technologies and management strategies for hazardous waste control

8/14/2019 Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technologies-and-management-strategies-for-hazardous-waste-control 1/409

Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

March 1983

NTIS order #PB83-189241



Foreword

This report presents the analyses, findings, and conclusions of OTA’S studyof the Federal program for the management of nonnuclear industrial hazardouswaste * —an issue that has now reached national prominence and widespread con-

gressional attention. OTA’S findings and conclusions concerning the technical com-ponents of the Federal hazardous waste program complement current activitieswhich have focused more on administrative problems and issues. Our work offersa number of opportunities, at this critical time, for examining solutions to nationalhazardous waste problems.

This report is the final product of a 3-year effort at OTA. During that time wehave contributed extensively to committee deliberations on hazardous waste man-agement—including such issues as Federal exemptions of hazardous waste fromregulation, procedures used to select uncontrolled hazardous waste sites for atten-tion under the Superfund legislation, the use and regulation of land disposal tech-niques, the adequacy of monitoring requirements for land disposal facilities, theadequacy of EPA’s risk assessment analyses, and the potential for introducing the

relative hazard levels of wastes into Federal regulations. For example, in November1981 and in April and August 1982, OTA presented testimony to Senate and Housecommittees concerning a number of technical problems in the implementation of Superfund. In April and June 1982, we provided extensive testimony to House andSenate committees on the regulatory exemption of hazardous wastes generated inrelatively small quantities (less than 1 metric ton per month); and in July 1982, astaff memorandum was released on this issue. All bills currently being consideredfor the reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act addressthis small generator exemption issue which OTA examined in depth.

In conducting the study, OTA analyzed a wide range of views—from the tech-nical community, industrial sectors which generate hazardous waste, the wastemanagement industry, the environmental community, State and local officials,

Federal agencies, and the lay pu blic. As a result of that effort, OTA identified fourpolicy options—beyond maintaining the current Federal program—which couldform the basis for an immediate and comprehensive approach to protecting humanhealth and the environment from the d angers posed by m ismanagement of hazard-ous waste. One near-term option addresses the means to improve the technical ef-fectiveness of the current r egulatory stru cture. The other near-term op tion prov idesa nonregulatory or market approach to achieving a number of desired goals. Bothof these options are compatible with the two longer term options, one of whichdeals with introducing waste and facility classifications into the regulatory struc-ture, and the other which focuses on achieving greater integration of Federal pro-grams, agencies, and statutes concerned with hazardous waste.

The assessment was originally undertaken at the request of the House Com-mittee on Energy and Comm erce. The focus of the stu dy was to be on technological

*The term “hazardous waste” means a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may—(A) cause, or significantly contribute toan increase in mortality, or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B] posea substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.

. .///



options for managing hazardous waste at operating facilities, technical means toaddress the problem of uncontrolled and possibly abandoned hazardous waste sites,and the technical adequacy of the Federal regulatory program.

OTA believes that we have provided analyses and policy options which canassist the curren t efforts to achieve an effective, equitable, and expeditious Federalprogram to protect the public from the dangers of hazardous waste. This is duein large part to the support, assistance, and cooperation received from many peo-ple representing a great diversity of viewpoints on the issues.

JOHN H. GIBBONS Director



Hazardous Waste Control Assessment Project Staff

Lionel S, Johns, Assistant Director, O TA Energy, Materials , and International Security Division

Audrey Buyrn, Materials Program Manager

Project Staff

Joel S. Hirschhorn, Project Director

Suellen Pirages, Senior Analyst

Karen Larsen, Senior Analyst

Iris Goodman, Research Analyst

William F. DavidsonLinda Curran (OTA Fellow)

Richard ParkinsonFrances SladekMimi Turnbull

Administrative Staff Carol A. Drohan Patricia A. Canavan

Individual Contractors

Christopher ‘I’. Hill David M. Kagan James Farned David Burmaster David Corm

Su zanne Contos Kitty Gillman Gary Davis J. Sted man Stevens

Contractors

Engineering ScienceAssociation of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management Officials

Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSterling-HobeAmerican Technology Management

ConsultantsEnvironmental Law Institute

Publishing Staff

Bracken & BaramClement AssociatesHazardous Material Control

Research InstituteStanford Knowledge Integration LaboratoryDevelopment Sciences, Inc.Aspen Systems Corp.Adams and Wojick Associates

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

Joh n Berglin g Kath ie S. Boss Debra M. Datch er Joe HensonDoreen Foster Donna Young



Hazardous Waste Control Assessment Advisory Panel

Sam Gusman, Chairman, Senior Associate, Conservation Foundation

David G. BoltzDirector, Solid Waste ControlEnvironmental Control DivisionBethlehem Steel Corp.

Frank CollinsTechnology and Public Affairs Consultant

Stacy L. DanielsEnvironmental Sciences Research LaboratoryDOW Chemical, U.S.A.

Jeffrey DiverSenior Environmental CounselWaste Management, Inc.

Phillipa FootDepartment of PhilosophyUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Morton R. FriedmanDirector, ResearchHazardous Waste and Resource RecoveryN.J. Department of Environmental Protection

Thomas H. GoodgameDirector of Corporate Environmental ControlResearch and Engineering CenterWhirlpool Corp.

Diane T. GravesConservation ChairmanSierra Club, New Jersey Chapter

Rolf HartungProfessor of ToxicologySchool of Public HealthUniversity of Michigan

Robert JuddDirector, California Office of

Appropriate Technology

Kenneth S. KamletDirector, Pollution and Toxic Substances

DivisionNational Wildlife Federation

Terry R. LashIndependent Consultant

David LennettAttorneyEnvironmental Defense Fund

Janet MateyChemical Manufacturers Association

Randy M. MottAttorneyHazardous Waste Treatment Council

John M, MulveyDirector of Engineering Management SystemsSchool of Engineering/ App lied Science

Princeton University

Delbert RectorChief of Environmental ServicesMichigan Department of Natural Resources

Gerard Addison RohlichLBJ School of Public AffairsUniversity of Texas at Austin

Reva RubensteinManager of the Institute of Chemical Waste

ManagementNational Solid Wastes Management

Association

Bernard L. SimonsenVice PresidentIT Corp.

George M. WoodwellDirector of The Ecosystems CenterMarine Biological Laboratory

NOTE: The Advisory Panel provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, but the membersdo not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse the report for which OTA assumes full responsibility.



Contents

Chapter Page

I, Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3. Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4. Data for Hazardous Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5. Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

6. Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

T. The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Index ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401



Acknowledgments

OTA thanks the following people who took time to provide information or to review partor all of the study: Michael Gough of the OTA Health Program, Janie Harris of JRB AssociatesInc, Norman Nosenchuck and Jacqueline Rams of the Association of State and Territorial SolidWaste Management Officials.

Other Contributors

William D av is Gerd Klein eberg Mark Murray Diana Wahl Margery King

Philip Robinson John Cou rtney Jim Maysilles Karl Birns

. .Vlll



CHAPTER 1

Summary



List of Tables

Table No. Page

1.2.3.4.

5.6.7.

8.9.

Examples of Exemtions From Federal Regulation as Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . 9thA Comparison oft e four Waste Reduction Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Comparison of Some H azard Redu ction Techn ologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Representative Unit Costs for Commercial Hazard ous Waste Treatmentand Disposal . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 15Illust ration of a Hazard ous Waste Generator Tax Stru cture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31A Nationa l Waste Fee System: Sum mary of Key Problems and Con cerns . . . . . . 32Illust rative Examp lesof a Potential Hazard Classification Framew ork . . . . . . . . . 36

Key Adv antages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Com parative Ranking of Policy Op tions for Each Policy Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

I. Risk Management Framework q ....,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182. Risk Managem ent Fram ework Based on Waste and Facility Classification . . . . . 34



CHAPTER 1

Summary

Overview

Newly established Federal regulations forhazardous waste management facilities maynot effectively detect, prevent, or control haz-ardous releases, especially over the longerterm. Moreover, some regulatory standardsand controls will be set by State authorities,who may n ot have the resources to make tech-nically complex decisions, Consistent levelsof protection nationwide are not assured.

In less than a decade the Federal programhas advanced State efforts, cleaned up someun controlled sites, and assisted ind ustry in im-proving its waste management. Nevertheless,data inadequacies conceal the scope and in-tensity of hazardous waste problems, espe-cially those related to health and environmen-tal effects, and impede effective regulation of wastes and waste management facilities.

About 255 million to 275 million metric tons(tonnes) of hazardous waste under Federal andState regulation are generated annually. SomeStates have stricter definitions for hazardouswaste than the Federal program, which regu-lates about 40 million tonnes annually, Mil-lions of tonnes of federally exempted hazard-ous waste disposed in sanitary landfills posesubstantial risks. Such exemptions cover mosthazardous waste from generators producingless than 1 tonne a month. In addition, largevolumes of relatively low-hazard waste such asmining waste and waste generated by the burn-ing of fossil fuels are exempt from Federalregulation.

Land disposal is used for as much as 80 per-cent of regulated hazardous waste, some of which may rem ain hazardous for years or cen-

turies. Inappropriate disposal of hazardouswaste on land creates the risk of contaminat-ing the environment, particularly groundwater, which could cause adverse health ef-fects. Federal policies may inadvertentlyreduce private costs of land disposal by shift-

ing some long-term cleanup and monitoringcosts to Government or to society as a whole;the effect may be to retard the ad option of alter-natives such as waste reduction and wastetreatment. A key policy issue is: Can un-necessary risks and future cleanup costs beeliminated by limiting the use of land dis-posal and by making alternatives to it moreattractive?

As their responsibilities mount, States fearreductions in Federal support and seek astronger policy role. States sometimes cannotraise even the required minimum 10 percentof initial Superfund cleanup costs—and theymust assume all future operation and mainte-nance costs. Because there are no specificFederal technical standards for the extent of cleanup, and because there is an incentive tominimize initial costs, remedial actions maybe taken th at w ill prove ineffective in the longterm. When Superfund expires in 1985, manyuncontrolled sites still will require attention.

Actions that enhance public confidence inthe equity, effectiveness, and vigorous enforce-

ment of Government programs may reducepublic opposition to siting hazardous wastefacilities. Opposition also may be reduced byimprovement in the dissemination of accuratetechnical information on issues such as wastetreatment alternatives to land disposal,

Five policy options are examined:

1,

2.

3.

Continue with the current program.Extend Federal controls to more hazard-ous waste, and establish national regula-tory standards based on specific technicalcriteria, Also, restrict disposal of high-hazard waste on land, and improve pro-cedu res for perm itting facilities and dereg-ulating w aste.Establish Federal fees on waste gen-erators as an economic incentive to re-duce the generation of waste and discour-

3



4 q Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

4.

age land disposal; impose higher fees ongenerators of high-hazard waste that areland disposed; provide assistance for cap-ital investments and research and devel-opment (R&D) for waste reduction andwaste treatment.

Study the costs and advantages of classi-fying wastes and waste managementfacilities by degree-of-hazard to match

hazard s and risks with levels of regulatorycontrol.

5. Examine the need for greater integrationof Federal environmental programs to re-move gaps, overlaps, and inconsistenciesin the regulation of hazardous waste, and

to make better use of technical data andpersonnel.

Substantial Risks and Damages

Uncontrolled and careless disposal of indus-trial waste became a national concern in themid and late 1970’s. It became eviden t at manywaste sites that mismanagement and indis-criminate dumping of waste were causing

harmful substances to be released into the land,water, and air. Waste handlers and the generalpublic alike were threatened with direct ex-posure to hazardous waste.

It also became increasingly clear that evenwell-intentioned and presently accepted wastemanagement practices, particularly the use of landfills, surface impoundments, and lagoons,might still constitute substan tial threats. Thesethreats arise from the potential slow leakageof waste constituents or leachate* through thesoil and into ground water, which is a source

of drinking water for many communities.Before Congress enacted the Resource Con-

servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976,relatively few States had regulatory programsdealing with hazardous waste. Experience withconventional forms of ind ustrial and m un icipalsolid waste had given the States little prepara-tion for dealing with hazardous waste, manyof which are chemically stable and thus ex-tremely persistent under most conditions.

Studies across the Nation revealed that thedisposal of hazardous waste decades earlier

had left undetermined , but possibly very large,amounts of dangerous substances in and on the

*Leachate is liquid resulting from the interaction of water withwaste. The source of the water may be rain, inflow of groundor surface waters, or other waste.

land. Moreover, wastes were leaking frommany hazardous waste sites, some of whichwere closed. RCRA did not effectively dealwith these old, often abandoned, sites becauseit was primarily concerned with proper man-

agement and permitting of present and futurehazardous waste. In order to deal with themany substantiated and potential hazardsposed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites,Congress passed the Comprehensive Environ-mental, Response, Compensation, an d LiabilityAct of 1980 (CERCLA), better known as Super-fund.

Adv erse health effects attributable to hazard -ous waste remain inadequately documented.However, a 1980 survey by the Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA)l of 350 uncon-

trolled hazardous waste sites indicated sub-stantial threats to the p ublic. At the time, thesewere essentially all the sites for which therewas detailed information. There are currentlymore than 15,000 uncontrolled sites in EPA’sEmergency and Remedial Response Informa-tion System. The survey found:

q contamination of ground waters and res-ervoirs, affecting water supplies of 168communities;

q contamination of drinking water wellsleading to closure of at least 468 individualwells; and

q a total of 108 other adverse incidents, in-cluding damage to human health, natural

1“Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Waste Sites”(Washington, D, C.: Environmental IJrotection Agency, 1980).




environmental effects in the long term. Itshould be stressed that the language of RCRAprecludes balancing costs and risks; rather, itplaces sole emphasis on the protection of pub-lic health and the environment.

The cost to assess and clean up an uncon-

trolled site ranges from several hundred thou-sand dollars to tens of millions of dollars. Forexample, the cost to clean up one site inSeymour, Ind., has been estimated at $22.7million. To clean up four sites in St. Louis,Mich., one comp any h as agreed to spend $38.5million. H ydrogeologic investigations to d efinethe extent of ground water contamination cancost from $25,000 to $250,000. The average costfor cleaning up and containing contaminatedground water ranges from $5 million to $10million a site; the cost of totally restoring a bad-ly contaminated aquifer to potable qualitycould be 10 times the average cost.

To cleanup a substan tial fraction of the m orethan 15,000 presently known un controlled haz-ardous waste sites is likely to cost, in publicand private spending, a total of $10 billion to$40 billion. This should be compared with theestimated $1.6 billion to be collected underCERCLA by 1985. CERCLA funds are meantto be used for cleaning up uncontrolled siteswhere no responsible party can be identified,and for advancing funds for cleanup beforerecovery from responsible parties is mad e. The

cost of cleaning up know n sites is not likely tobe the end of the expense. Still more uncon-trolled sites are being discovered, and probablysome are being created by current practicesand exemptions.

It is generally acknow ledged that, even withthe new stricter RCRA regulations in place,eventual releases of hazardous constituentsfrom land disposal facilities are highly prob-

able. Greater use of waste treatment alterna-tives is, therefore, a major issue, although theytoo, if not regulated effectively, can release haz-ardous constituents to the environment. Yetgreater use of alternatives to land disposal—treatment, recycling, and especially more in-

vestment in waste reduction—could increaseindustry’s near-term costs significantly, per-hap s by as m uch as 50 to 100 percent. But yearsor decades from now, cleaning up a site fromwhich there are hazardous releases, and com-pensating victims, might cost 10 to 100 timesthe additional costs incurred today to preventreleases of hazardous materials.

For example, in th e case of Love Canal, it hasbeen estimated that disposal of the wastedumped there decades ago—according to thestandards and practices of today—would havecost $2 million (in 1979 dollars)* versus $36million for remedial action already spentthrough 1980. Ultimate costs for remedial ac-tion are expected to exceed $100 million; in ad-dition about $2 billion in lawsuits have beenfiled by persons claiming damages.

EPA estimates that the average cost of dis-posing of hazardous waste in compliance withthe new RCRA regulations is about $90 pertonne. The EPA estimate of the cost of clean-ing up improperly dump ed waste is up to about$2,000 per tonne, In addition, much of theburden of future costs would likely fall on the

general public. Costs incurred today by im-proved management of hazardous waste wouldbe borne, more equitably, by waste generatorsand by consumers of “hazardous waste-intensive” products.

*This is not to suggest that the technical factors alone wereresponsible for the Love Canal problems.



Ch. l—Summary q 7

Scope of

As requested by Congress, this assessmentfocuses on:

1. information and analysis on the use and

development of technologies that can im-prove hazardous was te managementthrough:

a. reduction of the volume and hazardlevel of waste generated;

b. better management of the risks asso-ciated with waste treatment and dis-posal; and

c. the cleanup of uncontrolled wastesites;

2. analysis of the potent ial benefits and costsof a framework based on scientific criteriato judge the relative degree of hazard of wastes and risks from management facil-ities; and

3. evaluation of current regulatory programs,particularly with regard to technical infor-mation and issues.

The primary focus of this assessment is onmanagement strategies, technological options,and the technical components of a Federal haz-ardous waste regulatory program that would

This Study

protect human health and the environment.More attention has been given to issues andproblems related to RCRA than to CERCLA,

This assessment is an analytical study to pro-vide a basis for policy discussion and examina-tion of legislative options by Congress; it is notan attempt to write new regulations for the ex-ecutive branch or the individual States. Strict-ly administrative issues and problems, such asenforcement, perm itting, and d elegation of au-thority to States, are considered on ly to the ex-tent that they relate to the study’s primary tech-nical focus. Transportation and accidentalspills of waste are not considered in any sub-stantial way. Nor has it been possible to ex-amine issues and problems unique to Federal

hazardous waste facilities, A part of thisanalysis is concerned with examining the pro-cedures for better assessing the nature and in-tensity of, and monitoring for, adverse effectson hu man h ealth and the environment from re-leases of hazardous waste or their constituentsinto the air, land, and/ or water. Major atten-tion, however, is not given to substantiating,documenting, or critically evaluating healthand environmental data.

Key Issues and FindingsThe following “issues and findings” section

is a partial summary of the full report, em-phasizing issues of particular interest to Con-gress and areas of special concern in the de-velopment of the Federal hazardous waste pro-gram . It p resents the m ajor analytical findingsof chap ters 4 throu gh 7. A sum mary of chapter3 (Policy Options) follows this section.

ISSUE 1

Is the existing health, environmental, and manage-ment information an adequate basis for an effective na-tional hazardous waste control program? To what ex-tent are currently generated hazardous wastes subject to regulation by Federal and State programs?

FINDING

Although EPA and the States are improving data col-lection, there are major uncertainties on how much haz-ardous waste is generated, the types and capacitiesof existi ng waste management f acili ti es, the numberof uncontrol led waste sit es and their hazard levels, andon health and environmental effects of hazardous wastereleases. Data inadequacies conceal the scope andcomplexity of the Nation’s hazardous waste problems,and impede effective control. Large-scale exemptionsfrom the Federal program make the coverage of Federal

regulation much narrower than that of the States (seech. 4).

Waste Definition.—An adequate definition of hazardous waste is crucial to an effective haz-




ardous waste management effort. EPA regu-lations currently define a subset of “solidwastes” * that are controlled under RCRA as“hazardous wastes.” In add ition, some hazard-ous wastes are regulated under environmen-tal statutes other than RCRA. EPA’s definition

of “hazardous waste” covers only these federal-ly regulated wastes. Some States, perceiving in-adequ acies in the Federal definition of hazard -ous waste, use different and broader defini-tions for purposes of their own control pro-grams. This leads not only to significant dif-ferences in perceived types and quantities of waste that pose hazards to human health andthe environment, but also to confusion as tothe degree and focus of efforts required tomanage hazardous waste.

Waste Generation .—EPA has estimated that 28million to 54 million tonnes of federally regu-lated hazardous waste were generated in theUnited States in 1980. The average value of 41million tonnes is the amount that is generallyquoted. A survey conducted for OTA assem-bled data on w aste generation based on the dif-ferent definitions of hazardous waste used byStates. The survey ind icated th at app roximate-ly 255 million to 275 million tonnes of hazard-ous waste generated per year are recognizedby the States. Much (although not all) of the“extra” waste regulated by States are of relatively low-hazard level, such as mining

waste and fly ash. Other wastes which escapethe Federal definition and regulation, such aswastes from small quantity generators, posesubstantial hazards. These and other wastescurrently exempted from control under RCRAby Congress and EPA total several hundredmillion tonnes per year. They are summarizedin table 1. In general, the large-volume ex-empted wastes are those of lower hazard, al-though the quantities of high-hazard wastesmay be very substantial (the volumes of manyof these wastes are unknown). In addition,cleanup actions at uncontrolled sites produce

several million tonnes of hazardous waste andcontaminated materials annually which must

*In RCRA, solid waste refers to a general class of wastes thatmay be solid, liquid, gases, or complex mixtures of a numberof phases.

be managed. These have not been included inEPA’s estimates.

Generators and Storage, Treatment, and DisposalFacilities. -It is possible to collect accurate dataon individual hazardous waste generators,management facilities, and methods of waste

disposal. However, the national data base isgenerally recognized to be incomplete, and insome respects inaccurate, even by EPA. Thesedata must serve as the basis for permitting ef-forts, and mu st be progressively upd ated as thateffort proceeds. Most wastes—generally 70 to85 percent nationwide—are managed on thesites where they are generated. Accurate dataon the use of different waste managementmethod s are not available; how ever, it is clearthat on a volume basis most hazardous waste(as much as 80 percent according to early EPAdata) are land disposed. Use of land disposalvaries among States; for example, in Louisianaabout 97 percent of waste managed onsite and50 percent of those managed offsite are landdisposed. In Texas, 95 percent of hazardouswaste are land disposed. In Massachusetts,only 7 percent is land d isposed, and all of thatis sent to other States for disposal.

Uncontrolled Sites.-The CERCLA program hasmad e some progress in identifying the nu mberand location of uncontrolled sites requiringremedial action, particularly for known prob-lem sites. EPA now has a list of more than

15,000 sites, and 418 sites have been selectedfor the National Priority List. How ever, the in-ventory of uncontrolled sites in the Nation isstill incomplete, and the severity of the hazard sposed by many of the priority sites is uncer-tain (which is true as well for the thousandsof sites not on the priority list). The model usedto evaluate hazards has serious inadequacies(see issue 5),

Health and Environmental Effects.-Data on poten-tial health and environmental effects are crit-ically needed for the Federal hazardous waste

progr am as a basis for establishing approp riatelevels of regulatory control. The curren t situa-tion is not satisfactory. There are very few d ataon the short- and long-term health and envi-ronm ental effects of exposure to actua l hazard -



10 q Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Cont ro l

Over time it will be difficult to evaluate theeffectiveness of the large funds spent byFederal and State regulatory programs andthe private sector.Eventual costs of protecting public healthand the environment may escalate because

wastes, facilities, and sites may not havebeen properly identified and, therefore,may be receiving either inadequate or ex-cessive attention under RCRA or CERCLA.The costs to provide remedies where wastefacilities were omitted from or inadequate-ly managed under present programs willincrease marked ly over time as sites dete-riorate and releases enter the environment.

ISSUE 2

Can the amount of hazardous waste that is generatedbe further reduced, and does the Federal regulatory

program provide incentives or disincentives for wastereduction?

FINDING

Several technological approaches can be used toreduce the amount of waste requir ing t reatment or dis-posal. The current Federal program indirect ly providesmore disincenti ves than incentives for waste reduc-tion (see ch. 5). -

An important way to reduce threats to publichealth and the environment from hazardouswaste and to lessen the cost of waste manage-ment is to redu ce the amou nt of waste gener-ated. Generators of waste can accomplish thisby segregating waste more carefully or re-cycling them, or sometimes by changing man-ufacturing processes or products. Whether theywill in fact do so depends on the economiccosts and savings involved. The generator’scosts are influenced by government regula-tions. A generator may, for example, recyclea waste even though it adds to his costs, if thecost is less than treating or disposing of thewaste in the manner required by governmentregulations.

Some initiatives undertaken by the privatesector indicate that there are opportunities forwaste reduction which, in the right circum-stances, can lead to economic benefits for thewaste generator. First, the cost of changes that

reduce waste generation may be more than off-set by lower waste management costs. Then,materials or energy recovered from materialsbefore discard or from wastes can in somecases be used or sold for profit. Sometimes,changes in processes motivated by waste man-agement concerns may help introduce innova-tive new technologies.

Table 2 presents a summary of the advan-tages and disadvantages of the major ap-proaches to waste reduction. There is consid-erable evidence based on practical experiencethat these approaches are technically feasible,to different degrees, for many hazardouswastes. Specific findings concerning the cur-rent state of usage of the four m ajor app roachesto waste reduction are:

q

q

q

Source segregation or separation is usual-

ly the easiest and cheapest method of re-ducing waste before they require manage-ment as hazardous waste. This method hasbeen widely used in industry and offersfurther opportunities for application. Thebasic principle is to keep w aste in concen-trated, isolated forms rather than to formlarge volume indiscriminate mixtures thatmust be separated later.Hazardous waste reduction by processmodification is usually a secondary ben-efit; the changes are motivated by other en-gineering and economic considerations,

such as improving process efficiency andyield. The benefits are usually specific toindividual plants and processes. Impactson hazardous waste reduction industry-wide have been limited.End-product substitution appears to offerlong-term benefits. However, full realiza-tion of the benefits dep ends on its app lica-tion to many industrial sectors and mar-kets. Changing one product, or one appli-cation of a product, is likely to have onlya relatively small effect on hazardouswaste generation. Here, too, waste reduc-

tion is usually a secondary benefit, withprodu ct p erformance improvements beingthe main driving force for change. How-ever, as hazardou s waste management be-comes more expensive and costs are



12 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tually act as disincentives for waste reduc-tion and treatment activities. In some in-stances, process intermediates containing re-coverable materials or energy are defined aswaste even though they are not discarded. Thiscan act as a disincentive to some recycling.

An important disincentive is the policy of keeping land fill costs low, even und er the newRCRA regulations by:

q

q

q

q

q

not requiring comprehensive, stringentmonitoring at landfills;not requiring retrofitting of existing, activelandfills;a liberal interpretation of “existing” in ex-empting, from some of the new regula-tions, portions of existing land fills that d onot yet contain waste;limiting post-closure monitoring require-

ments to 30 years; andnot requiring location of waste manage-ment facilities to protect drinking watersources,

As discussed further in the next section, thedefects of the land disposal method may bepostponing cleanup costs to the future, and itis likely that these costs will be borne bygovernment or society in general. Externaliz-ing such costs away from the private marketto the p ublic sector provides an ind irect incen-tive for land disposal. Nevertheless, to a limited

extent, for some waste generators, increasingcosts under the current program and the per-ceived liabilities of land disposal are indirect-ly promoting more use of waste reductionmethods.

A common question is: How much of the Na-tion’s hazardous waste could be eliminated bythe various approaches to waste reduction?Any estimate of what could be done technicallyand economically can be only a crude approx-imation. Theoretically, the generation of almostevery hazardous waste might be affected to

some extent by one or more of the approachesdiscussed previously. A 1981 California studyof future hazardous waste generation con-clud ed that new ind ustrial plants will produceonly half the amou nt of hazardous w aste cur-rently produced. Other estimates for potential

waste reduction range from 30 to 80 percent.Waste reduction efforts, however, are more dif-ficult to make in existing plants than in newones. In addition to regulatory factors, capitaland R&D needs—particularly for smaller haz-ardous waste generators—are important obsta-

cles to implementing waste reduction efforts.General economic and market factors play acrucial role in raising and committing capital.

ISSUE 3

Are alt ernatives to l and or ocean disposal of wastesavailable and used? How do Federal regulatory pro-grams affect their use? Are concerns about the risksof land disposal of hazardous waste well founded?

FINDING

Not all of the technically feasible management op-tions for hazardous waste are being used to their full

potential. On the whole, Federal programs indirectlyprovide more incentive f or disposal opti ons than foralternati ves. Land disposal, even if in compliance wit hRCRA, probably poses some preventable risks both inthe near term and for t he future. But l and disposal i sappropriate and necessary for many wastes (see chs.5 and 7).

Management Alternatives.–-Once hazardouswaste are generated, they can be managed byone of two broad categories of technologies:

1. treatment by one or more steps to reducethe hazard level of the waste, or

2. disposal through containment or disper-sal on land or in the oceans.

Treatment technologies reduce the hazardlevel directly or facilitate reduction in othersteps by changing the physical or chemicalnature of the waste, by separating waste con-stituents, by reducing the waste volume, or byreducing the concentration of hazardous sub-stances in the waste. The treatment technol-ogies include chemical, thermal, and biologicaltreatments.

Containment technologies hold waste in amanner intended to inhibit release of hazard-ous components into the environment or keepreleases to acceptable levels. These technolo-gies include landfills, surface impoundments,and underground injection wells. With most



Ch. l—Summary q 7 3

containment options, it is probable that re-leases will occur at some time. Some surfaceimpoundments are designed, in fact, to transfermaterial to the ground. Dispersal techniques,such as land treatment (spreading waste on theland) or ocean dumping, rely on naturally oc-

curring processes to reduce the hazard levelof waste constituents, or to transport them in toand through the environment thereby dilutingconcentrations to acceptable levels, or both.Some geograp hical locations are gen erally u n-derstood to make exceptionally good sites forland disposal facilities because th eir hyd rogeo-logical characteristics make releases unlikelyand because the probability that p eople or sen-sitive elements of the environment would beexposed to releases is extremely low.

The degree of feasibility and appropriateness

of a specific management technology for aspecific waste depends on many factors, in-clud ing the characteristics of the waste and theenvironmental features of the facility site.Regulatory requirements and the goals and eco-nomic calculations of waste generators andhandlers will also influence technologychoices. A summary comparison of the majorwaste man agement alternatives (hazard red uc-tion through treatment or disposal) is given intable 3.

Table 3.—Comparison of Some

Disposal

Landfills andimpoundments Injection wells

Effectiveness How well it Low for volatlies, High l based on theory,contains or destroys questionable for liquids, but limited field datahazardous based on lab and field availablecharacteristics tests

Rel iabi li ty i ssues” S it ing, const ruct ion, and S ite hi story and geology,operation well depth, construction

Uncerta in lt ies long- term and opera tionintegrity of cells andcover, Ilner life lessthan life of toxic waste

Environmental media Surface and ground water Surface and ground watermost affected

Least compatible Liner react ive; highly toxic, Reactive; corrosive;mobile, persistent, highly toxic, mobile,

a nd b io ac cu mu la ti ve a nd p ersi st en tCosts” Low, Mod, High L-M L

Resource recovery:potential None None

aMolten salt, high-temperature fluid wall, and plasma arc treatments

Technology Selection and Waste Type.—Waste

type is an important determinant of the tech-nology chosen for waste management. For ex-amp le, some w astes are technically incompati-ble with a specific technology because theywou ld d amage equipment. For wastes charac-

terized as hazardous because of their reactivi-ty, corrosiveness, and ignitability, there arewel l -es tab l i shed chemica l and phys ica ltreatments available. However, for a waste inwhich toxic i ty i s the major hazardouscharacteristic, the choices are not clear. Toxicconstituents m ay be organ ic, inorganic, or m e-tallic, and many technologies could be used.The major issue is whether to use a treatmentor containment approach. For the most toxicwaste, the preferred choice is treatment whenit is technically feasible.

In general, the kinds of waste most suitablefor land-based containment are residualsfrom treatment operations, pretreated (orstabilized) waste, untreatable waste, and rel-atively low-hazard (and often high-volume)waste. However, some untreatable waste areso highly toxic that land disposal should notbe used, and waste elimination is the only ac-ceptable alternative (exemplified by the statu-tory prohibition on the use of polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBS). Appropriate use of the

Hazard Reduction TechnologiesTreatment

EmergingIncineration and other high-temperature

thermal destruction decomposition a Chemical stabilization

High, baaed on field tests,except little data onspecific constituents

Monitoring uncertaintieswith respect to highdegree of DRE;surrogate measures,PICS, Incinerabilityc

Air

Highly toxic and refractoryorganics, high heavy

metals concentrationM-H (Coincln. - L)

Energy and some acids

Very high, commercial.scale tests

Limited experienceMobile units; onsite

treatment avoidshauling risks

Operational simplicity

Air

Some Inorganic

M-H

High for many metals,based on lab tests

Some inorganic stillsoluble

Uncertain Ieachate test,surrogate for weathering

Ground water

Organics

M

Energy and some metals Possible building material

bVastes for which this method may be less effective for reducing exposure, relative to other technologies Wastes Iisted do not necessarily denote common usageCDRE = destruction and removal efficiency PIC = product of Incomplete combustion

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment




oceans for disposal has not been resolved. Forsome hazardous waste, dumping in certainocean locations appears to offer acceptable lev-els of risk for both the ocean environm ent andhuman health. However, there is generally in-adequate scientific information to decide w hat

the locations are for specific wastes.Comparisons of Technologies.-Several technical

factors make it difficult to compare treatmentand disposal alternatives (see table 3). The goalfor each technology is to reduce the probabili-ty of release of hazardous constituents, but notechnology can offer zero release. Performancecapabilities for different technologies must beconsidered in relative terms; releases that dooccur vary in location, quantity, and time. Forexample, landfills inhibit releases thr ough con-tainment but will eventually (and usually grad-

ually) leak and may contaminate ground water.Incinerators destroy most of the waste, butsome air pollution will occur. Stabilization of waste immobilizes hazardous constituents butoften allows some hazardous constituents tobe dissolved (leached), albeit at slow rates.Chemical treatment, such as dechlorination,detoxifies but may produce some residue re-quiring disposal. An important issue in mak-ing comparisons, and for regulatory purposes,is to describe the nature and impact of poten-tial releases, not merely what the technologyaccomplishes. For example, a technology may

destroy or detoxify 99.99 percent of a wasteconstituent input, but it is necessary to con-sider the total amounts released and their tox-ic effects.

Another factor influencing comparisons isthat different technologies achieve their objec-tive with differing efficiencies, such as degreeof destruction, degree of containment, and de-gree of stabilization. Anoth er factor to consideris the variation in potential routes of releases,such as air for incinerators and ground waterfor landfills. These are important qualitative

differences that influence the character of risks. The reliability of different technologiesis also important, Reliability depends, for ex-ample, on the degree of direct process controlavailable, the effectiveness and accuracy of sur-rogate (indirect) process monitoring m easures,

and the opportunity to correct emissions priorto environmental discharge. Finally, opportu-nities for energy and material recovery varyamong alternative technologies.

Comparison of Direct Costs .–-Costs are general-

ly considered on some volume or weight basisfor a particular management technique. It isnot possible at present to compare costs of treatment and disposal alternatives on the basisof comparable levels of control because:

1.

2.

3.

4.

consensus is lacking about what con-stitutes comparable levels of control acrosstechnologies;there are regulatory uncertainties in theevolving Federal program;cost data are specific to applications, loca-tions, and wastes; and

costs are changing as generators findlower cost alternatives in response to reg-ulatory and market conditions.

An important conclusion, however, is: eventhough RCRA regulations will increase landdisposal costs, land disposal is still likely tobe the low-cost option under the current reg-ulations for most hazardous waste. In addi-tion, costs for treatment technologies are moresensitive to waste type than are land disposaloptions.

Table 4 sum marizes d irect costs for comm er-

cial, offsite treatm ent, and disposal alternativeson a per tonne basis (as received wet or dry).Generally, different technologies compete atthe low end and in the middle of the price spec-trum, but in some cases the exact character of the waste, not the cost, determines the appli-cability of different technologies and thereforethe management choice. There are greaterprice differences among the technologies formanaging the most hazardous waste, with in-cineration mar kedly more costly than land d is-posal, and some chemical treatments being ascostly as incineration.

It should be noted that transportation coststo waste management facilities can be quitesubstantial, with long distances increasingdirect costs by as much as 50 to 100 percent.In some locations, there may be no nearby




Table 4.— Representative Unit Costs for CommercialHazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

Category

Typical ranges: Land disposal

Landfills (low to high hazarddrummed waste) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deep well injection—oily waste waters . . .Land treatment, farming or spreading. . . . .

Chemical treatment—acids or alkalines . . . . .Incineration (clean combustible liquids to

highly toxic and refractory solids ordrummed waste) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Most costly:Landfills (extremely hazardous waste) . .Deep well injection—toxic rinse waters .Chemical treatment—cyanides, toxic

metals, highly toxic wastes . . . . . . .Incineration (solid or drummed highly

toxic waste) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

$/tonne

$13-$240

$16-$40$5-$24

$21-$92

$53-$800

$168-$240$132-$264

$66-$791

$400-$800SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, based on various published sources

alternatives to land disposal, and the addedcost for transportation makes land disposaleven more attractive economically. Also, thesmaller the quantity of waste handled, thegreater the per-unit treatment or disposal costs.There are, however, new commercial enter-prises aimed particularly at the small generatormarket. Various techniques can be used toreduce handling costs, including using trucksthat deliver chemical feedstocks to pick upcarefully labeled and separated hazardouswaste.

Land Disposal Risks .—All treatment anddisposal options for hazardous waste in-escapably p ose some risks to pu blic health andthe environment. Technical experts and thepublic are concerned because land disposalfacilities can release hazard ous constituents atsome indeterminate t ime in the future .Although the likelihood of some releases ishigh, there are considerable uncertaintiesabout:

1.

2.

3.

the likely quantity and timing of releasesof particular constituents,the rates of transport of released hazard-

ous constituents through the environmentand their rates of degradation in the envi-ronment,the extent of possible exposur es of peopleand the environment to persistent hazard-

ous constituents and their degradationproducts, and

4. the probability of damages.

The uncertainty of the risks, the fact that peo-ple are unable to control their own exposureto the risks, the as yet unproven ability of RCRA regulations to detect or minimize re-leases, and the uncertainties about effectivecleanup of old waste dumps that are a legacyof past land disposal practices all contributeto a w idespread belief by technical experts an dthe public that land disposal of many types of waste poses unacceptable risks. As with mostpu blic debates over p erceived risky situations,it is not only the technical aspects of the riskthat matter. In addition, public perceptions of the risk levels and their acceptability influencepriorities. In the case of land d isposal, the issue

app ears to be when and how, rather than if theuse of land disposal is to be reduced.

Use of Land Disposal v. Its Alternatives.-AVailableinformation indicates that land-based disposalmethods are used for most wastes (as muchas 80 percent according to early EPA data,see issue 1), including many that are treatableor recyclable. There is insufficient informationto determine exactly the extent to which landdisposal options may be used nationwide forwaste that could be treated or recycled,

In 1981, a stu dy on California w aste managed

offsite concluded that:1.

2.

3.

4.

75 percent of the hazardous waste dis-posed in landfills (classified as the mostsecure by the State) could be recycled,treated, or destroyed,almost 40 percent of all land d isposed haz-ardous waste were highly toxic and verypersistent,most of the add itional waste managementcapacity needed to recycle, treat, or de-stroy hazardous waste could be developedin less than 2 years; and

the additional cost of recycling, treating,or incinerating highly toxic waste wouldhave a minimal effect on industry.

Nationally, a recent study for EPA of ninemajor commercial waste management com-




panics showed that capacity utilization for in-cineration in recent years was about 80 per-cent, for chemical treatment just over 50 per-cent, and for recycling it was 24 percent. Thesedata ind icate that available capacity for offsiteman agement of wastes is not a barr ier to shift-

ing management choices away from land dis-posal.

Even more technological alternatives to tradi-tional land disposal could be developed in theyears ahead. Only about 10 percent of EPA’scurrent R&D efforts for hazardous waste aredevoted to alternatives to land d isposal. Emerg-ing thermal, physical, and chemical treatmenttechnologies are at a point where they couldsubstantially benefit from more R&D support.Certain p hysical/ chemical processes now beingdeveloped offer unusual benefits with regardto preventing emissions of hazardous constit-uents, provid ing resource recovery, and red uc-ing toxicity,

Institutional Factors. —The current regulatorystructure does not directly encourage consid-eration of alternative, safer, and more perma-nent solutions to problems posed by the verycomplex nature of hazardous waste. Indirect-ly, the increased stringency of RCRA regula-tions for land disposal facilities, increasedemphasis on financial liability and futurelegal actions, increased public concerns, andincreasing costs for land disposal have all

contributed to greater consideration of treat-ment alternatives to disposal where they aretechnically feasible.

The current Federal program, however,also presents indirect, and probably inadver-tent, disincentives for treatment alternativesto d isposal. The following recent statem ent byEPA’s senior official for hazardous wasteregulation signals the continuing acceptanceof land disposal options:

We believe that most wastes can be satisfac-torily man aged in the land an d tha t it can bedone with a reasonable margin of safety morecheaply in this manner, . . . it may be thatrecycling or destruction is preferable from astrictly health and environmental p rotectionstandpoint, but for many wastes, the reduction

in risk achieved is probably marginal and maynot be wor th the cost."

However, EPA has made technical state-ments of a more cautious nature about dis-posal: “. , , the regulation of hazardous wasteland d isposal must p roceed from th e assump-

tion that migration of hazardous wastes andtheir constituents and by-products from a landdisposal facility will inevitably occur.’” In thefinal land disposal regulations where stringen-cy depend s, in p art, on the u se of liners beneathwastes, EPA has also said “. . . any liner willbegin to leak eventually.’” The r egulations alsostate that a land fill liner mu st completely “pre-vent” m igration du ring the active life of a land -fill, and that it must “minimize” migrationthereafter. There are substantial differences of opinion in interpreting what these require-ments mean, and h ow to imp lement them tech-nically, Concerns over wh o w ill pay for actionsnecessary to deal with expected and unex-pected releases of hazardous constituents areheightened by the absence of any financial re-sponsibility requirements for the operator totake corrective action if there are releases of hazardous constituents from land disposal fa-cilities. There are, however, RCRA closure andpost-closure financial responsibility require-ments, and a CERCLA Post-Closure LiabilityTrust Fund, but there are uncertainties aboutthe long-term effectiveness of these ap-

proaches. The net effect is that current RCRAregulatory policies continue to make land dis-posal attractive economically, despite uncer-tainties over long-term safety, although muchless so than before these regulations. Thus,long-term risks and costs, to some extent, aretransferred to government or society in gen-eral, Without the full internalization of costs,land disposal options retain a competitive ad-vantage against treatment alternatives and,therefore, an indirect disincentive for suchalternatives exists.

‘Testimony of RitaM. Lavelle, Assistant Administrator for

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, U.S. House of Rep-resentatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcom-mittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environ-ment, Dec. 16, 1982.

7Federal Register, vol. 46, No, 24, Feb. 5, 1981.eFederal Register, vol. 47, No, 143, July 26, 1982.




Until the private sector perceives theregulatory structure as not containing a biasin favor of land disposal technologies, invest-ment in new treatment technology R&D andcommercial development may be limited.Equally important are the size and certainty of

the total waste management market, which isalso dependent on Federal hazardous wastepolicies, particularly those concerning theuniverse of waste regulated. The use of directFederal incentives for alternatives to landdisposal has not been pur sued by EPA thus far.EPA has, however, commented favorably onthe use by some States of tax and fee systemsthat can raise revenues to offset a loss inFederal grants that support State hazardouswaste control programs. In some cases, theState tax and fee systems are structured to pro-mote alternatives to land disposal.

ISSUE 4

Can the various kinds of hazardous waste be dif-ferentiated by estimates of hazard potential? Couldwaste and facil it y classif icat ion play a useful role i nthe regulation of hazardous waste?

FINDING

Waste can be dif ferentiated into at least threecategories of hazard. Waste classes can be combinedwith f acil i ty classes to form a technical base for Federalregulatory policies. Developing the details of waste and

faci lit y classif icat ion would require substantial work(see ch. 6).

Hazard classification models are availablethat differentiate among the variety of in-dustrial waste based on measures of potentialhazard posed to human health or to the en-vironment. Criteria used to rank hazards dif-fer. Some models use only measures of acutetoxicity and carcinogenicity. Some considertoxicological criteria an d estimate environmen-tal fate of waste constituents. Others includesafety factors, toxicity measures, and concen-

tration levels for m ajor constituents. Althou gheach model has drawbacks, a case study per-formed for OTA of selected RCRA wastetreated by EPA regulations as equally hazard-ous, indicates that waste can be differentiatedinto at least three categories of hazard.

Certain problems, however, emerge in the at-tempt to classify wastes:

1. criteria must be chosen carefully to max-imize protection of public health and theenvironment, and to identify sensitivespecies which may be exposed;

2. ranges of measu rements m ust be used th atreflect expected d oses and exposures; and

3. incomplete data bases, includ ing p roblemsof variability and interpretation, can ham-per classification of some wastes.

Classification of any part icular w aste can varydepending on the system used; the choice andweighting of technical criteria are critical. Con-cerns over the determination of boundaries forclasses should be addressed by developingtechnical justifications and working for a con-sensus among indu stry, governm ent, the scien-

tific community, and public interest groups.Classification of wastes can be combined

with facility classification to serve as thetechnical basis for a regulatory program. Facili-ty classes would distinguish among differentdesigns of a particular type of facility andamong different physical locations. The riskpotential of a facility depends on the environ-ment surrounding the facility, meteorologicalconditions, the impact of facility operation onthe w aste (e.g., treatment or containm ent), andthe technological limitations of facility design

and operating conditions. For example, two orthree classes of incinerators could be devel-oped with different destruction and removalefficiencies. Several landfill classes might beformulated relating permeability potential of liners to the environm ental conditions of a sitesuch that wastes would be contained for speci-fied p eriods. Different facility classes would re-quire different types and levels of monitoring.

Waste and facility classes must be matchedso that consistent risk levels are obtainedacross both waste and facility classes. For ex-

amp le, the risk from a waste class I and facili-ty class I combination should be substantiallythe same as from a waste class 11 and facilityclass II combination.

Although there are technical limitations thatmust be recognized, the use of classification




systems for wastes and facilities offers certainadvantages over the current regulatory pro-gram.

ISSUE 5

To what extent c an risk assessment be used in t he

regulat ion and management of hazardous waste?

FINDING

The technical limit ations of risk models, assump-tions, and data require careful attention. However, riskassessment has a useful role as an analytical tool inthe t otal risk management and decisionmaking frame-work (see chs. 6 and 7).

Risk assessment involves two steps: risk es-timation and validation of the estimate (toooften omitted or deemphasized). Risk estimatesare based on evaluations of the hazard poten-

tial of wastes and identification of relationshipsbetween the potential hazard and health andenvironmental effects. In some instances, riskestimation is calculated using mathematicalmod els to extrapolate from high doses, used inlaboratory situations, to low d oses, wh ich m aybe detected in the environment. Individualestimates generated by different models canvary considerably, even when the same dataare used.

Risk assessment can assist in m aking a v arie-ty of decisions, including establishing regula-tory standards, setting priorities for R&D, iden-

tifying risk levels associated with treatmentand disposal options, and d etermining appro-priate locations for waste management facili-ties. But risk assessment is only one comp onentin a risk management framew ork, as shown infigure 1. Several models are available foranalyzing tradeoffs between costs, risks, andbenefits. It should be emphasized, however,that RCRA precludes ba lancing costs and risks.Risk assessment is best regarded as ananalytical tool and not as the final decisionprocess. Decisionmakers evaluate the resultsof risk assessments in the context of many non-quantitative factors, including all the uncer-tainties of the risk analysis, value judgmentsmade in the assessment, special interests thathave been recognized (or not), and sociopolit-ical factors of importance to the issue. In risk

Figure l.— Risk Management Framework

I

I Hazard evaluation I

I Risk assessment

1

Comparison of cost,risks, and benefits

IP o l i c y / m a n a g e m e n t a n a l y s i s(scientific, political, societal)

issues assessment I

Risk management

L I

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment

man agemen t, conflicts among these factors al-ways will exist. Such conflicts represent dif-ferences in societal interests and perspectivesand, thus, must be considered in the decision-

making process,Because better data and information are crit-

ical to risk management decisions, it is oftenimplied that tradeoffs must be made betweenexpeditious protection of the public and theneed to obtain improved d ata. However, con-siderable data exist to allow some reasonablerisk assessments to be made, bearing in mindthe previously noted limitations. RCRA re-quires protection of the public from hazardouswaste in the near term on the basis of known(or presumed) toxic and other harmful sub-stances in such waste, and on the basis of documented adverse incidents. A scientifical-ly certain link between disposal of hazardouswaste at a specific location and resultinghealth or environmental effects, particular-ly long-term ones, is usually not possible.



Ch. I—Summary 19

Recently, EPA developed two risk assess-ment models for CERCLA and RCRA applica-tions. While the concept of using risk modelsfor regulatory purposes has merit, the assump-tions used by EPA as the basis for these par-ticular models are so simplistic that their

usefulness is questionable. For example, bothmodels incorporate a concept that can resultin unequal protection of some segments of thepublic. In these models, estimates of risk de-pend on population density close to the site.Areas of low population density will receivelower risk estimates than areas with h igh pop -ulation densities, but this is not necessarily assensible as it first appears. Actual risks dep endon w here and how releases of hazardou s con-stituents move through the environment, theultimate fate of the materials, and, most im-portantly, the doses or exposures received byparticular people or elements of the environ-ment. Popu lation density by itself is a poor in-dicator of actual individual exposures and risks(i.e., “per capita risk”), and risks may be highor low, indep endent of overall pop ulation den -sity. In addition to the problems in the waypopulation density is used, there are problemsin these models with the criteria used to deter-mine hazard potential. These and other prob-lems lead to considerable uncertainty in thefinal risk estimates.

ISSUE 6

What contribution can monitoring make to effectiverisk management and is such a contribution requiredby the current RCRA program?

FINDING

Current monitori ng practi ces and requirements underRCRA do not lead to a high level of confidence thatreleases wil l be detected and responsive acti on quick lytaken (see chs. 6 and 7).

Monitoring can generate data to serve as atechn ical basis for regu latory action and as ver-ification that public health and the environ-ment are being protected. There are severalclosely related fun ctions for mon itoring: estab-lishing baseline or background data, develop-ing data for setting regulatory standards, veri-fying compliance with regulations, identifyingR&D priorities, and assessing contamination.

Two d ifferent m onitoring strategies can pro-vide information about the operation of haz-ardous waste management facilities. Surveil-lance monitoring can verify compliance withregulatory requirements and provides limiteddata about changes in environmental quality.

Assessment monitoring is used to determinethe extent of deterioration in environmentalquality and also provides data that indicatecause-effect relationships for specific hazards.Regulatory programs should employ both strat-egies—with surveillance monitoring requiredfor all facilities, and assessment monitoringused when the results of the former indicatean emerging problem.

Both m onitoring strategies pose problems in-clud ing sampling procedu res, data compar abil-ity, and limitations in available analytical

methodologies. For example, difficult choicesmu st be made regarding the location and num -ber of sampling sites and the frequency withwhich samples are taken, A poor choice of sampling location could miss the detection of “hot spots” of contamination. Data compara-bility is possible only if stand ard ized samp lingand analytical protocols are used. Variancescan occur among results if different laborato-ries and equipment are used, and even if dif-ferent personnel perform the same test. Greaterattention should be given to these “practical”aspects of the national hazardous w aste mon-

itoring program and to the d evelopment of anadequate analytical infrastructure nationwide.

Of the five types of m onitoring (visual, proc-ess, source, ambient, and effects), only visual,process, and source are incorporated intoRCRA regulations to any significant degree.Limited ambient monitoring is required of landdisposal facilities but collection of effects datais not required. If effectively conducted, visual,process, and source monitoring can reduce theamount of ambient monitoring that may beneeded by minimizing the release of hazard-

ous constituents into the environment. How-ever, they cannot serve as a substitute for am-bient monitoring.

Ambient monitoring provides informationon the appearance of statistically significantlevels of contaminants in air, soil, water, and



20 Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

biota. Ambient monitoring holds the greatestpotential for minimizing risks that might re-sult from hazardous waste mismanagement.Only by taking representative samples frompoten tially affected locations and environm en-tal media and then analyzing them for a broad

spectrum of potential contaminants is it possi-ble to control risks reliably. Minimization of releases of hazardous constituents ultimate-ly provides the greatest protection of publichealth. Furthermore, environmental media,and the processes that influence the movem entand fate of hazardous releases, are protectivebarriers against human exposure. If contamina-tion of air, water, or land can be detected suf-ficiently early (before widespread contamina-tion and actual damage) and corrective actiontaken, then human exposure will be reduced.Ambient monitoring, therefore, should begiven a greater role in the RCRA regulatoryprogram.

The full potential of monitoring is not re-quired by the RCRA regulations. Specific butlimited monitoring activities are required onlyfor incinerators and land disposal facilities.Land disposal facilities are required to condu ctlimited ambient monitoring (i.e., four samplestaken twice a year). However, there are exemp-tions to ground water monitoring requirementsfor land disposal facilities that have a doubleliner and a leak detection system between the

liners. This could lead to delays in detectingthe release of contam inants. Furtherm ore, evenif ambient monitoring is conducted, EPA’sguid elines for locating samp ling wells will notprovide adequate representations of the quali-ty of an aquifer in all cases because of thepossibility of complex aquifer shapes andflows. Contamination limits established forground water protection for land disposalfacilities have serious inadequacies.

With regard to discharges to air and water,waste treatment facilities must comply only

with m onitoring requiremen ts of the Clean Airand Clean Water Acts. Because these acts donot cover the broad range of hazardous con-stituents that are of concern in RCRA, reliancesolely on m onitoring requ ired by the Clean Airand Clean Water Acts appears risky.

There are also serious concerns over the p os-sible lack of routine reporting of monitoringdata obtained by facility operators to, andverification by, State programs, and accessibili-ty of monitoring information to the generalpublic. Therefore, l imited monitor ing re-

quirements established for treatment, incin-erator, and land disposal facilities will notlikely provide adequate protection of eitherpublic health or the environment, particular-ly over the long term.

ISSUE 7

How effectively is CERCLA addressing the problemof uncontrolled hazardous waste sites?

FINDING

Some progress is being made toward cleaning upsome of the worst uncontrolled sites. However, manysites will not have received attention when collectionof the CERCLA tax expires in 1985. There is still in-complete information on the long-term effectivenessof c leanup techni ques (see chs, 5 and 7).

Uncontrolled sites may be either operational,inactive, or abandoned. A recent survey of 348

uncontrolled sites, which have received someremedial action, indicated that various typesof land disposal techniques were used original-ly in 97 percent of the cases, There is no ques-tion that uncontrolled sites are a large prob-lem for the Nation, EPA’s inventory now con-

tains more than 15,000 sites and th e total is in-creasing steadily. Costs of remediation varygreatly, from several hund red thou sand to tento twenty million dollars per site. Throughfiscal year 1982 only $88 million of $ 4 5 2

million collected under CERCLA had beenspent for cleanups, no cleanup funds had beenallocated or expended on 97 of the initial 160

priority sites determined by EPA, and onlythree sites had been totally cleaned up (one en-tirely with State fund s). The first comp lete Na-tional Priority List contained 41 8 sites. But themodel used to rank sites according to theirhazards has important inadequacies (see issue5).

A major problem is that the National Con-tingency Plan does not provide specific stand-ards, such as concentration limits for certain



Ch. I—Summary q 2 1

toxic substances, to establish the extent of cleanup. Consequently, there is little assur-ance that c leanups provide protection of health and environment over the long term.However, another perspective is that flexibili-ty and site-specific standards are both appro-

priate and effective.Although the approach being used stresses

cost effectiveness, there has not been time fora history of effectiveness to accumulate. Thus,it is not yet possible to quantify and comparetechnologies. The long-term effectiveness of re-med ial technologies is uncertain because manyremedial technologies are containment ap-proaches and these require long-term operationand maintenance.

Technical approaches for remedial controlconsist either of actions on the waste, such as

drum and contaminant removal, contaminanttreatment, and incineration; or of actions onthe route of release, such as ground waterpumping, encapsulation, and gas control. Inrecent rem edial actions, removal of wastes andcontaminants (e. g., soil) accounted for about40 percent of the cases. Usually, removed ma-terials are land disposed, and are beginning toconstitute a significant added managementburden in RCRA facilities,

There will be many uncontrolled hazardouswaste sites requiring att ention w hen collection

un der Superfund expires in 1985, perhaps evenmore than when it was enacted because:

1. not all of the 418 priority sites will becleaned up; EPA has indicated that per-haps half will be totally cleaned up;

2. the national inventory of uncontrolledsites is as yet incomplete;

3. active sites will continue to be closedunder circumstances that may shift clean-up responsibility to CERCLA, and thisprocess may be accelerated by final RCRAregulations and the difficulty of com-pliance by some facilities;

4. a potentially large number of sanitaryland fill (subtitle D) facilities for solid , non-hazardous waste may be closed, and maybe contaminated by hazardous waste re-ceived in the past and currently (e.g., be-

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

cause of the small generator exemption,exempted recycling facilities, and fromhousehold discards of hazardous materi-als);some States may be unable to provide theirmatching share for cleanup of sites (10 per-

cent for private sites and 50 percent forgovernm ent-owned sites); this has alreadyprevented about one-third of the original160 priority sites from receiving remed ialaction;States and private parties will have dif-ficulty in securing su fficient fun ds to cleanup sites not selected early in the Sup erfundprogram, and these may become more haz-ardous over time;the lifetimes and performance levels of remediation technologies (particularlycontainment systems) under either RCRA

or CERCLA are limited;corporate financial responsibility for someclosed RCRA sites will expire; and“ancient” sites not yet documented willcontinue to be unearthed (often acciden-tally) and identified.

ISSUE 8

To what extent can technical means be used to ad-dress public opposition to siting of hazardous wastefaci l i t ies?

FINDING

Improving the scope, quality, and dissemination oftechnical information and using technical sit ing criteriacould prove useful; however, nontechnical i nstit utionalremedies that improve publi c confidence i n governmentprograms may be more effective (see ch. 6).

A paradox exists wherein the same publicthat calls for safer hazardous waste manage-ment frequently opposes the siting of specifichazardous waste facilities, The public generallyviews risks associated with a specific facilityas unacceptable at worst, and uncertain and

out of its control at best. Risks and potentialdamages (direct effects resulting from releasesof hazardous constituents, as well as indirecteffects resulting from potent ial problems, suchas losses in property values) are borne largelyby local communities. There is usually little




prospect of timely compensation. In contrast,benefits associated with the myriad of activitiesthat generate hazardous waste are more equallydistributed over society as a whole. Further-more, perceptions of future risks are shapedalmost entirely by the public’s understanding

of health and environmental effects from pasthazardous waste management practices andfailures. The public remembers problems withuncontrolled sites and risks from transporta-tion accidents and spills of hazard ous m aterialrather than of hazardous waste. A key issueis the degree of public confidence in n ew gov-ernment programs to control hazardouswaste, and in contemporary, improved man-agement approaches. Whatever the causes,continued public opposition poses a substan-tial obstacle to siting hazard ous w aste manage-ment capacity of any type. The uncertainties

and costs related to public opposition makeprivate sector commitments of capital difficult.

Both technical and institutional approachescan be used to address public concerns, butthese concerns w ill never completely be elimi-nated, In the technical area, public confidencean d

1.

2.

3.

understanding can be increased by:

improving the quality of information dis-seminated to the public to better describefacility needs, uses, characteristics, andrisks;using siting processes based on soundtechnical criteria to ensure that specificlocations have been chosen to reduce pres-ent and future risks as well as to satisfywaste generator and management needs;an dincreasing efforts to promote the develop-ment and use of alternatives to land dis-posal.

However, nontechnical or institutional ap-proaches, mostly at the State level, may bemore effective, These include:

1. measures to ensure meaningful and effec-tive public participation in siting and per-mitting of facilities;

2. programs to provide assurance that in theevent of any release of hazardous constit-

uents there will be quick and effectiveemergency and remedial actions;

3. programs to provide assurance that in theevent of dam ages to health or the environ-ment, or indirect economic effects, injuredparties will be able to obtain equitable

compensation expeditiously; and4. programs that provide assurance of con-tinued compliance with stringent regula-tory requirements, particularly for moni-toring.

Currently, there is little direct Federal in-volvement in facility siting, other than the p er-mitting of facilities. However, there are anumber of possibilities being discussed forgreater Federal involvement, including:

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

prov iding technical siting criteria either asa model for States to consider, or as man-datory;providing assessment of hydrogeologicalcharacteristics of importance in decidingthe acceptability of sites;providing technical assistance to States,local governments, and the public;providing information exchange pro-grams;assisting in formal or informal mediationof siting disputes;providing use of Federal lands;legislative sanctioning of interstate hazard-

ous waste management compacts to en-sure adequate hazardous waste manage-ment capacity in a regional context; andmandating that States engage in hazard-ous waste planning, based on a hierarchyof waste management alternatives, andthen provide adequate management capac-ity for all waste generated in their States.

Whatever actions are taken to add ress publicopposition to hazardous waste facilities, thereis little likelihood of any “qu ick fixes. ” Cur rentdifficulties with the economy m ay, in some in-

stances, alleviate public concerns by, for ex-ample, making waste management activitiesmore attractive as sources of employment, oras a means to keep or attract industrial plants.However, dampened public concern caused by




a depressed economy should not be relied onas a widespread or lasting solution to sitingproblems. In the longer term, successful ex-perience with the RCRA and CERCLA pro-grams could improve public confidence sub-stantially, but lack of success wou ld cause fur -

ther erosion in public confidence. The poten-tial loss of Federal funding of State programs,which EPA is discussing, and uncertaintiesover alternate sou rces of money w ill likely ex-acerbate public concerns.

ISSUE 9

Is the congressional intent that the States becomepartners in implementing t he Federal hazardous wasteprogram being met?

FINDING

The Stat es are being given increasing responsibil -

i t ies by the Federal program without matching technicaland financial resources (see ch. 7).

An important element of the congressionalmandate to regulate hazardous waste was theeventual shifting of administration of the pro-grams to the States. The States have had dif-ficulties because the Federal program has ex-perienced changes in direction and delays, andis still incomplete. Nevertheless, it is general-ly accepted that RCRA has greatly improvedthe number and quality of effective State haz-ardous waste programs, few of which existed

before RCRA.However, an element of confrontation has

developed between the Federal program andthe States. At a critical time when the pro-gram is just beginning to be fully imple-mented, some States believe that there aresubstantial impediments to providing ade-quate protection to the public. In fact, someStates may refuse the responsibility of tak-ing over administration of the RCRA pro-gram.

1. States are not receiving increases in finan-

cial assistance from the Federal Govern-ment corresponding to increased respon-sibilities for implementing the RCRA pro-gram; EPA has indicated its desire toeliminate RCRA gran ts to the States alto-

2.

3.

4.

5.

6,

gether; and States face uncertainties anddelays in attempts to obtain alternativesources of funds.Many States do not have an adequate tech-nical information base or enough tech-nically skilled p ersonnel to carry out their

regulatory responsibilities. Data obtainedby EPA have often been incomplete, andthe level of detail has sometimes been in-adequate for use by the States to imple-ment Federal regu lations; this has resu ltedbecause of statistical samp ling rather th antotal inventory approaches to collectingdata, States are hampered in their effortsto obtain necessary information by a lackof funds and a lack of certainty concern-ing the RCRA regulations. Moreover, anumber of RCRA and CERCLA regula-tions transfer considerable technical

standard-setting and decisionmaking tothe permit writing stage. However, thecomplex technical requirements of theseareas are substantial, as in hydrogeoIogy,and there may be shortages of State per-sonnel to adequately perform these re-quired functions.Many State officials feel tha t States are notbeing given sufficient opportunities to in-fluence the formulation of Federal regu la-tions and policies that they are expectedto adopt and implement.States do not have policy guid ance or sup -

port for regional approaches to dealingwith hazardous waste problems.States are not being given sufficient lat-itude by EPA to develop their own pro-gram s that might deviate from the Federalprogram but lead to the same result—i.e.,programs that are consistent with andequivalent to the Federal program in termsof protection of public health and the en-vironment, but are not identical to it interms of the language in regulations andstatutes,In some cases, EPA policies concerninghazardous waste have shifted burdens tothe States in the area of solid waste (underSubtitle D of RCRA). At the same time,however, Federal funds for support of State solid waste activities have been




eliminated. Such is the case when wastesthat are hazardous are granted exemptions(e.g., from small generators) u nd er subtitleC and can be disposed of in subtitle D san-itary landfills.

7. Problems associated with CERCLA (Su-

perfund) implementation are substantial.States must provide substantial matchingfunds (10 percent for privately owned sitesand 50 percent or more for State or muni-cipally owned sites) to obtain Federalassistance for remedial actions at uncon-trolled sites, as well as assuring all futureoperating and maintenance costs. Theymust also perform a number of activities,such as assessments of potential Super-fund sites and enforcement activities, forwhich no continued CERCLA funding isavailable. Hence, many States have found

it necessary to use funds from FederalRCRA subtitle C grants for Sup erfund ac-tivities at a time when activities underRCRA are mounting,

Policy

The current Federal hazardous waste pro-gram presents a dilemma. On the one hand,there is a sense of urgency and impatience,derived from 6 years of difficulties in dealing

with an extremely broad and complex area of threats to public health and the environment.Suggesting changes in Federal policies, there-fore, creates concerns over the possibility of still more delays and un certainties. Those whosupport the current Federal program (bothRCRA and CERCLA) believe there is a need toallow more time before conclusions concern-ing effectiveness are drawn and possibly dis-ruptive changes are made.

On the other hand, there is also a widespreadbelief that current p olicies and p rogram s could

be technically, economically, and socially moreeffective. Waiting for the determ ination of th ecurrent program’s effectiveness, it is argued,may lead to the development of outright crises,such as widespread ground water contamina-

One important area of development at theState level are policies and programs to sup-plement regulation of facilities such as greateruse of insurance requirements, civil liability,taxes and tax incentives, and negotiated agree-ments for dealing with p roblems p osed by haz-

ardous waste. Such means have some poten-tial to improve the overall effectiveness of Stateand Federal waste programs, In many cases,the major motivation for the use of fee and taxsystems is to increase revenues for State haz-ardous waste programs (or in some instancesfor general purposes), and secondarily to pro-vide incentives for waste reduction and treat-ment alternatives to land disposal. States’ useof these approaches are not generally in con-flict with EPA regulations or RCRA. EPA’sState authorization program has generally notfocused on State nonregulatory initiatives that

could supp lement the Federal program, or onefforts to develop acceptable alternative regu-latory approaches such as State degree-of-hazard systems,

Options

tion. There is consensus that we are now act-ing m ore effectively than in the p ast to p rotectthe pu blic from imp roper man agement of haz-ardous waste. But there is also considerableevidence (concerning, e.g., the technical limita-tions and uncertainties of land disposal tech-niques) that we may be acting in ways which:

1. are too temporary in nature;2. may lead to greater risks to the public in

the future; and3. may increase ultimate costs to industry,

government, and the public.

Furthermore, this dilemma must be consid-ered in the context of reduced allocations forgovernment programs. Such conditions may

prompt industry, State and Federal Govern-ments, and the general public to avoid addi-tional near-term costs associated w ith a cleanerenvironment in order to cope with immediateeconomic difficulties, Thus, options that defer




costs, that do not jeopardize current industrialactivities, that shift risks to the future m ay ap -pear more attractive than in the past. Suchtradeoffs pose formidable choices for policy-makers, made more difficult by current uncer-tainties concerning the degrees of effectiveness

of laws and programs not yet fully imple-mented.

Five policy options are evaluated in terms of overall goals:

Option I: Continuation of the CurrentProgram.Option II: A More Comprehensive andNationally Consistent RCRA Program.Option 111: Use of Economic Incentivesfor Alternatives to Disposal or Dispersalof Hazardous Waste.Option IV: Development and Potential

Use of a Hazard Classification Frame-work.Option V: Planning for Greater Integra-tion of Environmental Protection Pro-grams.

The first, “status quo” policy option is notcompatible with op tion II; however, the optionsare not mutually exclusive for the most part.The four “new direction” options, taken to-gether, can be viewed as a series of com-plementary changes to improve and reorientthe current program.

Four scenarios are also pr esented to indicate

how several options may be combined . For ex-amp le, one scenario (a combination of optionsI and III) responds both to the desire to pre-vent delays and uncertainties resulting fromchanges in the current regulatory p rogram andto the need to promote greater use of alter-natives to land disposal.

The General Accounting Office, among oth-ers, has focused on several administrativeaspects, including the critical area of enforce-ment, in a number of reports to Congress. Mostrecently, a House study has documented crit-ical concerns in the enforcement of both RCRAand CERCLA statutes and regulations.9 There

‘U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy andCommerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,report on enforcement of hazardous and toxic substances regula-tions during fiscal year 1982, October 1982.

are indications of an increased administrativereliance on voluntary compliance and settle-ments with responsible parties, which by them-selves may be effective, but which appear tobe linked to substantial reductions in fundingfor enforcement activities. OTA’S study of tech-

nical issues and problems, such as the effective-ness of pollution control regulations or the ex-emption of wa stes from RCRA regu lation, can-not substitute for congressional examinationof the administration of the Federal program.The policy actions discussed below, regard-less of their merits, are not likely to producefavorable results unless enforcement of reg-ulations is effective.

Common Goals for Policy Options

It is helpful to define sp ecific goals for policy

options for purposes of comparison and evalua-tion, Eight such goals for any practical congres-sional option are p resented below. These goalshave been used to evaluate each of the policyoptions.

GOAL 1

Improved protection of public health and the environ-ment, without undue delays and uncertainties by:

q reducing the magnitude and hazardous natureof potential releases of waste constituents fromall types of waste generation and managementfacilities,

q

improving monitoring programs to quicklydetect such releases, and

q improving corrective actions to mitigatereleases.

GOAL 2

Expand the kinds of hazardous waste federally reg-ulated, recognizing that different levels of regulationunder RCRA may be appropriate and desirable.

GOAL 3Encourage development and use of t echnological al-

ternati ves to land disposal (land disposal i ncludes landand ocean dispersal), such as waste reduction andtreatment, t o reduce risks resulti ng from releases ofhazardous waste constituents into the environment.



26 q Tehnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

GOAL 4

Improve and expand data and information on hazard-ous wastes, facilities, and health and environmentaloff ects whic h are necessary for more reliable ri skassessments and for the implementation of RCRA andCERCLA by both EPA and the States.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand participation in RCRA andCERCLA by the States through improved definition, im-plementation, and support of both Federal and Staterasponsibilities.

GOAL 6

Moderate the inevitable i ncreases in the costs of Fed-aral and State program administration and regulatorycomplianca by industry; and minimize costs associatedwith site remediation and compensation for furtherdamages to public health and the environment whichmay result from current practices that could be

Improved.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the f uture, whet her sev-eral years or to future generations, and reduce costsof waste management w hich are externali zed andshift ed to society in general.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over the Sitting of hazardouswaste management facilities of all types through, forq xampb, improved implementation and enforcementof, government programs.

The Five Policy Options

OPTION i

Conti nuati on of Current Program.

This option assumes that the mandates of both RCRA and CERCLA may be met by thecurrent Federal hazardous waste program. Itshould be recognized that the p resent p rogramis not static. EPA has indicated several plansfor changes and improvements in the near

term.Unlike the other policy options, no unusual

implementation problems and costs are asso-ciated w ith this “status qu o” option. Criticismsof the option are generally based on percep-

tions of current p roblems or point to un accept-able risks and costs involved in w aiting for theprogram to “prove itself.”

OPTION II

A More Comprehensive and Nati onall y Consist ent RCRA

Program.

The purpose of this option is to expand thescope and increase the effectiveness of the cur-rent RCRA program. The changes discussedbelow would be carried out by amendment toRCRA, possibly including a schedule for EPAim p lem en ta tio n w i t h in a p p r o x im a t el y 6months to 1 year of enactment. For conve-nience, all changes in RCRA are presented asone congressional option, although each couldbe acted on independently, and any combina-tion is possible.

Wastes Regulated .—This change concerns theuniverse of regulated hazardous w aste and theextent of such regulation. The findings of thisassessment support consideration of the fol-lowing measures to regulate, in appropriateways, more high-priority waste which pose sig-nificant threats.

1. Closing th e gap created by the blanket ex-emption of hazardous waste generated in rel-atively small quantities. The objective is toavoid having hazardous wastes managed asnonhazardous, solid wastes in sanitary land-

fills. In the near term, if a quantity cutoff isused, the prud ent approach would be to use arelatively low cutoff, such as 100 kilogram s permon th (kg/ me) instead of the curr ent 1,000kg/ mo value. In the longer term, however, somemeasure of the level of hazard of the wastecould be used instead. The d egree-of-hazard ap-proach does not imply adoption of any par-ticular, or complex, methodology for assessinglevel of hazard. Regulation would be based onknown characteristics of the waste that in-dicate potential harm to hu man h ealth and theenvironm ent on release of the material into theenvironment and with significant exposure.However, if it could be demonstrated that rel-atively small quantities of hazardous waste donot present significant threats (either on ageneric or waste-specific weight cutoff basis),




then there could be minimal regulatory control,e.g., notification and reporting requirements,or m odification of the RCRA regu lations wh ichgovern waste generators.

2. Ending the total exemption for hazard-ous waste burned as fuels, or as fuel sup-plements, which may, in some instances, bedispersing unacceptable amounts of hazard-ous substances into the environment. Instead,there would be notification requirements forrecords of what wastes are being burned andwhere. Also, there would be standards for ac-ceptable levels of releases into the environ-ment, and perhaps some monitoring require-ments.

3. Ending the total exemption from RCRAcoverage of liquid hazardous waste sent topublically owned waste water treatment fa-

cilities. There would be instead notification re-quirements and s tandards for acceptableamounts of releases and residuals in effluentwaters and sludges, supplementing gaps in pre-treatment coverage under the Clean Water Act.These requirements and standards would bedefined for specific hazardous constituents ina manner consistent with types and concen-trations of constituents.

4. Establishing a category of “special” haz-ardous waste consisting of high-volume rel-atively low-hazard waste to be minimally reg-

ulated under RCRA. There may only be noti-fication requirements for generators of suchwaste.

5. Developing minimal regulations for therecycling of hazardous waste (or hazardousmaterials that could become wastes), appli-cable to all operations, not just “third party”recyclers as is currently proposed. Due con-sideration would be given to avoiding the crea-tion of disincentives for recycling, e.g., by onlyrequiring n otification of what wastes are beingrecycled.

6. Developing lists of hazardous waste to beprohibited from management in landfills,surface impoundments, and deep wells. Theselists should be correlated with technical criteriaregarding particularly high risks from possiblereleases into the environment.

7. Establishing regulatory criteria for haz-ardous waste which, although substantialscientific information indicates their hazard-ous character, have not yet been so defined.They have not been listed an d, when su bjectedto current EPA tests and procedures, they do

not exhibit any of the currently identified h az-ardous waste characteristics. For example, anu mber of indu strial wastes containing signifi-cant levels of dioxins, chlorinated organics, orpesticides are not now regulated as hazardou swaste and cannot be shown to be toxic byEPA’s test for toxicity (see ch. 4).

8. Making delisting of hazardous wastemore expeditious without, however, compro-mising protection of the public. This could bedone by using clearer, specific criteria for de-listing and by limiting times for evaluation by

EPA. To some extent, this action could balancethe effects of the preceding actions, which leadto more wastes being regulated. Delisting pro-vides a means whereby site-specific factors orpreviously unavailable information might miti-gate prior estimates of potential hazard. How-ever, one problem that has become apparentin delisting processes should be controlled.Although constituents causing a waste to beoriginally defined as hazardous may have beenremoved, the waste may still contain other haz-ardous constituents in significant concentra-tions. Such w aste should n ot be delisted, pend -

ing further testing. The sole or inappropriateuse of the EPA toxicity test should be exam-ined, Adopting a procedure for verification of submitted data should also be examined.

Limited Class Permits.-The engineering designand performance characteristics of some haz-ardous waste management facilities may belargely independent of location. Class permitsmay be appropriate for such facilities. How-ever, such facilities should have little probabili-ty of release of hazardous constituents, andpossible releases should be easily observable

through minimal, and required, inspection ormonitor ing. There is some concern overwhether p ermitting by rule would lead to su f-ficient protection of the public, such that theloss of public participation in the permittingprocess is justified. Furthermore, while use of




class permits for tanks and containers may bereasonable, these may have to be limited toaboveground facilities because of the difficul-ty of detecting leaks in un dergroun d facilities.Limited class permits m ay have to be based ondetailed technical criteria, in order to avoidpermitting of older facilities having unaccept-able design and perform ance features. (For ex-amp le, constru ction m aterials in older facilitiesmay lack adequate corrosion resistance). If Congress is to sanction class permitting with-out sacrificing protection of the public, thenthe limited natu re of the policy should be care-fully defined throu gh legislation. Class perm it-ting need not involve a cutoff of all pu blic par-ticipation. Expedited and minimal permit re-view can be combined with appropriate noti-fication and an opportunity for the public tobe heard as part of the permitting process.

Specific Technical Criteria in Regulations .–Therear e a number of critical components to theRCRA and CERCLA regulations that includelittle if any specific technical criteria to guideperm itting. If Congress is to ensure p rotectionof the public in a consistent way nationwide,then it is necessary to direct EPA to establishspecific technical criteria through rulemaking(in contrast to reliance on guidance docu-ments). This would correct the current em-phasis on allowing Federal or State permitwriters to make critical decisions without

either such guidance, or the resources (finan-cial, technical, and hu man ) necessary for mak -ing decisions and formulating criteria about ex-tremely complex technical matters. Two areasof particular concern are th e RCRA regu lationsdealing with monitoring for land disposal fa-cilities and the CERCLA regulations dealingwith th e determ ination of the extent of cleanu pat a r emed ial site. This is not to imp ly that EPAis unaw are of the problem. Several relevant ac-tivities should be noted: draft guidance docu-ments have been prepared by EPA and maylead to specific criteria being used; EPA was

under judicial order to promulgate final regula-tions; and regulations can and may be revisedin the future to add more detailed standards.

OPTION Ill

Use of Economic Incentives for Alternatives to Disposaland Dispersal of Hazardous Waste.

The objective of this op tion is to shift the bal-ance from disposal and dispersal of hazardouswaste into the land or oceans to the reductionof waste at the source, recycling, and treat-ment. Direct economic incentives would beused to accomplish this objective.

This option is designed to provide direct in-centives. There are, within the current pro-gram, opportunities to promote the use of alter-natives to disposal and dispersal through reg-ulatory incentives, including: streamlining of permitting procedu res for alternative and per-haps innovative facilities; requirements to usecertain alternatives for sp ecific w astes; and in-creasing the required level of control for dis-

posal and dispersal approaches. Moreover, thecurrent system is significantly increasing thecosts of land disposal, comp ared to a few yearsago. While these factors may have beneficialeffects, they are often rendered less effectivethan they could be by uncertainties, ambigui-ties, and contradictions in the regulatorysystem as perceived by the regulated communi-ty or because they limit choices in too generala fashion. The use of direct economic incen-tives can be viewed as a complement to regu-latory incentives and to the use of the legalsystem. While legal actions may motivate the

use of alternatives to land disposal, the per-ceived effects are often un certain and may n otoccur until long after the adverse effects of landdisposal practices occur.

This policy option should be viewed in thecontext of current legislation concerning haz-ardous waste management. CERCLA was en-acted because of the recognition that u naccept-able risks have been inherited from certain pastwaste man agement efforts that were too short-sighted. The connection between CERCLAand RCRA has received insufficient atten-

tion. Too often they are viewed as separateprograms, rather than as two components of the Federal hazardous waste program. The



Ch. l—Summaary q 29

need for future expenditures of public fundsto clean up hazardous waste sites should beminimized,

Congressional action to implement this op-tion could occur through an amendment to

RCRA or CERCLA or as n ew legislation. Thereare no apparent technical or institutionalobstacles to adoption, but a major issue wouldbe what types of incentives to provide. Beforediscussing several types of economic incen-tives, the concept of a hierarchy of alternativemanagement strategies is examined to providea context for considering this option.

A Hierarchy of Alternati ve Management Strat egies

A major purpose of chapter 5 is to demon-strate the applicability of a relatively largenumber of alternative technological ap-proaches to hazardous waste management.Such technologies provide means for the re-duction of waste generation, the destruction of waste, and the disposal or dispersal of wastein the environment. Different alternatives areappropriate for different wastes and loca-tions. In chap ter 4, it is noted that, nationw ide,land disposal continues to be used for mosthazardous waste (although it varies substantial-ly among States), and in chapter 5 the uncer-tainties concerning the use of ocean disposalare discussed,

The following hierarchy provides a usefulframework for un derstanding the p otential useof alternatives to disposal and dispersal of haz-ardous waste, consistent with good engineer-ing

1.

2.

3.

practice and sound economics:

waste reduction at the source through, forexample, process modifications;waste separation, segregation, and con-centration through available engineeringapp roaches in ord er to facilitate identifica-tion of the waste and the application of theremaining steps;

material recovery, either onsite or offsite,to make use of valuable materials, includ -ing the use of waste exchanges so that a(potential) waste for one generator can bemade available as a resource for anotheroperation;

4,

5.

6.

energy recovery from (potential) waste orits components, perhaps as a fuel supple-ment;waste treatment to redu ce the hazard leveland possibly the amount of waste requir-ing disposal; and

ultimate disposal or dispersal (preferablyof res idues f rom previous s teps , of materials pretreated to reduce mobilityafter land disposal, and of untreatablewastes) in a manner that holds release of hazardous constituents into the environ-ment to acceptable levels.

Such a systematic ordering of waste m anage-ment options presents a number of advantages.For example, permanent solutions to wasteproblems are more likely to occur at some stageprior to disposal and dispersal. Consequently,

fewer risks and costs are shifted to the future.An initial emphasis on waste reduction couldsignificantly reduce costs of waste manage-ment and, in some instances, avoid them alto-gether, Using materials as resources, ratherthan discarding them, at once prevents themfrom becoming wastes and provides direct eco-nomic benefits. If less hazardous wastes areproduced and regulated by promoting the useof alternatives 1 through 5 of the hierarchy, andif there are reduced administrative activities(such as inspection) for treatment an d d isposalfacilities, then the costs of administering a

regulatory program and of remediating uncon-trolled sites could be reduced.

Specific factors concerning waste, plants,and companies should play their normal rolein economic evaluations of alternatives. More-over, for some waste only management alter-natives 5 or 6 will be technically feasible or costeffective. The above listing does not imply thatalternatives 2 through 5 do not involve any po-tential release of waste or their constituentsinto the environm ent, Techn iques for these op-tions require some regulatory coverage to mon-

itor and hold such releases to acceptable levels.For example, energy recovery through theburning of waste as fuels poses problems of releases of hazardous constituents into the en-vironment. Such regulation can provide infor-mation useful in enforcement efforts and for




understanding how generic types of waste canbe managed other than by d isposal and d isper-sal approaches.

The idea of the hierarchy presented abovedid not originate with OTA. It has been recog-

nized for some time by those concerned withwaste management in industry and govern-ment. In 1976, before the passage of RCRA,EPA offered a position statement on effectivehazardous waste management that includedthe above hierarchy as a ranking of preferredalternatives. As r e c e n t ly a s 1982 , EP Areiterated its support of the 1976 position.lo

Nonetheless, there has been little program-matic support of the concept of a waste man-agement hierarchy. Although RCRA gave someattention to reuse, recovery, and recycling,there have been few programs providing incen-

tives to waste generators, nor have there beentransfers of technology and information en-couraging this strategy. As for EPA’s R&D ac-tivities, in fiscal year 1983 the total effortrelated to alternatives to land disposal amountsto about 10 percent of all hazardous wasteR&D, or $4.4 million. From another perspec-tive, 10 years of such funding for this purposewou ld on ly be equivalent to the costs of clean-ing up several major uncontrolled land disposalsites. (See ch. 7 for a discussion of all currentEPA expenditures.)

Types of Incentives

Considering the generally accepted objectiveof minimizing government expenditures, OTAbelieves that it is imp ractical to suggest majorincentive programs based on direct, budgetedexpend itures. Also, the use of economic incen-tives raises questions concerning the approp ri-ate placement of burdens on industry. For suchreasons, this option consists of three com-ponents: a fee system on generated wastes toinfluence management choices, procedu res ad-dressing capital needs of alternatives to dis-

IOFedera] Register, VO1. 41, No. 161, pp. 35050, 35051, 1976;U.S. House of Representatives, EPA Journal, July-August, p. 19,1982; and testimony of Rita M. Lavelle, U.S. House of Represent-atives, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommitteeon Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment,Dec. 16, 1982.

posal and dispersal, and consideration of R&Dproblems that might prevent the developmentof alternatives.

A Fee System.-There is a trend toward Stateuse of fee systems, some of which are basedon wastes, both to raise revenues and to in-fluence choices among hazardous waste man-agement alternatives, although results of theserelatively new progr ams are m ixed. California,Kentucky, Missouri, and New York imposefees on waste generators. The CERCLA pro-gram, at the Federal level by comparison isbased on the collection of a fee or tax on theproduction of petroleum feedstocks and speci-fied chemicals, raising 87.5 percent of the $1.6billion fund. Many critics of this approach be-lieve that the fund should have been financedthrough a “tail-end” fee or tax on actual waste

generated, rather than on “front-end” feed-stock materials that only ind irectly, and to d if-ferent degrees, lead to hazardous waste genera-tion. A strong d isincentive is thu s inad vertentlyestablished which penalizes those generatorschoosing to minimize waste generation. How-ever, there was insufficient information onwaste generators originally available to facili-tate such an approach. When collection underCERCLA expires in 1985, it is likely that sub-stantial sums will continue to be required toclean u p u ncontrolled sites. EPA’s original esti-mate of several years ago was that $44 billion

might be required. There have also been indica-tions from the adm inistration that it is curr ent-ly disinclined to seek reauthorization of the taxcollection program. Continuation of the cur-rent CERCLA fee system offers no direct in-centive to alternatives to land disposal, al-though continued experience with CERCLAmay prove to be an effective indirect influ-ence on use of such alternatives.

An approach that would satisfy several objectives could be based on the use of theCERCLA funding mechanism for RCRA pur-

poses, using the tail-end fee system. This wouldinvolve shifting the collection of CERCLAmoneys (including the post-closure liabilitytrust fund to start in 1983) to hazardous wastegenerators. For such an approach to be effec-tive, fees wou ld ha ve to be redu ced, on a u nit-



Ch. I—Summary Ž 31

weight basis, when: 1) alternatives to disposaland dispersal were used by the generator,either onsite or offsite, and 2) the hazard levelof the waste or residue finally disposed of wasrelatively low.

The critical feature of such a system is thatsuch a fee should be substant ially greater (per-haps double) for disposal and dispersal optionsand substantially lower for low-hazard ortreated w aste (perhaps by half). A fee discrim-ination would provide the desired economicincentives for alternatives to disposal anddispersal. Moreover, the discriminatory ratiosand / or the amou nts of the fees on land-disposedwaste might be increased over time, as wastevolum es decline and after amp le time has beengiven for adopting alternatives. A zero tax forthose w astes (or portions of them ) recycled for

materials or energy that would otherwise be-come hazardous wastes would appear equita-ble and d esirable. However, there is a need forcarefully determined definitions for recycling(as well as for what is a hazardous waste),otherwise a waste-fee approach could lead toinappropriate removal of waste from the sys-tem,

Can fees on generated hazardou s waste raisesufficient revenues? If one accepts the current-ly quoted figure of 41 million tonnes per yearof RCRA-defined hazard ous w aste generation,

an average fee of $10 per tonne would raiseabout the same annual revenues as CERCLAnow does. If total waste generation is muchhigher, as it may be (see ch. 4), or if morewastes are brought un der the RCRA program,then fees might be reduced somewhat.

For disposal and dispersal options, with highfees of perhaps $10 to $20 per tonne, costswould increase by less than 10 to 40 percentfor a disposal cost range of $50 to $200 pertonne, and perhaps by less if the national wastestream is found to be much greater than thecurrent estimate. However, there are low-hazard high-volume wastes for which disposalor treatment may only cost $10 to $20 pertonne, and for which fees shou ld be lower than

the average. Table 5 illustrates a waste-feesystem which has been proposed in Minnesota.The structure of this system is strongly biasedagainst land disposal, particularly for liquidwastes. It also favors onsite over offsite man-agement, a bias often defended because of ad-

vantages associated with not transporting haz-ardous materials, rather than on any intrin-sically superior level of management at onsitefacilities.

Suggesting a national waste fee system islikely to raise a number of problems and con-cerns. A summary of the key issues is pre-sented in table 6.

The underlying philosophy of this approachwould be to reward those who minimize fu-ture risks and costs to society through the useof preferred alternatives which permanent-ly reduce the risks involved in hazardouswaste management. As existing uncontrolledsites are cleaned up, future uncontrolled sitesmade less likely, and hazardous waste genera-tion reduced, the fees for non-land-disposedwastes could eventually be decreased. Mor-ever, such an incentive system would encour-age efforts to reduce the amounts of wastegenerated. The uses of the fees collected couldbe expanded, as has been recommended, per-haps to deal with injuries and damages direct-ly associated with mismanagement of hazard-

Table S.—illustration of a Hazardous WasteGenerator Tax Structure

Tax on Tax onsol id waste I lquid waste

Was te management ca tegory ($/tonne) ($/tonne)

Land disposal. 42 85Off site:

Land disposal after treatment 21 42Treatment ... . . . . 11 21

Onsi te:Land disposal after treatment 11 21

T r e a t m e n t 5 11

Recycl ing/reuse;u s e d c r a n k c a s e 0 1 1 0 0

NOTE In addition to this tax to support a State Superfund, a hazardous waste

generator fee (a minimum fee plus a fee dependent on the quantity ofwaste generated) was also proposed to support State administrative costsfor hazardous waste programs A prows ion was Included to exempt smallgenerators

SOURCE” Minnesota Conference Report H F No 1176, Mar 19, 1982




Table 6.—A National Waste Fee System: Summary of Key Problems and Concerns

Problem or concern Comments

Use of the legal system and insurancerequirements could be used as nonregulatoryapproaches instead of the fee system.

There is insufficient capacity for treatmentalternatives to land disposal.

Industry and consumers may face heavy economicburdens.

Illegal dumping would be increased.

It would be more efficient to rely on State feesystems.

Eventually, there may be extremely high fees onremaining and, perhaps, unavoidably land-disposed waste.

International competitiveness of some industriesmay be reduced.

A national waste fee system distorts the

marketplace.

They are useful; but affect management choices slowly becauseof time delays and uncertainties.

Unused capacity now exists; a fee system would remove marketuncertainties and stimulate investments. Waste reduction efforts

do not face this problem.Programs to address capital and R&D needs are required. Actionsoon would provide time for planning. Small effects onconsumer prices would be equitable.

Both regulatory enforcement and policing efforts remainnecessary.

Not all States will or can adopt waste fee systems. Nor will theyhave similar programs. For consistency and equity nationwide, aFederal system is necessary, Otherwise pollution havens mayform.

Abrupt changes in management choice not likely. More waste maybe regulated with lower fees. CERCLA and administrative needswill eventually decline. Fees can be lower for high-volume, low-hazard wastes.

Capital and R&D assistance, and time for planning are necessary.Some industrialized nations already use more treatment options.

Such a system is a corrective action; presently costs and risks are

transferred to people (now and in the future) who do not receivecorresponding benefits.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment (see ch 3 for a complete discussion)

ou s wastes.11 Fees could be collected by States,and it might be advantageous to distribute aspecified percentage of the moneys collectedby a State to its program. This could promotethe rep lacement of varying State fee program swith a uniform national system, at least forfederally regulated waste. A uniform systemcould minimize potential effects on interstatecommerce (e.g., States with fees which are high

relative to other States are less able to attractindustr ia l act ivi t ies producing hazardouswaste).

Capital Need s.–A major obstacle to the adop -tion of measures to reduce waste generationor hazard levels is the need for capital invest-ment for new or modified equipment or facili-ties, either by waste generators or commercialwaste managers. A Federal loan programcould be instituted, which offered low interestrates, and perhaps long terms for repayment,for capital expend itures on existing or new fa-

cilities directly related to waste or hazard1l’’Injuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Analysis

and Improvement of Legal Remedies, ” a report to Congress incompliance with sec. 301(e) of the CERCLA, September 1982.(By an independent group of attorneys.)

reduction, Alternatively, the Federal programmight guarantee private sector loans, or makeavailable tax free bonds to finance loans. Tech-nical guidelines could be established and theadministration of loan evaluations and ap-provals could be shifted, for the most part, tothe State level. CERCLA funds not spent forcleanups, or more likely a designated portionof moneys collected under a new fee system,

might be used as a source of funds for loans,A fixed fraction of such fee- or tax-generatedfunds might be designated for these types of loans. One recent study that examined usinggovernm ent loan incentives for resource recov-ery equipment for hazardou s waste generatedin the electroplating industry concluded thatsuch a program could be quite effective.

Another means of addressing capital needsis the use of tax credits. A special, time-limitedinvestment tax credit to spur capital in-vestments could be offered for those uses

directly related to reduction of waste amountsor hazard levels, Although this is a traditionalapproach to achieving a desired goal of socie-ty, it has received criticism due to the loss of revenues to the government. However, the case




of hazardous waste presents a particularlygood example of how spending promoted bya tax benefit could, in the long-term, marked-ly reduce government expenditures. Moreover,a special tax credit of 10 percent (in additionto any broad investment tax credit) likely w ould

lead to reductions in government revenues of several hundred million dollars annually overperhaps a 5- to 10-year period. An interestingpossibility wou ld be to use some por tion of thefunds collected under a waste generator feesystem to comp ensate the U.S. Treasury for allor part of the lost tax revenues. This would beconsistent with a philosophic commitment torewarding those who redu ce the magnitude of the hazardou s w aste problem, wh ile requiringthose wh o continu e to place a burd en on socie-ty to pay the costs of that burden. The studymentioned above concerning th e electroplating

industry also concluded that a special invest-ment tax credit for resource recovery invest-ments could be effective.

Assistance for R&D Efforts.-Alternatives to dis-posal and d ispersal meet with anoth er obstaclein that often technologies for, say, process mod-ification or for treatment of particularly dif-ficult wastes require applied R&D efforts beforethey can be commercially feasible. IncreasedFederal support of private sector R&D, in-cluding pilot plant efforts, could therefore bevery useful—relatively small sums might pro-

duce very large benefits. In order to allay objections to using Federal funds, it might bepossible to structure R&D assistance so as torecover the Federal investment, perhapsthrough long-term low-interest loans to berepaid upon successful commercialization of the technology. Profit-sharing and exclusivelicensing arrangements with payments to thegovernm ent ar e also p ossible, Illinois comm itsa portion of the revenues obtained from feeson waste for R&D projects.

OPTION IV

Development and Potential Use of a Hazard Classifica-tion Framework.

This option provides for the development of a hazard classification framework for risk man-agement that, if feasible and beneficial, would

be introduced into the RCRA regulatory pro-gram. The framework would be based on de-tailed technical criteria establishing several dif-ferent ranges (or classes) of hazard levels.There would also be a corresponding classifica-tion system for facilities. The waste and facility

classification would provide means to:1.

2.

3.

set priorities, such as determining whatareas need to be addressed first in obtain-ing more accurate and reliable data;establish different levels of mon itoring re-quirements; andestablish appropriate levels of regulatorycontrol, including restrictions on certainmanagement technologies and typ es of fa-cilities, exemptions from full regulatorycoverage, and different levels of perform-ance standards for RCRA regu lations cov-

ering the operation of waste m anagementfacilities.

Although using classifications seem to sug-gest considerable complexity and drasticchanges in the regulatory structure; neither isrequired. What is envisioned is using an im-proving scientific base to structure the evolv-ing RCRA regulatory program. For example,some solid w astes add ressed u nder subtitle Dof RCRA would be brought under subtitle Ccontrol, but, for almost all these wastes, therewould be minimal regulatory requirements(such as reporting and notification require-ments). Similarly, some low-hazardous wastecurrently under subtitle C might receive lessregulation than they now receive, and p erhapsbe removed from the hazardous category alto-gether. Some high-hazardous waste wouldreceive more stringent regulation than theynow receive. For most hazardous waste, how-ever, the classification approach would havelittle effect.

Congressional action could be accomp lishedby am endment to RCRA, by initially d irectingEPA, or another agency, to develop a waste

and facility classification system and a plan forits implementation, Such an analytical effortcould take several years and wou ld require ad-ditional Federal appropriations of perhaps $5million to $10 million. Presumably, no newdata would be acquired for this initial study




phase (which for health and environment ef-fects data is an expensive undertaking), butrather existing data bases would be used. Thesecond level of congressional action wouldconsist of an evaluation of the study, and adecision: I) to either move ahead with im-

plementation; or 2) to pursue a second, moredetailed study, possibly involving the acquisi-tion of new d ata, followed by integration of thehazard classification framew ork into the RCRAprogram; or 3) to discontinue the option. Im-plementation, or a second study, could takeseveral years, and the costs are difficult toestimate.

Brief Summary of a Hazard Classification Framework

The key elements of this particular applica-tion of the hazard classification concept are

presented in figur e Z. The approach is compati-ble with the hierarchy of alternative manage-ment strategies presented earlier, particularlythe goal of reducing the amount and hazardlevel of wastes.

Several important elements, each requiringreliable information to be obtained by the Fed-eral program, form the basis of this scheme.

Some of the information may be currentlyavailable in varying degrees of completenessand accuracy. The collection of other neces-sary data may require substantial efforts. Thereare three elements of the system:

1. The critical characteristics of those con-stituents of the waste that largely deter-mine its hazard classification. Classify-ing wastes is a major undertaking that re-quires a carefully designed analyticalframework an d substantial amounts of in-formation on a broad variety of factors, in-cluding concentrations of hazardous con-stituents, toxicities, nobilities throughvarious environmental media, environ-mental persistence or bioaccumulation,and various safety characteristics. It is notsufficient m erely to use information on the

most hazardous constituent, or the onepresent in the largest amount, to fullyassess a particular waste. There current-ly is no standard procedu re to describe thehazard level for a p hysically and chemical-ly complex waste, although there are in-dications that it is technically feasible todevelop one (see ch. 6).

Figure 2.— Risk Management Framework Based on Waste and Facility Classification

s

Identification of appropriate regulatory control

I

Effects and t Regulatorypolicy changes

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment




2. Consideration of those factors used todetermine facility classes:q The chemical and physical character-

istics of the waste that limit treatmentand disposal options. This informationwould indicate whether the waste is

aqueous or nonaqueous, inorganic ororganic, and whether it is a liquid,sludge, or bulk waste with a high-solidcontent. It also would be necessary toknow if the waste contains toxic metals,particular types of known toxic organ-ics, corrosive acids, explosives, orhighly ignitable substances.

Information on the broad range of technology options that are commer-cially available and technically feasi-ble. Considerable information is neededon the designs of technologies, actualperformance characteristics, problemsrelated to operation and maintenance,and requirements for trained personnel.Problems related to patented and pro-prietary information may have to beaddressed.

q Performance standards for var ioustechnology options, used for setting thelevel of effectiveness (risk reduction)of the technology, or the level of ac-ceptable release of hazardous constit-uents from the facility. For waste treat-ment operations, performance stand-ards may be given in terms of changesto be effected in various critical char-acteristics of the waste, After incinera-tion, for example, the percent of one ormore waste constituents destroyed, per-haps in conjunction with acceptablelevels of emissions, can be used. (Thisis similar to what is u sed now.) It is im-portant that waste classification and itslinkage to facility class be technicallysound in order to avoid “technologyforcing” when, in fact, available tech-

nology can achieve desired levels of pro-tection. For disposal operations, per-formance standards may be given interms of acceptable levels of release overspecified periods of time, Standardswould vary with levels of hazard.

In general, different typ es of perform-ance standards will be required for dif-ferent disposal and treatment technol-ogies and may be required for differentlevels of hazard. Selection of perform-ance standards depend on the regula-

tory functions d eemed most imp ortant.What is attractive from the perspectiveof ease of enforcement or compliancemay not be as attractive to those con-cerned with risk management.

3. Matching of waste and facility classes.This is the key step—ensuring that levelsof risk are consistent across both wasteand facility classes. For a particular wasteclass, different technologies within thesame facility class should offer similarrisks. It must be emphasized that all sug-gested uses of hazard classification assume

that only a few classes would be requiredand are practical. Usually high, medium,low, and no h azard (essentially a decisionto consider the waste as an ordinary solidwaste) waste classes, and correspondingfacility classes, are envisioned.

An Illustration of the Classification Approach .—Two

types of questions are usually raised concern-ing the hazard classification approach. Whattypes of data are used to distinguish differentwaste hazard classes? What are the regulatoryimplications of establishing different waste

hazard classes? Table 7 provides examples of how the classification approach can be devel-oped and used, but it should be emphasizedthat the examples shown are strictly for il-lustrative purposes and do not constitute anyendorsement or recommendation by OTA.

OPTION V

Planning for Greater Int egration of Environmental Pro-tection Programs,

The purpose of this option is to integrate ad-

ministratively (and, if necessary, statutorily) anumber of existing environmental programsthat affect hazardous waste management andregulation, Policies and programs that lead toinefficient overlapping regulations, gaps inregulatory coverage, and inconsistent regula-



36 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 7.—illustrative Examples of a Potential Hazard Classification Frameworka

Examples of varying levels of regulatory control,Examples of scientific criteria for waste definition and restrictions on waste management practices

High hazard 1) Acute toxicity:

Oral rat LD50 < 5 mg/kg Limited to Class I facilities; cannot be placed in surface impound-Aquatic LC50 < 1 mg/kg ments, landfills, injection wells, land farms

2) Chronic toxicity: No monitoring exemptionsEquivalent concentration of persistent Incineration DRE > 99.99; as fuel, can only be burned in industrialcompounds > 1.O% boilers

Toxic metals 100 to 10,000 x D WS Cannot be stored more than 30 days without permitSuspected bioaccumulative carcinogens No exemptions for small generators

Recycling facilities to be permitted

Medium hazard 1) Acute toxicity: Limited to Class I and II facilities; cannot be disposed above or

Oral rate LD50 5 to 500 mg/kg within 5 miles of a ground water aquiferAquatic LC 50 1 to 100 mg/kg Incineration DRE > 99.9; cannot be burned in residential boilers

2) Chronic toxicity: Can be stored up to 90 days without permitEquivalent concentration of persistent Small generators exempted up to 10 kg/month

compounds 0.01-1.O% Recycling facilities to be permittedToxic metals 100 x DWSSuspected nonbioaccumulated carcinogens

3) Corrosive, reactive, ignitable

Low hazard 1) Acute toxicity: Limited to Class Ill facilities, and to Class I and II facilities for

Oral rat LD50 >500 mg/kg which no reactions with wastes are likelyAquatic LC 50 > 100 mg/kg Incineration DRE > 99.0; can be burned in industrial and

2) Chronic toxicity: residential boilersEquivalent concentration of persistent Can be stored up to 180 days without permit

compounds < 0.01% Small generators exempted up to 100 kg/monthToxic metals 100 x DWS Only reporting requirement for recycled waste and recycling

3) Corrosive, reactive, ignitable facilitiesDWS—drlnklng water standards~h e examtdes shown are strictlv for illustrative cmrDoses onlv. and do not constitute anv endorsement or recommendationbv OTAbsource: A~aPted from system l; Washington; see discussion-in ch. 6c!jource: Off Ice of Technology Assessment.

tions wou ld be ad dressed. Insufficient integra-tion among different EPA programs and other

executive agencies may be leading to dupli-cation of effort or unawareness of the extentof data and technical resources that are avail-able.

A number of hazardous waste activities arenow regulated under different statutes, andwithin EPA several different groups administeractivities related to hazar dou s waste. There arealso programs in several other executive agen-cies related to hazardous waste; these do notappear to be highly integrated. The languagein RCRA that mandates integration with otheracts has proven to be too inexact, and EPA’sefforts in this area do not ap pear to h ave a highpriority. Ocean d isposal or dispersal of hazard-ous waste falls under the Marine Protection,Research and Sanctuaries Act. Some injectionwells that may be used for waste disposal fall

under the Safe Drinking W’ater Act and othersunder RCRA. Hazardo-us waste streams des-

tined for municipal water treatment plants fallunder the Clean Water Act. A number of as-pects of regulating releases into the air or waterfrom hazardous waste management facilitiesfall un der th e Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.Some wastes are and may be regulated underthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Arecent study for EPA concluded:

A nu mber of Federal statutes govern aspectsof the hazardous waste prc]blem. The statutesin combination do not cover many of the majorsources and types of hazardous waste releases,however.lz

Congressional action for this option wouldconsist, first, of mandating a comprehensive

la%valuation of Market and Legal Mechanisms for PromotingControl of Hazardous Wastes,” draft, Industrial Economics, Inc.,September 1982.



Cb. l—Summary q 3 7

study of integration by EPA or some otheragency, including formulation of an integra-tion plan, The second phase would consist of congressional examination of the study andplan. If deemed necessary, legislative actionwould then implement the plan.

The existence of overlapping jurisdiction toregulate hazardous waste activities is notnecessarily counterproductive, confusing, orundesirable. The goal should be twofold:

1.

2.

ensuring that hazardou s wastes that mightpose significant risks to hu man health andthe environment do not escape regulation,an dpromoting the integration of hazardouswaste control and other pollution controlwith legislation so that they can supporteach other, consistent with the statutoryrequirements and goals of each program.

There is now no mechanism for ensuring:1) that facilities disposing of similar wastes butregulated under different acts will be con-sistently regulated; or 2) that a facility per-mitted under RCRA is not also disposing,without a permit, other hazardous w astes reg-ulated under other acts.

Moreover, although both RCRA and CERCLAare managed within the same division of EPA,there ap pears to be little coordination of efforts

between the two programs. Chapter 7 presents

three examples that illustrate additional prob-lems associated with inadequate integration inthe current Federal program.

Two Steps Toward Integration of

Environmental Programs

There are two phases to this option, both of which should anticipate the need for effectivepublic participation in order to address con-cerns over changes that might lead to delays.First, EPA (or perhaps some independent body)could develop a plan for the improved integra-tion of programs related to hazardous waste.The plan would focus on statutory changes re-quired to implement a comprehensive integra-tion, with emphasis on the permitting of facil-ities. ” The study also should examine obstaclesto integration which occur at the State level,

the costs of integration incurred at Federal andState levels, probable improvemen ts in p rotec-tion of human health and the environment, andimpacts on waste generators.

The second phase would include congres-sional examination of the study and plan, andan examination of how administrative and stat-utory changes could be achieved. Congresscould also examine changes in EPA’s organ iza-tion that would be necessary to integrate, andif integration would require legislation.

*These statutory changes need not—and probably would not—

involve integrating the \’arious en~rirfjnmenta] laws themselves.

Summary

This section presents the

Comparison of the Five Policy Options

rela tive benefit s of Options II through IV appear to require ap -all five options-in a convenient form and is in-tended to facilitate the comparison of the fiveoptions apart from the consideration of costsand time involved. Options II through V canbe viewed as a series of complementary ac-tions, taken progressively over time, or asseparate individual actions offering particularbenefits relative to one or more of the eightgoals. Moreover, while option I (status quo] andoption II (mod ifications in RCRA) are mutu allyexclusive, options III, IV, and V are compati-ble with option 1,

proximately the sa-me level of initial ~ongre_s-sional appropriations, about $5 million to $10million each. There are, how ever, no means of reliably estimating longer term costs, or costsavings for governm ent, ind ustry, or the gener-al pu blic. The five options have been p resentedin order of increasing time requ ired for prelim-inary studies and implementation. If imm ed ia -

cy of implementation is an important consid-eration for some policy makers, then clearly op-tions I, II, and III are the most attractive.




The policy options have been compared intwo w ays. In neither comparison, however, hasany attempt been made to demonstrate that anyone option is “best,” or even that one optionis better than another. In addition to the eightgoals, considerations of time and cost, along

with specific objections to particular options,can make any option either m ore or less attrac-tive.

Table 8 summarizes in brief narrative formthe key advantages and disadvantages of eachoption. Table 9 presents an evaluation of howeach option, relative to the others, satisfies eachof the eight goals. This evaluation is necessarilysomewhat subjective and judgmental.

In presenting the five policy options, OTAis aware of the need to justify additional Fed-eral expenditures and possible increases in

short-term costs to the private sector. Currentpublic and private sector costs for hazardouswaste management are substantial, approxi-mately $4 billion to $5 billion annually. Regard-less of any policy action, these costs will in-

crease markedly in the future as both the RCRAand CERCLA program s become m ore fully im-plemented and possibly as the expected eco-nomic recovery leads to an upturn in hazard-ous waste generation.

The total appropriated funds for options IIthrough V might be $50 million. This repre-sents about 25 percent of annual total Federaland State expenditures for hazardous waste ac-tivities. It also represents about 1 percent of the current total public and private sector an-nual costs of administering and complyingwith RCRA and CERCLA.

There are considerable uncertainties con-cerning longer term costs to pu blic and privatesectors for implementing op tions II throu gh V.Nonetheless, there is reason to believe thatboth the short- and long-term costs of carry-

ing out all four policy options may be morethan offset by the potential benefits, onlysome of which can be viewed in strictly eco-nomic terms. The chief areas of potential costsavings are: reductions in the number of haz-

Table 8.—Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options

Key advantages Key disadvantages

1. Continue current program q Current program stabilized and resources already . Protection of public health and environment may be

invested utilized weaker than possible and desirableq Participation by States improved q Risks and costs may be unnecessarily transferred toq Short-term private and publ ic sector costs moderated the future

q

Land disposal continues to be used extensivelyII. A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program q Protection of health and environment improved and q Short-term private and public sector costs increased

made more consistent nationally q Progress of present program could be slowed unlessq More hazardous waste controlled additional resources are providedq Data base improved q Technical resources and data may be insufficient

Ill. Economic incentives for alternatives to land disposal q More waste reduction and treatment q Near-term costs to industry increasedŽ Costs for improved protection more equitably q Uncertain effects on firms, communities, and

distributed international competitivenessq Public concerns over siting alleviated Ž Illegal dumping may increase

IV. Development and potential use of a hazard classification framework q More waste regulated at levels consistent with q Major effort needed to improve data base

hazards posed q Unnecessary complexity may be introducedq Fewer risks and less costs transferred to the future q Long-term costs for implemenentation uncertainq Improved technical support for State programs

V. Planning for greater integration of programs q Gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies in regulatory q Considerable administrative and institutional

coverage reduced difficultiesq Reduced transfer of risks and costs to the future q Possible interruptions i n ongoing programsq Public confidence in Federal program improved q Congressional action on necessary legislative changes

may be complexSorce: Office of Technology Assessment.




Table 9.—Comparative Ranking of Policy Options for Each Policy Goal

Most LeastGoals effective effective

1. Improve protection of human health and the environmentwithout undue delays and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Ill I Iv v

2. Expand universe of federally regulated hazardous waste . . . . . . . . II Iv v I Ill

3 . Encourage alternatives to land disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill Iv II I v4. Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLAimplementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Iv I v Ill

5. Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by States . . . . . Ill II I Iv v6 . Moderate increases in costs to governments for

administration and industry for compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Iv v II Ill7. Reduce risks and costs transferred to the future; reduce

costs of management shifted to society in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill II Iv v I

8. Reduce public concerns over siting facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill II v Iv IPolicy options

1 Contlnuatlon of current programII A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA programIll Economic Incentives for alternatives to land disposalIV Development and potent!al use of a hazard class! flcation frameworkV Planning for greater integration of environmental protection programsaLeast effective does not Imply total lack of effectiveness, all rankings are strictly for ordering OPtiOnS and do not imP/Y anYabsolute level of effectiveness


ardous waste sites requiring very expensive costs associated with hazardous waste (current-cleanup and reductions in d amages to people ly about $4 billion to $5 billion and rising), theand to the environment which entail substan- savings in one year would exceed the initialtial costs for treatment, remed iation, and com- costs of implementing the options. It is possi-pensation. Relatively small p ercentage savings ble that in the long-term, imp lementation of theimply substantial absolute dollar savings. For options could lead to considerably greater eco-example, if all four options led to a net savings nomic benefits,of only 1 percent in the future annual national

Four Scenarios

As discussed in the previous section, it is pos-sible to implemen t various combinations of thefive p olicy options. The pu rpose of th e follow-ing d iscussion is to illustrate four su ch combi-nations. The four scenarios have been devel-oped by making certain simplified assumptionsabout varying perspectives on the need andmethods for improving the current Federalwaste program.

SCENARIO I

Current RCRA regulations are adequate, but alterna-ti ves to land disposal need encouragement. Opti ons Iand Ill are adopted.

Many believe that the curr ent RCRA regula-tions are satisfactory and should be given an

opportunity to prove themselves effective.Changes in the regulatory program, it is ar-gued, are unnecessary and would be counter-productive to the extensive efforts made sincethe passage of RCRA. Nonetheless, it is alsogenerally recognized that from a long-term per-spective, unnecessary risks and costs may betransferred to the future by disposing of manyhazardous wastes in the land, There is equalconcern that congressional action in this crit-ical period of development should be expedi-

tious and well defined.Accordingly, this scenario consists of adopt-

ing option I (maintaining the current RCRAregulatory p rogram) and also adopting op tion111 (providing direct economic incentives foralternat ives to land d isposal). Op tion 111 is com-




patible with option I, since it involves nonreg-ulatory “market” methods of reducing futurereleases of hazardous constituents. Option IIIconsists of three critical components:

1.

2.

3

a system of fees or taxes on w aste genera-

tors (to replace the current funding mecha-nism for CERCLA) based on quantity of waste, level of hazard, and managementpractices, in order to promote manage-ment choices of alternatives to land dis-posal;methods for meeting the initial capitalneeds of those waste generators and com-mercial facilities that decide to reducewaste generation and to implement treat-ments reducing hazard or volume levels;an dsupport for R&D efforts that may be neces-

sary before waste and hazard reductioncan be accomplished commercially.

SCENARIO II

Specif ic changes are needed t o st rengthen RCRA,and an eff ort i s needed to integrate and streamline the

fentir e ederal hazardous waste program which hasevolved in a piecemeal fashion. Options II and V areadopted.

The choice of option 11 is based on the d esireto mod ify and impr ove the existing RCRA reg-ulatory program . The specific actions included

in option II would close a number of existinggaps in regulatory coverage of waste, restrictcertain wastes from land disposal facilities, andintroduce more t echnical criteria to set nation-wide standards, improve the delisting process,and introduce limited class permitting. How-ever, to address broader concerns over gaps,overlaps, and inconsistencies in regulatorycoverage, option V wou ld also be adopted . Op-tion V moves beyond the analysis of RCRA reg-ulations to examine problems related to insuffi-cient integration between RCRA and CERCLA,among the various environmental protection

statutes, and among the various executiveagencies having prog rams associated w ith haz-ardous w aste. These two op tions combine bothshort- and long-term approaches to obtaininga more effective, efficient hazardous wasteprogram.

SCENARIO Il l

The current RCRA program needs i mprovement anda nonregulatory approach is also needed to shift wastemanagement choices away from land disposal towardwaste reduction and treatment efforts. The most expedi-ti ous congressional acti ons are required. Options II and

Ill are adopted.

Option II would result in the improvementof RCRA regulations to better provide short-and long-term protection of human health an dthe environment. However, uncertainties con-cerning the effect of the regulations on shiftingmanagement choices away from land disposal,along with enforcement problems, would prob-ably remain. To complement the regulatory ap-proach of option II, option III is used to intro-duce direct economic incentives for alterna-tives to land disposal, The combination of these

options would reinforce the connection be-tween RCRA and CERCLA. Federal fees onhazardous waste, increased for land disposaland for waste with higher hazard levels, canbe used to fund CERCLA and State hazardouswaste programs. With a fee system, the life-cycle costs of waste management could be in-ternalized by increased costs to responsibleparties and to consumers of hazardous waste-intensive products.

SCENARIO IV

The current RCRA regulatory program should bemaintained, but some long-term efforts to improve theprogram should al so be pursued. Adopt opt ions 1, IV,and V.

Options IV and V are compatible with thecurrent program in the near term, since bothinitially involve studies before changing thecurrent program. The introduction of hazardclassification at som e future t ime does not im-ply any fundamental change in the RCRA regu-latory structure. Similarly, a plan for regulatoryintegration resulting from option V would notrequire a restructuring of RCRA regulations.Both op tions IV and V can be v iewed as evolu-tionary refinements of the current program,and this adoption would not necessarily jeop-ardize the stability of the present program,



CHAPTER 2

Introduction



Contents

Objective, Scope, andObjective and Scope. .

structure

. . . . . . . . .

Background q***. * * El b a * * * *.****.**

Major Issues and Uncertainties. . . . . .

0 . * * * . . * . . * * * * * * *, * . . .. ,*.. .*.

q * . * . . . * . . * . a * * * * * * . . . * . , * * * * * * * . . * *

Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Methodolagy and Structure of the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .q 4 . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * .

Page

43

44

464649



CHAPTER 2

Introduction

BackgroundUncontrolled or careless management of in-

dustrial waste, with consequent releases of haz-ardous constituents into the land, water, andair, is generally understood to present a sub-stantial threat to both public health and to theenvironment. Prior to passage of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) byCongress in 1976, few States had regulatoryprograms for h azardous waste. Moreover, Fed-eral programs concerned with air and waterquality caused some changes in industry whichincreased the generation of solid, hazardouswaste, Clean air and water regulations also pro-moted the u se of pollution abatem ent facilities

which themselves produced hazardous resi-dues, Experience with more conventionalforms of industrial and municipal solid wastesprovided few solutions for managing morecomplex and chemically stable hazardouswaste,

National awareness of solid and liquid haz-ardous waste problems increased dramaticallyin the m id to late 1970’s w ith w idespread con-cern over mismanaged waste, indiscriminatedumping of uncontainerized liquid waste, andinfrequent, but highly visible t ranspor ta t ion ac-

cidents. Mismanaged waste created seriousproblems both by the release of harmful sub-stances into the environment and because of the direct exposure of waste handlers and thepublic to such waste.

It also became clear that even well-inten-tioned and accepted management of hazard-ous w aste, particularly the use of landfiIls, sur-face impoundments, and lagoons, could resultin a su bstantial threat, This threat r esulted fromthe potential, but difficult to assess, slowleakage of waste constituents, or leachate (re-sulting from the interaction of water or othersolvents and waste], through the soil and intounderground water supplies, which were orcould become sources of drinking water, Asense of urgency regarding hazardous waste

issues was also prompted by several other im-

portant factors. These included:q

q

q

It

an increase in public sensitivity to the tox-ic properties of many substances whichsometimes were long-lasting;an increase in attention to the real orpotential links between toxic substancesand human and animal cancers; andan increase in public demands for protec-tion from pollution of all types.

became evident that the proper manage-ment of hazardous w aste, wh ether newly gen-

erated or previously disposed of, posed sub-stantial challenges, Stud ies revealed that somehazardous waste generated and disposed of decades before had led to undetermined, butpossibly very large amoun ts of dan gerous sub-stances distributed in and on the land in m anyareas of the Nation, Moreover, some previouslyabandoned disposal sites with uncontrolledreleases of waste into the environment werenot effectively add ressed by RCRA, wh ich w asprimarily concerned with p roper man agementof present and future hazardous waste. Be-cause of the many hazards posed by uncon-

trolled hazardous waste sites, both active andinactive (particularly those abandoned siteswhose ownership was unknown), Congresspassed th e Compr ehensive Environm ental, Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which became better knownas Superfund. Problems associated with theidentification of especially threatening uncon-trolled hazardous sites became prominent, in-cluding locating them, characterizing theircontents, detecting the nature and extent of releases into the environment, substantiatingactual or potential adverse impacts on health

and the environment, and developing cleanuptechniques and plans,

Since the passage of RCRA and CERCLA, anumber of additional problems have arisen.

43




Defining the scope of both the past and pres-ent hazardou s waste problem, promu lgating ef-fective regulations and standards, developingmanagement alternatives for industry, andestablishing Federal and State regulatory pro-grams are some. Virtually all interested in the

hazardous waste regulatory system have voicedconcerns over p oor d efinition of the problems,delays in implementing solutions, changes indirection of the system, and uncertainties of future policies and programs.

Some delays, of cour se, were to be expectedbecause of the scope of the problem. Almostall industrial activities (as well as many com-mercial, governmental, and institutional activ-ities) produce some type of hazardous waste.The economic development of the UnitedStates du ring the 20th centur y has been accom-panied by and, to a significant extent, based

on the r apidly rising u se of technology, includ-ing synthetic organic chemicals. These synthet-ic chemicals often pose difficult problems be-cause of their stability, resistance to naturaldegradation, and sometimes hazardous proper-ties. Every year many new chemicals are in-vented and put into use. Although both tech-nology and new commercial chemicals havecontributed to the growth of the Nation’s indus-trial produ ctivity, man y associated raw mater i-als, byproducts, and wastes require carefulhandling because of acidic, caustic, flammable,explosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or otherproperties. While industry has been relatively

successful in limiting accidents to w orkers du r-ing production or industrial use, the conse-quences of inadequate disposal of industrialhazardou s waste has em erged as a critical na-tional problem. Hazardous wastes are highlycomplex, with characteristics specific to indus-

try, process, product, or site.Improved management of hazardous waste

implies greater costs to ind ustry an d, eventual-ly, greater costs to the public, either directlyor indirectly. The alternative, however, wouldsurely lead to higher costs in the future andunacceptable effects on human health and en-vironment, As costs of waste management in-crease, there are greater economic incentivesto reduce waste generation and to retrieve ma-terials and energy of econom ic value from m a-terials previously regarded as useless. How-ever, increasing waste management costs can

also increase illegal dumping of hazardouswaste and increases the need for effective gov-ernment enforcement programs to detect suchillegal practices. The investment expendedeither to red uce wastes or to recover them de-pends on weighting the exact costs and liabil-ities of waste management incurred by thewaste generator. Having the hazardous wasteregulatory program p ass from the p lanning toimplementation stage at a time of severe na-tional economic problems has increased theneed for developing the m ost cost-effective ap -proaches to waste management,

Major Issues and UncertaintiesThere are two broad areas of concern to pol- q

icymakers, one related to factual informationand the other to policy questions. First, thereare a number of uncertainties of fact in thethree main areas: wastes, management facili- q

ties, and adverse effects of both on publichealth and environment. The formulation of ef-

fective and equitable regulations requires in-formation on th e intensity of the threats posedby wastes and on their remed ies. Factual qu es-tions that have remained unanswered, and q

wh ich hav e influenced th e scope of this report,include the following:

How much hazardous waste is there?What is being generated, by what indus-tries, in wh at locations, and of what chem -ical and physical types?Where is the hazardous waste? What arethe locations, amounts, and types of haz-ardous waste that have been managed in

ways that lead, or may lead, to the unac-ceptable or uncontrolled release of harm-ful constituents into the environment?What hazardous waste management fa-cilities currently exist to receive waste?What is their distribution by location, tech-



Ch. 2—Introduction q 4 5

q

q

q

nology, level of control, and capacity?How m uch hazardous waste is being trans-ported? How much waste is being man-aged on the site of the generator v. beinghandled in commercial or offsite facilities?What are the technological alternatives

for waste management? What options ex-ist for reducing hazard levels throughtreatment, for disposal to contain waste,for dispersal to rend er waste harmless, forcleanup of uncontrolled sites, and for re-duction of the amounts of waste to be man-aged through process modification, end-product substi tut ion, and recovery/ recycling? To what extent are these alter-natives technically feasible, cost effective,and available with or without furtherstudy? What encourages or discouragestheir development and use?What types of monitoring techniques andprograms can be used to detect releasesfrom hazardous waste sites? How shouldmonitoring programs be related to typesof waste, facilities, and locations? Howshould information from monitoring pro-grams be used in a systematic fashion toensure fast remedial response if necessary?What are the threats from hazardouswaste? What are the specific adverse im-pacts on humans and ecosystems exposedto particular types of waste that maybe or

are released into the environment? Howdo waste constituents move through theenvironment, remain stable or degrade?

In add ition to questions of fact, there is a sec-ond broad area of policy-related questions.There are difficult issues involving societalvalues, tradeoffs between sh ort- and long-termsolutions, costs, and equity. Given limitedresources and information, what types of pol-icies, regulations, and standar ds can best strikean acceptable balance between protecting thepublic and minimizing financial and regulatoryburdens on the private and public sectors?There are difficult questions concerning riskreduction in the near term v. the transfer of risks to future generations, Moreover, policy-related issues often involve technical problemsthat are often difficult for any but specialized

technical experts to un derstand. If there are im-portant gaps and uncertainties concerning ba-sic information, which there are, then the ex-amination of policy issues is particularly diffi-cult. Important policy-related issues includethe

q

q

q

q

following:

What wastes should be regulated as haz-ardous? What compositions, physicalstates, amounts, and properties should beused to define hazardous characteristics?If some States choose to be more stringentthan the Federal hazardous waste pro-gram, as they can be und er RCRA, and usebroader definitions or listings of hazard-ous waste, what problems may arise forthe private sector and for formulating andimplementing Federal policies? To whatextent do wastes which have hazardous

characteristics, but w hich are regu lated asordinary solid waste rather than hazard-ous waste, pose serious threats to thepublic?Should the fact that different wastes posedifferent levels of hazard be used in regu-latory programs? Can a workable degree-of-hazard system that classifies waste (and,possibly, facilities and locations) be usedto set d ifferent levels of control, stand ardsfor acceptable levels of release, and strin-gency of monitoring programs? Can sucha system be u sed to limit u ses of different

technological alternatives, such as deter-mining waste unsuitable for landfills, anduses for existing v. new facilities?To what extent can risk assessments beused? Can existing information on poten-tial adverse effects on h ealth and environ-ment be used in risk assessments? Shouldcosts of management alternatives be usedwith evaluation of risks? If the informationneeded for such analyses is unavailable orunreliable, would requiring such analysesbe effective or only delay action?Do current regulations permit the marketto operate in ways that ensure the full in-ternalization of costs for alternative man-agement approaches? Does the currentsystem provide incentives for developmentof alternatives that may provide greater



46 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

q

q

q

protection to the public? Are the costs forlong-term monitoring of facilities contain-ing hazardous waste (that may possibly re-main hazardous forever) and the possiblecosts for remedial action being properlyaccounted for in today’s waste manage-

ment cost structures?To what extent is public opposition tonew hazardous waste facilities justified?Is this opposition commensurate withwhat is now known about the risks in-volved? Would better information onwastes, technologies, facilities, and poten-tial effects reduce public opposition? Arethe processes, including public participa-tion, and technical criteria used for sitingnew facilities appropriate?What criteria can be used for determin-ing the extent of cleanup of an uncon-

trolled site? Is there sufficient attentionbeing given to all the alternatives and tothe relative ad vantages and disadvantagesfor both the short and long term s? Do cur-rent p olicies provide an incentive for alter-natives that have low capital cost, but highoperating and maintenance costs?What are the effects of having many dif-ferent laws that inf luence hazardouswaste management and regulation? Is itefficient to have different laws, adminis-tered by different agencies or differentgroup s within an agency, to govern d iffer-ent categories of technological alterna-tives, such as ocean dumping, injection indeep wells, and other facilities on th e land?Do clean air and water regulations ade-quately address the types of constituentslikely to be released from hazardous

waste? Does the law concerned with pro-duction of toxic chemicals provide an ap-propriate means to reduce the generationof toxic waste?To what extent do current programs pro-mote development of new alternatives to

more traditional environmental regula-tions? Is the current use of financial liabil-ity requirements likely to lead to more effi-cient self-regulation in ind ustry? Are thereeconomic incentives that would be moreeffective than traditional regulations in fos-tering improved management?What is the proper and most efficient bal-ance of responsibilities between the Fed-eral and State programs? To what extentcan State program s be equivalent and con-sistent with the Federal program, and yetresponsive to varying State needs and cir-

cumstances? Do the States have sufficientfinancial resources to carry out their in-creasing responsibilities? Are the Statesbeing given a fair opportu nity to shape thepolicies that they are being asked to im-plement? Is the Federal program providingthe type and extent of technical informa-tion useful to all States?

These lists of questions and issues are by nomeans complete. They serve to illustrate thescope of present-day concerns about the pres-ent and future direction of hazardous waste

policies. Moreover, these qu estions ind icate theorientation of the present study, which is con-cerned primarily with examining Federal pro-grams and alternatives that can reduce therisks of hazardous waste management in an ex-peditious and cost-effective manner.

Objective, Scope, and Structure of the Assessment

Objective and Scope in general, and for the subclass generallv

RCRA as amend ed requ ires the Environm en- termed hazardous waste. Financial assistancetal Protection Agency (EPA) to issue and en- to States, municipalities, and regional author-force regulations govern ing the d isposal of sol- ities is authorized by RCRA in order to facili-id and hazardous waste. It allows the States, tate planning, management, and standard set-if they choose, to assume primary regulatory ting required for authorization to be shiftedand enforcement responsibility for solid waste from the Federal to the State level.



Ch. 2—lntroduction q 4 7

The magnitude of the task facing EPA wasgenerally recognized to be great. Six years afterpassage of RCRA, however, a consensus hasalso emerged, particularly as Congress consid-ered reauthorizing RCRA in 1982, that progresshas been slow. Both Federal and State regula-

tory frameworks for dealing with solid and haz-ardous waste remain un comp leted. Delays anduncertainties concerning the regulation of waste have created problems for the industrialsector, for both generators and disposers of waste. Public concern has not abated.

CERCLA provides a funding mechanism forcorrective actions taken at a variety of inop era-tive or abandoned waste sites and for clean-ing up accidental releases of hazardou s materi-als. Here too there is general recognition thatprogress has been slow.

This assessment by OTA is designed to assistCongress in its examination of appropriatemeasures to prevent harm from those solidwastes defined as hazardous. As requested byCongress, this assessment focuses on:

analysis of the technologies that canimprove hazardous waste managementthrough:—reduction of the volume or hazard level

of waste generated;—better management of the risks associ-

ated with waste treatment and disposal;

an d—the cleanup of uncontrolled waste sites;analysis of the potential benefits and costsof a framework based on scientific criteriato judge the relative degree of hazard of wastes and risks from management facili-ties; andevaluation of current regulatory programs,part icularly w ith regard to technical infor-mation and issues.

should be understood that this is an ana-lytical study to provide a basis for policy dis-cussion and examination of legislative op-tions by Congress, and not an attempt to w ritenew or revise existing regulations for the ex-ecutive branch or for the States. However,Federal and State roles in hazardous manage-

ment for both the near and long term are con-sidered.

The scope of this assessment is limited in thefollowing ways:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Within the d efinition of solid w aste, which

includes a range from household discardsand municipal sewage to highly radio-active waste, the focus of this study isnonnuclear industrial hazardous wasteassociated with subtitle C of RCRA. Noattempt has been made to analyze the gen-eration and management of hazardouswaste at Federal facilities, although itis generally understood that very largeamounts of waste which are similar to in-du strial hazardous waste are generated inFederal facilities, including numerousDepartment of Defense installations.

The primary emphasis of this study is theman agement of waste in existing or futu refacilities, although the problems associatedwith closed facilities and past practices of abandoned facilities as considered inCERCLA are dealt with to some extent.

This analysis is concerned with examiningthe procedures for assessing the nature, in-tensity, and monitoring of adverse effectson health and the environment resultingfrom release of hazardous waste or theirconstituents into the air, land, or water.

Major attention, however, is not given tosubstantiating, documenting, or criticallyevaluating the many data associated withreal or potential adverse impacts.The issues and technical problems associ-ated w ith transportation and accidental re-lease of hazardous waste are not consid-ered, except to the extent that some tech-nical and policy approaches may help tominimize transport of waste.

Although technical compliance with regu-lations is an important area of concern,

strictly administrative and legal enforce-ment activities associated with regulationsare not analyzed in any major w ay; how-ever, their importance is found to be crit-ical.




Public opposition to the siting of new haz-ardous waste facilities has been widespread inrecent years. Means for dealing with public op-position to siting and public participation inState and local decisionmaking are briefly ex-amined. The role of the Federal Governmentin siting of new hazardous waste facilities isnow minimal, but options for more involve-ment are discussed.

Methodology and Structure of the Report

In preparing this assessment, OTA has uti-lized a n um ber of means to obtain app ropriateinformation without, how ever, attempting m a-

jor acquisitions of new d ata or comp lete inven-tories of data. Instead, OTA used and per-formed critical analyses of available data bases,cooperated w ith the States in some limited su r-veys for critical information, and used a casestudy approach in a number of instances toprovide a representative basis for analysis,

Other than chapter 1, the sum mary of the en-tire report, and this chapter, there are five addi-tional chapters, briefly described below.

Chap ter 3 presents eight goals for evaluatingpolicy op tions, and five p olicy options for Con-gress to consider, The first option is a continua-tion of the current program. The second isbased on a series of near-term changes in thecurrent regulatory system, probably through

amendments to RCRA. The third option is tooffer Federal economic incentives for alterna-tives to waste disposal or dispersal in the en-vironment, The fourth option calls for a studyto develop a waste and facility classificationapproach for a comprehensive risk manage-ment and regulatory framework, The fifth op-tion is an integration of the man y Federal envi-ronmental programs that affect hazardouswaste management and regulation. The five op-tions, for the most part, are not mutually ex-clusive, but can be viewed as a series of com-plementar y steps over a p eriod of time. All op-

tions are analyzed for their benefits relative tothe eight policy goals, and for the costs andproblems associated with their implementa-tion. Additionally, four scenarios are used toillustrate how several options may be com-bined.

Chap ter 4 analyzes the available informat ionon hazardous waste generation and treatmentand disposal facilities. The linkage between in-formation and the complex nature of the na-tional hazardous waste problem is examined.An analysis of the current data base for haz-ardous waste is given. The discussion exam-ines information needs of parties concernedwith hazardous waste, and the consequencesof having incomplete or unreliable informa-tion. This material forms an important basisfor the other chapters, particularly with regardto data limitations that sometimes make policy-oriented analyses less quantitative than de-sirable.

Chapter 5 reviews the broad range of tech-nologies now available and assesses those likelyto be developed for hazardou s waste manage-

ment. A hierarchy is used to present manage-ment strategies, ranging from waste or riskreduction to disposal or dispersal in the bio-sphere. Technologies are compared and ex-amined for suitability to particular wastes, theircosts, and the technical issues relevant to reg-ulation. The use of the oceans for waste dis-posal or dispersal, and the cleanup of uncon-trolled sites are also discussed.

Chap ter 6 examines “state-of-the- art” infor-mation and theory on the assessment and man-agement of risks, and the diversity of currentviews on these issue areas, The primary pur-pose of chapter 6 is to provide a base for evalua-tion of current and alternative policies by defin-ing several technical issues that policies are ex-pected to address, including monitoring andsiting of facilities.

In chapter 7 the current hazard managementand regulatory system at both the Federal andState levels is reviewed and analyzed. Anoth erpurpose of this chapter is to assess the extentto which the current system is addressing the

issues discussed in chapter 6, and at whatcosts. The Federal and State roles and pro-grams are reviewed and discussed separately.A nu mber of problems related to implementa-tion of the current regulations are also exam-ined.



CHAPTER 3

Policy Options



CHAPTER 3

Policy Options

Introduction

This chapter presents for congressional ex-amination five policy options for the Federalhazardous waste program. Rather than merecontrol of potential threats, the primary prob-lem facing the current program has becomeone of preventing impending crisis situations,which present sudden problems of large pro-portions. For example, aquifers serving assources of drinking water have recently beendiscovered to be contaminated from hazard ouswaste, Little reliable information concerningthe likelihood of future incidents is avail-able—and, as this study indicates, there is alack of general confidence that curr ent regu la-tions will prevent future incidents. However,there is general agreement that it is far morecostly to respond to such adverse effects thanto prevent them.

The five p olicy options, which are evaluatedin term s of certain overall goals, are as follows:

q

q

q

q

Option I: Continu ation of the Current Pro-gram.Option II: A More Comprehensive and Na-tionally Consistent RCRA Program.

Option III: Use of Economic Incentives forAlternatives to Disposal and Dispersal of Hazardous Waste,Option IV: Development and Potential Useof a Hazard Classification Framework.Option V: Planning for Greater Integrationof Environmental Protection Programs.

With the exception of the first, maintainingthe current d irection of the evolving regu latoryprogram, the other four policy options, takentogether, can be viewed as a series of comple-mentary changes to improve and reorient thecurrent program. Four scenarios are presented

to indicate how several options may be com-bined. For example, one scenario (a combina-tion of options I and III) responds both to thebelief that the curr ent regulatory p rogram , willprove to be effective and to the need to pro-

mote greater use of alternatives to land dis-posal.

One general constraint on this considerationof policy options is that analysis has been lessquantitative than desired because of a lack of complete and reliable data. Detailed analysesof the costs and benefits of particular optionsrequire extensive data concerning wastes, fa-cilities and technologies, and potential ad verseimpacts on health and the environment, Thisinformation is generally unavailable or insuf-ficient. A discussion of available data is con-

tained in chapter 4.Moreover, the objectives and limitations of

this study (described in ch. 2) should be keptin mind wh en considering these policy options.The focus of this assessment h as been on tech-nologies and management strategies; the policyoptions address problems and issues associatedprimarily with these two areas. Although thisstudy does not focus on strictly administrativeand procedural issues, such as enforcement of regulations, permitting of facilities, or author-ization of State programs, OTA examined theseproblems when they were closely connectedto the technical components of the regulatoryprogram,

The General Accounting Office, amongothers, has focused on several administrativeaspects, including the critical area of enforce-ment, in a nu mber of reports to Congress, Mostrecently, a congressional study has documentedcritical concerns in the enforcement of boththe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act[RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmen-tal, Response, Compensation, and Liability Actof 1980 (C ERCLA) statutes and regulations. 1

There are indications of an increased adminis-

‘U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy andCommerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, re-port on enforcement of hazardous and toxic substances regula-tions during fiscal year 1982, October 1982.

51




trative reliance on voluntary compliance andsettlements with responsible parties, and of substantial reductions in funding for enforce-men t activities. OTA’S study of technical issuesand problems, such as the effectiveness of pol-lution control regulations or the exemption of

waste from RCRA regulation, cannot substitutefor congressional examination of the adminis-tration of the Federal program. The policy ac-tions discussed below, regardless of theirmerits, are not likely to produce favorableresults unless enforcement is effective.

Common Goals for Policy Options

The current Federal hazardous waste pro-gram presents a dilemma. There is a sense of urgency and impatience, derived from 6 yearsof difficulties in dealing with an extremelybroad and complex set of issues. Suggestingchanges in Federal policies, therefore, createsconcerns over the possibility of still more de-lays, Those who support the current Federalprogram (both RCRA and CERCLA) believethere is a need to allow more time before con-clusions concerning effectiveness are drawnand possibly disruptive changes are made. Onthe other hand, there is also a widespread belief that current programs could be made moretechnically, economically, and socially effec-tive. Waiting for the determination of the cur-rent p rogram’s effectiveness, it is argued, m aylead to th e d evelopm ent of outright crises, suchas widespread ground water contamination.There is consensus that we are now acting

more effectively than in the past to protect thepublic from improper hazardous waste man-agement. But there is also considerable evi-dence (concerning, e.g., the technical limita-tions and uncertainties of land disposal tech-niques) that we may be acting in ways whichare too temporary in nature, leading to greaterpublic risks in the future, and increased ulti-mate costs to industry, the government, and thepublic,

This dilemma m ust be considered in the con-text of reduced funds for government pro-grams. Such conditions may prompt industry,State and Federal Governments, and th e publicto avoid additional costs associated with acleaner environm ent in ord er to cope w ith eco-nomic difficulties. Options that defer costs, thatdo not jeopardize current industrial activities,

that shift risks to the futu re, may become m oreattractive than in the past. Such trad eoffs poseformidable choices for policy makers, mademore difficult by current uncertainties con-cerning the effectiveness of laws an d progr amsnot yet fully implemented.

It is therefore helpful to define specific goals

for policy options for purposes of comparisonand evaluation. Eight such goals for any prac-tical congressional option are p resented below.These goals will be used later to evaluate eachof the policy options.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environmentwithout undue delays and uncertainties by:

• reducing the magnitude and hazardous nature ofpotential releases of waste constituents from alltypes of waste generation and management faci l-ities,

q improving monitoring programs to quickly detectsuch releases, and

q improving corrective actions to mitigate releases.

Many of the analytical results of chapters 5,6, and 7 support the need for improving thelevel of protection of human. health and the en-vironment by concentrating on technical, aswell as administrative, matters. It would bedesirable to achieve this goal without causingundue delays in the program that could havecounterproductive effects leading to unaccept-able releases before improved policies and pro-grams became effective, and would seriouslyerode public confidence. It should be clearlyund erstood th at the current Federal hazardouswaste program offers unequivocal improve-ments over the virtual absence of regulationsthat existed previously.



Ch. 3—Policy Options • 53

GOAL 2

Expand the universe of federally regulated hazardouswaste, recognizing that diff erent levels of regulationunder RCRA may be appropriate and desirable.

During the inception of the RCRA program,it was reasonable to limit the scope of regulated

w astes. It has become increasingly clear, how -ever, that the exemption of hazardous wastefrom Federal regulation has not been well cor-related with the d egree of hazard of the waste.Non regulated (und er subtitle C of RCRA) haz-ardous waste may constitute very large vol-umes (see ch. 4) and may be legally disposedof in ways that threaten health and the envi-ronment.

There is no way of knowing with certaintywh ether the current regu latory program is di-rected at those wastes representing the greatest

or most immediate threats. It is probable thatboth underregulation and overregulation areoccurring. A more inclusive approach couldaddress problems created by disposing of un-regulated hazardous waste in sanitary landfills.Furthermore, careful definition of specific lev-els of increased control could reduce theamount of effort currently expended in at-tempts to have various wastes delisted.

Policy options should be evaluated with re-gard to their effect on bringing those wastesthat are hazardou s to any degree into the regu-

latory system in appropriate ways, if only forreporting and notification for low-hazardwaste. Policy options differ regarding the de-termination and recognition of varying levelsof hazard (assessment, e.g., maybe on ly quali-tative) and in corresponding assignments of ap-propriate levels of regulatory control.

More complete regulatory coverage of haz-ardous waste would likely improve public con-fidence in the Federal program, thus con-tributing to the achievement of goal 8. Suchcontrol could lessen concern that wastes regu-lated on State initiative may receive low pri-

ority. Furthermore, there would be less likeli-hood of new uncontrolled waste sites requir-ing large Federal expenditures in the future.

A more inclusive system would encouragethe development of new waste management

technologies (see ch. 5) for an increased andmore stable commercial market (goal 3). Itwould also facilitate the development of im-proved data bases [goal 4).

GOAL 3

Encourage development and use of technological al-ternatives to land disposal (including land and oceandispersal), such as waste reduction and treatment, toreduce risks result ing f rom release of hazardous wasteconstituents into the environment.

This policy goal reflects a primary strategyof minimizing releases of hazardous constitu-ents by initially avoiding th e placement of haz-ardous waste in the environment. There are ap-proaches for the control of risks involved indisposal and dispersal. However, those desir-ing to use such options should demonstratethat acceptable levels of releases are achievedand maintained for the particular waste somanaged.

Chapter 5 discusses various technologies andthe different levels of certainty and reliabilitythey provide with regard to control of releasesinto the environment. Disposal and dispersalof hazardous waste in the environment in-volve too many uncertainties concerning ac-ceptable levels of releases. Cleanup of uncon-trolled sites involves unacceptable levels of technical difficulty, cost, and uncertainty.Discussions and analyses of the current

regulatory programs in chapter 7 also indicatethat the use of disposal and dispersal ap-proaches should be m inimized. Ground watercontamination is a primary threat. A U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) report supportsthese concerns:

Present technology is not adequate to developregulations to protect the public from hazard-ous w aste contamination in a cost effectiveman ner. Major technical questions are yet tobe answered regarding the behavior of specificwastes under different hydrogeologic condi-tions and on the safety, suitability, and econom-

ics of restoration and disposal methods. z

“’Management Implementation Plan, FY 1984,” for ToxicWaste-Ground-Water Contamination [Washington, D. C.: U.S.Geological Survey, Sept. 27, 1982).




There will always be questions concerningthe definition and determination of acceptablerisks. It is clear, however, that the safest courseis to promote the use of waste reduction andtreatment alternatives as much as is possibleand practicable. In so doing, costs must be ap-

prop riately taken into accoun t. RCRA does notmandate a balancing of costs and risks as ameans of determining what shou ld be done toprotect the public good. Instead, a cost-effec-tiveness approach is indicated, by which themanagement alternative is chosen that, for theleast cost, adequately protects human healthand the environment.

GOAL 4

Improve and expand data and information on hazard-ous wastes, f acili ti es, and their eff ects which are nec-essary for more reli able ri sk assessments and for the

implementation of RCRA and CERCLA by both the Envi-ronmental Protect ion Agency (EPA) and the Stat es.

