v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
& Waste Management
Washington DC 20460
Solid Waste
Public Hearing
on Proposed Landfill
Disposal Guidelines
May 15, 1979
Washington, D.C.
Transcript
-------
TRA/VSCRIPT
Pub?fc Hearing
on Proposed UmWH Disposal fiuidelines
May 15, 1979, Washington, D.C.
This hearing was sponsored fry £P£, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-53p) ar-e reproduced entirely as transcribed
by tf>e official reporter, tfitft handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PRWECTIOT AGENCY
1979
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_ — _ — — — _ — _____ —V
In the Matter of:
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Landfill Disposal
Guidelines
Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Room 3906
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, May 15, 1979
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing
pursuant to notice at 9:10 o'clock a.m.
BEFORE: DR. JOHN SKINNER,
Chairman, Director Land Disposal Division
Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
PANEL MEMBERS:
Mr. Truett DeGeare
Mr. Bernard Stoll
Mr. James Lennon
Mr. John Humphries
-------
CONTENTS
Page
OPENING REMARKS:
Mr. Steffen Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste, EPA
STATEMENT OF: Mr. George j^ush 8
National Solid Wastes Management Association
Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF: Mr. Robert Arner 16
Sycamore Association Volunteering Energy
Bethesda, Maryland
STATEMENT OF: Dr. Grover H. Emrich 31
Executive Vice President
SME-Martin
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF: Mr. James J. Cowhey 44
President, Land & Lakes Company
Park ridge, Illinois
STATEMENT OF: Mr Richard E. Wright, Geologist 50
Pennsylvania Section of the Association of
Professional Geological Scientists
STATEMENT OF: Mr. James King 68
Untility Solid Waste Activities Group
Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF: John Norton 81
Montgomery County, Ohio
STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION IN TRANSCRIPT
(Not presented orally):
Wallace C. Koster
Refuse Disposal Assoc. of PA
Ralph L. Tabor, Washington Representative
County of San Bernardino, California
Janakiram R. Naidu, Ph.D.
Ecologist
Brookhaven National Laboratory
-------
DR. SKINNER: My name is John Skinner. I would
like to welcome you all to a public hearing on the Guidelines
for the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste, and I would like
to introduce Stef Plehn who is the Deputy Assistant Adminis-
trator for Solid Waste Programs who would like to make a
few opening remarks. Stef?
MR. PLEHN: Certainly appreciate your all coming
this morning for this meeting. As you know the Congress
enacted the Resource Conservation Recovery Act in 1976 and
that Act greatly expanded the Federal role in solid waste
management.
J?
Subtitle^ of that Act focuses on the role of
state agencies in eliminating the practice of open dumping
of solid waste. Under Section 4004 of Subtitle B, criteria
for determining the acceptability of solid waste disposal
facilities are under development.
These criteria were proposed on February 6, 1978
and they are scheduled for promulgation in July. Section
lOOpof RCRA requires the development and dissemination of
information on solid waste management practices. The first
guidance document to be developed under Section 1008 is the
subject of today's public hearing. These guidelines for
landfill disposal of solid waste were proposed in the 1'Federa]
Register" on March 26, 1979. They present recommended
-------
practices and considerations for disposal of solid waste by
the landfill technique.
This information should be of value to state
regulatory agencies as well as to those with responsibility
for design, construction, and operation of landfill disposal
facilities.
Today's hearing is the first of two public hearings
on the proposed guidelines intended to provide an opportunity
for you to express your comments and opinions on this
proposed regulation. Such an opportunity for public particip-
ation is strongly emphasized through RCRA and has been
strongly emphasized by EPA in its efforts to carry out this
Act.
The second and final hearing on these proposed
guidelines will be held on May 17th, that is this Thursday,
in Houston, Texas. I wish that I could stay with you today
to hear some of the comments but the House Committee is going
to be marking up our legislation this morning and I have to
go up there so I will, at this point, thank you again for
coming and turn it back to John Skinner who will be running
the meeting this morning. Thank you very much.
DR. SKINNER: Thanks, Stef. It sounds like it is
starting a little bit. Can you hear in the back? I guess
we are getting some sound. Is it any better? Okay.
Let me go over the way in which we will proceed today.
-------
The meeting is scheduled to extend until about 4:00 o'clock
this afternoon. We will be breaking for lunch between 11:30
and 12:00 o'clock for an hour.
As Stef indicated these guidelines were published
as a proposed regulation in the "Federal Register" on March
26th. Copies of the proposed guidelines and also copies of
the Act are available at the registration desk. There is
a draft environmental impact statement that has also been
prepared and that is also available at the registration desk.
The closing date for all public comments on the
guidelines is May 25th and all comments received before that
date or postmarked on that date will be considered before
we finalize the guideline.
The purpose of this hearing is for the public
to comment on the proposed regulation and draft environmental
impact statement and to give us an opportunity to ask question
based upon the comments and testimony provided.
Let me just briefly explain the relationship between
these guidelines and several other provisions and regulations
being developed under the Act. As Stef indicated, these
guidelines support to a certain extent the criteria for
classification of solid waste disposal facilities which were
proposed under Section 4004 of RCRA. These criteria being
the criteria for use for distinction between land disposal
facilities that are opened up or sanitary landfills.
-------
These guidelines describe practices that should be
helpful in meeting those criteria. Also, some information
in these guidelines should provide some assistance in
designing landfills for the management of hazardous wastes,
but these guidelines are only relevant to hazardous waste
disposal facility to the extent that it provides a further
explanation of practices required under Section 3004 of the
H Act.
!) Because the public comment period on both Section
10 4004 criteria and 3004 regulations have closed, your comments
today, even though they may address those two regulations, wil
only be considered for finalization of the 1003 guidelines.
r.» Comments that you make on Section 4004 and 3004 cannot be
M considered because the public comment period is closed on
I") both of those regulations.
IB All comments made today will be part of the
17 official docket. This docket is referred to as docket 1008.1
18 and is available for review during normal business hours here
19 at EPA. The exact location of that docket and way of accessing
20 that docket is explained in the preamble of the guideline and
also if you would like further information on that you can
check at the registration desk.
•>:\ All comments received today will be placed in that
•24 docket. All testimony will be placed in that docket as
well.
-------
This hearing is being recorded and there will be
a verbatim transcript. He would like every person that is
going to make a comment to identify themselves and their
organization. We would like you to limit your statements,
your formal statements to 10 minutes. Excuse me, limit your
oral statements to approximately 10 minutes. If you have
a longer written statement you may submit it to the recorder
and it will be published in its entirety in the transcript
and will be considered in its entirety.
The list of individuals who have requested to make
a statement is also available at the registration desk, so
if you are interested in seeing when you or someone else is
going to be making comments you can take a look at that list.
We estimate approximately 20 minutes to a half hour to deal
with each individual; a 10 minute presentation and then 10
to 15 minutes of questions by the panel. So, you can see
from the list approximately when we will be getting to you.
Anyone in attendance today can direct questions to
anyone making a statement. We would like you to do that by
writing your questions either on a card, which is available
at the registration desk, or on a small piece of paper and
submitting it to the panel and the panel will ask the questior
for you. At the end of the hearing, if. we do have time, we
will provide an opportunity for anyone who wants to ask
questions of the members of the panel. Again, they should be
-------
in writing so that we can include them into the.formal
record.
Let me introduce the panel members. On my immediate
left is John Humphries who is with our regional office in
Region III. Next to him is Barry Stoll who is a Program
Manager with the Land Disposal Division in the Office of
Solid Waste here at headquarters. Barry is the Project Officeij
on these guidelines and one of the priroary authors of the
guidelines.
Next to him is Truett DeGeare who is the Branch
Chief for the Land Protection Branch for the Office of
Solid Waste and at the end of the table is Jim Lennon who
is with our Hazardous Waste Management Division here at EPA.
My name is John Skinner, I am the Director of the Land
Disposal Division. Are there any questions on how we are
going to proceed? Fine. Let's begin with the first witness,
Mr. George pjish from the National Solid Waste Management
Association.
MR. fl{JSH: Good morning. I am George push with
the National Solid Waste Management Association. The members
of the National Solid Waste Management Association operate
hundreds of privately owned sanitary landfills throughout
the united States and as such they have looked forward to
publication of the guidelines on which we are commenting
today.
-------
In contrast to the criteria for sanitary landfills
or sanitary landfilling, which necessarily must be performance
oriented, the guidelines provided EPA with an opportunity
to express itself on what it considers to be good practice
for locating, designing, upgrading, and operating land disposal
facilities.
For this reason facility operators should be able
to operate or relate their operations to guidelines much
more easily than to criteria.
The proposed guidelines have been critically reviewe|d
by the Sanitary Landfill Committee of the Association at a
meeting of that Committee. The reactions of our members seem
to indicate that there are very few strong adverse reactions
to the proposed guidelines. Indeed we have heard some very
favorable reactions. Therefore, you should understand that
our presentation today is not intended to be strongly critical
of the guidelines, but rather to indicate those areas where
our members felt EPA might make certain improvements. Interst-
ingly, most of our comments will relate to omissions from
the guidelines.
First, as a general statement, we assume that the
guidelines will be consistent with the criteria as they will
be finally promulgated. To that extent that paragraphs of the
criteris, as paragraphs of the criteria are altered, we assume
that consistent alterations would be made in the guidelines.
-------
10
Any inconsistency between these two documents would be the
cause of needless confusion.
We continue to express our concern over provisions
of either the criteria or the guidelines relative to environ-
mentally sensitive areas. Our concerns are twofold. First,
we are concerned that there are areas of the country where
there is little choice but to locate a land disposal facility
in an area that is technically environmentally sensitive.
EPA recognizes this by conceding that point in paragraph
241.200-2(A)(1) that landfills might be located in environ-
mentally sensitive areas if alternative locations and disp-
osal facilities are infeasible. However, the guidelines do
not go far enough in providing direction to owners and
operators and state regulatory personnel as to the weighting
of the various factors in the alternative study. In particulai
the last sentence of the paragraph, I quote,"Increased cost
alone should not be sufficient grounds for dismissing an
alternative in favor of disposal in an environmentally
sensitive area," end quote, is a statement that begs for
clarification and amplification and we would hope that EPA
would provide that in the final version of the guidelines.
Our second concern about environmentally sensitive
areas involves new versus existing facilities. It is not
likely that someone would attempt to establish a new facility
in such an crea if there was any feasible alternative. But
-------
11
where an existing facility is operating in an environmentally
sensitive area, does it make sense to arbitrarily close it
down even if there is no threat to health in the environment?
We contend that it makes more sense to operate such
a facility to completion rather than to close it down in a
partially finished condition. Of course, this is subject to
a condition that the facility is not threatening health in
the environment as defined in the criteria. We urge that
EPA address this issue in the final guidelines.
In another matter relative to environmentally
sensitive areas, we note that paragraph 241.200-2(A) (3)
refers to the matter of approvals. We suggest that this
section be made more specific as to the actual permits that
are required and reference the procedures by which those
permits may be obtained.
Several of our members commented that EPA might
have used the preparation of guidelines as an opportunity to
critically investigate some of the requirements for landfill
design and operation that are accepted without question. For
example, 241.202-2 (A) states that the bottom of a landfill
disposal facility should be one and a half meters or more
above the seasonal high ground water table. There are large
areas of the United States wherein the ground water table is
much closer to the surface than one and a half meters and
there are landfills operating in these sections of the
-------
12
country that to the best of our knowledge do not pollute the
ground water.
The premise that leachate from landfills will
necessarily contaminate an aquifer if there is not the
traditional five feet of unsaturated soil below the fill has
not been substantiated and, in fact, we believe it to be
false.
Given a choice, one might prefer a site with
ample unstaturated zone but where the choice is not available
alternative design and operating practices are available to
the operator. We would suggest that EPA recognize the need
for exception such as is provided for in the system of notes
in the Hazardous Wastes Management Regulations proposed under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
Another item of landfill folklore that might have
been questioned in preparing the guidelines is the universal
requirement for six inches of daily soil cover called for
in Section 41.205-2 (3) (1). Why six inches? Why not four
inches or eight inches? It is true that six inches has become
a widely accepted number but, in fact, its original source
of rationale are obscure. Few people seriously debate the
desirability of daily cover, but at the same time practical-
ity indicates that there are occasions when it is not all
but impossible to provide.
For example, in extreme winter conditions or during
-------
13
a period of heavy rain. Landfill operators complain bitterly
when inspectors measure the depth of daily cover with a
ruler and then cite the operator for a violation because the
cover depth is an inch or two short of the six inch objective
The guidelines provide EPA with an opportunity to inject a
note of practicality into landfill regulation, but the
agency has not done so.
We suggest the guidelines be expanded to include
some discussion on the practicality of the daily cover
requirement.
Turning now to the draft environmental impact
statement on which comments were also requested, let us say
that this is a useful document which provides a good tutorial
background on the location, design, upgrading, and operation
of landfills. Our comments pertain mainly to the economic
analysis contained in section 5.
First, with regard to the baseline disposal cost
as indicated on Figure 5.1. The relation between disposal
costs and landfill operating capacity seems to agree generall
with present cost levels. However, the use of a single curve
is misleading. It may well be adequate for determination of
the overall environment impact of compliance with the guidelii
A person unfamiliar with landfill costs generally may be
misled into thinking that this curve applies in each and
every specific situation. In fact, there is a large range of
-------
14
costs and even though it was not necessary to indicate such a
range for EPA purposes, we feel that the value of the draft
EIS would be enhanced if it could be indicated that there i?
a range of costs at each capacity level. This same comrae-it
applies to the scenarios for upgrading land disposal facilitie|s
There too the presentation of upgrading costs as a single
number rather than a range does not tell the whole story.
One mis-impression that can be arrived at because
of failure to present the range of costs is that resource
recovery is not likely to be a feasible disposal alternative.
No resource recovery projects that we are aware of operate
for costs less than indicated for an upgraded landfill. This
is not, however, universally the case. There are areas of the
country where resource recovery is economically feasible
compared with alternative landfills. And while we do not
suggest that EPA enter into a discussion of resource recovery
economics in the draft EIS, we feel that the agency could
•i
inadvertantly do a disservice to resource recovery
implementation by not indicating a realistic range for
landfill disposal costs.
We think that EPA might have presented some typical
costs for landfills larger than 300 tons per day. It is
true that the available surveys of landfills do indicate that
many facilities are operated at capacities of 1000 tons per
day or greater, but nevertheless as the number of landfills
-------
15
shrink the size is becoming greater and we believe that a
scenario for a site operating in excess of 1000 tons per day
should have been included.
Our most serious concerns about the economic analysi|s
however, is the failure of EPA to consider the economies of
an entirely new landfill. The eintire analysis that is pres-
ented is based on upgrading of an existing facility. I f, howevejr,
the inventory of land disposal facilities and the prohibition
against open dumping results in the closure of a number of
existing facilities, new landfill sites will have to be
found. Even in the normal course of events there would be
the need for location of new facilities. It is our belief that
the opening up of an entirely new landfill might be signific-
antly different from the costs for upgrading an existing
facility.
In most areas a new facility will cost far more
than the one it replaced because of the greatly increased
difficulty in obtaining new facilities. We believe EPA should
have addressed this matter when preparing the draft EIS.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment today
and we will try to respond to any questions that you may have
of our industry.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. j^ush. Is the sound
system working? Can you hear the speaker in the back? Fine,
thank you. Are there any questions from the panel? Are there
-------
any questions from the audience that you would like us to
ask the speaker? Fine, thank you very much.
The next witness is Mr. Peter Skinner, Environmental
Engineer, New York State Attorney General's Office. After
that Mrs. Irma Levonious, Canterbury Connecticut. Mrs.
Levonius? Mr. James McElroy? Mr. Robert Arner? If these
other people arrive we will take them at the end of the
list of witnesses.
MR. ARNF.R: My name is Robert Arner. I am with the
Association called Sycamore Associated Volunteering Energy.
It is individually funded organization concerning source
separation techniques of recycling.
Ladies and gentlemen, greetings: I come here to
question solid waste disposal guidelines proposed under the
authority of -.section 1008 (A) (1) , the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act of 1976, Public Law 94-580 of RCRA. I direct
my attention to 241.205-2, recommended practices, page 181477!
"a landfill disposal facility should be maintained in an
aesthetic manner."
On the contrary I have reports from dumps on s.
W*
-------
17
down by Herbert Sachs of the Natural Resources, Department
of Natural Resources.
All of these documents instead suggest the art
of cosmetics to beautify coverup. American's honeymoon at
Love Canal has divorced us with the ideaology of the polluter
pays. Unfortunately people, property and wildlife and this
country's future all heavily incurs these costs.
Landfill disposals of solid waste is no longer
an answer but profound problem. Sanitary is a euphemism used
to deceive the public into accepting techniques which bury,
spread and compact waste with a daily half -- six inches of
earth and finalized with two feet of soil to seal in the
leachate.
Motor oil is one typical product folks unconsciously
discharge in the landfills. Federal, State, and county law
vainly attempt to stop this ignorant disposal without incurinc
massive publicity drives. This leadful substance threatens
our digestive tract evident by the two to three million barrels
discharged in the Washington area alone.In Montgomery County
15,000 gallns a day are discharged.
Yes, gas stations do recycle it, but the primitive
nature of the present re-refining process inhibits safe
disposal products. The case in point reflects a fallacy in
the conservation policy. We worry about dwindling foreign
supplies while we do little to promote the return of valuable
-------
18
products back to our feed stock. Our psyche towards waste
requires recycling to battle or frivolous infringement on our
ecosystem. Reusing oil and leachate have to become household
concepts to motivate people to respond. The results are
crippling aquifers.
Of course landfill is a practice that is not
going to be discontinued and it is something that is going to
be continuing. It is naive to think that this whole process
is going to stop.
I wish to address another guideline, 241.200-2,
recommended practices, (A) (1), alternatives. Before concludirg
the location of a landfill in an environmentally sensitive
area it is advisable that alternative locations and disposal
techniques should be evaluated in terms of hydrogeologic
technological environmental, economic and other pertinent
facts.
We are currently using a lower percentage of our
resources than ever before in history. Our post consumers
waste are being ignored by three-fourths of the total virgin
resources substituted instead. Only seven percent of our energy
and the materials available for municipal waste is being
recovered today.
Separate collection systems have a wide application
because they do require intensive capital investment — do
not require capital investment. Waste reduction alternatives
-------
19
and source separation must receive support from the public
and the engineering community. Separation at the source,
whether commercial or domestic, could greatly improve the
economics of recovering paper, organics, glass, metals in
the metropolitan area.
Ironically, our concern for energy discounts the
supplies we have, landfill which are more likely to represent
the more serious shortage.
With half of this country being served by ground-
water the best available technology to filtrate, purify and
abate water pollution is in great demand. The EPA realizes
the importance of consumer response. Leachate is a problem
that is produced by precipitation that passes through land
disposal sites gathering various contaminants. If this
tainted water migrates uncontrolled to surface and ground
water, the public health becomes endangered.
Not only are fish killed, but any nearby wells may
be contaminated. The chances of damage are related to the
proximity of the resource, to the landfill site in the direct-]
ion of water. Due to the lack of assessing leachate damage,
hundreds of thousands of these disposal sites are not serious])
monitored as to the impact of this problem. The Environmental
Protection Agency indicates that at least one-fourth and
possibly as much as three-fourths of the municipal disposal
sites in the United States have leachate migration problems
-------
20
and specific site studies represent the tip of the iceberg
as present information concerning their energy costs.
