Regional Public Meetings
on the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
February 28 and March 1, 1977
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
EPA Region III

-------
                        TRANSCRIPT


                  REGIONAL  PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE

          RESOURCE CONSERVATION  AND  RECOVERY ACT of  1976

          February 28 and March  1, 1977,'Pittsburgh, Pa.
         These meetings were sponsored  by EPA Region  III,
and the proceedings  (SW-13p) are reproduced  entirely  as  transcribed
      by the official  reporter,  with  handwritten  corrections
                  by  the Office of Solid Waste
               U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                               1977

-------
An environmental protection publication (SH-13p) 1n the solid waste management series.

-------
7

8

9

10

11
                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  In the Matter Of:

  Public Participation Meeting,
  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
        Transcript of Proceedings in the above-entitled
natter, held on Monday, February 28, 1977, commencing
at 7:00 o'clock p.m. in the Monongahela Room, William
Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh, Pensylvania.
:>  BEFORE:

          Gordon  Rapier, Director, Air  and Hazardous
                         Materials Division, EPA,  Region  III
'"                        Moderator

17  SPEAKERS:
   !J
18  |       Thomas  Williams, Chief, Technical  Information and
                         Communications Branch, Office of
19  II                      Solid Waste Management, EPA
          Truett  DeGeare, Chief, Land Protection Branch,
                          Systems Management Division, Office
   i                       of Solid Waste Management,  EPA
21         Alfred  Lindsey, Chief, Implementation Branch,
   i                       Hazardous Waste Management  Divisior
22  !                       Office of Solid Waste Management,  IJPA
   !       Robert  Lowe, Chief, Technical Assistance Branch,
23  i                       Resource Recovery  Division, Office
                          of Solid Waste Management,  EPA
          William Bucciarelli, Director, Pennsylvania State
                          Solid Waste Program

-------
           MR, RAPIER:             Ladies and gentlemen,




good evening.  I hope that everybody here has registered.



The young ladies out there have three by five cards for




any people who would like to make statements at the end



of our presentation.




           What we propose to do tonight is to have a



number of prepared presentations for you, each followed



by a question and answer period.  At the end of our




presentations and the Q and A period, we will have a



general discussion and for any people that would like to



make statements, prepared or extemporaneous, you may do




so.



           We would ask you, however, to limit the




statements to about five minutes.



           My name is Gordon Stapler, I am the Director




of the Air and Hazardous Materials Division of the




Environmental Protection Agency, Region  III in



Philadelphia.  With me are members of our regional staff,




whom I will  introduce shortly, and also  representatives



of the Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C.  These




members from the Office of Solid Waste will be making



individual presentations, so that I will introduce them



as they make their presentations.




           I also have with me tonight

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8





 9





10





11





12





13




14





35




16





17




18




19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                3



Mr. William Bucciarelli, the Director of the Pennsylvania




Solid Haste Program.  He will give a few prepared and



unprepared remarks in a few moments also.



           The purpose of the meeting is to explain the




provisions of the new Resource Conservation and Recovery




Act, which was signed into law October,  1976.  There are



copies available and if you ask for one, you should have




a copy of that Act and other hand-out materials.



           The new law might more appropriately be called




the Solid Waste Disposal Act since it deals with all



aspects of solid waste management, including land disposal




of solid and liquid wastes and the management of




hazardous or chemical wastes.



           The Act  includes provision for maximum public




participation in writing  the guidelines, regulations



and standards, so we  are  here  to  receive your comments



and answer questions  about the various  aspects  of the Act,



           In passing this new Act,  Congress  intended thai



the full range of disposal methods  for  unwanted  materials



be regulated.  In prior years, we have  had  laws



regulating disposal into  air,  water  and the oceans,  and



now this bill will  regulate  land  disposal  for the first




time  at the federal level.   The law  encourages  states to



take  over the administration of the  program.  Your  views



on this should be conveyed to  your  state officials.



           Following  are  a few of the crucial areas  of

-------
                                                4

implementation where we feel that your views and

guidance are most critical:

           Number 1 precisely how should "hazardous

wastes" be defined?  Since much of the damage from

hazardous wastes occurs before they reach treatment,

storage and land fill disposal facilities, and since the

Act focuses only on upgrading land disposal facilities

to take care of those wastes which fall outside the

"hazardous waste* definition, it is clear that how

hazardous wastes are defined is a critical element in

implementing the Act.

           Number 2 in which ways, if any, would the

definition of hazardous waste have a bearing on the

states' willingness to take over responsibility for the
^
program, which under the Act, is not mandatory but of

course highly desirable?

           Number 3 what would be the best ways to

ensure that hazardous wastes are defined to the fullest

extent possible on standardized objective criteria and

associated tests, and at the same time not put too great

a burden on many potential hazardous waste generators

who are  small businesses?

           Number 4 wastes are mixtures of many different

materials.  To what extent can criteria and tests be

applied to wastes and to what extent to suspected

-------
1
2
3
 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



 24



 25
                                                   5
   hazardous components?
           Number 5 the RCRA requires a definition of a


sanitary land fill and of the obverse, an open dump, to


apply, we feel, to both municipal and industrial wastes


and possibly others from agriculture or mining.  Should


pits, ponds and lagoons used for disposal of industrial


wastes be defined as open dumps?


           Number 6 what kind of process should EPA


establish to determine which guidelines should be written


or updated?


           Number 7 with regard to ^tate and local
                                   •&•

planning, what process should be employed to enable


governors and local government heads to decide who does


the planning and  implementation for which aspects of


solid waste management, and which percentage of planning


funds each should receive?


           Number 8 how should  the waste disposal


inventory be carried  out?  Who  should  do it?  How


decentralized should  it be?  How can we survey  facilities


on industrial property?


           Number 9 what is the degree of need  for


full-scale demonstration projects for  resource  recovery?


           Number 10  the Resource Conservation Panels or


technical assistance  panels are important to the success


of the Act.  How  comprehensive  should  they  be?  How much

-------
should they focus on research conservation and recovery


in relation to a focus on hazardous wastes and land


disposal of all wastes?  What should be the proper


composition of such panels to ensure appropriate


representation from state, regional and local levels of
                    •

government?


           Number 11 the Act mandates several special


studies and directs that a broad range of supportive


research and development activities be carried out.


Can new research and development be performed in time to


influence the formulation of mandated guidelines and


regulations?  Which activities should be considered


essential in the development of solid waste management


alternatives^and,therefore^considered high priority for


research?


           Number 12 unlike the Federal Water Pollution


Quality Act and the Clean Air Act, this Act does not


mandate quantifiable objectives, but rather gives broad


guidance as to the law's intent.  Open dumps are to be


closed, and hazardous wastes are to be regulated within


certain time frames, but no measures of environmental


or public health improvements are suggested.  Should we,


however, try to assign meaningful, quantifiable objectives


to the solid waste management area?  If so, what kind


of monitoring and feedback system should be provided to

-------
 1  evaluate results?
 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                   7
           Number 13 the Act mandates a high degree of

public participation in development and implementation of

the regulations, guidelines, permits and information

required by the law.  How can we best obtain public

participation in a timely and meaningful way?  What

avenues should EPA explore to ensure really widespread

and effective public participation?

           Now we have with us a court reporter tonight,

who is here to prepare a transcript of the meeting.  So

for all of your questions and any statements that you

might make, we would like for you to identify yourself

and if you are representing an organization, please also

mention that organization.

           If you have a written statement, you may

submit it to the record or, as I said before, you may

present a brief oral summary.

           Before I get to  the first speaker of the night

let me introduce to you our regional staff,  we have

with us Miss Xlene Glen, who is the Assistant to the
Regional Administrator, and she was very instrumental in
                                 £
helping us set up this program,  ^^lene, raise your hand,

would you?

           Mrs. Alma Mullane and Mrs. Jean Jonas in

the back of the room, who are working on our desk tonight

-------
   Bill  Schremp,  from our  solid waste staff.   Bob Allen,
2

3
   And Mr. Thomas Fielding, who should be out there somewhere
4
   is in our enforcement division.
5            *
              Let me now introduce to you
6
   Mr. William Bucciarelli for a  few words.
7
              MR. BDCCIARELLI:        Thanks, Gordon.
8
              A lot of you have heard this story before.
 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
   Chairmaa of the Air and Hazardous Materials Branch.
   but I am going to give it again,  so bear with me.   I have
   a very short period of time in order to give you what
   has taken over ten years to develop.  I don't know
   whether I can cover everything that is done, or even
   fairly represent the tremendous amount of activity and
   interest that has been generated in the State of
   Pennsylvania over the past 10 or 11 years.
              But we did have our inception as far as an
   expanded waste program is concerned, when we passed, or
   when the legislature passed the Act 241, Pennsylvania
   Solid Haste Management Act.  This essentially gave us
   planning and regulatory responsibilities, both at the

   state and local level.
   *,
              Over S3 million was spent in the development —
   this is on a 50-50 matching basis, now — in other words
   we put out better than a million and a half, and this is
   matched by local communities.  So over S3 million  was

-------
 1  spent to develop the 67 county plan, and there are also



   three regional  plans in the process of being developed.


 o

              There have been great improvements, technically



  'and from a management point of view, especially when you



 5  are talking in  terms of institutionalizing, of creating
 6
 7
 8
14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
agencies that will take control or command, or at least



be interested in planning solid waste management
              Back in 1966 when we started we only had one



   county that had a management agency at the county level.



   We now have almost 30 management agencies thoughout the



   Commonwealth.



              We have, as far as the s_tate is concerned.
since we passed Act 241, we have issued over 550 permits.



We have closed over 400 open dumps, and this is



community dumps, not the indiscriminate roadside dumps



that you are well aware of, and we have processed over



1700 applications and reviews, and some of them are



reapplications and so on.



           That sounds very easy, just rolling it off the



tip of my tongue.  But this represents a tremendous



amount of time and effort on the part of many different



types of personnel and people at the state and local
                                     ^_


level.



           The Department also was slightly interested in

-------
                                                10




resource recovery.  Back in 1964 the legislature passed




Act 198, the Resource Recovery Act, Pennsylvania Resource




Recovery Act, which in effect was a $20 million revolving



low interest loan program.  The unfortunate thing about




that is the $20 million portion was never funded.  So we



still are hoping that some time that does get funded.



           But in addition to that, still trying to




promote ,resource recovery, there is at least $260,000




that was spent, this is on a matching basis again, to



develop 13 market studies across the Commonwealth.  These




are not in-depth studies that you night want to think of




in terns of when you are thinking of terms of specific



facilities, but they do give some indication as to the




general market areas that could be further explored.



           In addition to that, an amendment to Act 198




gave us $4 million in demonstration grants, $2.5 million




was awarded here some time ago the first go-around,




about a year ago to four projects.  And we got an



additional $1.5 million, and currently we are evaluating




applicants for distribution of those funds.



           How this represents, again, and I reiterate




this, this represents a tremendous effort on a jtate,



local and private enterprise and citizens, and everybody



in the Commonwealth,  And this is not the only interest,




after all, the reason you are here tonight is because of

-------
                                                   11

1
   the  federal interest.  And  the  -federal  interest is

2
   because of many other  interests that  come from all

3
   corners of the nation, and  even within  Pennsylvania  itself

4
   when you look at the state  level,  we  have the Governor's

5
   Solid Haste Advisory Committee; we have the Citizen's

6
   Advisory Council.

7
             Now the Governor's Solid Haste Advisory

8
   Committee has worked with this  program  since 1968, when

9
   it was  first  formed.   The Citizen's Advisory Council
10


ll


12


13


14


15


16


17


IS


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
has been in and out of the solid waste program, and has


made certain recommendations to the solid waste agencies.


           The Governor's Energy Council, although it's


involved in energy in general, and conservation, is also


getting involved in certain matters in solid waste.


           We have the Governor's Science Advisory


Council, who has just completed, through its waste


utilization panel, a study and is making certain


recommendations to the solid waste program.


           The joint legislative and Air, Water and


Pollution Control and Conservation Committee has been


interested, and we have developed liaison with those


people.  And they are wanting certain things done, or


at least the way they see it in the solid waste picture.


           The House Conservation Committee held a


meeting with DER, this is kind of a public meeting, wantinb

-------
                                                12


to know how DER is carrying out the solid waste



program, especially in the enforcement area.  But they



are also quite interested in the Resource Recovery



Development Act.



           The Senate Committee that was set up to



investigate the solid waste industry, they were not only



interested in how the program is being carried oat, but



is Pennsylvania getting its fair share of whatever it



is entitled to from state and federal sources?
                    •^         •Z'


           And we have 94-580, as Gordon pointed out,



this is the federal act.  And he has also rightly
            ^,


pointed out that there is a tremendous amount of



developmental work that needs to be done before this



Act can be properly implemented.



           They are seeking a lot of input, this is one



of a series of meetings in which they are trying to seek



that input.  I imagine they will have hearings later on,



but also other agencies at the national level of which



we are a member, such as the National Governors'

                /?-5iOCiAT)«»/
Conference, the AdminJLuLuLiim of State and Territorial



Solid Waste Management Officials, and the National Solid



Wastes Management Association are all interested.



           As a matter of fact, the National Governors'



Conference and the Association I just mentioned, are



cooperating in a series of meetings that we have set up

-------
2




3




4





5





6




7





8





9





10





11





12





13





14




15





16




17





18





19




20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                13




with their task force.  They have five task forces that




they set up; one is a solid waste management planning




area, planning task force.  Another is a land fill




technology task force, there is another on resource




recovery, one on hazardous wastes, and one on funding.




           There are lead states in each one of these




task forces.  Pennsylvania happens to be the one in the



land fill technology development.  And we have one of




the members of our staff, in fact our director,




Donald Lazarchik, is involved in the hazardous waste




committee.  Wesley Gilbertson is the -- represents




Pennsylvania as the lead .state in the land fill technology




committee.  And I am a member of the solid waste




management  planning task  force.




            The whole  idea here is obviously to provide




assistance  and input  to  the EPA in order to assist them




in coming up with the guidelines and all the other things




that they need to do  in  order to implement the act.  And




this total  effort, it seems to me, represents a mandate




on the part of the people, because when you look at all




these agencies and look  at what they represent, in effect




the people  and the interest groups and the local




government  and s_tate government are all represented, and




they are all saying, "He  need to do something in solid




waste.  We  need to do more in solid waste."  And this

-------
25
           MR. RAPIER:             Thank you. Bill.




           The next presentation will be by



Mr. Tom Williams, who is the Chief of the Technical




Information and Communications Branch, Office of Solid




Waste Management in Washington.  And Tom is going to talk



about public participation, public information and



training.




           MR. WILLIAMS:           These slides were




made while I was off work, so if there is any conflict




between what I say and what the slides say, I win.



           I am a believer in the obverse of the Chinese



proverb, one word is worth a thousand pictures.




           The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of




1976 contains an unusually complete array of provisions



which could bring about a high degree of public




understanding and participation.  I say, "could bring




about* because while this provision has appeared in many



other pieces of legislation during the past several years,




it has not, very often, brought about very much real



public participation.  There are all kinds of ways of



aborting that, and the government knows all of the ways.




           But these provisions, taken together, make it



clear that the Congress understood it is impossible for




the public to participate meaningfully unless the

-------
 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                   15


  government first produces valid scientific  and  technical


  data, and then processes and publishes the  information


  in such a way that everyone can have real access  to  it.


             And it's not entirely ray fault,  but  in part


  I will take credit for some of the fault, that  the solid


  waste management of the Environmental Protection  Agency

7
  has traditionally done a much better job of that  than

Q
  many other federal components have, that is of  letting th


  public and everyone know what they have done, what they


  think, what they have researched and what they  have


  deduced.


             Only in this way can the public  have a


  reasonable chance of  influencing the social,  economic


  and political changes which this law is intended  to


  bring  out.


             In section 8003, the Administrator of EPA


  is required  to  develop,  collect and coordinate  informatio


  on nine  key  elements  which  are crucial  to  the act's


  purposes.  He is not  only to  implement  a program for


  the rapid dissemination  of  this information,  but  he  is


  also to  develop and implement educational programs to


  promote  citizen understanding.


             This makes it quite clear that someone in


  the Congress understood that information is not to be
   developed  for the exclusive  use of  those  who,  for  one

-------
                                                    16


 1 reason or another,  may be  considered experts  in the


 2 field.


 3             In Earth Day, 1970,  I  think the American


   public indicated  that  it had had  quite enough of experts


   telling  them how  the world ought  to be running and what
 7
 Q
   cooperate  to  the maximum extent possible with ^tate and


 9  local  authorities,  particularly with state authorities
10


11


12


13


11


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
we ought to do about the environment.  Moreover,  the


Administrator is asked to coordinate his  actions  and  to
and to establish and maintain a central reference library


for virtually all the kinds of information involved in


solid waste management, for the use of s_tate and local
                                       «^-

governments, industry and the public.


           To ensure that the public participation


process does not become lopsided we felt it would be


necessary to identify major categories of interest


groups who represent the public at large.  Under the


act we regard these to include consumer, environmental
^

and neighborhood groups, trade manufacturing and labor


representatives, public health, scientific and


professional societies, and governmental and university


associations.  This spectrum of categories of


representative groups will be altered and supplemented


as necessary, if in the course of implementing the_act


it appears necessary to do so.

-------
                                                17


           It is our intention to ensure that no matter


which component of the federal solid waste program is


carrying out what activity,  that to the fullest extent


possible, representatives of all of the types of interest


groups mentioned there will  have an opportunity to


participate and to let their views be known before a


regulation is published, before a guideline is published,


or before any serious effort is made to implement any


mandatory provisions of the  act.


           Section 7004 (a) of the 5,01 states that any


person may petition the Administrator for the promulgatioi


amendment or repeal of any regulations under this act.


           And section  7004(b) has to do with public


participation.  The act says that public participation


in the development, revision and enforcement of any


regulation, guideline,  information or program shall be


provided for, encouraged  and assisted by the Administrator


and the states.
        2-
           And further, that the Administrator, in


cooperation with the states, shall develop and publish
                     ^

minimum guidelines for public participation in such


processes.


           Section 7002 (a) states that any person may


commence a civil action on his own behalf against any


other person, including the  United States, who is alleged

-------
                                                    18


   to be in violation of this  act, or  against  the

 2
   Administrator if there  is alleged a failure by  hint  to

 3
   perform any act or duty under  the act.


              The techniques which can be  used to  involve

 5
   the public in governmental  actions  fall into  three  ma3or


   categories.  The firat  is to ensure that appropriate

 7
   public meetings, hearings,  conferences, workshops and

 Q
   so forth are held throughout the country, and more

 9
10


11



12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20



21


22


23



24


25
importantly that they are planned and conducted in


accordance with the unfolding of the Act's key provisions.


           The second technique is the use of advisory


committees and review groups which may meet periodically,


but which may also be called upon to review and comment


upon major programs, regulations and plans, no matter


when these occur, and no matter whether a specific


meeting is convened or not.


           And the third is the development of


educational programs so that the public has an opportunity


to become aware of the significance of the technical


data base and the issues which emerge from it.  Effective


public education programs depend on the use of all


appropriate communications tools, techniques and media.


           These include publications, slides, films,


exhibits and other graphics, media programs, including


public service television and radio announcements, and

-------
                                                   19



   releases,  of course,  to the daily and professional press.




 2 'And public education  projects carried out by civic and




 3  service organizations with EPA technical and financial



  [assistance.




 5 I            Without those three things, advisory groups



 6 'and committees,  public education programs and meetings
 7




 8




 9





10





11





12





13





14





15




16




17




18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
of all varieties, you don't really have effective public



participation.  All you need do is do only two of them



or one of them, and you have aborted the process.



           Section 7007(a) and (b) authorize the



Administrator of EPA to make grants and offer contracts



with any eligible organization for training persons for



occupations involving the management, supervision, design,




operation or maintenance of solid waste disposal and




resource recovery equipment and facilities, or to train



instructors.   "Eligible organizations11 means a state or




any state agency, a municipality or educational



institution capable of effectively carrying out a training




program.



           Section 7007 (c) says that the Administrator




shall make a complete investigation and study to



determine the need for additional trained state and local




personnel to carry out plans assisted under this act and



to determine means of using existing training programs



to train such personnel and to determine the extent and

-------
                                                   20
1
   nature of obstacles to employment and occupational
2
   advancement in the solid waste disposal  and resource
3
   recovery field.
4
              The Administrator is required to report the
5
   results of such investigation and study,  including his
6
   recommendations to the President and the Congress.  No
7
   particular  time is indicated.
8
              That, in a nutshell, is what  the Act says
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
about public education, participation and training.

           We will be happy to accept questions or

suggestions.  We would prefer the latter.

           Thank you.

           MR. STRONG:             Jim Strong, Butler

County Community College.

           Has any thought been given to how member

personnel for the advisory committees and the review

groups will be handled?

           MR. WILLIAMS:           How they will be

selected?

           MR. STRONG:             Right.

           MR. WILLIAMS:           Well, to have an

official advisory committee for the headquarters office

can consist of no more than 15 people, and it has to be

approved by the Office of Management and Budget, and takes

quite a bit of time to get through.

-------
 2




 3




 4





 5




 6





 7





 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15




16




17





18




19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                21



           Undoubtedly what we will have to do, or try




to do, is try to find 15 people who, in the opinions of



others, represent the whole spectrum of interest groups —



and we are going to miss some -- but 15 people who would,




if you will excuse the expression, will go from the left




of the environmentalists and consumers, to the far right



where you have trade associations and all those in




between.



           In the meantime, we are planning to have a



large ad hoc committee meeting or two, and that might go




as far as 30 people.



           We will probably select them on the basis of



which we have three major  divisions carrying out the



provisions of the ^ct.  Probably mainly on what the




divisions are,  the major interest groups  that are




affected by what they have to do.



           That is ensuring all the while that we don't




end up with a lopsided  group that does not represent



the full public, so to  speak.



           MR.  MEHRr                Harold Mehr, Mehr



Research and Development Corporation, Greenville,




Pennsylvania.



           Is there actual funds ready to be disseminated



for grants, training grants in the graduate areas at




universities today?

-------
                                                    22


 1             MR, WILLIAMS:           Nor sir, I am sorry

 2
   to say at this moment there are no funds whatsoever  for

 o
   training.  What our budget for fiscal year  '78  is going

 4
   to be, is not actually known,


              We now have the Ford budget and we have the

 £•
   Carter budget, and we are waiting for the Congress budget,


 7  which we think will be the best of the three.


 8             In the meantime, we barely have enough budget


 9  to carry out, or to attempt to implement those  provisions
10


11


12


13


u


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
of the Act which are mandatory.  Unfortunately for those


of us who care a good deal about training, no time limit


was placed on it.  So as of now, we simply don't have


budget or manpower to do much about training.


           I hope in fiscal '78, the situation will be


different.

           To make another comment on training, if you


have any ideas on training or anything that you think we


ought to be thinking about, please don't hesitate to let


us know.  We just brought a specialist in from one of


EPA's regions to stay with us for a couple of months,


to try to develop some preliminary thinking on how we


ought to implement these training provisions under the


Act, because we have had no training capability for


several years now in the program, until this Act was


passed.

-------
                                                   23


1             MR,  ZADAN:               Walter Zadan, Group

2
   Against Smog and Pollution,  GASP.


              In reviewing the  subtitles under the Act, I


4  see no mention made of the fact that there should be a


5  study made of the tax  structure.  It seems to me if we
 6
   hazardous and non-hazardous problem areas, it seems to


8  me that the tax structure discussing depletion allowances
 9



10



11



12



13



14


15



16


17



18


19



20



21



22



23



24



25
   are to divide the solid waste disposal problem into two.
and so on, is the most serious problem faced with solving


that aspect of the solid waste problem.  That does not


deal with hazardous materials, and I see no mention in


the Act.


           MR. WILLIAMS:           There is mention.  I


will say very briefly there is important work to be done


under the Act that pertains to that problem.  Do you


want to comment further, Bob?


           If you don't mind. Bob Cone will comment on thai


when he is up here in the frying pan.


           Come on, we have got to have another question


or suggestion or something.   I don't want to go back to


Washington with a record like this, for God's sake, we


will lose the public participation entirely and never get


any training done.


           MR. KEHR:               Excuse me, but you


really can't get much accomplished unless you have the

-------
                                                    24

   funding to go ahead and accomplish something with.  Don't

 n
   you think you sort of got the cart before  the horse?


              MR. WILLIAMS:           Well, when you have an


 4 ' Act, sir, that is supposed to require $180 million to


   implement, and maybe three or four hundred people, and


 6 'you have a hundred million people, that  is $39.47, and
 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
the Act says  In 6  months get this out, in 18 months


regulate this, in 18 months regulate this, define this,


you better do some things.  Because they come around

saying, "You haven't done those, we will put you in jail,"


or something.  They say, "Do training and give a report

to Congress."  They don't say when.

           It's just unfortunate, but nevertheless


mandatory on the managers in the agency that they do those

things that have to be done.

           I think as a matter of fact possibly when they


start getting out some of these regulations and some of

these definitions, the need for training will become

so apparent that there will be some provision made for


it.

           MR. STRONGs             Jim Strong again.  I

am still a little bit concerned about the citizen


participation aspect of this.  As we were going through

the slides, it seemed to me there would be many other

areas besides this one, what I might call king pin

-------
                                                   25

   advisory committee of 15 people, that would be needed

   to ensure public participation, or would be actually
 Q
   involved in public participation.

              Now perhaps I missed, and maybe this is looking

   down the road too far, but has any thought gone into,

 6  say in Western Pennsylvania where there may be certain
 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
highly specialized solid waste programs or problems, haviig
Western Pennaylvanians in that area involved in the
particular aspect, or is the public participation mainly
going to be centered around this one 15-person committee
that you hope is going to represent the spectrum of
people?
           MR. WILLIAMSt           A 15-member panel is
very small, which I would never be under  the illusion
that it would represent everybody.  It is a formal
advisory council, which is very good for  us to have, it
beats no council at all, believe me.  But as I said,
there are three kinds of activities that  would have  to
be carried on to ensure minimal public participation.
           Also, remember the  divisions in the states and
                                               •rf'
others will be holding meetings, will be  holding all
kinds of meetings, workshops,  et ceterayas they implement
provisions of the Act, or plan provisions of the Act,
there will literally be hundreds of meetings in the
next couple of years in this country by us alone,  not

-------
 3





 4





 5





 6





 7





 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16




17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                26




to mention the meetings that s.tates will hold and others




will hold.  There will be all kinds of opportunities.




           As I said in the first remarks I made, there



will be opportunities for organizations to comment on




proposed guidelines, even if we don't have meetings, in




addition to having the formal advisory committee is



just the icing on the cake, frankly.  And the Act says,




"States ought to develop public participation strategies




and plans," and we will encourage them to.  And I think




most of the states will do so.




           Any more questions, please?



           MR. DeGEARE:            Truett DeGeare, I am




with EPA in Washington.



           While it sounds not especially likely we would




get the full funding that Tom has mentioned in the Act,



it is likely we would get some funding.  And^therefore^




it's  also logical to assume that part of our funding



will be diversified into various areas and activities



called for under the law.  One of these areas would be




training.



           Therefore, it's important  for us to obtain



your viewpoints on how we would prioritize the amount of




resources we do have, and the directions that you would




take in implementing the provisions of the Act which




call for training.

-------
                                                    27
 1             And with that in mind,  I would like to
 2
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
solicit your viewpoints on one issue that was raised in
a similar meeting we had last week in Atlanta, and that
is:  Where should the training efforts be localized as
far as delivery is concerned?
           That is, should our agency at the federal level
implement a short course training program, or should that
be more appropriately done by the state agencies
throughout the nation, or how would you best see the
area carried out?
           MR. WILLIAMS:           It depends very much,
I think, on what the resources are.  Offhand, it seems
all the things you mention ought to be done.  That is one
of the reasons we brought Tom Gibbs in from the region
to try to help us figure out.
           But we have also just asked for a
representative from each of the divisions to help us make
an appraisal of where in the various areas there are going
to be real problems if we don't have trained people,
what kind, what aspects of hazardous waste management,
for example, would be so deficient as to make the
implementation of the law difficult if they were not
trained people, whether these be trained people in
government or private industry?
           I would think if we had the appropriate

-------
                                                    28


   funding  for  it,  that we would  have  some  training of our

 2
   own,  but training by states  and  training by  other

 3                       *
   institutions under  grants,


              May  I make  one more comment before  I  say

 5
   anything else?

 6
              1 think  what Truett said is very  important

 7
   from  another viewpoint, and  that is:  We are here to get
 Q
   your  views.  Nobody has decided  how this Act is  going  to

 g
   be  implemented.  And what happens in these meetings and


   why I said,  not  totally jokingly, that I wanted  some


   comment,  the transcripts of  each of these meetings is

12
  I going to be  analyzed by someone  under contract,  who we


13  are hiring,  to determine what  you thought in each city


14  where we have had meetings.  What seemed to  be — what


15  did the  public  think,  in effect,  we ought to be  doing?


16  We  are going to  have that analyzed, condensed, then have


17  a cross  section  made of all  the  ten regional meetings,


18  and that is  going to be given  to the Administrator of


19  EPA,  to  the  head of the solid  waste program, the head  of


20  our work forces  strategy, and  so on, before  they raake


21  any further  decisions  about  how  to  proceed  under this


22  Act.   So it's quite serious.


23             HR%  BARBUTOS:            George Barbutos,


24  solid waste  manager for Dallas County.


25             I would  suggest that  the federal  program set

-------
                                                29



up a sharing program with the states in order to do the
                              ^^


training at the regional level, and that you actually



start with the government officials and the consultants



involved in solid waste, before you get to the public.



That would be my recommendation.



           MR. WILLIAMS:           Thank you.



           Yes, sir?



           MR. BERN:               Joe Bern, U. S.



Utilities Service, Monroeville, Pennsylvania.  In other



words, I am the industry or trade association vested



interest here.



           MR. WILLIAMS:           We are all vested



interests.



           MR. BERN:               Raving been with the



jtate as an enforcement officer, I feel the biggest



problem the agency faces is knowledgeable enforcement,



uniformly and competent.  And I feel that the training



should start at the ^tate level where the program now



resides, at least in Pennsylvania, and that the manpower



be adequately trained so that there can be a hazardous



waste disposal industry.  Until that occurs, there never



will be.



           MR. WILLIAMS:           Thank you, sir.



           MR. MEHR:               I have a suggestion



also, that some concentration be made on training people

-------
                                                    30


   who  are problem solvers,  rather than enforcers.   Because

 2
   I  think enforcement is  one thing,  but actually we have


   a  problem which not only  needs  enforcement,  it needs


   solved.  I don't think  there  has been enough effort in


   problem solving;  there  has been an awful  lot of  effort


   placed on enforcement.

 1
               MR.  BERMANi             Don Herman, Allegheny


   County Works  Department.


 9             The  gentleman  here just mentioned problem
10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
solvers, and I think one of the areas that we can use


training, and this is particularly true of Allegheny


County and  Southwestern Pennsylvania, and I don't know


how you do this, but a training course for local elected


officials to apprise them of what is in the Act and what


their responsibilities are.  I don't think they know.


I think they have got so many other things going around


in their minds at the present time, that they just don't


care.


           And I think that is where the decision is


going to be made about what is going to happen, and


therefore those people should become very knowledgeable,


either them or their staffs.


           MR. WILLIAMS:           Thank you.  We agree,


even though we don't have a formal budget or money set
   up
  , we do have some small but significant contracts with

-------
                                                   31


 1 NACO and the ICMA and such  groups,  to ensure that local


  and state officials, county officials,  become aware of

 g
  (what this Act means.


             Okay, thank you  very much.
 5


 6


 7






 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


IS


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
           MR.  RAPIER:              Thank you, Tom.


           That last suggestion Don Herman made I think


La an excellent one.  I am not sure that we can't do


something  about it soon.  Maybe you and Bill and I can


talk about it and we can see if we can't do something.


           I  think one of the vital, major, new initiative^


of the Act is subtitle C, which deals with the development


and implementation of a hazardous waste management


regulatory program.  We are fortunate to have tonight


with us to discuss the hazardous waste management area,


Mr. Fred Lindsey, who is Chief, Implementation Branch,


Hazardous  Waste Management Division, Office of Solid


Waste Management.


           Fred?


           MR. LINDSEY:            Thank you, Gordon.


May  I say, like Tom Williams indicated, that we are really


very pleased you came out this evening to share with us


your thoughts, and give us your suggestions.


