# REC YCL ING OF

HAZA RD OUS WA STE: RC RA ’S UNSUN G SUCC ESS STORY

PREPARED BY:

RICHA RD C. FORTUNA PRESIDENT STRA TEGI C ENVIRONMENTA L A NA LYSIS, L.C.

PREPARED FOR:

THE SIERRA

CLUB, EA RTH JUSTICE NA TURA L RESOURCES DEFENSE COUN CIL

Nov ember

20, 201 0

### Novembe r 20, 20 10

Mr. Patrick Ga llagher Director of

En v ironm ent al La w Sierra Club 85 Seco nd Stree t, 5 Floor t h 

### San Francisco, CA 941 05

Re: “Recycling o f Hazardo us W aste ”

Dear Mr. Ga llagher:

Pursua nt t o your request, I a m subm itting my Repo rt on the currentstat us, t rend s, an d history of

ha z ardo us waste recycling un der t he Resou rce Con serv ation an d Reco v ery Act (RCRA).

A ppendix A

sum ma riz es m y

30 + y ears o f

involv em entw ith th e RCRA Pro gram an d relate d e nvironm ent al sta tute s. A ppendix B provides a de tailed acco unt ing of the false claims of “stigma” th at h ave bee n m ade over 30+ years of RCRA rulem akings.
I ap preciat e th e o ppo rtunity to b e o f assista nce to you, the Sierra Club , Ea rth Ju stice, the NRDC and the com mu nities which ha v e b een af fecte d o r threa ten ed by this glaring gap in RCRA’s regulato ry regime.

Since rely
,
/S / Richa rd C. Fortu na

Richard C. Fortun a Preside nt SEA , LC 882 8 Harn ess T rail Pot om ac, MD 2 085 4 301 -299 -601 3

## T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

I. RECYC LING OF HA ZA RDOUS WASTE I S A LIVE A ND WELL UNDER RCR

A

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. BENEFICIA L REUSE A ND RECY CLING HAS INCREASED DRA MA TICA LLY AS REGULA

TORY STA NDA RDS HA VE I NCREASED UNDER RCRA A ND OTHER FEDERA L STA TUTES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III. USE A ND/OR RECYC LING OF RCRA HA ZA RDOUS WASTES IS FLOURISHING IN THE CONSUMER/RES IDENTIA L SECTORS AS W ELL

. . 14

IV. CA LIFORNIA ’S USE D OIL RECYCLING PROGRA M, WHICH LIS TS USED O IL AS A HA ZA RDOUS WASTE, HAS A HIGHER BENEFICIA L REUSE RATE THA N THE FEDERA L PROGRA M WHICH, W ITH LIMITED EX CEPTIONS, DOES NOT LIST USE D OIL AS HA ZA RDOUS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

V. INDUSTRIES’ A RGUMENTS THA T RCRA REGULA

TION W ILL REDUCE BENEFICIA L REUSE A ND RECY CLING A RE UNFOUNDED A ND UNORIGINA L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A PPE NDICES

A

. QUA LIFICA

TIONS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. “STIGMA ” CLA IMS v . MA RKETPLA CE REA LITY – 19 79 TO PRES ENT

. . . B-1

i

### I. RECYC LING OF HA ZA RDOUS WASTE I S A LIVE A ND WELL UNDER RCR

A

A

. Introduction

Since RCRA’s ado ption an d im plem ent ation in th e lat e 1 970 ’s, RCRA regulation ha s 1 

### enh ance d recycling an d b ene f icial reuse an d a ssured en v ironm ent al pro tectio n in the proce ss. A s discusse d in great er de tail be low , th is is in pa rt be cause un der RCRA, environme nta lly

prot ective recy cling is preferred t o th e lan d d isposa l of a waste
ma terial.
Despite the clear e v iden ce o f RCRA’s success at d riv ing increase s in reu se a nd recy cling, indust ries ha v e o f ten resisted RCRA regulation by arguing, for examp le, th at RCRA regulation w ould redu ce recycling be cause it is sup pose dly too b urde nsom e, or 2 

### beca use labe ling a m ate rial as “ha z ardo us” w ould stigmat iz e th e m ate rial and redu ce peo ple’s wil lingness to reuse it; so called “stigma” argum ent s. A ccording to the se assertio ns, t he only w ay to en coura ge recy cling is to exem pt it f rom hazardou s w aste regulation

.
In t his regard, in dust ry ’s current opp osition to EPA ’s prop osal t o regulat e Coa l Com bust ion Re sidue (“CCR ”) unde r RCRA Sub title C rep eat s the sam e a rg um ent s tha t indu stry ha s asse rted over the past thirty-plus y ears o f RCRA’s imple me nta tion, How ever, the histo ry

of RCRA regulation de mo nstrat es th e fallacy of the se a ssertion s. RCRA regulation of

a su bsta nce doe s no t de crease recycl ing and be nef icial reuse of the sub stan ce -- w het her b ecau se o f the alleged burd en of

such regulation , or b ecau se of a su ppo sed stigma f rom labe ling a prod uct a s ha z ardo us –to the con trary , RCRA regulation ha s just t he opp osite ef fect o n recycling rate s.

As d iscussed in th is Repo rt, th e b ene f icial reuse an d recycling of m ate rials und er RCRA has bee n a trem end ous success. T his Rep ort is d iv ided into 6 se ctions, ea ch

T h e s t a t u t e g o v e r n i n g t h e d a i l y 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 ” i n t h e U

. S

. i s k n o w n a s t h e 1 R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d R e c o v e r y A c t ( R C R A ; p r o n o u n c e d R e c
- R a )

. R C R A o r P

. L

. 9 4

- 5 8 0 w a s
e n a c t e d i n 1 9 7 6 a n d a m e n d e d t h e S o l i d W a s t e D i s p o s a l A c t ( S W D A ) P

. L

. 8 9

- 2 7 2
, e n a c t e d i n 1 9 6 5

. R C R A i n c o r p o r a t e d S u b t i t l e C
, t h e H a z a r d o u s W a s t e P r o g r a m

. T h e H a z a r d o u s a n d S o l i d W a s t e A m e n d m e n t s ( H S W A ) o f 1 9 8 4
, P

. L

. 9 8

- 6 1 6
, e ff e c t i v e l y r e w r o t e S u b t i t l e C o f t h e S W D A

. O f a l l t h e s e
a c r o n y m s , i t i s “ R C R A ” t h a t i s m o s t f r e q u e n t l y u s e d t o r e f e r t o t h e S W D A a n d i t s c o l l e c t i v e a m e n d m e n t s

.

R C R A i s t h e n a t i o n ’ s b a s i c a u t h o r i t y g o v e r n i n g t h e d a i l y m a n a g e m e n t a n d o n g o i n g r e l e a s e s f r o m w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t u n i t s

. C E R C L A O R “ S u p e r f u n d ” i s t h e n a t i o n ’ s c l e a n u p a n d e m e r g e n c y
r e s p o n s e a u t h o r i t y f o r r e l e a s e s o f h a z a r d o u s s u b s t a n c e s

. T h e p r e v e n t i v e s t a n d a r d s o f R C R A a r e i n t e n d e d t o a v e r t t h e c r e a t i o n o f f u t u r e p r o b l e m s i t e s r e q u i r i n g c l e a n u p u n d e r C E R C L A

.

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e “ r e g u l a t o r y b u r d e n ” a r g u m e n t
, t h e i n c r e a s e d b u r d e n o f R C R A c o m p l i a n c e w i l l 2 i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t s o f t h e r e c y c l e d p r o d u c t s p r o d u c e d f r o m a w a s t e m a t e r i a l a n d i n t u r n d i s a d v a n t a g e o r

“ s t i g m a t i z e ” t h e m i n t h e m a r k e t p l a c e

. 

### 1

### examinin g a sep arate asp ect o f RCRA’s recy cling historyan d tre nds and the ir app licability

to the CCR rulema king. Sec tion I examin es se v eral gene ral trend s in hazardou s w aste recycl ing und er RCRA. Sec tion II use s spe cif ic illustrativ e e x am ples to d em onst rate tha t reu se a nd recy cling of m ate rials has increase d u nde r RCRA regulation

. Sec tion III examin es th e a ccelerat ing trend s in th e recycling of con sum erbase d h azardous w aste

. Sec tion IVexamin es h ow Californ ia’s Used Oil Program h as a h igher rate o f

recycl ing than the Fed eral Pro gram

. Sec tion Vexamin es th e h istorical claims of “stigma” asso ciated w ith recycling -related rulem akings un der RCRA f rom 197 9-prese nt a nd com pare s the se claim s w ith m arketp lace re ality.

B. Ov erv iew of Data

Actu al da ta o n RCRA gene ration an d waste m ana geme nt p rov ides e mp irical ev iden ce dem onst rating tha t ha z ardo us waste recycling un der RCRA is in fact a great su ccess. More spe cif ically , RCRA requires th at e v erytwo y ears waste gen erato rs and m ana gers subm it da ta re garding their waste gene ration an d m ana geme nt in w hatis called the RCRA Bienn ial Repo rt Survey (BRS). T his survey

examin es o n a bien nial b asis th e 3 

### f ull spe ctrum of

w aste genera tion and m ana geme nt, includin g recy cling practices, and atte mp ts to quant if

y the volume s of

w aste s m ana ged an d gene rated by facility type, locatio n, a nd v olum e. T he Bien nial Rep ort a ssigns hazardou s w aste recycl ing practices to o ne of 5 su bcat egories. See Table 1

.

TA BLE 1: Rec lama tion and Rec ov ery Manage ment Codes
Code Recy cling A ctiv ity
H010 Metals reco v eryinclud ing retorting, sm elting, che mica l, etc.
H020 Solvent reco v ery(distillation , extraction , et c.)
H039 Othe r recovery or reclam ation for reuse includ ing acid regenerat ion, organics recover, et c.
H050 Ene rg y

recovery

at this site – u sed as a f uel (inclu des onsite f uel b lend ing before e nergy recovery )
H061 Fuel b lend ing prior to e nergy recovery

at ano the r site (w aste generat ed eithe r onsite or rece iv ed f rom of fsite)

In e x am ining the Bien nial Rep ort d ata for 20 07, the last year for w hich co mp lete tab ulate d d ata exists, one see s a wide ran ge of w aste be ing reclaime d in subst ant ial

v olum es u nde r the ha z ardo us waste regulat ions. For exam ple, as sh own in Table 2 belo w , which sum ma riz es so me of the m ost co mm only generate d wastestrea ms and

4 0 C F R P a r t s 2 6 2

. 4 1
, 2 6 4

. 7 5
, a n d 2 7 0

. 3 0 ( l ) ( 9 ) 3



### 2

### the volume of tho se wastes recla ime d d uring 200 7, o v er a million ton s of ignitable, corrosiv e, a nd/ or lea chab le m eta l-bearing w aste s w ere recycled in 200 7.

TA BLE 2: Volume of Vari ous RCRA Hazar dous W aste Recy cle d in 20 07

Wa ste Code Wa ste De scr iption Recy cle d (Tons)
D001 - D009 chara cteristic w aste ignitable, corrosiv e a nd/ or leach able m eta l-bearing w aste s 1,4 61, 006

D002 - Corrosiv es lead acid bat teries 1,2 99, 823
D009 - Mercury f luoresce nt la mp s 813 ,93 5
F001 - F005 listed w aste chlorina ted solvents 311 ,52 1
F006 - F009 listed w aste me tal b earing w aste s 37, 857

S o u r c e : 2 0 0 7 R C R A B i e n n i a l R e p o r t S u r v e y ( B R S ) D a t a b a s e

. F O I A R e q u e s t H Q

- F O I

- 0 1 8 1 5

- 1 0

. O c t o b e r 1 2
, 2 0 1 0

. 2 0 0 7 i s t h e m o s t c u r r e n t y e a r f o r w h i c h d a t a h a s b e e n t a b u l a t e d a n d p u b l i s h e d

.



### Ind eed , for som e co mm only generate d h azardous w aste the recycl ing rate is 6 7% o r great er as shown in Table 3

.

TA BLE 3: Rec y cling Ra tes for V arious Large Volume RCRA Hazar dous W aste s
Wa ste Code Wa ste Ty pe Volume Recy cle d (tons)* Volume

Gene rated (tons)** Recy cling

Rate

K04 8-52 Pet roleum Ref ining Slud ge 23 ,87 8 34, 777 69 %+

K06 1 Electric Arc Fu rnace Dust 6 10, 000 *** 923 ,54 6 67%

K17 1-17 2 Pet roleum Ref ining Catalysts 49 ,33 6 61, 127 81%
D002 Lea d A cid Ba tteries 1,3 00, 000 1,4 00, 000 9 3%++

* F O I A R e q u e s t H Q

- F O I

- 0 1 8 1 5

- 1 0

* * S u p p l e m e n t a l d a t a p r o v i d e d b y R C R A B R S S t a ff
, O c t o b e r 2 1
, 2 0 1 0

. * * * E P A
, O ff i c e o f R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d R e c o v e r y , “ A s s e s s i n g t h e M a n a g e m e n t o f L e a d i n

S c r a p M e t a l a n d E l e c t r i c A r c F u r n a c e D u s t ; F i n a l R e p o r t
, ” E P A 5 3 0

- R

- 0 9

- 0 0 4
, A p r i l
, 2 0 0 9
, p

. 1 8

. + T h i s i s a n u n d e r e s t i m a t e a s m a n y r e f i n e r i e s d i s p o s e / r e c y c l e t h e i r K 0 4 8

- 5 2 w a s t e s i n t h e i r c o k i n g
s y s t e m s o r u s e i t t o q u e n c h t h e c o k i n g c y c l e

. + + “ W a s t e R e c y c l i n g , ” S o l i d W a s t e A s s o c i a t i o n o f N o r t h A m e r i c a ( S W A N A )
, S i l v e r S p r i n g , M D
, 2 0 0 8 ;

P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D r

. R e i n h a r t

. D a t a w a s f r o m a 2 0 0 3 S u r v e y

.



### 3

### Last ly , an oth er m easu re of the f requentan d rou tine nat ure o f ha z ardo us waste recy cling unde r RCRA is rev eale d b y examin ing all 563 w aste cod es listed or ide ntif ied und er RCRA an d d ete rmining which of tho se co des w ere n ot re cy cled a t all. T he BRS dat a reveals th at o nly 4 of the 56 3 waste co des for w hich d ata w as rep orted in 2 007 had no recycl ing w hat soever. T hese cod es were largely dioxin-conta ining w aste s and /or viny l chloride prod uction w aste s. In sho rt, 99 .3% of all RCRA w aste cod es und erw ent som e level of recycl ing during the 20 07 repo rting period, as re f lected in Table 4 be low

.

TA BLE 4: Pe rce ntage of RCRA Wa ste Codes for Whic h Some Lev el of Rec y cling W as Reported in the 2 007 Biennia l Report
Number of RCRA Wa ste Codes * Number Reporting No Recy cling** % RCRA Wa stes Codes Reporting Some Recy cling
563 4+

- 99. 3%***

* 2 0 0 7 R C R A B i e n n i a l R e p o r t S u r v e y , p p

. D 1

- D 1 7

. * * S u p p l e m e n t a l d a t a p r o v i d e d b y R C R A B R S S t a ff
, O c t o b e r 2 2
, 2 0 1 0

. * * * 5 5 9 ÷ 5 6 3 = 9 9

. 3 %

. S o m e o b s c u r e “ P ” a n d “ U ” l i s t w a s t e s m a y n o t h a v e b e e n g e n e r a t e d d u r i n g t h e B R S r e p o r t i n g p e r i o d

. + E x c e p t f o r R C R A w a s t e c o d e s F 0 2 0
, F 0 2 3
, K 1 7 4
, K 1 7 8 ; e v e r y “ D ”
, “ F ” a n d “ K ” c o d e w a s t e s w e r e

r e c y c l e d i n 2 0 0 7
, f r e q u e n t l y b y m u l t i p l e m e t h o d s

.



### 4

### II. BENEFICIA L REUSE A ND RECY CLING HAS INCREASED DRA MA TICA LLY AS REGULA

TORY STA NDA RDS HA VE I NCREASED UNDER RCRA A ND OTHER FEDERA L STA TUTES

A

. Back ground – RCRA ’s La nd Disposa l Res triction (LDR) Program

T his sect ion p rov ides a m ore in de pth an alysi s of tren ds in hazardou s w aste recycl ing using thre e d if

feren t ha z ardo us wastestrea ms: i.e. , K0 61 Electric Arc Fu rnace Dust, D009 m ercury contain ing f luoresce nt la mp s, an d D00 9 m ercury- cont aining au tom otive
sw itches. T his an alysi s reveals a t rend w hich is t y pical o f m any w aste stream s tha t have be en recy cled u nde r RCRA; nam ely, that the rate of recycl ing increase s as t he stan dard s un der RCRA b ecam e m ore st ringent.

T he passa ge of

the initial RCRA-base d p rogram regulatio ns in 198 0 p romp ted a min ima l level of

recycl ing to b e u nde rtaken for m any w aste stream s. Howev er, it was 4 

### not un til RCRA’s Lan d Dispo sal Restriction (LDR) program was imp lem ent ed in 19 86- 199 0 th at t he recy cling of m any RCRA w aste stream s be gan to acce lerate

. T he Lan d 5 

### Disposal Re strictions (or L DR Program) is a tw o p art p rogram th at: 1) proh ibited all lan d dispo sal un less wastes were f irst treate d to redu ce to x icity to the greatestextent achie v able by Best Dem onst rated Available T reatm ent(BDAT ), an d 2 ) required th at t he residue s of

such trea tm ent be place d o nly into un its m eet ing state -of-the-art liner an d cont ainm ent stan dard s. T he LDR program ha s its gene sis in th e 1 984 Hazardous and Solid W aste Am end me nts (HSW A) w hich e stab lished a p hase d, m ulti-y ear p rogram tha t required b est t reatm ent followed by best cont ainm ent . A s discusse d in great er det ail be low , by requiring tha t waste m ate rial be pre-trea ted an d d ispose d o f in a n environme nta lly

ap prop riate m ann er, RCRA an d its L DR program a llow ed resou rce recovery an d recycling to f lourish b y m aking it cost -comp etitive w ith th e a lterna tiv edispo sal of

the m ate rial.

