Technologies and Management Strategies

for Hazardous Waste Control

March 1983

NTIS order #PB83-189241
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 83-600706

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword

This report presents the analyses, findings, and conclusions of OTA’S study

of the Federal program for the management of nonnuclear industrial hazardous

waste * —an issue that has now reached national prominence and widespread congressional attention. OTA’S findings and conclusions concerning the technical components of the Federal hazardous waste program complement current activities

which have focused more on administrative problems and issues. Our work offers

a number of opportunities, at this critical time, for examining solutions to national

hazardous waste problems.

This report is the final product of a 3-year effort at OTA. During that time we

have contributed extensively to committee deliberations on hazardous waste management—including such issues as Federal exemptions of hazardous waste from

regulation, procedures used to select uncontrolled hazardous waste sites for attention under the Superfund legislation, the use and regulation of land disposal techniques, the adequacy of monitoring requirements for land disposal facilities, the

adequacy of EPA’s risk assessment analyses, and the potential for introducing the

relative hazard levels of wastes into Federal regulations. For example, in November

1981 and in April and August 1982, OTA presented testimony to Senate and House

committees concerning a number of technical problems in the implementation of

Superfund. In April and June 1982, we provided extensive testimony to House and

Senate committees on the regulatory exemption of hazardous wastes generated in

relatively small quantities (less than 1 metric ton per month); and in July 1982, a

staff memorandum was released on this issue. All bills currently being considered

for the reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act address

this small generator exemption issue which OTA examined in depth.

In conducting the study, OTA analyzed a wide range of views—from the technical community, industrial sectors which generate hazardous waste, the waste

management industry, the environmental community, State and local officials,

Federal agencies, and the lay public. As a result of that effort, OTA identified four

policy options—beyond maintaining the current Federal program—which could

form the basis for an immediate and comprehensive approach to protecting human

health and the environment from the dangers posed by mismanagement of hazardous waste. One near-term option addresses the means to improve the technical effectiveness of the current regulatory structure. The other near-term option provides

a nonregulatory or market approach to achieving a number of desired goals. Both

of these options are compatible with the two longer term options, one of which

deals with introducing waste and facility classifications into the regulatory structure, and the other which focuses on achieving greater integration of Federal programs, agencies, and statutes concerned with hazardous waste.

The assessment was originally undertaken at the request of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The focus of the study was to be on technological

*The term “hazardous waste” means a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,

concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may—(A) cause, or significantly contribute to

an increase in mortality, or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B] pose

a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,

transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.

. .

///
options for managing hazardous waste at operating facilities, technical means to

address the problem of uncontrolled and possibly abandoned hazardous waste sites,

and the technical adequacy of the Federal regulatory program.

OTA believes that we have provided analyses and policy options which can

assist the current efforts to achieve an effective, equitable, and expeditious Federal

program to protect the public from the dangers of hazardous waste. This is due

in large part to the support, assistance, and cooperation received from many people representing a great diversity of viewpoints on the issues.

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director
Hazardous Waste Control Assessment Project Staff

Lionel S, Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Audrey Buyrn, Materials Program Manager

Project Staff

Joel S. Hirschhorn, Project Director

Suellen Pirages, Senior Analyst

Karen Larsen, Senior Analyst

Iris Goodman, Research Analyst

William F. Davidson

Linda Curran (OTA Fellow)

Richard Parkinson

Frances Sladek

Mimi Turnbull

Administrative Staff

Carol A. Drohan Patricia A. Canavan

Individual Contractors

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

Suzanne Contos Kitty Gillman Gary Davis J. Stedman Stevens

Contractors

Engineering Science

Association of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management Officials

Citizens for a Better Environment

Sterling-Hobe

American Technology Management

Consultants

Environmental Law Institute

Publishing Staff

Bracken & Baram

Clement Associates

Hazardous Material Control

Research Institute

Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory

Development Sciences, Inc.

Aspen Systems Corp.

Adams and Wojick Associates

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson

Doreen Foster Donna Young
Hazardous Waste Control Assessment Advisory Panel

Sam Gusman, Chairman, Senior Associate, Conservation Foundation

David G. Boltz

Director, Solid Waste Control

Environmental Control Division

Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Frank Collins

Technology and Public Affairs Consultant

Stacy L. Daniels

Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory

DOW Chemical, U.S.A.

Jeffrey Diver

Senior Environmental Counsel

Waste Management, Inc.

Phillipa Foot

Department of Philosophy

University of California, Los Angeles

Morton R. Friedman

Director, Research

Hazardous Waste and Resource Recovery

N.J. Department of Environmental Protection

Thomas H. Goodgame

Director of Corporate Environmental Control

Research and Engineering Center

Whirlpool Corp.

Diane T. Graves

Conservation Chairman

Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter

Rolf Hartung

Professor of Toxicology

School of Public Health

University of Michigan

Robert Judd

Director, California Office of

Appropriate Technology

Kenneth S. Kamlet

Director, Pollution and Toxic Substances

Division

National Wildlife Federation

Terry R. Lash

Independent Consultant

David Lennett

Attorney

Environmental Defense Fund

Janet Matey

Chemical Manufacturers Association

Randy M. Mott

Attorney

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council

John M, Mulvey

Director of Engineering Management Systems

School of Engineering/Applied Science

Princeton University

Delbert Rector

Chief of Environmental Services

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Gerard Addison Rohlich

LBJ School of Public Affairs

University of Texas at Austin

Reva Rubenstein

Manager of the Institute of Chemical Waste

Management

National Solid Wastes Management

Association

Bernard L. Simonsen

Vice President

IT Corp.

George M. Woodwell

Director of The Ecosystems Center

Marine Biological Laboratory

NOTE: The Advisory Panel provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, but the members

do not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse the report for which OTA assumes full responsibility.
Contents

Chapter Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTA thanks the following people who took time to provide information or to review part

or all of the study: Michael Gough of the OTA Health Program, Janie Harris of JRB Associates

Inc, Norman Nosenchuck and Jacqueline Rams of the Association of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management Officials.

Other Contributors

William Davis Gerd Kleineberg Mark Murray Diana Wahl Margery King

Philip Robinson John Courtney Jim Maysilles Karl Birns

. . Vlll
CHAPTER 1

Summary
List of Tables

Table No. Page

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Examples of Exemtions From Federal Regulation as Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . 9

A Comparison oft e four Waste Reduction Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . th 11

Comparison of Some Hazard Reduction Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Representative Unit Costs for Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment

and Disposal .......,... ... .... ...... . . . . . . . . ....., . . . 15

Illustration of a Hazardous Waste Generator Tax Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

A National Waste Fee System: Summary of Key Problems and Concerns . . . . . . 32

Illustrative Examplesof a Potential Hazard Classification Framework . . . . . . . . . 36

Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Comparative Ranking of Policy Options for Each Policy Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

I. Risk Management Framework ● ....,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2. Risk Management Framework Based on Waste and Facility Classification . . . . . 34
CHAPTER 1

Summary

Overview

Newly established Federal regulations for

hazardous waste management facilities may

not effectively detect, prevent, or control hazardous releases, especially over the longer

term. Moreover, some regulatory standards

and controls will be set by State authorities,

who may not have the resources to make technically complex decisions, Consistent levels

of protection nationwide are not assured.

In less than a decade the Federal program

has advanced State efforts, cleaned up some

uncontrolled sites, and assisted industry in improving its waste management. Nevertheless,

data inadequacies conceal the scope and intensity of hazardous waste problems, especially those related to health and environmental effects, and impede effective regulation of

wastes and waste management facilities.

About 255 million to 275 million metric tons

(tonnes) of hazardous waste under Federal and

State regulation are generated annually. Some

States have stricter definitions for hazardous

waste than the Federal program, which regulates about 40 million tonnes annually, Millions of tonnes of federally exempted hazardous waste disposed in sanitary landfills pose

substantial risks. Such exemptions cover most

hazardous waste from generators producing

less than 1 tonne a month. In addition, large

volumes of relatively low-hazard waste such as

mining waste and waste generated by the burning of fossil fuels are exempt from Federal

regulation.

Land disposal is used for as much as 80 percent of regulated hazardous waste, some of

which may remain hazardous for years or centuries. Inappropriate disposal of hazardous

waste on land creates the risk of contaminating the environment, particularly ground

water, which could cause adverse health effects. Federal policies may inadvertently

reduce private costs of land disposal by shifting some long-term cleanup and monitoring

costs to Government or to society as a whole;

the effect may be to retard the adoption of alternatives such as waste reduction and waste

treatment. A key policy issue is: Can unnecessary risks and future cleanup costs be

eliminated by limiting the use of land disposal and by making alternatives to it more

attractive?

As their responsibilities mount, States fear

reductions in Federal support and seek a

stronger policy role. States sometimes cannot

raise even the required minimum 10 percent

of initial Superfund cleanup costs—and they

must assume all future operation and maintenance costs. Because there are no specific

Federal technical standards for the extent of

cleanup, and because there is an incentive to

minimize initial costs, remedial actions may

be taken that will prove ineffective in the long

term. When Superfund expires in 1985, many

uncontrolled sites still will require attention.

Actions that enhance public confidence in

the equity, effectiveness, and vigorous enforcement of Government programs may reduce

public opposition to siting hazardous waste

facilities. Opposition also may be reduced by

improvement in the dissemination of accurate

technical information on issues such as waste

treatment alternatives to land disposal,

Five policy options are examined:

1,

2.

3.

Continue with the current program.

Extend Federal controls to more hazardous waste, and establish national regulatory standards based on specific technical

criteria, Also, restrict disposal of highhazard waste on land, and improve procedures for permitting facilities and deregulating waste.

Establish Federal fees on waste generators as an economic incentive to reduce the generation of waste and discour3
4 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

4.

age land disposal; impose higher fees on

generators of high-hazard waste that are

land disposed; provide assistance for capital investments and research and development (R&D) for waste reduction and

waste treatment.

Study the costs and advantages of classifying wastes and waste management

facilities by degree-of-hazard to match

hazards and risks with levels of regulatory

control.

5. Examine the need for greater integration

of Federal environmental programs to remove gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies

in the regulation of hazardous waste, and

to make better use of technical data and

personnel.

Substantial Risks and Damages

Uncontrolled and careless disposal of industrial waste became a national concern in the

mid and late 1970’s. It became evident at many

waste sites that mismanagement and indiscriminate dumping of waste were causing

harmful substances to be released into the land,

water, and air. Waste handlers and the general

public alike were threatened with direct exposure to hazardous waste.

It also became increasingly clear that even

well-intentioned and presently accepted waste

management practices, particularly the use of

landfills, surface impoundments, and lagoons,

might still constitute substantial threats. These

threats arise from the potential slow leakage

of waste constituents or leachate* through the

soil and into ground water, which is a source

of drinking water for many communities.

Before Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976,

relatively few States had regulatory programs

dealing with hazardous waste. Experience with

conventional forms of industrial and municipal

solid waste had given the States little preparation for dealing with hazardous waste, many

of which are chemically stable and thus extremely persistent under most conditions.

Studies across the Nation revealed that the

disposal of hazardous waste decades earlier

had left undetermined, but possibly very large,

amounts of dangerous substances in and on the

*Leachate is liquid resulting from the interaction of water with

waste. The source of the water may be rain, inflow of ground

or surface waters, or other waste.

land. Moreover, wastes were leaking from

many hazardous waste sites, some of which

were closed. RCRA did not effectively deal

with these old, often abandoned, sites because

it was primarily concerned with proper management and permitting of present and future

hazardous waste. In order to deal with the

many substantiated and potential hazards

posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites,

Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), better known as Superfund.

Adverse health effects attributable to hazardous waste remain inadequately documented.

However, a 1980 survey by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)l of 350 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites indicated substantial threats to the public. At the time, these

were essentially all the sites for which there

was detailed information. There are currently

more than 15,000 uncontrolled sites in EPA’s

Emergency and Remedial Response Information System. The survey found:

● contamination of ground waters and reservoirs, affecting water supplies of 168

communities;

● contamination of drinking water wells

leading to closure of at least 468 individual

wells; and

● a total of 108 other adverse incidents, including damage to human health, natural

1“Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Waste Sites”

(Washington, D, C.: Environmental IJrotection Agency, 1980).
Ch. l—Summary ● 5

habitats, fish and livestock, crops, sewer

systems, and soils.

Furthermore, an unreleased EPA study, in

progress for several years, indicates there are

80,263 sites in the Nation with contaminated

surface impoundments (pits, ponds, and lagoons). 2 Ninety percent are believed to pose at

least a potential threat of ground water contamination, Another unreleased EPA study reports that testing of underground drinking

water supplies in 954 cities found contamination in 29 percent. All the affected areas had

populations of more than 10,000.3 Leaching of

toxic substances from waste landfills is believed to be a contributory factor in these cases.

Long-term health effects from exposure to

hazardous waste are uncertain, but they may

be serious. For example, in one case of contaminated drinking water (associated with a

hazardous waste dump in Hardeman County,

Term.), the levels of carbon tetrachloride were

so high that they exceeded proposed water

quality criteria by a factor of 10,000.4 EPA has

said that of the 418 uncontrolled hazardous

waste sites in the Nation that need priority attention, 347 pose direct threats to drinking

water supplies and could cause birth defects,

cancer, and other diseases. s

Although information is scanty on the

amounts and types of releases, many hazardous wastes are persistent, mobile, and highly

toxic. It is possible that large segments of the

population are being exposed to releases of hazardous waste constituents. As much as 80 percent of federally regulated hazardous waste—at

least 30 million tonnes per year—are being

placed in or on the land. An even greater percentage of the 255 million to 275 million tonnes

of hazardous waste under Federal and State

regulation may be land disposed. Therefore,

under current practice, 1 tonne of hazardous

waste is added to the environment for every

person in the Nation every year. The accumulation from past decades of industrial activity is

equivalent to several tonnes of hazardous waste

for every person in the Nation. Furthermore,

waste management techniques other than land

disposal, such as the burning of waste in

boilers, cement kilns, and incinerators, may be

releasing hazardous substances into the environment.

‘As reported in The Newr York Times, Dec. 30, 1982.

3As reported in Engineering Times, September 1982.

4Samuel S. Epstein, et al., Hazardous Waste in America, Sierra

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

The Tradeoff Between Near- and Long-Term Costs

The economic costs of hazardous waste are

substantial. Industry and governments are currently spending $4 billion to $5 billion annually

to manage regulated hazardous waste. Assuming a continuation of present Federal RCRA

and CERCLA programs and modest increases

in hazardous waste generation, annual costs

are estimated to rise to more than $12 billion

(in 1981 dollars) in 1990. If more wastes are

regulated, if more major cleanup actions are

required, and if compensation is required for

damages to health and environment, then

future costs could be much greater. Government spending will increase substantially as

RCRA and CERCLA implementation becomes

more intensive.

The cost of cleaning up uncontrolled sites

and compensating for damages to human

health and the environment calls for consideration of the full “lifecycle” costs of managing

hazardous waste. From an economic perspective, the overriding hazardous waste issue of

today is: Would it be more prudent and effective in the long term to increase the stringency of current land disposal regulations and

encourage the use of alternatives to land disposal, even though near-term costs might be

increased? Attempting to minimize present

costs will almost certainly lead to a transfer of

greater costs to the future. Moreover, failure

to improve waste management in the near term

would surely lead to unacceptable health and
6 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

environmental effects in the long term. It

should be stressed that the language of RCRA

precludes balancing costs and risks; rather, it

places sole emphasis on the protection of public health and the environment.

The cost to assess and clean up an uncontrolled site ranges from several hundred thousand dollars to tens of millions of dollars. For

example, the cost to clean up one site in

Seymour, Ind., has been estimated at $22.7

million. To clean up four sites in St. Louis,

Mich., one company has agreed to spend $38.5

million. Hydrogeologic investigations to define

the extent of ground water contamination can

cost from $25,000 to $250,000. The average cost

for cleaning up and containing contaminated

ground water ranges from $5 million to $10

million a site; the cost of totally restoring a badly contaminated aquifer to potable quality

could be 10 times the average cost.

To cleanup a substantial fraction of the more

than 15,000 presently known uncontrolled hazardous waste sites is likely to cost, in public

and private spending, a total of $10 billion to

$40 billion. This should be compared with the

estimated $1.6 billion to be collected under

CERCLA by 1985. CERCLA funds are meant

to be used for cleaning up uncontrolled sites

where no responsible party can be identified,

and for advancing funds for cleanup before

recovery from responsible parties is made. The

cost of cleaning up known sites is not likely to

be the end of the expense. Still more uncontrolled sites are being discovered, and probably

some are being created by current practices

and exemptions.

It is generally acknowledged that, even with

the new stricter RCRA regulations in place,

eventual releases of hazardous constituents

from land disposal facilities are highly probable. Greater use of waste treatment alternatives is, therefore, a major issue, although they

too, if not regulated effectively, can release hazardous constituents to the environment. Yet

greater use of alternatives to land disposal—

treatment, recycling, and especially more investment in waste reduction—could increase

industry’s near-term costs significantly, perhaps by as much as 50 to 100 percent. But years

or decades from now, cleaning up a site from

which there are hazardous releases, and compensating victims, might cost 10 to 100 times

the additional costs incurred today to prevent

releases of hazardous materials.

For example, in the case of Love Canal, it has

been estimated that disposal of the waste

dumped there decades ago—according to the

standards and practices of today—would have

cost $2 million (in 1979 dollars)* versus $36

million for remedial action already spent

through 1980. Ultimate costs for remedial action are expected to exceed $100 million; in addition about $2 billion in lawsuits have been

filed by persons claiming damages.

EPA estimates that the average cost of disposing of hazardous waste in compliance with

the new RCRA regulations is about $90 per

tonne. The EPA estimate of the cost of cleaning up improperly dumped waste is up to about

$2,000 per tonne, In addition, much of the

burden of future costs would likely fall on the

general public. Costs incurred today by improved management of hazardous waste would

be borne, more equitably, by waste generators

and by consumers of “hazardous wasteintensive” products.

*This is not to suggest that the technical factors alone were

responsible for the Love Canal problems.
Ch. l—Summary ● 7

Scope of

As requested by Congress, this assessment

focuses on:

1. information and analysis on the use and

development of technologies that can improve hazardous waste management

through:

a. reduction of the volume and hazard

level of waste generated;

b. better management of the risks associated with waste treatment and disposal; and

c. the cleanup of uncontrolled waste

sites;

2. analysis of the potential benefits and costs

of a framework based on scientific criteria

to judge the relative degree of hazard of

wastes and risks from management facilities; and

3. evaluation of current regulatory programs,

particularly with regard to technical information and issues.

The primary focus of this assessment is on

management strategies, technological options,

and the technical components of a Federal hazardous waste regulatory program that would

This Study

protect human health and the environment.

More attention has been given to issues and

problems related to RCRA than to CERCLA,

This assessment is an analytical study to provide a basis for policy discussion and examination of legislative options by Congress; it is not

an attempt to write new regulations for the executive branch or the individual States. Strictly administrative issues and problems, such as

enforcement, permitting, and delegation of authority to States, are considered only to the extent that they relate to the study’s primary technical focus. Transportation and accidental

spills of waste are not considered in any substantial way. Nor has it been possible to examine issues and problems unique to Federal

hazardous waste facilities, A part of this

analysis is concerned with examining the procedures for better assessing the nature and intensity of, and monitoring for, adverse effects

on human health and the environment from releases of hazardous waste or their constituents

into the air, land, and/or water. Major attention, however, is not given to substantiating,

documenting, or critically evaluating health

and environmental data.

Key Issues and Findings

The following “issues and findings” section

is a partial summary of the full report, emphasizing issues of particular interest to Congress and areas of special concern in the development of the Federal hazardous waste program. It presents the major analytical findings

of chapters 4 through 7. A summary of chapter

3 (Policy Options) follows this section.

ISSUE 1

Is the existing health, environmental, and management information an adequate basis for an effective national hazardous waste control program? To what extent are currently generated hazardous wastes subject to regulation by Federal and State programs?

FINDING

Although EPA and the States are improving data collection, there are major uncertainties on how much hazardous waste is generated, the types and capacities

of existing waste management facilities, the number

of uncontrolled waste sites and their hazard levels, and

on health and environmental effects of hazardous waste

releases. Data inadequacies conceal the scope and

complexity of the Nation’s hazardous waste problems,

and impede effective control. Large-scale exemptions

from the Federal program make the coverage of Federal

regulation much narrower than that of the States (see

ch. 4).

Waste Definition.—An adequate definition of

hazardous waste is crucial to an effective haz-
8 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ardous waste management effort. EPA regulations currently define a subset of “solid

wastes” * that are controlled under RCRA as

“hazardous wastes.” In addition, some hazardous wastes are regulated under environmental statutes other than RCRA. EPA’s definition

of “hazardous waste” covers only these federally regulated wastes. Some States, perceiving inadequacies in the Federal definition of hazardous waste, use different and broader definitions for purposes of their own control programs. This leads not only to significant differences in perceived types and quantities of

waste that pose hazards to human health and

the environment, but also to confusion as to

the degree and focus of efforts required to

manage hazardous waste.

Waste Generation .—EPA has estimated that 28

million to 54 million tonnes of federally regulated hazardous waste were generated in the

United States in 1980. The average value of 41

million tonnes is the amount that is generally

quoted. A survey conducted for OTA assembled data on waste generation based on the different definitions of hazardous waste used by

States. The survey indicated that approximately 255 million to 275 million tonnes of hazardous waste generated per year are recognized

by the States. Much (although not all) of the

“extra” waste regulated by States are of

relatively low-hazard level, such as mining

waste and fly ash. Other wastes which escape

the Federal definition and regulation, such as

wastes from small quantity generators, pose

substantial hazards. These and other wastes

currently exempted from control under RCRA

by Congress and EPA total several hundred

million tonnes per year. They are summarized

in table 1. In general, the large-volume exempted wastes are those of lower hazard, although the quantities of high-hazard wastes

may be very substantial (the volumes of many

of these wastes are unknown). In addition,

cleanup actions at uncontrolled sites produce

several million tonnes of hazardous waste and

contaminated materials annually which must

*In RCRA, solid waste refers to a general class of wastes that

may be solid, liquid, gases, or complex mixtures of a number

of phases.

be managed. These have not been included in

EPA’s estimates.

Generators and Storage, Treatment, and Disposal

Facilities. -It is possible to collect accurate data

on individual hazardous waste generators,

management facilities, and methods of waste

disposal. However, the national data base is

generally recognized to be incomplete, and in

some respects inaccurate, even by EPA. These

data must serve as the basis for permitting efforts, and must be progressively updated as that

effort proceeds. Most wastes—generally 70 to

85 percent nationwide—are managed on the

sites where they are generated. Accurate data

on the use of different waste management

methods are not available; however, it is clear

that on a volume basis most hazardous waste

(as much as 80 percent according to early EPA

data) are land disposed. Use of land disposal

varies among States; for example, in Louisiana

about 97 percent of waste managed onsite and

50 percent of those managed offsite are land

disposed. In Texas, 95 percent of hazardous

waste are land disposed. In Massachusetts,

only 7 percent is land disposed, and all of that

is sent to other States for disposal.

Uncontrolled Sites.-The CERCLA program has

made some progress in identifying the number

and location of uncontrolled sites requiring

remedial action, particularly for known problem sites. EPA now has a list of more than

15,000 sites, and 418 sites have been selected

for the National Priority List. However, the inventory of uncontrolled sites in the Nation is

still incomplete, and the severity of the hazards

posed by many of the priority sites is uncertain (which is true as well for the thousands

of sites not on the priority list). The model used

to evaluate hazards has serious inadequacies

(see issue 5),

Health and Environmental Effects.-Data on potential health and environmental effects are critically needed for the Federal hazardous waste

program as a basis for establishing appropriate

levels of regulatory control. The current situation is not satisfactory. There are very few data

on the short- and long-term health and environmental effects of exposure to actual hazard-
Ch. l—Summary ● 9

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

Estimated

annual generation Waste type (million metric tons) Possible hazard Determined by

Fly and bottom ash from burning fossil fuelsa 

. . . . 66 Trace toxic metals RCRA

Fuels gas emission control waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, and inorganic RCRA

Mining waste, including radioactive wasteb . . . . . . . 2,100 Toxic metals; acidity; RCRA

radioactivity y

Domestic sewage discharged into publicly

owned treatment works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Uncertain, toxic metals likely RCRA

Cement kiln dusta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Alkalinity, toxic metals RCRA

Gas and oil drilling muds and production waste; Alkalinity, toxic metals, toxic

geothermal energy waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown organics, salinity RCRA

NPDES permitted industrial discharge . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, heavy metals RCRA

Irrigation return flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Pesticides, fertilizers RCRA

Waste burned as fuelsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Unburned toxic organics EPA

Waste oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, toxic metals EPA

Infectious waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Infectious materials EPA

Small volume generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7-4.0 Possibly any hazardous waste EPA

Agricultural waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Variable EPA

Waste exempted under delisting petitions . . . . . . Unknown Presumably insignificant EPA

Deferred regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Unknown EPA

EPA deregulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Presumably insignificant EPA

Toxicity test exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Organics EPA

Recycled waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Improper application of EPA

various materials

tWastes may be delisted on the basis of a petition that is concerned only with the constituent(s) which have determined the original listing, however, other hazardous

constituents may be present which have previously been unrecognized administratively

:Wastes not Identi fled as toxic by the EPA extraction procedure test and not otherwise listed by EPA

ftLegitimate recycling is exempt from RCRA regulations except for storage However, there have been numerous incidents (e g., the dioxin case in Missouri) involwng

recycled materials which are sti I I hazardous

SOURCES aFederal Register, VOI 43, No. 243, 12/16/78.

b,, Technical Environmental Impact of Varlou5 Approaches for Regulating small volume H~ardous waste Generators” (Washington, D C. Environmental prO.

tectlon Agency, contract No 68-02.2613, TRW, December 1979)

CIA Technical @emlew of the concept of DISpOSlng of H~ardous wastes in Industrial Boilers” (Cinc!nnatl, Ohio Environmental prOtt3CtiOn Agency, COn -

tract No 68-03-2567, Acurex Corp., October 1981)

d, The RCRA Exemption for small Volume Hazardous waste Generators, Staff Memorandum” Washington, D C U S congress, Off iCe Of Technology Assessment, July 1982

ous waste. The considerable scientific data that

exist are useful, but the data usually must be

extrapolated from animal to human health effects, from high to low concentrations of hazardous constituents, and from exposure to pure

chemicals to exposure to complex waste mixtures. The disease registry and health survey

required by CERCLA, to provide more data on

health effects of hazardous waste, have not

been implemented satisfactorily.

Priorities for Data Acquisition.—A major obstacle

to assessing the long-term effectiveness of

RCRA and CERCLA implementation by EPA

and States is inadequate health and environmental effects data. Substantial efforts are

needed in this area. Other data priorities include: hazardous waste generators (who and

where they are, and their types and quantities

of wastes) and management facilities (technology types and capacities); the performance of

different kinds of facilities and technologies

and degree of risk associated with each; alternative industrial processes for waste and hazard reduction; uncontrolled sites; capital and

operating costs of waste management facilities;

and regulatory compliance costs.

Institutional Factors.—There is a need for a

long-term, systematic EPA plan—for which

a congressional mandate does not yet exist—

for obtaining more complete and reliable data

on hazardous wastes, facilities, sites, and exposures to and effects from releases. The likely consequences of devoting inadequate resources to obtain accurate information include

the following:

● Federal and State programs to protect the

public from hazardous waste may be inappropriate or misdirected and long-term

risks to public health and the environment

may not be properly assessed.

99-113 9 - 83 - 7
10 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Over time it will be difficult to evaluate the

effectiveness of the large funds spent by

Federal and State regulatory programs and

the private sector.

Eventual costs of protecting public health

and the environment may escalate because

wastes, facilities, and sites may not have

been properly identified and, therefore,

may be receiving either inadequate or excessive attention under RCRA or CERCLA.

The costs to provide remedies where waste

facilities were omitted from or inadequately managed under present programs will

increase markedly over time as sites deteriorate and releases enter the environment.

ISSUE 2

Can the amount of hazardous waste that is generated

be further reduced, and does the Federal regulatory

program provide incentives or disincentives for waste

reduction?

FINDING

Several technological approaches can be used to

reduce the amount of waste requiring treatment or disposal. The current Federal program indirectly provides

more disincentives than incentives for waste reduction (see ch. 5). -

An important way to reduce threats to public

health and the environment from hazardous

waste and to lessen the cost of waste management is to reduce the amount of waste generated. Generators of waste can accomplish this

by segregating waste more carefully or recycling them, or sometimes by changing manufacturing processes or products. Whether they

will in fact do so depends on the economic

costs and savings involved. The generator’s

costs are influenced by government regulations. A generator may, for example, recycle

a waste even though it adds to his costs, if the

cost is less than treating or disposing of the

waste in the manner required by government

regulations.

Some initiatives undertaken by the private

sector indicate that there are opportunities for

waste reduction which, in the right circumstances, can lead to economic benefits for the

waste generator. First, the cost of changes that

reduce waste generation may be more than offset by lower waste management costs. Then,

materials or energy recovered from materials

before discard or from wastes can in some

cases be used or sold for profit. Sometimes,

changes in processes motivated by waste management concerns may help introduce innovative new technologies.

Table 2 presents a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the major approaches to waste reduction. There is considerable evidence based on practical experience

that these approaches are technically feasible,

to different degrees, for many hazardous

wastes. Specific findings concerning the current state of usage of the four major approaches

to waste reduction are:

●

●

●

Source segregation or separation is usually the easiest and cheapest method of reducing waste before they require management as hazardous waste. This method has

been widely used in industry and offers

further opportunities for application. The

basic principle is to keep waste in concentrated, isolated forms rather than to form

large volume indiscriminate mixtures that

must be separated later.

Hazardous waste reduction by process

modification is usually a secondary benefit; the changes are motivated by other engineering and economic considerations,

such as improving process efficiency and

yield. The benefits are usually specific to

individual plants and processes. Impacts

on hazardous waste reduction industrywide have been limited.

End-product substitution appears to offer

long-term benefits. However, full realization of the benefits depends on its application to many industrial sectors and markets. Changing one product, or one application of a product, is likely to have only

a relatively small effect on hazardous

waste generation. Here, too, waste reduction is usually a secondary benefit, with

product performance improvements being

the main driving force for change. However, as hazardous waste management becomes more expensive and costs are
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 1

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

Advantages Disadvantages

Source segregation or separation

1) Easy to implement; usually low investment

2) Short-term solution

Process modification

1) Potentially reduce both hazard and volume

2) Medium-term solution

3) Potential savings in production costs

End product substitution

1) Potentially industrywide impact—large

volume, hazard reduction

Recovery/recycling

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

1)

—

1)

1)

2)

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

In-plant

Medium-term solution 1)

Potential savings in manufacturing costs 2)

Reduced liability compared to commercial

recovery or waste exchange

Commercial recovery (offsite)

No capital investment required for 1)

generator 2)

Economy of scale for small waste 3)

Still have some waste to manage

Requires R&D effort; capital investment

Usually does not have industrywide impact

Relatively long-term solutions

Many sectors must be affected to achieve significant benefits

Usually a side benefit of product improvement

May require change in consumer habits

Major investments required—need growing market

May require capital investment

May not have wide impact

Liability not transferred to operator

If privately owned, must make profit and return investment

Requires permitting

generators 4) Some history of poor management

5) Must establish long-term sources of waste and markets

6) Requires uniformity in composition

Waste exchange

Transportation costs only 1) Liability not transferred

2) Requires uniformity in composition of waste

3) Requires long-term relationships—two-party involvement

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

●

passed onto consumers, the awareness of

the “hazardous waste-intensiveness” of

products may contribute more to endproduct substitutions,

In-plant recycling has been widely used

in industry for waste reduction, Onsite recycling and recovery can be done before

materials are discarded and managed as

hazardous waste, thereby reducing the volume and perhaps the hazard level of the

waste that are eventually generated. Commercial or offsite recovery operations

have had varying degrees of success, depending on problems with contamination

of waste, consistency of waste composition and supply, and market factors. All

these greatly influence profitability. Generally, commercial recovery is more attractive to small- to medium-sized waste generators that do not have the capital for inplant installations. Waste exchanges have

not yet become a major influence because

larger generators cannot transfer their liability for the waste (imposed by RCRA) to

the waste user, and small generators have

too little waste to pay the costs of exchange, or, in some cases, to assure consistent types and volumes to users.

Institutional Factors.—The Federal hazardous

waste regulatory structure does not now provide direct incentives for use of any of the approaches mentioned above: segregation of

waste components at the source of generation,

modifications in manufacturing processes, development of end-product substitutions, and

greater use of in-plant and commercial recycling and recovery operations. In part, this

is because the emphasis in RCRA is not on

reducing waste generation but on management

of waste once they are generated, and EPA has

not generally pursued the resource recovery

aspects of RCRA. Moreover, a number of current regulatory policies and practices may ac-
12 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tually act as disincentives for waste reduction and treatment activities. In some instances, process intermediates containing recoverable materials or energy are defined as

waste even though they are not discarded. This

can act as a disincentive to some recycling.

An important disincentive is the policy of

keeping landfill costs low, even under the new

RCRA regulations by:

●

●

●

●

●

not requiring comprehensive, stringent

monitoring at landfills;

not requiring retrofitting of existing, active

landfills;

a liberal interpretation of “existing” in exempting, from some of the new regulations, portions of existing landfills that do

not yet contain waste;

limiting post-closure monitoring requirements to 30 years; and

not requiring location of waste management facilities to protect drinking water

sources,

As discussed further in the next section, the

defects of the land disposal method may be

postponing cleanup costs to the future, and it

is likely that these costs will be borne by

government or society in general. Externalizing such costs away from the private market

to the public sector provides an indirect incentive for land disposal. Nevertheless, to a limited

extent, for some waste generators, increasing

costs under the current program and the perceived liabilities of land disposal are indirectly promoting more use of waste reduction

methods.

A common question is: How much of the Nation’s hazardous waste could be eliminated by

the various approaches to waste reduction?

Any estimate of what could be done technically

and economically can be only a crude approximation. Theoretically, the generation of almost

every hazardous waste might be affected to

some extent by one or more of the approaches

discussed previously. A 1981 California study

of future hazardous waste generation concluded that new industrial plants will produce

only half the amount of hazardous waste currently produced. Other estimates for potential

waste reduction range from 30 to 80 percent.

Waste reduction efforts, however, are more difficult to make in existing plants than in new

ones. In addition to regulatory factors, capital

and R&D needs—particularly for smaller hazardous waste generators—are important obstacles to implementing waste reduction efforts.

General economic and market factors play a

crucial role in raising and committing capital.

ISSUE 3

Are alternatives to land or ocean disposal of wastes

available and used? How do Federal regulatory programs affect their use? Are concerns about the risks

of land disposal of hazardous waste well founded?

FINDING

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

potential. On the whole, Federal programs indirectly

provide more incentive for disposal options than for

alternatives. Land disposal, even if in compliance with

RCRA, probably poses some preventable risks both in

the near term and for the future. But land disposal is

appropriate and necessary for many wastes (see chs.

5 and 7).

Management Alternatives.–-Once hazardous

waste are generated, they can be managed by

one of two broad categories of technologies:

1. treatment by one or more steps to reduce

the hazard level of the waste, or

2. disposal through containment or dispersal on land or in the oceans.

Treatment technologies reduce the hazard

level directly or facilitate reduction in other

steps by changing the physical or chemical

nature of the waste, by separating waste constituents, by reducing the waste volume, or by

reducing the concentration of hazardous substances in the waste. The treatment technologies include chemical, thermal, and biological

treatments.

Containment technologies hold waste in a

manner intended to inhibit release of hazardous components into the environment or keep

releases to acceptable levels. These technologies include landfills, surface impoundments,

and underground injection wells. With most
Ch. l—Summary ● 7 3

containment options, it is probable that releases will occur at some time. Some surface

impoundments are designed, in fact, to transfer

material to the ground. Dispersal techniques,

such as land treatment (spreading waste on the

land) or ocean dumping, rely on naturally occurring processes to reduce the hazard level

of waste constituents, or to transport them into

and through the environment thereby diluting

concentrations to acceptable levels, or both.

Some geographical locations are generally understood to make exceptionally good sites for

land disposal facilities because their hydrogeological characteristics make releases unlikely

and because the probability that people or sensitive elements of the environment would be

exposed to releases is extremely low.

The degree of feasibility and appropriateness

of a specific management technology for a

specific waste depends on many factors, including the characteristics of the waste and the

environmental features of the facility site.

Regulatory requirements and the goals and economic calculations of waste generators and

handlers will also influence technology

choices. A summary comparison of the major

waste management alternatives (hazard reduction through treatment or disposal) is given in

table 3.

Table 3.—Comparison of Some

Disposal

Landfills and

impoundments Injection wells

Effectiveness How well it Low for volatlies, Highl based on theory,

contains or destroys questionable for liquids, but limited field data

hazardous based on lab and field available

characteristics tests

Reliability issues” Siting, construction, and Site history and geology,

operation well depth, construction

Uncertainlties long-term and operation

integrity of cells and

cover, Ilner life less

than life of toxic waste

Environmental media Surface and ground water Surface and ground water

most affected

Least compatible Liner reactive; highly toxic, Reactive; corrosive;

mobile, persistent, highly toxic, mobile,

and bioaccumulative and persistent

Costs” Low, Mod, High L-M L

Resource recovery:

potential None None

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

Technology Selection and Waste Type.—Waste

type is an important determinant of the technology chosen for waste management. For example, some wastes are technically incompatible with a specific technology because they

would damage equipment. For wastes characterized as hazardous because of their reactivity, corrosiveness, and ignitability, there are

well-established chemical and physical

treatments available. However, for a waste in

which toxicity is the major hazardous

characteristic, the choices are not clear. Toxic

constituents may be organic, inorganic, or metallic, and many technologies could be used.

The major issue is whether to use a treatment

or containment approach. For the most toxic

waste, the preferred choice is treatment when

it is technically feasible.

In general, the kinds of waste most suitable

for land-based containment are residuals

from treatment operations, pretreated (or

stabilized) waste, untreatable waste, and relatively low-hazard (and often high-volume)

waste. However, some untreatable waste are

so highly toxic that land disposal should not

be used, and waste elimination is the only acceptable alternative (exemplified by the statutory prohibition on the use of polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBS). Appropriate use of the

Hazard Reduction Technologies

Treatment

Emerging

Incineration and other high-temperature

thermal destruction decomposition a Chemical stabilization

High, baaed on field tests,

except little data on

specific constituents

Monitoring uncertainties

with respect to high

degree of DRE;

surrogate measures,

PICS, Incinerabilityc

Air

Highly toxic and refractory

organics, high heavy

metals concentration

M-H (Coincln. - L)

Energy and some acids

Very high, commercial.

scale tests

Limited experience

Mobile units; onsite

treatment avoids

hauling risks

Operational simplicity

Air

Some Inorganic

M-H

High for many metals,

based on lab tests

Some inorganic still

soluble

Uncertain Ieachate test,

surrogate for weathering

Ground water

Organics

M

Energy and some metals Possible building material

bVastes for which this method may be less effective for reducing exposure, relative to other technologies Wastes Iisted do not necessarily denote common usage

CDRE = destruction and removal efficiency PIC = product of Incomplete combustion

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment
14 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

oceans for disposal has not been resolved. For

some hazardous waste, dumping in certain

ocean locations appears to offer acceptable levels of risk for both the ocean environment and

human health. However, there is generally inadequate scientific information to decide what

the locations are for specific wastes.

Comparisons of Technologies.-Several technical

factors make it difficult to compare treatment

and disposal alternatives (see table 3). The goal

for each technology is to reduce the probability of release of hazardous constituents, but no

technology can offer zero release. Performance

capabilities for different technologies must be

considered in relative terms; releases that do

occur vary in location, quantity, and time. For

example, landfills inhibit releases through containment but will eventually (and usually gradually) leak and may contaminate ground water.

Incinerators destroy most of the waste, but

some air pollution will occur. Stabilization of

waste immobilizes hazardous constituents but

often allows some hazardous constituents to

be dissolved (leached), albeit at slow rates.

Chemical treatment, such as dechlorination,

detoxifies but may produce some residue requiring disposal. An important issue in making comparisons, and for regulatory purposes,

is to describe the nature and impact of potential releases, not merely what the technology

accomplishes. For example, a technology may

destroy or detoxify 99.99 percent of a waste

constituent input, but it is necessary to consider the total amounts released and their toxic effects.

Another factor influencing comparisons is

that different technologies achieve their objective with differing efficiencies, such as degree

of destruction, degree of containment, and degree of stabilization. Another factor to consider

is the variation in potential routes of releases,

such as air for incinerators and ground water

for landfills. These are important qualitative

differences that influence the character of

risks. The reliability of different technologies

is also important, Reliability depends, for example, on the degree of direct process control

available, the effectiveness and accuracy of surrogate (indirect) process monitoring measures,

and the opportunity to correct emissions prior

to environmental discharge. Finally, opportunities for energy and material recovery vary

among alternative technologies.

Comparison of Direct Costs .–-Costs are generally considered on some volume or weight basis

for a particular management technique. It is

not possible at present to compare costs of

treatment and disposal alternatives on the basis

of comparable levels of control because:

1.

2.

3.

4.

consensus is lacking about what constitutes comparable levels of control across

technologies;

there are regulatory uncertainties in the

evolving Federal program;

cost data are specific to applications, locations, and wastes; and

costs are changing as generators find

lower cost alternatives in response to regulatory and market conditions.

An important conclusion, however, is: even

though RCRA regulations will increase land

disposal costs, land disposal is still likely to

be the low-cost option under the current regulations for most hazardous waste. In addition, costs for treatment technologies are more

sensitive to waste type than are land disposal

options.

Table 4 summarizes direct costs for commercial, offsite treatment, and disposal alternatives

on a per tonne basis (as received wet or dry).

Generally, different technologies compete at

the low end and in the middle of the price spectrum, but in some cases the exact character of

the waste, not the cost, determines the applicability of different technologies and therefore

the management choice. There are greater

price differences among the technologies for

managing the most hazardous waste, with incineration markedly more costly than land disposal, and some chemical treatments being as

costly as incineration.

It should be noted that transportation costs

to waste management facilities can be quite

substantial, with long distances increasing

direct costs by as much as 50 to 100 percent.

In some locations, there may be no nearby
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 5

Table 4.— Representative Unit Costs for Commercial

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

Category

Typical ranges:

Land disposal

Landfills (low to high hazard

drummed waste) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deep well injection—oily waste waters . . .

Land treatment, farming or spreading. . . . .

Chemical treatment—acids or alkalines . . . . .

Incineration (clean combustible liquids to

highly toxic and refractory solids or

drummed waste) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Most costly:

Landfills (extremely hazardous waste) . .

Deep well injection—toxic rinse waters .

Chemical treatment—cyanides, toxic

metals, highly toxic wastes . . . . . . .

Incineration (solid or drummed highly

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

$/tonne

$13-$240

$16-$40

$5-$24

$21-$92

$53-$800

$168-$240

$132-$264

$66-$791

$400-$800

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, based on various published sources

alternatives to land disposal, and the added

cost for transportation makes land disposal

even more attractive economically. Also, the

smaller the quantity of waste handled, the

greater the per-unit treatment or disposal costs.

There are, however, new commercial enterprises aimed particularly at the small generator

market. Various techniques can be used to

reduce handling costs, including using trucks

that deliver chemical feedstocks to pick up

carefully labeled and separated hazardous

waste.

Land Disposal Risks .—All treatment and

disposal options for hazardous waste inescapably pose some risks to public health and

the environment. Technical experts and the

public are concerned because land disposal

facilities can release hazardous constituents at

some indeterminate time in the future.

Although the likelihood of some releases is

high, there are considerable uncertainties

about:

1.

2.

3.

the likely quantity and timing of releases

of particular constituents,

the rates of transport of released hazardous constituents through the environment

and their rates of degradation in the environment,

the extent of possible exposures of people

and the environment to persistent hazardous constituents and their degradation

products, and

4. the probability of damages.

The uncertainty of the risks, the fact that people are unable to control their own exposure

to the risks, the as yet unproven ability of

RCRA regulations to detect or minimize releases, and the uncertainties about effective

cleanup of old waste dumps that are a legacy

of past land disposal practices all contribute

to a widespread belief by technical experts and

the public that land disposal of many types of

waste poses unacceptable risks. As with most

public debates over perceived risky situations,

it is not only the technical aspects of the risk

that matter. In addition, public perceptions of

the risk levels and their acceptability influence

priorities. In the case of land disposal, the issue

appears to be when and how, rather than if the

use of land disposal is to be reduced.

Use of Land Disposal v. Its Alternatives.-AVailable

information indicates that land-based disposal

methods are used for most wastes (as much

as 80 percent according to early EPA data,

see issue 1), including many that are treatable

or recyclable. There is insufficient information

to determine exactly the extent to which land

disposal options may be used nationwide for

waste that could be treated or recycled,

In 1981, a study on California waste managed

offsite concluded that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

75 percent of the hazardous waste disposed in landfills (classified as the most

secure by the State) could be recycled,

treated, or destroyed,

almost 40 percent of all land disposed hazardous waste were highly toxic and very

persistent,

most of the additional waste management

capacity needed to recycle, treat, or destroy hazardous waste could be developed

in less than 2 years; and

the additional cost of recycling, treating,

or incinerating highly toxic waste would

have a minimal effect on industry.

Nationally, a recent study for EPA of nine

major commercial waste management com-
16 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

panics showed that capacity utilization for incineration in recent years was about 80 percent, for chemical treatment just over 50 percent, and for recycling it was 24 percent. These

data indicate that available capacity for offsite

management of wastes is not a barrier to shifting management choices away from land disposal.

Even more technological alternatives to traditional land disposal could be developed in the

years ahead. Only about 10 percent of EPA’s

current R&D efforts for hazardous waste are

devoted to alternatives to land disposal. Emerging thermal, physical, and chemical treatment

technologies are at a point where they could

substantially benefit from more R&D support.

Certain physical/chemical processes now being

developed offer unusual benefits with regard

to preventing emissions of hazardous constituents, providing resource recovery, and reducing toxicity,

Institutional Factors.—The current regulatory

structure does not directly encourage consideration of alternative, safer, and more permanent solutions to problems posed by the very

complex nature of hazardous waste. Indirectly, the increased stringency of RCRA regulations for land disposal facilities, increased

emphasis on financial liability and future

legal actions, increased public concerns, and

increasing costs for land disposal have all

contributed to greater consideration of treatment alternatives to disposal where they are

technically feasible.

The current Federal program, however,

also presents indirect, and probably inadvertent, disincentives for treatment alternatives

to disposal. The following recent statement by

EPA’s senior official for hazardous waste

regulation signals the continuing acceptance

of land disposal options:

We believe that most wastes can be satisfactorily managed in the land and that it can be

done with a reasonable margin of safety more

cheaply in this manner, . . . it may be that

recycling or destruction is preferable from a

strictly health and environmental protection

standpoint, but for many wastes, the reduction

in risk achieved is probably marginal and may

not be worth the cost." 

However, EPA has made technical statements of a more cautious nature about disposal: “. , , the regulation of hazardous waste

land disposal must proceed from the assumption that migration of hazardous wastes and

their constituents and by-products from a land

disposal facility will inevitably occur.’” In the

final land disposal regulations where stringency depends, in part, on the use of liners beneath

wastes, EPA has also said “. . . any liner will

begin to leak eventually.’” The regulations also

state that a landfill liner must completely “prevent” migration during the active life of a landfill, and that it must “minimize” migration

thereafter. There are substantial differences of

opinion in interpreting what these requirements mean, and how to implement them technically, Concerns over who will pay for actions

necessary to deal with expected and unexpected releases of hazardous constituents are

heightened by the absence of any financial responsibility requirements for the operator to

take corrective action if there are releases of

hazardous constituents from land disposal facilities. There are, however, RCRA closure and

post-closure financial responsibility requirements, and a CERCLA Post-Closure Liability

Trust Fund, but there are uncertainties about

the long-term effectiveness of these approaches. The net effect is that current RCRA

regulatory policies continue to make land disposal attractive economically, despite uncertainties over long-term safety, although much

less so than before these regulations. Thus,

long-term risks and costs, to some extent, are

transferred to government or society in general, Without the full internalization of costs,

land disposal options retain a competitive advantage against treatment alternatives and,

therefore, an indirect disincentive for such

alternatives exists.

‘Testimony of Rita M. Lavelle, Assistant Administrator for

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Dec. 16, 1982.

7

Federal Register, vol. 46, No, 24, Feb. 5, 1981.

eFederal Register, vol. 47, No, 143, July 26, 1982.
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 7

Until the private sector perceives the

regulatory structure as not containing a bias

in favor of land disposal technologies, investment in new treatment technology R&D and

commercial development may be limited.

Equally important are the size and certainty of

the total waste management market, which is

also dependent on Federal hazardous waste

policies, particularly those concerning the

universe of waste regulated. The use of direct

Federal incentives for alternatives to land

disposal has not been pursued by EPA thus far.

EPA has, however, commented favorably on

the use by some States of tax and fee systems

that can raise revenues to offset a loss in

Federal grants that support State hazardous

waste control programs. In some cases, the

State tax and fee systems are structured to promote alternatives to land disposal.

ISSUE 4

Can the various kinds of hazardous waste be differentiated by estimates of hazard potential? Could

waste and facility classification play a useful role in

the regulation of hazardous waste?

FINDING

Waste can be differentiated into at least three

categories of hazard. Waste classes can be combined

with facility classes to form a technical base for Federal

regulatory policies. Developing the details of waste and

facility classification would require substantial work

(see ch. 6).

Hazard classification models are available

that differentiate among the variety of industrial waste based on measures of potential

hazard posed to human health or to the environment. Criteria used to rank hazards differ. Some models use only measures of acute

toxicity and carcinogenicity. Some consider

toxicological criteria and estimate environmental fate of waste constituents. Others include

safety factors, toxicity measures, and concentration levels for major constituents. Although

each model has drawbacks, a case study performed for OTA of selected RCRA waste

treated by EPA regulations as equally hazardous, indicates that waste can be differentiated

into at least three categories of hazard.

Certain problems, however, emerge in the attempt to classify wastes:

1. criteria must be chosen carefully to maximize protection of public health and the

environment, and to identify sensitive

species which may be exposed;

2. ranges of measurements must be used that

reflect expected doses and exposures; and

3. incomplete data bases, including problems

of variability and interpretation, can hamper classification of some wastes.

Classification of any particular waste can vary

depending on the system used; the choice and

weighting of technical criteria are critical. Concerns over the determination of boundaries for

classes should be addressed by developing

technical justifications and working for a consensus among industry, government, the scientific community, and public interest groups.

Classification of wastes can be combined

with facility classification to serve as the

technical basis for a regulatory program. Facility classes would distinguish among different

designs of a particular type of facility and

among different physical locations. The risk

potential of a facility depends on the environment surrounding the facility, meteorological

conditions, the impact of facility operation on

the waste (e.g., treatment or containment), and

the technological limitations of facility design

and operating conditions. For example, two or

three classes of incinerators could be developed with different destruction and removal

efficiencies. Several landfill classes might be

formulated relating permeability potential of

liners to the environmental conditions of a site

such that wastes would be contained for specified periods. Different facility classes would require different types and levels of monitoring.

Waste and facility classes must be matched

so that consistent risk levels are obtained

across both waste and facility classes. For example, the risk from a waste class I and facility class I combination should be substantially

the same as from a waste class 11 and facility

class II combination.

Although there are technical limitations that

must be recognized, the use of classification
18 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

systems for wastes and facilities offers certain

advantages over the current regulatory program.

ISSUE 5

To what extent can risk assessment be used in the

regulation and management of hazardous waste?

FINDING

The technical limitations of risk models, assumptions, and data require careful attention. However, risk

assessment has a useful role as an analytical tool in

the total risk management and decisionmaking framework (see chs. 6 and 7).

Risk assessment involves two steps: risk estimation and validation of the estimate (too

often omitted or deemphasized). Risk estimates

are based on evaluations of the hazard potential of wastes and identification of relationships

between the potential hazard and health and

environmental effects. In some instances, risk

estimation is calculated using mathematical

models to extrapolate from high doses, used in

laboratory situations, to low doses, which may

be detected in the environment. Individual

estimates generated by different models can

vary considerably, even when the same data

are used.

Risk assessment can assist in making a variety of decisions, including establishing regulatory standards, setting priorities for R&D, identifying risk levels associated with treatment

and disposal options, and determining appropriate locations for waste management facilities. But risk assessment is only one component

in a risk management framework, as shown in

figure 1. Several models are available for

analyzing tradeoffs between costs, risks, and

benefits. It should be emphasized, however,

that RCRA precludes balancing costs and risks.

Risk assessment is best regarded as an

analytical tool and not as the final decision

process. Decisionmakers evaluate the results

of risk assessments in the context of many nonquantitative factors, including all the uncertainties of the risk analysis, value judgments

made in the assessment, special interests that

have been recognized (or not), and sociopolitical factors of importance to the issue. In risk

Figure l.— Risk Management Framework

I

I

Hazard evaluation I

I

Risk assessment 1

Comparison of cost,

risks, and benefits

I

Policy/management analysi s

(scientific, political, societal)

issues assessment I

Risk management

L I

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment

management, conflicts among these factors always will exist. Such conflicts represent differences in societal interests and perspectives

and, thus, must be considered in the decisionmaking process,

Because better data and information are critical to risk management decisions, it is often

implied that tradeoffs must be made between

expeditious protection of the public and the

need to obtain improved data. However, considerable data exist to allow some reasonable

risk assessments to be made, bearing in mind

the previously noted limitations. RCRA requires protection of the public from hazardous

waste in the near term on the basis of known

(or presumed) toxic and other harmful substances in such waste, and on the basis of

documented adverse incidents. A scientifically certain link between disposal of hazardous

waste at a specific location and resulting

health or environmental effects, particularly long-term ones, is usually not possible.
Ch. I—Summary • 19

Recently, EPA developed two risk assessment models for CERCLA and RCRA applications. While the concept of using risk models

for regulatory purposes has merit, the assumptions used by EPA as the basis for these particular models are so simplistic that their

usefulness is questionable. For example, both

models incorporate a concept that can result

in unequal protection of some segments of the

public. In these models, estimates of risk depend on population density close to the site.

Areas of low population density will receive

lower risk estimates than areas with high population densities, but this is not necessarily as

sensible as it first appears. Actual risks depend

on where and how releases of hazardous constituents move through the environment, the

ultimate fate of the materials, and, most importantly, the doses or exposures received by

particular people or elements of the environment. Population density by itself is a poor indicator of actual individual exposures and risks

(i.e., “per capita risk”), and risks may be high

or low, independent of overall population density. In addition to the problems in the way

population density is used, there are problems

in these models with the criteria used to determine hazard potential. These and other problems lead to considerable uncertainty in the

final risk estimates.

ISSUE 6

What contribution can monitoring make to effective

risk management and is such a contribution required

by the current RCRA program?

FINDING

Current monitoring practices and requirements under

RCRA do not lead to a high level of confidence that

releases will be detected and responsive action quickly

taken (see chs. 6 and 7).

Monitoring can generate data to serve as a

technical basis for regulatory action and as verification that public health and the environment are being protected. There are several

closely related functions for monitoring: establishing baseline or background data, developing data for setting regulatory standards, verifying compliance with regulations, identifying

R&D priorities, and assessing contamination.

Two different monitoring strategies can provide information about the operation of hazardous waste management facilities. Surveillance monitoring can verify compliance with

regulatory requirements and provides limited

data about changes in environmental quality.

Assessment monitoring is used to determine

the extent of deterioration in environmental

quality and also provides data that indicate

cause-effect relationships for specific hazards.

Regulatory programs should employ both strategies—with surveillance monitoring required

for all facilities, and assessment monitoring

used when the results of the former indicate

an emerging problem.

Both monitoring strategies pose problems including sampling procedures, data comparability, and limitations in available analytical

methodologies. For example, difficult choices

must be made regarding the location and number of sampling sites and the frequency with

which samples are taken, A poor choice of

sampling location could miss the detection of

“hot spots” of contamination. Data comparability is possible only if standardized sampling

and analytical protocols are used. Variances

can occur among results if different laboratories and equipment are used, and even if different personnel perform the same test. Greater

attention should be given to these “practical”

aspects of the national hazardous waste monitoring program and to the development of an

adequate analytical infrastructure nationwide.

Of the five types of monitoring (visual, process, source, ambient, and effects), only visual,

process, and source are incorporated into

RCRA regulations to any significant degree.

Limited ambient monitoring is required of land

disposal facilities but collection of effects data

is not required. If effectively conducted, visual,

process, and source monitoring can reduce the

amount of ambient monitoring that may be

needed by minimizing the release of hazardous constituents into the environment. However, they cannot serve as a substitute for ambient monitoring.

Ambient monitoring provides information

on the appearance of statistically significant

levels of contaminants in air, soil, water, and
20 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

biota. Ambient monitoring holds the greatest

potential for minimizing risks that might result from hazardous waste mismanagement.

Only by taking representative samples from

potentially affected locations and environmental media and then analyzing them for a broad

spectrum of potential contaminants is it possible to control risks reliably. Minimization of

releases of hazardous constituents ultimately provides the greatest protection of public

health. Furthermore, environmental media,

and the processes that influence the movement

and fate of hazardous releases, are protective

barriers against human exposure. If contamination of air, water, or land can be detected sufficiently early (before widespread contamination and actual damage) and corrective action

taken, then human exposure will be reduced.

Ambient monitoring, therefore, should be

given a greater role in the RCRA regulatory

program.

The full potential of monitoring is not required by the RCRA regulations. Specific but

limited monitoring activities are required only

for incinerators and land disposal facilities.

Land disposal facilities are required to conduct

limited ambient monitoring (i.e., four samples

taken twice a year). However, there are exemptions to ground water monitoring requirements

for land disposal facilities that have a double

liner and a leak detection system between the

liners. This could lead to delays in detecting

the release of contaminants. Furthermore, even

if ambient monitoring is conducted, EPA’s

guidelines for locating sampling wells will not

provide adequate representations of the quality of an aquifer in all cases because of the

possibility of complex aquifer shapes and

flows. Contamination limits established for

ground water protection for land disposal

facilities have serious inadequacies.

With regard to discharges to air and water,

waste treatment facilities must comply only

with monitoring requirements of the Clean Air

and Clean Water Acts. Because these acts do

not cover the broad range of hazardous constituents that are of concern in RCRA, reliance

solely on monitoring required by the Clean Air

and Clean Water Acts appears risky.

There are also serious concerns over the possible lack of routine reporting of monitoring

data obtained by facility operators to, and

verification by, State programs, and accessibility of monitoring information to the general

public. Therefore, limited monitoring requirements established for treatment, incinerator, and land disposal facilities will not

likely provide adequate protection of either

public health or the environment, particularly over the long term.

ISSUE 7

How effectively is CERCLA addressing the problem

of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites?

FINDING

Some progress is being made toward cleaning up

some of the worst uncontrolled sites. However, many

sites will not have received attention when collection

of the CERCLA tax expires in 1985. There is still incomplete information on the long-term effectiveness

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

Uncontrolled sites may be either operational,

inactive, or abandoned. A recent survey of 348

uncontrolled sites, which have received some

remedial action, indicated that various types

of land disposal techniques were used originally in 97 percent of the cases, There is no question that uncontrolled sites are a large problem for the Nation, EPA’s inventory now contains more than 15,000 sites and the total is increasing steadily. Costs of remediation vary

greatly, from several hundred thousand to ten

to twenty million dollars per site. Through

fiscal year 1982 only $88 million of $45 2

million collected under CERCLA had been

spent for cleanups, no cleanup funds had been

allocated or expended on 97 of the initial 160

priority sites determined by EPA, and only

three sites had been totally cleaned up (one entirely with State funds). The first complete National Priority List contained 418 sites. But the

model used to rank sites according to their

hazards has important inadequacies (see issue

5).

A major problem is that the National Contingency Plan does not provide specific standards, such as concentration limits for certain
Ch. I—Summary ● 2 1

toxic substances, to establish the extent of

cleanup. Consequently, there is little assurance that cleanups provide protection of

health and environment over the long term.

However, another perspective is that flexibility and site-specific standards are both appropriate and effective.

Although the approach being used stresses

cost effectiveness, there has not been time for

a history of effectiveness to accumulate. Thus,

it is not yet possible to quantify and compare

technologies. The long-term effectiveness of remedial technologies is uncertain because many

remedial technologies are containment approaches and these require long-term operation

and maintenance.

Technical approaches for remedial control

consist either of actions on the waste, such as

drum and contaminant removal, contaminant

treatment, and incineration; or of actions on

the route of release, such as ground water

pumping, encapsulation, and gas control. In

recent remedial actions, removal of wastes and

contaminants (e. g., soil) accounted for about

40 percent of the cases. Usually, removed materials are land disposed, and are beginning to

constitute a significant added management

burden in RCRA facilities,

There will be many uncontrolled hazardous

waste sites requiring attention when collection

under Superfund expires in 1985, perhaps even

more than when it was enacted because:

1. not all of the 418 priority sites will be

cleaned up; EPA has indicated that perhaps half will be totally cleaned up;

2. the national inventory of uncontrolled

sites is as yet incomplete;

3. active sites will continue to be closed

under circumstances that may shift cleanup responsibility to CERCLA, and this

process may be accelerated by final RCRA

regulations and the difficulty of compliance by some facilities;

4. a potentially large number of sanitary

landfill (subtitle D) facilities for solid, nonhazardous waste may be closed, and may

be contaminated by hazardous waste received in the past and currently (e.g., be5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

cause of the small generator exemption,

exempted recycling facilities, and from

household discards of hazardous materials);

some States may be unable to provide their

matching share for cleanup of sites (10 percent for private sites and 50 percent for

government-owned sites); this has already

prevented about one-third of the original

160 priority sites from receiving remedial

action;

States and private parties will have difficulty in securing sufficient funds to clean

up sites not selected early in the Superfund

program, and these may become more hazardous over time;

the lifetimes and performance levels of

remediation technologies (particularly

containment systems) under either RCRA

or CERCLA are limited;

corporate financial responsibility for some

closed RCRA sites will expire; and

“ancient” sites not yet documented will

continue to be unearthed (often accidentally) and identified.

ISSUE 8

To what extent can technical means be used to address public opposition to siting of hazardous waste

facilities?

FINDING

Improving the scope, quality, and dissemination of

technical information and using technical siting criteria

could prove useful; however, nontechnical institutional

remedies that improve public confidence in government

programs may be more effective (see ch. 6).

A paradox exists wherein the same public

that calls for safer hazardous waste management frequently opposes the siting of specific

hazardous waste facilities, The public generally

views risks associated with a specific facility

as unacceptable at worst, and uncertain and

out of its control at best. Risks and potential

damages (direct effects resulting from releases

of hazardous constituents, as well as indirect

effects resulting from potential problems, such

as losses in property values) are borne largely

by local communities. There is usually little
22 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

prospect of timely compensation. In contrast,

benefits associated with the myriad of activities

that generate hazardous waste are more equally

distributed over society as a whole. Furthermore, perceptions of future risks are shaped

almost entirely by the public’s understanding

of health and environmental effects from past

hazardous waste management practices and

failures. The public remembers problems with

uncontrolled sites and risks from transportation accidents and spills of hazardous material

rather than of hazardous waste. A key issue

is the degree of public confidence in new government programs to control hazardous

waste, and in contemporary, improved management approaches. Whatever the causes,

continued public opposition poses a substantial obstacle to siting hazardous waste management capacity of any type. The uncertainties

and costs related to public opposition make

private sector commitments of capital difficult.

Both technical and institutional approaches

can be used to address public concerns, but

these concerns will never completely be eliminated, In the technical area, public confidence

and

1.

2.

3.

understanding can be increased by:

improving the quality of information disseminated to the public to better describe

facility needs, uses, characteristics, and

risks;

using siting processes based on sound

technical criteria to ensure that specific

locations have been chosen to reduce present and future risks as well as to satisfy

waste generator and management needs;

and

increasing efforts to promote the development and use of alternatives to land disposal.

However, nontechnical or institutional approaches, mostly at the State level, may be

more effective, These include:

1. measures to ensure meaningful and effective public participation in siting and permitting of facilities;

2. programs to provide assurance that in the

event of any release of hazardous constituents there will be quick and effective

emergency and remedial actions;

3. programs to provide assurance that in the

event of damages to health or the environment, or indirect economic effects, injured

parties will be able to obtain equitable

compensation expeditiously; and

4. programs that provide assurance of continued compliance with stringent regulatory requirements, particularly for monitoring.

Currently, there is little direct Federal involvement in facility siting, other than the permitting of facilities. However, there are a

number of possibilities being discussed for

greater Federal involvement, including:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

providing technical siting criteria either as

a model for States to consider, or as mandatory;

providing assessment of hydrogeological

characteristics of importance in deciding

the acceptability of sites;

providing technical assistance to States,

local governments, and the public;

providing information exchange programs;

assisting in formal or informal mediation

of siting disputes;

providing use of Federal lands;

legislative sanctioning of interstate hazardous waste management compacts to ensure adequate hazardous waste management capacity in a regional context; and

mandating that States engage in hazardous waste planning, based on a hierarchy

of waste management alternatives, and

then provide adequate management capacity for all waste generated in their States.

Whatever actions are taken to address public

opposition to hazardous waste facilities, there

is little likelihood of any “quick fixes. ” Current

difficulties with the economy may, in some instances, alleviate public concerns by, for example, making waste management activities

more attractive as sources of employment, or

as a means to keep or attract industrial plants.

However, dampened public concern caused by
Ch. l—Summary ● 2 3

a depressed economy should not be relied on

as a widespread or lasting solution to siting

problems. In the longer term, successful experience with the RCRA and CERCLA programs could improve public confidence substantially, but lack of success would cause further erosion in public confidence. The potential loss of Federal funding of State programs,

which EPA is discussing, and uncertainties

over alternate sources of money will likely exacerbate public concerns.

ISSUE 9

Is the congressional intent that the States become

partners in implementing the Federal hazardous waste

program being met?

FINDING

The States are being given increasing responsibilities by the Federal program without matching technical

and financial resources (see ch. 7).

An important element of the congressional

mandate to regulate hazardous waste was the

eventual shifting of administration of the programs to the States. The States have had difficulties because the Federal program has experienced changes in direction and delays, and

is still incomplete. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that RCRA has greatly improved

the number and quality of effective State hazardous waste programs, few of which existed

before RCRA.

However, an element of confrontation has

developed between the Federal program and

the States. At a critical time when the program is just beginning to be fully implemented, some States believe that there are

substantial impediments to providing adequate protection to the public. In fact, some

States may refuse the responsibility of taking over administration of the RCRA program.

1. States are not receiving increases in financial assistance from the Federal Government corresponding to increased responsibilities for implementing the RCRA program; EPA has indicated its desire to

eliminate RCRA grants to the States alto2.

3.

4.

5.

6,

gether; and States face uncertainties and

delays in attempts to obtain alternative

sources of funds.

Many States do not have an adequate technical information base or enough technically skilled personnel to carry out their

regulatory responsibilities. Data obtained

by EPA have often been incomplete, and

the level of detail has sometimes been inadequate for use by the States to implement Federal regulations; this has resulted

because of statistical sampling rather than

total inventory approaches to collecting

data, States are hampered in their efforts

to obtain necessary information by a lack

of funds and a lack of certainty concerning the RCRA regulations. Moreover, a

number of RCRA and CERCLA regulations transfer considerable technical

standard-setting and decisionmaking to

the permit writing stage. However, the

complex technical requirements of these

areas are substantial, as in hydrogeoIogy,

and there may be shortages of State personnel to adequately perform these required functions.

Many State officials feel that States are not

being given sufficient opportunities to influence the formulation of Federal regulations and policies that they are expected

to adopt and implement.

States do not have policy guidance or support for regional approaches to dealing

with hazardous waste problems.

States are not being given sufficient latitude by EPA to develop their own programs that might deviate from the Federal

program but lead to the same result—i.e.,

programs that are consistent with and

equivalent to the Federal program in terms

of protection of public health and the environment, but are not identical to it in

terms of the language in regulations and

statutes,

In some cases, EPA policies concerning

hazardous waste have shifted burdens to

the States in the area of solid waste (under

Subtitle D of RCRA). At the same time,

however, Federal funds for support of

State solid waste activities have been
24 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

eliminated. Such is the case when wastes

that are hazardous are granted exemptions

(e.g., from small generators) under subtitle

C and can be disposed of in subtitle D sanitary landfills.

7. Problems associated with CERCLA (Superfund) implementation are substantial.

States must provide substantial matching

funds (10 percent for privately owned sites

and 50 percent or more for State or municipally owned sites) to obtain Federal

assistance for remedial actions at uncontrolled sites, as well as assuring all future

operating and maintenance costs. They

must also perform a number of activities,

such as assessments of potential Superfund sites and enforcement activities, for

which no continued CERCLA funding is

available. Hence, many States have found

it necessary to use funds from Federal

RCRA subtitle C grants for Superfund activities at a time when activities under

RCRA are mounting,

Policy

The current Federal hazardous waste program presents a dilemma. On the one hand,

there is a sense of urgency and impatience,

derived from 6 years of difficulties in dealing

with an extremely broad and complex area of

threats to public health and the environment.

Suggesting changes in Federal policies, therefore, creates concerns over the possibility of

still more delays and uncertainties. Those who

support the current Federal program (both

RCRA and CERCLA) believe there is a need to

allow more time before conclusions concerning effectiveness are drawn and possibly disruptive changes are made.

On the other hand, there is also a widespread

belief that current policies and programs could

be technically, economically, and socially more

effective. Waiting for the determination of the

current program’s effectiveness, it is argued,

may lead to the development of outright crises,

such as widespread ground water contaminaOne important area of development at the

State level are policies and programs to supplement regulation of facilities such as greater

use of insurance requirements, civil liability,

taxes and tax incentives, and negotiated agreements for dealing with problems posed by hazardous waste. Such means have some potential to improve the overall effectiveness of State

and Federal waste programs, In many cases,

the major motivation for the use of fee and tax

systems is to increase revenues for State hazardous waste programs (or in some instances

for general purposes), and secondarily to provide incentives for waste reduction and treatment alternatives to land disposal. States’ use

of these approaches are not generally in conflict with EPA regulations or RCRA. EPA’s

State authorization program has generally not

focused on State nonregulatory initiatives that

could supplement the Federal program, or on

efforts to develop acceptable alternative regulatory approaches such as State degree-ofhazard systems,

Options

tion. There is consensus that we are now acting more effectively than in the past to protect

the public from improper management of hazardous waste. But there is also considerable

evidence (concerning, e.g., the technical limitations and uncertainties of land disposal techniques) that we may be acting in ways which:

1. are too temporary in nature;

2. may lead to greater risks to the public in

the future; and

3. may increase ultimate costs to industry,

government, and the public.

Furthermore, this dilemma must be considered in the context of reduced allocations for

government programs. Such conditions may

prompt industry, State and Federal Governments, and the general public to avoid additional near-term costs associated with a cleaner

environment in order to cope with immediate

economic difficulties, Thus, options that defer
Ch. l—Summary ● 2 5

costs, that do not jeopardize current industrial

activities, that shift risks to the future may appear more attractive than in the past. Such

tradeoffs pose formidable choices for policymakers, made more difficult by current uncertainties concerning the degrees of effectiveness

of laws and programs not yet fully implemented.

Five policy options are evaluated in terms of

overall goals:

Option I: Continuation of the Current

Program.

Option II: A More Comprehensive and

Nationally Consistent RCRA Program.

Option 111: Use of Economic Incentives

for Alternatives to Disposal or Dispersal

of Hazardous Waste.

Option IV: Development and Potential

Use of a Hazard Classification Framework.

Option V: Planning for Greater Integration of Environmental Protection Programs.

The first, “status quo” policy option is not

compatible with option II; however, the options

are not mutually exclusive for the most part.

The four “new direction” options, taken together, can be viewed as a series of complementary changes to improve and reorient

the current program.

Four scenarios are also presented to indicate

how several options may be combined. For example, one scenario (a combination of options

I and III) responds both to the desire to prevent delays and uncertainties resulting from

changes in the current regulatory program and

to the need to promote greater use of alternatives to land disposal.

The General Accounting Office, among others, has focused on several administrative

aspects, including the critical area of enforcement, in a number of reports to Congress. Most

recently, a House study has documented critical concerns in the enforcement of both RCRA

and CERCLA statutes and regulations.9 There

‘U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and

Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,

report on enforcement of hazardous and toxic substances regulations during fiscal year 1982, October 1982.

are indications of an increased administrative

reliance on voluntary compliance and settlements with responsible parties, which by themselves may be effective, but which appear to

be linked to substantial reductions in funding

for enforcement activities. OTA’S study of technical issues and problems, such as the effectiveness of pollution control regulations or the exemption of wastes from RCRA regulation, cannot substitute for congressional examination

of the administration of the Federal program.

The policy actions discussed below, regardless of their merits, are not likely to produce

favorable results unless enforcement of regulations is effective.

Common Goals for Policy Options

It is helpful to define specific goals for policy

options for purposes of comparison and evaluation, Eight such goals for any practical congressional option are presented below. These goals

have been used to evaluate each of the policy

options.

GOAL 1

Improved protection of public health and the environment, without undue delays and uncertainties by:

● reducing the magnitude and hazardous nature

of potential releases of waste constituents from

all types of waste generation and management

facilities,

● improving monitoring programs to quickly

detect such releases, and

● improving corrective actions to mitigate

releases.

GOAL 2

Expand the kinds of hazardous waste federally regulated, recognizing that different levels of regulation

under RCRA may be appropriate and desirable.

GOAL 3

Encourage development and use of technological alternatives to land disposal (land disposal includes land

and ocean dispersal), such as waste reduction and

treatment, to reduce risks resulting from releases of

hazardous waste constituents into the environment.
26 ● Tehnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

GOAL 4

Improve and expand data and information on hazardous wastes, facilities, and health and environmental

offects which are necessary for more reliable risk

assessments and for the implementation of RCRA and

CERCLA by both EPA and the States.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand participation in RCRA and

CERCLA by the States through improved definition, implementation, and support of both Federal and State

rasponsibilities.

GOAL 6

Moderate the inevitable increases in the costs of Fedaral and State program administration and regulatory

complianca by industry; and minimize costs associated

with site remediation and compensation for further

damages to public health and the environment which

may result from current practices that could be

Improved.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future, whether several years or to future generations, and reduce costs

of waste management which are externalized and

shifted to society in general.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over the Sitting of hazardous

waste management facilities of all types through, for

● xampb, improved implementation and enforcement

of, government programs.

The Five Policy Options

OPTION i

Continuation of Current Program.

This option assumes that the mandates of

both RCRA and CERCLA may be met by the

current Federal hazardous waste program. It

should be recognized that the present program

is not static. EPA has indicated several plans

for changes and improvements in the near

term.

Unlike the other policy options, no unusual

implementation problems and costs are associated with this “status quo” option. Criticisms

of the option are generally based on perceptions of current problems or point to unacceptable risks and costs involved in waiting for the

program to “prove itself.”

OPTION II

A More Comprehensive and Nationally Consistent RCRA

Program.

The purpose of this option is to expand the

scope and increase the effectiveness of the current RCRA program. The changes discussed

below would be carried out by amendment to

RCRA, possibly including a schedule for EPA

implementation within approximately 6

months to 1 year of enactment. For convenience, all changes in RCRA are presented as

one congressional option, although each could

be acted on independently, and any combination is possible.

Wastes Regulated .—This change concerns the

universe of regulated hazardous waste and the

extent of such regulation. The findings of this

assessment support consideration of the following measures to regulate, in appropriate

ways, more high-priority waste which pose significant threats.

1. Closing the gap created by the blanket exemption of hazardous waste generated in relatively small quantities. The objective is to

avoid having hazardous wastes managed as

nonhazardous, solid wastes in sanitary landfills. In the near term, if a quantity cutoff is

used, the prudent approach would be to use a

relatively low cutoff, such as 100 kilograms per

month (kg/me) instead of the current 1,000

kg/mo value. In the longer term, however, some

measure of the level of hazard of the waste

could be used instead. The degree-of-hazard approach does not imply adoption of any particular, or complex, methodology for assessing

level of hazard. Regulation would be based on

known characteristics of the waste that indicate potential harm to human health and the

environment on release of the material into the

environment and with significant exposure.

However, if it could be demonstrated that relatively small quantities of hazardous waste do

not present significant threats (either on a

generic or waste-specific weight cutoff basis),
Ch. l—Summary ● 2 7

then there could be minimal regulatory control,

e.g., notification and reporting requirements,

or modification of the RCRA regulations which

govern waste generators.

2. Ending the total exemption for hazardous waste burned as fuels, or as fuel supplements, which may, in some instances, be

dispersing unacceptable amounts of hazardous substances into the environment. Instead,

there would be notification requirements for

records of what wastes are being burned and

where. Also, there would be standards for acceptable levels of releases into the environment, and perhaps some monitoring requirements.

3. Ending the total exemption from RCRA

coverage of liquid hazardous waste sent to

publically owned waste water treatment facilities. There would be instead notification requirements and standards for acceptable

amounts of releases and residuals in effluent

waters and sludges, supplementing gaps in pretreatment coverage under the Clean Water Act.

These requirements and standards would be

defined for specific hazardous constituents in

a manner consistent with types and concentrations of constituents.

4. Establishing a category of “special” hazardous waste consisting of high-volume relatively low-hazard waste to be minimally regulated under RCRA. There may only be notification requirements for generators of such

waste.

5. Developing minimal regulations for the

recycling of hazardous waste (or hazardous

materials that could become wastes), applicable to all operations, not just “third party”

recyclers as is currently proposed. Due consideration would be given to avoiding the creation of disincentives for recycling, e.g., by only

requiring notification of what wastes are being

recycled.

6. Developing lists of hazardous waste to be

prohibited from management in landfills,

surface impoundments, and deep wells. These

lists should be correlated with technical criteria

regarding particularly high risks from possible

releases into the environment.

7. Establishing regulatory criteria for hazardous waste which, although substantial

scientific information indicates their hazardous character, have not yet been so defined.

They have not been listed and, when subjected

to current EPA tests and procedures, they do

not exhibit any of the currently identified hazardous waste characteristics. For example, a

number of industrial wastes containing significant levels of dioxins, chlorinated organics, or

pesticides are not now regulated as hazardous

waste and cannot be shown to be toxic by

EPA’s test for toxicity (see ch. 4).

8. Making delisting of hazardous waste

more expeditious without, however, compromising protection of the public. This could be

done by using clearer, specific criteria for delisting and by limiting times for evaluation by

EPA. To some extent, this action could balance

the effects of the preceding actions, which lead

to more wastes being regulated. Delisting provides a means whereby site-specific factors or

previously unavailable information might mitigate prior estimates of potential hazard. However, one problem that has become apparent

in delisting processes should be controlled.

Although constituents causing a waste to be

originally defined as hazardous may have been

removed, the waste may still contain other hazardous constituents in significant concentrations. Such waste should not be delisted, pending further testing. The sole or inappropriate

use of the EPA toxicity test should be examined, Adopting a procedure for verification of

submitted data should also be examined.

Limited Class Permits.-The engineering design

and performance characteristics of some hazardous waste management facilities may be

largely independent of location. Class permits

may be appropriate for such facilities. However, such facilities should have little probability of release of hazardous constituents, and

possible releases should be easily observable

through minimal, and required, inspection or

monitoring. There is some concern over

whether permitting by rule would lead to sufficient protection of the public, such that the

loss of public participation in the permitting

process is justified. Furthermore, while use of
28 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

class permits for tanks and containers may be

reasonable, these may have to be limited to

aboveground facilities because of the difficulty of detecting leaks in underground facilities.

Limited class permits may have to be based on

detailed technical criteria, in order to avoid

permitting of older facilities having unacceptable design and performance features. (For example, construction materials in older facilities

may lack adequate corrosion resistance). If

Congress is to sanction class permitting without sacrificing protection of the public, then

the limited nature of the policy should be carefully defined through legislation. Class permitting need not involve a cutoff of all public participation. Expedited and minimal permit review can be combined with appropriate notification and an opportunity for the public to

be heard as part of the permitting process.

Specific Technical Criteria in Regulations .–There

are a number of critical components to the

RCRA and CERCLA regulations that include

little if any specific technical criteria to guide

permitting. If Congress is to ensure protection

of the public in a consistent way nationwide,

then it is necessary to direct EPA to establish

specific technical criteria through rulemaking

(in contrast to reliance on guidance documents). This would correct the current emphasis on allowing Federal or State permit

writers to make critical decisions without

either such guidance, or the resources (financial, technical, and human) necessary for making decisions and formulating criteria about extremely complex technical matters. Two areas

of particular concern are the RCRA regulations

dealing with monitoring for land disposal facilities and the CERCLA regulations dealing

with the determination of the extent of cleanup

at a remedial site. This is not to imply that EPA

is unaware of the problem. Several relevant activities should be noted: draft guidance documents have been prepared by EPA and may

lead to specific criteria being used; EPA was

under judicial order to promulgate final regulations; and regulations can and may be revised

in the future to add more detailed standards.

OPTION Ill

Use of Economic Incentives for Alternatives to Disposal

and Dispersal of Hazardous Waste.

The objective of this option is to shift the balance from disposal and dispersal of hazardous

waste into the land or oceans to the reduction

of waste at the source, recycling, and treatment. Direct economic incentives would be

used to accomplish this objective.

This option is designed to provide direct incentives. There are, within the current program, opportunities to promote the use of alternatives to disposal and dispersal through regulatory incentives, including: streamlining of

permitting procedures for alternative and perhaps innovative facilities; requirements to use

certain alternatives for specific wastes; and increasing the required level of control for disposal and dispersal approaches. Moreover, the

current system is significantly increasing the

costs of land disposal, compared to a few years

ago. While these factors may have beneficial

effects, they are often rendered less effective

than they could be by uncertainties, ambiguities, and contradictions in the regulatory

system as perceived by the regulated community or because they limit choices in too general

a fashion. The use of direct economic incentives can be viewed as a complement to regulatory incentives and to the use of the legal

system. While legal actions may motivate the

use of alternatives to land disposal, the perceived effects are often uncertain and may not

occur until long after the adverse effects of land

disposal practices occur.

