TRANSCRIPT
PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
P
ROPOSED CLASSIFICATION
CRITERIA FOR SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
JUNE 5,1978
CINCINNATI, OHIO
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on Proposed Classification Criteria
for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office Of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-42p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
PANEL
Mr. Francis Mayo
Director, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Environmental Research Center
U.S. EPA
Cincinnati. Ohio
Dr. John H. Skinner, Chairman
Director, Systems Management Division
Off-tee of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA
Mr. Truett DeGeare
Chief, Land Protection Branch
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA
Mr. Kenneth Shuster
Program Manager, Land Protection Branch
Systems Management Division
U.S. EPA
Mr. Bruce Meddle
Chief, Special Wastes Branch
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA
Ms. Meredith Wright
Attorney, Water Quality Division
Office of General Counsel
U.S. EPA
Mr. 01rk Brunner
Sanitary Engineer
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA
Mr. Robert A. Conna, P.E.
Decision Systems, Inc.
1218 16th Street, NH
Washington, B.C. 20036
Mr. Donald Andres, Vice President
Emcnn Associates, Inc.
1420 Koll Circle
San Jose, California 95112
-------
8
9
PAUL EMLER 36
halrman of Solid Waste Task Force
idison Electric Institute
Washington, B.C.
iENE H. GOCKLEY 5H
Manager
Environmental Management
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.
Allentown, Pennsylvania
SPEA_KER_S.
tTAVID LAMM 20
Solid Waste Management Section
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 16206
JEFFREY R. DIVER 72
Counsel for Environmental Affairs
Waste Management, Inc.
900 Jorle Blvd.
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
13
WILLIAM S. BRENNEMAN ------ __- 97
Supervisor of Land Use and Conservation
Illinois Power Company
500 S. 27th Street
Decatur, Illinois 62525
DR. CECIL LUE-HINQ 103
Director, Research and Development
Ketropolltan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
hieago, Illinois 60611
HOWARD BURR and ROBERT DREANO - - - - 133
Conservation International, Inc.
Box 23092
Pt. Lauderdale, Florida 33307
GEOROE HYFANTIS ll9
Tennessee Valley Authority
ROBERT E. VAN HEHIT 152
Solid Waste Department
County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County
California. Q0607
-------
2 MB. MAYO: We'll b*
o
starting in about two or three minutes.
4 We're Just waiting on some chairs to
down.
6 Good afternoon, ladles and gentlemen.
7 I'm Francis Mayo, Director of the Municipal
8 Environmental Research Laboratory, one of the
9 three EPA laboratories housed here In the
10 Environmental Research Center.
11 On behalf of the Agency, It's a pleasure
12 to welcome you to the Center. This Is the
13 fifth In a series of public hearings on the
14 proposed regulation entitled, "Criteria for
15 Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
16 Facilities," proposed under the authority of
17 the Resource Conservation Recovery Act,
18 otherwise known as RCRA. The regulation Is
19 required by Section 40QI4 of RCRA, and was
... published In the Federal Register on
a)
21 February 6 for public review and comment.
A large part of the significance of
RCRA and its proposed regulations can be
23
attributed to their mutual objective, of
closing the gap In environmental protection.
25
-------
Complimenting the Clean Air Act and the
2
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, RCRA
3
provides for protection of ground-water,
soil, the land generally, and other media
from the Impropoer disposal of residuals,
many of which comes as a consequence of the
7 operation of the air and water pollution
8 control activities. The apency has also
made available for review and comment a
10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement on this
11 proposed regulation. The Draft EIS Includes
12 an economic analysis. Today we will b« accept
13 In?, testimony on the croposed regulation,
1* and we hope to focus on the Draft EIP at
15 this hearing. We appreciate your Interest
16 In our efforts, as exemplified by your
17 presence here today.
18 This Center, the Environmental Research
19 Center, houses three of the 17 laboratories
20 operated by the EPA Office of Research and
21 Develooment. And a substantial portion of
22 our activities in the Office of Research
23 and Development is directed to the conduct
24 of basic and applied research to support the
development and Implementation of regulations,
-------
1 such as the one that concerns us here today. )
2 And in the case of this proposed regulation,
3 we have worked very closely with EPA's Office
4 of Solid Waste, the Agency's office having
5 primary responsibility for the regulation.
6 Dr. John Skinner, Director of the
7 Systems Management Division of the Office
8 of Solid Waste, will serve as Chairman of
9 the hearing panel. John, K« welcome you and
10 your staff to the Research Center, and we
li hope that you and your other guests will
12 have a productive and enjoyable visit with
13 us here in Cincinnati.
14 MB. SKIKHBR: Thank you,
15 Mr. Mayo.
16 There are copies of the Proposed Regu-
17 latlon and the Draft Environmental Impact
18 Statement available at the Registration Desk,
19 and there are also copies of the Resource
20 Conservation and Recovery Act available at
21 the Registration Desk for anyone who would
22 like a copy. The closing date for the public
23 comment period on the Regulation and the
24 closing date for the comment period on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Is
25
-------
June 12, so all comments received by June 12,
2
1978, will be considered In preparing; the
final Regulation, and preparing the final
4
Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft
Regulation has an address in It where all
c
comments should be mailed. I'll just read
It to you, but If you would like to get a
8 copy of the Draft Regulation, you'll find
9 that the address Is Indicated In there..
10 All comments should be sent to Mr. Kenneth
11 Shuster, S-h-u-s-t-e-r, Docket HOOH, Office
12 of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
13 Agency, 101 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
14 20160.
15 The hearing today Is being; recorded^ and
16 a verbatim tsanscrlpt of the hearing will be
n placed In the Docket. The Docket, which
18 official -file for the rule making, istke
19 available for public review during normal
20 working hours at the above address. This
21 hearing this afternoon will go from one till
22 5=30. We have nine speakers who are pre-
23 registered - - asked to make a statement at
the hearing. The hearing will also be con-
ducted this evenln* beginning at seven
-------
1 ~
o'clock with ore-registration for this even-
2
Ing's session at 6:30, and we'll extend for
3
as lone as necessary this evening.
4
I would ask each of the speakers to
5
Identify themselves, and their association.
6
I would ask them to limit their oral comments
7
to 15 minutes. If they have a statement whlc
0
takes longer than 15 minutes, they can submit
9 It In writing and It would be Included in Its
entirety In the record, but If you could
11 summarize your statement within 15 minutes,
12 that will allow time for questions by the
13 panel, and we'll be able to get through all
14 the speakers who have pre-reglstered this
15 afternoon. We'll be going through the
16 witnesses in the order Indicated on the
17 witness list that was distributed. This Is
18 the order In which they pre-registered.
id Let me introduce the panel. Starting
20 at my far right is Mr. Bruce Weddle, who Is
21 Chief of the Special Wastes Branch in the
22 Office of Solid Waste In EPA, Washington.
23 Next to him Is Ms. Merldeth Wright,
24 who Is an attorney In the Office of General
25 Counsel, EPA, Washington.
-------
I'm John Skinner, the Director of the
2
Systems Management Division in EPA, Washing-
ton.
4
To my Immediate left IB Mr. Truett
DeQeare, who's Chief of the Land Protection
6 Branch In the Office of Solid Waste, EPA,
7 Washington.
8 Next to him Is Mr. Kenneth Shuster,
9 who's the Program Manager of the Land Pro-
10 tectlon Branch in the Office of Solid Waste,
11 EPA, Washington.
12 Next to him is Mr. Dirk Brunner, who's
13 with the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
14 Division in the Municipal Environmental
15 Research Laboratory, EPA, in Cincinnati,
16 and would you gentlemen like to come up as
17 well?
18 The gentleman on the far left is Mr.
19 Robert Colonna, who's with Decision
20 Systems.
21 To his right is Mr. Donald Andres,
22 who's with Emoon Associates Decision
23 Systems and Emcon Assoclates_, under contract
u to EPA, prepared the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, and they will also be
25
-------
available for asking any questions to any of
the witnesses.
Following the formal hearing this
afternoon and following the formal hearing
this evening, we will open up to general
questions from the audience on this Regula-
tion and/or any aspect of the Resource and
Conservation and Recovery Act, the entire
nanel and the two contractors will be avail-
able to answer questions at that time.
The first witness is Mr. David Lamm.
You can use either one of these microphones
on the floor, or if you want, like if you need
you can use the microphone up at the podium,
as you wish.
Mr. Lamm.
oOo
MR. DAVID LAMM,
Solid Waste Management Section
Indiana State Board of Health,
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 1*6206
oOo
MH. LAMM: Thank you,
John. I want to take the opportunity to
thank you for this opportunity to make some
comments, both specifically with regard to
-------
1
the proposed Criteria, and some, also some
z
general observations that we have. The first
3
one is concerning Paragraph 257.1(we), the
4
Characterization of a Wetland based solely
5
on the vegetative soecles will lead to
6
Inaccurate assessments of what, in fact, may
7
be acceptable disposal areas. Various soil
Q
classifications that are poorly and very
g
poorly drained may, in fact, be excellent
10 landfill sites. To Ignore general accepted
11 engineering practices with regard to drainage
12 capabilities is unacceptable. Number 2257.3-
13 1A, as drafted, we believe this criteria is
14 unsatisfactory. The division of a wetland
16 causes confusion and again Ignores the
16 generally accepted engineering practices.
17 Additionally, the level of cooperation betweei
18 the Indiana State Board of Health, Indiana
19 Department of Natural Resources, has success-
20 fully dealt with land disposal facilities
21 which require interagency action. We believe
22 that that Criteria would nullify those
23 present arrangements. Finally, we would
24 suggest that you remove from the Criteria
25 the "comment." It's inappropriate, and
-------
contradicts previous wording, and it does
not allow State programs flexibility, which
according to our Interpretations, Is the
cornerstone for Implementation of RCRA
activities.
Number three. 257.3-1, Sub-paragraph
C{1). We would be Interested In knowing what
criteria determines technological and econom-
ic infeaslbillty.
Number four. 257.3-1, Sub-paragraph
E. This criteria presupposes that states
have, in fact, designated acquirers. Comment
number five. We might suggest adding "karat"
to the environmental sensitive areas with
the development of appropriate sub-criteria.
The overall impact being that an improperly
designed and operated disposal facility in a
karst area, may pose substantially greater
hazards over larger geographic areas, not
necessarily contiguous with the facility
area. The sub-criteria developed should
address possibilities of collapse, direct
ground-water access by pollutants, and the
difficulty of assessing, or establishing
monitoring stations.
-------
Number six. Again, 257.3-3. the
criteria presupposes that states have
designated acquirers of any kind. We
believe It's Inappropriate to use the
facility criteria as a mechanism to
coerce states Into accepting or entering
Into Federal plans that they have elected
not to participate In.
Number seven. 257.3-^, we suggest
deleting sub-paragraph A In Its entirety.
We believe that It's Inappropriate to use
the facility criteria to achieve what exist-
ing Air Pollution Control programs have been
unable to do. That Is a complete prohibition
on back yard burning. Not only does this
lack congressional or technical substance,
It prevents State program flexibility, which
we believe Is the cornerstone of RCRA activi-
ties. We suggest that paragraphs B be modi-
fied to read as follows: "Open burning of
solid waste is prohibited unless in- compli-
ance with State and local regulations."
Phraseology of this kind will allow program
flexibility while Insuring that open burning,
If conducted, will meet appropriate State
-------
1
and local regulations. Finally, If left
2
Intact, the Citizen Suit Provisions of RCRA
3
could force many State solid waste manage-
4
went efforts Into the periphery of the
5
solid waste management problem area.
6
Number eight. 257.3-6, disease
7
vectors are not specifically defined. In
8
certain Instances, we believe problems of
9
public health significance may arise, and
may be associated with nuisances species,
particularly with regard to mosquito control.
12 It forces the search for and Identification
13
of disease vector where none may exist. We
14 suggest that the first sentence be revised by
15 adding after the word vector "and other
16 arthropods which may Increase to nuisance
17 level high enough to be a public health
18 significance."
19 Number nine. 257.3-7, Sub-paragraph D.
20 We believe It inappropriate to use the facil-
21 Ity criteria to enforce standards or dlrect-
22 ees of the FAA that lack congressional raan-
23 date. If the ?AA lacks sufficient legisla-
24 tlve authority, then we suggest It Is their
25 responsibility to return to Congress to
-------
acquire it. We object to piggy backing
bureaucratic authority on solid waste
agencies. Additionally, we propose that
solid waste agencies lack sufficient exper-
i
tlse to ascertain when birds are or are not !
an aircraft hazard, and places the solid
waste agency In an untenable situation. We
suggest that Paragraph D be removed in its
entirety. We further suggest that the PAA
seek legislative authority to control local
land use practices within the distances
specified, and the conical control services.
We think It Inappropriate to saddle the solid
waste agencies with such an effort. Some
general comments that we have notwithstanding
the published comments In the Environmental
Impact Statement, we believe that the number
of possible sites that may not meet the
criteria are staggering. In addition, the
criteria requires measurements of parameters
heretofore generally not recorded. Most
solid waste agencies have neither the equip-
ment, the personnel,nor the time, and they
add considerable complexity to the open-dump
Inventory process. The criteria, if applied,
-------
represents an excursion In the State land
use planning, a proposition which has proven
politically unpalatable. Although somewhat
more complex, It may te necessary to develop
several sites of criteria in order to address
the multitude of situations that occur. Thanh
you.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you.
Are there any questions from the panel?
MR. SHL'STER: I have
several questions. On v-* wetlands, you
mentioned that there were certain wetland
areas that may be suitable because of the
subterranean conditions for land disposal,
and you mentioned the sites that are non-
productive. Should - - you should allow
the option of disposing there, and I'm
wondering If you have Ideas on how to
define which wetlands are productive, and
those that are not productive, to make this
distinction as to -which ones should and
should not be considered for disposal?
MR. LAMM: I don't
know that we have a specific suggestion for
you on how to go about achieving a nation-
-------
wide ban, if you will. What I'm suggesting
•i
In the rewording of the criteria Is to allow
3
some State flexibility in making that deter-
4
mlnatlon. The criteria seems to put a lot of
weight on vegetative species that are brought
about as a result of either Intermittent, or
full-time standing water, which can be a
result of its poor drainage characteristics,
9 which In reality can be handled through a
10 K-od sound enKlneerlng proposal. So, I
11 didn't specifically answer your question, I
12 know,
13 MH. SHUSTER: I guess
14 what I'm interested in - - what other factors
15 should be considered that maybe we could
16 provide as guidance to the states if we
17 made such a revision that they should con-
18 aider in addition to the differences In
19 vegetation or the vegetation which exists.
20 Okay? You mentioned that we should add
21 "karst" terrain, and I would ask that If
22 you could make a recommendation to us as
23 to how we should word such a criterion. We
24 would appreciate that.
25 On the air criterion, you suggested
-------
deleting part A. And I'IT. wondering If your
concern la only that It Is back yard burning
- - It seems to be covered under the current
wording, or If you're really concerned with
the ban Itself on all forms of solid waste
burning?
MR. LAMM: My concern
really Is for all ferns of open burning, but
as we read It specifically Into the back
ground burning kind of area. We're concerned
that if the existing Air Pollution Control
programs have not been able to control that
as a problem area, there evidently must be a
reason for that. And I personally would not
like to be saddled with a criteria that
solves their problem for them. If they can't
solve It, then we shouldn't be asked to solve
It.
MR. SHUSTER: Ok&y. And
my final question on the bird hazards. I'm
wondering - - It seems what you said is that
PAA should seek the authority to control land
use around disposal facilities, and I'm won-
der ing, I mean around airports, and I'm won-
dering If you really - - how you feel about
-------
1
having the PAA make decisions - - decisions
on the siting of disposal facilities, or
3
•whether you feel that the solid waste program
4
should continue to make those decisions. I
5 wonder If you really intend to say that?
6 KH. LAMM: What - -
what I say Is - - Is related to the experl-
Q
ence that we've had In Indiana with the PAA,
9 and Its relationship with - - to the bird
10 hazards of birds to aircraft. We have a
11 number of landfills that would qualify as
12 being open-dumps If this criteria Is assessed
13 and yet In all the years that we have seen
14 those sites, there is to our knowledge, not
!5 a bird hazard, I indicated In our comment
16 that we quite frankly are lacking the suffl-
n clent expertise to make that evaluation,
IS because It only takes one bird to knock the
19 plane down to say that your evaluation Is
20 correct, and I'm saying quite frankly that
21 if the PAA perceives that to be a problem,
22 we would welcome their opportunity to get
23 into local land use planning If that's - -
24 If that's the substance of their - - of
25 their control.
-------
MR. SKINNER: Are there
any other questions? Dirk.
MR. BFUNHER: I have
one relative to your comment about the
imposition of additional monitoring measure-
ments that would be enclosed by these cri-
teria. Could you elaborate on that - - be
more specific about which type of additional
measurements the criteria imposed on the
State again?
MR. LAMM: Specifi-
cally explosive gases, measure of boundary
of the facility. We have traditionally
never measured explosive gas concentration,
to the best of our knowledge. We only got
a problem with generation of methane gas,
and only one facility that we're even aware
of It. There Is some other criteria that
are just as subtle. The ground-water
criteria, the assessment Implies, in our
way of thinking, that you are going to, in
fact, drill a number of holes around each
landfill site,-and make a determination,
based upon background, water, data, up-
stream from this facility, whether or not
-------
that site Is, In fact, makinr, an impact.
I think it's a little ridiculous to pre-
suppose that 9. hydropeologlst Is going to
stand on the surface of the facility and
measure Its impact on the crounf'uuuieT.
wp . BFUSME?.: Do we
understand you correctly then that routine
landfill location procedures for Indiana did
not include hydroReolop-.lcal survev?
KP. LAMM: They do,
but they include extensive SulpKide' nfor-
matlon.
MS. SKINNER: I have a
question. With respect to the groundwrtei*
planning provisions under the criteria deal-
ing with the protection of Rroundna.'fctr. . You
made a statement which I don't remember
exactly what the word was, but it was some-
thing like that criteria should not be used
to coerce the states into accepting prograns
which they have chosen not to accept. Can
you elaborate on that? I'm trying to under-
stand your point.
MR. LAMK: As drafted,
the criteria suggests that the State should
-------
rely upon the designated acquifer, which
comes out of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The State of Indiana has decided not to
participate In that program. Therefore,
we, In fact, do not have designated acquirers,)
and for us to designate an acquifer implies
that we should accept the Drinking Water
Program, and we are not going to accept It.
Therefore, there Is no option available to
us.
MR. SKINNER: So, It's
your understanding with respect to the
grounflii!*t**" provisions - - are we talking
now about the sole source acquifer provision,
or the general grouneuritt*r- provisions of the
Act?
MR. LAMM: I think
we're talking about the sole source acquifer.
MR. SKINNER: The sole
source acquifer provision - - It's ray
understanding that the State has to accept
the Underspend Injection Control Program
under the Safe Drinking Water Act In order
to make these desienated?
MR. LAMM: As we read
-------
It.
MR. SKINNER: I don't
believe that's true, but I think that we
will have to clarify that. Thank you.
Any other questions?
MB. DeGEARE: If that
comment was directed to the sole source
aequlfer portion, I understood you also to
speak adversely about the general ground-
water criterion where we talked about
classification of ground wtbet- utilization.
Did I understand that properly, or were you
Just speaking only about the sole source
acqulfer?
MB. LAMM: Well,
speaking primarily to the sole source aequl-
fer.
MR. DeGEARE: So you
had no comment about the other grounduriter'
criterion?
MR. LAMM: No.
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Andres.
MR. ANDRES: Could you
elaborate on the reasons for Including the
karst topography of those Items that would
-------
not be included under other criteria? I
think one of your examples was contact with
water, and I would ?uess that maybe the
groundw^ter criteria would address that
concern, not specifically Identified as
karst topography, but that more general
way.
MR. LAW: It, in
fact, would be addressed to my other criteria
By the sane token, so would wetlands, In our
opinion. And if you're going to select wet-
lands, you might as well select karst. We
would, in fact, prefer you leave there all
out altogether and come up with some gener-
alities with regard to groundkJlter" orotec-
tion, if you will.
MR. SKINNER: Any other
comments?
MR. DeOEARE: Does the
State of Indiana deal In such generalities
as opposed to specific parameters against
which one can design?
MR. LAWK: Each site
is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with a
specific amount of information that we're
-------
1
looking for submitted to us. An evaluation
2
of the suitability of a site In that location
3
Is then made based upon the local geology,
4
et cetera - - the ability of the site to
5
contain each water. We haven't specifically
6
made a generalization that the landfills
can't be located at wetlands, for Instance
o
floodplalns. We similarly require, for
Q
Instance, that floodplalns that the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources' approval will be
11 obtained in addition to ours.
12 MR. DeOEARE: Do you
13 have any requirements regarding the excursion
14 of landfill gases away from the facility?
15 MR. LAMM: Not In
16 the specificity that you've got In the
17 criteria.
18 MR. SKINNER: Thank you,
19 Mr. Lamm.
20 Mr. Paul Emler.
21 oOo
22 MR. PAUL EMLER,
Chairman of Solid Waste Task
23 Force,
Edison Electric Institute,
24 Washington, D.C.
oOo—
-------
1 MR. EMLER: Dr. Skinner
2
members of the panel: My name Is Paul Emler,
o
Junior. I am a Senior Environmental Advisor
Tor the Allegheny Power Service Corporation
In Greensburg, Pennsylvania. I am appearing
today as Chairman on behalf of the Edison
7 Electric Institute's Solid Waste Task Force,
8 which Is part of the E.E.I. Environment and
9 Energy Committee. E.E.I. Itself represents
10 member companies who own and operate nearly
11 75 percent of the nation's electric capacity
12 and service approximately 79 percent of the
13 nation's electric customers. Currently, the
14 coal-fired generation of electric power pro-
is duces fly ash and bottom ash In the approxl-
16 mate amount of 65 million tons per year. In
17 addition, a large and growing amount of S02
18 scrubber sludge, estimated by the Electric
19 Power Research Institute to equal 60,000
20 acre feet per year by 1985, or an amount
21 sufficient to cover an area 90 square miles
22 one foot deep, will be Impacted by these
23 regulations.
24 The Solid Waste Task Force of E.E.I.
„, has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
-------
Statement prepared by the Environmental
2
Protection Agency in connection with promul-
gation of the proposed criteria for sanitary
landfills under Section Jioo^ of the Resource
5 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. We
6 are, by letter to the aeency today, providing
7 detailed comments on the Draft Impact State-
8 ment, and will also shortly be submitting
9 additional written comments on the proposed
W 'JOOl criteria themselves. In view of the
11 number of speakers today, however, and the
12 fact that we're submitting detailed comments,
13 1 will confine my remarks to the hl?h oolnts
14 of our submission.
15 E.E.I, has profound mlsplvlnKS about
16 the proposed criteria and the Draft Impact
17 Statement. These misptlvlnRS may be organized
18 under two major categories:
19 First, we detect throughout the Draft
2o Impact Statement a disturbing lack of hard
21 Information. Much of the statement Is
22 unsupported by any authority, and to the
23 extent authorities are cited, these turn
out to be congressional materials of an
unscientific nature, outdated studies, or
25
-------
not pertinent to the utility Industry In
2
any way. In addition, all too often, ref-er-
3
ences made to unpublished studies, telephone
4
calls, conferences, and other Information
not publicly available. Such references
are meaningless to the reviewer.
7 Second, we found in our review of the
8 Draft Imoact Statement that many assumptions
9 have been made that were either unsupport-
10 able or reflected conditions In municipal
U facilities or other Industries that were of
12 little or no relevance to the electric
13 utility Industry. Because of the absence
14 of data on so many points in the Impact
15 Statement, the Incorrect assumptions become
16 even more critical. As a result of these
17 two siRnlfleant defects, the Draft Statement1:
18 prediction of the economic consequences of
19 compliance with the proposed criteria Is
20 plainly Inadequate. As an Illustration,
21 the conclusion on pape IV-65 to the annual-
Ized cost of compliance with the proposed
criteria for the eleotrlc utility Industry
2-G
Is $35 million is undocumented, and we are
confident, too low by several orders of
25
-------
1
magnitude.
2
A few specifications as to each of these
3
points may be in order. With respect to the
data, It appeared to >as that the entire Impact
Statement was prepared with Information on the
6
problems of municipal waste, rather than
Industrial, or more particularly, utility
8 waste. In fact, however, and without down-
9 Playing the Importance of coming to grips with
10 the municipal waste problem, utility wastes
11 represent a considerably larger total quanti-
12 ty. For example, according to Information
13 reproduced In a recent joint EPA/Department
14 of Energy Report, entitled "Energy/Envlron-
15 went and Fact Book," dated March 18 or March,
16 1978, a single 1000 MW electrical generating
17 plant, burning low-sulfur coal, creates
18 320,000 tons of ash per year. We looked In
19 vain for Information of t>hls character in
20 the Impact Statement. In the one place
21 where such Information appeared, It supported
22 our point that the amount of waste Involved
23 outside the municipal area Is significant.
On page 111-15 of the Appendix, Table 5
„ estimates that the electric power Industry
-------
produces 60 million tons of sludge per year.
This Is approximately 1200 ceroent greater
than the annual yearly production of muni-
cipal sewage sludge. Similarly, concern
expressed in the criteria and the Draft
Impact Statement vlth regard to the cossl-
blllty that solid waste Right represent a
forage opportunity for pests seems to focus
on municipal wastes, and has little or no
relevance to the tyres of solid waste, such
as ash, that are associated with coal-fired
electrical generation.
E.E.T. recognizes that the information
available concerning; utility sold waste
generation is sparse, but this does not
excuse EPA from the duty to Identify the
benefits and the cost of the action it pro-
poses to take In connection with ttOO1! cri-
teria. If, 'as Is currently the case, the
data are not available, then EPA would be
acting arbitrarily if it proceeded to prom-
ulgate such regulations, since it would be
acting essentially in Ignorance of the conse-
quences of Its actions. We believe that
among other things, this would violate the
-------
1 spirit of the National Environmental Policy
2 Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the
3 Solid Waste Disposal Act, and Executive Order
4 120*1!, Issued by President Carter earlier
5 this year.
6 The assumptions used In the Draft
7 Statement and the proposed 1001 criteria are
8 also faulty. What, for example, can have
9 been the basis for the assumption that all
N> solid waste disposal sites are square? What
11 was the basis for selecting the 100-year
12 floodplain as a criterion for excluding
13 future potential disposal sites? Does EPA
u know how much of the United States would be
15 disqualified as sites for solid waste dls-
J6 posal using this and other guidelines for
,7 designation of "environmentally sensitive
18 areas"?
I9 As an example, I have a chart that
20 indicates the impact of the designation of
21 sole source aquifers as E.S.A.s on th«
22 electric utility industry. 1 request that
this chart be made a part of the official
ij
record of this proceeding. It Is Important
24
to note that more than 10 proposed coal-fired
25
-------
power plants may be located on lands classl-
n
fled as recharge zones for sole source, or prln
clpal sole source aquifers. An adequate D.E.I.
4 would contain this type of Information, and
5 would analyze the Impact of the regulation on
6 these proposed plants.
7 We submit that -without a clear under-
8 standing of how much of the country Is affect-
9 ed by such criteria, It Is not possible to
10 determine the benefits and costs associated
11 with the criteria.
12 Further, I an puzzled why EPA assumes
13 no landspreadlng occurs In E.S.A.s as It
14 does In the Draft Environmental Impact State-
is ment, and yet feels compelled to exempt
16 certain landspreadlng activities on flood-
17 plains from the proposed criteria. The
18 assumption and the exception are Inherently
19 Inconsistent.
20 In summary> E.E.I, believes the Draft
21 Environmental Impact Statement does not serve
22 the purpose of an Impact Statement, because
23 It falls to operate as an Environmental Pull-
Disclosure Statement. At best, the Statement
shows there Is present a paucity of informa-
25
-------
tlon upon which to proceed. Yet, the very
2
cornerstone of the nast ten years of envlron-
3
mental concern has been that the sovernnent
4 should know the environmental and other son-
5 sequences of Its actions before those actions
6 are taken.
7 Because we believe the Draft Impact
8 Statement Is sc clearly deficient, we find
9 It difficult to address the criteria ther.-
10 selves, except In the most general of terras.
11 E.E.I, will file written cor.ir.ents on the
12 criteria on or before June 12. The presenta-
13 tlon of those comments, In llKht of this
H Trapact Statement, will be difficult, and
15 the comments must be regarded as orovlsional
16 at best, pendlnr Issuance of a proper Draft
,7 Environmental Impact Statement. In these
18 circumstances, we stroncly ur?;e EPA to
19 oreaare a new Draft lacact Statement that
20 meets the standards for such statements,
21 since, In our view, it would be a mockery
of the Environmental Impact Statement process
for the apency now to proceed directly to
23
issuance of a final statement. 3y the same
24
token, we are strongly opposed to F.?A's
25
-------
taklne final action with respect to
2 criteria until the Impact Statement process.
o
has been meaningfully complied with. Beyond
4 any question of NEPA compliance, If the
5 Information shown In the D.E.I.S. Is
6 Indicative of the data base being used by
7 EPA to develop the lOOM criteria, then a
8 substantial question must be raised as to
9 whether the criteria are arbitrary and
10 capricious for purposes of the Administrative
11 Procedure Act.
12 E.E.I, appreciates the opportunity to
13 offer these remarks today, and we will con-
14 tinue to follow with Interest EPA's efforts
15 to Implement the Resource Conservation and
16 Recovery Act.
n Thank you.
18 MR. SKINNEP: Thank you,
19 Mr. Eraler.
20 Are there any questions from the panel?
21 MR. SHUSTER: You seem
22 to be Implying that before we can develop
23 regulations, we must know how much of the
United States Is In the 100-year floodplains,
Is in wetlands, and further, how many dls-
25
-------
posal facilities are located in these areas,
2
and what their conditions are for each indus-
try. In other words, do we have to do a com-
plete Inventory, which the Act asks for,
5
RCRA, after the promulgation of the regulation
Is that what you're saying?
7 MR. EHLER: Essentially
8 yes, it's impossible to calculate, or even
to estimate both the economic and other
1° Impacts - - environmental Impacts also of
11 the criteria unless you have a completely
12 good handle on the number of facilities
13 located within your proposed E.S.A., and
14 unless you know the extent of the country
IS contained within those E.S.A.s, and have
16 sort of a handle on the number of facilities
17 located In them, you can't adequately address
18 those questions. I recognize that It's a
19 difficult task, particularly In light of
20 the Water Resources Council's definition
2] of the 100-year floodplaln. But, neverthe-
22 less, those are, or that is information that
should be acquired.
MR. COLONNA: Mr. Emler,
24
what you've stated, I'm setting the assump-
25
1
-------
tlon that almost all of the disposal residues
2
from power plants is clone en-site, but you
o
seem to be referring, to power plant sites
4 synonymous with disposal, and further, can
8 you categorize the types of permit, if any,
6 that your facilities now receive for dlspos-
7 al?
8 MR. EMLER: ?o answer
9 the first part of the question, much of our
10 disposal activity, or the sites, are located
'I in close proximity of the power stations. As
12 I pointed cut In Washington at the first
13 meeting regarding the criteria, because of
\4 the demand for water by power stations that
15 they are.Invariably located adjacent to large
16 bodies of water.
17 "any of their, lie within the 100-year
18 floodplaln, or within the broad definition
!9 as expressed In the criteria of what the
20 disposal sites Include, not only land-dry
21 disposal, or fly ash, bottom ash, or scrubber
22 sludge, but also include p,f4 ponds, and
,, lagoons, both for ash disposal, and for
waste water treatment sludges. The E.I.S.
24
- - the Draft E.I.S. implies that all
-------
ponds^and lagoons would be closed if they
2
are located In a E.S.A.
3
And therefore, .lust that one require-
ment alone would present the utility Industry
with a tremendous economic burden. We, at
6 present, have Invested several billions of
7 dollars In facilities to meet the require-
8 ments of the Federal Water Pollution Control
9 Act Amendment of 1972, and many of those
10 facilities are located in a E.S.A., speci-
11 fically floodplalns, and In some cases,
12 wetlands under the criteria definition.
!3 As far as permits, specifically solid
14 waste permits, we obtained permits from
15 State agencies dealing with solid waste, as
16 well as the State agencies dealing with
17 surface-water discharges indicate ES permits,
18 or State industrial waste permits, and in
19 the case of nuclear stations, XRC.
20 MR. SKIMNER: 1 would
21 like to ask you a question about a figure
22 you submitted, and let me explain to the
„ audience what Is on the figure. It's a
map of the United States, which has the
estimated extent of sole, or principal
25
-------
source aquifers displayed on the map, and
also the projected coal-fired and oil-fired
steam clectrlo power slants on the same map
in an attenpt to show the overlap between
the sole source aquifers, and the projected
power plants. There are approximately - -
I didn't count them, but maybe 50 or 60 or
more aquifers indicated all over the United
States, and maybe several hundred power
plants.
My first question is what was the
source of information with respect to
aquifer location?
MR. EMLER: Dr. Skinner
I believe it was the U.S. Geological Survey.
I am not positive, but we will check, and
supply you with a reference for that base
map.
MR. SKINNER: The
reason I ask that question Is because sole
or principal source aquifers are Identified
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and to
my knowledge, only three such aquifers
have been identified, and there are approxi-
mately seven or eight others which have been
-------
1
proposed. So, if this was to denote those
2
aquifers designated under that Act, then
3
there is a discrepancy between that informa-
tion and this information. If this was to
mean soree other aquifer, other than those
s*
designated - -
7 MR. KMLEP.: We will
get the reference for that for you.
f'R. SKISMHP: Has K.E.I.
10 made an estimate, either on an individual
n
site size or site-type basis of the courses
12 of complying with the criteria?
13 MR. EMLF.H: Vfe're In
14 the process of oomrillnp; the answers to the
15 questionnaire that I referenced in Vfashlng-
16 ton, and it would appear that from sor.e of
17 that data, we may te able to get a better
18 handle on the cost of compliance. It
19 may be a per-plant, or a per-systerc, but
20 we will have a better handle than we have
21 at this particular time, and that would be
22 included in our comments for the 12th.
23 MR. SKIMMER: That
24 will be very helpful, because as you
Indicated in your comments, the data is
-------
1
sparse, and we're obviously limited to using
2
that data which we have available, and
3
anything you can provide us with will be
4
very appreciated.
MR. EMLER: I might
6
point out that the map that you have Indl-
7
eating the projected coal and oll-flred
8 plants for the period '77 through '90,
q
Includes only those plants projected for
10 construction, but we have not attempted to
11 ply at this time existing power stations
12 within the principal source aquifer area,
13 or within the country.
14 MR. SKINNER: I have
15 another question.
16 In your comments on "environmentally
17 sensitive areas," which you referenced In the
18 floodplaln criteria, I think you Indicated
19 that it was your assumption that facilities
20 in floodplains would be forced to close.
21 Perhaps that was an assumption in arriving
22 at some of the cost numbers In the Draft
23 Environmental Impact Statement, but I Just
24 wanted to check - - are you aware that that
„, Is not what the criteria do require in the
-------
1
floodplains?
MR. EMLER: The crlterl
3
Implies that you may be able to continue
operation In a floodplaln - -
5 MR. SKINNER: That's
correct.