T he institut ion o f

the LDR pro gram in th e 1 984 HSW A truly put an end to the land dispo sal of

un treat ed w aste s, an d b y do ing so pro v ided a le v el pla y ing f ield o n which treat me nt a nd recy cling techn ologies cou ld com pet e. Prior to the institu tion of the LDR program, very

few treatm ent or recycling tech nolo gies could f inan cially com pet e with an
unre gulated , un lined hole in th e groun d. T his sect ion e x am ines t he ben ef icial imp act o f RCRA’s increasing stringency on t he rate and volume s of ha z ardo us waste b eing recy cled.

4 5 F R 3 3 0 6 6 ( M a y 1 9
, 1 9 8 0 )

. T h e R C R A “ B a s e P r o g r a m ” R e g u l a t i o n s ; F i n a l R u l e

. 4

5 w w w

. e p a

. g o v / w a s t e s / h a z a r d / t s d / l d r / i n d e x

. h t m

. R C R A 3 0 0 4 ( b )

- ( p )
, e s p e c i a l l y 3 0 0 4 ( m )
, ( o )

. 

### 5

### B. The El ectric A rc Furna ce Dust Recy cling Ma rke t: A RCRA Succ ess Story Of Incr eas ed Regula tion A nd Resulting Inc rea ses In Rec y cling

1. Manageme nt Trends for EA F Dust: 198 3-19 93. Va stly More Recy cling A

fter RCRA

LDRs

In 1 995 I was retain ed by EPA t o m ake a p resen tatio n b efore t heir Com mo n S ense Initiat iv e (CSI) Su bcom mitt ee on Iron and Ste el In dust ry W aste s. Much of

the da ta f or 6 

### this stu dy w as d eriv ed f rom the available B ienn ial Repo rt da ta a t th e tim e.

As ref lected in Table 5 , " K06 1 Man agem entT rend s f rom 198 3-19 93, " in 19 83, w hen the re w ere n o requirem ent s un der RCRA to imm obilize or recycl e th e to x ic const ituen ts cont aine d in K06 1 E lectric Arc Furna ce d ust p rior to lan d p lacem ent , less t han 10 % of the elect ric arc f urna ce d ust waste st ream w as recycled. T he v ast m ajority w as sim ply land dispo sed. By 199 3, t en y ears la ter, o v er 70 % of this waste st ream w as b eing reclaime d, e ither o n-site o r of f-site; vir tua lly a co mp lete rev ersal in ten years time . T he
ma ssiv e jum p in recy cling w as d riv en by the L DR program’s trea tm entrequireme nts.

Prohib ition o f

un cont rolled la nd dispo sal pro v ided the en gine for th is transitio n to recy cling. T his f act is a nd has bee n a cknowledged b y indu stry , includ ing the Am erican Iron and Ste el In stitute (AISI ) represe nta tiv e in atte nda nce at m y prese nta tion to t he EPA

. 7



### TA BLE 5: K06 1 Mana gement Tre nds: 19 83-1 993 * Manageme nt Method Perc ent (% ) EA F Dust Managed-19 83 Perc ent (% ) EA F Dust Managed-19 93 +



### HTMR** <10% 72 (86. 5) +


### Othe r Recovery , Reu se
--- - 6 (2 .3) +



### Lan df ill >80% 19 (11. 2) +

* D a t a b a s e d o n 1 9 8 3
, 1 9 9 3 B i e n n i a l R e p o r t i n g d a t a

. * * H T M R

- H i g h T e m p e r a t u r e M e t a l s R e c o v e r y
+ F i g u r e s i n ( ) a r e f o r 1 9 9 2
, b a s e d o n a 1 9 9 3 P R I S t u d y , “ E l e c t r i c A r c F u r n a c e D u s t

– 1 9 9 3 O v e r v i e w , ” E P R I C e n t e r f o r M a t e r i a l s P r o d u c t i o n , C M P R e p o r t 9 3

- 1
, J u l y , 1 9 9 3
, p

. 3

- 5

.

F o r t u n a , R i c h a r d C

. , “ S t e e l I n d u s t r y W a s t e a n d R C R A ’ s S o l i d W a s t e D e f i n i t i o n , ” P r e s e n t a t i o n 6 b e f o r e E P A ’ s C o m m o n S e n s e I n i t i a t i v e , I r o n & S t e e l S o c i e t y C o m m i t t e e ; A m b a s s a d o r W e s t H o t e l
, C h i c a g o , I L
, A u g u s t 2 4
, 1 9 9 5

.

A t t h i s C S I S e s s i o n , J o h n W i t t e n b o r n e o f t h e A m e r i c a n I r o n a n d S t e e l I n s t i t u t e , ( A I S I ) 7

a c k n o w l e d g e d t h i s f i n d i n g i n h i s o w n p r e s e n t a t i o n a s w e l l

. 

### 6

### 2. Tw enty -One Firms We re De v eloping Te chnologies To Recl aim EA F Dust A

fter The LDRs Took Effect

Ano the r indicat ion o f

the robu st m arket for recycli ng electric a rc f urna ce d ust is t he
num ber o f

f irms th at in v este d in new techn ologies to recycl e th e m ate rial. In 19 95 the re w ere 2 1 se para te f irms de v elop ing a bro ad array of recycl ing techn ologies to reclaim z inc an d o the r me tals f rom electric a rc f urna ce d ust. T hese m eth ods include d: electro w inning, p lasm a cu pola , pla sma arc, h y drom eta llurg y an d th e re-inject ion o f

EAF dust ba ck into the elect ric arc f urna ce. T his recycli ng base d ind ustry w as d riv en by the LDR program – in dee d, virtually no ne of the se te chno logies existed prior to the LDR program.

3. RCRA's I mpact O n Recy cling E conomics ; Without RCRA Most Recy cling W ould Be Impos sible

Ano the r me asure of

the prem ise atissue w ould be to examine w het her RCRA regulation s w ere m aking it eco nom ically imp ossible for f irms to en ter o r com pet e in this
ma rketpla ce. T he argume nt is f requent ly m ade tha t th e co st of

pe rmitting an d
com pliance are so h igh that eco nom ically sen sitiv e o pera tions such as recycling facilities m ust b e e x em pt f rom RCRA regulation in ord er to survi v e.

In f act, quite th e o ppo site is th e ca se. It is p recisely du e to RCRA regulation tha t m any oth erw ise m arginal, or n on-p rof itable recycl ing and /or reu se o pera tions are a ble t o provide services that bo th re turn resou rces ba ck to the eco nom y an d p rotectthe environme nt. For exam ple, the Elect ric Power Research I nstitu te (EP RI) release d a stud y of elect ric arc f urna ce d ust re cy clers con cluding th at n one of the lead ing
com me rcially

available E AF du st zinc reclaime rs w ould be prof itable w ithou t a hazardou s w aste tipp ing fee. Data f rom this stu dy, ref lected in Table 6
, 8 9 

### dem onst rates tha t no facility in e x istence in 1 994 (i.e., Bold en tries in Table 6 ) could
surv iv e o n th e sa le of

reclaim ed z inc pro ductalon e. Fiv e o f the eight e x isting and prop osed facilities in Table 6 w ould no t be prof itable w ithou t a hazardou s w aste tipp ing fee. In fact, it is the ha z ardo us waste tip ping fee com pan ies cha rg e th at m akes bot h the facility

prof itable , an d p rov ides t he rev enu es to en sure t hatthe toxic residue s of recy cling are prop erly

m ana ged.

A “ t i p p i n g f e e ” i s t h e f e e a f i r m c h a r g e s f o r p r o p e r m a n a g e m e n t o f a w a s t e a n d i t s r e s i d u a l s

. 8 T h e t e r m o r i g i n a t e d w h e n l a n d d i s p o s a l w a s t h e p r e d o m i n a n t m e t h o d o f m a n a g e m e n t ( i

. e

. , t r u c k s t i p p i n g t h e i r c o n t e n t s i n t o t h e d i s p o s a l c e l l )
, b u t n o w r e f e r s t o t h e f e e c h a r g e d f o r a l l f o r m s o f m a n a g e m e n t
, i n c l u d i n g r e c y c l i n g

.

T h e E P R I C e n t e r f o r M a t e r i a l s P r o d u c t i o n

. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e C M P E l e c t r i c A r c F u r n a c e D u s t 9 T r e a t m e n t S y m p o s i u m I V

. A S u m m a r y o f t h e T e c h n i c a l P r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d P a n e l D i s c u s s i o n f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 2 5
, 1 9 9 4 S y m p o s i u m

. F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 4

. C M P R e p o r t N o

. 9 4

- 2

. 

### 7

### T hus, w hile ind ustry has in the pa st argued tha t th e co st of RCRA pe rmitting an d
com pliance are so h igh that eco nom ically sen sitiv e o pera tions such as recycling facilities can not af

ford t o co mp ly

an d wil l be shutdo w n, ju st th e o ppo site is tru e. RCRA regulation m akes recy cling econo mica lly feasib le, a nd provides sta bility in th e m arket by
serv ing as a buf

fer againstthe som etim es violent p ricing sw ings in com mo dity market s, avoiding the tem pta tion to t hen cut corne rs on environme nta l com pliance requireme nts.

TA BLE 6: Compara tiv e E arnings of EA F Dust Recy cle rs Be fore Tax es* *

Proce ss Earni ngs/Ton ($) For EA F Dust Faci lities Sc ale d To 100 ,00 0 Tons Per Year*** No Tip Fee Tip Fee
Metal P rodu cers
E nviropla s 37 103
Mod if ied Zin cex 24 83
Oxi de Produ cers
A usmel t NP* 108

Fla me Re actor NP 120

E nviropla s NP 66
S canA rc NP 71
S ingle S tage W ael z Kiln 8 119

Tw o Stage Wa elz Kil n NP 75

* N P = N o t P r o f i t a b l e

* * T h e E P R I C e n t e r f o r M a t e r i a l s P r o d u c t i o n

. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e C M P E l e c t r i c A r c F u r n a c e D u s t T r e a t m e n t S y m p o s i u m I V

. A S u m m a r y o f t h e T e c h n i c a l P r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d P a n e l D i s c u s s i o n f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 2 5
, 1 9 9 4 S y m p o s i u m

. F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 4

. C M P R e p o r t N o

. 9 4

- 2

. * * * P r e
- t a x e a r n i n g s a r e p e r t o n , a n d a r e b a s e d o n f a c i l i t i e s s c a l e d t o m a n a g e a t l e a s t 1 0 0
, 0 0 0 t o n s / y r

. “ E a r n i n g s ” t y p i c a l l y r e f e r s t o a c t u a l r e v e n u e s , m i n u s t h e c o s t o f s a l e s , b e f o r e t a x e s

.



### 4. Comparativ e A naly sis of EA F Dust Recy cling I n The U.S. Vers us Cana da

A co mp arison of

elect ric arc f urna ce d ust re cy cling market s in th e Unite d S tate s an d in Cana da provides f urthe r evi den ce th at RCRA regulat ion –pa rticularly its LDR p rogram – ca n a nd w ill driv e incre ases in recycli ng and reuse rate s. A s discusse d a bove,

8

### electric a rc f urna ce d ust b ecam e regulat ed und er RCRA in th e 1 980 ’s, an d b y 19 93, over 70 p ercen t of

the du st was being recycled.

At t he sam e tim e, h owev er, Can ada lef t ele ctric arc f urna ce d ust la rg ely unregulate d. Onta rio did not institu te a n RCRA-type LDR pro gram un til app rox ima tely 2005 , ne arly 20 y ears a f

ter th e RCRA L DR program was en acte d in HSW A. Que bec still has n o program com para ble t o th e RCRA L DR program. 10



### In t he 199 3-95 pe riod, when the United Sta tes was recycl ing 70 p ercen t of its ele ctric arc f urna ce d ust, in On tario m ost su ch waste (i.e. , K0 61-type waste (On tario waste code 14 3H (NA 93 80)) was simply stored or disp osed of in p iles on -site. More over, the
v olum e o f

EAF dust be ing recy cled in Cana da f rom dom estic so urces in m ost a reas
w as vir tua lly zero, an d was me rely

be ing piled o n th e groun d. Oth er large EAF dust 11 

### recy clers in th e U.S . also investigated various Ca nad ian m arkets in th e e arly 19 90s and foun d n o int erest in recycli ng or trea tm enttech nolo gies for EA F du st as w ell. On e Cana dian stee l ma nuf actu rer w as int ereste d in recy cling EAF du st, b ut o nly if it was “f ree.”

T hus, in 1 995 th e very w aste tha t was being reclaim ed to a 70 %-86% level ( Table 5 ) in this co unt ry

w as sim ply being place d int o h uge lan d-ba sed piles in Onta rio, m uch as it
w as in the U.S. prior to the existence of the RCRA La nd Disposal Re strictions (LDR) program of

19 84.

C. RCRA ’s La nd Disposa l Res triction Progra m Has Driv en The Succ ess Of Mercury

Lamp Re cy cling
RCRA regulation, an d th e L DR program in pa rticular, ha s ha d a similarly bene f icial imp act o n recycling of

Mercurylam ps. Prior to the institu tion of the La nd Disposal Restrictions for m ercury- cont aining waste in 1 990 , includ ing me rcury -conta ining lam ps, vi rtually no m ercury recycli ng w as o ccurring. T here w ere o nly three f irms

12

T h e o n l y s t a n d a r d s t h a t c o n c e i v a b l y g o v e r n s u c h w a s t e s i n C a n a d a , a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 10 l e a c h i n g t e s t s f o r h e a v y m e t a l s

. T h e s e l e v e l s a r e q u i t e p e r m i s s i v e a n d c o u l d b e e a s i l y a c h i e v e d

. T y p i c a l l y , t h e U

. S

. L D R s t a n d a r d s f o r r e c l a m a t i o n r e s i d u e s w i l l b e a t l e a s t o n e o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e m o r e
s t r i n g e n t t h e n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e a c h l e v e l s f o r P b
, H g , a n d C r

.

“ E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e F u t u r e M a r k e t f o r E A F R e c y c l i n g i n t h e U

. S

. a n d C a n a d a , ” p r e p a r e d f o r t h e 11 S c i e n t i f i c E c o l o g y G r o u p , p r e p a r e d b y S t r a t e g i c E n v i r o n m e n t a l A n a l y s i s , L

. C

. , M a y 8
, 1 9 9 5

.

5 5 F R 2 2 5 2 0 ( J u n e 1
, 1 9 9 0 )

. T h i r d T h i r d S c h e d u l e d W a s t e ; F i n a l R u l e

. T h i s r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d 12 t h e t r e a t m e n t s t a n d a r d s f o r a w i d e r a n g e o f R C R A h a z a r d o u s w a s t e i n c l u d i n g t h e “ D ” c o d e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
w a s t e s s u c h a s D 0 0 9 m e r c u r y
- c o n t a i n i n g l a m p s

. T h e L D R f o r D 0 0 9 l a r g e l y r e q u i r e d t h e u s e o f t h e r m a l

r e t o r t i n g t e c h n o l o g y t o a c h i e v e t h e m a x i m u m a m o u n t o f m e r c u r y r e c o v e r y p r i o r t o t h e l a n d d i s p o s a l o f a n y
r e m a i n i n g m e r c u r y
- c o n t a i n i n g r e s i d u a l s

. 4 0 C F R 2 6 8

. 4 0
, 2 6 8

. 4 8

. R e c y c l i n g v i a r e t o r t i n g w a s d e e m e d B e s t D e m o n s t r a t e d A v a i l a b l e T r e a t m e n t ( B D A T ) t o a c h i e v e m a x i m u m t o x i c i t y r e d u c t i o n p r i o r t o t h e l a n d d i s p o s a l o f m e r c u r y
- c o n t a i n i n g r e s i d u a l s

. 

### 9

### recy cling lamp s in th e U.S . in 1 990 , ha ndling on ly ab out5 m illion lam ps to tal. 13 

### Sub sequen t to the imp lem ent ation of the LDR pro gram for m ercury- cont aining waste, includin g mercury lamp s, by 200 0, t here w ere o v er 60 bu sinesse s op eratin g in 33 state s to collect a nd recy cle m ercury- cont aining pro duct s. T his growth co ntinu ed af ter 14 

### 200 0 a s w ell. T he 200 7 RCRA Bie nnia l Repo rt Survey repo rts tha t as of

20 07, the re
w ere 8 14, 000 ton s of

m ercury- cont aining lam ps recycled in the U.S., the last year for
w hich co mp lete dat a is a v ailable , as indicat ed in Table 2 ab ove

In a dditio n, to f acilitate the recycl ing of m ercury- cont aining lam ps f rom sma ll busin esses, reta ilers and ho useh olds, EPAam end ed the Universal W aste Rule t o include m ercury- cont aining lam ps in 199 9. T he recy cling of m ercury- cont aining 15 

### lam ps, a f requent ly

genera ted ho useh old h azardous w aste , an d th e e stab lishme nt o f an indu stry to facilitate this re cy cling, w ould no t ha v e o ccurred b ut f or th e incre ased stringency of

RCRA’s hazardou s w aste regulation s. 16



### D. Regulation Under The Clea n A ir A ct NESHA P Pr ogram Has Driv en The Suc ces s Of Mer cury A uto Sw itch Rec y cling

Most a uto mo biles b uilt th rough 2 003 com mo nly utiliz ed me rcury -conta ining sw itches to ope rate a varietyof

lighting and oth er circuitry in th e vehicle. At t he end of a vehicle’s life , th ese me rcury -conta ining sw itches w ere t y pically cr ushe d a nd shred ded , alo ng w ith

P r e s e n t a t i o n o f P a u l A b e r n a t h y , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , A s s o c i a t i o n o f L i g h t i n g a n d M e r c u r y 13 R e c y c l e r s ( A L M R ) b e f o r e t h e U

. S

. E P A W o r k s h o p o n M e r c u r y P r o d u c t s , P r o c e s s e s , W a s t e s , a n d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t ; P l e n a r y S e s s i o n : N a t i o n a l I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e U n i v e r s a l W a s t e R u l e f o r M e r c u r y L a m p s

. B a l t i m o r e , M D
, M a r c h 2 2
, 2 0 0 0
, p

. 1

.

