary numbers.



11        Much good and hard work on EPA'3 part has gone into this



12   draft  criteria.   The  State of Oregon appreciates this opportunit



13   to have input  to the  process,  and we ask that careful coneider-



14   ation  be given to our remarks.  Each state's solid waste program



15   is at  a different level of maturity and the structure of the



16   proposed criteria appears to accommodate those differences.



17   Successful implementation of RCRA Subtitle D requires continued



18   opportunity to address unique local problems with tailor-made



19   solutions agreed upon between local government,  the state, and



20   EPA regional office.   The rate of accomplishment will be sub-



     stantially effected by the relative priority of the program



22   within EPA and adequacy of federal funding provided.



23             DR.  SKINNER:   Thank you.  Are there any questions?



24             MR.  FEIGNER:   Your comment relative to the  suggestion



25   that pits, ponds  and  lagoons not be regulated under RCRA,  is it

-------
                                                           95







your feeling that under Oregon law that those facilities speci-




fically say industrial pits, ponds, lagoons are adequately




controlled to the state water pollution control laws?




          MR. SCHMIDT:  We have authority to adequately control




it.  I'm not sure I'm prepared to tell you exactly how good a




job we are doing. I think generally across the country it's




recognized that groundwater has not been given the kind of atten




tion it's going to have to be given.  I would take issue with




whether the Solid Waste Program per se should be the one to do




that.



     How, it's our observation that RCRA, because of the broad




definitions in it of solid waste, is being used by EPA to pick




up loose strings, loose ends in the environmental programs in




the area of particularly groundwater protection and although




we may very well start down the road that way in the Solid




Waste Program, I just don't see the successful groundwater man-




agement program can be administered that way.  It's going to




have to be tied in with the water quality program.




     I see this as a beginning down the road to--  well, as I




say, to approach the groundwater program problem through the




Solid Waste Program, it does not make sense to us.



          MR. SHUSTER:  Do you feel by including them:  pits,




ponds, lagoons in this criteria it has to be administered by




the Solid Waste Program?



          MR. SCHMIDT:  It's our feeling that that is where EPA

-------
                                                                  96





      is  heading the thing or taking advantage of this  circumstance.




      It  would not have to be except there are some  complications.




           In our particular situation, the definition  of solid waste




      in  the statutes exempts disposal sites for which  there is a




      NPDES permit in effect.  Now, that includes many  industries




      with pits, ponds and lagoons in the course of  their wastewater




 7    treatment facilities that would come under this criteria.  Now,




 8    we  have the opportunity and have taken the opportunity in the




      past to put conditions into the NPDES permits  to  control sludge




 10    disposal coming from a facility that's under that permit.




 11    Basically that's the situation and we could potentially be faced




 12    with having to amend our state solid waste statute  to do it in




 13    a different way.




 14         There is some organization that has to happen.here between




 15    the programs, but, again, I say it's my impression.  I'm not




 16    sure that EPA recognizes, in my discussions with staff and so on




 17    that the NPDES permit is the way to handle sludge.  We think it




 18    can and has been and can in Oregon.




 19              DR. SKINNER:  Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.




 20              MR. DeGEARE:  I have a question regarding wetlands.




 21    You took issue with the proposed definition.   I think we have




 22    to  recognize that the requirement for a NPDES  permit for dis-




23    charge into waters of the United States, which includes wetland!




24    is  not something new that we are proposing on  the RCRA.  It's




25    simply a restatement of the--  and recognizing that the defini-

-------
                                                           97






tion that we have used for wetlands is not something new, it's




something we've been operating under for some time.  Have you




had problems in your NPDES program dealing with the definition




of wetlands?




          MR. SCHMIDT:  Well, the actual affect of the wetlands




issue on location of the facilities, whether they be a lagoon




or anything else, has not been felt.  It's a relatively new




issue stemming from the definition or extention of the defini-




tion of navigable waters to the contiguous zones issue.  Obvious




we've got a major decision ahead of us on the City of Portland




solid waste disposal site right now and that was very much




brought to your attention.   That seems to be the-- it's the




first circumstance I'm aware of where wetlands has been at issue




at all.  Therefore, I feel it's a new problem.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.  We've ran out of time and




we'll have to move on.




     Ezra Koch.




          MR. KOCH:  I'm Ezra Koch from McMinnville, Oregon.




I have a prepared statement on behalf of Oregon Sanitary Service




Institute of which I'm president.  I also own a landfill.  I  am




instrumental in operating three others and a collection business




and have a lead role in the National Solid Waste Management




Association and represent some 40 years in involvement in the




industry in waste handling.



     I have prepared a statement that I would like to leave with

-------
                                                                  98





  1    the reporter and then just overview what  I was  going to say in




  2    order to save time.  I was pleased to welcome you,  along with




  3    others, to Portland this morning, or yesterday, when ever you




  4    came, and in the quietness of this atmosphere this  morning, it




  5    kind of lends a panacea and a gracefulness and  aura of  respect-




  6    ability of what we are doing, which I would  like  to see continui




  7    but practical application of the situation is while you can rule




  8    and regulate and deal with those things in an airconditioned




  9    environment and in the friendliness which pervades  this  atmos-




 10    phere,  its application in the field in a climate  such as we




 11    enjoy in this part of the country oftentimes does not lend




 12    itself to those niceties, and because I would heartily  endorse




 13    first of all the statement made by Commissioner Connie McCready




 14    and certainly the vote of that goes to the statement just made




 15    by Ernie Schmidt.




 16         May I very briefly then resume how I see the situation and




 17    then draw your attention to some specific recommendations that




 18    we have prepared.




 19         It seems in the preparatory statements  as  they were made




 20    by Senator  Jenn^js flin
-------
                                                           99





landfilling high by inducing regulation upon it which may or



may not be practical or workable, a/ref  which ultimately works



toward equalizing the cost of landfilling or disposal with that



of the more sophisticated systems of resource recovery.  While



I have no argument with that, per se,  you've stated the situa-



tion honestly.   We've addressed it.  We understand that some



resource recovery is going to take place.  In the words of the



head of your department, it was indicated that if we could



resource recover the increases in waste that would occur in the



next decade or by the turn of the century,  he would deem the



process and the efforts as successful.  That, of course, does



not speak to the mountains of waste which then are not going to



be resource recovered and because landfilling today constitutes



the only, and I use the same term which I will fault the pro-



posed legislation, it becomes viable;  it becomes economically



feasible; it becomes practical, is available to us and is pre-



sently being used.  May I substantiate the need for it in our



own particular area.



     Even with all put commitment in Oregon for resource recover^



of solid waste by every means:  recycling, reusing material,



recovery, energy recovery, we still need landfills.  In all



metropolitan areas only Lane County around Eugene has a major



resource recovery capacity.  At present, there are no firm



commitments for the metals recovered there nor any commitments



for fuel.  There is only a look.  In the Salem-Chemeketa five-

-------
	100




  1    county area,  none has been planned.  The Portland metro area ha



  2    the first plant estimated to be on line by  1981 and if everythii



  3    works  out from the technology to the economics that date has



  4    been slipping back in time year by year.



  5         Source separation on line will handle  only a fraction of



  6    the total waste stream.  Our industry manufacturers, recyclers,



  7    government and many concerned people want technologically and



  8    economically feasible resource recovery.  The fact is that



  9    landfill is the main disposal method and seems it will remain to



  10    be in  the years to come.  In more sparsely  settled areas of



  11    Oregon major resource recovery is not economically feasible.



  12    Smaller thermal energy units are being looked at as alternatives



  13    The source separation has been started in a number of these



  14    areas  and a great deal more is planned.  But the large volume



  15    will probably continue to be landfilled through most all of or



  16    the rest of this state.  Some special waste and some bulky waste



  17    there  are no kind of plans for resource recovery.   There are  no



  18    black  boxes defeating the waste and we get back nothing but



  19    materials or  energy.   There are 11 units and most of these need



  20    to be  landfilled;  depending on the size and the system,  a con-



 21     siderable portion of the waste stream has to bypass and be



 22     landfilled.



 23         May I quote an example.   Cascade Rolling Mills in my home



 24     town of McMinnville is a prime user of junk autos.   It shreds



 25     several hundred cars  a day and out of each  car comes 450 pounds

-------
                                                           101





of weight:   dirt, rocks, seatcovers, interior covers, and so on



and so on.   On our largest day, there were 14 30-yard boxes of



this material delivered to our landfill.   This was the residue



of the finest resource recovery operation that we have in the




State of Oregon.



     I have an entire page of additional similar type testimony



that we will just plant into the record as far as the printed




material is concerned.



     In all of my understanding of the RCRA proposals, I see



page after page and document after document that directs itself



to the limitations, that's the concept of thou shalt not, and



it seems to me that recognizing that landfill is a viable and



necessary adjunct in the total process of waste handling, I



would encourage some direction toward this, thou shalt do, and



provide those of us in the industry of a stringent or otherwise-



preferably the more stringent, the more exact, the better,



because what I think we have done is opened a Pandora's box for



some 100,000 unemployed lawyers in this state and I don't anti-



cipate spending my time in court.  I would really rather spend



some time operating our business and so the concept of on the



one hand the stringent regulations, and on the other hand the



concept of the  vagueness  of some of our definitions and some



of our proposed  regulations leaves us in the quandry of not



knowing what to  do in light of not knowing what we have to



anticipate and  so  I would join in some of the others in eneour-

-------
    	 102





      aging  you  to  be specific not only in site as was indicated some




      moments  ago,  but insofar as is possible in wording and in dir-




      ective and to help  us  to actually delineate those things which




      we would need to do to be in compliance so that we can avoid the




      conflicts  of  court  and personality as we go on down the pike.




      Those  are  some solutions.   We have some specific additions,




 7    deletions,  changes  to  the law which we have- submitted as a part




 8    of the record.




 9        I thank  you for this opportunity to appear before you, John




10              DR.  SKINNER:   Thank you.  Are there any questions?




11              MS.  WRIGHT:   I think one of our aims. In not specific




12    practices, which would be acceptable under this law,  was to




13    allow  for  the possibility of techniioj-iCS-J; :  development to




14    satisfy  the end result  without having to specify what needed




15    to be  done to get there.




16        How would you  suggest that we should provide for that sort




17    of techrati-Q^ittai-   innovation in  the context  of your  report for



18    directives?




               MR..  KOCH:  It seems to  me that we have over the number




20    of years worked out  what we think is a very,  very acceptable




21    and fact of the matter  is,  we claim leadership in the nation




22    of our Department of Environmental Quality in our handling of




23    the solid waste in  the  state and  as that comes into focus and




24   we stand just days,  literally,  apart from a complete  solid waste




25    program  along with  the  definition that we in  the industry are

-------
                                                           103






seeking and if there is a way in which even as you have entrusted




to the local departments or the state agencies,  where ever the




state might be, to our local departments of environmental qualit(y,




the regulations for that matter you've entrusted a good deal of




the other types of things to them that it would seem to me that




you provide an overall umbrella and then permit  them to plug




in the other specifics.  The thing we are really concerned about,




of course, is the vagueness of it.  We don't really care where




it comes from, but the vagueness of it opens--  well, it literally




makes us afraid of many of the possibilities that exist because




the simple fact of the matter is with the atmosphere that




presently pervades the entire nation in any number of fields,




you don't really need cause to sue and, frankly, we don't need




to lay before the nation an open door which says, 'Hey, here




are any number of ways in which you can take people to court',




when indeed the process is necessary that is,  if you can elimin-




ate or if there are viable other solutions and those are all




determinations done on a local site specific basis,  it seems  to




me then, fine, but it seems there is little attention paid to




the specifics of the fact that one landfill is necessary and




let's approach it from a positive standpoint.   It seems to me we




are doing that in this state.  We are while maybe not as high




profile some of us in the industry would like, we have reached




some accommodation in regards to that situation.




          DR. SKINNER:   Are there any other questions,?

-------
    	104




               MR.  DeGEARE:   I'm really not clear at this point.  I



     understood  you to be asking for more specific criteria from us.



     I now understand you to be asking for us to produce an umbrella



     within which the states can plug in specifics.  I think those



     are  two  divert viewpoints  and	



               MR.  KOCH:   Of course,  that is exactly where we are.



     The  fact  of the matter  is  that  the nebulous nature in one respec



     along with  the induced  atmosphere creates an atmosphere of



     vacuuming which we can't operate,  so we turn around and say to



10   function, we have to finally revert into specifications and I'm



11   not  concerned  with too  stringent rules or regulations while as



12   I understand them and they are  subject to interpretation,  the



13   regulation, which presently outlined makes it essentially impos-



14   sible to  operate a landfill in  the western portion of this state



15   I don't know of a single physical  condition where we could be



16   in compliance  with those rules  and regulations.   But they are



17   vague.  They do not  speak  to site  specification,  recreation,



18   A moment  ago,  we talked about ponds,  pits, lagoons.   We talked



19   about wetlands.   We  talked about those sensitive  areas which



20   may  or may  not be sensitive.  They are subject to local inter-



21   pretation ultimately, I think.   That's why I don't think that



22   you  can call wetlands, wetlands.   I don't think that  necessarily



23   a wetland is a wetland  is  a wetland simply because it is wet.



24   That's other portions of that that need to be addressed.   I thin



25   that in the language somehow or  another there needs  to be suf-

-------
                                                           105






ficient specification that work as guidelines for doing the




thing aa many or more than there are for those things saying




that you can't do this, that, or the other.   That's the balance,




really, that I would call for.   And if you are confused,  we




are too because we are caught between the recognition for the




need of one and the danger it imposes to us as an industry in a




responsible position to our people, our constituency, our




customers, our state, our livability that leaves us into quandry




whether we can do any of those things and obviously to say to




implant regulations, on the other hand, that say no you can't




do it is not a practical solution to us because we have no




"alternative" techndi*^ictiiy or economically feasible or any




of the others to be interpreted terminology.




          DR, SKINNER:  Are there any other questions?




              PREPARED STATEMENT OF EZRA KOCH




1.   There is a continuing need for landfills for the forseeable




future.




     A. Let's be honest.  Part of the intent of RCRA and of




these regulations is to force resource recovery by forcing up th|e




cost of landfilling and making landfills unavailable.




     Let's honestly tell the people that resource recovery will




be forced and that it is going to cost them.




     Let's not create a total crisis in the handling and disposal




of solid wastes.  The stringent regulations of RCRA and of these




criteria can bring landfill upgrading and improvement to a

-------
                                                                 106





 1    standstill.   Both government and industry is fearful of making



 2    the necessary investment.



 3         B. Let's be  honest about the need for landfills.



 4         EPA  told us  at  a joint meeting with our national associa-



 5    tion in Washington,  D.C.  in 1976 and again at the Region 10



 6    seminar on  the recovery of solid wastes that:  "If we resource



 7    recover only  the  increase in solid wastes between now and the



 8    year 2,000, we will  be doing well."



 9         That does nothing about existing mountain of solid wastes.



10    Much is headed for landfill disposal.



11         C. Even  with all out commitment in Oregon for resource



12    recovery  of solid wastes  by every means,  recycling, reuse,



13    materials recovery,  energy recovery, we will still need land-



14    fills.



15              1.  In all  metropolitan areas.  Only Lane County and



16    Eugene has  a  major resource recovery capacity.   At present  there



17    are no firm commitments for the metals recovered nor any commit-



18    ments for fuel.   There is  hope that the University of Oregon may



19    be able to  use the fuel.



20         The  Salem-Chemeketa  five-county area has none yet planned



21         The  Portland metro area has the first plant estimated to be



22    on the line by 1981  if everything works out from technology to



23    economics to  full funding.   That date has been slipping back in



24    time year by  year.



25         Source separation on  line or planned will handle only a

-------
                                                           107






fraction of the total waste stream.




     While our industry, manufacturers, recyclers, government




and many concerned people want technologically and economically




feasible resource recovery, the fact is that landfill is the




main disposal method for years to come.




          2. In more sparsely settled areas,major resource




recovery is not economically feasible.   Smaller thermal energy




units are being looked at as an alternative.  Source separation




has been started in a number of areas,  is planned for more.




     But the large volume municipal wastes will probably continue




to be landfilled through most of all of the rest of this century




          3. Some demolition materials, some special wastes and




bulky wastes don't fit in any plan or plant for resource recover




          4. There are no black boxes to feed in wastes and get




back nothing but materials or energy.  There are residues and




most of these need to be landfilled.




     Depending on the system and size,  a considerable portion




of the waste stream has to bypass this type of processing and




be landfilled.



     A good example is Cascade Rolling Mills  in McMinnville.




A prime user of waste cars to make steel.  It shreds several




hundred cars a day.  Out of each car comes some 450 pounds of




waste paint, dirt, rocks, seat covers,  interior  covering, non-




recovered metals, seat materials and more.  On our largest day




there were 14 30-yard drop boxes to our landfill.  It usually

-------
                                                                  108

 1    runs about a box an hour during operation.

 2         Most of the EPA reported resource recovery  plants  for

 3    municipal wastes don't begin to approach  even  that  efficiency.

 4         D. Near prohibition of landfills in  wetland, flood plains

 5    and critical habitats is unrealistic.
                                  the
 6              1. Our DEQ has ledAway in getting landfills,  including

 7    ours at McMinnville, out of hills and down to  floodplain.

 8    Hillside sites have been closed in Sweet  Home, Stayton, McMinn-

 9    ville, Salem (corrections site) and many  others  here in the

 10    valley alone.

 11              2. The majority of all Oregonians depend  upon landfill

 12    disposal in floodplain areas, many of which could be wetlands

 13    under the overly broad definition.

 14              3. There is no lead time to completely reverse the

 IS    disposal policy in Oregon.   Former State  Solid Waste Director

 16    for Oregon, Bill Culham,  used to point to a. two-year lead time

 17    for new major sites.  Then his successor, Bruce  Bailey, did a

 18    critical path study indicating a minimum of two years and often

 19    much longer.  The near final draft of the state  solid waste

 20    plan of DEQ recently reviewed with the State Citizens Solid

 2i    Waste Advisory Committee calls for up to FIVE years lead time.

 22         E- The only major metro site approved in years is at Eugene

23    and that only after years of search,  planning,  review and a new

24    approach.   The beginning  phase in the Salem area was rejected

25    by  nearly 1,000 people at a meeting called to give public parti-

-------
                                                            109





cipation on review of the five best of 21 sites selected on the




basis of technological, environmental and economic criteria.




     Our greatest concern is the number of "thou shall not"




agencies from EPA down to our own DEQ, Land Conservation and




Development Commission, local planning and zoning and a host of




others.




     Nowhere can you find a positive set of criteria assiting




government and industry to find acceptable landfills.




     Nowhere is there any coordination between agencies on what




criteria will jointly be used.  Each is a special purpose




regulatory agency.




     F.  General Recommendations:




          1. Positive criteria and coordination of all agencies.




          2. No regulation unless it is truly needed.  Every




work and every regulation in these criteria potentially cost




taxpayers and citizens hundreds of thousands to millions of




dollars  and threaten years of delay.




          3. Revise specific criteria as outlined (following).




     G.  Specific Recommendations:




          1. Add clay and other similar materials to those that




may be used for liners, where required.   Define what we mean by




"artificial liners."



          2. Clarify just what water we are protecting as the




primary  objective of these regulations.   As you state in your




comments on groundwater, "of primary concern is protection of

-------
                                                                  110





 1    current and future groundwater drinking water supplies."  (P.494




 2              3. Include technological and .economic  feasibility in




 3    the wetlands criteria as in other criteria.




 4              4. Make separate sub-categories of  "Sanitary Landfills




 5    As used, not everything from a sludge disposal site  to our




 6    landfill at   M'cMinnville to the Chem-Nuclear Hazardous Waste




 7    Disposal Site is a "Sanitary Landfill".




 8         If you accept the comment that equivalent protection is




 9    required from each type of site, very different  criteria and




 10    management practices are required to achieve  that  level of A




 11    through C, that protection from the different types  of sites.




 12         To implement the specific recommendations,  we enclose the




 13    recommendations of the National Solid Wastes  Management Associa-




 14    tion after years of work with EPA and other organizations.  We




 15    specifically endorse their recommendations.




 16              DR. SKINNER:  The next speaker is Melvin K. Coghill.




 17              MR. COGHILL:  I do not have a prepared statement for




 18    you.  This will be a little bit short.




 19         Our bof»ojh is not too large in Alaska.   There are three




 20    communities which consist of King Salmon, Nak-Nak  (phonetic)




 21    and South Nak-Nak.  Our borough is divided down the middle with




 22    a river, so this makes it pretty tough with our  solid waste




23    disposal.   We have a. dump on one side of the  river and one on




24    the other and both are in violation and have  to  be operated




25    before the EPA.   Our boroujk consists of about 1,100  population

-------
                                                           Ill





in the three communities.  Four months out of the year, we have



about 4,000.  We have nine canneries which operate from May



until August, so this creates a larger burden on our solid



waste disposal.  If we go to bailing, that will create a larger



problem for us financially and another thing would be the dis-



posal site for this.  As it is right now in Alaska, we have a



very bad problem,which about six months of the year, you cannot



get any dirt, gravel or anything to furnish for landfill and



with open dump or burning, burning is the only way that we can



create or keep our litter problem.  The wind blows quite often,



anywhere from 15 to 70 knots, so if our paper is not burned,



we have it all over the country.  So I don't know how many of



you have been to Alaska, but the rural areas of Alaska are in



the same problem that we are.  What lands we do have are either



federal, state or privately owned, nonavailable for new sites



and what might be available is wetland or permafrost.  Therefore



that poses another problem.



     How do we go about getting our solid waste disposed of?



We can't cover  it during the winter.  EPA Anchorage office saic



they do allow snow.  Well, that's fine during the winter, but



just last winter, I think we had six inches of snow which blew



away in the next winter.  So all I'm saying is that I hope.EPA



would look into Alaska's problems a little bit more on the



criteria of environmental impact on the sanitary landfills,




surface water and such as this.

-------
                                                                 112





 1             DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.   Are these sites in compliancs




 2   with the state standards  in  Alaska?




 3             MR. COGHILL:  At the present  time,  they are being




 4   upgraded.



 5             DR. SKINNER:  Does  the  state  standard permit open




 6   burning?



 7             MR. COGHILL:  The  state standard  did,  yes.




 8             DR. SKINNER:  Does  it require covering of the site of




 9   either snow or soil?




10             MR. COGHILL:  Yes,  it does.




11             DR. SKINNER:  What  about the  state  standard with




12   respect to siting in the  permafrost  area?




13             MR. COGHILL:  Well,  our area  specifically is not




14   classified permafrost area.   Further north  is.   The smaller




15   villages have--  well, they are going to be in  a little bit




16   worse condition than we are because  the small villages less than




17   100 population,  no tax base or  anything like  this.  It's either




18   going to be a burden on the state to furnish  equipment to cover




19   the dump sites,  which there are very many small  villages and




20   quite a ways apart; no roads  between them.  So  it would almost




21   require one piece of equipment  per site.




22             DR. SKINNER:  Are these boroojl-operated sites  in your




23   instance, are they operated by  the borcfo^h government?




24             MR. COGHILL:  Our boffrUjK is operated,  yes.




25             DR. SKINNER:  But these are public  sites?  They are no

-------
                                                           113






private sites?




          MR. COGHILL:  Right.




          DR. SKINNER:  And just to summarize the aspect of the




criteria that's most troublesome in your instance is the open




burning prohibition?




          MR. COGHILL:  That's the main one at the present time.




          DR. SKINNER:  Any other, questions?




          MR. DeGEARE:  Do you know offhand what the present




cost of your operation is?




          MR. COGHILL:  It's not very much, actually.  I don't,




offhand, have the cost.  It is a very minimal amount, so--  but




we have been thinking of bailing, but then we get back into the




situation of where to dispose of it.




          DR. SKINNER:  And you burn to reduce the litter and




the blowing problems.  It's not a health reason?




          MR. COGHILL:  No.  It's very seldom is even--  well,




if we get a north wind, it blows across the road between King




Salmon and Nak-Nak.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.




     The next speaker is Avery Wells.



          MR. WELLS:  On behalf of the State of Washington,




Department of Ecology, I thank you for this opportunity to




comment upon the proposed Criteria for Classification of Solid




Waste Disposal Facilities as authorized under Section 4004 of




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

-------
                                                                 114






          We  also  thank EPA for establishment of the future Informa-



     tional meetings  to be  held in Spokane,  Boise and Seattle for the



     purpose  of both  further explaining the  proposed criteria and



     receiving additional comments.   Although these additional



     meetings will be of an informal nature, it is our hope that



     comments received from governmental entities and the public



     at those meetings as well  as  today's public hearings will be



     considered during finalization  and enactment of the criteria.



 9        Today's  comments  will be directed  toward the three basic



10   areas as suggested by  EPA:  1.   The adequacy, of the criteria;



11   2.  The practicality of implementation; and 3.   The potential



12   impact upon our  society and economy.



13        We very  much agree with  EPA's recognition that disposal



14   site design,  construction,  operation and maintenance will vary



15   as to the site specifics,  and the  intent to therefore limit the



16   criteria to minimum standards for  protection of health and the



17   environment.  As  proposed  the criteria  will allow the necessary



18   flexibility for  state  and  local enforcement  agencies to take



19   into account  local conditions and  desires.



20        We note, however,  that this intent is  not  made a specific



21   part of the classification criteria themselves, but rather is



22   only included in the "Preamble".  The addition of language in



23   the criteria  as  to this intent  is  strongly  recommended in an



24   effort to minimize the fear that EPA will not later dictate



25   specific design  and operating standards that are more stringent

-------
                                                           115





     We do not know whether or not the "Preamble" or "Supplement




ary Information1' portion of the existing draft will be made a




part of the finalized criteria.  Because of its effectiveness,




we certainly hope so.  It is further suggested that the "Pre-




amble" itself be expanded with a discussion of the inventory




process that must be used to apply the criteria.  This will




serve as a good tool for EPA to use in demonstrating how they




are interpreting the criteria.




     Although Section 4004 (a) allows for classification of the




types of sanitary landfills, we note that neither the criteria




nor the "Preamble" addresses this possibility.  Due to differ-




ences between the "conventional" and legislative definition




of the terms "sanitary landfill" and "open dumps", we certainly




understand the intent to avoid additional confusion.  Because




the upcoming inventory is so strongly based upon this classi-




fication criteria, however, we feel consideration should be




made to further classify disposal sites or perhaps "disposal"




into categories such as fills, land spreading, liquid impound-




ments, utilization sites, etc.  Such an effort at this time




will be of great benefit during implementation activities.




     Due to the lack of disposal site definition as it applies




to the size and waste type, we are already confronting consider-




able questions relating to the proposed inventory.  Will the




inventory include individual resident disposal sites or home




compost piles?  Will it apply  to dredge spoil disposal sites,

-------
                                                                 116





     slash piles resulting  from forest  clearcutting,  woodwaste piles



     used for cattle bedding,  cattle manure piles,  etc.?  How will it



     apply to auto wrecking yards,  other  salvage or junk yards,



     composting operations, resource recovery  sites,  etc.?  How will



     it relate to other than land disposal  sites, waste storage sites



     incinerators, transfer stations, or  other facilities considered



     a part of a total disposal  system?



          As intended, the criteria is general in nature as  it relate



     to wetlands, floodplains,  permafrost areas,  critical habitat



10   areas, sole source aquifers, surface and  ground  waters  and air



11   emissions.  It is similarly general  in nature  as related  to the



12   application of waste to land for the production  of food chain



13   crops, except for considerable discussion on cadmium.   This is



14   particularly confusing, since  the dangers of cadmium have not



15   been determined to any more degree than those  relating  to many



16   other metals or persistent organlcs.   Would  It not be better to



17   also keep the criteria general as it applies to  cadmium and be



18   consistent by referring to requirements of the Federal  Food, Dru



19   and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)?  As  proposed, It appears that in the



20   desire to address the cadmium  issue, the  potential plant uptake



21   of heavy metals, toxic organics, etc.  has been ignored.



22        We also note that cadmium levels  referred to in the  clas-



23   siflcatlon criteria may be inconsistent with hazardous  waste



24   criteria being developed under Section 3001  (RCRA).   As an



25   example, how does the applicated rate  of  25  ppm  relate  to 10

-------
                                                           117





times the drinking water standard or 0.1 ppm referred to in




proposed 3001 guidelines?  Similar concerns exist with respect




to pesticides, persistent organics,  heavy metals, etc.  The




development of this classification criteria, and following imp-




lementation must be closely coordinated with Section 3006 and




other RCEA activities.  We strongly urge that the criteria




itself include specific explanation as to its relationship




with hazardous waste and other RCRA guidelines.




     The only other part of the criteria which includes specific




standards relates to bird hazards to aircraft.  We have no




disagreement in addressing this problem, but is it the intent to




absolutely restrict all "disposal" sites from being located




within the designated distances from airport runways?




     The criteria further generally speaks to disease vector




control and safety, including gases, fires and access, but




appears to ignore other important factors.  These include




employee sanitation facilities, relationship to other existing




federal safety requirements, wind blown litter control, odors,




noise, relationship to previous EPA established disposal guide-




lines, relationship with existing federal highway beautifica-



tion criteria,aesthetics, and efforts to minimize the degrada-




tion of adjacent land values.  Although we certainly agree that




requirements relating to these factors will be site specific,




they should nonetheless be generally addressed.




     With or,without the proposed classification critera, good

-------
 1   health and environmental  practices  dictate that the concerns  ex-



 2   pressed by the  proposed criteria must be adequately addressed.