7
MR. EMLER: - - by
8 ROlng through various proof. Unfortunately,
9 the Draftee I asked does not make that
assumption, and does not make the assumption
11 that all pits, oonds, lagoons, and Impound-
12 ments located within E.S.A. would be closed.
13 HR. SKINNER: Yes, I
believe, but that Is not a requirement In
15 the criteria.
16 Are there any other questions?
17 MR. WEDDLE: Do the
18 utility Industries do much landspreading
19 of solid waste?
20 MR. EMLER: We're
2i attempting at this time to determine that.
22 We have not at this particular time land-
23 spread waste as a common practice. It Is
my understanding that some midwestern
25 utilities have landspread ash on an experl-
-------
1
mental basis as a soil amendment to agrl-
2
cultural lands for the growth of crops?
3
MR. EMLER: Yes.
4
MF. DeOEARE: Did you
5
find the assumptions and data used In the
6
Draft E.I.S. as being Inadequate for
7
development of absolute costs, or for
8
development of comparisons among the
9
regulatory alternatives that were considered
10
In development of the Draft ".E.I.S,?
MR. EMLER: I think
12
they are totally Inadequate to develop any
13
kind of absolute costs, but I think the
odds are Inadequately In order to be
able to try appropriate comparisons between
16 the various alternatives available to Imple-
17 ment the record.
18 It may be that the assumptions that
19 were made for municipal wastes are fairly
20 proper because of the data that Is avall-
21 able, but extrapolating that shows types
22 of assumptions to Industrial waste practices,
23 and then 4er'ivi«w financial Impact statements
24 from that, It Just doesn't follow.
25 MR. SKINNER: Again, we
-------
would appreciate any specific comments you
2 would care to make about assumptions which
3 should be changed, and what they should be
4 changed to to more properly reflect the
5 situation. I notice you did submit a very
6 extenslv* letter on the Draft Environmental
7 Impact Statement, and maybe those assumptions
8 are made specific in that.
9 Any other questions? Dirk?
10 MR. BRUNNEH: One brief
11 question.
12 The cost of disposal that was estimated
13 in D.R.I.S. you mentioned as being several
14 loads of magnitudes less than you would - -
15 what you expect It might be. Can you - -
lg do you have any general cost figures of
17 the current cost of disposal on a part-time
u basis?
I9 MR. EHLER: We are
20 developing those costs from the question-
21 nalre that we submitted to member companies,
22 and it will be referenced within the comments
„ that we'll submit on the 12th.
to
I can't answer the question speclfl-
24
cally at this particular point in time be-
25
-------
1
cause I have not seen the computation and
2
the results of that questionnaire.
3
MR. BRUNNER: At this
particular point In time, there is no
5
general rule of how many there Is of
c
Industry as to what a part-time disposal
might be for volume?
8 MR. EMLER: No, It
depends to a large extent on the method of
10 disposal. I? It's landfill or costs, in our
11 experience, It would be considerably higher
12 than if they are ponded, particularly ash.
13 MR. BRUNNER: Thank you.
" MR. SKINNER: Thank you,
la Mr. Emler.
16 Mr. Gene Sockley.
17 oOo
18 MR. GENE H. GOCKIEY,
Manager,
19 Environmental Management,
Pennsylvania Power and Light
20 CO.
Allentown, Pennsylvania
2)
oOo
22
MR. OOCKLEY: Good
23
afternoon, ladles and gentlemen. I'm Qene
24
Gockley, Manager of Environmental Management
at Pennsylvania Power & Light Company. PP&L
-------
1
generating capacity exceeds 5,500,000 kilo-
2 !
watts for some 960,CCO customers in central
eastern Pennsylvania. Atout ?v percent of
i
4 .
that power is croiuced by coal-fired steam
i
5 ,
ijeneratln;; stations.
I
6
We are verv interested In the regula-
I
' tlons to be promulgated under the Resource
I
O
1 Conservation and Recovery Act because of
9 I
the consecuences for fly ash and bottom as!-
I
10
11
under this Act. As a ma.'or coal user, we
consume irreat quantities of coal and dis?c>-?-
12 ' of huge amounts of fly and bottom ash
13 ' annually.
14 Last year, we handled more than 1.5
15 million tons among our five coal-burning
16 plants. This Is about 310,000 tons per
17 plant. Over the last six years, the ash
18 waste tonnage handled at P?JL plants totaled
19 more than 9 million tons. We produce enough
20 to fill a structure the size of the Great
21 Pyramid at Olza every two years,
22 Thus, solid waste regulations which
23 broadly include solids, semi-solids and
24 i liquids, will have significant economic
25 | and operational Impact on our Company and
-------
1
the electric utility industry in general.
2
PP&L's policy is to comply with environ
3
mental regulations, and we're here today to
4
say that we feel we can comply with sensible
5
RCRA Solid Waste Regulations, and we ask
6
that these regulations be sensibly applied
7
to our industry and that they reflect
8
realities of existing industry technology
9
and practice. We do not question the merit
10
of preventing contamination of ground and
surface waters or protecting environmentally
12
sensitive areas from future encroachment.
13
We feel, however, that there are
14 certain difficulties with the regulations,
15 with the interpretation supplied by the
16 Environmental Impact Statement, and with
17 how both these documents apply to the elec-
18 trie utility industry.
19 The problems we will address are first:
20 1. Clarification of the solid waste
21 definition to determine if, in fact, faclll-
22 ties with NPDES permits for discharges are
23 already covered, and thus exempt from the
24 regulations under consideration.
25 Second, the Environmental Impact State-
-------
roent's interpretation that existing surface
o
impoundments In environmentally sensitive
3
areas would have to be closed, and in con-
4
trast to the regulations' implication that
only future facilities would have to comply
6 with the solid waste disposal criteria.
7 Third, ambiguous restrictions reserved
8 for floodplalns, and fourth, the issue of
9 whether fly ash should be designed as hazard-
10 ous and thus subject to the stringent regula-
11 tlons Imposed by the manifest system.
12 Now, with respect to clarifying the
13 solid waste definition, In the proposed
14 rules as published in the February 6 Federal
15 Register, the definition of solid! waste is
16 ambiguous. As drafted, it could be read to
17 exempt ash basins as presently operated by
lg the electric utility industry under the
19 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. That
20 definition clearly states that Industrial
21 discharges which are point sources subject
to permits under Section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act are excluded.
23
As an example, PP&L's ash baslna, in
the form of surface impoundments, have
25
-------
approved NPDES permits and are operating
with these permits since the system was
established In the mid '70's, and therefore,
would and should be exempt.
Now secondly, with respect to closing
impoundments in environmentally sensitive
areas, we see unreasonable penalties for the
electric utility Industry. In fact, this
interpretation conflicts with our reading
of the regulations - - that this provision
applies only to future Impoundments.
Power plants require locations close
to available water sources for cooling pur-
poses. Thus, power plants and their ash
basins are. frequently on or near floodplains
or wetlands, not by choice, but by necessity.
The Environmental Impact Statement
assumes closure of existing Impoundment
facilities at Chapter III, Page 23, which
could cost the electric utility Industry
millions of dollars and result In additional
environmental problems unless extensive
measures are taken to return partially used
basins to the proper condition of the
terrain.
-------
1
Premature closure would reauire Tilling
2
the basin so that no depression exists to
3
capture rain waiter, compacting the fill
material and ash and placing: and plantlne:
of topsoll. A sounder environmental strategy
and a more economical approach would be to
7 allow existing basins, properly licensed by
8 state agencies, to be used "or the duration
9 of their designated lifetimes. Then, these
10 basins should be closed out according to the
11 environmental provisions of their state
12 licenses, which would Impose no additional
13 economic burdens.
14 Closing existing floodplain basins
15 would mean PP&L would lose about 250 acres
16 of basins. This land has already been dls-
17 turbed, and if they are to be closed, we'd
18 still have to replace them, which would mean
19 disturbing another 250 acres with replacement
20 basins. We think a tenet of good environ-
2i mentalisra is to get maximum use out of
22 terrain already disturbed so as to minimize
23 additional encroachment.
Part of our assessment is that-we feel
„. that recently designed basins which meet
£O
-------
present licensing requirements of the Office
2
of Solid Waste Management In Pennsylvania,
o
are environmentally sound and valuable for
4 the numerous years of service expected of
5 them. Newer basins and basins presently
6 under construction were licensed cased on
7 information about soils, hydrogeology,
8 geology, chemical analysis of basin contents,
9 topography and climate.
10 These examinations have been costly,
11 but we view them as necessary provisions for
12 operating environmentally safe installations.
13 Are the proposed regulations Implying that
U existing state licenses, procured with these
15 stringent measures, are no longer valid?
16 Now, an additional conflict regarding
17 sensitive areas is the statement in the regu-
18 latlons that structures can be built in the
19 floodplaln as long as they do not restrict
20 the flow of the base flood or do not reduce
2i the temporary water storage capacity of the
22 floodplaln. We would ask one question. How
„, do you build anything in the floodplaln wlth-
£a
out imposing in any way on the floodplaln's
ability to store water temporarily?
25
-------
Ve suggest that the lanfruajre in. the
2
proposed regulations be modified in two ways:
3 First , the prohibition aealnst restrict
ine: the base flood flow and the storage
capacity of the basin should be reworded
6 to prohibit facilities which significantly
7 restrict the flow of water in the floodplain.
® And secondly, the regulation should
9 state that It ^r,clies to new facilities and
10 structures. If the concern is that existinc
11 structures are not floodprcof, a prevision
12 could be added reculrin? existing facilities
13 to be rade floodrroof. A definition of flood
14 proof is spelled out in Section 257-3-1 of
15 the proposed regulations, that is, a facility
16 "designed, constructed, operated and maln-
17 talned so as to protect against Inundation
18 by the base flood. . ."
19 Finally, we would like to take this
20 opportunity to address an Issue which has
21 plagued the electric utility industry since
22 it learned of the possibility that ash n-.ay
be considered eenerlcally a hazardous sub-
23
stance under Subtitle C cf the Resource Con-
24
servation and Recovery Act.
25
-------
This designation Is being considered
2
based on the presence of trace elements of
q
heavy metals in some ash.
For the most part, ash Is composed of
5 aluminum oxides, silicates, and Iron oxides
6 with wide ranpres In the tyr>es of trace ele-
7 ments, which have not been shown to be
8 hazardous In the concentrations found.
9 Trace elements found In ashes are
10 found In similar concentrations to those
11 concentrations of trace elements commonly
12 found In mineral bodies where coal Is mined.
13 Sulfur and some of the other components
14 have been removed by the combuslon process.
15 We have no evidence that ash Is a
16 hazardous material based on federal standards
17 for hazardous substances, that Is, taking
18 into account toxiclty, persistence, degrada-
19 bility in nature, potential for accumulation
20 in tissue, and factors such as flaramabillty
2j and corroslveness. The ash In slurry form
22 rr.ay have made the oxides more soluble and
„, more conducive to leaching. This situation,
£O
24 we feel, should be examined on a case-by-case
basis because of variables such as the spec!-
-------
flc nature of the trace elements In the
different seaws of coal and variables in
o
the nature of the surrounding water of the
impoundment.
5 On a site-by-slte basis, we think that
6 more economic decisions, fitting specific
7 conditions, can be made based on known
8 technologies for drainage, liners, both
9 natural and artificial, and monitoring of
10 discharges, and adjacent ground water.
11 Present evidence is insufficient for
12 classification of ash as a hazardous sub-
is stance. Furthermore, such a universal class-
14 iflcatlon would preclude many of the promis-
15 ing developments which would allow ash to be
16 used as an ingredient in concretes, plastics,
17 and for other more commonplace uses such as
18 for roads to prevent winter skidding.
19 Since ash has teen commonly accepted
20 for utilitarian purposes, and certainly its
21 disposal has not created recognized problems
22 because of toxlcity, we feel that the burden
23 of proof for such a designation rests with
25 It's further recognized that ash,
-------
treated as a hazardous substance, would
2
create severe economic problems since It
3
would have to be stringently tracked from
4
cradle to prave.
Thus, we suggest that ash basins be
dealt with on a sase-by-case basis. At the
7 same tire, studies should be undertaken to
8 assess more accurately the effects of storing
9 ash In solution.
10 Thank you.
'1 MR. SKIMMER: Thank you,
12 Mr. Gockley. As you're aware, today's
13 hearing Is not on the hazardous waste of
14 RCRA, it's on the non-hazardous waste pro-
is visions under Subtitle !), but your coir.ir.ents
16 relative to hazardous wastes, and the
-------
tlons.
V.R. SKINNER: Are there
3
any questions?
4 "P. r>eGEARE: You
Indicated that your ash basins currently
6 operate with ixPfifcS permits. Could you
1 tell if those permits addressed as specs of
8 the basic operation other than the constlt-
9 uents of the discharge? ^or example, I'm
10 especially concerned about whether discharge
11 to gr
12
13 the?/ do. And If discharged proundwi-ter" Is
14 suspected, we're required to put in mon'itcr-
15 in? »eils-
16 ME. DeC-EARE: You have
n inonltorlnR Information on discharge to
18 groundwai-fef from such basins?
19 MR. GOCKLEY: Yes.
20 MR- DeGEARE: Could you
2i make that available to us?
22 .MR. GOCKLEY: Yes, I
23 have one.
24 MR. ANDRES: Do you
25 have Information on the location of your
-------
facilities In wetlands or floodplalns? In
other words, how many of your facilities
are so located?
MR. GOCKLEY: I can
think of only one that Is not. And that's
because we happened to find a place about
two miles from the plant, and It's uphill.
And there is a pipeline that poes up there,
but no, perhaps two. There is a second like
that, but most of them are down low, right
beside the river where the power plant la.
MR. ANDRES: The second
part of the question is, I guess, I'm not
sure exactly how you would state the answer.
MR. OOCKLEY: I'll
figure that out.
MR. ANDRES: You'll
figure that out. How often do you open up
new such surface impoundments? In other
words, what is the turnover where you're
seeking new location?
MR. GOCKLEY: Okay. A
very Rood question because it bears on the
thing that we're saying;. Very normally,
10 to 15 years Is the life of such an
-------
impoundment, so the thlnps that we're talX-
2
Ing about would be, even the ones we're
tuilding today, and they are just belnfc
4
built under cretty close scrutiny, would be
5 passing out of the picture °rorr 1? tc 1 =
years.
7 YP. j.vrpr?: c:cay.
8 The reason T asked those questions Is
9 because there seems to be SC-TC :cnfusion
10 with respect tc the environmental sensitive
I' areas, and exactly what the restrictions
12 were, and the assurrtions naie in the S.I.?.
13 with respect to Iccatlns surface 1-pound-ents
14 In those areas, and ~ think the clarification
15 Is that new sites may be located in E.S.A.'s
16 If they meet the new criteria. So, I think
17 the Issue really is the - - are the exist-
18 Inp - - an-J what has to !:e done to upgrade
19 ther, cr close them.
20 '"• "-"W^ •• '"'el-.
2j when you asked me a question like that,
22 yen have to realize that you're speaklnr,
to one srcall portion of the electric Indus-
try, and particularly with rescect to the
24
basins, they vary. Well, let rne plve you
25
-------
1
an example. I already told you that we
2
have one fly ash basin where It Is two
3
miles from the plant, and we pump the ash
4
almost two miles uphill to get It there, and
5
at another place, the power plant site
6
happens to be on an area, where for many
7
years, a contractor, a sand and gravel
8
operation, was taking sand and gravel out,
9
and actually a fly ash basin, Improved the
10
surroundings, because we fill the holes up.
u
MR. SKINNER: Are there
12
any other question?
13
MR. D«OEARE: You men-
/>
tloned that power plants and ash basins are
15
located on or near floodplalns, not by
choice, but by necessity. I'm sure that
17
there are economic ramifications to what
18
you call necessity? Do you have cost Infor-
19
matIon on the transport of aah, should the
90
case arise where you're not able to locate
21
It Immediately adjacent to the power plant?
00
MR. OOCKLEY: Yea, we
23 have cost Information, both the pumping on
24 pipeline, and I think we've recently adopted
25 some for trucking that we will make avail-
-------
1
able to you. I mleht as well add, that at
2
least for rcy company, since we've said that
3
we will no longer build power plants without
4
cooling towers, It takes away the necessity
5
to be beside a river, and one of the more
6
recent plants Is 12 miles from the river.
7
MR. SKINNEP: Could you
o
give me an estimate of the size of the
g
"loodplalns that we're talking about? Are
we talking about, in your case, floodplalns
11 that are nlles wide, or are they very narrow,
12 maybe several hundred yards? What Is the
situation exactly?
14 MR. OOCKLEY: I'm sure
15 that the answer should be the whole gamut,
16 since you're asking me, I'll have to tell
17 you that our power plants In Susouehanna,
18 whish Is a very, very - - th« river Itself
19 is a mile wide. It's very broad, and the
20 Delaware. So they are broad.
21 MR. SKINNEH: So the
22 location of a surface Impoundment, a very
23 broad floodplaln like that, possibly could
24 be done without seriously impounding on
25 the capacity of the plain to pass the flood?
-------
1 »«D _ 00?XI,TY: Absolutely •
2 It's almost Insignificant.
3 YP. SKIMMEH: So that's
4 the basis for your cc-..rr.ent s to add that word
5 "significant" in that part?
6 MR. OCCKLEY: Yes.
7 y.P.. SKINNER: Ml rlfr.ht.
8 Thank you.
9 Are there anr other questions? Pon?
10 MR. A*?PT>Fr: In the
11 construction of your pi-Uj oonds and lagoons,
12 I would assume that these structures begin
13 to have dikes, and so we would have an afcove-
14 ground lagoon?
15 MR. OOCKLEY: Correct.
16 MR. ANDRE?: "an you
17 give me any indication as to what envlron-
18 mental constraints, or safety constraints
19 you see Influencing the design o" these
20 structures as they would ^e slurry piles,
21 or tailings piles comln? out liVre the mining
22 industrj' that stability protler. How
„„ would this influence your future use of
£&
these facilities?
V?.. ^OCKLEY: Now,
25
-------
1
you're not talking: environment, now you're
2
talkin? safety, is that the question?
3
MR. ANDRES: I'm seeking
4
to find If there are other regulations that
5
will be influencing the construction and
6
configuration of your disposal facilities,
anS thinkinfc very particular of what I
Q
sense is coming out of talllnKS piles, and
Q
slurry piles around the mining ooeratlons.
10 MR. GOCKLEY: You know
11 I'a like to defer to the E.E.I. ?aul, would
12 you - - did he leave? I can't help you.
13 MR. SKINNER: Any other
14 questions?
15 Thank you, .Vr. Oockley.
16 MR. OOCKLEY: We'd be
n ciad vhen we send the Information to you,
is we'll supply that.
19 1R. SKIMMER: Fine,
20 thank you. That will be very helpful.
21 .Teffrey Diver.
22 oOo
23 JEFFREY R. DIVER,
Counsel for Environmental
, Affairs,
Waste Management, Inc .,
?00 Jorle Blvd.,
M Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
-------
_
2 MR. DIVF.R: Thank you,
o
John, "erideth. Gentlemen, this Is becoming
4 a repetitive event meeting with U.S. EPA,
8 and waking these comments over and over,
6 but given the opportunity, I shall continue
7 once again.
8 As I Indicated, many of these state-
9 ments have already been made during private
i" meetings with U.S. EPA^during public hearings
n held with the Industry, and In Informally
12 submitted writings, as well as Industry
13 associations submitting formal writings.
14 My particular corapany, Waste Manage-
15 n-.ent Incorporated, Is Involved In the buslnes
16 of collecting and disposing and recovering
17 waste In approximately 28 states in the
18 United States and Canada, and Saudi Arabia.
19 Because we operate approximately 55 landfills
20 or more within the -Jnlted States, these reg-
21 ulatlons have obvious import to us. Because
22 of the time limitations, and because there
are others who are left to speak, let me
23
confine myself to four principal comments
on these criteria.
25
-------
Waste vanacer,ent will be subrr.ittine
written consents with rerard to the criteria,
and potentially on the "nvlronreentai Intact
Statement Itself. The first principal cor.-
r.ent is that V.S. EPA, in several sections
of the Criteria, has si-.unned its mandate to
articulately criteria, and has either CA)
openly delegated criteria setting to states
and local governments, or Cs; stated va^ue
principals with the obvious intention cf
allowing each state to deterrine, for itself,
what is required^ of alternat ivelyj piver.
the citizen suit rrcvislcrSj allowir.r each
Federal Dlst"l:t Court to make such -ieter-
nlnations.
For examples of the open sub-delega-
tion of authority tc states and units of
local government, are found still in Section
257.3-3(B?, which relates to class ?, crouni-
waters, in which grcundurter quality is to
be maintained "«t such level as is specified
bj- the state." ?.* 25?.?--', vhich provides
that air emissions are tc- be controlled so
as to cow^ly vlth all apr.llcaMe state and
local air regulations, in addition to
-------
federal air regulations.
257.3-(B), which prohibits the open
burning of, for example, agricultural wastes
"unless In compliance with state and local
regulations." Let me continue with examples
of regulation by principal, rather than by
category.
First, Section 257.3-2(B), which pro-
vides that non-point sources are to be adhered
to the operative standard controlled so as to
prevent and minimize non-point source dis-
charges of pollutants. "Prevent or minimize"
Is the standard.
Secondly, 257.3-3(A)-2 specifies
operational modes for groundwa-fee*- protec-
tion which I will get Into by example In a
moment.
Third, Section 257.3-3(A)(b), provides
that sites are required to monitor ground-
water, whatever "monitor ground waster" means,
required to predict leachate migration, what-
ever that means, and to have a current and
acceptable contingency plan. How current
or acceptable to whom Is never really speci-
fied.
-------
1
Fourth, ??7.3-6 provides that disease
2
vectors are to be controlled through "rclnl-
3
mlzlnj; the availability of food and harborage
4
for vectors through the periodic application
of cover material or other techniques where
appropriate."
7 Fifth, 257.3-7CC), "Fire Hazards." And
8 understand that these are all standards to
9 which sites are held Independent of whether
10 or not they r.eet performance criteria. Fire
11 hazards are to be minimized thrcuprh proper
12 site construction and design In the periodic
13 annllcation of cover material, where appro-
14 priate.
15 Sixth. Bird hazards for sites within
16 the conical surfaces are to be determined
17 "case-by-sase." nver the last 12 months,
18 Waste wanageroent, myself, and the National
19 Solid Waste Management Association have
20 continually raised these points with U.S.
21 EPA without apparent success. Particularly,
22 we are advised that sub-delea;atlon cf
23 criteria setting; -to states and local povern-
24 ments is legally In-ernlsslble. TJ. S. EPA
25 was charg-ed xith the mandate to establish
-------
the criteria, and It is lepally permitted
to transfer that responsibility criteria to
the states.
U.S. "A has responded that the legal
Issue is bein? studied by Ser.eral Council's
Office. We have heard that for six -.onths
now. We have never heard of the conclusion
from the General Council's Office, and likely
w» won't hear about it until someone Is pushe
to litigate the Issue. ' should note that
this does net mean, of coarse, that the
states dc not have authority to create their
own regulations. The;,- olviously do. ?helr
source of authority is not the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act. It Is Just that
they do not have the authority under SCP.4 to
estaMlsh federal criteria "or solid waste
disposal. There are other reasons besides
the fact that It Is illef-al for not sub-dele-
gating. First Is that sub-delegation defeats
the purpose of relnlrcur. national criteria.
It secondly assures that there will be non-
vinirorr.ity in the evaluation of sites, either
by the courts or through inventorying; and
thirdly, it places on courts the responsi-
-------
Mlity of determining what the criteria wean.
The establishment of principals, general
vajrue statements as opposed to criteria,
that is measurable standards, does not
afford the regulated Industry with an oppor-
tunity to know vhat specific standards it
will be held to prior to somebody's either
suing it, or placing it on the list of open-
dumps. This has first obvious implications
for due process because it does not allow
someone to know what he is going to be
compared to before the comparison is made.
Secondly, it is contrary to EPA's
own proposed guidance to the states of
w«bruary 1*, 1??S. These are draft guide-
lines. They have not yet been procosed,
tut these are the guidelines which U.S. EPA
proposes for development and implication of
state solid waste management plans, and it
provides on Page 25 recommendations for
state regulatory powers, Section 256.22(A),
"solid waste disposal standards should be
measurable, achievable, and enforceable."
And yet, the reeulations which U.S. EPA is
proposing today, in large part, are not
-------
measurable, but are subject to va?:ue Inter-
pretations. Let's KO back to the operational
criteria on ground w4/fcer-.. This would be
section 257.3-3'A) 2 and 3. As you look at
those criteria, kee? In mind that a facility
which violates any operational criterion is
an open-dunp, subject to suit by citizens,
subject to listing as an open-da.Ti?, and It
need not be violating the grounc"u*«.-t»r
criterion at all. That means It need not
be, nor showing need has been made, that
it's actually causing a problem In an
aquifer, or in a drinking water supply.
It is .?ust that the operational criteria
itself has been violated.
Alternative one for the operational
standards, the first sentence says, "any
leachate produced shall be collected through
use of artificial liners." What Is an arti-
ficial liner? There is no definition.
There are no specifications for what a liner
should meet. Is a layer of saran wrap
approvable? Is clay an artificial liner?
Can waste be put
-------
1
waste and the water? Can T use an artificial
2
line- at any site? V.'hat if the state doesn't
3
approve use of artificial liners? The point
4
is, ea;h of these suestlone that I have asked
is not answered *;• these criteria. Somebody
6
is roinc to have to answer their, and vet,
they can be answered c!if ferer.tiy by each
0
person who is to rake the answer to that
9 rartiiular cuestion. Ar.i if V.S. EPA
10 ?rocoses that the states are coinc to be
11 n-akinc these determinations, then the
12 states will be usinp whatever they think
13 is arprovable artificial liners. The;' will
14 be making their own deterr.inations as to
15 whether artificial liners :an te used at
'6 all.
17 The second sentence says, "collected
18 leachate shall >e rescvec1, reclrculated, or
19 treated as appropriate." Vhat Iocs that
20 rr.ean? >?hc decides what is ar.prorrlate?
21 Who decides where it can ani can't be
22 rer.oved tc? When can it be reclrculated?
23 Are there an.v deslcn standards for recircu-
24 laticn systems? ?hould we rur.c tKrcu^h a
25 percolation basin at the tor of the fill,
-------
or should we use a sprinkler system? Who
decides and when? Who decides, for exaraplfr,
whether I ir.ust pre-treat my particular
leachate, whether before I discharge it to
a sewer, and if I must pre-treat, to what
standards must I do it? The second alter-
native operational criteria is every bit as
'•r2f;ue as the first. It provides the facility
should control the Rlgratlon of leachate by
utilizing the sites' natural hydrofr.eologlc
conditions, attenuation mechanlsns and/or
recovery and treatment of contaminated water.
'••'ho makes all of those determinations as to
whether there are existing soil attenuation
mechanisms, what they are, if it is per-
missible in one state to have a site lined
by natural or artificial types of clays with
permeabilities of one tines ten to the ztinus
six, and the landfill is located in that
particular state, and it is approved In that
state, should a landfill in the adjoining
state, that has r.ore stringent requirements,
and reaulres, for example, ten to the minus
eip:ht permeability soils, should that parti-
cular facility be determined to be an open-
-------
1
dump? That Is what I'n talking about - -
2
In the sense of having non-uniformity eri-
3
terla applied around the United States.
4
Then we get to the third portion of
the Case One Criteria, and that Rets to
monitoring the groundwi^t-'r, prediction
7
of leachate nine ir.igrat Ion, and a current
8 and acceptable contingency plan. None of
9 these are, of course, ever defined, and
10 presumably to be left to the states to
11 make the determination. My recommendation
12 Is, and has been for the last 12 months,
13 first> do not Incorporate state standards,
14 and secondly, If you are ?olng to establish
15 operational standards and you feel It's an
16 absolute necessity, please do It rlKht, and
17 tell us what those standards are poinf? to be,
18 and do not make it subject tc 50 different
19 Interpretations.
20 Second ir.a.'or objection Is that U.S.
21 2?A for some criteria has not specified a
22 methodology for determining compliance. I
23 refer again to the draft guidance, to the
state, Section 255.22'a;i, and I'm quoting
U.S. EPA's recoraraendatlons now to the states.
25
-------
"The methodology for deterr.in'.r.?: sor.rllance
2 should be clearly specified. Samplinr and -
3 analytical methods should ve established."
4 However, with rezard to rrcur.J water, nc
5 nethodclory for deterrlnlr..-: oonplian^a Is
6 specified. >!o methodclcry for deterr.ininr
7 whether -onitors should be located, how
8 often they should be withdrawn, how they
9 should be constructed, -.That -.articular
10 parameter should be analyzed for. None of
11 this is crcvlded in the draft guidance.
12 With rerard to explosive e;ases, there
13 4S a reoulrer.ent that concentration In soil
14 at the property boundary not exceed explosive
15 limitations, of coarse, we don't ::ncw how
16 far down in the soil that applies, hut we
17 also have net been riven a methodology for
18 determining whether that particular criter-
19 jon is jtoinr to be violated.
20 And lastly, on toxic or asphyxiating
21 gases, the criterion Is simply the concen-
22 tratlon that Is harmful to human, animal,
23 and plant life are prohibited, but nc
24 methodology is provided of hew it deter-
25 mines whether or not that has happened
-------
until, of course, all of the humans, animals,
and Plants have been killed.
Three. The third ina.^or ob.1 action Is
that U.S. K?A has pushed its regulatory
authority beyond nernlsslble limits with
rerard to ground to ate-r classification.
Arguably, and I do not mean to conceive
the point, clearly not at this time, F-PA
could establish maximum concentration of
landfill leaching contaminants In ground-
waters, used for various purposes around
the United States, and Instead, that Is
what they have done with regard to drinking
water sources. They have established a
r.axir.u- contaminant concentration that way
be allowed which Is tied to the drinking
water standard. However, with regard to
other waters, that Is waters that *«ve not
been designated for drinking water purposes,
or which are in excess of the particular
total dissolved solids concentration limit,
the EPA has not developed particular
standards. Instead, it has chosen to tell
the states how they nay z.o about classifying
r,round.W«.t*r. The considerations which
-------
the state must take, the requirements for
2 public hearings, frankly, this goes too
3
far. Congress has not given a mandate to
4 U.S. EPA to establish parameters for ground-
5 water classification by the states. If U.S.
6 EPA wishes to establish standards, It should
7 do so, but to require that the states engage
8 In that process, much less to establish the
9 parameter under which they may do it, exceeds
10 the authority which has been granted tr.S.
Ji EPA.
12 Lastly, EPA has established a clear
13 catch-22 regulation in the wetland section.
H It has provided that a facility is an open-
15 dump in a wetland if It is in a wetland,
16 also, it has a Section 402 permit. And the
n problem is, that you cannot get a Section
is 402 permit in a wetland, or anywhere else,
19 for in a wetland area, primarily, because
20 U.S. EPA has not established any regulations
21 telling one how he should apply for It, or
22 what standards would be applicable to it.
23 I refer now to the Environment*! Impact
24 Statement, P&ge 3-10, If I just may quote
„ this, John.
25
-------
On the vetlan.J.s, however, protection,
2
If we airandcne^ the wetlands criterion, the
3
"protection woul•)to
•i
permit previsions have not ;-et teen estat-
8 lished for sclld waste ilsr-csal facilities,
9 and that Is Indeed the pre-tlen - - can :
10 get the particular rerr.it?
11 John, r.y tlrre IE -a".
12 VT>. «xr\*?.'EH: ^hank you.
13 Are there any questions?
14 I'd *ust like to ask one general
is question, 3eff. You're suf;restir.r, national
16 federal standards that«« Quantifiable,
17 measurable, and taslcaliy, lesve very
18 little discretion or interpretation to the
19 states. Through many comments that we've
20 received fron the states and fror. other
21 parties, the other point of view was
22 expressed that Riven the large nur.ber
23 of different types of disposal facilities,
24 the larpe nur.ber of different t;'?es of
wastes, the many different reopraphJ.es.
25
-------
1
climates, the many different philosophies,
2
the unknown, and the uncertain, and the
3
ability, and the performance, and the
4
economics of -different disposal technologies,
5
that it would be impossible and very inappro-
6
prlate for the asency to cone up with a
standard national, of o.uantifiable, neasur-
8 able, regulation, but that it should be left
q
to professional engineers, and professional
10 seoioplsts in the states to operate within
11 specific generalised guidelines. Sow, my
12 question to you Is the following:
13 Could you, Tor each of the criteria
14 indicated, submit to us what you would feel
15 would be an acceptable, quantifiable, meas-
16 urable standard that would be applicable
17 nation-wide?
18 KP.. DIVE?.: I think
19 I could for each of those that have been
20 specified, but John, let we respond to your
21 general comment. It seems to me that since
22 what we're talking about is a national sur-
23 vey of landfills, and not .lust a state survey
24 according to the particular state's phllo-
25 sophles, or according to the particular
-------
state's climatology. °r anything else, or
2
anything of the other factors that you
3 Indicated that U.S. EPA oupht to, at the
very least, establish those factors which
to have some uniformity nation-wide, and
6 those are the only factors that can be
7 determined, then stick to these standards,
8 but do give general guidance to a state, or
9 to a landfill operator, that for exanple,
10 that he is to prevent or minimize discharges
11 fror. non-point sources to offside waters,
12 Isn't very helpful. All tt does is say that
13 in California or Mew 'cork and Illinois, one
14 standard is ftoinp to be applied by the state
15 rer-latory agencies, and in other states, a
16 different standard Is going to te applied.
n And that isn't helpful to us in knowing
18 what it is that you want us to do, and it
19 isn't helpful to the notion of having a
20 national Inventory of solid waste disposal
21 facilities.
22 MR. SKINN'EH: Are there
23 any other questions fror. the panel?
24 MR. sHusftK: I would
•'ust like to make a comment. Jeff mentioned
25
-------
1
that we've had numerous meetings with him
2
through various means, and mentioned that
3
some of these were private meetings. I
4
juat wanted to clarify that we have had no
5
private meetings to my knowledge. They have
6
all been open to the public, and our meeting
7
with NSwWijC on alder ably many, have been
8
announced.
MR. DIVER: Well, I
10
didn't mean to suggest that they were
behlnd-doors meetings - - you can never
12
allow that.
13
MR. SHo*Te«: I Just
14 wanted to make sure that that was clear.
15 Another question that I have. Are
16 you aware of some of the guidances that
17 we have been developing, which are for
18 states to use In determlng - - to answer
19 some of these questions that you're raising,
20 for example, our Ground-Water Monitoring
21 Manual, you know, In some of the guidelines
22 that were currently developed for land dls-
23 posal.
24 MR. DIVER: Well, I
25 guess the answer to the specific question
-------
Is no. My response would be It doesn't r.ake
a lot of difference what kind of guidelines
you're going; to Kive them. It's either
Kolng to be the sair.e methodology that is
solng to be aoplied in New York or California
and the sai*e parameters that are Roing to be
measured for, or it's not, and If it's not,
it's eolng to be a survey that doesn't mean
anything to anyone, except 'ust what we'%'e
r.ot today, and that is 50 states doing it
50 different ways.