I b i d

. 14

6 4 F R 3 6 4 6 5 ( J u l y 6
, 1 9 9 9 ) ; F i n a l R u l e

. A m e n d m e n t s t o t h e U n i v e r s a l W a s t e R u l e t o i n c l u d e 15

m e r c u r y
- c o n t a i n i n g l a m p s

. T h e U n i v e r s a l W a s t e R u l e ( U W R ) p r o v i d e d a m o d i f i e d r e g u l a t o r y s y s t e m t o
e a s e t h e r e g u l a t o r y b u r d e n s o n r e t a i l s t o r e s a n d o t h e r s t h a t w i s h t o c o l l e c t w a s t e s s u c h a s m e r c u r y
c o n t a i n i n g l a m p s a n d e n c o u r a g e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m u n i c i p a l a n d c o m m e r c i a l p r o g r a m s t o r e d u c e t h e q u a n t i t y o f t h e s e w a s t e s g o i n g t o m u n i c i p a l s o l i d w a s t e l a n d f i l l s o r c o m b u s t o r s

. I n a d d i t i o n t h e U W R

r e g u l a t i o n s e n s u r e t h a t t h e w a s t e s s u b j e c t t o t h i s s y s t e m w i l l g o t o a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t a n d r e c y c l i n g f a c i l i t i e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e f u l l h a z a r d o u s w a s t e r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l s

. w w w

. e p a

. g o v / w a s t e s / h a z a r d / w a s t e t y p e s / u n i v e r s a l /

.

R e c y c l i n g o f m e r c u r y l a m p s w a s f u r t h e r a i d e d b y E P A ’ s 1 9 9 9 a m e n d m e n t o f t h e U n i v e r s a l 16 W a s t e R u l e w h i c h a d v a n c e d t h e r e c y c l i n g o f m e r c u r y
- c o n t a i n i n g l a m p s b y s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s , r e t a i l e r s a n d h o u s e h o l d s 6 4 F R 3 6 4 6 5 ( J u l y 6
, 1 9 9 9 ) ; F i n a l R u l e

. A m e n d m e n t s t o t h e U n i v e r s a l W a s t e R u l e t o i n c l u d e
m e r c u r y
- c o n t a i n i n g l a m p s

. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e U n i v e r s a l W a s t e R u l e ( U W R ) p r o v i d e d a m o d i f i e d

r e g u l a t o r y s y s t e m t o e a s e t h e r e g u l a t o r y b u r d e n s o n r e t a i l s t o r e s a n d o t h e r s t h a t w i s h t o c o l l e c t w a s t e s
s u c h a s m e r c u r y
- c o n t a i n i n g l a m p s a n d e n c o u r a g e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m u n i c i p a l a n d c o m m e r c i a l p r o g r a m s t o r e d u c e t h e q u a n t i t y o f t h e s e w a s t e s g o i n g t o m u n i c i p a l s o l i d w a s t e l a n d f i l l s o r c o m b u s t o r s

. I n
a d d i t i o n , t h e U W R r e g u l a t i o n s e n s u r e t h a t t h e w a s t e s s u b j e c t t o t h i s s y s t e m w i l l g o t o a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t a n d r e c y c l i n g f a c i l i t i e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e f u l l h a z a r d o u s w a s t e r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l s

. w w w

. e p a

. g o v / w a s t e s / h a z a r d / w a s t e t y p e s / u n i v e r s a l /

. 

### 10

### the ba lance of the au tom obile, resultin g in the rapid volatiliz ation an d e nvironm ent al release of

the m ercury contain ed the rein.

In 2 007 , EP A inst itute d a Nation al Em issions S tan dard for Hazardous Air Pollut ant s (NESHAPs) for Elect ric Arc Furnace (EAF) Ste elm aking. Am ong th e regulat oryan d 17 

### dem onst ration provisions includ ed in th e rule ma king w as a provision requiring MACT stan dard s for th e co ntrol o f m ercury from EAFs. T his pro gram stat es th at t he f inal 18 

### stan dard s for m ercury are ba sed on pollut ion p rev ent ion a nd requires EAF o w ners o r ope rators who m elt scrap for m oto r v ehicles eithe r to p urcha se o r oth erw ise ob tain the
mo tor vehicle scrap on ly f rom scrap p rov iders p articipat ing in an EPA -app rov ed program for rem oval of m ercury sw itches. EA F facilities pa rticipating in a n a ppro v ed program mu st m ainta in reco rds ide ntif y ing each scrap provider and do cum ent ing the scrap p rov ider’s pa rticipation in a n E PA-ap proved m ercury sw itch rem oval program.

Until the institu tion of

the NESHAP program the re w as n o regulat oryrequireme nt o r program to co llect m ercury sw itches and as a result non e h ad bee n co llected . A s a result o f the NESHAP CAA re gulation, in 2 007 , 20 08 and 20 09, a t ota l of over 2,5 84, 000 m ercury- cont aining swi tche s ha v e b een rem oved f rom aut om obiles prior to scrapp ing. Ab sent this re gulatory program esta blished un der t he Clean Air Act

19 

### NESHAP program, very few of the se switches would be collecte d, re cy cled a nd
remo v ed f rom beco min g part o f the w aste dispo sal pro blem

.
E. Halogena ted Solv ent Recov ery Flourishe s under RCRA
Historically , solvent re cy cling fa cilities have be en one of the lead ing cause s of Sup erf und sites o r oth erw ise ha v e b een a le adin g source o f en v ironm ent al da ma ges for ma ny y ears. Accordin g to a 199 2 su rv ey, solv entrecycl ing sites were the seco nd mo st prevalent recy cling- base d ca use of Su perf und sites. T oda y , th ere a re m ore so lv ent 20 

### recovery facilities pe rmitte d u nde r RCRA (i.e., 4 56) t han an y oth er type o f

ha z ardo us
w aste m ana geme nt f acility

. Moreover, in th e so lv ent recovery secto r the re are a large n um ber o f facilities (i.e., 45 6)
ma naging a signif icant, bu t relat iv ely smaller, volum e o f solvents (i.e., 328 ,00 0 to ns).

21

7 2 F R 7 4 0 8 8 ( D e c

. 2 8
, 2 0 0 7 )

. 17

7 2 F R 7 4 0 8 8
, 7 4 0 8 9

- 9 0 ( D e c

. 2 8
, 2 0 0 7 )

. 18

P e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h a n d d a t a t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m C h a r l e s G r i ff i t h
, E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , 19 T h e E c o l o g y C e n t e r , A n n A r b o r , M i c h i g a n , O c t

. 2 7
, 2 0 1 0 ; w w w

. e c o c e n t e r

. o r g

.

" R C R A ' s R e c y c l i n g L o o p h o l e s , " E D F / H W T C
, A p r i l
, 1 9 9 2

. S u b m i t t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e 20 H o u s e E n e r g y a n d C o m m e r c e C o m m i t t e e o n S h a m R e c y c l i n g , A p r i l
, 1 9 9 2

.

W e b c i t a t i o n : 21 h t t p : / / w w w

. e p a

. g o v / o s w / h a z a r d / r e c y c l i n g / i n d e x

. h t m


### 11

### T his m ean s tha t th ere is a relatively large nu mb er of

sm all volume solvent recla ma tion facilities pe rmitte d u nde r RCRA. Ap pare ntly, even sm all recycl ing ope ration s w ere n ot “stig ma tiz ed” b y

RCRA’s “onero us” an d “bu rden som e” regulato ry requireme nts.

Solvents a re inh eren tly m uch mo re da ngerous tha n co al ash . Exposu re to organic solvents can result in seriou s he alth imp acts, includin g majo r birth d ef ects, imm une sy stem disord ers (such as rhe um ato id arth ritis, sclerode rma, an d lup us e rythe ma tosu s), and several kinds of

can cer. Yet a he althy reuse m arket, use d to great a dvantage b y large corpora tions such as S afety-Kleen, ope rate w ithou t th e e xtrem e tre pida tions expressed by coal ash reuse indu stries. Sp entsolvents a re collect ed in great qua ntities daily by such com pan ies, tra nspo rted large distan ces to reclam ation /distillation facilities, and f reely returned to com pan ies for reuse . T he recy cling comp anie s m ana ge the risks pose d b y

spills of the m ate rial during tran sport, stora ge and proce ssing w ithou t great imp act t o th eir bo ttom line. Users of solvents, in cluding bo th sm all an d large busin esses, acce pt t he risk of use an d sto rage w ithou t a secon d th ought.

Furthe rmore , AS T M provides spe cif ication s for th e reu se o f solvents a nd thu s, by imp lication, do es n ot a ppe ar to take issue w ith th e u se o f the se recycled wastes, desp ite th eir classif ication as h azardous w aste s w hen dispo sed. If risk and 22 

### environme nta l imp act were ta ken into accou nt, the re is far m ore rea son for solvent recy clers to be driv en f rom this e nte rprise tha n co ncrete an d wallboard ma nuf actu rers.

F. Cataly st from Pe troleum Refining A re A lmost Univ ers ally Recl aime d

Prior to the en actm ent of RCRA an d th e 1 986 -90 L and Disposa l Restriction Program, large v olum es o f

cata ly sts use d in the ref ining proce ss w ere sim ply land-dispo sed, rathe r tha n recla ime d. Data f rom the 20 07 BRS reveals th at in 20 07 81% of 23 

### pet roleum ref ining cata ly sts were recy cled, directly contrad icting the dire p rediction s of the pe troleu m indu stry

w hen EPAprop osed the regulation of such m ate rial. See Table 3 ab ove, an d A ppendix B

.
T he para llels bet w een EPA ’s prop osed regulation of CCR w aste s at issue h ere a nd EPA ’s regulation of

cata ly st waste are striking. W hen RCRA regulation of pe troleu m cata ly sts was f irst propo sed, the pe troleu m indu stry resisted RCRA regulation on the groun ds th at RCRA regulat ion would d epre ss be nef icial reuse an d recycling , just as th e electric ind ustry has a sserted tha t RCRA regulation w ould de press b ene f icial reuse an d recy cling of

CCR. Howev er, th e e mp irical ev iden ce is th at RCRA regulat ion o f

S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , A S T M V o l u m e 1 5

. 0 5
, E n g i n e C o o l a n t s , H a l o g e n a t e d O r g a n i c S o l v e n t s a n d 22 F i r e E x t i n g u i s h i n g A g e n t s ; I n d u s t r i a l a n d S p e c i a l t y C h e m i c a l s , h t t p : / / w w w

. n o r m a s

. c o m / A S T M / B O S / v o l u m e 1 5 0 5

. h t m l

. S e e a l s o A S T M D 5 3 9 6

- 0 4 S t a n d a r d S p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r R e c l a i m e d P e r c h l o r o e t h y l e n e , h t t p : / / w w w

. a s t m

. o r g / S t a n d a r d s / D 5 3 9 6

. h t m

.

P e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h f o r m e r e x e c u t i v e s o f D u r a t h e r m , a l e a d i n g p e t r o l e u m r e s i d u a l s 23

r e c y c l i n g f i r m

. 

### 12

### pet roleum cata ly sts ha s ha d justthe op posite ef fect, and ha s inste ad driv en reuse an d recy cling to 81 pe rcent, directly contrad icting the dire a nd pred ictions o f the pe troleu m indu stry

.
G. Lead A cid Ba ttery Recy cling -- No Longer a Lea ding Cause of Superfund Sites

In a 19 92 surv ey, batt eryreclam ation sites were th e 4 lead ing cause of recycl ing- t h 

### relate d S upe rf und sites id ent if ied in tha t survey

. T oda y , ho w ever, as th e d ata f rom 24 

### T able 3 re v eals, 93% of lead acid bat teries were be ing reclaime d rat her t han dispo sed of ( See Table 3 ). T his is du e in no sma ll part t o th e tra nsforma tion in m ana geme nt practice s for lea d a cid ba ttery reclaime rs brought abo ut b y the imp osition of

RCRA regulation s thro ughou t th e 1 980 's an d 9 0's.

H. RCRA

Require ments O r Proc edures A re Not A n Impedim ent To Recy cling Ma rke ts Or Ma rke t Entry

As th e a bove exam ples d em onst rate, RCRA ha s a st imu lating ef fect o n b ene f icial reuse and recycl ing. T ime an d a gain, recycli ng and reuse ha v e incre ased dram atically af ter
w aste s be com e RCRA regulate d, f or th e rea sons iden tif ied a bove.

Moreover, the en tities th at a re act ually participat ing in the recycl ing and reuse m arkets of m ate rials tha t ha v e a lready bee n regulat ed und er RCRA do no t asse rt tha t RCRA regulation s are und uly burden som e, o nero us, o r an imp edim entto recy cling, contra ry to the argume nts a dvanced by indust ries w hen the y op pose prop osals b y

EPAto extend RCRA regulation in th e f irst instan ce, su ch a s the com me nts a sserted in th e p resen t
case in op positio n to EPA ’s prop osed regulation of CCR as a subt itle C waste. I n th e only surv ey ev er con duct ed on this quest ion, only 7 pe rcent of the facilities survey ed iden tif ied RCRA p ermitt ing, ma nifesting or f inan cial respo nsibility requireme nts a s the imp edim ent to ma rket e ntry. Go od recy cling is its ow n ince ntive, an d sh ould no t ha v e 25 

### to b e su bsidized by sub-sta nda rd regulato ry con trols.

" R C R A ' s R e c y c l i n g L o o p h o l e s , " E D F / H W T C
, A p r i l
, 1 9 9 2

. S u b m i t t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e 24 H o u s e E n e r g y a n d C o m m e r c e C o m m i t t e e o n S h a m R e c y c l i n g , A p r i l
, 1 9 9 2

.

U

. S

. E P A
, 1 9 9 3 R C R A B i e n n i a l R e p o r t
, E x h i b i t 3

- 1 1
, b a s e d o n 1 9 8 8

- 1 9 8 9 d a t a

. T h i s d a t a w a s 25

c o l l e c t e d l o n g a f t e r R C R A c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n a n d p e r m i t t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e i n e ff e c t

. 

### 13

### III. USE A ND/OR RECYC LING OF RCRA HA ZA RDOUS WASTES IS FLOURISHING IN THE CONSUMER/RES IDENTIA L SECTORS AS W ELL

A

. Back ground

In m uch the sam e way

tha t RCRA regulation ha s see n d rama tic increa ses in indu strial recy cling/reuse o f

a re gulated sub stan ce, t he history of RCRA regulation sho w s increasin g rates o f

use an d recycling of

RCRA regulated sub stan ces in the
consu me r/residen tial sect ors as w ell. T his ind icates tha t RCRA’s regulation of the subst ance do es n ot st igmatize it an d/o r reduce its use /recycl ing, regardless of w het her the use an d recycling is in th e ind ustrial, co mm ercial or resid ent ial secto rs. Examp les of this t rend are discusse d in great er de tail be low

.
B. Use A nd Recy cling of Merc ury Lamps Has Been Unaffec ted by RCRA ’s Ha zardous W aste Listing. Demand for CFL’s Is Fl ourishing
Mercury lam ps h ave bee n regulat ed as h azardous since 1 980 pu rsuan t to the initial RCRA regulatory program , an d were f urthe r subje ct to the La nd Disposal Re striction Program in the late 19 80s. Neith er of the se p romu lgations in any w ay diminish ed dem and for m ercury- cont aining f luoresce nt la mp s. If an y thing, d em and for high ef f iciency or com pact f lorescen t m ercury- cont aining lam ps (CFLs) ha s f lourishe d, a s has the recycl ing and reuse of the se lam ps. As Table 2 ab ove indicat es, in 20 07, app rox ima tely 814, 000 ton s of m ercury lamps w ere recycled a s “hazardou s w aste .”

Ind eed , m ercury lamps represe nt o ne of the m ost co mm only occurring hou seho ld hazardou s w aste s genera ted . In creasingly lam p m anu factu rers as well as reta il stores are in stitutin g take-ba ck program s to collect a nd recy cle yet ad dition al volume s of
me rcury lam ps gene rated at the ho useh old le v el. T he fact t hatthe se m ate rials, on ce the ir usef ul liv es a re pa st, a re regulate d a s “hazardou s w aste ” has in no w ay dete rred, and in f act h as a ccelerat ed, the pu rchase of the se p rodu cts an d th e resp onsib le recy cling of

spe nt m ercury fluo rescen t lam ps. T he increasin g rates o f pu rchase , use , and sub sequen t recycli ng of a RCRA regulat ed subst ance in resid ent ial an d
com me rcial app lications ref ute s the asse rtion b y indu stry tha t RCRA regulation w ould stigmatize CCR and de press its ben ef icial reuse /recycl ing by consum ers.

C. “Stigma” Ne v er A ffected Sa ccha rin

For m any y ears sa ccharin, clearly a con sum er prod uct, and its salts have be en listed a s a h azardous w aste un der RCRA, W aste Code U202 . S accha rin w as listed as a hazardou s w aste du e to the de term inatio n b y EPA ’s Carcinogen Assessm entGrou p
w as th at it w as a po ten tial hu ma n ca rcinogen. Listing sacch arin a s a “h azardous

14

### w aste ” on the “U” list of w aste ha s m ean t th at sin ce 1 980 the dispo sal of sacch arin a s a pure prod uct m ust o ccur in a ccorda nce w ith h azardous w aste regulation s. 26



### Despite its m any y ears o f regulation as a ha z ardo us waste, t here w as n o a ppa rent stigma f rom RCRA’s hazardous w aste listing thatw as in any w ay distinguishab le f rom broa der p ublic co ncern s regarding saccha rin’s carcinogenic p ote ntial. Ind eed
, saccha rin con tinue s to be imp ortan t for a w ide ra nge of low- calorie a nd sugar-fre e food and be v erage a pplicat ions. In fact, in its p ublic d iscussion of its pe tition to re mo v e 27 

### saccha rin f rom RCRA’s list of ha z ardo us waste, t he Calorie Con trol Cou ncil (CCC)
ma kes n o m ent ion whatso ever of the stigmat ic ef

fects o f the RCRA listing on t he use of saccha rin as a con sum er prod uct.