 3   Existing solid  waste management  funding levels, and available



 4   technology and  methods for implementation are,  however,  currentl



 5   inadequate.  Although it  is  the  intent of the Resource Conser-



 6   vation and Recovery Act  (RCRA) to provide technical and financial



 7   assistance to correct these  deficiencies, a substantial  increase



 8   in Congressional  appropriation will be necessary for this  pur-



 9   pose.  At proposed grant  funding levels,  we find that it will



10   be impossible to  assume the  administrative, monitoring and



11   enforcement responsibilities of  this criteria and other  RCRA



12   related activities, and impossible  to carry them out in  an



13   adequate and timely manner.



14        Considerable technical  assistance from EPA as to the  avail-



15   ability of technologies and  methods for compliance with  the



16   criteria will also be necessary.  Examples 'include soil  attenua-



17   tion, etc. as it  applies  to  leachate control through natural



18   means; the control and collection of leachate through natural



19   and artificial  means; alternative methods of leachate treatment



20   prior to discharge, and;  the many unanswered questions related



21   to the proper utilization and disposal of sludge.   Without the



22   preparation and dissemination of such information, meaningful



23   implementation  of the criteria will be most difficult.



24        The potential impact upon our  society and economy is  tre-



25   mendous.  Proper  implementation  of  the Resource Conservation  and

-------
                                                           119





Recovery Act (RCRA),  using the classification criteria as a basis




will substantially improve waste handling and disposal practices




and as a consequence will significantly increase associated




costs to all waste generators.  As this is accomplished, conser-




vation practices will become more acceptable and resource




recovery alternatives will increasingly become economically




viable.  In the interim, however, attitudes relating to the




importance of solid waste management and the increased need to




use existing local resources for the construction and operation




of upgraded handling and disposal facilities will require signi-




ficant change.




     In summary we support EPA's efforts to develop classifica-




tion criteria giving the state and local government the flexi-




bility to consider site variations and local conditions during




implementation.  The success of criteria implementation will,




however, be dependent upon the availability of EPA to provide




technical and financial assistance as previously indicated.




     Again, we thank EPA for this and the future opportunities




to comment on the proposed criteria.



          DR. SKINNER:  Thank you.  Are there any questions?




          MR. DeGEARE:  Yes.



     In developing this proposal, we gave extensive thought to




attempts to address subjective issues, as you said,aesthetics,




which  is one area you commented on.  I would request that you




or anyone who might have some suggestions on how we might

-------
                                                           120






incorporate that concept into the criteria,  I would request that




you please provide us with any suggestions you might have be-



cause they would certainly be welcome.  We've found it a very




difficult area to address.




          MR. WELLS:  I would certainly agree with  you.  I would




just say that your comments in that regard to the criteria would



have to be quite general and I think that would be  consistent




with the criteria as it exists today. I, too, have  tried and




tried to develop some basis to putting regulations  together on




esthetics and it's very, very difficult. Aesthetics  to who?  So




I "m not so sure that you are going to find any good language



for that.




          DR. SKINNER:  Any other questions?




          MR. WEDDLE:  Many of the earlier speakers  described




the criteria as being too general in some cases and too vague




and many of the criterion were not measurable and stressed the




need for more specificity.  Do you concur with many  of those




earlier suggestions?




          MR. WELLS:  No, I don't.  I think  the reason I don't




is where we are at in the State of Washington with  our program.




The basic criteria as they stand, we have no particular problem




We feel that if we are currently doing our job, we  should be




addressing those factors today.  Now, I would try to qualify




that by exempting the pits, ponds and lagoons part  of it, though




but the rest of the solid waste problem, I think, should be

-------
                                                           121






adequately addressed today and in most states, I'm sure that the




are.  I think it's the resources, both the manpower--  person




power--  and funds to do it is the problem and RCKA at least




the intent was to try to correct some of these problems, that




and technology or the lack thereof.  So that is where I'm coming




from.  That is where our state is coming from.  I would think




that each state in their implementation efforts are going to




have to be more specific and I would hope that in doing so,  the




states could rely upon EPA with some of the necessary technical




information that's going to be necessary.




          MR. FEIGNER:  Do you feel that the State of Washington




waterproof control laws are adequate to control bad water con-




tamination from pits, ponds and lagoons or do you feel RCRA




might be an appropriate mechanism to control those type facili-




ties?




          MR. WELLS:  I'm not sure I can definitely answer that




question very proficiently, but I would certainly say that we




have a need to address that more than we have in the past.  In-




listening to Oregon talk about that issue, I instead hone in on




the total environmental approach and whether it's water quality




aspects of the environmental agency or solid waste, it's still




one in the same agency, so I think those kinds of things should




be coordinated within the enforcement agency themselves.  Now




there probably are some states that may not be able to do this




because environmental aspects are split.

-------
                                                            122





          DR. SKINNER:  Any other questions?   Thank you.




     The next speaker is Marion Johnson.  Miss Johnson isn't




here, I guess.



     Then the next speaker will be Thomas Aspetarte.




          MR. ASPETARTE:  I'm Thomas Aspetarte and  I'm with the




Clark County Solid Waste Advisory Commission.




     Clark County Solid Waste Advisory Commission conducted a




workshop with the express purpose of becoming  familiar with




EPA's "Proposed Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste




Disposal Facilities".  The following comments  resulted:




1.   Demolition wastes should be well-defined  so that  they can




be separated, if wished, from putrescibles and other such




wastes which must require more restrictive handling methods.




     On Page 4943 demolition wastes or construction wastes are



to be handled under the controlled burial approach utilized




by "sanitary landfill".  Such wastes as demolition, if of propel




composition, can be used for fill purposes.  These regulations




would prohibit any such flexibility.




2.   Many landfill sites are the result of gravel excavation.




The monstrous pits require filling for better  utilization of




land, aesthetics and safety.  Oftentimes both  activities (exca-




vation and filling) occur simultaneously.  The criteria proposed




does not cover what may happen to the water tables, particularly




any perch water tables adjacent to the area under expansion



(new excavations).

-------
                                                           123






3.   Page 4951 - Gases under safety - chlorine (toxic) gases




may be given off under certain circumstances with some solid




wastes.  Any waste to be deposited in a sanitary landfill with




the potential of evolving harmful quantities of chlorine should




be routed to a hazardous waste site.  From this paragraph, one




can get the impression that chlorine gas is common to sanitary




landfills.  Is this true?




4.   Should consideration be given for the formation of a




trust fund, as proposed by the National Solid Waste Mangement




Association for hazardous waste sites, which would be used to




defray cost of damages resulting from a landfill even long




after such a site may be closed.




5.   Page 4946 - First column, second paragraph alteration




instead of alternation.




6    Page 4946   Middle column, last paragraph probably should




read "recommended" instead of "available".




7.   Page 4954 - Last paragraph - "Cadmium is acceptable if




instead of is.




          DR. SKIHNER:  Thank you.  Are there any questions?




          MR. DeGEARE:  I have a question relating to your




comments on the demolition wastes.  We did not separate them




out for separate handling in the regulation as we proposed.




But we did think that there was enough flexibility in the regu-




lation which we had written it to allow demolition wastes to be




disposed of in various manners so long as the environmental and

-------
	                                                              124




  1   health  impacts,  which we described in the criteria, do not occur




  2   One  problem we  saw with trying to separate out demolition wastes



  3   for  special consideration was that it's our understanding that




  4   it's  common that demolition waste disposal sites become,  you




  5   might say,  magnets for other solid wastes and, therefore, the




  6   demolition  waste disposal facilitiy is no longer Just used for




  7   some  demolition waste.   Would you care to address that?




  8             MR. ASPETARTE:   I think the answer to that might be




  9   in really defining what is a demolition waste and most certainly




 10   keep  purtrescibles and some things that can be decomposed most




 11   readily.  I think most definitely a demolition type material:




 12   dirt, rock,  maybe stumps, some of this, when they--  they do




 13   not  keep  putresclbles out of it then you have a garbage dump.




 14             MR. DeGEARE:   I was somewhat confused on your comment




 15   about gravel pits and groundwater.  Do you feel that we,  in the



 16   groundwater  provisions,  have adequately provided for the  protec-




 17   tion of groundwater?



 18             MR. ASPETARTE:   Yes,  your approach.  If you dig a hole




 19 '  and you are  in  the process of expanding this hole, you could




 20   approach  on some sort of groundwater system and drain it;  we




 21   have found  this  to happen;  I don't know whether this happened




 22   with groundwater,  but maybe it could.   It's just something you




 23   might want  to take a  look at.



 24             DR. SKIHNER:   Can you address the comment on chlorine?




 25             MR. SHUSTER:   You asked if chlorine was a typical gas

-------
                                                           125





landfill.  The answer is no. not that we know of.  The reason




that is in there among the list of potential toxic gases that




may need control and this is in the preamble and it refers to




certain liquid lagoons and it's possible that could be one of




the products that would come off of a lagoon.




     You mention that if it's a hazardous material, if it comes




off the disposal facility then it's a hazardous material and




should not go into the facility in the first place.  There are




materials that are not hazardous when they go into landfill,




but mixed with other materials may produce a hazardous material.




For example, methane gas production, you don't put methane in,




but it comes out of--  so it is possible to have	



          MR. ASPETARTE:  I can see that in a situation where




you are having a storage lagoon or something of that sort, but




I'm referring specifically to landfill or municipal garbage site




and that threw me.




          DR. SKINNER:  Any other questions?




          MR. SHUSTER:  Yes, I had one.




     You asked if we really intended to include perch water




tables.  What our intention was, and I'm wondering what your




opinion was on perch water tables, whether we should handle




them differently than we do.  We are talking about--  we don't




differentiate between whether it's perch or not.



          MR. ASPETARTE:  I understand what you are saying, but




I really don't have any solution as to how to approach it.  It

-------
                                                            126






would be a very difficult thing  to  handle.   I can appreciate




that.  I don't have an answer  to that.




          DR. SKINNER:  Thank  you very much.




     The next speaker is Tom Brandt.




          MR. BRANDT:  My name is Tom Brandt.   I work for the




Office of Appropriate Technology in Lane  County aa  a Resource




Recovery Researcher.  I'm up here today to  speak as a citizen




of Lane County.




     One of the first items which I would like  to have cleared



up, we're talking about solid waste disposal  facilities and I'D




wondering if that also includes  the--  it says  disposal means




to discharge, deposit and so on of any hazardous  waste into the




environment.   What I"m trying  to  get at is, we  have a plant in




Eugene that's going to start burning garbage and I'm wondering




if that's included in this or  does  it include just  landfills




because once you put the garbage  in a burn  plant, it does —




things do enter the environment.  A nonattainment area, the




upper end of the Willamette valley  has the  potential of having




    pollution problems worse than any other place in the nation.




This includes Los Angeles, and  that  could  be something.  This is




caused mainly by an air inversion in the  summer  months.  It keep




everything down in the valley, the  upper  end of  the valley,




everything in this part of the valley goes  up that  way.  Because




of this,  the Eugene-Springfield  area has  been classified as a




nonattainment area which means no new pollution sources in the

-------
                                                           127






area.  Some of my concerns are with the potential hazardous




wastes being burned or landfilled.  At the present time,  I'm




engaged in the design of a system to recover  valuable and haz-




ardous materials from the transfer sites, the central receiving




station and the landfills in Lane County, and every day,  I




watch many materials being dumped, materials including all types




of chemicals, paints, paints that have metal oxides, copper,




zinc, aluminum, titanium, a lot of others.  Lead batteries, zinc




cadmium batteries, plastics of many different types and one of--




I feel--  the worst is polyvinyl  chloride, PVC, which when




burned turns to hydrogen chloride then in the presence of mois-




ture turns to hydrochloric acid and if that is coming out of a




stack, then you have acid ring*




     One of the main problems that I am trying to deal with is




once a resource recovery plant starts grinding these items up




and then sending them off to be burned, some of these things  can




go up into the air like the lead, the metal oxides including




fiberglas  that is impregnated into the paper.  All of this can




be impregnated into the paper and burned and go on up.




     As much as I know in Lane County, they are not going to be




testing for any of the things that I have mentioned, mainly par-




ticulate matter and I would like to impress upon the EPA that




we need to test for a lot of other things.  I don't think we can




afford to wait until the trees in the area start dying or the




people in the area, their lungs start bleeding.  It is a poten-

-------
                                                                 128






 1    tial hazard  and,  like I said,  I'd like to impress upon you that




 2    we must  look into this before  it happens, not wait until after




 3    it happins.   I  guess  that's all.




 4             DR. SKINNER:   Thank  you.  In answer to the question




 5    that you  raised,  these proposed regulations only do deal with




 6    land disposal.  Air pollution  from normal solid waste management



 7    facilities would  have to be governed under the air pollution




 8    laws,  eicher the  state law or  the federal law, if the waste is




 9    a hazardius  waste,itis classified as that under Subtitle C of the




10    act, then there may be air pollution standards for treatment




11    and processing facilities.




12             M1:. BRANDT:   Is  the  wording in this so that it means




13    that?  I  mean, does it say that?  Because as it starts out and




14    as I reati through it	




15             DR. SKINNER:   The word disposal as commonly used




16    sometimes refers  to things like incineration, but the word




17    disposal  as  written into the act is  only	




18             MS. WRIGHT:   Disposal as written in the act does




19    include any  effect as  you were suggesting.  However,  these par-




20    ticular criteria^  this  Section  4004,  under which those are




21    written,  only requires  us  to establish criteria for what the




22    act call; sanitary landfills and by  reading of the legislative




23    history of the act makes it fairly clear that what was to be




24    considered in this landfill concept  was only land disposal.




25    It's wider than the common usage of  the term sanitary landfill,

-------
                                                           129





but it doesn't extend beyond land disposal.  Disposal under the




hazardous waste part of the act which--  under which we are




supposed to come out with regulations governing hazardous waste




treatment storage and disposal facility has no such limitation




to land.  That is why that would cover air problems.




          MR. BRANDT:  There was one other little point.  I




think in here it mentions something on landfills,  that they




would try to keep like flourescent light fixtures out of the




landfills because of the.PVC's and the transformers.  There are




always PVC's in television sets and there are a lot of televisions




going into landfills and into other facilities.   I think that




should be looked at a little closer and maybe added too.  I




mean, maybe not try to keep these things out, but keep them out.




          DR. SKINNER:  Are there any questions  or comments




from the panel?  Thank you very much for your testimony.




     Brian Johnson.




     George Ward.




     Two people have signed up, but I guess are not here.




     Thomas Donaca.




          MR. DONACA:  I'm sorry to bother you so late in the




afternoon.  You've been here a long time and that's a. tough job.




     Let me say three things very briefly.  One, we would suppoit




and do support the comments of Mr. Schmidt of the Oregon Depart-




ment of Environmental Quality particularly with regard to the




comment he made on Section 257.1, scope and purpose, and that

-------
                                                                 130





 1    comment which says:   "As noted above, the criteria should




 2    exclude pits,  ponds  and lagoons.   At a minimum, the solid waste




 3    criteria  should not  apply to those surface water impoundments




 4    which  are components of wastewater treatment systems."




 5        I think that  the rules rather clearly take care of those




 6    points, source discharges,  which are currently covered by NPDES




 7    permits.   If there is any question in your mind, I would suggest




 8    strongly  that  you  take one  more run at it to make certain there




 9    is  a proper  and appropriate division because I think part of




10    what Mr.  Schmidt was trying to tell you is that the agency is




11    under--   has some  difficulties in terms of manpower and resources




12    and they,  frankly, cannot afford to utilize their limited




13    resources going over the same ground that the water section of




14    our DEQ has  gone over.   So  that's the first point.




15        Secondly,  I'm not as familiar with federal rules as I




16    should be, but in  Oregon rules and Oregon .law, the explanatory




17    term coraes out when  the rules are finally printed and I think




18    that with regard to  257.3 and 4,  air, the explanatory material




19    does not  square with the regulatory language which is proposed




20    with regard  to Subsection A or that portion which says "and




21    to  protect the public health and welfare and complies with the




22    following provisions:   A.  Open burning of residential, coramer-




23    cial,  institutional  and industrial solid waste is prohibited."




24    If  you have  been in  Oregon  long enough, you know we have a lot




25    of  rain and  things grow.  The explanatory material says if you

-------
                                                           131





have a proper variance from the state or local air quality




control organization, it may be permitted.  I see no such allow-




ance in the rule as printed.  If that's what you mean, then I




think you better clearly state it because the explanatory mater-




ial will not be part of the rule if my understanding of the way




you do things is the same as it is in Oregon.




     Secondly, you better make a provision for state law because




in Oregon this matter is controlled by state law.  There has




been legislation before the Oregon legislature to prohibit open




burning of particular backyard, the home-type waste and the




organization I work for has support of that legislation and we




still support it except for one fact that if you prohibit its




burning, you will add to the solid waste stream by something




like a third to a half and we do not have adequate landfill




sites in the State of Oregon to accept those wastes at the cur-




rent time.  So reluctantly the State of Oregon, through its




Oregon legislative process, has set up a procedure by which our




environmental agent may allow open burning during certain spe-




cific periods of the year and subject to meteorological conditiors




wherein the burning will create the least possible damage to




the ambient air and I think that's the kind, if the state has




acted, and I think we are not the only state that may have



acted in this way.  It's possible we are out to, in this sectioi




say that if a proper variance from a local agency or state




agency has been granted or the state legislature has acted in

-------
                                                                  132





      an appropriate manner to alleviate ambient  air violations.  I




      think you ought to recognize it.  It has been a matter of rather




      grave political concern in this state and it was not a matter




      considered lightly by our DEQ, by our legislature, by anybody




      that is tangled with it, but we do have a rather serious problem




           The last comment only is that if comments such as are con-




      tained in 4953 with regard to the strong presumption that NPDES




      permits of solid waste into wetlands areas  and under our rules




 9    that would become a note and it would stay  in the rule.  I think




 10    it states the position, we would agree with  the DEQ on this one,




 11    that you state the position of the EPA a. little bit more strong]




 12    than probably conditions in many instances would justify and




 13    you put--  if that comment stays in the regulation and as a




 14    note, you have pretty clearly stated that what the rule says




 15    is not what you intend to impose;  it's something considerably




 16    more strict.




 17         If there are any questions, I'd be happy to respond.




 18              DR. SKINNER:   Thank you.  Are there any questions?




 19              MR. DeGEARE:   I do have a question.  I was thinking




20    back on, your  first comment regarding open burning and I think




21    if you look to Part B,  I really can't see where we are different




22    in the regulation than the supplementary.



23              MR. DONACA:  A is residential, commercial, institutiot




24    al and industrial solid waste.   B is burning of other solid




25    waste,  something other--  in the State of Oregon, that would be

-------
                                                           133






called straw, which we call field burning and slash burning




which comes from our wood products.  I'm not referring to that.




I think--  I have no problems with B because they are, as a




matter of fact,  both handled now by state law and there are




restrictions placed upon it by statute and are under the control




of either our DEQ or jointly on slash burning between our




Department of Forestry and DEQ.  They are essentially strategies




contained in your law for meeting ambient air standards.  So I




have no problem with B.  It is A that's the problem.  It is the




material that grows that will come out of the city like Portland




Oregon going to the two landfills which we have available which




I'm sure you are both aware have approximately two years of life




left.  This prohibition today would close them in about six




months.  Again,  nobody is comfortable with the situation.  We




would like to have it stopped, but we've got a real practical




problem.




          DR. SKINNER:  Are they currently burning at those




landfills?



          MR. DONACA:  We are not talking about burning at the




landfill.  I'm talking about burning in the backyard and cur-




rently backyard burning is allowed.  As a matter of fact, today




is a burning day.  If you would like to go out in your backyard




and try and burn, today is a burn day.  DEQ requires you get a




fire permit from the local fire issuing agency and then you may




use that permit only on days which are declared by DEQ to be

-------
                                                                 134





 1    declared burn days.   The period is a 30-day period and normally




 2    about  12 days -that would be declared.   Then there is one in the




 3    fall.   So out of 60  days,  there are about 24 or 25 days that




 4    would  normally be burning days.  On many occasions,  they tend




 5    to  be  very wet.




 6              DR.  SKINNER:   Are there any questions?  Thank you.




 7        That concludes  all of the people that asked to  make state-




 8    ments  unless  I'm missing soraebody.




 9        Did anyone request to make a statement but was  not called?




10    That concludes the afternoon hearing.   We will reconvene at




11    7:00 o'clock  this evening.




12        Since we do have some time,  we would be willing to enter-




13    tain any questions we have from the audience of us.   But that




14    will be  in a  public  meeting type  of format and will  not be




15    part of  the hearing,  although we  would ask the reporter to




16    continue to take comments  because we are in a public comment



17    period.




18              MR.  PRICE:  I'm with the City of Tacoma, Washington.




19    I handed a card up here as  a result of one of the statements




20    made earlier  this afternoon regarding some informal  hearings or




21    meetings in the  Seattle area that would be open for  public




22    comment  at that  time.  Could I get an answer?




23              MR.  FEIGNER:   I  have some dates.  There is a meeting




24    scheduled in  Spokane on May 3rd and in Seattle on May 10.  Averj




25    do  you know the  location of the Spokane meeting?

-------
                                                           135






          MR.  WELLS:   I don't believe so.




          MR.  FEIGNER:   I'm not sure of the address.   The meetir




in Seattle on  May 10  will be in the EPA regional office,  1200




6th Avenue.




          MR.  PRICE:   All day?




          MR.  FEIGNER:   I don't know.  I'd be happy to give you




a phone number so you could call and get the time.




          MR.  PRICE:   I have one other question that I would




like to pose because  it just dawned on me when I got down here




today.   Take the hypothetical case.  Two of them come to  mind.




One, artificial topsoil generated through the use of low  quality




soils,  sawdust and possibly sewage sludge or the growth of sod




commercially to be resold in which again sludge is  used as the




only fertilizer.  Who becomes the solid waste disposal facility




and who is going to do the monitoring, the agency that generated




the sludge?  The agency that sold the topsoil and or sod  or the




final possible residential or commercial customer?




          DR.  SKINNER:   That's a tough question.  Bruce,  do




you want to take a crack at that?



          MR.  WEDDLE:  You are talking about a situation  where--




I guess a class of situations where sludge may be used by home-




owners, by sod growers, by third parties where there really is




no control by the sewage treatment plant operator and it's not




clear that this regulation covers that because it just would be




impossible for anyone to monitor or even track where the  sod

-------
                                                            136






went and I think that flexibility  of the  state to perhaps  lay




requirements on the sewage treatment plant  to notify the sod




owner of the types of things, the  application rates  necessary,




but I don't know how it could be Implemented,  the sod.  I'm not




sure that's covered.



          MR. PRICE:  The case is  not as  hypothetical as I led




you to believe.  It's occurring now  and we  are really concerned




that we don't know whether we, the city,  should be monitoring




or responsible for monitoring or whether  we should tell a com-




mercial customer who is currently  taking  it because  the price




is right.  Should we tell him what sort of  possible  responsi-




bilities he's going to have, then have him tell us he doesn't




need the sludge?




          MR. WEDDLE:   We clearly  need to be much clearer on




that issue.  One thing you should  know that under Section 405




of the Clean Water Act,  we will be developing  regulations govern




ing the give away or sale of sludge  and it's  likely  that the




situation you have described would be covered  by  that regulation



rather than this one and	




          MR. PRICE:  It was my understanding  that EPA's inten-




tion was to copromulgate,  that these  regulations under the RCRA



would also govern under Section 405.




          MR. WEDDLE:   Section 405 D  requires  that we develop




guidelines for the disposal and utilization of municipal sludge




and that covers all disposal, whether it's  on  the land, in the

-------
                                                           137





water, in the ocean, in the air or whether it's given away or




sold.  The regulations we have been talking about today are




partial fulfillment of that requirement in being just the land




part.  We are going ahead with the development of new regulations




under the authority of 405 for the give away or sale of sludge




so that these criteria would be part of a larger regulation unde|r




405 that would	




          MR. PRICE:  Much larger.




          DR. SKINNER:  I'm not sure whether there really is a




problem as you imply.  If you are talking about turf grass,




that's a nonagricultural crop, so none of the cadmium restric-




tions need apply.  The only two I could think of would be surface




water contamination due to the runoff of the sludge on the turf




grass or perhaps groundwater  contamination and I would think




groundwater  contamination would be highly unlikely too if you




were trying--  so the need for any monitoring would be practically




nonexistent unless the grade of the facility was such you were




washing direct.



          MR. PRICE:  What happens when the sod farmer sells




his ground and the next individual chooses -to grow corn or




tobacco or	



          DR. SKINNER:  There is virtually no control over that




situation.  There is no way in which- the act provides for long




term land use controls.  It's just not applicable.



          MR. PRICE:  We read it with the understanding that it

-------
                                                                 138





     specifies that someone will  essentially  guarantee that that soil




     will not be used for those purposes  or the  cadmium limitation




     specifically will be applied--  must be  observed by someone.




 4             MR. WEDDLE:  We'll have to clarify  that.




 5             DR. SKINNER:  From a practical viewpoint,  I  just don't




     see how it could be implemented, but I see  the problems  that's




     causing if that's not clear.




               MR. PRICE:  The only other question I've  got is whethe




     we could get some more information on the group  that's developin




10   these guidelines on the sludge application?




11             MR. WEDDLE:  I'm chairing  that working group and would




12   be glad to meet with you after the meeting  to discuss  with more




13   detail.  By the way, I just got u note passed to me.   Normally




14   when sod is harvested, sludge would  go with the  sod.   It wouldn1




15   remain at the location and that raises a whole new  set of pro-



16   blems.




17             MR. PRICE: Yes, it does.




18             MR. WEDDLE:  I just wanted to  make  that comment.




19             DR. SKINNER:  Mr. Donaca,  go ahead.




20             MR. DONACA:  Oregon defines waste in addition  to defin




21   ing solid waste as useless, unwanted or  discarded material.




22   But the question comes up when you read  your  definition  of solid




23   waste which includes sludge, you go  through a list  of  things and




24   you say other discarded material implying that discarded applies




25   not only to other material, but to everything that  came  before,

-------
                                                           139





so the question he raised, the material, the sludge never was a




waste.  It always stayed in the commercial waste stream and,




therefore, is not subject to control under this act in my opin-




ion, but if it has any of those hazardous materials in it that




may contaminate things,  we are going to catch them under it.




          MR. WEDDLE:  Are you talking about give away and sale?




          MR. DONACA:  I would say if the sludge is not going




to cause detriment and used commercially, it was never a waste.




It was always a commercial product.




          MR. WEDDLE:  If you were talking about give away and




sale, it's under Section 405 of the Water Act and that governs




that situation and that's what we are proposing to develop regu-




lation under 405.




          MR. DONACA:  You might want to take another look at




defining waste a little more clearly.




          MS. WRIGHT:  I think the point that slid by is that




405 of the Clean Water Act, and I have it here if you would like




to take a look at it, it requires us to write guidelines for  the




disposal and utilization of sludge having nothing to do with  the




definition of whether it's a waste or not and those are only




requirements, enforceable requirements on publicly-owned treat-




ment works as to what they have to do with the sludge, so it




doesn't become an issue of whether it's a waste or not.




          MR. DONACA:  If you imply the hazardous waste criteria




correctly, it should not be effective with hazardous material.

-------
                                                            140





          DR. SKINNER:  Any other questions  or  comments?   If noi




thank you all for coming.








                    (AFTERNOON SESSION CONCLUDED)

-------
                                                           141


                        CERTIFICATE

STATE OF OREGON     )
                    :  S3.
County of Multnomah )

          I, Frank R. Resales, a Notary Public for Oregon,

hereby certify that at the time and place heretofore mentioned

in the caption of the foregoing matter I reported in stenotype

all testimony adduced and proceedings had; that thereafter my

notes were reduced to typewriting under my direction, and

that the foregoing transcript, consisting of Pages 1 to 140,

inclusive, is a true and correct transcript of all such testi-

mony adduced and proceedings had and of the whole thereof.

          Witness my hand and notarial seal at Portland,  Oregon

this   10  day of May,  1978.
                             Frank R. Rosales
                             Notary Public for Oregon
                             My commission expires:  5-19-79

-------
 1                     BEFORE THE UNITED STATES




 2                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY




 3




      Solid  Waste  Disposal  Facilities




      Proposed  Classification Criteria




 6




 7




 8




 9                     TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS




10




11             BE  IT REMEMBERED  That the following proceedings




12    were taken before C.  N.  Higgins,  a Notary Public for Oregon,




13    on Wednesday,  the 26th  day  of  April,  1978,  beginning at  7:00




14    p.m. in the East  Ballroom Conference  Room of the Sheraton Hotel,




15    Portland, Oregon.




16             BEFORE:  Dr.  John Skinner,  Chairman




17                      MEMBERS  OF  THE PANEL




18    Mr. Truett DeGeare




19    Mr. Kenneth Shuster




20    Mr. Bruce Weddle




21    Ms. Meredith Wright




22




23




24




25

-------
                            Index







                         INDEX





                             TO



                  TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS




                          WITNESSES




 Page




 4    George Ward        Environmental Consulting Engineer




17    Gerald Johnson     Coalition Environment

-------
 1        THE CHAIRMAN:  Good evening.  Welcome  again.   It's  a


 2   small crowd, but let's start anyway.


 3             This is the second part  of  a hearing  carried out


 *   by the United States Environmental Protection Agency  on  a


 5   proposed regulation entitled "Criteria for  Classification of


 6   Solid Waste Disposal Facilities."  At this  afternoon's session,


 7   we had approximately 20 people who made  formal  statements


 8   for the record.  And we have 3 people who have  asked  to make


 9   statements tonight.  Following those  statements, we would be


10   happy to answer questions on the proposed regulation  you


11   may have.


12             There's a sign-up sheet  that's being  sent around.


13   Therefore, please be sure to put  yoof  name on  it so  we can


14   keep a record of who was here.