This policy option should be viewed in the

context of current legislation concerning hazardous waste management. CERCLA was enacted because of the recognition that unacceptable risks have been inherited from certain past

waste management efforts that were too shortsighted. The connection between CERCLA

and RCRA has received insufficient attention. Too often they are viewed as separate

programs, rather than as two components of

the Federal hazardous waste program. The
Ch. l—Summaary ● 29

need for future expenditures of public funds

to clean up hazardous waste sites should be

minimized,

Congressional action to implement this option could occur through an amendment to

RCRA or CERCLA or as new legislation. There

are no apparent technical or institutional

obstacles to adoption, but a major issue would

be what types of incentives to provide. Before

discussing several types of economic incentives, the concept of a hierarchy of alternative

management strategies is examined to provide

a context for considering this option.

A Hierarchy of Alternative Management Strategies

A major purpose of chapter 5 is to demonstrate the applicability of a relatively large

number of alternative technological approaches to hazardous waste management.

Such technologies provide means for the reduction of waste generation, the destruction of

waste, and the disposal or dispersal of waste

in the environment. Different alternatives are

appropriate for different wastes and locations. In chapter 4, it is noted that, nationwide,

land disposal continues to be used for most

hazardous waste (although it varies substantially among States), and in chapter 5 the uncertainties concerning the use of ocean disposal

are discussed,

The following hierarchy provides a useful

framework for understanding the potential use

of alternatives to disposal and dispersal of hazardous waste, consistent with good engineering

1.

2.

3.

practice and sound economics:

waste reduction at the source through, for

example, process modifications;

waste separation, segregation, and concentration through available engineering

approaches in order to facilitate identification of the waste and the application of the

remaining steps;

material recovery, either onsite or offsite,

to make use of valuable materials, including the use of waste exchanges so that a

(potential) waste for one generator can be

made available as a resource for another

operation;

4,

5.

6.

energy recovery from (potential) waste or

its components, perhaps as a fuel supplement;

waste treatment to reduce the hazard level

and possibly the amount of waste requiring disposal; and

ultimate disposal or dispersal (preferably

of residues from previous steps, of

materials pretreated to reduce mobility

after land disposal, and of untreatable

wastes) in a manner that holds release of

hazardous constituents into the environment to acceptable levels.

Such a systematic ordering of waste management options presents a number of advantages.

For example, permanent solutions to waste

problems are more likely to occur at some stage

prior to disposal and dispersal. Consequently,

fewer risks and costs are shifted to the future.

An initial emphasis on waste reduction could

significantly reduce costs of waste management and, in some instances, avoid them altogether, Using materials as resources, rather

than discarding them, at once prevents them

from becoming wastes and provides direct economic benefits. If less hazardous wastes are

produced and regulated by promoting the use

of alternatives 1 through 5 of the hierarchy, and

if there are reduced administrative activities

(such as inspection) for treatment and disposal

facilities, then the costs of administering a

regulatory program and of remediating uncontrolled sites could be reduced.

Specific factors concerning waste, plants,

and companies should play their normal role

in economic evaluations of alternatives. Moreover, for some waste only management alternatives 5 or 6 will be technically feasible or cost

effective. The above listing does not imply that

alternatives 2 through 5 do not involve any potential release of waste or their constituents

into the environment, Techniques for these options require some regulatory coverage to monitor and hold such releases to acceptable levels.

For example, energy recovery through the

burning of waste as fuels poses problems of

releases of hazardous constituents into the environment. Such regulation can provide information useful in enforcement efforts and for
30 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

understanding how generic types of waste can

be managed other than by disposal and dispersal approaches.

The idea of the hierarchy presented above

did not originate with OTA. It has been recognized for some time by those concerned with

waste management in industry and government. In 1976, before the passage of RCRA,

EPA offered a position statement on effective

hazardous waste management that included

the above hierarchy as a ranking of preferred

alternatives. As recently as 1982, EPA

reiterated its support of the 1976 position.lo

Nonetheless, there has been little programmatic support of the concept of a waste management hierarchy. Although RCRA gave some

attention to reuse, recovery, and recycling,

there have been few programs providing incentives to waste generators, nor have there been

transfers of technology and information encouraging this strategy. As for EPA’s R&D activities, in fiscal year 1983 the total effort

related to alternatives to land disposal amounts

to about 10 percent of all hazardous waste

R&D, or $4.4 million. From another perspective, 10 years of such funding for this purpose

would only be equivalent to the costs of cleaning up several major uncontrolled land disposal

sites. (See ch. 7 for a discussion of all current

EPA expenditures.)

Types of Incentives

Considering the generally accepted objective

of minimizing government expenditures, OTA

believes that it is impractical to suggest major

incentive programs based on direct, budgeted

expenditures. Also, the use of economic incentives raises questions concerning the appropriate placement of burdens on industry. For such

reasons, this option consists of three components: a fee system on generated wastes to

influence management choices, procedures addressing capital needs of alternatives to disIOFedera] Register, VO1. 41, No. 161, pp. 35050, 35051, 1976;

U.S. House of Representatives, EPA Journal, July-August, p. 19,

1982; and testimony of Rita M. Lavelle, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee

on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment,

Dec. 16, 1982.

posal and dispersal, and consideration of R&D

problems that might prevent the development

of alternatives.

A Fee System.-There is a trend toward State

use of fee systems, some of which are based

on wastes, both to raise revenues and to influence choices among hazardous waste management alternatives, although results of these

relatively new programs are mixed. California,

Kentucky, Missouri, and New York impose

fees on waste generators. The CERCLA program, at the Federal level by comparison is

based on the collection of a fee or tax on the

production of petroleum feedstocks and specified chemicals, raising 87.5 percent of the $1.6

billion fund. Many critics of this approach believe that the fund should have been financed

through a “tail-end” fee or tax on actual waste

generated, rather than on “front-end” feedstock materials that only indirectly, and to different degrees, lead to hazardous waste generation. A strong disincentive is thus inadvertently

established which penalizes those generators

choosing to minimize waste generation. However, there was insufficient information on

waste generators originally available to facilitate such an approach. When collection under

CERCLA expires in 1985, it is likely that substantial sums will continue to be required to

clean up uncontrolled sites. EPA’s original estimate of several years ago was that $44 billion

might be required. There have also been indications from the administration that it is currently disinclined to seek reauthorization of the tax

collection program. Continuation of the current CERCLA fee system offers no direct incentive to alternatives to land disposal, although continued experience with CERCLA

may prove to be an effective indirect influence on use of such alternatives.

An approach that would satisfy several objectives could be based on the use of the

CERCLA funding mechanism for RCRA purposes, using the tail-end fee system. This would

involve shifting the collection of CERCLA

moneys (including the post-closure liability

trust fund to start in 1983) to hazardous waste

generators. For such an approach to be effective, fees would have to be reduced, on a unit-
Ch. I—Summary Ž 31

weight basis, when: 1) alternatives to disposal

and dispersal were used by the generator,

either onsite or offsite, and 2) the hazard level

of the waste or residue finally disposed of was

relatively low.

The critical feature of such a system is that

such a fee should be substantially greater (perhaps double) for disposal and dispersal options

and substantially lower for low-hazard or

treated waste (perhaps by half). A fee discrimination would provide the desired economic

incentives for alternatives to disposal and

dispersal. Moreover, the discriminatory ratios

and/or the amounts of the fees on land-disposed

waste might be increased over time, as waste

volumes decline and after ample time has been

given for adopting alternatives. A zero tax for

those wastes (or portions of them) recycled for

materials or energy that would otherwise become hazardous wastes would appear equitable and desirable. However, there is a need for

carefully determined definitions for recycling

(as well as for what is a hazardous waste),

otherwise a waste-fee approach could lead to

inappropriate removal of waste from the system,

Can fees on generated hazardous waste raise

sufficient revenues? If one accepts the currently quoted figure of 41 million tonnes per year

of RCRA-defined hazardous waste generation,

an average fee of $10 per tonne would raise

about the same annual revenues as CERCLA

now does. If total waste generation is much

higher, as it may be (see ch. 4), or if more

wastes are brought under the RCRA program,

then fees might be reduced somewhat.

For disposal and dispersal options, with high

fees of perhaps $10 to $20 per tonne, costs

would increase by less than 10 to 40 percent

for a disposal cost range of $50 to $200 per

tonne, and perhaps by less if the national waste

stream is found to be much greater than the

current estimate. However, there are lowhazard high-volume wastes for which disposal

or treatment may only cost $10 to $20 per

tonne, and for which fees should be lower than

the average. Table 5 illustrates a waste-fee

system which has been proposed in Minnesota.

The structure of this system is strongly biased

against land disposal, particularly for liquid

wastes. It also favors onsite over offsite management, a bias often defended because of advantages associated with not transporting hazardous materials, rather than on any intrinsically superior level of management at onsite

facilities.

Suggesting a national waste fee system is

likely to raise a number of problems and concerns. A summary of the key issues is presented in table 6.

The underlying philosophy of this approach

would be to reward those who minimize future risks and costs to society through the use

of preferred alternatives which permanently reduce the risks involved in hazardous

waste management. As existing uncontrolled

sites are cleaned up, future uncontrolled sites

made less likely, and hazardous waste generation reduced, the fees for non-land-disposed

wastes could eventually be decreased. Morever, such an incentive system would encourage efforts to reduce the amounts of waste

generated. The uses of the fees collected could

be expanded, as has been recommended, perhaps to deal with injuries and damages directly associated with mismanagement of hazardTable S.—illustration of a Hazardous Waste

Generator Tax Structure

Tax on Tax on

solid waste Ilquid waste

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

Land disposal. 42 85

Off site:

Land disposal after treatment 21 42

Treatment ... . . . . 11 21

Onsite:

Land disposal after treatment 11 21

Treatmen t 5 11

Recycling/reuse;

used crankcase 0 1 1 0 0

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

generator fee (a minimum fee plus a fee dependent on the quantity of

waste generated) was also proposed to support State administrative costs

for hazardous waste programs A prows ion was Included to exempt small

generators

SOURCE” Minnesota Conference Report H F No 1176, Mar 19, 1982
32 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

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

Problem or concern Comments

Use of the legal system and insurance

requirements could be used as nonregulatory

approaches instead of the fee system.

There is insufficient capacity for treatment

alternatives to land disposal.

Industry and consumers may face heavy economic

burdens.

Illegal dumping would be increased.

It would be more efficient to rely on State fee

systems.

Eventually, there may be extremely high fees on

remaining and, perhaps, unavoidably landdisposed waste.

International competitiveness of some industries

may be reduced.

A national waste fee system distorts the

marketplace.

They are useful; but affect management choices slowly because

of time delays and uncertainties.

Unused capacity now exists; a fee system would remove market

uncertainties and stimulate investments. Waste reduction efforts

do not face this problem.

Programs to address capital and R&D needs are required. Action

soon would provide time for planning. Small effects on

consumer prices would be equitable.

Both regulatory enforcement and policing efforts remain

necessary.

Not all States will or can adopt waste fee systems. Nor will they

have similar programs. For consistency and equity nationwide, a

Federal system is necessary, Otherwise pollution havens may

form.

Abrupt changes in management choice not likely. More waste may

be regulated with lower fees. CERCLA and administrative needs

will eventually decline. Fees can be lower for high-volume, lowhazard wastes.

Capital and R&D assistance, and time for planning are necessary.

Some industrialized nations already use more treatment options.

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

transferred to people (now and in the future) who do not receive

corresponding benefits.

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

ous wastes.11 Fees could be collected by States,

and it might be advantageous to distribute a

specified percentage of the moneys collected

by a State to its program. This could promote

the replacement of varying State fee programs

with a uniform national system, at least for

federally regulated waste. A uniform system

could minimize potential effects on interstate

commerce (e.g., States with fees which are high

relative to other States are less able to attract

industrial activities producing hazardous

waste).

Capital Needs.–A major obstacle to the adoption of measures to reduce waste generation

or hazard levels is the need for capital investment for new or modified equipment or facilities, either by waste generators or commercial

waste managers. A Federal loan program

could be instituted, which offered low interest

rates, and perhaps long terms for repayment,

for capital expenditures on existing or new facilities directly related to waste or hazard

1l’’Injuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Analysis

and Improvement of Legal Remedies, ” a report to Congress in

compliance with sec. 301(e) of the CERCLA, September 1982.

(By an independent group of attorneys.)

reduction, Alternatively, the Federal program

might guarantee private sector loans, or make

available tax free bonds to finance loans. Technical guidelines could be established and the

administration of loan evaluations and approvals could be shifted, for the most part, to

the State level. CERCLA funds not spent for

cleanups, or more likely a designated portion

of moneys collected under a new fee system,

might be used as a source of funds for loans,

A fixed fraction of such fee- or tax-generated

funds might be designated for these types of

loans. One recent study that examined using

government loan incentives for resource recovery equipment for hazardous waste generated

in the electroplating industry concluded that

such a program could be quite effective.

Another means of addressing capital needs

is the use of tax credits. A special, time-limited

investment tax credit to spur capital investments could be offered for those uses

directly related to reduction of waste amounts

or hazard levels, Although this is a traditional

approach to achieving a desired goal of society, it has received criticism due to the loss of

revenues to the government. However, the case
Ch. l—Summary ● 3 3

of hazardous waste presents a particularly

good example of how spending promoted by

a tax benefit could, in the long-term, markedly reduce government expenditures. Moreover,

a special tax credit of 10 percent (in addition

to any broad investment tax credit) likely would

lead to reductions in government revenues of

several hundred million dollars annually over

perhaps a 5- to 10-year period. An interesting

possibility would be to use some portion of the

funds collected under a waste generator fee

system to compensate the U.S. Treasury for all

or part of the lost tax revenues. This would be

consistent with a philosophic commitment to

rewarding those who reduce the magnitude of

the hazardous waste problem, while requiring

those who continue to place a burden on society to pay the costs of that burden. The study

mentioned above concerning the electroplating

industry also concluded that a special investment tax credit for resource recovery investments could be effective.

Assistance for R&D Efforts.-Alternatives to disposal and dispersal meet with another obstacle

in that often technologies for, say, process modification or for treatment of particularly difficult wastes require applied R&D efforts before

they can be commercially feasible. Increased

Federal support of private sector R&D, including pilot plant efforts, could therefore be

very useful—relatively small sums might produce very large benefits. In order to allay objections to using Federal funds, it might be

possible to structure R&D assistance so as to

recover the Federal investment, perhaps

through long-term low-interest loans to be

repaid upon successful commercialization of

the technology. Profit-sharing and exclusive

licensing arrangements with payments to the

government are also possible, Illinois commits

a portion of the revenues obtained from fees

on waste for R&D projects.

OPTION IV

Development and Potential Use of a Hazard Classification Framework.

This option provides for the development of

a hazard classification framework for risk management that, if feasible and beneficial, would

be introduced into the RCRA regulatory program. The framework would be based on detailed technical criteria establishing several different ranges (or classes) of hazard levels.

There would also be a corresponding classification system for facilities. The waste and facility

classification would provide means to:

1.

2.

3.

set priorities, such as determining what

areas need to be addressed first in obtaining more accurate and reliable data;

establish different levels of monitoring requirements; and

establish appropriate levels of regulatory

control, including restrictions on certain

management technologies and types of facilities, exemptions from full regulatory

coverage, and different levels of performance standards for RCRA regulations covering the operation of waste management

facilities.

Although using classifications seem to suggest considerable complexity and drastic

changes in the regulatory structure; neither is

required. What is envisioned is using an improving scientific base to structure the evolving RCRA regulatory program. For example,

some solid wastes addressed under subtitle D

of RCRA would be brought under subtitle C

control, but, for almost all these wastes, there

would be minimal regulatory requirements

(such as reporting and notification requirements). Similarly, some low-hazardous waste

currently under subtitle C might receive less

regulation than they now receive, and perhaps

be removed from the hazardous category altogether. Some high-hazardous waste would

receive more stringent regulation than they

now receive. For most hazardous waste, however, the classification approach would have

little effect.

Congressional action could be accomplished

by amendment to RCRA, by initially directing

EPA, or another agency, to develop a waste

and facility classification system and a plan for

its implementation, Such an analytical effort

could take several years and would require additional Federal appropriations of perhaps $5

million to $10 million. Presumably, no new

data would be acquired for this initial study
34 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

phase (which for health and environment effects data is an expensive undertaking), but

rather existing data bases would be used. The

second level of congressional action would

consist of an evaluation of the study, and a

decision: I) to either move ahead with implementation; or 2) to pursue a second, more

detailed study, possibly involving the acquisition of new data, followed by integration of the

hazard classification framework into the RCRA

program; or 3) to discontinue the option. Implementation, or a second study, could take

several years, and the costs are difficult to

estimate.

Brief Summary of a Hazard Classification Framework

The key elements of this particular application of the hazard classification concept are

presented in figure Z. The approach is compatible with the hierarchy of alternative management strategies presented earlier, particularly

the goal of reducing the amount and hazard

level of wastes.

Several important elements, each requiring

reliable information to be obtained by the Federal program, form the basis of this scheme.

Some of the information may be currently

available in varying degrees of completeness

and accuracy. The collection of other necessary data may require substantial efforts. There

are three elements of the system:

1. The critical characteristics of those constituents of the waste that largely determine its hazard classification. Classifying wastes is a major undertaking that requires a carefully designed analytical

framework and substantial amounts of information on a broad variety of factors, including concentrations of hazardous constituents, toxicities, nobilities through

various environmental media, environmental persistence or bioaccumulation,

and various safety characteristics. It is not

sufficient merely to use information on the

most hazardous constituent, or the one

present in the largest amount, to fully

assess a particular waste. There currently is no standard procedure to describe the

hazard level for a physically and chemically complex waste, although there are indications that it is technically feasible to

develop one (see ch. 6).

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

■

Identification of appropriate regulatory control

I

Effects and t Regulatory

policy changes

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment
Ch. l—Summary ● 3 5

2. Consideration of those factors used to

determine facility classes:

● The chemical and physical characteristics of the waste that limit treatment

and disposal options. This information

would indicate whether the waste is

aqueous or nonaqueous, inorganic or

organic, and whether it is a liquid,

sludge, or bulk waste with a high-solid

content. It also would be necessary to

know if the waste contains toxic metals,

particular types of known toxic organics, corrosive acids, explosives, or

highly ignitable substances.

• Information on the broad range of

technology options that are commercially available and technically feasible. Considerable information is needed

on the designs of technologies, actual

performance characteristics, problems

related to operation and maintenance,

and requirements for trained personnel.

Problems related to patented and proprietary information may have to be

addressed.

● Performance standards for various

technology options, used for setting the

level of effectiveness (risk reduction)

of the technology, or the level of acceptable release of hazardous constituents from the facility. For waste treatment operations, performance standards may be given in terms of changes

to be effected in various critical characteristics of the waste, After incineration, for example, the percent of one or

more waste constituents destroyed, perhaps in conjunction with acceptable

levels of emissions, can be used. (This

is similar to what is used now.) It is important that waste classification and its

linkage to facility class be technically

sound in order to avoid “technology

forcing” when, in fact, available technology can achieve desired levels of protection. For disposal operations, performance standards may be given in

terms of acceptable levels of release over

specified periods of time, Standards

would vary with levels of hazard.

In general, different types of performance standards will be required for different disposal and treatment technologies and may be required for different

levels of hazard. Selection of performance standards depend on the regulatory functions deemed most important.

What is attractive from the perspective

of ease of enforcement or compliance

may not be as attractive to those concerned with risk management.

3. Matching of waste and facility classes.

This is the key step—ensuring that levels

of risk are consistent across both waste

and facility classes. For a particular waste

class, different technologies within the

same facility class should offer similar

risks. It must be emphasized that all suggested uses of hazard classification assume

that only a few classes would be required

and are practical. Usually high, medium,

low, and no hazard (essentially a decision

to consider the waste as an ordinary solid

waste) waste classes, and corresponding

facility classes, are envisioned.

An Illustration of the Classification Approach .—Two

types of questions are usually raised concerning the hazard classification approach. What

types of data are used to distinguish different

waste hazard classes? What are the regulatory

implications of establishing different waste

hazard classes? Table 7 provides examples of

how the classification approach can be developed and used, but it should be emphasized

that the examples shown are strictly for illustrative purposes and do not constitute any

endorsement or recommendation by OTA.

OPTION V

Planning for Greater Integration of Environmental Protection Programs,

The purpose of this option is to integrate administratively (and, if necessary, statutorily) a

number of existing environmental programs

that affect hazardous waste management and

regulation, Policies and programs that lead to

inefficient overlapping regulations, gaps in

regulatory coverage, and inconsistent regula-
36 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

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

Examples of varying levels of regulatory control,

Examples of scientific criteria for waste definition and restrictions on waste management practices

High hazard

1) Acute toxicity:

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

2) Chronic toxicity: No monitoring exemptions

Equivalent concentration of persistent Incineration DRE > 99.99; as fuel, can only be burned in industrial

compounds > 1.O% boilers

Toxic metals 100 to 10,000 x D WS Cannot be stored more than 30 days without permit

Suspected bioaccumulative carcinogens No exemptions for small generators

Recycling facilities to be permitted

Medium hazard

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

Oral rate LD50 5 to 500 mg/kg within 5 miles of a ground water aquifer

Aquatic LC50 1 to 100 mg/kg Incineration DRE > 99.9; cannot be burned in residential boilers

2) Chronic toxicity: Can be stored up to 90 days without permit

Equivalent concentration of persistent Small generators exempted up to 10 kg/month

compounds 0.01-1.O% Recycling facilities to be permitted

Toxic metals 100 x DWS

Suspected nonbioaccumulated carcinogens

3) Corrosive, reactive, ignitable

Low hazard

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

Oral rat LD50 >500 mg/kg which no reactions with wastes are likely

Aquatic LC50 > 100 mg/kg Incineration DRE > 99.0; can be burned in industrial and

2) Chronic toxicity: residential boilers

Equivalent concentration of persistent Can be stored up to 180 days without permit

compounds < 0.01% Small generators exempted up to 100 kg/month

Toxic metals 100 x DWS Only reporting requirement for recycled waste and recycling

3) Corrosive, reactive, ignitable facilities

DWS—drlnklng water standards

~he examtdes shown are strictlv for illustrative cmrDoses onlv. and do not constitute anv endorsement or recommendation bv OTA

bsource: A~aPted from system l; Washington; see discussionin ch. 6

c!jource: Off Ice of Technology Assessment.

tions would be addressed. Insufficient integration among different EPA programs and other

executive agencies may be leading to duplication of effort or unawareness of the extent

of data and technical resources that are available.

A number of hazardous waste activities are

now regulated under different statutes, and

within EPA several different groups administer

activities related to hazardous waste. There are

also programs in several other executive agencies related to hazardous waste; these do not

appear to be highly integrated. The language

in RCRA that mandates integration with other

acts has proven to be too inexact, and EPA’s

efforts in this area do not appear to have a high

priority. Ocean disposal or dispersal of hazardous waste falls under the Marine Protection,

Research and Sanctuaries Act. Some injection

wells that may be used for waste disposal fall

under the Safe Drinking W’ater Act and others

under RCRA. Hazardo-us waste streams destined for municipal water treatment plants fall

under the Clean Water Act. A number of aspects of regulating releases into the air or water

from hazardous waste management facilities

fall under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

Some wastes are and may be regulated under

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A

recent study for EPA concluded:

A number of Federal statutes govern aspects

of the hazardous waste prc]blem. The statutes

in combination do not cover many of the major

sources and types of hazardous waste releases,

however.lz

Congressional action for this option would

consist, first, of mandating a comprehensive

la%valuation of Market and Legal Mechanisms for Promoting

Control of Hazardous Wastes,” draft, Industrial Economics, Inc.,

September 1982.
Cb. l—Summary ● 3 7

study of integration by EPA or some other

agency, including formulation of an integration plan, The second phase would consist of

congressional examination of the study and

plan. If deemed necessary, legislative action

would then implement the plan.

The existence of overlapping jurisdiction to

regulate hazardous waste activities is not

necessarily counterproductive, confusing, or

undesirable. The goal should be twofold:

1.

2.

ensuring that hazardous wastes that might

pose significant risks to human health and

the environment do not escape regulation,

and

promoting the integration of hazardous

waste control and other pollution control

with legislation so that they can support

each other, consistent with the statutory

requirements and goals of each program.

There is now no mechanism for ensuring:

1) that facilities disposing of similar wastes but

regulated under different acts will be consistently regulated; or 2) that a facility permitted under RCRA is not also disposing,

without a permit, other hazardous wastes regulated under other acts.

Moreover, although both RCRA and CERCLA

are managed within the same division of EPA,

there appears to be little coordination of efforts

between the two programs. Chapter 7 presents

three examples that illustrate additional problems associated with inadequate integration in

the current Federal program.

Two Steps Toward Integration of

Environmental Programs

There are two phases to this option, both of

which should anticipate the need for effective

public participation in order to address concerns over changes that might lead to delays.

First, EPA (or perhaps some independent body)

could develop a plan for the improved integration of programs related to hazardous waste.

The plan would focus on statutory changes required to implement a comprehensive integration, with emphasis on the permitting of facilities. ” The study also should examine obstacles

to integration which occur at the State level,

the costs of integration incurred at Federal and

State levels, probable improvements in protection of human health and the environment, and

impacts on waste generators.

The second phase would include congressional examination of the study and plan, and

an examination of how administrative and statutory changes could be achieved. Congress

could also examine changes in EPA’s organization that would be necessary to integrate, and

if integration would require legislation.

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

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

Summary

This section presents the

Comparison of the Five Policy Options

relative benefits of Options II through IV appear to require apall five options-in a convenient form and is intended to facilitate the comparison of the five

options apart from the consideration of costs

and time involved. Options II through V can

be viewed as a series of complementary actions, taken progressively over time, or as

separate individual actions offering particular

benefits relative to one or more of the eight

goals. Moreover, while option I (status quo] and

option II (modifications in RCRA) are mutually

exclusive, options III, IV, and V are compatible with option 1,

proximately the sa-me level of initial ~ongre_ssional appropriations, about $5 million to $10

million each. There are, however, no means of

reliably estimating longer term costs, or cost

savings for government, industry, or the general public. The five options have been presented

in order of increasing time required for preliminary studies and implementation. If immediacy of implementation is an important consideration for some policy makers, then clearly options I, II, and III are the most attractive.
38 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

The policy options have been compared in

two ways. In neither comparison, however, has

any attempt been made to demonstrate that any

one option is “best,” or even that one option

is better than another. In addition to the eight

goals, considerations of time and cost, along

with specific objections to particular options,

can make any option either more or less attractive.

Table 8 summarizes in brief narrative form

the key advantages and disadvantages of each

option. Table 9 presents an evaluation of how

each option, relative to the others, satisfies each

of the eight goals. This evaluation is necessarily

somewhat subjective and judgmental.

In presenting the five policy options, OTA

is aware of the need to justify additional Federal expenditures and possible increases in

short-term costs to the private sector. Current

public and private sector costs for hazardous

waste management are substantial, approximately $4 billion to $5 billion annually. Regardless of any policy action, these costs will increase markedly in the future as both the RCRA

and CERCLA programs become more fully implemented and possibly as the expected economic recovery leads to an upturn in hazardous waste generation.

The total appropriated funds for options II

through V might be $50 million. This represents about 25 percent of annual total Federal

and State expenditures for hazardous waste activities. It also represents about 1 percent of

the current total public and private sector annual costs of administering and complying

with RCRA and CERCLA.

There are considerable uncertainties concerning longer term costs to public and private

sectors for implementing options II through V.

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that

both the short- and long-term costs of carrying out all four policy options may be more

than offset by the potential benefits, only

some of which can be viewed in strictly economic terms. The chief areas of potential cost

savings are: reductions in the number of hazTable 8.—Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options

Key advantages Key disadvantages

1. Continue current program

● Current program stabilized and resources already . Protection of public health and environment may be

invested utilized weaker than possible and desirable

● Participation by States improved ● Risks and costs may be unnecessarily transferred to

● Short-term private and public sector costs moderated the future

● Land disposal continues to be used extensively

II. A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program

● Protection of health and environment improved and ● Short-term private and public sector costs increased

made more consistent nationally ● Progress of present program could be slowed unless

● More hazardous waste controlled additional resources are provided

● Data base improved ● Technical resources and data may be insufficient

Ill. Economic incentives for alternatives to land disposal

● More waste reduction and treatment ● Near-term costs to industry increased

Ž Costs for improved protection more equitably ● Uncertain effects on firms, communities, and

distributed international competitiveness

● Public concerns over siting alleviated Ž Illegal dumping may increase

IV. Development and potential use of a hazard classification framework

● More waste regulated at levels consistent with ● Major effort needed to improve data base

hazards posed ● Unnecessary complexity may be introduced

● Fewer risks and less costs transferred to the future ● Long-term costs for implemenentation uncertain

● Improved technical support for State programs

V. Planning for greater integration of programs

● Gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies in regulatory ● Considerable administrative and institutional

coverage reduced difficulties

● Reduced transfer of risks and costs to the future ● Possible interruptions i n ongoing programs

● Public confidence in Federal program improved ● Congressional action on necessary legislative changes

may be complex

Sorce: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. l—Summary ● 3 9

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

Most Least

Goals effective effective

1. Improve protection of human health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Ill I Iv v

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

3. Encourage alternatives to land disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill Iv II I v

4. Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLA

implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Iv I v Ill

5. Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by States . . . . . Ill II I Iv v

6. Moderate increases in costs to governments for

administration and industry for compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Iv v II Ill

7. Reduce risks and costs transferred to the future; reduce

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

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

Policy options

1 Contlnuatlon of current program

II A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program

Ill Economic Incentives for alternatives to land disposal

IV Development and potent!al use of a hazard class! flcation framework

V Planning for greater integration of environmental protection programs

aLeast effective does not Imply total lack of effectiveness, all rankings are strictly for ordering OPtiOnS and do not imP/Y anY

absolute level of effectiveness

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

ardous waste sites requiring very expensive costs associated with hazardous waste (currentcleanup and reductions in damages to people ly about $4 billion to $5 billion and rising), the

and to the environment which entail substan- savings in one year would exceed the initial

tial costs for treatment, remediation, and com- costs of implementing the options. It is possipensation. Relatively small percentage savings ble that in the long-term, implementation of the

imply substantial absolute dollar savings. For options could lead to considerably greater ecoexample, if all four options led to a net savings nomic benefits,

of only 1 percent in the future annual national

Four Scenarios

As discussed in the previous section, it is possible to implement various combinations of the

five policy options. The purpose of the following discussion is to illustrate four such combinations. The four scenarios have been developed by making certain simplified assumptions

about varying perspectives on the need and

methods for improving the current Federal

waste program.

SCENARIO I

Current RCRA regulations are adequate, but alternatives to land disposal need encouragement. Options I

and Ill are adopted.

Many believe that the current RCRA regulations are satisfactory and should be given an

opportunity to prove themselves effective.

Changes in the regulatory program, it is argued, are unnecessary and would be counterproductive to the extensive efforts made since

the passage of RCRA. Nonetheless, it is also

generally recognized that from a long-term perspective, unnecessary risks and costs may be

transferred to the future by disposing of many

hazardous wastes in the land, There is equal

concern that congressional action in this critical period of development should be expeditious and well defined.

Accordingly, this scenario consists of adopting option I (maintaining the current RCRA

regulatory program) and also adopting option

111 (providing direct economic incentives for

alternatives to land disposal). Option 111 is com-
40 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

patible with option I, since it involves nonregulatory “market” methods of reducing future

releases of hazardous constituents. Option III

consists of three critical components:

1.

2.

3

a system of fees or taxes on waste generators (to replace the current funding mechanism for CERCLA) based on quantity of

waste, level of hazard, and management

practices, in order to promote management choices of alternatives to land disposal;

methods for meeting the initial capital

needs of those waste generators and commercial facilities that decide to reduce

waste generation and to implement treatments reducing hazard or volume levels;

and

support for R&D efforts that may be necessary before waste and hazard reduction

can be accomplished commercially.

SCENARIO II

Specific changes are needed to strengthen RCRA,

and an effort is needed to integrate and streamline the

entire ederal hazardous waste program which has f

evolved in a piecemeal fashion. Options II and V are

adopted.

The choice of option 11 is based on the desire

to modify and improve the existing RCRA regulatory program. The specific actions included

in option II would close a number of existing

gaps in regulatory coverage of waste, restrict

certain wastes from land disposal facilities, and

introduce more technical criteria to set nationwide standards, improve the delisting process,

and introduce limited class permitting. However, to address broader concerns over gaps,

overlaps, and inconsistencies in regulatory

coverage, option V would also be adopted. Option V moves beyond the analysis of RCRA regulations to examine problems related to insufficient integration between RCRA and CERCLA,

among the various environmental protection

statutes, and among the various executive

agencies having programs associated with hazardous waste. These two options combine both

short- and long-term approaches to obtaining

a more effective, efficient hazardous waste

program.

SCENARIO Ill

The current RCRA program needs improvement and

a nonregulatory approach is also needed to shift waste

management choices away from land disposal toward

waste reduction and treatment efforts. The most expeditious congressional actions are required. Options II and

Ill are adopted.

Option II would result in the improvement

of RCRA regulations to better provide shortand long-term protection of human health and

the environment. However, uncertainties concerning the effect of the regulations on shifting

management choices away from land disposal,

along with enforcement problems, would probably remain. To complement the regulatory approach of option II, option III is used to introduce direct economic incentives for alternatives to land disposal, The combination of these

options would reinforce the connection between RCRA and CERCLA. Federal fees on

hazardous waste, increased for land disposal

and for waste with higher hazard levels, can

be used to fund CERCLA and State hazardous

waste programs. With a fee system, the lifecycle costs of waste management could be internalized by increased costs to responsible

parties and to consumers of hazardous wasteintensive products.

SCENARIO IV

The current RCRA regulatory program should be

maintained, but some long-term efforts to improve the

program should also be pursued. Adopt options 1, IV,

and V.

Options IV and V are compatible with the

current program in the near term, since both

initially involve studies before changing the

current program. The introduction of hazard

classification at some future time does not imply any fundamental change in the RCRA regulatory structure. Similarly, a plan for regulatory

integration resulting from option V would not

require a restructuring of RCRA regulations.

Both options IV and V can be viewed as evolutionary refinements of the current program,

and this adoption would not necessarily jeopardize the stability of the present program,
CHAPTER 2

Introduction
Contents

Objective, Scope, and

Objective and Scope. .

structure

. . . . . . . . .

Background ● ***. * * El b a * * * *.****.**

Major Issues and Uncertainties. . . . . .

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

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

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

.

Methodolagy and Structure of the Report

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

● 4.*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..* .

Page

43

44

46

46

49
CHAPTER 2

Introduction

Background

Uncontrolled or careless management of industrial waste, with consequent releases of hazardous constituents into the land, water, and

air, is generally understood to present a substantial threat to both public health and to the

environment. Prior to passage of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by

Congress in 1976, few States had regulatory

programs for hazardous waste. Moreover, Federal programs concerned with air and water

quality caused some changes in industry which

increased the generation of solid, hazardous

waste, Clean air and water regulations also promoted the use of pollution abatement facilities

which themselves produced hazardous residues, Experience with more conventional

forms of industrial and municipal solid wastes

provided few solutions for managing more

complex and chemically stable hazardous

waste,

National awareness of solid and liquid hazardous waste problems increased dramatically

in the mid to late 1970’s with widespread concern over mismanaged waste, indiscriminate

dumping of uncontainerized liquid waste, and

infrequent, but highly visible transportation accidents. Mismanaged waste created serious

problems both by the release of harmful substances into the environment and because of

the direct exposure of waste handlers and the

public to such waste.

It also became clear that even well-intentioned and accepted management of hazardous waste, particularly the use of landfiIls, surface impoundments, and lagoons, could result

in a substantial threat, This threat resulted from

the potential, but difficult to assess, slow

leakage of waste constituents, or leachate (resulting from the interaction of water or other

solvents and waste], through the soil and into

underground water supplies, which were or

could become sources of drinking water, A

sense of urgency regarding hazardous waste

issues was also prompted by several other important factors. These included:

●

●

●

It

an increase in public sensitivity to the toxic properties of many substances which

sometimes were long-lasting;

an increase in attention to the real or

potential links between toxic substances

and human and animal cancers; and

an increase in public demands for protection from pollution of all types.

became evident that the proper management of hazardous waste, whether newly generated or previously disposed of, posed substantial challenges, Studies revealed that some

hazardous waste generated and disposed of

decades before had led to undetermined, but

possibly very large amounts of dangerous substances distributed in and on the land in many

areas of the Nation, Moreover, some previously

abandoned disposal sites with uncontrolled

releases of waste into the environment were

not effectively addressed by RCRA, which was

primarily concerned with proper management

of present and future hazardous waste. Because of the many hazards posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, both active and

inactive (particularly those abandoned sites

whose ownership was unknown), Congress

passed the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980 (CERCLA), which became better known

as Superfund. Problems associated with the

identification of especially threatening uncontrolled hazardous sites became prominent, including locating them, characterizing their

contents, detecting the nature and extent of

releases into the environment, substantiating

actual or potential adverse impacts on health

and the environment, and developing cleanup

techniques and plans,

Since the passage of RCRA and CERCLA, a

number of additional problems have arisen.

43
44 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Defining the scope of both the past and present hazardous waste problem, promulgating effective regulations and standards, developing

management alternatives for industry, and

establishing Federal and State regulatory programs are some. Virtually all interested in the

hazardous waste regulatory system have voiced

concerns over poor definition of the problems,

delays in implementing solutions, changes in

direction of the system, and uncertainties of

future policies and programs.

Some delays, of course, were to be expected

because of the scope of the problem. Almost

all industrial activities (as well as many commercial, governmental, and institutional activities) produce some type of hazardous waste.

The economic development of the United

States during the 20th century has been accompanied by and, to a significant extent, based

on the rapidly rising use of technology, including synthetic organic chemicals. These synthetic chemicals often pose difficult problems because of their stability, resistance to natural

degradation, and sometimes hazardous properties. Every year many new chemicals are invented and put into use. Although both technology and new commercial chemicals have

contributed to the growth of the Nation’s industrial productivity, many associated raw materials, byproducts, and wastes require careful

handling because of acidic, caustic, flammable,

explosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or other

properties. While industry has been relatively

successful in limiting accidents to workers during production or industrial use, the consequences of inadequate disposal of industrial

hazardous waste has emerged as a critical national problem. Hazardous wastes are highly

complex, with characteristics specific to industry, process, product, or site.

Improved management of hazardous waste

implies greater costs to industry and, eventually, greater costs to the public, either directly

or indirectly. The alternative, however, would

surely lead to higher costs in the future and

unacceptable effects on human health and environment, As costs of waste management increase, there are greater economic incentives

to reduce waste generation and to retrieve materials and energy of economic value from materials previously regarded as useless. However, increasing waste management costs can

also increase illegal dumping of hazardous

waste and increases the need for effective government enforcement programs to detect such

illegal practices. The investment expended

either to reduce wastes or to recover them depends on weighting the exact costs and liabilities of waste management incurred by the

waste generator. Having the hazardous waste

regulatory program pass from the planning to

implementation stage at a time of severe national economic problems has increased the

need for developing the most cost-effective approaches to waste management,

Major Issues and Uncertainties

There are two broad areas of concern to pol- ●

icymakers, one related to factual information

and the other to policy questions. First, there

are a number of uncertainties of fact in the

three main areas: wastes, management facili- ●

ties, and adverse effects of both on public

health and environment. The formulation of effective and equitable regulations requires information on the intensity of the threats posed

by wastes and on their remedies. Factual questions that have remained unanswered, and ●

which have influenced the scope of this report,

include the following:

How much hazardous waste is there?

What is being generated, by what industries, in what locations, and of what chemical and physical types?

Where is the hazardous waste? What are

the locations, amounts, and types of hazardous waste that have been managed in

ways that lead, or may lead, to the unacceptable or uncontrolled release of harmful constituents into the environment?

What hazardous waste management facilities currently exist to receive waste?

What is their distribution by location, tech-
Ch. 2—Introduction ● 4 5

●

●

●

nology, level of control, and capacity?

How much hazardous waste is being transported? How much waste is being managed on the site of the generator v. being

handled in commercial or offsite facilities?

What are the technological alternatives

for waste management? What options exist for reducing hazard levels through

treatment, for disposal to contain waste,

for dispersal to render waste harmless, for

cleanup of uncontrolled sites, and for reduction of the amounts of waste to be managed through process modification, endproduct substitution, and recovery/

recycling? To what extent are these alternatives technically feasible, cost effective,

and available with or without further

study? What encourages or discourages

their development and use?

What types of monitoring techniques and

programs can be used to detect releases

from hazardous waste sites? How should

monitoring programs be related to types

of waste, facilities, and locations? How

should information from monitoring programs be used in a systematic fashion to

ensure fast remedial response if necessary?

What are the threats from hazardous

waste? What are the specific adverse impacts on humans and ecosystems exposed

to particular types of waste that maybe or

are released into the environment? How

do waste constituents move through the

environment, remain stable or degrade?

In addition to questions of fact, there is a second broad area of policy-related questions.

There are difficult issues involving societal

values, tradeoffs between short- and long-term

solutions, costs, and equity. Given limited

resources and information, what types of policies, regulations, and standards can best strike

an acceptable balance between protecting the

public and minimizing financial and regulatory

burdens on the private and public sectors?

There are difficult questions concerning risk

reduction in the near term v. the transfer of

risks to future generations, Moreover, policyrelated issues often involve technical problems

that are often difficult for any but specialized

technical experts to understand. If there are important gaps and uncertainties concerning basic information, which there are, then the examination of policy issues is particularly difficult. Important policy-related issues include

the

●

●

●

●

following:

What wastes should be regulated as hazardous? What compositions, physical

states, amounts, and properties should be

used to define hazardous characteristics?

If some States choose to be more stringent

than the Federal hazardous waste program, as they can be under RCRA, and use

broader definitions or listings of hazardous waste, what problems may arise for

the private sector and for formulating and

implementing Federal policies? To what

extent do wastes which have hazardous

characteristics, but which are regulated as

ordinary solid waste rather than hazardous waste, pose serious threats to the

public?

Should the fact that different wastes pose

different levels of hazard be used in regulatory programs? Can a workable degreeof-hazard system that classifies waste (and,

possibly, facilities and locations) be used

to set different levels of control, standards

for acceptable levels of release, and stringency of monitoring programs? Can such

a system be used to limit uses of different

technological alternatives, such as determining waste unsuitable for landfills, and

uses for existing v. new facilities?

To what extent can risk assessments be

used? Can existing information on potential adverse effects on health and environment be used in risk assessments? Should

costs of management alternatives be used

with evaluation of risks? If the information

needed for such analyses is unavailable or

unreliable, would requiring such analyses

be effective or only delay action?

Do current regulations permit the market

to operate in ways that ensure the full internalization of costs for alternative management approaches? Does the current

system provide incentives for development

of alternatives that may provide greater
46 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

●

●

protection to the public? Are the costs for

long-term monitoring of facilities containing hazardous waste (that may possibly remain hazardous forever) and the possible

costs for remedial action being properly

accounted for in today’s waste management cost structures?

To what extent is public opposition to

new hazardous waste facilities justified?

Is this opposition commensurate with

what is now known about the risks involved? Would better information on

wastes, technologies, facilities, and potential effects reduce public opposition? Are

the processes, including public participation, and technical criteria used for siting

new facilities appropriate?

What criteria can be used for determining the extent of cleanup of an uncontrolled site? Is there sufficient attention

being given to all the alternatives and to

the relative advantages and disadvantages

for both the short and long terms? Do current policies provide an incentive for alternatives that have low capital cost, but high

operating and maintenance costs?

What are the effects of having many different laws that influence hazardous

waste management and regulation? Is it

efficient to have different laws, administered by different agencies or different

groups within an agency, to govern different categories of technological alternatives, such as ocean dumping, injection in

deep wells, and other facilities on the land?

Do clean air and water regulations adequately address the types of constituents

likely to be released from hazardous

waste? Does the law concerned with production of toxic chemicals provide an appropriate means to reduce the generation

of toxic waste?

To what extent do current programs promote development of new alternatives to

more traditional environmental regulations? Is the current use of financial liability requirements likely to lead to more efficient self-regulation in industry? Are there

economic incentives that would be more

effective than traditional regulations in fostering improved management?

What is the proper and most efficient balance of responsibilities between the Federal and State programs? To what extent

can State programs be equivalent and consistent with the Federal program, and yet

responsive to varying State needs and circumstances? Do the States have sufficient

financial resources to carry out their increasing responsibilities? Are the States

being given a fair opportunity to shape the

policies that they are being asked to implement? Is the Federal program providing

the type and extent of technical information useful to all States?

These lists of questions and issues are by no

means complete. They serve to illustrate the

scope of present-day concerns about the present and future direction of hazardous waste

policies. Moreover, these questions indicate the

orientation of the present study, which is concerned primarily with examining Federal programs and alternatives that can reduce the

risks of hazardous waste management in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.

Objective, Scope, and Structure of the Assessment

Objective and Scope in general, and for the subclass generallv

RCRA as amended requires the Environmen- termed hazardous waste. Financial assistance

tal Protection Agency (EPA) to issue and en- to States, municipalities, and regional authorforce regulations governing the disposal of sol- ities is authorized by RCRA in order to faciliid and hazardous waste. It allows the States, tate planning, management, and standard setif they choose, to assume primary regulatory ting required for authorization to be shifted

and enforcement responsibility for solid waste from the Federal to the State level.
Ch. 2—lntroduction ● 4 7

The magnitude of the task facing EPA was

generally recognized to be great. Six years after

passage of RCRA, however, a consensus has

also emerged, particularly as Congress considered reauthorizing RCRA in 1982, that progress

has been slow. Both Federal and State regulatory frameworks for dealing with solid and hazardous waste remain uncompleted. Delays and

uncertainties concerning the regulation of

waste have created problems for the industrial

sector, for both generators and disposers of

waste. Public concern has not abated.

CERCLA provides a funding mechanism for

corrective actions taken at a variety of inoperative or abandoned waste sites and for cleaning up accidental releases of hazardous materials. Here too there is general recognition that

progress has been slow.

This assessment by OTA is designed to assist

Congress in its examination of appropriate

measures to prevent harm from those solid

wastes defined as hazardous. As requested by

Congress, this assessment focuses on:

analysis of the technologies that can

improve hazardous waste management

through:

—reduction of the volume or hazard level

of waste generated;

—better management of the risks associated with waste treatment and disposal;

and

—the cleanup of uncontrolled waste sites;

analysis of the potential benefits and costs

of a framework based on scientific criteria

to judge the relative degree of hazard of

wastes and risks from management facilities; and

evaluation of current regulatory programs,

particularly with regard to technical information and issues.

should be understood that this is an analytical study to provide a basis for policy discussion and examination of legislative options by Congress, and not an attempt to write

new or revise existing regulations for the executive branch or for the States. However,

Federal and State roles in hazardous management for both the near and long term are considered.

The scope of this assessment is limited in the

following ways:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Within the definition of solid waste, which

includes a range from household discards

and municipal sewage to highly radioactive waste, the focus of this study is

nonnuclear industrial hazardous waste

associated with subtitle C of RCRA. No

attempt has been made to analyze the generation and management of hazardous

waste at Federal facilities, although it

is generally understood that very large

amounts of waste which are similar to industrial hazardous waste are generated in

Federal facilities, including numerous

Department of Defense installations.

The primary emphasis of this study is the

management of waste in existing or future

facilities, although the problems associated

with closed facilities and past practices of

abandoned facilities as considered in

CERCLA are dealt with to some extent.

This analysis is concerned with examining

the procedures for assessing the nature, intensity, and monitoring of adverse effects

on health and the environment resulting

from release of hazardous waste or their

constituents into the air, land, or water.

Major attention, however, is not given to

substantiating, documenting, or critically

evaluating the many data associated with

real or potential adverse impacts.

The issues and technical problems associated with transportation and accidental release of hazardous waste are not considered, except to the extent that some technical and policy approaches may help to

minimize transport of waste.

Although technical compliance with regulations is an important area of concern,

strictly administrative and legal enforcement activities associated with regulations

are not analyzed in any major way; however, their importance is found to be critical.
48 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Public opposition to the siting of new hazardous waste facilities has been widespread in

recent years. Means for dealing with public opposition to siting and public participation in

State and local decisionmaking are briefly examined. The role of the Federal Government

in siting of new hazardous waste facilities is

now minimal, but options for more involvement are discussed.

Methodology and Structure of the Report

In preparing this assessment, OTA has utilized a number of means to obtain appropriate

information without, however, attempting major acquisitions of new data or complete inventories of data. Instead, OTA used and performed critical analyses of available data bases,

cooperated with the States in some limited surveys for critical information, and used a case

study approach in a number of instances to

provide a representative basis for analysis,

Other than chapter 1, the summary of the entire report, and this chapter, there are five additional chapters, briefly described below.

Chapter 3 presents eight goals for evaluating

policy options, and five policy options for Congress to consider, The first option is a continuation of the current program. The second is

based on a series of near-term changes in the

current regulatory system, probably through

amendments to RCRA. The third option is to

offer Federal economic incentives for alternatives to waste disposal or dispersal in the environment, The fourth option calls for a study

to develop a waste and facility classification

approach for a comprehensive risk management and regulatory framework, The fifth option is an integration of the many Federal environmental programs that affect hazardous

waste management and regulation. The five options, for the most part, are not mutually exclusive, but can be viewed as a series of complementary steps over a period of time. All options are analyzed for their benefits relative to

the eight policy goals, and for the costs and

problems associated with their implementation. Additionally, four scenarios are used to

illustrate how several options may be combined.

Chapter 4 analyzes the available information

on hazardous waste generation and treatment

and disposal facilities. The linkage between information and the complex nature of the national hazardous waste problem is examined.

An analysis of the current data base for hazardous waste is given. The discussion examines information needs of parties concerned

with hazardous waste, and the consequences

of having incomplete or unreliable information. This material forms an important basis

for the other chapters, particularly with regard

to data limitations that sometimes make policyoriented analyses less quantitative than desirable.

Chapter 5 reviews the broad range of technologies now available and assesses those likely

to be developed for hazardous waste management. A hierarchy is used to present management strategies, ranging from waste or risk

reduction to disposal or dispersal in the biosphere. Technologies are compared and examined for suitability to particular wastes, their

costs, and the technical issues relevant to regulation. The use of the oceans for waste disposal or dispersal, and the cleanup of uncontrolled sites are also discussed.

Chapter 6 examines “state-of-the- art” information and theory on the assessment and management of risks, and the diversity of current

views on these issue areas, The primary purpose of chapter 6 is to provide a base for evaluation of current and alternative policies by defining several technical issues that policies are expected to address, including monitoring and

siting of facilities.

In chapter 7 the current hazard management

and regulatory system at both the Federal and

State levels is reviewed and analyzed. Another

purpose of this chapter is to assess the extent

to which the current system is addressing the

issues discussed in chapter 6, and at what

costs. The Federal and State roles and programs are reviewed and discussed separately.

A number of problems related to implementation of the current regulations are also examined.
CHAPTER 3

Policy Options
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Common Goals for Policy Options ● ● . ● . 52

Five Policy Options ● ......... .. ● ..... . 59

Option I—Continuation of Current Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Option II—A More Comprehensive and Nationally Consistent RCRA Program . . . 67

Option III–Use of Economic Incentives for Alternatives to Disposal and

Dispersal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Option IV—Development and Potential Use of a Hazard Classification

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Option V—Planning for Greater Integration of Environmental Protection

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

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

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

List of Tables

Table No. Page

10. Waste Management Methods Indicated on TSCA Premanufacturing Notices . . 74

11. Illustration of a Hazardous Waste Generator Tax Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

12. illustrative Examples of a Potential Hazard Classification Framework . . . . . . . . 89

13. Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

14. Comparstive Ranking of Policy Options for Each Policy Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure

Figure No. Page

3. Illustration of Changing Federal Waste Fee System Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
CHAPTER 3

Policy Options

Introduction

This chapter presents for congressional examination five policy options for the Federal

hazardous waste program. Rather than mere

control of potential threats, the primary problem facing the current program has become

one of preventing impending crisis situations,

which present sudden problems of large proportions. For example, aquifers serving as

sources of drinking water have recently been

discovered to be contaminated from hazardous

waste, Little reliable information concerning

the likelihood of future incidents is available—and, as this study indicates, there is a

lack of general confidence that current regulations will prevent future incidents. However,

there is general agreement that it is far more

costly to respond to such adverse effects than

to prevent them.

The five policy options, which are evaluated

in terms of certain overall goals, are as follows:

●

•

●

●

●

Option I: Continuation of the Current Program.

Option II: A More Comprehensive and Nationally Consistent RCRA Program.

Option III: Use of Economic Incentives for

Alternatives to Disposal and Dispersal of

Hazardous Waste,

Option IV: Development and Potential Use

of a Hazard Classification Framework.

Option V: Planning for Greater Integration

of Environmental Protection Programs.

With the exception of the first, maintaining

the current direction of the evolving regulatory

program, the other four policy options, taken

together, can be viewed as a series of complementary changes to improve and reorient the

current program. Four scenarios are presented

to indicate how several options may be combined. For example, one scenario (a combination of options I and III) responds both to the

belief that the current regulatory program, will

prove to be effective and to the need to promote greater use of alternatives to land disposal.

One general constraint on this consideration

of policy options is that analysis has been less

quantitative than desired because of a lack of

complete and reliable data. Detailed analyses

of the costs and benefits of particular options

require extensive data concerning wastes, facilities and technologies, and potential adverse

impacts on health and the environment, This

information is generally unavailable or insufficient. A discussion of available data is contained in chapter 4.

Moreover, the objectives and limitations of

this study (described in ch. 2) should be kept

in mind when considering these policy options.

The focus of this assessment has been on technologies and management strategies; the policy

options address problems and issues associated

primarily with these two areas. Although this

study does not focus on strictly administrative

and procedural issues, such as enforcement of

regulations, permitting of facilities, or authorization of State programs, OTA examined these

problems when they were closely connected

to the technical components of the regulatory

program,

The General Accounting Office, among

others, has focused on several administrative

aspects, including the critical area of enforcement, in a number of reports to Congress, Most

recently, a congressional study has documented

critical concerns in the enforcement of both

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

[RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

of 1980 (C ERCLA) statutes and regulations.1

There are indications of an increased adminis-

‘U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and

Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, report on enforcement of hazardous and toxic substances regulations during fiscal year 1982, October 1982.

51
52 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

trative reliance on voluntary compliance and

settlements with responsible parties, and of

substantial reductions in funding for enforcement activities. OTA’S study of technical issues

and problems, such as the effectiveness of pollution control regulations or the exemption of

waste from RCRA regulation, cannot substitute

for congressional examination of the administration of the Federal program. The policy actions discussed below, regardless of their

merits, are not likely to produce favorable

results unless enforcement is effective.

Common Goals for Policy Options

The current Federal hazardous waste program presents a dilemma. There is a sense of

urgency and impatience, derived from 6 years

of difficulties in dealing with an extremely

broad and complex set of issues. Suggesting

changes in Federal policies, therefore, creates

concerns over the possibility of still more delays, Those who support the current Federal

program (both RCRA and CERCLA) believe

there is a need to allow more time before conclusions concerning effectiveness are drawn

and possibly disruptive changes are made. On

the other hand, there is also a widespread belief

that current programs could be made more

technically, economically, and socially effective. Waiting for the determination of the current program’s effectiveness, it is argued, may

lead to the development of outright crises, such

as widespread ground water contamination.

There is consensus that we are now acting

more effectively than in the past to protect the

public from improper hazardous waste management. But there is also considerable evidence (concerning, e.g., the technical limitations and uncertainties of land disposal techniques) that we may be acting in ways which

are too temporary in nature, leading to greater

public risks in the future, and increased ultimate costs to industry, the government, and the

public,

This dilemma must be considered in the context of reduced funds for government programs. Such conditions may prompt industry,

State and Federal Governments, and the public

to avoid additional costs associated with a

cleaner environment in order to cope with economic difficulties. Options that defer costs, that

do not jeopardize current industrial activities,

that shift risks to the future, may become more

attractive than in the past. Such tradeoffs pose

formidable choices for policy makers, made

more difficult by current uncertainties concerning the effectiveness of laws and programs

not yet fully implemented.

It is therefore helpful to define specific goals

for policy options for purposes of comparison

and evaluation. Eight such goals for any practical congressional option are presented below.

These goals will be used later to evaluate each

of the policy options.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties by:

• reducing the magnitude and hazardous nature of

potential releases of waste constituents from all

types of waste generation and management facilities,

● improving monitoring programs to quickly detect

such releases, and

● improving corrective actions to mitigate releases.

Many of the analytical results of chapters 5,

6, and 7 support the need for improving the

level of protection of human. health and the environment by concentrating on technical, as

well as administrative, matters. It would be

desirable to achieve this goal without causing

undue delays in the program that could have

counterproductive effects leading to unacceptable releases before improved policies and programs became effective, and would seriously

erode public confidence. It should be clearly

understood that the current Federal hazardous

waste program offers unequivocal improvements over the virtual absence of regulations

that existed previously.
Ch. 3—Policy Options • 53

GOAL 2

Expand the universe of federally regulated hazardous

waste, recognizing that different levels of regulation

under RCRA may be appropriate and desirable.

During the inception of the RCRA program,

it was reasonable to limit the scope of regulated

wastes. It has become increasingly clear, however, that the exemption of hazardous waste

from Federal regulation has not been well correlated with the degree of hazard of the waste.

Nonregulated (under subtitle C of RCRA) hazardous waste may constitute very large volumes (see ch. 4) and may be legally disposed

of in ways that threaten health and the environment.

There is no way of knowing with certainty

whether the current regulatory program is directed at those wastes representing the greatest

or most immediate threats. It is probable that

both underregulation and overregulation are

occurring. A more inclusive approach could

address problems created by disposing of unregulated hazardous waste in sanitary landfills.

Furthermore, careful definition of specific levels of increased control could reduce the

amount of effort currently expended in attempts to have various wastes delisted.

Policy options should be evaluated with regard to their effect on bringing those wastes

that are hazardous to any degree into the regulatory system in appropriate ways, if only for

reporting and notification for low-hazard

waste. Policy options differ regarding the determination and recognition of varying levels

of hazard (assessment, e.g., maybe only qualitative) and in corresponding assignments of appropriate levels of regulatory control.

More complete regulatory coverage of hazardous waste would likely improve public confidence in the Federal program, thus contributing to the achievement of goal 8. Such

control could lessen concern that wastes regulated on State initiative may receive low priority. Furthermore, there would be less likelihood of new uncontrolled waste sites requiring large Federal expenditures in the future.

A more inclusive system would encourage

the development of new waste management

technologies (see ch. 5) for an increased and

more stable commercial market (goal 3). It

would also facilitate the development of improved data bases [goal 4).

GOAL 3

Encourage development and use of technological alternatives to land disposal (including land and ocean

dispersal), such as waste reduction and treatment, to

reduce risks resulting from release of hazardous waste

constituents into the environment.

This policy goal reflects a primary strategy

of minimizing releases of hazardous constituents by initially avoiding the placement of hazardous waste in the environment. There are approaches for the control of risks involved in

disposal and dispersal. However, those desiring to use such options should demonstrate

that acceptable levels of releases are achieved

and maintained for the particular waste so

managed.

Chapter 5 discusses various technologies and

the different levels of certainty and reliability

they provide with regard to control of releases

into the environment. Disposal and dispersal

of hazardous waste in the environment involve too many uncertainties concerning acceptable levels of releases. Cleanup of uncontrolled sites involves unacceptable levels of

technical difficulty, cost, and uncertainty.

Discussions and analyses of the current

regulatory programs in chapter 7 also indicate

that the use of disposal and dispersal approaches should be minimized. Ground water

contamination is a primary threat. A U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) report supports

these concerns:

Present technology is not adequate to develop

regulations to protect the public from hazardous waste contamination in a cost effective

manner. Major technical questions are yet to

be answered regarding the behavior of specific

wastes under different hydrogeologic conditions and on the safety, suitability, and economics of restoration and disposal methods. z

“’Management Implementation Plan, FY 1984,” for Toxic

Waste-Ground-Water Contamination [Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Geological Survey, Sept. 27, 1982).
54 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

There will always be questions concerning

the definition and determination of acceptable

risks. It is clear, however, that the safest course

is to promote the use of waste reduction and

treatment alternatives as much as is possible

and practicable. In so doing, costs must be appropriately taken into account. RCRA does not

mandate a balancing of costs and risks as a

means of determining what should be done to

protect the public good. Instead, a cost-effectiveness approach is indicated, by which the

management alternative is chosen that, for the

least cost, adequately protects human health

and the environment.

GOAL 4

Improve and expand data and information on hazardous wastes, facilities, and their effects which are necessary for more reliable risk assessments and for the

implementation of RCRA and CERCLA by both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States.

Complete information on any major national

problem is hardly ever attainable, in order to

improve waste management and risk assessment, better information is needed on the

following:

●

●

●

●

A

The level of generation of all hazardous

waste, if federally regulated as such, in the

States and for the Nation as a whole, as

a function of chemical and physical types,

and origin.

The numbers and capacities of active

waste facilities, both onsite and offsite (or

commercial), particularly as a function of

technology type, types of waste managed,

and levels of control for release of waste

constituents into the environment.

The number and location of inactive waste

management facilities or open dump sites,

and the types and amounts of wastes associated with these sites.

The range of potential health and environmental effects as a function of waste type,

management technology and facility, and

type of location.

major finding of chapter 4 was that the

currently available data and information resources concerning hazardous waste, technologies and facilities, and adverse effects are

incomplete, inconsistent, and unreliable in

various important respects. This does not imply that the data and information currently

available are so inadequate that implementation of the current program or its modifications

is not possible. With regard to evaluation, however, EPA has noted that its “ ‘managing for

results’ program for evaluating the effectiveness of its environmental programs may require better and more timely environmental

data from the States . . .“3

Several important benefits would result from

consequent improvements of data. The facilitation of hazard and risk assessments, as discussed in chapters 6 and 7, would be of particular importance. Also, specific technical criteria could be incorporated into RCRA regulations and into certain elements of CERCLA,

particularly the National Contingency Plan and

the determination of the extent of cleanup at

uncontrolled sites (see ch, 5). The current absence of specific technical criteria in regulations may be based on a reluctance to present

such criteria based on available information,

recognizing that changes are inevitable as improved data are obtained. Management systems cannot be evaluated as to effectiveness

without adequate data and information bases.

It is important to recognize the problems

which EPA has faced thus far in this area. The

large burden of initiating the RCRA program,

a lack of consistent congressional and administrative priorities, the difficulty of obtaining

data, the large amounts of data required, and

the continuing finding that the data obtained

early in the program lacked accuracy are representative. Some mandates for obtaining data

and information were given in the RCRA and

CERCLA legislation. These, however, suffer

from a lack of coordination, completeness, and

expeditious implementation by EPA, Also a

greater understanding of the limits of the National Manifest System is needed; it deals only

with waste transported of offsite, which vary

markedly among States and comprise only a

fraction (usually 10 to 30 percent) of the total

3

Lewis S. W, Crampton, EPA Issue Papers, September 1982.
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 5 5

amount of waste generated. A greater appreciation is needed for the value of regular reports

from all waste generators rather than surveys

based only on samples which EPA has decided

to use.4 Also needed is greater understanding

that data require continued updating and verification, with ongoing analyses, and procedures

to facilitate public access to both the data and

analyses. Furthermore, coordination of the information collected under the RCRA and

CERCLA programs, in other major programs

in EPA, and in other Federal efforts could be

improved. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that many data need to be safeguarded to

protect company confidentiality and proprietary rights, and that a balance must be struck

between this need and the right of the public

to have access to data and information.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand participation in RCRA and

CERCLA by the States through better definition, implementation, and support of both Federal and State

responsibilities.

It is essential that policy options be evaluated

as to their definition of the role of the States

and EPA, and how they might improve and expand participation by the States. It makes no

sense whatsoever to shift responsibilities to the

States unless there is a corresponding improvement in their resources (financial, technical,

and human] to carry out those increased responsibilities. A recent analysis of these responsibilities concluded that:

EPA lacks the administrative capacity and

knowledge of local conditions necessary to implement RCRA by itself; states lack the research

capacity to develop complex regulations, Con4EPA’s policy on annual reporting requirements has shifted

several times, but as of a notice in the Federal Register on Oct.

12, 1982, the annual reporting requirement for waste generators

and facilities has been replaced by a nationwide biennial survey

by EPA directly with waste handlers, The States have raised a

number of objections to this policy, including a conflict with

congressional intent (sec. 3006 of RCRA), bypassing authorized

States who have the responsibility for such collection, and lack

of timely improvements in the complete national data base. Letter

from Richard A. Valentinetti, President, Association of State and

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Nov. 4, 1982, to

Rita LaVelle, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency,

sequently, EPA and the states must share responsibility for implementing the statute under

the state programs provisions. Sharing responsibility means tolerating differences. In evaluating state applications for final authorization

under RCRA, EPA should construe the requirement that state programs be consistent with

and equivalent to the Federal program. This

will allow states the flexibility to design their

programs to reflect local conditions (and] to be

more stringent than the federal program. Sharing responsibility also means fulfilling obligations. EPA has been inexcusably slow in promulgating final RCRA regulations. EPA has

made it difficult for states to develop hazardous waste programs; states have no clear idea

what differences between state and federal programs will be allowed or even what the federal

program will look like. ”5

It is important to view RCRA and CERCLA

as two components of a joint Federal-State program. It was not a goal of this assessment to

examine the problems and issues associated

with the delegation of RCRA program responsibility to the States or with the role of the States

in CERCLA. However, during the course of

this study it often became necessary to examine State actions and concerns, particularly as

they relate to scientific and technological factors. For example, as discussed in chapter 4,

the varying ways in which the States have decided which hazardous wastes to regulate and

whether, and how, to exempt small generators

is quite important to an understanding of the

scope of the hazardous waste problem. The

choice of sites and remediation technologies

under CERCLA, as discussed in chapters 5 and

7, is also directly related to Federal-State interactions and vitally affects risks to the public.

The Federal hazardous waste program has

had many positive effects on State programs,

often raising standards, prompting regulatory

coverage where none previously existed, providing technical information, and helping to

streamline State administration of hazardous

waste regulations which are sometimes split

among several State groups. However, this

—

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

Control: Cooperation or Confusion, ” Harvard Enviromnental

Law Review, vol. 6, 1982, pp. 307-337.
56 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

—

study, along with hearings during 1982 concerning congressional oversight and RCRA reauthorization, has made it apparent that there

are serious problems in Federal-State relationships.

Although the States do not have to accept

program responsibility, State-run programs can

be made more attractive by provision of adequate Federal funding and efficient administration of RCRA and CERCLA by EPA. * The findings of chapter 7 (concerning problems of the

current Federal program) support the contention of many States that they must exercise

their right under RCRA to be more stringent

than the Federal program, The Federal program, they argue, should be viewed, as intended by Congress, as a regulatory “floor”

rather than as a “ceiling. ” RCRA limits variations among State programs by making final

authorization contingent on State programs

being “equivalent to” and “consistent with” the

Federal program. However, it appears that

EPA may frequently be authorizing State programs that are identical to the Federal program

(a “mirror” approach) which States sometimes

view as too lax. The States also maintain that

the legislative use of the word “program,”

rather than “regulations,” supports their position that equivalency and consistency should

be based primarily on the effectiveness of State

programs rather than on statutes and regulations themselves.6

There are sound technical reasons why some

variations in standards and regulations may be

appropriate among the States. Differences in

hydrogeologic conditions, climatic conditions,

population distributions, public attitudes to-

*It should be noted that although most view the position of

the States as necessitating receiving RCRA authorization from

EPA in order to have a hazardous waste program responsive

to public concerns, it is possible for States to allow EPA to

administer the Federal program within their States and to also

administer their own State program as a separate activity. This

would place burdens on the regulated community, but might

appear attractive to States if Federal support, both financial and

technical, were deemed insufficient, or if the Federal program

were deemed too lax.

6Letter from Richard A. Valentinetti, President, Association

of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials to

Thomas W. Curtis, National Governors’ Association, Nov. 15,

1982.

ward acceptable risks, types of industries, and

types of waste management facilities already

in place are such factors.

The States have much to offer to the national

hazardous waste program. There is considerably more practical experience at the State level

(although actual data and technological expertise may be lacking in many cases), more intimate knowledge of what exactly is taking place

in waste generation and management, and

more experience with interpretation and enforcement of waste regulations than at the Federal level. A number of States have considerable experience in permitting of facilities under

State statutes, whereas Federal permitting has

barely begun.

Furthermore, many innovative programs exist at the State level, but the extent to which

these could be advantageously transferred to

the Federal level, or to other States, has been

little studied. Examples of such innovations

include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

degree-of-hazard approaches to varying

levels of appropriate waste regulation,

which sometimes conflict with the Federal

“floor” approach;

plans to prohibit the use of landfills for

particularly hazardous waste;

prohibition of the disposal of bulk, and in

some States even containerized, liquid

waste in landfills;

fee systems to shift private sector choices

toward waste reduction efforts and away

from the use of landfills;

direct incentives for alternatives to land

disposal;

some regulation of facilities that recycle

wastes;

development of workable siting criteria

and plans;

onsite inspectors for waste facilities;

delegation of decisionmaking authority to

county government; and

extensive, specific provisions for involving

the public in regulatory decisionmaking.

If Congress attempts to detail the Federal and

State responsibilities under RCRA, various issues require clarification, For example, States
Ch. 3—Policy Options . 57

are often asked to enforce standards, regulations, and policies that they believe are not in

the public interest, and that they believe to be

incorrect, misdirected, or unenforceable, Congress may wish to consider modifying or clarifying administrative regulatory procedures,

such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA), so as to involve States differently than

the manner in which other interested parties

now participate in regulatory development and

rulemaking. States could contribute actively,

rather than reactively, with Federal recognition

that the States have a responsibility to participate in policy formulation, and not merely implementation of federally mandated policies,

A recent report to EPA by the Association of

State and Territorial Solid Waste Management

Officials (ASTSWMO) addresses this problem:

Despite both the congressional mandate for

EPA to seek consultation from the States in the

regulatory development process and the current Administration’s proclivity toward supporting the New Federalism concept, EPA has

been protected from outside State opinion.

EPA’s use of the FACA law and of the ex parte

rule have provided questionable rationales for

denying State intervention in the regulatory

decision-making process. Reinterpretation of

ASTSWMO members (who are State government employees] as EPA principals would also

attempt to eliminate FACA/ex parte restrictions

so that State participation could occur at any

point during the entire regulatory development

process. Information flow from EPA to

ASTSWMO member States has been hampered

. . . by the EPA policy to not include

ASTSWMO in Federal planning and strategy

activities.7

One conflict concerns the choice of remedial

technologies to clean up uncontrolled sites

under CERCLA (see chs. 5 and 7). The Federal

bias is toward using low capital or initial cost

approaches, for which the Federal program

pays 90 percent (or 50 percent in the case of

State or municipally owned sites), and that may

have high, and highly uncertain, operating and

maintenance costs, which the States pay entirely. The States favor approaches that are higher

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

October 1982.

in initial costs, but that deal more permanently with the problems of the sites and are likely

to have relatively low operating and maintenance costs. For example, in many cases, waste

in uncontrolled sites are transferred to another

land disposal site, rather than being treated or

destroyed.

Another problem associated with CERCLA

concerns funding. Presently no continuing

Federal support is provided to State activities

for early identification and evaluation of uncontrolled sites for possible CERCLA funding,

including the extensive effort required to obtain data to rank sites for the National Priority

List, searches for responsible parties, analysis

of possible remediation approaches, responding to EPA directives, and support of EPA’s

enforcement activities, A recent survey of

States indicates that about 10 percent of the

RCRA grants to the States are being used for

these CERCLA activities,a

Technical aspects of State programs could

be improved by Federal requirements for reliable technical information and guidance. If

there is insufficient data from waste generators, States may have difficulty determining

whether particular wastes are being managed

properly, or whether they are being handled

illegally. This is a problem with onsite generation and management currently outside the

Federal manifest system, unless there is sufficient reporting requirements to obtain detailed

information.

The role of the States in data acquisition is

also unclear. States could participate more directly in the critical task of improving the data

base (as discussed above) by serving as direct

sources of information, in contrast to the current Federal practice of using contractors on

an ad hoc basis. Such contractors are often

only costly intermediaries, doing little else than

contacting the States for information, with too

little attention given to organizing data into a

common format, and to verifying the quality

Qf the 30 States providing information, 23 used RCRA funds

in fiscal year 1982 for CERCLA activities, these States accounted

for 46 of the 115 sites on the original interim Superfund priority

list. Personal communication from the Association of State and

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, November 1982.

99-113 0 - 83 - 5
58 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

and accuracy of the data. It would be useful

to have a clearer policy defining the Federal

and State roles with regard to acquiring and

maintaining data bases. It appears appropriate

to consider the States to have the prime

responsibility for data, with EPA serving as

the institution ensuring consistent definitions, providing uniform formats for data acquisition, acting to validate data, and serving as a central compiler of data obtained

from the States.

RCRA grants to the State programs should

reflect the large and costly tasks of collecting

information and making it useful through analysis, data processing, and computer retrieval

(see ch. 4). OTA studies show that, in a number

of States, reports and manifest forms containing useful data remain unexamined and unprocessed because of a lack of resources, such

as lack of computer facilities.9 Routine State

activities often require complete information

bases, from which surveys based on statistical

samples can have only limited use. These samples do not provide data on specific facilities

requiring inspection and permitting that State

officials may not be aware of. Furthermore,

statistical results for the Nation do not reveal

unique State or regional conditions.

GOAL 6

Moderate the inevitable increases in the costs of Federal and State program administration and regulatory

compliance by industry and minimize costs associated

with site remediation and compensation for further damages to health and the environment which may result

from current practices that could be improved.

As discussed in chapter 7, the private sector

annual costs of complying with RCRA and

CERCLA are now estimated to be in the range

of $4 billion to $5 billion, and total Federal and

State costs are about $200 million annually.

With the RCRA and CERCLA programs just

now in their early phase of implementation, increased costs are to be expected. Private sector costs with the current Federal-State program are estimated to increase to about $12

billion (in 1981 dollars) in 1990 (see ch. 7). Even

● Personal communication from the Association of State and

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.

a modest improvement in the efficiency of the

Federal and State programs could save many

millions of dollars. One of the greatest uncertainties concerns the extent to which present

government policies and private sector management choices will result in the creation of

future uncontrolled sites, with consequent releases of hazardous constituents, costly cleanup actions, and expensive liability suits. It is

important, therefore, to evaluate policy options

for their ability to reduce long-term costs for

both government and the private sector.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future, whether several years or to future generations, and reduce costs

of waste management that are externalized and shifted

to society in general.

There should be minimal transfer of risks

and costs to the future, whether it be years or

decades, on general grounds of equity. Furthermore, deferrals of optimal solutions inevitably

lead to a compounding of the technical nature

of the problem, to marked increases in costs,

and sometimes to the prevention of any practical solution (as, e.g., in the contamination of

a large underground aquifer serving as a major source of drinking water). As discussed

above, and in chapters 5 and 6, it must be

assumed that use of the environment for disposal and dispersal of various wastes now constitutes a threat for the future because of the

high probability of releases of hazardous constituents into the environment.

There are two basic reasons for fully internalizing waste management costs, including the

possibility of future remedial actions and compensation for damages to human health and the

environment. First, on the basis of equity, it is

proper that those persons most responsible for

waste generation should pay for proper management, including those choosing to consume

products or use services requiring the generation of hazardous waste. Second, if the management alternatives most protective of the public

good are to be promoted, then it is reasonable

to penalize those alternatives providing lower

levels of protection.
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 5 9

.— —

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over the siting of hazardous

waste management facilities by improved implementation and enforcement of government programs.

It is obvious that hazardous waste will continue to be generated. Even with reductions in

some waste generation resulting from the current regulatory program and greater concerns

with future liabilities, there will probably be

an overall increase in hazardous waste generation if economic activity increases. Such increases may require new facilities. If there is

a shift away from land disposal as the dominant management choice, new treatment facilities will be required. It is also possible that

more land disposal facilities may be required,

depending on how the current regulatory program (particularly permitting) affects existing

facilities, on the level of success in shifting to

alternative management options, and on the

level of future waste generation. Public concern over permitting existing facilities and siting new ones, therefore, poses a serious problem for improving hazardous waste management.

Public concern over the need for, and siting

of, new waste management facilities can be addressed through both technical and institutional approaches. Technical approaches include

improved public understanding of alternative

management strategies, effective technology

options, future capacity needs, varying hazard

levels for wastes and facilities, health and environmental effects, hydrogeologic siting criteria,

and present and future costs. As discussed in

chapter 6, there is no assurance that better information will remove public opposition to siting of new waste facilities, but there is hope

that public confidence in government policies

can be improved. With increased public confidence, public concerns and private sector

needs may be better reconciled,

Five Policy Options

OTA has defined five options that would address both short- and long-term needs and

problems of the Federal hazardous waste program. As indicated earlier, with the exception

of the status quo option, the remaining options

can be viewed as a complementary series of

changes that would improve and reorient the ●

program over time, The five options are stated

below, followed by a more detailed discussion

of each,

Option I: Continuation of the Current

Program.-The current program, together

with certain planned changes, is maintained.

Option 11: A More Comprehensive and

Nationally Consistent RCRA Program.—

Near-term changes in regulations can be

made by making amendments to RCRA.

These changes include a redefinition of

which wastes are regulated and to what extent, a shift toward limiting land disposal,

the introduction of limited class permits,

and the greater use of specific technical

criteria in regulations. These changes

would not alter the structure of the current

program, but, they would significantly impact the regulated community.

Option III: Use of Economic Incentives

for Alternatives to Disposal and Dispersal.—This is a near-term program to

reduce the use of disposal and dispersal

approaches to waste management by providing direct economic incentives for alternatives such as waste reduction, recycling,

and treatment. Three key components of

a comprehensive incentive program are

a fee system on hazardous wastes generated, a means to address capital investment needs, and assistance for research

and development (R&D). Such a program

could be implemented by either amendment to RCRA or CERCLA or by a new

statute,
60 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Option IV: Development and Potential

Use of a Hazard Classification Framework.—This is a longer term program to

first study and then possibly adopt some

type of waste and facility hazard classification as a systematic framework for regulatory decisionmaking. Such a system can

be used for setting priorities, setting monitoring requirements, and determining the

appropriate level and type of regulation,

including performance standards. It could

be implemented by amendment to RCRA,

with the first phase consisting of a study

to further examine and better quantify potential benefits, as well as feasibility,

design, and implementation problems.

Option V: Planning for Integration of Environmental Protection Programs.—This

would be a long-term effort, beginning

with a study, to integrate existing environmental programs. Major goals would be

the elimination of gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies in regulatory coverage, and

the prevention of RCRA permitting of facilities that improperly manage hazardous

waste regulated under other acts. The first

phase would consist of a major examination of how such integration could be

achieved and the presentation of a plan for

integration, including an analysis of the

need for statutory changes. This option is

consistent with section 1006 of RCRA

which directs such integration by the EPA

Administrator, but which does not require

a submission of a plan to Congress nor a

specific time for such integration. In the

second phase, Congress would examine

the plan and consider necessary statutory

changes.

Option I

Continuation of Current Program

This option assumes that the mandates of

both RCRA and CERCLA may be met by the

current Federal hazardous waste program. It

should be recognized that the present program

is not static. EPA has indicated several plans

for changes and improvements in the near

term. l0

Unlike the other policy options, no unusual

implementation problems and costs are associated with this “status quo” option. Criticisms

of the option are based on perceptions of current problems, or point to unacceptable risks

and costs involved in waiting for the program

to “prove itself. ” In the following discussion,

the current program, the “status quo” option,

is evaluated in terms of the eight goals presented earlier.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of human health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties.

Analysis of the benefits of the “status quo”

option relative to this goal clearly presents the

conflicts between short- and long-term evaluation. This option, by definition, involves no

delays or revisions of the current program, and

the current program is certainly providing increased protection than existed previously.

Final regulations have been promulgated and

permitting is beginning. State programs are

being authorized. CERCLA-funded cleanups of

uncontrolled sites are taking place. Enforcement actions for both RCRA and CERCLA are

occurring. Better information is being obtained.

However, to the extent that the level of protection is lower than it could be, the benefit

from this option is less than it could be. On balance, this option is considered to offer a moderate benefit. Criticisms of’ the current program

have been shaped by past delays and changes

in direction and primarily focus on: 1) the

speed and extent of its acknowledged advantages relative to what existed previously, and

2) ambiguous signals given to decisionmakers

in the regulated community. Uncertainties over

l’JThe primary source for future directions of EPA’s current

program is a letter dated Sept. 7, “1982, from Rita M, Lavelle,

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, to the Honorable Thcjmas P. O’Neill, Jr., Speaker

of the House of Representatives.
the program’s eventual

lated to the following:

effectiveness are re1. continued litigation, judicial decisions, or

negotiated settlements, that result in

changes in policies and regulations;

2. negative public response to new regulations; and

3. adverse impacts on health or environment

that were otherwise avoidable, or that

clearly would not be prevented by the present program even if it had been in place

earlier.

These uncertainties, and other factors detracting from the benefits of the current program, are discussed further in the consideration of the remaining seven management goals.

GOAL 2

Expand the kinds of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

This option offers a minor benefit, There is

no systematic program or policy to substantially remove current exemptions or to close gaps

in regulatory coverage. But certain exemptions

are being dealt with by EPA on an ad hoc basis,

The current RCRA subtitle C program regulates only a portion of the Nation’s solid wastes

that have hazardous characteristics, This situation has resulted primarily from both congressional and administrative exemptions granted

to facilitate the initiation of the national program. There are also established procedures for

removing wastes from the RCRA lists. The exemption of small generators of hazardous

wastes is being examined, and may be refined

with regard to both the level of waste required

for exemption and the types of waste generated, Similarly, EPA has stated its intention of

proposing regulations in 1983 covering the

burning of hazardous waste as fuels, now currently exempt from RCRA coverage. For the

most part, however, the major exemptions existing in RCRA as mandated by Congress

would remain, and those areas being reviewed

by EPA may remain unchanged for some years,

With regard to how wastes are regulated,

there are for example limited, missing, or unCh. 3—Policy Options ● 6 1

certain restrictions on land disposal of certain

types of waste that present well-known risks.