           As Gordon mentioned, I am here to mention


subtitle C, the hazardous waste requirements within the


Act.  I am going to go through and discuss as I go, some

-------
                                                   32
   of  the Act's requirements.   And  I  am  going  to  throw  out
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
what some of the issues are that we are going to have
to face as we try to deal with these requirements.
           Subtitle C mandates a regulatory program,
the objective of which is to control hazardous wastes
from the point of generation, usually in an industrial
concern, to ultimate disposal at a permitted facility.
           Now this is a very clear mandate, there is
a lot of latitude as to how we can carry that out, but
the mandate is very clear what we are supposed to do.
           The first thing we have to do, and one of
the more important parts of the Act and one of the more
difficult parts of the Act is to come up with and identify
shall I say characteristics of wastes which make them
hazardous or not hazardous.  And in so doing, the Congress
has mandated that we consider such things as toxicity,
presistence in the environment, degradabilityt
bioaccumulation in tissue, flammability, corrosiveness
and other similar properties.
           Once having identified what the criteria are
that make a waste hazardous or not hazardous, then we
have to issue a listing of wastes which are hazardous,
a hazardous waste list, as .it were.  However, I should
point out it is the criteria which will determine what
is and is not a hazardous waste.

-------
                                                   33
              As  with  the  hazardous waste part of the Act,
2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
we are given 18 months within which to come up with these
criteria, with these standards,'  18 months from passage
of the Act, which was October 21, 1976, which will bring
us to April the 21st, 1978.
           Gordon earlier mentioned some of the problems
we have in trying to identify what is and what is not a
hazardous waste.  A number of people have pointed out
that before you decide what is and is not hazardous,
you have to decide when a waste is a waste.  And while
it may sound a little ludicrous, if you think about it,
it's a difficult question.
           There are a number of materials which, for
example, are sold at a very low price and used for such
things as, and I am including some potentially dangerous
chemicals, for example, that are sold occasionally for
road oiling, keeping down dust in horse arenas, and thing
like that, and have cause many, many problems in  the
past. So it's very important to us to determine when  is
a waste a waste, so we will be able to deal with  that.
21  as well as to be able to determine what is and is not
hazardous.
           Wastes are mixtures of many different material
In dealing with air pollution and water pollution, we
are typically dealing with lead, or we are  dealing with

-------
                                                    34
 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
copper, or we are  dealing with  asbestos  or  some other
easily identifiable  substance.   In wastes,  we are usually
dealing with ooze  and  gunk  and  yellow  goodies, things of
that nature, sludges of  various types. And  the question
arises:  To what extent  can our criteria and tests which
we develop for determining  what is a hazardous waste,
be applied to the  waste? And to what  extent will they
have to be applied to  suspected hazardous components?
And how does one go  into setting up standardized tests
for things which vary  all the way from things like
molasses, to things  like a  waste solvent, for example?
           The next  part of the Act requires us to
develop standards  for  generators, for  those people who
generate hazardous wastes.   And in so  doing, we must come
up with reporting  and  record—keeping requirements which
will consist of identifying quantities,  constituents
and disposition of waste materials which are generated at
a given site where you have to  come up with standards
for labeling, standards  for containers,  the use of perhaps
design of containers,  and perhaps most importantly under
this Act, we have  to develop a  manifest  system.
           The manifest  system  is designed  to track waste
from cradle to grave.  That is:  From  the point of
generation to the  point  of  disposal.  It is to give
pertinent information  front  the  generator to the transport*

-------
                                                    35
   and disposer so that they can more adequately  handle
 2
   I their function
 q
              In those states which already have  and use

   'manifest systems, this has typically taken  the form of  a
 5
 8 be minimized, and yet provide adequate control of the
 9
   hazardous waste management problem?
 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

23

24

25
   trip ticket.  Some of you may be familiar with  these.

   There are a few problems A*r issues in this area  also,

   for example, how can record—keeping and reporting burdens
           In the manifest area, should manifests be

uniform nationwide,  or should there be permitted to be

some variation from  area--to-area and section—to-section?

This is some of the  things we are going to have to deal

with, on which we would like your thoughts.

           Similar standards are required for those

people who transport hazardous wastes, including again

record—keeping.  Records which would be kept here would

include things like  the source of the waste and the

delivery point to which the transporter delivered the

waste, again labeling requirements for containers,

compliance also with the manifest system, which would

impact upon the transporters, also.
           And then  there is a provision which requires

that whatever we come up with in the area of transport

standards will have  to be consistent with Department of

-------
                                                    36
   Transportation regulations.  And we have very  close

   liaison,  at this point, with those people.
 3
               Section 3004 of the Act is probably one of
 4
   the  more  important parts of the Act,  because it is here
 5
   that standards must be developed for those  people which
 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
own or operate treatment,  storage and disposal facilities

And it is by such  standards that improper disposal will

be made illegal.   So  this  is a very important area.

           Congress has mandated a number of regulations

in this area, including again record-keeping and reportin

including how much was received at a facility and how
was it disposed?   Again, compliance with the end of the

manifest system, requirements for monitoring and

inspection.  This  will include requirements for minimum

requirements, minimum testing and sampling protocols

to determine if a  site is  in fact polluting.
           We must come up with regulations for location,

design and construction of such facilities which would

include such things as where facilities can and cannot

be placed, what design options may be restricted, or

otherwise controlled.  We  must come up with maintenance

and operating standards.   Contingency plans are called

for.  What to do if something goes wrong at a facility

must be identified ahead of time.
           Then there is a broad area of what we call

-------
                                                   37


   "ownership requirements" which could consist of such

2
   things as performance bonds,  long-term care funds,

2
   training requirements at hazardous waste facilities,


   perhaps site closure plans,  things of that nature.


              And then there is  a general overall section
 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
that says,  in effect, such other standards as may be


necessary to protect the public health and the


environment.  So it's an extremely broad mandate.


           Some of the questions in this area, which we


would appreciate your thinking about and sharing your


thoughts with us, what are the main problems at the


implementation end of all this which are associated


with integrating hazardous waste facility standards


with the present Air, Water and OSHA Standards with


which many of these facilities must comply at this


point? Should performance standards for hazardous waste


storage, treatment or disposal facilities apply at the


fence line of a hazardous waste facility, or other


places?


           Should the standards take the form, for


example, of non-degradation of a medium such as ground


water beyond some specified point, or should there be


equipment standards, "Thou shalt have Venturi scrubbers,


or the equivalent, if you are going to burn chlorinated


hydrocarbons," for example?

-------
                                                   38

              There  are  a  variety  of ways  in which we could

 2
   put together regulations which  would  affect this area.

 3
              Should hazardous  waste facility standards


   be uniform nationally,  or  should there  be allowances for

 5
   the difference  in climate^at cetera?
 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
           Many citizens  automatically oppose the siting


of hazardous waste  facilities  in their locale.  I think


a gentleman back along  the  aisle mentioned that earlier,


or alluded to a problem along  this area.  For example,


we can come up with the best standards going, and do a


very good job of setting  standard, but if there is no


place to put the wastes,  where are we going?


           So the problem of monolithic opposition, even


for acceptable facilities,  may be a serious problem for


us.  I suspect it will.  How can we overcome that?  How


can we effect that?


           Someone  mentioned perhaps training for local


officials and so forth, who must deal with the problem of


disposal facilities in  their locale might be helpful.


I don't know, that  is a good suggestion.  In any event,


this may be a problem.


           On the other hand,  would very stringent


facility standards  have any appreciable influence on this


issue?  Should regulations  published by EPA require


certification of employees  to  work at a hazardous waste

-------
 1 facility?
 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 a




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
           We certify boiler water operators? should we



certify the operators at a hazardous waste facility?



That is the question we are facing.



           Should EPA require bonding and insurance for



hazardous waste and disposal facilities?



           What routine monitoring should be required at



a waste facility, and who should do itj the enforcement



authority, or should the facility itself do it?



           What should be the reporting requirements?



           These are some of the problems, and as you



can see, some of them are rather substantial that we




are facing over the next few months.



           Under section 3005 of the Act, we are required



to develop a mechanism for bringing facilities into



compliance with these standards.  And  this is through




the use of a permit system.



           Six months after we develop,  or  after we



publish the criteria  for what is and what is not a



hazardous waste and the other standards  under section



3004,  the standards for facilities, it will  become



illegal to dispose of a hazardous waste  in a facility



that does not have a permit.  That will  be illegal.



           Now in order to get a permit, a facility will



have to show to the regulatory agency, whether that be

-------
                                                   40



 I
2
 4
   requirements within the Act.
 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
EPA or the appropriate s,tate agency, will have to show

                       •£•

that they comply with the standards which we ;just got



done talking about for treatment facilities.  These are
           How the Act also states that in order to



receive a permit, a certain amount of data will be



required, including the manner of disposal of the waste



at the facility or treatment, the types and amounts  of



waste which are expected to be received, the frequency



of treatment or the rate of application in case of



disposal.



           There will have to be certain amounts of



information on the site, probably hydrogeology,



climatology, demography,  et cetera.



           There is the provision in the Act  for the



granting of interim permits for those facilities,



treatment, storage and disposal facilities which are in



business as of the passage of the Act this past October.



And  those  facilities should have notified the  |.tate  or



EPA,  under section 3010, of their existence, which we



will  talk  about  in a minute, and those  facilities  that



have  applied  for a permit.  So  for  facilities  which  have



done  all three of those, they will  be granted  an interim



permit to  continue operating until  all  the paper work



clears.  Because I think as you can understand, there are

-------
                                                   41


   probably going to be quite a number of applications in

 2
   the beginning, probably in the same sense there was for

 3
   the water pollution permit systems.

 4
              One of the major problems we are facing in

 5
   this area is the question of whether or not there should

 6
   be different classes of permits, which would depend perhaps

 7
   on the amounts and type of wastes which are handled,

 8
   which would then have different requirements in order to

 9
   receive permits.
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23



24


25
           Section 3006 of the Act is where Congress has


dealt with the desirability of turning the permitting


and enforcement part of this Act over to the states to


carry out.  Now we, within EPA, will be developing


guidelines to assist the states in setting up acceptable


programs under the Act.  In order to be authorized to


carry this out, the ^tate program will have to be


equivalent to the federal program? it will have to be


consistent with any other jtate programs which have been


authorized, and it will have to contain adequate


enforcement provisions.


           Now Congress didn't say what "equivalent,


consistent and adequate" are, so that is what we will


be wrestling with in the next few months.


           Section 3010 requires that anyone within three


months after we identify what is and what is not a

-------
                                                  42




 1  hazardous waste, which is required, as I say by April 21




 2 'of 1978, within three months after that time, anyone who
 3
 4  hazardous wastes, under the definition, will have to
 5
 6
 7
 8  a one tine notification.
 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
   generates, transports, treats, stores or disposes of
notify EPA or the appropriate  state agency, that they do



this.  Now this will probably  be  a very  simple  operation,



but it will have to be carried out nonetheless, it's
           Section  3011  of  the Act outlines  procedures



for assisting  the states to assist them in developing



and implementing the  state  program, to  carry out  the



permitting and enforcement  parts of this Act.  It



authorizes  525 million to do this for each of two years.



Unfortunately, that particular amount of money hasn't



been  appropriated  as  yet, and probably  will  not be,



although there will certainly be a certain amount of



money in this  area, it probably will not be  anywhere



near  what we would like.  How much will be appropriated,



no one knows at this particular point.



            The allocation will be made  to jtates, based



on a  formula which we will  devise, based on  the amount



of the hazardous wastes which are generated  in the ^tate



and the extent of  public exposure to those wastes.



            In brief,  that is what we are up  against for



the next few months.  And as you can see, I  think it's

-------
                                                    43
 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
quite a formidable task on our part, and we do mean it
when we say we will listen and are interested in anything
you have to say, any comments you might have, any guidanc
any suggestions you might have on any of these issues,
or any of the things which I have talked about this
evening.
           So I am here to receive any suggestions you
might have, and to answer any questions that you might
have.
           MR. SHAPIRO:      M.R.  Shapiro from the
grad school of public health.
           Nowhere do I find anything related to the
establishment of centers for conservation or for re-use
of the materials.  Is there anything in the Act, in the
hazard^ortion of it, which will allow for the
establishment of such centers, either voluntarily, or
under the Act?
           MR. LINDSEY:            There is no provision
which specifically addresses hazardous wastes in that
sense, although any of the resource — «a»y of the
Resource Recovery provisions, which Bob Ifflve is going
to talk about later, could also apply to the hazardous
waste section.
           Now if I understood you correctly, your
question wast  Would it be possible, either with support

-------
                                                    44

   from the Act, or without  support  from  the Act,  to
2
   undertake recycling  facilities  for  these kinds  of wastes?
3
   And the answer, at least  to  the latter, without support
4
   under the Act, is yes.  That would  certainly be possible.
5
   There are a number of facilities  now in existence whose
6
   major business is just  that; taking various types of
7
   hazardous wastes, treating then and making salable
8
   products out of them.
9
              One of the more common approaches is
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
distillation of solvents to reclaim  solvents.  There are

others, copper reclamation, et  cetera.  But there is no

money available to give to people  to do that.
           There will, however, probably be some funds

available for demonstration work for that type of thing.

           Other questions?

           MR, SCHMIDT:            Ray Schmidt, Bethel

Engineering.

           On your question about  operating standards,

I have worked with Pennsylvania Standards for land fills,

and trying to design  them around it, I might suggest they

be set up in two parts:
           One, the results are desired, or the

undesirable results which you don't  want from the

operation or design of a land fill.
           And then second some "cookbook" or standard,

-------
                                                   45
 1  agreed upon approaches, which might be acceptable.
 2
 3
 i
 5
 €
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
           MR. LINDSEY:            Okay, so what you are
saying, then is in that area, the standards in that area
should take the form of prohibitions, such things as
perhaps —
           MR. SCHMIDT:            We don't want any
ground water, wherever water is being drawn from in that
aquifer, that should not be polluted.  But if there is
ground water below a hundred feet, therefore you don't
have to worry about it.
           MR. LINDSEY:            Is that an example,
or a suggestion?
           MR. SCHMIDT:            That is both.  Since
the Pennsylvania requirements call for hundred foot
monitoring wells, and many parts of the |_tate do not
have any usable water in the first hundred feet, if any
water at all, of any consequence.
           By the same  token, there are many ways of
getting rid  of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes which
are not spelled out in  specific detail  in the Pennsylvani
regulations.  For example, shredding  is not even
discussed; composting  is.  But shredding, which I believe
Dover, Delaware is one  of the prime examples of this
approach, but nowhere does Pennsylvania have it in their
regulations.

-------
                                                   46


              MR. LINDSEYt            In other words, it

2
   is not permitted under Pennsylvania regulations?

3
              MR. SCHMIDT:            It's not mentioned,


   therefore it is not acceptable

5
6



7



8



9



10



II



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
           MR. LINDSEY:            Are you talking about


shredding and spreading of what types of materials?


           MR. SCHMIDT:            Of both hazardous


and non-hazardous, where it is possible if you take a


large amount of non-hazardous waste and mix in an


appropriate small amount of hazardous waste, your unit


level, if you will —


           MR. LINDSEY:            Application rate?


           MR. SCHMIDT:            Right, becomes


acceptable.


           By the same token, you get into the problem


if you start allocating specific times when you can take


and mix them, for example^toxic sludges will agglomerate


with other materials, an example might be fly ash, or


very absorbent materials that are left over.  These things


could be used to dispose of a toxic, and tie it up.


           MR. LINDSEY:            Should these specific


procedures be addressed in the form of guidelines, or


should they be some sort of regulation as to how they can


or cannot be carried out, as you say?


           MR. SCHMIDT:            Well, the preference

-------
                                                   47
1
   .s  guideline, because by regulations you have no choice,


   that ia  it,  it's black and white.  But if you set it up

   as  guidelines, which DER's regulations had been for

   quite a  while, you have the option, if you will, to have

5 "
   some leeway.

              MR. LINDSEY:            So your recommendation

7
6
8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


n


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
   is, then,  that we  set  performance standards which would

   be  regulations,  and  then we  set guidelines relative to

   different  techniques?

              MR. SCHMIDT:             Right.

              MR. LINDSEY:             Thank you.

              others?
                                               P
              MR.  LARUE:               Dennis LaJTue,

   Youngstown Vindicator, Youngstown, Ohio.

              In Mahoning County, which is about 50 miles

   from  here, for the last two years Browning-Ferris

   Industries have proposed carting solid waste from

   Montgomery County, Maryland and from Philadelphia,

   Pennsylvania to Mahoning County to have it disposed of

   in abandoned strip mines.  And both times the local

   board of health has waited to see what would happen befor

   asking or considering a lawsuit against Browning-Ferris.

              I am wondering here with the development of

   standards, if the federal EPA ia going to take over the
                     ^
   whole ball of wax, if Browning-Ferris will be able to

-------
 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                48



bring it in, as long as they complied with  the




requirements under the Act?




           MR. LINDSEY:            First of all, you are




talking now about a situation which was a municipal




trash and garbage, as opposed to the hazardous wastes.




And Truett DeGaare, who spoke a few minutes ago and




will speak again, will address that point.




           But you are getting to a whole other area




which is important, and that is:  Whether or not




hazardous wastes should be permitted to move great




distances?  Some s.tatea have tried to, and  I think




certain localities have tried to permit the movement of




those materials, either into their jurisdiction for




treatment or disposal, or even through it in some cases.




And this issue has been raised by others you know, what




is EPA's position on that?



           Well, our position has been all  along, although




we have no regulatory position in that at this point, but




our position has been all along that these  types of




wastes should be treated and disposed in those areas




where they can be handled from the best standpoint



environmentally and economically.  Where the trade-off




is the best, where they can be handed safely from an




environmental standpoint, and cost, even if this requires




transportation.

-------
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                   49


              And in fact, these materials do move today

2
   vast distances;  across half the nation is not uncommon.

3
   Many of these materials already move those distances.


   Part of the reason for that is that in order to treat,


   detoxify many of these materials requires a relatively


   specialized piece of material, in some cases. So the

7
   movement to an area which is large enough to support such

g
   a facility may be quite larger than one state,  or even

g
   larger than one region.


              MR. MEHR:               You have an  equal


   problem with radiation wastes.  There are only  maybe a


   dozen localities in the entire United States that suit


   geologically for that type of hazardous waste.  What


   type of movement do you have to take as a federal


   government, to say to a group of environmentalists,


   "This is one of a few spots that remains in our nation


   and we have got to use it, and that's all there is to if


   like the salt mines of Ohio?


              MR. LINDSEY:            Are you suggesting


   that EPA should take this kind of positive approach in


   handling facilities?


              MR. MEHR:               I am not suggesting,


   I am pointing out a problem where it may be the necessity


   of the federal government to make a choice for  everyone,


   because no one really wants hazardous waste in  his

-------
 1
   back door anyhow.
2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                   50
           MR. LIWDSEYi            That is true.  I don't


think there is any authority, the way the Act is written,


for us to say, "Okay, we are going to put it here."


That authority doesn't exist.


           Also, you are dealing with radioactive waste


which, generally speaking, most radioactive wastes are


not covered under  this Act.  There are certain nuclear


wastes which  are.


           The wastes which are covered under the


Atomic Energy Act  are  not  covered under this Act.  The


wastes which  are covered under this Act include  such


things as  naturally  occurring radioactive wastes,  such


as  radium  and probably as  we read the Act, the phosphate


slime piles  in Florida,  the piles of radioactive overburden,


et  cetera,  in Western  Colorado, anything which  is


generated  out of  a cyclotron, would be  covered  under


this  Act.


            But  as  I  say,  most of  the nuclear wastes are


covered under the Atomic Energy Act, and  it  is  up  to  the


Nuclear Regulatory Commission  and ERDA  to  identify


disposal sites for that.   But the question of what impact


EPA can have  on siting of  facilities, which I think I


mentioned  a  little earlier, we see as a potentially


major problem, is  something we are very interested in.

-------
                                                   51


   And where there are good suggestions in this area, we


   would like to have them.  But we don't have the authority

3
   to say,  "This is where this has got to be."


              MR. SCHMIDT:            Ray Schmidt, Bethel.


   On that subject, 1 explored it on some other cases, and
6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
the answer I have always gotten back is the jitate or


federal government will permit a site to be used as far

^
as meeting their regulations or guidelines, as far as


whether or not it can indeed be used because of other


things, such as the local health department taking suit,


that is beyond their interest and  jurisdiction.  They


will simply permit it from the standpoint  of,  "Yes, it


does meet the criteria  for an acceptable site."  Whether


or not you can actually use it is  another  story.


           MR. LINDSEY:            That ia true.  There


are  some  zoning requirements and  things of that nature


where  permits could be  required  that  could cause problems


            For  example, we are  trying now, under a


demonstration grant from  our office,  to  site  an


environmentally acceptable facility in Minnesota,  and


we are having a  heck  of a time  doing  it  because of


things like  that.


           MR. BERN:                Joe Bern,  0. S.


Utility Services.


           With regard  to the guidelines  or regulations.

-------
                                                    52


   or whatever you want to call  them,  it is  ray  opinion that

 2
   they should be directed toward an acceptable environmental


   impact, rather than a particular treatment or a  particular


   facility, or a particular kind of process.   Because the


   hazardous wastes, and wastes  in general are  so varied,


   almost  infinite in nature,  that they  can't even  be


   designed as such.


 8             Now, as far  as our activity with  the
 9



10



11



12



13



14



IS



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
Department of Environmental Resources, this has always


been the approach in trying to dispose of a waste, we


feel we have to comply with any regulations with


regard to any discharges or any situations.  And this


has still been the case and still is, regardless of


what the waste is.


           Consequently, what level of treatment is


required will be dictated by the environmental impact,


and not by the characteristics of the waste only.


           MR. LINDSEY:            Again, the suggestion


being that we stick with performance type standards,


as opposed to equipment standards.


           Okay.


           MR. SCHMIDT:            This is a support of


that statement.  The Coast Guard has a book about that


thick (indicating) which lists all the materials which


are "hazardous" by their definitions.

-------
2
                                                   53
              DOT has a. similar sized document: with all the

   labels for those; so once you begin to get that large a

   number of potentially hazardous materials trying to

  " dictate a system, you completely wipe out, you get lost.

5 I            MR. LINDSEY:            The problem, as I

6  think I may have mentioned earlier, with dealing with
7
   those lists, the Coast Guard list and DOT list are
   hazardous lists of chemicals, as it were, whereas the
8

9 I wastes we are dealing with occasionally are those, but

10  more occasionally there are some goo's or  glop which has

11  some two or three or five of these materials  in  them,

12  which may tend to be antagonistic or synergistic with

13  each other*
14             We feel that the criteria for hazardous wastes

15  are probably going to have to   address the waste itself,

16  as opposed to the materials which are  in  it.  Although

17  this is still an open question  we are  addressing at

18  this particular point, but it is a difficult  problem.

39             Are there any others?

20             MR. SHAPIRO:            I think you made one

21  of your first questions concerning minimum records-keeping

22  systems.  And it appears to me  that  in a  sense,  it's

23  already in the Act,  and in fact other  acts like  the

24 Safe Drinking Water  Act or other like, acts, have already

25 'set standards that you must establish  minimum standards,

-------
                                                    54

   then allow the ^,tates, if  they  care  to,  to  upgrade it

   or make  them more strict,  in  the  other  sense,  that that

   would be acceptable.
 A
              But in trying to ascertain what  is  going to

   be available as knowledge  of  what happened  in  the past,
 fi
   I just can't see you  getting  around  without getting some
 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
minimum of the record-keeping system for the whole
country.  Otherwise, it's not going — we are not going
to be able  at all to identify anything in the future.
And since that is what I believe you are trying to do,
then a set of minimum standards, uniformly applied,
will have to be available.
           MR. LINDSEY:            In the case of
disposal facilities, would you like to tell us what kinds
of things they should keep records of, or have you
thought about it?
           MR. SHAPRIO:            Well, I was reading
what was in the Act here, in the sense that it states
record-keeping practices that accurately identified the
quantity of such hazardous wastes generated, the
constituents thereof, and which are of significant
quantity or potential harm to human beings, I think it's
spelled out.  The transfer of records from the source
to the disposal site should be more or less a mechanical
operation.

-------
                                                    55


              MR. MEHR:                May I caution the

 2
   government from making  the record-keeping so difficult

 3
   and  so voluminous  that  you have the same paper problem


   developing in  the  EPA as  you have in other federal


   agencies?  One of  the things that you have is that when


   you  handle the record-keeping portion of handling wastes,

 7
   you  find it's  more expensive to keep the records than it


   is to go ahead and make a buck disposing of the wastes.

 g
   Then it becomes profitable for a man to cheat and lie
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
and do all the things that the enforcers don't like to


have done.


           So if you make your record-keeping too


strenuous, too difficult and too mean and expensive,


you are going to get more and more enforcement necessary


because people are going to cheat.


           MR. LINDSEY:            Okay, good point.


           MR. WILLIAMS:           Well, I  resent that.


I don't think anybody else caused any more  records to


be kept than EPA does.


           MR. MEHRt               I didn't imply that,


I am sorry.


           MR. LINDSEY:            Does anyone have


any suggestions they might make on whether  or how we


might integrate our record-keeping at these facilities,


as compared to whatever the requirements there are on

-------
                                                    56


   these  types of  facilities  from pollution discharge

 2
   systems, or from  the  air or whatever?


 3
 8
                ,.  ZADAN:               I  am subject to  a


   certain  amount  of  record-keeping by the county, state


   and federal  government,  and very often we have three


   different  forms that cover the same problem,  but each


 7  form  is  different.  So I would suggest that a good  place
    to  start  would  be perhaps to get your local forms and
 9   required state forms and federal forms,  and perhaps  use


10   a  simple,  one single form.


11              And I think the same thing exists as to


12   inspection.   I have a city inspector, a  county inspector,


13   a  state inspector and a Jederal inspector.   The federal


14   inspectors are today once a year a supervisor, once  a


15   year  another "super" supervisor, who comes  in from half


16   a  nation away.  And I have at least five levels of


17   governmental agencies inspecting me for  the very same


18   thing.   And I think this is the problem  that many people


19   who are in business object to.


20              MR. LINDSEY:            I think  in this


21   particular Act, under this Act, at least the hazardous


22   waste provisions, if the state takes over the program,


23   you won't see the federal inspector, in  all likelihood,


24   as long as the state is managing the program,


25              I think that should help some, anyway.

-------
                                                57




           MR. STRONG:             Since it's apparent




under^title C that there is going to have to be a




tremendous amount of scientific impact, especially




characterizing what is going to a "hazardous waste",




are there plans for a specific advisory group to, again




representing a broad spectrum of the public, to be




involved in this establishment, or is this mainly




in-house.



           MR. LINDSEY:            Let me give a brief




outline of how we do things relative to developing




standards in EPA, or at least for this Act.  We have a




variety of different people who impact upon us, in




other words, we don't sit in Washington and just do




this.



           For example, there is first of all what we




call a working group.  A working group is made up of



members,  not  only  from our own office, we are the lead




office, but also members from other  parts of EPA, a




number of other parts of EPA and any other  part  of  air




pollution and water  pollution.



           The intent of these work  groups  and all




these various other  experts on the group is:



           Number  1, to give us the  benefit of their




experience and their knowledge, and  also to help




integrate, as we pointed out* little  earlier, the

-------
                                                    58
   requirements of this Act with  the  requirements  of some
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
other acts where there may be  some overlap, or some way
we can smooth the implementation of  it.
           In addition to that, we are holding, and have
held, a number of meetings with various segments of the
public, both one-on-one  type meetings, which are meetings
with a public interest group of one  sort or another, or
a trade association,  to  seek information,  seek data, seek
viewpoints of that sort  of thing.
           We have held  some,  and will be  holding very
soon within the next  few months, some more of what we
call type 2 meetings.  These are small group discussion
meetings in which having identified  experts, we will
bring them together representing different viewpoints,
including public interest groups again, trade
associations, college professors, state personnel and
other experts we may have identified, to discuss a given
problem, like how do we  best regulate emissions from a
site?
           So there are  a lot  of those things going on.
There are public meetings like this, there will be
hearings as we get down  the line.
           Then there is something called  an advanced
proposal at rule making  in which we will publish again
some of our concerns,  some of  these issues I have

-------
                                                    59


   discussed,  and we have an open document and ask  people

 2
   to respond to those issues, anyone and everyone  to


   respond to those issues.


              So generally, in a general way is  the way we


   go about getting public input.  On the other  hand, there

 e
   is no reason why, at any time as a result of  these

 n
   meetings or anything else, any thoughts that  come along,


 8  any time anyone has an idea they want to get  across.
 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
the way to do it is phone or send a letter to your


regional office, and they will see that it gets to the


proper person within our group.


           MR. MEHR:               Do you have an 800


number? That might be a suggestion that is wise, to place


an 800 number at the disposal of the public to call you


and give you suggestions.


           MR. WILLIAMS:           Call the region.


           MR. LINDSEY:            You can call the


region in Philadelphia, even though that is a toll number


from out here.


           The phone number is 215-597-8114, 0980, 0982


and 8116.


           MR. MEHR:               You will get more


results if you have an 800 number.


           MR. LINDSEY:            Good suggestion.  I


don't know if it's legal, but we will look into it.

-------
                                                    60




               I  think we  are going to  have  to  quit, because
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
we are getting way over our  tine.



           MR. RAPIER:             Take one more.



           MR. SCHMIDT:            I will keep it short.



One, your question about  reporting procedures, I might



recommend rather than  a whole  series of trip tickets,



which fill file cabinets, you  go to a quarterly or



semi-annual or annual  report system similar with the



NPDS permit, or similar to the new potential reporting



methods of quarterly dumping amounts.  That will make



it a lot simpler where you have incidental dumps of



miscellaneous items, you  can have a special short form.



But where industry is  constantly dumping the same type



of thing on a fairly routine basis, that would be a




far simpler operation.



           MR. LINDSEY:            In terms of reporting,



I would agree with you.   However, the manifest and the



purpose of the manifest,  at  least from the commercial



background document, is to track the material, to be



sure that it gets from generator A when he gives it to



a transporter, that it actually gets to disposer B.



           In California, for  example, where they have



this they use that as  an  enforcement mechanism.  This is



one way of assuring that  the transporter, when told by




the generator to deliver  it  to a permitted place, doesn't

-------
           MR, SCHMIDT:            Understood, the




point being if you report out of the acceptor and




generator, the two should coincide and a simple




correlation of the two would take care of it.




           The second major quick point was:  Nowhere,




going through this, do I find any sort of tax incentives




to anyone, be it private industry or otherwise, to try




to somehow reduce or transform any of the hazardous




wastes.



           There are a number of technologies, including




nitric acid generation, which, given some economic




incentives, such as tax write-offs, either direct




against tax or otherwise might become a viable way of




getting rid of it,




           MR. LINDSEY:            You are correct,




there is nothing in the Act which specifically relates




to hazardous wastes.  However, there are things for




incentives which would also apply to hazardous wastes,




but it's not a program as such.  It's a study that is




to be undertaken, but that's all the Act specifies.




           MR. SCHMIDT:            I notice it does




offer 5  percent for tire shredders.  They give you a




grand total of $75,000.




           MR. LINDSEY:            I bet you there isn't

-------
                                                    62

    any  of that that has  been authorized or appropriated

 2  yet.
 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10
           MR. MEHR:               Harold Mehr again.

           I remember the story of the nan who had a

$4,000 race horse and a $20 customer.  It appears that

industry, with hazardous wastes, has a multi-million

dollar solving problem, but only $20 customers that can't

really afford it.  He finally solved his problem by

finding 200 raffle holders at $20 a ticket, and I am

wondering whether the government can consider district
11   treatment facilities for certain types of hazardous

12   wastes?

13              Mobay Chemical pointed out they had 4,000

14   pounds a day or 3,000 a day of some type of hazardous

15   chemical.  I remember Exxon down at Bay City in Texas,

16   have put in some type of pipeline, they do it on a small

17   scale.

18              I wonder if you have considered this, or

19   looked at that situation?
20


21


22


23


24


25
           MR. LINDSEY:            I think you may be

talking about two different things.  One  is the so-called

"national disposal  site concept" where the government,

either federal or state,  for that matter, would set up
       %          -^
plants which they would run to treat the  wastes on

a regional basis.

-------
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                   63
              MR. KEHRi               Combination private-
   federal, maybe industry, given certain portions of the
   funding with the government introducing  certain portions,
   and.have it jointly operated with government  and industry
              MR. LINDSEYt            There are  no provision
   for any such thing under the Act.  There potentially
   could be a demonstration mechanism under the  Act, if
   there were funds to do  it.
              But the "hazardous wastes  national disposal
   cite concept" is not treated under the Act.   It's
   something that Congress felt was the  responsibility of
   the generating industry and it  is a cost that should be
   borne by them, generally speaking, and  therefore  it's
14  not included.
              The other tiling you  talked about,  I think
   you indicated in Texas, was the possibility that  one
   waste may be  another man's feed stock,  and the concept
    of what we call a waste exchange.   Maybe I am wrong,
    but I will say something about  it  anyway, since it has
    come  up.
               In many  of  the  European countries, this is
    a common  thing where the government,  or in many cases
    it's  something like where  the manufacturing chemists
   association,  or some other trade association uses  a
10
II
12
13
    technique where they  advertise waste for somebody, and

-------
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                   64

   the characteristics of those wastes without naming

2
   names, so somebody on the other end who has a need for

3
   that type of chemical material can effect an exchange.