15             This is a regulation that's being proposed  under


16   the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  It's amended by  the  Resource

                 and
17   Conservation^Recovery Act, and also proposed under  the


18   Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended  by the Clean


19   Water Act.


20             You may be interested to know  that there  has been


21   a drafted Environmental Impact Statement that has been


22   prepared on this regulation, and if you would like  a  copy of


23   that, if you'd leave your name with us, we'll insure  that


24   you get a copy.


25             In addition to this hearing, there have been a

-------
number of other hearings held on the draft regulation.  There's




one more hearing that you may be interested in knowing about,




which will be held on June 5th in Cincinnati,  Ohio.  At that




hearing, we will accept comments not only on the criteria,




but also on the draft environmental impact statement.




          The public comment period on this hearing--  on




this regulation, ends June 12th of this year.   All comments




that we receive prior to that date, or          postmarked




on that date, will be considered as we finalize the regulation.




In the regulation, there is an address for submission of




comments.   There is also an address for information on the




remaining hearing.




          As you will note, we have a recorder here tonight.




He's going to take a verbatim transcript of the hearing.  All




of the information will be placed in the official file on




the proposed regulation, and that file is available for public




review at EPA Headquarters.




          We'd ask as you make your statement, would you




please speak directly into the microphone so that everyone




can hear you, and also give your name and your affiliation.




          Those of you who were not here this  afternoon,




let me introduce the panel.  My name is John Skinner,




and I'm the Director of Systems Management Division in the




Office of Solid Waste, EPA in Washington.  Next to me is




Meredith Wright, who is an attorney with the Office of General

-------
     Counsel. EPA in Washington.  Next to her is Mr. Bruce Weddle,




     who is a Branch Chief of the Special Waste Branch in the




     Office of Solid Waste.  Next to him is Mr. Truett DeGeare,




     who is the Chief of the Land Protection Branch of the Office




     of Solid Waste.  And next to him is Mr. Kenneth Shuster,




     who is with the Program Manager, Systems Management




     Division in EPA, Washington.  All these people were involved




     in the development of the regulation and will be asking




     questions as appropriate to the people that make a statement.




10             The first witness this evening is Pej^y




11   SparKman      of the Washington State League of Women's




12   Voters.  Is she here?




13             (No audible response from audience.)




14             No?  Okay.  Maybe she'll come in later.  This




15   might be a very short hearing.




16             The second is Mr. George Ward, who is--  Mr. Ward?




17   If you have a written statement and would like to give a




18   copy to the reporter, he can use that as, you're speaking.




19   And since we have only a few people here tonight, why don't




20   you take as long as you would like.



21        MR. WARD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is




22   George Ward, I"m a Portland environmental consulting engineer,




23   and I would like to address the Board this evening to enter



24   into the record some opinions and suggestions on--  particularly




25   toxic waste disposal or contaminating domestic sewage sludge.

-------
               These comments follow a similar appearance before




     a public hearing of this type last March by EPA in Seattle,




     and at that time, I made a public statement that was based




     on observations of what I felt were properly--  or'improperly




     controlled toxic waste disposal concepts involving the




 6   sampling of the massive amounts of waste in uncontrolled or




 7   uncontained sites.




               At that time, I announced that I was seeking a




     National Science Foundation grant to continue further




10   research in this field.  And I did get that grant.




11             Ky comments tonight are based on partial results




12   that have been produced during about the past 8 months.




13             This prepared statement is being submitted for




14   inclusion into the formal record for consideration by the




15   Federal Government and its final preparation of proposed




16   classification criteria for the design, operation and




17   classification of existing as well as proposed solid waste




18   disposal facilities.




19             The basis of this statement follows a review




20   of the proposed guidelines included in the Federal Register of




21   February the 6th, 197S, as required by the Solid Waste




22   Disposal Act later amended by the Resource Conservation and




23   Recovery Act of 1976, also regulations proposed under the




24   Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean




25   Water Act of 1977.  I put that in there mostly so that I

-------
wouldn't forget what I was trying to  find.   I  know  that you




know what it is.



          With  the intentions of each of  the above  in raind,




I would like to enter the following in hopes that it might




offer EPA information, environmentally acceptable,  cost




reducing alternatives suitable for the land  application and/or




landfill containment of the more difficult to  dispose of




municipal or industrial sludges, plus certain  toxic wastes




as covered in the following sections  of the  proposed criteria,--




And I would like to stress at this time,  that  I'll  contain




my remarks specifically to the difficult  wastes.  I'd be glad




to engage in a  discussion on the less difficult, but this




is subject enough.




          The sections I'm addressing are:




     A.  Sludge Disposal and Utilization  under Section




405 (d) of Public Law 95-217.




     B.  Integration with Regulations for Hazardous Waste




Disposal Facilities under Section 3004 of the  Act.




          The comments that follow represent the initial finding




and objectives  of a current National  Science Foundation research




contract previously awarded the firm  of George D. Ward &




Associates.  One of the principal objectives of the contract




is to investigate the capabilities of ambient, as well as




controlled strains of soil microorganisms to detoxify and




hopefully render harmless certain municipal  or industrial

-------
sludges judged to contain toxic amounts of what the criteria




broadly classifies as having hazardous wastes.  And I might




pause and say that this would include for example,  municipal




sludges containing toxic quantities of industrial heavy metals,




cadmium and others,  pesticides, herbicides and so forth.




          An additional and almost equally significant objective




of the project is to determine various arrangements for




assuring the total,   long-term containment of soils in which




the selected soil microorganisms are held, while they proceed




to chemically disassociate complex industrial chemical sludges




known to respond to the effects of bacteriological decon-




tamination.  A review of current technical literature on this




subject strongly indicates a high degree of probability that




many of our nation's so-called hazardous wastes may not be




hazardous at all, following their carefully controlled exposure




to the photochemical action of sunlight, time, mineralogy of




selected soils,  pH adjustment; and particularly following




their continuous exposure to the "tenacious'1 biological




activity of selected and properly cared for soil microorganisms.




          Included in the care and health and welfare of




these so-called soil treatment cells, can be such things as




a -controlled diet for the organisms.  And I should say also




the surviving organisms, attention to the soil moisture,




soil temperature, the rate of introduction of soil oxygen,




also the rate of removal, and further treatment, if need be,

-------
of soil gases  and resulting leachate should any accumulate




as a result of soil cell containment measures.  I use the




word "containment" quite often.  In the literature we see




the word "membrane" and I think it's not appropriate to limit




our thinking just to membrane lines.  The word "containment"




I hope is meant to be all conclusive.




          As an example, we are currently experimenting at




Oregon State University, Department of Soil Science, with




a greenhouse study aimed at determining the microbiological




degradation of the toxic compound trichlorophenol, which




is a waste product remaining in the waste tar residuals




following the manufacture of the herbicide 2,4-D.  The product




2,4-D is used commonly for the selective killing of many




broadleafed weeds in agricultural grainfields, grasslands and




coniferous forests.  The basis of our research is to determine




if the roles can be reversed in such a way that the living



microorganisms become the survivors and the complex and often




lethal chemical formulations become the victims.




          Perhaps one could compare it to an early bad habit




of the Romans, which called for the feeding of Christians




to the lions under controlled conditions which prevented the




Christians from escaping, except inside the lion as a meal.  The




process presently under investigation would change the game




rules by controlling conditions favoring the Christians and




preventing the lion from escaping,  except as by-products

-------
following his having been eaten by the Christians.  That's




the best definition I can give you without a lot of chemistry.




          '.lore seriously, it is hoped that LPA officials who




must eventually write the final draft of the proposed portion




of the forthcoming regulations, will keep this concept in mind




and provide for the addition of specific rules governing what




we believe may become an entirely new concept suitable for




the containment, treatment and eventually the ultimate




disposal of many of this nation's necessary, but unfortunately,




toxic industrial waste by-products.




          If successful, we believe the contained soil




treatment cell concept will offer the nation a much more




satisfactory solution to its toxic or hazardous wastes




disposal needs than the currently acceptable practice of




perpetual entombment.  We have seen open toxic waste entomb-




ment trenches literally filled to the brim with hazardous




chemical wastes that conceivably could remain active, and




probably toxic for centuries.  These same wastes, if blended




wore gently into the contained, healthy, bacteriologically




active Soils, could, in ma;:y cases, be rendered chemically




harmless in a matter of months.




          In conclusion, we ask that EPA join with the




National Science Foundation and others in its effort to




develop safer and more dependable toxic waste disposal




methods.  It is our contention that adequate technology does

-------
not presently exist that warrants the unnecessary accumula-




tion of massive amounts of mixed chemical wastes creating




the potential for a totally unknown and astronomical number




of secondary chemical reactions into small, closely packed




and often unlined trenches with no further treatment or




neutralization intended.




          While it may be premature for us to predict with




absolute assurance the outcome of our current federally




funded project,  we nevertheless remain confident that soil




microbiological degradation of chemical wastes warrants the




Federal Government's serious consideration.




          We compliment EPA's Office of Water Supply for its



recent decision to release §5 million in water supply grants




to the states, stressing the improvement of pits, ponds and




lagoons currently used for the storage, treatment or disposal




of sewage sludges and industrial wastes.  Hopefully, some of




these funds can be made available to the private research




sector for the advancement of industry's ability to provide




its own less costly, less complex and certainly less risky,




waste disposal facilities.




          Once accomplished, two major weaknesses in today's




chemical waste disposal practices will have been almost




certainly eliminated,  or at least greatly reduced; these




include the extremely expensive,  usually wasteful, and always




dangerous practice of unnecessarily hauling millions of gallons

-------
of lethal chemical wastes through cities and along the




nation's highways.  Also included in the massive accumulation




of an infinite number of potential,  secondary chemical




reactions at a time when we still don't know how to store




even pure water   on a perpetual basis.




     THE CHAIR11AN:  Thank you.  Are there any questions?




     MR. DeGEARE:  With regard to the process that you w,ere




discussing, I'm curious as to whether there would be such




a proliferation of Christians as to result in a residual




problem or would the process extend into an indigenous phase?




     MR. WARD:  I'd like to answer that as an authority for




a Christian--  or a lion.  When he first ate the Christian, he




couldn't get out of the containment cell until they let him




out.  Now if the Christians win--  or the bacteria win,




they don't get out until you let them out.  And I probably




didn't stress it sufficiently, but I should have stressed




over and over that these are contained soil treatment cells,




not necessarily membrane lines, but contained, totally




contained    forever, if necessary.  I just don't happen




to believe that the technology of current membrane liners




has advanced as far as it hopefully will.  They're good,




very durable, but we just don't know enough about them, yet.




So, I think while we're holding these, keep them treated




properly, load the soil gently, and hopefully reduce if




not eliminate the toxicity--

-------
     MR. DeGEARE:  Do you intend to extend your research




into the indigenous phase where there would be the self-




destruction of the microorganisms?



     MR. WARD:  Not particularly.  The loading rates that




we're studying now are an attempt to drive the soil systems




pretty well as hard as we can without bringing about total




fatality.  On the other hand, I address only the concept of




the one cell program.  In theory, the system would operate




properly with the 3 cells:  one would be a basic nursery cell




with soil organisms, ideal soil conditions, with a light




loading of the toxic waste to be considered and in turn




would probably kill some of the less durable organisms.  And



those survivors would increase in intensity.  And then




following the application of those specialized training more




durable than a treatment cell.  We're on the assumption that




sone day kill one, totally annihilate the activity.  That




means we go back to the nursery cell and draw up more leachalt




under this subsurface transition.  Then again, if we don't,




the second cell still offers an opportunity to withdraw




leachfttej   soil gases that might be contaminated, yet




probably kept under negative air pressure situation, perhaps




warmed by solar heat or some other external sources.  And




then the juices from that cell could be withdrawn and applied




to the third cell for a really dense   loading--  a dense




loading of highly capable organisms for even possible faster

-------
or different treatment.  So, I think the 3 cell thing, that's




as complicated as I can think right now,




     MR. WEDDLE:  Your work sounds like it's a logical




outgrowth of the land cultivation techniques used by the




oil industry.



     1IR. WARD:  It very definitely is.  I got started in




this field in 196S by listening to a speaker. Dr.




Robert Dean at a federal chemical waste conference in




Houston, Texas.  Following that conference, I toured the




Texas ship channel and solid waste cultivation of oil,




essentially then as a technical speaker in Houston, two




months ago.  And in between now and 1968, assembled a small




truckload of EPA manuals and others, thanks to you




folks, on sewage sludge land application, toxic waste




involvement with those sludges and means of containment and




control.  It essentially all wound around the ability of




soils and soil  organisms to neutralize  these things.




     !IR. WEDDLE:  We're concerned  that  the proposed




regulation that we're  talking  about today, not unduly hamper




the  implementation of  new  technology.   And  I'd be  interested




in your  views  on whether this  proposed  regulation  does  that.




     MR. WARD:  As I read  the--   Well,  first, as I've heard




this definition at other conferences,  as  I read  the Federal




Register,  I  don't  think that  it  unduly  hampers it, and  I




hope I  didn't  suggest  that I  felt it  did.   I'm merely saying

-------
that I believe that we're on the threshold of a whole new

method of toxic waste and organic waste disposal, and I

merely am asking that EPA be open minded as you proceed in

the final draft and leave room and consideration for these

methods if they're developed--  if they're approved.  VJe

don't even know if they'll work yet,  but I'm confident that

it probably will.  By comparison, I think if I had any other

message,  I would say that I personally feel, and I think

it's substantiated by many others, that the contained soil

treatment cell, while it might take more land on more soil,

more space, and more containment facilities, it's far

safer,  far more dependable     means for ultimate disposal,

a great deal more than what I called entombment,  the deep

trench concept, whether it's covered or not, is still an

environmental timebomb, if you would, especially dealing

with the uncontrolled mixes of many formulations  of either

bad chemical batches,  unknown chemical batches, or chemical

mixes that have never been analyzed.   And I don't think
                              uU
there's a chemist in the worldAcould predict the  ungodly

combination of reactions that could occur.  And while I

don't know that they do exist, I think it's safe to say that

the probability is there, and will remain there in a deep

trench, if you would,  whether it's lined or not.   So, my

suggestion is that these chemicals be not necessarily dragged

all around the country to these special trenches.  Take some

-------
of the transportation on these things, the cost that really




produced nothing, and put it into more sophisticated cells




in waste lands, in sunshine areas where it does not take




good soil of a surface, where there is no possible contami-




nation, hopefully, from an aerosol effect, or even in




accidental haste, and even though we're talking about




containment.  I just don't believe that it's wise, and in




the best interest of our energy and our land to say that these




materials are so terrible, that they must be driven a




thousand or more miles and put in some trench that is really




no more capable than it is right now.




     MR. TODDLE:  Thank you.




     THE CHAIRMAN:  Would this process apply to other than




organic waste, or just primarily organic waste?




     MR. WARD:  The interesting thing is, I didn't think




it would until I went back up again for 2 years--  here in




Oregon, we had a very large disposal requirement, our state




authorities did, involving 25,000 barrels of toxic chemical




waste manufacturing residue.  And in an attempt to find




for myself and hopefully for the state, an improved method




of disposal,  I posed the stuffing of all those wastes in




unlined sandy soil pits with virtually no cover, no control.




As I looked for different solutions, and was against a race




with time, I was amazed to find that not a great amount of




material was available. Nationally, EPA at their Cincinnati,

-------
 1   Washington office,  came forth with some encouragement, .And




 2   I  found that  there were some remarkable abilities of organisms




 3   to break down extremely complicated molecular structures  of




 4   toxic  chemicals,  chemicals that are designed to kill fcli&ge




 5   for example.   You can kill a tree and turn around and feed




 6   an organism to that killing agency that are looking for




 1   carbons and food source.   There are certain strains found in




 8   different soils,  generally, most everywhere.  The University




 9   of Florida, for example,  has found a soil in Ohio that can




10   consume 2,4-D at  least at the rate of 10,000 pounds per acre




11   per month.  It loves it.   No one knows why.  It's a




12   Pseudomonas variety of bacteria.  VJe've imported some.  They




13   have--  it's  at Oregon State now being brought to the




14   nursery.   I flew back with a batch and killed it in my pocket.




15   So,  they sent us  another  one.  And I'm anxious to see what




16   it will do.   In a discussion with the soil science people at




17   the University of Florida, also Oregon State,  the  Graduate




18   Center here in Portland,  there are those who believe that




19   quite  probably that as we learn more about the bacteria's




20   capability of breaking waste chemical formulations and don't




21   mix them with all these other chemicals, keep them separate,




22   that we can probably find naturally occurring strains capable




23   of destroying a broad range of - individual chemical waste.  And




24   I  think the key to it is  don't mix them, don't let them get




25   compounded, hopefully stress that the--  the industry--

-------
chemical industry that makes those deterrents be responsible




where ever possible without breaking their own contained




cells.  And then that way you've eliminated--  at least




reduced the severe chance of secondary chemical reactions.




     THE CHAIRtAll:  Are there any questions?




          (No audible response from Board members.)




          Thank you for a very interesting statement.  I




hope you will keep us informed of the progress of your




research.




          Mr. Gerald Johnson, Coalition




Environment.




     MR. JOHNSON:  I'll keep my statements rather brief.




You've had quite a day today I understand, and had some good




specific information that's been brought to you.  So, I would




rather address the general outline that you formed.  Most




of the points in the outline are quite good.  To those that




have read it, we have enjoyed the way you've gone about it,




up to a point.  And there seems to be a point at which




frustration is occurring to both the solid waste industry




and to the opposite side of the ledger, the environmentalists.




And it seems to be the lack of specifics.  I'm being rather




vague in addressing the general outline, but in lacking the




specifics, how do they know what they can or can't do in




some of these specific points; where you can put the landfill




is particularly what you're addressing.  We, on the other

-------
hand who are trying to monitor  the  problems  of a  local




landfill are having problems with county  officials  and the




enforcement arm and getting them to interpret  the criteria




that they now have to the point that both sides can work with.




And this seems to be adding to  the  problem.




          We do like the points such as sole source acquifers




protecting our ground water, protecting the  air.  Many of




these points are very, very good, but  I think  they  need to




be tightened, need to be specific enough  that  it doesn't




take 10 to $20,000 for private  citizens to make a court




interpret what you have written.  And  this is  the way it is




existing today.  The courts are having to interpret some




very vague and non-specific items.  One of our big  problems




is who is to decide many of the particulars?   You have a




good basis for it, and if we understand it,  and both sides




would understand it,  the same way the  author did, then I think




that there probably wouldn't be any problem.   But as




environmentalists and as citizens are  trying to maintain




a livable environment.   And there are  those who are interested




in the economic aspects of it.  This economic  aspect seems




to be winning out over the environmentalists unless the




environmentalists are big enough in an area  to have the




funding to go to court,  take the backlog  on  the court docket,




and waiting it out until they actually can get to court,  which




nay be a year or two years before they can cover any specific

-------
points.  And when it gets down to that point, a great deal




of damage has been done.  And even if the court rules in




the favor of those who are complaining of the environmental




damage, it's too late.  All they can do is ask for a large




sum of money so that outfit won't do it again.  But what has




it accomplished?  It puts somebody else in the same position.




          So, we are hoping that you will take a close




look at the recommendations that you already have, many of




the recommendations' that have come to you from both sides




of the spectrum and define it whichever way it is, whatever




it says, make it clear.




          We're hoping also on one other point beyond what




you have written in here.  We hear an awful lot about re-




cycling.  And unfortunately, Washington is not the recycling




state that Oregon is.  But, we're interested in the source




reduction before something reaches the solid waste strain,




reducing it by having government--  not just through regu-




lations, but regulations which encourage the reduction of




solid waste, the throw-aways and such, and also making it




easier for things to be reclaimed.  And we think these things




should be addressed as a part of the whole, rather than




separate it off and saying that, "We'll save it for this




other agency, this doesn't apply to us."  Well, it applies




to us because many of these throw-away items are the very




thing which are creating the toxic materials which end up

-------
in the water and in our air.  So, we  feel  that  source




reduction and recycling is a. part of  the whole.   Thank you




very much for your time.




     THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you have  any suggestions  of  a




particular area that you  feel needs to be  made more specific




in the criteria itself?




     MR. JOHNSON:  Well,  there were so many that  I  thought




I would leave that for the others, but one thing  that




concerns me considerably--  and  I'm going  on a personal




basis--  is on water, on  the recharge zone.  If  I might




read from it.  This is on Page 49,47.  Down on the  bottom




of the lefthand column, at the very bottom, the very




last sentence, about the  third line up from the bottom in




the lefthand column, it says, "Disposal sites should not




be located in the recharge zone  the sole source acquifers




where feasible alternatives, including technology  and




economic considerations exist."  How just  that one  sentence



alone would cause unknown havoc  in Clark County because who




is it to decide whether this is  the sole source acquifer




or not?  He have one man who basically makes that decision




over there.  The community around totally  disagrees, that is,




a large number of people  disagree.  I shouldn't say "total,"




that may be an exaggeration,  but a very large quantity of




people are disagreeing on a specific point.  And yet,  they




prevailed because we are having  to wait on the slowness of the

-------
court system.  Me had to wait for several years to find out




how to fund the suit,  'low that the suit is under way, we




still may be another year, year and a half, two years.  And




here is what we feel is ground water pollution going on




because you've given the power to one nan, basically--




that is, you may not be giving it to one man, but it's being




passed down the line.  You pass it on basically hoping they




will enact it or accept it, make their criteria to match it.




Then they in turn say, "It's in Washington State, all




enforcement rests with the county."  We feel that it--




in this case, I'm talking about a specific, that they are




not enforcing, they're not interpreting this in favor of




the possibilities of all the possibilities that exist.  But




we do feel that economics are playing a greater part than




what they are admitting to.  And I'm talking from personal




opinion.  And therefore, I would like to see specifics of




how it is implemented.  But these--  as I  say, these are




specifics which go  over my head as to how  it will be done.




I'n not the  one who probably should say it, except to say




that what we have now  isn't working.



     THE  CHAIRllAII:   Okay.  Fine.  With respect to your




comment on source reduction, just for your information, as




part of the  state plan that will be developed under the Act,




they do match the state's, do have to consider resource




cooperation  to  include reduction of waste  at its source,

-------
while today's hearing was really just  addressing  disposal




that is part of the entire state plan  under  the Act.




     I1R. JOHNSON:  Yeah, I would like  to get  further into




that, but 1 think that you are working in  a good  direction.




I just hope that we can influence to some  degree  on how




it turns out.  Thank you very much.




     THE CHAIRMAN:  Any other questions?




          (No audible response from Board  members.)




          Thank you.  Peggy Sparkraan,  did  she come in?




No?  Well, that concludes everyone who requested  to make a




statement--  yes,  sir, Hr. Ward.




     MR. WARD:   Thank you.  Time permitting,  I'd  like to




follow up on this gentleman,  what he just  said and tie it




back to what I probably meant to say and didn't or not as




well as I think I can now, after I heard his  comments.




          I was applying my comments to the use of toxic




waste in form of pesticides and herbicides.  Our news media




on the hour has been full of limitation and go and no go




decisions on the highly visible application procedures  of




the state's toxic waste 2,4-D,  and 2,4,5-T.  And this




involves the killing of brush and federal  forests and private




timberlands.  And I can't think of a more watched, more




discussed,  more improperly understood thing anywhere in the




country,  and more  controls.   And yet,  nothing has been  said,




and hardly nothing has been done about those containers.

-------
Now there's the form of, I think, an area where federal




regulations could really tighten up, and should, immediately




by not only stressing and requiring the registration of these




chemicals, which in most cases, pending improvement, are




pretty safe when properly applied.  But the rules are




currently, almost, not entirely, but almost void of carefully




controlled regulations pertaining to the disposal of those




containers, the container--  usually in Washington or the--




he just handed me 3 little pearl I'll have to take off and




read here, but maybe this is the answer.  The thing that




I've personally seen, and I'm  sure  it exists in areas I have




not seen, is the  careless and  the innocence in many cases,




dumping of partially filled toxic waste containers  in




landfills that  shouldn't  even  be  allowed in the gate.  Some




of these materials down and out blow the oxygen bacterial




levels of the upper soils are  extremely durable, and we




don't know what leacheate it is  and how far it  can  travel;




and it isn't all  bad if you understand it, but  if you don't




know-,  if you  don't control it,  and you don't  control what




comes  in  the front gate pertaining  to  these very, very durable




chemicals, you've got  yourself a problem.   So,  maybe I




addressed my subject wrong and should  have  said that first




and the words  about  the bacteria later.  Thank  you.



      THE  CHAIRMAN:   Okay. Are there  any  questions  or




comments  that  anyone would want to  make before  we--

-------
     MR. JOHNSON:  I would  like  to  enter  this  in as  part




of your record and let the  gentleman  read it.   But this is




a Columbia newspaper in  Clark  County, Thursday,  October 6,




1977.  And it's just what he was  talking  about,  and  it's




one of our problems, is  that no  one out there  in Clark County,




the one and only landfill in all  of Clark County, no one




watches.  No one watches because  if something  is dumped




in a box--  in a drop box,  once  that  is in the  drop  box,




then that garbage driver picks it up, hauls  it  to a  landfill,




dumps it and goes out for another one.  And  it  was found out




through some employees of one  company in  Vancouver,  were




sent to the hospital with PCB problem--   PCS related problems.




And then it came out eventually  that  all  of  these containers




had been going out to the landfill  site.   Now  during this




period of time, they were dumping in  an area, the southeast




corner of the site where the well logs that we've seen,




show no play area.  There's a hard  pack that separates the




upper ground water, which the upper ground water is  probably




about 17 to 20 feet.  The upper  (unclear  word)  acquifer




at that points, only runs about  76  feet.   That's  the main




water source for the City of Vancouver.   So  this--   there




was no--  as I say, play visible in the well logs for that




particular area,  that particular part of  the site that is in




the direction of the flow of ground water.  And  yet,  this




sort of thing is allowed to go in there.   And there  is no

-------
 way of knowing for how many years past it had been going




 in there, and many other things.  And to this day, after




 this article,  while Clark County has a report on how they're




 handling solid waste--  or hazardous waste,  they have no




 one to look--  no one looks to this date, even with all




 the publicity.  No "one looks.   Where is our enforcement?




 Implementation?




      THK CHAIRMAN:  Under the  Subtitle C of the Act, that




 is again something really we weren't even discussing today,




 but under Subtitle C of the wastes that are classified




 as hazardous,  the generator of the waste will have to through




 a manifest system, describe where that waste is going to




 go.  So, the promiscuous dumping of hazardous materials




 and hazardous waste will be controlled under the Act when




 it's finally--  all of the regulations are written and




 finally brought about.




      MR. JOHNSON:  We feel that we have adequate regulations




 on much of this now.  We have  quite good regulations, but




 we have poor enforcement.  We  have inadequate staff to look,




 to watch--  a watchdog.  We are barred from doing the watching.




 Just as private citizens, we don't have access.




      THE CHAIRMAN:  Any other  questions or comments?




           (No audible response from audience.)




           Thank you very much  for coming and spending




 your evening here.




	EHD OF HKftTTKr,	

-------
         STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES
                          CONTROL BOARD  	
EPA HEARING ON APRIL 26, 1978, IN PORTLAND, OREGON - EPA'S PROPOSED
   CRITERIA ON THE ADDITION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE TO LAND USED FOR THE
                    PRODUCTION OF FOOD CROPS	
My name is David B. Cohen.  I am a Special Consultant for Sludge

Management for the California State Water Resources Control Board,

Division of Planning and Research.  My comments are concerned with

the issue of Cadmium in sewage sludge applied to land growing food

chain crops.



The proposed criteria, if adopted, may have tremendous negative impact

on sludge management alternatives in two major metropolitan areas of

California which account for three-fourths of all the sludge generated

in the State.  Total annual costs of the proposed solutions for the

agencies represented in these studies have been estimated to range
                         rnr-W"
between $50-$100 million.^ The market value of all the Nitrogen,

Phosphorous.Potassium, Micronutrients, and organic matter contained

in the total annual California sludge production has been estimated

to exceed $20 million and could help defray a significant portion of

these costs.



Present federal statutory and administrative policies are clearly

designed to force sludge residues onto the land.  The encouragement

of resource recovery of sludge and other solid wastes by spreading

on agricultural land must be accomplished without posing a

-------
REASONABLE PROBABILITY of adverse effects on health.  A critical issue



to be resolved by these hearings is whether the proposed criteria



UNREASONABLY foreclose any resource recovery options, without any



reasonable probability of improving public health.







Is there a clear and present danger that continued application of



increasing quantities of sewage sludge to farmland will have a



significant adverse impact on the kidney function of a sizeable segment



of the U.  S. population?  The federal Food and Drug Administration



while recommending against any development that could cause a



significant increase of Cadmium in the food supply has stated



unequivocably (Jelinek and Braude, 1977) "There is no evidence that



present Cadmium levels in the U. S. diet pose a health hazard."







Only 20$ of presently generated municipal sludge quantities are



applied nationwide on farmland.  If 100$ of all sludges produced were



applied to farmland at the recommended nitrogen fertilizer rate, less



than 0.5$ of present farmland would be impacted.  Thus, over 99.9$



of U. S. farmlands are today producing food without sludge.  If the



0.1$ of total U. S. farmland receiving sludge were to double in 20



years, could this by any stretch of the imagination pose a reasonable



probability of significantly affecting the public health via increased



Cadmium in the national diet?







How much Cadmium are we presently consuming in our diets, and how



much Cadmium is it safe to consume?  The Cadmium crisis was
                               -2-

-------
precipitated by some preliminary reports which purported  to  show
that the average dietary intake of Cadmium in the U. S. population
varied between 50-100 micrograms (^g)/day with the upper level
exceeding the WHO/FAO recommended maximum tolerance level of ?0^/< g/d
for a 70 kg standard person.