Emerging today is a philosophy of holding the glass
We have spilled too much milk. Crying does not control the
problem, preventative planning does. A vital path of energy
service is accomplished by insuring separation at the source.
Surely we address the problems at the sink, landfills and
drinking water, but only focus our attention on the heart
of the issue; safe saligy number of supplies.
Awareness of these hazardous wastes can recruit
massive support and attention to stop these incidents such as
the valley of the barrels. We must define the problem and
not the answer. For encouraging the chances of the future
is this planets right.
I must add to this testimony that there is great
progress being made in this whole field of reconizance of
•landfill and control of leachate groundwater, but in
Montgomery County I have seen a vast problem of a $28
million dollar situation where recycling systems are being
inhibited merely because of the institutional barriers and
I think that has to be brought to the public's attention too.
Landfills are not bad, per se, it is just the
way we apply our resources to them. Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Arner. Are there any
questions from the panel? Mr. Arner, I would just like to
-------
21
ask you, did you see specific problems in the guidelines?
El
2 ..
MR. ARNER: No. it is not so much specific problems
H
3 ..
in the guidelines as much as you speak of alternatives. The
chance of alternatives occuring are very inhibited. In sense
of trying a recycling center in Bethesda, it cannot be done.
I mean, I have tried for two years.
In trying to set up recycling activities there is
great constraints from thf taxes and transportation costs.
much less zonina. So I am trvina to bring forth the attention
to landfills as being a problem. And I think the publications
that over the years EPA has documented have shown that, yes,
there is concern and we should look at this issue.
Of course it would be frivolous to say that landfil
is a practice that is, you know, going to be ameliorated.lt
is going to continue. I am just concerned as to the public's
knowledge of what they are disposing.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you. Are there any other questior]
from the panel? Are there any questions from the audience
that you would like us to ask? Thank you. Mr. T.A. Moleski?
Mr. James Cowhey? Dr. G.rover Emrich? Mr. Richard Wright?
James King? John Rein? Ralph Tabor? That concludes all of
the people who have registered to make a statement. Has
anybody come in since I have called the first ones; Mr.
Skinner, Mrs. Levonius, Mr. McElroy, Mr. Moleski, Mr. Cowhey.
Is there anyone who has not registered who would like to make
-------
22
a statement. Okay. What we will do is we will leave the
transcript open for the remainder of the day and anyone --
we will probably stay here for another hour or so to see
if anyone shows up and if they don't we will leave and leave
the transcript open and take an statements until the end of
the day and include those statements in the transcript.
Questions? Yes sir.
MR. BRINKMAN: Has there been criteria established
as to what is an open dump and what is a sanitary landfill?
I notice in the Act this was established in '77 and I am
new to the area and I just don't know.
DR. SKINNER: Yes, we have proposed a set of
criteria of 1978. We have extensive public comment period
on those criteria and are now undergoing review of those
comments and expect to finalize those criteria by July, the
end of July of this year. So they are not final, but they
will be final in the next two months.
MR. BRINKMAN: I guess my point is, okay, say we
follow these guidelines and set up >nice sanitary landfill
according to all of your guidelines and then you come out
with your criteria and it no longer fits the guidelines.
DR. SKINNER: Well, these will be put in final
form after the finalization of the criteria and so they
will reflect the criteria and support the criteria as they
can. These are scheduled for putting these in final form will
-------
23
be close to the end of this year. Question?
MS. KEENER: How closely do the various states
have to stick to these guidelines? Is there going to be any
specific sort of guideline for holding to the guidelines or
to move open ended?
DR. SKINNER: The guidelines are totally advisory.
The section 1000 of the Act asks for advisory guidelines,
suggested guidelines and they are only — there are other
sections of the Act which make these requirements for certain
Federal grantees, for certain Federal agencies and for certair
grantees receiving certain types of grants. But in general
they are advisory.
The states are, through their state solid waste
management programs which receive financial assistance under
the Act, are required to establish programs to eliminate
open dumps and to require that all new disposal be in
sanitary landfills according to the 4004 criteria. These
guidelines should describe techniques which they could
use in order to meet that requirement but the guidelines
themselves are not mandatory.
MS. KESNER: Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: I understand that Mr. King is on
his way, is that what they say?
SPEAKER: He will arrive at a quarter to 11.
DR. SKINNER: Okay we will stay here so he can
-------
24
read his statement into the record if he chooses to do so.
Yes sir?
MR. CHILDS: If I can identify the section, I think
it is 241.2 -- it is in one of the books anyhow.
DR. SKINNER: Excuse me, could you identify yourself
please?
MR. CHILDS : Ken Childs and Brian Mckennon.
DR. SKINNER: And could the two last speakers
identify themselves so we can get their names on the record?
MS. KESNER: Okay. I am Joan Kesner from the town
of Oyster Bay Department of Public Works.
MR. BRINKMAN: Richard Brinkman from Montgomery
County and Dayton, Ohio.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you.
MR. CHILDS: It is the comment in here with respect
to the location of airports within two miles of land disposal
operations. I wonder what the impact of that statement is
in terms of what happens if there is a landfill in that
radius, or is there any means by which you can keep a landfil
outside of that radius. We have a guideline which says five
miles. We have no punch to that guideline. I am wondering if
this one has any clout with it or is it just window dressing?
MR. STOLL: This was included in the guidelines to
reflect a requirement which is contained in the proposed
criteria classification of solid waste disposal. So that
-------
25
requirement in the criteria adopts the Federal Aviation
Administrations recommendations or their recommended guideline
for the co-location of airports and disposal facilities.
That guideline requires a two mile distance for
propeller airplanes and five mile distances for jet airplanes
betweenthe disposal — minimum distance between the disposal
site and the runway.
MR. CHILDS: Are you telling me that you can prohibit
placement of a landfill within that distance?
MR. STOLL: No.
MR. CHILDS: Okay, you have the same problem as
us. It is just a guideline, it has no punch in it? You have
a hell of a good argument.
MR. STOLL: The only kind of enforcement as far
as the exact distance is that an airport can be denied
Federal Aviation Administration certification if this distance
is not maintained and if there is at least some evidence of
a problem.
MR. CHILDS: The airport can be apprised of this?
MR. STOLL: Right, the airport can be. Well, that
is the way it usually works out, but as far as the way the
guideline was developed it was as far as Federal Aviation
Administration certification.
Now, in the case of the landfill control it would
be through the criteria that if there is a problem or a
-------
26
strong belief that there could be a problem by a location
of a disposal facility closer,either proposed or existing,
closer than the recommended distances, then that landfill
can be considered as, or identified as an open dump and the
state could take action to either close the fill or put it
on a compliance schedule for modification which would
alleviate this problem.
MR. CHILDS: I am saying the gulls and the other
birds seem to have a mind of their own and they don't seem
to respect the five mile limit.
MR. STOLL: That is true.
MR. DEGEARE: We have a question asking are guidelin
or regulations being written on the production or use of
natural gas from sanitary landfills? The answer is no, we
are not developing any such guidelines or regulations. We
are aware of the practice and we have supported it in terms
of supporting financially a demonstration project in this
area of gas recovery from the sanitary landfill.
Our regulations are more directed to addressincr
the ootential hazard that uncontrolled gas migration can
pose rather than only the recovery or use of the gas that
is produced. We do recognize that the recovery and use of
the gas is a side benefit which can be achieved while also
controlling and preventing against adverse effects from
gas migration. Yes?
-------
27
MR. COOPER: I am Jack Cooper from the Food Processors
Association and if you are going to optimize your natural
gas production you may need to follow different criteria and
different guidelines than what is written here. Can you make
exceptions in the case of a city who wants to utilize their
organic waste primarily to produce natural gas? Can there
be variance from these criteria if needed in order to enhance
natural gas production?
MR. DEGEARE: Can you hear the questions? The
question gets to the fact that if one is concerned that a
facility with optimizing gas production in situ, in a land --
fill, they may want to try different methods of waste handling
or disposal in order to produce gas at a larger rate. That ma>
cause some differences in operation as compared to those that
we have discussed in the guidelines. For example, one may
want to increase the moisture in a landfill in order to
further enhance gas production which is somewhat contrary
to the discussion in the guidelines which talks about minim-
izing infiltration of water into the landfill.
We recognize this and to accommodate the possibility
for those different types of operations we have spoken in
terms of the need for making trade offs among the various
provisions of the guidelines. For example, in the area of
leachate control, one technique that is recognized is to
use a compacted tight soil cover material that naturally
-------
28
will keep the moisture out or promote runoff as opposed to
infiltration. It will also seal in gas and it could enhance
lateral migration.
That has to be balanced, that concern for leachate
production has to be balanced against the concern for gas
migration and the design can accommodate collection of that
gas rather than simply allowing it to migrate.
So we do talk in terms of the need for trade offs
and for the consideration of such things and it is not pre-
cluded by the guidelines.
DR.SKINNER: Any other questions? Yes, sir?
MR. BRINKMAN: Richard Brinkman from Montgomery Countjy.
Do you speak of the monitoring of the groundwater wells and
not to put one through the landfill base proper. What types
of distances do you propose? Should we be five feet away
from the landfill or 100 yards, or a mile, or what do you feel
on that?
MR. STOLL: The question was, since we in the
guidelines recommend that groundwater monitoring wells not
be placed through the landfill proper, what is the recommended
distance away from the landfill for locating groundwater
monitoring wells?
First a comment on the recommendation not to put
it through tne landfill. We included that recommendation
because drilling through a landfill base for any reason,
-------
29
especially if that landfill is supposed to provide any
degree of containment at the base of it, gives you the
possibility of leakage along the conduit in which you are
going to place your well.
So as far as on that issue a recommendation for
a distance outside of the landfill proper, we didn't make
one nor would I anticipate that we would make one other than,
you know, beyond the edge of it. As long as you are not
going through the bottom of the fill at least that danger
of the place where leachate could be collecting leaking down
the shaft would be avoided anywhere outside the property
boundary whether it be five — not the property boundary,
perimeter of the actual filled area, whether it be five
feet or 100 yards or whatever, that would be potentially
a compliance issue to be specified by the state agency.
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, I guess what I am getting at
is landfills have a tendency to expand and if we got to
monitor groundwater this year and then what do we do --
block up the shaft, concreate it over as we expand into the
region where we were monitoring before?
MR. STOLL: Elaboration is the question. Since
landfills do tend to expand, if you place a well-- or how
do you avoid having a well through the landfill? One way, of
course is, if you place a well out side of the landfill
proper and then the landfill expands, then you would leave a
-------
3C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
T-l S-2 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
section of earth undisturbed, call it an island for the
monitoring well, whatever you wish, and you could move your
landfill around it and you could have those spaced throughout
a very large fill area. But there, again, you would not
be giving the opportunity for leachate to flow down the
shaft if it was designed such that the leachate stayed away
from it.
We could expand on that topic in the guidelines
but we don't include that much information on monitoring sine
we reference our groundwater monitoring manual as a primary
reference source for landfills.
DR. SKINNER: I note that Mr. Emrich has arrived
and are you prepared to make a statement or would you like
to wait a few seconds?
MR. EMRICH: Iwould like to state that Allegheny is
not a reliable airline.
DR. SKINNER: Someone indicated that the problem,
probably one of the problems is the fact that National is
fogged in and a lot of people who are trying to make it
are not able to make it. What we will do is we will continue
with as many people who show up this morning and then we will
reconvene after lunch and see if anyone shows up after lunch
and if so we will take their testimony at that point in
time. And again, if anybody is unable to make it due to
travel difficulties, I am sure we can include their statement
-------
31
in the transcript for today. Grover? Please identify
yourself and your organization.
DR. EMRICH: My name is Grover H. Emrich. I am
Executive Vice President of A.W. Martin Associates, consulting
engineers and scientists. I feel that this statement will
probably be about disjointed as the plane ride down here
and it is fogged in. I don't know why we stopped at Baltimore
except we were running out of gas.
I am also President of the Pennsylvania section of
the Association of Professional Geologist and I would like
this statement to reflect, that this statement does reflect
their thinking.
I have been a groundwater geologist for approximate}
20 years and my training was in that area, and I have also
done research in pure groundwater geology. And in most cases
the water was pure.
In 1963 I left a research organization, moved to
Pennsylvania to set up their program in groundwater quality
management and one of the first problems to be identified
was the disposal of solid waste, and particularly the siting
of solid waste facilities.
We developed this program under the concept, the
initial concept that groundwater should be protected from
solid waste. We first had to define, was leachate a problem.
Well quickly, with a little water balance work, you find
-------
32
out that at least in the humid east leachate is generated
from landfills and this now seems old hat. Fifteen to 20
years ago it wasn't. In fact a recent study funded by EPA
that our firm has conducted has shown that leachate is being
generated in an area 10 inches of precipitation or less
per year. It is a state of the art landfill. So we see that
leachate is not only a problem in the eastern part of the
United States, or the humid part, but it is also a problem
throughout the United States and we have to handle this
leachate.
We know that landfills can cause groundwater
pollution. There is no question about that. The magnitude
of it is something that disturbs many of us in the field,
in the landfill field and also working out on landfill
problems.
We recognize that landfills 20 years ago, or even
10 years ago, were located in wet areas; commonly fill in
the local swamp, we are going to turn it into a recreation
playground facility. And the regulatory agencies, including
the State of Pennsylvania, then started saying we have
groundwater discharges all over the area and we cannot
site a landfill in a wet area. Keep it out of the wetlands,
keep it out of the swamps, keep it out of the groundwater
discharge areas.
The concept then, 15 years ago, was let's keep it
-------
33
high and dry and that moves us towards the groundwater
recharge areas. We moved in this direction, a series of
research projects were undertaken to prove that what the
attenuation capacity of the underlying earth materials
would be.
I was just looking quickly to see if there was
a soil scientist on this panel, this illustrious , because we
find that we became concerned not only with the refuse, but
the underlying earth material which included, quote, "soils."
Being a groundwater geologist I only give the soils people
a couple of upper feet. They like to extend it down quite
a distance further.
But it is the underlying earth materials. In most
cases when you put a landfill in the first thing you do
it seems is strip off the soils, stockpile them because
you are going to use them for cover material. Fortunately
that is a smart — at least that is the right direction. At
least let's cover these dumps, maybe we should or shouldn't.
But we started moving with the idea of separating
refuse from solid waste. Our siting would have to be located
accordingly and we found that this is not a panacea. In some
cases we can effectively use the attenuating characteristics
of the underlying earth material.
Most of our concepts today in landfill siting go
back into two methods of handling leachate. The attenuation,
-------
34
l
the natural attenuation of the leachate by the underlying
2
earth materials before it comes in contact with the ground-
3
water and the second is hydraulic isolation. This would be
4
along the lines of either natural or man made liners in order
5
to collect the leachate and handle that accordingly.
One of the things that we seem to move away from
is recognizing that the attenuation capabilities of the
sub surface are unlimited if we recognize what the conditions
of the subsurface are and this is one thing that disturbs
me in the proposed guidelines.
We find a definition of contamination meaning
degradation of naturally occuring water, air or soil quality.
I did not find a definition of degradation and I am concerned
as to how it is applied. Once waste material of any type is
applied to the earth, or on to the earth, we are generally
going to find some type of change in the underlying soils
and in the underlying waters. But I don't see where this is
necessarily an adverse effect if we manage and control this.
And, I feel very strongly that we must consider, and those
guidelines must consider, controlled degradation of the
environment.
We must manage the physical environment, the waste
that we are putting on to it as long as we understand what
we are doing and I think this is one of the most -- this is
the key element, is that we must know that physical system;
-------
35
That physical system includes the soils, it includes the
geology, it includes the groundwater and immediately below
the fill it also includes it in the area of the fill.
You need to know that the flow system, the ground-
water flow system is into the groundwater, not just in the
upper five or 10 feet.
We have started to move away from the concept of
putting the refuse in high and dry groundwater recharge
areas. I haven't quite figured out where we are going to
put it after awhile because most of our good sites either
seem to be in quote, "good sites" that we are using are in
either high recharge areas or else they are next to streams
where there is a groundwater discharge• I feel very strongly
that we have to start developing a program recognizing that
the refuse can be put in the groundwater.
Many areas of this country you are dealing with a
very shallow water table. Especially in the midwest you are
dealing with soil deposits or geologic deposits that have
an extremely low permeability. By placing the refuse in this
material, knowing where your aquifers are, it is possible
to carefully control the amount of leachate that is generated
by the type of cover you are using. It is also possible
to control and manage the movement of the leachate from the
refuse, and from the landfill.
I think we have to develop a very careful monitorinc
-------
36
system which certaining should include monitoring more than
once a year. Now being on the other side of the fence after
setting up the State of Pennsylvania's groundwater monitoring
regulations, I have to convince some our clients that they
should use them.
These should be a flexible set of regulations. They
have to be utilized. The parameters that are identified have
to be reviewed, and you have to know what the system is
so that you manage it. There is no reason you cannot put
refuse in groundwater. I think, in fact, a classic example
is one that has been utilized in eastern Pennsylvania and
where a water filled quarry was de-watered, a liner was put
in, the groundwater has been maintained below the bottom
of the fill, leachate has been recirculated for eight years
to the point where it has improved drastically in quality
and I would say we are now to a point where the leachate
pumps and the groundwater pumps should be shut off.
The amount of contamination in that landfill is at
a minimum. The hydrology of the area is very well known, and
we know exactly where it is going to move. There is no
groundwater use in the area and it will eventually discharge
into a nearby river. I feel very confident that the amount
of leachate that discharges into the river will never be
seen in the river. In fact, it has been said that we maybe
should put all of our landfills in groundwater discharge areas
-------
37
next to a major river and just let the leachate bleed in over
a period of years.
We have to look at how we cover or do nou cover,
depending on how we are going to manage this leachate. Recomm
endations is that the surface water should be diverted away
from the landfill. I think that this, again, depends on the
conditions of the site. There may be cases where you may
want to get as much water in there to get a maximum amount
of contaminants out in a minimum period of time because you
are going to collect the leachate, recirculate, and you want
to be able to walk away from this landfill in a reasonable
period of time and say, it has and it is causing very little
degradation to the environment.
I strongly feel that flood plains are a viable
area for solid waste disposal, especially some of our mater-
ials that are being generated by industry and are meeting
other environmental regulations. I am thinking primarily of
the air quality regulations and the sludges that are being
produced. We have to look at the economics In many parts
of this country the power plants are located along streams.
The most logical place to dispose of the sludges that are
generated are nearby.
If you put them in the flood plain you have a
control because you are generally in a groundwater discharge
area. You know where any contaminants are going. They are
-------
38
coming up at you. You can see them if they are going to be
generated.
You can put in a counter pumping system, as necess-
ary, and control the movement. I feel very strongly that we
have to address these areas in the regulation so that we
know that although it requires a more sophisticated manner
of disposal of solid waste, we have to look at where we
put it and we should definitely consider some type of
alteration in the subsurface groundwater quality. That this
alteration must be carefully monitored and a system has to
be installed to handle any changes in that subsurface system
that we are not satisfied with.
There is no reason that with the sophisticated
technology that we have available today we cannot place
landfills in many areas that previously were considered to
be unsuitable.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, many of these so-cal
led unsuitable areas may be viable sites with the public
and this is today one of the most critical elements in
landfill location and design is what site can you find that
can be accepted politcally by the local area or by the
state.
I have some specific comments that I will submit
to you in my written about various areas of this. Thank you
for your time. I hope this is not as disjointed as the plane
-------
39
ride was.
DR. SKINNER: Are there any questions from the
panel?