4
   And there is a fledgling operation of this type in

5
   St. Louis, and others around the country beginning to

6
   make some headway.  We hope that will at least put some

7
   dent in the hazardous waste problem.

8
              Well, thank you very much.  If there are other

9
   comments or suggestions, I would be pleased to have them


   after this is completed.


              MR. BUCCIARELLI:        I would like a


   second crack here, since there were some statements made


   that might need a little clearing up.


              First of all, I am glad you mentioned the


   waste exchange business, because if you didn't, I would


   have.  And I think this is what Dr. Shapiro was alluding


   to in terms of the whole area of industrial-agricultural


   wastes.  And there is the St. Louis regional exchange


   outfit, and also Zero Waste Systems out in California.


              We know this simply because DER has been


   trying to interest certain agencies and groups into


   adopting this concept and getting into the industrial-


   agricultural waste field. And the beauty about that kind


   of a system is that even if you only have one percent
   success, if it is a particularly difficult and

-------
                                                   65
1
   complicated  and hazardous  type  waste,  if you do recycle


   that, you  do save a  lot  of time and  effort and money that

3
   would have had to have been invested in trying to solve


   that problem, and probably not  solved it in the end.

5
             The rate  of success  has not yet been determine'1

6
   in any of  these waste exchanges,  even in Europe, because

7
   it's difficult to track  down what the ultimate conclusion

8
   was, or what the ultimate  arrangement was between the
 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
   contractor  and  the  recipient.   Because oftentimes,  they


   don't want  you  to know.


              But  any  degree  of  success  along that line,


   and really  it's  in  terms of running that kind of a


   concept or  exchange,  it's  relatively  cheap for those


   that are running it.  So we are  trying to promote that.


              As far as  things not being covered under our


   Act or  our  rules and  regulations,  and naming them


   specifically, such  as the  gentleman over here mentioned


   shredders,  yes,  it's  not mentioned.  But that does  not


   mean it's not covered.


              Mow  we do  mention  certain solid waste


   technologies, but we  don't mention all the equipment


   or all  the  processing methods that are possible in  the


   solid waste game.   But they are covered under equipment


   and processing  methods.


              As far as  100-foot wells,  well, they are not

-------
                                                    66
 1   all  a  hundred  foot wells,  they vary in depth depending
 2
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
on where the water  table  is.   So  it's  not  a  standard

requirement.

           One more comment,  and  that  is we  are very

interested in a hazardous waste program in Pennsylvania.

Roy Weston has just completed a study  for  us, we have

just received a completed document, we are looking at  it

now in terms of how it will  fit,  or what we  can use out

of it to develop  a  state  program.  But the part of that
                    ^.
development of the  state  program  is dependent pretty

much on how the federal government wants to  go under
                
-------
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
                                                 67




Bill Bucciarelli doesn't do it, I will have  to,  so  I




want to assure you that I will do everything in  my  power




to see to it —




           (Laughter.)



           MR. BUCCIARELLI:        Come on in, glad to




have you.



           MR. RAPIER:             One of the  new  things




of the Act is the requirement to look at the whole



land disposal question and the non-hazardous solid  waste




management program.



           Truett DeGeare, the Chief of the  Land



Protection Branch in  the Systems Management  Division  of




the Office of Solid Waste Management is going  to talk




about  the general land disposal area.




           Truett?



           MR.  DeGEARE:             It's nice to  stand




up.   If  you would care to  for a second, feel free.



           With  regard to  land  disposal of  non-hazardous




solid wastes,  some of the  important features of  RCRA




are significant new  definitions,  a  requirement for the



Administrator of EPA to  promulgate  regulations containing




criteria for  determining which  facilities  shall  be



classified  as sanitary land  fills,  and which shall be



classified  as dumps.  The  requirement  that  the Administra




publish  an  inventory of  all  disposal  facilities  which are
or

-------
 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
                                                68


open dumps, and the requirement that the Administrator


publish suggested guidelines, including a description of


levels of performance to protect ground water from


leachate.   The implication and requirements for ^tate


and local government will be discussed later under state
                                                   "S-

and local program development provisions.


           RCRA recognizes open dumps and sanitary land


fill as the only two types of solid waste disposal


facilities.  They will be distinguished by criteria to


be developed under the provisions of Section 4004.


           RCRA adds clarity by defining "disposal" and


"solid wastes."  Disposal means the discharge,  deposit,


injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of


any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land


or water, so that such solid waste or hazardous wastes,


or any constituent thereoffr may enter the environment


or be emitted into the air or discharged into water,


including ground waters.


           The terra "solid waste" means any garbage,


refuse, sludge from a waste  treatment plant, water supply


treatment plant or air pollution control facility, or


other discarded material, including solid, liquid,


semi-solid or contained  gaseous material resulting from


industrial, commercial,  mining and agricultural operation


and from community activities.  But it does not include

-------
                                                   69




1 solid or dissolved material in domestic  sewage,  or




  solid or dissolved materials in irrigation  return flows




  or industrial discharges which are point sources subject




  to permit under section 402 of the Federal  Water Pollutio^i




  Control Act as amended, or source nuclear or by-product




  materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,




  as amended.




             I went to the trouble of reading through  those




  two definitions because they are significant in  their




  breadth.  As I said earlier, the statutory  definitions




  of sanitary land fill and open dump refer specifically




  to section 4004 of RCRA, which is entitled, "Criteria




  for Sanitary Land Fills; Sanitary Land Fills Required




  for all Disposal."



             This section requires the Administrator to




  promulgate the regulations containing criteria  for




  determining which land disposal facility shall be



  classified as open dumps, and which shall be classified




  as sanitary land fills.  At a minimum, the  criteria  must




  provide that a facility may be classified as a sanitary




  land fill and not an open dump only if there is  no




  reasonable probability of adverse effect on public




  health or the environment from disposal  of  solid waste




  at the facility.



             An important aspect of the implementation of

-------
 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
                                                70

RCRA, then, is further interpretation of what constitutes

"no reasonable probability" and what constitutes "adverse

effect on health or the environment."  The task of

promulgation of these criteria will be particularly

difficult for ground water protection because of technica:

uncertainties and the general lack of ground water

protection policy.

           This regulation is due by October 21 of this

year, after consultation with the ^tates, notice and

public hearings.

           The intent of this criteria  is not to develop

a federal regulatory system  for sanitary  land fills,
  //
but  to provide guidance for ^.tate programs.

           Section 4004 (b) requires  each  state plan to

prohibit the establishment of open dumps, and to contain

a requirement that disposal  of all solid  waste within

the  state be disposed of in  the sanitary  land fills,
    ^
unless it is utilized for resource recovery.

           Finally, section  4004(c)  indicates that the

state prohibition on open dumping shall take effect
•6
six  months after the date of promulgation of the

criteria, or on the date of  approval of the state plan,

whichever is later.

           Not later than one year after  promulgation

of the criteria for sanitary land fills and open dumps,

-------
 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
                                                71




the Administrator must publish an inventory of all



disposal facilities in the United States which are open




dumps.



           Section 4005 also prohibits open dumping when




usable  alternatives are available.  If such alternatives




are not available, the s^tate plan shall establish a




timetable or schedule for compliance which specifies




remedial measures, including an enforcement sequence of




actions or operations leading to compliance with the




prohibition on open dumping of solid waste within a



reasonable time.  And this reasonable time cannot exceed




five years from the date of publication of the inventory.



           If a state plan is not being undertaken,  the




citizen suit provisions of 7002 provide recourse to




aggrieved parties.



           Section 1008, solid waste management



information and guidelines, requires the  Administrator




to  publish in one year, guidelines  which  provide  technicajl




and economic descriptions of  the  level  of performance




that can be attained  by various available solid waste




management practices.



           Congress,  in the law,  did not  specify  a



specific solid waste  management practice  to  be addressed




in  the  guidelines, but addressed  several  areas which




the guidelines  should include.  These  are appropriate

-------
                                                72

methods and degrees of control that provide, at a

minimum, for production of public health and welfare,

protection of the quality of ground water and surface

water frofvleachate, protection of the quality of surface

water from run-off through compliance with effluent

limitations under the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act, protection of ambient air quality through compliance

with new source performance standards or requirements

of air  quality implementation plans under the Clean Air

Act, disease and vector control, safety and aesthetics.

           So as you can see, there is some linkage in

the suggested guidelines with other agencies with which

our agency operates.

           The guidelines are seen as being descriptive,

as opposed to prescriptive, and could be used to suggest

alternatives for dealing with concerns and issues raised

by the criteria.

           Section 1008(c) requires minimum criteria to

be used by the states in defining and controlling open
               ^
dumping of solid waste as prohibited under subtitle D.

           In response to the general mandate of section
                                                 ^
1008, the agency intends first to update the land

disposal guidelines we currently have on the books, and

initiate sludge disposal guidelines.  We will also be

carrying out a process for determining which guidelines,

-------
                                                   73


 1  that is guidelines on which other subject areas should


 2  be developed.  And we will solicit your input on that

 n
   prioritization of practices.


 4             I will be happy to hear any views you might


 5  have on the various provisions of subtitle D, regarding


 6  land disposal.


 7             Let me pose a couple of questions, then,


 8  specifically with regard to criteria.


 9             Would you say that each criteria should be


10  something general that would address, for example,


11  ground water pollution from any and all deposition of


12  wastes on land, that is, from what we in the past have


13  known as sanitary land fills and lagoons, pits, ponds


1*  and other disposing methods, or would you see a series


15  of criteria addressing each of those practices?  It


16  seems those are two alternatives we could take in


17  developing the criteria.


18             MR. WILLIAMS:           I have a question for


19  you. Tom Williams, EPA.


20             Since a municipal land fill site, even if


21  through implementation of schedule C, would not receive


22  any so-called hazardous wastes, even if that were the


23 'Case, the wastes in municipal sites are hazardous under


24  certain circumstances.  In ground water, how do you


25  propose to have anything less stringent for disposal

-------
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                    74
1
   than you  can have with  hazardous  wastes,  or with many
2
   hazardous wastes?   How  can that be  different?
3
               MR.  DeGEARE:             It  could be different
4
   on the basis of differing hydrogeological conditions,
5
   I would say, and soil types.
6
               I would  think  using the  criteria and  guideline:
7
   which might be  later promulgated, as back-up  to  the
8
   criteria, develop potential for attenuation of substances
9
   through the soil, and determining the  potential  for
impact on the ground water, and I think depending on

those assessments, we could provide  for different types

of disposal facilities.

           MR. WILLIAMS:           In different parts of

the country?

           MR. DeGEARE:            Yes.

           MR. STRONG:             Even though some

mention was made earlier about the radioactive mine

tailings being under this, are such  things as deep mine

spoil piles in any sense covered under this Act, or have

those been covered under BU mine regulations, that they

are not included here, even though I didn't see any

mention?  I realize this is a little early because of

these being guidelines.  But is it the thought that these

will be covered under this particular act because there

is some rotten messes that are generated from these thing

-------
                                                   75
 1
              MR. DeGEARE:            One reason I went to
 2
   the trouble of reading those two definitions for
 3
   disposal of solid waste is to indicate the all-encompassiijg
 4
   nature of the law. And that is not to say that we are
 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
going to try to re-invent the wheel in terms of over-

regulating and taking over what is being done adequately

by other agencies and our agency.

           We see the law as directing us to oversee all

placement of wastes on land.  That doesn't mean we are

going to implement new programs for those, we are going

to look at what is already being done and coordinate

what we think should be done with what is being done now.

           MR. BUCCIARELLI:        You are not going to

pre-empt any other act or statute, are you, in. that sense?

This will cover wherever there are gaps?

           MR. DeGEARE:            The gaps will have

to be based on what the Act says is the criteria.  No

adverse effects on health or environment.

           MR. MEHR:               I would like to go

back to a question he pointed out, because a few years

ago I attempted to do something that wasn't able to be

accomplished in the State of Pennsylvania for lack of

evidence, you might say.  He mentioned the fact that in

some states you are permitted to shred, and then place
     ^
this in an open area without putting the three or four

-------
                                                76




or eight inches of fill on top of it, because it has




been proven in some areas that rodents are not attracted,




flies aren't attracted, water doesn't seem to deteriorate




it or anything like that.  Yet in the State of



Pennsylvania, this can't be done because the law states




you must cover the land with so many inches of dirt,




or else it's not considered legal.




           We attempted at one time to go ahead and




densify bales of material, and we ran into a legality




with the state.  There was no evidence to prove that




water did not deteriorate these bales, and there was a




question in mind as to whether you could use bales or




place bales on the surface without having to cover it




with eight or ten inches of dirt.



           The intent of the baler was to go ahead and




avoid this and cut the cost.  It appears to me that some




technical proof must be devised that shredding and




densification is a viable technique, and that it should




be found acceptable in all states, so that you can go




ahead and utilize it.  Maybe that is one of the things




that the federal government should do, because it appears




that the State of Pennsylvania says that dense bales is



not acceptable in Pennsylvania.  But in Minnesota, it's




acceptable to put it in deep water and leave it lay there




in a swamp.

-------
                                                    77

 1             Now  if  it's  suitable  in Minnesota,  why




 2  isn't  it suitable  in  Pennsylvania?  And if it's  bad  in




 3  Pennsylvania, it should be  bad in  Minnesota.




 4             MR.  DeGEARE:             I would like  to




 5  address the general tone of what you are getting at,




 6  rather than the specific question  in that it's something



 7  we have been really perplexed with,  and that  is:  What




 8  degree of  specificity do we go to  at the federal level




 9  with criteria such as we are charged with developing?




10  The problem is  that we  have to deal  with different




11  states and we have to deal  with  different level  entitites

   ^

12  as well as the  various  soils and hydrogeological conditios




13  across the country.   And what  is accepted practice  in




14  one area of the country is  not necessarily the same  for




15  another area.



16             And we  are really wrestling with how  specific




n  we should  deal with these criteria from a national




18  viewpoint.



19             MR.  MEHR:                That is what  I was




20  saying, in the  hearing  part, in  the part where the  s.tate




2i  can go ahead and solve  their problems, that,  I think




„„  is federal jurisdiction.
£t£     -*""


              In areas where Bill Bucciarelli and his  group
23


   has done very successfully  in solving problems in land




   fills, it  seems to be an extra cost  to the federal

-------
                                                    78


   government  and  repetition that shouldn't be done at  the

 2
   expense  of  anyone.   The area that you should concentrate


   on  in  land  fills  is  areas that are in doubt, that you


   can resolve,


               If you can do the technological work that is
 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24
required to prove it's safe to use bale  fills, and then


standardize it so it's applicable in all states, fine,


that is great.  That is something that Bill couldn't


accomplish himself because there wasn't  the funds there


or the time, or whatever the reason was  that they


weren't able to accomplish it.


           But if it is successful in one ^tate of the


union, it ought to be fit for 50 states  in the union.


If it's non-acceptable in this state, then it's suited
                          t^

for none.


           MR. WILLIAMS:           Bat you would agree


there are some things that can be done in one state and


not in another because of physical reasons?


           MR. MEHR:               But surface


application of shredded waste is either  proven in one


state, or disproven in all, because it's on the surface

•^
everywhere.  It doesn't make any difference whether it


lays on the sand or in the swamp.


           MR. RAPIER:             Not having the


responsibility for developing these guidelines, I can

-------
                                                    79
   go ahead and state with all kinds of wisdom, it  seems  to

 2
   me under the question of ^federal pre-emption, EPA can

 3                          ^
   probably define a minimum level of  standards that we

 4
   think are acceptable, whether it depends on climatic


   situations or hydrogeologic situations.

 6
              But I think I hear you raising the issue

 7
   should we insist that Pennsylvania  not have whatever

 8
   criteria they want, over and above  those minimum standard
 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18
               MR.  MEHR:                You can't do that.


               MR.  RAPIER:              Okay.


               MR.  MEHR:                No, I  don't say that.


               MR.  RAPIER:              What you are suggestin


    is we try to devise a minimum?


               MR.  SCHMIDT:             This goes along with


    my statement before of the difference between a


    guideline and a regulation.  In a guideline you can say


    the following things, such as baling or ultra-high


    density compaction, which has been shown in certain


    areas to be a very fine  way of getting rid of garbage.


20   I have seen some demonstrations where they shredded


21   newspaper,  baled it in high density compaction, dropped


22   it from 30-some odd feet and it sits there. You soak it


23   with water,  nothing happens, it just sits there ad


24   infinitum.


25              But perhaps through lack of funding or what

-------
  ;,                                                 80

 1


 2
 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11
   not,  there  is  no promulgation of how good  this  is. And

   necessarily Pennsylvania can't say,  "Hey,  go  do itr"

   unless  they can  be sure what they are saying, "Go do  it"

   has an  acceptance to the environment, it does not

   deteriorate it.

               MR. BUCClARELLIi         I might add  just a

   little  more to that.  I am familiar  with what you are

   talking about.   I don't think that we can  say,  though,

   that  the  regulation prohibits baling per se,  one thing.

               The other thing is that up until now, we

   had no  mechanism to give us  enough to try  an  experimental
                                                             I
l-  method  in our  proposed regulations,  which  are currently   !
                                                             i
i;  being considered by the Environmental Quality Board.

u  We do have  a mechanism whereby we think we can  get

*:1  some  experimental things.

Ui              The other thing I wanted  to mention, this

17  did not stop us  from wanting to try  things.  We did also

18  agree to  go ahead with this  milling  operation that you

   are making  reference to,  like in Powpano Beach  and also

   Madison.  However,  that thing never  turned out  to be  the
19

20
21


22


23


24
   true milling operation we wanted  to  see  tested,  so that

   kind of died by atrophy  as  far  as  experiments  is

   concerned.  It turned into  a conventional  system.

              So we do want to try it.

              Also since it is so  extremely new to

-------
                                                   81
1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Pennsylvania, we are very, very concerned and will
   probably demand a lot of the best evidence available,
   best state-of-the-art on that particular methodology,
   or that'particular system.  And you might interpret
   that as being so restrictive that it blocks it out, but
   you might be right up to a point.
              MR. MEHR:               I wanted to take it
   one further step.  In our case, what happened to the
   deal was that the costs grew so extensively, because of
   the lack of action,  that you couldn't go ahead and
  !economically accomplish a result.  And I think that that
  I is going to be repeated over and over and over again.
   And I thought maybe guidelines that are there, that
   can help, would help solve that problem.
''             MR. SCHMIDT:            In support of DER,
  iI might point out they did improve their regulations
  I for the six inch cover on fly ash.  At one point, fly
is :.'
19

20

21 S

22

23

24

25
   ash had to be celled just as regular garbage did.  And
   as more experience was gotten, they did indeed remove
   that restriction.
              MR. BERN:               I would like to ask
   one question of anyone who can answer it for me.  what
   is the difference between a guideline and a regulation
   with regard to the legal implementations?  Because we
   have got a court.

-------
                                                    82



              MR. RAPIER:              A lot of our lawyers
 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




IS




17




ia




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
will say there is no difference.




           MR. SCHMIDT:            Legal solicitors have




pointed out the one ia no argument, the other is you




can argue about considerably.



           MR. BERN:               Having been both an




enforcement officer, and I don't want to say polluter,



I would prefer to know what I could do.




           MR. DeGEARE:            The apparent




Congressional intent, as far as our guidelines are



concerned, versus the standards, criteria and regulations




which are required, is that the guidelines be more




advisory in nature and provide a discussion of options



and alternatives by which standards and criteria and




regulations can be met.



           So from the viewpoint of one who is reviewing




the mandate of the law with respect to having to write




these things, that is the way I am looking at that.



From the viewpoint of an attorney or judge, I could only




guess.



           MR. MEHR:               Maybe when you write




that,  you should have the viewpoint of an attorney or




judge  before you write it.



           MR. DeGEARE:            We do, but decisions




in the courts hold that one judge may often view a

-------
                                                    83




   situation completely different than another might,  and
2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
you don't know the final answer until you get before the



judge.



           MR. HERMAN:             Don Berman, County



Works Department. Being an engineer, I won't comment



about engineers and lawyers, but it seems to me that



this particular section of the Act should be the easiest



to implement.  I say that because I know the work



Bill Bucciarelli has done here in Pennsylvania with



defining an open dump versus a sanitary land fill, and



I am sure there are many other spates in the country
                               .^-


that have done that.



           I presume that you are going to take what



the ^tates have done, and put it together, and draw  from



that  and come  up with what EPA feels are either the



appropriate guidelines or regulations.  And since  there



has been so much of that work done, and it has been



proven state-to-state, I guess I go back to my statement



and ask a question:  Isn't this going to be the easiest



section to implement?



           MR.  DeGEARE:             I wouldn't disagree



that a lot of  the work has been done. But we have  certain



concerns as to how  far a definition should go.



           Now the  criteria  called  for are, in my



viewpoint, something quite different from simply a

-------
                                                    84

 1  definition which all the states  do  have.   And  they call

 2
    for something more extensive  than just  a  simple


    definition.  A criteria would imply something  like

 A
    perhaps a limit or standard on any  discharge,  either


    subsurface or surface,  and that  issue has not  been


    dealt with uniformly among the jg-tates,  or within states

 7
    we found, especially with regard to placement  of sites

 8
 9


 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


22


 23


24


25
relative to aquifers.

           MR. MBHR:               My point is there  is


much more  work that has been done in that area than,

say in the area of hazardous wastes.  There is a  lot

more to work with, and all you have got  to do is  find

your level, rather than try to start from scratch and

develop a whole series of parameters, and then pick a


level out of that.

           MR. WILLIAMS:           Probably more  bad

habits to counteract in the municipal waste area  than


in the hazardous waste area.

           MR. MEHRt               The definitions are


good.

           MR. WILLIAMS:           The definitions are


good, but I think the way the Act has been written, it

suggests that Congress feels, not in certain places,

but in the country as a whole, we have been handling

the municipal wastes as though they were a lot more

-------
                                                     85

 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
benign than  they  were.


           MR.  ZADANs               May we go on to a


new subject?   I was led to believe that you would discuss


the restructuring of the tax structure, and what effect


that might have upon solid waste.


           MR.  DeGEARE:            You might try on


the next guy.   I  know  I am a hard act to follow.


           MR.  MEHR:               Have you been in


touch with Eugene Win«*ge* of the National Solid Wastes

j V\ £"t_vn
-------
                                                    86
  1
    don't know what happenes to it as long as he is under
  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  a


  9


 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18



 19 !l deduce, for being in this business and having this law.


 20 ''            MR. MEYERS:             DOT is another thing.


    We had one of the samples that this gentleman alluded


    to, which I tried to send a sample to Browning-Ferris,


    and I couldn't get through our transportation department


24  to send the sample, because I couldn't describe it.


25 " So that is a big problem.
21


22


23
    permitf yet if something bad happens,  we are responsible


    or we have the secondary liability.   And I would like to


    see in any law, something so that we don't have that


    responsibility.  That once they take it, they are the


    responsible party,  as long as we provide them with a


    proper description.


               And another thing, in the past we have dealt


    with water and air  agencies with EPA,  and we find that


    they seem to be concerned only with their special field,


    as long as they can transfer it from a water problem to


    an air problem, they don't care.  And I would like to


    urge you all that you don't take this problem and convert


    it back to a water  problem.


               And you  seem to have taken this, but


               MR. DeGEARE:            I believe you have


    read the Congressional history of this law, that is one


    of the primary purposes, from what we have been able to

-------
                                                   87


              MR. DeGEARE:            With regard to your

2
   first question on liability, an answer was not given.

o
   But that question was raised last week in Atlanta, and


   this question was posed:  Does liability transfer through


   the manifest system? And we didn't have any preconceived


   ideas at that time, and that is something we should

7
8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
certainly look at, because it has been raised as a


question in other forms also.


           Thank you.


           MR. RAPIER:             Thank you, Truett.


           My schedule says that the discussion on


resource conservation is going to extend from 8:45 to


9:15, and by my watch I see it's almost 9:15.  So I


thought maybe I would introduce you to Bob Lowe, and


move on.


           No, not really, I am not going to do that.


           A major thrust of the Act is, of course, the


control and the production of environmental degradation


due to the handling and disposal of various waste


materials.  We have been talking here about some of the


major features of the Act  for the explicit control and


reduction through the regulatory process, that is


hazardous waste measurement programs, strict regulatory


control over land disposal.  But there is certainly


another and very significant aspect of the control and

-------
                                                    88

    reduction of environmental degradation,  and that is

 2
    through better management of our resources. Resource

 3
    conservation and resource recovery.
    Office of Solid Waste Management is going to talk about

 1
    some of the significant features in the Act that touch

 Q
    upon the whole resource conservation recovery aspect.

 g
    And he will probably  talk  about  that tax structure
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
               Bob Lowe,  who is the Chief,  Technical


    Aissistance Brancjs,  Resource Recovery Division of the
thing as well.


           MR. LOWE:               Thank you,  Gordon.


           One of the major objectives of the  Office


of Solid Haste Management is to reduce the amount of


waste requiring disposal. And there are two approaches


to this:


           One is through waste reduction, and that is


reducing the;.-amount of waste that is generated in the


first place.


           And the second is through recycling.


           I am going to review some of the sections in


the Act that address this, and provide us with the


authority to attempt to help the states and the local


governments solve these problems.


           There are two things I might add, one in


our favor and one not in our favor.  The one in our

-------
 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
                                                   89


   favor,  I  think  one of the most important incentives

2
   for  recycling is  the development of strict criteria



   for  land  disposal. The stricter the criteria for land



   disposal,  the greater the incentive to drive up the  cost



   of land disposal  and therefore make resource recovery



   more attractive.



              The  other factor working against us is the



   level of  funding  and staffing we have to implement these



   sections  of the Act.  We are actually in worse shape,



   "we" meaning those of us who are working in reaoarcfi



   conservation and  resource recovery, we are in worse



   shape than most people. We are in the same boat as Tom
                                                           X


   in training, in that we don't have mandatory requirements



   and  deadlines.  As a result, many of our resources have



   to be put into  the areas that do have those specific



   deadlines and specific requirements, such as the



   subtitle  C hazardous waste management.


              So a lot of what I am saying is nice, but



   it's empty because we don't have the backing of the



   dollars.  We don't control that.  If you want to have some



   impact on that, there are some people to whom you can



   write.


              MR.  MEHR:               Who?


              MR.  LOWE:               The President, Congres



   Bert Lance, head  of OMB.  That is a good start.

-------
  1
                                                 90



            MR. MEHR:               You  can't  reach  them,
 2 "  it doesn't mean a thing.



 3 |            MR. LOWE:               The President has an
   Ij

 *   800 number,
               MR. MEHR:               I have got letters



    in my briefcase that are very, very nice from all these



    people, that say, "We are sorry, we can't do a thing
   II


 6  for you."



 9 1            MR, WILLIAMS:           Not from those people,



10  the other group.



H             MR. MEHR:               I wrote the



    transition committee, and they don't know what is going
13



H



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23
on.  You write to Mr. Lance, he will tell you he  is  not



prepared yet.



           MR. LOWEt               I think writing to



Congress is effective, because your congressman,  whether



he cares what you say or not, will write a letter to



an executive agency which has a certain obligation to



reply, and at least you get some attention.



           MR. MEHR:               Congress  passed their



own increase and never went ahead and put a  budget in



for you.


           MR. LOWE:               I would like to
24  review some of the sections of the Act that address
25
resource recovery and resource conservation, most  of

-------
 9


10


11



12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23



24


25
                                                   91


  which  are  on  this  slide.


              The  guidelines in section 1008,  which was


  mentioned  earlier  by Truett, call for, among other

4
  guidelines,  for recycling.


              Section 2003 calls for — I use the section

t*
  numbers  for you who are bureaucratically oriented out


  there, and really  don't know how to think in terms of


  concepts.   The  resource recovery and conservation


  panels,  the technical assistance — that is a very


  selective  insult,  you know,  resource recovery and


  conservation  panels, which I will get into in a moment,


  subtitle D, which  includes the definition "requirements


  for land disposal  programs and statewide planning,"


  requires that jjtate plans address resource recovery.


              One  thing that is not up here is section 6002,


  federal  procurement guidelines.  We are obligated to


  write  guidelines to require the federal purchasing


  agencies to review, and if necessary change their


  purchase specifications to,  in the long run, help


  create markets  for secondary materials.  Now specifically


  to remove any provisions that forbid the use of


  secondary materials in products purchased by the


  government, and more positively to encourage the increase


  of recycled material in products purchased by the
   government,  resource recovery and conservation, is

-------
                                                    92

   called  for injection  8003,  "information  dissemination",

 2
   which Tom Williams covered earlier. And in  all  the  8000

 3
   section, 8002,  4, 5 and  6, all  those  are  oriented toward

 4
   studies and demonstrations, which  I will  get  to a little


   bit  in  a moment.


              Section 8002  calls for  special studies in  a


   variety of areas, each of which requires  a  report to

 g
   Congress, which is the closest  thing  we come  to a

 g
   specific mandate, unfortunately.   One thing I would like


   to put  some emphasis on  here  is that  the  inclusion  of


11  the  small-scale,  low technology,  front end  separation


12  items on here,  that refers to source  separation. For


13  those of you who  are not familiar  with that,  that is


14  where the home  owner or  office  or  industry  segregates


15  certain recyclable materials  from  all of  the  rest of


16  the  waste, and  directs it through  separate  collection


17  channels, back  to a recycler.   This is going  to get


18  considerable emphasis.  It has  been getting some emphasis


19  and  it's going  to get  more.


20             Section 8002{j) calls  for  the  establishment


21  of a resource conservation committee, which is  a cabinet


22  level committee.  It's composed of the Administrator


23  of EPA  and several cabinet secretaries, and a


24  representative  of the  Office  of Management  and  Budget.


25  i find  great irony in  that that a  mere representative of

-------
                                                    93

   the Office of Management and Budget, who would be a

   representative at ray level, is the equivalent of a
3
   secretary, for example.
4
              The establishment of this committee is good
5
   and bad.  In a sense it's bad because it recommends more
6
   study, and therefore any further legislation in  the
7
   areas of economic incentives and so on now is postponed
8
   for three years until the studies are complete.
9
              Obviously you can't do something if somebody
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
is studying it.

           On the other hand, this is the first time

that studying of this nature has been brought into the

administration.   In the past, there were special

commissions, there have been about four or five, I think,

since 1950, special commissions for this purpose, all of

which were more  easily ignored than hopefully what this

cabinet will do.  And I guess the law comes at a good

time, because we have a brand new cabinet and the

studies can be completed while these people are still in

office, at least while the President is still in office.

           Some  of the issues which this committee is

authorized and required to investigate are listed up

here.  The existing public policy item on here I think

addresses the gentleman from GASP's questions directly.

This includes depletion allowance for timber, et cetera.

-------
                                                    94



 1              I  think I will go on, because  wa  are  running


   a  little  behind.  I can  take questions  for  this  later,


   if you -want.


               The  resource  recovery conservation  panels,


 5  which is  the  part I am concerned with most  directly,

 f
   even though it  has the name "resource recovery and
 7
   conservation",  it  includes  not  only  those  areas,  but
 O
   also  all  of solid waste  management,  land  disposal  and

 Q
   hazardous waste management.


10              The resource  recovery panels are a  form of


11  technical assistance,  which  is  bureaucratic language for


12  information and consulting and  advice  provided free of


13  charge by the federal  government to  whoever wants  it.


               Some of the purposes of this technical


15  assistance are to help ^tates design and  implement


16  regulatory programs, and I think that  addressed your


17  question  earlier.   Also  to help s^tate  and local


18  governments develop alternatives to  land  disposal, such


19  as  resource recovery systems


20              The panels  will be composed of -- are


21  required  to be composed  of specialists in the following


22  fields;  Technical, marketing,  financial  and institutiona


23  The teams will be composed of EPA staff people,


   consultants under contract to EPA, and state and local


25  officials.  And this will be provided  to  other state and

-------
                                                   95

 1
   local officials through a concept we call  "peer matching.

 2
   Through grants to national organizations of public

 3
   officials, such as the National Association of Counties,

 4
   National League of Cities, and so on.

 5
              Let me just clarify one thinqr  The word
 6
   "panels", which is written into the law, I find that to

 7
   be a misnomer.  At least I am not interpreting it the

 8
   way the word is generally accepted.  The word "panel"

 9
   is generally interpreted to mean a fixed unit of

10
   individuals, maybe four individuals who work as a


   unit and travel as a unit, and when called upon, would

12
   go as a unit to a given city and sit down with the

13
   officials in that city.