Such wastes include:

1,

2.

3.

4.

liquid wastes in landfills;

particularly persistent, mobile, and toxic

wastes in landfills and surface impoundments; and

volatile wastes in surface impoundments;

and

wastes that have the abilitv to degrade the

liners in landfills and surface impoundments.

EPA has indicated that studies are underway

to determine the basis for prohibiting land disposal of hazardous waste which are highly toxic, persistent, and mobile where alternative

treatment or recovery technologies are reasonably available. Also, requirements for monitoring and control of volatile organic compounds

in land disposal facilities are being studied,

Furthermore, the regulation of industrial hazardous waste going into municipal water treatment systems or requiring pretreatment under

the Clean Water Act (CWA) has not yet been

fully implemented. There is some evidence that

regulation of hazardous waste under CWA, but

not under RCRA, may lead to the release of

hazardous substances into the environment.

For the regulated waste list as a whole, there

remains considerable uncertainty concerning

how and when this universe might increase or

decrease without congressional action.

GOAL 3

Encourage alternatives to land disposal.

Only minor benefits in this area seem likely.

There is little direct attention currently being

given to promoting new management and technology approaches. The current RCRA program emphasizes using traditional command

and control regulations for disposal of hazardous waste, with the belief that by making

disposal options more stringently regulated

and more costly, alternatives to disposal will

become more attractive to waste generators. To

some extent, this strategy and the “cradle to

grave” system works. However, the success of
62 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

the current approach relies on the imposition

of, or expectation of, more stringent and more

costly requirements for waste disposal facilities; the outcome is not yet certain.

An additional factor in the current program

(which, some may argue, is more significant

than the impact of the control regulations) is

the effect of the liability requirements in RCRA

and CERCLA. These requirements appear to

be significantly impacting management decisions of both waste generators and facility

operators. The primary effect is to shift priorities away from land disposal (with its uncertainties and potential liabilities for future release of hazardous substances) toward the use

of economically attractive alternatives that

more permanently deal with hazardous waste

problems. However, there are uncertainties as

to the impact of liability requirements because

of:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

the limited time that the liability requirements have been in place and the lack of

information about compliance;

the varying, often limited policies offered

by the insurance industry and the different

and evolving procedures they use for evaluating risks;*

the perception by some that enforcement

efforts are too ineffective to lead to determination of responsible parties;

the lack of experience with claims;

the very limited actuarial data concerning

the risks associated with disposal technologies, with either existing facilities or new

facilities, based on compliance with the

final regulations;

changing and expanding legal theories of

liability as a result of legislation and judicial decisions; and

the self-insurance provisions.

● There is no standard procedure used by insurance companies

to assess the practices and risks of hazardous waste management facilities. Through a number of informal meetings between

OTA staff and insurance industry personnel, it has been verified

that risk assessment procedures vary substantially. Current procedures ranged from: no site inspection whatsoever; to relatively

nontechnical inspections with no physical testing to verify past

or present waste management practices, the nature of the waste

managed, or the hydrogeologic nature of the site; to very sophisticated assessments involving highly trained personnel and physical testing.

Moreover, there may bean indirect disincentive in current regulations. The performance

standards for land disposal techniques are less

detailed and, to some extent, less stringent and

more flexible than the regulations for incineration. Therefore, the costs of incineration (determined, in part, by the regulations) remain noncompetitive with land disposal techniques. Furthermore, there are no final technical standards

for some waste treatment technologies, such

as certain chemical and biological treatments,

which leads to much uncertainty about future

regulation, and makes their commercial development and use difficult.

The current program generally does not regulate hazardous waste that is being recycled

or put to “beneficial” use (e. g., waste burned

as fuels), except for regulations covering

transportation, storage, or generation. Therefore, the present policies can be regarded as

providing an indirect incentive for recycling.

Alternatively, this minimal level of regulation

can be viewed as related to possible release of

hazardous substances from such operations.

Some justification for this concern exists

because of the large number of CERCLA sites

which have been selected for remedial attention that were recycling facilities originally.

Furthermore, current land disposal regulations do not distinguish where retrofitting of

existing facilities may be both technically feasible and appropriate (see ch. 7). Nor do they consider how certain types of waste may be best

managed in existing or new facilities depending on their hazard levels. The lack of restrictions on waste for disposal has two major effects. First, the long-term risks associated with

land disposal may be increased, particularly for

existing facilities. Second, the market for disposal techniques may be increased at the expense of treatment alternatives with higher direct costs. Also, there are no financial responsibility requirements for corrective action.

In summary, the current program indirectly

promotes some use of alternatives to waste disposal. However, to the extent that the full shortand long-term costs of disposal options are still

not fully internalized (because of the nature of

the regulations and their effect on costs and
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 6 3

markets, as discussed below), there remains an

incentive to use disposal or dispersal options.

Moreover, the current program does not directly provide counterbalancing incentives for

alternatives to disposal, and EPA’s R&D programs currently include very limited activities

in the areas of advanced technologies and alternatives to disposal. *

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLA

implementation.

Because of the increasing maturity of the current program, with attempts to rectify acknowledged deficiencies in information and analysis,

this option provides a moderate benefit. Problems remain, however. There appears to be an

absence of a systematic, long-range program

for expanding and maintaining a national hazardous waste data base. Coordination of efforts

among different groups within EPA and other

executive agencies appears insufficient. Responses to congressionally mandated efforts

related to data and information have not been

timely. Definition of the role of the States in

data acquisition and analysis, and the provision of sufficient financial support for such

State activities has not been accomplished.

Partly as a result of these problems, there is a

lack of information concerning unregulated

waste that might be regulated in the future.

The limitations on data are related to what

some consider to be a very disturbing aspect

of current RCRA and CERCLA regulations—

i.e., their lack of specificity concerning technical criteria. The regulations are, for the most

part, based on performance rather than design,

though often a mixture of both. There is concern, however, over the frequent lack of specif-

*The phrase “from cradle to grave” used to describe the current RCRA program was created with land disposal in mind.

However, it is interesting that in creating a metaphor for “from

beginning to end” of “from birth to death” that grave was used

to connote the end point of waste management. Considering both

the extensive use of land disposal and the likelihood of releases

of hazardous constituents into the environment, use of the word

grave is somewhat misleading. A more apt and useful metaphor

for the waste management cycle would be “from cradle to

urn’ ’—with urn suggesting incineration and true destruction of

the waste as the most desirable end point.

ic technical criteria to establish acceptable performance. Interpretations of many standards

and permitting decisions are left to regional

EPA administrators and permit writers. In

some instances, they may be aided by advisories and technical resource documents issued by EPA. This approach can be defended

on the basis that hazardous waste facilities and

sites possess uniquely different characteristics.

While flexibility is definitely needed, particularly from a State perspective, from a Federal

perspective this approach may provide too little assurance that the intended stringency of

the regulations will be obtained consistently

throughout the Nation.

A particularly critical example of this lack

of specific technical criteria is found in the National Contingency Plan under CERCLA where

the “How clean is clean?” question is often

posed. Although a reasonable process is specified for determining the extent of remedial

cleanup, the absence of technical criteria

places the CERCLA program in jeopardy.

However, EPA believes this approach is appropriate because of the site-specific nature of the

problem and the need to move ahead with the

program expeditiously. Others believe that

standards for allowable levels of release from

sites after emergency or remedial action are

needed. Such standards should be consistent

with either existing Federal and State standards for levels of hazardous substances in the

environment, or with available scientific information if regulations do not address the types

of chemicals associated with hazardous waste.

Much of the concern over this issue is related

to the possibility of CERCLA-funded remedial

actions that are found to be ineffective at a

later date, when the State is responsible and

CERCLA funds are no longer available.

Another important example of lack of specificity in RCRA regulations is the case of monitoring requirements. There are few technical

criteria, based on hydrogeologic surveys and

other information, for establishing the number

and location of wells to determine water flows,

background levels, and releases from the site.

Similarly, there is little detail provided to

establish a basis for EPA or State permit writ-
64 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ers to decide which chemicals or indicator

parameters are to be monitored, and which

equipment and methods are to be used.

Data collection and analysis for risk assessment is particularly important for determination of degree of hazard and subsequent regulation. There are two areas for which the determination of hazard or risk levels is being used

or is being planned. One is for RCRA regulations, including the tailoring of regulations for

some facilities, such as monofills (landfills for

single wastes) and neutralization impoundments, specific wastes, provisions for class permits, and the setting of exemptions or prohibitions such as the small generator exemption.

The other is in selection of uncontrolled sites

for attention under CERCLA. EPA has faced

a difficult task in applying hazard and risk assessments at a time when there is limited information, time, and resources, and when methodologies are still being developed. Nonetheless, there is considerable need to evaluate

relative hazards and risks. The issue is not

whether to attempt these evaluations, but

rather which are the best technical approaches

to use.

To satisfy Executive Order No. 12291, EPA

is conducting regulatory impact analysis for

RCRA regulations involving the use of the

Risk/Cost Policy Model (sometimes referred to

as the WET matrix). A detailed examination of

this model is given in chapter 7 and its appendix. OTA is not confident that the structure of

the model, its assumptions, or its data bases

will lead to accurate results for estimating how

regulations should be tailored, what waste

should be exempt (such as under the small generator exemption category), or what waste

should be prohibited from land disposal. Problems with the model are: the data base for

waste now includes only about half of those

regulated; the management technologies considered applicable are not consistent with present or possible future uses; diverse human

health effects are not adequately addressed;

costs for technologies are incomplete, undocumented, and are biased in favor of land disposal; and sensitivity analyses have not yet been

performed .11

OTA is also concerned that the model is, in

effect, an approach to cost-benefit analysis for

RCRA-a balancing of the protection of human

health and the environment against costs—

which is contrary to congressional mandate.

Moreover, in calculating benefits, the Risk/Cost

Policy Model totally discounts any benefits

from reducing risks associated with environmental damage. The model also makes use of

population densities in a manner that could

lead to determinations of low, and presumably

acceptable, levels of risk for low populationdensity areas. Population near the site is an

unreliable indicator of population at risk because of actual distributions of releases and

varying exposures to people. Still, EPA has expressed confidence that the model can be used

effectively as a complement to other information being gathered by the agency, including

information obtained through its regulatory impact analysis program.

In the National Contingency Plan under

CERCLA, a Hazard Ranking System (sometimes referred to as the Mitre model) is used

to develop comparative rankings of hazard levels of uncontrolled sites in order to determine

how limited resources can best be allocated.

OTA’S examination of this system has shown

several deficiencies primarily concerning the

type of data used, that can lead to false priorities and misallocation of resources. These are

discussed in detail in chapter 7. The result is

that CERCLA funds may be spent when large

numbers of people maybe at some risk, but that

no funds are spent when relatively few people,

such as in rural areas, are a high risk. Another

problem with the model is the difficulty of incorporating data that may be more meaningful.

llEpAIs Science AdvisoW Board has reviewed this project. Its

findings concerning the technical aspects of the model, for the

most part, are in agreement with OTA’S concerns, and it recommends continued development of the model. (“Report on the

RCRA Risk/Cost Policy Model—Phase 2 Report,” Environmental

Engineering Committee, Science Advisory Board, October 1982.]
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 6 5

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by

States.

There has been a marked increase in the level

of both Federal and State activities and Federal

and State cooperation is continuing. Nonetheless, the problems discussed previously indicate considerable room for improvement, and

only a minor benefit with respect to this goal

is likely, The current program is generally

viewed by the States as presenting an unacceptable combination of shifting increasing responsibilities to the States without corresponding

increases in necessary resources provided by

the Federal Government. A potential exists for

a sharp downturn in Federal-State relations if

funding for State activities under RCRA subtitle C is eliminated, which EPA has indicated

its desire to do and which it has already done

for subtitle D activities. Lack of participation

in policy formulation has also led to many

States having substantial concerns over the effectiveness of the regulations promulgated thus

tar.

OTA has found the following problems to be

significant and indicative of the current situation: *

1. States are viewed by EPA as critical to implementing regulations, but not in policy

formulation and design of regulations. The

result is that States often find themselves

in strong disagreement with technical aspects of the regulations. For example,

many States disagreed with EPA’s small

generator exemption based on quantity

rather than on hazard level and with

EPA’s policies on liquids in landfills. Also,

many States find land disposal regulations

too weak in the monitoring area, particu-

*For detailed comments on Federal-State problems from the

State’s perspective, see, various testimonies by Norman H.

Nosenchuck, as Resident of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials and Director of the

Solid Waste Management Program for New York State; and various congressional hearings, such as Senate Subcommittee on

Intergovernmental Relations, Nov. 24, 1981, and House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research and the

Environment, Dec. 8, 1982. Also see, Jacqueline M. Rams,

“Federalism and Hazardous Wastes–A Perversion of RCRA

Intent?” The Environmental Forum, January 1983, pp. 11-16.

2.

3.

4.

larly the exemption from the ground water

monitoring and response requirements.

Although States may, and sometimes do,

impose more stringent requirements than

the Federal program, the absence of strong

Federal action may undercut State efforts,

and limited State resources restrict the

development of separate and more stringent State regulations. In the case of

CERCLA, States have expressed considerable concern over the lack of detail in the

National Contingency Plan.

States have continuing problems because

of the decision to remove all Federal grant

support for subtitle D nonhazardous solid

waste activities, even though these programs are far from complete. Moreover,

such facilities are allowed to accept hazardous waste under the small quantity generator exemption. There is considerable

concern that some sanitary landfills may,

therefore, become future CERCLA sites.

However, there are often no funds available to monitor these sites for release of

hazardous substances. Some RCRA subtitle C grant funds are being used for subtitle D activities, and EPA does not appear

to be carrying out its responsibility under

RCRA subtitle D to oversee the State solid

waste programs.

States have no ongoing Federal grant support for general CERCLA activities related

to identifying and assessing sites. CERCLA

funds now received are only for specific

emergency or for remedial site actions.

Some RCRA subtitle C funds are being

used for CERCLA activities.

States have not received increased Federal

grant support, while RCRA activities have

escalated sharply. Furthermore, because

of the two preceding factors and insufficient State funds, RCRA subtitle C grants

are used to carry out other activities. In

fact, EPA has indicated its intention to

eliminate all grants to the States;* and in

*In a meeting between the EPA Administrator and representatives of the National Governorsr Association on Sept. 20, 1982,

the States indicated that reductions in grants would lead to cutbacks in programs. This would impede delegation to some States,

and cause formation of “pollution havens. ” They also indicated
66 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

5.

6.

the fiscal year 1983 authorization process,

EPA wanted to reduce State grants, but

Congress restored the level of funding.**

This is in sharp contrast to an EPA statement in 1980:

To carry out their responsibilities under

subtitle C, the States will have to expand

greatly the size of their hazardous waste

programs. Program expansion might require a corresponding increase in State

hazardous waste management grants.l2

The 1980 EPA projection for the State

grants for fiscal year 1983 (in 1983 dollars)

is nearly three times greater than the

amount actually budgeted for fiscal year

1983.

States have had few direct, formal, and

consistent ways to influence, to support,

or to contest the data at EPA. They often

are expected to use unreliable and incomplete information, or to supply information

without having the resources to obtain it.

States find themselves in conflict with

EPA over the choice of sites for CERCLA

funding because of the requirement to provide at least 50 percent of the initial costs

for State or local government-owned sites

and 10 percent for private sites. Because

of limited State funds, government-owned

sites may be less likely to be chosen by

States for CERCLA attention on the

grounds that more sites could get remedial

attention by using the available funds as

the 10 percent match for CERCLA actions

at privately owned sites. There are also indications that a bias exists in favor of selecting sites associated with those indusState fee systems cannot compensate, and that grants are not

a gift, but represent a purchase of services, and that without

grants States ought to begin charging for services and data provided. NGA memo from Tom Curtis to Environmental Directors,

Sept. 23, 1982,

● *When the administration proposed a zo percent reduction

in fiscal year 1983 grants to the States, a study revealed that

Federal grants to the States support 69 percent of State hazardous waste program budgets, that 11 States hoped to replace at

least part of the reduction in grants, and that 20 States would

reduce monitoring proportionately to the grant reduction. “The

State of the States: Management of Environmental Programs in

the 1980’ s,” National Governor’s Association, June 1982,

‘

a

’’ Operations/Resource Impact Analysis, RCRA Subtitle C“

(Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, April

1980).

tries whose feedstocks are now taxed

under CERCLA. Moreover, the choice of

remedial technologies for CERCLA sites

creates further conflicts because of the

State’s responsibility to cover all future

operating and maintenance costs. States

are concerned that EPA will favor approaches with low initial costs, but high

continuing costs. EPA has indicated that

it will select the lowest cost-effective alternative, and States preferring a higher cost

alternative must pay all additional costs.

7. The general character of the program to

delegate responsibility to the States favors

programs identical to the Federal program.

States are reluctant to develop deviations

that would jeopardize “equivalency” with

the Federal program, but which might be

well suited to local conditions and needs.

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in costs to governments for administration and to industry for compliance.

The status quo may appear to provide benefits in these areas. However, there is some concern that the current program, not merely in

the content of its regulations, but also in its administration, places considerable emphasis on

balancing short-term, immediate costs against

protection of public health. It has largely discounted efforts to protect against longer term

environmental effects. The structure that provides flexibility for site-specific factors could

also lead to excessive responsiveness to local

economic interests desiring to minimize management costs. Furthermore, there are no programs aimed at shifting management choices

to alternatives that are more costly than land

disposal in the short term. There is no means

of proving that the current program is or is not,

ultimately, a cost-effective approach. Some of

the measures being contemplated for “fine tuning” of the program (e.g., tailoring land disposal regulations according to perceived risks and

costs) may lead to greater cost effectiveness,

but it is not possible to forecast that adjustment

of overregulated cases will more than offset ad-
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 6 7

justment of underregulated cases in terms of

costs alone, *

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costs

of management shifted to society in general.

It is clear that the current program offers significant reductions in the transfer of risks and

costs to future generations than before its implementation. Nonetheless, this option is

believed to offer only a minor benefit relative

to what is achievable and socially desirable.

The current program is generally perceived to

broadly sanction land disposal, and there are

uncertainties over possible future costs. Uncertainties concerning the choice and effectiveness of remedial actions under CERCLA

are also substantial.

EPA has used the qualifier “long term” in its

land disposal regulations, but has not made the

meaning of this term exact. It is reasonable to

interpret the phrase to mean about 30 years,

a number in keeping with other language in the

RCRA land disposal regulations. There then

appear to be ample opportunities for facility

operators to adhere in good faith to the regulations and create situations that transfer risks

and financial liability to future generations. Not

all releases may be detected within 30 years.

As noted in final land disposal regulations,

EPA itself expects, “ , . . most landfill disposal

units to leak [eventually], however well designed . . .“ The time horizon problem is particularly apparent in the monitoring requirements

for land disposal techniques and the ways in

which monitoring requirements can be circumvented entirely.

“An important but uncertain factor, for this and all policy

options, is general economic conditions, including levels of

industrial capacity utilization, types of industry restructuring,

shifts in end-product uses, and the development of new industries and processes. Some of these can lead to lower costs for

waste management, while others may increase costs. Nonetheless, it is likely that the costs for hazardous waste management

[as either a fraction of gross national product or of a waste generator’s production costs] are likely to increase in the near term,

stabilize, and possibly decrease as waste prevention and control techniques become more pervasive, mature, and efficient,

and with reductions in the formation and remediation of uncontrolled sites.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over siting of facilities.

Only a minor benefit is likely. Public confidence does not appear to be improving with

the current program. There are no Federal programs that would indicate to the public that

alternatives to land disposal are being encouraged. Nor are there strong signals that technical information is being both improved and better disseminated in useful forms to the public.

There are no indications of interest in providing direct Federal involvement in the siting

area which might complement State efforts.

Many States have instituted programs and criteria for siting to alleviate public concerns, but

the results are not yet clear. Alternatively, continuing information, analyses, and discussions

of the current national regulatory program contribute to public concerns.l3

Option II

A More Comprehensive and Nationally

Consistent RCRA Program

The purpose of this option is to expand the

scope and increase the effectiveness of the current RCRA program. The changes discussed

below could be carried out by amendment to

RCRA, possibly including a schedule for EPA

implementation within approximately 6 months

to 1 year of enactment. For convenience, all

changes in RCRA are presented as one congressional option, although each could be enacted independently. Each of the modifications

is described, followed by an evaluation of the

option in terms of the eight policy goals presented earlier; then, the costs and problems

associated with implementation of the option

are discussed.

Specific Changes

Wastes Regulated .—This change concerns the

universe of regulated hazardous waste and the

‘

3 For example.“ “State of the Environment 1982, ” The Conservation Foundation, 1982; “indictment-The Case Against the

Reagan Environmental Record, ” ten environmental organizations, March 1982; “Environment and Health, ” Congressional

Quarterly, 1981; and “Poisons in the Water, ” Sierra Club,

October 1982.
68 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

extent of such regulation. The findings of this

assessment support consideration of the following measures to bring more high-priority

waste under regulation in appropriate ways:

1.

2.

Closing the gap created by the blanket exemption of hazardous waste generated in

relatively small quantities. The objective

is to avoid having hazardous waste managed as nonhazardous, solid waste in sanitary landfills. In the near term, if a quantity cutoff is used, the prudent approach

would be to use a relatively low one such

as 100 kilograms per month (kg/me) instead of the current 1,000-kg/mo value. In

the longer term, however, some measure

of the level of hazard of the waste could

be used instead. Such an approach does

not imply adoption of any particular, or

complex, methodology for assessing level

of hazard. Regulation would be based on

known characteristics of the waste that indicate potential harm to human health and

the environment upon release of the material into the environment and with significant exposure. However, if it could be

demonstrated that relatively small quantities of hazardous waste do not present significant threats, then there could be very

minimal regulatory control, e.g., notification and reporting requirements, or modification of RCRA regulations that govern

waste generators.14

Ending the total exemption for hazardous

waste used as fuels, or as fuel supplements. Instead, there would be notification

requirements for records of what wastes

are being burned and where. Also, there

would be standards for acceptable levels

MA detailed C)TA study of the small generator exemption found

that waste produced at a rate below 1,000 kg/mo could amount

to 2.7 million to 4 million tonnes annually nationwide. Amounts

vary substantially among States—16 States indicated that more

than 5 percent of their waste came from small generators. (OTA,

“The RCRA Exemption for Small Volume Hazardous Waste Generators, ” staff memo, July 1982. ] A more recent study for New

England States indicates that over 15 percent (excluding waste

oils) of the region’s waste is produced by small generators.

(A. D. Little, Inc., “Hazardous Waste Generation in New England,” August 1982.)

3.

4.

5.

6.

of release into the environment, and perhaps some monitoring requirements.l5

Ending the total exemption from RCRA

coverage of liquid hazardous waste sent

to municipal water and sewage treatment

facilities. There would be instead notification requirements and standards for acceptable amounts of releases and residuals in

effluent waters and sludges, supplementing gaps in pretreatment coverage under

CWA. These requirements and standards

would be defined for specific chemicals

and toxic metals in a manner consistent

with types and concentrations of constituents.

Establishing a category of “special” hazardous waste consisting of high-volume,

relatively . low-hazard waste (many of

which are now totally exempted from regulation) to be minimally regulated under

RCRA. There maybe only notification requirements for generators of such waste.

Developing minimal regulations for the recycling of hazardous waste (or hazardous

materials that could become waste), applicable to all operations, not just “third party” recyclers as is currently proposed. Due

consideration would be given to avoiding

the creation of disincentives for recycling—e.g., by only requiring notification

of what wastes are being recycled.

Developing lists of hazardous wastes to be

prohibited from management in landfills,

surface impoundments, and deep wells.

These lists should be correlated with technical criteria regarding particularly high

IWurrent EPA policies on the burning of hazardous waste as

fuel are generally not related to the hi~zards posed by suboptimal

burning that may lead to release of hazardous constituents into

the environment. For example, some wastes are totally exempt

from regulation if they are to be recycled; these are “wastes that

are not sludges, that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste,

and that are not listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or 261.32. ” Moreover,

the determination of whether the recycling is “legitimate or

sham” depends primarily on the energy value of the waste, rather

than any consideration of the performance characteristics of the

burning operation, the hazardous nature of the waste, or risk

factors associated with releases and exposures. (EPA, Memorandum on RCRA Enforcement Guidance: Burning Low Energy

Hazardous Wastes Ostensibly for Energy Recovery Purposes,

Jan. 18, 1983.)
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 6 9

risks from possible releases into the environment.

7. Establishing regulatory criteria for hazardous waste which, although substantial scientific information indicates their hazardous character, have not yet been so defined, They have not been listed and, when

subjected to current EPA tests and procedures, they do not exhibit any of the currently identified hazardous waste characteristics, For example, a number of industrial wastes containing significant levels

of dioxins, chlorinated organics, or pesticides are not now regulated as hazardous

wastes and cannot be shown to be toxic

by EPA’s test for toxicity.

EPA’s extraction procedure (EP) test for

toxicity has received considerable discussion and criticism. Its use for defining

RCRA regulated waste and for delisting

decisions is highly suspect. A recent technical study of the EP test by Utah’s hazardous waste management program concluded:

The EP test procedures as presently

adapted definitely need to be refined and

changed. The results from this test are not

adequate to make sound waste management decisions. In fact, the EP results obtained are leading to mismanagement decisions with accompanying risks of adverse health or environmental results.l8

The study showed how waste with oily

phases presented particular problems, that

organic waste posed problems, that results

are not reproducible, that the acetic acid

extraction medium does not model real

world conditions, that the test’s 20-fold

dilution for solid samples produces deceivingly low results, and that false negative

results were likely. Some sites in Utah

where wastes that are not hazardous, according to the EP test, have been land-disposed and have already contaminated

ground water.

Another example of the limitations of

the EP test has been shown for cadmiumcontaining sludge produced in Illinois. In

‘

a

’’ Comments of the Utah Bureau of Solid and Hazardous

Waste on the Extraction procedure Toxicity Test,” Dec. 1, 1982.

order to pass the EP test, calcium oxide

is added to the sludge. The lime does not

alter the cadmium, but it does neutralize

the acetic acid used in the test and allows

the sludge to be classified as a nonhazardous waste .17

8. Making delisting of hazardous waste more

expeditious without, however, compromising protection of the public, This could be

done by using clearer, specific criteria for

delisting and by limiting times for evaluation by EPA. To some extent, this action

could balance the effects of the preceding

actions, which lead to more waste being

regulated. Delisting provides a means

whereby site-specific factors or previously

unavailable information might mitigate

prior estimates of potential hazard. However, one problem that has become apparent in delisting processes should be controlled. Although constituents causing a

waste to be originally defined as hazardous

may have been removed, the waste may

still contain other hazardous constituents

in significant concentrations. Such waste

should not be delisted, pending further

testing. The use of the EP toxicity test (as

discussed above) should be examined,

Adopting a procedure for verification of

submitted data should also be examined.

Attention is also needed to address current

delisting activities which maybe delaying

the regulation of significantly hazardous

waste, such as dioxin.l8

Limited Class Permits .-The engineering design

and performance characteristics of some hazardous waste management facilities may be

largely independent of location. Class permits

may be appropriate for such facilities. However, such facilities should have little probability of release of hazardous constituents, and

such possible release should be easily observable through minimal, mandatory inspection

or monitoring, There is some concern over

whether permitting by rule would lead to sufficient protection of the public, such that the

17w. C.Geissman, letter to Rep. James J. Florio, May 25, 1982.

IBHouse Energy and Commerce Committee Report No. 97-570

on H.R. 6307, May 18, 1982, p. 23.
70 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

loss of public participation in the permitting

process is justified. Furthermore, while use of

class permits for tanks and containers may be

reasonable, these may have to be limited to

aboveground facilities because of the difficulty

of detecting leaks in underground facilities.

Limited class permits may have to be based on

very detailed technical criteria in order to avoid

permitting of older facilities having unacceptable design and performance features. (For example, construction materials in older facilities

may lack adequate corrosion resistance.) If

Congress is to sanction class permitting without sacrificing protection of the public, then

the limited nature of the policy should be carefully spelled out legislatively. Class permitting

need not involve a cutoff of all public participation. Expedited, minimal permit review can be

combined with appropriate notification and an

opportunity for the public to be heard as part

of the permitting process.

Specific Technical Criteria in Regulations .–There

are a number of critical components of RCRA

and CERCLA regulations that include little if

any specific technical criteria to guide permitting. If Congress is to ensure protection of the

public consistently, then it is necessary to direct EPA to establish specific technical criteria

through rulemaking, in contrast to reliance on

guidance documents. This would correct the

current emphasis on allowing Federal or State

permit writers to make critical decisions either

without such guidance, or without the resources necessary for making decisions and

formulating criteria about extremely complex

technical matters. Two areas of particular concern are RCRA regulations dealing with monitoring for land disposal facilities and CERCLA

regulations dealing with the determination of

the extent of cleanup at a remedial site. This

is not to imply that EPA is unaware of the problem. Several relevant activities should be noted:

draft guidance documents have been prepared

by EPA and may lead to specific criteria being

used; EPA was under judicial order to promulgate final regulations; and regulations can and

may be revised in the future to add more detailed standards.

Benefits of the Option

The above set of changes in the current Federal regulatory program for hazardous waste

would yield the following benefits relative to

the eight goals for all policy options. That the

option could readily be implemented is an intrinsic advantage.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties.

In general, this option appears to offer a major benefit. Regulation of more hazardous

waste, use of more technical criteria in regulations, and reasonable class permits could reduce the probability of release of hazardous

constituents into the environment. The option

would not restructure the current Federal program. All the modifications in RCRA could be

implemented expeditiously within the existing

framework in an evolutionary manner. The option presents changes which can be phased in

and which would reduce uncertainties concerning possible future regulation. One specific

action that would benefit from the earliest possible consideration is the adoption of specific

technical criteria for permitting, which has

hardly begun. Such criteria could speed up permitting in many respects; current regulations

are likely to place considerable burdens on permit writers.

GOAL 2

Expand universe of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

This option offers a major benefit. Many existing gaps in regulatory coverage would be

closed in appropriate ways. Addressing the delisting mechanism from the viewpoint of waste

generators (ensuring that truly hazardous

waste are not delisted) balances increased

burdens placed on waste generators by accommodating unique site-specific situations.
Ch. 3—Policy Options . 7 1

GOAL 3

Encourage alternatives to land disposal.

Only modest, indirect benefits are likely in

this area, Bringing more waste under regulation may create larger markets for alternatives.

The use of more specific technical criteria

might make land disposal options more stringent and costly.

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/

CERCLA implementation.

The option would promote the use of more

specific technical criteria in regulations, as

well as for the collection of additional information concerning additional waste brought into

the regulatory system (even if only for reporting). There are, thus, reasons for expectation

of major benefits regarding data collection, risk

assessment, and implementation.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by

States.

A major benefit could result because more

technical guidance would be provided through

the use of more extensive technical criteria in

Federal regulations. Also, States that now regulate more waste than the Federal system would

have fewer conflicts with the expanded Federal

system, and would find program delegation

more acceptable, This option would facilitate

expansion of the universe of regulated waste

for those States that cannot be more stringent

than the Federal program. Many States would

also welcome class permits and more technical

criteria in regulations, which could reduce the

burdens on State permit writers. However, this

option would not expand participation by

States,

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in costs to governments for administration and to industry for compliance.

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

option increases all costs. To the extent that

class permits and more equitable delisting procedures might offer efficiencies, costs might

be reduced. If it is presumed that greater regulatory coverage reduces long-term costs to the

government for cleanup actions, then the option may offer a long-term cost benefit.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costs

of management shifted to society in general.

A major benefit in this area would result

from the fact that more hazardous waste would

become regulated and managed in more appropriate ways than they currently are. More technical criteria in Federal regulations could also

ensure that current managers provide appropriate levels of control.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over siting of facilities.

A major benefit could result with public perception that the Federal regulatory system ensures that fewer hazardous waste are escaping

regulation altogether and that increased technical criteria in Federal regulations provide a

more uniform and acceptable level of protection throughout the Nation, without removing

the public’s right to participate in the permitting process,

Costs and Problems for Implementation

Some of the specific actions required for implementation are consistent with current EPA

plans, although details may differ. * Other actions, such as broadening of the regulated

waste coverage and use of specific technical

criteria, are not wholly endorsed by EPA, A

major problem appears to be the somewhat increased resources required to implement the

changes. Critics may contend that with practical implementation just beginning, it is not

* For example, EPA has indicated that it is studying the burning of bazardous waste as fuels in boilers and may issue regulations, but its study will not be completed until early 1984, and

it has begun a study of small generators. EPA plans to propose

rulemaking for the first group of class permits in 1983. [47 CFR

239, 5560-5584, Dec. 13, 1982.)
72 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

.

possible to keep the current program moving,

while at the same time making these changes.

It may also be argued that there is insufficient

information available to carry out these

changes. Opponents of the option are likely to

see an unnecessary increase in the scope and

level of the regulations, adding further to the

burden on the regulated community. There is

some merit to all these viewpoints. There is no

way to determine precisely what the costs to

government, or to the private sector, would be.

A rough estimate of the increase in EPA funding required for implementing this option within 1 to 2 years might be about $10 million. *

Option Ill

Use of Economic Incentives for Alternatives

to Disposal and Dispersal

The objective of this option is to shift the balance from disposal and dispersal of hazardous

waste into the land or the oceans to the reduction of waste at the source, recycling, and treatment. Direct economic incentives would be

used to accomplish this objective. The following comments from a recent study19 suggest a

need for this option:

The federal government has done little directly to encourage the adoption of alternative disposal techniques . . . Several of the states are

taking a more active role than the federal government,

This option is designed to provide direct incentives. There are, within the current program, regulatory incentives to promote the use

of alternatives to disposal and dispersal, including: streamlining permitting procedures for alternative or innovative facilities, requirements

to use certain alternatives for specific wastes,

and increasing the required level of control for

disposal and dispersal approaches. Moreover,

the current system is significantly increasing

*This figure is roughly 40 percent of the sum in the EPA fiscal

year 1983 budget for all hazardous waste activities excluding

grants to the States, administration of the regional offices, enforcement activities, and R&D activities; it is also about one+hird

of the fiscal year 1983 budget for R&D costs associated with

hazardous waste.

‘

e

’’ State of the Environment 1982,” The Conservation Foundation, 1982.

the costs of land disposal, compared even to

just a few years ago. While these factors may

have beneficial effects, they are often rendered

less effective by uncertainties, ambiguities, and

contradictions in the regulatory system (as perceived by the regulated community) or because

they limit choices in too general a fashion. The

use of direct economic incentives can be

viewed as a complement to regulatory incentives and to the use of the legal system.

This policy option should be viewed in the

context of current legislation concerning hazardous waste management. CERCLA was enacted because of the recognition that unacceptable risks have been inherited from certain past

waste management efforts that were too shortsighted. The connection between CERCLA

and RCRA has received insufficient attention; too often they are viewed as separate

programs, rather than as two components of

the Federal hazardous waste program. The

need for future expenditures of public funds

to clean up hazardous waste sites should be

minimized.

Congressional action to implement this option could occur through an amendment to

RCRA or CERCLA, or as new legislation.

There are no apparent technical or institutional

obstacles to adoption, but a major issue would

be what types of incentives to provide. Consequently, before discussing here the several

types of economic incentives, the concept of

a hierarchy of alternative management strategies is examined. The discussion provides a

context for considering this option. Second, a

comprehensive set of economic incentives are

examined, including using a fee system for

wastes, a means to address capital needs, and

a means to address R&D needs. Third, the option is evaluated on the basis of the eight policy

goals. Finally, costs and problems associated

with implementation are discussed.

A Hierarchy of Alternative Management Strategies

A major purpose of chapter 5 is to demonstrate the applicability of a relatively large

number of alternative technological approaches

to hazardous waste management. Such technologies provide means for the reduction of
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 7 3

waste generation, the destruction of waste, and

the disposal or dispersal of waste. Different

alternatives are appropriate for different

wastes and locations. In chapter 4, it was

noted that land disposal nationwide continues

to be used for most hazardous waste (although

it varies substantially among States), and in

chapter 5 the uncertainties concerning the use

of ocean disposal are discussed.

With the congressional mandate to reduce

the risks associated with hazardous waste to

acceptable levels for both present and future

generations as a constant goal, a cost-effectiveness approach can be used to select appropriate technical approaches for particular wastes.

Moreover, the optimum management strategy

for any waste will likely consist of several

technical steps: reducing the volume of waste,

reducing the hazard level through treatment,

and disposing or dispersing what remains. It

must be recognized, however, that occasionally

some treatments might lead to waste residues

that present greater problems for disposal than

the original waste. The most attractive management strategy is one that matches technological

operations with the characteristics of specific

wastes to minimize the release of hazardous

waste in a cost-effective manner. Greater attention to a hierarchy could lead to greater consideration of the broadest range of cost-effective alternatives for waste management. Available management strategies and specific technological alternatives appear to provide ample

choices for waste generators to obtain solutions

to regulatory demands.

The following hierarchy provides a framework for understanding the use of alternatives

to disposal and dispersal of hazardous wastes:

1.

2.

3.

waste reduction at the source—e.g., process modifications;

waste separation, segregation, and concentration, through available engineering

techniques in order to facilitate identification of the waste and the application of the

remaining steps;

material recovery, either onsite or offsite,

to make use of valuable materials, including the use of waste exchanges so that a

4.

5.

6.

(potential) waste for one generator can be

made available as a resource for another

industry;

energy recovery from (potential) waste or

its components, perhaps as a fuel supplement;

waste treatment to reduce the hazard level

and possibly the amount of waste requiring disposal; and

ultimate disposal or dispersal (preferably

of residues from previous steps, of pretreated waste, and of untreatable waste) in

a manner that holds release of hazardous

constituents into the environment to acceptable levels.

Such a systematic ordering of waste management options presents a number of advantages.

For example, permanent solutions to waste

problems are more likely to occur prior to disposal and dispersal. Consequently, fewer risks

and costs are shifted to the future. Emphasis

on waste reduction could significantly reduce

costs of waste management and, in some instances, avoid them altogether. The use of

waste as resources, rather than discarding

them, at once removes them and provides direct economic benefits. If less hazardous waste

is produced and regulated by promoting the

use of alternatives 1 through 5 of the hierarchy,

and if there are reduced administrative activities (e. g., inspection) for treatment and disposal facilities, then the costs of administering

a regulatory program and of remediating uncontrolled sites could be reduced.

Specific factors concerning waste, plant, and

companies should of course play their normal

role in economic evaluations of alternatives.

Moreover, for some waste only management

alternatives 5 or 6 will be technically feasible

or cost effective. The above listing does not

imply that alternatives 2 through 5 do not involve any potential release of waste into the

environment; techniques for these options require some regulatory coverage to monitor and

hold such release to an acceptable level. For

example, energy recovery through the burning

of waste as fuels poses problems of releases of

hazardous constituents into the environment.

99-113 0 - 83 - 6
74 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Such regulation can provide information useful

in enforcement efforts and for understanding

how generic types of waste can be managed

other than by disposal and dispersal approaches.

The idea of the hierarchy presented above

did not originate with OTA. It has been recognized for some time by those concerned with

waste management in both industry and government. In 1976, before the passage of RCRA,

EPA offered a position statement on effective

hazardous waste management that included

the above hierarchy as a ranking of preferred

alternatives. As recently as 1982, EPA reiterated its support of the 1976 position.20 Nonetheless, there has been little programmatic support of the concept of a waste management

hierarchy. Although RCRA gave some attention to reuse, recovery, and recycling, there

have been few programs providing incentives,

nor have there been transfers of technology and

information encouraging this strategy. As for

EPA’s R&D activities, in fiscal year 1983 the

total effort related to alternatives to land disposal amounted to about 10 percent of all hazardous waste R&D, or $4.4 million.21 (See ch.

7 for a discussion of all current EPA expenditures.)

There have been no programs explicitly

aimed at waste reduction, although increasing

costs of waste management (due, in part, to the

Federal regulatory program) have indirectly encouraged waste reduction efforts. The indirect

approach, however, does not appear to produce positive results extensive enough and

fast enough to substantially impact national

waste management practices. Some support

for this belief has been obtained by an analysis

ZOFedera] Register, vol. 41, No. 161, pp. 35050, 35051, 1976;

EPA )ournal, July-August 1982, p. 19; and testimony of Rita M.

Lavelle, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science

and Technology, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Technology, Dec. 16, 1982.

~lThe ac~~ areas and support levels are: incineration of organics—$2.6 million, cofiring options such as boilers and cement

kilns—$1.2 million, advanced thermal technologies such as

plasma burning–$140,0()(), physical, chemical, and biological

treatments—$150, C)(.)O; pretreatment such as solidification—

$300,000. (Oral testimony, John Lehman, Director of EPA’s Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division, House Subcommittee on

Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Dec.

16, 1982.)

of premanufacturing notices filed by manufacturers of chemicals as required by the Toxic

Substances Control Act. Limited information

provided on anticipated waste management

practices for notices filed during the past 3

years, as shown in table 10, indicate two

trends: 1) increasing reliance on some form of

waste treatment by itself, and 2) a decline in

the use of land disposal by itself and in conjunction with waste treatment. However, the

total, combined use of land disposal continues

to remain at high levels, and the increase in

notices filed may indicate increasing amounts

of waste to be produced in the future.

The ineffectiveness of indirect incentives

probably will likely remain as long as EPA

maintains that land disposal is the most acceptable management alternative. Thus, although

EPA has adopted the above hierarchy, its position regarding land disposal has been expressed as follows:

We believe that most wastes can be satisfactorily managed in the land and that it can be

done with a reasonable margin of safety more

cheaply in this manner. 22

Indirect, nonregulatory approaches to this

option are of only limited effectiveness. Adequate control of hazardous waste cannot be

provided by either market or legal systems, as

was concluded in a recent study for EPA:

Private markets alone cannot be relied on to

promote adequate controls on hazardous releases. The common law system creates some

ZZTestimony of Rita Lave]le, House Subcommittee on Natural

Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Dec. 16,

1982.

Table 10.—Waste Management Methods Indicated

on TSCA Premanufacturing Notices

Treatment and Land disposal

Year Treatment only land disposal only

1980 . . . . . . 24% 4-1 “/0 30%

1981 . . . . . . 29% 29% 410!0

1982 . . . . . . 52% 31 % 13“/0

NOTE: Based on examination of May and June submissions for each year.

Percentages are for totals of those supplying information for onsite and

off site management; totals were 37 for 1960, 68 for 1961, and 118 for 1962.

Due to the limited information asked for and provided, it is not possible

to know whether all the management ct(oices are for hazardous waste,

or for others as well.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 7 5

incentives for proper waste management, but

those incentives are too weak or uncertain to

provide the only controls for many types of hazardous waste incidents. 23

The study did not address the question of

whether equitable internalization of the full

costs of hazardous waste management can be

achieved through a regulatory approach, nor

did it consider nonregulatory alternatives

which might avoid inadequacies of the market

and legal systems. Such questions are becoming increasingly important,

With regard to the use of direct economic incentives, a 1980 EPA study noted:

Many environmental regulatory programs

could potentially employ market mechanisms

to supplement or replace the more traditional

“command-and-control” approach. There is

good reason to believe that in some cases market incentives might be both less costly and

more effective than the regulatory approach. *

Many industries have actually adopted the

above hierarchy. Their economic evaluations

include the longer term liabilities and potential costs associated with the disposal and dispersal alternatives, which are more difficult to

quantify than short-term costs. Industries

choosing to reduce waste generation or to use

treatment techniques may incur greater costs

than competitors who choose disposal and dispersal. Adoption of the above hierarchy, even

in the private sector, must be based primarily

on a philosophical commitment, not on precise

quantitative economic evaluations of limited

scope, Some industries may want to convey to

the public that their firms are “good citizens. ”

Although use of the land for disposal has continued to receive regulatory attention, many

would argue that land disposal has been encouraged (see ch. 7) by regulations that fail to

promote internalization of the long-term costs

of land disposal, Since current regulations contribute to the lower costs of disposal and dispersal when compared with other alternatives,

Zs’’Eva1uation of Market and Legal Mechanisms for Promoting

Control of Hazardous Wastes” (draft), Industrial Economics,

Inc., September 1982.

* EPA, “Economics In EPA, ” Subcommittee on Economic

Analysis, Science Advisory Board, July 22, 1980.

it can be argued that measures need to be taken

to offset this regulatory bias. One approach

would be to correct the regulatory bias directly. Another would be to address the need for

direct economic incentives for alternatives to

disposal and dispersal. The incentive approach

contrasts with the traditional command and

control regulations which are aimed at uncovering those not in compliance and depend on

enforcement actions.

Types of Incentives

Considering the objective of minimizing government expenditures, OTA believes that it is

impractical to suggest major incentive programs based on direct, budgeted expenditures.

Also, the use of economic incentives raises

questions concerning the placement of burdens

on industry. For such reasons, this option consists of three components: a fee system on generated waste, procedures to respond to capital

needs of alternatives, and consideration of

R&D problems that might prevent the development of alternatives.

A Fee System. —There is a trend toward State

use of fee systems, both to raise revenues and

to influence choices among hazardous waste

management alternatives, but results of these

relatively new programs are mixed. California,

New York, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio impose fees on waste generators. The CERCLA

program, at the Federal level, is based on the

collection of a fee on the production of

petroleum feedstocks and specified chemicals

which produces 87.5 percent of the $1.6 billion

fund. Many critics of this approach believe that

the fund should have been financed through

a “tail-end” fee on actual waste generated,

rather than on “front-end” feedstock materials

that only indirectly, and to different degrees,

lead to hazardous waste generation. A strong

disincentive is thus inadvertently established

penalizing those choosing to minimize waste

generation. However, there was insufficient information on waste generators originally available to facilitate such an approach. When collection under CERCLA expires in 1985, it is

likely that substantial sums will continue to be

required to clean up uncontrolled sites. EPA’s
76 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

original estimate in 1980 required $44 billion.

There have also been indications from the administration that it is currently disinclined to

seek reauthorization of the fee collection program. Continuation of the current CERCLA

fee system offers no direct incentive to alternatives to land disposal, although continued

experience with CERCLA may prove to be an

effective indirect influence on use of such alternatives.

An approach that would satisfy several objectives could be based on the use of the CERCLA

funding mechanism for RCRA purposes and

using a tail-end system instead of a front-end

fee. This would involve shifting the collection

of CERCLA moneys (including the post-closure

liability trust fund to start in 1983) to hazardous

waste generators. * To be effective, fees would

have to be reduced, on a unit-weight basis,

when: 1) alternatives to disposal and dispersal

were used by the generator, either onsite or offsite; and 2) the hazard level of the waste or

residue disposed was relatively low.

The concept of a fee on waste generators has

been given some support by the recommendation that the Hazardous Waste Compensation

Fund “should be established by contributions

from, or taxes on, the production of hazardous

or toxic chemicals, and crude oil, and by a tax

on the deposit of hazardous wastes. ”24 Moreover, EPA itself has said that “ . . fee systems

make sense because they ‘internalize’ the cost

of pollution, placing its cost at the source, not

on the general public, ”25 although EPA seems

more interested in State fee systems than in a

Federal system. With regard to the present approach to collecting fees on feedstocks under

*Collection of the $2.13 per ton CERCLA tax on hazardous

waste received at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities will

begin on Apr. 1, 1983. No tax is paid on waste that will not remain at the facility after closure, such as treatment facilities.

The tax is not on waste generators directly. Proceeds of the tax

will finance the $2OO million Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund

to pay for post-closure care, remedial action, and damages from

releases at qualifying hazardous waste facilities.

“’’In juries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Analysis

and Improvement of Legal Remedies, ” report to Congress by

Superfund Study Group, September 1982.

ZsIssue papers prepared by EPA for Sept. 20, 1982, meeting

between EPA Administrator and representatives of the National

Governors’ Association, distributed by Lewis S. W. Crampton.

CERCLA and the need to influence current

management choices, the senior EPA official

responsible for both CERCLA and RCRA administration has said, “It would be more appropriate to put the fee on waste generation. ”28

Support for a waste fee system also has come

from a major industry, which is generally

understood to be the largest hazardous waste

generating industrial sector:

CMA has, under the Superfund discussions,

recommended a waste end tax. That may be

one way to increase the incentives out of landfilling for certain particularly highly toxic materials. Waste end tax as opposed to a feedstock,

and I think that probably should still be considered as one of the methods which might be used

to move the system gradually from landfilling

to the more appropriate, in some cases, technologies.27

In considering the problem of Federal funding

of State programs, the National Governors’

Association has said,

If EPA wishes fees to replace federal resources, it should lead the way with the development of a uniform fee structure, . . . .28

The critical feature of such a system, is that

such a fee should be substantially greater (perhaps double) for disposal and dispersal options,

and substantially lower for low-hazard or

treated waste (perhaps by half). A fee discrimination would provide the desired economic incentives for alternatives to disposal and dispersal. Moreover, the discriminatory ratios and/or

the amounts of the fees on land-disposed

wastes might be increased over time, as waste

volumes decline and after ample time has been

given for adopting alternatives. A zero tax for

wastes (or portions of them) recycled for material or energy that would otherwise become

hazardous waste would appear equitable and

Zboral testimony, llita Lavelle, U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Science and Technolol<y, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment, Dec.

16, 1982. zTPhlllp A. Palmer, testimony on behalf of the Chemical MmUfacturers Association, Mar, 31, 1982, House Subcommittee on

Commerce, Transportation, and ToL~rism.

Z8’’Work Plan on Environmental Program Grants, ” Environmental Subcommittee, National Govl~rnors’ Association, Dec.

16, 1982.
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 7 7

—

desirable. * However, there is a need for precise

definitions for recycling (as well as for hazardous waste), otherwise a waste fee approach

could lead to inappropriate removal of wastes

from the system, * *

Can fees on generated hazardous waste raise

sufficient revenues? If one accepts the current,

frequently used figure of 41 miIlion tons per

year of RCRA hazardous waste generation, an

average fee of $10 per ton would raise about

the same annual revenues as CERCLA presently does. If total waste generation is much

higher, as it may be because of a broader universe of waste regulated by States (see ch. 4),

or if more wastes are brought under the RCRA

program, then fees might be reduced somewhat.

For disposal and dispersal options, with high

fees of perhaps $10 to $20 per ton, costs could

increase by less than 10 to 40 percent for a disposal cost range of $50 to $200 per ton, and

perhaps by less if the national waste stream is

found to be much greater than the currently

used figure (see discussion in later section).

However, for high-volume, low-hazard waste

disposal or treatment may only cost $10 to $20

per ton, and fees should be lower than the average.

Table 11 illustrates a waste fee system that

has been proposed in Minnesota. The structure

of this system is strongly biased against land

“There is a view in industry that characterizing recy~l~d hazardous materials as hazardous waste is inappropriate, because

they are not discards. However, it is also argued by others that

it is necessary to keep such materials in the category of waste

because there is still a potential for releases of hazardous constituents during handling, transport, and recycling of such materials. Moreover, there is the likelihood that not all generators of

such materials will recycle them, and that those who do recycle

them will not always do so.

* ● In this regard, the use of deposit-refund types of economic

incentives offers a unique advantage, The user of a feedstock,

that Ieads to generating a hazardous waste, pays a deposit that

is returned only on transfer of the waste to an appropriate management facility. This approach provides a direct economic incentive for proper management, and is being used very successfully in West Germany for ensuring the recycling of waste oils.

In contrast to a waste fee approach, in which some parties may

be motivated to escape by illegal action, the deposit-refund approach makes improper behavior costly, even without enforcement actions.

Table 11 .—illustration of a Hazardous Waste

Generator Tax Structure

Waste management category

Land disposal ................. ....................

Offsite

Land disposal after treatment

Treatment . . . . . . . . .

Onsite

Land disposal after treatment

Treatment ., . .

Recycling/reuse,

used crankcase 01 1

T-ax on Tax on

solid waste Iiquid waste

($/metric ton) ($/metric ton)

42 85 –

21 42

. . 11 21

11 21

5 11

—0 0

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

generator fee (a mlnlmum fee plus a fee dependent on the quantity of

waste generated) was also proposed to support State adm!nlstratlve costs

for hazardous waste programs. A provision was Included to exempt small

generators

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

disposal, particularly for liquid waste. It also

favors onsite over offsite management, a bias

often defended on the basis of advantages associated with not transporting hazardous materials, rather than on any intrinsically superior

level of management at onsite facilities. This

system, it should be noted, is also simple. The

use of relatively simple generic waste categories for different fee rates is necessary to

facilitate administration of such a system.

New York State employs a simple system,

with the following rates imposed on waste generators: $12/ton for hazardous waste disposed

of in landfills; $9/ton for waste treated or disposed of offsite, excluding disposal in landfills;

$2/ton for waste incinerated or treated onsite;

and no fee on waste subject to resource recovery. Unlike the Minnesota system, the New

York fee structure is based only on management choice, and does not deal with the degreeof-hazard of the waste. However, it too provides an incentive for onsite management, but

to a lesser degree than the Minnesota approach.

Hazardous waste generators in California are

covered by two separate fee systems: one supports the operation of the overall State hazardous waste program and imposes a $4/ton fee

for wastes that are land disposed (with a limit

of $10,000 per month); the other is a State

Superfund system that uses a a current base
78 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

rate* of $6.52/ton for hazardous wastes that are

land disposed, a rate twice that of the base rate,

or $13.04/ton currently, for extremely hazardous wastes that are land disposed, a rate that

is 15 percent of the base rate for wastes placed

in surface impoundments and for wastes regulated as hazardous by the State but not under

the Federal RCRA program, and a rate of 0.1

percent of the base rate for relatively high-volume, low-hazard mining overburden wastes.

While the California system recognizes varying hazard levels of wastes, it places no fees

whatsoever on any wastes for which the management choice does not involve the use of the

land. Thus, there is an incentive to use waste

treatments rather than land disposal, but (unlike the Minnesota and New York cases) it provides no direct incentive for waste reduction

nor for onsite rather than offsite management.

The underlying philosophy of the waste-fee

system approach is to reward those who minimize future risks and costs to society through

the use of environmentally preferred alter

natives. As existing uncontrolled sites are

cleaned up, future uncontrolled sites made less

likely, and hazardous waste generation reduced, the fees on non-land-disposed wastes

could be decreased. Morever, such an incentive system would encourage efforts to reduce

the amounts of waste generated. The uses of

the fees collected could be expanded, as has

been recommended,29 to deal with injuries and

damages directly associated with mismanagement of hazardous wastes. Fees could be collected by States, and it might be advantageous

to distribute a specified percentage of those collected by a State to the State program. This

could promote the replacement of varying State

fee programs with a uniform national system,

at least for federally regulated wastes. Such a

uniform system could minimize potential effects on interstate commerce, including the

● This base rate is adjusted annually, on the basis of changing

amounts of wastes generated and the distribution in the different

wastes classes that are taxed, so as to produce a total of $10

million annually for the State Superfund.

~“Injuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes-Analysis and

Improvement of Legal Remedies,” a report to Congress in compliance with sec. 301(e) of CERCLA, September 1982. (By an independent group of attorney s.)

transport of waste to, or the location of waste

generators in, States with low fees or none at

all.

Capital Needs.—A major obstacle to the adoption of measures to reduce waste generation

or hazard levels is the need for capital investment for new or modified equipment or facilities, either by waste generators or commercial

waste managers. A Federal loan program

could be instituted, which offered low interest

rates, and perhaps long terms for repayment,

for capital expenditures on existing or new

facilities directly related to waste or hazard

reduction. Alternatively, the Federal program

might guarantee private sector loans, or make

available tax free bonds to finance loans. Technical guidelines could be established and the

administration of loan evaluations and approvals could be shifted primarily to the States. Unexpended CERCLA funds, either those under

the present program (which are currently quite

large) or more likely under a new program as

described above, might be used as a source of

funds for loans. A fixed fraction of such feegenerated funds might be designated for these

types of loans. One recent study which examined using government loan incentives for

resource recovery equipment in the electroplating industry concluded that such a program could be quite effective.30

Another means of addressing capital needs

is the use of tax credits. A special, time-limited

investment tax credit to spur capital investments could be offered if directly related to

reduction of waste or hazard levels. Although

this is a traditional approach to achieving a

desired goal of society, it has received criticism

because of the loss of revenues to the government. However, the case of hazardous waste

presents a particularly good example of how

spending promoted by a tax benefit could, in

the long-term, markedly reduce government expenditures. Moreover, a special tax credit of

10 percent (in addition to any broad investment

tax credit) likely would lead to reductions in

s@’ Hazardous Waste Management in the Great Lakes Region:

Opportunities for Economic Development and Resource Recovery” (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Bureau of Standards, September 1982).
Ch. 3—Policy Options • 79

government revenues of at most several hundred million dollars annually over a 5- to

1(1-year period, An interesting possibility would

be to use some fraction of the fees collected to

compensate the Treasury for all or part of the

lost tax revenues. The electroplating industry

study also concluded that a special investment

tax credit for resource recovery investments

could be effective.

A number of States have used tax incentives

to deal with capital needs for improved hazardous waste management. Some examples have

been noted in a recent study.31 Wisconsin exempts machinery and equipment used for treating hazardous waste from the State property

tax. North Carolina excludes real estate and

equipment used for waste disposal and resource recovery from its property tax and it

also offers accelerated depreciation on resource recovery equipment. Michigan exempts

from property taxation the value of any improvements in old facilities for the purpose of

waste reduction. Oregon offers a 100-percent

tax credit for pollution control facilities associated with recovery of energy or of substances

with economic value, However, it is not yet

clear how their programs have influenced

waste management decisions.

Assistance for R&D Efforts. -Alternatives to disposal and dispersal meet another obstacle in

that technologies such as process modification

or for treatment of particularly difficult wastes

require applied R&D efforts before becoming

commercially feasible. Increased Federal support of private sector R&D, including pilot

plant efforts, could be very useful. Relatively

small sums might produce very large benefits.

In order to allay objections to using Federal

funds, it might be possible to structure R&D

assistance so as to recover the Federal investment, perhaps through long-term, low-interest

loans to be repaid upon successful commercialization of the technology. Profit sharing and

exclusive licensing arrangements with payments to the government are also possible. Illi31”A Survey and Analysis of State Policy O@ions to Encourage

Alternatives to Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste, ” National

Conference of State Legislatures, July 1981.

nois commits a portion of the revenues obtained from fees on waste for R&D projects.

Benefits of the Option

To what extent would adoption of government incentives for using alternatives to hazardous waste disposal and dispersal achieve

the eight policy goals? An intrinsic merit of this

option is that congressional action could be

taken in the near future, and implementation

could also take place within a few years, with

a goal to replace the current system of collecting fees under CERCLA which expires in 1985,

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties.

Major benefits could result from lowering of

the probability of releases of hazardous constituents into the environment (assuming adequate

regulations and enforcement for treatment alternatives to land disposal). Implementation of

this option would not interfere with the existing regulatory program. The main effect would

be to shift regulated parties out of the regulatory system when they no longer produce

waste, or to shift the type or extent of regulation because generators produced different

amounts or types of waste that required different waste management options. It would become preferable to be regulated as a recycling

or energy recovery facility, with a minimal reporting requirement, rather than as a disposal

facility.

GOAL 2

Expand universe of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

This option does not address this goal. Any

effects would be indirect and difficult to predict.

GOAL 3

Encourage alternatives to land disposal.

This option’s major benefit would be to

achieve this goal as much as any public policy
80 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

could. However, economic incentives for alternatives to disposal and dispersal should not

lead to a relaxation of the current regulatory

program. Stringent regulations and effective

enforcement would still be required.

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/

CERCLA implementation.

A moderate benefit might result, since the fee

system could provide motivation for the collection and continued maintenance of complete

and reliable data on waste generators.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by

States.

Insofar as the fee system would contribute

to funding for both the Federal and State programs, a major benefit relative to this goal

could result. The administrative burden placed

on the States could be reduced, as less waste

and fewer waste generators would be regulated. Although there could be an increase in

State activities from the administration of an

incentive program, adoption of a Federal fee

system could remove the burden of existing

State fee systems while providing greater revenues because of a broader range of waste regulated. A recent study of State fee systems,

most of which have not been in effect very

long, concludes that relatively small sums are

being collected, with only 5 States having fees

imposed on waste generators, 14 with fees on

transporters, 18 with fees on waste management facilities, and 17 with no fees and no desire to implement any.32 However, another

study concluded that only 7 State hazardous

waste agencies (out of a total of 18 States with

any type of fee) collect and keep fees, with the

others placing the fees collected in State general funds.33 This points to a potential benefit

of a Federal fee system affecting all States that

‘2”A Study of State Fee Systems for Hazardous Waste Management Programs, ” U.S. EPA, July 1982.

ss’’The State of the States: Management of Environmental Programs in the 1980’ s,” National Governors’ Association, June

1982.

provided funds for operation of State hazardous waste programs.

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in costs to governments for administration and to industry for compliance.

Clearly a waste fee system would impose

higher near-term costs on waste generators, although it could contribute to a reduction in

future liabilities. Governments would benefit

from a source of funding for administering

their hazardous waste programs, and from

fewer facilities to regulate due to waste reduction, but would incur new costs in administration of the economic incentives program. With

incentives, less waste generated, and fewer regulated facilities, long-term regulatory compliance costs in the private sector and governmental costs might decrease (although this is somewhat uncertain). Costs associated with adverse

impacts on health and the environment would

eventually decrease because of lower waste

generation, reduced hazard levels of wastes,

and use of management options that could permanently remove risks.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costs

of management shifted to society in general.

There would be a major benefit associated

with decreases in the amount of hazardous

waste generated and placed in the environment, as well as in the hazard levels of wastes

ultimately disposed in the environment. Greater internalization of costs would result because

the waste fee system would transfer the liabilities associated with possible future releases,

remediation actions, and possibly compensation to waste generators.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over the siting of facilities.

Because most public concern is focused on

problems of land disposal, this option offers a

major benefit through its objective of shifting

waste management from land disposal. Moreover, greater public attention to alternatives
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 8 1

would promote better understanding of the differences between land disposal and the various

alternatives, and of corresponding differences

in type and probability of releases. Moreover,

an ensured means of funding State programs

could improve public confidence in the effectiveness of such programs.

Costs and Problems for Implementation

Until specific incentive programs are developed, it is impossible to estimate protracted administrative costs, However, the incentives

considered above have been chosen because,

for the most part, they would not lead to substantial outlays of budgeted Federal funds. Additional funds for EPA to perform analyses and

devise a plan during a 2-year period might be

about $5 million, * including funds to work

with the States to assess their involvement.

It maybe suggested that other nonregulatory

approaches to providing incentives for alternatives to land disposal exist and are more effective than a fee system. Two others frequently

considered are based on the legal system and

on insurance procedures. The essential problem with relying on the legal system concerns

uncertainties of the system. Waste managers

must perceive a high probability of costly legal

damages from release of hazardous constituents. In the absence of such perception, reliance on government enforcement actions or

private party suits to return previously externalized costs to waste managers is uncertain.

Legal findings and judgments in the procedure

also introduce uncertainties. While current environmental statutes may facilitate legal actions, and enforcement efforts may be somewhat effective, there is little evidence to suggest that legal approaches can provide expedi-

*The basis for this figure and for the estimated costs for options IV and V is based on OTA’S estimate of the level of effort

and typical costs as follows: an average cost of $100,000 per

senior professional per year, including $60,000 for compensation, $20,000 for administrative support, and $20,000 for research

support. Also, these estimates are consistent with EPA’s costs

for performing major analytical efforts such as regulatory impact analyses that have had an average value of $373,ooo (“Improved Quality, Adequate Resources, and Consistent Oversight

Needed If Regulatory Analysis is to Help Control Costs of Regulations, ” GAO, November, 1982.)

ent and widespread feedback effects for waste

management choices.

RCRA’S financial liability requirements have

already increased the use of insurance options.

Here too there are considerable uncertainties

over whether such distribution and assessment

of risks is expedient in affecting management

choices. There are very few actuarial data to

assist insurance firms in structuring costs, little experience with such claims, and considerable difficulty in making risk assessments of

facilities. As with reliance on the legal system,

insurance approaches offer more remedial

than preventive benefits for hazardous waste

release. However, use of the legal and insurance system are necessary and should be

viewed (as should the regulations themselves)

as complements to a fee system.

There are few concerns over the use of loan

guarantees or tax credits, and assistance for

R&D efforts, particularly when compared to the

more far-reaching use of a Federal fee system.

The most frequent argument against the use of

economic incentives is that they would require

significant administrative efforts. While this is

true, increased government resources needed

to administer an incentive program, in terms

of numbers of workers and skills required,

could result in a net advantage, Because of an

anticipated reduction in both waste and management facilities requiring regulation, fewer

technically skilled personnel would be required.

Opponents of a Federal fee on generated

wastes also raise the problem of inadequate capacities for land disposal alternatives, However, there is evidence that available facilities

for such alternatives have substantial unused

capacities. 34 And if waste is reduced at the

source such obstacles are overcome. One of the

most critical factors associated with adequate

S4For example, in a recent study for EPA of nine major offsite, commercial waste management companies, capacity utilization for incineration decreased from 83 percent in 1980 to 78

percent in 1981, for chemical treatment from 49 to 56 percent,

and for resource recovery it remained constant at 24 percent.

(“Review of Activities of Major Firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry: 1981 Update, ” Booz-Al]en &

Hamilton, May 7, 1982.]
82 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

capacities for alternatives to land disposal involves investments by the waste management

services industry or waste generators. Such investments by the private sector to build more

facilities are unlikely when bias in the Federal

program continues to contribute to lower costs

for land disposal options. A Federal fee system

could provide (particularly if announced some

time before implementation) the necessary certainty for the private sector investment in facilities.

Results concerning the technical and economic feasibility of offering alternatives to land

disposal from a California study are encouraging:

1.

2.

3.

75 percent of the hazardous waste disposed of in the most secure landfills could

be recycled, treated, or destroyed;

most additional waste management capacity needed to recycle, treat, or destroy

waste could be developed in less than 2

years; and

the additional cost of recycling, treating,

or incinerating highly toxic waste would

have a minimal effect on industry.35

Another California study concludes that new

plants would produce half the hazardous waste

currently produced by similar activities.36 This

indicates the potential for waste reduction efforts, even in existing plants.

Another ongoing study concerned solely

with hazardous waste reduction at the source

concluded “estimates of the impact on the toxic

waste problem through reduction at source

range from 30 to 80 percent—an exciting challenge and opportunity that deserves nationwide attention. ”37

If a Federal fee system is chosen by Congress,

it would most likely replace the current scheme

used under CERCLA. While there might be

broad public support for this approach, oppo-

.

Sscalifornia office of Appropriate Technology, ‘‘Alternatives

to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: An Assessment for

California, ” 1981.

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

37Joanna D. Underwood, Executive Director, Inform, The New

York Times, Dec. 27, 1982.

nents quickly point out that increased fees on

waste generators could be burdensome to industry. There is the prospect of reduced profits and failure of marginally successful establishments, unless the added costs of waste

management were passed on to the ultimate

consumers of the products. However, some evidence exists that additional costs to consumers

would be small, as waste management costs

probably contribute at most only a small percentage (probably 1 to 3 percent) of the costs

of production or of final prices. Even a high

fee on land disposal of waste would, therefore,

not affect final prices substantially. There is

also some evidence that increased costs to consumers related to improved protection of

health and the environment would be acceptable. *

Another concern is that a Federal fee system

could prompt more illegal dumping of hazardous waste. However, as has already been noted,

effective enforcement efforts always remain a

necessity. Control of illegal dumping, moreover, is not merely a matter of regulatory enforcement–the issue is effective “policing” efforts, since illegal dumping of hazardous waste

is now accepted as constituting criminal behavior.

It has been suggested that it would be possible to rely on the States to adopt such an approach, it is not realistic to believe that all the

States will or can do so, or that they will adopt

similar programs. In order to achieve consistent and equitable treatment of hazardous waste

generators nationally, and to avoid the formation of “pollution havens” in States without

such fees, a Federal system is appropriate. The

reasoning is essentially the same as that used

to first justify the creation of the Federal hazardous waste regulatory system.

However, it may be effective to have the

States administer a Federal fee system. States

are in the best position to obtain and maintain

information on waste generators and their

*A recent major opinion survey on public support for environmental legislation found that 60 percent interviewed favor

giving priority to environmental cleanup “even if companies

have to charge more for their producis and services. ” (As reported in the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1982,)
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 8 3

management practices. It would help offset the

States’ concerns that they would be required

to dismantle their fee systems, at least for federally regulated waste. Some States may find

a Federal fee system more acceptable if they

were assured a key role in its administration

and use of some fee revenues for support of

State programs. Having a reliable source of

funding for State programs is an important

issue. EPA has indicated its desire to reduce

or eliminate grants to the States. To compensate for this loss of revenues, EPA is encouraging the use of State fee systems as well as a

variety of fiscal approaches for States to obtain

the required matching funds for Superfund

cleanups. However, the latter, such as saleleasebacks of State assets, use of State bonds,

and lease-purchases, present problems of loss

of tax revenues, administrative difficulties, and

uncertain gains in funds. *

Some may believe that any fee on hazardous

waste should be placed on management facilities rather than on waste generators, For onsite waste management there would be no difference, However, for waste managed offsite

placing the fee on facility operators may not

achieve the intended goal of influencing waste

reduction and treatment choices which are or

should be made by generators, For example,

facility operators may not pass the fee on to

waste generators, may vary the amount passed

on among generators, or may cut waste management costs (and its effectiveness) to offset

fees in order to gain advantage over competitors. For facilities performing a variety of operations (recycling, treatment, and disposal),

there may be an incentive to misrepresent the

amounts of waste managed in those ways with

the highest fees. Finally, with a fee imposed on

facilities there may be pressure to levy the fee

on the basis of the rates charged (usually a percent) and perhaps only for offsite operations.

*EPA’s study on “Increasing Purchasing Power of State Funds

for Hazardous Substance Response, ” is expected to be completed

in the Spring of 1983. It is concerned with the inability of States

to obtain the required matching funds for CERCLA cleanups,

In early drafts it is noted that 22 States, accounting for twmthirds

of the sites on the National Priority List, have a continuous, reliable method of financing remedial actions. But “the vast majority of these States have raised less than one-fourth of the

estimated matching monies needed. ”

However, such an approach has the counterproductive effect of making facilities more attractive than they already are because of lower

costs resulting from poorer design, operations,

or monitoring capabilities. Moreover, there is

no reason to remove onsite facilities from the

fee system; with the exception of waste transportation, they present the same problems and

potential costs to society as offsite facilities

and, most importantly, account for most of the

hazardous waste managed.

If a waste fee system is used to generate

funds used for CERCLA activities, should the

entire burden of the past be borne by present

waste generators? This same concern applies

to the current CERCLA funding mechanism.

It can be argued that shifting fees from feedstocks to waste is probably more equitable,

since there is no certain link between feedstocks and waste generated or mismanaged.

A partial remedy would be to continue present

procedures, and to use general Federal funds

to contribute to CERCLA costs. Nevertheless,

it must be anticipated that those industries

generating large amounts of hazardous waste

will find a new Federal fee on them objectionable.

A legitimate concern is that a successful fee

system would eventually reduce the amount of

waste generated, thus requiring increases of

fees on remaining waste in order to maintain

funds for all the purposes already discussed.

This situation might motivate government to

unnecessarily bring more waste under regulatory control. On the other hand, waste generators could be more motivated to attempt to

have their waste delisted, Another possibility

is that generators would concentrate their

wastes, lowering fees, but increasing waste

hazards, There are no simple solutions to these

potential problems. It is unlikely, however, that

waste reduction efforts would be so rapid or

extensive that the amount of waste generated

nationally would fall so low that fees on remaining waste would become unacceptable.

Some calculations, based on simplified but realistic assumptions, are shown in figure 3 to illustrate possible fee levels and changes over

time, while maintaining total revenues, A fig-
84 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Figure 3.— Illustration of Changing Federal Waste Fee System Over Time

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment

ure of $650 million has been used in this illustration because it approximates what would

be required to fund current CERCLA activities,

fund State hazardous programs, and provide

some limited funds in the victim compensation

area. * Over time, the system likely would reach

some equilibrium (including reduced manufacture and consumption of products associated

with hazardous waste generation), and fees

would be reduced because of less administration of the programs and less cleanup of uncontrolled sites.

Lastly, there are potential indirect economic

effects that are difficult to predict. There might

be a negative effect on the international com-

— —

“Use of waste generator fee revenues for any victim compensation use raises a number of issues. There is a concern that claims

related to personal or property damages could be “unbounded”

and that waste fees might be raised continually to generate sufficient funds for this purpose. While there may be a need for provide funds for victim compensation, it is generally understood

that it is extremely difficdt to prove scientifically the causal link

between a hazardous waste condition and some personal or

property damage. Thus, there is concern that very large claims

could be made on the basis of some type of “no-fault” approach.

petitiveness of U.S. exported products because

of increased costs brought about by fees. There

are ways to minimize or prevent such problems. Provision of capital and R&D assistance

to waste generators enables them to reduce

waste, and thereby eliminate waste fees. Proposed fee systems should be announced sometime before implementation so that industries

could anticipate increases in costs and take appropriate actions in time. Finally, the government should increase efforts in the international community (through, e.g., the Organization of Economic Community Development

and the United Nations) aimed at educating

foreign governments about the long-term benefits of improved hazardous waste management, although European practices to a large

extent already rely more on options other than

land disposal. With regard to imports that

might achieve some competitive advantage in

the domestic market because domestic manufacturers are paying a hazardous waste fee, it

has been suggested that (in addition to the remedies noted above) some type of import duty
Ch. 3—Policy Options Ž 85

or fee equivalent to what domestic manufacturers pay could be levied. However, this could

be objected to on the basis that it represents

a form of trade protectionism.

In addressing the legitimate concerns of

those most affected by imposition of fees, it is

important to recall the underlying principle of

the fee system: those who are responsible for

generating hazardous waste (both generators

and consumers) should pay for the proper

management of the waste, government activities that may be needed to clean up such

wastes, and for the damages to health and the

environment that may ultimately result from

such waste. Moreover, a fee system that affected consumer prices could lead to a more

balanced public perspective of hazardous

waste, The demand by the public for generators

to apply more stringent and costly controls

would be balanced by the need of the public

to consider the “hazardous waste-intensiveness” of products. It should also be noted that

even treatment alternatives to land disposal

pose some risks to both health and the environment and, hence, there is justification for fees

on waste so treated. No technology used to

manage hazardous waste can guarantee zero

release of hazardous constituents (see ch. 5).

Some argue that imposing fees on hazardous

waste would cause price distortions in the marketplace, but use of a fee system can be viewed

as a remedial policy action required to correct

both an economic distortion and an inequity

already existing in the marketplace. The market currently shifts risks and costs to people

(now and in the future) not directly deriving

the benefits from products or services causing

the risks and costs. Yet management choices

under a fee system could affect the competitiveness, success, and failure of individual firms

resulting in distributive or geographic economic effects. The varying abilities of firms to adjust to a fee system requires the need for policymakers to evaluate appropriate community and

worker adjustment programs, and to include

means to address the capital and R&D problems examined earlier as complements to a

waste fee system. By anticipating the need for

capital and R&D assistance, it would be possible to minimize adverse economic effects on

industry.

Option IV

Development and Potential Use of a

Hazard Classification Framework

This option provides for the development

and assessment of a hazard classification

framework for risk management that if feasible and beneficial, could be introduced into the

RCRA regulatory program. The framework

would be based on detailed technical criteria

establishing several different ranges, or classes,

of hazard levels. There would also be a corresponding classification system for facilities to

deal with risk management. The waste and facility classification would provide the means

to:

1.

2.

3.

set priorities, such as determining what

areas need to be addressed first in obtaining more accurate and reliable data;

establish different levels of monitoring requirements; and

establish appropriate levels of regulatory

control, including restrictions on certain

technologies and facilities, exemptions

from full regulatory coverage, and different levels of performance standards for

RCRA regulations covering the operation

of waste management facilities.

Although using classifications seems to

suggest considerable complexity and drastic

changes in the regulatory structure, neither is

required, What is envisioned is a means to

structure the evolving RCRA regulatory program by improving its scientific base, For example, some solid wastes regulated under subtitle D of RCRA would be brought under subtitle C control, but, for almost all these wastes,

there would be minimal regulatory requirements (e.g., reporting and notification requirements). Similarly, some low-hazard waste currently under subtitle C might receive less regulation than they now receive, and perhaps

some removed from the hazardous category altogether. Some high-hazard waste would receive more stringent regulation. For most haz-
86 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ardous waste, however, the classification approach would have little effect.

Congressional action could be accomplished

by amendment to RCRA, by initially directing

EPA, or another agency, to develop a waste

and facility classification system and a plan for

its implementation. Such an analytical effort

could take several years and would require

additional Federal appropriations of perhaps

$5 million to $10 million. * Presumably, no new

data would be acquired for this initial study

phase (for which health and environment effects data is an expensive undertaking), but

rather existing data bases would be used. The

second level of congressional action would

consist of an evaluation of the study, and a

decision: 1) to either move ahead with implementation; 2) to pursue a second, more detailed

study, possibly involving the acquisition of new

data, followed by integration of the hazard classification framework into the RCRA program;

or 3) to discontinue the option, Implementation, or a second study, could take several

years, and the costs are difficult to estimate,

In the following discussion, the elements of

this option are summarized. The appendix to

this chapter contains a detailed discussion of

one approach to using waste and facility classification. No attempt has been made by OTA

to design an actual classification system; those

now available are discussed in chapter 6. Second, the option is evaluated relative to the eight

policy goals described earlier. Third, the costs

and problems of implementation are discussed.

Brief Summary of a Hazard Classification Framework

The key elements of this particular application of the hazard classification concept are

presented in figure Z. The approach is compatible with the hierarchy of alternative management strategies presented earlier, particularly

with the goal of reducing the amount and hazard level of wastes.

Elements of the Approach.—Several important

elements, each requiring reliable information

● The total EPA fiscal year 1983 R&D budget related to hazardous waste is about $3o million. Thus, $10 million over 3 years

would amount to 1 I percent of EPA’s hazardous waste R&D

budget.

to be obtained by the Federal program, form

the basis of this scheme. Some of the information may be currently available in varying degrees of completeness and accuracy. The collection of other necessary data may require

substantial effort. There are three elements of

the system:

1.

2.

The critical characteristics of those constituents of the waste that largely determine its hazard classification.—

Classifying waste is a major undertaking

that requires a careful analytical

framework and substantial amounts of information on a very broad variety of factors, including: concentrations of hazardous constituents, toxicities, their mobility

through various environmental media, environmental persistence or bioaccumulation, and various safety characteristics, It

is not sufficient to merely use information

on the most hazardous constituent, or the

one present in the largest amount, to fully assess a particular waste, There is currently no standard procedure to describe

the hazard level for a physically and

chemically complex waste, although there

are indications that it is technically feasible to develop one (see ch. 6).

Consideration of those factors used to

determine facility classes.—

a.

b.

The chemical and physical characteristics of the waste that limit treatment and disposal options. This information would indicate whether the

waste is aqueous or nonaqueous, inorganic or organic, and whether it is a

liquid, sludge, or bulk waste with a

high solid content. It also would be

necessary to know if the waste contains toxic metals, known toxic organics, corrosive acids, explosives, or

highly ignitable substances.

Information on the broad range of

technology options that are commercially available and technically feasible. Considerable information is

needed on the designs of technologies,

actual performance characteristics,

problems related to operation and

maintenance, and requirements for
Ch. 3—Policy Options • 87

———.

trained personnel. Problems related to

patented and proprietary information

may have to be addressed.

c, Performance standards for various

technology options, used for setting

the level of effectiveness (risk reduction) of the technology, or the level

of acceptable release of hazardous

constituents from the facility. For

waste treatment operations, performance standards may be given in terms

of changes to be effected in various

critical characteristics of the waste.

After incineration, for example, the

percent of one or more waste constituents destroyed, perhaps in conjunction with acceptable levels of emissions, can be used. (This is similar to

what is used now,) It is important that

waste classification and its linkage to

facility class be technically sound in

order to avoid “technology forcing”

when, in fact, available technology

can achieve desired levels of protection. For disposal operations, performance standards may be given in

terms of acceptable levels of release

over specified periods of time. Standards would vary with levels of hazard.

In general, different types of performance standards will be required

for different technologies and may be

required for different levels of hazard.

Selection of performance standards

depend on the regulatory functions

that are deemed most important.

What is attractive from the perspective of ease of enforcement or compliance may not be as attractive to those

concerned with risk management.

3. Matching of waste and facility classes.

—This is the key step—ensuring that levels

of risk are consistent across both waste

and facility classes. For a particular waste

class, different technologies within the

same facility class should offer similar

risks.

How Classification Differs From Other Approaches.–

The framework described involves no new concepts. Rather, it integrates known facts and

principles into a framework for government

management and regulation of hazardous

waste. The phrase “degree of hazard” does not

necessarily imply the use of hazard classification. In this classification approach, common

characteristics are assigned values and are

used to group wastes and facilities so that those

within a group have similar characteristic levels of hazard and control. Neither does such

an approach imply the use of fixed, rigid categories. New information or changes in policy

can affect the definition of new criteria, redefining the classes in the system.

It must be emphasized that all suggested uses

of hazard classification assume that only a few

classes would be required and are practical.

Usually envisioned are high, medium, low, and

no hazard (essentially a decision to consider

the waste as an ordinary solid waste) waste

classes and with corresponding facility classes.

Therefore, the classification approach is more

a “coarse tuning” than a “fine tuning” that may

be achieved through risk assessments of individual wastes and facilities. Compared to the

broad range of variations possible with current

permitting decisions (for land disposal options,

rather than for treatment facilities), the classification approach offers permit writers a fixed

number of federally determined classes for

wastes and facilities. It is possible, however,

to integrate technology and site-specific factors

into the use of systems based on hazard classification. A permit writer could change the classification of a waste and, consequently, the level of regulatory control required for a facility,

because of technology and site-specific factors

that lead to risk reductions, A facility might

utilize some type of pretreatment of the waste

that reduces the performance standard required to achieve acceptable levels of releases.