MR. SHoSTt
-------
nology that Is equally sufficient In con-
2
trolling these damages, I'm not - - our
g
approach la basically giving more of the
guidance in supplementary documents, and
I'm not sure that you're saying that we
should have all the Information of this
7 In this document, or this document should
8 be so vague, or not vague, specific, on a
9 national basis, as do not really guaranteeing
10 environmental protection.
11 MH. DIVER: No,
12 obviously some of the criteria that you're
13 talking about that are being used to dls-
14 tlnguish an open-dump and a sanitary land-
is fill, really cannot have anything quantlfl-
16 able or measurable and a satirical sans9
17 attached to them, such as a fire hazard.
18 You know, obviously you can't say you've
19 got to have one-and-a-half fire trucks for
20 every hundred tons of waste you accept,
2i But, you can say, all right, the facility
22 should not cause a fire hazard through its
23 manner of operation. All right, fine.
24 Stop there, but then when you start going
on and saying - - this, of course, shall
25
-------
be accomplished by the periodic application
of daily cover where appropriate, or other
3 technologies where appropriate, and start
4 adding that kind of stuff to it, that
5 doesn't give the states any guidance at all,
6 and it certainly doesn't give the operator
7 - - if you tell the operator this is the
8 performance criterion, and I'm going to
9 hold you to It bub, you're going to have to
10 meet this at your property line In the sub-
11 surface waters that are usable for drinking,
12 you're going to have to meet this at the
13 end of the tube, the discharges to the
14 offsite surface waters, you're not going
15 to be allowed to violate or cause and con-
16 tribute to the violation of ambient air
17 quality standards, and you tell him this
18 is what you're going to be held to, and I
19 think they are prepared to hold themselves
20 to that, and if you want to specify, well,
21 we're going to test whether or not you're
22 violating groundurfte-f through this parti-
cular methodology, and this is going to be
23
the technique we're going to use. They will
24
live with that, ambient air quality monltor-
25
-------
Ing and the like, but when you start going
2
afield, such as when you sot Into the oper-
ational standards for groundw-fttftr,, and
4 start talking about artificial liners, and
start talklnp. about soil attenuation, without
6 telling anybody In the world what it is you"?
7 talking, about, what it is you think or John
8 Skinner thinks that it yeans versus what
9 sor.ebody in the states raiRht think that
10 r.eans, then you've caused confusion, and
11 you haven't given direction to the people
12 who are to te regulated.
13 MS. WRIGHT: With
M regard to your concept of the state and
15 federal roles In Subtitle D, will your
16 written comments address the legislative
17 history of that point?
18 MR. DIVEH: Yes, they
19 will, but, of course, a general precept of
20 construction of a statute Is, you only
21 resort to legislative history when the
22 statute Is unclear, and the statute says
23 that U.S. EPA Is to prepare the criteria.
24 MR. SKINNER: Any other
questions?
-------
1 We appreciate, Jeff, if in your written
2 comments, which we haven't received yet, yeO
3 drd a criterla-by-crlteria basis In addition
4 to Indicating that there are points that
5 are not clear that should be made specific,
6 provide suggestions and wording changes
1 that would make that specific?
8 MR. DIVER: Yes, I
9 think I Indicated, John, that I would do
10 that.
11 MR. ANDRES: John,
12 I was hopeful to ask Jeff a question.
13 Jeff, some of the statements that you've
14 made appear to be coming from a learned attor-
15 ney who Is reading his books and preparing
16 for a court case with not ever having waded
17 in the stuff. I know that's not your case,
18 because you've worked for a state, and
19 you've waded in the stuff - - prosecuted
20 the stuff - - but as an engineer who prac-
21 tices throughout the United, States and
22 other countries, I found there Is more than
23 one way to skin a cat In the same state,
different times a year, and/or at given
times a year, there's different ways to
25
-------
1
skin the cst fro-, state to state, and I
2
felt rr.ighty ridiculous a ;oupl« of tir..es
3
when I've been ^iven a violation notice
or when r.y client has a very specific
5 criteria of six Inches o* clean earth
because 7 happen to work for the organization
7 that did the original studies on exernence of
8 *"lifcS fre»* refojBj ani it's actually 5.8;
9 Inches of material under a very specific
'" case of soil compacted to a certain degree,
11 and so when - pet a violation of only having
12 five inches of soil cover, when the law says
13 six, and the temperature is so damned cold
I* I can't sjwnd r.ore than 2? ainutes outside
'5 of the vehicle, I'm trylnr tc "ipure out
16 what self-resrectln^; disease vector or
17 arthropod Is f.olnf: to be cut propagatinp,
18 and so I pet a little uptight if we loo*
19 at some of these things very strictly, and
20 I'n afraid that - - well, T.'r> asking you,
21 had these type of considerations got Into
22 your statements, or are they being: prepared
23 too much from a defsnse mechanism, because
„. we find Judicial systems writing standards
„ when there has been less than specificity.
-------
1
Vr. DIVER: N'o, -
2
tMnk I've taken into consideration the
3
>:ir.3s of things that I've teen talking
about, Don, and T an aware of that problem.
T course, the problem that you allude to
is ever so much more oresent. If I have a
7
regulation that provides for six inches of
daily cover, at least I know if I absolutely
!^o to the tape T.easure and put in the sir.
10 inches, then I'r. golden. However, if - Save
11 a regulation that says, "Thou shalt put on
12 cover as needed to prevent or to minimize,"
13 I r.i'ht put on six inches of cover and the
14 iruy woulc! core in and say, "Hey, you Just
15 haven't prevented or nlnlmized Just because
16 you don't have seven, and I happen to think
17 you need seven." So there is something to
18 be said on both sides, but what I'm arguing
19 for reallj' the federal levels Is that the
20 regulations that are established, perfcrr.-
21 ance as opposed to operational crlterie.
22 If the objective is to stop water contaminant
23 leaching fros setting into sr="-
24 well, then let's deal with that, and we
„ still have to as operators of sanitary
-------
landfills, comply with whatever exists in
2 the states and U.S. HPA assumably is going
3 to be giving then new Kuidance as to what
4 they ought to have in their regulations to
5 the extent that they're short In trying to
6 help it systematically through approval of
7 state-wide solid waste management programs.
8 But for U.S. EPA to establish an operational
9 criteria that is meaningful nation-wide,
10 Klven the differences In climatology and
11 hydrofseolopy, and all the other ologies,
12 is really kind of fruitless.
13 MR. SKINMER: Okay.
14 Are there any other questions? Pine.
15 Thank you.
16 Why don't we take a 15-mlnute break
17 for coffee and reconvene at 10 after 3:00.
18 The cafeteria closes at 3=30. This will
19 be your last chance for coffee.
20 oOo
21 Whereupon, a short recess was
22 taken.
23 °°°
MR. SKISSSS: Mr.
William Brenneraan.
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o C o
v». v-
Tuperv
"onse
LI.I.\X Z. 3?rK:!E*'Av,
Isor of I-and Vse and
rvatisn,
Illinois Power Company
i C C „• .
Oecatu
oCo
,,= «
- - should I start o
wr . s r.
fion't v.-e start.
MO -B
I'll start new. 7. »
I forgot tc rut the
there, and I've aide
ciate the change of
Xy state-ent «
these of Paul E.r.ler
will be Quite brief.
>'y name is '/ll
Illinois ?ower Tomca
I aia a member cf the
of the Edison Slectr
At the Kansas
that the stockpiling
sludire, adjacent to
» t:» street
r, Illinois £C5Ie
___
..._v,l.
r wait?
IM"Z?: Yes, why
r,.%,r,f > ,- . r*-
uess tc err is h-~an.
nar.e of r,y coscar.}' In
d it in yen. I atpre-
ielric here today.
ill, I hope, coiipi«n-.ent
and C?ene C-ockley, and
liam ?• . Erenner.an of
ny , Zeoatur, Illinois.
Solid Waste Task Force
ic Institute.
City hearing, ' stated
of fly ash and scru^er
sower stations, should
tt allowed to continue. This is basically
-------
1
the Jisposai plan in Britain where retired
2
ash lagoons are Jewatered and, with a little
3
amelioration, converted to pasture, crops,
= r tlr.berland. "ewever, today I v'.ll concen-
5
trste on the encrr.ous cost tc Just Illinois
rower If the corepany had to move its ash
7 lagoons fro?: 103-year flccdnlslns or other
8 sensitive areas.
9 Exhibit "A," scnpiled ty Illinois
10 Power "oir.par.y construction engineers, shows
11 the estimated cost of resltlnr ash storage
12 lagoons fcr various slzei stations. ?or
13 simplicity ". ha%-e averaged the calsuletions,
14 Tcr t>-e various sired units, at $35,000 per
15 YW. Tllinois °ower's present coal-fired
16 generation, on riocdrlalns, Is 2,2"^ MW,
17 nn1". the total oost for resltlng could be
18 ox'er *17
-------
1
however, considering that our existing
2
sites are either surrounded by built-up
3
urban areas or ty prime farm lanS, the
transport of ash to hlph ground would
5 probably be hy trutik.
C
Assuminr, the transport distance would
7 average 5 to 1? miles per site, and that
8 trucklns costs would be Ji-'.OO per ton of
9 ash, ou- annual transportation costs for
10 our existing rower stations vouid be approx-
11 inately J3.5 nllllor per year. *l?« sillton
12 dollars, that's "or the new lajroons, Is 13
13 percent of the company's present total
14 capitalization, ^b'/lcusly, even partial
15 closure cf on-slte ash lagoons w>ulc! cause
16 *h« company severe econor.ls distress. The
17 company's existing ash lac;cor.s should not
18 be closed,
19 Also, It Is Imperative that power
20 plants be sited in 100-year rioodplains
21 because of socllm: water requirements.
22 Properly designed ash laroons have a
23 negligible, If any, adverse environr.enal
24 effect, and, I believe, will have better
public acceptance If located on the power
2<3
-------
21
1 plant property than if locate-! remotely In
2 rrlire agricultural areas or slose tc urban
3
areas.
4 MP. 5-KISNiS: Thank you.
5 Are the lacoons that ycu used In this
6 calculation, are they currently diked to
7 prevent flcodln* during the \oo years flood
8 period?
9 vp. eip.gXKSXAK: Oh, yes,
10 they are.
11 v°>. ?XIM!!F?.: To they
12 have a significant impact on the flood
13 capacity or the storare water cecaclty of
M the floodrlain?
15 ?TR. SSEK>?KKA>f: Well, I'r.
16 not an engineer, and T would srieak ,'v.st
17 judpnentally, nc.
18 «P.. SKINNY?.: They would
19 net?
2Q MR. 8RE.VKEMAX: N'o, I
don't believe they would, but that's a
22 matter of ;
vour
23
reading of the way the criteria are written
24
at this particular point in time that they
25
-------
I
wo-jli still have to be relocated and slosed
2
and roved up-land, even thouph they were not
3
ir.pactlnp, adversely on the flood capacity,
4
or that they were - - dlk.e<3 to prevent
5
inundation?
MR. BRENNEMAN: Well, I
7
wasn't pure on that point tc be candid.
8
KR. SSINKER: "Ine.
9
"kay. Thank you. That is not the Intent
of the criteria, and we'll have to check
the wording to see if It's confusing on that
12 point.
13 Are there any other questions?
14 MR. SHVSTER: Have you
15 performed any monitoring of your laftocns
16 regarding; c;rounc«»,t*r contamination?
17 MR. EREXSEXA?.': Not to
18 r.y knowledge, no.
19 MR. SHVSTFR: Is it
20 sonison rrastiee to line the lagoons with
21 artificial liners
22 YR. BRENJTKfA??: We
23 hadn't in the past because our engineers
24 have decided that they were attenuated
25 properly, maybe not too scientifically,
-------
but at least they were based on good Judg-
2
ment. In the future, we will properly line
2
them, and we haven't decided whether thla
4 will be clays or what.
5 MR. SHtJSTER: You obtained
6 permits from the State of Illinois for these
7 lagoons?
8 MR. BRENNEMAN: Well, we
9 have HPDES permits, and we have all the ones
10 that are required. Many of our pits have
11 been then, since Hector was a pup, and
12 we're fortunate - - well, we have large areas,
13 so we're not - - In other words, that plant
u can be supported by existing potential ash
is lagoons on tbese floodplalns, for In some
16 cases, up to 30 years. That's fly ash. I
17 don't know about scrubber sludge. Thank you.
18 MR. SKINNER: Do you
19 have any questions? Dirk?
20 MR. BRUNNER: Yea, Just
21 looking at the Table of Cost that you pro-
22 vlded, you Indicated $70,000 per acre for
23 liners. I was wondering If you might be
24 able to get some background information on
25
-------
1
MR. BRENNEMA'I: For the
2
liners, we called a consultant, and he In
3
turn checked with a surveyor, and that's
4
the figure that this engineer came up with.
5
I could give you more Information on
6
It, but If you want me to, by writing to you.
MR. SKINNER: Any other
questions? Thank you, Mr. Brenneman.
9
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hlng.
10
oOo
11
DR. CECIL LUE-HING,
Irector, Res«
DevelODment,
etropolltan J
Of Greater Chicago,
,2 Director, Research and
Metropolitan Sanitary District
100 East Erie Street,
14 Chicago, Illinois 60611
15 —ooo—
16 DR. LOE-KING: Thank you,
17 Dr. Skinner. At the hearings In Washington
18 on April the 21st, I promised him three
19 Items; first were some recommendations for
20 extra regulations. Second was the support
21 documents for, or previous comments, and
22 the third was a copy of our Draft Metals
23 Studies as they were related to the sources,
24 and the effects of pre-treatment.
25 I'm delivering two of these today.
-------
1
Th* Metals - - Draft Metal study and the
2
proposed Interim Regulations. The third bit
3
of Information Is still being worked on, and
4
we do have hope to get that to you by the
5
deadline. My prepared statements are as
6
follows.
They are directed to Mr. Shuster as
a
required. Satisfying the requirements, my
name Is Cecil Lue-Hlng. I am with Metro-
10 politan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
11 On April 21, 1978, the District presented
12 comments on the above referenced document
13 at a public hearing in Washington, D.C. At
14 this hearing where these comments were pre-
15 sented, the District was asked by represen-
16 tatlves of the Environmental Protection Agency
17 to submit additional comments addressing the
18 concept of the EPA adopting Interim Regulations
19 In addition, the EPA has only recently
20 released for comment a draft of the
21 Environmental Impact Statement for the
22 above referenced proposed classification
23 criteria. However, because of time con-
24 straints, the District today will present
25 only additional comments and recommendations
-------
for the record concerning the above refer-
o
enced proposed classification criteria
o
relating to Interim Populations and request
additional time to present comments on the
6 Before discussing the concept of
7 Interim Regulations , the District would ask
8 the E?A to recall the chief purpose of the
9 proposed classification criteria which Is
10 "to encourage the recovery and utilization
11 of solid waste by eliminating environmentally
12 unacceptable disposal practices."
13 In its request for public comments,
14 the 2PA again stated that "Implementation
15 of these criteria are expected to encourage
16 the recovery and utilization of solid waste
17 by eliminating environmentally unacceptable
18 disposal practices."
19 This is in keeplnr, with the Act, which
20 urges the conservation and recovery of
21 material and energy resources.
22 "These criteria address these adverse
gjj affects in order to promote the proper dis-
posal of solid waste, with no reasonable
probability of the adverse affects on health
25
-------
cr the environ-.ent . • • Practises w'r.lc;-:
2 result in the conservation, recovery or
3 utilisation of waste r:.ateri&ls In er.vlron-
4 mentally safe ways are stroru-l.v encouraged
5 by SFA ..."
6 In the SistrUt's presentation of
7 April Cl, appropriate comments were snaie to
8 the fact that the positive r-cals announcec
9 In the Preamble of the guidelines ^eooir.e so
10 restrictive In the criteria tiiat the final
n effect was negative, If not r.roMtltlve.
12 At Pace !i9^9, the Z?A explains the
13 purpose of the criteria tc "restrict prac-
14 tlces that oose a substantial risk to
15 public health or th* envlronrent . "
16 The rpft explains Its scnsern over the
17 uncontrolled lane application of solid waste
18 to fool chain crops in terns of "slgnificant-
19 iy increased cain-.luw levels In certain
20 crops."
21 Again, the SPA notes the concern of
22 other 7e4eral agencies ever practices "vhlch
would significantly increase the lainlur,
£& "
level in fo=2 crops beyond current levels."
The word " slKnl'lcant " is underscored
25
-------
1 here sir.1:* In the rroposei classification
2 criteria, the center: t of oorr.rarp.Y lllty is
3
r?-3uoe<". which precludes operations which
4 produce food chain crops with cadmium levels
5 which are not cor.parasle with those of ?ro?s
6 produced locally without municipal slu^-.e
7 application.
8 We cite here the brief filei ^y the
9 EPA on ,Tuse 2"?, 1975, in the matter cf the
10 City cf Philadelphia, ?cean Disposal 7err-.it
11 "c. PA ?l?. In the brief, the following
12 arr.ur.ents vere made in "avor of land utlli-
13 zatlcr. cf runleipal sewage sludse.
14 "?ection 1". There are several fsas-
15 iMe lan'l-^ase?'. alternatives to the iis?osal
16 of sesa?e slu-lr.e in the ocean.
,7 A. The City of Chioaco has shown that
lg a large American metropolitan area can suc-
19 cessfully use sewage sludge on land.
20 ''In their prepared direct testimony,
witnesses for the City of Philadelphia out-
lined potential problems that rtay be
encountered when sludse is used on land.
23
Chicago was one of the cities pointed! to
24
by Philadelphia witnesses, especially Mr.
25
-------
Steven Townsend, the Project Coordinator in
sparge of looking for alternatives for the
City of Philadelphia, as examples °-r location
4 where difficulties have arisen.
5 Because of the repeated references to
6 Chicago's experiences as Semonstratlnr; the
7 na.'or problems with useful application of
8 sewape sludge, the E?A asked representatives
9 of Chicago to appear at the hearing and pre-
10 sent a wore accurate appraisal of their pro-
U ,•«•?• <""s to use that city's sludge. Reports
12 detailing the results o" extensive monitoring
13 of the Chicago Land Use Protests were re-
14 quested by the parties and supplied for the
15 record."
16 Mr. Hugh McClllan of the District,
17 supplies much of this testimony. *' >" sklp-
18 plnr, some of this, so - -
19 "The ^hlca?.o sludge is applied at
20 rates varyln? from 15 to "*? dry tons per
21 acre, Transcript 1, "age 207, Transcript 5,
22 °af>:e S3, and following this reclamation, the
land Is being used primarily for row crop
i3
agriculture, "ranscrlut 1, Page 220. Because
24
the st"lp-n:lned areas were relatively barren,
25
-------
the value of the lands has risen following
the Initiation of the Chicago project,
3 Transcript 1, Page 221 . . .
4 "Likewise, criticisms of the Chicago
5 project, based upon concentrations of metals
6 In the sludge, are inappropriate In that
7 there has been no Indicated problem of
8 metals build-up In crops grown on land on
9 where there has been applied the Chicago
10 sludge, Transcript 3, Page 273, Transcript 5,
11 Page 1)8. Since the authors of the initial
12 rules of thumb relating to patient exchange
13 capacity and the cadmium/zinc ratio, who
14 testified at the hearing, acknowledged that
15 their thinking has changed dramatically since
16 their first conservative statements and that
17 In * properly managed project, the levels of
18 metals can be quite a bit higher than their
19 conservative estimations, Chaney, Transcript
20 6, Page 31, 37, 10, McKewen, Transcript 4,
21 Page 8, this criticism may be Invalid.
22 "The City of Chicago has designed the
Pulton County Project to Incorporate on-site
/O
monitoring and limitation of public access.
24
The concept that sludge Is applied In large
25
-------
1
quantities willy-nilly is a r.isconce?t.
2
Chicago has on-slte ctservers, restricts
3
tublic access, and contrasts with local
4
farmers to care "or the crops fros planting
5 through harvest, Exhibit 31 at 2^. rhe crops
respond well to the sludge applications; in
soir.e cases the corn yield was over five tines
8 greater in sludge-treated fields than in
9 controls, and in all comparative cases, the
10 sludn»i-!;r«ateG fields Erew more corn,
11 Ky.hUit 91, TaMe b-"
12 The *rief filed >y the E?A regardlnc
13 the City of Philadelphia presents an accurate
14 picture of the District's Fulton County
15 operation, but more importantly shows that
16 the S**, has in the past as well as currently,
n loo'icei upon land utilization of municipal
18 sevaga sludge as indeed a r.ost desirable
19 sludge management ortion. The district
20 believes that the current proposed solid
21 waste classification criteria are at odds
22 with past statements of the EPA concerning
23 lani utilization and indeed, 1* offered ir.
24 their present forr, will preclude sludge
2g utilization for ranj- cities.
-------
1 It is a fact that the District's
2
Pulton County operation, as it exists now,
could not continue under the proposed solid
4 waste classification criteria. The District
5 presented, in the April 21st, documents of the
6 cost if the District adopted the so-called
7 "operational control" option In the classi-
8 flcatlon criteria. With the eventual
9 enforcement of the 0.5 kilogram cadmium
10 per hectare per year application rate llml-
n tatlon, and the total application limit for
12 Pulton County soil of 20 kilograms cadmium
13 per hectare, the District would be forced
14 to acquire an additional 331,000 acres of
15 land, and would incur annual costs of over
16 till million. This annual cost and addi-
17 tional acreage would accommodate only current
18 Pulton County sludge shipments. If all
19 District sludge were managed at Fulton
20 County, then a total area of 613,000 acres
2i would be needed, and then total annual costs
22 would exceed *l14 million. Yet, the District
would have no assurance that the" resulting pro-
23
duct would have cadmium levels which would satis
fy the requirements of the proposed criteria.
25
-------
1
The District, therefore, like many
other municipalities, wcal-i be forced into •
3
an unattainable position. V'e have a sludftt-
inanafier.ent sches-.e which the ~.?A believes tc
be the ir.cst environmentally acceptable, yet
we would te forced by these proposed regula-
tions to adopt changes with which ve i?.ay
8 not be able to comply.
9 Vfe, therefore, urr;e the SPA to adept
10 regulations which will not rr-eclude sludre
11 utilization, and which will -roteot against
12 reasonable probability of the adverse affect
!3 on health or the environment. It is In this
14 spirit that the Tlstrict has prepared suc,-
15 Bested Interim Regulations which we ur?e
16 the E?A adopt. Interim Regulations, Sites
17 N'ot Extensively Monitored.
18 tr. Section C57.3-5, Sut-para^raph 'a!
19 (1), the E?A presents regulations on the
20 total and annual slud?e iadrr.iur, applications
21 allowed for sites which are not extensively
22 monitored. The District believes that these
23 regulations are unSuly restrictive and are
24 not necessary for protection of food chain
25 croos.
-------
"here Is nc need to Unit total sludge
cadT".lur. applications tc land, since this
r>a-*ar?;eter has little bearing: on riant metal
uptake. Research conducted by the U of I,
T^epartsent of A^rcno~"> by Dr. Thomas
Hlnesly '!) conclusively shows that cadmium
uptake 5y plants Is related primarily to
yearly sludge application. °iainlj' stated,
?lu3ge applications from previous years
have very little influence on plant metal
uptake.
The District does, however, suggest
to the EPA that a higher yearly sludge
cadrr.lum application rate than that contained
in the proposed regulations be adopted.
In waklnp a presentation, I'll skip
sone of these, Dr. Skinner, if that's all
ri?;ht with you?
MR. SKI"N'SS: Yes.
DR. Ll-E-KTMO: We cited
the work clone by the Health Effects Branch
and published by Pahren's colleagues, and
using that argument, we also cited that
according to Su^dale and Humnel,
"The Canadian Food and Drug Regulations
-------
Koverp.ir.r: heavy metal contents .In fresh
2
fruit and vepetatles are as follows:
3 specifically for sa-Jruiun, It's one part
per Billion for fresh fruits and one part
5 per r-illlon for fresh vegetables - - fresh
6 weight."
7 T'or nany vegetables, this would trans-
8 late to a Unit of 9-10 parts per million
9 ?*.£!s!ur. en a -iry weight *asls.
10 Kinesly has done extensive research
11 on the cadraiur. ustake from corn fertilized
12 with municipal sewage sludge. Anc1. we de:aon-
13 strate In a table enclose^ here that with an
14 average annual application of 7.1 kilograms
15 of cadnlur: per hectare per year, the corn
16 eadislurj content xas 0.35 parts per million.
17 Therefore, for an average yearly application
18 of 7.1, there was an approximate fourfold
19 increase that occurred.
2Q In a similar study of the District's
21 Fulton County project, usin£ 6.0 kilograms
22 per hectare per year of cadr-lura, had another
fourfol* increase in the plant cadmium from
^>5
0.?£ to 3.2« at the herinnlns.
The atove data sollected by Dr.
25
-------
Hlnesly clearly justified an application
rate of 7.0 kilograms of cadmium per hec-
tare per year. Such a loading will yield
corn grain cadmium levels which cannot be
considered detrimental.
Recommendation.
The District recommends the following
addition to Section 257.3-5, Paragraph 1:
"The above annual and total solid waste
cadmium additions shall not apply to grains,
fruits, and animal forage. For such crops,
the annual solid waste cadmium addition
should not exceed 7.0 kilograms per hectare
per year."
Sites With Extensive Monitoring.
The EPA, in subparagraph (a)(25 of
Section 257.3-5, introduces the concept of
comparability for controlled sit«s with
extensive monitoring. Products from such
controlled sites would be compared with
those from non-sludge fertilized sites. If
the cadmium content of these products was
comparable, the site would be in compliance
with the criteria regardless of the sludge
cadmium application rate, the concentration
-------
1
of cadmium in the sludge, or soil pH.
2
The concept of allowing controlled
3
sites with extensive monitoring to operate,
provided the resulting product Is closely
monitored Is desirable, but the concept of
comparability as defined by the EPA is not.
Tt simply will not be possible for many
8 products produced on sludge-fertilized soils
9
to be comparable on the basis defined in the
10 proposed criteria.
11 Comparability by Distribution Factor
12 The District, at Its Pulton County site
in 1976, produced corn with an average cad-
mium content of O.H parts per million
15 The average corn produced In Fulton County,
16 according to a survey on non-sludge fertll-
17 ized soil, was 0.03 parts per million, while
18 the highest corn cadmium level found in corn
19 grain in the State of Illinois was 0.29*
20 parts per million. Clearly, sludge-fertll-
21 Ized corn grain would not be comparable to
22 non-sludge-fertilized corn as per the U.S.
23 EFA proposed definition
Rationale.
The district believes that the EPA
25
-------
1
must adopt the concept of providing guidance
2
for the distribution of sludge-fertilized
3
products in the marketplace. If a product
4
produced from sludge-fertilized soil repre-
5
sents only a small fraction of products from
6
non-sludge-fertilized soil and Is regionally
7
distributed, the food chain would be pro-
o
tected from "significant. . .Increases of
Q
cadmium In the food supply."
10 We recommend that the EPA adopt the
concept of a distribution factor which is
12 defined here as the ratio of the volume of
13 a certain product grown in a particular
14 county or region to the volume of that
N> product grown on sludge-fertilized soil in
16 that same county or region. For grains,
17 fruits, animal forage, and meats, a distri-
18 butlon factor of 25 is recommended. For all
19 other crops, Including leafy vegetables, a
20 distribution factor of 50 is recommended.
21 In this way, the EPA could limit the amount
22 of sludge-fertilized products produced In
23 any particular county according to the amount
24 of non-sludge products produced. The human
„. diet would be automatically protected and
K)
-------
1
overly restrictive regulations of controlled
2
sites avoided.
3
Data on county-wide production of
various foodstuffs are available. In order
to qualify the annual production of sludge-
ft
fertilized products for sale, the operator
would check the previous year's production
of his particular product; If his product
9 volume Is exceeded by a factor of 25 or 50,
10 depending on the product by the county
11 volume, this qualifies his product for sale.
12 We go through a sample calculation
13 where we show that the County of Fulton
14 produces 1? million bushels of grain per
15 year, the District's facility, 10,000. We
16 took 1 million bushels of food and corn for
17 our distribution, and the native cadmium
18 content changed from 0.03 to .04i| parts per
19 million. We note also that the standard
20 deviation published by the Bureau of
21 Standards for cadmium in orchard leaves in
22 standard day supply is .02, while the change
23 following distribution of using l/17th of
24 the amount of the corn regulation was 0.014.
0. This clearly is within the range of varla-
£0
-------
tlon published by the Bureau of Standards.
2
This also is In the range that we have found
2
in our own laboratories of 0.02.
4 We recommend for Section 257.3-5,
5 Subparagraph (a)(2), the following wording
e>
should be substituted:
7 "The land application of municipal
8 sludge Is acceptable provided that the
9 volume of product produced at the sludge-
10 fertilized site is less than a certain frac-
11 tlon of the volume of the corresponding
12 product produced in the county or region
13 according to records of the previous year,
14 and distributed such that the resulting
15 cadmium content does not result in 'slgnlfl-
16 cant. . .increases of cadmium in the food
17 supply. . .
18 "For grains, fruits, animal forage, and
19 meats, the fraction shall be . OH. For all
20 other products, the fraction shall be .02."
21 The next item Is the sludge cadmium
22 limit for vegetable and root crop fertlliza-
„ tion, Using argument of Pahren, we support
the change from 25 ppm In sludge to 60. And
we indicate here in some tables that while
25
-------
the basis for that change In sludge In leafy
2
vegetables was made using Swiss Chard, the
0
total annual commercial production of Swiss
Chard Is under 200 acres, so It's an Insig-
nificant part in the American diet.
6 I think Dr. Skinner asked specifically,
7 or Mr. Weddle, on soil pH. We tried here to
8 show that an arbitrary pH of 6.5 across the
9 country would include millions of acres of
10 land, and we went into a simple analysis of
11 the cost to raise the pH in the State of
12 Ohio, for example, from its mean pH of 5.2
is to 6.5, with a cost of $176 per hectare,
M and this is quite an »exorbitant cost, and
15 that can be multiplied across the country
16 for states whose mean pH are less than 6.
17 Specifically for pH, we recommend Section
18 257.3-5(l)(lv) should be deleted and the
19 following wording substituted: "1. Soil/
20 sludge pH should be established on the
21 basis of the cropping system and type of
22 soil receiving sewage sludge. 2. Acid
23 strip-mined land reclamation Is exempt from
24 soil/sludge pH limitations."
25 There are several tables which are
-------
1 related to the text. The District welcomes
this opportunity to present recommendations
3 on Interlir. regulations ?or the proposed
4 classification criteria.
5 MR. SKINNER: Thank you,
6 Dr. Lue-Hlng.
7 I'n sure we'll have to spend consld-
8 erable amount of time going over these
9 specific recommendations and get back to
10 you at a later time with questions and
11 further interpretation, but are there any
12 questions now from the panel, based upon
13 that brief review?
14 MR. WEDDLE: I would
15 like to second what you said. It is going
16 to take some time to go through these, and
17 i would like to thank you for spending the
18 time to develop these recommendations.
]9 I do have a question. The establish-
20 ment of the 7 kilogram per hectare per year
21 limitation for uncontrolled situations is
22 based on research showing a fourfold
Increase In cadmium In the crops, Is that
£A
correct?
24
DR. LUE-HING: In grain.
25
-------
1 MR. WEDDLE: In grain,
2
is that correct?
3 DR. LUE-HINS: Correct.
4 MR. WEDDLE: How much
5 cadmium did you add at the Pulton County
6 site per hectare as an average number per
7 year?
8 DR. LUE-HING: Between
9 6 and 8.
W MH. WEDDLE: Between
u 6 and 8. I'm a little confused. If I'm
12 reading your statement right, there was a
13 12 fold increase in the eadir.ium coneentra-
M tlon of grain in Pulton County as compared
15 to the average for the state. Am I reading
16 that correctly?
17 DR. LUE-HING: Yes, in
18 the case of that number, you are looking
19 at soils which were already strip-mined.
20 In the case of the fourfold Increase,
21 we're talking about plots maintained by the
22 university - -
In some of the strip-mine areas, the
23
condition of the soil, perhaps it was such
that the 12 figure occurred, however, we're
25
-------
talking about a total cadmium content of
2
4.1, and when ve calculated that into our
3
recommended distribution procedure, we have
determined that the change - - any change
In the cadmium content is a measurement.
6 MR. WEDDLE: Let me
7 ask the question in a different way. What
8 Is the background cadmium level in grain
9 grown on control plots at the Pulton County
10 site?
11 DR. LUE-HISG: We have
12 determined for the County as a whole, and
13 that number Is In here as .03. I don't
H recall offhand what the number Is, but the
15 number is - - I'll have to ask.
16 MR. WEDDLE: I guess
17 I'm still confused then. I see that the
18 number went from background at the Fulton
19 County site from .03 up to .'(I, and that
20 appears to be a 12 fold increase.
2i DR. LUE-HING: That's
22 correct. That set of data was generated
23 by the large farming operation system, and
24 In that system, much of the acreage was
25 stripped soils, and In the original shales
-------
1
and metals, and whatever else are In that
2
material is the background on which those
3
are developed. Now, In the other number,
4
. 2*, .05, that was developed on the eon-
5
trolled plots maintained by the University,
6
so they have presented two sets of numbers;
one for the large-scale operation, and one
g
for the controlled.
9
The point I'm trying to make is the
- - the resulting cadmium content of the
grain could be managed through a sense
12
which Is consistent, and we are saying
13 also that It Is very and specifically
14 responsive to the request or the suggestions
15 or the language of the cadmium of the regu-
16 latlons which state that - - the agency Is
17 trying to avoid significant Increases in
18 the food chain, or that the reason of
19 probability for adverse affects on health
20 and the environment will be avoided, and
21 we believe that these numbers developed
22 on the basis of their presentment are
23 responsive to those requests.
24 MR. SKINNER: I have a
2g few questions about the sites without exten-
-------
1
aive monitoring. Let me see If I can sum-
2
marlze what I understand your recommendation:
3
are In totals for those sites. One would be
for leafy vegetables, food crops, and
tobacco to Increase the standards from 25
c
mllograms per kilograms to 60 milograms
per kilograms.
8 DR. tUE-HING: That's
9 correct.
10 MR. SKINNER: That for
n grains, fruits, and animal forage to use 7
12 kilograms per hectare per year?
13 DR. LOE-HINO: That's
H correct.
15 MR. SKINNER: And In
16 both cases, to remove the maximum accuaula-
17 tive?
18 DR. LUE-HING: Yes, we
19 feel that the maximum cumulative should be
20 removed.
21 MR. SKINNER: Now, does
22 this leave for any situation the proposed
two phase down to ,5, or are you suggesting
deleting that entirely?
DR. LUE-RINQ: Well, we
25
-------
don't believe there's a need for the scaling
2 down of the 2 to 0.5. We believe that If
3 you raise the sludge cadmium limit from 25
4 to 60, you would have automatically aecom-
s pllshed your aim or your goal that you have
6 developed between the numbers of 2 down to
7 0.5 In five years. The thing Is, you can
8 accomplish the same thing by raising the
9 limit from 25 to 60.
10 MR. SKINNER: I guess
11 my question Is - - I'm Just a little con-
12 fused by the construction from the wording
13 here. Are you saying that that paragraph
u which does have the phased application rate
15 should be deleted from the regulation, or
j6 should that be left for certain situations
17 in addition to the two other situations
[g which you changed?