MR. STOLL: Dr. Emrich, just to get a better
understanding of your general comments, you discussed the
desirability of the guidelines addressing site specific
situations where, for example, solid waste in the groundwater
may be acceptable.
It is my feeling that the guidelines, as currently
written, do not say — well, naturally they are not regul-
atory and therefore they cannot prohibit anything. Most of
the subjects that you addressed are considered in the guide-
lines and there are some words to say that based on site
specific situations this may be possible. Is your suggestion
or recommendation that we do this in considerably more
detail?
DR. EMRICH: Yes. I feel that reading these proposed
guidelines, and again you say they are guidelines and they
are not regulations, I have unfortunately been in this bind,
as I said , with the states in which you promulgate guideline
Unfortunately they are used by others as regulations.
Reading these guidelines I am left with the
impression, and quite a few other staff people that have
reviewed these, that there is a thrust to keep out of the
groundwater, a very strong thrust to keep out of the
-------
40
groundwater and to even consider groundwater management as a
means of allowing waste disposal in various areas.
I feel very strongly and I think this goes back
to about 20 years of time trying to change my thinking about
how to dispose of solid waste. I feel very strongly that many
of these high and dry sites are in groundwater recharge
areas. They may not be a critical area but once anything
leaves that site, if you are not very carefully monitoring
it, it gets tremendous dispersal into the groundwater system.
I would like to see it in as tight a — as close to the
groundwater in many cases as possible. I would also like to
see it stablized as quickly as possible which generally means
milling or putting as much water into them as possible.
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions? I would welcome
looking at your specific comments for revisions of particular
parts of the guidelines because I am sure you can realize,
given a situation which varies so much from site to site
and given the detailed considerations and evaluations that
are necessary on each site over the long periods of time that
you were talking about, it is very difficult to generalize
that into a national type of regulation without just throwing
your hands up and saying, everything is site specific, do
the best you can. So any suggestions that you could make
to improve the regulation along those lines I think we would
be glad to look at.
-------
41
Thank you.
DR. EMRICH: I would be very glad to, Dr. Skinner.
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions from the panel?
(Prepared statement follows:)
-------
42
DR. SKINNER: Has anyone shown up who wanted to
testify? Mr. Skinner, Mrs. Levonius, Mr. McElroy, Mr. Moleski
Mr. Cowhey, Mr. Wright, Mr. King, Mr. Rein, Mr . Tabor? Are
there any other questions? Please identify yourself.
MR. ZAGROBELNY.: My name is Ted Zagroblney. For the
record it is Z-a-g-r-o-b-e-l-n-y. I am with the U.S. Navy,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. And throughout the
morning the panel and other people keep on mentioning that
these are guidelines and only guidelines. Yet, for myself
and other Federal agencies, these are more than guidelines
because under RCRA section 6004.(A) (3), each executive
agency and each Federal facility must comply with the
guidelines. So, let's not fool ourselves. These are more
than just guidelines for some of us. Thank you.
MR. STOLL: Let me address that question or comment.
I wish our Office of General Counsel was here to address this.|
It is our understanding that at least as far as section 6004
of that Federal reguirement, as far as section 1003 guidelineaj
which these landfill guidelines are, that there is a primary
control on the practice of landfill disposal and those are,
in the case of non-hazardous wastes, the facilities criteria
under section 4004 which we have talked about, which will
be promulgated in July as final regulations. Those are the
primary control or landfill disposal facilities.
And if it is hazardous waste facility,section 3004
-------
43
regulations will be the primary control. Therefore, we still
interpret these proposed guidelines as advisory in nature
even for Federal facilities as long as the criteria are
being met.
There is a final point as far as Federal facilities
and that is the requirement of section 6001 of the Act, which
makes Federal facilities comply with all regulations, both
substantive and procedural, whether they be Federal, State
or local regulations. So it is not that these are specifically
not mandatory. It is just that since they are general
advisory documents, or is a general advisory document, it
will be interpreted as such for enforcement action at a
Federal facility. And the enforcement mechanism will be
4004 facilities criteria.
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions? Okay, we will
reconvene at 1:00 o'clock to pick up any of the statements
of people who have been not able to come because of the
weather problem and , again, the record will be — the
transcript will remain open until the end of the day for
anyone doesn't make it.
(Whereupon,at 10:15 o'clock a.m.,the hearing was
recessed, to reconvene at 1:00 o'clock p.m. this
same day, Tuesday, May 15, 1979.)
-------
44
AFTERNOON SESSION
1:05 p.m.
DR. SKINNER: We will reconvene the public hearing
on the Guidelines for the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste.
I see that we have two of the people who are going to give
testimony here. Let me just check to see if anyone else is
here. Mr. Richard Wright, is he here? Do you intend to
give a statement?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
DR. SKINNER: Fine, thank you. Mr. King is here,
Mr. Cowhey is here somewhere. Ms. Levonius? Mr. McElroy? Mr.
Peter Skinner? Mr. Moleski? Mr. Rein is here but is not
going to give a statement, is that correct?
MR. REIN: Right.
DR. SKINNER: Fine. And Mr. Tabor has sent his
comments. Okay, fine. Let's begin then. Mr. Cowhey?
Introduce yourselves and also give the name of our
association. You can come up to the podium if you would like
to use it for your notes.
MR. COWHEY: My name is James Cowhey and I am the
President of Land S Lakes Company which is a firm that is
in land development work. We do lakes and we also run a
number of landfills in the Chicago area. And, I am talking
about a matter which, in my opinion, has not been defined
so far by the EPA. It might be what we call a gray area.
-------
45
It involves a listing of landfill sites and responsibility
in regards to them.
As it is right now we have penalties for operation
of hazardous sites and so forth, but they have not classified
the municipal solid waste sites and the classification is
not being liable over long term liability. By this I mean the
are certain sites that are handling a limited amount of
materials that may be under the classification of hazardous.
I am also thinking,in general, of materials such
as sludge and some limited amount of liquids.
My talk will be very short because it is just a
few comments, a few thoughts I have had in regards to this
matter. I wish to make a few comments relative to the inter-
pretation of section 3004 of the Act which contains the
standards for owners and operators of disposal sites.
It is especially our attention to address the
area involving the liability of sites after completion. It
seems at this time that the matter of site classification
does not fully determine, or at best a gray area, whereby
municipal solid waste disposal sites may be classified as
hazardous waste sites
As muncipal sites have the capacity of absorbing
limited amounts of liquid waste and in many cases, these
sites are used for the disposal of nonhazardous or nontoxic
liquid waste with special permits, under the present
-------
interpretation these sites may be classified as hazardous
2
waste sites. If so classified these sites may be — would also
be liable for either perpetual care or extended periods of
liability under the law.Slude disposal in municipal waste
sites may cause a site to be classified as hazardous.
From our experience, we have been involved with
many sites in the Chicago area which have been reclaimed
by means of land disposal and which are now being put to
attractive and useful purposes. Many of these sites if left
with the stigma or liability of being labeled sites
necessary for long-term perpetual care or owner responsibility
and liability would never have been developed and returned
as active revenue and tax generating propoerties.
Some areas that have been reclaimed by landfill
procedures in the Chicago area are: Maine South High School in
Park Ridge, Illion, which has the seven and a half million
dollar facility on it, a site that had been an old pit and
had been reclaimed. It is very beautiful. It has a lake on
it; The Winston Tower Development which some of you people
might be an old Chicagoian, has over 1000 apartments and
condominiums. They all range in the over $100,000 class. They
are also other landfill sites. The Lane Technical High School
in Chicago, which is a rather large high school, about 6000
or 7000 students and across the street has the WGN television
studio, which is also on a landfill site.
-------
47
The Old Orchard Development, which we are connected
with, is approximately 400 condominiums in it and the over
$125,000 range. And we also the municipal golf course and a
high rise apartment.
Also in the Chicago area, many of the race track
proper!ties such as Sportsiaans Park and Hawthorne Race Track
are on old disposal sites as are industrial areas in Rosemort
and the areas along the north branch of the Chicago River
which have been extensively developed as industrial and
residential areas.
A recent development, which you have probably
read about, because the man that was involved in it was a
fellow named Harry Chaddick and his wife was kidnapped last
week, and had the Chicago Brickyard development, at the
disposal site which has approximately 100 stores and a
couple of the major stores like J.C. Penney and so forth. And
that is also on a landfill site. It is a recent development.
Another area that we are developing at the present
time is in the Glenview area. We are helping construct a
condominium development along with an industrial park and
a recreational area. This, again, is on another old landfill
site.
Needless to say some of the finest property develop
ments in the Chicago area are on former landfill sites. To
hold these sites in abeyance for observation, monitoring,
-------
48
and liability would certainly have prevented the development
of many of these properties. I might add that if they are
a liability on the property such as to have it in the tax
rule or in its title, there would be very little development
of any old landfill sites. A developer would just shy away
from them.
On behalf of Land and Lakes Company, it is cordially
requested that the Ageny and the legislatures be aware that
not all fill sites are Love Canals or Kin-Buc Landfill sites.
Such areas as Kin-Buc and Love Canal should be set aside
and perpetually maintained, and the owners and operators should
be liable for the safety of the public. However, in so doing,
the Agency should not take a "shot gun" approach and affect
all other sites which are not , or in all probability will
do no harm to environment.
A modified monitoring and care program should be
substituted for these sites so that the reclamation will
take its ordinary course. A lot of these sites will be devel-
oped for the benefit of the community and the public. Thank
you.
DR. SKINNER: Are there any questions or comments
from the panel?
MR. DEGEARE: I understand your concern as it relates
to some of the enforcement actions that the Agency is
undertaking and to regulations that we have been considering
-------
49
under Section 3004. Do you have comments relating directly
2
to these guidelines and how this might impact on what your
concern is?
MR. COWHEY: My concern in general is, you have
classified landfill sites as the wetland and the flood
plains. You have that classified actually as whether they
are going to be solid waste/ municipal solid waste site,
or again I say, if they do handle any hazardous materials,
even a limited amount, they may switch over and be classified
as a hazardous site which would put an awful liability on
them.
Many times, as you know, the refuse itself is a
good blotter. And limited amounts of nontoxic liquids are
really acceptable in a landfill and they should be if they
are in a tight, permeable type of fill. However, this may
switch and turn the whole site over to the Hazardous Waste
Program under — we talked at one time of perpetual care,
we have talked 20 years, we talked about about $5 million
dollars liability insurance which, incidentally, nobody can
get, and it is just the program when they do classify the
sites. When you get into that program and when you redefine
it, I would appreciate your considering maybe classification
down the line on this site, even though it has a limited
amount.
Say it is handling flood materials. Most sludges.
-------
50
municipal sludge is not bad, although some of it does run
high and can be — If it is in a landfill site and buried undejr
20 feet, we are not growing any crops on it and it is not
going anywhere. It is going to be contained on a good permea-
ble — especially in the northern Illinois area, we have very
good clays.
If they were to be restricted,that they cannot
take it, you are going to have a shortage of sites, you are
going to have liability and the sites will not be developed.
MR. DEGEARE: I understand. Thank you.
MR. COWHEY: Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: Are there any comments from the
audience? Questions? Fine, thank you, Mr. Cowhey. Mr.
Wright?
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you for the opportunity to
be here today and to comment on this important issue.
DR. SKINNER: Could you indicate your association
please?
MR. WRIGHT: My name is Richard E. Wright. I am
President of R.E. Wright Associates Inc., a firm specializing
in environmental geology, groundwater geology engineering
geology and mining geology. My firm is located in Pennsylvania
and we have been involved in Pennsylvania's Sanitary Landfill
Program as consultants to the industry,by virtue of our
personnel, since 1968.
-------
51
I am past President of the Pennsylvania section of
the Association of Professional Geological Scientists, which
is a statewide, non-profit, organization composed of profess-
ional geologists. In addition, I am Vice Chairman of the Boarc
of Supervisors of the Township of Derry in Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania, a second-class township governed by five
supervisors which also operates a sanitary landfill permitted
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environ-
mental Resources.
The comments presented by me today are presented
as a concerned professional, as a concerned municipal official
and as a concerned small businessman.
As stated in the Introductory Section of the "Feder
Register," volume 44, No. 59, Monday, March 26, 1979, "Pro-
posed Guidelines, Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste, Environ-
mental Protection Agency," the proposed guidelines have been
formulated by EPA for the purpose of assisting the states in
solid waste management planning.
The intent of the proposed guidelines is to, and
I quote,"suggest preferred methods for the design and operatic
of those solid waste disposal facilities which employ landfill
ing techniques. The decision as to what mix of these and
other practices will be required to meet regulatory standards
for land disposal will be a matter of state concern," unquote
Although these statements are indicated as both
-------
52
suggested and preferred guidelines on the part of EPA, it is
important to recognize the substantial influence that EPA
plays upon the formulation of state programs with respect to
environmental management regulation.
For this reason, any suggested guidelines and
preferred methods proposed by EPA as formal guidelines will
severely inhibit any flexibility on the part of the states.
Historically, Federal guidelines of this type have been
treated as minimum standards within states, which develop
more stringent standards to acquire state primacy for
regulatory enforcement.
As a result, any failure on the part of EPA to
recognize alternative methods and technologies with respect
to landfill disposal of solid waste may, as a result, precludej
certain sound, cost-effective, and efficient management
methods.
With respect to Section 241.202-2, Leachate Control-]
Recommended Practices, it is clear that two policy tenants
prevail throughout the proposed guidelines with respect to
landfill disposal. These include: containment and non-degrad-
ation.
The guidelines state that the most protective means
for leachate control involves techniques which achieve comp-
lete containment of the solid waste and leachate by means of
placement of low permeability materials at the bottom and
-------
53
sides of the landfill.
The exception to containment requirements is the
landfill site where natural attenuation and renovation of
leachate results within the unsaturated and saturated zones
which underlie the landfill facility.
The second policy tenant which is largely unmentione|d
is the non-degradation policy with respect to groundwater.
Clearly, throughout the guidelines, the focus is directed
upon complete and total non-degradation of groundwater. Ex-
amples of this non-degradation policy includes statements
that preclude placement of refuse directly in groundwater
or within the zone of seasonal fluctuation of groundwater
levels and placement within environments where natural dis-
charge of landfill leachate to the underlying groundwater
aquifer would result in groundwater contaimination.
These policy tenants constitute severe policy
problems with respect to state-of-the-art technology as
regards to leachate control and leachate management.
Specifically, they preclude the application of groundwater
management and manipulation procedures which have been
clearly documented to adequately control and collect all
leachate draining to and affecting underlying groundwater
flow systems. For example, Chapter 75 of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources Rules and Regulations
concerning solid waste managment, Section 75.24, pargraph 6
-------
54
states that, quote,"Natural systems may be utilized to collect]
leachate from landfills. The methods to utilize the natural
systems may be the manipulation of the groundwater flow
systems," unquote. Any such plan requires a detailed analysis
of the grouiidwater flow systems to include as a minimum,
"Groundwater Table maps, piszometric surface maps, hydraulic
gradients, hydrologic connections, flow directions, flow
regimes analysis, transmissivity, and permeability data."
This design concept allows the utilization of
perimeter interception, underdrains without liners, ground-
water interception and leachate recovery well systems
causing artificial gradients. This approach allows very
limited, but carefully controlled groundwater degradation
to the degree necessary to allow natural conveyance of
leachate to adequate interception and collectioniSystems to
assure complete control and interception of all landfill
leachate.
Subsequent to leachate collection, the leachate
and groundwater combination is treated by conventional
means and disposed of by means of spray irrigation over the
landfill site or a nearby and related spray irrigation field.
Alternately, the treated leachate may be disposed of by
surface discharge in accord with standard NPDES procedureds.
At no point in the proposed guidelines is the
option of controlled degradation of, and groundwater leachate
-------
55
interception indicated a satisfactorv methodoloqv. The onlv
leachate control procedures cited as recommended include:
natural renovation, landfill liner with low permeability
natural soil, landfill liner with artificial material and
multiple liners with natural and/or artificial liners combined
with constant leachate drainage.
Even -the practice of natural attenuation is disc-
ounted under Section 241.202 Leachate Control, where the
statement is made that, quote,"procedures for estimating
attenuative capabilities of underlying soils and groundwater
have not achieved wide acceptance and such estimates may be
possible only with the thorough knowledge of the solid waste
disposed in conjunct-ion with site specific hydrogeological
and climatological conditions," unquote.
This guideline will ultimately preclude the
possibility of natural attentuation sites due to the probable
large degree of documentation that will be required to
support the attenuative capabilities of the underlying
soils and groundwater conditions, a veritable impossibility
without a permitted site on which to acquire site specific
documentation.
It therefore appears that EPA is promoting a
single landfill concept, that being a site with a naturally
or artificially impermeable liner designed to completely
contain and capture leachate. This policy is clearly exclusiv<
-------
56
of proved, in-practice, and current state-or-the-art ground-
water mangement technology, and definitely precludes the use
of the same.
For this reason it is essential that these proposed
guidelines be revised to include the use of natural flow
systems to collect leachate from landfills. The fundamentally
important policy concept must be complete renovation or
collection of landfill leachate followed by appropriate
treatment and disposal.
Complete collection, as opposed to containment,
is an important, philosophical and policy matter that can
substantially affect the economics of landfill site develop-
ment and operation as well as long term site maintenance
beyond closure.
Therefore, it is imperative that the containment
policy be de-emphasized and that assured collection be
emphasized allowing both the use of natural and artificial
liners, as well as groundwater management procedures as
practiced within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania today.
It is my personal opinion that the guidelines
being discussed here today are a significant step toward
a bureaucratic forced march to the economically unfeasible
alternative of complete resource recovery. As a responsible
profession, I object; as a municipal official at the
local level, I object; as a tax-paying small businessman, I
-------
57
object. I appreciate you hearing me. I thank you once again
for the opportunity to speak in a free country and I welcome
your questions.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you very much. Any comments
from the panel? Barry?
MR. STOLL: I understood the comments. The major
difference I see other than emphasis is inclusion of technol-
ogy for groundwater renovation after introduction of leachate
Did I get that correct from you? That is a primary addition
that you would like to see?
MR. WRIGHT: I would like to see some mention made
of the fact that it is possible, without a liner, to collect
leachate by controlling the groundwater flow system and that
once collected it can be treated and in addition that the
placement of a landfill in close proximity to the groundwater
table makes that particular alternative the most easily
controlled and accomplished end product.
And the regulations, as they exist right now,
make that an impossibility as I perceive them to be.
MR. STOLL: Okay.
DR. SKINNER: Okay. I was just glancing through
the leachate control section as you were talking and I guess
I agree that they don't explicitly discuss diversion of
groundwater or collection of contaminated groundwater. I
think that some of the terminology, some of the words we
-------
53
were talking about, leachate management techniques, include
o
control of escape of leachate from a landfill didn't only
T
mean a complete containment of that leachate, and when we
talk, about the two extremes, one of the extremes that we
did talk about was rely upon the natural hydrogeologic system
which incorporates biological, chemical and physical treatment
within the soil itself to abate leachate contamination of
groundwater.
I think we were sort of getting at that through
that terminology. Also, in the options for leachate control
we did talk about everything from complete containment to a
much more , I guess you would say not lenient, but a control
which was based based upon natural hydrogeology of the
site. I don't think we necessarily disagree with everything
you said. Perhaps we weren't as explicit as we should have
been.