D. Other House hold Chemic al P roducts--No Stigma Here

In a dditio n to sacch arin, t here are num erou s oth er com mo nly encou nte red h ouse hold and pe rsona l care ch em icals tha t ha v e b een listed as “ha z ardo us” un der RCRA since 198 0, a nd y et which con sum ers read ily pu rchase . T hese includ e, for examp le: acet one (U002 ), or na il polish re mo v er; 1 -buta nol (U03 1), a com pou nd w hich h as m any uses includin g a f lavori ng ingredientin a w ide ra nge of food s; an d m eth y l alcoh ol or
me tha nol (U15 4), th e m ost co mm on add itiv e to gasolines and som eth ing w hich is
enco unt ered by the typical consu me r on an alm ost weekly basis. In fact, the m ost
recen t BRS dat a for 20 07 shows that the se a nd oth er com me rcial chem ical prod ucts
are a lso be ing recy cled a s w ell.
Despite be ing listed a s ha z ardo us waste, f or th e lastthirty-plus y ears, the re is no evidence w hat soever tha t th e co nsum er ha s att ache d a ny “stig ma ” to t he use of the se prod ucts e ither in the car, in the ho me , or o n th eir own person . Nor is t here an y evidence tha t suggests th at CCR, if regulate d a s a h azardous w aste un der RCRA,

w ould be trea ted an y

dif feren tly by the consu me r tha n, f or examp le, n ail po lish rem over.

E. Do-It-

You rse lfer Use d Oil Collec tion–Stigma Take s a Holiday

Several stat es h ave esta blished targete d p rograms for th e co llection of do -it-y ourse lfer (DIY ) used oil collect ion. California, w hich lists u sed oil as “h azardous, ” has bee n a lead er in ch am pion ing used oil collect ion f rom do-it-yourselfers as it ha s on e o f the be st tracking an d m ana geme nt system s in th e co unt ry . California’s a bility to me asure w hat

A s a r e s u l t o f r e c e n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s b y t h e N a t i o n a l T o x i c o l o g y P r o g r a m t h a t s a c c h a r i n i s n o t 26

r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t e d t o b e a h u m a n c a r c i n o g e n , E P A h a s p r o p o s e d t o r e m o v e s a c c h a r i n f r o m t h e “ U ” l i s t

o f w a s t e s

. w w w

. e p a

. g o v / o s w / h a z a r d / w a s t e t y p e s / w a s t e i d / s a c c h a r i n / f a q s

. h t m

w w w

. c a l o r i e c o n t r o l

. o r g / s w e e t n e r s
- a n d

- l i t e / s u g a r
- s u b s t i t u t e s / s a c c h a r i n 27



### 15

### is hap pen ing w ith u sed oil an d why is the na tion’s m ost e f fective do-it-yourselfer use d oil program s. 28



### T he California program prom ote s curbsid e co llection and includ es sta te ce rtif ied collection cen ters a nd local governme nt a nd state -w ide e duca tion and informa tion ef forts. T he program is f und ed by a fee ($0.0 4 a quart) on lubricat ing oil. Gran ts are available to local governme nts a s an incen tiv e to recycl e. In p hysical y ear, 200 5 - 200 6, a ppro x ima tely 7.8 m illion gallons o f use d o il w ere co llected f rom do-it-yourselfers over 250 0 co llection sites in California, the m ost o f an y stat e in the na tion. 29



### T hus, de spite listing used oil as a ha z ardo us waste a nd w idely publicizi ng its stat us a s a hazardou s w aste , California has noton ly de v elop ed a rob ust st ate -w ide co llection program f rom all use d o il generato rs as d iscussed in greate r det ail in Sec tion IVbe low
, but m oreo v er, h as su cceed ed in ta rg eting th e DIY ma rket u nlike a ny othe r state in th e nat ion. In short, listing used oil as a h azardous w aste in California, ha s do ne not hing to “stig ma tiz e” or d iscourage t he purch ase and recycl ing of oil.

F. The A meric an Consume r Has Show n Grow ing Sophistic ation in Understanding Haza rdous Materi al Thre ats i n the Home a nd Is Incre asi ngly

Engaging i n Proper Manageme nt of These Ma terial s

T he Am erican consu me r has dem onst rated increa sing soph istication in u nde rstand ing the brea dth an d d ept h o f ha z ardo us m ate rials cont aine d in the typical hou seho ld. Consu me rs are well aw are t hat a wide ran ge of ho useh old cle ane rs, au tom otive prod ucts, ton er cartridges, m ercury lamps, ba tteries, ph arma ceut icals, pa ints, a nd hom e m ainte nan ce ch em icals con tain a wide vari ety of ha z ardo us su bsta nces w hich
mu ch b e m ana ged pro perly.

T his awarene ss is att este d b y the dram atic growth in ho useh old h azardous w aste collection program s thro ughou t th e n ation . In fact, EPAissued its f irst ma nua l to guide
com mu nities in esta blishing ho useh old h azardous w aste collectio n p rograms in 199 3. 30 

### Since 19 93 state s, cou nties, an d co mm ercial m ana geme nt f irms ha v e e stab lished broa d-ranging hou seho ld ha z ardo us waste co llection programs for a w ide ra nge of

A r n e r , R o b e r t
, “ 2 0 0 6 U s e d O i l R e c y c l i n g I n A m e r i c a , ” P r e s e n t e d B e f o r e t h e 2 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l 28 nd C o n f e r e n c e o n S o l i d W a s t e T e c h n o l o g y a n d M a n a g e m e n t
, M a r c h
, 1 9
, 2 0 0 7
, p

. 4
, w w w

. r o b a r n e r

. c o m / u s e d o i l

. h t m l

.

A r n e r , R o b e r t
, “ 2 0 0 6 U s e d O i l R e c y c l i n g I n A m e r i c a , ” P r e s e n t e d B e f o r e t h e 2 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l 29 nd C o n f e r e n c e o n S o l i d W a s t e T e c h n o l o g y a n d M a n a g e m e n t
, M a r c h
, 1 9
, 2 0 0 7
, p

. 3
, w w w

. r o b a r n e r

. c o m / u s e d o i l

. h t m l

.

U

. S

. E P A
, O ff i c e o f S o l i d W a s t e a n d E m e r g e n c y R e s p o n s e , “ H o u s e h o l d H a z a r d o u s W a s t e 30 M a n a g e m e n t
, ” E P A 5 3 0

- R

- 9 2

- 0 2 6
, A u g u s t
, 1 9 9 3

. 

### 16

### hou seho ld ha z ardo us waste, m any of w hich a re in f ully

con cent rated form, or a re no t
enca psula ted or b oun d-up to prevent co nta min antrelea se.

In f act, interview s w ith lea ding com me rcial w aste m ana geme nt f irms ind icate tha t: 1 ) over the past 15 years all major f irms ha v e e stab lished sepa rate programs or divisi ons ded icated to hou seho ld ha z ardo us waste co llection; an d, 2 ) the tren ds in hou seho ld hazardou s w aste collectio n h as b een “dram atic” since the ea rly 19 90's. Most f irms experience d a 4% y early increase in ho useh old h azardous w aste collectio n since 19 95, for an overall increase of ap proximate ly

60 % over this p eriod. 31



### T he assertio n th at co nsum ers w ill shun any prod ucts e mp loyi ng coal co mb ustion residua ls (CCR ), even th ose such as ce me nt o r w allboa rd w hich a re en capsu lated use s of CCR, beca use of

an alleged stigma a ssociate d with treat ing dispose d CCR w aste s as h azardous is simp ly un ten able . A ll available evidence po ints to the fact t hat
consu me rs purcha se, p rope rly m ana ge, an d a re increa singly recycl ing f ull stren gth,
non -enca psula ted che mica ls foun d th roughou t th e h om e, workshop an d garage – includin g chem icals subject to regulation un der RCRA.

I n t e r v i e w s w i t h s a l e s m a n a g e r s o f v a r i o u s c o m m e r c i a l w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t f i r m s

. 31



### 17

### IV. CA LIFORNIA ’S USE D OIL RECYCLING PROGRA M, WHICH LIS TS USED O IL

AS A HA ZA RDOUS WASTE, HAS A HIGHER BENEFICIA L REUSE RATE THA N THE FEDERA L PROGRA M WHICH, W ITH LIMITED EX CEPTIONS, DOES NOT LIST USE D OIL AS HA ZA RDOUS

Perha ps th e m ost st riking evidence tha t listing a u sed ma terial a s a h azardous w aste doe s no t stigma tiz e th at m ate rial and de press its reuse – e v en w hen tha t m ate rial is a
consu me r produ ct use d in residen tial con texts – is California’s u sed oil program

. California classif ies use d o il as a hazardou s w aste

. Mea nwhile, the volume an d rat e 32 

### of use d o il recy cling in California has increase d vir tua lly every year f rom 199 5 th rough 200 5, t he last year for w hich co mp lete dat a is a v ailable

. Table 7 de picts th ese trend s in te rms o f

the volume an d rat e o f use d o il recy cling in the Sta te. In 200 5, Ca lifo rnia recy cled u sed oil at a 5 9% rat e. How ever, in review ing the tab le, it is im porta nt t o n ote - - for com parison w ith f ede ral use d o il reuse rates -- that the reuse rate s expressed in Table 7 do no t includ e b urning use d o il for en ergy recovery

as a form of recy cling/reuse. T he Sta te e stima tes t hat , if on e inclu des used oil th at is recy cled/re used by burnin g fo r ene rg y recovery , California’s reu se rat es would incre ase by anot her 2 0 to 40 pe rcent of tot al use d o il v olum e. T hus, in 2 005 , if on e inclu des burn ing used oil for en ergy recovery , th e recycling /reuse rate w ould be at least 79% an d pot ent ially

m uch higher.

TA BLE 7: Cali fornia Use d Oil Recy cling Ra tes 1 995 -200 5 + + +



### 199 5 199 7 199 9 200 1 200 3 200 5
Lub e Oil S ales + 

### (M gal) 140 .8 137 .5 150 .0 163 .6 150 .2 153 .3
Lub e Oil Recycl ed (M g al) 54. 6 60. 9 76. 9 81. 9 83. 7 91. 3 Recycl ing Rate 39% + + 

### (59%) 44%

(64%) 51%

(71%) 50%

(71%) 58%

(78%) 59%

(79%)

R e f l e c t s o n l y v o l u m e s o f l u b r i c a t i n g o i l s , n o t i n d u s t r i a l o i l s

. + L u b e o i l r e c y c l i n g r a t e d o e s n o t a c c o u n t f o r o i l t h a t i s b u r n e d o r s p i l l e d d u r i n g u s e w h i c h i s ++

e s t i m a t e d a t 2 0

- 4 0 %

. F i g u r e s i n p a r e n t h e s i s ( ) r e p r e s e n t t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e l o w e n d o f t h i s 2 0

-

4 0 % r a n g e t o t h e d o c u m e n t e d r e c y c l i n g r a t e

. C a l r e c y c l e , “ U s e d O i l R e c y c l i n g R a t e A n n u a l R e p o r t : 2 0 0 5
, ” +++

w w w

. c a l r e c y c l e

. c a

. g o v / u s e d o i l / R a t e I n f o /



### In co mp arison, the Fed eral RCRA pro gram do es n ot list u sed oil as a ha z ardo us waste. Nota bly, as Table 8 reveals, in 1 992 , ap proximate ly 1.3 5 b illion gallons o f

use d o il
w ere gen erate d in the U.S., of w hich o nly approximate ly 63 pe rcent or 85 0 m illion gallons were recy cled (th is f igure doe s includ e recycling thro ugh bu rning for en ergy

A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m I n s t i t u t e , U s e d M o t o r O i l
, F r e q u e n t l y A s k e d Q u e s t i o n s , 2 0 1 0
, 32

w w w

. r e c y c l e o i l

. o r g / f a q s / i n d e x

. h t m l



### 18

### recovery

– in fact, the vast majority -- 90 p ercen t -- w as recycled b y bu rning for en ergy recovery ). 33



### Fourte en y ears la ter, t he Depa rtme nt o f En ergy con duct ed a su rv ey of the use d o il generat ion a nd ma nagem ent m eth ods and de term ined tha t in 2 006 , 1. 37 billion gallons of use d o il w as gene rated of w hich a ppro x ima tely 780 million w as u sed as a f uel, 165 million w as re-ref ined , for a tota l recy cle rate of on ly ab out69 % – w hile th e rem aining 426 m illion gallons were an nua lly dispo sed of

in lan df ills or impro per lo cation s. 34



### TA BLE 8: Use d Oil Manageme nt Trends in the U.S. 199 2- 20 06

Year T otal

Volum e Ge nerat ed (G all ons) (1) * T otal

Volum e Recy cled (G all ons) (2) * * Volum e

Burned Fuel (G all ons) (3) Volum e

ReRefi ned
( 4) T otal

Volum e Dispos ed
(5) T otal

Recy cle Rate
(6) * ** ReRefi ning Rate
(7) +


### 199 2 1.3 5 B 850 M 765 M 85 M 500 M 63% 6.3 %

200 6 1.3 7 B 945 M 780 M 165 M 426 M 69% 12. 0%

* C o l u m n ( 1 ) = C o l u m n s ( 2 ) + ( 5 )

* * C o l u m n ( 2 ) = C o l u m n s ( 3 ) + ( 4 )

* * * C o l u m n ( 6 ) = C o l u m n ( 2 ) ÷ C o l u m n ( 1 )

+ C o l u m n ( 7 ) = C o l u m n ( 4 ) ÷ C o l u m n ( 1 )



### T hus, at the very

least , th e California Used O il Recy cling/Reuse Ra te -- includ ing burn ing – is sub stan tially greater (atleast79 % an d p ote ntially as high as a 9 9% recy cling rate) tha n th at which is occu rring on a n ation al ba sis (69%), d espite , an d m ost likely be cause of

the fact t hat the m ate rial is listed a s a “h azardous w aste ” in California.

Just a s imp ortan t for prese nt p urpo ses is th at t he “hazardous” m ate rial at issu e is b eing
reuse d in a co nsum er prod uct p urcha sed retail for com me rcial and reside ntial app lications, such as p erson al au tom obile use. T he experience in California the refore indicat es th at co nsum ers w ill in fact p urcha se co nsum er prod ucts d eriv ed f rom a waste listed a s “hazardou s” – th ey do it e ach time the y pu rchase oil for th eir cars th at h as bee n th rough th e recycling proce ss.

U s e d O i l R e c y c l i n g M a r k e t s a n d B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s I n T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , ” P r e s e n t e d 33 T o T h e N a t i o n a l R e c y c l i n g C o n g r e s s , B o s t o n , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , O c t o b e r 2 7
, 1 9 9 2
, p

. 5 0

.

U

. S

. D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y , “ U s e d O i l R e
- R e f i n i n g S t u d y T o A d d r e s s E n e r g y P o l i c y A c t O f 2 0 0 5
, 34 S e c t i o n 1 8 3 8
, “ 2 0 0 6
, p

. 5

- 1

. 

### 19

### T his is af f irmative evidence tha t “stigma” h as n ot a ttach ed to t he used oil recycli ng indu stry in California to d ete r or dim inish th e wil lingness of reta il consu me rs to p urcha se consu me r produ cts con tainin g that “hazardous” m ate rial. T o th e co ntrary, they read ily purch ase oil tha t was recy cled –tha t is, o il thatw as d eriv ed f rom a listed ha z ardo us
w aste (used oil), an d th at t hey the n recycle again. If an y thing, th e S tate ’s “hazardous

w aste ” base d u sed oil recycl ing program h as resu lted in even m ore rob ust re cy cling program tha n o ne sees on the na tiona l level.

20

### V. INDUSTRIES’ A RGUMENTS THA T RCRA REGULA

TION W ILL REDUCE BENEFICIA L REUSE A ND RECY CLING A RE UNFOUNDED A ND UNORIGINA L

A

. Back ground

In t he cont ext of

the pe ndin g coal com bust ion re sidua ls (CCR ) rulem aking, op pon ent s of EPA ’s prop osed ap proa ch h ave argued tha t listing of an y coa l com bust ion re sidua ls as “ha z ardo us waste” un der RCRA wil l redu ce th e b ene f icial reuse an d recycling of
ma terial. T o th is end , op pon ent s ha v e a sserted tha t, for examp le, a pplying the lab el of “hazardous” t o a m ate rial w ill create an adverse p ublic p ercep tion or “stigma” th at will redu ce th e p ublic’s wi llingness to purch ase prod ucts m ade f rom the m ate rial. T hey 35 

### have also asse rted tha t regulatin g a m ate rial und er RCRA w ill result in su ch a dditio nal regulatory burde ns th at in dust ry w ill not b e wil ling to recycle the m ate rial, or th at t he recy cled p rodu ct wi ll be d isadvanta ged or “stigma tiz ed” b y vi rtue of higher p rodu ction costs d ue to RCRA co mp liance requireme nts. T hese argume nts a re ref erred t o
v ariously as “stigma” an d/o r “reg ulato ry bu rden ” ty pe argume nts, the esse nce of w hich is tha t regulatin g a m ate rial as “ha z ardo us” un der RCRA wil l inhe rently discourage its
use particu larly

in recycling ap plication s.