19 DR. LUE-HIHG: We think
„. It should be deleted if you accept the ?
a)
and if you accept the 25 percent.
MR. SKINNER: I see.
Okay. Fine, and - -
23
DR. LOE-HINQ: Ve believe
24
that the 25 to 60 and 7 is a much more appro-
25
-------
1
prlate way to achieve your end.
MR. SKINHER: Okay. I
3
understand. That's what I was not clear on.
The other point Is that, and for those situ-
ations which are sites without extensive
fi
monitoring, are you not recommending a
7 requirement of 6.5 for soil waste pH, but
8 that that be determined on a case-by-case
9 basis?
10 DR. LUE-HING: We
11 hesitate to give you a number, and we feel
12 that the combination of the plants species
13 selections and soils, and other factors
14 which would govern or mitigate metal uptake,
is we think those factors should be considered
16 for each operation. We could not come up
n with a number that would not exclude many
18 hundreds of thousands of acres ourselves.
]9 HH. SKINNER: I guess
20 that the 7 kilograms per hectare and the
21 25 or 60 mllograms per kilograms were
22 based upon tests at a particular soil
waste pH though, and that for us Is not
2o
to provide some quantitative Indication
as to what that would be that would create
25
-------
situations that would be - -
2 DH. LUE-HINO: Ho, those
q
numbers were developed on what we considered
to be normal agriculture practices which
5 would Include some examination of the pH,
6 but It was not developed conclusive by
7 raising the pH to 6.5.
8 MR. SKINNER: But It
9 was based adequately - - those numbers are
10 arrived at a particular soil pH?
11 DR. LUE-HINO: No, we
12 run - - most of these are run when a farmer
13 plants corn, and when you test your pH, If
14 It's low, meaning 5 or less, then they apply
is lime - - so many tons of lime per acre, and
16 we don't apply lime on 6.7 or 6.8. Illinois'
17 farmers apply lime at a certain rate. What-
18 ever frequent - - maybe three years or so,
]9 and we follow those same practices in our
20 farming operations. In fact, our farming
21 is done on a contract with local farmers,
22 and the practices are as exactly as the
23 farmer would do it on the land.
24 MR. SKINNER: I guess
my question Is - - it would be very helpful
25
-------
to us If you could show us Information that
2
Indicated that under normal variations In
3
soil waste pK as would Be expected, that
4 these application rates would be protected,
5 but that they would, In fact - -
6 DR. LUE-HING: There is
7 something else - -
8 MR. SKINNER: Sure. The
9 thing that we're concerned about is situations
10 where we'd be applying 7 kilograms per hectare
H par year, on soil with very low pH, and would
12 result in uptake much higher than those situ-
13 atlons In which that standard was developed.
14 DR. LUE-HING: One of
15 the points that I want to bring up was you
16 stated that in the east, for example, the
17 pH - - the main pH is much lower than 6.5.
18 Plans of this region are Individually;-
19 grown to function properly as thoae lower
20 pH's. If then you increase the pH level
21 by the number 6.5, you may ask a farmer to
22 abandon an entire species, and it would
2g probably put him In bankruptcy, because
the species already has been in the ground
24
for five or six or seven generations, and
25
-------
does not respond commercially profitably,
2
at this, a pH of 6.5. It does not neees-
3
sarlly mean that on a low pH - - they would
4
uptake mementoes. We did point that out in
the discussion which I did not read.
6 MR. SKINNER: Are there
any other questions?,
8 MR. WEDDLE: Yes, I
9 have one more. At earlier hearings, a
10 number of people have suggested that we
add nitrogen controls to the criteria,
something to the effect that no more nitro-
13 gen than could be used in one cropping season
14 should be added through the addition of solid
15 waste, could you comment on that?
16 DR. LUE-HING: Well, we
17 think a much more manageable and realistic
18 control would be to exclude metals and just
!9 use nitrogen. We're shown through the work
20 of our organization, and the University of
Illinois, that nitrogen is a much more real-
22 istic parameter than cadmium. With respect
to what is called sewage sludges, if you
24 excluded cadmium and metals, we'll be
happy with nitrogen.
25
-------
1 MR. WEDDLE: I think
they were suggesting both.
3 DR. LUE-HINQ: We need
4 both? We go back to the suggestions that
5 Jeff Diver brought up this morning, where
6 you have an end, and you also supply us with
7 a means. It's very difficult. If you want
8 us to achieve an end, I think we can do that.
9 I think we have enough resources to be able
10 to accomplish an end, but when you give us a
11 means to that end, you confuse everybody, and
12 you Just about abort all the technology we
13 have available to us that we could use to
14 achieve your end.
15 MR. SKINNER: I have a
16 question about the sites with extensive
17 monitoring. If I understand that, that
18 situation should only be allowed in those
cases where the facilities demonstrate that
they do achieve delusion in the marketplace.
20
DR. LUE-HING: We don't
like the word delusion because what you are
doing Is you're responding to the concept of
23
not creating insignificant changes in the
24
cadmium content, so if you say distribution,
25
-------
1
I will feel better about it. There must be
2
In place the capability to accomplish that.
3
There must also be a place - - the capability
to remove, pardon me, to reduce Inputs of
cadmium from controllable sources. That's
6
part of the items I did not read, but those
7
are the conditions on which we recommend
a
that the system be adopted.
Source control, the ability to monitor,
10 and the ability to distribute in such a
11 fashion that the language that you have is
12 not violated.
13 MR. SKINNER: Any other
H questions?
is Thank you again for providing us with
16 responses to our previous questions.
17 Mr. Howard Burr and Mr. Robert Dreano.
18 Are they going to make a Joint presentation,
19 or separate, or - -
20 MR. BURR: (Indicating.
21 MR. SKINNER: Pine, thank
22 you.
23 000
24 MR. HOWARD BURR,
Conservation International, Inc.
25 Box 23092,
Pt. Lauderdale, Florida 33307
-------
1 oOo
2 MR. BURR: My name Is
3 Howard Burr for the Conservation International
4 Ft. Lauderdale. Mr. Dreano Is listed here
5 with me. He's also In the automobile busl-
6 ness, and I didn't want to have anybody to
7 doubt the veracity of our statements, so he's
8 doing nothing but delivering our sample there.
9 (Indicating.) The sample you have, by the
10 way, Is made up of the very thing that you're
11 talking - - looking for an answer to, dls-
12 posal of solid waste, that Is, metals, glass,
13 plastic, rubber tires, paper, dead dogs, gar-
14 bage, whatever comes out of a city, is totally
15 pasteurized, It Is approved by U.S. DA, It's
.. been tested at Beltsvllle in field tests.
lb
It's tested in their lab at Ames, Iowa, and
then again at Beltsvllle. It's been tested
18
in more private labs than I can Imagine, and
19
we would like to send this off to you, and
20
we're going to in the data that is due in
for the 12th of the month.
22
Because there would be repetition, I
23
am already tired of hearing about the sane
24
thing too. I'm going to skip through the
26
-------
1
presentation which would be given to you in
2
writing, and Just go to what I hope are
3
pertinent points. We're covered about 25
4
years In the field ot waste conversion. I
5 think that Is really what It's all about.
G
If you're going to dump this material,
you're going to also have a problem. You're
8 going to look for your water and fire, your
9 methane generation, and your cover materials
10 which are getting very costly, and all the
11 other things that are part of the landfill,
12 and to me, many cases talking about it now
13 IB like taking birth control pills after
14 the pregnancy - - it's a little late, I
is believe. I do think you need an abortion
16 of landfills, and the best thing for me to
17 do would be to make it, and for no other
18 purposes, make It into that type of a black
19 earth, and at least you can dump as clean
20 fill which has an excellent bearing by the
21 way, and you could even build on it as com-
22 pared to just ordinary compost. Ve found
23 out by leaving all that material in there,
24 that it ends up as a very good fertilizer,
2g much stronger than an ordinary compost, and
-------
I read to you a couple of quotes that the
2
U.S,. PA tested at Beltsville. The paper was
o
given in international science meetings
where they put It on, for example, to see
citrus In Florida, and two tons of that
6 material per acre Increased their yield the
7 first year total growth of the tree - -
8 74 percent. And these were purposely Infected
9 trees.
10 But I'll back up a little bit and I
11 would like to say that after traveling about
12 four or five million miles in all these years,
13 you kind of look for an answer to garbage
u trash disposal, resource recovery If you
IS like, and energy that wake then up with one
16 thought, that the waste of a community is
17 actually the surplus of the best of the
18 world had to offer. If you reflect on it,
!9 there's something out on that dump that's
20 been put there because it had a value.
21 Secondly, because it is finite, It should
22 not be buried or burned.
2_ Something should be done with It to
make it of value, and so we go on. As I
say, bear with me because I'm going to skip
-------
1
through It as quickly as possible. X say
2
this: the examination of any dump will show
3
Items that are the result of a best that a
nation had to offer from Its soil, Its man-
power, and its technology. I'm not talking
c
necessarily about food, I'm talking about
7 products, papers, containers, whatever, but
8 it's come from around the world, and because
9 of the miracle we have today, of the trans-
10 portation system, we're able to bring this
11 to the edge of every city - - it's a dump,
12 but it's the surplus, and it's really not
13 all that hard to make baek into something
H like this (Indicating.)
15 The methods of disposal have been
16 used and talked about, as you know, for
17 many years, and I think I've been in as
18 many dumps as anybody, and landfills, and
is I've eaten lunch probably in more dumps than
20 anybody, and In most of the operations
21 around the world where people actually live
22 ln *ne dumps, and I can say this, that every
23 place I've gone, these people were all so
24 hungry and they were lacking for soil, and
we're not too far removed from that. We've
-------
come to a situation here now where the best
2
of our lands, as you know, out of your munl-
Q
eipal areas, are the ones that are being
used for roads and Industrial parks and for
s suburban growth. They don't pick out the
3 lands that are bad lands or hilly lands, they
7 take the nice rolling farm land, and it's
8 not telling you anything here, anything now,
9 that that land has got to be replaced.
10 Some of the information you can get
11 from almost any place; as a matter of fact,
12 on the plane coming up today, just on the
13 Delta, and I don't know whether this is bar
14 knowledge or not, but it says that roughly
is 2 million tons of topsoil today is going
16 down to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans
17 from our rivers. I see pieces constantly
18 - - I was just recently out of the State of
19 New Jersey. X think it was about at least
20 1*00,000 acres a year to the very growth
21 I'm talking about. The result is that
you've got to take that land and replace
it. And I like to think of rather than
23
giving people across the pond money and
food, we give them soil, if you like. If
25
-------
1 you want to talk about a foreign aid program,
8 there is 30,000 tons a day of soil that can
3 be produced in New York City alone. Put it
4 as ballast in some of these oil tankers, and
5 if - - even to people like Kuwait who have
6 been to see me, some of the Arab states have
7 practically no arable soil, and give them a
8 soll-for-oil program. That's what we
9 really need, because they need the ballast
10 anyhow on those boats.
11 I would like to continue and say that
12 in all the readings that I've done through
13 these books, and I can understand why we're
14 trying to catch up something, it's like
15 everything else, once you get the epidemic,
]g everybody writes about it, talks about it,
17 and reads about it, and unfortunately,
,„ there's too much being written today. I
lo
guess there is a great contribution to our
waste today just roughly from the city and
20
state and federal publications that are
coming out in the publishing houses, and
experts that are writing about waste. But
23
I do believe that you'll agree if you're
24
going to maintain this country's well being,
25
-------
1 you better do something to take care of all
2 the problems we have with land, and I would
3 lllce to state Just a few of those, because
4 in almost - - In any case, I've been involved
5 with these personally. For example, in
6 Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, where they
7 have asked me to come out and appear with
8 some of the large coal companies; in one
9 case they were taking out 50,000 tons a day;
10 seven days a week, and there is nothing
11 going back in - - empty gondolas. What I
12 s«e and hear this gentleman talking about - -
13 talking before me about sludge - - what you
14 think about the sludge that he's putting on
16 that land, are you worried about cadmium
16 levels? If you were to take the solid out
17 of that sludge, which are relatively small,
10 through a secondary torchiary treatment, you
lo
could take that solid and then pull him
through your garbage and literally get lost.
It's a defused problem at the best. You can
also take your liquid at the top and use it
22
because the system requires water, but
23
there isn't no pollution, there's nothing
24
left over. As I say, the metal, the glass,
25
-------
1 and you can check it through that, It's
o
been checked by many laboratories, you can
o
put a magnet under that and a piece of paper
4 and watch It move - - It has these elements
5 In them. It takes only about 14 days to do.
6 By grinding all the material to given rates
1 and sizes, we've found by really monitoring
8 It, it's not a hit and miss thing, we Just
9 ground garbage and dumped it. It's not a
10 landfill, It's done on a concrete floor. When
11 you set it up on six-hour readings, plot it,
12 know what's happening in those piles, you
13 can put that, and it's as good as any
14 chemical fertiliser. As a matter of fact,
is the test at Beltsville, which was Incidentally
16 including sludge from the Blue Plains plant,
n and also fertilizer. They cite that this
18 product is equivalent to 127 pounds per acre
!9 of 1500 fertilizer, and something like 28
20 pounds of 0060 fertilizer in combination.
21 Anybody who knows anything about fertilizer,
22 the cost of that kind of a product. Slml-
„„ larly, If you take it down Into Florida as
£&
I said, they did this on 60 trees in the
field, they also did It in the laboratories
25
-------
1 where they ran tests - - totally controlled
2 tests - - in every case, this product was
3 at least as good as chemical fertilizer.
4 There is one attribute that chemicals
5 did.not have, and that is it Is not netally
6 soluble, and it doesn't flow down into your
7 streams and pollute them. As well as with
8 your Insecticides. It gives a plant a well
9 being, it requires less insecticide or
10 pesticide, if you like, but the main thing
11 is that you can at least dump It as clean
12 fill.
13 In the tests we've had made by Pltts-
14 burgh Testing Laboratories by the University
15 of Florida recommended lab in Gainesville,
lg they stated that this is twice as good for
being as the average Florida soil. So, you
can dump it instead of at least dumping
lo
garbage and trash. Some of the few other
things that this can affect if you think
20
about it, and that is your air and water
21
and stream pollution problem. There are
22
no fires required with this process at all
23
- - i-t's grinding. It takes not even more
24
than, but by turning Inoculation, which we
25
-------
1
do believe because we found it worked. It
2
can affect your stream programs. Some of
3
you talked a little earlier about your
Influent from your mine up In through
5
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.
You've got 11,000 miles, as I recall, mines
7
or water from mines rather, that Is totally
polluted. We have taken this product and
9 used it as a filter to run that so-called
10 water through, and there are fish swimming
11 at the back end of it. It is a controllable
12 pH factor, by the way, which again was
13 brought up earlier. We can run this up - -
14 that product there Is probably close to 8 or
15 8.2 pH right now. We can control it from
16 anywhere to 6 to 84, and in case, for
17 example, in Jamaica where they had coffee
18 where they were having trouble with - -
19 because it was a highly alkaline soil, we
20 gave it to them just a little under 6 and
21 it tripled the yield of coffee beans In the
22 first year. It's the physical structuring
23 of the soil as opposed to the elements In
24 It. The environmental cost savings alone,
26 if you take any other systems that you're
-------
thinking about, look at ypur tax base running
2
In any landfill, although £he land or the
3
taxes that you have lost, th« amount of
acreage - - Just as the man said a little
earlier, the amount of acreage that's
c
required for a city today to get rid of Its
7 waste. You can take this and you hare a
8 product that ends up weighing 1600 pounds
9 per cubic yard without depression. You can
1° check that, I think you'll find It. It's
11 close to 60 pounds per cubic feet.
12 Tour energy savings are obvious
13 because this product replaces, In many
U cases, the nitrogen fertilizer that Is
is nade from petrochemical plants which re-
16 lates back to your oil. And anybody who
17 knows what happened with the oil a few
is years ago, and everybody does, knows the
19 relation It can have there. If you can
20 aake a couple of tons of this that would
21 replace "X" amount of tons of nitrogen
22 fertilizer made from oil, to me that's an
23 advantage. It's also a savings. Incidentally
when you talk about savings, get dovn to
capital cost because of landfills today,
-------
1
your covering, your membrane, your leachate,
2
whatever distillation, your flreage, your
3
fences, and you're up to a pretty good pro-
gram of costs. When you have one item
S
left coming from - - all that waste coning
6
from the front end, the cost is at least,
7
let's - - I'd say 20, 30 percent less than
o
the landfill that you state is necessary
9 today.
The capital cost of this program, by
11 the way, is not over $10,000 for dally ton
12 In a capacity as compared to 25, 30, 40,
13 possibly, or even maybe 50 when you get
14 into plurality. But it's a total - - there
15 is no landfill required to dispose of the
16 rest of the material that is not processed.
17 Now, people have always talked about
!8 markets, and they are talking about composting
19 and everybody that's ever been an adversary
20 of the idea of composting, because It would
21 cut into their well being, whether* they are
22 in the dump business, the landfill business,
23 incinerator business, also put up a human
24 pride and get that landfill get that
25 compost planted in the field. If anybody
-------
1 really checked It, they will find It wasn't
o
Just because the product wasn't sellable,
2
It was because nobody spent 20 cents to go
4 out and create a market, the same as you do
5 for cigarettes or anything else. They Just
6 expect the people to run in and buy the
7 product, but as 1 eay in this case, you
8 don't only have a compost, but you have
9 the thing that - - anybody can tell you - -
10 any chemist can tell you that are necessary
11 - - glass powder grout - - it's the same
12 silica that you put Into heavy clay soil
13 to loosen it up - - to put in muck soil
H to give it body. The mineral elements are
is nothing more than you find in any nursery
16 here in Cincinnati, and find all in the
17 shelves at very high costs - - $150, $200,
lg $500, $2,000 a ton, and they are all right
19 in your garbage dump at the end of the town.
20 In closing, and I appreciate your
2] time, and you know I've been kind of
ran riding this thing - - he is going to
say something, excuse ma. I would like
23
to only say this,, that the loss of prime
land is something that this country and
25
-------
1
this EPA ought to think about as much as
2
getting rid of the waste. We ought to start
3
to reclaim that land, the secondary land
4 i
rather, and strip-mine, whatever, and you'll
5
affect so many things Indirectly that you
6
can save money like in strip-mining land,
7
for example, where a quick dose of this
with moisture as a slurry will seep and will
9 hold that very silt that is running down
10 your streams and the rivers. Always
11 affecting directly and indirectly the
12 environment, but also the cost. So,
13 what you're looking at as far as we're
i* concerned, is you have a surplus on the
15 end of a town. It should be something that
16 is stigmatle. This should simply be eon-
n verted back to making it something useful.
is And as far as we're concerned, if I may use
19 this to say that we have overdrawn our bank
20 account, the material necessities, and the
21 mortgage is due, maybe a little late but
22 maybe not too late, and conservation hopes
23 not.
24 Thank you. Now, wait till I see what
he wants to say.
-------
1
MR. DREANO: I wasn't
2
planning to say anything except he did miss
3
one thing. Because it's an aerobic process,
4
the diseased vector is eliminated.
5 MR. SKINNER: Okay.
6 Pine. Thank you, Mr. Burr and Mr. Dreano.
7 We appreciate obtaining information
8 on new technologies for resource recovery,
9 and will you be submitting a complete state-
10 ment?
U MR. BURR: Yes, we
12 will, and also anything that I've talked
13 about will be with it. Your various labora-
14 tories, even including Hill Top right here
16 in Cincinnati - -
16 MR. SKINNER: Pine.
17 MR. BURR: - - on
is your product.
19 MR. SKINNER: Are there
20 any questions?
2i MR. SHUSTER: Have you
22 ever done any leachate studies on your
23 product - -
MR. BURR: We've
conducted them until we don't even bother
25
-------
1 with them anymore. We've found no problem
2 with It at all. We were more concerned
3 about that than you can possibly - - also,
4 residual*, DDT, whatever, building up in
5 them, and we have totally had It tested.
6 As I said through the U.S. DA, even at
7 Plumb Island where they have asked us to
8 propose a plan for them, by the way, to
9 treat their waste. But also out at Ames,
10 Iowa, they even - - for transmission or
H something like hog caller, for example,
12 to see whether it could be done, and they
!3 said no, that this product was totally
14 cleared and a Dr. Paul James, by the way,
15 at Beltsville, la one of the researchers,
16 I could give you two in this because he's
17 actually the one who conducted the field
18 tests, and they are written up by the U.S.
19 DA.
„. Thank you.
£U
2J MR. SKINNER: Thank you.
Mr. Oeorge Hyfantis.
—oOo
23
MR. QEORGE HTFANTIS,
24 Tennessee Valley Authority.
26 _
-------
1
MR. HYFANTIS: My name
2
is George Hyfantls, and I represent the
3
Tennessee Valley Authority.
4
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
TVA has reviewed the proposed regulations
required by Public Laws 91-580 and 95-217,
7 and has prepared the following brief state-
8 ment. Our detailed comments will be forward-
9 ed shortly.
10 We believe that the proposed criteria,
11 as a whole, will provide needed guidelines
12 for the proper selection of solid waste dis-
13 posal sites. However, we are concerned that
H they lack the flexibility needed to strike
15 an appropriate and well reasoned balance
16 between economic and environmental consldera-
17 tion».
18 The proposed criteria particularly
19 concern us with regard to the siting of
20 future power generating facilities. We
21 fully concur with the concept of wetlands
22 protection, but believe that a presumption
23 against the issuance of an NPDES permit for
24 the discharge of solid waste into wetland
25 areas is too broad. All areas that can be
-------
classified as wetlands are not appropriate
2
for protection.
o
Therefore, we believe that each pro-
4 posal to discharge into a wetland should not
5 be decided on the basis of broad generaliza-
6 tions, but rather on its own merits and
7 individual circumstances, such as importance
8 of the project, the environmental harm, and
9 the significance of the wetland.
10 The requirement that the facility not
11 restrict the flow of the base flood la over-
12 ly constructive, since any facility con-
13 structed within the base floodplain could
u Increase flooding to sone minute degree.
15 The regulations should instead consider
16 whether the facility will significantly
n Increase flooding. Furthermore, they should
ig provide for siting in a floodplain when
19 other factors so dictate.
20 The requirement that a facility not
21 be located in critical habitat areas unless
22 it is demonstrated that it will not Jeopar-
OQ dlze the continued existence of endangered
£O
species, and unless approval is obtained
from the Office of Endangered Species, is
25
-------
1 overly restrictive. We believe the regula-
2 tions should provide for a balancing of all
(J
pertinent factors In determining whether to
4 allow siting In a designated critical habitat.
5 In general, we believe that protection
6 of environmentally sensitive areas is warrant-
7 ed. However, in order to achieve a balance
8 between the technological, environmental,
9 economic, and other pertinent factors, the
10 final regulations should focus on the dlffer-
n ences in the terms of ecological/economic
12 significance for uniqueness of individual
is situations.
n Thank you.
is KR. SKINNER: Thank you.
16 Are there any questions?
17 0°0
18 No response.
jg OOO
20 MR. SKINNER: Thank you
21 for your statement.
22 Mr. Robert Van Heuit.
23 —000—
MR. ROBERT E. VAN HED1T,
24 Division Engineer,
Solid Waste Department,
26 County sanitation Districts of
-------
LOB Angeles County,
2 P. 0. Box 1998,
Whlttler, California 90607
oOo
4 MR. VAN HEHIT: Dr. Skinner
5 and ladles and gentlemen. I'm Robert E. Van
6 Heult, and I represent the County Sanitation
7 District of Los Angeles County, California.
8 And I planned to make my presentation along
9 three different lines.
10 The first item I'd like to speak about
11 is the E.I.S. Unfortunately, our agency was
12 one of tbe late receivers of copies of the
13 E.I.S., so we do not feel that we have had
H a sufficient period of time to review the
15 document, and would like to join the other
16 people to request an extension to allow
n for a better review. We do have two comments
18 though on our review thus far.
19 The first comment, and we think is an
20 laportant comment, Is that it does not
21 appear to have been a significant study of
22 the document in order to cover the difflcul-
„„ ties in state and local financing. I think
id
an important item that even I didn't realize
was of interest to the nation, is the current
-------
1
taxpayer balk that Is going on within our
2
state. It wasn't until this last week when
3
I was In Washington that I realized that It
4
was of great Interest, because every time
5
I turned the radio on or television station
fi
in my hotel room, 1 found that somebody was
talking about Proposition 13 in California,
which will be considered tomorrow by the
9 taxpayers. That is an attempt to limit the
10 local taxpayer cost, or at least the cost of
11 local government, and there is Interest in
12 extending that to state government tax liml-
13 tations.
14 The second item with regard to E.I.S.
18 is that our staff sees of questionable
16 value the study of various degrees of
17 restrictiveness of regulations. Certainly,
18 the study to Identify the approximate cost
19 of the proposed regulations is valid, but
20 more restrictive or less restrictive regula-
21 tions, at least the study of those costs we
22 see of little value. The second area that I
23 would like to comment on, I will cut down
24 somewhat due to time constraints, but we
25 have already commented on the effect of the
-------
1
criteria and Ite preamble on land disposal
2
facilities. We think, however, that it la
3
very important that the development of environ
mentally sound and properly incurred altea is
5
Important, and should be presented In as
6
positive a manner as possible.
7
First of all, because our primary solid
waste disposal facility at the present method
9 is land disposal. The best example of that
10 is in the sanitary landfill, and secondly,
11 in the future, those facilities will be
12 important portions of the overall resource
13 recovery facilities that are being constructed
14 today and will be constructed over many years
is in the future, in that they will receive the
16 residuals from those facilities.
n The other item we've already commented
18 on at this March lat public hearing is that
19 there needs to be flexibility in the criteria
20 to allow for state and local government to
21 provide an appropriate enforcement, while
22 also working with operators to provide those
23 necessary facilities that are needed in each
24 locality or disposal - - for disposal of
25 wastes. It la particularly Important for a
-------
1
local authority to be able to provide for
2
an appropriate enforcement action to expedi-
3
tiously correct insufficiency that may occur
from tine to time without forcing a land
disposal site to close with resulting in
c
severe impacts on private Industry, public
7 agency, as well as the general public.
8 The staff of the Sanitation Districts
9 has been spending a considerable amount of
10 time looking at the third general area for
11 which we have comment, and that is with
12 regard to disposal of municipal waste water
13 treatment sludge to the land, and I've split
14 that particular section into four specific
15 topics which I'd like to comment on, the
16 first of which Is a question of cadmium in
17 the human food chain.
18 Because of the uncertainty In health
19 effects related to environmental contaminants
20 and in particular the lack of complete under-
21 standing of the transmission of sludge-borne
22 contaminants into crops grown for human
23 consumption, the criteria mainly centered
24 on the heavy metal cadmium. As stated in
25 the preamble to the criteria: "EPA, the
-------
Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S.
2
Department of Agriculture, as well as other
q
groups are concerned over the conduct of any
4 practice which could significantly increase
5 the cadmium level in food crops beyond
6
current levels. This concern arises from
7 an FDA assessment of teenage males in this
8 country, that is the class of individuals
which consumes the most food, which In any
10 case this concern concluded that their
average Intake of cadmium in food and water
12 approximates the total tolerable dally Intake
13 level recommended by the World Health Associa
14 tlon."
15 While this concern may have been Justl-
16 fled based on the Information available at
•
17 the time, EPA, PDA, and U.S. DA were formu-
lating these criteria. More recent informa-
19 tlon Indicates that the dally intake of ead-
20 mlum Is well below tolerable levels.
21 The tolerable level recommended by the
22 World Health Association in 1972 was 70
23 mlcrograms per day. At that time, WHO
recognized the uncertainty in their estimate
and stated that it should be revised pending
25
-------
further research. It should be noted that
2
the 70 microgram per day tolerance level
g
Incorporates a four-fold safety to avoid
adverse health affects.
5 In 1977, KJellstrom and Nordberg
/*
formulated a more sophisticated model of
cadmium metabolism. Using their model, It
8 was determined that the danger level for
9 cadmium was 4110 micro grama per day. Using
10 a four-fold safety factor, the tolerable
11 cadmium level would be approximately 110
12 nlerograns per day.
13 A logical and rational risk assessment
n was presented by Dr. Herbert R. Pahren of
15 the EPA Health Effects Research Lab at a
16 December 1977 meeting In San Antonio, Texas
17 on the health effects of land application of
18 wastewater and sludge.
19 In that assessment. Dr. Pahren showed
20 that more reasonable estimates of the dally
21 U.S. Intake of oadmlua were 33 micrograms
22 per day for males, and 26 mlcrograms for
females. Both values are leas than half
of the 72 mlcrogram per day value used by
FDA for teenage males in 1971, the value
25
-------
1
which resulted in the determination by FDA
2
that the existing daily intake of cadmium
3
approximates the WHO tolerable limit.
Using these values and the tolerable
5
limit estimate of KJellstrom, the U.S.
average dally intake of cadmium Is a factor
7 of 3 below the tolerable limit and a factor
8 of 12 below the cadmium intake that would
9 cause discernible health effects.
10 The strict regulation of sludge appll-
11 cation to land by SPA is dictated mainly by
12 the concern over cadmium Intake by indlvld-
13 uals whose present Intake is believed to
14 resemble the WHO tolerable limit. The
15 philosophy of the criteria is that no increase
16 in cadmium Intake in the human diet can be
17 allowed because a crisis intake level already
18 exists.
19 More recent information, however,
20 Indicates that a crisis level of cadmium
21 Intake in the U.S. diet probably does not
22 now exist, and in fact, & rather large factor
23 of safety of the order of 12 probably exists
24 for the average U.S. intake of cadmium.
we would recommend that the health risk
-------
assessment used as the premise for restriction
2 of sludge application to agricultural land is
3 in need of additional review by EPA In light
4 of this end other recent information. Appar-
5 ent discrepancy exists within EPA as indicated
6 by the risk assessment derived from the Health
i Effects Research Lab here in Cincinnati.
8 More careful assessment of eadmium-
9 related health concerns by EPA should be
10 undertaken prior to pre-empting the land
u application option for sludge disposal as
12 would occur if the criteria were adopted
13 as written.
14 Another item with regard to cadmium - -
15 involves cadmium control measures and site
16 management. Two methods of cadmium control
n were allowed in the criteria, the first
lg method specifies numerical criteria controlling
19 application rates and the maximum amount of
cadmium applied to agricultural land. The
second approach involves comparison of cad-
mium levels in crops grown on sludge amended
22
soils to those in the same local market place
23
grown on non-sludge amended soils.
24
In the site management approach, ft
26
-------
2 phase reduction of annual cadmium additions
3 Is proposed. The phased approach Is Intended
to give communities and Industry time to
Implement source control programs. The phase
&
reductions are listed In the criteria, and
go down to the half of kilogram per hectare
In 1986.
8
The rationale behind the choice - - the
9
Initial choice of 2,0 kilograms per hectare
10
Is not clear. The EPA notes In Its November
n
2nd Technical Bulletin on Sludge Management
12
that annual cadmium applications of 2.0 kllo-
13
graas per hectare have not lead to observed
14
problems when soil pH Is controlled, and when
15
crop species are selected that do not readily
16
accumulate metals. Several studies have
17
employed cadmium application rates In excess
18
of 2 kilograms per hectare with no noticeable
19
effect on barley, corn or string beans.
20
A» part of the criteria, EPA should present
21
the health risk assessment showing why the
22
2 kilograms per hectare cadmium application
23 rate was selected.
24 The phase reduction in maximum annual
25 cadmium application rate Indicates that EPA
-------
1
IB concerned about the present level of
2
cadmium addition to soils, and therefore,
3
advocates reduction. As noted above, the
4
rationale behind the concern over the present
5
application rate should be more clearly
e
delineated. Until the choice of 2 kilograms
7
per hectare as a maximum application rate is
o
more clearly explained, the phased reduction
9 in cadmium application rate does not appear
10 warranted.
11 Comments were requested on the ability
12 of locally implemented industrial waste pre-
13 treatment programs to reduce sludge cadmium
14 concentrations to levels which will permit
15 land application of sludge on food chain
16 crops within the phase reduction schedule.
17 At the Los Angeles County Sanitation
18 Districts' Joint Water Pollution Control
19 Plant, approximately 300 dry tons per day
20 of sludge are dewatered and compost air
21 dried prior to use as soil amendment. The
22 nitrogen content of the composted sludge Is
23 about 1 percent. The cadmium content of the
2 sludge is about 60 mllograms per kilograms.
If applied at the nitrogen requirement of
25
-------
1
common field crops, approximately 15 tons
2
per acre per year of compost would have to
3
be utilized.
In order 60 a*et the 1986 maximum
S
annual cadmium addition rate of 5 kilograms
6
per hectare, the compost cadmium content
would have to be approximately 19 milograms
g
per kilograms. If the source control disehar
g
limit of one-half milograms per liter were
10 Implemented, it Is estimated that the cadmium
content of Joint Water Pollution Control
12
Plant compost would be approximately 25 mllo-
13 grams per kilograms. Thus, at a crop nitro-
14 gen loading rate, the cadmium application
15 rate would exceed the 1986 cadmium applica-
16 tion of one-half kilograms per hectare.
17 In addition to the phase reductions
18 in cadmium application rate, a maximum cumu-
19 lative amount of cadmium applied to land is
20 also specified. The cumulative cadmium
21 limit of 5 kilograms per hectare to 20 kllo-
22 grams per hectare, depending on the cat ion
23 exchange capacity. This range of limits
24 assumes that the cumulative amount of cadmium
25 applied is a controlling factor in the uptake
-------
of cadmium by crops. However, questions
exist as to whether cadmium remains totally
available In soil.
Chang, et al, In 1977, found no increase
In trace metal concentrations In fields of
barley which had received comparatively large
amounts of metals during two previous appli-
cations of composed sludge. This observation
tends to suggest that the trace metal elements
added to soil from sludge disposal are not
entirely accumulative.
A number of other comments, and I'll
present those later detail, so I don't run
out of time, but as far as our recommendations
are concerned In this area, we feel the
criteria lack clear delineation of the
rationale behind the choice of the numerical
data limiting cadmium application to land.
In conclusion of the development of these
criteria, this rationale, in a step-by-step
calculation, would greatly facilitate under-
standing of the criteria.
With regard to comparability to local
market crops, we recommend that EPA more
specifically describe what they think should
-------
1
be the monitoring required In order to deter-
2
nine comparability to local market crops.
3
And secondly, with regard to pathogens, we
4
feel that there should be provisions made
5 In the criteria for additional pathogen
c
control measures, such as composting.
7 I do have a copy of this particular
8 draft of our comments with regard to sludge
9 regulations, which I will leave; however, I
10 do not have final comments on the criteria.
11 They will, however, be completed by the end
12 of the week, and be submitted within the - -
13 by the completion, or by the 12th, which is
n the date for submittal of that Information.
15 MR. SKINNER: Pine.
16 Thank you.
17 Would you be able to submit your corn-
is ments on the E.I.S. on the 12th also?
19 MR. VAN HEUIT: I think
20 It's not likely that we can complete our
21 comments.