As more information becomes available concerning Cadmium  in  diet, the
"crisis" appears to be diminishing.  In 1975, Braude of FDA  reported
U. S. adult Average Daily Intake to be 51.2 ,/fg/day.  In  1977, Pahren
et al of the U. S. EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory -  Cincinatti
using most recent FDA data reported that Cadmium median Daily Intakes
averaged 33_^g/day for U. S. men  and 26 ^f< g/d for women.   If,  as
Pahren and some FDA staff suggest median values are more  representative
than mean values of intake by ingestion, present dietary  Cadmium intake
(from birth to age 50) is apparently only 48$ of the WHO  recommended
tolerance level which, in turn, has a four-fold safety factor built
in to avoid adverse public health effects.  The average daily dietary
intake of lead (254^
-------
The Food and Drug Administration has undertaken a three-year crash



program to establish appropriate levels of Pb and Cd in important



agricultural products.   Once this food basket survey is completed and



maximum permissible concentrations of Cadmium established for the



various food type categories, the need for sludge Cadmium regulations



may or may not become apparent.  Without such food Cadmium criteria,



however, sludge Cadmium limits are meaningless.  The implied threat



of FDA to confiscate food grown on sludged land from interstate



commerce can have no meaning, until quantitative food standards for



Cadmium are promulgated like those for Mercury, Pesticides and PCB's.



Such Cadmium in food standards would have to be applied evenhandedly



to all crops including those grown on non-sludged soils, where Cadmium



contents were above average.







If FDA, USDA, or EPA come to the conclusion that present dietary levels



of Cadmium are a national health problem, they should declare Cadmium



a hazardous material (under the Toxic Substances Control Act) and



concentrate their efforts on controlling commercial and industrial



users of Cadmium rather than attacking the peripheral problem of



sludge Cadmium.







The difficulty with hazardous waste regulations where concepts are



in an evolutionary and fairly primitive stage, is that early definitions



may have more precedential influence on future decisions than the



strict necessity of the earlier instance requires.
                               -i,-

-------
For example, if these criteria are adopted as proposed, they may
lead to even more restrictive criteria for using composted  sludge
on agricultural land, thus effectively foreclosing what appears to
be the only remaining resource recovery alternative for many of the
major wastewater treatment agencies in California.

If source control and pretreatment were accomplished, sludge Cadmium
levels would probably be reduced by the order of magnitude  (-^50$)
achieved in other urban areas.  In this respect it is noteworthy that
certain agencies in the San Francisco Bay region already meet EPA's
proposed pretreatment requirements for Cadmium yet sludge from these
agencies averages 40-50 mg/kg dry wt (twice the proposed maximum
allowable concentration).

Sewage sludge used in agriculture should be of commercial fertilizer
quality (i.e., the concentration of hazardous materials should be kept
within limits acceptable for widespread and continuous use).
Unfortunately, no one has yet defined "commercial fertilizer" quality
requirements.  Most superphosphate used in California has a Cadmium
content of r> 160 mg/kg.   The impact of superphosphate Cadmium on the
total national food basket may be far greater than the sludge Cadmium
impact.  If the philosophy of FDA staff that "zero additional discharge
of Cadmium to agricultural soils" is to be taken seriously, strict
regulation and ultimate  phaseout of high Cadmium superphosphate
fertilizer should be pursued as vigorously as sewage sludge regulations,
yet no responsible federal Regulatory Agency has suggested this to date.
                               -5-

-------
The Technical Bulletin issued by EPA's Office of Water Program



Operation (OWPA)  in 1976 offered no numerical criteria for sludge



Cadmium application to farmland "Because of the wide variety of



conditions that can affect the level of heavy metals toxic to...or



taken up by crops and eventually consumed by humans as part of their



diet ABSOLUTE NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE."   It was



therefore recommended that projects conform to limitations (which do



not yet exist) on trace elements in food as established by FDA or



USDA.  This approach appears to be more reasonable than that of another



office of EPA (OSW) having responsibility for sludge management.  These



contradictory approaches to sludge management should be resolved within



EPA before any proposed criteria for sludge for agricultural land are



adopted.







The phased approach to Cadmium management cannot be properly evaluated



until additional information is made available which demonstrates how



phased reduction of maximum allowable sludge Cadmium loadings will



reduce food basket Cadmium.  Presumably, such information will be



forthcoming in EPA1s long promised but not yet received Environmental



Impact Statement (EIS).  If the intention of these phased reductions



is as stated "to allow immediate protection to the human diet," it



should be demonstrated that such reductions will significantly reduce



the average daily intake of Cadmium which, in turn, should reduce the



probability of proteinuria (which is not necessarily identical with



kidney damage).  If such significant impact cannot be demonstrated,

-------
the credibility of the phased approach will be open to serious
question and this section of the proposed criteria must therefore
be deemed unreasonable.

The phased approach recommends 5 different means of achieving reduced
Cadmium in the human diet, namely:

     1.  Reduced annual sludge Cadmium loadings to soil
     2.  Restricted cumulative Cadmium loadings to soil
     3.  Restricted crops grown on high Cadmium sludged soil
         (excluding tobacco, leafy and root crops)
     4.  Controlling sludged soil pH (> 6.5)
     5.  Restricting sludge Cd/Sn ratio to less than 0.015

Items 3 and 4 are reasonable management tools and should remain in the
criteria, but there are insufficient scientific data to substantiate
the numerical criteria in items 1, 2 and 5.  If FDA or another
regulatory agency determines Maximum Allowable Cadmium concentrations
for all foodstuffs categories a re-examination of criteria 1, 2 and 5
would then be warranted on a case-by-case basis.

The comparability approach, does permit greater flexibility than the
phased approach.  Before this approach can be supported,  however, EPA
must provide more precise definitions of local market, comparable
levels  (+ what standard deviations?),   accounting for dilution in
the market place, and monitoring frequency requirements.   If crops
grown without sludge in naturally Cadmium rich soils exceed the
                               -7-

-------
national foodbasket maximum permissible concentrations, should they



be considered as primary standards for comparison with crops grown on



sludged soils?  The implication of the comparability philosophy is



that any sludge generating agency that wishes to use local background



levels of Cadmium in foodstuffs as justification for applying sludge



to agricultural land should be made to pay for the privilege by having



to conduct expensive research, demonstration and monitoring programs.



Should a sewerage agency be involved in deciding whether or not a



particular food product should be marketed or discarded?  Would it not



be more advisable to have a single regulatory agency monitor agricul-



tural products for Cadmium as is now routinely done for pesticides and



pathogens in meat?  The setting of minimum national standards for



Cadmium in all  foodstuffs would appear to offer a more manageable



alternative than the comparability approach.







Monitoring of soils, groundwater, crop and animal (kidney) tissues for



Cadmium once a year should suffice to determine trends at the sludged



agricultural site.  Sludge quantity and quality determinations would



be required more frequently to ensure adequate records of annual and



cumulative sludge constituents loadings.







In order to alleviate the possibility that municipalities would not



maintain a proper system of sludge management in the field, State



regulatory agencies responsible for sludge management could require



as an integral part of the NPDES permit, or a waste discharge require-



ment, sludge landspreading record keeping at each site where sludge



was applied.
                               -8-

-------
In conclusion - until Cadmium is declared a hazardous material/or
Maximum Allowable Concentrations in foodstuffs are promulgated, the
FDA acknowledged minor public health risk which present day  sludge
application to agricultural land represents can be satisfactorily
controlled by a combination of the following measures:

   I < —  Source control and pretreatment of wastewater from
        Cadmium consuming industries

  J-' —  Soil pH control (above 6.5) there are relatively few
        acid soils being farmed in California

   ->• -  Sludge Application Rate Control (based on the nitrogen
        requirement of the crop)

  t-\l -  Monitoring of sludge,  soil, and agricultural products
        derived therefrom for trend analysis.

By pursuing these measures diligently,  the twin objectives of resource
conservation and public health protection can be realized.
                               -9-

-------
STATEMENT ENTERED AS TESTIMONY IN A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON APRIL 26, 1978, IN PORTLAND,
OREGON.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Cowles Mallory.  I am Public Works Administrator
for the City of Portland.  My address is 400 SW 6th Avenue, Portland,
Oregon, 97204.

I appear before you today to suggest two changes in the proposed criteria
for the classification of solid waste disposal facilities.  In particular.
I will comment on the ambiguity of the criteria applying to the land-
filling of environmentally sensitive areas.

As you well know, Portland and Oregon have been leaders among the nation's
cities and states in preserving the environment.  I am not here to argue
with the intent of the regulation or the need for teeth in the law.  I
am not here proposing to cast aside Oregon's tradition and heritage.

Portland agrees that wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas
are natural assets needing protection.  We have addressed landfill ing of
our wetlands in a cautious and environmentally responsible manner.

However, as written, these regulations could delay an approved and
environmentally sound plan for the disposal of refuse from the entire
metropolitan area.

We have two major areas of concern.  First, the exceptions to the criteria
for the landfill ing of wetlands are vague and invite long time delays.
Second, the role of the state government and the relationship of land-
filling to an overall environmental plan is not clearly defined.

-------
                               - 2
Let me deal with these points separately.  First, that the exceptions
to the criteria for filling of wetlands *"•» too vague.

The comment paragraph of Section 257.3-1 (p.4953 of the Federal
Register, February 6, 1978, Part II) states, "Only upon a showing of
extraordinary circumstances - including a demonstration of alternative
methods of disposal, an assessment of environmental impact'for each
alternative, an assessment of the technical and economic feasibility of
each alternative, and a justification for the wetlands disposal alter-
native in view of the environmental impact and feasibility will an NPDES
application be considered ..."

That is a lot of words, it could mean a lot of time and a lot of dollars.
It1": ambiguous, open to interpretation and arguments.  What is "economic
feasibility"?  What costs are too much?  What does it take to make a
"justification for the wetlands disposal alternative in view of the
environmental impact"?  For example, are substantial energy savings in
fuel consumption, minimal air pollution, and the preservation of roads
by hauling to a close-in landfill enough of a trade-off, or does there
need to be more?

Will the NPDES permit application be reviewed as part of an overall
environmental strategy.  If it will, what type of consideration is to be
given to whether or not the community is implementing resource recovery.

-------
                               - 3 -
As will be illustrated in later testimony from our Bureau of Refuse
Disposal, the City of Portland gained approval from 12 local, regional,
state and federal agencies to expand its landfill into 55 acres,
classified as wetlands.  This expansion completes the landfill.  It is
part of a plan that provides for the eventual closure of that landfill,
initiates resource recovery, provides recreational opportunities, and
preserves a substantially larger wetland area.  The plan is coordinated with
an adjacent plan to provide flood protection and sites for industrial
development that has been approved by the U. S. Corps of Army Engineers.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality made a thorough assess-
ment of the expansion application for the landfill.  Its' approval was
granted only after careful consideration of all environmental issues,
comments by other agencies and public hearings.

I submit that EPA must more precisely address these "extraordinary
circumstances" and develop a specific variance procedure.  We have
already gathered 1,414 pages of studies and spent $906,000 in our pursuit
of an  acceptable solution to the refuse disposal problem.  If these
criteria remain ambiguous, we will be faced with additional time delays,
more studies, more expenses, and more frustrations as we argue with
other  governmental officials as to how much justification is enough.

I understand the difficulty responding positively to this request.  Your
regulations have gone- through many drafts already.  The section to which
I am referring has been changed from previous drafts and a lot of people
have been involved.

-------
                                 4
However, the problem we face is the same problem we  face with any
new regulations.  JJd precedents have been established.  The officials
administering the regulations, lacking guidelines, are prone to be
super cautious.  I have two very specific suggestions.  First, later
testimony from our Metropolitan Service District will request wording
changes in the second sentence of the comment in Sec. 257.3-1A.  The
City of Portland supports their request.  Second, we request that EPA
now, before the regulations are adopted, address a letter to the City
of Portland detailing what documentation would be required and what
specific standards need to be met for the City of Portland to proceed
with the landfill expansion as approved by the State Department of
Environmental  Quality.   Unquestionably, this letter would help the
City of Portland because we would know what we had to do and standards
against which  we would  be judged.   I think it would also help any other
community because it would establish at least one precedent to aid in
the implementation of these regulations.

The second point I wish to address  is  that there is no clear definition
of roles between the EPA and state  agencies regarding these criteria.

The proposed rules under the section title, Approach (p.4942, par.  3 of
the Federal  Register,  February 6,  1978, Part II) state:   "One aim in
developing these criteria  was  to  be as  specific as possible to facilitate
the distinction  or classification of disposal  facilities,  without reducing
the flexibility  of State solid  waste management and enforcement agencies
to take  into account the site-by-site variations and make  assessments based

-------
                                5 -
on local  conditions."

May I also quote from an April 7, 1978 letter from Donald Dubois,
Regional  EPA administrator, to Mayor Neil Goldschmidt of the City
of Portland.   "The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is
approved  to issue NPDES permits and such application would be made
to them.   EPA would use these criteria in our review and action on
the DEQ permit."

That statement goes to the top of my list of bureaucratic double-
speak.  Who is going to be the decider.  Is it delegated to the
State Department of Environmental Quality, or is EPA going to decide.
If EPA is going to decide, who in EPA.  Is it a regional decision or
a national decision.

The criteria further state (257.3-1 Comment, p.4953 of the Federal
Register), "There is a strong presumption against the issuance of an
NPDESpermit for the discharge of solid waste into wetland areas."

Will the  states actually have the flexibility and authority to address
site-by-site variations and to make assessments based on local conditions?
On page 4942, the proposed rules say the states should have that authority.
But in the comment on Section 257.3-1, it effectively says they don't.

A more specific definition of roles within the criteria would enable
those responsible for solid waste management to be very clear about the
requirements  and processes necessary to responsibly address the criteria.

-------
                               -  6
Again we have a specific request.  We  suggest  that  if a  State
Department of Environmental Quality  is doing a good job  within  its
own state of preserving the wetlands and  if that  Department  of  Envi-
ronmental Quality is basing its  refuse disposal decisions on compre-
hensive environmental planning,  then the  federal  government should
leave the variances to the state.  The state government  should  be the
final decider.  This is not a  new suggestion.   EPA does  it now  in the
construction grants program.

One of the most important considerations  in these criteria is to assure
that things can actually happen.  That refuse  can actually be disposed
of.  That local  governments can actually  implement an environmentally
sound plan.  Time is often important.  I  know  it is important to the
City of Portland and our metropolitan area.  I fear that the lack of
specificity in the criteria, the lack of  precedence, and the ambiguity
of the state's role will further drag out the decision-making process,
wasting valuable time and costing the taxpayers money.

In conclusion, the City of Portland urges EPA to take a hard look at
these regulations as they affect the criteria for landfilling of envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas.  Let me reiterate my two specific requests.
First, we request that EPA address a letter to the City, detailing
procedures  and the criteria for expanding our landfill in accordance
with the plan approved by the state's Department of Environmental
Quality.  Second, we request that if a state Department of Environmental

-------
                                7 -
Quality is doing a good job, EPA should leave the variances to
the state.

We are proud of Oregon, and we are proud of our environmental
heritage.  We think the points we have raised are constructive and
hope that you will give them very serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your time and-your attention.
CM:jd

-------
CONNIE McCREADY
 COMMISSIONER
   OFFICE OF
  PUBLIC WORKS
 ADMINISTRATOR
STATEMENT ENTERED AS TESTIMONY IN A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON APRIL 26, 1978,

IN PORTLAND, OREGON.



Submitted by:  Jeanne McCormick

               Solid Waste Program Director

               Bureau of Refuse Disposal

               City of Portland, Oregon
                  Subject:   Proposed Classification Criteria for Solid Waste

                            Disposal Facilities, published in the Federal

                            Register, Monday, February 6, 1978.
                  I am here to talk more specifically about Mr. Mai lory's number

                  one point   that being "The exceptions to the criteria for

                  filling of wetlands are too vague."  Let me illustrate the problems

                  they can cause.


                  The Portland metropolitan area may soon face a solid waste crisis

                  that will be irreparable economically, and will be a threat to the

                  health and welfare of its citizens.


                  The St. Johns Landfill has been in operation for 46 years.  It

                  is currently operating with a DEQ permit to fill-  178 acres to the

                  52 foot m.s.l.,  City datum.  At the current rate of fill, that

                  level will be reached approximately Spring of 1981.  It is one of

                  the two putrescible landfills serving a population of 900,000 and

                  is the only government owned landfill in the region.

-------
In 1975 the City applied for a 55 acre expansion of its landfill.

The application is consistent with local, regional  and state

solid waste land use and environmental plans.  All  of the

applicable local and state agencies have approved of the expansion.

The EPA has opposed the expansion.


12 agencies have reviewed and approved the expansion:

Feb. 22, 1975        Portland Planning Commission held hearings
                     regarding expansion of the landfill.  They"
                     were held in St.  Johns.

Feb. 27, 1975        Planning Commission held a meeting regarding
                     expansion of the landfill.

Apr. 3, 1975         Was an extension of the meeting.

Apr. 23, 1975        Planning Commission approves expansion
                     proposal.

Sep. 11, 1975        City Council approves an  ordinance to expand
                     the landfill.

Dec. 5, 1975         A meeting was held in the Public Works Admin-
                     istrators Office - there was verbal approval
                     •of expansion by the Army Corps of Engineers,
                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Division of State Lands,
                     State Fish and Eafne, Department of Environmental
                     Quality.

Dec. 12, 1975        City applies to DEQ for expansion.

Dec. 23, 1975        City makes expansion application to Army Corps
                     of Engineers.

Sep. 3, 1976         Multnomah County Health and Sanitation approves,
                     expansion.

Sep. 8, 1976         Metropolitan Service District approves expansion.

Nov. 30, 1976        DEQ approves expansion.

Dec. 13, 1976        Oregon State Preservation Office, Parks and
                     Recreation Branch voices need for an archeolo-
                     gical survey in accordance with Rivergate
                     Environmental Impact Statement.

Dec. 16, 1976        U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
                     Atmospheric Administration approves expansion.

-------
Dec.  23, 1976        EPA opposes expansion.

Jan.  4, 1977         U.S. Fish and Wildlife approves expansion.

Jan.  25, 1977        Preliminary Environmental Assessment done by
                     Corps of Engineers, the Corps asks respondents
                     to the public notice if they have additional
                     comments.  There are no additional comments.

Feb.  11, 1977        Multnomah County Planning and Development
                     approves expansion.

Feb.  28, 1977        Governor Straub approves expansion.


The Metropolitan Service District stated in a March, 1978 draft of

their report titled Disposal Siting Alternatives:  "During the

last twelve years, various jurisdictions and consultants  have

undertaken numerous independent analysis of alternate landfill

sites."  These reports are:

Report on Refuse Disposal for Portland, Oregon, by Black  and
  Veach Consulting Engineers, Aug., 1968.

Study on Sanitary Landfill Sites for Washington County, Oregon,
  Clark and Groff Engineers, Jan., 1970.

Report on Sanitary Landfill and Refuse Disposal Costs for
  Portland, Oregon, by Black and Veach, May, 1970.

The Final Report on the Portland Sanitary Landfill
  Hydrogeolpgical Studies, by Stevens, Thompson and Runyan,
  Oct., 1972.

Metropolitan Service District Solid Haste Management Action
  Plan, Volumes I, II, and III, by Cor-Met, April, 1974.

Environmental Assessment, Solid Haste Milling-Transfer Stations,
  Cor-Met, 1974.

Regional Sanitary Landfill Report, by MSD, Nov., 1975.

Non Processible Solid Haste Disposal Program, MSP, Jan.,  1977.

Disposal Siting Alternatives, by MSD, March, 1978.


These reports total 1,414 pages and were accomplished at  a

conservative estimate of $906,000.


MSD further stated in its report, "Based on previous reports and

-------
attempted solid waste siting experiences, there are probably no

sites which meet all of the requirements of:  1) local land use;

2) environmental acceptability; and 3) economic reasonableness.

Given the existing situation, siting of future landfills may be

impossible."


Beginning in 1973 the City began to look to St. Johns for

expansion.  Several comprehensive studies were conducted.  Among

these are:

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Expansion, Columbia Blvd. Sanitary
  Landfill, by Snannon and Hi 1 son, Nov., 1973.

Proposed Engineering Design for Phased Expansion of the St. Johns
  Landfill, City Engineers Office.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment on Public Notice No.
  071-2-002041, Fill Near Columbia Slough River Mile 3.2
  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dec., 1976.

Environmental Impact Statement for Expansion, St. Johns Sanitary
  Landfill, City Engineer's Office.


This expansion was not planned in a vacuum.


The residents of North Portland are interested in the preservation

of the area.  In 1974 a citizen'? conference was held titled "Lakes,

Land, Livability" where the understanding for need of the  landfill

for at least ten more years was addressed.


The State  Legislature in  April, 1977 recognized the need to protect

wetlands and passed a bill which  limited landfilling to above the 11

foot in.s.1, in  the  Smith-Bybee Lake area.   This law recognizes  but

does not include the expansion area in the  limitation.  The expansion

of this landfill encompasses  but  a small part of the wetlands.

-------
The Region is in the design phase of a resource recovery facility
planned to go on line in 1982.

The Portland City Council has authorized drafting of an ordinance
that would, among other things provide on-route collection of
recyclable materials to every Portland household.  Accompanying
this would be a city-wide recycling education program.

The landfill has been operating for 46 years without environmental
problems including water pollution, as identified by the City'1:
and DEQ'1; long term water sampling programs.

The North Portland citizen's conference recommended a passive
recreation land use for the landfill.  Both the Planning Commission
and City Council have endorsed recreational use and maintained a
Farm Forest zoning.

The Portland Park Bureau is currently making long range park plans
for the Columbia Slough, which would include the landfill  area.
The planning for the ultimate use addresses the preservation of
the natural characteristics of the area.

My question is this:  How much more money do we need to spend on
reports that arrive at the same conclusions?  I suggest that every
dollar we spend after today to try to satisfy the criteria could
be better spent in resource recovery.

Through the illustration of our problem, The City of Portland
strongly urges the EPA to specifically address the exceptions to
the criteria and to place the criteria in the overall context of
the preservation of the environment.
Thank you for your time and interest.

-------
mso
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT
   1220 S. W. MORRISON ROOM 300 PORTLAND. OREGON 97205
                (603) 249-5470
                       TESTIMONY

             Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
          Proposed Criteria for Classification

       My  name is Paul Norr.  I am the solid waste compliance
 officer for the Metropolitan Service District of Portland,
 Oregon.  Our address is 1220 Southwest Morrison Street,
 Room 300, Portland, Oregon  97205, phone  (503) 248-5470.

       The Metropolitan Service District (MSD) is a municipal
 corporation charged with managing the disposal of all  solid
 waste in  the Portland metropolitan area, an area that
 covers three counties and includes twenty-six municipalities.
 We are the agency with primary responsibility for how  land-
 fills are operated in our area.

       I am here today on behalf of the District to say that
 we generally agree with your proposed solid waste disposal
 facility  classification criteria, and that we have a few
 observations to make .

       You have solicited comments regarding the adequacy
 of the criteria in providing for the protection of the
 public health and the environment.  We feel that the pro-
 posed criteria do offer a reasonable amount of protection, if
 the rules will be interpreted rlong the lines described in
 the accompanying "Summary" published in the Monday,
 February  6, 1978 Federal Register, Part II.  It is our
 feeling that, while the Rules themselves may be somewhat
 vague and uncertain, the summary comments can provide  us
 with the  guidance we were hoping for.  Thus, we suggest,
 for your  consideration, incorporating some of the more
 explicit  language of the summary comments into the rules
 themselves .
                     100% RECYCLED PAPER

-------
                                            Testimony
                                            Page 2
     We do, however, applaud the basic approach of designing
criteria to help assure "no reasonable probability of
adverse affects on health or the environment".  None of us
can make any guarantees, and all we can do is try to
predict where problems are likely to occur and then design
a system to prevent them, and then to react the best we can
when unforseeable  problems occur.

     You have solicited comments regarding the practicality
of  implementing these criteria, particularly whether they
are technically feasible, and able to" be monitored and
enforced.  Monitorable and enforceable?  Yes.  Technically
feasible?  Yes, at a cost.

     We have attempted to develop a model of the development
costs for a typical disposal site, assuming compliance with
the proposed criteria.  We used what we feel is not an
unusual site, with the site not being located in a wetland,
not being located in the one hundred year flood plain, not
being a critical habitat, not being in the recharge zone of
a sole source acguifer, and not within  3,048 meters of an
airport runway.  We assumed a leachate effluent collection,
containment, and treatment system to help reduce the
probability of adverse affects on the surface and ground
water.  We assumed the practice of covering all unshredded,
unstabilized, putrescible wastes with dirt cover each day
that the site is open, as suggested by the summary comments,
to help reduce the probability of fire, litter, rodent and
vector infestation, odor, to enhance site appearance, and
to help keep rain and surface water from draining through
the fill.  And we assumed a gas collection and venting
system to help reduce the probability of the accumulation
or migration of toxic or explosive gases generated in the
fill.

-------
                                            Testimony
                                            Page 3
     We feel that all these precautions are technically
feasible, and a site so designed should pose no reasonable
probability of adverse affects on health or the environment.
Technically feasible?  Yes, but at a cost.

     Our typical site has a capacity of about 2,800,000
tons.  We added up the costs of developing our typical site —
including site evaluation costs, engineering costs, a
leachate control system, a gas 'venting system, cover costs,
including final cover, plus what we feel are reasonable
contingency costs — and determined that the total develop-
ment cost of our typical site today would be about $15,400,000,
which would yield a site development cost of around $5.50 per
ton.  And that's before operating expenses.

     Now we're not saying that that's too much money.  If
we assume that adverse affects on health and the environ-
ment are not good, and that we want to have a garbage
disposal system that poses no reasonable probability of
these adverse affects, then it might be worth the money.   But
let's all understand up front that such a system will cost
money.

     We estimate the development costs of an existing
landfill in the Portland area to be in the neighborhood of
$2.00 per ton.  That means that if the criteria adopted
are similar to those proposed, the site development costs
for a landfill in the Portland area will jump from around
$2.00 per ton to around $5.50 per ton.  That is an increase
of about two and three-fourths times over today's cost for
site development alone.

     If EPA chooses to adopt these criteria, it should be
done being fully aware that there are costs associated with
meeting the standards.  We at MSD feel that these criteria,
with perhaps some minor adjustments, should be adopted,

-------
                                            Testimony
                                            Page 4
with the understanding that what we are getting for our
money — that is.what every person who lives in our District
is getting for their money — is no reasonable probability
of adverse affects on health or the environment resulting
from tossing all of our garbage into a landfill and cover-
ing it over with dirt.  If we want to continue to landfill
the waste we generate, we should be at least  socially
responsible enough to pay to prevent adverse affects.   To
repeat, we support these types of criteria, but realize
that there are costs associated with these standards.

     To jump back a little to Section 257.3-1 of the
proposed rules, we do have a brief comment on the extent
we ought to go to protect environmentally sensitive areas.
We would like Corky Ketterling, manager of engineering
and analysis, to explain a concern we have.

-------
mso
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT
   1220 S. W. MORRISON ROOM 300 PORTLAND, OREGON 97205
                (503) 248-5470
                        TESTIMONY
             Solid Waste Disposal  Facilities
          Proposed Criteria for Classification
     My name is Cordell Ketterling, I am Manager of
 Engineering and Analysis for the Metropolitan Service
 District, Portland, Oregon.

     I am here to address specific wording in Section
 257.3-la, "Wetlands as Environmentally Sensitive Areas".

     While we have no arguement with the development of
 a wetlands policy and the efforts of EPA to protect
 wetlands through these proposed rules, we feel imple-
 mentation of the draft rules,  as published in the
 Federal Register on February 6, 1978 would be unfair to
 the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area.

     Earlier versions of the rules have been modified to
 be more explicit about environmentally sensitive areas.
 However, in addressing wetlands, the present wording of
 the rules effectively provides no opportunity for  "state
 solid waste management and enforcement agencies to take
 into account site-by-site variations and make assessments,
 based on local conditions".

     While the supplementary information provided  with
 the rules on environmentally sensitive areas seems
 appropriate — that is, a clear demonstration that  there
 will be no significant adverse impact and an analysis of
 the availability and practicality of other alternatives -
 the actual rules and the specific supplementary informa-
 tion on wetlands refer only to technical and economical
 feasibility, not practicality.

-------
                                           Testimony
                                           Page 2
     While it is easy to recognize that lack of public
reaction may favor putting a landfill in a wetland, public
reaction cannot then be ignored as a factor in siting
landfills.

     Our concern is that the local jurisdiction responsible
for solid waste disposal may be able to find technical
and economical feasible alternatives to a wetland site,
but local land use processes and citizen attitudes make
the otherwise economic and technically feasible sites not
practical.

     To mitigate our concern, we request that the second
sentence of the Comment in Section 257.3-la be modified to
read as follows:

     "Only upon a showing of extraordinary circum-
     stances, an analysis of the availability and'
     practicality of alternative existing and
     potential disposal sites in terms of hydro-
     geological, environmental, economic and other
     pertinent factors, and a justification for the
     wetlands disposal alternative in view of this
     analysis, will an NPDES permit be considered
     and issued."

     The corresponding part of the supplementary informa-
tion on wetlands needs to be similarly modified or
deleted.

     Other word changes may accomplish the same purpose,
but so there is no confusion, our objective is that the rules
recognize feasibility is more than just economic or tech-
nical considerations and, although alternatives to wetlands
disposal may be technically or economically feasible, the
same alternatives may not be practical.