14
              I don't see it working there.   I see it more


   as a pool of resources, or a stable, as some people


   refer to it, where we have a list, of people with all

17
   kinds of expertise and all kinds of background who can

18
   be provided as appropriate to anyone who asks for


   assistance and meets our requirements, meets our


20  criteria for assistance.  So that in any given situation,


   we may send just one person, someone from  our staff,


   or we may extend a consultant or something like that.


23             The Act requires that 20 percent of the

24  general authorization be spent on technical assistance


25  programs.  That could be 20 percent of a fairly.small

-------
                                                    96


    number,  however, and  that  20 percent could  be  accounted

 2
    for  in a variety of ways,  and if you recognize the

 3
    existence of creative accounting,  it could  be  smaller,


    and  I  think it could happen to us  here.

 5
              An important issue within the  agency,  some

 6
    of you may have some opinion on, is:  What  will be  the

 7
    relative emphasis  that EPA places  on regulations, on the

 Q
    one  hand, as a means  of improving  solid waste  management

 9
10



11


12


13



14


15


16


17


18


19


20



21



22


23



24


25.
and protecting the environment, regulation on one hand,


versus non-regulatory subjects, such as recovery?


There is a tendency to pick the regulatory.  We are


concerned that the non-regulatory aspect not be


forgotten.


           Now I have a few questions which reflect


some of the things we are trying to deal with now.


Maybe I should wait on them for just a minute to see if


there are any questions from the floor, or any opinions


from the floor on what I already said.


           MR. HERMAN:             Don Berman, Allegheny


County Works.  First as a comment, you said that if


somebody is going to study something, you can't do


something until the study is over.  I just beg to differ


with you? we have got one local government in Allegheny


County who is doing three things at once.  They are


preparing a RFB for a recovery system, they have got a

-------
                                                   97


   study to get decided,  and they are getting some money

2
   to get a solid waste management plan.  So they are


3  doing all three things at once.


              But in your investigations of front end


   separation, I don't know if you are going to do this or
6


   looked into the availability of the kinds of trucks.
  not, but  I think it would be  appropriate if you also

7
8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
   the packers that are going  to  pick  that material up if


   it is separated.  Now there is  no sense in the home


   owner separating, and then  putting  it all together in


   the back of a  20 yard packer.


             The truck industry  has got  to do something


   to be able to move that material from  its source where


   its separated, to a resource recovery  center.   And I have


   not seen anything like that major come along from the


   industry.


             MR. LOWE:                Thank you.


             Mr. Mehr?


             MR. MEHR:                Harold Mehr.  One of


   the reasons why you can't do that.  Doctor, is  because


   in section 7008(b) it says, "Prohibition.  No  grant may


   be made under  this act to any  private  profit making


   organization."  And industry is not going to experiment


   for the benefit of the public  at a  cost to itself, withou


   some  subsidy or something  that will help it along.

-------
 9


 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


22


23


24


25
                                                   98


              So what you have actually done in the Act is

2
   put in a restraint which makes it impossible for industry

3
   to do what you want it to do.


              MR. HERMAN:             My point is if you

5
   are going to have  source separation,  there has to be a

6
   truck available to move it.  Don't forget that

7
   transportation item in your look  at source separation,

8
   that's all.


              MR. LOWE:                Tom,  did you have


   a comment?


              MR. WILLIAMSj           I would like to expand


   what the second gentleman said.  When we say "industry"


   we are speaking about all different organizations doing


   all kinds of things.   One very influential segment of


   industry claims that if we can recycle all these wastes


   so well that we shouldn't be concerned about waste


   reduction,  the beverage container legislation and other


   things of that sort.


              Now the same industry  that says we can recycle


   so well,  seems to  me  should be willing to —


              MR. MEHR:                Alcoa is making a


   profit with the aluminum,  but  the guy that goes ahead


   and makes the truck isn't going to profit from it.


              MR. WILLIAMSt            He will if the large


   cities  see  a  need  to  go to source separation, they can

-------
                                                    99
1
   certainly ask for the proper kind  of  truck.
2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
           MR. MEHR:               Let me  tell you


where, there is a weakness in your thinking.  There are


two organizations that spend a tremendous  amount of


money on resource recovery in the solid waste field.


One was very successful, one failed miserably.


           If you take a look at the Saugus,


Massachusetts success versus the Baltimore failure, you


will find the reason the Baltimore failure was so


successful was that the public regulations that went


ahead and put in the bidding made them underbid the


project in Baltimore, and it failed because  it was


under bid and wasn't built properly.


           The reason why it was successful  in Saugus


was that they went ahead and put in the redundancy  that


was required at a cost to private enterprise who saw


the need, but wasn't hampered by regulation.


           What I am trying to say is that you have


built into your regulations already, the  things that


hamper, the things that Dr. Herman finds  is  so necessary,


you see, to succeed.

           MR. WILLIAMS:           No, I  am sorry,  sir,


there is nothing in the Act that prohibits a city  or


any private industry from using any kind  of truck  it


wants to to collect and take wastes away  for recycling.

-------
                                                    100


    And if you are saying that EPA has had very successful


    failures,  I could only agree


               MR. MEHR:                I am saying a_ Mack


    truck  could do R & D  on units they know will sell hundreds


    and thousands of units, and will be reluctant to put


    in  the requirements to take care of the specific need

 7
    that Dr.  Barman feels is essential, and we know is


    necessary, but you don't find it profitable to do


 9  without some kind of  incentive that tells you to go ahead
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
and do it, because the need is there.


           Eventually they may find  the market is large


enough, but at present, the market analysis  proves  that


it's a waste of dollars to go ahead  and do the


experimentation.


           You won't get it.  You may not get it for  20


or 30 more years.


           MR. LOWE:               Let me make a few


comments to respond to, there were about eight points


that were exchanged in the interchange.  One, we do


recognize that the transportation link is essential to


the channel, and we are already working on that to  some


•xtent.


           With response to Mr. Mehr's comments, we


can promote, we are authorized to promote the development


of new kinds of equipment under the  demonstration section

-------
                                                101

of the Act.  We can provide grants to municipalities for

the purchase of new kinds of equipment.  We can provide

contracts to private industry, we can enter into new

contracts with private industry for the development of

new technology.  That's all if we have the money.

           So the law does provide us with that avenue

of stimulating the R & D in the private sector, if we

find the private sector is not going to take the ball

themselves.

           You mentioned the failure of the Baltimore

project.  And you mentioned that the procurement

restrictions, the local procurement restrictions had a

lot to do with that.

           The procurement restrictions of most s.tates

and cities are not suited to the purchase of resource

recovery systems, because most procurement regulations

are suited to systems that don't involve such great

amounts of money, and such high risk, and therefore are

not suited.  We recognize that.

           We are going to be working, and part of our

technical assistance program will be oriented toward

helping states and local governments recognize this as
        "£
a problem, and then hopefully change their laws, or

at least their procedures to deal with this better. And

in that sense, the Baltimore facility was a success.

-------
 6
 7
 9
10
                                                    102




              The Baltimore  project  was  a  success because



   it pointed that out.



              MR. MBHR:                $16  million worth




   of success that isn't used  or  can't be  used  successfully



   right  now?   That  is a success? I would like to see your
    failures.
               MR.  LOWE:                I  just said it was  in
    that respect.   I  resent cheap shots  like that,  when you



    tend to generalize.
               MR.  MEHR:                I didn't mean it as




U I  a  cheap shot.



12              MR.  LOWE:                All right.  Technicall




13   it was  a failure,  but I  would rather have one failure




14   at the  federal  government's  expense, rather than one



15   failure at  the  local  taxpayer's  level where more people




16   can  get hurt.



17              MR. .BIiUMCREif-;            Harold Blumgron-,



18   Morthwest Engineering.   You  made one opening comment,




19   probably a  small  point,  but  you  said one way to make



20   resource recovery more attractive was to make stiffer



21   regulations for land  fills.   I think probably as long



22   as the  regulations make  environmentally sound land fills,




23   that is probably  not  too good of a point to make,



24 |  especially  for  many rural areas  that don't have the
25
   amount  of solid waste necessary to attempt to even make

-------
                                                    103

    a try at resource recovery.

 2
               So I think that if you are looking at that


    for a possibility of implementation, or stressing


    resource recovery,  that the small municipalities, or


    relatively rural areas should be given some kind of


    consideration because of their small wastes.
               MR.  WILLIAMS:            May I comment on
 8   tnat,  Bob?
 9              MR.  LOWE:                Sure.


10              MR.  WILLIAMS:            First,  I don't believe


11   Mr.  Lowe  intended  to  say  that anybody favors tight


    regulations of  disposal simply to encourage resource


13   recovery.   It's  just  a by-product of that.


14              The  reason for  encouraging better disposal


15   practices  are to protect  the  public health  and


16   environment .


17              MR.  n LUMP REN:            I am saying if the


18   land fills  are  adequate   at the present regulations,


19   then perhaps the regulations  should be different.


20              MR.  WILLIAMS:            I think  also we will


21   see, in the next five years or so,  that the situation


22   with regard to  small  towns and rural areas  is not


23   necessarily so  positioned  against resource  recovery,


24   as we now tend  to  think.  We  tend to think  too much in


25   terms of a  large technological system,  such as the

-------
                                                    104
              I —- y r^- w *—• • w i ^
 1
   Baltimore T?ui jHH-Jrfe—and some others.

 A
              And actually some little work that has been
 3
   into some activities going on in rural areas, suggest

 5  that there are tremendous possibilities, considering the
 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
   done recently by the WildCLife Federation, in looking
relatively small problems they have, for recovering

materials in rural areas.

           Also, it's interesting in the discussion we

had a while ago about trucks, the manufacturers will

build what there is a market for.  One of the ironies

to me is that while most people will concede that

recovering resources or separating resources, like

separating aluminum cans is probably a cheaper and a

better way to recycle huge quantities of material, if

you leave out the thing of energy production, just the

materials to be used again, that almost none of it is

going on.  And where it is going on is a couple of towns

in Massachusetts, small communities which the ^resource

recovery division of EPA has given a grant to.
$        ^
           And I don't know why that can't be done in

large cities, such as Chicago and Philadelphia and

others, with a little imagination and a little risk

taking.

           By the way, I hope you don't mind my talking.

This is supposed to be a discussion, I am a citizen also,

-------
                                                    105
 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
           Actually we ought to be sitting in a circle,

this is a very bad arrangement, we sit here like judges.

           I don't apologize for opening my mouth, I

just wanted you to know it's legal.

           MR. LOWE:               I would like to

apologize to Mr. Mehr for pouncing on you.  In my

experience at these public meetings, you are one of the

moat informed of all the people who have attended, and

we appreciate that very much, so I am sorry for what  I

said.

           MR. MEHRt               I am sorry  too, I

didn't mean to make it as a cheap shot.  It was just

information.

           MR. BOCCIARELLI:        I would  like to speak

as a citizen too.

           MR. LOWE:               Would you  care to

move down there, please?

            (Laughter.)

           MR. BUCCIARELLI:        Taking  up  what  this

gentleman brought  up  here,  in  fact  I was going to do  it

there  for a s-acond, I agree  if  you are  going  to define

land fills in such a  restrictive  sense  with your idea

being  to drive attention  toward resource recovery and

away from land  filling, the  only  thing  you are going  to

do is  drive us up  a wall, for  one thing.

-------
   I

               Secondly,  after all,  no matter what recovery

  2
    system you have, you  must have supplemental or supportive

  3
    land fills for those  items that cannot be recovered,

  4
    number 1.


               And number 2,  you must have the land fill as

  6
    a back-up  system.   There  is no other methodology that

  7
    could act  as a back-up system.  So I don't think that

  s
    that would be a proper way of trying to encourage resourc

  9
    recovery.

 10
               As far  as  the  rural area is concerned, one of


    the things that we attempt to do in rural areas, is to

 12
    first centralize solid waste systems,  then work and


 13   ,_
    phase in resource  recovery over time.


 14             And I agree with Tom here that there are


    certain elements of resource recovery that you can

 16
    build in terras of  separating maybe metal and that kind


 17  of thing initially, but they are having a difficult time

 18
    supporting the cheapest alternative in solid waste


 19  technology, and that  is land fill, much less even


 20  consider going into resource recovery.


 21             MR. LOWE:                I have a couple of


 22  questions  that reflect some of the issues that we are


 23  trying to  deal with.   I don't know if  I will have time


    to get answers on  this.   I  am not sure if you have ever


25  thought of this before, but we would appreciate it if

-------
                                                    107
 1
   you could give it  some  thought  and  let  me  know,  either
 2
   telephone me or write me,  or  telephone  or  write  to
 3
   Mr. Rapier's staff in ^region  3.
 4                        ^~
              Assuming  that we do  not  have enough resources
 5
   in our technical assistance program to  help  everybody

 6
   who comes in with  a  request,  how  do we  prioritize the
 7
   requests?  Which communities  do we  work with,  and which

 8
   ones don't we work with?

 9
              Do we do  it  on  the basis of  the most  tonnage,

10
   or the basis of the  most critical environmental  problems,

11
   or the basis of those communities most  likely  to succeed?

12 I
              If we do  it  on  the basis of  most  tonnage, that

13
   means we will work with New York  first,  Los  Angeles

14
   second, Chicago third,  Philadelphia fourth and so on,


   and won't be able  to help  small communities.

Tfi
              If we do  it  on  the basis of  the most  critical

17
   environmental problems, then  we are discriminating

18
   against the communities that  want to implement resource

   recovery, let's say, or something else  in  the  solid

20  waste management system, who  are  already doing a good

21  job and don't have a severe environmental  problem, becauss

22  they are doing a good job.  Or  do we work  with the

23  communities most likely to succeed,  in  which case we

24  don't necessarily  help  those  who  have the  most critical

25  environmental problem,  nor are  we building the statistics

-------
                                                  108
1
   that  justify our existence in a bureaucracy.  So that

   is one of the questions.

             Another thing, should technical assistance

   be given to a few states and governments in an in-depth

   way,  in other worda, give them all the help we can to

   a few cities, or do we go an inch deep and a mile wide,

   giving a little bit of help to as many cities as we

   can get to?  And that means without the kinds of

   follow-up to make sure our information is being

   understood.

             Also, what criteria should EPA use in

   evaluating resource conservation options, such as

   incentives, product regulations, that kind of thing?

   Should we focus on those measures that address total

   overall pollution, or resource scarcity, or employment

   impacts, or balance of  payment impacts?  And  there are

   a bunch of others.

             Those are  the kinds of questions we are

   dealing with  now,  and anybody who has an opinion  on

   that, I would love to hear it.

              MR.  STRONG:              I  come  from  an area

   which is  relatively  rural.   It seems  to me  one other

   criteria  for  deciding who  you would help  first would  be

   to  select  the areas  with the greatest level of  ignorance,

   and there would be your in-depth  impact, whereas  if you

-------
                                                   109

   look at a larger urban  center  that  has  engineering

2
   support with in-house in  those areas, maybe  there would
g
   only need be a light level  of  support.

4
              I know in our  areas, we  have a  county engineer

5
   who has to do everything  from  surveying bridges, to
c
   designing swings in the park.

7
              He tries to be knowledgeable, but again, he

g
   could, you know, use quite  a bit of support.   I know

g
   he is interested in this  area,  whereas  perhaps in a


   larger area where you have  20  engineers instead of one


   engineer, maybe you have  an engineer for park swings  in


   some areas, that the level  of  support there  might not


   -be necessarily as intense.


14             MR. LOWE:                Thank you,  that is


15  a good point. Although  I  don't know,  I  am  trying to


16  picture the words in which  we  announce  the winners of


17  our technical assistance, those least able to help


18  themselves.


19             MR. BERN:                In my opinion, the


20  government should not go  into  any resource recovery


21  concept that could be successful on its own,  that is


22  already economically successful, because it  will happen


23  anyhow with private capital.


24             MR. MEHR:                I am going to go


25  against that.

-------
                                                110


           MR. LOWE:               Yes, sir?


           MR. MEHR:               I think Japan has


proven to the world that federal assistance to private
                         "^,

enterprise for solving problems is really the only


intelligent route to take.


           MR. LOWE-.               Excuse me, could we


clarify what kind of assistance you are talking about?


           MR. MEHR:               Money to give private


enterprise an ability to succeed in an area that is so


risky it won't run the risk.  Japan is one of the few


nations in the world that actually goes ahead and backs


private enterprise to a dollar and cents amount, and


succeeds.


           I think this is a miserable failure in the


United States, where we are afraid to take dollars and


give it to the individual who has the greatest opportunity


for success in using those dollars to succeed.  I think


what we should do is insist when this is done, that we


have a revolving credit type of system, you make money,


you pay back your debt, you understand.  You lose your


tail, you are insured.  This is sort of like an ex-i»


bank type of arrangement, where if you go to a country


and they expropriate your investment, the government


insures it.


           Let's put on some type of guarantees that help

-------
3
19
20
21
22


24
25
                                                111
private enterprise, risk takers to take those
unreasonable risks to make something successful.  Then
if he succeeds, make him pay back the debt at  2 percent
4   interest or 3  percent interest, and reinvest it on
**   somebody else.
6              I think you are wasting your money the way
7   you are doing  it now.  I think Japan has proven they
8   can succeed where we failed.
9              MR.  WILLIAMS:           Our vested interest
1°   representative didn't say anything that you refuted.  He
11   said the government ought to put it in on those that
12   private industry couldn't do it on.
13              MR.  MEHR:               How do you know?
14 1             MR.  BERN:               Secondary metal,
15   for instance,  secondary fibers.
16              MS. MEHRr               How about oxides?
17   In secondary metals, there are dozens of metallic oxides
18 I that are hazardous, that get put into land  fills, and
 we  close  our  eyes  to  these things and they seep into
 the water systems  and bust our spleens and reduce our
 liver  to  jelly,  and all  this sort of stuff.  And we
 don't  spend the  money to solve the problem, but you
 pretend it isn't there.
           MR. BERN:                * happen to be private
 enterprise*

-------
                                                    112


               MR.  LOWE:                Could I recognize

 2
    Dr.  Berman?

 3
               MR.  BERMAN:             If somebody calls me


    doctor one more time, I am going to spit.  It's

 5
    Don Berman, Director Berman.

 e
               The Lord may strike me dead with a

 7
    thunderbolt, because I am a member of a government agency

 a
    too, but I have been in Washington twice on this Act:

 9
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
Once before it was passed and once after it was passed.


My comment, along with other government officials, was,


"Uncle Sam, keep your construction rates."  All it's


going to do is slow us down.  Help us with technical


assistance, help us do what we have to do, but keep your


money.


           I agree that industry should be paid for what


they do, but I don't think that money ought to come from


Washington.  I think that money ought to come from my


pocket and everybody else in Allegheny County, and if


the company moves in here and makes a profit, let them


pay it back to us.

           MR. MEHR:               How about the little
guy
    who doesn't have the dollars.  One of  the  little
fellows in Japan, started out as a little  fellow like


me and learned how to reclaim zinc successfully, and it


took $4 million to get him started.

-------
                                                   113

1
               I  am  not  talking  about  Wheelabrater-Frye  or

2
    General  Motors,  I  am talking about a  little guy who

3
    can't  get  an  idea  off the  ground,  who is  not General

4
    Motors.

5
               MR. LOWE:                Just in response

£
    to  that  discussion,  let  me clarify what the law does

7
    provide  and doesn't  provide.  It does provide funding

a
    for planning,  it provides  financial assistance for


9   planning,  both at  the js,tate  level  and at the local


    level.  It also  provides technical assistance, which


    obviously  is  just  for planning.


12              It does not provide for any construction  or


13   purchase of land,  with the one exception of a


14   demonstration project, in  which case that is technology


15   that in  our judgment would not be  done otherwise,  which


16   is  essentially what  this gentleman recommended.


17              The issue of  loan guarantees and construction


18   subsidies, generally a lot of people testified just


19   the way  Mr. Herman did,  and  for that reason, the


20   Congress rejected  them,  even though there was great


21   support  from, what do you  call it  "pork barreling" or


22   whatever the  term  is in  Congress.


23              Okay, I see the hook coming.


24              Thank you.


25              MR. RAPIER:              Thank you. Bob.

-------
                                                 114

           I wonder if we could have  just one  last

 short  presentation by Truett.  Can you do it in  ten

 minutes, Truett?  will you try?

           Truett is going to talk about state program

 development issues.

           MR.  DeGEARE:            The Resource

 Conservation and Recovery Act recognizes that  the major

 roles  in solid  waste management lie with state and
                                         *£-
 local  government.  This  is especially evident  in

 subtitle D.
^
           The  state may play a key role in limiting
               -^;
 open dumps, and also administering a  hazardous waste

 program.  The opvernor,  in consultation with local

 elected officials, can structure a mechanism for

 preparing and implementing solid waste plans that build

 on existing efforts at the state and  local levels. At

 the federal level, the Administrator  will publish

 guidelines for  identification of regions, jstate  plans

 and state hazardous waste programs.

           Section 4002(a) of RCRA gives the Administrate

 six months to publish guidelines for  the identification

 of those areas which have common solid waste problems,

 and are appropriate units for planning regional solid

waste services.  That is the kickoff  of the three step

 process, I believe taking 18 months.

-------
                                                    115

               Within six months of those guidelines, the

 2
    governor of each j.tate, after consultation with local

 3
    elected officials, will promulgate regulations

 4
    identifying the boundaries of each area within the state


    which, as a result of urban concentration, geographic

 c
    conditions, markets and other factors is appropriate


    for carrying out regional solid waste management services

 Q
               The sjtate then has another six months to


 9  jointly, with the appropriate elected officials of local


10  government, identify an agency to develop the jjtate


11  plan and identify one or more agencies to implement the


12  plan and identify which solid waste functions will,


13  under the plan be planned for and carried out by ^tate,


14  regional and local authority, or a combination thereof.


15             Where feasible, agencies designated under


16  section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,


17  will be considered for designation.


18             So the three step process is kicked up by


19  our promulgating guidelines on identification of planning


20  areas.  The governors and local officials then identify


21  the planning areas , and thirdly the governors and local


22  officials identify  the respective  roles of the


23  entities involved.


94             Section 4002 (b) requires the TVdministrator,


25  after consultation with appropriate federal, state and

-------
                                                   116
1
   local authorities,  to promulgate regulations containing
2
   guidelines  to  assist in the development and implementation
3
   of state solid waste clans.  This is  due in April  of
4
   1978.


              The Act  provides minimum requirement  for

   approval of jitate plans,  which  include the identification

   of responsibilities in implementing the £tate plan,  the

   distribution of any federal funds to  the appropriate


   authority responsible for implementing the plan, and

   means for coordinating regional planning and iraplementaticjn,

              The prohibition of the establishment  of new

   open  dumps  within the £tate and requirements that  all


   solid waste, including solid waste originating in  other

   states,  shall  be utilized for resource recovery  or

   disposed of in sanitary land fills.   Provision for the

   closing  or  upgrading of all existing  open dumps  within

   the state,  provision that no local government within the

   state shall be prohibited under state or local law from


   entering into  long-term contracts for supply of  solid

   waste to resource recovery facilities.   Disposal of

   solid waste and'sanitary  land fills,  or any combination

   of practices as necessary to use or dispose of the solid

   waste in a  manner that is environmentally sound.   RCRA

   authorizes  assistance to  state  and local governments in


   a  number of places.   Section 4008(a)(l)  authorizes

-------
                                                    117





 1  $30 million for 1978  and  $40 million  for  1979  for  grants




 2  to states to be distributed to  state,  local, regional




   and interstate authorities carrying out the planning and




   implementation of the state plan,  as  discussed earlier.



   This money would be distributed among the states on



   a population basis, except that each  state receives




 7  one-half of one percent of the  total  available.




 8             Section 4008(a) (2) authorizes  $15 million



 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
each of the fiscal years 1978 and 1979 for



counties, municipalities and inter-municipal agencies



and state and local public solid waste disposal
    -^


authorities for implementation of programs to provide



solid waste management services.



           The assistance can include assistance for



facility planning and feasibility studies, expert



consultation, surveys and analyses of market needs,



marketing of recovered resources, technology assessments,



legal expenses, construction feasibility studies, source



separation projects and fiscal or economic investigations



or studies. But the assistance cannot include any other



element of construction or any acquisition of land or



land interests, or any subsidy for the price of recovered



resources.



           There is also a provision for assistance to



what are identified as special communities.  Funding is

-------
1
                                                118
                         one
relatively low, and only/such community is allowed per

state and one project per ^tate, and the project must

be consistent with the s,tate plan.

           There is a special provision for rural

communities in order to assist them in meeting the

requirements of section 4005 dumo closure requirements.

These funds would be provided in the form of grants to

jjtates, and could include construction, but not land

acquisition.

           There are specific criteria and distribution

formulas for distribution of funds in the s.tate provided

in the law.  And one important is that all these "gee

whiz" figures on dollars authorized are simply figures

on dollars authorized.  They in no way reflect any money

available now, or necessarily in the future.

           So with regard to funding potentials, if you

are doing something constructive now, don't stop and

wait for federal funding.

           Do you have any  thoughts or suggestions

relative to our encouraging ^tate and local program

development as consistent with the new law?

           MR. MATTHEWS:           Jack Matthews, citizen

of Allegheny County.

           As a non-engineer, how can I find out the

"state of the art" of certain of the programs that have

-------
                                                    119

    been described,  the Baltimore program, the Saugus,


    Massachusettes  program?

 3
               Secondly,  how can I find out hov Allegheny

 4
    County stacks up with comparable counties throughout

 5
    the country?

 6
               And  third, if I should discover that it's

 7
 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
not moving as rapidly as I would  like  it  to, how do  I


go about getting it to move a little bit  more  rapidly?


I find it extremely difficult to  get information.


           It seems to me that one of  the services that


should be provided by someone would be providing access


to information to novices like myself who want to do


an intelligent job as a citizen.


           MR. DeGEAREt            We  try to do that,


provide that kind of information.  In  fact, Tom Williams'


office is intimately involved in  that.  We disseminate


that information through our headquarters office, as


well as the regional office, and  the js;tate solid waste


management office.


           MR. MATTHEWS:           How can the citizen


ultimately get a hold of it?


           MR. DeGEARE:            The most direct way


is to correspond with us, with the state  agency or our
                                   •^

regional office, ask the question, and we will do the


best we can to answer it.

-------
                                                120
           We have funded in the past, studies and
demonstrations, and we have some experience ourself. And
we can draw on our experience, as well as that of jstate
agencies, to provide answers as best we can.
           we don't always have the answers, but we will
do all we can to provide them.  I think we have a pretty
good track record in terms of response.
           MR. BERKAK:             Would a bibliography
help the gentleman, the free literature?
           MR. DeGEARE:            We have a lot of
publications that we have developed, and Tom again works
in distribution of this material.  We have compiled a
bibliography of available information materials, which
includes publications as well as training films and
slide shows which are available to the public.  And in
fact, if you would like to give me your name and address,
when I get back to Washington, I will send you a copy of
that bibliography which serves as a key to what we do
have.
           We can also run a computer search for
literature in our computerized retrieval system, and
again that is initiated simply by request to us or to
the regional office.
           MR. MATTHEWSt           On the local scene,
who would be the key person that would be encouraged to

-------
                                                    121
 1
   move  along  these  lines,  or  is  there no one key  person?
 2
               MR.  DeGEARE:             Can anyone  in this
 3
   room  address  that?   I can't speak for the local situation
 4
               MR.  HERMAN:              I can answer that
 5
   situation.  The three county commissioners and  the
 6
   elected  officials in 129 local governments,  that is  the
 7
   key.
 g
               I  will give  you  my  telephone number, and  we
 9
   can talk about  it tomorrow  or  the next day.

               MR.  DeGEARE:             Okay, I know of no

   place that  you  can  get  the  assessment of the relative
12
   status of this  county,  you  know,  with other counties.

13              MR.  MEHR:               Would it be terribly

14  expensive for the federal government, through the

15  Environmental Protection Agency,  to send a monthly

16  package  of  information  to district libraries or public

17  libraries in  all  municipalities?
18              MR.  WILLIAMS:           I would like to

19  comment  on  that.   I am  glad we have a real citizen here,

20  by the way, sir.   Glad  you  came.
21              I  would  like to  make an editorial comment

22  before I answer your question.  That is that we have a

23  marvelous system  in this country, in my opinion, and

24  citizens just don't use it  well enough.  You have a

25  local government  -- except  in  Texas, I don't know whether

-------
4


5


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20
                                                   122


   they have them — but in other places they have local

2
   governments, county governments, state governments


   and federal governments, and I think through any of


   those means you can get all kinds of information on


   all kinds of problems.  You really can.


              I think you would be surprised if you would


   go to your authorized local government information


   office, the public works or whoever, and you would be


   surprised at how much information you can get.  And they


   can tap state information sources, or they can tap the


   regions and they can tap the headquarters.  And there is


   a lot of effort that goes on to try to make it possible


   for the citizens to participate in and influence what


   happens in his tax dollars.


              Insofar as libraries are concerned, the


   information that Truett DeGeare referred to a while ago,


   not only can you obtain our own literature, but abstracts


   of the world's literature free, anything written almost


   anyplace in the world, we abstract at the taxpayers'


   expense and make those abstracts  available to anybody who


21 wants  them, no matter who the person is.


22            I don't have the list  of libraries with me,


23 but there are a great number of libraries throughout the


24 jjcountry in whose system we participate, so to speak.


   You can go to many libraries and  receive the same

-------
                                                    123


   searches and receive  solid waste  information.

2
              We routinely make  it available  to  them.

3
   I don't have a list,  but  I could  get it.

4
              MR. BERN:                How about  the Federal

5
   Repository Library at the University of Pittsburgh?
 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
           MR. MEHR:               But it's not in public


libraries, that is why I was saying if that could be


sent.  Federal repositories are just special individual


universities who carry them.


           MR. DeGEARE:            We have a question


back here.


           MR. LARUE:              Dennis La^ue.  As a


reporter, and my paper is more or less a specialist on


environmental problems, I find that I have to study and


concentrate pretty hard on many of these publications


which you say are accessible to the taxpayer, and I


try to put these into language which the general public


can understand, provided, of course, I can understand


it myself first.  I think the publications, while they


will never be as interesting as "Playboy" or "Penthouse1


or "Hustler" they could be written more so that I could


understand it, and the people that I write for can


understand it.


           I know tonight, I think I am fairly well


versed in solid waste land fills to a degree, I am not an

-------
                                                124
expert as many of the others are here, but I have had
trouble following what is going on tonight.  I know you
people understand it, and I am going to ask that you
stay afterwards tonight so that I can go through the
points that I don't understand, so for tomorrow's
paper, I can write and the people who read it will know
what we are talking about.
           You people are intelligent, you know what
you are talking about, but the general public doesn't
understand it.
           MR. WILLIAMS:           I would like to
comment on that comment.
           MR. DeGEARE:            There is a fellow who
just moved into our bureaucracy who  had a  similar comment
about  that.
           MR, WILLIAMS:           I don't know whether
you are talking about all of EPA, but  if you are talking
about  the Office of Solid Waste *4*tnrgeTBeutr, you are
mistaken because we do  put everything  out  in very
accessible form for anyone. We have  gone to the great
trouble of putting together all kinds  of information,
complicated information  on recycling,  on source reduction
on how this relates  to  disposal problems and so on, in
five and six  page brochures which is a lot of very hard
work,  I might say, to put it out that  way.  We put out

-------
                                                   125

1
2


3



4



5


6



7



8



9



10



II



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19


20



21



22



23



24



25
a popular pamphlet on hazardous wastes.


           But after all, these are bureaucrats and


technocrats who have a very complicated law to enact,


and it's almost no matter how hard we try, the citizen


who cares and wants to Learn something about it is going


to have to learn something.


           And I have been in the public information


business in the federal government almost since the
                <>

Civil War —


           MR. MEHR:               You don't look that


young.


           MR. WILLIAKS-.           And I v«ry much


empathize with the press and with the public who are


trying to understand.  But I just think your blanket  —


if you want to say that about any other part of EPA,


I can only say you are right.  But not about this part.


           MR. HERMAN:             I think the circle


has come full round. We started out talking about public


information, and one of the hardest things in the world


is to explain to somebody  for the first tine some of  the


thoughts that you have generated in your mind over  two


years, or  five years, or ten years worth of experience.


It is almost impossible to put a complicated subject


into  layman's language.  It loses something in  translatioi


and that is the hardest part of  the public education

-------
                                                   126
  II

   element of this program.  And that  is one of  the  reasons,
  ii
2
   quite frankly, that I think the public  education  elements

3
   will be the least successful.