22 MR. SKINNER: We've
23 only received - -
24 MR. VAN HEOIT: We'll
25 attempt to do so, but - -
-------
1 MR. SKINNER: We have
2 only received a very few requests for ex-
3 tension compared to the total number of
4 drafts that we've distributed both In the
5 criteria and the E.I.S., and at this point
6 in time, we were not planning to extend the
1 comment period, so it would be very helpful
8 if you could get them in by the 12th.
9 If we do consider an extension, what
10 do you think would be reasonable?
11 MR. VAN HEUIT: I think
12 probably something on the order of 12 weeks
13 would be adequate.
u MR. SKINNER: At this
15 particular time, as I said, our plan is to
16 close the comment period on the 12th. I
17 guess Just as a point of clarification,
lg comments received during the comment period
of the Agency must be considered in preparing
iy
the final draft. Comments received outside
of the comment period, the Agency can't con-
sider in preparing final draft because It Is
22
the Agency's discretion at that point.
23
Are there any questions?
24
MR. ANDRES: Yes, I had
25
-------
1
one, Mr. Van Heult. I didn't quite under-
2
stand your second major point before you got
3
the discussion of cadmium. You said that
you thought more flexibility was needed in
5
the criteria to provide state and local
enforcement actions - - provide state and
7
local enforcement actions. I'm not sure I
8 understood - -
9 MR. VAN HEUIT: There was
10 a twofold comment. That's the first portion
11 of it. I think many of the speakers today
12 have been talking about flexibility within
13 the criteria to allow for state government
n to - - state and local government - - to re-
is form their jobs as an enforcement agency.
is Part of that Job, as I see it, Is to expedl-
17 tiously correct the problems - - that's part
is of their job, but secondly, I think they have
19 an obligation to keep waste disposal facili-
20 ties functioning wherever possible.
21 Our concern is that if the criteria
22 were adopted as It Is in the draft form, that
23 from a legal standpoint, the facility might
24 have minor technical violations which would
technically cause a sanitary landfill facilitj
-------
1
to become an open-dump, and therefore, no
2
longer legal that they might be obligated
3
to shut down a facility, causing great
4
problems for the general public Industry
and Industry that Is served by such a facility
6 MR. ANDRESs Well, I
7 think there Is flexibility, well, I guess
o
you were getting at the time Issue, and
9 there Is tine built - -
10 MR. VAN HEUIT: Our com-
11 ments will be with recommended changes In
12 the criteria that will afford what we think
13 is wording that will allow for those - -
14 MR. SKINNER: Any other
15 questions?
16 MR. WEDDLE: Yes, If I
n understood you correctly, you said that the
is air dried sludge contains about 60 parts per
19 million cadmium?
20 MR. VAN HETJIT: Tes, I
21 think that's correct.
22 MS. WEDDLE: And that
23 if pre-treat»ent for electroplators were
24 implemented, setting a standard of 0.5 mllo-
25 grams per liter, discharged to the system
-------
1
that that sludge concentration could be
2
reduced to 25 parts per million.
3
MR, VAN HEtJIT: Right.
4
MR. WEDDLE: I would
5
be very Interested in seeing a study or any
6
backup support that you would have for those
7
numbers, because that would be quite helpful
g
for us in developing the regulations.
MR. VAN HEOIT: Actually,
10
we backed into that number starting at .5
and seeing what sort of concentration we
12 would have. I might add that we do have a
13 fairly fairly good source of control
14 already, and that it's one of the points,
15 and I didn't read everything here, but one
16 of the points is that we hope to make it
" that even with source control, it's difficult
18 to get anywherei near the 25 mllograms per
19 kilogram? level.
20 MR. tfEDDLE: But could
21 you send us that information?
22 MR. VAN HEUIT: Yes.
23 MR. WEBDLE: Also, yon
24 mentioned the Chang study on barley and corn.
25 I believe you mentioned it twice. Would you
-------
1
also send that along to us?
2
MR. VAK HEUIT: I'll be
3
happy to.
MR. WEDDLE: Thank you.
MR. SKINNER: Any other
6
questions?
Thank you.
o
Concerning this evening's hearing, at
Q
this particular point In time, we do not have
10 any pre-reglstered witnesses. We will be here
11 at 6:30 In case anyone does show up and pre-
12 register, and we will conduct a hearing If
13 only one person chooses to appear this even-
14 Ing, but obviously, If no one Is here, we
15 won' t.
16 This concludes this afternoon's hear-
17 Ing. Me will now open for any general ques-
18 tlons from the floor or any specific comments
19 that you would like to make to any of the
20 panel.
21 Are there any questions? Tes, sir?
22 oOo
„„ MR. WILEY W. OSBORHE,
Division of Solid Waste Manage-
Bent,
Texas Department of Health,
Austin, Texas.
25
oOo—-
-------
1 MR. QSBORNE: I'm Wiley
2
Oeborae with the Division of Solid Waste
g
Management, Texas Department of Health. We
4 are preparing written comments on the E.I.S.
6 that we will submit. As you know, we have
* already submitted comments on the criteria.
7 I would like to make a couple of observations
8 on the E.I.S. I had a question about why
9 the Haste Aje. survey was used as the basis
10 for the determination of the site conditions
11 throughout the country?
12 MR. ANDRES: Well, at
13 the time we began the E.I.S., which was in
14 June of 1977, that was adjudged by EPA and
15 ourselves, I guess, to be the best - - most
16 comprehensive available existing data, and
17 that's why it was chosen.
,8 MR. OSftXWf. Yes, I
19 think their compilation didn't address the
2Q same thoughts that you had though in develop-
21 ing the E.I.S, for instance, in Texas, this
^ was 1976 data. We had 293 permitted sites
and 752 authorized sites, and 52 sites that
23
classified as Illegal, but this Illegal
tA
classification was because they had not sub-
25
-------
1
mltted an application. The 752 sites were
2
authorized merely by a fact of being grand-
3
fathered Into the system, and the 52 sites
4
and the 72 sites, as far as their status,
5
were the sane except the 52 that were clasfti-
6
fled as Illegal because they bad not abided
7
by the statutory time limit in submitting an
8
application. So, at that time, if you want
9
to look at it that way, we had 800 illegally
10
operated sites in Texas, except the 752 that
had submitted a permit.
12 MR. ANDRES: I think
13 we recognize those kinds of anomalies that
14 did exist in the data. As I said before,
15 that was the best we had at hand and we
16 went with what we had.
17 MR. OSBORHE: I you
18 made no attempt to survey the states for the
19 „ _
20 MR. ANDRES: That was
21 not considered to be a part of that effort.
22 I think we made a few telephone checks on
23 states that had unknown or had not responded
24 to some of the questions in the survey.
25 MR. OSBORNE: Another
-------
1
observation on the E.I.S. in clarifying the
2
number of sites in tbe environmentally sen-
3
sltlve area, you apportioned it on trie land
4
area, the environmentally sensitive area
s
versus tbe total land area and the state.
6
Of course, this, in Texas, is very erroneous,
7
because we have many acres of land outside
o
of the environmentally sensitive area, but
Q
the number of sites located in tbe envlron-
10 mentally sensitive area would be dispropor-
11 tionate to that If - - more based on the
12 population. For instance, in East Texas,
13 It contains tbe majority of tbe population,
14 the majority of the sites, and would also
15 be located or be most affected by the
J6 environmentally sensitive areas.
i? So, at least for the State of Texas,
18 this gives an erroneous picture. Now, some
19 of the other states it might be more - -
20 MR. DeGEARE: Will you
21 be able -to give us some kind of an idea in
22 your comments aa to what an appropriate
23 assumption will beT
24 MR. OSBORNE: *es, I will
„ Again, in Texas, and, John, I'm sure
-------
that Jack Carmlchael found this a number of
times, we do have an excellent regulatory
program, but I don't believe that our
standards meet a one hundred percent of the
criteria as listed In the E.I.S. For in-
stance, we do permit sites which permit
burning if this Is not in violation to the
Air Quality Control Standards, then again
we have asked Dell to reconsider those points,
I night make a statement here in rebut-
tal to Mr. Diver's comments about having a
nation-wide standard. Again, we have sub-
mitted comments several times concerning that
the state should retain the flexibility
to use the criteria, and develop those
standards that it will enforce in evaluating
and classifying sites for open-dumps.
Thank you very much.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you,
Wiley.
Any other questions? Sir?
oOo
MR. WALDO KALLENBEROER,
Standards Counsel of America.
oOo
-------
1
MR. KALLENBERQER: Yea, Biy
2
nan* is Waldo Kallenberger with the Standards
3
Counsel of America, and we're kind of getting
4
to the questions out of order here, but our
5
primary concern Is with chromium of material
f*
we do use In our tanning process. And most
7
of our waste contains some of these chromium,
o
and the problem centers around this being
9 classified as a hazardous waste, and at this
10 point, we do not know whether It will or will
11 not, but assuming that It will, this material
12 typically dumped from most tanneries Into
13 local waste, open-dumps If you will, and with
M the current publicity that has been going
15 around with things called hazardous wastes
i€ or similar type nomenclatures, now we are
n very concerned with the type of situation
18 that might develop where places to du»p
19 hazardous wastes, In our particular case,
20 the chromium containing material, might be
21 hard to find, an* thus , we're going to end
22 up hauling this material unrealistic dls-
23 tances to dispose of it, and we would like
24 to see or have some comment as to the llkeli-
hood of say legal terminology of Imminent
-------
1 domain, or something of this type being
2 established where dumps of sanitary landfill's
3 if you will, will be In reasonable proximity
4 to the locations that require then, whereas
5 erery community won't say, well, we don't
6 want this hazardous garbage dumped here. Is
7 there any kind of consideration of this fact
8 being made at present)
9 MR. SKINNER: Well, EPA
10 doesn't have that authority in current legis-
n lation. Some states have authority to over-
12 ride zoning laws at the local level with
13 respect to the- location of landfills. Some
14 states control solid waste disposal through
15 a public utility type of concept, but it
16 varies from state to state, and there's no,
17 *» I indicated, federal authority of Imminent
18 domain or siting authority right now.
19 With respect to whether or not chromium
or chrome tannery wastes would be classified
20
»» a hazardous waste containing chromium,
22 what I suggest you do Is contact the people
In BPA who are working on the hazardous waste
23
criteria, and perhaps you could explore that
24
further with them. If you'd like their name,
25
-------
1
if you would come down afterwards, w* could
2
put you In touch with them.
3
MR. KALLENBEROER: Wall, we
4
certainly ape In contact with them, and we
s
are doing everything we can to Influence that
6
particular decision, but It seems like the
7
odds are against us at the particular tine,
a
and we think it Is extremely important, as
Q
you say, perhaps EPA does not have the
authority, but perhaps they ought to con-
11 slder, In some way, or take Into considera-
12 tion, the Impact of closing the current open
13 dumps without providing an appropriate place
14 to deposit such materials.
15 MR. SKINNER: Well, that
16 is something that the states would have to
17 do In order to be eligible to have an
18 approved state plan to receive financial
19 assistance; that one of the requirements
20 for a state plan would be to make sure that
21 there Is adequate facilities to take care of
22 the wastes that are generated, but again, it't
23 not something that is enforceable - - it's
24 something that will vary on a state-by-state
basis, and basically, up to the states to
25
-------
assure.
MR. KALLENBEROER: Thank you.
MR. SKINNER: Okay.
Any other questions? Sir?
oOo
MR. HENRY BALIKOV,
Attorney.
oOo
MR. BALIKOV: Dr.
Skinner, my name Is Henry Ballkov. I'm an
attorney representing the owners of a number
of plants which have Impoundments as part of
their waterfre-treatment.
MR. WEDDLE: Could you
speak up, please?
MR. BALIKOV: Okay. My
Initial question IB whether you have come to
any conclusion yet, or whether you are put-
ting the burden upon the Individual states
to determine whether treatment systems which
use Impoundments and settling ponds and
similar kinds of structures, will be regulated
under the Solid Waste Act and open-dumps on
similarly construed situations?
MR. SKINNER: Are these
Industrial waste water treatment plants, or
-------
1
municipal - -
2
MR. BALIKOV: That's
3
correct, they are Industrial, and I would
4
deposit that these would be considered
5
qualifying as best practical control tech-
nology.
7 Fffi. SKINNER: Tfea, the
discharge itself to surface waters which
a
requires an NPDES permit, would not be con-
sidered a solid waste - - the act of solid
11 waste disposal. Prior impoundment upstream
12 of that discharge would be considered solid
13 waste, and the leaching of that Impoundment
14 to ground-water or into surface water would
15 be considered disposal of solid waste,, and
16 those facilities would have to comply with
I? these criteria. That compliance would be
18 achieved through the NPDES permit for the
19 facility, if that was made a condition of
20 the permit, and it need not be regulated
21 through some separate mechanism at the state
22 level, but the standard would apply to those
23 facilities.
24 MR. BALIKOV: How is it
25
to be determined whether there is, in fact,
-------
leaching Into the ground-water from these
Impoundments or whether that leaching, If
it Instead does take place, is going to be
detrimental to the groundio'&t.kf2
MR. SKINNER: Who Is
the burden of proof on, is that the question?
MR. BALIKOV: Well, the
question is, Is the owner of the facility
to submit certain information to the admini-
strator of the NPDES program in order for
that determination to be made?
MR. SKINNER: Yes, If
it was administered through the NPDES permit
program, there would have to be a finding
that that was the case, and the information
would have to be supplied by the - -
MR. BALIKOV: What coop-
eration have you people done with those in
the group that administrates the NPDES pro-
gram?
MR. SKINNER: I think
they are aware of the standard. The mechan-
isms have not all been worked out by any
means yet.
MS. WRIGHT: Yes, with
-------
1
respect to hazardous wastes, which are
2
impounded Into the course of such a treat-
3
ment process, there Is a lot more coordina-
4
tlon going on because of the section In the
5
Clean Water Act Amendment, which Is the new
6
Section 30lt(A), which provides for non-water
7
quality Impacts to become the best manner
8
practice - - to become part of the NPDES
9
permit, and there is coordination going on
between the people developing the hazardous
waste requirements and the people who are
12 implementing the Clean Water Act Amendments.
13 It's much earsler to do that with
14 respect to hazardous wastes because the
15 statute regarding authority Is much clearer.
16 With respect to non-hazardous wastes, it
17 remains a state problem Instead of some
18 extents the cooperation will be involved with
19 how much the state wants to get into that.
20 MR. BALIXOV: With
21 respect to non-point pollution which is
22 covered both under the RCRA and also under
23 Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, haa
24 there been an attempt to ducktail that as
25 well?
-------
MR. SKINNER: Yes, as
part of the state planning efforts under
RCHA, we're requiring coordination on non-
point residual management plans In 208 of the
Water Act, and the Act Itself requires that
coordination.
MR. BALIKOV: With respect,
Dr. Skinner, to your first response, It Is ray
understanding of that;that If the states
choose to regulate more strictly, there Is
nothing that would prevent them from provld-
Ing stricter regulation of those Impoundments?
MR. SKNNER: That's
correct.
MR. BALIKOV: Okay.
Thank.you very much.
MR. SKINNER: Any
other questions?
Thank you very much.
oOo
Whereupon, this portion of the
EPA hearing was concluded at
5 ! '5 P« !••
-------
1
5. I 5. S.
2
7:00 P.m.
MR. SKINNER: Do we have
anybody in the audience who signed up to give
testimony or would like to make a statement?
C
As of this point In time, we don't have any-
7 body who's registered outside for that. Okay.
8 If that's the ease, I'd like the hearing
9 record to show that we made an opportunity
10 for public hearing, but there were no wlt-
11 nesses.
12 Okay, fine. That's the end of the
13 formal public hearing. If anybody has any
14 questions or anything you would 11 Ice to dia-
ls cuss, why don't they come forward and we can
16 do that. Any Questions?
17 MS. WRIQHT: Yes, sir.
18 I think he was going to ask a question.
19 MR. SKINNER: It's kind
20 of lonely up here.
21 MR. BOQOS: I feel
22 somewhat outnumbered too.
23 I was expressing to Truett ay concern
24 for total aspect Implementation of RCRA.
I'm not particularly concerned with specifies
-------
or the criteria as they stand. I think they
2
are needed for ordinary promulgation of
Q
resource conservation and recovery, but my
4 concern is that in the cracks of the develop-
5 went of RCRA, the lead times required to
6 implement the true design of RCRA, that is,
7 Resource Conservation and Recovery, with
8 regard to the many fold aspects, municipal
9 waste has been being addressed for a number
10 of years with the Bureau of Mines, EPA, in-
n house, and through grants by the individual
12 utilities, industries, companies, et cetera,
13 in their specialised areas, but somewhat as
U a - - as time allows us, money allows efforts
is because of the priority of it.
16 Row, suddenly there Is a shift of
n gears as far as most industry is concerned,
ig even though a few have anticipated the
19 coming over the past few years. This shift
20 of gears Is going to put Resource Conserva-
21 tlon and Recovery a little further down the
22 road towards Implementation, and my concern
0, is that the guidelines and RCRA's Intent
ZO
and aim towards development recycling and
24
conservation of materials and resources, will
25
-------
1 not be as speedily effected as If In the
o
promulgation and Implementation stages,
there could be a Joint development of the
4 various affected departments within the
5 government, transportation, comnerce,
6 Interior, and so on, working jointly towards
7 the development, of recycling programs where
8 there are transportation factors involved,
9 incentives, whether it's technologies to be
10 developed, both publicly and privately, and
11 well, I realize that within the scope of
12 RCRA there was plans made for a committee.
13 This somewhat falls in the Implementation
14 stages after all promulgations and criteria
ie have been written, and that if maybe there
16 is, and I'm just not aware of it, a more
17 hand-in-hand effort taken by the various
18 departments towards a planning on a pre-
19 implementation plan, if you will, I guess you
20 might say, or that sort of thing.
21 Towards the layout of the criteria and
22 feedback from these various agencies, if
23 there is a problem created by these criteria
towards eventual recovery, maybe we're making
24
those landfills and everything BO envlron-
25
-------
1
mentally safe that It won't be feasible to
2
go in there and take it back: out for recovery
3
at some point, and that closing them and
sealing them so effectively that they can't
be accessed In the near future as this
/*
develops, maybe a problem towards environmental
7 economic expediency in getting these materials
8 back out, which is my understanding of RCRA,
9 it's main thrust.
10 So, maybe I've clouded the issue or
11 muddied it a little bit, but I realize this
12 is a hearing to deal with the criteria, but
13 this is a part of the criteria, and it looks
n down the road somewhat towards the other
is aspects that must be addressed to, as Truett
16 indicated, as there would be some dealing
17 with, so that's my main concern.
18 MR. SKINNER: Could you
19 Identify yourself?
20 HR. BO 80S: Yes, I'm
2i Bruce Boggs from MS Recovery Systems in
22 Atlanta.
23 HR. SKINNER: Olcay. Let
me address some of the points that you raised.
One of the main thrusts of Resource Conoerva-
25
-------
1
tion and Recovery Act Is the regulatory pro-
2
grama under Subtitle "D," and In Subtitle "C"
3
of the Act, and probably the name Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act promises more
5
than the Act actually deliver* in terms of
6
resource recovery and resource conservation,
7
but we have been trying to implement that
Q
to deal with that as best as we could under
Q
the circumstances of resources and other
10 things that we have to do.
11 One thing that you may be interested
12 in knowing about is a special grant program
13 that is being developed this year as part
i* of the President's Urban Policy Program,
15 where »15 million in fiscal years '79, '80,
16 '81, will be available to the communities
17 doing preliminary planning and procurement
18 planning and feasibility studies for resource
19 recovery projects, and we envision a national
20 solicitation for applications for that pro-
21 gram.
22 That will be administered by EPA, both
23 through headquarters and through the regional
offices, so that's something that you should
be aware of, and you're right, there is a
25
-------
resource conservation committee which is
looking at long-term policies to improve
the prospects of resource recovery and
resource conservation, and there is some
action with respect to the procurement of
recycling'materials that the agency is under-
taking, and there is a number of demonstra-
tion projects and evaluation projects, which
are also being undertaken, so under the
broad mandate for increased resource conser-
vation and resource recovery, we're trying
to do everything the Act gives us an oppor-
tunity to do in that area, but I think your
comments along those lines pointing out the
fact that we weren't moving as aggressively
as we should be in that area were very
appropriate.
MR. BOGQS: Thank you.
I wasn't aware of the grant programs,
so I'll take advantage of looking into that
MR. SKINNER: Okay.
MR. BOQOS: - - and
see how we may contribute too.
MH. SKINNER: Okay.
-------
Are there - - do you have any other
2
questions, or are there any questions or
3
convents?
4 *MR. BOGQS: No, thank
you very much.
6 MR. SKINNER: Okay.
7 Thank you for coning.
8 I'm sorry to see this evening was very,
very brief, but I guess everybody came this
10 afternoon and said everything they had to say.
11 Thank you.
12 oOo
13 Whereupon, the hearing was con-
14 eluded at 7:15 ?•»•
15 OOO
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
-------
1
PUBLIC MEETING
2
Cincinnati, Ohio
3
June 5, 1978
4
5
I, Lynne M. Dadas, do hereby certify
6
that I attended and took a record of the pro-
ceedings in the above-entitled meeting and that
8
the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the
9
same and whole thereof, according to the best
10
of my ability.
11
12
V. M. Scott S Associates
14
15
Lynrie/M. Dadas
16
17
Dated: July 9, 1978
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
WELCOME
I am Francis Mayo, Director of EPA's Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, and I am pleased to welcome you to this Environmental Research
Center.
HEARING
This is the fifth and last of a series of public hearings on a
regulation which the Agency has proposed under authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, otherwise known as "RCRA".
REGULATION
The proposed regulation is entitled "Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities". This regulation is required by
Section 4004 of RCRA and was published in the Federal Register on Feb. 6
for public review and comment.
SIGNIFICANCE
A large part of the significance of RCRA and this proposed regulation
can be attributed to their mutual objective of closing the gap in
environmental protection. Complementing the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act, RCRA provides for protection of ground water, soil and other
media from the improper disposal of residuals, many of which are generated
by air and water pollution control activities.
DRAFT EIS
The Agency has also made available for public review a Draft Environmental
-------
-2-
Impact Statement on this proposed regulation. The Draft EIS includes an
economic analysis. Today, we will be accepting testimony on the proposed
regulation, but we hope to focus on the Draft EIS at this hearing.
INTEREST
We appreciate your interest in our efforts, as exemplified by
your presence with us here at the Cincinnati Environmental Research Center.
CENTER
This Center is one of three Environmental Research Centers operated
by EPA's Office of Research and Development. A substantial portion of
our activities in the Office of Research and Development is directed to
the conduct of basic and applied research to support the development
and implementation of regulations such as that of concern to us here today.
In the case of this proposed regulation, we are working closely with EPA's
Office of Solid Waste, the Agency's office having primary responsibility
for this regulation.
SKINNER
Dr. John Skinner, Director of the Systems Management Division of the
Office of Solid Waste, will serve as Chairman of our hearing panel. John,
we welcome you and your staff to the Environmental Research Center. I hope
that you and our other guests will have a productive and enjoyable visit
with us here in Cincinnati.
-------
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
U40 CONKECTICUT AVENUE. N.W. • WASHINGTON. D.C. IOOS9
13021
STATEMENT OF PAUL EMLER, JR.
ON BEHALF OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
Cincinnati, Ohio, June 5, 1978
MY NAME IS PAUL EMLER, JR. I AM SENIOR ENVIRON-
MENTAL ADVISOR FOR ALLEGHENY POWER SERVICE CORPORATION IN
GREENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA. I AM APPEARING TODAY AS CHAIRMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE'S SOLID WASTE
TASK FORCE, WHICH IS PART OF THE E.E.I. ENVIRONMENT AND
ENERGY COMMITTEE. E.E.I. ITSELF REPRESENTS MEMBER COMPANIES
WHO OWN AND OPERATE NEARLY 75% OF THE NATION'S ELECTRIC
CAPACITY AND SERVICE APPROXIMATELY 79% OF THE ULTIMATE
ELECTRIC SERVICE CUSTOMERS IN THE UNITED STATES. CURRENTLY,
THE COAL-FIRED GENERATION OF ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCES FLY ASH
AND BOTTOM ASH IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF 65 MILLION TONS
ANNUALLY. IN ADDITION, A LARGE AND GROWING AMOUNT OF S02
SCRUBBER SLUDGE, ESTIMATED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE TO EQUAL 60,000 ACRE FEET PER YEAR BY 1985 (AN
AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO COVER AN AREA 90 SQUARE MILES ONE FOOT
DEEP) WILL BE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS.
THE SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE OF E.E.I. HAS REVIEWED
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE
-------
- 2 -
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH PROMUL-
GATION OF THE PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR SANITARY LANDFILLS UNDER
§ 4004 OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF
1976. Wl ARE, BY LETTER TO THE AGENCY, PROVIDING DETAILED
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT, AND WILL ALSO SHORTLY
BE SUBMITTING COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED § 4004 CRITERIA
THEMSELVES. IN VIEW OF THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS TODAY, HOWEVER,
AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE SUBMITTING DETAILED COMMENTS, I
WILL CONFINE «Y REMARKS TO THE HIGH POINTS OF OUR SUBMISSION.
E.E.I. HAS PROFOUND MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE PROPOSED
CRITERIA AND THE DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT. THESE MISGIVINGS
MAY BE ORGANIZED UNDER TWO MAJOR CATEGORIES:
FIRST, WE DETECT THROUGHOUT THE DRAFT IMPACT
STATEMENT A DISTURBING LACK OF HARD INFORMATION. MUCH OF
THE STATEMENT IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY AUTHORITY, AND TO THE
EXTENT AUTHORITIES ARE CITED, THESE TURN OUT TO BE CONGRES-
SIONAL MATERIALS OP AN UNSCIENTIFIC NATURE, OUTDATED STUDIES,
OR NOT PERTINENT TO THE UTILITY INDUSTRY IN ANY WAY. IN
ADDITION, ALL TOO OFTEN REFERENCE IS MADE TO UNPUBLISHED
STUDIES, TELEPHONE CALLS, CONFERENCES AND OTHER INFORMATION
NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. SUCH REFERENCES ARE MEANINGLESS TO
THE REVIEWER.
SECOND, WE FOUND, IN OUR REVIEW OF THE DRAFT
IMPACT STATEMENT, THAT MANY ASSUMPTIONS HAD BEEN MADE THAT
WERE EITHER UNSUPPORTABLE OR REFLECTED CONDITIONS IN MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES OR OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT WERE OF LITTLE OR NO
-------
- 3 -
RELEVANCE TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY. BECAUSE OF THE
ABSENCE OF DATA ON SO MANY POINTS IN THE IMPACT STATEMENT,
THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS BECOME EVEN MORE CRITICAL. AS A
RESULT OF THESE TWO SIGNIFICANT DEFECTS, THE DRAFT STATEMENT'S
PREDICTION OF THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE PROPOSED CRITERIA IS PLAINLY INADEQUATE. AS AN ILLUSTRA-
TION, THE CONCLUSION ON PAGE IV-65 THAT THE ANNUALIZED COST
OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR THE ELECTRIC
UTILITY INDUSTRY IS $35 MILLION IS UNDOCUMENTED AND, WE ARE
CONFIDENT, TOO LOW BY SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
A FEW SPECIFICS AS TO EACH OF THESE POINTS MAY BE
IN ORDER. WITH RESPECT TO THE DATA, IT APPEARED TO US THAT
THE ENTIRE IMPACT STATEMENT WAS PREPARED WITH INFORMATION ON
THE PROBLEMS OF MUNICIPAL WASTE, RATHER THAN INDUSTRIAL OR,
MORE PARTICULARLY, UTILITY WASTE. IN FACT, HOWEVER, AND
WITHOUT DOWNPLAYING THE IMPORTANCE OF COMING TO GRIPS WITH
THE MUNICIPAL WASTE PROBLEM, UTILITY WASTES REPRESENT A
CONSIDERABLY LARGER TOTAL QUANTITY. FOR EXAMPLE, ACCORDING
TO INFORMATION REPRODUCED IN A RECENT JOINT EPA/DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY REPORT, ENTITLED "ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT FACT BOOK",
DATED MARCH, 1978 (EPA-600/9-77-041), A SINGLE 1000 MW
ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT, BURNING LOW-SULFUR COAL, CREATES
320,000 TONS OF ASH PER YEAR. WE LOOKED IN VAIN FOR INFOR-
MATION OF THIS CHARACTER IN THE IMPACT STATEMENT. IN THE ONE
PLACE WHERE SUCH INFORMATION APPEARED, IT SUPPORTED OUR
POINT THAT THE AMOUNT OF WASTES INVOLVED OUTSIDE THE MUNI-
CIPAL AREA IS SIGNIFICANT. ON PAGE 111-15 OF THE APPENDIX,
-------
TABLE 5 ESTIMATES THAT THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY PRODUCES
60 MILLION TONS OF SLUDGE PER YEAR. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY
1200 PERCENT GREATER THAN THE ANNUAL YEARLY PRODUCTION OP
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE. SIMILARLY, CONCERN EXPRESSED IN THE
CRITERIA AND THE DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE
POSSIBILITY THAT SOLID WASTE MIGHT REPRESENT A FORAGE OPPOR-
TUNITY FOR PESTS SEEMS TO FOCUS ON MUNICIPAL WASTES, AND HAS
LITTLE OR NO RELEVANCE TO THE TYPES OF SOLID WASTE (SUCH AS
ASH) THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH COAL-FIRED ELECTRICAL GENERATION.
E.E.I. RECOGNIZES THAT THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE
CONCERNING UTILITY SOLID WASTE GENERATION IS SPARSE, BUT
THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE E.P.A. FROM THE DUTY TO IDENTIFY THE
BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE ACTION IT PROPOSES TO TAKE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE S 4004 CRITERIA. IF, AS IS CURRENTLY
THE CASE, THE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THEN E.P.A. WOULD BE
ACTING ARBITRARILY IF IT PROCEEDED TO PROMULGATE SUCH REGU-
LATIONS, SINCE IT WOULD BE ACTING ESSENTIALLY IN IGNORANCE
OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS ACTIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT AMONG
OTHER THINGS THIS WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT,
THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 12044,
ISSUED BY PRESIDENT CARTER EARLIER THIS YEAR.
THE ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE DRAFT STATEMENT AND
THE PROPOSED S 4004 CRITERIA ARE ALSO FAULTY. WHAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, CAN HAVE BEEN THE BASIS FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ARE SQUARE? WHAT WAS THE BASIS
-------
- 5 -
FOR SELECTING THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS A CRITERION FOR
EXCLUDING FUTURE POTENTIAL DISPOSAL SITES? DOES E.P.A. KNOW
HOW MUCH OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE DISQUALIFIED AS SITES
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL USING THIS AND OTHER GUIDELINES FOR
THE DESIGNATION OF "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS"? AS AN
EXAMPLE, I HAVE A CHART THAT INDICATES THE IMPACT OF THE
DESIGNATION OF SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS AS E.S.A.S ON THE ELECTRIC
UTILITY INDUSTRY. I REQUEST THAT THIS CHART BE MADE A PART OF
THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT MORE THAN FORTY PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
MAY BE LOCATED ON LANDS CLASSIFIED AS RECHARGE ZONES FOR
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS. AN ADEQUATE D.E.I.S. WOULD CONTAIN
THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION AND WOULD ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF THE
REGULATION ON THESE PROPOSED PLANTS. WE SUBMIT THAT WITHOUT
A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MUCH OF THE COUNTRY IS AFFECTED
BY SUCH CRITERIA, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE BENEFITS
AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRITERIA. FURTHER, I AM
PUZZLED WHY E.P.A. ASSUMES NO LANDSPREADING OCCURS IN E.S.A.S
(AS IT DOES IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT) AND
YET FEELS COMPELLED TO EXEMPT CERTAIN LANDSPREADING ACTIVITIES
ON FLOODPLAINS FROM THE PROPOSED CRITERIA. THE ASSUMPTION
AND THE EXCEPTION ARE INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT.
IN SUMMARY, E.E.I. BELIEVES THAT THE DRAFT ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF AN
IMPACT STATEMENT BECAUSE IT FAILS TO OPERATE AS AN ENVIRON-
MENTAL FULL-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. AT BEST, THE STATEMENT
-------
- 6 -
SHOWS THAT THERE IS PRESENT A PAUCITY OF INFORMATION UPON
WHICH TO PROCEED. YET THE VERY CORNERSTONE OF THE PAST TEN
YEARS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN HAS PEEN THAT GOVERNMENT
SHOULD KNOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF ITS
ACTIONS BEFORE THOSE ACTIONS ARE TAKEN.
BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THE DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT IS
SO PLAINLY DEFICIENT, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS THE
CRITERIA THEMSELVES EXCEPT IN THE MOST GENERAL TERMS. E.E.I.
WILL FILE WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE CRITERIA ON JUNE 12. THE
PREPARATION OF THOSE COMMENTS, IN LIGHT OF THIS IMPACT
STATEMENT, WILL BE DIFFICULT AND THE COMMENTS MUST BE REGARDED
AS PROVISIONAL AT BEST, PENDING ISSUANCE OF A PROPER DRAFT
IMPACT STATEMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE STRONGLY URGE
E.P.A. TO PREPARE A NEW DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT THAT MEETS THE
STANDARDS FOR SUCH STATEMENTS, SINCE, IN OUR VIEW, IT WOULD
BE A MOCKERY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS
FOR THE AGENCY NOW TO PROCEED DIRECTLY TO ISSUANCE OF A
FINAL STATEMENT. BY THE SAME TOKEN, WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED
TO E.P.A.'S TAKING FINAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE § 4004
CRITERIA UNTIL THE IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN MEANING-
FULLY COMPLIED WITH. BEYOND ANY QUESTION OF NEPA COMPLIANCE
IF THE INFORMATION SHOWN IN THE D.E.I.S. IS INDICATIVE OF
THE DATA BASE BEING USED BY E.P.A. TO DEVELOP THE S 4004
CRITERIA, THEN A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION MUST BE RAISED AS TO
WHETHER THE CRITERIA ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS FOR PURPOSES
-------
- 7 -
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.
E.E.I. APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER THESE
REMARKS TODAY, AND WILL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW WITH INTEREST
E.P.A.'S EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT.
-------
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
Comments of EPA Proposed Criteria For
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities Under the Resource Conservation &
Recovery Act,
June 5/ 1978, Cincinnati, Ohio
CCN 773037
I am Gene H. Gockley, manager of Environmental Management at
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company. PP&L generating capacity
exceeds 6,500,000 kilowatts for some 960,000 customers in central
eastern Pennsylvania. About 74 percent of that power is produced
by coal-fired steam generating stations.
We are very interested in the regulations to be promulgated
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act because of the
consequences for fly and bottom ash under this Act. As a major
coal user, we consume great quantities of coal and dispose of huge
amounts of fly and bottom ash annually.
Last year, we handled more than 1.5-million tons among our five
coal-burning plants. This is about 310,000 tons per plant. Over
the last six years, the ash waste tonnage handled at PP&L plants
totaled more than 8-million tons; enough to fill a structure the
size of the Great Pyramid at Giza every two years.
Thus, solid waste regulations which broadly include solids, semi-
solids and liquids, will have significant economic and operational
impact on our Company and the electric utility industry.