MR. WRIGHT: Wall, as far as the attenuative capabil-
ities of the soil materials, and the subsurface flow system
are concerned, a natural renovation site, as I see here, is
going to be impossible to permit because one will never be
able to get enough hard site specific data to document the
feasibility of that concept if there is not some more latitude
provided in the regulations to enable one to get involved in
that type of an operation.
The Township that I represent has a site that is
-------
59
kind of a hybrid site and it is being experimented with at
the present, but it does employ a natural renovation and we
are gaining some information and some knowledge about it. That)
site is going to be illegal by virture of these regulations.
MR. STOLL: I took your comment primarily to mean
not that we hadn't mentioned — we have mentioned virtually
everything that you addressed, but if you read the guidelines
and interpret them as a whole, there is a preference indicate^
toward containment and non-degradation.
MR. WRIGHT: Very strong, very strong, preference
yes.
DR. SKINNER: Are there any other comments from
the panel? Questions? Any comments from the audience or
questions? Please identify yourself.
MR. CYWIN: I am Allan Cywin, EPA. Did I understand
you to say that you are suggesting that leachate actually
be allowed to contaminate an aquifer and that you then capturt|
the waters from the aquifer and treat those waters?
MR.WRIGHT: Yes. That is being done effective and
efficiently and without environmental degradation except in
that certain confined area beneath the site.
This is, a matter of fact, is the way that hydro-
carbon spills are contained from spreading. One confines
and manipulates the flow system so that the contaminant canno|
move off the finitely controlled area.
-------
60
MR. CYWIN: Could you tell us exactly where an
aquifer is being contaminated and then being decontaminated,
and to what standards?
MR. WRIGHT: The decontamination will result when
renovation in the site takes place naturally, by flushing the
contaminants out of the landfill.
MR. CYWIN: But you said you permit the contaminants
8
to contaminate groundwater in aquifers.
MR. WRIGHT: Beneath the landfill site, that is
correct.
MR. CYWIN: That aquifer then could be used someplace
else and your other suggestion was than you can decontaminate
that water, there are technologies?
MR. WRIGHT: No sir. I did not mean to state that
that aquifer was being contaminated and that, that contamin-
ation was being used as pottable water anyplace else. All that
I said is that halo of contamination is confined to a very
specific area. It is captured by groundwater manipulation
and that captured leachate is treated.
DR. SKINNER: Is there a question in the back?
Yes, sir?
MR. KOLMER: My name is Joe Kolmer and I really don't
have a question, just by way of commsnt with respect to
what you are saying. In the state of Pennsylvania, I don't
know what your water right laws are there, but when you get
-------
61
west of the Mississippi River you deal a lot in water rights
and a lot of water rights legislation would prohibit what
you are proposing because you will be artificially changing
the groundwater system and interferring with it in somebody
elses water rights. So that is a big consideration.
MR. WRIGHT: I can understand that in a water rights
situation such as that it could present a policy problem.
MR. KOLMER: It does.
MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
DR. SKINNER: Could you say your name again, please?
MR. KOLMER: Joe Kolmer.
DR. SKINNER: Spell it for the reporter.
MR. KOLMER: K-o-l-m-e-r.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you.
MR. DEGEARE: I would like to ask for a little
more elaboration, if possible. We have given consideration
to this possible approach and I think, to an extent, we did
address that in the guidelines. But one concern we have had
in our discussions in the Agency is, the usual case where
a disposal facility operator does not really have control ove
groundwater diversion in the area of concern. He has no
control over the use of groundwater on the adjacent property.
For example, a water supply company, or small industry, or
even a homeowner could sink a well and change the gtoundwater
flow pattern such that controls at the landfill itself are
-------
62
no longer effective. In fact, if a well field were developed
near the disposal facility, it could divert the groundwater
system entirely such that no control at the disposal facility
could be effected.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I think that you get into the
compatibility and comprehensiveness of long term municipal
land use planning and anyone that would develop a municipal,
a private of public well field in close proximity to any
kind of a landfill, whether it was lined or unlined, you know,
I think there is cause to question that, but not the basic
policy concept of controlling contamination of the landfill
by groundwater manipulation.
And the burden of proving that, that is an effective
system rests with the applicant. His data ought to be
convincing enough to demonstrate that he can,based Upon
various properties of the flow system and any effect that
offsite water users might cause to that system.
MR. DEGEARE: Do you see any way that we could
try to accommodate future changes in land use or groundwater
use? All we are able to talk about in this regulation is
control of the disposal facility and practices at the
facility and suggested methodology.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I don't think that the land use
planning area is necessarily your responsibility. It is
your responsibility, I think, to look at the various types of
-------
63
landfill disposal leachate control practices and see if they
do not represent sound technical, proven, viable, alternatives
and once that is put into the picture, then the planning
community has to reckon with what exists.
MR. HUMPHRIES: How do you anticipate to maintain
that the landfill operator will, say after the facility
closes up, maintain operations to treat the leachate once
he is removing it from the groundwater?
MR. WRIGHT: Well this is a question that I think
the previous speaker touched on and that is, I believe, that
one needs to define how long the operator is going to be
responsible for leachate collection and treatment after the
fill has been completed.
But the monitoring of the groundwater flow system
and the monitoring of ths leachage collection system "will
indicate whether or not that site has been renovated and
whether, you know, continued pumping and management may
be required.
MR. HUMPHRIES: Yes, but somehow a liability is goint
to have to be assured because if the operator decides to
disband and go bankrupt or Jeave the state, how are you going
to get the funds or the resources to manage that collection
of the leachate from the groundwater?
MR. WRIGHT: By reclaimation bounding.That is the
way it is done now and that is a part of getting a permit.
-------
64
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions or comments? The
gentleman in the back?
MR. KOLMER: Yes. Joe Kolmer again. Don't get me
wrong, I think some doors to alternatives should be opened,
Mr. Wright. But, I am just kind of concerned over the altern-
ative, you know, that you are proposing and I wonder do you
have any cost data on something like this? If you think about
it, the term of leachate production from the landfill site
can be quite long depending upon the character of the wastes
that you have got in there.
And when you say like reclamation bonding, you are
going to have to make a guess at how long that term is going
to be so that you can guess how long that pumping system and
that fueling system is going to have to maintain operation.
And looking at the costs associated with pump systems, as well
as being somewhat familiar with that as well as the other
problems that are there, as well as the treatment plant
problems and the maintenance costs, not saying anything about
your capital costs and then looking at the wastes that are
going to be produced by that treatment plant, because unless
you go to something like carbon, activated carbon where
you may be able to go to a regeneration process and thermally
degrade your waste products, you are going to have sludges
develop there that are going to require ultimate disposal.
But looking at all of this I think maybe the one
-------
65
time capital cost of the liner might still be more cost
effective instead of looking at the proposal that they are
working out.
I think alternatives should be there, but I think
all of the pitfalls that are associated with some of the
other alternatives should also be brought out.
MR. WRIGHT: I think that what you are talking
about now is a business judgement that should be made by the
9 ' operator and not necessarily a judgement that should be made
10
I!
12
i:i
l-f
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by the regulatory people if, in fact, they believe that the
alternative represents a prudent and environmentally respon-
sible way to handle the problem.
MR. KOLMER: Well, I agiee with you there.
MR. WRIGHT: Okay.
MR. KOLMER: That is it. I agroe with that.
MR. WRIGHT: There is an additional problem in these
regulations which I didn't touch on that goes along with
the groundwater management alternative and that is that to
some degree we want to collect the leachate, we want to recycle
it back through the landfill and have that thing renovated
as quickly as possible, as opposed to containing it and keeping
the atmospheric agents away from it.
We have uncovered landfills that are old landfills,
in excess of 20 years and you can still read newspapers.
MR. KOLMER: That is it. I agree with what you
-------
66
1
saying, I agree with the alternatives, I agree with your
2
thinking, but I disagree with your judgement. But by the same
3
token I think the pitfalls associated with some of the
4
alternatives should be brought out too.
Now, we can do what you are saying with respect to
leachate collection and recirculation within land sites only.
It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to use the ground-
water system as part of your recycling. I was just wondering
though, my basic question is, do you have any cost data?
MR. WRIGHT: I do not have any cost data. I can
refer you to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources who permits sites that we have alluded to here
today. I would prefer not to give the names of these
operations because they are operations that are being run
by private operators
But, there are sites like that in Pennsylvania
that are functioning properly and they have not been in busi-
ness long enough to have closed and to know how long they
have to treat the leachate, but they are bonded and they are
responsible to it. And it was a business judgement that the
operator had to make at the outset
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions? Over here?
MR. CHILDS: Ken Childs, Environment Canada. Mr.
Wright, you added a dimension in that you refer to the
editorial comment that I didn't quite understand and I am
-------
67
speaking now from the secure objectivity of being on the
other side of the water. There was a point about forced march
to resource recovery. I have been listening to ths comments
here and I read that document. I saw some strong things in
there, but I really didn't see real levers of that nature, I
wonder why you comment.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, the capital costs associated with
liners and would you consider this in view of 257 which
is site criteria that will be coming out in its final form
I think around the first of the year. It is going to be so
difficult and so costly to practice sanitary landfilling that
the cost difference between that and resource recovery will
become less and make resource recovery more feasible econom-
ically.
MR.CHILDS: So this is where I have the problem
really. I have been listening to the dialogue between you and
the gentleman in the back and it seems to me that what you
are advocating could be just as expensive as lining and this
is where I am having the problem.
If there is a forced march in there, then there
is an equally forced march as to what you are suggesting.
Have I not gotten —
MR. WRIGHT: I am sorry but can't follow that.
MR. CHILDS: You are suggesting that you are in to
a collection within a certain area, and recycle. That could
-------
68
be a long term proposition, an extremely long term proposition
I am suggesting that, that might be equally expensive to the
initial capital cost of lining the site and evidentally goes
with it.
I see a forced march with what you suggested and
what is in here, if it is in here. I don't see where yours
is a lessening of requirement.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I think it is giving an additional
alternative that has been proven to be environmentally
10 acceptable.
11 MR. CHILDS: But it doesn't stop a march.
12 MR. WRIGHT: I don't agree with that, sir. We don't
13 believe that the recycling leachate and treating leachate
14 through the landfill is going to be as costly. And what we
15 expect is that perhaps five to 10 years after the closure of
16 the site we may have the site renovated if we are able to
17 flush the contaminants out of the site.
18
19
20
•21
22
23
24
DR. SKINNER: Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright,
for a very interesting and useful statement.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: Mr. King?
MR. KING: My name is James J. King. I am employed
as an Environmental Coordinated for the Florida Power and Light
Company. I am appearing today on behalf of my company, the
Utility Solid Wast Activities Group and the Edison Electric
-------
69
Institute. We expect to file written comments on the proposed
Landfill Disposal Guidelines that are the subject of this
hearing. Therefore I will confine my statements today to a
brief description of our three major concerns:first, our
belief that high volume electric utility wastes should not
be subject to any RCRA regulations or guidelines until compl-
etion of the upcoming special rul making on utility wastes;
second, our belief that the guidelines should emphasize more
strongly that they are non-binding in nature,-and third, our
belief that the siting restrictions recommended in the guide-
lines would be impractical, burdensome, and unnecessary for
electric utility disposal facilities.
Before I discuss these points in greater detail,
let me provide some brief background on USWAG, EEI, and the
basis for our concerns. USWAG is an informal consortium of
electric utilities and the Edison Electric Institute. Currently,
approximately 65 utility operating companies are members. These
companies own and operate a substantial percentage of the
nations electric generating capacity. EEI is the principal
national association of investor-owned electric light and
power companies.
Coal is the principal fuel used for electric
generation in the United States today. The current upsurge
in orders for new coal-fired capacity and the emphasis on
coal in our national energy policy indicate that it will
-------
70
hold that position for at least the remainder of this century.
The wastes from the combustion of coal for electric power
generation will, of course, be regulated under RCRA. They
include very large volumes of fly ash and bottom ash and
increasing amounts of flue gas emission control sludges.
We recognize that RCRA regulations and guidelines
may seriously affect the operations and economics of the
electric utility industry. Those potential effects have led
USWAG and EEI to comment and testify on substantially all of
EPA's proposed RCRA regulations and guidelines.
With respect to the current proposal, we would like
to commend and thank EPA for their flexibility in their
approach to the complex problem of landfill siting, design,
and operation. We believe that EPA should incorporate
similar flexibility into all of its solid waste regulations,
guidelines and criteria. We believe the flexible siting
provisions of the current proposals reflect more faithfully
than earlier EPA proposals the restricted role Congress
intended for the Federal Government in solid waste management.
Similary the guideline proposals on leachate control demon-
strate flexibility and realism in recognizing that elaborate
leachate control systems are often unnecessary.
Nevertheless, as I indicated a moment ago, we
have several concerns with these proposals. The first is
identical to the position we stated in our recent comments on
-------
71
the proposed hazardous waste regulations. As we stated in tho
comments, we believe EPA possesses insufficient information
on the characteristics of utility wastes and the nature and
effects of current utility disposal practices to rationally
regulate those practices. We believe that such information
should be collected in the context of a special utility waste
rule making. Importantly however, and I stress this, that
rule making should not prejudice, prejudge, the appropriate
strategy context for utility waste regulation. That is, the
rule- making should be conducted under neither Subtitle C nor
D of RCRA, but under the general rule making authority of
Section 2002. Pending completion of that special rule making,
utility wastes should not be subject to any requirements
inconsistent with current practices.
Obviously these positions also apply to the current
proposal. Any regulatory action at this time that applies to
utility wastes, even if only advisory, is premature and
improper. Until completion of the special utility waste
rule making, the guidelines should explicitly exempt utility
wastes from their recommended practices. Flexible guidelines
for utility waste disposal should be proposed as part of the
special rule making. They should describe practices and
technologies appropriate to the unique nature of utility
wastes.
My second point concerns the advisory nature of the
-------
72
proposed guidelines. They state that the recommended practices
are not meant to be exclusive or discourage the development
and use of equally effective technologies. We support that
position but believe that it must receive much greater
emphasis.
EPA's primary function in nonhazardous waste manage-
ment is to provide information and guidance to the states
and industry. Thus Section 1008 (a) of the statute calls for
suggested guidelines. They are not meant to be prescriptive
or to describe the only means to achieve sanitary landfill
status under Section 4004 (a). For this reason, sanitary
landfill status must be available to those who use technolog-
ies and practices not listed among the suggested guidelines, o
who use the guidelines recommended practices at a lower level
of performance than the guidelines recommend.
All too often, however, EPA's guidelines and
recommendations become rules and requirements in the hands
of the state agencies and EPA regional offices. That result
is especially troubling where, as here, many of the guidelines
are inapplicable to various types of wastes, including utility
wastes.
For example, decomposition gas control and daily
cover for vector control are quite irrelevant to inorganic
ash and scribber sludge.
We recommend two actions to assure that the guidelin
-------
73
do not become mandatory in the hands of state regulators.
First, they should state explicitly that they are not to be
incorporated into the state solid waste regulations as a
checklist for sanitary landfill status.
Second, each Recommended Practices section
should point out that any equivalent practice which is suitab]
for a particular waste and landfill site is a fully
acceptable substitute.
in addition, these guidelines should indicate
clearly that some of the recommended technologies are applic-
able only to landfills containing certain types of waste.
This would avoid the possibility that state regulators might
misinterpret the guidelines as recommending incorporation
of all of the practices described, even though some may be
totally unsuitable to a particular landfill.
My final point concerns siting restrictions. As I
mentioned earlier, we believe the siting provisions of this
proposal incorporate a needed flexibility— flexibility
sorely lacking in EPA's previously proposed sanitary landfill
classification criteria. Nevertheless, these guidelines stii:
seek to eliminate vast areas from solid waste landfill siting,
Two of the proposed siting restrictions are of particular
concern to utilities: the 100 year floodplain and wetlands,
as EPA defines those terms.
The recommended restriction on solid waste facilitii
-------
74
1
in floodplains is inappropriate for two reasons. First, it
2
will substantially, but unnecessarily, increase transportation
3
of utility wastes. Steam power plants must have ready access
4
to a water supply. For this reason, they are almost always
5
located next to bodies of water. If a power plant disposal
6
facility must be sited beyond the floodplain, transportation
of utility wastes away from'the immediate plant site will
increase substantially. This is costly and wastes energy.
9
Second, many utility disposal facilities consist
of ponds or impoundments created by the damming of small
streams. The recommended floodplain siting restriction would
eliminate this disposal option, since such impoundments
are necessarily in the floodplains of the streams from which
they were constructed.
Allow me to add here that we realize that the prop-
osed guidelines apply only to landfills, not surface impound-
ments. But these guidelines substantially duplicate the
siting restrictions in the Section 4004 (a) Classification
Criteria. Future surface impoundment guidelines are also
likely to conform to the classification criteria and these
landfill guidelines. For that reason we feel compelled to
comment here on the impact of these citing restrictions
on the utility surface impoundments.
We also have substantial objections to EPA's
definition of wetlands and the application of this concept as
-------
75
a restriction on the siting of utility disposal facilities.
Without question, EPA has given little consideration to the
severity of this restriction in many areas of the country.
For example, very large portions of Florida and Louisiana are
likely to qualify as wetlands. The development of necessary
solid waste disposal facilities in those states would be
seriously inhibited by the recommended restrictions. In
addition, the proposed definition fails to restrict wetlands
to naturally occuring areas. Many utility waste disposal
sites, such as surface impoundments, support a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions, and thus, under this proposed definition would
themselves qualify as wetlands. We urge EPA to limit its
definition of wetlands to those that are naturally occuring.
Finally, we urge EPA to explicitly exempt existing
landfills from all of the recommended siting restrictions.
That exemption should be stated in the guidelines themselves,
not just in the preamble.
I appreciate the opportunity to present these
comments and would be happy to respond to any questions you
may have. And our attorney for USWAG happens to be here to,
so if you have any questions direct them to him also.
DR. SKINNER: Fine, thank you. Any questions from
the panel? I have a question, whether there is anything in
the Act itself or in the legislative history that indicates
-------
76
that utility wastes should be separated out from all other
wastes for special rule making and should not be dealt with
under either Subtitle C or Subtitle D of RCRA, or if there
isn't something in the Act, is there something special about
utility wastes that would make them not subject to Subtitle
C or Subtitle D as compared to any other waste material?
MR. KING: Well, our general philosophy has been
that we are not hazardous, right off the top, and the volumes
of fly ash that we are talking about are enormous. Having
to move a site that has been in operation for 15 years and
locate it in a non-sensitive area, for instance, could be
almost prohibitive. Closing a site like that could be
restrictive and transporting two or three miles worth of
box cars on a rail line with fly ash, it becomes so burdensome
to the rate payers thai, this is one of the reasons why we
feel very strong about this one subject.
DR. SKINNER: I can understand that with respect to
your concern about the wetlands and floodplains provisions
themselves as perhaps being inappropriate for certain types
of wastes. But that doesn't suggest to me, I would like to
know why it suggests to you, those wastes should not be
subject to the regulatory scheme of Subtitle B or Subtitle
C, if in fact they meet the —. Well, let's talk about
Subtitle B today, because that is the' subject.
MR'. RING: That would be the state program. Okay, we
-------
would rather see the states regulate, at this point, a non-
hazardous substance as it is spelled out in the Act. Subtitle
C, that is a different ball game with the hazardous waste.
Mike, do you have anything you might want to add to that?
MR. LOWE: My name is Mike Lowe, L-o-w-e. I am one
of the attorneys for the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
And concerning the discussion here about special rule making
for utility wastes or justifications for them, first I would
like to refer you, in detail, to our hazardous wastes comments
which were filed on March 16th. But, I can summarize briefly
here saying that there are a couple of areas that we believe
justify this.