4
              There aren't too many people, other  than  this

5
   gentleman, who are in this room solely  because  they  are

6
   citizens.  In fact, I am surprised  there is one,  quite

7
   frankly.  And the public is not interested.   I  don't say

8
   that disparagingly, they have got their problems  and

9
   they don't care, except that it hurts them in the

10
   pocketbook

11
12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20
           And that is a very valid position to take,


and it's difficult to explain to somebody who is in


the field all the implications about tax rates and


freight rates and Monsanto and Saugus and the CPU400.


It doesn't come out nicely.


           MR. DeGEARE:            Would you explain the


CPU400 to me, please?


           MR. HERMAN:             I have been in the


field a long time, and I still don't understand it.


           MR. BERN:               Joe Bern.  As a
21 researcher, in  trying  to write  a  doctoral  dissertation


22 on solid waste,  I have taken  advantage  of  the  literature


23 'and I can only  comment on what  Tom said, that  the  range
 24


 25
of literature embraces the whole field from a simple


4-page brochure to a 1200-page technical report, of which

-------
                                                    127
 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
I can use each one.  But for public information in

solid waste,  it is difficult unless it is emotional,

and I have been involved in the emotional things too,

trying to establish land fills in places where there

aren't any.

           MR. WILLIAMS:           We have a coloring

book that was a best seller at the GPO for many months.

And even the GPO can be a profit making organization.

We produced this coloring book at about 23 cents per

copy, and GPO was selling it for 75 cents because they

were getting rid of so many copies that way.

           And this coloring book, I might say, covers

more than solid waste management.  It addresses many

aspects of the entire environmental protection issues,

and I think it's a testimony to some bunch of school

teachers or somebody that they care enough about them

to use them.

           Let me say, however, we have a representative

of the government, we have a representative of the

private sector, and in some ways there is nothing wrong

with the  fact that there is a diversity here and in

our other meetings, who represent various organizations,

whose various organizations, in a sense, serve the

public too.  We can't talk directly to 220 million

people, even if they were willing to listen to us and

-------
                                                128



we were willing to listen to them.




           So I wouldn't dispair the system.  I think




the public can rest secure that the manufacturing



chemists Association and the power industry and automobil^




industry and the packaging industry are going to be




representing them at meetings such as this.  They can



also rest assured there are going to be some




environmentalists here, consumer advocates and others




who will make sure the federal and sjtate bureaucrats




don't go too far one way or the other.




           Let me say also I think the public, who we




sometimes think doesn't care, has, in my opinion, and




I have been in the business as I say for a long, long




time, that the general public has been right more




consistently than any of the rest of us have been about



environmental issues.




           They have not trusted the sanitary land fill,




and they have been proven right recently.  They thought




air pollution was bad for you before we could prove it.




They thought that the water was polluted before we




could walk on it, and so on.  So the public has been



pretty right all along.




           Then how the institutions go about rectifying




things is a very complicated problem, and they wisely




sit back and let us argue about how to do it.  The

-------
                                                   129
   public has not often been wrong  environmentally,  in
2 "
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
my book.
           MR, RAPIEIU             Well, ladies and
gentlemen, I want to thank you very much.  This is the
end of our presentation.
           I hope you can see from the character of the
presentations that we are nowhere near to the point
where we have promulgated the first guideline or
regulation or standard, so that we are truly here on
•the front end with a.11 of the people  that we can get
together with us to discuss highlights of the new Act,
hopefully in language that everybody  can understand it.
           If you want to stay, we will stay and chat
with you so you can make your edition tomorrow.
           We are soliciting your participation  and
your support of the program that we are trying to
implement.  I think it's a very important program to
close  the loop on that sink in which  we can put  residuals
and incidentally one gentleman mentioned here about
putting  things in the air, well,  I represent  the air
program  as well as the solid waste program and the
radiation program in our regional office,  so  really what
we  are trying to do is balance  the total  environmental
program  so  that we don't  degrade one thing more than
another,  to the extent we  can  do  so.

-------
                                                    130
              Now I am told that there  are  no  3 by  5  cards
2
   filled out for people that want to make  statements,  but
3
   let me just ask again, last call, are  there any  written
4
   statements or any oral comments that anybody wishes  to
   make?  If so, please raise their hand?
              Are there any general comments or discussions
T I
   that anybody else wishes to make?
8             MR. HERMAN:             Godspeed.
9             MR. RAPIER:             Hearing  none,  I would
10  like to close the meeting and thank  you  very much  for
   coming out.
12             (10il5 hearing concluded.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                   131
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 3

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

 25
             UNITED STATES OF AMFRICA

        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In the Matter of:

Public Participation Meeting,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
        Transcript of Proceedings  in  the  above-entitled
matter, hel<3 on Tuesday, March  1,  1977, commencing
at 9:00 o'clock a.m. in the Monongahela Room,  William
Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
BEFORE:
        Gordon Rapier, Director,  Air  and  Hazardous
                       Materials  Division,  EPA,  Region III
                       Moderator
 SPEAKERS:
        Thomas Williams, Chief,  Technical  Information and
                       Communications  Branch,  Office of
                       Solid  Waste  Management, EPA

        Truett DeGeare, Chief,  Land Projection Branch,
                       Systems  Management  Division, Office
                       of  Solid V7aste  Management, EPA

        Alfred Lindsay,Chief, Implementation Branch,
                       Hazardous Waste Manaaenent Division
                       Office of Solid tfaste Management,RP

        Robert Lowe,   Chief, Technical Assistance Branch,
                       Resource Recovery Division, F.PA
                       of  Solid Waste  Management, KPA

        William  Bucciarelli,  Director, Pennsylvania State
                        Solid  VJastc Program

-------
                                                132
                L5.2S.EEP.-L !!•£§.
           MR. RAPIER:             Ladies and gentlemen,
good morning this beautiful, snowy day in downtown
Pittsburgh.  Welcome.  I am Gordon Rapier, Director of
the Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III,
EPA in Philadelphia.  With me are members of our
regional staff, which I will introduce shortly, and
representatives from the Office of Solid Waste in
Washington, D.C.
           The purpose of the meeting today is to explain
the provisions of the new Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act which was signed into law in October, 1976.
You should all have copies of the Act and other hand-outs
If not, or if you have not registered yet, please
arrange to do so at the reception desk.
           The new law might more appropriately be
called the "Solid Waste Disposal Act" since it deals
with all aspects of solid waste management, including
land disposal of solid and liquid wastes and the
management of hazardous or chemical wastes.
           The Act includes provision for maximum public
participation in writing the guidelines so we are here
to receive your comments and answer questions about
various aspects of the law.
           In passing this new Act, Congress intended

-------
                                                133

that the full range of disposal methods for unwanted

materials be regulated.  In prior years, we have had

laws regulating disposal in the air, water, and the ocean

and now this bill will regulate land disposal for the

first time at the federal level.  The law encourages
                  ^
the states to take over the administration of the program

Your views of this should be conveyed to your state

officials.

           Following are a few of the crucial areas of

implementation where we feel that your views and guidance

are most critical:

           Number 1 precisely how should "hazardous

waste" be defined?  Since much of the damage from

hazardous wastes occurs before they reach treatment,

storage and land fill disposal facilities, and since the

Act focuses only on upgrading land disposal facilities

to take care of those wastes which fall outside the

"hazardous waste" definition, it is clear that how

hazardous wastes are defined is a critical element in

implementing the Act.

           Number 2 in which ways, if any, would the

definition of hazardous waste have a bearing on the

states' willingness to take over responsibility for the

program, which under the Act, is not mandatory but of

course highly desirable?

-------
                                                   134


              Number 3, what would be the best ways to

 2
   ensure the hazardous wastes are defined to the fullest

 3
   extent possible on standardized objective criteria and

 4
   associated tests, and at the sane time not put too great

 5
   a burden on many potential hazardous waste generators


   who are small businesses?

 7
              Number 4 wastes are mixtures of many different

 8
 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
materials.  To what extent can criteria and tests be


applied to wastes, and to what extent to suspected


hazardous components?


           Number 5 the Act requires a definition of


a sanitary land fill and of the obverse, an open dump,


to apply, we feel, to both municipal and industrial


wastes and possibly others from agriculture or mining.


Should pits, ponds and lagoons used for disposal of


industrial wastes be defined as open dumps?


           Number 6 what kind of process should EPA


establish to determine which guidelines should be written


or updated?


           Number 7 with regard to state and  local
                                   "^

planning, what process should be employed  to  enable


governors and local government heads to decide who does


the planning and implementation for which  aspects of


solid waste management, and which percentage  of planning


funds each should receive?

-------
                                                    135

               Number 8 how should the waste disposal

 2
    inventory be carried out?  Who should do it?  How
 3
    decentralized should it be?  How can we survey facilities
 4
    on industrial property?

 5
               Number 9 what is the degree of need for
 *»
    full-scale demonstration projects for resource recovery?

 7
               Number 10 the resource conservation panels


    or technical assistance panels are important to the

 9
    success  of the Act.   How comprehensive should they be?


    How much should they focus  on resource conservation


    and recovery in relation to a focus  on hazardous  wastes


12   and land disposal of all wastes?   What should be  the


13   proper composition of such  panels to ensure appropriate
14
    representation  from jjtate,  regional  and local levels  of
    government?

              Number  11  the Act  mandates  several  special

17   studies  and  directs that a  broad  range of supportive

18   research and development activities  be carried out. Can

19   new research and development  be performed in time  to

20   influence the formulation of  mandated  guidelines and

21   regulations? Which activities should  be  considered

22   essential in the development  of solid  waste  management

23   alternatives and therefore  considered  high priorty for

24   research.

25             Number  12  unlike the Federal Water  Pollution

-------
 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
                                                   136

  Control Act and the Clean Air Act, this Act  does  not
2
  mandate quantifiable objectives, but rather  gives broad
Q
  guidance as to the law's intent.  Open dumps are  to be

  closed, and hazardous wastes are to be regulated  within

  certain of the frames,  but  no measures of  environmental

  or  public health  improvements are suggested.  Should we,
1
  however, try  to assign  meaningful, quantifiable objectives
o
  to  the solid  waste management area?  If so,  what  kind

  of  monitoring and feedback  system should be  provided

  to  evaluate results?

             Number 13 the Act mandates a high degree of

  public participation in development and implementation

  of  the regulations, guidelines, permits and  information

  required by the law.  How can we best obtain public

  participation in a timely and meaningful way?  What

  avenues should EPA explore to ensure really  widespread

  and effective public participation?

             We have a court reporter here today who  is

  preparing a transcript of these proceedings.   I am  asking

  that anyone that wishes to make a statement,  at the

  end of our prepared presentations, fill out  a  3 by  5

  card that you can get from the reception desk.  If

  someone wants to make an oral statement, I would like

  for you to limit it to  five minutes

             If you have  a written statement that you want

-------
                                                    137

 1
    submitted  for  the  record,  please give it to  us.


               Let me  introduce our regional staff to  you


    now.   Miss/Jlene Glen,  who is the Assistant  to our


    Regional Administrator.  We have two young ladies  on the


    desk  in the back that  you  can't see right now, but I


    am  sure everyone saw when  you came in,  Mrs.  Alma Mullane

 7
    and Jean Jonas.  Mr. William Schremp and

 8
    Mr. Robert Allen of the Air and Hazardous Waste Materials

 9
10



11



12



13



14



15


16



17


18



19


20



21



22



23



24



23
Division and Tom Fielding from our Enforcement Division.


           We have a series of five presentations to make


today discussing the various highlights of the Act, and


we will solicit, at the end of each individual presentation,


your comments, your views, your questions.


           As we proceed, I think you will see that what


we have come to you with today is not a series of


written regulations simply to wave them in front of


your face and give you a 30-day comment.  We are coming


to you truly on the front end »f this whole process of


planning and development to implement this Act, to


solicit your views.


           Our first discussion today will be made by


lorn Williams, who is the Chief of the Technical


Information and Communications Branch in the Office of


Solid Waste Haaayomcut..  He is going to talk to you about


public information, public participation and training.

-------
10


21


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                   138


              MR.  WILLIAMS:            Good morning.  The

2
   Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act  of 1976  contains

3
   an unusually complete array of provisions which,  if they


   are properly implemented, could bring about a

5
   significantly high degree of public understanding and

6
   participation.   Taken together, these various  provisions

7
   make it clear that the Congress understood that it is

8
   impossible for the public to participate meaningfully

9
   unless the government first produces valid technical


   and scientific data,  and  then processes and publishes


   the information in such a way that  almost everyone can


   have real access to it.  Only in this way,  the  Congress


   seemed to feel,  can the public have a real reasonable


   chance of influencing the potentially profound  significan


   social,  economic and  political changes  which this law


   will help bring  about.


              In section 8003,  the Administrator  of EPA


   is required to  develop, collect,  evaluate and  coordinate


   information on  nine key elements which  are crucial to


   the Act's purposes.  They cover every significant aspect


   of solid waste  management.


              The  Administrator is not only to implement a


   program for the  rapid dissemination of  this information,


   but it is important to  all  to develop and implement


   educational programs  to promote citizen understanding.

-------
                                                    139
              This makes  it  quite  clear  that  the
10


ll


12


13


14


15


1C
  I

17 !j
information called for is not  to be  developed for the

exclusive use of those who,  for one  reason or another,

may be considered experts in the field.  Moreover, the

Administrator is asked to coordinate his actions and to

cooperate to the maximum extent with ^tate and local

authorities, and to establish  and maintain a central

reference library for virtually all  the kinds of

information involved in solid  waste  management for the

use of state and local governments,  industry and the

public.

           To ensure that the  public participation

process does not become lopsided, we felt it would be

necessary to identify major categories of interest

groups who represent the public at large.  Under the

Act, we consider these to include consumer, environmental

and neighborhood groups, trade, manufacturing and labor
18 | representatives, public health,  scientifics  and
19
professional societies and governmental and university
20 '{associations.  This spectrum of  categories of  representatJ
  'I
21 I groups will be altered  and  supplemented,  if  necessary,

   in the course of implementing  the  Act,  if it appears

   desirable to do so.

              Now this is  not  a meaningless  list, as  a

05  matter of fact, there will  literally be dozens of  meetings
                                                          ve

-------
                                                    140
 1
    workshops  and so  on carried out by  representative
 2
    components of the Office of Solid Waste and EPA,  by
 3
    states and by the regions,  and with rare exceptions,  it
 4
    will be required  that representatives from each of these
 5
    interest groups be present  to give  their views to the
 6
    government, and t.o hear what the government thinks it
 7
    wants to do.
 8
               Section 7004)a)  of the Act states that any
 9
    person nay petition the Administrator for the promulgation
10


11


12


13


14

15


16

17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
amendment or repeal of any regulation under the Act.

           Section ,7004(b) has to do with public

participation.  It states that public participation in

the development, revision and enforcement of any regulation,

guideline, information or program under this Act shall

be provided for, encouraged and assisted by the

Administrator and the s,tates.  And further, that the

Administrator, in cooperation with the ^tates, shall

develop and publish minimum guidelines for public

participation in such processes.

           Section 7002 (a) states that any person may

commence a civil action on his own behalf against any

other person, including the United States, who is

alleged to be in violation of this Act, or against the

Administrator of EPA if there is alleged a failure by

him to perform any act or duty under the legislation.

-------
                                                   141


              The many techniques which can be used to

 2
   involve the public in government actions fall into two


   major categories;  One is to ensure that appropriate


 4  public meetings, hearings, conferences, workshops and


   so forth are held throughout the country, and more


 6  importantly, that they are planned and keyed to the


 7  unfolding of the Act's key provisions.

 o
              The second technique is the advice of


   advisory committees and review groups which may meet


10  periodically, but which may also be called upon to


11  review and comment upon major programs, regulations


12  and plans, no matter when these occur, and no matter


13  whether a specific meeting is convened or not.


              And the third is the development of
15
education*'! programs so that the public has the opportuni
16  to become aware of the  significance  of the  technical


17  data base and the issues which  emerge from  it.


18             Effective public  education programs  depend


19  on the use of all appropriate communications  tools  and


20  media.  These include publications,  slides,  films,


21  exhibits and other graphics, media programs,  including


22  public service television  and radio  announcements,


23  releases to the daily and  professional press  and


24  public education projects  carried out by  service  and


25  civic organizations with EPA technical and  financial
                                                             •y

-------
                                                    142

    assistance.

               Section 7007 (a)(b) authorizes the Administrate

    of EPA to make grants and offer contracts with any

    eligible organization for training persons in occupations

    involving management, supervision, design, operation

    or maintenance of solid waste disposal and resource

    recovery equipment and facilities, or to train

    instructors.  "Eligible organization" means a state or
 g
    any jjtate agency, a municipality or educational
 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


 22


 23


 24


25
institution capable of effectively carrying out a

training program.

           Section 7007(c) states that the Administrator

shall make a complete investigation and study to determin

the need for additional trained state and local

personnel to carry out the plans assisted under this

Act, and to determine means of using existing training

programs to train such personnel, and to determine the

extent and nature of obstacles to employment and

occupational advancement in the solid waste management

field.

           The Administrator is required to report the

results of such investigations and study to the President

and the Congress.

           Now as you were told earlier, we have called

this meeting not simply to, by any means, to lecture

-------
                                                    143
1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

1O
+*w

23

24
 to you or to ask you to ask questions, but to really

 get your views.  And I should certainly like views on

 how you think we might bring the idea^of public

 participation into the area of reality.

            You know, it isn't easy despite the fact

 that the federal government is large and powerful, and

 so are states and other governments, there are

 tremendous novations placed on our communicating with

 the public.  We have no way of competing with the

 advertisers who entertain you through the increasingly

! functional television programs throughout the nation,

 and while we are attempting to do what we can do help

 the public to understand that this Act is theirs, it

 has a bearing on their lives that it will cost them

 •money unless it's carried out properly, that it will

 bring them benefits only if it is carried out properly.

 That is a pretty tough deal to try to make that

 interesting and palatable when you compare it to others

 whose main interest seems to be to convince you that

 the only thing you really ought to do is sit back and

 enjoy your favorite can of beer while you watch some

 too often inane program that teaches you to be stupid.

            So there is no way that we can give our

 technical data base directly to 200-plus million people.
25 j yet we  feel that  the essence of what we  have  learned

-------
                                                    144




 1  and  used  your money  to do it, the reports we have



    already sent to Congress, the research we do,  the




    technical assistance work we do, the  investigations  we




 4  do,  the essence of what  this really means ought  to be



    known to  everyone.




              We don't  approach this provision of the Act




    with cynicism or with the idea of co-opting things,




 8  which I have heard too much in the last  six to eight




 9  years, the idea that we  let people in on what  we are
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
doing, and then co-opt them and they won't get in our



way.  We are not approaching it that way at all.  If



you allow yourself to be co-opted, don't do it.



           Furthermore, what comes out of this meeting



will not be confined to those who are fortunate enough



to be here and hear it and learn from it.  This meeting



and all the others that are being held under this



Act, and all of them being held in all of the regions,



will be summarized and analysed, the transcripts will



be.  They will be compared and a report will be put



together that will be laid before all of those in EPA



and elsewhere, who are involved in planning or



implementing any phases of the Act.  As these meetings



indicate what the public thinks, it will be reported to



the Congress and President.



           And now I will shut up, finally, and hope that

-------
                                                   145


   you have some suggestions and comments  for us.

2
3
              Looks like I have said it all.


              Yes,  sir?


              MR.  GRANEY:              Any time I hear


   "public participation", I have been in the local

6
   government for  12 years, it's such a bag of worms and


   such a tough  thing to do, beyond a few special interest

Q
   groups, be they  environmental or industrial, I am just

9
   curious if you  have any strategy to involve people?
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24
   I  have seen hams  given away,  and still not be able to


   get the people to come to the meetings.


              Do you have any strategies involved beside


   the media communication,  which is relatively ineffective


   unless there is a bulldozer beside somebody's house,


   are there any other thoughts  EPA has?


              MR. WILLIAMS:            Well, I came here


   seeking thoughts, but I will give you a couple.  For one


   thing, we go to a bit more trouble, I think, than some


   agencies do, to try to get the essence of what our


   work is all about into a format that most people can


   understand and appreciate, whether it be pamphlets or


   announcements or whatever.  We go to a bit more trouble


   to do that.

              I think the reason a lot of public participati


   is aborted or fails completely is that it's set off by

-------
10




11




12




13




14




IS




16




17




18




19




20




21
                                                   146




    itself and agencies will attempt  to hold a  lot of



    meetings, but  it will not  do what the other part is,




    to  get the information  out to  the people, or work  hard




    enough to get  the  press to pay attention.



              We  had  a reporter here last  night who complain




    I  think  rightfully so,  that he didn't understand half




    of  what  was  going  on.   And if  he  didn't,how could  he



    convey it to his readers?




              I don't know any magic solution  for it.   I




    think the public is more interested than we normally



    give the public credit  for being. The  fact that it




    doesn't  get  up in  arras  unless  it's forced to do  so is




    no  indication  of the  interest.  I can imagine nothing




    worse than 200 million  people  carrying  placards  at the




    same time.   It's discouraging  at  times, but I don't




    dispair.



              Agencies really don't  try very hard.  Most




    bureaucrats  in my  opinion  are  technocrats,  they  have




    a  tough  job  to do  to  develop a lot of technical



    information  and to make sense  of  it and implement  a law,



       at whichever level  of government, and it's  a kind of




22   a  bother when  you  are doing all that, then, to have



23   somebody who is only  half  informed, you think, or




24   fully informed, to come in and tell you you should have




23   done it  this way and  that  way. So the  natural tendency

-------
                                                   147




1  of bureaucracy is not to  involve the  public, and in




2  recent years, at least insofar as federal regulation




   is concerned. Congress is making that more  difficult by




*  saying,  "You must involve the public."   And there are




   all sorts of ways of aborting that.   You have  the
 6
21





22





23





24
   meetings, you don't pay attention  to  them  or  show  it
 7  to anyone, and so on.




 8             But I think  it's  incumbent upon  us who work




 9  with the taxpayer's money, to work  harder and try




10  harder to get the public  concerned.




11 !            I don't think  it's bad eitherj there  are




12  interest groups who do  represent  the  public, because




13  they do, provided all the kinds of  interest groups  have




1* | a chance to understand  what  you are doing.   I would say




15  that most environmental groups represent a  much broader




16  constituency than the membership would indicate,  and




17  i think the same is true  of  many  industry groups.



18             MR. GRANEY:              There are currently,




19  because of the basin plans,  instrumentalities in




20  existance throughout most of Pennsylvania now to have
public participation in waste water treatment.  Is there



any idea to utilize some of the mechanisms built up,




or do you anticipate there will be additional efforts




separate from that?



           I know the emphasis for the basin studies is

-------
                                                    148




    for waste water treatment,  but  there  are  mechanisms




    that have begun to be built up  in that area.   Or will




    this Act be separate unto itself?




 4             MR.  WILLIAMS:            It will  be  separate




    to some extent,  as it was intended to be  by the  principal




    members of Congress who put it  together.  But  we will,




 7  in some ways, be working with the 208 program.




               I met with a young lady from that part of



 9  EPA yesterday.   They have a tremendously  greater budget
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




24




25
than we do for involving the public in the water planning




business, and to the extent that what we are going jibes




with that, we will participate in that also.




           MR. RAPIER:             Let me ask that each




person that asks a question or makes some kind of




comment, to identify themselves and the organization.




           MR. GRAtfEYt             Tom Graney, Lawrence




County Planning Commission, Pennsylvania.



           MR. JONES:              Tom Jones, Union




Carbide.  I would like to suggest that in your public




presentations, that you stress the benefits of the



program to the public.  You have a situation like the




construction grant program that is meeting with limited




success because many people don't understand what they




are building for, or the benefits they are gaining from




this.  If they could understand that they are gaining

-------
                                                    149

 1
 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24
 something  from  this,  rather than just have one more



 bond  to  vote  on or  against, or whatever,  it certainly



 would push the  program much better on the municipal



 level.




            MR.  WILLIAMS:            I  certainly agree with



 you.  And  I think part of  the reason  it is not is  that



 traditionally,  certainly in the environmental  area, the



 major programs  and  even the minor  programs have been



 run by professionals  who are dedicated to their work,



 but who  have  really never  thought  of  getting the public



 involved,  or  the public's  understanding,  was a part of



 their bag.



           I  think  EPA has  done a  very poor job. since



 its inception of involving  the  public in  things.   Its



 public affairs  office  is lower  in  esteem  throughout the



 agency,  I  think, than  the  lowest mouse in the  garage.
 *,


 And by and large, it deserves  that level  of esteem.



           But  it's not that office's fault only,  it's



 the lawyers and the engineers  and  the others who make



 the major  decisions, who have  never regarded that  aspect



 of our business to  be  really as  important as slipping



 around on  the sliderule, or otherwise trying to get the



work  done.



           EPA has done, in my  opinion, dozens  of
25 'enforcement actions that have not been accompanied by

-------
 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




IS




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                150




sufficient opportunity for people to understand what




they were going to be enforced against for in the first




place, or without exhausting the possibilities that are




inherent in technical assistance and public participation




and public education activities.



           So I think that is part of the problem, it's




just not considered a real important and vital part of



the business.  And it should be.




           Yes, sir?



           MR. ATKINS:             George Atkins,



Northwest Engineering.  Our experience on solid waste




in Pennsylvania, to some degree, at least in our area,




is that part of the public does not like — probably the



most important area is the public officials and




legislators, and until something else occurs, you are



never -going to get a unified program until you get to




those people.  Now I know it's important to get to the




people at the lower level, but it doesn't do much good




to get to them if somebody above is telling them, "Well,



these programs don't really count all that much anyway."




           MR. WILLIAMS:           And I agree, and  I



don't know whether we are going to get to them, but



certainly we are planning extraordinary measures, I




think, considering our resources, to ensure that official




county officials and local officials understand, along

-------
                                                    151
 1
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13 i

J
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
with us and the states, what this Act really means,
what the opportunities for improvement are and so on.
           Yes, sir?
           MR. GILL:               Max Gill, Erie County
Solid Waste Authority.  I notice in the hand-out they
make reference to EPA's reference library, solid waste
reference library.  I would like to emphasize that
aspect.  I think if that were generally made more
available to municipal and school libraries, I think
there are a lot of people who want to read about it and
are looking for some piece of evidence, something they
can cite as facts, I think that would help.
           MR. WILLIAMS:           Thank you.  We now
can extend this service because we do have -- not just
since this Act was enacted, but traditionally this
particular program, and not just information people, but
the technocrats I was just complaining about, .have
maintained a tradition of really producing information on
everything they do.  And we have almost 500 publications
that have been put out since the solid waste program
began in 1965.
           They are all available, or all that are still
useful are still available.  We also have an information
retrieval service where we can gather abstracts free of
charge, of the world's solid waste management.  Those

-------
                                                    152


    services or publications are available in the libraries

 o
    that EPA communicates with.  They are limited in number,


    and we will see to what extent we can get some of the


    basic information to other libraries.  One of the

 5
 8  the group for recycling in Pennsylvania.


 9             Just a little nitty  gritty.  Could you please.
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
    problems is the cost of it,  but I  know you are right.


               Yes, ma'am?

               MS.  KEFFER:             Laurie Keffer,  from
especially on your more popular publications, put the


number and the address and the zip code so that people


can send for more of them?  We have been foiled many a


time, not able to find the number or where to send for


things.


           MR. WILLIAMS:           Yes, ma'am.


           Someone here?


           MR. BOUSQUET:           My name is


Woody Bouaquet,  I am from the McKeever Environmental


Learning Center in Sandy Lake.  And I had a question


about your public education guidelines under section


7004, and that is you will be offering interest group


education programs.


           Does that mean that EPA personnel will be


available to talk on the Resource Conservation and


Recovery Act, and other similar acts that deal with

-------
                                                    153



    solid waste,  if we request a speaker?




               MR.  WILLIAMS:            Probably.   It depends




    on how many requests there are and how many people are




    available,  but  we will do our best to do that.




               MR.  BOUSQUET:            Who should we get



    in touch with?




               MR.  WILLIAMS:            You can get in touch



    with me, Tom Williams.




               Yes, ma'am?




               MS.  NEVIN:               Eliza Neven, Allegheny




    County Environmental .Coalition.  I was wondering if you




    all will have time for having a personal contact with




    people,, like heads of  organizations and environmental




    groups and  neighborhood groups?  Because they are the




    people who  can  get all of the people in their groups




    to participate  and to  be  interested.  And we get in




    from these  208  things, we get masses of mailings that




    are impersonal, I get  them under different names at




    my home, a  variety of  things, every misspelling they



    write down.  And that  doesn't make me want to participate




               But  if somebody did call you up and you had




    somebody say, "Won't you  corae to a meeting,"  then that



    is the kind of  thing that you can get into.




               MR.  WILLIAMS:            You know,  it's a very




25 I!  big country,  and your  first move is toward your local

-------
                                                    154


    and state governments to get things done.  We are a
        ^T^-
 2
    small group, we are approximately a hundred people,

 3
    including everybody who can walk and crawl, in Washington

 4
    and we have tried to extend our information farther

 5
    by — we have given training grants for the past five

 6
    years to national environmental and similar organizations

 7
    who have local or state affiliates, the League of Women

 8
    Voters, Conservation Foundation and others, in the hope

 9
    that what they learn and what they decide to do about
 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


 22


 23


24



25
 these problems and how much education they plan  to  do


 for  the rest of the public, would get down to other


 levels of government.


           MS. NEVIN:              I think that  type of


 thing works too.


           MR. WILLIAMS:           But there are


 literally, as you know, tens of thousands of local


 environmental organizations.  I would love to have  them


 all  on the mailing list and go to all their meetings,  I


 really would.  It's just impossible.


           Yes, sir?


           MR. JACKSON:            David Jackson,


 Chester County Health Department.  I think it would be


helpful, you indicated municipal groups, that contacts


are made primarily with them.  And I have found,


particularly with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act,

-------
                                                    155


    that that didn't occur to us,  particularly the county

 2
 3



 4



 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11
    level  or the municipal level.   And while I do receive a


    lot of your publications on solid waste, I think it would


    be  very beneficial  if you would work particularly with


    the county groups,  county health departments, the heads


    of  county solid waste operations and so forth.


               It seems to me with EPA, in the past, that


    hasn't occurred.


               MR.  WILLIAMS:           I can't defend the


    rest of EPA, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't if I could,


    but in our program  we have, I  believe we have had a
12 !  grant for the last four years,  at least each year,  with
13


14


15


16
  I
    the National Association of Counties for the purpose


    of trying to encourage understanding on the part of


    county officials,  and at least access to our information.


               We have done the same thing with the
17 J!  International City Managers Association, Conference of
18


19


20


21
    Mayors,  with the Council of State Governors, and of


    course we have other ways of keeping in touch with


    state authorities.


               But we do it.  As I say, we are a hundred


    people,  plus the regions, which I should not mention --
  ij

23 I  which I  should mention,  and they are a handful altogether
24
    in  all ten regions.


               So I  think we try to work with the states.

-------
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                156



and if there are things that we have to become involved




in, then we probably do it as some crisis really dictates




that we have to, you know.




           MR. JONES:              Tom Jones, Union



Carbide again.




           I would like to suggest that I believe there



is an office in Cincinnati,  a solid waste office in




Cincinnati  that does handle publications, that they



may be more responsive.  I have called, on several




occasions, to be met with a recording, which is fine.



But that is as far as it went.  I never got a call back




or publication or whatever.




           MR. WILLIAMS:           If you met with the




recording, you were calling not anything out of the




Office of Solid Haste,  you were calling for a publication




that the research and development people of EPA had.




           I cannot account for that.  I do not use




that service.   If you call Cincinnati, or write Cincinnat:




for anything in the available list of available materials




that we have,  which is  now about this thick (indicating),




I assure you you will get a  response.




           He don't have -- and we only have one man



and two part-time workers manning that thing.  I don't




know what to say about that,  sir.  It was a research and



development publication.

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
                                                157
           Yea, sir?
           MR. ATKINS:             Do you have a
schedule on the regulation production process, a tentativ
schedule yet, other than the statutory  involvements?
           MR. WILLIAMS:           Yes.  It's news to
me that we have really a schedule, but  our  region boss
says we do.
           MR. ATKINS:             Is that  available?
           MR. RAPIER:             Not  here today, but
if you will give us your name, we will  send you one,  sir.
           MR. WILLIAMS:           We don't have very
firm schedules yet, do we?
           MR. ALLEN:              The  time frames  in
the Act.
           MR. WILLIAMS:           We can  give you what
the Act says we are supposed to  do.
           MR. ATKINS:             We know that.   I  just
wondered within that,  if you had —
           MR. WILLIAMS:           Within  that,  it
would take Houdini and three other mystics to figure
out most of  it.
           MR. ATKINS:             What we are  kind of
hoping  is you  don't do like you  did  under  92-500,  it
comes down to  the  deadline is  the first time anybody
sees regulations.

