Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste ... · hazardous waste management facilities may not effectivel y detect, prevent, or control haz-ardous releases, especially

Technologies and Management Strategiesfor Hazardous Waste Control

March 1983

NTIS order #PB83-189241

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 83-600706

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

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 therelative 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 ofSuperfund. 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 public. 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 dangers posed by mismanagement of hazard-ous waste. One near-term option addresses the means to improve the technical ef-fectiveness of the current regulatory structure. The other near-term option providesa 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 Commerce. The focus of the study 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 current 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. GIBBONSDirector

Hazardous Waste Control Assessment Project Staff

Lionel S, Johns, Assistant Director, OTAEnergy, Materials, and International Security Division

Audrey Buyrn, Materials Program Manager

Project Staff

Joel S. Hirschhorn, Project Director

Suellen Pirages, Senior AnalystKaren 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 CormSuzanne Contos Kitty Gillman Gary Davis J. Stedman Stevens

Contractors

Engineering ScienceAssociation of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management OfficialsCitizens 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

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher 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/Applied SciencePrinceton 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 Davis Gerd Kleineberg Mark Murray Diana Wahl Margery King

Philip Robinson John Courtney Jim Maysilles Karl Birns

. .Vlll

CHAPTER 1

Summary

List of Tables

Table No. Page1.2.3.4.

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 Hazard Reduction Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Representative Unit Costs for Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatmentand Disposal . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 15Illustration of a Hazardous Waste Generator Tax Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31A National Waste Fee System: Summary of Key Problems and Concerns . . . . . . 32Illustrative Examplesof a Potential Hazard Classification Framework . . . . . . . . . 36Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Comparative Ranking of Policy Options for Each Policy Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Figures

Figure No. PageI. Risk Management Framework ● ....,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182. Risk Management Framework 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 not 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 someuncontrolled sites, and assisted industry 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 ofwastes 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 ofwhich may remain 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 adoption 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 ofcleanup, and because there is an incentive tominimize initial costs, remedial actions maybe taken that will 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-cedures for permitting facilities and dereg-ulating waste.Establish Federal fees on waste gen-erators as an economic incentive to re-duce the generation of waste and discour-

3

4 ● 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

hazards 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, andto 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 evident at manywaste sites that mismanagement and indis-criminate dumping of waste were causingharmful 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 oflandfills, surface impoundments, and lagoons,might still constitute substantial threats. Thesethreats arise from the potential slow leakageof waste constituents or leachate* through thesoil and into ground water, which is a sourceof 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 industrial and municipalsolid 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 earlierhad 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, and LiabilityAct of 1980 (CERCLA), better known as Super-fund.

Adverse 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 public. 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:

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

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

● 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).

Ch. l—Summary ● 5

habitats, fish and livestock, crops, sewersystems, and soils.

Furthermore, an unreleased EPA study, inprogress for several years, indicates there are80,263 sites in the Nation with contaminatedsurface impoundments (pits, ponds, and la-goons). 2 Ninety percent are believed to pose atleast a potential threat of ground water con-tamination, Another unreleased EPA study re-ports that testing of underground drinkingwater supplies in 954 cities found contamina-tion in 29 percent. All the affected areas hadpopulations of more than 10,000.3 Leaching oftoxic substances from waste landfills is be-lieved to be a contributory factor in these cases.

Long-term health effects from exposure tohazardous waste are uncertain, but they maybe serious. For example, in one case of con-taminated drinking water (associated with ahazardous waste dump in Hardeman County,Term.), the levels of carbon tetrachloride wereso high that they exceeded proposed waterquality criteria by a factor of 10,000.4 EPA hassaid that of the 418 uncontrolled hazardouswaste sites in the Nation that need priority at-

tention, 347 pose direct threats to drinkingwater supplies and could cause birth defects,cancer, and other diseases. s

Although information is scanty on theamounts and types of releases, many hazard-ous wastes are persistent, mobile, and highlytoxic. It is possible that large segments of thepopulation are being exposed to releases of haz-ardous waste constituents. As much as 80 per-cent of federally regulated hazardous waste—atleast 30 million tonnes per year—are beingplaced in or on the land. An even greater per-centage of the 255 million to 275 million tonnesof hazardous waste under Federal and Stateregulation may be land disposed. Therefore,under current practice, 1 tonne of hazardouswaste is added to the environment for everyperson in the Nation every year. The accumula-tion from past decades of industrial activity isequivalent to several tonnes of hazardous wastefor every person in the Nation. Furthermore,waste management techniques other than landdisposal, such as the burning of waste inboilers, cement kilns, and incinerators, may bereleasing hazardous substances into the envi-ronment.

‘As reported in The Newr York Times, Dec. 30, 1982.3As reported in Engineering Times, September 1982.4Samuel S. Epstein, et al., Hazardous Waste in America, Sierra

Club Books, 1982. ‘As reported in The Washington Post, Dec. 21, 1982.

The Tradeoff Between Near- and Long-Term Costs

The economic costs of hazardous waste aresubstantial. Industry and governments are cur-rently spending $4 billion to $5 billion annuallyto manage regulated hazardous waste. Assum-ing a continuation of present Federal RCRAand CERCLA programs and modest increasesin hazardous waste generation, annual costsare estimated to rise to more than $12 billion(in 1981 dollars) in 1990. If more wastes areregulated, if more major cleanup actions arerequired, and if compensation is required fordamages to health and environment, thenfuture costs could be much greater. Govern-ment spending will increase substantially asRCRA and CERCLA implementation becomesmore intensive.

The cost of cleaning up uncontrolled sitesand compensating for damages to humanhealth and the environment calls for considera-tion of the full “lifecycle” costs of managinghazardous waste. From an economic perspec-tive, the overriding hazardous waste issue oftoday is: Would it be more prudent and effec-tive in the long term to increase the stringen-cy of current land disposal regulations andencourage the use of alternatives to land dis-posal, even though near-term costs might beincreased? Attempting to minimize presentcosts will almost certainly lead to a transfer ofgreater costs to the future. Moreover, failureto improve waste management in the near termwould surely lead to unacceptable health and


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 company has agreed to spend $38.5million. Hydrogeologic investigations to definethe 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 substantial fraction of the morethan 15,000 presently known uncontrolled 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 made. Thecost of cleaning up known 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 acknowledged 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-haps by as much 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 the 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 dumped waste is up to about$2,000 per tonne, In addition, much of theburden of future costs would likely fall on thegeneral 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.


Scope of

As requested by Congress, this assessmentfocuses on:

1. information and analysis on the use anddevelopment of technologies that can im-prove hazardous waste 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 potential benefits and costsof a framework based on scientific criteriato judge the relative degree of hazard ofwastes 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, permitting, and delegation of au-thority to States, are considered only 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 Federalhazardous 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 human health 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 Findings

The following “issues and findings” sectionis 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 presents the major analytical findingsof chapters 4 through 7. A summary of chapter3 (Policy Options) follows this section.

ISSUE 1Is 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 sub-ject to regulation by Federal and State programs?

FINDINGAlthough 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 existing waste management facilities, the numberof uncontrolled waste sites 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 Federalregulation much narrower than that of the States (seech. 4).

Waste Definition.—An adequate definition ofhazardous 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 addition, some hazard-ous wastes are regulated under environmen-tal statutes other than RCRA. EPA’s definitionof “hazardous waste” covers only these federal-ly regulated wastes. Some States, perceiving in-adequacies 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 ofwaste 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 waste generation based on the dif-ferent definitions of hazardous waste used byStates. The survey indicated that approximate-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 ofrelatively low-hazard level, such as miningwaste 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 produceseveral 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 wastedisposal. 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 must be progressively updated 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 managementmethods are not available; however, 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 disposed, and all of thatis sent to other States for disposal.

Uncontrolled Sites.-The CERCLA program hasmade some progress in identifying the numberand location of uncontrolled sites requiringremedial action, particularly for known prob-lem sites. EPA now has a list of more than15,000 sites, and 418 sites have been selectedfor the National Priority List. However, the in-ventory of uncontrolled sites in the Nation isstill incomplete, and the severity of the hazardsposed 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 wasteprogram as a basis for establishing appropriatelevels of regulatory control. The current situa-tion is not satisfactory. There are very few dataon the short- and long-term health and envi-ronmental effects of exposure to actual hazard-


Table 1 .—Examples of Exemptions From Federal Regulation as Hazardous Waste

Estimatedannual generation

Waste type (million metric tons) Possible hazard Determined by

Fly and bottom ash from burning fossil fuelsa . . . . 66 Trace toxic metals RCRAFuels gas emission control waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, and inorganic RCRAMining waste, including radioactive wasteb . . . . . . . 2,100 Toxic metals; acidity; RCRA

radioactivity yDomestic sewage discharged into publicly

owned treatment works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Uncertain, toxic metals likely RCRACement kiln dusta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Alkalinity, toxic metals RCRAGas and oil drilling muds and production waste; Alkalinity, toxic metals, toxic

geothermal energy waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown organics, salinity RCRANPDES permitted industrial discharge . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, heavy metals RCRAIrrigation return flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Pesticides, fertilizers RCRAWaste burned as fuelsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Unburned toxic organics EPAWaste oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, toxic metals EPAInfectious waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Infectious materials EPASmall volume generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7-4.0 Possibly any hazardous waste EPAAgricultural waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Variable EPAWaste exempted under delisting petitions . . . . . . Unknown Presumably insignificant EPADeferred regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Unknown EPAEPA deregulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Presumably insignificant EPAToxicity test exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Organics EPARecycled waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Improper application of EPA

various materialstWastes may be delisted on the basis of a petition that is concerned only with the constituent(s) which have determined the original listing, however, other hazardousconstituents may be present which have previously been unrecognized administratively

:Wastes not Identi fled as toxic by the EPA extraction procedure test and not otherwise listed by EPAftLegitimate recycling is exempt from RCRA regulations except for storage However, there have been numerous incidents (e g., the dioxin case in Missouri) involwng

recycled materials which are sti I I hazardous

SOURCES aFederal Register, VOI 43, No. 243, 12/16/78.b,, Technical Environmental Impact of Varlou5 Approaches for Regulating small volume H~ardous waste Generators” (Washington, D C. Environmental prO.

tectlon Agency, contract No 68-02.2613, TRW, December 1979)CIA Technical @emlew of the concept of DISpOSlng of H~ardous wastes in Industrial Boilers” (Cinc!nnatl, Ohio Environmental prOtt3CtiOn Agency, COn -

tract No 68-03-2567, Acurex Corp., October 1981)d, The RCRA Exemption for small Volume Hazardous waste Generators, Staff Memorandum” Washington, D C U S congress, Off iCe Of Technology Assess-

ment, July 1982

ous waste. The considerable scientific data thatexist are useful, but the data usually must beextrapolated from animal to human health ef-fects, from high to low concentrations of haz-ardous constituents, and from exposure to purechemicals to exposure to complex waste mix-tures. The disease registry and health surveyrequired by CERCLA, to provide more data onhealth effects of hazardous waste, have notbeen implemented satisfactorily.

Priorities for Data Acquisition.—A major obstacleto assessing the long-term effectiveness ofRCRA and CERCLA implementation by EPAand States is inadequate health and environ-mental effects data. Substantial efforts areneeded in this area. Other data priorities in-clude: hazardous waste generators (who andwhere they are, and their types and quantitiesof wastes) and management facilities (technol-ogy types and capacities); the performance of

different kinds of facilities and technologiesand degree of risk associated with each; alter-native industrial processes for waste and haz-ard reduction; uncontrolled sites; capital andoperating costs of waste management facilities;and regulatory compliance costs.

Institutional Factors. —There is a need for along-term, systematic EPA plan—for whicha congressional mandate does not yet exist—for obtaining more complete and reliable dataon hazardous wastes, facilities, sites, and ex-posures to and effects from releases. The like-ly consequences of devoting inadequate re-sources to obtain accurate information includethe following:

● Federal and State programs to protect thepublic from hazardous waste may be in-appropriate or misdirected and long-termrisks to public health and the environmentmay not be properly assessed.

99-113 9 - 83 - 7


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 becausewastes, 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 markedly over time as sites dete-riorate and releases enter the environment.

ISSUE 2Can the amount of hazardous waste that is generated

be further reduced, and does the Federal regulatoryprogram provide incentives or disincentives for wastereduction?

FINDINGSeveral technological approaches can be used to

reduce the amount of waste requiring treatment or dis-posal. The current Federal program indirectly providesmore disincentives 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 reduce the amount 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 major approachesto waste reduction are:

●

●

●

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 waste 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 depends on its applica-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, withproduct performance improvements beingthe main driving force for change. How-ever, as hazardous waste management be-comes more expensive and costs are

Ch. l—Summary ● 1 1

Table 2.—A Comparison of the Four Waste Reduction Methods

Advantages Disadvantages

Source segregation or separation1) Easy to implement; usually low investment2) Short-term solution

Process modification1) Potentially reduce both hazard and volume2) Medium-term solution3) Potential savings in production costs

End product substitution1) Potentially industrywide impact—large

volume, hazard reduction

Recovery/recycling

1)2)3)

1)

2)

1)

—

1)

1)2)

1)2)3)4)5)

In-plantMedium-term solution 1)Potential savings in manufacturing costs 2)Reduced liability compared to commercialrecovery or waste exchangeCommercial recovery (offsite)No capital investment required for 1)generator 2)Economy of scale for small waste 3)

Still have some waste to manage

Requires R&D effort; capital investmentUsually does not have industrywide impact

Relatively long-term solutionsMany sectors must be affected to achieve significant benefitsUsually a side benefit of product improvementMay require change in consumer habitsMajor investments required—need growing market

May require capital investmentMay not have wide impact

Liability not transferred to operatorIf privately owned, must make profit and return investmentRequires permitting

generators 4) Some history of poor management5) Must establish long-term sources of waste and markets6) Requires uniformity in composition

Waste exchangeTransportation costs only 1) Liability not transferred

2) Requires uniformity in composition of waste3) Requires long-term relationships—two-party involvement

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

●

passed onto consumers, the awareness ofthe “hazardous waste-intensiveness” ofproducts may contribute more to end-product substitutions,In-plant recycling has been widely usedin industry for waste reduction, Onsite re-cycling and recovery can be done beforematerials are discarded and managed ashazardous waste, thereby reducing the vol-ume and perhaps the hazard level of thewaste that are eventually generated. Com-mercial or offsite recovery operationshave had varying degrees of success, de-pending on problems with contaminationof waste, consistency of waste composi-tion and supply, and market factors. Allthese greatly influence profitability. Gen-erally, commercial recovery is more attrac-tive to small- to medium-sized waste gen-erators that do not have the capital for in-plant installations. Waste exchanges havenot yet become a major influence because

larger generators cannot transfer their lia-bility for the waste (imposed by RCRA) tothe waste user, and small generators havetoo little waste to pay the costs of ex-change, or, in some cases, to assure con-sistent types and volumes to users.

Institutional Factors.—The Federal hazardouswaste regulatory structure does not now pro-vide direct incentives for use of any of the ap-proaches mentioned above: segregation ofwaste components at the source of generation,modifications in manufacturing processes, de-velopment of end-product substitutions, andgreater use of in-plant and commercial re-cycling and recovery operations. In part, thisis because the emphasis in RCRA is not onreducing waste generation but on managementof waste once they are generated, and EPA hasnot generally pursued the resource recoveryaspects of RCRA. Moreover, a number of cur-rent regulatory policies and practices may ac-

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 ofkeeping landfill costs low, even under the newRCRA regulations by:

●

●

●

●

●

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 landfills that donot 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 public sector provides an indirect incen-tive for land disposal. Nevertheless, to a limitedextent, 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 tosome extent by one or more of the approachesdiscussed previously. A 1981 California studyof future hazardous waste generation con-cluded that new industrial plants will produceonly half the amount of hazardous waste 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 3Are alternatives to land or ocean disposal of wastes

available and used? How do Federal regulatory pro-grams affect their use? Are concerns about the risksof land disposal of hazardous waste well founded?

FINDINGNot all of the technically feasible management op-

tions for hazardous waste are being used to their fullpotential. On the whole, Federal programs indirectlyprovide more incentive for disposal options than foralternatives. Land disposal, even if in compliance withRCRA, probably poses some preventable risks both inthe near term and for the future. But land disposal isappropriate 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


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 intoand through the environment thereby dilutingconcentrations to acceptable levels, or both.Some geographical locations are generally un-derstood to make exceptionally good sites forland disposal facilities because their hydrogeo-logical characteristics make releases unlikelyand because the probability that people or sen-sitive elements of the environment would beexposed to releases is extremely low.

The degree of feasibility and appropriatenessof a specific management technology for aspecific waste depends on many factors, in-cluding 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 management alternatives (hazard reduc-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

Reliability issues” Siting, construction, and Site history and geology,operation well depth, construction

Uncertainlties long-term and operationintegrity of cells andcover, Ilner life lessthan life of toxic waste

Environmental media Surface and ground water Surface and ground watermost affected

Least compatible Liner reactive; highly toxic, Reactive; corrosive;mobile, persistent, highly toxic, mobile,and bioaccumulative and persistent

Costs” Low, Mod, High L-M LResource recovery:

potential None None

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

Technology Selection and Waste Type.—Wastetype is an important determinant of the tech-nology chosen for waste management. For ex-ample, some wastes are technically incompati-ble with a specific technology because theywould damage equipment. For wastes charac-terized as hazardous because of their reactivi-ty, corrosiveness, and ignitability, there arewell-established chemical and physicaltreatments available. However, for a waste inwhich toxicity is the major hazardouscharacteristic, the choices are not clear. Toxicconstituents may be organic, inorganic, or me-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 Technologies

Treatment

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 heavymetals concentration

M-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 environment andhuman health. However, there is generally in-adequate scientific information to decide whatthe locations are for specific wastes.

Comparisons of Technologies.-Several technicalfactors 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 through 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 ofwaste 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 maydestroy 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. Another factor to consideris the variation in potential routes of releases,such as air for incinerators and ground waterfor landfills. These are important qualitativedifferences that influence the character ofrisks. 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 measures,

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 oftreatment 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; andcosts 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 summarizes direct costs for commer-cial, offsite treatment, 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 ofthe 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 markedly more costly than land dis-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 pose some risks to public health andthe environment. Technical experts and thepublic are concerned because land disposalfacilities can release hazardous constituents atsome indeterminate time 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 exposures 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 ofRCRA 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 widespread belief by technical experts andthe public that land disposal of many types ofwaste poses unacceptable risks. As with mostpublic debates over perceived risky situations,it is not only the technical aspects of the riskthat matter. In addition, public perceptions ofthe risk levels and their acceptability influencepriorities. In the case of land disposal, the issueappears 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 study on California waste managedoffsite 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 disposed haz-ardous waste were highly toxic and verypersistent,most of the additional waste managementcapacity needed to recycle, treat, or de-stroy hazardous waste could be developedin less than 2 years; andthe 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 indicate that available capacity for offsitemanagement of wastes is not a barrier 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 disposal. Emerg-ing thermal, physical, and chemical treatmenttechnologies are at a point where they couldsubstantially benefit from more R&D support.Certain physical/chemical processes now beingdeveloped offer unusual benefits with regardto preventing emissions of hazardous constit-uents, providing resource recovery, and reduc-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 allcontributed 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 disposal. The following recent statement byEPA’s senior official for hazardous wasteregulation signals the continuing acceptanceof land disposal options:

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 manner, . . . it may be thatrecycling or destruction is preferable from astrictly health and environmental protectionstandpoint, but for many wastes, the reduction

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

However, EPA has made technical state-ments of a more cautious nature about dis-posal: “. , , the regulation of hazardous wasteland disposal must proceed from the 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 depends, in part, on the use of liners beneathwastes, EPA has also said “. . . any liner willbegin to leak eventually.’” The regulations alsostate that a landfill liner must completely “pre-vent” migration during the active life of a land-fill, and that it must “minimize” migrationthereafter. There are substantial differences ofopinion in interpreting what these require-ments mean, and how to implement them tech-nically, Concerns over who will 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 ofhazardous 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 Rita M. Lavelle, Assistant Administrator forSolid 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 ofthe 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 pursued 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 4Can the various kinds of hazardous waste be dif-

ferentiated by estimates of hazard potential? Couldwaste and facility classification play a useful role inthe regulation of hazardous waste?

FINDINGWaste can be differentiated into at least three

categories of hazard. Waste classes can be combinedwith facility classes to form a technical base for Federalregulatory policies. Developing the details of waste andfacility classification 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 and estimate environmen-tal fate of waste constituents. Others includesafety factors, toxicity measures, and concen-tration levels for major constituents. Althougheach 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 measurements must be used thatreflect expected doses and exposures; and

3. incomplete data bases, including problemsof variability and interpretation, can ham-per classification of some wastes.

Classification of any particular waste 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 industry, government, the scien-tific community, and public interest groups.

Classification of wastes can be combinedwith 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 waste (e.g., treatment or containment), andthe technological limitations of facility designand 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 ofliners to the environmental conditions of a sitesuch that wastes would be contained for speci-fied periods. 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-ample, 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 5To what extent can risk assessment be used in the

regulation and management of hazardous waste?

FINDINGThe technical limitations of risk models, assump-

tions, and data require careful attention. However, riskassessment has a useful role as an analytical tool inthe total 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 mathematicalmodels to extrapolate from high doses, used inlaboratory situations, to low doses, which maybe detected in the environment. Individualestimates generated by different models canvary considerably, even when the same dataare used.

Risk assessment can assist in making a varie-ty of decisions, including establishing regula-tory standards, setting priorities for R&D, iden-tifying risk levels associated with treatmentand disposal options, and determining appro-priate locations for waste management facili-ties. But risk assessment is only one componentin a risk management framework, as shown infigure 1. Several models are available foranalyzing tradeoffs between costs, risks, andbenefits. It should be emphasized, however,that RCRA precludes balancing 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

II Hazard evaluation I

I Risk assessment 1Comparison of cost,risks, and benefits

I P 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 IRisk management

L ISOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment

management, 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 data. 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 ofdocumented 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 theirusefulness 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 high pop-ulation densities, but this is not necessarily assensible as it first appears. Actual risks dependon where and how releases of hazardous 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. Population 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, independent of overall population 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 6What contribution can monitoring make to effective

risk management and is such a contribution requiredby the current RCRA program?

FINDINGCurrent monitoring practices and requirements under

RCRA do not lead to a high level of confidence thatreleases will be detected and responsive action quicklytaken (see chs. 6 and 7).

Monitoring can generate data to serve as atechnical basis for regulatory action and as ver-ification that public health and the environ-ment are being protected. There are severalclosely related functions for monitoring: 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 different monitoring 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 monitoring strategies pose problems in-cluding sampling procedures, data comparabil-ity, and limitations in available analyticalmethodologies. For example, difficult choicesmust be made regarding the location and num-ber of sampling sites and the frequency withwhich samples are taken, A poor choice ofsampling location could miss the detection of“hot spots” of contamination. Data compara-bility is possible only if standardized samplingand 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 waste mon-itoring program and to the development of anadequate analytical infrastructure nationwide.

Of the five types of monitoring (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 frompotentially affected locations and environmen-tal media and then analyzing them for a broadspectrum of potential contaminants is it possi-ble to control risks reliably. Minimization ofreleases of hazardous constituents ultimate-ly provides the greatest protection of publichealth. Furthermore, environmental media,and the processes that influence the movementand 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 conductlimited 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 theliners. This could lead to delays in detectingthe release of contaminants. Furthermore, evenif ambient monitoring is conducted, EPA’sguidelines for locating sampling 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 onlywith monitoring requirements 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 monitoring required by the Clean Airand Clean Water Acts appears risky.

There are also serious concerns over the pos-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, limited monitoring 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?

FINDINGSome progress is being made toward cleaning up

some 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 cleanup techniques (see chs, 5 and 7).

Uncontrolled sites may be either operational,inactive, or abandoned. A recent survey of 348uncontrolled 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 the total is in-creasing steadily. Costs of remediation varygreatly, from several hundred thousand to tento twenty million dollars per site. Throughfiscal year 1982 only $88 million of $ 4 5 2million collected under CERCLA had beenspent for cleanups, no cleanup funds had beenallocated or expended on 97 of the initial 160priority sites determined by EPA, and onlythree sites had been totally cleaned up (one en-tirely with State funds). The first complete Na-tional Priority List contained 418 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 ● 2 1

toxic substances, to establish the extent ofcleanup. Consequently, there is little assur-ance that cleanups provide protection ofhealth 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 stressescost 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-medial 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 asdrum and contaminant removal, contaminanttreatment, and incineration; or of actions onthe route of release, such as ground waterpumping, encapsulation, and gas control. Inrecent remedial 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 attention when collectionunder 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 sanitarylandfill (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 forgovernment-owned sites); this has alreadyprevented about one-third of the original160 priority sites from receiving remedialaction;States and private parties will have dif-ficulty in securing sufficient funds to cleanup sites not selected early in the Superfundprogram, and these may become more haz-ardous over time;the lifetimes and performance levels ofremediation technologies (particularlycontainment systems) under either RCRAor 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 8To what extent can technical means be used to ad-

dress public opposition to siting of hazardous wastefacilities?

FINDINGImproving the scope, quality, and dissemination of

technical information and using technical siting criteriacould prove useful; however, nontechnical institutionalremedies that improve public confidence in 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 andout of its control at best. Risks and potentialdamages (direct effects resulting from releasesof hazardous constituents, as well as indirecteffects resulting from potential 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 understandingof 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 hazardous materialrather than of hazardous waste. A key issueis the degree of public confidence in new 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 hazardous waste manage-ment capacity of any type. The uncertaintiesand costs related to public opposition makeprivate sector commitments of capital difficult.

Both technical and institutional approachescan be used to address public concerns, butthese concerns will never completely be elimi-nated, In the technical area, public confidenceand

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;andincreasing 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 damages to health or the environ-ment, or indirect economic effects, injuredparties will be able to obtain equitablecompensation expeditiously; and

4. 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 per-mitting of facilities. However, there are anumber of possibilities being discussed forgreater Federal involvement, including:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

providing 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 address publicopposition to hazardous waste facilities, thereis little likelihood of any “quick fixes. ” Currentdifficulties with the economy may, 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 would cause fur-ther erosion in public confidence. The poten-tial loss of Federal funding of State programs,which EPA is discussing, and uncertaintiesover alternate sources of money will likely ex-acerbate public concerns.

ISSUE 9Is the congressional intent that the States become

partners in implementing the Federal hazardous wasteprogram being met?

FINDINGThe States are being given increasing responsibil-

ities 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 existedbefore RCRA.

However, an element of confrontation hasdeveloped 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 grants 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 personnel to carry out theirregulatory 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 regulations; this has resultedbecause of statistical sampling rather thantotal 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 technicalstandard-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 that States are notbeing given sufficient opportunities to in-fluence the formulation of Federal regula-tions and policies that they are expectedto adopt and implement.States do not have policy guidance 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-grams 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 ofState solid waste activities have been


eliminated. Such is the case when wastesthat are hazardous are granted exemptions(e.g., from small generators) under 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 foundit necessary to use funds from FederalRCRA subtitle C grants for Superfund 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 dealingwith an extremely broad and complex area ofthreats to public health and the environment.Suggesting changes in Federal policies, there-fore, creates concerns over the possibility ofstill more delays and uncertainties. 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 policies and programs couldbe technically, economically, and socially moreeffective. Waiting for the determination of thecurrent 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 problems posed 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 thatcould supplement 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 more effectively than in the past to protectthe public from improper management 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 mayprompt industry, State and Federal Govern-ments, and the general public to avoid addi-tional near-term costs associated with 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 may 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 effectivenessof laws and programs not yet fully imple-mented.

Five policy options are evaluated in terms ofoverall 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 PotentialUse 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 option 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 presented to indicatehow several options may be combined. For ex-ample, 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 program 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 wastes from RCRA regulation, 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 specific goals for policyoptions for purposes of comparison and evalua-tion, Eight such goals for any practical congres-sional option are presented below. These goalshave been used to evaluate each of the policyoptions.

GOAL 1Improved protection of public health and the environ-

ment, without undue delays and uncertainties by:● reducing the magnitude and hazardous nature

of potential releases of waste constituents fromall types of waste generation and managementfacilities,

● improving monitoring programs to quicklydetect such releases, and

● improving corrective actions to mitigatereleases.

GOAL 2Expand 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 technological al-

ternatives to land disposal (land disposal includes landand ocean dispersal), such as waste reduction andtreatment, to reduce risks resulting from releases ofhazardous waste constituents into the environment.

26 ● Tehnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

GOAL 4Improve and expand data and information on hazard-

ous wastes, facilities, and health and environmentaloffects which are necessary for more reliable riskassessments and for the implementation of RCRA andCERCLA by both EPA and the States.

GOAL 5Improve and expand participation in RCRA and

CERCLA by the States through improved definition, im-plementation, and support of both Federal and Staterasponsibilities.

GOAL 6Moderate the inevitable increases 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 beImproved.

GOAL 7Reduce risks transferred to the future, whether sev-

eral years or to future generations, and reduce costsof waste management which are externalized andshifted to society in general.

GOAL 8Reduce public concerns over the Sitting of hazardous

waste management facilities of all types through, for● xampb, improved implementation and enforcementof, government programs.

The Five Policy Options

OPTION iContinuation of Current Program.

This option assumes that the mandates ofboth 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 plansfor changes and improvements in the nearterm.

Unlike the other policy options, no unusualimplementation problems and costs are asso-ciated with this “status quo” option. Criticismsof the option are generally based on percep-

tions of current problems or point to unaccept-able risks and costs involved in waiting for theprogram to “prove itself.”

OPTION IIA More Comprehensive and Nationally Consistent RCRAProgram.

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 EPAimplementation within approximately 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 waste 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 the 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 prudent approach would be to use arelatively low cutoff, such as 100 kilograms permonth (kg/me) instead of the current 1,000kg/mo value. In the longer term, however, somemeasure of the level of hazard of the wastecould be used instead. The degree-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 human health and theenvironment 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 modification of the RCRA regulations whichgovern 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 standards 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 notification 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 and, when subjectedto current EPA tests and procedures, they donot exhibit any of the currently identified haz-ardous waste characteristics. For example, anumber of industrial wastes containing signifi-cant levels of dioxins, chlorinated organics, orpesticides are not now regulated as hazardouswaste 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 byEPA. 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 waste should not be delisted, pend-ing further testing. The sole or inappropriateuse of the EPA toxicity test should be exam-ined, Adopting a procedure for verification ofsubmitted 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 observablethrough minimal, and required, inspection ormonitoring. There is some concern overwhether permitting by rule would lead to suf-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 underground facilities.Limited class permits may have to be based ondetailed 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). IfCongress is to sanction class permitting with-out sacrificing protection of the public, thenthe limited nature of the policy should be care-fully defined through legislation. Class permit-ting need not involve a cutoff of all public 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 .–Thereare a number of critical components to theRCRA and CERCLA regulations that includelittle if any specific technical criteria to guidepermitting. If Congress is to ensure protectionof 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 withouteither such guidance, or the resources (finan-cial, technical, and human) necessary for mak-ing decisions and formulating criteria about ex-tremely complex technical matters. Two areasof particular concern are the RCRA regulationsdealing with monitoring for land disposal fa-cilities and the CERCLA regulations dealingwith the determination of the extent of cleanupat a remedial site. This is not to imply that EPAis unaware 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 wasunder judicial order to promulgate final regula-tions; and regulations can and may be revisedin the future to add more detailed standards.

OPTION IllUse of Economic Incentives for Alternatives to Disposaland Dispersal of Hazardous Waste.

The objective of this option 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 ofpermitting procedures for alternative and per-haps innovative facilities; requirements to usecertain alternatives for specific wastes; and in-creasing the required level of control for dis-posal and dispersal approaches. Moreover, thecurrent system is significantly increasing thecosts of land disposal, compared 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 theuse of alternatives to land disposal, the per-ceived effects are often uncertain and may notoccur 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 unaccept-able risks have been inherited from certain pastwaste management 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 ofthe Federal hazardous waste program. The

Ch. l—Summaary ● 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 toRCRA or CERCLA or as new 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 Alternative Management Strategies

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 ofwaste, and the disposal or dispersal of wastein the environment. Different alternatives areappropriate for different wastes and loca-tions. In chapter 4, it is noted that, nationwide,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 understanding the potential 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 engineeringapproaches in order 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 reduce the hazard leveland possibly the amount of waste requir-ing disposal; andultimate disposal or dispersal (preferablyof residues from previous steps, ofmaterials pretreated to reduce mobilityafter land disposal, and of untreatablewastes) in a manner that holds release ofhazardous constituents into the environ-ment to acceptable levels.

Such a systematic ordering of waste manage-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 and disposalfacilities, then the costs of administering aregulatory 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 environment, Techniques 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 ofreleases 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 disposal and disper-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 recently as 1982, EPAreiterated 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 purposewould only 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 impractical to suggest majorincentive programs based on direct, budgetedexpenditures. Also, the use of economic incen-tives raises questions concerning the appropri-ate placement of burdens on industry. For suchreasons, this option consists of three com-ponents: a fee system on generated wastes toinfluence management choices, procedures 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 programs are mixed. 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 wastegenerated, rather than on “front-end” feed-stock materials that only indirectly, and to dif-ferent degrees, lead to hazardous waste genera-tion. A strong disincentive is thus inadvertentlyestablished 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 up uncontrolled sites. EPA’s original esti-mate of several years ago was that $44 billionmight be required. There have also been indica-tions from the administration that it is current-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 ob-jectives 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 would have to be reduced, on a unit-

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 substantially greater (per-haps double) for disposal and dispersal optionsand substantially lower for low-hazard ortreated waste (perhaps by half). A fee discrim-ination would provide the desired economicincentives for alternatives to disposal anddispersal. Moreover, the discriminatory ratiosand/or the amounts of the fees on land-disposedwaste might be increased over time, as wastevolumes decline and after ample time has beengiven for adopting alternatives. A zero tax forthose wastes (or portions of them) recycled formaterials or energy that would otherwise be-come hazardous wastes would appear equita-ble and desirable. 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 hazardous waste raisesufficient revenues? If one accepts the current-ly quoted figure of 41 million tonnes per yearof RCRA-defined hazardous waste 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 under 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 should 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 lqu id waste

Waste management category ($/ tonne) ($/ tonne)

Land disposal. 42 85Off site:

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

Onsi te:Land disposal after treatment 11 21T r e a t m e n t 5 11

Recyc l 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 wastegenerator 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 themarketplace.

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 effortsdo 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 aretransferred to people (now and in the future) who do not receivecorresponding benefits.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment (see ch 3 for a complete discussion)

ous 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 replacement of varying State fee programswith a uniform national system, at least forfederally regulated waste. A uniform systemcould minimize potential effects on interstatecommerce (e.g., States with fees which are highrelative to other States are less able to attractindustrial activities producing hazardouswaste).

Capital Needs.–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 expenditures on existing or new fa-cilities directly related to waste or hazard

1l’’Injuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Analysisand 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 ofloans. One recent study that examined usinggovernment loan incentives for resource recov-ery equipment for hazardous 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 usesdirectly 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 ofrevenues 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 wouldlead to reductions in government revenues ofseveral hundred million dollars annually overperhaps a 5- to 10-year period. An interestingpossibility would be to use some portion of thefunds collected under a waste generator feesystem to compensate the U.S. Treasury for allor part of the lost tax revenues. This would beconsistent with a philosophic commitment torewarding those who reduce the magnitude ofthe hazardous waste problem, while requiringthose who continue to place a burden on socie-ty to pay the costs of that burden. The studymentioned above concerning the electroplatingindustry 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 dispersal meet with another 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 ob-jections 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 ofthe technology. Profit-sharing and exclusivelicensing arrangements with payments to thegovernment are also possible, Illinois commitsa portion of the revenues obtained from feeson waste for R&D projects.

OPTION IVDevelopment and Potential Use of a Hazard Classifica-tion Framework.

This option provides for the development ofa 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 facilityclassification 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 monitoring re-quirements; andestablish appropriate levels of regulatorycontrol, including restrictions on certainmanagement technologies and types of fa-cilities, exemptions from full regulatorycoverage, and different levels of perform-ance standards for RCRA regulations cov-ering the operation of waste managementfacilities.

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 wastes addressed under 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 perhapsbe 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 accomplishedby 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 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 data, followed by integration of thehazard classification framework 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 arepresented in figure 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 and 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 merely to use information on themost hazardous constituent, or the onepresent in the largest amount, to fullyassess a particular waste. There current-ly is no standard procedure to describe thehazard level for a physically 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

■

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:● The chemical and physical character-

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

● Performance standards for varioustechnology 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 used 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 types 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 deemed most important.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 assumethat only a few classes would be requiredand are practical. Usually high, medium,low, and no hazard (essentially a decisionto consider the waste as an ordinary solidwaste) waste classes, and correspondingfacility classes, are envisioned.

An Illustration of the Classification Approach .—Twotypes 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 7 provides examples ofhow 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 VPlanning for Greater Integration 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 hazard1) 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 industrial

compounds > 1.O% boilersToxic metals 100 to 10,000 x D W S Cannot be stored more than 30 days without permitSuspected bioaccumulative carcinogens No exemptions for small generators

Recycling facilities to be permitted

Medium hazard1) 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 LC50 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 hazard1) 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~he examtdes shown are strictlv for illustrative cmrDoses onlv. and do not constitute anv endorsement or recommendation bv OTAbsource: A~aPted from system l; Washington; see discussion -in ch. 6c!jource: Off Ice of Technology Assessment.

tions would be addressed. Insufficient integra-tion among different EPA programs and otherexecutive 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 hazardous 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 appear to have a highpriority. Ocean disposal 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 under the 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 number 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 ● 3 7

study of integration by EPA or some otheragency, including formulation of an integra-tion plan, The second phase would consist ofcongressional 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 hazardous wastes that mightpose significant risks to human health andthe environment do not escape regulation,andpromoting 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 wastes reg-ulated under other acts.

Moreover, although both RCRA and CERCLAare managed within the same division of EPA,there appears to be little coordination of effortsbetween 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 ofEnvironmental Programs

There are two phases to this option, both ofwhich 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 improvements in protec-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 organiza-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

relative benefits 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 (modifications in RCRA) are mutuallyexclusive, 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, however, no means ofreliably estimating longer term costs, or costsavings for government, industry, or the gener-al public. The five options have been presentedin order of increasing time required for prelim-inary studies and implementation. If immedia-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 ways. 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, alongwith specific objections to particular options,can make any option either more 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 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. Regard-less of any policy action, these costs will in-

crease markedly in the future as both the RCRAand CERCLA programs become more 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 ofthe 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 public and privatesectors for implementing options II through 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● Current program stabilized and resources already . Protection of public health and environment may be

invested utilized weaker than possible and desirable● Participation by States improved ● Risks and costs may be unnecessarily transferred to● Short-term private and public sector costs moderated the future

● Land disposal continues to be used extensively

II. A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program● Protection of health and environment improved and ● Short-term private and public sector costs increased

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

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

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

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

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

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

coverage reduced difficulties● Reduced transfer of risks and costs to the future ● Possible interruptions i n ongoing programs● Public confidence in Federal program improved ● 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 Ill3. Encourage alternatives to land disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill Iv II I v4. Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLA

implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Iv I v Ill5. 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 I8. Reduce public concerns over siting facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill II v Iv IPolicy options1 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 damages 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, remediation, and com- costs of implementing the options. It is possi-pensation. Relatively small percentage savings ble that in the long-term, implementation 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 implement various combinations of thefive policy options. The purpose of the follow-ing discussion is to illustrate four such 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 ICurrent RCRA regulations are adequate, but alterna-

tives to land disposal need encouragement. Options Iand Ill are adopted.

Many believe that the current 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 program) and also adopting option111 (providing direct economic incentives foralternatives to land disposal). Option 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 waste genera-tors (to replace the current funding mecha-nism for CERCLA) based on quantity ofwaste, 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;andsupport for R&D efforts that may be neces-sary before waste and hazard reductioncan be accomplished commercially.

SCENARIO IISpecific changes are needed to strengthen RCRA,

and an effort is needed to integrate and streamline thefentire ederal hazardous waste program which has

evolved in a piecemeal fashion. Options II and V areadopted.

The choice of option 11 is based on the desireto modify and improve the existing RCRA reg-ulatory program. The specific actions includedin option II would close a number of existinggaps in regulatory coverage of waste, restrictcertain wastes from land disposal facilities, andintroduce more technical 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 would 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 protectionstatutes, and among the various executiveagencies having programs associated with haz-ardous waste. These two options combine bothshort- and long-term approaches to obtaininga more effective, efficient hazardous wasteprogram.

SCENARIO IllThe current RCRA program needs improvement and

a nonregulatory approach is also needed to shift wastemanagement choices away from land disposal towardwaste reduction and treatment efforts. The most expedi-tious congressional actions are required. Options II andIll are adopted.

Option II would result in the improvementof RCRA regulations to better provide short-and long-term protection of human health andthe 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 theseoptions 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 IVThe current RCRA regulatory program should be

maintained, but some long-term efforts to improve theprogram should also be pursued. Adopt options 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 some future time 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 options IV and V can be viewed 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 ● ***. * * El b a * * * *.****.**

Major Issues and Uncertainties. . . . . .

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

● * . * . . . * . . * . a * * * * * * . . . * . , * * * * * * * . . * *

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

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

Page43

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 hazardous 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 use of pollution abatement facilitieswhich 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 mid to late 1970’s with widespread con-cern over mismanaged waste, indiscriminatedumping of uncontainerized liquid waste, andinfrequent, but highly visible transportation ac-cidents. Mismanaged waste created seriousproblems both by the release of harmful sub-stances into the environment and because ofthe 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 waste, particularly the use of landfiIls, sur-face impoundments, and lagoons, could resultin a substantial threat, This threat resulted 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:

●

●

●

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 waste, whether newly gen-erated or previously disposed of, posed sub-stantial challenges, Studies revealed that somehazardous waste generated and disposed ofdecades before had led to undetermined, butpossibly very large amounts of dangerous sub-stances distributed in and on the land in manyareas of the Nation, Moreover, some previouslyabandoned disposal sites with uncontrolledreleases of waste into the environment werenot effectively addressed by RCRA, which wasprimarily concerned with proper managementof 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 the Comprehensive Environmental, Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980 (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 ofreleases into the environment, substantiatingactual or potential adverse impacts on healthand 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 hazardous waste problem, promulgating ef-fective regulations and standards, developingmanagement alternatives for industry, andestablishing Federal and State regulatory pro-grams are some. Virtually all interested in thehazardous waste regulatory system have voicedconcerns over poor definition of the problems,delays in implementing solutions, changes indirection of the system, and uncertainties offuture policies and programs.

Some delays, of course, 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 during the 20th century has been accom-panied by and, to a significant extent, basedon the rapidly rising use 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 productivity, many associated raw materi-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 workers dur-ing production or industrial use, the conse-quences of inadequate disposal of industrialhazardous waste has emerged as a critical na-tional problem. Hazardous wastes are highlycomplex, with characteristics specific to indus-try, process, product, or site.

Improved management of hazardous wasteimplies greater costs to industry and, 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 economic value from ma-terials previously regarded as useless. How-ever, increasing waste management costs canalso increase illegal dumping of hazardouswaste and increases the need for effective gov-ernment enforcement programs to detect suchillegal practices. The investment expendedeither to reduce 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 pass from the planning toimplementation stage at a time of severe na-tional economic problems has increased theneed for developing the most cost-effective ap-proaches to waste management,

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

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- ●

ties, and adverse effects of both on publichealth and environment. The formulation of ef-fective and equitable regulations requires in-formation on the intensity of the threats posedby wastes and on their remedies. Factual ques-tions that have remained unanswered, and ●

which have influenced the scope of this report,include the following:

How much hazardous waste is there?What is being generated, by what indus-tries, in what 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 inways 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 ● 4 5

●

●

●

nology, level of control, and capacity?How much 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 alternativesfor waste management? What options ex-ist for reducing hazard levels throughtreatment, for disposal to contain waste,for dispersal to render waste harmless, forcleanup of uncontrolled sites, and for re-duction of the amounts of waste to be man-aged through process modification, end-product substitution, 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 orare released into the environment? Howdo waste constituents move through theenvironment, remain stable or degrade?

In addition to questions of fact, there is a sec-ond broad area of policy-related questions.There are difficult issues involving societalvalues, tradeoffs between short- and long-termsolutions, costs, and equity. Given limitedresources and information, what types of pol-icies, regulations, and standards 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 ofrisks to future generations, Moreover, policy-related issues often involve technical problemsthat are often difficult for any but specialized

technical experts to understand. 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

●

●

●

●

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 under 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 hazardouscharacteristics, but which are regulated 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 different levels of control, standardsfor acceptable levels of release, and strin-gency of monitoring programs? Can sucha system be used to limit uses of differenttechnological 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 health 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


●

●

●

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 advantages and disadvantagesfor both the short and long terms? Do cur-rent policies 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 influence hazardouswaste management and regulation? Is itefficient to have different laws, adminis-tered by different agencies or differentgroups within an agency, to govern differ-ent categories of technological alterna-tives, such as ocean dumping, injection indeep wells, and other facilities on the 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 tomore traditional environmental regula-tions? Is the current use of financial liabil-ity requirements likely to lead to more effi-cient self-regulation in industry? 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 programs 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 opportunity 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 wastepolicies. Moreover, these questions indicate 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 generallvRCRA as amended requires the Environmen- termed hazardous waste. Financial assistance

tal Protection Agency (EPA) to issue and en- to States, municipalities, and regional author-force regulations governing the disposal 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 ● 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 uncompleted. Delays anduncertainties concerning the regulation ofwaste have created problems for the industrialsector, for both generators and disposers ofwaste. Public concern has not abated.

CERCLA provides a funding mechanism forcorrective actions taken at a variety of inopera-tive or abandoned waste sites and for clean-ing up accidental releases of hazardous 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;and

—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 ofwastes and risks from management facili-ties; andevaluation of current regulatory programs,particularly with 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 writenew 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 definition of solid waste, whichincludes 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-dustrial hazardous waste are generated inFederal facilities, including numerousDepartment of Defense installations.The primary emphasis of this study is themanagement of waste in existing or futurefacilities, although the problems associatedwith closed facilities and past practices ofabandoned 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 with 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 way; 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 number of means to obtain appropriateinformation without, however, attempting ma-jor acquisitions of new data or complete inven-tories of data. Instead, OTA used and per-formed critical analyses of available data bases,cooperated with the States in some limited sur-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 summary of the en-tire report, and this chapter, there are five addi-tional chapters, briefly described below.

Chapter 3 presents eight goals for evaluatingpolicy options, and five policy 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 throughamendments 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 many 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-plementary steps over a period 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.

Chapter 4 analyzes the available informationon 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 hazardous 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.

Chapter 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. Anotherpurpose of this chapter is to assess the extentto which the current system is addressing theissues discussed in chapter 6, and at whatcosts. The Federal and State roles and pro-grams are reviewed and discussed separately.A number of problems related to implementa-tion of the current regulations are also exam-ined.

CHAPTER 3

Policy Options

Contents

PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Common Goals for Policy Options ● ● . ● . 52

Five Policy Options ● . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . 59Option I—Continuation of Current Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Option II—A More Comprehensive and Nationally Consistent RCRA Program . . . 67Option III–Use of Economic Incentives for Alternatives to Disposal and

Dispersal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Option IV—Development and Potential Use of a Hazard Classification

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Option V—Planning for Greater Integration of Environmental Protection

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6...... 91

Four Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Appendix 3A.— Hazard Classificationin a Risk Management Framework. . . . . . 99

List of Tables

Table No. Page10. Waste Management Methods Indicated on TSCA Premanufacturing Notices . . 7411. Illustration of a Hazardous Waste Generator Tax Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7712. illustrative Examples of a Potential Hazard Classification Framework . . . . . . . . 8913. Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9614. Comparstive Ranking of Policy Options for Each Policy Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure

Figure No. Page3. Illustration of Changing Federal Waste Fee System Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

CHAPTER 3

Policy Options

IntroductionThis 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 hazardouswaste, Little reliable information concerningthe likelihood of future incidents is avail-able—and, as this study indicates, there is alack of general confidence that current regula-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 policy options, which are evaluatedin terms of certain overall goals, are as follows:

●

•

●

●

●

Option I: Continuation 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 ofHazardous 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 direction of the evolving regulatoryprogram, 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 presentedto 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 current regulatory program, 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 ofcomplete and reliable data. Detailed analysesof the costs and benefits of particular optionsrequire extensive data concerning wastes, fa-cilities and technologies, and potential adverseimpacts 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 ofthis study (described in ch. 2) should be keptin mind when considering these policy options.The focus of this assessment has 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 ofregulations, 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 number 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 ofsubstantial reductions in funding for enforce-ment 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 ofurgency 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 beliefthat current programs could be made moretechnically, economically, and socially effec-tive. Waiting for the determination of the cur-rent program’s effectiveness, it is argued, maylead to the development of outright crises, suchas widespread ground water contamination.There is consensus that we are now actingmore 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 must be considered in the con-text of reduced funds for government pro-grams. Such conditions may prompt industry,State and Federal Governments, and the publicto avoid additional costs associated with acleaner environment in order to cope with eco-nomic difficulties. Options that defer costs, thatdo not jeopardize current industrial activities,

that shift risks to the future, may become moreattractive than in the past. Such tradeoffs poseformidable choices for policy makers, mademore difficult by current uncertainties con-cerning the effectiveness of laws and programsnot yet fully implemented.

It is therefore helpful to define specific goalsfor policy options for purposes of comparisonand evaluation. Eight such goals for any prac-tical congressional option are presented below.These goals will be used later to evaluate eachof the policy options.

GOAL 1Improve protection of health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties by:• reducing the magnitude and hazardous nature of

potential releases of waste constituents from alltypes of waste generation and management facil-ities,

● improving monitoring programs to quickly detectsuch releases, and

● 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 clearlyunderstood that the current Federal hazardouswaste program offers unequivocal improve-ments over the virtual absence of regulationsthat existed previously.

Ch. 3—Policy Options • 53

GOAL 2Expand the universe of federally regulated hazardous

waste, recognizing that different levels of regulationunder RCRA may be appropriate and desirable.

During the inception of the RCRA program,it was reasonable to limit the scope of regulatedwastes. It has become increasingly clear, how-ever, that the exemption of hazardous wastefrom Federal regulation has not been well cor-related with the degree of hazard of the waste.Nonregulated (under 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 certaintywhether the current regulatory program is di-rected at those wastes representing the greatestor 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 hazardous 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 only 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 3Encourage development and use of technological al-

ternatives to land disposal (including land and oceandispersal), such as waste reduction and treatment, toreduce risks resulting from release of hazardous wasteconstituents into the environment.

This policy goal reflects a primary strategyof minimizing releases of hazardous constitu-ents by initially avoiding the 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 oftechnical difficulty, cost, and uncertainty.Discussions and analyses of the currentregulatory programs in chapter 7 also indicatethat the use of disposal and dispersal ap-proaches should be minimized. 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 waste contamination in a cost effectivemanner. 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-propriately taken into account. RCRA does notmandate a balancing of costs and risks as ameans of determining what should 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 4Improve and expand data and information on hazard-

ous wastes, facilities, and their effects which are nec-essary for more reliable risk assessments and for theimplementation of RCRA and CERCLA by both the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States.

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:

●

●

●

●

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 physical types,and origin.The numbers and capacities of activewaste facilities, both onsite and offsite (orcommercial), particularly as a function oftechnology type, types of waste managed,and levels of control for release of wasteconstituents into the environment.The number and location of inactive wastemanagement facilities or open dump sites,and the types and amounts of wastes asso-ciated with these sites.The range of potential health and environ-mental effects as a function of waste type,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 current program or its modificationsis 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 important benefits would result fromconsequent improvements of data. The facilita-tion of hazard and risk assessments, as dis-cussed in chapters 6 and 7, would be of partic-ular importance. Also, specific technical cri-teria could be incorporated into RCRA regula-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 data and information bases.

It is important to recognize the problemswhich EPA has faced thus far in this area. Thelarge 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.

Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 5 5

amount of waste generated. A greater apprecia-tion is needed for the value of regular reportsfrom all waste generators rather than surveysbased only on samples which EPA has decidedto use.4 Also needed is greater understandingthat data require continued updating and verifi-cation, with ongoing analyses, and proceduresto facilitate public access to both the data andanalyses. Furthermore, coordination of the in-formation collected under the RCRA andCERCLA programs, in other major programsin EPA, and in other Federal efforts could beimproved. Finally, it is important to acknowl-edge that many data need to be safeguarded toprotect company confidentiality and proprie-tary rights, and that a balance must be struckbetween this need and the right of the publicto have access to data and information.

GOAL 5Improve and expand participation in RCRA and

CERCLA by the States through better definition, imple-mentation, and support of both Federal and Stateresponsibilities.

It is essential that policy options be evaluatedas to their definition of the role of the Statesand EPA, and how they might improve and ex-pand participation by the States. It makes nosense whatsoever to shift responsibilities to theStates unless there is a corresponding improve-ment in their resources (financial, technical,and human] to carry out those increased re-sponsibilities. A recent analysis of these re-sponsibilities concluded that:

EPA lacks the administrative capacity andknowledge of local conditions necessary to im-plement RCRA by itself; states lack the researchcapacity to develop complex regulations, Con-

4EPA’s policy on annual reporting requirements has shiftedseveral times, but as of a notice in the Federal Register on Oct.12, 1982, the annual reporting requirement for waste generatorsand facilities has been replaced by a nationwide biennial surveyby EPA directly with waste handlers, The States have raised anumber of objections to this policy, including a conflict withcongressional intent (sec. 3006 of RCRA), bypassing authorizedStates who have the responsibility for such collection, and lackof timely improvements in the complete national data base. Letterfrom Richard A. Valentinetti, President, Association of State andTerritorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Nov. 4, 1982, toRita LaVelle, Assistant Administrator, Environmental ProtectionAgency,

sequently, EPA and the states must share re-sponsibility for implementing the statute underthe state programs provisions. Sharing respon-sibility means tolerating differences. In evaluat-ing state applications for final authorizationunder RCRA, EPA should construe the require-ment that state programs be consistent withand equivalent to the Federal program. Thiswill allow states the flexibility to design theirprograms to reflect local conditions (and] to bemore stringent than the federal program. Shar-ing responsibility also means fulfilling obliga-tions. EPA has been inexcusably slow in pro-mulgating final RCRA regulations. EPA hasmade it difficult for states to develop hazard-ous waste programs; states have no clear ideawhat differences between state and federal pro-grams will be allowed or even what the federalprogram will look like. ”5

It is important to view RCRA and CERCLAas two components of a joint Federal-State pro-gram. It was not a goal of this assessment toexamine the problems and issues associatedwith the delegation of RCRA program responsi-bility to the States or with the role of the Statesin CERCLA. However, during the course ofthis study it often became necessary to exam-ine State actions and concerns, particularly asthey relate to scientific and technological fac-tors. For example, as discussed in chapter 4,the varying ways in which the States have de-cided which hazardous wastes to regulate andwhether, and how, to exempt small generatorsis quite important to an understanding of thescope of the hazardous waste problem. Thechoice of sites and remediation technologiesunder CERCLA, as discussed in chapters 5 and7, is also directly related to Federal-State inter-actions and vitally affects risks to the public.

The Federal hazardous waste program hashad many positive effects on State programs,often raising standards, prompting regulatorycoverage where none previously existed, pro-viding technical information, and helping tostreamline State administration of hazardouswaste regulations which are sometimes splitamong several State groups. However, this

—‘Karen L. Florini, “Issues of Federalism in Hazardous Waste

Control: Cooperation or Confusion, ” Harvard EnviromnentalLaw Review, vol. 6, 1982, pp. 307-337.

56 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control—

study, along with hearings during 1982 con-cerning congressional oversight and RCRA re-authorization, has made it apparent that thereare serious problems 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 funding and efficient administra-tion of RCRA and CERCLA by EPA. * The find-ings of chapter 7 (concerning problems of thecurrent Federal program) support the 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 primarily 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 ofthe 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, Associationof State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials toThomas W. Curtis, National Governors’ Association, Nov. 15,1982.

ward acceptable risks, types of industries, andtypes of waste management facilities alreadyin place are such factors.

The States have much 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 regulations than at the Fed-eral level. A number of States have consider-able experience in permitting 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:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

degree-of-hazard approaches to varyinglevels of appropriate waste regulation,which sometimes conflict with 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, liquidwaste 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; andextensive, specific provisions for involvingthe public in regulatory decisionmaking.