Or the facility may be in a location in which

any releases would be so dispersed prior to any

exposure to a vulnerable receptor that a lower

performance standard would be acceptable.

Such options are limited by the number of hazard classes available and the corresponding

regulatory requirements, including performance standards, monitoring requirements, and

criteria for acceptable sites.
88 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Furthermore, the classification approach, in

contrast to the current program in which most

wastes are considered equally with respect to

regulatory requirements, implies that better defined and substantiated technical criteria and

standards are required—a set for each hazard

class. This is necessary in order to link the level

of regulatory control (facility class) with distinct hazard class.

The waste and facility classification approach differs somewhat from risk assessment

approaches which estimate probabilities and

levels of potential harm. Although there is no

standard type of risk assessment, it appears

that in most likely applications, the emphasis

would be on the determination of numerical

levels of risks for adverse effects on health and

the environment. Risk assessments usually require substantial information concerning actual situations, or at least such a focus, including how particular people or components of the

environment will respond to specific types and

levels of exposure. However, it is also possible to carry out risk assessments for generic

categories of wastes, locations, and technologies (see ch, 6 for a discussion of risk assessment and ch. 7 for a discussion of EPA’s Risk/

Cost Policy model which employs this approach). Classification systems rely more on

general scientific and technical information in

the determination of potential and generic adverse effects for defined classes of wastes and

facilities.

Classification may also be contrasted with

more qualitative approaches that simply may

list waste as having different degrees of hazard,

without presenting clear, detailed criteria for

determining such differences. The listing approach (which is used in the current program)

provides little guidance for dealing with

emergent future questions; it is largely ad hoc

in nature. Classification approaches, on the

other hand, provide consistent, yet flexible,

procedures capable of dealing with new situations. While a classification approach requires

greater initial investment of resources as compared to alternative approaches, it may offer

more long-term benefits once developed.

Illustration of the Classification Approach.—Two

types of questions are usually raised concerning the hazard classification approach. What

types of data are used to distinguish different

waste hazard classes? What are the regulatory

implications of establishing different waste

hazard classes? Table 12 provides examples of

how the classification approach can be developed and used, but it is emphasized that the

examples shown are strictly for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute any endorsement or recommendation by OTA,

Benefits of the Option

Benefits of the hazard classification approach are described below in terms of how

eventual implementation of a suitably examined system might satisfy the eight goals for

all policy options. A problem with this option

is that a number of years are required for both

analysis and implementation. Therefore, estimation of potential benefits tends to be more

speculative, and there are greater uncertainties

because of what might take place before the option is fully implemented.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties.

There are major uncertainties as to when a

classification system might be implemented,

and what would be included in such a system.

Because the current program is moving in the

direction of using hazard levels to establish

regulatory coverage and stringency, this option

can be viewed as a means of systematizing a

program that is evolving in a somewhat ad hoc

manner. Once a simple classification system

is developed and applied, it may offer the benefit of reduced delays and uncertainties because

of the availability of technical criteria and procedures which can be used to deal with new

situations. The validity and usefulness of the

hazard classification approach from a waste

management perspective has been summed up

as follows:

One school holds that, if it is hazardous by

definition of the regulation, then it should go
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 8 9

—

bsource Adapted from system In Washington, See discussion In ch 6

csource Off Ice of Technology Assessment

only to a permitted hazardous waste management facility. Another school argues that there

are degrees. Therefore, different types of hazardous wastes should go to different types of

facilities. I happen to believe that the last argument makes a great deal of sense. This implies

that we should have different classes of disposal facilities for different classes of hazardous

wastes .38

GOAL 2

Expand the kinds of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

This could be a major benefit. One of the

primary objectives of classification is to equitably and appropriately regulate waste posing

different types and levels of hazard, There

could be less resistance to bringing currently

3“H. Lanier Hickman, “TOO Much or Too Little, ” Waste Age,

November 1982,

exempted waste under regulation if the regulatory structure accommodates low-hazard waste

at a lower level of stringency.

GOAL 3

Encourage alternatives to land disposal.

A major benefit could result from regulatory

restrictions and controls better matched to

varying threats. Such restrictions could limit

the use of land disposal to low-hazard waste

or to waste that cannot be handled in any other

way. A clear and consistent framework could

also contribute to greater certainty with, regard

to markets for various management alternatives, and could make capital investments in

new alternative facilities more attractive.

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/

CERCLA implementation.

99-113 0 - 83 - 7
90 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

A major benefit is likely, if hazard classification leads to determination of better priorities

for data needs, particularly concerning health

and environmental effects. A Federal classification system would also provide the impetus

for establishing a national data base for hazardous waste.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by

states.

A modest benefit might be obtained. Several

States have attempted to use hazard classification approaches (see ch. 6), but progress has

been slow. The attempts have been simple systems, for the most part, limited both by data

and resources. More generally, many States

have expressed their desire to see the degree

of hazard concept used systematically in RCRA

regulations. Other States are likely to have legitimate concerns over the adoption of a classification system that added, rather than reduced,

regulatory complexity. How “practical” it is to

use the classification approach could only be

resolved by a thorough study in the initial

phase of this option. Eventually, the option

could lead to the provision of additional technical support and an improved data base for the

States.

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in the costs of governments for

administration and of industry for regulatory compliance.

Governmental costs might increase or decrease, depending on the extent the classification approach created institutional efficiencies,

rather than technical complexities. Another

uncertainty is whether the approach might lead

to substantial efforts to “reclassify” waste and

facilities, analogous to, and perhaps more extensive than, current delisting efforts. Compliance costs for industry would be company-specific. While many of today’s management practices might be unaffected, currently underregulated waste would be regulated more stringently, while others currently overregulated would

be regulated less stringently. However, longterm costs associated with health and environmental damage, remediation efforts, and compensation could be reduced because of the

greater protection against harmful release of

waste.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costs

of waste management shifted to society in general.

To the extent that this option would reduce

underregulation and total exemptions of waste,

and would better ensure that land disposal

would be used for waste and locations for

which future hazardous release were unlikely, it would offer a major benefit by reducing

the probability of future release of hazardous

constituents.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over the siting of facilities.

A modest benefit might result if public confidence in the Federal program is improved with

the perception of a more comprehensive regulatory system and a correction of underregulation of waste. The option would create a Federal role in the broad area of siting facilities

by providing a mechanism for linking facility

location to the hazard level of waste, the type

of technology employed, and the performance

standards required of the facility. However, it

would not necessarily change the present situation, with the States having the primary responsibility for land use and the siting of specific

facilities. There would be continued public participation in siting and permitting of facilities.

The emphasis on appropriate types and levels

of monitoring for facilities would also have a

positive effect on public concerns.

Costs and Problems for Implementation

The major cost and problems associated with

implementation of the hazard classification approach is the need to obtain an adequate data

base concerning wastes, technologies, and

health and environmental effects. However,

there is continuing improvement of these types

of data. Adoption of classifications would
Ch. 3— Policy Options ● 9 1

—

greatly assist in integrating available information, and in determining priorities for obtaining new data. A major objection to the approach in the regulated community might be

the perceived lack of flexibility. Another legitimate concern would be that a waste with a

high-hazard classification could, in a particular situation, present less of a risk than that indicated by the hazard classification. This objection could be dealt with by providing a technically sound basis for classifying facilities, and

for linking facility class to waste hazard class.

Nonetheless, the classification approach does

imply setting different, or more, standards and

criteria than are employed currently. This is

the primary tradeoff in comparison to an apparently simpler system that does not emphasize setting different levels of regulation control with respect to level of hazard. The complexity of the current system is “hidden” in

both listing procedures that are largely ad hoc

in nature, and in permitting procedures

which contain considerable uncertainties because of the critical role of individual permit

writers.

OTA estimates that designing a waste and

facility classification system and assembling

existing data on health and environmental effects, and on technological capabilities, might

require $10 million over a 5-year period. One

reason for this relatively small estimate is that

considerable data exist, but have not been collected and organized sufficiently for the purposes of hazard classification. During this

phase, there should be substantial interaction

between EPA and the States.

After consensus among EPA, the States, industry, the public, and Congress with regard

to the system, the second phase could take several years. Its costs are difficult to estimate, but

they could be substantial. It is possible that the

detailed analyses might reveal that the complexities of the system would be overwhelming, either intrinsically or because of the impossibility of reaching a consensus between the

regulated community and the regulators on

specifics of classification, OTA considers that

an attempt to design a technically “perfect”

system will lead to paralyzing difficulties, and

that the task is to simplify the design without

introducing a level of arbitrariness that will be

unacceptable to the regulated community.

To address these concerns, it would be fruitful for the initial study to examine:

1. alternatives for translating waste hazard

and facility classification into effects on

regulatory control levels;

2. means to set and change boundaries that

define waste and facility classes; and

3. means to arbitrate disputes concerning

wastes and facilities close to class boundaries.

Option V

Planning for Greater Integration of

Environmental Protection Programs

The purpose of this option is to integrate administratively (and, if necessary, statutorily) a

number of existing environmental programs

that affect hazardous waste management and

regulation. Policies and programs that lead to

inefficient overlapping regulations, gaps in regulatory coverage, and inconsistent regulations

would be addressed. Insufficient integration

among different programs within EPA and

other executive agencies may be leading to

duplication of effort or unawareness of the extent of data and technical resources available.

A number of hazardous waste activities are

now regulated under different statutes. Within

EPA alone several different groups administer

activities related to hazardous waste. There are

also programs in several other executive agencies related to hazardous waste that do not appear to be highly integrated, The language in

RCRA that mandates integration with other

acts has proven too inexact, and EPA’s efforts

in this area do not appear to have a high priority. Ocean disposal or dispersal falls under the

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act. Some injection wells used for waste disposal fall under the Safe Drinking Water Act

and some under RCRA. Hazardous waste

streams destined for municipal water treat-
92 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control —

ment plants fall under CWA. A number of

aspects of regulating releases into the air or

water from management facilities fall under

the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, Some

wastes are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A recent study for

EPA concluded:

A number of Federal statutes govern aspects

of the hazardous waste problem. The statutes

in combination do not cover many of the major sources and types of hazardous waste releases, however.39

Congressional action for this option would

consist, first, of mandating a comprehensive

study of integration by EPA or some other

agency, including formulation of an integration plan. The second phase would consist of

congressional examination of the study and

plan. If deemed necessary, legislative action

would then implement the plan.

The existence of overlapping jurisdiction to

regulate hazardous waste activities is not necessarily counterproductive, confusing, or undesirable. The goal should be twofold: 1) ensuring that waste that might pose risks to health

and the environment do not escape regulation, ’ and Z) promoting the integration of

hazardous waste control and other pollution

control with legislation so that they can support each other, consistent with the statutory

requirements and goals of each program.**

“’Evaluation of Market and Legal Mechanisms for Promoting

Control of Hazardous Wastes” (draft), Industrial Economics,

Inc., September 1982.

*A particularly important example is the problem of hazardous release into the air that may not now be receiving adequate

regulation. Such releases, for the most part, are not now regulated under the Clean Air Act. With regard to hazardous air pollutants, in the past 12 years EPA has listed only seven substances,

promulgated final regulations for four, proposed regulations for

one, and is involved in litigation to compel it to regulate the other

two. EPA has noted “If the objective is to secure control of hazardous air emissions that pose a significant danger to public

health, the current statutory framework needs change. The current regulatory scheme . . . fails to provide criteria for the necessary tough technical and scientific decisions. ” Issue Papers prepared by EPA for Sept. 20, 1982, meeting between the EPA Administrator and representatives from the National Governors’

Association, released by Lewis S. W. Crampton.

“*An important example is the intended use of TSCA to stop

the production of new chemicals that would lead to hazardous

waste too difficult to manage, and to provide an early warning

of new types of hazardous waste to the RCRA program so that

they can be regulated. At present, there is no indication that

TSCA is serving these functions.

There is now no mechanism for ensuring that

facilities disposing of similar waste but regulated under different acts will be consistently

regulated, or that a facility permitted under

RCRA is not also disposing of other hazardous

waste without a permit that are regulated

under other acts. *

Although both RCRA and CERCLA are managed within the same division of EPA, there

appears to be little coordination of efforts between the two programs. The following three

examples illustrate additional problems associated with inadequate integration in the current Federal program. In the first two examples, the problem stems, in large part, from the

original congressional acts. In the third example, dealing with interagency cooperation, the

problem stems from poor administrative procedures.

Three Examples of Inadequate Integration

Regulation of PCBS under TSCA and RCRA.–Ten

days before passage of RCRA, Congress enacted TSCA imposing requirements on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS). A

recent study of the problems associated with

having two regulatory programs covering a

class of hazardous waste noted that “EPA, of

course, is well aware that it has been administering two closely related regulatory programs

(out of different offices within the agency), but

the agency has made little effort to integrate

them. ”40 The disposal rules for PCBS under

TSCA relate to concentration but RCRA regulations do not. TSCA regulations have established a separate permitting system for approved incinerators and landfills for disposal

of PCBS, Relatively few hazardous waste facilities have received permits for such disposal

of PCBS. Some RCRA-permitted facilities may

have the technological capabilities required

under TSCA to manage PC; BS. The same study

notes:

*Another discrepancy among the several environmental programs is the duration of facility permits; for example, RCRA permits currently are valid for 10 years, while a 5-year period exists for permits issued under CWA, although EPA has indicated

its intention to change the latter to 10 years.

‘Mitchell H. Bernstein, “PCB’S vs. RCRA Hazardous Wastes—

Separate Regulatory Regimes, ” Tle Environmental Forum,

November 1982, pp. 7-11, 36.
Ch. 3—Policy Options • 93

Under the present bifurcated system of review, however, those facilities will also have to

go through a separate approval process in order

to accept PCB’S for disposal—a burden which

may well operate as a major disincentive for the

expansion of the PCB disposal market.

Another difference between TSCA and RCRA

is that, under TSCA, States and local governments are less capable of enacting their own

more stringent requirements for disposal of

PCBS, From the perspective of waste generators, TSCA presents the problem of environmental engineers and managers in industry

being forced to track two different programs

within EPA. And, from the perspective of Government efficiency, within EPA there are two

programs dealing with a very similar area of

regulation, but headed by different assistant administrators, staffed by different technical experts and legal advisors, and making different

administrative interpretations.

Liability Insurance Rules Under RCRA and CERCLA.

—RCRA directs EPA to set standards for financial responsibility of treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities (TSDFS). Under current rules,

insurance coverage or self-insurance is required only until closure of a facility. The current requirement is for $1 million sudden occurrence minimum/$2 million annual aggregate, and $3 million/$6 million nonsudden minimum coverage. A recent study observes that:

the minimum insurance requirements set

by” EPA for TSDFS appear inconsistent with

other hazardous substance legislation which

Congress intended to complement RCRA.

CERCLA or Superfund required liability insurance or self-insurance of at least $5 million for

vessels carrying hazardous substances. It is unclear why much less coverage is required for

hazardous waste TSDFS that may handle large

volumes of waste and may be in or near densely populated areas.41

A second area of concern is the apparent gap

in insurance regulations for closed hazardous

waste facilities. Under RCRA the coverage for

facilities is required until closure. For some

41Eric Nagle, “RCRA Liability Insurance Rules—Evolution and

Unresolved Issues, ” The ,En\’ironmentaf Forum, November 1982,

pp. 16-20.

types of facilities, particularly landfills and impoundments where wastes remain after closure, the risks may become greater after closure

than during operation of the facilities. Under

CERCLA there is the Post-Closure Liability

Trust Fund, derived from a tax on hazardous

waste remaining at facilities after closure (beginning in September 1983). Most importantly, this fund accepts full liability for the site 5

years after a disposal facility is closed in accordance with the regulations. However, if release of hazardous substances into the environment occur within the 5-year period, CERCLA

does not assume liability. A gap in governmentassured protection for potential impacts from

release of waste, therefore, can result in two

ways: 1) the 5-year gap created by RCRA and

CERCLA regulations, and 2) possibly an indefinite period of noncoverage if a site is found to

be leaking before the CERCLA fund assumes

responsibility. Because RCRA regulations for

land disposal facilities cannot guarantee indefinite, long-term protection against releases of

hazardous materials into the environment (see

ch. 5) these gaps in financial responsibility requirements should be addressed.

Cooperation Between EPA and the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) .—One of the greatest concerns

is that land disposal of hazardous waste can

result in contamination of ground water supplies. Much of the focus of EPA’s land disposal

regulations is on ground water protection. The

technical complexities of ground water contamination, including its detection, monitoring,

and remediation, pose substantial problems.

Technical expertise in this area is very limited,

and data are incomplete. However, the USGS

has had a Toxic Waste-Ground Water Contamination program for some time that could have

contributed substantially to RCRA and CERCLA

regulatory efforts.

After EPA promulgated its land disposal regulations, USGS noted:

present technology is not adequate to develop

regulations to protect the public from hazardous waste contamination in a cost effective

manner. Major technical questions are yet to

be answered regarding the behavior of specific

wastes under different hydrogeologic condi-
94 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tions and on the safety, suitability, and economics of restoration and disposal methods.42

The expertise, experience, and data possessed

by USGS could serve as a greater resource for

EPA’s hazardous waste activities. It would be

inefficient for EPA’s Office of Research and

Development to duplicate USGS’s efforts.

USGS has a number of ongoing programs that

can serve the needs of both EPA and the States

in implementing RCRA and CERCLA. Studies

on the behavior of contaminants in ground

water aimed at improving disposal methods,

appraisals of existing ground water quality,

and identification of areas suitable for hazardous waste disposal are some. The last effort offers a particularly attractive opportunity with

regard to facility siting. USGS could pursue a

program to produce a national locations map

with hydrogeologic characteristics, minimizing the risks of contamination from hazardous

waste facilities.

Two Steps Toward Integration of

Environmental Programs

There are two phases to this option, and both

should anticipate the need for effective public

participation in order to address concerns over

changes that might lead to delays. First, EPA

(or perhaps some independent body) could develop a plan for the improved integration of

programs related to hazardous waste. The plan

would also focus on statutory changes required

to implement a comprehensive integration,

with emphasis on the permitting of facilities. *

The study also should examine obstacles to integration which occur at the State level, the

costs of integration at Federal and State levels,

probable improvements in protection of human

health and the environment, and impacts on

waste generators.

The second phase would include congressional examination of the study and plan, and

an examination of how administrative and stat-

“’Management Information Plan FY 1984,” Toxic WasteGround-Water Contamination Program, USGS, Sept. 27, 1982.

“These statutory changes need not–and probably would not–

involve integrating the various environmental laws themselves.

utory changes could be achieved. Congress

could also examine changes in EPA organization that would be necessary to integrate, and

if such integration would require legislation.

GOAL 1

Improve protection of health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties.

The closing of gaps in coverage and greater

consistency among regulatory programs could

provide major benefits, without interrupting

ongoing environmental protection efforts,

GOAL 2

Expand the kinds of federally regulated hazardous

waste.

A minor benefit could result from closing of

gaps in regulatory coverage.

GOAL 3

Encourage alternatives to land disposal.

This option does not address this goal in a

significant way.

GOAL 4

Improve data for risk assessments and RCRA/

CERCLA implementation.

A minor benefit could result, chiefly by better ensuring that data obtained in one program

are made available to other programs.

GOAL 5

Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by

the States.

A moderate benefit could result if integration

resulted in improved administration of hazardous waste programs and improving the technical support of State programs.

GOAL 6

Moderate increases in the costs of governments for

administration and of industry for regulatory compliance.
Ch. 3—Policy Options . 95

Compliance costs for waste generators might

increase due to greater regulatory coverage, but

integration would reduce future costs for both

industry and government. There would be fewer government groups to deal with, simplified

permitting, and simplified monitoring of facilities. Similarly, government costs of administering the regulatory program might be reduced by greater use of multipurpose data

bases, reduced paperwork, and fewer field personnel. Even if direct costs were increased due

to increased regulatory activities, there could

be long-term reductions in the costs associated

with adverse health and environmental effects.

GOAL 7

Reduce risks transferred to the future; reduce costs

of waste management shifted to society in general.

To the extent that gaps in regulatory coverge

would be closed, and significant hazards controlled, this option could reduce future risks

substantially. At present, some hazardous

wastes are certain to find their way to the

lowest cost option—which may exist, in part,

because of loopholes in the regulatory structure. Although such loopholes are often closed

at some point, their use over time can present

serious threats to future generations because

conditions are created that eventually lead to

high probabilities of releases of hazardous constituents. The option does not address the externalization of costs significantly.

GOAL 8

Reduce public concerns over the siting of facilities.

A substantial benefit might result if the public views the study and implementation of integration activities as a move to make government programs more effective and efficient. On

the other hand, a major reorganization could

also raise public concerns. Such concerns

could be reduced by meaningful public involvement during the study for integration, and this

participation could be ensured by including

such a requirement in the congressional mandate for the study,

Costs and Problems With Implementation

Serious objections to this option are likely,

There may be fears that such an ambitious goal

is simply impractical and that it could cause

delays in ongoing activities. If the initial study

is thorough and with sufficient resources, these

objections may be minimized, A detailed study

over a 3-year period with funding of perhaps

$5 million might be sufficient. * Having an independent organization, rather than EPA, to

conduct the study may offer the advantage of

greater objectivity and impartiality.

It would also be necessary to clearly establish

that no new regulatory program would be instituted until after extensive congressional examination of the proposed plan, over perhaps

a 2-year period, with ample opportunities for

public comment. Problems could arise in the

form of conflicts among congressional committees concerning changes in jurisdiction proposed in the integration plan. There might also

be opposition to integration for hazardous

waste from those with interests in other environmental areas.

Integration from the limited perspective of

hazardous waste management may be in conflict with attempts to integrate all environmental protection programs. For example, EPA is

now conducting a pilot study to control toxic

pollutants from all sources in the Philadelphia

area. This study is part of EPA’s integrated environmental management program which attempts to weigh risks across air, water, and

land media. However, as this OTA study has

found, there are inadequate data to support

such detailed risk assessments. Moveover, the

integrated approach could easily tradeoff any

protection from hazardous waste because of

limited funding and substantial risks from

other sources of pollution. There have also

been attempts to develop consolidated permits

for facilities regulated under several acts,

*Several current major EPA studies, such as its risldcost model

and its study of small generator exemption, cost about $1 million

to $2 million for several years of work.
96 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Summary Comparison of the Five Policy Options

This comparison presents the relative benefits of all five options in a convenient form and

is intended to facilitate the comparison of the

five options apart from the consideration of

costs and time involved. Options II through V

can be viewed as a series of complementary

actions, taken progressively over time, or as

separate individual actions offering particular

benefits relative to one or more of the eight

goals. Moreover, while option I (status quo) and

option II (modifications in A) are mutually

exclusive, options III, IV, and V are compatible with option I. Options II through IV appear

to require approximately the same level of initial appropriations, about $5 million to $10 million each. There are, however, no means of

reliably estimating longer term costs, or cost

savings for government, industry, or the general public. The five options have been presented in order of increasing time required for

preliminary studies and implementation. If immediacy of implementation is an important

consideration for some policy makers, then

clearly options I, II, and III are the most attractive,

The policy options have been compared in

two ways. In neither comparison, however, has

any attempt been made to demonstrate that any

one option is “best,” or even that one option

is better than another. In addition to the eight

goals, considerations of time and cost, along

with specific objections to particular options,

can make any option either more or less attractive.

Table 13 summarizes in brief narrative form

the key advantages and disadvantages of each

option. Table 14 presents an evaluation of how

each option, relative to the others, satisfies each

of the eight goals. This evaluation is necessarily

somewhat subjective and judgmental.

Table 13.—Key Advantages and Disadvantages of the Five Policy Options

Key advantages Key disadvantages

L Continue current program

● Current program stabilized and resources already ● Protection of public health and environment may be

invested utilized weaker than possible and desirable

● Participation by States improved ● Risks and costs may be unnecessarily transferred to

● Short-term private and public sector costs moderated the future

● Land disposal continues to be used extensively

IL A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program

● Protection of health and environment i m proved and ● Short-term private and public sector costs increased

made more consistent nationally . Progress of present program could be slowed u n less

● More hazardous waste controlled additional resources are provided

. Data base improved Ž Technical resources and data may be insufficient

//L Economic incentives for alternatives to land disposal

• More waste reduction and treatment ● Near-term costs to industry increased

● Costs for improved protection more equitably ● Uncertain effects on firms, communities, and

distributed international competitiveness

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

IV. Development and potential use of a hazard classification framework

● More waste regulated at levels consistent with ● Major effort needed to i m prove data base

hazards posed ● Unnecessary complexity may be introduced

● Fewer risks and less costs transferred to the future ● Long-term costs for implementaiton uncertain

● Improved technical support for State programs

V. Planning for greater integration of programs

● Gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies i n regulatory ● Considerable administrative and institutional

coverage reduced difficulties

● Reduced transfer of risks and costs to the future . Possible interruptions in ongoing programs

● Public confidence in Federal program improved ● Congressional action on necessary legislative changes

may be complex

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 9 7

—

Table 14.—Comparative Ranking of Policy Options for Each Policy Goal

Most Least

Goals effective effectlvea

1, Improve protection of human health and the environment

without undue delays and uncertainties . . . . . . . . II Ill I Iv v

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

3. Encourage alternatives to land disposal ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill Iv II I v

4. Improve data for risk assessment and RCRA/CERCLA

implementation . . . . . . . . . . II Iv I v Ill

5. Improve and expand RCRA/CERCLA participation by States ., . . . Ill II I Iv v

6. Moderate Increases in costs to governments for

administration and industry for compliance . . . . . . I Iv v II Ill

7. Reduce risks and costs transferred to the future; reduce

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

8. Reduce public concerns over siting facilities ., . . . . . . ... . . Ill II v Iv I

-.

Policy options

I Continuation of current program

II A more comprehensive and nationally consistent RCRA program

Ill Economic incentives for alternatives to land disposal

IV Development and potential use of a hazard class classification framework

V Planning for greater Integration of environmental protection programs

a

Least effective does not imply total lack of effectiveness all rankings are strictly for ordering options and do not imply any

absolute level of effectiveness

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

In presenting the five policy options, OTA

is aware of the need to justify additional Federal expenditures and possible increases in

short-term costs to the private sector. Current

public and private sector costs for hazardous

waste management are substantial, approximately $4 billion to $5 billion annually. Regardless of any policy action, these costs will

increase markedly in the future as both the

RCRA and CERCLA programs become more

fully implemented and possibly as the expected

economic recovery leads to an upturn in hazardous waste generation.

The total appropriated funds for options II

through V might be $50 million. This represents about 25 percent of one year’s total Federal and State expenditures for hazardous

waste activities. It also represents about 1 percent of the current total public and private sector annual costs of administering and complying with RCRA and CERCLA,

There are considerable uncertainties concerning long-term costs to public and private

sectors for implementing options II through V.

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that both

the short- and long-term costs of carrying out

all four policy options may be more than offset by the potential benefits, only some of

which can be viewed in strictly economic

terms, The chief areas of potential cost savings

are: reductions in the number of hazardous

waste sites requiring very expensive cleanup

and reductions in damages to people and to the

environment which entail substantial costs for

treatment, remediation, and compensation.

Relatively small percentage savings imply substantial absolute dollar savings. For example,

if all four options led to a net savings of only

1 percent in the future annual national costs

associated with hazardous waste (currently

about $4 billion to $5 billion and rising), the

savings in 1 year would exceed the initial costs

of implementing the options. It is possible that

in the long term, implementation of the options

could lead to considerably greater economic

benefits.
98 • Tecnologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control9

—

Four Scenarios

As discussed in the previous section, it is

possible to implement various combinations of

the five policy options. The purpose of the following discussion is to illustrate four such combinations. The scenarios have been developed

by making certain simplified assumptions

about varying perspectives on the need and

methods for improving the current Federal

program.

SCENARIO I

Current RCRA regulations are adequate, but alternatives to land disposal need encouragement. Options I

and Ill are adopted.

Many believe that the current RCRA regulations are satisfactory and should be given an

opportunity to prove themselves effective,

Changes in the regulatory program, they argued, are unnecessary and counterproductive

to the extensive efforts made since the passage

of RCRA. Nonetheless, it is also generally recognized that from a long-term perspective, unnecessary risks and costs may be transferred

to the future by disposing of many hazardous

wastes in the land. There is equal concern that

congressional action in this critical period of

development should be expeditious and well

defined.

Accordingly, this scenario consists of adopting option I (maintaining the current RCRA

regulatory program) and also adopting option

III (providing direct economic incentives for

alternatives to land disposal). Option III is compatible with option I, since it involves nonregulatory “market” methods of reducing future

releases of hazardous constituents. Option III

consists of three critical components:

1.

2.

a system of fees or taxes on waste generators (to replace the current funding mechanism for CERCLA) based on quantity of

waste, level of hazard, and management

practices, in order to promote choices of

alternatives to land disposal;

methods for meeting the capital needs of

waste generators and commercial facilities

3.

that are initially required in efforts to reduce

waste generation and to implement treatments reducing hazard or volume levels; and

support for R&D efforts that may be necessary before waste and hazard reduction

can be accomplished commercially.

SCENARIO II

Specific changes are needed to strengthen RCRA,

and an effort is needed to integrate and streamline the

entire Federal hazardous waste program which has

evolved in a piecemeal fashion. Options II and V are

adopted,

The choice of option II is based on the desire

to improve the existing RCRA regulatory program. The specific actions included in option

II would close a number of existing gaps in

regulatory coverage of waste, restrict certain

waste from land disposal facilities, introduce

more technical criteria to set nationwide standards, improve the delisting process, and would

introduce limited class permitting. However,

to address broader concerns over gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies in regulatory coverage, option V would also be adopted. Option

V moves beyond the analysis of RCRA regulations to examine problems related to insufficient integration between RCRA and CERCLA,

among the various environmental protection

statutes, and among the various executive

agencies having programs associated with hazardous waste, These two options combine both

short- and long-term approaches to obtaining

a more effective, efficient Federal hazardous

waste program.

SCENARIO Ill

The current RCRA program needs improvement and

a nonregulatory approach is also needed to shift waste

management choices away from land disposal toward

waste reduction and treatment efforts. The most expeditious congressional actions are required. Options II and

Ill are adopted,

Option II would result in the improvement

of RCRA regulations to better provide shortand long-term protection of health and the en-
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 9 9

vironment. However, uncertainties concerning

the effect of the regulations on shifting management choices away from land disposal, along

with enforcement problems, would probably

remain. To complement the regulatory approach of option II, option III is used to introduce direct economic incentives for alternatives to land disposal. The combination of these

options would reinforce the connection between RCRA and CERCLA. Federal fees on

hazardous waste, increased for land disposal

and for waste with high-hazard levels, can be

used to fund CERCLA and State hazardous

waste programs. With a fee system, full lifecycle costs of waste management could be internalized by increased costs to responsible

parties and to consumers of hazardous wasteintensive products.

Appendix 3A.–Hazard

SCENARIO IV

The current RCRA regulatory program should be

maintained, but some long-term efforts to improve the

program should also be pursued. Adopt options 1, IV,

and V.

Options IV and V are compatible with the

current program in the near term, since both

involve initial studies before changing the current program. The introduction of hazard classification at some future time does not imply

any fundamental change in the RCRA regulatory structure. Similarly, a plan for regulatory

integration resulting from option V would not

require a restructuring of RCRA regulations.

Both options IV and V can be viewed as evolutionary refinements of the current program,

and their adoption would not jeopardize the

stability of the present program.

Classification in a Risk

Management Framework

In the past 6 years, EPA has attempted to design

a regulatory structure responsive to a variety of

wastes, hazards, and treatment/disposal methods.

A review of the evolution of regulations suggests

that different approaches were considered by the

two administrations (Carter and Reagan). For the

most part, the EPA framework has considered each

element of risk management in a piecemeal way.

There has been an absence of integrated data on

waste composition, environmental fate of waste

constituents, and technological alternatives for

treatment and disposal. Although this approach resulted in the promulgation of regulations, the issue

of how best to respond to varying hazard and risk

levels is not yet settled. During the congressional

consideration of RC RA, the degree-of-hazard concept received considerable attention, but EPA was

not required to use it.

To date, various lists of wastes have acknowledged different hazard levels to only a limited

degree. Various aspects of the regulations also

acknowledge different hazard levels. The need to

“tailor” RCRA regulations to varying hazard and

risk levels is seen clearly by EPA. The best approach, however, remains an area of debate. Recently, EPA has pursued a risklcost approach (discussed in ch. 6 and its appendix) toward implementing the degree-of-hazard concept in a more comprehensive and formal way.

The purpose of this discussion is to examine in

more detail the use of hazard classification as a key

component in a comprehensive risk management

framework that would offer a means to “fine tune”

RCRA regulations.

The Need for Using Degree of Hazard

In reviewing the problems discussed in chapter

6, two general issues have emerged:

1,

2.

The regulations have been developed in general, nonspecific terms in recognition of the

broad variety of wastes and the site-specific nature of facilities to be permitted.

For regulations that do not recognize differences among hazards and risks, tradeoffs

must be made between ensuring appropriately stringent regulations for waste with highest

hazards and incurring unreasonable costs for

managing less hazardous waste. Thus, in t h e

long run, medium-hazard waste may be regulated adequately, but low- and high-hazard

waste and low- and high-risk management
100 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

practices may not receive appropriate control,

High-hazard waste may be underregulated,

and low-hazard waste may be overregulated.

The current RCRA program provides one set of

regulations and standards, with limited recognition

that specific wastes and facilities may require deviations that can be accommodated at the permitting stage. There are some indications that the

risk/cost model may be used to “fine tune” the basic

set of regulations for certain generic situations.

Thus, this model might complement the variance

procedures at the permitting level. D

In chapter 5, a general risk management framework was discussed. The elements of this general

framework include hazard evaluation for wastes

and facilities, risk estimation, evaluation of tradeoffs, assessment of management options, an d

choosing an appropriate course of action. Drawing

from that general outline, this discussion presents

a suggested decisionmaking framework designed

specifically to account for varying levels of hazard

for waste in their management, through the use of

both waste hazard and facility classes. The factors

determining different facility classes (for existing

or planned facilities) include the performance capabilities (actual or anticipated) of the facilit y

with regard to controlling release of hazardous constituents, monitoring programs, management procedures, training programs, the hydrogeologi c

characteristics of the site, the physical routes of

potential transport of releases, the proximity of potentially affected people or sensitive components

of the environment, and locally available resources

for emergency response.

As was shown in figure 2, the framework is dynamic. Continuing collection of information and

accumulated experience in permit writing can lead

to adjustments in hazard classification of facilities

and wastes. However, once a permit is issued (for

10 years under RCRA) changes in the system would

have little effect on the permit holder, unless the

permit holder voluntarily requested and received

review and relief. At the permit writing stage, information about actual wastes and facilities are

used to confirm or deny the judgments by the facility operator or waste generator concerning the appropriate Federal facility class, and possibly the

waste hazard classes. Experience at the permit writing stage produces information for making regulatory policy changes concerning waste and facility

classes, for establishing data and research priorities, and for improving the Federal data base.

If the permit writing authority is provided with

a small number of waste and facility hazard classes

(with specific technical criteria for technology performance standards, monitoring programs, and site

requirements), choices can be made concerning levels of risk. This facilitates a “coarse tuning” of the

regulations within the limits imposed by having

several waste and facility classes. The regulatory

“tuning” process consists of matching waste hazard classes to the facility class. This contrasts to

the current system with one primary set of standards from which the permit writer can, for some

types of facilities (e. g., landfills), make many deviations and exceptions (analogous to selection on a

continuous band of options). However, for other

types of facilities (e.g., incinerators), the current system may offer very little flexibility.

The permit writer’s primary decision depends on

fitting the real situation into a small number of options for regulatory control. The permit applicant

is required to supply data consistent with the parameters used to classify waste and with the criteria

used to define the corresponding levels of regulatory control. It should not be inferred that the illustrated framework can guarantee good permit decisions. A poor choice among the limited options

available with the hazard classification approach

could prove to be as detrimental as poor decisions

made in the current system by the permitting

authority.

How Hazard Classification Differs

From Other Approaches

There are four approaches to implementing the

degree-of-hazard concept. The listing approach is

the simplest but may be the least adequate. From

available information, lists of wastes are prepared

to represent degrees of hazard. Use of this approach

by EPA and some States indicates there remain

considerable uncertainties as to the exact criteria

used to establish the lists, or to obtain delisting, This

list approach does not expeditious and effectively

dealing with wastes that have not yet been listed,

or with those candidates for delisting, Lists are

often too generic and do not recognize major differences among individual waste constituents. At

the Federal level, lists have not been related to differences in regulations and standards. Moreover,

listing alone does not integrate the effects of different technologies and site-specific factors into a

comprehensive risk management framework.

EPA has moved toward the development and use

of the risk/cost model as a means to introduce more

quantitatively the degree-of-hazard concept. It ap-
Ch. 3—Policy Options Ž 107

pears that the deficiencies inherent in the listing

approach have been recognized. Using cost, however, as a means to balance risks appears contrary

to the intent of RCRA: the cost component of this

approach is not required for implementing the

degree-of-hazard concept. It is the use of risk assessment that differentiates levels of hazard for wastes

and the contribution of technologies and site-specific factors that determine actual levels of risk for

a facility. The substantial increase in the amount

of data required for the risk assessment approach

makes it somewhat unique. It is necessary to obtain information beyond an understanding of the

basic characteristics of the waste and indications

of adverse human health and environmental effects.

In risk assessment, considerable data on actual human health and environmental effects are preferable, although other data, such as animal effects,

may be used out of necessity. There must also be

considerable information on those factors necessary to assess risks, which include, for example,

specific information on the transport and fate of

releases into the environment, and on the responses

of particular components of the environment to the

release dosage. Although this approach can be precise, it lacks predictive capabilities. New situations

require extensive data and analysis.

EPA may introduce the use of the risk/cost model

as an adjunct to the flexibility achieved through permit writing. Permit writing is another way to introduce the degree-of-hazard concept into the regulatory framework. The main objections to using

permitting as a primary means to achieve variations in level of regulatory control are: 1) many permit writers nationwide can be making decisions

that are inconsistent with others, leading to inequities among facility operators, varying levels of public protection, and possibly the formation of “pollution havens;” Z) permit writers may lack access

to technical data or the technical skills necessary

to make satisfactory decisions about whether requested deviations from the primary set of RCRA

regulations adequately protect health and the environment; and 3) with many individual decisions

being made concerning variations in regulatory

control, it is difficult for the public and policymakers (including Congress) to evaluate whether

statutory requirements of RCRA are being completely met.

Hazard classification approaches are in contrast

to the complex risk approach, the simple listing approach, and the decentralized permitting approach.

The basic aspects of hazard classification are:

1) data on waste are used to describe adverse effects of exposure to hazardous constituents; 2) it

is possible to classify wastes by similar levels of

hazard; 3) it is possible to classify facilities of different technologies to afford a certain level of hazard reduction with regard to waste handled, or a

certain performance level for controlling releases

of hazardous constituents; and 4) waste hazard

classes are matched to facility classes to achieve appropriate regulatory control. Decisions must be

made concerning what types of data and what specific values are to be used in establishing the different classes of wastes and facilities. This is not

necessarily simple, nor are the boundaries (values

of different parameters) that define different classes

rigid. A new waste can be classified as long as there

are data corresponding to the boundaries for the

classes.

It is emphasized that all suggested uses of hazard

classification assume that only a very few classes

would be required and are practical. Usually high,

medium, low, and no hazard classes are envisioned.

To some extent, therefore, the classification approach is more “coarse tuning” than the “fine tuning” achieved through risk assessment. Compared

to the variations possible with permitting decisions,

the classification approach offers permit writers an

opportunity to select from a small number of

choices. For example, a permit writer could change

the classification of a waste (and therefore the level

of regulatory control required for the facility) because of the concentration of a hazardous substance in the waste, or because of technological and

site-specific factors. A facility with some type of

waste pretreatment might require a reduced performance standard to achieve acceptable levels of

release, A facility may be in a location in which any

release would be so dispersed prior to any exposure

to a vulnerable receptor that a lower performance

standard would be acceptable. With hazard classification it is possible to integrate technological and

site-specific factors into the use of varying hazard

levels of waste. Options, however, are limited by

the number of hazard classes available, and by the

corresponding regulatory requirements, such as

performance standards, monitoring requirements,

and criteria for acceptable sites.

Objectives of an Integrated Risk

Management Approach

Any integrated approach directed toward the

hazardous waste problem should address certain

key issues, These include:
102 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

1.

2.

3.

4.

The

consideration of degrees of hazard and risk in

relation to waste and management practices;

assessment of the potential to reduce either the

amount or hazard level of hazardous waste

through the use of appropriate technology;

development of effective designs for monitoring strategies at all types of facilities; and

a means for addressing severe public opposition to siting of new hazardous waste facilities

by providing a technically sound basis for evaluating management proposals.

framework illustrated in figure 2 would address these issues and provide an integrated approach for data collection, hazard and risk estimations, evaluation of tradeoffs among risk, costs, and

benefits, The specifics of how the issues are addressed are discussed subsequently. The outcome

then can be used in making decisions concerning:

1. criteria for permitting and monitoring,

2. regulatory and policy changes, and

3. data and research priorities.

This decisionmaking framework emphasizes the

need to classify waste by degree of hazard and to

integrate data for risk evaluation associated with

specific management approaches.

This framework is a tool with which government

officials could formulate effective appropriate regulations for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. It is not a formal classification system

for actual regulation of waste management. * If

implemented as the basis for decisions within a

governmental agency, it could provide the scientific and technical bedrock for sound decisions

about regulation of hazardous waste. It also could

provide government agencies, either Federal or

State, with a tool for addressing public opposition

to siting and management approaches. The objectives of this framework are:

1.

2.

3.

to provide a consistent decisionmaking framework for achieving the goals of protection of

human health and the environment,

to provide a mechanism for establishing criteria and priorities for reaching this goal, and

to maximize flexibility for officials to develop

appropriate regulations for the management of

waste.

● The design and selection of a hazard classification system would require considerable attention to specific factors used to assess a number

of different types of hazards, and then the selection of several critical

values for these factors in order to establish boundaries between hazard

classes. This study has not attempted to design or select a specific

classification system, but, as considered in chapter 5, there appears to

be sufficient evidence to indicate that a workable classification system

could be developed with existing information.

Hazard Classification Considerations

In considering the degree-of-hazard concept,

three characteristics of wastes are important: the

chemical and physical forms that affect its treatability, characteristics of constituents that determine

the hazard potential itself, and the concentrations

and chemical forms of the constituents, Classifying wastes according to these characteristics and

the hazard levels that each pose to health or the environment is discussed in chapter 6.

Afterward, data would be analyzed to determine

both immediate and protracted hazards. The immediate hazards can be determined by assessing characteristics of reactivity, chemical incompatibility,

ignitability, and corrosiveness. Long-term hazards

can be determined from the toxic qualities of a

waste and its constituents and from those characteristics that influence its distribution and fate in

the environment-e. g., volubility, volatility, persistence, and bioaccumulation.

Development of hazard classes from specific criteria will not be an easy task, but will not be impossible. An ideal system might have four classes:

high, medium, low, and no hazard. The criteria for

each could be based on toxicity, genetic impairment, chemical and physical factors contributing

to persistence and bioaccumulation, safety factors,

and concentrations. As discussed in chapter 5,

models are available that incorporate these elements, and these could serve as a basis for further

criteria development.

The study prepared for OTA. (see the discussion

of case study in ch. 5) concludes it is possible to

distinguish among wastes even using the inadequate data base currently available. Although the

waste selected in the study are considered by EPA

as being equally hazardous, it was possible to further categorize them into four levels, using classification models developed by the States of Washington and Michigan. The first step in the risk

management framework, i.e., estimating degrees of

hazard for the RCRA universe of waste, can be

achieved in a limited way now. With a concerted

effort to develop the necessary hazard criteria and

appropriate characteristics and effects data for

waste and constituents, a better estimation of

degree of hazard for waste will be possible,

The classification of wastes would provide options for permit writers that reduce the technical

burdens on them by providing established technical

criteria to choose among. Without classification,

permit writers face a large task of determining what

factors to consider and then determining what the
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 103

factor values signify in terms of hazard and risk.

Difficulties associated with interpreting varying

data would not be a major problem in classification. Initially, certain judgments would be necessary concerning the class in which a waste should

be assigned. However, as more data are collected

and new information incorporated within the data

base, classification could be revised as necessary.

It should be emphasized that before any hazard

classification would be used in the RCRA program,

considerable data will have been obtained from several years of permit writing. Because the classifications will shift one set of regulations and standards

to perhaps three sets, such changes would not necessarily cause more disruptions in the regulatory

process than would the risk/cost policy model or

other attempts to “tailor” regulations. It is conceivable that some of the main, existing standards

would correspond to the medium-hazard class, in

which the majority of regulated waste would exist.

Moreover, current regulations eventually will be

changed as new data are incorporated in the evaluation of risks and assessment of tradeoffs.

An advantage of a waste classification system is

that all potentially hazardous wastes are evaluated

and the system becomes inclusive, rather than exclusive. The current problem of fluctuating status

with respect to RCRA definitions would be largely

removed. All wastes would be considered but each

would be recognized for its specific hazard level.

The Link Between Waste Hazard

Classification and Risk Estimation

The chemical and physical characteristics of

waste strongly influence the technologies to treat

it. Important physical characteristics include its

form: solution, a solid, or a sludge. Important chemical characteristics include its origin: organic or inorganic. Waste can be further characterized as acid

or alkaline, concentrated or dilute. Each influence

the combinations, sequences, and cost of treatment

and disposal options. Because of their physical and

chemical diversity, treatment and disposal alternatives are diverse. No single treatment or disposal

process can be considered exclusively appropriate

or technically correct.

Many technologies have application in the management of hazardous waste. Some are applicable

to several physical and chemical forms of waste;

others have more limited application (see ch. 4).

Three general practices are treatment to reduce

hazard levels, containment to isolate waste from humans and the environment, and dispersion to reduce concentrations.

In the second element of the hazard classification

framework, degree of risk is identified for each of

these three categories of management practices by

the permit writer who uses the classifications, assesses the risks of facility design and operation, and

analyzes the potential environmental fate and distribution of waste that may be released from the

facility.

As discussed in chapters 6 and 7, current models

are inadequate for determining real-world risks associated with particular waste and management options. The models used should be capable of incorporating information about facility design, include

changes in operational parameters that affect the

potential release of material from the facility, and

include estimates of possible exposure to humans

and ecosystems. If this effort relies on simple models and indicator factors that do not reflect the real

situations, the result will have limited utility in the

decisionmaking process. Most models now proposed by EPA are very limited in scope and do not

reflect the behavior of waste in the environment nor

the potential level of exposure to organisms. Thus,

effort must be devoted to developing assessment

models that are multilevel oriented—not an easy

task.

A review of the scientific literature suggests that

many usable models do exist. Some evaluate the potential distribution of constituents within a variety of ecosystems and have the capacity to incorporate real elements and actual compound data. Other

models use design and operation data for a facility

type to determine the effluent under various operating conditions. By combining these two types of

models, estimates of expected risks for different facility types and even for different designs of one

type of facility could be formulated.

As with estimates of degree of hazard and classification of waste, the incorporation of this type of

risk analysis in a decisionmaking framework has

certain advantages. Because regulations would not

be a direct result of the analysis, temporary misinformation would not have critical effects on the actual management of hazardous waste. Rather, the

outcome of this step of the framework would be put

directly into the third step: evaluating tradeoffs between perceived risks, costs of changing facility design, costs of specific regulatory changes, and the

benefits that could be expected. By maintaining an

ongoing assessment effort, new information can be

included into the decisionmaking process as it becomes available.
104 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Regulatory Decisions and Tradeoffs

The third step of the process involves evaluation

of all risks, costs, and benefits associated with each

management option within a hazard classification.

Relying on the results of hazard classification and

risks estimation, tradeoffs among management options, risks, costs, and benefits of each can be used

to decide whether a waste should be classified differently, or whether a facility compatible with certain waste hazard classes could accept waste from

a higher hazard class (clearly there would be no regulatory problem in using a facility compatible with

a high-hazard class for wastes from lower hazard

classes).

It should be emphasized that current assessment

models—e.g., risk-risk and cost-benefit—have serious limitations. These are discussed in chapter 5.

As long as these limitations are recognized and included in the decisionmaking process, such tools

can be used. In this particular case of tradeoffs in

management options for hazardous waste, some of

the limitations associated with assigning dollar

values to lives saved may be eliminated by assessing only for the potential for release of hazardous

constituents from a facility. Guidelines would have

to be developed to assure that each tradeoff evaluation was accomplished in reasonably compatible

and uniform ways so that the results could be compared. Although further development of tradeoff

models is necessary, limited use of current models

is possible and would help in reaching decisions

about alternative options for management of hazardous wastes.

Application of the Risk Management Framework

Application of the framework requires that data

about the potential hazards posed by wastes and

constituents be evaluated with data about the risks

associated with different facility classes. This

evaluation is done by developing the technical basis

for matching waste classes with corresponding facility classes. The objective is to obtain the appropriate levels of regulatory control for the waste

classes. The technical basis for such correlations

is the use of health and environmental effects to

assess how certain levels of control over release for

certain wastes provide a consistent level of risk—

across the different waste and facility classes.

This classification framework recognizes that

wastes vary in the level of hazard inherent in their

makeup and that for any facility type there can be

variations in design and operation parameters that

result in different levels of potential risk. The outcome of this risk management framework would

have multiple uses. A major goal of this framework

is to streamline the regulatory process by establishing a link between hazard class and minimum Federal performance standards for all applicable technologies.

Developing Criteria for Permitting and Monitoring Processes..–A S regulations are written currently, the

Regional Administrator or State permitting authority has discretion for determining the suitability of

any facility and monitoring effort. This discretion

recognizes the site-specific nature of a facility. The

risk management framework illustrated in this discussion provides a means to develop such criteria

based on technical information rather than judgments by the permitting authority. For example,

specific application of any management option can

be restricted in two ways: lack of technical feasibility and permitting monitoring requirements. In the

former, there are some applications that are constrained because the technology will not change

the hazard level of the waste, contain it sufficiently, or disperse it in concentrations that are not

harmful to health or the environment. The use of

a waste classification approach does not remove the

necessity for the permit writer to decide what the

applicable technologies are. The classification

merely provides the set of details for determining

the appropriate facility class--the level of regulatory control (i.e., performance standards, monitoring requirements, etc.) as indicated by the facility

class for a specific waste class. For example, some

highly concentrated solutions of toxic, polycyclic

aromatics cannot be degraded with naturally occurring microorganisms; thus, Iandfarrning of these

types of waste is not appropriate. Use of improved

biotechnology methods have resulted in development of certain microorganisms that can degrade

such waste under controlled treatment conditions.

Even though standards for landfarming may exist,

the facility operator and the permit writer must

decide whether the technology is applicable to that

specific waste, Presumably, suitable guidelines

could be offered. Similarly, certain sludges cannot

be burned adequately in some industrial boilers

because of the limitations of the feed control mechanism and the lining of the combustion chamber, but

these same wastes can be incinerated in a rotary

kiln incinerator. Thus, within a technology category (e.g., biological degradation and thermal destruction) and facility class, the limitations for application of a specific treatment (e.g., Iandfarming,

advanced biotechnology treatment, or industrial
Ch. 3—Policy Options . 105

boilers and rotary kilns) can vary as a function of

the chemical and physical form of the waste.

A central concept supporting facility classification is the use of variations in performance standards for different technologies, Currently the regulations rely heavily on this method, but do so in

the absence of any analysis of the preferred types

of standard for specific technologies. There are several ways to define a technology performance

standard, The common objective is to exert control

over the release of hazardous substances into the

environment.

Debate over the appropriate method for setting

technology standards and for establishing acceptable levels of release is not unique to RCRA. At least

six different approaches have been considered for

use in implementing other environmental acts, Several of these have been considered in the rulemaking process under RCRA. These approaches require

specifying: 1) a numerical standard for allowable

concentrations of some contaminant remaining

after treatment (the point at which these numerical

standards come into effect can vary, e.g., at the

point of emission, or as an ambient standard for

land, air, and water at points of potential use);

2) specifying a percentage reduction of the concentration of a contaminant remaining after treatment,

relative to its original concentration; 3) a time period during which waste must be contained in the

waste management area; 4) specifying facility design and operating standards; 5) a nonspecific

health and environmental performance standard–

e.g., human health and the environment shall not

be adversely effected by the migration of contaminants; and 6) specifying a ratio of quantity of

emissions released per unit of raw material used

in an industrial process, This latter type of standard

has not been considered by EPA for incorporation

into RCRA regulations.

Although these six approaches are presented as

wholly separate concepts, there are instances

where the technicalities surrounding their implementation blur the distinctions. For example,

current incinerator regulations under RCRA

specify a 99.99 percent destruction and removal for

specified organic constituents within the waste

stream, During the process of specifying the organics, original concentration(s) and incinerability in the waste stream must be considered, This is

necessary because destruction of 99.99 percent of

a very low-initial concentration will result in emission concentrations in the stack gas that may be far

below the limits of detection.

No single standard can address all the variables

governing releases of waste contaminants to the environment because of the differences in the types

of technologies used to treat or to contain the waste.

Releases from treatment alternatives such as chemical conversion or thermal destruction are fairly immediate, and their duration is generally related to

the duration of the process itself. Further, the

qualities and amounts of the contaminants released

can be adjusted somewhat through control of the

treatment process. For containment alternatives,

such as landfills, releases occur over a longer

period of time. During operation, there can be

releases to the air and to the subsurface when the

final cover to reduce infiltration of rainwater is not

in place. There can also be releases that occur long

after the landfill has been closed—e.g,, as a result

of a breach in the lining material. Further, as the

leachate recovery system is only required to operate

during the commercial life of the facility, and since

the effectiveness of landfill cover maintenance in

preventing infiltration of water into the landfill

throughout the 30-year post-closure period has not

been determined, there may also be migration of

leachate from the bottom of the cells as liquid

pressure increases on the liner, The extent to which

these releases can be minimized depends on the design of the landfill and its materials of construction.

Thus, landfills are an example of a technology

whose performance can be improved by the specification of certain design, operating, and location

standards. The idea of using classification to

streamline the regulatory process is based on establishing a credible and accurate link between a

waste class and a facility class that in turn is based

on minimum performance standards for a variety

of technologies. However, it should be recognized

that the greater stringency required for higher hazard classes will make some technology options impractical or unattractive. For example the use of

landfills for high-hazard waste would be made

difficult by the very stringent performance standards and monitoring requirements associated

with that class.

Specific data requirements required in permit applications for all facilities would be developed to

include all aspects of the framework:

1. providing suitable data for a determination of

the hazard class for waste to be treated at the

facility,

2. indicating choice of appropriate treatment or

disposal options and including all information

relevant to design and operation,

99-113 0 - 83 - 8
106 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

3. identification of all potential releases of significantly hazardous waste constituents to the surrounding environment, and

4. providing adequate information with which

predictions of potential significant contaminants can be made,

By incorporating these data into the risk management framework, the permitting authority can

select the suitable class of performance standards,

monitoring programs, and establish a reporting and

inspection schedule to assist the responsible agency

(Federal or State) in its enforcement efforts,

Establishing Data and Research Priorities.-One outcome is to use the results to identify those areas that

require more data—e. g., additional data needed on

the fate of constituents in a landfill. Thus, funds

could be allocated toward gaining the needed information. Research priorities might be identified–

e.g., the evaluation may identify a class of waste

or type of facility that pose an unacceptable threat

to health and the environment. The responsible

agency, State or Federal, could then develop research efforts to determine new ways to deal with

this particular class of waste, or they could develop

incentives to encourage industry to identify improved management options—e,g., in the form of

reducing the generation amount of this class of

waste, in developing better treatment process, or

in devising new uses for the waste.

Identifying Areas for Regulatory and Policy Change,–

Specific regulatory restrictions are another way of

limiting application of a specific technology. In the

environmental area, these restrictions are usually

the result of a policy decision which evaluates the

environmental effects of the use of that option. For

example, regulations promulgated under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act restricts the dumping of radiological and chemical

warfare waste into the ocean because of the adverse

effects they would have on the ocean, not because

of any technical unfeasibility of hauling and dumping such waste at sea.

The risk management framework provides a context within which areas that may need regulatory

change can be identified using all available information, An assessment of whether to ban certain

materials from landfills can be accomplished using

this framework. A review of those wastes classified

as highly hazardous and the available treatment

technologies could result in a decision to ban them

from land disposal because other suitable options

do exist, rather than maintain the option of using

landfills with the higher level of stringency required

for this hazard class. In contrast, if there is a particular subclass of highly hazardous wastes that cannot be treated in any other way, than specific controls focused on those wastes can be required in

the regulations for land disposal.

Policy changes can be similarly determined using

the risk management framework. For example, the

current EPA regulations include several wastes that

are exempt from control. Some exemptions are statutorily mandated, others were granted by EPA. A

review of the waste in low- or no-hazard classes and

of the technologies that are used to treat or dispose

of these wastes may indicate that controls in terms

of performance standards or stringent monitoring

requirements may not be needed. EPA may decide

as a matter of policy that certain wastes must be

tracked offsite through the manifest system and the

final deposition (for waste managed onsite also)

simply reported in both generator reports and facility management reports.

Data Collection .–The success of this framework lies

with compilation of valid data about all aspects of

waste management. Without a well-developed data

base, sound judgments at an-y step of the framework will not be possible. The collection process

must be continuous as improvement in the decisionmaking process will depend on new and better data. Data from all parts of the framework are

fed into data collection efforts,

Addressing the Key Issues in Waste Management

The risk management framework presented here

addresses the major issues in the current examination of the Federal RCRA program in the following ways:

1. the major focus is to estimate degree of hazard

for wastes, classify them, and establish facility classes based on degree of risk (or control)

associated with a specific technology and facility location;

2. the framework facilitates identification of

waste that could be reduced and technologies

that provide greatest reduction either in hazard

level of the waste or in risk for exposure to

health and the environment. Over time, policy

changes can be considered to reduce the waste

generated or to encourage development of

technologies that reduce hazard and risks;

3. by correlating the hazard, waste, and the facility class, effective monitoring requirements can

be formulated; and

4. a means for addressing public opposition to

siting of new facilities by providing a sound

basis for evaluating propclsals is also incorpor-
Ch. 3—Policy Options ● 107

ated in this framework. As discussed in chap- a signal to the public that governments are inter 5, public fears are motivated by a number tent on establishing technically sound regulaof things: fear for health and safety, lack of con- tions, collecting data, establishing sound crifidence in governments and industry, and the teria for permitting and monitoring, and ensurabsence of technically based siting criteria. If ing consistent environmental protection naa decisionmaking framework is developed by tionwide.

Federal and State authorities, it would provide
CHAPTER 4

Data for Hazardous Waste Management
Contents

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

Introduction ● **. ... .000 *** ******* *

Management Roles of Government, Industry,

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

. . . . . . 

and the Public ● ... 

. .

Data Requirements: Generators and Generation

National Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .

Uses of Existing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Requirements: Health and Environmental

Existing Data ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Requirements: Management Facilities . . .

Priorities for Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

chapter 4 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

Table No.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

, 

of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Effects ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● ● ● ●

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

● ************9********.**** *

● ******O.************.***** *

0 *****0*** *

RCRA and CERCLA Data Collection Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Examples of Exemptions From Federal Regulation as Hazardus Waste . . . . . . .

Hazardous Waste Generation Estimates by EPA and the States. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health and Environmental Effects Data..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hazardous Waste Management Facilities During 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number and Size of Commercial Offsite Facilities During 1981 . . . . . .

List of Figures

Figure No.

4. Determination of Hazardous Waste Management Solutions . . . . . . . . . . .

5.Hazardous

6. Hazardous

Waste

Waste

Management Paths

Generation Data . .

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

.. ....*..* . . . . . . . . ● ..**. .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

,,0,.. .

,,.,,. ,

...., .

111

111

113

115

116

117

120

123

125

125

127

133

134

114

115

117

121

126

129

130

Page

112

113

118
CHAPTER 4

Data for Hazardous Waste Management

● Inadequate data conceal

tensity of the national

Summary Findings

the scope and inhazardous waste

problem. Substantial improvements can be

made in all data areas, and are particularly

needed for health and environmental effects

required for risk assessments.

● Although improved data are being obtained

by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and the States, effective implementation of government programs are hindered

by major inadequacies and uncertainties

concerning the amounts of hazardous waste

being generated, the types and capacities of

existing waste management facilities, the

number of uncontrolled sites and their hazard levels, and the health and environmental effects of releases of hazardous waste

constituents.

Ž Under State and Federal regulations some

255 million to 275 million metric tons

(tonnes) of hazardous waste are generated

annually, although the Federal program recognizes only about 40 million tonnes. States

sometimes define hazardous waste differently than does the Federal program. This leads

to differences in the perceived types and

quantities of waste that pose hazards, and

to confusion as to the degree and focus of

efforts required to control hazardous waste.

●

●

•

●

The Federal program exempts many millions of tonnes of waste deemed hazardous

to varying degrees.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act’s (RCRA) permitting efforts for facilities

will be based on the current EPA national

data base. These data are generally recognized to be incomplete and, in some respects, inaccurate.

The inventory of uncontrolled sites in the

Nation is still incomplete, and the severity

of the hazards posed by many of the listed

priority and unlisted sites is uncertain.

There are very limited data concerning the

short- and long-term health and environmental effects of exposures to actual hazardous waste. The disease registry and the

health survey mandated by the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA]

have not been completed.

There is a need for a long-term, systematic

program in EPA—for which a congressional

mandate does not exist—with the goal of obtaining more complete and reliable data on

hazardous wastes, facilities, sites, and exposures to and effects from releases,

Introduction

“Hazardous waste management” is defined

in the RCRA legislation as (l):

. . . the systematic control of the collection,

source separation, storage, transportation,

processing, treatment, recovery and disposal

of hazardous wastes.

Considerable data are required to determine

the technologies and strategies suitable for

managing a given hazardous waste. The roles

of government, industry, and the public in the

protection of health and the environment

through hazardous waste management are

complementary; however, the data needs of

each group differ. It is necessary for government to define siting criteria, to regulate the

design or performance of management facilities, to monitor compliance with these regula111
112 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tions, and to enforce the regulations. Industries

must identify the nature and hazard of their

waste, select existing technologies (or develop

new ones) for effective management, and ensure adequate management of their waste. To

assist government and industry in maximizing

the effectiveness of hazardous waste management efforts, the public should have access to

as much information as possible concerning

the activities of hazardous waste generators

and management facilities (with appropriate

consideration of the proprietary nature of some

information), and concerning regulations governing these activities.

To provide a framework for discussing these

various data needs, the basic issues and information involved in managing a given hazardous waste stream are illustrated in figure 4.

Figure 5 illustrates the possible paths that

hazardous waste may take during the management process. Both of these models are deliberately simplified; they are intended only to

present conceptual frameworks. The various

chapters of this study address the components

of these figures in detail.

This chapter discusses the need and availability of data for hazardous waste management. First, the roles of government, industry,

and the public are described, and a brief overview of relevant statutes and regulations is

given. Second, data types discussed are described. Third, the universe of regulated waste

is defined. Fourth, current data requirements,

resources, and uses are discussed as they relate

to generators and generation, health and environmental effects, and management facilities.

Finally, some priorities are suggested for development of required data resources for effective hazardous waste management.

Figure 4.—Determination of Hazardous Waste Management Solutions

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 4—Data for Hasardous Waste Management ● 113

Figure 5.—Hazardous Waste Management Paths

r

. 

, 

Temporary

storage

I

I f----- –––––-–-–– 1

I — — — . — - —

Dispersion

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Management Roles of Government, Industry, and the Public

Congress enacted RCRA in 1976 to address relationship of these statutes to RCRA is more

issues concerning current and future manage- fully discussed in chapter 7. As a result of sevment of hazardous waste and the recovery of eral environmental acts, sources of data have

energy and materials. RCRA is but one of sev- been developed concerning the chemical chareral Federal statutes concerned with public acteristics and potential impacts of hazardous

health and environmental quality through the substances on health and the environment. Inmanagement of hazardous substances. The formation and expertise developed under each
114 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

of these sometimes overlapping environmental statutes can contribute to the implementation of RCRA,

The role of the Federal Government as set

forth in RCRA includes the establishment of

a system that will protect health and environmental quality through proper management of

hazardous waste. The responsibilities for implementing hazardous waste management programs are shared by the Federal government

and the States. States have the authority to implement programs more stringent than required by the Federal program. RCRA focuses

on hazardous waste management and transportation. The regulation of generators is limited

to waste analysis and recordkeeping. EPA has

promulgated a regulatory program designed to

document and constrain the disposition of

hazardous waste from point of generation to

final disposal (see fig. 5). Table 15 summarizes

RCRA and CERCLA mandates for data collection. Many of the required studies and surveys

have not yet been completed.

The role of industry in the implementation

of RCRA is an important one. Hazardous waste

generators, as well as industries involved in

hazardous waste storage, recovery, treatment,

disposal, and transportation are involved. Industry’s role in RCRA implementation is to

comply with Federal and State waste management regulations, choosing waste management

options that do not threaten health or the environment and balance both immediate costs

and long-term financial liabilities, This choice

should be based on adequate data resources.

Generators are required to maintain records

of waste, reflecting the quantity and nature of

the waste generated, and its disposition. Generators who transport their waste to offsite

storage, treatment, disposal, or recovery facilities must maintain transport manifests.

The primary role of the public has been in

creating a sense of urgency that motivates

government to enact and implement hazardous

waste management laws. Public participation

is an essential ingredient in the development

of the States’ hazardous waste management

programs. The public has another important

function–that of visual monitoring and of

reporting conditions in and surrounding hazardous waste facilities that may present a threat

to health and safety.

Table 15.—RCRA and CERCLA Data Collection Mandates

RCRA data collection CERCLA data collection

Subtitle C

• Notifications by TSDa facilities b c

●

. Manifests of transported wastesb c d ●

● Site inventory ●

Subtitle D

. Inventory of open dumpsb

Subtitle E ●

● Available recovery/recycling technologies

● Available energy/materials for reuse and conservation

Subtitle H

● Special research and development projectsb

●

—waste characteristics

—effects on health and the environment

—waste management technologies

List of at least 400 priority sitesb

Inventory of published health effectsb

National registeriesb

—Diseases and illnesses related to exposure to toxics

—Persons exposed to toxics

Special studiesb

—Waste disposal sites

—Screening programs and surveys on health and

environmental effects

List of areas closed to the public due to presence

of toxicsb

a

Treatment, b

storage, and disposal.

Federal responsibility, clndu~ty responsibility,

‘State responsibility.

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment
Ch. 4—Data for Hasardous Waste Management ● 115

Types of Data

In this chapter, the term data refers to both

numerical and nonnumerical information. Six

data classes, are presented below:

1.

2.

Type E: Environmental data characterize

the nature of the environment that is exposed to the waste. The data incorporate

biological, ecological, geological, meteorological, and chemical characteristics, as

well as all relevant transport mechanisms,

Type W: Waste data characterize a given

waste. It is desirable that these data pertain to individual waste constituents and

to the waste as a whole. Two types of

waste characteristics are recognized:

a. physical and chemical characteristics:

state (solid, liquid, gas, solution or suspension in a liquid such as water], viscosity, density, flashpoint, corrosiveness,

organic or inorganic, elements, compounds, mixtures, concentrations, chemical degradability, reactivity in ambient

environments, reactivity in waste

stream; and

b. biological characteristics: toxicity (including genetic effects), nature of hazard, hazard level, persistence, degradability, tendency toward bioaccumulation, fate in humans and the environment.

3. Type F: Facility data characterize a single

facility involved in the generation, storage,

recovery, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. These data include location,

operating characteristics, input-output

waste characteristics, and the nature of environmental and human exposure to hazardous constituents associated with the

facility.

4. Type T: Technology data characterize the

typical performance of available management technologies (e.g., landfills, injection

wells, incinerators).

5. Type S: State data represent the overall activity of all facilities in the State.

6. Type N: National data represent the

overall activity of all facilities in the

Nation.

Throughout the following discussion, the data

type referred to is indicated by E, W, F, T, S,

or N, where the type is not otherwise identified.

The data needs of government, industry, and

the public are summarized in table 16.

Table 16.-Summary of Data Needs

User Legislation/regulation Permitting Monitoring Enforcement Planning Public information

Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . E,W,T E,F E,F F E,W,F,T E,W,F,T

State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . E,W,T E,F E,F F E, W,F,T E, W,F,T

Generators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W,TaW,F,T W,T

Management facilities . . . . . . . . . E,F,T E,F E,F F E, W, F,T,S F,S

Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.W,T . , E,F E,F F

KEY: E—environment data; F—facility data; N—national facilities data; S—State facilities data; T—technology data; W—waste data.

aData requir~ t. part~clpate In the legislative and reoulatov processes

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

The Universe of Regulated Waste

The defined universe of hazardous waste The term “solid waste” means any garbage,

varies among the States and the Federal pro- refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant,

gram. RCRA defines hazardous waste as a sub- water supply treatment plant, or air pollution

set of solid waste as follows: control facility and other discarded material,
116 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained

gaseous material resulting from industrial,

commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does

not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or solid or dissolved materials

in irrigation return flows, or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to

permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended . . . or

source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended . . . (z)

The term “hazardous waste” means a solid

waste, or combination of solid wastes, which

because of its quantity, concentration, or

physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may—

(A) cause, or significantly contribute to an

increase in mortality, or an increase in

serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or

(B) pose a substantial present or potential

hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,

transported, or disposed of, or otherwise

managed (3).

RCRA requires EPA “to develop and promulgate criteria for identifying the characteristics

of hazardous waste and for listing hazardous

wastes . . . taking into account toxicity, persistence, and degradability in nature, potential

for accumulation in tissue, and related factors

such as flammability, corrosiveness and other

hazardous characteristics” (4).

Chapter 7 describes the EPA process for

identifying and listing hazardous waste. In

1978, EPA proposed a definition of hazardous

waste which varied somewhat from the RCRA

definition and modified that definition in 1980.

The EPA definition is discussed in chapter i’,

RCRA excludes certain waste from regulation as hazardous; in some cases these

exempted wastes are regulated under other environmental acts. For administrative ease in

initiating the RCRA regulations, EPA set certain additional exemptions. Examples of RCRA

and EPA exemptions are shown in table 17.

Some of these exempted wastes pose relatively low hazards, but others are generally understood to pose serious threats. Several hundred

million tonnes of wastes are likely now exempted annually, pose significant hazards.

Such deregulation activities by EPA are substantial. Some typical examples are: the

delisting of spent pickle liquor that is reused

or accumulated, and transported for the purpose of reuse, or that is reused in wastewater

treatment in a facility holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit; regulatory deferral of waste from paint

manufacturing and paint waste from the mechanical and electric products industry; and deregulation of stabilized residues where approved technologies are applied.

Some States have elected to broaden the

RCRA and EPA definitions of hazardous waste

to include various additional chemical compounds, waste produced by small-volume generators, waste specifically excluded by RCRA

from regulation as hazardous in the Federal

program, various solid wastes, or waste specifically excluded by RCRA from regulation as

solid waste.

Data Requirements: Generators and Generation of Waste

Federal and State Governments require for public information, the universe of hazardwaste generation data for legislation, regula- ous waste requiring management should be

tion, and public information. The development defined and generators of such waste must be

of legislation requires information concerning identified. Methods of waste management, and

the amounts and types of waste generated, fea- the amount being generated in each locality,

sible regulatory strategies, and costs of regu- should be determined. Potential health and enlatory options. For purposes of regulation, and vironmental effects should be identified.
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management ● 117

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

Estimated

annual generation

Waste type (million metric tons) Possible hazard Determined by

Fly and bottom ash from burning fossil fuelsa 

. . .

—

66 Trace- toxic metals RCRA

Fuels gas emission control waste . . . . . ... . . . Unknown Toxic organics, and inorganic RCRA

Mining waste, including radioactive wasteb . . . 2,100 Toxic metals; acidity; RCRA

radioactivity 

Domestic sewage discharged into publicly

owned treatment works b 

. . . . . 5 Uncertain, toxic metals likely RCRA

Cement kiln dusta ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Alkalinity, toxic metals RCRA

Gas and oil drilling muds and production waste; Alkalinity, toxic metals, toxic

geothermal energy waste. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown organics, salinity RCRA

NPDES permitted industrial discharge . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, heavy metals RCRA

irrigation return flows . . . . . . . . . Unknown Pesticides, fertilizers RCRA

Waste burned as fuelsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Unburned toxic organics EPA

Waste 011 ...., ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Toxic organics, toxic metals EPA

Infectious waste ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Infectious materials EPA

Small volume generators . . . . . . . . . . . 2,7-4.0 Possibly any hazardous waste EPA

Agricultural waste . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Variable EPA

Wastes exempted under delisting petitions . . . . . Unknown Presumably insignificant EPA

Deferred regulations ., . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Unknown EPA

EPA deregulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Presumably Insignificant EPA

Toxicity test exemptions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Organics EPA

Recycled waste: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown Improper application of EPA

various materials

tWas\es may be dellsted on the basis of a petlt!on that IS concerned only with the consf!tuent(s) which have determined the or~g! nal I!stlng, however, other hazardous

constituents may be present which have previously been unrecognized adm!n!stratively

:Wastes not I dent! fl ed as toxic by the EPA extract Ion procedure test and not otherwl se I I steal by EPA

:Legltimate recycl!ng IS exempt from RCRA regulations except for storage However, there have been numerous Incidents (e g the dloxln case In Mlssourl) Involv!ng

recycled materials wh Ich are stl II hazardous

SOURCES aFedera/ Reg/sfer, VOI 43, No 243 12/18/78

b Technical Environmental Impact of Var[ous Approaches for Regulaflng small volume Hazardous waste (iencrators (Washington, D C Environmental prO

tectlon Agency contract No 68.02-2613, TRW, December 1979)

c ‘A Technlca[ Ovewlew of the Concept of Dlsposlng of Hazardous Wastes In industrial Bo!lers ” (Cinclnnatl Ohio Environmental protection Agency con

tract No 68-03-2567, Acurex Corp , October 1981)

d“The RCRA EXernptlOn for Small Volume Ha,?ardous Waste Generators, Staff Memorandum” (Washington, D C U S Congress Off Ice of Technology Assess

ment, July 1982

As for industrial data needs, the generators

of hazardous waste require facility data concerning specific waste quantities, constituents,

and concentrations if they desire to modify

their industrial processes to reduce the quantity and hazard of the waste they generate. The

waste management industry requires the same

information. And, for the purpose of market

surveys, both the generation and management

industries require data concerning management technologies appropriate and available to

handle generated waste, the location of existing

facilities, and the quantity and types of waste

these can handle, in addition to their current

utilization.

In order to maximize the effectiveness of the

public in hazardous waste management, information concerning waste generators, waste

generated, and health and environmental effects should be made broadly available.

National Data

Much of the existing data on hazardous

waste generation have been developed in a

series of studies completed between 1975 and

1982 (5-29). These studies and the relationships

among them (the use of one study by another)

are shown in figure 6. Also shown is a data set

derived from the Federal regulatory requirement that all handlers of potentially hazardous

waste notify EPA of their activities.

EPA contracted with several consulting

firms during the early 1970’s for analyses of

waste generated by industrial sectors (mostly

manufacturing industries) (5-19). Each contractor developed its own definition of the universe

of hazardous waste, The methodology used in

each study varied, In general, the contractors

calculated aggregate hazardous waste amounts

within broad industrial categories by using sev-
118 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Figure 6.— Hazardous Waste Generation Data

-1 Industry studies completed under contract to

EPA: 197578. Estimated quantities of

national hazardous waste. I

I I

i

National estimates:

● JRB Associates (1981)

● Battelle (1977)

● DPRA (1980-81)

● A. D. Little (1979)

● EPA (1976)

I I

-i . TRW Small Generator Study (1978)

I

-1 . Putnam, Bartlett, Hays;

Booz Allen & Hamilton (1980) k

I

EPA notification of hazardous

waste activity: 1980

. Number of generator, TSD facilities,

transporters I

I +

State data collection

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment.

eral methods. Some studies identified the scope

of an industry (e.g., number of plants and location) by using direct industrial information,

U.S. Department of Commerce data, or by visiting a small number of “typical” facilities

(fewer than 10) and then using the waste generation data for those facilities and data on the

number of employees to estimate hazardous

waste generation nationwide. * Other contractors identified the numbers of plants nationwide, designed a theoretical model facility, and

extrapolated national waste generation using

-i

State generation data

. Developed by State governments I

*A recent study for Virginia indicated that the methodology

using employment data can be in substantial disagreement with

waste generation data obtained from surveys of generators. For

example, liquid wastes were underestimated by about 30 percent, and waste sludges and solids were overestimated by close

to 20 times. (“Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators in the

Commonwealth of Virginia,” Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., October

1982.)

I

Generatlon data

● ASTSWM0 Survey for OTA

(1982) I

the model. Certain assumptions concerning

waste generation and management were applied in these studies. For example, it was

assumed that the plants would be in compliance with waste discharge requirements under

the Clean Water Act and other environmental

legislation; such an assumption would produce

a low estimate of total hazardous waste generation. It is unclear whether efforts were made

to account for differences in waste generation

that would result from variations in manufacturing processes, raw materials, and management practices among individual plants.

The 15 industry studies formed the data base

for a number of separate efforts to estimate national hazardous waste generation. Among

these are studies by JRB Associates (20), Battelle Columbus Laboratories (21), Development

Planning and Research Associates (DPRA)
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management • 119

(22-24), and Arthur D. Little (25). EPA also used

data from the 15 industry studies in the 1978

draft RCRA Regulatory Impact Analysis (26,

27). Although the same basic data appears to

have been used by ail, there were variations in

the national hazardous waste estimates produced by these efforts. These variations resulted primarily from differences in the statistical methods employed and the time periods

represented in each study.

EPA also contracted with TRW (28) to provide an estimate of waste produced by smallvolume waste generators. In the course of this

effort, TRW provided a national estimate for

hazardous waste generation of 61 million

tonnes per year, Information concerning the

methods of data collection and the analytical

techniques used in this study is incomplete.

The TRW estimate of 61 million tonnes appears

to be derived from data provided by States, industry, and other unspecified EPA consultant

reports, The study involved estimation of waste

generation rates from data attributed to individual plants of various sizes, and the application of these rates to the distribution of

plants reported by the U.S. Bureau of Census.

The TRW definition of hazardous waste included, in addition to wastes covered by the

EPA definition proposed in 1978, other wastes

having certain constituents which were believed by the contractors to be hazardous in

pure chemical forms. How much this latter

group broadened the universe of hazardous

waste as compared to the original 15 industry

studies remains unclear. TRW included smallvolume generators in its national estimate of

hazardous waste. The contributions of small

generators to the estimates in the 15 industry

studies is not known.

In 1979, EPA contracted with Putnam, Bartlett and Hays (who subcontracted with Booz

Allen and Hamilton) to summarize existing

hazardous waste generation data and to undertake a survey of commercial hazardous waste

management facilities. The purpose of the

study (29) was to determine if sufficient management capacity existed to handle the total

hazardous waste for 27 priority manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industry sectors

(identified by “standard industrial classes,”

known as SICs). Booz Allen and Hamilton used

the data base from the earlier industry studies.

Consequently, all variations and limitations in

definitions and methodologies from these

studies were incorporated in the Booz Allen

and Hamilton study. In addition, the data did

not correspond to consistent time frames, or

to whole industry sectors. To correct for these

discrepancies, three general types of statistical

adjustments were made:

1.

2.

3.

Estimates were adjusted upward to account for the growth of waste generation

since the date represented by the source

data. (This adjustment does not reflect the

recent downturn in industrial activity.)

Estimates were adjusted upward to account for waste generation in at least some

industries not included in the original

study.

When estimates referred to only part of an

industry sector, the generation ‘rate for the

total sector was developed by calculating

the ratio of production worker hours to

waste generation in the subsector, and applying that ratio to the total industry.

The national quantity of hazardous waste

generated annually was estimated by this study

to be in the range 28 million to 54 million wet

tonnes for the year 1980, EPA commonly reports a figure of 41 million wet tonnes for 1980

and 43 million wet tonnes for 1981. It is

acknowledged that these figures do not include

data concerning waste not regulated by RCRA

In 1980, EPA required hazardous waste generators, owners and operators of hazardous

waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

(TSDF), and hazardous waste transporters to

notify EPA of their activities. Information submitted included identification of facility type

(i.e., generator, TSDF, transporter), location of

the activity, and the types of waste handled according to EPA-established identification numbers, Notices were sent to 428,522 firms that

had been identified by WAPORA (a consulting

firm) as possibly being subject to RCRA regulation. EPA received approximately 60,000

notifications.
120 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Also in 1980, EPA established a requirement

for annual reporting of waste generated and

received. This reporting requirement, effective

that year, extended only to generators and

waste management facilities in States with unauthorized State programs. (At that time, no

States had authorized waste management programs.) In 1981, the Federal annual reporting

requirement was suspended, and only a few

States had partially authorized waste management programs. In October 1982, when the reporting requirement was reinstated retroactive

to 1981, all but 16 States had achieved partial

State program authorization. Since EPA still

only requires generators and waste management facilities in States with unauthorized programs to report annually to EPA, the data received by EPA will represent activities in only

a small number of States. EPA has also proposed a regulatory change to undertake biennial statistical samples from all the States in

lieu of more comprehensive annual reporting

requirements. Finally, EPA has undertaken a

new national survey of hazardous waste generators and management facilities. This survey

of approximately 10,700 generators and 2,500

management facilities is scheduled to be completed in 1983 and it will provide background

information for the ongoing RCRA Regulatory

Impact Analysis.

State Data

A number of States have attempted to estimate hazardous waste generation in their jurisdictions. These estimates were based on:

1.

2.

3.

4.

State inventories of waste generation by

facility (including transport manifest data,

State facility inventories, and data from

generator notifications to the States);

extrapolations of the Booz Allen and

Hamilton data using EPA notifications for

a particular State;

data from State manifests for waste transported offsite.

extrapolations of State-derived estimates

using methodologies similar to the national studies (20-29).