-------
                                                    158


               MR. WILLIAMS:           My God, that would be

 2
    impossible.  He are going to great lengths to ensure

 3
    that that doesn't happen.  We are, as I say, forming

 4
    ad hoc advisory committees', we are having each division

 5
    have meetings with all kinds of organizations about

 6
    this, we have given grants to NACO, ICMA and others to

 rj
    (further public understanding and their participation in


    the Act.  It won't happen, sir, I assure you.

 9
               All right, thank you very much.
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21
               MR. RAPIER:             Thank you, Tom.


               You know, the EPA talks about how we want


    to work closely with federal, sjiate, regional, county


    people, how important it is for our state and local


    representatives to be an active part of the program, and


    then the first thing I did this morning was to get up


    and fail to introduce the person sitting on my right,


    who is the leading state representative here that will


    be working with us to implement the program.  When I


    sat down, I said to him -- his name is William Bucciarell


    for those of you who don't know him he is the Director


    of the Commonwealth Solid Waste Program -- I said, "Bill,


22   my God, I forgot to introduce you."  He said, "That's

23   	m


24              In order that we don't make ths mistake twice,


25   let me ask Bill to get up now and give the state views

-------
1  on RCRA,
2             Bill?
3
   comeback, Gordon.  Keep it up.




              I guess my purpose  for being  here  today  is
6
9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18










20




21




22




23




24
                                                    159
              MR. BUCCIARELLI:        You  are  making  a  good
   really threefold:  One is to give  some perspective  to
   the solid waste efforts in Pennsylvania,  two  is  to




8  provide input which this meeting is designed  to  do,  and
three is to add impetus to the crying need  there  is,




and I am speaking for Pennsylvania, the crying need there




is to nurture the solid waste efforts that  have been




developed over the last 10 or 11 years.  And  to develop




some kind of a rational approach at implementing  the




federal law and meeting this need.




           To give some perspective, I said 10 or  11




years, we had our start back in 1968 with the passage




of Act 241, Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act,




which provided essentially, primarily, planning and




regulatory activities.  And with that as our base, we




spent, together with local governments over $3 million



to develop 67 county plans and currently 3  regional



efforts, 3 regional plans.




           Now these plans are at all stages of



implementation.  We have had some setbacks  and slippages,
05  we have had what somebody might call failures, but in

-------
 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                160




the majority of instances,  the level of implementation



that most of these plans are at today,  I declare




successful.  And even in those cases of slippages or




setbacks, it never slips back to the original level



at the time we started.   So we get set  back,  then we




move forward, set back and  move forward.  And I an sure




there are some of you in here who know  about  some of




these failures.



           We have had,  as  part of the  implementation




I am talking about, we have had tremendous technical



and management improvements.  For example back in 1966,




there was only one county that had a county-wide agency




that dealt in solid waste matters.  Today we  have almost



30, and I hear this one representative  here of the




solid waste authority in Erie.  Host of them  are



authorities, but there are  other agencies too that are



devoting almost exclusively their time  to the solid waste




problem.



           Now that, in itself, is tremendous in the



sense that I think one of the greatest  accomplishments,




when you have an act and when you cause planning to




occur and when you cause implementation of that planning,




is that you are causing people to look  further ahead




than one day, number 1.



           Number 2, you are causing people to start

-------
                                                   161

   thinking about a problem they have never thought of
o
   before.

3
4
5
6
 7
8
9

10

11
              And the other thing that you are doing is

   placing and sharing some of that responsibility at all

   levels where it should be.  And if it does nothing but

   that,  I think we have accomplished a lot, even though

   it raises a heck of a lot of controversy.

              We have issued over 500 permits in this game.
13

14

15
   we have closed over 400 open dumps, we have processed

   over 1700 applications, reviews of that kind, and we have

   initiated numerous legal actions at all levels.  And I

   might add that in the development of our program, we

   have established pretty well some very precedent and

   legal cases in Pennsylvania.

              I won't go into too much detail into these

16  areas, because I was warned by Gordon to keep it short,
  i
  i,
17 li several times.
  [r
18 I            Back in '64, then, the department was also

19  concerned about resource recovery and its development

20 :| in Pennsylvania and as a result of the efforts of not
  [[
21 j only the state staff, but other committees and other
  i
22  people, we did manage to get the Act 198.  This is  the

23  Resource Recovery Act, and this is supposed  to be a

24  $20 million revolving low interest loan program.  The

23 I only problem is, we didn't get the $20 million with it.

-------
                                                   162




   We hope that will  still  be  funded  at  some  point in time.




              But along with that  amendment to  that Act,




   we did get $4 million  for demonstration grants.  Now




   $2.5 million of that has already been committed to four




   projects,  and they are in the process of being iroplemente




6  I hope.



              $1.5 million, which  we  just recently got,




   we are reviewing currently  the  applicants' submissions




   at this time.  The  shut-off  date has passed,  and we will




   not consider any more  applications for demonstration




   grants unless we get more money in demonstration grants,




   number 1.



              Number  2, some of the projects  do not move




   ahead and  implement, and we get the money  back and




   we will re-allocate, or  some of the applicants  turn the




   grants down.



              So what they  represent  is  a tremendous state




   and local  commitment and the money, with  the exception




   of the demonstration grants I am  talking about, did not




   speak to the tremendous  capital investment that has




   occurred in the implementation  of  this plan.  So I have




   no idea at this point  what  the  figure might  be, but it




   is tremendous.




              Now there is  interest in all areas of the




   state in terms of  the  solid waste  program.   So it's not
 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




16




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                    163




    just  us banging  the  doors because we  got  an  act  at the




    state level or federal  level.   For  example,  the  Governor'




    Solid Waste Advisory  Committee, which represents  all


4

    governments,  including  federal, all levels,  the  academia
                          .^



    people, the consulting  people,  the  private enterprise




    and so on, has been working since 1968 to help develop




    the Act 241 and  Act  198.




              The Citizen's Advisory Council, who has gotten




    in and out of the solid waste game, of course they deal




    with  other matters too, is making recommendations in




    their reports to the  Commonwealth as  far  as  solid waste




    matters are concerned.




              The Governor's Energy Council  is  getting more




    and more into the problems of solid waste and how that




    can be used in meeting  the energy needs.




              The Governor's Science Advisory Committee




    just  recently completed, or had completed a  report




    through their waste utilization panel.  I served  on one




    of the task forces on that one, and now we have  got the




    final draft of that report.  And this will also  make




21   recommendations  to the  Commonwealth as to how they should



    run their program.




              We have had interest on  the part  of the




24 I  House  and the Senate.  The House Conservation Committee




25 ii  had a  public meeting  with DER to kind of try and  find

-------
                                                   164

   out what DER is doing and whether what they are doing

   is proper.  And also I would think they want to offer

   their help in further implementing the Pennsylvania

4  program.
5
6
 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
           The Senate Committee was formed to investigate

the solid waste industry,  and also to see whether the

state is carrying oar a proper program,  and also see if

Pennsylvania is getting their fair share of jtate and

federal support, financial or otherwise.  And these two
?
will be making recommendations as to, I  am sure, how

the program should be carried out.

           How some mention was made here about make sure

that you get the input way before you come down to the

final draft of your guidelines and your regulations,

and don't come at the last minute, then show it to us.

You know, I have been in this business a long time, and

I can truly say that this is a sincere effort,  this

effort is a sincere effort on the part of the Jederal

government to get input, and they really have done this

in a lot of different ways.

           And  one of the ways that  they are doing it

is that they are providing, as indicated here,  liaison

with other groups, for example the National Governors

Conference developed a group of task force committees.

Three of us in  Pennsylvania are serving on them, and this

-------
1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24
                                                165


is in the areas of solid waste management planning and


hazardoua wastes, resource recovery and funding, and


land fill technology.


           They have staff people assigned that meet


with these task forces on a regular basis.  Each one  of


these task forces have a different timetable,  so they


are getting input from there.


           They are getting input from  the other


national groups and agencies, they are  getting input


from all these meetings that they are holding  across


the Commonwealth — or across the nation.  And I am  sure


they are getting -- they are soliciting from all other'


avenues,

           So  I say it's a very  sincere effort, because


there is a lot of, as was pointed out by  the  two


spokesmen, there is a  lot of gaps,  a  lot of vagueness


and there has  to be a  lot of crystallizing  of  issues


and specificity has to be put  into  this Act before you


can begin to  understand  it.  This  is why they  want this


to be this kind  of a  street, more  than  this kind


 (indicating).  Because  they want to know what  to  do.


           And I  think  that we  ought to honestly  support


that request.  From the  sjtate's  viewpoint —  and  I will
                         jf*

quit after this  —  from  the spate's viewpoint, we  would
                             ^»

hope that the  program  would be  supportive of  the  past

-------
                                                    166
 1  and  present efforts  that have occurred  in  Pennsylvania,
    and  not in  any  way be  disruptive  to  that effort,  because
    there has been  too much time and  effort that  has  gone
 4 I down the past.   If you do disrupt that, you  are  going
    to set up back  that  much more.  And  the solid waste
    program will not progress as we think, it should progress
    in Pennsylvania.
               The  other thing is that remember that  there
 9  is nothing  mandatory about this Act  on  the part of the
16
17
    state or  local  government.  It is mandatory  on the
    federal government  to develop a hazardous  waste program,
    and  they  will do  that whether the state  does it or not.
    develop incentives  for the states  to  assume  the
 10
 11
 12
 13 I But what I am trying to get at is that they should
 14
 15  responsibilities under this Act,  and you wouldn't want
    to develop the kinds of incentives -- you can't develop
    incentives if you are going to be very restrictive in
 18  your definitions or requirements  or so on.  Because
 19  what the sjtates will do, if it's  going to be that much,
 20  will say, "Come in and do it, we can't do it because we
 21  can't live under those conditions."
 22             So support and develop incentives.  With
 23  that,  I will close.
24             MR. RAPIER:             Thank you very .much,
25  Bill.   I just wanted to reinforce something that

-------
                                                    167

 1
 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 S


 9


10
 Tom Williams said earlier.

            One of the  ladies  in  the  audience  asked

 about more of a one-on-one  type  relationship  between

 federal officials and  state and  local  people,  and
 -^                     ^
 citizens.  We would  really  like  to do  that.   We  do,

 however, have an extreme paucity  of resources.

            For instance in  our regional  office now,

 we only have two professional people who are  working

 in the solid waste media.   This  means, obviously,  that

ii we have to very carefully allocate the resources,  and
11 [!  we have to very carefully prioritize everything we do.

               If you have thoughts and ideas on how we
13


14


15


16
17 '
18


19


20
  i

21 I


22


23


24
  can  work  better with >tates,  counties,  localities to


  apply  a multiplier to  the kind of things that they can

  do more in a  one-on-one fashion,  we would certainly like

|  to hear from  you after the meeting, or whenever.  But to

  the  extent we can, we  are really  trying to optimize

  the  way we do things in the solid waste program.

             Okay, the next speaker is going to talk about


  something that I think is extremely important and one


  of the major  thrusts of the Act, and that is the

  management of hazardous waste materials , ^subtitle C

  of the Act has a broad and very comprehensive set of

  initiatives for that hazardous waste management program.
               So at this time, I would like to introduce

-------
                                                    168


    Fred Lindsey, Chief, Implementation Branch, Hazardous

  2
    waste Management Division,  Office of Solid Waste

  3
 7


 8


 9


 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17
   Management in  Washington to talk  about hazardous  wastes.


4 I           Fred?
  II
5 "           MR. LINDSEY:            Thank you,  Gordon.


   May  I also say, as I think the others have  said  so far,


   that we  certainly do appreciate your turning out  here


   to give  us the benefit of your suggestions  and comments


   relative to how we should carry out our mandates  under


   this Act.


             I am going to present  here briefly  a summary


   of the Act's requirements relative to the hazardous


   waste provisions, and also touch  upon some  of  the issues


   which we would like to have your  comments and  suggestions


   on.


             As  Gordon indicated, this is subtitle  C of
19


20


21


22


23


24
    the Act,  the hazardous waste provisions.  And^3ubtitle


18  C mandates that a regulatory program^established, the
   purpose of- which is to control hazardous wastes  from the


   point of generation, usually in an industrial  operation,


   to  the point of the ultimate disposal at a permitted


   facility.  Now this is a very clear mandate, there  is


   a fair amount of latitude as to how we carry it  out,


   but the mandate, what it is we are supposed to do is
25   clear.

-------
                                                169

           First of all, the first thing we have to


do is to identify criteria or characteristics of wastes


which make them hazardous or non-hazardous.  And we

are to include, according to the mandate from Congress,

toxicity, persistence in the environment, degradability,
                                             O
bioaccumulation in tissue, flammability, corr^sivity


and perhaps other criteria.

           Once having done that, we will use those


criteria to determine what is and what is not a hazardous

waste, and then issue a listing of examples of hazardous

wastes.  AS with most of the regulatory provisions in


the hazardous waste area, we are given, by Congress, 18


months in which to do this.  That is 18 months from the

passage of the Act, which was October 21, 1976, which


brings us to April the 21st, 1978 when this is supposed


to be completed.

           Gordon already mentioned some of the issues,


in the very beginning of his presentation, that we are


struggling with under how to identify hazardous wastes.


One of the problems is how do you identify a waste?

That is the first thing you have to do, when is a waste


a waste, and when is it a product?

           If we follow that through a little bit, we

may be able to consider that certain materials, which


may be hazardous, are occasionally sold for very small

-------
                                                   170


   amounts of money, to be used for such things as keeping


2  dust down at baseball parks and horse rings, and perhaps


   on roads and things of that nature.  Now are they wastes

A
   or products?  And how do we identify them?


              In addition, what toxic and non-toxic


   parameters other than the ones that Congress mandated,


   should we include in our definition?

Q
              Toxicity is a broad subject; there is acute


9  toxicity and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity,
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
teratogenicity and mutagenicity,  and so forth.  How do


we deal with them?

           Wastes are not pure substances, as we are

talking about here when we are dealing with air and


water pollution problems, we are-talking about an

emittant of chemical species,  or water is the same thing,

its cyanide or arsenic or something of that nature.  And


it is that particular material that causes the problem.

           Where we are talking about hazardous wastes,

we typically are talking about brown goo and red gunk,


and various materials of that genre, which may contain

more than one, maybe a number of potentially hazardous

materials in various concentrations.  And it is this


combination that, through synergism or antagonism and

actual concentration, may release these materials into


the environment  in  some  fashion.

-------
                                                171
           How do we deal with that problem, the fact
that we are not dealing with a pure substance?  How can
we test wastes, for example, to determine whether or
not that waste is hazardous in the real sense?
           These are some of the issues that we are
facing over the next few months,
           Section 3002 of the Act requires that we put
together some standards for generators of waste, those
people who are responsible for the wastes in the be
beginning.  And in so doing, we must come up with
record keeping and reporting requirements.  This would
mean keeping track of quantities, constituents of the
waste and the manner in which they are disposed.
           There will also be standards for the labeling
of containers which will also be developed, and perhaps
the standards for what is a suitable container and what
is not.  And probably more importantly is the
requirement that a manifest system be developed.
           Now the manifest system is designed to track
the waste from point of generation through the
transportation function, to the point of treatment or
disposal, so-called "cradle to grave" control.  And
the manifest system will also give pertinent information
on the characteristics of the waste to the transporter
and to the disposer, which he requires to carry out his

-------
                                                172




function.



           The manifest systems  already exist in some




Abates, and where they do,  they  take the trip ticket




form of approach initiated  by the generator,  carried by




the transporter and finalized by the disposer or




treater.



           Some of the problems  which we face here is:



ftow can record—keeping and  reporting burdens  be




minimized,  and yet provide  adequate control of hazardous




waste management problems and their solutions?  Should




transport manifests be a uniform system nationwide?




           It doesn't say that they must be in the




Act, it simply says that there will be a manifest system




set up.  It doesn't say that it  must be uniform.




           Similar standards are required for transporter^,




again including record keeping,  keeping track of the




sources of  waste which are  picked up, and where the




wastes are  delivered.  Labeling  requirements  again for




containers, compliance with that manifest section of



the system  which deals with transportation, and they must




be consistent, according to the  Act, with any



requirements that the Department of Transportation may




have.



          One of the more important sections  of the Act




is section  3004, because it is here that we will be

-------
                                                173



generating standards for treatment, storage and disposal




facilities.  And it is by such standards that improper




disposal will be made illegal.  So this is a very




important section of the Act.




           Congress has mandated that within these




regulations, we must come up again with record keeping




and reporting provisions, how much material has been




received and how is it disposed of or treated?  And the




disposers must also comply with the manifest system.




           We must also set up minimum standards and




requirements for monitoring and inspection to determine




if a site is in fact polluting.  And we must have



standards for location, design and construction, that is,




to identify where facilities can be place, what design




options may be restricted or otherwise controlled, and




so forth.  Maintenance and operating standards contingency




plans must be set up identifying what to do if something




goes wrong.



           Then there is the broad classification of




ownership requirements, which might include standards




for performance bonds, requirements for performance bonds



long-term care funds, training requirements and site




closure requirements, things of that nature.  In addition




there is a broad mandate which says something to the




effect that other standards may be developed, as necessary

-------
                                                    174




 1  to  protect public health and the environment.  So  it's




    a broad  field.
 3
    and  there are. a great many, some of the more  interesting




    ones are:  What are the main problems which a  treatment




 6   disposal firm may have which are associated with




    integrating hazardous waste facility standards with other




 8   health and environmentally related standards,  such  as



 9   the  air, water and OSHA types of standards?   How  can
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
              Some of the questions we are  facing here.
these be integrated?  How can they be worked out?  What




kinds of problems exist?



           Should performance standards for hazardous




waste storage and treatment facilities apply only at




the fence line,  or perhaps elsewhere?  Should the



standards developed take the form of performance standard




for example, some limit on pollution of ground water,




"Thou shalt not pollute the ground water beyond some




acceptable level," whatever that is?  Or, on the other




hand, should they take perhaps the different approach,



that being what we may call equipment standards, if you



are going to burn chlorinated hydrocarbons you must




have a scrubber with such and such a pressure drop,




that sort of approach?  And what problems exist if one



approach or another is taken?




           Should hazardous waste facility standards be

-------
                                                   175




   uniform nationally,  or recognize  differences  in climatology




2  and hydrogeology?




              Another problem which  we feel  will become




   extant, as  we  go  forward,  is  that many citizens




   automatically  oppose the siting of hazardous  waste




   facilities  around  their near  term locale.   They may be




   all for the concept,  but when it  comes time to put it




   down the street or across  town, they are  totally opposed




   to it.



              We  see  this, even  if we do an  extremely good




   job of  putting together standards and setting up programs




   to control  this, we see siting of hazardous waste




   management  facilities, good,  solid, well  located



   hazardous waste facilities as still being a major problem




   And we  are  wondering, and interested in any comments




   you may have as to how this problem may be overcome  in




   the future?



              For example, would very stringent facility




   standards have any appreciable influence on this issue?




   What about  training and education programs, things of




   that nature?  Would that be likely to have any impact




   on this type of problem?



              Should  regulations published by EPA require




   certification  of  employees working at hazardous waste




   facilities?  We have certification programs for boiler

-------
                                                    176


    water operators; should we have them for waste management


    operators?  And if so, who within those facilities and

 o
    which people, and how should that be carried out, or


    should it be carried out at all?


              Should EPA require bonding and insurance for


    hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities?  Is

 7
    insurance readily available for such facilities?

 O
              What routine monitoring should be required

 Q
    at hazardous waste facilities, and who should do it?
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
What testing techniques, how often, what sort of


monitoring equipment should be used?


           Those are just a few of the problems which


we are facing, and questions which we are facing at


the present time on which we would like to have your


opinions and suggestions.


           Section 3005 of the Act sets up a permit


system which will be, in essence, a mechanism for


bringing facilities into compliance, then, with the


standards which are set up under section 3004, that we


just discussed.

           Six months after we promulgate the standards


for treatment, storage and disposal, and for  criteria


as to what is and what is not a hazardous waste, six


months after that time, it will be illegal to dispose


of hazardous wastes in a facility that does not have a

-------
                                                177
permit.  Assuming the 18 months time period is met for
the generation of the standards for facilities, that
would bring this to approximately October the 21st, 1978.

           In order to receive a permit, a facility must
convince the regulatory agency, the state or the
federal government, whoever is carrying out the problem,
•f
that they do in fact comply, or are expected to comply
in the case of a new facility, with the standards which
have been developed.

           Congress also mandates certain requirements
for permit application, including information on the
                                                        ^
manner of treatment, storage and disposal, information on
the types and amounts of wastes which are expected to
be handled, information on the frequency of treatment
and the rate of application in the case of disposal,
and information on the site itself.  I suspect hydrogeolo^y,

climatology, things of that nature.
           There is also a provision for granting
interim permits.  That is, for those facilities which

were in business as of the passage of the Act, who have
notified the state or EPA in accordance with section
             ^
3010 of the Act that I will talk about in a minute, and
who have applied for a permit, those people will be
granted an interim permit which will be good until such
time as the paper work for the actual permit has cleared.

-------
                                                    178

 1   The idea  here  is  to allow  these particular  facilities


    to operate.

 3              One of  the questions we are  facing  in this

 4   particular  area is:  Should there be  different classes

 5   of hazardous waste permits, depending on  the types  and

 6   amounts,  et cetera, of the wastes which are handled?

 7   Is there  any reason for doing  that?

 8              Section 3006 of the Act authorized  the states

 9   to undertake the  permitting and enforcement parts of

10   this Act.   It's very clear that Congress  intends

11   or hopes  that  the  states will  undertake this

12   responsibility.

13              In  order to be authorized, a state  will  have


14   to have a program  which is equivalent to  the federal

15   program consistent with other ^tate programs that have

16   been authorized,  and must contain adequate  enforcement

17   provisions.  Unfortunately, Congress  didn't say what

18   "equivalent",  "consistent" and "adequate" are.  And they

19   seldom do,  so  we will be facing definitions of those


20   particular  requirements as we  go forth  here.

21              We  must come up with guidelines  to  assist

22   the _s,tates  in  setting up these programs,  and we are
        •^
23   beginning work on  that now.

24              Section 3010 of the Act requires that within

25   three months after we have identified what  is  and what is

-------
                                                179





not a hazardous waste, that is the criteria for




hazardous wastes, within three months after that time,




anyone who generates, transports, treats, stores or




disposes of hazardous wastes, under that definition,




must notify EPA of the fact that they do.  It's a one




time provision, and it occurs three months after the




promulgation of standards under 3001, "Hazardous Waste




Identification".




           Section 3011 of the Act provides assistance




to the states.  In this case, $25 million has been




authorized for each of two years to get this underway.




But "authorized" is not the same as "appropriated", and




at this point how much money will actually be appropriate^




for this work is certainly not clear.



           I think it's safe to say that it won't be




$25 million, but just what level that will be, as I say,




unclear.



           In any event, we will be devising a formula




for allocating whatever amounts of money are available,




which will be based on the amounts of hazardous wastes




which are generated in a given state, and the extent of




public exposure to those wastes.



           In brief, that summarizes the requirements




that we are faced with in developing a hazardous waste




program at the national level.  And we really are

-------
                                                    IBO


    interested in your thoughts on some of these  issues


 2  that I have discussed, and I believe there  is a

 o
    publication out there, which many of you may  have


    picked up, called, "Issues for Discussion", which contain


    the sane ones that I have discussed here, and perhaps


 6  some more that we would sincerely like to have your


 7  suggestions and so forth on today, or at a  later time,

 a
    if you can.

 rt
              In the interim, I am here to take  any
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
suggestions you might have,  comments you might have or


questions,  as the case may be.   Does someone want to


lead it off?


           MR.  WILLIAMS:            Frank Williams from


DER.  You have mentioned  that after the regulations are


passed, you have six months  in which to have permits


issued.  Do you plan simply  to take applications and


issue the permits, or is  there going to be a review?


And if so,  can you realistically expect to be able to


issue those permits within that time?


           MR. LlNDSEYr            That is a very good


question.  Certainly there will be a review.  But that,


I think, is the reason for the interim permit provision


that Congress put directly in the Act.


           As I think I pointed out, it will be illegal


to dispose without a permit within six months after that

-------
                                                    181
   period of time.  However, as I say, for those facilities

   which are in existence and which have notified us under

   section 3010, and who have made applications, they will

4  be granted forthwith an .interim permit to continue

   operating until the review, as you point out and the

   other parts of the Act, or the other parts of the

   permit have been studied and reviewed.
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
           Yes, in the back?
           MR.
OSKY:           Jim B*rhosky, DER.
That sounds like a loophole, any operator of a dump

can submit an application and continue to operate his

dump for five years with no intent of complying anyway.

           MR. LINDSEY:            I don't want to

speculate whether it's a loophole or not.  It's in the

Act anyhow.

           There are also other ways in which the Act

can be enforced.  For example, the standards under

section 3004 apply, notwithstanding whether a permit

section is ever set up.

           And there is — I can't remember what section

of the Act there is — but there is a direct enforcement

mechanism which carries fines, et cetera, for bringing

action against a given facility.  And I think I would

have to look that up to be sure of what section that is,

I think it's 3007 or 3008, something of that nature.

-------
                                                   182


              3008, under jjubtitle C under "Compliance

   orders."  Those facilities which are grossly not meeting

3 I the requirements of the Act,  could be addressed under

4
   that.
5
6
              There are citizen suit provisions under the
   Act as well,  which  a citizen  could  bring suit on a

S   facility for  not meeting  the  standards,  under section

   3004.

              Yes,  sir, over here?

              MR. BANCROFT:            Robert Bancroft,
10
11 I Allegheny County Health Department.

12             How will your activities mandated to you
13

14
   under subsection C,  be coordinated and integrated into

   activities also mandated under the Toxic Substances

15  Control Act?  Will there be a duplication, or how will

16  this work?
  I
17             MR. LIHDSEY:            Let me say first of

18 I all, there will not be a duplication.  The Toxic Substance

19  Control Act is oriented towards front end control of

20 I hazardous materials, products and things of that naturer

   not specifically toward waste as respects it, although

   there are parts of the Toxic Substances Control Act
 21

 22
 23


 24


 25
   which could be laid to waste.  This act really relates

   directly to waste control.

              Now in the sense that the two acts were  passed

-------
                                                    183



1
 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




n




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24
roughly at the same time, it gives EPA the extraordinary




ability, for once, to coordinate things as we go.




           Let me say something about how this occurs,



setting standards and regulations in the federal




government.




           When we began to develop regulations, the




agency sets up a work group.  The agency work group




will be led by the Office of Solid Waste, which we




represent; in the case of toxic substances, by the



Agency of Toxic Substances.  But in each of these work




groups, there are the air pollution control, water




pollution, toxic substances and our own work group,




soid waste on there.  And there is the method by which




we attempt to assure coordination and prevent overlap.




           Also on those parts, for example, of the




Toxic SubstanceBAAct which relate to solid waste, and




where they have been going forward in developing



regulations along those lines, technically our people




have been heavily involved in working on those




regulations directly, and as a matter of fact doing some




of the initiating work in those senses.  So we hope




definitely there will not be any overlap.



           MR. BANCROFT:           Well, in both the




Acts, is there not a mandate concerning standards for




disposal?

-------
                                                    184
 1            MR.  LINDSEY:            There can be.   I am
 2  not  as  familiar personally with  the Toxic  Substances
 3
    the  Toxic Substances Act, and I am not certain  there is
    a mandate that  certain disposal criteria be  set up.
               Maybe  Gordon can speak to that better than
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
    Act  as perhaps you are.  There can be requirements  under
I can.
           MR. RAPIER:             There is one explicit
mandate, and that is for a disposal method to be defined
for PVC's, and I believe some of your people are going
to be writing those standards:.
           MR. LINDSEY:            They are working on
that now.  But I think PVC's is the only one, if I am
not mistaken.
           Yes, sir?
           MR. ATKINS:             George Atkins,
Northwest Engineering.  You mentioned problems with
siting disposal facilities and processing facilities.
I think if the experience so far to date on sanitary
land fills is any criteria, that you are probably going
to have to consider some sort of a "last resort"
mechanism, where when a given region or area has exhausted
their capability to locate a site,  some larger,
probably state or federal type of agency is going to  have
to assume that responsibility.  Because I think that  you

-------
                                                    185
   are going to be at a point on these where you  are  not

   going to be able to do it with  local mechanisms.
3             MR. LINDSEY:            We have been  hearing
4  that, sir, from other people as well.  And that  is why

5  I brought up, I guess, the issue.

6             There is no authority within this Act that
7  Congress has given us, to kind  of, if you will,  take

8  over and say, "This is where we are going to put this,"

9  or, "This is where we are going to put that."  There is
10  no authority along those lines  to do that?

1'             So I am wondering what impact the federal

12  government could have or should have in that whole

13  process relative to trying to help identify where  sites

14  would be.
15             MR. ATKINS:             The alternative to

*6  that may be to stop generating  that type of waste  for

17  which you can't find a home, which of course then would

18  give you a constituency to get  the things done you need

19  done.
20             MR. LINDSEY:            Possibly,   In other
21 | words, in some cases that might lead to stopping making
22  or using products that generated this particular types

23  of wastes, because most of these wastes come about as
24  a direct result of manufacturing operations for given
25 jj products.  And that would be a very drastic approach.

-------
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                186




I think that sort of thing could be addressed under the




Toxic Substances Act.  It can't be addressed under our




Act, as such.



           MS. KEFFER:             I wonder if the




Act has any provisions at all,  or mechanisms for waste



reduction?  For instance, is there a mechanism in the




Act to establish a waste exchange, which has been done




in Central Europe to some extent, it has been started,




I don't know how extensive it is, but at least it has




been started?  There is no such thing here.




           MR. LINDSEY:            in Europe, you are




quite correct, there are a number of exchanges handled



by either a chamber of commerce, various trade associatio




or .in one or two cases, I believe directly by the




government, the idea being for those of you who may not



be familiar with it, that one man's waste may be another




man's feed stock.




           How in this particular country there are



several fledgling waste exchanges at this point.  One of




the more well known ones is in St. Louis, the St. Louis




Regional Council — I have forgotten exactly what the



organization is -- has set up a waste exchange within




the past year, which has been initially quite successful




in effecting exchanges of waste for one plant to be used



as raw materials for another.
is,

-------
                                                   187


1
              I suspect that this will be perhaps a help,


   certainly will be a help in helping to solve these


   problems.  Because it's a beautiful solution if you


   can exchange a waste and use it as a feed stock, why,

5
   then, you no longer have the waste, obviously, to deal

6
   with.

7
              But it's probably not going to be a panacea.

e

   There are probably going to be many, many ways which

9
  I have such a low value or concentration of materials, so



   as to make them unusable.  But it is an idea we would


   like to  foster, if we can.  But there is no provision


   in the ^ct which allows us to either set up such a



13 j; thing or requires us to either study it or try and do


14  that sort of thing, although as a problematic approach,



   we have  performed some studies.


K             MR. LOWE:               Fred, couldn't we do



 '  it under the demonstration provisions?


18             MR. LISDSEY:            I suppose it could



1!>  be done  if there were funds available under the


"0
   demonstration program, yes.


21 |            MR. GRANEY:             Tom firaney, Lawrence
  I

22  County.  When can we expect, you know, there is


-:i  obviously a mechanism here in the Act to allow the


24  state, which is already in the solid waste business, to



•-'•'  enforce  certain provisions.  I am a little fuzzy on when

-------
10


11


12


13


14

15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                188

that decision might be coming down.

           When will the state have the opportunity to

say yes or no, "We want to enforce this Act"?

           MR. LINDSEY:            That will be done

when we have come forward with the identification for

what is "equivalent, consistent and adequate" enforcement

under section 3006.  We will be putting out guidelines

to the jstate saying, "This is what it's going to take
       ^
to be equivalent," and so forth.

           And in generating these, we are dealing

directly with a number of ^.tates, as a matter of fact,

as advisors on that work group that is dealing with

that particular thing.  We have five ^.tates directly

involved in giving us their thinking.  These are states

who have been down this road and granting permits and

so forth before, and setting up hazardous waste programs.

And we have been in contact, and will be in more future

contact with neople like Bill over here, and representati\

of other state agencies as to what their problems are
         *^-
with regard to assuming the program.

           I suspect that one of our biggest problems

is going to be a lack of all of the  funds for grants  to

the states that we would like to have, because certainly
    •&
in funding a program of this type, the 5tates would  like
                                        "^

to have as much funding from the federal government  as

-------
                                                   189

1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
   possibly be achieved.  But when will this occur?  We

   have 18 months in which to do that.

              I hope that we will be coning forward with

   drafts of these things well before that time.  I can't

   give you an exact date, however.

              In the back over there?