If Congress attempts to detail 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 wish to consider modifying 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 ofState and Territorial Solid Waste ManagementOfficials (ASTSWMO) addresses this problem:

Despite both the congressional mandate forEPA to seek consultation from the States in theregulatory development process and the cur-rent Administration’s proclivity toward sup-porting the New Federalism concept, EPA hasbeen protected from outside State opinion.EPA’s use of the FACA law and of the ex parterule have provided questionable rationales fordenying State intervention in the regulatorydecision-making process. Reinterpretation ofASTSWMO members (who are State govern-ment employees] as EPA principals would alsoattempt to eliminate FACA/ex parte restrictionsso that State participation could occur at anypoint during the entire regulatory developmentprocess. Information flow from EPA toASTSWMO member States has been hampered. . . 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 ofState or municipally owned sites), and that mayhave high, and highly uncertain, operating andmaintenance costs, which the States pay entire-ly. The States favor approaches that are higher

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

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

Another problem associated with CERCLAconcerns 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 ofStates 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. Ifthere is insufficient data from waste genera-tors, States may have difficulty determiningwhether particular wastes are being managedproperly, or whether they are being handledillegally. This is a problem with onsite genera-tion and management currently outside theFederal manifest system, unless there is suffi-cient reporting requirements to obtain detailedinformation.

The role of the States in data acquisition isalso unclear. States could participate more di-rectly in the critical task of improving 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, with toolittle attention given to organizing data into acommon format, and to verifying the quality

Qf the 30 States providing information, 23 used RCRA fundsin 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 data bases. It appears appropriateto consider the States to have the primeresponsibility for data, with EPA serving asthe 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 analy-sis, data processing, and computer retrieval(see ch. 4). OTA studies show that, in a numberof 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 statisticalsamples can have only limited use. 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 6Moderate the inevitable increases in the costs of Fed-

eral and State program administration and regulatorycompliance by industry and minimize costs associatedwith site remediation and compensation for further dam-ages to health and the environment which may resultfrom current practices that could be improved.

As discussed in chapter 7, the private sectorannual costs of complying with RCRA andCERCLA are now estimated to be in the rangeof $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

● 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 offuture 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 7Reduce risks transferred to the future, whether sev-

eral years or to future generations, and reduce costsof waste management that are externalized and shiftedto society in general.

There should be minimal transfer of risksand costs to the future, whether it be years ordecades, on general grounds of equity. Further-more, deferrals 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 ofa 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 dispersal of various wastes 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 remedial actions and com-pensation for damages to human health and theenvironment. First, on the basis of equity, it isproper that those persons most responsible forwaste generation should pay for proper man-agement, including those choosing to consumeproducts or use services requiring the genera-tion of hazardous waste. Second, if the manage-ment alternatives most protective of the publicgood are to be promoted, then it is reasonableto penalize those alternatives providing lowerlevels of protection.

Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 5 9.— —

GOAL 8Reduce public concerns over the siting of hazardous

waste management facilities by improved implementa-tion and enforcement of government programs.

It is obvious that hazardous waste will con-tinue to be generated. Even with reductions insome waste generation resulting from the cur-rent regulatory program and greater concernswith future liabilities, there will probably bean overall increase in hazardous waste genera-tion if economic activity increases. Such in-creases may require new facilities. If there isa shift away from land disposal as the domi-nant management choice, new treatment facil-ities will be required. It is also possible thatmore land disposal facilities may be required,depending on how the current regulatory pro-gram (particularly permitting) affects existingfacilities, on the level of success in shifting toalternative management options, and on thelevel of future waste generation. Public con-

cern over permitting existing facilities and sit-ing new ones, therefore, poses a serious prob-lem for improving hazardous waste manage-ment.

Public concern over the need for, and sitingof, new waste management facilities can be ad-dressed through both technical and institution-al approaches. Technical approaches includeimproved public understanding of alternativemanagement strategies, effective technologyoptions, future capacity needs, varying hazardlevels for wastes and facilities, health and envi-ronmental effects, hydrogeologic siting criteria,and present and future costs. As discussed inchapter 6, there is no assurance that better in-formation will remove public opposition to sit-ing of new waste facilities, but there is hopethat public confidence in government policiescan be improved. With increased public confi-dence, public concerns and private sectorneeds may be better reconciled,

Five Policy Options

OTA has defined five options that would ad-dress both short- and long-term needs andproblems of the Federal hazardous waste pro-gram. As indicated earlier, with the exceptionof the status quo option, the remaining optionscan be viewed as a complementary series ofchanges that would improve and reorient the ●

program over time, The five options are statedbelow, followed by a more detailed discussionof each,

Option I: Continuation of the CurrentProgram.-The current program, togetherwith certain planned changes, is main-tained.Option 11: A More Comprehensive andNationally Consistent RCRA Program.—Near-term changes in regulations can bemade by making amendments to RCRA.These changes include a redefinition ofwhich wastes are regulated and to what ex-tent, a shift toward limiting land disposal,

the introduction of limited class permits,and the greater use of specific technicalcriteria in regulations. These changeswould not alter the structure of the currentprogram, but, they would significantly im-pact the regulated community.Option III: Use of Economic Incentivesfor Alternatives to Disposal and Disper-sal.—This is a near-term program toreduce the use of disposal and dispersalapproaches to waste management by pro-viding direct economic incentives for alter-natives such as waste reduction, recycling,and treatment. Three key components ofa comprehensive incentive program area fee system on hazardous wastes gen-erated, a means to address capital invest-ment needs, and assistance for researchand development (R&D). Such a programcould be implemented by either amend-ment to RCRA or CERCLA or by a newstatute,


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 decisionmaking. Such a system canbe used for setting priorities, setting mon-itoring requirements, and determining theappropriate level and type of regulation,including performance standards. 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, beginningwith a study, 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 regulated under other 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 RCRAwhich directs such integration by the EPAAdministrator, but which 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 IContinuation of Current Program

This option assumes that the mandates ofboth 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 nearterm. 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 1Improve protection of human health and the environment

without 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 current program, andthe current program is certainly providing in-creased protection than existed previously.Final regulations have been promulgated andpermitting is beginning. State programs arebeing authorized. CERCLA-funded cleanups ofuncontrolled sites are taking place. Enforce-ment actions for both RCRA and CERCLA areoccurring. Better information is being ob-tained.

However, to the extent that the level of pro-tection is lower than it could be, the benefitfrom this option is less than it could be. On bal-ance, this option is considered to offer a mod-erate benefit. Criticisms of’ the current programhave been shaped by past delays and changesin direction and primarily focus on: 1) thespeed and extent of its 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, “1982, 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; and

3. adverse impacts on health or environmentthat 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 2Expand the kinds of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

This option offers a minor benefit, There isno systematic program or policy to substantial-ly remove current exemptions or to close gapsin regulatory coverage. But certain exemptionsare 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 have hazardous 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 regard to both the level of waste requiredfor exemption and the types of waste gener-ated, Similarly, EPA has stated its intention ofproposing 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-


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;andwastes that have the abilitv to degrade theliners in landfills and surface impound-ments.

EPA has indicated that studies are underwayto determine the basis for prohibiting land dis-posal of hazardous waste which are highly tox-ic, persistent, and mobile where alternativetreatment or recovery technologies are reason-ably available. Also, requirements for monitor-ing and control of volatile organic compoundsin land disposal facilities are being studied,

Furthermore, the regulation of industrial haz-ardous waste going into municipal water treat-ment systems or requiring pretreatment underthe 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 ofhazardous substances into the environment.For the regulated waste list as a whole, thereremains considerable uncertainty concerninghow and when this universe might increase ordecrease without congressional action.

GOAL 3Encourage alternatives to land disposal.

Only minor 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 significantthan the impact of the control regulations) isthe effect of the liability requirements 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 requirements becauseof:

1.

2.

3.

4.5.

6.

7.

the limited time that the liability require-ments have been in place and the lack ofinformation 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 with disposal technol-ogies, with either existing facilities or newfacilities, based on compliance with thefinal regulations;changing and expanding legal theories ofliability as a result of legislation and judi-cial decisions; andthe self-insurance provisions.

● 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 verifiedthat 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 regulations for incinera-tion. Therefore, the costs of incineration (deter-mined, in part, by the regulations) remain non-competitive with land disposal techniques. Fur-thermore, there are no final technical standardsfor some waste treatment technologies, suchas certain chemical and biological treatments,which leads to much uncertainty 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 minimal level of regulationcan be viewed as related to possible release ofhazardous 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 ofexisting facilities may be both technically feasi-ble and appropriate (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 nature ofthe 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 activitiesin the areas of advanced technologies and alter-natives to disposal. *

GOAL 4Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLA

implementation.

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 data 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 performance rather than design,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 ofthe 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 hazardous waste 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 ofthe 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 wherethe “How clean is clean?” question is oftenposed. Although a reasonable 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 with hazardous waste.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 important example of lack of speci-ficity in RCRA regulations is the case of mon-itoring requirements. There are few technicalcriteria, based on hydrogeologic surveys andother information, for establishing the numberand 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 usedor is being planned. One is for RCRA regula-tions, including the tailoring of regulations 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 when there 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 ofthis model is given in chapter 7 and its appen-dix. OTA is not confident that the structure ofthe model, its assumptions, or its data baseswill lead to accurate 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 applicable are not consistent with pres-ent or possible future uses; diverse humanhealth effects are not adequately addressed;costs for technologies are incomplete, undocu-mented, and are biased in favor of land dispos-

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 ofpopulation 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 funds are spent when relatively few people,such as in rural 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. Itsfindings 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 5Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by

States.

There has been a marked increase in the levelof both Federal and State activities and Federaland 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 Government. A potential exists fora sharp downturn in Federal-State relations iffunding for State activities under RCRA sub-title C is eliminated, which EPA has indicatedits 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. Theresult 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 liquids in landfills. Also,many 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. 11-16.

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 may undercut State efforts,and limited State resources restrict thedevelopment of separate and more strin-gent State regulations. In the case ofCERCLA, States have expressed consider-able concern over the lack of detail in theNational Contingency Plan.States have continuing problems becauseof the decision to remove 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 waste 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 ofhazardous substances. Some RCRA sub-title C grant funds are being used for sub-title D activities, and EPA does not appearto be carrying out its responsibility underRCRA subtitle D to oversee the State solidwaste programs.States have no ongoing Federal grant sup-port for general CERCLA activities relatedto 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 not received increased Federalgrant support, while 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 Governorsr Association 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 out their responsibilities undersubtitle C, the States will have to expandgreatly the size of their hazardous wasteprograms. Program expansion might re-quire a corresponding increase in Statehazardous waste management grants.l2

The 1980 EPA projection for the Stategrants 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 oftenare expected to use unreliable and incom-plete information, or to supply 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 government-owned sitesand 10 percent for private sites. Becauseof limited State funds, government-ownedsites may be less likely to be chosen byStates for CERCLA attention on thegrounds that more sites could get remedialattention by using the available funds asthe 10 percent match for CERCLA actionsat privately 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, but represent a purchase of services, and that withoutgrants States ought to begin charging for services and data pro-vided. NGA memo from Tom Curtis to Environmental Directors,Sept. 23, 1982,

● *When the administration 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 ofremedial technologies for CERCLA sitescreates further conflicts because of theState’s responsibility to cover all futureoperating and maintenance costs. Statesare concerned that EPA will favor ap-proaches with low initial costs, but highcontinuing costs. EPA has indicated thatit will select the lowest cost-effective alter-native, and States preferring a higher costalternative must pay all additional costs.

7. The general character of the program todelegate responsibility 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 6Moderate increases in costs to governments for ad-

ministration and to industry for compliance.

The status quo may appear to provide bene-fits in these areas. However, 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 onbalancing 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 ofthe measures being contemplated for “fine tun-ing” of the program (e.g., tailoring land dispos-al regulations according to perceived risks andcosts) may lead to greater cost effectiveness,but it is not possible to forecast that adjustmentof overregulated cases will more than offset ad-


justment of underregulated cases in terms ofcosts alone, *

GOAL 7Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costs

of management shifted to society in general.

It is clear that the current program offers sig-nificant reductions in the transfer of risks andcosts to future generations than before its im-plementation. Nonetheless, this option isbelieved to offer only a minor benefit relativeto what is achievable and socially desirable.The current program is generally perceived tobroadly sanction land disposal, and there areuncertainties over possible future costs. Uncer-tainties concerning the choice and effec-tiveness of remedial actions under CERCLAare also substantial.

EPA has used the qualifier “long term” in itsland disposal regulations, but has not made themeaning of this term exact. It is reasonable tointerpret the phrase to mean about 30 years,a number in keeping with other language in theRCRA land disposal regulations. There thenappear to be ample opportunities for facilityoperators to adhere in good faith to the regula-tions and create situations that transfer risksand financial liability to future generations. Notall releases may be detected within 30 years.As noted in final land disposal regulations,EPA itself expects, “ , . . most landfill disposalunits to leak [eventually], however well de-signed . . .“ The time horizon problem is partic-ularly apparent in the monitoring requirementsfor land disposal techniques and the ways inwhich monitoring requirements can be circum-vented entirely.

“An important but uncertain factor, for this and all policyoptions, is general economic conditions, including levels ofindustrial capacity utilization, types of industry restructuring,shifts in end-product uses, and the development of new indus-tries and processes. Some of these can lead to lower costs forwaste management, while others may increase costs. Nonethe-less, it is likely that the costs for hazardous waste management[as either a fraction of gross national product or of a waste gen-erator’s production costs] are likely to increase in the near term,stabilize, and possibly decrease as waste prevention and con-trol techniques become more pervasive, mature, and efficient,and with reductions in the formation and remediation of uncon-trolled sites.

GOAL 8Reduce public concerns over siting of facilities.

Only a minor benefit is likely. Public confi-dence does not appear to be improving withthe current program. There are no Federal pro-grams that would indicate to the public thatalternatives to land disposal are being encour-aged. Nor are there strong signals that techni-cal information is being both improved and bet-ter disseminated in useful forms to the public.There are no indications of interest in provid-ing direct Federal involvement in the sitingarea which might complement State efforts.Many States have instituted programs and cri-teria for siting to alleviate public concerns, butthe results are not yet clear. Alternatively, con-tinuing information, analyses, and discussionsof the current national regulatory program con-tribute to public concerns.l3

Option IIA More Comprehensive and Nationally

Consistent RCRA Program

The purpose of this option is to expand thescope and increase the effectiveness of the cur-rent RCRA program. The changes discussedbelow could be carried out by amendment toRCRA, possibly including a schedule for EPAimplementation within approximately 6 monthsto 1 year of enactment. For convenience, allchanges in RCRA are presented as one con-gressional option, although each could be en-acted independently. Each of the modificationsis described, followed by an evaluation of theoption in terms of the eight policy goals pre-sented earlier; then, the costs and problemsassociated with implementation of the optionare discussed.

Specific Changes

Wastes Regulated .—This change concerns theuniverse of regulated hazardous waste and the

‘3 For example.“ “State of the Environment 1982, ” The Conser-vation Foundation, 1982; “indictment-The Case Against theReagan Environmental Record, ” ten environmental organiza-tions, March 1982; “Environment and Health, ” CongressionalQuarterly, 1981; and “Poisons in the Water, ” Sierra Club,October 1982.


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 the gap created by the blanket ex-emption of hazardous waste generated inrelatively 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 per month (kg/me) in-stead of the current 1,000-kg/mo value. 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 onknown characteristics of the waste that in-dicate potential harm to human health andthe environment upon 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 modi-fication of RCRA regulations that governwaste 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 municipal water and sewage treatmentfacilities. There would be instead notifica-tion requirements and standards 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 ofwhich are now totally exempted 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 waste), appli-cable to all operations, not just “third par-ty” recyclers as is currently proposed. 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 hazardous wastes to beprohibited from management in landfills,surface impoundments, and deep wells.These lists should be correlated with 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 theburning operation, the hazardous nature of the waste, or riskfactors associated with releases and exposures. (EPA, Memoran-dum on RCRA Enforcement Guidance: Burning Low EnergyHazardous Wastes 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 definingRCRA 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 accompanying 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 the EP test, have been land-dis-posed and have already contaminatedground water.

Another example of the limitations ofthe EP test has been shown for cadmium-containing sludge produced in Illinois. In

‘a’’ Comments of the Utah Bureau of Solid and HazardousWaste 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 sludge to be classified as a nonhazard-ous waste .17

8. Making delisting of hazardous waste moreexpeditious without, however, compromis-ing protection of the public, This could bedone by using clearer, specific criteria fordelisting and 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 ofsubmitted 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 overwhether permitting by rule would lead to suf-ficient protection of the public, such that the

17w. C. Geissman, letter to Rep. James J. Florio, May 25, 1982.IBHouse Energy and 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 ofclass 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 have 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.) IfCongress is to sanction class permitting with-out sacrificing protection of the public, thenthe limited nature of the policy should 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 anopportunity for the public to be heard as partof the permitting process.

Specific Technical Criteria in Regulations .–Thereare a number of critical components of RCRAand CERCLA regulations that include little ifany 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 Statepermit writers to make critical decisions eitherwithout such guidance, or without the re-sources necessary for making decisions andformulating criteria about extremely complextechnical matters. Two areas of particular con-cern are RCRA regulations dealing with moni-toring for land disposal facilities and CERCLAregulations dealing with the determination ofthe extent of cleanup at a remedial site. Thisis not to imply that EPA is unaware of the prob-lem. Several relevant activities should be noted:draft guidance documents have been preparedby EPA and may lead to specific criteria beingused; EPA was under judicial order to promul-gate final regulations; and regulations 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.



In general, this option appears to offer a ma-jor benefit. Regulation of more hazardouswaste, use of more technical criteria in regula-tions, and reasonable class permits could re-duce the probability of release of hazardousconstituents into the environment. The optionwould not restructure the current Federal pro-gram. All the modifications in RCRA could beimplemented expeditiously within the existingframework in an evolutionary manner. 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 2Expand universe of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

This option offers a major benefit. Many ex-isting gaps in regulatory coverage would beclosed in appropriate ways. Addressing the de-listing mechanism from the viewpoint of wastegenerators (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


Only modest, indirect benefits are likely inthis area, Bringing more waste under regula-tion may create larger markets for alternatives.The use of more specific technical criteriamight make land disposal options more strin-gent and costly.

GOAL 4Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/

CERCLA implementation.

The option would promote the use of morespecific technical criteria in regulations, aswell as for the collection of additional 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.


States.

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 wouldhave 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 theburdens on State permit writers. However, thisoption would not expand participation byStates,



Only a minor benefit might result. By bring-ing more waste into the regulatory system, this

option increases all costs. To the extent thatclass permits and more equitable delisting pro-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.



A major benefit in this area would resultfrom the fact that more hazardous waste wouldbecome regulated and managed in more 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 8Reduce public concerns over siting of facilities.

A major benefit could result with public per-ception that the Federal regulatory system en-sures that fewer hazardous waste are escapingregulation altogether and that increased tech-nical criteria in Federal regulations provide amore uniform and acceptable level of protec-tion throughout the 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, although 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 appears 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 ● 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 merit to all these viewpoints. There is noway to determine precisely what the costs togovernment, 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 IllUse of Economic Incentives for Alternatives

to 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 the source, recycling, and treat-ment. Direct economic incentives would beused to accomplish this objective. The follow-ing comments from a recent study19 suggest aneed for this option:

The federal government has done little direct-ly to encourage the adoption 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 permitting procedures for al-ternative or innovative facilities, requirementsto use certain alternatives for specific wastes,and increasing the 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 fiscalyear 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 tojust a few years ago. While these factors mayhave beneficial effects, they are often renderedless effective by uncertainties, ambiguities, andcontradictions in the regulatory 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 unaccept-able risks have been inherited from certain pastwaste management 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 ofthe 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 apparent technical or institutionalobstacles to adoption, but a major issue wouldbe what types of incentives to provide. Conse-quently, before discussing here the severaltypes of economic incentives, the concept ofa 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 the 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 destruction of waste, andthe disposal or dispersal of waste. Differentalternatives are appropriate for differentwastes and locations. In chapter 4, it wasnoted that land disposal nationwide continuesto be used for most hazardous waste (althoughit 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 approaches for particular wastes.Moreover, the optimum management strategyfor any waste will likely consist of severaltechnical steps: reducing the volume 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 present 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 management. 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 wastes:

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 use of valuable materials, 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 waste, and of untreatable waste) ina manner that holds release of hazardousconstituents into the environment to ac-ceptable levels.

Such a systematic ordering of waste manage-ment options presents a number of advantages.For example, permanent solutions to wasteproblems are more likely to occur prior 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 ofwaste as resources, rather than discardingthem, at once removes them and provides di-rect economic 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 problems of releases ofhazardous 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 dispersal 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 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 waste management (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. 161, pp. 35050, 35051, 1976;

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 ac~~ areas and 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 manufac-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 ofwaste treatment by itself, and 2) a decline inthe use of land disposal by itself and in con-junction 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 adopted 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 manner. 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 topromote 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. 16,1982.

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“/0NOTE: 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 weak or uncertain toprovide the only controls for many types of haz-ardous waste incidents. 23

The study did not address the question ofwhether equitable internalization of the fullcosts of hazardous waste 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 use 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 isgood reason to believe that in some cases mar-ket incentives might be both less costly andmore effective than the regulatory approach. *

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 more difficult 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 philosophical commitment, not on precisequantitative economic evaluations of limitedscope, Some industries may want 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 disposal, Since current regulations con-tribute to the lower costs of disposal and dis-persal when compared with other alternatives,

Zs’’Eva1uation of Market and Legal Mechanisms for PromotingControl 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 approachcontrasts with the traditional command andcontrol regulations which are aimed at uncov-ering those not in compliance and depend onenforcement actions.

Types of Incentives

Considering the objective of minimizing 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 burdenson industry. For such reasons, this option con-sists of three components: a fee system on gen-erated waste, procedures to respond to capitalneeds of alternatives, and consideration ofR&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 programs are mixed. 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 ofpetroleum 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 hazardous waste generation. A strongdisincentive is thus inadvertently establishedpenalizing those choosing to minimize wastegeneration. However, there was insufficient in-formation on waste generators originally avail-able to facilitate such an approach. When col-lection under CERCLA expires in 1985, it islikely that substantial sums will continue 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 use 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 generators. * To be effective, fees wouldhave 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 waste generators hasbeen given some support by the recommenda-tion that the Hazardous Waste CompensationFund “should be established by contributionsfrom, or taxes on, the production of hazardousor toxic chemicals, and crude oil, and by a taxon the deposit of hazardous wastes. ”24 More-over, EPA itself has said that “ . . fee systemsmake 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 fromreleases 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, meetingbetween 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

Support for a waste fee system also has comefrom 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 more appropriate, in some cases, tech-nologies.27

In considering the problem of Federal fundingof 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 should 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/orthe amounts of the fees on land-disposedwastes might be increased over time, as wastevolumes 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

Zboral 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 behalf of the Chemical MmU-facturers Association, Mar, 31, 1982, House Subcommittee onCommerce, Transportation, and ToL~rism.

Z8’’Work Plan on Environmental Program Grants, ” Environ-mental Subcommittee, National Govl~rnors’ Association, Dec.16, 1982.

Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 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 system, * *

Can fees on generated hazardous 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 annual 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 wastes are brought under the RCRAprogram, then fees might be reduced some-what.

For disposal and dispersal options, with highfees 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 treatment 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 proposed in Minnesota. The structureof this system is strongly biased against land

“There is a view in industry that characterizing recy~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 ofsuch materials will recycle them, and that those who do recyclethem will not always do so.

* ● 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 category

Land disposal ................. ....................Offsite

Land disposal after treatmentTreatment . . . . . . . . .

OnsiteLand 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 waste

generator 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 with not transporting hazardous materi-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 landfills; $9/ton for waste treated or dis-posed of offsite, excluding disposal in landfills;$2/ton for waste incinerated or treated onsite;and no fee on waste subject to resource 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-ports the operation of the overall State hazard-ous waste program and imposes 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 hazardous wastes that areland disposed, a rate twice that of the base rate,or $13.04/ton currently, for extremely hazard-ous wastes that are land disposed, a rate thatis 15 percent of the base rate for wastes placedin surface impoundments 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 feeswhatsoever on any wastes for which the man-agement choice does not involve the use of theland. Thus, there is an incentive to use wastetreatments rather than land disposal, but (un-like the Minnesota 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 approach is to reward those who mini-mize future risks and costs to society throughthe use of environmentally preferred alternatives. As existing uncontrolled sites arecleaned up, future uncontrolled 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 ofthe fees collected could be expanded, as hasbeen 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

● This base rate is adjusted annually, on the basis of changingamounts of wastes generated and the distribution 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 andImprovement 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 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 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 primarily to the States. Un-expended CERCLA funds, either those underthe present program (which are currently quitelarge) or more likely under a new program asdescribed above, might be used as a source offunds 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 needsis 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 of10 percent (in addition to any broad investmenttax credit) likely would lead to reductions in

s@’ Hazardous Waste Management in the Great Lakes Region:Opportunities for Economic Development and Resource Recov-ery” (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalBureau of Standards, September 1982).


government revenues of at most several hun-dred million dollars annually over a 5- to1(1-year period, An interesting possibility wouldbe to use some fraction of the fees collected tocompensate the Treasury for all or part of thelost tax revenues. The electroplating industrystudy also concluded that a special investmenttax credit for resource recovery investmentscould be effective.

A number 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 italso offers accelerated depreciation on re-source recovery equipment. Michigan exemptsfrom property taxation the value of any im-provements in old facilities for the purpose ofwaste 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 for R&D Efforts. -Alternatives to dis-posal and dispersal meet another obstacle inthat technologies such as process modificationor for treatment of particularly difficult wastesrequire 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 upon successful commercial-ization of the technology. Profit sharing andexclusive licensing arrangements with pay-ments to the government 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 replace the current system of collect-ing fees under CERCLA which expires in 1985,



Major benefits could result from lowering ofthe probability of releases of hazardous constit-uents into the environment (assuming adequateregulations and enforcement for treatment al-ternatives to land disposal). Implementation ofthis option would not interfere with the exist-ing regulatory program. The main effect wouldbe 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 minimal re-porting requirement, rather than as a disposalfacility.

GOAL 2Expand universe of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

This option does not address this goal. Anyeffects would be indirect and difficult to pre-dict.


This option’s major benefit would be toachieve this goal as much as any public policy


could. However, 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.



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.


States.

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 burden 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 range of waste 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 de-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.



Clearly a waste fee system would imposehigher near-term costs on waste 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 due to waste reduc-tion, but would incur new costs in administra-tion of the economic 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 decrease (although this is some-what uncertain). Costs associated with adverseimpacts on health 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.



There would be a major benefit associatedwith decreases in the amount of hazardouswaste generated and placed in the environ-ment, as well as in the hazard levels of wastesultimately disposed in the environment. Great-er internalization of costs would result becausethe waste fee system would transfer the liabil-ities associated with possible future releases,remediation actions, and possibly compensa-tion to waste generators.

GOAL 8Reduce 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 disposal 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.


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 would not lead to sub-stantial outlays of budgeted Federal funds. Ad-ditional funds 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 nonregulatoryapproaches 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 managersmust perceive a high probability of costly legaldamages from release of hazardous constitu-ents. In the absence of such perception, reli-ance on government enforcement actions orprivate party suits to return previously exter-nalized costs to waste managers is uncertain.Legal findings and judgments in the procedurealso introduce uncertainties. While current 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 researchsupport. 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 use of insurance options.Here too there are considerable uncertaintiesover whether such distribution and assessmentof 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 offacilities. 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 when compared to themore far-reaching use of a Federal fee system.The most frequent argument against the use ofeconomic 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, fewertechnically skilled personnel would be re-quired.

Opponents of a Federal fee on generatedwastes also raise the problem of inadequate 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 78percent 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 waste managementservices industry or waste generators. Such in-vestments by the private sector to build morefacilities are unlikely when bias in the Federalprogram continues to contribute to lower costsfor land disposal 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 the most secure landfills 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 produce half the hazardous wastecurrently 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 public support for this approach, oppo-.

Sscalifornia office of Appropriate Technology, ‘‘Alternativesto the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: An Assessment forCalifornia, ” 1981.

“’Future Hazardous Waste Generation in California,” Depart-ment of Health Services, Oct. 1, 1982.

37Joanna D. Underwood, Executive Director, Inform, The NewYork 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 additional costs to consumerswould 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 ofhealth and the environment would be accept-able. *

Another concern is that a Federal fee systemcould prompt more illegal dumping 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 theStates will or can do so, or that they will 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 appropriate. 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 maintaininformation on waste generators and their

*A recent major opinion survey on public support 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. ” (As re-ported in the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1982,)


management practices. It would help offset theStates’ concerns that they would be requiredto dismantle 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 administrationand use of some fee revenues for support ofState programs. Having a reliable source offunding 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, anduncertain gains in funds. *

Some may believe that any fee on hazardouswaste should be placed on management facil-ities rather than on waste generators, For on-site waste management there would be no dif-ference, However, for waste managed offsiteplacing the fee on facility operators may notachieve the intended goal of influencing wastereduction 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 passedon among generators, or may cut waste man-agement costs (and its effectiveness) to offsetfees in order to gain advantage over competi-tors. For facilities performing a variety of oper-ations (recycling, treatment, and disposal),there may be an incentive to misrepresent theamounts of waste managed in those ways withthe highest fees. Finally, with a fee imposed onfacilities there may be pressure 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 completedin 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 design, operations,or monitoring capabilities. Moreover, there isno reason to remove onsite facilities from thefee system; with the exception of waste trans-portation, they present the same problems andpotential costs to society as offsite facilitiesand, most importantly, account 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 would be to continue presentprocedures, 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 would eventually reduce the amount ofwaste generated, thus requiring increases offees 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 wastehazards, There are no simple solutions to thesepotential 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 funds in the victim compensationarea. * Over time, the system likely would reachsome equilibrium (including reduced manufac-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 any victim compensa-tion use raises a number of issues. There is a concern that claimsrelated to personal or property damages could be “unbounded”and that waste fees might be raised continually to generate suffi-cient funds for this purpose. While there may be a need for pro-vide funds for victim compensation, it is generally understoodthat 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 made on the basis of some type of “no-fault” approach.

petitiveness of U.S. exported products becauseof increased costs brought about 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 anticipate increases in costs and take ap-propriate actions in time. Finally, the govern-ment should increase efforts in the interna-tional community (through, e.g., the Organiza-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 ofthose most affected by imposition of fees, it isimportant to recall the underlying principle ofthe 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 damages 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 generatorsto 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 remedial policy action required 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 anticipating the need forcapital and R&D assistance, it would be possi-

ble to minimize adverse economic effects onindustry.

Option IVDevelopment 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 operationof waste management facilities.

Although using classifications seems tosuggest 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 under sub-title D of RCRA would be brought under sub-title C control, but, for almost all these wastes,there would be minimal regulatory require-ments (e.g., reporting and notification require-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 accomplishedby 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 pursue a second, more detailedstudy, 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 ofthis option are summarized. The appendix tothis chapter contains a detailed discussion ofone approach to using waste and 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 compati-ble with the hierarchy of alternative manage-ment strategies presented earlier, particularlywith the goal of reducing the amount and haz-ard level of wastes.

Elements of the Approach.—Several importantelements, each requiring reliable information

● 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 ofthe 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 undertakingthat requires a careful analyticalframework and substantial amounts 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 sufficient to merely use informationon the most 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 complex waste, although thereare 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, known toxic organ-ics, corrosive acids, explosives, orhighly ignitable substances.Information on the broad range oftechnology 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 and proprietary 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 standards 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 thatwaste classification and 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 specified periods of time. Stand-ards would vary with levels of hazard.

In general, different types of per-formance standards will be requiredfor different technologies and may berequired 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 compli-ance may not 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 particular wasteclass, different technologies within thesame 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 phrase “degree of hazard” does 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 thosewithin 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 considerthe waste as an ordinary solid waste) wasteclasses and with corresponding 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 range of variations possible with currentpermitting decisions (for land disposal 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 factorsinto the use of systems based on hazard classi-fication. A permit writer could change the clas-sification of a waste 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 number 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 which mostwastes 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 theenvironment will 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 different degrees 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 investment of resources as com-pared to alternative approaches, it may offermore long-term benefits once developed.

Illustration of the Classification Approach.—Twotypes 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 examples ofhow 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 not constitute any endorse-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 optionis 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 uncertaintiesbecause of what might take place before the op-tion is fully implemented.



There are major uncertainties as to when aclassification system might be implemented,and what would 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 applied, it may offer the bene-fit of reduced delays and uncertainties becauseof the availability of technical criteria and pro-cedures which can be used to deal with newsituations. The validity and usefulness of thehazard classification approach from a wastemanagement perspective has been summed upas follows:

One school holds that, if it is hazardous 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 that thereare degrees. Therefore, different types of haz-ardous wastes should go to different types offacilities. I happen to believe that the last argu-ment makes a great deal of sense. This impliesthat we should have different classes of dispos-al facilities for different classes of hazardouswastes .38


waste.

This could be a major benefit. One of theprimary objectives of classification is to equi-tably and appropriately 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 under regulation if the regula-tory structure accommodates low-hazard wasteat a lower level of stringency.


A major benefit could result from regulatoryrestrictions 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.



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.


states.

A modest benefit might be obtained. SeveralStates have attempted to use hazard classifica-tion approaches (see ch. 6), but progress hasbeen slow. The attempts have been simple 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 RCRAregulations. Other States are likely to have legit-imate concerns over the adoption of a classifi-cation system that added, rather than reduced,regulatory complexity. 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 provision of additional techni-cal support and an improved data base for theStates.

GOAL 6Moderate increases in the costs of governments for

administration and of industry for regulatory compli-ance.

Governmental costs might increase or de-crease, depending on the extent the classifica-tion approach created institutional efficiencies,rather than technical complexities. Anotheruncertainty is whether the approach might leadto substantial efforts to “reclassify” waste andfacilities, analogous to, and perhaps more ex-tensive than, current 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, while others currently overregulated wouldbe 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 ofwaste.


of 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.


A modest benefit might result if public confi-dence in the Federal program is improved withthe 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 appropriate types and levelsof monitoring for facilities would also have apositive effect on public concerns.


The major cost and problems associated withimplementation of the hazard classification ap-proach is the need to obtain an adequate database concerning wastes, technologies, andhealth and environmental effects. However,there is continuing improvement of these typesof data. Adoption of classifications would

Ch. 3— Policy Options ● 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 ahigh-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 simpler system that does 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 permitting 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 this relatively small estimate is thatconsiderable data exist, but have not 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 phase 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 will lead to paralyzing difficulties, andthat the task is to simplify the design withoutintroducing a level of arbitrariness that will beunacceptable to the regulated community.

To address these concerns, it would 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 VPlanning for Greater Integration ofEnvironmental 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 toduplication of effort or unawareness of the ex-tent of data and technical resources available.

A number of hazardous waste activities arenow regulated under different statutes. WithinEPA alone several different groups administeractivities related to hazardous waste. There arealso programs in several other executive agen-cies related to hazardous waste that do not ap-pear to be highly integrated, The language inRCRA that mandates integration with otheracts has proven too inexact, and EPA’s effortsin this area do not appear to have a high prior-ity. Ocean disposal or dispersal falls under theMarine 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-


ment plants fall under CWA. A number ofaspects 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 study forEPA concluded:

A number of Federal statutes govern aspectsof the hazardous waste problem. The statutesin combination do not cover many of the ma-jor sources and types of hazardous waste re-leases, however.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 ofcongressional examination of the study andplan. 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 ofhazardous 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 hazardouswaste without a permit that are regulatedunder 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 requirements 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, ofcourse, 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.


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 burden whichmay 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 ofPCBS, 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 perspective of Gov-ernment efficiency, within EPA there are twoprograms dealing with a very similar area ofregulation, but headed by different 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 standards 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 minimum/$2 million annual aggre-gate, and $3 million/$6 million nonsudden min-imum coverage. A recent study observes that:

the minimum insurance requirements setby” EPA for TSDFS appear inconsistent withother hazardous substance legislation whichCongress intended to complement RCRA.CERCLA or Superfund required liability insur-ance or self-insurance of at least $5 million forvessels carrying hazardous substances. It is un-clear why much less coverage is required forhazardous waste TSDFS that may handle 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 hazardouswaste facilities. Under RCRA the coverage forfacilities is required until closure. For some

41Eric Nagle, “RCRA Liability Insurance Rules—Evolution andUnresolved Issues, ” The ,En\’ironmentaf 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 hazardouswaste 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 assume liability. A gap in government-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 tobe leaking before the CERCLA fund assumesresponsibility. Because RCRA regulations forland disposal facilities cannot guarantee indefi-nite, long-term protection against releases ofhazardous 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 disposalregulations is on ground water protection. 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 havecontributed 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 waste contaminat ion in a cos t e f fec t ivemanner. Major technical questions are yet tobe answered regarding the behavior of specificwas tes under d i f fe rent hydrogeologic condi -


tions and on the safety, suitability, and econom-ics of restoration and disposal methods.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 andDevelopment 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 waste disposal are some. 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 address concerns overchanges that might lead to delays. First, EPA(or perhaps some independent body) could de-velop a plan for the improved integration ofprograms related to hazardous waste. The planwould also focus on statutory changes requiredto implement a comprehensive integration,with emphasis on the permitting of facilities. *The study 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.



The closing of gaps in coverage and greaterconsistency among regulatory programs couldprovide major benefits, without interruptingongoing environmental protection efforts,


waste.

A minor benefit could result from closing ofgaps in regulatory coverage.


This option does not address this goal in asignificant way.



A minor benefit could result, chiefly by bet-ter ensuring that data obtained in one programare made available to other programs.


the 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 6Moderate increases in the costs of governments for

administration and of industry for regulatory compli-ance.


Compliance 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, simplifiedpermitting, and simplified monitoring of facil-ities. Similarly, government costs of admin-istering the regulatory program might be re-duced by greater use of multipurpose databases, reduced paperwork, and fewer field per-sonnel. Even if direct costs were increased dueto increased regulatory activities, there couldbe long-term reductions in the costs associatedwith adverse health and environmental effects.


of waste management shifted to society in general.

To the extent that gaps 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 such loopholes are often closedat some point, their use over time can presentserious threats to future generations becauseconditions are created that eventually lead tohigh probabilities of releases of hazardous con-stituents. The option does not address the ex-ternalization of costs significantly.


A substantial benefit might result if the pub-lic views the study and implementation 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 reduced by meaningful public involve-ment during the study 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, theseobjections may be minimized, A detailed studyover 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 ofgreater objectivity and impartiality.

It would also be necessary to clearly establishthat no new regulatory program would be in-stituted until after extensive congressional ex-amination of the proposed plan, over perhapsa 2-year period, with ample opportunities forpublic comment. Problems could arise in theform of conflicts among congressional commit-tees concerning changes in jurisdiction pro-posed in the integration plan. There might alsobe opposition to integration for hazardouswaste from those with interests in other envi-ronmental areas.

Integration from the limited perspective ofhazardous waste management may be in con-flict with attempts to integrate all environmen-tal protection programs. For example, EPA isnow conducting a pilot study to control toxicpollutants from all sources in the Philadelphiaarea. This study 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 oflimited 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 ofcosts 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 through IV appearto require approximately the same level of ini-tial appropriations, about $5 million to $10 mil-lion each. There are, however, no means ofreliably estimating longer term costs, or costsavings for government, industry, or the gen-eral public. The five options have been pre-sented in order of increasing time required forpreliminary studies and implementation. 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 ways. 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, alongwith specific objections to particular options,can make any option either more or less attrac-tive.

Table 13 summarizes in brief narrative formthe key advantages and disadvantages of eachoption. Table 14 presents an evaluation 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● Current program stabilized and resources already ● Protection of public health and environment may be

invested utilized weaker than possible and desirable● Participation by States improved ● Risks and costs may be unnecessarily transferred to● Short-term private and public sector costs moderated the future

● Land disposal continues to be used extensively

IL A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program● Protection of health and environment i m proved and ● Short-term private and public sector costs increased

made more consistent nationally . Progress of present program could be slowed u n less● 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 ● Near-term costs to industry increased● Costs for improved protection more equitably ● Uncertain effects on firms, communities, and

distributed international competitiveness● Public concerns over siting alleviated . II legal dumping may increase

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

hazards posed ● Unnecessary complexity may be introduced● Fewer risks and less costs transferred to the future ● Long-term costs for implementaiton uncertain● Improved technical support for State programs

V. Planning for greater integration of programs● Gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies i n regulatory ● Considerable administrative and institutional

coverage reduced difficulties● Reduced transfer of risks and costs to the future . Possible interruptions in ongoing programs● Public confidence in Federal program improved ● 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 v4. Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLA

implementation . . . . . . . . . . II Iv I v Ill5. Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by States ., . . . Ill II I Iv v6. Moderate Increases in costs to governments for

admin is t ra t ion and indust ry 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 I8. 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 any

absolute 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 current total public 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 options II through 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 ofwhich 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 sub-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 would exceed the initial costsof implementing the options. It is possible thatin the long term, implementation of the optionscould lead to considerably greater economicbenefits.

98 • Tecnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control9—

Four Scenarios

As discussed in the previous section, it ispossible to implement various combinations ofthe five policy options. The purpose of the fol-lowing discussion is to illustrate four such com-binations. The scenarios have been developedby making certain simplified assumptionsabout varying perspectives on the need andmethods for improving the current Federalprogram.

SCENARIO ICurrent RCRA regulations are adequate, but alterna-

tives to land disposal need encouragement. Options Iand Ill are adopted.

Many believe that the current RCRA regula-tions are satisfactory and should be given anopportunity to prove themselves effective,Changes in the regulatory program, they ar-gued, are unnecessary and counterproductiveto the extensive efforts made since the passageof RCRA. Nonetheless, it is also generally rec-ognized that from a long-term perspective, un-necessary risks and costs may be transferredto the future by disposing of many hazardouswastes in the land. There is equal concern thatcongressional action in this critical period ofdevelopment should be expeditious and welldefined.

Accordingly, this scenario consists of adopt-ing option I (maintaining the current RCRAregulatory program) and also adopting optionIII (providing direct economic incentives foralternatives to land disposal). Option III 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.

a system of fees or taxes on waste genera-tors (to replace the current funding mecha-nism for CERCLA) based on quantity ofwaste, level of hazard, and managementpractices, in order to promote choices ofalternatives to land disposal;methods for meeting the capital needs ofwaste generators and commercial facilities

3.

that are initially required in efforts to reducewaste generation and to implement treat-ments reducing hazard or volume levels; andsupport for R&D efforts that may be nec-essary before waste and hazard reductioncan be accomplished commercially.

SCENARIO IISpecific changes are needed to strengthen RCRA,

and an effort is needed to integrate and streamline theentire Federal hazardous waste program which hasevolved in a piecemeal fashion. Options II and V areadopted,

The choice of option II is based on the desireto improve the existing RCRA regulatory pro-gram. The specific actions included in optionII would close a number of existing gaps inregulatory coverage of waste, restrict certainwaste from land disposal facilities, introducemore technical criteria to set nationwide stand-ards, improve the delisting process, and wouldintroduce limited class permitting. However,to address broader concerns over gaps, over-laps, and inconsistencies in regulatory cover-age, option V would also be adopted. OptionV moves beyond the analysis of RCRA regula-tions to examine problems related to insuffi-cient integration between RCRA and CERCLA,among the various environmental protectionstatutes, and among the various executiveagencies having programs associated with haz-ardous waste, These two options combine bothshort- and long-term approaches to obtaininga more effective, efficient Federal hazardouswaste program.

SCENARIO IllThe current RCRA program needs improvement and

a nonregulatory approach is also needed to shift wastemanagement choices away from land disposal towardwaste reduction and treatment efforts. The most expedi-tious congressional actions are required. Options II andIll are adopted,

Option II would result in the improvementof RCRA regulations to better provide short-and long-term protection of health and the en-


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 waste-intensive products.

Appendix 3A.–Hazard

SCENARIO IVThe current RCRA regulatory program should be

maintained, but some long-term efforts to improve theprogram should also be pursued. Adopt options 1, IV,and V.

Options IV and V are compatible with thecurrent program in the near term, since bothinvolve initial studies 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 options 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 RiskManagement Framework

In the past 6 years, EPA has attempted to designa regulatory structure responsive to a variety ofwastes, 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 eachelement of risk management in a piecemeal way.There has been an absence of integrated data onwaste composi t ion , envi ronmenta l fa te of wasteconst i tuents , and technologica l a l te rnat ives fortreatment and disposal. Although this approach re-sulted in the promulgation of regulations, the issueof how best to respond to varying hazard and risklevels is not yet settled. During the congressionalconsideration of RC RA, the degree-of-hazard con-cept received considerable attention, but EPA wasnot required to use it.

To date, various lists of wastes have acknowl-edged different hazard levels to only a limiteddegree. Various aspects of the regulations alsoacknowledge different hazard levels. The need to“tailor” RCRA regulations to varying hazard andrisk levels is seen clearly by EPA. The best ap-proach, however, remains an area of debate. Re-cently, EPA has pursued a risklcost approach (dis-

cussed in ch. 6 and its appendix) toward implemen-ting the degree-of-hazard concept in a more com-prehensive and formal way.

The purpose of this discussion is to examine inmore detail the use of hazard classification as a keycomponent in a comprehensive risk managementframework that would 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 regula t ions tha t do not recognize d i f -ferences among hazards and r i sks , 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-la ted adequate ly , but low- and high-hazardwaste and low- and h igh-r i sk management


practices may not receive appropriate control,High-hazard waste may be underregula ted ,and low-hazard waste may be overregulated.

The current RCRA program provides one set ofregulations 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 indica 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 evaluat ion for 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 sugges ted decis ionmaking f ramework des ignedspecifically to account for varying levels of hazardfor waste in their management, through the use ofboth 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 ( a c t u a l o r a n t i c i p a t e d ) o f t h e f a c 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 ofpotential 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-format ion about ac tual wastes and faci l i t ies areused 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“tuning” process consists of matching waste haz-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 may offer very little flexibility.

The permit writer’s primary decision depends onfitting the real situation into a small number of op-tions for regulatory control. The permit applicantis required to supply data consistent with the pa-rameters used to classify waste and with the criteriaused to define the corresponding levels of regula-tory control. It should not be inferred that the il-lustrated framework can guarantee good permit de-cisions. A poor choice among the limited optionsavailable with the hazard classification approachcould prove to be as detrimental as poor decisionsmade in the current system by the permittingauthority.

How Hazard Classification DiffersFrom Other Approaches

There are four approaches to implementing thedegree-of-hazard concept. The listing approach isthe simplest but may 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 with those candidates for delisting, Lists areoften too generic and do not recognize major dif-ferences among individual waste constituents. Atthe Federal level, lists have not been related to dif-ferences in regulations and standards. Moreover,listing alone does not integrate the effects of dif-ferent technologies 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 intent of RCRA: the cost component of thisapproach is not required for implementing thedegree-of-hazard concept. It is the use of risk assess-ment that differentiates levels of hazard for wastesand 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 somewhat unique. It is necessary to ob-tain information beyond an understanding 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 prefer-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 ofreleases 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 data and analysis.

EPA may introduce the use of the risk/cost modelas an adjunct to the flexibility achieved through per-mit writing. 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 adequately 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 approach, the simple listing ap-proach, and the decentralized permitting approach.The basic aspects of hazard classification are:1) data on waste are used to describe adverse ef-

fects of exposure to hazardous constituents; 2) itis possible to classify wastes by similar levels ofhazard; 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 hazardous constituents; and 4) waste hazardclasses are matched to facility classes to achieve ap-propriate regulatory control. Decisions must 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 writers anopportunity to select from a small number ofchoices. For example, a permit writer could changethe classification of a waste (and therefore the levelof regulatory control 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 ofwaste pretreatment might require a reduced per-formance standard to achieve acceptable levels ofrelease, A facility may be in a location in which 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 number 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 approach directed toward thehazardous waste problem should address certainkey issues, These include:


1.

2.

3.

4.

The

consideration of degrees of hazard and risk inrelation to waste and management practices;assessment of the potential to reduce either theamount or hazard level of hazardous wastethrough the use of appropriate technology;development of effective designs for monitor-ing strategies at all types of facilities; anda means for addressing severe public opposi-tion to siting of new hazardous waste 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 data 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 decisions concerning:

1. criteria for permitting and monitoring,2. regulatory and policy changes, and3. data and research priorities.

This decisionmaking framework emphasizes theneed to classify waste by degree of hazard and tointegrate data for risk evaluation associated withspecific management approaches.

This framework is a tool with which governmentofficials 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 waste management. * Ifimplemented as the basis for decisions within agovernmental agency, it could provide the scien-tific and technical bedrock for sound decisionsabout regulation of hazardous waste. It also couldprovide government 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 ofhuman health and the environment,to provide a mechanism for establishing crite-ria and priorities for reaching this goal, andto maximize flexibility for officials to developappropriate regulations for the management ofwaste.

● 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 physical forms that affect its treata-bility, characteristics of constituents that determinethe hazard potential itself, and the concentrationsand 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 discussed in chapter 6.

Afterward, data would be analyzed to determineboth immediate and protracted hazards. The imme-diate hazards can be determined by assessing char-acteristics of reactivity, chemical incompatibility,ignitability, and corrosiveness. Long-term hazardscan be determined 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 bioaccumulation.

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 impair-ment, chemical and physical factors contributingto persistence and bioaccumulation, safety factors,and concentrations. As discussed in chapter 5,models are available that incorporate these ele-ments, and these could serve as a basis for furthercriteria development.

The study prepared for OTA. (see the discussionof 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 the 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 riskmanagement framework, i.e., estimating degrees ofhazard for the RCRA universe of waste, can beachieved in a limited way now. With a concertedeffort to develop the necessary hazard criteria andappropriate characteristics and effects data forwaste and constituents, a better estimation ofdegree of hazard for waste will be possible,

The classification of wastes would provide op-tions for permit writers that reduce 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 ● 103

factor values signify in terms of hazard and risk.Difficulties associated with interpreting varyingdata would not be a major problem in classifica-tion. Initially, certain judgments would be neces-sary concerning the class in which a waste shouldbe assigned. However, as more data are collectedand new information incorporated within the database, classification could be revised as necessary.It should be emphasized that before any hazardclassification would be used in the RCRA program,considerable data will have been obtained from sev-eral years of permit writing. Because the classifica-tions will shift one set of regulations and standardsto perhaps three sets, such changes would not nec-essarily cause more disruptions in the regulatoryprocess than would 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, inwhich the majority of regulated waste would exist.Moreover, current regulations eventually will bechanged as new data are incorporated in the evalu-ation of risks and assessment of tradeoffs.

An advantage of a waste classification system isthat all potentially hazardous wastes are evaluatedand the system becomes inclusive, rather than ex-clusive. The current problem of fluctuating statuswith respect to RCRA definitions would be largelyremoved. All wastes would be considered but eachwould be recognized for its specific hazard level.

The Link Between Waste HazardClassification and Risk Estimation

The chemical and physical characteristics ofwaste 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 options. 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 application in the man-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 reducehazard levels, containment to isolate waste from hu-

mans and the environment, and dispersion to re-duce concentrations.

In the second element of the hazard classificationframework, degree of risk is identified for each ofthese three categories of management practices bythe permit writer who uses the classifications, as-sesses the risks of facility design and operation, andanalyzes the potential environmental fate and dis-tribution of waste that may 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 design, 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 indicator factors that do not reflect the realsituations, the result will have limited utility in thedecisionmaking process. Most models now pro-posed by EPA are very limited in scope and do notreflect the behavior of waste in the environment northe potential level of exposure to organisms. Thus,effort must be devoted to developing assessmentmodels that are multilevel 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. Othermodels use design and operation data for a facilitytype to determine the effluent under various oper-ating conditions. By combining these two types ofmodels, 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 ofrisk analysis in a decisionmaking framework hascertain advantages. Because regulations would 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 management op-tions, risks, costs, and benefits of each can be usedto decide whether a waste should be classified dif-ferently, or whether a facility compatible with cer-tain waste hazard classes could accept waste 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 assessmentmodels—e.g., risk-risk and cost-benefit—have seri-ous limitations. These are discussed in chapter 5.As long as these limitations are recognized and in-cluded in the decisionmaking process, such toolscan be used. In this particular case of tradeoffs inmanagement options for hazardous waste, some ofthe limitations associated with assigning dollarvalues to lives saved may 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 was accomplished in reasonably compatibleand uniform ways so that the results could be com-pared. Although further development of tradeoffmodels 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 potential hazards posed by wastes andconstituents be evaluated with data 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-propriate levels of regulatory control for the wasteclasses. 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 framework recognizes thatwastes vary in the 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 management framework wouldhave multiple uses. A major goal of this frameworkis 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 ofany 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 two ways: lack of technical feasibili-ty and permitting monitoring requirements. In theformer, there are some applications that are con-strained because the technology will not changethe hazard level of the waste, contain it sufficient-ly, or disperse it in concentrations that are notharmful to health or the environment. The use ofa waste classification approach does not remove thenecessity for the permit writer to decide what theapplicable 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 requirements, etc.) as indicated by the facilityclass for a specific waste class. For example, somehighly concentrated solutions of toxic, polycyclicaromatics cannot be degraded with naturally occur-ring microorganisms; thus, Iandfarrning of thesetypes of waste is not appropriate. Use of improvedbiotechnology methods have resulted in develop-ment of certain microorganisms that can degradesuch waste under controlled treatment conditions.Even though standards for landfarming may exist,the facility operator and the permit writer mustdecide whether the technology is applicable 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 rotarykiln incinerator. Thus, within 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


boilers and rotary kilns) can vary as a function ofthe chemical and physical form of the waste.

A central concept supporting facility classifica-tion is the use of variations in performance stand-ards for different technologies, Currently the reg-ulations rely heavily on this method, but do so inthe absence of any analysis of the preferred typesof standard for specific technologies. There are sev-eral ways to define a technology performancestandard, The common objective is to exert controlover the release of hazardous substances into theenvironment.

Debate over the appropriate method for settingtechnology standards and for establishing accept-able levels of release is not unique to RCRA. At leastsix different approaches have been considered foruse in implementing other environmental acts, Sev-eral of these have been considered in the rulemak-ing process under RCRA. These approaches requirespecifying: 1) a numerical standard for allowableconcentrations of some contaminant remainingafter treatment (the point at which these numericalstandards come into effect can vary, e.g., at thepoint of emission, or as an ambient standard forland, air, and water at points of potential use);2) specifying a percentage reduction of the concen-tration of a contaminant remaining after treatment,relative to its original concentration; 3) a time pe-riod during which waste must be contained in thewaste management area; 4) specifying facility de-sign and operating standards; 5) a nonspecifichealth and environmental performance standard–e.g., human health and the environment shall notbe adversely effected by the migration of con-taminants; and 6) specifying a ratio of quantity ofemissions released per unit of raw material usedin an industrial process, This latter type of standardhas not been considered by EPA for incorporationinto RCRA regulations.

Although these six approaches are presented aswholly separate concepts, there are instanceswhere the technicalities surrounding their im-plementation blur the distinctions. For example,current incinerator regulations under RCRAspecify a 99.99 percent destruction and removal forspecified organic constituents within the wastestream, During the process of specifying the or-ganics, original concentration(s) and incinerabili-ty in the waste stream must be considered, This isnecessary because destruction of 99.99 percent ofa very low-initial concentration will result in emis-sion concentrations in the stack gas that may be farbelow the limits of detection.

No single standard can address all the variablesgoverning releases of waste contaminants to the en-vironment because of the differences in the typesof technologies used to treat or to contain the waste.Releases from treatment alternatives such as chem-ical conversion or thermal destruction are fairly im-mediate, and their duration is generally related tothe duration of the process itself. Further, thequalities and amounts of the contaminants releasedcan be adjusted somewhat through control of thetreatment process. For containment alternatives,such as landfills, releases occur over a longerperiod of time. During operation, there can bereleases to the air and to the subsurface when thefinal cover to reduce infiltration of rainwater is notin place. There can also be releases that occur longafter the landfill has been closed—e.g,, as a resultof a breach in the lining material. Further, as theleachate recovery system is only required to operateduring the commercial life of the facility, and sincethe effectiveness of landfill cover maintenance inpreventing infiltration of water into the landfillthroughout the 30-year post-closure period has notbeen determined, there may also be migration ofleachate from the bottom of the cells as liquidpressure increases on the liner, The extent to whichthese releases can be minimized depends on the de-sign of the landfill and its materials of construction.

Thus, landfills are an example of a technologywhose performance can be improved by the speci-fication of certain design, operating, and locationstandards. The idea of using classification tostreamline the regulatory process is based on es-tablishing a credible and accurate link between awaste class and a facility class that in turn is basedon minimum performance standards for a varietyof technologies. However, it should be recognizedthat the greater stringency required for higher haz-ard classes will make some technology options im-practical or unattractive. For example the use oflandfills for high-hazard waste would be madedifficult by the very stringent performance stand-ards and monitoring requirements associatedwith that class.

Specific data requirements required in permit ap-plications for all facilities would be developed toinclude all aspects of the framework:

1. providing suitable data for a determination ofthe hazard class for waste to be treated at thefacility,

2. indicating choice of appropriate treatment ordisposal options and including all informationrelevant to design and operation,

99-113 0 - 83 - 8


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 permitting authority canselect the suitable class of performance standards,monitoring programs, and establish a reporting andinspection schedule 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 priorities might be identified–e.g., the evaluation may identify a class of wasteor type of facility that pose an unacceptable threatto health and the environment. The responsibleagency, 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 management options—e,g., in the form ofreducing the generation amount of this class ofwaste, in developing better treatment process, orin devising new uses for the waste.