PP&L's policy is to comply with reasonable environmental regu-
lations. We are here today to say that we feel we can comply with
sensible RCRA Solid Waste regulations, and we ask that these regu-
lations be sensibly applied to our industry and that they reflect
-------
page 2
the realities of existing industry technology and practice, we do
not question the merit of preventing contamination of ground and
surface waters or protecting environmentally sensitive areas from
future encroachment.
We feel, however, that there are certain difficulties with the
regulations, with the interpretation supplied by the Environmental
Impact Statement and with how both these documents apply to the
electric utility industry.
The problems we will address are:
1. Clarification of the solid waste definition to determine if,
in fact, facilities with NPDES permits for discharges are already
covered and thus exempt from the regulations under consideration.
2. The Environmental Impact Statement's interpretation that
existing surface impoundments in environmentally sensitive areas
would have to be closed > ir. contrast to the regulations' impli-
cation that only future facilities would have to comply with the
solid waste disposal criteria.
3. The ambiguous restrictions reserved for floodplains.
4. The issue of whether fly ash should be designated as haz-
ardous and thus subject to the stringent regulations imposed by the
manifest system.
With respect to clarifying the solid waste definition, in the
proposed rules as published in the February 6 Federal Register,
the definition of solid waste is ambiguous. As drafted, it could
be read to exempt ash basins as presently operated by the electric
utility industry under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
That definition clearly states that industrial discharges which
are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control 7ict are excludsd.
-------
page 3
PP&L's ash basins, in the form of surface impoundments, have
approved NPDES permits and have been operating with these permits
since the system was established in the mid-1970's and therefore
would and should be exempt.
Secondly, with respect to closing impoundments in environmentally
sensitive areas, we see unreasonable penalties for the electric
utility industry. In fact, this interpretation conflicts with our
reading of the regulations - that this provision applies only to
future impoundments.
Power plants require locations close to available water sources
for cooling purposes. Thus, power plants and their ash basins are
frequently on or near floodplains or wetlands,not by choice but by
necessity.
The Environmental Impact Statement assumes closure of existing
impoundment facilities (Chapter III, p.23) which could cost the
electric utility industry millions of dollars and result in addit-
ional environmental problems unless extensive measures are taken
to return partially used basins to the previous condition of the
terrain. Premature closure would require filling the basin so that
no depression oxists to capture rain water, compacting the fill
material and ash and placing and planting of topsoil. A sounder
environmental strategy and a more economical approach would be to
allow existing basins, properly licensed by state agencies, to be
used for the duration of their designed lifetimes. Then, these
basins should be closed out according to the environmental pro-
visions of their state licenses, which would impose no additional
economic burdens .
-------
page 4
Closing existing floodplain basins would mean PP&L would lose
about 250 acres of basins. This land has already been disturbed
but should present floodplain basins be closed, we'd still have
to replace them, which would mean disturbing another 250 acres with
replacement basins. We think a tenet of good environmentalism is
to get maximum use of terrain already disturbed so as to minimize
additional encroachment.
Part of our assessment is that we feel that recently designed
basins which meet present licensing requirements of the Office of
Solid Waste Management in Pennsylvania are environmentally sound
and valuable for the numerous years of service expected from them.
Newer basins and basins presently under construction were licensed
based on information about soils, hydrogeology, geology, chemical
analysis of basin contents, topography and climate.
These examinations have been costly but we view them as necessary
provisions for operating environmentally safe installations. Arc
the proposed regulations implying that existing state licenses, pro-
cured with these stringent measures, are no longer valid?
An additional conflict regarding sensitive areas is the statement
in the regulations that structures can be built in the floodplain
as long as they do not restrict the flow of the base flood or do not
reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain. We
have one question. How do you build anything in the floodplain
without imposing in any way on the floodplain1s ability to store
water temporarily?
We suggest that the language in the proposed regulations be
modified in two ways:
-------
page 5
1. The prohibition against restricting the base flood flow and
the storage capacity of the basin should be reworded to prohibit
facilities which significantly restrict the flow of water in the
floodplain.
2. The regulation should state that it applies to new facilities
and structures. If the concern is that existing structures are not
floodproof, a provision could be addec'< •.i.'iat existing facilities
must be made floodproof. A definition of floodproof i.s spcllod out
in Section 257.3-1 of the proposed regulations, that is, a facility
"designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to protect
against inundation by the base flood. ..."
Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to address an
issue which has plagued the electric utility industry since it
learned of th«v possibility that ash way be considered genetically a
hazardous substance under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. This designation is being considered based on
the presence of trace elements of heavy metals in some ash.
For the most part, ash is composed of aluminum oxides, silicates
and iron oxides with wide ranges in the types of trace elements,
which have not been shown to be hazardous in the concentrations
found.
Trace elements found in ashes are found Jn similar concentrations
to thosp concentrations of trace elements commonly found in mineral
bodies where coal is mineci. Sulfur and some other components have
been removed by tlio combustion of coal.
We have no evidence that ash is & hazardous material bnsc:d on
federal standards for hazardous subsidences, that is, taking into
-------
page 6
account toxicity, persistence, decjradability in nature, potential
for accumulation in tissue and factors such as flammability and
corrosiveness. The ash in slurry form may have made the oxides
more soluble and more conducive to leaching. This situation, we
feel, should be examined on a case-by-case basis because of vari-
ables such as the specific nature of the trace elements in dif-
ferent seams of coal and variables in the nature of the surrounding
water of the impoundment.
On a site-by-sito basis, we think that more economic decisions,
fitting specific conditions, can bo made based on known technologies
for drainage, liners, both natural and artificial, and monitoring
of discharges and adjacent ground water. Present evidence is
insufficient for classification of ash as a hazardous substance.
Furthermore, such a universal classification would preclude insny of
the promising developments which would allow ash to be used as an
ingredient in concretes, plastics and for other more commonplace
uses such as for roads to prevent winter skidding.
Since ash has been commonly accepted for utilitarian purposes,
and certainly its disposal has not created recognized problems
because of toxicity, we feel that the burden of proof for such a
designation rests with EPA. It's further recognized that ash treated
as a hazardous substance would create severe economic problems since
it would have to be stringently tracked from cradle to grave.
Thus, we suggest that ash basins be dealt with on a case-by-case
basis. At the same time, studies should be undertaken to assess
more accurately the effects of storing ash in solution.
Thank you.
-------
Oral Statement of W. S. Brenneman
Public Hearing on: "The Proposed Criteria for Classification
of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Center Auditorium
26 West St. Clair, Cincinnati, Ohio
June 5. 197B .
My name ia William S. Brenneman, Land Use and Conservation
Supervisor, Environmental Affairs Department, 500 South 27th Street,
Decatur, Illinois, 62525. I am a member of the Solid Waste Task
Force of the Edison Electric Institute. At the Kansas City hearing
I stated that the "stockpiling" of fly ash and scrubber sludge,
adjacent to power stations, should be allowed to continue. This
ie basically the disposal plan in Britain where retired ash lagoons
are dewatered and, with a little amelioration, converted to pasture,
crops or timberland. However, today I will concentrate on the
enormous cost to just Illinois Power if the company had to move
It's ash lagoons from 100 year flood plains. Exhibit "A" (compiled
by Illinois Power Company construction engineers) shows the estimated
cost of•resiting ash storage lagoons for various sized stations.
For simplicity I have averaged the calculations (for various
sized units} at $55,000 per MW. Illinois Power's present coal
fired generation (on flood plains) is 3,240 MW and the total cost,
for resiting could be over $178,000,0001 The considerable cost for
buying a corridor and constructing sluicelines to an up-land site
is not included in the fore-going cost. Also, we have not yet
-------
determined annual operating costs to pump the ash to high ground
or to truck it away for disposal if pipeline corridors could not
be obtained. However, considering that our existing sites are
either surrounded by built-up urban areas or by prime farm land,
the transport of ash to high ground would probably be by truck.
Assuming the transport distance would average 5 to 10 miles per
site and that trucking costs would be $4.00 per ton of ash, our
annual transportation costs for our existing power stations would
be approximately $3.5 million per year. $178 million dollars is
1396 of the company' s present total capitalization! Obviously even
partial closure of "on-site" ash lagoons would cause the company
severe economic distress. The company's existing ash lagoons
should not be closed. Also, it, is imparitive that power plants
be sited in 100 year flood plains because of cooling water requirements.
Properly designed ash lagoons have a negligable, if any, adverse
environmental effect, and, I believe, will have better public
acceptance if located on the power plant property than if located
remotely in prime agricultural areas or close to urban areas.
-------
Cost of Power Plant Ash Storage Pond Construction
An attempt has been made to calculate, based on many assumptions, Che
cost to construct ash storage facilities for coal fired power plants on
terrain above the flood plain. To construct such facilities would be
contradictory to practices followed, at the present.
These calculations are based on current data as much as applicable
data are available. Ho attempt was made to determine Che cost to build a
new ash pond at any specific plant site. It was felt that the problems
unique to an individual plant would so heavily influence the result that it
could not be considered for general application.
The following is a list of the assumptions used with comments regarding
the reasoning involved in making them:
Plant sizes; Three (3) plant sizes were used - 600 MW, 1200 MW, and
1800 MW nameplate capacity.
Plantlife: 35 years
Generation amount: 75% of nameplate capacity per hour was assumed.
This was based on data from one of our plants that has had a good
record of reliability.
Coal burn amount: One pound of coal per KJfll was assumed.
Ash content: 12% ash content was assumed. This is representative of
ash in coal now being burned.
Weiftht of ash: 55 pounds per cubic foot
Ash pond sh,i|>c: It was assumed that the ponds would all be the same
shape. They would all be completely diked in and contain three (3)
compartments. Dimensions of a pond now under construction were used
as a guide. The length of the dike work in feet is approximately 1180
x "Tk where A is the area of the pond in acres. This ratio o£ dike to
area was used in the three (3) cases.
Depth of poml: A 20 foot depth was assumed based on dimensions of
existing ash ponds. Optimizing the dike height witli respect to the
acreage would l>e worthwhile in specific cases when the price of the
ground was known and the cost of earthwork established. It seemed
Impractical to attempt it here.
-------
Dike dimensions; A dike height of 22 feet was used leaving 2 feet of
dike above Llic ash when filled. A slope of r.5:l was assumed and Che
top was 15 feet wide. No imported fill was anticipated.
Cost of land; A figure of $5000 per acre was used. However, if power
plants were required to buy high ground to store ash, at least three
(3) major obstacles would be encountered.
1. High ground might not be available at any price. One
of our power plants for example, is completely surrounded
by Industrial and residential areas. Others are
surrounded by valuable farm land.
2, The fact that a plant is already established and must
buy additional land, opens the door for unreasonable
purchase price, demands by owners who very likely
didn't want to sell in the first place.
3. Considering the obstacles presented by those who
are protestant in the environmental and ecological
field when relatively poor ground is taken for
industrial use, to get permits to store ash on good
high ground might be impossible.
Amount of land: It was assumed that it would be necessary to buy
50% more land than required for ash storage. This figure was "picked
out of the air". The logic I think is obvious.
Construct ton cost - e.irtlimoving: $5 per cubic ynrd was used for earth-
moving. Since this is about what is being bid for jobs now, it may
be too conservative.
Cost of impervious membrane: We have no experience in building a water-
tight pond. Our consultants have given us estimates Crom $40,000 per
acre to about $90,000.. For the want of better information, we used
$70,000 per acre.
RESULTS OF CALCULATION
NAME PLATE GENERATION
600 1200 1800
Area for ash storage - acres 3§0 720 1080
Area to purchase for above 549 1080 1620
Length of dikes - feet 22(400 31)600 38(800
Cubic yards material in dikes 1,344,000 1,900,000 2,328,000
Cost of land 2,700,000 5,400,000 8,100,000
Cost of dikes 6,720,000 9,500,000 11,640,000
Cost of membrane liner 25,200,000 50,400,000 75,600,000
Total Cost 34,620,000 65,300,000 95,340,000
Cost per MW nameplate $57,700 $54,500 $53,000
-------
NICHOLAS 1. MEUS
PRESIDENT
Bart T. Lynam
General Superintendent
751-5722
THE
_
METROPOLITAN SANITARY IMSTIIICT
OF (.ItEATKIt CHICAGO
lOO BAST, ERIC ST., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6O6 I t .}..., 7SJ.5
.££,-_ —-
Jzn
56OO
i
BOARD or taurrcEs
JOANMf K AITIR
JOAN 0. ANOEHSOM
JEROME A COSEM1IIIO
VAUMTINE JANICXI
WlLtAM A. JASKVU
MUEI C. KIM1I
CHIfTIR 9. UAJIVIfKI
NICHOLAS J. MCLAS
JOHM W. ROQIM
June 5, 1978
Mr. Shuster
Docket 4004
Office of Solid Waste (WH-564)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street SW
Washington, D. C. 20460
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES - Proposed
Classification Criteria of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency •- Federal
Register, Monday, February 6, 1978, Part II
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OP
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
Interim Regulations
Dear Sir:
On April 21, 1978, the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago (District) presented comments on the above ref-
erenced document at a public hearing in Washington, D.C. At this
hearing where these comments were presented, the District was
asked by representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to submit additional comments addressing the concept of
the EPA adopting Interim Regulations. In addition, the EPA has
only recently released for comment a draft of the Environmental
Impact Statement (BIS) for the above referenced proposed classi-
fication criteria. However, because of time constraints, the
District today will present only additional comments and recom-
mendations for the record concerning the above referenced proposed
classification criteria relating to Interim Regulations and request
additional time to present comments on the EIS.
Before discussing the concept of Interim Regulations, the
District would ask the EPA to recall the chief purpose of the
proposed classification criteria which is
-------
-2-
"to encourage the recovery and utilization of solid
waste by eliminating environmentally unacceptable
disposal practices."
In its request for public comments, the EPA again stated that
"Implementation of these criteria are expected to
encourage the recovery and utilization of solid waste
by eliminating environmentally unacceptable disposal
practices."
This is in keeping with the Act, which urges the conservation and
recovery of material and energy resources.
"These Criteria address these adverse effects in order
to promote the proper disposal of solid waste, with no
reasonable probability of the adverse effects on health
or the environment....Practices which result in the
conservation, recovery, or utilization of waste materials
in environmentally safe ways are strongly encouraged by
EPA...."
In the District's presentation of April 21, 1978, appropriate
comments were made to the fact that the positive goals announced
in the preamble of the guidelines become so restrictive in the
criteria that the final effect was negative, if not prohibitive.
At Page 4949 of the Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 25,
February 6, 1978, the EPA explains the purpose of the criteria to
"restrict practices that pose a substantial risk to public
health or the environment."
The USEPA explains its concern over the uncontrolled land applica-
tion of solid waste to food chain crops in terms of
"significantly increased cadmium levels in certain crops."
Again the USEPA notes the concern of other Federal agencies over
practices
"which would significantly increase the cadmium level in
food crops beyond current levels."
The word significant is underscored here since in the proposed
classification criteria, the concept of comparability is introduced
which precludes operations which produce food chain crops with
cadmium levels which are not comparable with those of crops pro-
duced locally without municipal sludge application.
We cite here the brief filed by the EPA on June 27, 1975, in
the matter of the City of Philadelphia Ocean Disposal Permit No.
-------
-3-
PA010. In the brief, the following arguments were made in favor
of land utilization of municipal sewage sludge.
"IV- There are Several FeasibleLand-Based Alternatives
To The Disposal of Sewage Sludge In The Ocean.
A. The City of Chicago Has Shown That A Large
American Metropolitan Area Can Successfully
Use Sewage Sludge On Land.
"In their prepared direct testimony, witnesses for
the City of Philadelphia outlined potential problems that
may be encountered when sludge is used on land. Chicago
was one of the Cities pointed to by Philadelphia witnesses,
especially Mr. Steven Townsend.(the 'project coordinator'
in charge of looking for alternatives for the City of
Philadelphia) as examples of locations where difficulties
have arisen. Because of the repeated references to
Chicago's experiences as demonstrating the major problems
with useful application of sewage sludge, the Environmental
Protection Agency asked representatives of Chicago to
appear at the hearing and present a more accurate appraisal
of their programs to use that City's sludge. Reports
detailing the results of extensive monitoring of the
Chicago land use projects were requested by the parties
and supplied for the record.
"Mr. Hugh McMillan, Deputy Engineer for the City
of Chicago, testified that the Greater Chicago Metro-
politan Sanitary District serves Chicago and 120 other
communities; its drainage basin is an area of 860 square
miles serving 5 1/2 million people (Tr. 1-191). There
are 1 1/2 billion gallons of waste water passing through
the City's treatment plants daily, generating 650 dry
tons of sludge each day (as opposed to roughly 180 dry
tons for the City of Philadelphia) (Tr. 1-191). The
levels of metals in the Chicago sludge are generally
higher than those from the City of Philadelphia. For
example, the cadmium level in a Chicago sludge is 197
ppm (dry weight), as opposed to roughly 105 ppm in the
Philadelphia sludge {Tr. 1-199). In fact. Dr. William
J. Bauer, a consulting engineer to the City of Chicago,
said that Chicago's metal levels were higher than any
other city's he had seen (Tr. 5-39).
"The Chicago sludge is applied at rates varying
from 15 to 75 dry tons per acre (Tr. 1-207, 5-53) and
following this reclamation the land is being used pri-
marily for row crop agriculture (Tr. 1-220). Because
the strip-mined areas were relatively barren, the value
of the lands has risen following the initiation of the
Chicago project (Tr. 1-221)...
-------
-4-
"Likewise, criticisms of the Chicago project based
upon concentrations of metals in the sludge are inappro-
priate in that there has been no indicated problem of
metals buildup in crops grown on land on which there has
been applied the Chicago sludge (Tr. 3-273, 5-48). Since
the authors of the initial rules of thumb relating to
cation exchange capacity and the cadmiun/zinc ratio,
who testified at the hearing, acknowledged that their
thinking has changed dramatically since their first
conservative statements and that in a properly managed
project the levels of raetals can be quite a bit higher
than their conservative estimations (Chaney, Tr. 6-31,
37, 40, McKewen, Tr. 4-8} , this criticism may be invalid.
"The Chicago officials have designed the Fulton
County project to incorporate on-site monitoring and
limitation of public access. The concept that sludge
is applied in large quantities willy-nilly is a mis-
concept. Chicago has on-site observers, restricts
public access, and contracts with local farmers to care
for the crops from planting through harvest {Exhibit
91 at 24). The crops respond well to the sludge applica-
tions; in some cases the corn yield was over five times
greater in sludge-treated fields than in controls, and
in all comparative cases the sludge treated fields grew
more corn (Exhibit 91, Table 4)."
The brief filed by the EPA regarding the City of Philadelphia
presents an accurate picture of the District's Fulton County opera-
tion but more importantly shows that the EPA has in the past as
well as currently, looked upon land utilization of municipal
sewage sludge as indeed a most desirable sludge management option.
The District believes that the current proposed solid waste classi-
fication criteria are at odds with past statements of the EPA
concerning land utilization and indeed if offered in their present
form will preclude sludge utilization for many cities.
It is a fact that the District's Fulton County operation as
it exists now could not continue under the proposed solid waste
classification criteria. The District presented in the April 21,
1978 documents the cost if the District adopted the so called
"operational control" option in the classification criteria.
With the eventual enforcement of the 0.5 kg Cd/ha/year application
rate limitation and the total application limit for Fulton County
soil of 20 kg Cd/ha, the District would be forced to acquire an
additional 331,000 acres of land and would incur annual costs of
over 111 million dollars. This annual cost and additional acreage
would accommodate only current Fulton County sludge shipments. If
all District sludge were managed at Fulton County, then a total area
of 613,000 acres would be needed and total annual costs would exceed
144 million dollars. Yet, the District would have no assurance that
-------
-5-
the resulting product would have cadmium levels which would
satisfy the requirements of the proposed criteria.
The District, therefore, like many other municipalities
would be forced into an untenable position. We have a sludge
management scheme which the EPA believes to be the most environ-
mentally acceptable yet we would be forced by these proposed
regulations to adopt changes with which we may not be able to
comply.
We, therefore, urge the EPA to adopt regulations which will
not preclude sludge utilization and which will protect against
reasonable probability of the adverse effects on health or the
environment. It is in this spirit that the District has prepared
suggested Interim Regulations which we urge the EPA adopt.
INTERIM REGULATIONS
Proposed by
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
SITES NOT EXTENSIVELY MONITORED
In section 257.3-5 subparagraph (a)(l), the EPA presents
regulations on the total and annual sludge cadmium applications
allowed for sites which are not extensively monitored. The
District believes that these regulations are unduly restrictive
and are not necessary for protection of food chain crops.
There is no need to limit total sludge cadmium applications
to land, since this parameter has little bearing on plant metal
uptake. Research conducted by the University of Illinois, Depart-
ment of Agronomy, by Dr. Thomas Hinesly (1) conclusively shows
that cadmium uptake by plants is related primarily to yearly sludge
application. Plainly stated, sludge applications from previous
years have very little influence on plant metal uptake.
The District does, however, suggest to the EPA that a higher
yearly sludge cadmium application rate than that contained in the
proposed regulations be adopted.
Pahren, et al. (2), states that the current cadmium intake of
the largest caloric diet group in the U.S. is 36 yg per day.
Pahren, et al., concludes that the toxicological data indicates
that an intake of 110 JJg per day of cadmium would still leave a
safety factor of four and that this be the maximum allowable
amount in the U.S. diet. For the food class of grains and cereal
products, he shows an increase from 9.9 )ig per day to 39.1 ;ig
per day going from the current level of 36 pg per day to the
maximum safe level of 110 jag per day. This increase of a factor
-------
-6-
of four in grain crops will be used to develop a maximum yearly
sludge cadmium application amount. According to Dugdale and
Hummel, (3)
"The Canadian Food and Drug Regulations governing heavy
metal contents in fresh fruit and vegetables are as
follows (ppm fresh weight):
Pj> Zn Cu Cd As
Fresh fruits 7.0 50.0 50.0 1.0 2.0
Fresh vegetables 2.0 50.0 50.0 1.0 1.0"
For many vegetables, this would translate to a limit of 8-10
ppm cadmium on a dry weight basis.
Hinesly (1) has done extensive research on the cadmium uptake
from corn fertilized with municipal sewage sludge. Contained in
Table 1 are data on corn grain cadmium levels and annual sludge
cadmium applications. As can be seen, the average cadmium con-
centration in the control corn plots for 1970 through 1977 was
0.125 ppm, the average corn grain concentration for the plots
receiving an average 7.1 kg Cd/ha/yr was 0.55 ppm. Therefore,
for an average yearly application of 7.1 kg Cd/ha/yr, an approxi-
mately fourfold increase in corn grain cadmium occurred.
Since 1973, the University of Illinois, Department of
Agronomy, under the direction of Dr. Hinesly, has conducted a
metal uptake study using corn at the District's Fulton County
site. In Table2 is contained data on the corn grain cadmium
levels and annual sludge cadmium applications. As can be seen,
the average corn grain cadmium levels from 1973 through 1976 was
0.06 ppm dry weight while for an average annual sludge cadmium
addition of 6.0 kg/Cd/ha, the average concentration was 0.24 ppm
dry weight. Therefore, a fourfold increase in corn grain cadmium
levels occurred with annual cadmium additions of about 6.0 kg
Cd/ha.
The above data collected by Dr. Hinesly clearly justify an
application rate of 7.0 kg Cd/ha/yr. Such a loading will yield
corn grain cadmium levels which cannot be considered detrimental.
It is important to state here that the above two field studies
by Dr. Hinesly involve in one case heavy sludge cadmium applica-
tions on Blount Silt Loam soil, and in the second case similar
applications on stripped-mined spoils with practically identical
results.
-------
— "7 —
RecoTOtiencIation
The District recommends the following addition to section
257.3-5 paragraph (1):
"The above annual and total solid waste cadmium additions
shall not apply to grains, fruits and animal forage. For
such crops, the annual solid waste cadmium addition should
not exceed 7.0 kg/ha/year."
SITES KITH EXTENSIVE MONITORING
The EPA in subparagraph (a)(2) of section 257.3-5 introduces
the concept of comparability for controlled sites with extensive
monitoring. Products from such controlled sites would be compared
with those from non-sludge fertilized sites. If the cadmium con-
tent of these products was comparable, the site would be in
compliance with the criteria regardless of the sludge cadmium
application rate, the concentration of cadmium in the sludge, or
soil pH.
The concept of allowing controlled sites with extensive
monitoring to operate provided the resulting product is closely
monitored is desirable, but the concept of comparability as
defined by the EPA is not. It simply will not be possible for
many products produced on sludge-fertilized soils to be comparable
on the basis defined in the proposed criteria.
Comparability by Distribution Factor
The District at its Fulton County site in 1976 produced corn
with an average cadmium concentration of 0.41 ppm. The average
corn produced in Fulton County according to a survey by Pietz
et al. (4) on non-sludge fertilized soil was 0.03 ppm, while the
highest corn cadmium level found in corn grain in the state of
Illinois was 0.294 ppm. Clearly, sludge-fertilized corn grain
would not be comparable to non-sludge-fertilized corn as per the
USEPA proposed definition.
Rationale
The District believes that the EPA must adopt the concept of
providing guidance for the distribution of sludge-fertilized prod-
ucts in the marketplace. If a product produced from sludge-
fertilized soil represents only a small fraction of products from
non-sludge-fertilized soil and is regionally distributed, the food
chain would be protected from
"significant...increases of cadmium in the food supply."
We quote above the exact words from the Federal Register and ask
that the word "significant" be emphasized. Although one may be
-------
able to calculate numerically a grain cadmium increase if, say,
one bushel of corn is placed in a 20,000 bushel grain elevator,
the increase could not be considered significant.
We recommend that the EPA adopt the concept of a distribution
factor which is defined here as the ratio of the volume of a cer-
tain product grown in a particular county or region to the volume
of that product grown on sludge-fertilized soil in that same
county or region. For grains, fruits, animal forage, and meats,
a distribution factor of 25 is recommended. For all other crops,
including leafy vegetables, a distribution factor of 50 is recom-
mended. In this way, the EPA could limit the amount of sludge-
fertilized products produced in any particular county according
to the amount of non-sludge products produced. The human diet
would be automatically protected, and overly restrictive regulations
of controlled sites avoided.
Data on county-wide production of various foodstuffs are avail-
able. In order to qualify the annual production of sludge-
fertilized products for sale, the operator would check the previous
years production of his particular product; if his product volume
is exceeded by a factor of 25 or 50 (depending on product) by the
county volume, this qualifies his product for sale.
For example, in 1977, the District at its Fulton County site
produced 40,000 bushels of corn. The corresponding county's pro-
duction was nearly 17.0 million bushels. The county volume in
this case exceeded 25 times the District's production, and, there-
fore, the product would be acceptable for sale.
The concept of the distribution factor should be viewed from
the perspective of what effect, if any, the sludge-fertilized prod-
uct would have on the overall metal levels of the product from the
particular county or region.
Sample Calculation
For example, the average cadmium levels contained in 40,000
bushels of District corn from Fulton County was 0.41 ppm. The
average concentration of the nearly 17.0 million bushels was 0.03
ppm. For the sake of being conservative, let us assume that the
40,000 bushels is offset through regional distribution not by 17.0
million bushels but by 1.0 million bushels, or 25 times the 40,000
bushels of the District's Fulton County production, or that the
distribution procedure is only 6% efficient. In other words, let's
assume that the recommended distribution factor limit was just
barely achieved. In this case, the calculated average corn grain
cadmium concentration following regional distribution would change
from 0.03 ppm to .044 ppm. Since the District's detection limit
for corn grain cadmium is 0.02 ppm and the National Bureau of
Standards reports a standard deviation of 0.02 ppm for standard
-------
-9-
orcharrf leave cac.mi.um analysis, the calculated rise of 0.014 ppjn
is barely at the detection limit, is less than a standard devia-
tion established and published by the National Bureau of Standards,
(5) and cannot be considered significant. In fact, it may not
e;ven be measurable.
Recommendation
For section 257.3-5 subparagraph (a) (2), the following word-
ing should be substituted:
"The land application of municipal sludge is acceptable
provided that the volume of product produced at the
sludge-fertilized site is less than a certain fraction
of the volume of the corresponding product produced in
the county or region according to records of the previous
year, and distributed such that the resulting cadmium
concentration does not result in 'significant...increases
of cadmium in the food supply....1
"For grains, fruits, animal forage, and meats, the frac-
tion shall be .04. For all other products, the fraction
shall be .02."
This regulation shall apply to those facilities which demon-
strate that they possess the necessary resources and expertise
to adequately manage and monitor their operations and to dis-
tribute their products on a regional basis.
Also, this regulation shall apply to sites owned and operated
by the sludge producer and to producers with pretreatment limits
on cadmium discharges to their sewer systems.
SLUDGE CADMIUM LIMIT FOR VEGETABLE AND ROOT CROP FERTILIZATION
In section 257.3-5 subparagraph (a)(1)(iii), the proposed
regulations impose a limit of 25 mg/kg of cadmium for sewage
sludge used for the fertilization of leafy vegetables, root crops
and tobacco.
This limitation is too low and will preclude many municipal-
ities and sanitary districts from applying sludge to these crop
types. The District contends that the 25 mg/kg limitation is
overly conservative and not needed to protect food chain crops.
The EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory, through the
results of a study entitled "An Appraisal of the Relative Health
Risks Associated with Land Application of Municipal Sludge," and
reported by Pahren, Lucas, Ryan and Dotson (2),*
that:
"If a person uses municipal sludge for many years to
amend the soil where practically all of his food is
*Accepted for publication in Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion.
-------
-10-
grown, it would be prudent to assure that such sludge
contains less than 60 ppra cadmium and that the soil
is maintained near neutrality."
According to Pahren, et al., this conclusion incorporates:
"The use of Swiss chard (which)...represent(s) the
worse case since it is a maximum accumulator crop
and shows the most response to a given level of
cadmium."
In addition, the report by Pahren, et al., noted the following
assumptions:
1. A safety factor of 4 exists relative to actual cadmium
daily intake and the supposed critical intake level.
2. Only sludge-fertilized vegetables are eaten.
3. Only Swiss chard is eaten as the leafy vegetable.
Swiss Chard
How much Swiss chard is grown nationally? The 1964 United
States Census of Agriculture {Vol. 2) published by the U.S.
Department of Commerce Bureau of the census lists the following:
SWISS CHARD
YEAR
1964
1959
1954
1949
1939
NO. OF
FARMS
148
325
370
392
232
TABLE 1*
TOTAL
ACRES
167
324
343
358
204
AVERAGE ACRES
PER FARM
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
* From 1964 United States Census of Agricul-
ture (Vol. 2). Published by U.S. Department
of Commerce Bureau of the Census.
Swiss chard is a minor crop which is no longer included in
the U.S. Census of Agriculture. It is obvious from the above
-------
-11-
table that the commercial production of Swiss chard has signifi-
cantly decreased over the past few decades. The 1964 Census also
gives the following breakdown of Swiss chard production by states.
SWISS CHARD
TABLE 2*
NO. OF ACRES
REGION OR STATE FARMS HARVESTED
North 128 105
South 7 24
West 13 38
Massachusetts 46 25
New York 45 57
New Jersey 5 5
Florida 3 19
California 11 35
* From 1964 United States Census of Agricul-
ture (Vol. 2). Published by U.S. Department
of Commerce Bureau of the Census.
Swiss chard is not recorded in the Agricultural Statistics
Reports for the major vegetable-producing states {California,
Florida, Texas, New York, and Michigan). A review of the 1977
Annual Summary of acreage, yield, production, and value of
vegetables, Swiss chard is not listed as one of the major or
minor crops.
Thus the use of Swiss chard as the leafy vegetable consumed
in any model does indeed present the worst and perhaps the most
improbable case.
The District agrees with Pahren, et al., that they have
presented the worst possible case by assuming that the only leafy
vegetable eaten is Swiss chard; and further, that they have pre-
sented a most convincing argument for using municipal sludge with
a cadmium concentration of up to 60 ppm for home gardens where
the gardner:
"uses municipal sludge to amend the soil where
practically all of his food is grown."
-------
-12-
It should be noted here that neither the EPA nor the USDA
has offered any "safe or permissible" limits for metals in vege-
tables or any food item. However, according to Duqdale and HuraroeL,
(3), the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations governing heavy metal
contents in fresh fruit and vegetables list the follov-ring (ppro
fresh weight):
Pb Zn Cu Cd As
Fresh fruits 7.0 50.0 50.0 1.0 2.0
Fresh vegetables 2.0 50.0 50.0 1.0 1.0
If one assumes 90% moisture content for fresh leafy vege-
tables, the Canadian limit for cadmium translates to 10.0 ppm
on a dry weight basis for leafy vegetables. However, in the
study by Pahren, et al., the value of 2.0 ppm dry weight for
cadmium in Swiss chard was used which further illustrates the
very conservative approach used by Pharen, et al.
Recommendation
The District recommends that in section 257.3-5 subparagraph
(a)(1)(iii), the limit of 25 ppm cadmium be raised to 60 ppm.
SOIL/WATER pH
It is stated in section 257.3 subparagraph (a) (1) (iv) that
the pH of the solid waste and soil mixture should be maintained
at pH 6.5 or greater. However, the arbitrarily selected pH of
6.5 is not warranted especially for grain crops and involves
unnecessary soil preparation expenses which could eliminate the
sludge utilization option.
In the Eastern United States many soils are acid in nature.
For example, the states of New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin,
and Indiana have mean soil pH's of 5.0, 5.2, 5.8, and 5.6,
respectively (6). Agricultural lands in the state of Ohio (6)
have a mean soil pH of 5.2 and it would cost $176/hectare to
raise the soil pH to 6.5. CAST (7) estimated that 167,000 acres
of Ohio cropland would be required if all sludge were utilized
in agriculture. Therefore, raising the soil pH from the mean of
5.2 to 6.5 would cost 1.1 million dollars for this state alone.
In addition, most crops in Ohio and other eastern states have
been developed to grow best in their natural pH range and probably
would be uneconomical in this new environment. New crop varieties
would have to be used if the pH of these soils are adjusted to
6.5 or greater. The outcome of using these new varieties would
not be known until they were actually produced.
Another major obstacle of the arbitrary pH of 6.5 is the
exclusion of the reclamation of surface mined lands, which have
-------
-13-
acid pH's. For example, the U.S. Forest Service is reclaiming
acid spoils at the Shawnee National Forest in Illinois using the
District's anaerobically digested sewage sludge for acid mine-
spoil reclamation in the Palzo Restoration Project. Such a
regulation would terminate this project and prohibit the institu-
tion of similar efforts in the future.
The District recommends that the EPA eliminate the national
soil pH restriction contained in the proposed classification
criteria and adopt controls based upon actual soil conditions
and cropping practices. This will insure that unduly restrictive
regulations will not eliminate the sludge utilization option.
Recommendation:
Section 257.3-5 (1)(iv) should be deleted and the following
wording substituted:
1. Soil/sludge pH should be established on the basis of the
cropping system and type of soil receiving sewage sludge.
2. Acid strip-mined land reclamation is exempt from soil/
sludge pH limitations.
The District welcomes this opportunity to present recommenda-
tions on interim regulations for the proposed classification
criteria.