First, in the litigation last winter concerning the
timing of regulations for hazardous waste regulations, EPA
admitted its lack of data, sufficient data, in a number
of areas including utility waste regulation. That was repeated
effectively in the preamble to the proposals of the hazardous
waste as to all of the special waste categories and that is
a major justification and we think a correct one and a
proper one under the Act for deferring full consideration
of these special waste categories.
And all we are saying here is basically what we
said there, that we agree with that deferral until appropriate
studies that EPA is currently initiating are completed with
respect to utility wastes. But that further we think that
-------
78
until the completion of that special waste rule making, there
should not be any prejudging of exactly what regulatory
scheme utility wastes should fall under and therefore it would
seem appropriate to utilize the general rule making authority
given the administrator under Section 2002 (a) (1), rather
than starting the rule making under either Subtitle C or
Subtitle D.
The conclusion of the rule making, obviously, would
have to fall into one of those two regulatory schemes or some
mix of them, depending on the characteristics finally
determined for the wastes.
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions on that, comments,
on any of the points?
MR. STOLL: As far as recommended changes in the
guidelines themselves, you identify a couple of points
primarily the siting issue, and the — the siting issue is
the main thing that you emphasize as far as the guideline.
And while your supposition is that the utility industry shoulc
not be considered at all in these guidelines, does the lack
of suggested changes indicate that you are generally satisifiajd
with the technology, other than those such as daily cover
which you don't feel is necessary for a utility waste?
MR. KING: We are pleased with the flexibility of
these rules at this point. Again, what we are looking for
down the road is that special rule making. But in these
-------
79
regulations, just the three major concerns that I have and,
again, the flexibility issue, I thinX that it speaks for
itself.
MR. STOLL: Will you be able to provide, recognizing
that they are flexible, would you be able to provide any
additional comments in a specific critique of technology
that you would like to see included if utility wastes are goin
to be -- until something of the special rule making occurs,
that they will be included as waste if landfilled, that would
have to look to these guidelines?
MR. LOWE: He will be filing more detailed comments
by the 25th of this month, which will address some more
specific problems in the guidelines themselves.
MR. STOLL: Will it include technology recommendation
MR. LOWE: No it does not this time because, again,
we feel, and this is following on EPA's own proposal in the
hazardous waste regulations, that full regulation of utility
waste sites is appropriately deferred until completion of
ongoing studies that the Agency is initiating.
MR. STOLL: If it were possible to include recommend-
ations as far as technology for large volume generators, we
would appreciate receiving that for consideration in developing
the final guidelines.
MR.LOWE: I think there will probably be such
information provided in the context of the major study of 16
-------
80
sites I believe that is being initiated by the Hazardous
Waste Division. And the utility industry has promised full
cooperation in technological and environmental effect
data that has been collected, or any that might- be available
in that context. So I think that very well might be available
to feed into this particular guideline.
DR. SKINNER: Let me explain this a slightly differer
way. The issue at hand today is not whether a particular type
of waste should be dealt with under Subtitle C, or whether it
should be dealt with under Subtitle D, or whether some
special type of rule .making, regulatory program for dealing
with particular wastes should be established or not. The
issue is, how these guidelines, which are not written under
Subtitle D, are not written under Subtitle C, they are .wnitter
under Section 1008, which describe landfilling practices,
should be modified or changed in a technical way to better
describe those practices.
One or two things were pointed out with respect
to how these guidelines really are inappropriate when they
discuss utility waste. Gas control would be unnecessary when
the waste is not organic, vector control would be unnecessary
when the waste is not putressible. In any of the other
sections of this guideline there is inappropriate technology
as it refers to utility wastes and you could bring that to
our attention. I think that would be very, very, helpful.
-------
81
MR. LOWE: More examples of that sort will be
included in our detailed comments.
DR. SKINNER: Any more questions? A questions from
the audience? A comment from the audience? Thank you, Mr.
King. Is there anyone else who would like to make a
statement? Are there any questions?
MR. NORTON: My name is John Norton. I am here to
represent Montgomery County Ohio, that is the county surround-
ing and including the city of Dayton Ohio. Montgomery County,
over the years, has assumed the responsibility for final
disposition of solid waste for the entire metropolitan comm-
unity of about 700,000 people.
We are currently involved in nearly every aspect of
municipal solid waste disposal. We currently incinerate in
two plants about 1000 tons a day. Due to air pollution
problems we are opening two transfer stations capable of
diverting all 1000 tons a day to distant landfills. We
are pursuing, and have pursued for about five years, resource
recovery. We have spent something on the order of $700,000
worth of county money pursuing that one and we are well into
siting a 300 or 400 acre landfill to serve the community.
And we see that as a necessary adjunct to any solid waste
program.
One of our biggest concerns is that resource
recovery keeps holding out there is the promise that we will
-------
82
eliminate landfills and I think nothing can be farther than
that from the truth.
We think the proposed guidelines are an excellent
job on a very difficult subject. We think it was delightful
and very prudent that the EPA sought fit to establish the
right way to do it as opposed to just saying what not to
do, such as seemed to be the case when I used to be in
Waste Water and Air Pollution.
I would like to address two areas of concern that
we do have. The first is that the requirement not become so
extreme and burdensome that the expense becomes out of line
with regard to the possible environmental returns on the
investment, which did seem to be the case in waste water for
many years. And I guess they are starting to back off a little
on that.
Along this line I believe that it is important to
recognize the regional differences across the nation and you
do seem to have hit those pretty well, which allow the
different methods to be employed from place to place, and not
just to try and describe one standard landfill, Type B, that
everybody is supposed to put in every place in the country.
We do believe that landfill is one responsible way
to deal with the solid waste problem and that it should not
be priced out of the market for purely arbitrary reasons.
My second point deals perhaps more with the criteri
-------
83
than to the guidelines, but I do find it very difficult to
divorce the two elements and I am going to pursue it anyway.
I would like to recommend that some clarification
be requested of Congress on the matter of their intent with
regard to the, quote,"Open Dump Inventory," end quotes and
the prohibition of dumping. It is my understanding that the
law, RCRA, was a compromise of two bills, typically enough,
one which envisioned an inventory of open dumps as a planning
tool and another bill in the other house which sought to
outlaw indiscriminate"open dumping," quotes.
It is further my understanding that RCRA was the
result of a last minute compromise of those two bills which
never did address that basic question of philosophy and
further it is my understanding that to this day the EPA
has not been able to resolve the issue.
I was in Kansas City two weeks ago and I heard the
question asked, is hauler who dumps in a listed open dump
guilty under the law of open dumping? I kind of thought that
the answer to that would be open and shut, but much to
my amazing, much to may amazement the question was answered,
I believe by Mr. Skinner, and the answer was that the EPA
had not yet been able to determine the answer to that questioi
Now, I just — with that position at this point in
time, I don't believe that any listing or enforcement should
be attempted until we can get a clear mandate of just what
-------
84
Congress wants done. Otherwise, many small landfill operators
who cannot afford costly legal defenses will close up simply
because they cannot afford to stay open and fight the case.
And a number of larger firms, financially more able firms,
will continue to fight the thing from court to court and
eventually get the baby thrown out with the bath water.
And our biggest concern is that during any such
legal battles our county, trying to site a new landfill, will
be in great doubt as to just what is required because the
proposed guidelines are bound to be called into question
throughout any such court proceedings.
I recognize, or course, also that you have been
under the gun for sometime now about the delays that exist
already and I know that you are probably addressing these
very questions yourself. The suggestion I might have to offer
is that at the same time that you publish these guidelines
it might be appropriate to publish a short list of the worst
examples of open dumps that do exist at this point in time,
from place to place, along with the disclaimer that the list
is being published as a purely informational tool and that
enforcement will not be forthcoming until a Congressional
mandate or something of the sort could be obtained.
This would help local officials to stop some of
the most offensive operations while minimizing the risk to
the enforcement program itself. It would also encourage the
-------
85
responsible siting of new landfills which are sorely needed
and which would undoubtedly be built with the new guidelines
in mind.
That is basically all we have got to say except
that I really don't envy the position in which you guys find
yourselves in the least. I have got my own problems. I wish
you great luck in resolving yours.
DR. SKINNER: Thank you. In response to your guestio
on open dump versus open dumping. We have made a little bit
of progress in the last two weeks, and I would refer you to
either today or tomorrow's version of the "Federal Register"
which in response to a petition from an industrial organiz-
ation we have published for public comment our tentative
conclusion on the issue of open dump versus open dumping.
This was signed by the Assistant Administrator last week
and should be in today's "Federal Register." And there
will be a 30 day public comment period on that. If anyone
would like to comment on that please do so. And we hope to
finalize that position very shortly after that.
MR. NORTON: Could you possibly summarize really —
DR. SKINNER: I think you should look at the
actual "Federal Register" version.
MR. NORTON: Okay, okay. Thank you very much.
DR. SKINNER: Any comments from the panel for
Mr. Norton? Thank you for your comments. Yes?
-------
86
MS. KESNER: I have a question and a possible comment
on 241.200-2, regarding the siting. You have a number two,
the siting and sensitive, environmentally sensitive areas.
You suggest that a comprehensive analysis of location of
landfills in environmentally sensitive areas should be per-
formed and provided to responsible agencies.
Now my question, is this not redundant in those
states that have NEPA like legislation which require
impact statements? This is essentially what you are asking for
here, I believe, an environmental impact statement.
DR. SKINNER: If that was the case,there is no
reason why that the analysis done for the environmental
impact statement wouldn't be suitable for these purposes
as well.
MS. KESNER: I just get concerned about the fact
of redundancy, you know. There is also fresh water and tidal
wetlands legislation which would require much of the same
thing.
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions? Yes, sir?
MR. BAUGHMAN: My name is Art Buaghman. I represent
Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation and my question is asked
as a private citizen about municipal landfill. This has
bothered me a little bit. My question is directed to these
comments. Is an impervious liner a safe process in an area
particularing water ridge? I can see it in a dry area where
-------
87
there is a net evaporation in the course of the year.
It seems to me when you feel up this ridge bath
tub it would eventually flow full of water, accumulate a
great quantity of effluent or leachate and since a liner is
not infinite, it has definite impermanent, even at 20' ml
one may not know precisely when that moment comes but somewherje
in time there will be a rupture, a break. What happens when
a potentially large volume is suddenly released, what happens?
MR. STOLL: If you are referring to the discussion
of liners and leachate collection in the guidelines, I think
you will note if you refer to that section, that the oppor-
tunity to build a bath tub, as it were, is never encouraged
in any of the four schemes presented. In the two more
stringent or secure landfills, continual removal of leachate
is recommended, and in all of the techniques minimization
of infiltration is recommended.
The only one where there would be no control is
a pervious site where the flow at the bottom would be
essentially the same as the flow into the top.
MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you.
DR. SKINNER: Any other questions or comments? Fine,
thank you very much for coming. I received a testimony from
a Mr. Wallace Koster who could not attend and would like to
include that in the record as well.
(Prepared statement follows.)
-------
88
(Prepared statement of Mr. Ralph Tabor follows.)
(Whereupon, at 2:15 o'clock p.m., the hearing was
concluded.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
89
DOCKET NUMBER:
CASE TITLE:
HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
Proposed Landfill Disposal Guidelines
May 15, 1979
Washington, D.C.
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence herein
are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by ine
at the hearing in the above case before the
Environmental Protection Agency
and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
Date: May 22, 1979
Official Reporter
Acme Reporting Company
1411 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
-------
.AiaticmaO 2o(M Q/Uastes ^Managemen
: :20 CONNgCtiC JT AVENUE N w • SuiTE ?30 • WASHINGTON D C ZOOM
TELEPHONE t?
-------
THE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
OPERATE HUNDREDS OF PRIVATELY OWNED SANITARY LANDFILLS THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES AND AS SUCH THEY HAVE LOOKED FORWARD TO PUBLI-
CATION OF THE GUIDELINES ON WHICH WE ARE COMMENTING TODAY. IN
CONTRAST TO THE CRITERIA FOR SANITARY LANDFILLS OR SANITARY LAND-
FILLING WHICH NECESSARILY MUST BE PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED, THE GUIDE-
LINES PROVIDES EPA WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS ITSELF ON WHAT
IT CONSIDERS TO BE GOOD PRACTICE FOR LOCATING, DESIGNING, UPGRADING,
AND OPERATING LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES. FOR THIS REASON, FACILITY
OPERATORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELATE THEIR OPERATIONS TO THE GUIDELINES
MUCH MORE EASILY THAN TO THE CRITERIA.
THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED TO THE SANITARY LANDFILL
COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION AND HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AT A MEETING OF
THAT COMMITTEE. THE REACTIONS OF OUR MEMBERS SEEM TO INDICATE THAT
THERE ARE VERY FEW STRONG ADVERSE REACTIONS TO THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES.
INDEED, WE HAVE HEARD SOME VERY FAVORABLE REACTIONS. THEREFORE, YOU
SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT OUR PRESENTATION TODAY IS NOT INTENDED TO BE
STRONGLY CRITICAL OF THE GUIDELINES BUT RATHER TO INDICATE THOSE
AREAS WHERE OUR MEMBERS FELT EPA MIGHT MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS.
INTERESTINGLY, MOST OF OUR COMMENTS WILL RELATE TO OMISSIONS FROM
THE GUIDELINES.
FIRST, AS A GENERAL STATEMENT, WE ASSUME THAT THE GUIDELINES WILL
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA AS THEY WILL BE FINALLY PROMULGATED.
TO THE EXTENT THAT PARAGRAPHS OF THE CRITERIA ARE ALTERED, WE ASSUME
THAT CONSISTENT ALTERATIONS WOULD BE MADE IN THE GUIDELINES. ANY
i.'.C-.ioio.'iuCi' o£T',ic.E.» TniLSE. Ti.G DGCuHciHi'S WOULD Be THE CAUSE Of
NEEDLESS CONFUSION.
-------
2.
We CONTINUE TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN OVER PROVISONS OF EITHER THE
CRITERIA OR THE GUIDELINES RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS. OUR CONCERNS ARE TWO-FOLD. FlRST, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT
THERE ARE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THERE IS LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO
LOCATE.A LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY IN AN AREA THAT IS TECHNICALLY
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. EPA RECOGNIZES THIS BY CONCEDING THE
POINT IN PARAGRAPH 241.200-2(A)(1) THAT LANDFILLS MIGHT BE LOCATED
IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES ARE INFEASIBLE. HOWEVER, THE GUIDELINES DO NOT
GO FAR ENOUGH IN PROVIDING DIRECTION TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS AND
STATE REGULATORY PERSONNEL AS TO THE WEIGHTING OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS
IN AN ALTERNATIVE STUDY. IN PARTICULAR, THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT
PARAGRAPH, "INCREASED COST, ALONE, SHOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS
FOR DISMISSING AN ALTERNATIVE IN FAVOR OF DISPOSAL IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA." IS A STATEMENT THAT BEGS FOR CLARIFICATION AND
AMPLIFICATION AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT EPA WOULD PROVIDE THAT IN THE
FINAL VERSION OF THE GUIDELINES.
OUR SECOND CONCERN ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS INVOLVES
NEW VERSUS EXISTING FACILITIES. IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT SOMEONE WOULD
ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A NEW FACILITY IN SUCH AN AREA IF THERE WAS ANY
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE. BlIT WHERE AN EXISTING FACILITY IS OPERATING
IN AN ESA, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ABITRARILY CLOSE IT DOWN EVEN IF
THERE IS NO THREAT TO HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT? VIE CONTEND THAT
IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO OPERATE SUCH A FACILITY TO COMPLETION RATHER
THAN CLOSE IT DOWN IN A PARTIALLY FINISHED CONDITION. OF COURSE
THIS IS SUBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT THE FACILITY IS NOT THREATENING
HEALTH AND THE Ef.'VIRC.'.'MEMT AS SHr.'.'.'E; !.'.' THE CRITERIA, He U.-.3H 7.-;.,T
EPA ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN THE FINAL GUIDELINES.
-------
3.
IN ANOTHER MATTER RELATIVE TO ESA'S, WE NOTE THAT PARAGRAPH
241,200-2(A)(3) REFERS TO THE MATTER OF APPROVALS, WE SUGGEST
THAT THIS SECTION BE MADE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO THE ACTUAL PERMITS
THAT ARE REQUIRED AND REFERENCE THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH THOSE
PERMITS MAY BE OBTAINED.
SEVERAL OF OUR MEMBERS COMMENTED THAT EPA MIGHT HAVE USED THE
PREPARATION OF GUIDELINES AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CRITICALLY INVESTIGATE
SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDFILL DESIGN AND OPERATION THAT ARE
ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUESTION. FOR EXAMPLE, PARAGRAPH 24l.202-2(A)
STATES THAT THE BOTTOM OF A LANDFILL DISPOSAL FACILITY SHOULD BE
1.5 METERS OR MORE ABOVE THE SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE.
THERE ARE LARGE AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEREIN THE GROUND-
WATER TABLE IS MUCH CLOSER TO THE SURFACE THAN 1.5 METERS AND THERE
ARE LANDFILLS OPERATING IN THOSE SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY THAT, TO
THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, DO NOT POLLUTE THE GROUNDWATER, THE
PREMISE THAT LEACHATE FROM LANDFILLS WILL NECESSARILY CONTAMINATE
AN AQUIFER IF THERE IS NOT THE TRADITIONAL FIVt FEET OF UNSATURATED
SOIL BELOW THE FILL HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED AND IN FACT WE BELIEVE
IT TO BE FALSE.. GlVEN A CHOICE, ONE MIGHT PREFER A SITE WITH AMPLE
UNSATURATED ZONE BUT WHERE THE CHOICE IS NOT AVAILABLE, ALTERNATIVE
DESIGN AND OPERATING PRACTICES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE OPERATOR. WE
WOULD SUGGEST THAT EPA RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS IS
PROVIDED FOR IN THE SYSTEM OF NOTES IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTES MANAGE-
MENT REGULATIONS PROPOSED UNDER SUBTITLE C OF RCRA.
ANOTHER ITEM OF LANDFILL FOLKLORE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED IN
OF DAILY SOIL COVER CALLED FOR IN SECTION 41.205-2(fi)(1). WHY SIX
-------
INCHES? WHY NOT FOUR INCHES OR EIGHT INCHES? IT IS TRUE THAT SIX
INCHES HAS BECOME A WIDELY ACCEPTED NUMBER BUT IN FACT ITS ORIGINAL
SOURCE OR RATIONALE ARE OBSCURE. FEW PEOPLE SERIOUSLY DEBATE THE
DESIRABILITY OF DAILY COVER BUT AT THE SAME PRACTICALITY INDICATES
THAT THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN IT IS ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVIDE/
FOR EXAMPLE, IN EXTREME WINTER CONDITIONS OR DURING A PERIOD OF
HEAVY RAIN. LANDFILL OPERATORS COMPLAIN BITTERLY WHEN INSPECTORS
MEASURE THE DEPTH OF DAILY COVER WITH A RULER AND THEN CITE THE
OPERATOR FOR A VIOLATION BECAUSE THE COVER DEPTH IS AN INCH OR TWO
SHORT OF THE SIX INCH OBJECTIVE, THE GUIDELINES PROVIDED EPA WITH
AN OPPORTUNITY TO INJECT A NOTE OF PRACTICALITY INTO LANDFILL RE-
GULATION BUT THE AGENCY HAS NOT DONE so. ME SUGGEST THAT THE GUIDE-
LINES BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE SOME DISCUSSION OF THE PRACTICALITIES
OF THE DAILY COVER REQUIREMENT.