Complete information on any major nationalproblem is hardly ever attainable, in order toimprove waste management and risk assess-ment, better information is needed on thefollowing:

q

q

q

q

A

The level of generation of all hazardouswaste, if federally regulated as such, in theStates and for the Nation as a whole, asa function of chemical and ph ysical types,and origin.The numbers and capacities of activewaste facilities, both onsite and offsite (orcommercial), particularly as a function of technology type, types of waste managed,and levels of control for release of wasteconstituents into the environment.The num ber and location of inactive wasteman agement facilities or open dum p sites,and the types and am ounts of wastes asso-ciated with these sites.The range of poten tial health and environ-mental effects as a function of waste typ e,

management technology and facility, andtype of location.

major finding of chapter 4 was that thecurrently available data and information re-sources concerning hazardous waste, technol-

ogies and facilities, and adverse effects areincomplete, inconsistent, and unreliable invarious important respects. This does not im-ply that the data and information currentlyavailable are so inadequate that implementa-tion of the curr ent p rogram or its mod ifications

is not possible. With regard to evaluation, how-ever, EPA has noted that its “ ‘managing forresults’ program for evaluating the effective-ness of its environmental programs may re-quire better and more timely environmentaldata from the States . . .“3

Several importan t benefits would result fromconsequent imp rovements of data. The facilita-tion of hazard and risk assessments, as dis-cussed in chapters 6 and 7, wou ld be of partic-ular importance. Also, specific technical cri-teria could be incorporated into RCRA regu la-tions and into certain elements of CERCLA,particularly the National Contingency Plan andthe determination of the extent of cleanup atuncontrolled sites (see ch, 5). The current ab-sence of specific technical criteria in regula-tions may be based on a reluctance to presentsuch criteria based on available information,recognizing that changes are inevitable as im-proved data are obtained. Management sys-tems cannot be evaluated as to effectivenesswithout adequate d ata and information bases.

It is important to recognize the problemswh ich EPA has faced thu s far in this area. The

large burden of initiating the RCRA program,a lack of consistent congressional and adminis-trative priorities, the difficulty of obtainingdata, the large amounts of data required, andthe continuing finding that the data obtainedearly in the program lacked accuracy are rep-resentative. Some mandates for obtaining dataand information were given in the RCRA andCERCLA legislation. These, however, sufferfrom a lack of coordination, completeness, andexpeditious implementation by EPA, Also agreater understanding of the limits of the Na-tional Manifest System is needed; it deals onlywith waste transported of offsite, which varymarkedly among States and comprise only afraction (usually 10 to 30 percent) of the total

3Lewis S. W, Crampton, EPA Issue Papers, September 1982 .



56 q Technologies and Management S trategies for Hazardous Waste Control —

study, along with hearings during 1982 con-cerning congressional oversight an d RCRA re-authorization, has made it app arent that thereare serious p roblems in Federal-State relation-ships.

Although the States do not have to acceptprogram responsibility, State-run programs canbe made more attractive by provision of ade-quate Federal fund ing and efficient administra-tion of RCRA and CERCLA by EPA. * The find-ings of chapter 7 (concerning problems of thecurrent Federal program) sup port th e conten-tion of many States that they must exercisetheir right under RCRA to be more stringentthan the Federal program, The Federal pro-gram, they argue, should be viewed, as in-tended by Congress, as a regulatory “floor”rather than as a “ceiling. ” RCRA limits varia-

tions among State programs by making finalauthorization contingent on State programsbeing “equivalent to” and “consistent with” theFederal program. However, it appears thatEPA may frequently be authorizing State pro-grams that are identical to the Federal program(a “mirror” approach) which States sometimesview as too lax. The States also maintain thatthe legislative use of the word “program,”rather than “regulations,” supports their posi-tion that equivalency and consistency shouldbe based prim arily on the effectiveness of Stateprograms rather than on statutes and regula-

tions themselves.6

There are sound technical reasons why somevariations in standards and regulations may beappropriate among the States. Differences inhydrogeologic conditions, climatic conditions,population distributions, public attitudes to-

*It should be noted that although most view the position of the States as necessitating receiving RCRA authorization fromEPA in order to have a hazardous waste program responsiveto public concerns, it is possible for States to allow EPA toadminister the Federal program within their States and to alsoadminister their own State program as a separate activity. Thiswould place burdens on the regulated community, but mightappear attractive to States if Federal support, both financial andtechnical, were deemed insufficient, or if the Federal programwere deemed too lax.6Letter from Richard A. Valentinetti, President, Association

of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials toThomas W. Curtis, National Governors’ Association, Nov. 15,1982.

war d acceptable risks, types of ind ustries, andtypes of waste management facilities alreadyin place are such factors.

The States have m uch to offer to the nationalhazardous waste program. There is consider-ably more practical experience at the State level(although actual data and technological exper-tise may be lacking in many cases), more inti-mate knowledge of what exactly is taking placein waste generation and management, andmore experience with interpretation and en-forcement of waste regu lations than at the Fed-eral level. A number of States have consider-able experience in perm itting of facilities underState statutes, whereas Federal permitting hasbarely begun.

Furthermore, many innovative programs ex-ist at the State level, but the extent to whichthese could be advantageously transferred tothe Federal level, or to other States, has beenlittle studied. Examples of such innovationsinclude:

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

degree-of-hazard approaches to varyinglevels of appropriate waste regulation,wh ich som etimes conflict w ith the Federal“floor” approach;plans to prohibit the use of landfills forparticularly hazardous waste;prohibition of the disposal of bulk, and insome States even containerized, liquid

waste in landfills;fee systems to shift private sector choicestoward waste reduction efforts and awayfrom the use of landfills;direct incentives for alternatives to landdisposal;some regulation of facilities that recyclewastes;development of workable siting criteriaand plans;onsite inspectors for waste facilities;delegation of decisionmaking authority tocounty government; and

extensive, specific provisions for involvingthe public in regulatory decisionmaking.

If Congress attemp ts to d etail the Federal andState responsibilities under RCRA, various is-sues require clarification, For example, States



Ch. 3—Policy Options . 57

are often asked to enforce standards, regula-tions, and policies that they believe are not inthe public interest, and that they believe to beincorrect, misdirected, or unenforceable, Con-gress may w ish to consider m odifying or clari-fying administrative regulatory procedures,

such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act(FACA), so as to involve States differently thanthe manner in which other interested partiesnow participate in regulatory development andrulemaking. States could contribute actively,rather than reactively, with Federal recognitionthat the States have a responsibility to partici-pate in policy formulation, and not merely im-plementation of federally mandated policies,A recent report to EPA by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Man agementOfficials (ASTSWMO) addresses this problem:

Despite both the congressional mandate forEPA to seek consultation from the States in theregulatory development p rocess and the cur-rent Ad ministration’s pr oclivity toward sup-porting the New Federalism concept, EPA hasbeen protected from outside State opinion.EPA’s use of the FACA law an d of the ex par terule have p rovided questionable rationales fordenying State intervention in the regulatorydecision-making process. Reinterpretation of ASTSWMO members (who are State govern-ment emp loyees] as EPA principals wou ld alsoattempt to eliminate FACA/ ex parte restrictionsso that State participation could occur at any

point during the entire regulatory developmentprocess. Information flow from EPA toASTSWMO m ember States has been h amp ered. . . by the EPA policy to not include

ASTSWMO in Federal planning and strategyactivities.

7

One conflict concerns the choice of remedialtechnologies to clean up uncontrolled sitesunder CERCLA (see chs. 5 and 7). The Federalbias is toward using low capital or initial costapproaches, for which the Federal programpays 90 percent (or 50 percent in the case of State or municipally owned sites), and that may

have high, and h ighly uncertain, operating andmaintenance costs, which the States pay en tire-ly. The States favor ap proaches that are h igher

‘Annual report by ASTSWMO to EPA for fiscal year 1982,October 1982.

in initial costs, but that deal more permanent-ly with th e problems of the sites and are likelyto have relatively low operating and mainte-nance costs. For examp le, in many cases, wastein uncontrolled sites are transferred to anotherland disposal site, rather than being treated or

destroyed.Another problem associated with CERCLA

concerns funding. Presently no continuingFederal support is provided to State activitiesfor early identification and evaluation of un-controlled sites for possible CERCLA funding,including the extensive effort required to ob-tain data to rank sites for the National PriorityList, searches for responsible parties, analysisof possible remediation approaches, respond-ing to EPA directives, and support of EPA’senforcement activities, A recent survey of

States indicates that about 10 percent of theRCRA grants to the States are being used forthese CERCLA activities,a

Technical aspects of State programs couldbe improved by Federal requirements for reli-able technical information and guidance. If there is insufficient data from waste genera-tors, States may have difficulty determiningwh ether particular w astes are being managedproperly, or whether they are being handledillegally. This is a pr oblem w ith onsite genera-tion and management currently outside theFederal manifest system, unless there is suffi-cient reporting requiremen ts to obtain detailedinformation.

The role of the States in data acquisition isalso unclear. States could participate more di-rectly in th e critical task of impr oving the database (as discussed above) by serving as directsources of information, in contrast to the cur-rent Federal practice of using contractors onan ad hoc basis. Such contractors are oftenonly costly intermediaries, doing little else thancontacting the States for information, w ith toolittle attention given to organizing data into a

common format, and to verifying the qualityQf the 30 States providing information, 23 used RCRA funds

in fiscal year 1982 for CERCLA activities, these States accountedfor 46 of the 115 sites on the original interim Superfund prioritylist. Personal communication from the Association of State andTerritorial Solid Waste Management Officials, November 1982.

99-113 0 - 83 - 5




and accuracy of the data. It would be usefulto have a clearer policy defining the Federaland State roles with regard to acquiring andmaintaining d ata bases. It appears ap propriateto consider the States to have the primeresponsibility for data, with EPA serving as

the institution ensuring consistent defini-tions, providing uniform formats for data ac-quisition, acting to validate data, and serv-ing as a central compiler of data obtainedfrom the States.

RCRA grants to the State programs shouldreflect the large and costly tasks of collectinginformation and making it useful through an aly-sis, data processing, and computer retrieval(see ch. 4). OTA studies show that, in a num berof States, reports and manifest forms contain-ing useful data remain unexamined and un-

processed because of a lack of resources, suchas lack of computer facilities.9 Routine Stateactivities often require complete informationbases, from which surveys based on statisticalsamp les can have only limited u se. These sam-ples do not provide data on specific facilitiesrequiring inspection and permitting that Stateofficials may not be aware of. Furthermore,statistical results for the Nation do not revealunique State or regional conditions.

GOAL 6

Moderate the inevitable increases in the costs of Fed-

eral and State program administration and regulatorycompliance by industry and mini mize costs associatedwith site remediation and compensation for further dam-ages to health and the environment which may resultfrom current practic es that c ould be improved.

As discussed in chapter 7, the private sectorannual costs of complying with RCRA andCERCLA are now estimated to be in the ran geof $4 billion to $5 billion, and total Federal andState costs are about $200 million annually.With the RCRA and CERCLA programs justnow in their early phase of implementation, in-creased costs are to be expected. Private sec-

tor costs with the current Federal-State pro-gram are estimated to increase to about $12billion (in 1981 dollars) in 1990 (see ch. 7). Even

q Personal communication from the Association of State andTerritorial Solid Waste Management Officials.

a modest improvement in the efficiency of theFederal and State programs could save manymillions of dollars. One of the greatest uncer-tainties concerns the extent to which presentgovernment policies and private sector man-agement choices will result in the creation of

future uncontrolled sites, with consequent re-leases of hazardous constituents, costly clean-up actions, and expensive liability suits. It isimportant, therefore, to evaluate policy optionsfor their ability to reduce long-term costs forboth government and the private sector.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future, whether sev-eral years or to future generations, and reduce costsof waste management t hat are externali zed and shif tedto society i n general.

There should be minimal transfer of risksand costs to the future, whether it be years ordecades, on general grounds of equity. Further-more, d eferrals of optimal solutions inevitablylead to a compounding of the technical natureof the problem, to marked increases in costs,and sometimes to the prevention of any practi-cal solution (as, e.g., in the contamination of a large underground aquifer serving as a ma-

jor source of drinking water). As discussedabove, and in chapters 5 and 6, it must beassumed that use of the environment for dis-

posal and d ispersal of various wa stes now con-stitutes a threat for the future because of thehigh probability of releases of hazardous con-stituents into the environment.

There are two basic reasons for fully internal-izing waste management costs, including thepossibility of future rem edial actions and com-pensation for damages to human health and theenvironm ent. First, on the basis of equity, it isproper that those persons most responsible forwaste generation should pay for proper man-agement, includ ing those choosing to consum e

products or use services requiring the genera-tion of hazardou s w aste. Second , if the manage-ment alternatives most protective of the pu blicgood are to be promoted, then it is reasonableto penalize those alternatives providing lowerlevels of protection.




Option IV: Development and PotentialUse of a Hazard Classification Frame-work.—This is a longer term program tofirst study and then possibly adopt sometype of waste and facility hazard classifica-tion as a systematic framework for regu-

latory decisionm aking. Such a system canbe used for setting p riorities, setting mon-itoring requirements, and determining theappropriate level and type of regulation,includ ing performance stand ards. It couldbe implemented by amendment to RCRA,with the first phase consisting of a studyto further examine and better quantify po-tential benefits, as well as feasibility,design, and implementation problems.Option V: Planning for Integration of En-vironmental Protection Programs.—Thiswould be a long-term effort, beginning

with a stu dy, to integrate existing environ-mental programs. Major goals would bethe elimination of gaps, overlaps, and in-consistencies in regulatory coverage, andthe prevention of RCRA permitting of fa-cilities that improperly manage hazardouswaste regu lated un der oth er acts. The firstphase would consist of a major examina-tion of how such integration could beachieved and the presentation of a plan forintegration, including an analysis of theneed for statutory changes. This option isconsistent with section 1006 of RCRAwh ich d irects such integration by the EPAAdm inistrator, but w hich does not requirea submission of a plan to Congress nor aspecific time for such integration. In thesecond phase, Congress would examinethe plan and consider necessary statutorychanges.

Option I

Continuation of Current Program

This option assumes that the mandates of

both RCRA and CERCLA may be met by thecurrent Federal hazardous waste program. Itshould be recognized that the present programis not static. EPA has indicated several plans

for changes and improvements in the nearte rm. l0

Unlike the other policy options, no unusualimplementation problems and costs are associ-ated with this “status quo” option. Criticismsof the option are based on perceptions of cur-rent problems, or point to unacceptable risksand costs involved in waiting for the programto “prove itself. ” In the following discussion,the current program, the “status quo” option,is evaluated in terms of the eight goals pre-sented earlier.

GOAL 1

Improve protect ion of human health and the environmentwithout undue delays and uncertainties.

Analysis of the benefits of the “status quo”

option relative to this goal clearly presents theconflicts between short- and long-term evalua-tion. This option, by definition, involves nodelays or revisions of the curr ent progr am, andthe current program is certainly providing in-creased protection than existed previously.Final regulations have been promulgated andpermitting is beginning. State programs ar e

being auth orized. CERCLA-fund ed cleanup s of uncontrolled sites are taking place. Enforce-ment actions for both RCRA and CERCLA are

occurring. Better information is being ob-tained.

However, to the extent that the level of pro-tection is lower than i t could be, the benefitfrom this option is less than i t could be. On bal-ance, this option is considered to offer a m od-erate benefit. Criticisms of’ the current programhave been shaped by p ast delays and changesin direction and primarily focus on: 1) thespeed and extent of i ts acknowledged advan-tages relative to what existed previously, and2) ambiguous signals given to decisionmakersin the regulated community. Uncertainties over

l’JThe primary source for future directions of EPA’s currentprogram is a letter dated Sept. 7, “198 2, from Rita M, Lavelle,Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Re-sponse, EPA, to the Honorable Thcjmas P. O’Neill, Jr., Speakerof the House of Representatives.



the program’s eventuallated to the following:

effectiveness are re-

1. continued litigation, judicial decisions, ornegotiated settlements, that result inchanges in policies and regulations;

2. negative public response to new regula-

tions; and3. adverse impacts on health or environment

that were otherwise avoidable, or thatclearly would not be prevented by the pres-ent program even if it had been in placeearlier.

These uncertainties, and other factors de-tracting from the benefits of the current pro-gram, are discussed further in the considera-tion of the remaining seven management goals.

GOAL 2

Expand the kinds of federally regulated hazardouswaste.

This option offers a minor benefit, There isno systematic program or policy to substantial-ly remove current exemptions or to close gapsin regu latory coverage. But certain exempt ionsare being dealt with by EPA on an ad hoc basis,

The current RCRA subtitle C program regu-lates only a portion of the Nation’s solid wastesthat h ave hazar dou s characteristics, This situa-tion has resulted primarily from both congres-

sional and administrative exemptions grantedto facilitate the initiation of the national pro-gram. There are also established procedures forremoving wastes from the RCRA lists. The ex-emption of small generators of hazardouswastes is being examined, and may be refinedwith regar d to both the level of waste requiredfor exemption and the types of waste gener-ated, Similarly, EPA has stated its intention of proposing regulations in 1983 covering theburning of hazardous waste as fuels, now cur-rently exempt from RCRA coverage. For themost part, however, the major exemptions ex-

isting in RCRA as mandated by Congresswould remain, and those areas being reviewedby EPA may remain unchanged for some years,

With regard to how wastes are regulated,there are for example limited, missing, or un-

Ch. 3—Policy Options q 6 1

certain restrictions on land disposal of certaintypes of waste that present well-known risks.Such wastes include:

1,2.

3.

4.

liquid wastes in landfills;particularly persistent, mobile, and toxicwastes in landfills and surface impound-

ments; andvolatile wastes in surface impoundments;an dwastes that hav e the abilitv to degrad e theliners in landfills and surface impound-ments.

EPA has ind icated that stu dies are und erwayto determ ine the basis for prohibiting land d is-posal of hazard ous waste which are highly tox-ic, persistent, and mobile where alternativetreatmen t or recovery technologies are reason-ably available. Also, requirements for mon itor-

ing and control of volatile organic compoundsin land disposal facilities are being studied,

Furthermore, the regulation of industrial haz-ardous waste going into mu nicipal water treat-ment systems or requiring p retreatment un derthe Clean Water Act (CWA) has not yet beenfully implemented. There is some evidence thatregulation of hazardous waste under CWA, butnot under RCRA, may lead to the release of hazardous substances into the environment.For the regulated waste list as a whole, thereremains considerable uncertainty concerning

how and when this universe might increase ordecrease without congressional action.

GOAL 3

Encourage alternatives to land disposal.

Only m inor benefits in this area seem likely.There is little direct attention currently beinggiven to promoting new management and tech-nology approaches. The current RCRA pro-gram emphasizes using traditional commandand control regulations for disposal of hazard-ous waste, with the belief that by makingdisposal options more stringently regulatedand more costly, alternatives to disposal willbecome more attractive to waste generators. Tosome extent, this strategy and the “cradle tograve” system works. However, the success of




the current approach relies on the impositionof, or expectation of, more stringent and morecostly requirements for waste disposal facili-ties; the outcome is not yet certain.

An additional factor in the current program(which, some may argue, is more significant

than the impact of the control regulations) isthe effect of the liability requiremen ts in RCRAand CERCLA. These requirements appear tobe significantly impacting management deci-sions of both waste generators and facilityoperators. The primary effect is to shift prior-ities away from land disposal (with its uncer-tainties and potential liabilities for future re-lease of hazardous substances) toward the useof economically attractive alternatives thatmore permanently deal with hazardous wasteproblems. However, there are uncertainties asto the impact of liability requirem ents becauseof:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

the limited time that the liability require-ments have been in place and the lack of information about compliance;the varying, often limited policies offeredby the insurance industry and the differentand evolving procedures they use for eval-uating risks;*the perception by some that enforcementefforts are too ineffective to lead to deter-mination of responsible parties;the lack of experience with claims;

the very limited actuarial data concerningthe risks associated w ith d isposal technol-ogies, with either existing facilities or newfacilities, based on compliance with thefinal regulations;changing and expanding legal theories of liability as a result of legislation and judi-cial decisions; andthe self-insurance provisions.

q There is no standard procedure used by insurance companiesto assess the practices and risks of hazardous waste manage-ment facilities. Through a number of informal meetings betweenOTA staff and insurance industry personnel, it has been verified

that risk assessment procedures vary substantially. Current pro-cedures ranged from: no site inspection whatsoever; to relativelynontechnical inspections with no physical testing to verify pastor present waste management practices, the nature of the wastemanaged, or the hydrogeologic nature of the site; to very sophisti-cated assessments involving highly trained personnel and physi-cal testing.

Moreover, there may bean indirect disincen-tive in current regulations. The performancestandards for land disposal techniques are lessdetailed and , to some extent, less stringent andmore flexible than the regu lations for incinera-tion. Therefore, the costs of incineration (deter-mined , in part, by the regulations) remain non -competitive with land disposal techniques. Fur-therm ore, there are no final technical standar dsfor some waste treatment technologies, suchas certain chemical and biological treatments,which leads to m uch u ncertainty about futureregulation, and makes their commercial devel-opment and use difficult.

The current program generally does not reg-ulate hazardous waste that is being recycledor put to “beneficial” use (e. g., waste burnedas fuels), except for regulations coveringtransportation, storage, or generation. There-

fore, the present policies can be regarded asproviding an indirect incentive for recycling.Alternatively, this m inimal level of regulationcan be viewed as related to possible release of hazardous substances from such operations.Some justification for this concern existsbecause of the large number of CERCLA siteswhich have been selected for remedial atten-tion that were recycling facilities originally.

Furthermore, current land disposal regula-tions do not distinguish where retrofitting of existing facilities may be both technically feasi-

ble and app ropriate (see ch. 7). Nor do they con-sider how certain types of waste may be bestmanaged in existing or new facilities depend-ing on their hazard levels. The lack of restric-tions on waste for disposal has two major ef-fects. First, the long-term risks associated withland disposal may be increased, particularly forexisting facilities. Second, the market for dis-posal techniques may be increased at the ex-pense of treatment alternatives with higher di-rect costs. Also, there are no financial respon-sibility requirements for corrective action.

In summary, the current program indirectlypromotes some use of alternatives to waste dis-posal. However, to the extent that the full short-and long-term costs of disposal options are stillnot fully internalized (because of the natu re of the regulations and their effect on costs and




markets, as discussed below), there remains anincentive to use disposal or dispersal options.Moreover, the current program does not di-rectly provide counterbalancing incentives foralternatives to disposal, and EPA’s R&D pro-grams currently include very limited activities

in the areas of advanced technologies and alter-natives to disposal. *

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLAimplementation.

Because of the increasing maturity of the cur-rent program, with attempts to rectify acknowl-edged deficiencies in information and analysis,this option provides a moderate benefit. Prob-lems remain, however. There appears to be anabsence of a systematic, long-range programfor expanding and maintaining a national haz-ardous waste data base. Coordination of effortsamong different groups within EPA and otherexecutive agencies appears insufficient. Re-sponses to congressionally mandated effortsrelated to d ata and information have not beentimely. Definition of the role of the States indata acquisition and analysis, and the provi-sion of sufficient financial support for suchState activities has not been accomplished.Partly as a result of these problems, there is alack of information concerning unregulatedwaste that might be regulated in the future.

The limitations on data are related to whatsome consider to be a very disturbing aspectof current RCRA and CERCLA regulations—i.e., their lack of specificity concerning tech-nical criteria. The regulations are, for the mostpart, based on p erformance rather than d esign,though often a mixture of both. There is con-cern, however, over the frequent lack of specif-

*The phrase “from cradle to grave” used to describe the cur-rent RCRA program was created with land disposal in mind.However, it is interesting that in creating a metaphor for “frombeginning to end” of “from birth to death” that grave was usedto connote the end point of waste management. Considering boththe extensive use of land disposal and the likelihood of releasesof hazardous constituents into the environment, use of the wordgrave is somewhat misleading. A more apt and useful metaphorfor the waste management cycle would be “from cradle tourn’ ’—with urn suggesting incineration and true destruction of the waste as the most desirable end point.

ic technical criteria to establish acceptable per-formance. Interpretations of many standardsand permitting decisions are left to regionalEPA administrators and permit writers. Insome instances, they may be aided by advi-sories and technical resource documents is-

sued by EPA. This approach can be defendedon the basis that h azardous w aste facilities andsites possess uniquely different characteristics.While flexibility is definitely needed, particu-larly from a State perspective, from a Federalperspective this approach may provide too lit-tle assurance that the intended stringency of the regulations will be obtained consistentlythroughout the Nation.

A particularly critical example of this lackof specific technical criteria is found in the Na-tional Contingency Plan under CERCLA where

the “How clean is clean?” question is oftenposed . Althou gh a r easonable process is speci-fied for determining the extent of remedialcleanup, the absence of technical criteriaplaces the CERCLA program in jeopardy.However, EPA believes this approach is appro-priate because of the site-specific nature of theproblem and the need to move ahead with theprogram expeditiously. Others believe thatstandards for allowable levels of release fromsites after emergency or remedial action areneeded. Such standards should be consistentwith either existing Federal and State stand-

ards for levels of hazardous substances in theenvironment, or with available scientific infor-mation if regulations do not address the typesof chemicals associated w ith hazard ous w aste.Much of the concern over this issue is relatedto the possibility of CERCLA-funded remedialactions that are found to be ineffective at alater date, when the State is responsible andCERCLA funds are no longer available.

Another impor tant examp le of lack of speci-ficity in RCRA regulations is the case of mon-itoring requirements. There are few technical

criteria, based on hydrogeologic surveys andother information, for establishing th e num berand location of wells to determine water flows,background levels, and releases from the site.Similarly, there is little detail provided toestablish a basis for EPA or State permit writ-




ers to decide which chemicals or indicatorparameters are to be monitored, and whichequipment and methods are to be used.

Data collection and analysis for risk assess-ment is particularly important for determina-tion of degree of hazard and subsequent regula-

tion. There are two areas for which the deter-mination of hazard or risk levels is being u sedor is being planned. One is for RCRA regula-tions, includ ing the tailoring of regu lations forsome facilities, such as monofills (landfills forsingle wastes) and neutralization impound-ments, specific wastes, provisions for class per-mits, and the setting of exemptions or prohibi-tions such as the small generator exemption.The other is in selection of uncontrolled sitesfor attention under CERCLA. EPA has faceda difficult task in applying hazard and risk as-

sessments at a time w hen th ere is limited infor-mation, time, and resources, and when meth-odologies are still being developed. Nonethe-less, there is considerable need to evaluaterelative hazards and risks. The issue is notwhether to attempt these evaluations, butrather which are the best technical approachesto use.

To satisfy Executive Order No. 12291, EPAis conducting regulatory impact analysis forRCRA regulations involving the use of theRisk/ Cost Policy Model (sometimes referred toas the WET matrix). A detailed examination of this model is given in chapter 7 and its appen-dix. OTA is not confident that the structure of the model, its assumptions, or its data baseswill lead to accura te results for estimating howregulations should be tailored, what wasteshould be exempt (such as under the small gen-erator exemption category), or what wasteshould be prohibited from land disposal. Prob-lems with the model are: the data base forwaste now includes only about half of thoseregulated; the management technologies con-sidered ap plicable are not consistent w ith pres-

ent or possible future uses; diverse humanhealth effects are not adequately addressed;costs for technologies are incomplete, und ocu-mented , and are biased in favor of land d ispos-

al; and sensitivity analyses have not yet beenperformed .11

OTA is also concerned that the model is, ineffect, an approach to cost-benefit analysis forRCRA-a balancing of the protection of humanhealth and the environment against costs—which is contrary to congressional mandate.Moreover, in calculating benefits, the Risk/ CostPolicy Model totally discounts any benefitsfrom reducing risks associated with environ-mental damage. The model also makes use of population densities in a manner that couldlead to determinations of low, and presumablyacceptable, levels of risk for low population-density areas. Population near the site is anunreliable indicator of population at risk be-cause of actual distributions of releases andvarying exposures to people. Still, EPA has ex-

pressed confidence that the model can be usedeffectively as a complement to other informa-tion being gathered by the agency, includinginformation obtained through its regulatory im-pact analysis program.

In the National Contingency Plan underCERCLA, a Hazard Ranking System (some-times referred to as the Mitre model) is usedto develop comparative rankings of hazard lev-els of uncontrolled sites in order to determinehow limited resources can best be allocated.OTA’S examination of this system has shownseveral deficiencies primarily concerning thetype of data used, that can lead to false prior-ities and misallocation of resources. These arediscussed in detail in chapter 7. The result isthat CERCLA funds may be spent when largenumbers of people maybe at some risk, but thatno fund s are spent w hen relatively few p eople,such as in ru ral areas, are a high risk. Anotherproblem with the model is the difficulty of in-corporating data that may be more meaningful.

llEpAIs Science AdvisoW Board has reviewed this project. Its

findings concerning the technical aspects of the model, for themost part, are in agreement with OTA’S concerns, and it rec-ommends continued development of the model. (“Report on theRCRA Risk/Cost Policy Model—Phase 2 Report,” EnvironmentalEngineering Committee, Science Advisory Board, October 1982.]




GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation byStates.

There has been a marked increase in the levelof both Federal and State activities and Federal

and State cooperation is continuing. Nonethe-less, the problems discussed previously indi-cate considerable room for improvement, andonly a minor benefit with respect to this goalis likely, The current program is generallyviewed by the States as presenting an unaccept-able combination of shifting increasing respon-sibilities to the States without correspondingincreases in necessary resources provided bythe Federal Govern ment. A potential exists fora sharp downturn in Federal-State relations if funding for State activities under RCRA sub-title C is eliminated, which EPA has indicated

its desire to do and which it has already donefor subtitle D activities. Lack of participationin policy formulation has also led to manyStates having substantial concerns over the ef-fectiveness of the regulations promulgated thustar.

OTA has found the following problems to besignificant and indicative of the current situ-ation: *

1. States are viewed by EPA as critical to im-plementing regulations, but not in policyformulation and design of regulations. The

result is that States often find themselvesin strong disagreement with technical as-pects of the regulations. For example,many States disagreed with EPA’s smallgenerator exemption based on quantityrather than on hazard level and withEPA’s policies on liqu ids in land fills. Also,man y States find land disposal regulationstoo weak in the monitoring area, particu-

*For detailed comments on Federal-State problems from theState’s perspective, see, various testimonies by Norman H .Nosenchuck , as Resident of the Association of State and Terri-torial Solid Waste Management Officials and Director of theSolid Waste Management Program for New York State; and vari-

ous congressional hearings, such as Senate Subcommittee onIntergovernmental Relations, Nov. 24, 1981, and House Subcom-mittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research and theEnvironment, Dec. 8, 1982. Also see, Jacqueline M. Rams,“Federalism and Hazardous Wastes–A Perversion of RCRAIntent?” The Environmental Forum, January 1983, pp. 1 1 -1 6 .

2.

3.

4.

larly the exemption from the ground watermonitoring and response requirements.Although States may, and sometimes do,impose more stringent requirements thanthe Federal program, the absence of strongFederal action m ay u nd ercut State efforts,

and limited State resources restrict thedevelopment of separate and more strin-gent State regulations. In the case of CERCLA, States have expressed consider-able concern over the lack of detail in theNational Contingency Plan.States have continuing problems becauseof the decision to rem ove all Federal grantsupport for subtitle D nonhazardous solidwaste activities, even though these pro-grams are far from complete. Moreover,such facilities are allowed to accept haz-ardous w aste under the small quantity gen-

erator exemption. There is considerableconcern that some sanitary landfills may,therefore, become future CERCLA sites.However, there are often no funds avail-able to monitor these sites for release of hazardous substances. Some RCRA sub-title C grant funds are being used for sub-title D activities, and EPA d oes not ap pearto be carrying out its responsibility underRCRA subtitle D to oversee the State solidwaste programs.States have no ongoing Federal grant sup -por t for general CERCLA activities related

to identifying and assessing sites. CERCLAfunds now received are only for specificemergency or for remedial site actions.Some RCRA subtitle C funds are beingused for CERCLA activities.States have n ot received increased Federalgrant sup port, w hile RCRA activities haveescalated sharply. Furthermore, becauseof the two preceding factors and insuffi-cient State funds, RCRA subtitle C grantsare used to carry out other activities. Infact, EPA has indicated its intention toeliminate all grants to the States;* and in

*In a meeting between the EPA Administrator and represent-atives of the National Governors

rAssociation on Sept. 20, 1982,

the States indicated that reductions in grants would lead to cut-backs in programs. This would impede delegation to some States,and cause formation of “pollution havens. ” They also indicated




5.

6.

the fiscal year 1983 authorization process,EPA wanted to reduce State grants, butCongress restored the level of funding.**This is in sharp contrast to an EPA state-ment in 1980:

To carry ou t their r esponsibilities under

subtitle C, the States will have to expandgreatly the size of their haza rdou s wasteprograms. Program expansion might re-quire a correspond ing increase in Statehazardous w aste management grants.

l2

The 1980 EPA projection for the Stategran ts for fiscal year 1983 (in 1983 dollars)is nearly three times greater than theamount actually budgeted for fiscal year1983.States have had few direct, formal, andconsistent ways to influence, to support,or to contest the data at EPA. They often

are expected to use unreliable and incom-plete information, or to supp ly informationwithout having the resources to obtain it.States find themselves in conflict withEPA over the choice of sites for CERCLAfunding because of the requirement to pro-vide at least 50 percent of the initial costsfor State or local governmen t-owned sitesand 10 percent for private sites. Becauseof limited State fun ds, governm ent-ownedsites may be less likely to be chosen byStates for CERCLA attention on thegrounds that more sites could get remedial

attention by using the available funds asthe 10 percent match for CERCLA actionsat p rivately owned sites. There are also in-dications that a bias exists in favor of se-lecting sites associated with those indus-

State fee systems cannot compensate, and that grants are nota gift, bu t represent a p urchase of services, and that w ithoutg ran t s States ought to begin charging for services and data p ro-vided. N GA memo from Tom Curtis to Environmental Directors,Sept. 23, 1982,

q*When the ad ministration proposed a zo percent reductionin fiscal year 1983 grants to the States, a study revealed thatFederal grants to the States support 69 percent of State hazard-

ous waste program budgets, that 11 States hoped to replace atleast part of the reduction in grants, and that 20 States wouldreduce monitoring proportionately to the grant reduction. “TheState of the States: Management of Environmental Programs inthe 1980’ s,” National Governor’s Association, June 1982,

‘a’’ Operations/Resource Impact Analysis, RCRA Subtitle C“(Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, April1980).

tries whose feedstocks are now taxedunder CERCLA. Moreover, the choice of remedial technologies for CERCLA sitescreates further conflicts because of theState’s responsibility to cover all futureoperating and maintenance costs. States

are concerned that EPA will favor ap-proaches with low initial costs, but highcontinuing costs. EPA has indicated thatit w ill select th e lowest cost-effective alter -native, and States preferring a higher costalternative must pay all additional costs.

7. The general character of the program todelegate respon sibility to the States favorsprograms identical to the Federal program.States are reluctant to develop deviationsthat would jeopardize “equivalency” withthe Federal program, but which might bewell suited to local conditions and needs.

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in costs to governments for ad-ministration and to i ndustry f or compli ance.

The status quo m ay app ear to provide bene-fits in these areas. How ever, there is some con-cern that the current program, not merely inthe content of its regulations, but also in its ad -ministration, places considerable emphasis on

balancing short-term, immediate costs againstprotection of public health. It has largely dis-counted efforts to protect against longer termenvironmental effects. The structure that pro-vides flexibility for site-specific factors couldalso lead to excessive responsiveness to localeconomic interests desiring to minimize man-agement costs. Furthermore, there are no pro-grams aimed at shifting management choicesto alternatives that are more costly than landdisposal in the short term. There is no meansof proving that the current program is or is not,ultimately, a cost-effective approach. Some of

the measu res being contemp lated for “fine tun-ing” of the program (e.g., tailoring land d ispos-al regulations according to perceived risks andcosts) may lead to greater cost effectiveness,but it is not p ossible to forecast that adjustmen tof overregulated cases will more than offset ad-




extent of such regulation. The findings of thisassessment support consideration of the fol-lowing measures to bring more high-prioritywaste under regulation in appropriate ways:

1.

2.

Closing th e gap created by the blanket ex-emption of hazardous waste generated in

relatively small quantities. The objectiveis to avoid having hazardous waste man-aged as nonhazardous, solid waste in sani-tary landfills. In the near term, if a quan-tity cutoff is used, the prudent approachwould be to use a relatively low one suchas 100 kilograms p er month (kg/ me) in-stead of the current 1,000-kg/ mo valu e. Inthe longer term, however, some measureof the level of hazard of the waste couldbe used instead. Such an approach doesnot imply adoption of any particular, orcomplex, methodology for assessing levelof hazard. Regulation would be based onknow n characteristics of the w aste that in-dicate potential harm to human health andthe environm ent up on release of the mate-rial into the environment and with signifi-cant exposure. However, if it could bedemonstrated that relatively small quanti-ties of hazardous waste do not present sig-nificant threats, then there could be veryminimal regulatory control, e.g., notifica-tion and reporting requirements, or mod i-fication of RCRA regulations that govern

waste generators.

14

Ending the total exemption for hazardouswaste used as fuels, or as fuel supple-ments. Instead, there would be notificationrequirements for records of what wastesare being burned and where. Also, therewould be standards for acceptable levels

MA detailed C)TA study of the small generator exemption foundthat waste produced at a rate below 1,000 kg/mo could amountto 2. 7 million to 4 million tonnes annually nationwide. Amountsvary substantially among States—16 States indicated that morethan 5 percent of their waste came from small generators. (OTA,“The RCRA Exemption for Small Volume Hazardous Waste Gen-

erators, ” staff memo, July 1982. ] A more recent study for NewEngland States indicates that over 15 percent (excluding wasteoils) of the region’s waste is produced by small generators.(A. D. Little, Inc., “Hazardous Waste Generation in New Eng-land,” August 1982.)

3.

4.

5.

6.

of release into the environment, and per-haps some monitoring requirements.l5

Ending the total exemption from RCRAcoverage of liquid hazardous waste sentto mu nicipal water and sewage treatmentfacilities. There would be instead notifica-

tion requiremen ts and standard s for accept-able amounts of releases and residuals ineffluent waters and sludges, supplement-ing gaps in pretreatment coverage underCWA. These requirements and standardswould be defined for specific chemicalsand toxic metals in a manner consistentwith types and concentrations of consti-tuents.Establishing a category of “special” haz-ardous waste consisting of high-volume,relatively . low-hazard waste (many of wh ich are now totally exemp ted from reg-

ulation) to be minimally regulated underRCRA. There maybe only notification re-quirements for generators of such waste.Developing minimal regulations for the re-cycling of hazardous waste (or hazardousmaterials that could become w aste), appli-cable to all operations, not just “th ird p ar-ty” recyclers as is currently p roposed . Dueconsideration would be given to avoidingthe creation of disincentives for recy-cling—e.g., by only requiring notificationof what wastes are being recycled.Developing lists of hazard ous w astes to be

prohibited from management in landfills,surface impoundments, and deep wells.These lists should be correlated w ith tech-nical criteria regarding particularly high

IWurrent EPA policies on the burning of hazardous waste asfuel are generally not related to the hi~zards posed by suboptimalburning that may lead to release of hazardous constituents intothe environment. For example, some wastes are totally exemptfrom regulation if they are to be recycled; these are “wastes thatare not sludges, that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste,and that are not listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or 261.32. ” Moreover,the determination of whether the recycling is “legitimate orsham” depends primarily on the energy value of the waste, ratherthan any consideration of the performance characteristics of the

burning operation, the hazardous nature of the waste, or riskfactors associated with releases and exposures. (EPA, Memoran-dum on RCRA Enforcem ent Guida nce: Burning Low En ergy

Hazardous W astes Ostensibly for Energy Recovery Purposes,Jan. 18, 1983.)




risks from possible releases into the envi-ronment.

7. Establishing regulatory criteria for hazard -ous waste which, although substantial sci-entific information indicates their hazard-ous character, have not yet been so de-

fined, They have not been listed and, whensubjected to current EPA tests and proce-dures, they do not exhibit any of the cur-rently identified hazardous waste charac-teristics, For example, a number of indus-trial wastes containing significant levelsof dioxins, chlorinated organics, or pesti-cides are not now regulated as hazardouswastes and cannot be shown to be toxicby EPA’s test for toxicity.

EPA’s extraction procedure (EP) test fortoxicity has received considerable discus-sion and criticism. Its use for defining

RCRA regulated waste and for delistingdecisions is highly suspect. A recent tech-nical study of the EP test by Utah’s hazard-ous waste management program con-cluded:

The EP test procedures as presentlyadapted definitely need to be refined andchanged. The results from this test are notadequate to make sound waste manage-ment decisions. In fact, the EP results ob-tained are leading to mismanagement de-cisions with accompany ing risks of ad-verse health or environmental results.

l8

The study showed how waste with oilyphases presented particular problems, thatorganic waste posed problems, that resultsare not reproducible, that the acetic acidextraction medium does not model realworld conditions, that the test’s 20-folddilution for solid samples produces deceiv-ingly low results, and that false negativeresults were likely. Some sites in Utahwhere wastes that are not hazardous, ac-cording to th e EP test, have been land -dis-posed and have already contaminatedground water.

Another example of the limitations of the EP test has been shown for cadmium-containing sludge produced in Illinois. In

‘a’’ Comments of the Utah Bureau of Solid and Hazardous

Waste on the Extraction procedure Toxicity Test,” Dec. 1, 1982.

order to pass the EP test, calcium oxideis added to the sludge. The lime does notalter the cadmium, but it does neutralizethe acetic acid used in the test and allowsthe slud ge to be classified as a non hazard -ous w aste .17

8. Making delisting of hazardou s waste moreexpeditious without, however, compromis-ing p rotection of the p ublic, This could bedone by using clearer, specific criteria fordelisting an d by limiting times for evalua-tion by EPA. To some extent, this actioncould balance the effects of the precedingactions, which lead to more waste beingregulated. Delisting provides a meanswhereby site-specific factors or previouslyunavailable information might mitigateprior estimates of potential hazard. How-ever, one problem that has become appar-

ent in delisting processes should be con-trolled. Although constituents causing awaste to be originally defined as hazardousmay have been removed, the waste maystill contain other hazardous constituentsin significant concentrations. Such wasteshould not be delisted, pending furthertesting. The use of the EP toxicity test (asdiscussed above) should be examined,Adopting a procedure for verification of submitted data should also be examined.Attention is also needed to address currentdelisting activities which maybe delayingthe regulation of significantly hazardouswaste, such as dioxin. l8

Limited Class Permits .-The engineering designand performance characteristics of some haz-ardous waste management facilities may belargely independent of location. Class permitsmay be appropriate for such facilities. How-ever, such facilities should have little probabil-ity of release of hazardous constituents, andsuch possible release should be easily observ-able through minimal, mandatory inspectionor monitoring, There is some concern over

wh ether permitting by ru le would lead to su f-ficient protection of the public, such that the

17w. C. Geissman, letter to Rep. James J. Florio, May 25, 1982.IBHouse Energy an d Commerce Committee Report No. 97-570

on H.R. 6307, May 18, 1982, p. 23.




loss of public participation in the permittingprocess is justified. Furthermore, while use of class permits for tanks and containers may bereasonable, these may have to be limited toaboveground facilities because of the difficultyof detecting leaks in underground facilities.

Limited class permits may h ave to be based onvery detailed technical criteria in order to avoidpermitting of older facilities having unaccept-able design and performance features. (For ex-ample, construction materials in older facilitiesmay lack adequate corrosion resistance.) If Congress is to sanction class permitting with-out sacrificing protection of the public, thenthe limited natu re of the policy shou ld be care-fully spelled out legislatively. Class permittingneed not involve a cutoff of all public participa-tion. Expedited , minimal permit review can becombined with appropriate notification and an

opportunity for the public to be heard as partof the permitting process.

Specific Technical Criteria in Regulations .–There

are a number of critical components of RCRAand CERCLA regulations that include little if any specific technical criteria to guide permit-ting. If Congress is to ensure protection of thepublic consistently, then it is necessary to di-rect EPA to establish specific technical criteriathrough rulemaking, in contrast to reliance onguidance documents. This would correct thecurrent emphasis on allowing Federal or State

perm it writers to m ake critical decisions eitherwithout such guidance, or without the re-sources necessary for making decisions andformulating criteria about extremely complextechn ical matters. Two ar eas of particular con-cern ar e RCRA regulations dealing w ith mon i-toring for land disposal facilities and CERCLAregulations dealing with the determination of the extent of cleanup at a remedial site. Thisis not to imp ly that EPA is un aware of the pr ob-lem. Several relevant activities should be noted:draft guidance documents have been preparedby EPA and may lead to specific criteria being

used ; EPA was und er jud icial order to p romu l-gate final regulations; and r egulations can andmay be revised in the future to add more de-tailed standards.

Benefits of the Option

The above set of changes in the current Fed-eral regulatory program for hazardous wastewould yield the following benefits relative tothe eight goals for all policy options. That theoption could readily be implemented is an in-trinsic advantage.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environmentwithout undue delays and uncertainti es.

In general, this option ap pears to offer a major benefit. Regulation of more hazardouswaste, u se of more technical criteria in regula-tions, and reasonable class permits could re-duce the probability of release of hazardous

constituents into the environment. The optionwou ld not restructure the current Federal pro-gram. All the modifications in RCRA could beimplemented expeditiously within the existingframework in an evolutionary mann er. The op-tion presents changes which can be phased inand which would reduce uncertainties con-cerning possible future regulation. One specificaction that would benefit from the earliest pos-sible consideration is the adoption of specifictechnical criteria for permitting, which hashardly begun. Such criteria could speed up per-mitting in many respects; current regulationsare likely to place considerable burdens on per-mit writers.

GOAL 2

Expand universe of federally regulated hazardouswaste.

This option offers a major benefit. Many ex-isting gaps in regulatory coverage would beclosed in appr opriate ways. Addr essing the de-listing mechanism from th e viewpoint of waste

generators (ensuring that truly hazardouswaste are not delisted) balances increasedburdens placed on waste generators by accom-modating unique site-specific situations.



Ch. 3—Policy Options . 7 1

GOAL 3


Only modest, indirect benefits are likely inthis area, Bringing more waste under regula-tion m ay create larger markets for alternatives.

The use of more specific technical criteriamight m ake land d isposal options more strin-gent and costly.

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/ CERCLA implementation.

The option would promote the use of morespecific technical criteria in regulations, aswell as for th e collection of ad ditional informa-tion concerning additional waste brought intothe regulatory system (even if only for report-

ing). There are, thus, reasons for expectationof major benefits regarding data collection, riskassessment, and implementation.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA parti ci pat ion byStates.

A major benefit could result because moretechnical guidance would be provided throughthe use of more extensive technical criteria inFederal regulations. Also, States that now regu-late more waste than the Federal system would

have fewer conflicts with the expanded Federalsystem, and would find program delegationmore acceptable, This option would facilitateexpansion of the universe of regulated wastefor those States that cannot be more stringentthan the Federal program. Many States wouldalso welcome class permits and more technicalcriteria in regulations, which could reduce theburd ens on State permit writers. How ever, thisoption would not expand participation byStates,

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in costs to governments for ad-

ministration and to industry for compliance.

Only a minor benefit m ight result. By bring-ing more w aste into the regu latory system, this

option increases all costs. To the extent thatclass permits and more equitable delisting p ro-cedures might offer efficiencies, costs mightbe reduced. If it is presumed that greater regu-latory coverage reduces long-term costs to thegovernment for cleanup actions, then the op-

tion may offer a long-term cost benefit.GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costsof management shifted t o society i n general.

A major benefit in this area would resultfrom the fact that more hazardous waste wouldbecome regulated and managed in m ore appro-priate ways than they currently are. More tech-nical criteria in Federal regulations could alsoensure that current managers provide appro-priate levels of control.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over sit ing of f acili ti es.

A major benefit could result with pu blic per-ception that the Federal regulatory system en-sures that fewer hazardou s waste are escapingregulation altogether and that increased tech-nical criteria in Federal regulations provide amore uniform and acceptable level of protec-tion throughout th e Nation, without removingthe public’s right to participate in the permit-ting process,

Costs and Problems for Implementation

Some of the specific actions required for im-plementation are consistent with current EPAplans, althou gh details may differ. * Other ac-tions, such as broadening of the regulatedwaste coverage and use of specific technicalcriteria, are not wholly endorsed by EPA, Amajor problem app ears to be the somewhat in-creased resources required to implement thechanges. Critics may contend that with prac-tical implementation just beginning, it is not

* For example, EPA has indicated that it is studying the burn-ing of bazardous waste as fuels in boilers and may issue regula-tions, but its study will not be completed until early 1984 , andit has begun a study of small generators. EPA plans to proposerulemaking for the first group of class permits in 1983. [47 CFR239, 5560-5584, Dec. 13, 1982.)



72 q Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control .

possible to keep the current program moving,while at the same time making these changes.It may also be argued that there is insufficientinformation available to carry out thesechanges. Opponents of the option are likely tosee an unnecessary increase in the scope andlevel of the regulations, adding further to theburden on the regulated community. There issome m erit to all these viewp oints. There is noway to determine precisely what the costs togovernm ent, or to the private sector, would be.A rough estimate of the increase in EPA fund-ing required for implementing this option with-in 1 to 2 years might be about $10 million. *

Option Ill

Use of Economic Incentives for Alternativesto Disposal and Dispersal

The objective of this option is to shift the bal-ance from disposal and dispersal of hazardouswaste into the land or the oceans to the reduc-tion of waste at th e source, recycling, and treat-ment. Direct economic incentives would beused to accomplish this objective. The follow-ing comments from a recent study 19 suggest aneed for this option:

The federal government has done little direct-ly to encourage the ad option of alternative dis-posal techniques . . . Several of the states aretaking a more active role than the federal gov-ernment,

This option is designed to provide direct in -centives. There are, within the current pro-gram , regulatory incentives to promote the useof alternatives to disposal and dispersal, includ-ing: streamlining perm itting p rocedures for al-ternative or innovative facilities, requiremen tsto use certain alternatives for specific wastes,and increasing th e required level of control fordisposal and dispersal approaches. Moreover,the current system is significantly increasing

*This figure is roughly 40 percent of the sum in the EPA fiscal

year 1983 budget for all hazardous waste activities excludinggrants to the States, administration of the regional offices, en-forcement activities, and R&D activities; it is also about one+hirdof the fiscal year 1983 budget for R&D costs associated withhazardous waste.

‘e’’ State of the Environment 1982,” The Conservation Foun-dation, 1982.

the costs of land disposal, compared even to just a few years ago. While these factors mayhave beneficial effects, they are often renderedless effective by uncertainties, ambiguities, andcontradictions in the regu latory system (as per-ceived by the regulated community) or becausethey limit choices in too general a fashion. Theuse of direct economic incentives can beviewed as a complement to regulatory incen-tives and to the use of the legal system.

This policy option should be viewed in thecontext of current legislation concerning haz-ardous waste management. CERCLA was en-acted because of the recognition that u naccept-able risks have been inherited from certain pastwaste m anagement efforts that were too short-sighted. The connection between CERCLAand RCRA has received insufficient atten-tion; too often they are viewed as separate

programs, rather than as two components of the Federal hazardous waste program. Theneed for future expenditures of public fundsto clean up hazardous waste sites should beminimized.

Congressional action to implement this op-tion could occur through an amendment toRCRA or CERCLA, or as new legislation.There are no app arent technical or institutionalobstacles to adop tion, but a major issue w ouldbe wh at typ es of incentives to provide. Conse-quently, before discussing here the several

types of economic incentives, the concept of a hierarchy of alternative management strat-egies is examined. The discussion provides acontext for considering this option. Second, acomprehensive set of economic incentives areexamined, including using a fee system forwastes, a means to address capital needs, anda means to address R&D needs. Third, the op-tion is evaluated on th e basis of the eight policygoals. Finally, costs and problems associatedwith implementation are discussed.

A Hierarchy of Alternative Management Strategies

A major purpose of chapter 5 is to demon-strate the applicability of a relatively largenumber of alternative technological approachesto hazardous waste management. Such tech-nologies provide means for the reduction of




waste generation, the d estruction of waste, andthe disposal or dispersal of waste. Differentalternatives are appropriate for differentwastes and locations. In chapter 4, it wasnoted that land d isposal nationwide continuesto be used for most hazardou s waste (although

it varies substantially among States), and inchapter 5 the uncertainties concerning the useof ocean disposal are discussed.

With the congressional mandate to reducethe risks associated with hazardous waste toacceptable levels for both present and futuregenerations as a constant goal, a cost-effective-ness approach can be used to select appropri-ate technical app roaches for particular wastes.Moreover, the optimum management strategyfor any waste will likely consist of severaltechnical steps: redu cing th e volum e of waste,reducing the hazard level through treatment,and disposing or dispersing what remains. Itmust be recognized, however, that occasionallysome treatments might lead to waste residuesthat p resent greater problems for disposal thanthe original waste. The most attractive manage-ment strategy is one that matches technologicaloperations with the characteristics of specificwastes to minimize the release of hazardouswaste in a cost-effective manner. Greater at-tention to a hierarchy could lead to greater con-sideration of the broadest range of cost-effec-tive alternatives for waste mana gement. Avail-

able management strategies and specific tech-nological alternatives appear to provide amplechoices for waste generators to obtain solutionsto regulatory demands.

The following hierarchy provides a frame-work for understanding the use of alternativesto disposal and dispersal of hazardous w astes:

1.

2.

3.

waste reduction at the source—e.g., proc-ess modifications;waste separation, segregation, and con-centration, through available engineeringtechniques in order to facilitate identifica-

tion of the waste and the application of theremaining steps;material recovery, either onsite or offsite,to make u se of valuable m aterials, includ-ing the use of waste exchanges so that a

4.

5.

6.

(potential) waste for one generator can bemade available as a resource for anotherindustry;energy recovery from (potential) waste orits components, perhaps as a fuel supple-ment;

waste treatment to reduce the hazard leveland possibly the amount of waste requir-ing disposal; andultimate disposal or dispersal (preferablyof residues from previous steps, of pre-treated w aste, and of untreatable waste) ina man ner that h olds release of hazardousconstituents into the environment to ac-ceptable levels.

Such a systematic ordering of waste m anage-ment options presents a number of advantages.For example, permanent solutions to waste

prob lems are more likely to occur p rior to dis-posal and dispersal. Consequently, fewer risksand costs are shifted to the future. Emphasison waste reduction could significantly reducecosts of waste management and, in some in-stances, avoid them altogether. The use of waste as resources, rather than discardingthem, at once removes them and provides di-rect econom ic benefits. If less hazardous wasteis produced and regulated by promoting theuse of alternatives 1 through 5 of the hierarchy,and if there are reduced administrative activ-ities (e. g., inspection) for treatment and dis-

posal facilities, then the costs of administeringa regulatory program and of remediating un-controlled sites could be reduced.

Specific factors concerning waste, plant, andcompanies should of course play their normalrole in economic evaluations of alternatives.Moreover, for some waste only managementalternatives 5 or 6 will be technically feasibleor cost effective. The above listing does notimply that alternatives 2 through 5 do not in-volve any potential release of waste into theenvironment; techniques for these options re-

quire some regulatory coverage to monitor andhold such release to an acceptable level. Forexample, energy recovery through the burningof waste as fuels poses p roblems of releases of hazardous constituents into the environment.

99-113 0 - 83 - 6




Such regulation can provide information usefulin enforcement efforts and for understandinghow generic types of waste can be managedother than by disposal and d ispersal app roaches.

The idea of the hierarchy presented abovedid not originate w ith OTA. It has been recog-nized for some time by those concerned withwaste management in both industry and gov-ernment. In 1976, before the passage of RCRA,EPA offered a position statement on effectivehazardous waste management that includedthe above hierarchy as a ranking of preferredalternatives. As recently as 1982, EPA reiter-ated its support of the 1976 position.20 Nonethe-less, there has been little programmatic sup-port of the concept of a waste managementhierarchy. Although RCRA gave some atten-tion to reuse, recovery, and recycling, therehave been few programs providing incentives,

nor have there been transfers of technology andinformation encouraging this strategy. As forEPA’s R&D activities, in fiscal year 1983 thetotal effort related to alternatives to land dis-posal amounted to about 10 percent of all haz-ardous waste R&D, or $4.4 million.21 (See ch.7 for a discussion of all current EPA expendi-tures.)

There have been no programs explicitlyaimed at waste reduction, although increasingcosts of wa ste managem ent (due, in part, to theFederal regulatory program) have indirectly en-couraged waste reduction efforts. The indirectapproach, however, does not appear to pro-duce positive results extensive enough andfast enough to substantially impact nationalwaste management practices. Some supportfor this belief has been obtained by an analysis

ZOFedera] Register , vol. 41, No. 1 6 1 , pp . 3 5 0 5 0 , 35051 , 1 9 7 6 ;

EPA )ournal, July-August 1982 , p. 19; and testimony of Rita M.Lavelle, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Scienceand Technology, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricul-ture Research and Technology, Dec. 16, 1982.

~lThe a c~~ areas a n d support levels are: incineration of organ-ics—$2.6 million, cofiring options such as boilers and cementkilns—$1.2 million, advanced thermal technologies such asplasma burning–$140,0()(), physical, chemical, and biologicaltreatments—$150, C)(.)O; pretreatment such as solidification—$300,000. (Oral testimony, John Lehman, Director of EPA’s Haz-ardous and Industrial Waste Division, House Subcommittee onNatural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Dec.16, 1982.)

of premanufacturing notices filed by man ufac-turers of chemicals as required by the ToxicSubstances Control Act. Limited informationprovided on anticipated waste managementpractices for notices filed during the past 3years, as shown in table 10, indicate twotrends: 1) increasing reliance on some form of

waste treatment by itself, and 2) a decline inthe use of land disposal by itself and in conjunction with waste treatment. However, thetotal, combined use of land disposal continuesto remain at high levels, and the increase innotices filed may indicate increasing amountsof waste to be produced in the future.

The ineffectiveness of indirect incentivesprobably will likely remain as long as EPAmaintains that land disposal is the most accept-able management alternative. Thus, althoughEPA has adop ted the above hierarchy, its posi-

tion regarding land disposal has been ex-pressed as follows:

We believe that most wastes can be satisfac-torily managed in the land and that it can bedone with a reasonable margin of safety morecheaply in this man ner.

22

Indirect, nonregulatory approaches to thisoption are of only limited effectiveness. Ade-quate control of hazardous waste cannot beprovided by either market or legal systems, aswas concluded in a recent study for EPA:

Private markets alone cannot be relied on to

promote adequate controls on hazardous re-leases. The common law system creates some

ZZTestimony of Rita Lave]le, House Subcommittee on NaturalResources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Dec. 1 6 ,

1982.

Table 10.—Waste Management Methods Indicatedon TSCA Premanufacturing Notices

Treatment and Land disposalYear Treatment only land disposal only1980 . . . . . . 24% 4-1 “/0 30%1981 . . . . . . 29% 29% 410!01982 . . . . . . 52% 31 % 13“/0

NOTE: Based on examination of May and June submissions for each year.Percentages are for totals of those supplying information for onsite andoff site management; totals were 37 for 1960, 68 for 1961, and 118 for 1962.Due to the limited information asked for and provided, it is not possibleto know whether all the management ct(oices are for hazardous waste,or for others as well.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment




incentives for proper waste management, butthose incentives are too w eak or u ncertain toprovide the only controls for many types of haz-ardou s waste incidents.

23

The study did not address the question of whether equitable internalization of the full

costs of hazardous w aste management can beachieved through a regulatory approach, nordid it consider nonregulatory alternativeswhich might avoid inadequacies of the marketand legal systems. Such questions are becom-ing increasingly important,

With regard to the u se of direct economic in-centives, a 1980 EPA study noted:

Many environmental regulatory programscould potentially employ market mechanismsto supplement or replace the more traditional“command-and-control” approach. There is

good reason to believe that in som e cases mar -ket incentives might be both less costly andmore effective than the regulatory ap proach. *

Many industries have actually adopted theabove hierarchy. Their economic evaluationsinclude the longer term liabilities and poten-tial costs associated with the disposal and dis-persal alternatives, which are m ore d ifficult toquantify than short-term costs. Industrieschoosing to reduce waste generation or to usetreatment techniques may incur greater coststhan competitors who choose disposal and dis-persal. Adoption of the above hierarchy, evenin the private sector, must be based primarilyon a p hilosophical commitment, not on precisequantitative economic evaluations of limitedscope, Some ind ustries may w ant to convey tothe public that their firms are “good citizens. ”Although use of the land for disposal has con-tinued to receive regulatory attention, manywould argue that land disposal has been en-couraged (see ch. 7) by regulations that fail topromote internalization of the long-term costsof land d isposal, Since curr ent regu lations con-tribute to the lower costs of disposal and dis-

persal when compared with other alternatives,Zs’’Eva1uation of Market and Legal Mechanisms for Promoting

Control of Hazardous Wastes” (draft), Industrial Economics,Inc., September 1982.

* EPA , “Economics In EPA, ” Subcommittee on EconomicAnalysis, Science Advisory Board, July 22, 1980.

it can be argued that measures need to be takento offset this regulatory bias. One approachwould be to correct the regulatory bias direct-ly. Another would be to address the need fordirect economic incentives for alternatives todisposal and dispersal. The incentive approach

contrasts with the traditional command andcontrol regulations which are aimed at uncov-ering those not in compliance and depend onenforcement actions.

Types of Incentives

Considering th e objective of m inimizing gov-ernment expenditures, OTA believes that it isimpractical to suggest major incentive pro-grams based on direct, budgeted expenditures.Also, the use of economic incentives raisesquestions concerning the placement of burd ens

on ind ustry. For such reasons, this option con-sists of three compon ents: a fee system on gen -erated waste, procedures to respond to capitalneeds of alternatives, and consideration of R&D problems that might prevent the develop-ment of alternatives.

A Fee System. —There is a trend toward Stateuse of fee systems, both to raise revenues andto influence choices among hazardous wastemanagement alternatives, but results of theserelatively new progr ams are m ixed. California,New York, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio im-pose fees on waste generators. The CERCLAprogram, at the Federal level, is based on thecollection of a fee on the production of petroleum feedstocks and specified chemicalswhich produces 87.5 percent of the $1.6 billionfund . Many critics of this approach believe thatthe fund should have been financed througha “tail-end” fee on actual waste generated,rather than on “front-end” feedstock materialsthat only indirectly, and to different degrees,lead to hazardou s w aste generation. A strongdisincentive is thus inadvertently establishedpenalizing those choosing to minimize waste

generation. How ever, there was insu fficient in-formation on w aste generators originally avail-able to facilitate such an approach. When col-lection under CERCLA expires in 1985, it islikely that substan tial sum s will continu e to berequired to clean up uncontrolled sites. EPA’s




original estimate in 1980 required $44 billion.There have also been indications from the ad-ministration that it is currently disinclined toseek reauthorization of the fee collection pro-gram. Continuation of the current CERCLAfee system offers no direct incentive to alter-

natives to land disposal, although continuedexperience with CERCLA may prove to be aneffective indirect influence on use of such al-ternatives.

An approach that would satisfy several objec-tives could be based on the u se of the CERCLAfunding mechanism for RCRA purposes andusing a tail-end system instead of a front-endfee. This would involve shifting the collectionof CERCLA moneys (including the post-closureliability trust fund to start in 1983) to hazardouswaste gen erators. * To be effective, fees wou ldhave to be reduced, on a unit-weight basis,when: 1) alternatives to disposal and dispersalwere used by the generator, either onsite or off-site; and 2) the hazard level of the waste orresidue disposed was relatively low.

The concept of a fee on wa ste generators hasbeen given some supp ort by the recommend a-tion th at the H azardous Waste CompensationFund “should be established by contributionsfrom, or taxes on, the pr odu ction of hazardou sor toxic chemicals, and crude oil, and by a taxon the deposit of hazardous wastes. ” 24 More-over, EPA itself has said that “ . . fee systems

make sense because they ‘internalize’ the costof pollution, placing its cost at the source, noton the general public, ” 25 although EPA seemsmore interested in State fee systems than in aFederal system. With regard to the present ap-proach to collecting fees on feedstocks under

*Collection of the $2.13 per ton CERCLA tax on hazardouswaste received at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities willbegin on Apr. 1, 1983. No tax is paid on waste that will not re-main at the facility after closure, such as treatment facilities.The tax is not on waste generators directly. Proceeds of the taxwill finance the $2OO million Post-Closure Liability Trust Fundto pay for post-closure care, remedial action, and damages from

releases at qualifying hazardous waste facilities.“’’In juries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Analysisand Improvement of Legal Remedies, ” report to Congress bySuperfund Study Group, September 1982.ZsIssue papers prepared by EPA for Sept. 20, 1982, meeting

between EPA Administrator and representatives of the NationalGovernors’ Association, distributed by Lewis S. W. Crampton.

CERCLA and the need to influence currentmanagement choices, the senior EPA officialresponsible for both CERCLA and RCRA ad-ministration has said, “It would be more appro-priate to put the fee on waste generation. ” 28

Sup port for a w aste fee system also has come

from a major industry, which is generallyunderstood to be the largest hazardous wastegenerating industrial sector:

CMA has, under the Superfund discussions,recommended a waste end tax. That may beone way to increase the incentives out of land -filling for certain particularly highly toxic mate-rials. Waste end tax as opposed to a feedstock,and I think that probably should still be consid-ered as one of the methods which might be usedto move the system gradually from landfillingto the m ore app ropriate, in some cases, tech-nologies.

27

In considering th e problem of Federal fund ingof State programs, the National Governors’Association has said,

If EPA wishes fees to replace federal re-sources, it should lead the way with the devel-opment of a uniform fee structure, . . . .

28

The critical feature of such a system, is thatsuch a fee shou ld be substantially greater (per-haps double) for disposal and dispersal options,and substantially lower for low-hazard ortreated waste (perhaps by half). A fee discrimi-nation would provide the desired economic in-centives for alternatives to disposal and disper-sal. Moreover, the discriminatory ratios and/ orth e amounts of the fees on land-disposedwastes might be increased over time, as wastevolum es decline and after ample time has beengiven for adopting alternatives. A zero tax forwastes (or portions of them) recycled for ma-terial or energy that would otherwise becomehazardous waste would appear equitable and

Zbora l testimony, llita Lavelle, U.S. House of Representatives,Committee on Science and Technolol<y, Subcommittee on Nat-ural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Dec.

16, 1982.zTPhlllp A . Palmer, testimony on beha lf of the Chem ical MmU-

factu rers Association, Mar, 31, 1982, House Subcommittee onCommerce, Transportation, and ToL~rism.

Z8’’Work Plan on Environmental P rog ram Grants, ” Environ-mental Subcommittee, National Govl~rnors ’ Association, Dec.16, 1982.



Ch. 3—Policy Options q 7 7 —

desirable. * However, there is a need for precisedefinitions for recycling (as well as for hazard-ous waste), otherwise a waste fee approachcould lead to inappropriate removal of wastesfrom the sys tem, * *

Can fees on generated hazardou s waste raisesufficient revenues? If one accepts the current,frequently used figure of 41 miIlion tons peryear of RCRA hazardous waste generation, anaverage fee of $10 per ton would raise aboutthe same annu al revenues as CERCLA present-ly does. If total waste generation is muchhigher, as it may be because of a broader uni-verse of waste regulated by States (see ch. 4),or if more w astes are brought u nd er the RCRAprogram, then fees might be reduced some-what.

For disposal and d ispersal options, with h ighfees of perhaps $10 to $20 per ton, costs couldincrease by less than 10 to 40 percent for a dis-posal cost range of $50 to $200 per ton, andperhaps by less if the national waste stream isfound to be much greater than the currentlyused figure (see discussion in later section).However, for high-volume, low-hazard wastedisposal or treatmen t may only cost $10 to $20per ton, and fees should be lower than the av-erage.

Table 11 illustrates a waste fee system thathas been prop osed in Minnesota. The structure

of this system is strongly biased against land

“There is a view in ind ustry that characterizingrecy~l~d haz-

ardous materials as hazardous waste is inappropriate, becausethey are not discards. However, it is also argued by others thatit is necessary to keep such materials in the category of wastebecause there is still a potential for releases of hazardous constit-uents during handling, transport, and recycling of such materi-als. Moreover, there is the likelihood that not all generators of such materials will recycle them, and that those who do recyclethem will not always do so.

* q In this regard, the use of deposit-refund types of economicincentives offers a unique advantage, The user of a feedstock,that Ieads to generating a hazardous waste, pays a deposit thatis returned only on transfer of the waste to an appropriate man-agement facility. This approach provides a direct economic in-centive for proper management, and is being used very success-fully in West Germany for ensuring the recycling of waste oils. In contrast to a waste fee approach, in which some parties maybe motivated to escape by illegal action, the deposit-refund ap-proach makes improper behavior costly, even without enforce-ment actions.

Table 11 .—illustration of a Hazardous WasteGenerator Tax Structure

Waste management ca tegory

Land disposal ................. ....................Offsite

Land disposal after treatmentTreatment . . . . . . . . .Onsite

Land disposal after treatmentTreatment ., . .

Recycling/reuse,u s e d c r a n k c a s e 0 1 1

T-ax on Tax onsolid waste Iiquid waste

($/metric ton) ($/metric ton)

42 85 –

21 42. . 11 21

11 215 11

0 0—

NOTE In addition to this tax, to support a State Superfund, a hazardous wastegenerator fee (a mlnlmum fee plus a fee dependent on the quantity ofwaste generated) was also proposed to support State adm!nlstratlve costsfor hazardous waste programs. A provision was Included to exempt smallgenerators

SOURCE Minnesota Conference Report H F No 1176, Mar 19, 1982

disposal, particularly for liquid waste. It alsofavors onsite over offsite management, a biasoften defended on the basis of advantages asso-ciated w ith not transporting h azardous m ateri-als, rather than on any intrinsically superiorlevel of management at onsite facilities. Thissystem, it should be noted, is also simple. Theuse of relatively simple generic waste cate-gories for different fee rates is necessary tofacilitate administration of such a system.

New York State employs a simple system,with the following rates imposed on waste gen-erators: $12/ ton for hazardous waste disposedof in land fills; $9/ ton for waste treated or d is-

posed of offsite, excluding disposal in landfills;$2/ ton for waste incinerated or treated onsite;and no fee on waste subject to resour ce recov-ery. Unlike the Minnesota system, the NewYork fee structure is based only on manage-ment choice, and does not deal with the degree-of-hazard of the waste. However, it too pro-vides an incentive for onsite management, butto a lesser degree than the Minnesota ap-proach.

Hazardous waste generators in California arecovered by two separate fee systems: one sup-

por ts the operation of the overall State hazard -ous waste program and imp oses a $4/ ton feefor wastes that are land disposed (with a limitof $10,000 per month); the other is a StateSuperfund system that uses a a current base




rate* of $6.52/ ton for hazard ous w astes that areland disposed, a rate twice that of the base rate,or $13.04/ ton curren tly, for extremely hazard -ous wastes that are land disposed, a rate thatis 15 percent of the base rate for w astes placedin surface impound ments and for wastes regu-

lated as hazardous by the State but not underthe Federal RCRA program, and a rate of 0.1percent of the base rate for relatively high-vol-ume, low-hazard mining overburden wastes.While the California system recognizes vary-ing hazard levels of wastes, it places no feeswh atsoever on any wastes for wh ich the m an-agement choice does not involve the u se of theland. Thus, there is an incentive to use wastetreatments rather than land d isposal, but (un-like the Minn esota and New York cases) it pro-vides no direct incentive for waste reductionnor for onsite rather than offsite management.

The underlying philosophy of the waste-feesystem ap proach is to reward those who m ini-mize future risks and costs to society throughthe use of environmentally preferred alternatives. As existing uncontrolled sites arecleaned u p, future u ncontrolled sites made lesslikely, and hazardous waste generation re-duced, the fees on non-land-disposed wastescould be decreased. Morever, such an incen-tive system would encourage efforts to reducethe amounts of waste generated. The uses of the fees collected could be expanded, as has

been recommended,

29

to deal with injuries anddamages directly associated with mismanage-ment of hazardous wastes. Fees could be col-lected by States, and it might be advantageousto distribute a specified percentage of those col-lected by a State to the State program. Thiscould promote the replacement of varying Statefee programs with a uniform national system,at least for federally regulated wastes. Such auniform system could minimize potential ef-fects on interstate commerce, including the

q This base rate is adjusted annu ally, on the basis of changing

amoun ts of wastes generated and the d istribution in the differentwastes classes that are taxed, so as to produce a total of $10million annually for the State Superfund.~“Injuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes-Analysis and

Improvement of Legal Remedies,” a report to Congress in com-pliance with sec. 301(e) of CERCLA, September 1982. (By an in-dependent group of attorney s.)

transport of waste to, or the location of wastegenerators in, States with low fees or none atall.

Capital Needs. —A major obstacle to the ad op-tion of measures to reduce waste generationor hazard levels is the need for capital invest-

ment for new or modified equipment or facili-ties, either by waste generators or commercialwaste managers. A Federal loan programcould be instituted, which offered low interestrates, and perhaps long terms for repayment,for capital expenditures on existing or newfacilities directly related to waste or hazardreduction. Alternatively, the Federal programmight guarantee private sector loans, or makeavailable tax free bonds to finance loans. Tech-nical guidelines could be established and theadministration of loan evaluations and approv-als could be shifted prim arily to the States. Un-expended CERCLA funds, either those underthe present pr ogram (wh ich are cur rently quitelarge) or more likely under a new program asdescribed above, might be used as a source of funds for loans. A fixed fraction of such fee-generated funds might be designated for thesetypes of loans. One recent study which exam-ined using government loan incentives forresource recovery equipment in the electro-plating industry concluded that such a pro-gram could be quite effective.30

Another means of addressing capital needs

is the use of tax credits. A special, time-limitedinvestment tax credit to spur capital invest-ments could be offered if directly related toreduction of waste or hazard levels. Althoughthis is a traditional approach to achieving adesired goal of society, it has received criticismbecause of the loss of revenues to the govern-ment. However, the case of hazardous wastepresents a particularly good example of howspending promoted by a tax benefit could, inthe long-term, markedly reduce government ex-penditures. Moreover, a special tax credit of 10 percent (in addition to any broad investment

tax credit) likely would lead to reductions in

s@’ Hazardou s Waste Managem ent in th e Great Lakes Region:Opportunities for Economic Development and Resource Recov-ery” (Washington, D. C. : U.S. Depar tment of Commerce, Nat ionalBureau of Standards, September 1982).



Ch. 3—Policy Options • 79

government revenues of at most several hun-dred million dollars annually over a 5- to1(1-year p eriod, An interesting p ossibility wou ldbe to use some fraction of the fees collected tocompensate the Treasury for all or part of thelost tax revenues. The electroplating industry

study also concluded that a special investmenttax credit for resource recovery investmentscould be effective.

A nu mber of States have used tax incentivesto deal with capital needs for improved hazard-ous waste management. Some examples havebeen noted in a recent study.31 Wisconsin ex-empts machinery and equipment used for treat-ing hazardous waste from the State propertytax. North Carolina excludes real estate andequipment used for waste disposal and re-source recovery from its property tax and it

also offers accelerated depreciation on re-source recovery equip ment. Michigan exemptsfrom property taxation the value of any im-provements in old facilities for the purpose of waste reduction. Oregon offers a 100-percenttax credit for pollution control facilities associ-ated with recovery of energy or of substanceswith economic value, However, it is not yetclear how their programs have influencedwaste management decisions.

Assistance f or R&D Efforts. -Alternatives to dis-posal and dispersal meet another obstacle in

that technologies such as p rocess m odificationor for treatment of particularly difficult w astesrequire applied R&D efforts before becomingcommercially feasible. Increased Federal sup-port of private sector R&D, including pilotplant efforts, could be very useful. Relativelysmall sums might produce very large benefits.In order to allay objections to using Federalfunds, it might be possible to structure R&Dassistance so as to recover the Federal invest-ment, perhaps through long-term, low-interestloans to be repaid up on su ccessful comm ercial-ization of the technology. Profit sharing and

exclusive licensing arrangements with pay-ments to the govern ment are also possible. Illi-

31”A Survey and Analysis of State Policy O@ions to EncourageAlternatives to Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste, ” NationalConference of State Legislatures, July 1981.

nois commits a portion of the revenues ob-tained from fees on waste for R&D projects.


To what extent would adoption of govern-

ment incentives for using alternatives to haz-ardous waste disposal and dispersal achievethe eight policy goals? An intrinsic merit of thisoption is that congressional action could betaken in the near future, and implementationcould also take place within a few years, witha goal to r eplace the current system of collect-ing fees under CERCLA which exp ires in 1985,

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environmentwithout undue delays and uncertainties.

Major benefits could result from low ering of the probability of releases of hazardous constit-uents into the environment (assuming adequateregulations and enforcement for treatment al-ternatives to land d isposal). Imp lementation of this option would not interfere with the exist-ing regulatory p rogram . The main effect wou ldbe to shift regulated parties out of the regula-tory system when they no longer producewaste, or to shift the type or extent of regula-tion because generators produced differentamounts or types of waste that required differ-ent waste management options. It would be-

come preferable to be regulated as a recyclingor energy recovery facility, with a m inimal re-porting requirement, rather than as a d isposalfacility.

GOAL 2

Expand universe of federally regulated hazardouswaste.

This option does not address this goal. Anyeffects would be indirect and difficult to pre-dict.

GOAL 3


This option’s major benefit would be toachieve this goal as m uch as an y public policy




could. H owever, economic incentives for alter-natives to disposal and dispersal should notlead to a relaxation of the current regulatoryprogram. Stringent regulations and effectiveenforcement would still be required.

GOAL 4Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/

CERCLA i mplementat ion.

A moderate benefit might result, since the feesystem could provide motivation for the collec-tion and continued maintenance of completeand reliable data on waste generators.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA parti ci pat ion byStates.

Insofar as the fee system would contributeto funding for both the Federal and State pro-grams, a major benefit relative to this goalcould result. The administrative burd en placedon the States could be reduced, as less wasteand fewer waste generators would be regu-lated. Although there could be an increase inState activities from the administration of anincentive program, adoption of a Federal feesystem could remove the burden of existingState fee systems while providing greater rev-enues because of a broader ran ge of wa ste reg-ulated. A recent study of State fee systems,

most of which have not been in effect verylong, concludes that relatively small sums arebeing collected, with only 5 States having feesimposed on waste generators, 14 with fees ontransporters, 18 with fees on waste manage-ment facilities, and 17 with no fees and no d e-sire to implement any.32 However , anotherstudy concluded that only 7 State hazardouswaste agencies (out of a total of 18 States withany type of fee) collect and keep fees, with theothers placing the fees collected in State gen-eral funds.33 This points to a potential benefitof a Federal fee system affecting all States that

‘2”A Study of State Fee Systems for Hazardous Waste Manage-ment Programs, ” U.S. EPA, July 1982.ss’’The State of the States: Management of Environmental Pro-

grams in the 1980’ s,” National Governors’ Association, June1982.

provided funds for operation of State hazard-ous waste programs.

GOAL 6

Moderate increases i n costs to governments for ad-ministration and to industry for compliance.

Clearly a waste fee system would imposehigher near-term costs on w aste generators, al-though it could contribute to a reduction infuture liabilities. Governments would benefitfrom a source of funding for administeringtheir hazardous waste programs, and fromfewer facilities to regulate du e to waste redu c-tion, but would incur new costs in administra-tion of the econom ic incentives program . Withincentives, less waste generated, and fewer reg-ulated facilities, long-term regulatory compli-ance costs in the private sector and governmen-

tal costs might d ecrease (although this is some-wh at un certain). Costs associated w ith adverseimpacts on h ealth and the environment wouldeventually decrease because of lower wastegeneration, reduced hazard levels of wastes,and use of management options that could per-manently remove risks.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costsof management shif ted t o society i n general.

There would be a major benefit associated

with decreases in the amount of hazardouswaste generated and placed in the environ-ment, as w ell as in the h azard levels of wastesultimately disposed in the environm ent. Great-er internalization of costs wou ld resu lt becausethe waste fee system would transfer the liabil-ities associated with possible future releases,remediation actions, and possibly compensa-tion to waste generators.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over the siting of facilities.

Because most public concern is focused onproblems of land disposal, this option offers amajor benefit through its objective of shiftingwaste management from land disposal. More-over, greater public attention to alternatives




would promote better understanding of the dif-ferences between land d isposal and the variousalternatives, and of corresponding differencesin type and probability of releases. Moreover,an ensured means of funding State programscould improve public confidence in the effec-

tiveness of such programs.Costs and Problems for Implementation

Until specific incentive programs are devel-oped, it is impossible to estimate protracted ad-ministrative costs, However, the incentivesconsidered above have been chosen because,for the most part, they wou ld not lead to sub-stantial outlays of bud geted Federal fun ds. Ad-ditional fund s for EPA to perform analyses anddevise a plan during a 2-year period might beabout $5 million, * including funds to workwith the States to assess their involvement.

It maybe suggested that other n onregulatoryapp roaches to providing incentives for alterna-tives to land disposal exist and are more effec-tive than a fee system. Two others frequentlyconsidered are based on the legal system andon insurance procedures. The essential prob-lem with relying on the legal system concernsuncertainties of the system. Waste managersmu st perceive a high p robability of costly legaldamages from release of hazardous constitu-ents. In the absence of such perception, reli-ance on government enforcement actions or

private party suits to return previously exter-nalized costs to waste managers is uncertain.Legal find ings and judgm ents in the procedu realso introdu ce uncertainties. While curr ent en-vironmental statutes may facilitate legal ac-tions, and enforcement efforts may be some-what effective, there is little evidence to sug-gest that legal approaches can provide expedi-

*The basis for this figure and for the estimated costs for op-tions IV and V is based on OTA’S estimate of the level of effortand typical costs as follows: an average cost of $100,000 persenior professional per year, including $60,000 for compensa-tion, $20,000 for administrative support, and $20,000 for research

support. Also, these estimates are consistent with EPA’s costsfor performing major analytical efforts such as regulatory im-pact analyses that have had an average value of $373,ooo (“Im-proved Quality, Adequate Resources, and Consistent OversightNeeded If Regulatory Analysis is to Help Control Costs of Regula-tions, ” GAO, November, 1982.)

ent and widespread feedback effects for wastemanagement choices.

RCRA’S financial liability requirements havealready increased the u se of insuran ce options.Here too there are considerable uncertaintiesover whether such distribution and assessment

of risks is expedient in affecting managementchoices. There are very few actuarial data toassist insurance firms in structuring costs, lit-tle experience with such claims, and consider-able difficulty in making risk assessments of facilities. As with reliance on the legal system,insurance approaches offer more remedialthan preventive benefits for hazardous wasterelease. However, use of the legal and insur-ance system are necessary and should beviewed (as should the regulations themselves)as complements to a fee system.

There are few concerns over the use of loanguarantees or tax credits, and assistance forR&D efforts, particularly wh en comp ared to themore far-reaching use of a Federal fee system.The most frequent argum ent against the use of econom ic incentives is that they would requiresignificant administrative efforts. While this istrue, increased government resources neededto administer an incentive program, in termsof numbers of workers and skills required,could result in a net advantage, Because of ananticipated reduction in both waste and man-agement facilities requiring regulation, fewer

technically skilled personnel would be re-quired.

Opponents of a Federal fee on generatedwastes also raise the problem of inad equate ca-pacities for land disposal alternatives, How-ever, there is evidence that available facilitiesfor such alternatives have substantial unusedcapacities. 34 And if waste is reduced at thesource such obstacles are overcome. One of themost critical factors associated with adequate

S4For example , in a recent study for EPA of nine major off-site, commercial waste management companies, capacity utiliza-

tion for incineration decreased from 83 percent in 1980 to 7 8percent in 1981, for chemical treatment from 49 to 56 percent,and for resource recovery it remained constant at 24 percent.(“Review of Activities of Major Firms in the Commercial Hazard-ous Waste Management Industry: 1981 Update, ” Booz-Al]en &Hamilton, May 7, 1982.]




capacities for alternatives to land disposal in-volves investments by the w aste managementservices indu stry or w aste generators. Such in-vestments by the private sector to build morefacilities are unlikely w hen bias in th e Federalprog ram continu es to contribu te to lower costsfor land d isposal options. A Federal fee systemcould provide (particularly if announced sometime before implementation) the necessary cer-tainty for the private sector investment in fa-cilities.

Results concerning the technical and eco-nomic feasibility of offering alternatives to landdisposal from a California study are encourag-ing:

1.

2.

3.

75 percent of the hazardous waste dis-posed of in th e most secure land fills couldbe recycled, treated, or destroyed;

most additional waste management capac-ity needed to recycle, treat, or destroywaste could be developed in less than 2years; andthe additional cost of recycling, treating,or incinerating highly toxic waste wouldhave a minimal effect on industry.35

Another California study concludes that newplants would p roduce half the hazardous w astecurrently produced by similar activities.36 Thisindicates the potential for waste reduction ef-forts, even in existing plants.

Another ongoing study concerned solelywith hazardous waste reduction at the sourceconcluded “estimates of the impact on the toxicwaste problem through reduction at sourcerange from 30 to 80 percent—an exciting chal-lenge and opportunity that deserves nation-wide attention. ” 37

If a Federal fee system is chosen by Congress,it would most likely replace the current schemeused under CERCLA. While there might bebroad p ublic supp ort for this app roach, oppo-

.Sscalifornia office of Appropriate Technology, ‘‘Alternatives

to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: An Assessment forCalifornia, ” 1981.

“’Future Hazardous Waste Generation in California,” Depart-ment of Health Services, Oct. 1, 1982.

37J oanna D. Underwood, Executive Director, Inform, The New

York Times, Dec. 27, 1982.

nents quickly point out that increased fees onwaste generators could be burdensome to in-dustry. There is the prospect of reduced pro-fits and failure of marginally successful estab-lishments, unless the added costs of wastemanagement were passed on to the ultimateconsumers of the products. However, some evi-

dence exists that ad ditional costs to consum erswould be small, as waste management costsprobably contribute at most only a small per-centage (probably 1 to 3 percent) of the costsof production or of final prices. Even a highfee on land disposal of waste would , therefore,not affect final prices substantially. There isalso some evidence that increased costs to con-sumers related to improved protection of health and the environment would be accept-able. *

Another concern is th at a Federal fee system

could p rompt more illegal dum ping of hazard-ous waste. However, as has already been noted,effective enforcement efforts always remain anecessity. Control of illegal dumping, more-over, is not merely a matter of regulatory en-forcement–the issue is effective “policing” ef-forts, since illegal dumping of hazardous wasteis now accepted as constituting criminal be-havior.

It has been suggested that it would be possi-ble to rely on the States to adopt such an ap-proach, it is not realistic to believe that all the

States will or can d o so, or that they w ill adoptsimilar programs. In order to achieve consist-ent and equitable treatment of hazardous wastegenerators nationally, and to avoid the forma-tion of “pollution havens” in States withoutsuch fees, a Federal system is approp riate. Thereasoning is essentially the same as that usedto first justify the creation of the Federal haz-ardous waste regulatory system.

However, it may be effective to have theStates administer a Federal fee system. Statesare in the best position to obtain and maintain

information on waste generators and their*A recent major opinion survey on public supp ort for envi-

ronmental legislation found that 60 percent interviewed favorgiving priority to environmental cleanup “even if companieshave to charge more for their producis and services. ” (A s re-ported in the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1982,)




management practices. It would help offset theStates’ concerns that they would be requiredto d ismantle their fee systems, at least for fed-erally regulated waste. Some States may finda Federal fee system more acceptable if theywere assured a key role in its administration

and use of some fee revenues for support of State programs. Having a reliable source of funding for State programs is an importantissue. EPA has indicated its desire to reduceor eliminate grants to the States. To compen-sate for this loss of revenues, EPA is encourag-ing the use of State fee systems as well as avariety of fiscal approaches for States to obtainthe required matching funds for Superfundcleanups. However, the latter, such as sale-leasebacks of State assets, use of State bonds,and lease-purchases, present problems of lossof tax revenues, administrative difficulties, and

uncertain gains in funds. *Some may believe that any fee on hazar dou s

waste should be placed on management facil-ities rather than on waste generators, For on-site waste management there w ould be n o d if-ference, However, for waste managed offsiteplacing the fee on facility operators may notachieve the intend ed goal of influencing w astereduction and treatment choices which are orshould be made by generators, For example,facility operators may not pass the fee on towaste generators, may vary the amount passed

on among generators, or may cut waste man-agement costs (and its effectiveness) to offsetfees in order to gain advantage over competi-tors. For facilities perform ing a var iety of oper-ations (recycling, treatment, and disposal),there may be an incentive to misrepresent theamoun ts of waste managed in th ose ways withthe h ighest fees. Finally, with a fee imposed onfacilities there may be p ressure to levy the feeon the basis of the rates charged (usually a per-cent) and perhaps only for offsite operations.

*EPA’s study on “Increasing Purchasing Power of State Fundsfor Hazardous Substance Response, ” is expected to be completed

in the Spring of 1983. It is concerned with the inability of Statesto obtain the required matching funds for CERCLA cleanups,In early drafts it is noted that 22 States, accounting for twmthirdsof the sites on the National Priority List, have a continuous, reli-able method of financing remedial actions. But “the vast major-ity of these States have raised less than one-fourth of theestimated matching monies needed. ”

However, such an approach has the counter-productive effect of making facilities more at-tractive than they already are because of lowercosts resulting from poorer d esign, operations,or monitoring capabilities. Moreover, there isno reason to remove onsite facilities from the

fee system; with the exception of waste trans-portation, they p resent the same problems andpotential costs to society as offsite facilitiesand , most importan tly, accoun t for most of thehazardous waste managed.

If a waste fee system is used to generatefunds used for CERCLA activities, should theentire burden of the past be borne by presentwaste generators? This same concern appliesto the current CERCLA funding mechanism.It can be argued that shifting fees from feed-stocks to waste is probably more equitable,

since there is no certain link between feed-stocks and waste generated or mismanaged.A partial remedy wou ld be to continue p resentprocedures, and to use general Federal fundsto contribute to CERCLA costs. Nevertheless,it must be anticipated that those industriesgenerating large amounts of hazardous wastewill find a new Federal fee on them objection-able.

A legitimate concern is that a successful feesystem w ould eventually reduce the amount of waste generated, thus requiring increases of fees on remaining waste in order to maintainfunds for all the purposes already discussed.This situation might motivate government tounnecessarily bring more waste under regula-tory control. On the other hand, waste gener-ators could be more motivated to attempt tohave their waste delisted, Another possibilityis that generators would concentrate theirwastes, lowering fees, but increasing wastehazard s, There are no simp le solutions to th esepotential problems. It is unlikely, however, thatwaste reduction efforts would be so rapid orextensive that the amount of waste generatednationally would fall so low that fees on re-maining waste would become unacceptable.Some calculations, based on simplified but real-istic assumptions, are shown in figure 3 to il-lustrate possible fee levels and changes overtime, while maintaining total revenues, A fig-




Figure 3.— Illustration of Changing Federal Waste Fee System Over Time


ure of $650 million has been used in this il-lustration because it approximates what wouldbe required to fund current CERCLA activities,fund State hazardous programs, and providesome limited fund s in the victim comp ensationarea. * Over time, the system likely would reach

some equilibrium (including red uced m anufac-ture and consumption of products associatedwith hazardous waste generation), and feeswould be reduced because of less administra-tion of the programs and less cleanup of uncon-trolled sites.

Lastly, there are potential indirect economiceffects that are difficult to predict. There mightbe a negative effect on the international com-— —

“Use of waste generator fee revenues for an y victim compensa-tion use r aises a num ber of issues. There is a concern th at claimsrelated to personal or property d amages could be “un bounded”

and th at waste fees might be raised continually to generate suffi-cient funds for this purpose. While there may be a need for pro-vide fund s for victim comp ensation, it is generally und erstoodthat it is extremely difficdt to prove scientifically the causal linkbetween a hazardous waste condition and some personal orproperty damage. Thus, there is concern that very large claimscould be mad e on the basis of some type of “no-fault” approach.

petitiveness of U.S. exported prod ucts becauseof increased costs brought abou t by fees. Thereare ways to minimize or prevent such prob-lems. Provision of capital and R&D assistanceto waste generators enables them to reducewaste, and thereby eliminate waste fees. Pro-

posed fee systems should be announced some-time before implementation so that industriescould an ticipate increases in costs and take ap -propriate actions in time. Finally, the govern-ment should increase efforts in the interna-tional comm un ity (through , e.g., the Organ iza-tion of Economic Community Developmentand the United Nations) aimed at educatingforeign governments about the long-term ben-efits of improved hazardous waste manage-ment, although European practices to a largeextent already rely more on options other thanland disposal. With regard to imports thatmight achieve some competitive advantage inthe domestic market because domestic manu-facturers are paying a hazardous waste fee, ithas been suggested that (in addition to the rem-edies noted above) some type of import duty



Ch. 3—Policy Options Ž 85

or fee equivalent to what domestic manufac-turers pay could be levied. However, this couldbe objected to on the basis that it representsa form of trade protectionism.

In addressing the legitimate concerns of

those most affected by imposition of fees, it isimportant to recall the underlying principle of the fee system: those who are responsible forgenerating hazardous waste (both generatorsand consumers) should pay for the propermanagement of the waste, government activ-ities that may be needed to clean up suchwastes, and for the d amages to health and theenvironment that may ultimately result fromsuch waste. Moreover, a fee system that af-fected consumer prices could lead to a morebalanced public perspective of hazardouswaste, The demand by the public for generators

to apply more stringent and costly controlswould be balanced by the need of the publicto consider the “hazardous waste-intensive-ness” of products. It should also be noted thateven treatment alternatives to land disposalpose some risks to both health and the environ-ment and, hence, there is justification for feeson waste so treated. No technology used tomanage hazardous waste can guarantee zerorelease of hazardous constituents (see ch. 5).

Some argue that imposing fees on hazardouswaste would cause price distortions in the mar-

ketplace, but use of a fee system can be viewedas a rem edial policy action requ ired to correctboth an economic distortion and an inequityalready existing in the marketplace. The mar-ket currently shifts risks and costs to people(now and in the future) not directly derivingthe benefits from products or services causingthe risks and costs. Yet management choicesunder a fee system could affect the competitive-ness, success, and failure of individual firmsresulting in distributive or geographic econom-ic effects. The varying abilities of firms to ad-

just to a fee system requires the need for policy-

makers to evaluate appropriate community andworker adjustment programs, and to includemeans to address the capital and R&D prob-lems examined earlier as complements to awaste fee system. By an ticipating th e need forcapital and R&D assistance, it wou ld be possi-

ble to minimize adverse economic effects onindustry.

Option IV

Development and Potential Use of a

Hazard Classification Framework

This option provides for the developmentand assessment of a hazard classificationframework for risk management that if feasi-ble and beneficial, could be introduced into theRCRA regulatory program. The frameworkwould be based on detailed technical criteriaestablishing several different ranges, or classes,of hazard levels. There would also be a corre-sponding classification system for facilities todeal with risk management. The waste and fa-cility classification would provide the meansto:

1.

2.

3.

set priorities, such as determining whatareas need to be addressed first in obtain-ing more accurate and reliable data;establish different levels of monitoring re-quirements; andestablish appropriate levels of regulatorycontrol, including restrictions on certaintechnologies and facilities, exemptionsfrom full regulatory coverage, and differ-ent levels of performance standards forRCRA regulations covering the operation

of waste management facilities.Although using classifications seems to

suggest considerable complexity and drasticchanges in the regulatory structure, neither isrequired, What is envisioned is a means tostructure the evolving RCRA regulatory pro-gram by improving its scientific base, For ex-ample, some solid wastes regulated u nd er sub-title D of RCRA would be brought under sub-title C control, but, for almost all these w astes,there would be minimal regulatory require-ments (e.g., reporting and notification requ ire-

ments). Similarly, some low-hazard waste cur-rently under subtitle C might receive less reg-ulation than they now receive, and perhapssome removed from the hazardous category al-together. Some high-hazard waste would re-ceive more stringent regulation. For most haz-




ardous waste, however, the classification ap-proach would have little effect.

Congressional action could be accomp lishedby amendment to RCRA, by initially directingEPA, or another agency, to develop a wasteand facility classification system and a plan forits implementation. Such an analytical effortcould take several years and would requireadditional Federal appropriations of perhaps$5 million to $10 million. * Presumably, no newdata would be acquired for this initial studyphase (for which health and environment ef-fects data is an expensive undertaking), butrather existing data bases would be used. Thesecond level of congressional action wouldconsist of an evaluation of the study, and adecision: 1) to either move ahead with imple-mentation; 2) to pu rsue a second, m ore detailed

study, possibly involving the acquisition of newdata, followed by integration of the hazard clas-sification framework into the RCRA program;or 3) to discontinue the option, Implementa-tion, or a second study, could take severalyears, and the costs are difficult to estimate,

In the following discussion, the elements of this option are summarized. The appendix tothis chapter contains a detailed discussion of one approach to u sing waste an d facility classi-fication. No attempt has been made by OTAto design an actual classification system; thosenow available are discussed in chapter 6. Sec-ond , the option is evaluated relative to the eightpolicy goals described earlier. Third, the costsand problems of implementation are discussed.

Brief Summary of a Hazard Classification Framework

The key elements of this particular applica-tion of the hazard classification concept arepresented in figure Z. The approach is compat i-ble with the hierarchy of alternative manage-ment strategies presented earlier, particularlywith the goal of reducing the amount an d haz-ard level of wastes.

Elements of the Approach.—Several important

elements, each requiring reliable information

q The total EPA fiscal year 1983 R&D budget related to hazard-ous waste is about $3o million. Thus, $10 million over 3 yearswould amount to 1 I percent of EPA’s hazardous waste R&Dbudget.

to be obtained by the Federal program, formthe basis of this scheme. Some of the informa-tion may be currently available in varying de-grees of completeness and accuracy. The col-lection of other necessary data may requiresubstantial effort. There are three elements of

the system:1.

2.

The critical characteristics of those con-stituents of the waste that largely deter-m i n e i t s h a z a r d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . —Classifying waste is a major undertakingt h a t r e q u i r e s a c a r e f u l a na ly t i c a lframework an d substantial amoun ts of in-formation on a very broad variety of fac-tors, including: concentrations of hazar-dous constituents, toxicities, their mobilitythrough various environmental media, en-vironmental persistence or bioaccumula-

tion, and various safety characteristics, Itis not su fficient to merely u se informationon the m ost hazardous constituent, or theone present in the largest amount, to ful-ly assess a particular waste, There is cur-rently no standard procedure to describethe hazard level for a physically andchemically comp lex waste, althou gh th ereare indications that it is technically feasi-ble to develop one (see ch. 6).Consideration of those factors used todetermine facility classes.—

a.

b.

The chemical and physical charac-

teristics of the waste that limit treat-ment and disposal options. This in-formation would indicate whether thewaste is aqueous or nonaqueous, inor-ganic or organic, and whether it is aliquid, sludge, or bulk waste with ahigh solid content. It also would benecessary to know if the waste con-tains toxic metals, know n toxic organ-ics, corrosive acids, explosives, orhighly ignitable substances.Information on the broad range of technology options that are commer-

cially available and technically fea-sible. Considerable information isneeded on the designs of technologies,actual performance characteristics,problems related to operation andmaintenance, and requirements for



Ch. 3—Policy Options 87 ———.

trained personnel. Problems related topatented an d p roprietary informationmay have to be addressed.

c, Performance standards for varioustechnology options, used for settingthe level of effectiveness (risk reduc-

tion) of the technology, or the levelof acceptable release of hazardousconstituents from the facility. Forwaste treatment operations, perform-ance standard s may be given in termsof changes to be effected in variouscritical characteristics of the waste.After incineration, for example, thepercent of one or more waste constitu-ents destroyed, perhaps in conjunc-tion with acceptable levels of emis-sions, can be used. (This is similar towhat is used now,) It is important that

waste classification an d its linkage tofacility class be technically sound inorder to avoid “technology forcing”when, in fact, available technologycan achieve desired levels of protec-tion. For disposal operations, per-formance standards may be given interms of acceptable levels of releaseover sp ecified period s of time. Stand -ards w ould vary with levels of hazard.

In general, different types of per-formance standards will be requiredfor different technologies and m ay be

required for different levels of hazard.Selection of performance standardsdepend on the regulatory functionsthat are deemed most important.What is attractive from the perspec-tive of ease of enforcement or comp li-ance may n ot be as attractive to thoseconcerned with risk management.

3. Matching of waste and facility classes.—This is the key step—ensuring that levelsof risk are consistent across both wasteand facility classes. For a par ticular wasteclass, different technologies within the

same facility class should offer similarrisks.

How Classification Differs From Other Approaches.–The framework described involves no new con-cepts. Rather, it integrates known facts and

principles into a framework for governmentmanagement and regulation of hazardouswaste. The ph rase “degree of hazard” d oes notnecessarily imply the use of hazard classifica-tion. In this classification approach, commoncharacteristics are assigned values and areused to group wastes and facilities so that those

within a group have similar characteristic lev-els of hazard and control. Neither does suchan approach imply the use of fixed, rigid cat-egories. New information or changes in policycan affect the definition of new criteria, rede-fining the classes in the system.

It must be emphasized that all suggested usesof hazard classification assume that only a fewclasses would be required and are practical.Usually envisioned are high, medium, low, andno hazard (essentially a decision to consider

the waste as an ordinary solid waste) wasteclasses and with correspond ing facility classes.Therefore, the classification approach is morea “coarse tuning” than a “fine tuning” that maybe achieved through risk assessments of indi-vidual wastes and facilities. Compared to thebroad r ange of variations possible with curren tperm itting d ecisions (for land d isposal options,rather than for treatment facilities), the classifi-cation approach offers permit writers a fixednumber of federally determined classes forwastes and facilities. It is possible, however,to integrate technology and site-specific factors

into the use of systems based on h azard classi-fication. A p ermit w riter could chang e the clas-sification of a w aste and , consequently, the lev-el of regulatory control required for a facility,because of technology and site-specific factorsthat lead to risk reductions, A facility mightutilize some type of pretreatment of the wastethat reduces the performance standard re-quired to achieve acceptable levels of releases.Or the facility may be in a location in whichany releases would be so dispersed prior to anyexposure to a vulnerable receptor that a lowerperformance standard would be acceptable.

Such options are limited by the num ber of haz-ard classes available and the correspondingregulatory requirements, including perform-ance standards, monitoring requirements, andcriteria for acceptable sites.




Furthermore, the classification approach, incontrast to the current program in wh ich m ostwastes are considered equally with respect toregulatory requirements, implies that better de-fined and substantiated technical criteria andstandards are required—a set for each hazardclass. This is necessary in order to link the levelof regulatory control (facility class) with dis-tinct hazard class.

The waste and facility classification ap-proach differs somewhat from risk assessmentapproaches which estimate probabilities andlevels of potential harm. Although there is nostandard type of risk assessment, it appearsthat in most likely applications, the emphasiswould be on the determination of numericallevels of risks for adverse effects on health andthe environment. Risk assessments usually re-

quire substantial information concerning actu-al situations, or at least such a focus, includ-ing how particular people or components of theenvironm ent w ill respond to specific types andlevels of exposure. However, it is also possi-ble to carry out risk assessments for genericcategories of wastes, locations, and technol-ogies (see ch, 6 for a discussion of risk assess-ment and ch. 7 for a discussion of EPA’s Risk/ Cost Policy model which employs this ap-proach). Classification systems rely more ongeneral scientific and technical information inthe determination of potential and generic ad-

verse effects for defined classes of wastes andfacilities.

Classification may also be contrasted withmore qualitative approaches that simply maylist waste as having d ifferent d egrees of hazard,without presenting clear, detailed criteria fordetermining such differences. The listing ap-proach (which is used in the current program)provides little guidance for dealing withemergent future questions; it is largely ad hocin nature. Classification approaches, on theother hand, provide consistent, yet flexible,

procedures capable of dealing with new situa-tions. While a classification approach requiresgreater initial investm ent of resources as com-pared to alternative approaches, it may offermore long-term benefits once developed.

Illustration of the Classification Approach.—Two

types of questions are usually raised concern-ing the hazard classification approach. Whattypes of data are used to distinguish differentwaste hazard classes? What are the regulatoryimplications of establishing different wastehazard classes? Table 12 provides examp les of how the classification approach can be devel-oped and used, but it is emphasized that theexamples shown are strictly for illustrative pur-poses only and do n ot constitute any end orse-ment or recommendation by OTA,


Benefits of the hazard classification ap-proach are described below in terms of howeventual implementation of a suitably exam-ined system might satisfy the eight goals forall policy options. A problem with this option

is that a number of years are required for bothanalysis and implementation. Therefore, esti-mation of potential benefits tends to be morespeculative, and there are greater un certaintiesbecause of what might take place before the op-tion is fully implemented.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environmentwithout undue delays and uncertaint ies.

There are major uncertainties as to when aclassification system might be implemented,and w hat wou ld be included in such a system.Because the current program is moving in thedirection of using hazard levels to establishregulatory coverage and stringency, this optioncan be viewed as a means of systematizing aprogram that is evolving in a somewhat ad hocmanner. Once a simple classification systemis developed and app lied, it may offer the bene-fit of reduced d elays and u ncertainties becauseof the availability of technical criteria and pro-cedures which can be used to deal with newsituations. The validity and usefulness of the

hazard classification approach from a wastemanagement p erspective has been summ ed u pas follows:

One school holds that, if it is hazard ous bydefinition of the regulation, then it should go




bsource Adapted from system In Washington, See discussion In ch 6csource Off Ice of Technology Assessment

only to a permitted hazardous waste manage-ment facility. Another school argues th at thereare degrees. Therefore, different types of haz-

ardou s wastes should go to d ifferent types of facilities. I happen to believe that the last argu-ment makes a great deal of sense. This impliesthat w e should have d ifferent classes of dispos-al facilities for d ifferent classes of hazard ouswastes .38

GOAL 2


This could be a major benefit. One of theprimary objectives of classification is to equi-

tably and app ropriately regulate waste posingdifferent types and levels of hazard, Therecould be less resistance to bringing currently

3“H. Lanier Hickman, “TOO Much or Too Little, ” Waste Age,November 1982,

exempted waste un der regulation if the regula-tory structure accommodates low-hazard wasteat a lower level of stringency.

GOAL 3


A major benefit could r esult from regu latoryrestrictions and controls better matched tovarying threats. Such restrictions could limitthe use of land disposal to low-hazard wasteor to waste that cannot be handled in any otherway. A clear and consistent framework couldalso contribute to greater certainty with, regardto markets for various management alterna-

tives, and could make capital investments innew alternative facilities more attractive.

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/ CERCLA i mplementat ion.

99-113 0 - 83 - 7




A major benefit is likely, if hazard classifica-tion leads to determination of better prioritiesfor data needs, particularly concerning healthand environmental effects. A Federal classifi-cation system would also provide the impetusfor establishing a national data base for hazard-ous waste.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by

states.

A m odest benefit might be obtained . SeveralStates have attem pted to use hazard classifica-tion approaches (see ch. 6), but progress hasbeen slow. The attem pts h ave been simp le sys-tems, for the most part, limited both by dataand resources. More generally, many Stateshave expressed their desire to see the degreeof hazard concept used systematically in RCRA

regulations. Other States are likely to have legit-imate concerns over th e ad option of a classifi-cation system that add ed, rather than reduced,regulatory comp lexity. How “practical” it is touse the classification approach could only beresolved by a thorough study in the initialphase of this option. Eventually, the optioncould lead to the p rovision of add itional techni-cal supp ort and an improved d ata base for theStates.

GOAL 6

Moderate i ncreases in t he costs of governments foradministrati on and of i ndustry for regulatory compli-ance.

Governmental costs might increase or de-crease, depending on the extent the classifica-tion ap proach created institutional efficiencies,rather than technical complexities. Anotheruncertainty is whether the approach might leadto substan tial efforts to “reclassify” waste andfacilities, analogous to, and perhaps more ex-tensive than, cur rent delisting efforts. Compli-ance costs for industry would be company-spe-cific. While many of today’s management prac-tices might be unaffected, currently underregu-lated waste would be regulated more stringent-ly, wh ile others currently overregulated w ouldbe regulated less stringently. However, long-

term costs associated with health and environ-mental damage, remediation efforts, and com-pensation could be reduced because of thegreater protection against harmful release of waste.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costsof waste management shifted to society in general.

To the extent that this option would reduceunderregulation and total exemptions of waste,and would better ensure that land disposalwould be used for waste and locations forwhich future hazardous release were unlike-ly, it would offer a major benefit by reducingthe probability of future release of hazardousconstituents.

GOAL 8


A m odest benefit might result if pu blic confi-den ce in the Federal program is imp roved w iththe perception of a more comprehensive regu-latory system and a correction of underregula-tion of waste. The option would create a Fed-eral role in the broad area of siting facilitiesby providing a mechanism for linking facilitylocation to the hazard level of waste, the typeof technology employed, and the performancestandards required of the facility. However, itwould not necessarily change the present situa-tion, with the States having the primary respon-sibility for land use and the siting of specificfacilities. There would be continued public par-ticipation in siting and permitting of facilities.The emphasis on appr opriate types and levelsof monitoring for facilities would also have apositive effect on public concerns.

Costs and Problems for Implementation

The major cost and problems associated w ithimplemen tation of the hazard classification ap-proach is the need to obtain an adequate d atabase concerning wastes, technologies, andhealth and environmental effects. However,there is continuing imp rovemen t of these typesof data. Adoption of classifications would



Ch. 3— Policy Options q 9 1—

greatly assist in integrating available informa-tion, and in determining priorities for obtain-ing new data. A major objection to the ap-proach in the regulated community might bethe perceived lack of flexibility. Another legiti-mate concern would be that a waste with a

high-hazard classification could, in a particu-lar situation, present less of a risk than that in-dicated by the hazard classification. This objec-tion could be dealt with by providing a tech-nically sound basis for classifying facilities, andfor linking facility class to waste hazard class.

Nonetheless, the classification approach doesimply setting different, or more, standards andcriteria than are employed currently. This isthe primary tradeoff in comparison to an ap-parently simp ler system that d oes not empha-size setting different levels of regulation con-trol with respect to level of hazard. The com-plexity of the current system is “hidden” inboth listing procedures that are largely ad hocin nature, and in permit t ing procedureswhich contain considerable uncertainties be-cause of the critical role of individual permitwriters.

OTA estimates that designing a waste andfacility classification system and assemblingexisting data on health and environmental ef-fects, and on technological capabilities, mightrequire $10 million over a 5-year period. Onereason for th is relatively small estimate is that

considerable data exist, but have n ot been col-lected and organized sufficiently for the pur-poses of hazard classification. During thisphase, there should be substantial interactionbetween EPA and the States.

After consensus among EPA, the States, in-dustry, the public, and Congress with regardto the system, the second ph ase could take sev-eral years. Its costs are difficult to estimate, butthey could be substantial. It is possible that thedetailed analyses might reveal that the com-plexities of the system would be overwhelm-

ing, either intrinsically or because of the im-possibility of reaching a consensus between theregulated community and the regulators onspecifics of classification, OTA considers thatan attempt to design a technically “perfect”

system w ill lead to para lyzing difficulties, andthat the task is to simplify the design withoutintrodu cing a level of arbitrariness that will beunacceptable to the regulated community.

To add ress these concerns, it w ould be fruit-ful for the initial study to examine:

1. alternatives for translating waste hazardand facility classification into effects onregulatory control levels;

2. means to set and change boundaries thatdefine waste and facility classes; and

3. means to arbitrate disputes concerningwastes and facilities close to class bound-aries.

Option V

Planning for Greater Integration of

Environmental Protection Programs

The purpose of this option is to integrate ad -ministratively (and, if necessary, statutorily) anumber of existing environmental programsthat affect hazardous waste management andregulation. Policies and programs that lead toinefficient overlapping regulations, gaps in reg-ulatory coverage, and inconsistent regulationswould be addressed. Insufficient integrationamong different programs within EPA andother executive agencies may be leading todu plication of effort or u naw areness of the ex-

tent of data and technical resources available.A number of hazardous waste activities are

now regulated under different statutes. WithinEPA alone several different grou ps ad ministeractivities related to h azard ous w aste. There arealso program s in several other executive agen-cies related to hazard ous w aste that do not ap -pear to be highly integrated, The language inRCRA that mandates integration with otheracts has p roven too inexact, and EPA’s effortsin this area do not ap pear to have a high pr ior-ity. Ocean disposal or d ispersal falls un der the

Marine Protection, Research, and SanctuariesAct. Some injection wells used for waste dis-posal fall under the Safe Drinking Water Actand some under RCRA. Hazardous wastestreams destined for municipal water treat-



92 q Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control —

ment plants fall under CWA. A number of aspects of regulating releases into the air orwater from management facilities fall underthe Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, Somewastes are regulated under the Toxic Sub-stances Control Act (TSCA). A recent stu dy for

EPA concluded:A nu mber of Federal statutes govern aspects

of the hazardous waste problem. The statutesin combination do not cover man y of the major sources and types of hazardou s waste re-leases, how ever.

39

Congressional action for this option wouldconsist, first, of mandating a comprehensivestudy of integration by EPA or some otheragency, including formulation of an integra-tion plan. The second phase would consist of congressional examination of the study and

plan. If deemed necessary, legislative actionwould then implement the plan.

The existence of overlapping jurisdiction toregulate hazardous waste activities is not nec-essarily counterproductive, confusing, or un-desirable. The goal should be twofold: 1) ensur-ing that waste that might pose risks to healthand the environment do not escape regula-tion, ’ and Z) promoting the integration of hazardous waste control and other pollutioncontrol with legislation so that they can sup-port each other, consistent with the statutoryrequirements and goals of each program.**

“’Evaluation of Market and Legal Mechanisms for PromotingControl of Hazardous Wastes” (draft), Industrial Economics,Inc., September 1982.

*A particularly important example is the problem of hazar-dous release into the air that may not now be receiving adequateregulation. Such releases, for the most part, are not now regu-lated under the Clean Air Act. With regard to hazardous air pol-lutants, in the past 12 years EPA has listed only seven substances,promulgated final regulations for four, proposed regulations forone, and is involved in litigation to compel it to regulate the othertwo. EPA has noted “If the objective is to secure control of haz-ardous air emissions that pose a significant danger to publichealth, the current statutory framework needs change. The cur-rent regulatory scheme . . . fails to provide criteria for the neces-sary tough technical and scientific decisions. ” Issue Papers pre-pared by EPA for Sept. 20, 1982, meeting between the EPA Ad-ministrator and representatives from the National Governors’Association, released by Lewis S. W. Crampton.

“*An important example is the intended use of TSCA to stopthe production of new chemicals that would lead to hazardouswaste too difficult to manage, and to provide an early warningof new types of hazardous waste to the RCRA program so thatthey can be regulated. At present, there is no indication thatTSCA is serving these functions.

There is now no mechanism for ensuring thatfacilities disposing of similar waste but regu-lated under different acts will be consistentlyregulated, or that a facility permitted underRCRA is not also disposing of other hazard ouswaste without a permit that are regulated

under other acts. *Although both RCRA and CERCLA are man-

aged within the same division of EPA, thereappears to be little coordination of efforts be-tween the two programs. The following threeexamples illustrate additional problems asso-ciated with inadequate integration in the cur-rent Federal program. In the first two exam-ples, the problem stems, in large part, from theoriginal congressional acts. In the third exam-ple, dealing with interagency cooperation, theproblem stems from poor administrative proce-

dures.

Three Examples of Inadequate Integration

Regulation of PCBS under TSCA and RCRA.–Tendays before passage of RCRA, Congress en-acted TSCA imposing requ irements on the dis-posal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS). Arecent study of the problems associated withhaving two regulatory programs covering aclass of hazardous waste noted that “EPA, of course, is well aware that it has been adminis-tering two closely related regulatory programs(out of different offices within the agency), butthe agency has made little effort to integratethem. ” 40 The disposal rules for PCBS underTSCA relate to concentration but RCRA regula-tions do not. TSCA regulations have estab-lished a separate permitting system for ap-proved incinerators and landfills for disposalof PCBS, Relatively few hazardous waste facil-ities have received permits for such disposalof PCBS. Some RCRA-permitted facilities mayhave the technological capabilities requiredunder TSCA to manage PC; BS. The same studynotes:

*Another discrepancy among the several environmental pro-grams is the duration of facility permits; for example, RCRA per-mits currently are valid for 10 years, while a 5-year period ex-ists for permits issued under CWA, although EPA has indicatedits intention to change the latter to 10 years.

‘Mitchell H. Bernstein, “PCB’S vs. RCRA Hazardous Wastes—Separate Regulatory Regimes, ” Tle Environmental Forum,

November 1982, pp. 7-11, 36.



Ch. 3—Policy Options 93

Under the present bifurcated system of re-view, however, those facilities will also have togo through a separate approval process in orderto accept PCB’S for disposal—a burd en w hichmay well operate as a major disincentive for theexpansion of the PCB disposal market.

Another difference between TSCA and RCRAis that, under TSCA, States and local govern-ments are less capable of enacting their ownmore stringent requirements for disposal of PCBS, From the perspective of waste genera-tors, TSCA presents the problem of environ-mental engineers and managers in industrybeing forced to track two different programswithin EPA. And , from the p erspective of Gov-ernment efficiency, within EPA there are twoprograms dealing with a very similar area of regulation, but h eaded by d ifferent assistant ad-ministrators, staffed by different technical ex-

perts and legal advisors, and making differentadministrative interpretations.

Liability Insurance Rules Under RCRA and CERCLA.—RCRA directs EPA to set stand ard s for finan-cial responsibility of treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities (TSDFS). Under current rules,insurance coverage or self-insurance is re-quired only until closure of a facility. The cur-rent requirement is for $1 million sudden oc-currence minimu m/ $2 million annu al aggre-gate, and $3 million/ $6 million nonsud den m in-imum coverage. A recent study observes that:

the minimum insurance requirements setby” EPA for TSDFS appear inconsistent w ithother hazardou s substance legislation w hichCongress intended to complement RCRA.CERCLA or Superfund required liability insur-ance or self-insurance of at least $5 million forvessels carrying hazard ous su bstances. It is un-clear w hy m uch less coverage is required forhazard ous w aste TSDFS that may hand le largevolumes of waste and may be in or near dense-ly populated areas.

41

A second area of concern is the apparent gapin insurance regulations for closed hazardous

waste facilities. Under RCRA the coverage forfacilities is required until closure. For some

41Eric Nagle, “RCRA Liability Insurance Rules—Evolution andUnresolved Issues, ” Th e , E n \ ’i ro nme n t a f Forum, November 1982,pp. 16-20.

types of facilities, particularly landfills and im-poundments where wastes remain after clo-sure, the risks may become greater after closurethan during operation of the facilities. UnderCERCLA there is the Post-Closure LiabilityTrust Fund, derived from a tax on hazardous

waste remaining at facilities after closure (be-ginning in September 1983). Most important-ly, this fund accepts full liability for the site 5years after a disposal facility is closed in ac-cordance with the regulations. However, if re-lease of hazardous substances into the environ-ment occur within the 5-year period, CERCLAdoes not assu me liability. A gap in governmen t-assured protection for potential impacts fromrelease of waste, therefore, can result in twoways: 1) the 5-year gap created by RCRA andCERCLA regulations, and 2) possibly an indefi-nite period of noncoverage if a site is found to

be leaking before the CERCLA fund assumesresponsibility. Because RCRA regulations forland disposal facilities cannot guarantee indefi-nite, long-term protection against releases of hazardous materials into the environment (seech. 5) these gaps in financial responsibility re-quirements should be addressed.

Cooperation Between EPA and the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) .—One of the greatest concernsis that land disposal of hazardous waste canresult in contamination of ground water sup-plies. Much of the focus of EPA’s land disp osal

regulations is on ground water p rotection. Thetechnical complexities of ground water con-tamination, including its detection, monitoring,and remediation, pose substantial problems.Technical expertise in this area is very limited,and data are incomplete. However, the USGShas had a Toxic Waste-Ground Water Contami-nation program for some time that could h avecontributed substantially to RCRA and CERCLAregulatory efforts.

After EPA promulgated its land disposal reg-ulations, USGS noted:

present technology is not adequate to developregulations to protect the public from hazard-ous was te contaminat ion in a cos t ef fect ivemanner. Major technical questions are yet tobe answered regarding the behavior of specificwas tes under d if ferent hydrogeologic condi-




tions and on the safety, suitability, and econom-ics of restoration an d disposal method s.

42

The expertise, experience, and data possessedby USGS could serve as a greater resource forEPA’s hazardous waste activities. It would beinefficient for EPA’s Office of Research and

Development to duplicate USGS’s efforts.USGS has a number of ongoing programs thatcan serve the needs of both EPA and the Statesin implementing RCRA and CERCLA. Studieson the behavior of contaminants in groundwater aimed at improving disposal methods,appraisals of existing ground water quality,and identification of areas suitable for hazard -ous w aste disposal are som e. The last effort of-fers a particularly attractive opportunity withregard to facility siting. USGS could pursue aprogram to produce a national locations mapwith hydrogeologic characteristics, minimiz-ing the risks of contamination from hazardouswaste facilities.

Two Steps Toward Integration ofEnvironmental Programs

There are two phases to this option, and bothshould anticipate the need for effective publicparticipation in order to ad dress concerns overchanges that might lead to delays. First, EPA(or perhap s some independent bod y) could d e-velop a plan for the improved integration of programs related to hazardous waste. The plan

would also focus on statutory changes requiredto implement a comprehensive integration,with emp hasis on th e perm itting of facilities. *The stud y also should examine obstacles to in-tegration which occur at the State level, thecosts of integration at Federal and State levels,probable improvements in protection of humanhealth and the environment, and impacts onwaste generators.

The second phase would include congres-sional examination of the study and plan, andan examination of how administrative and stat-

“’Management Information Plan FY 1984,” Toxic Waste-Ground-Water Contamination Program, USGS, Sept. 27, 1982.

“These statutory changes need not–and probably would not–involve integrating the various environmental laws themselves.

utory changes could be achieved. Congresscould also examine changes in EPA organiza-tion that would be necessary to integrate, andif such integration would require legislation.

GOAL 1Improve protection of health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties.

The closing of gaps in coverage and greaterconsistency among regulatory programs couldprovide major benefits, without interruptingongoing environmental protection efforts,

GOAL 2


A minor benefit could result from closing of gaps in regulatory coverage.

GOAL 3


This option does not address this goal in asignificant way.

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/ CERCLA implementation.

A minor benefit could result, chiefly by bet-ter ensuring that data obtained in one programare made available to other programs.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA part ic ipat ion bythe States.

A moderate benefit could result if integrationresulted in improved administration of hazard-ous waste programs and improving the tech-nical support of State programs.

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in the costs of governments foradministrat ion and of i ndustry f or regulatory compli-ance.



Ch. 3—Policy Options . 95

Comp liance costs for waste generators mightincrease due to greater regulatory coverage, butintegration would reduce future costs for bothindustry and government. There would be few-er government groups to deal with, simplifiedperm itting, and simplified m onitoring of facil-

ities. Similarly, government costs of admin-istering the regulatory program might be re-duced by greater use of multipurpose databases, redu ced paperw ork, and fewer field per-sonnel. Even if d irect costs were increased d ueto increased regulatory activities, there couldbe long-term red uctions in th e costs associatedwith ad verse health and environmen tal effects.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costsof waste management shif ted t o society i n general.

To the extent that gap s in regulatory covergewould be closed, and significant hazards con-trolled, this option could reduce future riskssubstantially. At present, some hazardouswastes are certain to find their way to thelowest cost option—which may exist, in part,because of loopholes in the regulatory struc-ture. Although su ch loopholes are often closedat some point, their use over time can presentserious threats to future generations becauseconditions are created that eventually lead tohigh probab ilities of releases of hazardou s con-stituents. The option does not address the ex-

ternalization of costs significantly.

GOAL 8


A substantial benefit might result if the pub-lic views the stud y and implemen tation of inte-gration activities as a move to make govern-ment programs more effective and efficient. Onthe other hand, a major reorganization couldalso raise public concerns. Such concernscould be redu ced by mean ingful pu blic involve-ment d uring the stud y for integration, and thisparticipation could be ensured by includingsuch a requirement in the congressional man-date for the study,

Costs and Problems With Implementation

Serious objections to this option are likely,There may be fears that such an ambitious goalis simply impractical and that it could causedelays in ongoing activities. If the initial studyis thorough and with sufficient resources, these

objections may be m inimized, A detailed stud yover a 3-year period with funding of perhaps$5 million might be sufficient. * Having an in-dependent organization, rather than EPA, toconduct the study may offer the advantage of greater objectivity and impartiality.

It would also be necessary to clearly establishthat no new regulatory program would be in-stituted un til after extensive congressional ex-amination of the prop osed plan, over perhapsa 2-year period, with ample opportunities forpublic comment. Problems could arise in the

form of conflicts among congressional comm it-tees concerning changes in jurisdiction pro-posed in th e integration plan. There might alsobe opposition to integration for hazardouswaste from those with interests in other envi-ronmental areas.

Integration from the limited perspective of hazardous waste management may be in con-flict w ith attemp ts to integrate all environmen-tal protection programs. For example, EPA isnow conducting a pilot study to control toxicpollutants from all sources in the Philadelphia

area. This stud y is part of EPA’s integrated en-vironmental management program which at-tempts to weigh risks across air, water, andland media. However, as this OTA study hasfound, there are inadequate data to supportsuch detailed risk assessments. Moveover, theintegrated approach could easily tradeoff anyprotection from hazardous waste because of limited funding and substantial risks fromother sources of pollution. There have alsobeen attempts to develop consolidated permitsfor facilities regulated under several acts,

*Several current major EPA studies, such as its risldcost modeland its study of small generator exemption, cost about $1 millionto $2 million for several years of work.




Summary Comparison of the Five Policy Options

This comparison presents the relative bene-fits of all five options in a convenient form andis intended to facilitate the comparison of thefive options apart from the consideration of costs and time involved. Options II through Vcan be viewed as a series of complementaryactions, taken progressively over time, or asseparate individual actions offering particularbenefits relative to one or more of the eightgoals. Moreover, while option I (status quo) andoption II (modifications in A) are mutuallyexclusive, options III, IV, and V are compati-ble with option I. Options II throu gh IV app earto requ ire app roximately the same level of ini-tial appropriations, about $5 million to $10 mil-lion each. There are, however, no means of

reliably estimating longer term costs, or costsavings for government, industry, or the gen-eral public. The five options have been pre-sented in ord er of increasing time requ ired forpreliminary stud ies and implemen tation. If im-

mediacy of implementation is an importantconsideration for some policy makers, thenclearly options I, II, and III are the most attrac-tive,

The policy options have been compared intwo w ays. In neither comparison, however, hasany attempt been mad e to demonstrate that anyone option is “best,” or even that one optionis better than another. In addition to the eightgoals, considerations of time and cost, alongwith specific objections to particular options,can make any option either more or less attrac-tive.

Table 13 summ arizes in brief narrative form

the key advantages and disadvantages of eachoption. Table 14 presents an eva luation of howeach option, relative to the others, satisfies eachof the eight goals. This evaluation is necessarilysomewhat subjective and judgmental.

Table 13.—Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options

Key advantages Key disadvantages

L Continue current program q Current program stabilized and resources already q Protection of public health and environment may be

invested utilized weaker than possible and desirableq Participation by States improved q Risks and costs may be unnecessarily transferred toq Short-term private and public sector costs moderated the future

q

Land disposal continues to be used extensivelyIL A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program q Protection of health and environment i m proved and q Short-term private and public sector costs increased

made more consistent nationally . Progress of present program could be slowed u n lessq More hazardous waste controlled additional resources are provided. Data base improved Ž Technical resources and data may be insufficient

//L Economic incentives for alternatives to land disposal More waste reduction and treatment q Near-term costs to industry increasedq Costs for improved protection more equitably q Uncertain effects on firms, communities, and

distributed international competitivenessq Public concerns over siting alleviated . II legal dumping may increase

IV. Development and potential use of a hazard classification framework q More waste regulated at levels consistent with q Major effort needed to i m prove data base

hazards posed q Unnecessary complexity may be introducedq Fewer risks and less costs transferred to the future q Long-term costs for implementaiton uncertainq Improved technical support for State programs

V. Planning for greater integration of programs q Gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies i n regulatory q Considerable administrative and institutional

coverage reduced difficultiesq Reduced transfer of risks and costs to the future . Possible interruptions in ongoing programsq Public confidence in Federal program improved q Congressional action on necessary legislative changes

may be complexSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment




Table 14.—Comparative Ranking of Policy Options for Each Policy Goal

Most LeastGoals effective effectlve a

1, Improve protection of human health and the environmentwithout undue delays and uncertainties . . . . . . . . II Ill I Iv v

2. Expand universe of federally regulated hazardous waste . . . . . . II Iv v I Ill3. Encourage alternatives to land disposal ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill Iv II I v

4. Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLAimplementation . . . . . . . . . . II Iv I v Ill

5. Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by States ., . . . Ill II I Iv v6. Moderate Increases in costs to governments for

admin istrat ion and industry for compl iance . . . . . . I Iv v II Ill7. Reduce risks and costs transferred to the future; reduce

costs of management shifted to society in general . . . . . . . . Ill II Iv v I

8. Reduce public concerns over siting facilities ., . . . . . . ... . . Ill II v Iv I-.Policy optionsI Continuation of current programII A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA programIll Economic incentives for alternatives to land disposalIV Development and potential use of a hazard class classification frameworkV Planning for greater Integration of environmental protection programsaLeast effective does not imply total lack of effectiveness all rankings are strictly for ordering options and do not imply anyabsolute level of effectiveness


In presenting the five policy options, OTAis aware of the need to justify additional Fed-eral expenditures and possible increases inshort-term costs to the private sector. Currentpublic and private sector costs for hazardouswaste management are substantial, approxi-mately $4 billion to $5 billion annually. Re-gardless of any policy action, these costs willincrease markedly in the future as both theRCRA and CERCLA programs become morefully implemented and possibly as the expectedeconomic recovery leads to an upturn in haz-ardous waste generation.

The total appropriated funds for options IIthrough V might be $50 million. This repre-sents about 25 percent of one year’s total Fed-eral and State expenditures for hazardouswaste activities. It also represents about 1 per-cent of the curren t total pu blic and private sec-tor annual costs of administering and comply-ing with RCRA and CERCLA,

There are considerable uncertainties con-cerning long-term costs to public and private

sectors for implementing op tions II throu gh V.Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that boththe short- and long-term costs of carrying outall four policy options may be more than off-set by the potential benefits, only some of which can be viewed in strictly economicterms, The chief areas of potential cost savingsare: reductions in the number of hazardouswaste sites requiring very expensive cleanupand reductions in damages to people and to theenvironment which entail substantial costs fortreatment, remediation, and compensation.Relatively small percentage savings imply su b-stantial absolute dollar savings. For example,if all four options led to a net savings of only1 percent in the future annual national costsassociated with hazardous waste (currentlyabout $4 billion to $5 billion and rising), thesavings in 1 year w ould exceed th e initial costsof implementing the op tions. It is possible thatin the long term, implementation of the optionscould lead to considerably greater economicbenefits.



Ch. 3—Policy O p t i o n s q 9 9

vironment. However, uncertainties concerningthe effect of the regulations on shifting manage-ment choices away from land disposal, alongwith enforcement problems, would probablyremain. To complement the regulatory ap-proach of option II, option III is used to intro-

duce direct economic incentives for alterna-tives to land disposal. The combination of theseoptions would reinforce the connection be-tween RCRA and CERCLA. Federal fees onhazardous waste, increased for land disposaland for waste with high-hazard levels, can beused to fund CERCLA and State hazardouswaste programs. With a fee system, full life-cycle costs of waste management could be in-ternalized by increased costs to responsibleparties and to consumers of hazardous w aste-intensive products.

Appendix 3A.–Hazard

SCENARIO IV

The current RCRA regulatory program should bemaintained, but some long-term efforts to improve theprogram should also be pursued. Adopt opt ions 1, IV,and V.

Options IV and V are compatible with the

current program in the near term, since bothinvolve initial stud ies before changing the cur-rent program. The introduction of hazard clas-sification at some future time does not implyany fundamental change in the RCRA regula-tory structure. Similarly, a plan for regulatoryintegration resulting from option V would notrequire a restructuring of RCRA regulations.Both op tions IV and V can be viewed as evolu-tionary refinements of the current program,and their adoption would not jeopardize thestability of the present program.

Classification in a Risk

Management Framework

In the past 6 years, EPA has attempted to designa regulatory structure responsive to a variety of wastes, hazards, and treatment/disposal methods.A review of the evolution of regulations suggeststhat different approaches were considered by thetwo administrations (Carter and Reagan). For themost part, the EPA framework has considered each

element of risk management in a piecemeal way.There has been an absence of integrated data onwas te compos i t ion , environmental fa te of was tecons t i tuents , and technological a l ternat ives fortreatment and disposal. Although this approach re-sulted in the promulgation of regulations, the issueof how best to respond to varying hazard and risk levels is not yet settled. Dur ing the congressiona lconsideration of RC RA, the degree-of-hazard con-cept received considerable attention, but EPA w asnot required to u se it.

To date, various lists of wastes have acknow l-edged different hazard levels to only a limiteddegree. Various aspects of the regu lations alsoacknowledge d ifferent hazard levels. The need to“tailor” RCRA regulations to varying hazard andrisk levels is seen clearly by EPA. The best ap-proach, how ever, remains an area of debate. Re-cently, EPA has p ursu ed a r isklcost app roach (dis-

cussed in ch. 6 and its appendix) toward implemen-ting the degree-of-hazard concept in a more com-prehen sive and formal way.

The purpose of this discussion is to examine inmore d etail the use of hazard classification as a keycomponent in a comprehensive risk managem entframework th at wou ld offer a means to “fine tune”

RCRA regulations.

The Need for Using Degree of Hazard

In reviewing the problems discussed in chapter6, two general issues have emerged:

1 ,

2.

The regulations have been developed in gen-eral, nonspecific terms in recognition of thebroad variety of wastes and the site-specific na-ture of facilities to be permitted.For regulat ions that do not recognize d if -ferences among hazards and r isks , t radeoffsmust be made between ensuring appropriate-ly stringent regulations for waste with highesthazards and incurring unreasonable costs formanaging less hazardous waste. Thus, in t h elong run, medium-hazard waste may be regu-lated adequately , but low- and high-hazardwas te and low- and high-r isk management




practices may not receive appropriate control,High-hazard waste may be under regu la ted ,and low-hazard waste may be overregulated.

The current RCRA program provides one set of regulations and standards, with limited recognitionthat specific wastes and facilities may require de-viations that can be accommodated at the permit-

t ing s tage . There are some ind ica t ions tha t therisk/cost model may be used to “fine tune” the basicset of regulations for certain generic situations.Thus, this model might complement the varianceprocedures at the permitting level. D

In chapter 5, a general risk management frame-work was discussed. The elements of this generalf ramework inc lude hazard evalua t ion fo r wastesand facilities, risk estimation, evaluation of trade-o f f s , a s s e s s m e n t o f m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s , a n dchoosing an appropriate course of action. Drawingfrom that general outline, this discussion presentsa suggested dec is ionmaking f ramework designedspecifically to account for varying levels of hazard

for waste in their management, through the use of both waste hazard and facility classes. The factorsdetermining different facility classes (for existingor planned facilities) include the performance capa-b i l i t i e s ( ac tu a l o r an t i c ip a t ed ) o f t h e f ac i l i t ywith regard to controlling release of hazardous con-stituents, monitoring programs, management pro-c e d u r e s , t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s , t h e h y d r o g e o l o g i ccharacteristics of the site, the physical routes of potential transport of releases, the proximity of po-tentially affected people or sensitive componentsof the environment, and locally available resourcesfor emergency response .

As was shown in figure 2, the framework is dy-

namic. Continuing collection of information andaccumulated experience in permit writing can leadto adjustments in hazard classification of facilitiesand wastes. However, once a permit is issued (for10 years under RCRA) changes in the system wouldhave little effect on the permit holder, unless thepermit holder voluntarily requested and receivedreview and relief. At the permit writing stage, in-fo rmat ion about ac tua l wastes and fac i l i t ies a reused to confirm or deny the judgments by the facili-ty operator or waste generator concerning the ap-propriate Federal facility class, and possibly thewaste hazard classes. Experience at the permit writ-ing stage produces information for making regula-

tory policy changes concerning waste and facilityclasses, for establishing data and research priori-ties, and for improving the Federal data base.

If the permit writing authority is provided witha small number of waste and facility hazard classes

(with specific technical criteria for technology per-formance standards, monitoring programs, and siterequirements), choices can be made concerning lev-els of risk. This facilitates a “coarse tuning” of theregulations within the limits imposed by havingseveral waste and facility classes. The regulatory“tun ing” p rocess consists of matching waste h az-

ard classes to the facility class. This contrasts tothe current system with one primary set of stand-ards from which the permit writer can, for sometypes of facilities (e. g., landfills), make many devia-tions and exceptions (analogous to selection on acontinuous band of options). However, for othertypes of facilities (e.g., incinerators), the current sys-tem m ay offer very little flexibility.

The permit writer’s pr imary decision d epends onfitting the real situation into a sm all number of op-tions for regulatory control. The p ermit ap plicantis required to supp ly data consistent with the pa-rameters used to classify waste and with the criteriaused to define the corresponding levels of regula-

tory control. It shou ld n ot be inferred that the il-lustrated framework can guarantee good permit de-cisions. A p oor choice amon g the limited optionsavailable with the h azard classification ap proachcould prove to be as d etrimental as poor decisionsmade in the current system by the permittingauthority.

How Hazard Classification DiffersFrom Other Approaches

There are four app roaches to implementing th edegree-of-hazard concept. The listing approach is

the simplest but m ay be the least adequate. Fromavailable information, lists of wastes are preparedto represent degrees of hazard. Use of this approachby EPA and some States indicates there remainconsiderable uncertainties as to the exact criteriaused to establish the lists, or to obtain delisting, Thislist approach does not expeditious and effectivelydealing with wastes that have not yet been listed,or w ith those cand idates for delisting, Lists areoften too generic and d o not r ecognize major dif-ferences among individual waste constituents. Atthe Federal level, lists have not been related to dif-ferences in regu lations and stand ard s. Moreover,listing alone does not integrate the effects of dif-

ferent techn ologies and site-specific factors into acomprehensive risk management framework.

EPA has moved toward the development and useof the risk/ cost model as a means to introduce morequantitatively the degree-of-hazard concept. It ap-



Ch. 3—Policy Options Ž 107

pears that the deficiencies inherent in the listingapproach have been recognized. Using cost, how-ever, as a means to balance risks appears contraryto the inten t of RCRA: the cost comp onent of thisapp roach is not required for implementing thedegree-of-hazard concept. It is the use of risk assess-ment that d ifferentiates levels of hazard for w astes

and the contribution of technologies and site-spe-cific factors that determine actual levels of risk fora facility. The substantial increase in the amountof data required for the risk assessment approachmakes it somew hat u nique. It is necessary to ob-tain information beyond an u nderstand ing of thebasic characteristics of the waste and indicationsof adverse human health and environmental effects.In risk assessment, considerable data on actual hu-man health and environmental effects are p refer-able, although other data, such as animal effects,may be used out of necessity. There must also beconsiderable information on those factors neces-sary to assess risks, which include, for example,

specific information on the transport and fate of releases into the environment, and on the responsesof particular components of the environment to therelease dosage. Although this approach can be pre-cise, it lacks predictive capabilities. New situationsrequire extensive da ta and analysis.

EPA may introduce the use of the risk/ cost modelas an adjunct to the flexibility achieved through per-mit w riting. Permit writing is another way to in-troduce the degree-of-hazard concept into the reg-ulatory framework. The main objections to usingpermitting as a primary means to achieve varia-tions in level of regulatory control are: 1) many per-mit writers nationwide can be making decisionsthat are inconsistent with others, leading to inequi-ties among facility operators, varying levels of pub-lic protection, and possibly the formation of “pol-lution havens;” Z) permit writers may lack accessto technical data or the technical skills necessaryto make satisfactory decisions about whether re-quested deviations from the primary set of RCRAregulations ad equately protect health and the en-vironment; and 3) with many individual decisionsbeing made concerning variations in regulatorycontrol, it is difficult for the public and policy-makers (including Congress) to evaluate whetherstatutory requirements of RCRA are being com-pletely met.

Hazard classification approaches are in contrastto the complex risk app roach, the simple listing ap-proach, and the decentralized permitting approach.The basic aspects of hazard classification are:1) data on w aste are used to describe adverse ef-

fects of exposure to hazardous constituents; 2) itis possible to classify wastes by similar levels of hazard; 3) it is possible to classify facilities of dif-ferent technologies to afford a certain level of haz-ard reduction with regard to waste handled, or acertain performance level for controlling releasesof hazard ous constituents; and 4) waste hazardclasses are matched to facility classes to achieve ap-prop riate regulatory control. Decisions mu st bemade concerning what types of data and what spe-cific values are to be used in establishing the dif-ferent classes of wastes and facilities. This is notnecessarily simple, nor are the boundaries (valuesof different parameters) that define different classesrigid. A new waste can be classified as long as thereare data corresponding to the boundaries for theclasses.

It is emphasized that all suggested uses of hazardclassification assume that only a very few classeswould be required and are practical. Usually high,medium, low, and no hazard classes are envisioned.

To some extent, therefore, the classification ap-proach is more “coarse tuning” than the “fine tun-ing” achieved through risk assessment. Comparedto the variations possible with permitting decisions,the classification approach offers permit wr iters anopportunity to select from a small number of choices. For example, a permit writer could changethe classification of a waste (and therefore the levelof regulatory contr ol required for the facility) be-cause of the concentration of a hazardous sub-stance in the waste, or because of technological andsite-specific factors. A facility with some type of waste pretreatment might require a reduced per-formance stand ard to achieve acceptable levels of release, A facility may be in a location in w hich anyrelease would be so dispersed prior to any exposureto a vulnerable receptor that a lower performancestandard would be acceptable. With hazard classi-fication it is possible to integrate technological andsite-specific factors into the use of varying hazardlevels of waste. Options, however, are limited bythe nu mber of hazard classes available, and by thecorresponding regulatory requirements, such asperformance standards, monitoring requirements,and criteria for acceptable sites.

Objectives of an Integrated RiskManagement Approach

Any integrated app roach d irected toward thehazard ous waste problem should add ress certainkey issues, These include:



102 Ž Technologies and M a n a g e m e n t Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

1.

2.

3.

4.

The

consideration of degrees of hazard and risk inrelation to waste and m anagement practices;assessment of the potential to redu ce either theamount or hazard level of hazardous w astethrough the use of app ropriate technology;development of effective designs for monitor-ing stra tegies at a ll types o f facilities; and

a means for addressing severe public opposi-tion to siting of new hazardous w aste facilitiesby providing a technically sound basis for eval-uating management proposals.framework illustrated in figure 2 would ad -

dress these issues and provide an integrated ap-proach for d ata collection, hazard and risk estima-tions, evaluation of tradeoffs among risk, costs, andbenefits, The specifics of how the issues are ad-dressed are discussed subsequently. The outcomethen can be used in making d ecisions concerning:

1 . criteria for p ermitting and monitoring,2. regulatory an d policy changes, and3. data an d research priorities.

This decisionmaking framework emphasizes theneed to classify waste by d egree of hazard and tointegrate data for risk evaluation associated withspecific man agement app roaches.

This framew ork is a tool with wh ich governm entofficials could formulate effective appropriate reg-ulations for the treatment and disposal of hazard-ous waste. It is not a formal classification systemfor actual regulation of w aste man agement. * If implemen ted as the basis for decisions within agovernmen tal agency, it could p rovide the scien-tific and technical bedrock for sound decisionsabout regulation of hazardous waste. It also couldprov ide governm ent agencies, either Federal orState, with a tool for addressing public oppositionto siting and management approaches. The objec-tives of this framework are:

1.

2.

3.

to provide a consistent decisionmaking frame-work for achieving the goals of protection of hum an health and the environment,to provide a m echanism for establishing crite-ria and priorities for reaching this goal, andto maximize flexibility for officials to developappropr iate regulations for the management of waste.

q The design and selection of a hazard classification system would re-

quire considerable attention to specific factors used to assess a numberof different types of hazards, and then the selection of several criticalvalues for these factors in order to establish boundaries between hazardclasses. This study has not attempted to design or select a specificclassification system, but, as considered in chapter 5, there appears tobe sufficient evidence to indicate that a workable classification systemcould be developed with existing information.

Hazard Classification Considerations

In considering the degree-of-hazard concept,three characteristics of wastes are important: thechemical and ph ysical forms tha t affect its treata-bility, characteristics of constituents that determinethe hazard potential itself, and the concentrations

and chemical forms of the constituents, Classify-ing wastes according to these characteristics andthe hazard levels that each pose to health or the en-vironment is d iscussed in chapter 6.

Afterward, d ata would be analyzed to d etermineboth immediate and protracted hazards. The imme-diate hazards can be determined by assessing char-acteristics of r eactivity, chemical incomp atibility,ignitability, and corrosiveness. Long-term hazardscan be determ ined from the toxic qualities of awaste and its constituents and from those charac-teristics that influence its distribution and fate inthe environment-e. g., volubility, volatility, persist-ence, and bioaccumu lation.