Very truUf yours,
Bart
General Superintendent
BTL:CLH:hh
cc: Board of Commissioners/Mr. Farnan
Lue-Hing/Rimkus/Neil/Lavin
Mr, Harold Cahill, Director
Municipal Construction Div., WSME 1139
USEPA/Waterside Mall WH447
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mrs. Rome
-------
-14-
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
TABLE 1
Cadmium Concentration of Corn Grain Fertilized
With Sewage Sludge and Annual Cd Addition
From the Sludge (Hinesly, 1)
SlutUjo Treatment
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
0
-ftq Cd/g
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1/2 max.
grain —
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
Sludge Treatment
1/2 max.
kg Cd applied/ha
10.0
14.5
2
3.5
6.5
3.5
8.0
7.0
Mean
0.125
0.55
7.1
-------
-15-
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CKIChGQ
TABLE 2
Cadmium in Corn Grain from Sludge Amended
Plots at Fulton County, Illinois
Sludge Treatment
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
0
-.ug Cd/g
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.06
1/2 max.
grain--
0.12
0.18
0.21
0.46
Sludoe Treatment
1/2 max.
kg Cd applied/ha
1.6
7.1
7.2
8.2
Mean 0.06 0.24 6.02
-------
-16-
REFERENCES
1. Hinesly, T.D., "University of Illinois Experimental Data:
Environmental Changes and the Response of Corn (Zea mays L.)
to Annual Applications of Digested Municipal Sewage Sludge -
A Preliminary Progress Report Prepared for the MSD of Chicago.
2. Pahren, H.R., J. B. Lucas, J. A. Ryan, and G. K. Dotson, "An
Appraisal of the Relative Health Risks Associated with Land
Application of Municipal Sludge." Presented at the 50th
Annual Conference of the KPCF, Philadelphia, PA, Oct (1977)
3. Dugdale, P.J., and B. L. Hummel, "Cadmium in the Lead Smelter
at Belledune: Its Association with Heavy Metals in the
Ecosystem." In Edited Proceedings, First International
Cadmium Conference, San Francisco, January (1978).
4. Pietz, R. I., J. R. Peterson, C. Lue-Hing, and L. F. Welsh,
"Variability in the Concentration of Twelve Elements in Corn
Grain." Journal of Environmental Quality, 7: 106-110 (1978).
5. National Bureau of Standards, "Certificate of Analysis For
Standard Reference Material 1571, Orchard Leaves." Revised
Oct. 1, 1971.
6. Personal Communication with Soil Testing and Extension
Personnel at Land Grant Universities.
7. Council For Agricultural Science and Technology, "Applica-
tion of Sewage Sludge to Cropland: Appraisal of Potential
Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals," Report
No. 64, Nov. 22 (1976) .
-------
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE 0. HYFANTIS
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
ON THE
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Monday, June 5, 1978
Cincinnati, Ohio
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, TVA has reviewed the
proposed regulations required by Public Laws 94-580 and 95-217,
and has prepared the following brief statement. Our detailed com-
ments will be forwarded shortly.
We believe the proposed criteria as a whole will provide needed
guidelines for the proper selection of solid waste disposal sites.
However, we are concerned that they lack the flexibility needed to
strike an appropriate and well reasoned balance between economic and
environmental considerations.
The proposed criteria particularly concern us with regard to the
siting of future power generating facilities. We fully concur with
the concept of wetlands protection, but believe that a presumption
against the issuance of an NPDES permit for the discharge of solid
waste into wetland areas is too broad. All areas that can be classi-
fied as wetlands are not appropriate for protection. Therefore, we
believe that each proposal to discharge into a wetland should not be
decided on the basis of broad generalizations, but rather on its own
merits and individual circumstances, such as importance of the project,
the environmental harm, and the significance of the wetland.
-------
2
The requirement that the facility not restrict the flow of the
base flood is overly constrictive since any facility constructed
within the base floodplain could increase flooding to some minute
degree. The regulations should instead consider whether the facility
will significantly increase flooding. Furthermore, they should
provide for siting in a floodpiain when other factors so dictate.
The requirement that a facility not be located in critical habitat
areas unless it is demonstrated that it will not jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered species, and unless approval is
obtained from the Office of Endangered Species, is overly restrictive.
He believe the regulations should provide for a balancing of all
pertinent factors in determining whether to allow siting in a desig-
nated critical habitat.
In general, we believe that protection of environmentally sensi-
tive areas is warranted. However, in order to achieve a balance
between the technological, environmental, economic, and other perti-
nent factors, the final regulations should focus on the differences in
terms of ecological/economic significance for uniqueness of individual
situations.
-------
DRAFT
May 26, 1978
MS
COMMENTS ON RCRA
SLUDGE APPLICATION REGULATIONS
As part of PL 94-580 (RCRA) the United States EPA is promulgating regulations
on the application of municipal wasteuater. treatment sludges to land. These
regulations contain specific numerical criteria that will have profound effects
on sludge disposal options. The purpose of this section is to provide EPA with
commencs on the regulations pertaining fo sludge application to land and in
particular, the issue of cadmium contamination of the human food chain. These
comments will provide both the critical revicjw of the criteria as published in
the February 6, 1978 Federal Register, a;; well as to subnti^ alternative courses
of action that may result in more rational regulation of sludge application to
land.
Because of the uncertainty in health effects related to environmental
contaminants and in particular, the lack «t complete understanding of the trans-
mission of sludge-borne contaminants into crops grown for human consumption, /M-
#*.
criteria center mainly onAheavy metal cadmium. As stated in the preamble to
the criteria:
"EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
as well as many other groups are concerned over the conduct of any
practice which could significantly Jncrease the cadmium level in Joofl
crops beyond current levels. This concern arises from an FDA assessment
of teen-age males in this country (ulass of individua3s which consumes
the most food) , which concluded that their average daily intake of
cadmium in food and water approximates the total tolerable daily intake
level recommended by the World Health Organization."
While this concern was justified based on the information available at
the time EPA, FDA, and USDA were formulating these criteria, more recent infor-
mation indicates that the average daily intake of cadmium is well below tolerable
-------
COMMENTS ON RCRA SLUDGE APPLICATION REGULATIONS
-2-
levels. The tolerable level recommended by the World Health Organization in
1972 was 78 micrograms per day. At that tine, WHO recognized the uncertainty
in their estimate and stated that it should be revised pending further research.
It should be noted that the 70 microgram per day tolerance level incorporates
a four-fold safety to avoid adverse health effects. In 1977, Kjellstrom and
Nordberg formulatea a more sophisticated model of cadmium metabolism. Using
their model, it was determined that the danger level for cadraiuip intake was
440 micrograms per day. Using a four-fold safety factor, the tolerable
cadmium intake level would be approximately 110 micrograms per day.
A logical and rational risk assessment was presented by Dr. Herbert R.
Pahrt* /MeeAy
-Joerin of the EPA Health Effects Research Lab at a December 1977^ in san Antonio,
Texas on the health effects of land application of wastewater and sludge. In
AJm*.
that assessment, Dr. Jcciin showed that more reasonable estimates of the daily
U.S. intake of cadmium were 33 micrograms per day for males, and 26 micrograms
per day for females. Both values are less than half of the 72 microgram per day
value used by FDA for teen-age males used in 1974, the value which resulted in
the determination by FDA that the existing daily intake of cadmium approximates
the World Health Organization tolerable limit. Using these values and the tolerable
limit estimate of Kjellstrom, the OS average daily intake of cadmium is a factor
of 3 below the tolerable limit and a factor of 12 below the cadmium intake that
would cause discernible health effects.
The strict regulation of sludge application to land by EPA is dictated
mainly by the concern over cadmium intake by individuals whose present intake
is believed to resemble the WHO tolerable limit. The philosophy of the criteria
is that no increase in cadmium intake in the human diet can be allowed because
-------
COMMENTS OS RCRA SLUDGE APPLICATION REGULATIONS
-2-
a crisis intake level already exists. More recent information,however, indicates
that a crisis level of cadmium intake in the U.S. diet probably does not now
exist, and in fact a rather large factor of safety (12) probably exists for
the average U.S. intake of cadmium.
RECOMKEKDATIOM
The health risk assessment used as the premise for restriction of sludge
application to agricultural land is in need of additional review by EPA in light
of more recent information. Apparent discrepancy exists within EPA as indicated
by the risk assessment derived by the Health Effects Research Lab in Cincinnati.
More careful assessment of cadmium-related health concerns by EPA should be
undertaken prior to pre-empting the land application option for sludge disposal
as would occur if the criteria were adopted as written.
-------
CadiriumControl Measures - Site Management
Two methods of cadtiun) control are allowed in the criteria, the
first method specifies numerical criteria controlling application rates and
the maximum amount of cadmium applied to agricultural land. The second
/* **»! ' A
approach involves damonitreiuoimT~comppi«oblc cadmium levels in crops grown
on sludgeamended soils to those in the same local market place grown on non-
sludge amended soils. In the site management approach a phase reduction of
annual cadmium additions is proposed. The phased approach is intended to give
communities and industry time to implement source control programs. The pnaseH
reductions;in cadmium addition to land are as follows:
Years Max. Annual Cadmium Additions(kg/ha)
Present to 12/31/1981 2.0
1/1/1982 to 12/31/1985 1.25
1/1/1986 0.5
The rational behind the choice of 2.0 kg/ha is not clear. The EPA
notes in its Nov. 2, 1977 Technical Bulletin on Sludge Management that annual
t*»*i<.i,
cadmium applications of 2.0 kg/ha have not lead to observed problems w*th-
eifii A ~.t
soilrpi&e* controjfed^when crop species are selected that do not readily
* kirkln"
accumulate metals. Several studies (Chang, WZ^Hepkwx, 1971, Giordano, and
ey/ii-vCr* *\''.r.$
•Mae 1977) have employed annual cadmium l*a*»+jwi rates in Sccsis of 2 kg/ha
with no noticeable effect on barley, corn or string beans. As part of the
4*
criteria EPA should present the health risk assessment showing whyA2 kg/ha
cadmium application rate was selected.
The phase'reduction in maximum annual cadmium application rate indicates
that EPA is concerned about the present level of cadmium addition to soils and
therefore advocates reduction. As noted above the rational* behind the concern
over the present application rate should be more clearly delineated,Until the
choice of 2 kg/ha as a maximum annual application rate is more clearly
-------
eduction in cadmium application -rate does not appear
^warranted, ^Comments were requested on the ability ofr locally implemented
industrial waste pre-treatment programs to reduce sludge cadmium concentrations
to levels which will permit land application of sludge on food chain crops
within the phase reduction schedule. At the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts' Joint Water Pollution Control Plant approximately 300 dry tons per
day of sludge are dewatered and compost air dried prior to use as soil amendment.
£* 0 *^£lyV*v
The nitrogen content of the pt'erfuew .sludge is approximately It. The cadmimum
(,o U if11"
content of the composted sludge is approximately 1£ mj/kg. {*-** applied tha*--*
nitrogen requirement of comnon field crops (barley, sorghum) approximately 5 to
15 dry tons per acre per year of compost would have to be utilized.!/! order to
meet the 1986 maximum annual cadmium addition rate of 5 kg/ha; tfte compost
cadmium content would have to be approximately 19 ny/kg. If the sotice control
discharge limit of AS mj/liter were implemented it is estimated that the cadmivn*
content of JWPCP compost would be approximately 25 irg/kg/fhus at a crop nitrogen
loading rate the cadmium application rate would exceed the 1986 cadmium application
of 0.5 kg/ha.
In addition to the phase reductions in cadmium application rate a
maximum cumulative amount of cadmium applied to land is also specified. The
cumulative cadmium limit is 5 kg/ha to ?0 kg/ha (depending on the caf 4*en
exchange capacity). This range of limits assuroetthat the accumulative amount
)$ £e*"K»/ll"J it
of cadmium applied as a owtrft} factor in the uptake of cadmium by cropsjww.
questions exist as to whether cadmium remains totally available in soil.
t+ "I
Chang *F| (1977) found no increase in trace metal concentrations in
field plots of barley which had received comparatively large amounts of metals
during two previous applications of composted sludge. "This observation tends
to suggest that the effect of trace metal elements added to soil from sludge
-------
disposal is not entirely accumulative. The amount of trace metal elements
added inmediately before planting may have a greater influence on the concentrations
in plant tissue. Once the trace metal elements enter the soil their availability
to plants was gradually reduced".
Kirkum (1974) reported that corn plants from Dayton, Ohio which had
been grown in soil treated with sludge for 35 years exhibited grain concentrations
of copper, zinc, nickel and cadmium which were within concentration ranges observed
in normal plants. She concluded/"disposal of sludge especially from cities on
farm land over a long time period can bui'ld up the concentrations of trace elements
in the soil, but the low transport of elements in certain plant species ( for
example corn) appears to prevent toxic amount of metals accumulating in edible
parts (grain) of the plant".
It should be noted that not all crop species are as outstanding as corn
and barley in their ability to exclude cadmium. However, the findings of these
researchers cannot be ignored in developing rational sludge management regulations.
A third provision in the site management criteria is that sludtio
containing greater than 25 my/kg of cadmium should not be allowed in situations
where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or rool crops will be grown for direct human
consumption. It is not clear why cadmium concentration in sludge should be
restricted in tfc4s particular application* Loading rate limitations specified
.in the separate part of the site management criteria will adequately protect
against cadmium build up in these sensitive crops. Dr. Herbert Pahren of the
EPA Health and Research Lab has indicated that 60 mm/kg of cadmium in sludge
may be acceptable when the sludge is used with proper nitrogen application
rates for crops.
The final criteria involves maintenance of soil pH at 6.5 or greater.
This does not appear to be a limiting factor in land application of sludge
in the Los Angeles area. However, it may become limiting in land reclamation
especially in the case of acid minei reclamation projects.
-------
Recommendations
yttCriteria lacked clear delineation of the rationakbehind the choice
of tbe numerical criteria limiting cadmium application to land. Inclusion of
the development of these criteria «s a step by step calculation would greatly
facilitate understanding of'the criteria.
A more rational approach than compliance with cumulative cadmium
applications might be a standard test for cadmium availability in soil. Over
the past two months a brief review of methods for measuring cadmium availability
0(-
In soil has been performed by staff at the Sanitation Districts, Frora this
review It 1s not apparent that any one test cooId act ae a ideal predictor for
crop uptake of cadmium from soil. More research is needed to folly define
speculation of cadmium in soil, and how this speculation affects the 7
availability of cadmium in soil to plants, The tj(BS&f extraction tests which
is optimum for predicting IjK cadmium uptake is dependent on the type of soil
?*t*it1l*'»t Ul-fk
being analyzed. Several authors have reported that *he CAtraiUid OTPA could
t*tt
provide a highly correlativeA predictive tool for cadmium uptake by plants.
Other extracting agents (£eVI«4w) agents, weak acidsj strong acids^ and salts)
have been studied, it is recommended that EPA perform a careful literatore
review to determine if any of these am 11 able extractiont tests could provide
a useful tool for prediction of cadmium uptake by plants. If a reproduceable
test can be found, the monitoring of the availability of cadmium in soil to plants
could provide a more rational regulatory and management scheme for control of
the entry of cadmium in the human food chain.
Comparability to Local Market .Crops
As an alternative to the site management t*=*t>e numerical criteria
described above the law as proposed would allow comparison of cadmium levels
a»<.fdrj
in crops grown on sludge aan|4ed land to cadmium levels in the local market*
in crops mown on non-sludge amended land. By necessity this alternative would
be available only to those agencies which demonstrate that they possess the
ncootoir. resources arJexpertlse to perform the monitoring required. The
-------
comparability concept affords more flexibility
-------
Additionally new acreage of of comparable size would have to be obtained
every twenty years.. This enormous land requirement wou+d appear justified
If the cadmium limitiation criteria were based on stong scientific evidence,
however, considerable controversy exists on the health effects of cadmium
even within the EPA Itself. Until this controversy can be resolved it does
not appear prudent to develop a set of criteria that will preclude the land
j* ,
<^3peaaToption> in-many urban arcao because of-the eiiuiuiuus land > it»q*44^rneats
necessary lu luuiuly w I Hi Hie n He>4a-.
These criteria should not be implemented without further research
on problems with cadmium in the human food chain. An alternative management
scheme might consist of measurements of available cadmium in soil. This
might provide a none reaslistic management tool than the acted effect monitoring
of crop cadmium concentrations.
The stringent land application criteria presented in the act would
probably, restrict the sludge disposal options in Los Angeles County to Sanitary
Innrlfilling. hnraugr nf Ttringrnf nir pnllntTfrn •ttinrlnrri-i If this is done
the valuable nutrient resource in sludge will be lost.
It is suggested that EPA promote research aimed at providing scientific
information on which to make rational decisions on the regulations of land
application of sewage sludge. The present criteria appeared to restrict the
land disposal option on the bases «n incomplete health risk assessments.
-------
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
Il«0 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W . WASHINGTON. DC. SO038
(3021 80S 3800
June 5, 1978
DRAFT EIS
Office of Solid Waste WH 564
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Washington, D.C, 20560
Dear Mr. Shuster:
The Edison Electric Institute ("EEI") is the
principal national association of investor-owned electric
light and power companies and represents member companies
who own and operate almost 75% of the nation's electric
capacity and service approximately 79% of the ultimate elec-
tric service customers. EEI has participated actively in
the implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 ("RCRA"). Specifically, in reference to Subtitle
D, EEI has provided written comments on a draft version of
the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facili-
ties ("Criteria") and has testified at both a public meeting
and public hearings on these proposed criteria.
Attached to this letter are EEI's detailed comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") issued
by EPA regarding the proposed Criteria under RCRA § 4004.
While these comments are extensive, they are not exhaustive.
Therefore, the failure of EEI to comment on a specific point
in the DEIS should not be interpreted as tacit approval of
any part of the document. Since our detailed comments are
lengthy, we have prepared the following summary of our
generic concerns. Our review of the DEIS forces us to
conclude that the document is totally inadequate. There-
fore, we request that EPA withdraw the DEIS and circulate a
revised draft. Further, we request that EPA notify us, in
writing, by July 5, 1978 if a revised DEIS will be prepared
and circulated. In the absence of such written notice, we
shall be forced to assume that the Agency is proceeding to
prepare a final EIS, and shall guide ourselves accordingly.
-------
Mr. Shuster
June 5, 1978
Page T.WO
The following are EEI's generic concerns on this
DEIS. First, the DEIS is grossly defective because of
numerous and substantial data gaps. This is a compounding
fault since it is responsible for many of the other flaws in
the document. The DEIS appears to evaluate all impacts on
the basis of information available with respect to municipal
landfills. Accurate information on major industries is con-
spicuous by its absence. • As detailed in the attached com-
ments, the failure of the DEIS to determine the amount of
land and industry affected by the restriction of disposal
activity in the 100-year floodplain and in recharge zones
for sole source aquifers leads to an inaccurate and inade-
quate assessment of the impact of the proposed § 4004 Cri-
teria. Because both the amount and significance of missing
data is very large, EEI believes it is incumbent upon EPA to
make diligent efforts to fill these gaps before proceeding
to issue a final impact statement.
A similar flaw in the DEIS is its failure to
identify the sources of information relied on. In numerous
places throughout the document, reference is made to unpub-
lished studies, telephone conversations and private meetings.
Such references are worthless. The spirit of HEPA is one of
disclosure. Reviewers of the DEIS cannot develop meaningful
comments when data are not available for public review.
A third significant flaw, and following from the
pervasive lack of accurate data, is the use of faulty assump-
tions for impact analysis. For example, the supporting
rationales for the assumption that 50% of all surface impound-
ments will require liners or that all solid waste facilities
may be deemed to be square are absent from the DEIS. This
assumption is a key one in developing an adequate economic
analysis of the impact of the regulations. As more fully
documented in the attached comments, throughout the entire
DEIS the assumptions developed by EPA are, almost without
exception, erroneous. Again, this demonstrates the need to
revise and recirculate this document.
The DEIS consistently and significantly under-
estimates the cost involved with implementing the Criteria.
This underestimation results from a number of factors,
including the lack of data and consequent faulty assump-
tions. Further, EPA's attribution of most significant cost
-------
Mr. Shuster
June 5, 1973
Page Three
items to state regulation is inadequately documented and, we
believe, inaccurate. The DEIS has grossly underestimated
the cost for the electric utility industry of complying with
these criteria. Therefore, the economic impact of the
regulations is understated for two reasons: (1) an inaccurate
assessment of the costs of the Criteria on specific indus-
tries, and (2) the unjustified attribution of those costs
EPA does acknowledge (however understated) to state rather
than federal regulation.
Additionally, EPA has failed to undertake any analysis
of the effect of the Criteria on the capital markets. Since
the cost of complying with the Criteria will in fact be
extraordinarily large, substantial sums of money will be
diverted from competing projects. The effect of this diver-
sion on the economy must be acknowledged and described.
In addition, the inflationary impact of the Criteria must be
evaluated and addressed.
Finally, the DEIS does not consider in an acceptable
manner the environmental costs of the proposed Criteria.
For example, restricting the siting of disposal sites in
Environmentally Sensitive Areas will result in the transpor-
tation of wastes to more distant disposal facilities. This
in turn will increase traffic and air emissions and consume
scarce resources (i.e., fuel).
Both the above concerns and the attached detailed
comments reflect EEI's basic conclusion that the DEIS is
inadequate. Me hope we may have a prompt response by EPA to
our request for an early indication that a new draft will be
prepared. As in the past, EEI appreciates the opportunity
to participate in EPA's process of implementing this important
legislation. We will continue to follow this process with
interest.
Sincerely yours,
7
' J. Kearney '
,/Senior -Vice President
Edison Electric Institute
JKJ/bh
Attachment
-------
EDISON ELECTHIC INSTITUTE SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
DETAILED COMMENTS ON RCRA § 4004 CRITERIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1. On page 1-8, EPA acknowledges several major
data gaps but claims it has "good information" on munici-
pal landfills. In EEI's evaluation, the entire DEIS is
based almost exclusively on the available data base for
municipal landfills. This reliance on limited data
results in the development of faulty najor assumptions,
unrealistic cost analyses and, ultimately, an inadequate
DEIS. For example, on page 111-15 of the Appendix, Table
5 estimates that the electric power industry produces 60
million tons of sludge per year. This is 1200? greater
than the annual yearly production of municipal sewage
sludge, yet the thrust of the DEIS seems to have to do
with municipal wastes. As these figures suggest, in order
to evaluate in any meaningful fashion the impact of the
proposed Criteria on the industrial sector, it is essen-
tial that EPA obtain accurate data on the affected indus-
tries .
2. On page 1-9, a number of key assumptions
developed by EPA are subject to serious challenge.
Particularly in reference to the electric utility indus-
try, the assumption that surface impoundments can be
divided into two classifications by size is inaccurate.
The trend in the electric utility industry is toward
larger surface impoundments. For instance, at the Bruce
Mansfield Station near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a 1300-
acre surface impoundment has been, constructed. Failure of
the DEIS to acknowledge this method of disposal produces a
compounding error that undermines the DEIS analytical
approach. For instance, larger sites are necessary
because of the increased volumes of wastes produced by
application of additional equipment to meet other environ-
mental requirements. Larger sites, because of their size,
produce significant siting difficulties.
This siting problem is greatly aggravated by the
exclusion of large land areas by the Criteria's definition
of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and groundwater
requirements (with respect to which EPA also acknowledges
that it lacks data). Thus the electric utility industry
would be confronted with a dilemma. Either it must
develop many smaller sites (therefore increasing costs and
aggravating other environmental costs), or it must locate
large sites at considerable distance from the generating
plant (thereby increasing costs and diminishing the
-------
-2-
benefit of any economics of scale that might otherwise
exist). This dilemma is not even noted in the DEIS.
In addition, EEI seriously questions the assump-
tion on page 1-9 that 50? of all surface impoundments will
require liners. After reviewing the entire DEIS, EEI was
unable to uncover the support or rationale for this
assumption. Since this assumption is of key importance in
attempting to accurately access costs, EEI believes it is
imperative that detailed information about this assumption
be included in any acceptable DEIS.
The third assumption that EEI finds questionable
appears on page 1-10 where EPA assumes that upgraded and
new facilities have an average life of ten years. The
experience in the utility industry does not support this
assumption since most such utility sites are designed for
operating lives considerably in excess of ten years.
3. EEI suggests that the word "illegal" on page
1-10 be changed to "open dump". Such a change is consis-
tent with the language of RCRA. In addition, the wording
of the discussion of "illegal sites" should be modified.
As currently phrased, the DEIS assumes all such sites are
assumed to be closed within five years. RCRA provides
that open dumps located in states with approved solid
waste plans may be upgraded instead of closed. The
wording of this statement should be made to conform with
RCRA.
4. On page 1-13, EPA concludes that new dispo-
sal sites that are permitted by the states will comply
with most of the Criteria and therefore the financial
impact of the Criteria on new sites is anticipated to be
slight. This supposition is unsupported, and fails to
take into account the fact that such compliance may well
reflect the RCRA program requirements. The result is a
material understatement of costs properly attributable to
the Criteria.
EEI believes that the DEIS must identify the
states whose permitting process is equivalent to the
Criteria. The implication of this conclusion of equiva-
lence between state permitting processes and the Criteria
is dubious at best. The attempt here, and elsewhere
throughout the DEIS, to attribute most significant costs
to existing state requirements must be justified in much
greater detail.
-------
-3-
5. On page 1-19, the DEIS states that closure
costs reflect the cost of applying certain "minimum
requirements'1 to close existing legal landfill sites.
After careful review of the DEIS, EEI is unable to deter-
mine what those "minimum requirements" are. In order to
develop meaningful responses to the DEIS, EPA should
specifically describe these "minimum requirements". Only
then can the cost projections of the DEIS be accurately
reviewed and analyzed.
6. On page 1-27 the DEIS concludes that the
effects of complying with the Criteria on industrial
landfills and surface impoundments will be felt by con-
sumers of products and services and are not a major factor
in evaluating the impacts of the proposed Criteria on the
rural versus urban community dichotomy. EPA should provide
support for this conclusion. Whenever siting decisions
are affected by new regulations, there is a direct impact
on individual communities. Thus, elimination of the
possibility of siting urban sanitary landfills in ESAs
poses significant potential impacts on those communities'
land use plans. Since land is at a premium in urban
areas, a major change in land use, mandated by federal
government action, has a significant effect on the com-
munity's ability to allocate scarce resources consistent
with that community's unique needs and plan. Forcing
solid waste disposal into farm areas could also have
important ecological and demographic consequences which
are not identified in the DEIS.
7. On page 1-31, the DEIS discusses the eco-
nomic costs involved with protecting ESAs. The conclu-
sion that 86? of this impact falls on the oil/gas and
mining industries is subject to serious question. EPA
has not provided any documentation for this conclu-
sion, and our evaluation strongly suggests that the
economic impact of these proposed regulations on the
electric utility industry will be quite high. EEI is
concerned that EPA has no useful data on the electric
utility industry and that this lack of data seriously
undermines any validity the cost figures postulated by
EPA might otherwise have. In addition, the cumulative
impact of the lack of data is that the economic costs of
these regulations are significantly understated. This, in
turn, challenges the cost/benefit conclusions reached in
this DEIS.
Even assuming that EPA's figures were accurate,
EEI can demonstrate that these cost estimates are inade-
quate. Attributing the remaining 14$ of cost for closing
-------
surface impoundments in ESAs to the utility industry, and
referring to the chart on page 1-16 that details costs of
compliance, the maximum possible annualized cost is $17.5
million (1AJ x $125.1 million). This figure bears no
relation to reality. Host electric utilities by necessity
are located near large supplies of water and their dispo-
sal facilities (including pits, ponds and lagoons) are
located near the operating plant. Therefore, those
facilities are likely to be located in EPA-designated
ESAs. Since EPA has not even determined the amount of
land involved in the 100-year floodplain, it is difficult
to understand how EPA reached any conclusion concerning
the cost of compliance. Additionally, since, as described
above, EPA has not indicated what costs it anticipates are
associated with closing surface impoundments, it is
impossible to determine how EPA arrived at its cost
figures. Finally, EPA should note, and factor into its
analysis, the double cost associated with prematurely
closing disposal facilities. These facilities were
financed based on an operating life expectancy. When the
facility is closed prior to that time, there is a loss of
capital from the closed project and an additional capital
requirement to construct a new site. This unexpected
requirement disrupts financial plans and may force the
borrower into the capital market at inopportune times.
A specific example underscores the distortion
of costs in the DEIS. As described above, the Bruce
Mansfield Station surface impoundment is approximately
1300 acres. It has only recently been constructed and has
an operating life expectancy of approximately twenty
years. In addition, it costs approximately $12 million
per year to treat and transport the plant's sludge seven
miles to the surface impoundment. Siting the disposal
facility farther away to remove it from an ESA will result
in correspondingly increased transportation costs. There-
fore, if that one impoundment were closed because it is
located on an ESA, the associated costs would account for
a large portion of the total $17.5 million allocated by
EPA for the entire electric utility industry.
8. On page 1-32, Table 9 lists Criteria-in-
duced costs for surface impoundments. The table lists
a zero cost for implementing the Criteria in ten states.
Other information in the DEIS, however, brings these
figures into question. For instance, page IV-53 lists the
states with the largest percentage of wetlands. EPA's
implementation of RCRA will severely restrict siting of
disposal sites in such areas and therefore significantly
increase the cost of solid waste disposal. The conclusion
-------
—5—
that Criteria-induced cost is zero for those states
appears particularly subject to question. In addition,
the chart on page IV-36 indicates that there is no annual-
ized cost for surface impoundments in Pennsylvania due to
ESAs. Such a conclusion is unsupported and inaccurate.
EEI believes that EPA must review and revise the cost
figure it has projected in order to develop realistic
costs.
9. The conclusion on page 1-33 that gas control
will encourage methane recovery appears questionable.
Since this gas is of very little value because it is
corrosive and expensive to gather, the conclusion should
be documented. On the same page, EEI believes EPA
has underestimated the material and energy requirements
imposed by the Criteria. By closing electric utility
disposal sites on ESAs, tremendous amounts of waste
materials will have to be transported significant dis-
tances. As described above, at one plant the transporta-
tion and treatment costs associated with moving sludge
seven miles are $12 million annually. When fly ash and
bottom ash are added to the calculation, the transportation
(and therefore energy) costs become very large. EEI
believes EPA has given inadequate consideration to this
problem and these costs.
10. On page II-5, the statement appears that
"some potentially carcinogenic materials" have been
introduced into the food chain by landspreading of solid
waste on agricultural land. In order for the DEIS to
be a meaningful and useful document, it is essential that
EPA make publicly available the data it relied on in
reaching this conclusion. Unsupported and undocumented
statements such as the above are not consistent with
the spirit of NEPA since they do not serve the statute's
full-disclosure purpose, and can lead to inaccurate
cost benefit analyses. Such statements do not provide
assistance in reaching Meaningful and rational regulatory
decisions.
11. RCFA authorizes EPA to "provide for the
classification of the types of sanitary landfills". On
page II-8, the purpose of the Criteria is described as
providing minimum national standards. We believe that
the DEIS in fact addresses much harsher criteria than
"minimum" national standards. Beyond this, EEI has
previously suggested to EPA that EPA use its statutory
authority to classify types of sanitary landfills. Using
this approach, EPA could recognize the different character
of various industries' waste. Such an approach would lead
-------
-6-
to more national regulation. Uniform standards could be
developed for national application on an industry-by-
industry basis.
12. On page II-9, the DEIS correctly acknow-
ledges that determining whether facilities pose no rea-
sonable probability of adverse effects on health or
the environment, and therefore whether those facilities
are sanitary landfills, requires a number of extensive
technical and scientific decisions. Reaching these
decisions and gathering the necessary data will have a
cost. In developing an accurate cost benefit analysis,
these costs should be detailed and included in the impact
statement. The current document is deficient to the
extent that it does not reflect these costs.
13. On page 11-12, the DEIS correctly states
that the Criteria do not apply to discharges that are
point sources subject to § 402 permits under the Clean
Water Act, On page III-9, however, the statement appears
that the proposed Criteria will prevent the placing of
disposal sites in wetlands unless an NPDES permit has been
obtained under § 402. If a landfill or other disposal
facility is located on a wetland and is not a point
source, EPA has no statutory power to compel that facility
to become a point source and thereby submit to Clean Water
Act jurisdiction. EPA should not attempt to impose Water
Act requirements on disposal facilities on the basis of
their location in an ESA.
14. On page 11-14, the DEIS includes the
statement that a number of studies "both published and
unpublished" have identified a number of adverse effects
from improper solid waste disposal. If the DEIS relies on
unpublished studies, and if the public is to make meaning-
ful comments on the DEIS, these unpublished studies
should be identified and made available. EEI suggests that
all unpublished studies relied upon should be made a
matter of public record.
15. On page 11-27, the DEIS acknowledges that
"very limited data on the number of landspreading opera-
tions and surface impoundments in overall conditions for
the current impact of aJl three types of land disposal
facilities" is available. Merely identifying or acknow-
ledging a lack of data is not sufficient. Certainly it is
difficult, if not impossible, to offer meaningful comments
on all the following discussions of these matters when
empirical data are not available and no attempt is made by
the Agency to fill in the gaps. Acknowledging a lack of
-------
-7-
data on areas which are going to have significant costs
associated with implementing the Criteria leads to: (1)
understating the cost and (2) reaching an inaccurate
coat benefit analysis. Decisions aade without adequate
data are therefore likely to be unrealistic and arbitrary.
16. On page III-6, Table 13 identifies the
total area of wetlands in the United States in 1956.
Initially, we note that these data are, at a minimum, 22
years old. There is no indication of any attempt to update
this information, despite the fact that it is highly
questionable whether this information is still correct.
Attempting to make regulatory decisions based on obsolete
data can lead to serious miscalculations. In addition, the
chart itself appears to contain numerical errors. For
example, the percentage of wetlands identified for Missis-
sippi does not correspond to the number of total acres and
number of wetland acres identified for that state.
17. On page 111-12, the DEIS discusses flood-
plains as an ESA. No attempt is made in this discussion
to determine the amount of land included in the'100-year
floodplain. Without accurate land information, the
discussions on costs associated with restricting activity
on floodplains is suspect. EEI anticipates that the
impact of restricting disposal activity on a 100-year
floodplain is quite large. The movement from a 50-year
floodplain to a 100-year floodplain is a recent develop-
ment and without ascertaining the amount of land involved,
the likelihood of understating costs is very high.
The potential impact of the classification of
the 100-year floodplain is illustrated by review of the
Water Resources Council definition of that floodplain.
Under this definition, 100-year floodplain ESAs encompass
ouch more than just the floodplains associated with major
streams and rivers. Even the smallest creek that is dry
most of the year has a floodplain associated with it.
Thus the amount of land included as an ESA is considerably
larger than might be anticipated.
In addition, a floodplain is not a static area.
Changes in a river's course and construction upstream
are but two of the potential causes of a change in the
definition of the floodplains. Therefore, it is possible
that a disposal facility could be sited in an area that
becomes a part of the floodplain prior to the expiration
of the facility's operating life. The regulations should
provide an explicit exception for such facilities from the
restrictions placed on disposal facilities on floodplains.
-------
-8-
Specifically, the disposal facility should be guaranteed
the right to operate until the end of its projected
useful life.