Identifying Areas for Regulatory and Policy Change,–Specific regulatory restrictions are another way oflimiting application of a specific technology. In theenvironmental area, these restrictions are usuallythe result of a policy decision which evaluates theenvironmental effects of the use of that option. Forexample, regulations promulgated under the Ma-rine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act re-stricts the dumping 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 dump-ing such waste at sea.

The risk management framework provides a con-text within which areas that may need regulatorychange can be identified using all available infor-mation, An assessment of whether to ban certainmaterials from landfills can be accomplished usingthis framework. A review of those wastes classifiedas highly hazardous and the available treatmenttechnologies could result in a decision to ban themfrom land disposal because other suitable optionsdo exist, rather than maintain 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 way, than specific con-trols focused on those wastes can be required inthe regulations for land disposal.

Policy changes can be similarly determined 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 disposeof these wastes may indicate that controls in termsof performance standards or stringent monitoringrequirements may not be needed. EPA may decideas a matter 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 Collection .–The success of this framework lieswith compilation of valid data about all aspects ofwaste 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 depend on new 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, and establish facili-ty classes based on degree of risk (or control)associated with a specific technology and fa-cility location;

2. the framework facilitates identification ofwaste that could be reduced and technologiesthat provide greatest reduction either in hazardlevel of the waste or in risk for exposure tohealth and the environment. Over time, policychanges can be considered to reduce the wastegenerated or to encourage development oftechnologies that reduce hazard and risks;

3. by correlating the hazard, waste, and the facili-ty class, effective monitoring requirements canbe formulated; and

4. a means for addressing public opposition tositing of new facilities by providing a soundbasis for evaluating propclsals is also incorpor-

Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 107

ated in this framework. As discussed in chap- a signal to the public that governments are in-ter 5, public fears are motivated by a number 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 siting criteria. If ing consistent environmental protection na-a decisionmaking framework is developed by tionwide.Federal and State authorities, it would provide

CHAPTER 4

Data for Hazardous Waste Management

Contents

Summary Findings ● . * * . . * . * * * * * .*.**..**

Introduction ● * * . . . . . 0 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * *

Management Roles of Government, Industry,

Types of Data ● . . . * . .* .*** . .** . .** . .*** .*

. . . . . .

and the Public ● . . .

. .

Data Requirements: Generators and GenerationNational Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . .State Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .Uses of Existing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Data Requirements: Health and EnvironmentalExisting Data ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● ● ● ●

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * * * * * * . * * * * *

● * * * * * * O . * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * *

0 * * * * * 0 * * * *

RCRA and CERCLA Data Collection Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Examples of Exemptions From Federal Regulation as Hazardus Waste . . . . . . .Hazardous Waste Generation Estimates by EPA and the States. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Health and Environmental Effects Data..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hazardous Waste Management Facilities During 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Number and Size of Commercial Offsite Facilities During 1981 . . . . . .

List of Figures

Figure No.4. Determination of Hazardous Waste Management Solutions . . . . . . . . . . .5.Hazardous6. Hazardous

WasteWaste

Management PathsGeneration Data . .

.... . . . . . . . . . ● ✎ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ✎ ✎ ● ☛ ☛ ✎

. . . . . . * . . * . . . . . . . . ● . . * * . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

, , 0 , . . .

, , . , , . ,

. . . . , .

111

111

113

115

116117120123

125125

127

133

134

114115117121126129130

Page112113118

CHAPTER 4

Data for Hazardous Waste Management

● 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 environmental effectsrequired for risk assessments.

● Although improved data are being obtainedby the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the States, effective implementa-tion of government programs are hinderedby major inadequacies and uncertaintiesconcerning the amounts of hazardous wastebeing generated, the types and capacities ofexisting 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 generatedannually, although the Federal program rec-ognizes only about 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 ofefforts required to control hazardous waste.

●

●

•

●

The Federal program exempts many mil-lions of tonnes of waste deemed hazardousto 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 severityof 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 mandated by the Comprehen-sive Environmental, Response, Compensa-tion, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA]have not been completed.

There is a need for a long-term, systematicprogram in EPA—for which a congressionalmandate does 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 defined

in the RCRA legislation as (l):

. . . the systematic control of the collection,source separation, storage, transportation,processing, treatment, recovery and disposalof 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 theprotection of health and the environmentthrough hazardous waste management arecomplementary; however, the data needs ofeach 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. Industriesmust 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 maximizingthe 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 discussing thesevarious data needs, the basic issues and infor-mation involved in managing a given hazard-ous waste stream are illustrated in figure 4.Figure 5 illustrates the possible paths thathazardous waste may take during 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 universe of regulated wasteis defined. Fourth, current data requirements,resources, and uses are discussed as they relateto generators and generation, health and en-vironmental effects, and management facilities.Finally, some priorities are suggested for de-velopment 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 ● 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 haveenergy and materials. RCRA is but 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 ofa system that will protect health and environ-mental quality through proper management ofhazardous waste. The responsibilities for im-plementing hazardous waste management pro-grams are shared by the Federal governmentand the States. States have the authority to im-plement programs more stringent than re-quired by the Federal program. 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 ofhazardous 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 ofthe waste generated, and its disposition. Gen-erators who transport their waste to offsitestorage, treatment, disposal, 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 hazardouswaste 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 ofreporting 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

●

. Manifests of transported wastesb c d●

● Site inventory ●

Subtitle D. Inventory of open dumpsb

Subtitle E ●

● Available recovery/recycling technologies● Available energy/materials for reuse and conservationSubtitle H● Special research and development projectsb

●

—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 ● 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, meteoro-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 ofwaste 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-pounds, mixtures, concentrations, chem-ical degradability, reactivity in ambientenvironments, reactivity in wastestream; 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 the generation, storage,recovery, treatment, or disposal 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 data represent the overall ac-tivity of all facilities in the State.

6. Type N: National data represent theoverall activity of all facilities in theNation.

Throughout the following discussion, the datatype referred to is indicated by E, W, F, T, S,or N, where the type is not otherwise identified.The data needs of government, industry, andthe public are summarized in table 16.

Table 16.-Summary of Data Needs

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 waste” means any garbage,varies among the States and the Federal pro- refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant,gram. RCRA defines hazardous waste as a sub- water supply treatment plant, or air pollutionset 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 dissolved materialsin irrigation return flows, or industrial dis-charges which are point sources subject topermits under section 402 of the Federal Wa-ter Pollution Control Act, as amended . . . orsource, special nuclear, or by-product mate-rial as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended . . . (z)

The term “hazardous waste” means a solidwaste, or combination of solid wastes, whichbecause of its quantity, concentration, orphysical, chemical, or infectious characteris-tics may—

(A) cause, or significantly contribute to anincrease in mortality, or an increase inserious irreversible, or incapacitating re-versible, illness; or

(B) pose a substantial present or potentialhazard to human 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 account toxicity, per-sistence, and degradability in nature, potentialfor accumulation in tissue, and related factorssuch as flammability, corrosiveness and otherhazardous characteristics” (4).

Chapter 7 describes the EPA process foridentifying and listing hazardous waste. In1978, EPA proposed a definition of hazardous

waste which varied somewhat from the RCRAdefinition and modified that definition in 1980.The EPA definition is discussed in chapter i’,

RCRA excludes certain waste from regula-tion as hazardous; in some cases theseexempted wastes are regulated under other en-vironmental acts. For administrative ease ininitiating the RCRA regulations, EPA set cer-tain additional 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 under-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 holding a National Pollu-tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit; regulatory deferral of waste from paintmanufacturing and paint waste from the mech-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 hazardous wasteto include various additional chemical com-pounds, waste produced 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 betion, and public information. The development defined and generators of such waste must beof legislation requires information concerning identified. Methods of waste management, 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, and vironmental effects should be identified.

Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management ● 117

Table 17.— Examples of Exemptions From Federal Regulation as Hazardous Waste

Estimatedannual generation

Waste type (million metric tons) Possible hazard Determined byFly and bottom ash from burning fossil fuelsa . . .

—66 Trace - toxic metals RCRA

Fuels gas emission control waste . . . . . ... . . . Unknown Toxic organics, and inorganic RCRAMining waste, including radioactive wasteb . . . 2,100 Toxic metals; acidity; RCRA

radioactivity Domestic sewage discharged into publicly

owned treatment works b . . . . . 5 Uncertain, toxic metals likely RCRACement kiln dusta ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Alkalinity, toxic metals RCRAGas and oil drilling muds and production waste; Alkalinity, toxic metals, toxic

geothermal energy waste. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown organics, salinity RCRANPDES permitted industrial discharge . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, heavy metals RCRAirrigation return flows . . . . . . . . . Unknown Pesticides, fertilizers RCRAWaste burned as fuelsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Unburned toxic organics EPAWaste 011 ...., ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, toxic metals EPAInfectious waste ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Infectious materials EPASmall volume generators . . . . . . . . . . . 2,7-4.0 Possibly any hazardous waste EPAAgricultural waste . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Variable EPAWastes exempted under delisting petitions . . . . . Unknown Presumably insignificant EPADeferred regulations ., . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Unknown EPAEPA deregulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Presumably Insignificant EPAToxicity test exemptions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Organics EPARecycled waste: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Improper application of EPA

various materialstWas\es may be dellsted on the basis of a petlt!on that IS concerned only with the consf!tuent(s) which have determined the or~g! nal I!stlng, however, other hazardousconstituents may be present which have previously been unrecognized adm!n!stratively

:Wastes not I dent! fl ed as toxic by the EPA extract Ion procedure test and not otherwl se I I steal by EPA:Legltimate recycl!ng IS exempt from RCRA regulations except for storage However, there have been numerous Incidents (e g the dloxln case In Mlssourl) Involv!ngrecycled materials wh Ich are stl II hazardous

SOURCES aFedera/ Reg/sfer, VOI 43, No 243 12/18/78b Technical Environmental Impact of Var[ous Approaches for Regulaflng small volume Hazardous waste (iencrators (Washington, D C Environmental prO

tectlon Agency contract No 68.02-2613, TRW, December 1979)c ‘A Technlca[ Ovewlew of the Concept of Dlsposlng of Hazardous Wastes In industrial Bo!lers ” (Cinclnnatl Ohio Environmental protection Agency con

tract No 68-03-2567, Acurex Corp , October 1981)d“The RCRA EXernptlOn for Small Volume Ha,?ardous Waste Generators, Staff Memorandum” (Washington, D C U S Congress Off Ice of Technology Assess

ment, July 1982

As for industrial data needs, the generatorsof hazardous waste require facility data con-cerning specific waste quantities, constituents,and concentrations if they desire to modifytheir industrial processes to reduce the quan-tity and hazard of the waste they generate. Thewaste management industry requires the sameinformation. And, for the purpose of marketsurveys, both the generation and managementindustries require data concerning manage-ment technologies appropriate and available tohandle generated waste, the location of existingfacilities, and the quantity and types of wastethese can handle, in addition to their currentutilization.

In order to maximize the effectiveness of thepublic in hazardous waste management, infor-mation concerning waste generators, wastegenerated, and health and environmental ef-fects should be made broadly available.

National Data

Much of the existing data on hazardouswaste generation have been developed in aseries of studies completed between 1975 and1982 (5-29). These studies and the relationshipsamong them (the use of one study by another)are shown in figure 6. Also shown is a data setderived from the Federal regulatory require-ment that all handlers of potentially hazardouswaste notify EPA of their activities.

EPA contracted with several consultingfirms during the early 1970’s for analyses ofwaste generated by industrial sectors (mostlymanufacturing industries) (5-19). Each contrac-tor developed its own definition of the universeof hazardous waste, The methodology used ineach study varied, In general, the contractorscalculated aggregate hazardous waste amountswithin broad industrial categories by using sev-


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:● JRB Associates (1981)● Battelle (1977)● DPRA (1980-81)● A. D. Little (1979)● EPA (1976)

I I-i

. TRW Small Generator Study (1978)I

-1 . Putnam, Bartlett, Hays;Booz Allen & Hamilton (1980) k

I EPA notification of hazardouswaste activity: 1980

. Number of generator, TSD facilities,transporters I

I +State data collection

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment.

eral methods. Some studies identified the scopeof an industry (e.g., number of plants and loca-tion) by using direct industrial information,U.S. Department of Commerce data, or by vis-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-wide, designed a theoretical model facility, andextrapolated national waste generation using

-iState generation data

. Developed by State governmentsI

*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.)

I Generatlon data● ASTSWM0 Survey for OTA

(1982) I

the model. Certain assumptions concerningwaste generation and management were ap-plied in these studies. For example, it wasassumed that the plants would be in compli-ance with waste discharge requirements underthe Clean Water Act and other environmentallegislation; such an assumption would producea 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 industry studies formed the data basefor a number of separate 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 used 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 data provided 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 ofplants reported by the U.S. Bureau of Census.The TRW definition of hazardous waste in-cluded, in addition to wastes covered by theEPA definition proposed in 1978, other wasteshaving certain constituents which were be-lieved by the contractors to be hazardous inpure 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 ofhazardous 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 Allenand Hamilton study. In addition, 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 does not reflect therecent downturn in industrial activity.)Estimates were adjusted upward to ac-count for waste generation in at least someindustries not included in the originalstudy.When estimates referred to only part 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 range 28 million to 54 million wettonnes for the year 1980, EPA commonly re-ports a figure of 41 million wet tonnes for 1980and 43 million wet tonnes for 1981. It isacknowledged that these figures do not includedata concerning waste not regulated by RCRA

In 1980, EPA required hazardous waste 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 ofthe activity, and the types of waste handled ac-cording to EPA-established identification num-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 management facilities in States with un-authorized State programs. (At that time, noStates had authorized waste management pro-grams.) In 1981, the Federal annual reportingrequirement was suspended, and only a fewStates had partially authorized waste manage-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 unauthorized pro-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 management 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 Data

A 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 transport manifest data,State facility inventories, and data fromgenerator notifications to the States);extrapolations of the Booz Allen andHamilton 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 publications,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 and Territorial SolidWaste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) sur-veyed State data for OTA (33). The results ofthat survey are presented in table 18. As partof this work, ASTSWMO requested the Statesto indicate broad differences between the Stateand EPA universes of hazardous waste. TheStates were also requested to indicate how theirestimates were derived. The ASTSWMO infor-mation was obtained both. by telephone andwritten response to a survey questionnaire.Forty-two States and five territories responded,but the completeness of their responses varied.As table 18 shows, the ASTSWMO study indi-cates approximately 250 million tonnes of haz-ardous waste are being produced annually by40 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. * The wastefrom the States and territories not respondingmight 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 hazardous waste, thus underestimatingwaste 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 ofweight 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.


Table 18.—Hazardous Waste Generation Estimates by EPA and the States

Quantity (tonnes) Universe

Statea b EPA estimate State estimate Same as EPA State additions

Alabama b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730,000Alaska b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000Arizona b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,000Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370,000California e . . . . . . . . . . . 2,630,000

265,680360

4,280,000No datad

15,000,000

PCBs.PCBs.PCBs, waste oil.PCBs, waste oil.Approximately 4 mmt is oilfield waste; also

includes mining waste, small generators,PCBs.

PCBs.Extrapolated from 3 months manifest data.——Some delisted waste; 99.7°/0 is high volume,

aqueous solutions, neutralized on site anddischarged to sewers and receiving waters.

—Manifest data only.Includes 92,3 mmt of steel industry wastes,

pending delisting and currently regulatedunder NPDES permit.

——Refinery waste, small volume generators.—Fly and bottom ash, small volume generators,

substances with LD50.Mineral spirits, tanning industry waste, small

volume generators, infectious waste.Waste oil, PCBs, fly ash, and other

unspecified waste.Waste oil.Extrapolated from manifest data; 280

compounds (including waste oil) not onEPA list.

PCBs, crank case oil.—Waste oil,—Special waste including infectious waste.

Colorado b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180,000Connecticut b. . . . . . . . . . . . . 610,000Delaware a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960,000Georgia b ., . . . . . . . . . 700,000

775,490102,000272,000No data

38,500,800

xxx

Hawaii ., . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 30,000Illinois a . . . . ... ... , . . . . 2,530,000Indiana ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,280,000

No response1,810,000

94,900,000

Idaho . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 80,000Iowa ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000Kansas a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000Kentucky a ., ... . . . . . . . . . 700,000Louisiana a ... ... . . . . . 1,250,000

Maine b ., . ... . . . . . . . . . 130,000

Maryland a . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 590,000

Massachusetts b . . . . . . 820,000Michigan b ., . . . . . . ... . . . . 1,990,000

No responseNo response

45,300415,000

38,800,000

5,290

272,100

172,000408,000

x

Minnesota b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000Mississippi a . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340,000Missouri a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910,000Montana a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000Nebraska b ., ... . . . . . . . . . . . 120,000

Nevada. . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . 50,000

181,0001,810,000

658,93091,200

0.5 ”/0 ofnational total)No response

9,980855,000

x

x

—Imported PCBs, waste oil.Manifest data only; waste oil, PCBs, some

delisted waste, and other unspecifiedcompounds.

Small volume generators, PCBs, waste oil.PCBs.——Solid waste on a case-by-case basis.

New Hampshirea . . . . . . . . . . . 100;000New Jersey a . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,120,000

New Mexico . . .New Yorkb . . . . .North Carolina .North Dakotaa. .Ohio a . . . . . . . .Oklahomab. . . . .Oregon b . . . . . . .Pennsylvaniab . .Rhode Islanda .,

South Carolinab

South Dakotab .Tennessee a ., . .Texas a . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

60,0002,320,0001,330,000

30,0002,570,000

230,000200,000

2,550,000190,000

No data1,270,000

No response125,000

3,260,0003,570,000

19,1003,628,000

1,600

1,587,000

1,5904,300,000

29,146,960

x

PCBS.PCBS and other unspecified compounds.Other unspecified compounds.A generally broader definition which includes

waste oil, low-level radioactive.Waste oil, paint waste, unstabilized

sewerage sludge.Waste oil,- -Generally different definition which includes

sludge, fly and bottom ash, water solubleoils, boiler sludges, PCBS, and othersolid waste.

1,140,000. . . . . . . . . . . .

10,0001,820,0003,010,000

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

x

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 —Vermont b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000 9,070 Waste oils, infectious waste, PCBs, industrial

laundries, some waste delisted by EPA, andother 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 on Inventory.~%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 this survey.% state figure of 15 mllllon 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 Office of Solid Waste for 1980.

the 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 derived through use of EPAnotifications and estimates of waste generatedby industrial sectors represented by the noti-fications. Only 9 States, Guam, Puerto Rico,and the District of Columbia use definitions ofhazardous waste that are reportedly the sameas that used by EPA. Thirty-two States haveadopted definitions that include 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).

● This figure for ocean dumping was based on data from EPApermits 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 hazardous waste and contaminated soil, re-quiring management under RCRA which haveresulted from cleanup actions at uncontrolledsites. Nationally, these cleanup efforts are justbeginning. However, very large amounts ofhazardous 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 million tonnes of wastes themselves, pluslarge amounts of contaminated materials (e.g.,soil) resulting from leakage, may require man-agement in the future. Estimates for Califor-nia are that about 100,000 tonnes of hazardousmaterials will be produced annually fromcleanup actions during the next 10 years. Ex-

Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management . 123

trapolating to the national 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 verylarge volumes of waste which they define ashazardous, totaling about 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 includes waste fromenergy production, 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 pickle 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 federallyexempted wastes indicated in table 17 are notnow regulated by a significant number ofStates. Many States have recently conducted,or are now conducting, studies on waste gen-eration to obtain more 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, coverwaste generation within the past 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 fromwhich 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 older 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 EPAdata 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 number of generators exempted under theEPA program. This figure is substantiallylower, and the distribution among States maybe substantially different, than the figure of428,522 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,Industry’s need for data concerning generatorsand generation does not appear 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 quantify both the number of waste genera-tors throughout the Nation and the amount ofwaste produced annually, These studies haveoften lacked adequate definitions of hazardouswaste, and there have been variations in defi-nitions among the studies. Also, indirect meth-


ods of waste measurement were used in thesestudies, and direct generation data were some-times lacking. These problems have led to adiscrepancy between the actual quantity ofhazardous waste generated annually in the Na-tion and the quantity perceived in any onestudy. 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 opposed to perceived—gen-erated waste, in a manner commensurate withthe protection of health and the environment.Therefore, the following questions must beaddressed:

1. Are the existing generation data useful forthe 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 ofactual generated waste. These data indicate tosome extent the type of waste being generated,relative quantities, and fractional distributionby State. The data cannot be used as a measureof actual waste (by type or in total) being gen-erated in any one State or in the Nation, ex-cept to infer that a large quantity of hazardouswaste is in fact being produced annually, andthat this waste must be managed quickly andeffectively.

EPA has found only one administrative usefor the existing generation data—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 themost pressing problem was industrial hazard-ous waste from certain priority industries, andthat these wastes were adequately character-ized with regard to waste type and distribution

(for preliminary purposes) by the industryreports (5-19) and the derivative study by BoozAllen and Hamilton (29). Furthermore, the de-cision was made to allocate Federal funds toStates using a formula whereby 40 percent ofthe amount for a State was determined by itsfraction of the national waste stream (28.7million tonnes), 40 percent by its fraction ofthe Nation’s population, 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 waste generation and population 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“unanimously 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 fundallocation was probably necessary, given itsneed to act. EPA is certainly aware of the needto 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 important influence on public, 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 Effects

For 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 order to address 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 requires industry 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. physical harm—burns, or other effects dueto exposure to acids, caustics and the like;

2. toxic effects—acute and chronic damage;and

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 public access or public understand-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, industrysupplies EPA with data on each new substancedeveloped, including its chemical and physi-cal properties, its health and environmental 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 maintainedMEDLINE 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 HealthSystem 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 hazardous 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 ofany 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 nodata 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 health 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 Human 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 Accounting Office is now inves-tigating the Department’s conduct (35).

A concern for the health and the safety of theenvironment is the driving force of hazardouswaste management efforts. Unfortunately, theavailable information concerning the effects ofhazardous substances on health and the envi-ronment is far from complete, and many 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 environmental effects data into the designof management facilities, and using these 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 differentpurposes.

Government needs data on facilities for ef-fective regulation of them, for monitoring com-pliance with the regulations, for selecting fruit-ful areas for research and development (R&D),for actions required under CERCLA, and forproviding information to the public. Govern-ment must respect the proprietary nature ofmuch 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 waste, can reduce exposure of peo-ple and the environment. This information,may lead to restricting certain types of wasteto specific management technology design andperformance standards (W, T).

In order to implement hazardous wastemanagement regulations, data are required forthe siting, permitting, and monitoring offacilities, and for monitoring the transportationof 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 permitting process 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 andenvironmental impact data, the degree of riskoffered by the proposed facility, and the 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 ofleaks or ruptures); 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 ofthe 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 ofavailable 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 data will be needed to identify wastemanagement facilities that may require clean-up action under CERCLA. These facility datamay 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


in hazardous waste management. Varioustypes of data are required for the design of newmanagement facilities and for decisions regar-ding the use of existing facilities for handlingnew waste. These data needs include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

input waste characteristics and volume (F);design specifications—design standardsand performance standards, both regu-lated and unregulated (T);potential of release of hazardous constit-uents into the environment and degree-of-risk data (F);health and environmental effects data (E,w);economic analysis of specific technologies(T);ability to reduce hazard level of waste orto adequately contain waste for a specifiedtime period (F); andmanpower required to operate the facili-ty (F).

In the operation of management facilities, in-dustry requires data in the following categories:

input-output waste characteristics (F);day-by-day performance characteristics(F);ambient environment monitoring data (E);characteristics and quantity of waste instorage, and available storage capacities(F); andworker and environmental exposure tohazardous substances (F).

Facility data are also required to indicate areasand priorities for R&D. This need is similar tothat described in government data needs,above. In planning for expansion, industry re-quires data including:

amount of waste generated in a State orregion of concern (W, S);existing management facilities, their ca-pacity, and volume of waste throughput(F);available management alternatives for pro-spective generated wastes—e.g., material/energy recovery, incineration, storage (T);transportation needs (F); andavailability of suitable sites (T, F).

The public needs data to understand whatis proper waste management, The publicshould have easy access to nonproprietary dataof the above types. In addition, information onmonitoring and enforcement programs shouldbe made available to the public,

RCRA mandated collection of informationon waste management facilities in operationprior to RCRA permitting. Initially, these datawere compiled from industry applications forhazardous waste permits, known as part A ap-plications. Two subsequent surveys were con-ducted by EPA to determine the validity ofthese data. A number of additional effortswithin the EPA Office of Solid Waste have at-tempted to identify hazardous waste manage-ment facilities. The best known of these effortsis a 1980 report (29), which was updated in1982 (36]. An ongoing survey effort, due in1983, may provide additional detailed informa-tion on 2,500 hazardous waste management fa-cilities. “The latter data will be - used asbackground information for the RCRA Regu-latory Impact Analysis.

Facility information has also been gatheredunder other environmental laws. For instance,surface impoundment and open dump inven-tories have been conducted under the SafeDrinking Water Act and the solid waste provi-sions of RCRA respectively. CERCLA requiresthe annual listing of at least 400 hazardouswaste management facilities requiring priori-ty remedial action. Facilities that dischargetreated wastewater into the Nation’s watersmust obtain NPDES permits under the CleanWater Act, Inventories conducted under theauthority of other environmental acts may pro-vide qualitative measures of the accuracy of thepart A submissions.

The part A data were compiled from industryinformation submitted in 1980, when EPA re-quired all operating hazardous waste manage-ment facilities to submit an application for aninterim status permit (37). The facilities thatsubmitted applications were to be subjected toadditional State and Federal reviews prior toreceiving full permit status. Information from


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 throughput;andwhether and to what extent the facility wassubject to regulation under other environ-mental acts.

Standardized measures (e. g., measures of ca-pacity] and specified criteria were not required.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 ofthe information are, therefore, questionable.However, it may be necessary to use this in-formation, since it is the best available.

The applications have been subjected to twotelephone validation surveys (38). The first ofthese, covering approximately 700 facilities,

indicated that the original part A data repre-sented an overstatement of available hazardouswaste management 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 ofnationwide 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 nine 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 estimatednumber of commercial offsite hazardous wastemanagement 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 proportion 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 throughputInjection 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 capacityStorage 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.


Table 21 .—Number and Size of Commercial Offsite Facilities During 1981(regulated under RCRA

Estimated Estimated total Percent ofTechnology total

number during 1981 nationalfacilities

Injection wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Land treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surface impoundments . . . . . . . . . .

Waste piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Storage containers. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Storage tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Treatment tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4541129

54349

4722

125

Waste throughputn/a2.1 million tons276.1 acresa

1.1 million squareyards a

n/an/a860,000 galEstimated capacity15 million gal7.1 million gal

n/a

n/a25.0

3.2

3.8n/an/a1.5

4.90.2

n/aaWestat’s questionnaire requested throughput data; the figures given in units of area cannot represent either throughput orcapacity and therefore appear to be meaningless.

SOURCE: Westat and EPA, 1982.

tional waste throughput or waste managementcapacity at these facilities. An estimated totalfor 125 such facilities is given. Commercial off-site facilities represented in table 21 are definedas “those facilities that reported generating alow percentage (10 percent or less) of the ha-zardous waste they handled in 1981 and indi-cated that commercial waste management wasthe primary activity at the site” (37).

In 1980, EPA released a report that estimatedthe availability of offsite commercial hazardouswaste management services, which constitutea small subset of total hazardous waste man-agement capacity. In the context of the EPAreport, the term “commercial facilities” in-cludes facilities engaged in treatment anddisposal for fee, but excludes waste oil re-refiners, resource recovery facilities, storageand transfer stations, waste brokers, conven-tional sanitary landfills, and publicly ownedwastewater treatment works” (29). The reportwas intended to enable EPA to evaluate vari-ous regulatory alternatives that influence de-mand for offsite waste management services.The report provides estimates for the numberand capacity of existing commercial hazard-ous waste management in the Nation, and forneeded additional national and regional haz-ardous waste management capacity by technol-ogy type.

The report provides only general indicationsof its sources of information-–EPA files, in-dustry service directories, and telephone sur-veys. The capacities of facilities failing to re-spond were computed using data from similarfacilities. The report considers ’127 commercialfacilities, roughly 50 percent of the commer-cial facilities submitting part A applications,but all of the commercial facilities accordingto the recent validation study noted above. Itdoes not contain data on any onsite manage-ment facilities, or generator-owned offsite fa-cilities. The report estimated that the commer-cial facilities (about 2 percent of total hazard-ous waste management facilities) representedabout 20 percent of available national hazard-ous waste management capacity. This is con-sistent with the generally accepted view thatusually about 15 to 30 percent of hazardouswaste in a State are managed offsite.

Total national and regional management fa-cility capacity needs for the early 1980’s arealso estimated by technology type. The reportindicates that, while adequate hazardous wastemanagement capacity currently exists in theNation, it maybe poorly distributed relative togeneration.

In 1982, Booz Allen and Hamilton (36) up-dated their previous report (29). This update


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 ofwaste generation in recent years resulting fromlowered levels of industrial activity.

Management facility data have 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 datawill be improved progressively through the per-mitting process. Presently, few States have re-ceived EPA authorization to implement permit-ting programs. These States that have receivedthis authority (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 ofsites 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 provided by EPA RegionalOffices, but no consistent methodology appearsto have been employed by these offices. Fewof the sites were visited during the course ofthe 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 waste disposal sites as the interim nationalpriority CERCLA sites, This list was later ex-tended by 45 additional priority sites that werejudged also to pose substantial threats to healthand the environment. EPA’s methodology forranking uncontrolled sites is discussed in somedetail in chapter 6. In December 1982, EPA re-leased the first complete National Priority Listof 418 sites, and intends to periodically updatethis list.

Summary .—The existing facilities data de-scribed above do little to satisfy the data 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 ofmanagement facilities and the technologiesthey employ,

A significant quantity of required technologylevel data (T) are available to industry, govern-ment, and the public. These data are discussedin chapter 5.

The required facility level data (F) that cur-rently exist are largely in the hands of industry.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 source, for the States and EPA, of names andaddresses of facilities that may require permit-ting by the States. The determination 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 thepermit 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 hazardous 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 public 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 from other waste. Moreover, eventhough the 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 thequantity 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 national data are simply inap-propriate. For example, surface impoundment“waste throughput” is reported in units of area(square yards). The appropriate measure of thequantity of waste that might be treated in sucha way would be volume per year (gallons peryear), Since evaporation—and perhaps drain-age and leaching— continually decreases thevolume of waste in a surface impoundment, anappropriate and useful measure of surface im-poundment throughput would 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 management capacity data (in the ap-propriate units) and waste throughput data (inthe same units) were available at a facility andtechnology level for the Nation, and if thesedata indicated the waste constituents to whichthe capacity and waste throughput 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 ofregulations 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 onthe land. * Also, both government and industrycould 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 ofmanagement 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 onland 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 would reducethe quantities of certain types of generatedwaste, 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 development 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 purposes could be col-lected by EPA through national surveys orcould be obtained through 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 ofthe facility and technology types.

It is clear that the information concerningsites containing hazardous waste that may posea threat to health and the environment is in-adequate both from the standpoints of valid-ity and immediate usefulness. Information pre-viously collected by EPA, the States, and in-dustry (39,40) serves as a starting point for in-vestigations preliminary 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, thetechnologies employed in the facilities, or therisk to health and the environment posed bywaste management practices. Such data arefundamental to evaluations preliminary tocleanup activities.

Priorities for Data Acquisition

The foregoing discussion has indicated thata large discrepancy exists between the data 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- ●

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 ofhazardous waste on human health and the ●

environment is essential for effectivehazardous waste management. It enablesthe identification of hazardous substancesand their relative hazards, assists in set-ting design and performance standards 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 conce rn ing haza rdouswaste 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


●

●

and output residual waste and effluentcharacteristics. These data may be used toemphasize the capabilities and limitationsof certain technologies to handle particulartypes of waste, as well as areas that requirefurther 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 must be periodically updated toreflect growing knowledge of health andenvironmental effects, and to take advan-tage of evolving management technologies(see ch. 5).Data concerning alternative industrialprocesses (in waste generation industries)that reduce the volume and hazard ofwaste (see ch. 5).

●

●

Data concerning the costs, to industryand government, of implementing regula-tions governing hazardous waste man-agement.–(unit cost data for manage-ment options are discussed in ch. 5, andnational industry and government costsare discussed in ch. 7.)Data concerning CERCLA sites.—Dataare needed on the wastes deposited in thesites, the technologies employed, the risksassociated with the continued residence ofwaste 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 manpower 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 ofhazardous 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 Waste

Practices—Leather Tanning and Finishing In-dustry” (NTIS order #PB 261-018).

6. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Inorganic Chemicals Industry”(NTIS order #PB-244-832/2WK).

7. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Paint and Allied Products 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-dustries” (NTIS order #PB-241-204/7WP).

9. “A Study of Waste Generation, Treatment andDisposal in the Metals Mining Industry” (NTISorder #PB 261-052).

10. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and

Explosives Industries” (NTIS order #PB-251-307).

11. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WastePractices—Textiles Industry” (NTIS order #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 FinishingIndustries—Job Shops” (NTIS order #PB-264-349).

17. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous WasteManagement—Petroleum Re-Refining Indus-try” (NTIS order #PB-272-267/6WK).


18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23,

24.25.

26

27.

28.

“Assessment of Indust r 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 Indust r ia l Hazardous WastePractices–Rubber and Plastics Industry” (NTISorder #PB-282-069).Environmental Protection Agency, A Compila-tion of Statistics on Solid Waste ManagementWithin the United States (Washington, D. C.:JRB Associates, contract No. 68-01-6000, 1981].Environmental Protection Agency, Final Reporton Cost of Compliance With Hazardous WasteManagement Regulations (Washington, D. C.:Battelle Columbus Laboratories, contract No.68-01-4360, 1977).Environmental Protection Agency, S u m m a r yData for Selected Hazardous Waste GeneratorIndustries, Volume I, Economic and TechnicalProfiles (working document) [Washington, D. C.:Development P lanning and Research Associ -ates, contract No. 68-01-6322, October 1981).Envi ronmenta l Pro tec t ion Agency, I m p a c tAnalysis of Proposed RCRA-FSS Regulation,1980-1990, Volume I, Draft Technical Docu-ment (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-la tory Analys is Supplement)” (Washington ,D. C.: Arthur D. Little, January 1979).Environmental Protection Agency, Prel iminaryWorking Draft in Preparation of an Environ-mental Impact Statement for Subtitle C, Resource 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, Techn ica lEnvironmental Impacts of Various Approachesfor Regulating Small Volume Hazardous WasteGenerators (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, HazardousWaste Generation and Commercial HazardousWaste Management Capacity (Washington,D. C.: Putnam, Bartlett and Hays, and BoozAllen and Hamilton, GPO SW894, 1980).A. D. Little, “Hazardous Waste Generation inNew England, ” memorandum to the New Eng-land Council, August 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 Commission, “HazardousWaste Management in the Great Lakes Region,”Technical Report IV, Ann Arbor, Mich., August1980.Association of State and Territorial Solid WasteManagement Officials, survey conducted forOTA, 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 Commercial HazardousWaste Management Industry: 1981 Update, ”May 7, 1982.Environmental Protection Agency, “Applica-tion for a Hazardous Waste Permit: Consoli-dated Permits Program” (EPA forms 3510-1 and3510-3), 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., November 1982.Environmental Protection Agency, “Prelimi-nary Assessment of Clean-up Costs for NationalHazardous Waste Problems, ” Fred C. HartAssociation, 1979.Environmental Reporter, vol. 10, 1980, p. 2159.

CHAPTER 5

Technologies forHazardous Waste Management

Contents

PageSummary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Waste Reduction Alternatives , .. ...,, . . . . 139Hazard Reduction Alternatives: Treatment

and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Ocean Use . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Uncontrolled Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Waste Reduction Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 141Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141Source Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Process Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143End-Product Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Recovery and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148Emerging Technologies for

Waste Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Hazard Reduction Alternatives: Treatmentand Disposal ● *************O.***.*** ● 156

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156Summary Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158Biological Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174Surface Impoundments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186Underground Injection Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Comparative Unit Costs for

Selective Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Ocean Disposal and Dispersal . . . . . . . . . . . 198Current Usage ● ..***. ● O..**** . . . . . . . . . 198Legislative Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199Controversy Over Ocean Use for

Hazardous Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Future Research and Data Needs . . . . . . . . . 203Technical Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Uncontrolled Sites ● ** ** .***0*0***.O*QQO 205Issues Concerning Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . 205Site Identification and Evaluation ., ....., 207

Appendix 5A.-Case Examples of ProcessModifications ● *******************e** 213

List of TablesTable No.22.A Comparison of the Four Reduction

Methods ...,.., ..***,** ,.s.,,.. ● . * , 14223. Process Modification to the Mercury CeIl 14424. Advantages and Disadvantage of process

PageOptions for Reduction of Waste Streams for VCM Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

25. End-product Substitution for Reductionof Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

26. Commercially Applied RecoveryTechnologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

27. 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 NineMajor Hazardous Waste Firms in 1981

35. Incineration v. Treatment: Range ofEstimated Post-RCRA Charges for

● 163

. 177

, 196

Selected Waste Types.. , . .. . . . . . . . . . . 19736. Unit Costs Charged for Services at

Commercial Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19737. Data Required To Identify and Evaluate

Uncontrolled Sites.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20738. Advantages and Disadvantages of

Control Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21039. Types of Remedial Action Employed

at a Sample of Uncontrolled Sites .*. ,* 211

List of FlguresFigure No. Page

7. Relative Time Required forImplementation of Reduction Methods . 112

8. 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 18012. Schematic of Single arid Double Synthetic

Liner Design .*...** ...*,*** ,..0.... ● 18613. Schematic of Typical Completion Method

for a DeepWaste Injection Well . . . . . . . 190

CHAPTER 5

Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management

Summary Findings

●

●

●

Waste Reduction Alternatives

Source segregation is the easiest and mosteconomical method of reducing the volumeof hazardous waste. This method of hazard-ous waste reduction has been implementedin many cases, particularly by large in-dustrial firms. Many opportunities still ex-ist for further application. Any change inmanagement practices should include theencouragement of source segregation.

Through a desire to reduce manufacturingcosts by using more efficient methods, indus-try has implemented various process modifi-cations. Although a manufacturing processoften may be used in several plants, eachfacility has slightly different operating condi-tions and designs. Thus, a modification re-sulting in hazardous waste reduction maynot be applicable industrywide. Also, propri-etary concerns inhibit information transfer.

Product substitutes generally have been de-veloped to improve performance. Hazardouswaste reduction has been a side-benefit, nota primary objective. In the long term, end-product substitution could reduce or elimi-nate some hazardous wastes. Because manydifferent groups are affected by these substi-tutions, there are limitations to implementa-tion.

With regard to recovery and recycling ap-proaches to waste reduction, if extensive re-covery is not required prior to recycling awaste constituent, in-plant operations arerelatively easy. Commercial recovery bene-fits are few for medium-sized generators. Noinvestment is required, but liability remainswith the generator. Commercial recoveryhas certain problems as a profitmaking en-terprise. The operator is dependent on sup-pliers’ waste as raw material; contaminationand consistency in composition of a wasteare difficult to control. Waste exchanges are

●

●

●

not very popular at present, since generatorsmust assume all liability in transferringwaste. Also, small firms do not generateenough waste to make it attractive for re-cycling,

Hazard Reduction Alternatives:Treatment and Disposal

Many waste treatment technologies can pro-vide permanent, immediate, and very highdegrees of hazard reduction. In contrast, thelong-term effectiveness of land-based dispos-al technologies relies on continued mainte-nance and integrity of engineered structuresand proper operation. For wastes which aretoxic, mobile, persistent, and bioaccumula-tive, and which are amenable to treatment,hazard reduction by treatment is generallypreferable to land disposal. In general, how-ever, costs for land disposal are comparableto, or lower than, unit costs for thermal orchemical treatment.

For waste disposal, advanced landfill de-signs, surface impoundments, and injectionwells are likely to perform better than theirearlier counterparts. However, there is insuf-ficient experience with these more advanceddesigns to predict their performance. Site-and waste-specific factors and continuedmaintenance of final covers and well plugswill be important. The ability to evaluate theeffectiveness of these disposal technologiescould be improved through better instrumen-tation of these facilities. Currently, their per-formance evaluation relies heavily on moni-toring the indirect effects of their failure by,for example, detecting aquifer contamination.

In comparing waste treatment to disposalalternatives, the degrees of permanent haz-ard reduction immediately achievable withtreatment technologies are overwhelming at-tributes in comparison to land-based dispos-

739


●

●

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 ofthis type process applicable to future haz-ardous wastes.

Ocean Use

For some acids and very dilute other hazard-ous wastes, dumping in- ocean locations mayoffer acceptable levels of risk for both theocean environment and human health. How-ever, there is generally inadequate scientific

●

●

information for decisions concerning mosttoxic hazardous wastes and most locations.This is a serious problem since there maybe increasing interest in using the oceans asthe costs of land disposal increase and if pub-lic opposition to siting new treatment facil-ities continues.

Uncontrolled Sites

A major problem is that the National 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 recentremedial 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 purpose of this chapter is to describe the tion recognizes that where technically and eco-variety of technical options for hazardouswaste management. The technical detail is lim-ited to that needed for examining policy op-tions and regulatory needs. Still, there aremany technologies, and their potential roles inhazardous waste management are diverse.Thus, there are many technical 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 group 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 ofwaste components, process modifications, end-product substitutions, recycling or recoveryoperations, and various emerging technologies.Many waste reduction technologies are close-ly linked to manufacturing 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 hightemperature that decompose materials intoharmless constituents, Incineration is the obvi-ous example, but there are several existing andemerging “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 and recover 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 methods of-fers added reliability, and sectors of industryappear to be adopting that approach. The dis-

cussion of containment technologies includes:1) landfilling, 2) surface impoundments, 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 dumps. Thesites are addressed by CERCLA. The technicalaspects of identifying, assessing, and remediat-ing uncontrolled sites are reviewed in this sec-tion. There has been limited engineering expe-rience with cleaning up uncontrolled sites.

Many technologies that are applicable 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 Reduction 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 amount of waste generatedat the source is not a new concept. Several in-dustrial firms have established in-house incen-tive programs to accomplish this. One exampleis the 3P program—Pollution Prevention Pays—of the 3M Corp. Through the reduction ofwaste 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 has 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 through sourcesegregation, process modification, end-productsubstitution, or recovery and recycle. No onemethod or individual technology can be se-lected as the ultimate solution to volume reduc-tion. As shown in figure 7, three of the meth-ods, i.e., source segregation, process modifica-

IM. G. Royston, Pollution Prevention Pays (New York: Perga-mon Press, 1979).


Figure 7.—Relative Time Required forImplementation of Reduction Methods

Source separation4 *

u Process modification2% + PE

Recycling/recovery:.—z - *

< End-product substitution2 - *

1 I I I Jo 1 2 3 4 5

(Relative units)

Time ~SOURCE. Off Ice of Technology Assessment

tions, and recovery and recycling can be imple-mented on a relatively short- to medium-termbasis 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-cluded that new industrial plants will produceonly half the amount of hazardous waste cur-rently produced. Other estimates for potentialwaste production 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 separationI) Easy to implement; usually low investment 1) Still have some waste to manage2) Short-term solution

Process modification1) 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 substltuflon1) Potentially industrywide impact—large 1) Relatively long-term solutions

volume, hazard reduction 2) Many sectors affected3) Usually a side benefit of product improvement4) May require change in consumer habits5) Major investments required—need growing market

Recovery/recycling● /n-p/ant1) 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 exchange● 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 management5) Must establish long-term sources of waste and markets6) Requires uniformity in composition

● Waste exchange1) 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 ofhazardous constituents to forma concentratedhazardous waste, For example, metal-finishingrinse water is rendered nonhazardous by sepa-ration of toxic metals. The water then can bedisposed through municipal/industrial sewagesystems.

However, there are disincentives, particular-ly for small firms wishing to implement 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 dilutes the cyanide and metals concentra-tions to acceptable limits for municipal dispos-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 sourcesegregation, which would yield a hazardouswaste, although the public would benefit ifsource 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, thepublic is, in essence, subsidizing industrialwaste 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 methods, such asa change in temperature, in pressure, or in rawmaterial composition, or may involve majorchanges such as use of new processes or newequipment. Although process modifications

have reduced hazardous wastes, the reductionusually 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 analyzeincentives and impacts for process modifica-tions for hazardous waste reduction. The fol-lowing factors are important:

●

●

●

●

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 impact on product, process efficiency,costs, labor, and raw materials.Generally, process modifications are plant-or process-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 indus-try (which produces, e.g., chlorine andcaustic soda) have resulted in reduction ofmajor 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 andreduce production costs.

2. Vinyl chloride (plastics) production.—Several process options are available forhandling waste from the production ofvinyl chloride monomers (VCMs). Five al-


3.

Table 23.—Process Modifications to the Mercury Cell

Modification Effect on waste stream Reason for modificationDiaphragm cell Elimination of mercury Preferred use of natural salt

contaminated waters brines as raw materialDimensionally stable anode Elimination of chlorinated Increased efficiency

hydrocarbon wasteMembrane 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 ashigher concentration of hydrogen chloride(HCl) in the gas stream which would 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 formation of hazardous

sludge, the effluent can be discharged di-rectly to a municipal wastewater treatmentfacility, saving several million dollars incapital investment.

End-Product Substitution

End-product substitution is the replacementof hazardous waste-intensive products (i.e., in-dustrial products the manufacture of which in-volves significant hazardous waste) by a newproduct, the manufacture of which would elim-inate or reduce the generation of hazardouswaste. Such waste may arise from the ultimatedisposal of the product (e.g., asbestos products)or during the manufacturing process (e.g., cad-mium plating).

Table 25 illustrates six examples of end-prod-uct substitution, each representing a differenttype of problem. General problems include 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.Modi f 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 ● 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 manufactureof 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 using claypipes, clay is not always a satisfactory re-placement for asbestos.5

Generally, development of substitutes is moti-vated by some advantage, either to a user, (e.g.,in improved reliability, lower cost, or easieroperation), or to the manufacturer (e. g., re-duced production 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 pipe

o

0.2

00

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 paper 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 hazardouswaste 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 supply 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 the cultivation of only specified quantitiesof 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 forceend-product substitution. Excise taxes on prod-ucts operate as disincentives to consume andhave been implemented in the past (e.g., taxeson alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline). This typeof taxation might 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 forsubstitution of cadmium-plating by other mate-rials. A change in product specifications to per-mit this substitution would affect not only thequantity of cadmium required for military use,but also might impact nonmilitary applications.

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 asbestosis replaced by one made with cement), the im-pact may be large—both manufacturers andsuppliers may be affected. In addition, userswill be impacted according to the relative mer-its of the products. Other sectors potentially af-

fected by end-product substitution include im-porters of raw materials, exporters of the orig-inal product, and related equipment manufac-turers.

Generally, a product 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 morecompetitive marketplace position,

A significant factor in the introduction of asubstitute product is the stage of growth for ex-isting markets. For example, if the market forasbestos 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 ofraw materials also affects the desirability ofsubstitutes. If the original product is dependenton limited supplies of raw materials, substi-tutes will be accepted more rapidly.

Recovery and Recycling

Recovery of hazardous materials from proc-ess effluent followed by recycling provides anexcellent method of reducing the volume ofhazardous waste. These are not new industrialpractices. 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 ofseveral organic materials might be processedby solvent distillation to recover halogenatedorganic solvents for recycling; the discardedresidue of mixed organics might be burned forprocess heat.


Materials are amenable to recovery and re-cycling if they are easily separated from proc-ess effluent because of physical and/or chem-ical differences. For example, inorganic saltscan be concentrated from aqueous streams byevaporation, Mixtures of organic liquids canbe separated by distillation. Solids can be sepa-rated from aqueous solutions through filtration.Further examples of waste streams that are eas-ily adaptable to recovery and recycling arelisted in table 26,

Recovery and recycling operations can bedivided into three categories:

1. In-plant recycling is performed by thewaste (or potential waste) generator, andis defined as recovery and recycling of rawmaterials, process streams, or byproductsfor the purpose of prevention or elimina-tion of hazardous waste. (Energy recoverywithout materials recovery is not includedin this discussion of in-plant recycling,but is discussed later in this chapter as atreatment of wastes.) If several productsare produced at one plant by various proc-esses, materials from the effluents of oneprocess may become raw materials foranother through in-plant recycling. An ex-ample is the recovery of relatively dilutesulfuric acid, which is then used to neu-tralize an alkaline waste, In-plant recy-cling offers several benefits to the manu-facturer, including savings in raw materi-als, energy requirements, and disposal ortreatment costs, In addition, by reducingor eliminating the amount of waste gener-ated, the plant owner may be exemptedfrom some or all RCRA (Resource Conser-vation and Recovery Act) regulations,

2.

3.

Commercial (offsite) recovery can be usedfor those wastes combined from severalprocesses or produced in relatively smallquantities by several manufacturers. Com-mercial recovery means that an agentother than the generator of the waste ishandling collection and recovery. Theserecovery systems may be owned and oper-ated by, or simply serve, several waste gen-erators, thereby offering an advantage ofeconomy of scale. In most cases commer-cial recovery systems are owned and oper-ated by independent companies, and areparticularly important for small waste gen-erators. In commercial recovery, responsi-bility for the waste and compliance withregulations and manifest systems remainsthat of the generator until recovery andrecycling is completed.Material exchanges (often referred to as“waste” exchanges) are a means to allowraw materials users to identify waste gen-erators producing a material that could beused. Waste exchanges are listing mecha-nisms only and do not include collection,handling, or processing, Although benefitsoccur by elimination of disposal and treat-ment costs for a waste as well as receiptof cash value for a waste, responsibility formeeting purchaser specifications remainswith the generator, *

Standard technologies developed that can beadapted for recovery of raw materials or by-products may be grouped in three general cate-

*For a discussion of the problems being encountered withusing waste exchanges for hazardous waste see “IndustrialWaste Exchange: A Mechanism for Saving Energy and Money,”Argonne National Laboratory, July 1982,

Table 26.—Commercially Applied Recovery Technologies

Generic waste Typical source of effluent Recovery technologies

Solids in aqueous suspension Salt/soda ash liming operations FiltrationHeavy metals Metal hydroxides from metal-plating waste; Electrolysis

sludge from steel-pickling operationsOrganic liquids Petrochemicals/mixed alcohol DistillationInorganic aqueous solution Concentration of inorganic salts/acids EvaporationSeparate phase solids, grease/oil Tannery waste/petroleum waste Sedimentation/skimmingChrome salt solutions Chromium-plating solutions/tanning solutions ReductionMetals; phosphate sulfates Steel-pickling operations PrecipitationSOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment


gories. Physical separation includes gravitysettling, filtration, flotation, flocculation, andcentrifugation. These operations take advan-tage of differences in particle size and density,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-clude precipitation, 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 simple operations.For example, recylcing steel-pickling liquorsmay involve precipitation, gravity settling, andflotation. Precipitation transforms a compo-nent of high volubility to an insoluble substancethat is more easily separated by gravity settling,a coarse separation technique, and flotation,a finishing separation method, Integration ofprocess equipment can introduce some com-plexity, The auxiliary handling equipment (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 appliedto waste vary in their stages of development.Physical separation techniques are the mostcommonly used and least expensive. The sepa-ration efficiency of these techniques is not ashigh as more complex systems, and thereforethe type of waste to which it is applied is lim-ited. Complex component separations (e.g., re-verse osmosis) are being investigated for appli-cation to hazardous waste. These generally areexpensive operations and have not been imple-mented commercially for hazardous waste re-duction. Chemical transformation methods 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 rawmaterial, or additional equipment; 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., addition-al manpower, insurance needs, and poten-tial liability; andthe value of improved public relations ofa firm.

Because of the number 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 example, if de-regulation of oil and natural gas results in anincrease in energy costs, additional 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 Separation efficiency Industrial applicationsTechnology/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 to

collect 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 separationDistillation:

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 inexpensive Aqueous solutions with finelydivided solids

Good 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 aqueoussolutions; 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

Technology/description 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 recoverymaterials by application of of hazardous materialselectric current

Carbon/resin absorption:Dissolved materials Proven for thermal Relatively costly thermal

selectively absorbed in regeneration of regeneration; energycarbon or resins. carbon; less practical intensive

aqueous solutions; copperrecovery

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/concentration 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 investmentrequirements

R&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 collection 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 decisionfor 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 depreciation also may affect costs signif-icantly.

In addition, changes in RCRA regulations foralternative management options (e.g., landfill-ing, ocean dumping, and deep-well injection)affect disposal costs. Stricter regulations orprohibitions of certain disposal practices forparticular wastes 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 must accumulate (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 havepotential 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 hazardouswaste will 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 improved, 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 difficulties inherent in produc-ing large uniform surface areas of uniformquality. Because of the inherent advantages ofmembrane separation over more conventionalseparation techniques like distillation or evapo-ration, further development of membrane sep-aration for large-scale commercial applicationsis 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 transport designs, which are still at thelaboratory stage. All of these illustrated systemshave possible application for reduction 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 high flow systems generally typical of haz-ardous waste treatments make its use imprac-tical. Gas separations by membranes do nothave immediate application to hazardous wasteuse. The development 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 reduced 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;membranes generally account for only 10 per-cent of system costs. However, membranesmust be replaced periodically and sales of re-placement membranes are important to mem-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., pharmaceutical produc-tions). Over 20 companies cover the membranemarket; the largest company is Millipore with1980 total sales of $255 million.

The predicted market 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 theproduction of chlorine and sodium hydroxidelead the projected application 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 application for the reduction ofhazardous waste. Other uses include ultrafiltra-tion of electrocoat-painting process waste andwaste water recovery by reverse osmosis. Theuse of membrane segregation systems in pre-treatment of hazardous waste 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 waste 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 sludgedisposal

Sludge 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—requ!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 purificationsolvent streams

Washing 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 residues

Phenols, organic sulfur compounds,oils, Iignins, cellulose

Dyes, surfactants, solvents

chemicals.strains can


Development of new microbial 5. ability to concentrate nondegradable 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 destruction, 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 the devel-opment of specific microbial strains (“super-bugs”) capable of degrading multiple com-pounds has been proposed. However, this ap-proach faces engineering difficulties, and de-velopment of collections of organisms work-ing together might be preferable.

Development of biological pretreatment 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 compoundcould 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 methods (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 ofcontaminated land. A third area of research is

G. T. Thibault and N. W. Elliott, “Biological Detoxificationof Hazardous Organic Chemical Spills, ” in Control of Hazard-ous Material Spills, Conference Proceedings (Nashville, Term.:Vanderbilt University, 1980), pp. 398402.

‘G. C. Walton and D. Dobbs, “Biodegradation of HazardousMaterials in Spill Situations, “ in Control of Hazardous MaterialSpills Conference Proceedings [Nashville, Term.: VanderbiltUniversity, 1980), pp. 2345.

directed toward development of crops that cantolerate the presence of metal without incorpo-rating these toxic elements in plant tissue. Fi-nally, research is being conducted concerningthe use of plants in a manner similar to micro-organisms to degrade high concentrations ofhazardous 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 ofchemical synthesis processes with biologicalprocesses may result in the reduction of haz-ardous waste. Two methods of increasing therate of chemical reactions are through highertemperatures 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 chemicalfertilizers 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.–Althoughgenetic engineering has some promising appli-cations in the treatment of hazardous wastestreams, several issues need to be addressedprior to widespread commercialization of thetechnology: 8

●

●

●

●

The factors for scale-up from laboratorytests to industrial applications have notbeen completely developed. Limited fieldtests have shown degradation rates 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 format ion of o ther haz-ardous compounds th rough smal l envi ron-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”organisms 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 wr e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a .

Chemical Dechlorination With Resource Recovery.–In the late 1970’s private efforts were under-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 ofthe 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 ofmoderate 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 ofPCBs. 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 0p 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

mobi le commercia l -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 Sunohio (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, personalcommunication, January 1983.

llLeo Weitzman, Acurex Corp., personal communication,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

any 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 thehazard 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.

human and environmental exposure to waste.In this category, the major techniques are land-fills, surface impoundments, and undergroundinjection wells.

This discussion begins with a comparison ofthe 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 many 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 and individuals 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 ofhazard 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 detail in the following dis-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 availablecharacteristics tests

Reliability 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 mobile, persistent, highly toxic, mobile,

and bioaccumulative and persistentCosts LO W, M o d , H i g h L-M LResource recovery

potential None Nonea Molte s t ,n al high.temperature fluid wall, and plasma arc treatments

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, relative to other technologies Waste listed do not necessarily denote common usage


of groups are compared, The principal consid-erations used for comparison 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 oflandfills 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 ad-justments. 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 measures is that there may notbe 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. Processcontrol 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 sampling andanalysis, plus time for corrective ad-justments to have the desired effect);and

2. the length of time for release of dam-aging amounts of insufficiently treatedmaterials in the event of a treatmentupset.