Development of hazard classes from specific cri-teria will not be an easy task, but will not be im-possible. An ideal system might have four classes:high, medium , low, and no hazard . The criteria foreach could be based on toxicity, genetic imp air-ment, chemical and physical factors contributingto persistence and bioaccumulation, safety factors,and concentrations. As discussed in chapter 5,mod els are available that incorporate th ese ele-ments, and these could serve as a basis for furthercriteria development.

The study prepared for OTA. (see the d iscussionof case study in ch. 5) concludes it is possible todistinguish among wastes even using the inade-quate data base currently available. Although thewaste selected in th e study are considered by EPAas being equally hazardous, it was possible to fur-ther categorize them into four levels, using classi-fication models developed by the States of Wash-ington and Michigan. The first step in the riskmanagem ent framework, i.e., estimating degrees of hazard for the RCRA universe of waste, can beachieved in a limited way now . With a concertedeffort to d evelop the necessary hazard criteria andapp ropr iate characteristics and effects data forwaste and constituents, a better estimation of degree of hazard for waste will be possible,

The classification of wastes would provide op-tions for perm it writers that redu ce the technicalburdens on them by providing established technicalcriteria to choose among. Without classification,permit writers face a large task of determining whatfactors to consider and then determining what the



Ch. 3—Policy Options q 103

factor values signify in terms of hazard and risk.Difficulties associated with interpreting varyingdata wou ld not be a m ajor p roblem in classifica-tion. Initially, certain judgments would be neces-sary concerning the class in which a waste shouldbe assigned. How ever, as more d ata are collectedand new information incorporated within the data

base, classification could be r evised as n ecessary.It should be emphasized that before any hazardclassification wou ld be u sed in the RCRA p rogram,considerable data will have been obtained from sev-eral years of permit writing. Because the classifica-tions will shift one set of regulations and stan dard sto perhap s three sets, such changes would not nec-essarily cause m ore disrup tions in the r egulatoryprocess than w ould the risk/ cost policy model orother attempts to “tailor” regulations. It is con-ceivable that some of the main, existing standardswould correspond to the medium-hazard class, inwh ich the majority of regulated w aste wou ld exist.Moreover, current regu lations eventu ally w ill be

changed as new d ata are incorporated in the evalu-ation of risks and assessment of tradeoffs.

An ad vantage of a waste classification system isthat all potentially hazard ous w astes are evaluatedand the system becomes inclusive, rather than ex-clusive. The current problem of fluctuating statuswith respect to RCRA d efinitions wou ld be largelyremoved. All wastes wou ld be considered but eachwould be recognized for its specific hazard level.

The Link Between Waste Hazard

Classification and Risk Estimation

The chemical and physical characteristics of waste strongly influence the technologies to treatit. Important physical characteristics include itsform: solution, a solid, or a sludge. Important chem-ical characteristics include its origin: organic or in-organic. Waste can be further characterized as acidor alkaline, concentrated or dilute. Each influencethe combinations, sequences, and cost of treatmentand disposal op tions. Because of their physical andchemical diversity, treatment and disposal alterna-tives are diverse. No single treatment or disposalprocess can be considered exclusively appropriateor technically correct.

Many technologies have ap plication in the m an-

agement of hazardous waste. Some are applicableto several physical and chemical forms of waste;others have more limited application (see ch. 4).Three general practices are treatment to redu cehazard levels, containment to isolate waste from hu-

man s and the environment, and d ispersion to re-duce concentrations.

In the second element of the hazard classificationframework, degree of risk is identified for each of these three categories of management practices bythe permit writer who uses the classifications, as-sesses the risks of facility design and operation, and

analyzes the potential environmental fate and dis-tribution of waste that m ay be released from thefacility.

As discussed in chapters 6 and 7, current modelsare inadequate for determining real-world risks as-sociated with particular waste and management op-tions. The models used should be capable of incor-porating information about facility d esign, includechanges in operational parameters that affect thepotential release of material from the facility, andinclude estimates of possible exposure to humansand ecosystems. If this effort relies on simple mod-els and ind icator factors that do n ot reflect the realsituations, the result will have limited utility in the

decisionmaking process. Most models now pro-posed by EPA are very limited in scope and do notreflect the behavior of waste in the environment northe p otential level of exposu re to organ isms. Thus,effort mu st be devoted to d eveloping assessmentmod els that are mu ltilevel oriented—not an easytask.

A review of the scientific literature suggests thatmany usable models do exist. Some evaluate the po-tential distribution of constituents within a varie-ty of ecosystems and have the capacity to incorpo-rate real elements and actual compound data. Othermod els use design and operation data for a facilitytype to determine the effluent under various oper-

ating conditions. By combining these tw o types of models, estimates of expected risks for different fa-cility types and even for different designs of onetype of facility could be formulated.

As with estimates of degree of hazard and classi-fication of waste, the incorporation of this type of risk analysis in a d ecisionmaking framework hascertain ad vantages. Because regu lations w ould notbe a direct result of the analysis, temporary misin-formation would not have critical effects on the ac-tual management of hazardous waste. Rather, theoutcome of this step of the framework would be putdirectly into the third step: evaluating tradeoffs be-tween perceived risks, costs of changing facility de-

sign, costs of specific regulatory changes, and thebenefits that could be expected. By maintaining anongoing assessment effort, new information can beincluded into the decisionmaking process as it be-comes available.




Regulatory Decisions and Tradeoffs

The third step of the process involves evaluationof all risks, costs, and benefits associated with eachmanagement option within a hazard classification.Relying on the results of hazard classification andrisks estimation, tradeoffs among m anagement op -

tions, risks, costs, and benefits of each can be usedto decide whether a waste shou ld be classified d if-ferently, or whether a facility compatible with cer-tain waste hazard classes could accept w aste froma higher hazard class (clearly there would be no reg-ulatory problem in using a facility compatible witha high-hazard class for wastes from lower hazardclasses).

It should be emphasized that current assessmentmod els—e.g., risk-risk and cost-benefit—have seri-ous limitations. These are d iscussed in chapter 5.As long as these limitations are recognized and in-clud ed in th e decisionma king pr ocess, such toolscan be u sed. In this p articular case of trad eoffs in

management op tions for hazardous waste, some of the limitations associated w ith assigning d ollarvalues to lives saved m ay be eliminated by assess-ing only for the potential for release of hazardousconstituents from a facility. Guidelines would haveto be developed to assure that each tradeoff evalua-tion wa s accomp lished in reasonably compatibleand uniform ways so that the results could be com-pared. Although further d evelopment of tradeoff models is necessary, limited use of current modelsis possible and would help in reaching decisionsabout alternative options for management of haz-ardous wastes.

Application of the Risk Management Framework

Application of the framework requires that dataabout the p otential hazards posed by wastes andconstituents be evaluated with d ata about the risksassociated with different facility classes. Thisevaluation is done by developing the technical basisfor matching waste classes with corresponding fa-cility classes. The objective is to obtain the ap-prop riate levels of regulatory control for the w asteclasses. The technical basis for such correlationsis the use of health and environmental effects toassess how certain levels of control over release forcertain wastes provide a consistent level of risk—

across the different waste and facility classes.This classification fram ework recognizes that

wastes vary in th e level of hazard inherent in theirmakeup and that for any facility type there can bevariations in design and operation parameters that

result in different levels of potential risk. The out-come of this risk man agement framew ork wou ldhave mu ltiple uses. A major goal of this framework is to streamline the regulatory process by establish-ing a link between hazard class and minimum Fed-eral performance standards for all applicable tech-nologies.

Developing Criteria for Permitting and Monitoring Proc-esses..–A S regulations are written currently, theRegional Administrator or State permitting authori-ty has discretion for determining the suitability of any facility and monitoring effort. This discretionrecognizes the site-specific nature of a facility. Therisk management framework illustrated in this dis-cussion provides a means to develop such criteriabased on technical information rather than judg-ments by the permitting authority. For example,specific application of any management option canbe restricted in tw o ways: lack of technical feasibili-ty and permitting monitoring requirements. In theformer, there are some ap plications that ar e con-

strained because the technology will not changethe hazard level of the waste, contain it sufficient-ly, or disperse it in concentrations that are notharm ful to health or the environmen t. The use of a waste classification approach does not remove thenecessity for the p ermit wr iter to decide w hat th eapplicable technologies are. The classificationmerely provides the set of details for determiningthe appropriate facility class--the level of regula-tory control (i.e., performance standards, monitor-ing requ iremen ts, etc.) as ind icated by the facilityclass for a specific waste class. For example, somehighly concentrated solutions of toxic, polycyclicaromatics cannot be degraded with naturally occur-

ring m icroorganisms; thus, Iandfarrning of thesetypes of waste is not app ropriate. Use of improvedbiotechnology methods have resulted in develop-ment of certain microorganisms that can degrad esuch waste under controlled treatment conditions.Even though standards for landfarming may exist,the facility operator and the permit writer mustdecide whether the technology is app licable to thatspecific waste, Presumably, suitable guidelinescould be offered. Similarly, certain sludges cannotbe burned adequately in some industrial boilersbecause of the limitations of the feed control mecha-nism and the lining of the combustion chamber, butthese same wastes can be incinerated in a rotary

kiln incinerator. Thus, w ithin a technology cate-gory (e.g., biological degradation and thermal de-struction) and facility class, the limitations for ap-plication of a specific treatment (e.g., Iandfarming,advanced biotechnology treatment, or industrial




3. identification of all potential releases of signif-icantly hazardous waste constituents to the sur-rounding environment, and

4. providing adequate information with whichpredictions of potential significant contamin-ants can be made,

By incorporating these data into the risk manage-

ment framework, the p ermitting authority canselect the suitable class of performance standards,monitoring programs, and establish a reporting andinspection schedu le to assist the responsible agency(Federal or State) in its enforcement efforts,

Establishing Data and Research Priorities.-One out-come is to use the results to identify those areas thatrequire more data—e. g., additional data needed onthe fate of constituents in a landfill. Thus, fundscould be allocated toward gaining the needed in-formation. Research pr iorities might be identified–e.g., the evaluation may identify a class of wasteor type of facility that pose an unacceptable threatto health and th e environment. The respon sible

agency, State or Federal, could then develop re-search efforts to determine new ways to deal withthis particular class of waste, or they could developincentives to encourage industry to identify im-proved man agement op tions—e,g., in the form of redu cing the generation amou nt of this class of waste, in d eveloping better treatment process, orin devising new uses for the waste.

Identifying Areas for Regulatory and Policy Change,–Specific regulatory restrictions are another way of limiting application of a specific technology. In theenvironmental area, th ese restrictions a re u suallythe result of a policy decision which evaluates theenvironmental effects of the use of that op tion. For

example, regulations promulgated under the Ma-rine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act re-stricts the du mp ing of radiological and chemicalwarfare waste into the ocean because of the adverseeffects they would have on the ocean, not becauseof any technical unfeasibility of hauling and du mp-ing such waste at sea.

The risk management framework p rovides a con-text within which areas that may need regulatorychange can be identified using all available infor-mation, An assessment of wh ether to ban certainmaterials from land fills can be accomplished usingthis framew ork. A review of those w astes classifiedas highly hazardous and the available treatment

technologies could result in a decision to ban themfrom land disposal because other suitable optionsdo exist, rather than m aintain the option of usinglandfills with the higher level of stringency requiredfor this hazard class. In contrast, if there is a parti-

cular subclass of highly hazardous wastes that can-not be treated in any other w ay, than sp ecific con-trols focused on those wastes can be r equired inthe regu lations for land disposal.

Policy changes can be similarly d etermined usingthe risk management framework. For example, thecurrent EPA regulations include several wastes thatare exempt from control. Some exemptions are stat-utorily mandated, others were granted by EPA. Areview of the waste in low- or no-hazard classes andof the technologies that are used to treat or d isposeof these wastes may ind icate that controls in termsof performance standards or stringent monitoringrequirements may not be needed. EPA may decideas a m atter of policy that certain wastes must betracked offsite through the manifest system and thefinal deposition (for waste managed onsite also)simply reported in both generator reports and facili-ty management reports.

Data Collect ion .–The success of this framework lieswith compilation of valid data about all aspects of

waste management. Without a well-developed database, sound judgments at an-y step of the frame-work will not be possible. The collection processmust be continuous as improvement in the deci-sionmaking process will dep end on n ew and bet-ter data. Data from all parts of the framework arefed into data collection efforts,

Addressing the Key Issues in Waste Management

The risk management framework presented hereaddresses the major issues in the current examina-tion of the Federal RCRA program in the follow-ing ways:

1. the major focus is to estimate degree of hazardfor wastes, classify them, an d establish facili-ty classes based on d egree of risk (or control)associated with a specific technology and fa-cility location;

2. the framework facilitates identification of waste that could be reduced and technologiesthat provide greatest reduction either in hazardlevel of the w aste or in risk for exposu re tohealth and the environment. Over time, policychanges can be considered to red uce the wastegenerated or to encourage development of technologies that redu ce hazard and risks;

3. by correlating the hazard, waste, and the facili-

ty class, effective monitoring requirements canbe formulated; and4. a means for add ressing p ublic opp osition to

siting of new facilities by providing a soundbasis for evaluating p ropclsals is also incorpor-



Ch. 3—Policy Options q 107

ated in this framework. As discussed in chap- a signal to the public that governments are in-ter 5, pu blic fears are motivated by a nu mber tent on establishing technically sound regula-of things: fear for health and safety, lack of con- tions, collecting data, establishing sound cri-fidence in governments and industry, and the teria for permitting and monitoring, and ensur-absence of technically based sit ing criteria. If ing consistent environmental protect ion na-a decisionmaking framework is developed by tionwide.Federal and State authorities, it would p rovide



CHAPTER 4

Data for Hazardous Waste Management



Contents

Summary Findings q . * * . . * . * * * * * .*.**..**

Introduction q * * . . . . . 0 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * *

Management Roles of Government, Industry,

Types of Data q . . . * . . * .*** . .** . .** . .*** .*

. . . . . .

and the Public q . . .

. .

Data Requirements: Generators and GenerationNational Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q . . . . . . . . . . . .State Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .Uses of Existing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Requirements: Health and EnvironmentalExisting Data q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Requirements: Management Facilities . . .

Priorities for Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

chapter 4 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

Table No.

15.

16.17.18.19.

20.21.

,

of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effects q q q q q q q . q q q q q q q . q q q q q

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

q * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * * * * * * . * * * * *

q * * * * * * O . * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * *

0 * * * * * 0 * * * *

RCRA and CERCLA Data Collection Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sum mary of Data N eed s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Examples of Exemptions From Federal Regulation as Hazardus Waste . . . . . . .Hazard ous Waste Generation Estimates by EPA an d the States. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Health and Environmental Effects Data ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hazard ous Waste Man agem ent Facilities Dur ing 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Number and Size of Commercial Offsite Facilities During 1981 . . . . . .

List of Figures

Figure No.

4. Determ ination o f Hazar dous Waste Management Solutions . . . . . . . . . . .5.Hazardous6. Hazardou s

WasteWaste

Management PathsGeneration Data . .

.... . . . . . . . . . q q

. . . . . . * . . * . . . . . . . . q . . * * . .

. . . . . . .. . . . . . .

, , 0 , . . .

, , . , , . ,

. . . . , .

111

111

113

115

116117120123

125125

127

133

134

114115

117121126

129130

Page

112113

118



CHAPTER 4

Data for Hazardous Waste Management

q Inadequate data concealtensity of the national

Summary Findings

the scope and in-hazardous waste

problem. Substantial improvements can bemade in all data areas, and are particularlyneeded for health and environm ental effectsrequired for risk assessments.

q Although improved data are being obtainedby the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the States, effective implementa-tion of government programs are h inderedby major inadequacies and uncertaintiesconcerning the am ounts of hazardou s wastebeing generated, the types and capacities of existing waste management facilities, thenumber of uncontrolled sites and their haz-ard levels, and the health and environmen-tal effects of releases of hazardous wasteconstituents.

Ž Under State and Federal regulations some255 million to 275 million metric tons(tonnes) of hazardous waste are generatedannu ally, although the Federal program rec-ognizes only abou t 40 million tonnes. Statessometimes define hazardous waste different-

ly than does the Federal program. This leadsto differences in the perceived types andquantities of waste that pose hazards, andto confusion as to the degree and focus of efforts required to control hazard ous w aste.

q

q

•

q

The Federal program exempts many mil-lions of tonnes of waste deemed hazardou sto varying degrees.

The Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct’s (RCRA) permitting efforts for facilitieswill be based on the current EPA nationaldata base. These data are generally recog-nized to be incomplete and, in some re-spects, inaccurate.

The inventory of uncontrolled sites in theNation is still incomplete, and the severity

of the hazards posed by many of the listedpriority and unlisted sites is uncertain.

There are very limited data concerning theshort- and long-term health and environ-mental effects of exposures to actual hazard-ous waste. The disease registry and thehealth survey mand ated by the Comp rehen-sive Environmental, Response, Compensa-tion, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA]have not been completed.

There is a need for a long-term, systematicprogr am in EPA—for which a congressionalman date d oes not exist—with the goal of ob-taining more complete and reliable data onhazardous wastes, facilities, sites, and ex-posures to and effects from releases,

Introduction

“Hazardous waste management” is definedin the RCRA legislation as (l):

. . . the systematic control of the collection,source separation, storage, transportation,processing, treatment, recover y and d isposalof hazardous wastes.

Considerable data are required to determinethe technologies and strategies suitable for

managing a given hazardous waste. The rolesof government, industry, and the public in the

protection of health and the environmentthrough hazardous waste management arecomplementary; however, the data needs of each group differ. It is necessary for govern-ment to define siting criteria, to regulate thedesign or performance of management facili-ties, to monitor compliance with these regula-

111




tions, and to enforce the regulations. Indu striesmust identify the nature and hazard of theirwaste, select existing technologies (or developnew ones) for effective management, and en-sure adequate management of their waste. Toassist government and industry in maximizing

the effectiveness of hazardous waste manage-ment efforts, the public should have access toas much information as possible concerningthe activities of hazardous waste generatorsand management facilities (with appropriateconsideration of the proprietary nature of someinformation), and concerning regulations gov-erning these activities.

To provide a framework for d iscussing thesevarious data needs, the basic issues and infor-mation involved in m anaging a given h azard-ous waste stream are illustrated in figure 4.

Figure 5 illustrates the possible paths thathazardou s waste may take du ring the manage-

ment process. Both of these models are delib-erately simplified; they are intended only topresent conceptual frameworks. The variouschapters of this study address the componentsof these figures in detail.

This chapter discusses the need and avail-ability of data for hazardous waste manage-ment. First, the roles of government, industry,and the public are described, and a brief over-view of relevant statutes and regulations isgiven. Second, data types discussed are de-scribed. Third, the un iverse of regulated wasteis defined. Fourth, current data requirements,resources, and uses are d iscussed as they relateto generators and generation, health and en-vironmen tal effects, and man agement facilities.Finally, some priorities are suggested for de-velopmen t of required data resources for effec-

tive hazardous waste management.

Figure 4.—Determination of Hazardous Waste Management Solutions

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.



Ch. 4—Data for Hasardous Waste Management q 113

Figure 5.—Hazardous Waste Management Paths

r. ,

Temporarystorage

I

I f - - - - - – – – – – - – - – – 1

I — — — . — - —

Dispersion


Management Roles of Government, Industry, and the Public

Congress enacted RCRA in 1976 to address relationship of these statutes to RCRA is moreissues concerning current and future manage- fully discussed in chapter 7. As a result of sev-ment of hazardous waste and the recovery of eral environmental acts, sources of data have

energy and materials. RCRA is bu t one of sev- been developed concerning the chemical char-eral Federal statutes concerned with public acteristics and potential impacts of hazardoushealth and environmental quality through the substances on health and the environment. In-management of hazardous substances. The formation and expertise developed under each




of these sometimes overlapping environmen-tal statutes can contribute to the implementa-tion of RCRA,

The role of the Federal Government as setforth in RCRA includes the establishment of a system that will protect health and environ-

mental quality through p roper management of hazardous waste. The responsibilities for im-plementing hazardous waste management pro-grams are shared by the Federal governmentand the States. States have the au thority to im-plement programs more stringent than re-quired by the Federal p rogram. RCRA focuseson hazardous waste management and transpor-tation. The regulation of generators is limitedto waste analysis and recordkeeping. EPA haspromulgated a regulatory program designed todocument and constrain the disposition of hazardous waste from point of generation tofinal disposal (see fig. 5). Table 15 summarizesRCRA and CERCLA mandates for data collec-tion. Many of the required studies and surveyshave not yet been completed.

The role of industry in the implementationof RCRA is an important one. Hazardous wastegenerators, as well as industries involved in

hazardous waste storage, recovery, treatment,disposal, and transportation are involved. In-dustry’s role in RCRA implementation is tocomply with Federal and State waste manage-ment regulations, choosing waste managementoptions that do not threaten health or the en-

vironment and balance both immediate costsand long-term financial liabilities, This choiceshould be based on adequate data resources.

Generators are required to maintain recordsof waste, reflecting the quantity and nature of the waste generated, and its disposition. Gen-erators who transport their waste to offsitestorage, treatment, d isposal, or recovery facil-ities must maintain transport manifests.

The primary role of the public has been increating a sense of urgency that motivatesgovernment to enact and implement hazardous

waste management laws. Public participationis an essential ingredient in the developmentof the States’ hazardous waste managementprograms. The public has another importantfunction–that of visual monitoring and of reporting conditions in and surrounding haz-ardous waste facilities that may present a threatto health and safety.

Table 15.—RCRA and CERCLA Data Collection Mandates

RCRA data collection CERCLA data collectionSubtitle C Notifications by TSDa facilities b c q

. Manifests of transported wastesb c dq

q Site inventory q

Subtitle D. Inventory of open dumpsb

Subtitle E q

q Available recovery/recycling technologiesq Available energy/materials for reuse and conservationSubtitle Hq Special research and development projects b

q

—waste characteristics —effects on health and the environment —waste management technologies

List of at least 400 priority sitesb

Inventory of published health effectsb

National registeriesb

—Diseases and illnesses related to exposure to toxics —Persons exposed to toxicsSpecial studiesb

—Waste disposal sites —Screening programs and surveys on health and

environmental effectsList of areas closed to the public due to presenceof toxicsb

aTreatment,b

storage, and disposal.Federal responsibility,clndu~ty responsibility,

‘State responsibility.




Ch. 4—Data for Hasardous Waste Management q 115

Types of Data

In this chapter, the term data refers to bothnumerical and nonnumerical information. Sixdata classes, are presented below:

1.

2.

Type E: Environmental data characterizethe nature of the environment that is ex-posed to the waste. The data incorporatebiological, ecological, geological, meteor o-logical, and chemical characteristics, aswell as all relevant transport mechanisms,Type W: Waste data characterize a givenwaste. It is desirable that these data per-tain to individual waste constituents andto the waste as a whole. Two types of waste characteristics are recognized:a. physical and chemical characteristics:

state (solid, liquid, gas, solution or sus-pension in a liquid such as water], vis-cosity, density, flashpoint, corrosiveness,organic or inorganic, elements, com-pou nd s, mixtures, concentrations, chem-ical degradability, reactivity in ambientenvironments, reac t iv i ty in was testream; and

b. biological characteristics: toxicity (in-cluding genetic effects), nature of haz-ard, hazard level, persistence, degrada-

bility, tendency toward bioaccumula-tion, fate in humans and the environ-ment.

3. Type F: Facility data characterize a singlefacility involved in th e generation, storage,recovery, treatment, or d isposal of hazard -ous waste. These data include location,operating characteristics, input-outputwaste characteristics, and the nature of en-vironmental and human exposure to haz-ardous constituents associated with thefacility.

4. Type T: Technology data characterize thetypical performance of available manage-ment technologies (e.g., landfills, injectionwells, incinerators).

5. Type S: State da ta repr esent the overall ac-tivity of all facilities in the State.6. Type N: National data represent the

overall activity of all facilities in theNation.

Throughout the following discussion, the datatype referred to is indicated by E, W, F, T, S,or N, w here the type is not otherwise identified.The data needs of government, industry, andthe public are summarized in table 16.

Table 16.-Summary of Data N e e d s

User Legislation/regulation Permitting Monitoring Enforcement Planning Public information

Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . E,W,T E,F E,F F E,W,F,T E,W,F,TState government . . . . . . . . . . . . . E,W,T E,F E,F F E, W,F,T E, W,F,TGenerators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W,Ta

W,F,T W,TManagement facilities . . . . . . . . . E,F,T E,F E,F F E, W, F,T,S F,SPublic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.W,T E,F E,F F. ,KEY: E—environment data; F—facility data; N—national facilities data; S—State facilities data; T—technology data; W—waste data.aData requir~ t. part~clpate In the legislative and reoulatov processes


The Universe of Regulated Waste

The defined universe of hazardous waste The term “solid w aste” means any garbage,varies among the States and the Federal pro- refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant,

gram. RCRA defines hazardou s waste as a sub- water supply treatment plant, or air pollution

set of solid waste as follows: control facility and other discarded material,




including solid, liquid, semisolid, or containedgaseous material resulting from industrial,commercial, mining, and agricultural opera-tions, and from community activities, but doesnot include solid or dissolved material in do-mestic sewage or solid or d issolved m aterialsin irrigation return flows, or industrial dis-

charges wh ich ar e point sources subject toperm its und er section 402 of the Federal Wa-ter Pollution Control Act, as amend ed . . . orsource, special nuclear, or by-product mate-rial as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as am end ed . . . (z)

The term “hazardous waste” means a solidwaste, or combination of solid w astes, whichbecause of its quantity, concentration, orph ysical, chemical, or infectious characteris-tics may—

(A) cause, or significantly contribute to anincrease in mortality, or an increase in

serious irreversible, or incapacitating re-versible, illness; or(B) pose a substantial present or potential

hazard to hu man health or the environ-ment when improperly treated, stored,transported, or disposed of, or otherwisemanaged (3).

RCRA requires EPA “to develop and promul-gate criteria for identifying the characteristicsof hazardous waste and for listing hazardouswastes . . . taking into accoun t toxicity, p er-sistence, and degradability in nature, potentialfor accumulation in tissue, and related factors

such as flammability, corrosiveness and otherhazardous characteristics” (4).

Chapter 7 describes the EPA process foridentifying and listing hazardous waste. In1978, EPA p roposed a d efinition of hazardous

waste which varied somewhat from the RCRAdefinition an d mod ified that definition in 1980.The EPA definition is discussed in chapter i’,

RCRA excludes certain waste from regula-t ion as hazardous ; in some cases theseexempted wastes are regulated un der other en-vironmental acts. For administrative ease ininitiating the RCRA regulations, EPA set cer-tain ad ditional exemptions. Examples of RCRAand EPA exemptions are shown in table 17.Some of these exempted wastes pose relative-ly low hazards, but others are generally und er-stood to pose serious threats. Several hundredmillion tonnes of wastes are likely now ex-empted annually, pose significant hazards.Such deregulation activities by EPA are sub-stantial. Some typical examples are: thedelisting of spent pickle liquor that is reusedor accumulated, and transported for the pur-pose of reuse, or that is reused in wastewatertreatment in a facility hold ing a N ational Pollu-tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)perm it; regulatory d eferral of waste from p aintmanu facturing and paint w aste from the m ech-anical and electric products industry; and de-regulation of stabilized residues where ap-proved technologies are applied.

Some States have elected to broaden theRCRA and EPA definitions of hazard ous w asteto include various additional chemical com-poun ds, waste produ ced by small-volume gen-

erators, waste specifically excluded by RCRAfrom regulation as hazardous in the Federalprogram, various solid wastes, or waste spe-cifically excluded by RCRA from regulation assolid waste.

Data Requirements: Generators and Generation of Waste

Federal and State Governments require for public information, the universe of hazard-waste generation data for legislation, regula- ous waste requiring management should be

tion, and public information. The development defined and generators of such w aste must beof legislation requires information concerning identified. Methods of waste man agement, andthe amounts and types of waste generated, fea- the amount being generated in each locality,sible regulatory strategies, and costs of regu- should be determined. Potential health and en-latory options. For purposes of regulation, an d vironmental effects should be identified.




Figure 6.—Hazardous Waste Generation Data

-1 Industry studies completed under contract toEPA: 197578. Estimated quantities of

national hazardous waste. I

I I

i

National estimates:qJRB Associates (1981)qBattelle (1977)q DPRA (1980-81)qA. D. Little (1979)qEPA (1976)

I I-i . TRW Small Generator Study (1978)

I

-1 . Putnam, Bartlett, Hays;Booz Allen & Hamilton (1980)

k

IEPA notification of hazardous

waste activity: 1980. Number of generator, TSD facilities,

transporters I

I +State data collection

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment.

eral methods. Some studies identified the scope

of an indu stry (e.g., nu mber of plants and loca-tion) by using direct industrial information,U.S. Departm ent of Comm erce data, or by v is-iting a small number of “typical” facilities(fewer than 10) and then using the waste gen-eration data for those facilities and data on thenumber of employees to estimate hazardouswaste generation nationwide. * Other contrac-tors identified the numbers of plants nation-wid e, designed a th eoretical model facility, andextrapolated national waste generation using

-i State generation data. Developed by State governments

I

*A recent study for Virginia indicated that the methodologyusing employment data can be in substantial disagreement withwaste generation data obtained from surveys of generators. Forexample, liquid wastes were underestimated by about 30 per-cent, and waste sludges and solids were overestimated by closeto 20 times. (“Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators in theCommonwealth of Virginia,” Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., October1982.)

IGeneratlon d a t a

qASTSWM0 Survey for OTA(1982) I

the model. Certain assumptions concerning

waste generation and management were ap-plied in these studies. For example, it wasassumed that the plants would be in compli-ance with w aste discharge requirements und erthe Clean Water Act and other environmentallegislation; such an assump tion wou ld prod ucea low estimate of total hazardous waste gen-eration. It is unclear whether efforts were madeto account for differences in waste generationthat would result from variations in manufac-turing processes, raw materials, and manage-ment practices among individual plants.

The 15 ind ustry stu dies formed the data basefor a num ber of separ ate efforts to estimate na-tional hazardous waste generation. Amongthese are studies by JRB Associates (20), Bat-telle Columbus Laboratories (21), DevelopmentPlanning and Research Associates (DPRA)



Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management 119

(22-24), and Arthur D. Little (25). EPA also useddata from the 15 industry studies in the 1978draft RCRA Regulatory Impact Analysis (26,27). Although the same basic data appears tohave been u sed by ail, there were variations inthe national hazardous waste estimates pro-

duced by these efforts. These variations re-sulted primarily from differences in the statis-tical methods employed and the time periodsrepresented in each study.

EPA also contracted with TRW (28) to pro-vide an estimate of waste produced by small-volume waste generators. In the course of thiseffort, TRW provided a national estimate forhazardous waste generation of 61 milliontonnes per year, Information concerning themethods of data collection and the analyticaltechniques used in this study is incomplete.

The TRW estimate of 61 million tonnes appearsto be derived from d ata provid ed by States, in-dustry, and other unspecified EPA consultantreports, The study involved estimation of wastegeneration rates from data attributed to in-dividual plants of various sizes, and the ap-plication of these rates to the distribution of plants reported by the U.S. Bureau of Census.The TRW definition of hazardous waste in-cluded, in addition to wastes covered by theEPA definition p roposed in 1978, other wasteshaving certain constituents which were be-lieved by the contractors to be hazardous in

pure chemical forms. How much this lattergroup broadened the universe of hazardouswaste as compared to the original 15 industrystudies remains unclear. TRW included small-volume generators in its national estimate of hazardous waste. The contributions of smallgenerators to the estimates in the 15 industrystudies is not known.

In 1979, EPA contracted with Putnam, Bart-lett and Hays (who subcontracted with BoozAllen and Hamilton) to summarize existinghazardous waste generation data and to under-take a survey of commercial hazardous wastemanagement facilities. The purpose of thestudy (29) was to determine if sufficient man-agement capacity existed to handle the totalhazardous waste for 27 priority manufactur-ing and nonmanufacturing industry sectors

(identified by “standard industrial classes,”known as SICs). Booz Allen and Hamilton usedthe data base from the earlier industry studies.Consequently, all variations and limitations indefinitions and methodologies from thesestudies were incorporated in the Booz Allen

and Hamilton study. In ad dition, the data didnot correspond to consistent time frames, orto whole industry sectors. To correct for thesediscrepancies, three general types of statisticaladjustments were made:

1.

2.

3.

Estimates were adjusted upward to ac-count for the growth of waste generationsince the date represented by the sourcedata. (This adjustment d oes not reflect therecent downturn in industrial activity.)Estimates were adjusted upward to ac-count for waste generation in at least some

industries not included in the originalstudy.When estimates referred to only p art of anindustry sector, the generation ‘rate for thetotal sector was developed by calculatingthe ratio of production worker hours towaste generation in the subsector, and ap-plying that ratio to the total industry.

The national quantity of hazardous wastegenerated annually was estimated by this studyto be in the ran ge 28 million to 54 million w ettonnes for the year 1980, EPA commonly re-

ports a figure of 41 million w et tonn es for 1980and 43 million wet tonnes for 1981. It isacknowledged th at these figures do not includedata concerning waste not regulated by RCRA

In 1980, EPA required hazard ous w aste gen-erators, owners and operators of hazardouswaste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities(TSDF), and hazardous waste transporters tonotify EPA of their activities. Information sub-mitted included identification of facility type(i.e., generator, TSDF, transporter), location of the activity, and the typ es of waste han dled ac-

cording to EPA-established identification n um -bers, Notices were sent to 428,522 firms thathad been identified by WAPORA (a consultingfirm) as possibly being subject to RCRA reg-ulation. EPA received approximately 60,000notifications.




Also in 1980, EPA established a requirementfor annual reporting of waste generated andreceived. This reporting requirement, effectivethat year, extended only to generators andwaste m anagem ent facilities in States with un -authorized State programs. (At that time, no

States had auth orized w aste management pro-grams.) In 1981, the Federal annual reportingrequirement was suspended, and only a fewStates had partially authorized waste m anage-ment programs. In October 1982, when the re-porting requirement was reinstated retroactiveto 1981, all but 16 States had achieved partialState program authorization. Since EPA stillonly requires generators and waste manage-ment facilities in States with u nau thorized p ro-grams to report annually to EPA, the data re-ceived by EPA will represent activities in onlya small number of States. EPA has also pro-

posed a regulatory change to undertake bi-ennial statistical samples from all the States inlieu of more comprehensive annual reportingrequirements. Finally, EPA has undertaken anew national survey of hazardous waste gen-erators and man agement facilities. This surveyof approximately 10,700 generators and 2,500management facilities is scheduled to be com-pleted in 1983 and it will provide backgroundinformation for the ongoing RCRA RegulatoryImpact Analysis.

State DataA number of States have attempted to esti-

mate hazardous waste generation in their juris-dictions. These estimates were based on:

1.

2.

3.

4.

State inventories of waste generation byfacility (including transp ort m anifest d ata,State facility inventories, and data fromgenerator notifications to the States);extrapolations of the Booz Allen andHam ilton data using EPA notifications fora particular State;data from State manifests for waste trans-

ported offsite.extrapolations of State-derived estimatesusing methodologies similar to the na-tional studies (20-29).

In addition, to address the need for newhazardous waste management facilities and toprovide sources of information to the public,some States have formed regional planningorganizations. These regional organizationshave published estimates of regional waste gen-

eration (30-33) using State-supplied estimatesof waste generation, or, in recent pu blications,by extrapolating regional waste generationfrom member States’ manifest data. State wastegeneration data are discussed below. Chapter6 discusses hazardous waste management facil-ity siting.

The Association of State an d Territorial SolidWaste Man agem ent Officials (ASTSWMO) su r-veyed State data for OTA (33). The results of that survey are presented in table 18. As partof this work, ASTSWMO requested the States

to ind icate broad differences between the Stateand EPA universes of hazardous waste. TheStates were also requested to indicate how theirestimates were d erived. The ASTSWMO infor-mation was obtained both. by telephone andwritten response to a survey questionnaire.Forty-two States and five territories responded,but th e comp leteness of their responses varied.As table 18 shows, the ASTSWMO study indi-cates appr oximately 250 million tonnes of haz-ardous waste are being produced annually by40 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. * The wastefrom the States and territories not responding

might add another 5 million to 25 million ton-nes annually to this figure (for a total likelyrange of 255 million to 275 million tonnes).

The States’ waste generation data were de-rived by a number of different approaches: 19States appear to have used State inventories;5 States appear to have used data on mani-fested hazard ous w aste, thus und erestimatingwaste generation unless extrapolation to ac-count for waste managed onsite was done. In

*Hazardous waste quantities reported in units of volume(gallons, cubic feet, cubic yards) were converted to units of weight by ASTSWMO using standard EPA conversion factors,as noted in table 18. However, in those cases where Statesreported quantities in units of weight, the factors used by theStates for original converting volume to reported weight (wherethis conversion was performed) are unknown to OTA.



122 Technologjes and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 18.—Hazardous Waste Generation Estimates by EPA and the States—Continued

Quantity (metric tons) UniverseState

a b EPA estimate State estimate Same as EPA State additions

Utah a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,000 558,000 x —

Vermontb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000 9 ,070 Waste oils, infectious waste, PCBs, industrial

laundries, some waste delisted by EPA, and

other unspecified compounds.Virginia b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,220,000 181,000 PCBs.Washington b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,000 616,000 Additional unspecified waste.West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790,000 No response —

Wisconsin a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630,000 81,600 —

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,000 No responseGuam b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

n/a 1,450 x —

Puerto Ricob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560,000 417,000 x —

North Mariana Island. . . . . . . . n/a No response —

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . n/a o —

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . 140,000 No data x —

Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a No response —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,200,000 250,000,000(excl. 2 terr.) (excl. 10 states,

3 terr.)%MO data based onInventory.~% e -a bawd on consultant and/or State agency estimates.

~ m cu~ntly WWlatd under TSCA EpA iS considering transferring regulation of this s“b~tance t. RCRA jur~~di~~ionA few Statea dld not supply Information to his survey.% state figure of 15mllllon tonnes Is from the testimony of S. Kent Stoddard, Office of Appropriate Technology,House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agri-CUWSre Raaeamh and the Environment, Dec. 8, 1982, It Is based on a recent State study.C0nWl13&na: gallons x 0.00378 - metric tons

tons x 0.907 = metric tonscubic feet x 0.02828 - metric tons

cubic yards x 0.78441 - metric tonsSOIJWX: State estimates and associated Information by ASTSWMO unless noted otherwise; EPA estimates by O ffice of Solid Waste for 1980.

th e case of New Jersey, a recent study has in-dicated that in addition to the wastes reportedin the survey results, as much as 3 milliontonnes of hazardous wastes annually may bedumped into the ocean. * Data from the remain-ing responses were d erived throu gh u se of EPA

notifications and estimates of waste generatedby industrial sectors represented by the noti-fications. Only 9 States, Guam, Puerto Rico,and the District of Columbia u se definitions of hazardous waste that are reportedly the sameas that used by EPA. Thirty-two States haveadopted def in i t ions tha t inc lude RCRAexempted waste (e.g., mining waste, wastefrom energy production, or waste resultingfrom the application of environmental controls)or EPA-exempted waste (such as PCBs, orthose produced by small-volume generators).

q

Thisfigure for ocean dumping was based on data from EPA

permits for five waste generators; other data for 1978 indicateda total of about 2.5 million tonnes. It is quite possible that cur-rent tonnages may be less; however, the wastes may still be gen-erated in New Jersey, (Environmental Resources Management,Inc., “Hazardous Waste Management Facility Study for the Dela-ware River Basin and New Jersey, ” May, 1982.)

Some States have included materials, includ-ing hazardou s waste and contaminated soil, re-quiring management un der RCRA w hich haveresulted from cleanup actions at uncontrolledsites. Na tionally, these cleanup efforts are justbeginning. However, very large amounts of

hazardous materials will be generated in thefuture as CERCLA activities increase. It ap-pears that EPA estimates of hazardous wastegeneration do not include materials resultingfrom cleanup actions. Nonetheless, the mag-nitude of this source of “cleanup wastes” tobe managed under RCRA is great. In the past,most hazardous wastes have been land dis-posed (as much as 80 percent) and, accordingto EPA estimates, 90 percent of these wereprobably mismanaged. Therefore, several hun-dred m illion tonnes of wastes themselves, pluslarge amou nts of contaminated mater ials (e.g.,

soil) resulting from leakage, may require man-agement in the future. Estimates for Califor-nia are th at abou t 100,000 tonnes of hazard ousmaterials will be produced annually fromcleanup actions during the next 10 years. Ex-



Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management . 123

trapolating to the n ational level, it is likely thatseveral million tonnes of “cleanup wastes” maybe produced annually during the comingdecade.

In table 18, five States (California, Georgia,Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas) reported very

large volumes of waste which they define ashazard ous, totaling abou t 85 percent of the 250million tonnes reported. These States definehazardous waste differently from either theEPA universe or other respondents in the sur-vey. For instance, 99,7 percent of the wastereported by Georgia represents dilute aqueoussolutions, which are neutralized onsite priorto discharge to sewers and receiving waters,but which, nonetheless, are hazardous waste.In Louisiana, the estimate includ es waste fromenergy prod uction, waste from environmentalcontrol activities, and fly and bottom ash. InTexas, the estimate includes large-volumewaste from energy production, fly and bottomash, environmental control activities, miningwaste, and waste from the demolition of oldhighways, bridges, and buildings. Indiana’stotal of 94.9 million tonnes includes 92.3 mil-lion tonnes of spent p ickle liquor generated bythe steel industry. A request by this industryfor deregulation under RCRA has been madeto EPA,

Several other points should be noted aboutthe figures in table 18. Many of the federally

exempted wastes indicated in table 17 are notnow regulated by a significant number of States. Many States have recently conducted,or are now conducting, studies on waste gen-eration to obtain m ore accurate data on wastegeneration than previously available from EPA.Moreover, much of the data obtained from theASTSWMO survey and the data becomingavailable from individual State studies, coverwa ste generation w ithin the p ast 2 years (1981to 1982), This period is one of a depressedeconomy and lower levels of industrial opera-tion as compared to the pre-1980 period fromwh ich the EPA waste generation data were ob-tained, On the other hand, there is considerablymore effective reporting of waste generationfigures now than in earlier years, tending toincrease recent estimates relative to old er ones,

Because of the lack of consistent data from theASTSWMO survey on amounts of waste gen-erated (corresponding to the federally definedsphere of regulated waste v. State-definedwaste) and because of the effect of nationaleconomic cycles, direct comparisons with EPA

data for the States, also given in table 18 arenot completely appropriate.

In addition to the information about wastegeneration, ASTSWMO asked the States for in-formation about the number of hazardouswaste generators in their jurisdictions. Forty-three States and four territories reported ap-proximately 55,000 hazardous waste genera-tors, including in some instances an unspeci-fied n um ber of generators exempted und er theEPA program. This figure is substantiallylower, and the distribution among States maybe substantially different, than the figure of 428,522 currently used by EPA in its formulafor allocation of funds to the States. However,the figure of 55,000 generators is in agreementwith the 60,000 notification responses whichwere received by EPA in 1980 (as previouslydiscussed), and with the less than 8,000 wastemanagement facilities verified for 1981 (dis-cussed below).

The foregoing existing data correspond toitems discussed under Federal and State Gov-ernment data needs in the previous section.These data may also be of use in formulatingstrategies and regulations for hazardous waste,Indu stry’s need for data concerning generatorsand generation does not app ear to be substan-tial. The public’s data needs concerning gen-erators and generation will be met progressive-ly as data collected by Federal and State au-thorities become more reliable.

Uses of Existing Data

The previous discussion of existing dataidentified various studies that have attemptedto quan tify both th e nu mber of waste genera-tors throughout the Nation and the amount of waste produced annually, These studies haveoften lacked ad equate definitions of hazard ouswaste, and there have been variations in defi-nitions among the stu dies. Also, ind irect meth -




od s of waste measurement w ere used in thesestudies, and direct generation data were some-times lacking. These problems have led to adiscrepancy between the actual quantity of hazardous w aste generated annually in the N a-tion and the quantity perceived in any one

study. There are variations among the variousstudies in perceived quantities of hazardouswaste generated.

The reason for seeking waste generation datais to determine means for managing (storing,recovering, treating, transporting, and dispos-ing of) actual—as opp osed to perceived—gen-erated waste, in a m anner commensurate withthe protection of health and the environment.Therefore, the following questions must beaddressed:

1. Are the existing generation d ata u seful for

the task of actual hazardous waste man-agement?

2. How are these data currently being usedfor this task?

3. What are the limitations of these data forthis task?

Existing National and State generation datarepresent at best a limited characterization of actual generated waste. These data indicate tosome extent the type of waste being generated,relative quantities, and fractional distributionby State. The d ata cannot be used as a measu re

of actual w aste (by type or in tot al) being gen-erated in any one State or in the Nation, ex-cept to infer that a large quantity of hazardou swaste is in fact being produced annually, andthat this waste must be m anaged qu ickly andeffectively.

EPA has found only one administrative usefor the existing generation d ata—in the alloca-tion of Federal funds to State waste manage-ment programs, as described below. Facedwith the uncertainties implicit in the genera-tion data, and with the need to begin a hazard-

ous waste management program, EPA madetwo strategic decisions. It was decided that th emost pressing p roblem w as indu strial hazard-ous w aste from certain priority indu stries, andthat these wastes were adequately character-ized with regard to waste type and distribution

(for preliminary purposes) by the industryreports (5-19) and the d erivative study by BoozAllen and Ham ilton (29). Furtherm ore, the de-cision was made to allocate Federal funds toStates using a formula whereby 40 percent of the amount for a State was determined by its

fraction of the national waste stream (28.7million tonnes), 40 percent by its fraction of the N ation’s p opu lation, 15 percent by its frac-tion of the Nation’s hazardous waste genera-tors (428,522 was used even though only 60,000responses were received by EPA from thosereceiving notification forms), and 5 percent byits fraction of the Nation’s land area.

It is EPA’s intention to progressively modifythe values used in the fund allocation formula(and perhaps the formula itself) to reflect im-proved w aste generation and popu lation data,

and changing definitions of hazardous waste,for fiscal year 1983 and beyond. The allocationformula was developed some 3 years beforecompletion of the Booz Allen and Hamiltonstudy and has been incorporated in EPA reg-ulations up to the end of fiscal year 1982. It was“unan imously approved by more than 20 Staterepresentatives of the National Governors As-sociation” (34). However, this was before therewere indications that the data used by EPAmight be seriously in error, as more recentState data suggest.

EPA’s use of existing data for Federal fund

allocation was probably necessary, given itsneed to act. EPA is certainly aw are of the n eedto improve its generation/ generator data base.Further, OTA has been unable to identify anyadditional administrative use for the existingdata, However, as indicated earlier, publicsense of hazardous waste problems providesan im portan t influence on p ublic, political, andregulatory activities. On the basis of the EPAestimates for hazardous waste generation andpast practices, information concerning the na-tional problem can be communicated to thepublic. For example, the accumulation of haz-ardous waste in the environment from pastdecades of industrial activity is currentlyequivalent to at least 1 tonne of hazardouswaste for every person in the Nation andanother tonne is added every 7 years, at cur-



Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management 125

rent rates. These estimates may even be too more than a tonne of hazardous waste may below. If ASTSWMO waste generation data are placed into the environment every year formore indicative of the national problem, then every person in the Nation.

Data Requirements: Health and Environmental EffectsFor effective hazardous waste management,

the effects of hazardous waste on health andthe environment must be known to govern-ment, industry, and the public. Determinationof the effects of a particular waste on a par-ticular population can involve some very com-plex issues (see ch. 6 for a detailed discussionof hazards of waste and problems and dataneeds associated with determining hazardlevels). In ord er to add ress the effects of wastecomprehensively, data are required concern-ing:

1.

2.

3.

4.

It

the characteristics of waste: constituents,chemical, and physical data;environmental characteristics: pathways,physical characteristics of the environ-ment (air, water, soil), and distribution andcharacteristics of the population;toxicological data: dose response and ex-posure factors; andenvironmental fate and distribution: per-sistence, bioaccumulation, and media dis-tribution.

Existing Data

is generally understood that the numberof chemical compounds currently recognizedin the United States exceeds 3 million and ap-proximately 3,000 new ones are being addedeach year. The physical and chemical charac-teristics of these substances can be obtained.There is a subset of these known chemicals forwhich health and environmental effects datahave been collected, and about 500 chemicalsare being tested under the Toxic SubstancesControl Act (TSCA) jurisdiction each year tobroaden the scope of these data. In addition,TSCA requ ires indu stry to characterize all newchemicals, and chemicals for which they plannew uses, with respect to health and environ-

mental effects that may occur through com-mercial use and disposal. It is not knownwhether the subset of chemicals for whichdetailed and reliable information is availablerepresents a significant portion of all existingsubstances that pose a threat to health and theenvironment.

The known hazardous effects of the variouschemicals can be classified into three groups:

1. ph ysical harm —bur ns, or other effects dueto exposur e to acids, caustics and the like;

2. toxic effects—acute and chronic damage;an d

3. genetic impairments—a variety of effectsdirected to genetic components of cells.

Much of the available data is derived fromanimal studies. The problems that result fromextrapolating these data to humans are dis-cussed in chapter 6. Information about chem-ical characteristics and known effects is re-ported in a variety of data bases illustrated intable 19. In principle, all of these data areavailable to the public, but few mechanisms arein place (within Federal and State programs)to facilitate pu blic access or public und erstand-ing. The data are being developed by variousgroups including universities, the National In-stitute of Environmental Health Science, theNational Institute of Health, the Centers forDisease Control (CDC), and the National In-stitute for Occupational Safety and Health.CDC maintains a large quantity of epidemio-logical data. As required by TSCA, industrysup plies EPA with d ata on each new su bstancedeveloped, including its chemical and physi-cal prop erties, its health and environm ental ef-fects, and some limited information on wastemanagement. All of these data are developedunder statutes other than RCRA and may notspecifically address RCRA concerns.




Table 19.—Health and Environmental Effects Data

Source Subject Where maintained

MEDLINE Recent articles on research; articles on diseases and chemicals, National Library of MedicineTOXLINE Toxicological information from human and animal toxicology studies; National Library of Medicine

the effects of chemical on the environment; adverse drugreactions; analytical methodologies.

EPA-NIH Chemical Information Physical, chemical, and regulatory information about chemical National Institutes of Health

System substances.International Register of Potentially 17 profiles on chemicals: essential physical and chemical properties; UN Environment ProgramToxic Chemicals toxicity; reported effects on humans and laboratory organisms,

and the environment; safe and effective use of chemicals.Toxicology Data Bank Literature on general toxicology which has been subjected to peer Library of Medicine

review.Registry of Toxic Effects of Toxic effects of chemicals, including aquatic toxicity rating, NIOSH, CDC, Public Health

Chemical Substances cancer reviews. ServiceChemical Activity Status Report Lists chemicals research, authority for research, purpose, and EPA

information contact.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,

The threat that a hazardou s substance posesto health and the environment can take manyforms and vary significantly in degree (seediscussion of hazard in ch. 6). Although a vari-ety of tests are available to generate data con-cerning health effects, there has been little ef-fort made to standardize protocols for interlab-oratory comparisons of a single compound, orto standardize methodologies that facilitatecomparisons among compounds for a varietyof species.

Little data are available regarding the fate of any given waste constituent once it enters theenvironment. There are virtually no data con-cerning the interactions among various com-pounds in a waste, and there exist virtually no

data on, or experience with, testing mixturesof chemicals for potential health and environ-mental effects. In some cases, data on individ -ual compounds can be used for prediction.

The existing data on h ealth and environmen-tal effects of hazardous waste constituents onlybegin to address the various data needs con-cerning these issues that were listed in theprevious section. The lack of progress in thisarea is becoming a major issue. For example,with regard to the CERCLA requirement forthe formation of the Agency for Toxic Sub-

stances and Disease Registry in the Departmentof Health and Hu man Services, one of the orig-inators of CERCLA has noted:

Two years have passed since the law wasenacted and virtually nothing which HHS wasinstructed to do has been done. As a result,the General Accoun ting Office is now inves-tigating the Dep artm ent’s condu ct (35).

A concern for the health an d the safety of theenvironment is the driving force of hazardouswaste management efforts. Unfortunately, theavailable information concerning the effects of hazardous su bstances on health and the envi-ronm ent is far from complete, and man y of theissues involved are poorly understood. Hazard-

ous waste management efforts-including reg-ulation, the design and operation of facilities,siting, permitting, monitoring, and enforce-ment—are proceeding, even though they aresometimes based on perceptions rather than onsound data. The process of integrating healthand environm ental effects data into the d esignof managemen t facilities, and using th ese datato control the operation of such facilities, is inits infancy. However, these efforts do not cur-rently give sufficient consideration to healthand the environment (see ch. 6 for greater de-tail regarding this issue).



Ch. 4— Data for Hazardous Waste Management . 127

Data Requirements: Management Facilities

Data related to management facilities areneeded by government and industry, In manycases, the same data are used for different

purposes.Government needs data on facilities for ef-

fective regu lation of them, for m onitoring com-pliance with the regu lations, for selecting fruit-ful areas for research an d developm ent (R&D),for actions required under CERCLA, and forproviding information to the public. Govern-ment must respect the proprietary nature of much of this information.

In order to write regulations, data are re-quired on available management technolo-gies—their types and performance—andwhether or not these technologies, in manag-ing existing w aste, can red uce exposure of peo-ple and the environment. This information,may lead to restricting certain types of wasteto specific man agement technology d esign an dperformance standards (W, T).

In order to implement hazardous wastemanagement regulations, data are required forthe si t ing, permitt ing, and monitor ing of facilities, and for monitoring th e transp ortationof hazardous waste, Siting of facilities may bedone by zoning certain land areas as ap-propriate to specific types of managementtechnologies, or by selecting individual sites.Both environmental data and technology per-formance data are needed for zoning (T). In ad-dition, the siting of an individual facility mayrequire degree-of-risk data for the proposedfacility (T, F).

The perm itting p rocess is the key to effectivehazardous waste management and requires de-tailed facility data. These include the identifica-tion of management facilities, the nature andvolume of the waste being managed, health and

environmental impact data, the degree of riskoffered by the p roposed facility, and th e finan -cial capabilities of the facility operator to main-tain the facility in the event of its closure, andfor liability contingencies (F).

Monitoring the performance of waste man-agement facilities requires data concerningboth the facility itself and the surrounding en-

vironment, Data on the facility itself includevisual inspection data (e. g., the detection of leaks or rup tures); process data (e.g., tempera-tures, flow rates, chemical concentration lev-els); and data concerning the nature of the re-lease of substances from the facility to theenvironment—the characteristics of the sub-stances released, the quantities released, andwhere, when, and in what manner environ-mental systems were exposed to these sub-stances. Data on the ambient environment of the facility are required to track the long-termresponse to the released substances. The per-

formance of the facility may have to be modi-fied if these data show an unacceptable re-sponse (E, F).

TO establish R&D priorities, technology dataare required concerning the performance of available management technologies, and thelevel of performance improvement necessaryto remove continuing threats to environmen-tal and human safety.

For monitoring the transportation of hazard-ous waste from generators to offsite manage-ment facilities, various facility data are re-

quired (F), The characteristics of waste trans-ported, along with the source and destinationof transported waste should be determined,Data regarding transport vehicles (required toensure that accidental releases of hazardoussubstances are minimized), dates of transpor-tation and receipt, and the safety measures re-quired in case of accidental release should beadequately defined.

Facility d ata w ill be needed to identify wastemanagement facilities that may require clean-up action under CERCLA. These facility data

may overlap somewhat with the data on haz-ardous waste management facilities regulatedunder RCRA

Industrial data needs on facilities must besatisfied if industry is to play an effective role



Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management q 129

this data base has been used to formulate con-tinuing surveys of facilities.

Problems inherent in this data base stemfrom confusion about the type of informationrequested. Information required included:

1.2.3.

4.5.

6.

location and ownership of the facility;function–storage, treatment, disposal;types of technologies employed—e.g., land-fill, surface impoundment, incinerator;capacity of the facility;types and quantities of waste throughpu t;an dwh ether and to wha t extent the facility wassubject to regulation under other environ-mental acts.

Standardized measures (e. g., measures of ca-pacity] and specified criteria were not requ ired.

Furthermore, definitions given in the applica-tion were poorly stated and space for responseswas often inadequate. Approximately 10,200responses were received by EPA, of which onlysome 60 percent included capacity data. Also,discussions with EPA personnel suggest that,in particular, responses to items 4 and 5 areunreliable. The completeness and accuracy of the information are, therefore, questionable.However, it may be necessary to use this in-formation, since it is the best available.

The app lications have been su bjected to twotelephone validation surveys (38). The first of these, covering approximately 700 facilities,

indicated that the original part A data repre-sented an overstatement of available hazardouswaste m anagem ent services. The results of thesecond survey, which reached about 85 percentof the facilities in the part A data base, areshown in tables 20 and 21. EPA’s estimates of

nationwide numbers of facilities, and wastethroughput or technology capacity were de-rived with a methodology that allows for thefact that not all part A respondents werereached. Table 20 shows that an estimated totalof 7,785 hazardous waste management facil-ities in n ine technology classes were operatingin the Nation in 1981. Waste throughput esti-mates were provided for seven of the nine tech-nology types and facility capacity estimateswere provided for two technology types (stor-age and treatment tanks]. Due to incompletedata for both waste throughput and capacity,

and because figures for all are given in incon-sistent units of measure, no meaningful totalnational capacity or waste throughput esti-mates can be made for the hazardous wastemanagement industry.

Table 21, derived from the part A data andits second validation, shows the estimatednu mber of comm ercial offsite hazard ous w astemanagement facilities in the Nation during1981, the estimated waste throughput for thefirst seven technology types, the estimatedfacility capacity for the last two technologytypes, and the estimated p ropor tion of total na-

Table 20.—Hazardous Waste Management Facilities During 1981 (regulated under RCRA

Original Estimated numberTechnology type Part A data of sites Estimated total

Waste throughput Injection wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 114 3.5 billion galLandfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 270 8.3 million tonsLand treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 148 8,600 acresa

Surface impoundments. . . . . . . 1,754 1,096 28.8 million square yardsa

Waste piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 312 13.2 million cubic yardsa

Incinerators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 317 272 million galStorage containers . . . . . . . . . . 7,551 5,652 57 million gal

Estimated capacity Storage tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,230 2,280 303 million galTreatment tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,013 1,951 3 .1 billion gal

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,247 7,785 n/aaWestat’s questionnaire requested throughput data, the figures given In units of area do not represent either throughput orcapacity

SOURCE Westat and EPA, 1982.




considered the activities of only nine firmsoperating 46 commercial facilities. This up-dated report discusses the activities of thesefacilities during 1981, and the effect of EPAregulations on those activities, but gives no fur-ther insight into the national or regional char-

acter of the overall hazardous waste manage-ment industry, It does indicate, however, thatcapacity utilizations in 1981 were relativelylow, which is consistent with lowered rates of waste generation in recent years resulting fromlowered levels of industrial activity.

Managem ent facility data h ave also been col-lected in studies performed for the States,However, only a fraction of the States appearto have collected such data: California, Loui-siana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina,and Texas. While currently limited, State data

will be improved progressively through the per-mitting process. Presently, few States have re-ceived EPA authorization to implement permit-ting p rogram s. These States that h ave receivedthis au thority (by October 1982) are Arkansas,Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, and Texas, Oklahoma’s authorizationis due in late 1982. Extant State data on man-agement facilities have not been analyzed byOTA.

CERCLA Sites.–National estimates of thenumber of sites that contain hazardous wasteand that may require cleanup, have been pro-vided by two studies: an EPA consultant reportby Fred C. Hart Associates (39) and a reportby the Chemical Manufacturers Association(CMA) [40). Their estimates of the number of sites range from 4,800 (the CMA study) to30,000 to 50,000 sites (the EPA consultantestimate). The CMA estimate was based on atelephone survey of the States, but does not sayhow many States provided data, or how theStates that did respond derived their figures.The EPA consultant report was derived fromcompilations of data p rovided by EPA Regional

Offices, but no consistent methodology appearsto have been employed by these offices. Fewof the sites were visited during the course of the EPA consultant study. In February 1983,EPA had about 15,000 uncontrolled sites in itsnational inventory, According to EPA data,

preliminary assessments had been carried outfor only 14 percent of the sites, and site inven-tories had been completed for 2 percent of thesites in the inventory as of December 1982.

In 1982, EPA published a list of 115 hazard-ous w aste disposal sites as the interim nationalpriority CERCLA sites, This list was later ex-tended by 45 additional priority sites that w ere jud ged also to pose substantial threats to h ealthand the environment. EPA’s methodology forranking u ncontrolled sites is discussed in som edetail in chapter 6. In December 1982, EPA re-leased the first complete N ational Priority Listof 418 sites, and intend s to periodically upd atethis list.

Summary .— The existing facilities data de-scribed above d o little to satisfy the d ata needsof government, industry, and the public con-

cerning management facilities. The only needthat these existing data do satisfy (and thenonly marginally) is that of identification of management facilities and the technologiesthey employ,

A significant quantity of required technologylevel data (T) are available to indu stry, govern-ment, and the public. These data ar e discussedin chapter 5.

The required facility level data (F) that cur-rently exist are largely in the han ds of ind ustry.Much of these data will progressively pass togovernment, and some in turn to the public,as a result of the permitting process,

Existing EPA facilities data is being used asa sou rce, for the States and EPA, of names an dadd resses of facilities that m ay requ ire perm it-ting by the States. The d etermination of a givenfacility’s need for a permit, the process of is-suing the permit, and the monitoring of thefacility’s compliance to the requirements of theperm it all require data beyond the scope of thevalidated part A data.

The data are also used as a source by the pub-lic, of facilities that have reported to EPA aninvolvement in hazardou s waste management.This information provides communities witha primary focus for local concerns about themanagement of hazardous waste. It also en-




ables communities, concerned about the pres-ence and operation of a given waste manage-ment facility, to determine whether EPA or theState currently recognizes that facility as han-dling hazardous waste–facilities not so recog-nized will not be permitted and regulated.

These EPA data resources are also used toidentify those management facilities that areoffsite or commercial facilities, and are there-fore receiving transported hazardous waste.This information might be useful to the trans-portation industry in its market surveys. Itmight be useful to the p ublic because it defineswhere hazardous waste is going. In addition,such information should prove useful to theStates in their efforts to establish manifestsystems to regulate the transportation of haz-ardous waste.

The waste throughput and capacity estimatesincluded in the EPA data appear to have littlepractical use. These data are incomplete. Theyappear to represent capacity for managing bothhazardous waste (as defined by EPA) and othersolid waste, as well as hazardous waste defineddifferently by States, or to represent total wastethroughput while not distinguishing hazardouswaste f rom other waste . Moreover , eventhou gh th e data are for facility and technologytype, they do not indicate what waste constit-uents can be managed in each facility. Conse-quently, it is not possible to compare the

quantity of a given type of waste generatedin the Nation, or in any State , with thecapacity available to manage it. In somecases, the units of measurement for throughputreported in the n ational data are simply inap-propriate. For example, surface impoundment“waste throughp ut” is reported in u nits of area(square yards). The app ropr iate measure of thequan tity of waste that m ight be treated in sucha way wou ld be volume p er year (gallons peryear), Since evaporation—and perhaps drain-age and leaching— continually decreases thevolum e of waste in a surface imp oun dm ent, anappropriate and useful measure of surface im-pound ment throughput w ould be the waste in-put volume per year that the impoundmentcould handle, or the waste input weight peryear. Similar attention to appropriate units

must be given to capacity data whenever theseare collected.

If both m anagem ent capacity data (in the ap -propriate units) and waste throughp ut d ata (inthe sam e un its) were av ailable at a facility andtechnology level for the Nation, and if these

data indicated the waste constituents to whichthe capacity and waste throughp ut figures ap-plied, then such data could serve several pur-poses. Both government and industry could de-termine the distribution of hazardous wasteamong management technology settings. Thisdata, in concert with other information, wouldprovide a basis for assessing the impact of regulations on a given technology class. How-ever, EPA does not dispute the generally heldview, based on its early and more recent data,that as much as 80 percent of hazardous wastescontinue to be disposed or dispersed in or on

the land. * Also, both governm ent and indu strycould ascertain those management facilitiesthat were operating near maximum capacity.This would indicate management facilities re-quiring expansion, and the level of expansionrequired by an increase in production of wasteof the type handled by those facilities, or by theclosing of management facilities handling simi-lar waste. Government and industry could alsogauge the expansion of the various waste gen-erating industries that could occur without a

*For example, 83 percent of the hazardous waste generatedby 14 industries were placed in or on the land, based on 1975-78data. (“Subtitle C - RCRA Draft Final Environmental ImpactStatement–Part I,” EPA, April 1980) This figure appears con-sistent with EPA’s statements concerning the fraction of haz-ardous waste properly managed: “Less than 10 percent of thesehazardous manufacturing wastes are estimated to have beentreated/disposed in an environmentally adequate manner. ”RCRA Subtitle C–Hazardous Waste Management: RegulatoryAnalysis,” EPA, Apr. 30, 1980.) The recent validation survey of management facilities indicated that in 1981 about 20 milliontonnes of hazardous waste were disposed in injection wells andlandfills, but no data were available for other forms of landdisposal such as land treatment and surface impoundments orfor ocean disposal; therefore, there is confirmation that morethan half of currently generated waste are placed into the en-vironment. The ASTSWMO survey also provided some data on

land disposal. For example, 1981 data for Louisiana indicatesthat 97 percent of waste managed offsite are land disposed, andthat about 50 percent of the waste managed onsite (99 percentof total) are land disposed. Recent data for Texas indicates that95 percent of their hazardous waste enter the land, but inMissouri and Massachusetts only 40 and 7 percent, respective-ly, is land disposed.




need for expansion of corresponding wastemanagement industries and could determinefruitful areas for R&D. Such R&D could leadto modifications of industrial processes thatgenerate waste in a manner that w ould redu cethe quantities of certain types of generated

waste, thereby reducing loads on the manage-ment facilities that handle that waste. Suchmodifications could be based on both wastegeneration and management data of the facil-ity type. Research and d evelopment could alsolead to new management technologies to han-dle types of generated waste not adequatelyhandled in existing facilities. This requires de-tailed generation data, management technologydata, and health and environmental effectsdata.

Another benefit of R&D would be the con-

servation of national resources. The nationalview of management facility activities maywell identify substantial quantities of energyand materials that could be recovered in acost-effective manner, rather than being lostin the process of treatment and disposal. The

data necessary for these pur poses could be col-lected by EPA through national surveys orcould be obtained throu gh the States by meansof State surveys and the facility permittingprocess. Clearly, the uses noted for such datacould also be made of any set of State data of

the facility and technology types.It is clear that the information concerning

sites containing hazardous waste that may posea threat to health and the environment is in-adequate both from the standpoints of valid-ity and im med iate usefulness. Information p re-viously collected by EPA, the States, and in-du stry (39,40) serves as a starting p oint for in-vestigations p reliminary to cleanup , This is, infact, how the data are being used. However,little information appears to be available aboutthe specific waste contained in these sites, the

technologies employed in the facilities, or therisk to health and the environment posed bywaste management practices. Such data arefundamental to evaluations preliminary tocleanup activities.

Priori t ies for Data Acquisit ion

The foregoing discussion has indicated thata large discrepancy exists between the d ata re-

quired for effective hazardous waste manage-ment and that existing at various levels. Con-siderable effort is required if this discrepancyis to be removed, and the task must be ap- q

preached with urgency if damage to health andthe environment is to be minimized.

The following data are considered to havethe highest priority in this data acquisitioneffort.

. Health and environmental effects data.—A sound understanding of the effects of hazardous w aste on hum an health and the q

environment is essential for effectivehazardous waste management. It enablesthe iden tification of hazard ous su bstancesand their relative hazards, assists in set-ting design and p erformance stand ards for

management facilities, p r o v i d e s m e a n -ingful-reference data with which to eval-

uate monitoring data, and provides theassurance that management measuresadopted are indeed sufficient (see ch. 6).Fac i l i ty da ta concern ing hazardouswaste generators and management facil-ities.–Identification by government of allhazardous waste generators and the vol-ume and nature of their waste is crucialif the problem of hazardous waste is to befully addressed. Control of managementfacilities is crucial–this will be possiblethrough the permitting of such facilities.Current data for each available hazard-ous waste management technology.—This data on technologies would includeinformation concerning, primarily, per-formance and degree of risk. The relation-ships between input waste characteristics




q

q

and output residual waste and effluentcharacteristics. These data m ay be u sed toemphasize the capabilities and limitationsof certain technologies to handle particulartypes of waste, as well as areas that requ irefurth er R&D (see ch. 5). Though of less im-

portance than performance data in theshort term, degree of risk data that ad-dresses site-specific factors are desirablein the long term for effective and reliablemanagement (see ch. 6).Data suitable for establishing facility de-sign and performance standards.—Thesestandards m ust be periodically up dated toreflect growing knowledge of health andenvironmental effects, and to take advan-tage of evolving m anagemen t technologies(see ch. 5).Data concerning alternative industrial

processes (in waste generation industries)that reduce the volume and hazard of waste (see ch. 5).

q

q

Data concerning the costs, to industryand government, of implementing regula-tions governing hazardous waste man-agement.–(unit cost da ta f o r m a na ge -ment options are discussed in ch. 5, andnational industry and government costs

are discussed in ch. 7.)Data concerning CERCLA sites.—Dataare needed on the w astes deposited in thesites, the technologies employed, th e risksassociated w ith the continued residence of waste in these sites, and the risks associ-ated with remedial activities at the sites.A systematic investigation of sites isneeded and will require extensive finan-cial and man pow er resources (see ch. 5). *

*Congress recognized this problem and appropriated $10 mil-lion from CERCLA funds for sec. 3012 of RCRA for fiscal year1983. States will receive these funds to develop inventories of

hazardous waste sites that may require CERCLA attention. How-ever, the implementation plan by EPA is not focused on discover-ing new sites, but on gathering more information on known un-controlled sites.

Chapter 4 References

1. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,Public Law 94-580, sec. 1004 (7).

2. Ibid., sec. 1004 (27).3. Ibid., sec. 1004 (5).4. Ibid., sec. 3001 (a).

5. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Leather Tanning and Finishing In-dustry” (NTIS order #PB 261-018).

6. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Inorganic Chemicals Industry”(NTIS ord er #PB-244-832/ 2WK).

7. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Paint and Allied Produ cts Industry,Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations, andFactory Application of Coatings” (NTIS order#PB-251-669).

8. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Storage and Primary Batteries In-du stries” (NTIS ord er #PB-241-204/ 7WP).

9. “A Study of Waste Generation, Treatment andDisposal in the Metals Mining Indu stry” (NTISorder #PB 261-052).

10. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and

Explosives Industries” (NTIS order #PB-251-307).

11. “Assessment of Indu strial Hazard ous WastePractices—Textiles Indu stry” (NTIS ord er #PB-258-953).

12. “Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices inthe Petroleum Refining Industry” (NTIS order#PB-259-097).

13. “Pharmaceutical Industry Hazardous WasteGeneration, Treatment, and Disposal” (NTISorder #PB-258-800/ 2WK).

14. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Special Machinery ManufacturingIndustries” (NTIS order #J? B-265-981).

15. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Electronic Components Manufactur-ing Industry” (NTIS order #PB-265-532).

16. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Electroplating and Metal Finishing

Industries—Job Shops” (NTIS order #PB-264-349).17. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Management—Petroleum Re-Refining Indus-try” (NTIS order #PB-272-267/ 6WK).




18 .

19 .

20 .

2 1 .

22 .

23 ,

24 .

25 .

26

27 .

2 8 .

“Assessment of Indus tr ia l Hazardous WastePractices in the Metal Smelting and RefiningIndustries” vol. 1 (NTIS order #pi)-276-169); vol.2 (NTIS order #PB-276-l70]; vol. 3 (NTIS order#PB-276-171); vol. 4 (NTIS order #PB-276-172).“Assessment of Indus tr ia l Hazardous WastePractices–Rubber and Plastics Industry” (NTIS

order #PB-282-069).Environmental Protection Agency, A Com pi la -

tion of Statistics on Solid Waste Management Wi th in the United States (Washington, D. C.:JRB Associates, contract No. 68-01-6000, 1981].Environmental Protection Agency, Final Repor t

on Cost of Compliance With Hazardous Waste

Management Regulat ions (Washington, D. C.:Battelle Columbus Laboratories, contract No.68-01-4360, 1977).Environmental Protection Agency, S u m m a r y

Data for Selected Hazardous Waste Generator

Industries, Volume I, Economic and Technical

Profiles (w orking docum ent) [Washington, D. C.:

Development P lanning and Research Associ-ates, contract No. 68-01-6322, October 1981).Environmental Protect ion Agency, I m p a c t

Analys is o f Proposed RCRA-FSS Regulat ion ,

1980-1990, Volume I , Draft Technical Docu-

m e n t (Washington, D. C.: Development Planningand Research Associates, November 1980).Ibid., vol. 11, November 1980.Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft Eco-nomic impact Analysis of Subtitle C ResourceConservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Regu-latory Analys is Supplement)” (Washington,D. C.: Arthur D. Little, January 1979).Environmental Protection Agency, P r e l i m i n a r y

Working Draft in Preparation of an Environ-mental Impact S ta tement for Subt i t le C, Re

source Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

(RCRA) Volume II, Appendices A-J (Washing-ton, D. C.: EPA, undated).E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y , i n t e r n a ldocument, Office of Solid Waste, undated.Environmental Protection Agency, T e c h n i c a l

Environmental Impacts of Various Approaches

for Regulating Small Volume Hazardous Waste

Generators (Washington, D, C.: TRW, contract

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35,

36.

37.

38.

39,

40.

Nos . 68-02-2613 and 68-03-2560, December1978).Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous

Waste Generation and Commercial Hazardous

Waste Management Capacity (Washington,D. C.: Putnam, Bartlett and Hays, and BoozAllen an d Hamilton, GPO SW894, 1980).

A. D. Little, “Hazardous Waste Generation inNew England, ” memorandu m to the New Eng-land Coun cil, Augu st 1982.A. D, Little, “A Plan for Development of Haz-ardous Waste Management Facilities in theNew England Region, ” report for the NewEngland Regional Commission, September1979.Great Lakes Basin Comm ission, “Hazard ousWaste Management in the Great Lakes Region,”Technical Report IV, Ann Arbor, Mich., August1980.Association of State and Territorial Solid WasteManagement Officials, survey conducted for

OTA, 1982.Federal Register, vol. 43, No. 186, Sept. 25,1978,Sen. Robert T. Stafford, “Hazardous Waste andSuperfund, ” speech at meeting of National Con-ference of State Legislatures, Washington, D. C.,Dec. 8, 1982.Booz Allen and Hamilton, “Review of Activitiesof Major Firms in the Comm ercial Hazard ousWaste Managem ent Ind ustry: 1981 Upd ate, ”May 7, 1982.Environmental Protection Agency, “Applica-tion for a Haza rdou s Waste Permit: Consoli-dated Permits Program” (EPA forms 3510-1 and

3510-3), June 1980.Environmental Protection Agency, “Report onthe Telephone Verification Survey of Hazard-ous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Fa-cilities Regulated under RCRA in 1981, ”Westat, Inc., Novem ber 1982.Environmental Protection Agency, “Prelimi-nary Assessment of Clean-up Costs for NationalHazardous Waste Problems, ” Fred C. HartAssociat ion, 1979. Environmental Reporter, vol. 10, 1 9 8 0 , p. 2 1 5 9 .



CHAPTER 5

Technologies for

Hazardous Waste Management



Contents

Page

Summary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Waste Reduction Alternatives , .. ...,, . . . . 139Hazard Reduction Alternatives: Treatment

and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Ocean Use . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Uncontrolled Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Waste Reduction Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 141Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Source Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Process Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143End-Product Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Recovery and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148Emerging Technologies for

Waste Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Hazard Reduction Alternatives: Treatment

and Disposalq

*************O.***.***q

156Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156Summary Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158Biological Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Surface Impoundments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186Underground Injection Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Comparative Unit Costs for

Selective Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Ocean Disposal and Dispersal . . . . . . . . . . . 198Current Usage q ..***. q O..**** . . . . . . . . . 198Legislative Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199Controversy Over Ocean Use for

Hazardous Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Future Research and Data Needs . . . . . . . . . 2 0 3

Technical Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Uncontrolled Sites q** ** .***0*0***.O*QQO 205Issues Concerning Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 5

Site Identification and Evaluation ., ....., 2 0 7

Appendix 5A.-Case Examples of ProcessModifications q*******************e** 213

List of Tables

Table No.

22.A Comparison of the Four ReductionMethods ...,.., ..***,** ,.s.,,..q . * , 14223. Process Modification to the Mercury CeIl 14424. Advantages an d Disadv antage of process

Page

Options for Reduction of Waste Streamsfor VCM Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

25. End-product Substitution for Reductionof Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

26. Commercially Applied Recovery

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14727. Description of Technologies CurrentlyUsed for Recovery of Materials . . . . . . . 149

28. Recovery/Recycling Technologies Being

29

30

31

Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Conventional Biological TreatmentMethods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153Industries With Experience in ApplyingBiotechnology to Waste Management . . 153Comparison of Some Hazard ReductionTechnologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

32. Comparison of Thermal TreatmentTechnologies for Hazard Reduction . . .

33. Engineered Components of Landfills:

Their Function and Potential Causesof Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34. Comparison of Quoted Prices for Nine

Major Hazardous Waste Firms in 198135. Incineration v. Treatment: Range of

Estimated Post-RCRA Charges for

q 163

. 177

, 196

Selected Waste Types.. , . .. . . . . . . . . . . 19736. Unit Costs Charged for Services at

Commercial Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19737. Data Required To Identify and Evaluate

Uncontrolled Sites.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 38. Advantages and Disadvantages of

Control Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21039. Types of Remedial Action Employed

at a Sample of Uncontrolled Sites .*.,* 211

List of Flgures

Figure No. Page7. Relative Time Required for

Implementation of Reduction Methods . 1128. Injection Liquid Incineration, . . . . . . . . . 1659, Molten Salt Destruction: Process Diagram 171

10. Generalized Depiction of a HazardousWaste Landfill Meeting MinimumFederal Design Criteria.. .. ..,.........176

11. Potential Failure Mechanisms for Covers 180

12. Schematic of Single arid Double SyntheticLiner Design .*...** ...*,*** ,..0.... q 18613. Schematic of Typical Completion Method

for a DeepWaste Injection Well . . . . . . . 190




q

q

al. However, comparison of these technol-ogies at the very high destruction levels theyachieve is difficult. Difficulties include: mon-itoring methods and detection limits, knowl-edge about the formation of toxic productsof incomplete combustion, and diversity inperformance capabilities among the differ-ent treatments.

Chemical, physical, and biological batch-type treatment processes can be used to re-duce waste generation or to recover valuablewaste-stream constituents. In marked con-trast to both incineration and land disposal,these processes allow checking treatmentresiduals before any discharge to the envi-ronment, In general, processes which offerthis important added reliability are few, butwaste-specific processes are emerging. Re-search and development efforts could en-

courage the timely emergence of more of this type process applicable to future haz-ardous wastes.

Ocean Use

For some acids and very dilute other hazard-ous wastes, dumping in

-ocean locations may

offer acceptable levels of risk for both theocean environment and hum an health. How-ever, there is generally inadequate scientific

q

q

information for decisions concerning mosttoxic hazardous wastes and most locations.This is a serious problem since there maybe increasing interest in u sing the oceans asthe costs of land disposal increase and if pub-lic opposition to siting new treatment facil-ities continues.

Uncontrolled Sites

A major pr oblem is that the N ational Contin-gency Plan under the Comprehensive Envi-ronmental, Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA) does not providespecific standards, such as concentrationlimits for certain toxic substances, to estab-lish the extent of cleanup. There are con-cerns that cleanups may not provide protec-tion of health and environment over the longterm.

The long-term effectiveness of remedial tech-nologies is uncertain. A history of effective-ness has not yet been accumulated. Manyremedial technologies consist of waste con-tainment approaches which require long-term operation and maintenance, In recentremed ial actions, removal of wastes and con-taminants, such as soil, accounted for 40 per-cent of the cases; such removed materialswere usually land disposed.

Introduction

The pu rpose of this chapter is to describe the tion recognizes that w here technically and eco-variety of technical options for hazardouswaste m anagem ent. The techn ical detail is lim-ited to that needed for examining policy op-tions and regulatory needs. Still, there aremany technologies, and their poten tial roles inhazardous waste management are diverse.Thus, there are m any techn ical aspects relatedto policy and regulation issues. The reader in-terested in the details of the technologies re-viewed here is encouraged to read beyond thispolicy-oriented discussion.

The first grou p of technologies discussed arethose which reduce waste volume. This distinc-

nomically feasible, it is better to reduce thegeneration of waste than to incur the costs andrisks of managing hazardous waste. Wastereduction technologies include segregation of waste components, process modifications, end-product substitutions, recycling or recoveryoperations, and various emerging technologies.Many waste reduction technologies are close-ly linked to manu facturing and involve propri-etary information. Therefore, there is less de-tailed information in this section than in others.

Much of the chapter discusses technologiesthat reduce the hazard from the waste gener-



Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management 141

ated. These are grouped as: 1) those treatmentsthat permanently eliminate the hazardouscharacter of the material, and 2) those dispos-al approaches that contain or immobilize thehazardous constituents.

There are several treatments involving high

temperature that decompose materials intoharm less constituents, Incineration is th e obvi-ous examp le, but there are several existing an demerging “destruction” technologies that aredistinguished in this category. In addition togross decomposition of the waste material,there are emerging chemical technologieswhich detoxify by limited molecular rearrange-ment an d r ecover valuable materials for reuse.Whether by destruction or detoxification, thesetechnologies permanently eliminate the hazardof the material.

Containment chiefly involves land disposaltechniques, but chemical “pretreatment” meth-ods for stabilization on a molecular level arerapidly emerging, Combining these method s of-fers added reliability, and sectors of industryappear to be ad opting that app roach. The d is-

cussion of containment technologies includes:1) land filling, 2) surface imp oun dm ents, 3) deep -well injection, and 4) chemical stabilization.

Use of the oceans is considered a technicaloption for some wastes. A number of regula-tory and policy issues emerge concerningocean use and are discussed.

The final section of this chapter concerns un-controlled hazardous waste sites from whichreleases of hazardous materials is probable orhas already occurred . Such sites are often aban-doned and are no more than open d um ps. Thesites are addressed by CERCLA. The technicalaspects of identifying, assessing, and remed iat-ing uncontrolled sites are reviewed in this sec-tion. There ha s been limited engineering expe-rience with cleaning up uncontrolled sites.

Many technologies that are ap plicable to thesame waste compete in the marketplace. Theinitial discussion in the section on hazardreduction treatment and disposal technologiescompares the costs of comparative technolo-gies in some detail.

Waste Reduct ion Alternatives

Introduction

Four methods are available to reduce theamount of waste that is generated:

1. source segregation or separation,2. process modification,3. end-product substitution, and4. material recovery and recycling.

Often, more than one of these approaches isused, simultaneously or sequentially.

Reduction of the amou nt of waste generatedat the sou rce is not a new concept. Several in-du strial firms have established in-house incen-tive program s to accomp lish this. One exampleis the 3P program—Pollution Prevention Pays—of the 3M Corp. Through the reduction of waste and development of new substitute prod-ucts for hazardous materials, 3M has saved $20

million over 4 years.1 Other firms have estab-lished corporate task forces to investigate solu-

tions to their hazardous waste managementproblems, One solution h as been recycling andrecovery of waste generated by one plant foruse as a raw material at another corporate-owned facility. Such an approach not onlyreduces waste, but lowers operating costs.

Significant reductions in the volume of wastegenerated can be accomplished throu gh sour cesegregation, process modification, end-productsubstitution, or recovery and recycle. No onemethod or individual technology can be se-lected as th e ultimate solution to volume redu c-

tion. As shown in figure 7, three of the meth-ods, i.e., source segregation, process modifica-

IM. G. Royston, Pollution Prevention Pay s (New York: Perga-mon Press, 1979).




Figure 7.—Relative Time Required forImplementation of Reduction Methods

Source separation4 *

uProcess modification

2% + PE

Recycling/recovery:.—z

- *

< End-product substitution2 - *

1 I I I J

o 1 2 3 4 5

(Relative units)

Time~SOURCE. Off Ice of Technology Assessment

tions, and recovery and recycling can be imp le-mented on a relatively short- to medium-term

basis by individual generators. End-productsubstitution is a longer term effort. A compari-son of the advantages and disadvantages of

each of the four approaches is given in table22. Because of proprietary concerns and lackof industrywide data, the amount of wastereduction that has already occurred and thepotential for further reduction is difficult toevaluate. A 1981 study by California con-

clud ed that new industrial plants will produ ceonly half the amoun t of hazardous w aste cur-rently produced. Other estimates for potentialwa ste prod uction range from 30 to 80 percent.3

Waste reduction efforts, however, are more dif-ficult in existing plants.

Source Segregation

Source segregation is the simplest and prob-ably the least costly method of reduction. Thisapproach prevents contamination of large vol-

2“Future Hazardous Waste Generation in California,” Depart-ment of Health Services, Oct. 1, 1982.

3Joanna D. Underwood, Executive Director, Inform, The NewYork Times , Dec. 27, 1982.

Table 22.—A Comparison of the Four Reduction Methods

Advantages Disadvantages

Source segregation or separation I ) Easy to implement; usually low investment 1) Still have some waste to manage2) Short-term solution

Process modification 1) Potentially reduce both hazard and volume 1) Requires R&D effort; capital investment2) Moderate-term solution 2) Usually does not have industrywide impact3) Potential savings in production costs

End product substltuflon 1) Potentially industrywide impact—large 1) Relatively long-term solutionsvolume, hazard reduction 2) Many sectors affected

3) Usually a side benefit of product improvement4) May require change in consumer habits5) Major investments required—need growing market

Recovery/recycling q /n-p/ant 1) Moderate-term solution 1) May require capital investment2) Potential savings in manufacturing costs 2) May not have wide impact3) Reduced liability compared to commercial

recovery or waste exchangeq Commercial recovery (offsite)1) No capital investment required for 1) Liability not transferred to operator

generator 2) If privately owned, must make profit and return investment2) Economy of scale for small waste 3) Requires permitting

generators 4) Some history of poor management

5) Must establish long-term sources of waste and markets6) Requires uniformity in compositionq Waste exchange 1) Transportation costs only 1) Liability not transferred

2) Requires uniformity in composition of waste3) Requires long-term relationships—two-party involvement





umes of nonhazardous waste by removal of hazardous constituents to forma concentratedhazard ous w aste, For example, metal-finishingrinse water is rendered nonhazardous by sepa-ration of toxic metals. The water then can bedisposed through m unicipal/ industrial sewage

systems.How ever, there are d isincentives, particular-ly for small firms w ishing to imp lement sourcesegregation. For example, an electroplatingfirm may, for economic reasons, mix wastescontaining cyanides and toxic metals with awaste that contains organics. The waste streamis sent to the municipal treatment system. Themunicipal system can degrade the organics,but the metals and cyanide accumulate in thesludge, which is disposed as a nonhazardoussolid waste in a sanitary landfill. As long as thefirm d ilutes the cyanide and metals concentra-

tions to acceptable limits for mu nicipal d ispos-al, it is in compliance with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA) regulations. If thefirm calculates the costs of recovering thecyanide onsite, the cost may be more than thefees paid to the municipal treatment facility.Thus, there is no economic incentive for sou rcesegregation, which would yield a hazardouswaste, although the public would benefit if source segregation were practiced. Alternative-ly, accumulation of such sludges can lead tosignificant levels of toxic material in sanitarylandfills. Municipal treatment facilities are fi-nanced with tax dollars, In this example, thepu blic is, in essence, subsidizing indu strialwaste disposal, Moreover, to carry out sourcesegregation, a firm may have to invest in newequipment.

Process Modification

Process modifications are, in general, madeon a continuous basis in existing plants to in-crease production efficiencies, to make productimprovements, and to reduce manufacturingcosts, These modifications may be relativelysmall changes in operational method s, such asa change in temperature, in pressur e, or in rawmaterial composition, or may involve majorchanges such as use of new processes or newequipment. Although process modifications

have redu ced hazardous wastes, the redu ctionusually was not the primary goal of the modifi-cations. However, as hazardous waste manage-ment costs increase, waste reduction will be-come a more important primary goal.

Three case examples were studied to analyze

incentives and impacts for process modifica-tions for hazardous waste reduction. The fol-lowing factors are important:

q

q

q

q

A typical process includes several steps.Although a change in one step may besmall relative to the entire process, thecombination of several changes often rep-resents significant reductions in cost,water use, or volume of waste.A change in any step can be made inde-pendently and is evaluated to determinethe im pact on prod uct, process efficiency,

costs, labor, and raw materials.Generally, process modifications are plant-or p rocess-specific, and they cannot be ap -plied industrywide.A successful process change requires adetailed knowledge of the process - as wellas a knowledge of alternative materialsand processing techniques. Successful im-plementation requires the cooperative ef-forts of material and equipment suppliersand in-house engineering staffs.

Three process changes are discussed in detailin the appendix to this chapter and are brieflysummarized below:

1. Chlor-alkali industry .-Significant proc-ess developments in the chlor-alkali ind us-try (which produces, e.g., chlorine andcaustic soda) have resulted in r edu ction of major types of hazardous waste throughmodifications to the mercury electrolysiscell. The effects on waste generation aresummarized in table 23. The modificationswere not developed exclusively to reducehazardous waste, but were initiated pri-marily to increase process efficiency and

reduce production costs.2. Vinyl chloride (plastics) production.—

Several process options are available forhandling waste from the production of vinyl chloride monomers (VCMs). Five al-




3.

Table 23.—Process Modifications to the Mercury Cell

Modification Effect on waste stream Reason for modification

Diaphragm cell Elimination of mercury Preferred use of natural saltcontaminated waters brines as raw material

Dimensionally stable anode Elimination of chlor inated Increased efficiencyhydrocarbon waste

Membrane cell Elimination of asbestos Reduce energy costs; higher

diaphragm waste quality product, -SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

ternatives are illustrated in table 24. Allfive have been demonstrated on a commer-cial scale. In most cases, the incinerationoptions (either recycling or add-on treat-ment) would be selected over chlorinolysisand catalytic fluidized bed reactors. Chlo-rinolysis has limited application becauseof the lack of available markets for the endproducts. If further refinements could bemade to the catalytic process, such as

higher concentration of hydrogen chloride(HCl) in the gas stream w hich w ould allowit to be used with all oxychlorinationplants, its use could be expanded.

Metal-finishing industry .-Several modi-fications in metal cleaning and platingprocesses have enabled the metal-finishingindustry to eliminate requirements for on-site owned and operated wastewater treat-ment facilities. By changing these proc-esses to eliminate format ion of hazardous

sludge, the effluent can be discharged directly to a municipal wastewater treatmenfacility, saving several million dollars incapital investment.

End-Product Substitution

End-product substitution is the replacemenof hazardous w aste-intensive prod ucts (i.e., indu strial prod ucts the manufacture of wh ich in

volves significant hazardous waste) by a newproduct, the manufacture of which would eliminate or reduce the generation of hazardouswa ste. Such w aste may arise from th e ultimatedisposal of the product (e.g., asbestos products)or during the man ufacturing pr ocess (e.g., cadmium plating).

Table 25 illustrates six examples of end-product substitution, each representing a differenttype of problem. General problems includ e thefollowing:

Table 24.—Advantages and Disadvantages of Process Options for Reduction ofWaste Streams for VCM Manufacture

Treatment option Type Advantages DisadvantagesHigh-efficiency incineration of

vent gas only

High-efficiency incinerationwithout HCI recovery

High-efficiency incinerationwith HCI recovery

Chlorinolysis

Catalytic fluidized bed reactor

Add-on treatment 1.2.

Add-on treatment 1.2.

Recycling 1.2.

3.

Modif icat ion of 1 .process

Recycling 1.2.

Relatively simple operationRelatively low capitalinvestmentRelatively simple operationRelatively low capitalinvestmentHeat recoveryRecover both gaseous andliquid componentsHigh reliabilityCarbon tetrachloride generated

Low temperatureDirect recycle of exit gas (no

1. Second process required tohandle liquid waste stream

1. Loss of HCI

1. Exit gas requires scrubbing2. Requires thorough operator

training3. Auxiliary fuel requirements1. High temperatures and

pressures required2. High capital investment costs3. Weakening market for carbon

tetrachloride1. Limited to oxychlorination

plantstreatment required)

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment,



Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management q 145

Table 25.—End-Product Substitutes for Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Ratio of waste:a Ratio of waste:a

Product Use original product Available substitute substitute product

Asbestos Pipe 1.09

Friction products 1.0+ manufacturing(brake linings) waste

Insulation 1.0+ manufacturing

PCBs Electrical transformers 1.0

Cadmium Electroplating 0.29

Creosote treated wood Piling

Chlorofluorocarbons Industrial solvents 70/81 =0.9

DDT Pesticide 1.0+ manufacturingwaste

aQuantity of hazardous waste generated/unit of product

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Not all of the available substitutes avoidthe production of hazardous waste. F o rexample, in replacing asbestos pipe, theuse of iron as a substitute in pipe manu-facturing generates waste with phenols andcyanides; and also, during the manufacture

of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, a hazard-ous vinyl chloride monomer is emitted.4

Substitution may not be possible in allsituations. For example, although a sub-stantial reduction in quantity of hazardouswaste generated is achieved by u sing claypipes, clay is not alw ays a satisfactory re-placement for asbestos.5

Generally, development of substitutes is moti-vated by some ad vantage, either to a user, (e.g.,in improved reliability, lower cost, or easieroperation), or to the manufacturer (e. g., re-du ced p rodu ction costs). A change in consum -

er behavior also may cause product changes.— ...— —

4Sterling-Hobe Corp., Alternatives for Reducing HazardousWaste Generation Using End-Product Substitution,prepared forMaterials Program, OTA, 1982.

5Ibid.

For

IronClayPVC

Glass fiberSteel woolMineral woolsCarbon fiberSintered metalsCement

Glass fiberCellulose fiber

Oil-filled transformersOpen-air-cooled

transformers

Zinc electroplating

Concrete, steel

Methyl chloroform;methylene chloride

Other chemicalpesticides

0.1 phenols, cyanides,0.05 fluorides0.04 VCM manufacture +

1.0 PVC pipeo

0. 2

0

0

0.06

0 .0 (reduced hazard)

0.9 (reduced hazard)

(reduced hazard)1.0+ manufacturing

waste

example, increased use of microwaveovens has increased the demand for pap er andStyrofoam packaging to replace aluminum.Most end-product substitutions aimed at re-duced generation of hazardous waste, how-ever, do not have such advantages. The onlybenefit may be reduction of potential adverseeffects on human health or the environment,Unless the greater risks and costs of hazard ouswaste management are fully internalized bywaste generators, other incentives may beneeded to accomplish end-product substitution.

In addition to the approach in chapter 3, op-tion III, end-product substitution may be en-couraged by:

1. regulations,2. limitation of raw materials,3. tax incentives,

4. Federal procurement practices, and5. consumer education.

Regulations have been used to prohibit spe-cific compounds. For example, bans on certainpesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-




ethane (DDT) have resulted in developmentand use of other chemicals. Legislative prohibi-tion of specific chemicals, such as polychlori-nated biphenyls (PCBs), is another option.

Limiting the sup ply of raw materials requiredfor manufacture is another method of encour-aging end-product substitution. For example,limiting either the importation or domesticmining of asbestos might encourage substitu-tion of asbestos products. A model for thismethod is the marketing-order system of theU.S. Department of Agriculture, used to per-mit th e cultivation of only specified qu antitiesof selected crops. Using similar strategies, araw material like asbestos could be controlledby selling shares of a specified quantity of themarket permitted to be mined or imported.

Tax incentives are another means to force

end-prod uct su bstitution. Excise taxes on prod-ucts operate as disincentives to consume andhave been implemented in the past (e.g., taxes

on alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline). This typeof taxation migh t be incorporated to encourageproduct substitution. The design and accept-ance of a workable, easily monitored tax sys-tem, however, might be difficult to develop.

Federal procurement practices and productspecifications can have significant influenceon industrial markets. Changes in military pro-curement were proposed in 1975 to allow for

substitution of cadmium-plating by other mate-rials. A change in product specifications to per-mit this substitution would affect not only thequan tity of cadmium requ ired for military use,but a lso might impact nonmilitary ap plications.

A public more aware of the hazard associ-ated with production of specific productsmight be inclined to shift buying habits awayfrom them.

Larger Economic Contexts. -If a substitution re-

quires a complete shift in industrial markets(e.g., if a product manufactured with asbestos

is replaced by one mad e with cement), the im-pact may be large—both manufacturers andsuppliers may be affected. In addition, userswill be impacted accord ing to the relative mer-its of the products. Other sectors potentially af-

fected by end -produ ct substitution include im-port ers of raw m aterials, exporters of the orig-inal produ ct, and related equipm ent manu fac-turers.

Generally, a prod uct substitution offers a costadvantage over the original product, whichcounters market development expenditures.Potential savings can be achieved by the intro-duction of product substitutes-e. g., increaseddemand may require increased production,thus reducing the cost per unit. Incentives orthe removal of disincentives, however, maybenecessary to increase product demand by a suf-ficient margin to give the substitute a m or ecompetitive marketplace position,

A significant factor in the introduction of a

substitute product is the stage of growth for ex-isting markets. For example, if the m arket for

asbestos brake lining is declining or growingat a very slow rate, or if large capital invest-ments are required for development of a substi-tute lining, introduction of a substitute may notbe economically practical. The availability of raw materials also affects the desirability of substitutes. If the original produ ct is d epend enton limited supplies of raw materials, substi-tutes will be accepted more rapidly.

Recovery and Recycling

Recovery of hazardou s materials from proc-ess effluent followed by recycling p rovides anexcellent method of reducing the volume of hazardous waste. These are not new ind ustrialpractices. Recovery and recycling often areused together, but technically the terms are dif-ferent. Recovery involves the separation of asubstance from a mixture. Recycling is the useof such a material recovered from a processeffluent. Several components may be recoveredfrom a process effluent and can be recycled ordiscarded. For example, a waste composed of

several organic materials might be processedby solvent distillation to recover halogenatedorganic solvents for recycling; the discardedresidue of mixed organics might be burned forprocess heat.




gories. Physical separation includes gravitysettling, filtration, flotation, flocculation, andcentrifugation. These operations take advan-tage of differences in par ticle size and den sity,Component separation technologies distin-guish constituents by differences in electricalcharge, boiling point, or miscibility. Examplesinclude ion exchange, reverse osmosis, elec-trolysis, adsorption, evaporation, distillation,and solvent extraction. Chemical transforma-tion requires chemical reactions to removespecific chemical constituents. Examples in-clud e p recipitation, electrodialysis, and oxida-tion-reduction reactions. These technologiesare reviewed in table 27.

A typical recovery and recycling system usu-ally uses several technologies in series. There-fore, what may appear as a complex processactually is a combination of simp le operations.

For example, recylcing steel-pickling liquorsmay involve precipitation, gravity settling, andflotation. Precipitation transforms a compo-nent of high v olubility to an insoluble substancethat is more easily separated by gravity settling,a coarse separation technique, and flotation,a finishing separation method, Integration of process equipment can introduce some com-plexity, The auxiliary h and ling equipm ent (e.g.,piping, pumps, controls, and monitoring de-vices that are required to provide continuoustreatment from one phase to another) can beextensive. A detailed description of the re-

cycling and recovery of pickling liquors fromthe steel industry is provided in the appendixat the end of this chapter,

Recovery and recycling technologies ap pliedto waste vary in their stages of development.Physical separation techniques are the mostcommon ly used and least expensive. The sepa-ration efficiency of these techniques is not ashigh as more complex systems, and thereforethe typ e of waste to wh ich it is applied is lim-ited. Comp lex comp onent sep arations (e.g., re-verse osmosis) are being investigated for appli-cation to hazar dou s waste. These generally areexpensive operations and have not been imple-mented comm ercially for hazard ous w aste re-du ction. Chemical transformation method s arealso expensive. Precipitation and thermal oxi-

dation, however, appear to have current com-mercial application in hazardous waste man-agement.

Table 28 illustrates some technologies cur-rently being investigated for application towaste recovery and recycle. An expanded dis-

cussion of emerging new technologies, specif-ically in phase separation is provided in thefollowing section of this chapter.

Economic Factors

These factors include:

1.

2.

3 .

4.

5.

6.

7 .

8.

research and development required priorto implementation of a technology;capital investment required for new rawmater ial, or ad ditional equipm ent; i.e., re-covery and recycle equipment, controlequipment, and additional instrumenta-tion;energy requirements and the potential forenergy recovery;improvements in process efficiency;market potential for recycled material,either in-house or commercially, and antic-ipated revenues;management costs for hazardous waste be-fore use of recovery and recycle technol-ogy;waste management cost increases, result-ing from recovery/ recycling, i.e., add ition-al manpower, insurance needs, and poten-

tial liability; andthe value of improved public relations of a firm.

Because of the nu mber of processing steps in-volved, recovery and recycling can be more ex-pensive than treatment and disposal methods.Earned revenue for recovered materials, how-ever, may counter the cost of recovery.

Many market and economic uncertaintiesmust be considered in an evaluation of pro-posed technology changes. For examp le, if de-regulation of oil and natural gas results in anincrease in energ y costs, add itional energy re-quirements, and/ or credits earned for energyrecovery from a process could be affected. Theuncertainty of continued availability of a nec-



Table 27.—Description of Technologies Currently Used for Recovery of Materials

— . . . Economics Types of waste streams Separat ion e f fi ciency Industr ia l app li ca tionsTechnology/description stage of development

Physical separation: Gravity settling:

Tanks, ponds provide hold-uptime allowing solids tosettle; grease skimmed tooverflow to another vessel

Filtration:Collection devices such as

screens, cloth, or other;liquid passes and solidsare retained on porousmedia

Flotation:

Air bubbled through Iiquid tocollect finely divided solidsthat rise to the surfacewith the bubbles

Flocculation:Agent added to aggregate

solids together which areeasily settled

Centrifugation:Spinning of liquids and

centrifugal force causesseparation by differentdensities

Component separation Distillation:

Successfully boiling off ofmaterials at differenttemperatures (based ondifferent boiling points)

Evaporation:Solvent recovery by boiling

off the solvent

ion exchange:Waste stream passed through

resin bed, ionic materialsselectively removed byresins similar to resinadsorption. Ionic exchangematerials must beregenerated

Ultrafiltration:Separation of molecules by

size using membraneReverse osmosis:

Separation of dissolvedmaterials from liquidthrough a membrane

Relatively inexpensive; Slurrries with separate phasedependent on particle size solids, such as metal

Limited to solids (largeparticles) that settle quickly(less than 2 hours)

industrial wastewatertreatment first step

Commonly used inwastewatertreatment and settling rate

Labor intensive: relativelyinexpensive; energyrequired for pumping

hydroxide

Tannery waterCommonly used Aqueous solutions with finelydivided solids; gelatinoussludge

Good for relatively largeparticles

Commercialapplication Relatively inexpensiveAqueous solutions with finely

divided solidsGood for finely divided solids Refinery (oil/water mixtures);

paper waste; mineralindustry

Aqueous solutions with finelydivided solids

Good for finely divided solids

Fairly high (90°/0)

Refinery; paper waste; mineindustry

Commercial practice Relatively inexpensive

PaintsPracticed commer-cially for small-scale systems

Competitive with filtration Liquid/liquid or liquid/solidseparation, i.e., oil/water;resins; pigments fromlacquers

Solvent separations;chemical and petroleumindustry

Commercial practice Energy intensive Organic Iiquids Very high separationsachievable (99 + 0 / 0

concentrations) of severalcomponents

Organic/inorganic aqueousstreams; slurries, sludges,i.e., caustic soda

Very high separations ofsingle, evaporatedcomponent achievable

Rinse waters from metal-plating waste

Commercial practice inmany industries

Energy intensive

Relatively high costs Fairly high Metal-plating solutionsNot common for HW Heavy metals aqueous

solutions; cyanide removed

Metal-coating applications

Not used Industrially

Some commercialapplication

Relatively high

Relatively high

Heavy metal aqueoussolutions

Fairly high

Heavy metals; organics,inorganic aqueous solutions

Good for concentrationsless than 300 ppm

Not common: growingnumber of applicationsas secondary treat-ment process suchas metal-platingpharmaceuticals



Table 27.—Description of Technologies Currently Used for Recovery of Materials—Continued

T ec hnol ogy /de sc ri pt ion Stage of development Economics Types of waste streams Separation efficiency Industrial applications

Electrolysis:Separation of positively/ Commercial technology; Dependent on concentrations Heavy metals; ions from Good Metal plating

negatively charged not applied to recovery

materials by application of of hazardous materialselectric currentCarbon/resin absorption:

Dissolved m ater ials Proven for ther mal Relatively costly thermalselectively absorbed in regeneration of regeneration; energycarbon or resins. carbon; less practical intensive

aqueous solutions; copper

recovery

Organics/inorganics fromaqueous solutions with lowconcentrations, i.e., phenols

Good, overall effectiveness Phenolicsdependent onregeneration method

Absorbents must beregenerated

Solvent extraction:Solvent used to selectively

dissolve solid or extractliquid from waste

for recovery ofadsorbate

Commonly used inindustrial processing

Relatively high costs forsolvent

Organic liquids, phenols, acids Fairly high loss of solvent Recovery of dyesmay contribute tohazardous waste problem

Chemical transformation: Precipitation:

Chemical reaction causesformation of solids whichsettle

Electrodialysis:Separation based on

differential rates ofdiffusion throughmembranes. Electricalcurrent applied toenhance ionic movement

Chlorinolysis:Pyrolysis in atmosphere of

excess chlorineReduction:

Oxidative state of chemicalchanged through chemicalreaction

Common Relatively high costs Lime slurries Good Metal-plating wastewatertreatment

Commercial technol-ogy, not commer-cial for hazardousmaterial recovery

Moderately expensive Separation/concentrat ion ofions from aqueous streams;application to chromiumrecovery

Fairly high Separation of acids andmetallic solutions

Commercially used inWest Germany

Insufficient U.S. market forcarbon tetrachloride

Chlorocarbon waste Good Carbon tetrachloridemanufacturing

Good Chrome-plating solutionsand tanning operations

Commercially appliedto chromium; mayneed additionaltreatment

Inexpensive Metals, mercury in dilutestreams

Chemical dechlorination:Reagents selectively attack

carbon-chlorine bondsThermal oxidation:

Thermal conversion ofcomponents

Common Moderately expensive

Relatively high

PCB-contaminated oils

Chlorinated organic liquids;

High Transformer oils

Extensively practiced Fairly high Recovery of sulfur, HCIsilver

aGood implies 50 to 8O percent efficiency, fairly high implies 80 percent, and very high Implies 90 percent





Table 28.—Recovery/Recycling Technologies Being Developed

Technology Development needs Potential application

Ion exchange

Adsorption

Electrolysis

Extract ion

Reverse osmosis

Evaporation

ReductionChemical

dehalogenation

Commercial process for otherapplications (desalinization),applications to metal recoveryunder development. Not economicat present due to investment

requirementsR&D on new resins andregeneration methods

Cathode/anode, materialdevelopment for membranes

Reduction in loss of acid orsolvent in process

Membrane materials, operatingconditions optimized,demonstration of process

Efficiency improvement/ demonstration of process

Efficient col lection techniquesEquipment development for

applications to halogenatedwaste other than PCB oils

Chromium recovery; metalplating waste

Organic liquids with or withoutmetal contamination;pesticides

Metallic/ionic solution

Extraction of metals with acids

Salt solutions

Fluorides from aluminumsmelting operation

MercuryHalogenated organics


essary raw material could influence a d ecisionfor recovery of materials from waste streams.Uncertainties in interest rates may discourageinvestment and could thus increase a requiredrate-of-return projected for a new project.Changes in allowable rates of capital equip-ment dep reciation also m ay affect costs signif-icantly.

In addition, changes in RCRA regulations foralternative man agement options (e.g., land fill-

ing, ocean dumping, and deep-well injection)affect disposal costs. Stricter regulations orprohibitions of certain disposal practices forparticular w astes could increase the attractive-ness of recycling and recovery operations.However, if hazardous wastes are stored forlonger than 90 days, current regulations re-quire permits for that facility. If large quantitiesof a waste m ust a ccum ulate (for economic rea-sons) prior to recycling or recovery, the per-mit requirement may discourage onsite re-cycling,

Previously, recovery and recycling was con-sidered as an in-plant operation only; i.e., mate-rial was recovered and recycled within oneplant. Currently, larger corporations are begin-ning to evaluate recovery opportunities on a

broader scale. Recycling within the corporateframework is gaining greater attention as a costreduction tool with an added benefit of reduc-ing public health risks.

Emerging Technologies for Waste Reduction

Although the effects are more difficult to pre-dict, some technological developments have

potential for the reduction of hazardous waste,For example, developments in the electronicsindustry have provided instrumentation andcontrol systems that have greater accuracythan was possible just a few years ago. Thesesystems provide more precise control of proc-ess variables, which can result in higher effi-ciency and fewer system upsets, and a reduc-tion in hazardous waste. The application andimprovements of instrumentation and controlsystems vary with each process. Thus, as newplants are constructed and fitted with newtechnologies, smaller quantities of hazardous

waste w ill be generated. The technologies thatare discussed in this section have a direct im-pact on the volume and hazard level of wastecurrently generated through one or more of thereduction methods discussed earlier.




Segregation Technology .—New developments insegregation technology can increase recoveryand recycling of hazardous waste. Notably,membrane segregation techniques have sub-stantially impr oved, Membrane separation hasbeen used to achieve filtration, concentration,

and purification. However, large-scale applica-tions, such as those required in pollution con-trol have been inhibited by two factors: 1) re-placement costs associated with membrane useand 2) technical d ifficulties inherent in p rodu c-ing large uniform surface areas of uniformquality. Because of the inh erent ad vantages of membrane separation over more conventionalseparation techniques like distillation or evapo-ration, further development of membrane sep-aration for large-scale comm ercial ap plicationsis attractive. These advantages include lowerenergy requirements resulting in reduced oper-

ating costs and a simpler, more compact sys-tem that generally leads to reduced capitalcosts. Commercial applications exist for all butcoupled tran sport d esigns, which are still at thelaboratory stage. All of these illustrated systemshave p ossible app lication for redu ction of haz-ardous waste. However, microfiltration, ultra-filtration, reverse osmosis, and electrodialysisprocesses have more immediate application,Dialysis has been used on only a small scale;the h igh flow systems generally typ ical of haz-ardou s waste treatments make its use imprac-tical. Gas separations by membranes do not

have immediate application to hazardous wasteuse. The developmen t of new materials for bothmembranes and supporting fabrics and the useof new layering techniques (e. g., compositemembranes) have led to improved permeabilityand selectivity, higher fluxes, better stability,and a redu ced need for prefiltering and stagedseparations.

Improved reliability is the most importantfactor in advancement of membrane separa-tions technology. New types of membraneshave demonstrated improved performance,

Thin-film composites that can be used inreverse osmosis, coupled transport, and elec-trolytic membranes have direct application tothe recovery and reduction of hazardous mate-rials from a processing stream.

The major cost in a membrane separationsystem is the engineering and developmentwork required to apply the system to a particu-lar process. Equipment costs are secondary;mem branes generally accoun t for only 10 per-cent of system costs. However, membranes

must be replaced periodically and sales of re-placement membranes are important to m em-brane production firms. Currently the largestprofit items are for high-volume flow situations(e.g., water purification) or for high-value prod-uct applications (e. g., pharm aceutical produc-tions). Over 20 companies cover the membranemarket; the largest company is Millipore with1980 total sales of $255 million.

The predicted m arket growth rate for mem-brane segregations is healthy, generally 10 to20 percent annually of the present membranemarket ($600 million to $950 million). Chlor-alkali membrane electrodialysis cells for theprodu ction of chlorine and sodium hydroxidelead the p rojected ap plication areas in hazard -ous waste with growth rates of 25 to 40 per-cent of the present market ($10 million to $15million), The recovery of chromic acid fromelectroplating solutions by coupled transportalso has direct app lication for the redu ction ofhazardous waste. Other uses include ultrafiltra-tion of electrocoat-painting process waste an dwaste w ater recovery by reverse osmosis. Theuse of membrane segregation systems in pre-treatment of hazardous w aste probably is thelargest application for the near future.

Biotchnology.-Conventional biological treat-ments have been used in industrial waste treat-ment systems for many years (see tables 29 and30). Recent advances in the understanding ofbiological processes have led to the develop-ment of new biological tools, increasing the op-portunities for biotechnology applications inmany areas, including the treatment of dilutehazardous waste. The potential impacts ofthese advancements on w aste treatment tech-niques, process modifications, and end-productsubstitutes are discussed here.

Biotechnology has direct application to wastetreatment systems to degrade and / or detoxify




Table 29.—Conventional Biological Treatment Methods

Treatment methodAerobic (A)

anaerobic (N) Waste applications Limitations

Activated sludge

Aerated lagoons

Trickling filtersBiocontactorsPacked bed reactorsStabilization ponds

A Aliphatics, aromatics, petrochemicals,steel making, pulp and paper industries

A Soluble organics, pulp and paper,petrochemicals

A Suspended solids, soluble organicsA Soluble organicsA Vitrification and soluble organics

A&N Concentrated organic waste

Anaerobic digestion N Nonaromatic hydrocarbons; high-solids;methane generation

Land farming/spreading A Petrochemicals, refinery waste, sludge

Comporting A Sludges

Volatilization of toxics; sludge disposaland stabilization required

Low efficiency due to anaerobic zones;seasonal variations; requires sludge

disposalSludge disposal requiredUsed as secondary treatmentUsed as secondary treatmentInefficient; long retention times, not

applicable to aromatics; sludge removaland disposal required

Long retention times required; inefficienton aromatics

Leaching and runoff occur; seasonalfluctuations; requires long retentiontimes

Volatilization of gases, leaching, runoffoccur; long retention time; disposal ofresiduals

Aerobic—requires presence of oxygen for cell growthAnaerobic—r equ!res absence of oxygen for cell growth


Table 30.–lndustries With Experience in ApplyingBiotechnology to Waste Management

Industry Effluent stream Major contaminantsSteel

Petroleum refiningOrganic chemical

manufacture

Pharmaceuticalmanufacture

Pulp and paper

Textile

Coke-oven gas scrubbingoperation

Primary distillation processIntermediate organic

chemicals and byproducts

Recovery and purification

solvent streamsWashing operations

Wash waters, deep discharges

N H3, sulfides, cyanides, phenols

Sludges containing hydrocarbonsPhenols, halogenated hydrocarbons,

polymers, tars, cyanide, sulfatedhydrocarbons, ammoniumcompounds

Alcohols, ketones, benzene, xylene,

toluene, organic residuesPhenols, organic sulfur compounds,oils, Iignins, cellulose

Dyes, surfactants, solvents

chemicals.strains can


Development of new microbial 5. ability to concentrate nond egradab le con-be used to improve: stituents.

1. degradation of recalcitrant compounds, Compounds thought to be recalcitrant, (e.g.,2. tolerance of severe or frequently changing toluene, benzene, and halogenated compounds)

operating conditions, have been shown to be biodegradable by iso-3. multicompound d estruction, lated strains. Strain improvement in these4. rates of degradation, and species through genetic manipulations has lead




to improved degradation rates. Opportunitiesexist for applications of this technology inremedial situations—i.e., cleanup at spills orabandoned sites.67 The improvement of con-ventional biological systems through th e devel-opment of specific microbial strains (“super-bugs”) capable of degrading multiple com-pounds has been p roposed. However, this ap-proach faces engineering difficulties, and de-velopment of collections of organisms work-ing together might be preferable.

Development of biological pretreatmen t sys-tems for waste streams has some potential forthose wastes that contain one or two recalci-trant compounds. A pretreatment system de-signed to remove a specific toxic c om poundcould reduce the shock effects on a conven-tional treatment process. In some cases, a pre-treatment system may be used with other non-

biological treatment m ethod s (i.e., incineration)to remove toxic compounds that may not behandled in the primary treatment system or tomake them more readily treated by the primarysystem. In other cases, pretreatment mightrender a waste nonhazardous altogether.

One area of research in advanced plant ge-netics is in the use of plants to accumulatemetals and toxic compounds from contami-nated soils. Current research is direct to fourareas. The first involves use of plants to de-crease the metal content of contaminated soils,

through increased rates of metal uptake. Plantsthen could be used to decontaminate soilsthrough concentration of compounds in theplant fiber. The plants then would be harvestedand disposed. The second area of developmentfocuses on direct metal uptake in nonedibleportions of the plant. For example, the develop-ment of a grain crop like wheat that could ac-cumulate metal from soil in the nonusable partsof the plant would allow commercial use of contaminated land. A third area of research is

G. T. Thibault and N. W. Elliott, “Biological Detoxificationof Hazardous Organic Chemical Spills, ” in Control of Haza rd-

ous Material Spills, Conference Proceedings (Nashville, Term.:Vanderbilt University, 1980), pp. 398402.‘G. C. Walton and D. Dobbs, “Biodegradation of Hazardous

Materials in Spill Situations, “ in Control of Haza rdous Ma terial

Spills Conference Proceedings [Nashville, Term.: VanderbiltUniversity, 1980), pp. 2345.

directed tow ard developm ent of crops that cantolerate the presence of metal without incorpo-rating these toxic elements in plant tissue. Fi -nally, research is being conducted concerningth e use of plants in a manner similar to micro-organisms to degrade high concentrations of hazardous constituents.

Changes in process design incorporating ad-vances in biological treatment systems mayresult in less hazardous waste, The develop-ment of organisms capable of degrading specif-ic recalcitrant materials may encourage sourceseparation, treatment, and recycling of processstreams that are now mixed with other wastestreams and disposed. The replacement of chemical synthesis processes with biologicalprocesses may result in the reduction of haz-ardous waste. Two methods of increasing therate of chemical reactions are through higher

temperatures and catalysts. One type of cata-lyst is biological products (enzymes) that inher-ently require milder, less toxic conditions thando other catalytic materials.

Historically, many biological processes (fer-mentations) have been replaced by chemicalsynthesis. Genetic engineering offers oppor-tunities to improve biological process throughreduced side reactions, higher product concen-trations, and more direct routes; thus, geneticengineering offers a means of partially rever-sing this trend. The development of new proc-

ess approaches would require new reactor de-signs to take advantage of higher biological re-action rates and concentrations.

Biotechnology also could lead to substitutionof a less or nonhazardous material for a hazard-ous material, particularly in the agriculturalfield. One of the primary thrusts of plant gen-etics is the development of disease-resistantplants, thus reducing the need for commercialproducts such as fungicides. Genetic engineer-ing to introduce nitrogen-fixation capabilitieswithin plants could reduce the use of chemical

fertilizers and potentially reduce hazardouswaste generated in the manufacture of thosechemicals. However, two problems must be re-solved before large-scale applications: 1) thegenetic engineering involved in nitrogen fixa-




tion is complex and not readily achieved, andZ) the overall energy balance of internal nitro-gen-fixation may reduce growth rates and cropyield.

Major Concerns for Biotechnology.–Although

genetic engineering h as some promising app li-

cations in the treatment of hazardous wastestreams, several issues need to be addressedprior to widespread commercialization of thetechnology: 8

q

q

q

q

The factors for scale-up from laboratorytests to industrial applications have no tbeen completely developed. Limited fieldtests have shown degradation r a te s in thef ie ld may be much s lower than laboratoryr a t e s w h e r e p u r e c u l t u r e s a r e t e s t e d i np u r e c o m p o u n d s .B a s i c b i o c h e m i c a l d e g r a d a t i o n m e c h a -

nisms are not wel l unders tood, The poten-t ia l exis ts for the formation of o ther haz-ardous compounds through small environ-m e n t a l c h a n g e s o r s y s t e m u p s e t s a n d ,w i t h o u t t h i s b a s i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g , c h e m i -c a l p a t h w a y s c a n n o t b e a n t i c i p a t e d .The potent ia l exis ts for re lease of hazard-o u s c o m p o u n d s i n t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n tthrough incomplete degradat ion or sys temf a i l u r e .There is a possibility of adverse effects re-sulting fro-m the release of “engineered”o r g a n i s m s into the environment.

The potent ia l benef i ts of appl ied genet ics tohazardous was te probably outweigh these fac-tors. Although these factors must be addressed,t h e y s h o u l d m o t i v a t e r a t h e r t h a n o v e r s h a d o wres earch in th i s a r ea .

Chemical Dechlori nation With Resource Recovery. –In the late 1970’s private efforts were unde r -taken to find a reagent that would selectivelyattack the carbon-chlorine bond under mildconditions, and thus chemically strip chlorinefrom PCB-type chemicals forming a salt andan inert sludge. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

made public its method, Sunohio and AcurexInc. have developed proprietary reagents, mod-ified the process, and commercialized theirprocesses with mobile units. These processesreduce the concentration of PCB in transform-er oil, which may be 50 to 5,000 parts per mil-lion (ppm) to less than 2 ppm. The SunohioPCBX process is used for direct recycling of the transformer oil back into transformers,while the oil from the Acurex process is usedas a clean fuel in boilers.9

Although, the development of these proc-esses was initially aimed at PCB-laden oils of moderate concentration (50 to 500 ppm), theirchemistry is generic in that it attacks the car-bon-halogen bonds under mild conditions,Thus, they are potentially applicable to pesti-cides and other halogenated organic wastes aswell as wastes with higher concentrations of

PCBs. The PCBX process has been applied topesticides and other halogenated waste withdetoxification observed, but without publishednumerical results or further developments. 10

Acurex claims it has commercially treated oilwith a PCB concentration of 7,000 ppm. I ntests performed by Battelle Columbus Labora-t o r i e s f o r A c u r e x , i t s p r o c e s s r e d u c e d d i o x i nconcentration in transformer oil from 380 partsper t r i l l ion (ppt) to 40 ± 20 ppt . Acurex andt h e E n e r g y P o w e r R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e h a v et e s t e d t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e p r o c e s s i n t h el a b o r a t o r y o n c a p a c i t o r s w h i c h c o n t a i n 1 0 0

p e r c e n t P C B ( 4 0 t o 5 0 p e r c e n t c h l o r i n e , b yw e i g h t ) . T h e n e x t s t e p i s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a

mobile commercial-scale faci l i ty which woulds h r e d , b a t c h p r o c e s s , a n d t e s t t h e c a p a c i t o rmaterial .11

The Sunoh io (first to have a chemical dechlo-rination process approved by EPA) has fiveunits in operation. Acurex has four mobileunits in operation at this time and at least twoother companies currently market similarchemical PCB destruction services. Acurex,

W. p. pirages, L. M. Curran, and J. S. Hirschhorn, “Biotech-nology in Hazardous Waste Management: Major Issues, ” paperpresented at The Impact of Applied Genetics on Pollution Con-

trol symposium sponsored by the University of Notre Dame andHooker Chemical Co., South Bend, Ind., May 24-26, 1982.

@Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, Gov-

ernor’s Office of Appropriate Technology, California, 1981,Klscar Norman, developer of the PCBX process, personal

communication, January 1983.llLeo Weitzman, Acurex Corp., personal communicat ion,

January 1983.




Sunohio, and licensees have been selling their As an alternative to incineration, these chem-PCB services for over a year. Acurex and The ical processes offer the advantages of no airFranklin Institute plan to commercialize their emissions, no products of incomplete combus-processes for spill sites involving halogenated tion, reduced transportation risks, and the re-organics. 12 cycling of a valuable material or the recovery

of its fuel value. Further, as with many chem-l=harles Rogers, Office of Research and Development, Indus- ical processes, there is t-he opportunity to di-

trial and Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL), Environ-mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, personal, com- r e c t l y c h e c k t h e d e g r e e o f d e s t r u c t i o n b e f o r e

. . . .munication, January 1983.

Hazard Reduction

Introduction

an y product is discharged or used.

Alternatives: Treatment and Disposal

The previous section discussed technologiesto reduce the volume of waste generated. Thissection analyzes technologies that reduce the

hazard of waste. These include treatment anddisposal technologies. These two groupingsof technologies contrast distinctly in that itis preferable to permanently reduce risks tohuman health and the environment by wastetreatments that destroy or permanently re-duce the hazardous character of the material,than to rely on long-term containment inland-based disposal structures.

In the United States, as much as 80 percent(by volume) of the hazardous waste generatedis land disposed (see ch. 4). Of these wastes,a significant portion could be treated ratherthan land disposed for greater hazard reduc-tion. In California, for example, wastes whichare toxic, mobile, persistent and bioaccumula-tive comprise about 29 percent of the hazard-ous waste disposed of offsite.13 14

Following a brief summary comparison, thissection reviews over 15 treatment technologies.Many of these eliminate the hazardous char-acter of the waste. Technologies in the nextgroup discussed are disposal alternatives. Theireffectiveness relies on containing the waste toprevent, or to minimize, releases of waste and

WMifbmia Department of Health Services, “Initial Statementof Reaaona for Proposed Regulations (R-32 -82),” Aug. 18, 1982,p. 23.

WaIifomia Department of Health Services, “Current Hazard-ous Waste Generation,” Aug. 31, 1982, p. 6.

hum an and environmental exposure to waste.In this category, the major techn iques are land-fills, surface impoundments, and undergroundinjection wells.

This discussion begins w ith a compa rison of the treatment and disposal technologies andends with a cost comparison. These discus-sions focus on the competitive aspects of thenumerous hazard reduction technologies.However, choosing among these technical al-ternatives involves consideration of m any fac-tors, some of which are neither strictly tech-nical or economic. Choices by waste generatorsand facility operators also depend on Federaland State regulatory programs already in place,those planned for the future, and on percep-tions by firms an d individu als of existing regu-

latory burdens may exist for a specific waste,technology, and location.

Summary Comparison

For the purpose of an overview, qualitativecomparisons among technologies can be made.Based on principle considerations relevantacross all technologies, the diverse range of hazard reduction technologies can be com-pared as presented in table 31. The table sum-marizes the important aspects of the aboveissues for each generic grouping of technol-

ogies included. Individual technologies areconsidered in more d etail in the following d is-cussions on treatment and disposal technol-ogies. For simplicity, the technologies aregrouped generically, and only a limited number




Table 31 .—Comparison of Some Hazard Reduction Technologies

Disposal

Landfills andImpoundments Injection wells

Effectiveness How well It Low for volatiles, High, based on theory,contains or destroys questionable for Iiquids but limited field datahazardous based on lab and field available

characteristics testsReliability issues: Siting, construction, and Site history and geology,operation well depth, construction

Uncertainities Iong-term and operationintegrity of cells andcover, Iiner life lessthan life of toxic waste

Envirornmental media Surface and ground water Surface and ground watermost affected

Least compatible Liner reactive, highly toxic, Reactive, corrosive,waste: b m ob ile , p ersi st en t, highly toxic, mobile,

and bioaccumulative and persistentCosts LO W, M o d , H i g h L-M LResource recovery

potential None NoneaMolte s t ,n al high.temperature fluid wall, and plasma arc tre atm en ts

Incineration and otherthermal destruction

High, based on field tests,except little data onspecific constituents

Long experience withdesign

Monitoring uncertaintieswith respect to highdegree of DRE,surrogate measures,PICs, incinerability

Air

Highly toxic and refractoryorganics, high heavymetals concentration

M-H (Coincin = L)

Energy and some acids

Treatment

Emerging -

high.temperaturedecomposition a

Very high, commercialscale tests

Limited experienceMobile units, onsite

treatment avoidshauling risks

Operational simplicity

Air

Possibly none

M-H

Chemical stabilization

High for many metals,based on lab tests

Some inorganics stillsoluble

Uncertain Ieachate test,surrogate for weathering

None Iikely

Organics

M

Energy and some metals Possible building material — .

bWaste for which this method may be less effective for reducing exposure, rela tive to other technologies Waste listed do not necessari ly denote common usage


of groups are compared, The principal consid-erations used for comp arison are the following:

Effectiveness.—This does not refer to theintended end result of human health andenvironmental protection, but to the capa-bility of a technology to meet its specifictechnical objective. For example, the effec-tiveness of chemical dechlorination is de-termined by how completely chlorine is re-moved. In contrast, the effectiveness of landfills is determined by the extent towhich containment or isolation is achieved.

Reliability .—This is the consistency overtime with which a technology’s objectiveis met, Evaluation of reliability requiresconsideration of available data based ontheory, laboratory-scale studies, and com-mercial experience.

A prominent factor affecting the relativereliability of a technology is the adequacyof substitute performance measures. Veri-fication that a process is performing as de-signed is not always possible and, whenpossible, verification to a high level of con-fidence may require days or weeks to com-

plete and may not be useful for timely adjustments. In some cases, key process vari-ables can be used as substitute measuresfor the effectiveness of the technology.Substitute measures are used either be-

cause they provide faster and/ or cheaperperformance information, A disadvantageof surrogate measu res is that there may n otbe reliable correlation between the surro-gate measurement and the nature of anyreleases to the environment.

The reliability of a technology shouldalso be judged on the degree of processand discharge control available. This re-fers to the ability to: 1) maintain properoperating conditions for the process, and2) correct undesirable releases. Process

control requires that information aboutperformance be fed back to correct theprocess. Control systems vary categorical-ly with respect to two important time vari-ables:

1. the length of time required for infor-mation to be fed back into the system(e.g., time for surrogate sam pling an danalysis, plus time for corrective ad-

justm ents to have the d esired effect);an d

2. the length of time for release of dam -aging amounts of insufficiently treated

materials in the event of a treatmentupset.

In the case of landfills, once groun d watermon itoring has detected a leak, dam agingdischarges could have already occurred.



158 . Technologies and Management S trategies for Hazardous Waste Control

q

q

q

q

If detection systems are embedded in theliner, then detection of a system failure isquicker and more reliable, and it offersmore opportunity for correction. Landfill-ing and incineration are examples wherethese time factors are important. In con-

trast, batch treatment processes, as dis-cussed in the preceding section on “WasteReduction,” offer the distinct opportunityto contain and check any release, and re-treat it if needed, so that actual releasesof hazardous constituents are prevented.Other chemical and biological treatmentsare flow-through processes, with differentrates of flow-through. These treatmentsvary in their opportunity for discharge cor-rection. Generally, processes used in wastesegregation and recycling offer this kindof reliability.Environmental media most affected.—This refers to the environmental mediacontaminated in the event that the technol-ogy fails.Least compatible waste.—Some technol-ogies are more effective than others in pre-venting releases of hazardous constituentswhen applied to particular types of waste.Costs.—Costs vary more widely amonggeneric groups of technologies than withinthese groups. Table 31 presents general-ized relative costs among these groups.The final section of this chapter gives someunit management cost details.Resource recovery potential.—Treatmentsthat detoxify and recover materials for re-cycling are discussed under “Waste Re-duction.” However, some materials, aswell as energy, can be recovered withsome of the technologies reviewed in thissection. To the extent that materials andfuels are recovered and used, the genera-tion of other hazardous wastes maybe re-duced. Potential releases of hazardousconstituents from recovery and recycling

operations must also be considered,Treatment Technologies

In this section, treatment technologies refersto those techniques which decompose or break

down the hazardous wastes into nonhazardousconstituents. * Most of these treatments usehigh temperatures to decompose waste. Someof the promising emerging technologies causedecomp osition by high-energy radiation and/ orelectron bombardment. There are several im-portant attributes of high-temperature destruc-tion technologies which make them attractivefor

q

q

q

hazardous waste management:

the hazard reduction achieved is perma-nent;they are broadly applicable to wastemixes; most organics, for example, maybe converted into nonh azardous combus-tion products; andthe volume of waste that m ust u ltimatelybe land disposed is greatly reduced, -

In addition, with some of these treatments,there is a possibility of recovering energy and/ or materials.** However, potential recovery of energy and materials is not the primary focusof this discussion.

Incineration is the predominant treatmenttechnology used to decompose waste. The term“incineration” h as been given a specific mean-ing in Federal regulations, where it denotes aparticular subclass of thermal treatments, anddraft Federal regulations may give specificmeaning to the additional terms “industrialboiler” and “industrial furnace.” Although the

Federal d efinitions affect th e man ner in wh icha facility is regulated, unless specifically noted,——q Treatments can also be used to segregate specific waste con-

stituents, or to mitigate their characteristics of ignitability, cor-rosiveness, or reactivity. Most of these are referred to as “ind us-trial unit processes, ” and th eir use is usually embedd ed in largert reatment schemes . A lengthy l is t ing wil l not be reproduced here.Many w ere described in the preceding section on “Waste Redu c-tion Technologies. ” The interested reader is also referred to anyindu strial unit operations manu al. Another source is “Chemical,Physical, Biological (CPB) Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, ” Ed-ward J. Martin, Timothy Oppelt, and Benjamin Smith, Officeof Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pre-sented at the Fifth United States-Japan Governmental Conferenceof Solid Waste Management, Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 28, 1982.

q *For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Associationclaims that a significant portion of the hydrochloric acid pro-duced in the United States and some sulfuric acid come fromincineration of chlorinated organics through wet-scrubbing of the stack gases. (CMA, personal communication, December1982.) Also, there is clear potential for metals recovery with theemerging high-temperature technologies.



Ch. 5—Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management q 159

“combustion” or “incineration” are used inthis report to refer to the generic processes of interest, and do not necessarily mean specificfacility designs or regulatory categories.

Applicable Wastes

Liquid wastes are generally more easily in-cinerated than sludge or waste in granularform, because they can be injected easily intothe combustion chamber in a manner whichenhances mixing and turbulence. Wastes withheterogeneous physical characteristics andcontainerized or drummed wastes are difficultto feed into a combustion cham ber. The rotarykiln is designed for sludge-like, granular andsome containerized waste. Recently, a newfirm has emerged (Continental Fibre Drum)which manufactures combustible fiber drumsfor waste containers. These fiber drums of or-ganic waste can be incinerated in speciallydesigned rotary kilns.

Elemental metals, of course, cannot be de-graded. Waste which contain excessive levelsof volatile metals m ay not be su itable for incin-eration. Under the high-temperature conditionsin an incinerator, some metals are volatilizedor carried out on p articulate. Oxides of metalscan generally be collected electrostatically.However, some volatilized forms cannot beelectrically charged, resisting electrostaticalcollection. These include metallic mercury,

arsenic, antimony, and cadmium, and verysmall particles.15 (Particles having insufficientsurface area also can’t be adequately chargedand collected, ) Wet second-stage electrostaticprecipitators are designed for removing theseforms of volatized m etals, but they are expen-sive and not in w idespread use. High-pressuredrop-emission controllers have also been effec-tive, but their use is declining.

Technical Issues

There are approximately 350 liquid injection

and rotary kiln incinerators currently in ser-vice for hazardous waste destruction.18 Most15Frank Whitm ore, Versar, inc., persona} commu nication,

August 1982.Gene Crumpler, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous and Indus-

trial Waste Division, Environmental Protection Agency, personalcommunication, January 1983.

of these facilities may eventua lly be perm ittedas RCRA hazardous waste incinerators. A fargreater, although unknown, number of facili-ties may be combusting hazard ous w aste prin-cipally in ord er to recover their heating value.Under current regulations, these facilities

would not be permitted as hazardous wasteincinerators.” Under future regulations theymay become subject to performance standardssimilar to those in effect for incinerators, beproh ibited from bu rning certain types of ignit-able hazardous waste, or be subject to some in-termediate level of regulation.

To regulate incinerators, EPA has decidedto use performance standards rather thanspecification of design standards. The currentregulations specify three performance stand-ards for hazardous waste incineration. 18 Thesestandards are described below:

1.

2.

3.

A 99.99 percent destruction and removalefficiency (DRE) standard for each prin-cipal organic hazardous consti tuent(POHC) designated in the waste feed. (Thisis the most difficult part of the standardto m eet.) The DRE is calculated by th e fol-lowing mass balance formula:

DRE = (1 – Wout/ Win) X 100 percent,where:

Win = the mass feed rate of 1 POHCin the waste stream going into theincinerator, and

Wout = the mass-emission rate of thesame POHC in the exhaust prior torelease to the atmosphere.

Incinerators that emit more than 4 lb of hydrogen chloride p er hour must achievea rem oval efficiency of at least 99 percent .(All commercial scrubbers tested by EPAhave met this performance requirement.)Incinerators cannot emit more than 180milligrams (mg) of particulate matter perdry standard cubic meter of stack gas. Thisstandard is intended to control the emis-sions of metals carried out in the exhaustgas on par ticulate m atter. (Recent tests in-dicate that this standa rd m ay be more d iffi-cult to achieve than w as earlier thought.19)

“Ibid.1840 CFR, Sec. 264.343.19Wrumpler, op. cit.




There are instances in which the incineratorperformance standards do not fully apply.First, the regulations do not apply to facilitiesthat burn waste primarily for its fuel value. Todate, energy recovery of the heat value of wastestreams qualifies for the regulatory exemp-

tion.20

Second, facilities burning waste that areconsidered hazardous because of characteris-tics of ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivityare eligible for exemptions from the perform-ance standards. Of the three, the exemption forenergy recovery applies to a greater volume of hazardous waste. Finally, incinerators operat-ing at sea are not governed by RCRA butrather by the Marine Protection, Research, andSanctuaries Act of 1972. Regulations under thisact do not require scrubbing of the incineratorexhaust gas. In the future, EPA may requirethat incinerator ships operating in close prox-

imity to each other scrub their exhaust gases.With regard to combustion processes, the

most important design characteristics are the“three Ts:”

1. maintenance of adequate temperatureswithin the chamber,

2. adequate turbulence (mixing) of wastefeed and fuel with oxygen to assure evenand complete combustion, and

3. adequate residence times in the high-tem-perature zones to allow volatilization of the waste materials and reaction to com-

pletion of these gases.Finally, the DRE capability of these technol-

ogies generally varies widely depending on thewaste type to which it is applied, Chlorine orother halogens in the waste tend to extinguishcombustion; so, in general, these wastes tendto be more difficult to destroy. An importantrelated misconception is that the more toxiccompounds are the more difficult they are toburn. Toxic dioxins and PCBs are popular ex-amples of highly halogenated wastes which areboth highly toxic and difficult to destroy, but

these should not imply a rule. Discussion of waste “incinerability” is included below.

20 40 CFR, sec. 261.2 (c)(2].

Waste treatments w ith reliable high-destruc-tion efficiencies offer attractive alternatives toland disposal for mobile, toxic, persistent, andbioaccumu lative wastes. However, these treat-ment technologies are not free of technicalissues. The first three issues noted below relate

directly to policy and regulation, and the re-maining three issues summarize sources of technical uncertainty with respect to the verysmall concentrations of remaining substances.Improvements in policy and regulatory controlshould recognize these technical issues:

q

q

Significant sources of toxic combustionprod ucts, emitted to th e air, are not bein gcontrolled with the same rigor as areRCRA incinerators. These include emis-sions from facilities inside the propertyboundaries of refineries and other chem-ical processing plant sites. In addition,“boilers” can receive and burn any ignit-able hazardous waste which has beneficialfuel value (see discussion on “Boilers”).Draft regulations governing boilers arecurrently being developed under RCRAand very limited reporting requirementsare brand new. Under the Clean Air Act,there is only very limited implementationgoverning the remaining facilities. Stand-ards have been set for only four sub-stances, and apply to only a small class of facilities.

There are some problems with the tech-nology-based DRE performance stand-ards. EPA uses the technology-based per-formance standard for practicality, andfor its technology-forcing potential. How-ever, the performance standard overly sim-plifies the environmental comparisonsamong alternatives.

Complete knowledge about the trans-port, fate, and toxic effects of each wastecompound from each facility is unobtain-able. Thus, some simplified regulatory toolis needed. However, the most important

and known factors should be included inregulatory decisions. Notably, these couldinclude: the toxicity of the waste, the loadto the facility (the waste feed concentra-




tion and size of the facility), and popula-tion potentially affected. Future regula-tions, however, could endeavor to shapethe manner in which competing technol-ogies are chosen in a more environm ental-ly meaningful way (see ch. 6),

Finally, the 99.99 percent DRE may beviewed as a “forcing” standard with re-spect to some high-temperature technolo-gies, but em erging high-temperatu re tech-nologies (notably plasma arc) may offermuch greater and more reliable DREs.Rather than forcing, it may d iscourage th ewide use of more capable technologies,

q Strengthening regulations with respect tothe technical uncertainties below will re-quire deliberate research efforts in addi-tion to anticipated permitting tests. Testdata for wastes that are difficult to burn

are lacking. The current incinerator per-formance standard is based on EPA sur-veys from the mid-1970’s which involvedeasier to burn wastes, higher fuel to wastefeed ratios than in current use, and smallerthan commercial-scale reactors, EPA iscurrently testing or observing test burnsfor many of the technologies described,using compound s found to be representa-tive of very difficult to burn toxic waste.Most of these data are still being evaluated ;few results have become available. In thenext few years, a great deal of test burn

data will be generated regarding existingfacilities and given wastes. In addition, thecost of test burn is often $20,000 to $50,000.These costs burden both EPA research andprivate industry. Such data will help per-mit writers, but these data will have lim-ited use in resolving m any of the technicaluncertainties described below.

q Implementation of the current perform-ance standards relies on industrywideuse of monitoring technology operatingat the limits of its capability. In DREanalyses, the fourth nine is often referredto as guesswork; standardized stack gassampling protocols for organic hazardousconstituents are still being developed, Thisis particularly true with respect to organicscarried on particulate matter and to the

more volatile compounds. Methods forconcentrating the exhaust gas in order toobtain the sample especially for volatilecompoun ds are still evolving, The newnessof these tests suggests there may be a widevariety in th e pr ecision capab ilities among

the laboratories which analyze DRE testresults.q The measurements currently used in dai-

ly monitoring of performance cannot re-liably represent DRE at the 99.99 percentlevel. For recordkeeping an d enforcement,air and waste feed rates along with gastemperature are u sed as ind irect measuresfor DRE. For facilities already equippedwith carbon monoxide meters (and for allPhase II regulated incinerators), carbonmonoxide concentration in the stack gasis also included. Also, waste/ fuel mix and

waste/ fuel ratio can have a great effect onDRE. Thus, these ratios are noted in thepermits. However, it is difficult to specifyacceptable ranges of mixes based on testburn information. The idea behind the spe-cifications is that as long as actual valuesof these parameters remain within pre-scribed limits during operation, the de-sired DRE is being achieved. These meas-ures are chosen not only because they areeasily and routinely monitored, but also be-cause there is a theoretical basis for usingthem to indicate combustion efficiency.

However, all these measures are only in-directly related to the compounds of con-cern. For example, carbon monoxide is avery stable and easily monitored productof incomplete combustion (PIC). Thus, itis often used as a sensitive indicator forcombustion efficiency in energy applica-tions. However, its relationship to othercombustion products and to remainingconcentrations of POHCs is very indirectand uncertain,

Most experts agree that the developmentof a way to accurately measure DRE con-currently with treatment process, wouldeliminate m uch of the technical uncertain-ties surrou nd ing incineration, To this end,EPA is studying devices which monitortotal organic carbon, and the National




q

q

Bureau of Standards (NBS) is studying var-ious combinations of available monitoringtechniques.21 It is not likely that a singletechnique can be developed in the nearterm to monitor the whole range of com-pounds of concern, but the development

of a combination of devices to do the jobholds p romise, However, these techniqu eswill still have problems. This will include:cost; some reliance on correlations to sur-rogate measures; and, in the case of theNBS approach, the possible introductionof corrosive tracer compounds.There is sharp disagreement in the scien-tific and regulatory community about theuse of waste “incinerability.” This con-cept is a regulatory creation, not a physicalattribute of any material. The idea behindincinerability is that as long as the least in-

cinerable waste (i.e., the most difficult toburn waste) is destroyed to the required ex-tent, all other waste would be destroyedto an even greater extent. Thus, waste “in-cinerability, " in addition to waste concen-tration, is used to select a limited numberof waste constituents for monitoring in atest burn. Problems with this approachresult largely from lack of basic informa-tion about measures for incinerability.This presents uncertainty in the selectionof those POHCs to be monitored in thewaste feed and stack gas. Heat combustion

is the informational surrogate currentlyused because it is readily determined.However, this measure relates poorly towaste incinerability. Chlorine and otherhalogens in the waste tend to extinguishcombustion, but simple halogen contentgive poor indication of incinerability.Autoignition temperature is closely relatedto incinerability, but for most hazardouscompounds, it has not been measured. Bet-ter predictors of incinerability could bedeveloped. One scheme, proposed by NBS,would use a combination of factors, but itneeds to be tested.There is a lack of basic understandingabout how stable toxic PICs are formed.

21W. Schaub, National Bureau of Standards, personal commu-

nication, January 1983,

Some compou nd s, know n to be very diffi-cult to incinerate, also occur as PICs fromcombusting mixtures of compounds thoughtto be more easily burned. Our ability tomonitor these compounds has only recent-ly made such observations possible, and

there are many high-temperature kineticreactions n ot fully u nd erstood. Un less spe-cifically analyzed, a selected PIC would goun detected. While additional testing of in-dividu al combu stion facilities w ill dem on-strate specific DRE capabilities, these ob-servations are not likely to improve ourfundamental understanding of PIC forma-tion. In particular, with the cost of testburns with POHC monitoring so high,some more basic research on PIC forma-tion would be appropriate. Current EPAresearch and development, however, is

focused in support of near-term permittingactivities.