-------
                                Statement
                            EPA PUBLIC HEARING
                      SOLID  WASTE  DISPOSAL FACILITIES
                     PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION  CRITERIA
                             Portland, Oregon
                               26  April  1978

      My name is  Paul  S.  McGough.   I  am Vice  President   Product Develop-
ment of Resources Conservation Co.  of Renton, Washington.   Resources  Con-
servation Co. is  a joint  venture company owned by affiliates  of The
Boeing Company and Reading  & Bates Offshore Drilling Company.  Our company
is engaged in all aspects of design and construction of wastewater and
sludge treatment  systems.  It is this latter  area—sludge treatment—about
which our comments are made  here this afternoon.


      We are appreciative of the Environmental Protection Agency's desire
to establish criteria for the discharge of wastewater from waste treatment
plants into lakes, rivers and streams and the deposit of sludges which may
contain hazardous materials  on land.   We share your concern.   But we  do
have some questions and concerns about the practicality of some of the
criteria published here.


1)    According to the proposed criteria, the intent is to regulate solid
waste disposal to minimize  harmful effects to health and the environment.
The coverage section of the criteria states that the criteria applies to
"all solid waste" and then  defines solid waste to include sludge from a
waste treatment plant and defines disposal to be an all-inclusive term.

-------
EPA Hearing - Portland, Ore.                             Statement
Solid Waste Disposal  Facilities                          Paul  S.  McGough
Proposed Classification Criteria	Page 2 of 4

Given this definition, the criteria then emphasizes the applicability of

the criteria to "land disposal of sludge resulting from the treatment of

domestic sludge."  This would apply to all  forms of treated sludge, wet

or dry, regardless of their origin, applied to land.  But the scope also

specifically excludes "land application of domestic sewage."  This distinc-

tion is unclear and confusing, and appears  to be contradictory.  If sludge

is nothing more than treated domestic sewage, then why is it more of a

problem than sewage, especially in the light of an overriding concern of

cadmium contamination.  How can it be permissible to spray raw sewage on

land without regard to the proposed limitations while restricting the

spreading of dry, pathogen-free, sewage solids?



2)    The criteria is written so as to impose the responsibility of ultimate

disposal compliance upon the owner/operator of a waste treatment plant.

In many cases, it is impractical to require the owner/operator to assume

this responsibility.  Where large bulk sales are involved, tracking the

product to its final use is not feasible.  The responsibility of compliance

should be passed on to the purchasers so that it is the end user who is

ultimately responsible for disposal within the established regulations.



      The EPA is stressing the recovery of material resources, and we

strongly prescribe to this philosophy.  Sludge obviously has recoverable

value but it must be applied within regulations.  To force owner/operator

responsibility would negate the EPA's recovery policy since it would not

be economically advantageous for the owner/operator to provide downstream

tracking to a widely dispersed marketing area.

-------
EPA Hearing   Portland,  Ore.                              Statement
Solid Waste Disposal  Facilities                          Paul S. McGough
Proposed Classification  Criteria	Page 3 of 4


      Similarly, it is impractical  to govern cadmium or heavy metal concen-

trations by areal  methods to the individual user of bagged fertilizer/soil

admendments products.  The owner/operator would have no control over the

ultimate use of a bagged product.  An appropriate method of control would

be to mark the bagged product with a maximum allowable application rate.

This application rate would in turn determine the maximum allowable cadmium

concentration of the product.  Together, these two parameters would insure

that areal loading would be within desired regulations.



3)    In regard to the application of sludge to land to be used for the

production of food chain crops, the criteria recognizes the vast range of

factors'that vary from site to site—such  as climate, hydrology, and geology.

This, coupled with a wide variety of crops which have different assimilation

rates to various minerals and elements, does not lend itself to the appli-

cation  of  a single standard geared to a worst-case condition.  An  evident

purpose of the  proposed  criteria is to control the cadmium in  the  food

chain.  The amount of cadmium ingested by  human consumption  is not solely

dependent  upon  the level of application of a sludge to the crop soil.

Soil  conditions, as  well as crop characteristics, contribute significantly

to the  degree of cadmium exposure to the public.  Thus, what is an unacceptable

level of  areal  cadmium  content in one region for one crop could Be, quite

acceptable in another.   Again, in light of the EPA's mandate to conserve

and recover material  resources,  the establishment of a worst-case  standard

seems inappropriate.

-------
EPA Hearing - Portland, Ore.                             Statement
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities                          Paul S. McGough
Proposed Classification Criteria	Page 4 of 4
      We recoimend that a formula be developed that would include all of
the presently known soil factors such as CEC*. pH, etc.  This formula can
then be used to assess the acceptability of specific sites to a given
level of cadmium.  In this manner, a potential user can predetermine the
rates and length of time that he can apply a given sludge to his land.
Different loading factor formulas could be set for different crops.  Not
only will this method provide adequate protection for the public but will
allow the ultimate fertilizer user to plan his long term sludge needs.
In turn, this planning will provide the long term forecasts required by
owners/operators of waste treatment plants for facility planning.  Without
this visibility, they will turn away from the fertilizer industry as a
viable market for sludge and thus defeat the concept of material resource
recovery.
      Resources Conservation Co. would welcome the opportunity to discuss
the points raised here and others in greater detail with any interested
persons.

      Thank you.
*Cationic Exchange Capacity

-------
CONNIE McCREADY
 COMMISSIONER
   OFFICE OF
 PUBLIC WORKS
 ADMINISTRATOR
STATEMENT ENTERED AS TESTIMONY  IN A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE

THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON APRIL 26,  1978,

ffl PORTLAND, OREGON.



Submitted by:  A. D. Nunamaker, P.E.

               Bureau of Sanitary Engineering

               City of Portland, Oregon



Subject:  Proposed Classification Criteria for Solid Waste

          Disposal Facilities,  published in the Federal

          Register, Monday, February 6, 1978.



The disposal or utilization of  solid waste materials, including

wastewater sludge, is a matter  of major significance to

municipalities nationwide.  The City of Portland welcomes the

timely guidance for the solution of solid waste problems

presented by the Environmental  Protection Agency as the subject

of this hearing.  The following comments are offered for con-

sideration.



SECTION 257.3-5. Subsection (a), Cadmium
                  Paragraph (i)  would reduce the maximum allowable annual addition

                  of cadmium to  lands that are or will in the future be used for

                  production of  food chain crops from 2.0 killograms per hectare in

                  1978 to  0.5 killograms per hectare in 1986.  This requirement^

                  is overly restrictive and should be amended.  If 2.0 killograms

-------
of cadmium per hectare is safe in 1978, it would seem wise




to retain this limit until better information is available




regarding public health risks and the fate of cadmium in




various soils and plant tissues.









Paragraph (iii) would prohibit using solid waste with a cadmium




concentration in excess of 25 milligrams per killogram on soils




where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or root crops are or will be




grown for direct human consumption.  This restriction should




be deleted.   It addresses cadmium concentration in solid waste




without regard for the quantity to be applied to the soil.









One important objective of the City of Portland's Industrial




Wastewater Monitoring and Control Program is the reduction




of heavy metals entering the municipal sewerage system.  This




effort will continue and will be intensified with respect to




cadmium.









Attached to this statement is a critique of the proposed criteria




identified as a "consensus report" by the Cooperative State




Research Service (GSRS) Technical Committee.  Membership of the




GSRS Committee includes soil scientists from the U. S. Department




of Agriculture; the Universities of Florida, Wisconsin and




California;   Ohio State University, Purdue University and




Oregon State University,  The professional expertise brought
                          -2-

-------
by this committee to the subject of utilization of solid wastes




on agricultural soils is unique and represents a resource not




available within municipal agencies.  We urge the Environmental




Protection Agency to give careful consideration to the committee's




report.









We fully support responsible regulation for the protection of




public health and the environment when such regulation is based




on firm evidence of risk.

-------
                                      MEMO
   DATE:     March 31, 1978

SUBJECT:     Critique of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
            "Proposed Classification Criteria"

   FROM:     A.  L. Page and Lee Sommers,  Co-Chairmen

     TO:     Members, CSRS Regional Technical Committee W-124,
            "Optimum Utilization of Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Land"
                 Representatives from W-124 met to comment on Office of Solid
            Waste,  U.S.  EPA Proposed Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
            Disposal Facilities which appeared in the February 6,  1978,
            Federal Register.  Art Newman sent a copy of this document  to
            members of W-124 some time ago.

                 The response prepared at our meeting, which will  be submitted
            to EPA, is enclosed.  The response is a consensus report from
            those members of W-124 listed in the introduction.   Time prohibits
            incorporating review comments from the entire membership of W-124.
            We ask each member of the W-124 committee to review our response
            to EPA.  If you endorse the comments as outlined, mail with cover
            letter to the following address:

                              Office of Solid Waste (WH-564)
                              Environmental Protection Agency
                              401 M Street, S.W.
                              Washington, D.C.  20460
                              Attention: Mr. Shuster, Docket 4004

                 If you elect to make changes, prepare your own response to
            EPA and submit to OSW-EPA.

                 If you elect not to endorse the report, prepare your personal
            response and send to EPA.

                 We encourage each member of W-124 to respond.   Remember,
            your response must be received by EPA prior to May 8,  1978.

-------
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION








     The comments and suggestions contained in this document were assembled




by a group of scientists associated with a. Cooperative State Research




Service (CSRS) Technical Committee studying the application of municipal




sludge to agriculture land.  The composition of the committee was such




that it represented the Northwest, Southwest, North Central, Northeast,




and Southeast regions of the United States.  Names and addresses of the




committee members are as follows:








     Dr. R. L. Chaney, USDA, Science and Education Administration,




                    Federal Research, Beltsville, Maryland




     Dr. J. M. Davidson, Department of Soil Science, University of




                    Florida




     Dr. R. H. Dowdy, USDA, Science and Education Administration,




                    Federal Research, St. Paul, Minnesota




     Dr. D. R. Keeney, Department of Soil Science, University of




                    Wisconsin




     Dr. T. J. Logan, Department of Agronomy, Ohio State University




     Dr. A. L. Page, Department of Soil Science and Agriculture




                    Engineering, University of California at Riverside




     Dr. J. A. Ryan, Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio




     Dr. L. E. Sommers, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University




     Dx. V. V. Volk, Department of Soil Science, Oregon State University

-------
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL COMMENTS









     The undertaking of the Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed




Classification Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal on the basis of accept-




ability is admirable but it becomes apparent that the inherent differ-




ences of environmental and/or health considerations for the various




disposal options makes the Criteria vague and unmanageable from the




perspective of both the user and EPA.









     The Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed Classification Criteria




apply to all forms of solid waste.  We are of the opinion that utiliza-




tion of sewage sludge consistent with agronomic crop production principles




is sufficiently unique to warrant either treatment in a separate document




or as an all-inclusive subsection in the proposed Criteria.   In the




present document there are a number of statements which apply exclusively




to options other than agriculture use.  We feel that the ambiguity of




the document would be considerably lessened by subdividing it on the basis




of disposal options.









     The proposed Criteria imply that  annual applications of sewage sludge




to agriculture land will be based upon limits set for cadmium.   In the




agriculture utilization of sewage sludge, it is the judgment of this




committee that nitrate-nitrogen contamination of groundwater from sewage




sludge poses one of the major hazards  to the environment.  This very




important consideration is totally ignored in the proposed Criteria.




There are well-defined procedures for  recoimending rates of sewage sludge

-------
                                   3




to be applied as a source of available nitrogen based upon crop require-




ments.  Assuming no other constraints (e.g., Cd limits), the committee




recommends that sewage sludges not be applied to agriculture lands at




rates which provide available nitrogen in excess of crop requirements.




This will assure control of nitrate-nitrogen contamination of groundwater.









     Those knowledgeable in the field believe that there are insufficient




data available at this time to establish long-term criteria for regulation




of sewage sludge utilization in agriculture.  Currently there are a large




number of projects underway throughout the United States which address the




impact of sludge utilization on environmental quality.  These projects




will provide additional data on the long-term impacts of land application




of sewage sludge and thereby provide a sounder scientific basis for




criteria.  Therefore, the committee recommends that a mandatory reassess-




ment  of the Criteria with public hearings be coriducted no later than five




years following issuance.  Also any modification of the Criteria should




be subject to public hearings prior to implementation.









GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL UTILIZATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE









      The Criteria  (pp. 4943) state that guidelines for additional uses




of sludge including incineration, energy recovery, and giveaway or




sale  of sludge or  composted sludge will be proposed in the future.




Will  these supersede the Criteria as outlined in the document?  It is




our understanding  that the Criteria apply to all sewage sludge including




bagged products.   We interpret the proposed Criteria as prohibiting

-------
                                    - 4



the use of certain commercially available products (e.g., Nitrohumus,




Milorganite, etc.) because the owner-operator cannot guarantee appropriate




Sludge application rates are complied with (as is mandated in the




Criteria under section "Sludge Disposal and Utilization" on pp. 4943).




Also, the Criteria state that sludge containing cadmium greater than a




specific concentration is prohibited on tobacco, leafy vegetables, and




root crops.  It is unclear how EPA will insure compliance for sludge




products which are either sold or given away.








SAMPLING AND ANALYSES








     Owners and operators will need additional guidance on acceptable




methods to sample sludges and to analyze for cadmium and other toxic




substances.  Also, it is unclear specifically what other toxic




substances must be determined in the sludge.








     The Criteria (pp. 4943) state that the operator or owner must




determine appropriate land application rates  of sludge and assure that




these rates are complied with.  In systems other than owner-operator




controlled operations, the committee doubts that owners and operators




can guarantee that users comply with appropriate application rates.




Our interpretation of this section of the Criteria is that the owner-




operator must control the disposal or utilization of sludge.  The




Committee doubts that it is feasible for the owner-operator to accomplish



this for all options, but yet according to the Criteria the operator



must assume this responsibility.

-------
                                     s -
     This committee feels that procedures for sampling and analysis of




sludge must be treatment plant specific.  These procedures will be




determined by the type of sludge produced and the methods by which




sludge is stored.  For example, a batch analysis may be adequate for




lagooned or filter cake sludge that has been stored in -a. given"'area.  In




this case, sampling intensity within the batch must be adequate to




satisfactorily represent sludge composition variability.  On the




other hand, liquid sludge removed periodically from digesters would




be sampled on a regular frequency that will adequately represent sludge




composition.  Composite sludges should be analyzed at regular intervals




depending on the amount of sludge generated.  Statistics of sludge




analysis should include * measure of control tendency (mean or median),




probabilities of exceeding the mean, and periodic (e.g., seasonal)




variation in sludge composition if evident.  This committee feels that




sludge analysis of each load applied is not necessary.  Page 4943,




columns 2 and 3, state that "The owner or operator must (1) analyze




the  sludge for cadmium and other toxic substances."  The committee




feels that the statement "other toxic substances" is unnecessarily




vague and should be addressed.  It is the recommendation of this




committee that, in order tp best utilize the nutrient benefits of




sludge in a crop production program, nitrogen  (TKN and mineral-N) and




phosphorus content of sludge should be determined on the same




frequency as Cd.  In addition, this co.Tjaittee also recommends




analysis of Cu, Ni, Zn, and Pb at the sane  frequency because of the




potential of these metals to iapair crop growth.

-------
     This committee does not recommend wide-spectrum analysis of sludge




by individual treatment plants.  Toxic compounds identified as being of




concern should be screened by EPA central laboratories.  Individual




treatment plants may need to develop analytical capability for a given




compound if it is found to be a persistent problem at the plant.  The




committee recommends that treatment plants store composite sludge




samples for one year after collection.




     The committee recommends that EPA more adequately define and standard-




ize sludge analytical methods.  Any lab performing sludge analysis should




be subject to a routine quality control program administered by EPA.









NON-APPLICABILITY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS SECTION TO SLUDGE









     The section on adverse effects (?P- 4943) is not applicable to land




utilization of sewage sludges.  This should be stated, or the section




should be expanded to include adverse effects associated with this




option.  The section (PP- 4944 and 4945) on Implementation, Integration




with Regulations for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities, and Integration




with Surface Impoundment Studies under the Safe Drinking Water Act also




do not apply to sludge utilization on agricultural land.









SOIL ATTENUATION









     The committee disagrees with the statement [pp.  494S) on mechanisms




of soil attenuation and that soils have a limited capacity to attenuate




contaminants.  The attenuation capacity or 4 soil is  site specific

-------
because it depends upon soil properties and is specific for the chemical




element or constituent in question.  Data presently available show that




soils are capable of attenuating very large quantities of many elements,




e.g., lead, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc., etc.  Under the conditions




stipulated in the Criteria, the majority of the reactions are. irreversible




and not reversible as stated in the document.








GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
     The Criteria (pp. 494S) state that groundwater has been contaminated




by solid waste disposal facilities on a local basis in many parts of the




nation.  Although the statement may be true for certain landfills and




open dumps, the committee feels that it is not true for systems involving




the use of sewage sludge at".nitrogen fertilizer rates in agricultural




operations.








     Page 4948, column 2, indicates that "monitoring only at the property




boundary may not provide ample opportunity for appropriate corrective




actions because of time, economic  and technical constraints."  "Some




reviewers have suggested that a specific distance  (e.g., 1 km) could be




used beyond boundary  of application."  It is the view of this  committee




that selection of a specific distance is not justified.  Dispersion of




pollutants, if any, in groundwater, from sludge application is highly




dependent on site characteristics  (e.g., soil, geohydrology) as well




as the pollutant in question, e.g., N'O -N soves into groundwater to a

-------
much greater extent than heavy metals.  While groundwater may need to be




monitored byond the sludge application boundary site, selection of the




distance must be determined for each site.








     The need for groundwater and other monitoring will vary greatly




with whether or not the site is controlled or dedicated.  As long as




sludge application rates do not exceed nitrogen fertilization capacity




of the crop, NCL-N contamination of groundwater is not anticipated and




gxoundwater monitoring requirements will be reduced or eliminated.








GUIDANCE FOR NON-FOOD CHAIN CROPLAND








     The Criteria (pp. 4949) state that users can obtain additional




guidance on maximum application rates for waste application to non-food




chain crops from state and federal agriculture departments.  The committee




feels that currently there are no uniformly acceptable guidelines avail-




able for use of waste on non-food chain crops and that most states and




federal agriculture personnel are not equipped to provide the guidance




implied.

-------
                                    9



IMPLIED ROLE OF EPA IN PROTECTING SOIL PRODUCTIVITY








     On page 4949, second and third columns, the document states, "Future




revisions of the Criteria will also address substances (in solid waste)




which could adversely affect the productivity of agriculture land.




Although we believe that EPA is responsible for ensuring that surface




and groundwater, marine waters, and air are protected against environmental




contamination, we question the implied role of EPA to protect the soil's




capability to produce food and fiber.  In the broadest sense, protection




of soil productivity includes management functions which are the




traditional roles of other governmental agencies (Soil Conservation




Service, Cooperative Agricultural Extension SErvice, U. S. Department




of Agriculture, State Agricultural Experiment Stations, etc.).  Because




of the long-term experience and demonstrated performance of these agencies




in the protection of crop production, this commi'ttee sees no role for




EPA in establishing criteria to protect soil productivity, per se.








STATEMENT ON DAILY INTAKE OF Cd








     The statement on pp. 4949, third column, "This concern arises from




an FDA assessment of teenage males in this country  (class of individuals




which consumes the nost food) , which concluded that their average daily




intake of cadmium from food and water approximates the total tolerable




daily intake level recommended by the World Health Organization," is




misleading.  FDA has determined that if a young adult male consumes

-------
                                   10
his normal diet (containing cadmiujn at the average concentration deter-




mined by FDA's-market basket survey), he would ingest an amount of cadmium




approximately equal to current World Health Organization (WHO) tolerable




limits.  Whether the WHO tolerable limits should stay where they are or




be raised is the subject of considerable controversy.








     The statement in the proposed Criteria is based upon the assumption




that the average adult male will consume <± diet which contains cadmium at




the average concentration determined by FDA's market basket survey.  FDA,




however, suggests that median concentrations of cadmium in the diet (which




are approximately one half of the mean concentration) is a more realistic




appraisal of the total dietary intake of cadmium for a young adult male




(ref. Compliance Program Evaluation, FY 74 Total Diet Studies (7320.08)




FDA, Bureau of Foods, Jan. 21, 1977).








     Also, the concentration of cadmium from solid waste disposal on




lands to grow foods which are part of the diet of the young adult male




is not known.  Since in the near future only a low percentage of the




agricultural land would be required for agricultural utilization of all




sewage sludge produced in the U.S.A., the impact of sewage sludge




derived cadmium on the diet of the "average" young adult male will be




insignificant.  However, in localized situations where a large percentage




of an individual's diet for a few decades is derived from sludge-amended




soils there may be an impact.

-------
                                  11



CADMIUM:ZINC RATIO LIMITATIONS








     It is recommended in .the document (pp. 4950),  "...that the ratio of




cadmium to zinc in the solid waste be less than or equal to 0.015




(especially for high cadmium content solid wastes)  where solid waste is




applied to naturally acidic soils."  Criteria specify that the pH of




the waste-amended soil must be maintained at 6.5 or greater.   Under




these conditions use of Cd/Zn ratio to prevent Cd accumulation in crops




is inappropriate.  Therefore, this section should be deleted.   Recom-




mendations such as the above tend to be adopted by other governmental




agencies and thereby place undue restrictions on owners and operators




of wastewater treatment plants.








DISPOSAL ON SITES LOCATED IN RECHARGE ZONES OF SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS








     The Criteria state (pp. 4954) that disposal sites should not be




located in recharge zones of sole source aquifers.   Does this requirement




apply to agricultural utilization of sewage sludge?  If so, this




requirement is too stringent because utilization of sewage sludge in




agriculture under proper management poses no greater threat to ground-




water than normal agricultural crop production practices.








METHOD FOR DETERMINING CEC
     There are a number of widely accepted methods of CEC measurement




which give results similar to the pH 7 ammonium acetate procedure

-------
                                     12






given in paragraph 257.2(d) .  The ammonium acetate procedure has limita-




tions, particularly with vermiculitic soils which can irreversibly fix




ammonium ions.  These limitations should be recognized and references




to a more comprehensive discussion on CEC (such as Black, C. A., 1965,




Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chapters 57 and 58} might be given.




Further clarification is required regarding when the site characterization




with respect to CEC is conducted, and the depth of soil sampled.  We




recommend that soil CEC be measured on samples taken before sludge




incorporation, and that the depth of sample be the usual tillage depth




or the depth of sludge incorporation.








STABILIZATION








     We feel this definition  (257.2(cc)) is ambiguous and incomplete.




Specifically, what does the term "significant" reduction of pathogens




really mean?  Further, sludges and other organic solid wastes are often




stabilized to minimize odor and BOD in addition to reducing pathogens.




This leads to a much more environmentally acceptable material for use



on cropland.








FUTURE USE OF SITES RECEIVING SOLID WASTES
     The committee believes it is impossible to identify with certainty




whether a site "...will in the future be used for production of food




chain crops —" (pp. 4954:257.3-S(a)).  V.'e believe it is more expedient




and practicable to control application rates at the site or monitor

-------
                                  13






environmental and toxic substance level in crops and meats prior to




marketing.  This approach will remove the impossibility of an agency to




identify sites which may "in the future be used for food production."








Cd LOADING CPP- 4954, 257^3-51








     We support the use of areal (kg/ha) rather than concentration based




 (mg/kg) Cd limits.  It should be clarified in this section or in the




 definitions that areal loadings limits are intended.








     We believe that sufficient research findings are available to show




 that if other site management criteria are met (in particular soil pH




 control] both the cumulative Cd loading limits and the 2.0 kg/ha annual




 Cd  loading limits pose no reasonable probability of adverse effects




 on  health or the environment.  .While supportive'of these limits, it




 must be recognized that they are based on a limited number of field




 studies indicating a small increase (.wihin normal Cd content of the same




 crop grown without sludge) of plant tissue Cd on addition of 2 kg/ha of




 sludge Cd to near neutral soils.  Other data indicate that cumulative




 Cd  loading on near neutral soils has far less impact on plant tissue Cd




 than the  annual Cd loading rate.  In light of these findings, we suggest




 that the  cumulative Cd loading limits may not be an appropriate means




 to  regulate solid waste applications to cropland.  Since research




 findings  presently are not extensive, we do not recommend that the




 specified cumulative cadmium  loading limits be changed at this time.

-------
                                   14
However, if and when the trends currently indicated by research are deter-




mined to be conclusive, we recommend that cumulative loading limits for




cadmium be re-evaluated and appropriate action taken.








     The need for further reduction to 1.25 kg Cd/ha/yr by 1982 and




0.5 kg Cd/ha/yr by 1985 has not yet been demonstrated  as necessary or




possible for all cities.  We believe this phased reduction should be




deleted.  We emphasize that the 2.0 kg/ha Cd loadings  are maximum,




and that programs to minimize Cd additions to agricultural soils




should be encouraged.  If the purpose of the Criteria  is to require




pretreatment of Cd-bearing industrial waste, this goal should be so




stated rather than using cadmium application rates on  agricultural




land as an indirect means of encouraging pretreatment.   Such pretreatment




may or may not be effective in reducing sewage sludge  Cd to levels




appropriate for unregulated distribution.








     We agree with the introductory comments on p.  4950,  column 1,




paragraph 2, "other soil factors such as organic matter and hydrous




oxide content may be equally or more important in limiting metal




availability."  Until and unless better methods of rapidly and easily




determining the soil's ability to retain metals (particularly Cd)  are




available, we support the use of soil CBC as an index  (as opposed to



a single Cd loading value for all soils).

-------
                                    15
     We anticipate that the stepwise loading function for cumulative Cd




loading vs.  CEC could lead to some problems, particularly when only a




small increase in measured CEC could result in a doubling of the




allowable maximum cumulative Cd loading.  While a continuous function




equation such as. "Cumulative Cd application (kg/ha) ^ 1.0 x CEC_to a




maximum of 20 kg Cd/ha" might be preferable, this approach implies more




knowledge of the relationship between CEC and Cd availability than




currently exists.  We suggest that the present approach be maintained,




but that this topic be carefully considered in future, revisions of




the Criteria.








     The statement under paragraph (a), "Cadmium.  Any site that is




currently or will in the future be used for the production of food




chain  crop...," is interpreted by the committee in the strictest sense




to mean all sites.  Under 257.3-5(a)(1)(iii), the Criteria state that




"Solid waste containing cadmium concentrations in excess of 25 rag/kg dry




weight is not applied to sites where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or




root crops are or will be grown for  direct human consumption.  Since,




in the opinion of the committee, there is no conceivable way that those




responsible can guarantee that tobacco, leafy vegetables or root crops




will not be grown on a site at some  future time, we interpret 257.3-5(a)




to limit the concentration of cadniiuLi in solid waste destined for use




on land  (food or non-food chain uses) to be a maximum of 25 mg/kg.

-------
                                  - 16






     We believe that although a specific Cd concentration limit for




sludges which are freely distributed (where there is no control over




loading rates, soil pH, and crop selection) is supportable,  it is




not supportable for general use cropland (which is supposed to be




governed by annual and cumulative Cd limits shown in other paragraphs).








     Further, a specific numerical limit ("25 mg Cd/kg dry weight") is




arbitrary; sludge Cd concentration is influenced considerably by sludge




processing methods (the final sludge containing product prepared from a




raw sludge containing 25 ppra Cd could be less than 20 ppm) by dilution




with other low Cd organic materials) or greater than 50 ppm after




anaerobic digestion and greater than 70 ppm with further stabilization).








     Hence, EPA should clarify whether or not it wants to have sludge




application controlled by (1) its cadmium concentration,  (2)  amounts




of cadmium applied, (3) the concentration in the crop produced, or (4) a




combination of the above.  A note that sludge processing technology may




dilute or concentrate sludge Cd would also be appropriate.








pH OF SOILS RECEIVING SOLID WASTE








     Research supported by EPA, federal and state funds has established




that the entry of cadmium into plants grown on sludge-amended soils is




minimized by maintaining the pH of the sludge-amended soil at or

-------
                                   17 -




near neutrality.  Because of the importance of soil pH and the dependency




of the results upon the analytical method, the document should specify




the method by which the pH of the soil is to be determined.  Furthermore




the document should specify the method by which the soil should be sampled.




We suggest a representative composite of soil sampled to the depth of




incorporation of the solid waste.








     In practice it is difficult and often not feasible to manage soils to




maintain pH at a specified value.  Frequently following sludge applications




the pH of a. near neutral soil will decrease.  We suggest some flexibility




in pH control, which would permit the pH of the soil to decrease to a




specific level less than that specified for the site, and once this




level is reached then the operator would be required to implement




correction measures to bring the pH up to the original limit specified.








     The committee also recommends that some controls be implemented




to  ensure that the pH of soils which receive waste is maintained above




a certain level for a period of tine after waste applications cease.




We  suggest that should for  any reason solid waste application to a




given site cease, if the soil at the site is non-calcareous, the




soil pH must be monitored at the site annually for a minimum of five




years following the last waste application.  If during this time the




soil pH drops below a specified level, then corrective action must be




  ;ken to increase pH of the soil to a specified level.

-------
                                     IS






COMPARABILITY (pp. 4954-55, 257.3-5(2;)









     The comparability concept, as noted in sufaparagraph 2, to determine




sewage sludge application rates, is not" acceptable to the committee.   We




found it impossible to define comparability.  Use of a comparability




approach to justify application of sewage sludges to land does "not appear




practical.  Too many variables affect plant and animal elemental content.




Elemental concentrations in plant materials are highly dependent upon




crop, crop variety, stage of growth at sampling, sample contamination by




atmospheric fallout, soil properties (particularly pH), climatic conditions




and general crop management.  With these variables, which occur for both




sludge-treated and untreated land, it is difficult to determine the




"proper set of numbers to use to decide the issue of comparability."