In the case of landfills, once ground watermonitoring has detected a leak, damagingdischarges could have already occurred.


●

●

●

●

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 recyclingoperations 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 causedecomposition by high-energy radiation and/orelectron bombardment. There are several im-portant attributes of high-temperature destruc-tion technologies which make them attractivefor

●

●

●

hazardous waste management:

the hazard reduction achieved is perma-nent;they are broadly applicable to wastemixes; most organics, for example, maybe converted into nonhazardous combus-tion products; andthe volume of waste that must ultimatelybe 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 ofenergy and materials is not the primary focusof this discussion.

Incineration is the predominant treatmenttechnology used to decompose waste. The term“incineration” has 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 theFederal definitions affect the manner in whicha facility is regulated, unless specifically noted,——

● 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 “indus-trial unit processes, ” and their use is usually embedded in largertreatment schemes. A lengthy listing will not be reproduced here.Many were described in the preceding section on “Waste Reduc-tion Technologies. ” The interested reader is also referred to anyindustrial unit operations manual. 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.

● *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 ofthe 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 ● 159

“combustion” or “incineration” are used inthis report to refer to the generic processes ofinterest, 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 chamber. 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 may not be suitable for incin-eration. Under the high-temperature conditionsin an incinerator, some metals are volatilizedor carried out on particulate. 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 metals, but they are expen-sive and not in widespread use. High-pressuredrop-emission controllers have also been effec-tive, but their use is declining.

Technical Issues

There are approximately 350 liquid injectionand rotary kiln incinerators currently in ser-vice for hazardous waste destruction.18 Most

15Frank Whitmore, Versar, inc., persona} communication,August 1982.

Gene Crumpler, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous and Indus-trial Waste Division, Environmental Protection Agency, personalcommunication, January 1983.

of these facilities may eventually be permittedas RCRA hazardous waste incinerators. A fargreater, although unknown, number of facili-ties may be combusting hazardous waste prin-cipally in order to recover their heating value.Under current regulations, these facilitieswould not be permitted as hazardous wasteincinerators.” Under future regulations theymay become subject to performance standardssimilar to those in effect for incinerators, beprohibited from burning 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 constituent(POHC) designated in the waste feed. (Thisis the most difficult part of the standardto meet.) The DRE is calculated by the 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 ofhydrogen chloride per hour must achievea removal 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 particulate matter. (Recent tests in-dicate that this standard may be more diffi-cult to achieve than was 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 ofhazardous 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, themost 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 ofthe 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, butthese should not imply a rule. Discussion ofwaste “incinerability” is included below.

2040 CFR, sec. 261.2 (c)(2].

Waste treatments with reliable high-destruc-tion efficiencies offer attractive alternatives toland disposal for mobile, toxic, persistent, andbioaccumulative wastes. However, these treat-ment technologies are not free of technicalissues. The first three issues noted below relatedirectly to policy and regulation, and the re-maining three issues summarize sources oftechnical uncertainty with respect to the verysmall concentrations of remaining substances.Improvements in policy and regulatory controlshould recognize these technical issues:

●

●

Significant sources of toxic combustionproducts, emitted to the air, are not beingcontrolled 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 offacilities.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 importantand 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 environmental-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 emerging high-temperature tech-nologies (notably plasma arc) may offermuch greater and more reliable DREs.Rather than forcing, it may discourage thewide use of more capable technologies,

● 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 burnare 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 compounds 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 burndata 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 many of the technicaluncertainties described below.

● 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 volatilecompounds are still evolving, The newnessof these tests suggests there may be a widevariety in the precision capabilities amongthe laboratories which analyze DRE testresults.

● The measurements currently used in dai-ly monitoring of performance cannot re-liably represent DRE at the 99.99 percentlevel. For recordkeeping and enforcement,air and waste feed rates along with gastemperature are used as indirect 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 andwaste/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 much of the technical uncertain-ties surrounding incineration, To this end,EPA is studying devices which monitortotal organic carbon, and the National


●

●

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 developmentof a combination of devices to do the jobholds promise, However, these techniqueswill 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 combustionis 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 compounds, known 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, andthere are many high-temperature kineticreactions not fully understood. Unless spe-cifically analyzed, a selected PIC would goundetected. While additional testing of in-dividual combustion facilities will demon-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, isfocused 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 distinguish-ing principles, the reliability and effectiveness,and the current and projected use of these tech-nologies, Unless otherwise 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 thedroplets are small enough to allow the wasteto completely vaporize and go through all thesubsequent stages of combustion while theyreside in the high-temperature 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 Incineration

Can be designed to burn a wide range ofpumpable waste. Often used in conjunctionwith other Incinerator systems as asecondary afterburner for combustion ofvolatilized 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 problemswith 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 maintenancerequirements 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 decomposessmaller 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 many

Injection incinerator designs, especially noz- years. In the mid-1970’s EPA testing and datazle 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~ ISupport fuel

if required

m.Coolingscrubber

Atomizing gas

mcombustion air- ~} I v,. b-.- {

bVVdlW

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 preliminary 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 widerphysical variety of burnable waste feeds—sol-ids and sludge, as well as free liquids and gases.A rotating cylinder tumbles and uncovers thewaste, assuring uniform heat transfer. The cyl-

22Timothy Oppelt, and various other personal communications,Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Devel-opment, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 1982 and January1983.

inders range in size from about 3 ft in diameterby about 8 or 10 ft long, up to 15 or 20 ft indiameter 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 mechanisms. 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 combination withinjection 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 timesmake possible more complete combustion ofeven difficult to burn 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 ofthe hydrochloric acid produced from the burn-ing of chlorinated waste. 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 dust 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, Sweden, Norway, andmost recently, the United States. The foreignresults have tended to confirm the theoreticalpredictions —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

Wastes as Alternatives to Land Disposal, 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 ofResearch and Development, EPA, contract No. 68-03-2586,March 1981.

27Aternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, 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 most difficult to burnwaste 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 most 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 waste feed. Idled kilns could be usedas hazardous waste facilities. Local public con-cerns, notably over spills during hauling, 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 with a primaryfuel 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 pro-ducing steam. Different types of boilers havebeen designed to burn different types 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 WasteDisposal Facilities–The Peerless Experience,” paper presentedat a conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, 1978.

3lEnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Research andDevelopment, “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 destruction effi-ciencies desirable for hazardous waste: 1) theyhave purposefully cooled walls, 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 ofthe 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 maintenance but the bare metal sur-faces are susceptible to corrosion where halo-genated organic waste are burned. For this rea-son industrial boiler owners, concerned for thelife of their equipment, probably limit their useof such waste. However, there is a growing in-dustrial trend toward recovery of hydrochloricacid from the stack gas. * 32 Acid recovery re-quires that stack gas temperatures greater than1,2000 C be avoided, since this condition shiftsthe chemical equilibrium toward 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 design is welladvanced, and many designs are proprietary.High fuel efficiency designs may recirculatethe flame envelope back into itself to enhancethe formation of the series of reactions neces-sary for complete combustion. Other designsmay involve staged injections with varyingwaste-to-fuel ratios .33——— —

● Currently a significant amount, perhaps over ✔ percent ofthe U.S. hydrochloric 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 begun by EPA. Only three tests werecomplete at the time of this report; seven moreare planned. Tests to date have been conductedprimarily with nonhalogenated, high heatingvalue solvents and other nonhalogenated mate-rials. These tests have demonstrated DREs gen-erally in the 99.9 percent area. Subsequent test-ing will be directed toward waste that are con-sidered to be more difficult to destroy thanthose tested up to this point.34 Testing at coop-erating boiler facilities is expected to confirmthat boilers of a wide variety of sizes and typescan achieve hazardous waste destruction effi-ciencies comparable to those achieved by in-cineration for some common waste fuels. In-dustry cooperation will be needed, though, forfield testing of those difficult-to-burn and themore toxic wastes marginally useful as fuels.

Actual waste destruction achieved throughcoincineration probably has more to do withhow and 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 ofachieving high destruction of toxic organicwaste. However, the marginal benefits ofachieving incremental degrees of destructionmay be valued differently by different users.For example, it may cost less at very largeboilers (e.g., those at utilities and large indus-trial facilities) to save fuel costs through in-creased combustion efficiency than at smallerboilers. Thus, utility boilers are probably de-signed and 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 ableto find reliable and sufficient supplies. On theother hand, the objective with many industrialboilers is to deliver an optimal amount 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.

Excluding the very largest utility and indus-trial boilers, there are about 40,000 large (10million to 250 million Btu/hr) industrial boilersand about 800,000 small- to medium-sized insti-tutional, commercial, and industrial 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 playin 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 burningtwice the volume of ignitable hazardous wastethat is being incinerated. Except for those frompetroleum refining, all were discharged to theenvironment until environmental, handling, orincreasing primary 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 ofHazardous 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 spending an adequate 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 aware 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 applied in many areas. It achieves rapidand thorough heat transfer to the injected fueland waste, and combustion occurs rapidly. Airforced up through a perforated plate, maintains

39Alternatives 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 scrubberfor 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 applicable 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 purpose rather than at existing munici-pal facilities.

Recent EPA testing at the Union ChemicalCo., Union, Me., is still being evaluated. Earlytest results are mixed with 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 at sea.—This is simply incin-erator technology used at sea, but without stackgas scrubbers. (The buffering capacity of thesea and sea air is the reason for the lack of a

4lAlternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, 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 designerscan maximize combustion efficiency in waysthat land-based incinerators cannot.45 Incinera-tors based on oil drilling platforms would fur-ther be freed from accommodating rolling shipmotion.

Various EPA monitoring of test commercialburns of PCBs and government burns of herbi-cide Agent Orange and mixed organochlorinesin the mid and late 1970’s confirmed 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 burns recently conducted for PCBs de-struction onboard the M.T. Volcanus. Data re-sults are not yet available. Major concerns arewhether 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 recognized that the scrubbingthe exhaust gas of land-based incinerators maybe providing the fourth nine in their DRE per-formance. Thus, an at-sea DRE of 99.9 percentmay be more similar to the land-based DRE of99.99 percent than it may appear. The contribu-tion of scrubbers to DRE values are not wellknown.

Additional concerns about incineration atsea include: stack gas monitoring, which is dif-ficult enough on land and perhaps more soona ship at sea, and the risk of accidents nearshore or at sea, The ecological effects of a spillof Agent Orange on phytoplankton productiv-ity could be substantial.48 Storage facilitiesnecessary for drilling platform-based incinera-

45K. Kamlet, National Wildlife Federation, mean Dumping ofIndustrial 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 have been collected. The ben-eficial use exclusion may apply to many of suchpractices.50 However, objectives of such proc-esses are not necessarily complementary orsupportive of high DRE. The technical poten-tial for hazardous waste destruction and needfor regulation of such practice needs investi-gation.

Emerging Thermal Destruction Technologies

Undue 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

49PEDCO 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).51 Alternatives tO the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit.

Pyrolysis has been used by the 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 burns 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. Amongthe

●

●

●

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 quantities of auxiliary fuel maybe required to sustain temperature in theafterburner. 53

Commercially, high throughput (up 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 well-trained operators may berelatively high.54

Molten Salt Reactors.–These achieve rapidheating and thorough mixing of the waste ina fluid heat-conducting medium. Liquid, solid,or gaseous wastes are fed into a molten bathof salts (sodium carbonate or calcium carbon-ate). Solids must be sized to 1/4- or l/8-inchpieces in order 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. Thesodium carbonate in the bed affects neutraliza-

52Oppelt, op. cit.53Ibid.54Technologies of the Treatment and Destruction of Organic

Wastes as Alternatives to Land Disposal, op. cit.


tion of hydrogen chloride and scrubbing of theproduct gases. Thus, the bed is responsible fordecomposition of the waste, removal of thewaste residual, and some off-gas scrubbing. Abag house for particulate completes air pollu-tion control and the removal system.55 (Seefig. 9.)

In EPA tests, a pilot 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 has 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 presence of sulfur. Traditionally,MSD reaction vessels have been refractorylined, presenting operational and maintenancecosts similar to those of conventional incinera-tors. Rockwell International 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 oftemperature, excess air, and melt sulfur con-tent.57

Ash as well as metal, phosphorous, halogen,and arsenic salts build up in the bed and mustbe removed, In the case of highly chlorinatedwaste (50 percent or more) the rate at whichsalt must be removed approaches the rate ofwaste feed, Both the salt replacement (or regen-eration) and residual disposal determine eco-nomic viability for a given application. In pro-

“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(Baghouseparticulate L

ElSOURCE 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 would be sold as road salt or injected deepwell. se

The process is intended to compete with ro-tary kilns and may find application for a broadmarket of wastes that are too dilute to inciner-ate economically. However, water in the wastefeed, as with any incineration technology, usesup energy in evaporation, Due to the extreme-ly high DREs demonstrated in pilot scale tests,the process is expected to be very attractive 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 waste 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 surround-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 wastestream for complete combustion or generation.The speed of the heating presents 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 de-stroyed PCBs in contaminated soil (1 percentby weight) with 99.9999 percent DRE.61 In addi-tion, the Thagard Research Corp., which con-ducted the tests, claims that it has privately

LB@ Ibid.B@ Ibid.60Technologies for the Treatment and Destruction of Organic

Wastes as Alternatives to Land Disposal, 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 day unit.62 A commer-cial-scale unit (20 to 50 tons per day) 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 ofsome 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 ma-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 destruction 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 theprocess.65

In addition to its potential mobility resultingfrom its compact design the only air pollutioncontrol 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., personal

communication, January 1983.


trically conductive gas consisting of chargedand neutral particles). Temperatures in theplasma 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 tobe 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 waste, the gas produced hasa significant fuel value.68 A high degree of proc-ess control and operational simplicity are addi-tional advantages. For halogenated waste (amajor market target), the gases would have tobe scrubbed but the scrubbers needed are verysmall.

The process is in the public domain and near-ing commercialization. The developer plans tomarket mostly small, self-contained, mobileunits, Costs are intended to be competitive withincineration. 69 The first commercial applica-tion is planned to be in operation in July 1983.

Wet Oxidation .-Proven in commercial applica-tion, wet oxidation processes can destroy 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 quantities 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 producesenough heat to sustain the process, or even toproduce low pressure steam as an energy by-product. The oxidation reactions typicallyachieve 80 percent complete decomposition tocarbon dioxide and water, and partial decom-position to low molecular weight 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 atthe more stable highly chlorinated organics.Bench-scale tests conducted by I. T. Envirosci-ence have demonstrated that a bromide-nitratecatalyst promotes completeness of oxidation.Should this 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 organiccompounds and can break large organic mole-cules down into molecules of low molecularweight. 72 In a system patented by Modar, Inc.,injected oxygen completely oxidizes the lowermolecular weight molecules to carbon dioxideand water. DDT, PCBs and hexachlorbenzenehave been destroyed with efficiencies exceed-ing 99.99 percent in bench-scale testing.73 Costsare expected to be highly dependent 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 Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit.


through scaleup, this could be an attractivealternative to incineration.

Biological Treatment

Conventional biological treatments use natu-rally occurring organisms to degrade or re-move hazardous constituents. In contrast, bio-technology uses bacteria which have beenselected from nature, acclimated to particularsubstrates, and mutated through methods suchas exposure to ultraviolet light for fixation ofthe adapted characteristics. Many toxic sub-stances cannot be degraded biologically, al-though they may be effectively removed froma waste stream this way. Types of conventionalbiological techniques, waste stream applica-tions, and their limitations are listed in table29. These techniques have found widespreaduse for treatment of municipal and industrialwastes to prevent the formation of odorousgases, to destroy infectious micro-organisms,to remove nutrients for aquatic flora, and toremove or destroy some toxic compounds. Sev-eral biological techniques may be used as aseries of steps to treat a waste, including end-ing with landfarming (also called land spread-ing or land treatment]. The latter refers to thedeposit of a waste, or some sludge or residuefrom a treatment, onto land or injected somesmall distance beneath the surface. Naturallyoccurring organisms in the soil degrade thewaste, usually organic, and periodic plowingmay be necessary to ensure adequate oxygenlevels for degradation.

The physical, chemical, or biological proc-esses that can be used to eliminate or reducethe hazardous attributes of wastes exist in asmany forms as those processes used to manu-facture the original material. All of these treat-ments produce waste residuals; usually a liquidand a solid waste. The hazardous characteris-tics of these waste residuals must be evaluatedin terms of the objective desired for their finaldisposition or recovery. Without such an objec-tive it is difficult to evaluate the benefit, eithereconomic or environmental, of applying thetreatment process. These treatments can resultin merely changing the form or location of thewaste. For example, concentrating organics

from a dilute waste stream does not necessarilyprovide any benefit in terms of increased pro-tection of health. If this separation and concen-tration treatment allows the waste constituentto be recovered or, alternatively, makes a de-struction technology viable, the treatment hasbeen beneficial.

Residuals from hazardous waste treatmentsare discharged to surface waters, to publiclyowned wastewater treatment works (POTWs)or are sent to landfills or land treatment dis-posal, To the extent that the treatments consid-ered below can reduce the toxic characteristicsof wastes through destructive or degradativereactions, they are similar in their effect to ther-mal destruction technologies. To the extent thatthey are able to mitigate specific hazard char-acteristics, they render the wastes nonhazard-ous. And, to the extent that they reduce themobility of the waste, they reduce the interac-tion of land-disposed wastes with the environ-ment.

Many references exist describing unit physi-cal, chemical, and biological processes andhow they may be combined. This discussionwill not attempt to duplicate any such descrip-tive listings. Table 30 lists the established ap-plications. Selection of one or several processesdepends on such factors as waste feed concen-tration, desired output concentration, the ef-fects of other components in the feed, through-put capacity, costs, and specific treatmentobjectives.

Landfills

Landfilling is the burial of waste in excavatedtrenches or cells. The waste may be in bulkform or containerized. In the early 1970’s, land-fills specifically designed to contain industrialwaste were constructed. * Experience with theoperation and construction of these more ad-vanced landfills has been an evolutionary proc-ess, and is ongoing.

Over time, fractions of the waste can be re-leased from the landfill, either as leachate or

● In 1972, Chemtrol announced the opening of the reportedlyfirst landfill designed to securely contain hazardous industrialwaste.


as volatilized gases. The objective of landfill-ing design is to reduce 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 materials. Reducing the poten-tial for migration of toxic constituents from alandfill requires minimizing the production ofliquids and controlling the movement of thosethat inevitably form.

Liquids can enter a landfill in several ways:

• by disposal of free liquid waste,• by evolution from sludges and semisolids,● from precipitation infiltrating through the

cover into the landfill cell, and• from lateral movement 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 move-ment under saturated conditions is determinedby the hydraulic force driving the liquid, andthe hydraulic conductivity of the liner material.Hydraulic force can result in discharge througha liner,

Landfills can be designed to reduce migra-tion, but there is no standard design. Advanceddesigns would 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 together, these featuresare intended to make it physically easier forwater to run off the surface cover instead ofinfiltrating 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 ofgravel and sand are sometimes used as inter-mediate drainage layers to speed internaldewatering.

Applicable Wastes

Virtually any waste can be physicallyburied 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 that270 landfills are currently in use for hazardouswaste 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 oflandfills 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 which 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 andcollection 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:

●

●

●

●

the 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 FeaturesA 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 aseries 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 ofprecipitation into the closed landfill. Intermedi-


ate covers can be applied for the same purposeduring operation 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 landfill is to retard the migra-tion of leachate from the landfill so that it canbe collected and removed. For synthetic 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 hydraulic pressure. * Based onlaboratory and field testing, typical ranges ofconductivity 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. ●

The cover is constructed with low permeabilitysynthetic and/or clay material and with graded ●

slopes to enhance the diversion of water.●

●

Leachate collection and recovery system:To reduce hydrostatic pressure on the bottom liner, .

and reduce the potential for flow of Ieachate ●

through the liner. ●

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 IinerTo reduce the rate of Ieachate migration to the subsoil. .

●

●

●

●

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 and

puncture 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 ofobvious 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 ofproper liner installation is not currently re-quired by EPA, but it is required by severalstates .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 tolocalized 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 Waste hnpoundment and Disposal Facilities, SW-870, ch. 4 “Failure Mecha-nisms,” September 1980.

~Ibid.‘H. E. Haxo, “Interaction of Selected Liner Materials With

Various 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.


However, laboratory data cannot directly pre-dict performance under actual field conditions.Laboratory tests are conducted on only a smallsample of the liner material; this presents prob-lems for estimating field permeability y of clays.Calculations of liner permeability based onfield measurements demonstrate that labora-tory estimates are frequently too low. Develop-ment of improved field techniques are under-way. 86 87 Also, laboratory tests 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 prediction 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 ofgravity 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 Measurement of the Permeability of Saturated and Partially SaturatedFine Grained Soils” (Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, Depart-ment of Civil Engineering, june 1979),

● For example, manufacturers of synthetic lining material war-ranty their product for a specified time period [e. g., 10 to 30years) 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, personalcommunication, 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 end of leachate genera-tion. Some failures, such as poor leachate trans-mission through the filter beds or collapse ofthe drainage pipes, are both difficult to detectand to repair.

3. Cover.–After operations at the landfillhave ceased, the final cover is installed, Thefunction 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 structurally sound over time. Covers canbe constructed of layers of synthetic mem-branes, clays, and soil. Leachate standpipespierce the cover in order to project into thelandfill cells, Soil is placed over the cover, andvegetation is established to stabilize the soil.

~EnVirOnMental protection Agency, hlanagernen ~ Of HaZard-

ous Leachate, SW-871, September 1980,‘EPA, op. cit., SW-870, 1980, sec, 5,6,91 D, Daniel, persona] communication, October 1982.9zB. S1 monsen, vice president, IT CO rp., and P. Va rdy, Vice

President 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 failuremechanisms (see table 33). Some of these, suchas erosion or piercing of the cover by plantroots, can be reduced through proper and con-tinued maintenance and repair of the site. *However, if maintenance ends, the integrity ofthe cover will be threatened by ubiquitousweathering processes, such as desiccation, 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 through the cover may be reduced be-fore the facility operator’s maintenance respon-sibility ends. These factors are critical, sincethe cover is the primary line of defense againstwaste migration after the post-closure period.

Other potential sources of cover damage can-not be prevented by simple 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 most criti-cal factors resulting in poor landfill perform-ance.95 Figure 11 depicts a cover designed witha gently sloping crown to facilitate runoff, andexamples of cover failure. Ideally, the crownshould be designed and constructed to com-pensate for estimated long-term subsidence.However, there are several factors which makethis difficult.96

Comparatively uniform subsidence might beexpected to occur for landfills containing oneform of waste (i.e., a monofill). Many landfills,however, contain a variety of wastes, both con-tainerized and in bulk. Bulk liquids and sludges

4● 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 ofthe site thereafter, and if funds are available. See ch. 7; also PublicLaw 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 provide short-term support, but they deterio-rate, often within a few years. The rate of con-tainer deterioration is difficult to predict; itdepends on site- and waste-specific factors. Itmay not be possible to compact a mixed wastelandfill 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 these 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 fromleachate migration, either through a leak-detec-tion system or external ground water monitor-ing, requires corrective action. Repairing thesource of the leak is generally not possible.Liner repair requires: 1) locating the source ofthe leak, and 2) exhuming the waste. The firstis difficult, although remote sensing techniques

‘7P. Varty, Vice President, Waste Management Inc., personalcommunication, January 1983.

BaFor example, Waste Management Inc. and SCA ChemicalWaste Services, Inc.

w]. Greco, Divisional Vice President, Government and IndustryAffairs, 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 volume of leachate available formigration. Generally, leachate is removed bypumping from the collection system above theliner. 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 sophisticated 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 found to be sound. 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 shaped the

100 A comparison of these techniques has been prepared byWailer, Muriel Jennings, and J. L. Davis, “Assessment of Tech-nologies To Detect Landfill Liner Failures, ” in proceedings ofthe 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 design 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 impairground water, In contrast, an engineered land-fill relying solely on a synthetic liner, sited onunconsolidated dredged fill material, overlyingfractured 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 andwherever practicable to enhance isolation overtime.’’102 Current interim final regulations forhazardous waste disposal have only incentives(in terms of reduced monitoring requirements)for landfills sited in areas with exceptionallyprotective natural hydrology. No outright re-strictions exist for sites with poor hydrologicalfeatures. 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 example, landfilling bulk liquid wasteplays an important 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 techniquesconvert waste into a solid with greater struc-tural integrity, Stabilized or solidified wasteare less likely to leach from a land disposalsite than are untreated waste—even thoughthe physical and chemical characteristics ofthe constituents of the waste may not bechanged by the process. Stabilization/solidifi-cation usually involves the addition of materi-als that ensure that the hazardous constituentsare maintained in their least soluble form.

Stabilization/solidification processes can becategorized as follows:105 106

●

●

●

●

●

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 batchprocess 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 waste most amenable to stabiliza-tion, solidification, and encapsulation tech-niques are inorganic materials in aqueous solu-tions or suspensions that contain appreciableamounts 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 more than 10 to 20 percentorganic substances are generally not good can-didates for this treatment method. Their di-verse properties interfere with the physical andchemical processes that are important 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 oftreatable residues. For specific wastes, certainchemical stabilization treatments so thoroughlyimmobilize toxic constituents in EPA approvedtests that they have been tentatively removedfrom hazardous waste regulation. ’”’ Usually,however, some metal cations remain somewhatmobile. In addition, 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 ofstabilized waste to wet/dry and freeze/thawcycles, however, has generally not been good.Stabilization/solidification processes generallyimprove 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 passage 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 ofsuch actions are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

some facilities emphasize land burial ofwaste 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 oflandfills;some facilities segregate wastes with simi-lar characteristics. This facilitates leachateprediction and testing for liner compara-bility;several waste handlers have established astrict prohibition against burial of liquids,in bulk or in containers;some manufacturers of synthetic liningmaterials provide compatibility testing andinstallation with the sale of their productsale;some firms are researching methods 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 through meets specific waterquality criteria; andsome landfill design firms are prospective-ly designing land-fills to make correctiveactions 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, but 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 ofthe 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 contaminantlevels in ground water will be the criteriaagainst which landfill performance will bejudged. 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 oflong-term maintenance or corrective actions.There is little quantitative evidence on whichto project landfill performance, especially overthe long term.

Future evaluations of landfill performancewill 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 which increase waste sta-bility as well as reduce long-term mobility ofwaste constituents.

EPA is conducting additional analyses of fail-ures that have occurred at existing sites.111

Such analyses invariably indicate that poor per-formance can be attributed to poor operatingpractice, design, or maintenance. Operation ofany 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 improve in ‘both of these areas.

The performance standards and minimumdesign requirements for new landfills are basedon 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 ofperformance design guidance.112 Laboratoryand field testing of liners and covers is under-way. Little is being done to monitor actual fa-cility performance; yet it is unlikely that ourcurrent experience is adequate to anticipate allfuture difficulties. Without better informationon actual facility performance, it will be diffi-cult to evaluate landfills constructed accordingto minimum design requirements, or to evalu-ate alternative landfill 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 accumulation 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 ● 185—

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 demon-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 portions of facilities are broadly 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:

● a preference for the use● minimal restrictions on

to be landfilled; and● 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 ofleachate. 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 reduce the hazards 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 modifythe 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.

Siting Restriction.—The current regulationscontain only minimal siting restrictions. For


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 majorsupplies 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.119

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 ofa 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 “1monitoring well i b 070

“\Leachate collection .and removal system ~

Liner

‘\‘,,

I D 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.

Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 187—. —.. .—. — — . . . . . . .

a n d p o n d s .120 These depress ions can be natura l ,man-made, l ined , or unl ined . They can be sev-eral feet in diameter or hundreds of acres insize.

Applicability

The major i ty of wastes put in to surface im-poundments come f rom four indus t r ia l g roups :paper and a l l ied products , pe t ro leum and coalp r o d u c t s , p r i m a r y m e t a l s , a n d c h e m i c a l s a n da l l i e d p r o d u c t s .121 T h e s e w a s t e s a r e g e n e r a l l yi m p o u n d e d a s h u l k l i q u i d s o r s l u d g e s .

S u r f a c e i m p o u n d m e n t s a r e u s e d e i t h e r t ot reat or s tore indust r ia l wastes . For t rea tment ,sur face impoundments a re widely used for de-w a t e r i n g s l u d g e s , n e u t r a l i z i n g a n d s e p a r a t i n gwaste constituents, and biodegrading wastewaters. Storage simply refers to temporaryholding. Although estimates of capacity vary,national estimates indicate that there are ap-proximately 1,100 surface impoundments usedfor hazardous waste, covering a total area ofclose to 29 million yd2 [see ch. 4).

Evaluation

Surface impoundments have allowed releaseof hazardous waste constituents through cata-strophic failure, leachate migration, and vola-tilization of organics. Impoundments are moresubject to catastrophic failure than landfillsbecause they tend to contain more bulk liquid.Evidence of surface- and ground-water con-tamination resulting from impoundments iswell documented. 122 This has occurred fromsudden releases; e.g., by overtopping the sides,dike failures, or rupture of the liner due to in-adequate subgrade preparation, or sinkholeformation. 123 124 In addition, slow leakage cancontaminate soil and ground water, This is

especially true for unlined impoundments. In-vestimations at some unlined “evaporationponds” have shown that seepage accounted formore of the reduction in volume than did evap-oration. 125 In general, these release pathwaysare addressed by Federal regulations (see also“Technical Regulatory Issues”).

There is an expected rate of leakage eventhrough intact liners. Some liquids are chem-ically aggressive to liners, increasing the rateof movement through the liner. Leakage occursin much the same manner described in the pre-v ious section for landfills. The rate of leakagegenerally depends on the same factors (see dis-cussion of liners in the “Landfill” section). Forimpoundments, one primary difference is thatthere is always a hydraulic gradient acting onthe liner. An additional concern is how longthe wastes are held in the impoundment beforetheir hazardous characteristics have been miti-gated,

Some organic liquids currently being held inimpoundments are volatile. Volatilization formany organic chemicals can occur at normalatmospheric temperatures and pressures. Thishas recently led to investigations of the poten-tial magnitude and severity of organic air emis-s ions.

There is little field data to indicate the mag-nitude of air emissions from surface impound-ments, Most of the information available isfrom mathematical models that estimate anemissions rate from the many factors influenc-ing volatilization, These include the concentra-tion of organics in the waste, their vapor pres-sures and solubilities, environmental factorssuch as air and water temperature, wind veloc-ity, and the surface area of the impound-m e n t ,126 127

—— . —1zS&5’[lrfa~e lmp~[ln dn]en is and 7’heir Ii fffx:t<s on Ground J1’a tf’r

Quafit~ in the L’ni(ed States-A f+eliminar~ Sur~[?~, [J, S, E;[IA,off Ice of Drinking Water, 570/9-78-004, June 1978.

1281.. J. Thlbodeaux, et al., “Chemical Volatilization h!e(:ha-nisrns From Surface 1 mpoundments In the Absence of Win(j,l,and llJspow] of Hazardous Waste, proceedings of the 8th An-nua] Research Symposlurn, EPA 600/9-82-002, March 1982

‘J”’rhomas ‘1’, Shen, “ F:stlmation of organic Compound Emis-sions From it’ast(’ I ,a~()()ns, journal of Air PollutJon Contr[]l,4ssoc/at]on, iol. 32, No. 1,


Many of the models were designed to repre-sent other environmental transport phenome-non, e.g., evaporation from oceans or lake ba-sins, and have been adapted for application toorganic emissions. Consequently, estimates ofemissions derived from these models must beviewed with caution. Nonetheless, the modelsestimate a significant rate of emissions. For ex-ample, emissions from a 1/4-acre impound-merit, ” holding 100 mg/l benzene and 100 mg/lchloroform, are estimated to be almost 45 lb/hrof benzene and 39 lb/hr of chloroform. 128 Thisrate of emissions would decline but continueuntil a covering was installed. Further modeldevelopment work, including validation sam-pling, is underway.129


The effectiveness of the interim final regula-tions lies in how well they improve the per-formance of surface impoundments over pastpractices. The Federal regulations require thatnew impoundments have a liner, and establishthe minimum design and performance stand-ard; i.e., a single liner intended to meet the nar-rative performance criteria stating that theliner must “prevent any migration” of wasteconstituents out of the impoundment duringits active life.130 Although these requirementsfor liners will reduce leakage, the literal nar-rative standard is probably technically infeasi-ble. Lining materials have long been used toreduce seepage and economic losses of storedliquids, however the use of liners for pollutioncontrol is comparatively new. A great deal ofR&D in liner technology will be required tomeet these standards. Two researchers statethe issue well:131 132

There is a lack of formalized design proce-dures to accomplish the objective of pollution

*With a depth of 3.5 meters, ambient temperatures of 25” C,and wind speeds of about one-tenth mph.

l*81bid,, p. 81,Itestek,e lames, project officer, Municipal Environmental Re-

search Laboratory, personal communication, January 1982,130FR 32,357, July 26, 1982.ljl Folkes, op. cit.I UR, E, O]son and D. E. Daniel, “ f’ield and Laboratory h~eas-

urement of the Permeability of Saturated and Partially SaturatedFine-G rained Soils, ” Geotechnical Engineering Report CR 80-5,Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, June 1979,

control, Because of this lack, there is a tenden-cy toward qualitative approaches to liner de-sign. It is often assumed, for example, thatliners are either impermeable or of such lowpermeability that further analyses are not re-quired. The end result can be failure of theliner to perform as intended.

S i m i l a r l y :

. . . in engineering, past practice has frequent-ly meant to assume that fine grained soils areeffectively ‘‘impervious" and to forego a t -tempts to measure their coefficient of perme-ability y.

T h e r e g u l a t o r y i n c e n t i v e f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n o fdouble liners with leak-detection systems ap-plies also to impoundments. However, in con-trast to leak-detection systems currently usedwith landfills, OTA found that detection sys-tems placed beneath the primary liner of an im-poundment can be used to routinely removethe liquids from between the liners. This re-duces the hydraulic pressure from the second-ary liner. In some cases, this kind of leachatedetection and removal system are already usedto remove the liquids expected to migratethrough the primary liner.133 Ground water atsites which are especially vulnerable to con-tamination would be better protected by thissystem. Instead, the regulations allow the useof a single liner, and rely on. an externalground-water monitoring net to detect wasteconstituents in excess of ground water stand-ards.

As with landfills, a broad exemption from therequirement for any liner is allowed for exist-ing impoundments. Development of remote-sensing techniques to detect leakage at existingsites has recently begun.134 EPA is also inves-tigating techniques for retrofitting syntheticliners at existing impoundments.135 Combiningthese efforts with information about the char-

—.— -. —1 Sspeter vardy, waste Management 1 nc., personal com mun lca -

tion, January 1983.IJ~Waller and Davis, op. cit., in proceedings of the Eight An-

nual Research Symposium, EPA 600/9-82-002, March 1982.lj~John W. Cooper and David Schultz, “Development and Dem-

onstration of Systems to Retrofit Existing I,iquid Surface Im-poundment Facilities With Synthetic Membrane, ” in Manage-ment of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, conference pro-ceedings, Washington, D. C., December 1982,

Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 1 8 9

acteristics of the site and the waste could re-duce reliance on detection monitoring and re-medial action.

Federal regulations also require that im-poundment dikes be designed and constructedto prevent massive failure. In the past, massivedike failure has been linked to damage causedby leakage from the impoundment. The regula-tory criteria requires that liner leakage be con-sidered in the design and construction of struc-turally sound dikes. To the extent that newdikes meet this requirement, sudden releasesfrom impoundments should be reduced. In ad-dition, new impoundments are to be designedto withstand certain storm and flooding events,However, as with landfills, siting requirementsare minimal, Furthermore, existing sites are ex-empted from having to upgrade dikes andberms. In some cases, exempted impound-ments may pose substantial risk of suddenreleases,

Many of the regulatory requirements pertainto closure and post-closure responsibilities. Atclosure, impoundment operators have two op-tions: to remove all remaining wastes and con-taminated lining material for disposal at an ap-proved RCRA facility or decontaminate, orsolidify/stabilize, the remaining waste so thatit can structurally support a final cover, I f thissecond opt ion is taken, the impoundment isessentially closed like a landfill, and similarmonitoring and maintenance responsibilitiesapply. Long-term uncertainties related to linerlife and cover integrity are similar to those dis-cussed in the landfill section. Issues concern-ing lack of criteria for what constitutes ade-quate “stabilization” of the waste are similarto those discussed in landfill pretreatment re-quirements.

EPA is beginning to investigate the potentialfor air quality degradation resulting from im-pounded volatile organics and is planning re-search to identify appropriate regulation in thisarea. Some States, notably New York and Cal-ifornia, are also investigating this issue.136 Cal-——. —

1 ~’rhom~s “r, sh~n, s~n Ior Resea rc, h SC wnhst, N~w’ York st~t~[)epartrnent of Enirlrtjnmental [~onservat}on, personal (;ommunl-(,at ion, December 1982

ifornia has suggested both limits on the amountof volatile organic material that can be land-disposed and limiting the time certain wastescan be stored in impoundments as air qualitycontrol measures.137

Underground Injection Wells

Injection of liquid waste into subsurface rockformations is a technology that uses poroussedimentary strata to hold liquid waste. Thepores of all porous rock formations contain liq-uids, gases, or both. The gas or liquid is con-tained within the strata under pressure causedby overlying rocks. Internal pressures withinstrata can vary significantly, depending on theporosity of the formation, its depth, and otherphysical and chemical factors. Essentially,underground injection entails drilling a wellto the depth required to intersect an appropri-ate geologic formation (known as the injectionzone) and pumping the liquid waste in withpressure sufficient to displace the native fluids,but not so great as to cause fracturing of thestrata or excessive migration of the waste. For-mations suitable for waste injection shouldmeet the following criteria: 138

●

●

●

●

it should not have value as a resource—e.g., as a source of drinking water, hydro-carbons, or geothermal energy;it must have sufficient porosity and vol-ume to be able to accept the anticipatedamount of liquids;it should be sealed both above and belowby formations with sufficient strength,thickness, and impermeability to preventmigration of the waste from the disposalzone; andit should be located in an area with littleseismic activity to minimize both the riskof earthquake damage to the well and trig-gering of seismic events.

There is no standard injection-well designbecause design requirements are influenced by

———-——1 ~ ‘st ate of ~a ] i f~rn 1 a A 1 r Resources ~ oa d, ‘‘ SUggeSted ~on-

tro] Measure To Reduc;e organic Compound Emissions Associ-ated With ;’olati]e C)rga n 1(; t$~aste Disposal, ” August I !)82,

13CID0 n [4, War n e r a n~ J ajr H. I.eh r, .5-U bsurface waS~~J$’a ter ln -

)ection (Berkele~,, Cafi[: Premier Press, 1981), pp. 124-127.


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 ofthe 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

/lSteel casing shutting

off all freshwaterzones cemented

from bottom to surface

Cement —

Steel casingcemented, —

bottomto surface

Corrosion resistanttubing

Annulus sealedwith packer -

Disposalf o rma t i on —

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 ofwaste discharge. The injection tubing is sealedoff from the intermediate casing, creating an-nular space between the injection tubing andthe casing, The annulus is filled with fluid con-taining corrosion inhibitors to protect the cas-ing and tubing metal. The fluid is pressurizedbetween the sealing at the 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 in-jection 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 plugging is necessary to main-tain the existing pressure in the injection zone,to prevent mixing of fluids from different geo-logic strata, and to prevent flow of liquids fromthe pressurized zone to the surface.142

Applicability

Injection wells are capable of accepting awide 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 comparedwith 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 more compatible with a specific in-jection zone formation. Examples of waste thatcan be disposed via injection wells are:144

● dilute or concentrated acid or alkalinesolutions;

● solutions containing metals;● inorganic solutions;

139Waste Age, October 1982.140 Ray “W. Amstutz, “Deep-Well Disposal: A Valuable Natural

Resource, ” 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 ● 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 ofpredominance: 145

l n d u s t r y t y p e Pe rcen t

Chemical and allied products . . . . . 49Petroleum refining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Sanitary service . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Oil and gas extraction . . . . . . 6Primary metals . . . . . . . . . . . 6All others . . . . 10

Current Use

Estimates 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 in-jection 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 thewaste 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 a n 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 ofhazardous 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 ofhazardous 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 60percent 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.


can 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 acrossthe 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 Effects on GroundWater (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 ofdrinking 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 gointo 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 ofthe 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 ofan 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.


The contamination pathway described aspathway 9, upward migration of waste throughabandoned or closed wells, is particularly in-sidious because regions where waste injectionis widely practiced also have a long history ofenergy exploration and development. Depend-ing on the site geology, these wells provide ver-tical connections from deeper formations tonear surface or surface formations. Many ofthese wells were drilled before plugging ofabandoned wells was required. Often, theirlocations are not known and some may nolonger be evident at the ground surface. Onesource estimates that there may be more than1 million unplugged wells unlocated in NorthAmerica. 159 To address this concern, currentFederal regulations require potential disposersto calculate the subsurface area expected to beaffected by the pressure of waste injection. Be-fore new waste injection can begin, the oper-ator is required to survey and to plug existingwells within this area .160

Similarly, Federal regulations require thatnew wells must be plugged at closure to main-tain pressure within the injection zone. Thereare no specific Federal requirements for wellabandonment, because the procedures used de-pend on the well construction and site hydro-geology. Proposed plugging methods are eval-uated by individual State-permitting author-ities. Wells are plugged by selectively cement-ing sections throughout its length. There is notechnical concensus over the placement of wellplugs; their location and extensiveness aredetermined by State requirements and costcons idera t ions . l61 Some States require thatplugs be set over the entire length of the injec-tion zone, and extend 50 to 100 ft into the over-lying confining beds. In some wells, injectioncan occur over hundreds to a thousand feet offormation. In addition, plugs are generally setabove and below each aquifer that the wellpasses through .l62

ISQR, Allen Freeze and John A, (;herry”, []roIJ~] (~w’a tt?r ( E:II~l(’-wood Cliffs, N ,J,: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1979), p. 455.

looq ~ (; ~’ ~ 1 ~ (j. 6 and 146.7.161’’ Technical hlanua] Inje(:tion L$’ell Abandon merit,” op. (:It.,

p 6.l~zlbld ., pp. 5, 6.


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 wellabandonment. 163 164 In 1973, the State of Michi-gan surveyed 20 abandoned wells to determinethe adequacy of the plugs. The wells were re-drilled to verify the position and condition ofthe cement plugs. Some plugs were neverfound; others had deteriorated and were soft.165

More advanced well-plugging techniquesshould 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 little 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 ofTexas 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-relation 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-

1031 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 forcontaminant migration. 168 Monitoring wellscan also be constructed to sample from the con-fining beds or from aquifers above the injec-tion zone. The usefulness of such wells maybe 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 pressuresand migration of fluids into undergroundsources of drinking water, the frequency ofsampling, 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 bythe Underground Injection Control (UIC) pro-gram under the Safe Drinking Water Act(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 notyet been specified.

le~warner and Lehr, op. cit., pp. 310-311.1@sIbid., p, 312.170 Thornhill, op. cit.


Further, the development of UIC standardsis not complete, Specifically, there are nostandards for Class IV wells that inject wastesabove a drinking water source (F. R., ibid.).States with approved programs are required toeliminate waste disposal through a Class IVwell injecting into a drinking water sourcewithin 6 months of receiving approval. To date,only nine States have approved UIC programs,although several more are currently being re-viewed. 17

1

Corrective measures are required if a failureoccurs during the operating life of the well.UIC regulations require the installation and useof continuous recording devices to monitor in-jection pressure, annular pressure, waste vol-ume, and flow rate. 172 In addition, the wellmust be tested for mechanical integrity througha temperature or noise log test at least onceevery 5 years. ’73 If a significant leak is detected,the well casing must be repaired or replaced.174

Closure of the well must be certified.

In general, waste disposal through properlyconstructed and operated injection wells intodeep formations below the lowest drinking wa-ter source are much less likely to contaminatesurface or shallow aquifers than are landfillsand surface impoundments. There do not ap-pear to be requirements for corrective actionfor damage that might occur after well closurecomparable to the requirements imposed onland-based disposal under RCRA. The Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund Act will providefunding for site maintenance and care, as wellas a source of compensation for personal andproperty damage. However, it is unclear howthe tax will be calculated for liquid waste in-jected into disposal wells.’” The statutory lan-guage specifies that the tax be levied at a rateof $2.13 per dry weight ton of hazardous wastedelivered to an RCRA permitted facility.

‘“’Yang, op. cit.‘“’40 CFR 146.13.‘7)40 CFR 146.8 and 146.13.] 74 Yang, op. cit.“sEric Nagle, Environmental Law Institute, personal commu-

nication, N’overnber 1982.

Comparative Unit Costs forSelective Technologies

There is little consistent information avail-able about the costs necessary to achieve agiven level of control by waste treatment anddisposal practices. This is due to a variety offactors: 1) lack of consensus about what con-stitutes comparable levels of control acrosstechnology alternatives, 2) the regulatory un-certainties of the evolving Federal program,3) cost information that is generally specific toan application of a particular technology to aparticular waste, and 4) the dynamic nature ofcosts as industry gains experience in respond-ing to the regulatory requirements.

Almost all the studies that evaluated costs fordifferent treatment and disposal alternativesconsidered the effect of the new RCRA regula-tions. Although tentative, given the lack of ex-perience of the interim final relations, virtu-ally

1.

2.

all the studies point out two trends:

the post-closure, liability, and correctiveaction requirements will have a greater ef-fect on land-based disposal options relativeto treatment or incineration, andthe costs for anv treatment option is af-fected by the waste type. Costs are mostsensitive to waste characteristics for chem-ical and thermal destruction and less sensi-tive for landfills.

While cost data are scarce and only roughlycomparable in general, those that reflect differ-ences in waste form are even fewer. For exam-ple, fee schedules for commercial facilities thatprovide several treatment steps and final dis-posal are frequently determined after testingsamples of the prospective waste stream, Ra-ther, most of the economic studies completedto date have focused on the incremental costincreases—e.g., in administration, recordkeep-ing, security, personnel—required by RCRAregulations. Another very important economiclever that has been studied in detail is the ef-fect of the liability requirements on the deci-sions made by treatment and disposal facilityoperators, This is because the liability and in-surance requirements reflect, to a limited ex-


tent, the perceived sudden and non-suddenrisks associated with types of waste treatmentor disposal, facility designs, and operatingpractices.

This section presents a brief comparison oftechnology costs. All unit cost figures shouldbe 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 ofactual 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 facilityoperators.

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 landfill and thermal de-struction costs and illustrates the effect ofwaste 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 gamutfrom 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 range 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 recoveryDeep well injection

Transportation

Type or form $/tonne D

of waste Price 1981 1981Drummed

BulkAllRelatively clean liquids,

high-Btu valueLiquidsSolids, highly toxic liquidsAcids/alkalinesCyanides, heavy metals,

highly toxic wasteAllOily 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 of 1%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


Tab e 35. —Incineration v. Treatment: Range ofEstimated Post. RCRA Charges for

Selected Waste Types

Costs per tonne

Incineration Treatment—Waste oils ... . $94 $40Paint sludges . . . 453 94N o n c h l o r i n a t e d s o l v e n t s 94 61C h l o r i n a t e d s o l v e n t s 206 161Cyanides . . . . . . . . . . 211 297—NOTE Cost estimates are based on surveys of commercial treatment and InCI nerator fac I I It Ies I n the G ieat Lakes reg( ons Costs reported ref Iect the surveyedIndustries estimates of their charges based on comphance w(!h RCRA regulatoryrequ I rements for /r?ter/rn S(atus factl it Ies No s pec I flc I n format Ion provided abou ftyp@ of process o, Incinerator used or charac terts IICS o f wasfe res Idl)als

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment from liazardo. ~s Waste ManagementIn f he Great Lakes Region Depart mer; t of Corn merce Septern ber 1982

In cases where a waste can be easily detoxi-fied, or energy value recovered, unit costs fortreatment or incineration can be lower thanunit costs for landfilling. At the low end of thecost range, unit costs for particular wastes canbe roughly comparable. It is at the high end ofthe spectrum where unit costs diverge greatlybetween the landfill and the incineration alter-native, For example, incineration of solid ordrummed waste costs in the range of about$400 to $800 per tonne as compared with about$170 to $240 per tonne for landfill disposal.

Midrange unit costs for land disposal of un-differentiated bulk waste and roughly desig-nated waste hazard classes range from about$55 to $83 per tonne. These costs are compar-able to the unit costs for various waste treat-ment processes (table 35), which range fromabout $34 to $260 per tonne, depending on thewaste type. Unit costs for thermal destructionof waste fall generally at the upper middle

range, e.g., generally between about $100 to$400 per tonne, although specific costs can bemuch greater or much lower. In particular,OTA found that emerging thermal destructiontechniques may be less expensive than conven-tional incineration techniques [see “EmergingThermal Destruction Technologies”).

Available information on waste disposalclearly indicates that land-based disposal is cur-rently the predominant waste disposal method.Landfill costs are generally less than costs fortreatment and incineration and there continuesto be great debate about whether these lowercosts include all the costs of landfilling. Someof the cost differences depend on factors suchas the capital required to implement technol-ogy, whether it is being operated for commer-cial or private purposes, and personnel require-ments, These are all factors affecting the costof any technology option.

More specifically, the essence of the debateconcerns the extent to which the still unfoldingFederal regulatory policy affects market deci-sions for selection of waste technology. Thecurrent Federal program requires that all facil-ity operators demonstrate financial assurancefor closure and post-closure care, and that theycarry liability insurance, The estimated costsof these requirements for specific facility typesare discussed in chapter 7. Note that the coststo meet these requirements are expected to begreater for landfills and surface impoundmentsthan for incinerator facilities. Some contendthat current Federal policy favors the land dis-posal alternative; others that the financial as-surance requirements and the insurance re-

Table 36. —Unit Costs Charged for Services at Commercial Facilities

L a n d g i l l $/tonne Incinerat ion $/tonne. F o r m . D r u m $168-$240 Drummed $120-$400

Bulk : : : : : : : : : : : : $55-$83 Liquids ., . . ., $53-$400Type Acids/alkalis ., $13-$120 Relatively clean liquids with

high-Btu value $(13) a -$53Odorous wasteb , ... 30 Liquids ... . ., $53-.$237L o w r i s k h a z a r d o u s w a s t e $ 1 3 - $ 2 9 Solids and/or highly toxic Iiquids. $395-$791

(e g., 011 and gas drilling muds)Hazardous ., ., ., . . $30-$80Ex t reme l y haza rdous , . . . , $50 -$140

aHazard Cfeslgrlatlon based on Call fOrnla’s Class lflcatlon systembsome cement kilns and Ilght aggregate manufacturers pay for these comparatively clean, high ener9Y value wastes

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, compiled from Booz, Allen & Hamilton, quoted prices from ntne major wastemanagement firms, 1981 and from the California Alr Resources Board, Augusl 1982


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 Federalregulatory 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 potential 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 aimedparticularly 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-ety of material 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 effectsof 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 increasedas the volume of waste, land disposal costs, andopposition to land disposal sites have in-creased. Even some dedicated proponents ofocean 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. The disposal of material produced bydredging 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 materials ac-count for an estimated 80 to 90 percent ofall U.S. waste deposited in the ocean andfor the most part would not be consideredhazardous under the RCRA definition. In1981, 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 publichealth.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 ofsewage and sewage sludge daily. ]76 As ofJanuary 1981, there were 232 land-baseddischargers 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 disposal permits that existed 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 modeof 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 material at sea.Within the United States, experience hasbeen limited 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.

179 Ping in

MPRA;the Convention of the Prevention ofMarine Pollution by Dumping of Wastesand Other Matter, known as the LondonDumping Convention, ratified by theUnited States in 1974; andFWPC, which regulates waste dischargeswithin territorial seas.

W, Anderson and R. T. Dewling, “Industrial Ocean Dump-EPA Region II—Regulatory Aspects, ” in Ocean Dumping

of]ndustrial Wastes, B. H. Ketchum, D. R. Kester, and P, K. Park(eds.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1981).

100K, S, Kam]et, “ocean Disposal of organoch]orine WaSteShy 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 ● 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 responsibility for disposal ofdredge spoils, EPA was given the authority toapprove all disposal sites, including ocean,land, and wetlands .l8l

EPA is directed to establish criteria for re-view of ocean-disposal permit applications. Inestablishing or reviewing these criteria, 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 ofland-based alternatives.

Ialwl]]lam L, Lahey, “ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge: TheTide Turns from Protection to Management, ” 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 sewagesludge 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 ofsludge 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 inconsequential effects” and thatland disposal of this material might prove farmore harmful to the environment and humanhealth.182 EPA was required to consider “allstatutory factors relevant to a reasoned deter-mination, ” including the costs and dangers ofland-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 Usefor Hazardous Wastes

Arguments in Favor of Increased Ocean DisposalExperience and research data obtained over

the 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 aparticular material that can be containedwithin a body of seawater without producingan unacceptable impact on living organismsor nonliving resources.

A recent scientific assessment supportingthis conclusion was reported by the RegionalSeas Program of the United Nations Environ-mental Program. l83 The results of the 4-year

‘*z Ibid.lmWebster Bayard, “World’s Oceans Became Cleaner Over the

Last Decade, Study Shows,” The New York Times, Nov. 7, 1982,p. 26.


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 toabsorb waste without unacceptable conse-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 benthicinfaunal communities to show adverse effects.Conversely, after cessation of 15 years of con-tinuous discharge at another site (a depth of20 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 backgroundwithin a year; trawl catches of bottom fish alsodecreased, relative to background, within oneto two years of discharge termination.187

similar recovery was evident at the sewagesludge site previously used by the City of Phila-delphia.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. Sci. & 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 positive 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, it 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 ofthe marine environment in waste management.The ocean’s status as a global commonsmakes 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 differential 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.


also is disputed. The argument that currentdata show that impacts of disposal are less thananticipated 10 years ago is criticized on thebasis that research efforts have not been suffi-ciently sophisticated to provide sound evi-dence.

The usefulness of existing models for assimi-lative capacity is also questioned. Such modelsattempt to describe the ocean’s ability toachieve acceptable levels of concentration anddistribution of hazardous substances. A num-ber

1,

2.

3.

4.

It

of weaknesses have been noted:190

the lack of empirical data, limiting effortsto estimate appropriate concentrations ofhazardous contaminants;the lack of information on long-term fateof constituents and effects on the marineenvironment;only single constituents are considered, ig-noring any synergistic effects and thus,possibly underestimating damage to theenvironment; anduncertainties about the relationship be-tween amounts of waste deposited and theenvironmental response; unanticipated de-layed responses can result in serious un-derestimation of environmental impacts.

has been suggested that the assimilativecapacity concept is useful as an organizingprinciple. 191 If it is used to focus research andmonitoring on relevant questions, the conceptis beneficial. It can also be valuable in defin-ing the lower limits of accepted environmentalconcentrations in the marine environment.Critics argue, however, that assimilativemodel assessments cannot, now or at anytime soon, serve as a sufficient basis for pre-dicting the hazard potential of persistent sub-stances in the marine environment. A partic-ularly important criticism is that such model-ing may not reveal delayed concentrations oftoxic substances in surprising places andways.

IWLahey, op. cit.191K. S, Kamlet, “The Oceans as Waste Space: The Rebuttal, ”

OCEANUS, VO]. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp. 10-17.

There is a belief that the assimilative capacityconcept is already failing.192 Assessments ofsingle-constituent effects will not provide suffi-cient information; there are hazardous constit-uents existing in various forms being releasedin combination at different locations. A solu-tion suggested by critics would be to developclosed systems that would eliminate any re-lease of hazardous compounds from any dis-posal medium to the environnment. With thisapproach:

, . . the costs of managing, including recover-ing or storing or detoxifying wastes, are appro-priately assigned to the products of the indus-try, not diffused as a general cost onto the pub-lic at large.le3

Proponents of continued strict limits onocean disposal do not suggest that the oceansshould be inviolate. The value of multimediamanagement is recognized, but initial compari-sons of the environmental merits of the variousoptions are necessary. Once the medium ofchoice is determined, other relevant factors, in-cluding economics and technological feasibil-ity, should be considered. There is clearly moresupport for using the oceans for the less haz-ardous, biodegradable (and less controversial)waste than for substances such as PCBS,

Effective management of ocean-disposal ac-tivities should be preceded by a thorough un-derstanding of the fundamental biological,chemical, and physical processes in the marineenvironment. While such understanding hasimproved significantly during the past 10years, particularly for deep-ocean waters, lit-tle or nothing is known about the long-term fateof these wastes “or the capacity of these pelagicoceanic regions to assimilate wastes withoutdetrimental effects. “ 194 particularly, there is a

IWG. M. Woodwell, “Waste Disposal: Time for a New Ap-preach, ” adapted from remarks made before joint meetings ofthe American Geophysical Society and the American Societyfor Limnology and Oceanography, San Antonio, Tex., Feb. 17,1982.