Review of Selected High-TemperatureTreatment Technologies

There are a variety of treatment technologiesinvolving high temperatures which have, orwill likely have, important roles in hazardouswaste management. Most of these technologiesinvolve combustion, but some are more accu-rately described as destruction by infrared orultraviolet radiation.

Discussion below focuses on the d istingu ish-ing principles, the reliability and effectiveness,and the current and projected use of these tech-nologies, Unless otherw ise noted, DRE valueswere measured in accordance with EPA testingprocedures. Table 32 summarizes the advan-tages, disadvantages, and status of these tech-nologies.

1. Liquid injection incineration.—Withliquid injection, freely flowing wastes are atom-ized by passage through a carefully designednozzle (see fig. 8). It is important that the

drop lets are small enough to allow the wasteto completely vaporize and go through all thesubsequent stages of combustion while theyreside in the high-temperatu re zones of the in-cinerator. Residence times in such incineratorsare short, so nozzles especially, as well as other



Ch. 5—Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management 163

Table 32.—Comparison of Thermal Treatment Technologies for Hazard Reduction

-. . ,. , .Advantages of design features

Currently available incinerator deslgns:

Liquid injection IncinerationCan be designed to burn a wide range of

pumpable waste. Often used in conjunctionwith other Incinerator systems as asecondary afterburner for combustion of

volatilized constituents Hot refractoryminimizes cool boundary layer at walls.HCI recovery possible.

Rotary kilns:Can accommodate great variety of waste

feeds” solids, sludges, Iiquids, some bulkwaste contained in fiber drums Rotationof combustion chamber enhances mixingof waste by exposing fresh surfaces foroxidation.

Cement kilns:Attractive for destruction of harder-to-burnwaste, due to very high residence times,good mixing, and high temperaturesAlkaline environment neutralizes chlorine

Boilers (usually a Iiquid Injection design)’Energy value recovery, fuel conservationAvailability on sites of waste generatorsreduces spill risks during hauling

Applications of currently availabie designs: Multiple hearth

Passage of waste onto progressively hotterhearths can provide for long residencetimes for sludges Design provides goodfuel efficiency. Able to handle widevariety of sludges

Fluidized-bed incinerators:Turbulence of bed enhances uniform heat

transfer and combustion of waste. Massof bed is large relative to the mass ofinjected waste.

Disadvantages or design features

Limited to destruction of pumpable waste(viscosity of less than 10,000 SSI). Usuallydesigned to burn specific waste streams.Smaller units sometimes have problems

with clogging of injection nozzle.

Rotary kilns are expensive. Economy of scalemeans regional locations, thus, wastemust be hauled, increasing spill risks.

Burning of chlorinated waste limited byoperating requirements, and appears toincrease particulate generation. Couldrequire retrofitting of pollution controlequipment and of instrumentation formonitoring to bring existing facilities tocomparable level. Ash may be hazardousresidual.

Cool gas layer at walls result from heatremoval This constrains design to high-efficiency combustion within the flamezone, Nozzle maintenance and waste feedstability can be critical. Where HCI isrecovered, high temperatures must beavoided. (High temperatures are good forDRE.) Metal parts corrode wherehalogenated waste are burned.

Tiered hearths usually have some relativelycold spots which inhibit even and completecombustion. Opportunity for some gas toshort circuit and escape without adequateresidence time. Not suitable for wastestreams which produce fusible ash whencombusted Units have high maintenance

requirements due to moving parts in high-temperature zone.

Limited capacity in service. Large economyof scale

At-sea incineration: shipboard (usually liquid injection incinerator):Minimum scrubbing of exhaust gases Not suitable for waste that are shock

required by regulations on assumption that sensitive, capable of spontaneousocean water provides sufficient combustion, or chemically or thermallyneutralization and dilution. This could unstable, due to the extra handling andprovide economic advantages over land- hazard of shipboard environment. Potentialbased incineration methods Also, for accidental release of waste held inincineration occurs away from human storage (capacities vary from betweenpopulations Shipboard incinerators have 4,000 to 8,000 tonnes).greater combustion rates, e.g., 10tonnes/hr.

At-sea incineration: oil drilling platform-based:

Same as above, except relative stability of Requires development of storage facilities.platform reduces some of the complexity Potential for accidental release of wastein designing to accommodate rolling held in storage.motion of the ship.

Status for hazardous waste treatment

Estimated that 219 liquid injectionincinerators are in service, making thisthe most widely used incinerator design.

Estimated that 42 rotary kilns are in serviceunder interim status. Rotary kiln design isoften centerpiece of integrated commercialtreatment facilities. First noninterimRCRA permit for a rotary kiln incinerator(IT Corp.) is currently under review.

Cement kilns are currently in use for wastedestruction, but exact number is unknown.National kiln capacity is estimated at 41.5million tonnes/yr. Currently mostlynonhalogenated solvents are burned.

Boilers are currently used for waste disposal.Number of boiler facilities is unknown,quantity of wastes combusted has beenroughly estimated at between 17.3 to 20million tonnes/yr.

Technology is available; widely used forcoal and municipal waste combustion.

Estimated that nine fluidized-bedincinerators are in service. Catalytic bedmay be developed.

Limited burns of organochlorine and PCBwere conducted at sea in mid-1970. PCBtest burns conducted by Chemical WasteManagement, Inc., in January 1982 areunder review by EPA. New ships underconstruction by At Sea Incineration, Inc.

Proposal for platform incinerator currentlyunder review by EPA.




Table 32.—Comparison of Thermal Treatment Technologies for Hazard Reduction—Continued

Advantages of design features Disadvantages of design features Status for hazardous waste treatment

Pyrolysis:Air pollution control needs minimum: air-

starved combustion avoids volatilizationof any inorganic compounds. These andheavy metals go into insoluble solid char.Potentially high capacity.

Emerging thermal treatment technologies: Molten salt:

Molten salts act as catalysts and efficientheat transfer medium. Self-sustaining forsome wastes. Reduces energy use andreduces maintenance costs. Units arecompact; potentially portable. Minimal airpollution control needs; some combustionproducts, e.g., ash and acidic gases areretained in the melt.

High-temperature fluid wall:Waste is efficiently destroyed as it passes

through cylinder and is exposed to radiantheat temperatures of about 4,000° F.Cylinder is electrically heated; heat istransferred to waste through inert gasblanket, which protects cylinder wall.Mobile units possible.

Plasma arc:

Very high energy radiation (at 50,000° F)breaks chemical bonds directly, withoutseries of chemical reactions. ExtremeDREs possible, with no or little chance ofPICs, Simple operation, very low energycosts, mobile units planned.

Wet oxidation:Applicable to aqueous waste too dilute forincineration and too toxic for biologicaltreatment. Lower temperatures required,and energy released by some wastes canproduce self-sustaining reaction. No airemissions.

Super critical water:Applicable to chlorinated aqueous wastewhich are too dilute to incinerate. Takesadvantage of excellent solvent propertiesof water above critical point for organiccompounds. injected oxygen decomposes

smaller organic molecules to CO2 andwater. No air emissions.

Greater potential for PIC formation. Forsome wastes produce a tar which is hardto dispose of . Potentially high fuelmaintenance cost. Waste-specific designsonly.

Commercial-scale applications face potentialproblems with regeneration or disposal ofash-contaminated salt. Not suitable forhigh ash wastes. Chamber corrosion canbe a problem. Avoiding reaction vesselcorrosion may imply tradeoff with DRE.

To date, core diameters (3”, 6", and 12”) andcylinder length (72 limit throughputcapacity. Scale-up may be difficult due tothermal stress on core. Potentially highcosts for electrical heating.

Limited throughput. High use of NaOH forscrubbers.

Not applicable to highly chlorinated organics,and some wastes need further treatment.

Probable high economy of scale. Energyneeds may increase on scale-up.

Commercially available but in limited use.

Technology has been successful at pilotplant scale, and IS commercially available.

Other applications tested; e.g., coalgasification, pyrolysis of metal-bearingrefuse and hexachlorobenzene. Testburns on toxic gases in December 1962.

Limited U.S. testing, but commercialization inJuly 1963 expected. No scale-up needed.

Commercially used as pretreatment tobiological wastewater treatment plant.Bench-scale studies with catalyst fornonchlorinated organics.

Bench-scale success (99.99°/0 DRE) forDDT, PCBs, and hexachlorobenzene.

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, compiled from references 12 through 29.

features, must be designed for specified waste many different liquid waste mixes: motor andstream characteristics such as viscosity. Cer- industrial oils, emulsions, solvents, lacquers,tain waste must be preheated. Nonclogging and organic chemicals of all kinds includingnozzles are available, but all nozzles must be relatively hard-to-destroy pesticides and chemi-carefully maintained. One of the chief costs is cal warfare agents.maintenance of refractory walls. Incineratordesign is a complex, but advanced field. Many Liquid injection incinerators, together with

distinguishing design features are currently rotary kilns (see below) form the current basis

proprietary; especially nozzle designs and re- of the hazardous waste incineration industry.

fractory composition. These technologies have been used for the pur-pose of destroying industrial waste for manyInjection incinerator designs, especially noz- years. In the mid-1970’s EPA testing and data

zle design, tend to be waste-specific. However, reviews of these facilities provided the basisindividual designs exist for the destruction of for the current interim performance standard




Figure 8.— Injection Liquid Incineration

Scrubbedgases

Liquid waste A

M!!!n-Dispersion stack

0

Storage FumesPrecooler \

/

Wasteconditioning

‘+t~ I

Support fuelif required

m .Coolingscrubber

Atomizing gas mcombustion air-~ I v,. b-.-

{

bVVd lW

Venturi scrubber

Makeup water

/ %ResidueWater treatment

SOURCE D A Hitchcock, "Solid Waste Disposal Incineration, ” Chemical Engineering, May 21, 1979

of 99.99 percent DRE for incineration of haz-ardous materials.

EPA has recently begun testing incineratorsto better understand the DRE capabilities forthe most difficult-to-burn waste. Analysis is notyet complete, but p reliminary indications bothconfirm the 99.99 percent capabilities, andunderscore the sensitivities of individual in-cinerators to operational and waste feed vari-ables.22

2. Rotary kilns.—These can handle a widerph ysical variety of bur nable waste feeds—sol-ids and sludge, as w ell as free liquids and gases.A rotating cylinder tumbles and uncovers the

waste, assuring un iform h eat transfer. The cyl-22Timothy Op pelt, and various other personal commu nications,

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Devel-opment, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 1982 and January1983.

inders ran ge in size from about 3 ft in d iameterby about 8 or 10 ft long, up to 15 or 20 ft in

diameter by about 30 ft long. Rotary kilns oper-ate between temperature extremes of approxi-mately 1,500º and 3,000° F, depending on loca-tion measured along the kiln. They range incapacity from 1 to 8 tons of waste per hour. 23

The primary advantage of rotary kilns is theirability to burn waste in any physical form andwith a variety of feed m echan isms. Many largecompanies that use chemicals (such as DowChemical Co., 3M Corp., and Eastman Kodak)incinerate onsite with their own rotary kilns.For flexibility, this is often in combinat ion w ithinjection incinerators. Similarly, large wastemanagement service firms (Ensco and RollinsEnvironmental Services) operate large rotarykilns as part of their integrated treatment cen-

23lbid.




ters. Others are in commercial operationthroughout the United States and Europe.24

3. Cement kilns.—These are a special typeof rotary kiln. Liquid organic waste are cofiredwith the base fuel in the kiln flame. The verythorough mixing and very long residence times

make possible more complete combustion of even d ifficult to bu rn organic waste. Tempera-tures in the kiln range between 2,600° and3,000° F (1,400

0 and 1,650° C). Also, the alka-line environment in the kiln neutralizes all of the hyd rochloric acid p rodu ced from the burn -ing of chlorinated w aste. Most ash and nonvol-atile heavy metals are incorporated into theclinker (product of the kiln) and eventually intothe cement product. Heavy metals incorpo-rated into the clinker may present either realor perceived risks (toxicological and structural),but little is known about such concerns.25 Aportion (perhaps 10 percent) of the ash andmetals carry over into the kiln du st that is col-lected in the system’s air-pollution control sys-tem. Some of this material is recycled to thekiln, the balance is generally landfilled.26 27

Five controlled test burns for chlorinatedwaste have been documented in wet processcement kilns in Canada, Swed en, Norway, andmost recently, the United States. The foreignresults have tended to confirm the theoreticalpred ictions —that 99.99 percent or better canbe achieved for chlorinated hydrocarbons.

However, these studies lack strong documenta-tion of control protocols. In the Swedish re-sults, representative concentrations of very dif-ficult to burn waste were destroyed beyond thelimits of monitoring technology, indicating bet-

24Technologies for the Treatment and Destruction of Organic

Was tes as Alternatives to Land Disposa l , State of California, AirResources Board, August 1982.

25Myron W. Black, “Impact of Use of Waste Fuels Upon Ce-

ment Manufacturing, ” paper presented at the First InternationalConference on Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, Toronto, On-tario, Canada, October 1982.

26Doug]as L. Hazelwood and Francis J. Smith, et al., “Assess-

ment of Waste Fuel Use in Cement Kilns, ” prepared by A. T.Kearney and the Portland Cement Association for the Office of Research and Development, EPA, contract No. 68-03-2586,March 1981.

27Aternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Was tes, op.

cit.

ter than 99.99 percent destruction.28 The Cali-fornia Air Resources Board recently recom-mended the use of cement kilns to destroy PCBwaste.29 EPA has recently completed a careful-ly controlled test on the m ost d ifficult to bur nwaste at the San Juan Cement Co. in Duablo,

Puerto Rico. The results of this test are stillbeing evaluated.

Some hazardous wastes are currently beingburned in cement kilns under the energy re-covery exclusion, but, these have been general-ly nonhalogenated solvents or waste oils, ratherthan the m ost toxic and/ or difficult to burncompounds, for which they may be well suited.Since 1979 the General Portland Co. of Pauld-ing, Ohio, has been burning 12,500 tons peryear of nonhalogenated waste solvents as asupplemental fuel.

There is theoretically no limit on the fuel-to-waste-feed ratio; as long as the waste mix hassufficient heating value, a kiln could be firedsolely on w aste feed. Idled kilns could be usedas hazardous waste facilities. Local public con-cerns, notably over spills du ring hau ling, havepresented the major obstacle to such incinera-tor use, but commercial interest apparently isstill strong. so Much will depend on how newregulations affect land disposal use.

4. Boilers.—Ignitable waste with sufficientheating value are coincinerated w ith a primary

fuel in some types of boilers. The boiler con-verts as much as possible of the heat of com-bustion of the fuel mix into energy used for p ro-ducing steam. Different types of boilers havebeen designed to bu rn d ifferent typ es of fuels.Boilers burn lump coal, pulverized coal, No.2 oil, No. 6 oil, and natural gas.31 The predom-

28Robert Olexsey, “Alternative Thermal Destruction Processesfor Hazardous Wastes,” Environmental Protection Agency, Of-fice of Research and Development, May 1982.

‘e

” An Air Resources Board Policy Regarding incineration asan Acceptable Technology for PCB Disposal, ” State of Califor-nia, Air Resources Board, December 1981.

30Myron W. Black, “Problems in Siting of Hazardous Waste

Disposal Facilities–The Peerless Experience,” paper presentedat a conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, 1978.3lEnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and

Development, “Technical Overview of the Concept of Dispos-ing of Hazardous Waste in Industrial Boilers, ” contract No.68-3-2567. October 1981.




inant application to hazardous waste involvesboilers of the kind that would normally burnNo. 2 fuel oil.

These boilers are similar to liquid injectionincinerators, but there are important differ-ences with respect to the high d estruction effi-ciencies d esirable for hazard ous waste: 1) theyhave p urp osefully cooled w alls, and 2) at leastsome of the walls and other parts exposed tothe combustion products are often metallic in-stead of refractory. The reason that the wallsof the boiler must be cooled is to make use of the heating energy from the product gas. In thecombustion chamber, this results in a relativelycool area (a thermal boundary layer) throughwhich combustion products might pass.

The metallic surfaces avoid some expensiverefractory mainten ance but the bare metal sur-

faces are susceptible to corrosion where halo-genated organic waste are burned. For this rea-son ind ustrial boiler owners, concerned for thelife of their equipment, probably limit their useof such waste. However, there is a growing in-du strial trend tow ard recovery of hyd rochloricacid from the stack gas. * 32 Acid recovery re-quires that stack gas temperatures greater than1,2000 C be avoid ed, since this cond ition shiftsthe chemical equilibrium towar d free chlorine.For hazardous waste destruction, however,higher temperatures are better.

For these reasons, efficient boilers must bedesigned so that hydrocarbon destruction oc-curs mostly in the flame zone with very littlereaction occurring after the flame zone. As isthe case with incinerators, boiler d esign is welladvanced, and m any d esigns are proprietary.High fuel efficiency designs may recirculatethe flame envelope back into itself to enh ancethe form ation of the series of reactions neces-sary for complete combustion. Other designsmay involve staged injections with varyingwaste-to-fuel ratios .33

————q Currently a significant amount, perhaps over percent of the U.S. hydr ochloric acid, is produced from stack gas scrub-

bers. Half of this is from boilers and half from incinerators.32James Karl, Dow Chemical Co., persona] communication,

January 1983.33Elmer Monroe, Du Pont Chemical Co., personal communica-

tion, December 1982.

Evaluating the actual hazardous waste de-struction capabilities of various boilers hasonly just begu n by EPA. Only three tests werecomplete at the time of this report; seven mor eare planned. Tests to date have been conductedprimarily with nonhalogenated, high heating

value solvents and other nonhalogenated mate-rials. These tests have demonstrated DREs gen-erally in the 99.9 percent area. Subsequ ent test-ing will be directed towar d w aste that are con-sidered to be more difficult to destroy thanthose tested u p to this point.34 Testing at coop-erating boiler facilities is expected to confirmthat boilers of a wide var iety of sizes and typ escan achieve hazardous waste destruction effi-ciencies comparable to those achieved by in-cineration for some common waste fuels. In-du stry cooperation w ill be needed , though, forfield testing of those difficult-to-burn and the

more toxic wastes marginally useful as fuels.Actual waste destruction achieved through

coincineration probably has more to do withhow an d why the boiler is operated, and withknowledge of the waste feed contents, thanwith the type and size of boiler. Destructionby combustion for toxic organic compoundsrequires very complete, efficient combustion.Thus, in a boiler, the objective of getting usableheat out of the fuel mix is similar to that of achieving high destruction of toxic organicwaste. However, the marginal benefits of

achieving incremental degrees of destructionmay be valued differently by different users.For example, it may cost less at very largeboilers (e.g., those at u tilities and large indus-trial facilities) to save fuel costs through in-creased combustion efficiency than at smallerboilers. Thus, utility boilers are probably de-signed an d operated for stringent fuel efficien-cy by an economic motivation that may parallelthe rigorous incinerator performance standardin its effect for DREs. Although there wouldbe an economic advantage for these facilitiesto burn waste fuels, many would not be able

to find r eliable and sufficient sup plies. On theother hand, the objective with many industrialboilers is to deliver an optimal amoun t of heat

34Olexsey, op. cit.




over time. Thus, achieving 100-percent com-bustion efficiency is not desirable if it takes 2days to achieve this goal, Incinerators have astheir direct goal the destruction of the fuelcompound which is not so in boilers.

Exclud ing the very largest utility and indu s-trial boilers, there are about 40,000 large (10million to 250 million Btu/ hr) indu strial boilersand about 800,000 small- to medium-sized insti-tutional, commercial, and ind ustrial boilers na-tionwide. 35 It is expected that most of the in-dustrial boilers having firing capacities lessthan 10 million Btu/ hr may not readily lendthemselves to coincineration. so

Finally, there are about 14 million residen-tial, single-home boilers which could burn haz-ardous waste.37 These small boilers could haveadverse health effects on small, localized areas.

In addition, any fuels blended with organicsand illegally burned, in apartment houses orinstitutional boilers, for example, should beexpected to reduce the lives of these boilersthrough corrosion.

To assess the role that boilers currently p layin hazardous waste management nationwide,it is necessary to know what compounds arebeing burned, in which facilities, and withwhat DREs. Without reporting requirementsfor coincineration, information is seriouslylacking. Currently, boilers may be burning

twice the volume of ignitable hazard ous w astethat is being incinerated. Except for those frompetroleum refining, all were discharged to theenvironment until environmental, handling, orincreasing p rimary fuel costs encouraged theiruse as a fuel.38 Of the entire spectrum of burn-able waste, those having the highest Btu con-tent are attracted to boilers. This may haveeconomic effects on regulated incineration,because some hazardous waste incinerators

35M, TurgeOn, Office of Solid Waste, Industrial and HazardousWaste Division, EPA, persona] communication, January 1983.

Olexsey, op. cit.37c. c. Shih and A, M. Takata, TRW, Inc., “Emissions

Assess-ment of Conventional Stational Combustion Systems: SummaryReport” prepared for the Office of Research and Development,EPA, September 1981.38EPA “Technical overview of the Concept of Disposing of

Hazardous Wastes in Industrial Boilers, ” op. cit.

could also benefit from the fuel value of thesame waste used as auxiliary fuel in boilers.

5. Multiple hearth incinerators.—These usea vertical incinerator cylinder with multiplehorizontal cross-sectional floors or levels wherewaste cascades from the top floor to the nextand so on, steadily moving downward as thewastes are burned. These units are used pri-marily for incineration of sludges, particularlythose from municipal sewage sludge treatmentand, to a much lesser extent, certain special-ized industrial sludges of generally a low-haz-ard nature. They are used almost exclusivelyat industrial plants incinerating their sludgeson their own plant site for the latter cases. 39

Such incinerators are not well suited for mosthazardous waste for two reasons: they exhibitrelatively cold spots, and the waste is intro-duced relatively close to the top of the unit.Because hot exhaust gases also exit from thetop, there is the potential for certain volatilewaste components to short-circuit or “U-turn”near the top of the incinerator and exit to theatmosphere without spend ing an ad equate timein the hot zone to be destroyed. This may beimproved by having a separate afterburnerchamber, but this option does not appear tohave become accepted in the hazardous wastefield. 40

At least one brief test of a typical multiplehearth furnace was conducted in the early1970’s, in which the sewage was “seeded” witha small quantity of pesticide material. Althoughthe pesticide was not detected in the exhaust,the researchers became aw are of the short-cir-culating and residence-time problems and didnot pursue the application of multiple hearthsto hazardous wastes any.

6. Fluidized bed combusters.-This is a rela-tively new and advanced combuster designbeing app lied in many areas. It achieves rapidand thorough heat transfer to the injected fueland waste, and combu stion occurs rapid ly. Air

forced up through a perforated plate, maintains39

Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit.40Oppelt, op. cit.




a turbulent motion in a bed of very hot inertgranules. The granules provide for direct con-duction-type heat transfer to the injected waste.These units are compact in design and simpleto operate relative to incinerators. Another ad -vantage is that the bed itself acts as a scrubber

for certain gases and particulate. Its role inhazardous waste may be limited to small andspecialized cases due to difficulties in handlingof ash and residuals, low throughput capacityand limited range of app licable waste feeds. 41

There are presently only about zoo such com-busters in the United States, used chiefly formunicipal and similar sludges. About nine areused for hazardous waste.42 Existing fluidizedbed combusters are sparsely distributed andrelatively small. Future applications of fluid-ized bed technology to hazardous waste is like-

ly to occur at new facilities built specificallyfor this pu rpose rather than at existing mu nici-pal facilities.

Recent EPA testing at the Union ChemicalCo., Union, Me., is still being evaluated. Earlytest results are mixed w ith regard to 99.99 per-cent destruction.43 The simplicity of this tech-nology and its ease of operation seem to indi-cate high reliability for achieving those levelsof destruction and wastes for which it willprove to be applicable. A catalytic, lowertemperature fluidized bed technology is beingdeveloped which may have lower energy costs,

and may be more applicable to hazardouswaste destruction.44 However, incompatibil-ities between catalysts proposed on varioushazardous waste may present problems to over-come.

7. Incineration a t sea.—This is simp ly incin-erator technology used at sea, but without stack gas scrubbers. (The buffering capacity of thesea and sea air is the reason for the lack of a

4lAlternatives to the Land Disposal of Haza rdous Was tes, op.

cit.42Proctor and Red fern, Ltd., and Weston Designers Consult-

ants, “Generic Process Technologies Studies” (Ontario, Canada:Ontario Waste Management Corp., System Development Proj-ect, August 1982).

43J. Miliken, Environmental Protection Agency, personal com-munication, November 1982.

‘R. Kuhl, Energy Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, personal communi-cation, January 1983.

scrubber requirement. ) Free from the need toattach scrubbers, marine incinerator d esignerscan maximize combustion efficiency in waysthat land-based incinerators cannot.45 Incinera-tors based on oil drilling platforms would fur-ther be freed from accomm odating rolling shipmotion.

Various EPA monitoring of test commercialburn s of PCBs and governm ent bur ns of herbi-cide Agent Oran ge and m ixed organ ochlorinesin the mid and late 1970’s conf i rmed the99.99 + percent destruction capability forliquid injection incineration used at sea.46 Cur-rent technology exists only for liquids. Rotarykilns could be adapted to ships and more read-ily to oil drilling platforms.

There exists considerable controversy aboutthe test bu rns recently conducted for PCBs de-struction onboar d the M.T. Volcanus. Data re-sults are not yet available. Major concerns arewh ether the land and marine alternatives rep-resent the same environmental risk and if theperformance standards are evenly applied.EPA’s view is that they represent roughly thesame risk.47 Regarding the performance stand-ards, it should be r ecognized that the scrubbingthe exhaust gas of land-based incinerators maybe provid ing the fourth n ine in their DRE per-formance. Thus, an at-sea DRE of 99.9 percentmay be more similar to the land -based DRE of 99.99 percent than it may appear. The contribu-

tion of scrubbers to DRE values are not wellknown.

Additional concerns about incineration atsea includ e: stack gas mon itoring, which is d if-ficult enough on land and perhaps m ore soona ship at sea, and the risk of accidents nearshore or a t sea, The ecological effects of a sp illof Agent Orange on phytoplankton p rodu ctiv-ity could be substantial.48 Storage facilitiesnecessary for dr illing platform-based incinera-

45K. Kamlet, National Wildlife Federation, mean Dumping of Ind us trial Wastes, B. H, Ketchum, et al. (cd.) (New York: PlenumPublishing Corp., 1981).

46D. Oberacker, Office of Research and Development, IERL,Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, personalcommunication, December 1982.

“Ibid.48Kamlet, op. cit.




tion may involve still higher spill risks. Publicopposition to hazardous waste sites applies alsoto storage of waste at ports.

Other High Temperature Industrial Processes

Other types of applicable combustion proc-esses including metallurgical furnaces, brickand lime kilns, and glass furnaces, are exam-ples of existing industrial technologies whichmight be investigated as potential hazardouswaste destruction alternatives.49 There is noreporting of such uses that may be occurring,and no DRE data h ave been collected. The ben-eficial use exclusion m ay ap ply to man y of suchpractices.50 However, objectives of such proc-esses are not necessarily complementary orsupportive of high DRE. The technical poten-tial for hazard ous w aste destruction and needfor regulation of such practice needs investi-gation.

Emerging Thermal Destruction Technologies

Undu e importance should not be placed onthe distinction between current and emergingtechnologies, The intent is merely to distin-guish between technologies currently “on theshelf” and those less commercially developedfor hazardous waste applications.

Pyrolysis. -This occurs in an oxygen deficitatmosphere, generally at temperatures from1,000° to 1,7000 F. Pyrolysis facilities consistof two stages: a pyrolyzing chamber, and afume incinerator. The latter is needed to com-bust the volatilized organics and carbon mon-oxide produced from the preceding air-starvedcombustion. The fume incinerator operates at1,800° to 3,000°F. The pyrolytic air-starvedcombustion avoids volatilization of any inor-ganic components and provides that inorgan-ics, including any heavy metals, are formedinto an insoluble easily handled solid charresidue. Thus, air pollution control needs areminimized. 51

49

PEDCO Environmental Services, Inc., “Feasibility of Destroy-ing Hazardous Wastes in High Temperature Industrial Proc-esses,” for the Office of Research and Development, IERL, EPA,Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1982.

5040 CFR, sec. 261 (c)(2).

51Alternatives tO the Land Disposal of Hazardous Was tes, op.

cit.

Pyrolysis has been u sed by th e Federal Gov-ernment to destroy chemical warfare agentsand kepone-laden sludge and by the privatesector to dispose of rubber scrap, pharmaceuti-cal bio-sludge, and organic chlorine sludges.Most recently, pilot plant test bu rns on chlori-

nated solvents from a metal-cleaning planthave been destroyed with 99.99 percent de-struction. 52

Broader application would await much moreequipment development and testing. Amongth e

q

q

q

potential problems with pyrolysis are:

Greater potential for toxic and refractoryPICs formation than with combustion inair. The reducing atmosphere produceslarger amounts of these compounds, andthey may pass through the off-gas after-burner.

Production of an aqueous tar that maybedifficult to dispose in either a landfill oran incinerator.Substantial qu antities of auxiliary fuel m aybe required to sustain temperature in theafterburner. 53

Comm ercially, high thr oughp ut (u p to 6,500lb/ hr) and required air pollution control re-quirements may be key future benefits. How-ever, maintenance costs due to moving parts,and the need for w ell-trained operators may berelatively high.54

Molten Salt Reactors.–These achieve rapidheating and thorough mixing of the waste ina fluid heat-conducting m edium . Liquid, solid,or gaseous wastes are fed into a molten bathof salts (sodium carbonate or calcium carbon-ate). Solids m ust be sized to 1/ 4- or l/ 8-inchpieces in ord er to be fed into the bed . The bedmust be initially preheated to 1,500° to 1,800°F. Provided that the waste feed has a heatingvalue of at least 4,000 Btu/ lb, the heat fromcombustion maintains the bed temperature,and the combustion reactions occur with nearcompletion in the bed instead of beyond it. The

sodium carbonate in the bed affects neutra liza-

52Oppelt, op. cit.53Ibid.54Technologies of the Treatment and Destruction of Organic

Was tes as Alternatives to Land Disposal, op . cit.




tion of hydrogen chloride and scrubbing of theprod uct gases. Thus, the bed is responsible fordecomposition of the waste, removal of thewaste residu al, and som e off-gas scrubb ing. Abag house for particulate completes air pollu-tion control and the removal system.55 (See

fig. 9.)In EPA tests, a p ilot scale unit (200 lb/ hr)

destroyed hexachlorobenzene with DRE’s ex-ceeding 6 to 8-9’s (99.9999-percent to 99.999999-percent destruction and removal) and chlor-dane with DREs exceeding 6 to 7-9’s.56 Rock-well International also claims 99.999-percentdestruction efficiencies* from private tests onmalathion and trichloroethane.

Reactor vessel corrosion h as impeded devel-opment of molten salt destruction (MSD). Ves-

56Ibid.56S. Y. Yosim, et al., Energy Systems Group, Rockwell Inter-national, “Molten Salt Destruction of PCB and Chlordane, ” EPAcontract No. 68-03-3014, Task 21, final draft, January 1983.

* Not DRE; small amounts removed in bed salts and baghousetreatment were not measured.

sel corrosion is accelerated by temperature,reducing conditions (less than sufficient oxy-gen), and the p resence of sulfur. Traditionally,MSD reaction vessels have been refractorylined, presenting operational and maintenancecosts similar to those of conventional incinera-

tors. Rockw ell Internat ional offers an MSD sys-tem with a proprietary steel alloy reactor ves-sel, This vessel is warranted for 1 year if thesystem is operated within specified ranges of temperature, excess air, and melt sulfur con-tent.57

Ash as well as metal, phosphorous, halogen,and arsenic salts build u p in the bed and mu stbe removed, In the case of highly chlorinatedwaste (50 percent or more) the rate at whichsalt must be removed approaches the rate of waste feed, Both the salt replacement (or regen-

eration) and residual disposal determine eco-nom ic viability for a given app lication. In p ro-

“J, Johanson, Rockwell International, Inc., personal commu-nication, January 1983.

Figure 9.—Molten Salt Destruction: Process Diagram

Gasvent

Soot blower

-

drop box

Interior wail:-refractory or bare metal

1!Solidsfeed

? 4

Molten saltdestructor

)x(aghouse

particulate LElSOURCE Adapted from S. Y Yosim, et al , Energy Systems Group, Rockwell International, “Molten Salt Destruction of HCB and

68-03-3014, Task 21, final draft, January 1963Chlordane,” EPA contract No




posed commercial ventures, sodium chlorideresidue would be landfilled and calcium chlor-ide wou ld be sold as road salt or injected d eepwell. se

The process is intended to compete with ro-tary kilns and may find ap plication for a broad

market of wastes that are too dilute to inciner-ate econom ically. How ever, water in the wastefeed, as w ith any incineration technology, usesup energy in evaporation, Due to the extreme-ly high DREs demonstrated in p ilot scale tests,the p rocess is expected to be very at tractive fordestroying the highly toxic organic mixturesand chemical warfare agents, which currentlypresent serious disposal problems, RockwellInternational is in final negotiations with twocommercial ventures in California and Canada.Commercial-scale units offered are 225 and2,000 lb/ hour.59

High Temperature Fluid-Wall Reactors.—In thesereactors, energy is transferred to the w aste byradiation (rather than by conduction and con-vection as in the above processes), A porouscentral cylinder is protected from thermal orchemical destruction by a layer of inert gas.The gas is transparent to radiation, and thecylinder is heated by radiation from sur roun d-ing electrodes to 3,000° to 4,000° F. The refrac-tory cylinder reradiates this energy internallyto the passing waste.60 The important result isvery rapid and thorough heating of the waste

stream for complete combustion or generation.The speed of the heating p resents little oppor -tunity for the formation of intermediate prod-ucts for incomplete combustion that presentconcerns in conventional incineration proc-esses. Also, process control is good since theradiation is directly driven by electricity.

A bench-scale reactor (¼ lb/ min) has d e-stroyed PCBs in contaminated soil (1 percentby w eight) w ith 99.9999 percent DRE.61 In addi-tion, the Thagard Research Corp., which con-ducted the tests, claims that it has privately

L

[email protected]@Ibid.60

Technologies for the Treatment and Destruction of OrganicWas tes as Alternatives to Land Disposa l ,op. cit.61E. Matovitch, Thagard Research Corp., personal communica-

tion, January 1983.

burned hexachlorobenzene with 99.9999 per-cent DRE in a 10 ton per d ay unit.62 A commer-cial-scale unit (20 to 50 tons per d ay) is operatedas a production unit by a licensee in Texas,which has agreed to allow Thagard to continuehazardous waste destruction demonstrationburns there.63 In December 1982, Californiaand EPA conducted demonstration burns of some gases that are difficult to destroy ther-mally—1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetra-chloride, dimethyl chloride, Freon 12®, andhexachlorobenzene. Results are currently beingassessed.

Further scaleup may be needed to providecommercial throughput, and this will involvelarger ceramic cores. The effects of thermalstresses on the life of the cores present the m a-

jor untested concern for scale up.

Near-term commercialization of the Thagardreactor is planned. During 1983, a Miami in-vestment firm is expected to underwrite thedevelopment of a mobile reactor, reducingbreakdown and setup time from several weeksto only a few days. This will facilitate the col-lection of test burn performance at potentialapplications sites.64 Also, Southern CaliforniaEdison Inc. is considering the process for fu-ture destru ction of PCB-laden soil and for sta-bilization of a variety of its heavy metal-bearingliquid waste. The utility is also interested inselling byproducts of carbon black from the

process.

65

In add ition to its poten tial mobility resultingfrom its comp act design the only air p ollutioncontrol need for the fluid wall reactor may bea bag house to control particulate. The proc-ess is not expected to be economically competi-tive with conventional incineration, but will beapplicable especially to contaminated soils andsilts.

Plasma-Arc Reactors. —These use very high en-ergy free electrons to break bonds betweenmolecules. A plasma is an ionized gas (an elec-

162Ibid.63Ibid.64Ibid.65E. Faeder, Southern California Edison Power CO., per son a l

communication, January 1983.




trically conductive gas consisting of chargedand neutral particles). Temperatures in theplasm a are in excess of 50,0000 F—any gaseousorganic compounds exposed to plasma are al-most instantly destroyed. Plasma arc, when ap-plied to waste disposal, can be considered to

be an energy conversion and transfer device.The electrical energy input is transformed intoa plasma, As the activated components of theplasma decay, their energy is transferred towaste materials exposed to the plasma, Thewastes are then atomized, ionized, and finallydestroyed as they interact with the decayingplasma species. There is less opportunity forthe formation of toxic PICs. Most of the de-struction occurs without progression of reac-tions which could form them.66

Private tests conducted for the CanadianGovernment have demonstrated 99.9999999percent (i.e., 9-9’s) destruction on pure trans-former fluid (58 percent chlorine by weight).67

Depending on the w aste, the gas produced hasa significant fuel value.68 A high d egree of proc-ess control and operational simplicity are addi-tional advantages. For halogenated waste (amajor market target), the gases would have tobe scrubbed bu t the scrubbers need ed are verysmall.

The process is in the pu blic domain an d n ear-ing commercialization. The d eveloper plans tomarket mostly small, self-contained, mobile

units, Costs are intend ed to be competitive withincineration. 69 The first commercial applica-tion is p lanned to be in operation in July 1983.

Wet Oxidation .-Proven in commercial applica-tion, wet oxidation processes can d estroy reli-ably nonhalogenated organic waste (e. g., cya-

nides, phenols, mercaptans, and nonhalogen-ated pesticides). The oxidation reactions arefundamentally the same as in combustion butoccur in liquid state. Since it is not necessary

66C. C. Lee, Office of Research and Development, IERL, Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, personal communication, January1983.

67Plasma Research Inc., unpublished test results, January 1983.68Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit,wT. Barton, Plasma Research Inc., personal communication,

January 1983.

to add large quan tities of air as in incineration,potentially contaminated gas emissions areavoided. The reactions take place at tempera-tures of 430° to 660° F (and pressures of 1,000to 2,000 psi). For many applicable waste feeds,the oxidation reaction resulting produces

enough heat to sustain the process, or even toprod uce low pressure steam as an energy by-product. The oxidation reactions typicallyachieve 80 percent comp lete decomposition to

carbon dioxide and water, and partial decom-position to low m olecular w eight organic acidsof the remaining waste feed.70 Currently, theprocess remains commercially applicable toaqueous organic waste streams which are toodilute for incineration, yet too toxic for biolog-ical treatment,

Still in development are catalytic modifica-tions to the wet oxidation process, aimed at

the more stable highly chlorinated organics.Bench-scale tests conducted by I. T. Envirosci-ence have demonstrated that a bromide-nitratecatalyst promotes completeness of oxidation.Shou ld th is process achieve destructions simi-lar to those of incineration, its lack of air emis-sions, and the ease of using performance moni-toring would be advantageous.71

Super Critical Water. —At temperatures andpressures greater than 374° C and 218 atm,water becomes an excellent solvent for organ iccompounds and can break large organic mole-

cules down into molecules of low molecularweight. 72 In a system patented by Modar, Inc.,injected oxygen comp letely oxidizes the lowermolecular weight m olecules to carbon d ioxideand water. DDT, PCBs and hexachlorbenzenehave been destroyed with efficiencies exceed-ing 99.99 percent in bench-scale testing.73 Costsare expected to be high ly dependen t on scale.74

If high-destruction efficiency is maintained

‘OP. Shaefer, Zimpro, Inc., personal communication, November1982.

710ppelt, op. cit.72M, Modell, “Destruction of Hazardous Waste Using Super-

critical Water, ” paper delivered at the 8th Annual Research Sym-posium on Land Disposal, Incineration, and Treatment of Haz-ardous Wastes (Fort Mitchell, Ky.: Environmental ProtectionAgency, Mar, 8, 1982).

73Ibid.“Alternatives to the Land Disposa l of Hazardous Was tes, op.

cit.




as volatilized gases. The objective of landfill-ing d esign is to redu ce the frequency of occur-rence of releases so that the rate of release doesnot impair water or air resources. * Liquidsare able to leak through compacted clays orsynthetic lining m aterials. Redu cing th e poten-

tial for migration of toxic constituents from alandfill requires minimizing the production of liquids and controlling the movement of thosethat inevitably form.

Liquid s can enter a landfill in several w ays:

by disposal of free liquid waste, by evolution from sludges and semisolids,q from precipitation infiltrating through the

cover into the landfill cell, and from lateral movem ent of ground water in-

filtrating through the sides or the bottomof the cell.

No one disputes the presence of liquids ina landfill; the objective of good landfill designis to control their movement. Flow of liquidsthrough soil and solid waste occurs in responseto gravity and soil moisture conditions. Whenthe moisture content within a landfill exceedsfield capacity, liquids move under saturatedflow, and percolate to the bottom, Liquid m ove-ment under saturated conditions is determinedby the hydraulic force driving the liquid, andthe h ydrau lic conductivity of the liner m aterial.Hyd raulic force can resu lt in discharge througha liner,

Landfills can be designed to reduce migra-tion, but there is no standard design. Advanceddesigns w ould have at least the following fea-tures: a bottom liner, a leachate collection andrecovery system, and a final top cover.

Figure 10 depicts a landfill with these engi-neered features. Taken togeth er, these featur esare intended to make it physically easier forwater to run off the surface cover instead of infiltrating it and to collect leachate through——

“Criteria for determining “impairment” of ground water arecurrently defined by a statistically significant increase over back-ground levels, or exceeding established limits, See discussionon ground water monitoring requirements, ch. 7. No criteria cur-rently exist for impairment of air resources; research is under-way to determine the magnitude and potential severity of gaseousemissions.

the drainage layer instead of permeating theliner. Beds constructed of graded sizes of gravel and sand are sometimes used as inter-mediate drainage layers to speed internaldewatering.

Applicable WastesVirtually any waste can be physically

buried in a landfill; however, landfills are leasteffective at controlling the migration of wasteconstituents which are volatile and soluble.Landfilled wastes that are toxic, persistent,soluble, and volatile are most likely to pre-sent a risk of human exposure. Federal regula-tions outline pretreatment requirements forwastes which are ignitable, reactive, and/orcorrosive* but do not address characteristicsof persistence, toxicity, volatility, or volubility.

Current Use and Evaluation.–It is estimated that27 0 landfills are currently in use for hazard ouswaste disposal. (See ch. 4 for discussion of fa-cility data,) These facilities are among thosewhich may apply for RCRA authorization ashazardous waste disposal facilities.

Existing landfills are constructed and oper-ated with varying degrees of sophistication.Numerical information on the distribution of landfills that incorporate particular control fea-tures is not available. It is likely, however, thatmany existing facilities do not have any sortof constructed bottom liner nor any leachateor gas collection systems.75 Often, existing facil-ities were sited with little regard to local hydro-geology. The degree of sophistication of exist-ing landfill facilities ranges from those thathave minimal control features and accept virtu-ally any waste, to those wh ich combine a favor-able site location with waste pretreatment ora restrictive waste policy, engineered controlfeatures, leak detection, and ground watermonitoring programs. Landfills also vary incapacity. Most are small (burying less than

“More detail on regulatory requirements are discussed in thesubsequent section titled “Technical Regulatory Issues, ” see alsoch. 7.

75Environmental Protection Agency, Final EIS, Subtitle C,

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, app. D,SW-189c. 1980.




Figure 10.—Generalized Depiction of a Hazardous Waste Landfill Meeting Minimum Federal Design Criteria

Final cover with sloping surface Bulk Drummedfor surface drainage, vegetative

Leachate 6-12 “solid waste

cover, middle drainage layer andcollect ion Intermediate

waste andlow permeability bottom layer solidified

sump pipe cover # m l . # A - - - / 2! Separator berms

/~-~

NOTE: This Is not a prescriptive or exact depiction of a landfill design, or Is It necessarily representative of all hazardous waste Iandfills. Alternative designs are allowed.See also figure 12 for detail on single and double liner design,

S O U R C E: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, adapted from Draft RCRA Guidance Document, Landfill Design, Liner Systems and Final Cover, July 1982, and USEPADraft SW-867, SW-869, SW-870, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1980.

16,500 tons per facility in 1981).76 Smaller land-fills may tend to use less sophisticated controlmeasures.

Long-term landfill performance is deter-mined by:

q

q

q

q

th e reliability of the leachate collectionsystem and the longevity of liner(s), andtop cover;the hydrogeological characteristics of thesite;the characteristics of the waste prior todisposal; anddaily operations at the site–e.g., the liq-uids management strategy at the site, the

76Westat, Part A Universe Telephone Verification Contract No.68-01-6322, Nov. 11, 1982.

testing practiced by the operator, and thelevel of quality control over site operations.

Engineered Control Features

A landfill has three primary engineered con-trol features: a bottom liner(s), a leachate col-lection system, and a cover. The bottom liner(s)retard the migration of liquids and leachatefrom the landfill cells. Bottom liners are con-structed of compacted clay, a clay and soil mix-ture, or synthetic material—often syntheticmembranes. Leachate is collected through a

series of pipes buried in a drainage bed placedabove the bottom liner. A. mechanical pumpraises the leachate through standpipes to thesurface. The final cover reduces infiltration of precipitation into the closed landfill. Intermedi-




ate covers can be applied for the same purposedu ring op eration of the landfill. Table 33 sum-marizes function and failure mechanisms foreach of these components.

1. Bottom liners.—The function of a linerplaced beneath a land fill is to retard th e migra-tion of leachate from the land fill so that it canbe collected and removed . For syn thetic liners,retarding migration is dependent on their char-acteristic low permeability and compatibilitywith a wide spectrum of wastes. For some com-pacted clay liners, migration of leachate is re-tarded both by their low permeability and bythe capacity of clays to decrease the concen-tration of certain waste constituents in theleachate through a variety of chemical reac-tions—e.g., precipitation, filtration, adsorption,

or exchange of charged chemical species withthe clay particles.”

All liners exhibit some measure of hydrau-lic conductivity; that is, they allow passageof liquid under hyd raulic pressure. * Based onlaboratory and field testing, typical ranges of conductivity are approximately 10 -11 to 10-14

m/ see for synthetic membranes, and 1O-g to

—— -—“See for example, M. Lewis, “Attenuation of Polybrominated

Biphenyls and Hexachlorobenzene by Earth Materials” (Wash-ington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, No. 600/S2-81-191, December 1981); and L, Page, A. A. Elseewi, and J. P. Mar-tin, “Capacity of Soils for Hazardous Inorganic Substances”(Riverside, Calif.: University of California, August 1977).

*For low permeability synthetics, the rate of fluid passage isdifficult to measure because it is so close to passage in the vaporphase, Synthetics are tested under pressure, and their permeabil-ity is back-calculated.

Table 33 .— Engineered Components of Landfills: Their Function and Potential Causes of Failure

Function Potential causes of failurecoverTo prevent infiltration of precipitation into landfill cells. q

The cover is constructed with low permeabilitysynthetic and/or clay material and with graded q

slopes to enhance the diversion of water.q

q

Leachate collection and recovery system: To reduce hydrostatic pressure on the bottom liner, .

and reduce the potential for flow of Ieachate q

through the liner. q

Leachate is collected from the bottom of the landfillcells or trenches through a series of connecteddrainage pipes buried within a permeable drainagelayer. The collection Ieachate is raised to thesurface by a mechanical pump.

Bottom Iiner To reduce the rate of Ieachate migration to the subsoil. .

q

q

q

q

After maintenance ends, cap integrity can be threatened bydesiccation, deep rooted vegetation, animals, and human activity.

Wet/dry and freeze/thaw cycles, causing cracking and increasedinfiltration.

Erosion; causing exposure of cover material to sunlight, whichcan cause polymeric liners to shrink, break, or become brittle.

Differential settling of the cover, caused by shifting, settling, orrelease of the landfill contents over time. Settling can causecracking or localized depressions in the cover, allowingpending and increased infiltration.

Clogging of drainage layers or collection pipes.Crushing of collection pipes due to weight of overlying wastePump failures.

Faulty installation, damage during or after installation.Deformation and creep of the liner on the sloping walls of the

landfill.Differential settling, most likely to where landfill is poorly sited

or subgrade is faulty.Structural failure of the liner in response to hydrostatic pressure.Degradation of liner material resulting from high strength

chemical Ieachate or microbial action.

Swelling of polymeric liners, resulting in loss of strength andpuncture resistance.Chemical extraction of plasticizers from polymer liners.





10-11 m / see for clay liners.78 The units of meas-ure for hydraulic conductivity involve a thick-ness component. Thus, although an intact syn-thetic material has a very low conductivity,they are very thin. * In comparison, clay linersoften range in thickness from several feet toseveral yards.

All liner materials are subject to breaches intheir physical integrity. With the exception of obvious chemical incompatibilities that canrapidly deteriorate a liner, these failures canbe a more important factor in increasing therate at which liquids can migrate than the in-herent conductivity of the liner. Two majorsources of structural failure for all liners areincorrect installation and damage during orshortly after installation.

Proper installation of any liner requires con-

siderable technical expertise. For clay liners,the moisture content of the clay prior to com-paction and the method of compaction are crit-ical factors. For example, varying the watercontent in a clay prior to compaction can resultin differences of two orders of magnitude inthe permeability of the clay. 79 For syntheticliners, proper welding of the seams joining thepanels of the liner and avoiding damage to thedimensional stability of the membrane fabricare critical. Damage to liner fabric stability canoccur while stretching synthetic liners over thelarge areas involved in landfills. For example,

a single large panel of synthetic material maycover 20,000 ft2 feet and weigh 10,000 lb.

Preparation of the soil under the liner is criti-cal to the performance of all liners. Properpreparation is necessary to prevent local defor-mational stresses. Clay liners are likely to re-spond to deformational stress by shearing. De-pending on the characteristics of the synthetic

78ED. J. Folkes, Fifth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium, “Con-trol of Contaminant Migration by the Use of Liners, ” NationalResearch Council of Canada, April 1982.

Synthetic membranes are produced in thicknesses rangingfrom 0.5 millimeters (20 roils) to 2.5 milimeter (100 roils). J. P.Giroud and J, S. Goldstein, “Geomembrane Liner Design,” WasteAge, September 1982.

79David E. Daniel, “problems in Predicting the permeabilityof Compacted Clay Liners, ” Symposium on Uranium Mill Tail-ings Management, Colorado State University, Geothermal Engi-neering Program, Ft. Collins, Colo., October 1981.

material used, they may respond by stretchingor tearing. In the past, liners were often in-stalled by contracting firms which had minimaltechnical expertise and little motivation to beassiduous in their installation practices. Morerecently, manufacturers of synthetic liners anddesigners of clay liners are combining the saleof their products with actual installation, inorder to maximize performance of their prod-uct and protect business. 80 Certification of proper liner installation is not currently re-quired by EPA, but it is required by severalsta tes .81

Liners are also subject to damage after instal-lation. One source of damage is vehicular traf-fic at the site–e.g., the heavy equipment usedto spread sand and gravel directly on top of theliner to place the drainage layer for collectionof leachate. Synthetic liners are vulnerable to

localized tears and punctures. Clay liners canalso be damaged after installation—e.g., slump-ing of the clay can occur on side slopes. 82 Oncea liner has been covered by the drainage layer,it is impossible to visually inspect it for dam-age.

Chemical reactions between liner and leach-ate can significantly increase liner permeabil-i ty.83 84 85 For example, organic or inorganicacids may solubilize certain minerals withinclays and a variety of organic liquids dissolvethe monomers within PVC lines.

Laboratory tests can identify obvious chem-ical incompatibilities between a liner materialand an expected leachate, and can also projectgeneral wear characteristics. (Table 5A-1 inapp. 5A summarizes the findings of such tests.)

OOR. Kresic, Midwest Accounts Manager for Schlegel LiningTechnology, Inc., Ohio, personal communication, November1982.oID. Lennett, Environment~ Defense Fund, persomd communi-

cation, December 1982.~EnvironmentaI Protection Agency, Lining of Was t e hnpound

ment and Disposal Facilities, SW-870, ch. 4 “Failure Mecha-nisms,” September 1980.~Ibid.

‘H . E. Haxo, “Interaction of Selected Liner Materials WithVarious Hazardous Wastes” (Cincinnati, Ohio: EnvironmentalProtection Agency (NTIS No. 600/9410-010)).

‘D. Anderson, “Does Landfill Lestchate Make Clay LinersMore Permeable?” Civil Engineering-–ASCE, September 1982,pp. 66-69.



Ch . 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management q179

However, laboratory data cannot directly pre-dict performance under actual field conditions.Laboratory tests are cond ucted on on ly a smallsample of the liner material; this presents prob-lems for estimating field permeability y of clays.Calculations of liner permeability based on

field measurements demonstrate that labora-tory estimates are frequently too low. Develop-ment of improved field techniques are under-way. 86 87 Also, laboratory t ests cannot accountfor possible damage in the physical integrityof the liner material resulting from installation,operation, and long-term wear in the potential-ly harsh service environment of a landfill. Thismay compound problems in projecting theservice life of synthetic liners. *

Further, testing for chemical compatibilityrequires prediction of expected leachate char-

acteristics over time. This is difficult for land-fills accepting a variety of waste types. Somelandfill facilities segregate waste into cells tomake leachate pred iction simpler and more re-liable.

2. Leachate collection system.—Leachatecollection systems are a series of perforateddrainage pipes buried at the lowest points with-in a landfill. These pipes are designed to col-lect liquids which flow under the influence of gravity to the low points, Once the collectedliquids reach a predetermined level, they arepumped to the surface.88 Overall, the systemoperates much like a sump pump in a house-hold. Liquids that are recovered are tested fortheir hazardous characteristics. If the liquidsare determined to be hazardous (under theRCRA criteria for hazardous waste), they are

86D. E. Daniel, “Predicting Hydraulic Conductivity of ClayLiners” (Austin, Tex,: University of Texas, Department of CivilEngineering, 1982).

E7R. E. O] Son and f), E, Daniel, ‘‘Field and Laboratory Measure

ment of the Permeability of Saturated and Partially SaturatedFine Grained Soils” (Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, Depart-ment of Civil Engineering, june 1979),

q For example, manufacturers of synthetic lining material war-ranty their product for a specified time period [e. g., 10 to 30

years) against material defects in compounds and workmanshipwhich would affect performance, However, the warranty canbe voided if the liner material shall have been exposed to harm-ful chemicals, abused by machinery, equipment or persons, orif installation is Inadequate,WK . Malinowski, CECOS International, New York, personal

communication, August 1982.

treated and discharged or redisposed in thelandfill. 89

The levels of leachate within a landfill willchange with time in response to infiltration,pumping, and recharge rates, High leachatelevels must be reduced by pumping in orderto reduce hydraulic pressure on the bottomliner.90 In general, doubling the height of theponded liquid doubles the force driving theleachate through the liner.91 Information fromcommercial landfill facilities show that liquidslevels can reach over 10 ft. If the system isworking properly, the leachate can easily bepumped out .92 Conversely, pumping can behampered by technical difficulties such as theinability of the cover to prevent further infiltra-tion. In such cases, reducing leachate levelscan take months to years.93

After land filling operations end , leachate isrequired to be pumped out during the post-closure period “until leachate is no longer de-tected.” 94 Failures in the collection systemwhich impede leachate flow to the pump mightbe misinterpreted as the en d of leachate genera-tion. Some failures, such as poor leachate trans-mission through the filter beds or collapse of the drainage pipes, are both difficult to detectand to repair.

3. Cover.–After operations at the landfillhave ceased, the final cover is installed, The

function of the final cover is to reduce the in-filtration of water and to provide a physicalbarrier over the waste. To do this, it must re-main stru cturally sound over time. Covers canbe constructed of layers of synthetic mem-branes, clays, and soil. Leachate standpipespierce the cover in order to project into theland fill cells, Soil is placed over the cover, andvegetation is established to stabilize the soil.

~EnVi rOnMen t a l protection Agency, hlanagernen ~ Of HaZa r d -

ou s Leachate, SW-871, September 1980,‘EPA, op. cit., SW-870, 1980, sec, 5,6,91 D, Daniel, pe r s on a ] communication, October 1982.

9zB. S1 monsen, vice president, IT CO rp., and P. Va rdy, VicePresident of Waste Management, Inc., personal communication,December 1982.

‘3P. N. Skinner, “Performance Difficulties of ‘Secure’ Land-fills in Chemical Waste and Available Mitigation Measures, ”American Society of Chemical Engineers, October 1980.s447 FR 32,366, July 26, 1982.




Covers are subject to a number of failuremechanism s (see table 33). Some of these, suchas erosion or piercing of the cover by plantroots, can be redu ced throu gh p roper and con-tinued maintenance and repair of the site. *How ever, if maintenance ends, the integrity of

the cover will be threatened by ubiquitousweathering p rocesses, such as d esiccation, ero-sion, and freeze/ thaw cycles. Deep-rooted vege-tation, burrowing animals, and human activ-ity can also cause damage. Depending on thesite location and pretreatment of the waste,the risk of leachate migration caused by infil-tration throu gh the cover may be redu ced be-fore the facility operator’s maintenance respon-sibility ends. These factors are critical, sincethe cover is the pr imary line of defense againstwaste migration after the post-closure period.

Other potential sources of cover damage can-not be pr evented by simp le maintenance. Fore-most among these are subsidence damage anddeterioration of synthetic membranes overtime. Subsidence refers to the settling of thewaste and the cover; subsidence damage hasbeen identified by EPA as one of the m ost criti-cal factors resulting in poor landfill perform-ance.95 Figure 11 dep icts a cover designed witha gently slop ing crown to facilitate runoff, andexamples of cover failure. Ideally, the crownshould be designed and constructed to com-pensate for estimated long-term subsidence.

How ever, there are several factors wh ich m akethis difficult.96

Comparatively uniform subsidence might beexpected to occur for landfills containing oneform of waste (i.e., a monofill). Many landfills,how ever, contain a variety of wastes, both con-tainerized and in bulk. Bulk liquids an d slud ges

4q Under current regulations, the landfill operator is required

to maintain the site for 30 years after closure. If the facility oper-ator has met the requirements for monitoring and closure, thePost-Closure Liability Fund established under CERCLA can beused to pay the costs of monitoring, care, and maintenance of the site thereafter, and if funds are available. See ch. 7; also Public

Law 98-510, sec. 107(k)(l).95G, Dietrich, former Director of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste,in testimony at the Mar. 11, 1982 public hearing on containerizedliquids in landfills.

96Skinner, op. cit., pp. 17, 20-23.

Figure 11 .—Potential Failure Mechanisms for Covers

A) Cracking of capdue to settlement

B) Collapse of capinto open voids

C) Pending of waterin depressions

D) Cracking of capdue to desiccation

E) Proper design

SOURCE. “Shallow Land Burial of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, David Daniel,AM, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, January1983,




provide little internal structural support. Va-porization may also be a problem. Containersdo p rovide short-term sup port, but they deterio-rate, often w ithin a few years. The rate of con-tainer deterioration is difficult to predict; itdepends on site- and waste-specific factors. It

may not be possible to compact a mixed wa stelandfill sufficiently, e.g., compaction compar-able to preparation of a building foundation.Further, the internal structure of the landfillcells is constructed of compacted supportwalls, which retain their original height whilethe wastes within settle. Cracking around theperimeter of the cover has resulted.” Finally,the extraction of collected leachate producesvoid spaces and exacerbates settling.

Some of th ese subsidence concerns are beingaddressed by landfill operators. For example,some commercial facilities place drummedwaste on its side, a position providing lessstructural support, in order to hasten the col-lapse and settling of the buried drums.98 Thisreduces future subsidence by enhancing thestructural stability of the landfill prior to install-ing the final cover. Other facilities prohibitburial of liquids and emphasize treatment toenhance structural stability. *Q

Correction of Failure Mechanisms.—The failuremechanisms described can enhance the migra-tion of waste constituents. The ability to cor-rect potential failures is critical to landfill per-

formance.Detection of excessive contamination from

leachate migration, either through a leak-detec-tion system or external ground water m onitor-ing, requires corrective action. Repairing thesource of the leak is generally not possible.Liner repair requires: 1) locating the source of the leak, and 2) exhum ing the w aste. The firstis difficult, although remote sensing techniques

‘7P. Varty, Vice President, Waste Management Inc., personalcommunication, January 1983.BaFor example, Waste Management Inc. and SCA Chemical

Waste Services, Inc.w]. Greco, Divisional Vice President, Government and Industry

Affairs, Browing-Ferris Industries, personal communication,June 1982.

to locate leak sources are being developed. l00

Exhuming the waste is costly and potentiallydangerous. Alternatively, pumping leachatecan reduce the volum e of leachate ava ilable formigration. Generally, leachate is removed bypu mp ing from the collection system above the

liner. OTA found little information on leakdetection systems designed as secondary leach-ate removal systems, although this seems apromising area for future engineering design.

If infiltration through the cover is determinedto be the cause of migration, the cover can berepaired (subsequent repairs may be neces-sary). The more complex and soph isticated thedesign of the cover, the more difficult and cost-ly it is to repair. Cover repair may require care-fully peeling back each protective layer untileach is foun d to be soun d. Cover repair gener-ally requires partial reconstruction of gas col-lection and cover drainage systems, recompac-tion of soil layers, and revegetation of the sur-face soil, These procedures generally requirework done by hand. Depending on the geo-graphic location of the landfill, repair opera-tions can be precluded during wet weather; thesame conditions that exacerbate further dam-age.101 Ultimately corrective actions at landfillsmay rely primarily on mitigating the effects(e.g., cleansing ground water, diverting con-taminated plumes) of the failure rather thancorrecting the cause of the failure.

Hydrological Characteristics of the Site

Site hydrology encompasses the properties,distribution, and circulation of water on theland surface, in the soil and underlying rocks,and in the atmosphere. Hydrological informa-tion includes data on the interrelated effectsof geological and climatic characteristics onthe properties and circulation of water. Overgeologic time, these processes have shap ed the

100 A comp arison of these techniques has been prepared byWailer, Muriel Jennings, and J. L. Davis, “Assessment of Tech-nologies To Detect Landfill Liner Failures, ” in proceedings

of the Eighth Annual Research Symposium, EPA 600/9-82-002,March 1982.

101 Skinner, op. cit.




environment within which the landfill mustoperate.

There are two key site characteristics criticalto the d esign and operation of landfills: generalclimatic characteristics that determine theamount of leachate generated and the charac-

teristics of the underlying geology that deter-mine the potential for liquids to migrate andthe consequent risk of migration from the site,The potential for leachate generation and mi-gration can vary markedly depending on thecharacteristics of the site, An engineered land-fill sited over many feet of native low-perme-ability clays, resting on unfractured bedrock,and in an area where evaporation historicallyexceeds precipitation is less likely to impairgroun d w ater, In contrast, an engineered land -fill relying solely on a synthetic liner, sited onunconsolidated dredged fill material, overlying

fractured bedrock, and in an area where pre-cipitation historically exceeds evaporation, ismore likely to result in migration of excessleachate.

EPA has established criteria for siting low-level radioactive waste landfills, which statethat “locations for radioactive waste disposalshould be chosen so as to avoid adverse envi-ronmental and human health impacts andwh erever pra cticable to enh ance isolation overtime.’’102 Current interim final regulations forhazard ous waste disposal have only incentives

(in terms of reduced mon itoring requirements)for landfills sited in areas with exceptionallyprotective natural hydrology. No outright re-strictions exist for sites with poor hyd rologicalfeatures. 103

Characteristics of the Waste Prior to Disposal

A wide variety of wastes are currently land-filled, Certain waste characteristics and dis-posal methods make waste containment diffi-cult, For examp le, land filling bulk liquid wasteplays an im portan t role in site destabilization,One researcher notes that disposal of waste liq-uid has “changed little in the last 30 years.’’104

I02R. Abrams, “Comments to U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Regarding Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR 265: Spe-cial Requirements for Liquid Waste, ” 1982.10sFR vo]. 47, July 26, 1982.~04Anderson, op. cit.

A variety of treatments can be used to im-prove the structural stability and reduce themobility of landfilled waste. These techniqu esconvert waste into a solid with greater struc-tural integrity, Stabilized or solidified wasteare less likely to leach from a land disposal

site than are untreated waste—even thoughthe physical and chemical characteristics of the constituents of the waste may not bechanged by the p rocess. Stabilization/ solidifi-cation u sually involves the add ition of materi-als that ensure that th e hazardou s constituentsare maintained in their least soluble form.

Stabilization/ solidification p rocesses can becategorized as follows:105 106

q

q

q

q

q

Cement-based process.—The wastes arestirred in water and mixed directly withcement. The suspended particles are incor-

porated into the hardened concrete.Pozzolanic process.–The wastes aremixed with fine-grained silicicous (poz-zolanic) material and water to produce aconcrete-like solid. The most common ma-terials used are fly ash, ground blast-fur-nace slag, and cement-kiln dust.Thermoplastic techniques.-The waste isdried, heated, and dispersed through aheated plastic structure. The mixture isthen cooled to solidify the mass.Organic polymer techniques.-The wastesare mixed with a pre-polymer in a batch

process with a catalyst. Mixing is termi-nated before a polymer is formed and thespongy resin-mixture is transferred to awaste receptacle. Solid particles aretrapped in this spongy mass.Surface encapsulation.—The wastes arepressed or bonded together and enclosedin a coating or jacket of inert material.

The type of w aste most am enable to stabiliza-tion, solidification, and encapsulation tech-niques are inorganic materials in aqueous solu-tions or suspensions that contain appreciable

amounts of metals or inorganic salts (e.g.,metal-finishing waste). Metal ions in these res-

105state of California, 0p. cit.l~Martin, Oppelt, and smith, “Chemical, Physical, Biological

Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,” September 1982.




idues are held as relatively insoluble ions in a

crystalline lattice.

Waste containing m ore than 10 to 20 percentorganic substances are generally not good can-didates for this treatment method. Their di-verse properties interfere with the physical and

chemical processes that are imp ortant in bind -ing the waste materials together. Some solidify-ing reagents may never harden if the wastecontains inhibiting materials. Silicate and ce-ment reactions can be slowed by organics orby certain metals. Organic polymers can bebroken down by solvents, strong oxidizers,strong acids, or by exposure to sunlight.

Solidification pretreatment provides extraenvironmental protection in land disposal of treatable residues. For specific wastes, certainchemical stabilization treatments so thoroughly

immobilize toxic constituents in EPA approvedtests that they have been tentatively removedfrom hazardous waste regulation. ’”’ Usually,however, some metal cations remain somewhatmobile. In ad dition, there are considerable ob-

jections to EPA’s leaching test as a stimulationof landfill conditions.

Some of the stabilization processes result inproducts that have compression strengths simi-lar to cement or concrete. The durability of stabilized waste to wet/ dry and freeze/ thawcycles, how ever, has generally not been good.

Stabilization/ solidification processes genera llyimprove the physical handling characteristicsof the waste, enhance structural integrity of thelandfill, and eliminate the “free-liquid” statusof the waste. Mixing waste with various ab-sorbents can also remove the free-liquid status,but generally leaves the toxic constituents moresoluble and mobile than the chemical stabiliza-tion methods.

Current Landfill Practice

Many improvements in landfill operationhave occurred since pa ssage of RCRA Further-more, waste handlers, landfill designers, andliner manufacturers are taking steps to ensuretheir specific facility, product, or service con-— .

107F. Kelley, Stablex Corp., and H. Busby, Chemfix Corp., per-sonal communication, November 1982.

tribution is used to its best effect. Examples of such actions are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

some facilities emphasize land burial of waste treatment residuals which are gener-ally less toxic and mobile, than untreatedwaste;

some facility owners and/ or operatorshave sought out especially protective hy-drological settings for construction of landfills;some facilities segregate w astes w ith simi-lar characteristics. This facilitates leachateprediction and testing for liner compara-bility;several waste handlers have established astrict p rohibition against bu rial of liquids,in bulk or in containers;some manufacturers of synthetic lining

materials provide compatibility testing andinstallation with the sale of their productsale;some firms are researching method s to in-corporate the natural attenuation capacityof clays in their liner designs. That is, theyattempt to correlate expected leachatecharacteristics to the attenuative capacityof the clay so that the leachate that even-tually passes thr ough meets specific waterquality criteria; andsome landfill design firms are prospective-ly designing land-fills to make corrective

actions easier—e. g., to facilitate installa-tion of a grout curtain to reduce lateralmigration of ground water of contami-nated leachate plumes.

Evaluation of Current Landfill Performance

Releases should be minimized, bu t there aresubstantial differences in philosophy aboutwhat this “minimization goal” means. TheEPA narrative performance standard for land-fills, states that landfill liners should preventmigration of leachate for the operating life of the fill (i.e., the landfill system should be 100percent effective in its control of leachate) andthat migration should be minimized there-after. 108 This criteria fails to recognize that,

108FR VOl. 47 , July 26, 1982, p . 32314.




because of the potential failures discussed,complete prevention of migration even duringthe operating life is probably unattainable. Infact, RCRA standards for ground water qual-ity recognize that complete prevention may notbe necessary. These standards for contaminant

levels in ground water will be the criteriaagainst which landfill performance will be judged. Critics argue that evidence of contami-nation is a poor criterion because it may notbe detected, could be widespread before it isdetected, and aquifer cleanup is expensive andmay be unachievable (see also “Technical Reg-ulatory Issues”).

The first generation of landfills designed spe-cifically for disposal of hazardous waste arenow in the ground.109 Quantitative data on theircurrent effectiveness is limited. Data providedby a study of four landfills in New Jersey,which had leak-detection systems installed,showed they began collecting between 45 to 75gal/day within months of their construction.110

Although controversial, this study concludedthat the collection of liquids was due to failureof the primary liners. No landfills have beenclosed long enough to test the effectiveness of long-term maintenance or corrective actions.There is little quantitative evidence on whichto project landfill performance, especially overthe long term.

Future evaluations of landfill performance

will depend on monitoring. The externalground-water monitoring currently requiredmay not be sufficient (see ch. 7). In comparisonto external monitoring, however, leak-detectionsystems embedded within a double liner mayprovide more reliable information on potentialresource degradation and human exposure.

By examining how landfills work, their fail-ure mechanisms, and available correctivemeasures, OTA’S review of landfill perform-ance resulted in two principle findings: 1) un-certainty remains about the performance ca-

109A. L. Kruger, “Alternatives to Landfilling Wastes” (Prince-ton, N. J.: Princeton University, Department of Chemical Engi-neering, Ph.D. Thesis, February 1982).

110Peter Montague, “Hazardous Waste Landfills: Some LessonsFrom New Jersey, Civil Engineering-ASCE, September 1982, pp.53-56, and more detailed unpublished draft.

pabilities of each of the control features of alandfill, and 2) greater use should be madeof waste treatments wh ich in crease waste sta-bility as well as redu ce long-term m obility of waste constituents.

EPA is conducting additional analyses of fail-

ures that have occurred at existing sites. 111

Such an alyses invariably indicate that poor p er-formance can be attributed to poor operatingpractice, design, or maintenan ce. Operation of any facility will always be subject to error ormisjudgment; this underscores the importanceof site and waste characteristics, the necessityof designing for both reliable indicators of po-tential failure, and corrective action capability.There is room to imp rove in ‘both of these areas.

The performance standards and minimumdesign requ irements for new landfills are based

on the experience gained in recent years. How-ever, as noted frequently in the preamble toEPA’s land disposal regulations, there is lim-ited experience and operating data for landfills(or closed surface impoundments). This lackof information hampers the development of performance design guidance.112 Laboratoryand field testing of liners and covers is under-way . Little is being done to m onitor actual fa-cility performance; yet it is unlikely that ourcurrent experience is adequa te to anticipate allfutur e d ifficulties. Without better informationon actual facility performance, it will be diffi-

cult to evaluate land fills constructed accordingto minimum design requirements, or to evalu-ate alternative land fill designs, There are tech-nical methods available to improve our infor-mation base.

In-situ instrumentation for systematicallygathering data on the following performanceindices has been suggested:113

1. leachate accumu lation at sites other thanmanholes;

111William L. Murphy Rohrer, Senior Environmental Scientist,

Pope-Reid Associates, Inc., personal communication, January1983.112Comments to EPA regarding proposed rules, “Docket 3004,

Permitting Standards for Land Disposal Facilities,” prepared bythe New York State Attorney General, Robert Abrams, Nov. 9,1982.

113Ibid., p. 4.



Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management q 18 5 —

2 .

3 .

4 .

5.

6 .

7.

a .

9.

10.

11.

stress/ strain characteristics of syntheticmembranes;settlement of individual lifts inside thecells;leachate delivery to leachate collectionsystem;

differential and areal settlement of thecap;seasonal moisture contents of the cap;erosion rates of cap soils;actual cap infiltration rates;three-dimensional chemical conditionsinside the cells, especially in the vicinityof the liner face;gas evolution rates in particular cells; andcontaminant transport phenomena in soilliner.

Technical Regulatory Issues

The current regulatory framework will affectthe future use, operation, and design of land-fills. Liability requirements may encourage cer-tain industry sectors to employ alternativetreatment technology or waste reduction activ-ities. I f implemented, requirements to d emon-strate financial responsibility for future correc-tive action may be an even greater incentive(see also ch. 7).

Current regulations will require upgradingthe design of new facilities to include the useof liners, guidelines for waste pretreatment,

leachate collection systems, and covers. Exist-ing p ortions of facilities are broad ly exemptedfrom retrofitting that do not have the minimalcontrol features of a liner or collection system.

The current regulations will influence theconstruction and operation of landfills. Keyregulatory points with likelyuse of landfills are:

q a preference for the useq minimal restrictions on

to be landfilled; andq minimal restrictions on

fills.

impacts on future

of artificial liners;the waste allowed

the siting of land-

Influence on Liner Selection.–The current regu-lations state that liner materials for new haz-ardous waste landfills should not allow migra-

tion of leachate into the liner during the oper-ating life of the facility. This could favor theselection of synthetic membrane liners, sincethey can absorb de minimis quantities of leachate. 114 This preference tends to isolate thecapability of a liner from the rest of the engi-

neered landfill system, its environmental set-ting, and the persistence and toxicity of thewaste it contains.

Furthermore, this preference could inhibitthe comparative evaluation of clay and synthet-ic liners, and overlooks uncertainties about thelong-term limitations of any liner material. Amore farsighted approach might require theuse of both a synthetic and a compacted clayliner. The synthetic liner would be used to col-lect the more concentrated leachate likely tobe produced during the operating life of thefacility. This would protect the clay liner fromthe concentrated leachate constituents whichcan increase the permeability of the clay liner,thus enhancing the long-term integrity of theclay liner backup.115

Restrictions on Waste Being Landfilled.–In July1 9 8 2 , d e t a i l e d r u l e s w e r e i s s u e d d e f i n i n gw a s t e s a l l o w a b l e f o r l a n d f i l l i n g . T r e a t m e n t sa r e r e q u i r e d t o m i t i g a t e w a s t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c sof ignitability, reactivity, and corrosiveness. I n -compatible wastes cannot be placed in thesame landfill cell. These requirements shouldgreatly redu ce the hazard s of fires, explosions,

and generation of toxic fumes. There are norestrictions against landfilling highly toxic, per-sistent waste and no treatments are requiredto mitigate a waste constituent’s toxicity ormobility.116 Containerized liquids cannot belandfilled unless the liquids are rendered notfree flowing . Many treatments that can mod ifythe free liquid form do not immobilize toxicconstituents. The regulations allow the disposalof free waste liquids into landfills with syn-

thetic liners and leachate collection systems.

Si t ing Rest r ic t ion.—The current regulations

contain only minimal siting restrictions. For



186 qTechnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

example, they suggest that new landfills shouldnot be sited within a 100-year flood plain, butthat if they are, they should be designed towithstand such a flood.117 Many believe thatrestrictions should be imposed on sites basedon proximity to natural features such as major

supplies of ground water used for drinking,designated sole-source aquifers, aquifer re-charge areas, sink holes, and wetlands.118 Suchsite characteristics are not addressed by theregulations.

Technology Forcing. —Although EPA is promot-ing the use of some technologies in their mostadvanced form, less reliable landfilling designsare allowed. Incinerator performance stand-ards have been set close to the limits of theirknown technical capabilities. Meeting these re-quirements for routine incineration at many ex-isting facilities will require improvements inengineering design and operation of the facil-ity. However, owners and operators of manyexisting landfills have already instituted volun-tary or State-mandated operating, design stand-

117Ibld,, pp. 32, 290.l18David Burmaster, “Review of Land Disposal Regulations, ”

paper submitted to OTA Materials Program, November 1982.

ards, and monitoring programs more demand-ing than Federal requirements, including theuse of a double liner.11 9

For landfilling, the regulations establish theminimum design requirements for landfillliner system and methods for leachate monitor-

ing—i.e., one bottom liner* and external moni-toring via ground-water wells for detecting andassessing the effect of leachate migration (seefig. 12). The reliability of this design is inferiorto a double liner with a leak-detection system.There is an incentive to promote the use of thismore advanced design, through granting an ini-tial waiver of the ground-water monitoringprogram,

Surface Impoundments

Surface impoundments are depressions inthe ground used to store, treat, or dispose of a variety of industrial wastes. They have a vari-ety of names: lagoons, treatment basins, pits,

119Burmaster, op. Cit.*As discussed above, the single liner is likely to be a mem-

brane liner.

Figure 12.—Schematic of Single and Double Synthetic Liner Design

Landfills—single liner

\Drainage,

layerF

-Ground water “1

monitoring well i b 070

“\ Leachate collection .and removal system ~

Liner

‘\ ‘,,

ID

Ground water ~1I I

This is the new minimum requirement for newlyconstructed landfills: a single liner (probably a syntheticmembrane), a Ieachate collection system, and groundwater monitoring wells.

SOURCE: Civil Engineering–ASCE, January 1983

Landfills—double liner—

Liners fLeak detection system between liners 1I

Unsaturatedzone 1

If two synthetic liners and a leak-detection system areused asshown above, no ground water monitoring isinitally required under the new regulations.




site-specific geology. Figure 13 illustrates thedesign of an injection well that might be usedfor hazardous waste disposal, As shown in thefigure, the well is constructed with three con-centric casings: the exterior surface casing, theintermediate protection casing, and the injec-

tion tubing. The exterior surface casing is de-signed to protect freshwater in the aquifersthrough which the well passes and to protectthe well exterior from corrosion. The casingextends below the base of aquifers containingpotable water and is cemented along its fulllength. Similarly, the intermediate protectioncasing extends down and through the top of the injection zone and is cemented along itsfull length. The waste is actually transportedthrough the injection tubing, the innermost cas-ing. The tubing also extends into the top of the

Figure 13.—Schematic of Typical CompletionMethod for a Deep Waste Injection Well

I n j e c t e d w a s t e <

Cement

A/l

Steel casing shuttingoff all freshwaterzones cemented

from bottom to surface

Cement —

Steel casingcemented, —

bottomto surface

Corrosion resistanttubing

Annulus sealedwith packer -

Disposalfo rma t io n —

I lmpervious shale

I y: i Ground level

Freshwater sand

—impervious shale

Salt water sandstone

Impervious shale

Impervious shale

MJJ Salt water sandstone

1 E1 lmpervious shale

SOURCE: R. B. Pojasek, Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal, vol. 4, Ann ArborScience, 1980.

injection zone; its endpoint is the point of waste discharge. The injection tubing is sealedoff from the intermediate casing, creating an-nular space between the injection tubing andthe casing, The annu lus is filled with fluid con-taining corrosion inhibitors to protect the cas-

ing and tubing metal. The fluid is pressurizedbetween th e sealing at t he base of the well andthe well head assembly .139 140 Since the pressurewithin the annulus is known, monitoring thepressure during the operation of the well canbe a method of checking the integrity of the injection system. Anomalous drops in pressureindicate a leak, either in the injection tubingor in the outer casing.141

When injection operations cease, the well isplugged. Proper plu gging is necessary to main-tain the existing pressu re in the injection zone,to p revent m ixing of fluids from d ifferent geo-logic strata, and to prevent flow of liquids fromthe pressurized zone to the surface.142

Applicability

Injection wells are capable of accepting awid e range of waste liquids, The primary char-acteristics of a liquid that limit the applicabilityof injection well disposal are: high suspendedsolids content, high viscosity, and chemical in-compatibility with either the formation or for-mation fluids. Before injecting a waste, itschemical characteristics must be compared

with the mineral characteristics of the forma-tion and the native fluids within the injectionzone to determine their compatibility.143 Chem-ical pretreatment of the waste can sometimesmake them m ore compatible with a sp ecific in-

jection zon e formation. Examples of w aste thatcan be disposed via injection wells are:144

q dilute or concentrated acid or alkalinesolutions;

q solutions containing metals;q inorganic solutions;

139Waste Age, October 1982.

140 Ray “W. Amstutz, “Deep-Well Disposal: A Valuable NaturalResource, ” in Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal , RobertPojasek (cd,), vol. 4, Ann Arbor Science, 1980.141Warner and Lehr, op. cit., p. 29!i.

1421 bid., p, 320.14sIbidt, pp. 159-177.144Amstutz, op. cit., p. 285.



Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management q 1 9 1

• hydrocarbons, including chlorinated hy-drocarbons;

• solvents; and• organic solutions with high biochemical

or chemical oxygen demand.

Industries using injection wells for waste dis-

posal are listed below in approximate order of predominance: 145

l n du s t r y t yp e P e rcen t

Chemical and allied products . . . . . 49Petroleum refining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Sanitary service . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Oil and gas extraction . . . . . . 6Primary metals . . . . . . . . . . . 6 All others . . . . 10

Current Use

Est imates of the total number of injectionwells currently in use are not in agreement.Some variance is due to the definition of injec-tion wells used in conducting well inventories.Uniform Federal definitions for classifying injection wells became final in February 1982.Wells are now categorized into five classes:146

1 .

2 .

3.

4 .

5.

Class I wells include those used for dispos-al of municipal or industrial waste liquidsand nuclear waste storage and disposalwells that discharge below the deepestunderground source of drinking water;Class II wells are those used for oil and gasproduction;

Class III wells include mining, geothermal,and other special process wells;Class IV wells are those which inject haz-ardous waste into or above an under-ground source of drinking water; andClass V wells include all others (e.g., irriga-tion return flows) not in Classes I throughIv.

Thus, wells used to dispose of federally de-fined hazardous liquid waste can fall into oneof two classifications, Class I or Class IV. Thedistinction lies not in the characteristics of the

waste injected, but in the discharge point rela-tive to an underground source of drinking wa-ter. Class I wells discharge waste beneath the

1 4 5 Warner an d Lehr, op. cit., p. 5.14e47 FR 4992, Feb. 3, 1982.

deepest formation containing, within one-quar-ter mile of the well bore, a drinking watersource. Class IV wells are those used to injecthazardous liquids into or above a formationwhich, within one-quarter mile of the well bore,contains a drinking water source.

Based on preliminary validation surveys of hazardous waste facility notification require-ments, EPA estimates that 159 wells are cur-rently in use for disposal of hazardous industri-al liquids; this figure presumably includes bothClass I and IV (see ch. 4). Earlier inventoriesgenerally indicate a greater number of disposalwells, Better information may become availablewhen all States report their intentions to devel-op programs under the Safe Drinking WaterAct. ’47 The total rate of discharge for wells dis-posing of industrial waste is large, One sourceestimates that, based on volume, disposal of hazardous waste through injection wells wasthe predominant disposal method in 1981. Anestimated 3.6 billion gallons were injected thatyear. 148 Information about the hazardous char-acteristics of these wastes is not available.

The majority of injection wells are locatedin States with a long history of oil and gas ex-ploration. The geology in these areas is oftenwell-suited for waste disposal zones; moreover,the geological characteristics are well docu-mented because of petroleum exploration. Forexample, EPA Region VI contains almost 60

percent of the covered disposal wells inven-toried in 1975.149 The majority of these wells(about 58 percent) inject waste into compara-tively deep stratum—e.g., at depths between2,000 to 6,000 ft (600 to 1,800 m). In general,disposal into formations at greater depth areunlikely to contaminate surface or near-surfacewater. About 30 percent inject waste into for-mations less than 2,000 ft (305 m). The receiv-ing formations are approximately equally dis-tributed between sand, sandstone, and carbon-ate rocks.150 Strata with this type of lithology

.—

‘

47

Jentai Yang, Office of Drinking Water, EPA, personal com-munication, January 1983.

14a~art A (J n ik~~rse Telephone Verification, CO nt ra~t NO .68-01-6322, prepared by Westat, Inc., for EPA, November 1982,p. 3.14eWarner and Lehr, op. cit., p. 3.‘so Ibid., pp. 5-7.




c an be water-bearing. Whether they are consid-ered underground sources of drinking waterdepends on the quality and quantity of thewater they contain and how economically ac-cessible they are. All three factors vary acrossth e Nation.

Effectiveness as a Disposal Technology

Technologies for constructing and operatingwells for waste disposal is well established;much has been transferred from that used foroil and gas exploration. The ability of injectionwells to keep waste isolated in the injectionzone depends on many site-specific factors, in-cluding the well design and expertise of theoperator. If a failure occurs, the consequentrisk depends on the site geology, characteristicsof the waste injected, the extent of the failure,detection of the failure, and whether correc-

tive action is feasible and undertaken. The fol-lowing list of potential contamination path-ways resulting from faulty construction, opera-tion, and/or deterioration of the well are brieflydiscussed below:151

1.2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

injection into or above potable aquifers,leakage through inadequate confiningbeds,leakage through confining beds due tounplanned hydraulic fracturing,displacement of saline water into a potableaquifer,migration of injected liquids into the pot-able water zone of the same aquifer,injection of hazardous liquid into a salineaquifer eventually classified as a potablewater source,upward migration of waste liquid from thereceiving zone along the outside of thewell casing,escape into potable aquifers due to well-bore failure, andvertical migration and leakage throughabandoned or closed wells in the vicinity.

Some existing disposal wells probably threat-

en contamination of drinking water sourcesthrough the first pathway listed. These are the

l~lDavid W. Mi]]er (cd.), Waste Disposal Ef fec t s on Ground

Water (Berkeley, Ca]if.: Premier Press, 1980), p. 366.

Class IV wells which discharge waste into orabove formations which, within one-quartermile of the discharge point, are sources of drinking water. The exact number and locationof these wells is not known.152 Federal policyrequiring closure of wells discharging into adrinking water source is just beginning to go

into effect, There is still no Federal policy forwells injecting above a drinking water source(see “Technical Regulatory Issues”).

Leakage and migration of waste to a poten-tial water source can result from inadequateconfining beds, or unexpected fracturing of aconfining bed (pathways 2 and 3 above). Tech-niques currently used for surveying the hydro-geology of a site prior to construction minimizeunintentional breaches of the confining beds.However, if such breaches occur, they can gen-erally be detected during the operating life of

the well by monitoring of well-fluid pressures.There are corrective actions available that canpotentially reduce the likelihood of contamina-tion resulting from these kinds of failure, butthey generally rely on changing the hydraulicgradient within the affected aquifer, Experi-ence with these techniques is limited. Their useis not always possible nor completely effec-tive. 153

Pathway 4 describes contamination of a pot-able water source with naturally occurring sa-line water that does not meet drinking waterstandards. This could occur if the pressurebuildup resulting from waste injection withinthe receiving zone is sufficient to displace thenative fluids into a potable water source. Itshould be possible to minimize this kind of con-tamination through careful surveying and se-lection of the injection zone,

The quality of water contained within anaquifer can vary considerably within a singlewater-bearing stratum. It is not unusual for thedissolved solids concentration within an aqui-fer to increase from the top to the bottom of an aquifer. Thus, water drawn from one loca-

tion may meet drinking water criteria, while

152Yang, op. cit.l~swl]]lam Thompson, Senior Scientist, Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,

personal communication, Novembe: 1982.




Although there is considerable documenta-tion of well abandonment in the oil and gas in-dustry , there is less information regardingpotential problems with waste disposal wella b a n d o n me n t . 163 164 In 1973, the State of Michi-gan surveyed 20 abandoned wells to determine

the adequacy of the plugs. The wells were re-drilled to verify the position and condition of th e c e me n t p lu g s . S o me p lu g s we re n e v e rfound; others had deteriorated and were soft.165

Mo re a d v a n c e d we l l -p lu g g in g t e c h n iq u e sshould improve this record. Installation of ef-fective plugs requires careful planning andconsiderable operator skill.166 There is little ex-perience with abandonment of waste disposalwells on which to evaluate the long-term integ-rity of well plugs.

There is currently l i t t le information aboutcontamination incidents resulting from injec-tion well practices for all classes of wells.Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to correlatea particular contamination incident with a spe-cific well disposal practice. Past documenta-tion of contamination has been attributed toa variety of injection well operations. For ex-ample, one survey conducted by the State of Texas between the years 1967 and 1975 re-viewed 800 wells that had been used for oil andgas production. The wells were located by re-ports of water wells becoming contaminatedwith brackish water, of wells flowing at theground surface, or by field investigations.’”Research is underway to better define the cor-rela tion between ground and surface watercontamination related to injection wells.

In addition to monitoring pressures withinthe well, there are several types of monitoringwells that can provide information on the ef-fects of waste injection. Constructing monitor-ing wells in the receiving formation is the onlydirect method of detecting the rate and direc-tion of waste liquid movement. However, sam-

103

1 bid., p. 1.Ieiwarner and Lehr , op . cit., p. 321.‘f’’’ ’Technical Manual: Injection Well Abandonment, ” op. cit.,

p. 9.16e Ibid., p . 8.l~7Kerr S. Thornhil], Environmental Laboratories, Ada, o~a.,

personal communication, January 1983.

pling from the receiving formation has the dis-advantage of providing additional routes forc o n ta min a n t mig ra t io n . 168 Monito r ing wel lscan also be constructed to sample from the con-fining beds or from aquifers above the injec-tion zone. The usefulness of such wells may

be limited by site-specific factors. There arecases, however, where monitoring wells sam-pling immediately above a confining bed havedetected contamination from leakage whichwas not detected by monitoring well pressures.Also, the injection well itself can be adaptedto monitor overlying aquifers.169 State require-ments for types and locations of monitoringwells vary.

Federal standards for Class I wells requirethat operators report “the type, number andlocation of wells” used to monitor pressuresa n d mig ra t io n o f f lu id s in to u n d e rg ro u n dsources of drinking water, the frequency of sampling, and the parameters measured (40CFR 146.13). These requirements are just nowgoing into effect for States with approved pro-grams. Currently, much of the direct samplingfor contamination is conducted through waterwells that are part of the facilities water sup-ply system or which are near an injectionsite. 170


All classes of injection wells are regulated by

the Underground Injection Control (UIC) pro-g ra m u n d e r th e S a fe Dr in k in g Wa te r Ac t(SDWA). Wells which inject liquid hazardouswaste are regulated under both SDWA andRCRA. Because of this overlapping jurisdic-tion, injection-well facilities that are in com-pliance with a UIC permit and which meet gen-eral requirements for notification, manifestingof waste, annual reporting, and closure certifi-cation, will be considered to have a RCRA per-mit (F. R. 47, July 26, 1982, 322:81). Requirementsfor financial responsibility, post-closure careand corrective action responsibility have not

yet been specified.

l e~wa rne r an d Lehr , op . cit., p p . 310-311.1@sIbid., p , 312.170Thornhill, op. cit.




ten t , the pe rce ived sudden and non-suddenrisks associated with types of waste treatmentor disposal, facil i ty designs, and operatingpractices.

This section presents a brief comparison of technology costs. All unit cost figures should

be considered as approximate. Their usefulnessis in general comparison. Costs were derivedfrom three sources; all have limitations:

1. The Commerce study figures are based ontreatment costs in the Great Lakes Regiononly. Unit costs are based on surveys of actual charges levied for wastes from threeindustry sectors. The surveys requestedthat the respondents factor their expecta-tions of the increased costs of the interimstatus, not interim final, Federal require-ments.

2. The EPA study, completed under contractby Booz, Allen & Hamilton, reports unitcosts based on a survey of the nine largestcommercial facilities. In 1980, these facil-ities treated an estimated 51 percent of thetotal national waste stream which washandled offsite, estimated at 3.7 milliontons. The unit costs reported may be slight-ly overstated relative to the costs incurredby a generator with onsite treatment and

3.

disposal facilities because these are pricescharged to return an investment on a com-mercial service.The cost figures reported in the CaliforniaAir Resources Board study are based onsurveys of commercial and onsite facility

operators.Table 34 presents costs by type of waste man-

agement used and general description of wastetype. Table 35 presents a limited comparisonof unit costs for treatment v. incineration forselected waste types, Table 36 presents a lim-ited comparison of landfil l and thermal de-struction costs and illustrates the effect of waste form and waste type on these costs.

As illustrated in table 36, the cost for com-mercial landfill service ranges from between$55 to $240/ tonne. This range covers the gamut

from low-risk bulk waste to more hazardousdrummed waste. These designations of hazard-ous characteristics are based largely on quali-tative assessments. By compariscln, the rangeof costs for commercial incineration is $53 to$791/ tonne. This rang e of costs also reflects therelative technical ease of destroying compar-atively clean combustible liquids as contrastedwith highly toxic refractory solids and drummedwastes.

Table 34.—Comparison of Quoted Prices for Nine MajorHazardous Waste Firms in 1981a

Type ofwaste management

Landfill

Land treatmentIncineration clean

Chemical treatment

Resource recovery

Deep well injectionTransportation

Type or form $/tonne D

of waste Price 1981 1981

Drummed

BulkAllRelatively clean liquids,

high-Btu valueLiquidsSolids, highly toxic liquidsAcids/alkalinesCyanides, heavy metals,

highly toxic wasteAll

Oily wastewaterToxic rinse water

$0.64-$0.91/gal($35-$50/55 gal drum)$0.19-$0.28/gal$0.02-$0.09/gal$(0,05)c-$0.20/gal

$0.20-$0.90/gal$1.50-$3.00/gal$0.08-$0.35/gal$0.25-$3.00/gal

$0.25-$1 .00/gal

$0.06-$0.1 5/gal$0.50-$1 .00/gal$0.15/ton mile

$168-$240

$55-$83$5-24$(13) ’-$53

$53-$237$395-$791$21-$92$66-$791

$66-$264

$16-$40$132-$264

alntewiews were conducted in May of 1980 and February of1%2bFactor~ “~ed t. conve~ gallon5 and tons into tonnes are descr!bed in the appendixCsome cement kilns and light aggregate manufacturers are now Payi n9 for waste

SOURCE Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc




quirements are sufficient to correct imbalancesbetween current and future costs for facilityoperators, Demonstration of financial capabil-ity for corrective action that may be necessaryin the future at landfills and surface impound-ments is not currently required by the Federal

regulatory program, although the issue is beingconsidered. Corrective action costs are esti-mated to be greater than the present value costof either financial assurance for post-closuremaintenance or liability insurance. Moreover,these corrective action costs are annual ex-penditures. Actual field data about the time re-quired to mitigate contamination to an aquiferare limited, but estimates are generally on theorder of many years. Thus, demonstration bya facility operator of financial capability to mit-igate potentia l ground-water contaminationcould have a greater economic effect on the

facility operator than the financial or liabilityinsurance requirements currently in place.

It should be noted that transportation coststo waste management facilities can be quitesubstantial, with long distances increasing di-

rect costs by as much as 50 to 100 percent. Insome locations, there may be no near alterna-tives to land disposal, and the added cost fortransportation makes land disposal even moreattractive economically. Also, the smaller thequantity of waste handled, the greater the perunit treatment or disposal costs. There are ,however, new commercial enterprises a imedparticularly at the small generator market, andvarious techniques can be used to reduce han-dling costs, including using trucks that deliverchemical feedstocks to pick up carefully la-beled and separated hazardous waste.

Ocean Disposal and Dispersal

Early in the 1970’s, concern was expressedabout the rapidly increasing quantity and vari-e ty of materia l that was being disposed inoceans. During hearings on the Marine Protec-tion, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972(MPRA) testimony before Congress empha-sized the fragile nature of the marine environ-ment and our lack of knowledge about effects

of ocean waste disposal on human health andocean organisms. With passage of MPRA, theocean was given the status of a “last resert”disposal option, to be considered only afterother alternatives had been exhausted.

Ten years later, controversy about the appro-priate level of ocean protection and use contin-ues. A new understanding of potential environ-mental risk resulting from land disposal prac-tices has led some to reconsider the ocean asa disposal medium. Interest in using oceans forhazardous waste management has increased

as the volume of waste, land disposal costs, ando p p o s i t io n to l a n d d i sp o sa l s i t e s h a v e in -creased. Even some dedicated proponents of ocean protection acknowledge that the oceanhas a role, albeit limited, in waste disposal man-

agement, if there are assurances that ocean re-sources, especially fish, are protected from de-struction or from being made toxic to humans.Certain types of wastes may be better suitedfor ocean disposal than others. For the mostpart, however, current scientific informationwill not resolve uncertainties.

Current Usage

After passage of MPRA, control over oceandisposal became apparent by decreases in thevolume (5 million tons in 1973 to 3 million in1980) and decreases in approved disposal per-mits (332 in 1973 to 26 in 1.980). Currently,ocean disposal in the United States involves thefollowing types of material:

1. T h e d i sp o sa l o f ma te r i a l p ro d u c e d b ydredging activities necessary to keep theNation’s ports and harbors operating. 176

Under regulations established by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, dredge spoils

*7’ Lee Martine, “Ocean Dumping A Time to Reappraise?”Issue Brief No. Ib81088, prepared for the Library of Congress,Congressional Research Service, 1982.




2.

3

4,

are transported by ship or barge to sitesapproved by EPA. These materia ls ac-count for an estimated 80 to 90 percent of all U.S. waste deposited in the ocean andfor the most part would not be consideredhazardous under the RCRA definition. In

1981, it was estimated that only 5 percentof this type of material would be consid-ered hazardous using bioassay techniques.177

Sewage sludge produced by municipalsecondary treatment plants. In New Yorkand New Jersey, sludge waste is trans-ported daily by ship or barge to an EPA-approved site in the New York Bight. Thevolume of waste disposed in the AtlanticOcean has increased. These wastes couldcontain variable quantities of toxic constit-uents and pathogens that would pose haz-ards to the marine environment and public

health.The discharge of municipal waste andsome industrial waste through pipelinesto ocean outfalls. This activity is regulatedby EPA under the Federal Water PollutionControl Act of 1972 (FWPCA). Waste dis-posal through ocean outfalls is a practiceused in Boston , on the west coast , inHawaii, and in Alaska. Along the southernCalifornia coast, for example, 30 outfallsdischarge an estimated 4.5 billion liters of sewage and sewage sludge daily. ]76 As of January 1981, there were 232 land-based

dischargers whose outfalls entered the ter-ritorial sea and beyond; 74 of these werefrom industrial sources. This material canpose hazards.The disposal of acids. This activity occursat three EPA-approved sites off the eastcoast and Puerto Rico. Due largely to ef-forts to recycle acids, the volume of thisindustrial waste decreased by 49 percentbetween 1973 and 1979. Of 150 industrial

“’National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere,

“The Role of the Ocean in a Waste Management Strategy, ” ASpecial Report to the President and Congress (Washington, D. C.:U.S. Government Printing office, 1981).‘“A. J, Mearns , “Ecological Effects of Ocean Sewage Outfalls:

Observations and Lessons,” OCEANUS, vol. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp.44-54.

5.

ocean d isposa l pe rmits tha t ex is ted in1973, only 13 remained in April 1979.179

Acids can be considered as suitable wastefor ocean disposal since they can be neu-tralized through the large buffering capac-ity in the marine environment. The mode

of discharge, from a barge or vessel, is de-signed to maximize the initial dispersionand dilution in seawater; there is usuallylittle density difference between the wasteplume and the surrounding surface waterafter the initial few seconds. Acid wastesare almost immediately neutralized by sea-water.Marine incineration of toxic waste aboardspecially designed vessels. This is notreally ocean disposal, but rather thermaldestruction of organic materia l a t sea .Within the United States, experience has

been l imited primarily to experimental“burns” involving organic chloride waste,Agent Orange, and, most recently, PCBS.l80

Constraints on this method are discussedin the previous section on thermal destruc-tion.

Legislative Background

The belief that ocean dumping was threaten-ing both the value of the marine environmentand human health led to national and interna-tional measures to limit, if not prevent, the con-

tinued use of the ocean for disposal of waste.Such measures included:

1.

2.

3.

17 9 Ping in

MPRA;t h e C o n v e n t i o n o f t h e P r e v e n t i o n o f Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastesand Other Matter, known as the LondonDu mp in g Co n v e n t io n , r a t i f i e d b y th eUnited States in 1974; andFWPC, which regulates waste dischargeswithin territorial seas.

W, And erson and R. T. Dewling, “Industrial Ocean Dump -

EPA Region II—Regulatory Aspects, ” in Ocean Dumping

of]ndustrial Wastes, B. H. Ketchum, D. R. Kester, an d P, K. Park(eds.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1981).100K, S, Kam]et , “ocean Disposal of organoch]orine WaSteS

hy At-Sea Incineration, “ in &ean Dumping of Industrial Wastes,B. H. Ketchum, D . R. Kester, and P. K. Park (eds.) (New York:Plenum Press, 1981).



200 q Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Contro!

The EPA has responsibility to regulate oceandisposal so as:

. . . to prevent or strictly limit the dumpinginto ocean waters of any materials whichwould adversely affect human health, welfare,or amenities, or the marine environment, eco-

logical systems, or economic potentialities[Public Law 92-532).

The disposal of certain specific wastes (includ-ing nuclear materials and most biological andchemical warfare agents) is prohibited, andocean disposal of other types of waste may beconsidered only after all alternatives have beenexhausted. Although the Army Corps of Engi-neers has the responsibil i ty for disposal of dredge spoils, EPA was given the authority toapprove all d isposal si tes, including ocean,l a n d , a n d we t l a n d s .l8l

EPA is directed to establish criteria for re-view of ocean-disposal permit applications. Inestablishing or reviewing these cri teria , theEPA Administrator is required to consider atleast nine factors specified in MPRA, six arerelated to the effects on human health and theenvironment, two relate to the availability andeffects of alternative methods of disposal, andone designates appropriate ocean sites.

The system established by EPA provides fourclasses of ocean disposal permits:

1. general permits for the disposal of relative-

ly innocuous waste;2. special permits for waste that would not

“unreasonably degrade” the marine envi-ronment, as determined by the types andconcentrations of constituents present;

3. interim permits, generally conditioned onan agreement to phase out the particulardumping activity; and

4. emergency and research permits.

Only when reviewing interim permit requestswill EPA take into account the need for dis-posal of a specific waste and the limitation of

land-based alternatives.

Ialwl]]lam L, Lahey, “ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge: Th eTide Turns from Protection to Man agement, ” Harvard Environ-

mental Law Review, VO]. 6, No. 2, 1982, pp. 395431.

In 1977, congressional concern centered onthe progress being made in phasing out thedumping of sewage sludge in the ocean. Thus,amendments adopted that year gave legislativeforce to EPA’s regulatory effort to impose anabsolute ban on all ocean disposal of sewage

sludge after December 31, 1981. The regula-tions implementing this ban were challenged,however, by New York City, which sought anextension of its interim permit to dispose of sludge in the New York Bight. The U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New Yorkruled in favor of New York City. The Court re-quired EPA to give New York City an oppor-tunity to present evidence indicating that dis-posal of its waste in the New York Bight had“relatively inconsequentia l effects” and thatland disposal of this material might prove farmore harmful to the environment and human

h e a l t h .182

EPA was required to consider “allstatutory factors relevant to a reasoned deter-mination, ” including the costs and dangers of land-based disposal. EPA did not appeal thedecision and is now in the process of develop-ing new regulations to replace those that wereinvalidated by the Court,

Controversy Over Ocean Use

for Hazardous Wastes

Arguments in Favor of Increased Ocean Disposal

Experience and research data obtained overthe past 10 years and still being accumulatedcontribute to the debate regarding appropriateuse of oceans in waste management. Argu-ments in favor of greater use conclude that themarine environment has the capacity to assimi-late hazardous constituents. The assimilativecapacity may be defined as the amount of ap a r t i c u la r ma te r i a l th a t c a n b e c o n ta in e dwithin a body of seawater without producingan unacceptable impact on l iving organismsor nonliving resources.

A recent scientific assessment supportingthis conclusion was reported by the Regional

Seas Program of the United Nations Environ-me n ta l P ro g ra m. l83 The results of the 4-year

‘*zIbid.

lmWebster Bayard, “World’s Oceans Became Cleaner Over theLast Decade, Study Shows,” The New Y ork Times , Nov. 7, 1982,p. 26.



Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 201

study suggest that oceans are able to assimilatetoxic substances in most areas without extremedisturbance of the ecosystem. In addition, anumber of scientists report that the ocean hasa self-cleansing ability that would enable it toa b so rb wa s te w i th o u t u n a c c e p ta b le c o n se -

quences.184

There is evidence that, in some instances, themarine environment can recover within a fewyears from pollution previously perceived ash e a v y .185 186 Studies of the outfalls in coastalareas suggest that short-term effects of sewageon marine plant and animal communities dooccur, However, over the long-term these com-munities appear to have the ability to recover.For example, when discharge was initiated atthe Orange County outfall in 1972 (at a depthof 60 m], it took a full year for fish and benthic

infaunal communities to show adverse effects.Conversely, after cessation of 15 years of con-tinuous discharge at another site (a depth of 20 m):

. . . the infauna changed from deposit-feeding-dominated communities to the normal, sus-pension-feeding-dominated communitieswithin three to six months. Copper concentra-tions in sediments returned to backgroundwith in a year; trawl catches of bottom fish alsodecreased, relative to background, within oneto two years of discharge termination.187

similar recovery was evident a t the sewage

sludge site previously used by the City of Phila-d e l p h i a .188 Two years after disposal was ter-minated:

. . . bacteria and virus levels had declined suffi-ciently for the Food and Drug Administrationto lift restrictions on shellfishing.

Such responses, however , depend on thephysical, biological, and chemical characteris-tics of the sites, For example, sites in the NewYork Bight have poor dispersion capability,high susceptibility to deterioration of ecosys-

—

‘lwI,ahey, op. cit.1n5Mea r ns, op. cit.1~W. Bascom, “The Effects of Waste Disposal on the Coastal

Waters of Southern California, ” Environ. Sc i . & Techn., vol. 16,No. 4, 1982, pp. 226A-236A,

‘“’Mearns , op. cit.‘ Oa!.a hey, op. cit.

tern conditions (e.g., oxygen depletion), and ac-cumulation of persistent chemicals in marinesediment. In contrast, a site 106 miles offshorefrom New York City does have dispersioncapabilities. Disposal of sewage sludge at thissite might enable natural biological and chemi-

cal processes to incorporate sludge withoutdetrimental effects.

These somewhat posit ive experiences withthe disposition of constituent fate and their ef-fects have bolstered the cause for greater useof the ocean in waste management. However,these experiences, for the most part, have lit-tle relevance to most hazardous waste. Somescientists argue that effective plans can bedeveloped for disposal of highly toxic sub-stances without endangering public health . l89

It is argued that information on marine pollu-tion gained during the past 30 years providesa basis for developing models that can be usedto determine the assimilative capacity of coast-al waters. Supporters contend that, as more in-formation accumulates about life processes inthe ocean, i t should be possible to identifypollution problems and formulate remedial ac-tions.

Arguments Against Increased Ocean Disposal

While few would maintain that oceans shouldbe completely excluded from waste disposal,there are arguments against increased use of

the marine environment in waste management.T h e o c e a n ’ s s t a t u s a s a g l o b a l c o m m o n smakes it more vulnerable to misuse. The “notin my backyard” attitude that works to blocksiting of land-based waste facilities does not ex-ist for the ocean, Economics also emphasizethis vulnerability. While prodisposal forces citethe growing differentia l between land andocean disposal, it is pointed out that there isvirtually no cost for an ocean site itself; thusthat option will always be cheaper than land-based alternatives.

The suggestion that managers now have ade-quate data and reliable models to predict andunderstand the effects of dumping in the ocean— —

16UE. D. Goldberg, “The Oceans as Waste Space: The Argu-merit, ” OCEANUS, vol. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp . 2-9.




chemicals, such as PCBS, Kepone, and DDT,isolation and containment or destruction to thefullest extent possible may be preferred toocean disposal. For persistent, naturally occur-ring materials, such as heavy metals and petro-leum hydrocarbons, a reasonable argument

might be that dispersal is sensible. However,large or continuous additions of even such ma-terials can produce harmful departures frombackground levels, particularly on a localizedbasis. For certain amounts of nontoxic or bio-degradable materials, the assimilative capac-ity of specific ocean locations may be ade-quate. Acids, alkalis, and nutrients are exam-p le s . A ma n a g e me n t p h i lo so p h y a ime d a tm a x i m i z i n g d i s p e r s a l o f s u c h m a t e r i a l s ,while avoiding disruption of local ecologicalsystems, might be most sensible.

W h e n c o n s i d e r i n g p o s s i b l y a c c e p t a b l e

ocean-disposal activities, it is also necessaryto consider the various advantages and disad-vantages of different sites. For example, shal-low, continental-shelf waters offer the advan-tages of being better understood, based on ex-perience and scientific research, requiring low-to-moderate transportation costs, and a locali-zation of potential detrimental effects.l98 On thenegative side, the resource value of these areasis typically greater. There also is a tendencyfor substances to accumulate in bottom-livingorganisms and sediments in these locations.Deep-ocean waters, on the other hand, offer theadvantage of broader dispersion and dilutiono f wa s te a n d re d u c e d c o n f l i c t s w i th o th e rmarine resources. Disadvantages include un-certainties about the ultimate fate and effectof waste, with potential large-scale impacts,and a likely greater effect on planktonic andbottom-living organisms.


It is recognized that a number of importantissues should be resolved before proceedingwith widespread or indiscriminate use of theo c e a n s fo r h a z a rd o u s wa s te ma n a g e me n t .Thus, a current study recommends that:

Before it is too late and major investments

1e*Kester, op . cit.

are made which may tie us into a long-termcommitment, it would be best to:

1.2.

3.

4.

test predictions against field experiments;develop a waste management plan forcoastal areas which considers effects of all pollutant sources;design delivery systems which will mini-

mize environmental degradation;continue to w ork on d eveloping pretreat-ment techniques that will ‘per-m-it wastematerial to be considered as a resourcerather than a waste.199

Scientists must determine what additional in-formation is needed to evaluate oceanic dis-charge under the condition that oceanic re-so u rc e s mu s t b e ma in ta in e d in r e n e wa b lestates and threats (even if long term) to humanhealth are minimized. What are the long-termeffects of the very low levels of constituents inthe sea? What are the synergistic and antago-

nistic effects of collectives of constituents?While both general and specific stress indica-tors are available, such as those for metals andpetroleum components, there remains a needto identify specific indices applicable to indi-vidual or classes of constituents. Work shouldbe done to compare alternate ocean-disposalstrategies, such as dispersing waste above orbeneath the thermocline.200 Federal actions thatshould precede any widespread movement touse oceans for hazardous waste managementi n c l u d e : 20l

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

assessing the state of pollution in U.S.

coastal and deep-ocean waters;precisely defining present standards andcriteria in terms of specific constituentsand regional bodies of water;developing an information system to rou-tinely report what has been learned;coordinating all research to achieve themaximum results from limited researchfunds;implementing a cost-effective network of coastal water-quality monitoring;simplifying regulatory procedures; andcontinuously evaluating and reevaluating

water-quality standards.

‘WR. L. Swanson and M. Devine, “The Pendulum SwingsAgain: Ocean Dumping Policy,” Environment vol. 24, June 1982,pp . 14-20.2WKester, op. cit.201J. P. Walsh, “U.S. Policy on Marine Pollution: Changes

Ahead,” OCEAIVLR5 , vol. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp. 18-24.




Uncontrolled Sites

This section discusses methods for the iden-tification, evaluation, comparison, and remedi-ition of uncontrolled sites. A number of policy

ssues associated with the CERCLA legislationand its implementation by EPA and the Statesare discussed in chapters 6 and 7. The objec-ive of this section is to consider several tech-lical areas related to cleaning up uncontrolledii tes, including the problems of identifyingiites, developing plans for cleanup, and select-ng remediation technologies, *

The magnitude of the uncontrolled site prob-em is generally recognized to be substantial.Although the precise number has not beendetermined, there are probably some 15,000 un-controlled sites in the Nation requiring remedi-

ation. Costs of remediation vary greatly but willprobably average several million dollars perite, * * The total national cost of cleaning upuncontrolled sites is probably in the range of $1O billion to $40 billion, far more than the cur-ent $1.6 billion estimated to be collected underIERCLA by 1985, A recent congressional anal-sis revealed that, through FY 1982, only $88million of $452 million collected under CERCLAad been expended for cleanup, no cleanupunds had been earmarked or expended on 97f the initial 160 priority sites determined byJPA, and only 3 CERCLA sites had been totallyleaned up (1 entirely with State funds). 202

q For the pu rposes of this discussion, emergency response an dmmedia t e ” removal are not considered as remediat ion of ate. They are conventional actions associated with accidentsld spills to remove immediate threats, generally followed byore technology-intensive and systematic efforts. Also, those:tivlties defined within EPA’s National Contingency Plan asnitial remedial” will not be considered as distinct, technolog-ally, from remed ial control technologies. Differences betweenese technologies concern timeframes, funding sources, andgulatory approaches rather than substantial technical dif-

rences.q *For example, the cleanup of one of the ]nltial 160 prioritytes, the Seymour site in Indiana, is estimated by EPA to cost2.7 million to remove 60,000 barrels of wastes and to clean

I contaminated soil and ground water beneath the site. An ex -nple of a less costly remedial action is the Tramm el Crow siteTexas wh ere five slud ge pits with ov er 5 million gal of waste;re cleaned up onsite using a solidification process and cost78,000. In both cases additional moneys were spent for ini-

11 studies of the sites.z o z s t u dy by th e House Subcommittee on Commerce, Transpor-!Ion, and Tourism, as reported in Hazardous Waste Report,IV. 1, 1982,

Uncontrolled sites fall into three categories:

1.

2.

3.

Operational uncontrolled sites are thosehazardous waste sites requiring, but not

currently receiving, attention to amelioratedangerous conditions. Either ongoing re-leases to the environment or the threat of immin e n t r e l e a se s o f h a z a rd o u s wa s tewould consti tute such conditions,Inactive sites are those sites no longer re-ceiving hazardous waste and for whichthere is an identifiable responsible partyor owner.Abandoned sites are uncontrolled hazard-ous waste sites where no responsible partyor owner has been identified, or wheresuch parties lack the resources to take thesteps needed to remedy danger conditionsat the site.

Issues Concerning Effectiveness

The national effort to clean up uncontrolledsites is in its early stages. The magnitude of theproblem, in terms of potential harm to humanhealth and the environment and of potentialcosts of cleanup, is such that it is imperativeto give considerable attention to three majorissues, which are discussed below:

1. What basis should be used to determinethe end point for a remedial action? This issometimes asked as the question “How cleanis c lean?”

This question of extent of cleanup is oftenaddressed by defining some nonharmful, or ac-ceptable, level of contamination that may beleft at a site after remedial actions are termi-nated. This approach, however, can be difficultto apply since the toxicological effects of manywastes and of low levels of some wastes areunknown. This could lead to somewhat arbi-trary choices of acceptable residual chemicalcontamination.

Extent of cleanup can also be consideredfrom the perspective of protection of the publicand the environment in a cost-effective way.T h i s ma y b e a c c o mp l i sh e d b y v a r io u s a p -proaches, such as:



206 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control —

q An alternate water supply might be pro-vided for a community using contami-nated ground water, rather than cleaningthe original supply. Such an approachmight be appropriate for small numbers of water users, particularly when there mightbe a natural reduction of the contamina-tion in time (e. g., with biodegradable or-g a n ic wa s te ) . S o me t ime s o u t r ig h t p u r -chases of the affected homes might be themost efficient way to accomplish the goalof limiting human exposure.

q Parties responsible for a number of sitesmight propose a partial cleanup, less thanmight be necessary to eliminate all poten-tial future risk. Thus, buried drums and themost contaminated soil might be removed,without extensive ground-water recoveryand treatment. Long-term environmental

monitoring then would be provided to as-sure that there is no release in excess of predefine action levels.

2. How can the relative cost-effectivenessof a lternative c leanup approaches be deter-min e d ?

There are many difficulties in trying to ana-lyze the economics and cost effectiveness of various remediation options. There is no ques-tion, however, that the costs of remediating un-controlled waste sites are high. For example,the initial phases of site identification, evalua-

tion, and assessment may cost from $50,000 toseveral hundred thousand dollars. The prelimi-nary engineering efforts taken before remedia-tion may cost several hundred thousand dollarsmore, and actual remediation generally costsfrom several hundred thousand dollars to sev-eral million dollars per site. There has not beenenough accumulated experience to quantifyand compare how effectively different technol-ogies reduce risks. Some of the factors that af-fect analyses of cost effectiveness include:

q

q

public policy regarding the level of accept-able risk subsequent to a site remediationremains unclear;the operating history of cleanup technol-ogies at uncontrolled sites has not beensuffic iently documented;

q

q

q

the degree of success of the various technology options is sometimes site-specifiThere fore , the comparison o f a l te rna ttechnologies for a specific site remediatiocannot always be extrapolated into a valigeneric comparison;the long timespans involved in some of thtechnologies require assumptions regarding their long-term effectiveness. Some othe technology options generate futuroperation, maintenance, and monitorincosts that are difficult to estimate; andthe possibility of systems failure and thneed for subsequent remediation are diffcult to predict. Only crude estimates othese potential “second-round costs” aravailable for comparison.

3. Which current technologies may creatfuture problems? Some technological choice

could create needs for future remediation, foextended operation and maintenance procdures, with continuing risks and costs.

The choice of a technology for site remediation can result in the need for certain long-terncommitments. Such requirements might inelude physical maintenance of the grounds ansite security if residuals of hazardous waste oother potential hazards remain after site remediation. Further, certain technologies, by vitue of the time needed for implementation (i.eground water recovery and treatment), involve

long-term operation and maintenance costsAlso, there is a continuing level of risk duringthe implementation of these long-term technoogies. These deferred costs, as well as the possble costs for alternate remedial technology the initial control technology fails, should beconsidered when making a choice between aninitially more expensive remediation (e.g., excavation with offsite disposal or treatment) anda long-term technology with lower initial cos(e.g., encapsulation).

Taking remedial actions that are effective inthe long term is advisable because new uncontrolled sites are likely to be identified, requixing still further expenditures in the future. Current practices of land disposal of hazardouwaste may be creating future needs for reined



Ch. 5– Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management q 207

al action. Disposal sites, even state-of-the-artinstallations meeting regulatory standards fordesign , opera t ion , c losure , and p ost -c losuremonitoring, do not always eliminate the possi-bility of releases of hazardous materials intothe environment, Moreover, because of a num-

ber of exemptions in RCRA itself and of thoseresulting from administrative decisions, haz-ardous wastes are being disposed in subtitle Dsanitary landfills that are not designed for haz-ardous waste. Such facilities have already ac-counted for large numbers of uncontrolledsites, and others will l ikely become uncon-trolled sites.

Sit e Identi fi cati on and Evaluati on

The amount of information available regard-ing uncontrolled sites (e. g., location, number,

and level of hazard) is generally recognized tobe incomplete, There are continuing efforts atboth the Federal and State levels to identify un-controlled sites, with the problem being acutefor abandoned sites for which there are no re-sponsible parties available to provide detailedinformation (see ch. 7). It is generally acceptedth a t ma n y th o u sa n d s o f u n c o n t ro l l e d s i t e sexist.

There are three means of identifying uncon-trolled sites:

1. Federal and State efforts to prepare inven-

tories of sites based on file information oron field investigations;2. reporting by the general public and by par-

ties such as developers that may discoversites accidentally; and

3. requirements that industries producing ormanaging hazardous wastes submit infor-mation on sites either created by them orknown to them.

Following the identification of a problemsite, considerable data is required for evalua-tion of the level of hazard posed by the site.Relevant data include both physical and de-scriptive factors. Physical considerations in-clude the population or environment at risk;critical pathways; site conditions, includinghydrogeologic characteristics; waste amounts,

forms, and compositions; and evidence of ac-tual releases, Table 37 summarizes the typesof data required. Nontechnical descriptive in-formation might be collected concerning his-tory of the site, ownership, adjacent properties,previous administrative or legal actions, associ-

ated potentially responsible parties such as gen-erators and waste haulers, and other relevantbackground information. These nontechnicaltypes of information are important for obtain-ing more detailed technical information, as

Table 37.— Data Required To Identify andEvaluate Uncontrolled Sites

Type of data—spectfic factors

Site assessmenf: Wastes:

q Quantityq Corn positionq Fo r m

. Condition of waste (containerized, bulk, burled, openlagoon)

q Acute hazards (acute toxicity, flammability,explosiveness, etc. )

q Chronic cumuIative hazard (toxicity, mutagenicity,carclnogenicity, teratogenicity, radioactivity, etc. )

q Synergistic/antagonistic componentsSite:

q Geological features• Topographicalq Vegetationq Surface waterq Ground water. Structuresq Access

Exposure: Releases

features

Ž Past or present releases Potential for future releases Migration routes of releases (air, ground water, stir-

face water, overland flow or runoff, etc.)Potential exposure:

Ž Estimates of release quantitiesŽ Exposure routes

Risk: Environments:

q Waters Land areasq A i rq Vegetationq WiIdlifeq Agricultural areasq Recreational areas

Populations:• Locationq Sensitivity Numbers





policies (see ch. 7), is the difference in initial,cap i ta l costs v . longer te rm opera ting andmaintenance (O&M) costs. The specifics of O&M depend on the technology chosen. Thosetechnological options that permanently dealwith the hazard often have high initial costs

and low O&M costs. Conversely, those optionsthat, for example, do not destroy or treat thewaste to reduce risks are likely to have highand uncertain O&M costs. For example, exca-vation and removal followed by treatment ordisposal would initially be both capital-inten-sive and labor-intensive, but subsequent O&Mrequirements would be minimal. Alternatively,encapsulation with ground water recovery andtreatment would generally incur lower initialcosts but have subsequent large O&M costs.

Implementation of engineered remedial ac-tivities at a site may require a wide variety of ancilliary and support activities, depending onthe condi t ions a t the spec if ic s i te and thechoice of control technology. Epidemiologicalstudies may be required when there has beena release of hazardous waste that may have af-fected public health or if there is a need forbaseline data to monitor future effects arisingfrom the choice of site-control technology.Chemical analysis may also be needed formany purposes, ranging from quality controlwo rk d u r in g c le a n u p , p ro te c t io n o f o n s i t eworkers exposed to hazardous materia ls, toverification that the intended level of cleanuphas been reached.

Technical Approaches for Remedial Control

The following review and discussion of thegeneric technology options is based on consul-tations with professionals working in the areaof uncontrolled site remediation, a recent studyfor EPA of remediation technologies, 203 a n dproceedings from annual conferences on un-controlled hazardous waste sites.204 Any tech-nological option for site remediation has limita-tions that will keep it from being effective

under all circumstances. Examples of technol-— .

ZOJ~nvlronmenta] ~ro te~ t l~n Agency, ‘‘ Handbook—Reined ia l

Action a t Waste Disp osal Sites, ” EPA 625/ 6-82-006, Jun e 1982.Z04These \ , o]umes are published by the Hazardou s Materials

Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, Md.

ogies are discussed below, and a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of primarytechnological options is given in table 38. A re-cent survey of technologies used at uncon-trolled hazardous waste sites indicates the dis-tr ibution of currently used technologies, as

shown in table 39. These technologies may begrouped into two broad categories:

. waste control technologies; and

. environmental pathway control.

Waste control technologies for uncontrolledsites act on the amount of waste or on somehazardous property or constituent of the waste.Such methods include:

Excava t ion and remova l o ffs i te o f thehazardous waste.–This method is suitablefor all sites with containerized or bulk dis-posal of waste. Normally it must be fol-lowed with some type of secondary clean-up of ground water if the materials depos-ited were water soluble , and evidenceshows ground water contamination. Whilesuch techniques e liminate or minimizeboth future O&M costs and future risk tothe public and environment, there are highinitial costs, with possible higher risk of exposure during the period of excavation.To some degree, risk may be relocateddepending on the offsite disposal optionc h o se n . P o p u la t io n s a n d e n v i ro n me n tsalong routes chosen for transportation be-tween sites and disposal facilities are ex-posed to risk of spills while wastes are intransit. Those responsible for the remedialaction become generators under the provi-sions of RCRA with all the associated re-sponsibilities and liabilities. Such methodsare neither cost effective for large amountsof low-level hazardous waste, nor for un-c o n ta in e r i z e d b u r ie d wa s te d i sp e r se dthrough a large area.Excavation with onsite treatment.—Thisapproach can be used for some onsite

treatment technologies such as fixation,use of mobile treatment units for physicalor chemical treatment or incineration, orfor site preparation and lining prior to re-i n t e r m e n t . S u c h m e t h o d s c a n e x p o s ewastes quite effic iently to a treatment




Table 38.—Advantages and Disadvantages of Control Technologies

Type Advantages

Waste control technologies: Excavation and removal followed by

treatment or disposal

Excavation with onsite treatmentoption

Neutralization/stabilization

Biodegradation

Solution mining

Environmental pathway (vector) control: Isolation, containment, and

encapsulation

Ground water diversion and recovery

Surface water diversion

Ground and surface water treatment

Gas collection or venting

a) Good for containerized or bulk disposal

a) Expose waste to complete treatmentb) No off site exposure

a) Useful in areas where waste can beexcavated prior to mixing

b) Low risk of exposure if injectionmethod is used

Low costs

Useful in homogeneous uncontainerized

solvent-soluble, buried solid hazardouswaste

Useful for large volumes of mixedhazardous and domestic waste, andlow-hazard waste

Useful if soils are permeable or if thereare high or perched water tables

a) Easy to implementb) No transport of waste off sitea) Can be used onsite or off site

Low costs

Disadvantages

a) High initial costsb) Potential higher risk during cleanupc) Relocation of risk unless waste is

treated

d) Not cost effective for low-level haz-ardous waste or uncontainerizedburied waste in large area

a) High initial costb) Difficult to assure monitoring

effectivenessc) Some risk of exposured) Not cost effective for large amount

of low-hazard wastea) Limited applicationb) Requires long-term land use

regulationsc) Eventual off site migration if reaction

is incompleteDifficult to maintain optimum

conditions to keep reaction goingCan result in uncontrolled release

a) Effectiveness depends on physicalconditions at site

b) Long-term O&M neededa) Requires wastewater treatment optionb) Process is slowc) O&M monitoringd) Not effective for insoluble or

contain erized materialCan create flooding off site

a) May generate hazardous sludges,spent carbon

b) Long-term monitoringa) Site safety and fire hazards

b) Off site air pollutionc) Long-term monitoring and O&MO&M—operating and maintenance

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment

process and, in some cases, may be lessexpensive than excavation followed bytransportation to an offsite treatment facil-ity. offsite populations are not exposed topossible spills. Future O&M costs are elim-inated with future risks if waste destruc-tion or detoxification options are also im-plemented. There is a high initial cost, and

long-term monitoring is required when thereinterment option is chosen. Local popu-lation is subject to additional risks inherentin the excavation and exposure of buriedwaste , as well as those inherent in the

mobi le t rea tment p rocess chosen . Th istechnology is not cost effective for largeamounts of low-level waste and is not ef-fec t ive fo r unconta iner ized waste d is-persed through a large area.

q Dire ct n e u t ra l i z a t io n / s t a b i li z a t ion / f ix a -tion.–This technology is used primarilyfor large volumes of homogeneous uncon-

tainerized liquids or sludges. Agents areinjected directly into the ground wherewastes are buried, Neutralization, an acid-base balancing mechanism, aids in the re-moval of hazardous constituents through



Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 271

Table 39.—Types of Remedial Action Employedat a Sample of Uncontrolled Sites

Number ofRemedial action sitesa Percent of total

Waste actions:Drum and contaminant removal 126 410/0C o n t a m i n a n t t r e a t m e n t 48 16Incineration 3 1

D r e d g i n g 5 2

Action on route of release: C a p p i n g / g r a d i n g 59 19G r o u n d w a t e r p u m p i n g 22 7

Ground water containment 23 8E n c a p s u l a t i o n 8 3G a s c o n t r o l 3 1

L i n i n g 7 2

304 100’/0 —

aAs many as 25 spill sites may be Included

SOURCE S R Cochran, et al , “Survey and Case Study Invest lgatlon of RemedialAct Ions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sttes “ In Marragemerrf ofUncontrolled Hazardous Waste S/ fes, Hazardous Materials ControlResearch Insf(fute, 1982 pp 131 135

precipitation. Fixation immobilizes solu-

ble waste by binding them with a stablem a t e r i a l , T h u s , a n i m m o b i l e s o l i d i sformed. Onsite applications eliminate theneed for offsite disposal areas or for siteupgrading following removal of excavatedmaterials. There is low risk of exposure toburied waste when the injection option ischosen. However, the technology has lim-ited application and requires long-termland use restrictions at the site along withenvironmental monitoring. Reaction orimmobilization may be incomplete , andthere may be even tua l b reakdown and

stripping from repeated flushing by groundwater, resulting in subsequent offsite mi-gration of hazardous waste,

In addition, other detoxification tech-niques to be used at the site are being re-searched, One method is a chemical de-chlorination or dehalogenation processwhich uses a sodium or potassium poly-ethylene glycol reagent. The sodium re-agent (NaPEG) patented by the FranklinResearch Institute. EPA has been workingwith the Institute to find a faster actingreagent using potassium, In the envisioned

practice, the reagent would be spread overa spill or dump site. Perhaps it would becovered for rain protection and to raisetemperature, and perhaps reapplied in sev-eral days. In principle, a series of reactions

takes place, replacing at least some of thechlorine a toms with the reagent glycolstheoretically forming less toxic and lessbioaccumulative compounds. In unpub-lished EPA testing, a solution of 1,000 ppmhexachlorobenzene was destroyed with 95

percent efficiency in 7 days at room tem-perature, and reapplication achieved com-ple t ion . 205 However, the chemistry of thisprocess a t ambient temperatures and inthe presence of water has yet to be proven,and little has been published. Importantquestions concerning the composition of the result ing compounds and their tox-icities remain to be studied. Further, thesereagents have not yet been applied outsidethe laboratory.Biodegradation.—Microhial degradationtechniques have been applied to uncon-

tainerized, biodegradable organic waste,usually for spills. It possibly might be usedas a final step to remove low concentra-tion residuals left at sites after the use of other technologies, such as excava t ionwith offsite disposal or ground water r e-

covery and treatment. Biodegradation isusually a low-cost option. However, themethod requires acclimated organisms,and supplemental injections of nutrientsor oxygen may be required to support bio-logical action. The limited applications areslow and are affected by ambient temper-

ature.S o l u t i o n m i n i n g . — T h i s m e t h o d i s r e -

stricted to limited (and unusual) situationswhere a homogeneous, uncontainerized,solvent-soluble, solid hazardous waste isburied. Solvent is injected into the site andrecovered through a series of well points.Various applications of this technology usewater as the solvent. Caution must betaken that dissolving nonmobile hazardouswaste does not produce an uncontrolledre le a se o r l e a v e b e h in d d i s so lv e d a n dmobile material,

Environmental pathway control for hazard-ous waste sites attempt to inhibit offsite migra-—.

Zoschar]es Rogers, I lnVrirOrlrnenta] Protection Agency, officeof Research and Development, IERL, personal communication,January 1983.




tion of hazardous materials by a number of methods, as discussed below. The most com-mon route amenable to such controls is water—surface, ground, and rainwater; although gascontrols are sometimes used at si tes wheremethane or other gases are present. In most

cases, there is a continuing need for monitor-ing and potential need for repeated remedialactions. Pathway control technologies include:

q

Iso la t ion , con ta inment , and encapsu la -tion techniques.—Mechanical barriers—e.g., in capping, bottom sealing, and pe-rimeter containment barriers—use naturalmaterials (e. g., clay) or synthetic imperme-able materials (e. g., asphalt, cement, po-lymer sheet, chemical grout) that are eitherpoured, injected, or placed into desiredlocations to provide containment or inhibitw a t e r i n t r u s i o n o n b u r i e d h a z a r d o u swaste. Surface contour modifications andrevegetation are used to enhance ra in-water runoff or to capture it for subsequentremoval via natural processes of evapora-tion and transpiration. Such methods areused in those situations where no onsitetreatment or removal is planned or wherethere is a need to contain residuals fromsuch actions. They are most practical ats i te s wi th ex tremely la rge vo lumes o f mixed hazardous and domestic wastes orwith widespread low-level contamination

(e.g., mine tailings or contaminated soil]where costs of alternative actions are pro-hibitive. The costs of these techniques arefavorable compared with those of other op-tions, and exposure of buried waste is notrequired, The effectiveness of these meth-ods, however, is greatly dependent on am-bient environmental conditions, such asgeohydrology, precipitation, and geomor-phology. Long-term O&M as well as long-term monitoring are required. 206 F a i lu re

ZOOA recent stud y on the use of slurry wai] i nsta]]ations con-c luded : “Unfortunately, most of the slurry wall installations to

date have been in the private sector, from which little monitor-ing data are available. Until such data are assembled and cri-tiqued, it remains to be seen just how effective, and how longterm this remedial measure is in controlling the spread of con-taminated ground water. ” P. A. Spooner, et al., “pollution Migra-tion Cut~ff Using Slurry Trench Construction, ” in Management

of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous MaterialsControl Research Institute, 1982, pp. 191-197,

may require additional remedial action.S e c u r i ty fo r th i s a p p ro a c h , wh e re th ewater route is of concern, can be enhancedby combination with a ground water re-covery and treatment system.Ground water diversion and recovery.—

These methods make use of collection anddiversion trenches or of well points withpumping, and sometimes in combinationwith subsequent up-gradient injection orpercolation ponds to shift piezometric sur-faces, The technology is useful in situa-tions where underlying soils are permeable(e.g., sands or fractured shales where wellpoints may be used) or at sites with a highor perched water table and underlying clayor other tight formations where trenchesmay be used, These diversion methods areeffective for collecting highly contami-

nated leachate before dilution after mix-ing with main body of ground water, Effec-tive recovery can be enhanced with up-gradient injection, Gro u n d wa te r f lo wrates consequently are increased, and anaugmented volume of flush water is pro-vided to wash soluble hazardous constitu-ents from the site to the collection system.This technology generally requires wastewater treatment, although collected watercan be directly discharged to a surfacestream if i t meets applicable dischargestandards. The process is slow and re-

quires O&M and constant monitoring of the collection system and the offsite envi-ronment, It is not effective for container-ized materials or insoluble waste.Surface wate r d ivers ion . -These d iver-s io n me th o d s a re u se d wh e re su r fa c est reams run th rough or near an uncon-trolled site, Such systems are relativelyeasy to implement with existing technol-ogy. Addition of undesirable water on thesite is not required, and associated offsitetransporta tion of hazardous materia ls isreduced. However, offsite flooding prob-

lems may be created,Ground and surface water treatment.—These treatment methods may be usedwhere there is a system to recover contam-inated water and may be implemented ei-ther offsite or onsite. Treatment technol-



Ch 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 213

o g y i s th e sa me a s fo r o th e r a q u e o u swastes—biologil, al, ca rbon absorp t ion ,physicallchemical, or air stripping. Vari-ous levels of treatment can be chosen incombination with appropria te collectionmethods. Effectiveness is limited by the

ability of the associated collection systemto c o n ta in a n d re c o v e r th e h a z a rd o u swaste, There have been some operationalp r o b le m s w h e r e w a s t e ch a r a ct e r is t icsvary, as is often encountered at hazardouswaste sites that have a history of receiv-ing mixed waste, although batching andequalization can minimize this problem.

Hazardous waste in the form of sludgesand spent carbon may be generated.

q Gas collection or venting .—These meth-ods are used for collection of gases fortreatment, or for controlled venting of gases generated at a site from decomposi-

tion of organic matter or from chemicalreactions of waste. Such technologies pro-vide methods of handling toxic or flam-mable gases that may present site safetyand fire hazards as well as offsite air pollu-tion threats. Long-term monitoring is re-quired, and there are O&M costs.

Appendix 5A. –Case Examples of Process Modifications

Chlor-Alkali Process

Th e p r o d u c t i o n o f c h l o r i n e a n d s o d i u m h y d r o x -de i s an impor tan t p r oces s in the chemica l indus -

r y . T h e s e c h e m i c a l s a r e m a j o r m a t e r i a l s f o r t h e

m a n u f a c t u r e o f m a n y d i f f e r e n t c o n s u m e r a n d i n -d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t s s u c h a s p u l p a n d p a p e r , f i b e r s ,p l a s t i c s , p e t r o c h e m i c a l s , f e r t i l i z e r s , a n d s o l v e n t s .T h e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s i s a l a r g e - s c a l e s y s t e m i nw h i c h m o d i f i c a t i o n s h a v e b e e n e x t e n s i v e l y i m p l e -

mented in the pas t to ach ieve h igher p r oces s e f f i -c i e n c i e s . S i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n o f h a z a r d o u s w a s t egenerat ion is poss ible through s t i l l fur ther processn o d i f i c a t i o n s ,

T h e c h l o r - a l k a l i p r o c e s s i s b a s e d o n e l e c t r o l y s i sof br ines—i.e . , an electr ic cur rent is passed througha so lu t ion of sod ium ch lor ide to p r oduce ch lor ine ,hydr ogen , and sod ium hydr oxide . Two bas ic p r oc -e s s d e s i g n s w e r e o r i g i n a l l y d e v e l o p e d : o n e i n c o r -por a tes a mer cur y ce l l and the o the r u t i l i zes a d ia -phr agm ce l l . Each type of ce l l has advantages andd i s a d v a n t a g e s w h i c h w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d b e l o w .

Mercury Cell Process .–This p rocess yields a veryligh qu ality of sodium hydroxide. A disadvantage,however, is that it results in a large concentrationo f m e r c u r y d i s c a r d e d i n p r o c e s s w a s t e . A l t h o u g hh i s p r o c e s s a c c o u n t s f o r o n l y 2 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e

c h l o r i n e p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s , a p p r o x i -

m a t e l y 4 2 , 0 0 0 t o n n e s o f m e r c u r y - c o n t a m i n a t e dr ine a r e d i sposed in l andf i l l s on an annua l bas i s .

Source segregation technologies do exis t to remove

ome of the mer cur y f r om was te , bu t comple te r e -n o v a l i s n o t p o s s i b l e . W a s t e c o n t a i n i n g v a r i o u s

h l o r i n a t e d h y d r o c a r b o n s a l s o a r e p r o d u c e d .

Diaphragm Cell Process .—The advantage of thisprocess is that it does not use m ercury. If a grap hiteelectrical terminal is used, the waste contains chlo-rinated hydrocarbons that are considered hazard-ous constituents (e.g., chloroform, carbon tetra-chloride, and trichloroethane). Another source of hazardous waste using this process is the asbestosdiaphragm, While not yet regulated under RCRA,disposal of asbestos is limited by regulations pro-mulgated for the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Three modifications have occurred that reducethe amount of hazardous waste generated in achlor-alkali process. The first h as been su bstitutionof a diaphragm cell for the mercury cell in most

production facilities in the United States. This hasbeen p ossible because of the availability y of natu ralsalt brine in this country, which is a preferred rawmaterial for the diaphragm cell process. This sub-stitution has been quite successful; in the last 15years, no new mercury cell plants have been con-structed.

A second modification has reduced successfullythe amount of chlorinated hydrocarbons found inprocess waste. This was accomplished by r eplacingthe graphite anode with a dimensionally stableanode (i. e., an electrical terminal). In addition tothe reduction of hazardous constituents in waste,this modification contributed to a more efficient

and longer cell life.The third m odification, development of a mem b-

rane cell, incorporates a major change in the typeof membrane used in the diaphragm cell process.The asbestos membrane is replaced with an ion-exchange membrane, which generates a higher




quality of sodium hyd roxide. This quality is similarto that produced by the mercury cell. Full develop-ment and use of this modification would reduce theamount of hazardous w aste generated in two ways:

1. mercury contamination in chlor-alkali wastewou ld be eliminated by a complete phase-outof the mercury cell process, and

2. the amount of asbestos waste would be re-duced.The membrane cell is a new modification and has

not yet been incorporated on a large scale. A totalof 25 units of various sizes have been built in theworld. A small unit (1 I tonnes/ day) currently isoperating in a U.S. pulp mill. A larger unit (220tonnes/ day) will be in operation in the United Statesby late 1983. The capital investment required forincorporation of a membrane cell is slightly higherthan a diaphragm cell that also offers a savings inenergy costs. For those facilities with capacities of less than 500 tonnes/ day, a mem brane cell is moreeconomical than a diaphragm cell. At greater ca-

pacities, neither system is superior, and other fac-tors will determine the selection. These include theavailability of appropriate raw material (e. g., nat-ural salt brine or solid forms of sodium chloride)and ease of retrofitting an existing facility.

Vinyl Chloride Process

Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) is one of manychemicals manufactured by the chlorohydrocarbonindustry. This chemical is considered a hazard tohuman health, its production is regulated under theOccupational Safety and Health Act, and its dis-posal is regulated under RCRA. It is an intermedi-

ate produ ct in the m anufacture of PVC and can beproduced by several different manufacturingroutes.

About 92 percent of all VCM plants in th e UnitedStates have both oxychlorination and direct chlori-nation p lants onsite. The man ufacture of VCM pro-du ces gaseous emissions of the mon omer and liquidprocess residues that are a mixture of chlorinatedhydrocarbons.

Incineration of these process wastes is used torecover hyd rogen chloride, w hich is either recycledback to the VCM process or neutralized. Conven-tional incinerators designed for onsite treatment of many different wastes are not effective in the treat-

ment of chlorinated hydrocarbons, as incompletecombustion results. Therefore, high-efficiency in-cineration specifically designed for liquid or gas-eous chlorinated hydrocarbons is used. Althoughsuccess with incineration systems has been mixed,

reliable performance has been demonstrated withrelatively few operating problems,

Chlorinolysis represents a recovery option. Highpressure and temperatures are used to reduce theliquid chlorohydrocarbon waste to carbon tetrachloride. This system has two major drawbacks1) the capital costs are high because of the high

pressures and temp eratures; and 2) the deman d forcarbon tetrachloride is decreasing due to regulatoryrestrictions on the use of products for which it isa raw material—e.g., fluorocarbons. Thereforechlorinolysis is an unlikely choice in the futurereduction of liquid waste from VCM productionunless new uses are found for carbon tetrachloride

Another option for handling VCM liquid wasteis to use a catalytic fluidized-bed reactor processdeveloped by B. F. Goodrich. Hydrogen chloridegas is recovered and can be recycled without fur-ther treatment as feedstock in the oxychlorinationprocess, The advan tages of this system are low temperature operation, direct recycling of hydrogen

chloride without additional treatment require-ments, and energy recovery, The primary disadvantage of this recovery process results from restric-tive requirem ents for app lication—i.e., only a plantusing an oxychlorination process in conjunctionwith a fixed-bed reactor can accept the hydrogenchloride gas as feedstock. If an oxychlorinationplant has a fluidized-bed reactor, the hydrogen chloride mu st be adsorbed from the gas stream and recovered with conventional recovery technologyThe add ed cost of the absorption pr ocess makes thisoption proh ibitive for fluidized-bed oxychlorinationplants.

Metal-Finishing Process

Several modifications in metal cleaning and seal-ing processes have enabled the metal-finishing in-dustry to eliminate requirements for corporationowned and operated wastewater pretreatment facil-ties. An example is provided in figure 5A.1. Thisprocess is designed to remove oil and grease frommetal parts and seal the surface in preparation forapp lication of a coating. The p rocess consists of sixstages, The parts are cleaned in stage 1, rinsed instage II, treated in stage III, rinsed in stage IV,sealed in stage V, and rinsed in stage VI.

The first mod ification is the incorporat ion of flow

controllers to decrease the volume of water usedin rinse. This results in a reduced volume of poten-tially hazardous sludge. While the flow in rinsestages IV and VI can be controlled without affect-ing other stages, any change in stage II will affect




pound. These modifications made in stages III andV permit discharge of metal-finishing wastewaterdirectly into municipally owned treatment facili-ties. Such changes also eliminate formation of haz-ardous sludge.

Case Examples of a Recovery/Recycle Operation

Recycling of Spent Pickle Liquor in the Steel Industry

A major waste disposal problem for the steel in-dustry concerns spent liquor from a pickling opera-tion. The pickling process removes surface scaleand rust from iron and steel prior to applicationof a final coating. The metal is immersed in an acidbath and as the scale dissolves, iron salts are form-ed. The contaminated acid bath is known as spentpickle liquor.

Approximately 500 million gal/ yr of spent pickleliquor are generated from acid pickling. This solu-tion contains 0.5 to 16 percent acid and 10 to 25percent ferrous salts. Ninety percent of the totalacid is hydrochloric or sulfuric acid; the remainderoften includes nitric acid. The presence of nitricacid in spent liquor will determine which recoveryoption is possible.

