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
------- |