~O~Ibid.194D. R, Kester, B. H , Ketchum, and p’. K park [eds, ) , “~uture

Prospects of Ocean Dumping?” in tiean Dumping of lndustria)Wastes (New York: Plenum Press, 1981), pp. 505-517.


need to improve the assessment of the biologi-cal effects of pollutants in the marine environ-ment. Current information, therefore, shiftsthe burden to potential users of the ocean todocument and defend such use.

Future Research and Data Needs

This reassessment of the ocean’s potential forwaste disposal comes at a time when there aregrowing limitations on and increasing prob-lems with land-based methods. More recentlegislation than MPRA–i.e., SWDA and RCRA—have imposed new and stringent regulationon land-based disposal of waste. Well-publi-cized incidents such as the Love Canal havecaused public acceptance of landfills and otherwaste disposal facilities near residential areasto plummet. It is recognized that the high prob-ability that land-disposal activities might de-cline during the 1980’s, may increase interestsin ocean-waste disposal .l95 A Federal programis needed that would emphasize research andmonitoring before allowing disposal of themost hazardous waste in various oceanic envi-ronments.

Because of the high value placed on marinebiota as a resource, “the biological conse-quences of ocean dumping are generally re-garded as establishing the acceptable limits ofwaste disposal in the marine environ merit.”Thus, determining what biological parametersshould be measured is seen as a major sc ientif-ic problem. The International Council for theExploration of the Seas identified four classesof data needs:

1. Bioassay measurements, ranging from de-termination of lethal concentrations forparticular organisms to changes in growthrates brought about by various concentra-tions of a waste. Where possible, more ex-tensive tests should address synergistic ef-fects of multiple contaminants.

2. Physiological techniques for measurementof growth, scope for growth, and feedingrates—considered the best techniques for

—1Q5 Nat 10 Ila ] A~\. i SC) rY, (Jorn rn ltte~ o n Oceans and Atmosphere,

1981, 0~ Cit.

3.

4.

assessing biological effects of contami-nants on fish, crustaceans, polychaetes,and mollusks.Biochemical measurements, such as repro-ductive biochemistry, hormone metabo-lism, and blood-chemical analyses.Ecological assessments—the most directand comprehensive approach to determin-ing effects of constituent, but difficult toimplement.

Several programs are available for obtainingthese types of data and include EPA’s dis-charge permit program (characterized as aload-assessment approach), the baseline studiesprogram of the Bureau of Land Management(trend-assessment approach to identifying im-pacts], and the National Marine Fisheries Serv-ice strategy to assess the “health” of fisheriesresources on the basis of periodic environmen-tal measurements of selected parameters.

Past experience in “crisis response” may pro-vide useful information for considering oceandisposal of hazardous waste.l96 Identificationof common factors in environmental crisesconcerning mercury poisoning and contamina-tion by DDT, PCB, and Kepone, if recognizedand considered in future monitoring strategies,could lead to earlier warning of adverse im-pacts from ocean disposal. In each of these ex-amples, there was a lack of understanding ofthe movement of the contaminant in the ma-rine environment and of sensitive organismsor critical factors leading to the observed im-pact. Thus, future monitoring should be de-signed to consider fate of constituents and toidentify the sensitive points in the ecosystemfor each constituent of concern.

Certain types of waste maybe better suitedfor ocean disposal than others. *97 Water andair are dispersal media, whereas land is acontainment medium. Waste managementshould consider whether a persistent toxicmaterial is best disposed in a dispersal or acontainment medium. For persistent synthetic

‘W Kester, op. cit.‘“K. S. Kamlet, “Cons!ramts on the Ocean Uurnping of Hazard-

ous Wastes, ” prepared for presentation at the Northeast Confer-ence on Hazardous Waste, Ocean Citj, NJ,, 1982.


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 argumentmight 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-ples. A management philosophy aimed atmaximizing dispersal of such materials ,while avoiding disruption of local ecologicalsystems, might be most sensible.

When considering possibly acceptableocean-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 dilutionof waste and reduced conflicts with othermarine 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 theoceans for hazardous waste management.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 ofall pollutant sources;design delivery systems which will mini-mize environmental degradation;continue to work on developing 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-sources must be maintained in renewablestates 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 managementinclude: 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 ofcoastal water-quality monitoring;simplifying regulatory procedures; andcontinuously evaluating and reevaluatingwater-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 policyssues 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 uncontrollediites, 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

● For the purposes of this discussion, emergency response andmmediate ” removal are not considered as remediation 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 remedial control technologies. Differences betweenese technologies concern timeframes, funding sources, andgulatory approaches rather than substantial technical dif-rences.● *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 Trammel Crow siteTexas where five sludge pits with over 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.zozstudy by the 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 notcurrently receiving, attention to amelioratedangerous conditions. Either ongoing re-leases to the environment or the threat ofimminent releases of hazardous wastewould constitute 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 clean?”

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.This may be accomplished by various ap-proaches, such as:

206 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control—

● 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 ofwater users, particularly when there mightbe a natural reduction of the contamina-tion in time (e. g., with biodegradable or-ganic waste). Sometimes outright pur-chases of the affected homes might be themost efficient way to accomplish the goalof limiting human exposure.

● 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 environmentalmonitoring then would be provided to as-sure that there is no release in excess ofpredefine action levels.

2. How can the relative cost-effectivenessof alternative cleanup approaches be deter-mined?

There are many difficulties in trying to ana-lyze the economics and cost effectiveness ofvarious 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:

●

●

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 beensufficiently documented;

●

●

●

the degree of success of the various tech-nology options is sometimes site-specific.Therefore, the comparison of alternatetechnologies for a specific site remediationcannot always be extrapolated into a validgeneric comparison;the long timespans involved in some of thetechnologies require assumptions regard-ing their long-term effectiveness. Some ofthe technology options generate futureoperation, maintenance, and monitoringcosts that are difficult to estimate; andthe possibility of systems failure and theneed for subsequent remediation are difficult to predict. Only crude estimates ofthese potential “second-round costs” areavailable for comparison.

3. Which current technologies may createfuture problems? Some technological choicescould create needs for future remediation, forextended operation and maintenance procedures, 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 ancsite security if residuals of hazardous waste o:other potential hazards remain after site remediation. Further, certain technologies, by virtue of the time needed for implementation (i.e.ground water recovery and treatment), involvelong-term operation and maintenance costsAlso, there is a continuing level of risk duringthe implementation of these long-term technologies. These deferred costs, as well as the possible costs for alternate remedial technology ithe 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 ● 207

al action. Disposal sites, even state-of-the-artinstallations meeting regulatory standards fordesign, operation, closure, and post-closuremonitoring, 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 likely become uncon-trolled sites.

Site Identification and Evaluation

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 acceptedthat many thousands of uncontrolled sitesexist.

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:

● Quantity● Corn position● F o r m. Condition of waste (containerized, bulk, burled, open

lagoon)● Acute hazards (acute toxicity, flammability,

explosiveness, etc. )● Chronic cumuIative hazard (toxicity, mutagenicity,

carclnogenicity, teratogenicity, radioactivity, etc. )● Synergistic/antagonistic components

Site:● Geological features• Topographical● Vegetation● Surface water● Ground water. Structures● 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:

● Waters• Land areas● A i r● Vegetation● WiIdlife● Agricultural areas● Recreational areas

Populations:• Location● Sensitivity• Numbers



well as for other purposes, such as enforcementactions. This is necessary because site inspec-tions are difficult, costly, and sometimes dan-gerous, and because there often is no immedi-ate source of technical information.

A site inspection to observe surface condi-tions may include:

sampling of wastes, and surface andground waters,air monitoring,some random excavation to identify buriedmaterials,magnetic surveys to locate buried metal(possible containerized material),resistivity surveys (to determine whetherthere is underground contamination), andan assessment of site conditions in general.

Determining what a site contains can presentsubstantial problems of sampling and analysis.Only a limited number of samples can be takenbecause sampling itself can pose risks of re-lease of hazardous materials from the site. Withhundreds or thousands of drums that are oftenunmarked, and a relatively small number ofsamples taken, there is no assurance that anal-ysis will accurately indicate the hazardous con-tents of the site, or that any hazardous materi-als will be discovered. There are also substan-tial problems concerning the detection of haz-ardous materials in underground water sup-plies. There is no consensus on drilling meth-ods, sampling frequency or protocol, standardquality assurance procedures, or the numberof wells needed to define problems, Drillers runthe risk of contaminating clean aquifers whiledrilling into polluted ones.

There are also considerable problems con-cerning chemical analysis. Standard methodssuch as mass spectroscopy do not necessarilyyield useful results for many chemicals. Newer,sophisticated laboratory procedures may re-quire laboratory facilities not available to inves-tigators. There are few standard testing proce-dures for complex waste constituents. Wastemay contain byproduct chemicals, or alteredchemicals, and laboratories may not havestandards for their identification. There are in-dications of substantial problems concerning

quality control in both government and pri-vate laboratories.

Techniques for the comparison of sites ofteninvolve the combination of various “weighted”components of hazard into a single numericalmeasure for a site. Such values for various sitesare compared in order to produce a ranked list-ing, from which remedial priorities are thenestablished. (see chs. 6 and 7 for discussionsof hazard evaluations, risk assessment, andranking systems),

Site Cleanup Plans

Once a decision is made to proceed with re-medial action at a site, it becomes necessaryto establish a step-by-step procedure for imple-mentation. The basic steps in remedial actionor site cleanup are:

1. preliminary assessment,2. feasibility study,3. engineering design,4. construction,5. startup, trouble shooting, and cleanup, and6. possible long-term operation and mainte-

nance.

Following assessment and the decision to ef-fect remediation, the feasibility study wouldidentify alternative engineering options for mit-igation, including limitations, costs, and effec-tiveness. The feasibility study should evaluatethe various remedial technologies for the spe-cific conditions at the site under consideration.The

1.

2.

3.

basic technological options are:

removal followed by appropriate disposalor treatment—e.g., fixation, neutralization,or any other conventional technology, orby treatment of the waste on the uncon-trolled site (see discussion earlier in thischapter);pathway control through encapsulation orcontainment, or by ground or surface wa-ter diversion;mitigation of exposures by providing analternate water supply, land use restric-tions, or evacuation of people;

An important issue concerning the choice ofremedial technologies, because of current EPA


policies (see ch. 7), is the difference in initial,capital costs v. longer term operating andmaintenance (O&M) costs. The specifics ofO&M depend on the technology chosen. Thosetechnological options that permanently dealwith the hazard often have high initial costsand 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 ofancilliary and support activities, depending onthe conditions at the specific site 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 controlwork during cleanup, protection of onsiteworkers exposed to hazardous materials, 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 effectiveunder all circumstances. Examples of technol-

— .ZOJ~nvlronmenta] ~rote~tl~n Agency, ‘‘ Handbook—Reined ial

Action at Waste Disposal Sites, ” EPA 625/6-82-006, June 1982.Z04These \,o]umes are published by the Hazardous Materials

Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, Md.

ogies are discussed below, and a summary ofthe 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-tribution of currently used technologies, asshown 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:

Excavation and removal offsite of 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 eliminate or minimizeboth future O&M costs and future risk tothe public and environment, there are highinitial costs, with possible higher risk ofexposure during the period of excavation.To some degree, risk may be relocateddepending on the offsite disposal optionchosen. Populations and environmentsalong 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-containerized buried waste dispersedthrough a large area.Excavation with onsite treatment.—Thisapproach can be used for some onsitetreatment technologies such as fixation,use of mobile treatment units for physicalor chemical treatment or incineration, orfor site preparation and lining prior to re-interment. Such methods can exposewastes quite efficiently 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 uncontainerizedsolvent-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

treatedd) 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 hazardsb) Off site air pollutionc) Long-term monitoring and O&M

O&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, andlong-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

mobile treatment process chosen. Thistechnology is not cost effective for largeamounts of low-level waste and is not ef-fective for uncontainerized waste dis-persed through a large area.

● Direct neutralization/stabilization/fixa-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


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 1D 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 7Ground 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 1L 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 stablematerial , Thus, an immobile solid isformed. 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 eventual breakdown andstripping 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 envisionedpractice, 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 atoms with the reagent glycolstheoretically forming less toxic and lessbioaccumulative compounds. In unpub-lished EPA testing, a solution of 1,000 ppmhexachlorobenzene was destroyed with 95percent efficiency in 7 days at room tem-perature, and reapplication achieved com-pletion. 205 However, the chemistry of thisprocess at ambient temperatures and inthe presence of water has yet to be proven,and little has been published. Importantquestions concerning the composition ofthe resulting 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 ofother technologies, such as excavationwith offsite disposal or ground water re-

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.Solution mining.—This method is 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 uncontrolledrelease or leave behind dissolved andmobile material,

Environmental pathway control for hazard-ous waste sites attempt to inhibit offsite migra-—.

Zoschar]es Rogers, IlnVrirOrlrnenta] Protection Agency, officeof Research and Development, IERL, personal communication,January 1983.


tion of hazardous materials by a number ofmethods, as discussed below. The most com-mon route amenable to such controls is water—surface, ground, and rainwater; although gascontrols are sometimes used at sites wheremethane or other gases are present. In mostcases, there is a continuing need for monitor-ing and potential need for repeated remedialactions. Pathway control technologies include:

●

� ✎

Isolation, containment, and encapsula-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 inhibitwater intrusion on buried hazardouswaste. Surface contour modifications andrevegetation are used to enhance rain-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 atsites with extremely large volumes ofmixed 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 Failure

ZOOA recent study on the use of slurry wai] i nsta]]ations con-cluded: “Unfortunately, most of the slurry wall installations todate 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 Managementof Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous MaterialsControl Research Institute, 1982, pp. 191-197,

may require additional remedial action.Security for this approach, where thewater 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, Ground water flowrates 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 it meets applicable dischargestandards. The process is slow and re-quires O&M and constant monitoring ofthe collection system and the offsite envi-ronment, It is not effective for container-ized materials or insoluble waste.Surface water diversion. -These diver-sion methods are used where surfacestreams run through 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 offsitetransportation of hazardous materials 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

ogy is the same as for other aqueouswastes—biologil, al, carbon absorption,physicallchemical, or air stripping. Vari-ous levels of treatment can be chosen incombination with appropriate collectionmethods. Effectiveness is limited by theability of the associated collection systemto contain and recover the hazardouswaste, There have been some operationalproblems where waste characteristicsvary, 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.

● Gas collection or venting .—These meth-ods are used for collection of gases fortreatment, or for controlled venting ofgases 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

The production of chlorine and sodium hydrox-de is an important process in the chemical indus-ry. These chemicals are major materials for themanufacture of many different consumer and in-dustrial products such as pulp and paper, f ibers,plastics, petrochemicals, ferti l izers, and solvents.The production process is a large-scale system inwhich modifications have been extensively imple-mented in the past to achieve higher process effi-ciencies. Significant reduction of hazardous wastegeneration is possible through still further processn o d i f i c a t i o n s ,

The chlor-alkali process is based on electrolysisof brines—i.e., an electric current is passed througha solution of sodium chloride to produce chlorine,hydrogen, and sodium hydroxide. Two basic proc-ess designs were originally developed: one incor-porates a mercury cell and the other utilizes a dia-phragm cell. Each type of cell has advantages anddisadvantages which will be discussed below.

Mercury Cell Process .–This process yields a veryligh quality of sodium hydroxide. A disadvantage,however, is that it results in a large concentrationof mercury discarded in process waste. Althoughhis process accounts for only 25 percent of thechlorine production in the united States, approxi-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 drine are disposed in landfills on an annual basis.Source segregation technologies do exist to removeome of the mercury from waste, but complete re-noval is not possible. Waste containing varioushlorinated hydrocarbons also are produced.

Diaphragm Cell Process .—The advantage of thisprocess is that it does not use mercury. If a graphiteelectrical 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 ofhazardous 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 has been substitutionof a diaphragm cell for the mercury cell in mostproduction facilities in the United States. This hasbeen possible because of the availability y of naturalsalt 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 replacingthe 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 efficientand longer cell life.

The third modification, development of a memb-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 hydroxide. This quality is similarto that produced by the mercury cell. Full develop-ment and use of this modification would reduce theamount of hazardous waste generated in two ways:

1. mercury contamination in chlor-alkali wastewould 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 hasnot 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 ofless than 500 tonnes/day, a membrane 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 product in the manufacture of PVC and can beproduced by several different manufacturingroutes.

About 92 percent of all VCM plants in the UnitedStates have both oxychlorination and direct chlori-nation plants onsite. The manufacture of VCM pro-duces gaseous emissions of the monomer and liquidprocess residues that are a mixture of chlorinatedhydrocarbons.

Incineration of these process wastes is used torecover hydrogen chloride, which is either recycledback to the VCM process or neutralized. Conven-tional incinerators designed for onsite treatment ofmany 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 tetra-chloride. This system has two major drawbacks:1) the capital costs are high because of the highpressures and temperatures; and 2) the demand forcarbon tetrachloride is decreasing due to regulatoryrestrictions on the use of products for which it isa raw material—e.g., fluorocarbons. Therefore,chlorinolysis 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 advantages of this system are low tem-perature operation, direct recycling of hydrogenchloride without additional treatment require-ments, and energy recovery, The primary disadvan-tage of this recovery process results from restric-tive requirements for application—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 chlo-ride must be adsorbed from the gas stream and re-covered with conventional recovery technology,The added cost of the absorption process makes thisoption prohibitive 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 forapplication of a coating. The process 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 modification is the incorporation of flowcontrollers 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


Figure 5A.1 .—Metal Preparation for Coating Applications

Stage

Stage II

Metal parts for treatment

1.

1

I IStagelV Rinse 3.

L

I

I 4.

Stage V I Sealer II 1

Stage Vl Rinse5.

Prepared metal partssent to finished process


directly the quantity of chemicals required for stageIII. For example, a decrease in rinsewater flow pro-duces a more alkaline rinse. Thus, more acid is re-quired in stage III. Increased acid levels also re-quire additional amounts of metallic ions, such asnickel and zinc. Therefore, any changes in flowcontrol for stage II must be carefully balanced withincreased chemical requirements for stage 111.

A second process modification occurs in stage IIIwith the replacement of nickel and zinc by less haz-ardous metals. Zinc can be substituted for nickel

Description of process modification

Flow controller used to decrease volumeof water used.

Originally, a combination of nickel andzinc used. First changed to all zinc(reduce hazard). Subsequently changedto manganese or iron depending onmetal finishing process required.

Flow controllers used to decreasevolume of water used.

Originally chromic acid solution of bothtrivalent and hexavalent chromium. Firstchanged to all trivalent chromium(reduce hazard). Subsequently changedto organic compound.

Flow controller used to decrease volumeof water used.

and, for certain applications, manganese or ironcan be substituted for zinc. Presence of iron inwastewater actually can be beneficial for municipalwaste treatment processes as it facilitates removalof phosphorus.

An acidic solution containing chromium in boththe hexavalent and trivalent states is normally usedin stage V. A third modification involves replace-ment of hexavalent with the trivalent chromium,reducing the hazard. The chromium can be re-placed entirely with a biodegradable organic com-


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 options are available:● injection into deep wells;● neutralization of the spent pickle liquor (using

lime, soda ash, or caustic soda to increase thepH level) and landfilling the resulting sludge;

● recovery and regeneration of acid;● byproduct recovery; and● 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 hydroxide 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 options involving some type of re-cycling and/or recovery have become more viable.Spent liquor can be used directly in treatment ofmunicipal 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 ofpigments, 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 bythat same percentage. Because spent pickle liquorrepresents a large-volume hazardous waste, recov-ery and recycle could reduce the volume of hazard-ous waste disposed.

Recovery Technologies

Recovery processes are designed to recover eitherthe free acid or both free acid and iron salts. Twomethods are available for recovery of spent sulfuricand 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) slurrythickening, 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 hydrogen 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 pickle liquor, quality and market valueof byproducts (iron sulfate or iron oxide), and costof selected recovery processes. Each of these fac-tors is dependent on the particular plant and proc-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 hydrogen 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 compared 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 individual steel opera-tions to a commercial recovery developer and of-fer reduced risk. However, regional facilities im-

ply increased storage requirements. Storage ofspent liquor can create certain problems, e.g.,premature precipitation of ferrous sulfate duringperiods of low temperature. In addition, early sepa-ration of acid from various sources of spent liquormay be required to eliminate potential contamina-tion from proprietary chemical additives. Anotherdisadvantage 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, organicsand 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 oils

Resistant to dilute concentrationsof 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 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● . . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 259

List of Tables

List of Figures

Figure No. PageIi. - --

. . - - -

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 uncertainties recognized,currently available tools can be used effec-tively in risk-management decisions. Con-tinued research and development areneeded 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 humanhealth and the environment,

Advantages of a classification systeminclude:●

●

●

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 ofwaste constituents must be considered,not just the effects of single constituentsalone;

5.

6.

7.

● the hazard of a waste may be changedby a management technology, thus theconstituents that are released from afacility may be more (or less) hazardousthan the original waste. Risks to publichealth are determined by the hazard ofconstituents leaving a facility (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

• boundaries of waste and facility classeswould have to be clearly 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 developcost-effective programs.

Of five types of monitoring activities—visual, source, process, ambient, and ef-fects–ambient monitoring provides thebest evidence for judging whether risks ofhazardous waste management are beingkept 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 comparability, andlimitations of methodology. Possible ac-tions to correct the deficiencies include:

221


8.

9.

●

●

●

a central monitoring activity, drawing ongovernment and nongovernment re-sources;a nationally supported pilot project todevelop a monitoring framework, includ-ing standard procedures for sampling,data storage, and analysis; anda coordination of monitoring effortsmandated in the seven major environ-mental laws. This would be especiallybeneficial for hazardous waste monitor-ing because of the multimedia nature ofthe 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 managementplan, establishment of technical sitingcriteria, 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 officials, and the hazardous wastemanagement industry.

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:● providing technical expertise for devel-

opment of siting criteria and programs,● consideration of federally owned lands

as suitable sites,● encouraging information exchange,● 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:

●

●

●

●

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 for it economically—insuringagainst 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 inassessing risks for society.

Managing the risks from industrial hazard-ous waste is a highly complex task because ofthe 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 beaccommodated and the risks of alternatecourses 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 ofrisks, costs, and benefits, to a final policychoice that includes consideration of valuejudgments and political factors. As discussedin detail below, there are uncertainties in this

Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 223

Figure 14.— Risk Management Framework

I Comparison 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. Quantitativeestimates, 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, at the cur-rent state of the art, all risk estimates in-evitably contain uncertain data and debatablescientific 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:

● the capacity to cause adverse effects, and● the severity of that effect.

Hazard evaluation includes consideration oftoxicological 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 effects on human beings, plants, andanimals. At this first step in the decisionframework, no attempt is made to quantify theprobability that an effect indeed will occur.

Risk Assessment

Risk is defined as the probability that agiven hazard will cause harm, of a specifiednature and intensity, to a human populationor ecosystem. For hazardous waste manage-ment, risk 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-tions or ecosystems at risk, Estimating 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

● 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-dicate with any certainty the existence ofcause-effect relationships between industrialhazardous 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 ani reals and environmental systems. The ex-perimental data are used to develop quan-titative estimates for other species throughextrapolation.

These extrapolations have been criticized asnot always reflective of actual exposures. Someconsider it 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 ofthousands of laboratory animals. Critics ofanimal 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 CanalArea,” 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. .


trapolating incidence for the low-dose rangeon such a curve (i. e., below ID, as shown inthe figure). These models are based on com-binations of biological theory, experimentalevidence, and statistical conventions. q As thefigure shows, the predictions of differentmodels for the probable incidence of low-doseeffects can vary considerably. For example,risk estimates for a dose level of l/2D (with Drepresenting the standard dose) vary betweenO and 10 percent, Because of the very largenumber of animals required to test the theoriesbehind these models, none of them have beenscientifically verified. Thus, the risk value atlow doses is very dependent not on actualdose-response data, but on choice of method-ology.

Human experiments, providing direct evi-dence of damage to human health as a resultof exposure to an agent, are rarely done for ob-vious ethical reasons. Evidence about humanexposures and effects is drawn instead fromepidemiological studies, which are beset withcertain difficulties. Often the population sizein an epidemiologic study is small. Moreover,identifying the actual dose and duration of ex-posures to a particular compound has prob-lems. Because humans are exposed to a multi-plicity of materials, it is difficult to determinethat one particular compound or hazard is theonly major cause of an effect. The mobility ofthe U.S. population adds to the problem. Amer-icans relocate often, and few are exposed tothe same environmental conditions for enoughtime to indicate cause-effect relationships. Thedifficulty of identifying cause-effect relation-ships also is compounded by the long-time lagsbetween exposure and onset of many healthproblems (i.e., decades rather than months ordays). Even for cancer or circulatory diseases,both subjects of concerted research attention,absolute certainty about causal relationships—that smoking causes lung cancer or that sat-urated fat damages the circulatory system—may not be universally accepted.

jFor a discussion of these models see Technologies for Deter-mining Cancer Risks From the Environment Washington, D. C.:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-H-138,June 1981).

Limited data exist showing a relation be-tween exposure to waste constituents in theworkplace and health problems of workers.Even these data, however, do not indicate withcertainty that a relationship between hazardouswaste and health problems exists. For exam-ple, if exposures in the work environment arewell defined and the health problem is other-wise rare, the causal relationship may bebeyond question. An example is the relationbetween occupational exposure to vinyl chlo-ride and angiosarcoma of the liver.4 However,if the environment of the workplace is complex(e.g., multiconstituent exposures) it may be dif-ficult to establish a causal relation between thepresence of a single compound and a particularhealth effect. Extrapolation from these work-place exposure data has problems similar tothose for extrapolating from animal data; con-centrations of hazardous constituents in theworkplace are usually considerably greaterthan in the general environment.

Recently interest has grown in determiningrelative risks rather than calculating specificrisk estimates. Relative risks are derived fromcomputer models that combine a variety of fac-tors to simulate real situations (e. g., risksassociated with a waste at a facility locationon a particular site). Such assessments havebeen developed for ranking uncontrolled haz-ardous waste sites needing remedial actionunder the Comprehensive Environmental, Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980 (C ERCLA). They are also being used toassess risks associated with specific wastes,particular environments, and individual tech-nologies for the purpose of improving regula-tion under the Resource Conservation and Re-covery Act (RCRA). The use of such models isattractive, since risk scores for different situa-tions can be compared on the basis of commonindicators without resorting to extrapolationmodels.

Appropriate Uses of Risk Assessment Models

As long as extrapolation models incorporateexposure doses that are close to those used in

‘R, R. Monson, “Effects of Industrial Environment on Health,”Environment] -!Aw, vol. 8, 1978, pp. 664-700.


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 critically dependent on thevalidity of the scientific theory describingchemical-organism interactions, contained inthe model. Thus, as the distance from experi-mental data increases, the predictive power ofthe 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 ofthese tools must always be recognized. Al-though the best models can only provide anabstraction of real conditions, three factors cancontribute to more reliable results:

1. The indicators for risk should be relevantto 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 constituents, and realistic 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 eitherthrough the choice of assumptions or theassignment of quantitative values to risksshould be identified and the effects ofthese biases assessed. To give analysesusing risk assessment proper weight, pol-icymakers must be aware of the biases in-herent in the models. If risk assessmentsare 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 de-termining appropriate locations for wastemanagement facilities. Although progress con-tinues in risk assessment methodologies, thequantitative estimates they produce are im-perfect, and must not be used uncritically.

Comparison of Risk, Costs, and BenefitsThe two stages of risk assessment are inter-

mediate steps in the total risk-managementframework, which also involves comparing therisks, benefits, and costs in various manage-ment alternatives, Different approaches can beused in making such comparisons. They in-clude evaluation of relative risks amongvarious options, comparing risks with benefits,or concentration on costs by evaluating eithercost effectiveness or costs and benefits ofmanagement options.

Ch. 6— Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 227

1.

2

3

4.

Relative risks.—Risk estimates (eitherprobability values or relative risk scores)for one option are compared with risks ofanother. For example, comparisons can bemade between risks from land disposaland risks from incineration of a particularindustrial waste stream.Risk benefit.—This approach comparesrisks of an option with some expressionof expected benefits, with the aim of max-imizing benefits and minimizing risks. Dif-ferent options then can be compared onthe basis of relative risks and benefits, Forexample, risks and benefits of biologicaltreatment of organic waste can be com-pared with risks and benefits of incinera-tion of the same type of waste.Cost effectiveness.—In this assessmentmethod, a fixed goal is established and pol-icy options are analyzed on the ability toachieve that goal in the most cost-effectivemanner. The goal is generally a certainlevel of acceptable risk and the options arecompared on the basis of the dollar valuenecessary to reach that level of risk. Costconstraints can also be imposed so that theoptions are assessed on the ability to con-trol the risk most effectively for that setcost.Cost benefit.–This approach expands therisk-benefit framework to evaluate risk andbenefit outcomes in dollar values. Thismethod requires more information thanany of the others and forces quantificationof benefits, even when such quantificationmay not be accurate or valid.

The language of individual laws may dictatewhich risk-management approach can be usedin regulation.5 In the 21 statutes that regulateproduction, commercial distribution, and dis-posal of potential carcinogens, some specifyprotection of health “to the extent possible. ”Other statutes restrict agencies to considera-tion of effects only. For example, RCRA statesthat the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) “. ., shall promulgate regulations es-

‘s]. ~. Leape, “Quantitative Risk Assessment in Regulation ofEnvironmental Carcinogen s,” Harvard En \rironmental La M’ RLLvlen’, VO] 4, 1980, P[). 8 6 - 1 1 6 .

tablishing standards . . . as may be necessaryto protect human health and the environ-merit, ” thus constraining EPA from use of cost-benefit comparisons.

Although both Congress and the executivebranch have expressed interest in cost-benefitanalyses (CBA), there is some cent roversyabout the extent of its use. Most experts agreethat CBA does serve a useful purpose but cau-tion against unlimited applications.6 7 8

Among the limitations are, first, the problemsof expressing both cost and benefit values indollar terms. George Eads, former member ofthe Council of Economic Advisors, recentlystated:9

The numbers casually tossed about by i n -terested firms and industries no more repre-sent the true cost of regulation than the o\’cr-blown claims by regulation supporters refl(~ctthe likeljr actual benefits.

The reasons for the overestimates in cost arc:

● economies of scale, which arise when the de-mand for hazard control technology in-creases, are often ignored;

● learning curves, which reflect increasinglysophisticated industrial responses to regu-latory requirements, are not anticipated; and

• the role of technological innovation as a fac-tor in reducing costs is often not given prop-er attention.

Benefit values expressed in dollar terms alsoare often questionable. There is little agreementamong experts using CBA on the appropriatedollar value to assign to human life or to socie-ty’s willingness to pay for some perceived ben-efit. Thus, these values are dependent on the

‘R. W, Crandall, “’I’he L’se of (;ost-13en{)flt Anal}sl\ in Regulti-tory Decisionmaking, ” Alanagement of Assessed Risk for Carci-nogens [New York. N,}’. Academ} of Sciences, 1981), pp. 99-107

‘M. S. Baram, “The Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Regulat[Jr\Dec]sionmaklng is Proving Harmful to Public Health, ” Afaniige-

ment of Assessed Risk for Carcinogens (New York: N’.}’. A(.~(i-emy of Sciences, 1981), pp. 123-128.

‘W, H, Rodgers, Jr., “Benefits, Costs, and Risks: O\ersight ofHealth and Enwronmental t)ecisionmak]ng, ” Harvard Entrmu~l-menta] La ~$r Re~iew, vol 4, 1980, pp. 119-226.

%. C. Eads, ‘‘Research in Regulation, Past Contr]but ions andFuture Needs, ” Attacking Regulator~ Problems, An Agenda forResearch in the 1980s [New }’ork: 13alllnger Press, 1981), pp. 1-18.


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 ofquantitative 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-posal/treatment practices. 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, themost appropriate methodology i s cos t -effectiveness comparisons. This seems par-ticularly appropriate for hazardous waste man-agement.

Policy/Management Decisions

Once hazard evaluations, risk 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 aid in analysisof alternative policy choices; the results arenot the risk-management decision itself. Inmaking policy or management decisions, manyfactors beyond these quantitative results must

—IOR. (;. An~~rsOn and R. C. D~werT “’I’he Use of Cost-Benefit

Analysis for Hazardous Waste Management ,“ Disposal of Haz-ardous Waste, EPA 6th Annual Research Symposium (Washing-ton, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1980), pp. 145-166.

be considered. The decisionmaker must evalu-ate uncertainties, identify value judgments,recognize special interests, and consider po-litical factors. As risk-management, decision-analysis proceeds, conflicts will arise. Theseconflicts 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 theanalysis. Risk assessment can be a useful toolfor making broad decisions, if the choice of theappropriate 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 and H, Raiffa, Decisions W,”th hfLlftlple Objec-

t~tws: Preferences and V’alue Tradeoffs (New }rork: John Wile}& Sons, 1976).

IZK, R. Ma(;crimmon and J. K. siu, “Making, Trade-off s,” DeCi-sion Sciences, 5, 1974, pp. 680-704.

13’I’, ~], Ess and C, S. Shlk, ‘‘ !vlUltlattribute I)ecisionmaking f o rRemedial Action at Hazardous Waste Sites, ” in Risk and I)eci-sion Anals’sis for Hazardous Waste Disposal [Silver Spring, 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 perfectlydeveloped. 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 alsowould provide a means for open scrutiny of allaspects of a decision,

Classification Systems

RCRA regulations for the management ofhazardous waste do not recognize differencesin the level of risk 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 actual hazardposed by waste or the potential risk level fromparticular facilities. A more complex systemmight better represent the waste managementsituation. 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 ofa 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 alltimal protection ofvironment 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 Sma]] Voiume Hazardous waSte

Genera~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 anindication of whether discrimination amonghazard levels is possible.15

The information needed to evaluate degreesof hazard of different materials is illustratedin figure 16 and include:

● specific process waste and their con-stituents,

● toxicological characteristics, and. chemical and physical factors that influ-

ence their environmental fate.

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 Solid Waste Testing(Philadelphia, Penn.: American Society for Testing and 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. Forexample, 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+ + and Fe +++ react differently). Obtain-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 Commonly used indicators Potential for hazard classificationIgnitabilityDirect—exposure to heat, smoke, fumes;

indirect—dispersion of hazardousbyproducts

CorrosivityDirect—destruction of living (tissue) and

nonliving surfaces; indirect—influencesvolubility and transport of hazardouscompounds

ReactivityDirect—evolution of heat, pressure,

gases, vapors, fumes; indirect—encompasses several aspects ofchemical reactions when compound/solutions are mixed or initially interact

ToxicityProduces 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 wasteand constituents

• physical form ““ .● concentration

.

+ . .

Toxicologicalcharacteristics properties influencing

● D o s e● Species d inferences • Transportation● 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 incidence). Even the most in-nocuous compound (e. g., water), if takeninto an organism in sufficient 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 ofthe potential dose available to organisms,Spec ies d i f fe rences .—The dose 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 air 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 Thequality 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 differences.—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] Research 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 inacute toxicity, EPA has designed them asequally hazardous on the basis of a num-ber of factors, including toxicity, car-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 tocause 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~nuc]ear Industrial Hazardous Waste: 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, and app. viii.ZIE. Crouch and R. Wilson, “Regulation of Carcinogens, ” Risk

Analysis in Environmental Health (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 is lethal for 50 percent of the test PopulatlonlIn these examples following oral administration to rats

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1981

4. Exposure period and route.—Exposure tohazardous waste constituents 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 regulation; differentstandards define different permissiblelevels 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 ofconstituents 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-ancy characteristics. Because of their par-ticular chemical and physical properties, somecompounds may migrate rapidly through soiland air but accumulate in water sources.Others may bind strongly with soil particlesand remain isolated from vegetation or otherorganisms, Still others 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 engineering design. For example, the release rate froman incinerator is influenced by the combustion efficiencies ofa particular facility. For land disposal units this rate dependson the amount of liquid disposed as well as types of covers andliners. See ch. 5 for a discussion of various engineering designs.

Ch. 6— Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 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 orits 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.

Formal classification models categorizewaste constituents according to toxicologicalcriteria or to a combination of toxicity factors,measures of environmental fate, and concen-trations of waste constituents. 23 Thresholdvalues 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 concernare 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 theenvironment.

To date, rank-order models have been usedonly to set priorities for actions affectingchemicals, rather than to establish classes ofhazard. It has been suggested that the systemcan be used for ranking compounds by theircarcinogenic potency for regulatory pur-poses.26 Also, Michigan has developed a rank-order model to provide a way of identifying

—2JAPP~~d i ~ G presents exa rnpl~s of c ]assi flc at 10 n schemes

developed by various States. For a discussion of each, see ,wn-nuclear industrial Hazardous Waste: Classifying for HazardManagement-A Technical Memorandum, op. cit.

Z4pub] IC I.aw 9 4 - 4 6 9 , 1 9 7 6 .

20S. L. Brown, “Appendix B. Systems for Rapid Ranking ofEnvironmental Pollutants, ” Scoring Chemicals for Health andEcological Effects Testing (Rock\ille, Md.: Enviro Control, Inc.,1979).

26 Squire, op. cit.

9’3- 113 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 wastecould be identified and an appropriate rangeof scores defined for each factor. Ranges oftotal 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 ofthe 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-suppression, and physiological 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 app, 6A for a description of each criteria used in thismodel. Department of Natural Resources, Michigan CriticalMaterials Register [Detroit, Mich.: State of Michigan, Environ-mental Protection Bureau, Environmental Services Division,1980).

particular waste is the same as the “collectivehazard” of individual constituents. Mosthazard models do not consider synergistic orantagonistic effects, nor do they evaluatedegradation 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 that do not, individually, producecancer in exposed animals, will do so in com-bination. Also, while a parent compound maybe low in hazard, the degradation 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. Ifthey 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 “extremely hazardous” criterionmight be set at less than 50 mg/kg (the lethaldose for half the exposed population) for oraladministration to mammals. Then questionsmight be raised if a waste with test results of49 + 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 ofthese species has exact correlations withhuman 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 law28 where EPA not only designatedstandards, but also established criteria for

ZaThe Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, asamended in 1978.

Ch. 6–Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 235

determining confidence levels of test resultsand guidelines for including these in evalua-tions of compliance.

Facility Classification

The underlying concept for classification ofwaste management facilities is that the capaci-ty to minimize release of harmful materialsvaries 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 probabilitythat 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 landfillsvaries depending on the number of liners, thepermeability of each liner, and geological con-ditions of the site. For thermal destruction,various designs (e. g., high-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 certain 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 forthe 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-tions of the facility design and operatingconditions.

The aim of facility classification is to matchwaste classes with appropriate categories of fa-cility design and environmental conditions.For each type of facility (e.g., land disposal orincineration) an acceptable level of risk mustbe 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 modification 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 HazardPotent~a) of Waste Dwposal Sites, prepared for the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, 1980.

31 Mltre Corp,, s~~e Ranking Model for Determining RemedialAction Priorities Among Uncontrolled Hazardous SubstancesFacilities (McLean, Va,: Mitre Corp., 1981).


Table 43.—Proposed Measures forClassifying Management Options

Characteristics Measures to distinguish categories

Design Measures of limiting processcontrols (e. g., combustion levels,number of liners, sophisticationof instrumentation, monitoringprograms)

Meteorological Climatic conditionsSite characteristics Distance to nearest drinking-water

wellDistance to nearest off site buildingLand use/zoningCritical environmentsDistance to nearest surface waterDepth to ground waterNet precipitationSoil permeabilityBedrock permeabilityDepth to bedrock


The major factors include design characteris-tics, meteorological conditions, and site con-ditions. Appropriate design and meteorologicalcharacteristics vary with the type of facility.For example, containment capabilities ade-quate to the threat of floods or potential forearthquakes would be important for landfills.Incinerators would be classed according tocombustion capabilities and chamber designs,together with consideration of wind patternsor air inversions. The critical environmentalfactors for any facility might include: distanceto drinking water sources, distance to nearestpopulation, existence of critical or endangeredenvironments, distance to nearest surfacewater, depth to ground water sources, precipi-tation levels, soil permeability, bedrock per-meability, and depth to bedrock.

Scores could be assigned for different levelswithin each of these factors. Separate classesmay be designated based on some method ofcombining scores. It may be necessary to de-velop classification schemes based on environ-mental media—e.g., land (land disposal facili-ties), air (thermal destruction), and water (treat-ment facilities). The criteria could then be re-lated to minimizing release of hazardous con-stituents to the relevant medium.

Once a technology/facility/site combinationhas been classified, waste groups then couldbe matched to it. Thus, a waste which is highly

hazardous, moves readily through soil, and hasa low potential for natural degradation wouldbe restricted to facilities that could contain,completely destroy, or immobilize such waste.California has a scheme for classifying land-fills. Permeability standards are used in con-junction with location of ground water sourcesto place existing landfills into one of threeclasses. It has recently completed a com-prehensive study of hazardous waste and hasrestricted certain waste to particular classes oflandfills. 32

The basis for facility classification schemesis the ability of a facility to properly containthe waste for a specified period of time, andto match this period of time with rates fordegradation or mobility of a waste. Thus, fa-cilities that can contain a waste for a speci-fied time, or can destroy it completely (e.g.,by incineration), could be selected to handlewaste that are highly persistent and non-degradable. If controlled release of the wastefrom a facility is likely and if there is potentialfor surface- or ground-water contamination atsome time in the future, then the waste handl-ed at such facility location must have degrada-tion potentials that match the expected time ofescape.

Feasibility of Classification: A Case Study

In an attempt to clarify some of the issueson classification of waste and facilities, OTAsponsored a study on the feasibility of such asystem.33 The study operated under several lim-itations. It used only currently availableclassification criteria and readily obtainabledata. It examined only a selected group of haz-ardous wastes listed or proposed for listing byEPA for which toxicity and environmental fatedata were available in EPA background docu-ments; and it supplemented the EPA data withtoxicity information from the Registry of

32Departrnent of Hea]th Services, “Changes in Regulations ofthe Department of Health Services Regarding Hazardous WasteLand Disposal Restrictions (R-32- 82),” (Sacramento, Ca]if.: Stateof California, Health and Welfare Agency, 1982].

“J. Harris, P. Strand, and T. Shea, Classification by Degreeof Hazard for Selected ]ndustrial Waste Streams (Washington,D, C.: Office of Technology Assessment, Materials Program,1982).

Ch 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 237— — . —

acteristics used in each system. Appendix 6Aprovides descriptions of how waste constit-uents are scored in the two systems.

Nine wastes were chosen from the RCRA listfor this analysis, representing a range ofvolumes and toxicity levels. The wastes areshown in table 45, Because no schemes for ac-tual management classification exist, the feasi-bility study reviewed only classification oflandfills, 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 thefeasibility of management classification 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 - Wash ing ton sys tema - Michigan system b

—Physical data:State of waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None NoneConcentration . . . . . . Quantity/concentration Quantity/concentration

formula formulaToxicity:Acu te 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 Carcinogenici ty

MutagenicityyTeratogenici ty

Environmental fate:Persistence/degradat ion . . . . , . . . . Presence of po lycyc l ic 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:● Bottom stream from an acetonitriIe

column in the production of acrylonitrileHigh volume/low toxicity:● Wastewater treatment sludge from

production of titanium dioxide pigment,using chromium bearing ores bychloride process

Medium volume/high toxicity:● Brine purification muds from the mercury

cell process in chlorine production,where separately prepurified brine wasnot used

Low volume/high toxicity:●

●

●

●

●

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 benzeneAmmonia 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:● Light and heavy ends from distillation of

acetaldehyde in the production ofacetic anhydride — —

aAnnual volumes 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 ofa particular waste did not vary substantially;it was possible to designate an averageclassification for the waste. The method ofaveraging was arbitrarily chosen for the pur-poses of this study. The class designation forthe majority of constituents 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 relativeconcentration levels for both cyanide andphenol, and the potential for separating thesetwo 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 finding was that the actualclass 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 ● 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 - Ave rage--

Consti tuent for waste a Cons t i t uen t s Cons t i t uen t s f o r was tea

Mercury b x c x c A d - A a

Arsenic b B AArsenic 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 —eAcetone D —e

Ethylidene diacetate D —e D BEthyl acetate D B

Chloroform c A -

Hexachloroethane B BCarbon tetrachloride c A1,1,2- trichloroethane 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 -

Chromium b (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 concentrationCX 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 systemHLends Heavy I!ght ends


interpretation. Data availability is a chronicproblem in the design and implementation ofenvironmental 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 tohazardous waste management, but occursoften 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 whichreversibility is observed. While publisheddescriptions 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 ofcommon 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 fora particular geometrical relationship 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-nologically feasible standards and criteriawould have to be developed for an acceptableregulatory program based on hazard classifica-tion. The criteria must be based on accuratecharacterization of waste and reliable 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:

●

●

●

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 forregulation.—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-termbioassays for actual waste samples,rather than for single constituents of thewaste—The interaction of constituentsmay result in a different hazard level fromthat of the constituents singly.

Problems and Advantages ofClassification 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 priorities for establishing standards andcontrols on the basis of degrees of hazards forwastes 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-ticularly 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 againstthese 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 afacility classification system in regulationcould 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 of incineration, chemical orbiological treatment, and containment alter-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 hazardousmaterial burns readily and could be incineratedin an industrial boiler, a low-performance fa-cility, thus posing no risk. In contrast, amedium- or low-hazard waste burned in a sim-ilar facility may not be readily combusted. Ifthe 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 constituent 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 resultsfrom a weighting of several criteria, andtherefore, a waste may have medium hazardfor cancer, be highly mobile, and perhaps ahigh 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 landfill andallowed to migrate to water sources, a medium-hazard constituent can cause the same type ofadverse effects on the exposed population asa highly hazardous constituent; it may simplyrequire a higher accumulation of the materialbefore the effect is observed.

A re la ted prob lem i s tha t the was techaracteristics that define a hazard may dif-fer from characteristics that determine themanagement choice. Waste classif icationsystems include a diverse range of hazard cri-teria. The overall hazard rank is a combinedweighting of all these criteria. However, fromthe management perspective one specifichazard 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 ofconstituents 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 thematerials that are released from a facility.

These difficulties can be resolved. It shouldbe 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 ofconstituents in all environmental media andcomparing these data with measurementstaken 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, EnvironmentalA40nitoring-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] Research Counci], Environment] hfOnj~Orjng

(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Science, 1977].

resentative J. Jeffords (R-Vt. ) emphasized thispoint:39

As a result of . . . lack of an adequate na-tional environmental quality monitoring pro-gram, those of us in Congress who are respon-sible for passing judgment on environmentalstatutes do not have a solid basis for assess-ing the success or lack of success of the lawswe 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-tribution patterns in the environment, andcause-effect relationships are needed for in-formed judgments about contamination levels,compliance with regulations, and appropriateperformance standards. Without monitoringdata, judgments about the effectiveness of

SOU.S. congress, House of Representatives, Op cit.

%ouncil on Environmental Quality, inter~gency Task Forceon Environmental Data and Monitoring (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1980).

Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste Ž 243

Table 48.—Description of Monitoring Functions

Monitoring function Description

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Baseline information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Routine monitoring and collection ofconstituent information.

Standard development . . . ... . . Development of information bases for establish-ment or revision of constituent standards.

Compliance monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collection of constituent information to verifycompliance with regulatory standards set byoperations of Federal, State, and local govern-ments and the private sector.

Monitor status of environmental control regions.Research and development . . . . . . . . . . Provides information for model development,

instrumentation R&D, development testing, oraudit of measurement techniques.

Public or agency alert . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provides a warning system for agency actionand/or public alert.

SOURCE Council on Environmental Ouality, 1980

various waste management options may de-pend on political interests and individualperceptions.

Monitoring data also provide tangible evi-dence to a concerned public that human healthand the environment are being protected. Inthe absence of monitoring data, the extent orsuccess of protection offered to human healthand environmental stability is only conjecture.In hazardous waste management, monitoringactivities are the only means of verifying thata facility is operating properly.

Environmental Fate and Design of aMonitoring Program

Several important distribution routes areavailable to waste constituents once they arereleased from a waste management facility, asillustrated in figures 17 and 18. The constit-uents may dissolve in water and percolatethrough soil into ground water supplies; if wellwater is drawn for domestic or agricultural use,humans, plants, and animals can be exposedto the contaminated water. Chemicals mobi-lized through the food chain can present ahazard to humans and higher organisms.(Methylmercury is a well-known example ofthis.) Chemicals dissolved in runoff water (e.g.,materials released through accidental spills orpesticides applied in fields) may enter streamsand accumulate in either sediment or aquaticorganisms. These materials could be trans-ferred via streams and rivers to sites far from

Figure 17.— Potential Transport and Points ofTransformation for Land-Disposed Hazardous

Waste Contaminants

Atmosphere

Clay liner

Soil biota

Soil particlesTo surface watersystems and aquaticorganisms

Ground water

SOURCE” Modlfled from G F Lee and R A Jones A risk assessment ap-proach for evaluating the environmental slgnlflcance of chemicalcontaminants In solld wastes, “Envlronmentai Risk Analysls forChemical s,” R A Conway (ed ), 1981

the point of release. Those chemicals with suf-ficiently high-vapor pressure may evaporate atthe point of release, and then maybe depositednearby via rain or snow, or they may be trans-ported long distances depending on prevailingwind currents. Airborne materials can be di-rectly inhaled by organisms. Solid materials(e.g., as powders) stored in surface piles may


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 appreach 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 elementsof 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

AirTemperatureWind velocityHumidityParticulate levels

soilVegetation coverSpecies compositionOrganic contentAcid-base levelSoil compositionSoil pore sizeMineral contentTemperature

WaterTemperaturepHSuspended 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 constituents are dispersed,their reactions with environmental compo-nents, and their ultimate deposition. Examplesof transport and transformation processes thatinfluence environmental fate are presented intable 50. In aquatic systems, for 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 released are knownalso, the potential for movement of the constit-uents can be estimated using fugacity equa-tions. 41 Fugacity is defined as the escapingtendency 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,” EnvironmentalScience & Technology, vol. 13, No. 10, 1979, pp. 1218-1223; andNational Research Council, “Chapter 2. Factors Influencing theFate of Chemicals,” Testing for Effecis of Chemicals on Ecosys-tems (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)

● Diffusion (D) ●

• Dispersion (D) ●

Ž Filtration (D) ●

Ž Sedimentation (D) ●

● Adsorption—disorption (D)

(D) Dlstr{but~onltransport(T) Transformation


C h e m i c a l - Biochemical

Acid-base reactions (D) ●

oxidation—reduction (T)Photolysis (T) ●

Hydrolysis (T) ●

●

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 ~(iu~; , j, I.’t~]Lo, .S, [;ohen, and C. R iorda n, 4’Role of ‘I’r;ins-purt ant] Fate Studies ]n the Exposure A\ses>rnent and Screen-i ng of ‘l-ox I(, Chemi[, a] 5,” ll~nami(, s, Expc)s(lre anri Hazard As-scssmen t of 7“0 vic Chem i[:als ( A n n Arbor, LI Ich.: Ann A rh[)rSc.lence Pub]lsher’, Inc., 1980).

Figure 19. —A Hypothetical Environmental FateProfile of a Chemical That Binds Strongly

With 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 time increases, major accumulationoccurs in water and boiota. In contrast, ifchemical 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 final concentrations in air and waterwould probably be minimal.

Knowledge of this potential distribution isquite useful in designing a monitoring programfor a particular site. For a profile such as figure19, 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 programsby 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 ofan 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 ofmonitoring—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 setting research priorities and formeasuring quality of public health and the en-

vironment. Effects monitoring is aimed at de-termining cause-effect relationships betweenhazardous constituents and adverse effectsobserved in humans or other organisms.

1.

2.

3.

Visual monitoring is the simplest andleast costly method of identifying releasesof 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 manylarge 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 automaticallyshuts down the process 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 time. Thechallenge 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

Ch 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 247

4

water does not contain harmfu1 or unex -pected constituents, In general, indicatorcompounds and conditions, rather thanspecific chemicals, are monitored con-tinuously with such measurements as pH,temperature, total organic content, spe-cific metals, and oxygen levels (for watersampling). If significant variations in thesemeasurements are detected, more compre-hensive analytical tests can be conductedto identify the specific problem. Thepresence of unexpected constituents or in-creased concentrations in an industrial ef-fluent (e.g., increased levels of totalorganics) would signal that the facility maynot be operating correctly.

This type of monitoring activity is a sec-ond-stage alert system for an industrial op-eration, with visual inspections and proc-ess monitoring the first stage, With ap-propriate indicators, source monitoringcan be very effective. EPA has required itfor monitoring compliance of industrieswith certain environmental regulations(e.g., regulations promulgated under theClean Air and Clean Water Acts.) Automa-tion and remote control of sampling andanalysis have made second-level monitor-ing activities relatively simple, as long asoutflow constituents can be identified foranalysis. More highly skilled personnel areneeded than in process monitoring; specialtraining is required in sampling and ana-lytical methodologies.Ambient monitoring is the third level ofactivity. It can provide baseline data fora specific area, and also provide data afterthe release of hazardous constituents intothe environment for comparison. Ambientmonitoring is much more complex thanthe first two levels, requiring carefully con-trolled sampling and analysis of a diverseset of materials (e. g., soil, water, air, plantand animal tissue). The environmentalcomponents are themselves variable,which can complicate interpretation ofresults. With the availability of complexanalytical equipment (e. g., the gas chro-matograph-mass spectrophotometer), theidentity and concentrations of many dif-

5

ferent constituents can be detected at verylow levels (parts per billion).

The cost of ambient monitoring is afunction of the degree of knowledge de-sired regarding the fate of constituents.After a release of constituents into the en-vironment, the precise form, concentra-tions, and locations of constituents be-comes harder to determine with time. Agreater number of samples is required toassess the full extent of contaminationover time. The level of detail and precisiondesired also affect costs. Some relativelysimple analytical techniques can detectclasses of constituents by measurement ofchemical and physical processes. To deter-mine more precisely the qualitative iden-tity of a single constituent, or the extentof its distribution, requires more complex,costly equipment. The skills required forthese types of testing requires several yearsof training in technical fields and exten-sive training on specific analytical equip-ment,

Effects monitoring entails observinghumans and other organisms for adverse:or beneficial, effects resulting from thepresence of, or exposure to, constituentsabove naturally occurring levels. It is ex-pensive and time-consuming, since it oftentakes several months or years for an effectto appear (e. g., as illness or death in thehuman population, or decreases in animalpopulation sizes). As discussed previous-ly in this chapter, it is very difficult todetermine direct relationships between thepresence of a contaminant and particularadverse effects for human health. Becausecause-effect relationships have not been es-tablished for most waste constituents, datafrom this type of monitoring can be usedto set research priorities and to evaluateenvironmental quality,

Of the five types of monitoring discussedabove, ambient monitoring has the greatestpotential to serve as evidence that risks as-sociated with hazardous waste managementare kept to acceptable levels. Visual inspec-tions along with process and source monitor-


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 isit possible to control risks reliably andrealistically. 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.

Public health can best be protected bypreventing hazardous releases and minimiz-ing contaminat ion o f the envi ronment .Should releases occur, ambient monitoring ofthe environment can produce early warning ofthreats 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 some way immobilized before reachingwater 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.Surveillance 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 ambient monitoring activities.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.

Surveillance 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-veillance monitoring indicates changes inbroad categories of constituents 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.

Assessment monitoring serves two pur-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 manageableand 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 constituentsand 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, lettuce, and tomatoes accumulatetoxic metals more readily than do beans or cab-bage; also, the foliage of such plants will con-tain 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 ofonly a few degrees—depending on the amountof shade along river banks—can affect the riverecosystem and the impacts of constituents.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 optimalsampling location. The desired frequency ofsampling depends on temporal variations. En-vironmental conditions fluctuate with theseason, 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 constituents can be expected in theformer, thus requiring vertical sampling overseveral horizontal locations to obtain a trulyrepresentative picture. Surface water sampling

NE, Epstein and R, L. Chancy, “Land Disposal Of Toxic sub-stances and Water Related Problems, ” ]ournal 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 ofpreexisting 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 environmentalcharacteristics similar to the affected site.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 andmeasurement methods rather than fromchanges in environmental concentration ofhazardous waste constituents.

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-sonal preferences of the staff. 46 Analy t i ca lvariations can arise even when different per-sons perform the same procedures using the

*U ,S, Environmental Protection Agency, “Procedures Manualfor Cround Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, ”SW-611, 1980.

4sNational Research Counc ii, En vironrnen taf ~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


same equipment. Interlaboratory variationcaused 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 monitoring program were inadequate.47 O fparticular 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 have been adopted by Federal agencieswith monitoring programs, 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. Until these deficiencies arecorrected, a significant number 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 EnvironmentalMonitoring Support Laboratories of EPA. 48

The aim of this new program is to developstandardized analytical methodology and toprovide reference standards for analyticalresults. 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:

●

●

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 Forceon Envimmmental Datti 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 ofquality assurance programs is to provide theuser of the data with an estimate of its ac-curacy or uncertainty.