Several disposal/ treatment op tions are available:q injection into deep wells;q neutralization of the spent pickle liquor (using

lime, soda ash, or caustic soda to increase thepH level) and land filling the r esulting slud ge;

q recovery and regeneration of acid;q byproduct recovery; andq discharge to wastewater treatment facilities.

Because increased transportation costs and stricterregulations have limited the availability of suitabledeep wells, costs for containing spent liquor haverisen steadily. The gelatinous iron hyd roxide sludgeformed after neutralization creates a disposal prob-lem, and costs of chemicals required for neutraliza-tion also have increased. Thus, the attractivenessof the first two options is reduced.

The remaining option s involving some type of re-cycling and/ or recovery have become more viable.Spent liquor can be used directly in treatment of municipal wastewater for removal of phosphorus.Addition of spent sulfuric acid has been shown tobe particularly effective for water and wastewatertreatment. Acid recovered from spent liquor canbe recycled back to the pickling process. The saltsformed (ferrous sulfate from sulfuric acid picklingand ferrous chloride from hydrochloric acid pick-ling) have several uses. For example, ferrous sulfatecrystals currently are used in the manufacture of pigments, magnetic tapes, fertilizers, and in waste-

water treatment. Potential markets for recoveredferric oxide salts are in magnetic tapes, pigments,steelmaking, and sintering operations.

Sulfuric and hydrochloric acid pickling accountfor 85 to 90 percent of all pickling operations in theUnited States. Presumably, recovery of these acidsfor recycling could reduce spent liquor disposal by

that same percentage. Because spent pickle liquorrepresents a large-volum e hazard ous w aste, recov-ery and recycle could reduce the volume of hazard -ous waste disposed.

Recovery Technologies

Recovery p rocesses are designed to recover eitherthe free acid or both free acid and iron salts. Twometh ods are available for recovery of spent su lfuricand hydrochloric acid liquor. Cooling of the liquorresults in separation of ferrous sulfate crystals. Theunit operations required in this recovery systemare: 1) precooking, 2) crystallization, 3) slurry

thickening, and 4) crystal separation by centrifuga-tion. Another process involves roasting the ferroussulfate to produce ferric oxide and sulfur dioxide.The sulfur dioxide can be scrubbed to regeneratesulfuric acid. This is similar to the roasting processoriginally developed for recovery of hydrogen chlo-ride.

Spent liquor from hydrochloric acid-pickling op-erations recovery technology is similar to the abovesulfuric acid recovery technologies. Roasting fer-rous chloride produces ferric oxide and hydrogenchloride gas. Auxiliary fuel is used to maintainreactor temperature at 1,5000 F. The h ydrogen chlo-ride gas generated is absorbed in water to formhydrochloric acid for recycle. Unit operations in-clude: 1) evaporation, 2) high-temperature decom-position, 3) absorption, and 4) scrubbing of ventgases.

Economic Factors .—The economics of acid recoveryare based on cost and availability of acid, disposalcost of spent p ickle liquor, qu ality and market v alueof byproducts (iron sulfate or iron oxide), and costof selected recovery processes. Each of these fac-tors is dependent on the particular plant and p roc-ess involved.

Major economic advantages of acid recovery arereduced raw material costs, elimination of trans-portation costs incurred in disposal of spent liquoror sludge, and byproduct sales credits. The majoreconomic disadvantages are utility requirements(primarily fuel requirements for hydr ogen chloriderecovery from dilute aqueous solutions) and capitalinvestment requirements,




Byproduct recovery of spent liquor for waste-water treatment does not require a capital invest-ment. This is a major advantage for this option,However, disposal costs and repurchase of acidhave been estimated at $ll0/ tonne comp ared torecovery costs of about $22 to $88/ tonne.

Corporate Factors .–Regional recovery/ recycle facil-

ities provide the opportunity of transferring bur-dens of investment cost from individua l steel opera-tions to a commercial recovery developer and of-fer reduced risk. However, regional facilities im-

ply increased storage requirements. Storage of spent liquor can create certain problems, e.g.,premature precipitation of ferrous sulfate duringperiods of low temp erature. In add ition, early sepa-ration of acid from various sources of spent liquormay be r equired to eliminate potential contamina-tion from proprietary chemical additives. Another

disadvantage to a regional facility is added costsfor transportation of spent liquor and recoveredacid from the generator to the recovery facility andthen to the consumer.




Table 5A.l.—Summary Evaluation of Liner Types

Liner material Characteristics

.Range of

Costsa Advantages Disadvantages —

Soi ls :Compacted clay Compacted mixture of onsite soils

soils to a permeability of 10-7cm/secL

L

M

M

L

L

M

M

H

L

M

M

H

L

L

M

High cation exchange capacity,resistant to many types ofIeachate

High cation exchange capacity,resistant to many types ofIeachate

Organic or inorganic acids orbases may solubilize portions ofclay structure

Organic or inorganic acids orbases may solubilize portions ofclay structure

Soil-bentonite Compacted mixture of onsite soil,water and bentonite

Admixes: Asphalt-concrete Mixtures of asphalt cement and

high quality mineral aggregateResistant to water and effects of

weather extremes; stable onside slopes; resistant to acids,bases, and inorganic salts

Not resistant to organic solvents,partially or wholly soluble inhydrocarbons, does not havegood resistance to inorganicchemicals: high gaspermeability

Ages rapidly in hot climates, notresistant to organic solvents,particularly hydrocarbons

Asphalt- Core layer of blown asphaltmembrane blended with mineral fillers and

reinforcing fibers

Flexible enough to conform toirregularities in subgrade; resist-ant to acids, bases, andinorganic salts

Resistant to acids, bases, andsalts

Not resistant to organic solvents,particularly hydrocarbons

Soil asphalt Compacted mixture of asphalt,water, and selected in-placesoils

Soil cement Compacted mixture of Portlandcement, water, and selected ln -place soils

Good weathering in wet-dry/freeze-thaw cycles; can resist moder-ate amount of alkali, organics

and inorganic salts

Degraded by highly acidicenvironments

Polymerlc membranes: Low gas and water vapor perme-

ability; thermal stability; onlyslightly affected by oxygenatedsolvents and other polar liquids

Good tensile strength and elonga-tion strength; resistant to manyinorganic

Good resistance to ozone, heat,acids, and alkalis

Highly swollen by hydrocarbonsolvents and petroleum oils,difficult to seam and repair

Produced by chemical reactionbetween chlorine and highdensity polyethylene

Family of polmers prepared byreacting polyethylene withchlorine and sulfur dioxide

Will swell in presence of aromatichydrocarbons and oils

Chlorinatedpolyethylene

Chlorosulfonatepolyethylene

Tends to harden on aging; lowtensile strength, tendency toshrink from exposure to sun-Iight, poor resistance to 011

Difficulties with low temperaturesand oils

None reported

Elasticizedpolyolefins

Epichlorohydrinrubbers

Blend of rubbery and crystallinepolyolefins

Saturated high molecular weight,aliphatic polethers with chloro-methyl side chains

Low density; highly resistant toweathering, alkalis, and acids

Good tensile and teat strength;thermal stability; low rate of gasand vapor permeability; resist-ant to ozone and weathering,

resistant to hydrocarbons, sol -vents, fuels, and oilsResistant to dilute concentrations

of acids, alkalis, silicates, phos-phates and brine, toleratesextreme temperatures; flexibleat low temperatures; excellentresistance to weather and ultra-violet exposure

Resistant to oils, weathering,ozone and ultraviolet radiation;resistant to puncture, abrasion,and mechanical damage

Superior resistance to oils,solvents, and permeation bywater vapor and gases

Good resistance to inorganic;good tensile, elongation,puncture, and abrasion resistantproperties, wide ranges ofphysical properties

Not recommended for petroleumsolvents or halogenatedsolvents

Ethylenepropylenerubber

Family of terpolymers of ethylene,propylene, and nonconjugatedhydrocarbon

None reportedNeoprene Synthetic rubber based onchloroprene

Thermoplastic polymer based onethylene

Not recommended for exposure toweathering and ultraviolet lightconditions

Attacked by many organics,including hydrocarbons, sol-vents and oils; not recom-mended for exposure to weath-ering and ultraviolet lightconditions

None reported

Polyethylene

Polyvinylchloride

Produced in roll form in variouswidths and thicknesses; poly-merization of vinyl chloridemonomer

Thermoplasticelastomers

Relatively new class of polymericmaterials ranging from highly

Excellent oil, fuel, and waterresist-

ance with high tensile strengthand excellent resistance toweathering and ozone

polar to nonpolar

aL - $1 10 S4 installed costs per sq yd In 1981 dollars, M = S4 to S8 per sq yd , H = S8 to $12 per sq yd

SOURCE “Comparative Evaluation of Incinerators and Landfills, ” prepared for the Chemical manufacturers association, by Englneerlng Science, McLean, Va, May 1982



CHAPTER 6

Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste



Contents

Appendix 6A.-State Classification Efforts q q q q q q q q q q q q q q . q . . q q q q q q q q q q q q 259

List of Tables

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

Ii. - --. . - - -

15.

16.17.

18.

19.



CHAPTER 6

Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste

1.

2.

3.

4.

Summary Findings

Methodologies for risk assessment are notperfectly developed. If data are analyzedwith care and uncerta inties recognized,currently available tools can be used effec-tively in risk-management decisions. Con-t i n u e d r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t a r eneeded to improve the methodologies.

Classification systems can be developed togroup wastes by degree of hazard and man-agement facilities by degree of risk. Al-though technical problems must be solved,classes of waste and management facilitiescan be matched to minimize risks to human

health and the environment,

Advantages o f a c lass i f ica t ion systeminclude:q

q

q

wastes would be assigned to appropriatelevels of management to achieve a con-sistent level of protection without unnec-essary expense;government officials could set prioritiesfor establishing standards and controlsbased on objective criteria; andthe system could provide the public withreliable information on the relative haz-

ards of different classes of waste and themost appropriate ways of handling eachto reduce risks,

Among the problems that must be solvedin designing an effective classification sys-tem are:

criteria for classifying waste must becarefully selected to include the broadrange of threats to public health and theenvironment (e. g., to include long-rangeeffects such as reproductive impairmentas well as short-range ones such as acutetoxicity);the combined, or synergistic, effects of waste constituents must be considered,not just the effects of single constituentsalone;

5.

6.

7.

q the hazard of a waste may be changedby a management technology, thus theconsti tuents that are re leased from afacility may be more (or less) hazardousthan the original waste. Risks to publichealth are determined by the hazard of const i tuen ts leav ing a fac i l i ty ( i . e . ,releases);

Ž characteristics used to classify waste arenot always the same as those that deter-mine the appropriate management tech-nology; therefore a mismatch of wasteand facilities could occur; and

• bound aries of waste and facility classeswould have to be c learly defined, toachieve consensus among regulators, theindustry, and the public.

Monitoring is a key component in regula-tion of hazardous waste. It is the only wayto verify that a waste management systemis operating correctly. Data on the chem-ical, structural, and physical characteristicsof waste constituents can be used to predicttheir environmental fate. Knowledge aboutfate of constituents can be used to develop

cost-effective programs.Of five types of monitoring activities—visual, source, process, ambient, and ef-fe c t s– a mb ie n t mo n i to r in g p ro v id e s th ebest evidence for judging whether risks of hazardous waste management a re be ingkept at acceptable levels. If environmentalcontamination is prevented, human ex-posure will be reduced and public healthprotected. Therefore, ambient monitoringshould receive greater attention in regula-tory programs.

All monitoring has problems associatedwith sampling, data comparabili ty , andlimitations of methodology. Possible ac-tions to correct the deficiencies include:

221




8.

9.

q

q

q

a central monitoring activity, drawing ong o v e rn me n t a n d n o n g o v e rn me n t r e -sources;a nationally supported pilot project todevelop a monitoring framework, includ-ing standard procedures for sampling,data storage, and analysis; anda coord ina t ion o f moni to r ing e ffo r tsmandated in the seven major environ-mental laws. This would be especiallybeneficial for hazardous waste monitor-ing because of the multimedia nature of the risks.

Public opposition to siting of waste facil-ities stems from fears of health or safety ef-fects, fears of economic loss, uncertaintyof industry’s ability to prevent adverse con-sequences, and lack of confidence in gov-ernment regulations and enforcement.

Technical approaches to address publicconcerns include development of a com-prehensive hazardous waste managementp lan , e s tab l ishment o f techn ica l s i t ingcriteria, identifying a bank of suitable sites,

Throughout history, peopleways of coping with old and

and fostering open exchange of technicalinformation (particularly on alternatives toland disposal) between the public, govern-ment offic ia ls, and the hazardous wastemanagement indust ry .

10, Nontechnical approaches include assur-

ance of public participation in siting deci-sions, compensation for victims of damage,a clear commitment by government to en-forcement of regulation, and possibly, in-centives for communities to accept pro-posed facilities.

11. The Federal role in answering public con-cerns might be expanded in several areas:q providing technical expertise for devel-

opment of siting criteria and programs,q consideration of federally owned lands

as suitable sites,q encouraging information exchange,q serving as arbitrator in disputes, and• assisting in the development of regional

compacts for hazardous waste manage-ment,

Risk Management

have had to findnew risks. Most

individuals- are-risk-averse and their responsesto new risks may be to:

q

q

q

q

retreat from it—attempting to return to asafer, more predictable environment,try to understand it—measuring the prob-ability that a damaging event will occurand identifying risk/ benefit tradeoffs,control it—applying various technical solu-tions, andprepare fo r i t economica l ly—insur ingagainst the occurrence of the damagingevent.

While these responses can help individuals andsocieties to cope with risks, none can producea totally predictable or safe world. There is nosuch thing as zero risk. Risks must be assessedand courses of action decided. Individuals do

this informally and often automatically. Moreformal decisionmaking usually is required in

assessing risks for society.Managing the risks from industrial hazard-

ous waste is a highly complex task because of the diverse range of hazards involved and themany possible ways of handling the waste .Thus, a managerial framework is needed with-in which an expanding knowledge base can bea c c o mmo d a te d a n d th e r i sk s o f a l t e rn a tecourses of action analyzed Figure 14 showsthe major components of such a framework.

The framework illustrates a systematic wayof proceeding from evaluation of hazards,

through risk assessment and a weighing of risks, costs, and benefits, to a final policychoice that includes consideration of value judgments and political factors. As discussedin detail below, there are uncertainties in this



Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste q 223

Figure 14.— Risk Management Framework

IComparison of cost,risks, and benefits I

Policy/management analysis(scientific, political, societal)

issues assessment

II II Risk management

I


process from the earlier steps based on scien-tific data as well as in the last, frankly judg-mental, stage of policy decision. Quantitative

estimates, such as those used in risk assess-ments, are helpful to decisionmakers, Indeed,“objective” measurement of risk is increasinglyin demand by the regulated industries, publicinterest groups, and policy makers. But it is amistake to accept numerical estimates gen-erated by risk assessments uncritically. Deci-sionmakers must recognize that, a t the cur-ren t s ta te o f the a r t , a l l r i sk es t imates in -evitably contain uncertain data and debatablesc ien t i f ic assumptions .

Hazard Evaluation

The terms hazard and risk are often used in-terchangeably. This report maintains a distinc-tion between them. Hazard is defined as theinherent capacity to cause harm. Harm couldbe physical damage (e.g., fire, corrosion, or ex-

plosion) or biological impairment resulting inthe illness or death of an organism. Hazardevaluation concentrates on:

q the capacity to cause adverse effects, andq the severity of that effect.

Hazard evaluation includes consideration of toxicological factors* as well as the transportand ultimate fate of materials in the environ-ment, Hazard evaluation emphasizes probablecauses and effects and explores possible worst-case e f fec ts on human be ings , p lan ts , andan imals . At th is f i rs t s tep in the dec is ionframework, no attempt is made to quantify theprobability that an effect indeed will occur.

Risk Assessment

Risk is defined as the probabili ty that a

given hazard will cause harm, of a specifiednature and intensity, to a human populationor ecosystem. For hazardous waste manage-ment, r isk assessment means calculating theprobability that constituents of a waste releasedfrom a facility will cause specified adverse ef-fects to public health or the environment. Theassessment assigns numerical risk values to theevents that it analyzes.

Risk assessment consists of two stages:

estimation of the risk value, andvalidation of that estimate,

In the first stage, quantitative probability es-timates are made about the likelihood that aparticular cause will lead to a specific effect.These estimates are based on the results of haz-ard evaluations and an identification of ex-posure routes that, in turn, suggest the popula-t ions o r ecosystems a t r i sk , Est imat ing ex-posures and the dose of a hazardous materialthat will have a particular effect is extremelydifficult; this difficulty is not always acknowl-edged.

The second stage of risk assessment acknowl-edges its uncertainties and attempts to put thecalculated value in a proper perspective. Thevalidation stage uses statistical procedures to

q These toxicological factors are discussed in the next section,“Classification Systems. ”




give some indication of the confidence one canhave in the risk estimate. Uncertainties do notinvalidate the use of risk estimates in decision-making, but it is important to keep the confi-dence levels in mind. Too often, confidencelevels are either reemphasized or ignored asthe risk estimate is carried through the remain-ing steps of risk management.

The uncertainties of risk estimation resultfrom the basic imprecision of hazard evalua-tion. The hazard may not be verified and ex-posure routes may be questionable; there mayeven be uncertainty as to whether a release willactually occur. An additional complication isthat direct evidence of cause and effect be-tween human exposure to harmful agents anddamage to health is elusive.

Assessment Models

Little scientific information now available in-d ica te wi th any ce r ta in ty the ex is tence o f cause-effect re la tionships between industria lhazardous waste and human health problems.Even with the amount of exposure documentedfor residents at Love Canal, the relationshipbetween the exposure and health problems isnot readily apparent at this time.12 Thus, thedata used in risk assessments are usually ob-tained from experiments with laboratory anire a l s a n d e n v i ro n me n ta l sy s te ms . T h e e x -per imenta l da ta a re used to deve lop quan-

ti ta tive estimates for other species throughextrapolation.

These extrapolations have been criticized asnot always reflective of actual exposures. Someconsider i t unwarranted to apply data fromanimal experiments using high doses to esti-mate risks to human beings and the environ-ment from exposure to low doses. The mainreason for experimental use of high doses iseconomic. Using low-dose exposures to obtainreliable data would require tests with tens of thousands of laboratory animals. Crit ics of

animal data argue that because laboratory tests

IEnvironmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitor-

ing at lmve Canal 1981, pp. 1404-1407.JD . T. Janerich, et al., “Cancer Incidence in the Love Canal

Area,” Science vol. 212, 1981, m. 14041-1407.

are conducted with specially bred animals,often originating from a single set of parents,the animals may not react to the exposure inthe same way as humans or as organisms foundin the natural environment. While such criti-cisms may be appropriate, they are also sim-plistic. Well-established human data are usuallyabsent. Extrapolations from animal data are aninherent and unavoidable process for establish-ing acceptable levels of risk.

Dose-response curves are used to extrapolatethe probabilities of response from experimen-tal high-dose data to low doses. A stylized dose-response curve is presented in figure 15. Sev-eral mathematical models are available for ex-

Figure 15.—Stylized Dose-Response Curve WithExtrapolation to Low Doses Using Different Models

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1981 .




experiments, any conceptual errors in extra-polation procedures usually have only minorimpacts. However, as the estimates of exposuredoses move farther and farther from the ex-perimental data, results of the model becomemore and more cri t ically dependent on the

va l id i ty o f the sc ien t i f ic theory desc r ib ingchemical-organism interactions, contained inthe model. Thus, as the distance from experi-mental data increases, the predictive power of the models decreases,

The major goal of some extrapolations maynot be accuracy of prediction, but assuranceof adequate protection. For such purposes, theextrapolation model selected is conservativeand predicts the greatest risk for lowest possi-ble doses. When establishing protective limits,a poorer data base is usually associated withlarger “safety” or “uncertainty” factors, Thus,

risk estimates derived from uncertain data butassuring a high level of protection could bemuch greater than estimates based on more ac-curate prediction of health effects if such aprediction were available, It should be empha-sized that most results of extrapolation current-ly published represent protective estimates.Unfortunately, these conservative estimates areoften interpreted as predictions of incidence,When protective estimates are published orused in decisionmaking, they should be accom-panied by a clear statement of the uncertain-ties they contain. Recent advances in the fieldof risk assessment are improving the precisionand accuracy of predictive models. Significantprogress is being made in extrapolations be-tween: species, differences of time of exposureto effect , and different doses and responselevels.

The use of computerized models can be ap-propriate for developing governmental priori-ties and policies. However, the limitations of these tools must a lways be recognized. Al-though the best models can only provide anabstraction of real conditions, three factors can

contribute to more reliable results:1. The indicators for risk should be relevant

to actual exposure situations and shouldassist in identifying populations at risk.

2,

3.

These indicators should not be arbitrarilychosen but should reflect as nearly as pos-sible the range of hazards of the constit-uents of concern, the environmental fateof const i tuen ts , and rea l is t ic exposurefactors,

The data base should include accurateand verified information insofar as pos-sible. Every attempt should be made to ob-tain valid data. Uncertainties in data preci-sion should be identified,Biases incorporated in the model e itherthrough the choice of assumptions or theassignment of quantitative values to risksshould be identified and the effects of these biases assessed. To give analysesusing risk assessment proper weight, pol-icymakers must be aware of the biases in-herent in the models. If risk assessments

are used in the description and evaluationof alternative options, it is essential to pro-vide sensitivity analyses, showing the dif-ferences in risk values that result fromchanges in basic model assumptions anddata bases.

Risk assessments can contribute to a varie-ty of specific decisionmaking purposes. Theycan be used in setting forth regulatory stand-ards, establishing priorities for research anddevelopment (R&D), identifying the risk levelsof various disposal/ treatment options, and d e-t e rmin in g a p p ro p r ia t e lo c a t io n s fo r wa s temanagement facilities. Although progress con-tinues in risk assessment methodologies, thequantita tive estimates they produce are im-perfect, and must not be used uncritically.

Comparison of Risk, Costs, and Benefits

The two stages of risk assessment are inter-mediate steps in the tota l r isk-managementframework, which also involves comparing therisks, benefits, and costs in various manage-ment alternatives, Different approaches can beused in making such comparisons. They in-

c lude eva lua t ion o f re la t ive r isks amongvarious options, comparing risks with benefits,or concentration on costs by evaluating eithercost e f fec t iveness o r costs and benef i ts o f management options.




individual judgments made by an analyst, andwill differ among analysts. Some benefits, suchas improved quality of life, are very difficultto quantify.

A second limitation concerns the deceptivenature of cost-benefit methodology. The use of

quantitative techniques may give the nonexpertan unjustified impression of neutrality and cer-tainty, This impression is, of course, incorrect.As detailed above, the uncertainties surround-ing risk assessment are numerous, and thedollar values assigned to costs and benefitsreflect value judgments. For example, in apply-ing CBA to hazardous waste management, acritical problem is the lack of information con-cerning the nature of risks in inappropriate dis-posa l/ t rea tment p rac t ices .l0 Assigning dollarvalues for unknown risks or benefits is of lit-tle value.

Much of the work in risk management hasconcentrated on the costs and benefits of con-trolling pollution to meet certain environmen-tal standards (e.g., the cost of pollution controlequipment and benefits of reduced health prob-lems). Many analysts argue that for the pur-poses of risk management where specific ben-efits (e. g., protection of human health and theenvironment) are desired or mandated, them o st a p p ro p ria te m e t h od o l og y is co s t-effectiveness comparisons. This seems par-ticularly appropriate for hazardous waste man-

agement.

Policy/Management Decisions

Once hazard evaluations, r isk assessment,and comparisons of risk, benefit, and cost havebeen completed, the results can be used toreach risk-management decisions. It must beemphasized that these steps in the decisionframework are only tools to a id in analysisof alternative policy choices; the results arenot the risk-management decision itself. Inmaking policy or management decisions, many

factors beyond these quantitative results must—

IOR. (;. An~~r sOn and R. C. D~werT “’I’he Use of Cost-BenefitAnalysis for Hazardous Waste Management ,“ Disposal of Haz- ardous Wast e , EPA 6th An nua l Research Symp osium (Washing-ton, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1980), pp. 145-166.

be considered. The decisionmaker must evalu-ate uncerta inties, identify value judgments,recognize special interests, and consider po-litical factors. As risk-management, decision-analysis proceeds, conflicts will arise. Theseconflic ts have no right or wrong solutions.

They represent differences in societal interestsand perspectives and must be considered in thedecisionmaking process.

Formalized approaches for making choicesin complex situations, known as decision anal-ysis, exist.11 12 Decision analysis is designed tohelp decisionmakers choose from a set of speci-fied alternatives in a systematic manner. Mostrisk-management situations involve large vol-umes of data, multiple conflicting objectives,and the unavoidable use of subjective judg-ments. If, in addition, adversary positions com-plicate the matter, a systematic approach canbe very helpful in reaching appropriate solu-tions, Hazardous waste management is justsuch a situation .13 The use of decision analysishere might have merit. Most designs for mul-tiattribute decision analyses do not incorporateestimates of risk, but there is no reason whyrisk assessment cannot be integrated into thetechnique.

When risk assessment is brought into policydecisions, it is important to identify all uncer-tainties and to couch the results with appro-priate caveats that explain the limitations of the

analysis. Risk assessment can be a useful toolfor making broad decisions, if the choice of theappropria te methodology is well consideredand the uncertainties in each of the alternativesolutions clearly recognized.

Because the need for a better data base is crit-ical to meaningful policy decisions, it is oftenimplied that tradeoffs must be made between

I I R, 1., Keeney an d H, Raiffa, Decisions W,”th h fLlftlple Objec -

t~tws: Preferences and V’alue Tradeoffs (New }rork: John Wile}& Son s , 1976).

IZK, R. Ma(;cr immon an d J. K. siu, “Making, Trade-off s,” DeCi -sion Sciences, 5, 1974, pp . 680-704.

13’I’ ~], E s s a n d C , S. S h l k , ‘‘ !vlUltlattribu te I)ecisionmaking f o rRemedial Action at Haza rdou s Waste Sites, ” in Risk and I)eci-s ion Ana l s ’ s i s for Hazardous Wa ste Disposal [Silver Sprin g, Md.:Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, 1981 ), pp .196-209.




expeditious protection of public health and theneed to obtain improved data before decisionscan be made. This conclusion appears too pes-simistic. Granted, present methods for deriv-ing quantitative components in the risk-man-agement framework are by no means perfectly

developed. Nonetheless, with careful analysisof available data, existing tools can be used ef-

fectively. R&D should continue to improve risk-assessment methodologies. Integration of thesetools in a multiattribute decision frameworkwould provide a systematic approach for riskmanagement in a hazardous waste regulatoryprogram. The use of such a framework also

would provide a means for open scrutiny of allaspects of a decision,

Classif icat ion Systems

RCRA regulat ions for the management of hazardous waste do not recognize differencesin the level of r isk associated with variouswaste and management technologies. Regula-tion based on degree of hazard has an obviousappeal. Few dispute its theoretical advantages.

At issue, however, is the level of detail requiredto reguIate waste management by some methodof classification, and whether the expected im-provements would be great enough to justifythe time, people, and money needed to developa classification approach,

The challenge is to design a system that re-flects real conditions, A design that is too sim-ple would not represent the ac tua l hazardposed by waste or the potential risk level fromparticular facilities. A more complex systemmight better represent the waste management

situation. However, as the level of complexityincreases, so does the need for extensive datadevelopment, Thus, the usefulness of a com-plex system may be questioned if it imposesgreater burdens on industry (e.g., in furnishinglarge amounts of data on waste and facilitycharacteristics) and on government (e. g., in en-forcing submission of data by industry andverifying the data).

In the past, several States have consideredhazard classification as a means of regulatingindustrial waste. A majority of those States sub-mitting comments on the 1978 proposed regu-

lations urged EPA to consider development of a formal classification system based on degrees

of hazard .14 The fact that States are interestedin this concept and have attempted to includewaste classification systems in their manage-ment programs suggests that further considera-tion at the Federal level might be justified.

Although most discussions of classificationsystems have focused only on categorizingwaste by levels of hazard, an effective risk-management system must also include classi-fication of the facilities handling the waste.Without consideration of both hazard and risksassociated with allt imal protect ion of vironment will not

Waste

management options, op-public health and the en-be possible.

Classification

A basic premise of a waste classification sys-tem is that a waste or its constituents can begrouped according to criteria that define quan-tifiable human and environmental effects, Theprincipal distinction is between those wastesthat pose a substantial threat to human healthand the environment and those posing relative-ly less harm.

Technical Background

For industrial waste, hazard refers to thosecharacteristics inherent to a specific waste orits constituents that could cause adverse effects

’14 Tfle RCRA .EXemptjon for Sm a]] Voiume Hazardous waS t eGenera~ors (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Tech-nology Assessment, 1982),




in humans and other organisms. The hazardcharacteristics of concern in the RCRA regu-latory programs are ignitability, corrosiveness,reactivity, and toxicity. Table 40 provides def-initions of these four types of hazard, the com-monly applied test indicators for each, and an

indication of whether discrimination amonghazard levels is possible.15

The information needed to evaluate degreesof hazard of different materials is illustratedin figure 16 and include:

q s p e c i f i c p r o c e s s w a s t e a n d t h e i r c o n -sti tuents,

q toxicological characterist ics, and. chemical and physical factors that influ-

ence their environmental fa te .

Specific Process Wastes.—In general, a wastefrom a single industrial process is composedof more than one type of chemical. Identifica-tion of the major constituents is needed to de-termine ignitability, reactivity, corrosiveness,

1%, L. Daniels, “Development of Realistic Tests for Effects andExposures of Solid Wastes, ” Hazardous Sol id Waste Test ing

(Philadelphia, Penn.: American Society for Testing an d Materi-

a]s, 1981), pp. 345-365,

and toxicity. The concentrations of major con-stituents also must be known, since these willdetermine the dose available 10 organisms. Thephysical state of the waste (e.g., liquid, sludge,solid, gas) influences potential levels of hazardby affecting potential routes of exposures. For

example, if the waste is predominantly liquid,it may migrate through the environment morerapidly than if it were solid. The physical stateof individual constituents is important as well;the harm posed by some compounds varies ac-cording to the extent of molecular complexi-ty, or isomerization. For example, less chlori-nated forms of PCBS (e. g., mono-, di-, and tri-chlorobiphenyl) pose less harm than the morechlorinated forms (e. g., penta-, hexa-, and deca-chlorobiphenyl). Also, the electric charge, orvalence of ions influences chemical interac-tions (e.g ., different valence levels of iron,

F e+ +

a n d F e+

++ reac t d i f fe ren t ly ) . Obta in -ing this information is not difficult. Accurateestimates of waste composition, physical form,and concentration of major constituents of aprocess waste can be derived by an analysisof feedstock information and of the reactionstaking place during manufacture.

Table 40.-Waste Characteristics That May Pose a Hazard

Hazard definition Comm only used indicators Potential for hazard classificationIgnitability

Direct—exposure to heat, smoke, fumes;indirect—dispersion of hazardousbyproducts

Corrosivity Direct—destruction of living (tissue) and

nonliving surfaces; indirect—influencesvolubility and transport of hazardouscompounds

Reactivity Direct—evolution of heat, pressure,

gases, vapors, fumes; indirect—encompasses several aspects ofchemical reactions when compound/ solutions are mixed or initially interact

Toxicity Produces adverse effect (e.g., death or

nonreversible changes in livingorganisms)

Flash point, fire pointautoignition temperature

pH level—acid or base

“Violent” reaction withwater

Range of acute and chronictest results

Classification scheme used by theDepartment of the Interior and NationalFire Protection Association; could usecomposition limits of ignitability, flashpoint, and ability to sustain combustionas criteria

pH expressed in logarithmic scale; coulduse pH, buffering capability, ionizationpotential, rate of corrosion of standardmaterial (steel)

Difficult to distinguish degrees ofreactivity

Classification schemes have beendeveloped by several States formanaging either toxic substances orhazardous waste

SOURCE: Daniels, 1981




Figure 16.— Information Requirements forHazardous Waste Classification

Specific process waste

and constituents physical form ““ .q concentration

.

+ ..

Toxicologicalcharacteristics properties influencing

q D o s eq Species d inferences • Transportationq Compound Ž Distribution

differences Transformation. Exposure

period

Hazard classification


Toxicological Characteristics .—The effects of in-dustrial waste on humans and the environmentrange from innocuous, short-term impacts suchas a mild skin rash to severe long-term prob-lems like cancer. Four factors are importantin determining the toxicity of a substance:dosage, species affected, type of compound, ex-posure period, and route.

1. Dose.— T h e 1 5 t h c e n t u r y a l c h e m i s tParacelsus noted: “All substances are poi-son; the right dose differentiates a poisonand a remedy. ” Dose is defined as a se-

lected concentration of a substance or mix-ture of compounds administered over aspecific period of time. For any materialthere is a dose that will produce adverseeffects in a given organism. Similarly,there is a concentration sufficiently low

2.

3.

that no adverse effect can be observed (i.e.,the response observed in a test populationcannot be distinguished from normal back-ground inc idence) . Even the most in -nocuous compound (e. g., water), if takeninto an organism in suffic ient quantity ,

can result in some undesirable effect ordeath. A very harmful material (e.g., PCB)can be administered in a dose sufficient-ly low that no adverse effects can be ob-served. Concentrations of specific constit-uents within a waste provides a first, andpossibly a worst case , approximation of the potential dose available to organisms,S p e c i e s d i f f e r e n c e s . — T h e d o s e o f aspecific chemical required to cause someeffect (e.g., death) will vary among species(e.g., monkey, dog, and human), For exam-ple, when laboratory animals are exposedto a ir contaminated with cyanogen, thedose required to produce an acute toxic ef-fect varies—cats can only tolerate doses upto 98 parts per million (ppm), but rabbitsdo not experience toxic effects below 395ppm. 16

Dosages that produce chronic ef-fects also can vary among species. For ex-ample, the amount of Aroclor 1254 thatresults in some adverse effects on repro-ductive systems is 200 milligrams per kilo-gram (mg/ kg) for pheasants, 10 mg/ kg formink, and 50 mg/ kg for chickens. 17 Th e

quality of the effects also vary among thesespecies. In addition, individuals within aspecies respond differently to the sameconcentrations because of such factors asage, stress, and natural sensitivities. Forexample, nitrates in water can be ingestedby an adult human with no adverse effect,but the same nitrates are toxic to infantsat certain concentrations.Compound d if fe rences .—The dose re -quired to produce a given effect (e.g.,death) in a given species (e.g., rats) varieswith the type of compound being tested.

Examples of differences in acute toxicity

leRegistry of Toxic Effects of Chemical 5’ubstances [Washing-ton, D. C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,1980].

IT Nationa] Resear ch Counc i], PoJycMorinated Biphenyls(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1979),




are presented in table 41.18 In these ex-amples, the amount required to producedeath in 50 percent of the test populationvaries greatly, ranging from 3 mg/ kg forcyanide to 5,000 mg/ kg for toluene. 19 Al-though these compounds vary greatly in

acute toxicity, EPA has designed them asequally hazardous on the basis of a num-ber o f fac to rs , inc lud ing tox ic i ty , ca r-cinogenicity, mutagenicity, and terato-genicity . 20

Just as the degree of acute toxicity is notequal among all compounds, doses for chronictoxicity can vary also; for example, not all car-cinogens are equally potent. 21 22 In particular,Crouch and Wilson note that:

. . . certain of the known carcinogens are in-trinsically much more likely than others to

cause cancer in test animals—they are morepotent. The variation in potency may be asgreat as a million to one between differentmaterials (depending to some extent on thedefinition used for potency). A small amountof aflatoxin B1 in the diet (100 parts/ billion)gives cancer to a large fraction of the animalsexposed, yet the same amount of saccharin inthe diet causes no observable effect.

‘laNo~n uc]ea r Industrial Hazardous Wa ste: C]assi~ing for Haz-

ard Management—A Technical Memorandum (Washington,D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-M-9, November 1981).

IQRegistry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, OP cit.

Z040 CFR, section 261, subpts . B,C, D, an d a pp . viii.ZIE. Crouch an d R. Wilson, “Regulation of Carcinogens, ” Risk

Analysis in EnvironmentalHealth (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardSchool of Public Health, Short Course, 1982).uR. A , Squire, “Ranking Animal Carcinogens: A Proposed Reg-

ulatory Approach, ” Science, vol. 214, 1981, pp . 877-880.

Table 41.—Toxic Doses for SelectedHazardous Waste Constituents

Compound L D50

a

Cyanide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Phenylmercuric acetate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Dieldrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Pentachlorophenol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50DDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Naphthalene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,760Toluene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000aAmount (rnglk~ body weight) that s lethal for 50 percent of the testPopulatlonlIn these examples following oral administration to rats

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1981

4. Exposure period and route.—Exposure tohazardous waste consti tuents can resultfrom either expected* or unexpected re-leases to the environment. Releases of haz-ardous waste constituents can be continu-ous or intermittent and can go into air,

soil, or water. The quality of a responseto a waste constituent will depend on theroute of exposure and the duration of ex-posure. For example, a large concentrationgiven all at one time can result in severeeffects including death. In contrast, harm-ful effects may be much less serious or notobserved at all when the same amount isgiven over several days or a longer period.

Also, the route of the exposure influ-ences the quality of the effect. For exam-ple, some compounds are toxic if inhaledbut produce no effect if ingested or if ap-

plied to the skin (e.g., fine-grained silicasand), The importance of exposure factorsis recognized in regu la t ion ; d i f fe ren ts t a n d a rd s d e f in e d i f f e re n t p e rmiss ib lelevels of compounds in food, water, andair.

Chemical and Physical Factors Determine En-vironmental Fate.—Chemical and physical proper-ties of waste determine both the movement of constituents through the environment and theincorporation of these materials into living andinanimate elements. Some of these propertiesare volubility, volatility, physical state (e. g., li-quid or solid), pH (level of acidity), and adsorb-a n c y ch a ra c ter i s t ic s. Be ca u se o f th e i r p a r -ticular chemical and physical properties, somecompounds may migrate rapidly through soila n d a i r b u t a c c u mu la te in wa te r so u rc e s .Others may bind strongly with soil particlesand remain isolated from vegetation or otherorganisms, Sti l l o thers may be incorporatedinto plant and animal tissue and become dis-tributed throughout food chains. Such transferand distribution of waste constituents is alsoinfluenced by physical conditions of environ-

—“Releases from waste disposal and treatment facilities will de-pend on engin eering design. For example, the release rate froman incinerator is influenced by the combustion efficiencies of a particular facility. For land disposal units this rate dependson the am oun t of liquid d isposed as w ell as types of covers andliners. See ch. 5 for a discussion of various en gineering d esigns.



Ch. 6— Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste q 233

mental media [e. g., type of soil and climaticconditions).

As a compound migrates through air, water,soil, and biota, changes in its structure canoccur because of chemical, photochemical, andbiochemical reactions. These changes may re-

sult in the complete destruction of the hazard-ous characteristic of a waste constituent, elimi-nating any threat to health and the environ-ment. However, it is also possible that new,more hazardous compounds can result , Thestructural changes need not be large, evensmall rearrangements in molecular structurescan influence either accumulation of a com-pound in tissue or its degradation.

Models for Classification of Waste

The degree of hazard of a specific waste or

its constituents can be determined by analyz-ing data on the state of the waste, toxicity, en-vironmental fate, and safety. Table 42 lists cer-tain important factors in establishing criteriafor waste classification. Categorizing materialson the basis of measures of hazard is not a

Table 42.—Factors Important for HazardClassification Criteria

Measures to distinguishHazard characteristics category boundaries

Physical data: S t a t e o f w a s t e

Concentrations . . .

Toxicity: A c u t e t o x i c i t y

C h r o n i c t o x i c i t y

G e n e t i c I m p a i r m e n t

Environmental fate: Persistence/degradation.

B i o a c c u m u l a t i o nE x p o s u r e p o t e n t i a l

Safety: Ignitablity ., ., . . .C o r r o s i v i t yReactivity ... . .,

Solid, liquid, gas, vapor,mixture, etc

Percent of total waste stream, actualmeasurement

Short-term responses, e.g., lethal doseranges for terrestrial and aquaticspecies

Long-term responses, e.g., severity ofmorphological and functionalImpairments

Carcinogenic and mutagenic potency

Half-life in soil, air, andwater

Affinity for water or lipids in tissueDistribution and partitioning

parameters—solubiliy, volatility,sorption

Flash points, combustibilitypH ranges, buffering capacityImmediate adverse (explosion) reaction

with water or release of significantquantities of water


novel concept. Several methods have been de-veloped, These include formal classificationsystems and rank-order models.

F o r m a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n m o d e l s c a t e g o r i z ewaste constituents according to toxicologicalcriteria or to a combination of toxicity factors,measures of environmental fate, and concen-t ra t ions o f waste const i tuen ts . 23 T h r e s h o l dvalues are assigned for each criteria. In orderto keep the systems simple and usable, mostof these models rely only on measures of acutetoxicity and identification of materials knownor suspected to be carcinogenic. These criteriaare rather limited for judging the overall hazardof a waste or its individual constituents.

Rank-order models were developed in re-sponse to the mandates of the Toxic SubstancesControl Act (TSCA).24 Compounds of concern

are assigned a separate score for each of sev-eral different criteria. The overall ranking isbased on a combination of these scores. In-cluded is a broad range of factors: acute tox-icity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, terato-genicity, persistence, bioaccumulation, esthet-ics, and chronic adverse effects. A modifica-tion of these rank-order models incorporatesan additional concept, commonly termed “red-flagging. ”25 Within each criterion a minimumscore, termed a discriminatory value, is iden-tified. This value serves to flag those chemicalsthat may pose severe threats to health and the

environment.To date, rank-order models have been used

only to se t p r io r i t ie s fo r ac t ions a f fec t ingchemicals, rather than to establish classes of hazard. It has been suggested that the systemcan be used for ranking compounds by theirc a r c i n o g e n i c p o t e n c y f o r r e g u l a t o r y p u r -poses .26 Also, Michigan has developed a rank-order model to provide a way of identifying

—2JAPP~~d i ~ G presents ex a rnpl~s of c ]assi flc at 10 n schemes

developed by variou s States. For a discussion of each, see ,wn-nuclear industrial Hazardous Waste: Classifying for Hazard

Management -A Techni ca l Memorandum, op. cit.Z 4 p u b ] IC I.aw 9 4 -4 6 9 , 1 9 7 6 .

20S. L. Brown, “Appendix B. Systems for Rapid Ranking of Environmental Pollutants, ” Scoring Chemicals for Health and

Ecological Effects Testing (Rock\ i l le , Md.: Enviro Control, Inc.,1979).

26 Squire, op . cit.

9’3- 11 3 f) - 83 - lb




critical materials that may require the atten-tion of State officials. 27

Although rank-order models were not devel-oped for classification of industrial waste, theymight be adapted for such use. Critical factorscontributing to the inherent hazard of a waste

could be identified and an appropriate rangeof scores defined for each factor. Ranges of total scores could be grouped into hazard cat-egories. Both hazard potential and environ-mental fate factors can be readily incorporatedinto the system.

Waste classification systems have certainproblems that must be resolved. First, most of the available models rely heavily on measuresof acute (short-term) toxicity and carcinogenici-ty. While these two criteria maybe important,there are other chronic (long-term) health ef-fects and environmental impacts that shouldreceive equal attention. The problem is thatthere are few reliable ways to measure suchchronic effects as reproductive impairment,immuno-suppress ion , and phys io logica l dys-function or damage of organs (e.g., heart, lung,and liver). Criteria for these effects could bedeveloped on the basis of animal experimentsused to approximate human impacts, but dataeven from animal tests are scanty. Obtainingthem will require long-term testing for severalyears. No reliable short-term procedures existfor measuring these chronic effects. Short-termbioassays for mutagenicity and genetic impair-ments are used as rough measures of propen-sity to cause cancer, but they do not always cor-relate with the results of longer term tests forcancer. Determining criteria for environmen-tal effects is in its infancy. (This became a con-cern only with the passage of TSCA.) Whilesome testing methodologies are available, con-siderable development work lies ahead.

A second problem arises from the analysisof individual constituents as a measure of thehazard of a waste. It may not be prudent toassume that the actual hazard posed by any

27see a p p , 6A fo r a description of each criteria used in thismodel. Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Critical

Materials Register [Detroit, Mich.: State of Michigan, Environ-mental Protection Bureau, Environmental Services Division,1980).

particular waste is the same as the “collectivehaza rd” o f i nd iv idua l cons t i t uen t s . Mos thazard models do not consider synergistic ora n t a g o n is t ic e ff ec ts , n o r d o t h e y ev a l u a t edegradation products, and possible major in-teractions. Some proponents of classificationwould argue that individual constituent anal-yses provide a conservative estimate of a haz-ard, but may not necessarily be true. Such ananalysis may suggest medium or low hazard;if compounds interact , however, the actualhazard of a waste could be high. Some com-pounds tha t do not , indiv idual ly , producecancer in exposed animals, will do so in com-bination. Also, while a parent compound maybe low in hazard , the degradat ion productscould be more hazardous; degradation of cer-tain compounds to nitrosamines is an example,

Finally, given the uncertainties in the anal-

ysis of hazards, a test result for any compoundalways will have a certain level of error asso-ciated with it. Discrepancies in hazard classi-fication can result and must be addressed. If they are ignored, they could lead to endlesslitigation between waste generators and EPAover whether a waste really is highly hazardousor merely represents medium hazard. For ex-ample , an “ext r emely haza rdous” c r it e rionmight be set at less than 50 mg/ kg (the lethaldose for half the exposed population) for oraladministrat ion to mammals. Then quest ionsmight be raised if a waste with test results of

49 + 4 mg/ kg is assigned to the extremely haz-ardous category. The questions could multiplyif the test results for the waste were 49 for rats,100 for mice, and 500 for dogs. While none of these species has exact cor re la t ions wi thhuman effects, all are legitimate test animals.

This last problem is not unique to classifica-tion of waste. It occurs with any standard, forany material, To resolve the problem, classifi-cation boundaries must be set with clearly de-fined limits. A precedent for such action wasset in the regulations under the Federal pes-ticide law 28 where EPA not only designatedstandards, but also established cri ter ia for

Z aT he Federal insecticide, Fungicide, an d Rodenticide Act, asamended in 1978.



Ch. 6–Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste q 23 5

determining confidence levels of test resultsand guidelines for including these in evalua-tions of compliance.

Fac i l i t y C lass i f icat ion

The underlying concept for classification of waste management facilities is that the capaci-ty to minimize re lease of harmful materia lsvaries from one facility to another. Althoughthe concept is new and highly speculative asto feasibility and design, a classification systemhas been proposed for management of low-level radioactive wastes.29

Technical Basis

The technical basis for facility classificationis the concept of risk, defined as the probability

that a defined event will occur under a specificset of conditions. In waste management, theevent is the release of harmful constituents,given identified engineering designs and en-vironmental conditions.

For each type of waste management option(e.g., thermal destruction, land disposal, andtreatment facilities), ranges of design and en-vironmental conditions can be identified. Forexample, the risk associated with landfil lsvaries depending on the number of liners, thepermeability of each liner, and geological con-ditions of the si te . For thermal destruction,

various designs (e . g . , h igh-temperature in-cinerators, cement kilns, and boilers) offer dif-ferent degrees of risk when a particular typeof waste is burned, The efficiency of wastecombustion is limited by process controls suchas air flow, residence time, and function of theincinerator. Cement kilns, for example, can beused to incinerate certa in wastes, but theiroriginal purpose is to produce cement par-ticles, Similarly, industrial boilers are designedto produce heat, although they also can be usedto incinerate waste. By contrast, the primaryfunction of a high-temperature incinerator isdestruction of combustible organics.

z~s’trlklng a Ba]an ~e T’o ward a Na tionaj PO]ICJ’ for hfanaginglmu’-Z,etel Radioactit,e L1’aste: Kc}’ Issues and Recommendations

[Washington, D. C.: Conservation Foundation, 1981).

Determining the risk level associated with afacility design can be a complex task. The riskpotential of a facility depends on more than thehazard level of the material being handled. Italso depends on the type of environment sur-

rounding a facility, meteorological factors for

the site, the impact of the management optionon the waste constituents (e. g., does it destroythe waste, reduce its hazard potential, suffi-ciently isolate it, or contain it for a specifiedperiod of time), and the technological limita-t ions o f the fac i l i ty design and opera t ingconditions.

The aim of facility classification is to matchwaste classes with appropriate categories of fa-cil i ty design and environmental conditions.For each type of facility (e.g., land disposal orincineration) an acceptable level of risk must

be identified for specific environmental con-ditions. The match among wastes and facilitiesmust not exceed this risk level. For example,the overall risk arising from the match of wasteClass I and land disposal Class I must be thesame as for waste Class 11 and land disposalClass II. Included in the match is the locationand environment of the management facility.A waste class that would pose severe threatsif allowed to escape might be managed in afacility where location and environmental con-ditions minimize exposure to humans andother living things.

Models for Facility Classification

Because facility classification is a new con-cept, few models are available for implemen-ting the approach. Classification schemes forsites are available, but they have focused pri-marily on the hazard potential of abandonedd u m p s .30 31 With some modif ica t ion theseschemes could be applied to landfill, incinera-tion, or treatment facilities as well,

Table 43 illustrates the type of criteria thatcould be used to classify management facilities.

‘oJRB Associates Inc., Methodology}’ for Rating the Hazard

Po ten t~a ) of Waste Dwposal Si tes , prep ared for the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, 1980.

31 Mltre Corp,, s~~e Ranking Model for Determining Remedial Action Priorities Among Uncontrolled Hazardous Substances Facilities (McLean, Va,: Mitre Corp., 1981).



Ch 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste q 237 — — . —

acteristics used in each system. Appendix 6Aprovides descriptions of how waste consti t-uents are scored in the two systems.

Nine wastes were chosen from the RCRA listfo r th is ana lysis , represen t ing a range o f volumes and toxicity levels. The wastes are

shown in table 45, Because no schemes for ac-tual management classification exist, the feasi-bility study reviewed only classification of landfills, using environmental criteria devel-oped by JRB Associates.36 The capacity to dis-tinguish, by this means, among three existinglandfills was analyzed and used to indicate thefeasib i l i ty o f management c lass i f ica t ion ingeneral.

Study Results

Although EPA treats the nine wastes in-

cluded in this exercise as equally hazardous,it is apparent from table 46 that further classi-fication by degree of hazard can be made. Evenwith the limited data available to the study,it was possible to distinguish these wastes into

~fJ] K H ASS()(;]ateS Inc., op cit

Table 44.— Hazard Characteristics of Case Study Classification Models

H a z a r d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c - Wa sh in g to n sys te ma - Michigan system b

—

Physical data: State of waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None NoneConcentration . . . . . . Quantity/concentration Quantity/concentration

formula formulaToxicity: A c u t e t ox i c i t y ( L D5 0, L C5 0) ., . . . . . O r a l , a q u a t i c Oral, dermal, aquaticChronic toxicity . . . . . None Reversible, irreversibleGenetic impairment . ......... ., Carcinogenicity only Carcinogenic ity

MutagenicityyTeratogenic ity

Environmental fate: Persistence/degradation .. . . , . . . . Presence o f po lycyc l i c Persistent

aromatics and Degradablehalogenated hydro-carbons

Bioaccumulatlon . . . . . . . . . . None Accumulationcoefficients

Exposure potential . . . . . . . . . . Related to concentration Noneof constituents inwaste

Safety: Ignitability. . . . . . . . . . . . . RCRA criteria NoneCorrosivity . . . . . . . . . RCRA criteria NoneReactivity ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RCRA criteria None

—aFiVe h~ard Classes + A, B, C D (least hazardous)bFour hward classes A B, C, D (least hazardous)





Table 45. —Case Study Wastes

Waste

High volume/high toxicity: q Bottom stream from an acetonitriIe

column in the production of acrylonitrileHigh volume/low toxicity: q Wastewater treatment sludge from

production of titanium dioxide pigment,using chromium bearing ores bychloride process

Medium volume/high toxicity:q Brine purification muds from the mercury

cell process in chlorine production,where separately prepurified brine wasnot used

Low volume/high toxicity: q

q

q

q

q

Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste frompurification step of diaphragm cellprocess, using graphite anodes inchlorine productionWastewater treatment sludge from theproduction of toxapheneDistillation bottoms from the productionof nitrobenzene by nitration of benzene

Ammonia still lime sludge form cokingSpent stripping and cleaning bathsolutions from-electroplating operationswhere cyanides are used in the process,except for precious metal use

Low volume/low toxicity: q Light and heavy ends from distillation of

acetaldehyde in the production ofacetic anhydride

— —

aAnnualvolumes taken from EPA background documentsbEpA d~l~~ted thl~ waste ~tream

EPA hazardouswaste number

KO13

K074b

K071

K073

K041

K025

K060FO09

Not listed

Volume a Production(tons) sites (number)

337,000 6

900,000

42,000(dry)

27

3,750 2

500 7

1,000,000 30’22,500 10,000gals

2,000 4

cprocegg being phased out by 1982 only 2 companies with a few Plants remal n


two to four classes of hazard. In most cases,

the hazard class for individual constituents of a particular waste did not vary substantially;i t w a s p o s s i b l e t o d e s i g n a t e a n a v e r a g eclassification for the waste. The method of averaging was arbitrarily chosen for the pur-poses of this study. The class designation forthe majority of consti tuents determined thewaste average rank. For example, K060 wouldbe assigned to class B in the Washington Statesystem only, since four of its six constituentshave that classification. Depending on relativeconcen tra t ion leve ls fo r bo th cyan ide andphenol, and the potential for separating these

two constituents from the waste before treat-ment/ disposal, the overall classification couldbe adjusted. For K073, an appropriate classifi-cation might be class C because of the distribu-tion of ratings for individual constituents.

An important f inding was that the actual

class designation for a particular waste is de-pendent on the model used, as illustrated intable 47. It appears that greater discriminationis possible using the Washington State system.A sensitivity analysis would be required to de-termine which factors contribute to the greaterdiscrimination in this system.

Ranking of landfills using criteria based onlyon environmental criteria was found to be pos-sible, Though limited, this study shows thateven simple classification criteria can distin-guish differences in risks posed by differentmanagement facilities.

Limitations Encountered

Not surprisingly, the study found significantlimitations in data availability, variability, and



Ch. 6— Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste q 239 —

Waste

K071

K060

FO09

K013

HeavyandLightEnds

K073

K041

K025

Table 46.— Results of Case Study Classification of Wastes

Washington system Michigan system

A v e r a g e - A ve ra g e--

Constituent for waste a Co n s t i tu e n ts Co n s t i tu e n ts fo r wa s tea

Mercury b x c x c A d - A a

Arsenicb B A

Arsenic trioxide B AArsenic pentoxide B B A ANaphthalene B BCyanideb x BPhenol c B

Sodium cyanide B B B APotassium cyanide B A

—

AcetonitriIe c BAcrylonitrile c c B BHydrocyanic acid A B

Methyl acetate —e —e

Acetone D —e

Ethylidene diacetate D —e D BEthyl acetate D B

Chloroform c A -

Hexachloroethane B B

Carbon tetrachloride c A1,1,2- tr ichloroethane c c B B1,1,1- trichloroethane c BTetrachloroethylene c B1,2- dichloroethylene D B1,1- dichloroethylene c B1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane c A

Toxaphene ;

.x A –

Meta-dinitrobenzene B B B B2,4-dinitrotoluene c B

K074 Chromium b (trivalent CrCl3) D B -

Chromiumb (trivalent Cr203) D D B BChromium b (hexavalent) c B

awhe~e dl~~fepan~ ,e~ ~CCu ~ amOng ~On~t ,t “ent~, an ~~blt~a~ class de$,l gfla~(on for the waste was chosen by US I ng the Val Ue

for the majority of constituents (e g K060) or where constituents were evenly dlvlded among classes, the average deslgnation for the waste equaled the highest class !ficatlon (e g FO09 rank-order)

b Mav be classified as EP tOXIC accordlno to either scheme depending On concentration

CX represents most hazardous, D least hazardousdA represents most hazardous, D least hazardouselnsufflclent data to determine cate90w


Table 47.— Distribution of Wastes Among Classes

Hazard classificationsXb A B c D

Washington K071 K060 K013 H Lendssystem K041 FO09 K073

K025 K074

Michigan K071 K013system K060 HLends

FO09 K073K041 K025

K074 —

aLeft to r}ght represents decreasing hazard levelsbThls class Included only In the Washington system

HLends Heavy I!ght ends


in terpreta tion. Data availabil i ty is a chronicproblem in the design and implementation of environmental regulations, and classificationmodels are no exception. Both of the wasteclassification models used in this study re-quired more data than was available for someof the waste constituents. Thus, the categoriza-

tion of many wastes was based on no morethan one or two data points. It should be em-phasized that this problem is not unique toh a z a rd o u s wa s te ma n a g e me n t , b u t o c c u rsoften in the evaluation of hazards or risks forany purpose.




Data variability also created some difficulties.Even when data were available , they wereoften not the types required in the models. Cur-rently, there are no standardized methods forcorrelating test results across species or for dif-ferent routes of exposure within a species. EPAcorrelations for cross-species test results com-pare surface areas of the test animals involved,although these comparisons are not generallyaccepted by the scientific community. Again,variability in data is a problem common to allareas of scientific inquiry; it arises from dif-ferences in the measuring processes and fromvariabilities in responses of organisms to chem-icals. Although this type of variability cannever be wholly eliminated, it can be accom-modated by using appropriate ranges of datavalues for each critical factor in a classifica-tion model.

Because some of the defined categories in themodels had very specific criteria, data inter-pretation became increasingly important. Forexample, the ranges of values defining a tox-icity criterion were, in some instances, nar-rower than those given in the published data.Thus, it was necessary to represent data ratherarbitrarily by a single point in order to assignit to a hazard class. Other problems arose intranslating information from published data tothe specific requirements of a classificationmodel. For example, the scoring for chronicadverse effects in the rank-order (Michigan)

model required information about the rever-sibility of an effect and concentrations at whichrevers ib i l i ty i s obse rved . While pub l isheddescriptions of chronic effects are sometimesquite detailed, often they do not provide indica-tions of reversibility; to fill in this blank re-quires expert judgment. Among other problemsencountered were the correct interpretation of common labels, such as “potential animal car-cinogen. ” Also, it was difficult to interpret dif-ferences in data resulting from variation in thestructure of chemicals used in tests (e.g., chem-ical compounds that are identical except for

a particular geometrical re la tionship in onepart of the molecular structure can have sub-stantially different toxicities).

A conclusion to be drawn from the casestudy is that scientifically defensible and tech-no log ica l ly feas ib le s tandards and c r i te r iawould have to be developed for an acceptableregulatory program based on hazard classifica-tion. The criteria must be based on accuratecharacterization of waste and re liable tox-

icological information. The rationale for eachhazard criterion and its range of values mustbe stated explicitly. Moreover, in designing aclassification system, judgments must be madefor such technical issues as:

q

q

q

Absolute v. relative toxicity .–Whetheractual values of acute and chronic toxici-ty should be used as hazard criteria, orwhether a scoring system should be de-vised showing relative toxicity values.Equivalent concentrations v. single con-stituent concentrations as the basis for

regulation.—Whether to evaluate the haz-ard of the waste as a whole by combiningweighted values of its constituents.The need to develop short- and long-termb i o a s s a y s f o r a c t u a l w a s t e s a m p l e s ,rather than for single constituents of thewaste—The in te rac t ion o f const i tuen tsmay result in a different hazard level fromthat of the constituents singly.

Problems and Advantages of

Classification Systems

Several advantages in using classificationsystems are apparent. An industrial waste man-agement system that successfully matches wasteclasses with facility classes would provide aconsistent level of protection, while avoidingexcessive regulation. Highly hazardous wastewould be handled at facilities with the highestperformance standards; but less hazardouswaste would be handled at less cost in facilitiesdesigned to less rigorous standards. Other ad-vantages are that government regulations couldset priorit ies for establishing standards andcontrols on the basis of degrees of hazards for

wastes and risks for facilities. In addition, thesystem could give the public reliable informa-tion on the most effective and appropriate ways




of handling each class. This last point is par-t icularly important, At present, the generalpublic tends to consider all industrial wasteequally hazardous. Moreover, many people believe that government is doing very little to pro-tect human health and the environment against

these hazards. These perceptions have playeda part in the efforts of concerned citizens tohalt or delay the development of new facilities,(The section on “Siting” includes a more de-tailed discussion of these problems.) Use of afac i l i ty c lass i f ica t ion system in regu la t ioncould help to inform the public about thebroad range of hazards and risks related tohazardous waste management. Use of the sys-tem certainly will not eliminate public concern,nor perhaps, reduce it. But the result could beto focus public concern more closely on thelevel of hazard and the various technical pos-

sibilities for dealing with these hazards. For ex-ample long-term health and environmentalconsequences o f inc inera t ion , chemica l o rbiological treatment, and containment a lter-natives could be drawn to public attention andcompared.

Several practical problems, some mentionedin the foregoing discussion, may make it dif-ficult to design a successful system. The dif-ficulties may be summarized as follows:

Mismatches of waste classified by hazardand facilities classified by performance stand-

ards might occur. In some instances it may bea mismatch to send only the most hazardouswaste to those facilities rated highest in per-formance. Incineration is an example. Dif-ferent classes of facilities could represent dif-ferences in combustion efficiencies, from 90to 99 percent. There is no information to sug-gest that a medium-hazard waste, classed assuch based on criteria of toxicity and per-sistence, presents an equal or lower risk whenburned at 95 percent efficiency as comparedto a high hazard waste burned at 99 percentefficiency. It is possible that a very hazardous

material burns readily and could be incineratedin an industrial boiler, a low-performance fa-c i l i ty , thus posing no r isk . In con tras t , amedium- or low-hazard waste burned in a sim-ilar facility may not be readily combusted. If the material is not completely destroyed or if

it forms hazardous combustion products, over-all greater risk may result than with incinera-tion of the highly hazardous material.

The classification system might also maskcritical environmental considerations. A par-

ticular waste may have different levels of haz-ard in different environmental media. For ex-ample, a waste consti tuent may be readilydegraded in air but not in soil or sediment.Thus, if incinerated it might pose only a lowrisk, but for land or ocean disposal a very highrisk level could result, A material classed as amedium hazard based on toxicity, genetic im-pairment, and persistence may be readily mo-bilized in a landfill. The hazard level resultsf rom a weigh t ing o f severa l c r i te r ia , andtherefore, a waste may have medium hazardfor cancer, be highly mobile, and perhaps a

high hazard for chronic effect such as immuno-suppression. The mobility factor, however, ismost important for the risk at a water source.If placed in a medium secure landfil l andallowed to migrate to water sources, a medium-hazard constituent can cause the same type of adverse effects on the exposed population asa highly hazardous constituent; it may simplyrequire a higher accumulation of the materialbefore the effect is observed.

A r e l a t e d p r o b l e m i s t h a t t h e w a s t echaracteristics that define a hazard may dif-

fer from characterist ics that determine thema n a g e me n t c h o ic e . Wa s te c l a ss i f i c a t io nsystems include a diverse range of hazard cri-teria. The overall hazard rank is a combinedweighting of all these criteria. However, fromth e ma n a g e me n t p e r sp e c t iv e o n e sp e c i f i chazard characteristic often influences the po-tential risk associated with a particular man-agement option. Such a characteristic could bethe high potential for reactivity, which requiresa management practice that protects againsta short-term hazard. Or if the mobility of anorganic waste is the prime concern, manage-

ment must deal with long-term, cumulative ef-fects. A hazard class could include variouswaste requiring different technologies. Judg-ments about the type of waste to be managedin a particular way currently are based onknowledge of the constituents of the waste and




limitations of the facility. It is not clear howsophisticated analyses of the hazard potentialof a waste before it enters a facility will im-prove these judgments.

The degree of hazard of a waste may bechanged in a management facility. Althougheach generator can test for hazard character-istics of its particular waste stream, the resultsmay not define adequately the real hazard of constituents released from a management fa-cility. Most facilities are not “mono-” facilities,i.e., they do not accept only one type of wastefrom one source. Therefore, the hazard classof one type of waste may have little real mean-ing for the risk potential of a facility. Mixingof several kinds of waste could result in interac-tions that would change the hazard level of anyone or all by either increasing the hazard or

decreasing it. If the main concern is the riskto workers at a facility, it may be quite ap-propriate to focus on the hazards of materialsas they enter a facility. But if risk to the generalpopulation and the environment is foremost,then the important hazard potential is in the

materials that are released from a facility.These difficulties can be resolved. It should

be possible to design a system that addressesthese problems but does not become overlycomplex and expensive and thus impracticalto implement. OTA’s feasibility study indicatesthat such a system is possible. Because of theadvantages classification can offer for regula-tion of hazardous waste a further study to de-sign an effective, practical system seems jus-tified,

Monitoring

Monitoring provides information essential toreasonable and equitable decisionmaking. Theimportance of environmental monitoring inpollution-abatement programs is well recog-nized. 37 38 The success of pollution control canonly be judged by measuring the presence of constituents in all environmental media andc o mp a r in g th e se d a ta w i th me a su re me n ts

taken before the pollution controls were imple-mented .

Data collected for several purposes (i.e., bothto assess environmental quality and to deter-mine compliance with environmental regula-tions) must be coordinated and available todecisionmakers. Monitoring information is im-portant for decisions on regulatory action byagencies in the executive branch and it is alsoimportant for congressional oversight func-tions. At a 1978 congressional hearing, Rep-

37U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Env i ronmenta lA40ni tor ing- lZ , hearings before the Subcommittee on the Environ-ment and the Atmosphere of the Committee on Science andTechnology, No. 93 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 1978].s8Nationa] Resear ch Counci] , E n v i r o n m e n t ] hfOnj~Orjng

(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Science, 1977].

resentative J. Jeffords (R-Vt. ) emphasized thisp o i n t :39

As a result of . . . lack of an adequate na-tional environmental qu ality m onitoring p ro-gram, those of us in Congress who are respon-sible for passing judgm ent on environmentalstatutes do not have a solid basis for assess-ing the success or lack of success of the laws

we pass, Moreover, we continually face newenvironmental crises because we lack the en-vironmental monitoring that might havewarned us of emerging problems.

The several different but closely related pur-poses served by monitoring programs are il-lustrated in table 48.40 Adequate data on con-centrations of specific compounds, their dis-tr ibution patterns in the environment, andcause-effect re la tionships are needed for in-formed judgments about contamination levels,compliance with regulations, and appropriateperformance standards. Without monitoring

data , judgments about the effectiveness of

SOU.S. congress, House of Representatives, Op cit.%ouncil on Environmental Qu ality, inter~gency T a s k Force

on Environmental Data and Monitoring (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1980).




Figure 18.— Potential Transformations ofHazardous Constituents in Aquatic Systems

retrial exchange

Biotic exchange

Particulate exchange

Resorption

(Chemical transformation)

DeputationSediment exchange

1 Sediment

SOURCE Modlfled from G F Lee and R A. Jones A risk assessment ap

preach for evaluating the environmental significance of chemicalcontaminants In solid wastes, “Environmental Risk Analysls forChemicals, ” R, A. Conway (cd.), 1981.

be blown about as dusts and consequently in-haled by humans and animals or deposited onplant surfaces. At any point in the transportof materials, a constituent can be transformedinto other compounds that may pose either lessor, of particular concern, greater hazards thanthe parent chemical.

The fate of any substance depends on its in-teraction with living and nonliving elements

of the environment. As illustrated in table 49,each environmental medium (i. e., soil, water,

Table 49.—Environmental Media and Examples ofProperties Influencing the Fate of Waste Constituents

Air TemperatureWind velocityHumidityParticulate levels

soilVegetation coverSpecies compositionOrganic content

Acid-base levelSoil compositionSoil pore sizeMineral contentTemperature

Water TemperaturepHSuspended solidsFlow rateSedimentation rateSpecies compositionOxygen levelsSalinity

BiotaSpecies toleranceAge of individualsMetabolic factorsMobilitySpecies composition

SOURCE’ Office of Technology Assessment

air , and biota) has properties that may in-fluence the way consti tuents are dispersed,th e i r r e a c t io n s w i th e n v i ro n me n ta l c o mp o -nents, and their ultimate deposition. Examplesof transport and transformation processes thatinfluence environmental fate are presented in

tab le 50 . In aqua t ic systems, fo r example ,organic constituents may be adsorbed on sus-pended particles and deposited in lake or oceansediment; thus, the amount of suspended par-ticles and rate of sedimentation affects theavailability of these constituents to plants andanimals. Similarly in a terrestrial system micro-organisms in the soil may degrade a hazardouswaste more or less completely depending onthe temperature and the availability of nutri-ents.

If the quality and quantity of waste constit-uents released from a facility can be identified,and if general characteristics of the environ-ment to which they are re leased are knownalso, the potential for movement of the constit-uents can be estimated using fugacity equa-t i o n s . 41 Fugac i ty is de f ined as the escap ingtendency of a substance from a heterogeneoussystem. Fugacity equations are mathematicalmodels, incorporating data on particular com-pounds and environmental media, for estimat-ing this tendency. These mobility or fugacityestimates can be used to develop profiles of en-vironmental distribution.

Information needed for such profiles can beobtained through laboratory analysis of thechemical, physical, and molecular character-istics of a compound. Data. on physical char-acteristics provide indications of the relativeaffinity between a compound and environmen-tal components (e.g., whether it is water solu-ble, insoluble, or highly volatile). Knowledgeof the molecular structure permits estimationof the degradation potential by chemical or bio-chemical transformations. For example, pre-dictions that a constituent will bind to organiccomponents in soil rather than be transported

41D. Mackay, “Finding Fugacity Feasible,” E n v i r o n m e n t a l

Science & Technology, vol. 13, No. 10, 1979, pp. 1218-1223; andNational Research Cou ncil, “Chapter 2. Factors Influencing theFate of Chemicals,” Testing for Effecis of Chemicals on Ecosys-

t ems (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1981).




Table 50.— Examples of Processes Influencing Fate of a Waste Constituent

Physical

Transport phenomenon(flow path and rate) (D)

q Diffusion (D) q

Dispersion (D) q

Ž Filtration (D) q

Ž Sedimentation (D)q

q Adsorption—disorption (D)

(D) Dlstr{but~onltransport(T) Transformation


C h e m i c a l - Biochemical

Acid-base reactions (D) q

oxidation—reduction (T)Photolysis (T) q

Hydrolysis (T)q

q

to water or air can be made. Those constituentsthat dissolve readily in water or volatilize rapid-ly into air also would be identified.

It is unlikely that any waste constituent willbe found solely in one environmental medium

(i.e., only in soil, or in water]; instead it is like-ly to be distributed across media, albeit uneven-ly, Figure 19 illustrates a hypothetical profileof environmental distribution.42 In this exam-ple, the chemical is more readily dissolved in

‘4; R ,H ~ ( i u ~ ; , j, I .’ t~]Lo, .S , [;ohen, an d C. R iorda n, 4’Role of ‘I’r;ins-

purt ant] Fate Studies ]n th e Exposure A\ ses>rnen t an d Screen-i ng of ‘l-ox I(, Chemi[, a] 5,” ll~nami(, s , Expc)s(lre anri Hazard As -

s c s smen t of 7“0 vic Chem i[:als ( A n n Arbor, LI Ich.: Ann A rh[)r

Sc.lence Pub]lsher’, Inc. , 1980).

Figure 19. —A Hypothetical Environmental Fate

Profile of a Chemical That Binds StronglyWith Lipid Material

I

;OU RCE H aq ue F alco Cohen, Rlordan, 1980

Accumulation—concentration (D)Mineralization (T)

Cometabolism (T)Biotic transformations—polymerization,conjugation (T)

— —

water than bound to soil or organic material.Initial concentrations might occur in soil, air,and water. (In a real-world example, the initialdistribution of a constituent would depend onthe point of release.) As environmental resi-dence t ime inc reases , major accumula t ionoccurs in wa te r and bo io ta . In con tras t , i f chemical analysis indicated strong bondingwith organic particles (as illustrated in fig. 20),the profile would differ, with increased con-centrations of the constituent occurring in soilor sediment over time. This compound mightaccumulate in biota at those sites where soil

Figure 20.– Hypothetical Environmental FateProfile of a Compound That Binds Strongly

With Organic Material





or sediment-dwelling organisms are present.The f ina l concen tra t ions in a i r and wate rwould probably be minimal.

Knowledge of this potential distribution isquite useful in designing a monitoring programfor a particular site. For a profile such as figure

19, monitoring efforts initially would concen-trate on sampling all media. Over time, greaterefforts could be devoted to analysis of waterand biotic samples with a reduced effort in soiland air sampling. Spot checks might be nec-essary to verify that there is not continualrelease of constituents from a facility. In thesecond figure , sampling of soil would havehighest priority, with lesser and decreasing em-phasis on water and air analyses. Thus, theability to predict environmental fate of wasteconstituents using fugacity equations can pro-mote development of cost-effective programs

by indicating where sampling efforts may bestbe concentrated.

Monitoring Activities: Types and Strategies

Monitoring includes a variety of activities.It can refer to observation of the operation of an industrial process (e. g., the chemical treat-ment of a waste), the inspection of the integri-ty of a facility, or the effects of an industrialwaste constituent on organisms. Five types of monitoring—visual, process, source, ambient,and effects—can be used alone or in combina-

tion with two different strategies—surveillanceand assessment.

Five Types of Monitoring

Most types of monitoring that can be appliedto waste management practices (i.e., all but ef-fects monitoring) focus on identifying the oc-currence and extent of releases of waste con-stituents to the environment. This monitoringmay be part of an information feedback systemfor a facility operation; or it can provide dataneeded for developing standards and to iden-

tify research needs (see table 48). A m b i e n tmonitoring also is used to establish baselinedata. Ambient and effects monitoring providedata for sett ing research priorit ies and formeasuring quality of public health and the en-

vironment. Effects monitoring is aimed at de-termining cause-effect re la tionships betweenhazardous consti tuents and adverse effectsobserved in humans or other organisms.

1.

2.

3.

Visu a l mo n i to r in g i s th e s imp le s t a n dleast costly method of identifying releases

of constituents from a waste managementfacility. Routine procedures—checking forcontainer leaks and for proper storage ofmaterials as well as containers—are usefulin monitoring hazards associated with ig-nitable, corrosive, and reactive materials.Visual inspections immediately identifythe potential for fugitive emissions, ac-cidental spills, and generally unsafe con-ditions at a facility site.The purpose of process monitoring is de-signed to determine that a process (e. g.,waste recovery, incineration, or biologicaltreatment) is operating in accordance withspecific standards. Factors that control aprocess (e. g., temperature and flow rate inan incinerator) are checked for variationsfrom an established level. Process monitor-ing is based on the principle that chemical,physical, and biological reactions are pre-dictable, and that conditions under whichthey occur can be controlled. This type ofmonitoring therefore consists primarily ofsurveying normal engineering informationprovided on meters and gages. In many

large industrial facilities, continuous mon-itoring is performed with the aid of a com-puterized system. If a specified condition(e.g., temperature) exceeds certain prees-tablished levels, the system automaticallyshu ts down the p rocess and sounds analarm. Process monitoring can be extreme-ly effective. Recordkeeping can be done ona routine basis and the skill level requiredis not high; the technician is required toread gages or computer printouts. Costsfor this type of monitoring are primarilyfor equipment and technician t ime. The

challenge is to channel the flow of this in-formation from the plant operations levelto the risk management level.

Source monitoring verifies that the flowof material from a facility to air, soil, or




ing, if effectively carried out, can reduce theamount of ambient monitoring needed; how-ever, they cannot serve as substitutes. Only bytaking representative samples from potential-ly affected environmental media and analyz-ing them for a broad spectrum of indicators isi t p o s s i b l e t o c o n t r o l r i s k s r e l i a b l y a n d

realistically. Increased use of fugacity predic-tions can contribute to more cost-effective am-bient monitoring programs. Greater use of mul-timedia monitoring programs are needed.

Publ ic hea l th can best be p ro tec ted bypreventing hazardous releases and minimiz-i n g c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t .Should releases occur, ambient monitoring of the environment can produce early warning of threats to public health. The environment canserve as a protective barrier. If contaminationof the air, water, and land is detected early

(before widespread contamination and actualdamages), corrective action can be taken, andhuman exposure reduced. For example, a per-sistent hazardous compound might be detectedin soil surrounding a waste management facili-ty, but nowhere else. If it can be removed, orin so me wa y immo b i l i z e d b e fo re r e a c h in gwater or critical points in food chains, then ex-posure to humans and other organisms is pre-vented, Ambient monitoring, therefore, shouldbe given a prominent role in monitoring pro-grams.

Two Monitoring Strategies

Monitoring programs serve two differenttypes of strategies: surveillance or assessment.Surveil lance monitoring usually is used toverify compliance with regulatory standards;it provides only limited information on trendsor changes in broad categories of monitoringindicators. It could include visual, process,source , and ambien t moni to r ing ac t iv i t ie s .Sampling efforts for surveillance strategiesshould occur close to the source of constituentsfor three reasons:

1. to reduce the number of environmentalprocesses that can interact with and thuschange the constituents of concern,

2. to restrict the number of sites that need tobe monitored, and

3. to allow early warning of contaminationproblems.

Surveil lance methodologies usually incor-porate indicators for broad categories of con-

tamination. The resulting lack of detail, how-ever, limits the usefulness of these data. Sur-ve i l lance moni to r ing ind ica tes changes inbroad categories of consti tuents or environ-mental conditions, but does not provide de-tailed information on specific constituents orpotential impacts. Surveillance strategies areusually focused on specific requirements forenvironmental regulations, e.g., monitoring re-quirements in RCRA regulations.

Asse ssme n t mo n i to r in g se rv e s two p u r -poses: to show the extent of contaminationfrom release of hazardous constituents and toindicate cause-effect relationships. Assessmentmonitoring generally involves detailed ambientand effects monitoring. Sampling techniquesand analytical procedures are more detailed forassessment than in surveillance monitoring. Awide range of sample types is collected foranalysis and very carefully designed protocolsare used. Reference standards and quality con-trol procedures are essential to assure that thedata are valid and can be statistically verified.

Major Technical Issues in Monitoring

Several problems affect any monitoring ef-fort. If valid conclusions are to be drawn froman analysis of data, the analyst must recognizeand resolve problems of sampling frequencyand preparation, data compatibility, and limita-tions of analytical methodology.

Sampling

Sampling is one of the most critical andmost inexact steps in the monitoring process.The objective in sample collection is to obtaina number of samples that is both manageable

and representative of the system being moni-tored. The choice of medium (air, water, soil,and biota) is a critical factor. Despite care in




the selection of samples, however, the inherentvariability of ecosystems, and the variations ininteractions of hazardous waste consti tuentsand elements within a system, result in a min-imal level of uncertainty that can never be over-come.

As discussed previously, fugacity profilescan determine major areas of concern and thussimplify choices of sampling air, water, or soil.Obtaining representative samples of biota iscomplicated, Different species have differentreactions to waste constituents. Furthermore,the site of accumulation in plant and animaltissue varies. For example, certain crops suchas beets, le t tuce, and tomatoes accumulatetoxic metals more readily than do beans or cab-bage; also, the foliage of such plants will con-ta in higher concentrations than do the rootstructures .43

Location of the sampling effort is very im-portant. Ecosystems are dynamic. For exam-ple, conditions along a large river may varyconsiderably. Changes in temperature, even of only a few degrees—depending on the amountof shade along river banks—can affect the riverecosystem and the impacts of consti tuents.Changes in rate of flow may be observed andmay have similar effects, Thus, to properlymonitor a river, factors such as distance toshore, water depth and flow, and type of con-stituents of interest will influence the optimal

sampling location. The desired frequency of sampling depends on temporal variations. En-v i ro n me n ta l c o n d i t io n s f lu c tu a te w i th th eseason, month, day, and even hour. Randomweather events, such as storms, can affect thequality and representative nature of samples.

Sampling techniques must also consider thetype of ecosystem being monitored. Becausethere is less mixing in ground water aquifersthan in surface waters, a nonuniform distribu-tion of consti tuents can be expected in theformer, thus requiring vertical sampling over

several horizontal locations to obtain a trulyrepresentative picture. Surface water sampling

NE, Epstein an d R, L. Chancy, “Land Disposal Of Toxic sub-

stances and Water Related Problems, ” ]ourn al of Water Pollu-

tion Controi Fed, vol. 50, No. 8, 1978, pp. 2037-2043.

may, on the other hand, require only horizon-tal sampling if the water body is shallow. 44

Data Comparisons

An effective monitoring program must havebaseline or control data available against whichcomparisons can be made. At present, there areinsufficient data to establish baseline values forhazardous waste constituents in the environ-ment. Therefore, it is difficult, but not impossi-ble, to determine trends in human-caused re-leases vis-a-vis contributions of these constit-uents from natural sources. In the absence of preexisting baseline information, the preferredcourse is to monitor at the site of concernbefore and after new sources of environmen-tal contamination are expected or new facilitiesare established, thus establishing baseline datafor the new site. The alternative is to obtaincontrol data in a nonaffected area (without in-dustrial development) that has environmentalcharac te r is t ic s s imila r to the a f fec ted s i te .Monitoring programs for existing facilitiesmust rely on this method.

Both approaches require the use of compar-able standardized sampling and analytical pro-cedures. If noncomparable protocols are used,observed difference in the data could be inter-preted as resulting from different sampling andm e a s u r e m e n t m e t h o d s r a t h e r t h a n f r o mchanges in env ironmenta l concen tra t ion o f

hazardous waste consti tuents.

Unfortunately , standardized protocols areusually unavailable .45 The few that have beendeveloped are not often uniformity applied.Even though a laboratory may rely on stand-ardized methodology, modifications can be ex-pected based on new research results or per-sona l p re fe rences o f the s ta f f . 46 A n a l y t i c a lvariations can arise even when different per-sons perform the same procedures using the

*U ,S, Environmental Protection Agency, “Procedures Manu al

for Cround Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, ”SW-611, 1980.4sNational Resear ch Counc ii, En vironrnen ta f ~Onj~Or~ng

(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Science, 1977).4U. S, Environmental Protection Agency, “Procedures Manual

for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, ”SW-611, 1980.

99-113 3 - 8 ? - 1 ‘7




sa me e q u ip me n t . Interlaboratory varia tioncaused by slightly different procedures and dif-ferent equipment create even larger and morecomplex problems for data comparisons.

A review of Federal monitoring programs bythe Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

indicated that quality assurance efforts withina moni to r ing p rogram were inadequa te .47 O f particular concern was the lack of quality con-trol regarding siting criteria, field methodology,sample preservation, and sample storage. Thereport states:

Although various quality assurance pro-grams h ave been adopted by Federal agencieswith m onitoring pr ograms, many of these pro-grams lack basic policy endorsement by agen-cy management, suffer from insufficient com-mitment of resources, do not provide specificguidance to field monitoring organizations,and are not coordinated when more then oneagency is involved. Un til these d eficiencies arecorrected, a significant nu mber of agency deci-sions and policies will be based on data of ques-tionable and/ or unknown accuracy.

An attempt to develop national quality assur-ance programs for hazardous waste analysesis currently underway in the EnvironmentalMoni to r ing Suppor t Labora to r ies o f EPA. 48

The aim of this new program is to developstandardized analytical methodology and top ro v id e r e fe re n c e s t a n d a rd s fo r a n a ly t i c a lresults. The problem of quality assurance, how-ever, is far from being resolved through thiseffort and continued work is needed. Two crit-ical areas require further development:

q

q

standardized methods for sample collec-tion, analysis, storage, reporting, and fieldverification of results, andcertification of laboratories and develop-ment of suitable reference standards to in-crease the comparability of interlaboratorydata.

“Council on Environmental Quality, interagency Task Force

on Envimmmental Dat t i and Monitoring (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1980).% Miller, “Quality Assurance, Analytical Methods, and Haz-

ardous Wastes, ” Environmental Science and Technology, vol.

16, No. 6, 1982, pp. 332A-336.

It should be emphasized that the purpose of quality assurance programs is to provide theuser of the data with an estimate of i ts ac-curacy o r uncer ta in ty .

Degrees of accuracy, precision, and uncer-tainty of data are not always acknowledged;

nor a re accep tab le leve ls o f p rec is ion anduncertainty always identified for the particularuses of the data (e. g., for policy or regulatorycompliance and enforcement). Not a ll pro-grams or uses of monitoring data require thesame level of precision; this varies accordingto the purpose of a particular program. For ex-ample, the precision required for surveillanceprograms may be less than that required forassessment efforts. Two questions might beasked to determine the appropria te level of p rec is ion : 49

1. How will the data be used?2. What are the consequences of obtainingimprecise data?

For data being placed in national data bankssome indication of the data’s precision is es-pecially important. If data. leave a laboratorywithout proper caveats, these data may be mis-used. It may be necessary to require this infor-mation for Federal data banks, as data are in-corporated into the system.

Limitations of Analytical Methodology

Analytical methodology used for samplesfrom one environmental medium cannot beeasily transferred to another medium. For ex-ample, considerable R&D has been directedtoward developing analytical techniques forwater quality analysis. Before these techniquescan be used for hazardous waste surveillanceor assessment efforts, however, they must bemodified to suit the specific conditions andmaterials of concern in hazardous waste man-agement. Methods for air, soil, and biota canbe decidedly different in sampling techniques,handling, preservation, and analysis because

‘IID. Friedman, “Validity and Reliability of Sampling Data, ”unpublished paper (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Waste Analysis Program,1981).




ana ly t i ca l work , and the Na t iona l Sc i enceFoundation (NSF) and universi t ies could becalled on to help establish compatible and coor-dinated baseline data.

In 1978, the U.S. House of Representatives,Committee on Science and Technology, Sub-

committee on Environment and the Atmos-phere, held hearings on a proposal to providefor a demonstration of a coordinated manage-ment system for environmental monitoringefforts. 51 The testimonies presented at subcom-mittee hearings strongly supported such an ef-fort, indicating that it was both possible anddesperately needed. All the witnesses agreedthat cost-effective programs can be developed.

Because of the multidisciplinary and multi-media approach necessary to meet environ-mental monitoring needs, a second activi tymight be the establishment of a pilot project(as suggested by testimonies at the hearing), Itspurpose would be to identify the most effec-tive strategy and to develop standard protocolsfor sampling, analytical procedures, and datastorage. Such an effort is essential when ad-dressing monitoring needs for hazardous wastemanagement, Standardized monitoring prac-tices are imperative for identifying contamina-tion and verifying concentration levels, Be-cause of the possibi l i ty of widespread en-vironmental contamination with only limitedresources for pursuing monitoring activities,carefully designed and cost-effective programsare the only means of providing informationto verify that the public and environment arebeing protected under RCRA.

Monitoring programs have been establishedfor the seven major environmental statutes anddata collection activities are extensive, but lackcoordination. The third activity for institutionalimprovements would be coordination of en-v i ronmen ta l mon i to r ing p rog rams . Dur ingthe late 1970’s, the executive branch expressedconcern about deficiencies in national monitor-

=l-U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, En Vhonmenfai

Monitoring—II, hearings before the Subcommittee on the Envi-nmmen t and the Atmosphere, Committee on Science and Tech-nology, No. 93 (Washington , D. C.: U.S. Governm ent Pr inting Of-fice, 1978).

ing programs, and an interagency task forcewas formed to study the situation, The reportof this task force was released in 1980 byC E Q .52 I t concluded that agencies general lydevelop a monitoring program to meet a spe-cific legislative need and do not consider howthe data might be used by both the public andprivate sectors. The report concluded that:

This absence and / or lack of widesp read userawareness of the existence of the various sys-tems is causing the development of new sys-tems which overlap existing systems. In short,there is a lack of government-wide efforts toensure that both existing and new Federal sys-tems and data standards are properly coor-dinated to minimize duplication and to ensurethat such systems provoke the broadest possi-ble services to users in the most cost-effectivemanner.

There has been some effort to coordinate cer-tain programs such as water monitoring dataand climate and ocean monitoring programs.But the extent of this coordination is limited.

Many cu r r en t mon i to r ing e f fo r t s a r e de -signed for a single environmental medium. Forexample, water data are collected for the CleanWater Act, air data for the Clean Air Act, andsoil data are collected by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS), Because of widely differingmethods used for sample collection, analysis,and storage, it is very difficult to assess ex-posure and contamination across media, Such

an effort is particularly needed in waste man-agement because of the multimedia nature of r isks associated with hazardous waste.

As illustrated in figure 21, the scope of en-vironmental monitoring efforts within the Fed-eral Government is wide ranging. Each of theseprograms could augment a hazardous wastemanagement system, particularly in a nationalscheme aimed at risk management. If proper-ly selected, focused, analyzed, and integrated,the data could provide a scientific basis forregulatory action on waste management. With-out a nationally coordinated data-gathering andstorage effort, and without proper quality as-surance guidelines, the current data bases will

Szcounci] On Environmental Quality, op. cit.




Figure 21.— Ecological and Living Resource Information and Data Gathering ProgramsWithin the Federal Government

Vegetation

activitiesFreshwarte“ , , .

GSEPA

‘ateSEA-AR Science & Education Administration

Agricultural Research

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BR Bureau of Reclamation

CE Corps of Engineers

DOD Department of DefenseEPA Environmental Protect Ion Agency

FS Forest Service

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GS Geological Survey

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmosphericstration

NPS National Park Service

SCS Soil Conservation Sew Ice

State Agencies

SOURCE Council on Environmental Quality, 1980

remain inadequate for broad applications of en-vironmental assessment, including the man-agement of hazardous waste.

The following recommendations made by theInteragency Task Force have direct applicationto the monitoring needs and problems for haz-ardous waste management. No action has beentaken on these recommendations.

1. Establish a national program to providea governmentwide scientific focal point

for environmental information and anal-y s i s r e l a t e d t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s s e s s -ment. A national program that coordinatesdata collection, assesses its quality, and en-courages its distribution would help elimi-nate problems of expensive, overlapping




2.

3.

A

Federal and State hazardous waste mon-itoring programs, inadequate environmen-tal assessments, delays in formulation of regulations, and poor intergovernmentalconditions.The existing interagency coordination of

water data collection should be strength-ened. The current emphasis on water datarelated to hazardous waste managementis for ground water only; surface watermonitoring is also needed. By strengthen-ing the existing data bases (e. g., EPA’sSTORET) and coordinating data collectionefforts, duplication of monitoring activitiesby Federal and State Governments, univer-sities, and industry could be avoided. Ata time when staff and financial resourcesare limited for hazardous waste manage-ment, a coordinated monitoring program

has much to offer in the way of reducedcosts.Establish a standing interagency groupto deal with the coordination of environ-m e n t a l a n d h e a l t h e f f e c t s d a t a . T h i srecommendation is especially importantfo r hazardous waste management . Cur-rently, the extent of integration of thesetwo types of data is very limited, but, if amanagement program is to protect humanhealth, this integration is necessary.

4.

5.

6.

Siting

paradox exists between the public desire Th efor safe hazardous waste management and tion

Quality assurance should be a major partof any monitoring effort and should re-ceive substantive consideration for de-sign and funding. Without the existenceof data standards and definitions, it willbe very difficult to enforce the RCRA reg-

ulations uniformly. Industry has the rightto be assured that compliance require-ments are uniform nationwide and that adecision of noncompliance truly repre-se n t s n o n c o mp l ia n c e r a th e r th a n d i f -ferences generated by monitoring method-ology.Implement an integrated Federal envi-ronmental data system that can be usedin making broad policy decisions. Sucha data base would provide the means formultimedia analysis related to hazardouswaste contamination, Such analyses are

currently not possible.NSF should initiate a program to supportprojects that are aimed at long-term datacollection at a series of locations. Theseshould represent a cross-section of majorecosystems in the United States. Such amonitoring effort would provide baselinemeasurements to which hazardous wastemonitoring data could be compared,

overwhelming reason for public opposi-is a fear for personal health and safety.

public rejection of sites for specific hazardous This fear is not based on objective evidence of waste facilities. The reasons for the dilemma cause-effect relationships between exposure toare easily identified; solutions are more elusive. hazardous waste and adverse health effects,The reasons for the almost universal opposi- Rather, it comes from perception of uncertain-tion to hazardous waste facilities in one’s own ties surrounding these cause-effect re la tion-neighborhood include: ships. As discussed previously in this chapter,

scientific data suggest a potential for long-termq

q

q

q

fear of health or safety effects, chronic health efects from exposure to hazard-

fear of economic losses, ous waste. Most people do not wish to take theuncertainty of industry’s ability to prevent risk, uncertain as it may be. Thus, the publicadverse consequences, and opposes siting and permitting of facilities nearlack of confidence in government. residences and workplaces.



Ch 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste q 255

The economic concern is twofold: the fearof a decline in property values and knowledgethat compensation for any damage that mayoccur to property or health is limited or nonex-istent. Expeditious compensation for personalinjury directly re la ted to the operation of awaste management facil i ty is by no meansassured. In fact , the barriers to recoveringsome sort of damages through litigation aresubstantial. Lawsuits are long and costly, andit may be exceedingly hard to prove eithercause-effect relationships or negligence by thefacility owner. Under CERCLA, the owner of the facility is liable for government costs of cleanup, but not for compensation of personalor property losses to third parties.

Because of past problems with the wastemanagement industry, the public appears re-

luctant to take a chance on new technologies.This is particularly true for the siting of landdisposal facilities. Uncertainty about the capa-bility to prevent adverse consequences extendsto other management facilities as well (e. g., in-cinerators). Concerns that the personnel a twaste management facilities are inadequatelytrained and that good “housekeeping” prac-tices will not be followed voluntarily, con-tribute to public fears,

Lack of confidence in governments stemsfrom several causes, First, many citizens are

concerned that Federal and State regulatoryprograms are not stringent enough. (These pro-grams are discussed in ch. 7.) There is concernthat government monitoring and enforcementefforts are inadequate. Government responsesto citizen complaints have contributed to thisconcern. For example, a waste facility in Wil-sonville, 111,, was approved by the State severalyears ago, despite strong public opposition. Op-position continued and the site was recentlyclosed by an order from the State SupremeCourt. The company has been ordered to ex-hume all materia ls, but unfortunately , toxic

organic solvents have already leaked from thedisposal site, At another site, in Sheffield, 111,,organic solvents have passed through a barrierwall within a few years, although the State reg-ulatory agency claimed that the barrier wouldprevent migration for 500 years.

Public mistrust of regulatory agencies is ag-gravated by government actions following thed i s c o v e r y o f h a z a r d o u s w a s t e p o l l u t i o n ,which o f ten seem too la te , ine ffec t ive , o runresponsive to concerns of citizens. For ex-ample, homeowners near a large landfil l insouthern California (the BKK landfill in WestCovina, Calif.) have complained for years aboutthe nuisance and danger to drinking water sup-plies posed by waste disposal at that site. TheState response was less than rapid. 53 A n o t h e rexample is the actions of EPA and Coloradoin granting interim status to the Lowry Land-fill near Denver, despite citizen legal action toclose the landfill based on the charge that toxicwaste leaking from it were contaminating Den-ver’s drinking water supply.54

A final, though less obvious, reason for pub-

lic skepticism about the ability of governmentto deal effectively with hazardous waste con-cerns is the lack of a real commitment by gov-ernment to reduce the production and toxici-ty of hazardous waste. Many hazardous wastemanagement programs place great emphasiso n w a s t e d i s p o s a l , r a t h e r t h a n o n o t h e rmanagement options. The public’s reluctanceto accept new land disposal facilities may wellbe linked to the limited attempts by govern-ment to promote preferable treatment a lter-natives and waste reduction.

Approaches to Addressing Public Concern

There are two approaches to answering pub-lic concern over siting of particular facilities.T h e “ te c h n ic a l” a p p ro a c h i s b a se d o n re -quirements that si tes meet protective si t ingstandards, and the provision of enough tech-nical information to increase public under-s tand ing o f p roposed fac i l i t ie s . The “non-te c h n ic a l” a p p ro a c h in c lu d e s a ssu ra n c e o f public participation in siting decisions, com-pensation for victims of damage, a clear com-

Sastate of ca]lfornla, office of plannin g and Research, ‘‘I m -

pro~’ernents in S]ting Haza rdou s Waste Facilities, Recornmenda-tlons of the Department of Health Ser\i(.es Ad\isory Commit-te e , Sacramento, Ca]]f , June 1982.

wC . Maclennan, testimony before the LJ .S. House of Represen-tatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tour-ism, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Apr. 21, 1982.




mitment by government to enforcement of reg-ula t ion , and poss ib ly , incent ives for com-munities to accept proposed facilities.

That public opposition to hazardous wastefacilities will be wholly eliminated is unlike-

ly. But i f public concerns are seriously ad-dressed, some sites may become acceptable.The most important ways to do this are to in-volve the public early in the process (possiblyat the point of establishing siting criteria) andto make sure that all relevant technical infor-mation is readily available to the public, Al-ready, the importance of public access to in-formation during the siting process is generallyaccepted. Procedures are established for mak-ing information available, and if trade secretsmust be withheld, the reasons and the condi-tions for secrecy are generally agreed on in ad-

vance. Public involvement could be further en-couraged. Especially important is education inhazardous waste management, participation inthe siting decision, and continuing “watchdog”review to ensure government and industry ac-countability after the site is approved and thefacility is in operation.

Commitment to public participation seemsto have been the key to acceptance of severalproposed hazardous waste faci l i t ies . ManyState governments have recently establishedsiting procedures that are especially tailoredto hazardous waste issues and that include pub-

lic participation. For example:

Minnesota is one of 10 States with a sitingboard which is solely responsible for lo-cating and acquiring suitable sites for haz-ardous waste disposal facilities within theState. Citizens unaffiliated with govern-ment or the hazardous waste industry areon Minnesota’s Waste Management Board,and the State’s siting process offers fre-quent opportunit ies for public part ici-pation.California is one of several States where

local government approval is a prerequi-site for the siting of a hazardous wastefacility.Massachusetts has a hazardous waste sit-ing process that stresses negotiations be-

q

tween the community and the hazardouswaste facility developer and / or bindingarbitrat ion. 55 Because the system is still inthe early stages of development, its successhas not yet been demonstrated.

New York has a streamlined State permitprocess leading to a Certificate OF Envi-ronmental Safety and Necessity for haz-ardous waste facilities. These permits areissued by the State and supersede, or pre-empt, local permit requirements. At leastsix States have similar programs.

Different States take widely different ap-proaches to siting. No one system is demon-strably superior, Success in siting appears tocorrelate more with public understanding of the process and public involvement in deci-sionmaking, than to the particular type of siting

process.

Technical Methods

One vehicle for improving public involve-ment in siting is the adoption of a comprehen-sive hazardous waste plan, jointly developedby industry, government, and the public. Thepurpose of the plan would be to provide ac-cessible technical material. It would include ac-curate and detailed information on hazardouswaste quantities and types, sources of waste,environmental conditions of the proposed site,and potential adverse impacts on health andthe environment of the waste or i ts consti t -uents. Most of the opposition to siting hazard-ous waste faci l i t ies has to do with si tes forland disposal. In these cases, opposition maybe less if it can be demonstrated convincing-ly that all options for waste management havebeen pursued (e.g., that waste reduction, re-cycling, and treatment faci l i t ies have beenevaluated prior to the siting application). Thisclose consideration of alternatives should beone of the requirements in a comprehensivewaste management p lan .

~S Th e Sjtlng Book A Ha n d h o k / ’or Siting Hazardous Wa s t e

Facilities in Massachusetts , Department of Environmental Man-agement, Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal, October 1982.




Another way of responding to public con-cerns is to establish technical siting criteria.The criteria might ban certain kinds of facilitiesfrom specified areas (e.g., within a 100-yearflood plain or above a ground water rechargearea). If high-risk sites are eliminated by the

technical criteria, facilities may be sited inareas more acceptable to the public.

Some States are considering the use of cri-teria and the siting process to identify a “bank”of suitable facility sites. Some analysts havesuggested that the potential risks from a newfacility should be compared and related to risksposed by other land uses in the community,such as existing manufacturing plants that dis-charge pollutants, airports, fuel storage tankfarms with the potential for explosion, etc. Thecomparison might shed a more favorable lighton a waste facility siting proposal, or it mayhelp to identify an area in the communitywhere the additional risks posed by a new haz-ardous waste facility are compatible with otherland uses.

An important part of openness in siting pro-grams is the provision of information on theroles of the major regulatory agencies involvedand on the companies in the waste disposalbusiness. Documents provided might includeapplicable regulations, descriptions of currentand past enforcement efforts, reports on Stateand Federal hazardous waste programs, annual

reports of leading companies in the industry,and publications from industry trade organiza-tions describing typical waste managementpolicies and practices.

Economic and Institutional Mechanisms

Several nontechnical measures can be takento address public concerns about hazardouswaste siting in the communities. For example,information can be provided on the economicadvantages to the community. A communitymay benefit from higher revenues, through a

tax on the gross receipts of a facility, propertytax, or treatment disposal fees.

Another potential economic benefit could benew industrial growth attracted by the avail-abil i ty of waste management capacity . This

might increase regional employment, Similar-ly, a waste facility could help existing local in-dustry by offering reasonably priced and reli-able waste management services. A proposedfacility that presents clear-cut benefits to localexisting industry is more apt to win favor than

one that serves a wider area. This was demon-strated recently in New Jersey. A proposal toconstruct an onsite landfill for hazardous wastegenerated by a local chemical company (andemployer) was approved, while a similar pro-posal for an offsite chemical waste landfill serv-ing a large geographical area was vociferous-ly opposed and defeated.

A problem with economic benefits, how-ever, is that the risks and the benefits do notalways coincide. The community or neighbor-hood nearest the waste facility may be runningthe greatest risks, while the benefits are spreadout over a much larger community, even to so-ciety as a whole. This conflict is not unique towaste facility siting, but because of the poten-tial for adverse impacts, the disparity may beseen as greater in waste management than inother activities.

Another nontechnical means of answeringpublic concerns is for government to showconvincingly its intent and ability to enforcehazardous waste regulations. Government of-ficials can explain its monitoring and enforce-ment activities, and emphasize opportunities

for public involvement, such as provisions forcitizens’ lawsuits. Evidence of a firm commit-ment in terms of funds and personnel can beparticularly meaningful in times of restrictedFederal and State budgets.

The California “superfund,” enacted in 1981,establishes a tax-supported fund for compen-satingse victims of hazardous waste activitiesfor their medical expenses and loss of income.New Jersey also provides a fund for vic timcompensation as part of its comprehensive haz-ardous waste siting strategy.

Even when the best waste management tech-nology is proposed for use at the most carefully

Warpenter-Presley -Tanner Hazardous Substances AccountAct, Statutes of 1981, ch , 756, California Health and Safety Code,Div. 20, ch . 6.8.




chosen location for a hazardous waste facilityselected after the most open siting process, aresidual of perceived adverse environmentaland economic impacts is unavoidable. To com-pensate a community for these real or per-ceived risks, some form of incentive might be

prov ided , unre la ted to the hazardous wastefacility itself. For example, government or thedeveloper of a waste disposal facility couldoffer to finance public services for the com-munity, for instance, as the purchase of fireequipment or the construction of a new com-munity building, or the gift of land for a park.A developer can also take steps to prove a com-mitment to act as a good corporate citizen, e.g.,by holding informal discussions to provide in-formation or engage in negotiation, or by prom-ising periodic public inspection of a wastemanagement facility after it is operating.

Role of the Federal Government

Direct Federal involvement in hazardouswaste facility siting is virtually nonexistent.Few EPA regulations address si t ing issues.Some general site location standards are in-cluded, and the Agency has published a fewreports describing the nature of siting prob-lems. An expanded Federal role in si t ing ispossible to assist States. EPA could developmodel siting criteria, for example, or publishinformation on different approaches States

have taken to the si t ing issue. These modelsiting criteria could include both technical andnontechnical means to address public concernsabout siting. Alternatively, EPA could includesiting criteria as a required element of StateRCRA programs. The Federal Government,particularly the USGS, could play a strongerrole in providing States with hydrogeologic in-formation necessary to determine the suitabili-ty of locations for waste management facilities.Section 3005 of RCRA allows EPA to establishlocation standards for hazardous waste facili-ties. Establishment of national mandatory sit-

ing criteria, however, would probably requireenabling legislation.

It has been suggested that Federal landscould be used for regional waste management

sites thus facilitating site approval .57 BecauseFederal lands are often remote, public opposi-tion might be reduced. Long-term security of the site could be assured as the Governmentis unlikely to go “out-of -business.” On the otherhand, siting on Federal land maybe viewed by

many as an unfair subsidy to the hazardouswaste management industry. I t would shiftsome some costs of and responsibilities forwaste management from private industry to theGovernment. In any case, siting facilities onFederal lands is primarily an option for West-ern States, as there is little available Federalland in the East. The idea is of little help to theeast coast areas that have an immediate needfor new facility sites.

A major function the Federal Governmentcould serve is to facilitate exchanges of infor-mation among all the parties. Conferences,

newsletters, information clearinghouses, andthe like, give people the o portunity to learnfrom other’s experiences. The Waste Alert Pro-gram funded by EPA was a good model forsuch an information exchange, but Federalfunding has been discontinued.

Representatives of the Federal Governmentcould act as formal or informal mediators ar-bitrating siting disputes. The Federal Media-tion and Conciliation Service offers one modelof Federal involvement, in its program of me-diation and voluntary arbitration as a means

of settling labor-management disputes. Similardispute-resolution approaches have been sug-gested for environmental and land-use deci-sionmaking. The Massachusetts siting programinc ludes , an as ye t un tes ted p rov is ion fo rnegotia tion and arbitra tion in facil i ty si t ingagreements.

Another Federal role might be to help in thedevelopment of intersta te hazardous wastemanagement compacts, to ensure adequate dis-p o sa l a n d t r e a tme n t c a p a c i ty r e g io n wid e .RCRA provides for the recognition of such in-

t e r s t a t e c o mp a c t s fo r so l id a n d h a z a rd o u swaste management. They could be very useful

SW,s. En~rOnrnenta] protwtion Agency, “State Decis ionmak-

ers Guide for Hazardous Waste Management, ” SW-612, 1977.




in areas of the country where interstate trans-portation of hazardous waste is common. Aprecedent for Federal involvement is the assist-ance given by the Federal Government for ne-gotiation of the multi-State water compacts toallocate rights to water from the Colorado

River. It has been suggested that the FederalGovernment might require States to provideadequate management capacity for all wastegenerated in the States.

Finally, the Federal Government might as-sist in the development of adequate compen-sation systems for victims of hazardous waste

re leases . The CERCLA 301(e ) s tudy grouprecently reported to Congress on the barriersto recovery of damages by victims of hazardouswaste exposure under current law, and recom-mended the creation of a two-tier compensa-tion system. The first tier would provide an ex-

peditious Federal administrative compensationsystem. The second tier would improve ex-isting State remedies by reducing the burdensof proof for injured claimants. The study groupobserved that the adoption of such a systemmight promote public acceptance of hazardouswaste facilities.

Appendix 6A. –State Classification Efforts

The following tables provide examples of classi-fication criteria developed by Washington, Texas,California, and Michigan.

A summary of the classification systems used inthe feasibility study is presented. Further detailscan be obtained in the report prepared for OTA. 58

The criteria for selecting these schemes ad-dressed potential applicability to national regula-tions. Schemes that presented unique dimensionsof hazard assessment were sought.

The Washington and Michigan schemes haveseveral elements in common, including:

1. provision of management designations thatprequalify facilities,

2. employment of toxicity rating systems that arebased on w aste constituent properties and n otthe entire waste stream,

3. provision of criteria and standards for evalua-tion, and

4. consideration of concentrations.The Washington scheme is unique in that it in-

volved the calculation of a single summary valuerepresenting the relative toxicity of a waste streamwith mu ltiple constituents. This sum mary value iscalled the waste’s “equivalent concentration. ”Waste constituents are categorized according totheir toxicity as defined by five classes related tofour measures of acute toxicity, This method did

not consider synergistic or antagonistic effects of constituents. Equivalent concentration is calculatedby ap plying w eighting factors to th e five classes andsumming concentrations of constituents. Theseconcentrations are plotted against waste quantity

‘Harris, Strand, and Shea, op. cit.

using a graph that represents levels of regulation.Carcinogenicity is evaluated in a similar fashionbased on the presence of halogenated hydrocarbonsand polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Three man-agement levels are identified: undesignated,dangerous waste, and extremely hazardous waste.

The Michigan scheme involved the calculationof a hazard value for single constituents that isbased on several waste characteristics other than just toxicity. This system used numerical rankingformu lae that ad dress acute toxicity, carcinogenici-ty, hereditary mutagenicity, teratogenicity, per-sistence, bioaccumulation, and other adversechronic effects. Each constituent receives a score

for all using available data. The formula applies aweightin g scale to d etermine classes of toxicity. Theconstituents are not ranked according to accumu-lative scores, There are no provisions for lack of data. Once toxicity scores are assigned the constit-uent concentrations are plotted against w aste quan-tity volumes on graphs specific for hazard cate-gories,

The JRB system emphasizes environmental fac-tors and waste management practices and was orig-inally designed to evaluate land disposal sites con-taining hazardous waste to rank them for remedialaction priority. This system involves the considera-tion of 31 site- and waste-specific variables which

are grouped into four categories:1. Waste characteristics.—The consideration of types of potential hazards p osed by the w aste.

2. Waste management.—The consideration of quality of the facility d esign, constru ction, andoperation.



Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste 261

Table 6A-3.—Toxicity Criteria in the California System ofDegree-of-Hazard Classification

Limits a

Extremely hazardous Hazardous

MammalsOral administration. . . . . < 50 mg/kgb

Exposure to skin . . . . . . . <200 mg/kgInhaled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <200 mg/1

Aquatic animals . . . . . . . . . —

Carcinogenicity. ... . . . . . Defined as carcinogen byCalifornia law

Tests in animals indicate . . Carcinogenicity, high chronictoxicity, persistence, or bio-accumulative properties

<2000 mg/kg

<1200 mg/kg<4000 mg/1

< 500 mg/1

Defined as carcinogen byCalifornia law or suspectedcarcinogen by NIOSH listing

Chronic toxicity, persistenceor bioaccumulative properties

aAmounts that result In mortality for XI percent of the test population The lower the concentration the more toxic thematerial Is to test organisms LDW for mammals and LCW for aquatic animals%g Of mater(al/kg body weight of organism

SOURCE Sterling Hobe Corp (12)

Table 6A.4.—Michigan’s System for Rank-Order Assessment of Critical Materials

1.

Il.

Ill.

Iv.

Acute toxicity

Score CategoryOral LDW Dermal LDW Aquatic 96 hour LCW

mg/kg mg/kg mg/l

7 <5 <5 <13 5-50 5-200 1-102 >50-500 >200-500 >10-1001 >500-5000 >500-5000 >1OO-1OOO0 >5000 >5000 >1OOOq Insufficient Information

Carcinogenicty

Score Category7 Human positive; human suspect;

animal positive3 Animal suspect2 Carcinogenic by a route other than oral or dermal;

strong potential carcinogen by acceptedmutagenicity screening tests or accepted celltransformation studies

1 Potential carcinogen by accepted mutagenicityscreening tests or accepted cell transformationstudies

o Not carcinogenicq Insufficient information

Hereditary mutagenicity

Score Category7 Confirmed4 Suspect - multicellular organisms2 Suspect - micro-organismso Not a hereditary mutagenq Insufficient information

TeratogenicityScore Category

7 Confirmed3 Suspecto Not teratogenicq Insufficient information

v. Persistence

Score Category4 Very persistent3 Persistent2 Slowly degradable1 Moderately degradableo Readily degradableq Insufficient information

V1. Bioaccumulation

Score Bioaccumulation Log P7 >4000 >6.003 1OOO-3999 5.00-5.992 700-999 4.50-4.99

300-699 4.00-4.49

9 <300 <4.00q Insufficient information

VII. EstheticsScore

32

0

Vlll. Chronic

Score421

0q

CategoryFish tainting/taste and Foaming, floatingodor (threshold level film, and/or major

In water - mg/1) color changeO.0001 -0.0’01

>0.001-0.01>0.01-0.1 Yes>0,1 No

adverse effects

CategoryIrreversible effectsReversible effectsAdverse effects by route other than oral, dermal oraquaticNo detectable adverse effects

Insufficient information

SOURCE. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (27).



CHAPTER 7

The Current Federal-State

Hazardous Waste Program

Contents

Page Summary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I: Federal Regulation of H azardou s

Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Identification and Classification of

Hazard ous Waste-The Trigger. . . . . . . . . . . .Exclusions From the D efinitions of Solid

Waste an d Hazard ous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

265 Changes in the Universe of Hazardou s Waste.Special Exemp tions for Certain Categories of

Hazard ous Wastes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

262 Provisions of General App licability to H azard ousWaste Generators, Transporters, and

268 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities . . . . .Standards for TSDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

270 General Facility Stand ard s for PermittingHazard ous Waste TSDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

271 State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

276

276

277281

288296



Demon stration o f Sub stantial Equiva lence . . . .Final Au thorization of State Programs ., ... , ,Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Federal Environmental Laws and

Haza rd ou s Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonr egulatory Appr oaches and Technical

support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal, State, and Private Com pliance Cost for

the Current Hazardous Waste ManagementProgram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part II: State Responses to H azard ous WasteProblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Int rod uction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State Programs Under RCRA . . . . . . . . . . ..Differences Between Federal and State Program sOther State Regulatory Progr ams . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonr egulatory Options for Management of

Haza rd ou s Waste.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fees, Taxes, and Other Econom ic Incentives to

Encourage Alternatives to Land Disposal . . .

Part III: Implementation Issues of theCur rent Regulator y System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Development and Environmental

Protection .., ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mon itoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hazard / Risk Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Risk Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix7A .—Haza rd Ranking System . . . .

Appendix7B .—Risk/ Cost Policy Mod el . . . . .

List of Tables

Table No.

51. Iden tification of H azard ous Waste. . . . . . . .52. Exemptions and Exclusions From the

Univer se of Hazard ou s Waste . . . . . . . . . . .

53. Char acteristics of Ha zard ous Wastes. . . . . .54. interim Status Standards: GeneralAdministrative and Nontechnical Standard sfor Interim Status Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55. Technical Performance Standards forConta iners, Tanks, Incinerato rs, Land fills,and Surface Impou nd men ts . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56. Ground Water Monitoring Program forPermitted Land Disposal Facilities ....

57. National Contingency Plan—Phases of Response Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58. Chem ical Taxes Und er Sup erfun d . . . . . . . .59. Toxic Water Pollutants Under Section 307 of

the Clean Water Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60. National Interim Primary Drinking Water

Stan dard s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297298300

319

327

332

344 344 344 348 354

356 363

364

368

368375380382

386

387

Page

271

273

274

61. Hazardous Air Pollutants Under Section l12of the Clean Air Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62. Research Projects Planned by ORD in Supportof Hazardous Waste Management Program

63. Characteristics of the Comm ercial OffsiteHazardous Waste Management Indu stry . .

64. EPA Estima tes of Ann ua lized RCRAComp liance Costs by Subtitle C Section . . .

65. Total Annual Revenue Requirements forPart 264 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66. Present Value of the Pr ivate Costs of RCRAFinancial Responsibility Regulations by Typeof Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67. Annual Cost of Financial Assistance Activitiesper Facility for Own ers and Operators of Treatmen t, Storage, an d D isposal Facilities

68. Hazardous Waste Programs, 1975-81. ....69. EPA Hazar dou s Waste Program Federal

Administrative Costs for Fiscal Years 1981-8470. Federa l Finan cial Assistance Gran ts for

Hazardous Waste Management by State,1981-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71. Fiscal Year 1982 Federal Sup port of StateHazardous Waste Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72. State Expend itures on H azard ous Wa ste

Program Activities for Selected States . . . .73. State RCRA Pro gram Au thor ization . . . . . .74. Comparability of State Hazardous Waste

Programs to Federal RCRA Program. ..,..75, Summary of State Small Quantity Generator

Provision s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76. Summary of State Hazardous Waste Facility

Siting Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77. Summary of State Options for Encouraging

Alternatives to Land Disposal of HazardousWaste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78. State Fee Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79. State Fee Rev enues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80. Sum mary of State Super fund Legislation . .81. Contamination of Ground Water by Ind ustrial

Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

282

List of Figures

289

291

306 315

322

324

Figure No.22. Remedial Action Process Under the

Nation al Con tingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23. EPA Hazar dou s Waste Program Budget

1975-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24. Sampling Well Locations for Ground Water

Mon itorin g Pr ogram , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25. Plume Migration May Not Flow With Grou nd

Water Due to Gravitational Influence and/ orUnd etected Fractur es in the Aqu ifer . . . . . .

326

331

332

334

335

338

338 339

341

342

343

344 346

349

352

355

356 365

366 369

373

Page

310

340

378

378



CHAPTER 7

The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program — .

Summary Findings

Delays in implementa t ion .—Despi te thes impl ic i ty o f approach of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), de-vising and implementing an effective pro-gram regulating hazardous waste with max-imum public involvement mechanisms hasproved to be a complex, controversial task.The Environmenta l Pro tec t ion Agency’s(EPA) implementation of requirements of RCRA section 3004 to establish performancestandards fo r hazardous waste t rea tment ,

storage, and disposal facil i t ies has been aprocess characterized by delay, false starts,f requen t po l icy reversa ls , and l i t iga t ion .Delays in rulemaking have meant delays incompliance with standards to protect humanhealth and the environment, and uncertaintyfor States and industry. The delays may havebeen an additional incentive for some firmsnot to seek effective and economic measuresto dispose of hazardous waste.

Universe of hazardous waste .—ldentifica-tion of a solid waste as hazardous is the keyto RCRA’S regulatory approach, The uni-verse of hazardous waste is established bystatutory definitions of solid and hazardouswaste and EPA’s interpreta tions of thesedefinitions as further modified by variousregulatory exclusions and exemptions. Manyof these are not related to any determinationof the actual hazard of the waste. This adhoc system of exclusions and exemptionsallows certain potentially hazardous wasteto escape proper management or oversight.Exempted or excluded wastes, such as thesmall generator exemption, regardless of the

reason for or the status of the exemption, canbe disposed at subtitle D (municipal or sani-tary) landfills that may not adequately con-trol these wastes, Because of the design of these facilities, hazardous constituents maybe released into the environment.

Lack of adequate, reliable, and verifiableinformation on which to base dec is ions .—States, industries, and environmental groupshave criticized the lack of information on:the amount and types of wastes, the effectsof wastes disposal on the environment andon human health, and the adequacy of de-s ig n , o p e ra t in g , a n d p e rmi t t in g r e q u i re -ments.

inequities in application of regulatory re-quirements.—The current RCRA regulatory

system, because of its single hazard classi-fication of wastes, and various exclusionsfrom regulation (including exemptions of ex-isting facilities from certain land disposalstandards), has resulted in overregulation of some wastes and facilities and underregula-tion of others. Existing facilities have beenrequired to meet differing standards of per-formance; for example, existing land dispos-al facilities do not have to upgrade their de-sign and operations to the maximum extentfeasible to receive a permit. However, ex-ist ing incinerators are being required, insome places, to operate at the limits of avail-able technology.

Lack of national consistency in hazard / riskd e te rmin a t io n s .—Cu rre n t r e g u la t io n s d opresent the opportunity to consider degreeof hazard of wastes and levels of risk asso-ciated with particular facilities in setting per-mit conditions and granting variances fromstandards but only in the most qualitativeand site-specific manner. Together with thefrequent lack of objective Federal standards,this leads to little assurance of consistent

levels of protection nationwide.

Cont inued use o f inadequa te waste man-agement techniques.—As a result of thesedelays in implementation, there has beencontinued reliance on landfilling and other

2659 ? -11 ‘3 l-l - 8 ‘1 - 1 B




q

q

land disposal methods that have been proveninadequate to contain hazardous wastes.EPA’s final land disposal regulations author-ize continued use of these waste manage-ment practices by existing facilities.

No incentive for innovative technologies.—The total national expenditure on hazard-ous waste activities, including the public andprivate sectors and RCRA and the Compre-hensive Environmental Response, Compen-sation, and Liability Act of 1980 (C ERCLA)related efforts, was $4 billion to $5 billionin 1982. Combined Federal and State ex-penditures were in the range of $200 millionto $300 million. Even at this level, the initialeconomic analysis of the current RCRA reg-ulatory program suggests that it will not pro-vide a sufficient economic incentive to in-ternalize the true costs of hazardous wastedisposal. Continued use of inadequate dis-posal practices will persist unless more ef-fective means are implemented for internal-iz ing costs and encouraging use of othermanagement options through, for example,the imposition of waste generation fees. Theneed to resolve current problems is com-pounded by the realization that we may notbe better equipped in the future, technologi-cally or financially, to solve them. Becauseof the potential for wide-ranging impacts on

environment and health, additional attentionshould be focused on promoting the use of a lternative waste treatment or destructiontechnologies.

EPA’s two-tiered approach for land dispos-al regulations.—OTA’s analysis of the de-sign technology used in land disposal facil-ities indicates that complete containment of hazardous waste constituents over long peri-ods of time (30 years or more) is not possi-ble with the current technology. All land dis-posal si tes eventually will re lease mobile

consti tuents to the environment. The firsttier of EPA’s regulatory strategy for land dis-posal facil i t ies, containment of hazardousconsti tuents and l iquid management, pro-vides only temporary protection against con-tamination. The effectiveness of EPA’s sec-ond-tier stratem of monitoring and correc-

.

tive action also has substantial technicaluncer ta in t ies . EPA’s moni to r ing requ ire -ments may prove inadequate to detect leak-age before substantial contamination has oc-curred. Moreover, the long-term effective-ness of remedial action measures, whichare relied on in EPA’s second tier, such asground wate r pumping , in s i tu t rea tment ,a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f b a r r i e r s t o g r o u n dw a t e r m o v e m e n t , h a s n o t b e e n d e m o n -strated. Additionally, EPA’s own economicanalysis indicates that such measures can beextremely expensive, particulary if long-termcorrective action is required. Given suchcosts, the financial capability of land dispos-al facilities to pay for necessary correctiveaction becomes a critical consideration inallowing continued use of such facilities.

q Current regulations for monitoring RCRAfacilities are inadequate to provide assurancethat the public health and the environmentare being protected. EPA has emphasizedonly ground water monitoring. If land dis-posal of all hazard levels of wastes is allowedto continue (as the July 1982 rules seem topermit), it is essential that a rigorous ambientmonitoring program be implemented at allsuch facilities. Without it there can be littleassurance that exposure of humans and eco-systems to hazardous consti tuents will bep r e v e n t e d t h r o u g h e a r l y d e t e c t i o n a n dprompt corrective action. Major problemsinclude the following:—The number and frequency of required

sampling are such that large differencesbetween background and new samples willbe required before a statistically significantchange in ground water quality is shown.

—Proper location of monitoring wells is es-sential to the effectiveness of an ambientmo n i to r in g p ro g ra m to me a su re b a c k -ground water quality and to provide earlydetection of possible ground water con-

tamination. However, location of samplingwells during interim status is left to judg-ment of the facility owners. Final permitguidelines for well placement are equallyvague.

—Due to limitations in the state of the art foranalytical methodology, certa in data re-



Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 267

quirements for compliance monitoring of permitted land disposal facilities will bedifficult to meet.

The use of quantitative risk assessment inenvironmental regulation is receiving prom-inent a ttention within EPA and Congress.Available evidence suggests that the art of risk assessment is not sufficiently advancedto be reliable in some suggested applicationsto hazardous waste regulation. Moreover,much of the information required to performsuch assessment is not yet available. Resultsof quantitative risk assessment must be in-terpreted with caution if they are to be in-corporated into the decisionmaking process.The difficulties of using risk assessment toolsare generated primarily by limitations of theassumptions used in these models. General-

izations may be inaccurate for specific sites,inadequate data bases may be used, criteriafor assessing hazard and risk are lacking,and long-range performance cannot be pre-dicted using currently available data.

Required insurance coverage for hazardouswaste facilities and increased civil liabilityhave had, and will continue to have, a sub-stantial impact on waste management strat-egies, but these measures largely comple-ment , o r supp lement the regu la to ry p ro-grams. Moreover, insurers depend on strin-gent regulatory standards and enforcementas an incentive for them to underwrite therisks associated with hazardous waste facil-i t ies. The adequacy of regulatory require-ments will influence the availability of re-quired insurance coverage.

Although legal remedies exist, private par-t ies who are injured may not be compen-sated because of procedural and substantivedifficulties involved in such cases, the costsand delays of litigation, and the problems of collecting damage judgments against absentor insolvent defendants.

Ad e q u a c y o f fu n d in g a n d f in a n c ia l r e -so u rc e s fo r imp le me n ta t io n a n d e n fo rc e -ment.—Concerns over the adequacy of fund-ing for the Federal program and for Federalgrants for State programs have been raised

q

q

repeatedly as EPA has sought to reduce itsregulatory budget. The need for adequatefinancing at the Federal and State levels mayonly increase as permitting of existing facil-i t ies proceeds. States will need additionalfunds to administer and enforce hazardous

waste regulatory programs, On the average,about 75 percent of State hazardous wasteprogram budgets come from Federal grants.Existing State fees and taxes do not appearto be sufficient to finance their regulatoryp ro g ra ms a n d c le a n u p a c t io n s .

Lack of integration.—Unlike major environ-mental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act(CAA) and the Clean Water Act, which aredirected at control of pollution in a singleenvironmental medium, RCRA’S mandatefor assuring proper hazardous waste man-

agement requires a multimedia approach toprotect human health and the environment.Passage of RCRA unavoidably created an in-herent potential for duplicative regulation of hazardous waste management under RCRASubtitle C and regulation of environmentalpollutants and control of hazardous sub-stances under other Federal laws. Instead of leading to an all-inclusive integrated frame-work of environmental regulations providingbetter protection of human health and theenvironment, se lective implementation of RCRA and other environmental laws has re-

sulted in gaps in coverage so that some po-tentially serious impacts of hazardous wasteactivit ies have remained uncontrolled. Forexample, emissions of volatile organic chem-icals from hazardous waste treatment, stor-age, and disposal activities are largely un-controlled under RCRA and CAA regula-tions.

Exten t o f Superfund c leanup .—The Na-tional Contingency Plan (NCP), the frame-work for Government action in cleaning uphazardous waste sites, does not establish any

specific required environmental standard forthe level of cleanup to be achieved, such asthe maximum acceptable level of groundwater contamination. EPA characterized thedevelopment of such standards for the hun-dreds (if not thousands) of substances that



Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program q 269

The House Report on RCRA summarized thegeneral advantage of having a Federal regula-tory program, with optional implementation bythe States.z There would be uniformity amongthe States as to how hazardous wastes are reg-ulated; and uniform standards would be pro-

vided for industry and commercial establish-ments that generate such wastes. The establish-ment of this uniformity would also ensure thatS ta tes which , fo r economic reasons , migh totherwise decide to be dumping grounds forhazardous wastes will not a ttract businessesfrom States with environmentally sound laws.

The House Report added:

The committee believes that Federal mini-mu m stand ards are necessary if the hazardouswaste problem is to be understood and solu-tions are to be found. Waiting for States to

solve this problem without Federal assistanceis not likely since each State would take a dif-ferent appr oach and there would be too manygaps in both the receiving of information andenforcement. 3

Subtitle C was part of the larger statutoryscheme in RCRA for dealing with national sol-id waste disposal problems. Congress recog-nized that the hazardous waste problem pre-sents serious dangers to health and the environ-ment from improper disposal and very little in-formation was available on which to establisheffective policies. Accordingly, the conference

commit tee repor t charac te r ized the b i l l a s“making the best of a bad situation, ” and gavethe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)broad authority to use its special expertise todefine and identify hazardous waste and itscharacterist ics and to develop a comprehen-sive system for the control of hazardous wastemanagement and disposal. As additional mech-a n i sms fo r r e sp o n d in g to h a z a rd o u s wa s teproblems, Congress required maximum publicparticipation in the process and provided ac-cess to courts for review of rulemaking andagency enforcement activities. RCRA includes

an imminent hazard authority for immediateaction to correct dangers posed by hazardouswaste management activities and created civil

and criminal penalties for improper hazardouswaste activities.

RCRA is one of the simplest environmentallaws enacted in the last decade. Unlike theClean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act(CWA) (which set many technical standards,

emissions limits, and procedural requirementsin the actual statutory language), RCRA leavesthe task of designing and implementing a com-prehensive regulatory system to EPA withinthe broad directive of a single overriding statu-tory goal—the protection of human health andthe environment. Unlike implementation of air-and water-pollution control strategies that de-veloped incrementally over more than a dec-ade, Congress directed EPA to establish a com-prehensive regulatory program defining thearea to be regulated, the standards of protec-tion, and a permitting system, all within a rela-tively short period of time.

The task was a large one. But faced withgrowing public concern and its own percep-tions of the problem, Congress felt immediateaction was required, even if the result mightbe overregu la t ion o f some substances . TheRCRA scheme was sufficiently flexible to allowcontinued tailoring or fine tuning of the basicstructure once i t was established.

Despite the simplicity of RCRA’S approach,devising and implementing an effective and

timely program with maximum public involve-ment mechanisms has proved to be a complexand controversial task. It was widely believedthat if RCRA was to result in a comprehensivehazardous waste management system, such asystem would have the following essentiaI at-t r ibu tes :4

1. A minimum Federal regulatory programwould control and define the universe of regulated hazardous waste, which wouldevolve in response to greater knowledgeabout the hazards of the wastes and theirinteractions with public health and theenvironment.

‘House Report 94-1491; 94th Cong., 2d sess. (1976), at 30sId.

4See generally, House Report 94-1491, supra note 2, at 24-32.




2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10 .

The combined Federal and State programswould promote the availability of adequatetreatment and disposal capacity .The program would encourage generatorsto use process modification, product sub-stitution, and recycling to reduce the vol-

umes of wastes generated.T h e p ro g ra m wo u ld r e c e iv e a d e q u a tefu n d in g th ro u g h F e d e ra l a s s i s t a n c e toStates (and other mechanisms).P e rmi t t in g a n d e n fo rc e me n t r e sp o n s i -bilities eventually would be handled pri-marily by the States with Federal over-sight.The system would promote public partici-pation in rulemaking (setting of standards)and permitting of facilities and would rec-ognize private lawsuits to alleviate hazard-ous waste problems in the absence of effec-

tive Federal or State action.The act’s criminal and civil penalties fornoncompliance would be a further incen-tive to comply with standards.The regulatory program would require fi-nanc ia l responsib i l i ty o f those pa r t ie sengaging in hazardous waste activities andwo u ld e n d th e sy s te m o f a n o n y mo u sdumpers and unmarked, unrecorded sites.The comprehensive regu la to ry systemwould force internalization of the truecosts of hazardous waste disposal andeven tua l ly would assure tha t hazardous

wastes are properly disposed, protectingpublic health and the environment.The system would combine onsite treat-ment ‘of some wastes with offsite treat-ment for others and secure land disposalmethods for residues that remain hazard-ous after treatment.

The Federal hazardous waste regulatory sys-tem still falls short of the ambitious goals of RCRA. In the more than 6 years since passageof RCRA, in 1976, implementation of the actthrough required rulemaking by EPA has been

slow. Many important statutory deadlines weremissed and several major regulations were pro-mulgated only after court orders directed EPAto meet its responsibilities. Among the reasonscited by EPA for these delays were budgetary

limitations, need for more scientific and tech-nical information, and the complexity of de-veloping a comprehensive regulatory programbased on a general statutory mandate.’ On July26, 1982, EPA issued interim final regulationsgoverning land disposal facilities and final au-

thorization of State regulatory programs. Whenthe land disposal regulations became effectiveon January 26, 1983, the basic Federal regula-tory program for hazardous waste activit ieswas in place. EPA acknowledges that the pro-gram is not complete—standards for permittingchemical and biological treatment facilitieshave not yet been promulgated, for example,and further modifications and additions to therules already in effect will be made. However,the insti tutional framework has been estab-lished by which most existing and new facil-ities can be permitted, and State programs can

receive final authorization to operate in lieu of the Federal program, According to EPA, fullimp le me n ta t io n o f RCRA th ro u g h i s su a n c eof detailed technical standards, permitting of all existing facilities, and final approval of State programs likely will take an additional5 to 7 years.

Identification and Classification of

Hazardous Waste–The Trigger

Hazardous waste enters the system at thepoint a t which i t is generated. Under EPA

rules, each generator of solid waste must ana-lyze its wastes to determine whether there ishazardous waste. If waste is a hazardous wasteand not exempted by statute or rule, it mustbe managed in compliance with EPA regula-tions or the requirements of an approved Stateregulatory program. The waste must be prop-erly packaged and manifested if shipped off-site, and must be sent for treatment, storage,or disposal only to a hazardous waste facilityoperated according to EPA standards.

The requirements of the RCRA Subtitle C

regulatory program are triggered by the iden-tification of a solid waste as hazardous waste.

%ee preamble to EPA land disposal regulations, 47 F,R. 33,27633,278, July 26, 1982 which summarizes the history of andchanges in EPA’s implementation of subtitle C.




The universe of hazardous waste is establishedby statutory definitions and EPA’s regulatoryinterpretations of these definitions are furthermodified by various statutory and regulatoryexclusions and exemptions, Solid waste is de-fined in section 1004(27] of RCRA as:’

any garbage, refuse, sludge . . . and otherdiscarded material, including solid, liquid,semisolid, or contained gaseous material re-sulting from industrial, commercial, mining,and agricultural operations, and from com-munity activities . . .

Hazardous waste is defined in section 1004(5)of RCRA as:7

. , . a solid waste, or combination of solidwaste, which because of its quantity, concen-tration, or physical, chemical, or infectious at-tributes, may:

(A)

(B)

cause, or significantly contribute to anincrease in mortality or an increase inserious irreversible, or incapacitatingreversible, illness; orpose a substantial present or potentialhazard to human health or the environ-ment when improperly treated, stored,transported, or disposed of, or otherwisemanaged.

Section 3001 of RCRA directs EPA to devel-op: 1) criteria for identifying the characteristicsof hazardous waste and 2) criteria for listingparticular hazardous wastes. In adopting thesecriteria, section 3001 requires EPA to take intoaccount “ toxicity , persistence, and degrada-bility in nature, potential for accumulation intissue, and other related factors such as flam-mabili ty , corrosiveness, and other hazardouscharacteristic s.” Using the characteristics andlisting promulgated based on theses criteria,EPA is to define thewaste to be regulated

Exclusions From

Solid Waste and

universe of hazardous(see table 51).

the Definitions of

Hazardous Waste

RCRA excludes from this definition of solidw a s t e c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l s t h a t a r e r e g u l a t e dunder other Federal laws or that would be im-

’42 U.S. C. 6903 (14).742 U. SC. 6903 (5).

Table 51 .—Identification of Hazardous Waste

/s it 43 So/id Waste?

The material is an RCRA solid waste if:1. It is garbage, refuse or sludge, or other solid, liquid, semi-Iiquid or contained gaseous material that:

a. is discarded or is sometimes discarded, orb. has served its original intended purpose and is

sometimes discarded; orc. is a manufacturing or mining byproduct and is

sometimes discarded; and2. It is not excluded from the definition of RCRA solid

waste by statute or rule.If the waste meets the above two conditions, it is a RCRAsolid waste irrespective of whether it is discarded, used, re-used, reclaimed, or recycled, or stored or accumulated beforesuch activities.

Materials that do not meet these conditions are not RCRAsolid wastes and cannot therefore be regulated as hazardouswaste,

Is it a hazardous waste? A material will be considered as RCRA hazardous waste ifit meets the following conditions:

1. It is a RCRA solid waste and is not excluded from regula-tion by statute or rule;

2. The waste is listed as hazardous waste or is a mixturecontaining a listed waste, and the waste or mixture hasnot been specifically del isted; or the waste (or a mixturecontaining the waste) exhibits one of the characteristicsof hazardous waste: ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity,or EP toxicity.

3. The waste ha s not been excluded by statute or rule fromthe definition of hazardous waste.

SOURCES 40 CFR 261 4(b), 40 CFR 261.3, 260.20, 26022, and 40 CFR 261, Sub-Dart G

practical to regulate under the RCRA scheme.These statutory exclusions from the definitionof solid waste and thus from the universe of hazardous waste are: materia ls in domestic

sewage and irrigation return flows, industrialpoint source discharges permitted under CWA,and source, special nuclear, or byproduct mate-rial defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

EPA has further interpreted the meaning of solid waste for purposes of hazardous wasteregulation as a material that:

is discard ed, or being stored, or ph ysically,chemically, or biologically treated beforebeing discarded; or

q has served its original intended use and is

sometimes discarded; orq is a minin g o r ma n u fa c tu r in g b y p ro d u c t

and is sometimes discarded.8

’40 CFR 261 (1982].




The heart of EPA’s regulatory definition is thatthe materia l is discarded or sometimes dis-carded. EPA defines discarded as “abandoned(and not used, reused, reclaimed or recycled)or disposed of or burned or incinerated orotherwise treated instead of, or before, beingdisposed of.” This broad regulatory concept of solid waste excludes primary and intermediateindustria l , commercial , mining, and agricul-tural manufacturing products, but asserts juris-diction over the broad range of activities in-volving recycling, reclamation, and reuse. Ma-terials that are recycled, reclaimed, or reusedare not regulated only when that is the univer-sal practice in the industry.

There are two important regulatory exclu-sions from the definition of solid waste. EPAexcepts the burning or incineration of solidwaste as a fuel for the purpose of recovering

usable energy from the meaning of “discarded”and thus from being a solid waste. EPA alsohas excluded materials subject to in situ min-ing techniques which are not removed from theground as part of the mining process from thedefinition of solid waste,

T h e S o l id Wa s te D isp o sa l Ac t (S WDA)Amendments of 1980 temporarily exclude fromregulation under Subtitle C of RCRA, hazard-ous wastes from oil, gas, and geothermal en-ergy exploration and production; from burn-ing of coal and other fossil fuels; from mineral

mining and processing, and cement-kiln dustwaste. g

EPA is to study these wastes and to reportback to Congress with recommendations onwhether they should be regulated under Sub-title C of RCRA. * During the study period,management of these wastes will be regulatedunder other Federal and State laws, includingSubtitle D of RCRA. The amendments provide

‘JPublic Law 96-482, sec. 7, 94 Stat. 2336, Oct. 21, 1980; 42U.S.C. 6921.

*The EPA studies are to look at items such as: 1) the sourceand volume of the w aste, 2) present disposal/ utilization prac-tices, 3) potential danger to human health or the environment,4) documented cases of proven danger, 5] alternatives to currentdisposal practices, 6) cost of alternatives, 7] impact of alternativeson the u se of natu ral resources, and 8) current and p otential useof these materials.

that EPA may promulgate regulations govern-ing disposal of fossil fuel combustion, mining,and cement-kiln dust wastes under section2002 of RCRA that require placing in the publicrecord the location of any closed disposal sitesand an analysis of the wastes deposited there.This temporary exclusion is effective until atleast 6 months after submission of the requiredreport to Congress and promulgation of reg-ulations on these wastes, or publication of EPA’s determination based on these studiesthat such regulations are unwarranted. For oil,gas, and geothermal wastes, the amendmentsinclude a “sense of the Congress” provisionthat existing Federal and State regulatory pro-grams governing these wastes during the in-terim period should require at a minimum therecording of the location of any waste disposalsites that are closed and an analysis of pro-

duced waters and dril l ing fluids depositedthere that are suspected of containing hazard-ous substances. The temporary exclusion fordril l ing fluids, produced waters, and otherwastes for oil, gas, and geothermal energy ex-ploration, development, or production is effec-tive until Congress approves any regulationsrecommended by EPA as a result of the study.

In addition to the statutory exclusions, EPA’sregulations interpreting the sta tutory provi-sions exclude certa in solid wastes from thedefinition of hazardous wastes for the purposeof subtitle C.10 These exclusions are shown intable 52.

A solid waste is a hazardous waste if it is notexcluded from regulation as a hazardous wasteand it meets any of the following criteria:

q

q

q

it is listed by EPA in 40 CFR 261, subpartD, and has not been specifically delisted;orit is a mixture of a listed waste and a solidwaste and has not been specifically de-listed; orit exhibits any of the four characteristics

for identifying hazardous waste in 40 CFR261, subpart C: ignitability, corrosivity,reactivity, and extraction procedures (EP)toxicity.

1040 cFR 261.4 [1982).




Table 52.—Exemptions and Exclusions From theUniverse of Hazardous Waste

Exclusions frorn the statutory definitlon of solid waste: q solid or dissolved materials i n domestic sewage;q solid or dissolved materials i n irrigation return flows;. industrial discharges that are point sources subject to Na-

tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N PDES)permits under sec. 402 of the Clean Water Act; and

q source, special nuclear, or byproduct material definedunder the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Exclusions by rule from the definition of solid waste: q statutory exclusions above;. waste burned as fuel for purposes of recovering usable

energy; andq in-situ mining wastes not removed from the ground,

Temporary statutory exclusions from the definition of hazardous waste: q driIIing f I u ids, produced waters and other wastes

associated with the exploration, development, or produc-tion of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy;

q fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gasemission control waste generated primarily from combus-tion of coal or other fossil fuels;

q

solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and process-ing of ores and minerals, including phosphate rock and theoverburden from the mining of uranium ore; and

q cement kiIn dust waste.

Solid wastes excluded from the definition of hazardous wastes in EPA regulations: q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

household waste;agricultural and livestock raising wastes used as fertiIizers;mining overburden returned to the minesite;temporary statutory exclusions above;certain wastes containing exclusively (or almost exclu-sively) trivalent chromium from leather tanning andfinishing industries, shoe manufacturing and other leatherproduct industries, and wastewater treatment sludge fromproduction of TiO, pigment from chromium-bearing oresby the chloride process (if not hazardous under any otherprovision except failure of EP toxicity test for chromium);solid waste from coal mining and processing;arsenical treated wood or wood products which: 1) fail thetest for EP toxicity and 2) are discarded by persons usingthe wood or wood products for its intended end use (unlessthe waste meets other tests for hazardous waste);any waste, sludge, or residue for hazardous waste treat-ment that is no longer hazardous because it no longerdisplays a characteristic of hazardous waste;hazardous waste generated in a product or raw materialstorage tank, transport vehicle, or in a closed manufactur-ing process unit or waste treatment unit before it exits fromor is removed from the unit;samples of solid waste, or of water, soil, or air collectedsolely for testing subject to special handling requirementsto qualify for this exemption); anda delisted solid waste or sludge or residue from treatmentof a delisted hazardous waste (provided that it does notexhibit any characteristics of hazardous waste). —

SOURCE 40 CRF 261 Subpart C

Hazardous Waste Characteristics

Section 3001 of RCRA requires that EPA de-velop and promulgate cri teria to be used toidentify the characteristics of hazardous waste.A waste which exhibits any of these charac-te r is t ic s wi l l be considered as a regu la tedhazardous waste. EPA regulations use the stat-utory definition of hazardous waste—i.e., thepotential effects that exposure to such wastemay have on human health or the environmentas two of these criteria. The third criteria is thatthe characteristics must be capable: 1) of be-ing measured by standardized testing protocolsthat are reasonably within the capabilities of the regulated community or 2) of being reason-ably detected by generators of solid wastethrough their own knowledge of their wastestream. Using these critieria, EPA identified

four characteristics:q

q

q

q

ignit ibil i ty—posing a fire hazard duringroutine management;corrosivity—ability to corrode standardcontainers or to dissolve toxic componentsof other wastes;reactivity—tendency to explode under nor-mal management conditions, to react vio-lently when mixed with water, or to gen-erate toxic gases;EP toxicity (as determined by a specific ex-traction procedure) —presence of certain

toxic materials (as listed in 40 CFR 261.24)at levels greater than those specified in theregulation.

Table 53 shows in more detail the tests to beused in determining whether a waste exhibitsa hazardous characterist ic .

Other properties of some solid wastes thatpose a threat to health and the environment,such as carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, infec-tiousness, and mutagenicity, are not includedin the characterist ics for identifying hazard-ous wastes because EPA considers that re li-

able testing protocols for these effects are notgenerally available to the regulated communi-




Table 53.—Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes

Ignitability-(wastes that during routine handlstart fire or exacerbate fire once started):

q liquid with a flash point below 60° C (140° F);q nonliquid capable under standard temperature and

pressure of causing fire through friction, absorption ofmoisture, or spontaneous chemical changes, and, when

ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently that itcreates a hazard;

q ignitable compressed gas as defined by the U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation; and

oxidizer as defined by the U.S. Department ofTransportation.

Corrosivity-(wastes that under normal conditions couldcorrode through their containers and leach outother waste constituents):

Ž aqueous material with pH less than or equal to 2 orgreater than or equal to 12.5; or

q liquid that corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35millimeters (0.25 inch) per year under specified testprocedures.

Reactivity—(wastes that are extremely unstable undernormal conditions with tendency to react violently,

explode, or give off dangerous gases):q

q

q

q

q

q

normally unstable ‘material that readily undergoesviolent change without detonating; ormaterial that reacts violently with water; ormaterial that forms potentially explosive mixtures withwater, or when mixed with water generates toxic gases,vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present adanger to human health or the environment; ora cyanide or sulfide-bearing waste which, when expos-ed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generatetoxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient topresent a danger to human health or the environment; ormaterial that is capable of detonation or explosive reac-tion if it is subjected to a strong initiating source or ifheated under confinement or it is readily capable ofdetonation or explosive decomposition or reaction atstandard temperature and pressure; or

a forbidden explosive, Class A explosive, or Class B ex-plosive, as defined by U.S. Department of Transporta-tion regulations.