In addition, to address the need for new

hazardous waste management facilities and to

provide sources of information to the public,

some States have formed regional planning

organizations. These regional organizations

have published estimates of regional waste generation (30-33) using State-supplied estimates

of waste generation, or, in recent publications,

by extrapolating regional waste generation

from member States’ manifest data. State waste

generation data are discussed below. Chapter

6 discusses hazardous waste management facility siting.

The Association of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) surveyed State data for OTA (33). The results of

that survey are presented in table 18. As part

of this work, ASTSWMO requested the States

to indicate broad differences between the State

and EPA universes of hazardous waste. The

States were also requested to indicate how their

estimates were derived. The ASTSWMO information was obtained both. by telephone and

written response to a survey questionnaire.

Forty-two States and five territories responded,

but the completeness of their responses varied.

As table 18 shows, the ASTSWMO study indicates approximately 250 million tonnes of hazardous waste are being produced annually by

40 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. * The waste

from the States and territories not responding

might add another 5 million to 25 million tonnes annually to this figure (for a total likely

range of 255 million to 275 million tonnes).

The States’ waste generation data were derived by a number of different approaches: 19

States appear to have used State inventories;

5 States appear to have used data on manifested hazardous waste, thus underestimating

waste generation unless extrapolation to account for waste managed onsite was done. In

*Hazardous waste quantities reported in units of volume

(gallons, cubic feet, cubic yards) were converted to units of

weight by ASTSWMO using standard EPA conversion factors,

as noted in table 18. However, in those cases where States

reported quantities in units of weight, the factors used by the

States for original converting volume to reported weight (where

this conversion was performed) are unknown to OTA.
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management ● 121

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

Quantity (tonnes) Universe

State

a b EPA estimate State estimate Same as EPA State additions

Alabama b 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730,000

Alaska b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000

Arizona b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,000

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370,000

California e . . . . . . . . . . . 2,630,000

265,680

360

4,280,000

No datad

15,000,000

PCBs.

PCBs.

PCBs, waste oil.

PCBs, waste oil.

Approximately 4 mmt is oilfield waste; also

includes mining waste, small generators,

PCBs.

PCBs.

Extrapolated from 3 months manifest data.

—

—

Some delisted waste; 99.7°/0 is high volume,

aqueous solutions, neutralized on site and

discharged to sewers and receiving waters.

—

Manifest data only.

Includes 92,3 mmt of steel industry wastes,

pending delisting and currently regulated

under NPDES permit.

—

—

Refinery waste, small volume generators.

—

Fly and bottom ash, small volume generators,

substances with LD50.

Mineral spirits, tanning industry waste, small

volume generators, infectious waste.

Waste oil, PCBs, fly ash, and other

unspecified waste.

Waste oil.

Extrapolated from manifest data; 280

compounds (including waste oil) not on

EPA list.

PCBs, crank case oil.

—

Waste oil,

—

Special waste including infectious waste.

Colorado b 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180,000

Connecticut b. . . . . . . . . . . . . 610,000

Delaware a 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960,000

Georgia b 

., . . . . . . . . . 700,000

775,490

102,000

272,000

No data

38,500,800

x

x

x

Hawaii ., . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 30,000

Illinois a . . . . ... ... , . . . . 2,530,000

Indiana ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,280,000

No response

1,810,000

94,900,000

Idaho . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 80,000

Iowa ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000

Kansas a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000

Kentucky a ., ... . . . . . . . . . 700,000

Louisiana a ... ... . . . . . 1,250,000

Maine b 

., . ... . . . . . . . . . 130,000

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

Massachusetts b . . . . . . 820,000

Michigan b ., . . . . . . ... . . . . 1,990,000

No response

No response

45,300

415,000

38,800,000

5,290

272,100

172,000

408,000

x

Minnesota b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000

Mississippi a 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 340,000

Missouri a 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910,000

Montana a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000

Nebraska b ., ... . . . . . . . . . . . 120,000

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

181,000

1,810,000

658,930

91,200

0.5 ”/0 of

national total)

No response

9,980

855,000

x

x

—

Imported PCBs, waste oil.

Manifest data only; waste oil, PCBs, some

delisted waste, and other unspecified

compounds.

Small volume generators, PCBs, waste oil.

PCBs.

—

—

Solid waste on a case-by-case basis.

New Hampshirea 

. . . . . . . . . . . 100;000

New Jersey a . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,120,000

New Mexico . . .

New Yorkb 

. . . . .

North Carolina .

North Dakotaa

. .

Ohio a 

. . . . . . . .

Oklahomab

. . . . .

Oregon b 

. . . . . . .

Pennsylvaniab 

. .

Rhode Islanda 

.,

South Carolinab

South Dakotab .

Tennessee a 

., . .

Texas a 

. . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . .

60,000

2,320,000

1,330,000

30,000

2,570,000

230,000

200,000

2,550,000

190,000

No data

1,270,000

No response

125,000

3,260,000

3,570,000

19,100

3,628,000

1,600

1,587,000

1,590

4,300,000

29,146,960

x

PCBS.

PCBS and other unspecified compounds.

Other unspecified compounds.

A generally broader definition which includes

waste oil, low-level radioactive.

Waste oil, paint waste, unstabilized

sewerage sludge.

Waste oil,

- -

Generally different definition which includes

sludge, fly and bottom ash, water soluble

oils, boiler sludges, PCBS, and other

solid waste.

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

10,000

1,820,000

3,010,000

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

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

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

x
122 • Technologjes and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

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

Quantity (metric tons) Universe

Statea b EPA estimate State estimate Same as EPA State additions

Utaha 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,000 558,000 x —

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

laundries, some waste delisted by EPA, and

other unspecified compounds.

Virginia b

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,220,000 181,000 PCBs.

Washington b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,000 616,000 Additional unspecified waste.

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790,000 No response —

Wisconsin a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630,000 81,600 —

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,000 No response

Guam b 

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

—

n/a 1,450 x —

Puerto Ricob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560,000 417,000 x —

North Mariana Island. . . . . . . . n/a No response —

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . n/a o —

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . 140,000 No data x —

Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a No response —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,200,000 250,000,000

(excl. 2 terr.) (excl. 10 states,

3 terr.)

%MO data based on Inventory.

~%e -a bawd on consultant and/or State agency estimates.

~m cu~ntly WWlatd under TSCA EpA iS considering transferring regulation of this s“b~tance t. RCRA jur~~di~~ion

A few Statea dld not supply Information to this survey.

%state figure of 15 mllllon tonnes Is from the testimony of S. Kent Stoddard, Office of Appropriate Technology, House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, AgriCUWSre Raaeamh and the Environment, Dec. 8, 1982, It Is based on a recent State study.

C0nWl13&na: gallons x 0.00378 - metric tons

tons x 0.907 = metric tons

cubic feet x 0.02828 - metric tons

cubic yards x 0.78441 - metric tons

SOIJWX: State estimates and associated Information by ASTSWMO unless noted otherwise; EPA estimates by Office of Solid Waste for 1980.

the case of New Jersey, a recent study has indicated that in addition to the wastes reported

in the survey results, as much as 3 million

tonnes of hazardous wastes annually may be

dumped into the ocean. * Data from the remaining responses were derived through use of EPA

notifications and estimates of waste generated

by industrial sectors represented by the notifications. Only 9 States, Guam, Puerto Rico,

and the District of Columbia use definitions of

hazardous waste that are reportedly the same

as that used by EPA. Thirty-two States have

adopted definitions that include RCRA

exempted waste (e.g., mining waste, waste

from energy production, or waste resulting

from the application of environmental controls)

or EPA-exempted waste (such as PCBs, or

those produced by small-volume generators).

● This figure for ocean dumping was based on data from EPA

permits for five waste generators; other data for 1978 indicated

a total of about 2.5 million tonnes. It is quite possible that current tonnages may be less; however, the wastes may still be generated in New Jersey, (Environmental Resources Management,

Inc., “Hazardous Waste Management Facility Study for the Delaware River Basin and New Jersey, ” May, 1982.)

Some States have included materials, including hazardous waste and contaminated soil, requiring management under RCRA which have

resulted from cleanup actions at uncontrolled

sites. Nationally, these cleanup efforts are just

beginning. However, very large amounts of

hazardous materials will be generated in the

future as CERCLA activities increase. It appears that EPA estimates of hazardous waste

generation do not include materials resulting

from cleanup actions. Nonetheless, the magnitude of this source of “cleanup wastes” to

be managed under RCRA is great. In the past,

most hazardous wastes have been land disposed (as much as 80 percent) and, according

to EPA estimates, 90 percent of these were

probably mismanaged. Therefore, several hundred million tonnes of wastes themselves, plus

large amounts of contaminated materials (e.g.,

soil) resulting from leakage, may require management in the future. Estimates for California are that about 100,000 tonnes of hazardous

materials will be produced annually from

cleanup actions during the next 10 years. Ex-
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management . 123

trapolating to the national level, it is likely that

several million tonnes of “cleanup wastes” may

be produced annually during the coming

decade.

In table 18, five States (California, Georgia,

Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas) reported very

large volumes of waste which they define as

hazardous, totaling about 85 percent of the 250

million tonnes reported. These States define

hazardous waste differently from either the

EPA universe or other respondents in the survey. For instance, 99,7 percent of the waste

reported by Georgia represents dilute aqueous

solutions, which are neutralized onsite prior

to discharge to sewers and receiving waters,

but which, nonetheless, are hazardous waste.

In Louisiana, the estimate includes waste from

energy production, waste from environmental

control activities, and fly and bottom ash. In

Texas, the estimate includes large-volume

waste from energy production, fly and bottom

ash, environmental control activities, mining

waste, and waste from the demolition of old

highways, bridges, and buildings. Indiana’s

total of 94.9 million tonnes includes 92.3 million tonnes of spent pickle liquor generated by

the steel industry. A request by this industry

for deregulation under RCRA has been made

to EPA,

Several other points should be noted about

the figures in table 18. Many of the federally

exempted wastes indicated in table 17 are not

now regulated by a significant number of

States. Many States have recently conducted,

or are now conducting, studies on waste generation to obtain more accurate data on waste

generation than previously available from EPA.

Moreover, much of the data obtained from the

ASTSWMO survey and the data becoming

available from individual State studies, cover

waste generation within the past 2 years (1981

to 1982), This period is one of a depressed

economy and lower levels of industrial operation as compared to the pre-1980 period from

which the EPA waste generation data were obtained, On the other hand, there is considerably

more effective reporting of waste generation

figures now than in earlier years, tending to

increase recent estimates relative to older ones,

Because of the lack of consistent data from the

ASTSWMO survey on amounts of waste generated (corresponding to the federally defined

sphere of regulated waste v. State-defined

waste) and because of the effect of national

economic cycles, direct comparisons with EPA

data for the States, also given in table 18 are

not completely appropriate.

In addition to the information about waste

generation, ASTSWMO asked the States for information about the number of hazardous

waste generators in their jurisdictions. Fortythree States and four territories reported approximately 55,000 hazardous waste generators, including in some instances an unspecified number of generators exempted under the

EPA program. This figure is substantially

lower, and the distribution among States may

be substantially different, than the figure of

428,522 currently used by EPA in its formula

for allocation of funds to the States. However,

the figure of 55,000 generators is in agreement

with the 60,000 notification responses which

were received by EPA in 1980 (as previously

discussed), and with the less than 8,000 waste

management facilities verified for 1981 (discussed below).

The foregoing existing data correspond to

items discussed under Federal and State Government data needs in the previous section.

These data may also be of use in formulating

strategies and regulations for hazardous waste,

Industry’s need for data concerning generators

and generation does not appear to be substantial. The public’s data needs concerning generators and generation will be met progressively as data collected by Federal and State authorities become more reliable.

Uses of Existing Data

The previous discussion of existing data

identified various studies that have attempted

to quantify both the number of waste generators throughout the Nation and the amount of

waste produced annually, These studies have

often lacked adequate definitions of hazardous

waste, and there have been variations in definitions among the studies. Also, indirect meth-
124 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ods of waste measurement were used in these

studies, and direct generation data were sometimes lacking. These problems have led to a

discrepancy between the actual quantity of

hazardous waste generated annually in the Nation and the quantity perceived in any one

study. There are variations among the various

studies in perceived quantities of hazardous

waste generated.

The reason for seeking waste generation data

is to determine means for managing (storing,

recovering, treating, transporting, and disposing of) actual—as opposed to perceived—generated waste, in a manner commensurate with

the protection of health and the environment.

Therefore, the following questions must be

addressed:

1. Are the existing generation data useful for

the task of actual hazardous waste management?

2. How are these data currently being used

for this task?

3. What are the limitations of these data for

this task?

Existing National and State generation data

represent at best a limited characterization of

actual generated waste. These data indicate to

some extent the type of waste being generated,

relative quantities, and fractional distribution

by State. The data cannot be used as a measure

of actual waste (by type or in total) being generated in any one State or in the Nation, except to infer that a large quantity of hazardous

waste is in fact being produced annually, and

that this waste must be managed quickly and

effectively.

EPA has found only one administrative use

for the existing generation data—in the allocation of Federal funds to State waste management programs, as described below. Faced

with the uncertainties implicit in the generation data, and with the need to begin a hazardous waste management program, EPA made

two strategic decisions. It was decided that the

most pressing problem was industrial hazardous waste from certain priority industries, and

that these wastes were adequately characterized with regard to waste type and distribution

(for preliminary purposes) by the industry

reports (5-19) and the derivative study by Booz

Allen and Hamilton (29). Furthermore, the decision was made to allocate Federal funds to

States using a formula whereby 40 percent of

the amount for a State was determined by its

fraction of the national waste stream (28.7

million tonnes), 40 percent by its fraction of

the Nation’s population, 15 percent by its fraction of the Nation’s hazardous waste generators (428,522 was used even though only 60,000

responses were received by EPA from those

receiving notification forms), and 5 percent by

its fraction of the Nation’s land area.

It is EPA’s intention to progressively modify

the values used in the fund allocation formula

(and perhaps the formula itself) to reflect improved waste generation and population data,

and changing definitions of hazardous waste,

for fiscal year 1983 and beyond. The allocation

formula was developed some 3 years before

completion of the Booz Allen and Hamilton

study and has been incorporated in EPA regulations up to the end of fiscal year 1982. It was

“unanimously approved by more than 20 State

representatives of the National Governors Association” (34). However, this was before there

were indications that the data used by EPA

might be seriously in error, as more recent

State data suggest.

EPA’s use of existing data for Federal fund

allocation was probably necessary, given its

need to act. EPA is certainly aware of the need

to improve its generation/generator data base.

Further, OTA has been unable to identify any

additional administrative use for the existing

data, However, as indicated earlier, public

sense of hazardous waste problems provides

an important influence on public, political, and

regulatory activities. On the basis of the EPA

estimates for hazardous waste generation and

past practices, information concerning the national problem can be communicated to the

public. For example, the accumulation of hazardous waste in the environment from past

decades of industrial activity is currently

equivalent to at least 1 tonne of hazardous

waste for every person in the Nation and

another tonne is added every 7 years, at cur-
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management • 125

rent rates. These estimates may even be too more than a tonne of hazardous waste may be

low. If ASTSWMO waste generation data are placed into the environment every year for

more indicative of the national problem, then every person in the Nation.

Data Requirements: Health and Environmental Effects

For effective hazardous waste management,

the effects of hazardous waste on health and

the environment must be known to government, industry, and the public. Determination

of the effects of a particular waste on a particular population can involve some very complex issues (see ch. 6 for a detailed discussion

of hazards of waste and problems and data

needs associated with determining hazard

levels). In order to address the effects of waste

comprehensively, data are required concerning:

1.

2.

3.

4.

It

the characteristics of waste: constituents,

chemical, and physical data;

environmental characteristics: pathways,

physical characteristics of the environment (air, water, soil), and distribution and

characteristics of the population;

toxicological data: dose response and exposure factors; and

environmental fate and distribution: persistence, bioaccumulation, and media distribution.

Existing Data

is generally understood that the number

of chemical compounds currently recognized

in the United States exceeds 3 million and approximately 3,000 new ones are being added

each year. The physical and chemical characteristics of these substances can be obtained.

There is a subset of these known chemicals for

which health and environmental effects data

have been collected, and about 500 chemicals

are being tested under the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA) jurisdiction each year to

broaden the scope of these data. In addition,

TSCA requires industry to characterize all new

chemicals, and chemicals for which they plan

new uses, with respect to health and environmental effects that may occur through commercial use and disposal. It is not known

whether the subset of chemicals for which

detailed and reliable information is available

represents a significant portion of all existing

substances that pose a threat to health and the

environment.

The known hazardous effects of the various

chemicals can be classified into three groups:

1. physical harm—burns, or other effects due

to exposure to acids, caustics and the like;

2. toxic effects—acute and chronic damage;

and

3. genetic impairments—a variety of effects

directed to genetic components of cells.

Much of the available data is derived from

animal studies. The problems that result from

extrapolating these data to humans are discussed in chapter 6. Information about chemical characteristics and known effects is reported in a variety of data bases illustrated in

table 19. In principle, all of these data are

available to the public, but few mechanisms are

in place (within Federal and State programs)

to facilitate public access or public understanding. The data are being developed by various

groups including universities, the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the

National Institute of Health, the Centers for

Disease Control (CDC), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

CDC maintains a large quantity of epidemiological data. As required by TSCA, industry

supplies EPA with data on each new substance

developed, including its chemical and physical properties, its health and environmental effects, and some limited information on waste

management. All of these data are developed

under statutes other than RCRA and may not

specifically address RCRA concerns.
126 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 19.—Health and Environmental Effects Data

Source Subject Where maintained

MEDLINE Recent articles on research; articles on diseases and chemicals, National Library of Medicine

TOXLINE Toxicological information from human and animal toxicology studies; National Library of Medicine

the effects of chemical on the environment; adverse drug

reactions; analytical methodologies.

EPA-NIH Chemical Information Physical, chemical, and regulatory information about chemical National Institutes of Health

System substances.

International Register of Potentially 17 profiles on chemicals: essential physical and chemical properties; UN Environment Program

Toxic Chemicals toxicity; reported effects on humans and laboratory organisms,

and the environment; safe and effective use of chemicals.

Toxicology Data Bank Literature on general toxicology which has been subjected to peer Library of Medicine

review.

Registry of Toxic Effects of Toxic effects of chemicals, including aquatic toxicity rating, NIOSH, CDC, Public Health

Chemical Substances cancer reviews. Service

Chemical Activity Status Report Lists chemicals research, authority for research, purpose, and EPA

information contact.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,

The threat that a hazardous substance poses

to health and the environment can take many

forms and vary significantly in degree (see

discussion of hazard in ch. 6). Although a variety of tests are available to generate data concerning health effects, there has been little effort made to standardize protocols for interlaboratory comparisons of a single compound, or

to standardize methodologies that facilitate

comparisons among compounds for a variety

of species.

Little data are available regarding the fate of

any given waste constituent once it enters the

environment. There are virtually no data concerning the interactions among various compounds in a waste, and there exist virtually no

data on, or experience with, testing mixtures

of chemicals for potential health and environmental effects. In some cases, data on individual compounds can be used for prediction.

The existing data on health and environmental effects of hazardous waste constituents only

begin to address the various data needs concerning these issues that were listed in the

previous section. The lack of progress in this

area is becoming a major issue. For example,

with regard to the CERCLA requirement for

the formation of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the Department

of Health and Human Services, one of the originators of CERCLA has noted:

Two years have passed since the law was

enacted and virtually nothing which HHS was

instructed to do has been done. As a result,

the General Accounting Office is now investigating the Department’s conduct (35).

A concern for the health and the safety of the

environment is the driving force of hazardous

waste management efforts. Unfortunately, the

available information concerning the effects of

hazardous substances on health and the environment is far from complete, and many of the

issues involved are poorly understood. Hazardous waste management efforts-including regulation, the design and operation of facilities,

siting, permitting, monitoring, and enforcement—are proceeding, even though they are

sometimes based on perceptions rather than on

sound data. The process of integrating health

and environmental effects data into the design

of management facilities, and using these data

to control the operation of such facilities, is in

its infancy. However, these efforts do not currently give sufficient consideration to health

and the environment (see ch. 6 for greater detail regarding this issue).
Ch. 4— Data for Hazardous Waste Management . 127

Data Requirements: Management Facilities

Data related to management facilities are

needed by government and industry, In many

cases, the same data are used for different

purposes.

Government needs data on facilities for effective regulation of them, for monitoring compliance with the regulations, for selecting fruitful areas for research and development (R&D),

for actions required under CERCLA, and for

providing information to the public. Government must respect the proprietary nature of

much of this information.

In order to write regulations, data are required on available management technologies—their types and performance—and

whether or not these technologies, in managing existing waste, can reduce exposure of people and the environment. This information,

may lead to restricting certain types of waste

to specific management technology design and

performance standards (W, T).

In order to implement hazardous waste

management regulations, data are required for

the siting, permitting, and monitoring of

facilities, and for monitoring the transportation

of hazardous waste, Siting of facilities may be

done by zoning certain land areas as appropriate to specific types of management

technologies, or by selecting individual sites.

Both environmental data and technology performance data are needed for zoning (T). In addition, the siting of an individual facility may

require degree-of-risk data for the proposed

facility (T, F).

The permitting process is the key to effective

hazardous waste management and requires detailed facility data. These include the identification of management facilities, the nature and

volume of the waste being managed, health and

environmental impact data, the degree of risk

offered by the proposed facility, and the financial capabilities of the facility operator to maintain the facility in the event of its closure, and

for liability contingencies (F).

Monitoring the performance of waste management facilities requires data concerning

both the facility itself and the surrounding environment, Data on the facility itself include

visual inspection data (e. g., the detection of

leaks or ruptures); process data (e.g., temperatures, flow rates, chemical concentration levels); and data concerning the nature of the release of substances from the facility to the

environment—the characteristics of the substances released, the quantities released, and

where, when, and in what manner environmental systems were exposed to these substances. Data on the ambient environment of

the facility are required to track the long-term

response to the released substances. The performance of the facility may have to be modified if these data show an unacceptable response (E, F).

TO establish R&D priorities, technology data

are required concerning the performance of

available management technologies, and the

level of performance improvement necessary

to remove continuing threats to environmental and human safety.

For monitoring the transportation of hazardous waste from generators to offsite management facilities, various facility data are required (F), The characteristics of waste transported, along with the source and destination

of transported waste should be determined,

Data regarding transport vehicles (required to

ensure that accidental releases of hazardous

substances are minimized), dates of transportation and receipt, and the safety measures required in case of accidental release should be

adequately defined.

Facility data will be needed to identify waste

management facilities that may require cleanup action under CERCLA. These facility data

may overlap somewhat with the data on hazardous waste management facilities regulated

under RCRA

Industrial data needs on facilities must be

satisfied if industry is to play an effective role
128 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

in hazardous waste management. Various

types of data are required for the design of new

management facilities and for decisions regarding the use of existing facilities for handling

new waste. These data needs include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

input waste characteristics and volume (F);

design specifications—design standards

and performance standards, both regulated and unregulated (T);

potential of release of hazardous constituents into the environment and degree-ofrisk data (F);

health and environmental effects data (E,

w);

economic analysis of specific technologies

(T);

ability to reduce hazard level of waste or

to adequately contain waste for a specified

time period (F); and

manpower required to operate the facility (F).

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

input-output waste characteristics (F);

day-by-day performance characteristics

(F);

ambient environment monitoring data (E);

characteristics and quantity of waste in

storage, and available storage capacities

(F); and

worker and environmental exposure to

hazardous substances (F).

Facility data are also required to indicate areas

and priorities for R&D. This need is similar to

that described in government data needs,

above. In planning for expansion, industry requires data including:

amount of waste generated in a State or

region of concern (W, S);

existing management facilities, their capacity, and volume of waste throughput

(F);

available management alternatives for prospective generated wastes—e.g., material/

energy recovery, incineration, storage (T);

transportation needs (F); and

availability of suitable sites (T, F).

The public needs data to understand what

is proper waste management, The public

should have easy access to nonproprietary data

of the above types. In addition, information on

monitoring and enforcement programs should

be made available to the public,

RCRA mandated collection of information

on waste management facilities in operation

prior to RCRA permitting. Initially, these data

were compiled from industry applications for

hazardous waste permits, known as part A applications. Two subsequent surveys were conducted by EPA to determine the validity of

these data. A number of additional efforts

within the EPA Office of Solid Waste have attempted to identify hazardous waste management facilities. The best known of these efforts

is a 1980 report (29), which was updated in

1982 (36]. An ongoing survey effort, due in

1983, may provide additional detailed information on 2,500 hazardous waste management facilities. “The latter data will be- used as

background information for the RCRA Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Facility information has also been gathered

under other environmental laws. For instance,

surface impoundment and open dump inventories have been conducted under the Safe

Drinking Water Act and the solid waste provisions of RCRA respectively. CERCLA requires

the annual listing of at least 400 hazardous

waste management facilities requiring priority remedial action. Facilities that discharge

treated wastewater into the Nation’s waters

must obtain NPDES permits under the Clean

Water Act, Inventories conducted under the

authority of other environmental acts may provide qualitative measures of the accuracy of the

part A submissions.

The part A data were compiled from industry

information submitted in 1980, when EPA required all operating hazardous waste management facilities to submit an application for an

interim status permit (37). The facilities that

submitted applications were to be subjected to

additional State and Federal reviews prior to

receiving full permit status. Information from
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management ● 129

this data base has been used to formulate continuing surveys of facilities.

Problems inherent in this data base stem

from confusion about the type of information

requested. Information required included:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

location and ownership of the facility;

function–storage, treatment, disposal;

types of technologies employed—e.g., landfill, surface impoundment, incinerator;

capacity of the facility;

types and quantities of waste throughput;

and

whether and to what extent the facility was

subject to regulation under other environmental acts.

Standardized measures (e. g., measures of capacity] and specified criteria were not required.

Furthermore, definitions given in the application were poorly stated and space for responses

was often inadequate. Approximately 10,200

responses were received by EPA, of which only

some 60 percent included capacity data. Also,

discussions with EPA personnel suggest that,

in particular, responses to items 4 and 5 are

unreliable. The completeness and accuracy of

the information are, therefore, questionable.

However, it may be necessary to use this information, since it is the best available.

The applications have been subjected to two

telephone validation surveys (38). The first of

these, covering approximately 700 facilities,

indicated that the original part A data represented an overstatement of available hazardous

waste management services. The results of the

second survey, which reached about 85 percent

of the facilities in the part A data base, are

shown in tables 20 and 21. EPA’s estimates of

nationwide numbers of facilities, and waste

throughput or technology capacity were derived with a methodology that allows for the

fact that not all part A respondents were

reached. Table 20 shows that an estimated total

of 7,785 hazardous waste management facilities in nine technology classes were operating

in the Nation in 1981. Waste throughput estimates were provided for seven of the nine technology types and facility capacity estimates

were provided for two technology types (storage and treatment tanks]. Due to incomplete

data for both waste throughput and capacity,

and because figures for all are given in inconsistent units of measure, no meaningful total

national capacity or waste throughput estimates can be made for the hazardous waste

management industry.

Table 21, derived from the part A data and

its second validation, shows the estimated

number of commercial offsite hazardous waste

management facilities in the Nation during

1981, the estimated waste throughput for the

first seven technology types, the estimated

facility capacity for the last two technology

types, and the estimated proportion of total naTable 20.—Hazardous Waste Management Facilities During 1981 (regulated under RCRA

Original Estimated number

Technology type Part A data of sites Estimated total

Waste throughput

Injection wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 114 3.5 billion gal

Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 270 8.3 million tons

Land treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 148 8,600 acresa

Surface impoundments. . . . . . . 1,754 1,096 28.8 million square yardsa

Waste piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 312 13.2 million cubic yardsa

Incinerators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 317 272 million gal

Storage containers . . . . . . . . . . 7,551 5,652 57 million gal

Estimated capacity

Storage tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,230 2,280 303 million gal

Treatment tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,013 1,951 3.1 billion gal

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,247 7,785 n/a

aWestat’s questionnaire requested throughput data, the figures given In units of area do not represent either throughput or

capacity

SOURCE Westat and EPA, 1982.
130 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 21 .—Number and Size of Commercial Offsite Facilities During 1981

(regulated under RCRA

Estimated Estimated total Percent of

Technology total

number during 1981 national

facilities

Injection wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface impoundments . . . . . . . . . .

Waste piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Storage containers. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Storage tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Treatment tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

4

54

11

29

5

43

49

47

22

125

Waste throughput

n/a

2.1 million tons

276.1 acresa

1.1 million square

yards a

n/a

n/a

860,000 gal

Estimated capacity

15 million gal

7.1 million gal

n/a

n/a

25.0

3.2

3.8

n/a

n/a

1.5

4.9

0.2

n/a

aWestat’s questionnaire requested throughput data; the figures given in units of area cannot represent either throughput or

capacity and therefore appear to be meaningless.

SOURCE: Westat and EPA, 1982.

tional waste throughput or waste management

capacity at these facilities. An estimated total

for 125 such facilities is given. Commercial offsite facilities represented in table 21 are defined

as “those facilities that reported generating a

low percentage (10 percent or less) of the hazardous waste they handled in 1981 and indicated that commercial waste management was

the primary activity at the site” (37).

In 1980, EPA released a report that estimated

the availability of offsite commercial hazardous

waste management services, which constitute

a small subset of total hazardous waste management capacity. In the context of the EPA

report, the term “commercial facilities” includes facilities engaged in treatment and

disposal for fee, but excludes waste oil rerefiners, resource recovery facilities, storage

and transfer stations, waste brokers, conventional sanitary landfills, and publicly owned

wastewater treatment works” (29). The report

was intended to enable EPA to evaluate various regulatory alternatives that influence demand for offsite waste management services.

The report provides estimates for the number

and capacity of existing commercial hazardous waste management in the Nation, and for

needed additional national and regional hazardous waste management capacity by technology type.

The report provides only general indications

of its sources of information-–EPA files, industry service directories, and telephone surveys. The capacities of facilities failing to respond were computed using data from similar

facilities. The report considers ’127 commercial

facilities, roughly 50 percent of the commercial facilities submitting part A applications,

but all of the commercial facilities according

to the recent validation study noted above. It

does not contain data on any onsite management facilities, or generator-owned offsite facilities. The report estimated that the commercial facilities (about 2 percent of total hazardous waste management facilities) represented

about 20 percent of available national hazardous waste management capacity. This is consistent with the generally accepted view that

usually about 15 to 30 percent of hazardous

waste in a State are managed offsite.

Total national and regional management facility capacity needs for the early 1980’s are

also estimated by technology type. The report

indicates that, while adequate hazardous waste

management capacity currently exists in the

Nation, it maybe poorly distributed relative to

generation.

In 1982, Booz Allen and Hamilton (36) updated their previous report (29). This update
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management ● 131

considered the activities of only nine firms

operating 46 commercial facilities. This updated report discusses the activities of these

facilities during 1981, and the effect of EPA

regulations on those activities, but gives no further insight into the national or regional character of the overall hazardous waste management industry, It does indicate, however, that

capacity utilizations in 1981 were relatively

low, which is consistent with lowered rates of

waste generation in recent years resulting from

lowered levels of industrial activity.

Management facility data have also been collected in studies performed for the States,

However, only a fraction of the States appear

to have collected such data: California, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina,

and Texas. While currently limited, State data

will be improved progressively through the permitting process. Presently, few States have received EPA authorization to implement permitting programs. These States that have received

this authority (by October 1982) are Arkansas,

Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South

Carolina, and Texas, Oklahoma’s authorization

is due in late 1982. Extant State data on management facilities have not been analyzed by

OTA.

CERCLA Sites.–National estimates of the

number of sites that contain hazardous waste

and that may require cleanup, have been provided by two studies: an EPA consultant report

by Fred C. Hart Associates (39) and a report

by the Chemical Manufacturers Association

(CMA) [40). Their estimates of the number of

sites range from 4,800 (the CMA study) to

30,000 to 50,000 sites (the EPA consultant

estimate). The CMA estimate was based on a

telephone survey of the States, but does not say

how many States provided data, or how the

States that did respond derived their figures.

The EPA consultant report was derived from

compilations of data provided by EPA Regional

Offices, but no consistent methodology appears

to have been employed by these offices. Few

of the sites were visited during the course of

the EPA consultant study. In February 1983,

EPA had about 15,000 uncontrolled sites in its

national inventory, According to EPA data,

preliminary assessments had been carried out

for only 14 percent of the sites, and site inventories had been completed for 2 percent of the

sites in the inventory as of December 1982.

In 1982, EPA published a list of 115 hazardous waste disposal sites as the interim national

priority CERCLA sites, This list was later extended by 45 additional priority sites that were

judged also to pose substantial threats to health

and the environment. EPA’s methodology for

ranking uncontrolled sites is discussed in some

detail in chapter 6. In December 1982, EPA released the first complete National Priority List

of 418 sites, and intends to periodically update

this list.

Summary .—The existing facilities data described above do little to satisfy the data needs

of government, industry, and the public concerning management facilities. The only need

that these existing data do satisfy (and then

only marginally) is that of identification of

management facilities and the technologies

they employ,

A significant quantity of required technology

level data (T) are available to industry, government, and the public. These data are discussed

in chapter 5.

The required facility level data (F) that currently exist are largely in the hands of industry.

Much of these data will progressively pass to

government, and some in turn to the public,

as a result of the permitting process,

Existing EPA facilities data is being used as

a source, for the States and EPA, of names and

addresses of facilities that may require permitting by the States. The determination of a given

facility’s need for a permit, the process of issuing the permit, and the monitoring of the

facility’s compliance to the requirements of the

permit all require data beyond the scope of the

validated part A data.

The data are also used as a source by the public, of facilities that have reported to EPA an

involvement in hazardous waste management.

This information provides communities with

a primary focus for local concerns about the

management of hazardous waste. It also en-
132 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ables communities, concerned about the presence and operation of a given waste management facility, to determine whether EPA or the

State currently recognizes that facility as handling hazardous waste–facilities not so recognized will not be permitted and regulated.

These EPA data resources are also used to

identify those management facilities that are

offsite or commercial facilities, and are therefore receiving transported hazardous waste.

This information might be useful to the transportation industry in its market surveys. It

might be useful to the public because it defines

where hazardous waste is going. In addition,

such information should prove useful to the

States in their efforts to establish manifest

systems to regulate the transportation of hazardous waste.

The waste throughput and capacity estimates

included in the EPA data appear to have little

practical use. These data are incomplete. They

appear to represent capacity for managing both

hazardous waste (as defined by EPA) and other

solid waste, as well as hazardous waste defined

differently by States, or to represent total waste

throughput while not distinguishing hazardous

waste from other waste. Moreover, even

though the data are for facility and technology

type, they do not indicate what waste constituents can be managed in each facility. Consequently, it is not possible to compare the

quantity of a given type of waste generated

in the Nation, or in any State, with the

capacity available to manage it. In some

cases, the units of measurement for throughput

reported in the national data are simply inappropriate. For example, surface impoundment

“waste throughput” is reported in units of area

(square yards). The appropriate measure of the

quantity of waste that might be treated in such

a way would be volume per year (gallons per

year), Since evaporation—and perhaps drainage and leaching— continually decreases the

volume of waste in a surface impoundment, an

appropriate and useful measure of surface impoundment throughput would be the waste input volume per year that the impoundment

could handle, or the waste input weight per

year. Similar attention to appropriate units

must be given to capacity data whenever these

are collected.

If both management capacity data (in the appropriate units) and waste throughput data (in

the same units) were available at a facility and

technology level for the Nation, and if these

data indicated the waste constituents to which

the capacity and waste throughput figures applied, then such data could serve several purposes. Both government and industry could determine the distribution of hazardous waste

among management technology settings. This

data, in concert with other information, would

provide a basis for assessing the impact of

regulations on a given technology class. However, EPA does not dispute the generally held

view, based on its early and more recent data,

that as much as 80 percent of hazardous wastes

continue to be disposed or dispersed in or on

the land. * Also, both government and industry

could ascertain those management facilities

that were operating near maximum capacity.

This would indicate management facilities requiring expansion, and the level of expansion

required by an increase in production of waste

of the type handled by those facilities, or by the

closing of management facilities handling similar waste. Government and industry could also

gauge the expansion of the various waste generating industries that could occur without a

*For example, 83 percent of the hazardous waste generated

by 14 industries were placed in or on the land, based on 1975-78

data. (“Subtitle C - RCRA Draft Final Environmental Impact

Statement–Part I,” EPA, April 1980) This figure appears consistent with EPA’s statements concerning the fraction of hazardous waste properly managed: “Less than 10 percent of these

hazardous manufacturing wastes are estimated to have been

treated/disposed in an environmentally adequate manner. ”

RCRA Subtitle C–Hazardous Waste Management: Regulatory

Analysis,” EPA, Apr. 30, 1980.) The recent validation survey of

management facilities indicated that in 1981 about 20 million

tonnes of hazardous waste were disposed in injection wells and

landfills, but no data were available for other forms of land

disposal such as land treatment and surface impoundments or

for ocean disposal; therefore, there is confirmation that more

than half of currently generated waste are placed into the environment. The ASTSWMO survey also provided some data on

land disposal. For example, 1981 data for Louisiana indicates

that 97 percent of waste managed offsite are land disposed, and

that about 50 percent of the waste managed onsite (99 percent

of total) are land disposed. Recent data for Texas indicates that

95 percent of their hazardous waste enter the land, but in

Missouri and Massachusetts only 40 and 7 percent, respectively, is land disposed.
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management ● 133

need for expansion of corresponding waste

management industries and could determine

fruitful areas for R&D. Such R&D could lead

to modifications of industrial processes that

generate waste in a manner that would reduce

the quantities of certain types of generated

waste, thereby reducing loads on the management facilities that handle that waste. Such

modifications could be based on both waste

generation and management data of the facility type. Research and development could also

lead to new management technologies to handle types of generated waste not adequately

handled in existing facilities. This requires detailed generation data, management technology

data, and health and environmental effects

data.

Another benefit of R&D would be the conservation of national resources. The national

view of management facility activities may

well identify substantial quantities of energy

and materials that could be recovered in a

cost-effective manner, rather than being lost

in the process of treatment and disposal. The

data necessary for these purposes could be collected by EPA through national surveys or

could be obtained through the States by means

of State surveys and the facility permitting

process. Clearly, the uses noted for such data

could also be made of any set of State data of

the facility and technology types.

It is clear that the information concerning

sites containing hazardous waste that may pose

a threat to health and the environment is inadequate both from the standpoints of validity and immediate usefulness. Information previously collected by EPA, the States, and industry (39,40) serves as a starting point for investigations preliminary to cleanup, This is, in

fact, how the data are being used. However,

little information appears to be available about

the specific waste contained in these sites, the

technologies employed in the facilities, or the

risk to health and the environment posed by

waste management practices. Such data are

fundamental to evaluations preliminary to

cleanup activities.

Priorities for Data Acquisition

The foregoing discussion has indicated that

a large discrepancy exists between the data required for effective hazardous waste management and that existing at various levels. Considerable effort is required if this discrepancy

is to be removed, and the task must be ap- ●

preached with urgency if damage to health and

the environment is to be minimized.

The following data are considered to have

the highest priority in this data acquisition

effort.

. Health and environmental effects data.—

A sound understanding of the effects of

hazardous waste on human health and the ●

environment is essential for effective

hazardous waste management. It enables

the identification of hazardous substances

and their relative hazards, assists in setting design and performance standards for

management facilities, provides mean -

ingful-reference data with which to evaluate monitoring data, and provides the

assurance that management measures

adopted are indeed sufficient (see ch. 6).

Facility data concerning hazardous

waste generators and management facilities.–Identification by government of all

hazardous waste generators and the volume and nature of their waste is crucial

if the problem of hazardous waste is to be

fully addressed. Control of management

facilities is crucial–this will be possible

through the permitting of such facilities.

Current data for each available hazardous waste management technology.—

This data on technologies would include

information concerning, primarily, performance and degree of risk. The relationships between input waste characteristics
134 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

●

and output residual waste and effluent

characteristics. These data may be used to

emphasize the capabilities and limitations

of certain technologies to handle particular

types of waste, as well as areas that require

further R&D (see ch. 5). Though of less importance than performance data in the

short term, degree of risk data that addresses site-specific factors are desirable

in the long term for effective and reliable

management (see ch. 6).

Data suitable for establishing facility design and performance standards.—These

standards must be periodically updated to

reflect growing knowledge of health and

environmental effects, and to take advantage of evolving management technologies

(see ch. 5).

Data concerning alternative industrial

processes (in waste generation industries)

that reduce the volume and hazard of

waste (see ch. 5).

●

●

Data concerning the costs, to industry

and government, of implementing regulations governing hazardous waste management.–(unit cost data for management options are discussed in ch. 5, and

national industry and government costs

are discussed in ch. 7.)

Data concerning CERCLA sites.—Data

are needed on the wastes deposited in the

sites, the technologies employed, the risks

associated with the continued residence of

waste in these sites, and the risks associated with remedial activities at the sites.

A systematic investigation of sites is

needed and will require extensive financial and manpower resources (see ch. 5). *

*Congress recognized this problem and appropriated $10 million from CERCLA funds for sec. 3012 of RCRA for fiscal year

1983. States will receive these funds to develop inventories of

hazardous waste sites that may require CERCLA attention. However, the implementation plan by EPA is not focused on discovering new sites, but on gathering more information on known uncontrolled sites.

Chapter 4 References

1. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,

Public Law 94-580, sec. 1004 (7).

2. Ibid., sec. 1004 (27).

3. Ibid., sec. 1004 (5).

4. Ibid., sec. 3001 (a).

5. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

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

6. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Inorganic Chemicals Industry”

(NTIS order #PB-244-832/2WK).

7. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Paint and Allied Products Industry,

Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations, and

Factory Application of Coatings” (NTIS order

#PB-251-669).

8. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Storage and Primary Batteries Industries” (NTIS order #PB-241-204/7WP).

9. “A Study of Waste Generation, Treatment and

Disposal in the Metals Mining Industry” (NTIS

order #PB 261-052).

10. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and

Explosives Industries” (NTIS order #

PB-251-307).

11. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Textiles Industry” (NTIS order #

PB-258-953).

12. “Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in

the Petroleum Refining Industry” (NTIS order

#PB-259-097).

13. “Pharmaceutical Industry Hazardous Waste

Generation, Treatment, and Disposal” (NTIS

order #PB-258-800/2WK).

14. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Special Machinery Manufacturing

Industries” (NTIS order #J? B-265-981).

15. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry” (NTIS order #PB-265-532).

16. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices—Electroplating and Metal Finishing

Industries—Job Shops” (NTIS order #

PB-264-349).

17. “Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Management—Petroleum Re-Refining Industry” (NTIS order #PB-272-267/6WK).
Ch. 4—Data for Hazardous Waste Management ● 135

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23,

24.

25.

26

27.

28.

“Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices in the Metal Smelting and Refining

Industries” vol. 1 (NTIS order #pi)-276-169); vol.

2 (NTIS order #PB-276-l70]; vol. 3 (NTIS order

#PB-276-171); vol. 4 (NTIS order #PB-276-172).

“Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste

Practices–Rubber and Plastics Industry” (NTIS

order #PB-282-069).

Environmental Protection Agency, A Compilation of Statistics on Solid Waste Management

Within the United States (Washington, D. C.:

JRB Associates, contract No. 68-01-6000, 1981].

Environmental Protection Agency, Final Report

on Cost of Compliance With Hazardous Waste

Management Regulations (Washington, D. C.:

Battelle Columbus Laboratories, contract No.

68-01-4360, 1977).

Environmental Protection Agency, Summar y

Data for Selected Hazardous Waste Generator

Industries, Volume I, Economic and Technical

Profiles (working document) [Washington, D. C.:

Development Planning and Research Associates, contract No. 68-01-6322, October 1981).

Environmental Protection Agency, Impac t

Analysis of Proposed RCRA-FSS Regulation,

1980-1990, Volume I, Draft Technical Document (Washington, D. C.: Development Planning

and Research Associates, November 1980).

Ibid., vol. 11, November 1980.

Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft Economic impact Analysis of Subtitle C Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Regulatory Analysis Supplement)” (Washington,

D. C.: Arthur D. Little, January 1979).

Environmental Protection Agency, Preliminary

Working Draft in Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for Subtitle C, Re

source Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

(RCRA) Volume II, Appendices A-J (Washington, D. C.: EPA, undated).

Environmental Protection Agency, interna l

document, Office of Solid Waste, undated.

Environmental Protection Agency, Technical

Environmental Impacts of Various Approaches

for Regulating Small Volume Hazardous Waste

Generators (Washington, D, C.: TRW, contract

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35,

36.

37.

38.

39,

40.

Nos. 68-02-2613 and 68-03-2560, December

1978).

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous

Waste Generation and Commercial Hazardous

Waste Management Capacity (Washington,

D. C.: Putnam, Bartlett and Hays, and Booz

Allen and Hamilton, GPO SW894, 1980).

A. D. Little, “Hazardous Waste Generation in

New England, ” memorandum to the New England Council, August 1982.

A. D, Little, “A Plan for Development of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in the

New England Region, ” report for the New

England Regional Commission, September

1979.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, “Hazardous

Waste Management in the Great Lakes Region,”

Technical Report IV, Ann Arbor, Mich., August

1980.

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials, survey conducted for

OTA, 1982.

Federal Register, vol. 43, No. 186, Sept. 25,

1978,

Sen. Robert T. Stafford, “Hazardous Waste and

Superfund, ” speech at meeting of National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, D. C.,

Dec. 8, 1982.

Booz Allen and Hamilton, “Review of Activities

of Major Firms in the Commercial Hazardous

Waste Management Industry: 1981 Update, ”

May 7, 1982.

Environmental Protection Agency, “Application for a Hazardous Waste Permit: Consolidated Permits Program” (EPA forms 3510-1 and

3510-3), June 1980.

Environmental Protection Agency, “Report on

the Telephone Verification Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated under RCRA in 1981, ”

Westat, Inc., November 1982.

Environmental Protection Agency, “Preliminary Assessment of Clean-up Costs for National

Hazardous Waste Problems, ” Fred C. Hart

Association, 1979.

Environmental Reporter, vol. 10, 1980, p. 2159.
CHAPTER 5

Technologies for

Hazardous Waste Management
Contents

Page

Summary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Waste Reduction Alternatives , .. ...,, . . . . 139

Hazard Reduction Alternatives: Treatment

and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Ocean Use . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Uncontrolled Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

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

Waste Reduction Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Source Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Process Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

End-Product Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Recovery and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Emerging Technologies for

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

Hazard Reduction Alternatives: Treatment

and Disposal ● *************O.***.*** ● 156

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Summary Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Biological Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Surface Impoundments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Underground Injection Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Comparative Unit Costs for

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

Ocean Disposal and Dispersal . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Current Usage ● ..***. ● O..  . . . . . . . . . 198

Legislative Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Controversy Over Ocean Use for

Hazardous Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Future Research and Data Needs . . . . . . . . . 203

Technical Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Uncontrolled Sites ● **  ** .***0*0***.O*QQO 205

Issues Concerning Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . 205

Site Identification and Evaluation ., ....., 207

Appendix 5A.-Case Examples of Process

Modifications ● *******************e** 213

List of Tables

Table No.

22.A Comparison of the Four Reduction

Methods ...,.., ..***,** ,.s.,,.. ● . * , 142

23. Process Modification to the Mercury CeIl 144

24. Advantages and Disadvantage of process

Page

Options for Reduction of Waste Streams

for VCM Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

25. End-product Substitution for Reduction

of Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

26. Commercially Applied Recovery

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

27. Description of Technologies Currently

Used for Recovery of Materials . . . . . . . 149

28. Recovery/Recycling Technologies Being

29

30

31

Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Conventional Biological Treatment

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Industries With Experience in Applying

Biotechnology to Waste Management . . 153

Comparison of Some Hazard Reduction

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

32. Comparison of Thermal Treatment

Technologies for Hazard Reduction . . .

33. Engineered Components of Landfills:

Their Function and Potential Causes

of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34. Comparison of Quoted Prices for Nine

Major Hazardous Waste Firms in 1981

35. Incineration v. Treatment: Range of

Estimated Post-RCRA Charges for

● 163

. 177

, 196

Selected Waste Types.. , . .. . . . . . . . . . . 197

36. Unit Costs Charged for Services at

Commercial Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

37. Data Required To Identify and Evaluate

Uncontrolled Sites.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

38. Advantages and Disadvantages of

Control Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

39. Types of Remedial Action Employed

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

List of Flgures

Figure No. Page

7. Relative Time Required for

Implementation of Reduction Methods . 112

8. Injection Liquid Incineration, . . . . . . . . . 165

9, Molten Salt Destruction: Process Diagram 171

10. Generalized Depiction of a Hazardous

Waste Landfill Meeting Minimum

Federal Design Criteria.. .. ..,.........176

11. Potential Failure Mechanisms for Covers 180

12. Schematic of Single arid Double Synthetic

Liner Design .*...** ...*,*** ,..0.... ● 186

13. Schematic of Typical Completion Method

for a DeepWaste Injection Well . . . . . . . 190
CHAPTER 5

Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management

Summary Findings

●

●

●

Waste Reduction Alternatives

Source segregation is the easiest and most

economical method of reducing the volume

of hazardous waste. This method of hazardous waste reduction has been implemented

in many cases, particularly by large industrial firms. Many opportunities still exist for further application. Any change in

management practices should include the

encouragement of source segregation.

Through a desire to reduce manufacturing

costs by using more efficient methods, industry has implemented various process modifications. Although a manufacturing process

often may be used in several plants, each

facility has slightly different operating conditions and designs. Thus, a modification resulting in hazardous waste reduction may

not be applicable industrywide. Also, proprietary concerns inhibit information transfer.

Product substitutes generally have been developed to improve performance. Hazardous

waste reduction has been a side-benefit, not

a primary objective. In the long term, endproduct substitution could reduce or eliminate some hazardous wastes. Because many

different groups are affected by these substitutions, there are limitations to implementation.

With regard to recovery and recycling approaches to waste reduction, if extensive recovery is not required prior to recycling a

waste constituent, in-plant operations are

relatively easy. Commercial recovery benefits are few for medium-sized generators. No

investment is required, but liability remains

with the generator. Commercial recovery

has certain problems as a profitmaking enterprise. The operator is dependent on suppliers’ waste as raw material; contamination

and consistency in composition of a waste

are difficult to control. Waste exchanges are

●

●

●

not very popular at present, since generators

must assume all liability in transferring

waste. Also, small firms do not generate

enough waste to make it attractive for recycling,

Hazard Reduction Alternatives:

Treatment and Disposal

Many waste treatment technologies can provide permanent, immediate, and very high

degrees of hazard reduction. In contrast, the

long-term effectiveness of land-based disposal technologies relies on continued maintenance and integrity of engineered structures

and proper operation. For wastes which are

toxic, mobile, persistent, and bioaccumulative, and which are amenable to treatment,

hazard reduction by treatment is generally

preferable to land disposal. In general, however, costs for land disposal are comparable

to, or lower than, unit costs for thermal or

chemical treatment.

For waste disposal, advanced landfill designs, surface impoundments, and injection

wells are likely to perform better than their

earlier counterparts. However, there is insufficient experience with these more advanced

designs to predict their performance. Siteand waste-specific factors and continued

maintenance of final covers and well plugs

will be important. The ability to evaluate the

effectiveness of these disposal technologies

could be improved through better instrumentation of these facilities. Currently, their performance evaluation relies heavily on monitoring the indirect effects of their failure by,

for example, detecting aquifer contamination.

In comparing waste treatment to disposal

alternatives, the degrees of permanent hazard reduction immediately achievable with

treatment technologies are overwhelming attributes in comparison to land-based dispos739
140 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

●

al. However, comparison of these technologies at the very high destruction levels they

achieve is difficult. Difficulties include: monitoring methods and detection limits, knowledge about the formation of toxic products

of incomplete combustion, and diversity in

performance capabilities among the different treatments.

Chemical, physical, and biological batchtype treatment processes can be used to reduce waste generation or to recover valuable

waste-stream constituents. In marked contrast to both incineration and land disposal,

these processes allow checking treatment

residuals before any discharge to the environment, In general, processes which offer

this important added reliability are few, but

waste-specific processes are emerging. Research and development efforts could encourage the timely emergence of more of

this type process applicable to future hazardous wastes.

Ocean Use

For some acids and very dilute other hazardous wastes, dumping in- ocean locations may

offer acceptable levels of risk for both the

ocean environment and human health. However, there is generally inadequate scientific

●

●

information for decisions concerning most

toxic hazardous wastes and most locations.

This is a serious problem since there may

be increasing interest in using the oceans as

the costs of land disposal increase and if public opposition to siting new treatment facilities continues.

Uncontrolled Sites

A major problem is that the National Contingency Plan under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA) does not provide

specific standards, such as concentration

limits for certain toxic substances, to establish the extent of cleanup. There are concerns that cleanups may not provide protection of health and environment over the long

term.

The long-term effectiveness of remedial technologies is uncertain. A history of effectiveness has not yet been accumulated. Many

remedial technologies consist of waste containment approaches which require longterm operation and maintenance, In recent

remedial actions, removal of wastes and contaminants, such as soil, accounted for 40 percent of the cases; such removed materials

were usually land disposed.

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the tion recognizes that where technically and ecovariety of technical options for hazardous

waste management. The technical detail is limited to that needed for examining policy options and regulatory needs. Still, there are

many technologies, and their potential roles in

hazardous waste management are diverse.

Thus, there are many technical aspects related

to policy and regulation issues. The reader interested in the details of the technologies reviewed here is encouraged to read beyond this

policy-oriented discussion.

The first group of technologies discussed are

those which reduce waste volume. This distincnomically feasible, it is better to reduce the

generation of waste than to incur the costs and

risks of managing hazardous waste. Waste

reduction technologies include segregation of

waste components, process modifications, endproduct substitutions, recycling or recovery

operations, and various emerging technologies.

Many waste reduction technologies are closely linked to manufacturing and involve proprietary information. Therefore, there is less detailed information in this section than in others.

Much of the chapter discusses technologies

that reduce the hazard from the waste gener-
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 141

ated. These are grouped as: 1) those treatments

that permanently eliminate the hazardous

character of the material, and 2) those disposal approaches that contain or immobilize the

hazardous constituents.

There are several treatments involving high

temperature that decompose materials into

harmless constituents, Incineration is the obvious example, but there are several existing and

emerging “destruction” technologies that are

distinguished in this category. In addition to

gross decomposition of the waste material,

there are emerging chemical technologies

which detoxify by limited molecular rearrangement and recover valuable materials for reuse.

Whether by destruction or detoxification, these

technologies permanently eliminate the hazard

of the material.

Containment chiefly involves land disposal

techniques, but chemical “pretreatment” methods for stabilization on a molecular level are

rapidly emerging, Combining these methods offers added reliability, and sectors of industry

appear to be adopting that approach. The discussion of containment technologies includes:

1) landfilling, 2) surface impoundments, 3) deepwell injection, and 4) chemical stabilization.

Use of the oceans is considered a technical

option for some wastes. A number of regulatory and policy issues emerge concerning

ocean use and are discussed.

The final section of this chapter concerns uncontrolled hazardous waste sites from which

releases of hazardous materials is probable or

has already occurred. Such sites are often abandoned and are no more than open dumps. The

sites are addressed by CERCLA. The technical

aspects of identifying, assessing, and remediating uncontrolled sites are reviewed in this section. There has been limited engineering experience with cleaning up uncontrolled sites.

Many technologies that are applicable to the

same waste compete in the marketplace. The

initial discussion in the section on hazard

reduction treatment and disposal technologies

compares the costs of comparative technologies in some detail.

Waste Reduction Alternatives

Introduction

Four methods are available to reduce the

amount of waste that is generated:

1. source segregation or separation,

2. process modification,

3. end-product substitution, and

4. material recovery and recycling.

Often, more than one of these approaches is

used, simultaneously or sequentially.

Reduction of the amount of waste generated

at the source is not a new concept. Several industrial firms have established in-house incentive programs to accomplish this. One example

is the 3P program—Pollution Prevention Pays—

of the 3M Corp. Through the reduction of

waste and development of new substitute products for hazardous materials, 3M has saved $20

million over 4 years.1 Other firms have established corporate task forces to investigate solutions to their hazardous waste management

problems, One solution has been recycling and

recovery of waste generated by one plant for

use as a raw material at another corporateowned facility. Such an approach not only

reduces waste, but lowers operating costs.

Significant reductions in the volume of waste

generated can be accomplished through source

segregation, process modification, end-product

substitution, or recovery and recycle. No one

method or individual technology can be selected as the ultimate solution to volume reduction. As shown in figure 7, three of the methods, i.e., source segregation, process modificaIM. G. Royston, Pollution Prevention Pays (New York: Pergamon Press, 1979).
142 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Figure 7.—Relative Time Required for

Implementation of Reduction Methods

Source separation

4 *

u

Process modification 2

% + P

E

Recycling/recovery :.—

z

- *

< End-product substitution 2 - *

1 I I I J

o 1 2 3 4 5

(Relative units)

SOURCE. Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Time ~

tions, and recovery and recycling can be implemented on a relatively short- to medium-term

basis by individual generators. End-product

substitution is a longer term effort. A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of

each of the four approaches is given in table

22. Because of proprietary concerns and lack

of industrywide data, the amount of waste

reduction that has already occurred and the

potential for further reduction is difficult to

evaluate. A 1981 study by California concluded that new industrial plants will produce

only half the amount of hazardous waste currently produced. Other estimates for potential

waste production range from 30 to 80 percent.3

Waste reduction efforts, however, are more difficult in existing plants.

Source Segregation

Source segregation is the simplest and probably the least costly method of reduction. This

approach prevents contamination of large vol2

“Future Hazardous Waste Generation in California,” Department of Health Services, Oct. 1, 1982.

3

Joanna D. Underwood, Executive Director, Inform, The New

York Times, Dec. 27, 1982.

Table 22.—A Comparison of the Four Reduction Methods

Advantages Disadvantages

Source segregation or separation

I) Easy to implement; usually low investment 1) Still have some waste to manage

2) Short-term solution

Process modification

1) Potentially reduce both hazard and volume 1) Requires R&D effort; capital investment

2) Moderate-term solution 2) Usually does not have industrywide impact

3) Potential savings in production costs

End product substltuflon

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

volume, hazard reduction 2) Many sectors affected

3) Usually a side benefit of product improvement

4) May require change in consumer habits

5) Major investments required—need growing market

Recovery/recycling

● /n-p/ant

1) Moderate-term solution 1) May require capital investment

2) Potential savings in manufacturing costs 2) May not have wide impact

3) Reduced liability compared to commercial

recovery or waste exchange

● Commercial recovery (offsite)

1) No capital investment required for 1) Liability not transferred to operator

generator 2) If privately owned, must make profit and return investment

2) Economy of scale for small waste 3) Requires permitting

generators 4) Some history of poor management

5) Must establish long-term sources of waste and markets

6) Requires uniformity in composition

● Waste exchange

1) Transportation costs only 1) Liability not transferred

2) Requires uniformity in composition of waste

3) Requires long-term relationships—two-party involvement

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 143

umes of nonhazardous waste by removal of

hazardous constituents to forma concentrated

hazardous waste, For example, metal-finishing

rinse water is rendered nonhazardous by separation of toxic metals. The water then can be

disposed through municipal/industrial sewage

systems.

However, there are disincentives, particularly for small firms wishing to implement source

segregation. For example, an electroplating

firm may, for economic reasons, mix wastes

containing cyanides and toxic metals with a

waste that contains organics. The waste stream

is sent to the municipal treatment system. The

municipal system can degrade the organics,

but the metals and cyanide accumulate in the

sludge, which is disposed as a nonhazardous

solid waste in a sanitary landfill. As long as the

firm dilutes the cyanide and metals concentrations to acceptable limits for municipal disposal, it is in compliance with the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulations. If the

firm calculates the costs of recovering the

cyanide onsite, the cost may be more than the

fees paid to the municipal treatment facility.

Thus, there is no economic incentive for source

segregation, which would yield a hazardous

waste, although the public would benefit if

source segregation were practiced. Alternatively, accumulation of such sludges can lead to

significant levels of toxic material in sanitary

landfills. Municipal treatment facilities are financed with tax dollars, In this example, the

public is, in essence, subsidizing industrial

waste disposal, Moreover, to carry out source

segregation, a firm may have to invest in new

equipment.

Process Modification

Process modifications are, in general, made

on a continuous basis in existing plants to increase production efficiencies, to make product

improvements, and to reduce manufacturing

costs, These modifications may be relatively

small changes in operational methods, such as

a change in temperature, in pressure, or in raw

material composition, or may involve major

changes such as use of new processes or new

equipment. Although process modifications

have reduced hazardous wastes, the reduction

usually was not the primary goal of the modifications. However, as hazardous waste management costs increase, waste reduction will become a more important primary goal.

Three case examples were studied to analyze

incentives and impacts for process modifications for hazardous waste reduction. The following factors are important:

●

●

●

●

A typical process includes several steps.

Although a change in one step may be

small relative to the entire process, the

combination of several changes often represents significant reductions in cost,

water use, or volume of waste.

A change in any step can be made independently and is evaluated to determine

the impact on product, process efficiency,

costs, labor, and raw materials.

Generally, process modifications are plantor process-specific, and they cannot be applied industrywide.

A successful process change requires a

detailed knowledge of the process- as well

as a knowledge of alternative materials

and processing techniques. Successful implementation requires the cooperative efforts of material and equipment suppliers

and in-house engineering staffs.

Three process changes are discussed in detail

in the appendix to this chapter and are briefly

summarized below:

1. Chlor-alkali industry .-Significant process developments in the chlor-alkali industry (which produces, e.g., chlorine and

caustic soda) have resulted in reduction of

major types of hazardous waste through

modifications to the mercury electrolysis

cell. The effects on waste generation are

summarized in table 23. The modifications

were not developed exclusively to reduce

hazardous waste, but were initiated primarily to increase process efficiency and

reduce production costs.

2. Vinyl chloride (plastics) production.—

Several process options are available for

handling waste from the production of

vinyl chloride monomers (VCMs). Five al-
144 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

3.

Table 23.—Process Modifications to the Mercury Cell

Modification Effect on waste stream Reason for modification

Diaphragm cell Elimination of mercury Preferred use of natural salt

contaminated waters brines as raw material

Dimensionally stable anode Elimination of chlorinated Increased efficiency

hydrocarbon waste

Membrane cell Elimination of asbestos Reduce energy costs; higher

diaphragm waste quality product , -

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

ternatives are illustrated in table 24. All

five have been demonstrated on a commercial scale. In most cases, the incineration

options (either recycling or add-on treatment) would be selected over chlorinolysis

and catalytic fluidized bed reactors. Chlorinolysis has limited application because

of the lack of available markets for the end

products. If further refinements could be

made to the catalytic process, such as

higher concentration of hydrogen chloride

(HCl) in the gas stream which would allow

it to be used with all oxychlorination

plants, its use could be expanded.

Metal-finishing industry .-Several modifications in metal cleaning and plating

processes have enabled the metal-finishing

industry to eliminate requirements for onsite owned and operated wastewater treatment facilities. By changing these processes to eliminate formation of hazardous

sludge, the effluent can be discharged directly to a municipal wastewater treatment

facility, saving several million dollars in

capital investment.

End-Product Substitution

End-product substitution is the replacement

of hazardous waste-intensive products (i.e., industrial products the manufacture of which involves significant hazardous waste) by a new

product, the manufacture of which would eliminate or reduce the generation of hazardous

waste. Such waste may arise from the ultimate

disposal of the product (e.g., asbestos products)

or during the manufacturing process (e.g., cadmium plating).

Table 25 illustrates six examples of end-product substitution, each representing a different

type of problem. General problems include the

following:

Table 24.—Advantages and Disadvantages of Process Options for Reduction of

Waste Streams for VCM Manufacture

Treatment option Type Advantages Disadvantages

High-efficiency incineration of

vent gas only

High-efficiency incineration

without HCI recovery

High-efficiency incineration

with HCI recovery

Chlorinolysis

Catalytic fluidized bed reactor

Add-on treatment 1.

2.

Add-on treatment 1.

2.

Recycling 1.

2.

3.

Modification of 1.

process

Recycling 1.

2.

Relatively simple operation

Relatively low capital

investment

Relatively simple operation

Relatively low capital

investment

Heat recovery

Recover both gaseous and

liquid components

High reliability

Carbon tetrachloride generated

Low temperature

Direct recycle of exit gas (no

1. Second process required to

handle liquid waste stream

1. Loss of HCI

1. Exit gas requires scrubbing

2. Requires thorough operator

training

3. Auxiliary fuel requirements

1. High temperatures and

pressures required

2. High capital investment costs

3. Weakening market for carbon

tetrachloride

1. Limited to oxychlorination

plants

treatment required)

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment,
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 145

Table 25.—End-Product Substitutes for Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Ratio of waste:a Ratio of waste:a

Product Use original product Available substitute substitute product

Asbestos Pipe 1.09

Friction products 1.0+ manufacturing

(brake linings) waste

Insulation 1.0+ manufacturing

PCBs Electrical transformers 1.0

Cadmium Electroplating 0.29

Creosote treated wood Piling

Chlorofluorocarbons Industrial solvents 70/81 =0.9

DDT Pesticide 1.0+ manufacturing

waste

aQuantity of hazardous waste generated/unit of product

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Not all of the available substitutes avoid

the production of hazardous waste. F o r

example, in replacing asbestos pipe, the

use of iron as a substitute in pipe manufacturing generates waste with phenols and

cyanides; and also, during the manufacture

of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, a hazardous vinyl chloride monomer is emitted.4

Substitution may not be possible in all

situations. For example, although a substantial reduction in quantity of hazardous

waste generated is achieved by using clay

pipes, clay is not always a satisfactory replacement for asbestos.5

Generally, development of substitutes is motivated by some advantage, either to a user, (e.g.,

in improved reliability, lower cost, or easier

operation), or to the manufacturer (e. g., reduced production costs). A change in consumer behavior also may cause product changes.

—...— — 4

Sterling-Hobe Corp., Alternatives for Reducing Hazardous

Waste Generation Using End-Product Substitution, prepared for

Materials Program, OTA, 1982.

5

Ibid.

For

Iron

Clay

PVC

Glass fiber

Steel wool

Mineral wools

Carbon fiber

Sintered metals

Cement

Glass fiber

Cellulose fiber

Oil-filled transformers

Open-air-cooled

transformers

Zinc electroplating

Concrete, steel

Methyl chloroform;

methylene chloride

Other chemical

pesticides

0.1 phenols, cyanides,

0.05 fluorides

0.04 VCM manufacture +

1.0 PVC pipe

o

0.2

0

0

0.06

0.0 (reduced hazard)

0.9 (reduced hazard)

(reduced hazard)

1.0+ manufacturing

waste

example, increased use of microwave

ovens has increased the demand for paper and

Styrofoam packaging to replace aluminum.

Most end-product substitutions aimed at reduced generation of hazardous waste, however, do not have such advantages. The only

benefit may be reduction of potential adverse

effects on human health or the environment,

Unless the greater risks and costs of hazardous

waste management are fully internalized by

waste generators, other incentives may be

needed to accomplish end-product substitution.

In addition to the approach in chapter 3, option III, end-product substitution may be encouraged by:

1. regulations,

2. limitation of raw materials,

3. tax incentives,

4. Federal procurement practices, and

5. consumer education.

Regulations have been used to prohibit specific compounds. For example, bans on certain

pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-
146 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ethane (DDT) have resulted in development

and use of other chemicals. Legislative prohibition of specific chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), is another option.

Limiting the supply of raw materials required

for manufacture is another method of encouraging end-product substitution. For example,

limiting either the importation or domestic

mining of asbestos might encourage substitution of asbestos products. A model for this

method is the marketing-order system of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, used to permit the cultivation of only specified quantities

of selected crops. Using similar strategies, a

raw material like asbestos could be controlled

by selling shares of a specified quantity of the

market permitted to be mined or imported.

Tax incentives are another means to force

end-product substitution. Excise taxes on products operate as disincentives to consume and

have been implemented in the past (e.g., taxes

on alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline). This type

of taxation might be incorporated to encourage

product substitution. The design and acceptance of a workable, easily monitored tax system, however, might be difficult to develop.

Federal procurement practices and product

specifications can have significant influence

on industrial markets. Changes in military procurement were proposed in 1975 to allow for

substitution of cadmium-plating by other materials. A change in product specifications to permit this substitution would affect not only the

quantity of cadmium required for military use,

but also might impact nonmilitary applications.

A public more aware of the hazard associated with production of specific products

might be inclined to shift buying habits away

from them.

Larger Economic Contexts. -If a substitution requires a complete shift in industrial markets

(e.g., if a product manufactured with asbestos

is replaced by one made with cement), the impact may be large—both manufacturers and

suppliers may be affected. In addition, users

will be impacted according to the relative merits of the products. Other sectors potentially affected by end-product substitution include importers of raw materials, exporters of the original product, and related equipment manufacturers.

Generally, a product substitution offers a cost

advantage over the original product, which

counters market development expenditures.

Potential savings can be achieved by the introduction of product substitutes-e. g., increased

demand may require increased production,

thus reducing the cost per unit. Incentives or

the removal of disincentives, however, maybe

necessary to increase product demand by a sufficient margin to give the substitute a more

competitive marketplace position,

A significant factor in the introduction of a

substitute product is the stage of growth for existing markets. For example, if the market for

asbestos brake lining is declining or growing

at a very slow rate, or if large capital investments are required for development of a substitute lining, introduction of a substitute may not

be economically practical. The availability of

raw materials also affects the desirability of

substitutes. If the original product is dependent

on limited supplies of raw materials, substitutes will be accepted more rapidly.

Recovery and Recycling

Recovery of hazardous materials from process effluent followed by recycling provides an

excellent method of reducing the volume of

hazardous waste. These are not new industrial

practices. Recovery and recycling often are

used together, but technically the terms are different. Recovery involves the separation of a

substance from a mixture. Recycling is the use

of such a material recovered from a process

effluent. Several components may be recovered

from a process effluent and can be recycled or

discarded. For example, a waste composed of

several organic materials might be processed

by solvent distillation to recover halogenated

organic solvents for recycling; the discarded

residue of mixed organics might be burned for

process heat.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 147

Materials are amenable to recovery and recycling if they are easily separated from process effluent because of physical and/or chemical differences. For example, inorganic salts

can be concentrated from aqueous streams by

evaporation, Mixtures of organic liquids can

be separated by distillation. Solids can be separated from aqueous solutions through filtration.

Further examples of waste streams that are easily adaptable to recovery and recycling are

listed in table 26,

Recovery and recycling operations can be

divided into three categories:

1. In-plant recycling is performed by the

waste (or potential waste) generator, and

is defined as recovery and recycling of raw

materials, process streams, or byproducts

for the purpose of prevention or elimination of hazardous waste. (Energy recovery

without materials recovery is not included

in this discussion of in-plant recycling,

but is discussed later in this chapter as a

treatment of wastes.) If several products

are produced at one plant by various processes, materials from the effluents of one

process may become raw materials for

another through in-plant recycling. An example is the recovery of relatively dilute

sulfuric acid, which is then used to neutralize an alkaline waste, In-plant recycling offers several benefits to the manufacturer, including savings in raw materials, energy requirements, and disposal or

treatment costs, In addition, by reducing

or eliminating the amount of waste generated, the plant owner may be exempted

from some or all RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) regulations,

2.

3.

Commercial (offsite) recovery can be used

for those wastes combined from several

processes or produced in relatively small

quantities by several manufacturers. Commercial recovery means that an agent

other than the generator of the waste is

handling collection and recovery. These

recovery systems may be owned and operated by, or simply serve, several waste generators, thereby offering an advantage of

economy of scale. In most cases commercial recovery systems are owned and operated by independent companies, and are

particularly important for small waste generators. In commercial recovery, responsibility for the waste and compliance with

regulations and manifest systems remains

that of the generator until recovery and

recycling is completed.

Material exchanges (often referred to as

“waste” exchanges) are a means to allow

raw materials users to identify waste generators producing a material that could be

used. Waste exchanges are listing mechanisms only and do not include collection,

handling, or processing, Although benefits

occur by elimination of disposal and treatment costs for a waste as well as receipt

of cash value for a waste, responsibility for

meeting purchaser specifications remains

with the generator, *

Standard technologies developed that can be

adapted for recovery of raw materials or byproducts may be grouped in three general cate-

*For a discussion of the problems being encountered with

using waste exchanges for hazardous waste see “Industrial

Waste Exchange: A Mechanism for Saving Energy and Money,”

Argonne National Laboratory, July 1982,

Table 26.—Commercially Applied Recovery Technologies

Generic waste Typical source of effluent Recovery technologies

Solids in aqueous suspension Salt/soda ash liming operations Filtration

Heavy metals Metal hydroxides from metal-plating waste; Electrolysis

sludge from steel-pickling operations

Organic liquids Petrochemicals/mixed alcohol Distillation

Inorganic aqueous solution Concentration of inorganic salts/acids Evaporation

Separate phase solids, grease/oil Tannery waste/petroleum waste Sedimentation/skimming

Chrome salt solutions Chromium-plating solutions/tanning solutions Reduction

Metals; phosphate sulfates Steel-pickling operations Precipitation

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment
148 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

gories. Physical separation includes gravity

settling, filtration, flotation, flocculation, and

centrifugation. These operations take advantage of differences in particle size and density,

Component separation technologies distinguish constituents by differences in electrical

charge, boiling point, or miscibility. Examples

include ion exchange, reverse osmosis, electrolysis, adsorption, evaporation, distillation,

and solvent extraction. Chemical transformation requires chemical reactions to remove

specific chemical constituents. Examples include precipitation, electrodialysis, and oxidation-reduction reactions. These technologies

are reviewed in table 27.

A typical recovery and recycling system usually uses several technologies in series. Therefore, what may appear as a complex process

actually is a combination of simple operations.

For example, recylcing steel-pickling liquors

may involve precipitation, gravity settling, and

flotation. Precipitation transforms a component of high volubility to an insoluble substance

that is more easily separated by gravity settling,

a coarse separation technique, and flotation,

a finishing separation method, Integration of

process equipment can introduce some complexity, The auxiliary handling equipment (e.g.,

piping, pumps, controls, and monitoring devices that are required to provide continuous

treatment from one phase to another) can be

extensive. A detailed description of the recycling and recovery of pickling liquors from

the steel industry is provided in the appendix

at the end of this chapter,

Recovery and recycling technologies applied

to waste vary in their stages of development.

Physical separation techniques are the most

commonly used and least expensive. The separation efficiency of these techniques is not as

high as more complex systems, and therefore

the type of waste to which it is applied is limited. Complex component separations (e.g., reverse osmosis) are being investigated for application to hazardous waste. These generally are

expensive operations and have not been implemented commercially for hazardous waste reduction. Chemical transformation methods are

also expensive. Precipitation and thermal oxidation, however, appear to have current commercial application in hazardous waste management.

Table 28 illustrates some technologies currently being investigated for application to

waste recovery and recycle. An expanded discussion of emerging new technologies, specifically in phase separation is provided in the

following section of this chapter.

Economic Factors

These factors include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

research and development required prior

to implementation of a technology;

capital investment required for new raw

material, or additional equipment; i.e., recovery and recycle equipment, control

equipment, and additional instrumentation;

energy requirements and the potential for

energy recovery;

improvements in process efficiency;

market potential for recycled material,

either in-house or commercially, and anticipated revenues;

management costs for hazardous waste before use of recovery and recycle technology;

waste management cost increases, resulting from recovery/recycling, i.e., additional manpower, insurance needs, and potential liability; and

the value of improved public relations of

a firm.

Because of the number of processing steps involved, recovery and recycling can be more expensive than treatment and disposal methods.

Earned revenue for recovered materials, however, may counter the cost of recovery.

Many market and economic uncertainties

must be considered in an evaluation of proposed technology changes. For example, if deregulation of oil and natural gas results in an

increase in energy costs, additional energy requirements, and/or credits earned for energy

recovery from a process could be affected. The

uncertainty of continued availability of a nec-
Table 27.—Description of Technologies Currently Used for Recovery of Materials

— . . . Technology/description stage of development Economics Types of waste streams Separation efficiency Industrial applications

Physical separation:

Gravity settling:

Tanks, ponds provide hold-up

time allowing solids to

settle; grease skimmed to

overflow to another vessel

Filtration:

Collection devices such as

screens, cloth, or other;

liquid passes and solids

are retained on porous

media

Flotation:

Air bubbled through Iiquid to

collect finely divided solids

that rise to the surface

with the bubbles

Flocculation:

Agent added to aggregate

solids together which are

easily settled

Centrifugation:

Spinning of liquids and

centrifugal force causes

separation by different

densities

Component separation

Distillation:

Successfully boiling off of

materials at different

temperatures (based on

different boiling points)

Evaporation:

Solvent recovery by boiling

off the solvent

ion exchange:

Waste stream passed through

resin bed, ionic materials

selectively removed by

resins similar to resin

adsorption. Ionic exchange

materials must be

regenerated

Ultrafiltration:

Separation of molecules by

size using membrane

Reverse osmosis:

Separation of dissolved

materials from liquid

through a membrane

Relatively inexpensive; Slurrries with separate phase

dependent on particle size solids, such as metal

Limited to solids (large

particles) that settle quickly

(less than 2 hours)

industrial wastewater

treatment first step

Commonly used in

wastewater

treatment and settling rate

Labor intensive: relatively

inexpensive; energy

required for pumping

hydroxide

Commonly used Aqueous solutions with finely Tannery water

divided solids; gelatinous

sludge

Good for relatively large

particles

Commercial

application

Relatively inexpensive Aqueous solutions with finely

divided solids

Good for finely divided solids Refinery (oil/water mixtures);

paper waste; mineral

industry

Aqueous solutions with finely

divided solids

Good for finely divided solids

Fairly high (90°/0)

Refinery; paper waste; mine

industry

Commercial practice Relatively inexpensive

Practiced commer- Paints

cially for smallscale systems

Competitive with filtration Liquid/liquid or liquid/solid

separation, i.e., oil/water;

resins; pigments from

lacquers

Solvent separations;

chemical and petroleum

industry

Commercial practice Energy intensive Organic Iiquids Very high separations

achievable (99 + 0

/0

concentrations) of several

components

Organic/inorganic aqueous

streams; slurries, sludges,

i.e., caustic soda

Very high separations of

single, evaporated

component achievable

Rinse waters from metalplating waste

Commercial practice in

many industries

Energy intensive

Not common for HW Relatively high costs Heavy metals aqueous Fairly high Metal-plating solutions

solutions; cyanide removed

Metal-coating applications

Not used Industrially

Some commercial

application

Relatively high

Relatively high

Heavy metal aqueous

solutions

Fairly high

Heavy metals; organics,

inorganic aqueous solutions

Good for concentrations

less than 300 ppm

Not common: growing

number of applications

as secondary treatment process such

as metal-plating

pharmaceuticals
Table 27.—Description of Technologies Currently Used for Recovery of Materials—Continued

Technology/description Stage of development Economics Types of waste streams Separation efficiency Industrial applications

Electrolysis:

Separation of positively/ Commercial technology; Dependent on concentrations Heavy metals; ions from Good Metal plating

negatively charged not applied to recovery

materials by application of of hazardous materials

electric current

Carbon/resin absorption:

Dissolved materials Proven for thermal Relatively costly thermal

selectively absorbed in regeneration of regeneration; energy

carbon or resins. carbon; less practical intensive

aqueous solutions; copper

recovery

Organics/inorganics from

aqueous solutions with low

concentrations, i.e., phenols

Good, overall effectiveness Phenolics

dependent on

regeneration method

Absorbents must be

regenerated

Solvent extraction:

Solvent used to selectively

dissolve solid or extract

liquid from waste

for recovery of

adsorbate

Commonly used in

industrial processing

Relatively high costs for

solvent

Organic liquids, phenols, acids Fairly high loss of solvent Recovery of dyes

may contribute to

hazardous waste problem

Chemical transformation:

Precipitation:

Chemical reaction causes

formation of solids which

settle

Electrodialysis:

Separation based on

differential rates of

diffusion through

membranes. Electrical

current applied to

enhance ionic movement

Chlorinolysis:

Pyrolysis in atmosphere of

excess chlorine

Reduction:

Oxidative state of chemical

changed through chemical

reaction

Common Relatively high costs Lime slurries Good Metal-plating wastewater

treatment

Commercial technology, not commercial for hazardous

material recovery

Moderately expensive Separation/concentration of

ions from aqueous streams;

application to chromium

recovery

Fairly high Separation of acids and

metallic solutions

Commercially used in

West Germany

Insufficient U.S. market for

carbon tetrachloride

Chlorocarbon waste Good Carbon tetrachloride

manufacturing

Good Chrome-plating solutions

and tanning operations

Commercially applied

to chromium; may

need additional

treatment

Inexpensive Metals, mercury in dilute

streams

Chemical dechlorination:

Reagents selectively attack

carbon-chlorine bonds

Thermal oxidation:

Thermal conversion of

components

Common Moderately expensive

Relatively high

PCB-contaminated oils

Chlorinated organic liquids;

High Transformer oils

Extensively practiced Fairly high Recovery of sulfur, HCI

silver

aGood implies 50 to 8O percent efficiency, fairly high implies 80 percent, and very high Implies 90 percent

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 151

Table 28.—Recovery/Recycling Technologies Being Developed

Technology Development needs Potential application

Ion exchange

Adsorption

Electrolysis

Extract ion

Reverse osmosis

Evaporation

Reduction

Chemical

dehalogenation

Commercial process for other

applications (desalinization),

applications to metal recovery

under development. Not economic

at present due to investment

requirements

R&D on new resins and

regeneration methods

Cathode/anode, material

development for membranes

Reduction in loss of acid or

solvent in process

Membrane materials, operating

conditions optimized,

demonstration of process

Efficiency improvement/

demonstration of process

Efficient collection techniques

Equipment development for

applications to halogenated

waste other than PCB oils

Chromium recovery; metal

plating waste

Organic liquids with or without

metal contamination;

pesticides

Metallic/ionic solution

Extraction of metals with acids

Salt solutions

Fluorides from aluminum

smelting operation

Mercury

Halogenated organics

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

essary raw material could influence a decision

for recovery of materials from waste streams.

Uncertainties in interest rates may discourage

investment and could thus increase a required

rate-of-return projected for a new project.

Changes in allowable rates of capital equipment depreciation also may affect costs significantly.