Degrees of accuracy, precision, and uncer-tainty of data are not always acknowledged;nor are acceptable levels of precision anduncertainty always identified for the particularuses of the data (e. g., for policy or regulatorycompliance and enforcement). Not all 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 appropriate level ofprecision: 49

1. How will the data be used?2. What are the consequences of obtaining

imprecise 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).


of the quality and quantity of sample that maybe required in each situation. The developmentof proper methodologies and protocols is notan impossible task, but it will require bothadded funds and trained personnel—both cur-rently in short supply in hazardous waste man-agement.

Some attention should also be given to defin-ing general test indicators for the diverse rangeof hazardous constituents. For example, RCRAmonitoring requirements for land disposal re-quire consideration of more than 387 com-pounds that are currently considered as haz-ardous by EPA (discussed in ch. 7). Currentcapabilities for the detection of a majority ofthese compounds with state-of-the-art analysesis questionable. In some cases, appropriate ana-lytical protocols are not available for wasteconstituent analysis. In others, the detectionlimits of analysis may be higher than concen-tration of constituents in waste. Depending onthe type and sophistication of the analyticalequipment, it is possible that a constituentcould be present but not detected by laboratoryanalysis.

The use of indicator test compounds (i.e., oneor two compounds selected to represent thepresence or absence of a class of compounds)has been suggested, While such methods pro-vide economic advantages, continued environ-mental contamination may occur if the hazard-ous compounds in any waste do not behave en-vironmentally in the same manner as the in-dicator compounds. Also, because of the natureof many of these compounds (e. g., the complexorganics) equally hazardous degradation prod-ucts may result from environmental transfor-mations. Only limited information concerningthese transformations currently is available.

Monitoring efforts developed in response tothe Clean Air and Clean Water Acts have em-phasized chemical analyses, and RCRA re-quirements followed these precedents. Becauseof the extensive number of hazardous constit-uents that may require analysis even at the levelof surveillance efforts, reliance on chemicalanalyses alone can become very expensive.Therefore, it maybe prudent to investigate the

use of biological indicators. There has beenresearch on advantages and limitations ofbiological monitoring programs, but specificapplications for hazardous waste managementmust be explored. [See reviews of biologicalmonitoring applications.50)

Institutional Approaches to Technical Issues

Scientists, both in the public and private sec-tors, recognize the importance of proper sam-pling techniques, data compatibility, and lim-itations in the methodology. Yet, no majorgovernmental policy has been directed towardsdeveloping solutions. These problems are notunique to hazardous waste management. Theyare relevant to all regulations intended toreduce undesirable levels of contaminants inour environment. Effective protection ofhuman health and the environment requiresconcerted efforts to develop adequate mon-itoring programs. Three activities could helpto correct the current deficiencies.

First, it may be prudent to centralize mon-itoring activities responsible to resolve thetechnical issues addressed here by drawing onthe help of government and nongovernmentlaboratories and personnel, EPA’s Environ-mental Monitoring Laboratory, for example,might be charged with developing standard-ized sampling protocols, while the NationalBureau of Standards would continue its workof developing reference test standards. TheAmerican Society of Testing Material (ASTM)could develop methodological protocols for

‘0], Cairns, Jr,, et al,, “Suitability of Some Fresh W’ater andMarine Fishes for Use With a Minicomputer Interfaced Bioi(Jg-ical Monitoring System, ” Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 16, No.3, 1980, pp. 421-427; J. Cairns, Jr. and D, Gruber, “A Comparisonof Methods of 1 nstrumentation of Biological Early Warning Sys-terns, ” Water Resources Bu])etin, vol. 16, No, 2, 1980, pp. 26 1-266;]. Cairns, Jr., “Biological Monitoring—Concept and Scope, ” L“n\’i-ronmental Biomonitoring, Assessment, prediction, and Managemen t—Certain Case Studies and Related Quantitite issues (Fair-land, Md,: International Cooperative Publishing House, 1979],PP. 3-20; D. Gruber and J. Cairns, Jr., “Industrial Effluent Moni-toring ln{;orporated Recent Automated Fish Biomonitorlng Sys-tern, ” Water, Air, Soi] Poiiution, \rol. 15, 1981, pp 471-481,J. M. ‘rhornas, D, H. McKenzie, and L. 1,. Eberhardt, “SomeLimitations of Biological Monitoring, ” Entironrnent interna-tional, vol. 5, 1981, pp. 3-Io; and W. H. Van Der Schallle, et al,,“Fish !3ioassay Monitoring of Waste Effluents,” En}~ronmenta/Management, vol. 3, No. 3, 1979, pp. 217-235.


analytical work, and the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) and universities 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 activitymight 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 possibility 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-vironmental monitoring programs. Duringthe late 1970’s, the executive branch expressedconcern about deficiencies in national monitor-

=l-U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, En VhonmenfaiMonitoring—II, hearings before the Subcommittee on the Envi-nmment and the Atmosphere, Committee on Science and Tech-nology, No. 93 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing 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 It concluded that agencies generallydevelop 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 widespread 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 current monitoring efforts are 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, Suchan effort is particularly needed in waste man-agement because of the multimedia nature ofrisks 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

activities

Freshwar te“ , , .

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 Defense

EPA 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 pointfor environmental information and anal-ysis related to environmental assess-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 ofregulations, and poor intergovernmentalconditions.The existing interagency coordination ofwater 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 programhas much to offer in the way of reducedcosts.Establish a standing interagency groupto deal with the coordination of environ-mental and health effects data. Thisrecommendation is especially importantfor 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 Thefor 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-sents noncompliance rather than dif-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 arecurrently 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 ofwaste 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 relation-neighborhood include: ships. As discussed previously in this chapter,

scientific data suggest a potential for long-term●

●

●

●

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 ● 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 related to the operation of awaste management facility 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 ofthe facility is liable for government costs ofcleanup, 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 atwaste 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 areconcerned 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 materials, but unfortunately, toxicorganic 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 thediscovery of hazardous waste pollution,which often seem too late, ineffective, orunresponsive to concerns of citizens. For ex-ample, homeowners near a large landfill 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 Anotherexample 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 emphasison waste disposal , rather than on othermanagement options. The public’s reluctanceto accept new land disposal facilities may wellbe linked to the limited attempts by govern-ment to promote preferable treatment alter-natives and waste reduction.

Approaches to Addressing Public Concern

There are two approaches to answering pub-lic concern over siting of particular facilities.The “technical” approach is based on re-quirements that sites meet protective sitingstandards, and the provision of enough tech-nical information to increase public under-standing of proposed facilities. The “non-technical” approach includes assurance ofpublic participation in siting decisions, com-pensation for victims of damage, a clear com-

Sastate of ca]lfornla, office of planning and Research, ‘‘I m-pro~’ernents in S]ting Hazardous Waste Facilities, Recornmenda-tlons of the Department of Health Ser\i(.es Ad\isory Commit-t e 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-ulation, and possibly, incentives for com-munities to accept proposed facilities.

That public opposition to hazardous wastefacilities will be wholly eliminated is unlike-ly. But if 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 facilities. 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 opportunities for public partici-pation.California is one of several States wherelocal 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-

●

tween the community and the hazardouswaste facility developer and/or bindingarbitration. 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 ofthe process and public involvement in deci-sionmaking, than to the particular type of sitingprocess.

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 its constit-uents. Most of the opposition to siting hazard-ous waste facilities has to do with sites 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 facilities have beenevaluated prior to the siting application). Thisclose consideration of alternatives should beone of the requirements in a comprehensivewaste management plan.

~S The Sjtlng Book A Handhok /’or Siting Hazardous Waste

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 thetechnical 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, annualreports 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 atax on the gross receipts of a facility, propertytax, or treatment disposal fees.

Another potential economic benefit could benew industrial growth attracted by the avail-ability 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 thanone 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 opportunitiesfor 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 victimcompensation 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 beprovided, unrelated 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 siting 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 siting ispossible to assist States. EPA could developmodel siting criteria, for example, or publishinformation on different approaches Stateshave taken to the siting 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 ofthe site could be assured as the Governmentis unlikely to go “out-of -business.” On the otherhand, siting on Federal land maybe viewed bymany as an unfair subsidy to the hazardouswaste management industry. It 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 meansof settling labor-management disputes. Similardispute-resolution approaches have been sug-gested for environmental and land-use deci-sionmaking. The Massachusetts siting programincludes, an as yet untested provision fornegotiation and arbitration in facility sitingagreements.

Another Federal role might be to help in thedevelopment of interstate hazardous wastemanagement compacts, to ensure adequate dis-posal and treatment capacity regionwide.RCRA provides for the recognition of such in-terstate compacts for solid and hazardouswaste management. They could be very useful

SW,s. En~rOnrnenta] protwtion Agency, “State Decisionmak-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 ColoradoRiver. 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

releases. The CERCLA 301(e) study 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 waste constituent properties and notthe 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 multiple constituents. This summary 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 didnot consider synergistic or antagonistic effects ofconstituents. Equivalent concentration is calculatedby applying weighting factors to the 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 thanjust toxicity. This system used numerical rankingformulae that address acute toxicity, carcinogenici-ty, hereditary mutagenicity, teratogenicity, per-sistence, bioaccumulation, and other adversechronic effects. Each constituent receives a scorefor all using available data. The formula applies aweighting scale to determine classes of toxicity. Theconstituents are not ranked according to accumu-lative scores, There are no provisions for lack ofdata. Once toxicity scores are assigned the constit-uent concentrations are plotted against waste 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 whichare grouped into four categories:

1. Waste characteristics.—The consideration oftypes of potential hazards posed by the waste.

2. Waste management.—The consideration ofquality of the facility design, construction, andoperation.


3. Pathways. —The consideration of mechanisms tor. A sum for all factors is calculated for each ofof contaminant migration. the four evaluation categories. They are divided by

4. Receptora.-The identification of potential tar- the maximum possible score and multiplied by 100.gets of chemical hazards. The higher the score the greater the hazard posed

A site is assigned a score of O to 4 for each of the by a facility.31 parameters. Each has an assigned weighting fac-

Table 6A=l.—Criterla for the Washington System of Degree-of-Hazard Classification

Extremely hazardous Dangerous

Oral, rat, LD50

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <500 mg/kg <5,000 mg/kgAquatic fish, LC50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <100 mg/1 <1,000 mg/1Halogenated hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . >1‘Yo >0.01 0/0

Polycyclic aromatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >1 0/0 NoneConcentration of heavy metals in EPA

leach test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 x DWSb 100 x DWSNonbioaccumulative carcinogens . . . . . — IARC c human or animal:

positive or suspectedCorrosivity, reactivity, ignitability . . . . . — EPA definition

aF~r pure ~~mpounds ~ simple mixturea book dealgnation uaing the NIOSH Raolater and the deakmatlon dlaorw are Poaai-ble, aea appendix.

%lWS = drlnklng water standard.CIARc = International Agency for Cancer Reaaarch. This group weighs publlahad studies on suspected cancer cauaing● gents and Iaaues findings.

SOURCE: Provldad by E. W. Tower, Solid Waste Management Divialon, Off Ice of Land Programs, Department of Ecology,State of Washington, Olympia, Waah.

Table 6A=2.—Crlteria for the Texas System ofDegree-of=Hazard Classification

Class I Class II Class Illa

Hazard indexb . . . . <50 >50 >50LDU measuresc . . . <500 mg/kg >500 mg/kg >500 mg/kgpHd . . . . . . . . . . . . . <2.5, >12 2 . 5 - 1 2 2.5 –12Corrosion rate” . . . <0.25 in/yr >0.25 in/yr >0.25 in/yrFlash pointf . . . . . . <140° F >140° F >140° F

● - te~ f~ ~position~ differancaa between Claaa II and Claaa Ill.%apreaents the potential hazard to the environment if Improperly dlspoaad,baaed on maasurea of toxicity and volubility of the aubatance.

cM~I~ leth~ do=; doaa required to kill 50 percent of a population expo~ tothe chemical of concern.

dMe~ure of ~ldlty m alkallnlty; pli 7 Indlcatea nOIJtrOl solution; <PH 7 in-dicatea acldlc aolution; *H 7 Indlcatea alkallna or baaic aolutlon.

etirosion rate on ateal (sAE 1020) ● t a toot temperature of 130”F M det~-minad by NACE.

f ~~ln~ by ● Panaky-Martene Cloaed CUP Teatar uaing ASTM Std. ~~73.

SOURCE sterling Hoba Corp. (12).

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 >1OOO● 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 carcinogenic● Insufficient information

Hereditary mutagenicity

Score Category7 Confirmed4 Suspect - multicellular organisms2 Suspect - micro-organismso Not a hereditary mutagen● Insufficient information

Teratogenicity

Score Category7 Confirmed3 Suspecto Not teratogenic● Insufficient information

v. Persistence

Score Category4 Very persistent3 Persistent2 Slowly degradable1 Moderately degradableo Readily degradable● 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 4.00-4.499 <300 <4.00● Insufficient information

VII. EstheticsScore

32

0

Vlll. Chronic

Score421

0●

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 effectsInsufficient information

SOURCE. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (27).

CHAPTER 7

The Current Federal-StateHazardous Waste Program

Contents

PageSummary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I: Federal Regulation of HazardousWaste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Identification and Classification ofHazardous Waste-The Trigger. . . . . . . . . . . .

Exclusions From the Definitions of SolidWaste and Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

265 Changes in the Universe of Hazardous Waste.Special Exemptions for Certain Categories of

Hazardous Wastes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 Provisions of General Applicability to Hazardous

Waste Generators, Transporters, and268 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities . . . . .

Standards for TSDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270 General Facility Standards for Permitting

Hazardous Waste TSDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271 State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

276

276

277281

288296

Demonstration of Substantial Equivalence . . . .Final Authorization of State Programs ., ... , ,Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Federal Environmental Laws and

Hazardous Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonregulatory Approaches and Technical

support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal, State, and Private Compliance Cost for

the Current Hazardous Waste ManagementProgram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part II: State Responses to Hazardous WasteProblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State Programs Under RCRA . . . . . . . . . . ..Differences Between Federal and State ProgramsOther State Regulatory Programs . . . . . . . . . . . .Nonregulatory Options for Management of

Hazardous Waste.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fees, Taxes, and Other Economic Incentives to

Encourage Alternatives to Land Disposal . . .

Part III: Implementation Issues of theCurrent Regulatory System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Development and EnvironmentalProtection .., ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hazard/Risk Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Risk Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix7A.—Hazard Ranking System . . . .

Appendix7B .—Risk/Cost Policy Model . . . . .

List of Tables

Table No.51. Identification of Hazardous Waste. . . . . . . .52. Exemptions and Exclusions From the

Universe of Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . .53. Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes. . . . . .54. interim Status Standards: General

Administrative and Nontechnical Standardsfor Interim Status Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55. Technical Performance Standards forContainers, Tanks, Incinerators, Landfills,and Surface Impoundments . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56. Ground Water Monitoring Program forPermitted Land Disposal Facilities ....

57. National Contingency Plan—Phases ofResponse Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58. Chemical Taxes Under Superfund . . . . . . . .59. Toxic Water Pollutants Under Section 307 of

the Clean Water Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60. National Interim Primary Drinking Water

Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297298300

319

327

332

344344344348354

356363

364

368

368375380382

386

387

Page271

273274

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 Commercial OffsiteHazardous Waste Management Industry . .

64. EPA Estimates of Annualized RCRACompliance Costs by Subtitle C Section . . .

65. Total Annual Revenue Requirements forPart 264 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66. Present Value of the Private Costs of RCRAFinancial Responsibility Regulations by Typeof Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67. Annual Cost of Financial Assistance Activitiesper Facility for Owners and Operators ofTreatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

68. Hazardous Waste Programs, 1975-81. ....69. EPA Hazardous Waste Program Federal

Administrative Costs for Fiscal Years 1981-8470. Federal Financial Assistance Grants for

Hazardous Waste Management by State,1981-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71. Fiscal Year 1982 Federal Support of StateHazardous Waste Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72. State Expenditures on Hazardous WasteProgram Activities for Selected States . . . .

73. State RCRA Program Authorization . . . . . .74. Comparability of State Hazardous Waste

Programs to Federal RCRA Program. ..,..75, Summary of State Small Quantity Generator

Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80. Summary of State Superfund Legislation . .81. Contamination of Ground Water by Industrial

Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

282

List of Figures

289

291

306315

322

324

Figure No.22. Remedial Action Process Under the

National Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23. EPA Hazardous Waste Program Budget

1975-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24. Sampling Well Locations for Ground Water

Monitoring Program, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25. Plume Migration May Not Flow With Ground

Water Due to Gravitational Influence and/orUndetected Fractures in the Aquifer . . . . . .

326

331

332

334

335

338

338339

341

342

343

344346

349

352

355

356365366369

373

Page

310

340

378

378

CHAPTER 7

The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program— .

Summary Findings

Delays in implementation.—Despite thesimplicity of 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 Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) implementation of requirements ofRCRA section 3004 to establish performancestandards for hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposal facilities has been aprocess characterized by delay, false starts,frequent policy reversals, and litigation.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 interpretations 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 thereason 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 ofthese facilities, hazardous constituents maybe released into the environment.

Lack of adequate, reliable, and verifiableinformation on which to base decisions.—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-sign, operating, and permitting require-ments.

inequities in application of regulatory re-quirements.—The current RCRA regulatorysystem, 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 ofsome 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-isting incinerators are being required, insome places, to operate at the limits of avail-able technology.

Lack of national consistency in hazard/riskdeterminations.—Current regulations dopresent 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 consistentlevels of protection nationwide.

Continued use of inadequate 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


●

●

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-izing 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 onenvironment and health, additional attentionshould be focused on promoting the use ofalternative 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 ofhazardous waste constituents over long peri-ods of time (30 years or more) is not possi-ble with the current technology. All land dis-posal sites eventually will release mobileconstituents to the environment. The firsttier of EPA’s regulatory strategy for land dis-posal facilities, containment of hazardousconstituents and liquid management, pro-vides only temporary protection against con-tamination. The effectiveness of EPA’s sec-ond-tier stratem of monitoring and correc-

U.

tive action also has substantial technicaluncertainties. EPA’s monitoring require-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 water pumping, in situ treatment,and construction of barriers to groundwater movement, has not been demon-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.

● 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 constituents will beprevented through early detection andprompt 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 ambientmonitoring program to measure back-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, certain data re-

Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 267

quirements for compliance monitoring ofpermitted land disposal facilities will bedifficult to meet.

The use of quantitative risk assessment inenvironmental regulation is receiving prom-inent attention within EPA and Congress.Available evidence suggests that the art ofrisk 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, or supplement the regulatory pro-grams. Moreover, insurers depend on strin-gent regulatory standards and enforcementas an incentive for them to underwrite therisks associated with hazardous waste facil-ities. The adequacy of regulatory require-ments will influence the availability of re-quired insurance coverage.

Although legal remedies exist, private par-ties 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 ofcollecting damage judgments against absentor insolvent defendants.

Adequacy of funding and financial re-sources for implementation and enforce-ment.—Concerns over the adequacy of fund-ing for the Federal program and for Federalgrants for State programs have been raised

●

●

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-ities proceeds. States will need additionalfunds to administer and enforce hazardouswaste 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 regulatoryprograms and cleanup actions.

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 ofhazardous waste management under RCRASubtitle C and regulation of environmentalpollutants and control of hazardous sub-stances under other Federal laws. Instead ofleading to an all-inclusive integrated frame-work of environmental regulations providingbetter protection of human health and theenvironment, selective implementation ofRCRA and other environmental laws has re-sulted in gaps in coverage so that some po-tentially serious impacts of hazardous wasteactivities 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.

Extent of Superfund cleanup.—The Na-tional Contingency Plan (NCP), the frame-work for Government action in cleaning uphazardous waste sites, does not establish anyspecific 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


could be found at uncontrolled sites as apotentially time-consuming and costly taskthat might detract from cleanup efforts.Nonetheless, EPA declined to specify clean-up standards even where they have alreadybeen set for other purposes. In contrast, theregulations for land disposal facilities re-quire corrective action at permitted facilitiesto attain either background levels or the SafeDrinking Water Act standards. The NCPwould allow contamination levels (thatwould trigger corrective action at permittedRCRA facilities) to continue to exist afterremedial response actions have been takenor without requiring any response action atall.

• State Superfund costs .—States can nomi-nate sites for inclusion on the National Pri-ority List as candidates for Superfund clean-up and can designate one site in each Stateto be included in the 100 highest prioritysites. CERCLA requires that States contrib-ute at least 10 percent of the cleanup costsat privately owned sites and 50 percent ormore at sites that were owned by a Statewhen the hazardous substances were placed

Part 1:

The Resource

Federal Regulation of

Conservation and Recovery Act

The basic framework for a comprehensivenational regulatory program for the manage-ment of hazardous waste from generation tofinal disposal was established by Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Actof 1976 (RCRA).1 This “cradle-to-grave” systemconsists of a minimum Federal program withthe following major components:

IPublic Law 94-580, 90 Stat. 2795, Oct. 21, 1976, as amendedby Public Law 95-609,92 Stat. 3081, Nov. 8, 1978, the Solid WasteDisposal Act Amendments of 1980, Public Law 96-48294, Stat.2334, Oct. 21, 1980, and The Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980,Public Law 96-463, 94 Stat. 2055, Oct. 15, 1980. (Codified at 42U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). Public Law 96482 changed the title of RCRAto the Solid Waste Disposal Act. (In 1976, RCRA completelyamended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, Public Law89-272, 79 Stat. 997 (1965).) In this report, the Solid WasteDisposal Act will be referred to as RCRA in keeping with com-mon usage.

in them. However, States cannot determinewhich, if any, of their nominated sites willbe cleaned up and when the cleanup will oc-cur, This uncertainty makes it difficult forStates to plan their own cleanup efforts andto arrange for financing of the required Statecontribution for Superfund actions. Accord-ing to some State officials, proposed reme-dial actions at some National Priority Listsites have not been taken because the Statesinvolved could not provide the required10-percent share.

● State responses to perceived inadequaciesof Federal program.—States are moving tomore stringent requirements such as: limitedbans on landfills, requirements for consid-eration of the use of feasible alternativetechnologies before approval of landfilling,imposition of hazardous waste fees andtaxes, and establishment of strict liabilitystandards for facility operators and gener-ators for the consequences of hazardouswaste activities. Many of these State actionswere taken in response to the delays andperceived inadequacies in requirements ofthe Federal program.

Hazardous Waste Management• identification and listing of hazardous

waste;● a national manifest system for tracking

wastes;● standards for hazardous waste manage-

ment treatment, storage, and disposal facil-ities; and

● a permit system for treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities.

All hazardous waste activities would be sub-ject to the Federal program, however, RCRAalso provided for a State to exercise its primaryadministration and enforcement authority overhazardous waste in lieu of Federal regulationprovided that the State program was as strin-gent, comprehensive, and effective as theFederal requirements.

Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 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 thatStates which, for economic reasons, mightotherwise decide to be dumping grounds forhazardous wastes will not attract businessesfrom States with environmentally sound laws.

The House Report added:

The committee believes that Federal mini-mum standards are necessary if the hazardouswaste problem is to be understood and solu-tions are to be found. Waiting for States tosolve this problem without Federal assistanceis not likely since each State would take a dif-ferent approach 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 conferencecommittee report characterized the bill as“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 itscharacteristics and to develop a comprehen-sive system for the control of hazardous wastemanagement and disposal. As additional mech-anisms for responding to hazardous wasteproblems, Congress required maximum publicparticipation in the process and provided ac-cess to courts for review of rulemaking andagency enforcement activities. RCRA includesan 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 overregulation of some substances. TheRCRA scheme was sufficiently flexible to allowcontinued tailoring or fine tuning of the basicstructure once it was established.

Despite the simplicity of RCRA’S approach,devising and implementing an effective andtimely 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-tributes: 4

1. A minimum Federal regulatory programwould control and define the universe ofregulated 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.The program would receive adequatefunding through Federal assistance toStates (and other mechanisms).Permitting and enforcement responsi-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-nancial responsibility of those partiesengaging in hazardous waste activities andwould end the system of anonymousdumpers and unmarked, unrecorded sites.The comprehensive regulatory systemwould force internalization of the truecosts of hazardous waste disposal andeventually would assure that hazardouswastes 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 ofRCRA. In the more than 6 years since passageof RCRA, in 1976, implementation of the actthrough required rulemaking by EPA has beenslow. 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 activitieswas 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 institutional framework has been estab-lished by which most existing and new facil-ities can be permitted, and State programs canreceive final authorization to operate in lieu ofthe Federal program, According to EPA, fullimplementation of RCRA through issuanceof detailed technical standards, permitting ofall existing facilities, and final approval ofState programs likely will take an additional5 to 7 years.

Identification and Classification ofHazardous Waste–The Trigger

Hazardous waste enters the system at thepoint at which it is generated. Under EPArules, 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 Cregulatory 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-mability, corrosiveness, and other hazardouscharacteristic s.” Using the characteristics andlisting promulgated based on theses criteria,EPA is to define thewaste to be regulated

Exclusions FromSolid Waste and

universe of hazardous(see table 51).

the Definitions ofHazardous Waste

RCRA excludes from this definition of solidwaste certain materials that are regulatedunder 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 has 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 ofhazardous waste are: materials in domesticsewage and irrigation return flows, industrialpoint source discharges permitted under CWA,and source, special nuclear, or byproduct mate-rial defined under the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended.

EPA has further interpreted the meaning ofsolid waste for purposes of hazardous wasteregulation as a material that:

• is discarded, or being stored, or physically,chemically, or biologically treated beforebeing discarded; or

● has served its original intended use and issometimes discarded; or

● is a mining or manufacturing byproductand is sometimes discarded.8

’40 CFR 261 (1982].


The heart of EPA’s regulatory definition is thatthe material 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 ofsolid waste excludes primary and intermediateindustrial, 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 recoveringusable 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,

The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)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 mineralmining 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 waste, 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 use of natural resources, and 8) current and potential 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 ofEPA’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 drilling fluids depositedthere that are suspected of containing hazard-ous substances. The temporary exclusion fordrilling 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 statutory provi-sions exclude certain 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:

●

●

●

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 characteristicsfor 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:● solid or dissolved materials i n domestic sewage;● 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

● source, special nuclear, or byproduct material definedunder the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Exclusions by rule from the definition of solid waste:● statutory exclusions above;. waste burned as fuel for purposes of recovering usable

energy; and● in-situ mining wastes not removed from the ground,

Temporary statutory exclusions from the definitionof hazardous waste:● 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;

● fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gasemission control waste generated primarily from combus-tion of coal or other fossil fuels;

● 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

● cement kiIn dust waste.

Solid wastes excluded from the definition ofhazardous wastes in EPA regulations:●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

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 criteria to be used toidentify the characteristics of hazardous waste.A waste which exhibits any of these charac-teristics will be considered as a regulatedhazardous 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 ofthe regulated community or 2) of being reason-ably detected by generators of solid wastethrough their own knowledge of their wastestream. Using these critieria, EPA identifiedfour characteristics:

●

●

●

●

ignitibility—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 certaintoxic 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 characteristic.

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 characteristics for identifying hazard-ous wastes because EPA considers that reli-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):

● liquid with a flash point below 60° C (140° F);● nonliquid capable under standard temperature and

pressure of causing fire through friction, absorption ofmoisture, or spontaneous chemical changes, and, whenignited, burns so vigorously and persistently that itcreates a hazard;

● 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

● 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):

●

●

●

●

●

●

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; ora 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 concentrationContaminant (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 exhibiting these characteristics,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 specifiedcharacteristics by testing a “representativesample” 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-stituents.

Unlike mixtures containing listed 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 ofhazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity,reactivity, or EP toxicity); or

● has been found to be fal al in humans inlow doses or, in the absence of humandata, has been shown to be dangerous inanimal studies; or is otherwise capable ofcausing or significantly contributing to anincrease in serious irreversible, or in-capacitating reversible, illness (such wasteis designated “acute hazardous waste”);or

● contains any of the toxic constituentslisted in Part 261, Appendix VIII whichhave been shown in scientific studies tohave toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, orteratogenic effects on human or other lifeforms, unless it is determined that thewaste cannot pose a hazard when improp-


erly managed. This class of waste is des-ignated “toxic waste. ”

Based on these criteria and available scien-tific and technical information, in May 1980,EPA published three generic lists of wastes thatare considered to be hazardous and subject toRCRA Subtitle C regulation:

1.

2.

3.

hazardous waste from nonspecific sources(40 CFR 261,31);hazardous waste from specific sources (40CFR 261.32); anddiscarded commercial chemical products,off-specification species, containers, andspill residues thereof (40 CFR 261.33). Thediscarded commercial chemical productslist is further divided into wastes desig-nated as toxic wastes (40 CFR 261,33(f))and as acutely hazardous wastes (40 CFR261.33(e)).

Any listed waste is regulated unless it isdelisted either through removal of the listingof the generic waste or of the specific wastefrom a particular facility in response to a peti-titon for regulatory amendment.

Delisting of Hazardous Wastell

Because the lists of hazardous waste includea broad range, it may subject some wastes orindividual generators to regulation in cir-cumstances when their wastes do not pose athreat to human health or the environmenteven when improperly managed. To deal withthe potential for “overregulation,” frequentlyinherent in precautionary health and safetyregulatory schemes involving complex scien-tific and technical issues, EPA has providedan “escape hatch” through the delisting proc-ess.

Delisting is accomplished by petitioning fora regulatory amendment as authorized undersection 7004 of RCRA. A delisting petition asa rulemaking procedure is subject to require-ments for public notice and comment. Delist-ing petitions generally fall into one of twocategories, One type of petition seeks a deter-mination that a listed waste from a particular

1140 cF’R 260.20 and 260.22 (1982).

generator is not hazardous by demonstratingthat this specific waste under its individual cir-cumstances does not meet any of the criteriathat caused the waste to be listed generically.If the petition is granted, waste from thatgenerator only is no longer considered as listedhazardous waste. The second type of petitionseeks to remove a listed waste from the haz-ardous waste lists by demonstrating that EPAerred in its original generic listing and that thewaste in fact does not meet any of the criteriafor listing. If a generic delisting petition isgranted, the waste is no longer listed hazardouswaste. The delisting provision allows consid-eration of the variations in individual wastestreams resulting from differences in raw ma-terials, industrial process technologies, andother factors. It provides an incentive for somefirms to modify their processes or products sothat their wastes are not classified as hazard-ous wastes. By September 30, 1982, over 200delisting petitions had been submitted to EPAand were under review.

EPA rules provide for the granting of a tem-porary exclusion based on a finding of sub-stantial likelihood that a delisting petition willultimately be granted. Temporary exclusionscan be issued without advance public noticeor opportunity for comment, however, EPAretains an opportunity to reconsider its deci-sion in the future based on new informationreceived in response to request for commentspublished when the temporary exclusion isgranted. Several environmental groups havecriticized granting a temporary exclusion with-out the procedural safeguards of public noticeand comment. These groups contend that tem-porary exclusions lifting the requirements forproper management and tracking of the wastecould result in inadequate protection of healthand the environment, during the interim beforea final determination is made, if more detailedreview in response to public comment indi-cated that the waste was properly listed as haz-ardous. On several occasions, EPA has grantedsuch temporary exclusions without prior op-portunity for public comment.12 In some cases— . - .

lzsee, for examp]e, temporary exclusions at 47 F. R. 52,667,Nov. 22, 1982,


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 wasteregulation. The facility must continue to ana-lyze its solid waste, and if it exhibits one of thefour characteristics of hazardous waste or ifit later includes a listed waste, the waste is sub-ject to subtitle C regulations. Generators havethe burden of demonstrating that their wasteis not hazardous because under RCRA they areresponsible for determining whether theirwastes 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 listing and delistingprocesses, 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 addsubstances 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 CertainCategories 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 its enforcement authority where neces-sary to protect human health or the environ-ment,

Small Quantity Generator Exemption

EPA has exempted certain small quantitygenerators from the standards generally im-posed on hazardous waste generators. Thesesmall generators are exempted from the noti-fication, recordkeeping, reporting require-ments, and from the manifest system. As a con-sequence of this exemption, unknown quan-tities of hazardous waste exit the regulateduniverse 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, would far outstrip the lim-ited Agency 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 amountof hazardous waste each month. The smallquantity limits are:

● no more than 1 kilogram per month(kg/me) for acutely hazardous waste,

● no more than 100 kg/mo of residues or con-taminated soils, water, or other debrisresulting from the cleanup of any spill ofany acutely hazardous waste; or

● no more 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, subpart C (1982). Many States have

been more restrictive than EPA in granting exemptions for someof the small quantity generators. In some States, small quantity

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 ● 277

In addition, the generator must either treat orstore the hazardous waste in an onsite facilityor ensure delivery to an approved offsitestorage, treatment, or disposal facility. This off-site facility must be a facility that has interimstatus or is permitted under the Federal RCRAprogram or an authorized State program, aState-approved municipal or industrial 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 ofthe characteristics 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 reclaimed 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-ing listed hazardous wastes, and sludges,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 theyare:

●

●

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

● spent pickle liquor reused in wastewatertreatment in a National Pollutant Dis-charge Elimination System (NPDES) per-mitted facility or that is be ing stored ort 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:

●

●

●

If a

it has held a hazardous waste that is a com-pressed gas, but the pressure in the con-tainer now approaches atmospheric; orit has held an acutely hazardous commer-cial chemical, but has since been triple-rinsed with an appropriate solvent orcleaned by some other means shown toachieve equivalent removal; orit has held any other type of hazardouswaste, but all 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 iner.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 toHazardous Waste Generators, Transporters, and

Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities

Notification

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 thedate EPA issues rules defining hazardouswaste (i.e., by Aug. 19, 1980). The generation,transportation, treatment, storage, or disposalof hazardous waste after that date is illegal ifthe 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 later exceeded the permissible 1,000kg/mo level, generators 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 bemanifested; the manifest must accompanythe waste and identify the waste; specify itsquantity, origin, and destination; and theidentity of the transporter. The manifestallows tracking of the waste for enforcement.The manifest requirement also works to dis-courage the practices that produced midnightdumping and orphan dump sites. Addition-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 thepossibility of having to carry a differentmanifest 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 ofuniformity, EPA has proposed, but not yetfinalized, a national manifest form. 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 it is, thegenerator must meet notification and reportingrequirements, prepare a manifest for shippingwaste offsite, and properly pack and label thewaste for shipment. Generator activities arenot, 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 at, an appropriate facility.19

EPA regulations define a generator as:

. . . any person, by site, whose act or processproduced hazardous waste 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 frombeing 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 toissue regulations for transporters which in-clude requirements for recordkeeping, com-pliance with the manifest system, transporta-tion 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, but they must obtain identificationnumbers 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 (orthose issued under an approved State pro-gram), regulations issued by the Departmentof Transportation (DOT) under the HazardousMaterials Transportation Act24 (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-taining an EPA identification number andcomplying with the manifest system, TheRCRA 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 exclusionfrom 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 for obtaining a RCRA storage facilitypermit.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 setting 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:

● maintenance of records of all hazardouswastes handled by the facility and of treat-ment, storage, or disposal practices used;

Z140 CFR 262.34 (1982).2242 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,


●

●

●

●

●

●

reporting, monitoring, inspections, andcompliance with the manifest system;operating methods, techniques, and prac-tices for treating, storing, or disposing ofhazardous wastes;location, design, and construction of thefacility;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;andcompliance with the requirements ofRCRA section 3005 relating to permits forfacilities.

Performance standards commonly are usedto establish the level of effectiveness that apollution control technology or managerialpractice 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 healthand the environment” from the impacts of haz-ardous waste management activities. In theachievement of this overall goal, section 3004authorizes the use of both the typical perform-ance standard and the more specific designstandard in setting detailed facility 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 biologicalcharacter 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 from most facility standards. Thecleanup of an accidental spill of hazardousmaterial may also fall within the definition oftreatment and thus trigger the regulatory re-quirements.

A hazardous waste storage facility 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 wasteonsite for up to 90 days, and transporters mayhold hazardous waste for up to 10 days, with-out becoming subject to the storage facilitystandards and permit requirements.

A facility operator is engaged in disposal ac-tivities under EPA rules if he engages in:

, , . the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,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 asan 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 ofsection 3004 to establish performance stand-ards for hazardous waste TSDFS has been aprocess characterized by delay, false starts, fre-quent policy reversals, and litigation.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 May19, 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 forpermitted hazardous waste facilities werepublished 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 land

disposal 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 part267).—Because RCRA requires that issuance ofa permit before the construction and operationof new hazardous waste facilities, the delaysencountered in establishing final permittingstandards threatened to stop construction ofadditional waste treatment and disposal ca-pacity and the development of new, safer wastemanagement technologies. EPA issued a set oftemporary interim standards for permittingnew 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 administrative 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 Amendments of 1980, Public Law96-482, 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:● Notify EPA of hazardous waste activities.● Obtain EPA identification number.Ž Submit Part A permit application.Ž File annual or other periodic reports required by EPA.● 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.● Notify new owner in writing of duty to comply with RCRA

regulations.● 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).● 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.● Inspections and monitoring:

—Prepare and follow written operator’s inspectionschedule describing types of problems to be detected,and frequency of inspection;

—Inspect for spil ls at least daily; fol low specif ictechnology inspection and monitoring requirementsunder technical standards; and

—Maintain record of inspection results for 3 years.● Ground 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.

● Conduct 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.

● 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 certif 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 ifmonitoring of indicator parameters would showstatistically significant changes in water quality.

● 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.

● 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.

● 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 equipmentwill 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

●

●

●

�

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 facilities, the interim status standardswere intended by EPA to be “capable of beinginterpreted and applied in a straightforwardmanner without substantial expenditures 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 significantimmediate expenses, and these were temperedsomewhat by economies of scale enjoyed bylarger facilities,)

Another significant feature of the interimstatus standards is that they are largely self-executing. That is , the facil i ty owner oroperator is responsible for being aware of, in-terpreting, and assuring compliance with theregulations. EPA and the States will conductperiodic inspections to determine if a facilityis in compliance. Adhering to the interim statusstandards will not insulate a facility from hav-ing to comply with administrative 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 facil i ty wil l use toguarantee coverage of closure costs.

● 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 ofthe facility poses a threat to human health orthe environment.

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 facility. The facility programmust be in place by November 19, 1981. Theprogram must be continued throughout the lifeof the facility and during the post-closureperiod 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 statisticallysignificant amount of waste from the facilityto the uppermost aquifer. The location, depth,and number of wells must be sufficient to yieldrepresentative measures of background waterquality and to detect contamination.

Initial background levels for all monitoringwells 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-tablished in the National Interim PrimaryDrinking Water Standards under the SafeDrinking Water Act regulationsss, groundwater quality indicator parameters* and fourground water contamination indicator param-eters. * * These results are to be reported 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 enteredground 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 Administrator.within an additional 15 days, the facility mustsubmit its ground water quality 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 monitorunder the assessment program at least quarter-

‘!% 40 ~FR Part 265, App. III (1982).“Chloride, iron, manganese, phenols, sodium, sulfate.● *Specific conductance, pH, total organic carbon, and total

organic halogen.

ly until closure. Unlike the standards for per-mitting land disposal facilities, the interimstatus standards do not require implementa-tion of corrective action, only continued mon-itoring of the contamination. However, EPAmay accelerate the call up of the facility’s partB 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 monitoringrequirements can be waived under certaincircumstances. 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 watersupply wells, ” the facility need not implementa 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 ifthe 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 operatorand are not reported to EPA or the State.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 ofRCRA regulations.

The facility may implement an alternativeground water monitoring system other than theone specified in the regulations if the requiredground water indicator parameters wouldshow 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 apermit is issued must comply with ISS closureand post-closure 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 activities.

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 ofhazardous 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-istrator for certain conditions, Finally, 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 closure. The plan must at 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 closure, the operatormust 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 inflation) 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,● a financial assets test, or● an insurance policy.

The same mechanisms can be used to dem-onstrate financial responsibility for 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 financialresponsibility. The interim status standardsalso impose liability 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 facilities must carry additional in-surance of at least $3 million per occurrenceand $6 million 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 annualaggregate (exclusive of legal fees) .37

variations in these requirements are allowedto provide for use of State insurance require-ments in States where Federal program re-

37~ 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 status landfills are subject to thegeneral facility standards, some additionaltechnical standards for ground water monitor-ing, financial responsibility, and closure andpost-closure care. Basically, the interim stand-ards are directed at controlling 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 (ifnecessary). Ignitable and reactive wastes mustbe treated or mixed before landfilling so thatthey no longer meet ignitable or reactive wastecharacteristics,

Specific requirements are imposed to limitthe disposal of liquids in landfills that couldform 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:

● containerized liquid Ignitable wastes untilMay 26, 1982, if they were protected from

Ch. 7–The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 287

●

●

●

materials or conditions that would causethem to ignite:38

labpacks (overpacked metal drums holdingsmaller nonleaking containers of hazard-ous waste and absorbent material to ab-sorb any leaks) as long as certain restric-tions on ignitable, reactive, and incompati-ble wastes are met:39

liquid containerized waste that is treatedor stabilized so that free liquids are nolonger present (e.g., absorbent material isadded to the drum); andcontainers holding free liquids if theliquids are removed from the container orabsorbent material is added before land-filling so that free liquids do not remain.

The July 1982 land disposal regulations mod-ified the interim status standards applicable tolandfills to make them consistent and conform-ing with final technical standards for permit-ting, Further provisions were added to land-filling of containerized liquid waste to reducethe likelihood of subsidence and leading by re-qui r ing the f i l l ing o f a conta iner wi th90-percent absorbent solid material or crush-ing, shredding, or “similarly reducing” the con-tainer in volume before landfilling.

The function and design of the final landfillcover must be specified in the closure and post-closure plans. Also, the plan must include strat-egies to: control surface water infiltration andmigration of pollutants from the facility andprevent erosion; maintain the final cover; mon-itor leachate and gas control systems; maintainand protect surveying benchmarks; and restrictaccess to the facility.

Interim Status Standards for Incinerators

The interim status standards for incineratorsimpose general operating requirements aimedat reducing the potential hazards involved. Nospecial technical performance or design stand-ards were imposed. Additional analysis of thewastes to be incinerated is required to deter-mine their heating value, halogen content, sul-fur content, and concentrations of lead and

SEAT F.R. B,SOT, Feb. 25, 1982, 40 CFR 265.312 (b).3946 F.R. 56,592, NOV. 17, 1981, 40 CFR 265.316.

mercury. The incinerator must be operating atsteady state conditions before waste is added.The existing combustion and emission controlinstruments must be checked every 15 minutes.Outside stack gases must be visually inspectedevery hour, and the incinerator and associatedequipment must be inspected daily. At closure,all wastes and residues must be removed fromthe facility. Hazardous waste residues must besent to an approved facility. (Note: many in-cinerators also qualify as treatment and storagefacilities because they accumulate or treatwastes before incineration and must complywith those standards as well.)

EPA has made two significant exemptionsto the interim status standards for incinerators.Boilers that burn hazardous waste to recoverenergy are currently excluded from the defini-tion of disposal by incineration and are not sub-ject to any standards under Subtitle C of RCRA.A limited exemption from interim status stand-ards is granted to incinerators that burn wastethat is considered hazardous solely because itis corrosive or ignitable, or both, or waste thatis listed because it possesses certain reactivi-ty characteristics (described in 40 CFR 261.23(a)(l),(2),(3),(6),(7), or (8)) and will not be burnedwhen other hazardous wastes are present inthe combustion zone.

The subpart O standards for additional wasteanalysis, monitoring, and inspection are not re-quired of these incinerators if the operatordemonstrates in writing that such ignitable,corrosive, or reactive waste would not rea-sonably be expected to contain any of the Ap-pendix VIII toxic constituents. The writtendemonstration must be maintained at the facili-ty and will be reviewed when the facility is per-mitted. These special incinerators, however,must comply with the general facility interimstatus standards including reporting, record-keeping, initial waste analysis, facility opera-tion and inspection, compliance with the mani-fest system and financial responsibility, andcompliance with the special standards for in-cinerator closure.

The interim status standards for incineratorswere amended in January 1981 and June 1982


to make them conform with changes adoptedfor permanent program permitting standards.

Interim Status Standards for Surface Impoundments

Regulations imposing operating require-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 offreeboar 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 andassociated equipment must be inspected week-ly for leaks or deterioration. Surface impound-ments must comply with the ground watermonitoring regulations for interim statusfacilities.

At closure, all wastes, residues, and con-taminated soils must be removed from the fa-cility 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 PermittingHazardous Waste TSDFS

The interim status standards govern facilityoperation until a permit is issued. Before afacility is issued a final permit, it undergoesa 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 theinterim status requirements. For example,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 theywill 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 situations 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 training, 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 donot include free liquids if the storage area is designedso that liquids cannot come in contact with containers.

Containers must be closed except when adding orremoving 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 permitlimits 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, airflow, 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 forfacilities 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 water 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

●

●

If

●

●

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 implementedwhenever hazardous constituents are detected at the com-pliance point and to be carried out during a specified com-pliance 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:

● A list of the hazardous constituents to be monitored; and● 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

●

●

●

If

●

●

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 compliancemonitoring indicates that the ground water protectionstandard is exceeded and to be continued unitl the levelsof hazardous constituents are reduced below their respec-tive 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 in10()-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 disposalfacilities (landfills, surface impoundments,waste piles, and land treatment units). EPA hasadopted general performance standards forthese facilities that will be converted intospecific 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 ofthese standards are addressed in part III of thischapter.

Storage Facilities

The standards applicable to surface storagefacilities (tanks and containers)* and theirrelated treatment operations focus on the con-tainment 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 regulations issued in January 1981originally included waste piles and surface storageimpoundments—these provisions were 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-plying appropriate industrial design stand-aras. 41 Where primary containment devices areeasily damaged or are impractical to inspect,a secondary containment system is also 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 limited 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 minimumremoval 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-erating conditions, and provision must 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 installnecessary monitoring equipment and emis-sions controls. Limited exemptions for 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 either does notcontain or contains very small concentrationsof Appendix VIII hazardous constituents,

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 opportunitiesfor variances when alternative designs couldachieve equivalent environmental protection.These variances included use of risk assess-ment.) The July 1982 performance standardsrely on a site-specific approach allowingspecific measures for the protection of groundwater and the environment to be developedduring the permitting process. Final regula-tions governing land disposal facilities werepromulgated on July 26, 1982, and became ef-fective on January 26, 1983, 6 months later.43

These regulations are discussed in part 111 ofthis chapter and summarized in tables 55 and56.

Facility Permitting

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 status 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 initial permit application,which includes information on the facil-ity location, design capacity, types andquantities 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 besubmitted to demonstrate compliance withthe part 264 general facility 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 first 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 Administratormay 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-


plication responding to all significant com-ments. Appeals may be made within 30 days.State procedures may differ slightly, but allState procedures must include adequate oppor-tunities for public participation.

Final permits generally will be issued for afixed term not exceeding 10 years. The facili-ty operation will be reviewed at the end of thepermit term, before renewing the permit. (Amodification of the permit period from 10 yearsto the lifetime of the facility is under considera-tion by EPA.) A facility must operate under apermit throughout its active life and any post-closure period as well as during any compli-ance period required of the facility. The EPARegional Administrator can review a permitat any time to determine whether it should bemodified, revoked, reissued, or terminated.

EPA will grant RCRA permits-by-rule to cer-tain hazardous waste facilities that are per-mitted under other Federal laws provided thatthey meet special RCRA conditions.44 Eligiblefacilities include barges or vessels used forocean disposal of hazardous waste (MarineProtection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act),underground injection wells (SDWA), and pub-licly operated treatment works (CWA).

To simplify the permit application and re-view process and to avoid duplicative re-quirements, EPA adopted the consolidated per-mit regulations. These provisions allow an ap-plicant to submit information required for sev-eral different permits on a single standardizedform. The rules also establish a uniform per-mit review and approval process applicable toall permit applications under the followingprograms:

● the Hazardous Waste Management Pro-gram under RCRA;

● the Underground Injection Control Pro-gram under SDWA;

● the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-tion System under CWA; and

● the Prevention of Significant DeteriorationProgram under CAA, where this programis operated by EPA.

%0 CFR 122.26 (1982).

Imminent Hazard and Enforcement Provisions

RCRA provides EPA with a variety of mech-anisms to measure and enforce compliancewith the Federal program requirements and totake necessary action to mitigate threats tohuman health and the environment from haz-ardous waste management activities.

Section 3007 of the act authorizes any EPAemployee (or representative, such as a contrac-tor) or an employee of a State with an approvedprogram, to inspect at reasonable times thepremises of any generator, transporter, or fa-cility operator (including any person who wasengaged in such activities in the past).45 Accessto records and property relating to hazardouswaste is also required for inspection purposes.Failure to cooperate with an inspection maysubject the party to enforcement penalties. Thisinspection authority is not ‘Limited to hazardouswaste as defined in RCRA regulations, but mayalso be used whenever EPA has reason to be-lieve that the material involved may be hazard-ous under the broad statutory definition. (Gen-erators or facilities that are currently excludedor exempted from RCRA regulations are sub-ject to EPA’s inspection authority to determineif they are properly claiming such exclusionor if a hazard exists.)

Section 3013 is an important information-gathering tool added by the 1980 amend-ments.48 Section 3013 of the act authorizes EPAto issue an administrative order requiring sitemonitoring, assessment, and reporting. If EPAbelieves that hazardous waste on the site maypose a substantial hazard to health or the en-vironment, EPA may order the past or presentowner or operator of an active or inactive haz-ardous waste facility to implement a monitor-ing and testing program. EPA has invoked thisprovision on several recent occasions for facil-ities that have violated hazardous waste rulespossibly resulting in environmental contami-nation.

RCRA provides EPA with a range of admin-istrative and judicial enforcement options

4542 us-c. 6927,

’42 U.S.C. 6934.

Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 295

and civil and criminal penalties that may beused against persons who violate RCRA, itsimplementing regulations, or permit condi-tions. The civil enforcement options includeissuance of administrative compliance ordersrequiring immediate action or action accordingto 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 imposition of civil penaltiesof $25,000 for every day of violation.47

RCRA imposes criminal sanctions for viola-tion of administrative or judicial complianceorders. It is a Federal criminal offense for anyperson knowingly:

1.

2.

3.

4.

to transport a hazardous waste to anunpermitted facility;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, orconceal any record required to be main-tained under RCRA regulations. 48

Conviction of these knowing violations canresult in fines of up to $25,000 or $50,000 perday and imprisonment of 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 “knowingendangerment” exists if a person violates aRCRA requirement with the knowledge thatanother 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 oromitting material 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 Federal court for injunctive relief uponreceipt of evidence that the handling, storage,treatment, transportation, 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 totake any necessary action under the imminenthazard section, including the issuance of ad-ministrative orders, to protect public healthand the environment.

Citizen Suits.-Section 7002 of RCRA providesthat any person may initiate a citizen suitagainst any other person alleged to be in viola-tion of a permit, regulation, or provision ofRCRA whether or not Federal authorities havetaken action. 51 Before filing suit, the plaintiffmust give 60 days’ notice to EPA, the Statesinvolved, and the alleged violator. A citizen suitmay 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 of bringing 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 lawin 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 finalauthorization, 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;and second, Federal grants and technicalassistance for development and operation ofState 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 availability 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 ofState 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,and implementing regulations were finallyissued in May 1980.

Section 3006 provides for two types of pro-gram authorization: interim authorization andfinal authorization.

Interim authorization is available to Stateprograms 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-stantially 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 ofTSDF standards.

Phase I Interim Authorization,–States may applyfor phase I approval to operate State programrequirements for identification and listing ofhazardous waste, reporting, a manifest system,and preliminary standards for generators,transporters, and interim status 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-ting requirements, standards of general ap-plicability, and technical standards for dif-ferent types of TSDFS. Phase II approval isdivided according to “components” corre-sponding to the facility standards issued byEPA:

●

●

●

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 facilities based onEPA regulations issued January 23, 1981,54

andComponent C. —Permitting of land dis-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-stantially equivalent to the Federal programrequirements, and the State has an acceptableauthorization plan outlining what changes will

—5346 F.R. 2804. Note, the storage iaci]ity standards including

standards, for surface storage impoundments and waste piles,were modified and became part of component C land disposalfacilities 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 status 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 ofhazardous waste and for listing 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 characteristics 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-tain 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 Federal program must be in theState’s universe of waste.

2. The State program must have adequateregulatory authority to control generators,transporters, and operators of hazardouswaste TSDFS including provisions for requir-ing compliance with permitting standards,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 adequatefunding and personnel for administrationand 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 certain 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-zation. Under RCRA, the State must receivefinal authorization by January 26, 1985, or theFederal Government will 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 theFederal program requirements and to otherState 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 thatestablishment of the permanent Federal pro-gram was largely complete and that it wouldbegin to accept applications for final 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 authorization, 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 finalauthorization. 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 all thenecessary authority or regulations to operatean acceptable State regulatory program duringinterim authorization, EPA has initiated par-tial program authorization and cooperativeagreements.

Under partial authorization, EPA will ap-prove those portions of a State program thatmeet the minimum Federal requirements forsubstantial equivalency with the Federal pro-gram while EPA administers and enforces theremaining elements of the Federal program.For example, i f the State lacks adequateauthority under State law to require com-pliance with a manifest system, EPA willnevertheless 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 activities.

For States that cannot qualify for partial in-terim authorization, EPA has initiated a coop-erative arrangement that allows the States toadminister some functions of a hazardouswaste management system for EPA, while EPAadministers and enforces the remaining func-tions under the Federal program. These coop-erative 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 asatisfactory State program that can qualify forinterim and/or final authorization.

Final Authorization of State Programs

Once final authorization is granted, the Statehazardous waste regulatory program operatesin lieu of the Federal program. The Stateassumes full authority to administer and en-force the RCRA hazardous waste regulatorysystem. On authorization, EPA’s regulatoryand permitting responsibilities will largelycease. Thereafter, if EPA exercises its enforce-ment power, it will enforce compliance withState program and permit requirements, 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-cable in the State unless EPA revokes theState’s final authorization. EPA will initiallyretain some regulatory responsibility for thosewaste management technologies for whichFederal permitting standards have not beenissued and which cannot therefore be per-mitted under an approved State program,States can, however, regulate and permit thesefacilities under State law, As EPA furtherrefines 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 its 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-thority to require compliance with itsprogram.

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 protectionof human health and the environment as theFederal standards, The State program mustalso have adequate opportunities for publicparticipation in program development and inpermitting procedures.

EPA has announced that it will now acceptapplications for final authorization of Stateprograms. 56 Because RCRA requires a mini-mum period for review by EPA and publiccomment and hearing, EPA estimates that finalprogram authorization will take a minimum of6 months after submittal of a complete applica-tion. States must obtain final authorization bythe end of the interim authorization period. Ifthe 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 programapplication, EPA must operate the Federalprogram in that State. EPA and the Statemust complete program development, review,public participation, and program approvalwithin the next 2 years to meet EPA’s an-nounced goal of final authorization of 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 section3009, 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-ments. 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 oninterstate commerce, is an open question.This question will become more controver-sial as some States adopt considerably morestringent restrictions on hazardous waste ac-tivities, such as banning land disposal of cer-ta in recyc lab le or ex t remely dangerouswastes or imposing more difficult technicalrequirements on existing and new facilities.

51347 F. Il. 32,382, July 26, 1982.5742 U.S.C, 6929.


Superfund

Introduction

The Comprehensive Environmental Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980 (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 Governmentto respond directly in the event of chemicalspills and releases 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 inthe Response Trust Fund established underCERCLA reaches $900 million or a total of$1.38 billion has been collected, whichever oc-curs first. The total amount expected to beavailable in the Superfund trust fund is $1.6billion. 59

CERCLA also created a second fund, thePost-Closure Liability Trust Fund, to pay forpost-closure care, remedial action, and dam-ages from releases at 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 the total $1,6 billion, $1.38 billion will come from th e

Superfund tax and $0.22 billion from appropriated funds.

ities and which will remain in the facility afterclosure.

One of the most important provisions ofCERCLA 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 liability for cleanup 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 maypresent an imminent and substantial 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 imminently hazardous chemical sub-

stance or mixture under section 7 of the ToxicSubstances Control Act.

