v°xEPA  Controlling
       Wastes for
       Public Safety
       and Resource
       Conservation

-------
Second printing,  1979
:PA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air and water
systems. Under a mandate of national environmental laws focused on air
and water quality, solid waste management and the control of toxic
substances, pesticides, noise and radiation, the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions which lead to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support.and nurture life.

-------
1
Statement of
Thomas C. Jorling
Assistant Administrator for
Water and Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
before the
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
March 22, 1979
I  am pleased to be here today to discuss our progress
  in implementing the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), amending the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
  Events of the past  year have clearly demonstrated the
foresight of the Congress in enacting this critical en-
vironmental statute. The tragedy at Love Canal has
shown alt too clearly the unacceptable costs of improper
hazardous waste disposal, both the pain and suffering
experienced by more than 200  families evacuated from
the site  and the staggering financial cost of containing
and cleaning up  the wastes. Recent months have
brought to public attention a continuing succession of
incidents of poor and/or illicit management. The haz-
ardous  waste program mandated in Subtitle C of RCRA
is designed to prevent such mismanagement from oc-
curring  in the future.
  Less conspicuous but just as pressing are the prob-
lems faced  by thousands of communities seeking to
dispose  of their municipal and commercial refuse safely.
RCRA  requires an inventory of all other-than-
hazardous land disposal sites in the United States and
the closing or upgrading of all sites classified as open
dumps.  Many communities are moving to resource
recovery, creating energy, and  recovering materials as
the preferred approach to managing their  wastes.
  EPA  believes that  the mandates set forth in RCRA
provide a sound approach to our nation's solid waste
problems. We have developed a number of proposed
amendments which we believe will strengthen and im-
prove the Act. These amendments are presently being
reviewed within the Executive Branch.  We will transmit
them  to this Commitee as soon as  possible.
  I have prepared  and am submitting for the record a
longer statement describing EPA's activities to imple-
ment  RCRA. With your permission, I will summarize
only the major points in that statement and then re-
spond to your questions.

Schedule for Rulemaking
As  a preliminary matter, I would like to discuss our
current  schedule for promulgating  the major regulations
mandated by the Act.
  As you know, the Act contains statutory deadlines
for  certain rulemaking activities. Three environmental

-------
groups, the State of Illinois, and a solid waste manage-
ment trade association sued EPA in mid-September and
early October seeking a court order compelling EPA to
promulgate final regulations three to nine months
earlier  than proposed by EPA.
  On January 3, 1979, Judge Gesell found that the
EPA "is proceeding in complete good faith and con-
scientiously to promulgate the regulations in dispute,
and that a more expedited schedule does not appear at
this stage to  be in the public interest ..." He estab-
lished final promulgation dates for the regulations and
ordered EPA to file a quarterly  statement indicating
any departures from the detailed implementation
schedules.
  EPA regrets that the complexities of the regulatory
task  did not  permit us to  meet the statutory deadlines. I
can assure you that 1 share your deep concern about the
need to have a regulatory structure in place for manag-
ing the growing problem of h^ardous waste. After two
years of experience with the administration of the
statute, I am convinced that the Agency is moving  with
all dispatch that is prudently possible given the substan-
tive requirements of the Act and the  need for rigorous
compliance with administrative and legal procedures in
the rulemaking  process. Nonetheless, I  can also assure
you that Mr. Costle and I are commiited to promul-
gating final hazardous waste and solid waste regulations
within  the court ordered schedule.

Subtitle C — Hazardous Waste
Management
Subtitle C of RCRA provides for a program to manage
hazardous waste from its generation to its ultimate
disposal. Subtitle C contemplates the establishment of
national standards to assure consistency of hazardous
waste management practices across state lines, and  the
development of strong slate hazardous waste manage-
ment programs  compatible with  those national regula-
tions. RCRA also provides authority for the Federal
government to regulate the management of hazardous
waste in a state if that state chooses not to do so.
  There are seven specific hazardous waste regulations.
Six of these have been proposed. The regulations for
Section 3005—Permits for Treatment, Storage, or
Disposal of Hazardous Waste—and Section 3006—
Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs—are now
being integrated with similar provisions of the NPDES
system  under the Clean Water Act, and the Under-
ground Injection Control Program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. These integrated regulations are
scheduled to be proposed within a few weeks.
  Five  public hearings concerning the proposed section
3001-3004 regulations were conducted by EPA and the
Department of Transportation during February and
March  in five cities from coast-to-coast. Public response
to the proposed regulations was  quite extensive. About

-------
1,200 people attended the hearings, and about 250
people made oral presentations. In addition EPA has
received hundreds of written comments, many of which
are very extensive.