In t his rulem aking, op pon ent s of listing CCR w aste s un der su btitle C assert bot h types of argume nts. For exam ple, the Am erican Coal A sh A ssociatio n (ACAA ) has asserte d tha t listing CCR w aste s un der S ubt itle C would resu lt in a n a dverse pu blic pe rceptio n and an un w illing ness to u se th e p rodu ct an d d epre ss be nef icial reuse an d recycling of the prod uct. Sim ilarly , th e Nat iona l Read y Mix Concre te A ssociatio n (NRMCA) has 36 

### argued tha t listing CCR w aste s un der S ubt itle C would resu lt in signif icant add itiona l regulatory burde ns th at would d epre ss be nef icial reuse

. 37



### As d iscussed ab ove, em pirical da ta o v er th e lastthirty y ears o f RCRA rulem aking dem onst rates the fallacy of Ind ustry’ s argume nts t hatRCRA regulation w ill depre ss

E P A h a s m a d e s e v e r a l a t t e m p t s o v e r t h e y e a r s t o a d d r e s s t h e “ h a z a r d o u s w a s t e ” l a b e l a s p e c t 35

o f t h e “ s t i g m a ” a r g u m e n t
, b u t t o n o a v a i l

. W h i l e m o s t p r o p o n e n t s o f r e c y c l i n g
- r e l a t e d s t i g m a a s s e r t t h a t i t i s o n l y t h e “ h a z a r d o u s w a s t e ” l a b e l t h a t t h e y o b j e c t t o ; i n r e a l i t y i t i s t h e s u b s t a n t i v e 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 i e s t h a t a r e f r e q u e n t l y t h e s o u r c e o f t h e i r o b j e c t i o n

. S e e A p p e n d i x B ; S t a t e m e n t s
o f A P I ( 1 9 8 3 )
, C a d e n c e ( 1 9 8 6 )
, L a f a r g e ( 1 9 8 7 )
, a n d H o r s e h e a d s ( 1 9 9 5 )

.

S e e W e b i n a r c o n d u c t e d b y C i t i z e n s f o r R e c y c l i n g F i r s t
, A C A A
, N R M C A
, a n d N P C A o n A u g u s t 36 1 9
, 2 0 1 0
, c o n c r e t e

_ p r o d u c t s

_ w e b i n a r

_ _ 8 1 9 1 0

. p d f

. S e e i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A C A A

.

S e e W e b i n a r c o n d u c t e d b y C i t i z e n s f o r R e c y c l i n g F i r s t
, A C A A
, N R M C A
, a n d N P C A o n A u g u s t 37 1 9
, 2 0 1 0
, c o n c r e t e

_ p r o d u c t s

_ w e b i n a r

_ _ 8 1 9 1 0

. p d f

. S e e i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f N R M C A

c o m p l a i n i n g t h a t a s a r e s u l t o f t h e R C R A l i s t i n g o f C C R
, s t a t e s w o u l d e s t a b l i s h s t r i c t e r m a n a g e m e n t l a w s

. S e e a l s o t r a n s c r i p t o f A u g u s t 3 0
, 2 0 1 0
, E P A P u b l i c H e a r i n g o n t h e P r o p o s e d C C R R u l e i n w h i c h i n d u s t r y
w i t n e s s e s d i s c u s s e d t h e “ b u r d e n s o m e ” n a t u r e o f R C R A ’ s r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s i n t h e e v e n t o f a S u b t i t l e C l i s t i n g a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l l y c o s t l y i m p a c t o n t h e i r r e c y c l e d p r o d u c t

. 

### 21

### ben ef icial reuse an d recycling . B ene f icial reuse an d recycling ha s increa sed af ter a
ma terial is regulate d u nde r RCRA Sub title C. Direct com parison s be tw een m arkets
w here the sam e o r similar m ate rial is regulated as h azardous in on e, a nd notregulate d as h azardous in th e o the r – e x am ples su ch a s elect ric arc f urna ce d ust a nd used oil – dem onst rate tha t th e b ene f icial reuse /recycl ing/reclama tion of the m ate rial is higher in tho se a reas where th e m ate rial is regulated as a ha z ardo us waste. Ind eed , to a la rg e extent, ma ny recy cling market s w ould no t exist, bu t for ha z ardo us waste regulat ions [ See Se ction II abo v e].

W hat m akes indu stry ’s argume nt e v en mo re un ten able in th is case is tha t EP A is n ot, in fact, prop osing to list as h azardous CCR that is ben ef icially reuse d. T o th e co ntrary, EPAis on ly

prop osing to list CCR as ha z ardo us if , an d when, it is dispo sed of . Not on ly doe s this n egate the argume nt t hatEPA ’s prop osal t o regulat e CCR w ill result in a n adverse p ublic p ercep tion or stigma – b ecau se, in fact, no “hazardous” la bel will be app lied to reuse d CCR–bu t m oreo v er, it crea tes a n e v en stronger ince ntive for ind ustry to re use the m ate rials and no t disp ose of it as w aste . In dust ry ’s ef forts to stretch the stigma a rg um ent to CCR mat erial th at will no t even b e lab eled as h azardous is bot h unp reced ent ed and ab surd. Usually “stig ma ” is a se lf-serv ing smo kescree n to prese rv e an unre gulated stat us quo. In this ca se u tilities are atte mp ting to a v oid RCRA regulation of

the ir disposa l practice s w hich, base d o n scien ce a nd risk, is inde fensib le. T here fore, the y

ha v e tried to mo v e th e a rg um entaway f rom dispo sal to the pu rported negative imp act o n b ene f icial use by arg uing “stigma.”

T he bala nce of

this se ction: 1) t racks ind ustry’ s repe ate dly fa lse asse rtions o v er th e last 3 0 years th at RCRA regulat ion will de press b ene f icial reuse an d recycling ; an d, 2 ) provides informa tion as to w hat actu ally ha ppe ned w hen the m ate rials w ere regulat ed. Not o nce have claim s of stigma ever bee n rea liz ed in th e h azardous w aste
ma rketpla ce. Ind ustry’ s claim s in th is regard are not hing sho rt of RCRA’s equiv alen t of the “boy cry ing w olf .” Sec tion C be low an d A ppendix B provide d eta iled e x am ples o f the false cla ims o f

“stigma” over the pa st 30 years – claim s w hich a re bo th u nfoun ded and un origi nal.

B. Ev en Opponents Of Subtitle C Regula tion of CCR ’s A cknow ledge That Benefic ial Reuse s of Fly A sh W ill Be Large ly

Unaffected by

the Rule. Promis es of Better Managem ent Pra ctice s A re 3 0+ Years Old

1. The A ugust, 20 10 Industry We binar

On Frida y , Au gust 19 , 20 10, a co nsortiu m of groups o ppo sed to t he regulation of CCR und er Su btitle C cond ucte d a “w ebin ar” und er th e a uspice s of a group en titled, “Citiz ens For Recycli ng First,” chaired by John W ard. T his W ebin ar prod uced som e int erestin g, if not ironic resu lts. P resen tatio ns were ma de by the followi ng group s: Citizens For Recycl ing First, ACAA (Am erican Coal/A sh A ssociatio n), th e NRMCA (Nation al Rea dy Mix ed Concret e A ssociatio n), a nd the NPCA (Natio nal P recast Concret e A ssociatio n).

22

### Bot h th e NRMCA an d NPCA cond ucte d su rv eys of the ir mem bers regardin g the im pact of a S ubt itle C listing of

dispo sed of

CCR residua ls. In respo nse to a question f rom the NRMC A to its m em bersh ip regarding w het her t hey w ould con tinue to use f ly ash in th eir prod ucts if

CCR’s w ere liste d a s a S ubt itle C waste when d ispose d, 6 9 p ercen t respo nde d a f

f irmatively

. 38



### In a dditio n, in respo nse to a question f rom the NPCA to its m em bersh ip, 8 4 p ercen t of
surv eyed pa rticipant s indica ted the y w ould still use f ly

ash even if

the EPAde signated it
as a Su btitle C hazardou s w aste

. 39



### 2. March, 197 9 Comme nts of the National A sh Assoc iation

Assertion s regarding the recycl able na ture of f ly ash an d a ssuran ces b y ash genera tors to re gulate t hem selves date ba ck to 197 9. Ironica lly , in 1 979 the Nation al Ash Associa tion in its co mm ent s on the very f irst RCRA rulema king state d:
“Power plant ash is beco min g av ailable in greate r quantitie s in m ore locatio ns a cross th e co unt ry , th e quality is improving, and acce pta bility cont inue s to increase . W e a re de aling w ith a recoverable resou rce an d not a d iscarded m ate rial. . . .W hatw e a re really try ing to p oint outis tha t the ash indu stry

ha s de mo nstrat ed the cap ability of initiatin g an e f

fective ash ma nagem ent program

. . . .” 40



### T hirtyyears later, 6 4% o f coa l com bust ion re sidua l (CCR ) is still simply being dispo sed of in lan df ills, surface imp oun dm ent s or ca v es a nd min es, ra the r tha n recycled. 41 

### Dam age incide nts f rom imp rope r dispo sal, a nd som e recycling op eratio ns co ntinu e to
mo unt

. T he utility industry has f ailed to in stitute an y indu stry -w ide m inimu m stan dard s 42 

### of pract ice to prevent dam age as such has occurred at the T VA. Prop erly regulate d CCR, w hich will pu t a higher price o n d isposa l, w ill prov ide t he econ om ic incen tiv es nee ded to increase , no t de crease , th e recycling of f ly ash , an d reverse th is 30+ year pat tern of

excessiv e d epe nde nce on sub-sta nda rd lan df ills, lagoons a nd piles.

“ C o a l A s h a s H a z a r d o u s W a s t e , ” N R M C A r e s p o n s e , L i o n e l L e m a y , S e n i o r V i c e P r e s i d e n t 38 S u s t a i n a b l e D e v e l o p m e n t
, P r e s e n t a t i o n A t I n d u s t r y W e b i n a r , A u g u s t 1 9
, 2 0 1 0
, p

. 1 4

.

P r e s e n t a t i o n o f N a t i o n a l P r e c a s t C o n c r e t e A s s o c i a t i o n , C l a u d e G o g u e n , D i r e c t o r o f T e c h n i c a l 39 S e r v i c e s , I n d u s t r y W e b i n a r , A u g u s t 1 9
, 2 0 1 0
, p

. 9

.

R C R A D o c k e t E P A

- H Q

- R C R A

- 1 9 8 0

- 0 0 2
, D o c k e t I D # A

- D 1

- T T

- 0 1 0 0 0
, p p

. 1

- 2

. 40

S e e 7 5 F R 3 5 1 2 8
, 3 5 1 5 1 ( J u n e 2 1
, 2 0 1 0 ) ; C C R P r o p o s e d R u l e

. 41

S t a n t
, J e ff
, “ O u t o f C o n t r o l : M o u n t i n g D a m a g e s f r o m C o a l A s h W a s t e S i t e s , ” E n v i r o n m e n t a l 42 I n t e g r i t y P r o j e c t a n d E a r t h J u s t i c e ; F e b

. 2 4
, 2 0 1 0

. 

### 23

### C. Wha t They Sa id A bout “Stigma” and W hat Real ly Happene d in the Marke tplace

In o rder to examin e th e veracityof “stigma” claim s att ributa ble t o recycling -related regulation s un der RCRA, a tho rough review of m ajor RCRA recycli ng-related rulem akings since 197 9 was cond ucte d. T hese asse rtions were the n co mp ared w ith
w hat actu ally

ha ppe ned in th e h azardous w aste m arketp lace re garding the recy cling practice s in quest ion. In short, this a nalysis rev eals t hatclaim s of “stigma” asso ciated
w ith recycling -related rulem akings un der RCRA a re w holly unfoun ded an d b asele ss. Not o nce have an y

of the se claim s com e to pa ss. Noton ly are the se claim s un true, bu t in m any cases the exact op posite result w as witnessed in th e m arketp lace co mp ared to the con ten tions of

the indu stry

.
Im me diate ly

be low , four e x am ples o f “stigma” claim s tha t close ly ap proximate the on es bein g mad e in the CCR rulema king are co ntrast ed w ith what a ctua lly ha ppe ned in th e hazardou s w aste m arketp lace.

197 9 –Phoenix Ceme nt Company : In com me nting on EPA ’s f irst propo sed RCRA regulation , which w ould ha v e p ote ntially reg ulate d so me forms of recycl ing including burn ing hazardou s w aste for en ergy an d/o r ma terials reco v ery , Ph oen ix Cem entin th eir
com me nts st ate d a s follows:

“Inste ad, the ha rsh ‘cradle to grave’ regulations t hatare prop osed by EPA
w ould imp ose regulatory costs an d a dm inistrative burde ns th at will perm ane ntly discourage p rodu cer inte rest in recy cling. . . .A lso, individuals, p riv ate indu stry an d governme nta l agencies w ill tota lly avoid any item s carry ing the ‘hazardou s w aste ’ labe l even if the ap plication is term ed environme nta lly saf e.” 43



### Sub sequen tly , EP A regulate d b urning ha z ardo us wastes for recovery . T oda y , bu rning hazardou s w aste in ce me nt kilns for en ergy an d/o r ma terials reco v eryis a m ajor
me tho d o f

the rmal p rocessing of

ha z ardo us waste, d espite a se ries of strict op eratio nal and MACT em ission co ntrol st and ards issu ed throu ghout the 19 80's, 19 90's, an d 200 0's. In 2 007 , ap proximate ly 1.1 m illion ton s of

ha z ardo us wastes a re bu rned in
com me rcial cem ent kilns com pare d to 0.6 m illion ton s bu rned in co mm ercial incinera tors. Clearly industry’s assertion tha t stricter recycling rules would

44 

### “perm ane ntly discourage” bu rning for recovery proved false.

R C R A D o c k e t E P A

- H Q

- R C R A

- 1 9 8 0

- 0 0 2 ; D o c k e t I D # : A

- D 1

- T T

- 0 1 1 2 0
, p

. 2

. C o m m e n t s o f t h e 43 N a t i o n a l A s h A s s o c i a t i o n , M a r c y 1 4
, 1 9 7 9

.

2 0 0 7 N a t i o n a l B i e n n i a l R C R A H a z a r d o u s W a s t e R e p o r t

. S e e a l s o 44

w w w

. e p a

. g o v / e p a w a s t e s / h a z a r d / t s d / t d / c o m b u s t i o n

. h t m

. 

### 24

### 198 3 –Cadenc e Chemi cal Resourc es (CCR ): In a 1 983 -85 rule ma king to revise

RCRA’s “Defin ition o f

So lid W aste ,” extend ing RCRA jurisdiction to m any previously exemp t recycli ng practice s, includ ing f uel b lend ing and bu rning for en ergy recovery , Cade nce Chem ical stat ed: “T o lab el th e p rimary result of such ef fort [f uel b lend ing to prod uce a h azardous w aste -deriv ed f uel] as ‘waste” or em ploying a eup hem ism su ch a s ‘regulated recycl able m ate rials’ as is do ne in Prop osed Se ction 261 .6, w ould be a significan t disince ntive for f utu re de v elop me nt o f bo naf ide re cy cling of

en ergy -bea ring residua ls. T his is be cause de signating residua l-deriv ed prod ucts a s ‘w aste ’ or ‘regulated recycl able m ate rials’ w ould exacerba te t he alread y ne gativ e a nd highly
v olatile pub lic percep tion of such m ate rials.” 45



### EPAm oved forw ard with its regulation s an d a gain indu stry ’s dire p rediction s tha t EP A’s prop osed regulation s w ould de press b ene f icial use proved f alse. Despite a se ries of increasin g string ent regulation s on f uel b lend ing and bu rning for en ergy recovery throu ghout the 19 80's and 19 90's, by 200 7 b urning for en ergy recovery

com bine d with blen ding of

w aste -deriv ed f uels e me rg ed as th e d om inan t m eth od of ha z ardo us waste recy cling, accou nting for 2. 5 m illion ton s of ha z ardo us waste m ana ged in 2 007

. 46



### 198 5 –Halogena ted Solv ents Indus try A llia nce (HSIA): T he HSIA, w hich represe nte d m ost o f

the largest che mica l com pan ies in t he coun try , op pose d E PA’s 198 5 a ttem pt t o e stab lish a st opgap m easu re to distinguish bet w een bu rning for en ergy recovery , which w as u nregulate d a t th e tim e, a nd incinera tion w hich was f ully cont rolled. T he prop osal st ate d th at b urning an y w aste m ate rials w ith less tha n 4 ,00 0 BT Us per p oun d would b e d eem ed to b e “bu rning for de struction ” and w ould be regulated as in cinerat ion u ntil such tim e a s forma l and com preh ensive stan dard s for burn ing hazardou s w aste in b oilers an d ind ustrial f urna ces (BIFs) were prop osed in 198 7 a nd issued in th e 1 991

. In prop osing the se sta nda rds for bu rning som e o f the 47



### mo st to x ic and po ten tially carcino genic solvents, (i.e ., p erchloroe thylene, trichloroet hylene a nd chloroform), the HSIA grabb ed for a fam iliar argumen t, “stigma”:

“Th e lab eling of

the se b lend ed f uels a s ‘hazardou s w aste f uels’ is n ot o nly
unn ecessa ry , bu t cou nte rprodu ctiv e to en coura ging this b ene f icial and ef fective me ans of

redu cing or elimin ating an y risk tha t m ight be relate d to oth er disp osal.” 48

R C R A D o c k e t : E P A

- H Q

- R C R A

- 1 9 8 5

- 0 0 6 ; D o c k e t I D # : A

- D W

- 1 6

- 0 0 0 0 3 ; p

. 2 1

. 45

T h e N a t i o n a l B i e n n i a l R C R A H a z a r d o u s W a s t e R e p o r t
, 2 0 0 7
, E x h i b i t 2

. 5

. C o m b i n a t i o n o f F u e l 46 B l e n d i n g a n d E n e r g y R e c o v e r y v o l u m e s

. C o m b i n e d V o l u m e i s t h e l a r g e s t o f a n y r e c y c l i n g m e t h o d

s u r v e y e d i n t h e 2 0 0 7 B i e n n i a l R e p o r t

.