TURNING NOW TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON WHICH
COMMENTS WERE REQUESTED ALSO, LET US SAY THAT THIS IS A USEFUL
DOCUMENT WHICH PROVIDES A GOOD TUTORIAL BACKGRuUND ON THE LOCATION,
DESIGN, UPGRADING AND OPERATION OF LANDFILLS. OUR COMMENTS PERTAIN
MAINLY TO THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN SECTION 5.
FjRST, WITH REGARD TO THE BASELINE DISPOSAL COST AS INDICATED ON
FIGURE 5-1, THE RELATION BETWEEN DISPOSAL COST AND LANDFILL OPERATING
CAPACITY SEEMS TO AGREE GENERALLY WITH PRESENT COST LEVELS. HOWEVER,
THE USE OF A SINGLE CURVE IS MISLEADING. IT MAY WELL BE ADEQUATE
FOR DETERMINATION OF THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF COMPLIANCE
WITH THE GUIDELINES. A PERSON UNFAMILIAR WITH LANDFILL COSTS
Gc.,,c,-.ALL'i MAY SE ."JSLSAiJ ii'ITC Trii.'
-------
5.
OF COSTS AND EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO INDICATE SUCH A
RANGE FOR ERA'S PURPOSES, WE FEEL THAT THE VALUE OF THE DRAFT EIS
WOULD ENHANCED IF IT COULD BE INDICATED THAT THERE IS A RANGE OF
COSTS AT EACH CAPACITY LEVEL. THIS SAME COMMENT APPLIES TO THE
SCENARIOS FOR UPGRADING LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES, THERE TOO THE
PRESENTATION OF UPGRADING COSTS AS A SINGLE NUMBER RATHER THAN A
RANGE DOES NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY.
ONE MIS-IMPRESSION THAT CAN BE ARRIVED AT BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO
PRESENT A RANGE OF COSTS IS THAT RESOURCE RECOVERY IS NOT LIKELY
TO BE A FEASIBLE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE. No RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
THAT WE ARE AWARE OF OPERATE FOR COSTS LESS THAN INDICATED FOR AN
UPGRADED LANDFILL. THIS IS NOT HOWEVER UNIVERSALLY THE CASE. THERE
ARE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE RESOURCE RECOVERY IS ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE COMPARED WITH ALTERNATIVE LANDFILLS AND WHILE WE DO NOT
SUGGEST THAT EPA ENTER INTO A DISCUSSION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ECONOMICS
IN THE DRAFT EIS FOR THE LANDFILL DISPOSAL GUIDELINES, WE FEEL THAT
THE AGENCY COULD INADVERTENTLY DO A DISSERVICE TO RESOURCE RECOVERY
IMPLEMENTATION BY NOT INDICATING A REALISTIC RANGE FOR LANDFILL
DISPOSAL COSTS.
WE THINK THAT EPA MIGHT HAVE PRESENTED SOME TYPICAL COSTS FOR LANDFILLS
LARGER THAN 300 TONS PER DAY. IT IS TRUE THAT THE AVAILABLE SURVEYS
OF LANDFILLS DO NOT INDICATE THAT MANY FACILITIES ARE OPERATED AT
CAPACITIES OF 1,000 TONS PER DAY OR GREATER, BUT NEVERTHELESS AS THE
NUMBER OF LANDFILLS SHRINKS, THE SIZE IS BECOMING GREATER AND WE
BELIEVE THAT A SCENARIO FOR A SITE OPERATING IN EXCESS OF 1,000 TONS
PER DAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.
-------
6,
OUR MOST SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS HOWEVER, IS
THE FAILURE OF EPA TO CONSIDER THE ECONOMICS OF AN ENTIRELY NEW
LANDFILL. THE ENTIRE ANALYSIS AS PRESENTED IS BASED ON UPGRADING
OF AN EXISTING FACILITY. IF HOWEVER, THE INVENTORY OF LAND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES AND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST OPEN DUMPING RESULTS IN
CLOSURE OF A NUMBER OF EXISTING FACILITIES, NEW LANDFILL SITES WILL
HAVE TO BE FOUND. EVEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS, THERE WOULD
BE THE NEED FOR LOCATION OF NEW FACILITIES, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT
THE TOTAL COST OF OPENING UP AN ENTIRELY NEW LANDFILL MIGHT BE
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE COST FOR UPGRADING AN EXISTING
FACILITY. IN MOST AREAS, A NEW FACILITY WILL COST FAR MORE THAN THE
ONE IT REPLACES BECAUSE OF THE GREATLY INCREASED DIFFICULTY IN
OBTAINING NEW FACILITIES. WE BELIEVE EPA SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THIS
MATTER WHEN PREPARING THE DRAFT EIS.
WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT TODAY AND WE WILL TRY
TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE OF OUR INDUSTRY.
-------
May 10, 1979
I wish to make a few comments relative to the
interpretation of Section JOOk of the Act which contains
the standards for owners and operators of disposal sites.
It is especially our intention to address the area
involving the liability of sites after completion.
It seems at this time that the matter of site
classification is not fully determined, or at best a
gray area whereby municipal solid waste disposal sites
may be classified as hazardous waste sites. As municipal
sites have the capacity of absorbing limited amounts of
liquid waste and in many cases, these sites are used for
the disposal of nonhazardous or nonto.xic liquid waste
with special permits, under the present interpretation
these sites may be classified as hazardous waste sites.
If so classified, these sites also would be liable for
either perpetual care or extended periods of liability
under the law. -^ e/0.$/-e*4t. /'/!/ /? *ff
-------
Page Two
From our experience, we have been involved with
many sites in the Chicago area vhich have been reclaimed
W
by means of land disposal and which are naf being put to
attractive and useful purposes. Many of these sites if
left with the stigma or liability of being labeled sites
necessary for long-term perpetual care or owner respon-
sibility and liability would never have been developed
and returned as active revenue and tax generating
properties.
Some areas that have been reclaimed by landfill
procedures in the Chicago area are:
Maine South High School in Park Ridge,
Illinois, where a seven million dollar
facility exists.
Winston Tower Development which consists
of sixteen story buildings housing at
least one thousand apartments and condo-
miniums built on a landfill site.
-------
Page Three
Lane Technical High School in Chicago,
also a landfill site.
The Old Orchard Development consisting of
approximately four hundred condominiums in
the one hundred thousand dollar price range,
a high-rise home for the aged, and a municipal
golf course.
Also in the Chicago area, many of the race
track properties such as Sportsmans Park
and Hawthorne Race Track are on old disposal
sites as are industrial areas in Rosemont,
and the inituu*i> »ul areas along the north
branch of the Chicago River from Howard Avenue
north to Diversey Avenue south, many of which are
industrial plants and housing projects.
A recent development is the Chicago Brickyard,
a shopping development consisting of approx-
imately one hundred stores.
-------
Page Four
An area in Glenview is being developed as
combination industrial, residential and
recreational area.
Needless to say, some of the finest property
developments in the Chicago area are on former landfill
sites. To hold these sites in abeyance for observation,
monitoring, and liability vould certainly have prevented
the development of many of these properties.
On behalf of Land and Lakes Company, it is
cordially requested that the Agency and the legislatures
be aware that not all fill sites are Love Canals or
Kin-Buc Landfill sites. Such areas as Kin-Buc and Love
Canal should be set aside and perpetually maintained,.
and the owners and operators should be liable for the
safety of the public. However, in so doing, the Agency
should not take a "shot gun" approach and affect all
other sites which are not, or in all probability will
not do harm to the environment. A modified monitoring
-------
Page Five
and care program should be substituted for these sites
so that the reclamation can take its course, and the
areas can be developed to the benefit of the communities
and the public.
Submitted By:
fJames J. Oowhey, President
' LAND AND'LAKES COMPANY
123 N. Northwest Highway
Park Ridge, Illinois 60068
31 2 • S'i. r~-
eml
-------
COMMENTS OF RICHARD E. WRIGHT
CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST
TO THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ON SECTION 241.202-2—LEACHATE CONTROL—RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
EPA PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
FEDERAL REGISTER., VOLUME j*t. No. 59
MONDAY.. MARCH 26, 1979
MY NAME is RICHARD E. WRIGHT. I AM PRESIDENT OF R. E. WRIGHT
ASSOCIATES/ INC., A FIRM SPECIALIZING IN ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY,
GROUNDWATER GEOLOGY, ENGINEERING GEOLOGY, AND MINING GEOLOGY.
MY FIRM IS LOCATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, AND WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED
IN PENNSYLVANIA'S SANITARY LANDFILL PROGRAM AS CONSULTANTS TO
THE INDUSTRY BY VIRTUE OF OUR PERSONNEL SINCE 1968.
I AM PAST PRESIDENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SECTION OF THE ASSOCI-
ATION OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS, WHICH is A
STATEWIDE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION COMPOSED OF PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS.WHOSE PURPOSE IS:
1. TO STRENGTHEN THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES AS A PROFESSION.
2, TQ.ESTABLISH PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR, AND TO
EVALUATE._CQNT_INUOUSLY THE CONDUCT OF, GEOLOGICAL
SeiEN-T-ISTS-r-
-------
- 2 -
3. TO ENHANCE AND TO PRESERVE THE STANDING OF THE GEOLOGICAL
SCIENCES AS A PROFESSION,
4, TO ESTABLISH ETHICAL STANDARDS THAT INSURE THE PROTECTIOC
OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH/ SAFETY, AND WELFARE AND THE
PROFESSION FROM NON-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES WITHIN THE
PROFESSION OF THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES.
5, TO MONITOR, AT ALL LEVELS, GOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER
ACTIVITY AFFECTING THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES, AND TO
COMMUNICATE WITH THE PUBLIC AND OTHERS CONCERNING THE
PROFESSION OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES.
6, TO TAKE ALL REASONABLE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO STRENGTHEN
THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES AS A PROFESSION AND TO FURTHER
THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE ASSOCIATION,
IN ADDITION, I AM VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OP SUPERVISORS OF
THE TOWNSHIP OF DERRY IN DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, A
SECOND-CLASS TOWNSHIP GOVERNED BY FIVE SUPERVISORS, WHICH
ALSO OPERATES A SANITARY LANDFILL PERMITTED BY THE COMMON-
WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES,
THE COMMENTS PRESENTED BY ME TODAY ARE PRESENTED AS A CONCERNED
PROFESSIONAL, AS A CONCERNED MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL, AND AS A
CONCERNED SMALL BUSINESSMAN,
-------
- 3 -
AS STATED IN THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOLUME 44, No. 59, MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1979, "PROPOSED GUIDELINES,
LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY," THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN FORMULATED BY EPA
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE STATES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGE-
MENT PLANNING. THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES IS "TO
SUGGEST PREFERRED METHODS FOR THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF THOSE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES WHICH EMPLOY LANDFILLING TECH-
NIQUES, THE DECISION AS TO WHAT MIX OF THESE AND OTHER PRAC-
TICES WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR LAND
DISPOSAL WILL BE A MATTER OF STATE CONCERN," ALTHOUGH THESE
STATEMENTS ARE INDICATED AS BOTH SUGGESTED AND PREFERRED GUIDE-
LINES ON THE PART OF EPA, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE
SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE THAT EPA PLAYS UPON THE FORMULATION OF
STATE PROGRAMS WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND
REGULATION. FOR THIS REASON, ANY SUGGESTED GUIDELINES AND
PREFERRED METHODS PROPOSED BY EPA AS FORMAL GUIDELINES WILL
SEVERELY INHIBIT ANY FLEXIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE STATES,
HISTORICALLY, FEDERAL GUIDELINES OF THIS TYPE HAVE BEEN
TREATED AS MINIMUM STANDARDS WITHIN STATES, WHICH DEVELOP
MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS TO ACQUIRE STATE PRIMACY FOR REGULATORY
ENFORCEMENT. AS A RESULT, ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF EPA TO
RECOGNIZE ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES WITH RESPECT TO
LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE MAY, AS A RESULT, PRECLUDE
CERTAIN SOUND, COST-EFFECTIVE, AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT
METHODS.
-------
WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 241.202-2, LEACHATE CONTROL—RECOMMENDED
PRACTICES, IT is CLEAR THAT TWO POLICY TENANTS PREVAIL THROUGH-
OUT THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO LANDFILL DISPOSAL.
THESE INCLUDE:
1, CONTAINMENT, AND
2. NON-DEGRADATION,
THE GUIDELINES STATE THAT THE MOST PROTECTIVE MEANS FOR LEACHATE
CONTROL INVOLVES TECHNIQUES WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLETE CONTAINMENT
OF THE SOLID WASTE AND LEACHATE BY MEANS OF PLACEMENT OF LOW
PERMEABILITY (IMPERMEABLE) MATERIALS AT THE BOTTOM AND SIDES
OF A LANDFILL. THE EXCEPTION TO CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENTS IS
THE LANDFILL SITE WHERE NATURAL ATTENUATION AND RENOVATION OF
LEACHATE RESULTS WITHIN THE UNSATURATED AND SATURATED ZONES
WHICH UNDERLIE THE LANDFILL FACILITY.
THE SECOND POLICY TENANT WHICH IS LARGELY UNMENTIONED IS THE
NON-DEGRADATION POLICY WITH RESPECT TO GROUNDWATER. CLEARLY,
THROUGHOUT THE GUIDELINES, THE FOCUS IS DIRECTED UPON COMPLETE
AND TOTAL NON-DEGRADATION OF GROUNDWATER. EXAMPLES OF THIS
NON-DEGRADATION POLICY INCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT PRECLUDE PLACE-
MENT OF REFUSE DIRECTLY IN GROUNDWATER OR WITHIN THE ZONE OF
SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND PLACEMENT WITHIN
ENVIRONMENTS WHERE A NATURAL DISCHARGE OF LANDFILL LEACHATE TO
THE UNDERLYING GROUNDWATER AQUIFER WOULD RESULT IN GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION.
-------
- 5 -
THESE POLICY TENANTS CONSTITUTE SEVERE POLICY PROBLEMS WITH
RESPECT TO STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY AS REGARDS LEACHATE
CONTROL AND LEACHATE MANAGEMENT, SPECIFICALLY, THEY PRECLUDE
THE APPLICATION OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND MANIPULATION
PROCEDURES WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY DOCUMENTED TO ADEQUATELY
CONTROL AND COLLECT ALL LEACHATE DRAINING TO AND AFFECTING
UNDERLYING GROUNDWATER FLOW SYSTEMS. FOR EXAMPLE, CHAPTER 75
OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RULES
AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, SECTION 75.2*»,
PARAGRAPH 6 STATES THAT "NATURAL SYSTEMS MAY BE UTILIZED TO
COLLECT LEACHATE FROM LANDFILLS. THE METHODS TO UTILIZE THE
NATURAL SYSTEMS MAY BE THE MANIPULATION OF THE GROUNDWATER FLOW
SYSTEMS." ANY SUCH PLAN REQUIRES A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE
GROUNDWATER FLOW SYSTEMS TO INCLUDE AS A MINIMUM "GROUNDWATER
TABLE MAPS, PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE MAPS, HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS,
HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIONS, FLOW DIRECTIONS, FLOW REGIMES ANALYSIS,
TRANSMISSIVITY, AND PERMEABILITY DATA." THIS DESIGN CONCEPT
ALLOWS THE UTILIZATION OF PERIMETER INTERCEPTION, UNDERDRAINS
WITHOUT LINERS, GROUNDWATER INTERCEPTlON^AND LEACHATE RECOVERY
WELL SYSTEMS CAUSING ARTIFICIAL GRADIENTS. THIS APPROACH
ALLOWS VERY LIMITED BUT CAREFULLY CONTROLLED GROUNDWATER
DEGRADATION TO THE DEGREE NECESSARY TO ALLOW NATURAL CONVEYANCE
OF LEACHATE TO ADEQUATE INTERCEPTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS TO
ASSURE COMPLETE CONTROL AND INTERCEPTION OF ALL LANDFILL LEACHATE.
SUBSEQUENT TO LEACHATE COLLECTION, THE LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER
COMBINATION IS TREATED BY CONVENTIONAL MEANS AND DISPOSED OF
-------
- 6 -
BY MEANS OF SPRAY IRRIGATION OVER THE LANDFILL SITE OR A NEARBY
UNRELATED SPRAY IRRIGATION FIELD. ALTERNATELY, THE TREATED
LEACHATE MAY BE DISPOSED BY SURFACE DISCHARGE IN ACCORD WITH
STANDARD NPDES PROCEDURES.
AT NO POINT IN THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES IS THE OPTION OF
CONTROLLED DEGRADATION OF/ AND GROUNDWATER-LEACHATE INTERCEPTION
INDICATED AS SATISFACTORY METHODOLOGY. THE ONLY LEACHATE CONTROL
PROCEDURES CITED AS RECOMMENDED INCLUDE: NATURAL RENOVATION,
LANDFILL LINER WITH LOW PERMEABILITY NATURAL SOIL, LANDFILL
LINER WITH ARTIFICIAL MATERIAL, AND MULTIPLE LINERS WITH
NATURAL AND/OR ARTIFICIAL LINERS COMBINED WITH CONSTANT LEACHATE
DRAINAGE. EVEN THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL ATTENUATION IS DIS-
COUNTED UNDER SECTION 241.202—LEACHATE CONTROL, WHERE THE
STATEMENT IS MADE THAT "PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE ATTENU-
ATIVE CAPABILITIES OF UNDERLYING SOILS AND GROUNDWATER HAVE NOT
ACHIEVED WIDE ACCEPTANCE, AND SUCH ESTIMATES MAY BE POSSIBLE
ONLY WITH A THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH SITE SPECIFIC HYDROGEOLOG1CAL AND CLIMATOLOGICAL
CONDITIONS." THIS GUIDELINE WILL ULTIMATELY PRECLUDE THE
POSSIBILITY OF NATURAL ATTENUATION SITES, DUE TO THE PROBABLE
LARGE DEGREE OF DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT
THE ATTENUATIVE CAPABILITIES OF THE UNDERLYING SOILS AND GROUND-
WATER CONDITIONS, A VERITABLE IMPOSSIBILITY WITHOUT A PERMITTED
SITE ON WHICH TO ACQUIRE SITE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTATION.
-------
- 7 -
IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT EPA IS PROMOTING A SINGLE LANDFILL
CONCEPT, THAT BEING A SITE WITH A NATURALLY OR ARTIFICIALLY
IMPERMEABLE LINER DESIGNED TO COMPLETELY CONTAIN AND CAPTURE
LEACHATE.CQ&f**tttt&&-; THIS POLICY IS CLEARLY EXCLUSIVE OF
PROVED, IN-PRACTICED AND CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-ART GROUNDWATER
MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY AND DEFINITELY PRECLUDES THE USE OF THE
SAME, FOR THIS REASON, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THESE PROPOSED
GUIDELINES BE REVISED TO INCLUDE THE USE OF NATURAL FLOW SYSTEMS
TO COLLECT LEACHATE FROM LANDFILLS. THE FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT
POLICY CONCEPT MUST BE COMPLETE RENOVATION OR COLLECTION OF
LANDFILL LEACHATE FOLLOWED BY APPROPRIATE TREATMENT AND DIS-
POSAL. COMPLETE COLLECTION AS OPPOSED TO CONTAINMENT is AN
IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLICY MATTER THAT CAN SUBSTANTIALLY
AFFECT THE ECONOMICS OF LANDFILL SITE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION,
AS WELL AS LONG TERM SITE MAINTENANCE BEYOND CLOSURE. THEREFORE,
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE CONTAINMENT POLICY BE DE-EMPHASIZED
AND THAT ASSURED COLLECTION BE EMPHASIZED, ALLOWING BOTH THE
USE OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL LINERS AS WELL AS GROUNDWATER
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES AS PRACTICED WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA TODAY.
IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT THE GUIDELINES BEING DISCUSSED
HERE TODAY ARE A SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARD A BUREAUCRATIC FORCED
MARCH TO THE ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE OF COMPLETE
RESOURCE RECOVERY.
-------
- 8 -
AS A RESPONSIBLE PROFESSIONAL, I OBJECT; AS A MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, I OBJECTJ AS A TAX-PAYING SMALL BUSINESSMAN,
I OBJECT.
-------
Statement of James J. King
on behalf of
The Florida Power & Light Company
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
and
The Edison Electric Institute
Public Bearing on Proposed Guidelines for
the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste
under Section 1008(a)(1) of
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
O.S. Environmental Protection Agency
May IS, 1979
Washington, D. C.
My name is James J. King. I am employed as Environ-
mental Coordinator for the Florida Power and Light Company. I
am appearing today on behalf of my company, the Utility Solid
Waste Activities Group ("USWAG"), and the Edison Electric Insti-
tute.
We expect to file written comments on the proposed
Landfill Disposal Guidelines that are the subject of this hear-
ing. Therefore I will confine my statement today to a brief
description of ouc three major concerns: first, our belief that
high volume electric utility wastes should not be subject to
any RCRA regulations or guidelines until completion of the up-
coming special rulemaking on utility wastes; second, our belief
that the guidelines should emphasize more strongly that they are
non-binding in nature; and third, our belief that the siting
restrictions recommended in the guidelines would be impractical,
burdensome and unnecessary for electric utility disposal facili-
ties.
-------
- 2 -
Before I discuss these points in greater detail, let
me provide some brief background on USWAG, EEI, and the basis
for our concerns. OSWAG is an informal consortium of electric
utilities and the Edison Electric Institute. Currently, approx-
imately 65 utility operating companies are members. These com-
panies own and operate a substantial percentage of the Nation's
electric generating capacity. EEI is the principal national
association of investor-owned electric light and power companies.
Coal is the principal fuel used for electric generation
in the United States today. The current upsurge in orders for
new coal-fired capacity and the emphasis on coal in our national
energy policy indicate that it will hold that position at least
for the remainder of the century.
The wastes from the combustion of coal for electric
power generation will, of course, be regulated under RCRA.
They include very large volumes of fly ash and bottom ash and
increasing amounts of flue gas emission control sludges. We
recognize that RCRA regulations and guidelines may seriously
affect the operations and economics of the electric utility in-
dustry. Those potential effects have led USWAG and EEI to com-
ment and testify on substantially all of EPA's proposed RCRA
regulations and guidelines.
With respect to the current proposal, we would like to
commend and thank EPA for the flexibility of their approach to
the complex problems of landfill siting, desian, and operation.
-------
- 3 -
We believe that EPA should incorporate similar flexibility
into all of its solid waste regulations, guidelines, and
criteria. We believe the flexible siting provisions of the
current proposals reflect more faithfully than earlier EPA
proposals the restricted role Congress intended for the Federal
Government in solid waste management. Similarly, the guideline
proposals on leachate control demonstrate flexibility and
realism in recognizing that elaborate leachate control
systems are often unnecessary.
Nevertheless, as I indicated a moment ago, we have
several concerns with these proposals. The first is identical
to the position we stated in our recent comments on the orooosed
!/
Hazardous Waste Regulations. As we stated in those comments,
we believe EPA possesses insufficient information on the charac-
teristics of utility wastes and the nature and effects of current
utility disposal practices to rationally regulate those practices.
I/ In particular, as we have commented before, the proposed
"sanitary landfill" Classification Criteria under Section
4004(a) (43 Fed. Reg. 4942, February 6, 1978) should be much
less rigid, especially in their siting provisions. See EEl
Comments on Proposed Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities, June 12, 1978, pages 2-10; USWAG
Comments on Proposed Guidelines for Development and Imole-
mentation of State Solid Waste Management Plans, Docket 4002(b),
November 27, 1978, pages 4-7; OSWAG and atility Water Act
Group ("OWAG") Comments on Proposed Statement of Procedures
Regarding Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection, April
5, 1979, pages 2-11.
2/ 43 Fed. Reg. 58946 (December 18, 1978). See OSWAG's Comments
on proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations, March
16, 1979, pages 127-75.
-------
- 4 -
He believe that such information should be collected in the
context of a special utility waste rulemaking. Importantly,
however — and I stress this — that ruleraakinq should not pre-
judge the appropriate statutory context for utility waste regu-
lation. That is, the rulemaking should be conducted under
neither Subtitle C nor D of RCRA, but under the general rule-
making authority of Section 2002. Pending completion of that
special rulemaking, utility wastes should not be subject to any
requirements inconsistent with current practices.
Obviously, these positions also apply to the current pro-
posal. Any regulatory action at this time that applies to utility
wastes, even if only advisory, is premature and improper. Until
completion of the special utility waste rulemaking, the guidelines
should explicitly exempt utility wastes from their "recommended
practices." Flexible guidelines for utility waste disoosal should
be proposed as part of the special rulemaking. They should describe
practices and technologies appropriate to the unique nature of util-
ity wastes.
My second point concerns the advisory nature of the proposed
guidelines. They state that their recommended practices "are not
meant to be exclusive or to discourage the develooment and use
V
of equally effective technologies." We support that position,
but believe that it must receive much greater emphasis.
3/ Proposed 5 241.100(b).
-------
- 5 -
EPA's primary function in nonhazardous waste manage-
ment is to provide information and guidance to the States and
industry. Thus Section 1008(a) of the statute calls for "sug-
gested guidelines." They are not meant to be prescriptive, or
to describe the only means to achieve "sanitary landfill" status
under Section 4004(a). For this reason, "sanitary landfill-
status must be available to those who use technologies and prac-
tices not listed among the "suggested guidelines," or who use
the Guidelines' "recommended practices" at a lower level of
i/
performance than the guidelines recommend.
All too often, however, EPA's "guidelines" and "recom-
mendations" become rules and requirements in the hands of State
agencies and EPA Regional Offices. That result is especially
troubling where, as here, many of the guidelines are inapplicable
to various types of wastes, including utility wastes. For exam-
ple, decomposition gas control and daily cover for vector control
are quite irrelevant to inorganic ash and scrubber sludge.
We recommend two actions to assure that the guidelines
do not become mandatory in the hands of State regulators. First,
they should state explicitly that they ace not to be incorporated
into State solid waste regulations as a checklist for "sanitary
The language of the two pertinent statutory provisions demon-
strates this point. The substantive standard in Section 4004(a)
is "no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or
the environment." That standard is less stringent than the
Section 1008(a)(l) standard of "protection of public health
and the environment."
-------
- 6 -
landfill status. Second, each "Recommended Practices" section
should point out that any equivalent practice which is suitable
for a particular waste and landfill site is a fully acceptable
substitute.
In addition, the guidelines should indicate clearly
that some of the recommended technologies are applicable only
to landfills containing certain types of waste. This would
avoid the possibility that State regulators might misinterpret
the guidelines as recommending incorporation of all of the prac-
tices described, even though some may be totally unsuitable to a
particular landfill.
My final point concerns siting restrictions. As I men-
tioned earlier, we believe the siting provisions of this proposal
incorporate a needed flexibility — flexibility sorely lacking in
EPA's previously proposed "sanitary landfill" Classification Cri-
teria. Nevertheless, these guidelines still seek to eliminate
vast areas from solid waste landfill siting. Two of the proposed
siting restrictions are of particular concern to utilities: the
100-year floodplain and "wetlands", as EPA defines those terms.
The recommended restriction on solid waste facilities
in Eloodplains is inappropriate for two reasons. First, it will
substantially, but unnecessarily, increase transportation of
utility wastes. Steam power plants must have ready access to a
water supply. For this reason, they are almost always located
next to bodies of water. If power plant disposal facilities
-------
- 7 -
must be sited beyond the floodplain, transportation of utility
wastes away from the immediate plant site will increase substan-
tially. This is costly and wastes energy."
Second, many utility disposal facilities consist
of ponds or impoundments created by the damming of small streams.
The recommended floodplain siting restriction would eliminate
this disposal option, since such impoundments are necessarily in
the floodplains of the streams from which they are constructed.
Allow me to add here that we realize that the proposed
guidelines apply only to landfills, not surface impoundments.
But these guidelines substantially duplicate the siting restric-
tions in the Section 4004(a) Classification Criteria. Future
surface impoundment guidelines ace also likely to conform to the
Classification Criteria and these landfill guidelines. For that
reason we feel compelled to comment here on the impact of these
siting restrictions on utility surface impoundments.
We also have substantial objections to SPA's definition
of "wetlands" and the application of this concept as a restric-
tion on the siting of utility disposal facilities. Without
question, EPA has given little consideration to the severity of
A four mile long conveyor system can be expected to have a
capital cost of S2.5 million plus an annual operating cost
of $250,000. A rail system for transporting utility wastes
would have a capital cost of 5300,000 per mile plus operating
expenses of approximately $0.60 per ton per mile. See
OSWAG comments on Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and
Regulations, March 16, 1979, pages 204-08 and Appendix 3.
-------
- 8 -
of this restriction in many areas of the country. For example,
very large portions of Florida and Louisiana are likely to
qualify as wetlands. The development of necessary solid waste
disposal facilities in those states would be seriously inhibited
by the recommended restriction. In addition, the proposed defi-
nition fails to restrict "wetlands" to naturally occurring areas.
Many utility waste disposal sites, such as surface impoundments,
support "a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life
in saturated soil conditions," and thus, under this proposed de-
finition would themselves qualify as "wetlands." We urge EPA to
limit its definition of "wetlands" to those that are "naturally
occurring."
Finally, we urge EPA to explicitly exempt existing
landfills from all of the recommended siting restrictions. That
exemption should be stated in the guidelines themselves, not
just the preamble.
I appreciate the opportunity to present these comments,
and would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Thank you.
-------
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
SANITARY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 972
451 Wesi Third Sireet
Dayton, Ohio 45422
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OIV.
(513)225-6145
Hay 24, 1979
Mrs. Gerri Wyer
WH 562
Public Participation Officer
Office of Solid Waste
USEPA
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mrs. Wyer:
Attached are our conments on the Proposed Landfill Guide-
lines as we would like them entered on the record.
JWN:ps
Thank you,
John W. Norton, P.E.
Superintendent, Solid Waste Management
i neprtQTiiHiTYFMPI nvpa
-------
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
GUIDELINES FOR LANDFILL DISPOSAL
OF SOLID WASTE
MAY 15. 1979
I represent Montgomery County, Ohio (the County surrounding and
including the City of Dayton, Ohio.)
Over the years, Montgomery County has assumed the responsibility for
final disposition of Solid Waste for our entire metropolitan community
of about 700,000 people.
We are currently involved in every aspect of municipal solid uaste
disposal — \ue currently incinerate over 1000 tons per day, ue are opening
two (2) transfer stations capable of diverting all our uaste to distant
landfills, u»e are pursuing Resource Recovery (having already spent approxi-
mately $700,000 on the elusive dream), and we are well into siting a
landfill (which we see as a necessary adjunct to any Solid Waste program.)
We think that the proposed Guidelines are an excellent job on a difficult
subject. We think that it was very prudent to establish the right may to
do it as apposed to just saying what not to do, such as was the case in
water and air pollution.
We do have two areas of concern that I'd like to address. The first
is that the requirements not become so extreme, that expense becomes out of
line with regard to the environmental return on investment.
-------
- 2 -
Along this line, I believe that it is important to recognize the
regional differences across this nation which would allow different methods to be
employed from place to place. The proposed Guidelines seem to have done
that rather u/ell.
We believe that landfill is one responsible way to deal with the solid
waste problem, and that it should not be priced out of the market for purely
arbitrary reasons. My second point deals perhaps more with the "Criteria"
than to the Guidelines, but, I find it very difficult to divorce the two
elements of Solid Waste Management. I'd like to recommend that some
clarification be requested of Congress on the matter of their intent with
regard to the "open dump inventory" and the prohibition of "open dumping."
It is my understanding that the law (RCRA) was a compromise of two bills - -
one which envisioned an inventory of "open dumps" as a planning tool: and
one bill, in the other house, which sought to outlaw indiscriminate "open
dumping."
It is further my understanding that RCRA was the result of a last minute
compromise of the two bills which never addressed that basic question of
philosophy. And further that the EPA to this day has not been able to resolve
the issue.
In Kansas City, two weeks ago, I heard the question asked, "Is a hauler
who dumps in a listed "open dump" guilty under the law of "open dumping"?"
Much to my amazement, the answer to this apparent open-and-shut question (by
John Skinner, I believe) was that the EPA did not yet know what position to
take.
I don't believe that any listing or enforcement should be attempted until
-------
- 3 -
the EPA has a clear mandate from the lawmakers (Congress) on this matter.
Otherwise, many small operators uho cannot afford costly legal defenses
uill be closed, uhile other large and more financially able firms will
eventually overturn enforcement actions in the courts, uhile successfully
expanding their operations into areas lost by small operators uno couldn't
afford to defend themselves.
Our concern is that during such legal battles, our County uill be in
some doubt about just what is required in our planning and siting efforts. Your
proposed "Guidelines" will also be in question during any such court proceedings.
Our further concern is that such premature enforcement ma> eventually
result in the baby being thrown out vith the bathwater. MOB, ue also recognize
that there has been too much delay already. At the same time that the
Guidelines are published, it would be appropriate to publish E list of the
worst examples of "open dumps" along with disclaimers that the list is meant
to be informational only, and that enforcement would not be forthcoming until
a congressional mandate could be obtained. This would help the local officials
to stop some of the most offensive operations uhile minimizing risk to the
enforcement program itself. It would also encourage the responsible siting
of new landfills which are sorely needed.
-------
REFUSE DISPOSAL ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMENTS ON PARAGRAPH 211,200 2 A(!)
OF THE EPA PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR
LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
AS PRESENTED IN THE MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1979
FEDERAL REGISTER
The R.D.A.P. is a state-wide, non-profit organization of small
to medium-sized solid waste refuse contractors and landfill
operators. Our comments on the guidelines reflect the feelings
and concerns of our membership.
At present, the private refuse industry in Pennsylvania dis-
poses of at least 60% of all waste generated in the State.
These businessmen provide a health service and produce revenue
for local, State, and the Federal Government through the taxes
they pay. Today, some eleven years after the establishment
of the State Department of Environmental Resources, the pri-
vate landfill operator has become very discouraged from delays
by the State in reviewing permit applications, arbitrary in-
spection reports and unequal enforcement of the State Regula-
tions. The landfill operator has never received any appreciation
for his services in disposing of his neighbors refuse and the
association does not feel that the EPA Criteria, as proposed,
will improve prevailing conditions. The Criteria will increase
the cost of the development of new sites and increase the
risk of ventures into or remaining in the solid waste business.
Our members feel that once their landfills are finished, re-
placement facilities will be too difficult, time consuming,
expensive, and risky for them to search for.
-------
The effect of the diminishing role of the small independent
refuse operator in the Solid Waste industry is left to your
imagination. We feel that there appears to be little reason
to be optimistic about the future. The environment will not
be improved, tax revenue from this source will be lost, to
be made up painfully elsewhere, and public funds will be
drained at inflated prices to replace private investment.
We wish to specifically address the statement made by the EPA
in the guidelines that "increased costs, alone should not be
sufficient grounds for dismissing an alternative in favor of
disposal in an environmentally sensitive area". Our membership
is confused as to what grounds the Administrator of the Criteria
will use to approve or disapprove proposed sites when compared
to other alternatives if not on a cost comparison basis.
The guidelines are open-ended and will set-up a situation where
permit applications will remain in limbo or be subject to
arbitrary action. The technical consultant's role in the solid
waste field will be intensified by the Criteria. As the guide-
lines for the Administration of these Criteria are now written,
the consultant will not be able to provide the leadership the
Criteria require of him.
The refuse industry is an energy intensive industry and a large
part of the cost of the transport of refuse is the cost of fuel.
Our Association feels that in the interest of the industry,
the environment and the welfare of the public that the favored
site location be decided on the basis of cost with transporta-
tion cost included as a pertinent factor in the economic and
environmental impact analysis of the site location on the lo-
cality.
-------
We feel that this approach would help provide a common basis
of understanding between the regulatory agencies and the solid
waste industry in site selection. An inventory of the energy
required to provide for the transportation and disposal of
refuse generated in any locality would be a rather straight
forward task for any technical consultant to perform. His
data and conclusions could be evaluated objectively by any-
one knowledgeable in the industry and a fair decision reached
quickly. EPA would be remiss in their duty if the conserva-
tion of energy was not included in the guideines for the im-
plementation of RCRA and cost was not the deciding factor in
site selection.
WCK:ld
Wallace C. Koster
Refuse Disposal Assoc. of Pa.
56 North Second Street
Chambersburg, PA 17201
-------
3&S5SZSSL SAN BERNARDINO
• , ' s joe Kanwuky Second District
RALPH TABOR CALIFORNIA Otma Hmttftrg* Third Doric!
Washington Rapressntttivt ~^^ Robert 0. Townsend. Chairmwi .. Fourth District
Bob Himmoch Fifth District
Washington Office
316 Pennsylvania Avenue, S. E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 547-9333
May 15, 1979
Mrs. Geraldine Wyer
Public Participation Office
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Public Hearings on Proposed
Guidelines for Landfill Disposal
of Solid Waste (Docket 1008.1)
Dear Mrs. Wyer:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Proposed Guidelines for
Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste which were published in the Federal Register
of March 26, 1979.
San Bernardino County is the largest county in the continental United
States, with about 20, 000 square miles of area which could encompass the
states of New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Approximately
80 percent of the county lands are under the jurisdiction of the Federal govern-
ment (Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service). The county has a
population of approximately 800, 000 people generating about one million tons
of solid waste annually. San Bernardino County operates twenty three (23)
sanitary landfills within the county to dispose of Class II waste being generated
within thirteen (13) sites located on government lands which service about
150, 000 people in the desert area of the county.
-------
- z -
The proposed guidelines can be reasonably met on th« county's solid
waste management operations for the sites located in the valley and mountain
areas, which will dispose of about 85 percent of the waste being generated.
However, with the sixteen {!£>) landfills now being operated in the desert area,
it will be difficult to meet the proposed guidelines in to»l because of the vast
open areas that makes close control and surveillance of the landfills impossible.
Further, the landfills are located in areas where climatological, environmental,
and quantities of waste being generated ( 5 to 50 tons per day) are not of too
much concern.
The County will be facing a financial hardship if it has to implement the
proposed guidelines in the desert area. The provisions of concern are those
dealing with daily cover, communications equipment, restricting site access,
recordkeeping, source of water, monitoring, and others.
The Board of Supervisors adopted on May 14, 1971?, a resolution expressing
concern with the guidelines potential impact OB landfiUiag activities at remote
sanitary landfill sites in the desert area (copy attached). The Board of
Supervisors is requesting EPA to consider an exemption clause that can be
exercised using administrative discretion.