   Major issues raised during the public comment period
included the following:

1. Subdivision of hazardous wastes into two or more
classes based on degree of hazard of the waste, and
application of this concept to the conditional exemption
of small quantities of waste from the control system
and the facility design and  operating standards,

2. Availability of facility insurance from the private
insurance market,

3. Total exemption of certain waste categories from
hazardous waste regulation based on legislative intent,
and

4. Administrative and economic burden of the new-con-
trol program, especially on small businesses.

   In anticipation of these issues, EPA has already
begun new studies to provide additional information to
guide decisionmaking for the final regulations.
   In addition to EPA's efforts to develop the national
management system for hazardous wastes, the incidents
at Love Canal and elsewhere have illuminated a related
but distinct problem of hazardous waste management,
that periain to past or present incidents of improper
disposal. Unfortunately, the  magnitude of this problem
was not understood  by  EPA or the Congress at the time
that RCRA was enacted, with the result that RCRA is
not well suited to remedying the effects of past disposal
practices which  are unsound.
   The one tool  which RCRA does provide is the immi-
nent hazard authority under  Section  7003. We believe
that Section 7003 authorizes  us to take enforcement
action against the owner of an active or inactive site if
the site is presenting an imminent and substantial
danger to  human health or the environment. We can
effectively exercise this  authority where any person con-
tributing to the  imminent hazard is financially and
otherwise able to remedy it. However,  where this cir-
cumstance is not present, Section 7003 is not an
effective tool.
   Nevertheless,  we have increased our efforts to use
Section 7003 authorities and  authorities under other
statutes to control past  and current problems. The
Agency last November launched a campaign to evaluate
the status of particular disposal sites which may pose an
imminent hazard. These efforts have resulted in a series
of actions  noted in my written statement.  Other Section
7003 cases are in preparation and will be filed as soon
as they are completed.

-------
   The problem of improper past disposal is made more
 difficult by the fact that many former waste disposal
 sites have now been abandoned. In many cases the
 property used for waste disposal has changed hands; in
 other cases the companies responsible for the problems
 are either no longer in business or do not have the
 resources to pay for cleanup of the sites. As I men-
 tioned earlier, Section 7003 is often not effective in
 these situations.  Further, certain of the sites operating
 today may very well be abandoned in the future.
  At the present time there are no resources at any level
of government—Federal, state, or local—to cover the
costs of containing or cleaning up some of the most
damaging sites. And the potential costs are very large.
Based on very limited data, a recent EPA contractor
study sought  to develop an "order of magnitude"
estimate  of the number of problem sites nationwide and
the costs for cleanup. The contractor  concluded that the
number of significant problem sites may range between
1,204 and 2,027;  that the non-recoverable costs for
emergency treatment  at these sites may range between
$2.9 and $4.9 billion; and  that the non-recoverable costs
for ultimate remedy may range between $21.1  and  $35.5
billion. While these are the best estimates available at
this time, they are very rough estimates and as a result
a great many  uncertainties remain as to the number of
sites requiring cleanup and the associated costs.
  EPA is presently working with other Federal agencies
on an approach to solving the abandoned site problem.
Our current thinking is that a fund should be estab-
lished for responding to problems caused by abandoned
sites as well as spills of oil and hazardous materials.
The fund would be used for immediate cleanup and
mitigation; permanent remedy; restoration of material
resources; and to a limited extent third party damages
related to property and some forms of economic
livelihood.
  With regard to financing the fund,  we feel that the
burden of responding should be shifted from the
general taxpayer to those most closely connected to
commercial practices involving the substances in ques-
tion. Difficult issues involving equitability among
parties contributing to the  fund and collection and
administration of such a fund must be resolved. We
expect to develop recommendations on how to establish
and administer the fund and to forward a legislative
proposal to Congress in May of this year.

Subtitle D — State or Regional Solid
Waste  Plans
For other-than-hazardous wastes, RCRA very properly
recognizes that prime responsibility for environmentally
sound disposal and for resource recovery must rest with
state and local government. However,  RCRA prescribes
a limited but  important Federal role in moving towards
elimination of environmentally unacceptable disposal of
solid waste on land.