5 6 F R 7 2 0 8 ( F e b r u r a r y 2 1
, 1 9 9 1 )

. T h e o r i g i n a l B o i l e r a n d I n d u s t r i a l F u r n a c e R u l e ( B I F R u l e ) ; 47 F i n a l R u l e

.

R C R A D o c k e t : E P A

- H Q

- R C R A

- 1 9 8 5

- 0 0 0 2
, D o c k e t I D # : B W O F 0 0 2
, S l i d e 1 3 3 7
, p

. 3

48



### 25

### Once again, indu stry ’s argume nts p rov ed false. T he solvent m anu factu ring and

recovery indu stries w ere a f

fecte d b y

nu me rous RCRA rule ma kings throu ghout the 198 0's, in cluding th e B IF rule. Despite the se regulat ions, bot h e nergy recovery

an d solvent reco v eryare f lourishing. A ccording to the 20 07 Bien nial Rep ort th ere were 45 6 sepa rate solvent reco v eryfacilities, a ccoun ting for 32 .7% of all RCRA ha z ardo us waste
ma nagem ent facilities in e x istence . Moreo v er, giv en the fact t hata re latively sm aller tota l v olum e o f

ha z ardo us waste (i.e. , 32 9,0 00 ton s) are m ana ged via “Solv ent Recovery ” indicat es th at m any of the 45 6 facilities en gagi ng in th e reco v eryof this 329 ,00 0 to ns o f

solvent a re relatively

sm all recovery

op eratio ns. App aren tly , even sma ll recy cling opera tions are n ot “stigma tiz ed” b y RCRA’s regulatory req uirem ent s. 49



### 199 6 –A meric an Pe troleum Ins titute (A PI): In 19 95, EPAprop osed to list v arious ref inery residuals a s ha z ardo us waste, in cluding several spe nt ca talysts the ref ining proce ss. 6 0 FR57 747 (Nov . 20 , 19 95). Virtua lly w ithou t exceptio n e v erym em ber o f the pe troleu m indu stry

pred icted tha t listing spen t cat alysts w ould discou rage if no t f ully und ermin e reco v eryof

the se ca talysts. Alon g w ith B P, E xx on Mobil an d o the rs, the trade asso ciation for th e p etrole um indu stry , th e A me rican Pe troleu m Institu te, invoked “stig ma ” once again:

In a dditio n, listing of

the se resid uals co uld a ctua lly discou rage ad dition al or inn ovativ e recycling /reclam ation pract ices. . . Designatin g these
ma terials a s listed hazardou s w aste w ould discou rage existing recycl ing and f urthe r increase the costs of recycl ing relativ e to dispo sal. 50



### T his did no t ha ppe n. In f act, In 2 007 , over 80 % of ref inery catalysts thatw ere liste d a s hazardou s un der RCRA were recycl ed, no t disp osed

. A ppendix B chron icles the 51



### ma ny additio nal, and am iss, claim s of “stigma” in RCRA rule ma kings beginning in 1 979

.
D. Ev en Major Proponents of “Stigma ” Such as the Ceme nt Industry Acknow ledge that this Fac tor Plays No Role in Busine ss Decis ion Making

One of the m ost f requentad v ocat es o f “stigma” in recycling- relate d rule ma kings has bee n th e ce me nt in dust ry . S ince 1 979 , th e ce me nt in dust ry ha s be en assertin g “stig ma ” v irtuallyw hen ever EPA h as p ropo sed to re gulate a ny aspect of its op eratio ns involv ing the burn ing of ha z ardo us waste for eith er en ergy or m ate rials recovery

. In 52

2 0 0 7 R C R A B i e n n i a l R e p o r t
, E x h i b i t s 2

. 6 a n d 2

. 7

. 49

R C R A D o c k e t : E P A

- H Q

- R C R A

- 1 9 9 5

- 0 0 5 8
, D o c k e t I D # : F

- 9 5

- P R L P

- 0 0 0 4 6
, p p

. 2
, 1 0 1

. 50

T a b l e 3 a b o v e , 2 0 0 7 R C R A B i e n n i a l R e p o r t S u r v e y D a t a b a s e

. 51

S e e A p p e n d i x B
, c o m m e n t s o f P h o e n i x C e m e n t
, P o r t l a n d C e m e n t A s s o c i a t i o n , L a f a r g e 52 C o r p o r a t i o n , a n d C a d e n c e C h e m i c a l

. 

### 26

### the pe ndin g CCRrulem aking the cem entindu stry ha s resurrecte d th e “stigma“ st alking horse on ce a gain. In fact, it is dif f icult to f ind a RCRA rulem aking of an y kind w here 53



### som eon e in the cem ent indu stry didn ’t sum mo n a claim of “stigma.” 54



### For the record, no t on e o f the se m any claims of

“stigma” by the cem entindu stry ha s ever bee n rea liz ed. Even when com me rcial hazardou s w aste incine rators, which
com pet e with cem entkilns in t he hazardou s w aste com bust ion m arketp lace, tried t o “stig ma tiz e” th e ce me nt p rodu ced by plants tha t bu rn ha z ardo us waste a s a f uel, the re
w as n o p ercep tible m arketp lace im pactw hat soever f rom the se e f forts. If an y thing, the re w as a ba cklash a gainst th e incin erato r conso rtium.

Moreover, w hen cem ent kilns ha v e a nno unce d d ecisions to ce ase burn ing hazardou s
w aste f uels in som e o f

the ir facilities, “stigma” is n ever men tione d a s a re ason for ceasin g this ha z ardo us waste m ana geme nt p ractice. W hile so me cem entkilns ha v e cited the MACT stan dard s an d th eir relate d co mp liance costs a s a b asis for cea sing to burn ha z ardo us waste, st igma h as n ever bee n m ent ione d. If “stigma” w ere a s po ten t a force a s the cem entindu stry repe ate dly conten ds, o ne w ould expect t hatthe y cou ld prod uce a b oun ty of

press release s, cust om er lett ers, su pplier le tters, and /or SE C 10-K f ilings that id ent if ied “stigma ” as th e b asis for cea sing their recycling activities. Su ch release s an d f ilings do no t exist beca use “stig ma ” has never played su ch a role.
For examp le, th is past sum me r TXI, forme rly kno w n a s T exas Ind ustries, ann oun ced tha t it would close four o f its old est ce me nt kilns and stop bu rning hazardou s w aste f uel altogeth er. A T XI comp any spoke sperso n sta ted tha t th e d ecision w as “ba sed on its

55 

### desire to b oost ef

f iciency in prep aratio n for a recovery in th e North T exas const ruction
ma rket.” T he T XI spoke sperso n e v en w entso f ar as to sa y tha t ne w

imp end ing Fede ral MACT rules governing toxi c air em issions f rom [no n-ha z ardo us waste b urning] ce me nt kilns did not con tribute to the de cision. T hus in th is case the re w as “no stigma” f rom the CCR rule, n ot e v en an imp act f rom pen ding Clean Air Act (MACT) regulation s; simp ly a d esire to bo ost o v erall prod uction ef f iciency.

L e t t e r f r o m R i c h a r d S t o l l t o M a t t H a l e , “ C o n c e r n s o v e r ‘ S t i g m a ’ f o r C o a l C o m b u s t i o n P r o d u c t s , ” 53 A u g u s t 7
, 2 0 0 9

.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e v a r i o u s r u l e m a k i n g s i d e n t i f i e d i n A p p e n d i x B
, t h e C e m e n t I n d u s t r y a l s o 54

r a i s e d t h e s p e c t e r o f “ s t i g m a ” w h e n E P A p r o p o s e d t o r e g u l a t e c e m e n t k i l n d u s t ( C K D ) a s “ h a z a r d o u s ”

u n d e r R C R A

. 6 4 F R 4 5 6 3 2 ( A u g

. 2 0
, 1 9 9 9 ) ; P r o p o s e d R u l e

. 6 7 F R 4 8 6 4 8 ( J u l y 2 5
, 2 0 0 2 ) ; N O D A

. R C R A D o c k e t I D : F

- 1 9 9 9

- C K D

- F F F F F

. S e e a l s o K e l l y , K a t h r y n , “ I s C K D H a z a r d o u s t o Y o u r H e a l t h
, ” C e m e n t A m e r i c a s , M a r c h 1
, 2 0 0 0

.

“ T X I t o S h u t F o u r O l d e r C e m e n t K i l n s , Q u i t B u r n i n g H a z a r d o u s W a s t e , ” T h e D a l l a s M o r n i n g 55 N e w s , J u l y 7
, 2 0 1 0 ; w w w

. d a l l a s n e w s

. c o m

. 

### 27

### E. “Stigma” Under RCRA Is Ille gal

In 1 986 EPAissued a f inal d ecision notto list recy cled o il as ha z ardo us waste b ecau se the stigmat ic ef

fect o f such a listing would disco urage recycling

. Desp ite its o w n 56 

### repo rt indica ting tha t certa in types o f use d o il shou ld be listed as h azardous w aste beca use of

vari ous toxic constitu ent s, EP A failed to a ct on its own de term inatio ns. As a result in the 19 84 HSW A, Co ngress ad opt ed Sect ions 2 41-2 42 requiring EPAto decid e
w ithin a spe cif ied t ime w het her t o list u sed oils as h azardous.

EPA ’s decision no t to list use d o il beca use of “stigma” w as ch allenged by Th e Hazardous W aste T reatm ent Coun cil (HW T C), pe troleu m ref ining organiz ation s an d 57 

### the Natu ral Resou rces Defense Coun cil. In its op inion, the Court ruled una nim ously, statin g terselytha t:

T he EPAerrone ously base d its d ecision notto list recy cled o ils as hazardou s w aste on the stigmat ic ef fects o f such a listing, a facto r not perm itted by the statu te. 58

5 1 F R 4 1 9 0 0 ( N o v e m b e r 1 8
, 1 9 8 6 )
, U s e d O i l L i s t i n g ; F i n a l R u l e

. 56

I w a s t h e E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r o f t h e H W T C a t t h e t i m e

. 57

8 6 1 F

. 2 d 2 7 0 ( D

. C

. C i r

. 1 9 8 8 )
, H a z a rd o u s W a s t e Tre a t m e n t C o u n c i l v

. E PA ( H W T C I )

. U s e d 58 O i l R e c y c l i n g L i t i g a t i o n

. 

### 28

# APPEND IX A

### I. QUA LIFICA TIONS

A

. Ov era ll E xperi ence

I ha v e o v er 30 + y ears e x perien ce in developin g and imp lem ent ing w aste m ana geme nt policies in v olvi ng solid, h azardous and radio active w aste s. I have de v elop ed key legislativ e p rov isions, im plem ent ed the m for ne arly 30 years, an d witnessed f irsthan d regulated indu stry ’s respo nse to st atu tory and regulatory directiv es o f RCRA an d CERCLA a nd the Clean W ate r Act (CW A). I have te stif ied a t over 20 Congression al hea rings; organiz ed eight ot her h earings w hile se rv ing on t he House En ergy an d Com me rce Com mitt ee Sta f f ; organized 1 2 n ation al an d regiona l conf eren ces o n hazardou s w aste po licy an d te chno logy

issues since 1 984 ; an d, b een ad mitt ed as a RCRA/CERCLA a nd indu stry pract ices expert in Fed eral a nd Sta te co urt a nd in an EPA Adm inistrative Law procee ding.
I was a princip al arch itect o f the corne rstone elem ent s of the 19 84 Hazardous a nd Solid W aste Am end me nts (HSW A), includ ing the “ham me r” prov ision as well as Corrective 59 

### Action , th e L and Disposa l Restriction, an d B urning an d B lend ing Provi sions. I led the nat ion’s lea ding asso ciation of tech nolo gy -base d waste m ana geme nt f irms, th e Hazardous W aste T reatm ent Coun cil (HW T C), for 11 years. HW T C me mb ers includ ed hazardou s w aste incine rators, ce me nt kilns, f uel b lend ers an d o the r major solvent a nd
me tal-be aring w aste recycl ers. I n a dditio n, I au tho red a bo ok o n RCRA a nd the 19 84 HSW A Am end me nts with a f orw ard b y Se n. Jo hn Chaf

fee, the Floor Man ager of the HSW A, a nd co-au tho red b y Dave Len net t, Chie f

RCRA Atto rney for th e E nvironm ent al Defense Fun d (EDF) at the tim e. Othe r accom plishm ent s includ e:

! As Executive Director of the HW T C, w as involv ed in 10 + legal challen ges to E PA and Sta te in terpret ation s of RCRA/CERCLA p rov isions, in cluding a challen ge
w hich se cured HSW A’s “tech nolo gy -base d” trea tm entstan dard s; 60



### ! Sub mitt ed over 100 com me nts t o Fe dera l and Sta te A gencies o n RCRA, CERCLA, T SCA, a nd CW A p ropo sed regulation s;

“ R C R A : T h e B i r t h o f t h e H a m m e r , ” T h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l F o r u m , E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w I n s t i t u t e , 59 W a s h i n g t o n , V o l

. 7
, N o

. 5
, S e p t e m b e r / O c t o b e r 1 9 9 0
, p

. 1 8

.

6 2 F R 2 6 0 4 1
, 2 6 0 5 8

- 6 0
, ( M a y 1 2
, 1 9 9 7 )
, L a n d D i s p o s a l R e s t r i c t i o n s P h a s e I V ; F i n a l R u l e

. “ T o 60

s a t i s f y R C R A S e c t i o n 3 0 0 4 ( m )
, E P A h a s c h o s e n t o p r o m u l g a t e t r e a t m e n t s t a n d a r d s b a s e d o n p e r f o r m a n c e o f ‘ b e s t d e m o n s t r a t e d a v a i l a b l e t e c h n o l o g y ’ ( B D A T )
, S e e 5 1 F R 4 0
, 5 7 2
, 4 0
, 5 7 8
, ( N o v

. 7
, 1 9 8 8 ) ; p r o v i d e d s u c h s t a n d a r d s a r e n o t e s t a b l i s h e d a t a p o i n t b e y o n d w h i c h t h r e a t s a r e m i n i m i z e d

. S e e H a z a rd o u s W a s t e Tr e a t m e n t C o u n c i

l v

. E PA
, 8 8 6 F

. 2 d 3 5 5
, 3 6 1

- 6 6 ( D

. C

. C i r

. 1 9 8 9 ) ( u p h o l d i n g
e s t a b l i s h i n g t e c h n o l o g y
- b a s e d t r e a t m e n t s t a n d a r d s a s a r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f R C R A s e c t i o n 3 0 0 4 ( m )
, c e r t

. d e n i e d
, 4 9 8 U

. S

. 8 4 9 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( ‘ H W T C I I I ’ )

. ”



### A-1

### ! W orked w ith o v er 20 0 co mm ercial f irms in n avig ating th e waste m ana geme nt

and rem edia tion ma rketpla ces; a nd,

! Cond ucte d d ozens of m arket stud ies in t he the rmal a nd oth er w aste
ma nagem ent secto rs.

B. Spec ific Re cy cling E xperi ence

In a dditio n to the se o v erall crede ntials, I ha v e b een involv ed in a num ber o f spe cif ic regulatory, legal and investigatory proje cts regarding RCRA’s Def inition of So lid W aste and its recycli ng provisi ons. T hese acco mp lishme nts in clude :

! W orked for years to lim it the exemp tions f rom RCRA’s Solid W aste Def inition for
v arious forms of

recycl ing, espe cially

use con stitutin g disposa l and bu rning for ene rg y /m ate rials recovery ;

! Served as a RCRA regulato ry an d co mp liance Expert to the DOJ in a recen t
case involv ing a f acility blen ding ha z ardo us waste-de riv ed f uels withouta RCRA perm it. Case involv ed the calcula tion of the eco nom ic ben ef it de riv ed f rom illegal ope ration using th e B EN Mode l and oth er m eth odo logies;

! Com me nte d o n p ropo sed Solid W aste Def inition rev isions since 19 85;

! Filed th e initia l inquiry w ith E PA a nd the DOJ in 1 986 on the legitimacy of Marine Sha le Proce ssors (MSP) recycl ing ope ration as h ead of HW T C. Ou r group initiate d o r participa ted in n um erou s ad min istrativ e a nd legal proce edin gs at th e Fede ral an d S tate level to e nsure prop er en forcem entof RCRA at MSP; 61



### ! Filed a succe ssf ul suit in 19 87 to ch allenge E PA’s d ecision to n ot list u sed oil base d o n “stigma. ” HW T C v . EP A (HW T C I);

! Aut hore d n um erou s articles o n RCRA p olicy an d legislation includ ing a 19 88 article, “Esca pe f rom RCRA,” in T he Environme nta l Forum which examine d th e 62 

### imp act o f

RCRA’s recy cling looph oles;

S e e “ A n A s s e s s m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o b l e m s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h R e c y c l i n g o f H a z a r d o u s 61 S e c o n d a r y M a t e r i a l s , ” U

. S

. E P A
, O ff i c e o f S o l i d W a s t e , A p p e n d i x 2
, p

. 1 4 2
, R C R A D o c k e t # E P A

- H Q

R C R A

- 2 0 0 2

- 0 0 3 1
, f o r c h r o n o l o g y o f M S P e v e n t s

. S e e a l s o L o u i s i a n a D E Q P r e s s R e l e a s e , S e p t e m b e r 1 8
, 2 0 0 6 s t a t i n g t h a t
, “ D E Q d o e s n o t e x p e c t t h a t [ e x i s t i n g s e t t l e m e n t s o f $ 6

. 2 M + $ 8 5 0
, 0 0 0 L e t t e r o f C r e d i t ] w i l l b e s u ff i c i e n t f o r a f u l l r e m e d i a t i o n a n d w i l l p u r s u e o t h e r r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e c o s t

. ”

T h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l F o r u m , t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w I n s t i t u t e , W a s h i n g t o n , D

. C

. , M a y / J u n e ,

62 1 9 8 8
, p

. 3 0 ;


### A-2

### ! Participa ted in E PA’s S olid W aste Def inition T ask Fo rce in 1 990 , an Of f ice of Solid W aste ’s initiative to re form the So lid W aste Def inition as it p ertain ed to recy cling and reuse of

seco nda ry

m ate rials, an d to be tter d ef ine sham recycling ;

! Issue d a Repo rt w ith th e E nvironm ent al Def ense Fun d o n recycling loop hole s in RCRA’s Solid W aste Def inition tha t was aired a t a hea ring of the House En ergy and Com me rce Com mitt ee in 19 92;

! Filed se v eral co mm ent s an d a ctiv ely w orked w ith E PA t o lim it the use of hazardou s w aste as in gredie nts in fertiliz ers, p articularly K061 Elect ric Arc Furnace (EAF) du st; a nd,

! Initiat ed num erou s inquiries regarding the legitimacy of oth er pu rported ly

exemp t hazardou s w aste “recy cling” pract ices.

