UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Date SEP 12, 1978 subject:  Sludge Regulation — Subtitle C vs. 405/4004 John M. Walker From: Municipal Technology Branch (HH-547) To: Henry L. Longest II. Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator  for Water    Program Operations   (WH-546) THRU:         Alan B. Hais. Chief Municipal Technology Branch (WH-547} Harold P. Cahrill, Jr.. Director Municipal Construction Division   (WH-547) As promised at our meeting this morning we have provided you with a highlighted draft 3004 regulation (April 12} and a memo from Sanjour to Lehman (August 28} that indicates the many potential problems that OWPO may likely encounter by a tie-in of Subtitle C and 405/4004 via an equivalent coverage concept. Bruce Weddle''s position (stated in the attached August 28 nemo) Is that standards promulgated for sludge disposal under 405(e) will provide equivalent levels of environmental protection to those being developed under RCRA.    If management of wastes under Subtitle C and sludge management under 405/4004 must be entirely equivalent and consistent, then we cannot live with 3004—250.55-5 Land Farms, pp. 103-111 and 250.56-2 Soil Conditioning Products.   These subsections of 3004 would essentially preclude the utilization of sludge as a method of disposal. It would make much more sense to cover sludge under 405/4004 independently of Subtitle C as I thought had been agreed upon and announced by Tom Jorling.   Sludge should be covered independently because it contains nutrients and organic matter which have considerable benefit for land and crops.    Most industrial wastes do not have such benefit. .              The goal of 405/4004 sludge regulations should be to promote low-cost sludge                   management with emphasis on minimizing risks, consumption of energy and        resources and maximizing recycling and reuse benefits,   the application of some        low levels of toxic substances to land for food crop production should not be        prohibited; rather, it should be controlled by proper rates of sludge/toxic        application, soil management, etc.   The potential risks of permitting some low       levels of most potentially toxic metals and persistent organics to land just have        not been demonstrated as being that great.    The document shoul'd also be made        more accountable for its recommendations by weighing benefits vs. risks and       costs within any utilization alternative.    Further, these benefits vs risks and                  costs should be weighed against those of alternatives which would have to be       employed if the utilization procedure is precluded. Attachments