-------
Criteria for Land Disposal
Under Section 4004, EPA is directed to issue Criteria
for classification of all land disposal facilities as either
environmentally acceptable or unacceptable. The
Criteria were proposed on February 6, 1978. Final pro-
mulgation is scheduled for July 1979.
  Within one year after promulgation of the Criteria,
EPA is to publish an inventory of all unacceptable sites
("open dumps") identified according to the Criteria.
We now  estimate that several hundred thousand land
disposal  facilities will have to be evaluated. The one-
year period  allowed in the law for this undertaking is
generally recognized to be insufficient because of the
number of facilities and the need to make definitive
technical determinations regarding each  of them.
  The states will evaluate the individual disposal sites
with EPA financial and technical assistance. Each state
will phase its evaluations according to priorities based
on the potential impacts of facilities on  health and the
environment, the availability of state regulatory powers,
and availability of Federal and state resources.
  EPA intends to utilize both the authority of  RCRA
and of Section 405 of the Clean Water Act for the
development of an overall regulation on the manage-
ment of  municipal sludge.

State Solid Waste Management Plans
Subtitle D of RCRA includes provisions for the devel-
opment and implementation of state solid waste man-
agement  plans.
  States  are eligible to receive financial assistance under
Subtitle D if the state plan has been approved by EPA.
The state plan must provide for identification of state,
local, and regional responsibilities for solid waste
management, the application and enforcement of envi-
ronmentally sound disposal practices, and the encour-
agement  of  resource recovery and conservation.
  The guidelines for identification of regions 'and agen-
cies for solid waste management required by Section
4002(a) were published on May 16, 1977. These guide-
lines suggest criteria and procedures for the formal
identification of regions by Governors and the joint
identification by state and local officials of the agencies
that will  develop and  implement the state solid  waste
management plan.
  All states selected state agencies to develop the state
plan. In  many states,  responsibilities in planning were
also assigned to county and regional governments. Most
states identified counties, cities, and towns as respon-
sible for  the implementation of solid waste management
plans.
  The guidelines for development and implementation
of state solid waste plans required in Section 4002(b)
were proposed on August 28, 1978. The guidelines are
being revised based upon public comment and are
scheduled for promulgation in June 1979.

-------
 6
   For FY 1978, Federal financial assistance to the states
 for Subtitle D programs totalled $10.8 million com-
 pared with $3 million in 1977. For FY 1979, appropria-
 tions to the states for Subtitle D activities totalled $15.2
 million. The President's FY 1980 budget requests $10
 million for financial assistance to states under Subtitle
 D. The budget also indicates that funding of Subtitle D
 will be phased out over a  five year period. This five
 year program will give the states time to develop alter-
 native funding sources. Some state solid waste programs
 already support themselves by various user charges; we
 believe this offers a sound long-term approach. As
 reported in the latest annual report of the Council on
 Environmental Quality, our nation presently spends over
 $8 billion annually on the  management  of other-than-
 hazardous wastes. We believe that it  is most appropriate
 that state user charge systems secure  a small proportion
 of this expenditure and  devote the funds to providing a
 firm and predictable financial foundation for essential
 regulatory and planning activities at the state, regional,
 and local level.

 Resource Conservation and  Recovery
 Conservation and recovery of energy and materials
 from  solid waste is one of the major  objectives of
 RCRA. I would like to describe our programs to assist
 communities in planning and procuring resource
 recovery systems.
  Progress in implementing resource  recovery across the
 nation is being made, but  at a pace so slow that it does
 not match the growth in waste generation. A major bar-
 rier to more rapid implementation is  the fact that the
 procedures involved in  implementing resource recovery
 are unique and complex. These procedures involve a
 series of technical, marketing, financial, legal, and
 organizational factors which must be brought together
 in a comprehensive, well-structured project planning
 and development process.  Problems in many of these
 areas  are often referred to as "institutional" con-
 straints. Thus, despite the  pressures of the solid waste
problem, cities often fail to accomplish the preparatory
 steps  for the implementation of resource recovery.
  To  help communities resolve these  institutional prob-
 lems,  EPA has developed and is implementing a five-
part program:

Resource Recovery Seminars—For the past two years
EPA  has conducted resource recovery seminars in all
parts  of the nation. These two-day programs are
designed for city managers, county commissioners,
 other  state and local officials, and interested citizens.
The seminars provide an overview of resource recovery
technology and an explanation of the complexities of
 the resource recovery planning and procurement process
and thereby assist local governments  in assessing the
 feasibility of resource recovery approaches in their com-

-------
munity. The seminar program has been extremely well
received.