In addition, changes in RCRA regulations for

alternative management options (e.g., landfilling, ocean dumping, and deep-well injection)

affect disposal costs. Stricter regulations or

prohibitions of certain disposal practices for

particular wastes could increase the attractiveness of recycling and recovery operations.

However, if hazardous wastes are stored for

longer than 90 days, current regulations require permits for that facility. If large quantities

of a waste must accumulate (for economic reasons) prior to recycling or recovery, the permit requirement may discourage onsite recycling,

Previously, recovery and recycling was considered as an in-plant operation only; i.e., material was recovered and recycled within one

plant. Currently, larger corporations are beginning to evaluate recovery opportunities on a

broader scale. Recycling within the corporate

framework is gaining greater attention as a cost

reduction tool with an added benefit of reducing public health risks.

Emerging Technologies for Waste Reduction

Although the effects are more difficult to predict, some technological developments have

potential for the reduction of hazardous waste,

For example, developments in the electronics

industry have provided instrumentation and

control systems that have greater accuracy

than was possible just a few years ago. These

systems provide more precise control of process variables, which can result in higher efficiency and fewer system upsets, and a reduction in hazardous waste. The application and

improvements of instrumentation and control

systems vary with each process. Thus, as new

plants are constructed and fitted with new

technologies, smaller quantities of hazardous

waste will be generated. The technologies that

are discussed in this section have a direct impact on the volume and hazard level of waste

currently generated through one or more of the

reduction methods discussed earlier.
152 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Segregation Technology .—New developments in

segregation technology can increase recovery

and recycling of hazardous waste. Notably,

membrane segregation techniques have substantially improved, Membrane separation has

been used to achieve filtration, concentration,

and purification. However, large-scale applications, such as those required in pollution control have been inhibited by two factors: 1) replacement costs associated with membrane use

and 2) technical difficulties inherent in producing large uniform surface areas of uniform

quality. Because of the inherent advantages of

membrane separation over more conventional

separation techniques like distillation or evaporation, further development of membrane separation for large-scale commercial applications

is attractive. These advantages include lower

energy requirements resulting in reduced operating costs and a simpler, more compact system that generally leads to reduced capital

costs. Commercial applications exist for all but

coupled transport designs, which are still at the

laboratory stage. All of these illustrated systems

have possible application for reduction of hazardous waste. However, microfiltration, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and electrodialysis

processes have more immediate application,

Dialysis has been used on only a small scale;

the high flow systems generally typical of hazardous waste treatments make its use impractical. Gas separations by membranes do not

have immediate application to hazardous waste

use. The development of new materials for both

membranes and supporting fabrics and the use

of new layering techniques (e. g., composite

membranes) have led to improved permeability

and selectivity, higher fluxes, better stability,

and a reduced need for prefiltering and staged

separations.

Improved reliability is the most important

factor in advancement of membrane separations technology. New types of membranes

have demonstrated improved performance,

Thin-film composites that can be used in

reverse osmosis, coupled transport, and electrolytic membranes have direct application to

the recovery and reduction of hazardous materials from a processing stream.

The major cost in a membrane separation

system is the engineering and development

work required to apply the system to a particular process. Equipment costs are secondary;

membranes generally account for only 10 percent of system costs. However, membranes

must be replaced periodically and sales of replacement membranes are important to membrane production firms. Currently the largest

profit items are for high-volume flow situations

(e.g., water purification) or for high-value product applications (e. g., pharmaceutical productions). Over 20 companies cover the membrane

market; the largest company is Millipore with

1980 total sales of $255 million.

The predicted market growth rate for membrane segregations is healthy, generally 10 to

20 percent annually of the present membrane

market ($600 million to $950 million). Chloralkali membrane electrodialysis cells for the

production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide

lead the projected application areas in hazardous waste with growth rates of 25 to 40 percent of the present market ($10 million to $15

million), The recovery of chromic acid from

electroplating solutions by coupled transport

also has direct application for the reduction of

hazardous waste. Other uses include ultrafiltration of electrocoat-painting process waste and

waste water recovery by reverse osmosis. The

use of membrane segregation systems in pretreatment of hazardous waste probably is the

largest application for the near future.

Biotchnology.-Conventional biological treatments have been used in industrial waste treatment systems for many years (see tables 29 and

30). Recent advances in the understanding of

biological processes have led to the development of new biological tools, increasing the opportunities for biotechnology applications in

many areas, including the treatment of dilute

hazardous waste. The potential impacts of

these advancements on waste treatment techniques, process modifications, and end-product

substitutes are discussed here.

Biotechnology has direct application to waste

treatment systems to degrade and/or detoxify
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 153

Table 29.—Conventional Biological Treatment Methods

Treatment method

Aerobic (A)

anaerobic (N) Waste applications Limitations

Activated sludge

Aerated lagoons

Trickling filters

Biocontactors

Packed bed reactors

Stabilization ponds

A Aliphatics, aromatics, petrochemicals,

steel making, pulp and paper industries

A Soluble organics, pulp and paper,

petrochemicals

A Suspended solids, soluble organics

A Soluble organics

A Vitrification and soluble organics

A&N Concentrated organic waste

Anaerobic digestion N Nonaromatic hydrocarbons; high-solids;

methane generation

Land farming/spreading A Petrochemicals, refinery waste, sludge

Comporting A Sludges

Volatilization of toxics; sludge disposal

and stabilization required

Low efficiency due to anaerobic zones;

seasonal variations; requires sludge

disposal

Sludge disposal required

Used as secondary treatment

Used as secondary treatment

Inefficient; long retention times, not

applicable to aromatics; sludge removal

and disposal required

Long retention times required; inefficient

on aromatics

Leaching and runoff occur; seasonal

fluctuations; requires long retention

times

Volatilization of gases, leaching, runoff

occur; long retention time; disposal of

residuals

Aerobic—requires presence of oxygen for cell growth

Anaerobic—requ!res absence of oxygen for cell growth

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Table 30.–lndustries With Experience in Applying

Biotechnology to Waste Management

Industry Effluent stream Major contaminants

Steel

Petroleum refining

Organic chemical

manufacture

Pharmaceutical

manufacture

Pulp and paper

Textile

Coke-oven gas scrubbing

operation

Primary distillation process

Intermediate organic

chemicals and byproducts

Recovery and purification

solvent streams

Washing operations

Wash waters, deep discharges

N H3

, sulfides, cyanides, phenols

Sludges containing hydrocarbons

Phenols, halogenated hydrocarbons,

polymers, tars, cyanide, sulfated

hydrocarbons, ammonium

compounds

Alcohols, ketones, benzene, xylene,

toluene, organic residues

Phenols, organic sulfur compounds,

oils, Iignins, cellulose

Dyes, surfactants, solvents

chemicals.

strains can

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Development of new microbial 5. ability to concentrate nondegradable conbe used to improve: stituents.

1. degradation of recalcitrant compounds, Compounds thought to be recalcitrant, (e.g.,

2. tolerance of severe or frequently changing toluene, benzene, and halogenated compounds)

operating conditions, have been shown to be biodegradable by iso3. multicompound destruction, lated strains. Strain improvement in these

4. rates of degradation, and species through genetic manipulations has lead
154 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

to improved degradation rates. Opportunities

exist for applications of this technology in

remedial situations—i.e., cleanup at spills or

abandoned sites.67 The improvement of conventional biological systems through the development of specific microbial strains (“superbugs”) capable of degrading multiple compounds has been proposed. However, this approach faces engineering difficulties, and development of collections of organisms working together might be preferable.

Development of biological pretreatment systems for waste streams has some potential for

those wastes that contain one or two recalcitrant compounds. A pretreatment system designed to remove a specific toxic compound

could reduce the shock effects on a conventional treatment process. In some cases, a pretreatment system may be used with other nonbiological treatment methods (i.e., incineration)

to remove toxic compounds that may not be

handled in the primary treatment system or to

make them more readily treated by the primary

system. In other cases, pretreatment might

render a waste nonhazardous altogether.

One area of research in advanced plant genetics is in the use of plants to accumulate

metals and toxic compounds from contaminated soils. Current research is direct to four

areas. The first involves use of plants to decrease the metal content of contaminated soils,

through increased rates of metal uptake. Plants

then could be used to decontaminate soils

through concentration of compounds in the

plant fiber. The plants then would be harvested

and disposed. The second area of development

focuses on direct metal uptake in nonedible

portions of the plant. For example, the development of a grain crop like wheat that could accumulate metal from soil in the nonusable parts

of the plant would allow commercial use of

contaminated land. A third area of research is

G. T. Thibault and N. W. Elliott, “Biological Detoxification

of Hazardous Organic Chemical Spills, ” in Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Conference Proceedings (Nashville, Term.:

Vanderbilt University, 1980), pp. 398402.

‘G. C. Walton and D. Dobbs, “Biodegradation of Hazardous

Materials in Spill Situations, “ in Control of Hazardous Material

Spills Conference Proceedings [Nashville, Term.: Vanderbilt

University, 1980), pp. 2345.

directed toward development of crops that can

tolerate the presence of metal without incorporating these toxic elements in plant tissue. Finally, research is being conducted concerning

the use of plants in a manner similar to microorganisms to degrade high concentrations of

hazardous constituents.

Changes in process design incorporating advances in biological treatment systems may

result in less hazardous waste, The development of organisms capable of degrading specific recalcitrant materials may encourage source

separation, treatment, and recycling of process

streams that are now mixed with other waste

streams and disposed. The replacement of

chemical synthesis processes with biological

processes may result in the reduction of hazardous waste. Two methods of increasing the

rate of chemical reactions are through higher

temperatures and catalysts. One type of catalyst is biological products (enzymes) that inherently require milder, less toxic conditions than

do other catalytic materials.

Historically, many biological processes (fermentations) have been replaced by chemical

synthesis. Genetic engineering offers opportunities to improve biological process through

reduced side reactions, higher product concentrations, and more direct routes; thus, genetic

engineering offers a means of partially reversing this trend. The development of new process approaches would require new reactor designs to take advantage of higher biological reaction rates and concentrations.

Biotechnology also could lead to substitution

of a less or nonhazardous material for a hazardous material, particularly in the agricultural

field. One of the primary thrusts of plant genetics is the development of disease-resistant

plants, thus reducing the need for commercial

products such as fungicides. Genetic engineering to introduce nitrogen-fixation capabilities

within plants could reduce the use of chemical

fertilizers and potentially reduce hazardous

waste generated in the manufacture of those

chemicals. However, two problems must be resolved before large-scale applications: 1) the

genetic engineering involved in nitrogen fixa-
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 155

tion is complex and not readily achieved, and

Z) the overall energy balance of internal nitrogen-fixation may reduce growth rates and crop

yield.

Major Concerns for Biotechnology.–Although

genetic engineering has some promising applications in the treatment of hazardous waste

streams, several issues need to be addressed

prior to widespread commercialization of the

technology: 8

●

●

●

●

The factors for scale-up from laboratory

tests to industrial applications have not

been completely developed. Limited field

tests have shown degradation rates in the

field may be much slower than laboratory

rates where pure cultures are tested i n

pure compounds.

Basic biochemical degradation mecha -

nisms are not well understood, The potential exists for the formation of other hazardous compounds through small environmental changes or system upsets and ,

without this basic understanding, chemical pathways cannot be anticipated .

The potential exists for release of hazardous compounds into the environmen t

through incomplete degradation or system

failure .

There is a possibility of adverse effects resulting fro-m the release of “engineered”

organisms into the environment.

The potential benefits of applied genetics to

hazardous waste probably outweigh these factors. Although these factors must be addressed,

they should motivate rather than overshadow

research in this area .

Chemical Dechlorination With Resource Recovery.–

In the late 1970’s private efforts were undertaken to find a reagent that would selectively

attack the carbon-chlorine bond under mild

conditions, and thus chemically strip chlorine

from PCB-type chemicals forming a salt and

an inert sludge. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

made public its method, Sunohio and Acurex

Inc. have developed proprietary reagents, modified the process, and commercialized their

processes with mobile units. These processes

reduce the concentration of PCB in transformer oil, which may be 50 to 5,000 parts per million (ppm) to less than 2 ppm. The Sunohio

PCBX process is used for direct recycling of

the transformer oil back into transformers,

while the oil from the Acurex process is used

as a clean fuel in boilers.9

Although, the development of these processes was initially aimed at PCB-laden oils of

moderate concentration (50 to 500 ppm), their

chemistry is generic in that it attacks the carbon-halogen bonds under mild conditions,

Thus, they are potentially applicable to pesticides and other halogenated organic wastes as

well as wastes with higher concentrations of

PCBs. The PCBX process has been applied to

pesticides and other halogenated waste with

detoxification observed, but without published

numerical results or further developments. 10

Acurex claims it has commercially treated oil

with a PCB concentration of 7,000 ppm. I n

tests performed by Battelle Columbus Laboratories for Acurex, its process reduced dioxi n

concentration in transformer oil from 380 parts

per trillion (ppt) to 40 ± 20 ppt. Acurex and

the Energy Power Research Institute hav e

tested the effectiveness of the process in th e

laboratory on capacitors which contain 10 0

percent PCB (40 to 50 percent chlorine, b y

weight). The next step is construction of a

mobile commercial-scale facility which would

shred, batch process, and test the capacito r

material .11

The Sunohio (first to have a chemical dechlorination process approved by EPA) has five

units in operation. Acurex has four mobile

units in operation at this time and at least two

other companies currently market similar

chemical PCB destruction services. Acurex,

W. p. pirages, L. M. Curran, and J. S. Hirschhorn, “Biotechnology in Hazardous Waste Management: Major Issues, ” paper

presented at The Impact of Applied Genetics on Pollution Control symposium sponsored by the University of Notre Dame and

Hooker Chemical Co., South Bend, Ind., May 24-26, 1982.

@Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, Governor’s Office of Appropriate Technology, California, 1981,

Klscar Norman, developer of the PCBX process, personal

communication, January 1983.

llLeo Weitzman, Acurex Corp., personal communication,

January 1983.
156 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Sunohio, and licensees have been selling their As an alternative to incineration, these chemPCB services for over a year. Acurex and The ical processes offer the advantages of no air

Franklin Institute plan to commercialize their emissions, no products of incomplete combusprocesses for spill sites involving halogenated tion, reduced transportation risks, and the reorganics. 12 cycling of a valuable material or the recovery

of its fuel value. Further, as with many cheml=harles Rogers, Office of Research and Development, Indus- ical processes, there is t-he opportunity to di- trial and Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL), Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, personal, com- rectly check the degree of destruction befor e

. . . .

munication, January 1983.

Hazard Reduction

Introduction

any product is discharged or used.

Alternatives: Treatment and Disposal

The previous section discussed technologies

to reduce the volume of waste generated. This

section analyzes technologies that reduce the

hazard of waste. These include treatment and

disposal technologies. These two groupings

of technologies contrast distinctly in that it

is preferable to permanently reduce risks to

human health and the environment by waste

treatments that destroy or permanently reduce the hazardous character of the material,

than to rely on long-term containment in

land-based disposal structures.

In the United States, as much as 80 percent

(by volume) of the hazardous waste generated

is land disposed (see ch. 4). Of these wastes,

a significant portion could be treated rather

than land disposed for greater hazard reduction. In California, for example, wastes which

are toxic, mobile, persistent and bioaccumulative comprise about 29 percent of the hazardous waste disposed of offsite.13 14

Following a brief summary comparison, this

section reviews over 15 treatment technologies.

Many of these eliminate the hazardous character of the waste. Technologies in the next

group discussed are disposal alternatives. Their

effectiveness relies on containing the waste to

prevent, or to minimize, releases of waste and

WMifbmia Department of Health Services, “Initial Statement

of Reaaona for Proposed Regulations (R-32 -82),” Aug. 18, 1982,

p. 23.

WaIifomia Department of Health Services, “Current Hazardous Waste Generation,” Aug. 31, 1982, p. 6.

human and environmental exposure to waste.

In this category, the major techniques are landfills, surface impoundments, and underground

injection wells.

This discussion begins with a comparison of

the treatment and disposal technologies and

ends with a cost comparison. These discussions focus on the competitive aspects of the

numerous hazard reduction technologies.

However, choosing among these technical alternatives involves consideration of many factors, some of which are neither strictly technical or economic. Choices by waste generators

and facility operators also depend on Federal

and State regulatory programs already in place,

those planned for the future, and on perceptions by firms and individuals of existing regulatory burdens may exist for a specific waste,

technology, and location.

Summary Comparison

For the purpose of an overview, qualitative

comparisons among technologies can be made.

Based on principle considerations relevant

across all technologies, the diverse range of

hazard reduction technologies can be compared as presented in table 31. The table summarizes the important aspects of the above

issues for each generic grouping of technologies included. Individual technologies are

considered in more detail in the following discussions on treatment and disposal technologies. For simplicity, the technologies are

grouped generically, and only a limited number
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 157

Table 31 .—Comparison of Some Hazard Reduction Technologies

Disposal

Landfills and

Impoundments Injection wells

Effectiveness How well It Low for volatiles, High, based on theory,

contains or destroys questionable for Iiquids but limited field data

hazardous based on lab and field available

characteristics tests

Reliability issues: Siting, construction, and Site history and geology,

operation well depth, construction

Uncertainities Iong-term and operation

integrity of cells and

cover, Iiner life less

than life of toxic waste

Envirornmental media Surface and ground water Surface and ground water

most affected

Least compatible Liner reactive, highly toxic, Reactive, corrosive,

waste: b mobile, persistent, highly toxic, mobile,

and bioaccumulative and persistent

Costs LO W, Mod, Hig h L-M L

Resource recovery

potential None None

aMolte s t, n al high.temperature fluid wall, and plasma arc treatments

Incineration and other

thermal destruction

High, based on field tests,

except little data on

specific constituents

Long experience with

design

Monitoring uncertainties

with respect to high

degree of DRE,

surrogate measures,

PICs, incinerability

Air

Highly toxic and refractory

organics, high heavy

metals concentration

M-H (Coincin = L)

Energy and some acids

Treatment

Emerginghigh.temperature

decomposition a

Very high, commercial

scale tests

Limited experience

Mobile units, onsite

treatment avoids

hauling risks

Operational simplicity

Air

Possibly none

M-H

Chemical stabilization

High for many metals,

based on lab tests

Some inorganics still

soluble

Uncertain Ieachate test,

surrogate for weathering

None Iikely

Organics

M

Energy and some metals Possible building material — .

bWaste for which this method may be less effective for reducing exposure, relative to other technologies Waste listed do not necessarily denote common usage

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

of groups are compared, The principal considerations used for comparison are the following:

Effectiveness.—This does not refer to the

intended end result of human health and

environmental protection, but to the capability of a technology to meet its specific

technical objective. For example, the effectiveness of chemical dechlorination is determined by how completely chlorine is removed. In contrast, the effectiveness of

landfills is determined by the extent to

which containment or isolation is achieved.

Reliability .—This is the consistency over

time with which a technology’s objective

is met, Evaluation of reliability requires

consideration of available data based on

theory, laboratory-scale studies, and commercial experience.

A prominent factor affecting the relative

reliability of a technology is the adequacy

of substitute performance measures. Verification that a process is performing as designed is not always possible and, when

possible, verification to a high level of confidence may require days or weeks to complete and may not be useful for timely adjustments. In some cases, key process variables can be used as substitute measures

for the effectiveness of the technology.

Substitute measures are used either because they provide faster and/or cheaper

performance information, A disadvantage

of surrogate measures is that there may not

be reliable correlation between the surrogate measurement and the nature of any

releases to the environment.

The reliability of a technology should

also be judged on the degree of process

and discharge control available. This refers to the ability to: 1) maintain proper

operating conditions for the process, and

2) correct undesirable releases. Process

control requires that information about

performance be fed back to correct the

process. Control systems vary categorically with respect to two important time variables:

1. the length of time required for information to be fed back into the system

(e.g., time for surrogate sampling and

analysis, plus time for corrective adjustments to have the desired effect);

and

2. the length of time for release of damaging amounts of insufficiently treated

materials in the event of a treatment

upset.

In the case of landfills, once ground water

monitoring has detected a leak, damaging

discharges could have already occurred.
158 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

●

●

●

If detection systems are embedded in the

liner, then detection of a system failure is

quicker and more reliable, and it offers

more opportunity for correction. Landfilling and incineration are examples where

these time factors are important. In contrast, batch treatment processes, as discussed in the preceding section on “Waste

Reduction,” offer the distinct opportunity

to contain and check any release, and retreat it if needed, so that actual releases

of hazardous constituents are prevented.

Other chemical and biological treatments

are flow-through processes, with different

rates of flow-through. These treatments

vary in their opportunity for discharge correction. Generally, processes used in waste

segregation and recycling offer this kind

of reliability.

Environmental media most affected.—

This refers to the environmental media

contaminated in the event that the technology fails.

Least compatible waste.—Some technologies are more effective than others in preventing releases of hazardous constituents

when applied to particular types of waste.

Costs.—Costs vary more widely among

generic groups of technologies than within

these groups. Table 31 presents generalized relative costs among these groups.

The final section of this chapter gives some

unit management cost details.

Resource recovery potential.—Treatments

that detoxify and recover materials for recycling are discussed under “Waste Reduction.” However, some materials, as

well as energy, can be recovered with

some of the technologies reviewed in this

section. To the extent that materials and

fuels are recovered and used, the generation of other hazardous wastes maybe reduced. Potential releases of hazardous

constituents from recovery and recycling

operations must also be considered,

Treatment Technologies

In this section, treatment technologies refers

to those techniques which decompose or break

down the hazardous wastes into nonhazardous

constituents. * Most of these treatments use

high temperatures to decompose waste. Some

of the promising emerging technologies cause

decomposition by high-energy radiation and/or

electron bombardment. There are several important attributes of high-temperature destruction technologies which make them attractive

for

●

●

●

hazardous waste management:

the hazard reduction achieved is permanent;

they are broadly applicable to waste

mixes; most organics, for example, may

be converted into nonhazardous combustion products; and

the volume of waste that must ultimately

be land disposed is greatly reduced, -

In addition, with some of these treatments,

there is a possibility of recovering energy and/

or materials.** However, potential recovery of

energy and materials is not the primary focus

of this discussion.

Incineration is the predominant treatment

technology used to decompose waste. The term

“incineration” has been given a specific meaning in Federal regulations, where it denotes a

particular subclass of thermal treatments, and

draft Federal regulations may give specific

meaning to the additional terms “industrial

boiler” and “industrial furnace.” Although the

Federal definitions affect the manner in which

a facility is regulated, unless specifically noted,

——

● Treatments can also be used to segregate specific waste constituents, or to mitigate their characteristics of ignitability, corrosiveness, or reactivity. Most of these are referred to as “industrial unit processes, ” and their use is usually embedded in larger

treatment schemes. A lengthy listing will not be reproduced here. Many were described in the preceding section on “Waste Reduction Technologies. ” The interested reader is also referred to any

industrial unit operations manual. Another source is “Chemical,

Physical, Biological (CPB) Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, ” Edward J. Martin, Timothy Oppelt, and Benjamin Smith, Office

of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, presented at the Fifth United States-Japan Governmental Conference

of Solid Waste Management, Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 28, 1982.

● *For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Association

claims that a significant portion of the hydrochloric acid produced in the United States and some sulfuric acid come from

incineration of chlorinated organics through wet-scrubbing of

the stack gases. (CMA, personal communication, December

1982.) Also, there is clear potential for metals recovery with the

emerging high-temperature technologies.
Ch. 5—Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 159

“combustion” or “incineration” are used in

this report to refer to the generic processes of

interest, and do not necessarily mean specific

facility designs or regulatory categories.

Applicable Wastes

Liquid wastes are generally more easily incinerated than sludge or waste in granular

form, because they can be injected easily into

the combustion chamber in a manner which

enhances mixing and turbulence. Wastes with

heterogeneous physical characteristics and

containerized or drummed wastes are difficult

to feed into a combustion chamber. The rotary

kiln is designed for sludge-like, granular and

some containerized waste. Recently, a new

firm has emerged (Continental Fibre Drum)

which manufactures combustible fiber drums

for waste containers. These fiber drums of organic waste can be incinerated in specially

designed rotary kilns.

Elemental metals, of course, cannot be degraded. Waste which contain excessive levels

of volatile metals may not be suitable for incineration. Under the high-temperature conditions

in an incinerator, some metals are volatilized

or carried out on particulate. Oxides of metals

can generally be collected electrostatically.

However, some volatilized forms cannot be

electrically charged, resisting electrostatical

collection. These include metallic mercury,

arsenic, antimony, and cadmium, and very

small particles.15 (Particles having insufficient

surface area also can’t be adequately charged

and collected, ) Wet second-stage electrostatic

precipitators are designed for removing these

forms of volatized metals, but they are expensive and not in widespread use. High-pressure

drop-emission controllers have also been effective, but their use is declining.

Technical Issues

There are approximately 350 liquid injection

and rotary kiln incinerators currently in service for hazardous waste destruction.18 Most

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

August 1982.

Gene Crumpler, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division, Environmental Protection Agency, personal

communication, January 1983.

of these facilities may eventually be permitted

as RCRA hazardous waste incinerators. A far

greater, although unknown, number of facilities may be combusting hazardous waste principally in order to recover their heating value.

Under current regulations, these facilities

would not be permitted as hazardous waste

incinerators.” Under future regulations they

may become subject to performance standards

similar to those in effect for incinerators, be

prohibited from burning certain types of ignitable hazardous waste, or be subject to some intermediate level of regulation.

To regulate incinerators, EPA has decided

to use performance standards rather than

specification of design standards. The current

regulations specify three performance standards for hazardous waste incineration. 18 These

standards are described below:

1.

2.

3.

A 99.99 percent destruction and removal

efficiency (DRE) standard for each principal organic hazardous constituent

(POHC) designated in the waste feed. (This

is the most difficult part of the standard

to meet.) The DRE is calculated by the following mass balance formula:

DRE = (1 – Wout/Win) X 100 percent,

where:

Win = the mass feed rate of 1 POHC

in the waste stream going into the

incinerator, and

Wout = the mass-emission rate of the

same POHC in the exhaust prior to

release to the atmosphere.

Incinerators that emit more than 4 lb of

hydrogen chloride per hour must achieve

a removal efficiency of at least 99 percent.

(All commercial scrubbers tested by EPA

have met this performance requirement.)

Incinerators cannot emit more than 180

milligrams (mg) of particulate matter per

dry standard cubic meter of stack gas. This

standard is intended to control the emissions of metals carried out in the exhaust

gas on particulate matter. (Recent tests indicate that this standard may be more difficult to achieve than was earlier thought.19)

“Ibid.

1840 CFR, Sec. 264.343.

19Wrumpler, op. cit.
160 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

There are instances in which the incinerator

performance standards do not fully apply.

First, the regulations do not apply to facilities

that burn waste primarily for its fuel value. To

date, energy recovery of the heat value of waste

streams qualifies for the regulatory exemption. 20 Second, facilities burning waste that are

considered hazardous because of characteristics of ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity

are eligible for exemptions from the performance standards. Of the three, the exemption for

energy recovery applies to a greater volume of

hazardous waste. Finally, incinerators operating at sea are not governed by RCRA but

rather by the Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Regulations under this

act do not require scrubbing of the incinerator

exhaust gas. In the future, EPA may require

that incinerator ships operating in close proximity to each other scrub their exhaust gases.

With regard to combustion processes, the

most important design characteristics are the

“three Ts:”

1. maintenance of adequate temperatures

within the chamber,

2. adequate turbulence (mixing) of waste

feed and fuel with oxygen to assure even

and complete combustion, and

3. adequate residence times in the high-temperature zones to allow volatilization of

the waste materials and reaction to completion of these gases.

Finally, the DRE capability of these technologies generally varies widely depending on the

waste type to which it is applied, Chlorine or

other halogens in the waste tend to extinguish

combustion; so, in general, these wastes tend

to be more difficult to destroy. An important

related misconception is that the more toxic

compounds are the more difficult they are to

burn. Toxic dioxins and PCBs are popular examples of highly halogenated wastes which are

both highly toxic and difficult to destroy, but

these should not imply a rule. Discussion of

waste “incinerability” is included below.

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

Waste treatments with reliable high-destruction efficiencies offer attractive alternatives to

land disposal for mobile, toxic, persistent, and

bioaccumulative wastes. However, these treatment technologies are not free of technical

issues. The first three issues noted below relate

directly to policy and regulation, and the remaining three issues summarize sources of

technical uncertainty with respect to the very

small concentrations of remaining substances.

Improvements in policy and regulatory control

should recognize these technical issues:

●

●

Significant sources of toxic combustion

products, emitted to the air, are not being

controlled with the same rigor as are

RCRA incinerators. These include emissions from facilities inside the property

boundaries of refineries and other chemical processing plant sites. In addition,

“boilers” can receive and burn any ignitable hazardous waste which has beneficial

fuel value (see discussion on “Boilers”).

Draft regulations governing boilers are

currently being developed under RCRA

and very limited reporting requirements

are brand new. Under the Clean Air Act,

there is only very limited implementation

governing the remaining facilities. Standards have been set for only four substances, and apply to only a small class of

facilities.

There are some problems with the technology-based DRE performance standards. EPA uses the technology-based performance standard for practicality, and

for its technology-forcing potential. However, the performance standard overly simplifies the environmental comparisons

among alternatives.

Complete knowledge about the transport, fate, and toxic effects of each waste

compound from each facility is unobtainable. Thus, some simplified regulatory tool

is needed. However, the most important

and known factors should be included in

regulatory decisions. Notably, these could

include: the toxicity of the waste, the load

to the facility (the waste feed concentra-
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 161

tion and size of the facility), and population potentially affected. Future regulations, however, could endeavor to shape

the manner in which competing technologies are chosen in a more environmentally meaningful way (see ch. 6),

Finally, the 99.99 percent DRE may be

viewed as a “forcing” standard with respect to some high-temperature technologies, but emerging high-temperature technologies (notably plasma arc) may offer

much greater and more reliable DREs.

Rather than forcing, it may discourage the

wide use of more capable technologies,

● Strengthening regulations with respect to

the technical uncertainties below will require deliberate research efforts in addition to anticipated permitting tests. Test

data for wastes that are difficult to burn

are lacking. The current incinerator performance standard is based on EPA surveys from the mid-1970’s which involved

easier to burn wastes, higher fuel to waste

feed ratios than in current use, and smaller

than commercial-scale reactors, EPA is

currently testing or observing test burns

for many of the technologies described,

using compounds found to be representative of very difficult to burn toxic waste.

Most of these data are still being evaluated;

few results have become available. In the

next few years, a great deal of test burn

data will be generated regarding existing

facilities and given wastes. In addition, the

cost of test burn is often $20,000 to $50,000.

These costs burden both EPA research and

private industry. Such data will help permit writers, but these data will have limited use in resolving many of the technical

uncertainties described below.

● Implementation of the current performance standards relies on industrywide

use of monitoring technology operating

at the limits of its capability. In DRE

analyses, the fourth nine is often referred

to as guesswork; standardized stack gas

sampling protocols for organic hazardous

constituents are still being developed, This

is particularly true with respect to organics

carried on particulate matter and to the

more volatile compounds. Methods for

concentrating the exhaust gas in order to

obtain the sample especially for volatile

compounds are still evolving, The newness

of these tests suggests there may be a wide

variety in the precision capabilities among

the laboratories which analyze DRE test

results.

● The measurements currently used in daily monitoring of performance cannot reliably represent DRE at the 99.99 percent

level. For recordkeeping and enforcement,

air and waste feed rates along with gas

temperature are used as indirect measures

for DRE. For facilities already equipped

with carbon monoxide meters (and for all

Phase II regulated incinerators), carbon

monoxide concentration in the stack gas

is also included. Also, waste/fuel mix and

waste/fuel ratio can have a great effect on

DRE. Thus, these ratios are noted in the

permits. However, it is difficult to specify

acceptable ranges of mixes based on test

burn information. The idea behind the specifications is that as long as actual values

of these parameters remain within prescribed limits during operation, the desired DRE is being achieved. These measures are chosen not only because they are

easily and routinely monitored, but also because there is a theoretical basis for using

them to indicate combustion efficiency.

However, all these measures are only indirectly related to the compounds of concern. For example, carbon monoxide is a

very stable and easily monitored product

of incomplete combustion (PIC). Thus, it

is often used as a sensitive indicator for

combustion efficiency in energy applications. However, its relationship to other

combustion products and to remaining

concentrations of POHCs is very indirect

and uncertain,

Most experts agree that the development

of a way to accurately measure DRE concurrently with treatment process, would

eliminate much of the technical uncertainties surrounding incineration, To this end,

EPA is studying devices which monitor

total organic carbon, and the National
162 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

●

Bureau of Standards (NBS) is studying various combinations of available monitoring

techniques.21 It is not likely that a single

technique can be developed in the near

term to monitor the whole range of compounds of concern, but the development

of a combination of devices to do the job

holds promise, However, these techniques

will still have problems. This will include:

cost; some reliance on correlations to surrogate measures; and, in the case of the

NBS approach, the possible introduction

of corrosive tracer compounds.

There is sharp disagreement in the scientific and regulatory community about the

use of waste “incinerability.” This concept is a regulatory creation, not a physical

attribute of any material. The idea behind

incinerability is that as long as the least incinerable waste (i.e., the most difficult to

burn waste) is destroyed to the required extent, all other waste would be destroyed

to an even greater extent. Thus, waste “incinerability, " in addition to waste concentration, is used to select a limited number

of waste constituents for monitoring in a

test burn. Problems with this approach

result largely from lack of basic information about measures for incinerability.

This presents uncertainty in the selection

of those POHCs to be monitored in the

waste feed and stack gas. Heat combustion

is the informational surrogate currently

used because it is readily determined.

However, this measure relates poorly to

waste incinerability. Chlorine and other

halogens in the waste tend to extinguish

combustion, but simple halogen content

give poor indication of incinerability.

Autoignition temperature is closely related

to incinerability, but for most hazardous

compounds, it has not been measured. Better predictors of incinerability could be

developed. One scheme, proposed by NBS,

would use a combination of factors, but it

needs to be tested.

There is a lack of basic understanding

about how stable toxic PICs are formed.

21W. Schaub, National Bureau of Standards, personal communication, January 1983,

Some compounds, known to be very difficult to incinerate, also occur as PICs from

combusting mixtures of compounds thought

to be more easily burned. Our ability to

monitor these compounds has only recently made such observations possible, and

there are many high-temperature kinetic

reactions not fully understood. Unless specifically analyzed, a selected PIC would go

undetected. While additional testing of individual combustion facilities will demonstrate specific DRE capabilities, these observations are not likely to improve our

fundamental understanding of PIC formation. In particular, with the cost of test

burns with POHC monitoring so high,

some more basic research on PIC formation would be appropriate. Current EPA

research and development, however, is

focused in support of near-term permitting

activities.

Review of Selected High-Temperature

Treatment Technologies

There are a variety of treatment technologies

involving high temperatures which have, or

will likely have, important roles in hazardous

waste management. Most of these technologies

involve combustion, but some are more accurately described as destruction by infrared or

ultraviolet radiation.

Discussion below focuses on the distinguishing principles, the reliability and effectiveness,

and the current and projected use of these technologies, Unless otherwise noted, DRE values

were measured in accordance with EPA testing

procedures. Table 32 summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and status of these technologies.

1. Liquid injection incineration.—With

liquid injection, freely flowing wastes are atomized by passage through a carefully designed

nozzle (see fig. 8). It is important that the

droplets are small enough to allow the waste

to completely vaporize and go through all the

subsequent stages of combustion while they

reside in the high-temperature zones of the incinerator. Residence times in such incinerators

are short, so nozzles especially, as well as other
Ch. 5—Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 163

Table 32.—Comparison of Thermal Treatment Technologies for Hazard Reduction

-. . ,. , . Advantages of design features

Currently available incinerator deslgns:

Liquid injection Incineration

Can be designed to burn a wide range of

pumpable waste. Often used in conjunction

with other Incinerator systems as a

secondary afterburner for combustion of

volatilized constituents Hot refractory

minimizes cool boundary layer at walls.

HCI recovery possible.

Rotary kilns:

Can accommodate great variety of waste

feeds” solids, sludges, Iiquids, some bulk

waste contained in fiber drums Rotation

of combustion chamber enhances mixing

of waste by exposing fresh surfaces for

oxidation.

Cement kilns:

Attractive for destruction of harder-to-burn

waste, due to very high residence times,

good mixing, and high temperatures

Alkaline environment neutralizes chlorine

Boilers (usually a Iiquid Injection design)’

Energy value recovery, fuel conservation

Availability on sites of waste generators

reduces spill risks during hauling

Applications of currently availabie designs:

Multiple hearth

Passage of waste onto progressively hotter

hearths can provide for long residence

times for sludges Design provides good

fuel efficiency. Able to handle wide

variety of sludges

Fluidized-bed incinerators:

Turbulence of bed enhances uniform heat

transfer and combustion of waste. Mass

of bed is large relative to the mass of

injected waste.

Disadvantages or design features

Limited to destruction of pumpable waste

(viscosity of less than 10,000 SSI). Usually

designed to burn specific waste streams.

Smaller units sometimes have problems

with clogging of injection nozzle.

Rotary kilns are expensive. Economy of scale

means regional locations, thus, waste

must be hauled, increasing spill risks.

Burning of chlorinated waste limited by

operating requirements, and appears to

increase particulate generation. Could

require retrofitting of pollution control

equipment and of instrumentation for

monitoring to bring existing facilities to

comparable level. Ash may be hazardous

residual.

Cool gas layer at walls result from heat

removal This constrains design to highefficiency combustion within the flame

zone, Nozzle maintenance and waste feed

stability can be critical. Where HCI is

recovered, high temperatures must be

avoided. (High temperatures are good for

DRE.) Metal parts corrode where

halogenated waste are burned.

Tiered hearths usually have some relatively

cold spots which inhibit even and complete

combustion. Opportunity for some gas to

short circuit and escape without adequate

residence time. Not suitable for waste

streams which produce fusible ash when

combusted Units have high maintenance

requirements due to moving parts in hightemperature zone.

Limited capacity in service. Large economy

of scale

At-sea incineration: shipboard (usually liquid injection incinerator):

Minimum scrubbing of exhaust gases Not suitable for waste that are shock

required by regulations on assumption that sensitive, capable of spontaneous

ocean water provides sufficient combustion, or chemically or thermally

neutralization and dilution. This could unstable, due to the extra handling and

provide economic advantages over land- hazard of shipboard environment. Potential

based incineration methods Also, for accidental release of waste held in

incineration occurs away from human storage (capacities vary from between

populations Shipboard incinerators have 4,000 to 8,000 tonnes).

greater combustion rates, e.g., 10

tonnes/hr.

At-sea incineration: oil drilling platform-based:

Same as above, except relative stability of Requires development of storage facilities.

platform reduces some of the complexity Potential for accidental release of waste

in designing to accommodate rolling held in storage.

motion of the ship.

Status for hazardous waste treatment

Estimated that 219 liquid injection

incinerators are in service, making this

the most widely used incinerator design.

Estimated that 42 rotary kilns are in service

under interim status. Rotary kiln design is

often centerpiece of integrated commercial

treatment facilities. First noninterim

RCRA permit for a rotary kiln incinerator

(IT Corp.) is currently under review.

Cement kilns are currently in use for waste

destruction, but exact number is unknown.

National kiln capacity is estimated at 41.5

million tonnes/yr. Currently mostly

nonhalogenated solvents are burned.

Boilers are currently used for waste disposal.

Number of boiler facilities is unknown,

quantity of wastes combusted has been

roughly estimated at between 17.3 to 20

million tonnes/yr.

Technology is available; widely used for

coal and municipal waste combustion.

Estimated that nine fluidized-bed

incinerators are in service. Catalytic bed

may be developed.

Limited burns of organochlorine and PCB

were conducted at sea in mid-1970. PCB

test burns conducted by Chemical Waste

Management, Inc., in January 1982 are

under review by EPA. New ships under

construction by At Sea Incineration, Inc.

Proposal for platform incinerator currently

under review by EPA.
164 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 32.—Comparison of Thermal Treatment Technologies for Hazard Reduction—Continued

Advantages of design features Disadvantages of design features Status for hazardous waste treatment

Pyrolysis:

Air pollution control needs minimum: airstarved combustion avoids volatilization

of any inorganic compounds. These and

heavy metals go into insoluble solid char.

Potentially high capacity.

Emerging thermal treatment technologies:

Molten salt:

Molten salts act as catalysts and efficient

heat transfer medium. Self-sustaining for

some wastes. Reduces energy use and

reduces maintenance costs. Units are

compact; potentially portable. Minimal air

pollution control needs; some combustion

products, e.g., ash and acidic gases are

retained in the melt.

High-temperature fluid wall:

Waste is efficiently destroyed as it passes

through cylinder and is exposed to radiant

heat temperatures of about 4,000° F.

Cylinder is electrically heated; heat is

transferred to waste through inert gas

blanket, which protects cylinder wall.

Mobile units possible.

Plasma arc:

Very high energy radiation (at 50,000° F)

breaks chemical bonds directly, without

series of chemical reactions. Extreme

DREs possible, with no or little chance of

PICs, Simple operation, very low energy

costs, mobile units planned.

Wet oxidation:

Applicable to aqueous waste too dilute for

incineration and too toxic for biological

treatment. Lower temperatures required,

and energy released by some wastes can

produce self-sustaining reaction. No air

emissions.

Super critical water:

Applicable to chlorinated aqueous waste

which are too dilute to incinerate. Takes

advantage of excellent solvent properties

of water above critical point for organic

compounds. injected oxygen decomposes

smaller organic molecules to CO2 and

water. No air — emissions.

Greater potential for PIC formation. For

some wastes produce a tar which is hard

to dispose of. Potentially high fuel

maintenance cost. Waste-specific designs

only.

Commercial-scale applications face potential

problems with regeneration or disposal of

ash-contaminated salt. Not suitable for

high ash wastes. Chamber corrosion can

be a problem. Avoiding reaction vessel

corrosion may imply tradeoff with DRE.

To date, core diameters (3”, 6", and 12”) and

cylinder length (72 limit throughput

capacity. Scale-up may be difficult due to

thermal stress on core. Potentially high

costs for electrical heating.

Limited throughput. High use of NaOH for

scrubbers.

Not applicable to highly chlorinated organics,

and some wastes need further treatment.

Probable high economy of scale. Energy

needs may increase on scale-up.

Commercially available but in limited use.

Technology has been successful at pilot

plant scale, and IS commercially available.

Other applications tested; e.g., coal

gasification, pyrolysis of metal-bearing

refuse and hexachlorobenzene. Test

burns on toxic gases in December 1962.

Limited U.S. testing, but commercialization in

July 1963 expected. No scale-up needed.

Commercially used as pretreatment to

biological wastewater treatment plant.

Bench-scale studies with catalyst for

nonchlorinated organics.

Bench-scale success (99.99°/0 DRE) for

DDT, PCBs, and hexachlorobenzene.

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, compiled from references 12 through 29.

features, must be designed for specified waste many different liquid waste mixes: motor and

stream characteristics such as viscosity. Cer- industrial oils, emulsions, solvents, lacquers,

tain waste must be preheated. Nonclogging and organic chemicals of all kinds including

nozzles are available, but all nozzles must be relatively hard-to-destroy pesticides and chemicarefully maintained. One of the chief costs is cal warfare agents.

maintenance of refractory walls. Incinerator

design is a complex, but advanced field. Many Liquid injection incinerators, together with

distinguishing design features are currently rotary kilns (see below) form the current basis

proprietary; especially nozzle designs and re- of the hazardous waste incineration industry.

fractory composition. These technologies have been used for the purpose of destroying industrial waste for many

Injection incinerator designs, especially noz- years. In the mid-1970’s EPA testing and data

zle design, tend to be waste-specific. However, reviews of these facilities provided the basis

individual designs exist for the destruction of for the current interim performance standard
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 165

Figure 8.— Injection Liquid Incineration

Scrubbed

gases

Liquid waste A

M!!!n- Dispersion stack 0

Storage Fumes

Precooler \

/

Waste

conditioning

‘+t~ I

Support fuel

if required

m.Cooling

scrubber

Atomizing gas

combustion air- -

} ~

m

I v,. b-. {

b

VVdlW

Venturi scrubber

Makeup water

/ %Residue

Water treatment

SOURCE D A Hitchcock, "Solid Waste Disposal Incineration, ” Chemical Engineering, May 21, 1979

of 99.99 percent DRE for incineration of hazardous materials.

EPA has recently begun testing incinerators

to better understand the DRE capabilities for

the most difficult-to-burn waste. Analysis is not

yet complete, but preliminary indications both

confirm the 99.99 percent capabilities, and

underscore the sensitivities of individual incinerators to operational and waste feed variables.22

2. Rotary kilns.—These can handle a wider

physical variety of burnable waste feeds—solids and sludge, as well as free liquids and gases.

A rotating cylinder tumbles and uncovers the

waste, assuring uniform heat transfer. The cyl22Timothy Oppelt, and various other personal communications,

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 1982 and January

1983.

inders range in size from about 3 ft in diameter

by about 8 or 10 ft long, up to 15 or 20 ft in

diameter by about 30 ft long. Rotary kilns operate between temperature extremes of approximately 1,500o and 3,000° F, depending on location measured along the kiln. They range in

capacity from 1 to 8 tons of waste per hour.23

The primary advantage of rotary kilns is their

ability to burn waste in any physical form and

with a variety of feed mechanisms. Many large

companies that use chemicals (such as Dow

Chemical Co., 3M Corp., and Eastman Kodak)

incinerate onsite with their own rotary kilns.

For flexibility, this is often in combination with

injection incinerators. Similarly, large waste

management service firms (Ensco and Rollins

Environmental Services) operate large rotary

kilns as part of their integrated treatment cen23lbid.
166 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ters. Others are in commercial operation

throughout the United States and Europe.24

3. Cement kilns.—These are a special type

of rotary kiln. Liquid organic waste are cofired

with the base fuel in the kiln flame. The very

thorough mixing and very long residence times

make possible more complete combustion of

even difficult to burn organic waste. Temperatures in the kiln range between 2,600° and

3,000° F (1,400

0 and 1,650° C). Also, the alkaline environment in the kiln neutralizes all of

the hydrochloric acid produced from the burning of chlorinated waste. Most ash and nonvolatile heavy metals are incorporated into the

clinker (product of the kiln) and eventually into

the cement product. Heavy metals incorporated into the clinker may present either real

or perceived risks (toxicological and structural),

but little is known about such concerns.25 A

portion (perhaps 10 percent) of the ash and

metals carry over into the kiln dust that is collected in the system’s air-pollution control system. Some of this material is recycled to the

kiln, the balance is generally landfilled.26 27

Five controlled test burns for chlorinated

waste have been documented in wet process

cement kilns in Canada, Sweden, Norway, and

most recently, the United States. The foreign

results have tended to confirm the theoretical

predictions —that 99.99 percent or better can

be achieved for chlorinated hydrocarbons.

However, these studies lack strong documentation of control protocols. In the Swedish results, representative concentrations of very difficult to burn waste were destroyed beyond the

limits of monitoring technology, indicating bet24Technologies for the Treatment and Destruction of Organic

Wastes as Alternatives to Land Disposal, State of California, Air

Resources Board, August 1982.

25Myron W. Black, “Impact of Use of Waste Fuels Upon Cement Manufacturing, ” paper presented at the First International

Conference on Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 1982.

26Doug]as L. Hazelwood and Francis J. Smith, et al., “Assessment of Waste Fuel Use in Cement Kilns, ” prepared by A. T.

Kearney and the Portland Cement Association for the Office of

Research and Development, EPA, contract No. 68-03-2586,

March 1981. 27Aternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit.

ter than 99.99 percent destruction.28 The California Air Resources Board recently recommended the use of cement kilns to destroy PCB

waste. 29 EPA has recently completed a carefully controlled test on the most difficult to burn

waste at the San Juan Cement Co. in Duablo,

Puerto Rico. The results of this test are still

being evaluated.

Some hazardous wastes are currently being

burned in cement kilns under the energy recovery exclusion, but, these have been generally nonhalogenated solvents or waste oils, rather

than the most toxic and/or difficult to burn

compounds, for which they may be well suited.

Since 1979 the General Portland Co. of Paulding, Ohio, has been burning 12,500 tons per

year of nonhalogenated waste solvents as a

supplemental fuel.

There is theoretically no limit on the fuel-towaste-feed ratio; as long as the waste mix has

sufficient heating value, a kiln could be fired

solely on waste feed. Idled kilns could be used

as hazardous waste facilities. Local public concerns, notably over spills during hauling, have

presented the major obstacle to such incinerator use, but commercial interest apparently is

still strong. so Much will depend on how new

regulations affect land disposal use.

4. Boilers.—Ignitable waste with sufficient

heating value are coincinerated with a primary

fuel in some types of boilers. The boiler converts as much as possible of the heat of combustion of the fuel mix into energy used for producing steam. Different types of boilers have

been designed to burn different types of fuels.

Boilers burn lump coal, pulverized coal, No.

2 oil, No. 6 oil, and natural gas.31 The predom28Robert Olexsey, “Alternative Thermal Destruction Processes

for Hazardous Wastes,” Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, May 1982.

‘

e

” An Air Resources Board Policy Regarding incineration as

an Acceptable Technology for PCB Disposal, ” State of California, Air Resources Board, December 1981.

30Myron W. Black, “Problems in Siting of Hazardous Waste

Disposal Facilities–The Peerless Experience,” paper presented

at a conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, 1978.

3lEnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and

Development, “Technical Overview of the Concept of Disposing of Hazardous Waste in Industrial Boilers, ” contract No.

68-3-2567. October 1981.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 167

inant application to hazardous waste involves

boilers of the kind that would normally burn

No. 2 fuel oil.

These boilers are similar to liquid injection

incinerators, but there are important differences with respect to the high destruction efficiencies desirable for hazardous waste: 1) they

have purposefully cooled walls, and 2) at least

some of the walls and other parts exposed to

the combustion products are often metallic instead of refractory. The reason that the walls

of the boiler must be cooled is to make use of

the heating energy from the product gas. In the

combustion chamber, this results in a relatively

cool area (a thermal boundary layer) through

which combustion products might pass.

The metallic surfaces avoid some expensive

refractory maintenance but the bare metal surfaces are susceptible to corrosion where halogenated organic waste are burned. For this reason industrial boiler owners, concerned for the

life of their equipment, probably limit their use

of such waste. However, there is a growing industrial trend toward recovery of hydrochloric

acid from the stack gas. * 32 Acid recovery requires that stack gas temperatures greater than

1,2000 C be avoided, since this condition shifts

the chemical equilibrium toward free chlorine.

For hazardous waste destruction, however,

higher temperatures are better.

For these reasons, efficient boilers must be

designed so that hydrocarbon destruction occurs mostly in the flame zone with very little

reaction occurring after the flame zone. As is

the case with incinerators, boiler design is well

advanced, and many designs are proprietary.

High fuel efficiency designs may recirculate

the flame envelope back into itself to enhance

the formation of the series of reactions necessary for complete combustion. Other designs

may involve staged injections with varying

waste-to-fuel ratios .33

——— —

● Currently a significant amount, perhaps over ✔ percent of

the U.S. hydrochloric acid, is produced from stack gas scrubbers. Half of this is from boilers and half from incinerators.

32James Karl, Dow Chemical Co., persona] communication,

January 1983.

33Elmer Monroe, Du Pont Chemical Co., personal communication, December 1982.

Evaluating the actual hazardous waste destruction capabilities of various boilers has

only just begun by EPA. Only three tests were

complete at the time of this report; seven more

are planned. Tests to date have been conducted

primarily with nonhalogenated, high heating

value solvents and other nonhalogenated materials. These tests have demonstrated DREs generally in the 99.9 percent area. Subsequent testing will be directed toward waste that are considered to be more difficult to destroy than

those tested up to this point.34 Testing at cooperating boiler facilities is expected to confirm

that boilers of a wide variety of sizes and types

can achieve hazardous waste destruction efficiencies comparable to those achieved by incineration for some common waste fuels. Industry cooperation will be needed, though, for

field testing of those difficult-to-burn and the

more toxic wastes marginally useful as fuels.

Actual waste destruction achieved through

coincineration probably has more to do with

how and why the boiler is operated, and with

knowledge of the waste feed contents, than

with the type and size of boiler. Destruction

by combustion for toxic organic compounds

requires very complete, efficient combustion.

Thus, in a boiler, the objective of getting usable

heat out of the fuel mix is similar to that of

achieving high destruction of toxic organic

waste. However, the marginal benefits of

achieving incremental degrees of destruction

may be valued differently by different users.

For example, it may cost less at very large

boilers (e.g., those at utilities and large industrial facilities) to save fuel costs through increased combustion efficiency than at smaller

boilers. Thus, utility boilers are probably designed and operated for stringent fuel efficiency by an economic motivation that may parallel

the rigorous incinerator performance standard

in its effect for DREs. Although there would

be an economic advantage for these facilities

to burn waste fuels, many would not be able

to find reliable and sufficient supplies. On the

other hand, the objective with many industrial

boilers is to deliver an optimal amount of heat

34Olexsey, op. cit.
168 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

over time. Thus, achieving 100-percent combustion efficiency is not desirable if it takes 2

days to achieve this goal, Incinerators have as

their direct goal the destruction of the fuel

compound which is not so in boilers.

Excluding the very largest utility and industrial boilers, there are about 40,000 large (10

million to 250 million Btu/hr) industrial boilers

and about 800,000 small- to medium-sized institutional, commercial, and industrial boilers nationwide. 35 It is expected that most of the industrial boilers having firing capacities less

than 10 million Btu/hr may not readily lend

themselves to coincineration. so

Finally, there are about 14 million residential, single-home boilers which could burn hazardous waste.37 These small boilers could have

adverse health effects on small, localized areas.

In addition, any fuels blended with organics

and illegally burned, in apartment houses or

institutional boilers, for example, should be

expected to reduce the lives of these boilers

through corrosion.

To assess the role that boilers currently play

in hazardous waste management nationwide,

it is necessary to know what compounds are

being burned, in which facilities, and with

what DREs. Without reporting requirements

for coincineration, information is seriously

lacking. Currently, boilers may be burning

twice the volume of ignitable hazardous waste

that is being incinerated. Except for those from

petroleum refining, all were discharged to the

environment until environmental, handling, or

increasing primary fuel costs encouraged their

use as a fuel.38 Of the entire spectrum of burnable waste, those having the highest Btu content are attracted to boilers. This may have

economic effects on regulated incineration,

because some hazardous waste incinerators

35M, TurgeOn, Office of Solid Waste, Industrial and Hazardous

Waste Division, EPA, persona] communication, January 1983.

Olexsey, op. cit.

37c. c.Shih and A,M. Takata, TRW, Inc., “Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stational Combustion Systems: Summary

Report” prepared for the Office of Research and Development,

EPA, September 1981.

38EPA “Technical overview of the Concept of Disposing of

Hazardous Wastes in Industrial Boilers, ” op. cit.

could also benefit from the fuel value of the

same waste used as auxiliary fuel in boilers.

5. Multiple hearth incinerators.—These use

a vertical incinerator cylinder with multiple

horizontal cross-sectional floors or levels where

waste cascades from the top floor to the next

and so on, steadily moving downward as the

wastes are burned. These units are used primarily for incineration of sludges, particularly

those from municipal sewage sludge treatment

and, to a much lesser extent, certain specialized industrial sludges of generally a low-hazard nature. They are used almost exclusively

at industrial plants incinerating their sludges

on their own plant site for the latter cases.39

Such incinerators are not well suited for most

hazardous waste for two reasons: they exhibit

relatively cold spots, and the waste is introduced relatively close to the top of the unit.

Because hot exhaust gases also exit from the

top, there is the potential for certain volatile

waste components to short-circuit or “U-turn”

near the top of the incinerator and exit to the

atmosphere without spending an adequate time

in the hot zone to be destroyed. This may be

improved by having a separate afterburner

chamber, but this option does not appear to

have become accepted in the hazardous waste

field. 40

At least one brief test of a typical multiple

hearth furnace was conducted in the early

1970’s, in which the sewage was “seeded” with

a small quantity of pesticide material. Although

the pesticide was not detected in the exhaust,

the researchers became aware of the short-circulating and residence-time problems and did

not pursue the application of multiple hearths

to hazardous wastes any.

6. Fluidized bed combusters.-This is a relatively new and advanced combuster design

being applied in many areas. It achieves rapid

and thorough heat transfer to the injected fuel

and waste, and combustion occurs rapidly. Air

forced up through a perforated plate, maintains

39Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit.

40Oppelt, op. cit.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 169

a turbulent motion in a bed of very hot inert

granules. The granules provide for direct conduction-type heat transfer to the injected waste.

These units are compact in design and simple

to operate relative to incinerators. Another advantage is that the bed itself acts as a scrubber

for certain gases and particulate. Its role in

hazardous waste may be limited to small and

specialized cases due to difficulties in handling

of ash and residuals, low throughput capacity

and limited range of applicable waste feeds. 41

There are presently only about zoo such combusters in the United States, used chiefly for

municipal and similar sludges. About nine are

used for hazardous waste.42 Existing fluidized

bed combusters are sparsely distributed and

relatively small. Future applications of fluidized bed technology to hazardous waste is likely to occur at new facilities built specifically

for this purpose rather than at existing municipal facilities.

Recent EPA testing at the Union Chemical

Co., Union, Me., is still being evaluated. Early

test results are mixed with regard to 99.99 percent destruction.43 The simplicity of this technology and its ease of operation seem to indicate high reliability for achieving those levels

of destruction and wastes for which it will

prove to be applicable. A catalytic, lower

temperature fluidized bed technology is being

developed which may have lower energy costs,

and may be more applicable to hazardous

waste destruction.44 However, incompatibilities between catalysts proposed on various

hazardous waste may present problems to overcome.

7. Incineration at sea.—This is simply incinerator technology used at sea, but without stack

gas scrubbers. (The buffering capacity of the

sea and sea air is the reason for the lack of a

4lAlternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit.

42Proctor and Red fern, Ltd., and Weston Designers Consultants, “Generic Process Technologies Studies” (Ontario, Canada:

Ontario Waste Management Corp., System Development Project, August 1982).

43J. Miliken, Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication, November 1982.

‘R. Kuhl, Energy Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, personal communication, January 1983.

scrubber requirement. ) Free from the need to

attach scrubbers, marine incinerator designers

can maximize combustion efficiency in ways

that land-based incinerators cannot.45 Incinerators based on oil drilling platforms would further be freed from accommodating rolling ship

motion.

Various EPA monitoring of test commercial

burns of PCBs and government burns of herbicide Agent Orange and mixed organochlorines

in the mid and late 1970’s confirmed the

99.99 + percent destruction capability for

liquid injection incineration used at sea.46 Current technology exists only for liquids. Rotary

kilns could be adapted to ships and more readily to oil drilling platforms.

There exists considerable controversy about

the test burns recently conducted for PCBs destruction onboard the M.T. Volcanus. Data results are not yet available. Major concerns are

whether the land and marine alternatives represent the same environmental risk and if the

performance standards are evenly applied.

EPA’s view is that they represent roughly the

same risk.47 Regarding the performance standards, it should be recognized that the scrubbing

the exhaust gas of land-based incinerators may

be providing the fourth nine in their DRE performance. Thus, an at-sea DRE of 99.9 percent

may be more similar to the land-based DRE of

99.99 percent than it may appear. The contribution of scrubbers to DRE values are not well

known.

Additional concerns about incineration at

sea include: stack gas monitoring, which is difficult enough on land and perhaps more soon

a ship at sea, and the risk of accidents near

shore or at sea, The ecological effects of a spill

of Agent Orange on phytoplankton productivity could be substantial.48 Storage facilities

necessary for drilling platform-based incinera45K. Kamlet, National Wildlife Federation, mean Dumping of

Industrial Wastes, B. H, Ketchum, et al. (cd.) (New York: Plenum

Publishing Corp., 1981).

46D. Oberacker, Office of Research and Development, IERL,

Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, personal

communication, December 1982.

“Ibid.

48Kamlet, op. cit.
170 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tion may involve still higher spill risks. Public

opposition to hazardous waste sites applies also

to storage of waste at ports.

Other High Temperature Industrial Processes

Other types of applicable combustion processes including metallurgical furnaces, brick

and lime kilns, and glass furnaces, are examples of existing industrial technologies which

might be investigated as potential hazardous

waste destruction alternatives.49 There is no

reporting of such uses that may be occurring,

and no DRE data have been collected. The beneficial use exclusion may apply to many of such

practices.50 However, objectives of such processes are not necessarily complementary or

supportive of high DRE. The technical potential for hazardous waste destruction and need

for regulation of such practice needs investigation.

Emerging Thermal Destruction Technologies

Undue importance should not be placed on

the distinction between current and emerging

technologies, The intent is merely to distinguish between technologies currently “on the

shelf” and those less commercially developed

for hazardous waste applications.

Pyrolysis. -This occurs in an oxygen deficit

atmosphere, generally at temperatures from

1,000° to 1,7000 F. Pyrolysis facilities consist

of two stages: a pyrolyzing chamber, and a

fume incinerator. The latter is needed to combust the volatilized organics and carbon monoxide produced from the preceding air-starved

combustion. The fume incinerator operates at

1,800° to 3,000°F. The pyrolytic air-starved

combustion avoids volatilization of any inorganic components and provides that inorganics, including any heavy metals, are formed

into an insoluble easily handled solid char

residue. Thus, air pollution control needs are

minimized. 51

49PEDCO Environmental Services, Inc., “Feasibility of Destroying Hazardous Wastes in High Temperature Industrial Processes,” for the Office of Research and Development, IERL, EPA,

Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1982.

5040 CFR, sec. 261 (c)(2).

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

cit.

Pyrolysis has been used by the Federal Government to destroy chemical warfare agents

and kepone-laden sludge and by the private

sector to dispose of rubber scrap, pharmaceutical bio-sludge, and organic chlorine sludges.

Most recently, pilot plant test burns on chlorinated solvents from a metal-cleaning plant

have been destroyed with 99.99 percent destruction. 52

Broader application would await much more

equipment development and testing. Among

the

●

●

●

potential problems with pyrolysis are:

Greater potential for toxic and refractory

PICs formation than with combustion in

air. The reducing atmosphere produces

larger amounts of these compounds, and

they may pass through the off-gas afterburner.

Production of an aqueous tar that maybe

difficult to dispose in either a landfill or

an incinerator.

Substantial quantities of auxiliary fuel may

be required to sustain temperature in the

afterburner. 53

Commercially, high throughput (up to 6,500

lb/hr) and required air pollution control requirements may be key future benefits. However, maintenance costs due to moving parts,

and the need for well-trained operators may be

relatively high.54

Molten Salt Reactors.–These achieve rapid

heating and thorough mixing of the waste in

a fluid heat-conducting medium. Liquid, solid,

or gaseous wastes are fed into a molten bath

of salts (sodium carbonate or calcium carbonate). Solids must be sized to 1/4- or l/8-inch

pieces in order to be fed into the bed. The bed

must be initially preheated to 1,500° to 1,800°

F. Provided that the waste feed has a heating

value of at least 4,000 Btu/lb, the heat from

combustion maintains the bed temperature,

and the combustion reactions occur with near

completion in the bed instead of beyond it. The

sodium carbonate in the bed affects neutraliza52Oppelt, op. cit.

53Ibid.

54Technologies of the Treatment and Destruction of Organic

Wastes as Alternatives to Land Disposal, op. cit.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 171

tion of hydrogen chloride and scrubbing of the

product gases. Thus, the bed is responsible for

decomposition of the waste, removal of the

waste residual, and some off-gas scrubbing. A

bag house for particulate completes air pollution control and the removal system.55 (See

fig. 9.)

In EPA tests, a pilot scale unit (200 lb/hr)

destroyed hexachlorobenzene with DRE’s exceeding 6 to 8-9’s (99.9999-percent to 99.999999-

percent destruction and removal) and chlordane with DREs exceeding 6 to 7-9’s.56 Rockwell International also claims 99.999-percent

destruction efficiencies* from private tests on

malathion and trichloroethane.

Reactor vessel corrosion has impeded development of molten salt destruction (MSD). Ves56Ibid.

56S. Y. Yosim, et al., Energy Systems Group, Rockwell International, “Molten Salt Destruction of PCB and Chlordane, ” EPA

contract No. 68-03-3014, Task 21, final draft, January 1983.

* Not DRE; small amounts removed in bed salts and baghouse

treatment were not measured.

sel corrosion is accelerated by temperature,

reducing conditions (less than sufficient oxygen), and the presence of sulfur. Traditionally,

MSD reaction vessels have been refractory

lined, presenting operational and maintenance

costs similar to those of conventional incinerators. Rockwell International offers an MSD system with a proprietary steel alloy reactor vessel, This vessel is warranted for 1 year if the

system is operated within specified ranges of

temperature, excess air, and melt sulfur content.57

Ash as well as metal, phosphorous, halogen,

and arsenic salts build up in the bed and must

be removed, In the case of highly chlorinated

waste (50 percent or more) the rate at which

salt must be removed approaches the rate of

waste feed, Both the salt replacement (or regeneration) and residual disposal determine economic viability for a given application. In pro-

“J, Johanson, Rockwell International, Inc., personal communication, January 1983.

Figure 9.—Molten Salt Destruction: Process Diagram

Gas

vent

Soot blower

-

drop box

Interior wail:

- refractory or bare metal

1!

Solids

feed

? 4

Molten salt

destructor

)x( Baghouse

particulate L

El

SOURCE Adapted from S. Y Yosim, et al , Energy Systems Group, Rockwell International, “Molten Salt Destruction of HCB and

68-03-3014, Task 21, final draft, January 1963

Chlordane,” EPA contract No
172 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

posed commercial ventures, sodium chloride

residue would be landfilled and calcium chloride would be sold as road salt or injected deep

well. se

The process is intended to compete with rotary kilns and may find application for a broad

market of wastes that are too dilute to incinerate economically. However, water in the waste

feed, as with any incineration technology, uses

up energy in evaporation, Due to the extremely high DREs demonstrated in pilot scale tests,

the process is expected to be very attractive for

destroying the highly toxic organic mixtures

and chemical warfare agents, which currently

present serious disposal problems, Rockwell

International is in final negotiations with two

commercial ventures in California and Canada.

Commercial-scale units offered are 225 and

2,000 lb/hour.59

High Temperature Fluid-Wall Reactors.—In these

reactors, energy is transferred to the waste by

radiation (rather than by conduction and convection as in the above processes), A porous

central cylinder is protected from thermal or

chemical destruction by a layer of inert gas.

The gas is transparent to radiation, and the

cylinder is heated by radiation from surrounding electrodes to 3,000° to 4,000° F. The refractory cylinder reradiates this energy internally

to the passing waste.60 The important result is

very rapid and thorough heating of the waste

stream for complete combustion or generation.

The speed of the heating presents little opportunity for the formation of intermediate products for incomplete combustion that present

concerns in conventional incineration processes. Also, process control is good since the

radiation is directly driven by electricity.

A bench-scale reactor (1⁄4 lb/min) has destroyed PCBs in contaminated soil (1 percent

by weight) with 99.9999 percent DRE.61 In addition, the Thagard Research Corp., which conducted the tests, claims that it has privately

L

B@ Ibid.

B@ Ibid.

60Technologies for the Treatment and Destruction of Organic

Wastes as Alternatives to Land Disposal, op. cit.

61E. Matovitch, Thagard Research Corp., personal communication, January 1983.

burned hexachlorobenzene with 99.9999 percent DRE in a 10 ton per day unit.62 A commercial-scale unit (20 to 50 tons per day) is operated

as a production unit by a licensee in Texas,

which has agreed to allow Thagard to continue

hazardous waste destruction demonstration

burns there.63 In December 1982, California

and EPA conducted demonstration burns of

some gases that are difficult to destroy thermally—1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, dimethyl chloride, Freon 12®

, and

hexachlorobenzene. Results are currently being

assessed.

Further scaleup may be needed to provide

commercial throughput, and this will involve

larger ceramic cores. The effects of thermal

stresses on the life of the cores present the major untested concern for scale up.

Near-term commercialization of the Thagard

reactor is planned. During 1983, a Miami investment firm is expected to underwrite the

development of a mobile reactor, reducing

breakdown and setup time from several weeks

to only a few days. This will facilitate the collection of test burn performance at potential

applications sites.64 Also, Southern California

Edison Inc. is considering the process for future destruction of PCB-laden soil and for stabilization of a variety of its heavy metal-bearing

liquid waste. The utility is also interested in

selling byproducts of carbon black from the

process.65

In addition to its potential mobility resulting

from its compact design the only air pollution

control need for the fluid wall reactor may be

a bag house to control particulate. The process is not expected to be economically competitive with conventional incineration, but will be

applicable especially to contaminated soils and

silts.

Plasma-Arc Reactors.—These use very high energy free electrons to break bonds between

molecules. A plasma is an ionized gas (an elec1

62Ibid.

63Ibid.

64Ibid. 65E. Faeder, Southern California Edison Power CO., personal

communication, January 1983.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 173

trically conductive gas consisting of charged

and neutral particles). Temperatures in the

plasma are in excess of 50,0000 F—any gaseous

organic compounds exposed to plasma are almost instantly destroyed. Plasma arc, when applied to waste disposal, can be considered to

be an energy conversion and transfer device.

The electrical energy input is transformed into

a plasma, As the activated components of the

plasma decay, their energy is transferred to

waste materials exposed to the plasma, The

wastes are then atomized, ionized, and finally

destroyed as they interact with the decaying

plasma species. There is less opportunity for

the formation of toxic PICs. Most of the destruction occurs without progression of reactions which could form them.66

Private tests conducted for the Canadian

Government have demonstrated 99.9999999

percent (i.e., 9-9’s) destruction on pure transformer fluid (58 percent chlorine by weight).67

Depending on the waste, the gas produced has

a significant fuel value.68 A high degree of process control and operational simplicity are additional advantages. For halogenated waste (a

major market target), the gases would have to

be scrubbed but the scrubbers needed are very

small.

The process is in the public domain and nearing commercialization. The developer plans to

market mostly small, self-contained, mobile

units, Costs are intended to be competitive with

incineration. 69 The first commercial application is planned to be in operation in July 1983.

Wet Oxidation .-Proven in commercial application, wet oxidation processes can destroy reliably nonhalogenated organic waste (e. g., cyanides, phenols, mercaptans, and nonhalogenated pesticides). The oxidation reactions are

fundamentally the same as in combustion but

occur in liquid state. Since it is not necessary

66C. C. Lee, Office of Research and Development, IERL, Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication, January

1983.

67Plasma Research Inc., unpublished test results, January 1983.

68Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit,

wT. Barton, Plasma Research Inc., personal communication,

January 1983.

to add large quantities of air as in incineration,

potentially contaminated gas emissions are

avoided. The reactions take place at temperatures of 430° to 660° F (and pressures of 1,000

to 2,000 psi). For many applicable waste feeds,

the oxidation reaction resulting produces

enough heat to sustain the process, or even to

produce low pressure steam as an energy byproduct. The oxidation reactions typically

achieve 80 percent complete decomposition to

carbon dioxide and water, and partial decomposition to low molecular weight organic acids

of the remaining waste feed.70 Currently, the

process remains commercially applicable to

aqueous organic waste streams which are too

dilute for incineration, yet too toxic for biological treatment,

Still in development are catalytic modifications to the wet oxidation process, aimed at

the more stable highly chlorinated organics.

Bench-scale tests conducted by I. T. Enviroscience have demonstrated that a bromide-nitrate

catalyst promotes completeness of oxidation.

Should this process achieve destructions similar to those of incineration, its lack of air emissions, and the ease of using performance monitoring would be advantageous.71

Super Critical Water.—At temperatures and

pressures greater than 374° C and 218 atm,

water becomes an excellent solvent for organic

compounds and can break large organic molecules down into molecules of low molecular

weight. 72 In a system patented by Modar, Inc.,

injected oxygen completely oxidizes the lower

molecular weight molecules to carbon dioxide

and water. DDT, PCBs and hexachlorbenzene

have been destroyed with efficiencies exceeding 99.99 percent in bench-scale testing.73 Costs

are expected to be highly dependent on scale.74

If high-destruction efficiency is maintained

‘OP. Shaefer, Zimpro, Inc., personal communication, November

1982.

710ppelt, op. cit.

72M, Modell, “Destruction of Hazardous Waste Using Supercritical Water, ” paper delivered at the 8th Annual Research Symposium on Land Disposal, Incineration, and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes (Fort Mitchell, Ky.: Environmental Protection

Agency, Mar, 8, 1982).

73Ibid.

“Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, op.

cit.
174 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

through scaleup, this could be an attractive

alternative to incineration.

Biological Treatment

Conventional biological treatments use naturally occurring organisms to degrade or remove hazardous constituents. In contrast, biotechnology uses bacteria which have been

selected from nature, acclimated to particular

substrates, and mutated through methods such

as exposure to ultraviolet light for fixation of

the adapted characteristics. Many toxic substances cannot be degraded biologically, although they may be effectively removed from

a waste stream this way. Types of conventional

biological techniques, waste stream applications, and their limitations are listed in table

29. These techniques have found widespread

use for treatment of municipal and industrial

wastes to prevent the formation of odorous

gases, to destroy infectious micro-organisms,

to remove nutrients for aquatic flora, and to

remove or destroy some toxic compounds. Several biological techniques may be used as a

series of steps to treat a waste, including ending with landfarming (also called land spreading or land treatment]. The latter refers to the

deposit of a waste, or some sludge or residue

from a treatment, onto land or injected some

small distance beneath the surface. Naturally

occurring organisms in the soil degrade the

waste, usually organic, and periodic plowing

may be necessary to ensure adequate oxygen

levels for degradation.

The physical, chemical, or biological processes that can be used to eliminate or reduce

the hazardous attributes of wastes exist in as

many forms as those processes used to manufacture the original material. All of these treatments produce waste residuals; usually a liquid

and a solid waste. The hazardous characteristics of these waste residuals must be evaluated

in terms of the objective desired for their final

disposition or recovery. Without such an objective it is difficult to evaluate the benefit, either

economic or environmental, of applying the

treatment process. These treatments can result

in merely changing the form or location of the

waste. For example, concentrating organics

from a dilute waste stream does not necessarily

provide any benefit in terms of increased protection of health. If this separation and concentration treatment allows the waste constituent

to be recovered or, alternatively, makes a destruction technology viable, the treatment has

been beneficial.

Residuals from hazardous waste treatments

are discharged to surface waters, to publicly

owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs)

or are sent to landfills or land treatment disposal, To the extent that the treatments considered below can reduce the toxic characteristics

of wastes through destructive or degradative

reactions, they are similar in their effect to thermal destruction technologies. To the extent that

they are able to mitigate specific hazard characteristics, they render the wastes nonhazardous. And, to the extent that they reduce the

mobility of the waste, they reduce the interaction of land-disposed wastes with the environment.

Many references exist describing unit physical, chemical, and biological processes and

how they may be combined. This discussion

will not attempt to duplicate any such descriptive listings. Table 30 lists the established applications. Selection of one or several processes

depends on such factors as waste feed concentration, desired output concentration, the effects of other components in the feed, throughput capacity, costs, and specific treatment

objectives.

Landfills

Landfilling is the burial of waste in excavated

trenches or cells. The waste may be in bulk

form or containerized. In the early 1970’s, landfills specifically designed to contain industrial

waste were constructed. * Experience with the

operation and construction of these more advanced landfills has been an evolutionary process, and is ongoing.

Over time, fractions of the waste can be released from the landfill, either as leachate or

● In 1972, Chemtrol announced the opening of the reportedly

first landfill designed to securely contain hazardous industrial

waste.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 175

as volatilized gases. The objective of landfilling design is to reduce the frequency of occurrence of releases so that the rate of release does

not impair water or air resources. * Liquids

are able to leak through compacted clays or

synthetic lining materials. Reducing the potential for migration of toxic constituents from a

landfill requires minimizing the production of

liquids and controlling the movement of those

that inevitably form.

Liquids can enter a landfill in several ways:

• by disposal of free liquid waste,

• by evolution from sludges and semisolids,

● from precipitation infiltrating through the

cover into the landfill cell, and

• from lateral movement of ground water infiltrating through the sides or the bottom

of the cell.

No one disputes the presence of liquids in

a landfill; the objective of good landfill design

is to control their movement. Flow of liquids

through soil and solid waste occurs in response

to gravity and soil moisture conditions. When

the moisture content within a landfill exceeds

field capacity, liquids move under saturated

flow, and percolate to the bottom, Liquid movement under saturated conditions is determined

by the hydraulic force driving the liquid, and

the hydraulic conductivity of the liner material.

Hydraulic force can result in discharge through

a liner,

Landfills can be designed to reduce migration, but there is no standard design. Advanced

designs would have at least the following features: a bottom liner, a leachate collection and

recovery system, and a final top cover.

Figure 10 depicts a landfill with these engineered features. Taken together, these features

are intended to make it physically easier for

water to run off the surface cover instead of

infiltrating it and to collect leachate through

——

“Criteria for determining “impairment” of ground water are

currently defined by a statistically significant increase over background levels, or exceeding established limits, See discussion

on ground water monitoring requirements, ch. 7. No criteria currently exist for impairment of air resources; research is underway to determine the magnitude and potential severity of gaseous

emissions.

the drainage layer instead of permeating the

liner. Beds constructed of graded sizes of

gravel and sand are sometimes used as intermediate drainage layers to speed internal

dewatering.

Applicable Wastes

Virtually any waste can be physically

buried in a landfill; however, landfills are least

effective at controlling the migration of waste

constituents which are volatile and soluble.

Landfilled wastes that are toxic, persistent,

soluble, and volatile are most likely to present a risk of human exposure. Federal regulations outline pretreatment requirements for

wastes which are ignitable, reactive, and/or

corrosive* but do not address characteristics

of persistence, toxicity, volatility, or volubility.

Current Use and Evaluation.–It is estimated that

270 landfills are currently in use for hazardous

waste disposal. (See ch. 4 for discussion of facility data,) These facilities are among those

which may apply for RCRA authorization as

hazardous waste disposal facilities.

Existing landfills are constructed and operated with varying degrees of sophistication.

Numerical information on the distribution of

landfills that incorporate particular control features is not available. It is likely, however, that

many existing facilities do not have any sort

of constructed bottom liner nor any leachate

or gas collection systems.75 Often, existing facilities were sited with little regard to local hydrogeology. The degree of sophistication of existing landfill facilities ranges from those that

have minimal control features and accept virtually any waste, to those which combine a favorable site location with waste pretreatment or

a restrictive waste policy, engineered control

features, leak detection, and ground water

monitoring programs. Landfills also vary in

capacity. Most are small (burying less than

“More detail on regulatory requirements are discussed in the

subsequent section titled “Technical Regulatory Issues, ” see also

ch. 7.

75Environmental Protection Agency, Final EIS, Subtitle C,

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, app. D,

SW-189c. 1980.
176 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Figure 10.—Generalized Depiction of a Hazardous Waste Landfill Meeting Minimum Federal Design Criteria

Final cover with sloping surface Bulk Drummed

for surface drainage, vegetative

Leachate 6-12 “ solid waste

cover, middle drainage layer and

collection Intermediate waste and

low permeability bottom layer solidified sump pipe cover # ml. #A-- - /

2! Separator berms

/

~-~

NOTE: This Is not a prescriptive or exact depiction of a landfill design, or Is It necessarily representative of all hazardous waste Iandfills. Alternative designs are allowed.

See also figure 12 for detail on single and double liner design,

S O U R C E: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, adapted from Draft RCRA Guidance Document, Landfill Design, Liner Systems and Final Cover, July 1982, and USEPA

Draft SW-867, SW-869, SW-870, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1980.

16,500 tons per facility in 1981).76 Smaller landfills may tend to use less sophisticated control

measures.

Long-term landfill performance is determined by:

●

●

●

●

the reliability of the leachate collection

system and the longevity of liner(s), and

top cover;

the hydrogeological characteristics of the

site;

the characteristics of the waste prior to

disposal; and

daily operations at the site–e.g., the liquids management strategy at the site, the

76Westat, Part A Universe Telephone Verification Contract No.

68-01-6322, Nov. 11, 1982.

testing practiced by the operator, and the

level of quality control over site operations.

Engineered Control Features

A landfill has three primary engineered control features: a bottom liner(s), a leachate collection system, and a cover. The bottom liner(s)

retard the migration of liquids and leachate

from the landfill cells. Bottom liners are constructed of compacted clay, a clay and soil mixture, or synthetic material—often synthetic

membranes. Leachate is collected through a

series of pipes buried in a drainage bed placed

above the bottom liner. A. mechanical pump

raises the leachate through standpipes to the

surface. The final cover reduces infiltration of

precipitation into the closed landfill. Intermedi-
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 177

ate covers can be applied for the same purpose

during operation of the landfill. Table 33 summarizes function and failure mechanisms for

each of these components.

1. Bottom liners.—The function of a liner

placed beneath a landfill is to retard the migration of leachate from the landfill so that it can

be collected and removed. For synthetic liners,

retarding migration is dependent on their characteristic low permeability and compatibility

with a wide spectrum of wastes. For some compacted clay liners, migration of leachate is retarded both by their low permeability and by

the capacity of clays to decrease the concentration of certain waste constituents in the

leachate through a variety of chemical reactions—e.g., precipitation, filtration, adsorption,

or exchange of charged chemical species with

the clay particles.”

All liners exhibit some measure of hydraulic conductivity; that is, they allow passage

of liquid under hydraulic pressure. * Based on

laboratory and field testing, typical ranges of

conductivity are approximately 10-11 to 10-14

m/see for synthetic membranes, and 1O-g to

—— -—

“See for example, M. Lewis, “Attenuation of Polybrominated

Biphenyls and Hexachlorobenzene by Earth Materials” (Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, No. 600/S2-81-

191, December 1981); and L, Page, A. A. Elseewi, and J. P. Martin, “Capacity of Soils for Hazardous Inorganic Substances”

(Riverside, Calif.: University of California, August 1977).

*For low permeability synthetics, the rate of fluid passage is

difficult to measure because it is so close to passage in the vapor

phase, Synthetics are tested under pressure, and their permeability is back-calculated.