Establishment of objectivity will be difficult.  For example, a leafy




vegetable grown under one set of conditions on a, site which received




no sludge may have a higher cadmium concentration than the same crop




grown on a. sludge-treated soil with EPA-stipulated management;




conversely the reverse may occur.  A major problem is deciding what




conditions are used to obtain the control (non-sludged} value.  A




regional or state average for a given crop might be used, or a value




obtained for the crop grown on an adjacent and similar soil with




similar management may be chosen.  If the latter, how can this be




related to crops grown in another locality which may have a considerably




higher cadmium content?  It does not seen practical or suitable to use




  nationwide crop cadmium concentration as the control because one




must then establish a mechanism to determine a nationwide median or




mean or acceptable value.

-------
                                    19






     Another problem associated with comparability involves the limits




which must be set.  For example, does a significant increase mean




statistically significant, or does it mean 1%, 10%, or 100% greater than




the control?  Further, even though there may be a significant increase




in crop cadmium concentration due to sludge application at a site, it




may not have a significant effect with respect to human health or the




environment.  These limits are important because elemental concentrations




usually vary even within a given field.









     The use of established elemental limits for a given edible foodstuff to




determine suitability for sludge application programs is recommended.




Although these limits have not been established, the committee strongly




recommends this approach rather than the comparability concept.  EPA and




FDA should intensify efforts to develop the limits and upon their develop-




ment use them as one criterion for suitability of land application for




sewage sludge.  Problem levels for elements or compounds in plant or




animal tissue must be identified prior to identification of unacceptable




levels.









CONTROLLED SITES
     We are concerned with the fact that  i he proposed regulations




 encourage only short-term or limited use  of sludge application sites.




 The  committee believes that, based upon available research data, use




 of "controlled sites" for municipal sludge applications should be

-------
                                    20






 encouraged where feasible.  Controlled sites are defined as those sites




which, through .proper management and site selection may receive sludge




containing cadmium or other hazardous substances at rates above those




recommended in the first approach.  Higher application rates may be used




if an intensive monitoring program is established to assure acceptable




crop quality and provide for the protection of groundwaters, surface




waters, and soils.  If metal and/or nitrogen additions exceed those




recommended in the first approach, priority considerations should be




given to growing crops that result in minimal metal uptake and are not




directly consumed by humans.








     If human foods or animal feeds are grown and harvested on




controlled sites, higher than normally recommended sludge application rates




may be acceptable if resulting levels of cadmium in the crops or meats




marketed meet acceptable levels to be established by FDA.  For example,




strip-mined land which has been reclaimed through high rates of sludge




application may be used for producing animal feeds; however, organs




 (e.g., kidneys and livers) which may accumulate cadmium in animals fed'




such feed would not be sold for human consumption if their cadmium




levels exceed FDA limits.








DIRECT INGESTION  (PP- 4955, :S7.3-5fd))








     There are sufficient data available to show that many plants retain




municipal sludges beyond the application date (i.e., "freshly applied").

-------
                                    21
  t.'iough the statement regarding "freshly applied" municipal sludge may




be suitable for pathogens, it is not restrictive enough for heavy metals




and other sludge constituents.  Animals ingesting specific quantities




of sludge associated with plant tissue are subject to the same risk




several weeks or months after application as they were immediately after




application.

-------
                           13502 Pacific Avenue • Tacoma, Washington 98444  •  Phone (206) 531-8211
JOSEPH WICKLUND
Vice President

JIM PARKS
P O Bo< 127
Olympia. Wa 98507
(2061 943-8349
HAROLD E L
13502'Pacllic
                      STATEMENT

                         of

                GEORGE D. CVITANICH
                EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
                         WASHINGTON  WASTE  MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
                     13502  Pacific Avenue,  Tacoma, Washington   98444
                            (206)  531-8211           (206)  752-7292
REX ALDRICH
Sequim Wa
(206) 6633301

ART ALEXANDER
LonQ_Beach Wa_
(206) 6422541

JIM H1NCKLE

15091 925-9686

HAROLD LaMAY

(206) 537-8688

BRUCE LEVEN
Seat lie Wa
12061 762-3000

DON LINDGREN
Bremerton Wa
12061 479-1755
ED RUBATINO
Everett. Wa
(206) 259-0044

BILL5EGALE
Federal Wa/. Wa
1206) 939-2065
      U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY

                   PUBLIC HEARING

                          ON

                PROPOSED REGULATION

  CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF  SOLID WASTE

                DISPOSAL FACILITIES
                    Pursuant to
                    Section 4004
Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act  of  1976
                      PL 94-580
Executive Secretary
GEORGE CVITANICH
3816 No 37th St.
Tacoma, Wa 9B407
(206) 752-7202
                   April  26, 1978
                  Portland,  Oregon

-------
Mr.  Chairman,  Members of the Committee.  For the record, my name is



George Cvitanich and I am Executive Secretary of the Washington Waste



Management Association and I reside at 3816 North 37th  Street, Tacoma,



Washington 98407.








Our Association represents approximately ninety percent of the private



waste management industry operating within the 39 Counties located  in



the State under certificates granted by and regulated under provisions-



of the State of Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.



(RCW 81.77)  Our members are engaged in the collection, transportation



and disposal of solid wastes, resource recovery services, chemical



waste treatment and disposal.








With the Chairman's permission, I would like to take a moment to oro-



vide the Committee a very brief resume of my solid waste background



and qualifications.  I served 10 years as an elected official (City



Council, City of Tacoma) which has a "garbage utility", served as Pierce




County Solid Waste Coordinator (2nd largest County in the State) during



the development of their Comprehensive Solid Waste Management plan




(1979-72), assisted the E.P.A. (Eegion X)in developing  a Solid Waste



Plan in Anchorage, Alaska, Consulted with and wrote Lewis Countys'



Solid Waste Management Plan and  ^numerous other programs.  On June  2



of this year,  I will be starting my fifth year as Executive Secretary



of the Washington Waste Management Association.








At this juncture, I would like to point out that I do not consider  my-



self an "expert" in many phases of Solid Waste Management.  Having  worn



so many different hats and actively engaged in various  phases of  Solid



Waste Management the past 8 years, I feel that our suggestions are




                                1

-------
timely, of a constructive nature and are based upon actual experiences
and not theory.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the proposed criteria for class-
ifications of solid waste disposal facilities, as required by Section
4004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  of 1976.  In addition,
I will comment upon some of our Associations concerns and experiences
in the State of Washington, during the planning and implementation phases
of the State Solid Waste Act which was adopted in 1969..  (RCW 70.95)

The officers and members of the W.W.M.A. commend the staff of the Office
of Solid Waste at EPA for their efforts in hearing the fullest and most
complete views of all parties who will be affected by the landfill cri-
teria.  Our Association is interested in the development of criteria
which will achieve the desired results by serving as guidelines to those
people in the respective states who will bs conducting an inventory of
all land disposal sites.  Because the inventory will be  conducted by a'
diverse group of people across the country with varying  skills, levels
of education and backgrounds, it becomes absolutely essential that the
guidelines provided by EPA be as specific, clear and quantitative as
                                                              ma/MA«.
possible.  In our opinion, the criteria should allow little or w dis-
cretion to those taking the inventory in assessing how a particular land
disposal site meets the criteria established by the Federal Government.
This uniformity of application of the criteria is essential if the re-
sults of the survey are to have- any useful or meaningful purpose on a
state of national level.

As I indicated earlier, while developing Pierce Countys' Comprehensive
Solid Waste Plan, we utilized the 1969, National Public  Health Service
                               -2-

-------
Survey which had  inventoried disposal sites.  In an effort to deter-




mine  the reliability  and validity of the survey, we contacted the appro-



priate officials  in each of the 18 cities and towns located within the



County to  confirm the data.   Much to our shock and dismay, most all of




the persons contacted by our office had never heard of nor participated




in the survey.  Gentlemen,  we cannot afford this type of inventory under



any circumstances!!   The reliability, validity and methodology utilized.



in developing  the criteria  and inventory must be accurate and consistent.








It has been nearly a  year and a half since Congress enacted the Resource



Conservation and  Recovery Act of 1976.   Our membership has and will con-




tinue to provide  environmentally sound waste management and resource .re-



covery  services which support the intent of the Act, however, all of us



must be very aware of the cost factors involved and clearly understand




that as  an industry we must provide the highest and best level of solid




waste services the citizens and taxpayers can afford -- cost effective-



nesses OP-f>iattfi I~?£HS*S7~'








Although the  subject  for todays public hearing is "Criteria for Class-



ification  of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" as proposed under section



4004 of RCRA,  the inter-relationship of various sections contained within



the Act requires  that I direct additional but brief comments to several



other provisions  that are of concern to our Industry and relate specifi-



cally to the  criteria in providing for the protection of public health,



the environment,  and  the potential impacts on many  segments of our  so-



ciety and  economy.








Section 1003  ^"prohibiting future  open dumping on the  land and  requiring



the conversion of existing open dumps  to facilities which  do not  pose  a




                                 3

-------
danger to the environment or to health.   In principle we  support  the



initiative to eliminate open dumping.  Only through  enforcement of  effect-



ive anti-pollution standards can environmentally-sound  disposal sites be




possible.  The law requires EPA to establish  criteria for classifying



ALL sites as either "sanitary landfills"  or "open  dumps"    The dumps



must be closed or upgraded to meet the environmental criteria.








There is, however, a provision in Subtitle D  which may  have an adverse,



though unintended, effect on obtaining the goal.   Specifically, the sec-



tion provides that state plans establish  a compliance schedule for  sites



classified in the survey as "open dumps", not to exceed five years,but



such schedule maybe established only of there is no  alternative comply-



ing site which can be utilized.








Section 4,005 (c) "Each such plan shall establish,  for any entity  which



demonstrates that it has considered other public or  private alternatives



for solid waste management to comply with the prohibition- on open dump-



ing and is unable to utilize such alternatives  to  so comply,  a timetable



or schedule for compliance for such practice  or disposal  of solid waste



which specifies a schedule of remedial measures, including an enforce-



able sequence of actions or operations, leading to compliance with  the



prohibition of open dumping of solid waste within  a  reasonable time



(not to exceed 5 years from the date of publication  of  the inventory



under subsection (b).








The law does not define the term "alternatives", but rather,  in the pro-



posed State Planning Guidelines, EPA asks the State, in each case,  to



determine if there is a complying alternative.  The  State may find  itself.



in a difficult situation.   For example, when  two landfills in close pro-




                                 4

-------
ximity are  surveyed,  Site A may be determined to meet the landfill cri-

teria while Site B fails because, in our example, it does not have ade-

quate vegetation to fully prevent surface runoff.  If there were no near-

by site,  the state. would be empowered to establish requirements to im-

prove the condition of the non-complying site thereby making this site

a useful  and environmentally sound facility.  As the law is written,

however,  because Site A is in the vicinity, the state must assess whether

site A is an "alternative'1 under the law.  If so, all the waste from

Site B must be redirected to Site A.




We feel that a state, when it determines that a disposal site does not

comply with EPA criteria for the purposes of the National Survey, should

determine how the site can be brought into compliance.  If the site can-

not be upgraded, it should be closed, the decision should be made on the

basis of the condition of the site in question, and not on the existence

of so called alternatives, the availability of which would be difficult

to evaluate objectively.  The inspection of a landfill and issuance of

a compliance schedule must be consistent within a geographical area.

Prior to the issuance of a compliance schedule, all sites in the sur-

rounding area should be inspected -- consistent, uniform and timely

enforcement of the regulations are of primary importance.



A second problem relates to the inventory of open dumps that EPA is

required to publish within one year after the landfill criteria are

finalized.   When the law was drafted, it was estimated that there were

approximately 17,000 disposal sites in the nation.  As EPA interprets

the comprehensive definition of solid waste in the law, however, the

landfill survey called for in Subtitle D may encompass as many as
                    .
 100,000 sites, including the previously uncounted  indus-trlal  pits,  ponds,

-------
and lagoons.  We believe the law should be amended to allow  the  states

and EPA  a reasonable time to prepare a complete and accurate inventory.

We sincerely believe., that no useful purpose is served by a  hasty eval-

uation in which some sites are ignored totally and the balance surveyed

with varying degrees of consistency.  The EPA in its proposed State Plan-

ning Guidelines has recognized the need to phase the survey  over several

years, recommending that states set their own priorities.  In order to
                                              'IT is /-i
comply with the language of the law, however, EPA intends to publish a-

partial inventory one year from finalization of the criteria, although

a majority of sites will not have been surveyed.  Such a policy decision

represents a serious problem if all sites within a given market area are

not surveyed within one year.  We feel that the physical limitations of

the states will inevitably cause delays.



If a site is classified as an open dump, it may be put on a compliance

schecule, requiring corrective actions, such as monitoring wells or gas

venting systems which are costly and will increase the disposal costs at

that site.  In other words, a situation will be created in which a dis-

poser may choose between a facility which costs more to operate because

it is complying with federal requlations and a site which may have lower

operating costs because it has not been surveyed and is therefore not on

a compliance schedule,  In effect, the government will be penalizing

those facilities which are surveyed first by making them less competitive.



It is my understanding Congress recognized this problem by deferring

the publication of the list of open dumps until the survey is completed.

Piecemeal publications of the survey will surely result in inequities in

the data.  We urge you, the EPA in its Annual Pveport to Congress to only

report the status of the inventory, indicating in aggregate data the

                                 6

-------
number of sites in each state inspected and the number placed on compli-
ance schedules.

A further comment is in order regarding the compliance schedule required
for an identified open dump under Section 4005 (c).   It is essential that
EPA assures  that states are enforcing this schedule.  RCRA should be
amended to require annually that states, to continue eligibility for
solid waste  grants,  certify their enforcement of actions indicated on
compliance schedules.

Clearly, the inventory of land disposal sites is central to RCRA's goal
of prohibiting  open dumps.   Violators of federal criteria are subject
to citizens  suits.  This provision of the law could have a tremendous
economic impact on both public and private landfill operators.  The re-
gulations should be clarified either through amendment or administrative
procedures to prevent the nuisance or special interest suits.  We also
believe measures must be taken to put the responsibility on the plaintiff
to absolutely prove a violation is taking place prior to requiring the
landfill operator to defend himself.  We are well aware that states with-
out plans to eliminate dumps cannot receive federal solid waste grants.
It is imperative, therefore, that, the inventory be an accurate and com-
plete accounting of the inadequate disposal sites in the nation.

As I noted earlier in my presentation, we are concerned that in some
cases, the States and EPA in an attempt to achieve flexibility, have pro-
posed criteria that will allow for varying interoretations in different
areas.  For example, a sanitary landfill is defined as a site which com-
plies with state and local air quality  standards.  We have little or no
objections to local government developing their own standards,  such as,
                                 7

-------
(example) a prohibition against odor emissions.  We  do not  believe, how-

ever,' that Congress intended that local  standards  be the  basis  for

federal court action.



Another significant and major area of concern  to our Association  and

industry is what we commonly refer to as  the "double set  of standards"

Of cource I am referring to political jurisdictions  and their  imposition

of arbitrary constraints, rules, regulations and level of enforcement"

applied by recipients of Federal and State Grants  on the  private  landfill
                                             W(l«T t'f C/Ot^^U '» fc/aiKiM^tnoJ
operators to ensure their compliance with fite "State  Minimum Functional"

Standards (WAC 173-301) in landfill operations while permitting their
          fylltlCKL.
respective entities to violate numerous  Federal and  State laws.   Two

examples which may assist the committee  in their deliberations  and  con-

siderations are the situations in Grays  Harbor County, Washington,  where

our landfill operator was required to cease burning  in June of  1974.

Because of a number of reasons, this particular site had  been  excluded

from the County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.   Only  after

many months of effort on our part was the plan amended to include this

disposal site as an option to the public.  This so incensed one of  the

County Commissioners at a meeting I attended, he stated "to  hell with the

rest of the County, I'm only going to worry about  my own  district"   By

Washington State Law, the Board of County Commissioners are responsible

for Solid Waste Management in their respective County.  Shortly there-

after, this Commissioner in cooperation  with officials of the  largest•

City in his district submitted a request for a planning grant  to  develop

their own Solid Waste Plan./?MZ>  /leOrli/ffti ~f^ff /4/rff



This provision was available as one of three options at the time  the

County applied for their original planning grant  (Quote from RCW  70.95)-

                                 8

-------
They are burning at this dump at the present time --   A similar situa-



tion is occurring in Pacific County where the private operators dis-



continued burning in October of 1977.  However, the County continues to



burn at two disposal sites 1) Nasell 2) North Cove.  This double set of




standards, lack of fiscal accountability and repeated efforts by our



industry for resolutions of these problems have been of no avail 	



Gentlemen, I urge you to use any means available to eliminate this type



of inequity.








While most refuse disposal sites are owned and operated by local govern-




ments, newer sites .tend to be owned and, operated by the private sector.



According to data collected by Columbia University Researchers, 357. of



disposal sites opened after 1970 were privately owned and operated, up



from 307. for sites opened in 1969 and earlier.  The rate at which govern-




ment owned and operated sites are being established on the other hand,



has fallen from 577. in 1969 and earlier to 457, after 1970.








Information on who operates and regulates land disposal sites in the



United States is contained in Evaluating the Organization of Service




Deliewary  Solid Waste Collection and Disposal,  the final report of




Phase 1 of the major research effort on refuse service practices being




conducted by Dr. E. S. Savas, director, Center for Government Studies,



Columbia University, under a National Science Foundation grant.  Unfort-




unately, the land disposal section of the report has been almost com-



pletely overshadowed by statistics on collection.








According to the study's examination of regulatory control over land




disposal sites, counties are the most active level of government in



the field of waste disposal regulation.  County governments have a




                                 9

-------
virtual monopoly on the use of zoning and eminent domain in either in-



corporated or unincorporated areas and 65% have zoning powers.








States, on the otherhand, play a major role in inspecting disposal sites,



reporting monitoring responsibilities in 68% of the Counties  surveyed.



According to the report, the role of monitoring disposal facilities is



shared by state and county governments but not coordinated between them.



Nearly 407= of the counties surveyed reported monitoring from  two levels



of government and, the report concludes, state and county governments



make little attempt to either duplicate efforts or to avoid duplication.








According to the report, government is the owner/operator in  55% of land



disposal sites surveyed andprivate industry owns and operates 317..  This



information was drawn primarily from a survey sent to the 281 Counties



which compromise the 200 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  One



hundred and forty-one (141) counties responded.








I have referred to the "Columbia Study" only -to indicate to the EPA,



that we have an excellent and comprehensive base from which all of us



could o"btain important data in meeting what we consider primary goals



set by Congress in passing RCRA.



       1)  prohibition of open dumps



       2)  Control of hazardous wastes



       3)  encouragement of resource recovery



Although the criteria addresses _a comprehensive list of performance



factors, which include the impact of a land disposal site on  surface



water, groundwater, air, disease vectors, environmentally   sensetive



areas such as wetlands, floodplains and recharge zones of sole  source



aquifers, we feel that one of the most important aspect of the  landfill




                                 10

-------
regulations is the groundwater criteria because of the heavy precipitation
counties in Western Washington and Oregon receive.   (Grays Harbor County
111 inches average)  This and the unrelenting position of some D.O.E.
employees in achieving zero discharge of leachates at any landfill, at
any cost, is of major concern to all of us.

Certainly of all the subcategories of our national water quality policy,
groundwater is the one that has been regulated the least in the past and,
for this reason, our experience nationally with regulat,ing groundwater
is not as complete as we might hope.   The drafters of the landfill regu-
lations have divided groundwater into two categories:  Case 1, present
or future drinking water sources and Case 1],  groundwater used or desig-
nated for use other than as drinking water.  We direct our comments first
to Case 1.

The regulations require that underground drinking water supplies shall
not be endangered beyond the property boundary of the disposal facility.
The  language of the regulation should make clear that the standard is
to  be applied to the water in the aquifer, not to water anywhere in
the zone of saturation.  While certainly it may be desirable to monitor
water in the soil before it reaches the aquifer, the regulation should
make clear that endangennent can only occur to the groundwater in the
aquifer.

The regulation also provides that if leachate "may enter" and endanger
the groundwater the landfill facility operator must monitor the ground-
water, predict leachate migration, and have a contingency plan for cor-
rective action.  It is not identified, however, who makes the subjective
determination during the inventory whether  or not leachate "may" enter
                                 11

-------
the groundwater.  How would the person conducting the survey, for ex-



ample, know whether there remains a possibility of leachate entering the



goundwater?  If he does not know this, he does not know whether or not



the site should include monitoring, leachate prediction and a conting-



ency plan.   Furthermore, the term "contingency plan" has not been defined



in the regulation.








We also have definitional problems with the term "endangerment", which



is the key to determining whether or not a landfill meets the criteria




The definition states that the groundwater cannot be contaminated to



the degree that additional treatment would be required for present or



future groundwater users.  What is a  ''groundwater user"?  We believe that



because the intent of these regulations is to protect public health and



the environment,  endangerment should  refer only to drinking water stand-



ards.  Our concern here is that it is possible for someone to interpret



these regulations such  that "endangerment" co.uld apply to any water



quality parameter.  For example, someone may argue that for his parti-



cular industrial  process, personal diet or other non-drinking water use



that the groundwater must meet certain standards more stringent than



the national Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards.  If a land-



fill produces leachate which would degrade the quality of the water be-



low these personal standards and yet  still meet the drinking water stand-



ards, would it be the intent of the EPA to classify such a landfill as



a dump?  The logical extension of such an argument would be  that land-



fills could emit  no leachate whatsoever.  We believe that this  is an



impractical approach and does not add to the protection of the  environ-




ment.  Similarly, we object to defining "endangerment" as making the



w.after '"unfit for  human  consumption."  If the '.refeirence here  is  to 'drink -



ioig water ehera in should be sufficient; for "ehdangermerit1' to be defined



                                 12

-------
as degrading water below the drinking water standards.  If "unfit for



human consumption" means something else, we do not believe it should be



included in the definition.








We are also concerned about Case 11, those water supplies currentlv used



or designated for use other than drinking water.  We believe that it is



the prerogative and the responsibility of the states to make decisions



about designating groundwater as a non-drinking water supply.  A deci-sion



about such designation would reflect a wide range of considerations.  We



do not think that EPA should address non-drinking water supplies in tne




landfill criteria except to acknowledge the rights of states to desig-



nate groundwater for non-drinking water purposes for any reason whatso-



ever.








With regard to the criteria for ''environmentally sensitive areas," we




are concerned about the requirement that a facility in a wetland must



obtain an NPDES permit, because as yet there/is no procedure developed'



for obtaining such a permit, except in those few cases when a landfill



has a discrete pipe or conduit for discharge.  The development of such




procedure by EPA is essential and until it is developed, we do not be-



lieve that it makes sense to require a permit for which there is not



even an application available.  We did note in the comment in the regula-



tiomegarding NPDES permits that the issuance of such permits would re-



quire an assessment of both technical and economic feasibility of alter-



natives.  We believe this an important consideration because we have



found cases in which a large portion of a state is a wetland and there



may well be no technically and economically feasible alternative to the




existing landfill.  We would point out that the technology does exist



to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters from landfills which




                                 13

-------
are in wetland.

While we generally agree with the requirement regarding floodplains, we
believe that the language could be,., interpreted more strictly than is
intended.  The regulation states that a landfill should not restrict
the flow of the base flood or reduce the temporary water storage capa-
                        The  $i+*•"*/>**£' /zota/ff"  #Av./t^>4 nc^
city of the floodplain.„ We would simply suggest that  this regulation
should be qualified to refer only to "significant" effects on a flood.
Any filling or excavating in a floodplain will have a  finite if only a
trivial affect on the flooding.  We argue that a floodplain should be
barred from use onl" if the landfill would cause a significant increase
in the effect on health and the environment.

The criteria on critical habitats currently requires two actions on the
part of the facility operator, both that he demonstrate that his oper-
ation does not jeopardize endangered species and that  he obtain approval
of his plan from the Office of Endangered Species.  We believe that
either one of these two requirements would accomplish  the same purpose.

The surface water criteria states that point source discharge of poll-
utants should comply with an NPDES permit; we believe  it is appropriate
to include the phrase "if an NPDES permit is required".  Again, there is
the confusion about whether NPDES permits are required for all landfills
or whether all landfills have point source discharges.  Regarding non-
point source pollution, we believe that the requirement should refer-
ence the 208 plans developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972.  208 plans developed by states are intended to address just
such issues as the non point source leachate and run-off from sanitary
landfills.  We believe that the management practices required
                                 14

-------
by those plans would be the appropriate management practices required

for purposes of the landfill survey.



We have said at the outset that we strongly support criteria which can

be administered equitably across the country and for this reason we

oppose inclusion of criteria which adopt local or state standards as the

federal criteria.   Therefore we cannot support the criteria for air

quality proposed by the EPA which states that the facility must control

air emissions to comply with "applicable federal state and local air

regulations...."  We believe the criteria should reference the standard

established by other federal law and in this case, it  is logical that a

landfill should comply with any applicable approved State Implementation

Plan developed under the Clean Air Act.  Alternatively, it might be re-

quired that landfills should not cause or contribute to contravention

of an ambient air quality standard.



With regard to the safety criteria,  we believe that there may be some

overlap between these criteria and those developed under the Occupational

Safety and Health Act.   While we acknowledge that there are environmental

dangers of explosive and toxic gases, we believe that  the indoor safety

aspects of these gases should be regulated under the OSHA standards.



Prior to concluding my formal statement, I would like  to point out several

areas that should be considered by the EPA prior to grant approval or

funding to any state.

       1)  A mandatory annual update and review of all County
           Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans, because
           of rapidly developing technologies and to provide
           the taxpayer the most cost effective system

       2)  Serious consideration and a greater emphasis on land
           use planning ard use of buffer zones.

                                 15

-------
       3)  Developers and real estate people should be
           required to/notify purchasers of property
           what the future plans are for a given area.
           Verbally and in writing and be required to post
           a bond.

       4)  Mandatory requirement that citizens Advisory
           Committees also be used during the implementation
           phases of a Solid Waste Plan.

       5)  Long term liability -- How will this be enforced?
           and how can the landfill operators prevent people
           from disposing of hazardous or dangersous waste
       without their knowledge.— PAOctfjtT <±Aa*.<^«  ?  De/jrv? A*'
            yf   «•••          -         -   *             -        * H
                                                      • I j ,oo/ S"*"S tytf*s& &+<
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss our Associations

views with the EPA and look forward to the  opportunity of reviewing the

E.I.S. on the landfill criteria.   In conclusion, I cannot stress  strongly

enough the importance of the implementation of these  criteria in  the

landfill inventory and the need for clear and specific communications

as to how this inventory will be conducted  over the coming years.
                                 16

-------
Testimony by Yamhlll  Valley  Reoyolers,  Inc.
EPA public hearing  -  Criteria  for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
April 2f>, 1978
 I em John Scoltock, President  of Yamhill  Valley Recyclers,  Inc.,  a  non-
 profit corporation comprised of  citizens  interested  in  solid  waste
 management am' the environment.   We  believe HO  also  represent the special
 interests of the future generations  of Americans who will inherit the
 air, soil, water and natural resources we leave to them.

 The stated purpose of the criteria for solid waste disposal facilities  is
 to protect the environment from  the  final disposition of solid wastes,  at
 the same time making the economics of resource  recovery attractive.
 Both objectives are frustrated by the words "practicable" and "feasible"
 used throughout the criteria.  VJe think It Is practicable and feasible
 to take the labels off tin cans, remove the ends, rinse them, and crush
 them for recycling.  Other may not feel this is  a practicable or feasible
 alternative.  Because of this lack of concensus  in understanding the
 terms, we feel It Is Important, to further establish their meaning in the
 criteria.

 The following: factors should be included  in any  consideration of feasible
 or practicable alternatives to « siting or disposal method.

 1) The environmental and economic impact  of resource recovery.  Kore
 specifically, the value of recovered material plus the value of the energy
 saved in reusing it plus the reduction in environmental  destruction
 necesarry to obtain the virgin resource plus the decreased volume of solid
 waste needing ultimate disposal.

 2) The economic and health implications of pollution on future generations.
 Suppose a solid waste disposal facility is proposed for a floodplaln area.
 The solid waste Industry argues that there are no other economically
 feasible alternatives, considering the high cost of compactors, transfer
 stations, resource recovery plants or transfer out of the area./If we,
 as citizens, are to effectively challenge the site location, we must be
 allowed to consider not just the visible,  short term economic considerations,
 but also the real though less visible costs of resource depletion and
 water pollution for future generations.

 We support the inclusion of wetlands, floodplalns,  permafrost areas,
 endangered species habitats, sole source aquifers,  active fault zones,
 and karst terrain as environmentally sensitive areas-  VJe support monitor-
 ing ground water under the disposal site to facilitate earlier detection
 of ground water contamination.   These Inclusions will decrease the
 environmental.Impact of solid waste disposal facilities as well as make
 the economics of resource  recovery more attractive.

 In summary,  we feel  that it  Is  necesarry for the EPA to promulgate
 sufficiently specific  and  comprehensive criteria so  that any future
 solid waste  disposal facilities will pose  no  reasonable probability  of
 adverse affects on health  or the  environment.  The BPA must  give  the
 citizens of  this  country a tool with  which we  may defend our natural
 resources  from the economic  self  Interest  of the solid  waste Industry and
the occasional  myopia  of local  governmental bodies.   Therefore the terms
"practicable" and  "feasible"  must be  further defined.  The positive
economic and  environmental Impact of  resource recovery as well as the
negative econofeio  and  health  impact of pollution on  future generations
must be  figured into the equation when determining whet is feasible  or
practicable for »  solid  waste disposal facility.
                               P^icipatlon guidelines la.