Development of State Resource Recovery
Capability—Under the planning guidelines mandated by
Section 4002, EPA is encouraging the development at
the state level of a capability to assist communities  in
the implementation of resource recovery systems.
Several states and territories, including Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Puerto Rico, have an
authority or other governmental unit which can assist
local communities in the planning and development of
resource recovery systems. We believe that this capa-
bility should be developed in every state and are helping
to support it through the Subtitle D state grants.
                  "   I
Planning and Procurement Grants  to Local Govern-
ment—As part of his Urban PolicyT President Carter in
March 1978 proposed a new program of grants to com-
munities to assist them in the implementation of
resource recovery systems. The program is designed to
help cities move effectively through the difficult and
complex planning and procurement process by pro-
viding  financial assistance to hire capable in-house  pro-
gram managers and secure necessary consultative ser-
vices.
  The  Urban Policy financial assistance program is
based on the premise that effective project planning and
development will result in timely^and successful imple-
mentation of facilities and/or source separation ap-
proaches without  Federal funding of design, land,
equipment, or construction. Though the capital costs of
larger resource recovery  plants are  substantial, expe-
rience  has shown that debt financing is available
through normal channels for well conceived projects.
  Congress appropriated $15 million for this assistance
program for FY 1979. Over 200 communities applied.
Sixty-eight communities  have been  selected. EPA i> now
working with each community to develop a specific
work plan and budget. The President's FY  1980 budget
requests $14.0 million for the second year of this
program.

Technical Assistance Panels—Under Section 2003 of
RCRA, the Congress mandated the creation of a
technical assistance panels program designed to provide
state and local governments upon  request with technical
assistance on solid waste  management, resource
recovery, and resource conservation problems. A variety
of types of assistance  are available under this program.
Each EPA Regional Office has a prime contractor  and
subcontractors capable of providing assistance on any
solid waste management problem. In addition, EPA has
developed peer-matching relationships with seven public
interest groups. Under the peer-matching program, an
official with experience on a particular  problem can

-------
8
travel to assist another community or state which is
facing a similar problem. Assistance by EPA personnel
is also available under the technical assistance panels
program.
  We will allocate expert assistance from the technical
assistance panels program to each of the sixty-eight
communities selected under the Urban Policy grants
program.

pvaluations-r-Jo assure that the latest information on
resource recovery technology is available, EPA has an
active evaluation program which seeks to develop infor-
mation on the technology, technical reliability,
economics, and environmental performance of operat-
ing resource recovery \systems.  That information is then
disseminated to the public through the resource
recovery seminars and the technical assistance panels
program and through EPA publications.
  EPA is aware of the critical  importance of coor-
dinating and integrating its resource recovery program
with the  programs of the  Department of Commerce and
the Department of Energy. In  May 1978, we concluded
an Interagency Agreement with the Department of
Commerce defining respective  roles and establishing a
basis for close cooperation. Similarly, we are in the
final stages of concluding a Memorandum of Under-
standing with the  Department of Energy. The latter
agreement defines distinct but  complementary roles for
the Department of Energy and EPA which will assist us
in moving cooperatively towards the joint goal of rapid
implementation of resource recovery in the United
States.

Siting of  Waste  Management Facilities
In order  to achieve RCRA's objectives, solid waste
management facilities must be  provided for  recovery,
storage, treatment, and disposal of wastes. Yet across
the nation it is becoming more and more difficult to
secure sites for these facilities.  Although the problem is
most acute when siting facilities to dispose of hazardous
wastes, significant difficulties are encountered when
siting any solid waste facility, including those designed
for resource recovery. The major stumbling block is
public opposition. EPA is engaged in a number of
activities designed to better understand and  help to
alleviate public opposition to siting, which are set forth
in our written statement.

Research

The research and  development program was, for several
years, focused toward the problems of municipal solid
waste management. As the Agency's  concern for haz-
ardous waste control has  increased since 1973, the
research  »nd development activities have been realigned
toward hazardous waste problems. Fiscal Year 1979

-------
marked the initiation of a program specifically con-
cerned with industrial hazardous wastes. We estimate,
at the present time, that approximately 80 percent of
the program is directed toward the technologies re-
quired for managing and controlling hazardous waste.
Our written statement describes specific efforts of our
research program which have supported the develop-
ment of regulations.

-------