Table 33.— Engineered Components of Landfills: Their Function and Potential Causes of Failure

Function Potential causes of failure

cover

To prevent infiltration of precipitation into landfill cells. ●

The cover is constructed with low permeability

synthetic and/or clay material and with graded ●

slopes to enhance the diversion of water.

●

●

Leachate collection and recovery system:

To reduce hydrostatic pressure on the bottom liner, .

and reduce the potential for flow of Ieachate ●

through the liner. ●

Leachate is collected from the bottom of the landfill

cells or trenches through a series of connected

drainage pipes buried within a permeable drainage

layer. The collection Ieachate is raised to the

surface by a mechanical pump.

Bottom Iiner

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

●

●

●

●

After maintenance ends, cap integrity can be threatened by

desiccation, deep rooted vegetation, animals, and human activity.

Wet/dry and freeze/thaw cycles, causing cracking and increased

infiltration.

Erosion; causing exposure of cover material to sunlight, which

can cause polymeric liners to shrink, break, or become brittle.

Differential settling of the cover, caused by shifting, settling, or

release of the landfill contents over time. Settling can cause

cracking or localized depressions in the cover, allowing

pending and increased infiltration.

Clogging of drainage layers or collection pipes.

Crushing of collection pipes due to weight of overlying waste

Pump failures.

Faulty installation, damage during or after installation.

Deformation and creep of the liner on the sloping walls of the

landfill.

Differential settling, most likely to where landfill is poorly sited

or subgrade is faulty.

Structural failure of the liner in response to hydrostatic pressure.

Degradation of liner material resulting from high strength

chemical Ieachate or microbial action.

Swelling of polymeric liners, resulting in loss of strength and

puncture resistance.

Chemical extraction of plasticizers from polymer liners.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment
178 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

10

-11 m/see for clay liners.78 The units of measure for hydraulic conductivity involve a thickness component. Thus, although an intact synthetic material has a very low conductivity,

they are very thin. * In comparison, clay liners

often range in thickness from several feet to

several yards.

All liner materials are subject to breaches in

their physical integrity. With the exception of

obvious chemical incompatibilities that can

rapidly deteriorate a liner, these failures can

be a more important factor in increasing the

rate at which liquids can migrate than the inherent conductivity of the liner. Two major

sources of structural failure for all liners are

incorrect installation and damage during or

shortly after installation.

Proper installation of any liner requires considerable technical expertise. For clay liners,

the moisture content of the clay prior to compaction and the method of compaction are critical factors. For example, varying the water

content in a clay prior to compaction can result

in differences of two orders of magnitude in

the permeability of the clay. 79 For synthetic

liners, proper welding of the seams joining the

panels of the liner and avoiding damage to the

dimensional stability of the membrane fabric

are critical. Damage to liner fabric stability can

occur while stretching synthetic liners over the

large areas involved in landfills. For example,

a single large panel of synthetic material may

cover 20,000 ft2 feet and weigh 10,000 lb.

Preparation of the soil under the liner is critical to the performance of all liners. Proper

preparation is necessary to prevent local deformational stresses. Clay liners are likely to respond to deformational stress by shearing. Depending on the characteristics of the synthetic

78ED. J. Folkes, Fifth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium, “Control of Contaminant Migration by the Use of Liners, ” National

Research Council of Canada, April 1982.

☛ Synthetic membranes are produced in thicknesses ranging

from 0.5 millimeters (20 roils) to 2.5 milimeter (100 roils). J. P.

Giroud and J, S. Goldstein, “Geomembrane Liner Design,” Waste

Age, September 1982.

79David E. Daniel, “problems in Predicting the permeability

of Compacted Clay Liners, ” Symposium on Uranium Mill Tailings Management, Colorado State University, Geothermal Engineering Program, Ft. Collins, Colo., October 1981.

material used, they may respond by stretching

or tearing. In the past, liners were often installed by contracting firms which had minimal

technical expertise and little motivation to be

assiduous in their installation practices. More

recently, manufacturers of synthetic liners and

designers of clay liners are combining the sale

of their products with actual installation, in

order to maximize performance of their product and protect business. 80 Certification of

proper liner installation is not currently required by EPA, but it is required by several

states.

81

Liners are also subject to damage after installation. One source of damage is vehicular traffic at the site–e.g., the heavy equipment used

to spread sand and gravel directly on top of the

liner to place the drainage layer for collection

of leachate. Synthetic liners are vulnerable to

localized tears and punctures. Clay liners can

also be damaged after installation—e.g., slumping of the clay can occur on side slopes.82 Once

a liner has been covered by the drainage layer,

it is impossible to visually inspect it for damage.

Chemical reactions between liner and leachate can significantly increase liner permeability.

83 84 85 For example, organic or inorganic

acids may solubilize certain minerals within

clays and a variety of organic liquids dissolve

the monomers within PVC lines.

Laboratory tests can identify obvious chemical incompatibilities between a liner material

and an expected leachate, and can also project

general wear characteristics. (Table 5A-1 in

app. 5A summarizes the findings of such tests.)

OOR. Kresic, Midwest Accounts Manager for Schlegel Lining

Technology, Inc., Ohio, personal communication, November

1982.

oID. Lennett, Environment~ Defense Fund, persomd communication, December 1982.

~EnvironmentaI Protection Agency, Lining of Waste hnpound

ment and Disposal Facilities, SW-870, ch. 4 “Failure Mechanisms,” September 1980.

~Ibid.

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

Various Hazardous Wastes” (Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental

Protection Agency (NTIS No. 600/9410-010)).

‘D. Anderson, “Does Landfill Lestchate Make Clay Liners

More Permeable?” Civil Engineering-–ASCE, September 1982,

pp. 66-69.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 179

However, laboratory data cannot directly predict performance under actual field conditions.

Laboratory tests are conducted on only a small

sample of the liner material; this presents problems for estimating field permeability y of clays.

Calculations of liner permeability based on

field measurements demonstrate that laboratory estimates are frequently too low. Development of improved field techniques are underway. 86 87 Also, laboratory tests cannot account

for possible damage in the physical integrity

of the liner material resulting from installation,

operation, and long-term wear in the potentially harsh service environment of a landfill. This

may compound problems in projecting the

service life of synthetic liners. *

Further, testing for chemical compatibility

requires prediction of expected leachate characteristics over time. This is difficult for landfills accepting a variety of waste types. Some

landfill facilities segregate waste into cells to

make leachate prediction simpler and more reliable.

2. Leachate collection system.—Leachate

collection systems are a series of perforated

drainage pipes buried at the lowest points within a landfill. These pipes are designed to collect liquids which flow under the influence of

gravity to the low points, Once the collected

liquids reach a predetermined level, they are

pumped to the surface.88 Overall, the system

operates much like a sump pump in a household. Liquids that are recovered are tested for

their hazardous characteristics. If the liquids

are determined to be hazardous (under the

RCRA criteria for hazardous waste), they are

86D. E. Daniel, “Predicting Hydraulic Conductivity of Clay

Liners” (Austin, Tex,: University of Texas, Department of Civil

Engineering, 1982).

E7R. E. O] Son and f), E, Daniel, ‘‘Field and Laboratory Measure

ment of the Permeability of Saturated and Partially Saturated

Fine Grained Soils” (Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, Department of Civil Engineering, june 1979),

● For example, manufacturers of synthetic lining material warranty their product for a specified time period [e. g., 10 to 30

years) against material defects in compounds and workmanship

which would affect performance, However, the warranty can

be voided if the liner material shall have been exposed to harmful chemicals, abused by machinery, equipment or persons, or

if installation is Inadequate,

WK. Malinowski, CECOS International, New York, personal

communication, August 1982.

treated and discharged or redisposed in the

landfill. 89

The levels of leachate within a landfill will

change with time in response to infiltration,

pumping, and recharge rates, High leachate

levels must be reduced by pumping in order

to reduce hydraulic pressure on the bottom

liner. 90 In general, doubling the height of the

ponded liquid doubles the force driving the

leachate through the liner.91 Information from

commercial landfill facilities show that liquids

levels can reach over 10 ft. If the system is

working properly, the leachate can easily be

pumped out.92 Conversely, pumping can be

hampered by technical difficulties such as the

inability of the cover to prevent further infiltration. In such cases, reducing leachate levels

can take months to years.93

After land filling operations end, leachate is

required to be pumped out during the postclosure period “until leachate is no longer detected.”94 Failures in the collection system

which impede leachate flow to the pump might

be misinterpreted as the end of leachate generation. Some failures, such as poor leachate transmission through the filter beds or collapse of

the drainage pipes, are both difficult to detect

and to repair.

3. Cover.–After operations at the landfill

have ceased, the final cover is installed, The

function of the final cover is to reduce the infiltration of water and to provide a physical

barrier over the waste. To do this, it must remain structurally sound over time. Covers can

be constructed of layers of synthetic membranes, clays, and soil. Leachate standpipes

pierce the cover in order to project into the

landfill cells, Soil is placed over the cover, and

vegetation is established to stabilize the soil.

~EnVirOnMental protection Agency, hlanagernen ~ Of HaZardous Leachate, SW-871, September 1980,

‘EPA, op. cit., SW-870, 1980, sec, 5,6,

91 D, Daniel, persona] communication, October 1982.

9zB. S1 monsen, vice president, IT CO rp., and P. Va rdy, Vice

President of Waste Management, Inc., personal communication,

December 1982.

‘3P. N. Skinner, “Performance Difficulties of ‘Secure’ Landfills in Chemical Waste and Available Mitigation Measures, ”

American Society of Chemical Engineers, October 1980.

s447 FR 32,366, July 26, 1982.
180 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Covers are subject to a number of failure

mechanisms (see table 33). Some of these, such

as erosion or piercing of the cover by plant

roots, can be reduced through proper and continued maintenance and repair of the site. *

However, if maintenance ends, the integrity of

the cover will be threatened by ubiquitous

weathering processes, such as desiccation, erosion, and freeze/thaw cycles. Deep-rooted vegetation, burrowing animals, and human activity can also cause damage. Depending on the

site location and pretreatment of the waste,

the risk of leachate migration caused by infiltration through the cover may be reduced before the facility operator’s maintenance responsibility ends. These factors are critical, since

the cover is the primary line of defense against

waste migration after the post-closure period.

Other potential sources of cover damage cannot be prevented by simple maintenance. Foremost among these are subsidence damage and

deterioration of synthetic membranes over

time. Subsidence refers to the settling of the

waste and the cover; subsidence damage has

been identified by EPA as one of the most critical factors resulting in poor landfill performance.95 Figure 11 depicts a cover designed with

a gently sloping crown to facilitate runoff, and

examples of cover failure. Ideally, the crown

should be designed and constructed to compensate for estimated long-term subsidence.

However, there are several factors which make

this difficult.96

Comparatively uniform subsidence might be

expected to occur for landfills containing one

form of waste (i.e., a monofill). Many landfills,

however, contain a variety of wastes, both containerized and in bulk. Bulk liquids and sludges

4

● Under current regulations, the landfill operator is required

to maintain the site for 30 years after closure. If the facility operator has met the requirements for monitoring and closure, the

Post-Closure Liability Fund established under CERCLA can be

used to pay the costs of monitoring, care, and maintenance of

the site thereafter, and if funds are available. See ch. 7; also Public

Law 98-510, sec. 107(k)(l).

95G, Dietrich, former Director of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste,

in testimony at the Mar. 11, 1982 public hearing on containerized

liquids in landfills.

96Skinner, op. cit., pp. 17, 20-23.

Figure 11 .—Potential Failure Mechanisms for Covers

A) Cracking of cap

due to settlement

B) Collapse of cap

into open voids

C) Pending of water

in depressions

D) Cracking of cap

due to desiccation

E) Proper design

SOURCE. “Shallow Land Burial of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, David Daniel,

AM, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, January

1983,
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 181

provide little internal structural support. Vaporization may also be a problem. Containers

do provide short-term support, but they deteriorate, often within a few years. The rate of container deterioration is difficult to predict; it

depends on site- and waste-specific factors. It

may not be possible to compact a mixed waste

landfill sufficiently, e.g., compaction comparable to preparation of a building foundation.

Further, the internal structure of the landfill

cells is constructed of compacted support

walls, which retain their original height while

the wastes within settle. Cracking around the

perimeter of the cover has resulted.” Finally,

the extraction of collected leachate produces

void spaces and exacerbates settling.

Some of these subsidence concerns are being

addressed by landfill operators. For example,

some commercial facilities place drummed

waste on its side, a position providing less

structural support, in order to hasten the collapse and settling of the buried drums.98 This

reduces future subsidence by enhancing the

structural stability of the landfill prior to installing the final cover. Other facilities prohibit

burial of liquids and emphasize treatment to

enhance structural stability. *Q

Correction of Failure Mechanisms.—The failure

mechanisms described can enhance the migration of waste constituents. The ability to correct potential failures is critical to landfill performance.

Detection of excessive contamination from

leachate migration, either through a leak-detection system or external ground water monitoring, requires corrective action. Repairing the

source of the leak is generally not possible.

Liner repair requires: 1) locating the source of

the leak, and 2) exhuming the waste. The first

is difficult, although remote sensing techniques

‘7P. Varty, Vice President, Waste Management Inc., personal

communication, January 1983.

BaFor example, Waste Management Inc. and SCA Chemical

Waste Services, Inc.

w]. Greco, Divisional Vice President, Government and Industry

Affairs, Browing-Ferris Industries, personal communication,

June 1982.

to locate leak sources are being developed.l00

Exhuming the waste is costly and potentially

dangerous. Alternatively, pumping leachate

can reduce the volume of leachate available for

migration. Generally, leachate is removed by

pumping from the collection system above the

liner. OTA found little information on leak

detection systems designed as secondary leachate removal systems, although this seems a

promising area for future engineering design.

If infiltration through the cover is determined

to be the cause of migration, the cover can be

repaired (subsequent repairs may be necessary). The more complex and sophisticated the

design of the cover, the more difficult and costly it is to repair. Cover repair may require carefully peeling back each protective layer until

each is found to be sound. Cover repair generally requires partial reconstruction of gas collection and cover drainage systems, recompaction of soil layers, and revegetation of the surface soil, These procedures generally require

work done by hand. Depending on the geographic location of the landfill, repair operations can be precluded during wet weather; the

same conditions that exacerbate further damage.101 Ultimately corrective actions at landfills

may rely primarily on mitigating the effects

(e.g., cleansing ground water, diverting contaminated plumes) of the failure rather than

correcting the cause of the failure.

Hydrological Characteristics of the Site

Site hydrology encompasses the properties,

distribution, and circulation of water on the

land surface, in the soil and underlying rocks,

and in the atmosphere. Hydrological information includes data on the interrelated effects

of geological and climatic characteristics on

the properties and circulation of water. Over

geologic time, these processes have shaped the

100 A comparison of these techniques has been prepared by

Wailer, Muriel Jennings, and J. L. Davis, “Assessment of Technologies To Detect Landfill Liner Failures, ” in proceedings of

the Eighth Annual Research Symposium, EPA 600/9-82-002,

March 1982.

101 Skinner, op. cit.
182 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

environment within which the landfill must

operate.

There are two key site characteristics critical

to the design and operation of landfills: general

climatic characteristics that determine the

amount of leachate generated and the characteristics of the underlying geology that determine the potential for liquids to migrate and

the consequent risk of migration from the site,

The potential for leachate generation and migration can vary markedly depending on the

characteristics of the site, An engineered landfill sited over many feet of native low-permeability clays, resting on unfractured bedrock,

and in an area where evaporation historically

exceeds precipitation is less likely to impair

ground water, In contrast, an engineered landfill relying solely on a synthetic liner, sited on

unconsolidated dredged fill material, overlying

fractured bedrock, and in an area where precipitation historically exceeds evaporation, is

more likely to result in migration of excess

leachate.

EPA has established criteria for siting lowlevel radioactive waste landfills, which state

that “locations for radioactive waste disposal

should be chosen so as to avoid adverse environmental and human health impacts and

wherever practicable to enhance isolation over

time.’’102 Current interim final regulations for

hazardous waste disposal have only incentives

(in terms of reduced monitoring requirements)

for landfills sited in areas with exceptionally

protective natural hydrology. No outright restrictions exist for sites with poor hydrological

features. 103

Characteristics of the Waste Prior to Disposal

A wide variety of wastes are currently landfilled, Certain waste characteristics and disposal methods make waste containment difficult, For example, landfilling bulk liquid waste

plays an important role in site destabilization,

One researcher notes that disposal of waste liquid has “changed little in the last 30 years.’’104

I02R. Abrams, “Comments to U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Regarding Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR 265: Special Requirements for Liquid Waste, ” 1982.

10sFR vo]. 47, July 26, 1982.

~04Anderson, op. cit.

A variety of treatments can be used to improve the structural stability and reduce the

mobility of landfilled waste. These techniques

convert waste into a solid with greater structural integrity, Stabilized or solidified waste

are less likely to leach from a land disposal

site than are untreated waste—even though

the physical and chemical characteristics of

the constituents of the waste may not be

changed by the process. Stabilization/solidification usually involves the addition of materials that ensure that the hazardous constituents

are maintained in their least soluble form.

Stabilization/solidification processes can be

categorized as follows:105 106

●

●

●

●

●

Cement-based process.—The wastes are

stirred in water and mixed directly with

cement. The suspended particles are incorporated into the hardened concrete.

Pozzolanic process.–The wastes are

mixed with fine-grained silicicous (pozzolanic) material and water to produce a

concrete-like solid. The most common materials used are fly ash, ground blast-furnace slag, and cement-kiln dust.

Thermoplastic techniques.-The waste is

dried, heated, and dispersed through a

heated plastic structure. The mixture is

then cooled to solidify the mass.

Organic polymer techniques.-The wastes

are mixed with a pre-polymer in a batch

process with a catalyst. Mixing is terminated before a polymer is formed and the

spongy resin-mixture is transferred to a

waste receptacle. Solid particles are

trapped in this spongy mass.

Surface encapsulation.—The wastes are

pressed or bonded together and enclosed

in a coating or jacket of inert material.

The type of waste most amenable to stabilization, solidification, and encapsulation techniques are inorganic materials in aqueous solutions or suspensions that contain appreciable

amounts of metals or inorganic salts (e.g.,

metal-finishing waste). Metal ions in these res105state of California, 0p. cit.

l~Martin, Oppelt, and smith, “Chemical, Physical, Biological

Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,” September 1982.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 183

idues are held as relatively insoluble ions in a

crystalline lattice.

Waste containing more than 10 to 20 percent

organic substances are generally not good candidates for this treatment method. Their diverse properties interfere with the physical and

chemical processes that are important in binding the waste materials together. Some solidifying reagents may never harden if the waste

contains inhibiting materials. Silicate and cement reactions can be slowed by organics or

by certain metals. Organic polymers can be

broken down by solvents, strong oxidizers,

strong acids, or by exposure to sunlight.

Solidification pretreatment provides extra

environmental protection in land disposal of

treatable residues. For specific wastes, certain

chemical stabilization treatments so thoroughly

immobilize toxic constituents in EPA approved

tests that they have been tentatively removed

from hazardous waste regulation. ’”’ Usually,

however, some metal cations remain somewhat

mobile. In addition, there are considerable objections to EPA’s leaching test as a stimulation

of landfill conditions.

Some of the stabilization processes result in

products that have compression strengths similar to cement or concrete. The durability of

stabilized waste to wet/dry and freeze/thaw

cycles, however, has generally not been good.

Stabilization/solidification processes generally

improve the physical handling characteristics

of the waste, enhance structural integrity of the

landfill, and eliminate the “free-liquid” status

of the waste. Mixing waste with various absorbents can also remove the free-liquid status,

but generally leaves the toxic constituents more

soluble and mobile than the chemical stabilization methods.

Current Landfill Practice

Many improvements in landfill operation

have occurred since passage of RCRA Furthermore, waste handlers, landfill designers, and

liner manufacturers are taking steps to ensure

their specific facility, product, or service con- —.

107F. Kelley, Stablex Corp., and H. Busby, Chemfix Corp., personal communication, November 1982.

tribution is used to its best effect. Examples of

such actions are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

some facilities emphasize land burial of

waste treatment residuals which are generally less toxic and mobile, than untreated

waste;

some facility owners and/or operators

have sought out especially protective hydrological settings for construction of

landfills;

some facilities segregate wastes with similar characteristics. This facilitates leachate

prediction and testing for liner comparability;

several waste handlers have established a

strict prohibition against burial of liquids,

in bulk or in containers;

some manufacturers of synthetic lining

materials provide compatibility testing and

installation with the sale of their product

sale;

some firms are researching methods to incorporate the natural attenuation capacity

of clays in their liner designs. That is, they

attempt to correlate expected leachate

characteristics to the attenuative capacity

of the clay so that the leachate that eventually passes through meets specific water

quality criteria; and

some landfill design firms are prospectively designing land-fills to make corrective

actions easier—e. g., to facilitate installation of a grout curtain to reduce lateral

migration of ground water of contaminated leachate plumes.

Evaluation of Current Landfill Performance

Releases should be minimized, but there are

substantial differences in philosophy about

what this “minimization goal” means. The

EPA narrative performance standard for landfills, states that landfill liners should prevent

migration of leachate for the operating life of

the fill (i.e., the landfill system should be 100

percent effective in its control of leachate) and

that migration should be minimized thereafter. 108 This criteria fails to recognize that,

108FR VOl. 47, July 26, 1982, p. 32314.
184 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

because of the potential failures discussed,

complete prevention of migration even during

the operating life is probably unattainable. In

fact, RCRA standards for ground water quality recognize that complete prevention may not

be necessary. These standards for contaminant

levels in ground water will be the criteria

against which landfill performance will be

judged. Critics argue that evidence of contamination is a poor criterion because it may not

be detected, could be widespread before it is

detected, and aquifer cleanup is expensive and

may be unachievable (see also “Technical Regulatory Issues”).

The first generation of landfills designed specifically for disposal of hazardous waste are

now in the ground.109 Quantitative data on their

current effectiveness is limited. Data provided

by a study of four landfills in New Jersey,

which had leak-detection systems installed,

showed they began collecting between 45 to 75

gal/day within months of their construction.110

Although controversial, this study concluded

that the collection of liquids was due to failure

of the primary liners. No landfills have been

closed long enough to test the effectiveness of

long-term maintenance or corrective actions.

There is little quantitative evidence on which

to project landfill performance, especially over

the long term.

Future evaluations of landfill performance

will depend on monitoring. The external

ground-water monitoring currently required

may not be sufficient (see ch. 7). In comparison

to external monitoring, however, leak-detection

systems embedded within a double liner may

provide more reliable information on potential

resource degradation and human exposure.

By examining how landfills work, their failure mechanisms, and available corrective

measures, OTA’S review of landfill performance resulted in two principle findings: 1) uncertainty remains about the performance ca109A. L. Kruger, “Alternatives to Landfilling Wastes” (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University, Department of Chemical Engineering, Ph.D. Thesis, February 1982).

110Peter Montague, “Hazardous Waste Landfills: Some Lessons

From New Jersey, Civil Engineering-ASCE, September 1982, pp.

53-56, and more detailed unpublished draft.

pabilities of each of the control features of a

landfill, and 2) greater use should be made

of waste treatments which increase waste stability as well as reduce long-term mobility of

waste constituents.

EPA is conducting additional analyses of failures that have occurred at existing sites.111

Such analyses invariably indicate that poor performance can be attributed to poor operating

practice, design, or maintenance. Operation of

any facility will always be subject to error or

misjudgment; this underscores the importance

of site and waste characteristics, the necessity

of designing for both reliable indicators of potential failure, and corrective action capability.

There is room to improve in ‘both of these areas.

The performance standards and minimum

design requirements for new landfills are based

on the experience gained in recent years. However, as noted frequently in the preamble to

EPA’s land disposal regulations, there is limited experience and operating data for landfills

(or closed surface impoundments). This lack

of information hampers the development of

performance design guidance.112 Laboratory

and field testing of liners and covers is underway. Little is being done to monitor actual facility performance; yet it is unlikely that our

current experience is adequate to anticipate all

future difficulties. Without better information

on actual facility performance, it will be difficult to evaluate landfills constructed according

to minimum design requirements, or to evaluate alternative landfill designs, There are technical methods available to improve our information base.

In-situ instrumentation for systematically

gathering data on the following performance

indices has been suggested:113

1. leachate accumulation at sites other than

manholes;

111William L. Murphy Rohrer, Senior Environmental Scientist,

Pope-Reid Associates, Inc., personal communication, January

1983.

112Comments to EPA regarding proposed rules, “Docket 3004,

Permitting Standards for Land Disposal Facilities,” prepared by

the New York State Attorney General, Robert Abrams, Nov. 9,

1982.

113Ibid., p. 4.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 185

—

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

a.

9.

10.

11.

stress/strain characteristics of synthetic

membranes;

settlement of individual lifts inside the

cells;

leachate delivery to leachate collection

system;

differential and areal settlement of the

cap;

seasonal moisture contents of the cap;

erosion rates of cap soils;

actual cap infiltration rates;

three-dimensional chemical conditions

inside the cells, especially in the vicinity

of the liner face;

gas evolution rates in particular cells; and

contaminant transport phenomena in soil

liner.

Technical Regulatory Issues

The current regulatory framework will affect

the future use, operation, and design of landfills. Liability requirements may encourage certain industry sectors to employ alternative

treatment technology or waste reduction activities. I f implemented, requirements to demonstrate financial responsibility for future corrective action may be an even greater incentive

(see also ch. 7).

Current regulations will require upgrading

the design of new facilities to include the use

of liners, guidelines for waste pretreatment,

leachate collection systems, and covers. Existing portions of facilities are broadly exempted

from retrofitting that do not have the minimal

control features of a liner or collection system.

The current regulations will influence the

construction and operation of landfills. Key

regulatory points with likely

use of landfills are:

● a preference for the use

● minimal restrictions on

to be landfilled; and

● minimal restrictions on

fills.

impacts on future

of artificial liners;

the waste allowed

the siting of landInfluence on Liner Selection.–The current regulations state that liner materials for new hazardous waste landfills should not allow migration of leachate into the liner during the operating life of the facility. This could favor the

selection of synthetic membrane liners, since

they can absorb de minimis quantities of

leachate. 114 This preference tends to isolate the

capability of a liner from the rest of the engineered landfill system, its environmental setting, and the persistence and toxicity of the

waste it contains.

Furthermore, this preference could inhibit

the comparative evaluation of clay and synthetic liners, and overlooks uncertainties about the

long-term limitations of any liner material. A

more farsighted approach might require the

use of both a synthetic and a compacted clay

liner. The synthetic liner would be used to collect the more concentrated leachate likely to

be produced during the operating life of the

facility. This would protect the clay liner from

the concentrated leachate constituents which

can increase the permeability of the clay liner,

thus enhancing the long-term integrity of the

clay liner backup.115

Restrictions on Waste Being Landfilled.–In July

1982, detailed rules were issued definin g

wastes allowable for landfilling. Treatments

are required to mitigate waste characteristic s

of ignitability, reactivity, and corrosiveness. I n -

compatible wastes cannot be placed in the

same landfill cell. These requirements should

greatly reduce the hazards of fires, explosions,

and generation of toxic fumes. There are no

restrictions against landfilling highly toxic, persistent waste and no treatments are required

to mitigate a waste constituent’s toxicity or

mobility. 116 Containerized liquids cannot be

landfilled unless the liquids are rendered not

free flowing. Many treatments that can modify

the free liquid form do not immobilize toxic

constituents. The regulations allow the disposal

of free waste liquids into landfills with synthetic liners and leachate collection systems.

Siting Restriction.—The current regulations

contain only minimal siting restrictions. For
186 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

example, they suggest that new landfills should

not be sited within a 100-year flood plain, but

that if they are, they should be designed to

withstand such a flood. 117 Many believe that

restrictions should be imposed on sites based

on proximity to natural features such as major

supplies of ground water used for drinking,

designated sole-source aquifers, aquifer recharge areas, sink holes, and wetlands.118 Such

site characteristics are not addressed by the

regulations.

Technology Forcing.—Although EPA is promoting the use of some technologies in their most

advanced form, less reliable landfilling designs

are allowed. Incinerator performance standards have been set close to the limits of their

known technical capabilities. Meeting these requirements for routine incineration at many existing facilities will require improvements in

engineering design and operation of the facility. However, owners and operators of many

existing landfills have already instituted voluntary or State-mandated operating, design stand117Ibld,, pp. 32, 290.

l18David Burmaster, “Review of Land Disposal Regulations, ”

paper submitted to OTA Materials Program, November 1982.

ards, and monitoring programs more demanding than Federal requirements, including the

use of a double liner.119

For landfilling, the regulations establish the

minimum design requirements for landfill

liner system and methods for leachate monitoring—i.e., one bottom liner* and external monitoring via ground-water wells for detecting and

assessing the effect of leachate migration (see

fig. 12). The reliability of this design is inferior

to a double liner with a leak-detection system.

There is an incentive to promote the use of this

more advanced design, through granting an initial waiver of the ground-water monitoring

program,

Surface Impoundments

Surface impoundments are depressions in

the ground used to store, treat, or dispose of

a variety of industrial wastes. They have a variety of names: lagoons, treatment basins, pits,

119Burmaster, op. Cit.

*As discussed above, the single liner is likely to be a membrane liner.

Figure 12.—Schematic of Single and Double Synthetic Liner Design

Landfills—single liner

\

Drainage,

layer

F

-Ground water “1

monitoring well i b 070

“\

Leachate collection .

and removal system ~

Liner

‘\

‘,,

I

I

D Ground water ~1I

This is the new minimum requirement for newly

constructed landfills: a single liner (probably a synthetic

membrane), a Ieachate collection system, and ground

water monitoring wells.

SOURCE: Civil Engineering–ASCE, January 1983

Landfills—double liner —

Liners f

Leak detection system between liners 1I Unsaturated

zone 1

If two synthetic liners and a leak-detection system are

used as- shown above, no ground water monitoring is

initally required under the new regulations.
—.

Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 187

—.. .—. — — . . . . . . .

and ponds.

120 These depressions can be natural,

man-made, lined, or unlined. They can be several feet in diameter or hundreds of acres in

size.

Applicability

The majority of wastes put into surface impoundments come from four industrial groups:

paper and allied products, petroleum and coal

products, primary metals, and chemicals an d

allied products.

121 These wastes are generall y

impounded as hulk liquids or sludges.

Surface impoundments are used either t o

treat or store industrial wastes. For treatment,

surface impoundments are widely used for dewatering sludges, neutralizing and separatin g

waste constituents, and biodegrading waste

waters. Storage simply refers to temporary

holding. Although estimates of capacity vary,

national estimates indicate that there are approximately 1,100 surface impoundments used

for hazardous waste, covering a total area of

close to 29 million yd2 [see ch. 4).

Evaluation

Surface impoundments have allowed release

of hazardous waste constituents through catastrophic failure, leachate migration, and volatilization of organics. Impoundments are more

subject to catastrophic failure than landfills

because they tend to contain more bulk liquid.

Evidence of surface- and ground-water contamination resulting from impoundments is

well documented. 122 This has occurred from

sudden releases; e.g., by overtopping the sides,

dike failures, or rupture of the liner due to inadequate subgrade preparation, or sinkhole

formation. 123 124 In addition, slow leakage can

contaminate soil and ground water, This is

especially true for unlined impoundments. Investimations at some unlined “evaporation

ponds” have shown that seepage accounted for

more of the reduction in volume than did evaporation. 125 In general, these release pathways

are addressed by Federal regulations (see also

“Technical Regulatory Issues”).

There is an expected rate of leakage even

through intact liners. Some liquids are chemically aggressive to liners, increasing the rate

of movement through the liner. Leakage occurs

in much the same manner described in the previous section for landfills. The rate of leakage

generally depends on the same factors (see discussion of liners in the “Landfill” section). For

impoundments, one primary difference is that

there is always a hydraulic gradient acting on

the liner. An additional concern is how long

the wastes are held in the impoundment before

their hazardous characteristics have been mitigated,

Some organic liquids currently being held in

impoundments are volatile. Volatilization for

many organic chemicals can occur at normal

atmospheric temperatures and pressures. This

has recently led to investigations of the potential magnitude and severity of organic air emiss ions.

There is little field data to indicate the magnitude of air emissions from surface impoundments, Most of the information available is

from mathematical models that estimate an

emissions rate from the many factors influencing volatilization, These include the concentration of organics in the waste, their vapor pressures and solubilities, environmental factors

such as air and water temperature, wind velocity, and the surface area of the impoundment ,

126 127

—— . —

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

Quafit~ in the L’ni(ed States-A f+eliminar~ Sur~[?~, [J, S, E;[IA,

off Ice of Drinking Water, 570/9-78-004, June 1978.

1281.. J. Thlbodeaux, et al., “Chemical Volatilization h!e(:hanisrns From Surface 1 mpoundments In the Absence of Win(j,

l,andllJspow] of Hazardous Waste, proceedings of the 8th Annua] Research Symposlurn, EPA 600/9-82-002, March 1982

‘J”’rhomas ‘1’, Shen, “ F:stlmation of organic Compound Emissions From it’ast(’ I ,a~()()ns, journal of Air PollutJon Contr[]l

,4ssoc/at]on, iol. 32, No. 1,
188 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Many of the models were designed to represent other environmental transport phenomenon, e.g., evaporation from oceans or lake basins, and have been adapted for application to

organic emissions. Consequently, estimates of

emissions derived from these models must be

viewed with caution. Nonetheless, the models

estimate a significant rate of emissions. For example, emissions from a 1/4-acre impoundmerit, ” holding 100 mg/l benzene and 100 mg/l

chloroform, are estimated to be almost 45 lb/hr

of benzene and 39 lb/hr of chloroform. 128 This

rate of emissions would decline but continue

until a covering was installed. Further model

development work, including validation sampling, is underway.129

Technical Regulatory Issues

The effectiveness of the interim final regulations lies in how well they improve the performance of surface impoundments over past

practices. The Federal regulations require that

new impoundments have a liner, and establish

the minimum design and performance standard; i.e., a single liner intended to meet the narrative performance criteria stating that the

liner must “prevent any migration” of waste

constituents out of the impoundment during

its active life.130 Although these requirements

for liners will reduce leakage, the literal narrative standard is probably technically infeasible. Lining materials have long been used to

reduce seepage and economic losses of stored

liquids, however the use of liners for pollution

control is comparatively new. A great deal of

R&D in liner technology will be required to

meet these standards. Two researchers state

the issue well:131 132

There is a lack of formalized design procedures to accomplish the objective of pollution

*With a depth of 3.5 meters, ambient temperatures of 25” C,

and wind speeds of about one-tenth mph.

l*81bid,, p. 81,

Itestek,e lames, project officer, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, personal communication, January 1982,

130FR 32,357, July 26, 1982.

ljl Folkes, op. cit.

I UR, E, O]son and D. E. Daniel, “ f’ield and Laboratory h~easurement of the Permeability of Saturated and Partially Saturated

Fine-G rained Soils, ” Geotechnical Engineering Report CR 80-5,

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, June 1979,

control, Because of this lack, there is a tendency toward qualitative approaches to liner design. It is often assumed, for example, that

liners are either impermeable or of such low

permeability that further analyses are not required. The end result can be failure of the

liner to perform as intended.

Similarly :

. . . in engineering, past practice has frequently meant to assume that fine grained soils are

effectively ‘‘impervious" and to forego attempts to measure their coefficient of permeability y.

The regulatory incentive for installation o f

double liners with leak-detection systems applies also to impoundments. However, in contrast to leak-detection systems currently used

with landfills, OTA found that detection systems placed beneath the primary liner of an impoundment can be used to routinely remove

the liquids from between the liners. This reduces the hydraulic pressure from the secondary liner. In some cases, this kind of leachate

detection and removal system are already used

to remove the liquids expected to migrate

through the primary liner.133 Ground water at

sites which are especially vulnerable to contamination would be better protected by this

system. Instead, the regulations allow the use

of a single liner, and rely on. an external

ground-water monitoring net to detect waste

constituents in excess of ground water standards.

As with landfills, a broad exemption from the

requirement for any liner is allowed for existing impoundments. Development of remotesensing techniques to detect leakage at existing

sites has recently begun.134 EPA is also investigating techniques for retrofitting synthetic

liners at existing impoundments.135 Combining

these efforts with information about the char-

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

tion, January 1983.

IJ~Waller and Davis, op. cit., in proceedings of the Eight Annual Research Symposium, EPA 600/9-82-002, March 1982.

lj~John W. Cooper and David Schultz, “Development and Demonstration of Systems to Retrofit Existing I,iquid Surface Impoundment Facilities With Synthetic Membrane, ” in Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, conference proceedings, Washington, D. C., December 1982,
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 1 8 9

acteristics of the site and the waste could reduce reliance on detection monitoring and remedial action.

Federal regulations also require that impoundment dikes be designed and constructed

to prevent massive failure. In the past, massive

dike failure has been linked to damage caused

by leakage from the impoundment. The regulatory criteria requires that liner leakage be considered in the design and construction of structurally sound dikes. To the extent that new

dikes meet this requirement, sudden releases

from impoundments should be reduced. In addition, new impoundments are to be designed

to withstand certain storm and flooding events,

However, as with landfills, siting requirements

are minimal, Furthermore, existing sites are exempted from having to upgrade dikes and

berms. In some cases, exempted impoundments may pose substantial risk of sudden

releases,

Many of the regulatory requirements pertain

to closure and post-closure responsibilities. At

closure, impoundment operators have two options: to remove all remaining wastes and contaminated lining material for disposal at an approved RCRA facility or decontaminate, or

solidify/stabilize, the remaining waste so that

it can structurally support a final cover, I f this

second opt ion is taken, the impoundment is

essentially closed like a landfill, and similar

monitoring and maintenance responsibilities

apply. Long-term uncertainties related to liner

life and cover integrity are similar to those discussed in the landfill section. Issues concerning lack of criteria for what constitutes adequate “stabilization” of the waste are similar

to those discussed in landfill pretreatment requirements.

EPA is beginning to investigate the potential

for air quality degradation resulting from impounded volatile organics and is planning research to identify appropriate regulation in this

area. Some States, notably New York and California, are also investigating this issue.136 Cal-

——. —1 ~’rhom~s “r, sh~n, s~n Ior Resea rc, h SC wnhst, N~w’ York st~t~

[)epartrnent of Enirlrtjnmental [~onservat}on, personal (;ommunl-

(,at ion, December 1982

ifornia has suggested both limits on the amount

of volatile organic material that can be landdisposed and limiting the time certain wastes

can be stored in impoundments as air quality

control measures.137

Underground Injection Wells

Injection of liquid waste into subsurface rock

formations is a technology that uses porous

sedimentary strata to hold liquid waste. The

pores of all porous rock formations contain liquids, gases, or both. The gas or liquid is contained within the strata under pressure caused

by overlying rocks. Internal pressures within

strata can vary significantly, depending on the

porosity of the formation, its depth, and other

physical and chemical factors. Essentially,

underground injection entails drilling a well

to the depth required to intersect an appropriate geologic formation (known as the injection

zone) and pumping the liquid waste in with

pressure sufficient to displace the native fluids,

but not so great as to cause fracturing of the

strata or excessive migration of the waste. Formations suitable for waste injection should

meet the following criteria: 138

●

●

●

●

it should not have value as a resource—

e.g., as a source of drinking water, hydrocarbons, or geothermal energy;

it must have sufficient porosity and volume to be able to accept the anticipated

amount of liquids;

it should be sealed both above and below

by formations with sufficient strength,

thickness, and impermeability to prevent

migration of the waste from the disposal

zone; and

it should be located in an area with little

seismic activity to minimize both the risk

of earthquake damage to the well and triggering of seismic events.

There is no standard injection-well design

because design requirements are influenced by

———-—— 1 ~ ‘st ate of ~a ] i f~rn 1 a A 1 r Resources ~ oa d, ‘‘ SUggeSted ~ontro] Measure To Reduc;e organic Compound Emissions Associated With ;’olati]e C)rga n 1(; t$~aste Disposal, ” August I !)82,

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

)ection (Berkele~,, Cafi[: Premier Press, 1981), pp. 124-127.
190 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

site-specific geology. Figure 13 illustrates the

design of an injection well that might be used

for hazardous waste disposal, As shown in the

figure, the well is constructed with three concentric casings: the exterior surface casing, the

intermediate protection casing, and the injection tubing. The exterior surface casing is designed to protect freshwater in the aquifers

through which the well passes and to protect

the well exterior from corrosion. The casing

extends below the base of aquifers containing

potable water and is cemented along its full

length. Similarly, the intermediate protection

casing extends down and through the top of

the injection zone and is cemented along its

full length. The waste is actually transported

through the injection tubing, the innermost casing. The tubing also extends into the top of the

Figure 13.—Schematic of Typical Completion

Method for a Deep Waste Injection Well

Injected waste <

Cement

A

/l

Steel casing shutting

off all freshwater

zones cemented

from bottom to surface

Cement —

Steel casing

cemented, —

bottom

to surface

Corrosion resistant

tubing

Annulus sealed

with packer -

Disposal

formation —

I lmpervious shale

I y: i Ground level

Freshwater sand

— impervious shale

Salt water sandstone

Impervious shale

Impervious shale

J

M

J Salt water sandstone

1 E

1 lmpervious shale

SOURCE: R. B. Pojasek, Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal, vol. 4, Ann Arbor

Science, 1980.

injection zone; its endpoint is the point of

waste discharge. The injection tubing is sealed

off from the intermediate casing, creating annular space between the injection tubing and

the casing, The annulus is filled with fluid containing corrosion inhibitors to protect the casing and tubing metal. The fluid is pressurized

between the sealing at the base of the well and

the well head assembly .139 140 Since the pressure

within the annulus is known, monitoring the

pressure during the operation of the well can

be a method of checking the integrity of the injection system. Anomalous drops in pressure

indicate a leak, either in the injection tubing

or in the outer casing.141

When injection operations cease, the well is

plugged. Proper plugging is necessary to maintain the existing pressure in the injection zone,

to prevent mixing of fluids from different geologic strata, and to prevent flow of liquids from

the pressurized zone to the surface.142

Applicability

Injection wells are capable of accepting a

wide range of waste liquids, The primary characteristics of a liquid that limit the applicability

of injection well disposal are: high suspended

solids content, high viscosity, and chemical incompatibility with either the formation or formation fluids. Before injecting a waste, its

chemical characteristics must be compared

with the mineral characteristics of the formation and the native fluids within the injection

zone to determine their compatibility.143 Chemical pretreatment of the waste can sometimes

make them more compatible with a specific injection zone formation. Examples of waste that

can be disposed via injection wells are:144

● dilute or concentrated acid or alkaline

solutions;

● solutions containing metals;

● inorganic solutions;

139Waste Age, October 1982.

1

40 Ray “W. Amstutz, “Deep-Well Disposal: A Valuable Natural

Resource, ” in Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal, Robert

Pojasek (cd,), vol. 4, Ann Arbor Science, 1980.

141Warner and Lehr, op. cit., p. 29!i.

1

421 bid., p, 320.

14sIbidt, pp. 159-177.

144Amstutz, op. cit., p. 285.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 1 9 1

• hydrocarbons, including chlorinated hydrocarbons;

• solvents; and

• organic solutions with high biochemical

or chemical oxygen demand.

Industries using injection wells for waste disposal are listed below in approximate order of

predominance: 145

lndustry typ e Percent

Chemical and allied products . . . . . 49

Petroleum refining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Sanitary service . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Oil and gas extraction . . . . . . 6

Primary metals . . . . . . . . . . . 6

All others . . . . 10

Current Use

Estimates of the total number of injection

wells currently in use are not in agreement.

Some variance is due to the definition of injection wells used in conducting well inventories.

Uniform Federal definitions for classifying injection wells became final in February 1982.

Wells are now categorized into five classes:146

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Class I wells include those used for disposal of municipal or industrial waste liquids

and nuclear waste storage and disposal

wells that discharge below the deepest

underground source of drinking water;

Class II wells are those used for oil and gas

production;

Class III wells include mining, geothermal,

and other special process wells;

Class IV wells are those which inject hazardous waste into or above an underground source of drinking water; and

Class V wells include all others (e.g., irrigation return flows) not in Classes I through

Iv.

Thus, wells used to dispose of federally defined hazardous liquid waste can fall into one

of two classifications, Class I or Class IV. The

distinction lies not in the characteristics of the

waste injected, but in the discharge point relative to an underground source of drinking water. Class I wells discharge waste beneath the

145 Warner and Lehr, op. cit., p. 5.

14e47 FR 4992, Feb. 3, 1982.

deepest formation containing, within one-quarter mile of the well bore, a drinking water

source. Class IV wells are those used to inject

hazardous liquids into or above a formation

which, within one-quarter mile of the well bore,

contains a drinking water source.

Based on preliminary validation surveys of

hazardous waste facility notification requirements, EPA estimates that 159 wells are currently in use for disposal of hazardous industrial liquids; this figure presumably includes both

Class I and IV (see ch. 4). Earlier inventories

generally indicate a greater number of disposal

wells, Better information may become available

when all States report their intentions to develop programs under the Safe Drinking Water

Act. ’47 The total rate of discharge for wells disposing of industrial waste is large, One source

estimates that, based on volume, disposal of

hazardous waste through injection wells was

the predominant disposal method in 1981. An

estimated 3.6 billion gallons were injected that

year. 

148 Information about the hazardous characteristics of these wastes is not available.

The majority of injection wells are located

in States with a long history of oil and gas exploration. The geology in these areas is often

well-suited for waste disposal zones; moreover,

the geological characteristics are well documented because of petroleum exploration. For

example, EPA Region VI contains almost 60

percent of the covered disposal wells inventoried in 1975.149 The majority of these wells

(about 58 percent) inject waste into comparatively deep stratum—e.g., at depths between

2,000 to 6,000 ft (600 to 1,800 m). In general,

disposal into formations at greater depth are

unlikely to contaminate surface or near-surface

water. About 30 percent inject waste into formations less than 2,000 ft (305 m). The receiving formations are approximately equally distributed between sand, sandstone, and carbonate rocks.150 Strata with this type of lithology

.—

‘

47 Jentai Yang, Office of Drinking Water, EPA, personal communication, January 1983.

14a~art A (J n ik~~rse Telephone Verification, CO nt ra~t NO .

68-01-6322, prepared by Westat, Inc., for EPA, November 1982,

p. 3.

14eWarner and Lehr, op. cit., p. 3.

‘

so Ibid., pp. 5-7.
192 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

can be water-bearing. Whether they are considered underground sources of drinking water

depends on the quality and quantity of the

water they contain and how economically accessible they are. All three factors vary across

the Nation.

Effectiveness as a Disposal Technology

Technologies for constructing and operating

wells for waste disposal is well established;

much has been transferred from that used for

oil and gas exploration. The ability of injection

wells to keep waste isolated in the injection

zone depends on many site-specific factors, including the well design and expertise of the

operator. If a failure occurs, the consequent

risk depends on the site geology, characteristics

of the waste injected, the extent of the failure,

detection of the failure, and whether corrective action is feasible and undertaken. The following list of potential contamination pathways resulting from faulty construction, operation, and/or deterioration of the well are briefly

discussed below:151

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

injection into or above potable aquifers,

leakage through inadequate confining

beds,

leakage through confining beds due to

unplanned hydraulic fracturing,

displacement of saline water into a potable

aquifer,

migration of injected liquids into the potable water zone of the same aquifer,

injection of hazardous liquid into a saline

aquifer eventually classified as a potable

water source,

upward migration of waste liquid from the

receiving zone along the outside of the

well casing,

escape into potable aquifers due to wellbore failure, and

vertical migration and leakage through

abandoned or closed wells in the vicinity.

Some existing disposal wells probably threaten contamination of drinking water sources

through the first pathway listed. These are the

l~lDavid W. Mi]]er (cd.), Waste Disposal Effects on Ground

Water (Berkeley, Ca]if.: Premier Press, 1980), p. 366.

Class IV wells which discharge waste into or

above formations which, within one-quarter

mile of the discharge point, are sources of

drinking water. The exact number and location

of these wells is not known.152 Federal policy

requiring closure of wells discharging into a

drinking water source is just beginning to go

into effect, There is still no Federal policy for

wells injecting above a drinking water source

(see “Technical Regulatory Issues”).

Leakage and migration of waste to a potential water source can result from inadequate

confining beds, or unexpected fracturing of a

confining bed (pathways 2 and 3 above). Techniques currently used for surveying the hydrogeology of a site prior to construction minimize

unintentional breaches of the confining beds.

However, if such breaches occur, they can generally be detected during the operating life of

the well by monitoring of well-fluid pressures.

There are corrective actions available that can

potentially reduce the likelihood of contamination resulting from these kinds of failure, but

they generally rely on changing the hydraulic

gradient within the affected aquifer, Experience with these techniques is limited. Their use

is not always possible nor completely effective. 153

Pathway 4 describes contamination of a potable water source with naturally occurring saline water that does not meet drinking water

standards. This could occur if the pressure

buildup resulting from waste injection within

the receiving zone is sufficient to displace the

native fluids into a potable water source. It

should be possible to minimize this kind of contamination through careful surveying and selection of the injection zone,

The quality of water contained within an

aquifer can vary considerably within a single

water-bearing stratum. It is not unusual for the

dissolved solids concentration within an aquifer to increase from the top to the bottom of

an aquifer. Thus, water drawn from one location may meet drinking water criteria, while

152Yang, op. cit.

l~swl]]lam Thompson, Senior Scientist, Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,

personal communication, Novembe: 1982.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 193

The contamination pathway described as

pathway 9, upward migration of waste through

abandoned or closed wells, is particularly insidious because regions where waste injection

is widely practiced also have a long history of

energy exploration and development. Depending on the site geology, these wells provide vertical connections from deeper formations to

near surface or surface formations. Many of

these wells were drilled before plugging of

abandoned wells was required. Often, their

locations are not known and some may no

longer be evident at the ground surface. One

source estimates that there may be more than

1 million unplugged wells unlocated in North

America.

159 To address this concern, current

Federal regulations require potential disposers

to calculate the subsurface area expected to be

affected by the pressure of waste injection. Before new waste injection can begin, the operator is required to survey and to plug existing

wells within this area .160

Similarly, Federal regulations require that

new wells must be plugged at closure to maintain pressure within the injection zone. There

are no specific Federal requirements for well

abandonment, because the procedures used depend on the well construction and site hydrogeology. Proposed plugging methods are evaluated by individual State-permitting authorities. Wells are plugged by selectively cementing sections throughout its length. There is no

technical concensus over the placement of well

plugs; their location and extensiveness are

determined by State requirements and cost

considerations .

l61 Some States require that

plugs be set over the entire length of the injection zone, and extend 50 to 100 ft into the overlying confining beds. In some wells, injection

can occur over hundreds to a thousand feet of

formation. In addition, plugs are generally set

above and below each aquifer that the well

passes through.l62

ISQR, Allen Freeze and John A, (;herry”, []roIJ~] (~w’a tt?r ( E:II~l(’-

wood Cliffs, N ,J,: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1979), p. 455.

looq ~ (; ~’ ~ 1 ~ (j. 6 and 146.7.

1

61’’ Technical hlanua] Inje(:tion L$’ell Abandon merit,” op. (:It.,

p 6.

l~zlbld ., pp. 5, 6.
194 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Although there is considerable documentation of well abandonment in the oil and gas industry, there is less information regarding

potential problems with waste disposal well

abandonment. 163 164 In 1973, the State of Michigan surveyed 20 abandoned wells to determine

the adequacy of the plugs. The wells were redrilled to verify the position and condition of

the cement plugs. Some plugs were never

found; others had deteriorated and were soft.165

More advanced well-plugging techniques

should improve this record. Installation of effective plugs requires careful planning and

considerable operator skill.166 There is little experience with abandonment of waste disposal

wells on which to evaluate the long-term integrity of well plugs.

There is currently little information about

contamination incidents resulting from injection well practices for all classes of wells.

Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to correlate

a particular contamination incident with a specific well disposal practice. Past documentation of contamination has been attributed to

a variety of injection well operations. For example, one survey conducted by the State of

Texas between the years 1967 and 1975 reviewed 800 wells that had been used for oil and

gas production. The wells were located by reports of water wells becoming contaminated

with brackish water, of wells flowing at the

ground surface, or by field investigations.’”

Research is underway to better define the correlation between ground and surface water

contamination related to injection wells.

In addition to monitoring pressures within

the well, there are several types of monitoring

wells that can provide information on the effects of waste injection. Constructing monitoring wells in the receiving formation is the only

direct method of detecting the rate and direction of waste liquid movement. However, sam1031 bid., p. 1.

Ieiwarner and Lehr, op. cit., p. 321.

‘f’’’ ’Technical Manual: Injection Well Abandonment, ” op. cit.,

p. 9.

16e Ibid., p. 8.

l~7Kerr S. Thornhil], Environmental Laboratories, Ada, o~a.,

personal communication, January 1983.

pling from the receiving formation has the disadvantage of providing additional routes for

contaminant migration. 168 Monitoring wells

can also be constructed to sample from the confining beds or from aquifers above the injection zone. The usefulness of such wells may

be limited by site-specific factors. There are

cases, however, where monitoring wells sampling immediately above a confining bed have

detected contamination from leakage which

was not detected by monitoring well pressures.

Also, the injection well itself can be adapted

to monitor overlying aquifers.169 State requirements for types and locations of monitoring

wells vary.

Federal standards for Class I wells require

that operators report “the type, number and

location of wells” used to monitor pressures

and migration of fluids into underground

sources of drinking water, the frequency of

sampling, and the parameters measured (40

CFR 146.13). These requirements are just now

going into effect for States with approved programs. Currently, much of the direct sampling

for contamination is conducted through water

wells that are part of the facilities water supply system or which are near an injection

site. 170

Technical Regulatory Issues

All classes of injection wells are regulated by

the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA). Wells which inject liquid hazardous

waste are regulated under both SDWA and

RCRA. Because of this overlapping jurisdiction, injection-well facilities that are in compliance with a UIC permit and which meet general requirements for notification, manifesting

of waste, annual reporting, and closure certification, will be considered to have a RCRA permit (F. R. 47, July 26, 1982, 322:81). Requirements

for financial responsibility, post-closure care

and corrective action responsibility have not

yet been specified.

le~warner and Lehr, op. cit., pp. 310-311.

1@sIbid., p, 312.

170 Thornhill, op. cit.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 195

Further, the development of UIC standards

is not complete, Specifically, there are no

standards for Class IV wells that inject wastes

above a drinking water source (F. R., ibid.).

States with approved programs are required to

eliminate waste disposal through a Class IV

well injecting into a drinking water source

within 6 months of receiving approval. To date,

only nine States have approved UIC programs,

although several more are currently being reviewed. 17

1

Corrective measures are required if a failure

occurs during the operating life of the well.

UIC regulations require the installation and use

of continuous recording devices to monitor injection pressure, annular pressure, waste volume, and flow rate. 172 In addition, the well

must be tested for mechanical integrity through

a temperature or noise log test at least once

every 5 years. ’73 If a significant leak is detected,

the well casing must be repaired or replaced.174

Closure of the well must be certified.

In general, waste disposal through properly

constructed and operated injection wells into

deep formations below the lowest drinking water source are much less likely to contaminate

surface or shallow aquifers than are landfills

and surface impoundments. There do not appear to be requirements for corrective action

for damage that might occur after well closure

comparable to the requirements imposed on

land-based disposal under RCRA. The PostClosure Liability Trust Fund Act will provide

funding for site maintenance and care, as well

as a source of compensation for personal and

property damage. However, it is unclear how

the tax will be calculated for liquid waste injected into disposal wells.’” The statutory language specifies that the tax be levied at a rate

of $2.13 per dry weight ton of hazardous waste

delivered to an RCRA permitted facility.

‘“’Yang, op. cit.

‘“’40 CFR 146.13.

‘7)40 CFR 146.8 and 146.13.

]

 74 Yang, op. cit.

“sEric Nagle, Environmental Law Institute, personal communication, N’overnber 1982.

Comparative Unit Costs for

Selective Technologies

There is little consistent information available about the costs necessary to achieve a

given level of control by waste treatment and

disposal practices. This is due to a variety of

factors: 1) lack of consensus about what constitutes comparable levels of control across

technology alternatives, 2) the regulatory uncertainties of the evolving Federal program,

3) cost information that is generally specific to

an application of a particular technology to a

particular waste, and 4) the dynamic nature of

costs as industry gains experience in responding to the regulatory requirements.

Almost all the studies that evaluated costs for

different treatment and disposal alternatives

considered the effect of the new RCRA regulations. Although tentative, given the lack of experience of the interim final relations, virtually

1.

2.

all the studies point out two trends:

the post-closure, liability, and corrective

action requirements will have a greater effect on land-based disposal options relative

to treatment or incineration, and

the costs for anv treatment option is affected by the waste type. Costs are most

sensitive to waste characteristics for chemical and thermal destruction and less sensitive for landfills.

While cost data are scarce and only roughly

comparable in general, those that reflect differences in waste form are even fewer. For example, fee schedules for commercial facilities that

provide several treatment steps and final disposal are frequently determined after testing

samples of the prospective waste stream, Rather, most of the economic studies completed

to date have focused on the incremental cost

increases—e.g., in administration, recordkeeping, security, personnel—required by RCRA

regulations. Another very important economic

lever that has been studied in detail is the effect of the liability requirements on the decisions made by treatment and disposal facility

operators, This is because the liability and insurance requirements reflect, to a limited ex-
196 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tent, the perceived sudden and non-sudden

risks associated with types of waste treatment

or disposal, facility designs, and operating

practices.

This section presents a brief comparison of

technology costs. All unit cost figures should

be considered as approximate. Their usefulness

is in general comparison. Costs were derived

from three sources; all have limitations:

1. The Commerce study figures are based on

treatment costs in the Great Lakes Region

only. Unit costs are based on surveys of

actual charges levied for wastes from three

industry sectors. The surveys requested

that the respondents factor their expectations of the increased costs of the interim

status, not interim final, Federal requirements.

2. The EPA study, completed under contract

by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, reports unit

costs based on a survey of the nine largest

commercial facilities. In 1980, these facilities treated an estimated 51 percent of the

total national waste stream which was

handled offsite, estimated at 3.7 million

tons. The unit costs reported may be slightly overstated relative to the costs incurred

by a generator with onsite treatment and

3.

disposal facilities because these are prices

charged to return an investment on a commercial service.

The cost figures reported in the California

Air Resources Board study are based on

surveys of commercial and onsite facility

operators.

Table 34 presents costs by type of waste management used and general description of waste

type. Table 35 presents a limited comparison

of unit costs for treatment v. incineration for

selected waste types, Table 36 presents a limited comparison of landfill and thermal destruction costs and illustrates the effect of

waste form and waste type on these costs.

As illustrated in table 36, the cost for commercial landfill service ranges from between

$55 to $240/tonne. This range covers the gamut

from low-risk bulk waste to more hazardous

drummed waste. These designations of hazardous characteristics are based largely on qualitative assessments. By compariscln, the range

of costs for commercial incineration is $53 to

$791/tonne. This range of costs also reflects the

relative technical ease of destroying comparatively clean combustible liquids as contrasted

with highly toxic refractory solids and drummed

wastes.

Table 34.—Comparison of Quoted Prices for Nine Major

Hazardous Waste Firms in 1981a

Type of

waste management

Landfill

Land treatment

Incineration clean

Chemical treatment

Resource recovery

Deep well injection

Transportation

Type or form $/tonne D

of waste Price 1981 1981

Drummed

Bulk

All

Relatively clean liquids,

high-Btu value

Liquids

Solids, highly toxic liquids

Acids/alkalines

Cyanides, heavy metals,

highly toxic waste

All

Oily wastewater

Toxic rinse water

$0.64-$0.91/gal

($35-$50/55 gal drum)

$0.19-$0.28/gal

$0.02-$0.09/gal

$(0,05)c

-$0.20/gal

$0.20-$0.90/gal

$1.50-$3.00/gal

$0.08-$0.35/gal

$0.25-$3.00/gal

$0.25-$1 .00/gal

$0.06-$0.1 5/gal

$0.50-$1 .00/gal

$0.15/ton mile

$168-$240

$55-$83

$5-24

$(13) ’-$53

$53-$237

$395-$791

$21-$92

$66-$791

$66-$264

$16-$40

$132-$264

alntewiews were conducted in May of 1980 and February of 1%2

bFactor~ “~ed t. conve~ gallon5 and tons into tonnes are descr!bed in the appendix

Csome cement kilns and light aggregate manufacturers are now Payi n9 for waste

SOURCE Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 197

Tab e 35. —Incineration v. Treatment: Range of

Estimated Post. RCRA Charges for

Selected Waste Types

Costs per tonne

Incineration Treatment —

Waste oils ... . $94 $40

Paint sludges . . . 453 94

Nonchlorinated solvent s 94 61

Chlorinated solvents 206 161

Cyanides . . . . . . . . . . — 211 297

NOTE Cost estimates are based on surveys of commercial treatment and InCI n

erator fac I I It Ies I n the G ieat Lakes reg( ons Costs reported ref Iect the surveyed

Industries estimates of their charges based on comphance w(!h RCRA regulatory

requ I rements for /r?ter/rn S(atus factl it Ies No s pec I flc I n format Ion provided abou f

typ@ of process o, Incinerator used or charac terts IICS o f wasfe res Idl)als

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment from liazardo. ~s Waste Management

In f he Great Lakes Region Depart mer; t of Corn merce Septern ber 1982

In cases where a waste can be easily detoxified, or energy value recovered, unit costs for

treatment or incineration can be lower than

unit costs for landfilling. At the low end of the

cost range, unit costs for particular wastes can

be roughly comparable. It is at the high end of

the spectrum where unit costs diverge greatly

between the landfill and the incineration alternative, For example, incineration of solid or

drummed waste costs in the range of about

$400 to $800 per tonne as compared with about

$170 to $240 per tonne for landfill disposal.

Midrange unit costs for land disposal of undifferentiated bulk waste and roughly designated waste hazard classes range from about

$55 to $83 per tonne. These costs are comparable to the unit costs for various waste treatment processes (table 35), which range from

about $34 to $260 per tonne, depending on the

waste type. Unit costs for thermal destruction

of waste fall generally at the upper middle

range, e.g., generally between about $100 to

$400 per tonne, although specific costs can be

much greater or much lower. In particular,

OTA found that emerging thermal destruction

techniques may be less expensive than conventional incineration techniques [see “Emerging

Thermal Destruction Technologies”).

Available information on waste disposal

clearly indicates that land-based disposal is currently the predominant waste disposal method.

Landfill costs are generally less than costs for

treatment and incineration and there continues

to be great debate about whether these lower

costs include all the costs of landfilling. Some

of the cost differences depend on factors such

as the capital required to implement technology, whether it is being operated for commercial or private purposes, and personnel requirements, These are all factors affecting the cost

of any technology option.

More specifically, the essence of the debate

concerns the extent to which the still unfolding

Federal regulatory policy affects market decisions for selection of waste technology. The

current Federal program requires that all facility operators demonstrate financial assurance

for closure and post-closure care, and that they

carry liability insurance, The estimated costs

of these requirements for specific facility types

are discussed in chapter 7. Note that the costs

to meet these requirements are expected to be

greater for landfills and surface impoundments

than for incinerator facilities. Some contend

that current Federal policy favors the land disposal alternative; others that the financial assurance requirements and the insurance reTable 36. —Unit Costs Charged for Services at Commercial Facilities

Landgil l $/tonne Incineration $/tonne

. 

Form. Dru m $168-$240 Drummed $120-$400

Bulk : : : : : : : : : : : : $55-$83 Liquids ., . . ., $53-$400

Type Acids/alkalis ., $13-$120 Relatively clean liquids with

high-Btu value $(13) a

-$53

Odorous wasteb

, ... 30 Liquids ... . ., $53-.$237

Low risk hazardous waste $13-$2 9 Solids and/or highly toxic Iiquids. $395-$791

(e g., 011 and gas drilling muds)

Hazardous ., ., ., . . $30-$80

Extremely hazardous, ... , $50-$140

aHazard Cfeslgrlatlon based on Call fOrnla’s Class lflcatlon system

bsome cement kilns and Ilght aggregate manufacturers pay for these comparatively clean, high ener9Y value wastes

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, compiled from Booz, Allen & Hamilton, quoted prices from ntne major waste

management firms, 1981 and from the California Alr Resources Board, Augusl 1982
198 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

quirements are sufficient to correct imbalances

between current and future costs for facility

operators, Demonstration of financial capability for corrective action that may be necessary

in the future at landfills and surface impoundments is not currently required by the Federal

regulatory program, although the issue is being

considered. Corrective action costs are estimated to be greater than the present value cost

of either financial assurance for post-closure

maintenance or liability insurance. Moreover,

these corrective action costs are annual expenditures. Actual field data about the time required to mitigate contamination to an aquifer

are limited, but estimates are generally on the

order of many years. Thus, demonstration by

a facility operator of financial capability to mitigate potential ground-water contamination

could have a greater economic effect on the

facility operator than the financial or liability

insurance requirements currently in place.

It should be noted that transportation costs

to waste management facilities can be quite

substantial, with long distances increasing direct costs by as much as 50 to 100 percent. In

some locations, there may be no near alternatives to land disposal, and the added cost for

transportation makes land disposal even more

attractive economically. Also, the smaller the

quantity of waste handled, the greater the per

unit treatment or disposal costs. There are,

however, new commercial enterprises aimed

particularly at the small generator market, and

various techniques can be used to reduce handling costs, including using trucks that deliver

chemical feedstocks to pick up carefully labeled and separated hazardous waste.

Ocean Disposal and Dispersal

Early in the 1970’s, concern was expressed

about the rapidly increasing quantity and variety of material that was being disposed in

oceans. During hearings on the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

(MPRA) testimony before Congress emphasized the fragile nature of the marine environment and our lack of knowledge about effects

of ocean waste disposal on human health and

ocean organisms. With passage of MPRA, the

ocean was given the status of a “last resert”

disposal option, to be considered only after

other alternatives had been exhausted.

Ten years later, controversy about the appropriate level of ocean protection and use continues. A new understanding of potential environmental risk resulting from land disposal practices has led some to reconsider the ocean as

a disposal medium. Interest in using oceans for

hazardous waste management has increased

as the volume of waste, land disposal costs, and

opposition to land disposal sites have increased. Even some dedicated proponents of

ocean protection acknowledge that the ocean

has a role, albeit limited, in waste disposal management, if there are assurances that ocean resources, especially fish, are protected from destruction or from being made toxic to humans.

Certain types of wastes may be better suited

for ocean disposal than others. For the most

part, however, current scientific information

will not resolve uncertainties.

Current Usage

After passage of MPRA, control over ocean

disposal became apparent by decreases in the

volume (5 million tons in 1973 to 3 million in

1980) and decreases in approved disposal permits (332 in 1973 to 26 in 1.980). Currently,

ocean disposal in the United States involves the

following types of material:

1. The disposal of material produced by

dredging activities necessary to keep the

Nation’s ports and harbors operating. 176

Under regulations established by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, dredge spoils

*

7

’ Lee Martine, “Ocean Dumping A Time to Reappraise?”

Issue Brief No. Ib81088, prepared for the Library of Congress,

Congressional Research Service, 1982.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 199

2.

3

4,

are transported by ship or barge to sites

approved by EPA. These materials account for an estimated 80 to 90 percent of

all U.S. waste deposited in the ocean and

for the most part would not be considered

hazardous under the RCRA definition. In

1981, it was estimated that only 5 percent

of this type of material would be considered hazardous using bioassay techniques.177

Sewage sludge produced by municipal

secondary treatment plants. In New York

and New Jersey, sludge waste is transported daily by ship or barge to an EPAapproved site in the New York Bight. The

volume of waste disposed in the Atlantic

Ocean has increased. These wastes could

contain variable quantities of toxic constituents and pathogens that would pose hazards to the marine environment and public

health.

The discharge of municipal waste and

some industrial waste through pipelines

to ocean outfalls. This activity is regulated

by EPA under the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA). Waste disposal through ocean outfalls is a practice

used in Boston, on the west coast, in

Hawaii, and in Alaska. Along the southern

California coast, for example, 30 outfalls

discharge an estimated 4.5 billion liters of

sewage and sewage sludge daily. ]76 As of

January 1981, there were 232 land-based

dischargers whose outfalls entered the territorial sea and beyond; 74 of these were

from industrial sources. This material can

pose hazards.

The disposal of acids. This activity occurs

at three EPA-approved sites off the east

coast and Puerto Rico. Due largely to efforts to recycle acids, the volume of this

industrial waste decreased by 49 percent

between 1973 and 1979. Of 150 industrial

“’National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere,

“The Role of the Ocean in a Waste Management Strategy, ” A

Special Report to the President and Congress (Washington, D. C.:

U.S. Government Printing office, 1981).

‘“A. J, Mearns, “Ecological Effects of Ocean Sewage Outfalls:

Observations and Lessons,” OCEANUS, vol. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp.

44-54.

5.

ocean disposal permits that existed in

1973, only 13 remained in April 1979.179

Acids can be considered as suitable waste

for ocean disposal since they can be neutralized through the large buffering capacity in the marine environment. The mode

of discharge, from a barge or vessel, is designed to maximize the initial dispersion

and dilution in seawater; there is usually

little density difference between the waste

plume and the surrounding surface water

after the initial few seconds. Acid wastes

are almost immediately neutralized by seawater.

Marine incineration of toxic waste aboard

specially designed vessels. This is not

really ocean disposal, but rather thermal

destruction of organic material at sea.

Within the United States, experience has

been limited primarily to experimental

“burns” involving organic chloride waste,

Agent Orange, and, most recently, PCBS.

l80

Constraints on this method are discussed

in the previous section on thermal destruction.

Legislative Background

The belief that ocean dumping was threatening both the value of the marine environment

and human health led to national and international measures to limit, if not prevent, the continued use of the ocean for disposal of waste.

Such measures included:

1.

2.

3.

179 P

ing in

MPRA;

the Convention of the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes

and Other Matter, known as the London

Dumping Convention, ratified by the

United States in 1974; and

FWPC, which regulates waste discharges

within territorial seas.

W, Anderson and R. T. Dewling, “Industrial Ocean DumpEPA Region II—Regulatory Aspects, ” in Ocean Dumping

of]ndustrial Wastes, B. H. Ketchum, D. R. Kester, and P, K. Park

(eds.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1981).

100K, S, Kam]et, “ocean Disposal of organoch]orine WaSteS

hy At-Sea Incineration, “ in &ean Dumping of Industrial Wastes,

B. H. Ketchum, D. R. Kester, and P. K. Park (eds.) (New York:

Plenum Press, 1981).
200 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Contro!

The EPA has responsibility to regulate ocean

disposal so as:

. . . to prevent or strictly limit the dumping

into ocean waters of any materials which

would adversely affect human health, welfare,

or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities

[Public Law 92-532).

The disposal of certain specific wastes (including nuclear materials and most biological and

chemical warfare agents) is prohibited, and

ocean disposal of other types of waste may be

considered only after all alternatives have been

exhausted. Although the Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility for disposal of

dredge spoils, EPA was given the authority to

approve all disposal sites, including ocean,

land, and wetlands.l8l

EPA is directed to establish criteria for review of ocean-disposal permit applications. In

establishing or reviewing these criteria, the

EPA Administrator is required to consider at

least nine factors specified in MPRA, six are

related to the effects on human health and the

environment, two relate to the availability and

effects of alternative methods of disposal, and

one designates appropriate ocean sites.

The system established by EPA provides four

classes of ocean disposal permits:

1. general permits for the disposal of relatively innocuous waste;

2. special permits for waste that would not

“unreasonably degrade” the marine environment, as determined by the types and

concentrations of constituents present;

3. interim permits, generally conditioned on

an agreement to phase out the particular

dumping activity; and

4. emergency and research permits.

Only when reviewing interim permit requests

will EPA take into account the need for disposal of a specific waste and the limitation of

land-based alternatives.

Ialwl]]lam L, Lahey, “ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge: The

Tide Turns from Protection to Management, ” Harvard Environmental Law Review, VO]. 6, No. 2, 1982, pp. 395431.

In 1977, congressional concern centered on

the progress being made in phasing out the

dumping of sewage sludge in the ocean. Thus,

amendments adopted that year gave legislative

force to EPA’s regulatory effort to impose an

absolute ban on all ocean disposal of sewage

sludge after December 31, 1981. The regulations implementing this ban were challenged,

however, by New York City, which sought an

extension of its interim permit to dispose of

sludge in the New York Bight. The U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of New York

ruled in favor of New York City. The Court required EPA to give New York City an opportunity to present evidence indicating that disposal of its waste in the New York Bight had

“relatively inconsequential effects” and that

land disposal of this material might prove far

more harmful to the environment and human

health.

182 EPA was required to consider “all

statutory factors relevant to a reasoned determination, ” including the costs and dangers of

land-based disposal. EPA did not appeal the

decision and is now in the process of developing new regulations to replace those that were

invalidated by the Court,

Controversy Over Ocean Use

for Hazardous Wastes

Arguments in Favor of Increased Ocean Disposal

Experience and research data obtained over

the past 10 years and still being accumulated

contribute to the debate regarding appropriate

use of oceans in waste management. Arguments in favor of greater use conclude that the

marine environment has the capacity to assimilate hazardous constituents. The assimilative

capacity may be defined as the amount of a

particular material that can be contained

within a body of seawater without producing

an unacceptable impact on living organisms

or nonliving resources.

A recent scientific assessment supporting

this conclusion was reported by the Regional

Seas Program of the United Nations Environmental Program. l83 The results of the 4-year

‘*z Ibid.

lmWebster Bayard, “World’s Oceans Became Cleaner Over the

Last Decade, Study Shows,” The New York Times, Nov. 7, 1982,

p. 26.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 201

study suggest that oceans are able to assimilate

toxic substances in most areas without extreme

disturbance of the ecosystem. In addition, a

number of scientists report that the ocean has

a self-cleansing ability that would enable it to

absorb waste without unacceptable consequences. 184

There is evidence that, in some instances, the

marine environment can recover within a few

years from pollution previously perceived as

heavy.

185 186 Studies of the outfalls in coastal

areas suggest that short-term effects of sewage

on marine plant and animal communities do

occur, However, over the long-term these communities appear to have the ability to recover.

For example, when discharge was initiated at

the Orange County outfall in 1972 (at a depth

of 60 m], it took a full year for fish and benthic

infaunal communities to show adverse effects.

Conversely, after cessation of 15 years of continuous discharge at another site (a depth of

20 m):

. . . the infauna changed from deposit-feedingdominated communities to the normal, suspension-feeding-dominated communities

within three to six months. Copper concentrations in sediments returned to background

within a year; trawl catches of bottom fish also

decreased, relative to background, within one

to two years of discharge termination.187

similar recovery was evident at the sewage

sludge site previously used by the City of Philadelphia.

188 Two years after disposal was terminated:

. . . bacteria and virus levels had declined sufficiently for the Food and Drug Administration

to lift restrictions on shellfishing.

Such responses, however, depend on the

physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of the sites, For example, sites in the New

York Bight have poor dispersion capability,

high susceptibility to deterioration of ecosys-

—

‘lwI,ahey, op. cit.

1n5Mea r ns, op. cit.

1~W. Bascom, “The Effects of Waste Disposal on the Coastal

Waters of Southern California, ” Environ. Sci. & Techn., vol. 16,

No. 4, 1982, pp. 226A-236A,

‘“’ Mearns, op. cit.

‘ Oa!.a hey, op. cit.

tern conditions (e.g., oxygen depletion), and accumulation of persistent chemicals in marine

sediment. In contrast, a site 106 miles offshore

from New York City does have dispersion

capabilities. Disposal of sewage sludge at this

site might enable natural biological and chemical processes to incorporate sludge without

detrimental effects.

These somewhat positive experiences with

the disposition of constituent fate and their effects have bolstered the cause for greater use

of the ocean in waste management. However,

these experiences, for the most part, have little relevance to most hazardous waste. Some

scientists argue that effective plans can be

developed for disposal of highly toxic substances without endangering public health.l89

It is argued that information on marine pollution gained during the past 30 years provides

a basis for developing models that can be used

to determine the assimilative capacity of coastal waters. Supporters contend that, as more information accumulates about life processes in

the ocean, it should be possible to identify

pollution problems and formulate remedial actions.

Arguments Against Increased Ocean Disposal

While few would maintain that oceans should

be completely excluded from waste disposal,

there are arguments against increased use of

the marine environment in waste management.

The ocean’s status as a global commons

makes it more vulnerable to misuse. The “not

in my backyard” attitude that works to block

siting of land-based waste facilities does not exist for the ocean, Economics also emphasize

this vulnerability. While prodisposal forces cite

the growing differential between land and

ocean disposal, it is pointed out that there is

virtually no cost for an ocean site itself; thus

that option will always be cheaper than landbased alternatives.

The suggestion that managers now have adequate data and reliable models to predict and

understand the effects of dumping in the ocean

—— 

16UE. D. Goldberg, “The Oceans as Waste Space: The Argumerit, ” OCEANUS, vol. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp. 2-9.
202 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

also is disputed. The argument that current

data show that impacts of disposal are less than

anticipated 10 years ago is criticized on the

basis that research efforts have not been sufficiently sophisticated to provide sound evidence.

The usefulness of existing models for assimilative capacity is also questioned. Such models

attempt to describe the ocean’s ability to

achieve acceptable levels of concentration and

distribution of hazardous substances. A number

1,

2.

3.

4.

It

of weaknesses have been noted: 190

the lack of empirical data, limiting efforts

to estimate appropriate concentrations of

hazardous contaminants;

the lack of information on long-term fate

of constituents and effects on the marine

environment;

only single constituents are considered, ignoring any synergistic effects and thus,

possibly underestimating damage to the

environment; and

uncertainties about the relationship between amounts of waste deposited and the

environmental response; unanticipated delayed responses can result in serious underestimation of environmental impacts.

has been suggested that the assimilative

capacity concept is useful as an organizing

principle. 191 If it is used to focus research and

monitoring on relevant questions, the concept

is beneficial. It can also be valuable in defining the lower limits of accepted environmental

concentrations in the marine environment.

Critics argue, however, that assimilative

model assessments cannot, now or at any

time soon, serve as a sufficient basis for predicting the hazard potential of persistent substances in the marine environment. A particularly important criticism is that such modeling may not reveal delayed concentrations of

toxic substances in surprising places and

ways.

IWLahey, op. cit.

191K. S, Kamlet, “The Oceans as Waste Space: The Rebuttal, ”

OCEANUS, VO]. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp. 10-17.

There is a belief that the assimilative capacity

concept is already failing. 192 Assessments of

single-constituent effects will not provide sufficient information; there are hazardous constituents existing in various forms being released

in combination at different locations. A solution suggested by critics would be to develop

closed systems that would eliminate any release of hazardous compounds from any disposal medium to the environnment. With this

approach:

, . . the costs of managing, including recovering or storing or detoxifying wastes, are appropriately assigned to the products of the industry, not diffused as a general cost onto the public at large.le3

Proponents of continued strict limits on

ocean disposal do not suggest that the oceans

should be inviolate. The value of multimedia

management is recognized, but initial comparisons of the environmental merits of the various

options are necessary. Once the medium of

choice is determined, other relevant factors, including economics and technological feasibility, should be considered. There is clearly more

support for using the oceans for the less hazardous, biodegradable (and less controversial)

waste than for substances such as PCBS,

Effective management of ocean-disposal activities should be preceded by a thorough understanding of the fundamental biological,

chemical, and physical processes in the marine

environment. While such understanding has

improved significantly during the past 10

years, particularly for deep-ocean waters, little or nothing is known about the long-term fate

of these wastes “or the capacity of these pelagic

oceanic regions to assimilate wastes without

detrimental effects. “

194 particularly, there is a

IWG. M. Woodwell, “Waste Disposal: Time for a New Appreach, ” adapted from remarks made before joint meetings of

the American Geophysical Society and the American Society

for Limnology and Oceanography, San Antonio, Tex., Feb. 17,

1982.

~O~Ibid.

194D. R, Kester, B. H , Ketchum, and p’. K park [eds, ), “~uture

Prospects of Ocean Dumping?” in tiean Dumping of lndustria)

Wastes (New York: Plenum Press, 1981), pp. 505-517.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 203

need to improve the assessment of the biological effects of pollutants in the marine environment. Current information, therefore, shifts

the burden to potential users of the ocean to

document and defend such use.

Future Research and Data Needs

This reassessment of the ocean’s potential for

waste disposal comes at a time when there are

growing limitations on and increasing problems with land-based methods. More recent

legislation than MPRA–i.e., SWDA and RCRA

—have imposed new and stringent regulation

on land-based disposal of waste. Well-publicized incidents such as the Love Canal have

caused public acceptance of landfills and other

waste disposal facilities near residential areas

to plummet. It is recognized that the high probability that land-disposal activities might decline during the 1980’s, may increase interests

in ocean-waste disposal .l95 A Federal program

is needed that would emphasize research and

monitoring before allowing disposal of the

most hazardous waste in various oceanic environments.

Because of the high value placed on marine

biota as a resource, “the biological consequences of ocean dumping are generally regarded as establishing the acceptable limits of

waste disposal in the marine environ merit.”

Thus, determining what biological parameters

should be measured is seen as a major sc ientific problem. The International Council for the

Exploration of the Seas identified four classes

of data needs:

1. Bioassay measurements, ranging from determination of lethal concentrations for

particular organisms to changes in growth

rates brought about by various concentrations of a waste. Where possible, more extensive tests should address synergistic effects of multiple contaminants.

2. Physiological techniques for measurement

of growth, scope for growth, and feeding

rates—considered the best techniques for

— 1Q5 Nat 10 Ila ] A~\. i SC) rY, (Jorn rn ltte~ o n Oceans and Atmosphere,

1981, 0~ Cit.

3.

4.

assessing biological effects of contaminants on fish, crustaceans, polychaetes,

and mollusks.

Biochemical measurements, such as reproductive biochemistry, hormone metabolism, and blood-chemical analyses.

Ecological assessments—the most direct

and comprehensive approach to determining effects of constituent, but difficult to

implement.

Several programs are available for obtaining

these types of data and include EPA’s discharge permit program (characterized as a

load-assessment approach), the baseline studies

program of the Bureau of Land Management

(trend-assessment approach to identifying impacts], and the National Marine Fisheries Service strategy to assess the “health” of fisheries

resources on the basis of periodic environmental measurements of selected parameters.