-------
    TESTIMONY BY YAMHILL VALLEY RECYCLERS,  INC.

        EPA PUBLIC HEARING - CRITERIA FOR
CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES

                  APRIL 26,  1978

-------
I am John Scoltock, President of Yamhill Valley Recyclers, Inc., a



non-profit corporation comprised of citizens interested in solid



waste management and the environment.  We believe we also represent



the special interests of the future generations of Americans who



will inherit the air, soil, water and natural resources we leave



to them.






The stated purpose of the criteria for solid waste disposal facilities



is to protect the environment from the final disposition of solid



wastes, at the same time making the economics of resource recovery



attractive.  Both objectives are frustrated by the words "practicable"



and "feasible" used throughout the criteria.  We think it is



practicable and feasible to take the labels off tin cans, remove the



ends, rinse them, and crush them for recycling.  Others may not



feel this is a practicable or feasible alternative.  Because of this



lack of concensus in understanding the terms, we feel it is important



to further establish their meaning in the criteria.






The following factors should be included in any consideration of




feasible or practicable alternatives to a siting or disposal method.






1)  The environmental and economic impact of resource recovery.  More



specifically, the value of recovered material plus the value of




the energy saved in reusing it plus the reduction in environmental



destruction necessary to obtain the virgin resource plus the



decreased volume of solid waste needing ultimate disposal.






2)  The economic and health implications of pollution on future



generations.  Suppose a solid waste disposal facility is proposed



for a floodplain area.  The solid waste industry argues that there

-------
Testimony By Yamhill Valley Recyclers, Inc.
April 26, 1978
Page 2


are no other economically feasible alternatives, considering the

high cost of compactors, transfer stations, resource recovery

plants or transfer out of the area.  If we, as citizens, are to

effectively challenge the site location, we must be allowed to

consider not just the visible, short term economic considerations,

but also the real though less visible costs of resource depletion

and water pollution for future generations.


We support the inclusion of wetlands, floodplains, permafrost

areas, endangered species habitats, sole source aquifers, active

fault zones, and karst terrain as environmentally sensitive areas.

We support monitoring ground water under the disposal site to

facilitate earlier detection of ground water contamination.

These inclusions will decrease the environmental impact of solid
                                          /
waste disposal facilities as well as make the economics of resource

recovery more attractive.


In summary, we feel that it is necessary for the EPA to promulgate

sufficiently specific and comprehensive criteria so that any future

solid waste disposal facilities will pose no reasonable probability

of adverse affects on health or the environment.  The EPA must give

the citizens of this country a tool with which we may defend our

natural resources from the economic self interest of the solid

waste industry and the occasional myopia of local governmental

bodies.   Therefore the terms "practicable1' and "feasible'1 must be

further defined.  The positive economic and environmental impact

of resourse recovery as well as the negative economic and health

impact of pollution of future generations must be figured into the

-------
Testimony By Yamhill Valley Recyclers, Inc.
April 26, 1978
Page 3



equation when determining what is feasible or practicable for a


solid waste disposal facility.



We appreciate the strong public participation guidelines in RCRA


that allow us to make this testimony.


                                      Respectfully submitted,
                                          Scoltock, M.D.

                                  /'  *
 JS:lp

-------
Larry Callahan
              CHEMEKETA  REGION
              SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT  PROGRAM
Marion  County Courthouse .B«-EM,DR. «aoi
                                                   DNEisoai  588/5o56
                                  April 25,  1978
      Office of Solid Waste (WH-564)
      Environmental Protection Agency
      401 M Street SW
      Washington, D.C. 20460
      Attn:
             Mr.  Kenneth A. Shuster
             Docket  4004
                                       Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
                                       Proposed Criteria for Class-
                                       ification for Environmentally
                                       Sensitive Areas/Flood Plains
      Dear Mr.  Shuster,
      The Chemeketa Region Solid Waste Management Program,  as the
      coordinating agency for solid waste planning in Benton, Linn,
      Marion, Polk and Yamhill County, Oregon; would like to have some
      input as to criteria for the location of solid waste  disposal
      facilities in the environmentally sensitive areas,  namely,
      one-hundred year flood plains.

      Though we have had relatively short time for review of the
      proposed criteria for classification of solid waste disposal
      facilities, we will be greatly affected by the criteria; as
      we now have four (4)  regional landfills located within the
      one-hundred year flood plain.

      The Chemeketa Region Solid Waste Management Program Board of
      Directors' meeting in Salem, Oregon, on April 20, 1978, voted
      to request:  1.  Proposed classification criteria be changed
      so that:

           "The location of a solid waste disposal facility
           permit will not be denied without specific evaluation
           of the site and its effect within the one-hundred
           year flood plain."

           "That no solid waste disposal facility permit be
           withdrawn without specific evaluation of the site
            MEMBER COUNTIES: BENTON / LINN / MARION / POLK / YAMHUL


                            100 Percent Recycled Paper

-------
Mr. Kenneth A. Shuster
April 25, 1978
Page 2


     and its effect within the one-hundred year flood plain."


     We request the above provided there is protection from
     flooding of the site and there is minimal restriction
     to the flow of the flood stream; and unless there is
     an economically feasible alternative for solid waste
     disposal available within a reasonable hauling dis-
     tance of the above location.

We would like to thank you for the consideration of the above
as part of your review of classification criteria for solid
waste disposal facilities.
                              Very truly yours,
                              Jerrf E. Carter
                              Acting Director
                              Chemeketa Region
                              Solid Waste Management Program
 JEC:cab
  cc:  Tobias A. Hegdahl, EPA Region X Chief, Solid Waste Manage-
      ment Program
      Bill Young, Director, Dept. of Environmental Quality of
      Oregon
      Larry Callahan, Commissioner, Benton County,Board Chairman of
      Chemeketa Region Solid Waste Management Program

-------
                     COMMENTS OF ERNEST A. SCHMIDT
                  ADMINISTRATOR, SOLID WASTE DIVISION
              OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
                       ON PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR
           CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES

             Under Public Law 94-580, Sections 1008 & 1)004
                 EPA Public Hearing, Portland, Oregon
                            April 26, 1978
Introduction

Staff of the State of Oregon's Department of Environmental  Quality have
actively participated on the National  Governor's Association (NGA)
Landfill Technical Task Force.  We hereby affirm our support for and
concurrence with the comments submitted by NGA at the public hearing in
Atlanta, Georgia, on April  13, 1978, regarding the proposed criteria.
With that affirmation, we also submit  the following comments which focus
on those areas of the proposed criteria which are of greatest concern  to
the State of Oregon.

General Comments
     Scope:  We agree that surface water impoundments,  pits, ponds,  and
     lagoons should be regulated to protect public health and the
     environment.  We do not agree, however, that such  facilities should
     be described as "Sanitary Landfills" or "Open Dumps" within the
     meaning of this act.  A substantial number of facilities of this
     type are components of wastewater treatment systems and are therefore
     currently subject to regulation under existing water quality statutes.
     We strongly recommend deletion of surface water impoundments,  pits,
     ponds, and lagoons from the definition of solid waste as used  in
     this criteria.  We believe that the current definition will lead to
     confusion and duplication and may seriously impede enforcement.

-------
Page 2
     Implementation: It must be assumed that enforcement of the criteria
     will primarily be through state programs  (except for cases of
     imminent hazard or citizen suit).  In most cases, existing state
     laws do not conform exactly to the criteria.  In Oregon, for example,
     the existing solid waste management statutes are not directly
     applicable to pits,  ponds, and lagoons, bird hazards to aircraft-,
     or designation of aquifers.   However, other federal and state laws
     do effectively apply to these subjects.

     In theory, state solid waste management laws could be amended to
     conform exactly to the criteria.   There is no assurrance, however
     that this will or can happen.  There are delays built into the
     legislative process.  Also opening statutes to legislative review
     can result in weaker rather than  stronger 1aws.

     We strongly recommend, therefore, that EPA consider adoption of an
     "equivalency" mechanism, whereby states could apply equivalent
     existing standards and guidelines in conducting the disposal site
     inventory.  With such a mechanism, it appears much more likely that
     the disposal control sections of RCRA can be implemented within the
     time frame and to the extent that Congress intended.
 Specif i c Commen ts

 1.   Section 257-1  Scope and Purpose:  As noted above, the criteria
     should exclude pits, ponds, and lagoons.  At a minimum the solid
     waste criteria should not apply to those surface water impoundments
     which are components of waste water treatment systems.

-------
Page 3
2.    Section 257-2  Definitions:  (h)   "Endangerment"   Part 2 of this
          definition, relating to future users seems unworkable.  No one
          can be assured of what the possible future uses of a water
          system may be.  Also, virtually any contamination would
          result in the need for "more treatment than would otherwise
          have been necessary."  We believe that Parts 1 and 3 of this
          definition are realistic and adequate and recommend that
          Part 2 be deleted.

     (ee) "Wetlands"   The proposed definition is so broad as to include
          all areas where saturated soil  conditions exist for relatively
          long periods of time.  In Oregon, there are large areas of the
          State where the annual rainfall rate exceeds the evapotranspira-
          tion rate and which therefore could unreal 1st leally be classified
          as wetlands due to the saturated conditions and vegetation.

3.    Section 257-3-1  Environmentally Sensitive Areas:  (a) Wetlands
          An outright prohibition against filling in wetlands as presently
          defined would have a staggering impact in many states.  We
          agree with the need to protect  the unique ecosystems as tide-
          lands, swamps, and marshes.  However, it must be recognized
          that not all  wetlands are unique habitats or really "environ-
          mentally sensitive1' and in some areas are abundant.

          The criteria do provide for controlled landfill ing in wetland
          areas through the NPDES permit  system.   Our concern therefore
          is not so much with this section of the criteria as with EPA's
          intent as to how it will  be applied.  In publishing the proposed
          criteria, EPA has included the  comment that permits will  only
          be issued under "extraordinary  circumstances" and discussion
          with EPA staff indicates that permits may not be issued under
          any circumstances.  The fate of existing disposal sites in
          wetland locations is unclear under the proposed criteria.

-------
Page
          This hard line approach seems unreasonably biased in view of
          the wide variety of lands which could be classed as wetlands.
          Preservation of wetlands is a land use issue best decided in
          comprehensive land use planning with evaluation of all factors,
          such as abundance of wetlands, surrounding land use, size of
          the fill area, project duration and design; and realistic
          evaluation of alternatives including timeliness, economics-and
          the political reality.  Outright prohibitions or placing of
          unreasonable burdens of proof on permit applicants does not
          seem to be in the best public interest.

     (b)  Floodplains   a literal interpretation of Part 1 of this
          section as drafted, would prohibit all floodplain sites, since
          any filling  in a floodplain will result in some minimal decrease
          in flow or storage capacity and some minimal  increase  in
          flooding.  We suggest inserting the word "significant" into
          this definition so as to not prohibit needed landfills which
          would have only a minimal or negligible impact.

4.   Section 257.3-2   Surface Water: Part (a) of this section is confusing,
     since it includes leachate seeps and surface water runoff/discharges
     which are not normally considered to be "point sources" and which
     should not require an NPDES Permit.  We recommend using the term
     "point source" as defined  in PL 92-500.  This definition applies
     only to man-made  channels and does not  include surface water diver-
     sion ditches.

5.   Section 257.3-3   Groundwater:  Comments were specifically solicited
     on  the point of measurement to be used  in applying the endangerment
     concept.  We  recommend  that the property boundary be used,  as
     proposed.

-------
Page 5

     Under Case II  of this section on groundwater, EPA attempts to grant
     states authority to designate groundwater aquifers.  We do not
     believe that RCRA should be used to make water quality laws and
     policy.  Other statutes more appropriately address these issues.
     Furthermore, we do not believe that Congress has in fact granted
     authority to establish water quality laws and policies under this
     act.   V/e recommend that Cases I  and II  be modified to avoid apparent
     usurption of authority and that  this section simply state that
     groundwater not be "endangered."

6.    Section 257-3"^ Air:   We recommend that Parts (a)  and (b) of this
     section be modified to regulate  open burning with  existing local,
     state, and federal regulations.   The outright prohibition against
     burning materials such as industrial woodwaste,  building demolition
     debris and other bulky, non-putrescible, combustible wastes seems
     unwarranted.

     Comments were specifically solicited on the advisability of including
     specific emission or  air quality limits in the criteria.   As stated
     above, we do not believe that RCRA should be used  to create new air
     or water quality standards;  and  we do not believe  that the act
     grants authority to do so.

7-    Section 257-35 Application to land used for the  production of food
     chain crops:
     We have general  concern about this section of the  proposed criteria.
     We recommend that it  be revised  to simply require  that sewage
     sludge be applied so  as to not violate  other sections of this
     criteria and such that resultant food crops do not exceed FDA
     standards.  If EPA decides to include specific cadmium concentration
     limits in the criteria, we would recommend 2.0 kg/Ha. We do not
     believe there is sufficient evidence at this time  to justify the
     proposed phased reduction of acceptable cadmium  concentration In
     sewage sludge.

-------
Page 6
8.   Section 257.3-7  Safety:
     The word "employees" should be deleted from the first sentence of
     this section.  Employee safety is administered under OSHA and
     should not be included in the RCRA criteria.

     Part (d) of this section, relating to bird hazards to aircraft, is
     the responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
     should not be included in these criteria.  As noted above, this
     State currently has no direct authority to enforce these standards;
     and we doubt that other states do either.  Finally, while we agree
     that new landfills should not be established too near existing
     airports, we do not agree with the circumstance whereby an existing
     landfill could be classified as an open dump simply because someone
     proposes to establish a new airport nearby.   We strongly recommend
     that Part (d) be modified to reference the control  of the FAA.

 In Summary

 1.   Defining ''pits, ponds, and lagoons" as "sanitary landfill" or open
     dump appears ludicrous.

 2.   Ratification of existing state solid waste programs as "equivalent"
     to RCRA requirements would be very useful.

 3.   EPA's prohibitive stand on fills in wetlands goes  unreasonably
     beyond the wording of the President'"; Executive Order.

 
-------
 Page 7
 Much good and hard work on EPA's part has gone into this draft criteria.
 The State of Oregon appreciates this opportunity to have input to the
 process,  and we ask that careful consideration be given to our remarks.
 Each state1*; solid waste program is at a different level of mati'fity and
 the structure of the proposed criteria appears to accommodate those
 differences.  Successful implementation of RCRA Subtitle D requires
-continued opportunity to address unique local  problems with tailor made
 solutions agreed upon between local  government, the state,  and EPA
 regional  office.  The rate of accomplishment will  be substantially
 effected  by the relative orlority of the program within EPA and adequacy
 of federal  funding roqui rstl.
 WHD/EAS:ps

-------
          PR°POS';:r' GmM^S FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WAB'
To:  Region 10  EPA  Hearing,  April 26,  1978


By:  toa°KochNIpresidentICE INSTITUTE-  4645 18th pl-  s- •  Salem, Oregon 97502.

    WASTE TECHNOLOGY  COMMITTEE,  OSSI ,  104 S.  Elver Road., 97132
    Angus MacPhee, Chairman,
    Local 281  SOLID WASTE POLICY COMMITTEE, Teamsters Building, 1020 N. E. 3rd,
    Portland,  Oregon  97232.  John Trout,  Coordinator.

WASHINGTON COUNTY  REFUSE COLLECTION ASSOCIATION, 18790 N. W.  Astoria Drive,
    Portland,  Oregon  97229.  Drew Ryan, President
     METROPOLITAN  AREA COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION(PASSO) , 14680 S.  E.  Clatsop,
     Portland, Oregon 97236, Pete Yiviano,  President.
     OREGON  STATE  DROP BKC ASSOCIATION, 10345 N. E. 13th  Avenue, Portland
     Oregon  97211.  Gene Plew, President
     CLACKAMA.S COUNTY REFUSE COLLECTION ASSOCIATION,  2244 S.  E>. Lake Road,
     Milwaukie, Oregon 97222.  Jack Schwab, President.
     MULTNOMAH COUNTY REFUSE COLLECTION ASSOCIATION,  14814 S. E. Oatfield Road,
     Milwaukie, Oregon 97222,  Richard Cereghino,  President
     SALEM AREA COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION, 1384  Manzinita N. E., Salem, Oregon
     97303,  Gerald Willis, President.


1.  THERE IS A CONTINUING NEED FOR LANDFILLS  FOR THE  FORSEEABLE FUTURE.

         A.  Let's be honest.   Part of the intent of RCRA and  of  these
              regulations is to  force resource' recovery'-by forcing up the
              cost of landfilling and making  landfills unavailable.

              Let's honestly tell the people  that  resource recovery will be
              forced  and that it is going to  cost  them.

              Let's not create a total crisis in the  handling and  disposal of
              solid wastes.  The stringent  regulations of RCRA  and of these
              criteria can  bring landfill upgrading and improvement to ai^
              standstill.   Both  government  and industry is fearful of making
              the  necessary  investment.

         B.  Let's be honest about the need  for landfills

              EPA  told us at a joint meeting  with our national  association
              in Washington, D.  C. in 1976 and again  at the Region 10
              seminal on the recovery of  solid wastes that:  "If we resource
              recover only  the increase in solid wastes between now and the
              year 2,000, we will be doing well."

              That does nothing  about  existing mountain  of solid wastes, Much
              is headed for landfill disposal.

-------
                                   - 2 -


Even with all out committment in Oregon for resource recovery of solid
wastes by every means, recycling, reuse, materials recovery, energy
recovery, we will still need landfills.

      1.  In all metropolitan areas.  Only Land County around Eugene has
          a major resource reccovery capacity.  At present there are no
          firm committments for the metals recovered nor.any committments
          for fuel.  There is hope that the University of Oregon may be
          able to use the fuel.

          The Salem-Chemeketa Five County Area has none yet planned.

          The Portland Metro Area has the first plant estimated to be on
          the line by 1981 if everything works out from technology to
          economics to full funding.  That date has been slipping back in
          time year by year.

          Source separation on line or planned will handle only a fraction
          of the total waste stream.
          While our industry, manufacturers, recyclers, government and many
          concerned people want technologically and economically feasible
          resource recovery, the fact is that landfill is the main disposal
          method for years to come.

      2.' In more sparsel:" settled areas, major resource recovery is not
          economically feasible.  Smaller thermal energy units are being
          looked at as an alternative.  Source separation has been started
          in a number of areas, is planned for more.

          But the large volume municipal wastes will probably continue to
          be landfilled through most of all of the rest of this century.

      3.  Some demolition materials, some special wastes and bulky wastes
          don't fit in any plan or plant for resource recovery.

      4.  There are no black boxes to feed in wastes and get back nothing
          but materials or energy.  There are residues and most of these
          need to be landfilled.

          Depending of the system and size, a considerable portion of the
          waste stream has to bypass this type of processing and be land-
          filled.
          A good example is Cascade Rolling Mills in McMinnville.  A prime
          user of waste oars to make steel.  It shredds several hundred
          cars a day.  Out of each car comes some 450 pounds of waste
          paint, dirt, rooks, seat covers, interior covering, nonrecovered
          metals, seat materials and more.  On our largest day there were
          fourteen 30 yard drop boxes to our landfill.  It usually/runs
          about a box an hour during operation.

          Most of the EPA reported resource recovery plants for municipal
          wastes don't begin to approach even that efficiency.

-------
U*   '•	   J.	--•-••'-i-uj.u.ll u J- J-iiriU I 1 I I a in i.ro-t- PaviH  -K~l ^m J — I _ J	_T _,_.[ j_ j  -1
              £ M-   Q-?aS led,.way in getting landfills, including our at
              McMinnville,  out of hills and down to iloodplain.  Hillside
              sites  have been closed in Sweet Home, Stayton, McMinnville,
              Salem  (corrections site) and many others here in the vallev
              alone.                                                     J
          2.  The majority of all Oregonians depend upon landfill disposal in
             flood plain  -areas,  many of which could be wet lands under the
             overly broad definition.

          3.  There is no  lead time  to  completely reverse the disposal policy
             in Oregon.   Former  State  Solid Waste Director for Oregon, Bill
             Culham, used to point  to  a two year lead time for new major sites.
             Then his successor,  Bruce Bailey,  did a critical path study indi-
             cating a minimum of two years and  often much longer.  The near
             final draft  of the  state  solid waste plan of DEQ recently re-
             viewed with  the State'Citizens"Solid Waste Advisory Committee call:
             for up to FIVE years lead time.

E.           The only major metro site approved in years is at Eugene, and
             that only after years  of  search, planning, review and a new
             approach.  The beginning  phase in  the Salem area was rejected
             by nearly 1,000 people  at a meeting called to give public parti-/
             cipation on  review  of  the five best of 21 sites selected on the
             basis of technological, environmental and economic criteria.

             Our greatest concern is the number of "thou shall not"  agencies
             from EPA down to our own  DEQ, land Conservation and Development
             Commission,  local planning and zoning and a host of others.

             Nowhere can  you find a positive  set of criteria assisting
             government and industry to find  acceptable landfills.

             Nowhere is there any coordination   between agencies on what
             criteria will I* jointly  be used.   Each is a special purpose
                        agency.
              t nl O^TS*/1* •
               Positive  criteria and  coordination of all agencies.

           2.   Ho  regulation unless it  is  truly needed.   Every work and every
               regulation  in these criteria potentially  cost taxpayers and
               citizens  hundreds of thousands  to millions of dollars and
               threaten  years of delay.

           3.   Revise specific criteria as outlined.ftlffu/im


    Specific Recommendations:

    A.  Ada clay and other similar materials to those that may be used for
        liners, where required.  Define what we mean by "artificial liners."

    B.  Clarify just what  water we are  protecting as the primary objective of
        these regulations.  As you  state in your comments on ground water,
        "of primary concern is protection of current and future ground-water
        drinking water supplies."  (P.494b).

    C.  Include technoli«ical and economic feasibility  in the wetlands  criteria
        as in other criteria.

-------
                                   - 4 -

D.  Make separate sub-oatagorles o±' "Sanitary Landfills".  As used not,
    everything from a sludge disposal site to our landfill at McMinnville
    to the Chen-Nuclear Hazardous Waste Disposal Site is a "Sanitary landfill".

    If you accept the comment that equivalent protection is required from each
    type of site, very different criteria and management practices are
    required to a achieve that level of A through 0, that protection from the
    different types of sites.

    To implement the specific recommendations, we enclose the recommendations
    of the National Solid Wastes Management Association after years of work
    with EPA and other organizations.  We specifically endorse their
    recommendations.

-------
             CHANGES   TO   REGULATIONS  FOR



          CLASSIFICATION   OF   SOLID  WASTE



                     DISPOSAL   FACILITIES
Section 257.3.  Definitions
AMEND;
Comment:
Add:
Comment:
"Aquifer" means a formation, group of formations,



or part of a formation that contains sufficient



saturated permeable material to yield or be capable



of yielding significant quantities of water to



wells or springs.





This definition is consistent with Proposed Regu-



lations for State Underground Injection Control



Programs, [40 CFR Part 146], Federal Register,  Vol.



41, No. 170, August 31, 1976.





"Artificial liner" means a liner made of a synthetic



material such as asphalt, cement, plastic, or rubber



or made of a natural material such as clay when



the clay is reprocessed or is not native to the



site.





Because compacted clay may be as effective a liner



as a synthetic material, it should not be excluded



from the category of "artificial liners."  Compacted



clay is "artificial" in the sense that it is not in



its natural state.
NOTE:  All changes  and additions  are underlined.

-------
AMEND:
Comment:
Add:
                        "Endangered" (or "endangerment")  means the introduction




                        of any physical, chemical, biological or radiological



                        substance or matter into an underground drinking water




                        source in such a. concentration that makes it necessary



                        to increase treatment of the water to meet any maximum



                        contaminant level set forth in any promulgated National^




                        DrinkingJWater Standard.






                        This change simplifies the proposed regulation and




                        eliminates the vague reference to future users without



                        specification as to type of use or standard for that



                        use.  It also includes secondary drinking water



                        standards.






                        Except as provided for in Section 257,4-3 (2)  "Under-



                        ground drinking water_ source" means Cl)  an aquifer



                        which serves a public water system or (2)  an aquifer



                        which contains less than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved



                        solids.






                        The use of this term is specific  whereas "ground water"




                        is indefinite.   The definition is taken  from the



                        Proposed Regulations for State Underground Injection



                        Control Programs,  [40 CFR Part 146], Federal Register



                        Vol. 41, No.  170,  August 31,  1976.






Section 257.3-1  Environmentally sensitive areas




Insert:                 A.3. (wetlands)   It is clearly demonstrated: that  there



                        are no other technologically  or economically feasible



                        alternatives...
Comment:

-------
                                      -3-






Comment:                The criteria should specify all of the factors   environ-



                        mental, technological and economic   to be considered



                        in assessing the overall effect of the landfill.





257.3-2CA)   Surface Water




Changes                  B.   Non-point sources,  including surface leachate,



                            leachate seeps,  and surface runoff are in




                            compliance with  any applicable and enforceable



                            non-point source requirements or  standards



                            established  in an areawide waste  treatment




                            management plan  certified by the  Governor of



                            the state and approved by the Administrator,




                            pursuant to  Section 208  of the Federal Water




                            Pollution Control Act  Amendments  of 1972  (P.L.




                            92-500).
Coinment:                Waste  disposal  facilities may have non-point source



                        discharges  in the  form of soil erosion or leachate



                        seeps.  Authority  over such discharges is provided



                        in Section  208  of  P.L. 92-500.  As a program has



                        already been established to control non-point sources,



                        it makes  sense  to  include waste disposal facilities



                        in the program.  Congress, in P.L. 94-580, stated



                        the goal  of avoiding duplicative programs in the



                        establishment of RCRA criteria.   (Sec. 1006 (b)).





§257.a-3  Ground Water



Change:                 (1)  The  facility  does not adversely affect underground



                            drinking water sources  in accordance with  the



                             following:

-------
         -4-





(A)   The quality of the water in underground



     drinking water sources beyond the  disposal



     facility property is  not endangered by the



     facility.





(B)   The facility shall employ one of the  two



     following operational methods such that



     endangerment of an underground drinking



     water source is prevented:





     (1)   Use of artificial liners and  collection



          of  any leachate  produced.  Collected



          leachate shall be removed, recirculated,



          or  treated as appropriate.





     (2)   Utilization of the  site's natural



          hydrogeological  conditions, soil



          attenuation mechanisms,  and/or recovery



          and treatment of contaminated water.



          Where appropriate,  infiltration of water



          into the solid waste shall be prevented



          or  minimized to  reduce leachate generation.



          Monitoring of the underground drinking



          water source,  prediction of leachate



          migration and a  current  and acceptable



          contingency plan for corrective action



          are required for as  long as leachate



          enters  the underground drinking water

-------
                                       source in such quantities and concen-



                                       trations that the water quality may be



                                       endangered.






                        (2)  A state may designate an underground drinking water



                             source for use other than ...  (complete as in the



                             EPA draft, Section 257.4-3, Case II B.)






Comment:                 This  change would eliminate use of  undefined terras.



                        Also  it would change the language of  the October 25



                        draft in  which state standards may  be adopted as




                        Federal standards  C2S7.4-3,  Case II A).   While there




                        is  no objection to a state's setting  ground water




                        standards,  such standards should not  be  federalized




                        for purposes  of determining  what is a sanitary




                        landfill  under federal law.






257.3-4  Air




Delete:                 first paragraph






Insert:                A.  The facility complies with:




                           (1)   Emission  limitations and standards contained




                                 in an applicable State Implementation Plan



                                promulgated or approved by the Administrator




                                pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air




                                Act;






                           (2)  New Source Performance Standards promulgated



                                by the administrator pursuant to Section




                                111 of the Clean Air Act;

-------
                                      -6-





                            (3)  Emission limitation and standard for hazardous



                                 air, pollutants promulgated by the administrator



                                 pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Act.





                        B.  Open burning of residential, commercial, institutional



                            and industrial solid waste is prohibited.





                        C.  Open burning of other solid waste is prohibited



                            unless in compliance with state and local regulations.





Comment:                This language, which is completely consistent with the



                        Clean Air Act, would replace the requirement in the



                        October 25 draft that landfills comply with state  and



                        local air regulations.   EPA's recommended criteria would



                        adopt state and local standards as federal standards,



                        meaning that state and local ordinances (which vary



                        significantly across the country)  would be enforceable



                        in federal courts.





                        While we do not object  to state and local regulations,



                        we do object to their use as federal standards  for



                        purposes of the criteria and landfill inventory.'

-------
            Statement on Behalf of the
                 Washington State
               Department of Ecology

                        to

        The Environmental  Protection Agency
                     Regarding
       Proposed Classification  Criteria  for
          Solid Waste Disposal  Facilities

             Pursuant to.Section  4004
The Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act of 1976
                     PL  94-580
                     Presented
                  April  26,  1978
                 Portland,  Oregon

-------
On behalf of the State of Washington, Department of Ecology, I thank you
for this opportunity to comment upon the proposed Criteria for Classification
of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities as authorized under Section 4004 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).

We also thank EPA for establishment of the future informational  meetings
to be held in Spokane, Boise and Seattle for the purpose of both further
explaining the proposed Criteria and receiving additional comments.
Although these additional meetings will  be of an informal nature, it is
our hope that comments received from governmental entities and the public
at those meetings as well as today^ public hearings will be considered
during finalization and enactment of the Criteria.

Today's comments will be directed toward the three basic areas as suggested
by EPA:  (1) The adequacy of the Criteria; (2) The practicality of imple-
mentation; and (3) The potential impact upon our society and economy.

We very much agree with EPA's recognition that disposal  site design, con-
struction, operation and maintenance will vary as to the site specifics,
and the intent to therefore limit the criteria to minimum standards for
protection of health and the environment.  As proposed the criteria will
allow the necessary flexibility for state and local enforcement agencies to
take into account local conditions and desires.