Response actions are not limited to releasesof 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, disease, behavioral ab-normalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physi-ological malfunctions (including malfunctionsin reproduction) or physical deformations, insuch organisms or their offspring.61

The definitions 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 reportablequantities 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 quantities have been set under section311(b)(4) of CWA.63 EPA is authorized to ad-just the initial reportable quantities, as ap-propriate, EPA may designate additional “haz-ardous substances” subject to the reporting re-quirements if release of such substances maypresent a substantial danger to the publichealth, welfare, or the environment, Failure toreport a release of a reportable quantity ispunishable by fine or imprisonment. To en-courage reporting, section 102(b) provides thatneither the notification nor any informationderived 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 false statement,

Notification of Inactive Waste Management Sites

Section 103 of CERCLA requires that the lo-cation of any facility 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-portation and selected a facility 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 ofsuch substances from the facility. EPA is tonotify a State of the existence of any such facili-ty in that State. Section 102 directs EPA toissue regulations specifying the types ofrecords to be maintained by the persons giv-ing notice. These records must be maintainedfor 50 years from enactment of CERCLA orfrom the date the record was established,whichever is later.

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:

●

●

●

permitted or interim status facilities underRCRA;federally permitted releases (as defined insec. 101(10) of CERCLA); 65

application or storage of the Federal Insec-ticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 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).


●

•

●

releases 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 alreadybeen reported to the NRC. (Continuous re-leases must be reported annually, and theNRC must be notified immediately of anys ta t i s t i ca l ly s ign i f i cant increases inquantity.)

Response Authority Under CERCLA

Section 104 of CERCLA establishes an ex-tremely broad Federal response mechanism todeal with releases or threatened releases ofhazardous substances into the environment.66

The section authorizes the President to takewhatever 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 orthreat of release 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 inconsumer 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 release orthreatened release of a hazardous substance,pollutant, or contaminant which presents animminent and substantial threat to humanhealth 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 threatto 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 agreementor contract with EPA to assure all futuremaintenance of the remedial response at thesite for the life of the response action, toassure the availability of adequate offsitetreatment, 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-ous substance was deposited, the requiredcontribution is 50 percent or more of the costsdepending on the degree of culpabil i ty.)CERCLA requires that any remedial actionsmust be consistent to the extent practicablewith the NCP.

Government action under section 104 ofCERCLA is not limited to instances when theoccurrence or threat of a release is known. Theact authorizes investigative actions, monitor-

Ch. 7— The Current Federal-state Hazardous Waste Program • 303

ing, testing, and surveys to de terminewhether a suspected release has occurred ormight occur. A release might be suspected onthe basis of an outbreak of illness or disease,or complaints of illness or disease that mightbe attributable to exposure to a hazardous sub-stance, pollutant, or contaminant. Section 104also authorizes expenditures for any additionalplanning, legal, fiscal, economic, engineering,architectural, or other studies or investigationsnecessary or appropriate to plan or direct re-sponse actions, or to pursue cost recovery andenforcement actions under section 107.

Abatement Orders

In addition to direct Government response,CERCLA also provides for administrative andjudicial abatement actions to compel cleanupby responsible parties. Section 106 authorizesEPA to issue administrative orders to ownersor operators of facilities or to other persons totake necessary action to abate an imminentand substantial threat caused by a release orthreatened release.70 These administrativeorders are enforceable in Federal court. Alter-natively, the Administrator may ask the Depart-ment of Justice to seek appropriate relief froma Federal court, such as an injunction againsta responsible party requiring cleanup or per-formance of necessary investigations, or sup-plying alternate drinking water supplies to theaffected communities. Fines of $5,OOO per daycan be assessed for violations of abatementorders. Additionally, the Government may seekpunitive damages of three times the cleanupcosts under a section 107 cost recovery actionif a responsible party does not comply with anabatement order.

Cost Recovery Actions

Under section 107 of CERCLA, the Govern-ment may sue to recover the costs of remedialaction, damages for harm to natural resources,and administrative costs.71 In appropriatecases, the Government may sue for punitive

TO(3A stat, 2780; 42 U.S. ~. gGOG.71gA Stat, 2781; 42 U.S. C. ‘607.

damages from owners and operators of facil-ities, transporters, generators, site owners, andother responsible parties.

It is generally agreed that CERCLA imposess t r i c t l i ab i l i ty in cos t recovery ac t ions .CERCLA specifies that it imposes the samestandard of liability as section 311 of CWA.Courts have held that section 311 imposes strictliability and joint and several liability. A majorissue in cost-recovery actions is the extent towhich CERCLA may impose joint and severalliability for remedial action costs, CERCLA issilent on the issue. Language that would haveexpressly applied the doctrine of joint andseveral liability to Superfund actions wasdropped as part of the compromise to pass thelegislation. Congress left the issue to be re-solved by the courts applying common lawtheories. EPA and the Department of Justicehave taken the position that joint and severalliability is available under statutory and com-mon law principles in Superfund actions,

A second issue is the degree of contributionavailable from others to responsible partieswho have been held liable. This issue has notyet been litigated to conclusion and is expectedto become increasingly prominent as Federaland State enforcement actions proceed.

Initial settlements negotiated between theFederal Government for several interim Na-tional Priority List sites have involved manyresponsible parties, The potential availabilityof joint and several liability may have promptedmany of these parties to settle. Section 107 canalso be used prospectively to seek advance pay-ment for cleanup from parties who contributedto the problem at a particular site. Before fil-ing suit, notices of the planned section 106 and107 actions are usually sent by Federal enforce-ment officials to potentially responsible partiesin an attempt to encourage the parties to entersettlement negotiations with EPA to achievesite cleanup. This advance notice and the op-portunity for negotiations are not required. Asan incentive to negotiate, EPA might agree notto proceed further against the settling partiesfor additional site cleanup costs in appropriatecases.


The National Contingency Plan

The principal mechanism for implementingthe Government response under CERCLA andfor determining the extent of liability under thecost-recovery provisions of section 107 is theNCP. 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 Therevised 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 onJuly 16, 1982.73

NCP is intended to provide a comprehensiveframework for the national response programfor hazardous substance spills and releases.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,analyzing costs, and determining the ap-propriate remedy. The plan should specify ap-propriate roles for Federal and State agenciesand 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 appropriate 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.–Congressdirected EPA to develop and apply criteria forestablishing priorities among sites for responseactions based on their relative degree of riskor 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:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

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 potential for direct human contact;the potential for destruction of sensitiveecosystems;State preparedness to assure State costsand responsibility; andother appropriate 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-tain the final NPL because more time wasneeded 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 ofNCP. (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 ofthe risk presented by each release. The scorefor each release is then used with other con-siderations in determining whether a site isplaced on the NPL.

The States apply the HRS in submitting theirrecommended 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 sites than is generally easilyavailable, Although the system does allow theuse of standardized factors in the absence ofdetailed site information, if too many data re-quirements are missing, the site cannot beranked. No Federal funds are currently avail-able for States to obtain this information.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 governmentswill be reimbursed by Superfund for theirreasonable response costs consistent with theNCP, These contracts will be subject to theabove 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 Underthe 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-stantial 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, sequential 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 activities.

Phase l–Site Discovery and Notification.–Arelease or threatened release is reported to

“Remarks of William N, Hedeman, Director, EPA Office ofEmergency 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 NotificationPossible 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 AssessmentSite 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 ActionRapid 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 ResponseConduct 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.

●

●

●

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 Statecost-share.Planned removal action completed when serious risk is

Appropriate level of response:. . . - . -. .

● Immediate removal —emergency threat to health or theenvironment (see Phase Ill).

● Planned removal —short-term, but not emergency re-sponse (see Phase V).

● Site recommended for National Priority List remedialaction (see Phase VI).

● No further action/evaluation recommended.

Phase V: Planned RemovalPlanned removal is authorized where:

● 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 afacility 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 ActionsResponses 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 remedyis. 1) the lowest cost remedial alternative that is techno-logically feasible and reliable and which effectively mini-mizes or mitigates danger to or provides adequate protec-tion of public health, we/fare and environment. Remedialactions include:1. Infitial remedial measures—those measures which

should 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.● Perform remedial investigation to determine nature and

extent 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 migrationoffsite; 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 DocumentationResponse 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-Preliminary 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 appropriate response, and whether 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 arecommendation that no further action betaken at the site.

Phase 111–immediate Removal.—Short-term emer-gency response action is taken to prevent ormitigate immediate and significant risk ofharm to human life, health, or the environment,Circumstances under which immediate remov-al action may be indicated include threats of:

Ac t i on

●

●

—“detailed analysis’’—conduct detailed “feasibility”study of limited number of alternatives selected afterinitial 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,

● human, animal, or food-chain exposure toacutely toxic substances;

● contamination of drinking water supplies;● fire or explosion; or● similarly acute situations,

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 limit of $1 million 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 havebeen 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 ofthe evaluation are used to decide whether thesite is a candidate for immediate removal orplanned removal, or should be added to theNPL 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 beundertaken. Planned removals are contem-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-ministrative authority over Federal grants.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 threatto public health and safety exists and whetherplanned removal actions are appropriate.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 million has been spent,whichever occurs first. Planned removal ac-tions can exceed the 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 ofhazardous substances into the environment. Adetailed evaluation of the proposed appro-priate remedial action and the alternatives,including relative 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 of these options or a “no action”response.

Initial 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 beappropriate if a substantial concentration ofsubstances remains onsite and existing barriersare inadequate to retard migration offsite.Source control remedial actions may includealternatives to contain the hazardous sub-stances where they are located or to eliminatepotential contamination by moving the sub-stances to a new location.

Offsite remedial action 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 actionsshould be taken. This assessment process forNPL sites is shown in figure 22. Scoping is thefirst step in deciding the type and extent ofremedial action 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 feasibility 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-pling, monitoring, and other information-gathering sufficient to determine the need forand the extent of proposed remedial action.

The lead agency then develops a l imi tednumber of alternatives for source controland/or offsite remedial actions depending onthe type of response identified as appropriate.One alternative may be “no action” whichcould be appropriate if the response actioncould 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 remedial action, 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:

● the cost of installing or implementing eachalternative 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 detailedanalysis will be conducted of the remainingalternatives; this analysis will include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5

refinement and specification of alter-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 constructability;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 alternative 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 whicheffectively 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 appropriate 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 ● 4

SOURCE” 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 thatpose a threat while leaving the hazardoussubstances at the location, some choices ofremedy may be controversial. The discre-tionary aspect of the remedial action decisionunder CERCLA and the requirement to balancethe need for cleanup or action at one siteagainst 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 clean?” issue. Superfund cleanups underthe NCP’S flexible standard of protection maynot result in removal of toxic substances fromthe site. Contaminated soils and ground watersneed not be restored to their original uncon-taminated condition, but only to a level thatdoes not pose a substantial 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 ofresponse action under the NCP is documenta-tion and cost recovery. All documentation onthe 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-stead of, or in addition to, fund-financedremedial 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. Injudging 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-balancing considerations requiredunder 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 anddecontamination) 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 ajudicially 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 settlement left nonsettling 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 million for soil and ground watercleanup .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-tion. EPA’s flexible approach calls for theleast costly technologically feasible alter-native that “effectively mitigates and mini-mizes damages to and provides adequate pro-tection of public health, welfare, or theenvironment. “ 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 explicitly requiring that environmentalstandards be used in determining the appro-priate 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 allow EPA to con-sider applicable standards in selecting the ap-propriate remedy. It must be noted, however,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 nwhich there are no clearly applicable stand-ards. For instance, acceptable levels of hazard-ous substances in soil are not established, andt 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 Waste Report, 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 othermedia , . ,

EPA cannot develop new standards for thehundreds of substances it will be confrontedwith in response actions. Not only is the re-quisite legal authority lacking in CERCLA, butsuch a task would also be enormous, costly,and time-consuming, and would unduly ham-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 sCERCLA’S pr imary mandate .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 concentration levels for contam-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 appropriate remedyalso 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 beeffective for controlling threats to humanhealth or the environment from a release ofhazardous substances, Several States have ex-pressed concern that EPA may select less ex-pensive, incomplete remedial actions thatleave 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 state-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 sites will qualify for fund-financed remedial action. This uncertaintymakes 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 of50 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, orSuperfund. 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 $220million in appropriations authorized ($44million 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-

’47 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 Commit-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 paymentsduring the month were $12.6 million. TotalEPA obligations from the fund from December1980 to September 30, 1982, were $221 mil-l ion. 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 financeresponse 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 importedfor 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 thetrust funds reaches $900 million on eitherSeptember 30, 1983, or September 30, 1984,and if the Secretary of the Treasury determines

~Hazardous Waste 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

$4.874.874.874.874.874.873.444.874,874.874.872.644.453.754.453.412.304.454.452.704.451,521.691.874.451.873.593.970.294.234,144.454.454.452.852.122.221,900.220,280.260.24

that the remaining unobligated balance in thefund will exceed $50 million on September300 of thefollowingy ear without collection offurther 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 authorizedactions and expenditures is extremely broadand includes not only activity at the site 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 certain claims arising under section304 of CWA. Additionally, the fund is specifi-cally authorized to pay for:88

●

●

●

the costs of assessing the amount of injuryor destruction to natural resources and ofthe governmental effort to restore or re-place natural resources injured or de-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-reachingliability for response costs and damages tonatural resources from releases of hazardoussubstances. 89 This liability 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 notbe 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:

●

●

●

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-sible parties may include: the owner oroperator of the facility from which there is arelease or threatened release, the persons whoowned or operated the facility at the time ofdisposal, any person who contracted or ar-ranged with another person for disposal ortreatment 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 ofCERCLA 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 responsibleparty 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 ofGod, 2) an act of war, 3) the act or omissionof a third party, or 4) any combination of theprevious three defenses. [n raising the thirdparty defense, the defendant must show thatthe third party was not his employee or agentor under a contractual relationship with thedefendant. The defendant must also show thathe “exercised due care” with respect to thehazardous 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.

Liabi l i ty L imitations.—CERCLA limits theamount 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 naturalresources.

The responsible party can be required to paythe full and total costs of response actions anddamages to natural resources without any lia-bility limitations if the:


●

●

●

●

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-cility as required by section 103(c) ofCERCLA.

Punitive damages of up to three times thecosts incurred by the Response Trust Fund canbe 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 furtherprovides 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 Theact, 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 section107 retains any cause of action for subrogationor otherwise as a result of such liability orrelease.

Recovery for Natural Resources Damage .—Section107(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 irretrievable commitment ofnatural resources in an environmental impactstatement or other comparable analysis; 2) suchimpact was authorized in the decision to grantthe permit or license; and 3) the facility op-erated in compliance with that permit orlicense. ”9l

The Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund

Under section 107(k) of CERCLA, the liabilityof an owner or operator of a qualified hazard-ous waste facility that has been permittedunder 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 oroperator demonstrates that:

●

●

the facility and the owner/operator hascompiled with RCRA provisions and reg-ulations regarding performance of thefacility 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 closure to demon-strate that there is not a substantial likeli-hood that any migration or release fromconfinement 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 after the facility owner or operatornotifies 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 under 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 site 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 ofresponse, damage, or any other compensationfor injury or loss under section 107(k) ofCERCLA or any other State or Federal lawresult ing from a release of a hazardoussubstance at such a facility. The Post-ClosureLiability Trust Fund, therefore, is potentiallyavailable to meet a broader type of claim thanSuperfund because of the qualification ofclaims 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 Post-ClosureLiability 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 status under section 3005 ofRCRA. 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 facilities 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-bil ity Trust Fund could face substantialclaims for response actions if the standardsfor 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 prooffor the required demonstration that there is nosubstantial likelihood of migration or release,so that few existing facilities that did notupgrade beyond minimum standards couldqualify 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 Liability 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 lieu of participation in the Post-ClosureLiability Trust Fund. If a private plan qualifiesas a practical and effective alternative underthe 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 Lawsand Hazardous Waste

In enacting RCRA, Congress declared thatit was closing “the last remaining loophole inenvironmental law, that of unregulated landdisposal of discarded materials and hazardouswastes.”= 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 ofsludge 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 ofpublic health, air quality and water quality, orthose controlling the products from which thewastes were derived.

Passage of RCRA unavoidably establishedoverlapping coverage between regulation ofhazardous waste management under RCRAand regulation of environmental pollutionand control of hazardous materials underother Federal laws. This potential problem ofconcurrent jurisdiction was recognized inRCRA section 1006(b) which requires theEPA Administrator to “integrate all provi-sions of this Act for purposes of administra-tion and enforcement and to avoid duplica-tion, to the maximum extent practicable, withthe appropriate provisions of . . . (other

‘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 regulatoryrequirements; in fact, implementation hasleft significant gaps in protection from theadverse effects of hazardous substances in theenvironment.

RCRA–Subtitle D–Regulation ofSolid 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 utilization ofrecovered resources, and to encourage re-source conservation. These objectives are to beaccomplished through State solid waste man-agement plans prepared in accordance withguidelines 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 activitiesauthorized under RCRA are discussed later inthis chapter,

Section 4005(a)” of subtitle D prohibits “opendumping” 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 islargely 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 eitherbefore 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 ofopen 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 hazardousmaterials, including wastes. Under HMTA“hazardous materials” are those that the Sec-retary determines may pose an unreasonablerisk to health and safety or property whentransported in commerce. DOT regulationsprovide for the classification of hazardousmaterials, disclosure requirements, shippingcontainer requirements, labeling and placard-ing standards, handling procedures for variousmodes of transport, and reporting of acci-dents .100

-9 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.1-49 CFR Parts 171-179 (1982).

In carrying out its responsibilities 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 its 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 insufficient, 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,reversible or irreversible); degree of risk;characteristics and numbers of humans, plants,animals, or ecosystems at risk; amount ofknowledge about the effects; availability ofalternative 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 posingan unreasonable risk. These measures canrange from requiring hazard-warning labels tobanning the manufacture or use of an especial-ly hazardous substance. 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 allowed 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 ofPCBS 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 areonly 99.99 percent.103

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide 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-spread and commonly recognized practice,will not generally cause “unreasonable adverseeffects on the environment. ” The EPA Admin-istrator is required, after consultation 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 EPAAdministrator must make public the datacalled for in the registration statement of apesticide. Information obtained throughFIFRA 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-logical integrity of the Nation’s waters. ”Among the goals and policies used to promotethis 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 limitations undersection 301, water quality-related effluentlimitations under section 302, new source per-formance standards under section 306, andtoxic and pretreatment effluent standardsunder section 307. 106

Technology-based limitations are tied 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 ofthis provision, and prompted by a court settle-ment, the 1977 amendments call for EPA to de-velop and issue “best available technology” ef-fluent limitation guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performance stand-ards for 21 major industries covering 65 seriouspollutants or groups of pollutants (see table 59).

10340 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. Aldrinidieldrin5. 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 metabolizesEthylbenzeneFluoranthene

SOURCE. 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 Administrator 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 forthe pretreatment of industrial pollutantsdischarged to publicly owned treatment works(POTWS) that might create problems in sewers(fire, corrosion, explosion), inhibit municipalsewage treatment processes, or pass untreatedinto waterways or the POTWS sludge, therebyrendering it unfit for beneficial 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 itspretreatment costs. (Hazardous waste dis-charged into a POTW is currently excludedfrom the definition 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 wellas 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 ofthe 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 sourcedischarge covered by a NPDES permit is notsubject to subtitle 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. ”The NCP established under CWA was ex-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-sibility for enforcing the standards 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 table60).111 For a few compounds, interim nonbind-ing guidelines (Suggested No Adverse Re-sponse Level—’’SNARL" documents have

11042 U.S.C. 300 f-300j.11140 CFR 141, subpart B (1982).


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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0052,4-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 ofthe basis for the ground water protection strat-egy adopted in the July 1982 land disposalstandards 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 already being effectively 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-tinguish 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 jurisdictionsin which waste is injected directly intounderground sources of drinking water.

SDWA provides for controls over the under-ground injection of wastes. RCRA also author-izes regulation of hazardous waste disposal byinjection into or onto the land or waters so thatwastes might enter the environment. Becauseof this overlapping jurisdiction, EPA haspromulgated a permit-by-rule approach for in-jection 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 thathigh-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 administrative 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 orstop 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 Actof 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-logical system, or economic potentialities.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 directs EPA and the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (subject to EPA review) toadminister permit systems to control dumping.The permit responsibilities of the Corps arelimited to dumping of dredged materials.

The ocean dumping of municipal sewagesludge increased between 1973 and 1978,possibly reflecting implementation of CWAand the resulting growth in the generation ofsludge. Ocean dumping of industrial wastesdeclined during the same period, but increasedpressure to allow more such dumping mightbe expected following implementation of thefull RCRA regulatory scheme. (See discussionof 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, subpart B (1982).

Clean Air Act (CAA)116

CAA requires EPA to establish national am-bient air quality goals designed to protectpublic 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). Theprimary standards are designed to protectpublic health (with an adequate margin of safe-ty from adverse health effects). Secondarystandards designed to protect public welfaresuch as protection of plants and animals, build-ings and materials, and visibility from theadverse affects of pollutants have also beenestablished. The States are required to submitState implementation plans with emission lim-itations and other measures necessary toachieve 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 itselfis 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 industrial sources.The States are required to establish emissionstandards applicable to existing industrialsources. In areas that do not meet one or moreof the NAAQS (nonattainment areas), and inareas subject to nondegradation controls,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.117EPA 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 controlling hazardouspollutant emissions. The resulting standardsmust provide an “ample margin of safety toprotect the public health. ” Where an emissionstandard is not feasible, EPA may prescribe adesign, equipment, work practice, or opera-tional standard.

For stationary sources about to be built ormodified, hazardous pollutant standards 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 other 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, ethylene dichloride, per-ch loroe thy lene , acry lon i t r i l e , methylenechloride, methyl chloroform, toluene, and tri-chloroethylene. 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 emissionstandards 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 statusStatus of toxic air pollutants regulationAsbestos Mills, manufacturing, Promulgated

demolitionBeryllium Extraction plants, foundries, Promulgated

machine shopsMercury Smelters, chlor.alkali, sludge Promulgated

incinerationVinyl chloride Manufacture, polymerization PromulgatedBenzene a Chemicals and petroleum ProposedArsenic b

Copper smelter Underdevelopment

Radionuclides cUranium mines, phosphoric Underacid plants consideration d

Chemicals under assessmentAcetaldehyde 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 Phenolo-, m-, p- cresol Phosgenep-Dichlorobenzene Polychlorinatecl biphenylsDimethyl nitrosamine Proplyene oxideDioxin TolueneEpichlorohydrin TrichloroethyleneEthylene dichloride Vinylidene chlorideEthylene oxide o-, m-, p-xyleneFormaldehyde

a No standards Yet issued.bNo standards 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 rules

dsources 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 listed andstandards have been established for only a verynarrow group of facilities. The RCRA programis better suited for the control of pollutants from hazardous waste TSDFS, while other spe-cific airborne hazardous pollutants generatedin a range of industrial processes might bemore readily controlled using section 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 ofstudies 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 ofthe 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-tamination from mining wastes and over-burden. Section 1OO6(C) of RCRA provides forintegration between RCRA and SMCRA incontrolling solid and hazardous wastes and re-quires consultation between EPA and the De-partment of the Interior on the adequacy ofthese rules. 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 statesthat a permit issued or approved underSMCRA covering any coal mining wastes oroverburden shall be deemed to be a treatment,

storage, and disposal permit issued underRCRA.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., which do not directly requirecompliance with standards or controls) that areintended to influence 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 ofnon-regulatory activities 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 imple-mentation by Executive agencies.

Interstate Cooperation .—Section 1005 ofRCRA123 allows two or more States to establishagreements or compacts, not in conflict withany U.S. law or treaty, for cooperative effortand mutual assistance in the management ofsolids and/or hazardous waste. These regionalcompacts allow States to plan for regionalwaste 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 descriptionof 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 amended 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. 6904.12442 USC, 5907,


and the environment attainable by availablesolid waste management practices.

Where appropriate, the guidelines are alsoto include information for use in deciding theadequate location, design, and construction ofsolid waste management facilities, 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 beenminimal. The minimum criteria for use 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.126

Section 6004 of RCRA provides that anyguidelines issued under section 1008 are bind-ing on executive agencies and units of the leg-islative branch of the Federal Government.127

Financial Assistance.–Section 3011 of RCRAauthorizes Federal grants to assist the Statesin the development and implementation of haz-ardous waste management programs. i28 E P Ahas determined that these grants are also avail-able for States with partial 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, final authorization, and 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 increasedramatically. 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 .l29

Under section 3012,129 grants may be madeto the States for a continuing program to in-ventory active and inactive hazardous wastesites. In fiscal 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 aquisition. l3l Applicantsfor 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. 132

Provisions for financial assistance under sub-title 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 arnerlded by Public Law 96482, sec. IT,94 Stat. 2344 (1980).

l~osection Z007, as arnerlded, prov]des for general authoriza-tions for appropriations for RCRA implementation and providesthat specified shares are to be allocated to the Resource Recoveryand Conservation Panels, (ZO percent or $5 million), to the Haz-ardous Waste Regulatory Program (:30 percent, excluding sec.SO1l grants to States); and to sec. AOOB programs for State, local,and regional agencies resource and material conservation andrecovery programs and State solid waste plans (25 percent oftotal appropriated for sec. 4008 programs).

1s14z U.soc. 6848,1s242 u.s.c. 6945,


rials 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 “other sources of solid waste fromwhich energy and materials may be recoveredor 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 leftStates without Federal support for, amongother things, continued solid waste planningand continued preparation of the inventory ofopen 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-veloping and implementing State plans. l34

Technical assistance on resource conservationand recovery (in practice, largely applied tomunicipal waste) may be provided through“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 delivery of technical assistance 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).13542 USC. 6913.

The Department of Energy was given the re-sponsibility for R&D programs for recovery ofsynthetic 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, training, demonstrations,surveys, public education programs, and stud-ies on various aspects of solid and hazardouswaste management .l36 Among the possibleareas for research and development activitiesauthorized under this section are: adversehealth and environmental effects of solid andhazardous waste, financing and operation ofwaste management programs, development ofsolid 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 generation andmanagement of sludge, 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 ScienceFoundation 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.Control technology: assessment of dis-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 health and environment.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 ofchemicals and new process developments) toprograms which directly support the promulga-tion of regulations. Some 15 to 20 percent ofORD’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~lnforrnation on research activities Of EPWORD was Obtainedby OTA from ORD in spring-summer 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 strategy 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 directsthe EPA Administrator to develop, collect,evaluate, and coordinate information on avariety of aspects of solid and hazardous wastemanagement. 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 from solid waste is 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, andpublished, and made available to State 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

13942 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

● Integrate existind risk assessmentmethods into guidelines

● Develop predictive methods forassessing health and environmentalimpacts of specific chemicals

● Develop biological methods forpredicting health impacts

● Develop and standardize bioassaymethods for predicting impacts ofwaste

● Develop processes for listing/delist-ing waste and mixtures using healthimpacts, environmental impacts,and mobility data

● Develop models for screenIng chem-icals for predicting human exposure

● Develop data and methodology forestimating health and environmentalimpacts resulting from exposure tolevels of hazardous waste

● Develop methods for predictingground water impacts of pollutantsreleased from landfills

● Develop data and methodology fordetermining likelihood of harm re-sulting from existing landfill facility

● 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

● Assess hazards for specific chemi-cals for use by permitting programs

. Assess health effects and risks ofspecific sites in support of permits

● Develop guidelines for site evalua-tion based on pollutant migrationfor use in permitting

● Predict health effects for use i nregulatory impact analysis

● Evaluate risk assessments for usein RIA for land disposal regulations

● Develop data and methodology forestimating health impacts of ex-posure to various chemicals

● Develop improved methods forpredicting long-term environmentaleffects of landfills


• Develop desructionand control efficiencydata for incineration,landfill, and landtreatment

Ž Develop data onintegrity of liners

● Identify and evaluateon cost basis technol-ogies for controllingreleases of waste fromTSDFS

● Identify technologiesfor ocean incineration

● Develop data andmethodology for landtreatment

● Prepare guidance man-uals for design andperformance standardsfor disposal or treatment

● Develop guidance man-uals for use by permit-ting agencies in con-trol capabilities ofdisposal and treatmenttechnologies

● Develop models forestimating Iifecyclecosts of alternativedisposal technologies

. Refining extraction procedures usingwaste for integration of effects andwater quality data

● Improve analytical methods fordetection of chemicals

● Improve dioxin detection methods● Standardize waste characteristic

methods for impact analysis● Develop data base for waste mixtures● Provide quality control procedures

for automated analytical systemsfor regulatory application

● Develop monitoring and analysismethods for quality assurance ofdisposal facilities

. Issue guidelines for post-closuremonitoring of land disposal sites

● Complete economic analysis ofalternatives to ground watermonitoring for land disposal

● Develop procedures for determiningwhen Superfund should be used formonitoring and maintenance

. Prepare manuals for long-termmonitoring of disposal sites

● Develop criteria for qualification ofsites for Superfund

● Develop methodologies for screen-ing waste for enforcement actions

● Develop biological methods fordemonstrating releases fromdisposal facilities

● Develop methods for estimatingcosts of long-term monitoring ofdisposal facilities

● Focus on waste streammixtures:—determine environ-

mental and healthimpacts and

—treatment and moni-toring techniques

• Develop new detectingmethods, particularlysubsurface pollutants

● Destruction and recov-ery of organics

Ž Impacts of reactive andcorrosive waste in landtreatment facilities

● Definition of character-istics which are vulner-able to irreversibledamage as result ofexposure to chemicals

● Focus on persistenceand fate of chemicalsi n environ merit —bio-degradation rates ofwaste to form basis ofmonitoring guidelines

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

•

●

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 Costfor 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 andbenefits in regulatory decisions involvinghazardous 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 ofthe 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 activities.

Industrial Compliance Costs

The Hazardous Waste Services Industry .—Onemeasure 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., generator) management of hazardouswaste is estimated. Using this ratio and assum-ing that noncommercial facilities have approx-imately the same level of costs per tonne ofwaste, 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 siteHazardous 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 dol lars/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 I+azardous Waste ManagementServices Industv,” September 1982’, draft from A, D, Little.

bFrost & Sullivan, “Hazardous Waste tJarket —Handling, storage andDisposal,” 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-lion to $277 million; and 3)’’unpermitted”firms* with a subtotal of $3OO million to $4O O

million, A. D. Little’s projections from 1981 to1990 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-ative. Offsite management is assumed tochange 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 fromabout $100/tonne in 1981 as landfill capacitiesdecline and regulatory actions force the use ofmore costly options such as incineration andchemical 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 ofwaste 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

● It is presumed that these unpermitted firms include a largenumber of facilities that are generally exempted from RCRAregulation such as recycling operations.

● ● The A. D, Little study indicates $4,5 billion for 1981, and theFrost-Sullivan study indicates $3 billion for 1980, using their fig-ures for revenues and their fractions of offsite management of0.2 and 0.15, respectively.

available. Also, spending on transportationservices 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 costsprobably 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 whichoften deal with fewer wastes than offsitefacilities.

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 levelof 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 forthe chemical and allied products industry,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, this 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 alter-native (non-EPA) estimates for purposes ofcomparison and validation, these effortsproved unsuccessful. An examination of threeof the best known annual surveys of industrialexpenditures on pollution control (conductedby McGraw-Hill, the Bureau of 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 theEPA results.

The costs of complying with the subtitle Cregulations 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-nifying the annual revenues that facilitieswould 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-quirements are taken into account over a50-year period.

Table 64 provides a summary of EPA’s esti-mates of total annualized compliance costs forimplementation of the various sections ofRCRA. As mentioned above, these estimatesare incomplete since they do not cover all ofthe 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 cost3001-identification and listing . . . . . . . . . . $68.63002-generator standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.53003-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 ofcompliance. EPA analyses indicated that themost significant cost impacts of the ISS regula-tions for land disposal facilities were for theinstallation of ground water monitoring sys-tems (an average of $23,000) and for closureand post-closure costs, Only ground watermonitoring involves substantial immediate ex-penditures for existing facilities.

Compliance Costs for Land Disposal Facilities

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-timates of the total 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 total annualized incre-mental costs of complying with the interimstatus 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.


Table 65.—Total Annual Revenue Requirements for Part 264 Regulations(millions of current dollars)

Compliance requirements for Base linea Incremental Part 264

existing facilities (pre-lSS & ISS) Low estimate b High est imatec

Landfills (design and operating (D&O)requirements) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface impoundments D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Adjustment for landfilled materials)f . . . . . .Waste piles D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Adjustment for Iandfilled materials) f . . . .Land treatment D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Corrective action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$301d534e

(190)169

( 1 0

702

702

81102(57)

(3)20

150

150

159401(118)

12(6)

20468677

1,145aBasell ne costs Include pre.lSS costs such as land acquisition, excavation, and tnfrast ructure expenses incurred (n establ Ish Inga land d Isposal faci I ity and 1SS compliance costs Imposed under May 1980 regulations Including CIOSU re and post-closurecare, ground water monitoring, and financial responsibility requirements Approximately 72 percent of the $341 mlllton ISScosts included In the basellne are att rl butable to closure ($82 m ill!on), post. closure ($40 m!ll!on), ground water mon Itorl ng($42 milllon), and f!nanclal assurance ($82 million) requirements Baseline costs Include est!mated pre-lSS costs for iandflllsand surface Impoundments on Iy

bLow estimate assumes installation of single synthetic I!ners at landfills and replacement of containment system for wastepiles to avoid ground water monitoring requirements No faclllttes leak, therefore, no corrective action required

Ctilgh CO st est!mate assumes I nstallatlon of double synt het IC I triers at Iandfllls, closure of al I existing surface Impoundmentsand replacement t WI th new i m poundment with double synt hetlc I i ner Al I facll!t!es i mediately begin to leak and require ex-tensive counterpumping corrective action for 150 years

‘Includes $181 mlllton in pre-lSS costs for landfillselncludes $180 mllllon In pre.l SS for surface impoundmentsfSome materials, sludges, and residues from surface impoundments and waste piles are eventually sent to land d{sposal facllltlesAdjustment to total IS made to avoid double counting of compliance cost of Iandfilllng of materials from these facilities

gpre.fss costs not available for waste Pilesh Pre-lSS costs not avaliable for land treatment facilities

SOURCE 47 F R 32,338 JUIY 26 1982

EPA analyses of compliance costs of RCRAregulations use a number of key assumptionsthat can significantly affect the results ,including:

1.2.3.4.

5.6.

7.

the use of unit cost data;the annualizing process;the ratio of onsite and offsite disposal;the number of facilities incurring com-pliance costs;the costs incurred by new facilities;ground water protection and the need forcorrective action; andthe rate of permitting and the timing ofcompliance.

1. The use of unit cost data.—EPA’s analysesare based on unit “engineering” costs. Hazard-ous waste facilities differ widely depending ontheir particular characteristics. However, it iscommon in EPA cost analyses to use modelplants that represent the average range offacilities in the relevant universe. Once thesemodels have been specified, compliance costsfor each are based on the costs of unit opera-tions. This approach usually leads to an over-

estimate of actual costs since it fails to allowfor technological changes and innovative reg-ulatory responses that tend to lower averagecosts in practice.

2. The annualizing process.—The annualiz-ing process assumes a 7-percent inflation ratein calculating future costs, and then uses alo-percent discount rate in discounting thesecosts back to the present; thus, a “real” dis-count rate of 3 percent is used. No justifica-tion for this choice of discount rate has beenoffered, nor is any analysis presented on thesensitivity of resulting cost estimates to the dis-count rate selected.

3. The ratio of onsite to offsite disposal.—EPA’s analyses make an arbitrary allocation be-tween onsite and offsite disposal based on anestimate of the volumes below which it mightbe considered uneconomical to dispose onsite.For this purpose, an assumption about the costof offsite disposal is necessary. This ratio doesnot reflect the influence of other, noneconomicconsiderations, such as liability, type of waste,or age of the facility, in the onsite/offsite deci-


sion, This assumption could tend to indicatehigher total 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:

●

●

●

●

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 correctiveactions. 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 ofcomplying 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-tive action is needed, The high-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 anexpensive 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 ofcompliance.—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., howquickly 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 interim status standards until permit-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 Associates, 1nC., pope Reid Associ-ates, inc., Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc., and Temple, Barker,a~~ Sloane, Inc., Final Impact Analysis of Proposed RCRA-FSSRegulations, 19801990, November 1!180, pp. 4-5.


fills an the closure and replacement of smallonsite surface impoundments. EPA estimatesthat there are about 225 small landfills (500tonnes/yr or less) representing about 44 percentof all landfills. The 2,760 small surface im-

poundments (one acre or l ess ) represent about6 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 dopera t ing s tandards would add f rom $10 to $22

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 sw 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 -

quired, 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 andexcluding transportation costs. Compliancewith interim status standards and Phase II per-mitting standards are not expected to increasethese charges signif icantly for the largerfacilities even if corrective action is needed.

EPA did not analyze the impact of the landdisposal regulations on the use of alternativetreatment technologies. However, a com-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, Alternatives to the LandDisposal 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: surfaceimpoundments, $20-$30/ton; incineration,$250-$500/ton; chemical stabilization, $100-$120/ton; and other chemical and physicaltreatment processes, $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 orother suitable treatment alternatives underEPA’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 ontheir estimated costs of closure and post-closure activities. Later revisions allowed moreflexibility 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 million 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 1,192,6Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 268.4 193.7 496,7Incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 0 6.9 22.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $209.2 $783.0 $856.8 $1,849.1

SOURCES Environmental Law Institute, “Costs of Implementing Subtitle C ofthe 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 cost.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 are 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 yearinto a fund during the interim status, and oncethe permit is issued the remaining portion ispaid over the life of the permit for a maximumperiod of 10 years.

The surety bond is essentially a contract be-tween the facility owner or operator and a sure-ty company which guarantees to pay for thecosts of closure and post-closure activities ifthe owner or operator does not. The after-taxcost of the surety bonds was calculated to beabout 1 percent of the face value of the bond,A letter of credit is similar to the surety bondand commits the bank holding the letter ofcredit 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 feet 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 eform of co l la tera l or about 0 .85 percent o f thev 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 lso fu l f i l l the regula tory requi rement by buy-ing insurance coverage which wi l l pay for the

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 emuch higher. Finally, the cosi of a financial test

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 c a 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 eo 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 sp 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 though no one knows for sure the number off 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 ft 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

of the t es 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 re -

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 Limitations.—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 ,

as proposed , may not accura te ly re f l ec t ac tua 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 ces in EPA may not be inc luded in the es 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 l a 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 eW 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 si 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 c k g r o u n d d o c u m e n t s . A l -

though th is k ind of work maybe funded in par t

through the Of f i ce o f So l id Waste and thus be

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 c h a n d d e v e l o p -ment ) probab ly wi l l be missed , Not a l l hazard-

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 yt 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 hazardous waste control expenditures by agency, butrather total environmental control expenditures. Other agenciesmay incur small costs in implementing specific subtitle C require-ments, but no estimates of possible administrative costs to otheragencies have been identified.

would be undertaking some hazardous wasteresearch (e. g., even in the absence of RCRA),

but no a t tempt i s made here to es t imate what

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 i o n s a n d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o ft 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 de 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

cos t s . However , one would not expec t the 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 administrativecosts of EPA’s hazardous waste program forthe years 1975-83 are 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 :

●

●

●

Abatement, control, and compliance: in-cludes regulatory activities, developmentof regulations, guidelines and policies,financial assistance to State programs, andwaste management strategies (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 andidentification, environmental and healtheffects, etc.

In rea l t e rms , expendi tures dur ing the years1 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 hr e l a t i v e l y 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 4,2291978 . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 in 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 c e p t r e s e a r c h a n d

deve lopment , which dropped by approx imate ly

49 percent. As expected with passage of RCRAi 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

showed the la rges t percentage increases in rea land nomina l t e rms , wi th to ta l expendi tures in -

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

deve lopment by over 300 percent . The genera 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 -

gram expendi tures in 1980-81 i s pr imar i ly due

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

sought by the Reagan Administration. Thelargest 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 permitting and enforcementactivities and represents a transfer of expend-itures to an all-EPA interdisciplinary office oflegal and enforcement counsel.

The three general program activities arebroken down into specific expenditure cate-gories for the years 1981-84 in table 69 (unlikethe previous table, this table is for authorizedtrends rather than obligations). The figuresdemonstrate the relative activity emphasiswithin 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&213724,115.744,068.0

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

$79,213.920,592.342,500.0

16,121.60.0

3,509.5(b)

3,509.527,389.3

1,511.8(d)

7,016.4968.1

13,251.84,641.2

$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 and 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 ro l , and compl iance a c t i v i t i e s ( r e g u l a t i o nwri t ing and ana lys i s , grants to s ta tes , reg iona l

o f f i ce funds to ass i s t S ta tes , and publ i c in for -

mat ion programs) make up the la rges t por t ion

of overa l l program expendi tures , wi th the S ta tegrant program tak ing up the larges t percentage

share (34 percent o f the to ta l budget reques t in1 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 hi 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 n

p 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 din 1983 to ta l s because hazardous was te permi 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 ,

part of the reason for the decrease is due to ana 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 - c o n t r o l l e d

p r o g r a m s .

The enforcement ac t iv i ty cos t s show the l a rg -

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 fa 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 -

ing, however, 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 tsh i f ted to the Of f i ce o f Lega l and Enforcement

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 .Again , the jus t i f i ca t ion for th i s decrease i s not

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 da 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 ri 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 sh 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 o1 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

cer ta in smal l budget ac t iv i t i es , for example , ther 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 ec t s ) . Ex t ramura l ( ex te rna l grant and cont rac 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

wastes (moni tor ing and qua l i ty assurance ) ; and

t 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 -por t regula t ion deve lopment . Overa l l , however ,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 i o n a n d e f f e c t s . E x 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 programs.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 qualityassurance and environmental engineeringtechnology, 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

305173150150192150

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 IXArizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . .Trust Territories. ., . . . . . . . .Guam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region XAlaska . . . . ... ... . . . . . . .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. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

389370651209

329311548176

1,2412,338

236209

1,0461,971

200176

Region Ill:Delaware . . ... . . . . . . . . .Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .District of Columbia ... . . . .

423239209209267209

357201176176225176

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5283,301

209209209209209

4462,783

176176176176176

8121,064

710723285819612

1,073

684914599609240690516903 359

231550610

303195464513

1,9501,2841,708

5002,275

791

1,6441,0821,439

4221,917

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 grants to State hazardous waste programs to $44 ml I I ion In fiscal Year1983 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 ofto ta l program tota l program

c o s t StateStateA 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 s Kentucky ,,,Louisiana .,, ,,.M a i n eM a r y l a n d , . .Massachuse t t sMichigan . . . .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 .

754077754358

1007589758582797562738359

100654869415964

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 ,.N e w M e x i c o ,N e w Y o r k N o r t h C a r o l i n a .N o r t h D a k o t a . . , ,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 CarolinaSou th Dako ta :T e n n e s s e e .Texas . .Utah .. ...: .:Vermont , . . . . , . .V i r g i n i a . . , .W a s h i n g t o n . . .West Virginia. . ,W i s c o n s i n .W y o m i n g , , .

costs

86756839247558747575667958

1006083587571

10073737575n/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

As 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 ive cos t s , the data presented here have severa 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 no 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 mactua l expendi tures . Second, most o f the S ta te

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

grant reques ts to EPA, S ince the grant propos-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 sto spend to comply with the terms of the grant),

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

expendi tures i f S ta tes la ter choose to ob l iga te

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 andbudgeted Federal grants 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 i n 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

any given year are allocated to the States based

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 sw 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 s

use these f igures in formula t ing the i r grant re -ques ts to EPA, Al though the components o f thegrant reques ts vary among S ta tes , EPA has es -

t a b l i she d wo r k ing gu id e l ine s t ha t ca l l fo r two-

four -person-work years per S ta te for organiza -

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 -ment (15 percent ) ; permi t t ing (50 percent ) ; and

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 np r a c t i c e .

In theory , the Federa l grants prov ide 75 per -

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 sw 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 nw 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 -priate additional funds. Table 72 shows the per-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 are available from the relevantsources. These figures represent State budgetexpenditures for hazardous waste regulatoryprograms. For example, the State’s share oftotal 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 Stud~’ of State Fee Systems for Hazard-ous Waste Management Programs, Office of Solid Waste andEmergency 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 Cofthe 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 wasteactivities, including those in the public andprivate sectors and for both RCRA- andCERCLA-related efforts, OTA’s estimate oftotal national expenditures for 1982 is $4 billionto $5 billion. 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 of accurate detailed figures, 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 section also discusses various alter-natives to “command and control” regulationof hazardous waste through such indirectmeasures as increased civil l iabil i ty fordamages through legal action, additional in-surance and financial responsibilitv 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 responsibility for regulatinghazardous waste instead of the Federal pro-gram administered by the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) if the State programmeets certain minimum Federal standards.While the final Federal program is being de-veloded and State program a applications are be-


ing reviewed, existing State programs that are

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 ion . The l eg i s la t ive h i s tory o f RCRA indica testha t Congress an t i c ipa ted tha t the S ta tes even-

tua l ly would assume pr imary respons ib i l i ty forh 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

are o f fe red for S ta te par t i c ipa t ion : f i r s t , the op-

por tun i ty to admin is te r a S ta te program in l i eu

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 lR 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 ta te programs wi th the S ta tes contr ibut ing theremain ing 25 percent o f the cos t s . Current eco -

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 i n 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 yf 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 lp 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

Assoc ia t ion o f S ta te and Terr i tor ia l So l id Waste

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 towardzero funding of State environmental pro-grams. States would thus receive no Federalfunds for operating programs that EPA wouldhave to administer and pay for if the Statedid not.

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 intention to

apply ins tead for f ina l author iza t ion . At l eas tone S ta te (Wyoming) has dec ided not to apply

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 dapply for f ina l program author iza t ion . The cur -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 di 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 r

RCRA authorization, at least 15 States have tied

the i r programs to the s t r ingency of the Federa lp r o g r a m . 1 4 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 :

●

●

●

State programs that are the same or “mir-ror image” of Federal program require-ments;State programs that are “no less stringentthan” or “at least as stringent as” theFederal program so that the Federal pro-gram provides the “floor” for State re-quirements.State programs that are “no more stringentthan" the Federal program in which-theFedera l program imposes a “ c e i l i n g ” o nState requirements.

Depending on how the State’s legislative man-

date i s wr i t t en , these res t r i c t ions on S ta te pro -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 -ment in response to Federa l ac t ion or inac t ion .

Under a “mirror - image” approach , as a resu l to 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

statute may provide, for example, that the Statep 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 .1 4 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 yo 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 the State could quickly receive interim status authorization.Promulgation of standards under Illinois procedures would takea year or more to accommodate public review and 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 IAnticipate 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 12/24/80Phase 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

TOWR d —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 ‘an A 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 Office of 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 acongressional committee, West Virginia’s State

legislation requires that the State rules be “con-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 si 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 R A 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 dSta te regula t ions , has argued that , when therei 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

suspens ions , modi f i ca t ions , o r de lays in e f fec -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 ni 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 e n 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

Federa l requi rements . Thus , every t ime a vo id

in regula tory coverage i s c rea ted by a sh i f t inF 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 d

b 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

ac t ion in tha t par t i cu lar a rea . I f th i s a rgument

i s uphe ld in the cour ts , such S ta tes wi l l have

to wait until Federal policy is established topropose regulations. 144

The “floor” approach reflects a State statuteor policy decision requiring that the State pro-gram must be “at least as stringent” 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” approaches generally involve 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-proval, the State requirements must be asstringent as the Federal program, but to meetState law, the State regulations may not bemore stringent than the Federal program.When finally in place, these programs shouldbe effectively similar to “mirror” S t a t e s ;however, implementation during a period offrequent changes and reversals in the Feder-al program might be difficult or impossible.

Colorado’s hazardous waste statute 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 ofNatural Resources that the July 1982 EPA landdisposal regulations were not stringent enough,the Governor imposed an emergency moratori-um on the new landfill permit applicationspending further study and public hearings.145

If this review indicates that more stringentState land disposal standards are necessary, theState agency will petition the legislature toamend 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 theFederal program and that it has adequate au-thority and resources to administer and en-force its program. This allows continuation ofan existing State program even though it maydiffer from the Federal program requirements.Without interim authorization, generators,transporters, and treatment, storage, and dis-posal facilities (TSDFS) would have to complywith both Federal and State requirements.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 Federalprogram 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. TheState 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.

California controls a broader universe ofwaste than the Federal program, includingmany household, agricultural, and mining

laASTSWMC) Survey for OTA; Citizens for a Better Environ-ment, “Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management inSelected States,” OTA Working Paper, December 1982; NationalConference of State Legislatures, Htizardous Waste Managernent: 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; quarterlyreports for onsite disposal

LicensesState 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 ARCRARCRARCRARCRA; storage requirements for recyclers

Substantially equivalent

New YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahoma

RCRA by statuteRCRARCRARCRARCRA plus PCBS, no exemption forrecycled wastes

No waste listing, regulate by wastecharacteristics

RCRA by referenceRCRARCRARCRA

LicenseRCRA by referenceRCRATransporter 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 RCRAN.E. manifest License Permit by rule, recovery operations

regulated

. . .

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin RCRA, more stringent recycling 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,


wastes, along with drilling muds, sewagesludge, 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 California waste extractiontest, 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 “extremely 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 ofthose States that have the same quantity cutoffas 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 wasteclassification 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 fullyin 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-ity insurance or bonding requirements forwaste haulers are another common differencefrom the Federal program.

More Extensive or Detailed Manifest 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-erator, transporter, and disposal facil ityoperator each submit a manifest for the sameshipment. This “paper” trail has two advan-tages: 1) manifesting of all 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,States may impose more stringent require-ments than the Federal program—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 ● Technologies 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

MarylandM aasachusetts

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 of

waste receivedSmall 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 licensed

hazardous 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; and

compliance 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 household

quantitiesMust 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 operatorWyoming — —

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a + All hazardous waste must be accompanied by manifest (willlower 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.

Standards for generators and hazardouswaste TSDFS under State programs have someinteresting var ia t ions that impose morestringent 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 demonstratethat there are no feasible alternatives tolandfilling.

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 alter-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 withoutsome 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,

Other more stringent regulatory require-ments may consist of more detailed and exten-sive permit and licensing reviews for land dis-posal facilities than for recycling or treatmentfacil i t ies. New York requires each majorfacility to prepare a 10-year managementplan that would include a description of stepsthe facility is taking to promote the develop-ment and use of alternative technologies toreduce waste volume and toxicity and short-and long-term environmental emissions (air,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 failure 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 also likely 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 authoritywith 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 ofwaste disposal under a variety of laws dealingwith 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 facility 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-trol legislation. California’s Air ResourcesBoard monitors the air quality impacts of haz-ardous waste activities.

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-pendent of the hazardous waste permittingagency 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 siting 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 ofa 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 Managementof 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-mitting, 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 xColorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 foraBetter Environment, “Approachest oHazardous Waste Managementin Selectsd 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 ofStateFeeSysfemsforHazardous Waste 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/of Hazardous 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 institutional 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 liability under common lawand statutory 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 atdeterring improper waste management andpromoting sound alternative practices by re-quiring that responsible parties bear the costsof their actions. Direct incentives such as taxexempt financing, preferential treatment ofalternative 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.

Liability

Increased 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 illegal 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 officials, private attorneys,and insurers have one message for genera-

tors, transporters, and facility operators: therisks of substantial financial losses from lia-bility for unsafe hazardous waste activitiesare 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.

The Comprehensive Environmental Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liabil i ty Act(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 ofregulations or statutory provisions and severalrecognize citizen suits as alternative enforce-ment mechanisms. Many States have similarlaws, Except for limited 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-ardous waste activities. l49

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 with Section 301(e) of the Comprehensive En~’iron-mental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 1980 (Public Law 9G510] buv the Superfund Section 301(e] Stud~r Group,97th Cong., 2d sess,, 1982, 2 vols (hereafter 301(e] Study Groupreport).


are discovered and the public awareness ofdangers from exposure to hazardous chemicalsgrows. These lawsuits can seek monetary dam-ages and/or injunctive relief. The amountssought by private parties in such lawsuits canbe staggering. (One class action case involvinghazardous waste dumping in Tennessee isseeking damages of $2.5 billion.) Courts canalso award punitive and/or exemplary damagesin appropriate circumstances. A court orderor injunction may compel a responsible party(e.g., a generator, transporter, or facilityoperator) 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 costsentailed.

Theories relied on for recovery for injuriesand 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 traditional common law remedies forpersonal injuries and property damage areava i lab le in hazardous was tes cases .1 5 0

Negligence and strict liability are directed atcompensating injuries due to the actions ofanother. 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 interested in a more detailed discussion Of 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-eral claims reflecting different theories ofliability. 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 elements:

1. the existence of a duty or obligation rec-ognized by the law to conform to thestandard of conduct for the protection ofothers against unreasonable risks;

2. a failure by the defendant to conform hisor 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.151

The standard of care by which the defendant’sconduct is measured in negligence cases maybe established by prior judicial decisions,statute, regulation, or by analogy from othercases with similar circumstances. 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 ofharm 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

151w, prosser, Hand~ok of the Law of Torts, 143 (4th ed. 1971).


improper disposal actions of the facility towhich their wastes were sent for failing to an-ticipate or take precautions against the negli-gent actions of others. (The liability provisionsin Superfund make generators liable for theGovernment’s cleanup costs for improper orunsafe 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 othersagainst an “unreasonable risk” of harm. 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 disposalmight 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 ofthe case. In some jurisdictions, it will 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 ofunknowable 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 in-jury and the resulting lawsuit arise many yearsafter the disposal or exposure, thus addingmore difficulties in locating parties, witnesses,and establishing a causal connection.

Strict Liability .-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 tofault (i.e., strictly liable) for any injuriesresulting 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 Water Act, section 311, andCERCLA cases is strict liability.

There are various formulations of the strictliability standard recognized in Americancourts. Some jurisdictions hold that strictliability 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 sustainthe 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 inDepartment of Transportation v. PSC Resources, Inc., 175 N.J.Super 447, 419 A2d, 1151 Div. 1980). But a different conclusionwas reached in Elwell 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 plaintiff still facessubstantial evidentiary problems in demon-strating a causal connection or nexus betweenthe plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s haz-ardous waste activities.

Nuisance.—Nuisance, in essence, is a commonlaw 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 relief sought by theplaintiff as abatement of the nuisance. l54

A private nuisance is an unreasonable in-terference with a person’s interest 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-ty activity. The private nuisance theoryadopted 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 facility’s activities creates an inter-ference with the use and enjoyment of proper-ty. This threat is a sufficient basis for the is-suance of an injunction requiring removal ofthe nuisance. Proposed hazardous waste facil-ities similarly could be enjoined under a theoryof prospective nuisance—that the facility ifbuilt 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 ofland 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 ofthe 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.

Public nuisance is defined as an unrea-sonable interference with a right common tothe community at large. The conduct is con-sidered unreasonable and, thus, a nuisance ifits utility does not outweigh the gravity of theharm it produces. This test allows a roughbalancing of the benefits and burdens from aparticular activity. Every state has a statutoryprovision authorizing suits to abate publicnuisance. 157

lgsllestaternent (Second) of Torts, ~t~27.l~private nuisance actions are appropriate for the interference

with use and enjoyment created by noise, by odors, and otherair pollution, by water pollution and the contamination or pollu-tion of subsurface waters. See cases cited by 301(e) study groupat 105.

lsT301(e) study group report, vol. II at 171.


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-cials, 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 byprivate citizens asserting public nuisanceclaims unless it can be shown that the damagesthey have suffered are in addition to anddistinct 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 ofthe 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 reliefis a finding by the court that the harm to theplaintiff is irreparable, i .e . , i t cannot beremedied by the payment of compensation, Ofcourse, payment of compensation may not bea 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 ofhis property. Originally, under common law,recovery under trespass provisions was ab-solute upon showing of an actual invasion ofthe 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 an abnormal or unreasonable use o fproperty.

Injuries caused by the defendant’s negligenceor 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 statute of limitations applicable totrespass cases may be advantageous in somecircumstances.

A trespass is “intentional” under the generalrule adopted in the Restatement (Second) ofTorts if the defendant acted purposefully toenter, lead, or set an object in motion thatalmost certainly 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


plaintiff’s property. 159 Except in the case of“midnight dumpers, ” the plaintiff faces a dif-ficult burden in showing that the defendant in-tended that toxic waste constituents wouldmigrate onto the plaintiff’s property. Inten-tional action might be shown if the defendantknew 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 isuncertain. 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 damagesfor 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-jor difficulty in trespass actions in somejurisdictions is that the courts have notrecognized a landowners’s right to pure, un-

contaminated percolating ground water, sothat even if an intentional invasion wereshown, it might not result in liability. As inprivate nuisance actions, trespass cases requirethat the complaining party be in possession ofthe 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, substantial

lho~es~a~eme~~ (seco~~) of Torts, j\158, 165 (1965).l~David, “Groundwater 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) stud y 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 anticipated in thesecases are the statute of limitations, proof ofcausation, 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 maybe 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 period duringwhich 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-volving hazardous waste. l83 Developing theevidence necessary to demonstrate liabilitymay 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 attorneys.