Alao attached i» a breakdown of the additional estimated capital costs
($1,3 million) and operating costs ($300, 000) required to meet the proposed
guidelines. A map ia attached showing the sites of the 23 sanitary landfills in
San Bernardino County.
Sin/ey€ly,
'Ralph I* Tabor
Washington representative
-------
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
May 9, 1979
ESTIMATED COST TO MEET PROPOSED EPA GUIDELINES
CAPITAL COSTS Estimated Cost
1. Fencing of 13 sites S 250,000
(65,000 ft 8 S4.00/ft)
2. Communications equipment 150,000
3. Dozers 320,000
(Four (4) @ $80,000 each)
4. Semi-tractor trailers 400,000
(Four (4) @ $10,000 each)
5. Select cover material 200,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,320,000
OPERATING COSTS
Ongoing maintenance increase including $ 300,000
five (5) additional men
-------
BOARD OF su*esvisoiw
Jot*m»nrtir ............... Sxona Oitirtol
o«w» w,»
*iobm 0.
U.S. 5SV1SONXESTAL PSQTSCTIOtt AGESCY
PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
HHSBEAS, the County of San Bernardino operates 23 sanitary iandfills of
which 13 are located on U.S. Govern-iient lands;
WHEREAS, these 13 solid waste <3istxjsal sites are currently operated
existing state minimum standards and federal Solid Waste Disposal Act guide-
lines of August 14, 1974j
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing revised
guidelines for the operation of solid was<:e disposal sites which may substantially
affect those being operated on U.S. Government lands;
WHEREAS, the proposed guidelines establish good practice of solid waste
disposal in certain areas but do not completely apply to other facilities where
climatological, environmental, or Quantities of waste being landfilXeQ do not
justify the added expense;
WHEREAS, the proposed revised guidelines tray fiscally impact the operation
of the county's disposal sites on Government lands by a potential capital
expenditure of SI. 3 million and an increased yearly operations cost by an addi»
tional $300,000 which is an increase o£ about 50 percent to present landfillimj
costs:
WHEREAS, input of interested parties is requested in the f inalization of the
guidelines i
SB IT THEREFORE RESOLVED fay the Board of Supervisors of the County of
San Bernardino, State of California, that the county does not object to the
proposed guidelines in principle! and that the county expresses concern with
the guidelines' potential impacts on the landfilling at remote sanitary landfills
in the desert area. Therefore, it is proposed that the Environmental Protection
Agency consider an exemption clause khat can be exercised using administrative
discretion.
(Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 14, 1979)
-------
», DEFUSE DISPOSE SITE
! SAN BE8NARDINO COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
REFUSE DISPOSAL DIVISION
-------
J J J J J
our
Safety & Environmenta! FVofection Division
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES. INC.
Upton. New Yort< 11P73
(516) 345- 4210
May 18, 1979
Mrs. Gerri Wyer (Vm-S62)
Public Participation Officer
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, 0. C. 20460
Dear Mrs. Wyer:
Enclosed is a. statement reflecting our news on the Proposed Guidelines
for the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste. This may please be included in
the official record of the hearing.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed
guidelines.
Yours trulw.
Janakiram, R. Naidu, Ph.D.
Ecologist
jRK/slg
Enclosure
CC: L. C.
A. P. Hull
C. B. Meinhold
-------
Statement made by: Janakiram R. Naidu, Ph.D.,
Ecologist
Safety & Environmental Protection Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, New York 11973
Public Hearing on Proposed Guidelines
for the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste
Washington, D. C.
May 15, 1979
Brookhaven National Laboratory has reviewed the guidelines and the following
are our comments:
Guidelines - General
a. The public interpretation of the guidelines is that it is a regulatory
statute and landfill owners and/or operators will treat the guidelines
as such. A clarification of the intent of the guidelines would be useful.
b. Federal facilities interpret the guidelines as EPA assessing Federal
facilities in terms of the guidelines as a measure of compliance for
regulatory action. This seems in conflict as guidelines suggest preferred
methods.
c. Is the intent of the guidelines to push Resource Recovery as the Ultimate
method of handling solid waste?
d. It is essential that one knows what we are doing in the landfill such as,
type of wastes, the operations, the geo-hydrology of the site and the
interaction of the groundwater with the contents of the landfill which
in essence asks the question what will flow into the groundwater system.
e. Though not directly related, we are concerned that EPA regulations set
limits that make the states (agreement states! promulgate limits that are
further restrictive. Guidelines may be another area where we can expect
to see similar actions by the states.
Soil
Whenever something artificial is done to the soil, such as preparing an
area for a landfill site, degradation of the soil under the landfill takes
place. We feel that this question has not been addressed and should do so
as a prerequisite before landfill operation.
Contents of Solid Waste
An integral part of the landfill program must be public education. Solid
waste generation in industries can be regulated through the management
but public understanding of what a landfill is will aid in the exclusion
of a large number of undesirable items, the chief of them being used motor
oil with its high lead content.
-------
Comments - Cont'd 2
Leachate
a. It must, be recognized that leachate will always be there, whether the
location is in a dry or humid area.
b. We feel that the guidelines, at least as it is presently worded, excludes
the concept of groundwater management. Numerous examples can be given
where landfill operations have been located in 'sensitive areas' and by
proper management of groundwater, such as natural collection of ground-
water (with leachatc) combined with appropriate treatment have returned
the waters to the environment within drinking water standards. This
practical approach should not be excluded.
c. In closing the site and designating it for environmental vigilance, the
question of leachate generation must be addressed as the time frame of
leachate generation will determine the duration of active monitoring.
Management
The concept of rendering the landfill site after closing to conditions
that are aesthetic can be regarded only as cosmetic. This is based on
observations of other landfill sites.
a. The question of liability of sites has not been addressed. Reclamation
bonding may be one such measure to assure corrections if necessary.
b. Costs in terms of surveillance into the future has not been addressed.
c. Since developers usually shy away from past landfill sites (even though
all sites are not like 'Love Canal'), it is felt that landfill sites will
therefore not be capable of generating revenue. Such situations could be
avoided by addressing these questions in the EIS report on prospective
landfill sites.
Vie appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing of national
importance.
-------
Attendees—Public Hearing
on Proposed Landfill Disposal Guidelines
Washington, D.C.
May 15, 1979
Kitty Adams
Government Relations Consultant
901 North Overlook Dr.
Alexandria, VA 22305
Anthony Anderson
Assistant Director
Government Relations
Sun Company
Suite 320, 1800 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Robert Arner
Sycamore Assoc. Vol. Energy
1705 Maple Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20014
Frank Arzt
Director, Marketing Services
ID Conversion Systems, Inc.
115 Gilbraltar Rd.
Horsham, PA 19014
Barbara Bechtold
Social Research Application Corp.
Project Director
800 18th St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Donald R. Baker, Ph.D., Esq.
Environmental Consulting Services
2239 Kemmerer Street
Bethlehem, PA 18017
Samuel Balamoun
Senior Engineer
Pennwalt Corporation
900 First Avenue
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Bruce Barrett
Sanitary Engineer
Office of Environmental Affairs
US Dept. of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230
Robert Baughman
Environmental Coordinator
Phelps Dodge Refining Corp.
300 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10705
Charles Bent
Environmental Engineer
Reynolds Metals Co.
6601 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23261
Dr. Harry Brennan
Director, Air & Water Conservation
AMOCO Chemicals Corp.
200 East Randolph Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
R.P. Brinkman & John Norton
Research & Control
Montgomery County Ohio
451 W. Third St.
Dayton, OH 45403
K.A. Childs
Chief, Technology Transfer Division
Environment Canada
351 St. Joseph Blvd.
Quebec, K1A1C8
George Clark
Aspen Systems Corporation
Subject Research Associate
20010 Century Blvd.
Germantovm, MD 20767
Howard Cohen
Aspen System Corporation
Senior Attorney
20010 Century Blvd.
Germantown, MD 20767
Dennis E. Connelly
American Electric Power Serv. Corp.
Associate Engineer
2 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
-------
Jack Cooper
Director, Environmental Affairs
National Pood Processors Assoc.
1133 20th St., NW
Washington, DC 30036
James Cowhey, President
Land & Lakes Co.
123 N. Northwest Highway
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Bob Cottam, P.E.
First Piedmont Corp.
P.O. Box 1169
Chatham, VA
Elliott Curzon, Paralegal
Jones, Day
1100 Connecticut Ave.
Suite 1200
Washington, DC
Jean Doherty, Project Director
Social Research App. Corp.
800 18th St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
R. V. Edwards
Mgr., Environmental Studies
Engineering Science
7903 West Park
McLean, VA 22102
W.R. Elliott, Project Engineer
Bechtel
15740 Shady Grove Rd.
Gaithersburg, MD 20760
William Ellison, PE
Senior Executive Consultant
NUS Corporation
4 Research Place
Rockville, MD 20850
Grover H. Emrich, Ph.D., Exec. VP
SHE Martin
900 W. Valley Forge Road
P.O. Box 190
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Joseph Ferrante
Director, Project Development
Wheelabrator-Frye
Loberty Lane
Hampton, NH 03842
Scott Foster, Analyst
Energy & Env. Analysis, Inc.
1111 N. 19th Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Robert Genereau, Vice President
Stanley Plating Co.
60 Wooster Ct.
Forestvllle, CT 06010
Richard Giberti
Section Head
Environmental Technology
Kennecott Copper Corporation
128 Spring Street
Lexington, MS 02173
William Gilley, P.E., Director
Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Health
Madison Bldg, 109 Governor St.
Richmond, VA 23219
J.R. Gilligan
Manager of Regulatory Affairs
Borg-Warner Chemicals
Parkersburg, W. VA 26101
Dr. T.L. Go
ICI Americas
Environmental Coordinator
Concord Pike & Murphy Rd.
Wilmington, DE 19897
-------
aarbara Goff, Administrative Asst.
Cast Metals Fed.
918 16th St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Robert Gressang
Director of Env. Activities
Westvaco Corporation
PO Box t795
Charleston Heights, SC 29405
Bruce D. Guilbeault, Staff Eng.
NUS Corporation
H Research Place
Rockvllle, MD 20850
Deborah Guinan
Manager, Env. Services
Assoc. of American R.R.
1920 L St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
W. Gulevich
Public Health Engineering
VA State Dept. of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Edwin Hafner, President
Hafner Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 3923, Amity Station
New Haven, CT 06525
Charles Hall, P.E.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Penn Silver Office Bldg.
5408 Silver Hill Rd., Suite 507
Suitland, MD 20028
Henry Heidt
Manager, Chemical Processing
Babcock & Wilcox
PO Box 785
Lynchburg, VA 2^505
H. Lanier Hickman, Jr., PE
Executive Director, Government Refuse
Collection & Disposal Assoc.
1629 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Emmett Holdren
Wiley & Wilson, INc.
2310 Langhorne Rd.
Lynchburg, VA 21501
Joe Hudson, Chairman
COG
P.O. Box U8l
Monroe, NC
Hank Hughes, Environmental Eng.
Alexandria Health Dept.
517 N. St. Asaph St.
Alexandria, VA 22309
Mary Jlmmink
Manager of Regulatory Affairs
Association of Nonwoven Fabrics
Industry
1500 Mass. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Karl Johnson
Vice President
The Fertilizer Institute
1015 18th Street
Washington, DC 20036
Charles Kay
Director, Occup. & Env. Prot.
Eastern Operations
Atlantic Richfield Company
1500 Market Street
Phila, PA 19101
B.A. Kerns
Manager, Environmental Control
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
1601 Westinghouse Bldg.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Nick Kesslering
Environmental Products Div.
American Colloid Company
5100 Suffield Ct.
Skokie, IL 60076
Joan Kesner
Research Aide
Town of Oyster Bay
150 Miller Place
Syosset, NY 11791
-------
Wallace Koster
Refuse Disposal Assoc. of P
56 N. Second St.
Chambersburg, PA 17201
Gary Kruger, Attorney
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
1111 East Market St.
Akron, OH U4316
Joseph Kolmer USAEWES-EL
Sanitary Engineer
Rt. 1, Box 255m
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Louis Kramer
U.S. Naval Air Development Center
General Engineer
Warminster, PA 1897**
George Kush, Director of
Chemical Programs
NSWMA
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
B. Lafferty, Process Chemist
W.R. Grace & Company
55 Hayden Avenue
Lexington, MS 02173
Clark Layton
Intermountain Power Project
PO Box BB
Sandy, Utah 81070
Mary Leffler, Asst. Proj. Mgr.
ICMA
1144 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Michael Lowe, Attorney
Wald, Harkroder & Ross
1300 19th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Elaine Lustig
Senior Environmental Specialist
N.J. Dept. of Env. Protection
32 E. Hanover St.
Trenton, NJ 08620
Janakiram Naidu
Eaologist, Brookhaven National
Laboratories
Upton, NY 11973
James E. McCarthy
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
527 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Charles W. Martin
Environmental Affairs
Westvaco Corp.
P.O. Box 278"
Wickliffe, KY 42087
Michael Matthews
Environmental Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
218 - HOI Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN 37*101
Terry Matthews
National Governors Association
444 North Capitol St.
Washington, DC 20001
William Me Comb, P.E.
W.P. McComb Engineering, P.C.
P.O. Box 8973
St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00801
Todd McCrelght
Energy & Env. Analysis, Inc.
1111 N. 19th St.
Arlington, VA 22209
Linda Heskunas
Environmental Reporter
Bureau of National Affairs,
1231 25th St., NW
Washington, DC 20037
Inc.
Robert Miller & William Kill
Engineers, Howard County Gov.
Bureau of Environmental Svcs.
3*130 Court House Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21043
-------
Steve Miller
Attorney, US DOE
6A 521
Washington, DC 20581
Gary Molchan
Combustion Equipment Assoc.
555 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
George Monaghan, Executive Director
Centralina
Council of Governments
1 Charlottetown Center
PO Box 4008
Charlotte, NC 28201
Mark Murray, Staff Consultant
APHA
1015-l8th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
J. Robert Nicholson, VP
Zimpro Inc.
Bothschild, WI 5HU74
Andrew A. O'Brochta
Chemist, US Army Armament
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
James O'Donnell
Automation Industries, Inc.
14000 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Emil Onuschar, Jr.
Environmental Affairs
Columbia Gas System Service Corp.
20 Montchanin Road
Wilmington, DL 19807
Harrison T. Pannella
Technical Services Director
American Coke & Coal Chemicals Inst.
300 North Lee St., Suite 306
Alexandria, VA 22314
Ms. Joan Partyka
Assistant to President
Holyoke Sanitary Landfill
142 Casino Avenue
Chicopee, MS 01013
J. Payne, Director
B. Archer, Deputy Director
G. Peacher, Landfill Supt.
Dept. of Public Works
Prince William County
9258 Lee Avenue
Manassas, VA 22110
Dr. Louis Peltier
Environmental Planner
Montgomery County Gov.
Office of Env. Planning
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850
Ronald Penny, Attorney
E.I. DuPont
Legal Dept.
Wilmington, DE 17808
Edward Powell & Wayne Warren
Environmental Care Spec.
Veterans Administration
810 Vermont NW
Washington, DC 20120
Helen Prestipino
Treasury Department
15th & G St., NW
Washington, DC 20220
Andrew Quigley
Fairfax County Government
1100 Chain Bridge Rd.
Fairfax VA 22030
Thomas Raubacher, Staff Engineer
Radian Corporation
McLean, VA
-------
Robert Rhodes, Jr., Attorney
Holland and Knight
PO Drawer BW
Lakeland, FL 33802
John Rein
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, IL 62706
Dr. Rip G. Rice & David Burch
Jacobs Engineering Group
Suite 608, 1725 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Kermit W. Ryman
Chevron USA
1700 K Street, Suite 1201
Washington, DC 20006
J. D. Samuels
Sr. Project Engineer
GM Plant Environment, EA Staff
GM Technical Center
Warren, MI 48090
Stephen H. Schroeder, Attorney
NRDC, Inc.
917 15th St. , NW
Washington, DC 20005
Raymond Schroll
Firestone
PO Box 699
Pottstown, PA
Elaine Schwelm, Adm. Asst.
Nuclear Engineering
1100 17th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Harvey Segal
General Physical Scientist
HQ, USAF, Env. Plan. Div
HQ USAF/LEEVP
Washington, DC 20330
Marc Shapiro, Director
Solid Waste Project
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dr. Donald Shilesky, VP
SCS Engineers
11800 Sunrise Valley Dr.
Reston, VA 22091
Sharon Steen, Associate
DeBevoise & Liberman
1200 17th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Fred Steinbrenner, Branch Manager
Law Engineering Testing Co.
2749 Delk Rd., SE
Marietta, GA 33067
E. R. Streiter
Environmental Advisor
Marisol, Inc.
125 Factory Lane
Middlesex, NJ 08846
Bill Sumraerlin
Union County, Public Works Dept.
Box 215
Monroe, NC
Fred Swartz
Washington Representative
Hooker Chemical Company
1747 Penn. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Jeffrey Teilel, Director
Regulatory Affairs
Conrail
6 Penn Center Plaza, Rm. 830
Phila., PA 19104
Anne Toothaker
General Electric Company
Building 36, Rm. 120
Schenectady, NY 12345
W. Corey Trench
Associate Environmental Scientist
WAPORA, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Chevy Chase, MD 20015
Floyd Trillis
Senior Operations Engineer
Consolidated Natural Gas Svc.
Four Gateway Center
Pittsburg, PA 15222
Co.
-------
Arlie Ullrich, Consultant Richard Wright, President
Eli Lilly & Co. R.E. Wright Assoc., Inc.
Indianapolis, IN 46206 3805 Paxton Street
Harrisburg, PA 17033
Jorge Valladares, PE
Chief, Env. Plan. Division Ted Zagrobelny, Env. Engineer
Maryland-National Capitol Park & Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Planning Commission 200 Stcvall Street
8?8? Georgia Avenue Alexandria, VA 22332
Silver Spring, MD 2090?
Emma Verkieck
Solid Waste Specialist
CT Sierra Club
197*1 Hebron Avenue
Glastonbury, Ct 06003
Thomas Voges, Asst. Director
Air & Water Control
Inland Steel Company
3210 Watling Street
East Chicago, IL i)6312
Richard Volonlno, Program Mgr.
Combustion Equipment Associates
555 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Arthur Wammel, Pres. Inter. Executive
ODASD (EES)
Rm 3D823, Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Janet Weller
Cleary, Gotlieb, Steen, Hamilton
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Charles Wilkinson
Sea Plantations, Inc.
29 Congress St., Bldg. k
Salem, MA 01970
James Woodford
Chief, Division of Env. Health
City of Baltimore
111 N. Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21202 uo 1832
Order No. 766
AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I979O— 28I-M7/84
-------
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Solid Waste Program
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston. MA 02203
617-2235775
U.S. EPA. Region 2
Solid Waste Section
26 Federal Plara
New York. NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA. Region 3
Solid Waste Program
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-597-9377
U.S. EPA. Region 4
Solid Waste Program
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Altanta. GA 30308
404881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Solid Waste Program
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago. IL 60604
3123532197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Section
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-2/34
U.S. EPA, Region 7
Solid Waste Section
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City. MO 64108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA. Region 8
Solid Waste Section
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
3038372221
U.S. EPA, Regions
Solid Waste Program
215 Fremont St
San Francisco. CA 94105
415-5564606
U.S. EPA. Region 10
Solid Waste Program
1200 6th Ave
Seattle. WA 98101
206442 1260
------- |