We note, however, that this intent is not made a specific part of the
Classification Criteria themselves, but rather is only included in the
"Preamble".  The addition of language in the Criteria as to this intent is
strongly recommended in an effort to minimize the fear that EPA will not
later dictate specific design and operating standards that are more stringent.

We do not know whether or not the "Preamble" or "Supplementary Information"
portion of the existing draft will  be made a part of the finalized Criteria.
Because of its effectiveness, we certainly hope so.  It is further suggested
that the "Preamble" itself be expanded with a discussion of the inventory
process that must be used to apply the Criteria.  .This will  serve as a good
tool for EPA to use in demonstrating how they are interpreting the Criteria.

Although Section 4004(a) allows for classification  of the types  of sanitary
landfills, we note that neither the Criteria nor the "Preamble"  addresses
this possibility.  Due to differences between the "conventional" and
legislative definition of the terms "sanitary landfill"  and "open dumps",
we certainly understand the intent to avoid additional confusion.  Because
the up-coming inventory is so strongly based upon this Classification Criteria,
however, we feel  consideration should be made to further classify disposal
sites or perhaps "disposal" into categories such as fills, land  spreading,
liquid impoundments, utilization sites,  etc.  Such  an effort at this time
will be of great benefit during implementation activities.

Due to the lack of disposal site definition as it applies to the size and
waste type, we are already confronting considerable questions relating to
the proposed inventory.  Will the inventory include individual  resident

-------
Page Two
disposal  sites or home compost piles?  Will it apply to dredge spoil dis-
posal  sites, slash piles resulting from forest clearcutting, woodwaste
piles  used for cattle bedding, cattle manure piles, etc.?  How will it
apply  to  auto wrecking yards, other salvage or junk yards, composting
operations, resource recovery sites, etc.?  How will it relate to other
than land disposal sites, waste storage sites, incinerators, transfer
stations, or other facilities considered a part of a total disposal- system?

As intended, the Criteria is general  in nature as it relates to wetlands,
floodplains, permafrost areas, critical habitat areas,  sole source aquifers,
surface and ground waters and air emissions.   It is similarly general  in
nature as related to the application of waste  to land for the production
of food chain crops, except for considerable discussion on cadmium.  This
is particularly confusing,  since the dangers of cadmium have not been
determined to any more degree than those relating to many other metals or
persistent organics.  Would it not be better to also keep the Criteria
general as it applies to cadmium and  be consistent by referring to require-
ments  of the Federal Food,  Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)?  As proposed, it
appears that in the desire to address the cadmium issue,  the potential  plant
uptake of heavy metals,  toxic organics, etc. has been ignored.

We also note that cadmium levels referred to in the Classification Criteria
may be inconsistent with hazardous waste criteria being developed under
Section 3001 (RCRA).  As an example,  how does  the applicated  rate of 25 p.p.m.
relate to ten times the drinking water standard or 0.1  p.p.m. referred  to
in proposed 3001 guidelines?  Similar concerns  exist with'respect to pesticides,
persistent organics, heavy metals, etc.  The development of this  Classification
Criteria, and following implementation must be  closely  coordinated with
Section 3006 and other RCRA activities.  We strongly urge that the Criteria
itself include specific explanation as to its  relationship with hazardous
waste and other RCRA guidelines.

The only other part of the Criteria which includes specific standards  relates
to bird hazards to air craft.   We have no disagreement  in addressing this
problem,  but is it the intent to absolutely restrict all  "disposal" sites
from being located within the designated distances from airport runways?

The Criteria further .generally speaks to disease vector control  and safety,
including gases, fires and access, but appears  to ignore  other important
factors.   These include employee sanitation facilities, relationship tp other
existing  federal  safety requirements,  wind blown litter.control,  odors,
noise, relationship to previous  EPA established disposal  guidelines, relation-
ship with existing federal  highway beautification criteria, esthetics,  and
efforts to minimize the  degradation of adjacent land values.   Although  we
certainly agree that requirements relating to  these factors will  be site
specific, they should none-the-less be generally addressed.

With or without the proposed Classification Criteria, good health and
environmental practices  dictate that the concerns expressed by the proposed
Criteria  must be adequately addressed.  Existing solid  waste management

-------
Page Three
funding levels, and available technology and methods for implementation
are, however, currently inadequate.  Although it is the intent of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to provide technical and
financial assistance to correct these deficiencies, a substantial increase
in Congressional appropriation will be necessary for this purpose.  At
proposed grant funding levels, we find that it will be impossible to
assume the administrative, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities of
this Criteria and other RCRA related activities, and impossible to carry
them out in an adequate and timely manner.

Considerable technical assistance from EPA as to the availability of
technologies and methods for compliance with the Criteria will also be
necessary.  Examples include soil attenuation, etc. as it applies to
leachate control through natural means; the control and collection of
leachate through natural and artifical means; alternative methods of
leachate treatment prior to discharge, and; the many unanswered questions
related to the proper utilization and disposal of sludge.  Without the
preparation and dissemination of such information, meaningful implement-
ation of the Criteria will be most difficult.

The potential impact upon our society and economy is tremendous.  Proper
implementation of the Resource Conservation and/Recovery Act (RCRA),
using the Classification Criteria as a basis will substantially improve
waste handling and disposal practices, and as a consequence will signifi-
cantly increase associated costs to all  waste generators.  As this is
accomplished, conservation practices will  become more acceptable and
resource recovery alternatives will increasingly become economically viable.
In the interim, however, attitudes relating to the importance of solid
waste management and the increased need to use existing local resources
for the construction and operation of upgraded handling and disposal
facilities will require significant change.

In summary we support EPA's efforts to develop Classification Criteria
giving the state and local government the flexibility to consider site
variations and local conditions during implementation.   The success of
Criteria implementation will,  however, be dependent upon the availability
of EPA to provide technical and financial  assistance as previously indicated.

Again, we thank EPA for this and the future opportunities to comment on
the proposed Criteria.

-------
                   y
April 21, 1978
Clark County Solid Waste Advisory Commission conducted * workshop with
the express purpose of becoming familar with EPA's "Proposed Criteria
for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities".  The following
comments resulted:

1.  Demolition wastes should be well defined so that they can be sep-
    arated,  if wished,  from putrescibles and other such wastes which
    must require more restrictive handling methods.

    On page 4943 demolition wastes or construction wastes are to be
    handled under the controlled burial approach utilized by ''sanitar
    land fill".  Such wastes as demolition,  if  of proper composition,
    can be used for fill purposes.   These regulations would prohibit
    any such flexibility.

2.  Many land fill sites are the result of gravel excavation.   The
    monstrous pits require filling for better utilization of land,
    aesthetics and safety.  Often times both activities (excavation
    and filling) occur simultaneously.  The  criteria proposed does
    not cover what may happen to the water tables,  particularly any
    perch water tables adjacent to the area  under expansion (new ex-
    cavations) .

3.  Page 4951 - Gases under safety - chlorine  (toxic)  gases maybe
    given off under certain circumstances with  some solid wastes.
    Any waste to be deposited in a sanitary  landfill with the potential
    of evolving harmful quantities of chlorine  should be routed to a
    hazardous waste site.   From this paragraph,  one can get the im-
    pression that chlorine gas is common to  sanitary landfills.   Is
    this true?

4.  Should consideration be given for the formation of a trust  fund,
    as proposed by the National Solid Waste  Management Association
    for hazardous waste sites, which would be used  to defray cost of
    damages resulting from a landfill even long after such a site may
    be closed.

5.  Page 4946   First column, second paragraph  alteration Instead of
    alternation.

-------
 6.  Page  4946 - Middle column,  last paragraph probably  should  read
    "recommended" instead of  "available".

 7.  Page  4954 - Last  paragraph    "Cadmium  is  acceptable if  instead  of  i_s.
Members of:  Clark County Solid Waste Advisory Commission

-------
              GEORGE D. WARD & ASSOCIATES
                      821 N. W. Flanders, Portland, Oregon 97209
                                  222-4333
          ENVIRONMENTAL  CONSULTING ENGINEERS

                             PUBLIC STATEMENT
                                  to the
                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 at It's
                    PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CRITERIA
                    FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE
                           DISPOSAL FACILITIES

            SHERATON HOTEL - PORTLAND, OREGON - APRIL 26. 1978
    This  prepared statement 1s being submitted for Inclusion Into the formal  record
for consideration by the federal government 1n It's final preparation of proposed
classification  criteria for the design, operation and classification of existing
as wel-1  as proposed solid waste disposal facilities.
    The basis of this  statement follows a  review of the proposed guidelines
included in the Federal Register of  Feb. 6. 1978 as required by the Solid  Waste
Disposal  Act later ammended by the Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act  of 1976.
Also,regulations proposed under the  Federal Water  Pollution Control Act,  as
amended by the  Clean Water Act of  1977.
    With the intentions of each of the above  in  mind,  I would  like to enter the
following in hopes  that it might  offer environmentally acceptable, cost reducing
alternatives suitable  for the land application and/or landfill containment of
difficult to dispose of municipal  or industrial sludges plus certain toxic

-------
                                     -2-
wastes as covered 1n the following sections of the proposed criteria:
    A.  Sludge Disposal and Utilization
        [Sec. 405 (d) of Public Law 95-217]
    B.  Integration With Regulations For Hazardous Haste Disposal Facilities
        [Under Section 3004 of the Act]
    The comments that follow represent the initial findings and objectives of a
current National Science Foundation research contract previously awarded the firm
of George D. Ward & Associates.  One of the principal objectives of the contract
1s to investigate the capabilities of ambiant, as well as controlled, strains of
soil microorganisms to detoxify and hopefully render harmless certain municipal
or industrial sludges judged to contain toxic amounts of what the criteria
broadly classifies as HAZARDOUS WASTES.
    An additional and almost equally significant objective of the project is to
determine various arrangements for assuring the total long term containment of
soils in which the selected soil  microorganisms are held while they proceed to
chemically disassociate complex industrial chemical sludges known to respond to
the effects of bacteriological decontamination.  A review of current technical
literature on this subject strongly indicates a high degree of probability that many
of our nations so called hazardous wastes may not be hazardous at all following
their carefully controlled exposure to the photochemical action of sunlight, time,
minerology of selected soils,  pH  adjustment and particularly, following their
continuous exposure to the "tenatious" biological activity of selected and properly
cared for soil microorganisms.  Included 1n the care and welfare of these so called
SOIL TREATMENT CELLS can be such  things as a controlled diet for the organisms,
attention to the soil moisture and temperature; the rate of introduction of soil
oxygen and also the rate of removal and further treatment if need be of soil gasses
and resulting leachate should  any accumulate as a result of soil cell containment
measures.

-------
                                      -3-
     As an example, we are currently experimenting at Oregon  State University,
Dept. of Soil Science with a greenhouse study aimed at determining the micro-
...  .  i .    j                                            t^Tti^-A- L-? cL tO(U-»^Ci. f3 '~
biological degradation of the toxic compound trichlorophenol  remaining |n  the
                                                             ^
waste tar residuals following the manufacture of the herbicide 2,4-D.  The product
2,4-D is used commonly for the selective killing of many broadleaved weeds in
agricultural  grainfields, grasslands and coniferous forests. The basis of  our
research is to determine if the roles can be reversed in such a way that the
living microorganisms  become the survivors and the complex and often lethal
chemical formulations  become the victims.
     Perhaps  one could compare it to an  early bad habit of the Romans which called
for the feeding of Christians to the lions under controlled conditions which pre-
vented the Christians  from escaping - except as  a meal  inside the lion I  The
process presently under investigation would change the game rules by controlling
conditions favoring the Christians and preventing the lion from escaping - except
as by-products following his having been eaten  by the Christians!
     More seriously, it is hoped that E.P.A.  officials  who must eventually write
the final draft of the proposed portion  of the  forthcoming regulations will keep
this concept in mind and provide for the addition of  specific rules  governing
what we believe may become an entirely new concept suitable for the  containment,
treatment and eventually the ultimate disposal  of many of this nations necessary
but unfortunately toxic industrial waste byproducts.
     If successful, we believe the CONTAINED SOIL TREATMENT CELL concept will
offer the nation a much more satisfactory solution for it's toxic or hazardous
wastes disposal needs  than the currently acceptable practice of perpetual
entombment.  We have seen "OPEN TOXIC WASTE ENTOMBMENT TRENCHES" literally
filled to the brim with hazardous chemical wastes that conceivably could remain

-------
                                          -4-
    actlve and probably toxic for centuries.  These same wastes, 1f blended more
               <&-
    gently Into contained, healthy, bacterlologlcally active soils could, in many
    cases, be rendered chemically harmless 1n a matter of months.
         In conclusion we ask that E.P.A. join with the National Science Foundation
J
  p. in it's effort to develop safer and more dependable toxic waste disposal methods.
    It is our contention that adequate technology does 'not presently exist that warr-
    ants the unecessary accumulation of massive amounts of mixed chemical wastes.
    creating the potential for a totally untcnown and astronomical number of secondary
    chemical reactions Into small, closely packed and often unlined trenches with no
    further treatment or neutralization Intended.
         While it may be premature for us to predict with absolute assurance the
    outcome of our current federally funded res«rch project; we nevertheless remain
    confident that soil microbiological degradation of chemical wastes warrants the
    federal governments serious consideration.
                                           W**Tef^  St*PPty
         We compliment E.P.A. 's Office of SB^^te^e^&sgaaeafe^for it's recent
    decision to release $5 million 1n water supply grants to the states stressing the
    improvement of pits, ponds and lagoons currently used for the storage, treatment
    or disposal of sewage sludges and undustrial wastes.  Hopefully some of these
    funds can be made available to the private research sector for the advancement of
            is
    industries ability to provide It's own less costly, less complex and certainly
    less risky tpjrtc waste disposal facilities.
         Once accomplished, two major weaknesses in today's, chemical waste disposal
                                     tfuA            „ ,tJtt~l 9*"*i **"~t •
    practices will have been almost entirely eliminated.  ThisJMncludes the extremely
    expensive, usually wasteful and always dangerous practice of unnecessarily haul-
    ing millions of gallons of lethal chemical wastes through cities and along the
    nations highways.  Ji'also includes^ the massive accumulation of an Infinite

-------
                                    -5-
number of potential, secondary chemical reactions at a time when we still  don't
know how to store even pure Water - on a perpetual basis!

Respectfully submitted,

GeorgeT). Ward, P.E.
6DW:ly

-------
ATTENDEE LIST   PORTLAND. OR  APRIL 26, 1978
Alsager, Melvln
Director-Environmental Affairs
J.R. Simplot Company
PO Box 27
Boise, ID 83707

Anderson, James
Vice President
Resources Conservation Co.
PO Box 936
Renton, WA 98055

Anderson, Earl
Chief Chemist
Reynolds Metals Company
Troutdale, OR 97060

Aspitarte, Dr. Thomas
Mgr. Environmental Programs
Crown Zellerbach
Camas, WA 98607

Bailey, Bruce
Director-Solid Waste
Lane County
125 E. 8th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401

Bougher, Richard
Head, Environmental Section
Seattle Branch
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Seattle, WA 98115

Bramhall, Don
Senior Sanitarian, North Coast
Dept. of Environmental Quality
3600 E. Third St.
Tillamook, OR 97141

Brandt, Thomas
Resource Recovery Researcher
Lane County/Office of Technology
125 E. 8th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97^04

Bree, William R.
Recycling Program Director
Dept. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207

Bromfeld, Fred
Hazardous Waste Supervisor
Dept. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207
Brown, Robert
Supv. Program Development
Dept. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207

Carter, Jerry E.
Solid Waste Administrator
Marion County
Marion County Courthouse RM 2M
Salem, OR 97301

Carter, Stephen
Regional Engineer
Dept. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207

Casswell, S.J.
Environmental Engineer
Martin Marietta Aluminum
PO Box 711
The Dalles, OR 97058

Cizmich, Nicholas
Environmental Quality Specialist
Dept. of Health and Welfare
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720

Clark, Daniel
Wastewater Treatment Analyst
Dept. of Utilities/Public Works
555 Liberty St. SE
Salem, OR 97301

Clark, Wesley
Public Works Director
Coos County
PO Box 66
Coquille, OR 97123

demons, Mark
Referral Coordinator
Depot for Reuseable Building Material
723 SE Grand Avenue
Portland, OR 97214

Coghill, Mel
Chmn. Planning & Zoning Comm.
Bristol Bay Borough
PO Box 189
Naknek, AK 99633

-------
Cohen, David
Special Consultant
State Water Resources  Board
PO Box loo
Sacramento, CA 95801

Cooley,  Frank A.
C.L.E.N.S.
9618 NE 86th St.
Vancouver, WA 98662

Colton,  C.E..
Vice Chairman
Clark County Solid Waste
Commission
5021) Murry Court
Vancouver, WA 98661

Culham,  W.B.
1929 NE 10th St.
Portland,  OR 97212

Curry, Nancy
C.L.E.N.S.
10311 NE 91th Avenue
Vancouver, WA 98662

Cvitanich, George
Executive  Secretary
Washington Waste Management
Association
13502 Pacific Avenue
Tacoma,  WA 981)1)4

Deming,  William A.
Solid Waste Planning
PO Box 10643
Portland,  OR 97210

Dietrich,  John
PO Box 650
Pasco, WA 99301

Donaca,  Thomas C.
General Counsel
Assoc. of Oregon Industries
1221 SW Main St.
Portland,  OR 97205

Early, S.H.
Mayor
City of Oakland
PO Box 788
Oakland, OR 97462
 Emmons,  Roger
 Executive  Director
 Oregon Sanitary Service Institute
 461)5  18th  Place S.
 Salem, OR  97302

 Ethen, Thomas  M.
 Asst.  Manager-Technical Programs
 Northwest  Pood Processors  Assn.
 2828  SW  Carbeth
 Portland,  OR  97201

 Everson, Brad
 Southwest  Regional  Office
 Department of  Ecology
 7272  Cleanwater Lane
 Olympia, WA 9850!)

Fatland, Sharon
Executive Secretary
League of Women Voters-Oregon
1)91) State St.   Suite 216
Salem, OR 97301

Feigner, Ken
Chief, Waste Management  Branch
U.S. EPA- Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle,  WA 98101

Feller, Lyle
Technical Assistant-Production
Hooker Chemical
PO Box 2157
Tacoma, WA 981)01

Gauditz,  Illo
Forest Scientist
Weyerhaeuser Company
505 N. Pearl St.
Centralia, WA  98531

Glanz, Manuel
Treasurer
M.D.C.
 8501 N. Borthwick
 Portland, OR 97217

 Glendening, Elaine
 Environmental  Specialist
 Dept.  of Environmental  Quality
 PO  Box 1760
 Portland,  OR  97207

-------
Gray, Charles A.
Assistant Regional Manager
Dept. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207

Gregory, Kaybin
Dir. Solid Waste Task Force
League of Women Voters-Oregon
494 State St.   Suite 216
Salem, OR 97301
Grimm, Bette
Route 3/ Box 271 H
MoMinnville, OR 971
"97128
Hamilton, J.A.R.
Environmental Coordinator
Pacific Power & Light Company
Public Service Building
Portland, OR 97204

Harris, Howard H.
Superintendent
Bureau of Waste Water Treatment
5001 N. Columbia Blvd.
Portland, OR  '

Hart, Herbert H.
Laboratory Manager
Snokist Growers, Inc.
PO Box 1587
Yakima, WA 98901

Harvey, Burduto
City of Oakland
PO Box 788
Oakland, OR 97462

Helm, J. Mark
Marketing Applications Manager
Envirotech Corporation
One Davis Drive
Belmont, CA 94002

Hermann, Gary
Agricultural Engineer
CH2M HILL, Inc.
200 SW Market St. 12th PI.
Portland, OR 97201

Hickman, Diane
Laboratory Analyst
Dept. of Public Works
902 Abernethy Road
Oregon City, OR 97045
Hickok, Linda W.
Public Affairs Representative
Portland General Electric
121 SW Salmon
Portland, OR 97204

Hufford, David
Assistant Supervisor
City of Tacoma
818 S. Yakima
Tacoma, WA 98405

Irvin, Jack
Assistant Superintendent
Bureau of Waste Water Treatment
5001 N. Columbia Blvd.
Portland, OR 97203

Johnson, Marian
Coalition for a Liveable
Environment
10400 NE 93rd St.
Vancouver, WA 98662

Johnson, Gerald R.
C.L.E.N.S.
10400 NE 93rd St.
Vancouver, WA 98662

Johnston, James P.
Environmental Management Forester
Crown Zellerbach Corp.
1500 1st Avenue SW
Portland, OR 97201

Jorgensen, Stan
U.S. EPA-
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101

Kaller, Timothy A.
2104 SE Morrison
Portland, OR 97214

Keech, Robert
Solid Waste Engineer
M.S.D.
1220 SW Morrison
Portland, OR 97205

Kennedy, Michael
CH2M HILL
200 SW Market St.  12th Fl
Portland, OR 97201

-------
Ketterling, Cordell F.
Engineering & Analysis Manager
Metropolitan Service District
1220 SW Morrison
Portland,  OR 97205

Klampe,  Lyle
Field Representative
Department of Utilities
555 Liberty St.  SE
Salem,  OR  97301

Klein,  Ronald J.
Terrestrial Ecologist
Portland General Electric
121 SW Salmon St.
Portland,  OR 97201

Koch, Ezra
Owner
City Sanitary Service
1850 Lafayette St.
McMinnville, OR 97128

Komper,  Charles
Director
Metropolitan Service District
1220 SW Morrison
Portland,  OR 97205

Landry,  Arlene
Research/Writer
Cloudburst Compost Project
2440 NE 10th
Portland,  OR 97212

Larkins, Douglas  A.
Environmental Committee Chmn.
Oregon Association of Realtors
379 Cobura Road
Eugene,  OR 97401

Lee, Valerie
Public Participation Officer
Dept. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland,  OR 97207

Leichnac^Jjorry
Owner
Vancouver  Sanitary Service
PO Box 1060
Vancouver, WA 98666
LeSieur,  Stanton
Manager  Plant  Operations
Unified  Sewerage Agency
3125  SE  River  Road
Hillsboro,  OR  97123

Lynd, Edgar R.
Engineer
Dept. of  Environmental Qualitv
PO Box 1760
Portland,-- OR 97207

Liebert,  Charles F.
Manager Engineering Division
Unified Sewerage Agency
150 N. First St.   #302
Hillsboro,  OR  97123'

MacPhee,  Angus  Qy
Solid Waste Consultant
104 S. River Road
Newberg,  OR 97132

Maguire,  Robert  B.
Technical. D£r sector
Agripac,  Inc.
PO Box 534&,
Salem, OR

Mallory,  Conies
Public Works Administrator
City of Portland
400 SW Sixth
Portland, OR 97204

Marcus, Michela
President
Cloudburst  Recycling
2440 NE 10th
Portland, OR 97212

McAuslan, Elizabeth J.
Manager
Pendleton Sanitary Service, Inc.
PO Box 1405
Pendleton,  OR  97801

McCormick,  Jeanne
Solid Waste Program Director
Bureau  of Refuse Disposal
400  SW  6th
Portland, OR 97204

-------
McCready, Connie
Commissioner of Public Works
City of Portland
City Hall
Portland, OR 97204

McGough, Paul S.
Vice President/General Manager
Resources Conservation Company
PO Box 936
Renton, WA 98.055

Meyer, Kent
Solid Waste Coordinator
Department of Public Works
PO Box 5000
Vancouver, WA 98663

Mick, Allan
Senior Environmental Engineer
Georgia Pacific Company
900 SW Fifth
Portland, OR 97204

Mulligan, Kevin
Resource Conservation Consultants
1615 NW 23rd
Portland, OR 97210

Nachbar, Richard
Director of Environmental Affairs
Boise Cascade Paper Group
PO Box 1414
Portland, OR 97207

Naef, Randy
Engineer
CH2M Hill
200 SW Market St.
Portland, OR 97201

Nichka, Alice
Produce Manager
Portland Community Warehouse
0216 SW Curry
Portland, OR 97201

Nunamaker, Dale
Civil Engineer
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
400 SW Sixth Avenue #333
Portland, OR 97204
O'Quinn, June
Public Participation Liaison
U.S. EPA- Region X
1200 Sixth Ave
Seattle, WA

Ostling, Elmer
Sludge Disposal Plant Operator
City of Yachats
9200 Highway 101
Waldport, OR 97394

Palmer, John
Asst. Manager-Solid Waste Utility
City of Seattle
600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

Parkhill, Robert
Solid Waste Coordinator
Department of Public Works
Justice Building J-103
Roseburg, OR 97470

Poole, Robert
Soil Scientist
Department of Public Works
Lincoln County Courthouse
Newport, OR 97365

Price, Michael P.
Chief, Sewar Utility Division
City of Tacoma
818 Yakima Avenue S.
Tacoma, WA 98405

Pulkka, Greer
Environmental/Energy Analyst
Simpson Timber Company
900 Fourth Ave
Seattle, WA 98164

Renfroe, William T.
Chemical Engineer
U.S. EPA- Oregon Operations Office
522 SW Fifth
Portland, OR 97204

Richards, Leslie C.
Consulting Mining Engineer
Cougar-Independence Mine
4203 NE 28th
Portland, OR 97211

-------
Rodocker, Ken
Superintendent of Utilities
Dept.  of Public Works
PO Box 711
Port Angeles, WA 98362

RoelfSj  Vernon
Sanitary Engineer
Whitely  Jaoobsen & Associates
8525 N.  Lombard
Portland, OR 97203

Roelfs,  Ingrid
Chemist
Stauffer Chemical Company
1)429 N.  Sutter Road
Portland, OR 97217

Sander,  Stephen
Environmental Specialist
Dept.  of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207

Sanders, Jan
Research Assistant
Lewis &  Clark College
PO Box 79
Portland, OR 97219

Sehell,  Steven
Lawyer
J3.H.B. & R.
707 SW Wadington
Portland, OR 97203

Schmidt, Ernest
Administrator-Solid Waste Division
Dept.  of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207

Schmidt, Owen
Environmental Specialist
Bonneville Power Administration
PO Box 3621
Portland, OR 97208

Schneider, Joseph
Owner
Newberg Garbage Service
1119 N.  Main St.
Newberg, OR  97132
Schultz,  Joseph  E.
Supervising  Sanitarian
Dept. of  Environmental  Quality
PO Box  1760
Portland,  OR 97207

Schwartz,  Suzanne
Research/Teaching Fellow
Natural Resources Law Institute
10015 SW  Terwilliger
Portland,  OR 97219

Scoltock,  John
President
Yamhill Valley Recyclers,  Inc.
127 Park  Drive
McMinnville,  OR  97128

Simon, Gerald
Operations Manager
Cowlitz County
Court House
Kelso, WA  98626

Sinclair,  Steven
Superintendent-Wastewater  Treatment
City of Hood River
PO Box 27
Hood River,  OR 97031

Squires, R.K.
Chief Operator
Oak Lodge  Sanitary District
13707 SE Fair Oaks Drive
Milwaukie, OR 97222

Squires, John E.
Operations Supervisor
Bureau of  Waste  Water Treatment
5001 N.Columbia  Blvd.
Portland,  OR

Suleiman,  Hanna
Municipal  Marketing  Systems  Manager
Envirotech Corporation
One Davis  Drive
Belmont,  CA  94002

Sweet,  H.  Randy
Geologist/Hydrogeologist
Environmental Geology
PO Box  328
Kelsa,  WA 98626

-------
Swayne, Michael D.
Redmond Office Director
S.C.S. Engineers, Inc.
2875 152nd Avenue
Redmond, WA 98052

Scoltock, Lorie
Yamhill Valley Recyclers
12? Park Drive
McMinnville, OR 97128

Tegart, Dave
Project Manager/Economist
Western Environmental Trade
Association
2400 SW 4th
Portlands OR 97201

Thomas, Jerry
Solid Waste Supervisor
Cowlitz County
305 Church St.
Kelso, WA 98626

von Gohren, Roger L.
Director, Member Programs
Association of Washington Business
PO Box 658
Olympla, WA 98507

Wallis, Robert C.
Parametrix, Inc.
PO Box 1488
Vancouver, WA 98663

Ward, George D.
Consulting Engineer
George D. Ward and Associates
821 NW Flanders
Portland, OR 97209

Washington, Howard
Environmental Control Engineer
Martin Marietta Aluminum
Star Route 677, Box 16
Goldendale, WA 98620

Webb, Jack
Supervisor, Air & Water
Texaco, Inc.
PO Box 622
Anacortes, WA 98221
Wells, Avery N.
Section Head-Solid Waste Grants
Department of Ecology
Olympla, WA 98504

Wheeler, B.E.
Process and Environmental SupV.
Crown Zellerbach
Wauna Mill
Clatskanie, OR 97'0l6

Williamson, Peter
Asst. Public Works Administrator
Watts House
206 SE First
Scappoose, OR 97056

Willoughby, Janice
Yamhill Valley Recyclers
127 Park Drive
McMinnville, OR 97128

Witsil, Ann
Director
Northwest Environmental Defense
Center
10015 SW Terwilliger
Portland, OR 97219


yo!671d
SW-40p
Order Ho.  700

-------
Region I
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-7210

Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-2515

Region III
6th & Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-9814

Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727

Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2000

Region VI
1201 Elm St., First International Bldg.
Dallas, TX 75270
(214) 749-1962

Region VII
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64108
(816) 374-5493

Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 837-3895

 Region IX
 215 Fremont St.
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 (415)556-2320
 Region X
 1200 6th Ave.
 Seattle, WA 98101
 (206) 442-5810
U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             Regional  Offices
                                                                          r\
                                                                            New Y ork
                                                                        Philadelphia

-------