Toxic/ty—(wastes are likely to leach out hazardousconcentration of toxic chemicals.) Waste is "EP toxic” if aspecified extraction procedure test yields an extract equalto or exceeding following levels:

Maximum concentration Contaminant (milligrams per liter)Arsenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Barium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Lead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2Selenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Endrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02Lindane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4Methoxychlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0Toxaphene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.52,4-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.02,4,5-TP Silvex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0SOURCE 40 CFR 261 Subpart C

ty . Waste exh ib i t ing these charac te r is t ic s ,however, may be brought under the subtitleC regulations through the listing mechanism.

Each ‘generator must determine if a solidwaste exhibits one or more of the specified

charac te r is t ic s by tes t ing a “ represen ta t ivesample” of the waste. The testing maybe basedon protocols described in the regulations, onother protocols approved by EPA as “equiva-lent,” or the generator may simply apply hisown knowledge of the solid waste or its con-sti tuents.

Unl ike mix tures con ta in ing l i s ted wastes(which are automatically considered hazard-ous), mixtures containing unlisted waste areconsidered hazardous and subject to regulationonly if the entire mixture exhibits one or moreof the specified characteristics.

Listing of Hazardous Waste

The second method for determining if a solidwaste is a hazardous waste is whether thewaste is listed as a hazardous waste or is a mix-ture of a solid waste and a listed waste. Sec-tion 3001 of RCRA requires EPA to develop cri-teria to be used in listing particular hazardouswastes and waste streams. The listing criteriaare that the solid waste:

• hexhibits one of the four characteristics of

hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity,reactivity, or EP toxicity); orq has been found to be fal al in humans in

low doses or, in the absence of humandata, has been shown to be dangerous inanimal studies; or is otherwise capable of causing or significantly contributing to anincrease in se r ious i r revers ib le , o r in -capacitating reversible, illness (such wasteis designated “acute hazardous waste”);or

q conta ins any of the tox ic const i tuen tslisted in Part 261, Appendix VIII which

have been shown in scientific studies tohave toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, orteratogenic effects on human or other lifeforms, unless i t is determined that thewaste cannot pose a hazard when improp-




EPA’s final determination later modified itstemporary exclusion based on the commentsreceived and more intensive review. 13

The delisting of a facility’s waste does notmean that it is not subject to hazardous waste

regulation. The facility must continue to ana-lyze its solid waste, and if it exhibits one of thefour characterist ics of hazardous waste or if it later includes a listed waste, the waste is subject to subtitle C regulations. Generators havethe burden of demonstrating that their wasteis not hazardous because under RCRA they arere sp o n s ib le fo r d e te rmin in g wh e th e r th e i rwastes are hazardous, and because they areuniquely aware of the contents of their wastestreams.

Changes in the Universe of Hazardous Waste

In general , because of various exemptionsand exclusions and the l ist ing and delist ingprocesses, the universe of waste covered by theRCRA Subtitle C regulations can be expectedto change. Moreover, EPA is required to re-view periodically the lists and the criteria foridentifying waste, and to make appropriate ad-ditions and deletions as more information be-comes available, However, EPA has not madeany additions to the list of hazardous wastesince 1980. Under section 3001(c) of RCRA,State governors may also petition EPA to add

substances to the list. The Governor of Mich-igan, for example, has submitted a petition re-questing that EPA add over 200 additionalchemical substances regulated as hazardouswaste in Michigan to the Federal list of haz-ardous wastes.

Special Exemptions for Certain

Categories of Hazardous Wastes

All wastes in the universe of hazardous wasteare not necessarily subject to the full require-ments of the RCRA program, For example,EPA regulations include special limited exemp-tions for generators which produce hazardouswaste in small quantities, for hazardous wastesthat are used, reused, recycled, or reclaimed,

Issee 47 F.R. 52,667, Nov. 22, 1981, at 52,685.

and for residues of hazardous wastes in con-tainers. These limited exemptions have the ad-vantage that EPA retains regulatory jurisdic-tion over the wastes and activities involved andcould impose additional requirements or in-voke i ts enforcement authority where neces-

sary to protect human health or the environ-ment,

Small Quantity Generator Exemption

EPA has exempted certa in small quantitygenerators from the standards generally im-posed on hazardous waste generators. Thesesmall generators are exempted from the noti-f ica t ion , recordkeep ing , repor t ing requ ire -ments, and from the manifest system. As a con-sequence of this exemption, unknown quan-ti t ies of hazardous waste exit the regulated

universe of hazardous waste. In the preambleto the May 1980 regulations, EPA explained itsreason for creation of this administrative ex-emption because:

. , . (the) enormous number of small genera-tors, if brought entirely within the subtitle Cregulatory system, w ould far ou tstrip the lim-ited Agen cy resources necessary to achieve ef-fective implementation.14

To qualify for the the small quantity gener-ator exemption, generators must not generateor accumulate more than a specified amount

of hazardous waste each month. The smallquantity limits are:

q n o m o r e t h a n 1 k i l o g r a m p e r m o n t h(kg/ me) for acutely hazardous w aste,

q no more than 100 kg/ mo of residu es or con-tamina ted so i ls , wa te r , o r o the r debr isresulting from the cleanup of any spill of any acutely hazardous waste; or

q no m ore than 1,000 kg/ m.o (2,200 lb) of anyother hazardous waste, 15

1445 F.R. 33,104, May 19, 1980.lbIdentified in 40 CFR 261, subp art C (1982). Man y States have

been more restrictive than EPA in granting exemptions for someof the small quantity generators. In some States, small quantit y

generators are thought to be responsible for the most serioushazardous waste problem, See the discussion of State smallgenerator provisions later in this chapter.



Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program q 277

In addition, the generator must either treat orstore the hazardous waste in an onsite facilityo r e n su re d e l iv e ry to a n a p p ro v e d o f f s i t estorage, treatment, or disposal facility. This off-site facility must be a facility that has interimstatus or is permitted under the Federal RCRA

program or an authorized State program, aState-approved municipal or industria l solidwaste facility (subtitle D facility), or a facilitythat beneficially uses or reuses or legitimatelyrecycles or reclaims the waste or treats it beforesuch reuse or recycling.

Small quantity generators who mix hazard-ous waste with nonhazardous waste may takeadvantage of the small quantity exemption pro-vided that the amount of hazardous waste inthe mixture remains below the specified limitsand that the mixture does not exhibit any of

the characterist ics of hazardous wastes.

Exemption for Wastes That Are Used,Reused, Recycled, or Reclaimed

EPA has recognized the need to achieve aworkable balance between the requirement insubtitle C that hazardous waste be properlymanaged and RCRA’S overall objective of pro-moting the use, reuse, recycling, and reclama-tion of energy and material from wastes. De-spite objections that regulation might thwartthe resource recovery goals of RCRA, EPA hasincluded hazardous wastes that are used, re-used, recycled, or recla imed within the uni-verse of hazardous waste, but has temporarilyexempted many of these wastes from most haz-ardous waste regulation until special provi-sions can be developed.

Listed hazardous wastes, mixtures contain-in g l i s t e d h a z a rd o u s wa s te s , a n d s lu d g e s ,which are transported or stored before beingrecycled, are subject to limited notification,recordkeeping, transportation, and storage re-quirements. However, other hazardous wastesare exempted from regulation altogether if they

are:q

q

being beneficially used or reused or legit-imately recycled or reclaimed; orbeing accumulated, stored, or physically,chemically, or biologically treated prior tobeneficial use or reuse or legitimate re-cycling or reclamation; or

q spent pickle liquor reused in wastewatert r e a tme n t in a Na t io n a l P o l lu ta n t D is -charge Elimination System (NPDES) per-mitted facility or that is be in g s t o r e d o rt r e a t e d b e f o r e s u c h u s e .1 6

Exemption for Residues of Hazardous Wastein Empty Containers

EPA has decided that any hazardous wasteresidues remaining in an “empty” container,or in an inner liner removed from an “empty”container, are not subject to hazardous wasteregulation. A container is considered “empty”if:

q

q

q

If a

it has held a hazardous waste that is a com-pressed gas, but the pressure in the con-ta iner now approaches a tmospheric ; orit has held an acutely hazardous commer-

cial chemical, but has since been triple-r in se d w i th a n a p p ro p r ia t e so lv e n t o rcleaned by some other means shown toachieve equivalent removal; orit has held any other type of hazardouswaste , but a ll waste has since been re-moved using the practices commonly usedto remove materials from that kind of con-tainer (e.g., pouring, pumping, aspirating)and no more than 2.5 centimeters (1 inch)or 0.3 percent by weight of residue remainon the bottom of the container or innerl i n e r .16

container is not “emptv” according to oneof these three definitions then any hazardouswaste remaining in the container is subject tofull regulation unless the generator qualifies forthe small generator exemption or the containerresidues qualify for the recycling exemption.

Provisions of General Applicability to

Hazardous Waste Generators, Transporters, and

Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities

Notif ication

Section 3010 of RCRA’7 requires that all gen-erators, transporters, and owners or operatorsof treatment, storage, and disposal facilities(TSDFS) must have notified EPA that they are

1840 CFR 261.7, as modified at 47 F.R. 36092, Aug. 18, 1982.1742 U.S. C. 6930.




handling hazardous waste within 90 days of thed a te E P A i s su e s ru le s d e f in in g h a z a rd o u swaste (i.e., by Aug. 19, 1980). The generation,transportation, treatment, storage, or disposalof hazardous waste after that date is illegal if the required notification has not been made.

EPA encountered practical difficulties in ap-plying the notification requirement to firmsthat engaged in hazardous waste activities afterthe initial notification date had passed but thathad not been in violation of the requirementson that date. (For example, small generatorswho la te r exceeded the pe rmiss ib le 1 ,000kg/ mo leve l, genera to rs whose wastes werelisted subsequent to the date .) Accordingly,EPA provided that such firms are not in viola-tion of section 3010 if they were not requiredto notify EPA on the Aug. 19, 1980 notificationdate. These firms must notify EPA that theyare engaged in hazardous waste activities afterthey become subject to regulation.

The Manifest System

RCRA provides that EPA regulations mustrequire that waste generators, transporters, andTSDFS comply with the manifest system. Themanifest system is an integral part of the com-prehensive hazardous waste regulatory schemeunder RCRA as envisioned by Congress. Allwaste shipped offsite of generation must bema n i fe s te d ; th e ma n i fe s t mu s t a c c o mp a n y

the waste and identify the waste; specify itsq u a n t i ty , o r ig in , a n d d e s t in a t io n ; a n d th ei d e n t i t y o f t h e t r a n s p o r t e r . T h e m a n i f e s tallows tracking of the waste for enforcement.The manifest requirement also works to dis-courage the practices that produced midnightdumping and orphan dump s i te s . Addi t ion-ally, it provides information on which to baseregulation. The requirement is largely self-exe-cuting because it relies on the regulated com-munity to monitor compliance and to reportpossible violations.

Originally, EPA declined to establish a uni-form national manifest . Consequently , Statesimposed their own manifest requirements. In-terstate shippers of hazardous waste faced thepossib i l i ty o f hav ing to ca rry a d i f fe ren tmanifest for each State they traveled through.

In practice, however, many States acceptedmanifests of other States for purposes of com-plying with their requirements if the necessaryidentifying information was included. In re-sponse to industry complaints about lack of uniformity, EPA has proposed, but not yet

f ina l ized , a na t iona l manifes t fo rm.

18

Regulation of Hazardous Waste Generators

RCRA places several critical responsibilitieson generators of hazardous wastes. The gen-erator is responsible for assuring that hazard-ous waste enters the regulatory system by ana-lyzing its solid waste to determine whether itis a regulated hazardous waste . If i t is , thegenerator must meet notification and reportingrequirements, prepare a manifest for shippingwaste offsite, and properly pack and label thewaste for shipment. Generator activit ies are

not, however, as directly controlled as thoseof hazardous waste TSDF operators. The 1980RCRA Amendments to section 3002 emphati-cally placed on the generator the responsibili-ty to assure that waste is transported to, andarrives a t , an appropria te facil i ty . 19

EPA regulations define a generator as:

. . . any person, by site, whose act or processprod uced hazard ous w aste identified or listedin part 261 of this chapter and whose act firstcauses hazardous waste to become subject toregulation. 20

EPA’s definition of generator means that eachindividual plant or facility that produces haz-ardous waste is considered a separate gen-erator. The definition of generator does not dis-tinguish between those who produce hazard-ous waste as a normal consequence of theiractivities or processes, or those who create haz-ardous waste as a result of an accident or otherunusual circumstances. Exclusion of some sub-stances (e. g., mine waste) from the definitionof hazardous waste has the effect of removingthe firms that produce these substances from

being considered as generators and from hav-ing to comply with reporting and recordkeep-ing requirements, Additionally , a generator

1847 F.R. 9,336, Mar. 4, 1982.1042 USC. 6922.

Z040 CFR 260.10 (1982).




must obtain a TSDF permit if the waste is accu-mulated on the property for more than 90 daysor if the generator treats or disposes of thewaste on site.21

Requirements for Transporters of Hazardous Waste

RCRA directs EPA to establish standards fortransporters of hazardous waste. Safe transportof hazardous waste from generators to disposalsites is an important part of the comprehen-sive regulatory system. Requirements for haz-ardous waste transport were included to allowtracking of wastes and to prevent the abusesof midnight dumpers as well as the safetythreats posed by moving hazardous waste ma-terials unlabeled and undisclosed in interstatecommerce and from accidents.

Section 3003 of RCRA provides for EPA to

issue regulations for transporters which in-clude requirements for recordkeeping, com-pliance with the manifest system, transporta-t ion only of properly labeled and packagedwaste, and transportation of the waste only tothe permitted or interim status TSDFS desig-nated on the manifest.22 Transporters are notthemselves required to have permits underRCRA, bu t they must ob ta in iden t i f ica t ionnumbers from EPA and they may not acceptwaste from generators who do not also haveidentification numbers.

Transporters of hazardous waste are subjectto both EPA’s regulations under RCRA 23 (o rthose issued under an approved S ta te p ro-gram), regulations issued by the Departmentof Transportation (DOT) under the HazardousMaterials Transportation Act 24 (many of whichhave been jointly adopted with EPA), and anyadditional requirements of State laws. RCRAimposes two additional responsibilities to theDOT hazardous materials regulatory scheme:notifying of hazardous waste activities and ob-ta in in g a n E P A id e n t i f i c a t io n n u mb e r a n dc o mp ly in g w i th th e ma n i fe s t sy s te m, T h e

RCRA regulations do not apply to onsite trans-

portation of hazardous waste by generators orby owners or operators of TSDFS. They alsodo not apply to transporters of waste fromsmall quantity generators or (except for limitedprovisions) to transporters of recycled wasteor empty containers, because of their exclusion

from most of the subtitle C regulatory system.Special rules may apply when a discharge oc-

curs during transportation (i. e., when there isan accidental spilling, leaking, pumping, emp-tying or dumping of hazardous waste onto orinto the land or water, Furthermore, transport-ers who hold waste for more than 10 days (ex-cept under limited circumstances) must com-ply with the applicable regulations for storageand fo r ob ta in ing a RCRA sto rage fac i l i typ e r m i t .25

Requirements for Hazardous Waste Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities

Section 3004 of RCRA authorizes EPA to pro-mulgate “such performance standards for haz-ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposalfacilities as maybe necessary to protect humanhealth and the environment,” The 1980 amend-ments require EPA to distinguish, where ap-propriate, between new and existing facilitiesin sett ing these standards.28

The performance standards are intended toserve a threefold purpose:

1.

2.

3.

to establish design and operating practicesthat are adequate to protect health andenvironment,to provide the technical basis for permit-ting facilities, andto set minimum standards for authorizingState hazardous waste programs,

Section 3004 provides that the EPA perform-ance standards must include, but are not lim-ited to, requirements for:

q maintenance of records of a ll hazardouswastes handled by the facility and of treat-ment, storage, or disposal practices used;

Z140 CFR 262.34 (1982).22

42 U,S. C, 6923,2340 CFR part 263 (1982).

2149 u .S. C. 1801-1812, (1 978).

ZEJohn Quar]es , Federal Regulation of Hazardous Waste: AGuide to RCRA (Washington, DC.: Environmental Law Institute,1982], pp. 86-87,

2642 u,s.c. 5924,




q

q

q

q

q

q

reporting, monitoring, inspections, andcompliance with the manifest system;operating methods, techniques, and prac-tices for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous wastes;location, design, and construction of the

facility;contingency plans for effective action tominimize unanticipated damage from haz-ardous waste treatment, storage, or dis-posal;maintenance of operation of the facilityand such additional qualifications as toownership, continuity of operations, train-ing for personnel, and financial respon-sibility as may be necessary or desirable;andc o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f RCRA section 3005 relating to permits for

facilities.Performance standards commonly are used

to establish the level of effectiveness that apollution control technology or manageria lpractice must achieve—e,g., a requirement thata landfill-liner system must prevent waste con-stituents from entering the environment for 200years is a possible formulation of a perform-ance standard. The use of the term “perform-ance standard” in section 3004, however, is tobe given a broad meaning since the objectiveto be met is the “protection of human health

and the environment” from the impacts of haz-ardous waste management activit ies. In theachievement of this overall goal, section 3004authorizes the use of both the typical perform-ance standard and the more specific designstandard in sett ing detailed facil i ty require-ments. EPA has used both types of standardsin regulations on the operating methods, tech-niques, and practices, and the location, design,and construction of hazardous waste facilities.

Regulated Facilities

Facilities must be operated and permitted ac-cording to the standards established by EPAunder section 3004. EPA regulations have de-fined “treatment,” “storage,” and “disposal”

quite broadly for the purposes of identifyingactivities that are subject to regulation.

A hazardous waste treatment facility is anoperation that uses: “any method, technique,or process, including neutralization, designedto change the physical, che:mical, or biological

character or composition of any hazardouswaste so as to neutralize such wastes, or so asto recover energy or material resources fromthe waste, or so as to render such waste non-hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to trans-port, store or dispose of; or amenable for re-covery, amenable for storage, or reduced involume. ”27 This definition of treatment is broadand includes such activities as dewatering orneutralizing hazardous waste, or mixing a non-listed hazardous waste with a solid waste torender the resulting mixture nonhazardous. Re-cycling facilities are clearly within this defini-tion, however, EPA has given them a broad ex-emption f rom most fac i l i ty s tandards . Thecleanup of an accidental spil l of hazardousmaterial may also fall within the definition of treatment and thus trigger the regulatory re-quirements.

A hazardous waste storage facil i ty is anyfacility that is used for: “the holding of hazard-ous waste for a temporary period, at the endof which the hazardous waste is treated, dis-posed of, or stored elsewhere.”28 EPA rules pro-vide that generators may store hazardous waste

onsite for up to 90 days, and transporters mayhold hazardous waste for up to 10 days, with-out becoming subject to the storage facilitys tandards and permit requ irements .

A facility operator is engaged in disposal ac-tivities under EPA rules if he engages in:

, , . the discharge, deposit, injection, du mping,spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid wasteor hazardous waste into or on any land orwater so that such solid waste or hazardouswaste or any constituent thereof may enter theenvironment or be emitted into the air or dis-

charged into any waters, including ground-waters. 29

N140 CFR 260,10 (1982).z840 CFR 260.10 (1982).Z040 CFR 260.10 (1982).




However, EPA defines a hazardous wastedisposal facility more narrowly as: “a facili-ty or part of a facility at which hazardous wasteis intentionally placed into or on any land orwater, and at which waste will remain afterclosure. “3° The distinction between disposal as

an activity and disposal facilities is made toallow EPA to maintain jurisdiction over an un-intentional spill or other similar act that mightoccur, without necessarily requiring a facilitypermit based simply on the possibility of suchan occurrence. The key to being a disposal fa-cility therefore is that the waste is placed inthe land or water so that it may enter the en-vironment and that waste remains at the facili-ty after closure.

Standards for TSDFS

EPA’s implementation of requirements of section 3004 to establish performance stand-ards for hazardous waste TSDFS has been aprocess characterized by delay, false starts, fre-quent policy reversals, and l i t igation.31 O n eresult of the complexity and delay encounteredin developing a comprehensive regulatory sys-tem for hazardous waste is that EPA has pro-mulgated three different sets of standards forTSDFS.

Interim Status Standards (40 CFR part 265).–These regulations, originally published on May

19, 1980, establish administrative and nontech-nical facility standards applicable to all existingfacilities operating under interim status and tospecial technical standards for different typesof facilities. Existing facilities will continueoperating under these requirements until afinal facility permit is issued or denied.

General Status Standards (40 CFR part 264) (Per-manent Program Standards) .—Regulations es-tablishing these final technical standards forp e rmi t t e d h a z a rd o u s wa s te f a c i l i t i e s we republished over a 2-year period. These stand-ards are applicable to new and existing facili-ties at the time the facility permit is issued.

3040 CFR 260.10 (1982).

31This history is detai]ed in the preamble to the final landdisposal facility regulations issued in July 1982. See 47 F.R.32,276-32,278, July 26, 1982.

They generally impose more stringent detailedrequirements that are adapted to the individualfacility conditions and that are specified in thepermit after the permit review.

Interim Standards for New Facilities (40 CFR part

267).—Because RCRA requires that issuance of a permit before the construction and operationof new hazardous waste facilities, the delaysencountered in establishing final permitt ingstandards threatened to stop construction of additional waste treatment and disposal ca-pacity and the development of new, safer wastemanagement technologies. EPA issued a set of temporary interim standards for permitt ingnew facilities in January 1981 to remedy thissituation. (A new facility is any facility thatdoes not qualify as an existing “interim status”facility,) These interim standards were super-

seded as part 264 final permit standards be-came effective.

Interim Status Standards (ISS)

RCRA originally provided that no hazardouswaste facility could operate without a permitbeyond 24 months after the passage of the act(the date on which the original facility stand-ards would have become effective if they hadbeen issued on time). Section 3005 providedthat an existing facility could apply for interimstatus allowing it to operate as if permitted,

pending issuance of the standards and actionon the permit application. The 1980 RCRAamendments changed the date on which facil-ities had to be in existence in order to qualifyfor interim status to November 19, 1980 (theeffective date of the May 1980 implementingregulations). 32

On May 19, 1980, EPA issued its initial haz-ardous waste regulations. This rulemaking in-cluded general administra tive and nontech-nical standards applicable for all TSDFS andmore specific technical standards for differenttypes of facilities. Table 54 summarizes thegeneral interim status requirements applicableto most facilities.

szsolid waste llisposa] Act Amend ments of 1980, Public Law

96-482, sec. 10, 94 Stat. 2338, C)ct. 21, 1980.




Table 54.—interim Status Standards: General Administrative and Nontechnical Standardsfor interim Status Facilities

General requirements for all Interim status facilities: qNotify EPA of hazardous waste activities.qObtain EPA identification number.Ž Submit Part A permit application.ŽFile annual or other periodic reports required by EPA.q Comply with manifest system:

—Sign for receipt of waste shipment and return manifestcopies to transporter and generator;

—Inspect shipment and report to EPA any significantdiscrepancies in amount, type of waste;

—Report unmanifested waste (except shipments fromexempted small generators); and

—Maintain manifest copy at facility for 3 years.. Notify EPA before receiving waste shipments from outside

the United States.q Notify new owner in writing of duty to comply with RCRA

regulations.q Maintain facility operating record over life of facility

covering: —Type, quantities, and location of each waste at facility; —Method of treatment, storage, and disposal; —Waste monitoring, testing, inspection results, and

analytical data (maintain monitoring data for disposalfacilities through post-closure period);

—Accidents requiring action under contingency plan; and —Closure cost estimate (and post-closure costs estimate

for disposal facilities).q Waste analysis:

—Prepare and follow written waste analysis plan specify-ing detailed chemical and physical analyses to be con-ducted, sampling methods, and special analyses for ig-nitable, reactive or incompatible wastes, and for inspec-ting shipments for compliance with manifest;

—Test a representative sample of wastes before treatment,storage, or disposal; retest if change in waste generatingprocesses or if off site wastes do not match manifestdescription; and

—Maintain record of waste analyses results.q Inspections and monitoring:

—Prepare and follow written operator’s inspectionschedule describing types of problems to be detected,and frequency of inspection;

—Inspect for spi l ls at least daily; fol low specifictechnology inspection and monitoring requirementsunder technical standards; and

—Maintain record of inspection results for 3 years.qGround water monitoring (landfills, surface impoundments,

and land treatment facilities only): —By Nov. 19, 1981, develop and implement ground water

monitoring program for assessing the effects of thefacility on the uppermost aquifer underlying the facili-ty. Program must include:(i) written ground water monitoring plan, including

sampling and analysis specifications and methods;(ii) installed system of ground water monitoring wells

(at least one upgradient well and 3 downgradientwells); and

(iii) outline of ground water quality assessment programto be implemented if contamination is detected.

qConduct sampling and testing of ground water: —First year: quarterly samples of all monitoring wells to

establish background levels of specified parameters:(i) Maximum contaminant levels in National Interim

Primary Drinking Water Standards (21);(ii) Water quality indicator parameters: chloride, iron,

manganese, phenols, sodium, and sulfate; and

(iii) Ground water contamination indicator parameters:pH, specific conductance, total organic carbon, andtotal organic halogen.

—Subsequent years: Test for each well quarterly for 6background water quality indicator parameters; semi-

annually for 4 contamination indicator parameters. Continue monitoring program for Iife of facility and dur-

ing 30-year post-closure period for disposal facilities.q Report ground water monitoring results (for landfills, sur-

face impoundments, and land treatment facilities): —Waivers of ground water monitoring program available:

(i) by demonstrating low potential for migration of wasteconstituents from facility via uppermost aquifer to water-supply wells. (Written determination is made by facilityoperator and certi f ied by qualif ied geologist orgeotechnical engineer.) and (ii) for surface impound-ments neutralizing corrosive waste if demonstrate nopotential for migration from impoundment.

—Use of alternative ground water monitoring programsimilar to ground water assessment program allowed ifmonitor ing of indicator parameters would showstatistically significant changes in water quality.

q Handling ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes—waste analysis and special safety precautions such aswaste segregation, smoking restrictions, and limits on mix-ing these special wastes are required.

q Site security: —Maintain site security to prevent unknowing entry, and

to minimize unauthorized entry into facility through24-hour surveillance, barriers, fencing, posted warnings;and

—Control entry to active portion of facility.Ž Personnel training:

—Assure that facility personnel are trained in wastemanagement, operating, and emergency procedures; and

—Maintain personnel training records until closure. Emergency preparedness and prevention and contingency

plan: —Provide internal alarm and emergency communications

system, fire, spill control, and decontamination equip-ment, and device for summoning local emergencyassistance;

—Test and maintain systems and equipment for emergen-cy readiness;

—Develop written contingency plan for accidents andemergencies;

—Designate emergency coordinator; and —Provide written report to Regional Administrator within

15 days of events requiring implementation of contingen-cy plan.

q Closure: —Develop written closure plan May May 19, 1981, including:

methods of closing (or partially closing) facility at anytime during life of facility and at end of operating life,estimate of largest inventory of waste in storage or treat-ment during life of facility, how facility and equipment

will be decontaminated; estimated date of closure;estimated closure costs; and schedule for final closure;

—Notify EPA 180 days before closure begins; —Submit closure plan within 15 days of loss of interim

status or receipt of order to stop receiving waste; —Follow closure plan; —Complete all treatment, storage disposal activities within

90 days after receiving last waste shipment; and —Complete closure within 180 days of beginning of

closure period (unless date is extended by RA).




Table 54.—interim Status Standards: General Administrative and Nontechnical Standardsfor Interim Status Facilities—Continued

q

q

q

Obtain engineer’s and operator’s certification that closureis completed according to plan and all equipment andfacilities have been decontaminated or disposed ofaccording y.Post-closure (disposal facilities only): —Develop written post-closure plan by May 19, 1961, speci-

fying monitoring and planned maintenance activities tobe carried on during 30-year post-closure period andidentifying responsible person;

—Follow ground water monitoring plan and reportingrequirements;

—File survey plat showing location, type and quantity ofwaste i n disposal faciIity after closure, and amend titlerecords showing use of land for waste disposal andrestrictions on future use.

Financial responsibility: —Maintain on file at facility: (i) written estimate of closure

SOURCE 40 CFR Part 265

The interim status standards have generallybeen characterized as “good housekeeping” re-quirements. Except for the ground water mon-itoring, closure, and post-closure care for dis-posal faci l i t ies , the interim status standardswere intended by EPA to be “capable of beinginterpreted and applied in a straightforwardmanner wi thout subs tant ia l expendi tures bySeptember 19, 1980.33 (As explained later in thischapter , EPA’s analysis of the ground watermonitoring, closure, and post-closure require-ments indicated that these imposed the majoreconomic impacts of the interim status stand-

ards. However, of these, only ground watermonitoring requirements imposed signif icantimmediate expenses, and these were temperedsomewhat by economies of scale enjoyed bylarger facilities,)

Another s ignif icant feature of the interimstatus standards is that they are largely self-e xecu t in g . T h a t is , t h e fa c il it y o w n e r o roperator is responsible for being aware of, in-terpreting, and assuring compliance with theregulations. EPA and the States will conductperiodic inspections to determine if a facility

is in compliance. Adhering to the interim statusstandards will not insulate a facility from hav-ing to comply with administrat ive orders orbeing subject to an imminent hazard action or

3345 F.R, 33,159.60,

costs, adjusted at least annually for inflation, and (ii)demonstration of mechanism faci l i ty wil l use toguarantee coverage of closure costs.

q Liability insurance: —Maintain liability insurance or self-insurance for at least

$1 million dollar per occurrence for sudden accidentalinjuries to persons or property from faciIity operationsup to annual aggregate of $2 million (exclusive of legalcosts);

—Owners of surface impoundments, landfills, and landtreatment facilities must provide insurance or self-insurance of at least $3 million per occurrence for non-sudden accidental occurrences up to an annual aggregateof $6 million (exclusive of legal costs). (Variations maybe approved by RA for State insurance requirements orfor State assumption of liability.)

other enforcement measure if the operation of the facility poses a threat to human health orthe envi ronment .

Interim Status Ground Water Monitoring Requirements

Any interim status landfill, surface impound-ment, or land treatment facility must have aground water monitoring program to assess theeffects of the facility on the uppermost aquiferunderlying the faci l i ty. The faci l i ty programmust be in place by November 19, 1981. Theprogram must be continued throughout the life

o f t he f ac i l i t y and du r ing the pos t - c lo su reperiod for disposal facilities.34 The ISS groundwater monitoring program consists of threeparts:

1.

2.

3.

a written ground water monitoring plan(including sampling and analysis plan),an installed system of ground water mon-itoring wells, anda written outline of a ground water quali-ty assessment program to be implementedif contamination is suggested by analysisof monitoring data.

The ISS ground water monitoring systemmust include at least one upgradient well tomonitor background water quality and at least

aAsee-~O cFR 26.5.gCl, 45 F.R. 33,239, May 19, 1980 and 47 F.R.

1254, Jan. 11, 1982.




three downgradient wells sufficient to detectimmediately any migration of a sta tist icallysignificant amount of waste from the facilityto the uppermost aquifer. The location, depth,and number of wells must be sufficient to yieldrepresentative measures of background water

quality and to detect contamination.Initial background levels for all monitoring

wells must be established by sampling at leastquarterly in the first year. The operator musttest each well quarterly during the first yearfor 31 specified parameters. These parametersinclude the maximum contaminant levels es-t a b l i sh e d in th e Na t io n a l In te r im P r ima ryDr in k in g Wa te r S ta n d a rd s u n d e r th e S a feDr in k in g Wa te r Ac t r e g u la t io n sss , g ro u n dwater quality indicator parameters* and fourground water contamination indicator param-

eters. * * These resu lts ar e to be rep orted toEPA. After the first year, the operator must testquarterly for the six background water quali-ty parameters and semiannually for the fourparameters that indicate possible leakage.

By November 19, 1981, ISS facilities mustprepare a written outline of a ground waterquality assessment program to be implementedif monitoring indicated a statistically signifi-cant change in ground water quality. The as-sessment program must be designed to deter-mine whether waste constituents have entered

ground water, the extent of any contamination,the rate and extent of migration, and the con-centration of the contaminant.

Within 7 days of obtaining results indicatingsignificant changes in ground water, the facili-ty must notify the Regional Administra tor.within an additional 15 days, the facility mustsubmit i ts ground water quali ty assessmentplan based on its previously prepared writtenoutline and implement the plan. Additional re-ports based on the assessment plan must alsobe submitted to the EPA Regional Adminis-trator. The facility must continue to monitor

under the assessment program at least quarter-

‘!% 40 ~FR Part 265, App. III (1982).“Chloride, iron, manganese, phenols, sodium, sulfate.q *Specific condu ctance, pH, total or ganic carbon, and total

organic halogen.

ly until closure. Unlike the standards for per-mitting land disposal facilities, the interimsta tus s tandards do no t requ ire implementa -tion of corrective action, only continued mon-itoring of the contamination. However, EPAmay accelerate the call up of the facility’s part

B permit application, or initiate imminent haz-ard action or a section 3013 administrativeorder after receiving notice that the facilitymay be affecting ground water quality.

All or part of the ground water monitoringre q u i re me n ts c a n b e wa iv e d u n d e r c e r t a incircumstances. If, based on evaluation of cer-tain specified site conditions, the operator dem-onstrates that “there is a low potential for mi-gration of hazardous waste constituents fromthe facility via the uppermost aquifer to watersupp ly wells, ” the facility n eed n ot imp lement

a ground water monitoring program. This dem-onstration must be in writing, certified by aqualified geologist or “geotechnical” engineer,and maintained at the facility.

The ground water monitoring requirementsmay be waived for surface impoundments thatare used only to neutralize corrosive wastes if the operator demonstrates that there is no po-tential for the migration of hazardous wastesfrom the impoundment. This determinationmust be in writing, and certified by a qualifiedprofessional.

These waivers of the ground water monitor-ing standard are made by the facility operatora n d a re n o t r e p o r te d to E P A o r th e S ta te .However, the determinations must be main-tained in the facility file and will be reviewedduring compliance inspections and permit re-view by EPA or the State agency. If this reviewindicates that the waiver was unwarranted, thefacility is subject to penalties for violation of RCRA regulations.

The facil i ty may implement an a lternativeground water monitoring system other than the

one specified in the regulations if the requiredg ro u n d wa te r in d ic a to r p a ra me te r s wo u ldshow statistically significant changes in waterquality. The alternative ground water monitor-ing plan must be submitted to the Regional Ad-




ministrator and certified by a qualified geol-ogist or geotechnical engineer.

ISS Closure and Post-Closure Requirements

Interim status facilities that close before a

permit is issued must comply with ISS closureand post-c losure requirements. These stand-ards are similar to the permanent programstandards, except that they do not require moreextensive corrective action and ground watermonitoring requirements for land disposal fa-cilities. Closure is a period after which hazard-ous waste is no longer accepted at facility, alltreatment, storage, and disposal operations arecompleted, and the facility is closed by, for ex-ample, installing the final cover on a landfillor draining and cleaning storage tanks. Theclosure period generally will last 6 months,

Post-closure is the 30-year period after closurewhen operators of disposal facilities must per-form monitoring and maintenance activit ies.

The purpose of the ISS closure regulationsis to ensure that facilities are closed properly:1) to minimize need for further maintenance,and 2) to control, minimize, or eliminate post-cIosure escapes of hazardous waste or constit-uents into the environment,

There are specific requirements for differenttechnologies as well as general requirements.Under general requirements, by May 19, 1981,

all TSDF operators were to have prepared awritten closure plan to be maintained on fileat the facility and identify the steps necessaryto completely or partially close the facility atany point during its intended operation andat the end of its operating life.36 The plan alsomust include estimates of the largest inventoryof waste that will be in storage or treatmentduring facility life, the anticipated closure date,and an estimate of closure costs, The operatormust amend the plan to reflect changes in theTSDF operations affecting the closure plan orplanned closing date, The plan must be avail-able to EPA on request and at inspection,

When an operator decides to close a facili-ty, the plan must be submitted to the EPA Re-

w40 CFR 265, subpart G (1982).

gional Administrator 180 days before closurebegins (comments and hearings may be re-quired). (If an operation loses interim status oris ordered to stop receiving waste, it must sub-mit a closure plan to EPA in 15 days.)

Closure begins when the last shipment of hazardous waste is received, the operator thenhas 90 days to complete all treatment, storage,and disposal activities or to remove waste fromthe site. All closure activities must be com-pleted within 6 months or 180 days. This timecan be extended by the EPA Regional Admin-is t ra to r fo r ce r ta in condi t ions , F ina l ly , theoperator and a professional engineer must cer-tify that the facility has been closed in accord-ance with an approved plan and that all equip-ment and structures have been disposed of ordecontaminated,

Post-Closure Plan

By May 19, 1981, all disposal facility oper-ators must also have a written post-closure planidentifying the activities to be carried on for30 years after c losure . The plan must a t aminimum include provisions for ground watermonitoring and reporting, the planned main-tenance activities to ensure the integrity of thefinal cover or containment and the function-ing of monitoring equipment; and the identityof the persons to be contacted about the facili-

ty during post-closure.Within 90 days after c losure , the operator

must provide the Regional Administrator andlocal land use authorities with a professionalsurvey plan showing the disposal areas, types,location, and quantities of the disposed waste.The owner must amend the deed or title rec-ords to note that the land was used for hazard-ous waste disposal and that its future use isrestricted.

ISS Financial Responsibility and Insurance Standards

The ISS financial responsibility requirementsapply to all TSDFS except those operated byFederal or State Governments. They were im-posed to assure that funds will be available topay for closure and post-closure care and tocompensate third parties for any injuries suf-




fered as a result of facility activities. The in-terim status financial responsibility and liabili-ty insurance standards are nearly identical tothe standards for permitted facilities.

Each facility must have on file a written esti-

mate of closure costs (to be adjusted annuallyto reflect infla tion) demonstrating how thefacility plans to cover its closure costs. One ora combination of several mechanisms can beused to meet closure costs, including:

• a trust fund,Ž a surety bond guaranteeing payment into

a trust fund, an irrevocable letter of credit,q a financial assets test, orq an insurance policy.

The same mechanisms can be used to dem-

onstra te f inanc ia l responsib i l i ty fo r post -closure care. For permitted facilities, the rulesallow the posting of a surety bond guarantee-ing the performance of the closure plan as anadditional means of demonstrating financialresponsibil i ty . The interim sta tus standardsalso impose l iabil i ty insurance requirementsfor hazardous waste TSDFS. The facility owneror operator must maintain liability insuranceor self-insurance of at least $1 million per oc-currence with an annual aggregate of $2 mil-lion for claims of sudden accidental injuriesto persons or property from facility operations

(exclusive of legal costs). Owners or operatorsof surface impoundments, landfills, and landtreatment facil i t ies must carry additional in-surance of at least $3 million per occurrenceand $6 mill ion annual aggregate (excludinglegal fees) for nonsudden accidental occur-rences. These nonsudden liability requirementswill be phased in over 3 years beginning Jan-uary 1983 for owners who obtain an optionalpolicy for both sudden and nonsudden occur-rences that provide coverage of at least $4million per occurrence and $8 million annual

aggregate (exclusive of legal fees) .37variations in these requirements are allowed

to provide for use of State insurance require-ments in States where Federal program re-

3 7~ 40 CFR 265.147 (1982).

quirements apply if the coverage is consistentand includes at least the same amount of fundsand coverage. If a State assumes the responsi-bility for closure, post-closure care, or liabilitycoverage at a facility (an aspect of some Statesiting programs), this assumption may be ap-

proved by the Regional Administrator as an al-ternative to liability insurance.

Interim Status Standards for Landfills

Interim sta tus landfil ls are subject to theg e n e ra l f a c i l i ty s t a n d a rd s , so me a d d i t io n a ltechnical standards for ground water monitor-ing, financial responsibility, and closure andpost-closure care. Basically, the interim stand-ards are directed at controll ing the generalproblems associated with landfill operations:

fire, explosion, toxic fumes, and contaminationof surface and ground waters. The facility mustbe operated to divert rainwater run-on into,and to collect runoff from, the active portionof the landfill. Measures to control wind disper-sion of contaminated soils must be adopted (if necessary). Ignitable and reactive wastes mustbe treated or mixed before landfilling so thatthey no longer meet ignitable or reactive wastecharacterist ics,

Specific requirements are imposed to l imitthe disposal of liquids in landfills that could

form leachate that would allow waste constit-uents to enter the environment. The May 1980rules banned most landfilling of free liquids orwastes containing free liquids after November19, 1981, An exception was made for disposalof bulk liquids or noncontainerized liquids ina landfill with a liner that is chemically andphysically resistant to the liquid and with aleachate collection and removal system to re-move any leachate. The rules also allowed land-filling of liquids in very small containers (e.g.,capsules) and in containers (e.g., batteries) thatwere not designed for the purpose of storage.

Among the exceptions to the original restric-tions on disposal of liquids in landfill are thefollowing:

q containerized liquid Ignitable wastes untilMay 26, 1982, if they were protected from




to make them conform with changes adoptedfor permanent program permitting standards.

Inter im Status Standards for Surface Impoundments

Re g u la t io n s imp o s in g o p e ra t in g re q u i re -

ments for existing surface impoundments usedfor storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardouswastes are intended to minimize or control themajor problems encountered with these facil-ities—leakage of hazardous waste constituentsto ground water, air emissions from volatilewastes, and overtopping of the impoundmentsand spilling of the wastes because of overfill-ing, precipitation, run-on, or wind.

The standards require that surface impound-ments be operated to maintain at least 2ft of freeboar 40 to protect against overtopping. Im-poundments with earthen dikes must have pro-tective covering such as grass, rocks, or plasticsheeting to limit erosion and maintain struc-tural integrity. Additional waste analyses arerequired before use of the impoundment fornew wastes or use of new treatment processes,Ignitable or reactive wastes must be pretreatedto remove the hazardous characteristics beforebeing placed in a surface impoundment. In-compatible wastes must not be put in surfaceimpoundments. The level of freeboard in animpoundment must be inspected daily to detector prevent overtopping, and the structure and

associated equipment must be inspected week-ly for leaks or deterioration. Surface impound-ments must comply wi th the g round wate rmo n i to r in g re g u la t io n s fo r in te r im s t a tu sfacilities.

At c losure , a ll wastes, residues, and con-taminated soils must be removed from the fa-cil i ty and sent to an approved treatment orstorage facility. If the surface impoundment isa disposal facility, it must follow final closureprocedures similar to those for landfills, meetfinancial responsibility requirements, and pro-

vide post-closure care.*4O CFR 265.222 (1982).

General Facility Standards for Permitting

Hazardous Waste TSDFS

The interim status standards govern facilityoperation until a permit is issued. Before afacility is issued a final permit, it undergoes

a detailed review to determine that its futuregeneration will be in compliance with the gen-eral Phase II standards.

More than 10,000 existing facilities submittedpart A permit applications to obtain interimstatus. Most of these facilities will have to bepermitted under the final standards. This proc-ess is expected to take 5 years or more. EPAanticipates that a significant number of smallerinterim status landfills and surface impound-ments will close rather than incur the expensesof upgrading the facility to obtain a permit.

Table 55 summarizes some of the key ele-ments of EPA’s final part 264 permit standards.These standards incorporate and build on thein te r im s t a tu s r e q u i re me n ts . F o r e x a mp le ,ground water monitoring at landfills during in-terim status will indicate if any contaminationmay have occurred and thus be used to decidewhat type of monitoring and corrective actionmay be demanded as a permit condition if thefacility continues to operate (see table 56).

A major criticism of the adequacy of in-terim status requirements has been that they

will govern TSDF operations until a permitis issued-which could be 5 years. Neither theinterim status standards nor the permit stand-ards have addressed whether more stringentstandards for inspection, prepermit reviews,and monitoring are necessary to identify andcorrect si tuations that may pose a threat tohuman health and the environment before theISS facility is called in for its permit review.

The permanent program standards of 40 CFRpart 264 are largely identical to the interimstatus requirements for waste analysis, person-

nel tra ining, emergency prevention and pre-paredness, contingency planning, closure and



Table 55.—Technical Performance Standards for Containers, Tanks, Incinerators, Landfills, and Surface Impoundments

Design and operating conditions

Containers (Subpart 1) Container and/or liners must be compatible with wastes.Storage area containment system must control thelarger of 10 percent of the volume of the wastes or thevolume of largest container.

Storage area must have impervious base, run-on controls,and collection system designed for control of andremoval of liquids, spills, and run-on unless containersare elevated or protected from contact with liquids. Nospill containment system required for wastes that do

not include free liquids if the storage area is designedso that liquids cannot come in contact with containers.Containers must be closed except when adding or

removing wastes.

Tanks (Subpart J)Applicable to all treatment and storage tanks, except

covered underground tanks that cannot be entered forinspection. Tank must have sufficient shell strength toprevent rupture or collapse; minimum shell thickness tobe specified by RA in permit. Tanks and/or liner mustbe compatible with wastes. All tanks must have con-trols to prevent overfilling. Covered tanks must havepressure controls. Uncovered tanks must have controlsfor preventing run-on and maintain sufficient freeboardto prevent overflow as specified by RA in permit.Special contingency plan for spills or leaks must pro-vide for expeditious waste removal and repair of tanks.

Incinerators (Subpart O) Incinerators must achieve: 99.99 percent destructionremoval efficiency (DRE) for principal organic hazardousconstituents (POHCS) specified in permit and specificemissions limits for HCI and particulate set in permit.Facility must install monitoring equipment and processcontrols necessary to assure operation within permit

limits at all times, to control fugitive emissions, and toprovide automatic waste feed shutoff if operations ex-ceed permit conditions. Permit will specify acceptablerange in composition and operating limits for eachwaste feed. Facility must burn only waste feedsapproved in permit under specified operating conditionsbased on trial burn or alternative data.

Exemptions.’ Facilities burning only ignitable, corrosive,or reactive wastes that contain no, or insignificantamounts of, Appendix Vlll constituents and that will notpose a threat to human health or the environment if in-cinerated can receive a limited exemption. Thesefacilities must be permitted and comply with Subpart Owaste analysis and closure standards and with generalPart 264 TSDF standards.

Inspection arm monitoring Closure/post closure

Weekly inspections of containers, storage areas, andcontainment systems for leaks, spills, or deterioration.

Check overfilling controls and any monitoring equipmentdaily. Check liquid level of open tanks daily.

Weekly inspection of aboveground construction and sur-rounding areas for corrosion or leaks. Schedule foremptying of tank and entry for inspection of interior tobe specified in permit.

A Submit trial burn emissions monitoring results for dif -ferent waste feeds for permit. Special ‘trial burn permitfor new facilities required.

B. During operation: daily visual inspection of incineratorand equipment for spills, leaks, fugitive emissions;continuous monitoring of temperature, feed rate, air

flow, stack gas CO, and other indicators of operatingconditions and possible malfunctions. At RA request,sample and analyze waste feeds and stack gas emis-sions to verify compliance with standard. Weekly testof waste feed cutoff system and alarms unless RAspecifies less frequent period.

Remove all wastes, residues, decontaminate containers;send hazardous wastes to TSDF.

Remove wastes, residues, decontaminate tanks andequipment. Send hazardous waste to TSDF.

Remove wastes and residues, decontaminate equipment;send hazardous wastes to TSDF.



Table 55.—Technical Performance Standards for Containers, Tanks, Incinerators, Landfills, and Surface Impoundments—Continued

Design and operating conditions Inspection and monitoring Closure/post closure

Landfills (Subpart N) All landfills (except existing portions) must have a linerto prevent migration of wastes to soils, ground, or sur-face waters through closure. Material must preventwaste passing into liner during active life of unit, resistfailure and degradation, and be compatible with wastes.Liner must cover all earth likely to be in contact withwastes or Ieachate. Liner base must support and resistpressure gradients to prevent failure. RA will set linerdesign and operating specifications to achieve perform-ance standards in permit.

All landfills (except existing portions) must have aIeachate collection and removal system above the linerdesigned and operated to prevent liquids accumulationof more than 1 ft above the liner and to function with-out failure, clogging, or degradation through scheduledclosure. RA will set design and operating specificationsfor Ieachate collection system in permit.

Exemptions from Iiner-leachate collection system require-ments can be granted by RA if alternative design andoperating practices and locations prevent migration ofany hazardous constituent to ground or surface watersat any time in the future. All landfills must install run-on controls and runoff management systems sufficient tocontrol flow into or out of the unit from a 24-hr 25-yrstorm and control wind dispersal of particulate.

Disposal of bulk liquids in landfills is limited to facilitieswith liners and Ieachate collection and removal systems.

Design and operating conditions necessary to achieveperformance standards will be specified in the permitby RA.

Surface Impoundments (Subpart K)

All surface impoundments (except existing portions)must have a liner that prevents migration of any wastesout of the impoundment to adjacent soil, or surface orground water at any time during the active life of thefacility (including closure).

Exemption from liner requirement for alternative designand operating practices and location characteristicsthat prevent migration of any hazardous constituentinto ground or surface water at any future time.

Impoundment must be designed, built, and operated toprevent overtopping from overfiling, run-on, malfunc -~.-tion, or human error.

Dikes and containment must be designed, built, andmaintained to prevent massive failure without relying onthe assumption that the liner will function withoutleakage during the active life of the unit.

Special contingency plan provisions for immediate shutdown, spill containment, emptying of unit, andemergency repairs.

The RA will specify all design and operating require-ments necessary to meet these standards in the permit.

Inspect liner, Ieachate collection system and cover, dur-ing and after construction or installation for defects,damage, or nonuniformities that may affect performance.

Inspect weekly for improper operation, deterioration, mal-function of run-on or runoff, and wind dispersal con-trols, and for liquids in Ieakdetection system or leach-ate in the Ieachate collection system and proper func-tioning of systems. All “regulated” units must implementground water monitoring program as specified in permit.

Exemption from detection monitoring program for facilities that install double liners with leak-detectionsystem between the liners. If any liquid is detected be-tween liners, facility must repair the liner or lose theexemption.

Exemption from ground w ater monitoring may be grantedif RA finds that there is no potential for migration of liquidfrom a regulated unit to the uppermost aquifer during theactive life and closure and post-closure care periods.

Inspect liner and cover during and after installation fordefects, damage, or nonuniformities that may affectperformance.

At least weekly and after storms, inspect for evidence ofdeterioration, malfunction, improper operation of over-topping controls, drops in level of contents, liquids inthe leak-detection system, severe erosion, or deteriora-tion in dikes or other containment.

Implement appropriate ground water monitoring programspecified in permit unless an exemption applies (seelandfills).

Final cover should minimize liquid migration throughclosed unit, require minimal maintenance, promotedrainage, resist erosion or abrasion of cover, accom-modate settling, subsidence while assuring cover integ-rity. Cover permeability should be less than or equal tothe liner or natural subsoils.

Facility must comply with permit specifications on clo-sure and post-closure care for maintenance of finalcover, monitoring, and Ieakdetection systems. Leachatecollection system must be operated until Ieachate is nolonger detected. Ground water monitoring and responseprogram requirements must be observed.

NOTE: RA—Regional Administrator.

SOURCE: 40 CFR Parl 264.




Table 56.—Ground Water Monitoring Program for Permitted Land Disposal Facilities

q

q

If

q

q

Sam-pie each monitoring well at least semiannually for theindicator parameters, waste constituents, or reaction prod-ucts specified in the permit; andDetermine ground water flow rate and direction in the up-permost aquifer at least annually.detection monitoring results indicate a statistically signifi-cant increase over background values of ground water con-centrations of any specified parameter at any well at thecompliance point, the owner/operator must notify the RAand:Immediately sample ground water at all monitoring wellsto determine the concentration of all Appendix Vlll constit-uents that are present in ground water and establish abackground value for each Appendix Vlll constituent at thecompliance point;Submit a permit modification application for a compliancemonitoring program (including” a proposed concentrationlimit for each hazardous constituent found at the com-pliance point) or alternatively, demonstrate that thestatistically significant increase is caused by a sourceother than a regulated unit, or results from an error insampling, analysis, or evaluation.

Exemption from detection monitoring program is providedfor double-lined facilities with leak detection system be-tween the liners and which are located above the seasonalhigh water table. If liquid is detected between the liners,the liner must be repaired and certified to maintain theexemption.

Compliance monitoring program— To be implemented whenever hazardous constituents are detected at the compliance point and to be carried out during a specified compliance period.

The owner/operator must track the migration and concentra-tion of hazardous constituents from the regulated unit todetermine if the units are in compliance with the groundwater protection standard specified in the permit con-sisting of:

q A list of the hazardous constituents to be monitored; andq A concentration Iimit for each hazardous constituent based

on:(a) background level;

(b) maximum concentration limits (MCLS) for 14 constitu-

ents under the SDWA regulations, if the MCL is higherthan background level; or

(c) an alternate concentration limit approved by the RA,Under the compliance monitoring program, the owner

q

q

q

If

q

q

operator must:Measure the concentrations of specified hazardous con-

stituents in ground water at each monitoring well at thecompliance point at least quarterly;Determine the ground water flow rate and direction in theuppermost aquifer at least annually; andSample all monitoring wells at least annually for Appen-dix Vlll constituents to determine if additional constituentsnot identified in permit are present in ground water andreport any additional constituents to the RA.monitoring results indicate that the ground water protec-tion standard specified in the permit is being exceeded forany hazardous constituent at any monitoring well at thepoint of compliance, the facility owner/operator must notifythe RA and:Submit a permit modification application for establishmentof a corrective action program; orDemonstrate that the ground water protection standard isbeing exceeded because of an error in sampling, analysis,

or evaluation or because of contamination from a sourceother than a regulated unit.

Corrective action program— To be undertaken if compliance monitoring indicates that the ground water protection standard is exceeded and to be continued unitl the levels of hazardous constituents are reduced below their respective concentration limits.

The corrective action program to be specified in the permit

If

consists of:1. Specific corrective measures to remove the hazardous

waste constituents or to treat them in place to preventlevels of hazardous constituents exceeding the groundwater protection standard at the compliance point; and

2. A monitoring program for determining the success ofcorrective actions and for measuring compliance withthe ground water protection standard.

concentrations of hazardous constituents in the aroundwater between the compliance point and the downgradientfacility boundary exceed the ground water protection stan-dard, the operator also must take corrective actionsspecified in the permit to remove or treat in place thosehazardous constituents,

The owner operator must report annually on the effectivenessof the corrective action.

Corrective action measures may be terminated and the facilitymay resume compliance monitoring once the concentra-tion of hazardous constituents is reduced to below thespecified limits,

If the owner/operator is conducting corrective action at theend of the compliance period, the corrective action mustbe continued until monitoring data shows that the groundwater protection standard has not been exceeded for aperiod of three consecutive years.

SCURCE: 40 CFR 264, Subpart F




post-closure care, and financial responsibility(see table 54 and discussion of these provisionsunder interim status standards above). The per-manent program standards do add some addi-tional requirements—two location criteria forfacilities in seismically active areas and in

10()-year flood plains. The part 264 standardsimpose more detailed monitoring and inspec-tion than the interim status standards. Duringpermit review, the general standards of theregulations will be tailored to the specific con-ditions of each facility, and special operatingstipulations will be incorporated into the per-mit by the Regional Administrator. EPA guid-ance documents will provide detailed instruc-tions for interpreting and applying the part 264standards and measuring the adequacy of eachpermit application.

Among the most important part 264 stand-ards are the requirements for permitting newand existing incinerators and land disposalfac i l i t ie s ( landf i l l s , su rface impoundments ,waste piles, and land treatment units). EPA hasadopted general performance standards forthese fac i l i t ie s tha t wi l l be conver ted in tospecific and detailed permit conditions by thepermit writer based on consideration of infor-mation supplied with the part B permit applica-tion and EPA guidance materials. The generalstrategy of the part 264 permit standards arediscussed below. Criticisms of the adequacy of

these standards are addressed in part III of thischapter.

Storage Facilities

The standards applicable to surface storagefac i l i t ie s ( tanks and con ta iners)* and the i rrelated treatment operations focus on the con-ta inment of wastes to prevent their uncon-trolled release into the environment. All stor-age facilities must have a primary containmentsystem to hold the waste and to prevent spillsand leaks. In order to detect cracks, corrosion,

deterioration, and leaks, an inspection programis required, to the extent practical. Design

*Note: the storage facility regu lations issued in January 1981or ig ina l ly inc luded was te p i le s and sur f ace s to r ageimpound ments—these provisions w ere superseded by the July1982 and land disposal regulations.

specifications for the tanks will be reviewedby the Regional Administrator who will requirea minimum shell thickness to be maintained.This design standard will be set on a case-by-case basis by the Regional Administrator ap-p ly ing appropr ia te indust r ia l des ign s tand-

aras.41

Where primary containment devices areeasily damaged or are impractical to inspect,a secondary containment system is a lso re-quired. Standards for underground storage ortreatment tanks have not been promulgated.

Incinerators

The Phase II regulations, for incinerators in-clude the “good operating practice” standardsestablished for interim status facilities as wellas additional performance and design require-ments. Before an incinerator can receive a per-

mit, it must conduct trial burns for the wastefeeds that it proposes to incinerate. New facil-ities must obtain a trial burn permit grantedfor a l imited duration following submissionand approval by EPA of a detailed plan for thetest burns. Permitted incinerators must meetthree performance standards: 1) a minimum(99.99 percent) destruction and removal effi-ciency rate (DRE) for each principal organichazardous constituent (P(IHC) designated byEPA for each hazardous waste feed; 2) a max-imum emissions rate of 1.8 kg/ hr or a minimu mremoval rate of 99 percent for hydrogen chlo-

ride from the exhaust gas emitted from in-cinerators burning hazardous waste contain-ing more than 0.5 percent chlorine; and 3) amaximum emission rate of particulate of 180milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.42 I naddition, incinerators must meet specified op-e r a ti n g c on d i t io n s , a n d p r o v is io n m u s t bemade for continuous monitoring with respectto combustion temperature, waste feed rate, airfeed rate, and carbon monoxide content of theexhaust. Daily inspections are required of in-cinerators and associated equipment, includingalarm systems and emergency shutdown con-

trols. Incinerators must upgrade and insta llnecessary monitoring equipment and emis-s ions con tro ls . L imited exemptions fo r in -

4140 CFR 264.191 (1982).4z40 CFR 264,343 (1982).




cinerators burning certain ignitable, corrosive,or reactive wastes can be generated if it isdemonstrated that the waste e ither does notcontain or contains very small concentrationsof Appendix VIII hazardous consti tuents,

Land Disposal Facilities

Promulgation of final standards for land dis-posal facilities (landfills, surface impound-ments, waste piles, and land treatment units)was delayed owing to EPA’s decision in Feb-ruary 1981 to repropose these standards in aform substantially revised from the approachoriginally proposed in December 1978. The em-phasis was shifted from the setting of uniformdesign requirements to the use of more generalperformance standards. (The original designstandard approach was subject to opportunities

for variances when alternative designs couldachieve equivalent environmental protection.These variances included use of r isk assess-ment.) The July 1982 performance standardsre ly on a s i te -spec if ic approach a l lowingspecific measures for the protection of groundwater and the environment to be developedduring the permitt ing process. Final regula-tions governing land disposal facil i t ies werepromulgated on July 26, 1982, and became ef-fective on January 26, 1983, 6 months later.43

These regulations are discussed in part 111 of this chapter and summarized in tables 55 and56.

Facili ty Permitt ing

Section 3006 of RCRA requires that ownersand operators of hazardous waste TSDFS mustobtain a permit. Permits are to be issued eitherby EPA under the Federal part 264 final techni-cal standards and part 122 and 124 consolidatedpermit procedures or by a State under an au-thorized State hazardous waste program. Ex-isting facilities that qualify for interim statusmay continue operating without a permit pend-

ing review of their applications, Interim statusfacilities are treated for purposes of RCRA asif a permit has been issued.

4347 F.R. 32,274.

To qualify for interim status, a facility must:1) have existed on November 19, 1980, 2) havenotified EPA of its hazardous waste activitiesunder section 3010, and 3) submitted its partA permit application, The interim sta tus isvalid as long as requirements continue to bemet.

EPA has divided the permit application forhazardous waste facilities into two parts:

1.

2,

Part A.—The init ia l permit application,which includes information on the facil-ity location, design capacity, types andquantit ies of hazardous waste handled,and proximity to drinking water wells, andwhich was in most cases to be submittedby November 19, 1980.Part B.—The final permit application to be

submitted to demonstrate compliance withthe part 264 general facil i ty standards,which includes more detailed technical in-formation on facility design and operatingprocedures.

With the promulgation of technical standardsfor most TSDFS, it is now possible for EPA toprocess part B applications. However, existingfacilities have been asked to wait until EPA re-quests them to submit their final applications.The agency expects it will take several yearsto complete the initial round of permit-grantingactivities. Applications for new facilities arebeing given a high priority since neither con-struction nor operation can begin without apermit.

Each part B permit application is f irst re-viewed for completeness. If it is complete andindicates compliance with standards, a draftpermit is prepared and made available for pub-lic notice and comment, and (if warranted)public hearings, The draft (and final) permitwill contain the specific conditions applicableto each facility and may include additional re-quirements that the Regional Administra tor

may impose (e. g., as added liability insurancecoverage, the specific indicator parameters tobe included in a ground water monitoring pro-gram, or the wastes that may be burned at anincinerator), After considering the comments,EPA issues a final decision on the permit ap-



Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 295

and civil and criminal penalties that may beused against persons who violate RCRA, i tsimplementing regulations, or permit condi-tions. The civil enforcement options includeissuance of administrative compliance ordersrequiring immediate action or action according

to a specified schedule for correcting violationsof subtitle C requirements. Alternatively, EPAmay sue in Federal court for an injunction re-quiring correction of the violations. Noncom-pliance may result in permit suspension orrevocation and/ or imp osition of civil penaltiesof $25,000 for every day of violation. 47

RCRA imposes criminal sanctions for viola-tion of administra tive or judicia l complianceorders. It is a Federal criminal offense for anyp e rso n k n o win g ly :

1.

2.

3.

4.

to t r a n sp o r t a h a z a rd o u s wa s te to a nunpermitted facil i ty;to treat , store , or dispose of hazardouswaste without a permit or in knowing vio-lation of any material condition of a per-mit;to make a false statement or representa-tion in any application, label, manifest,report, record, or other document used inthe RCRA program; orto generate, store, treat, transport, disposeof ‘or otherwise handle any hazardouswastes and knowingly to destroy, alter, or

conceal any record required to be main-ta ined under RCRA regulations. 48

Conviction of these knowing violations canresult in fines of up to $25,000 or $50,000 perday and imprisonment o f up to two years .These penalties are more severe than the crim-inal sanctions imposed under, for example,CWA. Criminal proceedings may be broughtagainst corporations or individuals. Individualemployees of firms that violate RCRA hazard-ous waste regulations can be prosecuted, fined,and imprisoned for their part in the offense.

The corporate shield does not insulate themfrom the consequences of their actions.

The 1980 amendments created an additionalfelony offense for particularly egregious viola-

... ———.~PRCRA Sec. sC )Oa , 42 U.S. C. 6928.4842 u . s.c . 6928 [d).

tions which carry severe criminal penalties orfines of up to $250,000 for individuals or upto $1 million for corporations and/ or imprison-ment of up to 5 years.49 A felony of “knowinge n d a n g e rme n t” exists if a person violates aRCRA requirement with the knowledge that

another person may thereby be placed in immi-nent danger of death or serious bodily injury,and if the violator manifests an unjustified andinexcusable disregard or an extreme indiffer-ence for human life. The RCRA violations cov-ered by the knowing endangerment provisionare transporting waste to an unpermitted facil-ity or treating, storing, or disposing of wastewithout a permit or in violation of a permit oromitt ing materia l from a permit application;or failing to abide by interim status regulationsand standards for TSDFS.

Imminent Hazard

Under section 7003 of RCRA, EPA may suein Federa l cour t fo r in junc t ive re l ie f uponreceipt of evidence that the handling, storage,treatment, transporta tion, or disposal of anysolid or hazardous waste may present an “im-minent and substantial endangerment to healthor the environment. “ 50 EPA interprets “immi-nent and substantial endangerment” as posinga “risk of harm” or “potential harm” but notrequiring proof of actual harm. EPA is express-ly authorized under the 1980 amendments to

take any necessary action under the imminenthazard section, including the issuance of ad-ministra tive orders, to protect public healthand the env ironment .

Citizen Suits.-Section 7002 of RCRA providesthat any person may init ia te a c it izen suitagainst any other person alleged to be in viola-tion of a permit, regulation, or provision of RCRA whether or not Federal authorities havetaken ac t ion .51 Before filing suit, the plaintiff must give 60 days’ notice to EPA, the Statesinvolved, and the alleged violator. A citizen suit

may also be brought against EPA for failure toperform a nondiscretionary duty under RCRA.No advance notice need be given to EPA if the

@PUb]ic L~ w 96-482, Sec. 13, 94 Stat, 2339; 42 U.S. C. 6928 (e].5042 U ,S.C, 6973.

’142 U.S.C. 6972.




hazardous waste provisions of RCRA are in-volved. Citizen suits are an additional andpotentially powerful mechanism for assuringthat the intent of RCRA is carried out by thoseengaged in hazardous waste activities and byState and Federal agencies. Section 7002 au-

thorizes the award of attorneys fees and litiga-tion costs to any party whenever the court de-termines that such award is appropriate. (Theparty need not be the prevailing party in thecase to recover the costs o f b r ing ing thelawsuit .)

State Programs

Under RCRA section 3006, States may exer-cise primary responsibility for administrationand enforcement of a hazardous waste man-agement regulatory program under State law

in lieu of the Federal EPA program providedthat the State program meets certain minimumFederal standards.52 RCRA also provides for in-terim authorization of existing State programsthat allow the State to continue to administerits regulatory program instead of the Federalprogram while the final Federal program isbeing developed and the State permanent pro-gram applications are prepared and reviewed.In States with interim authorization or f inalauthorization, generators, transporters, andfacility operators are subject to a single hazard-ous waste regulatory program—without suchauthorization they would have to comply withboth the Federal and State program require-ments.

Congress anticipated that all States eventual-ly would assume primacy for regulating haz-ardous waste management. RCRA offers twoincentives for State participation: first, the op-portunity for the State to administer its ownprogram instead of having the Federal Govern-ment regulate hazardous waste in the State ;a n d se c o n d , F e d e ra l g ra n t s a n d t e c h n ic a lassistance for development and operation of

State programs, Current economic conditionsand budgetary constraints have made the con-tinued availability of adequate Federal grantsand technical assistance uncertain. Some State

5242 USC. 6926,

officials have suggested that uncertainty aboutthe availabil i ty of these grants may inducesome States to decline to regulate hazardouswastes and to allow the Federal Governmentto finance and operate the regulatory programwithin these States. Those instances, however,

are expected to be few if Federal grants aremaintained.

State Program Approval

Section 3006 of RCRA establishes the re-quirements and procedures for approval of State programs by comparing them to the Fed-eral program. Implementation of the FederalRCRA program was then a precondition forState hazardous waste program development,Delays in promulgation of the Federal regula-tions delayed State program efforts. To helpStates develop acceptable regulatory programs,RCRA directed EPA to issue guidelines forState programs within 18 months (i.e., by April1978). EPA missed this deadline. The guide-lines were eventually issued in January 1980,a n d imp le me n t in g re g u la t io n s we re f in a l lyissued in May 1980.

Section 3006 provides for two types of pro-gram authorization: interim authorization andfinal authorization.

Interim authorization is available to State

programs in existence before 90 days after pro-mulgation of the standards for the Federal per-manent program (EPA has set this date asOctober 26, 1982) if the State program is sub-stantia lly equivalent to the Federal programrequirements. Final authorization is given toState programs that are fully equivalent to thecomplete Federal regulatory program.

EPA has divided the State interim authoriza-tion process into two phases which correspondroughly with the phases in development of TSDF standards.

Phase I Interim Authorization,–States may applyfor phase I approval to operate State programrequirements for identification and listing of hazardous waste, reporting, a manifest system,a n d p re l imin a ry s t a n d a rd s fo r g e n e ra to r s ,transporters, and interim sta tus TSDFS.




Phase II Interim Authorization.—States can re-

ceive interim authorization to permit TSDFSunder State programs before final authoriza-tion. Phase II authorization includes permit-t ing requirements, standards of general ap-plicabili ty , and technical standards for dif-

ferent types of TSDFS. Phase II approval isd iv id e d a c c o rd in g to “ c o mp o n e n t s” c o r re -sponding to the facil i ty standards issued byEPA:

q

q

q

Component A.—Permitting of storage fa-cilities: containers and tanks, based onFederal permit standards published onJanuary 12, 1981,53

Component B.—Permitting of incineratorsand other treatment facil i t ies based onEPA regulations issued January 23, 1981,54

and

Component C.—Permit t ing o f land d is-posal facilities: landfills, surface impound-ments, waste piles, and land treatment fa-cilities based on EPA standards issued July26, 1982.55

States cannot be authorized to issue RCRApermits for those TSDFS for which EPA hasnot issued technical permitting standards, forexample, underground storage tanks, or chem-ical and biological treatment facilities, Thesefacilities remain subject to Federal permittingand to any independent State requirements.States applying for interim authorization mustobtain phase I authorization as a prerequisiteto receiving phase II authorization, however,they may be granted simultaneously.

Demonstration of Substantial Equivalence

To obtain interim authorization, a State mustshow that it has an existing State program asdefined by EPA rules, the State program is sub-stantia lly equivalent to the Federal programrequirements, and the State has an acceptableauthorization plan outlining what changes will

—5346 F.R. 2804. No t e , th e storage iaci]ity standards includingstandards, for surface storage impoundments and waste piles,

were mod ified and became part of component C land d isposalfacilities published on July 26, 1982.

5446 F. R. 7666, Note, these were modified for incinerators onJune 24, 1982, 47 F.R, 27,520.

SS47 F.R, 32,274.

be made in the State program to qualify forfinal authorization,

Three tests are applied to demonstrate thesubstantial equivalence of a State program tothe Federal interim sta tus program.

1. The State program must control substan-tially the same universe of waste as the Fed-eral program so that there are no major gapsin coverage. The State program must have pro-visions for identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and fo r l i s t ing hazardouswastes so that the State program controls sub-stantially the same universe of waste as theFederal program. In practice, this has meantthat the States’s listing requirements and haz-ardous waste characterist ics must be nearlyidentical to the Federal regulations. If they arenot the same, the State program must effective-

ly control the same universe of waste plus con-ta in a commitment to expand the State pro-gram to cover currently unregulated hazardouswastes within a reasonable period of time afterinterim authorization. (States may regulate alarger universe of hazardous waste than theEPA program; however, all wastes regulatedunder the Federa l p rogram must be in theState’s universe of waste.

2 . The State program must have adequatere g u la to ry a u th o r i ty to c o n t ro l g e n e ra to r s ,t r a n s p o r t e r s , a n d o p e r a t o r s o f h a z a r d o u s

waste TSDFS including provisions for requir-in g c o mp l ia n c e w i th p e rmi t t in g s t a n d a rd s ,reporting requirements, and with a manifestsystem. The State program standards for per-mitting TSDFS must provide substantially thesame level of protection for human health andthe environment as the Federal facility stand-ards.

3. The State must show that it has adequatefu n d in g a n d p e r so n n e l fo r a d min i s t r a t io nand enforcement of the State program.

During the interim authorization period,

State programs can vary from the Federal pro-gram in listing and characterization methods,States that do not control certa in hazardouswastes because those wastes are not generatedor disposed of in the State may receive author-

99-113 0 - 8 ? - 20




ization provided that they commit to developregulatory requirements to cover those wastesin the future.

A State may operate its program under inter-im authorization until it receives final authori-zat ion. Under RCRA, the State must receivefinal authorization by January 26, 1985, or theFederal Government wil l resume regulatoryauthority over hazardous waste activities in theState. If a State does not apply for or receiveinterim or final authorization, hazardous wasteactivities in the State are subject to both theFedera l program requi rements and to o therState regulations, if any.

States may apply for interim authorizationat any time until close of the interim authori-zation period. With publication of the land dis-posal rules in July 1982, EPA announced that

establishment of the permanent Federal pro-gram was largely complete and that it wouldbegin to accept applicat ions for f inal Stateauthorization. Interim authorization lasts until24 months after the effective date of the Federalpermanent program regulations. EPA has an-nounced that the interim authorization periodwill expire January 26, 1985. In applying forinterim authorizat ion, States commit to planfor upgrading their programs to qualify forfinal authorization by the end of the interimauthorization period. Obtaining interim author-ization is not a precondition for receiving final

authorization. In fact, some States with existingprograms may skip the interim authorizationroute and apply directly for final authorization.As of November 1, 1982,35 States had qualifiedfor phase I interim authorization and 5 Stateshad received phase II interim authorization forcomponents A and B. (See table 73 in in partII of this chapter.)

Partial Authorization and Cooperative Arrangements

Because some States may not have al l thenecessary authority or regulations to operate

an acceptable State regulatory program duringinterim authorization, EPA has initiated par-t ia l program author iza t ion and coopera t iveagreements.

Under part ial authorizat ion, EPA will ap-prove those portions of a State program thatmeet the minimum Federa l requi rements forsubstantial equivalency with the Federal pro-gram while EPA administers and enforces theremaining elements of the Federal program.

F o r e x a m p l e , i f t h e S t a t e l a c k s a d e q u a t eau tho r i t y unde r S t a t e l aw to r equ i r e com-p l i ance wi th a man i f e s t sy s t em, EPA wi l lnevertheless approve the rest of the State pro-gram for controlling hazardous waste activitiesprovided that the State plan specifies the stepsto be taken to get final authorization by the endof the interim authorization period. EPA willthen administer and enforce the Federal mani-fest requirements for that State, while State re-quirements control other act ivi t ies .

For States that cannot qualify for partial in-terim authorization, EPA has initiated a coop-erative arrangement that allows the States toadmin i s t e r some func t ions o f a haza rdouswaste management system for EPA, while EPAadministers and enforces the remaining func-tions under the Federal program. These coop-erat ive arrangements are different from par-tial authorization. The purposes of cooperativearrangements is to encourage States to adopta State hazardous waste program by allowingthem to administer portions of a State programin coordination with EPA while giving theStates the time and opportunity to develop a

satisfactory State program that can qualify forinterim and / or final authorization.

Final Authori zati on of Stat e Programs

Once final authorization is granted, the Statehazardous waste regulatory program operatesin l i eu o f t he Fede ra l p rog ram. The S t a t eassumes full authority to administer and en-force the RCRA hazardous waste regulatorysystem. On authorizat ion, EPA’s regulatoryand permitt ing responsibil i t ies wil l largelycease. Thereafter, if EPA exercises its enforce-

ment power, it will enforce compliance withSta te program and permi t requi rements , notthe Federal standards. EPA will retain its over-sight and enforcement authority over the State




program to ensure that it continues to operateeffectively according to its approved plan. TheFederal program requirements are not appli-cab le in the S ta te un less EPA revokes theState’s final authorization. EPA will initiallyretain some regulatory responsibility for thosewa s te ma n a g e me n t t e c h n o lo g ie s fo r wh ic hFederal permitt ing standards have not beenissued and which cannot therefore be per-mi t t e d u n d e r a n a p p ro v e d S ta te p ro g ra m,States can, however, regulate and permit thesefac i l i t ie s under S ta te law, As EPA fur the rrefines and adds to the Federal program, Stateswill be expected to make similar modificationsand additions to their State program and tomaintain equivalency and consistency.

Requirements for Final Authorization

To receive final authorization, a State mustdemonstrate that i ts program meets the re-quirements of section 3006(b):

the State program is equivalent to the Fed-eral program;the State program is consistent with theFederal program and with other State pro-grams;the State has adequate administrative re-sources to operate a comprehensive pro-gram regulating hazardous waste gener-ators, transporters, facility owners, and op-

erators; andthe State has adequate enforcement au-thor i ty to requ ire compliance wi th i t sp rogram.

These requirements are more comprehensivethan the substantial equivalency tests for in-terim authorization. The State must regulatethe full universe of waste controlled under theFederal program with no gaps in coverage. TheState must regulate generators, transporters,and TSDFS. The State facility standards mustprovide at least the same degree of protection

of human health and the environment as theFederal standards, The State program mustalso have adequate opportunities for publicparticipation in program development and inpermitt ing procedures.

EPA has announced that it will now acceptapplications for final authorization of Statep r o g r a m s . 56 Because RCRA requires a mini-mum per iod fo r rev iew by EPA and pub l iccomment and hearing, EPA estimates that finalprogram authorization will take a minimum of 6 months after submittal of a complete applica-tion. States must obtain final authorization bythe end of the interim authorization period. If the State program is not given final authoriza-tion by the end of the 24-month period (byJan. 26, 1985), or if EPA makes a final deter-mination rejecting the State’s final programa p p l i c a t io n , E P A mu s t o p e ra te th e F e d e ra lp ro g ra m in th a t S ta te . E P A a n d th e S ta temust complete program development, review,public partic ipation, and program approvalwithin the next 2 years to meet EPA’s an-

nounced goa l o f f ina l au thor iza t ion o f 45States by January 1985.

One of the significant issues to be faced infinal authorization will be how to treat Stateprograms that are significantly different fromthe Federal program. Guidance will have to bedeveloped to demonstrate equivalency, consist-ency , and adequacy . Under RCRA sec t ion3009, once EPA has issued regulations dealingwith any aspect of hazardous waste activity,any State regulations on the same subject maynot be less stringent than the Federal require-m e n t s . 57 The 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Actamendments reinforced, however, that a Statemay have more stringent provisions than theFederal program. However, just how muchmore stringent State program requirementsmay be without being considered inconsistentwith the Federal or other State programs, orbeing held unconstitutional as a restraint onin te rs ta te commerce , i s an open quest ion .This question will become more controver-sia l as some States adopt considerably morestringent restrictions on hazardous waste ac-tivities, such as banning land disposal of cer-

t a i n r e c y c l a b l e o r e x t r e m e l y d a n g e r o u swastes or imposing more difficult technicalrequirements on existing and new facil i t ies.

51347 F. Il. 32,382, July 26, 1982.5742 U.S.C, 6929.




Superfund

Introduction

T h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e -sponse, Compensation, and Liabili ty Act of

1980 (C ERCLA), or “Superfund,” was a com-promise measure .58 Legislation to provide foremergency response and cleanup for chemicalspills and releases from hazardous waste sitesand to provide compensation for damages fromthese incidents had been considered in previ-ous Congresses. But such legislation had metsubstantial opposition because of several con-troversial provisions dealing with liability fordamages and creation of a cleanup trust fundfinanced by taxing the oil and chemical indus-tries.

CERCLA authorizes the Federal Government

to respond directly in the event of chemicalspil ls and re leases of hazardous substancesinto the environment. The framework for coor-dinated Government response is established bythe National Contingency Plan (NCP). To payfor emergency response and cleanup actions,CERCLA created the Hazardous Substance Re-sponse Trust Fund financed by a tax on crudeoil, imported petroleum, and certain chemicals.The collection of the Superfund tax is author-ized for 5 years (until the end of fiscal year1985) or until the total unobligated balance in

the Response Trust Fund established underCERCLA reaches $900 million or a total of $1.38 billion has been collected, whichever oc-curs first . The tota l amount expected to beavailable in the Superfund trust fund is $1.6bill ion. 59

CERCLA also created a second fund, thePost-Closure Liability Trust Fund, to pay forpost-closure care, remedial action, and dam-ages from releases a t qualifying hazardouswaste facilities. The $200 million post-closuretrust fund is financed by a tax on hazardouswaste received at treatment or disposal facil-

Sapub]ic Law g6-Ej Io, 94 Stat. 2767, Dec. 11, 1980; 42 U.S.C.

9601 et seq.Seof th e total $1,6 billion, $1.38 billion will c o m e f r o m t h e

Superfund tax and $0.22 billion from appropriated funds.

ities and which will remain in the facility afterclosure.

On e o f th e mo s t imp o r ta n t p ro v i s io n s o f CERCLA allows the Government to recover thecosts of such response and remedial action.

CERCLA imposes strict liability for the costof Government response actions and damagesto natural resources on those responsible par-ties whose actions cause release of hazardoussubstances . The l iab i l i ty fo r c leanup costsunder CERCLA is far-reaching. It places theultimate responsibility for cleanup costs on thepast and present owners or operators of facil-ities, on the transporters who accepted wastefor transport and selected the facility, and onthe generators whose wastes were sent to thefacility.

Hazardous Substances Under CERCLA

The Government may take response actionunder CERCLA whenever there is a release orthreat of release of a hazardous substance orof any pollutant or contaminant which maypresen t an imminen t and substan t ia l dangerto public health, welfare, or the environment.

The range of substances for which responseaction is authorized in CERCLA is significantlybroader than the universe of hazardous wasteunder RCRA. A hazardous substance as de-fined in section 101(14) 60 of CERCLA includes:

(A) any hazardous substance designated pur-suant to section 311(b) (2)(A) of the the CleanWater Act;

(B) any element, compound, mixture, solu-tion, or substance designated pursuant to sec-tion 102 of CERCLA;

(C) any RCRA hazardous waste;(D) any toxic pollutant listed under section

307(a) of the Clean Water Act;(E) any hazardous air pollutant designated

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act; and(F) any im minently hazard ous chemical sub-

stance or mixture under section 7 of the Toxic

Substances Control Act.Response actions are not limited to releases

of the hazardous substances defined above;releases of “pollutants or contaminants” are

~4 Stat. 2769; 42 U,S.C. 9601 (14)




also covered. For example, a material excludedfrom regulation under RCRA or other lawscould nevertheless be considered as a “pollut-ant or contaminant” under CERCLA. Undersection 104(b) of CERCLA “pollutant or con-taminant” includes but is not limited to:

. . . any element, substance, compound, or mix-ture, including disease-causing agents, whichafter release into the environment and upon ex-posure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilationinto any organism, either directly from the en-vironment or indirectly by ingestion throughfood chains, will or may reasonably be an-ticipated to cause death, d isease, behavioral ab-normalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physi-ological malfunctions (including malfunctionsin reproduction) or physical deformations, insuch organisms or their offspring.61

The definit ions of “hazardous substance”

and “pollution or contaminant” specifically ex-clude petroleum, natural gas, natural gas liq-uids, liquified natural gas, and synthetic gasunless designated as a hazardous substanceunder CERCLA or other laws.

Reportable Quantities,–Section 10262 of CERCLAprovides for the establishment of reportablequantit ies of hazardous substances, Any re-lease of these substances exceeding specifiedamounts must be promptly reported to the Na-tional Response Center (NRC). The initial re-portable quantity is 1 lb except for those haz-

ardous substances for which different report-able quantit ies have been set under section311(b)(4) of CWA.63 EPA is authorized to ad-

just the init ia l reportable quantit ies, as ap-propriate, EPA may designate additional “haz-ardous substances” subject to the reporting re-quirements if release of such substances mayp re se n t a su b s ta n t i a l d a n g e r to th e p u b l i chealth, welfare, or the environment, Failure toreport a re lease of a reportable quantity ispunishable by fine or imprisonment. To en-courage reporting, section 102(b) provides thatneither the notification nor any information

derived from it may be used against the per-

13194 Stat. 2775; 42 U .S. C. 9604 (a)(2).ez94 Stat, 2772; 42 U.S. C. 9602.

WA list of these reportable quantities is found at 40 C.F. R. 117.3

(1982).

son reporting in any criminal action except inprosecutions for perjury or fa lse sta tement,

Notification of Inactive Waste Management Sites

Section 103 of CERCLA requires that the lo-cation of any facil i ty where hazardous sub-stances have been treated, stored, or disposedof and which is not permitted or accorded in-terim status under RCRA must be reported toEPA by June 10, 1981. 84 This notification re-quirement applies to the past or present ownersor operators of the facilities and to any personswho accepted hazardous substances for trans-porta tion and selected a facil i ty for storagetreatment or disposal. The notification mustidentify the location of the facility, the amountand type of hazardous substance found there,and any known, suspected, or likely release of

such substances from the facility. EPA is tonotify a State of the existence of any such facili-ty in that State. Section 102 directs EPA toi s s u e r e g u l a t i o n s s p e c i f y i n g t h e t y p e s o f records to be maintained by the persons giv-ing notice. These records must be maintainedfor 50 years from enactment of CERCLA orf ro m th e d a te th e r e c o rd wa s e s t a b l i sh e d ,whichever is la ter.

Section 103 imposes stiff penalties for failureto comply with notification or recordkeepingrequirements. In addition, persons who fail toreport as required may not invoke the defensesagainst liability and the limitations on liabili-ty for cost recovery and environmental dam-ages available to responsible parties.

The reportable quantities, notification, andrecordkeeping requirements are not applicableto :

q

q

q

permitted or interim status facilities underRCRA;federally permitted releases (as defined insec. 101(10) of CERCLA);65

application or storage of the Federal Insec-

t ic ide , Fungic ide , and Rodent ic ide Act(FIFRA) registered pesticides by an agri-cultural producer;

%34 Stat, 2773; 42 U.S. C. 9603 (c).8594 Stat. 2 768; 42 U. S.C. 9601 ( 10).




q

q

re leases of a consumer product;releases of hazardous substances that arerequired to be reported or that are ex-empted from reporting under RCRA; orcontinuous releases that are stable in quan-tity and regularity, and which have already

been reported to the NRC. (Continuous re-leases must be reported annually, and theNRC must be notified immediately of anys t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i nquantity.)

Response Authority Under CERCLA

Section 104 of CERCLA establishes an ex-tremely broad Federal response mechanism todeal with re leases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.66

The section authorizes the President to take

whatever action is deemed necessary to re-move, arrange for removal, provide remedialaction, or any other action consistent with theNCP necessary to protect public health or wel-fare or the environment. By Executive Order,the President has delegated primary respon-sibility for carrying out the response activitiesunder CERCLA to EPA.67

Direct Government action is authorized incases of a release or a threatened release unlessit is determined that response action will “bedone properly by the owner or operator of thefacility or vessel from which the release or

threat of re lease emanates, or by any otherresponsible party.” 68 The term “facility” is alsogiven an expansive definition in CERCLA:

. . . “facility” means (A) any building, struc-ture, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline(including any pipe into a sewer or publiclyowned treatment works), well, pit, pond,lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, storagecontainer, motor vehicle, rolling stock, or air-craft, or (B) any site or area where a hazardoussubstance has been deposited, stored, disposedof, or placed, or otherwise came to be located;but does not include any consumer product in

consumer use or any vessel.69

—‘%4 Stat. 2774; 42 U.S.C. 9604.67 Executive Order 12316, 46 F.R. 42,237, May 12 ? 19814%4 Stat. 2774; 42 U.S.C. 9604 (a)(l).‘%34 Stat. 2769; 42 U.S.C. 9601 (9]. Vessels are separately de-

fined as any watercraft.

CERCLA authorizes the President to takedirect Government action to remove or miti-gate the threat in the event of a re lease orthreatened release of a hazardous substance,pollutant, or contaminant which presents animmin e n t a n d su b s ta n t i a l th re a t to h u ma n

health and welfare or to the environment. Twotypes of response actions can be financed bythe Response Trust Fund: removal actions andremedial actions.

A removal action is a short-term emergen-cy response action designed to remove or miti-gate an immediate threat to health, welfare, orthe environment. Fund expenditures for re-moval actions are limited to $1 million or 6months duration from the date of the initialresponse. These limits may be exceeded if thereis a continued and substantial immediate threat

to human health and the environment and therequired action is unlikely to be performed byany other party.

In contrast, remedial action is a long-termaction directed at a permanent remedy to re-move or correct the threat caused by the releaseof hazardous substances to the environment.Remedial actions are limited to sites that arelisted on the National Priority List and whereno responsible party will take prompt effectiveaction to correct the situation. Before a fund-financed remedial action can be taken, theState must enter into a cooperative agreement

or con trac t wi th EPA to assure a l l fu tu remaintenance of the remedial response at thes i te fo r the l i fe o f the response ac t ion , toassure the ava i lab i l i ty o f adequa te o ffs i tetreatment, storage, or disposal capacity , andto contribute 10 percent of total remedial ac-tion costs. [if, however, the site was ownedby a State or locality at the time the hazard-o u s su b s ta n c e wa s d e p o s i t e d , th e r e q u i re dcontribution is 50 percent or more of the costsd e p e n d i n g o n t h e d e g r e e o f c u l p a b i l i t y . )CERCLA requires that any remedial actionsmust be consistent to the extent practicablewith the NCP.

Government ac t ion under sec t ion 104 of CERCLA is not limited to instances when theoccurrence or threat of a release is known. Theact authorizes investigative actions, monitor-




The Nati onal Conti ngency Plan

The principal mechanism for implementingthe Government response under CERCLA andfor determining the extent of liability under thecost-recovery provisions of section 107 is the

NCP. Section 105 of CERCLA directs EPA torevise and republish NCP—which was original-ly established under section 311 of CWA to dealwith oil and chemical spill emergency responseand cleanup—to include a new national haz-ardous substance response plan specifying theprocedures and standards for Government re-sponse to hazardous substances releases.72 Th erevised NCP was to be published within 180days of enactment of CERCLA after opportuni-ty for public review and comment (i.e., June1981). This deadline was missed, and the NCPwas eventually published under court order on

July 16, 1982.73

NCP is intended to provide a comprehensiveframework for the national response programfor hazardous substance spil ls and re leases.Section 105 requires that NCP specify the pro-cedures, techniques, materials, equipment, andmethods to be used in identifying, removing,or remedying releases of hazardous substances.It must also include methods for ranking sites,ana lyz ing costs , a n d d e te rmin in g th e a p -propriate remedy. The plan should specify ap-propriate roles for Federal and State agencies

and nongovernmental groups in responding toreleases. After the revised NCP becomes effec-tive, all response actions must be in accordancewith NCP to the maximum extent practicable.

By far the most important aspects of NCPare the methods for evaluation of releases, fordetermining the appropria te extent of rem-edy, and for assuring cost effectiveness of theresponse action and the criteria for establish-ing the National Priority List (NPL). The July1982 NCP sets forth EPA’s basic approach tothese congressional directives. Overall, EPAhas preferred a flexible, site-specific approach.

7294 Stat. 2779; 42 U.S.C. 9605.7347 F. R, 31,180, to be codified at 40 CFR part 300.

The National Priority List

Criteria for Ranking Sites for NPL.–Congress

directed EPA to develop and apply criteria forestablishing priorities among sites for responseactions based on their relative degree of risk

or danger to public health, welfare, or the en-vironment. In ranking the sites by the degreeof risk posed, EPA was to consider to the ex-tent practicable:

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

the population at risk;the hazard potential of the hazardous sub-stances at the facility;the potential for contamination of drink-ing water supplies;the potentia l for direct human contact;the potential for destruction of sensitiveecosystems;State preparedness to assure State costs

and responsibil i ty; andother appropria te factors.

Based on these criteria and on consultationwith and recommendations from the States,EPA was to publish, as part of NCP, the NPL,which will rank actual or threatened releasesacross the country. Sites must be on the NPLto qualify for Superfund-financed remedial ac-tions. Section 105 requires that the list containto the extent practicable at least 400 of thehighest priority facilities, to be referred to as“top priority among known response targets. ”

Section 105 further provides that to the extentpracticable, the top 100 of these priority targetsshould include one site designated by eachState as the facility posing the greatest dangerto public health, welfare, or the environmentamong known facilities in that State. The Statesare to use the ranking criteria in establishingpriorities among their sites, EPA is to revisethe NPL at least annually in consultation withthe States.

The NCP published in July 1982 did not con-ta in the final NPL because more t ime was

needed to gather adequate information to com-plete the list, and to allow the States to applythe ranking criteria to their recommended sitesas required under CERCL.A and the NCP. An



Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program “ 305

initial proposed NPL of 115 sites was publishedfor comment in October 1981, and 45 addi-tional sites were added to that list in July 1982.EPA published in December 1982 its proposedNPL of 418 sites as appendix B to the NCP. 74

The Hazard Ranking System.—In response to thedirective to establish criteria for setting pri-orities among releases of hazardous substancesfor the purposes of taking removal and reme-dial action, EPA adopted the Hazard RankingSystem (HRS), published as appendix A of NCP. (The HRS is also known as the “MitreModel.”) EPA and the States apply the HRSusing data from observed or potential releasesto obtain a score representing an estimate of the risk presented by each release. The scorefor each release is then used with other con-siderations in determining whether a si te is

placed on the NPL.The States apply the HRS in submitting their

recommended sites and in designating the sitesposing the greatest hazard. The EPA regionaloffices will review the States’ ranking beforeforwarding their recommendations for inclu-sion on the NPL. Among the most significantpractical problems encountered by the Statesis that the HRS requires more detailed infor-mation on the si tes than is generally easilyavailable, Although the system does allow theuse of standardized factors in the absence of

detailed site information, if too many data re-quirements are missing, the si te cannot beranked. No Federal funds are currently avail-ab le fo r S ta tes to ob ta in th is in format ion .OTA and others have raised questions aboutthe adequacy or appropriateness of the meth-odology used in the HRS to distinguish be-tween the relative degrees of risk posed at dif-ferent sites. (See part III and the appendix tothis chapter for a discussion of some of thescientific and technical difficulties in the de-sign and use of the HRS.)

State Participation

Under section 104(d) of CERCLA, the FederalGovernment can enter into contracts or coop-erative agreements with States or local govern-—

7447 F.R. 58,475, Dec. 30, 1982.

ments to carry out any authorized response ac-tions in accordance with the NCP. Under suchan agreement, the States or local governmentswi l l b e r e imb u rse d b y S u p e r fu n d fo r th e i rreasonable response costs consistent with theNCP, These contracts will be subject to the

above cost-sharing requirements, Section 105requires that the NCP specify appropriate rolesfor Federal, State, and local government agen-cies. The NCP calls for State and local govern-ment participation on regional response teams.Additionally, under a contract or cooperativeagreement, a State agency may be designatedas the lead agency and as the on-scene coor-dinator in response activities. Preliminary EPAexperience with site evaluations for responseactions has been that State agencies have as-sumed “lead” responsibilities in over 70 per-cent of these cases.75 EPA may advance 90 per-cent of the estimated evaluation costs to thestate agency under a contract or cooperativeagreement.

Responses to Hazardous Substance Releases Under

the National Contingency Plan

The NCP establishes the overall approachthat EPA will use in dealing with releases orthreatened releases of hazardous substances orof pollutants or contaminants that pose a sub-stantia l and imminent danger. EPA has seg-mented its site evaluation and response pro-

cedures under the NCP so that fund-financedactivities are carried out in a series of limited,highly structured, sequentia l phases. At thesame time, EPA will, in appropriate cases, pur-sue settlement negotiations or enforcement ac-tions against known potentially liable partiesto secure private cleanup or to recover costs.Under subsection F of the NCP, EPA has setup a response procedure with seven phases asshown in table 57. At various phases in theresponse procedure, sites can be excluded fromfurther response activit ies.

Phase l–S i t e D iscovery and No t i f i ca t ion .–Are lease or threatened release is reported to

“Remarks of William N, Hedeman, Director, EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Before the AL I-ABA confer-ence on Hazardous Wastes, Superfund, and Toxic Substances,Washington, D. C., Nov. 4, 1982.




Table 57.—National Contingency Plan—Phases of Response Actions

Criteria Action

Phase 1: Site Discovery and Notification Possible release or threatened release of hazardous sub-stances indicated by notice of inactive site, of release inreportable quantities, or of other complaint.

Phase ii: Preliminary Assessment Site recommended for further evaluation or immediate re-moval. No further action at site recommended: 1) there isno release; 2) a hazardous substance, pollutant, or con-taminant is not involved; 3) the source is not subject toCERCLA; 4) release amount does not warrant Federal re-sponse; or 5) a responsible party is taking appropriateaction and government monitoring is not needed.

Phase Iii: immediate Removal Action Rapid emergency response required if site poses threat of

immediate and significant harm from: 1) human, animal,or food chain exposure to acutely toxic substances;2) contamination of drinking water supplies; 3) fire or ex-plosion; or 4) other acute situation.

Release reported to National Response Center and toaffected State.

Determine nature, extent, and source of release and themagnitude of hazard based on available data. Make rec-ommendation for further action.

Take appropriate immediate removal action, such as:1) measuring and sampling; 2) removing hazardous sub-stances from site; 3) restraining spread of release byphysical, chemical, or other means; 4) preventing accessto site by fencing or other means; 5) providing substitutedrinking water; 6) controlling source of release; 7) recom-mending evaluation of threatened population; or 8) anyother appropriate emergency measures.

Phase IV: Site Evacuation and Determination of Appropriate Level of Response Conduct site evaluation, data collection, and site lnvestiga-

tions; determine type, amounts, and locations of hazard-ous substances and potential for migration; determineappropriate level of response; recommend site for imme-diate removal, planned removal, National Priority Listremedial action candidate (apply H RS), or no furtheraction.

q

q

q

Determine whether site qualifies for planned removal.Take appropriate response action to reduce or removeserious risk to public or the environment: State re-quests removal and agrees to assure future operationsand maintenance at site, and availability of off site treat-ment, storage, disposal capacity and to provide State

cost-share.Planned removal action completed when serious risk is

Appropriate level of response:. . . - . -. .

q Immediate removal —emergency threat to health or theenvironment (see Phase Ill).

q Planned removal —short-term, but not emergency re-sponse (see Phase V).

q Site recommended for National Priority List remedialaction (see Phase VI).

q No further action/evaluation recommended.

Phase V: Planned Removal Planned removal is authorized where:

q Substantial cost-saving can be achieved by continuingan immediate removal action; or

Ž A serious risk to public health or the environmentexists from exposure to hazardous substances whichrequires short-term, but not emergency response at a

facility not ranked on the National Priority List. Aserious risk may involve: 1) actual or potential directcontract with hazardous substances by nearby popula-tions; 2) contaminated drinking water at the tap; 3) haz-ardous substances in drums, tanks, or other bulk stor-age containers; 4) highly contaminated soils at or nearthe surface; 5) threat of fire or explosion; or 6) weatherconditions that may cause substances to mitigate.

Phase Vi: Remedial Actions Responses to sites ranked on the National Priority Listthat are consistent with a permanent remedy to preventor mitigate migration of release of hazardous substancesinto the environment. The appropriate extent of remedy is. 1) the lowest cost remedial alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effectively minimizes or mitigates danger to or provides adequate protection of public health, we/fare and environment. Remedial

actions include:1. Infitial remedial measures—those measures whichshould begin quickly if they are feasible and necessaryto limit exposure or threat of exposure to a significanthealth or environmental hazard and if they are cost ef-fective. Situations where initial remedial measures areappropriate are similar to planned removals at unrankedsites.

abated or 6 months/$7

Evaluate National Priority

million Iimit is reached.

List sites and determinepriate remedy (see also fig. 22):

appro-

~ Conduct preliminary assessment of type(s) of remedialaction which may be appropriate: —initial remedial action, —source control remedial action, and —offsite remedial action,

. Take initial remedial action if indicated.q

Perform remedial investigation to determine nature andextent of problems posed by release and necessity forand extent of proposed remedial action.

. Assess remedial alternatives: —“initial screening’’—develop and analyze potential

alternative remedial actions considering relativecosts, effectiveness (including potential adverseeffects), and feasibility according to acceptableengineering practices; and




Table 57.—National Contingency plan—phases of Response Actions—continued.Criteria

2.

3.

4.

Source control remedial actions—may be appropriate ifa substantial concentration of substances remain on-site and inadequate barriers exist to retard migration

offsite; alternatives include containing wastes at thesite or removing them.Offsife remedial action—may be appropriate to mini-mize the migration of hazardous substances and the ef-fects of such migration where source control actionsmay not be effective to remove or reduce a significantthreat to human health or the environment,No action—appropriate where response action maypose greater danger to the health or the environmentthan no action,

Approval of fund-financed remedial action at a site mustbalance need for immediate action to protect health andwelfare or the environment at that site against availabilityof money In the fund to respond to problems at othersites.

Phase Vll: Cost Recovery and Documentation Response Trust Fund will compensate authorized govern-

ment or private response costs that are consistent withthe NCP. (Cost recovery action may be pursued againstresponsible parties to reimburse Response Trust Fund).

SOURCE 47 F R 31213 July 16 1982 to be cod;fled at 40 CFR 300 Subpart F

NRC as a result of notification requirementsunder CERCLA or Federal permits, or throughthe inventory of inactive dump sites, citizencomplaints, or other action. NRC will notifythe appropriate State and Federal agencies tobegin initial investigation.

Phase n-Pre l im inary Assessment .–The l e a dagency will make a preliminary investigationof the site to determine the magnitude of thehazard, the source and nature of the release,whether non-Federal parties will take promptand appropr ia te response , and whe ther im-mediate removal is necessary. This assessmentis based on readily available data, interviews,and site visits, if appropriate. The preliminaryassessment phase ends with a recommendationfor further evaluation of the site, a request forany necessary immediate removal action, or are c o mme n d a t io n th a t n o fu r th e r a c t io n b etaken at the site.

Phase 111–immediate Removal. — Short-t erm emer-gency response action is taken to prevent ormi t ig a te imme d ia te a n d s ig n i f i c a n t r i sk o f harm to human life, health, or the environment,Circumstances under which immediate remov-al action may be indicated include threats of:

A c t io n

q

q

—“detailed analysis’’—conduct detailed “feasibility”study of limited number of alternatives selected after

initial screening with focus or relative costs.Determine appropriate extent of remedy from alterna-tives.Proceed with selected remedial action if Stateassurances and contribution requirements are met (andif timely and adequate response wilI not be taken by re-sponsible parties or others) and if fund-financing re-quest is approved,

Complete documentation of government response action,including nature of release, circumstances of response,

costs to Federal Government, impacts on health, welfareor the environment, and identities of potentially responsi-ble parties,

q human, animal, or food-chain exposure toacutely toxic substances;

q contamination of drinking water supplies;q fire or explosion; orq similarly acute si tuations,

Immediate removal actions are primarily de-fensive and include sampling, removing con-tainerized wastes, fencing the site, or providingalternative drinking water supplies, Immediateremoval operations are subject to an expendi-ture l imit of $1 mill ion or a duration of 6months from the initial response unless con-tinued response actions are urgently requiredbecause of an emergency situation involvingan immediate risk to health or the environmentand no other party will provide the necessaryresponse on a timely basis.

Immediate removal operations are completewhen the original acute situation is abated andany contaminated materials moved offsite have

been treated or disposed of properly.

Phase IV–Evaluation and Determination of Appropri-

ate Response.—If a preliminary assessment indi-cates that further response is necessary beyondany immediate removal actions, site evaluation




is begun to determine the appropriate responserequired, if any. The lead agency will obtainthe necessary information and conduct a siteinspection to determine if there is any immedi-ate danger to persons living or working nearby.These efforts are directed at identifying imme-diate threats to the public or the environment,the need for any immediate removal action; theamounts, types, and location of the hazardoussubstances at the facility; and the potential forthe substances to migrate from their originallocation. As a result of site evaluation, Statesmay suggest that the facility be added to theNPL. States must use the EPA ranking systemin recommending priority sites. The results of the evaluation are used to decide whether thesite is a candidate for immediate removal orplanned removal, or should be added to the

NPL as a candidate for fund-financed remedialaction.

Phase V–Planned Removal.–For situations thatpose a risk to public health, welfare, or the en-vironment, and that require short-term, but notemergency response, planned removals may beu n d e r ta k e n . P la n n e d re mo v a l s a re c o n te m-plated under the NCP for facilities that are not“ranked” (listed on the NPL) and where eithera substantial cost-saving could be achieved bycontinuing a Phase III immediate removal ac-tion, or where the public or the environmentwill be at risk from exposure to hazardous sub-stances. Planned removals are a “hybrid” re-sponse created by EPA for the NCP based onthe two CERCLA response actions, removaland remedial action, and on EPA’s general ad-min i s t r a t iv e a u th o r i ty o v e r F e d e ra l g ra n t s .Planned removals are subject to the $1 millionand/ or 6 months expenditure limitation of re-moval actions and also to State contributionrequirements nearly identical to those for re-medial actions.

Table 57 summarizes the factors to be con-sidered in determining whether a serious threat

to public health and safety exists and whetherp la n n e d re mo v a l a c t io n s a re a p p ro p r ia t e .Planned removal actions end when the condi-tions causing serious risk have been abated andany substances moved offsite have been prop-erly treated or disposed of, or when 6 months

have elapsed, or $1 mill ion has been spent,whichever occurs first . Planned removal ac-tions can exceed th e 6 month/ $1 million limitif an immediate threat remains or it is cost ef-fective to continue cleanup.

Phase Vi–Remedial Actions.—Remedial actionsare responses to “ranked” sites on the NPL thatare consistent with a permanent remedy to pre-vent or mitigate the migration of a release of hazardous substances into the environment. Adetailed evaluation of the proposed appro-pria te remedial action and the a lternatives,including re la tive costs, must be conductedbefore a determination is made on the appro-priate extent of remedy to be applied at thefacility. The NCP identifies three distinct typesof remedial actions: initial remedial measures,source control actions, and offsite remedial ac-

tions. The appropriate extenlt of remedial ac-tion for a particular release may include oneor more o f these op t ions o r a “no ac t ion”response.

Init ia l remedial measures are actions thatshould begin quickly if they are feasible or nec-essary to limit exposure to a significant healthor environmental hazard and which are costeffective. Unlike immediate removal actions,initial remedial actions are subject to State cost-share requirements. Initial remedial actions arebegun before detailed analysis and final selec-

tion of an appropriate remedy.Source control remedial actions might be

appropria te if a substantia l concentration of substances remains onsite and existing barriersa re in a d e q u a te to r e t a rd mig ra t io n o f f s i t e .Source control remedial actions may includea l t e rn a t iv e s to c o n ta in th e h a z a rd o u s su b -stances where they are located or to eliminatepotentia l contamination by moving the sub-stances to a new location.

Offs i te remedia l ac t ion may be taken tominimize and mitigate the migration of hazard-

ous substances and the effects of the migrationthat pose a significant threat to public health,welfare, or the environment. Offsite measuresfrequently involve ground water contaminationproblems. These actions can include providingpermanent alternate drinking water supplies,




controlling of a drinking water aquifer plume,or treatment of drinking water aquifers.

Assessment of Remedial Action.—The NCP re-quires EPA to assess the site before decidingwhich type or combination of remedial actions

should be taken. This assessment process forNPL sites is shown in figure 22. Scoping is thefirst step in deciding the type and extent of remedia l ac t ion to be taken in response to a

release. The lead agency in cooperation withthe State will examine the available informa-tion and decide, based on factors in the NCP,the type of remedial action needed. The scop-ing results will then be used as the basis forrequesting funding for remedial investigationand feasibil i ty studies. As the remedial in-vestigation proceeds, the approach can be mod-ified if indicated.

A remedial investigation is performed to de-termine the nature and extent of the problemsposed by the release, This may include sam-p l ing , moni to r ing , a n d o th e r in fo rma t io n -gathering sufficient to determine the need forand the extent of proposed remedial action.

The lead agency then develops a l i m i t e dnumber o f a l te rna t ives fo r source con tro land/ or offsite remedial actions depending onthe type of response identified as appropriate.One alternative may be “no action” whichcould be appropria te if the response action

could pose a greater environmental or healthdanger than no action, The alternative reme-dial actions are developed based on the assess-ments of the factors considered for each typeof remedia l ac t ion ,76 and the results of theremedial investigation,77

The alternatives are then subjected to an ini-tial screening to narrow the list of potentialremedial strategies for further detailed anal-ysis, Three broad criteria are used in the in-itial screening:

q the cost of installing or implementing each

alternative remedial action, including op-eration and maintenance;

7’47 F.R. 31,216, to be codified at 40 CFR 300.68( e],7747 F.R. 31,216, to a codified at 40 CFR 300.68 (f_).

the effects of each alternative and feasibili-ty according to each and feasibility accord-ing to each alternative; andacceptable engineering practices.

After the initial screening, more detailed

analysis will be conducted of the remainingalternatives; this analysis will include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5

re f inement and spec if ica t ion o f a l te r -natives with emphasis on the use of estab-lished technology;detailed cost estimation including distribu-tion of costs over time;evaluation in terms of engineering imple-mentation or constructabili ty;an assessment of each alternative in termsof the extent to which it is expected to miti-gate and minimize damages to, and pro-vide adequate protection of, public health,welfare, and the environment relative tothe other alternatives analyzed; andan analysis of any adverse environmentalimpacts, methods for mitigating these im-pacts, and costs of mitigation,

Based on this comparative evaluation of thealternative remedial actions, the lead agen-cy will then determine the appropriate extentof remedy. This a lternative is to be the onethat the agency determines is cost effective(i.e., “the lowest cost alternative that is tech-nologically feasible and reliable and which

effectively mitigates and minimizes damageto and provides adequate protection of publichealth, welfare, and the environment’’). 76 I nselecting the appropriate extent of remedy, thelead agency must also consider the need to re-spond to other releases with fund money. Sec-tion 104(c) of CERCLA requires that the needfor protection at the facility under considera-tion be balanced against the amount of moneyin the fund available to respond to other sitespresent or future problems, taking into con-sideration the need for immediate action.

The determination of appropria te remedywill decide what action, if any, will be takento remove or reduce the danger to the publicand the environment from a release, and how

— . .7847 F.R. 31,217, to be codified at 40 CFR 300.68(j).




z



Figure 22.- Remedial Action Process Under the National Contingency Plan-Continued

action 1 q 4

” Environmental Protection Agency, Off Ice of Emergency and Remedtal Response, November 1982




and to what extent the site will be cleaned up.Because appropriate remedial action measuresunder the NCP can consist of temporary or“band-aid” approaches to stabilize sites thatp o se a th re a t wh i l e l e a v in g th e h a z a rd o u ssubstances at the location, some choices of

remedy may be con trovers ia l . The d isc re -tionary aspect of the remedial action decisionunder CERCLA and the requirement to balanceth e n e e d fo r c l e a n u p o r a c t io n a t o n e s i t eagainst present or future needs to act at othersites creates an internal tension in carrying outthe cleanup mandate of CERCLA. This dilem-ma between protecting the fund and remov-ing risks to the public and the environmentis frequently referred to as the “How cleanis c lean?” issue. Superfund cleanups underthe NCP’S flexible standard of protection maynot result in removal of toxic substances from

the site. Contaminated soils and ground watersneed not be restored to their original uncon-taminated condition, but only to a level thatdoes not pose a substantia l threat. In somecases, the NCP provides that a “no action”alternative could be an appropriate remedy foran abandoned chemical dump site. Each deci-sion will be made on an ad hoc basis; eachsite will be treated as unique.

Phase V1l–Cost Recovery .—The final stage of response action under the NCP is documenta-tion and cost recovery. All documentation on

the extent of the release and remedial action,the circumstances leading to the release, andthe identity of any potentially responsible par-ties plus an accurate accounting of all Federalcosts incurred and impacts on public health,welfare, or the environment are forwarded tothe regional response team, to the nationalresponse team, and to others as appropriate.Claims for response costs against Superfundmust first be presented to the owner or oper-ator of the facility or to other potentially liableparties. If these parties cannot be identified,or cannot, or will not, pay for the response,

then a claim can be made against the ResponseTrust Fund.

Cleanup by Responsible Private Parties

In many instances, EPA anticipates that in-s tead o f , o r in add i t ion to , fund-f inancedremedial action, private parties who are re-sponsible for the release will initiate action toclean up the site and to mitigate any threat tothe public or the environment. The participa-tion of responsible parties maybe through vol-untary agreement or as a result of adminis-trative or judicial actions. Because sites con-sidered for remedial action on the NPL havebeen found to be a significant threat to publichealth and the environment, the lead agencywill usually review the cleanup proposals sub-mitted by the responsible private parties. EPAmay be asked to specify the level of cleanupto be required through enfc~rcement action. In judging whether proposed private cleanup ac-

tions will effectively reduce or remove thethreat, EPA will apply the same criteria usedin assessing fund-financed remedial actions.The cost -ba lanc ing considera t ions requ iredunder section 104(c) of CEIRCLA are not ap-plicable to determining the appropriate extentof responsible party cleanup.

Private cleanup may offer some significantcost advantages over fund-financed action. Forexample, in the Seymour Recycling settlement,a group of 24 settling respsonsible parties esti-mated that surface cleanup costs (removal and

decontamination) were significantly less thanGovernment estimates ($7.7 million v. $15 mil-lion). The difference in part was because someof the responsible parties would do work them-selves. It remains to be seen whether the par-ties will be successful in meeting their advanceestimates of cleanup costs. In any event, in ad-dition to the commitment of $7.7 million in es-timated cleanup costs, the Department of Jus-tice also required as a condition of the settle-ment a $15 million performance bond and a

judicially enforceable guarantee that the sitesurface cleanup would meet specified stand-

ards without regard to the estimated costs orperformance bond limits. Thus, the total com-




mitment could be in excess of $22 million. TheSeymour sett lement left nonsett l ing partiesresponsible for less than half the wastes at thesite and potentially liable for remaining groundwater cleanup (estimated at $15 million) .79 Asecond group of 171 settling parties agreed topay $3.5 mill ion for soil and ground watercleanu p .80

Standard of Cleanup in Superfund Actions

NCP provisions for determining the appro-priate extent of remedial action at Superfundsites has been criticized by several States andenvironmental groups because it does not es-tablish any specific environmental standardfor the level of cleanup to be achieved, suchas maximum acceptable levels of contamina-t ion . EPA’s f lex ib le approach ca l ls fo r the

leas t cost ly technolog ica l ly feas ib le a l te r -native that “effectively mitigates and mini-mizes damages to and provides adequate pro-t e c t i o n o f p u b l i c h e a l t h , w e l f a r e , o r t h ee n v i ro n me n t . “ 8l The NCP does not furtherdefine how the effectiveness of the alternativeis to be measured or what level of protectionof the public and the environment is “ade-quate. ”

EPA responded to criticisms of the NCP fornot explic it ly requiring that environmentalstandards be used in determining the appro-

pria te extent of remedy by noting that “en-vironmental effects and welfare concerns” areincluded among the criteria to be considered,Moreover, as EPA observed in the preambleto the NCP:

In some cases , this would al low EPA to con-

s i d e r a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d s i n s e l e c t i n g t h e a p -p r o p r i a t e r e m e d y . I t m u s t b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r ,

t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i l l f r e q u e n t l y a r i s e i nw h i c h t h e r e a r e n o c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d -ards . For ins tance, acceptable levels of hazard-ous substances in soi l are not es tablished, and

t h e r e a r e n o g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s f o r

7Warol Dinkins, Assistant Attorney General, Land and NaturalResources Division, hefore AL1-ABA conference on HazardousWaste, Superfund and Toxic Substances, Washington, D. C., Nov.5, 1982.

‘Hazardous Wast e Repor t , vol, 4, Jan. 10, 1983, at 14.alpreamb]e to the NCP, 47 F. R. 31,182, JU]Y 16 , 1982.

many other hazardous substances in othermed ia , . ,

E P A c a n n o t d e v e l o p n e w s t a n d a r d s f o r t h eh u n d r e d s o f s u b s t a n c e s i t w i l l b e c o n f r o n t e dw i t h i n r e s p o n s e a c t i o n s . N o t o n l y i s t h e r e -

quis i te legal author i ty lacking in CERCLA, but

s u c h a t a s k w o u l d a l s o b e e n o r m o u s , c o s t l y ,a n d t i m e - c o n s u m i n g , a n d w o u l d u n d u l y h a m -p e r t h e c l e a n u p o f r e l e a s e s , w h i c h i sC E R C L A ’ S p r i m a r y m a n d a t e .82

EPA is correct in stating that there are no es-tablished acceptable concentration levels forhundreds (if not thousands) of hazardous sub-stances that may be found at uncontrolled haz-ardous waste dump sites. EPA faces a similardifficulty in setting the contaminant levels forits ground water protection strategy under theJuly 1982 land disposal regulations. Never-

theless, EPA has decided to use the existingmaximum concen tra t ion leve ls fo r con tam-inants set under the Safe Drinking Water Actregulations and, where appropriate, the back-ground contaminant levels for other substancesfor compliance monitoring and corrective ac-tion purposes for permitting new and existingland disposal facilities. Under NCP, existenceof contaminant levels that would require cor-rective action at permitted land disposal fa-cilities under RCRA regulations could, con-ceivably, be allowed to continue after reme-dial response actions or without any reme-

dial action being taken.EPA’s selection of an appropria te remedy

also has implications for State actions, Statesare required to pay a share of the costs to qual-ify for Superfund-financed cleanups, and theStates must provide for operations and main-tenance at the site for the life of the remedialaction. The NCP does not specify the periodof time over which a response action must beeffec t ive fo r con tro l l ing th rea ts to humanhealth or the environment from a re lease of hazardous substances, Several States have ex-pressed concern that EPA may select less ex-pensive , incomple te remedia l ac t ions tha tleave the States open to substantially greatercosts in the long term, instead of a more ex-

8Z47 F, R. 31,185, July 16, 1982.




pensive permanent remedy that removes orcompletely cleans up the problem caused bythe hazardous substances. EPA policy sta te-ments have indicated that when the State pre-fers a more costly alternative, EPA will con-tribute only 90 percent of the total cost for theleast costly alternative; the State would thenpay the remaining cost of the more expensivealternative .83

An additional criticism raised by the Statesis that the NCP and the HRS do not allow Statesto determine which, if any, of their recom-mended priority si tes will qualify for fund-f inanced remedia l ac t ion . Th is uncer ta in tymakes it difficult for States to plan for theirown cleanup activities and to arrange for therequired State contribution for Superfund ac-tions. According to EPA officials, remedial ac-

tions at a number of priority list sites (aboutone-third of the initial 160 priority sites) havenot been taken because States could not pro-vide the required 10 percent contribution. Ithas been estimated that as many as 42 out of 50 States may not have adequate resourcesfor the 10 percent share of Superfund clean-u p .

8 4

The Hazardous Substance ResponseTrust Fund–” Superfund ”

Section 221 of CERCLA established the Haz-

ardous Substance Response Trust Fund, orS u p e r fu n d . 85 This fund is to be used to pay forresponse actions for releases of hazardous sub-stances. Superfund will receive up to $1.38billion from oil and chemical taxes and $220mi l l io n in a p p ro p r ia t io n s a u th o r iz e d ($ 4 4million in fiscal years 1981-85) to be paid in fullby the end of fiscal year 1985. Additionally, thefund will receive any amounts received as re-imbursements in section 107 cost-recovery ac-tions, and any penalties or punitive damagesimposed under section 107 of CERCLA. One-half of remaining funds in the trust fund es-

’4 7 F.R. 31,217, July 16, 1982; 40 CFR 300.68(j).MRemarks of William N. Hedeman, Director, EPA Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response, Before the Senate Comm it-tee on Environment and Public Works, Feb. 15, 1983.

%14 Stat. 2801, 42 U.S.C. 9631.

tablished under section 311 of CWA also weretransferred to the Superfund.

According to the Department of the Treas-ury, as of August 31, 1982, the fund had abalance of $327.4 million. Generator payments

during the month were $12.6 mill ion. TotalEPA obligations from the fund from December1980 to September 30, 1982, were $221 mil-l i o n .88

Superfund Taxes.–Title II of CERCLA, theHazardous Substance Response Revenue Actof 1980, imposes new excise taxes on petro-leum and certain chemicals. Proceeds fromthese taxes are deposited to the HazardousSubstance Response Trust Fund to f inanceresponse and cleanup actions. These taxes tookeffect on April 1, 1981, and are to continueuntil September 30, 1985, or until the amountscollected reach $1.38 billion, whichever occursfirst .87

A tax of 0.79 cent per barrel is levied oncrude oil received at U.S. refineries and on im-ported petroleum products. Exports of U.S.crude oil and domestic use of crude oil (exceptthat used onsite for oil and gas extraction) arealso subject to the tax.

A tax ranging from $0.2:2 to $4.87 per ton isimposed on 42 listed chemicals manufacturedor produced in the United States or imported

for consumption, use , or warehousing. (Seetable 58 for the schedule of chemical taxes.)The tax is imposed when the chemical is soldinitially or used by the manufacturer, producer,or importer. Limited exclusions are providedfor methane and butane burned as fuel, for cer-tain chemicals used in fertilizer production, forsulfuric acid generated as a byproduct of airpollution control processes, and on chemicalsderived from coal.

Collection of the oil and chemical taxes canbe suspended if the unobligated balance in thet rus t funds reaches $900 mil l ion on e i the rSeptember 30, 1983, or September 30, 1984,and if the Secretary of the Treasury determines

~Hazardous Wa s t e Report, vol. 4, Jan. 10, 1983, at 4.sTSee 94 Stat. 2796-99, 26 U.S. C. 2611 and 26 U.S. C. 4661; and

94 Stat. 2808, 42 U.S.C. 9653.



Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program • 315

Table 58.—Chemical Taxes Under Superfund

In the case of: Tax per ton

Acetylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Butane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Butylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Butadiene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Naphthalene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Propylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toluene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Xylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ammonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Antimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Antimony trioxide ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arsenic ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arsenic trioxide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Barium sulfide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bromine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chlorine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chromium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chromate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Potassium bichromate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sodium bichromate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cobalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cupric sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cupric oxide.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuprous oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hydrochloric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hydrogen fluoride. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lead oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mercury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phosphorus ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stannous chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stannic chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zinc chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zinc sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Potassium hydroxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sodium hydroxide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sulfuric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nitric acid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SOURCE Publtc Law 96.510, 94 Stat 2799, Dec ?0, 1980

$4.874.874.874.87

4.874.873.444.874,874.874.872.644.453.754.453.412.304.454.452.704.45

1,521.691.874.451.873.593.970.294.234,144.454.454.452.852.122.221,90

0.220,280.260.24

that the remaining unobligated balance in thefund will exceed $50 million on September300 of thefollowingy ear without collection of further Superfund taxes.

Use of the Fund.–Superfund can be used topay for Government response costs under sec-tion 104 and the NCP. The range of authorized

actions and expenditures is extremely broadand includes not only activity a t the si te toremove or abate the danger caused by the pres-ence of hazardous substances but also the costof necessary investigations, testing, monitor-ing, engineering and design studies, and plans

required to define and implement a cost effec-tive and adequate response, The costs of pur-suing cost recovery and enforcement actionsagainst potentially responsible parties also canbe paid out of the fund. Section ill(a) providesthat the fund can be used to pay the necessaryresponse costs incurred by other persons incarrying out NCP, to pay for claims approvedunder the review procedures of section 112,and for certa in c la ims arising under section304 of CWA. Additionally, the fund is specifi-cally authorized to pay for:88

q

q

q

the costs of assessing the amount of injuryor destruction to natural resources and of the governmental effort to restore or re-p la c e n a tu ra l r e so u rc e s in ju re d o r d e -stroyed because of releases of hazardoussubstances;

epidemiologic studies, the developmentand maintenance of the national registryof persons exposed to the release of haz-ardous substances in the environment, anddiagnostic services not otherwise availableto determine whether any of the exposedpopulation are suffering from long laten-cy diseases; andsubject to limitations in the appropriationsbills, costs of a program for-enforcementand abatement action against releases, thecosts of equipping, supplying, and main-taining damage assessment and responsecapability for strike forces and emergen-cy response teams under NCP, and thecost of a program to protect the health andsafety of workers involved in responseactions.

Administrative costs or expenses that are rea-sonably necessary and incidental to the im-plementation of Superfund also maybe paidout of the fund,

Liability of Responsible Parties Under CERCLA

Section 107 of CERCLA imposes far-reachingliabil i ty for response costs and damages tonatural resources from releases of hazardouss u b s t a n c e s . 89 This l iabil i ty applies not with-

~4Stat. 2789;42 U.S.C. 9611(c).6%4 Stat. 2781; 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).




standing any other provisions or rules of lawand is subject only to the defenses in CERCLA.Prior agreements or arrangements or commonlaw defenses that might otherwise shield agenerator or facility operator from liability forreleases in lawsuits by private parties may not

be asserted against the Government in CERCLAcost-recovery actions.

whenever there are response costs due to arelease or threatened release of a hazardoussubstance from a vessel or facility, responsi-ble parties may be held liable for:

q

q

q

all the costs of removal or remedial actionincurred by the Federal or State Govern-ment not inconsistent with the NCP;any other necessary costs of response in-curred by any other person not inconsist-ent with the NCP; anddamages for injury to, destruction of, orloss of natural resources, including the rea-sonable costs of assessing such harm re-sulting from the release.

Section 107 also defines the persons who canbe held liable under CERCLA. These respon-s i b l e p a r t i e s m a y i n c l u d e : t h e o w n e r o roperator of the facility from which there is arelease or threatened release, the persons whoowned or operated the facility at the time of disposal, any person who contracted or ar-ranged with another person for disposal or

treatment of hazardous substances (i.e., gen-erators), and any person who accepted hazard-ous substances for transport and selected thedisposal or treatment facility. Under section107, the Government may proceed against anyresponsible party for the full costs incurred forresponse and for damages to natural resources.The extent to which one responsible party maymake other responsible parties defendants ina cost-recovery action or seek contributionfrom them is not yet settled. The Federal Gov-ernment has maintained that joint and severalliability is available under CERCLA and hasproceeded under this theory in several cases.Representatives of the chemical industry andother major generators, frequently targets of CERCLA cost-recovery actions for abandonedsites containing their wastes, maintain that the

availability of joint and several liability underCERCLA was expressly left to the courts byCongress and has not yet been established.

Defenses .-CERCLA allows only several verynarrow defenses to be raised by a responsible

party who would otherwise be liable for re-sponse costs or natural resource damages. Aresponsible party may escape liability if it isshown by the preponderance of evidence thatthe release was caused solely by: 1) an act of God, 2) an act of war, 3) the act or omissionof a third party, or 4) any combination of theprevious three defenses. [n ra ising the thirdparty defense, the defendant must show thatthe third party was not his employee or agentor under a contractual re la tionship with thedefendant. The defendant must also show thathe “exercised due care” with respect to the

hazardous substance involved and that he tookprecautions against foreseeable action or omis-sions of any such third party and the conse-quences that could foreseeable result from suchacts or omissions.

A person who failed to notify EPA of the ex-istence of an inactive hazardous waste site asrequired in section 103(c) of CERCLA may notraise any of the statutory defenses or limita-tions on liability in a cost recovery action.

L i a b i l i t y L i m i t a t i o n s . — C E R C L A l i m i t s t h e

amount of liability that can be imposed in theevent of releases of hazardous substances re-quiring response actions. Liability for motorvehicles, aircraft, pipelines, or rolling stockmay not exceed $50 million per release or anylesser limit established by regulation, but notless than $5 million per release. (Liability forreleases into navigable waters is, however, setat not more than $8 million,) For facilities(other than the classes of transportation facil-ities previously mentioned), the liability limitper release is set at the total of all responsecosts, plus $50 million for damages to natural

resources.The responsible party can be required to pay

the full and total costs of response actions anddamages to natural resources without any lia-bility limitations if the:




q

q

q

q

release was due to willful misconduct orwillful negligence within the privity orknowledge of the responsible party;primary cause of the release was the viola-tion (within the privity or knowledge of theresponsible party) of applicable safety ,construction, or operating standards orregulations;party fails or refuses to provide reasonablecooperation or assistance requested by aresponsible public official in connectionwith response activities under the NCP; orparty failed to notify EPA that hazardoussubstances had been disposed of at the fa-c i l i ty as requ ired by sec t ion 103(c ) o f CERCLA.

Punitive damages of up to three times thecosts incurred by the Response Trust Fund can

be assessed against a responsible party who,without sufficient cause, has failed or refusedto take proper removal or remedial action inresponse to an administrative order under sec-tion 104 or 106 of CERCLA. These punitivedamages are in addition to recovery of theresponse costs, A responsible party, who failsto cooperate with response actions or to com-ply with an abatement order, could potential-ly end up paying four times the original re-sponse costs.

Insurance and Contribution .—CERCLA further

provides that “no indemnification, hold harm-less, or similar agreement or conveyance shallbe effective” to transfer liability from a poten-tially responsible party to another person.90 Th eact, however, does not bar any agreements toensure, hold harmless, or indemnify a party tosuch an agreement against any liability undersection 107. A responsible party could not,therefore, escape liability, but could later in-voke the benefit of an agreement to compen-sate him for any liability incurred, CERCLAalso provides that an owner or operator orother person subject to liability under section

107 retains any cause of action for subrogationor otherwise as a result of such liability orrelease.

Recovery for Natural Resources Damage .—Section

107(f) provides that the United States or anyState may sue to recover for injury or destruc-tion of natural resources. Natural resources in-clude land, air, water, fish, wildlife, and biotaowned, controlled, managed, held in trust by,or appertaining to the United States, a State,local government, or a foreign government.The President (or a State), acting as trustee forthe natural resources, can sue to recover dam-ages in the amount necessary to restore orreplace such resources, Damages for harm tonatural resources cannot be recovered if theinjury occurred before enactment of CERCLAor if: “l) the harm suffered is shown to be anirreversible and irre trievable commitment of natural resources in an environmental impactstatement or other comparable analysis; 2) such

impact was authorized in the decision to grantthe permit or license; and 3) the facility op-e ra te d in c o mp l ia n c e w i th th a t p e rmi t o rlicense. ” 9l

The Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund

Under section 107(k) of CERCLA, the liabilityof an owner or operator of a qualified hazard-o u s wa s te f a c i l i ty th a t h a s b e e n p e rmi t t e dunder section 3005 for response costs and dam-ages under section 107 cost-recovery action istransferred to the Post-Closure Liability TrustFund. Liability is transferred if the owner or

operator demonstrates that:q

q

the fac il ity and the owner / opera to r hascompiled with RCRA provisions and reg-u la t io n s r e g a rd in g p e r fo rma n c e o f th efacility after closure; andthe facility has been closed in compliancewith the regulations and permit conditionsand the facility and the surrounding areahave been monitored for a period not ex-ceeding 5 years after c losure to demon-strate that there is not a substantial likeli-hood that any migration or release from

confinement of any hazardous substanceor other risk to public health or the en-vironment will occur.92

%4 Stat. 2783; 42 U.S.C. 9607(e).w94 Stat. 2783; 42 U.S. C. 9607 (f).

9294 Stat, 2784; 42 U.S.C. 9607(k).




The transfer of liability becomes effective 90days a f te r the fac i l i ty owner o r opera to rnotifies EPA (and the State with an approvedprogram) that it has met the requirements fortransfer, unless within that time EPA (or theState) decides that the facility has not demon-strated compliance, or has submitted insuffi-cient information.

After transfer of liability, the post-closuretrust fund will assume the liability of the owneror operator und er section 107 cost-recovery ac-tions for response costs incurred and naturalresource damage. Additionally, the fund maypay the costs of monitoring, care, and main-tenance of a si te incurred by other personsafter the monitoring period required underRCRA regulations for facility closure and post-closure has expired. (For landfills, the post-

closure period is 30 years.) Regulations fortransfer of liability to the Post-Closure Liabili-ty Trust Fund have not yet been promulgated.

The Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund can beused for any of the same purposes as expendi-tures from Superfund. Additionally, the post-closure fund may be used to pay for any otherclaim or appropriate request for the costs of response, damage, or any other compensationfor in ju ry o r loss under sec t ion 107(k) o f CERCLA or any other State or Federal lawr e s u l t i n g f r o m a r e l e a s e o f a h a z a r d o u s

substance at such a facility. The Post-ClosureLiability Trust Fund, therefore, is potentiallyavailable to meet a broader type of claim thanSuperfund because o f the qua l i f ica t ion o f claims payments under any other Federal orState law. Presumably this could compensatethird parties for personal injuries or propertydamage from leaks at closed hazardous wastedump sites. In contrast , Superfund does notcompensate for personal injury or propertydamage suffered by third parties.

Hazardous Waste Tax.–The P o s t -C lo su re

Liability Trust Fund is to be financed by a taxof $2.13 per dry weight ton of hazardous wastesreceived at a disposal facility that is permittedor has interim sta tus under section 3005 of RCRA. The taxis payable by the facility owneror operator. No tax is paid on any hazardouswaste that will not remain at the facility after

it is closed. The tax primarily affects landdisposal facil i t ies and provides an economicincentive of sorts to reduce the amount of haz-ardous waste sent to landfills.

Collection of the tax will begin on April 1,

1983, but will be suspended in any calendaryear if, on September 30 of the preceding year,the unobligated balance in the fund exceeds$200 million. Section 303 of CERCLA providesthat the authorization to collect taxes underCERCLA will expire on September 30, 1985,or whenever the total collected under the oiland chemical tax provisions reaches $1.38 bil-lion, whichever is sooner.

Over the long term, the Post-Closure Lia-b i l i t y T r u s t F u n d c o u l d f a c e s u b s t a n t i a lc la ims for response actions if the standards

for landfills and other land disposal facilitiesunder RCRA are not more stringent. As EPAhas frequently acknowledged, all containmentwill eventually leak, and contaminants couldreach the environment. Land disposal facilities,even with liners, final covers, and leachate col-lection systems, could be closed and maintaintheir integrity over the required 5-year moni-toring period to qualify for liability transfer,and when they later begin to leak, the fundcould bear the substantial response and long-term care costs. one means of preventing thisis to apply a very stringent standard of proof

for the required demonstration that there is nosubstantial likelihood of migration or release,so tha t few ex is t ing fac i l i t ie s tha t d id no tupgrade beyond min imum standards cou ldqualify for the liability transfer.

Alternative Insurance Coverage.–Section 107(k)(4)calls for a study of the feasibility of allowingprivate insurance coverage as an alternative tothe Post -Closure Liab i l i ty Trust Fund . TheTreasury was to study the feasibility and thenecessary actions to make private insurancea practical and effective option to the financ-ing arrangements in the post-closure trust fund.This study was completed in March 1982. 93

After a public hearing, the President (through

INU. S. Department of the Treasury, Hazardous Substance Lia- bility Insurance, A Report in Compliance With Section 301(b)

and Section 10 T(k)(4] of Public Law 9&510, March 1982.




EPA) is to decide first whether such an alter-native is feasible, and then to prescribe min-imum requirements for such private coveragein l ieu of partic ipation in the Post-ClosureLiability Trust Fund. If a private plan qualifiesas a practical and effective alternative under

the rules established, facilities enrolled in andcomplying with the terms of the plan will beexempt from payment of the facility tax andexcluded from the liability transfer under sec-tion 107(k).

Other Federal Environmental Laws

and Hazardous Waste

In enacting RCRA, Congress declared thatit was closing “the last remaining loophole inenvironmental law, that of unregulated land

disposal of discarded materials and hazardousw astes.”= Congress further recognized that “asa result of the Clean Air Act, Water PollutionControl Act, and other Federal and State lawsrespecting public health and the environment,greater amounts of solid waste (in the form of sludge and other pollution treatment residues)have been created.’’” Before passage of RCRA,hazardous wastes were subject to Federal reg-ulation only to the extent that their impropermanagement might cause violations of otherlaws, such as those governing protection of public health, air quality and water quality, or

those controlling the products from which thewastes were derived.

Passage of RCRA unavoidably establishedoverlapping coverage between regulation of hazardous waste management under RCRAa n d re g u la t io n o f e n v i ro n me n ta l p o l lu t io na n d c o n t ro l o f h a z a rd o u s ma te r i a l s u n d e rother Federal laws. This potential problem of concurren t ju r isd ic t ion was recognized inRCRA sec t ion 1006(b) which requ ires theE P A Ad min i s t r a to r to “ in te g ra te a l l p ro v i -sions of this Act for purposes of administra-

t ion and enforcement and to avoid duplica-tion, to the maximum extent practicable, withthe appropr ia te p rov is ions o f . . . (o the r

‘House Report 94-1491, 94th Cong., 2d sess. (1976), p. 4.wRCRA, sec. 1002@)(3), 90 Stat. 2797; 42 U.S. C. 6901 (b)[3].

related Legislation).ge However, implementa-tion of these environmental laws has resultedin very little overlap or duplicative regulatoryre q u i re me n ts ; in f a c t , imp le me n ta t io n h a sleft significant gaps in protection from theadverse effects of hazardous substances in the

e n v i ro n me n t .

RCRA–Subtitle D–Regulation of

Solid Waste Management

The objectives of subtitle D of RCRA are toassist in developing and encouraging methodsfor solid waste disposal that are environmen-tally sound and maximize the uti l ization of r e c o v e re d re so u rc e s , a n d to e n c o u ra g e re -source conservation. These objectives are to beaccomplished through State solid waste man-agement plans prepared in accordance with

guidelines published by EPA. Among otherthings, such a plan must describe how the Statewill meet the requirements of subtitle C govern-ing hazardous waste management. States withan approved solid waste management plan areeligible for Federal technical and financial as-sistance. The variety of Federal technical andfinancial assistance mechanisms for State solidand hazardous waste management activit iesauthorized under RCRA are discussed later inthis chapter,

Section 4005(a)” of subtitle D prohibits “open

dumping” of solid waste.” To gain approvalof its solid waste management plan, a Statemust, with EPA financial and technical assist-ance, conduct a survey of solid waste facilitiesand develop an inventory of those judged tobe open dumps according to EPA-promulgatedcriteria (under sec. 4004(a)) that distinguishopen dumps from sanitary Iandfills.98 The Stateplan must provide for the closing or upgradingof all existing open dumps within a period notto exceed 5 years from the date of promulga-tion of the section 1008(a)(3) criteria. The planmust also demonstrate the State’s authority to

’42 U.S, C. 6905. The acts are the Clean Air Act, the CleanWater Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and RodenticideAct, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Marine Protection,Research, and Sanctuaries Act.

’742 U.S. C. 6945.’40 CFR Part 257 (1982).




prevent the recurrence of open dumping bymeans of a permit program for new facilitiesand adequate surveillance and enforcement ca-pabilities.

Enforcement of the ban on open dumping is

largely in the hands of each State. However,solid waste activities are covered by the sec-tion 7002 citizen suit provision and section7003 imminent hazard authority of RCRA.

Many existing “open dumps” and approvedsanitary or municipal landfills contain hazard-ous wastes that were deposited there e itherbefore the subtitle C regulations took effect orbecause the wastes were not regulated underthe subtitle C regulatory program (e.g., hazard-ous wastes produced by small-quantity gener-ators).

In practice, implementation of the subtitle Dprovisions has been incomplete, Most, but notall, States have prepared a first round of solidwaste management plans, many of which havereceived EPA approval. Partial inventories of open dumps have been prepared by the Statesand published in the Federal Register. Virtuallyall Federal financial and technical assistanceunder subtitle D for State solid waste plans hasbeen terminated. The fiscal year 1983 appro-priations, however, include funds to supportthe site inventory needed to complement ef-forts under the hazardous waste and Super-

fund programs.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)99

HMTA authorizes DOT to establish regula-tions governing the transport of hazardousma te r i a l s , i n c lu d in g wa s te s . Un d e r HMT A“hazardous materials” are those that the Sec-retary determines may pose an unreasonablerisk to health and safety or property whent ra n sp o r te d in c o mme rc e . DOT re g u la t io n sprov ide fo r the c lass i f ica t ion o f hazardousmateria ls, d isclosure requirements, shipping

container requirements, labeling and placard-ing standards, handling procedures for variousmo d e s o f t r a n sp o r t , a n d re p o r t in g o f a c c i -d e n t s .10 0

-9 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.1-49 CFR Parts 171-179 (1982).

In carrying out i ts responsibil i t ies underRCRA Subtitle C, EPA has adopted these sameregulations to ensure consistency between therequirements of the two agencies as requiredby section 3003(b) of RCRA. The section alsoauthorizes the EPA Administrator to make rec-

ommendations to the Secretary of Transpor-tation on hazardous waste regulations underHMTA and on the addition of materials to becovered by that act.

Although RCRA requires maximum consist-ency between the regulations of DOT and EPA,each agency still retains separate authority topromulgate and enforce i ts own regulations.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) lO1

TSCA directs EPA to inventory all chemicalsubstances in commerce, to require premanu-facture notice of all new chemical substances,to gather available information about the tox-icities of particular chemicals and exposures,to require industry testing under certain cir-cumstances where data are insuffic ient, andto assess whether unreasonable risks to humanhealth or the environment are involved. Indetermining whether a substance poses an un-reasonable risk, EPA must consider such fac-tors as: type of effect (e.g., chronic or acute,revers ib le o r i r revers ib le ) ; degree o f r i sk ;characteristics and numbers of humans, plants,

an imals , o r ecosystems a t r i sk ; amount o f knowledge about the effects; availability of alternative substances and their expected ef-fects; magnitude of the social and economiccosts and benefits of possible control actions;and appropriateness and effectiveness of TSCAas the legal instrument for controlling the risk.

EPA may prohibit, limit, or control the man-ufacture, processing, distribution through com-merce, use, and disposal of substances posinga n u n re a so n a b le r i sk . T h e se me a su re s c a nrange from requiring hazard-warning labels tobanning the manufacture or use of an especial-ly h a z a rd o u s su b s ta n c e . l02

lm~blic Law g4~69, 90 Stat. 2003 (1976); 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

10zTSCA, sec. 6, 90 Stat. 2020; 15 U.S, C, 2605.




Regulations under TSCA have been issuedfor two groups of chemicals: polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBS) and certain chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCS). The manufacture of PCBS hasbeen prohibited, except as a llowed by EPA.Rules governing the use and disposal of PCBSin a variety of applications have been estab-lished. However, the disposal of about 40 per-cent of the PCBS still in use (largely containedin small appliances and capacitors) has notbeen regulated under TSCA. Some, but not all,uses of CFCS have been prohibited. In general,the standards for treatment and disposal of PCBS under TSCA are more stringent than thestandards for hazardous waste under RCRA.For example, under TSCA rules, incineratorsburning liquid PCBS must attain a 99.9999 per-cent destruction level; RCRA standards are

only 99.99 percent.

10 3

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FlFRA)104

FIFRA requires that all pesticides be regis-tered with EPA on the basis of submitted safe-ty data, and prohibits the sale, distribution, anduse of pesticides except in accordance withregistered labels. To obtain registration, it mustbe demonstrated, among other things, that apesticide, when used in accordance with wide-sp re a d a n d c o mmo n ly re c o g n iz e d p ra c t i c e ,will not generally cause “unreasonable adverse

effects on the environment. ” The EPA Admin-istra tor is required, after consulta tion withother interested Federal agencies, to establishprocedures and regulations for the disposal orstorage of packages and containers of pesti-cides.

Subject to trade secret exclusions, the EPAAd min i s t r a to r mu s t ma k e p u b l i c th e d a tacalled for in the registra tion sta tement of ap e s t i c i d e . I n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g hFIFRA reporting and testing programs maybeuseful in establishing whether a discarded pes-

ticide should be classified as an RCRA hazard-ous waste.

Clean Water Act (CWA)105

The overall objective of CWA is “to restoreand maintain the chemical, physical, and bio-log ica l in tegr i ty o f the Nat ion’s wa te rs . ”Among the goals and policies used to promote

this objective are those of eliminating the dis-charge of pollutants into navigable waters by1985 and prohibiting the discharge of toxicpollutants in toxic amounts.

Section 301(a) prohibits the discharge of anypollutant from a point source without a per-mit under section 402 (which establishes theNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-tem (NPDES)), and except in conformance withtechnology-based effluent l imita tions undersec t ion 301 , wa te r qua l i ty -re la ted e ff luen tlimitations under section 302, new source per-

formance standards under section 306, andto x ic a n d p re t r e a tme n t e f f lu e n t s t a n d a rd sunder sec t ion 307 . 10 6

Technology-based l imi ta t ions a re t ied tothree categories of discharges—municipal, in-dustrial, and toxic. Industrial discharges havebeen subdivided into conventional pollutants(biological oxygen demand, suspended solids,fecal coliform, pH, oil and grease), toxic (in-cluded on a list of toxic substances), and non-conventional pollutants (other than conven-tional or toxic).

The 1972 amendments provided for the list-ing of toxic pollutants based on factors suchas toxicity, persistence, degradability, poten-tial for exposure of organisms, etc. Toxic pol-lutant effluent standards providing an “amplemargin of safety” were to be promulgated ona pollutant-by-pollutant basis.107 Because of dif-ficulties and delays in the implementation of this provision, and prompted by a court settle-ment, the 1977 amendments call for EPA to de-velop and issue “best available technology” ef-f lu e n t l im i ta t io n g u id e l in e s , p re t r e a tme n tstandards, and new source performance stand-

ards for 21 major industries covering 65 seriouspollutants or groups of pollutants (see table 59).

1 0 3 4 0 CFR 761.70. TSCA, sec. 6(e), directs EPA to prescribemethods for the disposal of PCBS, 15 U.S.C. 2605[e).IM7 U.S. C. 135 et seq.

YOE33 U,S.C. 1251 et seq.1~33 U.s. c. 1311.‘0733 U.S.C. 1317( a](4).