              MR. LEWIS:              Ken Lewis, Public

   Morks Director, Sharon.  I have been reading about  it

   for quite some time now, that they are going to cut out

  | a lot of this paper work.  But I was wondering, is  there
  i
11 ; any truth to that?  Because every time you make an

1:2  application, you have  to write a whole book.

              MR. LINDSEY:            The rjentleman  up

  ] here says would you mind submitting  that question  in
  r{
15 jj writing in triplicate?

1(i !j            (Laughter.)

17 ;:            HR. LINDSEY:            It's a  common  complain
  u
IB

1!)
   and there  is no way,  I  don't  think,  that  we can undertake

   the provisions of  this  Act, which require permit
20   applications, manifest  systems  and things of that

21 i  nature, without  generating some paper work.

               May I  say  that we would  like  to,  if it's

    possible, and we  have talked with  some of the transporter

24 |!  for example, on  the manifest system,  we would like to

i">   see if we can't  organize  the paper work in such a way

-------
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                190




that "it can achieve several purposes so that there




aren't at least separate forms for everything that has




to be done.  Maybe we can combine some of the forms into




a slightly longer form, or something of that nature.




And in any event, you people who would have to deal with




these things, we would like to have your ideas.




           We have already received from sorae of the




transporters in California who have already been using




the manifest system, examples on how trin ticket criteria




and things of that nature can be hooked into the




manifest system to cut down the volume of paper work.




But I don't see any way we are going to do it without




generating some paper work.  But we will try to keep it




to a minimum.




           MR. LECORCHICK:         Bill Lecorchick,




Division of Solid Waste Management for DEK.  My question




is:  Does EPA consider that the people in the treating




industry are sufficient, or there is enough companies




available today to handle the hazardous wastes that




we see, or is there intentions to promote possible state




treating facilities or national depositories, or sites




under the Act?




           MR. LINDSEY:            That is a many




faceted question.  The first question is:  Are there




enough facilities in existence now to environmentally

-------
8
                                                    191

   and physically handle these wastes?  And I  think  the

   answer to that is:  No, at the present  time  there are

   not.

              That was the reason for the  generation of

   my question as to how we are going to try  to,  in  the

   future, help to see to it that there are existing

   facilities, particularly when we are faced  with,  as I

   say, the local opposition question virtually anyplace
9

10

11
   we think one of these places should  be  placed.

              And the second part of your  question  was


   whether or not under the Act, we would  be  espousing

   sjtate run or federally run national  or  s,tate  disposal
   *s                                       ~~
W jj sites, or facilities for these operations? And  there
  ji
W j| is no authority under the Act to do  that,  number 1.

15 jj            Number 2, the policy has  always been, both

16 ij I think from the Congress and from our  own agency,  that

n  these particular wastes tend to be,  or  normally  are  the

18 ! by-product of manufacturing operations, and the  costs

   should be borne there, and the responsibility for the


20 \ waste should be borne there.  So there  is  no  real
  !

21 \ thought being pushed for doing that, setting  up  national
  I
22  disposal sites or encouraging states to do it, although

"3  I suspect if the state feels strongly in that area,  they
  !                  ^
24 ij would go ahead and do it.

.)- :            For example, in Minnesota we have  a grant rightf

-------
                                                192


now with the State of Minnesota  to  develop and implement


a hazardous waste facility  in  that  state.   And the j^tate


has taken the lead on doing that because of interests,


they don't have facilities  which they feel are suitable,


so they have taken the lead in that case through a


demonstration grant of a technique.  We are supporting


that.


           I might add, we  are also running into the


same siting problems there  that has been a problem


elsewhere.


           Yes, sir?


           MR. HARRIS:             Ted Harris, Allied


Chemical.


           Do you anticipate a problem which is a


corrolary, if you will, to  people not wishing disposal


sites adjacent to their homes in that jtate, would
                                      *Z*

tend to close their borders to wastes generated in


other states?  And what would you intend to do about  this?


How could  the program handle it?


           MR. LINDSEY:            That is an interesting


question.  It's  the whole question of what we call


"non-importation clauses" within s-tat< regulations and


standards.  As you know, that particular question has


been before the Supreme Court as a result of New Jersey's


non-importation clause, for some number of months.  And

-------
                                                   193

1
   I  understand  just  last week  the  Court  remanded  it  back


   to,  I  don't know if  it was a state  court  or  local  court,


   saying,  "You  ought to  look at it again as to whether  or


   not  non-importation  clauses  were legal under the


   constitution."


             But  it  has  been our policy  that wastes  should


   be handled where they  can be handled best from  the


   standpoint of environmental  adequacy,  and including


   costs  in part of that  formula.   If  that means moving


   from one town to the next, or moving across  state  lines,
                                               ^

   it's our policy that that be done.


             Relative  to how that  might  fit in with


   determining what is  and what is  not an equivalent


   state  program,  we  would be interested  in  your views on


   that issue.  T7e haven't taken any stand on that.


             MR.  HARRIS:              Do  you think you


   might  need legislation in order  to  gain this point?


             MR.  LINDSEY:            From the  federal


   government?


             MR.  HARRIS:              Yes.  Or  do  you think


   you  can  do it within the scope of the  Act, for  instance,


   you  would not certify  a state program  or  not permit


   them to  take control if they had a  nonimportation clause


             MR.  LINDSEY:             A lot  of  that would


   have to  do, I think, with what the  courts say on this

-------
                                                194



matter, since it's in the courts right now.




           MR. HARRIS:             You may have to, then.




           MR. LINDSEY:            Anything would be



possible.  I don't want to take a stand on it, as long




as the courts are still dealing with it.




           MR. SPAULINGt           Bliss Spauling,




Mercer County Regional Planning.




           Do I understand that there is a follow-up




to this siting question, the local officials will pretty



much have the deciding matter as to where or if a




particular waste facility is going to be sited in




their community, irrespective of what they need for




permit requirements under the Act, if that is the case,




then that is where perhaps the first gentleman who




was worried about citizen involvement will get in,



because that is sure as heck where it's going to come




from.



           That means to me that you are having a




terrible impasse in siting some pretty important needed




facilities eventually that there is no provision in




the state or federal act to handle, and it probably



will be an impasse, despite the fact that they could




meet all the permit requirements.  And along with that,




I wondered if there is going to be — or what is going




to happen in the case of the interim permit that is

-------
                                                   195


   pending while this process is going on, in addition to


   the question of the new  facilities, which may very well


   be turned down in a local area.


              Is there any  provision  in the Act as to what


   happens at that point?   If you don't have the new


   site, does your interim  permit continue to run

 7
   indefinitely in willful  opposition?


              MR. LINDSEY:            No, there is no


   direct provision for that sort of  thinq.  I think you


   succinctly summarized the problem  better than I did.


              There is no,  as you pointed out, there is no


   authority under the Act  for  the federal government or


   the state, really, directly  as a result of assuming the
       •^

   federal program, at least, to pre-empt local decision


   making authority.  That  would require some additional


   legislation, either at the federal level or ^_tate level,


   which I don't see as forthcoming.


              So while we may grant a permit to a  facility


   because it's in the right area and has the right design


   features, et cetera, it  may  be stymied as a result of


   zoning restrictions or other local controls.


              The second part of your question had to do


   with  -- well, suppose I  am disposing of my waste at a


   local land fill, or I ara hiring "Midnight Joe"  to haul

  !!
23 ! it away, or whatever, and that then is closed off to me

-------
                                                    196


 1  because that facility either does not want a permit  or


 2  is not able to get a permit.  What happens unless  I  can

 o
   find another permit?


 4             There is no provision in the Act which  says


 5  that that interim authority to operate a sub-par land


 6  fill will go on forever.  It's only supposed to  go on


 7  until we have had time to take a look at the application


 8  for the full permit, and evaluate it, et cetera.


 9             Now there will undoubtedly be provisions


10  in our procedure which would allow for implementation


11  procedures, upgrading, compliance schedules, I think they


12  call them in the water program.  Things of that  type will


13  be permitted.


M             There will be a number of facilities which


15  exist already which will be permitable.  The problem is


16  they may not be in a locality, there may not be  one


17  in Pittsburgh, for example, or you may have to haul  it


18  to Cleveland or something like that, and this is done


19  already.


20             Many of these wastes move across half the


21  country to find appropriate treatment sites or disposal


22  sites, so it's not uncommon.  But we do expect a short


23  fall for a period of time in the capacity that will  be


24  available of permitted facilities.  And just how we  are


25  going to deal with that is one of the questions  I  have.

-------
                                                    197


 1  If anyone has any good suggestions,  I want  to hear them.

 n
              I think the gentleman  in  green has had his

 o
   hand up.


              MR. JONES:              Tom  Jones, Union


   Carbide again.


 6             I would like to address enforcement  under


 7  the Act.  Historically I  looked back at the Clean Air


 8  Act and probably more so  the  Federal Water  Pollution


 9 | Control Act, and there seems  to be a disparity  in


10  enforcement actions of industry versus  municipalities.


11             Do yOU See an  effective enforcement  provision


12  in the Act, or when you develop the  guidelines  for the


13  states to implement, that will allow for an effective


14  enforcement mechanism against municipalities.   This  seems


15  to be somewhat deficient, it's difficult to enforce


16  against a municipality presently,  say under the NPDS


17  program.


18             It's easy to enforce against industry;  it's


19  more difficult to enforce against a  municipality.

                 "IcTNv
20             MR. WILLIAMS t            I would  like to say


21 j i don't think there  is anything comparable  in  this


22  Act, or any problem  comparable to what you  have in the

                                        ,
23  water pollution area.  Municipalities don't generate


24  hazardous wastes, generally  speaking.


25 (            MR, JONES:              But  they do, oftentimes,

-------
                                                198


have open dumps.

           MR. LINDSEY:             They do dispose, is

the point.
             -Tb^
           MR. WILLIAMS:            Yes.  That will be

taken care of through other provisions of the Act.

But I don't think there will be any comparable hazardous

waste enforcement efforts as  it will with industry.

           MR. GRANEY:             I have just a comment

on the siting.  There almost seems  to be a belief that

certain land use controls are purely within the

province of local government, however, other

Pennsylvania zoning laws  and other  laws present a

mechanism for exempting of land use which is public

utilities, and it's built into the  Pennsylvania Planning

Code.

           For example, a procedure appeal to the PUC

to set aside local regulations, I would like to offer

that as a suggestion, as  a last resort in line with

some of the other comments on siting that might possibly

be felt.

           MR. LINDSEY:             Bill, you have that

kind of authority now, do you, in the state?

           That is a good suggestion, though, as a

possible way of getting around it.

           MR. GRANEY:             It's indigenous to

-------
 8

 9

10
                                                    199
1
   public utilities,  because they  had excellent Lobbies
2
   when this law was  passed,
3
              MR. SPAULING:            That is only peculiar
4
   to public utilities,  now.  Even the jstate is not exempt
5
   from local regulations  unless  there is something in this
6
   particular statute that says  they are exempt.  So that
7
   may have to still  be  amended  at the jstate level to give

   some kind of ability  to handle  critical situations if

   you really reach an impasse.

              MR. LINDSEY:             I have time for

   two more, then they tell  me they are going to get the
11
12 "•
  || hook  out.

13              MR.  ATKINS:              The gentleman just
14

15

16

17

18

19

20 [
   made the comment  that  municipalities do not create

   hazardous vrastes.   I think  ray question is moot, but

   in Pennsylvania under  Act 241,  municipalities have the

   responsibility  for  hazardous wastes?  Is that not right?

              MR.  BUCCIARELLI:         George, you didn't

   have to ask  that  question.

              We have  gone through this many times.  The

21  Act holds municipalities responsible to see that they

22 ij are handled  right,  not necessarily that they have to
  ||
23 | handle them. That is the way we interpret the requirement
  |
24 ]            They have the responsibility to see that it's

-"'  handled.

-------
                                                    200
 1
               MR.  ATKINS:              But the crunch to
 2
    shutting down an industry if they can't find a site,
 3
    may well fall on the local municipality under Act 241.
 4
               MR.  BUCCIARELLI:         If you want to take
 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


 22


 23


 24


25
it that far, it has to be tested.  But as  far  as  I  am

concerned, this is the way we are looking  at it right

now.


           And to speak to this issue of giving the

s^tate or the federal government to put in  a new site  —

           MR. LINDSEY:            Pre-empt.

           MR. BUCCIARELLI:        Yes, I  think that  is

fine, except you are still not speaking to the question

of the baby carriages, because no matter how much power

you have got, if you have got those baby carriages

out there, that overrides almost everything.

           A VOICE:                That is a political

cop-out.

           MR. BUCCIARELLI:        The question has been

too that we start using some state land and federal land
                             gj              <>

to put this stuff on.

           MR. LINDSEY:            I am not even  sure

that would solve the problem.

           MR. BUCCIARELLI:        It didn't.  And  as

far as being a cop-out is concerned, you know, we did

use up in one of the counties, a federal national park,

-------
                                                   201

   Allegheny National Park as a site for the county's solid
2
   waste facility.
              But,  you know, we still had a  lot of static
4
   about that.
 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
              MR.  LINDSEY:            I can take maybe one
   more question.   This lady over here hasn't said anything.

              MS.  KERR:               Virginia Kerr, I
   am from the organization called GRIP.  I wonder in you1"
   Act, does it specifically state there should be no

   dumping in the  ocean?
              MR.  LINDSEY:            That is handled under
   the Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act directly.

              MS.  KERR:               Is it illegal,

   supposedly?
              MR.  LINDSEYr            It's illegal to

   dump in the ocean without a permit given by the regional
   office.  And this gentleman can expound at what length

   on what ground  they grant a permit for that.
              I think I am safe in saying that with the
   exception of the Maryland, New York and Wev Jersey coast

   areas, most of  the ocean dumping under that Act has
   pretty well ceased.  I don't think there is any great
   amount of it, except right in the New York-Mew Jersey-

   Maryland area where they still have quite a bit of
   problem with the sewage sludge, or some industrial waste.
                                                            i
   But that is not in the .purview of this Act, and I am not :

-------
                                                   202
1  really versed in  this  area.   I suggest you  contact  the
   regional office if  you have  an interest  in  that  area.
              Thank  you very  much.   If  there are  others
   who have questions  or  comments they  would like to give
   me, I will be here  until the end  of  this and I would  be
   interested in talking  with you.   Thank you.
              MR. RAPIER:            Thank you,  Fred.
              As you can  see  subtitle C is  a very
   comprehensive, complex problem. And  we don't have all the
   answers and we are  still in  the process  of  thinking
   about how we are  going to  write guidelines  and regulation:;
   and standards and so forth.  So your  thoughts and comments
   certainly would be  useful  to us.
              If you want to  submit  anything  in writing,
   either to the regional office or  to  Washington,  I would
   encourage you to  do so.
              Fred just discussed the general  hazardous
   management concepts or initiatives in the  Act.
   Subtitle D talks  about the major  thrusts on disposal
   land.
              That and other  sections of the  Act  will  be
   highlighted now by  Mr. Truett DeGeare, who  is  Chief
   of the Land Protection Branch, Systems Management
   Division, Office  of Solid  Waste Management' in  Washington.
   Truett?

-------
                                                    203
              Would  anyone  like  to  take  a  break?
2
               (Recess  taken.)
3
              MR. DeGEARE:             Could  I  have  your
4
   attention for a few minutes,  please?  I will try to make
5
   a few brief remarks,  and then we can  have some more
6
   interchange.
              With regard to land pollution  of land
8
   disposal of non-hazardous solid  wastes, some of  the
9
  li important features  of this  law are  significant new
10

11

12

13

14

15
   definition requirements  for  the  Administrator of EPA
   to promulgate regulations  containing  criteria for
   classification of disposal facilities as  sanitary land
   fills or as dumps; requirement, that the Administrator
   publish an inventory of  all  disposal  facilities  in the

  j country which are open dumps, and  a requirement  that
T ft I
  j the Administrator publish  suggested guidelines,  including
1( ' a description of level of  performance to  protect ground
   water from leachate.  The  implications and  requirements
   for state and local government will be discussed later
18
19
20
   under  state  and  local  government program provisions.
21              RCRA,  our  new law recognizes  open dumps
   and sanitary  land fills  at the  only  two  types of  solid
23

24
   waste disposal facilities.  They will  be  distinguished
   by criteria to be developed under  the  provisions of
-3  section 4004.

-------
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
                                                204




           RCRA adds clarity by defining disposal and




solid waste.   These two definitions are especially




significant in the breadth of their scope.   "Disposal"



means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,




spilling, leaking or placing of any solid waste or




hazardous waste into or on any land or water,  so that




such solid waste or hazardous waste, or any constituent




thereoff, may enter the environment or be emitted into




the air, or discharged into any water, including ground




water.



           The term "solid waste" is also defined in a




very comprehensive manner, in that it means any garbage,




refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water




supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility




and other discarded material, including solid, liquid,.




semi-solid or-contained gaseous material resulting from



industrial, commercial, raining and agricultural operation




and from community activities.




           But it does not include solid or dissolved




material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved



material in irrigation return flows or industrial




discharges which are point sources subject to permit



under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control




Act, or. source special nuclear or by-product materials




as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.

-------
                                                    205
 1
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
           So by Congressional mandate, we are now dealin
with a solid waste which is, by definition, solid,
liquid or gaseous.
           As I said earlier, the statutory definition
of sanitary land fill and open dump refer specifically
to section 4004 of the Act, which is entitled, "Criteria
for Sanitary Land Fills; Sanitary Land Fills Required
for all Disposal."  This section requires the Administrat
to promulgate regulations containing criteria for
determining which land disposal facility shall be
classified as open dumps, and which shall be classified
as sanitary land fills.
           At a minimum, the criteria must provide that
a facility may be classified as a sanitary land  fill and
not an open dump, only if there is no reasonable
probabibity of adverse effect on public health or the
environment.
           An important aspect of implementing the
Act, then, is further interpretation of what constitutes
"no reasonable probability"  and what constitutes
"adverse effect on health or the environment".
           Development of this criteria will be
particularly difficult for ground water protection
because of technological uncertainties, and a general
lack of ground water protection policy.  This regulation

-------
                                                206


is due by October 21 of this year,  that is one year


after enactment of the law.


           The intent of developing this criteria is


not to provide a federal regulatory system for sanitary

                 ^

land fills, but to provide a tool for use by state
                                            •^,

solid waste management agencies.


           Section 4004(b) requires each state plan to


prohibit the establishment of open dumps and to contain


a requirement that all solid waste within the ^tate


be disposed of in sanitary land fills, unless it is


utilized for resource recovery.


           Finally, ^ection 4004(c) indicates that the


state prohibition on open dumping shall take effect


six months after the date of promulgation of the criteria


or on the date of approval of the ^tate plan, whichever


is later.


           There is a second provision in the law for


prohibition of open dumping.  Not later than one year


after promulgation of the criteria for sanitary land


fills and open dumps, the Administrator shall publish


an inventory of all disposal facilities in the country


which are open dumps.


           Section 4005 also prohibits open dumping


when usable alternatives are available.  If such


alternatives are not available, the state plan shall

-------
 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24
                                                   207



1  establish a timetable or schedule for compliance, which



   specifies remedial measures, including an enforcement



   sequence of action or leading to compliance, of open



   dumping of solid waste within a reasonable time which



   may not exceed five years from date of publication of



   the inventory.



              If a j^tate plan is not undertaken, the



   citizen suit provisions of section 7002 provide recourse
                             -^


   to grieved parties.  Such recourse is in federal, as



   opposed to other courts.
              Section 1008, "Solid Waste Management


                                                       /
   Information and Guidelines" requires the Administrator



   to publish in one year, guidelines which provide a



   technical and economic description of the level of



   performance that can be attained by various available



   solid waste management practices.  The law does not



   specify specific solid waste management practices for



   which guidelines will be developed, but there are areas



   specified which the guidelines are intended to address.



              These include appropriate methods arid degrees



   of control that provide, at a minimum, for protection of



   public health and welfare; protection of the quality



   of ground water and surface water from leachate;



   protection of the quality of surface water from runoff,
25  through compliance with effluent limitations of the

-------
                                                   208


 1  Federal Water Pollution Control Act; protection of

 2
   ambient air quality through compliance with new source


   performance standards, or requirements of air quality


   implementation plans under the Clean Air Act, disease


   and vector control, safety and aesthetics.


              Guidelines are intended to be descriptive


   as opposed to prescriptive, and to suggest alternatives

 a
   for dealing with the concerns and issues raised in the


 9  criteria.
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
           Section 1008(c)  requires minimum criteria


to be used by the ^tate in defining and controlling open


dumping of solid waste, as prohibited under_gubtitle D.


           In response to the mandate of jection 1008,


the agency intends to deal first with the predominant
    ^,

means of solid waste disposal by updating or current


land disposal guidelines, and also initiating sludge


disposal guidelines.


           In order to determine what priorities should


be placed on development of guidelines to address other


practices* we are soliciting your viewpoints and we will


be carrying out a process for assessing needs for


additional guidelines.


           I would be happy to hear your, viewpoints on


these various provisions of the law.


           Yes, sir?

-------
                                                 209

                 ZQ                      £A
           MR. BJWHOSKY:           Jim B^&iosky  with


the Division of  Solid Waste Management,  DER.


           Your  definition of solid waste does not


exclude animal manures, as I read it, from the list of


solid wastes, which may come under regulation.


           Was this intentional, or what ramifications


could this have?


           MR. DeGEARE:            It is not excluded,


and our impression is that it is intentionally not


included.  Ramifications are potential guidelines for


dealing with animal manure.


           Do you see that as a problem  area?

                 /P»
           THE l^-RHOSKY:           The agricultural


community might, if they feel that they  might have to


submit applications for permits to use animal manure


on their property.


           MR. DeGEARE:            So you are concerned


with any potential action we might take  inhibiting the


use of land spreading of animal manure?

                 ffl
           MR. BJJtfHOSKY:           Right.


           MR. DeGEARE:            Tfell, we are  not tryinc


to inhibit such  use of wastes, but another area  we


are concerned with is land spreading of  sewage sludge.


We wouldn't want to inhibit that where it's appropriate


as a practice, but again it can't be done improperly so

-------
 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25
                                                210



as to cause damage.  That is the intent of the law.




           So it would be appropriate that the criteria




may provide for such practices, but specify the manner



in which it may be done without causing adverse effect.




           MR. ATKINS:             You mentioned in the




interim period, the prohibition of open dumping if there



was an availability of an alternative.  I thinK if you




are going to address that in regulations, you are goinq




to have to clearly specify what is the availability of




an alternative, at least economically, because one of




the major arguments are at what economic point is it



not available anymore?



           And I think you are going to have to address




that in the regulations, or it's going to be a major




point of controversy.



           MR. DeGEARE:            All right, that is




a very good point.  I guess I have no other comment on




that.



           Are there any other comments or suggestions?




           MR. GRANEY:             From what I read,



the federal government will, in essence, be laying down




the definition of a sanitary land fill,  which will




eventually, from the way I interpret it, supersede




state — in other words, it will get into the whole idea




of licensing sanitary land fills, thought it might be

-------
                                                    211


1
2
 4
 8


 9


10
   done by the state,  it's going  to  be  done  through


   federal definition  of what  a sanitary  land  fill  is?


              MR.  DeGEARE:             It  will  be  done,  it


   could be done only  through  the jstate,  but you  are correct
14


15


16


17


IS


19


20


21



22


23



24
   there is no provision  for  federal  enforcement except
                              -^-

   through citizens'  suits, the  Administrator suing as a


   citizen.


              MR.  GRANEY:              But you are obligating


   the state  to adopt a plan, and you are going to define
       •^,

   what  a sanitary land  fill  is  so you are going to pretty


11  well  tell  the j.tate what they will license, I am


12  assuming.


13             MR.  DeGEARE t             Yes, that's correct.


              Do  you see  that as a problem?


              MR.  GRANEY:             Well, I just symphathize


   a  little bit with Bill.   I hate to see untoward confusion


   come  into  a program that  has  already been started and has


   had  its own birth pains,  and, yes, I see it could be a


   problem if your definition significantly differs from


  ' what  the  Pennsylvania DER states a sanitary land fill


   is,  definitely.


              MR.  DeGEARE:             We realize that


   Pennsylvania and other _s,tates have taken significant


   strides in developing  this criteria,  which I again say


   is not going to be an  easy task.  We are working with

-------
                                                     212


    the states and seeking their guidance and input, because

  2
    we recognize the potential impact on their programs

  3
    and on the states.


               We have had some different suggestions on


    what the criteria —- what form the criteria could take.

  6
    One suggestion is that they be very broad criteria, and

  7
    allow interpretation by the various states in

  8
    application of the criteria.

  9
 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17


 18


 19


 20


 21


 22


23
               MR. SCHREMP:            Bill Schremp,  Region


     III of  the EPA.  I would  like to point out  that the


     states' definition of  sanitary land fills could be

    ^
     tougher, but whichever one is more restrictive would


     apply.


               MR. ATKINS:             Even if  you assumed


     that your definition of a land fill is to be  considered


     as a ninimum standard  for a state to adopt  as a land


     fill, we are going to  have the same problems  we have


     now, and that is the sj;ate can encourage or discourage


     land fills merely by how  they handle regulations  in


     the border areas and that is the major problem we seem


     to be facing right now.   It isn't going to  disappear


     any under this if your minimal standards are  very


    minimal, as they probably will be.


24              It's just a comment, I don't know  what you


25 II can do about it.  But  they can still encourage or

-------
                                                    213

    discourage  interstate  flow of  rubbish  by  virtue  of
 2
    what  individual  states do  with their regulations, and

    this  is  not going  to change the picture at  all.

               MR. DeGEARE:             This is  a  trade-off

    we would have to weigh in  going with a very minimal

    criteria.

               MR. ATKINS:              Or  a very  maximum

    criteria.   That  is one reason  maybe you don't want to be

    too minimal.

               MR, DeGEARE:             Any other  questions?

               MR. SMITH:               George Smith, Jones

    & Laughlin  Steel.

               I understand  the Act provides  that a  study

    is to be made of the disposal  of mining waste, and that

    the promulgation of regulations relative  to mining wastes

    would then  follow  completion of that study.   Could you

    comment  on  the timing  you  have in mind for  that?

               MR. DeGEARE:             There  is a specified

    deadline for that  study  in the Act, it's  in subtitle H,

    I can't  remember what  the  date is.  We are  not jumping

    right into  that  because  of limitations on resources so

    I really can't answer  your question.   We  haven't formulated

    any plans on completing  that study.

               The Congressional intent or history on this

25 i|  law is a little  confused in that there was  no conference

-------
                                                   214


   committee report.   One of  the  legislative  committee


   reports  on one  of  the three bills that was combined into

Q
   this law indicated that mining and agricultural  wastes


   should take a lower priority on our  scale.


              Any  other comments  or suggestions,  questions?


              Okay, thank you.


              MR.  RAPIER:             Thank you very much,


   Truett.
9
              So  far  we have talked about public


   information, public participation and training  and


   some  of  the major  initiatives of the Act  to control  and


   minimize environmental degradation resulting  from


   hazardous materials and disposal of both  hazardous and


   non-hazardous  materials, yet there is nother  strong


   initiative  I think is very important to discuss  relating


   to  environmental degradation.  And that is the  whole


   question of more efficient uses and management  of


   our resources  through resource conservation and resource


   recovery.


              Mr. Robert Lowe of the Office  of Solid Waste


   in  Washington  is going to discuss some of those answers.


   Let me get  Bob's title for you.  He is the Chief of


   the Technical  Assistance Brance, Resource Recovery


   Division.  He  is going to talk about resource recovery


   and resource conservation.

-------
                                                    215




              MR. LOWE:                Good morning.  Before




   you turn that on. Bill,  just wait one  second.




              One of the  objectives of the law,  and  therefor^




   the objective of our office, is to  reduce  the amount of




   waste  that requires disposal.  And  this is  approached




   through two avenues:




              One is waste  reduction,  which is  the  term




   we give to reducing waste before it's  generated,




   producing less waste in  the first place by  such  means




   as re-using products,  extending the life of  products




   so that new replacement  products don't have  to be used




   at all, and similar measures.




              The second  way to reduce the amount of waste




   requiring disposal is  through  recycling.   So with these




   two measures, we have  been  given a  number  of provisions




   in this law to attempt to achieve these things.




              Before I go through the  provisions .of the




   law that address recycling  and waste reduction,  I must




   say one thing  first:   These provisions sound very  good,




   and a  lot of them -- we  do  have a lot of authority  to




   do a lot of good things, however, we don't have  the




   funding or the staffing  to  do  these things.   The agency
                                                     •^



   has a  limited  amount of  resources right now,  and does




   not have prospects for many more, and  most  of the
  i]


25 l! emphasis within our office  is  being given  to the areas

-------
                                                   216


   of  the  law  that have specific mandates and guidelines,

q
   primarily in the area of hazardous waste regulation  and


   management, and land disposal and open dumping criteria.


              So what  I am going to read to you, some of


   these are empty criteria because they don't  have


   resources to back them up.  We are making requests for


   resources,  and we hope we get them.  And there are


   things  you  can do to get that.


              Now, having said that, I will go  into the


   first.


              Resource conservation and resource recovery


   is  included in a variety of sections in  the  Act. The


   guideline section which was mentioned earlier, requires


   the guidelines be developed to explain recommended


   practices in resource conservation and resource


   recovery.   We have  already issued certain guidelines


   under our earlier regulations, and will  be re-issuinq


   them under  this law.


              The Act  calls for  the  establishment  of


   resource recovery and conservation panels to provide


   technical assistance  to  state and local  governments.


   And I will  go  into  this  in a  little more detail  in  a


   moment.


              In  subtitle D, the Act requires that  state


   plans,  state and  local plans  consider and include to the

-------
                                                    217
 1
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

IS

19

20

21

22

23

24
    greatest extent practicable, resource recovery and

    resource conservation.  And Truett will say more

    about this when I am finished.

               We have already discussed the information
 5
    development and dissemination plan, and resource recovery

    is a big part of that effort.  And all of^ubtitle H,
 7
    the 8000 series, sections 8002, 4, 5 and 8, call for
 8
    certain studies and demonstrations and evaluations of
 9
certain issues and technologies and other areas.
           One area that is not on this  slide, that  I

would like to mention, is a requirement  under ^.ection

6002 relating to federal procurement  in  an attempt to

increase the demand for recycled materials.  Congress

would like the federal government to  require greater
               ^f
use of secondary materials in  the products that it buys,

and we are required to issue regulations -- excuse me,

issue guidelines to help ^federal agencies determine

what is practicable, and they  will be required to review

their purchase specifications  to eliminate any

restrictions about the use of  secondary  materials, and

to require the maximum amount  of secondary materials

content.
           This, of course, won't have a great impact

unless it's imitated by ^tate  governments, local
25 j|  governments and industry.  It's our intent to have that

-------
 8
 9
10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25 •
                                                 213
 ripple effect.
            Just as  an  example,  under  section 8004  and
 related sections,  just as  an  example  of  some of  the
 issues, some of the areas  that  are  studied,  they are
 listed here, I  would like  to  point  out that  special
 emphasis is being  given to small  scale low technologies
 and front end separation,  and another term for this
 area is source  separation  where certain  recyclable
 wastes are segregated from the  rest of the waste stream
 by the person throwing those  wastes away, be  it a
 household or office or industry or  commercial establishme
            Then those wastes  are  kept separate from the
 rest of the waste  stream and  collected separately, and
 eventually get  to  a user of secondary materials.
            One  very important area  in ^ection 8002 is the
 establishment of a resource conservation committee to
 investigate and report to  Congress  on the issue** that
 are listed here, incentives and disincentives existing
 public policies and other  topics  concerning our use of
 materials, and  the resulting  wastefulness as a result of
 the use of the  materials,  and which mechanism might be
 useful and practicable and politically acceptable  to
 achieve waste reductions.
            This is a cabinet level committee, meaning tha
j the members of the committee include such people as the

-------
                                                219




Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the




Administrator of EPA, the Chairman of the Council on




Environmental Quality, and others.  And a representative




from the Office of Management and Budget, which is




indicative of the status of the Office of Management




and Budget in that a mere representative of that office




is equivalent to the Secretaries of other cabinet




departments.



           The formation of this committee is both




good news and bad news.  It's bad news in the sense




that since it calls for more study and not action, not



reversal of certain oractices and laws that encourage




use of virgin materials, since it calls for more study,




it's not likely we are going to have any legislation




to implement new measures for another two or three years




until the studies are complete, because it's politically




just not possible.



           On the other hand, Congress did take a step




forward in expressing its intent  for the critical




examination of some of these laws and policies, and I



think it's significant that it designated a cabinet




level to do so.  There have been  studies of materials




utilization and wastefulness over the past 25 years,




there have been about four or five separate study groups,




most of whom were functioning as  special commissions

-------
                                                    220


    to the President.