In addition, on this page the citation to
reference 128 appears to be in error. Finally, the
acronym OHUD is used on the seventh line of this page. If
acronyms are to be used in this document, EPA should, at
a minimum, provide a glossary to assist the reader in
understanding the text and identifying the resources that
EPA has used.
18. On page 111-14, the DEIS includes a conclu-
sionary statement that permafrost areas have significant
potential erosion and groundwater contamination problems.
This conclusion appears to be undocumented. In order
to enable the reader to assess the accuracy of this
statement and in order to enable regulators to take
reasonable action, such documentation should be noted and
made publicly available.
19. Page 111-17 discusses critical habitats.
Absent from this treatment, however, is any evaluation or
resolution of the question of what happens if a disposal
facility is placed on land that subsequently becomes a
critical habitat. Logic dictates that the disposal site
would be permitted to continue in operation until the end
of its operating life. In order to avoid unnecessary
confusion and to minimize to the extent realistically
possible the economic uncertainties involved in siting
disposal facilities, EPA should explicitly recognize that
any such disposal facility will be allowed to continue to
operate. This conclusion not only protects the operation
of the disposal facility, but also should not harm the
environment since any such disposal facility will have
complied with the provisions of RCRA prior to beginning
commercial operation.
20. On page 111-21, the DEIS indicates that
for existing disposal sites located in wetlands, compli-
ance with the Criteria will require, at a minimum, the
construction of a containment or levee averaging ten
feet in height. No statement explains why this require-
ment is or what environmental benefit it is expected to
produce. Since a specific height is designated, the DEIS
suggests that a specific problem is being addressed by
this requirement. In order to facilitate reasoned re-
sponses, the underlying rationale for this requirement
should be clearly developed. In addition, on the same
page, the expression "backwater curve" should be defined.
-------
-9-
FinaHy, the reference to "the aereal extent" on lines 6
and 7 of this page is unclear.
20. On page 111-22, the statement appears
that facilities in recharge zones are going to require
liners, but that the cost of this requirement will be
minimal because the land involved is quite limited. No
documentation appears for this conclusion and EPA should
provide information that will indicate the amount of land
covered by these aquifers.
On the same page, EPA concludes, again without
documentation, that the impact of restricting activity on
critical habitats will be Minimal because currently those
areas represent relatively limited geographic areas.
This approach is a further indication that the costs of
complying with these Criteria are understated. Failing
to consider the future impact that will follow as more and
more land is classified aa critical habitats leads to
the potential of grossly understating potential coats
involved with this siting restriction.
21. On page 111-23, the DEIS includes an assump-
tion that all impoundments located in any type of ESA
will have to close. The economic costs that follow from
such an assumption are staggering. As a result, EPA
should describe, in ouch greater detail, the basis for
this assumption and evaluate less costly alternative
regulatory approaches. As EEI has previously noted, the
electric utility industry has recently completed a program
of designing and constructing waste water treatment
facilities. The cumulative capital cost of this program
was several billion dollars. These facilities are within
the definition of surface impoundments and many are
located in ESAs. The Criteria should include a specific
exemption in order that these EPA-required facilities are
not forced to close. If such an exemption is not included,
the compliance costs will escalate dramatically. As noted
above in comment 7, the potential of this additional cost
reflects the failure of the DEIS to consider realistically
the costs of the Criteria for the electric utility indus-
try.
22. On page 111-28, the DEIS cites a study
on cases of surface water contamination. The cited
reference, however, is to a House of Representatives
Committee Report. If that is so, the DEIS should reference
the empirical study and not a secondary source.
-------
-10-
23- On page 111-29, the documentation for
the statement "some contamination is occurring in heavily
industrialized regions of the country" is a 512-page
document. At a minimum, to encourage meaningful response,
the DEIS should reference the page and chapter where
such discussion occurs.
21. In the discussion of groundwater protection
on page 111-40, the DEIS notes that soil attenuation
alone is not always sufficient to assure prevention
of groundwater contamination from a waste disposal source.
The discussion should provide specific examples of when
and under what conditions soil attenuation is inadequate.
In addition, the DEIS should develop the guideline for
when soil attenuation conditions will prevent groundwater
contamination and allow states to use those data in
evaluating the soil at a specific site in order to deter-
mine whether that disposal facility is likely to contami-
nate groundwaters. Such an elaboration is consistent
with the philosophy of Subtitle D of RCRA since it would
permit the state to make siting decisions that will
protect the environment and, at the same time, recognize
specific local conditions.
25. On page 111-43, drinking water supplies
are defined as waters with 10,000 mg/1 or less total
dissolved solids. The DEIS should provide documentary
support for the adoption of this definition of drinking
water supplies. In addition, the DEIS should provide data
on the amount of land in the United States with ground-
waters that have greater than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved
solids. A study conducted by the United States Geological
Survey indicates that less than 10$ of the land in this
country has groundwater with greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids. This indicates to EEI that,
because of obvious siting problems implicit in this land
restriction, EPA has underestimated the cost involved in
implementing this criterion.
26. On page III-4?, the DEIS indicates that
clay liners were used to estimate costs for insuring that
surface impoundments would comply with the proposed
criterion. It is essential that cost figures derived from
the use of this control mechanism include the costs that
come from installing monitoring devices. Monitoring
devices will be necessary to determine compliance with the
"no endangerment" standard. Monitoring costs will include
both initial capital costs for installing the equipment
and operating and maintenance costs.
-------
-11-
On the same page, the DEIS includes an assumption
that 50$ of all surface impoundtaents will require a
liner in order to comply with the criterion. As has been
pointed out above in comment 2, the bases for such assump-
tions need to be clearly identified. Only by identifying
the bases for the assumptions can it be determined whether
the analysis that follows the assumption is valid.
27. On page 111-75, the DEIS states that
cost estimates for complying with the cadmium landspread-
ing restrictions were baaed solely on the application of
municipal waste treatment sludges. The rationale for this
limited analysis is stated as an insufficient data base
on exact quantities of solid waste that are spread on
food chain croplands. On page 111-15 of the Appendix,
however, Table 5 estimates that the electric power indus-
try produces 60 million tons of sludge per year. This is
1200J5 greater than the annual yearly production of
municipal sewage sludge. Given the tremendous amount of
sludge involved, the failure to investigate the impact
of the regulation on the electric utility industry and
other major industries strongly suggests that the DEIS is
deficient, does not adequately represent the impact of the
regulations, and therefore should be redone.
28. On page 111-76, the DEIS states "economic
consideration of impacts resulting from the pathogens,
pesticides, persistent organics, and direct ingestion
subsections of this criterion were not addressed because
their impact was considered to be minimal." (Emphasis
added.) The DEIS should detail the basis for this conclu-
sion, if one exists, in order to determine if it accu-
rately reflects the current situation.
29. On page 111-78, the discussion of cost is
deficient for two reasons. First, as the discussion
on that page indicates, the national cost projection
includes only the operational controls' alternative costs.
This limitation, never justified, clearly indicates that
costs associated with the control of sludge disposal are
understated. Second, without providing any reference, the
DEIS contains the conclusion that approximately 20? of the
estimated sludge spread on agricultural land comes from
municipalities. Not knowing the basis for this conclu-
sion, it is impossible to determine whether such an
estimate is accurate. Furthermore, the assumption that the
cost to the municipality and the cost to private industry
for sludge landspreading on agricultural land are identi-
cal must be justified.
-------
-12-
30. On pages 111-83 and following, the DEIS
reviews the impacts that result from the criterion regard-
ing control of disease vectors. In previous comments, EEI
has noted that utility pits, ponds and lagoons are often
designed to provide harborage for migrating animals,
particularly birds. This produces an environmental
benefit that the DEIS should acknowledge. Since most of
these facilities are far removed from any airports, they
do not represent a safety hazard. EEI suggests that a
failure on the part of EPA to provide explicit authoriza-
tion for the continued use of such pits, ponds and lagoons
will lead to the adoption of less environmentally sensi-
tive disposal facilities.
31, On page 111-85, the DEIS concludes that
the impact of this criterion on surface impoundments
and landspreading operations is considered negligible.
Once again, there is a failure to indicate the basis for
this assumption. Without providing that basis, it is
futile to attempt any meaningful comment on the conclu-
sion.
32. On page 111-95, the DEIS assumes that 50$
of all impoundments would need access fencing in order
to comply with the proposed criterion. Once again, no
basis is given for the assumption, the correction of which
is.not intuitively obvious. Since this assumption is one
of the bases for determining cost estimates, it is
important that EPA document the reasons for reaching this
conclusion.
33. Page IV-5 of the DEIS states that tele-
phone interviews provided necessary information for
formulating surface impoundment impacts. The DEIS should
include a reference that would identify the individuals
with whom the telephone conversations and interviews took
place and what data were derived from these interviews.
This information should be made available.
3"». On page IV-7, the DEIS lists, as data
sources, consultation with officials of major cities and
EPA regional offices, grant proposals, planning reports
and an unpublished EPA report. If this information is not
publicly available — and indications are that it is not —
EPA should make it available for all interested comoentors.
Only in this way can EPA fulfill its requirement to obtain
meaningful public input.
35. On page IV-13, the DEIS projects a total
annualized cost of $130.7 million to comply with the
-------
-13-
ESA criterion. EEI believes that this figure is inaccu-
rate and significantly understates the costs involved. As
noted above, EPA has relied on 22-year old data to deter-
mine the amount of land involved in wetlands and has no
data for the amount of land involved in the 100-year
floodplain. Further, as explained below, the assumption on
page IV-21 of a direct proportional relationship between
the amount of land in a state that is an ESA and the
number of disposal facilities on ESAs aggravates the error
involved in this cost figure. The DEIS should be revised
to develop realistic cost figures based on valid informa-
tion.
36. On page IV-21, the DEIS assumes the exist-
ence of a direct proportional ratio between the amount of
land in a state that is an ESA and the number of disposal
facilities that are located in ESAs. This assumption is
not only unsubstantiated but also ignores the reality of
current disposal practices. Because of the availability of
water and the need to have access to large amounts of
water, electric utility disposal facilities tend to be
located in those areas. Thus, this assumption leads to
significant problems of understating the impact of the
criterion. Since cost figures are based on the above-
described ratio and since the ratio is in error, the
entire cost benefit analysis is inaccurate. This signifi-
cant analytical error is one more indication that the
entire DEIS should be redone and then recirculated
as a DEIS.
37. On page IV-37, in Table 39, the total
cost listed for Pennsylvania's compliance with the ground-
water criterion is $283 million. All of this cost is
attributed to state requirements. Since Pennsylvania has
not designated groundwater usage and therefore the 10,000
mg/1 standard applies, it is difficult to imagine that the
entire cost for complying with the RCRA groundwater
criterion is derived from state regulations. In addi-
tion, EEI notes that only three states have approved
drinking water programs. EPd should review both the total
cost figure and the cost figure attributed to federal
regulation. As stated, these figures significantly
underestimate the cost associated with the Criteria
developed by EPA.
38. On page IV-39, reference is made to an
unpublished EPA report. The reference itself appears to
be in error, since the cited reference is not to an EPA
report, but rather to a federal law. Assuming that this
is a simple typographical error, the major problem remains
-------
-14-
that if a data base is used to develop a significant
portion of the DEIS, and that data base is unpublished and
therefore unavailable to the general public, the public
is severely handicapped in its ability to perform a
meaningful review of the DEIS. This is yet another in-
stance where, in order to fulfill its obligation to seek
meaningful public comment, EPA must make additional
information available to the public. EEI suggests that
this document be forwarded to all regional offices and
that a notice of availability be published in the Federal
Register that this and other documents that are similarly
unpublished and relied on in the DEIS are now available to
the public. In the alternative, the DEIS should include an
appendix that provides a meaningful extract from the
article and reproduces the key d«ta.
39. On page IV-40, the DEIS assumes that no
landspreading occurs in ESAs. EEI finds this assumption
curious since in the Federal Register publication of
the Criteria a specific exemption appears for landspread-
ing of wastes in floodplains as fertilizers or soil
conditioners for agricultural or vegetable purposes.
13 Fed. Reg. 4946 (Feb. 6, 1978). In light of this specific
exemption, EPA should verify this assumption. Since the
100-year floodplain has been designated by EPA as an ESA
and since EPA seemingly has no data on the amount of land
involved in the 100-year floodplain, such an assumption is
difficult, if not impossible, to validate. This is but
one additional example where an undocumented assumption by
EPA has led to a significant understatement of costs
involved in complying with the criterion.
40. On page IV-50, and in several places
thereafter, in attempting to justify the conclusions
concerning the impact of RCRA on small communities, the
DEIS refers to special funding available pursuant to
§ 4009- EEI notes, however, that little, if any, money is
actually available under this section. In attempting to
determine the true impacts of RCRA, it is incumbent upon
SPA to acknowledge and realistically estimate the likeli-
hood of funding and calculate impacts based on that
analysis.
41. On page IV-53, the DEIS assumes that 25$
of disposal facilities lie within the 100-year floodplain.
EPA should explain how it can make this estimate when
nowhere in the DEIS is there any indication of the amount
of land involved on the 100-year floodplain. This figure
appears to be nothing more than sheer guesswork.
-------
-15-
42. On page IV-57, the DEIS claims that 40J
of the economic impact of compliance with the groundwater
criterion will fall on three states: Ohio, Pennsylvania
and West Virginia. EEI believes that the clearly prefer-
able approach is to analyze the percentage of the indus-
trial segment of the country affected by the regulation.
A large amount of industrial activity takes place in
those three states. Thus, an industry-by-industry,
rather than a state-by-state, approach would provide a
more accurate assessment of the economic costs involved in
compliance with RCRA. This is consistent with EEI's
suggestion that EPA implement the classification of
sanitary landfills as contemplated by § 4004 of RCRA.
43. On page IV-65, the DEIS provides estimates
of costs for affected industries. The estimates indicate
that the annualized cost to the utility industry is $35
million and that the industry has 1.6$ of all surface
impoundment sites. EEI believes that the discussion
above has indicated that EPA lacks meaningful data in
evaluating the impact of RCRA on the electric utility
industry. These figures are likely to understate both the
costs and the number of facilities affected. As described
above, the trend in the electric utility industry is
toward larger surface impoundments. Indeed, the cost to
line the 1300-acre impoundment described above would amount
to $20 million. Thus, these figures are wrong and misleading
and further indicate the need to revise the DEIS.
44. On page IV-69, the discussion of increased
energy and material use costs due to compliance with
the RCRA Criteria is oversimplified. The number of sites
affected by the various Criteria is large and the implica-
tion that follows from implementing these Criteria is
that disposal sites will be moved farther away from
the waste generator. In the case of the electrical
utility industry, a large number of disposal facilities
is located in ESAs. As EEI has noted in previous com-
ments to EPA, such siting is natural and essential since
steam electric power plants by necessity are located near
large supplies of water. Many of these lands would be
classified ESAs under the proposed Criteria. The quanti-
ties of waste generated by the utilities is very large and
the cost of moving those large quantities of waste con-
siderable distances to disposal sites located outside ESAs
strongly suggests that the electric utility industry
transportation costs will be very significant indeed. An
example of the potential transportation costs appears in
comment 7 above.
-------
-16-
The above discussion demonstrates the need for
EPA to detail the data sources it used in reaching the
conclusion that increased energy and material costs
are slight. EEI suggests that this conclusion is unsup-
portable and once again understates the cost of compliance
with RCRA.
45. Finally, EEI notes that in all of Volume
I there is no discussion of the potential economic dis-
location that will follow from a loss of jobs or from the
diversion of capital to pay for increased costs of new
disposal facilities and for increased disposal transporta-
tion costs. Since the capital costs for complying with
RCRA are quite large, there is significant likelihood that
the diversion of capital could have a significant impact
on the functioning of the economy in this country. Even
if such data are hard to obtain, EEI believes that it is
necessary for the DEIS at least to attempt to make an
analysis of the impact of capital diversion on the economy
and the likelihood of resulting loss of jobs.
46. In the Appendix on page II-6, the DEIS
refers to Executive Order 11,990 on wetlands as support
for its regulation of wetlands. EEI is puzzled by this
reference since § 1(b) of that Executive Order specifi-
cally states that it "does not apply to the issuance by
federal agencies of permits, licenses, or allocation
to private properties for activities involving wetlands
on non-federal property". This plain expression of
Executive intent demonstrates that the Executive Order
does not justify EPA's regulation of private activity on
wetlands. Indeed, the designation of wetlands as an ESA
and the restriction of private activity on wetlands is
contrary to the explicit direction of the Executive Order.
47. In the Appendix on page III-6, the DEIS
refers to an Eastern state where B5% of the existing
landfills were originally designed as reclamation pro-
jects. No authority is given for this statement and it is
therefore meaningless. The reference should be given and
the state should be identified.
48. On page III-7 of the Appendix, the DEIS
refers to a study that allegedly documents 162 cases of
surface water contamination from industrial waste disposal
facilities. EPA should provide the reference to this
study.
49. EEI believes that Table 6 on page 111-27
of the Appendix should be reviewed. That table lists
-------
-17-
15,000 surface impoundments for Pennsylvania and less
than 1,000 surface impoundments for the State of New
York. EEI suggests that the proximity of these states
and the similarity of industrial development in each
state brings this difference into question.
50. The discussion on page 111-29 of the
Appendix refers to numerous case studies. No citation,
however, is given for these studies. Without these
citations, meaningful comments are impossible to formu-
late.
51. The discussion on page IV-6 of the Appendix
on siting of disposal facilities on floodplains does
not include a discussion of the impact of the location of
pits, ponds and lagoons on floodplains. EEI suggests that
it is imperative that the Agency develop an analysis of
the impact of the latter facilities on floodplains. If
there are no, or only minimal, impacts resulting from the
location of such facilities on floodplains, it would be
reasonable to modify the Criteria to permit location of
such facilities in floodplains.
52. On page IV-32 of the Appendix, the DEIS
mentions four alternatives to land disposal of solid
wastes — including discharge into either surface waters
or into the air. EEI questions whether these are indeed
viable alternatives. Compliance with both the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Hater Act is primarily responsible for
producing the amount of waste that now must be disposed of
on the land. Therefore, the suggestion that these are-
viable alternatives is misleading. Furthermore, the
alternative of waste transport in the context of the
electric utility industry may be unfeasible due to the
costs involved in moving vast quantities of waste and the
distances these waste must be transported. Comment 7
details the problems with waste transport.
53. On page IV-39 of the Appendix, and in
numerous places throughout the DEIS, surface impoundments
are classified into two categories: 50-acre impoundments
and 7.5-acre impoundments. The current trend in electric
utility industry, due to the vast amounts of sludge
being produced, is to build surface impoundments consider-
ably larger than 50 acres. For instance, a 1300-acre
impoundment is constructed near the Bruce Mansfield Plant
in Western Pennsylvania. These larger impoundments lead
to increased siting problems in order to comply with the
Criteria. The failure of the DEIS to acknowledge this
trend is another evidence of the understatement of the
cost of complying with the RCRA Criteria.
-------
-18-
51. On page IV-51 of the Appendix, a discussion
appears on cadmium and body organs and reference is made
to certain animal studies. The DEIS, however, contains
no reference to these studies. Further, the DEIS fails to
describe in any significant detail the data that are
derived from these studies. Without such reference or
description, the DEIS is incomplete and it is not possible
to formulate a reasonable response to this discussion.
55. On page IV-60 of the DEIS Appendix, a
discussion appears on alternatives to the proposed regula-
tion dealing with cadmium application to the soil. One of
the alternatives that is rejected is the regulation of
cadmium additions to the food chain by setting a maximum
concentration for cadmium in various soil types. The
DEIS concludes that this alternative approach "probably
would allow too great an increase of cadmium in the
food chain". This conclusion, however, is not supported.
EEI suggests that it would be useful to recognize that
there are various soil types. Since the rejected alterna-
tive could allow for site-specific or regional regulation
that would control cadmium additions to the soil and
still respond to unique local needs, its rejection should
be explained in greater detail.
56. On page V-2 of the Appendix, the DEIS notes
that state regulation of ESAs has been limited. EEI
suggests that while individual states may not protect
wetlands and floodplains (areas designated by EPA as
ESAs), those same states may have determined that other
lands in their states should be protected. For instance,
Midwestern states may determine that the protection of
farmlands is of higher priority than the protection of
those, areas identified by EPA as ESAs.
States are increasingly being charged with
energy siting decisions. Subtitle D is designed to
reflect local and state priorities. Therefore, EPA should
take great care to insure that states can fulfill this
dual responsibility. Therefore, instead of adopting
blanket exclusions of large areas of land, EPA should work
to ensure that states retain the flexibility to make
decisions to meet state needs.
57. On page V-4 of the Appendix, EPA indicates
that 37 of 50 states meet the proposed groundwater criter-
ion. EPA should explain how it made this determination.
58. On page V-11 of the Appendix, the DEIS
lists as one of its operating assumptions that closure
-------
-19-
requirements are the same for abandoned sites and for
active sites. Does this comment indicate that EPA
believes BCRA gives it jurisdiction over sites that
were abandoned prior to RCRA? If so, EPA should provide
reference to this grant of authority. As described above,
the closure requirements should be detailed.
59. On page V-14 of the Appendix, the statement
appears that the number of square miles of floodplains
was divided by two to avoid duplication of those lands
that are both wetlands and floodplains. The decision to
divide the amount of square miles of floodplains in half
to avoid this duplication appears arbitrary and EPA should
provide an analytical rationale for such an approach.
Further, the approach itself appears suspect since the
DEIS contains no calculation of the number of square miles
of floodplains that exist in this country. Without this
first step, it is difficult to proceed to a point of
dividing that number in half to avoid duplication.
60. On page V-22 of the Appendix, the DEIS
includes a statement that disease vectors are not problems
at surface impoundments. As previously noted, these
comments and previous comments that EEI has filed with
EPA, the Criteria, as presently worded, may prohibit
certain surface impoundments designed by utilities to
provide harborage for migratory game fowl. Since the
concern with disease vectors is not identified with
surface impoundments, EEI suggests that EPA incorporate a
limited exception and permit the continued operation and
development of surface impoundments that protect the
environment and also provide harborage for migratory
birds.
61. On page V-23 of the Appendix, the DEIS
includes an assumption that all disposal sites are square.
EEI requests that EPA provide the basis for this assump-
tion.
62. On page V-28 of the Appendix, the DEIS
includes an assumption that the lower end of the economi-
cally viable range of application rates for landspreading
is 10 rat/tons per hectare per year. EPA should supply the
basis for this assumption.
63- On page V-29 of the Appendix, an assumption
is included that all soils receiving solid wastes would
have an average cation exchange capacity of 10 and an
average pH of 6.0. The basis for this assumption should
be explained and EPA should describe why it has not
considered regional differences in soil characteristics.
-------
-20-
61. On page V-33 of the Appendix, a discussion
of the time value of money appears. This discussion,
however, does not specify the discount rate that was
assumed. EPA should supply this information in order to
assist those reviewing the DEIS to prepare meaningful
comments,
-------
,ESTIMATED EXTENT OF SOLE OR PRINCIPAL SOURCE AQUIFERS; CONTERMINOUS UNITED_STATES
PROJECTED COAL-FIRED STEAM
ELECTRJC POWER PLANTS: 1977-00
O
SOURCE; DOE 12/77
PROJECTED OIL-FIRED STEAM
ELECTRIC ROWER PLANTS: 1977-90
SOURCE: DOE 12/77
LEGEND
Estimated Extent
of Aquifers
Cities over 25,0 0
using groundwa
er
-------
I
ATTENDEES
DONALEE RUTLEDGE
3 Dept. of Public Works
Solid Waste Division
4 853 King County Adm. Bldg.
Seattle, WA 9810ft
5 STEPHEN C. EWART
- IL Pollution Control Bldg.
355 Lincoln Tower Plaza
524 South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62701
8 CAREY P. BUSBIN
Eny. Licensing Dept.
Southern Company Services
P. 0. Box 2625
10 Birmingham, AL 35202
11 J. B. MEDVED, P.S.
Central Foundry Division, QMC
12 77 W. Center Street
Saginaw, MI 118605
13
ANDREW MORRIS
14 Commonwealth of KY
Pine Hill Plaza
15 Frankfort, KY 10601
16 A. H. KING
The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
17 1200 Firestone Pkwy.
Akron, OH 11317
18
ROBERT A. BECK
19 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
P. 0. Box 960
20 Cincinnati, OH 15201
21 MAJOR D. R. LEE
AFLC/DEP
22 Wright Patterson Air Force Base
Dayton, OH 15M33
23
MS. ELIZABETH W. CUNNINGHAM
24 Standard Oil Co. (Ohio)
1718 Guild Hall Bldg.
25 Cleveland, OH 44115
-------
3 ATTENDEES COHT.
2 JOHN P. VELON
C/0 Harzn Engr.
3 150 S. Wacker
Chicago, XL 60606
GREGORY JASPER
5 OKI
426 East 4th Street
6 Cincinnati, OH 45204
7 JOSEPH P. DIETZ
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
8 P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
9
CRAIG P. WAtTOM
10 Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
77 Beale Street
11 San Prancloco, CA 94106
12 EDWARD G. GLADBACH
City of Los Angeles
13 Dept. of Water t Power
Rm. 1034, 111 North Hope Street
14 Los Angeles, CA 90012
15 OWEN THOMPSON
US EPA - Region V
16 Waste Management Branch
230 S. Dearborn Street
17 Chicago, IL 60604
18 CHARLES W. MARTIN
Westvaco Corporation
19 P. 0. Box 278
Wlckliffe, KY 42087
20
0. B. BURNS, JR.
21 Westvaco Corporation
299 Park Avenue
22 New York, NY 10017
,, ART BALPH
** City of Hamilton
Municipal Bldg.
24 Hamilton, OH 45011
25
-------
1 ATTENDEES CONT.
2 CARL KOLLMAR
3
J. M. Huber Corporation
Route 4 Huber
Macon, OA 31201
E. TIMOTHY OPPELT
5 EPA - MERL
26 W. St. Clair Street
6 Cincinnati, OH 45268
7 CARLTON C. WILES
EPA - MERL
8 26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
9
5ERALD STERN
10 OS EPA - MERL
Ultimate Disposal Section
11 26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
12
JOSEPH B. PARRELL
13 US EPA - MERL, WRD
26 W. St. Clair Street
14 Cincinnati, OH 45268
15 NORBERT B. SCHOMAKER
US EPA
16 Environmental Research Center
26 H. St. Clair Street
17 Cincinnati, OH 45268
18 THOMAS R. KOOOLER
Wast Resources Corporation
19 4080 Industrial Lane
Dayton, OH 45430
20
BRIAN A. HAUSPELD
21 Systems Technology Corporation
245 North Valley Road
22 Xenla, OH 45385
23 SAIL P. BURKE
Commonwealth Edison
,, 72 West Adams Street
P. 0. Box 767
,, Chicago, IL 60690
-------
' ATTENDEES CONT.
2 ROBERT W. JOHNSON
Vermond American Corporation
3 P. 0. Box 1175
Louisville, KY 1)0201
4
MR. WEINSTOCK
5 Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.
2235 Langdon Farm Road
6 Cincinnati, OH 15237
7 MR. WEINSTOCK
19 Hayden Drive
8 Cincinnati, OH 45218
9 ARTHUR A. OERTEL
Verraond American Corporation
10 P. 0. Box 1*75
Louisville, KY 10201
H
STEVES TOWNSEND
12 Philadelphia Water Dept.
1110 Municipal Service Bldg.
13 15th & J.P.K. Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
14
ROGER J. LANDON
15 Gilbert/Commonwealth Assoc.
Licensing Information Center
I6 209 E. Washington
Jackson, MI 19201
17
H. E. DINOLE
lg C/0 Sherwln-Williams Chemical
501 Murray Road
19 Cincinnati, OH 15217
20 J. B. BAILEY
Republic Steel Corporation
„. Republic Bldg.
P. 0. Box 6778
22 Cleveland, OH 11101
AKSE M. TOOTHAKER
General Electric Co.
Bldg. 36, Room 120
24 Schenectady, NY 12315
25
-------
ATTENDEES CONT.
LYNN GODFREY
P. 0. Box 817
Barnwell, SC 29812
JOHN LARKIN
Waste Mgmt. of Illinois, Inc.
7300 West College Drive
, Palos Heights, IL 60*63
b
KAREN NORVIG
Environmental Management
PP&L
R 2 N Ninth Street
Allentown, PA 18101
RICHARD J. WIESE
10 7162 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 15222
n
DONALD W. SIMMONS
12 2800 Grant Bldg.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
13
WALTER DOWD
H Cement Cl vis Ion
National Gypsum Co.
15 Pord Avenue
Alpena, MI 19707
16
JON 0. BYROADE
n 2136 N. Quebec Street
Arlington, VA 22207
18
ROSS SINGLETON
19 MOO E. Gray Street
Louisville, KY 1)0202
20
V. PATEZ
21 PEDCO
11499 Chester Road
22 Cincinnati, OH 1)5216
23 MR. ED HALL
Onion Carbide Institute
24 West Virginia
25
-------
1 ATTENDEES CONT.
2 RAYMOND S. CACHARES
3
4
6
' Dayton, OH 15*33
THOMAS W. SOLOMON
8
9
10
11
270 Park Avenue
New fork, NY 10017
12 \
' SAMDEL M. HEARRINO
13
U
16
n
18
City of Chicago-Bureau of Sanitation
City Hall-Room 70*
121 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602
LT. COL. S. E. KEMP
Chief, Environmental Planning Division
HQ APLC/DEPV-tfright Patterson Air Force Base
Ralston Purina Co.
900 Checkerboard Square
St. Louis, MO 63188
DR. HAMPTON PARKER
Onion Carbide Corporation
City of Evansvllle - EPA
Room 207 Adm. Bldg.
Civic Center Complex
Evansvllle, IN 17708
is
MR. EARL TROOLEN
Madison Co. Waste Control Dept,
Court House Box 152
Huntaville, AL 35801
JAMES H. MORGAN
Conservation Services, Inc.
19 | P. 0. Box 2563
Port Arthur, TX 77610
i
20 .
ROBERT E. BELLIVEAU
Proctor t Gamble Co.
5299 Spring Grove Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 15217
JAMES C. CLEARY
Industrial Haste Disposal Co.
3975 Wagonerford Road
Dayton, OH 15111
-------
1 ATTENDEES COKT.
2 ROBERT B. BAYH
23
24
25
Velslcol Chemical Corporation
341 East Ohio Street
3
Chicago, IL 60611
BILL WILLIAMS
5 Dept. of Commerce-Research & Economic Development
Planning
6 1350 Consolidated Bide.
115 N. Pennsylvania Street
7 Indianapolis, IN l(620ii
8 GREGG E. EASTERBROOK
Waste Age Magazine
9 6311 Oross Point Road
Nlles, IL 606K8
10
WENDELL JEWETT
11 Vermont American Corporation
500 E. Main Street
12 Louisville, KY 1(0201
13 HENRT BALIKOV
J. M. Huber Corporation
H Thornall Street
Edison, NJ 08817
15
D. B. PETERS
16 Westvaco Corporation
P. 0. Box 5207
17 N. Charleston, sc 29*06
18 WILBERT L. LAPP, P,E.
Mtad
19 Environment & Energy
Corporate R 4 D
20 Chlllicothe, OH 45601
21 MR. RICK MELBERTH
Montgomery County
22 Environmental Services
P. 0. Box 972
Dayton, OH 1)5122
-------
I
ATTENDEES CO NT.
2
3
4
5 ROBERT HUGHES
7
East Kentucky Power
P. 0. Box 707
Lexington Road
Winchester, KY 10391
PAOL EDWARDS
Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.
2235 1/angdon ?arm Road
Cincinnati, OH 15237
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BRUCE R. BARRETT
Office of Environmental Affairs
O.S. Dept. of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
LARRY T. CLERE
Sun Petroleum Products Co.
Toledo, OH "13693
MIKE EVARTS
Public Service Ind.
13 1000 Main Street
Plalnfleld, IN 16l68
14
WALDO E. KALLENCEBCER
University of Cincinnati
Loc fill
Tanners' Council of Araerlea
Cincinnati, OH 15221
RICHARD J. WIGS
Regional Services Corporation
332Q Woodcrest Ct.
Columbus, IN «7201
CECIL IOLEHART
SCA Services, Inc.
P. 0. Box 21100
Louisville, KY 10221
22
JAKES W. BYERLY
23 Westvaeo Corporation
Covlngton, VA 2M26
24
25
-------
ATTENDES CONT.
2
ATAL E. ERALP
3 US EPA - MERL
26 W. St. Clalr Street
4 Cincinnati, OH 15268
5 DONALD E. SANNING
US EPA - MERL/SHWRD
6 26 W. St. Clalr Street
Cincinnati, OH 1(5268
WILEY W. OSBORNE
8 Dlv. of Solid Waste Mgmt.
TX Dept. of Health
„ 1100 W. «9th Street
Austin, TX 78756
10 WILLIAM H. AMRHEIN
Christian, House, Benedettl & Lubman
Suite 101 Jefferson Bldg.
8100 Three Chopt Road
12 Richmond, VA 23229
13 JOHN E. FIXARI, JR.
Waste Management, Inc.
14 Great Lakes Regional Office
6797 North High Street
15 Suite 112
Worthlngton, OH U3085
16
J. CARROLL DOGOAN
17 Tennessee Valley Authority
*UO Commerce Union Bank Bldg.
18 Chattanooga, TN 37101
MR. ROBERT L. STENBORO
OS EPA - MERL, SHWRD
20 26 W. St. Clalr Street
Cincinnati, OH H5268
21
JEROME H. KRUSZKA
22 933 Prank Road
Columbus, OH 1(3223
23
TERRY HOOAH
24 Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
P. 0. Box 1515 B
25 Indianapolis, IN 1(6206
-------
' ATTENDEES COHT.
2 1 THOMAS D. HINESLY
University of Illinois
6 S-406 Turner Hall
Dept. of Agronomy
Urbana, IL 61801
JOHN L. ASHBY
520 Kawkwa Blvd.
Erie, PA 16505
J. RICHARD LAWRENCE, JR.
3518 N. Dlckerson Street
Arlington, VA 22207
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
S. A. WIEOMAN
Southern CA Edison Co.
P. 0. Box 800
22l»l( Walnut Orove Avenue
Roseroead, CA 91770
EUGENE R. PIDELL
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Lelby t MacRae
1757 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
JA«ES K. LAWSON
Gold Bond Building Products
325 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 11202
LEE E. ERICKSON
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Environmental Control Dept.
Westport, CT 06880
A. VITBERO
DSI
8tOO Westpark Dr.
21 McLean, VA 22201
22 HENRY BALANCHA
Attorney
23
SVi-42p
Order No. 706
-------
Region I
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston MA 02203
(617) 223-7210
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10007
(212) 264-2515
Region III
6th & Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia. PA 19106
(215) 597-98U
Region IV
345 Courtland St.. N.E.
Atlanta GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago. IL 60604
(312) 353-2000
Region VI
1201 Etm St.. First International Bldg
Dallas. TX 75270
(214) 749-1962
Region VII
1735 Baltimore Ave
Kansas City. MO 64108
(816) 374-5493
Region VIM
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver. CO 80203
(303) 637-3895
Region IX
2.5 Fremont St
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)556-2320
Region X
12006th Av«
Seattle. WA 98101
(206) 442-5810
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Regional Offices
------- |