Table 59.—Toxic Water Pollutants Under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act

Classes of toxic pollutants for which EPA must issue water quality criteria

1. Acenaphthene2. Acrolein3. Acrylonitrile4. Aldrinidieldrin

5. Antimony and compounds6. Arsenic and compounds7. Asbestos8. Benzene9. Benzidine

10. Beryllium and compounds11. Cadmium and compounds12.13.14.15.

16.17.18.

19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.

36.

Carbon tetrachlorideChlordane (technical mixture and metabolizes)Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroethane,1,1,1-trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane)Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl, and mixed ethers)Chlorinated naphthaleneChlorinated phenols (other than those listedelsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and chlorinatedcresols)

Chloroform2-ChlorophenolChromium and compoundsCopper and compoundsCyanidesDDT and metabolizesDichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzenesDichlorobenzidineDichloroethylenes (1 ,1- and 1,2-dichloroethylene)2,4- DichlorophenolDichloropropane and dichloropropene2,4-DimethylphenolDinitrotoiueneDiphenylhydrazineEndosulfan and metabolizesEndrin and metabolizesEthylbenzene

FluorantheneSOURCE. 43 F. R. 4108, Jan 31, 1978

The list of industries, however, is not identicalto the list of generators under RCRA, and therange of pollutants of concern under RCRA ismuch broader. The EPA Administra tor hassome discretion in adding to or removing pol-lutants from the list of pollutants, taking intoaccount the same factors used in preparing thelist initially. The Administrator may also issuea more stringent toxic pollutant effluent stand-ard if appropriate.

In relation to toxic and hazardous materialsthat might enter the environment other thanthrough effluent discharge, EPA is authorizedto establish “best management practices” to beimplemented as provisions of NPDES permits,

37. Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; in-cludes chlorophenylphenyl esters, bromophenylphenylether, bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis(chloroethoxy)methane, and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers)

38. Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere; in-cludes methylene chloride, methyl chloride, methyl

39.40.41.42.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.

50.51.52.53.54.55.

56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65.

bromide, bromoform, dichlorobromornethane,trichlorofluoromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane)Heptachlor and metabolizesHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)HexachlorocyclopentadieneIsophoroneLead and compoundsMercury and compoundsNaphthaleneNickel and compoundsNitrobenzeneNitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol,dinitrocresol)NitrosaminesPentachlorophenolPhenolPhthalate estersPolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzan-thracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene,chrysenes, dibenzanthracenes and indenopyrenes)Selenium and compoundsSilver and compounds2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)TetrachloroethyleneThallium and compoundsTolueneToxapheneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideZinc and compounds

for control of plant site runoff, leaks, spills,sludge, waste disposal, and drainage from rawmaterial storage sites.

CWA requires promulgation of standards fort h e p r e t r e a t m e n t o f i n d u s t r i a l p o l l u t a n t sdischarged to publicly owned treatment works(POTWS) that might create problems in sewers(fire, corrosion, explosion), inhibit municipalsewage treatment processes, or pass untreated

into waterways or the POTWS sludge, therebyrendering i t unfit for benefic ia l use or dis-posal. 108 However, subject to State and EPA ap-proval, a municipality may provide at least par-

10033 USC 1317@).




tial treatment for industrial toxic wastes in away which allows the industry to reduce itsp re t r e a tme n t c o s t s . (Ha z a rd o u s wa s te d i s -charged into a POTW is currently excludedfrom the definit ion of hazardous waste andregulation under RCRA because of the CWApretreatment provision.)

Implementation of the pretreatment require-ments has been subject to some delay. Amend-ments to the general regulations (originally pro-mulgated in 1978) were promulgated in 1981,then suspended by the Reagan administrationpending regulatory impact analysis, and latermade partially effective following court action.Certain provisions remain suspended. EPA iscurrently considering further changes, gener-ally involving greater local control and respon-sibility for pretreatment requirements, as well

as a decreased emphasis on mandatory nation-al technology-based categorical standards. 109

EPA has ruled that any non-domestic wastemixed with domestic waste in a sewer systemleading to a POTW is not a solid waste. If thisnon-domestic waste is not treated because of the lack of pretreatment standards or becausethe generator is not regulated under CWA, thedischarge into the POTW could be regulatedunder subtitle C as a hazardous waste activityif a hazardous waste (as defined in RCRA) isinvolved. Furthermore, although a point source

discharge covered by a NPDES permit is notsubject to subtit le C regulation, any wastemanagement activity occurring before the flowreaches the point of discharge may be subjectto subtitle C regulation if a hazardous wasteis involved,

Section 311 establishes procedures by whichEPA can act to prevent or respond to spills andother nonroutine releases of oil and hazardoussubstances into U.S. waters and can recoverthe mitigation costs from the discharger. EPAwas required to prepare a national contingen-

cy plan (NCP) for oil and chemical and to es-tablish a special fund for emergency assistanceto persons and communities in cases of pollu-

l~fjee 47 F.R. 4,518, Feb. 1, 1982, 40 CFR Part 403, originallypublished at 46 F.R. 9,404, Jan. 28, 1981.

tant and contaminant discharges. The programis not limited to water pollution emergencies,but covers “all releases to the environment. ”T h e NCP e s ta b l i sh e d u n d e r CWA wa s e x -panded by CERCLA to include a comprehen-sive national hazardous substance responseplan to deal with chemical spills and releasesof hazardous substances into the environment.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)l10

SDWA provides for EPA to establish nationalprimary drinking water quality standards and,as needed, to require application of specificwater treatment technologies. The act regulatesboth public and private water utilities servingfrom a few dozen to millions of people. Theprimary standards, or “maximum contaminantlevels,” are intended to protect human health.

EPA may also recommend secondary stand-ards for substances that do not threaten publichealth but that cause aesthetic problems withthe odor, or appearance affecting the usabili-ty of water. The SDWA gives the main respon-s ib i l i ty fo r enforc ing the s tandards to theStates. Each State must adopt standards at leastas strict as the national standards, and mustbe able to monitor and enforce compliancewith the standards by individual supply sys-tems. If a State cannot or does not carry outthese responsibilites, EPA can conduct the pro-gram itself.

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLS) havebeen established to date for 10 inorganic chem-icals (arsenic , barium, cadmium, chromium,fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium, andsilver), 6 pesticides (toxaphene, methoxychlor,endrin, lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T), and trihalo-methanes (which result primarily from reac-tions between natural organic chemicals pres-ent in raw water and the chlorine typicallyused as a disinfectant) . Maximum levels forbacterial contamination, radioactivity, and tur-bidity have also been established (see table

60).111 For a few compounds, interim nonbind-in g g u id e l in e s (S u g g e s te d No Ad v e rse Re -sp o n se L e v e l—’’S NARL " d o c u me n ts h a v e

11042 U.S.C. 300 f-300j.11140 CFR 141, subpart B (1982).



324 ŽTechnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 60.—National Interim PrimaryDrinking Water Standards

Maximumconcentration

(in mg/lConstituent unless specified)

Inorganic chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05Arsenic ..........,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05Barium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.010Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002Nitrate (as N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Selenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05Fluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4-2.4Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 tu upto5tuColiform bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I/1OOm-(mean)Endrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0002Lindane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.004Methoxychlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1Toxaphene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.005

2,4-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12,4,5-TP Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01Total trihalomethanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1

Radionuclides:Radium 226 and 228 (combined . . . . . . 5pCi/1Gross alpha particle activity . . . . . . . . 15pCi/1Gross beta particle activity . . . . . . . . . 4mrem/year

SOURCE:40CFR. 141(1982)

been prepared for use by States and munici-palities on a case-by-case advisory basis. MCLsestablished under SDWA will provide part of the basis for the ground water protection strat-egy adopted in the July 1982 land disposal

standards under RCRA.SDWA also provides for a program regulat-

ing the underground injection of wastes andother materials. Injection wells are a widelyused method of industrial waste disposal. EPAis required to list States that are thought to re-quire underground injection control (UIC) pro-grams and to set minimum national require-ments for such programs. EPA must approvethe adequacy of each proposal UIC program,although the agency is specifically instructednot to disrupt unnecessarily any State pro-

grams a l ready be ing e ffec t ive ly enforced .Where an adequate program is not being car-ried out by a State , however, EPA will ad-minister the program.

Regulations promulgated by EPA in 1980 dis-t inguish five different kinds of wells: deep

waste-disposal wells (or those below usableaquifers), wells related to oil and gas produc-tion, wells for special processes such as solu-tion mining and geothermal energy, shallowwells (or those injecting into usable aquifers)for hazardous waste disposal, and all others.

Following the settlement of legal challenges tothese regulations, EPA promulgated revisedregulations in February 1982. 112 Standards havenot yet been promulgated for wells in whichwaste is injected above underground sourcesof drinking water (see ch. 5), nor have stand-ards been implemented in many jurisdictionsi n w h i c h w a s t e i s i n j e c t e d d i r e c t l y i n t ounderground sources of drinking water.

SDWA provides for controls over the under-ground injection of wastes. RCRA also author-izes regulation of hazardous waste disposal by

injection into or onto the land or waters so thatwastes might enter the environment. Becauseof th is over lapp ing ju r isd ic t ion , EPA haspromulgated a permit-by-rule approach for injection wells in the RCRA subtitle C program.The owner or operator of an injection welldisposing of hazardous waste will be deemedto have a RCRA permit if he: 1) obtains andcomplies with UIC permit, and 2) complieswith special requirements under SDWA forwells injecting hazardous waste .

In general , the UIC program requires that

high-risk types of wells must be authorized bypermits before they may be operated, whilelower-risk wells may be operated without in-dividual permits under general rules. Whereneeded, UIC permits impose both technologi-cal and administra tive requirements on welloperators. UIC permit conditions generallycover construction, operation, monitoring, re-porting, special corrective actions, well aban-donment, Government access to operator rec-ords and facilities, and provisions for permitreview, modification, and termination.

SDWA also contains an important provisionfor protection of aquifers that supply drinkingwater. SDWA prevents the use of Federal as-sistance for purposes that could endanger ir-replaceable drinking water supplies. It applies

IWT F.R. 4,gg2, Feb. 3, 1982; to be codified at 40 CFR part 146.




where EPA (on its own initiative or on receiv-ing a petition from the affected community) de-termines that an area has an aquifer which isits sole or principal drinking water source .113If contamination of such an aquifer will causea significant health hazard, EPA may delay or

stop commitment of Federal assistance for anyprojects or activities that could cause such con-tamination. By 1980, seven “sole source aqui-fers” had been designated.

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972 (MPRSA)114

Enacted to implement international treatyobligations restricting ocean dumping, MPRSAhas the purpose of preventing or severely lim-iting the ocean dumping of any material thatwould adversely affect human health, welfare,

or amenities, or the marine environment, eco-lo g ic a l sy s tem, o r e co n o mic p o te n t i a li t ie s .Practically, the act requires stopping all “harm-ful dumping” in the oceans by 1981. The criti-cal phrase “harmful dumping” is defined as thedumping of wastes that do not meet certain en-vironmental impact criteria;115 such wastes arelikely to include all hazardous wastes as de-fined under RCRA. A 1977 amendment to theact specifies that the ocean dumping of sewagesludge must cease by 1981.

MPRSA d irec ts EPA and the U.S . ArmyCorps of Engineers (subject to EPA review) toadminister permit systems to control dumping.The permit responsibil i t ies of the Corps arelimited to dumping of dredged materials.

The ocean dumping of municipal sewagesludge inc reased be tween 1973 and 1978 ,possibly reflecting implementation of CWAand the resulting growth in the generation of sludge. Ocean dumping of industria l wastesdeclined during the same period, but increasedpressure to allow more such dumping mightbe expected following implementation of thefull RCRA regulatory scheme. (See discussion

of ocean dumping in ch. 5.)

11342 u.sc. sooh-s, Regulations are found at 40 CFR 1464(1982).

11433 u.s.c. 1401 et seq .Ils40 cFR 227, subp art B (1982).

Clean Air Act (CAA)116

CAA requires EPA to establish national am-b ie n t a i r q u a l i ty g o a l s d e s ig n e d to p ro te c tpublic health and welfare, and to take action(if State and local governments will not) to seethat the goals are met. For the major pollutants(currently including sulfur dioxide, carbonmonoxide, nitrogen oxides, nonmethane hy-drocarbons, particulate, ozone, and lead), theEPA has set primary and secondary NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Thep r ima ry s t a n d a rd s a re d e s ig n e d to p ro te c tpublic health (with an adequate margin of safe-ty f rom adverse hea l th e f fec ts) . Secondarystandards designed to protect public welfaresuch as protection of plants and animals, build-ings and materia ls, and visibil i ty from theadverse affects of pollutants have also been

established. The States are required to submitState implementation plans with emission lim-i t a t i o n s a n d o t h e r m e a s u r e s n e c e s s a r y t oachieve and maintain the NAAQS within thedeadlines established by Congress. If a Stateeither does not submit a plan or does notreceive EPA’s approval of its plan, EPA itself is required to take the necessary actions to at-tain and maintain the standards in that State.

CAA provides for the establishment of na-tional emission standards applicable to certainmajor new and modified industria l sources.The States are required to establish emissions ta n d a rd s a p p l i c a b le to e x i s t in g in d u s t r i a lsources. In areas that do not meet one or moreof the NAAQS (nonattainment areas), and ina reas sub jec t to nondegrada t ion con tro ls ,major stationary sources must obtain a permitand must meet stringent new source perform-ance standards.

Section 112 of the act provides for the es-tablishment of national emission standards for“hazardous air pollutants” for which there isno applicable ambient air quality standard.117

EPA may designate as “hazardous” any pol-

lutant which “may cause, or contribute to, anincrease in mortality or serious irreversible, or

1N342 U. S.C. 7401 et seq.1]742 U.S. C. 7412.




incapacitating reversible, illness. ” Within 1year of listing a hazardous pollutant, EPA isto issue standards for controll ing hazardouspollutant emissions. The result ing standardsmust provide an “ample margin of safety toprotect the public health. ” Where an emission

standard is not feasible, EPA may prescribe adesign, equipment, work practice , or opera-tional standard.

For stationary sources about to be built ormodif ied , hazardous po l lu tan t s tandards be -come effective immediately upon proposal.EPA has the authority to prohibit the construc-tion or modification of any source that will notcomply with promulgated standards. Existingsources must comply within 90 days of pro-mulgation of final standards unless a waiveris granted.

To date, EPA has listed and set final stand-ards under section 112 for four substances:beryllium, mercury, asbestos, and vinyl chlo-ride (see table 61). 116 Three o ther substanceshave been listed as hazardous, but final stand-ards have not yet been issued: for benzene,standards have been proposed; for arsenic ,they are under development; and for radio-nuclides they are under consideration. EPAhas been sued for its failure to meet the l-yeardeadline for promulgating standards for thesesubstances. Among other pollutants that havebeen considered for listing under section 112are: coke oven emissions, polycyclic organicmatter, cadmium, e thylene dichloride, per-c h l o r o e t h y l e n e , a c r y l o n i t r i l e , m e t h y l e n echloride, methyl chloroform, toluene, and tri-ch loroe thy lene . 119

“840 CFR Part 61.llgIn lg79, EPA proposed a general methodology which was

intended for use in identifying, assessing, and regulatingsuspected carcinogens that are emitted from stationary sources.The proposal includes the listing under section 112 of any airpollutant determined to present a significant carcinogenic riskto human health as the result of emissions from one or morecategories of stationary sources. This listing would be accom-panied, when applicable, by the proposing of generic emission

standards for source categories producing or handling signifi-cant quantities of the substance. Final standards would, at aminimum, require sources to use best available technology toreduce emissions, as well as additional measures (including theclosure of certain sources) as necessary to reduce any remain-ing risk deemed to be unreasonable. Further action on the air-borne carcinogen policy has been deferred by EPA. 44 F.R.58,642, Oct. 10, 1979.

Table 61 .—Hazardous Air Pollutants UnderSection 112 of the Clean Air Act

RegulationListed pollutants Major source categories status

Status of toxic air pollutants regulation Asbestos Mills, manufacturing, Promulgated

demolitionBeryllium Extraction plants, foundries, Promulgated

machine shopsMercury Smelters, chlor.alkali, sludge Promulgatedincineration

Vinyl chloride Manufacture, polymerization PromulgatedBenzene a Chemicals and petroleum ProposedArsenic b

Copper smelter Underdevelopment

Radionuclides cUranium mines, phosphoric Underacid plants consideration d

Chemicals under assessment Acetaldehyde Hexachlorocyc opentadieneAcrolein Maleic anhydrideAcrylonitrile ManganeseAllyl chloride Methyl chloroformBenzyl chloride (1,1,1 trichloroethane)Beryllium Methylene chlcrideCadmium (dichloronmethane)Carbon tetrachloride NickelChlorobenzene NitrobenzeneChloroform NitrosomorpholineChloroprene PerchloroethyloneCoke oven emissions Phenol

o-, m-, p- cresol Phosgenep-Dichlorobenzene Polychlorinatecl biphenylsDimethyl nitrosamine Proplyene oxideDioxin TolueneEpichlorohydrin TrichloroethyleneEthylene dichlor ide Vinylidene chlorideEthylene oxide o-, m-, p-xyleneFormaldehyde

a No standards Yet i s sued .bN o s t a n d a r d s yet issued. EPA has been sued for failure to PromulrJate standards

within statutory deadline, Settlement in ne[]otiation.CNo standards yet issued. EPA was sued by tho Sierra Club (and others) for failureto promulgate standards within statutory period EPA now under court orderto issue proposed rulesdsources to be regulated not Yet determinecl.

SOURCE: Flearhgs orr Oversight ofl the C/can ,4ir Act, Senate Committee on Envi-ronment and Public Works, 97th Cong., 1st sess., June 1981, pp580-581

Air pollutants from hazardous waste facil-ities—or from the burning of hazardous wastefor energy recovery-might in principle be con-trolled under either section 112 of CAA or sub-title C of RCRA. However, the pollutant-by-pollutant approach under CAA is cumbersome.Only a few pollutants have been l isted andstandards have been established for only a verynarrow group of facilities. The RCRA programis better suited for the control of pollutantsfrom hazardous waste TSDFS, while other spe-cific airborne hazardous pollutants generated

in a range of industria l processes might bemore read i ly con tro l led us ing sec t ion 112standards .

Air pollution controls have themselves re-sulted in some increase in the generation of




hazardous waste. However, as mentioned else-where, fly ash waste and flue gas emission con-trol waste generated primarily from the com-bustion of coal or other fossil fuels have tem-porarily been excluded from regulation undersubtitle C of RCRA, pending completion of

studies required by 1980 RCRA amendments.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Actof 1977 (S MC RA)

120

SMCRA establishes a nationwide program toprotect society and the environment from theadverse effects of coal mining. Regulationsissued under the act by the Department of theInterior cover three major areas:

performance standards for protection of the environment and public health andsafety, permit applications, and bondingrequirements for surface coal mining andreclamation operations;procedures for preparation, submission,and approval of State programs to controlmining and reclamation; anddevelopment and implementation of a Fed-eral program for any State that does notdevelop an acceptable program.

The surface mining regulatory program in-cludes standards and requirements for protec-tion of surface and ground waters from con-ta min a t io n f ro m min in g wa s te s a n d o v e r -

burden. Section 1OO6(C) of RCRA provides forin tegra t ion be tween RCRA and SMCRA incontrolling solid and hazardous wastes and re-quires consultation between EPA and the De-partment of the Interior on the adequacy of these ru les . l2l The Secretary of the Interior isgiven exclusive responsibility for carrying outthe requirements of RCRA subtitle C with re-spect to coal mining wastes or overburden forwhich a permit under SMCRA has been issuedor approved. Section 3005(f) of RCRA statest h a t a p e r m i t i s s u e d o r a p p r o v e d u n d e rSMCRA covering any coal mining wastes oroverburden shall be deemed to be a treatment,

s to ra g e , a n d d i sp o sa l p e rmi t i s su e d u n d e rR C R A .122 Subtitle C regulations are not be ap-plicable to the treatment, storage, or disposalof coal mining wastes and overburden coveredby such a permit.

Nonregulatory Approaches and Technical Support

RCRA and other laws contain nonregulatoryprovisions (i. e., wh ich d o not directly requirecompliance with standards or controls) that arein tended to in f luence hazardous waste man-agement activities by State and local govern-ments and the private sector. These provisionsinclude direct or indirect incentives to adoptState programs or to develop alternative haz-ardous waste management practices. Amongthe existing provisions are those that providefor financial and technical assistance to States,

information distribution, research and devel-opment activities, and interstate cooperation.Although, RCRA authorizes a broad range of non-regulatory activit ies that could promotethe adoption of better waste management strat-egies by State and private industry, these meas-ures have been largeley ineffective due to lackof adequate funding and/ or failure of imp le-mentation by Executive agencies.

In te rs ta te Coopera t ion .—Sec t ion 1005 of RCRA 123 allows two or more States to establishagreements or compacts, not in conflict with

any U.S. law or treaty, for cooperative effortand mutual assistance in the management of solids and/ or hazardous waste. These regionalcompac ts a l low Sta tes to p lan fo r reg iona lwaste needs and develop consistent regulatorypolicies.

Guidelines for Solid Waste Management.–Section1008 124 of RCRA requires the EPA Administra-tor to develop and publish suggested guidelinesfor solid waste management which will estab-lish criteria for defining solid waste and willprovide a technical and economic description

of the level of performance in protecting health

l~opub]ic Law 95-87, 91 Stat. 445, Aug. 3, 1977; 30 U.S. C. 1201et seq.

U142 U.S.C. 9605, as amend ed by the Solid Waste Disposal ActAmendments of 1980, Public Law 96-482, sec. 2, 94 Stat. 2334.

M142 U.S. C. 9625(fl, as amended by Public Law 96-482, sec.11, 94 Stat. 2338.

12342 U.S. C. 6904.1 2 4 4 2 USC, 5907,




and the environment a tta inable by availablesolid waste management practices.

Where appropriate, the guidelines are alsoto include information for use in deciding theadequate location, design, and construction of solid waste management facil i t ies, includingconsideration of regional, geographic , demo-graphic, and climatic factors.

Several solid waste guidelines were issuedby EPA under section 209 of SWDA before pas-sage of RCRA.125 Since then, EPA’s guideline-writing under RCRA section 1008 has beenmin ima l . T h e min imu m c r i t e r i a fo r u se indefining practices that constitute open dump-ing were issued not as a separate guidelinedocument but rather in combination with cri-teria for classifying facilities as sanitary land-fills or open dumps, required by section 4004(a)”

of RCRA.12 6

Sec t ion 6004 of RCRA prov ides tha t anyguidelines issued under section 1008 are bind-ing on executive agencies and units of the leg-isla tive branch of the Federal Government. 127

Financial Assistance.–Section 3011 of RCRAauthorizes Federal grants to assist the Statesin the development and implementation of haz-a r d o u s w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m s . i28 E P Ahas determined that these grants are also avail-able for States with partia l authorization orcooperative arrangements. Hazardous wastegrants have steadily increased as shown intable 7 in the following section. Because thesubtitle C hazardous waste regulatory programhas only recently been promulgated in reason-ably complete and final form, and because thedevelopment, f in a l a u th o r iz a t io n , a n d im-plementation of State hazardous waste pro-grams entail a major effort yet to be completed,EPA has been widely criticized for failing torequest or provide sufficient financial assist-ance to the States at a time when their regula-tory responsibilities under RCRA will increase

dramatically. EPA has recently suggested that

Izspub]ic Law 89-272, 79 Stat. 997 (1965].1m42 USC, 6944,

1Z742 U.S. C, 6931,12042 U,S,C. 6931+

the State grants program be phased out andthat States finance their regulatory programsthrough increased fees and State appropria-t i o n s .l2 9

Under section 3012,129 gran ts may be madeto the States for a continuing program to in-ventory active and inactive hazardous wastes i te s . In f isca l year 1983 , Congress appro-priated $10 million from Superfund to carryout this program. EPA had not previously re-quested such funds.

Under subtitle D, section 2007, 4007, and4008 of RCRA provide for EPA to grant finan-cial assistance to States and sub-State agenciesfor the purpose of developing and implement-ing their solid waste plans.130

Under section 4008(a)(2)(A), financial assist-

ance may be provided for facility planning andfeasibility studies; expert consultation; tech-nology assessments; legal expenses; construc-tion feasibility studies; and fiscal or economicinvestigations or studies, but it may not includeconstruction or land aquisit ion. l3l A p p l i c a n t sfor such assistance must agree to comply (withrespect to the project or program assisted) withthe requirement under section 4005 for theclosing or upgrading of open dumps and withthe requirements of the subtitle C hazardouswaste program, as well as agreeing to applypractices, methods, and levels of control con-

sistent with any guidelines issued under sec-tion 1008.13 2

Provisions for financial assistance under sub-ti t le D generally emphasize support for re-source conservation and recovery; indeed, as-sistance provided under section 4008(a)(3) isrestricted to uses related to energy and mate-

1z94z u,s. c. Ggss , as a rne r lded by Public Law 96482, sec. IT,94 Stat. 2344 (1980).

l~osection Z007, as arner lded, prov]de s for general authoriza-tions for approp riations forRCRA implementation and providesthat sp ecified shares are to be allocated to the Resource Recovery

and Conservation Panels, (ZO percent or $5 million), to the Haz-ardou s Waste Regulatory Program (:30 percent, excluding sec.SO1l grants to States); and to sec. A O O B program s for State, local,and regional agencies resource and m aterial conservation andrecovery program s and State solid waste p lans (25 percent of total app ropr iated for sec. 4008 progr am s).

1s14z U.soc. 6848,1s242 u.s.c. 6945,




ria ls conservation and recovery as describedin section 4003(b) (1).133 The primary emphasisis on conservation and recovery in relation tomunicipal waste, but section 4003(b)(2) refersalso to “o ther sources o f so l id waste f romwhich energy and materials may be recovered

or minimized” which could, in principle, in-clude hazardous waste .

In practice, EPA provided grants under sub-title D (including grants specifically in supportof resource recovery) totaling $27,910,000 infiscal year 1980 and $12,936,000 in fiscal year1981. However, these grants were phased outat the end of fiscal year 1981, although recip-ients were permitted to spend in fiscal year1982 any money that previously had been allo-cated but remained unspent. The phaseout leftS ta te s w i th o u t F e d e ra l su p p o r t fo r , a mo n g

other things, continued solid waste planningand continued preparation of the inventory of open dumps, as well as for plan implemen-tation.

Technical Assistance .—Under subtitle D, section4008(d) authorizes EPA to provide technical as-sistance to State and local governments for de-v e lo p in g a n d imp le me n t in g S ta te p la n s . l3 4

Technical assistance on resource conservationand recovery (in practice, largely applied tomunic ipa l waste ) may be p rov ided th rough“Resource Recovery and Conservation Pan-els. ” These are teams of personnel, includingFederal, State, and local employees or contrac-tors who supply assistance at no charge toStates and local governments.135

The de l ive ry o f techn ica l a ss is tance wasfunded at the level of $4,304,000 in fiscal year1980 and $3,198,000 in fiscal year 1981 but waseliminated in fiscal year 1982 EPA budget.

RCRA also directed the Department of Com-merce to provide technical support to encour-age the commercialization of proven technol-ogies for resource conservation and recovery.

The National Bureau of Standards was directedto publish guidelines for specifications forclassifying materials recovered from wastes.

IW42 U.S. C. 6943(%)(1).13442 U.S. C. 6948(d).1 3 5 4 2 USC. 6913.

The Department of Energy was given the re-sponsibility for R&D programs for recovery of synthetic fuels from solid wastes. EPA wasdirected to coordinate and consult with DOEon other energy related solid waste programs.

Research and Development.—Subtitle H, section8001, of RCRA authorizes EPA to conduct orassist others in conducting research, investiga-tions, experiments, tra ining, demonstrations,surveys, public education programs, and stud-ies on various aspects of solid and hazardousw a s t e m a n a g e m e n t .l36 A m o n g t h e p o s s i b l eareas for research and development activitiesa u th o r iz e d u n d e r th i s se c t io n a re : a d v e r sehealth and environmental effects of solid andhazardous waste, financing and operation of waste management programs, development of solid and hazardous waste management tech-

nologies, resource conservation and recyclingtechnologies, and waste reduction techniques,

Section 8002 directs the EPA Administratorto carry out a number of special studies in-cluding an assessment of the adverse environ-mental effects of solid waste from surface andunderground mines and the genera t ion andma n a g e me n t o f s lu d g e , 137 Section 8002 alsodescribes the study required under the 1980amendments to section 3001 for an assessmentof environmental and health effects of disposalof hazardous waste from oil, gas, and geother-mal energy expiration, development and pro-duction, from burning of coal and fossil fuels,from mining and processing of ores and min-erals, and from cement kiln dust.

Other agencies also carry out related R&D ac-tivities, such as the National Institute of Health(screening and testing of carcinogenic, muta-genic, terotogenic effects of chemicals), the Oc-cupational Safety and Health Administrationand National Institute for Occupational Safe-ty and Health (protection of health and safetyof employees working in both industrial andcleanup environments). The National Science

Foundation has in the past funded major R&Dprojects related to toxic chemicals and hazard-ous waste management .

13642 U,s .c , 6981.13742 U.S. C. 6982.

99-113 0 - 83 - 22




EPA Research Activities in Hazardous Waste

All research activities within EPA are the re-sponsibility of the Office of Research and De-velopment (ORD).138 ORD has defined the fol-lowing five objectives to provide support to theRCRA hazardous waste program:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Waste analysis and characterization: de-velopment of analytical methods and pro-cedures for the detection and identifica-tion of substances, development of moni-toring guidelines, and a quality assuranceprogram for development and enforce-ment of regulations.Contro l technology: assessment o f d is-posal and treatment technologies, develop-ment and evaluation of technologies for re-medial actions, and assistance of the Of-fice of Solid Waste in reviewing permit ap-

plications.Risk assessment: development of data andmethodologies for determining risks tohuman hea l th and env ironment .Spills response: development of methodsand guidelines to provide quick responseto emergency spills,Long-term research: investigation of ad-vanced technologies.

Since 1981, there has been a significant shiftof emphasis within ORD from longer term re-search projects (e. g., studies of the effects of

chemicals and new process developments) toprograms which directly support the promulga-tion of regulations. Some 15 to 20 percent of ORD’S total budget is set aside for exploratoryresearch projects; however, little of a truly ex-ploratory or long-range nature is being doneeven in this portion of the program.

OTA has reviewed current research projectsplanned for completion by 1986 (see table 62).Major emphasis has been placed on risk assess-ments and analytical methods for detection andmeasurement of specific chemicals. The con-

trol technologies emphasized are landfills andland treatments. Research plans for incinera-

l~lnforrna tion on research activities O f EPWORD was Obta ined

by OTA from ORD in spring-sum mer of 1982 and from EPA’sfiscal year 1983 Budget Justification.

tion focus on the development of performancestandards for hazardous waste incinerators,not the improvement in incinerator technology.The investigation of new treatment technol-ogies has been omitted even in the long-termresearch stra tegy planning.

ORD’S research in support of the toxic sub-stances program under TSCA and the Super-fund program under CERCLA may also con-tribute to the management of’ hazardous waste,

Again, the emphasis appears to have shiftedtoward relatively short-term research directedat problems of immediate regulatory concern.

Collection and Dissemination of lnformation.–Under subtitle H, section 8003 of RCRA directsth e E P A Ad min i s t r a to r to develop, collect ,e v a lu a te , a n d c o o rd in a te in fo rma t io n o n avariety of aspects of solid and hazardous waste

m a n a g e m e n t .l39

A program for the rapid dis-semination of information on solid waste man-agement, hazardous waste management, re-source conservation, and methods of resourcerecovery f rom so l id waste i s to be imple -mented .

The Administrator is also directed to estab-lish and maintain a central reference library.Information in this library, to the extent prac-ticable, is to be collated, analyzed, verified, andpubl ished , and made ava i lab le to Sta te andlocal governments and other persons. Addi-

tionally, the Administrator is to develop andpublish a model cost and revenue accountingsystem, and to recommend model codes, ordi-nances, and statutes providing for sound solidwaste management ,

Until 1981, EPA maintained a solid wastetechnical information service in Cincinnati,Ohio, which distributed free copies of EPAsolid waste reports. Relatively technical doc-uments (e. g., EPA contractors’ reports) werefrequently omitted from this collection butcould be obtained for a charge from the Na-tional Technical Information Service (NTIS).The service in Cincinnati has been discon-tinued, and only a very small number of copiesof EPA reports are typically made available by

1 3 9 4 2 u,S.C, 6 9 8 3 ,



Table 62.—Research Projects Planned by ORD in Support of Hazardous Waste Management Program

Risk assessment Control technology Waste analysis Long-term research Spills response

q Integrate existind risk assessmentmethods into guidelines

q Develop predictive methods forassessing health and environmentalimpacts of specific chemicals

q Develop biological methods forpredicting health impacts

q Develop and standardize bioassaymethods for predicting impacts ofwaste

q Develop processes for listing/delist-ing waste and mixtures using healthimpacts, environmental impacts,and mobility data

q Develop models for screenIng chem-icals for predicting human exposure

q Develop data and methodology forestimating health and environmentalimpacts resulting from exposure tolevels of hazardous waste

q Develop methods for predictingground water impacts of pollutantsreleased from landfills

q Develop data and methodology fordetermining likelihood of harm re-sulting from existing landfill facility

q Develop predictive methods forassessing effects of technologies,environments, and waste streams

. Develop data and methodology forestimating impacts from oceandisposal

. Develop methods for site selectionof ocean disposal

q Assess hazards for specific chemi-cals for use by permitting programs. Assess health effects and risks of

specific sites in support of permitsq Develop guidelines for site evalua-

tion based on pollutant migrationfor use in permitting

q Predict health effects for use i nregulatory impact analysis

q Evaluate risk assessments for usein RIA for land disposal regulations

q Develop data and methodology forestimating health impacts of ex-posure to various chemicals

q Develop improved methods forpredicting long-term environmentaleffects of landfills


Develop desructionand control efficiencydata for incineration,landfill, and landtreatment

Ž Develop data onintegrity of liners

q Identify and evaluateon cost basis technol-ogies for controllingreleases of waste fromTSDFS

q Identify technologiesfor ocean incineration

q Develop data andmethodology for landtreatment

q Prepare guidance man-uals for design andperformance standardsfor disposal or treatment

q Develop guidance man-uals for use by permit-ting agencies in con-trol capabilities ofdisposal and treatmenttechnologies

q Develop models forestimating Iifecyclecosts of alternativedisposal technologies

. Refining extraction procedures usingwaste for integration of effects andwater quality data

q Improve analytical methods fordetection of chemicals

q Improve dioxin detection methodsq Standardize waste characteristic

methods for impact analysisq Develop data base for waste mixturesq Provide quality control procedures

for automated analytical systemsfor regulatory application

q Develop monitoring and analysismethods for quality assurance ofdisposal facilities

. Issue guidelines for post-closuremonitoring of land disposal sites

q Complete economic analysis ofalternatives to ground watermonitoring for land disposal

q Develop procedures for determiningwhen Superfund should be used formonitoring and maintenance

. Prepare manuals for long-termmonitoring of disposal sites

q Develop criteria for qualification ofsites for Superfund

q Develop methodologies for screen-ing waste for enforcement actions

q Develop biological methods fordemonstrating releases fromdisposal facilities

q Develop methods for estimatingcosts of long-term monitoring of

disposal facilities

q Focus on waste streammixtures: —determine environ-

mental and healthimpacts and

—treatment and moni-toring techniques

Develop new detectingmethods, particularlysubsurface pollutants

q Destruction and recov-ery of organics

Ž Impacts of reactive andcorrosive waste in landtreatment facilities

q Definition of character-istics which are vulner-able to irreversibledamage as result ofexposure to chemicals

q Focus on persistenceand fate of chemicalsi n environ merit —bio-degradation rates ofwaste to form basis ofmonitoring guidelines

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

•

q

Develop procedures to determinehealth and environmental effectsdue to spills of chemicalsDocument impacts of chemicalsused in treatment of spills, such asneutralizing agentsDevelop methods to measure effectsof spills on crops and animalsDevelop data to correlate responsesof aquatic organisms to toxic sub-

stances with human health effect dataDevelop computer model for pre-dicting toxicity of mixturesDevelop computer model to predictenvironmental impacts of spillsDevelop environmental tests for es-timating hazards of spilled materialsPrepare prevention, control, and com-pliance studies of new techniquesfor handling spillsMaintain emergency response capa-bility for sampling, analysis, andremote monitoringDevelop manuals for response teams




the agency itself. The apparent intention is formost reports to be distributed in the futurethrough NTIS which, for some users, repre-sents a significant increase in acquisition costand a considerable reduction in convenienceand ease of access to the reports.

Full-Scale Demonstration Facilities.—Under sub-

title H, section 8004 of RCRA authorizes theEPA Administrator to enter into contracts orprovide financial support for the constructionof full-scale demonstration facilities where cer-tain conditions are met (e.g., that the facilitywill demonstrate a significant improvement ina technology or process, and that it would notreceive adequate support from other sources).140

No use has yet been made of this provision forthe construction of demonstration facilities forhazardous waste management technologies.

Federal, State, and Private Compliance Cost

for the Current Hazardous Waste

Management Program

Introduction

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,which establishes a comprehensive hazardouswaste management program, reflects the con-gressional belief that the benefits of the pro-gram will exceed the costs of implementation.RCRA does not call for a balancing of costs an d

benef i ts in regu la to ry dec is ions invo lv inghazardous wastes. Quantitative estimates of theexpected benefits, resulting from the increasedlevel of protection of human health and the en-vironment from damages due to the misman-agement of hazardous wastes, are not available.However, some information is available on thecosts, and this chapter provides a summary of the estimates that have been made, EPA esti-mates focus on the potential incremental costs(i.e., those directly attributable to compliancewith RCRA regulations) as opposed to those at-tributable to independent or pre-RCRA efforts.(There are also costs incurred for the CERCLAprogram; however, these are not generally con-sidered as “regulatory” compliance costs,) Esti-

1w42 u-sect 6984,

mates of industrial compliance costs and Fed-eral and State administrative costs are summar-ized in the following sections. A final sectionpresents total national costs associated with allhazardous waste activit ies.

Industrial Compliance Costs

The Hazardous Waste Services Industry .—One

measure of the impact of complying with gov-ernment regulations is the amount of moneyspent by the private sector to manage hazard-ous wastes. This can be roughly estimated bya two-step analysis. First, the sales are obtainedfor those firms providing treatment, storage,and disposal services at offsite, commercialfacilities. Second, the ratio of offsite to onsite( i . e . , g e n e ra to r ) ma n a g e me n t o f h a z a rd o u swaste is estimated. Using this ratio and assum-

ing that noncommercial facilities have approx-imately the same level of costs per tonne of waste , the onsite or generator managementcosts are derived. Total costs to waste gener-ators are then estimated by combining com-mercial and noncommercial waste manage-ment costs,

Two studies are available for obtaining thesales of the commercial waste management in-dustry. The summary data from these studies,including projections to 1990, are given in table63.

The analysis by A. D. Little was based on1981 revenues from hazardous waste activitiesfor three categories of firms: 1) 9 full service,nationally oriented firms with a subtotal of

Table 63.—Characteristics of the Commercial Off site

Hazardous Waste Management Industry

A, D, Littlea Frost & Sullivanb

1981 1990 1980 1990

Total hazardous waste generated(millions of metric tons) . . . . . . 43 (; 56 60 85

Proportion of waste managed off site(percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 80 15 15-25

Average treatment/disposal price(1981 dollars/metr ic ton) .. . . . . . . .$100 $200 – –Estimated industry revenues(billions of 1981 or 1980 dollars). . $0.9 $9 $0.5 $2.5

SOURCES: aJoan B, Berkowitz, “Outlook for the+azardous Waste ManagementServices Industv,” September 1982’, draft from A, D, Little.bFrost & Sullivan, “Hazardous Waste Jarket —Handling, storage and

Disposal,” February 1981,CFrom EPA, December 19~.




$301 million; 2) 222 regionally or locally ori-ented firms usually specializing in a limitedrange of services with a subtotal of $179 mil-l ion to $277 mil l ion ; and 3 )’ ’unpermit ted”firms* with a subtotal of $3OO million to $4O O

million, A. D. Little’s projections from 1981 to

1990 are based on an assumed annual growthrate of 3 percent for hazardous waste genera-tion (noting that the EPA estimate for 1981 maybe low), which is acknowledged to be conserv-a t i v e . O f f s i t e m a n a g e m e n t i s a s s u m e d t ochange from 20 percent at present to 80 per-cent of the total amount of waste in 1990; it isacknowledged that this projection may be high.The average price is assumed to double fromabou t $100/ tonn e in 1981 as land fill capacitiesdecline and regulatory actions force the use of more costly options such as incineration and

chemical treatment. The increase in total salesfrom $900 million in 1981 to $9 billion in 1990corresponds to an average annual growth rateof 29 percent.

The second study by Frost and Sullivan ana-lyzes the 1980 revenues of seven large national-type firms and presents an extrapolation to allof the commercial waste management firms,a projection to 1990 assuming a growth rateof 20—25 percent per year in revenues, an es-timate for waste generation in both 1980 and1990, and a modest increase in the fraction of waste managed off site.

The results of both studies for current spend-ing for offsite , commercial hazardous wastemanagement are in relatively good agreement.They indicate that the total amount spent in1980 and 1981 for both onsite and offsite haz-ardous waste management was probably in therange of $4 billion to $5 billion annually (in cur-rent dollars). * * These figures, although approx-imate, are probably low for two reasons. Sig-nificant funds are also spent by the private sec-tor on technical consulting and analytical serv-ices, but exact figures for these costs are not

q It is presumed that these unp ermitted firms includ e a largenumber of facilities that are generally exempted from RCRA

regulation such as recycling operations.q q The A. D, Little study indicates $4,5 billion for 1981, and the

Frost-Sullivan study indicates $3 billion for 1980, using their fig-ures for revenues and their fractions of offsite management of 0.2 and 0.15, respectively.

available . Also, spending on transporta tionservices have not been determined exactly .However, exclusion of these two cost areasmay balance the potential for overestimatingin the procedure used here. Assuming that on-site management costs are equal to offsite costs

probably overestimates total costs, as onsitemanagement is generally understood to be lesscostly. This results from two factors: 1) onsiteefforts generally manage wastes requiring theleast costs; and 2) there are more economy-of-scale savings for large onsite activities whicho f te n d e a l w i th f e we r wa s te s th a n o f f s i t efacilities.

The projections to 1990 with regard to thefraction of the total amount of waste managedoffsite are also subject to some uncertainty.However, both studies indicate a similar level

of total spending for offsite and onsite hazard-ous waste management in 1990. The A. D. Lit-tle study indicates $11 billion and the Frost andSullivan indicates $12.5 billion (not adjustingfor inflation).

To put these total present and projected lev-els of industry spending into some perspective,hazardous waste management costs representabout 1 to 2 percent of total annual sales forth e c h e mic a l a n d a l l i e d p ro d u c t s in d u s t ry ,assuming that about 50 percent of all hazard-ous wastes are generated by this industry,

which has generally been found to be the case.Naturally , th is percentage will vary signifi-cantly among different industries.

EPA Estimates.—This section provides avail-able estimates of the costs to the private sec-tor of complying with the RCRA Subtitle C reg-ulations, based on analyses prepared for EPAin support of the promulgation of these regula-tions. The analyses cover the expected costsof compliance with the interim status stand-ards, with the interim final design and opera-tion standards for land disposal facilities, andwith the financial responsibility requirementsfor hazardous waste facilities. Cost estimatesare not yet available for some of the facility per-mit standards either because they have not yetbeen promulgated or because cost analyseshave not been completed. Consequently, pub-lished data are necessarily incomplete and do




not reflect the total compliance costs for theRCRA regulations.

Although OTA attempted to locate a lter-native (non-EPA) estimates for purposes of c o m p a r i s o n a n d v a l i d a t i o n , t h e s e e f f o r t s

proved unsuccessful. An examination of threeof the best known annual surveys of industrialexpenditures on pollution control (conductedby McGraw-Hil l , the Bureau o f EconomicAnalysis, and the Bureau of the Census) did notyield useful comparisons because some un-known portion of the reported expenditures areattributable to solid waste activities and not tohazardous waste regulatory compliance costs.

It is important to emphasize that the absenceof data comparable to the EPA cost analysesinhibits any direct empirical validation of the

EPA results.The costs of complying with the subtitle C

regulations will be incurred at various timesduring the remaining lifetime of the facilitiesinvolved and, in some cases, after closure. Tosimplify comparisons, EPA has “annualized”its cost estimates by presenting them in theform of “annual revenue requirements, ” sig-n i fy ing the annua l revenues tha t fac i l i t ie swould have to obtain in equal installments overa 20-year period to offset the costs of com-pliance. For annualizing each facility is as-sumed to have a remaining life of 20 years,although costs associated with the financial re-q u i re me n ts a re t a k e n in to a c c o u n t o v e r a50-year period.

Table 64 provides a summary of EPA’s esti-mates of total annualized compliance costs forimplementa t ion o f the va r ious sec t ions o f RCRA. As mentioned above, these estimatesare incomplete since they do not cover all of the anticipated Phase II regulations. Neverthe-less, it can be seen from the table that the costsof complying with the performance standardsfor the owners and operators of treatment, stor-

age, and disposal facilities (under RCRA sec.3004) are expected to be significantly greaterthan the costs associated with other RCRA sec-tions. These other sections (providing mostlyfor general operations such as manifest prep-aration, waste analysis, recordkeeping, etc.) are

Table 64.—EPA Estimates of Annualized RCRACompliance Costs by Subtitle C Section

(in millions of 1981 dollars)

Section Annualized cost

3001-identification and listing . . . . . . . . . . $68.63002-generator standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.5

3003-transporter standards . . . . . . . . . . . 0.63004 -TSDF owners and operators. . . . . . 916.2 -1,832.73005-permit requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . $1,045 .8-$1,962.3SOURCES: Environmental Law Institute, “Cost:] of Implementing Subtitle C of

the Resource Consewation and Recovery Act,” OTA Working Paper,October 1982; and A. D Little, Ecortomrlc Impact Ana/ysis of RCRAh?terirn Status Standards, 1981.

a relatively minor portion of the total costs of compliance. EPA analyses indicated that themost significant cost impacts of the ISS regula-tions for land disposal facilities were for theinsta lla tion of ground water monitoring sys-

tems (an average of $23,000) and for closureand post-c losure costs, Only ground watermonitoring involves substantial immediate ex-penditures for existing facilities.

Compliance Costs f or Land Disposal Facil it ies

The costs of complying with RCRA section3004 requirements can be subdivided into thecosts associated with the interim status stand-ards and those associated with the final (PhaseII) standards. Table 65 summarizes EPA’s es-t imates of the tota l incremental annualizedcosts of meeting the Phase II requirements forland disposal facilities. The estimates comparePhase II incremental compliance costs withbaseline pre-ISS costs for landfills and surfaceimpoundments (e.g., land acquisition, excava-tion, and infrastructure costs) and ISS costs forall land disposal facilities. The table includeslow and high estimates for the Phase II incre-mental costs, based on differing assumptionsabout the installation of liners, the occurrenceof leaks, and the need for corrective action.

EPA estimated the tota l annualized incre-mental costs of complying with the interim

status standards for land disposal facilities at$341 million. Implementation of the part 264permitting standards would, according to EPAestimates, impose additional annual revenuerequirements of $150 million to $1,145 milliondepending on the need for corrective action.



336 ŽTechnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

sion, This assumption could tend to indicatehigher tota l offsite disposal costs and lowertotal onsite disposal costs.

4. The number of facilities incurring com-pliance costs.—EPA calculated the design andoperating compliance costs only for the 5,662existing land disposal units that submitted partA applications including:

q

q

q

q

573 landfills with 12 million tonnes peryear capacity;4,240 surface impoundments with 11,169acres surface area;608 waste piles with 87 million cubic feetof waste;241 land treatment units with 12,100 acresof operating area.

According to EPA, this will overstate the num-

ber of facilities that will actually incur com-pliance costs as some will close before permit-ting, and some facilities include several typesof units within a single operation and willachieve some economies of scale in full-statusstandard requirements, EPA calculated correc-tive action costs only for 2,484 disposal facil-ities—the number of disposal facilities that sub-mitted part A applications which is less thanthe total number of existing units because onefacility can have several units. This could over-estimate the number of disposal facilities, butcould underestimate the number of corrective

actions. EPA assumed that extensive correc-tive action would be taken for an entire facil-ity, not separately for each unit in the facility.(See ch. 4 of this report for a more accurateestimate of existing facilities.)

5. The costs incurred by new facilities.—EPA did not calculate the incremental costs of complying with part 264 standards for newland disposal facilities because it was difficultto project the number of facilities affected and,moreover, cost estimates were not available forthe part 267 temporary standards for new fa-

cilities. Exclusion of compliance costs for newfacilities will tend to underestimate total costs,

6. Ground water protection and the need forcorrective action.—EPA could not predict howthe owners and operators of TSDFS will react

to the liner and ground water monitoring re-quirements (i.e., whether they will install liners,monitoring systems, etc.). Nor did EPA attemptto predict the incidence of leakage, the needfor corrective action, and the costs associatedwith corrective action. For the purpose of pro-

ducing estimates, EPA made two extreme setsof assumptions: a low-cost case and a high-costcase. The low- cost case assumes that all land-fills use single synthetic liners, all waste pilesare replaced to avoid the need for ground watermonitoring, no leakage occurs, and no correc-t ive ac t ion is needed , The h igh-cost caseassumes that all landfills have double syntheticliners, all waste piles monitor ground water,all surface impoundments are closed and re-placed by new units with double liners, and,even with all these precautions, all facilitiesrequire immediate corrective action using an

expensive counter-pumping strategy for over150 years. The two cases are so extreme thatit is difficult to estimate the costs of a probableintermediate scenario .

7. The rate of permitting and the timing of compliance.—EPA’s analysis assumed that allfacilities are permitted simultaneously and im-mediately so that compliance costs for all unitsare occurred at the same time. An earlier studyfor EPA of the costs of proposed final permit-ting standards found that the targetting andrate of permitting efforts by EPA (i. e., how

quickly must meet permit standards and whichindustries are permitted first) were among themost important variables affecting annualizedcompliance costs that are under EPA’s con-trol. * Total annualized compliance costs areprobably overstated as a result of this assump-tion. Existing facilities will continue to operateunder in te r im s ta tus s tandards un t i l pe rmit -ting. EPA has estimated that initial permittingof over 2,100 existing land disposal facilitieswill not be completed until fiscal year 1988,

EPA’s analysis concluded that the compli-

ance costs for the land disposal regulationsmight lead to the closure of small onsite land-

*Development Planning Assoc ia tes , 1nC., pope Reid Assoc i-ates, inc., Putnam , Hayes and Bartlett, Inc., and Temple, Barker,a~~ Sloane, Inc., Final Impact Analys is of Proposed RCRA-FSS

Regulations, 19801990, November 1!180, pp. 4-5.




fills an the closure and replacement of smallonsite surface impoundments. EPA estimates

that there are about 225 small landfills (500tonnes/ yr or less) representing about 44 percentof all landfills. The 2,760 small sur face im-

p o u n d m e n t s ( o n e a c r e o r l e s s ) r e p r e s e n t a b o u t

6 5 p e r c e n t o f a l l s u r f a c e i m p o u n d m e n t s . C o m -p l i a n c e c o s t s f o r t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s a r e e x p e c t e d

t o b e s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r o n a p e r u n i t b a s i s

t h a n f o r t h e l a r g e r c o m m e r c i a l f a c i l i t i e s .

E P A e s t i m a t e d t h a t p a r t 2 6 4 d e s i g n a n d

o p e r a t i n g s t a n d a r d s w o u l d a d d f r o m $ 1 0 t o $ 2 2

p e r t o n n e t o d i s p o s a l c o s t s a t a m i d s i z e l a n d -

f i l l ( l 5 , 0 0 0 t o n n e s p e r y e a r ) d e p e n d i n g o n t h e

t y p e o f l i n e r i n s t a l l e d . C o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n c o s t s

w o u l d a d d a n a d d i t i o n a l $ 2 t o $ 2 1 p e r t o n n e

i n a n n u a l r e v e n u e r e q u i r e m e n t s d e p e n d i n g o n

t h e t y p e a n d e x t e n t o f r e m e d i a l m e a s u r e s r e -

qu i r ed , In contrast, a small (500 tonnes peryear) landfill would require annual revenuesof $62 to $104 per tonne to offset incrementalcompliance costs for design and operating re-quirements and additional annual revenues of $34 to $396 per tonne for potential correctiveaction costs.

EPA estimated that commercial landfill dis-posal charges in 1981 ranged from $55 to $240per tonne depending on the type of wastes andexc lud ing t ranspor ta t ion costs . Compliancewith interim status standards and Phase II per-mitting standards are not expected to increaset h e s e c h a r g e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r t h e l a r g e rfacilities even if corrective action is needed.

EPA did not analyze the impact of the landdisposal regulations on the use of alternativet r e a t m e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s . H o w e v e r , a c o m -parison of available information about chargesat alternative treatment facilities and commer-cial landfills in California suggests that theeconomic impacts of complying with EPA’sland disposal regulations will not result in anysignificant economic incentive to use alter-native waste management technologies, * Ac-

cording to a California report, the charges forlandfilling hazardous wastes range from $20-

“Toxic Waste Assessment Group, Al ternat ives to th e Land

Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: An Assessment for California

(Governor’s Office of Appropriate Technology: 1981).

$200 per ton depending on the type of wastes,with the highest costs for containerized highlyhazardous wastes. The range of average costsfor alternative treatment options were: surfacei m p o u n d m e n t s , $20-$30/ ton ; inc inera t ion ,$250-$500/ ton ; chemical sta bilization, $100-

$120/ ton; and other chemical and p hysicaltreatm ent pr ocesses, $30-$175/ ton. Even as-suming an initial 20- to 30-percent increase inland disposal costs, landfilling will remain theleast expensive alternative for most wastes. Forhighly-hazardous wastes, landfilling will prob-ably still be less costly than incineration oro th e r su i t a b le t r e a tme n t a l t e rn a t iv e s u n d e rEPA’s land disposal regulations,

Financial Responsibility Compliance Costs

EPA has promulgated regulations requiringthe owners and operators of hazardous wasteTSDFS to demonstrate adequate financial ca-pability: 1) to close a site and conduct neces-sary routine post-closure activities; and 2) tocompensate third parties for damages from re-leases of waste constituents during the activelife of the facility.

These requirements, however, have under-gone several administrative changes. The in-terim status standards initially required that thefacilities should create a trust fund based on

the ir e s t imated costs o f c losure and post -closure activities. Later revisions allowed moreflexibil i ty in demonstrating financial respon-sibility, such as obtaining a surety bond, letterof credit, closure insurance, or meeting a finan-cial test. For third-party liability, the currentregulations require self-insurance backed by afinancial test or outside insurance coverage of $3 mill ion per nonsudden accidental occur-rence with an annual aggregate of at least $6million, and $1 million per sudden accidentaloccurrence with an annual aggregate of at least$2 million. EPA’s estimate of the total compli-

ance cost of these regulations is shown in table66 for four types of facilities. Since the cost forany given mechanism depends on the absoluteclosure cost or third-party damage and the riskperceived by the institutions backing the facili-ty, it is understandable that surface impound-




Table 66.-Present Value of the Private Costs of RCRAFinancial Responsibility Regulations by

Type of Facility (in millions of doiiars)

Financial assurance LiabilityType Of facillity Closure Post-closure insurance Total

Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $89.6 $47.9 $137,5Surface impoundment . . 69.6 $514.6 608.4 1,192,6

Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 268.4 193.7 496,7Incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 0 6.9 22.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $209.2 $783.0 $856.8 $1,849.1SOURCES Environmental Law Institute, “Costs of Implementing Subtitle C of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ” OTA Working Paper,October 1982; and Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Regulatory IrrpactAnalysis of fhe financial Assurance and Llabi/lty Insurance Regula-tions, 1981, p.40.

ments ranked highest in terms of costs and in-cinerators lowest. The total cost calculationswere based on an assumed distribution of fa-cilities using each of the alternative mecha-nisms shown in the table.

The distribution was considered by EPA a sthe most reasonable. EPA estimated that if thepercentage of facilities that can pass the finan-cial test increases to 50 percent there will bea decrease of 40 percent in compliance c o s t .

On the other hand, if the same percentagedrops to 10 percent there will be a 70-percentincrease in compliance cost.

Cost by the types of financial mechanism forlandfills ar e presented in table 67. Trust funds,originally required by ISS rules, are the mostexpensive form of financial assurance. EPA as-

sumed that the facility pays 5 percent of the

Table 67.—Annual Cost of Financial AssuranceActivities per Facility for Owners andOperators of Treatment, Storage, and

Disposal Facilities (1981 dollars)

Financial Percent ofmechanism facilities Amount

Trust funds . . . . . . . . .

Surety bonds . . . . . . . .Letter of credit . . . . . .Financial test . . . . . . .Insurance policy(closure) . . . . . . . . . . .

Insurance policy(liability) . . . . . . . . . . .

17 ”/0 $ 1,834 (closure)$4,844 (post-closure)

Negligible 0.85% of face value17 ”/0 Negligible33 ”/0 $595 (closure)

33 ”/0 $1,206 (post-closure)

$480$11,040 (sudden)$21,120 (nonsudden)

SOURCES. Enwronmental Law Institute “Costs of Implementing Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ” OTA Working Paper,October 1982; and Putnum, Hayes & Bartlett, Regulatory /mpacfAna/ysis of the Financia/ Assurance and Llabi/ity Insurance Reguk+tlons, 1981

total closure and post-closure costs each year

into a fund during the interim status, and oncethe permit is issued the remaining portion ispaid over the life of the permit for a ma x imu mperiod of 10 years.

The surety bond is essentially a contract be-tween the facility owner or operator and a sure-ty company which guaran tees to pay for thecosts of closure and post-closure activities if the owner or operator does not. The after-taxcost of the surety bonds was calculated to be

about 1 percent of the face value of the bond,A letter of credit is similar to the surety bondand commits the bank holding the le tter of credit to pay for the cost of closure and post-closure activities if the facility does not. T h ecost of the letter of credit consists of the fee

t o t h e b a n k a n d t h e c o s t o f p r o v i d i n g s o m e

f o r m o f c o l l a t e r a l o r a b o u t 0 . 8 5 p e r c e n t o f t h ev a l u e o f t h e l e t t e r o f c r e d i t . T h e f a c i l i t y m a y

a l s o f u l f i l l t h e r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t b y b u y -

i n g i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e w h i c h w i l l p a y f o r t h e

c l o s u r e a n d p o s t - c l o s u r e c o s t s i f t h e f a c i l i t y

c a n n o t . T h i s i s a l s o t r u e O F t h e l i a b i l i t y i n -

s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e e x c e p t t h e p r e m i u m s a r e

m u c h h i g h e r . F i n a l l y , t h e c o s i o f a f i n a n c i a l t e s t

i s m i n i m a l — t h e o n e - t i m e c o s t o f p r e p a r i n g a

s p e c i a l a u d i t o r ’ s r e p o r t .

B e ca u s e t h e f i n a n c i a l r e q u i r e m e n t i s m o r e

o f a p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d t h a n a d e s i g n a n d

o p e r a t i o n s t a n d a r d , t h e u n i t c o s t p e r s i t e i s

p r o b a b l y m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e t o t a l c o s t ,

a l t h o u g h n o o n e k n o w s f o r s u r e t h e n u m b e r o f

f a c i l i t i e s u s i n g e a c h o f t h e m e c h a n i s m s . A l -

t h o u g h t h e f i n a n c i a l t e s t m e c h a n i s m a p p e a r s

t o b e t h e l o w e s t c o s t o p t i o n , t h e a c t u a l c o s t o f

t h e r e g u l a t i o n w i l l d e p e n d o n t h e s t r i n g e n c y

o f t h e t e s t ,

Federal Administrative Costs

To implement RCRA, the Federal Govern-

ment must support a wide range of activitiesfrom regulation development and the basic re-search underlying these regulations to enforce-ment of the final rules. The bulk of these r e -

sponsibilities and costs falls on the EPA. Thissection outlines the major cost components in




administering EPA’s hazardous waste manage-ment program. *

Data Sources and Limi tat ions.— The Federal ex-penditure figures presented here come fromEPA’s 1983 and 1984 budget justification pre-

sented to the House Committee on Appropria-t i o n s a n d f r o m f i n a l f i s c a l y e a r 1 9 8 3 a p p r o p r i a -

t i o n s f o r E P A p a s s e d i n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 2 . A l -

t h o u g h t h e 1 9 8 1 a n d 1 9 8 2 f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t a c -

t u a l e x p e n d i t u r e s , t h e 1 9 8 3 a n d 1 9 8 4 f i g u r e s ,

a s p r o p o s e d , m a y n o t a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t a c t u a l

o u t l a y s i n t h o s e y e a r s ,

S o m e c o s t s i n c u r r e d b y o t h e r p r o g r a m o f -

f i c e s i n E P A m a y n o t b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e e s t i -

m a t e s p r e s e n t e d h e r e , F o r e x a m p l e , t h e O f f i c e

o f P la n n i n g a n d R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t c o n -

d u c t s s o m e R C R A - r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h , a n d t h e

W a t e r O f f i c e c o n d u c t s R C R A i m p a c t s t u d i e s

i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f e f -

f l u e n t g u i d e l i n e b a ck g r o u n d d o c u m e n t s . A l -

t h o u g h t h i s k i n d o f w o r k m a y b e f u n d e d i n p a r t

t h r o u g h t h e O f f i c e o f S o l i d W a s t e a n d t h u s b e

i n c l u d e d i n t h e E P A h a z a r d o u s w a s t e t o t a l s ,

a n y o t h e r p r o g r a m o f f i c e e x p e n d i t u r e ( e x c l u d -

i n g e n f o r c e m e n t a n d r e s e a r ch a n d d e v e l o p -

m e n t ) p r o b a b l y w i l l b e m i s s e d , N o t a l l h a z a r d -

o u s w a s t e p r o g r a m c o s t s c a n b e f o r m a l l y

t h o u g h t o f a s R C R A - i n d u c e d . P r e s u m a b l y E P A

*There are other costs incurred by other Federal agencies asa result of Subtitle C of RCRA, such as the costs of compliancewith the RCRA regulations at Federal facilities; however, avail-able appropriations budget data did not provide specific costfigures for hazard ous wa ste control expend itures by agency, butrather total environmental control expenditures. Other agenciesmay incur small costs in implementing specific subtitle C require-ments, but n o estimates of possible administrative costs to otheragencies have been identified.

would be undertaking some hazardous waste

resea rch (e . g . , even in the absence of RCRA) ,

b u t n o a t t e m p t i s m a d e h e r e t o e s t i m a t e w h a t

p e r c e n t a g e o f E P A ’ s a c t i v i t i e s w o u l d f a l l i n t o

t h i s c a t e g o r y .

T h e s e l i m i t a t io n s a n d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f t h e F e d e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t d a t a s u g g e s t

t h a t t h e f i g u r e s u s e d h e r e a r e l o w e r b o u n d

e s t i m a t e s o f a c t u a l R C R A i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

c o s t s . H o w e v e r , o n e w o u l d n o t e x p e c t t h e d i f -

f e r e n c e f r o m t h e t r u e c o s t s t o b e g r e a t .

EPA Administrative Costs .—Total administrative

costs of EPA’s hazardous waste program forthe years 1975-83 ar e presented in table 68 andfigure 23. These costs are also broken downi n t o t h r e e g e n e r a l p r o g r a m a c t i v i t i e s :

q

q

q

Abatement, control, and compliance: in-

cludes regulatory activities, developmentof regulations, guidelines and polic ies,financial assistance to State programs, andwaste management stra tegies (coordinat-ing regional office activities, permittingState programs, and cooperative appealnegotiations).Enforcement: originally permit issuance,compliance inspections, and enforcementsupport (in fiscal year 1983 most respon-sibilities transferred to other divisions.)Research and development: EPA techni-cal support research on waste listing and

identification, environmental and healtheffects, etc.

In r e a l t e r m s , e x p e n d i t u r e s d u r i n g t h e y e a r s

1 9 7 5 - 7 8 s h o w a g e n e r a l l y u p w a r d t r e n d w i t h

r e l a t i v e ly s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e s b e t w e e n

Table 68.—Hazardous Waste Programs, 1975-81a (dollars in thousands)

Abatement, control, Research andYear Total and compliance Enforcement development1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,184 $12,180 — $7,3741976 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,405 12,594 — 2,8111977. , . . . . . . . . . . 18,688 14,456 $3 4,229

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,766 27,743 618 7,4051979 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,521 52,554 1,515 8,4521980 . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,775 90,624 6,038 13,1131981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,428 101,705 11,391 28,301a[ncludgs gxpgndlturgs on Solid waste and resource recovery programs that have been largely discontinued n 198283. solid

waste and resource recovery expenditures were approximately $13 million in fiscal year 1981

SOURCE, Congressional Budget Office, “Preliminary Analysis of the Proposed 1983 EPA Budget, ” draft staff memorandum,Mar 9, 1982




150

140

130

120

110

100

9 0

8 0

7 0

6 0

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 23.— EPA Hazardous Waste Program Budget 1975-83a

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

Fiscal year

al gTs.m BUdg~t ,nCl “de~ ~~lld ~a~t~, ~~~~”~~e ~eco”e~, and abandorlrnent sites, in 1961-83, solld Vfa? .te and resource recovery expenditures were discon -

tinued; abandoned site efforts were transferred to Superfund program

y e a r s i n a l l a c t i v i t i e s e x ce p t r e s e a r c h a n d

d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h d r o p p e d b y a p p r o x i m a t e l y

49 percent. As expected with passage of RCRA

i n 1 9 7 6 , e x p e n d i t u r e s f r o m 1 9 7 8 t h r o u g h 1 9 8 1

s h o w e d t h e l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e i n c r e a s e s i n r e a l

a n d n o m i n a l t e r m s , w i t h t o t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s i n -

c r e a s i n g b y o v e r 3 0 0 p e r c e n t ; a b a t e m e n t , c o n -

t r o l , a n d c o m p l i a n c e b y 2 9 0 p e r c e n t ; e n f o r c e -

m e n t b y o v e r 1 , 0 0 0 p e r c e n t ; a n d r e s e a r c h a n d

d e v e l o p m e n t b y o v e r 3 0 0 p e r c e n t . T h e g e n e r a l -

l y d o w n w a r d t r e n d i n h a z a r d o u s w a s t e p r o -g r a m e x p e n d i t u r e s i n 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 i s p r i m a r i l y d u e

t o t r a n s f e r o f a b a n d o n e d s i t e a c t i v i t i e s t o t h e

S u p e r f u n d p r o g r a m .

T h e a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d d e c r e a s e s i n 1 9 8 2 a n d

1 9 8 3 e x p e n d i t u r e s r e f l e c t t h e b u d g e t c u t s

so u g h t b y th e Re a g a n Ad min i s t r a t io n . T h elargest cuts are in the enforcement budget,which by 1983 will have declined by 86 per-cent from 1981 levels. However, part of thisdecrease is due to EPA reorganization and theconsolidation of permitt ing and enforcementactivities and represents a transfer of expend-itures to an all-EPA interdisciplinary office of legal and enforcement counsel.

The th ree genera l p rogram ac t iv i t ie s a rebroken down into specific expenditure cate-gories for the years 1981-84 in table 69 (unlikethe previous table, this table is for authorizedtrends ra ther than obligations). The figuresd e mo n s t ra te th e r e l a t iv e a c t iv i ty e mp h a s i swithin the program and the probable changes




Table 69.–EPA Hazardous Waste Program Federal Administrative Costs for Fiscal Years 1981-84

Program component 1981 actual 1982 actual 1983 estimate 1984 estimate

Abatement, control, and compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regulations, guidelines, and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Financial assistance (grants to States) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Waste management strategies (regional offices

and permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RCRA permit issuanceb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RCRA enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research and development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scientific assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Monitoring systems and quality assurance . . . . . .Health effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental engineering techniques . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental processes and effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total hazardous waste program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$79,129.920,221.439,672.4’

14,385.54,850.6

632&43,259.73,068.7

2&301.3548.3157.1

9,398.1464.9

17,160.3572.6

$113,759.6

$73,472.821,474.142,344.8 a

9,556.497.5

6,707.03,191.53,515.5

29,246.9715,2178.9

6,734.31,332.4

16,930.53,355.6

$110.578.4 -

$8&2137 24,115.7 44,068.0

13,030,60.0

2,385.7(b)

2,385.7

34951.51,543.7

(d)7,283.01,068.4

18,078.64,977.8

$116,551.5

$79,213.9 20,592.3 42,500.0

16,121.60.0

3,509.5(b)

3,509.5

27,389.31,511.8

(d)7,016.4

968.113,251.84,641.2

$110,122.7alncludes solid waste and resource recovery grants, discontinued In 1982-83.transferred toWaste Management Strategies in fiscal year 1983cpa~ofthePro~ram efforf transferred to officeof Legal an d Enforcement Counsel In flscalyear 1983 Remainder includes technical @nforcementeffOfls In re910n’lofflcesdconsolldated Into intermedla programs in 1983

SOURCES 1981 actual: Hear/rrgs on HUD/ndependenf Agenctes Appropriations for 1983 Elei’ore .%bcornm(ftee of ffre House Cornrn/(tee on Appropriaf/ens, 97th Cong ,2d sess part 3 1982-84: U S Enwronmental ProtectIon Agency Jusfif~cafion of Appropriation Estimates for Cwnrrr/ffee on Appropr/at/or?s FY 1984, January 1983

taking place over this period, Abatement, con-t r o l , a n d c o m p l i a n c e a c t i v i t i e s ( r e g u l a t i o n

w r i t i n g a n d a n a l y s i s , g r a n t s t o s t a t e s , r e g i o n a l

o f f i c e f u n d s t o a s s i s t S t a t e s , a n d p u b l i c i n f o r -

m a t i o n p r o g r a m s ) m a k e u p t h e l a r g e s t p o r t i o n

o f o v e r a l l p r o g r a m e x p e n d i t u r e s , w i t h t h e S t a t e

g r a n t p r o g r a m t a k i n g u p t h e l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e

s h a r e ( 3 4 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l b u d g e t r e q u e s t i n

1 9 8 3 ) , T h e t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e c a t e g o r y w h i c h

i n v o l v e s S t a t e , l o c a l , a n d p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o np r o g r a m s w a s p h a s e d o u t i n 1 9 8 2 .

A c t i v i t i e s f o r w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s h o w a m a r k e d d e c r e a s e f r o m

1 9 8 1 - 8 2 . T h i s c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s t h e c o s t s o f

o p e r a t i n g t h e r e g i o n a l E P A o f f i c e r e s p o n s i b i l -

i t i e s f o r h a z a r d o u s w a s t e . T h e d e c l i n e i n c o s t s

s h o w n f o r r e g i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i s n o t r e f l e c t e d

i n 1 9 8 3 t o t a l s b e c a u s e h a z a r d o u s w a s t e p e r m i t

i s s u a n c e c o s t s , a s e p a r a t e a c t i v i t y u n d e r e n -

f o r c e m e n t i n 1 9 8 1 a n d 1 9 8 2 , a r e i n c l u d e d i n

t h e r e g i o n a l c a t e g o r y a s o f 1 9 8 3 . P r e s u m a b l y ,

p a r t o f t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e c r e a s e i s d u e t o a na n t i c i p a t e d g r e a t e r l e v e l o f S t a t e - co n t r o l l e d

p r o g r a m s .

T h e e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i v i t y c o s t s s h o w t h e l a r g -

e s t o v e r a l l p e r c e n t a g e d e c r e a s e ( 8 0 p e r c e n t ) o f

a n y p r o g r a m a r e a . T h i s i s s o m e w h a t m i s l e a d -

i n g , h o w e v e r , s i n c e t h e h a z a r d o u s w a s t e p e r -

m i t i s s u a n c e c a t e g o r y w a s i n c l u d e d , a s o f 1 9 8 3 ,

i n t h e w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s c a t e g o r y ,

a n d e n f o r c e m e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w e r e i n p a r t

s h i f t e d t o t h e O f f i c e o f L e g a l a n d E n f o r c e m e n t

C o u n s e l i n a n o t h e r E P A p r o g r a m c a t e g o r y .

A g a i n , t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s d e c r e a s e i s n o t

c l e a r ; i t m a y b e a r e s u l t o f m o r e s t r e a m l i n e d

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , g r e a t e r S t a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , o r

i t m a y r e f l e c t a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e p r i o r i t y a t -t a c h e d t o e n f o r c e m e n t .

E P A r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t e x p e n d i t u r e s

h a v e r e m a i n e d r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e f r o m 1 9 8 1 t o

1 9 8 3 . B u t t h i s t o t a l h i d e s m a j o r i n c r e a s e s i n

c e r t a i n s m a l l b u d g e t a c t i v i t i e s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e

r e s e a r c h o n e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s o f h a z a r d -

o u s w a s t e s ( e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n a n d e f -

f e c t s ) . E x t r a m u r a l ( e x t e r n a l g r a n t a n d c o n t r a c t )

r e s o u r c e s d e c l i n e d f o r a c t i v i t i e s d i r e c t e d t o -

w a r d w a s t e - l i s t i n g p r i o r i t i e s ( s c i e n t i f i c a s s e s s -

m e n t ) ; p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r i d e n t i f y i n g

w a s t e s ( m o n i t o r i n g a n d q u a l i t y a s s u r a n c e ) ; a n dt h e g e n e r a t i o n o f t e c h n i c a l d a t a b a s e s t o s u p -

p o r t r e g u l a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t . O v e r a l l , h o w e v e r ,

e x p e n d i t u r e s i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y f o r s c i e n -

t i f i c a s s e s s m e n t , h e a l t h e f f e c t s , a n d e n v i r o n -

m e n t a l p r o t e c t io n a n d e f fe c t s . Ex p e n d i t u r e s




centage of its own funds to the program. Thissection presents estimates of State expendi-tures for developing and operating State haz-ardous waste programs under RCRA for se-lected States.

Data Sources and Limitations.—The data pre-sented in tables 70 and 71 represent, in mostpart, actual and budgeted State expendituresfor hazardous waste management p rograms.Obtaining State figures is difficult. AlthoughOTA attempted to obtain this data from EPA,only Regions V, VII, VIII, and IX provideddata . Further, only Region V could providebudget figures by activity. Some additional in-formation came from a survey conducted bythe Association of State and Territorial SolidWaste Management Officials.

decreased significantly in monitoring qualitya ssu ra n c e a n d e n v i ro n me n ta l e n g in e e r in gtechnology, both large-expenditure activities.

State Administrative Costs

Under the RCRA strategy for a national haz-ardous waste management system, States mayassume responsibility for regulating hazardouswaste activities by developing and implement-ing regulatory programs that meet certain re-quirements. To assist the design of a workablesystem, and to make that system operational,EPA makes funds available to States. Althoughthese grants can cover a large portion of Stateexpenditures for hazardous waste regulation,each State must contribute a minimum per-

Table 70.—Federal Financial Assistance Grants for Hazardous Waste Management by State, 1981.83(thousands of dollars)

Region/State 1981 1982 1983 estimatea Region/State

R e g i o n 1 : ————— —

Connecticut ... ... . . . . . . .Maine ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire ... . . . . ...Rhode Island . ...Vermont . . . . . . . . ... . . . .

1981

202984150279

2,993

280265468150

305

173150150192150

3802,376

150150150150150

259166396439

1982 1983 estimatea

Region VI: Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louisiana ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Region V/l: lowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region Vlll: Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .South Dakota . . . . . . . .Utah ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wyoming. . ... . . . . ... . .

Region IX Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . .Trust Territories. ., . . . . . . . .Guam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region X Alaska . . . . ... ... . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . ... ... . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$358150639150196150

8931,682

170150

150410

1,637319554150

585760511520205589440771

1,403924

1,229360

1,637570

$498209688209272209

$420176749176230176

2821,368

209388

4,160

2371,244

176327

3,506

Region II: New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . .Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virgin Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 8 937 065 1

20 9

32 931 1

548176

1,2412,338

236209

1,0461,971

200176

Region Ill:

Delaware . . ... . . . . . . . . .Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .District of Columbia ... . . . .

423

239209209267209

357

201176176225176

209570

2,280532770209

176480

1,917449650176

Region IV: Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgia . . . . . . . .Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . .South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region V: Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . .Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 83,301

20 920 920 920 920 9

4462,783

176176176176176

8121,064

710723285819612

1,073

684914599609240690516903 359

231550610

303195464513

1,9501,284

1,7085002,275

791

1,6441,082

1,4394221,917

668

Total ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29,137 $41,700 $35,226

NOTE: Columns may not add to totals because of independent rounding.al ~ grants reflect EpA fiscal year I gs3 budget request, Congressional appropriate ions increased grantso State hazardous waste rograms to $44 ml ion In fiscal Year

1983 to maintain programs at approximate 1982 levels.

SOURCES: Environmental Law Institute, “Costs of Implementing Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ” OTA Working Paper, October 1982; andU.S Environmental Protection Agency, State Grants Office, July 1982.




Table 71 .—Fiscal Year 1982 Federal Support ofState Hazardous Waste Programs

Percent of Percent oftotal program total program

c o s t StateState

A l a b a m aA l a s k a ,

Arizona ...A r k a n s a sC a l i f o r n i aColoradoConnecticut : : :D e l a w a r e . , . ,F l o r i d aGeorgia .H a w a i iI d a h o ,I l l i n o i sI n d i a n alowa . . .K a n s a sKentucky ,,,Louisiana .,, ,,.M a i n eM a r y l a n d , . .Ma ssa ch u se t t s

Michigan . . . .M i n n e s o t a . , .M i s s i s s i p p iM i s s o u r i .

75 40

77754358

1007589758582797562738359

1006548

69415964

M o n t a n a . ,Nebraska .

N e v a d a . ,N e w H a m p s h i r eNew Jersey ,.Ne w M e x i c o ,N e w Y o r kN o r t h C a r o l i n a .No r t h Da k o ta . . , ,O h i oO k l a h o m a .O r e g o n . . .Pennsylvania. ,,,R h o d e I s l a n dSouth CarolinaS o u th Da ko ta :T e n n e sse e .Texas . .Utah .. ...: .:Vermont ,. . . . , . .V i r g i n i a . . , .

W a s h i n g t o n . . .West Virg in ia. . ,W i s c o n s i n .W y o m i n g , , .

costs

8675

6839247558747575667958

1006083587571

10073

737575n/a

SOURCE Thornas W Curtis and Peter Creedon, The Sfate of States Manage-rnen t of Env(ronrnen(a/ Programs In the 1980 ‘s, Comml ttee on Energyand Environment National Governors Association, June 1982

A s a n a c c u r a t e r e f l e c t i o n o f S t a t e a d m i n i s t r a -

t i v e c o s t s , t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d h e r e h a v e s e v e r a l

n o t a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s , F i r s t , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n

o f t h e 1 9 8 1 d a t a ( i n s o m e c a s e s ) , t h e d o l l a r

f i g u r e s a r e a c t u a l a n d a r e f o r p r o p o s e d a c t i v -

i t i e s r a t h e r t h a n a c t u a l e x p e n d i t u r e s . T o t h e e x -

t e n t t h a t , f o r e x a m p l e , b u d g e t s a r e r e v i s e d ,f u n d s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e d , o r f i s c a l y e a r m o n e y

s h i f t e d f o r w a r d , t h e s e f i g u r e s c a n d i f f e r f r o m

a c t u a l e x p e n d i t u r e s . S e c o n d , m o s t o f t h e S t a t e

c o s t f i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e

g r a n t r e q u e s t s t o E P A , S i n c e t h e g r a n t p r o p o s -

a l s g e n e r a l l y i n c l u d e o n l y t h e m i n i m u m S t a t e

c o n t r i b u t i o n [ i . e . , t h a t w h i c h t h e S t a t e n e e d s

t o s p e n d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e t e r m s o f t h e g r a n t ) ,

t h e d a t a m a y b e o n l y l o w e r b o u n d s o f a c t u a l

e x p e n d i t u r e s i f S t a t e s l a t e r c h o o s e t o o b l i g a t e

g r e a t e r a m o u n t s t o t h e i r p r o g r a m s .

Federal Financial Assistance Grants .—Actual an db u d g e te d F e d e ra l g ra n t s to all 50 States a r e

p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l e 7 0 f o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 8 1 - 8 3 .

T o t a l f in a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e p r o g r a m f u n d s i n

a n y g i v e n y e a r a r e a l l o c a t e d t o t h e S t a t e s b a s e d

o n a f o r m u l a t h a t c o n s i d e r s : r e l a t i v e p o p u l a -

t i o n ( 4 0 p e r c e n t ) ; r e l a t i v e a m o u n t s o f h a z a r d o u s

w a s t e g e n e r a t e d ( 4 0 p e r c e n t ) ; r e l a t i v e n u m b e r

o f g e n e r a t o r s ( 1 5 p e r c e n t ) ; a n d r e l a t i v e l a n d

a r e a ( 5 p e r c e n t ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e g i o n a l a d -

m i n i s t r a t o r s h a v e s o m e d i s c r e t i o n t o v a r y t h e

a c t u a l a m o u n t s . ( E P A h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s

a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e s s w i l l b e c h a n g e d . ) T h e S t a t e su s e t h e s e f i g u r e s i n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e i r g r a n t r e -

q u e s t s t o E P A , A l t h o u g h t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e

g r a n t r e q u e s t s v a r y a m o n g S t a t e s , E P A h a s e s -

t a b l i s h e d w o r k i n g g u i d e l i n e s t h a t c a l l f o r t w o -

f o u r - p e r s o n - w o r k y e a r s p e r S t a t e f o r o r g a n i z a -

t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f i n t e r i m a n d f i n a l

a u t h o r i z a t i o n s t a t u s , a n d a p p r o x i m a t e p e r c e n t -

a g e s f o r p r o g r a m a c t i v i t i e s : p r o g r a m m a n a g e -

m e n t ( 1 5 p e r c e n t ) ; p e r m i t t i n g ( 5 0 p e r c e n t ) ; a n d

e n f o r c e m e n t ( 3 5 p e r c e n t ) . I t i s n o t c l e a r h o w

s t r i n g e n t l y t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s a r e f o l l o w e d i n

p r a c t i c e .

I n t h e o r y , t h e F e d e r a l g r a n t s p r o v i d e 7 5 p e r -

c e n t o f t o t a l S t a t e e x p e n d i t u r e s o n h a z a r d o u s

w a s t e p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t a n d i m p l e m e n t a -

t i o n . S t a t e f u n d s m a y b e d r a w n f r o m g e n e r a l

r e v e n u e s o r i n s o m e S t a t e s f r o m f e e s o n g e n -

e r a t o r , t r a n s p o r t e r o r d i s p o s e r a c t i v i t i e s . * I n

r e a l i t y , S t a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n s v a r y d e p e n d i n g o n

w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e p r o g r a m i s m o r e s t r i n g e n t

t h a n t h a t r e q u i r e d b y E P A a n d w h e t h e r t h e

S t a t e g o v e r n m e n t i s a b l e o r d e s i r e s t o a p p r o -

p r i a t e a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s . T a b l e 7 2 s h o w s t h e p e r -

c e n t a g e o f F e d e r a l s u p p o r t o f S t a t e h a z a r d o u s

w a s t e p r o g r a m s i n 1 9 8 2 .

State Administrative Costs.—Table 71 providesbudget expenditures for 22 States for the yearsfor which data ar e available from the relevantsources. These figures represent State budgetexpenditures for hazardous waste r e g u la to ryprograms. For example, the State’s share of total expenditures ranged from 0.03 percent in

I l l i n o i s i n 1 9 8 0 t o 7 0 p e r c e n t i n M i n n e s o t a i n

—

*For a review of State fee mechanisms, see: U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency, A S tud~ ’ of State Fee Systems for Hazard-

ous Waste Management Programs, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, SW-956, July 1982. (Contrary to the gener-ally optimistic treatment of fees and taxes as State funding mech-anisms for hazardous waste activities in the EPA study, otherstudies indicate that limitations on the use of these mechanismsunder State law present substantial impediments. Additionally,the amounts received from fees and taxes are only a small por-tion of the total administrative cost of State programs. )



344 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control —

Table 72.—State Expenditures on Hazardous WasteProgram Activities for Selected States

(current dollars)

# of IssState 1980 1981 1982 facilitiesArizona ... ... $32,000California . . . . 683,000Colorado . . . ...Hawaii ., . . . . .Illinois ., . . 27,585Indiana ., ... 99,523Iowa. . . . ...Kansas ... .Michigan . . .Minnesota 137,040M i s s i s s i p p iM i s s o u r i . . . ,M o n t a n a . , . . . ,N e b r a s k a . . . ,Nevada ., ..., . . . . 18,000North Dakota . . . .Oklahoma . . . . .Pennsylvania . ......1,968,000South Dakota, ...,..Texas ,. . . , , . . . , , . .Utah. , , . . . , , , . . , , , .Wisconsin . . . . . . . 375,051

$137,3002,947,000

254,8406,900

864,171326,044

75,725114,967431,963228,223

73,712220,586

39,83368,16418,00068,30992,950

3,369,60042,332

474,391117,879464,083

$233,1004,385,000

15,000679,702428,120237,739123,034569,648457,724135,957216,833

69,633108,000

580,4802,000,000b

739,133

236,822

109781

9729

536312110

8135312114714027471712

123570

11806

31198

aNumberof facilities reporting under SectIon 3010

bProjected budget

SOURCES Environmental Law Institute, “Costso flmplementlngS ubtltle Co fthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,” OTA Working Paper,October 1982, and EPA Regional Budget Office; Association of Stateand Territorial Solid Waste Management Offlclals, State Measurement#8eds%dy(Sept 30, 1981) lt should be noted that thedataforPenn-sylvania, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Texas appear to have beendrawn from actual State budgets, whllethe other State data reflectthe cooperative arrangement grant requests These latter figures mayunderestimate actual State expenditures

1983, In Wyoming, EPA is operating the en -

t i r e S t a t e p r o g r a m . M o s t o f t h e d a t a i s f r o m

Federal grant requests, which may or may not

p r o v i d e a n a c c u r a t e i n d i c a t i o n o f a c t u a l

e x p e n d i t u r e s .

Current Total National Costs forHazardous Waste Control

Considering all spending on hazardous wasteactivit ies, including those in the public andp r i v a t e s e c t o r s a n d f o r b o t h R C R A - a n dCERCLA-related efforts, OTA’s estimate of total national expenditures for 1982 is $4 billionto $5 bil l ion. Current combined Federal andState spending is probably in the range of $200million to $300 million, The previously derivedfigure of $4 billion to $5 billion (in currentdollars) in private sector spending for 1980-81must be modified by two factors: 1) industrialactivity and waste generation in 1982 is sub-stantially lower than in 1980; and 2) private sec-

tor spending related to CERCLA activities issubstantially greater in 1982 than previously,with a probable current level of $300 millionto $400 million. Finally, although the currentamount of waste generated is less than in 1980-81, the unit costs of waste management arehigher. Thus, while waste generation may havebeen reduced by 20-30 percent, costs probablyhave increased by 10-30 percent, Consideringthe lack o f accura te de ta i led f igures , theestimate of $4 billion to $5 billion for total, na-tional spending appears reasonable .

Part ll:State Responses to Hazardous Waste Problems

Introduction

This section describes approaches to regula-tion of hazardous waste under 1) authorizedState programs under the Resource Conserva-tion and Recovery Act (RCRA), 2) State regula-tory programs under State laws, and 3) alter-native State programs.

The sec t ion a lso d iscusses va r ious a l te r -natives to “command and control” regulationo f h a z a rd o u s wa s te th ro u g h su c h in d i re c tm e a s u r e s a s i n c r e a s e d c i v i l l i a b i l i t y f o rdamages through legal action, additional in-surance and financial responsibil i tv require-

ments, State trust funds, fees and taxes onhazardous waste activities, and other econom-ic mechanisms.

State Programs Under RCRA

Under RCRA section 3006, a State may ex-ercise primary responsibil i ty for regulating

hazardous waste instead of the Federal pro-gram administered by the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) if the State programme e t s c e r t a in min imu m F e d e ra l s t a n d a rd s .While the final Federal program is being de-veloded and State program a applications are be-




ing reviewed, existing State programs that a r e

substantially equivalent to the Federal programc a n c o n t i n u e i n e f f e c t u n d e r i n t e r i m a u t h o r i z a -

t i o n . T h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f R C R A i n d i c a t e s

t h a t C o n g r e s s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e S t a t e s e v e n -

t u a l l y w o u l d a s s u m e p r i m a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r

h a z a r d o u s w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t . T w o i n c e n t i v e s

a r e o f f e r e d f o r S t a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n : f i r s t , t h e o p -

p o r t u n i t y t o a d m i n i s t e r a S t a t e p r o g r a m i n l i e u

o f a F e d e r a l p r o g r a m ; a n d s e c o n d , F e d e r a l f i -

n a n c i a l a n d t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r d e v e l o p -

m e n t a n d o p e r a t i o n o f S t a t e p r o g r a m a c t i v i t i e s

a n d s u p p o r t o f F e d e r a l p r o g r a m s . F e d e r a l

R C R A g r a n t s c a n p a y f o r u p t o 7 5 p e r c e n t o f

S t a t e p r o g r a m s w i t h t h e S t a t e s c o n t r i b u t i n g t h e

r e m a i n i n g 2 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o s t s . C u r r e n t e c o -

n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s a n d b u d g e t a r y c o n s t r a in t s

m a y r e s u l t i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e d u c e d f i n a n c i a l

a n d t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e . T h e s e r e d u c t i o n s

c o u l d i n d u c e s o m e S t a t e s t o d e c l i n e t o a p p l y

f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d t o a l l o w t h e F e d e r a l

G o v e r n m e n t t o f i n a n c e a n d o p e r a t e a F e d e r a l

p r o g r a m w i t h i n t h a t S t a t e . H o w e v e r , a r e c e n t

A s s o c i a t i o n o f S t a t e a n d T e r r i t o r i a l S o l i d W a s t e

M a n a g e m e n t O f f i c i a l s ( A S T S W M O ) s u r v e y i n -

d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y a f e w s u c h i n s t a n c e s m i g h t

b e e x p e c t e d i f f u n d i n g i s m a i n t a i n e d . 141 T h ecurrent EPA administrator, Anne M. Burford,has announced an intention to move towardz e ro fu n d in g o f S ta te e n v i ro n me n ta l p ro -grams. States would thus receive no Federal

funds for operating programs that EPA wouldhave to administer and pay for if the Stated id no t .

As of February 1983, 34 States* and 1 ter-ritory had received Phase I interim authoriza-tion and 16 States were operating under coop-erative arrangements or partial authorizations.Nine States had received Phase II authoriza-tion for component A, and many more Stateswere moving to gain Phase II authorization t o

allow permitting. Still other States, such a s

Michigan, have announced their in ten t ion to

a p p l y i n s t e a d f o r f i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n . A t l e a s t

o n e S t a t e ( W y o m i n g ) h a s d e c i d e d n o t t o a p p l y

f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n a t t h i s t i m e . w i t h t h e p r o -

141Asso~iation of state and Territorial Solid Waste Manage-ment Officials (ASTSWMO).

*For RCRA purposes “States” includes U.S. territories andthe District of Columbia.

mulgation of the land disposal regulations i n

J u l y 1 9 8 2 , E P A a n n o u n c e d t h a t S t a t e s c o u l d

a p p l y f o r f i n a l p r o g r a m a u t h o r i z a t i o n . T h e c u r -

r e n t s t a t u s o f S t a t e p r o g r a m s i s s u m m a r i z e d

i n t a b l e 7 3 .

I n i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e S t a t e p r o g r a m s f o rR C R A a u t h o r i z a t i o n , a t l e a s t 1 5 S t a t e s h a v e t i e d

t h e i r p r o g r a m s t o t h e s t r i n g e n c y o f t h e F e d e r a lp r o g r a m . 14 2 S t a t e p r o g r a m s c a n b e c l a s s i f i e di n w h o l e o r i n p a r t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e t h r e e

t y p e s :

q

q

q

State programs that are the same or “mir-ro r ima g e ” of Federal program require-ments;State programs that are “no less stringentthan” or “at least as str ingent as” theFederal program so that the Federal pro-

gram prov ides the “floor” fo r Sta te re -quirements.State programs that are “no more stringentth a n " th e F e d e ra l p ro g ra m i n w h i c h - t h e

F e d e r a l p r o g r a m i m p o s e s a “ c e i l i n g ” o nState requirements.

Depending on how the State’s legislative m a n -

d a t e i s w r i t t e n , t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s o n S t a t e p r o -

g r a m s c a n h a v e d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s o n a S t a t e ’ s

a b i l i t y t o d e a l w i t h h a z a r d o u s w a s t e m a n a g e -

m e n t i n r e s p o n s e t o F e d e r a l a c t i o n o r i n a c t i o n .

U n d e r a “ m i r r o r - i m a g e ” a p p r o a c h , a s a r e s u l t

o f s t a t u t e o r p o l i c y d e c i s i o n , a S t a t e r e g u l a t o r yp r o g r a m a d o p t s t h e l a n g u a g e o f F e d e r a l r e g -

u l a t i o n s i n w h o l e o r b y r e f e r e n c e . T h e S t a t e

s t a t u t e m a y p r o v i d e , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t t h e S t a t e

p r o g r a m w i l l b e “ c o n s i s t e n t a n d e q u i v a l e n t

w i t h ” o r “ t h e s a m e a s ” o r a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n c o r -

p o r a t e t h e F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s .14 3 S t a t e s w i t h

a “ m i r r o r ” a p p r o a c h d e p e n d o n t h e a d e q u a c y

o f t h e F e d e r a l p r o g r a m .

14ZTbe 15 States are: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Caro-lina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia,

lqsI]]inois hazardous Waste legislation authorized the Stateagency to adopt the EPA regulations as the State program sothat th e State could q uickly receive interim status auth orization.Promulgation of standards under Illinois procedures would takea year or m ore to accommodate public review an d comments.In adopting the Federal program by reference, the State did notanticipate that Federal minimum program standards later wouldbe suspended.




Table 73.—State RCRA Program Authorization

State Current status Status of applications if known

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/25/81Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangementArizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase 1—8/18/82Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 11/19/82

Phase II received 4/19/82California . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 6/4/81

Phase II received 1/1 l/83a

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangementConnecticut. . . . . . . . . . . Phase I 4/21/82

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/25/81District of Columbia. . . . Cooperative arrangementFlorida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I 5/10/82Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/3/81

Phase II received 5/21/82Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangementIdaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangementIllinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 5/1 7/82

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 8/18/82

lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/30/81Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 9/17/81Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase

PhaseLouisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . PhaseMaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PhaseMaryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . Phase

Interim Authorization received 4/1/81I received 1/28/83Interim Authorization received 12/19/80Interim Authorization received 3/18/81Interim Authorization received 7/8/81

Interim Authorization received 2/25/81Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangementMinnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement since 6/79

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/7/81Phase II received 8/31/82

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangementMontana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/26/81b

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 5/14/82Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangementNew Hampshire . . . . . . . Phase l receivedll/3/81New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 2/2/83New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

North Carolina . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/18/80Phase II received 2/26/82

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/12/80

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/14/81Phase II received 12/13/82

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 7/16/81Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 5/26/81Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 5/29/81South Carolina . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/25/81

Phase II received 11/3/82

Phase II to be submitted 1/83Unsubmitted–scheduled to be submitted 9/83Phase n-Expected 1984-85

Unsubmitted–planned 7/83PendingRequest to submit 10/30/82Phase Ii—unknownPending–to be submitted by 10/82Phase II submitted 8/12/82

UnsubmittedUnsubmittedWill ask for full final authorization late 1983 or

early 1984 and skip Phase IIUnsubmittedPhase Ii—to be submitted 8/82Phase II submitted 3/l0/82

Phase II submitted 10/82Phase II to be submitted 1/83-2/83Phase II anticipated date

A - 2/15/83B - 5/15/83C - 9/15/83

Phase II to be submitted Fall 1982Pursuing Phase l— expect submittal 10/82UnsubmittedPhase I to be submitted 7/83Phase II to be submitted 7/83

Phase I & II submitted 9/82Planned Phase II submittal 3/83Phase II undecided as to all or part 9/82UnsubmittedPhase II submitted 10/82

UnsubmittedPhase 1, II A, B to be submitted 1/83Pending—Phase I submitted 1/12/82, Phase II

not known

Partial Phase I authorization only, MOUC forgenerators, treatment, transportation

Phase Ii—unknownPendingAnticipate 11/82 Phase I

Anticipate mid 1984 Phase II

Phase II to be submitted 11/82Phase II to be submitted 12/82Phase 11, Part A, to be submitted




Table 73.—State RCRA Program Authorization—Continued

State Current status Status of applications if known

South Dakota . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia. . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . .Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . .Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . .

Cooperative arrangementPhase I Interim Authorization received 7/16/81Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/24/80

Phase II received 3/23/83

Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/12/80Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/15/81Phase I received 11/3/81Cooperative arrangement

Cooperative arrangementPhase I received 1/15/82Cooperative arrangementPhase I received

Unsubmitted—will submit Phase I & II 1/84Phase II submittedNote 2 different programs

TOWRd

—2/82 received Phase ITOWR—3/83 received Phase IITDH—Phase I 12/80TDH—Phase II 3/28

Phase II submittedPhase II submitted by 12/82Phase II submitted end 1982Unsubmitted —submitted Phase 1, II A & B

expect approval 1/83UnsubmittedPhase II will go to final authorization 6/84Unsubmitted

acal, fornla ,~ not authorized t. control storage or treatment In surface Impoundments ‘anA

OnlybMontana received partial authorization for Phase I on 2/26/81 and complete Phase I authorization on 2/1 7/82cMemorandum of understanding.

‘TOWR—Texas Officeof Water Resources; TDH —Texas Department of Health.

SOURCE ASTSWMO Survey for OTA, Government Institutes, Inc , Hazardous Wastes Fac///ty Handbook, 3d ed. (1982), prepared by Tom Watson, Ridgway M Hall, Jr ,Jeffrey J Dav!dson, and Dav!d R Case, and OTA Staff research

According to testimony presented before a

c o n g r e s s i o n a l commit tee , W es t Vi r g in ia ’ s S ta te

l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e S t a t e r u l e s b e “ c o n -

s i s t e n t a n d e q u i v a l e n t w i t h ” t h e F e d e r a l p r o -

g r a m a n d m u s t b e r e v i s e d t o r e f l e c t c h a n g e s

i n t h e F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s . T h i s a p p r o a c h h a s

c a u s e d d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r t h e S t a t e d u r i n g E P A ’ s

d e l a y a n d s u s p e n s i o n s i n i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e

R C RA p r o g r a m . T h e r e g u l a t e d c o m m u n i t y i n

w e s t V i r g i n i a , i n c o m m e n t i n g o n p r o p o s e d

S t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s , h a s a r g u e d t h a t , w h e n t h e r ei s a n a b s e n c e o f F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n d u e t o

s u s p e n s i o n s , m o d i f i c a t i o n s , o r d e l a y s i n e f f e c -

t i v e d a t e s , t h e S t a t e c a n n o t r e g u l a t e i n t h a t

a r e a . T h i s g r o u p a r g u e s t h a t S t a t e r e g u l a t i o n

i n a r e a s w h e r e n o F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s a r e i n

e f f e c t w o u l d b e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e F e d e r a l

p r o g r a m . W e s t V i r g i n i a w a s c h a l l en g e d f o r

p r o p o s i n g f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e q u i r e -

m e n t s f o r h a z a r d o u s w a s t e f a c i l i t y o p e r a t o r s

w h e n E P A d e l a y e d t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h o s e

F e d e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s . T h u s , e v e r y t i m e a v o i d

i n r e g u l a t o r y c o v e r a g e i s c r e a t e d b y a s h i f t i n

F e d e r a l p o l i c y , S t a t e s l i k e W e s t V i r g i n i a c o u l db e c h a l l e n g e d o n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f S t a t e

a c t i o n i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a r e a . I f t h i s a r g u m e n t

i s u p h e l d i n t h e c o u r t s , s u c h S t a t e s w i l l h a v e

to wait until Federal policy is established top ro p o se r e g u la t io n s . 144

The “floor” approach reflects a State statuteor policy decision requiring that the State pro-gram must be “at least as str ingent” as theFederal program. For States with “mirror” or“floor” types of programs, a frequent concernhas been that less stringent or relaxed Federalrequirements could undercut State program ef-forts or might threaten State program approval.More stringent State requirements could beviewed as inconsistent with the Federal andother State programs or as a constraint on in-terstate commerce.

The third type of approach, the “ceiling” ap-proach, can cause problems for implementa-tion of State regulatory programs when thereare delays or changes in the Federal program.“Ceiling” a p p ro a c h e s g e n e ra l ly in v o lv e astatutory requirement or policy decision thatthe State programs must be “no more stringentthan the Federal program. ” Ceiling States are

144Testimony of Norman Nosenchuck, AS TSWMO, at hear-ings on RCRA reauthorization before the Subcommittee on Com-merce, Transportation, and Tourism, House Committee on En-ergy and the Environment, 97th Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 21, 1982.




dependent on the adequacy of the Federalrules. Changes in the Federal program, or sus-pensions of Federal standards, can be disrup-tive and could bring State program implemen-tation efforts to a halt. To gain Federal ap-p ro v a l , t h e S ta te r e q u i re me n ts mu s t b e a sstringent as the Federal program, but to meetState law, the State regulations may not bemo re s t r in g e n t th a n th e F e d e ra l p ro g ra m.When finally in place, these programs shouldbe e ffec t ive ly s imila r to “mirro r” S t a t e s ;

however, implementation during a period of frequent changes and reversals in the Feder-al program might be difficult or impossible.

Colorado’s hazardous waste sta tute adoptsthe “ceiling approach” and requires that theState program be “no more stringent” than theFederal program. Colorado is currently devel-

oping a State RCRA program and is operatingunder cooperative arrangement. When EPAsuspended the Federal ban on disposal of liq-uids in landfills, Colorado was suddenly leftwithout any apparent authority under its Statehazardous waste program to stop the plannedlandfilling of bulk liquids at the Lowry land-fill while EPA “reconsidered” the Federal rule.The adequacy of the landfill operation was thenunder challenge by State and local officials. Inresponse to public criticism, EPA reimposedthe Federal ban. The Lowry dump was laterordered to remedy design failures.

North Carolina’s “ceiling” provision also re-quires that State rules be “no more stringentthan” the Federal regulations. Following an in-itial determination by the State Department of Natural Resources that the July 1982 EPA landdisposal regulations were not stringent enough,the Governor imposed an emergency moratori-um on the new landfil l permit applicationspending further study and public hearings.145

If th is review indicates that more stringentState land disposal standards are necessary, theState agency will petition the legislature to

amend the State law.

l~Ha~rdOUS Waste Report, vol. 3, October 1982.

Differences Between Federal and State Programs

During the interim authorization period, aState program can receive approval to regulatehazardous waste if the State demonstrates thatits program is substantially equivalent to the

Federal program and that it has adequate au-thority and resources to administer and en-force its program. This allows continuation of an existing State program even though it maydiffer from the Federal program requirements.Wi th o u t in te r im a u th o r iz a t io n , g e n e ra to r s ,transporters, and treatment, storage, and dis-posal facilities (TSDFS) would have to complywi th b o th F e d e ra l a n d S ta te r e q u i re me n ts .However, once Federal regulations are issued,the State cannot impose less stringent require-ments on the same subject matter. Many ex-isting State programs differ from the Federal

program in significant ways. Examples of suchvariations are discussed below based on OTA’scontractor surveys and informal communica-tions from State agencies. l46 The primary areasof difference during the interim period arediscussed below and in table 74.

Universe of Waste Regulated

The State program provisions for identifica-tion and classification of hazardous waste fre-quently will cover a broader or narrower uni-verse of waste than the Federal program. The

State program may include different waste listsor more characteristics for identifying hazard-ous waste, or its tests for establishing hazard-ous characteristics may cause more wastes tobe included.

Ca l i fo rn ia con tro ls a b roader un iverse o f waste than the Federal program, includingma n y h o u se h o ld , a g r i c u l tu ra l , a n d min in g

laASTSWMC) Survey for OTA; Citizens for a Better Environ-ment, “Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management inSelected States,” O TA Working Paper, December 1982; NationalConference of State Legislatures, Htizardous Wa s t e Manage

rnent: A Survey of State Legishition 1!782 (Denver, Colo.: 1982);and Michael S. Baram and J. Raymond Miyares, “Expandingthe Policy Options for the Management of Hazardous Wastes,”OTA Working Paper, Feb. 1, 1982.



Table 74.—Comparability of State Hazardous Waste Programs to Federal RCRA Program

State Universe of waste Generators Transporters Facilities

AlabamaAlaska . . . . . .Arizona

RCRA RCRA Permit required R CHA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equivalent, plus expanded reactivitycritera

RCRA plus PCBSRCRA plus PCBS, metals, waste oil,mining waste, some recycled wastes,and more stringent toxicity criteria

Some recycled/reused materials coveredby RCRA excluded under State law

RCRA by statute

Annual reportsManifest copies to StateRCRA by regulationMonthly reports for stor-age of less than 60 days

RCRA by statute

N.E. manifest

Annual report, copy ofmanifest to State

RCRA by reference;generator inspections

RCRA by reference

RCRA

Permit and State manifestRegistration, insurance,inspection

RCRA by statute

License, insurance, bond-ing for hauler storage

License

RCRA; inspections

RCRA by reference;

Proof of financial responsibility;quarterly report

RCRANo exemptions in general. Specialpermits for disposal of certain high-hazard waste

Disposal sites revert to Stateownership at closure

Licenses; special requirements fordewatered sludges

Special ground water monitoringrequirements

RCRA by reference; liability insurancerequired

RCRA by reference

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ArkansasCalifornia

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware RCRA

Florida RCRA by reference

Georgia RCRA by referencepermit required

Hawaii . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . .Illinois

. COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RCRA plus special wastes, infectioushospital wastes

State manifest trackingsystem

Permit required; all ship-ments must be manifested

Prohibits Iandfilling unless facility hasappropriate permit for each wastestream received

RCRA

Facility must establish financialresponsibility consistent with risk

Waste disposal must be authorized

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

RCRA More stringent recyclingrequirements

RCRA by reference

Liquid industrial wastehaulers must have a permit

RCRA by referenceRCRA by reference

RCRA Must obtain disposalauthorization from Statebefore waste shipment

EquivalentState manifest system

Registration, insurance;State approval of disposalrequests before transport

EquivalentPermit required

KentuckyLouisiana

RCRA by referenceRCRA plus State waste list; morestringent toxicity test

RCRARCRA Plus PCBSRCRA plus waste oil, PCBS andradioactive waste

RCRA plus waste oil, additional toxicwastes, recycled wastes must be soldfor gain

RCRA plus waste oil, recycled wastes,additional waste characteristics

RCRA by referenceEach TSDF unit permitted separately;liability insurance required; quarterly

reports for onsite disposalLicensesState permitLicense; liability insurance

License; certificates of waste disposal,more frequent inspections

Monthly reports for off site TSDFS

MaineMarylandMassachusetts

N.E. manifestRCRAN.E. manifest

License, insuranceLicenseLicense. bond

Michigan State manifest system License

Minnesota Manifest returned toState; generator wastedisclosure andmanagement plan.

EquivalentManifest returned to State;generator registration

RCRARCRA by references

RCRA

MississippiMissouri

EquivalentWaste oil, State-listed wastes

RCRARCRA by reference

EquivalentLicense, insurance

EquivalentSimilar to RCRA, monthly reports,certification of recyclers

RCRAEquivalent

MontanaNebraska

RCRARCRA by reference



Table 74.—Comparabillity of State Hazardous Waste Programs to Federal RCRA Program-Continued

State Universe of waste Generators Transporters Facilities

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire RCRA N.E. manifest License and insuranceNew Jersey RCRA plus waste oil, PCBS, recycled State manifest; manifest License, operating

wastes copies to State requirementsNew Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . .

P e m i t b y r u l eMonthly ground water monitoring reports

R C R ARCRA

RCRARCRARCRA; storage requirements for recyclers

Substantially equivalent

New YorkNorth Carolina

North DakotaOhioOklahoma

RCRA by statuteRCRA

RCRARCRARCRA plus PCBS, no exemption forrecycled wastes

No waste listing, regulate by wastecharacteristics

RCRA by reference

RCRARCRARCRA

LicenseRCRA by reference

RCRATransporter registrationRegistration, manifest forrecycled wastes

RCRAOregon Manifest exemption forgenerators shipping lessthan 2,000 lb/load

Quarterly reports; manifestto State; must get authori-zation from TSDF beforewaste shipment

N.E. manifestManifest copies to States;

must obtain authoriza-tion from TSDF beforewaste shipment

License Facility must authorize that it iscapable of handling wastes before

Pennsylvania Primary neutralization units

shipment

Licenses; recycling regulated;quarterly reports for onsite TSDFS

Rhode Island

South Carolina

9 waste characteristicsLicense; liability insurancePermitNo exemption for recyled waste;

additional listed wastes; morestringent corrosivitv test

South DakotaTennessee

Texas

UtahVermont

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“Equivalent

NO PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“Equivalent “ “ “ “ “ “ Equivalent Ground water monitoring wells

approved by State geologistRCRA RCRA, hauler storage is RCRA, liability endorsement

regulatedRCRA RCRA RCRA

N.E. manifest License Permit by rule, recovery operationsregulated

. . .

RCRA plus halogenated hydrocarbons

RCRA, waiver for some recycled wastes19 classes of hazardous wastes,additional wastes regulated

RCRALarger universe of waste, mining

VirginiaWashington

RCRA Permit RCRARCRA RCRA Insurance; location restrictions for

wastes, and degree of hazard system extremely hazardous waste facilities;for extremely hazardous wastes buffer zones

W e s t V i r g i n i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wiscons in RCRA, more st ringent recycl ing Manifest to State, annual License License, quarterly report, treatment at

provisions report wastewater treatment facilities mustbe permitted

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO PROGRAM (EPA PROGRAM OPERATING IN STATE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NOTES: RCRA = State program is nearly identical to Federal regulations.

Equivalent = State program is equivalent, but not identical to Federal regulations.RCRA by reference - State program adopted Federal regulations by reference. — = not classified.

SOURCES: Robert A. Finlayson, “Should State Rules Be Tougher Than EPA’s?” Solid Waste Management, vol. 25, pp. 78, SO-82, May 1982;Hazardous Waste /?egu/atory Guide: State Waste Lfanagement programs(Neenah, Wis.: J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc., 1982); and Citizens for a Better Environment, Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management in Selected States, OTA Working Paper, December 1982,




wa s te s , a lo n g w i th d r i l l in g mu d s , se wa g esludge, tannery waste with trivalent chromium,and cement kiln dust. Additionally, States mayuse methods of identifying hazardous wastethat result in more wastes being classified ashazardous. The Ca l i fo rn ia waste ex trac t ion

test, used to determine whether toxic constit-uents can leach into the environment, is gen-erally considered to be more stringent than thetest required by the Federal regulations.

Several States use a “degree-of-hazard” typeof waste classification system. 147 California’swaste classification scheme distinguishes be-tween “hazardous” and “ex tremely hazard-ous” wastes. A separate disposal permit is re-quired for each shipment and disposal of ex-tremely hazardous waste. *

Exclusions and Exemptions From Universe of Waste

Many States have limited the small generatorexemption to exclude fewer generators thanthe Federal exemption. l48 At least 20 states, in-cluding 5 of the nation’s 10 largest waste gen-erating States, have no small quantity exemp-tion, more stringent requirements with regardto quantity than EPA’s exemption, or do notallow hazardous wastes from small generatorsto be disposed of in sanitary landfills. Half of those States that have the same quantity cutoff as EPA have some form of reporting require-

ment to keep track of the exempted waste andits disposal, or to limit disposal options. Onesignificant feature of some States limited smallgenerator exemptions is that special provisionsmay apply to these generators that are not asextensive as for large generators. (Table 75 in-cludes a summary of State small generator pro-visions,) Several States also include hazardouswaste recyclers under State regulatory pro-

“’OTA’s technical memorandum on degree of hazard de-scribes other State approaches to degree of of hazard waste

classification systems. See U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Nonnuclear Industrial Hazardous Waste, Classify-

ing for Hazard A4anagement-A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-M-9, November 1981.

*A description of the California degree-of-hazard classifica-tion system is presented in ch. 3.

l~state smal] generator requirements are described more fully

in OTA Staff Memorandum, “The RCRA Exemption for SmallVolume Generators,” July 1982,

grams. This is frequently done because theStates have experienced hazardous waste prob-lems as the result of “recycling activities.”

Licensing or Permitting of Waste Haulers

Special inspection and/ or licensing require-ments for hazardous waste are imposed insome States. They may also require specialtraining for haulers. California requires permitsfor each shipment of hazardous waste. Liabil-i ty in su ra n c e o r b o n d in g re q u i re me n ts fo rwaste haulers are another common differencefrom the Federal program.

More Extensive or Detai led Mani fest Requirements forTracking of Hazardous Wastes.

California, New Jersey, and Michigan are ex-

amples of States with manifest systems that re-quire more extensive information than the Fed-eral manifest. States may require that the gen-e ra t or , t r an s p or t er , a n d d i s p o s a l f a ci li t yoperator each submit a manifest for the sameshipment. This “paper” trail has two advan-tages: 1) manifesting of a ll hazardous wastemakes any exits from the system more detect-able, thus assisting in enforcement, and over-sight, and providing an incentive for wastehandlers to comply; 2) more extensive manifestinformation can assist the State in developingwaste management plans and regulatory pro-

grams, although this aspect has not been im-plemented extensively in two States where itis used because of budgetary and practical limi-tations in processing the data.

More Stringent Facility Standards for TSDFS

During interim status and final authorization,S ta te s ma y imp o se mo re s t r in g e n t r e q u i re -m e n t s t h a n t h e F e d e r a l p r o g r a m — e . g . , astricter standard for design of facilities.

By statute, since 1982, New Jersey has re-quired installation of a system for leachate col-

lection, interception, and treatment in all wastedisposal facilities. New Jersey also restricts thesiting of chemical waste facilities in or nearriver flood areas.

While recognizing that only certain wastesare technically or economically amenable to



352 qTechnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Control

Table 75.—Summary of State Small Quantity Generator Provisions

State Small quantity cutoff Difference from Federal standard

Alabama

AlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticut

DelawareFloridaGeorgia

HawaiiIdahoIllinois

IndianaIowaKansas

KentuckyLouisiana

Maine

MarylandMaasachusetts

MichiganMinnesota

MississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska

NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York

North CarolinaNorth Dakota

OhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexas

UtahVermontVirginia

+

100 kg/mo++

None++

+++

Cooperative arrangementCooperative arrangement100-1,000 kg/mo exempt from

all but manifest200 kg/mo++ but manage 100-1,000 kg

as regulated+Must petition forsmall generator exemption+

+20 kglmo

100 kg/moNone

+100 kg/mo++

CA100 kg/mo100 kg/moNone1,000 kg/mo for M100 kg/mo for State reg.

++

++Varies by characteristic+200 kg/infectious waste100 kg/mo+++

220 lb+

May be required to submit plan to Board of Health before T/D(onsite or off site)

Lower cutoff

Disposal in permitted hazardous waste facilityNo small generator exemptionNone1) 100-1,000 kg/mo; A.R.2) hauler permit

No disposal in landfill without approvalSome wastes classified as “special waste” require special

handling under solid waste program

All generators must manifest if produce more than 100 kg/mospecial waste

Disposal of small generator waste only in specified landfills —

TSDF operator recordkeeping on source, quantity, disposal ofwaste received

Small generators must register with StateMust petition—no plan to approve

Manifest for hazardous waste disposal in licensed hazardouswaste facilities

—

20-1,000 kg/mo must use manifest, licensed hauler and licensedhazardous waste facilities.

Must use licensed hazardous waste facilitySmall generator must comply with all requirements except

some papeworkGuidelines for facility accepting small generator hazardous wastesLower limit

—

Disposal in landfill requires department approval; andcompliance with ground and surface water regulations

—

Lower limit—requires packing, labeling and proper disposalLower limitNo quantity exemptionRegulate quantities between 100 and 1,000 kg/me; A.R.Disposal of hazardous waste at approved TSDF, correct

packing, storing, inspection —

Approval of department for disposal of other than householdquantities

Must use permitted facility —

Lower cutoffNoneNo small generator exclusion—except infectious wasteLower limit; State approval before disposalInspection of solid waste facility for small generator disposalSmall generator 100-1,000 kg must notify StateRequires written authorization for permitted facility to receive

small generator wasteManifest for all industrial Class I and hazardous waste; A.R. for TSDFNoneLower cutoff; State notification all generators; may require A. R.;

disposal in subtitle D facility; requires CBC approval



Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program 353

Table 75.—Summary of State Small Quantity Generator Provisions—Continued

State Small quantity cutoff Difference from Federal standard

Washington Varies by DOH classification Regulate to 0.18 kg/mo for some waste mixturesWest Virginia + Notification and recordkeeping requirements for small generatorsWisconsin + > 100 kg/mo must make A. R.; provide results of waste

determination; notice of delivery to disposal site operatorWyo min g — —D i s t r i c t of Co l u m b i a + All hazardous waste must be accompanied by manifest (will

lower to 100 kg/mo in 1 year)Key + Same as EPA rules (1,000/kg)

A.R Annual ReportCBC Case by CaseDOH Degree of hazardT/D Treatment/disposal

SOURCE ATSWMO Survey for OTA (1982), OTA Staff Memorandum, “The RCRA Exemption for Small Volume Generators, ” July 1982, J J Keller & Associates, Inc ,Hazardous Waste Regulatory Gu/de, Sfafe Waste Management Programs, Neenah, W!s , September 1982

recycling, detoxification, incineration, or othertreatment processes that are generally recog-nized as alternatives to landfilling, and thateven these processes will result in some resi-

dues that will be landfilled, several States aremoving toward limiting land disposal of cer-tain wastes. These bans are being implementedto encourage the use of alternative treatmentand disposal options, to avoid the use of whatcould become scarce capacity in suitable landdisposal facilities, and to reduce hazards to thepublic and the environment from land disposal.

S ta n d a rd s fo r g e n e ra to r s a n d h a z a rd o u swaste TSDFS under State programs have somein ter es tin g v a r i a t io n s t h a t i m p o s e m o r estringent requirements or incentives to pro-

mote alternatives to landfilling. By far the moststringent are the restrictions on land disposalof hazardous wastes. These range from out-right bans on certain land disposal practicesto requirements that a generator demonstratet h a t t h e r e a r e n o f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t olandfilling.

New York and California are currently de-veloping limited bans on landfilling of certainhazardous wastes. California’s ban is sched-uled to be implemented in stages starting in1983 with restrictions on landfilling of cya-

nides and toxic metals above certain concen-trations, acid wastes, PCBS, and extremely haz-ardous liquid organic wastes. New York hasrecently denied two land disposal permits onthe ground that the applicants failed to provideadequately for technologies that offer a lter-natives to landfilling. Alternatives include the

requirement of pretreatment of liquids such asneutralization, detoxification, solidification, orencapsulation before land disposal. Michiganbars landfilling of any liquid wastes without

some form of pretreatment to solidify the wasteor remove it from the waste stream. GovernorThompson of Illinois has announced his inten-tion to reintroduce legislation, which failed in1982, that would ban landfilling of hazardouswaste. (Illinois already has a statutory provi-sion that restricts land disposal of hazardouswaste after 1987 unless the generator demon-strates that there is no technologically feasibleand / or economically reasonable alternative tolandfilling.) Illinois requires a separate wastestream permit for each waste stream receivedfrom a generator for each facility in additionto the basic facility permit. Similarly, Arkan-sas provides that no “high hazard” waste canbe landfilled if it could be destroyed by inciner-ation, and further establishes a rebuttable pre-sumption that incineration is feasible unlessdemonstrated otherwise ,

O th e r mo re s t r in g e n t r e g u la to ry r e q u i re -ments may consist of more detailed and exten-sive permit and licensing reviews for land dis-posal facilities than for recycling or treatmentf a c i l i t i e s . N e w Y o r k r e q u i r e s e a c h m a j o r

fa c i l i ty to p re p a re a 1 0 -y e a r ma n a g e me n tplan that would include a description of stepsthe facility is taking to promote the develop-ment and use of a lternative technologies toreduce waste volume and toxicity and short-and long-term environmental emissions (a ir ,water, and solid waste). Michigan requires




that construction permit applications for newfacilities include an environmental assessmentevaluating the effect of the proposed facilityon air, water, and other resources, and an envi-ronmental fa ilure mode assessment.

New York requires an onsite environmen-tal monitor (State agency inspector) at certainsolid waste disposal facilities that pose poten-tially serious environmental damage or pub-lic health threats. The staff and equipmentneeded for onsite environmental monitors areto be paid by the operator. Depending on thetype of facility and the nature of hazard posed,the State could require full-time, part-time, ortemporary onsite monitors. Certain facilitieswould always be required to have monitors,including commercial-secure land burial oper-ations, commercial hazardous waste incinera-

tors, and commercial treatment facilities han-dling acutely toxic wastes. Some onsite treat-ment or disposal facilities which manage acute-ly toxic hazardous waste are a lso l ikely torequire onsite monitors,

Several States do not vest regulatory respon-sibility for all aspects of hazardous waste activ-ities in a single agency. In both Texas and Cal-ifornia, the administration of the State RCRAprogram is split between two agencies. In Min-nesota, the State Pollution Control Agencyshares hazardous waste regulatory authority

with the county governments.

Other State Regulatory Programs

EPA does not require that a State enact spe-cific RCRA-type legislation controlling hazard-ous waste in order to gain program approval.States may obtain authorization based on theirregulatory and enforcement powers under anyState laws that are adequate to control hazard-ous waste. States have controlled the manage-ment of hazardous wastes or the effects of waste disposal under a variety of laws dealing

with solid waste, air and water pollution con-trol, wildlife protection, hazardous substances,siting, land use, and public health and safety.For example, State laws, which may be laterincorporated into the EPA authorized Statehazardous waste program, may limit the dis-

posal of certain types of hazardous waste, ormay limit the disposal or treatment of hazard-ous wastes in certain areas-–such as residen-tial or coastal areas—or within a certain dis-tance of rivers, and other navigable waters orflood zones. State law may require that the gen-

erator or facil i ty operator demonstrate thatthere is no economically and/ or technically fea-sible alternative to land disposal or incinera-tion. State laws may require additional permitsfor hazardous waste facilities besides those re-quired by RCRA and other applicable Federalpermits.

New York is moving to regulate air emissionsfrom the burning of waste oil and hazardouswaste mixtures under State air pollution con-t ro l leg is la t ion . Ca l i fo rn ia ’s Air ResourcesBoard monitors the air quality impacts of haz-

ardous waste activit ies.

Some States have passed special legislationto regulate the selection and approval of sitesfor new hazardous waste management facili-ties (see table 76). Some of these siting lawsestablish siting commissions which are inde-penden t o f the hazardous waste pe rmit t ingagency and can impose additional, and morestringent siting and land use controls than theState regulatory program.

Several States are moving toward establish-

ing a preferred hierarchy of’ hazardous wastemanagement techniques in their si t ing pro-grams. Minnesota’s waste management plangives highest priority to alternatives to landdisposal including: industrial process modifica-tion to reduce or eliminate waste generation;recycle, reuse, and recovery methods; and con-version and treatment technologies to reducethe hazard of the waste in the environment.Minnesota also requires the State Waste Man-agement Board to consider technologies forretrievable storage of hazardous waste for laterrecycling, reuse, recovery, conversion, or treat-

ment. States may require special siting boardapproval or advanced submittal of waste facili-ty siting proposals for consideration as part of a comprehensive State waste management planand may condition permit approval on com-pliance with other legal requirements. These




: x

x :

x :. .. .. .. .

: x

x x X x x x x. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .... .

: x. .. .. ... .. .. .. .

: x. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

: x

x : :. . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .

: X x

: X x

x

x

x : : x. .. .:x :. .. .:x : x x x, .

x

— : x x x.: x

x :

: x

: x

: x

: x. .

x

x

x

x x

: x

: x

: x. .. .. .. .

x x

xx x

x

x

x

x x xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

: X x. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .

. . .

: X x

: X x

: x. .x : :

. .. .:x : x. .:x : x x. .a : x : x x x

xxx : x x x x :. . . . . .. . . .. . .:x : x x

x

. .x x

x :

x x

x :. .. .. .. .

x :

x x

. . . .X x x xx x x x xY

. .: x

. . .. . .. . .. . .

: X x. , .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

:x :. .

: x. ,

: X x

:x : x x x. .:x : x. .. .:x : x : x

. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

: x

x. .

: x x x — , .

x

x

x

:x : x

:x : x x

:x : x x x x

x

: x. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

: x. .. .. .. ... .. .

x x x

x. . . .. . . .. . . .

(n




may or may not be integrated with RCRA au-thorized programs. Table 77 summarizes Stateoptions to promote alternatives to land disposalof hazardous waste.

Nonregulatory Options for Management

of Hazardous Waste

Regulation is one approach to dealing withthe problems that hazardous waste pose to

human health and the environment. Controlover hazardous waste management is estab-lished directly through standard setting, per-mitt ing, and civil and criminal enforcement.Through direct regulation, costs are internal-ized. Hazardous waste generators, transpor-ters, and disposers are forced to pay the costsof responsible management of hazardous wastefor protection of human health and the envi-ronment through compliance with regulatoryrequirements.

Table 77.—Summary of State Options for Encouraging Alternatives to Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste

Fee Tax State State waste Regulatory Fast track R&D Land burialState structures incentives Bonds ownership management plan exclusions permitting programs restrictions

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xArkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xGeorgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xIndiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xKentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xMaryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xMichigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xMinnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . xMississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . x xMontana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . .New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCES: ASTSWMO,SurveY for OTA, 1962; Citizens oraBetter Environment, “Approachest oHazardous Waste Managementin electsd Statest” OTAWorking PaPer,December 1962; National Conference OfState Legislatures, llazafdous L%4w /eh fanagernentA Survey of State Leglslatlorr, 1982(Denvec Coloi 1962h TheCouncil of StateGovemments, Wastehfanagementln VreStates(Lexington, Ky~19611Fred C. Hart Associates, inc. (for EPA) ASurvey ofStateFeeSysfemsforHazardousWaste kfanagernent programs, EPA contract No. 66-01-5133, May25, 1962; National Conference of State Legi!flatures, ASurveyandArra/yskofState Po//cyOptlorrs To Encourage A/temat/ves to Lar?d Dkposa/ofHazardous Waste (Denver, Colo:July 1961); Michael S. 13aramand J. Raymond Miyares,“Expandingt hePollcy Options for the Management of Hazardous Wastes:’ OTA Working PapeC Feb. 1, 1962; and OTA Staff research.




Other insti tutional mechanisms can inducehazardous waste handlers to adhere to mini-mum standards of care and to bear the costsof proper hazardous waste management or tosuffer the economic penalties of improper haz-ardous waste management, thus internalizingcosts, Nonregulatory approaches that are in useor under consideration by various States in-clude expanded liabil i ty under common lawand sta tutory provisions, insurance require-ments, hazardous waste taxes and fees, trustfunds, and State superfunds, State hazardouswaste facility siting programs discussed pre-viously also have nonregulatory aspects.

These alternative approaches are directed atde te rr ing improper waste management andpromoting sound alternative practices by re-quiring that responsible parties bear the costs

of their actions. Direct incentives such as taxexempt financing, preferentia l treatment of alternative technologies, fast track permitting,State ownership of waste facilities, and Stateresearch and development programs are othernonregulatory approaches.

These nonregulatory approaches are inde-pendent of the regulatory system. They canserve as an effective and complementary partof a State’s comprehensive response to hazard-ous waste problems.

LiabilityIncreased liability for hazardous waste ac-

tivities could encourage more responsible andenvironmentally sound management practices,Although there are only a few cases in whichdamages for improper or i l legal hazardouswaste disposal have been imposed, the legaltrends point clearly toward substantial dam-age awards in future hazardous waste cases.The prospect of significant liability from pastand present activities is influencing State andindustry action. In the meantime, the legal bar-riers to winning lawsuits for damages or otherrelief for the impacts of hazardous waste ac-tivities are being lowered through judicial deci-sions and State legislation.

Government o ff ic ia ls , p r iva te a t to rneys ,and insurers have one message for genera-

tors, transporters, and facil i ty operators: therisks of substantial financial losses from lia-bil i ty for unsafe hazardous waste activit iesare increasing rapidly. The prudent businessmanager should take every available action toreduce that risk by initiating better waste han-

dling practices, or by avoiding generating anddisposing of hazardous waste where possible,and by planning now to meet any future liabil-ity. If increased liability is to be an effectiveincentive for generators and disposers to seekalternative hazardous waste management op-tions to remove the risks to human health andthe environment (and to their financial well-being), it is clear that substantial legal liabilitymust be seen as a probabIe, costly, and swiftresult of unsound waste management activities.Recent legal developments have mot-cd in thatdirection.

T h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e -s p o n s e , C o m p e n s a t i o n , a n d L i a b i l i t y A c t(CERCLA) imposes liability for the costs to gov-ernment agencies for cleanup, remedial action,and emergency response and for damages tonatural resources, Other Federal laws imposefines and punitive damages for violations of regulations or statutory provisions and severalrecognize citizen suits as alternative enforce-ment mechanisms. Many States have similarlaws, Except for l imited coverage under theCERCLA Post-closure LiabiIity Trust Fund,

however, damages for injury to private personsor property are not now covered by CERCLAor RCRA. Provisions dealing with liability forinjuries to third parties were dropped as partof the compromise to pass CERCLA and weredeferred for further study, The CERCLA 301(e)study group recently recommended adoptionof broad tax-based personal injury and prop-erty damage compensation measures for haz-a rdous waste ac t iv i t ie s . l4 9

Lawsuits involving hazardous waste activ-ities can be expected to increase as more sites

Idglnjuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Aria IJrsis

and Improvement of Lega) Remedjes: A Report to Congress jnCompliance w ith Section 301(e) of the Comprehen sive En~’iron-

mental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 1980 (Pub

lic La w 9G510] bu v the Superfund Sect ion 301(e] S tud~ r Group,

97th Cong., 2d sess,, 1982, 2 vols (hereafter 301(e] Study Groupreport).




are discovered and the public awareness of dangers from exposure to hazardous chemicalsgrows. These lawsuits can seek monetary dam-ages and/ or injun ctive re lief . The amountssought by private parties in such lawsuits canbe staggering. (One class action case involvingh a z a rd o u s wa s te d u mp in g in T e n n e sse e i sseeking damages of $2.5 billion.) Courts canalso award p unitive and/ or exemplary damagesin appropria te c ircumstances. A court orderor injunction may compel a responsible party(e .g . , a genera to r , t ranspor te r , o r fac i l i tyoperator) either to take a specific action (i.e.,remove the wastes, clean up the site, providean alternative water supply, provide long-termhealth monitoring and care for exposed per-sons) or to refrain from taking an action (e. g.,no more dumping) and to bear all the costs

entailed.Theories relied on for recovery for injuries

and property damage from hazardous wastemanagement are based on common law causesof action, sometimes expanded by statute, andinclude negligence, strict liability, nuisance,and trespass.

Legal Remedies for Injuries and LossesFrom Hazardous Wastes

The tradit ional common law remedies forpersona l in ju r ies and proper ty damage a re

a v a i l a b l e i n h a z a r d o u s w a s t e s c a s e s .1 5 0

Negligence and strict liability are directed atcompensating injuries due to the actions of another. private nuisance and trespass are in-tended to protect possessor interests in landagainst unreasonable interference from the ac-tivities of another. Public nuisance actions seekto protect the broader public interest fromunreasonable land uses. Each of these theorieshas aspects that make it an appropriate mech-anism for redress in some cases and not inothers. In some instances, state statutory pro-visions have modified or replaced these com-

mon law remedies to ease some of the recur-ring barriers to recovery. Frequently, lawsuits

IWThoSe inte res ted in a more detailed discussion O f liabilitytheories for damages from hazardous waste activies and of bar-riers to recovery under these remedies should consult the reportof the CERCLA 301(e) study group.

involving hazardous wastes will include sev-e ra l c la ims re f lec t ing d i f fe ren t theor ies o f liability. A consequence is that the court’s deci-sion may be based on a blending of the variousconcepts behind toxic torts and may not givea clear indication of the precise theory invokedto provide recovery.

Negligence .—Negligence is commonly definedas a failure to conform one’s conduct to a legal-ly recognized standard or duty of care. An ac-tion for negligence is brought to recover com-pensation for personal injury and for proper-ty damage from the negligent party. To prevailin a negligence suit, the plaintiff must provefour e lements:

1. the existence of a duty or obligation rec-o g n iz e d b y th e l a w to c o n fo rm to th e

standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks;2. a failure by the defendant to conform his

or her conduct to the required standards;3. a causal connection between the defend-

ant’s conduct and a resulting injury to theplaintiff; and

4. an actual injury or loss.15 1

The standard of care by which the defendant’sconduct is measured in negligence cases maybe es tab l ished by p r io r jud ic ia l dec is ions ,statute, regulation, or by analogy from othercases wi th s imila r c i rcumstances . In neg-

ligence cases of first impression, the standardof care will be what the jury believes a reason-able or prudent person would do under simi-lar conditions or circumstances. A generatoror facility operator might be held accountablefor injuries on the premise that it was negligentnot to have investigated the effects of variousdisposal options available and selected an op-tion reasonably designed to avoid the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff. Alternatively,a generator or operator’s failure to warn of thehazards posed by the wastes might be consid-ered negligent, especially if the plaintiff mighthave avoided the risk had he been aware of it.Many generators do not dispose of their ownwastes, yet they might be held liable for the

1 5 1 w , p ros s er , Hand~ok of the L a w of Torts, 143 (4th ed. 1971).




improper disposal actions of the facility towh ich th eir wastes were sent for failing to an-

ticipate or take p recautions against the n egli-gent actions of others. (The liability provisionsin Superfund make generators liable for theGovernment’s c leanup costs for improper or

unsafe disposal resulting in release of hazard-ous substances without regard to fault—i.e .whether or not the generator exercised duecare. )

Some formulations of the negligence stand-ard use the concept of a duty to protect othersaga inst an “unreasonable r isk” o f ha rm. Anunreasonable risk is defined as one of suchmagnitude as to outweigh what the law regardsas the utility of the act or the manner in whichit is done. In hazardous waste cases, the com-munity’s need for hazardous waste disposal

might thus be weighed against the requirementto protect against unreasonable risks, and therisks posed by the facility may be found not tobe unreasonable. In some States, however, stat-utory provisions or common law principleshave established that violation of certain stat-utes or regulations constitutes negligence perse.

While recovery under a negligence theory inhazardous waste cases is an available option,establishment of a duty of care is only part of the case . In some ju r isd ic t ions , i t wi l l benecessary to show that the defendant knew, orshould have known, of the risks involved at thetime of the disposal because of the legal prin-ciple that there is no duty to avoid or warn of unknowable risks. Given the insidious andlong-term consequences of hazardous wastedisposal, the dangers posed by the defendant’saction may not have been foreseeable based onthe state of knowledge at the time. Another dif-ficulty in negligence cases, and in most haz-ardous waste cases, will be the evidentiaryproblem of proving: 1) a connection betweenexposure to a particular waste, chemical sub-

stance, or mixture and the injury suffered; and2) that the chemical originated in the defend-ant’s waste or disposal facility. Often the injury and the resulting lawsuit arise many yearsafter the disposal or exposure , thus addingmore difficulties in locating parties, witnesses,and establishing a causal connection.

Strict Liabil i ty .-Negligence actions are basedon the premise that the defendant failed to takereasonable care to protect others, but some ac-tivities are so inherently or abnormally dan-gerous that injuries or losses can occur evenwhen the defendant exercises the utmost care.

To deal with such circumstances, the strictliability theory was developed. Under strict lia-bility, anyone who engages in certain risky ac-tivities is legally responsible without regard tofau l t ( i .e . , s t r ic t ly l iab le ) fo r any in ju r iesresulting from those activities. Many of theearly cases involved blasting and aerial spray-ing . Whether hazardous waste managementcan be seen as one of the categories of activitythat are subject to strict liability under commonlaw principles is not yet clear. l52 Several Stateshave by statute imposed strict liability on haz-ardous waste activities and the standard of lia-

bility for cleanup of hazardous waste releasesin the Clean Wate r Ac t , sec t ion 311 , andCERCLA cases is strict liability.

There are various formulations of the strictl i a b i l i ty s t a n d a rd r e c o g n iz e d in Ame r ic a ncour ts . Some ju r isd ic t ions ho ld tha t s t r ic tliability is absolute without regard to the degreeof care exercised. Other jurisdictions recognizesome limited defenses that allow a balancingof interests. A third formulation bases strictliability on the magnitude of the risks involvedand the relative ability of the parties to sustain

the risks of loss.153

Activities covered by strictliability differ from those that are consideredas negligence or public nuisance in that theyhave some social utility, even though a seriousrisk is imposed which is not a normal incidentof everyday life (so that the plaintiff would beunlikely or unable to avoid the risk). Strictliability awards compensation for the injuriesand losses suffered. Like negligence, it is in-voked “after the fact, ” i.e., after the injury hasoccurred. Strict liability eases the plaintiff’s

lszstrict ]iabi]ity for hazardous waste activities was found in

Department of Transportation v. PSC Resources, Inc., 175 N.J.Super 447, 419 A2d, 1151 Div. 1980). But a different conclusionwas reached in Elw ell v . Petro Processors, Inc., 364 So. 2d 604[La. App. 1978), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 575 (La. 1979).

I Sssee SO I (e) study group report at 122. See also NeW7 ]erse~”v. Ventron Corp, 182 N.]. Super. 210 (App. Div. 1981) where cur-rent and past owners of a mercur~’ processing plant were heldliable for costs of cleaning up the wastes dumped at the site andthe contamination of surface waters.




burden of proof somewhat by eliminating theneed to show “fault” and by limiting availabledefenses . However , the p la in t i f f s t i l l facessubstantia l evidentiary problems in demon-strating a causal connection or nexus betweenthe plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s haz-

ardous waste activit ies.Nuisance.—Nuisance, in essence, is a common

law remedy that can be invoked wheneverone’s use of land unreasonably interferes withanother’s use and enjoyment of a right. Thisright may be either a possessor interest in landin private nuisance actions, or a more generalright of the public (e. g., to be free from unsafeconditions or from unwarranted air, water, ornoise pollution) in public nuisance actions.Public nuisance and private nuisance actionsare distinct in origin and in the rights pro-

tected. However, in both actions, the courtsfrequently impose a balancing test that weighsthe relative social or economic utility of the ac-tivity involved against the rights of or harm suf-fered by the complaining party. In some haz-ardous waste cases, this balancing of the equi-ties may recognize the social necessity of haz-ardous waste facilities and deny or limit themonetary or injunctive re lief sought by theplaintiff as abatement of the nuisance. l54

A private nuisance is an unreasonable in-te r fe rence wi th a pe rson’s in te res t in theprivate use and enjoyment of land. The personbringing the nuisance action must be the onewhose possession of the land is impaired, i.e.,the owner or tenant. Private nuisance differsfrom trespass in that the interference with theuse or enjoyment of the property must be un-reasonable and significant. under modern caselaw, to be unreasonable, the nuisance must beshown to be the result of the defendant’s neg-ligent, intentional, or ultrahazardous activities.To be significant interference, it must be morethan the consequences of ordinary communi-t y act iv it y. T h e p r iv a t e n u i sa n ce t h e o ryadopted by the Restatement (Second) of Tortswould require a court to balance the “gravityof harm” suffered by the plaintiff against the

lmBOOrner v. Atlantic Cement CO., 72 Misc. 2d 834, 340 N.Y. S.Zd 9 (1972).

utility of the defendant’s conduct in determin-ing whether the conduct was unreasonable. l55

Nuisance actions have been successfully pur-sued in environmental pollution cases. l56 A c -tual damage or harm to the plaintiff’s land ora resulting injury need not occur for a nuisanceto be found. The threat of personal discomfortor disease from a hazardous waste facility orthe prospect of future losses from the impactsof the fac i l i ty ’s ac t iv i t ie s c rea tes an in te r-ference with the use and enjoyment of proper-ty. This threat is a sufficient basis for the is-suance of an injunction requiring removal of the nuisance. Proposed hazardous waste facil-ities similarly could be enjoined under a theoryof prospective nuisance—that the facility if built would cause interference with the plain-tiff’s use and enjoyment of land.

Nuisance actions are not limited to the per-son who created the nuisance, (e.g., the facili-ty operator or the anonymous dumper of tox-ic wastes). An innocent purchaser or owner of land on which an artificial condition createsa nuisance can be held liable if the new ownerfails to take action to abate the nuisance withina reasonable period of time after he discoversor should have discovered the condition. Un-like the plaintiff who must be in possession of the land affected, the person who created thenuisance but who transferred or sold the prop-erty on which it is located can be sued in anuisance action.

P u b l i c n u i sa n c e i s d e f in e d a s a n u n re a -sonable interference with a right common tothe community at large. The conduct is con-sidered unreasonable and, thus, a nuisance if its utility does not outweigh the gravity of theharm it produces. This test a llows a roughbalancing of the benefits and burdens from aparticular activity. Every state has a statutoryprovision authoriz ing suits to abate publicn u i s a n c e .157

lgsllestaternent (Second) of Torts, ~t~27.

l~private nuisance actions are appropriate for the interferencewith use and enjoyment created by noise, by odors, and otherair pollution, by water pollution and the contamination or pollu-tion of subsu rface waters. See cases cited by 301(e) stud y grou pat 105.lsT301(e) s tudy group report, vol. II at 171.



Ch . 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program q 361

Public nuisance actions differ from privatenuisance actions in that the right to be pro-tected is one enjoyed by the public at large andis not tied to interest in publicly owned land.The cause of action arises out of a defendant’sunreasonable use of his land for activities thatinterfere with this public right. Public nuisanceactions are commonly brought by public offi-c ia ls, however, many State public nuisancestatutes also authorize citizens to bring theseactions on behalf of the public. Public nuisanceactions are generally directed at obtaining in-

junctive relief for abatement of the nuisance.Private damages are not usually recoverable bypr iva te c i t izens asse r t ing pub l ic nu isanceclaims unless it can be shown that the damagesth e y h a v e su f fe re d a re in a d d i t io n to a n ddistinct from the general harm to the public in-

terest created by the nuisance. Many State lawsmake the violation of statute or regulation, suchas regulations governing hazardous waste fa-cilities, a public nuisance. A public nuisancecase may also require the weighing of equitiesbefore finding a nuisance. As in the privatenuisance case, the fact that a facility is per-mitted is not an absolute defense, although itmay be raised to show public recognition of the utility of the activity.

A private or public nuisance action can bepursued to enjoin the defendant from enteringinto an activity that will constitute a nuisance,

or from continuing a nuisance already begun,or to seek compensation for the damages suf-fered. Damages can be recovered for harm orloss to the plaintiff’s property and for any per-sonal injuries suffered as a consequence of thenuisance. A single nuisance action may seekmore than one remedy.

Generally, a prerequisite to injunctive relief is a finding by the court that the harm to thep l a i n t i f f i s i r r e p a r a b l e , i . e . , i t c a n n o t b eremedied by the payment of compensation, Of course, payment of compensation may not be

a complete remedy where the nuisance and itsharms are of a continuing nature.

Other remedies may also be fashioned by thecourt in a nuisance action, such as a combina-tion of damages and an injunction, a delayedinjunction, or an order for affirmative action.

A delayed injunction, which does not take ef-fect until a specified period of time has passed,may prove useful in developing technologyareas, where all possible adverse effects are notknown or the technology to minimize poten-tial risks is unavailable at present. The delaycould give the defendant an opportunity to con-sider various alternatives to cure the nuisance.Through the use of a remedy such as the de-layed injunction, the courts can effectivelybring pressure to force improved technologyand to minimize potential risks otherwise im-posed by hazardous waste management . 156

Trespass.—A right of action in trespass arisesout of the defendant’s interference with theplaintiff’s right to the exclusive enjoyment of his property. Originally, under common law,recovery under trespass provisions was ab-

solute upon showing of an actual invasion of the plaintiff’s property by the defendant or byan object or substance under the defendant’scontrol. Trespass by environmental pollutionwould seem to be another possible commonlaw remedy in hazardous waste cases. How-ever, most State courts today require that theinvasion be shown to be intentional, negligent,or the result of an ultrahazardous activity oro f a n a b n o r m a l o r u n r e a s o n a b l e u s e o f p roper ty .

Injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence

or high-risk activities might also be remediedby suing on a negligence or strict liabilitytheory instead of in trespass, since the de-fendant’s conduct is the major factual issue inall three cases. However, in some States, thelonger s ta tu te o f l imi ta t ions app l icab le totrespass cases may be advantageous in somec ircumstances .