 2             This  is  the first time that this kind of

 3
    study ever has been brought into the administration

 4
    itself and given this  is  a  brand new administration

 5
    which will be in business for longer than it will take

 6
    to the studying,  it's  likely that at least the doors

 7
    are open  for  implementing the recommendations of these


    studies.

 9
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
           I would like to talk to you for a couple of


moments about the resource recovery and conservation


panels.  I guess the first thing that strikes me is that


this title is misleading for two reasons:


           First of all, the panels are created to


provide technical assistance, which is government talk


for providing information and advice to ^jtate and local


officials on how to improve their waste management


practices, how to accomplish effective land disposal


and how to accomplish alternatives to land disposal.


           The title is misleading because the function


of these technical assistance groups will not be limited


to resource recovery and resource conservation, they


will also address all the areas of solid waste


management, including land disposal, hazardous waste


regulation and collection, injury reduction,  that kind


of thing.

-------
1
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                   221



              I will  just give  you  an example  of  some of
   the  things  that  this  program,  technical  assistance




   program will  try to do is help states design and




   implement regulatory  programs  which we believe,  in  many




5  cases, would  fail  or  be ineffective without such  help.



   Because merely writing regulations will  not implement



   a  program.




              We also will attempt to help  ^tate and local




   governments to implement alternatives to land disposal,



   such as resource conservation  programs and recycling




   projects.   These teams will  include expertise in the




   following areas:



              Technical,  marketing,  financial and




   institutional.



              What  is significant here is the specific




   inclusion of  marketing, financial and institutional,




   recognizing that engineering alone does  not solve all




   problems.   Engineering is necessary, but not sufficient.




              The teams  will be composed of EPA staff,




   consultants under contract to  EPA and state and  local




   officials,  whom  we will include in the program under a



   label called  "peer matching" where we will send  a local




   official  from one community  to consult with his  peer



   who  has the same kind of a problem in another community.



              The reason I mention that the title of this

-------
                                                    222




    program is misleading, the word "panels", when most



 2  people think of the word "panels" they think of a fixed




    unit of individuals, say four individuals who travel as




    a unit, meet as a unit, and would go as a group to a




    particular community.  I don't interpret it that way,




    and in general our office does not interpret it that




    way.
 8





 9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24
           We see it more as a pool of resources,  a




 stable-, is the term that some people use; essentially  a




 list of people with known expertise and  for  any  given



 situation, the EPA technical assistance  people will  say,




 "Well, we need an engineer in this case," or,  "We  need



 a  financial adviser," or "lawyer" or whatever  is needed.



 The EPA staff person responsible for that will call  on




 that degree of expertise.




           The law requires that 20 percent  of the genera



 authorization for the solid waste program be dedicated




 to technical assistance.  That is an indication  that



 Congress .intends for this program to be  a viable program,



 and there are very few ways to assure that.  One which




 they tried was to make this funding requirement.   At the



 moment, this is going to be 20 percent of a  very small



 number, and it's going to have a very small  staff  and




 it's even possible,  through some creative accounting,




the amount of money easily identifiable as technical

-------
                                                    223


 1  assistance will be  even smaller.   And we are somewhat

 o
   concerned about that.

 g
              But we will  do the best we can with the

 A
   resources we have,  and  we will prioritize, in some


 5  fashion, the requests  that we get.  And we will handle

 £
   them as best we can.


 7             There are a  couple of  other issues, questions,


   really, that we have in dealing with our program, which


 9  I will ask in a moment.   But I think first I will open


10  the floor to any suggestions that you may have about


11  how we should conduct  this program, and any questions,


12  also.


13             MR. ATKINS:              On your guidelines


14  on procurement --


15             MR. RAPIER:              V7ould you give your


16  name again, please?


17             MR. ATKINS:              George Atkins,


18  Northwest Engineering.


19             On your  guidelines on  procurement, do you


20  anticipate that you are going to  be able to extend those


21  to follow federal  funds, in other words to grantees,


22  assistance programs and so forth, so the people can use


23  federal money in addition to direct Jederal procurement?
                                        •&•

24             MR. LOWE:                Did everybody hear


25  that question?  I assume you did.

-------
                                                224




           I am not clear on that.   I  think the  law




implies that, although as a  practical  matter I  don't




think we can achieve that.




           MR. ATKINS:             Well,  to some exent




you are doing that in other  things, like  your 92-500




program right now, you are imposing all kinds of




regulations on grantees — of grants.  Now this  would




just be another apple in the same barrel,  but I  just




wondered if that is it, or if that hasn't been really




addressed yet?



           MR. LOWE:               I don't think it  has




been addressed yet.



           MR. ATKINS:             That would make a




tremendous difference on the magnitude of that program.




           MR. LOWE:               It would if it could




be. effected, although the amount of money we are talking




about doesn't have the political clout that the water




pollution construction grant program does, for example.




           im. ATKINS:             I am  not talking




about that, I am talking about essentially the whole




federal budget vrould come under guidelines on procurement




as would the matching money that goes into programs




where federal budget money is involved.   Then you are




talking about probably 70 percent of the  gross national




product.

-------
                                                    225


              MR. LOWE:                I  see what you mean.


2
   I will take that comment back  and  give  it  to the people

3

   who are designing these guidelines.



4             Yes, sir?
 5



 6



 7



 8



 9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25
           MR. GILL:               Max Gill again, Erie



County Solid Waste.



           When might we, on a local  level, we able to



draw upon these panels?



           MR. LOWE:               Right  now.  We have



been conducting technical assistance  for  years in some



form or another, and we have a program underway right



now which is a carryover from previous legislation, and



includes some of the elements of what we  expect will be



the program under the new regulation.  I  might say we



are prepared to make any changes that seem necessary or



desirable that we get out of the meetings like this,



a~nd a number of other meetings that we are having.



           I might mention what some  of  those meetings



are.  We are meeting next week with three groups of



representatives, we are meeting Tuesday  with representati



of industry,  those companies that  sell design services



or products,  or complete systems.  We are meeting



Wednesday morning with representatives of government



organizations. National Governors' Council, National



Association of Counties, National  League  of Cities and
es

-------
                                                    226


    so on.  And in the afternoon we are meeting with


    environmental and civic groups, like Environmental Action

 Q
    and  League of Women Voters, and so on.


              We are sending these people a  copy  of our


    program plans as they exist in draft form right  now,  and


    we are going to ask then for comments.
 7
              So if any of you are represented  in Washington
 rt
    the  American Consulting Engineers' Council,  or  National
 9


10


II


12


13


14


15


16
  I!

17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24
Association of Counties or any of these people, that is

the way to plug in right there.

           We are also going to have, in late April and

early May, we are going to have three meetings just on

the technical assistance nrogram alone.  And those

meetings will be one in the east, one in the midwest

and one in the west.  We haven't picked a place for them.

           Getting back to the gentleman from Erie

County's question about our current technical assistance

program, we have under contract now, consultants,

consulting teams  consisting of management expertise,

engineering expertise, legal and financial expertise

that we can make available to states and local

governments now.

           This is kind of a prototype for the program

under the new law.  If it's successful, we will repeat

it.  If it's not, we will modify it or just scrap it.

-------
                                                   227
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
           Yes, sir, in the back?

           MR. KELSEY:             Ward Kelsey with

DER.  Just a very simple follow-up question on that.

At this point in time, how would one  go about making

contact if you wanted to request that assistance? Is there

a name or phone number, address that  we can contact?

           MR. LOWE t               You can contact

either Gordon's staff, which I guess  would be

Bill Schremp, that  is 215-957-0982, or you can contact

me.  My name is Bob Lowe, L-o-w-e, and my phone number

is 202-755-9150.  And I will see that your request gets

to the proper place.

           My own field is resource recovery.  If your

request involves other areas, I will  have to direct it.

           Keep in  mind, though, one  requirement we

make of people requesting technical assistance is that

the request come from elected officials.  We can work

out the plan in advance at our staff  level, but we want,

in order to assure  success of whatever is going to happen

we want to make sure that the elected officials know

of what is going on, know why we are  involved, so we

don't get trapped in some way.

           MR. BOUSQUET:           Woody Bousquet from

McKeever Environmental Learning Center.  At the beginning

of your presentation, you outlined two areas of concern

-------
                                                    228
 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
under resource conservation and recovery.  You said we
were concerned with waste reduction and recycling, and
under waste reduction you are concerned with re-using
products and developing products that would have a longer
life.
           Does the Act mandate, or have you given any
consideration to developing programs that would encourage
people to consume less?  That seems to be another area
that ought to be considered when you are trying to
conserve resources.
           MR. LOWE:               Yes, we have.  I am
trying to think of some good examples.
           A good deal of our literature points out the
fact that our consumption habits, our purchasing habits
and our living habits result in higher consumption than
it used to be.  And we point out ways in which people
can consume less.
           we have, I believe some of our grants that
come out of Tom's office to public interest groups and
environmental groups, have resulted in information getting
out to the public on ways to do this.  And some of the
studies will be oriented in that direction.
           This is a monumental task, though, to really
achieve something when you think about where you go and
what you do during the day, what you buy.  And when I

-------
                                                229


think of where I go, what I buy, and everything else,


it requires a major change in lifestyle to make anything


but a very small dent.


           Some things I personally have done and some


things I can recommend for everybody to do.  But there


are other things that I can recommend, but when you get


into the point of governmental regulations, it's a


very difficult area.


           MR. BOUSQUET:           Does any section of


the Act specifically mandate that?


           MR. LOWE:               It mandates studies.


           MR. BOUSQUET:           To reduce consumption?


           MR. LOWE:               It's all oriented


towards reducing consumption.


           MR. BOUSQUET:           I haven't seen that


in the Act anywhere.  In other words, it seems to be


re-using material that has already been consumed, not


reducing the consumption of that material in the first


place.


           MR. LOWE:               Well, I am not


familiar with the exact language.  Tom, do you want to


comment on that?  Maybe I will  follow you.

              •^cf^
           MR. WILLIAMS:           At the risk of — I


hope not -- being as much undesired by the new


administration as I was by the old, I would simply say

-------
                                                    230


   that the Congress is very, very wary about suggesting

2
   anything very specific that would reduce consumption


3  habits.

A
              So when Bob says there is a study provision
5


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24
in there, that is exactly' what there is.  There are


certain senators and representatives who advocate


reduced consumption in various areas, but the majority


certainly do not.  If you look at the history of the


development of this legislation, at one time there was


tremendous concern that expressed itself at one of the


early drafts in a virtual prohibition of EPA to be


very specific in dealing with jstates and local


governments.


           Some of the congressmen felt that we had


overstepped the bounds of our previous Act by helping,


particularly in the beverage container area, by giving


testimony on requests to j.tates, counties and cities


suggesting what we thought, or what our studies


indicated would be the result nationally of a re-usable


beverage container system, or recycling system.  And


there is still a shadow of that concern in the Act.


           There is a small paragraph somewhere which


says that any representative of EPA, when dealing with


the state or local government, must not advocate one
23  resource conservation method over another, but must

-------
                                                    231



 1   instead give the full story, which is not really very




 2   hard to live with.   Because we always try to give the
 3
               In other words, they don't want us to go out




 5   and advocate  to communities that they should cut down
 6
 7
 8              I  might say,  if you had to do it, and you
 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
    full story anyway.
 on the consumption of resources as the sole avenue for




 their solid waste management costs and problems.
 would stop,  sit down and think just \rhat kind of




 legislation  would you enact to make Americans cut down




 on consumption, you would find it extremely difficult.




           I think, personally again, we are moving



 painfully and maybe more slowly than some people might




 like, into a way of life that is somewhat different from




 what it once was, without specific legislation.  We are




 buying smaller cars on the whole, we are insulating our




"homes, we are more concerned about those things for




 economic reasons.  And I think that the guys who




 masterminded this Act felt those procedures are going




 on,  they couldn't think of anything specific they wanted




 to suggest.



           But notice how they really tried to grapple




 with it.   As Bob pointed out on one of his  slides,  there




 is a very  high level,  cabinet level and this is the first



 time we  have had this,  a cabinet level committee to

-------
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                    232
   grapple with these things.
           I don't mean to be an apologist for either



wing of the political spectrum, but it would be very




difficult to put an act together for EPA to implement,




that would mandate certain things that would mess up



what the Department of State is trying to do or




responsible for, the Department of Commerce is working




in, the Department of Interior is working in, the



Department of Labor is concerned about, et cetera.




           So they established this very high cabinet




level committee where a bunch of big shots will get



together and try to determine what in the devil can be




done, to see that we don't inordinately waste materials




and energy in solid waste management.  It's a pretty good



attempt to deal with it in a responsible way, I think.



           MR. LOWE:               Reduction-in consumption




is mentioned explicitly in the definition of resource



conservation, which is mentioned explicitly throughout




the law.  So when you read resource conservation, you




should read — I mean, it should mean to yon reduction




of overall resource consumption.



           Mr. Jones had his hand up before.



           MR. JONES:              Yes, Tom Jones,




Union Carbide.



           In yoar resource reduction program, do you

-------
                                                   233

   foresee the  development of a program that is  similar
o
   to  like NPDS,  effluent guidelines which would dictate

   so  many pounds of  waste allowable per pound of product

   for specific kinds of industries and so forth?  Is  that

   authority  in there,  or could there be an interpretation
c
   such as that upon,  say a party from the environmental
7
   group,  you would be  forced to do that?

             MR. LOWE:                The authority exists

   to  study that, the authority exists to fund demonstration

   of  something like  that.  If a state wanted to do something
                                 '•f-
   like that  and we evaluated that program and decided it

   was worth  funding,  we could fund the demonstration  of

   something  like that.   There is no authority for federal

   action  in  that regard.  That is where Congress drew the

   line.
             Is there a question in the back, ma'am?

             MS. KEFFER:             I wondered, how  come

   the National Disposal Tax Provision got shot down?   Where

   did the opposition come from, or what was the decision

   to  leave it  out?   Because it was in the draft originally.

             MR. LOWE:               I don't know what the

   discussion was on  the National Disposal Tax.   I do  know

   that our office has been studying for about a year  --

   by  studying, I mean doing analyses -- to be able to

   predict what the affect of given types of measures  would

-------
                                                    234




 1  be.   And  in  order to  have  data  to  present  to  people and




 2  say,  "This is what the  result will be  if we do  take




 3  certain specific  measures,"  the specific measures  that




 4  have  been under consideration so far,  that will be in




 5  the resource conservation  committee as the study of




 6  what  we refer  to  as a product charge,  which would  be




 7  actually  two parts:




 8            The  first  part  would be an  immediate charge




 9  on the use of  --  well,  it  would be an  immediate credit




10  for the use  of  recycled materials, which would  be  phased




11  out over  a period of  years,  and a  charge on the use of




12  virgin materials  that would  be  phased  in over a period




13  of years. So after a period of years, say ten  years,




1*  the relative economics  of  using virgin materials versus




15  secondary materials,  would tend to be  equalized.




16            It would be  equalized in the first place




17  by a  credit  on  the recycling side, and eventually  by a




18  charge or tax on  the  virgin  materials  side.   That  is




19  being evaluated by our  office now, and we  don't feel




20  our data  is  complete  enough  to  make the case, yet.




21            In  the back?




22            MR.  KONSAVAGE:           Greg Konsavage,




23  Department of  Environmental  Resources, City of  Pittsburgh




24  What  about the  differing costs  associated  with  the




25  hauling or transporting of virgin  materials versus

-------
                                                    235

   secondary materials?   What type of action  is  being
 2
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 taken  in  this  area?
            MR.  LOWE:                The Railroad
 Revitalization  Act of  whenever,  required the Interstate
 Commerce  Commission  to study  those rates and to report
 what we found,  and to  make  necessary changes.   And  they
 required  the ICC  to  consult with EPA to review what
 they are  doing.   So  we are  looking over their  shoulder
 now.
            The  catch word for what your question
 addressed is "freight  rates." And I would  like to  say,
 I think the freight  rate issue is one that  has been
 blown out of proportion.  , I don't think it's as important
 as most people  think.
            For  one thing, freight rates discriminate  in
 favor of  recycled materials of certain products,  certain
 commodities, and  they  discriminate against  secondary
 materials in other areas.
            So it's not really clear vrhat the impact is.
 The rates for common carriers have to be one of the most
 complicated things ever attempted by anybody.
           Yes, sir?
           MR.  HODGETTS:            Graham Hodgetts  from
 RAD Services.   You started  off by  saying, according to
my notes,  I summarized it as  underfunded  and undermanned

-------
                                                236




for the task in front of  you,  in which  case  you  are




going to have to establish  some pretty  critical  prioritie



           I am wondering how  you  set up those priorities




and how those priorities  may interface  with  the  "imminent




hazard" provisions  of -the Act?



           MR. LOWE*                Okay, the "imminent




hazard" provisions  are a  little outside of my line,  but -




           MR. HODGETTS:            The  reason I  asked




that is because there are,  I  think, pretty well  known



practices in industry whereby  carcinogenic materials




are going to sanitary land  fills,  or even lower  category




land fills.  I would consider  that to be an  imminent




hazard, and yet such carcinogenic  materials  can  be




reclaimed with the  right  technology.  The technology at




the moment is marginal, but with  funding and assistance,




or with implementation of this Act, to  the extent that




disposal costs become prohibitive, then those technologic




economics and marginal economics  disappear and  it starts




becoming a paying proposition to  recover.



           MR. LOWE:               The  thing I  thought



you were referring to were  incidents of imminent danger.




Now that I hear your explanation,  I don't think  that is




what you are referring to.   But the degree of severity




of the environmental aspect of a  problem could  be one




of our criteria.  Let me  just give you some  of  the
al

-------
                                                    237
    issues  that we  are trying to deal with.   The question is:
 2
    How should  we,  just for example,  how should we  prioritize
    our technical assistance activities?
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10

n
12
13
14
15
16

U
18
19
20

21

22
23
24

25
           If we get ten requests in, whom do we answer
first?  Should we answer the person in a town that has
the greatest tonnage, in which case we would take New
York first, Los Angeles second, and so on, and we would
probably never be able to help the small community?
           Should we deal with those who have the most
serious environmental problems?  Which is kind of what
you are getting at there, in which case we would never
help the City of Los Angeles, for example, because they
have, at least in the area of municipal wastes, they
have got one of the best land fills in the country.
           And in a sense, we would be discriminating
against them if they wanted our help, we would say,
"No, you have done such a good job we can't help you,n
which maybe isn't fair.
           We could give our assistance where there is
the greatest level of ignorance, in other words, where
we could have the greatest differential impact, bringing
somebody from 0 up to 10, although in order to be a
success, they may have to go to a hundred.  We would
have a greater impact where there is a high level of
ignorance.

-------
                                                238




           Or we could give our technical assistance




in cases where the county is most likely to succeed,




in which case it's going to be where they -- well, it




could be a variety of things.  That is the way we have




been evaluating things primarily in the past, that has




been the final decision point.  But it takes into




account the critical environmental problem, to some




extent the size and amount of tons.




           While we are on the criteria issue, there is




a different set of criteria that would be used in




evaluating resource conservation options, in other




words, the options that resource conservation committee




would be studying.  Just as an example of some of the




issues, some of the criteria that they could use in




deciding which products or which materials to look at,




they could look at total overall pollution, not




necessarily the pollution associated with disposal, but




the pollution associated with manufacturing, extracting



from the ground and manufacturing a given product.




           Another criteria could be resource scarcity,




which means we would never try to reduce -- probably




never get to reducing glass.  We would probably look




first at tin and other precious metals.




           We could look at employment impact, in which




case if there is an employment problem in a particular

-------
                                                    239
    industry,  we would look somewhere else.  Or we would

    look at the balance of payment issues.  If we had

 3   enough  of  the resources internally, like, let's say

 4   coal, we have got the resources here, and it's just an
 5
    environmental,  aesthetic and political question as to
 6   whether  we  want  to get to them.

 7              We  must not look at that, and look instead

 8   at some  product  that we have to go abroad to get.  Those

 9   are the  kind of  issues that we have to look at, and if

10   anybody  has any  opinions on which ones we should look

11   at,  I  would really like to hear them because otherwise,

12   we will  have to  make the decision ourself, and we run

13   a  greater risk of being wrong.

14              MR. HODGETTS:           Another question that

15   I  have,  is  there still a tax on reclaimed oil?

16              MR. LOWE:               I am not aware there

17   ever was one,  so if you say there is one, I don't know.

18              MR. HODGETTS:           I think there is one

19   which  most  reclaimers are getting around by a variety

20   Of means.   But I would be surprised if the Resource
21   Conservation. Recovery Act did not promulgate guidelines

22   which said,  "If there is a tax on oil, strike it," on

23   reclaimed oil.

24             MR.  LOWE:                We already have a

25   program  underway  in   the area of waste oil recycling.

-------
                                                240



We have been working with the Defense Supply Agency,


which is the government organization that writes all


the procurement specifications for oil for the entire


government.  We have given — imagine this — we have


given money to the Department of Defense, we have given


$150,000 to conduct a test of using recycled oil in


automobile engines.


           And if the Department of Defense is satisfied,


Defense Supply Agency is satisfied with the results,


then they will change their purchase specifications.


And that program is about six months old, and it's about


a year away from knowing what the results of the tests


are.  And who knows how far away from whether or not


the specs will be changed.


           We are trying to subsidize the Department of


Defense.


           Other questions?


           Thank you very much.


           MR. RAPIER:             Thank you. Bob.


           Well, we are coming down to the wire, now.


We have one more prepared presentation for you,


Truett DeGeare is going to talk a little about state
                                               "*£-

program development, and then we will have general


comments.


           MR. DeGEARE:             The Resource

-------
                                                    241

1  Conservation and  Recovery  Act recognizes  that  the  major

   roles  in solid waste  management lie with  state and local

   governments.  This  is especially evident  in subtitle  D

4  the state may play  a  hero  in  eliminating  open  dumps and

   also administering  a  hazardous waste program.   The

   governor, working with elected local officials,  can

7  structure a mechanism for  preparing and implementing  a
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
solid waste plan that builds on existing efforts  at  the

state and local levels.  At the ^federal level,  the
                   set          ^
Administrator must/public guidelines  for identification

of planning regions, development  of s_tate  plans and

state hazardous waste nrograms.

           Section 4002(a) of RCRA, gives  the

Administrator six months to publish guidelines  for the

identification of those areas which have common solid

waste management programs, and are appropriate  units

for planning regional solid waste services.  This is

a kickoff step of a three phase process involving 18

months.

           With six months after  publication of these

auidelines, the governor of each  state, after consultatio
                ^               ~^-
with local elected officials, must promulgate regulations

identifying the boundaries of each area within  the

sijtate which, as a result of urban concentrations,

geographic conditions, market and other factors, is

-------
                                                    242



   appropriate  for  carrying out regional  solid waste



2  management.
 3



 4



 5



 6




 7



 8



 9




10




11




12




13




14




15



16




17



18




19



20




21




22




23




24
           The state then has another six months  to



 jointly, with appropriate elected officials of  local



 government, identify an agency to develop the state



 plan and identify one or more agencies to implement



 the plan, and identify which solid waste functions will,



 under the plan, be planned for and carried out  by the



 state, regional or local authorities, or a combination



 thereof.



           Where feasible, agencies designated  under



 Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,



 shall be considered for designation.



           So in summary, the three immediate steps are:



 First, our publication of guidelines on identification



 of planning areas.



           Secondly, governors, in conjunction  with local



 officials, will identify planning areas.



           And thirdly, the governors and local officials



 will identify the respective roles of the entities



 involved.



           Section 4002(b) requires the Administrator,



after consultation with federal,  state and local
                       •^,       -^-


authorities,  to promulgate regulations containing



guidelines to assist in the development and implementation

                                                          i

-------
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
                                                   243

   of state solid waste plans.  This is due in April of

2  1978.
g
              The Act provides minimum requirements for
4
   approval of s,tate plans, which include the identification
g
   of responsibilities and implementing the state plan,
£»
   distribution of federal funds to the authorities

   responsible for development and implementation of the

   plan,  and the means for coordinating regional planning

   and implementation under the plan.

              The prohibition of the establishment of new

   open dumps within the state, and requirements that all
                         -^
   solid waste, including solid waste originating in other

   states,  be utilized for resource recovery or disposed

   of in sanitary land fill; provision for the closing,

   or upgrading of all existing open dumps within the

   state as required by section 4005; provision for the

  ^establishment of state regulatory powers as may be

   necessary to implement the plan; provision that no

   local government within the ^state shall be prohibited,

   under _state or local law, from entering into long-terra

   contracts for supply of solid waste to resource recovery

   facility; provision for such resource conservation or

   recovery and disposal and sanitary land fills, or any

   combination of practices which might be necessary to
25 li  use or  dispose  of  the  solid waste in an environmentally

-------
1  sound  manner.
                                                   244
             So  in  essence,  the planning provisions  of




   subtitle  D call for  a workable plan  involving both




   states  and local  governments.



             RCRA authorizes assistance to  state  and local



   governments  in a  number  of places.




             I want to preface my comments  from here on




   out by  making  it  clear that I am  going to be talking



   about authorized  levels  of funding which  are provided




   directly  in  this  law.  And I want to point out  that they




   don't necessarily relate to funds which may become



   available in the  future,  no one knows what level of




   funding might  be  provided, if any, under  these  various




   provisions.



             Section 4008(a)(l) authorizes  $30 million




   for 1978  and $40  million for 1979 for grants to be




   distributed  to j£ate, local, regional and interstate



   authorities  carrying out the functions as described in




   the approved state plan.   These funds would be  distributed




   on a population basis among the various j,tates, except



   that each state would receive one-half of one percent




   of any  funds that would  be available.



             Section 4008 (a)(2) authorizes  $15 million




   for each  of  fiscal years  '78 and  '79 for jtates,




   counties, municipalities  and inter-municipal agencies,

-------
                                                   245
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and ^s,tate and local public solid waste management
authorities, for implementation of programs to provide
solid waste management resource recovery and resource
conservation facilities, and hazardous wastes.
           The assistance available under this provision
can include assistance for facility planning and
feasibility studies, expert consultations, surveys and
analyses of market needs, marketing of recovered
resources, technological assessments, legal expenses,
construction feasibility studies, source separation
projects and economic investigations  or studies.  But
the assistance cannot be used  for any other element  of
construction or acquisition of land or interest  in land,
or  for any subsidy  for the price of recovered  resources.
           There is a provision in^ubtitle D  for
assistance to what  are called  special communities.   One
such community is allowed  to be established  for  each
state, and  there  is  allowed one project per state,
And
 the project  must be  consistent with the state plan.
           The funding level for this is relatively  low,
 two and  a  half million dollars.
           Congress  recognized special problems with
 rural  communities are going to face in meeting the
 open dump  closure requirements of section 4005, so there
 is authorized $25 million for each of two fiscal years

-------
                                                246



to provide grants to the states.  These funds could be



used for construction, and that is a little different



from the other funds that are authorized under the



Act.  But again, they cannot be used for land acquisition



           There are specific criteria and allotment



fornralae provided under the law for any funds which might



become available under this provision.



           I think it's important to advise you not to



hold up any work that you presently have in mind pending



any federal subsidies through grants, because as I



mentioned, we have, no idea as to whether any or what leve



of funding will be appropriated.



           Okay, do you have any suggestions or questions



about this area?



           Yes, sir?



           MR. ATKINS:             On your sjtate minimum
                                           -f-


requirements for _s,tate management plans, you mentioned



regulations that would ensure contractual freedom for



municipalities.  That is not very practical, is it?



           MR. DeGEARE:            I am sorry, would you



state that again, please?  I couldn't hear you.



           MR. ATKINS:             In your mihimun



regulations that would be acceptable to s,tate plans,



you mentioned one element was the assurance of contractua



freedom to municipalities, which  I would doubt very much

-------
    think  that  is  a statutory matter in municipal codes,  in
    most instances.

               MR.  DeGEARE:             Yes,  that is a problem
    in  implementation in many areas, and it  was  directly

    mandated  in the Act that that be provided against by

    the state plans.   And you are right again,  it's going to
    be  something that is going to have to be dealt with at
    the local level,  as well as state.

               Any  other comments or suggestions?
  ]!             Thank  you.
12 !'
  j|             MR.  RAPIER:              Thank you, Truett.
13 |i
  |j             I would like  to remind everybody  that we
14 ij
  |!  have extra  copies of the Act, and if any of  you would
15 !
  I  like to have additional  copies,  you will find them on
16
  '  the desk.   As a matter of fact,  please take  them,  we
17
    don't want  to have to  carry them back to Philadelphia.

               All  right,  I  stated at the beginning of the

    meeting that we would  ask for 3  by 5 cards to be filled
    out for anybody who wanted to make a statement.   And  it

    was my understanding a few moments ago that  nobody filled

    out a  3 by  5 card.   If anybody,  at this  point,  would  like
    to make a brief statement,  would they please  raise

    their hands?

               If there  is anybody that  would like  to  submit
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

-------
                                                   248


   any  comments, anything  for the  record, you  can  mail  them

2
   to our  office to  Mr.  Robert Allen,  Chief, Hazardous

o
   Waste Branch, EPA,  Region III,  Sixth  and Walnut street,


4  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106,  I  think  it is.  Or


   can  they mail them  to you, Thomas?


             MR. WILLIAMS:            Yes, sir.


             MR. RAPIERt              Mr. Thomas Williams.


   Would you give the  rest of your name, rank  and  air speed


   for  them, please?


             MR. WILLIAMS:            If I only knew it.


             Tom Williams, Office of  Solid Waste,  United


   States  Environmental  Protection Agency and  there is  a


   magic formula you have to use,  in parens after  you


   put  down the "Office  of Solid Waste"  put AW-462.  No


   matter  what else-you  do wrong,  it will get  to me then,


   allegedly, Washington, D.C. 20460.


             MR. RAPIER:              Thank you, Tom.


             We want  to thank you all for coining  out today.


   We hope that the meeting was useful and meaningful to


   you.  It was to us.


             Thank you  very much.


              (Thereupon, at 12:20 o'clock p.m., the


        hearing was adjourned.)

-------
REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS ON RCRA
Meeting
Date
Feb 15,16

Feb 17,18
Feb 23


Feb 23,24


Feb 25

Feb 26

Feb 28,
March 1
March 3

March 4


Mar 8,9


Mar 10,11


Mar 17,18

Mar 21,22

Meeting
Place
Kansas City,
Missouri
Richmond,
New York,
City

Atlanta,
Georgia

Worcester,
Massachusetts
Concord,
New Hampshire
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Denver,
Colorado
Salt Lake City,
Utah

Dallas, Texas


San Francisco,
California

Seattle,
Washington
Chicago,
Illinois

Facility
Hilton Inn Plaza
45th & Main
Colony House
American City
Squire,
52nd & 7th Av
Sheraton-Biltmore
Hotel, 817 W.
Peachtree N.E.
Sheraton-
Lincoln Inn
Ramada Inn

William Penn
Hotel
Main Library
1357 Broadway
Hilton Hotel
150 W. South
Fifth Street
First Int'l Bldg
(29th Floor)
1201 Elm St
Holiday Inn
Union Square
480 Sutter
Seattle Center

O'Hare Holiday
Inn (Kennedy

Time
Evening Feb 15,
morning Feb 16
Evening Feb 17,
Day, 9 am-3 pm
evening 4-7 pm

Evening Feb 23,
8:30 am Feb 24

1 pm

1 pm

Evening Feb 28,
morning Mar 1
8:30 am-
12:30 noon
8:30 am-
12:30 noon

Evening Mar 8,
morning Mar 9

Evening Mar 10,
8 am Mar 11,

Evening Mar 17,
All day Mar 18
Evening Mar 21,
all day Mar 22
Sponsoring
EPA Office
Region VII
(Kansas City)
Region in
Region II
(New York City)

Region IV
(Atlanta)

Region I
(Boston)
Region I
(Boston)
Region III
(Philadelphia)
Region vm
(Denver)
Region Vm
(Denver)

Region VI
(Dallas)

Region IX
(San Francisco)

Region X
(Seattle)
Region V
(Chicago)
          Expressway)

-------
 Region I
 John F Kennedy Bidg
 Boiton. MA 02203
 <617)»3-7Z10

 Region ii
 26 Federal Pl««
 New York. NY 10007
 (2t2) 264-2S1S

 Region III
 6lh A Walnut SI*
 PhifKMIpft,*. PA 19106
 (215) S97-MU

 R*Qion IV
 345 Courtland $1. N E
 Altanla. GA 30300
 (404) Ml 4727

 Region V
 230 Sooth De«rl>orn Si
 Chicago. II 606O4
 (312) 353-2000

 Region VI
 1201 Elm St. First lnieme SI
San  Fiancuco. CA 941II
(415)556-2320

Region X
 12006th Av«
Seattle. WA 98101
(206) 442-5610
U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY
                            Regional Offices
                                                                   Shelf No.  590

-------