A-3

# APPEND IX B

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: Ma rch 13, 1979 Compa ny : T he Na tional Ash Assoc iation, I nc. RCRA Rul ema king : Or iginal RCRA “ Base Prog ram ” Rulemak ing

. Pr oposed Rule, 43 FR589 46, (Dec em ber 18, 1978) ; Final Rule, 45 3 3066 (May 19, 198 0). Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Ge nera l re use of power plant ash

Wha t T hey

Sai d: “Power p lant ash is bec om ing available in g reat er q uant ities in m ore locations ac ros s t he c ount ry, the q uality is im proving
, and accep tability cont inues to increa se. W e ar e de aling w ith a r ecoverable res ourc e an d no t a disc arde d m ater ial. .

. . W hat w e ar e r eally tryi ng t o po int out is t hat the ash indust ry has dem onst rat ed t he c apability of initiat ing an ef

f ect iv e as h m anag em ent prog ram

. . . . ” Source: RCRA Dock et EPA-HQ -RCRA- 1980- 002, Doc k et ID # A- D1-T T -010 00, pp. 1 - 2.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: In 2008, 64% of co al com bust ion r esidual ( CCR) w as still being dispo sed of in landf ill s, surf ace impou ndm ents or caves and m ines, rat her than r ecycled. See 75 FR351 28, 35151 (Ju ne 2 1, 2010) ; CCR Pr oposed Rule. Dam ag e incident s f rom im prop er disposal, and so me r ecycling oper ations co ntinue to mo unt. T he f ly as h indus try failed t o inst itut e an y industry-w ide m inimum st andar ds of prac tice to preventdam ag e as su ch has occur red in t he T VA incident

. W hile th is examp le does not pur ely dep ict a f alse c laim of

“ stig ma ” that

w as under mined by su bseq uent EPA reg ulation, it is included here as an example o f t he c onseq uences of

Ag ency acq uiescenc e t o a dere g ulatory arg um ent such as “st igm a” or an a ssur ance to self-police. Source: Stant
, Jef

f
, “O ut of Cont rol: Mounting Dam ag es f rom Coal Ash W ast e Sit es, ” Envi ronm enta l In teg rity Pr oje ct and Eart h J ust ice; Feb. 24, 2010.



### B-2

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: Ma rch 14, 1979 Compa ny : Phoenix Ceme nt Com pany RCRA Rul ema king : Or iginal RCRA “ Base Prog ram ” Rulemak ing

. Pr oposed Rule, 43 FR589 46, (Dec em ber 18, 1978) ; Final Rule, 45 F R 33066, ( M ay 19, 1980)

. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Burning hazard ous w ast e f or ener g y/mat erials rec overy

Wha t T hey

Sai d: “I nst ead, t he h ars h ‘cr adle t o g rave’ re g ulations that ar e pr oposed by EPA w ould im pose reg ulatory cost s a nd adm inistr ative bur dens that wil l per ma nent ly disc oura g e pr oducer

int eres t in r ecycling.

. . . Also, indiv iduals, private indust ry and g overnm enta l ag encies w ill tot ally

avoid any ite ms ca rryi ng t he ‘hazardo us w ast e’ label even if t he a pplication is t erm ed e nvi ronm enta lly sa fe.” Source: RCRA Dock et EPA-HQ -RCRA- 1980- 002; Doc k et ID #: A-D1- T T -011 20, p. 2.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Bur ning hazard ous w ast e in cem ent k ilns f or either ene rg y and/o r ma ter ials r ecovery as a m ajo r me thod of t herm al proc essing of

hazard ous w ast e, despit e a ser ies of st rict ope rat ional and M ACT em ission c ontr ol st andar ds issued thr oug hout t he 1 980' s a nd 1990' s. Forexam ple, w ith reg ard to com me rcial f acilities, in 2007
, appr oxi ma tely 1. 1 m ill ion t ons of hazard ous tons of

hazard ous w ast es are burn ed in com me rcial cem ent k ilns com pare d t o 0. 6 m ill ion t ons burn ed in com me rcial incinerat ors

. Source: 2007 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous W ast e Rep ort

. See also w w w .epa .g ov/epawastes/ hazard/ tsd /t d/c om bust ion.ht m. See ( *) at end of A ppendi x B descr ibing me thod olog y for calculating 1. 1 m t on a nd 0 .6 m ton vol um es.
Date: Decem ber 1, 1981 Compa ny : National Assoc iation of Rec ycli ng I ndust ries, I nc. ( NARI) RCRA Rul ema king : Def inition of Solid W ast e Rulem ak ing

. 48 FR144 71 ( April 4, 198 3); Pr oposed Rule. 50 FR614 ( January 4, 1985) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: All recycling pr act ices g ener ally

.
Wha t T hey

Sai d: NARI w as com me nting on the EPA’s 1983 -85 prop osal t o exten d RCRA jur isdiction to a br oader r ang e of r ecycling prac tices t hat here tof ore had been excluded f rom RCRA. In this reg ard NARI sta ted, “ In any event, it is imper ative f or EPA ef f ect iv ely t o exclude re cyclable and rec ycled ma ter ials f rom t he d ef inition of ‘solid waste’ for the follow ing r easons

.. .” Source: RCRA Dock et, EPA- HQ- RCRA-1985- 0006; Doc k et ID#: A- DW -11- 00050, p. 1

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Despite extending RCRA reg ulation to a br oad arr ay of hazard ous w ast e r ecycling prac tices in 1985, r ecycling is expansiv e an d g rowing. Source: See T ables 2, 3, and 4 ab ove.



### B-3

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: July28, 198 3 Compa ny : Chem ical I ndust ries Council ( CIC) RCRA Rul ema king : Propo sed Def inition of Solid W ast e Rulem ak ing

. 48 FR144 71 ( April 4, 198 3); Pr oposed Rule. 50 FR614 ( January 4, 1985) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: All recycling pr act ice em ployed w ithin t he c hem ical indust ry at t he t ime.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: CIC com me nted on EPA’s 1983 -85 prop osal t o exten d RCRA jur isdiction to a br oader r ang e of r ecycling prac tices t hat here tof ore had been excluded f rom RCRA. Reg arding EPA’s prop osed act ions, CIC sta ted, “ M ore impor tant ly
, howev er, we believe the EPA prop osal wil l be a s tr ong det err ent to rec ycli ng and wil l th us res ult in m ore w ast e be ing g ener ated

. T he c oncept t hat rec ycli ng is a waste tr eatm ent oper ation places a s tig ma in their co mm unities on r ecyclers and on t hose w ishing t o us e s uch f acilities orco nduct su ch act iv ities onsite incident al t o m anuf act uring ope rat ions.” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1985- 0006; Doc k et ID#: A- DW -2- X X X X X
, Fram es 0598- 0602, p. 2.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: In 2007 only 4 of t he 5 63 RCRA w ast e c odes repo rt ed n o r ecycling act iv ity for that r eporting year. Over 99% of RCRA waste codes r eported at least som e level of r ecycling during t he 2 007 biennial re port ing per iod. Source: See T able 4 above.



### B-4

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: A ugust 1, 198 3 Compa ny : Cadence Chem ical Resou rce s, Inc

. RCRA Rul ema king : Def inition of Solid W ast e Rulem ak ing

. 48 FR144 71 ( April 4, 198 3); Pr oposed Rule. 50 FR614 ( January 4, 1985) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Fuel blending /bur ning f or ener g y reco very

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In a 19 83-8 5 r ulema k ing t o r evi se RCRA’s “De f inition of Solid W ast e,” extend ing RCRA jur isdiction to ma ny previously exempt r ecycling prac tices
, including f uel blending and bur ning f or ener g y reco very , Cadence Chem ical st ated : “ T o label the prim ary r esult of such ef fort [ f uel blending t o pr oduce a ha zardous w ast e-de rived f uel] as ‘w ast e” or em ployi ng a euphem ism such as ‘reg ulated rec yclabl e ma ter ials’ as is don e in Propo sed Sect ion 261 .6, would be a s ign if icant disincent iv e f or f utur e de vel opm ent of bon af ide r ecycling of

ene rg ybear ing r esiduals. T his is becaus e de sig nating r esidual-de rived pr oduct s a s ‘waste’ o r ‘reg ulated rec yclabl e m ater ials’ w ould exacer bate t he already neg ative and hig hly volatile public perc eption of su ch ma ter ials.” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1985- 006; Doc k et ID#: A- DW -16- 00003; p. 21.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Despite a s eries of incr easing st ring ent reg ulations on f uel blending and bur ning f or ener g y reco very t hrou g hout t he 1980' s a nd 1 990' s, by 2007 burn ing f or ener g y reco very co mb ined with blending of waste- derived f uels was t he m ost dom inant me thod of
rec ycli ng by volume, ac count ing f or 2.5 million t ons of hazard ous w ast e m anag ed in 2007, or m ore than any ot her me thod of
rec overy/recycling ident if ied by t he Bienn ial Report Survey. Source: T he Na tional Biennial RCRA Hazardous W ast e Rep ort
, 2007, Exhibit 2. 5.



### B-5

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: A ugust 2, 198 3 Compa ny : Ame rican Petr oleum I nst itut e ( API) RCRA Rul ema king : Propo sed Def inition of Solid W ast e Rulem ak ing

. 48 FR144 71 ( April 4, 198 3); Pr oposed Rule. 50 FR614 ( January 4, 1985) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Petr oleum waste rec ycli ng

Wha t T hey

Sai d: API w as com me nting on the EPA’s 1983 -85 prop osal t o exten d RCRA jur isdiction to a br oader r ang e of r ecycling prac tices that her etof ore had been excluded f rom RCRA. In this reg ard API sta ted, “ In orde r to mit iga te the impac t on r ecycling act iv ities, EPA has desig nate d ‘hazardou s waste’ that ar e us ed, reus ed o r rec laimed as ‘reg ulated rec yclabl e m ater ials’. W e op pose this appr oach for several
reas ons. First
, the impac t of r ecycling w ill be sig nif icant reg ardles s o f t he n ew t itle EPA g iv es thes e m ater ials beca use they would be subj ect to pote ntially

expensive re g ulatory req uirem ents .” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1985- 0006; Doc k et ID#: AA- DW -5- 00106.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Despite listing num erou s p etr oleum r ef inery wastes as “hazardo us” und er RCRA and subj ect ing m any pet roleum

w ast e r ecycling prac tices t o s epar ate reg ulations, pet roleum wastes rem ain one of t he m ost f req uent ly

r ecycled wastes g ener ated by any indust ry in t he U. S. Near ly 80% of r ef ining sludg es/ cat aly sts ar e r ecycled acc ording t o t he 2 007 Biennial Report data

. Source: See T able s 3, 4 abo ve.



### B-6

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: Ma rch 12, 1985 Compa ny : T he Ha log enat ed So lv ents I ndust ry Alliance ( HSIA) RCRA Rul ema king : Hazardous W ast e as Fue l Specif ication. 50 FR168 4 ( January 11, 1985) ; Propo sed Rule 50 FR491 64 ( November 29, 1985) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Solv ent rec overy and b urning wastes f uels.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: T he HSI A, w hich r epre sent ed m ost of t he lar g est ch em ical com panies in t he c ount ry, oppose d EPA’s 1985 att em pt at est ablished a st opg ap m easur e t o dist ing uish b etween bur ning f or ener g y reco very , w hich was un reg ulated at the tim e, and incinerat ion which

w as f ully co ntr olled. T he p ropo sal s tat ed t hat burn ing any waste ma ter ials wi th less than 4, 000 BT Us p er pound w ould be dee me d t o be “bur ning for dest ruc tion” and would be reg ulated as incinerat ion unt il such tim e as f orm al and com preh ensive st andar ds for burn ing hazard ous
w ast e in boilers and indust rial f urna ces (BI Fs) were issued in t he lat e 19 80's

. I n pr oposing t hese sta ndar ds for burn ing so me of t he m ost t oxi c and pote ntially

ca rcinog enic s olv ents
, (i.e
., per chloro ethylene, tr ichloroet hyl ene and chloro form ), t he HSI A g rabb ed f or a f am ili ar arg um ent, “st igm a”: “ T he labe ling of t hese blended f uels a s ‘hazardo us w ast e f uels’ is not only unneces sary, but co unte rpr oduct iv e t o en cour ag ing t his benef icial and ef

f ect iv e m eans of

r educing or

elim inating any r iskt hat mig ht be r elated to othe r disposal. ” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1985- 0002, Doc k et ID#: BW OF 002, Slide 1 337, p. 3

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: T he s olv ent ma nuf act uring and r ecovery indust ries w ere af f ect ed b y num erou s RCRA rulem ak ing s t hrou g hout t he 1980' s inc luding t he b urning of hazard ous w ast es for ener g y reco very

. Des pite thes e r eg ulations, bot h en erg y reco very and so lv ent rec overy are f lourishing

. T he m ost pr evalent t ype of hazard ous w ast e m anag em ent f acility accor ding t o t he 2 007 Biennial Report w as solvent
rec overy. In 2007 ther e were 456 separ ate solvent r ecovery facilities, accou nting f or 32.7 % of all RCRA w ast e m anag em ent f acilities in exi ste nce. M oreo ver, g iv en t he f act t hat a r elatively sm aller t otal vol um e of hazard ous w ast e ( i.e.
, 329, 000 tons ) are ma nag ed via “ Solv ent Recovery” indicat es that m any of t he 4 56 f acilities en g ag ing in the rec overy of t his 32 9,00 0 t ons of

so lv ent are relat iv ely

sm all rec overy oper ations

. Appa rent ly
, even sm all rec ycli ng ope rat ions were not “st igm atized” by RCRA’s “o nero us” and “ burd ensom e” reg ulatory req uirem ents

. Source: 2007 RCRA Biennial Repor t, Exhibits 2 .6 and 2.7.



### B-7

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: Ma rch 5, 1986 Compa ny : Cadence Chem ical Resou rce s, Inc

. (CCR) RCRA Rul ema king : Hazardous W ast e as Fue l Specif ication. 50 FR168 4 ( January 11, 1985) ; Propo sed Rule 50 FR491 64 ( November 29, 1985) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Burning waste- derived f uels

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In res ponse to EPA’s 1985 Hazardou s W ast e Fu el Spec if ication Rulemak ing
, Cadence once ag ain pled their ca se that t hey should be e xemptf rom su ch rules and citing am ong ot her thing s t he s tig ma ar g um ent once ag ain: “T he r eg ulation of t he Ca dence prod uct as a ‘hazardou s waste’ w ill disc oura g e it s p rodu ction and use. Excessiv e an d un jus tif iable r eg ulations, unn ecess ary per mit ting pr oblem s, and cost ly waste- end and taxes mig ht eliminate t his valuable r ecycling tec hnolog y.” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1987- 0024, Doc k et ID#: F- 1987- BBFP-S004 7. A, p. 22.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Burning waste- derived f uels f or ener g y reco very has bee n a leading m etho d of r ecycling since the mid- 1980' s a nd
rem ains s o t o t his da y. In 2007, nea rly 1.1 m ill ion t ons of hazard ous w ast e-de rived f uels were burn ed in com me rcial BIFs
, w hile 0. 6 m ill ion tons were burn ed in com me rcial incinerat ors

. I n ad dition, Cade nce Chem ical Resou rce s went on t o be com e on e of t he lar g est and m ost
succ essf ul hazardou s waste f uel blending ope rat ions in the count ry. T ed Re ese, Cade nce Pres ident, disc overed that t here was life an d indeed pros perit y af

ter RCRA reg ulation after all. Mr. Reese nam ed h is yacht af ter his com pany, “ Cadence, ” and in 1990
, 5 years after t he Hazardous W ast e Fu el Spec if ication w as f inaliz ed, M r. Rees e an nounce d plans t o bu ild a n ew of f ice bu ilding to house his r apidly g rowing
com pany. Source: See ( *) at end of A ppendi x B descr ibing me thod olog y for calculating 1. 1 m t on a nd 0 .6 m ton vol um es. See also

w w w .ch icag oyachtclub. org ( See r esults of Heyw ort h Memor ial T roph y race );

ww w .hig hbeam .co m/ doc/ 1N1-1 0852FE2B15 1C75E. htm l, “ Cadence Has Brig ht Idea s F or the Futu re, ” PostT ribune (I ndiana)
, M ay 7, 1990.



### B-8

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: June 26, 1987 Compa ny : National Assoc iation of Solvent Recyclers (NASR) RCRA Rul ema king : Burning Hazardou s W ast e in Boilers and Indu str ial Furn aces (BI Fs) Rulem ak ing

. 52 FR169 82 ( M ay 6, 1987) ; Propo sed Rule. 56 FR713 4 ( Febr uary 21
, 1991) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Burning hazard ous w ast e f or ener g y/mat erials rec overy.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In 1987, EPA prop osed specif ic r eg ulations on f acilities bu rning hazard ous w ast e in boilers and indust rial f urna ces purs uantt o t he d irect iv e of t he 1 984 HSW A. I n t heir com me nts
, NASR eq uate d t he n ew r eg ulations w ith the spect er of indus tr ial f urna ces to “ce ase burn ing hazard ous w ast e f uel blends .” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1987- 0024; Doc k et ID#: F- 1987- BBFP-000 25.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Burning hazard ous w ast e in indust rial f urna ces becam e t he d om inant com me rcial me thod f or burn ing hazard ous
w ast e of all k inds, dw arf ing t he volume s b urne d by pe rm itte d ha zardous w ast e inciner ator s. I n 20 07, near ly 1. 1 m ill ion t ons of

hazard ous
w ast e de rived f uels were burn ed in com me rcial BIFs
, w hile 0. 6 m ill ion t ons w ere burn ed in com me rcial incinerat ors

. Source: 2007 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous W ast e Rep ort

. See ( *) at end of A ppendi x B descr ibing me thod olog y for calculating 1. 1
m ton and 0.6 m ton vol um es.