A trespass is “intentional” under the generalrule adopted in the Restatement (Second) of Torts if the defendant acted purposefully toenter, lead, or set an object in motion thatalmost certa inly would come to rest on the

lS81n Vj]]age of Wjlsonville v. SCA Services, as a result of apublic nuisance suit, a State-permitted hazardous waste facilitywas ordered closed with all wastes to be exhumed and removedfrom the dump site, and the site decontaminated. Compliancewith the site closure and cleanup order was phased to allow com-pletion of necessary preparation studies. 77 Ill. App. 3d 618,396N.E. 2d 552 (1979), affd No. 10052885 (11]. May 22, 1981).

99-113 0 - 83 - 24




pla in t i f f ’s p roper ty .159 Except in the case of “midnight du mp ers, ” the plaintiff faces a dif-ficult burden in showing that the defendant in-tended that toxic waste consti tuents wouldmigrate onto the plaintiff’s property . Inten-tional action might be shown if the defendant

knew or should have known that rain, wind,or surface runoff would carry hazardous sub-stances onto the property. Whether land burialof hazardous substances with subsequent mi-gration of toxic constituents in ground waterwould be considered an intentional trespass isuncerta in . Several commentators have con-cluded that existing precedent would not sup-port such a finding because it would be difficultto demonstrate: 1) that trespass with groundwater transport was an “almost certain” resultof land burial and 2) that the defendant knewor should have known of such a probableresult .180 .

Trespass actions can result in a court orderbarring further trespass and requiring removalof the invasion and/ or the recovery of dam agesfor injuries or property loss resulting from theinvasion. There have been trespass cases in-volving air and water pollution where sub-stances have migrated onto the plaintiffs prop-erty from the defendant’s activities. 181 A ma-

jo r d i f f icu l ty in t respass ac t ions in some j u r i s d i c t i o n s i s t h a t t h e c o u r t s h a v e n o trecognized a landowners’s right to pure, un-

contaminated percolating ground water, soth a t e v e n i f a n in te n t io n a l in v a s io n we reshown, it might not result in liability. As inprivate nuisance actions, trespass cases requirethat the complaining party be in possession of the property affected. In trespass, there is nobalancing of the plaintiff’s exclusive right tothe use and enjoyment of his property againstthe social utility of the defendants activity orthe relative costs to the parties.

Barriers to Recovery. —In bringing these actions,plaintiffs face many procedural and eviden-

tiary problems. There are, as well, substantiallho~es~a~eme~~ (seco~~) of Torts, j\ 158 , 165 (1965) .

l~David, “Ground w ater Pollution: Case Law Theories for Re-lief’ 30 MO. L. Rev. 117 (1974): Davis, “Theories of Water Pollu-tion Litigation, ” 1971 Wise, L. Rev. 738; Phillips v. Sun Oil Co.,

307 N.Y. 328 , 121 N.E. Zd 249 (1954).IelSee 301(e) study group report at 101-104.

difficulties in gaining expansion of establishedlegal theories to cover hazardous waste cases,although a clear trend exists. Among the com-mon problems that are antic ipated in thesecases are the statute of limitations, proof of causation, identification of responsible parties,

and the availability of such theories as joint andseveral liability, or enterprise liability in casesinvolving multiple defendants.

Statute of limitations: The local rule thatlawsuits must be filed within a specified periodof time after the act that caused the harm, orthe discovery of the injury, can pose a barrierto private damage actions involving long-termchemical exposure, abandoned waste sites, dis-eases with long latency periods, or situationswhere contamination of hazardous waste is notreadily apparent. In such cases, victims may

be barred from filing a lawsuit before they areeven aware of their injuries. This difficulty isreduced somewhat in States that have adopteda discovery rule that starts the per iod dur ingwhich a lawsuit must be filed when the plain-tiff discovers the injury. l82

Proof of causation: The Superfund section301(e) study group concluded that the burdenon the plaintiff of proving that the injuries suf-fered were the result of the defendant’s con-duct may be a formidable problem in suits in-v o lv in g h a z a rd o u s wa s te . l83 De v e lo p in g th eevidence necessary to demonstrate l iabil i tymay involve expensive and detailed scientifictesting and presenting of expert testimony inseveral different fields. The costs of preparinga successful case may be so steep that onlythose cases involving potentially high damageawards would warrant incurring the expenseunder the prevailing practice of contingent feearrangements for the plaintiff’s a ttorneys.

Iden t i f ica t ion o f responsib le pa r t ie s : Insome cases, the victims may encounter difficul-ty in determining which parties to sue. Wherethe possible defendants can be identified, many

years may have elapsed since waste disposal.

18ZThe 301(e, stucly group report at 43-45. The report notes that39 jurisdictions have adopted some form of the discovery ruleeither by statute or judicial interpretation at 133 n.4.16sThe 301(e) study group report at 69-71.




The whereabouts of facility operators or gen-erators may be unknown, and companies mayhave changed ownership or may have gone outof business. In other cases it may be difficultto ascertain the original wastes or their sourcesso as to identify the responsible generators.

Joint and Several Liability/ Enterprise Lia-bility.—The availability to plaintiffs and topotentially responsible parties of theories thatcan be used to apportion fault and liability fordamages among a group of defendants can beof some advantage in hazardous waste caseswhen the responsible party cannot be distin-guished from other group members under theevidence available or when several defendantscontributed to the situation causing the injury.These theories can slightly ease the plaintiff’sburden of proof and can expand the pool of

responsible parties from which damages canbe recovered.

Insurance

Relevance to Waste Management

Insurance is one of the oldest and most com-monly used techniques for dealing with risks.Today, there are several different types of in-surance coverage available to hazardous wastefirms. Comprehensive General Liabili ty In-surance Policies offer full coverage for sudden

and accidental pollution on an “occurrence”basis (i.e., covering all claims arising fromevents occurring during the policy year when-ever the claim is filed), Environmental Impair-ment Insurance offers coverage for nonsuddenpollution incidents on a “claims made” basis(covering all claims made in the policy yearwithout respect to when the incident causingthem occurred), A third type of coverage, cur-rently available only to generators in the chem-ical industry, combines coverage for suddenand nonsudden pollution incidents in a singlecomprehensive contract on a claims made ba-

sis, Because of the lack of loss experience andthe relative infancy of risk assessment in thehazardous waste management a rea , insure rsare likely to move increasingly to the use of claims made policies for hazardous waste ac-tivities.

The impact of insurance depends largely onthe underlying rule of liability and the termsand availability of coverage. Payment of set-tlements and damage awards to injured par-ties is made part of a hazardous waste facili-ty’s ongoing operating costs through liabilityinsurance coverage , Premiums for liabilitycoverage are tied, to some extent, to the lossexperience of the particular facility, and thustort actions are a form of economic incentiveto avoid health and safety risks that may pro-duce a poor loss experience and ult imatelyhigher premiums. To the extent that premiumsare experience-rated, it is generally believedthat facility owners and operators will seek tominimize the sum of the cost of safety meas-ures, insurance costs, and uncovered liabilitycosts.

The availabil i ty and price structure of in-surance coverage may create significant incen-tives for management to act affirmatively toavoid losses due to environmental contamina-tion. While such losses may be covered by in-surance and therefore may not be incurred ini-tially by the insured party, such claims willsu b s ta n t i a l ly in c re a se p re miu ms , a n d lo ssavoidance can become economically prefer-ab le . Re l iance on an insurance mechan ismassumes that a private sector business will pro-vide valuable oversight of its hazardous wasteactivities, through routine inspection, monitor-ing, and risk evaluation, as well as eventuallythrough attempts to minimize premiums, in thetask of managing the risks from those activities.But insurers generally have been wary of pro-posals that would cast them in the role of sur-rogate regulators,

If insurance brings about the results expectedin theory, it can be a strong incentive to achievesome of the goals that otherwise would haveto be achieved solely through “command andcontrol” regulation. Insurance requirementsunder RCRA, CERCLA, and State programs

can be seen as complementary to the regulatoryrequirements,

On the other hand, insurance can blunt theincentives created by other regulatory andnonregulatory approaches to risk management.



364 qTechnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Insurance spreads hazardous waste risks overt ime , a n d a c ro ss th e in d u s t ry a mo n g l ik esituated firms and facil i t ies. This spreadingmay tend, in particular cases, to decrease theeconomic incentive to avoid health, safety, andenvironmental risks among individual gener-

ators, transporters, and facil i ty owners andoperators, unless they are somehow convincedthat others are undertaking similar avoidancemeasures.

Overall, the impact of insurance on the riskmanagement decision is an ambivalent one:Without insurance, the existing regulatory ornonregulatory incentives have little practicalimpact on judgment-proof parties. Insurancemakes available an amount of money to be usedto respond to adverse judgments. Insurancecompensation to vic tims of hazardous waste

activities often can be made without resort tothe courts, thus avoiding the delay, costs, andevidentiary burdens facing the plaintiffs inliability actions. Moreover, judgments requir-in g a b a te me n t o f o r c o mp e n sa t io n fo r th eadverse impacts of hazardous waste activitieswould lose their effectiveness as an incentivefor better waste management if generators,transporters, or facility operators could avoidthe financial consequences by simply going outof business.

For insurance to operate as an effective and

c o mp le me n ta ry me c h a n i sm in th e e x i s t in gFederal and State system: 1) insurance cov-erage for hazardous waste activities must beava i lab le and a ffo rdab le ; 2 ) the leve l andscope of coverage must be adequate for themagnitude of r isks insured; 3) the coveragemust continue after closure of the facility;and 4) more consistent and perhaps standard-i z e d r i sk a sse ssme n t p ro c e d u re s mu s t b eused .

EPA financial responsibil i ty requirementsfor hazardous waste treatment, storage, anddisposal facil i t ies require certa in minimumlevels of liability coverage either through an in-surance policy or self-insurance. EPA is cur-rently considering whether to promulgate rulesfor add i t iona l f inanc ia l responsib i l i ty re -quirements for corrective action at land dis-posal facilities.

Fees, Taxes, and Other Economic Incentives

to Encourage Alternatives to Land Disposal

One of the key assumptions in setting up anational regulatory program to deal with haz-ardous wastes was that as the program was im-

plemented, hazardous waste disposal costswould rise significantly, It would then becomeeconomically attractive for generators to adoptnew processes and to seek alternatives to landdisposal, Preliminary economic analyses of thecost impacts of the RCRA regulations, how-ever, appear to indicate that while the costs of compliance are significant, the cost increasesa re n o t o f su c h ma g n i tu d e a s to c re a te asubstantial economic incentive to shift to otherdisposal and treatment alternatives. By far themost significant impact of the interim statusstandards for land disposal operations was the

requirement to install a ground water monitor-ing system, but the cost per unit of waste de-posited varied significantly depending on thesize of the facility. EPA’s analysis of the costimpacts of the final land disposal rules indicatethat primary impacts will fall on small onsitelandfills and small surface impoundments, andthat significant economies of scale will dilutethe initial economic impacts at large commer-cial landfills. l84 Potentia lly , the most substan-tial cost component of the July 1982 land dis-posal regulations is corrective action (groundwater pumping and cleanup). However, cur-rently there is no requirement for operators todemonstrate their financial capability to carryout corrective actions to receive such a permit.

Because i t is now apparent that increasedregulatory compliance costs a lone might notbe significant enough to induce a change indisposal practices, many States are studyingthe effectiveness of various financial incen-tives to influence hazardous waste manage-ment activit ies. Among the most typical ap-proaches are fees, taxes, and direct financialor technical assistance to preferred manage-

ment technologies. Table 78 summarizes Statefee mechanisms; table 79 shows availability of tax incentives and bonds.

l~see discussion of regulatory impact analysis in the pream bleto the land disposal regulations, 47 F.R. 32,337-32,348, at 32,342,JUIY 26, 1982.




Table 78.—State Fee Mechanisms

Facilities Transporters GeneratorsAlabama . . . . .Alaska. ... . . .Arizona . . . . .Arkansas . . . . . .

California . . . . . .Colorado ... . . . .Connecticut . . .Delaware . . . . . . . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . .Idaho, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois. . . . . . .Indiana . . . .lowa . . . . . . .Kansas . . . . .Kentucky . . . . . .Louisiana . . . . . . . .Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maryland . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . .Minnesota ., . . . . . . . .Mississippi . . .Missouri . .Montana. ., . . . . . . . . .Nebraska ., . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . .New Jersey ..., . .New Mexico. . . . . . .New York . . . . .North Carolina. . . . . . .North Dakota. . . . . . . .Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma. ..., . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . .South Carolina . . . .South Dakota . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . .Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . ..., . . . .Washington . . . . . . . .West Virg in ia. . . . . , .Wisconsin . . .Wyoming ., . . . . . . . . .

I

—

—

P,A,M

T,F — — —

s —

P —

TT

—

P,TP,A,M

P,AP,A,M

P,AP

P,A —

TP,A,T

— — —

P,AP,M,T

s —

F —

P,A —

P,M —

P,A — —

P,A — — — — —

P,AP,A —

— — —

B

V,B,I — — — — — — — —

V,B — — — —

o —

v

v — —

v — — —

Bv

— — — —

V,B — — —

v — —

Q — — — — — — — —

—

T — —

T —

G —G,T — — —T

— —T

R,G

G — —

— —

TT,G — — — —T

— —

—

T — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — —

Key A = annual registration/other O = otherpenodlc fee P = permit appllcatton fee

B = base Q = quantityF = factllty fee R = registrationG = generator fee S = surchargeI = InspectIon T = tipptng fee

M = monitoflng/surveil lance fee V = vehicle registrationSOURCES ASTSWMO, SurveyforOTA, 1982, Cltlzens for aBetter Environment,

“Approachesto Hazardous Waste Management In Selected States;’

OTA Working Paper, December 1982, National Conference of StateLegislatures, l-fazardous Waste Managernerrf ASurvey ofState Leg/s-/af(on 1982(Denver, Colo 1982), The Council of State Governments,Waste &fanagernerrtlnfhe States (Lexington, Ky 1981), FredC HartAssoclatton, lnc (for EPA), ASurveyofState Fee Sysfernsfor#azard

ous Wasfekfanagernerrt Programs, EPA contract No 6841-5133, May25, 1982, and Nattonal Conference of State Legislatures, A Survey and Ana/ys(s of State Po/Icy Options To Encourage A/ fematlves foLand Dsposal of Hazardous Wasfe (Denver, Colo July 1981)

The creation of an economic incentive maybe only part of the reason for a State adoptingsuch an option. Some fees may be imposed todeter land disposal and, additionally, to pay foradministering the regulatory system, or to pro-

vide funds for research and development of alternatives, or for the State superfund for sitecleanups and victim compensation,

Facil it y Fees

A substantial number of States impose a feeor tax of some kind on hazardous waste treat-ment, storage, and disposal facilities. There is,as would be expected, a wide variation in thetypes and applicability of these charges and inthe disposition of the proceeds. Among the dif-ferent types of fees imposed are administrativefees for permit applications, licenses, inspec-tions, and similar government requirements,and tipping fees or surcharges levied on wastesreceived at facil i t ies which may or may notbe passed on to the generator.

Adm inistrative Fees

These fees range from minimal charges to as-sessments that are intended to reimburse theagency for the full cost of administering its pro-grams. There are three types of administrativefees for facilities: permit application fees orcharges for filing an initiaI application or per-mit modification; permit renewal or annualopera t ing fees o r o ther fees assessed on aper iod ic basis fo r opera t ing fac i l i t ie s ; andmonitoring or surveillance fees assessed forsite inspection visits or monitoring which maybe required as a condition of a permit,

The basis for these fees varies. For example,some States impose fees only on offsite facil-ities or exempt recyclers. State fees on hazard-ous waste facilities are set on one or more of

following criteria:

base fee—minimum charge with no varia-tion among facilities;onsite and offsite facilities;commercial or noncommercial facilities;size of the facility measured by capacity,number of units, or the area of the site;facility waste management category, i.e.,treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling;




Table 79.—State Fee Revenues (as of Apr. 1, 1982)

FY 1982 Hazardous Waste FY 1982 RCRA Hazardous Waste Program feeProgram Budget As a percent of As a percent of

State Total State share Revenue collected total program budget state matching share

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . $347,669” $65,777 $20,000 60/0 30 ”/0

California. . . . . . . . . . . . 7,686,012 4,384,628 4,384,628 a57 100

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,500 15,000 Very minor Very minor Very minorIndiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,172,587 293,147 Not collected yet o 0Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504,100 135,000 80,000 16 59Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . 872,883 149,805 87,000b 10 58Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000,000 960,000 900,000 45 94Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 564,000 300,000 300,000 53 100Massachusetts . . . . . . . 1,547,000 803,000 18,000Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,277,664 569,632 t + +

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . 797,082 147,082 208,100 26 100New Hampshire . . . . . . 531,000 325,000 t t tNew Jersey . . . . . . . . . . 1,981,929 740,520 200,000’ t tOhio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,123,540 953,592 558,000b 18 59Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599,285 127,211 76,128 13 60Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 720,302 233,827 Insignificant Insignificant InsignificantRhode Island. . . . . . . . . 271,884 235,000 Not collected yet o 0Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 1,839,000 768,000 495,000d 27 64West Virginia . . . . . . . . 792,000 198,000 + + +

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . 1,055,300 263,843 70,000 e 7 27tData not available.aAgency budget p pro osed for next fiscal year Includes expected fee revenue of $78 million.bAnnualized estimate.clncludes solid waste f e e ‘ eV e n u e

‘No fees collected yet This is the expected revenue for the fiscal year with collections starting In April 1982 In fiscal year 1983 the portion funded by fees is expectedto Increase to 40 percent of total program funding

‘N. fees collected yet. Expected yearly hazardous waste ‘evenues

SOURCES NGA/ASTSWMO Survey, March 1982, Fred C. Hart & Associates, Inc (for EPA), A Survey of State Fee Systems for tii%?ardous Wasfe A4anagefr?enf Programs,U S EPA contract No 68-01-5133, May 25, 1982; reprinted in Hazardous Waste Report, vol. 3, Sept 6, 1982

q

q

waste handling technology used at the fa-cility: landfills, deep well injection, landapplication, i n c i n e r a t i o n , s u r f a c e i m -poundment, chemical or biological treat-

ment; andvolume or quantity of wastes received ordisposed of at the facility.

Transporter Fees.—At least 14 States levy feeson hazardous waste transporters. Transporterfees are generally imposed as vehicle fees (acharge on each vehicle used to haul hazardouswaste), base fees (generally levied on each firmengaged in hauling hazardous waste), or someother type of fees. Three States utilize othertypes of transporter fees. Maine charges trans-porters an import fee on waste generated in

other States. Tennessee bases its fee on thea mo u n t o f wa s te s t r a n sp o r te d . Ca l i fo rn iacharges an annual inspection fee for wastehaulers.

Generator Fees.—California, Kentucky, Mis-souri, Florida, and Ohio impose generator fees.

These States use three different types of fees:t ipping registra tion, and waste generation.

Tipping Fees.—Tipping fees are charges as-sessed on the receipt of waste at a facility. They

are considered generator fees because they arepaid either directly by the generator or by thefacility operator. In the latter instance, thefacility collects the fees “as a trustee of theState” and forwards the receipts to the Stateagency. Tipping fees in the form of surchargesare imposed at facilities where the generatorpays a charge for waste. These surcharge feesmay exempt onsite disposal operations whereno fee is paid.

Registration Fees.—Kentucky requires gener-ators to pay an annual registration fee based

on the amount of hazardous waste to be gen-erated. Besides providing a source of revenue,this type of charge can provide reasonably ac-curate data on waste generation in a State .Such information helps with receipt projec-tions from other fees as well as other aspectsof the program.




Waste Generation Fee.—This type of fee is a taxon hazardous waste generation. It is assesseddirectly on the generator. Missouri sets a $1p e r to n n e c h a rg e w i th a ma x imu m a n n u a lassessment of $10,000.

Other Tax Mechanisms

A s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e n e g a t i v e e c o n o m i c

i n c e n t i v e s o f i m p o s i n g f e e s a n d t a x e s t o i n -

c r e a s e t h e c o s t s o f h a z a r d o u s w a s t e d i s p o s a l ,

s o m e S t a t e s u s e p o s i t i v e e c o n o m i c m e c h a -

n i s m s s u c h a s t a x i n c e n t i v e s a n d f i n a n c i a l

a s s i s t a n c e t o e n c o u r a g e p r o p e r w a s t e d i s p o s a l

p r a c t i c e s a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a l t e r n a t i v e

m a n a g e m e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s , Fo r e x a m p l e , s e v -

e r a l S t a t e s p r o v i d e f o r l i m i t e d t a x e x e m p t i o n s

o r c r e d i t s fo r b u s i n e s s e q u i p m e n t a n d r e a l

e s t a t e t a x e s f o r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l e q u i p m e n t o r

h a z a r d o u s w a s t e t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s , By e x -c l u d i n g t h e f a c i l i t y f r o m p a y m e n t o f h i g h e r

t a x e s , a b e n e f i t i s b e s t o w e d , A c c e l e r a t e d d e -

p r e c i a t i o n i s a n o t h e r t a x d e v i c e t o g i v e f a v o r e d

t r e a t m e n t t o h a z a r d o u s w a s t e t e c h n o l o g i e s .

O t h e r S t a t e s a l l o w u s e o f t a x - e x e m p t b o n d s a s

f i n a n c i n g f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d c o n s t r u c -

t i o n o f h a z a r d o u s w a s t e f a c i l i t i e s . S o m e S t a t e s

f a v o r a l t e r n a t i v e t r e a t m e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s s u c h

a s r e c y c l i n g o r i n c i n e r a t o r s o v e r l a n d d i s p o s a l

f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e i r t a x i n c e n t i v e p r o g r a m s ,

Use of Fee Revenues

Proceeds from these fees can be put to vari-ous uses. The fees can be deposited to a specialaccount to fund agency hazardous waste reg-u l a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s , d e p o s i t e d t o g e n e r a lrevenues, or deposited to a special fund for adesignated use (e.g., as for cleaning up aban-doned sites or sponsoring research and devel-opment on alternative waste management tech-nologies, )

While there appear to be a varie ty of feemechanisms available to and used by States,

the amounts reported by States as generatedthrough this mechanism in most instances arerela tively small compared to funding needs.Fees, however, are an appealing source of revenue for State programs in a time of declin-ing Federal grants (see table 79). Considering

the amount of money received and the vari-ous restrictions on its use, it is clear that feesalone are not currently adequate to meet Staterevenue needs for enforcing hazardous wastep ro g ra ms .

At a time of increasing regulatory activity,and with the prospect of declining Federal con-t r ibu t ions , t h e s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n s i nreliance on existing State fee mechanisms in-clude the following:

q

q

q

q

The administrative fees frequently do notcover full agency costs and would have tobe raised substantially if they were usedto sustain agency activities. (A permit ap-plication of $5,000 or even $25,000 maynot cover the costs of technical review andhearings for a large landfill facility.)

Fee generation may not provide a stable,predictable source of revenue. Fees basedon administrative procedures are depend-ent on a flow of permit applications andrenewals. Value and quantity fees are subject to fluctuations in business cycles.

T h e s c h e d u l e o f c o s t s m a y n o t b etailored to different types of facilities; thusthe fee charged might not be proportionateto the administrative costs incurred (e.g.,onsite storage tanks may not require thesame level of a ttention as a commerciallandfill).The State government structure may lim-it the imposition or use of certain feesthrough statutory or constitutional provi-s ions . In such ins tances , the ab i l i ty o f States to respond quickly to reduced Fed-eral grants by promptly imposing or rais-ing fees may be significantly constrainedby State law or constitutional considera-tions, such as biannual meetings of the leg-islature or the inability to obtain passageof the required legislation. Michigan’s feestructure to fund its waste facility and clo-

sure fund was held unconstitutional be-cause the fee was not high enough to coverthe costs of potential post-closure liability.T h e fe e s ma y a l r e a d y b e d e d ic a te d toa n o th e r ma jo r S ta te p ro g ra m, su c h a scleanup of existing or abandoned hazard-




ous waste sites or compensation of victimsof hazardous waste activit ies. using thefees to finance the regulatory programwould detract from other efforts.

State “ Superfunds”

Many States have enacted laws which aresimilar to CERCLA that provide for emergen-cy response and cleanup for hazardous sub-stance releases. These State trust funds may befinanced from special State taxes, from feesassessed on hazardous waste generators, trans-porters, and facility operators, or may includeState general revenues appropria tions.

At least two State funds, California and NewJersey, provide for the compensation of victimsof hazardous waste activities. These States thencan proceed against the responsible parties forreimbursement of any compensation paid to“innocent” victims. Table 80 summarizes theavailability and scope of State superfunds forhazardous waste c leanups.

one of the unresolved issues involving coor-d in a t io n o f S ta te su p e r fu n d a n d CE RCL Acleanups is the ex ten t o f the l imi ta t ion in

CERCLA on State taxes that duplicate the oiland chemical taxes in CERCLA. Some industrygroups have argued that section 114(c) limitsthe use of State superfund monies as the State’sc o n t r i b u t i n g s h a r e i n C E R C L A c l e a n u p sbecause the State taxes would then be imposed

for the same purpose as Federal Superfundtaxes. In a case challenging New Jersey’s taxo n c h e mic a l a n d o i l p ro d u c t s , t h e F e d e ra lcourts deferred to State court jurisdiction. TheState courts interpretating State law have con-cluded that New Jersey’s tax is not in conflictwith section I14(c) of CERCLA.

In addition to imposing a tax financing atrust fund mechanism for cleanup of hazardouswaste dumps, at least 15 States have createdstatutory provisions concerning liability forcleanup costs for those which cause or contribute

to hazardous waste dumps that must be clean-ed up. The extent of liability and conditions forrecovery actions vary significantly among theS ta te s . 16 5

10SFor a more exhaustive discussion see 301(e) study groupreport vol. II and the NSCL report, l fazardous Wa s t e Manage

men t in th e Sta t es , 1982 .

Part Ill: Implementation Issues of the Current Regulatory System

Technology Development andEnvironmental Protection

Because Subtitle C of the Resource Recoveryand Reclamation Act (RCRA) is primarily di-rected at controlling hazardous waste at dispos-al, the point where the waste enters the envi-ronment, little attention is given to reducingthe amount of waste at the source of genera-tion. Subtitle C focuses on establishing properoperating standards for treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities (TSDFS). Other provisions of RCRA authorize research and developmentand informational activities to promote recy-cling, resource recovery, and waste reduction.However, these programs have largely beenunderfunded and ineffective in dealing withhazardous waste problems. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) solid and hazardous

waste programs contain only a few incentivesto encourage the use or development of re-cycling and recovery techniques, source reduc-tion methods, or other techniques to reduce thehazardous characteristics of the waste. Over-all, the effects of the current regulations con-t inue to favor d isposa l technolog ies , pa r-t icularly landfil l ing, over other waste man-agement options.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and the CleanWater Act (CWA), impose technology-forcingstandards on industrial polluters, thus stimulat-ing generator participation in the developmentof e f fec t ive con tro l s t ra teg ies . In con tras t ,RCRA standards for hazardous waste genera-tors require only waste identification, mainte-nance of certain records and reports, and prop-er packing, labeling, and manifesting of wastes




Table 80.—Summary of State Superfund Legislation

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x .

Fund financing:

. . . . . . . . . . . x . x , . . . .

Uses of fund:

. . . x .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . .Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X X X XColorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . .Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X XDelaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . X X X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X .....X XGeorgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . .Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . .Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XKentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X XLouisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X X X X X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X XMaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X XMaryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XMichigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X XMinnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XNew Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X XNew Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X XNew Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X X . . . .North Carolina. .,... . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... XNorth Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . xOklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .South Carolina . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X XSouth Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . .Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . .Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SOURCES National Conference of state Legislatures, Ha?ardous Wasfe Managernenf ASurveyofSfate Legis/at/on, 1982(Denver, Colo. 1982~The Council of State

Governments, Waste Managerrrenf In the States (Lexington, Ky 1981~ National Conference of State Legislatures, A Survey and Ana/ysis of Sfate Po/icyOptIorIs to Encourage A/temaf/ves to Land Disposa/ o( Hazardous Waste (Denver, Colo July 1981L and OTA Staff research




before shipment offsite. This difference in envi-ronmental regulatory schemes between RCRA,CAA, and CWA is in part explained by the factthat disposal of hazardous solid waste does notnecessarily occur at the place it is generated;thus, to control the environmental effects of

hazardous waste disposal, it was not necessaryto impose standards or limits on the amountof hazardous waste generated.

In considering passage of RCRA, Congresswas concerned that such limits on waste gener-ation might prove to be a complex, and perhapsunworkable, strategy with the potential for in-ordinate disruption of industrial activities. Rec-ognizing that generation of solid and hazard-ous waste is an unavoidable consequence of a modern industrial society, Congress opted in-stead for a longer term, indirect strategy. Bysign if ican t ly inc reasing the costs o f wastedisposal through regulation of waste facilities,industria l generators would be pressured toreduce their output of hazardous waste and top ro mo te d e v e lo p me n t o f a l t e rn a t iv e wa s tetreatment technologies.

Recycling and Resource Recovery Technology

EPA has relied primarily on various exemp-tions and exclusions from hazardous waste reg-ulations to promote recycling and resourcerecovery activities. This approach has beencr i t ic ized as an insuff ic ien t incen t ive fo r

recycling and also for providing inadequateprotection against mishandling of such waste.EPA is considering further changes in RCRAregulations that wouId exclude some recover-able waste materials from being classified assolid waste, if the waste is reclaimed and usedonsite as process feedstock. 166 In contrast, noexclusion would be made if the waste is sentoffsite to another firm which reclaims the ma-terial for use as feedstock, or if the processwaste is not used by the firm that recovers it,or if the waste is first stored onsite and thenreclaimed. Without this exclusion, the materialis considered as solid waste and potentia llyhazardous waste subject to subtitle C regula-tions. EPA would also reclassify waste burned

1eF347 F.R. SS,SBO, at 55,584, Dec. 1a , 1982,

as fuel, or as a component of fuel, as solidwaste subject to RCRA regulations. A max-imum period for onsite accumulation of re-claimable materials would be set, and reclama-tion of a significant portion of the waste wouldbe required annually to qualify for the exemp-

tion. Although the approach is not without itsproblems, i t would significantly extend theperiod of time that hazardous waste could beheld. It might promote increased generator ef-forts a t reducing the amount of hazardouswaste produced. Offsite or commercial recy-cling activities and the burning of waste as fuelwould be subject to RCRA regulations and,where appropriate, standards would be set forrecycling facilities.

The suggested changes exempting generatorrecycling activities could have serious con-se q u e n c e s fo r so me c o mme rc ia l h a z a rd o u swaste facilities that derive a substantial por-t ion of their revenues from the sale of ma-teria ls recla imed from solid and hazardouswaste. These commercial facilities will con-tinue to be required to meet RCRA regulationsfor operation and storage permits for recycledwastes, and it could be difficult for them tomaintain a competitive position in the marketin reclaimed materia ls.

Land Disposal Regulations

On July 26, 1982, EPA published interim finaI

regulations for permitting land disposal facil-ities (landfills, surface impoundments, wastepiles, and land treatment units).167 EPA devel-oped a two-tiered strategy in these regulations.

1.

2.

a liquids management strategy to mini-mize the formation of leachate and to con-tain the hazardous waste constituents inappropria te ly designed facil i t ies; anda ground water protection and responsestrategy consisting of monitoring to detectand track any migration of hazardous con-stituents if the facilities fail to contain the

waste, and corrective action to remove thecontaminants from ground water if certainspec if ied concen tra t ion leve ls a re ex-ceeded.

“747 F.R, 32,274-32,388.




Giv e n th e in a d e q u a c y a n d u n c e r t a in t i e sabout current containment designs, such a two-tiered approach presents substantial problems.EPA’s strategy focuses on the effectiveness of remedial action once contamination has oc-curred, ra ther than preventive measures for

protecting human health and the environment,There is only limited experience in cleaningground water and soils contaminated with in-dustria l hazardous waste . Moreover, EPA’smonitoring requirements may not result in col-lection of adequate data for identifying groundwater contamination. If land disposal of a llhazard levels of wastes is allowed to continue(as the July 1982 rules seem to allow), it is essen-tial that a rigorous monitoring program be im-plemented at all such facilities. Without it therecan be little assurance that exposure of humansand ecosystems to hazardous constituents willb e p re v e n te d th ro u g h e a r ly d e te c t io n a n dprompt corrective action,

Analysis of the design technology used inland disposal facilities (presented inch. 5) in-dicates that current technology cannot assurec o mp le te c o n ta in me n t o f h a z a rd o u s wa s teconstituents. EPA has also acknowledged thatall land disposal sites eventually will releasemobile constituents to the environment. Someof the technical difficulties associated withland disposal containment strategies are sum-I l l c l l

1.

2.

Studies of existing landfills that incorpo-rated the designs suggested by EPA indi-cate that leakage will occur. The causes of these liner failures have been attributed toone or more design, construction, or oper-ation errors, No state-of-the-art technologylandfill design can be considered as pro-viding an absolutely secure containmentsystem over many decades, Additional insitu and ambient monitoring of new andexisting facilities is necessary to evaluatetheir performance.

There is little long-term operating experi-ence with liner and cover materials. Allliner materials are vulnerable to failuresthat increase the rate of liquid migrationthrough the liner.

3.

4.

Current experience suggests that few fail-ures of liners in landfill facilities can berepaired; rather, corrective action oftenmust be used to reduce the effects of envi-ro n me n ta l c o n ta min a t io n .The fate of constituents released from a

facility is uncertain. Some may becomeimmobilized in soil; others may migrateand be incorporated in food and watersources. An adequately designed mon-itoring system is thus an essential elementof any protection strategy to detect con-tamination promptly and to assist in theformulation of effective remedial meas-ures,

Major Criticism of the Land Disposal Regulations,–

OTA has surveyed several reviews of theseregulations made by various groups.168 Several

points of concern are common to all.A general criticism made by environmental

groups, citizen groups, academics, and indus-try is that the regulations use very general per-formance standards rather numerical perform-ance standards or specific design standards.This was done to promote flexibility in the per-mit process so that specifications could be de-veloped for each facility. This approach placesa very significant burden on the permit writerto determine whether a particular facility pro-vides adequate protection of human health

and the environment. While most environ-mental regulatory strategies require some ex-ercise of judgment by the permit writer, theEPA land disposal regulations do so to an un-usual degree. The general performance stand-ards do not provide objective guidelines against

1E8David Burmaster, “Critique of the Monitoring Pro\’ isionsin EPA’s Interim Final Regulations for Hazardous Waste I,and-fills, ” OTA Working Paper, Oct. 18, 1982: Environmental I)e-

fense Fund (ED F], “[;omments on the Interim Final HazardousWaste I.and Disposal Regulation s,” No\. 23, 1982: I,eague of Women Voters of the [Jnited States, letter to Rita La\relle, Oct.5, 1982; testimony before the Subcommittee on Natural Re-sources, Agriculture Research and Environ ment of the House

Committee on Science and Technology, Notr. 30, 1982; K. W.Brown, Texas A&M University; H. Johnson, National Solid

Waste Nlanagernent Association; D, W, Miller, Geraghty &Miller, Inc.; N, V. Mossholder, Stablex Corp.; P. A. Palmer,Chemical h4anufacturers Association, H. (~. Robinson, Hazard-ous Waste Treatment Council,




which to judge the adequacy of a facility, With-out these guidelines, facility operators cannotanticipate what will be required of them forpermitting, and key decisions about the suffi-ciency of particular land disposal permit ap-plications will be left to the judgment of the per-

mit writers. This is a critical problem as theavailability of necessary technical expertise(e.g., in ground water monitoring, correctiveaction, and risk assessment) is limited through-ou t t he Na t ion . Th i s s i t ua t i on can l ead touneven interpretation and enforcement stand-ards of the land disposal. The effectiveness of public participation in permitting is also dimin-ished because concerned ci t izens have l i t t leguidance as to the adequacy of the facility’s de-sign and operation specifications or the appro-priateness of the permit writer’s interpretation.

The land disposal regulations allow waiversand exempt ions f rom ce r t a in pe r fo rmancestandards to be made by the permitting author-ity if there is a lower potential for exposure tohazardous wastes or their consti tuents . Theregulations do not require that more stringentpermit conditions be added for managementof more hazardous materials or for those situa-tions with potentially high risk to human healthand the environment, although the preamblesuggests that the permit writer could imposesuch st ipulat ions upon considerat ion of thehazard levels of the wastes and the specific site

conditions.The regulations provide that land disposal fa-

cilities are not to be constructed within seis-mically active areas. New and existing facilitiesin a 100-year flood plain must be constructedto withstand flooding. The regulations do notrequire considerat ion of other potential nat-u r a l ca t a s t rophes , o r o f t he p ro t ec t i on o f drinking water sources, wildl ife habitat , orthe presence of other sensitive environments.

Exemption From Detection Monitoring Program

The regulations grant a waiver from detec-tion monitoring requirements for land disposaldesigns using double liners with a leak-detec-tion system between the liners, The exemptionis made to encourage use of the state-of-the-art

approach which EPA apparently assumes is ef-fective in containing the waste and detectingany liquid migration. Little information is avail-able, however, about the integrity and reliabil-ity of such systems over time, The primary lin-ers of several facilities with similar design fea-

tures have begun to leak early in the life of thefacility. 169 Environmental groups argue that thewaiver is not needed as an incentive to usestate-of-the-art design, and that EPA could re-quire al l faci l i t ies to use that configurat ion.Moreove r , w i thou t a de t ec t i on mon i to r ings y s t e m i n p l a c e , t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h edes ign canno t be de t e rmined , backgroundwater quali ty wil l not be established beforecontamination, and a post-closure monitor-ing system wil l not be in place to indicateleakage and tr igger the correct ive act ion re-quirement. An addit ional complicat ion with

the provision is disagreement over what con-stitutes evidence of a leak in such facilities. Therules provide that the presence of any liquidbetween the liners is presumed to indicate leak-age. If liquid is detected, the liner must be re-paired promptly to maintain the ground watermonitoring exemption, If such repairs are notmade, the facility must immediately initiate ad e t e c t i o n m o n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m ( w h i c h m a y r e -quire a permit modificat ion). Some industryrepresentatives advocate a modification of EPArules to specify that a leak exists when thede t ec t ion sys t em ind ica t e s t he p r e sence o f

“leachate” rather than “liquid,” between theliners. These industry critics argue that the oc-currence of liquid between liners is expectedin the landfill operation and does not indicatea leak in the system. The use of leak-detectionsystems should provide earlier and more reli-able warnings of potential migration of wasteconsti tuents . An important advantage is theg r e a t e r a b i l i t y t o t a k e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n ,especially if the system is designed for pump-out control. The criteria used for determiningfa i l u r e w i l l r equ i r e ca r e fu l eva lua t ion , i n -

189Testimony of William Sanjour before the House Committee

on Science and Technology, supra, note 168. Peter Montegue,“Four Secure Landfills in New jersey—A Study in the State ofthe Art in Shallow Burial Waste Disposal Technology, ” (draftreport) [Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University, 1981).




e l u d i n g l e a c h a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d s i t econditions.

The exemption removes any opportunity forobtaining data on the reliable performance of these facilities. Environmentalists and some

industry critics have suggested that all facil-ities, regardless of the type of design, shouldbe required to implement adequately designeddetection monitoring programs. This wouldserve as a backup for the leak-detection sys-tem and could serve to verify that liquid doesnot migrate through such liners and result ine n v i ro n me n ta l c o n ta min a t io n .

Exemption of Existing Portions. -Existing p o r -

t i o n s o f l a n d d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d

t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e s a m e d e s i g n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s

n e w f a c i l i t i e s o r u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d a f t e r p e r m i t

i s s u a n c e , e . g . , i n s t a ll a t io n o f s i n g le l i n e r s an dl e a c h a t e c o l l e c t i o n s y s t e m s , E P A ’ s d e c i s i o n t o

p r o v i d e a l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n i s n o t b a s e d o n t h e

f e a s i b i l i t y o f i n s t a l l i n g s u c h c o n t a i n m e n t b u t

o n c o n c e r n f o r t h e p o t e n t i a l i n t e r r u p t i o n o f

f a c i l i t y o p e r a t i o n d u r i n g t h e r e t r o f i t t i n g p r o c -

e s s a n d o n E P A ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e 1 9 8 0

R C R A a m e n d m e n t s p r o v i d i n g f o r d i s t i n c t i o n s

b e t w e e n n e w a n d e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s i n s e t t i n g

p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d s . T h e “ e x i s t i n g p o r -

t i o n s ” e x e m p t i o n c o u l d h a v e s e r i o u s c o n s e -

q u e n c e s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f h u m a n h e a l t h a n d

t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f

s a f e r t r e a t m e n t a n d d i s p o s a l a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h ee x i s t i n g a c t i v e p o r t i o n s o f i n t e r i m s t a t u s l a n d

d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l

l i n e r s a n d l e a c h a t e c o l l e c t i o n s y s t e m s . M o r e -

o v e r , t h e r u l e s d o n o t r e q u i r e s u r f a c e i m p o u n d -

m e n t s t o i n s t a l l l e a c h a t e c o l l e c t i o n s y s t e m s —

a s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 1 9 81

s t a n d a r d s f o r s u r f a c e s t o r a g e i m p o u n d m e n t s .

T h e “ e x i s t i n g p o r t i o n ” i s d e f i n e d a s t h e “ l a n d

s u r f a c e a r e a o f a n e x i s t i n g w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t

u n i t d e s c r i b e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l P a r t A p e r m i t a p -

p l i c a t i o n o n w h i c h w a s t e s h a v e b e e n p l a c e d

b e f o r e t h e i s s u a n c e o f a f i n a l p e r m i t . ’ ’ 1 7 0 E P A

h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t e a c h s u r f a c e i m p o u n d -

m e n t , o r l a n d f i l l c e l l o r t r e n c h i s a u n i t . A n y

l a t e r a l e x p a n s i o n f r o m t h e “ P a r t A “ s u r f a c e

a r e a i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d a n “ e x i s t i n g ” p o r t i o n ,.

‘7047 F,R, 32,349, ]uly 26, 1982; to be codified at 40 CFR 260.10,

but EPA does not limit the depth or height towhich waste may be placed within this area be-fore or after permit issuance. EPA estimatesthat it could take at least 5 years to review andpermit all existing land disposal facilities.

During the period before permit issuance,existing interim status facilities can continueto construct and use additional new landfil land surface impoundment un i ts wi thou t in -s ta l l ing l ine rs and leacha te co l lec t ion sys-tems, even where such insta lla tion is c lear-ly feasible without disrupting operations. Theonly apparent limit on construction and use of additional unlined units is that they may notgo beyond the boundaries of the original PartA application and may not significantly in-crease the facility’s design capacity withoutEPA approval, These units can continue to be

used without re trofit t ing after the permit isissued. In contrast, a new facility which musthave a permit for construction and operationwould have to install liners and leachate col-lection systems at each of its units during thesame period,

The continued use of these unlined existingfacilities without any attempt at containmentor re trofit t ing could result in si tuations en-dangering public health and the environmentand require costly remedial action. Evidenceof problems experienced with past waste dis-

posal practices is well-documented (see table81).

Table 81 .—Contamination of Ground Waterby Industrial Wastes

Fraction attributed to:Number of Industrial Landfill

State incidents wastea Ieachateb

—.

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 30 ”/0 260/o

Connecticut . . . . . . . 64 44 —Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 35 —Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 21 28

New Jersey . . . . . . . . 379 40 —South Carolina . . . . . 89 31 —apr~..U~ablY ~uCh ~Onta~lnation Would & related to hazardous Industrial Waste

for the most part, rather than ordinary solld wastebLandftlls could include both subtttle C and D types, but presumably the source

of the contamination IS hazardous waste

SOURCE V I Pye, “Groundwater Contam!natlon In the Un i ted S ta tes , ”September 1982 (date based on numerous surveys which aredocumented)




Existing units of land disposal facilities thatreceive waste after Jan. 26, 1983, will be sub-

ject to ground water protection monitoring andcorrective action requirements (these are called“regulated units”). However, because of thelimitations inherent in the detection monitor-in g p ro g ra m ( s imi la r to th e in te r im s t a tu sstandards (ISS) monitoring requirements dis-cussed later in this section), contamination of ground water sources by existing facilities inmany cases is not likely to be detected untilp o l lu t io n h a s r e a c h e d se r io u s p ro p o r t io n s .The outcome of EPA’s decision on applicabilityof containment and ground water protectionstandards to existing facilities is likely to en-courage the continued use of existing unlinedland disposal units, with potentially increasedcontamination of ground water sources. An

alternative would be to define “existing” por-tion as only those facility units or portions of facilities that were in use before the effectivedate of the RCRA regulations—e.g., Jan. 26,1983, or before Nov. 19, 1980. Additionally,all existing facilities could be reviewed to iden-tify those where retrofitting or installation of other containment technology is technicallyfeasible.

Disposal of Liquids in Landfills

Although the first tier of land disposal strat-egy is to limit the amount of liquid in the facil-i ty that could form Ieachate or increase thehydraulic head, the rules allow disposal of bulkand containerized liquids if the facility has atleast one liner and a leachate collection andremoval system. In allowing this practice, EPAexpressed the opinion that few existing land-fills would qualify. The leachate collected mustbe removed from the landfill and treated. Thistreatment could mean placing the liquids backinto the landfill, resulting in continuous recy-cling of the liquid. For certain wastes, thiscould result in possible decreases in the con-

centration of hazardous consti tuents. Crit icsemphasize that free liquids can migrate readi-ly through a landfill, possibly dissolving harm-ful constituents that may be encountered in themig ra t io n p a th . T h e a d e q u a c y a n d e f fe c -tiveness of leachate collection and removal

systems over long p eriods of time in land fillshave not been demonstrated. EPA rules pro-vide that the collection system must operateover the life of the facility and at closure untilleachate is no longer produced. This could bein excess of 30 years. Recycling liquids throughthe landfil l could delay and complicate theeventual treatment of leachate or liquids. Fur-thermore, the continued presence of high vol-umes of l iquids in a facil i ty only serves toenhance potential damage to side walls andbottom liners.

Impact on Development of Other Technologies

Overall, the costs of complying with EPA’sregulations of waste management appear tofavor the continued use of land disposal tech-niques over other a lternatives, such as in-

c inera t ion , o r b io log ica l o r chemica l t rea t -ments. Many in the waste management indus-try expected that implementation of RCRAwould make alternative treatment technologiesmo re c o s t c o mp e t i t iv e a n d e n c o u ra g e th egrowth of an industrial segment devoted to thealternative treatment of hazardous wastes. Thishas not been the case: ’7’

To begin with, the construction of a hightechnology facility requires a large amount of capital. Furthermore, a great deal of that cap-ital mu st be invested w ith the prosp ect of yearsof waiting before it can begin to generate aprofit, Because of these two factors, disposalof toxic wastes by high technology . . . costsmore than does unregulated Iandfilling. There-fore, there cannot be an economic return onthe invested capital for such a facility so longas toxic waste which can be readily inciner-ated, treated, or stabilized is nonetheless di-rected to landfills because they are cheaper.Appar ently it has been the perception of thosewho might have invested the capital that theEPA is unwilling to adopt a set of regulationswhich will result in high technology disposalbeing an economically viable alternative.

“lStatement of H. Clay Robinson for the Hazardous WasteTreatment Council in hearings on EPA’s land disposal regula-tions before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricul-tural Research, and the Environment of the House Committeeon Science and Technology, 97th Cong., 2d sess., Nov. 30, 1982,at p. 2.




Several factors support this conclusion: 1) Ex-emptions for existing portions of land disposalfacilities allow them to escape more stringentdesign and performance standards required of new facilities and units; 2) There ar e insuff i -cient restrictions on the type of wastes that ca n

be placed in land disposal facilities; and 3) Dif-ferences in the quality and stringency of regula-tions for management technologies create a n

economic bias toward continued use of landdisposal.

For example, as discussed in chapter 5, regu-lations for incinerators force this technologyto perform much closer to its operational l im-its, In c in e ra to r s mu s t a c h ie v e a d e s t r u c t i o nremoval efficiency (DRE) of 99.99 percent o r

better. This is a dif ficu l t s tandard fo r s o m efacilities to meet. In contrast, the land disposal

regulations provide only limited incentives forth e uses of more advanced landfill design (dou-ble liners with leak-detection systems and withexternal monitoring). EPA, in acknowledgingthat land disposal facilties eventually will r e-

lease hazardous waste constituents to the envi-ronment, established the second-tier monitor-ing and remedial action strategy. By imposingstringent requirements for technologies whichresult in immediate , permanent destruction(e.g., i n ci n e r a t o r s ) a n d l e s s s t r i n g e n t r e -

quirements for other technologies, such as landdisposal (which may require costly corrective

action, where feasible) EPA is effectively pro-moting the use of the latter. At the same time,little attention is given to exploring incentivesthat would encourage the use of those technol-o g ie s th a t r e d u c e th e h a z a rd o f in d u s t r i a lwastes.

Appropriate Use of Land Disposal Technology

It is widely ackn owledged th at there are ap-propriate circumstances for use of land dis-posal technologies for some hazardouswastes. For example, treatment technologies,

such as incineration, produce residues thatmust ultimately be disposed. Landfills are ap-

propriate facilities for containment of detox-ified and immobilized waste provided that thefacility is adequa te ly designed and has an ef-

fec t ive moni to r ing p rogram. Biodegradab le

waste constituents can be deposited in the landif the facility can safely contain the wastes forthe length of time required for degradation of the material. Treatment methods ar e ava i lab lethat can immobilize most, and reduce the tox-icity of many, toxic meta ls be fore d isposa l .

Regulations for land disposal reflecting them o s t a d v a n c e d s t a t e o f t r e a tme n t , c o n ta in -ment, and monitoring technologies could pro-mote the mandate of RCRA for protection of human health and the environment by: 1) re-ducing the risks associated with land disposaland 2) making the immediate costs of land dis-p o sa l mo re c o mp a ra b le to o th e r t r e a tme n toptions.

There are substantial long-term and indirectcosts for containment options that the regula-

tions dono t

address, such asthe costs to

f u t u r egenerations for increased health problems orthe costs to p ro v id e r e me d ia l a c t io n a t l a n d -fills in the future, The actual level of these costsand the extent to which they ar e incorpora tedinto the operational expenditures of a facilitywil l depend on: 1) Federa l requ irements fo rdemonstrating financial responsibility for re-medial actions and liabilities for damages, and2) the extent of effective Federal enforcement.Current polic ies in these areas result in in-complete internalization of these costs, skew-ing the management options toward land dis-

posal. However, not all generators have optedfor the least costly alternative. Some assessedthe potential long-term costs, liabilities, anduncertainties associated with land disposal op-tions and have chosen treatment and waste re-duction techniques. While many companiesmay wish to take this type of voluntary action,

f o r a v a r i e t y o f r e a s o n s t h e y a r e u n a b l e t o d o

s o — e . g . , t h e s i z e o f t h e f i r m a n d o f i t s c o m -

p e t i t i v e p o s i t i o n m a y p r e c l u d e t h e a d d i t i o n a l

c a p i t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s r e q u i r e d .

Monitoring

Given the potentia l magnitude of e n v i r o n -

m e n t a l a n d h e a l t h p r o b l e m s t h a t c o u l d r e s u l t

t h r o u g h m i s m a n a g e m e n t o f h a z a r d o u s w a s t e ,

a d e q u a t e m o n i t o r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r R C R A -

p e r m i t t e d f a c i l i t i e s a r e e s s e n t i a l , C u r r e n t E P A




regulations require air emissions and processmonitoring for incinerators, and ground watermonitoring for land disposal faci l i t ies . Al-though other environmental laws may imposeadd i t i ona l mon i to r ing r equ i r emen t s , t he segenerally have not been applied to RCRA fa-

cilities.

A general cr i t icism of the RCRA regula-tions for hazardous waste management facil-ities is that the monitoring requirements maybe insufficient to detect environmental con-t amina t ion . P roces s and sou rce mon i to r inghas been specified, however, ambient monitor-ing is primarily limited to ground water mon-i toring at land disposal faci l i t ies , Althoughemissions of hazardous volatile organic com-pounds from surface impoundments and land-fills has been documented as contributing to

air pollut ion problems, monitoring to deter-mine if these emissions pose a health hazardis currently not required under EPA regula-tions. The provisions for waivers and variancesfrom various monitoring requirements alsomeans that there may be no way to detect con-tamination during operation and after closure.

More expansive use of ambient monitoringholds the greatest potential for minimizingrisks that might result from hazardous wastemanagement . Ambient moni tor ing providesinformation on the appearance of statisticallysignificant levels of contaminants in air, soil,water, and biota. By taking representative sam-ples from potentially affected locations and en-vironmental media and then analyzing themfor a broad spectrum of potential contaminantsit is possible to control risks reliably. If con-tamination of air, water, or land can be de-tected suff iciently early (before widespreadcontamination and actual damage) and correc-tive action taken, the human exposure will ber e d u c e d , A m b i e n t m o n i t o r i n g , t h e r e f o r e ,should be given a greater role in the RCRAregula tory program.

RCRA requires periodic operator inspectionsof equipment and structures at all hazardouswaste facilities to assure that the facility is incompliance with applicable standards. The fre-quency of these inspections is based on the po-

tential for deterioration or malfunction of par-t icular equipment within each faci l i ty. EPAregulat ions establish specif ic inspection fre-quencies for different facilities and provide thatmore detailed inspection programs are to beset in the permit. Storage tanks, for example,

must be inspected weekly to detect leaks andfugitive emissions. Inspection and monitoringrecords must be kept onsite for a period of 3years.

R e g u l a t i o n s f o r t r e a t m e n t a n d s t o r a g efacilities primarily rely on visual inspectionsand process monitoring to detect malfunctionsor possible releases into the environment. Mon-itoring requirements for incinerat ion includeprocess monitoring (feed-rate temperature, car-bon monoxide, etc.) and the destruction re-moval efficiency rate for principal organic haz-

ardous constituents in the waste feed and onemission rates of hydrogen chloride and par-ticulate. Required monitoring of actual emis-sions from an incinerator is l imited to tr ialburns conducted as part of the permitting proc-ess. As discussed in chapter 5, because of thecriteria used to select principal organic hazard-ous consti tuents and the uncertaint ies aboutthe adequacy of surrogate measures for DRE,this approach has been questioned.

Land Disposal

The monitoring requirements for landfills areseverely limited in scope. With the exemptionof land treatment facilities, primary emphasisis given to ground water monitoring, and thatrequi rement can be waived under some c i r -cumstances. Testing of air, soils, vegetation,and other organisms for possible contamina-tion is not required.

In general, the detection monitoring require-ments at land disposal facilities may not serveas a reliable and effective early warning of en-vironmental contamination. Signif icant con-tamination can occur before statistically signif-

icant changes in water quality can be detected.Some industry commenters have suggestedthat the EPA-suggested statistical method usedto determine changes in ground water qualitymay tend to give a very high number of false




p o s i t i v e s ( i n d i c a t i n g c o n t a m i n a t i o n w h e r e

n o n e e x i s t s ) .

U n d e r t h e c o m p l i a n c e m o n i t o r i n g r e g u l a -

t i o n s , a s w i t h d e t e c t i o n m o n i t o r i n g , s e v e r e c o n -

t a m i n a t i o n c o u l d o c c u r b e f o r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -

n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t e d b e t w e e n b a c k -

g r o u n d l e v e l s a n d g r o u n d w a t e r s a m p l e s . A c -c o r d i n g t o E P A , a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d o l o g i e s h a v e

b e e n s p e c i f i e d f o r a l l b u t 9 o f 3 8 7 A p p e n d i x

V I I I c o n s t i t u e n t s t h a t d u r i n g c o m p l i a n c e m o n -

i t o r i n g m u s t b e t e s t e d f o r a n n u a l l y . H o w e v e r ,

t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t i n c h e m i c a l a n a l y s i s m a k e s

i t d i f f i c u l t t o a n a l y z e f o r a l l 3 8 7 h a z a r d o u s

w a s t e c o n s t i t u e n t s e v e n i f i t i s r e q u i r e d o n l y

o n c e a y e a r . M o r e o v e r , f a c i l i t i e s m a y p e t i t i o n

t o d r o p c e r t a in A p p e n d i x V I I I c o n s t i t u e n t s

f r o m r e q u i r e d m o n i t o r i n g . A l t h o u g h t e s t i n g f o r

3 8 7 A p p e n d i x V I I I c o n s t i t u e n t s m a y a p p e a r

b u r d e n s o m e , t h e s e s u b s t a n c e s r e p r e s e n t o n l y

a p o r t i o n o f t h e h a z a r d o u s w a s t e , a n d r e a c t i o n

p r o d u c t s t h a t c o u l d b e p r e s e n t i n g r o u n d w a t e r

f r o m a l e a k i n g l a n d d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t y .

S a m p l i n g is a c r i t i c a l a n d c u r r e n t l y i n e x a c t

s t e p i n a n y m o n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m . E P A g r o u n d

w a t e r m o n i t o r i n g r e g u l a t i o n s f o r i n t e r i m s t a t u s

a n d p e r m i t t e d f a c i l i t i e s p r o v i d e l i t t l e g u i d a n c e

i n d e s i g n i n g m o n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m s f o r p a r t i c u -

l a r f a c i l i t i e s . T h e m i n i m u m n u m b e r a n d f r e -

q u e n c y o f s a m p l e s r e q u i r e d m a y n o t b e a d e -

q u a t e f o r c o l l e c t i o n o f m e a n i n g f u l d a t a . T h e

r e g u l a t i o n s p l a c e t h e b u r d e n o n t h e f a c i l i t y

o p e r a t o r f o r d e s i g n i n g a n d t h e p e r m i t w r i t e rf o r a p p r o v i n g a n a p p r o p r i a t e m o n i t o r i n g p r o -

g r a m a n d s a m p l i n g s c h e d u l e t o p r o v i d e “ r e p -

r e s e n t a t i v e ” m e a s u r e s o f w a t e r q u a l i t y a n d t o

d e t e c t p o s s i b l e c o n t a m i n a t i o n . M o r e f r e q u e n t

s a m p l i n g a t m o r e l o c a t i o n s m i g h t p r o v i d e b e t -

t e r i n f o r m a t i o n o n , a n d r e d u c e u n c e r t a i n t i e s

a b o u t , ( c o n s t i t u e n t b e h a v i o r i n l a n d f i l l s . R e g a r d -

l e s s o f t h e s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e u s e d , d i f -

f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n b a c k g r o u n d a n d t h e m o n i -

t o r i n g s i g n a l u s i n g o n l y a s m a l l n u m b e r o f s a m -

p l e s w o u l d h a v e t o b e v e r y l a r g e ( i . e . , i n s o m e

c a s e s , o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e c h a n g e s ) b e f o r e s t a -

t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e s w o u l d b e i d e n t i -

f i e d . T h u s , g r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n c o u l d

b e s u b s t a n t i a l b e f o r e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s v e r i f i e d

t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e s h a d o c c u r r e d .

Seasonal variations also can influence con-stituent concentrations. Unless particular careis taken in the t iming of a sampling effort ,q u a r t e r ly o r se mia n n u a l sa mp l in g p e r io d smight not reflect these variations adequately,and thus misleading conclusions may be drawn.

Location and Number of Sampling Wells .—Properlocation, depth, and installation of monitoringwells is critical to obtaining adequate and rep-resentative environmental samples of groundwater to establish background levels and tomeasure any contamination. The number of monitoring wells is also critical because of thedifficulty in predicting location of a plumebefore migration has occurred. EPA rules ap-ply a general standard that the number andlocation of monitoring wells be sufficient tomeasure background levels unaffected by thefacility and to immediately detect any migra-tion of waste constituents from the facility.EPA has suggested that a minimum numbermight be one upgradient well and three down-gradient wells. Given the uncerta inties sur-rounding plume behavior and frequent lack of hydro log ica l in format ion , th ree moni to r ingwells may not be adequate. A 1977 EPA docu-ment recommended at least one downgradientwell for every 250 ft of downgradient si teborder. However because of the complexity of many ground water systems there appear to beno universally acceptable rule of thumb thatcould be applied.172

Figure 24 illustrates a hypothetical problemrelated to well location. Because of the posi-t ion of the plume, contamination of groundwater is noted only in well B. The concent r a -

t i o n o f c o n t a m i n a n t s i n a p l u m e c a n v a r y

s h a r p l y o v e r s h o r t d i s t a n c e s . I f t h e p l u m e a t

w e l l B c a r r i e s a l o w c o n c e n t r a t i o n , c o n t a m i n a -

t i o n w o u l d a p p e a r s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r t h a n i t

i s i n f a c t , B y t h e t i m e c o n t a m i n a t i o n r e a c h e s

w e l l C , a g o o d f r a c t i o n o f t h i s a q u i f e r a l r e a d y

w o u l d b e p o l l u t e d . T y p i c a l c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n

i n i t i a t e d a t t h i s l a t e s t a g e i n p l u m e m i g r a t i o n

m i g h t n o t b e a d e q u a t e t o r e s t o r e t h e q u a l i t y o f ———-

‘ ‘ ( ‘ ,s. E l’A, }’1”()( (’(/ [ 11’(’.s ,Il(ifl(l(ll / [ )1 ’ [;/ ’()[111(/ 11’,i / ( ’1’ ,\ l[)Jllt[)[’-

111~ rl f .%)/ 1(/ i \ ;; $ ~( ~~1 \ { J ( ), \ , l ) 1<’d[’ 1/ 1 fl(].~, l~f),\)5~)(l/S\\’-[; 11, Allxllst1977, ]). 41



Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program 379

compliance monitoring program, This will gen-erally require a modification of the permit tospecify the ground water protection standard.(For existing facilities, where possible contam-ination is indicated during permit review, EPAwill require immediate implementation of a

compliance monitoring program as a conditionof the initial permit. ) The ground water pro-tection standard consists of four e lements:

1$

2.

3.

4.

th e h a z a rd o u s c o n s t i tu e n t s to b e mo n i -tored;the concentration of each hazardous con-stituent that triggers the corrective actionrequirement (the compliance level);the compliance point at which the level of contaminants is to be measured; andth e c o mp l ia n c e p e r io d o v e r wh ic h th eg r o u n d w a t e r p r o t e c t i o n s t a n d a r d i s a p -

p l i e d .

I n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n l i m i t s f o r

t h e c o n t a m i n a n t s , t h e R e g i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r

w i l l u s e o n e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a :

q

q

q

t h e b a c k g r o u n d l e v e l o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t i n

t h e g r o u n d w a t e r ; o r

t h e m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n l i m i t s ( M C L )

f o r t h e 1 4 h a z a r d o u s c o n s t i t u e n t s w h i c h

h a v e b e e n s e t u n d e r t h e S a f e D r i n k i n g

W a t e r A c t N a t i o n a l i n t e r i m P r i m a r y

D r i n k i n g W a t e r S t a n d a r d s , i f t h e b a c k -

g r o u n d l e v e l i s b e l o w t h e M C L ; o r

a n a l t e r n a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n l i m i t i f t h e f a c i l -i t y o w n e r o r o p e r a t o r c a n d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t

t h e c o n s t i t u e n t w i l l n o t p o s e a p r e s e n t o r

p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d t o h u m a n h e a l t h o r t h e

e n v i r o n m e n t a s l o n g a s t h e a l t e r n a t e c o n -

c e n t r a t i o n l i m i t i s n o t e x c e e d e d .

D u r i n g c o m p l i a n c e m o n i t o r i n g , E P A w i l l r e -

q u i r e t e s t i n g f o r a l l o f t h e 3 8 7 A p p e n d i x V I I I

t o x i c c o n s t i t u e n t s a t l e a s t a n n u a l l y . E P A h a s

n o t e s t a b l i s h e d a c c e p t a b l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n l e v e l s

f o r m o s t o f t h e s e h a z a r d o u s c o n s t i t u e n t s ; t h e r e -

f o r e “ b a c k g r o u n d l e v e l ” w i l l b e t h e p r e d o m i -

n a n t g r o u n d w a t e r p r o t e c t i o n s t an d a r d u s e d .

O n e c o n c e r n i s t h a t t h e h a z a r d o u s c o n s t i t u -

e n t s s e l e c t e d f o r d e t e c t i o n a n d c o m p l i a n c e

m o n i t o r i n g m a y n o t b e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e

r a n g e o f s u b s t a n c e s l e a c h i n g i n t o g r o u n d w a t e r

f r o m t h e f a c i l i t y . A n a d d i t i o n a l c o n c e r n i s t h a t

background levels may not provide adequateprotection of public health and the environ-ment in some areas, particularly if there is al-ready some uncorrected contamination frompast waste disposal practices a t or near thefacility. The land disposal regulations do not

specify that wells establishing background wa-ter quality be located so as to avoid contamina-tion by waste migration from nonregulatedwaste management units in the waste manage-me n t a re a .173

The second standard of pollution up to theestablished MCLS for drinking water gives thefacil i ty an additional margin of permissiblepollution before corrective action is requiredin cases where contamination exceeds back-ground levels. The maximum contaminant lim-its were adopted in 1975 based largely on the

1962 Public Health Service Drinking WaterStandards, including standards for bacteria ,turbidity, 10 inorganic ions, and 6 persistentpesticides. These standards originally were in-tended to set minimum requirements for drink-ing water quality in public waste systems andnot as measures of acceptable environmentalcontamination for ground water.

Approval of an alternate concentration limitcould allow contamination in excess of back-ground or of the MCLS in individual cases. Theburden of establishing an alternate concentra-tion limit is on the facility operator. The alter-nate concentration limit or “narrative criteria”is probably the most controversial of the pro-tection standards because it is set largely ona site-specific basis. The regulations specifyfactors for the Regional Administrator to con-sider in deciding whether to approve an alter-nate concentration limit for compliance moni-toring at a facility where possible ground watercontamination has been indicated. In decidingif the constituent will not pose a substantialpresent or potential hazard to human health orthe environment, the Administrator will con-

sider such factors as potential adverse effectson surface and ground water quality; the char-acteristics of the waste; its potential for migra-tion; hydrological characteristics of the facil-ity and surrounding area; the rate and direc-

“’See 47 F,R. 32,352; to be codified at 40 [;FR 264.97 (a)[l ).




t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r f l o w ; d i s t a n c e t o c u r r e n t

a n d f u t u r e g r o u n d w a t e r u s e r s ; o t h e r s o u r c e s

o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n ; p o t e n t i a l d a m a g e t o t h e e n v i -

r o n m e n t ; a n d t h e p e r s i s t e n c e a n d p e r m a n e n c e

o f a n y e f f e c t s o f e x p o s u r e .

Critics of the alternate concentration limitargue that establish men t of acceptab le levelsof contamination on a case-by-case basisraises significant p ub lic policy issues relatedto potential exposure to carcinogenic, muta-genic, embryotoxic, teratogenic, or otherwisetoxic sub stances that shou ld n ot be left to thediscretion of the Regional Administrator orState permit writer, but rather should be re-solved on a uniform national basis.

Hazard/Risk Classification

In the initial development of regulations fori m p l e m e n t i n g t h e R C R A m a n d a t e , E P A c h o s e

n o t t o u s e a w a s t e h a z a r d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s y s t e m

b e c a u s e :1 7 4

1. EPA considered that none of the proposedsystems was adequate for distinguishingdifferences among industrial wastes; and

2. the Agency considered that the regulationsachieved the objectives of a hazard classi-fication system.

EPA stated its intention that waste manage-ment regulations would eventually be tailored

to reflect differences in potential hazards of wastes, as well as differences in environmentalconditions surrounding the facility site. Cur-rent regulations for waste identification andfacility permits include provisions that involvesome evaluation of the degree of hazard or riskposed by the waste, but only in the most quali-tative and site-specific ways.

At certain points in the process of listing anddelisting hazardous wastes, assessments of haz-ard levels are possible, but EPA’s decis ions are

not based on any comprehensive degree-of-haz-ard system based on scientific criteria open toexternal review. The generic lists of hazardouswastes include those materials which are con-sidered by EPA to be the most hazardous, and

‘7445 F.R. 33,164, May 19, 1980.

for which the most information concerninghealth and environmental impact was avail-able. In deciding to list a waste, EPA can con-sider such factors as toxicity, mobility, persist-ence, and possibil i t ies of mismanagement,

EPA does distinguish between different haz-ardous wastes in the RCRA regulations by des-ignating some listed wastes as “acute hazard-ous wastes’’ 175 or “toxic wastes. ’’176 U n d e rEPA’s small generator exemption, generallyavailable to firms that generate or accumulatewaste in amoun ts less than 1,000 kg/ month, theexemption level for wastes that are designatedas either acutely hazardous or toxic is reducedto 1 kg/ month. There does not appear to be asound techn ica l bas is fo r dec id ing whichwastes are acutely hazardous or toxic wastes.

EPA regulations authorize waivers of some

facility standards for certain types of hazard-ous waste. For example, EPA exempts inciner-ators that burn waste deemed hazardous solelybecause it is ignitable, corrosive, or reactivefrom some of the interim sta tus incineratorstandards and from some of the permit stand-a rds , if the operator demonstrates that thewaste would not reasonably contain any Ap-pendix VIII toxic constituents. EPA adoptedthe exemption because such wastes do not posethe hazards that the interim status and finaltechnical facility standards for incinerators areintended to control.177

Current regulations suggest areas where for-mal risk-assessment methodologies might beused to assist decisionmakers, such as in estab-lishing individual facil i ty permitt ing condi-tions, in granting variances or waivers fromground water monitoring requirements, or ingranting variances in liability insurance cover-age.

EPA considered the use of quantitative riskassessment as part of its hazardous waste regu-latory scheme in the February 1981, proposed

land disposal regulations “environmental per-formance standards. ’’1781T5Ao cFR 261.33(e) (1982).

1 7 6 4 0 CFR xjI.ss (fJ (1982).“’See the Jan. 23, 1981, Phase 11 incinerator standards pream-

ble, 46 F.R. 7666.“ 846 F.R. 7666.




Industry critics, who had earlier advocatedthe use of more flexible performance standardsrather than design standards, characterized theproposed EPA risk-assessment approach as“potentially nightmarish in application. ” Toconduct the risk assessment, applicants would

have to supply detailed hydrological studiesand submit health effects data. EPA informallyestimated that such backup studies might costas much as $1 million per facility. In May 1981,EPA published a notice that it was encounter-ing “profound conceptual difficulties” in theproposed risk-assessment approach and soughtfurther comment, The July 1982 land disposalregulations did not require the use of formalquantita tive risk assessments in permitt ingfacilities or in granting variances.

EPA’s January 1981 proposed variance pro-

cedure for permitted incinerators also wouldhave incorporated the use of quantitative riskassessment on a case-specific basis. In permit-ting incinerators, it would have allowed a moredetailed consideration of factors related to pro-tection of human health and the environmentnot addressed in the 99.99 percent DRE per-formance standard (e .g . , the absence of anylimit on the actual mass of hazardous constitu-ents emitted), site- and waste-specific factors,toxicity, incinerator design, location, climate,and population distribution. EPA observed thatuse of risk analysis could provide flexibility in

determining the necessary level of protection.In publishing its revised incinerator standard

in June 1982, EPA deferred action on the pro-posed use of risk assessment but did not ruleout its eventual application.179 EPA noted thata risk analysis of the type proposed requiresextensive data, which are rarely available andwhich therefore must be collected either direct-ly or simulated by computer model, The accu-racy and precision of the data and models usedmust then be analyzed before meaningful riskanalysis can be conducted, A primary goal of

EPA’s ongoing regu la to ry impac t ana lysis(RIA) is to characterize the risks to humanhealth and the environment associated with theincineration of hazardous waste, According to

‘7’47 F.R. 27,518, June 24, 1982,

EPA, “the RIA will provide valuable informa-tion regarding the feasibil i ty of conductingsite-specific risk assessments, therefore any ac-tion on the January 1981 proposaI for use of risk assessment to be used in setting variancesfrom the performance standard would be pre-

mature . ’180 EPA’s risk-cost policy model dis-cussed in the appendix to this chapter is theprincipal assessment model being used in itsregulatory impact analysis.

Certain solid and hazardous wastes are ex-cluded or exempted from RCRA regulation bystatute and by rule, These exceptions frequent-ly have been made without any assessment of the inherent hazard of the wastes or the poten-tial effects on human health or the environmentfrom improper handling of these wastes, Incontrast , l isted waste and mixtures of l isted

wastes must be managed as hazardous wastewithout respect to the concentrations of suchhazardous constituents or their degree of haz-ard until and unless they are delisted. Criticsargue that this ad hoc system of exemptionsa n d e x c l u s i o n s a l l o w s c e r t a i n p o t e n t i a l l yhazardous waste to escape proper managementor oversight. Exempted or excluded materials,regardless of the reason for, or the status of,the exemption, can be buried in subtitle D land-fills which may not adequately contain thesewastes. Because of the design of these facilities,hazardous constituents potentially could be re-

leased into the environment.One of the most controversial exemptions is

the small quantity exemption. Wastes fromsmall generators are not tracked through themanifest system and can be treated or disposedof either in permitted hazardous waste facilitiesor in subtitle D sanitary 1andfilIs. EPA incIudedthis initial exemption in its regulatory programbecause of the administrative problems in over-seeing thousands of small generators, such asdrycleaners, gas stations, and paint stores. Theexemption was based on administrative con-

venience and not on the hazard posed by thewaste and its unregulated disposal.

A report by the Subcommittee on Oversightand Investigations of the House Committee on

180Jd,



382 q Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Conrol

Interstate and Foreign Commerce concludedthat:

small generators who produce especiallydangerous hazardous waste will not be ade-quately regulated. The amount of waste pro-duced should not be the only criterion consid-

ered. The degree of hazard posed by the w astegenerated is, in the Subcommittee’s opinion,much more important.l8l

Some supporters of the small quantity ex-emption argue that a high rate of dilution willassumedly take place when a limited amountof hazardous material is disposed with largeamounts of nonhazardous substances. How-ever, there is l i t t le evidence to support thisassumption. Sanitary or municipal landfills inindustrial regions will frequently receive smallquantit ies of hazardous wastes from several

sources so that the overall load of hazardouswaste in these landfills, which were not de-signed to contain them, could be substantial.If the waste is primarily low-hazard materialthat is rapidly degraded, there may not be aserious problem. If, however, the material ishighly toxic, the consequences could be severe.The proposed National Priority List containsmany solid waste landfills that received hazard-ous waste from firms that probably would bec o n s id e re d sma l l g e n e ra to r s u n d e r c u r re n trules. Past disposal practices at these sites posesubstantial threats today to human health and

the environment. Under a small generator ex-emption that focuses on the quantity of thewaste and not the degree of hazard that i tposes, these inadequate disposal practices willcon t inue .

Risk Management

The use of various methods for quantitativeevaluations of risk is receiving increasing at-tention in the Federal hazardous waste pro-grams under RCRA and the ComprehensiveEnvironmental, Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA). Examples of differentrisk estimation approaches include:

lm s u~omm i t t e e on ove r s igh t and 1nvestigations, Committeeon interstate and Foreign Com merce, Hazardous Waste Disposa l

(Committee Print), 96th Cong. , Ist sess (1979).

1.

2.

3.

Risk

estimations of the risk associated withoperation of particular management facil-ities, used in granting waivers or variancesto RCRA regulations;risk/ cost models to be used in p olicy andregulatory development for RCRA; and

use of the hazard ranking system in identi-fying priority sites for Superfund cleanup.

Estimation

In deciding whether a facility qualifies fora waiver or variance of certain RCRA regula-tions, the rules specify that the potential forharm to human hea l th and the env ironmentmust be considered. For example, land disposalfacilities can be exempted from ground watermonitoring programs if it is shown that thereis low potential for migration of the waste from

the facility to drinking water sources. Such riskestimates are generally of a quali ta tive and judgmental nature and do not follow any speci-fied or formalized quantitative methodology.As discussed above, EPA has considered incor-porating the use of quantitative risk-assessmentt e c h n iq u e s in th e p e rmi t t in g o f h a z a rd o u swaste land disposal facilities and incinerators.The tools available for performing risk assess-ment are not yet at final stages of development;therefore, results generated must be interpretedcautiously if they are to be incorporated intothe decisionmaking process. The difficulties of

using risk-assessment tools are generated pri-marily by limitations on the assumptions usedin these models. Generalizations may be inac-curate for specific sites, inadequate data basesmay be used, criteria for assessing hazard andrisks are lacking, and long-range performancecannot be predicted using currently availabledata.

A recent study prepared by Engineering Sci-ence for the Chemical Manufacturers Associa-tion attempted to estimate risks associated withinc inera to rs and landf i l l s . l82 Certa in gener ic

prob lems were emphasized :

laZEngineering Science, Comparative Evahlatiorl Of inciner-

ators and Landf i l l s for Hazardous Waste Management , reportfor the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D. C.,1982].




material. This latter site, in comparison withthe first, would receive a lower score basedonly on volume, although the hazard is equal.

2. Low-population areas will tend to receivea lo we r sc o re th a n h ig h -p o p u la t io n a re a susing the HRS, making i t le ss l ike ly tha tCERCLA funds for remedial action would beallocated to sites in these mostly rural areas,without regard to the relative number of per-sons actually exposed and the nature of thehazard. One major component of the HRS isbased on the size of the population served. If 100 or fewer persons are being served by athreatened water source, the score would beless than if a larger number of people were in-volved. While it is reasonable to expect thatthose sites near urban centers may present athreat to large numbers of people, this is not

always the case. For example, if the dilutionpotential were large (i.e., constituents from thesite migrate toward a large river), the actual ex-posure dose to the population may be quitesmall. The number of people served by a poten-tial water source is only an indicator of thepopulation at risk; it should be emphasized thatth e n u mb e r o f p e o p le a c tu a l ly e x p o se d tohazardous constituents may not be proportion-al to the population served. If the HRS is usedto determine allocation of funds to prioritysites, then CERCLA funds will be used onlywhen large numbers of people maybe exposed,

and may not be allocated when relatively fewpeople are actually exposed, without regard forthe degree of hazard posed by a site.

3. Another component of the score is basedon distance to some specified point of expo-sure. For ground water, it is the distance to thenearest well drawing water from an aquifer;for surface water, it represents the distance tothe closest water intakes; and for air, it is thedistance to the nearest sensitive environments.prior to a release from a site, these are reason-able factors to be used. The greatest hazard is

presumed to be located nearest the site in ques-tion. Following a release from a site, however,distance to an exposure point has only margin-al significance for the degree of hazard posed.Because of the mobility characteristics of con-taminant plumes within ground water aquifers,

it is possible that a well located 3 miles froma site could have higher concentrations of haz-ardous constituents than a well located only2,OO O ft from it. The important factor after con-stituents have been released to the environmentis whether direct evidenc:e of contamination

exists at any exposure point.In addition to these three specific problems,

a more general criticism of the HRS is that noprovisions exist for incorporating additionaltechnical information about a site. The HRShas merit as a tool for processing substantialamounts of information on many sites. Certaintypes of technical information, however, thatcan be helpful for assessing relative degrees of hazard are not used. Such information wouldinclude:

10

2.

3.

4.

5.

amounts and kinds of observed releases(e.g., whether a release involves the mosthazardous substances at a site);possible attenuation of the released constit-uents along a route of transport;particularly sensitive populations receiv-ing known doses;transient populations that may receiveacute exposures; andp o p u la t io n s at risk, which ar e located a t

distances greater than the 3-mile limit im-posed by the HRS.

At issue is the extent to which the currentprocedure may lead to inaccurate conclusionsabout the hazards posed by any site. It is con-ceivable that a truly hazardous site may notscore sufficiently high to rece ive a t ten t ionand that a site, which may pose a re la t ive lylower threat, could receive a score that sug-gests high hazard. I t should be possible t o

develop methodology so that HRS scores re-flect a c tu a l h a z a rd . F o r e x a mp le , p ro b le msassociated with both waste quantity and pop-u la t io n ca n be resolved by assigning a m a x -

imum score for both of these factors whenever

the toxicity-persistence Score is above a certa inlevel. The criticism concerning distance to ex-

posure point could be addressed either by ad-ding another factor to the scoring system thatindicated direct evidence of contamination at

exposure points, or by replacing the distance




resented by different levels—high, medium, orlow.

Any model that will be used to develop policyand set priorities for regulatory reform shoulddescribe realistic conditions as closely as possi-ble. The risk/ cost policy mod el incorporates in-

adequate data management practices and un-realistic measures of human health risks; thus,the results could lead to policies and regulatorychanges that have detrimental rather than ben-eficial impact on a national waste managementapproach,

The data base includes some wastes that cur-ren t ly a re considered nonhazardous and a reregulated under Subtitle D of RCRA (solid, non-hazardous wastes). EPA is attempting to estab-lish subtitle C policies and regulations usinga data base that is a mix of hazardous and non-

hazardous substances. The technologies con-sidered as major s i n g l e t r e a tme n t s fo r th ewa s te s in th i s mo d e l a re in c in e ra t io n a n dchemical fixation/ stabilization. Available infor-mation concerning waste management optionssuggests that these are not the major alterna-tives currently used.

The measures used to assess risk for variousenvironmental conditions are so simplistic asto yield inaccurate estimates:

1 . Flow rate of surface water is the on l ym e a s u r e u s e d t o a s s e s s a s s i m i l a t i v e c a p a c -

ity. The potential for assimilation in anyw a t e r s y s t e m a c t u a l l y d e p e n d s o n a v a r i e t y

o f f a c t o r s , o f w h i c h f l o w r a t e i s o n l y o n e .

2 . T h e o n l y m e a s u r e u s e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e

c o n t a m i n a t i o n p o t e n t i a l o f g r o u n d w a t e r

s o u r c e s i s s o i l p e r m e a b i l i t y . T h i s o v e r s i m -

p l i f i e s t h e i n f l u e n c e d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s h a v e

o n g r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n a n d d o e s

n o t a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e p o t e n t i a l

m i g r a t i o n t h r o u g h s o i l o r m o v e m e n t o f a

p l u m e o f c o n s t i t u e n t s t h r o u g h g r o u n d

w a t e r .

3 . p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y n e a r a f a c i l i t y i s a s -

s u m e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e p o p u l a t i o n a t r i s k .

T h i s i s i n a c c u r a t e , a s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a

p o p u l a t i o n o r i n d i v i d u a l s a t r i s k d e p e n d s

o n s e v e r a l e x p o s u r e f a c t o r s a n d i n d i v i d u a l




sensitivities to the constituents involved,more than the numbers of people residingnear a facility.

Modifications made to risk scores give dis-proportionate and unjustified weight to d ilu-tion capability and size of the nearby popula-

tion without considering the actual environ-mental fate of the constituents. As the modelis formulated, a persistent compound releasedinto an environment with a low-populationdensity could receive a lower risk score thana biodegradable constituent released at a loca-tion with a high-population density; thus, theactual risk posed by a waste may be misrepre-sented through the use of this methodology.

Regardless of which waste or technology isincorporated within a W-E-T combination, therisk scores decrease with decreasing popula-tion density. Because of the way costs havebeen identified for the various treatment op-tions, there is a bias in favor of land disposal.Thus, results of this model will represent landdisposal located in areas of low-populationdensity as having the most favorable costsand risks when compared with other wastemanagement alternatives and populationdensities.

Appendix 7A. –Hazard Ranki ng SystemA s p a r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l C o n t i n g e n c y P l a n , E P A

d e v e l o p e d a H a z a r d R a n k i n g S y s t e m ( H R S ) t o b e

u s e d t o p r i o r i t i z e t h o s e u n c o n t r o l l e d s i t e s t h a tmight require CERCLA funds for remedial action.The HRS methodology is applied by EPA and theStates using data from observed or potentialr e leases to ob ta in a s cor e r epr esen t ing an es t ima teof the r isk presented by each release. The score for

each r e lease i s then used wi th o the r cons ide r a t ionsin de te r min ing i t s p lacement on the Na t iona l P r io r -i t y L i s t . T h i s s y s t e m i s s u m m a r i z e d b y E P A a sf o l l o w s :1

T h e H R S a s s i g n s t h r e e s c o r e s t o a h a z a r d o u sf ac i l i ty :

q

q

q

S M r e f l e c t s t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r h a r m t o h u m a n s

or the envi r onment f r om migr a t ion of a haza r d-ous subs tance away f r om the f ac i l i ty by r ou tesi n v o l v i n g g r o u n d w a t e r , s u r f a c e w a t e r , o r a i r .

I t is a composite of separate scores for each of t h e t h r e e r o u t e s .S FE r e f l e c t s t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r h a r m f r o m s u b -s t a n c e s t h a t c a n e x p l o d e o r c a u s e f i r e s .S DC r e f l e c t s t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r h a r m f r o m d i r e c t

contac t wi th haza r dous subs tances a t the f ac i l -i ty ( i . e . , no migrat ion need be involved) .

1 .\’{it I() [id] 011 d Il[i } i dzlr 1’(1[)(1 \ SLlt)\tii Il(. (,S ( :onl 1 r)gcr](, j Plar] , 47 F R.) I , 180, ]Ul} 1 (;, 1982.

T h e s c o r e f o r e a c h h a z a r d m o d e ( m i g r a t i o n ,f i r e and explos ion and d i r ec t con tac t ) o r r ou te

is obtained by consider ing a set of factors thatc h a r a c t e r i z e t h e p o t e n t i a l o f t h e f a c i l i t y t oc au s e h a r m . . . E a c h f a ct o r i s a s s i g n e d a n u -

merical value (on a scale of O to 3, 5, or 8) ac-cor d ing to p r esc r ibed gu ide l ines , This va lue i s

then mul t ip l ied by a we igh t ing f ac tor y ie ld ing

t h e f a c t o r s c o r e . T h e f a c t o r s c o r e s a r e t h e nc o m b i n e d ; s c o r e s w i t h i n a f a c t o r c a t e g o r y a r e

a d d e d ; t h e n t h e t o t a l s c o r e s f o r e a c h f a c t o rc a t e g o r y a r e m u l t i p l i e d t o g e t h e r t o d e v e l o p a

score for ground water , sur face water , a ir , f i rea n d e x p l o s i o n , a n d d i r e c t c o n t a c t . . .HRS does no t quant i f y the pr obabi l i ty o f ha r m

f r o m a f a c i l i t v o r t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e h a r m t h a t

T h e

.c o u l d r e s u l t , a l t h o u g h t h e f a c t o r s h a v e b e e n s e -lec ted in o r de r to appr oximate bo th those e lements

o f r i s k . I t i s a p r o c e d u r e f o r r a n k i n g f a c i l i t i e s i nte r ms of the po ten t ia l th r ea t t h e y p o s e b y d e s c r i b -ing :

q t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e h a z a r d o u s s u b s t a n c e sa r e c o n t a i n e d ,

q t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d a m o u n t o f t h e h a r m f u ls u b s t a n c e s , a n d

q t h e l i k e l y t a r g e t s .

Table 7A.1 shows the factors used and the infor-mation required in applying the HRS.




Table 7A.1 .—Comprehensive List to Rating Factors

Hazard mode/ Factors

factor category Ground water route Surface water route Air route — — -. —

Migration Route characteristics q Depth to aquifer of concern q

q Net precipitationq Permeability of unsaturated zone q

q Physical state q

q

—

Containment q Containment q

—

Waste characteristics .q

Toxicity/persistence q

Hazardous waste quantfty q

Targets q

q

Fire and explosion Containment q

Ground water use q

Distance to nearest well/population .served q

Facility slope and interveningterrainOne-year 24-hour rainfall

Distance to nearest surface waterPhysical state

Containment

Toxicity/persistence . Reactivity/incompatibiIityHazardous waste quantity q Toxicity

. Hazardous waste quantity —

Surface water use q Land useDistance to sensitive environment q PopuIation within 4-miIe radiusPopulation served/distance to q Distance to sensitivewater intake downstream environment

Containment

Waste characteristics q

q

q

q

q

Direct evidenceIgnitabilityReactivityIncompatibilityHazardous waste quantity

Targets q

q

q

q

q

q

Distance to nearest populationDistance to nearest buildingDistance to nearest sensitiveenvironmentLand usePopulation within 2-mile radiusNumber of buildings within 2-mileradius

Direct contact Observed incident q Observed incident

—- .Accessibility

—

q AccessibiIity of hazardous substances

C o n t a i n m e n t – C o n t a i n m e n t —. —

— —

Toxicity q Toxicity —

Targets . PopuIation within 1-miIe radiusq Distance to critical habitat

SOURCE 47 F R 31, 221, July 16, 19S3

Appendix 7B. –Risk/Cost Policy Model

In response to a request by the Office of Manage-m e n t a n d B u d g e t t o c o n s i d e r d e g r e e o f h a z a r d a s

a b a s i s f o r r e g u l a t i o n , E P A h a s d e v e l o p e d a r i s k / c o s t p o l i c y m o d e l . T h i s m o d e l w a s d e v e l o p e d b yt h r e e c o n s u l t i n g f i r m s a n d p r e s e n t e d i n a r e p o r t , R i s k / C o s t P o li cy M o d e l Pr o je c t , P h a s e 2 R e p o r t . z

T h e a b s t r a c t o f t h e r e p o r t s t a t e s :

The RCRA Risk/ Cost Policy Mod el establishes asystem that allows users to investigate how tradeoffs

of costs and risks can be made among wastes, envi-ronments, and technologies (W-E-T) in order to ar-r ive at feasible regulatory alternatives.

zI(; F’, I n~ . , RCRA Risk/Cost POIJCJV Model Pro\ect, Phase 2 Report, sub.m itted to EPA, Office Solid Waste, Washington, D C , 1982.

There are many components in the system. Eighty-three hazardous waste streams are ranked on thebasis of the inherent hazard of the constituents theytypically contain, The system assesses these wastestreams in terms of the likelihood and severity of human exposure to their hazardous constituents andmodels their behavior in three media—air, surfacewater, and ground water. The system also incorpo-rates the mechanisms by which the constituents areaffected by the environment, such as hydrolysis, bio-degr ada t ion , and adsor p t ion .

A second integral part of the system is the defini-tion of environments in which the hazard compo-nents are released. Thirteen environments includinga special category for deep ocean waters are definedon the basis of population density, hydrology, and




hydr ogeology . The sys tem ad jus t s the exposur escores of the waste streams’ hazardous constituentsto account for their varying ef fects in the threemedia in each of the environments.

The third component of the system consists of thetechnologies commonly used to transport, treat, anddispose of the hazardous waste streams. This in-cludes 3 types of transportation, 21 treatment tech-nologies, and 9 disposal technologies. The systemdetermines cost and release rates for each of thesetechnologies based on the model’s existing data base.It also incorporates estimates of capacities of thetechnologies, the amount of waste to be disposed of,and the proximity of the wastes to the availablewas te management f ac i l i t i e s ,T h e m o d e l c o n t a i n s a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l f r a m e -

wor k tha t combines va r ious char ac te r i s t i c s o f was te( W ) , e n v i r o n m e n t a l s e t t i n g s ( E ) , a n d m a n a g e m e n t

t e c h n o l o g i e s ( T ) , w h i c h i n c l u d e s t r e a t m e n t , d i s -p o s a l , a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t e c h n o l o g i e s . E a c h c o m -bination of W-E-T includes one waste , one environ-m e n t a l s e t t i n g , u p t o t h r e e t r e a t m e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s ,

o n e d i s p o s a l t e c h n o l o g y , a n d o n e t r a n s p o r t a t i o ntechnology. Scores (based on logar i thmic scales) areass igned to each W-E-T for cos t and r isk. Costs are

def ined so as to represent real resource cos ts suchas cap i ta l and oper a t ing expendi tu r es ; the la t t e r in -c l u d e l a b o r , u t i l i t i e s , m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d t r a n s p o r t a -t ion . R isks a r e de f ined as r i sk to human hea l th on lya n d a r e b a s e d o n t o x i c i t y a n d e x p o s u r e m e t h o d s ;no cons ide r a t ion i s g iven to envi r onmenta l haza r ds .

T h e d a t a b a s e c o m p i l e d f o r t h e m o d e l c u r r e n t l y

inc ludes 83 indus t r ia l was tes . I n f or mat ion has been

g a t h e r e d r e g a r d i n g p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h ew a s t e s , t o x i c i t y d a t a o n h a z a r d o u s c o n s t i t u e n t s ,

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f t h e s e c o n s t i t u e n t s , a n e s t i m a t e

of the na t iona l amount gener a ted f or each , and ana v e r a g e v a l u e t h a t r ep r e s e n t s k g / d a y / g e n e r a t o r .

T a b l e 7 B . l i l l u s t r a t e s t h e t e c h n o l o g i e s i n c l u d e din the da ta base ; a b r oad r ange has been cons ide r ed .

Specif ic t reatment options have been identif ied fore a c h w a s t e b a s e d o n e n g i n e e r i n g j u d g m e n t s o f t h e

c o n s u l t i n g f i r m s . F o r e a c h w a s t e , s e v e r a l t e c h n o l -

o g y c h o i c e s h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d . F o r e x a m p l e , a

pa r t i cu la r was te might have the f o l lowing t r ea tmentc h o i c e s l i s t e d i n t h e d a t a b a s e :

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

chemical coagulation as a single t r ea tment ;v a c u u m f i lt e r a n d e v a p o r a t i on / d r y i n g i n co m -b i n a t i o n ;i n c i n e r a t i o n a s a s i n g l e t r e a t m e n t ( a s s u m i n g

p r e t r e a t m e n t ) ;chemica l fixa t ion / s tab i li za t ion as a s ing le t r ea t -m e n t ; a n d

c h e m i c a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n a n d i n c i n e r a t i o n i n

c o m b i n a t i o n .

Table 7B.l.—Treatment, Transportation, and DisposalTechnologies for the EPA Risk/Cost Policy Model

Treatment Transportation Disposal

Phase separation Chemical coagulation OnsiteFilter press LocalCentrifuge Long distanceVacuum filter

Component separation Evaporation/dryingAir strippingSteam strippingSolvent extractionLeachingDistillationReverse osmosisCarbon adsorption (PAC)Ion exchange

Chemical transformation Chemical precipitationChemical destructionElectrolytic decomposition

Chemical flxatlon/stabilization

Incineration

99.990/o DRE99.900/, DRE99.000/o DRE90.00°\o DRE

SOURCE: ICF, Inc., 1982.

Double-lined landfill,Single-lined landfill,Unlined landfill,Double-lined surfaceimpoundment

Single-lined surfaceimpoundment

Unlined surfaceimpoundment

Land treatmentDeep-well injectionOcean

The technology element of each W-E-T combina-tion includes a choice of one to three treatmenttechnologies, one transportation option, and oneland disposal option. Thus, a W-E-T combinationfor the above example would include one of thesingle or combined treatments, one of three trans-portation options, and one of nine disposal options.

For all technologies, typical routine release ratesrepresenting some level of risk are included in thedata base. Costs associated w ith each treatment an ddisposal technology also are provided.

The model identifies three environmental indi-cators of human health risk: assimilative capacityof surface water located near a site, contaminationpotential of nearby ground water sources, and pop-ulation density near a site. Each indicator is rep-resented by different levels—i.e., high, medium, orlow. All possible combinations of these indicatorsrepresenting 12 environmental settings are illus-trated in table 7B.2. Deep ocean waters constitutea separate environmental setting.

Two different levels are used to represent assimi-lative capacity for su rface waters, Low assimilationrepresents a high-risk situation and is identified bythe following conditions:

1. low-flow streams;



Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 389

Table 7B.2.—Environmental Settings Used in theEPA Risk/Cost Policy Model

Popultion density Assimilation

1. High (< 520 people/km2) Low (<3 x 10’ m3 /day)2. High Low3. High High (<3 x IOa m 3 /day)

4. High5. Medium (< 52 people/km’)6. Medium7. Medium8. Medium9. Low (<52 people/km2)

10. Low11, Low12. Low13. Deep ocean watersSOURCE ICF, Inc , 1982

2 . l a r ge s t r eams wher e dr ink ing- wate r in takes a r e

loca ted downs t r eam and wi th in 6 hour s o f thew a s t e f a c i l i t y a t a n a v e r a g e f l o w r a t e ; a n d

3. areas subject to f requent f looding-e. g. , a 100-y e a r f l o o d p l a i n .

H i g h - a s s i m i l a t i v e c a p a c i t y r e p r e s e n t s h i g h r a t e s o f f l o w o r h i g h - v o l u m e s u r f a c e w a t e r s – i . e . , l a r g e

s treams, es tuar ies , or lakes . This category is consid-

e r e d a l o w - r i s k s i t u a t i o n i n t h e m o d e l .C r i t e r i a f o r d e t e r m i n i n g l o w - r i s k l e v e l s f o r c o n -

t a m i n a t i o n p o t e n t i a l o f g r o u n d w a t e r i n c l u d e :q

q

q

l o c a t i o n s a b o v e a q u i f e r s a l r e a d y c o n t a m i n a t e dto 10 0 t imes cur r en t d r ink ing wa te r s tandar ds ;soil permeability of less than 10-6 c m / s ec a n ddepth to ground water saturation greater than10 m; andsoil Permeability less than 10-4 cm/ sec and

depth to groun d “w ater saturation greater than100 m.High-risk levels for groun d water contamination in-clude all other conditions and those locations withmajor earthquake threats.

Population density near a waste management fa-cil i ty i s u s e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e p o p u l a t i o n a t r i s k .H i g h - p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y i s d e f i n e d a s t h a t w i t hgreater than 520 people/ km’, medium density as 52to 520 people/ km

2, and low d ensity as any area with

less than 52 people/ km 2.

Limitations in Use of the Model

A s i s e v i d e n t b y t h e f o l l o w i n g e x e r p t s f r o m t h e R i s k / C o s t P o li c y M o d e l Pr o je c t , P h a s e 2 R e p o r t ,

t h o s e m o s t d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t o f the mode l have a c lea r g r asp as to i t s l im i ta t ions .E P A s t a f f w o r k i n g o n t h e m o d e l a p p e a r t o u n d e r -stand that it is in at early stage of development, that

the r e a r e cons ide r ab le uncer ta in t ie s a s soc ia ted wi th

HighLowLowHighHighLowLowHighHigh

Contamination

High (0.2 km/yr)Low (20 km/yr)

High

LowHighLowHighLowHighLowHighLow

r esu l t s , and tha t a need ex is t s to spend mor e t imei n d e v e l o p m e n t a n d v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e m o d e l .

EPA’s purp ose in developing the RCRA Risk/ CostPolicy Model is to assist policy makers in identify-

ing cost-ef fect ive options that minimize r isks tohealth and the environment, The framework of thesystem is intended as a screen—to identify situationsthat are of special concern because of the risks theypose and to de te r mine wher e addi t iona l con t r o l smay not be warranted in light of the high costs in-volved. The framework uses a data base that is tooimprecise and general to be the sole basis for regula-tions. The results of the model will be used in moredetailed Regulatory Impact Analysis to determinewhe ther some type of r egu la tor y ac t ion i s war -ranted. s

* * *

. . . results of the model w ill be u sed at a high levelof generality (to set priorities rather than to design

specific regulations) . . .4

* * *

Mos t impor tan t , th i s mode l cannot be used toeva lua te pa r t i cu la r pe r mi t app l ica t ions . 5

* * *

This degree of imprecision means that the resultscannot be used in a specific regulation-making con-text. We could, of course, use our general method-ological approach to reach specific conclusions, butto do would involve subs tan t ia l e f f or t and t ime ,which should probably be spent only on a very smallnumber of regulatory options of the highest priority.Even if we used the tool in such a limited fashion,we would have to make substantia l changes in thepresent assumptions, Because of the level of general-

ity at which we operated, it would be improper toapply the r isk and cost values to a specific situa-t ion. 6

31(~ F, 0~>. c it,. abstract~It)l[i , [) 1 b51bi[i , p I 8.eIbKi., p 1 1(1




* * *Although a number of assumptions hamper specif-

ic analysis, we believe that the tool is highly usefulat the general level of application for which it isin tended . 7

* * *

The risk/ cost policy mod el provides a framework

for debate over alternatives, but requires restraintin appl ica t ions and in te r pr e ta t ion . The major a s -sumptions and simplif ications render detailed in-sight into the specifics of a regulation impossible.8

S t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f E P Ab e f o r e c o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m i t t e e s , h o w e v e r , s u g -ges t s tha t the Agency in tends to use th i s mode l f o rr egula tor y r e f or m and r u lemaking . I n the land d i s -p o s a l r e g u l a t i o n s a n d i n s e v e r a l s t a t e m e n t s p r e -s e n t e d a t c o n g r e s s i o n a l h e a r i n g s ( a s i l l u s t r a t e d b e -l o w ) d u r i n g t h e p a s t y e a r b y s e n i o r o f f i c i a l s , E P Ahas ind ica ted tha t i t wi l l use the mode l qu i te soon .I t mus t be emphas ized tha t whi le these s ta tements

d o n o t s p e c i f i ca l l y r e f e r t o t h e R is k / C o s t P o l i cy

m o d e l , i t h a s b e e n r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e A g e n c y ’ sd e g r e e - o f - h a z a r d a p p r o a c h . ’

Reexamination of existing regulations—in light of the ex tens ive comments r ece ived on Phase I andPhase 11 regulations, we are undertaking a majorreexamination, including: . . . An analysis of thecos t / r i sk / f eas ib il i ty fac tor s in managing va r ioustypes of waste to enable use to tailor standards forthe control of specific classes of hazardous waste; . . . IO

* * *

Even as we near completion of RCRA’S regulatoryframework, we continue our pursuit of the Adminis-trator’s goals in the area of regulatory reform. Tothis end, all our regulations are now undergoing adegree-of-hazard analysis to determine whether the

requirements need strengthening or whether theyare already too stringent.11* * *

Tailoring of standards for specific wastes—apartfrom the specific regulatory activities discussed im-mediately above, EPA is conducting regulatory im-pact analyses for each of the various types of wastemanagement units, In addition, it is conducting adegree-of-hazard study which will examine variouscombinations of waste types and volumes, treatmentand disposal technologies, and environmental set-tings. This study is intended to identify ways inwhich RCRA Subtitle C standards could be tailoredto better address particular problems. Based uponthese studies, EPA hopes to propose appropriate reg-

—‘J[bid., ~. 1. I 1.81 bid., p. 5.7,W. Haymo r e , “EPA’s Degree-of-Hazard Program, ” Waste Age, January,

1982.IOA M G o r s u c h , s t a t em e n t before the U ,S. I~ouse Subcommittee on,

Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, Oct. 2 1 , 1 9 8 1 .

IIR, M. Lavelle, statement before the U ,S, Senate Subcommittee onEnvironmental Pollution, June 24, 1982.

ulatory amendments in 1983 and promulgate themin 1984. 12

OTA believes that i t wil l be some t ime before them o d e l o f f e r s r e s u l t s o f s u f f i c i e n t c e r t a i n t y t o h a v e

c o n f i d e n c e i n i t s u s e f o r p o l i c y d e v e l o p m e n t o rregulatory reform. At some t ime in the future , af terr esu l t s a r e ve r i f i ed , i t would be appr opr ia te to usei t a s a “ sc r een ing” too l , to de te r mine Agency pr io r -

i t i e s and a r eas f o r r egu la tor y r e f or m, and to “ ta i lo r ”o r “ f i n e t u n e ” R C R A r e g u l a t i o n s . I n c o n j u n c t i o nwi th o the r wor k , the mode l might be used to de te r -

mine which was tes might be pr oh ib i ted f r om land-f i l l s , wha t was tes would qua l i f y f o r exempt ion f r omsmal l quant i ty gener a tor s , and wha t f ac i l i t i e s mightq u a l i f y f o r r e g u l a t o r y e x c e p t i o n s a n d v a r i a n c e s , o rf o r c l a s s p e r m i t s .

OTA Critique of the Risk/Cost Policy Model

Preparing a critique of this model from the Phase

2 Report was exceedingly difficult. Important infor-mation about actual application was missing, andmany errors were noted. The report was poorlywritten—therefore, several interpretations for ap-propriate use of the methodology were possible.Only after a 6-hour meeting with the contractorsand EPA representatives did OTA feel that suffi-cient information was in hand to attempt this cri-tique. This fact must be emphasized. If personstrained in the various disciplines that are incorpo-rated in the m odel have d ifficulty interpreting bothmethodology and results, it seems un likely that ad-ministr ative officials will be able to apply the m odelcorrectly.

Even when a mod el is to be used only as a screen-ing tool for developing policy and setting prioritiesfor regulatory reform, it is important that its ele-ments describe real conditions as closely as possi-ble. Because the Risk/ Cost Policy Mod el incorp o-rates inadequate data about management practicesand unrealistic assumptions, reliance on its resultscould lead to policies and regulatory changes thathave detrimental rather than beneficial impact ona national waste management approach.

Inadequate Data

There are several problems noted with the database used in the Risk/ Cost Policy mod el. The modelconsiders 83 industrial wastes, of which 80 percentare currently considered as hazard ous by EPA. The

IZU ,s , Env i ronmen ta l Protection Agency, Hazardous Was t e Manage-

ment System: Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazard-ous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Office of SolidWastes, Washington, D. C., 1982.




total volume represents 50 percent of EPA’s esti-mate for annual hazardou s waste generation in theUnited States. For some applications this data basemay be reasonable, especially for preliminaryscreening functions; however, if used to set prior-ities or tailor regulations this data base may be

limited. Large amounts of federally unregulatedwastes, which some States define as hazardous, arenot includ ed; this could lead to Federal p olicies thatdo not consider adequately actual managementchoices commercially available to deal with thesewastes, In addition, there appears to have been noattempt to correlate this data base with the broaddiversity in quality of wastes currently being regu-lated. Thus, results from any analysis using thismodel w ould not reflect current needs or p roblemsin hazardous waste management.

The data base includes wastes not designated ashazardous and therefore are actually regulatedunder Subtitle D of RCRA.

1.

2.

3.

wastes containing metals that are likely candi-dates for hazardous d esignation at some futur edate;a single nonhazardous waste that might com-pete for disposal space in subtitle C permittedlandfills; anda single metal-fluoride waste that is water solu-ble and therefore may be classed as hazard ousat some future date.

This model treats these wastes as though they arehazardous and regulated un der su btitle C. The de-velopers of this model apparently assumed that al lw a s t e s would be r egula ted under sub t i t l e C in thef u tur e . whi le th i s s i tua t ion would be pr e f e r ab le to

t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y s y s t e m c u r r e n t l y b e i n g u s e d b yEPA, it would seem inappropriate to tailor sub-title C regulations using a d ata base that does n otaccurately reflect current management or hazardconditions.

Although a broad range of technologies are in-cluded, actual matching of technologies with par-ticular wastes are rather limited, Furthermore, thechoice of technology included in W-E-T combina-tions is not based on current management prac-tices, but rather reflects engineering judgmentsabout how a waste might be treated. For example,incineration is the p redominant treatment technol-ogy in this data base and is applied as a single treat-

m ent to 47 of the 83 wastes. Only three wastestreams have incineration listed as an option incombination with another treatment technology.Such widespread use of incineration as a single-t r e a t m e n t option is not reflected in available dataf o r m a n a g e m e n t o f s u b t i t l e C w a s t e s .

Chemical fixation/ stabilization is the second mostpredominant, single-treatment technology appliedto wastes in the data base. It is listed as a single-treatment option for 36 wastes and in combinationwith other treatments for 27 wastes. Broad applica-tion of chemical fixation/ stabilization is not repre-

sentative of current disposal practices as this database would suggest.Costs associated with each treatment and dispos-

al technology are part of the data base. The basisfor the estimates of cost was engineering judgmentrather than actual costs associated with operatingfacilities. In addition, differences in such factorsas treatability of waste streams, volume, and con-centrations of hazardous constituents that will af-fect costs associated with treatments apparentlywere not considered.

Inaccurate Assumptions Used in the Model

The Risk/ Cost Policy Model attempts to make anenormously difficult analytical problem more tract-able by using restrictive and simplistic assumptionsabout environmental exposure. While OTA wouldagree that w aste, environment, and technology arethe three important elements in determining riskfrom waste management choices, th e assumptionsused in the model for each of these elements areso simplistic that inaccurate risk estimates maybe expected.

The concept of determining and using assimila-tive capacity of surface waters and contaminationpotential of ground water as measures of environ-mental or hu man health risk has merit. The indica-

tors chosen to represent these two concepts, how-ever, have flaws in underlying assumptions andcontrary, to a statement in the abstract, th e W-E-Tconcept as developed in this model does not repre-sent the environmental behavior of waste constit-uents.

Unfortunately, the criteria used for assigninghigh and low levels of assimilative capacity andcontamination potential have little relation to themeaning of these two ecological concepts. Whenconsidering the first, flow rate is used as the onlymeasure and is considered to represent assimilativecapability of surface water. The assimilative poten-tial of an y ecosystem (forest, stream, or lake), how-

ever, depends on the capacity of that system toremove, isolate, or destroy a constituent. This ca-pacity is influenced by severaI factors incIuding:

1. physical factors of an ecosystem;2. quality and quantity of biota present; and3. chemical characteristics of a pollutant.




Flow rate is only one physical factor of a surfacewater system that determines distribution of a pol-lutant and certainly is not th e most important fac-tor. Distribution patterns may increase or decreasethe potential assimilation of a constituent into asystem. Thus, flow rate cannot be considered a di-rect measure of assimilative capacity nor can it beconsidered a reliable measure of surface water con-tamination.

For example, the actual level of assimilation ina given situation w ould d epend on relative persist-ence of a constituent, its chemical reactivity withinthe identified environment, the potential for photo-degradation, the ability of biotic populations todegrade it (thus, removing it from food sources),and sedimentation or sorption rates contributingto its long-term isolation. It is conceivable that bothdegradable and persistent constituents in a slow-flowing stream (a characteristic considered in thismodel to represent low-assimilative capacity and,therefore, high risk) could present the same levelof risk. If the persistent compound were isolatedfrom hum an contact by bur ial in sediment or accu-mulated in nonedible aquatic animals, the risk forhum an exposure wou ld be minimal. High-assimila-tive capacities (and therefore low-risk levels) are at-tributed to those locations that discharge into fast-flowing streams, large estuar ies, or lakes. However,a persistent constituent could be discharged to alake, bioaccumulated through the food chain, pos-ing an increased risk to hum an pop ulations, Thus,use of flow rate as the sole measure of surfacewater contamination can h ardly be considered as

representative of real conditions.

There are similar problems with criteria for as-signing high- and low-contamination potential of ground water sources, The model defines risk interms of an adverse effect on human health anddoes not consider effects on the environment.Therefore, it seems misleading to classify an envi-ronmental setting in which drinking water stand-ards have been exceeded as a low risk. In addition,the simplistic, dichotomous characteristics of soilpermeability that are used as indicators for contam-ination potential seem unduly rigid and ambiguous.It is not clear how these relate to real conditionsof either na tural soil profiles or engineering designsof a facility. Many other factors found in subsur-face environments influence levels of contamina-tion potential.

The risk/ cost model uses population density asan indication of a population at risk. The numberof people residing near a site, however, has littlemeaning for the probability that an adverse effectwill occur, th e generally accepted definition of risk.

The chance of observing the effect is greater withlarger populations, but the risk to individuals andthe proportion of a population likely to be affectedare not changed by density. This is a factor thatEPA consistently ignores in m any of the risk assess-ment models.

This misconception of risk suggests that EPAdoes not und erstand the importance of actual d osereceived by a pop ulation. The density within someradius of a waste site is not relevant. Only thatgroup of in dividu als receiving a particular doseis the population at risk; it can be either nearbyor far-removed from a site of contamination. Also,the exposure may represent an acute situation—i.e., one single dose, or a chronic situation withseveral exposures occurring over time. In addition,the dose may vary considerably. Such variationsmay result from different levels of intake or routesof exposu re (e.g., amou nt of water consumed daily),variation in concentration levels for each intake,and variation in type of chemicals for each intake.Moreover, there is the additional problem that sen-sitivities of specific individuals to chemicals canvary greatly,

The concept that higher population densities re-sult in greater risks is wrong. Population densityis not an adequate indicator of the likelihood of in-dividuals being exposed to a hazardous constituent.It is quite conceivable that only a few people in anurban area would be exposed (e. g., if the majorsource of drinking w ater is not draw n from the con-taminated site); in contrast, if all local wells are af-fected, everyone residing in a low-density areacould receive contaminated water. If the exposureis indirect (as in distribution of a pollutant in food),density becomes even less important.

Methodology

Overall risk scores are compiled using measuresrepresenting waste, environment, and technologyas discussed above and are represented logarith-mically. Factors in the scores include:

1. waste—an inherent hazard score and an expo-sure score for either air, surface water, orground water;

2. environment-adjustments to exposure scoresbased on population density, assimilative ca-pacity, and contamination potential; and

3. technology—adjustments to a final risk scorebased on release rates estimated for selectedtreatment/ transportation/ disposal technol-ogies.

Inherent hazard score is defined as the p robabil-ity of a response per unit of intake, This score is




determined for 140 compounds considered to bepotentially hazardous constituents of the 83 wastestreams. The scoring system used for assigning in-herent hazard is based on identifying a minimumeffective dose (MED) for each compound. An MEDrepresents the smallest amount of a chemical re-quired to prod uce an effect in a laboratory pop ula-tion. This effect could range from skin rashes todeath. Therefore, each MED represents som e m ini-mal level of response; for example, if the followingdoses are identified for three hypothetical chem-icals:

Ch e m ica l M E D Effect

Chemical A. . . . . . . . . 100.00 mg/kg body weight X

Chemical B . . . . . . . . . . 3 .OO mg/kg body weight YChemical C . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 mg/kg body weight Z

It would indicate that some effect X is noted forchemical A in a laboratory test population onlyafter ad ministering a dose of 100 mg/ kg; chemicalB and C produce effects that are qualitatively dif-ferent from chemical A and at much lower doses.

Also, because the effects resulting from an exp osureare different for C and A, these MED values do notimply that C is more toxic than A. Such an inter-pr etation is possible only if the effects of both chem-icals were identical.

Once a hum an MED has been identified or calcu-lated from animal data, this dose is divided by afactor of 10. Because an effect resulting from lowdoses usually can be detected in 10 to 30 percentof the test population, an assumption made in themod el considers that this division w ill represent anapproximation of that dose which would “yield al-percent probability of producing adverse effects,”in the population at risk. An inherent hazard score

is then assigned for this value. The scale for the in-herent hazard score has been set arbitrarily to rep-resent an order of magnitude difference in eachunit change—i.e,, a score of 2 represents an in-herent hazard that is 10 times greater than a scoreof 1.

The score, however, may be misleading as themod el differentiates among d oses not qu ality of ef-feet—e.g., cancer is considered equal to skin rash es.Thus, although the doses represented by two scoresof 2 and 3 may be 10 times different, the qualityof effects could be reversed; the effect for a chem-ical with a hazard score of 3 (low d ose) may repre-sent skin rashes, while the effect for a chemical

with a score of 2 (higher dose) could be death.In add ition to an inherent h azard score, an expo-sure score is assigned for each compound for oneof three exposure routes (air, surface water, orground water], primarily based on half-life of thechemical. In assigning this score, some considera-

tion also is given for bioaccumulation potential [insurface only), potential removal by conventionalwater treatment (in surface water and groundwater), and ad sorption to solid surfaces (in grou ndwater only). It should be emph asized that transportpotential of a compoun d is considered equal to deg-radation. Therefore, if a constituent is highlyvolatile and might be transported readily fromwater to air, the constituent is considered to bedegradable in water and the half-life relativelyshort. However, there are several circumstanceswhere a volatile compound discharged into waterwou ld n ot be readily transported to air—e.g., is ad-sorbed onto deep sediment or ingested into biota.

Certain modifications are made to individualmedia exposure scores based on the three environ-mental indicators previously discussed.

1.

2.

3.

Modifications ‘to the surface water exposurescore for assimilative capacity increase thescore by one unit (one order of magnitudechange) for low a ssimilation (i.e., low-flow rate)

and decrease by one un it for high assimilation(i.e., high-flow rate or large volume of water).Such factors as actual concentration or amountof compoun d being d ischarged and the volumeof water within which the comp ound is diluted(for low assimilation) are not considered.A similar problem exists when consideringmod ifications for grou nd water contam ination.Velocity of ground water flow is the decidingfactor. High velocity d ecreases a groun d waterexposure score by one unit for compoundswith half-lives greater than 10 years. If the ve-locity is very slow, compounds with half-livesof 100 years or greater have exposure scoresincreased by one unit, The actual potential forrisk in this situation, however, would depend,in part, on d istance traveled p rior to hum an ex-posure. Circumstances could arise where dis-tances are short enough that human exposurewou ld be possible, particularly for comp ound swith half-lives of 10 years. Also, there are doc-umented cases when contaminant plumes donot move at the same rate, or even the samedirection as the ground water flow. l3

A value judgment is made that all exposurescores (air, surface water, and ground water)should be adjusted according to density of nearby p opu lations. If density is high th e score

is increased, thus, the overall risk value is in-creased. If population density is low, the score

~$David Burmaster, “Critique of the Monitoring Provisions in EPA’sInterim Final Regulations for Hazardous Waste Landfills, ” OTA Work-ing Paper, 1982.

99– 113 (J - 83 - 2 b




Table 7B.4.—Differences in Risk Score for Twelve Environmental Settings With Example Waste Streams

Risk scores by environmental settinga

EPA No Co ns t itu en ts Media 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

9 9 913 11 1110 12 105 5 54 2 28 10 8

11 11 113 1 1

9 11 95 5 50 –2 –25 7 7

8 8 82 0 07 9 7

11 11 112 0 07 9 78 8 8

0 –2 –24 6 46 6 60 –2 –25 7 57 7 70 –2 –26 8 6

6 6 62 0 05 7 55 5 54 2 28 10 8

‘6 6 63 1 1

7 9 76 6 61 –1 –15 7 5

K060Amonia stilllime sludge fromcoking operation

9 9 9 9 9 9 913 13 11 11 13 13 1113 11 13 11 13 11 137 7 7 7 6 6 67 7 5 5 5 5 3

11 9 11 9 11 9 1111 11 11 11 11 11 116 6 4 4 4 4 2

12 10 12 10 12 10 125 5 5 5 5 5 53 3 1 1 1 1 –18 6 8 6 8 6 8

ArsenIC A

s

G

AsGAsGAsG

AsGAsGA

sGAsGAsG

1311

639

112

105

–16

Y

1312

54

1011

311

507

6 8

29

11298

066077

08

62754

10

639

61

7

995993943

84

1211

311

81

Phenol

Cyanideb

Naphthalene

Chloroform bK073Chlorinatedhydrocarbonwaste fromchloralkaliprocess

8 83 18 10

11 113 18 108 81

–16 86 61 –16 87 71 –17 9

81

811

1

88

–166

–167

–17

61

7639

85

1011

510

8

386

38739

65977

11

6

610

649

‘ 9 ”99997977

87

1311

61284

8 8 8 85 3 3 38 10 8 10

11 11 11 115 3 3 38 10 8 108 8 8 8

3 1 1 16 8 6 86 6 6 63 1 1 16 8 6 87 7 7 73 1 1 17 9 7 9

Carbon tetrachloridec

Hexachloroethane

1,1,2 Trichlorethane

1,1,1 Trichlorethane

K026Strippingtails frommethyl ethylproduction

Pyridineb637659

648

627

998996956

85

1111

410

82

61

963

11

62

10

609

978976936

83

1311

212

80

AsGAsG

A -

sG

AsG

AsG9sGAsG

‘ AsGA

sGAsG

6 6 65 3 37 9 77 7 77 5 59 11 9

6 6 66 4 48 10 8

6 6 64 2 27 9 7

63965

11

64

10

629

998996956

85

1311

41282

Phenol

K025Still bottomsfrom nitrobenzene

production

2,4 Dinitrotolueneb 628

607

9“78976936

Nitrobenzenec

KO02, 3, 5Mixed metalsludges frompaint production

9 9 99 7 79 9 99 9 99 7 77 7 79 9 97 5 57 7 7

Lead 9 99 75 59 99 73 39 94 23 3

8 84 2

10 1211 11

3 19 118 81 -17 9

97

5973

923

82

1011

198

- 17

Mercury bA

Thallium

KO11, 13, 14Still bottoms fromacrylonitrileproduction

Acrylonitrile b 8 8 87 5 5

11 13 1111 11 11

6 4 410 12 108 8 84 2 2

83

11

11

210

80

Cyanide

Acetonitrile

10 8 910 8 10 8 10 8



high contamination potential h}gh assimilative capacity4—high population density low contamination potential

bconstltuent selected for use {n model based on highest concentration In waste

streamcConstltuents having greatest concentration can vary among waste streams, thm

constituent often has highest concentrationSOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

dr ink ing wa te r i s d r awn f r om r ap id- f lowing s t r eams

o r t h a t f i s h f r o m s u c h a s t r e a m s e r v e a s f o o d f o rthe population; thus, the actual risk for chemicalB might be greater than chemical A, The fate of chemicals in the environm ent have important con-sequences when assessing risks and these are notadd ressed by the Risk/ Cost Policy mod el. In add i-tion, the effects on human health may not be rep-resented by the relative risk scores. Chemical Amay result in a skin disorder and chemical B mayreduce the fecundity of females,

In many cases, the total volume of a given con-stituent can partition among all environmentalmedia and exposure could result from more thanone route—e. g., it could be in drinking water andin food sources. The dose received could be greaterfor a given constituent than indicated by this model

and thus, the probability of observing an adverseeffect could be greatly increased.

A second outcome of this mod el is that costs asso-ciated w ith technologies appear to be biased tow ardland disposal. Because long-term costs (monitoringcosts and liability insurance fees) are not reflectedin a realistic manner, disposal on land w ithout anyprior treatment may prove to be the least expen-sive for all wastes. Thus, regardless of the wasteand selected environmental setting, a major out-come of this model may be that those W-E-T com-

binations with the lowest risk/ cost results will bethose associated with low population densitiesand disposal in landfills.

A major difficulty in app lying this Risk/ Cost Pol-icy Model is that EPA has blurred distinctions be-tween roles of policy maker, regulator, and ind ustry




in the management o f haza r dous was te , RCRA pol -i c y w a s e s t a b l i s h e d b y C o n g r e s s — i . e . , E P A w a s

char ged wi th pr o tec t ing human hea l th and the envi -r o n m e n t f r o m a d v e r s e e f f e c t s t h a t m i g h t r e s u l tt h r o u g h m i s m a n a g e m e n t o f h a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l s .B e c a u s e o f t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e , E P A i s c o n -

strained from balancing risk and costs. The useof this model in changing or developing n ew pol-icy appears to be a violation of the congressionalintent of RCRA.

F i n a l l y , E P A i s a t t e m p t i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c ht e c h n o l o g i e s s h o u l d b e u s e d t o m a n a g e h a z a r d o u swas te and in a s ses s ing cos t s and r i sks f o r each pos -

s i b l e w a s t e a n d t e c h n o l o g y c o m b i n a t i o n . T h i s p e r -

haps i s a t a sk mor e su i ted f or indus t r y than a r egu-l a t o r y a g e n c y , I f t h e A g e n c y w e r e t o s e t g o a l s f o rl e v e l s o f a c c e p t a b l e r i s k o r h a z a r d b y e s t a b l i s h i n g

some type of s tandar d f or indus t r y to mee t , i t cou ldt h e n b e l e f t t o i n d i v i d u a l c o m p a n i e s t o d e t e r m i n e :1) which technology is to be used to meet the stand-

ard, and 2) at what cost. For EPA to do an adequatede te r mina t ion of the W - E- T combina t ions and eva l -

u a t e t h e m f o r r i s k a n d c o s t s r e q u i r e s e n o r m o u s

commitments o f t ime and money on the pa r t o f theF e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t . I f e a c h i n d u s t r i a l e n t i t y w e r et o d o i t s o w n s p e c i f i c a s s e s s m e n t , t h e c o s t c o u l d

b e i n t e r n a l i z e d w i t h i n t h e i n d u s t r y a n d n o t b e ad r a i n o n l i m i t e d g o v e r n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e s ,



Index



Index

Acurex, Inc. , 155, 156Agency for Toxic Substances , 126Agent Orange, 169air pollutants, 326Alaska, 199

alternatives to disposal and dispersal of hazardouswaste:advantages and disadvantages ( table 13), 96goals, 79-80incentives, 28-33, 72-79

Amer ican Society of Test ing Mater ial , 251Arkansas, 131, 353Arthur D. Little, 119, 332, 333Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Off icials (ASTSWMO):report by, 57survey for OTA, 120, 123, 125, 342, 345

Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 118, 155B. F. Goodrich, 214Booz Allen and Hamilton, 119, 120, 124, 130, 196Bureau of Economic Analys is , 334Bureau of Land Management, 203, 334

California, 12, 15, 30, 75, 77, 78, 82, 122, 123, 131,156, 172, 189, 199, 236, 256, 257, 259, 337, 348,351, 353, 354, 368

California Air Resources Board, 166, 196, 354

Canada, 166, 172Car te r adminis t r a t ion , 99Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 125CERCLA hazardous waste sites, 131, 134Chemical Manufacturers Associat ion (CMA), 76,

131, 382chlorof luorocarbons [CFC) , 321classif ication systems, 99-107, 229-242

considerat ions , 102degree-of-hazard, 99-100, 102,

tables, 260-261feasibility, case study, 236-240

limitat ions , 238results, 237, 239structure , 237

hazard/ r isk, 380link between classif ication and risk estimation, 103models, 233-234problems and advantages, 240-242waste, 229-233

characteristics that may pose a hazard (table 40), 230chemical and physical factors, 232specific process, 230

toxicological character is t ics , 231was te management f ac i l i t i e s :models , 235technical bas is , 235

class permitting, 27, 28, 69Colorado, 348Colorado River, 259

compliance cos ts with RCRA and CERCLA:administrative, 338, 341Federal and State, 58, 332, 338private sector, 58, 334, 338

Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policies, 363

Congress :House Commit tee on I n te r s ta te and For e ignCommerce, Subcommittee on Overs ight , 381

House Committee on Science and Technology,Subcommit tee on Envi r onment and theAtmosphere, 252

considerations to bring high-priority waste underregulation, 68-69

Continental F ibre Drum, 159costs, near- and long-term, 5-6Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 250, 252current regulatory programs, evaluations of, 7

data:acquisition, priorities, 9, 133health and environmental effects, 125, 126, 133national , 117requirements, 116, 117, 133State, 120, 121types of, 115use of, 123

DDT, 203, 204Department of Agriculture, 146Depar tment of Commerce, 118, 196, 329Department of Defense, 47Depar tment of Energy, 329Department of Health and Human Services, 126Department of Justice, 303Depar tment of Transpor tat ion, 274, 279, 320Deve lopment P lanning and Resea r ch Assoc ia tes

(DPRA), 118)

Disease Registry (DHHS), 126District of Columbia, 122Dow Chemical Co., 165

Eads , George, Council of Economic Advisors , 227Eastman Kodak, 165economic considerations, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 81, 195

appropriated funds for options II-IV, 97clean up, 5, 6, 20concern for internat ional competi t ion, 84estimated public and private costs for hazardous

was te management , 97Love Canal, 6transfer to future, 58, 67

Energy Power Research Ins t i tute , 155

Engineering Science, 382ENSCO, 165environmental effects, 4, 5, 7, 8

data, 125 (table 19, 126,laws, 319

Environmental Protect ion16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24,

133

Agency (EPA), 8, 9, 11, 15,27, 28, 30, 33, 36, 37, 46,

401




54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71,72, 74, 75, 76, 81, 83, 86, 91, 92, 93, 95, 99, 111,116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 143, 159, 160,161, 169, 182, 184, 188, 200, 205, 209, 227, 229,236, 237, 247, 252, 258, 269

Bur ford , Anne M., EPA Adm inistrator, 345Coop eration w ith USGS, 93

delisting of h azard ous w aste, 275Emergency and Remedial Response Information

System, 4Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratories,

250, 251extraction p rocedu re (EP) tests, 69, 273fiscal year 1983 R&D effort, 30, 74hazardous waste program budget, 34oHazard Ranking System (HRS), 383, 386imminent haz ard and enforcement p rovisions, 294

citizen suits, 295imp lementa tion of RCRA, 265, 269integration of programs, 35-37ISS closure an d p ost-closu re regu lations, 285Lavelle, Rita M., Assistant A dm inistrator for Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, 16long-term, systematic progra m, need for, 111manifest system, 278notice to generators, 119notification from generators, transp orters, and

facilities, 277Office of Legal an d Enforcement Coun sel, 341Office of Planning and Resource Management, 339Office of Reserach an Developm ent, 94, 33o, 331Office of Solid Wa ste, 128, 339performan ce stand ard s, 280permit applications, 293red uction of gran ts to States, 65regulation of w aste generators, 278requirements for hazardous waste treatment,

storag e, and disp osal facilities, 279-280Risk/ Cost Po licy Mod el (WET matrix), 64, 88, 100,

385, 387, 389, 390, 391STORET, 254sur vey of un controlled sites, 4, 20two-tiered approach for land disposal

regulations, 266unreleased study, 5Waste Alert Program, 258

Executive Order No. 12291, 64, 385

facilities, permitting of, 56, 59, 104, 293 Federal exemptions, 3, 7, 9, 12, 27, 61, 116, 276

eliminating, 68examples (table 17), 117

State def ini t ions , 122FederaI funding, loss of, 23Federal hazardous waste program, 26

advantages and disadvantages ( table 13), 96goals, 60-67scenarios, 98

Federal Mediat ion and Concil ia t ion Service, 258fee systems:

affect to prices in market place, 85

CERCLA, 30, 31, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 98State u se o f, 30, 31, 32, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83,

366, 364focus of stu dy , 7, 46, 47Food and Drug Administration, 201Franklin Research Institute, 211Fred C. H art Associates, 131

General Accounting Office (GAO), 25, 51, 126general facility standards, 287

facihty permitting, 293incinerator s, 291land disp osal facilities, 293storage, 291

General Portland Co., Paulding, Ohio, 166Georgia, 123, 131Good Year Tire & Rub ber Co ., 155Guam, 120, 121

Hawaii, 199hazard classification framework:

advantages and disadvantages, 96congres sional action, 86

costs, 90degree-of-hazard considerations, 102difference from oth er ap proaches, 100elements, 86-87examples, 89facilities, 17, 34-35, 60, 85-88goals, 88-90in a risk management framew ork, 99integrated risk management approach, 101link between risk estimation, 103protection of h ealth and environmen t, 25, 88sum mary, 34-35wastes, 17, 34-35, 60, 85-88

hazardous waste:acute hazardous waste, 274am ou nt of, 3, 5, 8, 44, 111, 119, 120, 124average cost of d isposal, 6characteristics, 273, 274chemical treatment, 16classification, 17, 27, 33, 34-35, 86-87, 99, 221,

229-242, 270comp liance cost, 332containment technologies, 12da ta collection man da tes, RCRA and CERCLA

(table 15), 114data inadequacies, 3, 7, 8, 9, 54, 56, 58, 63, 81, 111,

161, 195, 265definition, 7, 8, 36, 116, 123, 271

exclusion from, 273degree of hazard , need for, 99delisting, 27, 61, 69, 116, 275

d eterm ination of solu tions (fig. 4), 112dilemma, 52disp ersal, 13, 29, 31, 36, 52, 72, 73, 77d isp osa l, 6, 8, 14, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39, 52, 72, 73,

77, 292empty containers, 277estimates by EPA and the States (table 18), 121exem ptions, 3, 7, 9, 12, 27, 61, 68, 116, 117, 122,

276, 277, 351



Index “ 403

Federal Government, role of, 114Federal regulation of, 268, 368

RCRA approach, 269Federal-State program:

expenditures , 266industrial compliance cost, 332lack of incentive, 266

genetic delisting petition, 275identification, 270, 271industry, role of, 11 4industry studies, 118interim status facilities, 281

standards for, 282, 285-287listing of, 274, 275, 276management faci l i t ies , 127-133management paths (f ig. 5) , 11 3monitoring, 19, 20, 27, 33, 45, 52, 61, 104, 221,

242-254OTA survey, 8overriding issue, 5public, role of, 114recycling 11, 15, 16, 27, 31, 62, 68, 216, 370

regulatory criteria, establishing of, 271, 33, 56, 278remedial actions, 21, 57, 63, 140, 205, 209, 211,308-311

requirements for t ranspor ters , 279solid waste excluded from definition of, 273spent pickle liquor, 216state programs under RCRA, 269-299tax, 318, 367technical performance standards [table 55), 289temporary exclus ion, 275total National costs, 344toxic waste, 275transportation and accidental spills, 7, 47treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF),

277, 278, 279, 280, 295, 297, 326, 348, 353permits, 288, 294

standards for, 281, 285-286, 351, 368treatment technologies, 12, 14, 16, 17under CERCLA, 300waste type, 13, 44, 127

Hazard Ranking System (Mitre model) , 64hazard reduction, 13, 156-198

biological treatment, 174boilers, 166, 167cement ki lns , 166comparative unit costs for selective technologies,

195-198comparison of technologies (table 21), 157comparisons of thermal treatment ( table 32),

163-164destruction and removal efficiency standard (DRE),

159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170,171, 173

fluidized bed combustors, 1 6 8 , 1 6 9

fluid-wall reactors, 1 7 2

landfills, 1 7 4 - 1 8 6

bottom liners, 177, 178, 185, 186

control features, 176

cover, 179, 180 current practice, 1 8 3 regulatory issues, 185 site hydrology, 181, 182 siting restriction, 185 stabilization/solidification process, 182, 183

surface impoundments, 4, 5, 12, 13, 186-189

evaluation, 187 regulatory issues, 188, 189 use and evaluation, 1 7 5 , 1 8 3 , 1 8 4

waste characteristics, 182, 185 multiple hearth incinerators, 168performance standards, 159, 160, 161plasm-arc reactors, 1 7 2

principal organic hazardous constituent I POHC) ,159, 161, 162

product of incomplete combustion (PIC), 161, 162,170, 173

recovery/ recycle op eration, case examp les, 216-217rotary kiln, 159, 163, 164, 165, 169, 172super critical water, 173thermal technologies :

fluid-wall reactors, 172molten salt reactors, 170, 171pyrolysis, 170

toxic combustion, 160treatment, 139, 140, 156-173

at sea, 169incineration, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164liquid, 159, 162, 164, 166metal, 159, 167

under gr ound in jec t ion we l l s , 189classif ication, 191design, 190evaluation, 192location, 191regulations, 193, 194

wet oxidation, 173Hazar dous W as te Compensa t ion Fund , 76health effects, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 43, 45

data, 125 (table 19?, 126, 133, 225, 243, 248

Illinois, 33, 69, 79, 353Indiana, 123Interagency Task Force, 253integration of environmental programs, 35-37, 60, 91

advantages and disadvantages ( table 13), 96cost and problems, 95goals, 94-95

interim status standards (1SS):closure and post-closure requirements, 285f inanc ia l r e spons ib i l i ty and insur ance

standards, 285

incinerators , 287landfills, 286sur f ace impoundments , 288

International Council for the Exploration of theSeas, 203

issues and uncertainties, 44-461. T. Enviroscience, 173




Jeffords, J., U.S. Representative, 242JRB Associates, 118

Kentucky, 30, 75Kepone, 203, 204

land disposal, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 28, 62, 93,

132, 370alternatives, 61, 71, 74, 79, 82, 89, 98, 356, 364compliance costs for facilities, 334criticism of regulations, 371exemptions f rom monitor ing, 372facilities, 293interim status standards, 286monitor ing, 376risks, 15, 16, 20, 73use of technology, 375

Ieachate, 4, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 183, 185,187, 374

leaching, 5, 14, 132legal remedies, 358

barriers to recovery, 362

identification of parties, 362nuisance, private and public, 360proof of causation, 362statute of limitations, 362trespass, 361

legislation:Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 116, 271Clean Air Act, 20, 36, 92, 160, 247, 251, 252, 267,

269, 319, 322, 325, 326, 368Clean Water Act, 20, 27, 36, 61, 68, 92, 118, 128,

247, 251, 252, 267, 269, 271, 294, 295, 319, 321,359, 368

Compr ehens ive Envi r onmenta l Response ,Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980(CERCLA), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21,

23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40, 43,47, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65,66, 67, 70, 72, 75, 76, 78, 84, 90, 92, 93, 98, 99,111, 114, 122, 127, 128, 140, 205, 225, 266, 357

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 57Federal Insect ic ide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), 321Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 116, 199Hazardous Mater ials Transpor tat ion Act , 279, 320House Report 94-1491Mar ine Protect ion, Research and Sanctuar ies Act ,

36, 91, 160, 198, 203, 325Occupational Safety and Health Act, 214Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37,

39, 40, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 81,85, 86, 90, 92, 93, 98, 99, 111, 113, 114, 116, 120,122, 125, 128, 159, 160, 175, 194, 195, 225, 227,229, 237, 252, 258, 265, 268, 269, 274, 275, 276,277, 278, 332, 335, 368

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 36, 91, 128, 191,194, 268, 284, 294, 323, 324

Nat iona l I n te r im P r imar y Dr ink ing W ate rStandards, 284, 324, 379

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 272Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA), 327

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 36, 92, 93,125, 233, 234, 320

liability factors, 62, 93, 315, 357, 359, 363London Dumping Convent ion , 199Louisiana, 8, 123, 131Love Canal, 6, 203, 224Lowry Landfill, Denver, Colo., 255, 348

Management faci l i t ies :EPA survey, 128, 129Government data needs, 127industrial data needs, 127, 128monitor ing, 127offsite, 130, 131, 132permitting, 127, 133

public data needs, 127, 128 siting, 127 State data collection, 131

management strategies, alternatives, 29-30, 48, 72-75 energy recovery, 29, 73 material recovery, 29, 73 waste separation, 29, 73

Massachusetts, 8, 256, 258 maximum concentration limits (MCL), 379 methyl mercury, 24 3 Michigan, 79, 131, 194, 233, 259, 276, 351, 353, 367

Millipore, 152Minnesota, 31, 77, 78, 256, 354

State Pollution Control Agency, 354 State Waste Management Board, 354

Mississippi, 131Missouri, 30, 75Mitre Model, 3 8 3

Modar, Inc., 173 monitoring, 19, 20, 27, 33, 45, 52, 61, 104, 221,

242-254, 283-288, 292, 372, 375 description of functions (table 48), 243 environmental fate and design, 243

aquatic systems, 244 major technical issues, 248-254

analytical methodology, 250 da ta compar i sons , 249ground water requirement, 283, 284institutional approaches, 252

RCRA facilities, 266sampling, 248, 377, 378

strategies :assessment monitor ing, 248surveil lance monitor ing, 248

types, 246-248ambient, 19, 20, 247, 376effects, 19, 247



Index Ž 405

process, 19, 246source, 19, 246visual, 19, 246

M.T. Volcanus, 169McGraw-Hill, 334

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 325National Bureau of Standards (NBS], 162, 291, 329National Contingency Plan (NC P], 20, 54, 63, 64, 65,

140, 267, 268, 304, 323, 386national fee system, 31, 32National Governors’ Association, 76, 124National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health, 125, 329National Institute of Environmental Health Science, 125National Institutes of Health, 125, 329National Manifest System, 54National Marine Fisheries Service, 203National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES), 116, 128, 321, 322, 323National Priority List (NPL), 8, 20, 57, 131, 268, 302,

303, 304, 382, 386

National Science Foundation [NSF), 252, 254, 329

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 330New Jersey, 122, 131, 184, 199, 257, 351, 368New York, 30, 75, 77, 78, 189, 199, 200, 201, 256,

3 5 3 , 3 5 4

Certificate of Environmental Safety and Necessity, 256North Carolina, 79, 131, 348Norway, 166

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 329ocean disposal, 12, 13, 14, 36, 53, 140, 198-204

acids, 199controversy, 200-203

arguments against, 201-202arguments in favor, 200

legislative background, 199

municipal and industrial waste, 199research and data needs, 203-204sewage sludge, 199technical regulatory issues, 204toxic waste, 199usage, 198

Office of Management and Budget, 385, 387Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 8, 17, 25,

30, 35, 38, 47, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 64, 65, 74, 75,

86, 88, 91, 95, 97, 120, 124, 131, 181, 184, 188,236, 330, 334, 348, 383, 385, 390

Ohio, 330Oklahoma, 131Oregon, 79Organization of Economic Community Development, 84

Philadelphia, city of, 201policy options, 3, 24-37, 48, 51-107

advantages/disadvantages, 38, 96four scenarios, 39-40, 51, 98-99specific goals, 25-26, 52-59

Pollution Prevention Pays program, 3M Corp., 141

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), 13, 122, 160, 166,169, 172, 173, 199, 202, 203, 204, 229

regulation of 92, 93, 146, 1.55, 321Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund, 16, 93, 195, 319process modifications, 213-217

chlor-alkali process, 213vinyl chloride process, 214

metal-finishing process, 214public conce rn, 21, 22, 48, 59, 67, 71, 80, 90, 95, 203,222, 254, 255

Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 379publicly owned treatment works (POTWS), 322, 323Puerto Rico, 120, 121, 199Putnam, Bartlett & Hayes, 119

RCRA program, 26-28, 40, 59, 98advantages and disadvantages (table 13), 96changes, 26-28, 40, 59delays, 265goals, 70-71scenario, 98

RCRA Regulatory Impact Analysis, 119, 120, 128Reagan administration, 99, 340

research and development (R&D), 4, 12, 16, 19, 40, 63,72, 75, 81, 98, 127, 128, 162, 188, 226, 250, 330

assistance, 33, 59, 79, 85, 329benefits, 133EPA’s administrative cost, 341EPA’s FY 1983 cost effort, 30, 74projects planned by ORD, 331

risk management, 18, 19, 20, 33, 34, 45, 47, 63, 64,71, 73, 101, 103, 104, 106, 267, 382

application of framework, 104hazard evaluation, 102, 223information needed, 54, 80, 88link between risk estimation and classification, 103objectives, 101policy/management decisions, 228

risk assessment, 223models, 224risk, costs, and benefits, 226-228transfer costs, 58, 67, 71

Rockwell International, 172Rollins Environmental Services, 165

St. Louis, Mich., cleanup costs, 6San Juan Cement Co., Duablo, Puerto Rico, 166Seymour Ind., cleanup costs, 6Sheffield, 111., 255siting, 21, 22, 59, 127, 254-259, 355

approaches to addressing public concern, 255economic and institutional mechanisms, 257technical methods, 256

Federal involvement, 258public concern, 90, 95, 222, 254, 255

solid wastes, 8, 23, 43, 47, 265, 271, 272, 273, 274,319, 327

South Carolina, 131Southern California Edison, Inc., 172specific technical criteria, need for, 28, 70




State involvement:a l te r na t ives to land disposal, 356compar ab i l i ty o f p r ogr ams to Federal RCRA, 349data acquisition, 57, 58, 63, 64differences between Federal and State programs, 348expendi tu r es on h a z a r d o u s waste p r o g r a m

activities, 343

Federal relationship, 56, 57, 66, 328fee system, 30, 31, 32, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83,364, 365

funding, 21implementing program, 23-24, 46, 54, 55, 65lack of programs, 4p lanning , 22problems, 65, 66, 344programs, lack of study, 56, 57programs under RCRA, 296, 328, 344RCRA/ CERCLA p articipation , 65, 66, 71, 90RCRA grants , 58RCRA pr ogr am au thor iza t ion , 346r esponses to delays and perceived inadequacies of

Federal program, 268responsibilities, major concerns, 23-24, 55, 56, 57, 58

siting programs, 355summary of small quantity generator provisions, 352Superfund, 268, 305zero funding, 345

Sunohio, 155, 156Superfund, 300-319

abatement act ions , 303chemical taxes, 315cleanup, 267, 312cost recovery act ions , 303Hazar dous Subs tance Response Tr us t Fund , 314hazar dous subs tances under CERCLA, 300liability, 315National Contingency Plan, 305

table 57, 306

National Priority List, 304notification of inactive waste m a n a g e m e n t sites, 301Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund, 317response authority, 302standard of cleanup, 313State costs, 268State funds, 368State legislation, 369State participation, 305

Sweden, 166

Tennessee 358

chemical analys is , 208cleanup, 7, 8, 20, 21, 53, 54, 14CI, 205-207, 208compar a t ive r anking , 64effectiveness of CERCLA, 20environment] pathway control , 211-213identif icat ion, 207inspection, 208

most serious, 5, 8, 20, 21remedial action, 205, 209, 211survey of, 4, 20waste control, 209, 211

Underground Inject ion Control Program, 194, 195Union Chemical Co, , Union, Maine, 169United Nations, 84Uni ted Na t ions Envi r onmenta l P r ogr am, Regiona l

Seas Program, 200U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 198, 200, 325U.S. Bureau of Census, 119U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New

York, 200U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 53, 252, 258

cooperation with EPA, 93, 94Toxic Waste-Ground Water Contamination

Program, 93Utah, 69

WAPORA, 119Washington, 238, 259waste generators, 10, 12, 13, 55, 274

compl iance costs, 9 5data requirements, 116, 117, 13:3exemptions , 276fees on, 3, 30, 75, 77notif icat ion to EPA, 277number of, 123r epor t ing to EPA, 119, 120State data, 120, 121survey, 120

waste m a n a g e m e n t :compl iance costs, 332Federal financial assistance grants, by State, 342inadequa te t echniques , 265insurance, 363key issues, 106

waste reduction, 7, 9, 12, 13, 29, 32, 47, 52, 59, 73,82, 98, 140

advantages/disadvantages, 11alternatives, 139, 141-156capital needs:

Federal loan program, 32, 78