Identification of responsible parties: Insome cases, the victims may encounter difficul-ty in determining which parties to sue. Wherethe possible defendants can be identified, manyyears 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 ofresponsible 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 Liability In-surance Policies offer full coverage for suddenand 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 area, insurersare likely to move increasingly to the use ofclaims 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 ultimatelyhigher 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 availability 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 willsubstantially increase premiums, and lossavoidance can become economically prefer-able. Reliance on an insurance mechanismassumes 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 programscan be seen as complementary to the regulatoryrequirements,

On the other hand, insurance can blunt theincentives created by other regulatory andnonregulatory approaches to risk management.


Insurance spreads hazardous waste risks overtime, and across the industry among likesituated firms and facilities. This spreadingmay tend, in particular cases, to decrease theeconomic incentive to avoid health, safety, andenvironmental risks among individual gener-ators, transporters, and facility 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 victims of hazardous wasteactivities often can be made without resort tothe courts, thus avoiding the delay, costs, andevidentiary burdens facing the plaintiffs inliability actions. Moreover, judgments requir-ing abatement of or compensation for theadverse 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 andcomplementary mechanism in the existingFederal and State system: 1) insurance cov-erage for hazardous waste activities must beavailable and affordable; 2) the level andscope of coverage must be adequate for themagnitude of risks insured; 3) the coveragemust continue after closure of the facility;and 4) more consistent and perhaps standard-ized risk assessment procedures must beused.

EPA financial responsibility requirementsfor hazardous waste treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities require certain minimumlevels of liability coverage either through an in-surance policy or self-insurance. EPA is cur-rently considering whether to promulgate rulesfor additional financial responsibility re-quirements for corrective action at land dis-posal facilities.

Fees, Taxes, and Other Economic Incentivesto 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 ofcompliance are significant, the cost increasesare not of such magnitude as to create asubstantial economic incentive to shift to otherdisposal and treatment alternatives. By far themost significant impact of the interim statusstandards for land disposal operations was therequirement 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 Potentially, 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 it is now apparent that increasedregulatory compliance costs alone 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 activities. 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 oftax incentives and bonds.

l~see discussion of regulatory impact analysis in the preambleto 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 Virginia. . . . . , .Wisconsin . . .Wyoming ., . . . . . . . . .

I—

—

P,A,MT,F———s—P—TT—

P,TP,A,M

P,AP,A,M

P,AP

P,A—T

P,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—vv——v———Bv————

V,B———v——Q———————— —

T——

T—G—

G,T———T——T

R,G

G————T

T,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 feeM = monitoflng/surveillance fee V = vehicle registration

SOURCES 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#azardous Wasfekfanagernerrt Programs, EPA contract No 6841-5133, May25, 1982, and Nattonal Conference of State Legislatures, A Surveyand 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 ofalternatives, or for the State superfund for sitecleanups and victim compensation,

Facility 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 facilities which may or may notbe passed on to the generator.

Administrative 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 annualoperating fees or other fees assessed on aperiodic basis for operating facilities; 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 ”/0California. . . . . . . . . . . . 7,686,012 4,384,628 4,384,628 a 57 100Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

●

●

waste handling technology used at the fa-cility: landfills, deep well injection, landapplication, incineration, surface im-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 inother States. Tennessee bases its fee on theamount of wastes transported. Californiacharges 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:tipping registration, and waste generation.

Tipping Fees.—Tipping fees are charges as-sessed on the receipt of waste at a facility. Theyare 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 basedon 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 $1per tonne charge with a maximum annualassessment 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 ci 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

ass i s tance to encourage proper was te d i sposa 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 , F o 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 so r c r e d i t s f o r b u s i n e s s e q u i p m e n t a n d r e a les ta te taxes for po l lu t ion cont ro l equ ipment or

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 , B y 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 .

Other S ta tes a l low use o f t ax -exempt bonds asf 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 sf 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

as recyc l ing or inc inera tors over land d isposa lf 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-ulatory activit ies, depos i ted to genera 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 variety of feemechanisms available to and used by States,the amounts reported by States as generatedthrough this mechanism in most instances arerelatively small compared to funding needs.Fees, however, are an appealing source ofrevenue 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 wasteprograms.

At a time of increasing regulatory activity,and with the prospect of declining Federal con-tributions, the significant l imitations inreliance on existing State fee mechanisms in-clude the following:

●

●

●

●

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 sub-ject to fluctuations in business cycles.

The schedule of costs may not betailored 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 attention as a commerciallandfill).The State government structure may lim-it the imposition or use of certain feesthrough statutory or constitutional provi-sions. In such instances, the ability ofStates 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.The fees may already be dedicated toanother major State program, such ascleanup of existing or abandoned hazard-


ous waste sites or compensation of victimsof hazardous waste activities. 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 appropriations.

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 cleanups.

one of the unresolved issues involving coor-dination of State superfund and CERCLAcleanups is the extent of the limitation 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’scontributing share in CERCLA cleanupsbecause the State taxes would then be imposedfor the same purpose as Federal Superfundtaxes. In a case challenging New Jersey’s taxon chemical and oil products, the Federalcourts 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 contributeto hazardous waste dumps that must be clean-ed up. The extent of liability and conditions forrecovery actions vary significantly among theStates. 165

10SFor a more exhaustive discussion see 301(e) study groupreport vol. II and the NSCL report, lfazardous Waste Management in the States, 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 ofRCRA 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-tinue to favor disposal technologies, par-ticularly landfilling, 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 effective control strategies. In contrast,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 ofhazardous 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 ofa modern industrial society, Congress opted in-stead for a longer term, indirect strategy. Bysignificantly increasing the costs of wastedisposal through regulation of waste facilities,industrial generators would be pressured toreduce their output of hazardous waste and topromote development of alternative wastetreatment 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 beencriticized as an insufficient incentive forrecycling 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 potentiallyhazardous 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, it would significantly extend theperiod of time that hazardous waste could beheld. It might promote increased generator ef-forts at 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-sequences for some commercial hazardouswaste facilities that derive a substantial por-tion of their revenues from the sale of ma-terials reclaimed 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 materials.

Land Disposal Regulations

On July 26, 1982, EPA published interim finaIregulations 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 inappropriately designed facilities; anda ground water protection and responsestrategy consisting of monitoring to detectand track any migration of hazardous con-stituents if the facilities fail to contain thewaste, and corrective action to remove thecontaminants from ground water if certainspecified concentration levels are ex-ceeded.

“747 F.R, 32,274-32,388.


Given the inadequacy and uncertaintiesabout current containment designs, such a two-tiered approach presents substantial problems.EPA’s strategy focuses on the effectiveness ofremedial action once contamination has oc-curred, rather than preventive measures forprotecting human health and the environment,There is only limited experience in cleaningground water and soils contaminated with in-dustrial hazardous waste. Moreover, EPA’smonitoring requirements may not result in col-lection of adequate data for identifying groundwater contamination. If land disposal of allhazard 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 willbe prevented through early detection andprompt corrective action,

Analysis of the design technology used inland disposal facilities (presented inch. 5) in-dicates that current technology cannot assurecomplete containment of hazardous wasteconstituents. 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-Illcll

1.

2.

Studies of existing landfills that incorpo-rated the designs suggested by EPA indi-cate that leakage will occur. The causes ofthese 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-ronmental contamination.The fate of constituents released from afacility 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 Severalpoints of concern are common to all.

A general criticism made by environmentalgroups, 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 healthand 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 ofWomen 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 HouseCommittee on Science and Technology, Notr. 30, 1982; K. W.Brown, Texas A&M University; H. Johnson, National SolidWaste 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-out the Nation. This situation can lead touneven interpretation and enforcement stand-ards of the land disposal. The effectiveness ofpublic participation in permitting is also dimin-ished because concerned citizens have littleguidance 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 exemptions from certain performancestandards to be made by the permitting author-ity if there is a lower potential for exposure tohazardous wastes or their constituents. 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 stipulations upon consideration of thehazard levels of the wastes and the specific siteconditions.

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 consideration of other potential nat-ural catastrophes, or of the protection ofdrinking water sources, wildlife 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 all facilities to use that configuration.Moreover, without a detection monitoringsystem in place, the effectiveness of thedesign cannot be determined, backgroundwater quality will not be established beforecontamination, and a post-closure monitor-ing system will not be in place to indicateleakage and trigger the corrective action re-quirement. An additional complication withthe 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 adetection monitoring program (which may re-quire a permit modification). Some industryrepresentatives advocate a modification of EPArules to specify that a leak exists when thedetection system indicates the presence of“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 wasteconstituents. An important advantage is thegreater abil i ty to take corrective action,especially if the system is designed for pump-out control. The criteria used for determiningfailure will require careful evaluation, in-

189Testimony of William Sanjour before the House Committeeon 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).


eluding leachate characteristics and siteconditions.

The exemption removes any opportunity forobtaining data on the reliable performance ofthese facilities. Environmentalists and someindustry 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 inenvironmental contamination.

Exemption of Existing Portions. -Existing por-

tions of land disposal facil it ies are not requiredt 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 snew fac i l i t i e s or un i t s cons t ruc ted a f te r permi t

i s s u a n c e , e . g . , i n s t a l l a t i o n o f s i n g l e l i n e r s a n 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

provide a l imi ted except ion i s not based on the

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 ffac i l i ty opera t ion dur ing the re t ro f i t t ing proc -

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 0R 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 sb 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 -

quences for the pro tec t ion o f human hea l th and

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 fs 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 e

e 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 dd 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 ll 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 -

over , the ru les do not requi re sur face impound-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 8 1s 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 .

The “existing portion” is defined as the “land

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

unit described in the original Part A permit ap-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

before the i s suance o f a f ina l permi t . ’ ’ 170 EPAh 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 -ment , o r l andf i l l ce l l o r t rench i s a un i t . Any

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 landfilland surface impoundment units without in-stalling liners and leachate collection sys-tems, even where such installation is clear-ly feasible without disrupting operations. Theonly apparent limit on construction and use ofadditional 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 beused without retrofitting 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 retrofitting could result in situations 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 waste a Ieachateb

—.Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 30 ”/0 260/oConnecticut . . . . . . . 64 44 —Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 35 —Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 21 28New 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 Uni ted Sta 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-ing program (similar to the interim statusstandards (ISS) monitoring requirements dis-cussed later in this section), contamination ofground water sources by existing facilities inmany cases is not likely to be detected untilpollution has reached serious proportions.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. Analternative would be to define “existing” por-tion as only those facility units or portions offacilities 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 ofother 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-ity 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 constituents. Criticsemphasize that free liquids can migrate readi-ly through a landfill, possibly dissolving harm-ful constituents that may be encountered in themigration path. The adequacy and effec-tiveness of leachate collection and removal

systems over long periods of time in landfillshave 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 landfill could delay and complicate theeventual treatment of leachate or liquids. Fur-thermore, the continued presence of high vol-umes of liquids in a facility 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 alternatives, such as in-cineration, or biological or chemical treat-ments. Many in the waste management indus-try expected that implementation of RCRAwould make alternative treatment technologiesmore cost competitive and encourage thegrowth 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 ofcapital. Furthermore, a great deal of that cap-ital must be invested with the prospect 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.Apparently 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 ofnew facilities and units; 2) There are insuffi-cient restrictions on the type of wastes that c a n

be placed in land disposal facilities; and 3) Dif-ferences in the quality and stringency of regula-tions for management technologies create a neconomic 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 lim-its, Incinerators must achieve a destruct ionremoval efficiency (DRE) of 99.99 percent o r

better. This is a difficult standard for s o m efacilities to meet. In contrast, the land disposalregulations provide only limited incentives forthe uses of more advanced landfill design (dou-ble liners with leak-detection systems and withexternal monitoring). EPA, in acknowledgingthat land disposal facilties eventually will re-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., incinerators) and less stringent r e -

quirements for other technologies, such as landdisposal (which may require costly correctiveaction, 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-ogies that reduce the hazard of industrialwastes.

Appropriate Use of Land Disposal Technology

It is widely acknowledged that 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 adequately designed and has an ef-

fective monitoring program. Biodegradable

waste constituents can be deposited in the landif the facility can safely contain the wastes forthe length of time required for degradation ofthe material. Treatment methods are availablethat can immobilize most, and reduce the tox-icity of many, toxic metals before disposal.

Regulations for land disposal reflecting themost advanced state of treatment, contain-ment, and monitoring technologies could pro-mote the mandate of RCRA for protection ofhuman health and the environment by: 1) re-ducing the risks associated with land disposaland 2) making the immediate costs of land dis-posal more comparable to other treatmentoptions.

There are substantial long-term and indirectcosts for containment options that the regula-tions do not address, such as the costs to futuregenerations for increased health problems o rthe costs to provide remedial action at land-fills in the future, The actual level of these costsand the extent to which they are incorporatedinto the operational expenditures of a facilitywill depend on: 1) Federal requirements fordemonstrating financial responsibility for re-medial actions and liabilities for damages, and2) the extent of effective Federal enforcement.Current policies 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,for a var ie ty o f reasons they are unab le to do

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 lc 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 potential magnitude of environ-

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 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 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 -permi t ted fac i l i t i e s a re essent ia l , Current EPA


regulations require air emissions and processmonitoring for incinerators, and ground watermonitoring for land disposal facilities. Al-though other environmental laws may imposeadditional monitoring requirements, thesegenerally have not been applied to RCRA fa-cilities.

A general criticism of the RCRA regula-tions for hazardous waste management facil-ities is that the monitoring requirements maybe insufficient to detect environmental con-tamination. Process and source monitoringhas been specified, however, ambient monitor-ing is primarily limited to ground water mon-itoring at land disposal facilities, Althoughemissions of hazardous volatile organic com-pounds from surface impoundments and land-fills has been documented as contributing toair pollution 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 monitoring 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 sufficiently early (before widespreadcontamination and actual damage) and correc-tive action taken, the human exposure will bereduced, Ambient monitoring, therefore,should be given a greater role in the RCRAregulatory 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-ticular equipment within each facility. EPAregulations establish specific 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.

Regulations for treatment and storagefacilities primarily rely on visual inspectionsand process monitoring to detect malfunctionsor possible releases into the environment. Mon-itoring requirements for incineration 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 limited to trialburns conducted as part of the permitting proc-ess. As discussed in chapter 5, because of thecriteria used to select principal organic hazard-ous constituents and the uncertainties 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 thatrequirement can be waived under some cir-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. Significant 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 ions , as wi th de tec t ion moni tor ing , severe con-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 -

cording to EPA, ana ly t i ca l methodologies haveb 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 xVI I I cons t i tuents tha t dur ing compl iance mon-

i tor ing must be t es ted for annual ly . However ,

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 si 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 i n 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 rom required moni tor ing . Al though tes t ing for

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 rb 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 nproducts tha t cou ld be present in ground waterf 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 critical and currently inexact

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 dwater moni tor ing regula t ions for in te r im s ta tus

and permi t ted fac i l i t i e s prov ide l i t t l e gu idancein des ign ing moni tor ing programs for par t i cu-

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 -quency o f samples requi red m a y not be ade-

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 er 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 yo 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 r

f 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 tsampl ing a t more loca t ions might prov ide be 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 sabout, (constituent behavior in landfills. Regard-

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 -

toring signal using only a small number of sam-ples would have to be very large ( i . e . , in some

cases , o rder o f magni tude changes ) be fore s ta -

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 dbe substantial before statistical analysis verifiedt 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 timing of a sampling effort,quarterly or semiannual sampling periodsmight 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 ofmonitoring 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 uncertainties sur-rounding plume behavior and frequent lack ofhydrological information, three monitoringwells may not be adequate. A 1977 EPA docu-ment recommended at least one downgradientwell for every 250 ft of downgradient siteborder. However because of the complexity ofmany 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-tion of the plume, contamination of groundwater is noted only in well B. The concentra-

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 ys 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 tw 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

wel l C , a good f rac t ion o f th i s aqui fe r a l ready

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

might not be adequate to res tore the qua l i ty 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


Figure 24.—Sampling Well Locations forGround Water Monitoring Program

Compliance point

asteconstituentsource

/

Figure 25.—Plume Migration May Not Flow WithGround Water Due to Gravitational Influence and/or

Undetected Fractures in the Aquifer

W a s t ec o n s t i t u e n t

\s o u r c e

Ground water flow

Plume of contaminants

• Sampling wells, downgradient

● Upgradient well


C o m p l i a n c e

the aquifer or, if it is, it would be very expen-sive. Such a situation could be prevented ifmore wells were required, if they were moreevenly placed, and if they were at differentdepths over the aquifer rather than only at thecompliance point of a facility,

Furthermore, the movement of plumes ofcontaminants may be different than the direc-tion of flow in the ground water. Concentra-tions of contaminants that are lighter or denserthan ground water have been occasionallyfound to move in unpredictable patterns. Mon-itoring downgradient wells in such situationsmight not detect plume migration, and relianceon one upgradient and several downgradientwells may not provide the appropriate data.Figure 25 shows another hypothetical case inwhich undetected hydrologic features such asfractures or solution channels may influenceground water flow in unanticipated ways so

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 acompliance monitoring program as a conditionof the initial permit. ) The ground water pro-tection standard consists of four elements:

1$

2.

3.

4.

the hazardous constituents to be moni-tored;the concentration of each hazardous con-stituent that triggers the corrective actionrequirement (the compliance level);the compliance point at which the level ofcontaminants is to be measured; andthe compliance period over which theg 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 rw 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 :

●

●

●

the background leve l o f the cons t i tuent in

t h e g r o u n d w a t e r ; o rt 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 gW 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 ran alternate concentration l imit if the facil-i ty owner or opera tor can demonstra te tha 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

envi ronment as long as the a l t e rna te con-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 .

Dur ing compl iance moni tor ing , EPA wi l l r e -

qu i re t e s t ing for a l l o f the 387 Appendix VI I It 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 sn 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 sfor most o f these hazardous cons t i tuents ; there -

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 a n 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

range o f subs tances l each ing in to ground waterf rom the fac i l i ty . An addi t iona l concern i s tha 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 at or near thefacility. The land disposal regulations do notspecify 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-ment area. 173

The second standard of pollution up to theestablished MCLS for drinking water gives thefacility 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 the1962 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 ion o f ground water f low; d is tance to current

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 so 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

of 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 establishment of acceptable levelsof contamination on a case-by-case basisraises significant public policy issues relatedto potential exposure to carcinogenic, muta-genic, embryotoxic, teratogenic, or otherwisetoxic substances that should not 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 forimplementing the RCRA mandate, EPA chose

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 tailoredto reflect differences in potential hazards ofwastes, 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 decisions arenot 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 possibilities 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 amounts 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 technical basis for deciding whichwastes are acutely hazardous or toxic wastes.

EPA regulations authorize waivers of somefacility 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 status incineratorstandards and from some of the permit stand-ards, 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 facility permitting 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, proposedland disposal regulations “environmental per-formance standards. ’’178

1T5Ao cFR 261.33(e) (1982).17640 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 wouldhave 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 formalquantitative risk assessments in permittingfacilities 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 indetermining the necessary level of protection.

In publishing its revised incinerator standardin 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 ofEPA’s ongoing regulatory impact analysis(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 feasibility of conductingsite-specific risk assessments, therefore any ac-tion on the January 1981 proposaI for use ofrisk 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 ofthe inherent hazard of the wastes or the poten-tial effects on human health or the environmentfrom improper handling of these wastes, Incontrast, listed waste and mixtures of listedwastes 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 exemptionsand exclusions allows certain potentiallyhazardous 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 isthe 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 ● 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 wastegenerated 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 little evidence to support thisassumption. Sanitary or municipal landfills inindustrial regions will frequently receive smallquantities of hazardous wastes from severalsources 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 beconsidered small generators under currentrules. Past disposal practices at these sites posesubstantial threats today to human health andthe environment. Under a small generator ex-emption that focuses on the quantity of thewaste and not the degree of hazard that itposes, these inadequate disposal practices willcontinue.

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, andLiability Act (CERCLA). Examples of differentrisk estimation approaches include:

lmsu~ommittee on oversight and 1nvestigations, Committeeon interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hazardous Waste Disposal(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 policy andregulatory development for RCRA; anduse 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 health and the environmentmust 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 fromthe facility to drinking water sources. Such riskestimates are generally of a qualitative andjudgmental 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-assessmenttechniques in the permitting of hazardouswaste 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 ofusing 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 withincinerators and landfills. l82 Certain genericproblems were emphasized:

laZEngineering Science, Comparative Evahlatiorl Of inciner-

ators and Landfills for Hazardous Waste Management, reportfor the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D. C.,1982].


1. Because of the many assumptions re-quired in determining most estimates, the re-sult is at best an approximation of the actualrisk. This may be particularly true when cal-culations are required prior to actual operationof a facility. In this situation, data are limited,and assumptions about performance efficiencywill skew the results, The difficulties and un-certainties in predicting the environmental fateof constituents (as discussed in ch. 6) also con-tribute to this problem.

2. Currently available data bases are inade-quate for reliably estimating risks. Data relat-ing to health effects from exposures are incom-plete and are not standardized with respect totest organisms, protocols used, and routes ofexposure. Also, published information may notbe conclusive. For example, one compoundmay be considered carcinogenic in one study,but noncarcinogenic in another; it may pro-duce adverse effects in mice, but not in rats.In addition, it should be emphasized that theabsence of evidence in any test situation doesnot equal evidence of no effect. Because ofsuch problems, predictions of the potential riskto human health resulting from future use ofa waste management facility will be veryuncertain.

3. Criteria for acceptable risk or standardsfor acceptable environmental concentrationsof constituents do not exist for most hazard-ous waste constituents. Without such criteriaor standards, judgments about acceptable lev-els of risks resulting from operation of a facilitywould be arbitrary.

4. The methodologies used do not considerchanges in risk over time for either facilityoperation or the environmental fate of con-stituents. For example, if emissions from a fa-cility are marginally acceptable, current mod-els do not permit consideration of a decreasein efficiency over time that could lead to poten-tial accumulation and environmental buildupof constituents, as well as low-probability acci-dental releases that may be larger than steady-state release values.

A major omission in EPA’s various pro-posals for implementation of risk estimation

is development of criteria on which to judgewhether such risk estimates represent an ac-ceptable level of risk to human health and theenvironment. A permit writer or RegionaIAdministrator must decide: 1) whether theestimation methodology is appropriate,Z) whether the quality of data is adequate, and3) acceptable risk levels. Decisions on all ofthese will be difficult if agency permit writersdo not have either training or sufficientlydetailed interpretive guidance documents.

Hazard Ranking System for CERCLA

In order to set priorities for remedial actionat uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, CERCLArequires that EPA establish specific rankingcriteria based on: relative risk or danger, popu-lation at risk, hazardous potential of a sub-stance or substances at a site, potential fordrinking water contamination, potential fordirect human contact, and the possibility ofdestruction of sensitive ecosystems. To meetthis mandate, EPA developed the Hazard Rank-ing System (HRS). 183 (It is also referred to as“the Mitre Model” because it was initially de-veloped by that group for EPA.) The HRS isa tool for applying uniform technical judgmentregarding the potential hazards presented bya facility relative to other facilities. EPA’s de-scription of this system is presented in the ap-pendix to this chapter.

An OTA review of the HRS identified cer-tain problem areas in the methodology for as-signing a hazard score for any site which couldresult in a ranking that does not adequatelyreflect the risk posed by releases at the site.

1. The score for hazard potential is based ononly the most hazardous substance in the siterather than a composite of all constituents. Incontrast, all substances are used to quantify themagnitude of this hazard. For example, one sitemay contain predominantly low-hazard wastes(e.g., 100 tons) with small quantities of a highlyhazardous substance (e.g., only 8 tons). Anothersite might have the same amount (8 tons) of anequally high-hazardous substance, but no other

1M47 F.R. 31,210-31,243, JUIY 13, 1982 to he codified at 40 CFRPart 300.


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 lower score than high-population areasusing the HRS, making it less likely thatCERCLA 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. If100 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 notalways 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 thatthe number of people actually exposed 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 ispresumed 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,OOO ft from it. The important factor after con-stituents have been released to the environmentis whether direct evidenc:e of contaminationexists 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 ofhazard 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; andpopulations at risk, which are located a tdistances 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 receive attentionand that a site, which may pose a relativelylower threat, could receive a score that sug-gests high hazard. It should be possible t odevelop methodology so that HRS scores re-flect actual hazard. For example, problemsassociated with both waste quantity and pop-ulation can be resolved by assigning a max-imum score for both of these factors wheneverthe toxicity-persistence Score is above a certainlevel. 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 atexposure 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 model 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-rently are considered nonhazardous and areregulated 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 single treatments for thewastes in this model are incineration andchemical 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 o n 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 any

w 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 yof fac tors , o f which f low ra te i s on ly one .

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

sources i s so i l permeabi l i ty . Th i s overs im-pl i f i es the in f luence d i f fe rent fac tors have

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 -sumed to represent the popula t ion a t r i sk .

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 son severa l exposure fac tors and indiv idual


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 dilu-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 Ranking System

As part of the National Contingency Plan, EPAdeveloped a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to beused to pr ior i t ize those uncontro l led s i tes tha tmight require CERCLA funds for remedial action.The HRS methodology is applied by EPA and theStates using data from observed or potentialreleases to obtain a score representing an estimateof the risk presented by each release. The score foreach release is then used with other considerationsin determining its placement on the National Prior-i ty L i s t . Th is sys tem i s summar ized by EPA asf o l l o w s : 1

The HRS ass igns three scores to a hazardousfacility:

●

●

●

� � ✎

S M re f l ec t s the potent ia l fo r harm to humansor the environment from migration of a hazard-ous substance away from the facility by routesinvolving ground water, surface water, or air.It is a composite of separate scores for each ofthe three routes.S FE re f l ec t s the potent ia l for harm f rom sub-stances that can explode or cause fires.S D C reflects the potential for harm from directcontact with hazardous substances at the facil-ity (i. e., no migration 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.

The score for each hazard mode (migration,fire and explosion and direct contact) or routeis obtained by considering 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 ocause harm . . . Each factor is assigned a nu-merical value (on a scale of O to 3, 5, or 8) ac-cording to prescribed guidelines, This value isthen multiplied by a weighting factor yieldingthe fac tor s core . The fac tor s cores a re thencombined; scores within a factor category areadded ; then the to ta l s cores for each fac torcategory are multiplied together to develop ascore for ground water, surface water, air, fireand explosion, and direct contact . . .HRS does not quantify the probability of harm

from a facilitv or the magnitude of the harm thatT h e

.could resu l t , a l though the fac tors have been se -lected in order to approximate both those elementsof risk. It is a procedure for ranking facilit ies interms of the potential threat they pose by describ-ing:

● the manner in which the hazardous substancesa r e c o n t a i n e d ,

● the characteristics and amount of the harmfulsubs tances , and

● the likely targets.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— — -. —MigrationRoute characteristics ● Depth to aquifer of concern ●

● Net precipitation● Permeability of unsaturated zone ●

● Physical state ●

●

—Containment ● Containment ●

—Waste characteristics .

●

Toxicity/persistence ●

Hazardous waste quantfty ●

Targets ●

●

Fire and explosionContainment ●

Ground water use ●

Distance to nearest well/population .served ●

Facility slope and interveningterrainOne-year 24-hour rainfallDistance to nearest surface waterPhysical state

Containment

Toxicity/persistence . Reactivity/incompatibiIityHazardous waste quantity ● Toxicity

. Hazardous waste quantity—Surface water use ● Land useDistance to sensitive environment ● PopuIation within 4-miIe radiusPopulation served/distance to ● Distance to sensitivewater intake downstream environment

Containment

Waste characteristics ●

●

●

●

●

Direct evidenceIgnitabilityReactivityIncompatibilityHazardous waste quantity

Targets ●

●

●

●

●

●

Distance to nearest populationDistance to nearest buildingDistance to nearest sensitiveenvironmentLand usePopulation within 2-mile radiusNumber of buildings within 2-mileradius

Direct contactObserved incident ● Observed incident —- .Accessibility

—● 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 ● Toxicity —Targets . PopuIation within 1-miIe radius

● 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-ment and Budget to consider degree of hazard asa basis for regulation, EPA has developed a risk/cost policy model. This model was developed bythree consulting firms and presented in a report,Risk/Cost Pol icy Model Project, Phase 2 Report. z

The abstract of the report states:The RCRA Risk/Cost Policy Model establishes a

system that allows users to investigate how tradeoffsof costs and risks can be made among wastes, envi-ronments, and technologies (W-E-T) in order to ar-rive 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 ofhuman 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-degradation, and adsorption.

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


hydrogeology. The system adjusts the exposurescores of the waste streams’ hazardous constituentsto account for their varying effects 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 availablewaste management facilities,The mode l conta ins a mul t id imens iona l f rame-

work that combines various characteristics of waste(W), environmental settings (E), and managementtechnolog ies (T ) , which inc ludes t rea tment , d i s -posal, and transportation technologies. Each com-bination of W-E-T includes one waste, one environ-mental setting, up to three treatment technologies,one d i sposa l t echnology , and one t ranspor ta t iontechnology. Scores (based on logarithmic scales) areassigned to each W-E-T for cost and risk. Costs aredefined so as to represent real resource costs suchas capital and operating expenditures; the latter in-clude labor, util it ies, maintenance, and transporta-tion. Risks are defined as risk to human health onlyand are based on toxicity and exposure methods;no consideration is given to environmental hazards.

The data base compiled for the model currentlyincludes 83 industrial wastes. Information has beengathered regarding physical characteristics of thew 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 ,concentra t ions o f these cons t i tuents , an es t imateof the national amount generated for each, and anaverage value that represents kg/day/generator.

Table 7B.l i l lustrates the technologies includedin the data base; a broad range has been considered.Specific treatment options have been identified foreach waste based on engineering judgments of theconsulting firms. For each waste, several technol-ogy choices have been identified. For example, aparticular waste might have the following treatmentchoices l isted in the data base:

1.2.

3.

4.

5.

chemical coagulation as a single treatment;vacuum filter and evaporation/drying in com-b ina t ion ;incineration as a single treatment (assumingpre t rea tment ) ;chemical fixation/stabilization as a single treat-ment ; andc 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 ncombinat ion .

Table 7B.l.—Treatment, Transportation, and DisposalTechnologies for the EPA Risk/Cost Policy Model

Treatment Transportation Disposal

Phase separationChemical coagulation OnsiteFilter press LocalCentrifuge Long distanceVacuum filter

Component separationEvaporation/dryingAir strippingSteam strippingSolvent extractionLeachingDistillationReverse osmosisCarbon adsorption (PAC)Ion exchange

Chemical transformationChemical precipitationChemical destructionElectrolytic decomposition

Chemical flxatlon/stabilizationIncineration99.990/o DRE99.900/, DRE99.000/o DRE90.00°\o DRESOURCE: 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 with each treatment anddisposal 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 surface waters, Low assimilationrepresents a high-risk situation and is identified bythe following conditions:

1. low-flow streams;


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. large streams where drinking-water intakes arelocated downstream and within 6 hours of thewaste facil ity at an average flow rate; and

3. areas subject to frequent flooding-e. g., a 100-year flood plain.

High-assimilative capacity represents high rates off 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 estreams, estuaries, or lakes. This category is consid-ered a low-risk situation in the model.

Criteria for determining low-risk levels for con-tamination potential of ground water include:

●

●

●

locations above aquifers already contaminatedto 100 times current drinking water standards;soil permeability of less than 10-6 cm/sec a n ddepth to ground water saturation greater than10 m; andsoil Permeability less than 10-4 cm/sec anddepth to ground “water saturation greater than100 m.

High-risk levels for ground water contamination in-clude all other conditions and those locations withmajor earthquake threats.

Population density near a waste management fa-cility is used to indicate the population at risk.High-popula t ion dens i ty i s de f ined as tha t wi thgreater than 520 people/km’, medium density as 52to 520 people/km2, and low density as any area withless than 52 people/km2.

Limitations in Use of the Model

As is evident by the following exerpts from theRisk/Cos t Po l i cy Mode l P ro jec t , Phase 2 Repor t ,

those most directly involved with development ofthe model have a clear grasp as to its limitations.EPA staff working on the model appear to under-stand that it is in at early stage of development, thatthere are considerable uncertainties associated with

HighLowLowHighHighLowLowHighHigh

Contamination

High (0.2 km/yr)Low (20 km/yr)

HighLowHighLowHighLowHighLowHighLow

results, and that a need exists to spend more timein development and validation of the model.

EPA’s purpose in developing the RCRA Risk/CostPolicy Model is to assist policy makers in identify-ing cost-effective options that minimize risks 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 determine where additional controlsmay 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 determinewhether some type of regulatory action is war-ranted. s

* * *

. . . results of the model will be used at a high levelof generality (to set priorities rather than to designspecific regulations) . . .4

* * *

Most important, this model cannot be used toevaluate particular permit applications. 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 substantial effort and time,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 substantial changes in thepresent assumptions, Because of the level of general-ity at which we operated, it would be improper toapply the risk and cost values to a specific situa-tion. 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 isintended. 7

* * *

The risk/cost policy model provides a frameworkfor debate over alternatives, but requires restraintin applications and interpretation. The major as-sumptions and simplifications render detailed in-sight into the specifics of a regulation impossible.8

Sta tements made by the Adminis t ra tor o f EPAbefore congress iona l commit tees , however , sug-gests that the Agency intends to use this model forregulatory reform and rulemaking. In the land dis-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 -sented at congressional hearings (as i l lustrated be-low) during the past year by senior officials, EPAhas indicated that it will use the model quite soon.It must be emphasized that while these statementsdo not specifically refer to the Risk/Cost Policymodel , i t has been re fer red to as the Agency ’sdegree -o f -hazard approach . ’

Reexamination of existing regulations—in light ofthe extensive comments received on Phase I andPhase 11 regulations, we are undertaking a majorreexamination, including: . . . An analysis of thecost/risk/feasibility factors in managing varioustypes 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 therequirements 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. Haymore, “EPA’s Degree-of-Hazard Program, ” Waste Age, January,

1982.IOA M Gorsuch, statement before the U ,S. I~ouse Subcommittee on.,

Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, Oct. 21, 1981.IIR, M. Lavelle, statement before the U ,S, Senate Subcommittee on

Environmental Pollution, June 24, 1982.

ulatory amendments in 1983 and promulgate themin 1984. 12

OTA believes that it will be some time before themodel offers results of sufficient certainty to haveconf idence in i t s use for po l i cy deve lopment orregulatory reform. At some time in the future, afterresults are verified, it would be appropriate to useit as a “screening” tool, to determine Agency prior-ities and areas for regulatory reform, and to “tailor”or “ f ine tune” RCRA regula t ions . In con junc t ionwith other work, the model might be used to deter-mine which wastes might be prohibited from land-fills, what wastes would qualify for exemption fromsmall quantity generators, and what facilities mightqualify for regulatory exceptions and variances, orfor class permits.

OTA Critique of the Risk/Cost Policy Model

Preparing a critique of this model from the Phase2 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 model have difficulty interpreting bothmethodology and results, it seems unlikely that ad-ministrative officials will be able to apply the modelcorrectly.

Even when a model 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 Model incorpo-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 model. The modelconsiders 83 industrial wastes, of which 80 percentare currently considered as hazardous by EPA. The

IZU ,s, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste 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 hazardous 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 belimited. Large amounts of federally unregulatedwastes, which some States define as hazardous, arenot included; this could lead to Federal policies 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 would not reflect current needs or problemsin 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 designation at some futuredate;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 hazardousat some future date.

This model treats these wastes as though they arehazardous and regulated under subtitle C. The de-velopers of this model apparently assumed that allwastes would be regulated under subtitle C in thefuture. while this situation would be preferable tothe exc lus ionary sys tem current ly be ing used byEPA, it would seem inappropriate to tailor sub-title C regulations using a data base that does notaccurately 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 predominant treatment technol-ogy in this data base and is applied as a single treat-ment 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-treatment option is not reflected in available datafor management of subtitle C wastes.

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 waste, environment, and technology arethe three important elements in determining riskfrom waste management choices, the 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 human 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, the 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 any 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 the 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 would depend 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 human contact by burial in sediment or accu-mulated in nonedible aquatic animals, the risk forhuman exposure would be minimal. High-assimila-tive capacities (and therefore low-risk levels) are at-tributed to those locations that discharge into fast-flowing streams, large estuaries, or lakes. However,a persistent constituent could be discharged to alake, bioaccumulated through the food chain, pos-ing an increased risk to human populations, Thus,use of flow rate as the sole measure of surfacewater contamination can hardly be considered asrepresentative of real conditions.

There are similar problems with criteria for as-signing high- and low-contamination potential ofground 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 natural 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, the 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 many of the risk assess-ment models.

This misconception of risk suggests that EPAdoes not understand the importance of actual dosereceived by a population. The density within someradius of a waste site is not relevant. Only thatgroup of individuals 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 exposure (e.g., amount 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 water is not drawn 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 probabil-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 produce an effect in a laboratory popula-tion. This effect could range from skin rashes todeath. Therefore, each MED represents some mini-mal level of response; for example, if the followingdoses are identified for three hypothetical chem-icals:

Chemical M E D EffectChemical A. . . . . . . . . 100.00 mg/kg body weight XChemical 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 administering 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 exposureare different for C and A, these MED values do notimply that C is more toxic than A. Such an inter-pretation is possible only if the effects of both chem-icals were identical.

Once a human 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 themodel considers that this division will represent anapproximation of that dose which would “yield al-percent probability of producing adverse effects,”in the population at risk. An inherent hazard scoreis 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 themodel differentiates among doses not quality of ef-feet—e.g., cancer is considered equal to skin rashes.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 dose) may repre-sent skin rashes, while the effect for a chemicalwith a score of 2 (higher dose) could be death.

In addition to an inherent hazard 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 adsorption to solid surfaces (in groundwater only). It should be emphasized that transportpotential of a compound 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 waterwould not 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 assimilation (i.e., low-flow rate)and decrease by one unit for high assimilation(i.e., high-flow rate or large volume of water).Such factors as actual concentration or amountof compound being discharged and the volumeof water within which the compound is diluted(for low assimilation) are not considered.A similar problem exists when consideringmodifications for ground water contamination.Velocity of ground water flow is the decidingfactor. High velocity decreases a ground 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 distance traveled prior to human ex-posure. Circumstances could arise where dis-tances are short enough that human exposurewould be possible, particularly for compoundswith 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 ofnearby populations. If density is high the scoreis 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


is decreased. Unit changes established for themodel are illustrated in table 7B.3 and reflecta consistent bias against rural areas.

This modification scheme gives disproportionateand unjustified weight to dilution capacity and sizeof populations without regard to the fate of com-pounds in each medium.

Costs for each treatment, disposal, and transpor-tation technology were estimated based on the “typ-ical” facility. For treatment technologies these esti-mates were further rounded-off to a value closestto the boundaries set in the cost score. Theseboundaries represent a difference of two betweenscores. (These scores are based on log z.) For exam-ple, a cost score of 3 represents technology coststhat are two times greater than a cost score of Z.No attention was given to the fact that these costswould vary depending on the waste being treated.

There is a potential inability to discriminateamong the W-E-T combinations solely on the basisof cost in a manner that has real meaning. Giventwo hypothetical W-E-T combinations, W-E-T 1 andW-E-T Z, the costs associated with the latter mustbe twice as large as the former before they will beconsidered different in the model. Because of theway costs have been allocated to various technol-ogies in the data base, it is possible that no differ-ences will be observed when using the same tech-nology for two different wastes, Likewise, it isunlikely that differences in costs for different tech-nologies and the same waste will be large enoughto merit a change in cost score. Because costs dodepend on characteristics of the waste, real values,however, might be very different when comparingthe use of two different treatments for one waste.

Misleading Results and Conclusions

As the model currently is formulated, there arecertain misleading outcomes that could have seri-ous ramifications in setting RCRA policy and regu-

Table 7B.3.—Unit Changes for Population Density

Air Surface water Ground waterHalf-life H M L H M L H M L3 minutes ... , . . . . . +2 + 1 – 130 minutes . . . . . . . . + 1 +1 – 1 +1 –1 –26 hours . . . . . . . . . . . + 1 0 –1 +1 –1 –2 +2 –1 –23 days ... , ... . . . . 0 0 0 +1 –1 –2 +2 + 1 –230 days . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +1 –21 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +1 –210 years. . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +1 –1100 years. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 –11,000 years . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 –1KEY: H—high density, M—medium density, L—low density,SOURCE: ICF, Inc., 19S2

latory reforms. Concentrations of a specific constit-uent can vary considerably among wastes found inthe data base; such differences, however, are notreflected in the inherent hazard score. For exam-ple, lead is found in waste from paint productionand in wastes from metal production; the concen-tration factor for the first is 0.01 and for the second,0,03. Although there is three times the amount oflead in one waste, the inherent hazard score as-signed to each would be the same, Differences inconcentration would only be recognized if the treat-ment process affected original levels. More realisticdifferences in hazard and perhaps in the overallrisk might be obtained if the inherent hazard scorewere adjusted for differences in constituent con-centrations in the waste.

A major outcome of this model is that for anygiven waste, risk scores calculated for surface andground water decrease from high- to low-popula-tion density, as illustrated in table 7B.4. Thus, thelowest risks, irrespective of waste type or technol-ogy choice, will always be those areas with low-population densities. The implication of this use ofpopulation density for determining overall risk isalarming. When more people reside near a mal-functioning waste site, that site would have ahigher priority or would require more stringentcontrol technology than a site associated with alower density of people, regardless of the actuallevel of hazard or degree of exposure. Determiningpolicy and regulatory reform on the basis of varia-tions in population density (urban v. rural) posesdifficult political and ethical questions.

Misleading results about risks can arise in an-other way also. For example, determination of sur-face water exposure scores for two hypotheticalchemicals give the following results:

Chemical A, half-live=3 days . 2 2High-population density . . . . +1 Low population ., –2Low-assimilative capacity, . . + 1 Low assimilation. + 1

Modified exposure score . . 4 1Chemical B, half-life= 1 year 4High-population density ... , 0High-assimilative capacity . . – 1

Modified exposure score . . 3Although chemical A could be discharged intowater with low assimilative capacity (e.g., a streamwith a low-flow rate), the location near an urbanarea results in an exposure score four orders ofmagnitude as high as that in the rural environment.Because chemical B is discharged into surfacewater with high assimilative capacity (e.g., a streamwith a high-flow rate), it has a lower score thanchemical A even though chemical B is consideredmore persistent. A situation could exist whereby


Table 7B.4.—Differences in Risk Score for Twelve Environmental Settings With Example Waste Streams

Risk scores by environmental settinga

EPA No Consti tuents 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 19 11 95 5 50 –2 –25 7 7

8 8 82 0 07 9 7

11 11 112 0 07 9 78 8 80 –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 17 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

sGAsGAsGAsG

AsGAsGAsGAsGAsG

1311

639

112

105

–16

Y

1312

54

1011

311

507

6 8

29

1129806607708

62754

10

639617

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

818

11188

–166

–167

–17

617639

85

1011

510

838638739

65977

1166

10649

‘ 9 ”99997977

87

1311

612

84

8 8 8 85 3 3 38 10 8 10

11 11 11 115 3 3 38 10 8 108 8 8 83 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

Pyridineb 637659

648627

998996956

85

1111

410

82

61963

11

62

10609

978976936

83

1311

212

80

AsGAsGA -

sGAsG

AsG9sGAsG

‘ AsGAsGAsG

6 6 65 3 37 9 77 7 77 5 59 11 9

6 6 66 4 48 10 86 6 64 2 27 9 7

63965

11

64

10629

998996956

85

1311

412

82

Phenol

K025Still bottomsfrom nitrobenzeneproduction

2,4 Dinitrotoluene b 628607

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

975973923

82

1011

198

- 17

Mercury bA

Thallium

KO11, 13, 14Still bottoms fromacrylonitrileproduction

Acrylonitrile b 8 8 87 5 5

11 13 1111 11 116 4 4

10 12 108 8 84 2 2

83

1111

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, thmconstituent often has highest concentration


drinking water is drawn from rapid-flowing streamsor that fish from such a stream serve as food forthe population; thus, the actual risk for chemicalB might be greater than chemical A, The fate ofchemicals in the environment have important con-sequences when assessing risks and these are notaddressed by the Risk/Cost Policy model. In addi-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 model is that costs asso-ciated with technologies appear to be biased towardland disposal. Because long-term costs (monitoringcosts and liability insurance fees) are not reflectedin a realistic manner, disposal on land without 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 applying this Risk/Cost Pol-icy Model is that EPA has blurred distinctions be-tween roles of policy maker, regulator, and industry


in the management of hazardous waste, RCRA pol-icy was established by Congress—i. e. , EPA wascharged with protecting human health and the envi-ronment f rom adverse e f fec t s tha t might resul tthrough mismanagement o f hazardous mater ia l s .Because of the statutory language, EPA is con-strained from balancing risk and costs. The useof this model in changing or developing new pol-icy appears to be a violation of the congressionalintent of RCRA.

Finally, EPA is attempting to determine whichtechnologies should be used to manage hazardouswaste and in assessing costs and risks for each pos-sible waste and technology combination. This per-

haps is a task more suited for industry than a regu-latory agency, If the Agency were to set goals forlevels of acceptable risk or hazard by establishingsome type of standard for industry to meet, it couldthen be left to individual companies to determine:1) which technology is to be used to meet the stand-ard, and 2) at what cost. For EPA to do an adequatedetermination of the W-E-T combinations and eval-ua te them for r i sk and cos t s requi res enormouscommitments of time and money on the part of theFederal Government. If each industrial entity wereto do its own specific assessment, the cost couldbe internalized within the industry and not be adra in on l imi ted governmenta l resources ,

Index

Index

Acurex, Inc., 155, 156Agency for Toxic Substances, 126Agent Orange, 169air pollutants, 326Alaska, 199alternatives to disposal and dispersal of hazardous

waste:advantages and disadvantages (table 13), 96goals, 79-80incentives, 28-33, 72-79

American Society of Testing Material, 251Arkansas, 131, 353Arthur D. Little, 119, 332, 333Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials (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 Analysis, 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, 354Canada, 166, 172Carter administration, 99Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 125CERCLA hazardous waste sites, 131, 134Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), 76,

131, 382chlorofluorocarbons [CFC), 321classification systems, 99-107, 229-242

considerations, 102degree-of-hazard, 99-100, 102,

tables, 260-261feasibility, case study, 236-240

limitations, 238results, 237, 239structure, 237

hazard/risk, 380link between classification 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, 230toxicological characteristics, 231

waste management facilities:models, 235technical basis, 235

class permitting, 27, 28, 69Colorado, 348Colorado River, 259

compliance costs with RCRA and CERCLA:administrative, 338, 341Federal and State, 58, 332, 338private sector, 58, 334, 338

Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policies, 363Congress:

House Committee on Interstate and ForeignCommerce, Subcommittee on Oversight, 381

House Committee on Science and Technology,Subcommittee on Environment and theAtmosphere, 252

considerations to bring high-priority waste underregulation, 68-69

Continental Fibre 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, 146Department of Commerce, 118, 196, 329Department of Defense, 47Department of Energy, 329Department of Health and Human Services, 126Department of Justice, 303Department of Transportation, 274, 279, 320Development Planning and Research Associates

(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 international competition, 84estimated public and private costs for hazardous

waste management, 97Love Canal, 6transfer to future, 58, 67

Energy Power Research Institute, 155Engineering Science, 382ENSCO, 165environmental effects, 4, 5, 7, 8

data, 125 (table 19, 126,laws, 319

Environmental Protection16, 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

Burford, Anne M., EPA Administrator, 345Cooperation with USGS, 93delisting of hazardous waste, 275Emergency and Remedial Response Information

System, 4Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratories,

250, 251extraction procedure (EP) tests, 69, 273fiscal year 1983 R&D effort, 30, 74hazardous waste program budget, 34oHazard Ranking System (HRS), 383, 386imminent hazard and enforcement provisions, 294

citizen suits, 295implementation of RCRA, 265, 269integration of programs, 35-37ISS closure and post-closure regulations, 285Lavelle, Rita M., Assistant Administrator for Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, 16long-term, systematic program, need for, 111manifest system, 278notice to generators, 119notification from generators, transporters, and

facilities, 277Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel, 341Office of Planning and Resource Management, 339Office of Reserach an Development, 94, 33o, 331Office of Solid Waste, 128, 339performance standards, 280permit applications, 293reduction of grants to States, 65regulation of waste generators, 278requirements for hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities, 279-280Risk/Cost Policy Model (WET matrix), 64, 88, 100,

385, 387, 389, 390, 391STORET, 254survey of uncontrolled 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, 293Federal exemptions, 3, 7, 9, 12, 27, 61, 116, 276

eliminating, 68examples (table 17), 117State definitions, 122

FederaI funding, loss of, 23Federal hazardous waste program, 26

advantages and disadvantages (table 13), 96goals, 60-67scenarios, 98

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 258fee systems:

affect to prices in market place, 85

CERCLA, 30, 31, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 98State use of, 30, 31, 32, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83,

366, 364focus of study, 7, 46, 47Food and Drug Administration, 201Franklin Research Institute, 211Fred C. Hart Associates, 131General Accounting Office (GAO), 25, 51, 126general facility standards, 287

facihty permitting, 293incinerators, 291land disposal facilities, 293storage, 291

General Portland Co., Paulding, Ohio, 166Georgia, 123, 131Good Year Tire & Rubber Co., 155Guam, 120, 121

Hawaii, 199hazard classification framework:

advantages and disadvantages, 96congressional action, 86costs, 90degree-of-hazard considerations, 102difference from other approaches, 100elements, 86-87examples, 89facilities, 17, 34-35, 60, 85-88goals, 88-90in a risk management framework, 99integrated risk management approach, 101link between risk estimation, 103protection of health and environment, 25, 88summary, 34-35wastes, 17, 34-35, 60, 85-88

hazardous waste:acute hazardous waste, 274amount of, 3, 5, 8, 44, 111, 119, 120, 124average cost of disposal, 6characteristics, 273, 274chemical treatment, 16classification, 17, 27, 33, 34-35, 86-87, 99, 221,

229-242, 270compliance cost, 332containment technologies, 12data collection mandates, 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, 275determination of solutions (fig. 4), 112dilemma, 52dispersal, 13, 29, 31, 36, 52, 72, 73, 77disposal, 6, 8, 14, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39, 52, 72, 73,

77, 292empty containers, 277estimates by EPA and the States (table 18), 121exemptions, 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 facilities, 127-133management paths (fig. 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, 370regulatory criteria, establishing of, 271, 33, 56, 278remedial actions, 21, 57, 63, 140, 205, 209, 211,

308-311requirements for transporters, 279solid waste excluded from definition of, 273spent pickle liquor, 216state programs under RCRA, 269-299tax, 318, 367technical performance standards [table 55), 289temporary exclusion, 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, 294standards for, 281, 285-286, 351, 368

treatment 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 kilns, 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, 168, 169fluid-wall reactors, 172landfills, 174-186

bottom liners, 177, 178, 185, 186control features, 176

cover, 179, 180current practice, 1 8 3regulatory issues, 185site hydrology, 181, 182siting restriction, 185stabilization/solidification process, 182, 183

surface impoundments, 4, 5, 12, 13, 186-189evaluation, 187regulatory issues, 188, 189use and evaluation, 175, 183, 184waste characteristics, 182, 185

multiple hearth incinerators, 168performance standards, 159, 160, 161plasm-arc reactors, 172

principal organic hazardous constituent IPOHC),159, 161, 162

product of incomplete combustion (PIC), 161, 162,170, 173

recovery/recycle operation, case examples, 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

underground injection wells, 189classification, 191design, 190evaluation, 192location, 191regulations, 193, 194

wet oxidation, 173Hazardous Waste Compensation 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, 285financial responsibility and insurance

standards, 285incinerators, 287landfills, 286surface 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, 370

alternatives, 61, 71, 74, 79, 82, 89, 98, 356, 364compliance costs for facilities, 334criticism of regulations, 371exemptions from monitoring, 372facilities, 293interim status standards, 286monitoring, 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, 362identification 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

Comprehensive Environmental 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 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), 321Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 116, 199Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 279, 320House Report 94-1491Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 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

National Interim Primary Drinking WaterStandards, 284, 324, 379

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 272Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA), 327Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 36, 92, 93,

125, 233, 234, 320liability factors, 62, 93, 315, 357, 359, 363London Dumping Convention, 199Louisiana, 8, 123, 131Love Canal, 6, 203, 224Lowry Landfill, Denver, Colo., 255, 348

Management facilities:EPA survey, 128, 129Government data needs, 127industrial data needs, 127, 128monitoring, 127offsite, 130, 131, 132permitting, 127, 133public data needs, 127, 128siting, 127State data collection, 131

management strategies, alternatives, 29-30, 48, 72-75energy recovery, 29, 73material recovery, 29, 73waste separation, 29, 73

Massachusetts, 8, 256, 258maximum concentration limits (MCL), 379methyl mercury, 243Michigan, 79, 131, 194, 233, 259, 276, 351, 353, 367

Millipore, 152Minnesota, 31, 77, 78, 256, 354

State Pollution Control Agency, 354State Waste Management Board, 354

Mississippi, 131Missouri, 30, 75Mitre Model, 383Modar, Inc., 173monitoring, 19, 20, 27, 33, 45, 52, 61, 104, 221,

242-254, 283-288, 292, 372, 375description of functions (table 48), 243environmental fate and design, 243

aquatic systems, 244major technical issues, 248-254

analytical methodology, 250data comparisons, 249ground water requirement, 283, 284institutional approaches, 252

RCRA facilities, 266sampling, 248, 377, 378strategies:

assessment monitoring, 248surveillance monitoring, 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, 329National 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, 199municipal 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, 214metal-finishing process, 214

public concern, 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, 340research and development (R&D), 4, 12, 16, 19, 40, 63,

72, 75, 81, 98, 127, 128, 162, 188, 226, 250, 330assistance, 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, 228risk assessment, 223

models, 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:alternatives to land disposal, 356comparability of programs to Federal RCRA, 349data acquisition, 57, 58, 63, 64differences between Federal and State programs, 348expenditures on hazardous waste program

activities, 343Federal relationship, 56, 57, 66, 328fee system, 30, 31, 32, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83,

364, 365funding, 21implementing program, 23-24, 46, 54, 55, 65lack of programs, 4planning, 22problems, 65, 66, 344programs, lack of study, 56, 57programs under RCRA, 296, 328, 344RCRA/CERCLA participation, 65, 66, 71, 90RCRA grants, 58RCRA program authorization, 346responses to delays and perceived inadequacies of

Federal program, 268responsibilities, major concerns, 23-24, 55, 56, 57, 58siting programs, 355summary of small quantity generator provisions, 352Superfund, 268, 305zero funding, 345

Sunohio, 155, 156Superfund, 300-319

abatement actions, 303chemical taxes, 315cleanup, 267, 312cost recovery actions, 303Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund, 314hazardous substances under CERCLA, 300liability, 315National Contingency Plan, 305

table 57, 306National Priority List, 304notification of inactive waste management sites, 301Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund, 317response authority, 302standard of cleanup, 313State costs, 268State funds, 368State legislation, 369State participation, 305

Sweden, 166

Tennessee, 358Texas, 123, 131, 172, 259, 354Thagard Research Corp., 1723M Corp., 165toxic water pollutants, 322TRW, 119

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites:advantages and disadvantages of control

technologies (table 38), 210

chemical analysis, 208cleanup, 7, 8, 20, 21, 53, 54, 14CI, 205-207, 208comparative ranking, 64effectiveness of CERCLA, 20environment] pathway control, 211-213identification, 207inspection, 208most serious, 5, 8, 20, 21remedial action, 205, 209, 211survey of, 4, 20waste control, 209, 211

Underground Injection Control Program, 194, 195Union Chemical Co,, Union, Maine, 169United Nations, 84United Nations Environmental Program, Regional

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

compliance costs, 9 5data requirements, 116, 117, 13:3exemptions, 276fees on, 3, 30, 75, 77notification to EPA, 277number of, 123reporting to EPA, 119, 120State data, 120, 121survey, 120

waste management:compliance costs, 332Federal financial assistance grants, by State, 342inadequate techniques, 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, 78State exemptions, 79tax credits, 32, 33, 78

comparison of models (table 22], 142disincentives, 10, 11, 30economic factors, 148emerging technologies, 151

biotechnology, 152, 155segregation technologies, 152

membrane separation, 152chemical dechlorination, 155

end-product suhstitution, 10, 11, 139, 141, 144, 145 incentives, 10, 11, 28, 72, 74, 78, 146 investment in, 6, 32 methods (table 2), 10, 11 process modification, 10, 139, 141, 143

chlor-alkali industry, 143 metal-finishing industry, 144 vinyl chloride (plastics) production. 143. 144

source segregation, 10, 11, 139, 141, 142 recovery/recycling (tahle 2), 11, 139, 141, 146-148

chemical transformation, 148 commercial (off-site) recovery, 11, 147

Index • 407

component separation. 148 description of technologies (table 27). 149-150 in-plant recycling, 147 material exchanges, 147 physical separation, 148 technologies heing developed (table 28J, 151

water contamination in cities. 5 West Covina, Calif.. 255 West Virginia, 347 Wilsonville, Ill.. 255 Wisconsin. 79 Wyoming. 345