### B-9

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: July1, 198 7 Compa ny : Port land Cem ent Assoc iation (PCA) RCRA Rul ema king : Burning Hazardou s W ast e in Boilers and Indu str ial Furn aces (BI Fs)

. 52 FR169 82 ( M ay 6, 1987) ; Propo sed Rule. 56 FR713 4 ( Febr uary 21
, 1991) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Burning hazard ous w ast e f or ener g y/mat erials rec overy.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In 1987, EPA prop osed specif ic r eg ulations on f acilities bu rning hazard ous w ast e in boilers and indust rial f urna ces purs uantt o t he d irect iv e of t he 1 984 HSW A. PCA in t heir com me nts st res sed that t he im position of ce rt ain em ission r eq uirem ents would forc e all c em ent k ilns t o c ease burn ing hazard ous w ast e f uels. “An inform al survey of t he indu stry by this of

f ice indicat es that virtua lly all
cem ent com panies w ould r ef rain f rom bur ning hazard ous w ast e if t he 1 00 p pm CO limit were req uired. ” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1987- 0024; Doc k et ID#: F- 1987- BBFP-007 8, p. 2.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Af

ter se veral re vi sions of

t he BI F r ule, the CO limit for cem ent k ilns was est ablished a t # 100 ppm , the lev el t hat w as deem ed t o be t he d eath k nell of bur ning hazard ous w ast e f uels f or ener g y reco very in cem ent k ilns. Cem ent k ilns r em ain t he d om inant
me thod of

t herm al pr ocess ing of

hazard ous w ast e t oday, b urning nea rly twice as mu ch w ast e as co mm erc ial incinerat ors

. W hile th is const itut es mo re of

a “r eg ulatory burde n” than a stig ma ar g um ent, it is included for purp oses of illustr ating how easily and f req uent ly r ecycling f irm s r esort to hyperbole in res ponding t o pr oposed r eg ulatory req uirem ents

. T he “ if I am r eg ulated, I wil l j ust q uit” st atem ent is an all too
com mo n t hem e in thes e c onte xts. See also com me nts of Laf arg e ( July 17, 1987)

. Source: 2007 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous W ast e Rep ort

. See also 56 FR720 8 ( Febr uary 21
, 1991) ; T he BI F Rule.



### B-10

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: July6, 198 7 Compa ny : Ge nera l Bat tery Corpor ation RCRA Rul ema king : Burning Hazardou s W ast e in Boilers and Indu str ial Furn aces (BI Fs)

. 52 FR169 82 ( M ay 6, 1987) ; Propo sed Rule. 56 FR713 4 ( Febr uary 21
, 1991) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Lead acid b att ery r ecycling.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: Ge nera l Bat tery Corpor ation w as conce rned t hat the 1987 Propo sed BIF Rule would af f ect se condary lead sm elter s proc essing sp ent lead ac id bat ter ies. T heir com me nt sta ted, “ Inc reas ed r eg ulation w ill disc oura g e r ecycling.

. . . It is also Exide/G ener al Batt ery Cor pora tion’s belief t hat the increa sed reg ulation of r ecycling chains places str ess on t he s ystem t o t he p oint thatr eg ulations act as an imped iment t o r esour ce rec overy and r ecycling. Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1987- 0024; Doc k et ID#: F- 1987- BBFP-000 82, p. 4.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Despite the reg ulation of various aspec ts of

lead acid b att ery r ecycling, in the mo st rec ent repo rt
, 1.30 m ill ion t ons of lead acid b att eries w ere rec ycled under RCRA reg ulation in 2007

. T he So lid W ast e As sociat ion of North Ame rica (SW ANA) est imat ed t hat in 2003 over 93% of

aut om otive lead acid b att eries w ere rec ycled. Source: 200 7 RCRA Biennial Report, FO IA Req uest # HQ- FO I- 01815- 10. See T able 2 abo ve. See also “W ast e Rec ycli ng ,” Solid W ast e Assoc iation of

North Ame rica (SW ANA), Silv er Spring
, M D, 2008; Pr esent ation of Dr

. Reinhart

.



### B-11

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: July17, 198 7 Compa ny : Laf arg e Cor pora tion RCRA Rul ema king : Burning Hazardou s W ast e in Boilers and Indu str ial Furn aces (BI Fs)

. 52 FR169 82 ( M ay 6, 1987) ; Propo sed Rule. 56 FR713 4 ( Febr uary 21
, 1991) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Burning waste derived f uels f or ener g y reco very

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In their

co mm ents on the Propo sed198 7 BI F Rule, Laf arg e, one of t he lar g est ce me nt k iln pro cess ors of hazard ous w ast e derived f uels, caut ioned t hat unless the BIF rules w ere subst antially mod if ied it w ould ef f ect iv ely br ing abo ut the end of hazard ous w ast e derived f uel bur ning in cem ent k ilns. “ Respons ible oper ator s, such as f ully per mit ted cem ent k ilns, w hich m ay already have f inal Part B hazardous w ast e s tor ag e pe rm its and sta te air perm its, would be forc ed o ut of bus iness [by t he p ropo sed BIF reg ulations]

. T his would have sig nif icant adverse ef

fect s o n t reat me nt capac ity and environme ntal q uality.” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1987- 0024; Doc k et ID#: F- 1987- BBFP-001 22, p. 38.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Even af

ter t he BI F Rule w as enact ed in 1991, Laf arg e c ontinue d t o bu rn hazardous w ast e at all f iv e of its ce me nt prod ucing plant s in Alabama
, California, Kans as, Mi chig an a nd O hio. Laf arg e r em ains o ne o f t he lar g est
, if

not t he lar g est
, sing le cem ent k iln proc essor

of hazard ous w ast e-de rived f uels t oday. Source: Various SEC 10- K Filing s.



### B-12

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: A pri l 18, 1995 Compa ny : Hors ehead Resour ce Devel opm ent Com pany, I nc. RCRA Rul ema king : Use of

Slag Res idues Derived f rom HT M R T reat me nt of K061
, K062, and F00 6 W ast e. 59 FR672 56 ( Decem ber 29, 1994) ; 60 FR 10052 (Feb ruary 23, 1995) ; Propo sed Rules. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: M etals rec overy f rom st eel indust ry wastes

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In 1994, EPA prop osed to reg ulate the use of slag r esidues derived f rom hig h t em pera tur e m etal rec overy tr eatm ent of electr ic ar c f urna ce dustand r elated me tal bear ing wastes. 59 F ed Re g 672 56 ( Dec. 29, 199 4). Despite est ablishing a relat iv ely per miss iv e reg ime for the ma nag em ent of t hese slag r esidues, t he lar g estsu ch rec ycler of K061 Elect ric Arc Furn ace (EAF) dus t envisi oned an e nd t o it s rec ycli ng pr act ice un less the slag was ef f ect iv ely exem pt f rom all RCRA cont rols: “ T he HT M R Slag Pr oduct Rulem ak ing doe s c onta in several
ser ious e rr ors and incon siste ncies and shortco ming s, howev er, which wi ll rend er EPA’s Pr oposed Exclusion un neces sar ily st ring ent and larg ely m eaning less. Such a r esult w ould incr ease res ourc e r ecovery and rec ycli ng co sts and disc oura g e f urt her res ourc e r ecovery and
rec ycli ng , ther eby f rus tr ating EPA’s sta ted purp ose of t he Ru lemak ing

. . . .T he m ost t hat this Rulemak ing wil l acc om plish is to not f urt her discour ag e en vi ronm enta lly so und rec ycli ng , but only if t he Ru lemak ing incor pora tes t he c hang es rec om me nded in t hese com me nts

. Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1994- 0083; Doc k et ID#: F- 1994- SRT P-000 62, pp. 14-1 5, 20.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: EPA su bseq uent ly m odif ied and st reng then ed t he Pr oposed Rulem ak ing t o r eq uire that slag s d erived f rom hig h tem pera tur e m etals rec overy of K061 Elect ric Arc Furn ace dust
, w hen applied t o t he land
, mu st me et the sam e t oxi city r educt ion st andar ds as
w hen thos e m ater ials ar e plac ed int o a landf ill

. Des pite this increa sed str ing ency and HRD’s dire pred ictions, HRD rem ains t he lar g est EAF
rec overy facility in N. Ame rica, r ecovering app roximat ely 2/ 3 of t he a ppro xi ma te 1.0 million t ons of EAF dust pr oduced ann ually in the U.S. Source: EPA, Of

f ice of Res ourc e Con servation and Recovery, “ Asses sing t he Manag em ent of Lea d in Scra p Metal and Elect ric Arc Furn ace Dust ; Final Report, ” EPA 530 -R- 09-0 04, April, 2009, p. 18.



### B-13

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: Ma rch 19, 1996 Compa ny : BP O il RCRA Rul ema king : Listing of Pet roleum Ref inery Pro cess W ast e as Hazardou s. 60 FR577 47 ( November 20, 199 5); Pr oposed Rule. 63 FR421 10 ( Aug ust 6, 199 8); Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Recovery of Ref ining Catalysts.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In 1995, EPA prop osed to list various r ef inery re siduals a s h azardous w ast e, including se veral spen t cat aly sts t he r ef ining proc ess. 60 FR

577 47 ( Nov. 20, 199 5). Virtu ally without exception every mem ber of t he p etr oleum indus try predict ed t hat listing sp ent cat aly sts would discour ag e if not f ully und erm ine r ecovery of t hese cat aly sts

. BP’s com me nts were typical of Exx on, M obil and othe rs. “List ing ca talysts as hazardous w ast e also se rves t o disc oura g e t he b enef icial prac tice of in- situ or ex-situ reg ener ation since ther e is little or no inc entive t o r ender

t he m ater ial non- pyrophor ic or non -ch arac ter istically hazardous prior t o r em oval f rom t he u nit or in sub seq uent
ma nag em ent. ” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1995- 0058, Doc k et ID#: F- 95-PRLP- 00019, p. 4

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: In 2007, over 80% of r ef inery cat aly sts t hat w ere listed as “hazardo us” und er RCRA were r ecycled, not disposed. Source: T able 3 above, 2007 RCRA Biennial Repor t Survey Databas e
Date: Ma rch 21, 1996 Compa ny : Ame rican Petr oleum I nst itut e ( API) RCRA Rul ema king : List ing of Pet roleum Ref inery Pro cess W ast e as Hazardou s. 60 FR577 47 ( November 20, 199 5); Pr oposed Rule. 63 FR421 10 ( Aug ust 6, 199 8); Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Recovery of Ref ining Catalysts.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: Along with BP, Exx on Mobil and o ther s, the tr ade assoc iation for the petr oleum indus try, t he Am erican Pet roleum I nst itut e, chim ed in on t he s tig ma ar g um ent asser ting t hat, “ In addition, listing of t hese res iduals co uld ac tual discour ag e ad ditional orinnovative
rec ycli ng /r eclam ation prac tices
, and direct co ntr avention of t he s tat ed g oals o f

bot h RCRA and EPA’s pollution prevent ion ef fort

. . . . Desig nating t hese ma ter ials as listed hazardous w ast e would discour ag e existing r ecycling and f urt her increa se the cost s o f r ecycling relat iv e to disposal. Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-1995- 0058, Doc k et ID#: F- 95-PRLP- 00046, pp. 2, 101

.
Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: In 2007, over 80% of r ef inery cat aly sts t hat w ere listed as hazardous under RCRA w ere rec ycled not disposed. Source: T able 3 above, 2007 RCRA Biennial Repor t Survey Databas e.



### B-14

### “Stigma” Cla ims v s. Ma rke tplace Real ity – 1 979 to Pres ent

Date: Februa ry

26, 200 1 Compa ny : Copper

and Br ass Fabr icator s Co uncil, Inc

. RCRA Rul ema king : Using Metal-bear ing Hazardou s W ast e t o Pr oduce Zinc-c onta ining Fert ili zers. 65 FR709 54 ( November 28, 200 0); Propo sed Rule. 67 FR483 93 ( July 24, 2002) ; Final Rule. Recy cli ng Pr acti ce: Zinc f ert ili zers m ade f rom hazard ous w ast e.

Wha t T hey

Sai d: In 2000, EPA prop osed various r eq uirem ents f or zi nc- cont aining f ert ili zers m ade f rom hazard ous w ast e. 65 FR709 53 (Novemb er 28, 2000)

. I n pr oposing t his r ule, the Ag ency est ablished s everal st andar ds for tes ting of t he zinc-c onta ining hazardous w ast e t o be u sed as a f ert ili zer including limit s f or toxic m etals and dioxi ns, and r eq uired that t he p urveyors o f t his pr act ice be ar the burd en o f dem onst rat ing t he leg itima cy of t his pr act ice an d it s c om pliance with app licable re g ulatory req uirem ents

. Virt ually without exception all indust ry com me nter s o n t his r ule f ound the tes ting and verif ication req uirem ents t o be bur densom e an d would ef f ect iv ely disc oura g e t he u se of t his pr act ice. T he c om me nts below are t ypi cal: “T he Ag ency shou ld not im pose expensiv e dioxin te sting r eq uirem ents on f ert ili zer ma nuf act urer s when t here is no n eed to do s o.

. . . By imposing unn ecess ary t est ing bur dens [f or toxic m etals such as lead, cadm ium,
ars enic, me rcu ry, nick el, chr om e] on t he f ert ili zer m anuf act urerus ing se condary hazardous ma ter ials, the Ag ency is a t odds w ith the sta ted obj ect iv e of

enc oura g ing r ecycling of t hese ma ter ials.

. . . Recycling of se condary hazardous ma ter ials is f urt her discour ag ed b y the burd en shifting pr ovi sion p ropo sed. ” Source: RCRA Dock et: EPA- HQ- RCRA-2000- 0054; Doc k et ID#: F- 2000- RZFP-00 104, pp. 3 - 7.

Wha t Reall y

Happe ned: Use of

K061 and ot her me tal- bear ing wastes to prod uce zi nc- based f ert ili zers c ontinue s d espite t he p rom ulg ation of f inal st andar ds req uiring t est ing f or various he avy m etals and dioxi ns. Source: Hayden, An ita, L.
, “T rut h Abo ut Fert ili zer,” 200 8, w w w .dr daymak er. com

.

* M e t h o d o l o g y f o r O b t a i n i n g D a t a o n I n c i n e r a t i o n a n d C e m e n t K i l n V o l u m e s : T h e E P A B i e n n i a l R e p o r t S y s t e m ( B R S ) w a s s e a r c h e d f o r v o l u m e s o f w a s t e
m a n a g e d b y i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d e n e r g y r e c o v e r y

. E P A a s s i g n s a c o d e o f H 0 4 0 f o r m a n a g e m e n t o f w a s t e b y i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d H 0 5 0 f o r e n e r g y r e c o v e r y

. A n o t h e r
c o d e , H 0 6 1
, i s a s s i g n e d t o f u e l b l e n d i n g f o r T S D F s t h a t a c c e p t h a z a r d o u s w a s t e a n d b l e n d s t h e s e t o m a k e a w a s t e m i x o f s u ff i c i e n t h e a t c o n t e n t f o r u s e a s a f u e l

. T h e d a t a b a s e w a s s o r t e d f o r t h e s e t h r e e m a n a g e m e n t m e t h o d c o d e s t o i d e n t i f y t h e q u a n t i t i e s o f w a s t e m a n a g e d b y i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d e n e r g y r e c o v e r y i n
c e m e n t k i l n s

. T o d o t h i s t h e s e c t i o n o f t h e B R S d e s i g n a t e d f o r “ w a s t e r e c e i v e d ” w a s s e a r c h e d
, s i n c e i n c i n e r a t o r s a n d c e m e n t k i l n s w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e w a s t e f r o m o ff

- s i t e g e n e r a t o r s

. T h e s e a r c h w a s l i m i t e d t o t h e 2 0 0 7 r e p o r t i n g y e a r , w h i c h i s t h e m o s t r e c e n t d a t a a v a i l a b l e i n t h e B R S

. S p e c i f i c w a s t e t y p e s a r e a l s o
a s s i g n e d a u n i q u e c o d e a n d i t w a s p o s s i b l e t o a l s o s e a r c h f o r s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s o f w a s t e s u c h a s s o l v e n t s , u s e d o i l a n d o t h e r o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l s

. F o r e x a m p l e t h e c o d e W 2 0 2 i s u s e d f o r h a l o g e n a t e d s o l v e n t s a n d W 2 0 3 f o r n o n
- h a l o g e n a t e d s o l v e n t s

. W 2 0 6 i s a s s i g n e d t o w a s t e o i l s

. A s i m u l t a n e o u s s e a r c h c a n b e d o n e b y m a n a g e m e n t m e t h o d ( i e i n c i n e r a t i o n

– H 0 4 0 ) a n d w a s t e t y p e ( i e n o n
- h a l o g e n a t e d s o l v e n t s

– W 2 0 3 )

. T h i s a l l o w s t h e v o l u m e o f s o l v e n t s m a n a g e d b y i n c i n e r a t i o n v s e n e r g y r e c o v e r y t o b e e v a l u a t e d

. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o s e a r c h b y s p e c i f i c R C R A w a s t e c o d e s s u c h a s F 0 0 1 t o F 0 0 5 s o l v e n t s

.


### B-15