Past experience in “crisis response” may provide useful information for considering ocean

disposal of hazardous waste.l96 Identification

of common factors in environmental crises

concerning mercury poisoning and contamination by DDT, PCB, and Kepone, if recognized

and considered in future monitoring strategies,

could lead to earlier warning of adverse impacts from ocean disposal. In each of these examples, there was a lack of understanding of

the movement of the contaminant in the marine environment and of sensitive organisms

or critical factors leading to the observed impact. Thus, future monitoring should be designed to consider fate of constituents and to

identify the sensitive points in the ecosystem

for each constituent of concern.

Certain types of waste maybe better suited

for ocean disposal than others. *97 Water and

air are dispersal media, whereas land is a

containment medium. Waste management

should consider whether a persistent toxic

material is best disposed in a dispersal or a

containment medium. For persistent synthetic

‘

W Kester, op. cit.

‘“K. S. Kamlet, “Cons!ramts on the Ocean Uurnping of Hazardous Wastes, ” prepared for presentation at the Northeast Conference on Hazardous Waste, Ocean Citj, NJ,, 1982.
204 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

chemicals, such as PCBS, Kepone, and DDT,

isolation and containment or destruction to the

fullest extent possible may be preferred to

ocean disposal. For persistent, naturally occurring materials, such as heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons, a reasonable argument

might be that dispersal is sensible. However,

large or continuous additions of even such materials can produce harmful departures from

background levels, particularly on a localized

basis. For certain amounts of nontoxic or biodegradable materials, the assimilative capacity of specific ocean locations may be adequate. Acids, alkalis, and nutrients are examples. A management philosophy aimed at

maximizing dispersal of such materials,

while avoiding disruption of local ecological

systems, might be most sensible.

When considering possibly acceptable

ocean-disposal activities, it is also necessary

to consider the various advantages and disadvantages of different sites. For example, shallow, continental-shelf waters offer the advantages of being better understood, based on experience and scientific research, requiring lowto-moderate transportation costs, and a localization of potential detrimental effects.l98 On the

negative side, the resource value of these areas

is typically greater. There also is a tendency

for substances to accumulate in bottom-living

organisms and sediments in these locations.

Deep-ocean waters, on the other hand, offer the

advantage of broader dispersion and dilution

of waste and reduced conflicts with other

marine resources. Disadvantages include uncertainties about the ultimate fate and effect

of waste, with potential large-scale impacts,

and a likely greater effect on planktonic and

bottom-living organisms.

Technical Regulatory Issues

It is recognized that a number of important

issues should be resolved before proceeding

with widespread or indiscriminate use of the

oceans for hazardous waste management.

Thus, a current study recommends that:

Before it is too late and major investments

1e*Kester, op. cit.

are made which may tie us into a long-term

commitment, it would be best to:

1.

2.

3.

4.

test predictions against field experiments;

develop a waste management plan for

coastal areas which considers effects of

all pollutant sources;

design delivery systems which will minimize environmental degradation;

continue to work on developing pretreatment techniques that will ‘per-m-it waste

material to be considered as a resource

rather than a waste.199

Scientists must determine what additional information is needed to evaluate oceanic discharge under the condition that oceanic resources must be maintained in renewable

states and threats (even if long term) to human

health are minimized. What are the long-term

effects of the very low levels of constituents in

the sea? What are the synergistic and antagonistic effects of collectives of constituents?

While both general and specific stress indicators are available, such as those for metals and

petroleum components, there remains a need

to identify specific indices applicable to individual or classes of constituents. Work should

be done to compare alternate ocean-disposal

strategies, such as dispersing waste above or

beneath the thermocline.200 Federal actions that

should precede any widespread movement to

use oceans for hazardous waste management

include:

20l

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

assessing the state of pollution in U.S.

coastal and deep-ocean waters;

precisely defining present standards and

criteria in terms of specific constituents

and regional bodies of water;

developing an information system to routinely report what has been learned;

coordinating all research to achieve the

maximum results from limited research

funds;

implementing a cost-effective network of

coastal water-quality monitoring;

simplifying regulatory procedures; and

continuously evaluating and reevaluating

water-quality standards.

‘WR. L. Swanson and M. Devine, “The Pendulum Swings

Again: Ocean Dumping Policy,” Environment vol. 24, June 1982,

pp. 14-20.

2WKester, op. cit.

201J. P. Walsh, “U.S. Policy on Marine Pollution: Changes

Ahead,” OCEAIVLR5, vol. 24, No. 1, 1981, pp. 18-24.
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 205

Uncontrolled Sites

This section discusses methods for the identification, evaluation, comparison, and remediition of uncontrolled sites. A number of policy

ssues associated with the CERCLA legislation

and its implementation by EPA and the States

are discussed in chapters 6 and 7. The objecive of this section is to consider several techlical areas related to cleaning up uncontrolled

iites, including the problems of identifying

iites, developing plans for cleanup, and selectng remediation technologies, *

The magnitude of the uncontrolled site probem is generally recognized to be substantial.

Although the precise number has not been

determined, there are probably some 15,000 uncontrolled sites in the Nation requiring remediation. Costs of remediation vary greatly but will

probably average several million dollars per

ite, * * The total national cost of cleaning up

uncontrolled sites is probably in the range of

$1O billion to $40 billion, far more than the curent $1.6 billion estimated to be collected under

IERCLA by 1985, A recent congressional analsis revealed that, through FY 1982, only $88

million of $452 million collected under CERCLA

ad been expended for cleanup, no cleanup

unds had been earmarked or expended on 97

f the initial 160 priority sites determined by

JPA, and only 3 CERCLA sites had been totally

leaned up (1 entirely with State funds). 202

● For the purposes of this discussion, emergency response and

mmediate ” removal are not considered as remediation of a

te. They are conventional actions associated with accidents

ld spills to remove immediate threats, generally followed by

ore technology-intensive and systematic efforts. Also, those

:tivlties defined within EPA’s National Contingency Plan as

nitial remedial” will not be considered as distinct, technologally, from remedial control technologies. Differences between

ese technologies concern timeframes, funding sources, and

gulatory approaches rather than substantial technical difrences.

● *For example, the cleanup of one of the ]nltial 160 priority

tes, the Seymour site in Indiana, is estimated by EPA to cost

2.7 million to remove 60,000 barrels of wastes and to clean

I contaminated soil and ground water beneath the site. An exnple of a less costly remedial action is the Trammel Crow site

Texas where five sludge pits with over 5 million gal of waste

;re cleaned up onsite using a solidification process and cost

78,000. In both cases additional moneys were spent for ini11 studies of the sites.

zozstudy by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Transpor-

!Ion, and Tourism, as reported in Hazardous Waste Report,

IV. 1, 1982,

Uncontrolled sites fall into three categories:

1.

2.

3.

Operational uncontrolled sites are those

hazardous waste sites requiring, but not

currently receiving, attention to ameliorate

dangerous conditions. Either ongoing releases to the environment or the threat of

imminent releases of hazardous waste

would constitute such conditions,

Inactive sites are those sites no longer receiving hazardous waste and for which

there is an identifiable responsible party

or owner.

Abandoned sites are uncontrolled hazardous waste sites where no responsible party

or owner has been identified, or where

such parties lack the resources to take the

steps needed to remedy danger conditions

at the site.

Issues Concerning Effectiveness

The national effort to clean up uncontrolled

sites is in its early stages. The magnitude of the

problem, in terms of potential harm to human

health and the environment and of potential

costs of cleanup, is such that it is imperative

to give considerable attention to three major

issues, which are discussed below:

1. What basis should be used to determine

the end point for a remedial action? This is

sometimes asked as the question “How clean

is clean?”

This question of extent of cleanup is often

addressed by defining some nonharmful, or acceptable, level of contamination that may be

left at a site after remedial actions are terminated. This approach, however, can be difficult

to apply since the toxicological effects of many

wastes and of low levels of some wastes are

unknown. This could lead to somewhat arbitrary choices of acceptable residual chemical

contamination.

Extent of cleanup can also be considered

from the perspective of protection of the public

and the environment in a cost-effective way.

This may be accomplished by various approaches, such as:
206 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control —

● An alternate water supply might be provided for a community using contaminated ground water, rather than cleaning

the original supply. Such an approach

might be appropriate for small numbers of

water users, particularly when there might

be a natural reduction of the contamination in time (e. g., with biodegradable organic waste). Sometimes outright purchases of the affected homes might be the

most efficient way to accomplish the goal

of limiting human exposure.

● Parties responsible for a number of sites

might propose a partial cleanup, less than

might be necessary to eliminate all potential future risk. Thus, buried drums and the

most contaminated soil might be removed,

without extensive ground-water recovery

and treatment. Long-term environmental

monitoring then would be provided to assure that there is no release in excess of

predefine action levels.

2. How can the relative cost-effectiveness

of alternative cleanup approaches be determined?

There are many difficulties in trying to analyze the economics and cost effectiveness of

various remediation options. There is no question, however, that the costs of remediating uncontrolled waste sites are high. For example,

the initial phases of site identification, evaluation, and assessment may cost from $50,000 to

several hundred thousand dollars. The preliminary engineering efforts taken before remediation may cost several hundred thousand dollars

more, and actual remediation generally costs

from several hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars per site. There has not been

enough accumulated experience to quantify

and compare how effectively different technologies reduce risks. Some of the factors that affect analyses of cost effectiveness include:

●

●

public policy regarding the level of acceptable risk subsequent to a site remediation

remains unclear;

the operating history of cleanup technologies at uncontrolled sites has not been

sufficiently documented;

●

●

●

the degree of success of the various technology options is sometimes site-specific.

Therefore, the comparison of alternate

technologies for a specific site remediation

cannot always be extrapolated into a valid

generic comparison;

the long timespans involved in some of the

technologies require assumptions regarding their long-term effectiveness. Some of

the technology options generate future

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

costs that are difficult to estimate; and

the possibility of systems failure and the

need for subsequent remediation are diffi

cult to predict. Only crude estimates of

these potential “second-round costs” are

available for comparison.

3. Which current technologies may create

future problems? Some technological choices

could create needs for future remediation, for

extended operation and maintenance proce

dures, with continuing risks and costs.

The choice of a technology for site remedia

tion can result in the need for certain long-tern

commitments. Such requirements might in

elude physical maintenance of the grounds anc

site security if residuals of hazardous waste o:

other potential hazards remain after site reme

diation. Further, certain technologies, by vir

tue of the time needed for implementation (i.e.

ground water recovery and treatment), involve

long-term operation and maintenance costs

Also, there is a continuing level of risk during

the implementation of these long-term technol

ogies. These deferred costs, as well as the possi

ble costs for alternate remedial technology i

the initial control technology fails, should be

considered when making a choice between an

initially more expensive remediation (e.g., ex

cavation with offsite disposal or treatment) and

a long-term technology with lower initial cos

(e.g., encapsulation).

Taking remedial actions that are effective in

the long term is advisable because new uncon

trolled sites are likely to be identified, requix

ing still further expenditures in the future. Cur

rent practices of land disposal of hazardou

waste may be creating future needs for reined
Ch. 5– Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 207

al action. Disposal sites, even state-of-the-art

installations meeting regulatory standards for

design, operation, closure, and post-closure

monitoring, do not always eliminate the possibility of releases of hazardous materials into

the environment, Moreover, because of a number of exemptions in RCRA itself and of those

resulting from administrative decisions, hazardous wastes are being disposed in subtitle D

sanitary landfills that are not designed for hazardous waste. Such facilities have already accounted for large numbers of uncontrolled

sites, and others will likely become uncontrolled sites.

Site Identification and Evaluation

The amount of information available regarding uncontrolled sites (e. g., location, number,

and level of hazard) is generally recognized to

be incomplete, There are continuing efforts at

both the Federal and State levels to identify uncontrolled sites, with the problem being acute

for abandoned sites for which there are no responsible parties available to provide detailed

information (see ch. 7). It is generally accepted

that many thousands of uncontrolled sites

exist.

There are three means of identifying uncontrolled sites:

1. Federal and State efforts to prepare inventories of sites based on file information or

on field investigations;

2. reporting by the general public and by parties such as developers that may discover

sites accidentally; and

3. requirements that industries producing or

managing hazardous wastes submit information on sites either created by them or

known to them.

Following the identification of a problem

site, considerable data is required for evaluation of the level of hazard posed by the site.

Relevant data include both physical and descriptive factors. Physical considerations include the population or environment at risk;

critical pathways; site conditions, including

hydrogeologic characteristics; waste amounts,

forms, and compositions; and evidence of actual releases, Table 37 summarizes the types

of data required. Nontechnical descriptive information might be collected concerning history of the site, ownership, adjacent properties,

previous administrative or legal actions, associated potentially responsible parties such as generators and waste haulers, and other relevant

background information. These nontechnical

types of information are important for obtaining more detailed technical information, as

Table 37.— Data Required To Identify and

Evaluate Uncontrolled Sites

Type of data—spectfic factors

Site assessmenf:

Wastes:

● Quantity

● Corn position

● For m

. Condition of waste (containerized, bulk, burled, open

lagoon)

● Acute hazards (acute toxicity, flammability,

explosiveness, etc. )

● Chronic cumuIative hazard (toxicity, mutagenicity,

carclnogenicity, teratogenicity, radioactivity, etc. )

● Synergistic/antagonistic components

Site:

● Geological features

• Topographical

● Vegetation

● Surface water

● Ground water

. Structures

● Access

Exposure:

Releases

features

Ž Past or present releases

• Potential for future releases

• Migration routes of releases (air, ground water, stirface water, overland flow or runoff, etc.)

Potential exposure:

Ž Estimates of release quantities

Ž Exposure routes

Risk:

Environments:

● Waters

• Land areas

● A i r

● Vegetation

● WiIdlife

● Agricultural areas

● Recreational areas

Populations:

• Location

● Sensitivity

• Numbers

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment
208 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

well as for other purposes, such as enforcement

actions. This is necessary because site inspections are difficult, costly, and sometimes dangerous, and because there often is no immediate source of technical information.

A site inspection to observe surface conditions may include:

sampling of wastes, and surface and

ground waters,

air monitoring,

some random excavation to identify buried

materials,

magnetic surveys to locate buried metal

(possible containerized material),

resistivity surveys (to determine whether

there is underground contamination), and

an assessment of site conditions in general.

Determining what a site contains can present

substantial problems of sampling and analysis.

Only a limited number of samples can be taken

because sampling itself can pose risks of release of hazardous materials from the site. With

hundreds or thousands of drums that are often

unmarked, and a relatively small number of

samples taken, there is no assurance that analysis will accurately indicate the hazardous contents of the site, or that any hazardous materials will be discovered. There are also substantial problems concerning the detection of hazardous materials in underground water supplies. There is no consensus on drilling methods, sampling frequency or protocol, standard

quality assurance procedures, or the number

of wells needed to define problems, Drillers run

the risk of contaminating clean aquifers while

drilling into polluted ones.

There are also considerable problems concerning chemical analysis. Standard methods

such as mass spectroscopy do not necessarily

yield useful results for many chemicals. Newer,

sophisticated laboratory procedures may require laboratory facilities not available to investigators. There are few standard testing procedures for complex waste constituents. Waste

may contain byproduct chemicals, or altered

chemicals, and laboratories may not have

standards for their identification. There are indications of substantial problems concerning

quality control in both government and private laboratories.

Techniques for the comparison of sites often

involve the combination of various “weighted”

components of hazard into a single numerical

measure for a site. Such values for various sites

are compared in order to produce a ranked listing, from which remedial priorities are then

established. (see chs. 6 and 7 for discussions

of hazard evaluations, risk assessment, and

ranking systems),

Site Cleanup Plans

Once a decision is made to proceed with remedial action at a site, it becomes necessary

to establish a step-by-step procedure for implementation. The basic steps in remedial action

or site cleanup are:

1. preliminary assessment,

2. feasibility study,

3. engineering design,

4. construction,

5. startup, trouble shooting, and cleanup, and

6. possible long-term operation and maintenance.

Following assessment and the decision to effect remediation, the feasibility study would

identify alternative engineering options for mitigation, including limitations, costs, and effectiveness. The feasibility study should evaluate

the various remedial technologies for the specific conditions at the site under consideration.

The

1.

2.

3.

basic technological options are:

removal followed by appropriate disposal

or treatment—e.g., fixation, neutralization,

or any other conventional technology, or

by treatment of the waste on the uncontrolled site (see discussion earlier in this

chapter);

pathway control through encapsulation or

containment, or by ground or surface water diversion;

mitigation of exposures by providing an

alternate water supply, land use restrictions, or evacuation of people;

An important issue concerning the choice of

remedial technologies, because of current EPA
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 209

policies (see ch. 7), is the difference in initial,

capital costs v. longer term operating and

maintenance (O&M) costs. The specifics of

O&M depend on the technology chosen. Those

technological options that permanently deal

with the hazard often have high initial costs

and low O&M costs. Conversely, those options

that, for example, do not destroy or treat the

waste to reduce risks are likely to have high

and uncertain O&M costs. For example, excavation and removal followed by treatment or

disposal would initially be both capital-intensive and labor-intensive, but subsequent O&M

requirements would be minimal. Alternatively,

encapsulation with ground water recovery and

treatment would generally incur lower initial

costs but have subsequent large O&M costs.

Implementation of engineered remedial activities at a site may require a wide variety of

ancilliary and support activities, depending on

the conditions at the specific site and the

choice of control technology. Epidemiological

studies may be required when there has been

a release of hazardous waste that may have affected public health or if there is a need for

baseline data to monitor future effects arising

from the choice of site-control technology.

Chemical analysis may also be needed for

many purposes, ranging from quality control

work during cleanup, protection of onsite

workers exposed to hazardous materials, to

verification that the intended level of cleanup

has been reached.

Technical Approaches for Remedial Control

The following review and discussion of the

generic technology options is based on consultations with professionals working in the area

of uncontrolled site remediation, a recent study

for EPA of remediation technologies, 203 a n d

proceedings from annual conferences on uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.204 Any technological option for site remediation has limitations that will keep it from being effective

under all circumstances. Examples of technol-

— .

ZOJ~nvlronmenta] ~rote~tl~n Agency, ‘‘ Handbook—Reined ial

Action at Waste Disposal Sites, ” EPA 625/6-82-006, June 1982.

Z04These \,o]umes are published by the Hazardous Materials

Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, Md.

ogies are discussed below, and a summary of

the advantages and disadvantages of primary

technological options is given in table 38. A recent survey of technologies used at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites indicates the distribution of currently used technologies, as

shown in table 39. These technologies may be

grouped into two broad categories:

. waste control technologies; and

. environmental pathway control.

Waste control technologies for uncontrolled

sites act on the amount of waste or on some

hazardous property or constituent of the waste.

Such methods include:

Excavation and removal offsite of the

hazardous waste.–This method is suitable

for all sites with containerized or bulk disposal of waste. Normally it must be followed with some type of secondary cleanup of ground water if the materials deposited were water soluble, and evidence

shows ground water contamination. While

such techniques eliminate or minimize

both future O&M costs and future risk to

the public and environment, there are high

initial costs, with possible higher risk of

exposure during the period of excavation.

To some degree, risk may be relocated

depending on the offsite disposal option

chosen. Populations and environments

along routes chosen for transportation between sites and disposal facilities are exposed to risk of spills while wastes are in

transit. Those responsible for the remedial

action become generators under the provisions of RCRA with all the associated responsibilities and liabilities. Such methods

are neither cost effective for large amounts

of low-level hazardous waste, nor for uncontainerized buried waste dispersed

through a large area.

Excavation with onsite treatment.—This

approach can be used for some onsite

treatment technologies such as fixation,

use of mobile treatment units for physical

or chemical treatment or incineration, or

for site preparation and lining prior to reinterment. Such methods can expose

wastes quite efficiently to a treatment
210 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 38.—Advantages and Disadvantages of Control Technologies

Type Advantages

Waste control technologies:

Excavation and removal followed by

treatment or disposal

Excavation with onsite treatment

option

Neutralization/stabilization

Biodegradation

Solution mining

Environmental pathway (vector) control:

Isolation, containment, and

encapsulation

Ground water diversion and recovery

Surface water diversion

Ground and surface water treatment

Gas collection or venting

a) Good for containerized or bulk disposal

a) Expose waste to complete treatment

b) No off site exposure

a) Useful in areas where waste can be

excavated prior to mixing

b) Low risk of exposure if injection

method is used

Low costs

Useful in homogeneous uncontainerized

solvent-soluble, buried solid hazardous

waste

Useful for large volumes of mixed

hazardous and domestic waste, and

low-hazard waste

Useful if soils are permeable or if there

are high or perched water tables

a) Easy to implement

b) No transport of waste off site

a) Can be used onsite or off site

Low costs

Disadvantages

a) High initial costs

b) Potential higher risk during cleanup

c) Relocation of risk unless waste is

treated

d) Not cost effective for low-level hazardous waste or uncontainerized

buried waste in large area

a) High initial cost

b) Difficult to assure monitoring

effectiveness

c) Some risk of exposure

d) Not cost effective for large amount

of low-hazard waste

a) Limited application

b) Requires long-term land use

regulations

c) Eventual off site migration if reaction

is incomplete

Difficult to maintain optimum

conditions to keep reaction going

Can result in uncontrolled release

a) Effectiveness depends on physical

conditions at site

b) Long-term O&M needed

a) Requires wastewater treatment option

b) Process is slow

c) O&M monitoring

d) Not effective for insoluble or

contain erized material

Can create flooding off site

a) May generate hazardous sludges,

spent carbon

b) Long-term monitoring

a) Site safety and fire hazards

b) Off site air pollution

c) Long-term monitoring and O&M

O&M—operating and maintenance

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment

process and, in some cases, may be less

expensive than excavation followed by

transportation to an offsite treatment facility. offsite populations are not exposed to

possible spills. Future O&M costs are eliminated with future risks if waste destruction or detoxification options are also implemented. There is a high initial cost, and

long-term monitoring is required when the

reinterment option is chosen. Local population is subject to additional risks inherent

in the excavation and exposure of buried

waste, as well as those inherent in the

mobile treatment process chosen. This

technology is not cost effective for large

amounts of low-level waste and is not effective for uncontainerized waste dispersed through a large area.

● Direct neutralization/stabilization/fixation.–This technology is used primarily

for large volumes of homogeneous uncontainerized liquids or sludges. Agents are

injected directly into the ground where

wastes are buried, Neutralization, an acidbase balancing mechanism, aids in the removal of hazardous constituents through
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 271

Table 39.—Types of Remedial Action Employed

at a Sample of Uncontrolled Sites

Number of

Remedial action sitesa Percent of total

Waste actions:

Drum and contaminant removal 126 410/0

Contaminant treatmen t 48 16

Incineration 3 1

Dredgin g 5 2

Action on route of release:

Capping/gradin g 59 19

Ground water pumpin g 22 7

Ground water containment 23 8

Encapsulatio n 8 3

Gas contro l 3 1

Linin g 7 2

304 100’/0 — aAs many as 25 spill sites may be Included

SOURCE S R Cochran, et al , “Survey and Case Study Invest lgatlon of Remedial

Act Ions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sttes “ In Marragemerrf of

Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste S/fes, Hazardous Materials Control

Research Insf(fute, 1982 pp 131 135

precipitation. Fixation immobilizes soluble waste by binding them with a stable

material, Thus, an immobile solid is

formed. Onsite applications eliminate the

need for offsite disposal areas or for site

upgrading following removal of excavated

materials. There is low risk of exposure to

buried waste when the injection option is

chosen. However, the technology has limited application and requires long-term

land use restrictions at the site along with

environmental monitoring. Reaction or

immobilization may be incomplete, and

there may be eventual breakdown and

stripping from repeated flushing by ground

water, resulting in subsequent offsite migration of hazardous waste,

In addition, other detoxification techniques to be used at the site are being researched, One method is a chemical dechlorination or dehalogenation process

which uses a sodium or potassium polyethylene glycol reagent. The sodium reagent (NaPEG) patented by the Franklin

Research Institute. EPA has been working

with the Institute to find a faster acting

reagent using potassium, In the envisioned

practice, the reagent would be spread over

a spill or dump site. Perhaps it would be

covered for rain protection and to raise

temperature, and perhaps reapplied in several days. In principle, a series of reactions

takes place, replacing at least some of the

chlorine atoms with the reagent glycols

theoretically forming less toxic and less

bioaccumulative compounds. In unpublished EPA testing, a solution of 1,000 ppm

hexachlorobenzene was destroyed with 95

percent efficiency in 7 days at room temperature, and reapplication achieved completion. 205 However, the chemistry of this

process at ambient temperatures and in

the presence of water has yet to be proven,

and little has been published. Important

questions concerning the composition of

the resulting compounds and their toxicities remain to be studied. Further, these

reagents have not yet been applied outside

the laboratory.

Biodegradation.—Microhial degradation

techniques have been applied to uncontainerized, biodegradable organic waste,

usually for spills. It possibly might be used

as a final step to remove low concentration residuals left at sites after the use of

other technologies, such as excavation

with offsite disposal or ground water recovery and treatment. Biodegradation is

usually a low-cost option. However, the

method requires acclimated organisms,

and supplemental injections of nutrients

or oxygen may be required to support biological action. The limited applications are

slow and are affected by ambient temperature.

Solution mining.—This method is r e -

stricted to limited (and unusual) situations

where a homogeneous, uncontainerized,

solvent-soluble, solid hazardous waste is

buried. Solvent is injected into the site and

recovered through a series of well points.

Various applications of this technology use

water as the solvent. Caution must be

taken that dissolving nonmobile hazardous

waste does not produce an uncontrolled

release or leave behind dissolved and

mobile material,

Environmental pathway control for hazardous waste sites attempt to inhibit offsite migra- —.

Zoschar]es Rogers, IlnVrirOrlrnenta] Protection Agency, office

of Research and Development, IERL, personal communication,

January 1983.
212 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tion of hazardous materials by a number of

methods, as discussed below. The most common route amenable to such controls is water—

surface, ground, and rainwater; although gas

controls are sometimes used at sites where

methane or other gases are present. In most

cases, there is a continuing need for monitoring and potential need for repeated remedial

actions. Pathway control technologies include:

●

✎

Isolation, containment, and encapsulation techniques.—Mechanical barriers—

e.g., in capping, bottom sealing, and perimeter containment barriers—use natural

materials (e. g., clay) or synthetic impermeable materials (e. g., asphalt, cement, polymer sheet, chemical grout) that are either

poured, injected, or placed into desired

locations to provide containment or inhibit

water intrusion on buried hazardous

waste. Surface contour modifications and

revegetation are used to enhance rainwater runoff or to capture it for subsequent

removal via natural processes of evaporation and transpiration. Such methods are

used in those situations where no onsite

treatment or removal is planned or where

there is a need to contain residuals from

such actions. They are most practical at

sites with extremely large volumes of

mixed hazardous and domestic wastes or

with widespread low-level contamination

(e.g., mine tailings or contaminated soil]

where costs of alternative actions are prohibitive. The costs of these techniques are

favorable compared with those of other options, and exposure of buried waste is not

required, The effectiveness of these methods, however, is greatly dependent on ambient environmental conditions, such as

geohydrology, precipitation, and geomorphology. Long-term O&M as well as longterm monitoring are required. 206 Failure

ZOOA recent study on the use of slurry wai] i nsta]]ations concluded: “Unfortunately, most of the slurry wall installations to

date have been in the private sector, from which little monitoring data are available. Until such data are assembled and critiqued, it remains to be seen just how effective, and how long

term this remedial measure is in controlling the spread of contaminated ground water. ” P. A. Spooner, et al., “pollution Migration Cut~ff Using Slurry Trench Construction, ” in Management

of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous Materials

Control Research Institute, 1982, pp. 191-197,

may require additional remedial action.

Security for this approach, where the

water route is of concern, can be enhanced

by combination with a ground water recovery and treatment system.

Ground water diversion and recovery.—

These methods make use of collection and

diversion trenches or of well points with

pumping, and sometimes in combination

with subsequent up-gradient injection or

percolation ponds to shift piezometric surfaces, The technology is useful in situations where underlying soils are permeable

(e.g., sands or fractured shales where well

points may be used) or at sites with a high

or perched water table and underlying clay

or other tight formations where trenches

may be used, These diversion methods are

effective for collecting highly contaminated leachate before dilution after mixing with main body of ground water, Effective recovery can be enhanced with upgradient injection, Ground water flow

rates consequently are increased, and an

augmented volume of flush water is provided to wash soluble hazardous constituents from the site to the collection system.

This technology generally requires waste

water treatment, although collected water

can be directly discharged to a surface

stream if it meets applicable discharge

standards. The process is slow and requires O&M and constant monitoring of

the collection system and the offsite environment, It is not effective for containerized materials or insoluble waste.

Surface water diversion. -These diversion methods are used where surface

streams run through or near an uncontrolled site, Such systems are relatively

easy to implement with existing technology. Addition of undesirable water on the

site is not required, and associated offsite

transportation of hazardous materials is

reduced. However, offsite flooding problems may be created,

Ground and surface water treatment.—

These treatment methods may be used

where there is a system to recover contaminated water and may be implemented either offsite or onsite. Treatment technol-
Ch 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management • 213

ogy is the same as for other aqueous

wastes—biologil, al, carbon absorption,

physicallchemical, or air stripping. Various levels of treatment can be chosen in

combination with appropriate collection

methods. Effectiveness is limited by the

ability of the associated collection system

to contain and recover the hazardous

waste, There have been some operational

problems where waste characteristics

vary, as is often encountered at hazardous

waste sites that have a history of receiving mixed waste, although batching and

equalization can minimize this problem.

Hazardous waste in the form of sludges

and spent carbon may be generated.

● Gas collection or venting .—These methods are used for collection of gases for

treatment, or for controlled venting of

gases generated at a site from decomposition of organic matter or from chemical

reactions of waste. Such technologies provide methods of handling toxic or flammable gases that may present site safety

and fire hazards as well as offsite air pollution threats. Long-term monitoring is required, and there are O&M costs.

Appendix 5A. –Case Examples of Process Modifications

Chlor-Alkali Process

The production of chlorine and sodium hydroxde is an important process in the chemical indusry. These chemicals are major materials for the

manufacture of many different consumer and industrial products such as pulp and paper, fibers,

plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers, and solvents.

The production process is a large-scale system in

which modifications have been extensively implemented in the past to achieve higher process efficiencies. Significant reduction of hazardous waste

generation is possible through still further process

nodifications ,

The chlor-alkali process is based on electrolysis

of brines—i.e., an electric current is passed through

a solution of sodium chloride to produce chlorine,

hydrogen, and sodium hydroxide. Two basic process designs were originally developed: one incorporates a mercury cell and the other utilizes a diaphragm cell. Each type of cell has advantages and

disadvantages which will be discussed below.

Mercury Cell Process .–This process yields a very

ligh quality of sodium hydroxide. A disadvantage,

however, is that it results in a large concentration

of mercury discarded in process waste. Although

his process accounts for only 25 percent of the

chlorine production in the united States, approximately 42,000 tonnes of mercury-contaminated

rine are disposed in landfills on an annual basis.

Source segregation technologies do exist to remove

ome of the mercury from waste, but complete renoval is not possible. Waste containing various

hlorinated hydrocarbons also are produced.

Diaphragm Cell Process .—The advantage of this

process is that it does not use mercury. If a graphite

electrical terminal is used, the waste contains chlorinated hydrocarbons that are considered hazardous constituents (e.g., chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and trichloroethane). Another source of

hazardous waste using this process is the asbestos

diaphragm, While not yet regulated under RCRA,

disposal of asbestos is limited by regulations promulgated for the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Three modifications have occurred that reduce

the amount of hazardous waste generated in a

chlor-alkali process. The first has been substitution

of a diaphragm cell for the mercury cell in most

production facilities in the United States. This has

been possible because of the availability y of natural

salt brine in this country, which is a preferred raw

material for the diaphragm cell process. This substitution has been quite successful; in the last 15

years, no new mercury cell plants have been constructed.

A second modification has reduced successfully

the amount of chlorinated hydrocarbons found in

process waste. This was accomplished by replacing

the graphite anode with a dimensionally stable

anode (i. e., an electrical terminal). In addition to

the reduction of hazardous constituents in waste,

this modification contributed to a more efficient

and longer cell life.

The third modification, development of a membrane cell, incorporates a major change in the type

of membrane used in the diaphragm cell process.

The asbestos membrane is replaced with an ionexchange membrane, which generates a higher
214 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

quality of sodium hydroxide. This quality is similar

to that produced by the mercury cell. Full development and use of this modification would reduce the

amount of hazardous waste generated in two ways:

1. mercury contamination in chlor-alkali waste

would be eliminated by a complete phase-out

of the mercury cell process, and

2. the amount of asbestos waste would be reduced.

The membrane cell is a new modification and has

not yet been incorporated on a large scale. A total

of 25 units of various sizes have been built in the

world. A small unit (1 I tonnes/day) currently is

operating in a U.S. pulp mill. A larger unit (220

tonnes/day) will be in operation in the United States

by late 1983. The capital investment required for

incorporation of a membrane cell is slightly higher

than a diaphragm cell that also offers a savings in

energy costs. For those facilities with capacities of

less than 500 tonnes/day, a membrane cell is more

economical than a diaphragm cell. At greater capacities, neither system is superior, and other factors will determine the selection. These include the

availability of appropriate raw material (e. g., natural salt brine or solid forms of sodium chloride)

and ease of retrofitting an existing facility.

Vinyl Chloride Process

Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) is one of many

chemicals manufactured by the chlorohydrocarbon

industry. This chemical is considered a hazard to

human health, its production is regulated under the

Occupational Safety and Health Act, and its disposal is regulated under RCRA. It is an intermediate product in the manufacture of PVC and can be

produced by several different manufacturing

routes.

About 92 percent of all VCM plants in the United

States have both oxychlorination and direct chlorination plants onsite. The manufacture of VCM produces gaseous emissions of the monomer and liquid

process residues that are a mixture of chlorinated

hydrocarbons.

Incineration of these process wastes is used to

recover hydrogen chloride, which is either recycled

back to the VCM process or neutralized. Conventional incinerators designed for onsite treatment of

many different wastes are not effective in the treatment of chlorinated hydrocarbons, as incomplete

combustion results. Therefore, high-efficiency incineration specifically designed for liquid or gaseous chlorinated hydrocarbons is used. Although

success with incineration systems has been mixed,

reliable performance has been demonstrated with

relatively few operating problems,

Chlorinolysis represents a recovery option. High

pressure and temperatures are used to reduce the

liquid chlorohydrocarbon waste to carbon tetrachloride. This system has two major drawbacks:

1) the capital costs are high because of the high

pressures and temperatures; and 2) the demand for

carbon tetrachloride is decreasing due to regulatory

restrictions on the use of products for which it is

a raw material—e.g., fluorocarbons. Therefore,

chlorinolysis is an unlikely choice in the future

reduction of liquid waste from VCM production

unless new uses are found for carbon tetrachloride.

Another option for handling VCM liquid waste

is to use a catalytic fluidized-bed reactor process

developed by B. F. Goodrich. Hydrogen chloride

gas is recovered and can be recycled without further treatment as feedstock in the oxychlorination

process, The advantages of this system are low temperature operation, direct recycling of hydrogen

chloride without additional treatment requirements, and energy recovery, The primary disadvantage of this recovery process results from restrictive requirements for application—i.e., only a plant

using an oxychlorination process in conjunction

with a fixed-bed reactor can accept the hydrogen

chloride gas as feedstock. If an oxychlorination

plant has a fluidized-bed reactor, the hydrogen chloride must be adsorbed from the gas stream and recovered with conventional recovery technology,

The added cost of the absorption process makes this

option prohibitive for fluidized-bed oxychlorination

plants.

Metal-Finishing Process

Several modifications in metal cleaning and sealing processes have enabled the metal-finishing industry to eliminate requirements for corporation

owned and operated wastewater pretreatment facilties. An example is provided in figure 5A.1. This

process is designed to remove oil and grease from

metal parts and seal the surface in preparation for

application of a coating. The process consists of six

stages, The parts are cleaned in stage 1, rinsed in

stage II, treated in stage III, rinsed in stage IV,

sealed in stage V, and rinsed in stage VI.

The first modification is the incorporation of flow

controllers to decrease the volume of water used

in rinse. This results in a reduced volume of potentially hazardous sludge. While the flow in rinse

stages IV and VI can be controlled without affecting other stages, any change in stage II will affect
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 215

Figure 5A.1 .—Metal Preparation for Coating Applications

Stage

Stage II

Metal parts for treatment

1.

1

I I

StagelV Rinse 3.

L

I

I

4.

Stage V ISealer I

I 1

Stage Vl Rinse

5.

Prepared metal parts

sent to finished process

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

directly the quantity of chemicals required for stage

III. For example, a decrease in rinsewater flow produces a more alkaline rinse. Thus, more acid is required in stage III. Increased acid levels also require additional amounts of metallic ions, such as

nickel and zinc. Therefore, any changes in flow

control for stage II must be carefully balanced with

increased chemical requirements for stage 111.

A second process modification occurs in stage III

with the replacement of nickel and zinc by less hazardous metals. Zinc can be substituted for nickel

Description of process modification

Flow controller used to decrease volume

of water used.

Originally, a combination of nickel and

zinc used. First changed to all zinc

(reduce hazard). Subsequently changed

to manganese or iron depending on

metal finishing process required.

Flow controllers used to decrease

volume of water used.

Originally chromic acid solution of both

trivalent and hexavalent chromium. First

changed to all trivalent chromium

(reduce hazard). Subsequently changed

to organic compound.

Flow controller used to decrease volume

of water used.

and, for certain applications, manganese or iron

can be substituted for zinc. Presence of iron in

wastewater actually can be beneficial for municipal

waste treatment processes as it facilitates removal

of phosphorus.

An acidic solution containing chromium in both

the hexavalent and trivalent states is normally used

in stage V. A third modification involves replacement of hexavalent with the trivalent chromium,

reducing the hazard. The chromium can be replaced entirely with a biodegradable organic com-
216 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

pound. These modifications made in stages III and

V permit discharge of metal-finishing wastewater

directly into municipally owned treatment facilities. Such changes also eliminate formation of hazardous sludge.

Case Examples of a Recovery/Recycle Operation

Recycling of Spent Pickle Liquor in the Steel Industry

A major waste disposal problem for the steel industry concerns spent liquor from a pickling operation. The pickling process removes surface scale

and rust from iron and steel prior to application

of a final coating. The metal is immersed in an acid

bath and as the scale dissolves, iron salts are formed. The contaminated acid bath is known as spent

pickle liquor.

Approximately 500 million gal/yr of spent pickle

liquor are generated from acid pickling. This solution contains 0.5 to 16 percent acid and 10 to 25

percent ferrous salts. Ninety percent of the total

acid is hydrochloric or sulfuric acid; the remainder

often includes nitric acid. The presence of nitric

acid in spent liquor will determine which recovery

option is possible.

Several disposal/treatment options are available:

● injection into deep wells;

● neutralization of the spent pickle liquor (using

lime, soda ash, or caustic soda to increase the

pH level) and landfilling the resulting sludge;

● recovery and regeneration of acid;

● byproduct recovery; and

● discharge to wastewater treatment facilities.

Because increased transportation costs and stricter

regulations have limited the availability of suitable

deep wells, costs for containing spent liquor have

risen steadily. The gelatinous iron hydroxide sludge

formed after neutralization creates a disposal problem, and costs of chemicals required for neutralization also have increased. Thus, the attractiveness

of the first two options is reduced.

The remaining options involving some type of recycling and/or recovery have become more viable.

Spent liquor can be used directly in treatment of

municipal wastewater for removal of phosphorus.

Addition of spent sulfuric acid has been shown to

be particularly effective for water and wastewater

treatment. Acid recovered from spent liquor can

be recycled back to the pickling process. The salts

formed (ferrous sulfate from sulfuric acid pickling

and ferrous chloride from hydrochloric acid pickling) have several uses. For example, ferrous sulfate

crystals currently are used in the manufacture of

pigments, magnetic tapes, fertilizers, and in wastewater treatment. Potential markets for recovered

ferric oxide salts are in magnetic tapes, pigments,

steelmaking, and sintering operations.

Sulfuric and hydrochloric acid pickling account

for 85 to 90 percent of all pickling operations in the

United States. Presumably, recovery of these acids

for recycling could reduce spent liquor disposal by

that same percentage. Because spent pickle liquor

represents a large-volume hazardous waste, recovery and recycle could reduce the volume of hazardous waste disposed.

Recovery Technologies

Recovery processes are designed to recover either

the free acid or both free acid and iron salts. Two

methods are available for recovery of spent sulfuric

and hydrochloric acid liquor. Cooling of the liquor

results in separation of ferrous sulfate crystals. The

unit operations required in this recovery system

are: 1) precooking, 2) crystallization, 3) slurry

thickening, and 4) crystal separation by centrifugation. Another process involves roasting the ferrous

sulfate to produce ferric oxide and sulfur dioxide.

The sulfur dioxide can be scrubbed to regenerate

sulfuric acid. This is similar to the roasting process

originally developed for recovery of hydrogen chloride.

Spent liquor from hydrochloric acid-pickling operations recovery technology is similar to the above

sulfuric acid recovery technologies. Roasting ferrous chloride produces ferric oxide and hydrogen

chloride gas. Auxiliary fuel is used to maintain

reactor temperature at 1,5000 F. The hydrogen chloride gas generated is absorbed in water to form

hydrochloric acid for recycle. Unit operations include: 1) evaporation, 2) high-temperature decomposition, 3) absorption, and 4) scrubbing of vent

gases.

Economic Factors .—The economics of acid recovery

are based on cost and availability of acid, disposal

cost of spent pickle liquor, quality and market value

of byproducts (iron sulfate or iron oxide), and cost

of selected recovery processes. Each of these factors is dependent on the particular plant and process involved.

Major economic advantages of acid recovery are

reduced raw material costs, elimination of transportation costs incurred in disposal of spent liquor

or sludge, and byproduct sales credits. The major

economic disadvantages are utility requirements

(primarily fuel requirements for hydrogen chloride

recovery from dilute aqueous solutions) and capital

investment requirements,
Ch. 5— Technologies for Hazardous Waste Management ● 217

Byproduct recovery of spent liquor for wastewater treatment does not require a capital investment. This is a major advantage for this option,

However, disposal costs and repurchase of acid

have been estimated at $ll0/tonne compared to

recovery costs of about $22 to $88/tonne.

Corporate Factors .–Regional recovery/recycle facilities provide the opportunity of transferring burdens of investment cost from individual steel operations to a commercial recovery developer and offer reduced risk. However, regional facilities imply increased storage requirements. Storage of

spent liquor can create certain problems, e.g.,

premature precipitation of ferrous sulfate during

periods of low temperature. In addition, early separation of acid from various sources of spent liquor

may be required to eliminate potential contamination from proprietary chemical additives. Another

disadvantage to a regional facility is added costs

for transportation of spent liquor and recovered

acid from the generator to the recovery facility and

then to the consumer.
218 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 5A.l.—Summary Evaluation of Liner Types

Liner material Characteristics

.

Range of

Costsa Advantages Disadvantages —

Soils:

Compacted clay Compacted mixture of onsite soils

soils to a permeability of 10-7cm/sec

L

L

M

M

L

L

M

M

H

L

M

M

H

L

L

M

High cation exchange capacity,

resistant to many types of

Ieachate

High cation exchange capacity,

resistant to many types of

Ieachate

Organic or inorganic acids or

bases may solubilize portions of

clay structure

Organic or inorganic acids or

bases may solubilize portions of

clay structure

Soil-bentonite Compacted mixture of onsite soil,

water and bentonite

Admixes:

Asphalt-concrete Mixtures of asphalt cement and

high quality mineral aggregate

Resistant to water and effects of

weather extremes; stable on

side slopes; resistant to acids,

bases, and inorganic salts

Not resistant to organic solvents,

partially or wholly soluble in

hydrocarbons, does not have

good resistance to inorganic

chemicals: high gas

permeability

Ages rapidly in hot climates, not

resistant to organic solvents,

particularly hydrocarbons

Asphalt- Core layer of blown asphalt

membrane blended with mineral fillers and

reinforcing fibers

Flexible enough to conform to

irregularities in subgrade; resistant to acids, bases, and

inorganic salts

Resistant to acids, bases, and

salts

Not resistant to organic solvents,

particularly hydrocarbons

Soil asphalt Compacted mixture of asphalt,

water, and selected in-place

soils

Soil cement Compacted mixture of Portland

cement, water, and selected ln -

place soils

Good weathering in wet-dry/freezethaw cycles; can resist moderate amount of alkali, organics

and inorganic salts

Degraded by highly acidic

environments

Polymerlc membranes:

Low gas and water vapor permeability; thermal stability; only

slightly affected by oxygenated

solvents and other polar liquids

Good tensile strength and elongation strength; resistant to many

inorganic

Good resistance to ozone, heat,

acids, and alkalis

Highly swollen by hydrocarbon

solvents and petroleum oils,

difficult to seam and repair

Produced by chemical reaction

between chlorine and high

density polyethylene

Family of polmers prepared by

reacting polyethylene with

chlorine and sulfur dioxide

Will swell in presence of aromatic

hydrocarbons and oils

Chlorinated

polyethylene

Chlorosulfonate

polyethylene

Tends to harden on aging; low

tensile strength, tendency to

shrink from exposure to sunIight, poor resistance to 011

Difficulties with low temperatures

and oils

None reported

Elasticized

polyolefins

Epichlorohydrin

rubbers

Blend of rubbery and crystalline

polyolefins

Saturated high molecular weight,

aliphatic polethers with chloromethyl side chains

Low density; highly resistant to

weathering, alkalis, and acids

Good tensile and teat strength;

thermal stability; low rate of gas

and vapor permeability; resistant to ozone and weathering,

resistant to hydrocarbons, sol -

vents, fuels, and oils

Resistant to dilute concentrations

of acids, alkalis, silicates, phosphates and brine, tolerates

extreme temperatures; flexible

at low temperatures; excellent

resistance to weather and ultraviolet exposure

Resistant to oils, weathering,

ozone and ultraviolet radiation;

resistant to puncture, abrasion,

and mechanical damage

Superior resistance to oils,

solvents, and permeation by

water vapor and gases

Good resistance to inorganic;

good tensile, elongation,

puncture, and abrasion resistant

properties, wide ranges of

physical properties

Not recommended for petroleum

solvents or halogenated

solvents

Ethylene

propylene

rubber

Family of terpolymers of ethylene,

propylene, and nonconjugated

hydrocarbon

Neoprene Synthetic rubber based on None reported

chloroprene

Thermoplastic polymer based on

ethylene

Not recommended for exposure to

weathering and ultraviolet light

conditions

Attacked by many organics,

including hydrocarbons, solvents and oils; not recommended for exposure to weathering and ultraviolet light

conditions

None reported

Polyethylene

Polyvinyl

chloride

Produced in roll form in various

widths and thicknesses; polymerization of vinyl chloride

monomer

Thermoplastic

elastomers

Relatively new class of polymeric

materials ranging from highly

Excellent oil, fuel, and water

resistance with high tensile strength

and excellent resistance to

weathering and ozone

polar to nonpolar

aL - $1 10 S4 installed costs per sq yd In 1981 dollars, M = S4 to S8 per sq yd , H = S8 to $12 per sq yd

SOURCE “Comparative Evaluation of Incinerators and Landfills, ” prepared for the Chemical manufacturers association, by Englneerlng Science, McLean, Va, May 1982
CHAPTER 6

Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste
Contents

Appendix 6A.-State Classification Efforts ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● . . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 259

List of Tables

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

Ii. - --

. . - - -

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
CHAPTER 6

Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste

1.

2.

3.

4.

Summary Findings

Methodologies for risk assessment are not

perfectly developed. If data are analyzed

with care and uncertainties recognized,

currently available tools can be used effectively in risk-management decisions. Continued research and development are

needed to improve the methodologies.

Classification systems can be developed to

group wastes by degree of hazard and management facilities by degree of risk. Although technical problems must be solved,

classes of waste and management facilities

can be matched to minimize risks to human

health and the environment,

Advantages of a classification system

include:

●

●

●

wastes would be assigned to appropriate

levels of management to achieve a consistent level of protection without unnecessary expense;

government officials could set priorities

for establishing standards and controls

based on objective criteria; and

the system could provide the public with

reliable information on the relative hazards of different classes of waste and the

most appropriate ways of handling each

to reduce risks,

Among the problems that must be solved

in designing an effective classification system are:

criteria for classifying waste must be

carefully selected to include the broad

range of threats to public health and the

environment (e. g., to include long-range

effects such as reproductive impairment

as well as short-range ones such as acute

toxicity);

the combined, or synergistic, effects of

waste constituents must be considered,

not just the effects of single constituents

alone;

5.

6.

7.

● the hazard of a waste may be changed

by a management technology, thus the

constituents that are released from a

facility may be more (or less) hazardous

than the original waste. Risks to public

health are determined by the hazard of

constituents leaving a facility (i. e.,

releases);

Ž characteristics used to classify waste are

not always the same as those that determine the appropriate management technology; therefore a mismatch of waste

and facilities could occur; and

• boundaries of waste and facility classes

would have to be clearly defined, to

achieve consensus among regulators, the

industry, and the public.

Monitoring is a key component in regulation of hazardous waste. It is the only way

to verify that a waste management system

is operating correctly. Data on the chemical, structural, and physical characteristics

of waste constituents can be used to predict

their environmental fate. Knowledge about

fate of constituents can be used to develop

cost-effective programs.

Of five types of monitoring activities—

visual, source, process, ambient, and effects–ambient monitoring provides the

best evidence for judging whether risks of

hazardous waste management are being

kept at acceptable levels. If environmental

contamination is prevented, human exposure will be reduced and public health

protected. Therefore, ambient monitoring

should receive greater attention in regulatory programs.

All monitoring has problems associated

with sampling, data comparability, and

limitations of methodology. Possible actions to correct the deficiencies include:

221
222 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

8.

9.

●

●

●

a central monitoring activity, drawing on

government and nongovernment resources;

a nationally supported pilot project to

develop a monitoring framework, including standard procedures for sampling,

data storage, and analysis; and

a coordination of monitoring efforts

mandated in the seven major environmental laws. This would be especially

beneficial for hazardous waste monitoring because of the multimedia nature of

the risks.

Public opposition to siting of waste facilities stems from fears of health or safety effects, fears of economic loss, uncertainty

of industry’s ability to prevent adverse consequences, and lack of confidence in government regulations and enforcement.

Technical approaches to address public

concerns include development of a comprehensive hazardous waste management

plan, establishment of technical siting

criteria, identifying a bank of suitable sites,

Throughout history, people

ways of coping with old and

and fostering open exchange of technical

information (particularly on alternatives to

land disposal) between the public, government officials, and the hazardous waste

management industry.

10, Nontechnical approaches include assurance of public participation in siting decisions, compensation for victims of damage,

a clear commitment by government to enforcement of regulation, and possibly, incentives for communities to accept proposed facilities.

11. The Federal role in answering public concerns might be expanded in several areas:

● providing technical expertise for development of siting criteria and programs,

● consideration of federally owned lands

as suitable sites,

● encouraging information exchange,

● serving as arbitrator in disputes, and

• assisting in the development of regional

compacts for hazardous waste management,

Risk Management

have had to find

new risks. Most

individuals- are-risk-averse and their responses

to new risks may be to:

●

●

●

●

retreat from it—attempting to return to a

safer, more predictable environment,

try to understand it—measuring the probability that a damaging event will occur

and identifying risk/benefit tradeoffs,

control it—applying various technical solutions, and

prepare for it economically—insuring

against the occurrence of the damaging

event.

While these responses can help individuals and

societies to cope with risks, none can produce

a totally predictable or safe world. There is no

such thing as zero risk. Risks must be assessed

and courses of action decided. Individuals do

this informally and often automatically. More

formal decisionmaking usually is required in

assessing risks for society.

Managing the risks from industrial hazardous waste is a highly complex task because of

the diverse range of hazards involved and the

many possible ways of handling the waste.

Thus, a managerial framework is needed within which an expanding knowledge base can be

accommodated and the risks of alternate

courses of action analyzed Figure 14 shows

the major components of such a framework.

The framework illustrates a systematic way

of proceeding from evaluation of hazards,

through risk assessment and a weighing of

risks, costs, and benefits, to a final policy

choice that includes consideration of value

judgments and political factors. As discussed

in detail below, there are uncertainties in this
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 223

Figure 14.— Risk Management Framework

I

Comparison of cost,

risks, and benefits I

Policy/management analysis

(scientific, political, societal)

issues assessment I

I I

I Risk management I

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

process from the earlier steps based on scientific data as well as in the last, frankly judgmental, stage of policy decision. Quantitative

estimates, such as those used in risk assessments, are helpful to decisionmakers, Indeed,

“objective” measurement of risk is increasingly

in demand by the regulated industries, public

interest groups, and policy makers. But it is a

mistake to accept numerical estimates generated by risk assessments uncritically. Decisionmakers must recognize that, at the current state of the art, all risk estimates inevitably contain uncertain data and debatable

scientific assumptions.

Hazard Evaluation

The terms hazard and risk are often used interchangeably. This report maintains a distinction between them. Hazard is defined as the

inherent capacity to cause harm. Harm could

be physical damage (e.g., fire, corrosion, or explosion) or biological impairment resulting in

the illness or death of an organism. Hazard

evaluation concentrates on:

● the capacity to cause adverse effects, and

● the severity of that effect.

Hazard evaluation includes consideration of

toxicological factors* as well as the transport

and ultimate fate of materials in the environment, Hazard evaluation emphasizes probable

causes and effects and explores possible worstcase effects on human beings, plants, and

animals. At this first step in the decision

framework, no attempt is made to quantify the

probability that an effect indeed will occur.

Risk Assessment

Risk is defined as the probability that a

given hazard will cause harm, of a specified

nature and intensity, to a human population

or ecosystem. For hazardous waste management, risk assessment means calculating the

probability that constituents of a waste released

from a facility will cause specified adverse effects to public health or the environment. The

assessment assigns numerical risk values to the

events that it analyzes.

Risk assessment consists of two stages:

estimation of the risk value, and

validation of that estimate,

In the first stage, quantitative probability estimates are made about the likelihood that a

particular cause will lead to a specific effect.

These estimates are based on the results of hazard evaluations and an identification of exposure routes that, in turn, suggest the populations or ecosystems at risk, Estimating exposures and the dose of a hazardous material

that will have a particular effect is extremely

difficult; this difficulty is not always acknowledged.

The second stage of risk assessment acknowledges its uncertainties and attempts to put the

calculated value in a proper perspective. The

validation stage uses statistical procedures to

● These toxicological factors are discussed in the next section,

“Classification Systems. ”
224 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

give some indication of the confidence one can

have in the risk estimate. Uncertainties do not

invalidate the use of risk estimates in decisionmaking, but it is important to keep the confidence levels in mind. Too often, confidence

levels are either reemphasized or ignored as

the risk estimate is carried through the remaining steps of risk management.

The uncertainties of risk estimation result

from the basic imprecision of hazard evaluation. The hazard may not be verified and exposure routes may be questionable; there may

even be uncertainty as to whether a release will

actually occur. An additional complication is

that direct evidence of cause and effect between human exposure to harmful agents and

damage to health is elusive.

Assessment Models

Little scientific information now available indicate with any certainty the existence of

cause-effect relationships between industrial

hazardous waste and human health problems.

Even with the amount of exposure documented

for residents at Love Canal, the relationship

between the exposure and health problems is

not readily apparent at this time.12 Thus, the

data used in risk assessments are usually obtained from experiments with laboratory ani

reals and environmental systems. The experimental data are used to develop quantitative estimates for other species through

extrapolation.

These extrapolations have been criticized as

not always reflective of actual exposures. Some

consider it unwarranted to apply data from

animal experiments using high doses to estimate risks to human beings and the environment from exposure to low doses. The main

reason for experimental use of high doses is

economic. Using low-dose exposures to obtain

reliable data would require tests with tens of

thousands of laboratory animals. Critics of

animal data argue that because laboratory tests

IEnvironmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring at lmve Canal 1981, pp. 1404-1407.

JD. T. Janerich, et al., “Cancer Incidence in the Love Canal

Area,” Science vol. 212, 1981, m. 14041-1407.

are conducted with specially bred animals,

often originating from a single set of parents,

the animals may not react to the exposure in

the same way as humans or as organisms found

in the natural environment. While such criticisms may be appropriate, they are also simplistic. Well-established human data are usually

absent. Extrapolations from animal data are an

inherent and unavoidable process for establishing acceptable levels of risk.

Dose-response curves are used to extrapolate

the probabilities of response from experimental high-dose data to low doses. A stylized doseresponse curve is presented in figure 15. Several mathematical models are available for exFigure 15.—Stylized Dose-Response Curve With

Extrapolation to Low Doses Using Different Models

. . SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1981
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 225

trapolating incidence for the low-dose range

on such a curve (i. e., below ID, as shown in

the figure). These models are based on combinations of biological theory, experimental

evidence, and statistical conventions. q As the

figure shows, the predictions of different

models for the probable incidence of low-dose

effects can vary considerably. For example,

risk estimates for a dose level of l/2D (with D

representing the standard dose) vary between

O and 10 percent, Because of the very large

number of animals required to test the theories

behind these models, none of them have been

scientifically verified. Thus, the risk value at

low doses is very dependent not on actual

dose-response data, but on choice of methodology.

Human experiments, providing direct evidence of damage to human health as a result

of exposure to an agent, are rarely done for obvious ethical reasons. Evidence about human

exposures and effects is drawn instead from

epidemiological studies, which are beset with

certain difficulties. Often the population size

in an epidemiologic study is small. Moreover,

identifying the actual dose and duration of exposures to a particular compound has problems. Because humans are exposed to a multiplicity of materials, it is difficult to determine

that one particular compound or hazard is the

only major cause of an effect. The mobility of

the U.S. population adds to the problem. Americans relocate often, and few are exposed to

the same environmental conditions for enough

time to indicate cause-effect relationships. The

difficulty of identifying cause-effect relationships also is compounded by the long-time lags

between exposure and onset of many health

problems (i.e., decades rather than months or

days). Even for cancer or circulatory diseases,

both subjects of concerted research attention,

absolute certainty about causal relationships—

that smoking causes lung cancer or that saturated fat damages the circulatory system—

may not be universally accepted.

jFor a discussion of these models see Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks From the Environment Washington, D. C.:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-H-138,

June 1981).

Limited data exist showing a relation between exposure to waste constituents in the

workplace and health problems of workers.

Even these data, however, do not indicate with

certainty that a relationship between hazardous

waste and health problems exists. For example, if exposures in the work environment are

well defined and the health problem is otherwise rare, the causal relationship may be

beyond question. An example is the relation

between occupational exposure to vinyl chloride and angiosarcoma of the liver.4 However,

if the environment of the workplace is complex

(e.g., multiconstituent exposures) it may be difficult to establish a causal relation between the

presence of a single compound and a particular

health effect. Extrapolation from these workplace exposure data has problems similar to

those for extrapolating from animal data; concentrations of hazardous constituents in the

workplace are usually considerably greater

than in the general environment.

Recently interest has grown in determining

relative risks rather than calculating specific

risk estimates. Relative risks are derived from

computer models that combine a variety of factors to simulate real situations (e. g., risks

associated with a waste at a facility location

on a particular site). Such assessments have

been developed for ranking uncontrolled hazardous waste sites needing remedial action

under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980 (C ERCLA). They are also being used to

assess risks associated with specific wastes,

particular environments, and individual technologies for the purpose of improving regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The use of such models is

attractive, since risk scores for different situations can be compared on the basis of common

indicators without resorting to extrapolation

models.

Appropriate Uses of Risk Assessment Models

As long as extrapolation models incorporate

exposure doses that are close to those used in

‘R, R. Monson, “Effects of Industrial Environment on Health,”

Environment] -!Aw, vol. 8, 1978, pp. 664-700.
226 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

experiments, any conceptual errors in extrapolation procedures usually have only minor

impacts. However, as the estimates of exposure

doses move farther and farther from the experimental data, results of the model become

more and more critically dependent on the

validity of the scientific theory describing

chemical-organism interactions, contained in

the model. Thus, as the distance from experimental data increases, the predictive power of

the models decreases,

The major goal of some extrapolations may

not be accuracy of prediction, but assurance

of adequate protection. For such purposes, the

extrapolation model selected is conservative

and predicts the greatest risk for lowest possible doses. When establishing protective limits,

a poorer data base is usually associated with

larger “safety” or “uncertainty” factors, Thus,

risk estimates derived from uncertain data but

assuring a high level of protection could be

much greater than estimates based on more accurate prediction of health effects if such a

prediction were available, It should be emphasized that most results of extrapolation currently published represent protective estimates.

Unfortunately, these conservative estimates are

often interpreted as predictions of incidence,

When protective estimates are published or

used in decisionmaking, they should be accompanied by a clear statement of the uncertainties they contain. Recent advances in the field

of risk assessment are improving the precision

and accuracy of predictive models. Significant

progress is being made in extrapolations between: species, differences of time of exposure

to effect, and different doses and response

levels.

The use of computerized models can be appropriate for developing governmental priorities and policies. However, the limitations of

these tools must always be recognized. Although the best models can only provide an

abstraction of real conditions, three factors can

contribute to more reliable results:

1. The indicators for risk should be relevant

to actual exposure situations and should

assist in identifying populations at risk.

2,

3.

These indicators should not be arbitrarily

chosen but should reflect as nearly as possible the range of hazards of the constituents of concern, the environmental fate

of constituents, and realistic exposure

factors,

The data base should include accurate

and verified information insofar as possible. Every attempt should be made to obtain valid data. Uncertainties in data precision should be identified,

Biases incorporated in the model either

through the choice of assumptions or the

assignment of quantitative values to risks

should be identified and the effects of

these biases assessed. To give analyses

using risk assessment proper weight, policymakers must be aware of the biases inherent in the models. If risk assessments

are used in the description and evaluation

of alternative options, it is essential to provide sensitivity analyses, showing the differences in risk values that result from

changes in basic model assumptions and

data bases.

Risk assessments can contribute to a variety of specific decisionmaking purposes. They

can be used in setting forth regulatory standards, establishing priorities for research and

development (R&D), identifying the risk levels

of various disposal/treatment options, and determining appropriate locations for waste

management facilities. Although progress continues in risk assessment methodologies, the

quantitative estimates they produce are imperfect, and must not be used uncritically.

Comparison of Risk, Costs, and Benefits

The two stages of risk assessment are intermediate steps in the total risk-management

framework, which also involves comparing the

risks, benefits, and costs in various management alternatives, Different approaches can be

used in making such comparisons. They include evaluation of relative risks among

various options, comparing risks with benefits,

or concentration on costs by evaluating either

cost effectiveness or costs and benefits of

management options.
Ch. 6— Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 227

1.

2

3

4.

Relative risks.—Risk estimates (either

probability values or relative risk scores)

for one option are compared with risks of

another. For example, comparisons can be

made between risks from land disposal

and risks from incineration of a particular

industrial waste stream.

Risk benefit.—This approach compares

risks of an option with some expression

of expected benefits, with the aim of maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. Different options then can be compared on

the basis of relative risks and benefits, For

example, risks and benefits of biological

treatment of organic waste can be compared with risks and benefits of incineration of the same type of waste.

Cost effectiveness.—In this assessment

method, a fixed goal is established and policy options are analyzed on the ability to

achieve that goal in the most cost-effective

manner. The goal is generally a certain

level of acceptable risk and the options are

compared on the basis of the dollar value

necessary to reach that level of risk. Cost

constraints can also be imposed so that the

options are assessed on the ability to control the risk most effectively for that set

cost.

Cost benefit.–This approach expands the

risk-benefit framework to evaluate risk and

benefit outcomes in dollar values. This

method requires more information than

any of the others and forces quantification

of benefits, even when such quantification

may not be accurate or valid.

The language of individual laws may dictate

which risk-management approach can be used

in regulation.5 In the 21 statutes that regulate

production, commercial distribution, and disposal of potential carcinogens, some specify

protection of health “to the extent possible. ”

Other statutes restrict agencies to consideration of effects only. For example, RCRA states

that the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) “. ., shall promulgate regulations es-

‘s]. ~. Leape, “Quantitative Risk Assessment in Regulation of

Environmental Carcinogen s,” Harvard En \rironmental La M’ RLL

vlen’, VO] 4, 1980, P[). 86-116 .

tablishing standards . . . as may be necessary

to protect human health and the environmerit, ” thus constraining EPA from use of costbenefit comparisons.

Although both Congress and the executive

branch have expressed interest in cost-benefit

analyses (CBA), there is some cent roversy

about the extent of its use. Most experts agree

that CBA does serve a useful purpose but caution against unlimited applications. 6 7 8

Among the limitations are, first, the problems

of expressing both cost and benefit values in

dollar terms. George Eads, former member of

the Council of Economic Advisors, recently

stated:9

The numbers casually tossed about by i n -

terested firms and industries no more represent the true cost of regulation than the o\’crblown claims by regulation supporters refl(~ct

the likeljr actual benefits.

The reasons for the overestimates in cost arc:

● economies of scale, which arise when the demand for hazard control technology increases, are often ignored;

● learning curves, which reflect increasingly

sophisticated industrial responses to regulatory requirements, are not anticipated; and

• the role of technological innovation as a factor in reducing costs is often not given proper attention.

Benefit values expressed in dollar terms also

are often questionable. There is little agreement

among experts using CBA on the appropriate

dollar value to assign to human life or to society’s willingness to pay for some perceived benefit. Thus, these values are dependent on the

‘R. W, Crandall, “’I’he L’se of (;ost-13en{)flt Anal}sl\ in Regultitory Decisionmaking, ” Alanagement of Assessed Risk for Carcinogens [New York. N,}’. Academ} of Sciences, 1981), pp. 99-107

‘M. S. Baram, “The Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Regulat[Jr\

Dec]sionmaklng is Proving Harmful to Public Health, ” Afaniigement of Assessed Risk for Carcinogens (New York: N’.}’. A(.~(iemy of Sciences, 1981), pp. 123-128.

‘W, H, Rodgers, Jr., “Benefits, Costs, and Risks: O\ersight of

Health and Enwronmental t)ecisionmak]ng, ” Harvard Entrmu~lmenta] La ~$r Re~iew, vol 4, 1980, pp. 119-226.

%. C. Eads, ‘‘Research in Regulation, Past Contr]but ions and

Future Needs, ” Attacking Regulator~ Problems, An Agenda for

Research in the 1980s [New }’ork: 13alllnger Press, 1981), pp. 1-18.
228 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

individual judgments made by an analyst, and

will differ among analysts. Some benefits, such

as improved quality of life, are very difficult

to quantify.

A second limitation concerns the deceptive

nature of cost-benefit methodology. The use of

quantitative techniques may give the nonexpert

an unjustified impression of neutrality and certainty, This impression is, of course, incorrect.

As detailed above, the uncertainties surrounding risk assessment are numerous, and the

dollar values assigned to costs and benefits

reflect value judgments. For example, in applying CBA to hazardous waste management, a

critical problem is the lack of information concerning the nature of risks in inappropriate disposal/treatment practices.l0 Assigning dollar

values for unknown risks or benefits is of little value.

Much of the work in risk management has

concentrated on the costs and benefits of controlling pollution to meet certain environmental standards (e.g., the cost of pollution control

equipment and benefits of reduced health problems). Many analysts argue that for the purposes of risk management where specific benefits (e. g., protection of human health and the

environment) are desired or mandated, the

most appropriate methodology is costeffectiveness comparisons. This seems particularly appropriate for hazardous waste management.

Policy/Management Decisions

Once hazard evaluations, risk assessment,

and comparisons of risk, benefit, and cost have

been completed, the results can be used to

reach risk-management decisions. It must be

emphasized that these steps in the decision

framework are only tools to aid in analysis

of alternative policy choices; the results are

not the risk-management decision itself. In

making policy or management decisions, many

factors beyond these quantitative results must

—

IOR. (;. An~~rsOn and R. C. D~werT “’I’he Use of Cost-Benefit

Analysis for Hazardous Waste Management ,“ Disposal of Hazardous Waste, EPA 6th Annual Research Symposium (Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1980), pp. 145-166.

be considered. The decisionmaker must evaluate uncertainties, identify value judgments,

recognize special interests, and consider political factors. As risk-management, decisionanalysis proceeds, conflicts will arise. These

conflicts have no right or wrong solutions.

They represent differences in societal interests

and perspectives and must be considered in the

decisionmaking process.

Formalized approaches for making choices

in complex situations, known as decision analysis, exist.11 12 Decision analysis is designed to

help decisionmakers choose from a set of specified alternatives in a systematic manner. Most

risk-management situations involve large volumes of data, multiple conflicting objectives,

and the unavoidable use of subjective judgments. If, in addition, adversary positions complicate the matter, a systematic approach can

be very helpful in reaching appropriate solutions, Hazardous waste management is just

such a situation .13 The use of decision analysis

here might have merit. Most designs for multiattribute decision analyses do not incorporate

estimates of risk, but there is no reason why

risk assessment cannot be integrated into the

technique.

When risk assessment is brought into policy

decisions, it is important to identify all uncertainties and to couch the results with appropriate caveats that explain the limitations of the

analysis. Risk assessment can be a useful tool

for making broad decisions, if the choice of the

appropriate methodology is well considered

and the uncertainties in each of the alternative

solutions clearly recognized.

Because the need for a better data base is critical to meaningful policy decisions, it is often

implied that tradeoffs must be made between

I I R, 1., Keeney and H, Raiffa, Decisions W,”th hfLlftlple Object~tws: Preferences and V’alue Tradeoffs (New }rork: John Wile}

& Sons, 1976).

IZK, R. Ma(;crimmon and J. K. siu, “Making, Trade-off s,” DeCision Sciences, 5, 1974, pp. 680-704.

13’I’, ~], Ess and C, S. Shlk, ‘‘ !vlUltlattribute I)ecisionmaking fo r

Remedial Action at Hazardous Waste Sites, ” in Risk and I)ecision Anals’sis for Hazardous Waste Disposal [Silver Spring, Md.:

Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, 1981 ), pp.

196-209.
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 229

expeditious protection of public health and the

need to obtain improved data before decisions

can be made. This conclusion appears too pessimistic. Granted, present methods for deriving quantitative components in the risk-management framework are by no means perfectly

developed. Nonetheless, with careful analysis

of available data, existing tools can be used effectively. R&D should continue to improve riskassessment methodologies. Integration of these

tools in a multiattribute decision framework

would provide a systematic approach for risk

management in a hazardous waste regulatory

program. The use of such a framework also

would provide a means for open scrutiny of all

aspects of a decision,

Classification Systems

RCRA regulations for the management of

hazardous waste do not recognize differences

in the level of risk associated with various

waste and management technologies. Regulation based on degree of hazard has an obvious

appeal. Few dispute its theoretical advantages.

At issue, however, is the level of detail required

to reguIate waste management by some method

of classification, and whether the expected improvements would be great enough to justify

the time, people, and money needed to develop

a classification approach,

The challenge is to design a system that reflects real conditions, A design that is too simple would not represent the actual hazard

posed by waste or the potential risk level from

particular facilities. A more complex system

might better represent the waste management

situation. However, as the level of complexity

increases, so does the need for extensive data

development, Thus, the usefulness of a complex system may be questioned if it imposes

greater burdens on industry (e.g., in furnishing

large amounts of data on waste and facility

characteristics) and on government (e. g., in enforcing submission of data by industry and

verifying the data).

In the past, several States have considered

hazard classification as a means of regulating

industrial waste. A majority of those States submitting comments on the 1978 proposed regulations urged EPA to consider development of

a formal classification system based on degrees

of hazard.14 The fact that States are interested

in this concept and have attempted to include

waste classification systems in their management programs suggests that further consideration at the Federal level might be justified.

Although most discussions of classification

systems have focused only on categorizing

waste by levels of hazard, an effective riskmanagement system must also include classification of the facilities handling the waste.

Without consideration of both hazard and risks

associated with all

timal protection of

vironment will not

Waste

management options, oppublic health and the enbe possible.

Classification

A basic premise of a waste classification system is that a waste or its constituents can be

grouped according to criteria that define quantifiable human and environmental effects, The

principal distinction is between those wastes

that pose a substantial threat to human health

and the environment and those posing relatively less harm.

Technical Background

For industrial waste, hazard refers to those

characteristics inherent to a specific waste or

its constituents that could cause adverse effects

’14 Tfle RCRA .EXemptjon for Sma]] Voiume Hazardous waSte

Genera~ors (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1982),
230 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

in humans and other organisms. The hazard

characteristics of concern in the RCRA regulatory programs are ignitability, corrosiveness,

reactivity, and toxicity. Table 40 provides definitions of these four types of hazard, the commonly applied test indicators for each, and an

indication of whether discrimination among

hazard levels is possible.15

The information needed to evaluate degrees

of hazard of different materials is illustrated

in figure 16 and include:

● specific process waste and their constituents,

● toxicological characteristics, and

. chemical and physical factors that influence their environmental fate.

Specific Process Wastes.—In general, a waste

from a single industrial process is composed

of more than one type of chemical. Identification of the major constituents is needed to determine ignitability, reactivity, corrosiveness,

1%, L. Daniels, “Development of Realistic Tests for Effects and

Exposures of Solid Wastes, ” Hazardous Solid Waste Testing

(Philadelphia, Penn.: American Society for Testing and Materia]s, 1981), pp. 345-365,

and toxicity. The concentrations of major constituents also must be known, since these will

determine the dose available 10 organisms. The

physical state of the waste (e.g., liquid, sludge,

solid, gas) influences potential levels of hazard

by affecting potential routes of exposures. For

example, if the waste is predominantly liquid,

it may migrate through the environment more

rapidly than if it were solid. The physical state

of individual constituents is important as well;

the harm posed by some compounds varies according to the extent of molecular complexity, or isomerization. For example, less chlorinated forms of PCBS (e. g., mono-, di-, and trichlorobiphenyl) pose less harm than the more

chlorinated forms (e. g., penta-, hexa-, and decachlorobiphenyl). Also, the electric charge, or

valence of ions influences chemical interactions (e.g., different valence levels of iron,

F e

+ + and Fe +

++ react differently). Obtaining this information is not difficult. Accurate

estimates of waste composition, physical form,

and concentration of major constituents of a

process waste can be derived by an analysis

of feedstock information and of the reactions

taking place during manufacture.

Table 40.-Waste Characteristics That May Pose a Hazard

Hazard definition Commonly used indicators Potential for hazard classification

Ignitability

Direct—exposure to heat, smoke, fumes;

indirect—dispersion of hazardous

byproducts

Corrosivity

Direct—destruction of living (tissue) and

nonliving surfaces; indirect—influences

volubility and transport of hazardous

compounds

Reactivity

Direct—evolution of heat, pressure,

gases, vapors, fumes; indirect—

encompasses several aspects of

chemical reactions when compound/

solutions are mixed or initially interact

Toxicity

Produces adverse effect (e.g., death or

nonreversible changes in living

organisms)

Flash point, fire point

autoignition temperature

pH level—acid or base

“Violent” reaction with

water

Range of acute and chronic

test results

Classification scheme used by the

Department of the Interior and National

Fire Protection Association; could use

composition limits of ignitability, flash

point, and ability to sustain combustion

as criteria

pH expressed in logarithmic scale; could

use pH, buffering capability, ionization

potential, rate of corrosion of standard

material (steel)

Difficult to distinguish degrees of

reactivity

Classification schemes have been

developed by several States for

managing either toxic substances or

hazardous waste

SOURCE: Daniels, 1981
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 231

Figure 16.— Information Requirements for

Hazardous Waste Classification

Specific process waste

and constituents

• physical form “

“ .

● concentration

. 

+

. 

. 

Toxicological

characteristics properties influencing

● Dos e

● Species d inferences • Transportation

● Compound Ž Distribution

differences • Transformation

. Exposure

period

Hazard classification

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment

Toxicological Characteristics .—The effects of industrial waste on humans and the environment

range from innocuous, short-term impacts such

as a mild skin rash to severe long-term problems like cancer. Four factors are important

in determining the toxicity of a substance:

dosage, species affected, type of compound, exposure period, and route.

1. Dose.— The 15th century alchemis t

Paracelsus noted: “All substances are poison; the right dose differentiates a poison

and a remedy. ” Dose is defined as a selected concentration of a substance or mixture of compounds administered over a

specific period of time. For any material

there is a dose that will produce adverse

effects in a given organism. Similarly,

there is a concentration sufficiently low

2.

3.

that no adverse effect can be observed (i.e.,

the response observed in a test population

cannot be distinguished from normal background incidence). Even the most innocuous compound (e. g., water), if taken

into an organism in sufficient quantity,

can result in some undesirable effect or

death. A very harmful material (e.g., PCB)

can be administered in a dose sufficiently low that no adverse effects can be observed. Concentrations of specific constituents within a waste provides a first, and

possibly a worst case, approximation of

the potential dose available to organisms,

Species differences.—The dose of a

specific chemical required to cause some

effect (e.g., death) will vary among species

(e.g., monkey, dog, and human), For example, when laboratory animals are exposed

to air contaminated with cyanogen, the

dose required to produce an acute toxic effect varies—cats can only tolerate doses up

to 98 parts per million (ppm), but rabbits

do not experience toxic effects below 395

ppm. 16 Dosages that produce chronic effects also can vary among species. For example, the amount of Aroclor 1254 that

results in some adverse effects on reproductive systems is 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for pheasants, 10 mg/kg for

mink, and 50 mg/kg for chickens. 17 The

quality of the effects also vary among these

species. In addition, individuals within a

species respond differently to the same

concentrations because of such factors as

age, stress, and natural sensitivities. For

example, nitrates in water can be ingested

by an adult human with no adverse effect,

but the same nitrates are toxic to infants

at certain concentrations.

Compound differences.—The dose required to produce a given effect (e.g.,

death) in a given species (e.g., rats) varies

with the type of compound being tested.

Examples of differences in acute toxicity

leRegistry of Toxic Effects of Chemical 5’ubstances [Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,

1980].

IT Nationa] Research Counc i], PoJycMorinated Biphenyls

(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1979),
232 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

are presented in table 41.

1

8 In these examples, the amount required to produce

death in 50 percent of the test population

varies greatly, ranging from 3 mg/kg for

cyanide to 5,000 mg/kg for toluene.19 Although these compounds vary greatly in

acute toxicity, EPA has designed them as

equally hazardous on the basis of a number of factors, including toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity. 20

Just as the degree of acute toxicity is not

equal among all compounds, doses for chronic

toxicity can vary also; for example, not all carcinogens are equally potent. 21 22 In particular,

Crouch and Wilson note that:

. . . certain of the known carcinogens are intrinsically much more likely than others to

cause cancer in test animals—they are more

potent. The variation in potency may be as

great as a million to one between different

materials (depending to some extent on the

definition used for potency). A small amount

of aflatoxin B1 in the diet (100 parts/billion)

gives cancer to a large fraction of the animals

exposed, yet the same amount of saccharin in

the diet causes no observable effect.

‘laNo~nuc]ear Industrial Hazardous Waste: C]assi~ing for Hazard Management—A Technical Memorandum (Washington,

D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTATM-M-9, November 1981).

IQRegistry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, OP cit.

Z040 CFR, section 261, subpts. B,C, D, and app. viii.

ZIE. Crouch and R. Wilson, “Regulation of Carcinogens, ” Risk

Analysis in Environmental Health (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

School of Public Health, Short Course, 1982).

uR. A, Squire, “Ranking Animal Carcinogens: A Proposed Regulatory Approach, ” Science, vol. 214, 1981, pp. 877-880.

Table 41.—Toxic Doses for Selected

Hazardous Waste Constituents

Compound L D50

a

Cyanide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Phenylmercuric acetate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Dieldrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Pentachlorophenol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

DDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Naphthalene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,760

Toluene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000

aAmount(rnglk~ body weight) that is lethal for 50 percent of the test Populatlonl

In these examples following oral administration to rats

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1981

4. Exposure period and route.—Exposure to

hazardous waste constituents can result

from either expected* or unexpected releases to the environment. Releases of hazardous waste constituents can be continuous or intermittent and can go into air,

soil, or water. The quality of a response

to a waste constituent will depend on the

route of exposure and the duration of exposure. For example, a large concentration

given all at one time can result in severe

effects including death. In contrast, harmful effects may be much less serious or not

observed at all when the same amount is

given over several days or a longer period.

Also, the route of the exposure influences the quality of the effect. For example, some compounds are toxic if inhaled

but produce no effect if ingested or if applied to the skin (e.g., fine-grained silica

sand), The importance of exposure factors

is recognized in regulation; different

standards define different permissible

levels of compounds in food, water, and

air.

Chemical and Physical Factors Determine Environmental Fate.—Chemical and physical properties of waste determine both the movement of

constituents through the environment and the

incorporation of these materials into living and

inanimate elements. Some of these properties

are volubility, volatility, physical state (e. g., liquid or solid), pH (level of acidity), and adsorbancy characteristics. Because of their particular chemical and physical properties, some

compounds may migrate rapidly through soil

and air but accumulate in water sources.

Others may bind strongly with soil particles

and remain isolated from vegetation or other

organisms, Still others may be incorporated

into plant and animal tissue and become distributed throughout food chains. Such transfer

and distribution of waste constituents is also

influenced by physical conditions of environ-

—

“Releases from waste disposal and treatment facilities will depend on engineering design. For example, the release rate from

an incinerator is influenced by the combustion efficiencies of

a particular facility. For land disposal units this rate depends

on the amount of liquid disposed as well as types of covers and

liners. See ch. 5 for a discussion of various engineering designs.
Ch. 6— Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 233

mental media [e. g., type of soil and climatic

conditions).

As a compound migrates through air, water,

soil, and biota, changes in its structure can

occur because of chemical, photochemical, and

biochemical reactions. These changes may result in the complete destruction of the hazardous characteristic of a waste constituent, eliminating any threat to health and the environment. However, it is also possible that new,

more hazardous compounds can result, The

structural changes need not be large, even

small rearrangements in molecular structures

can influence either accumulation of a compound in tissue or its degradation.

Models for Classification of Waste

The degree of hazard of a specific waste or

its constituents can be determined by analyzing data on the state of the waste, toxicity, environmental fate, and safety. Table 42 lists certain important factors in establishing criteria

for waste classification. Categorizing materials

on the basis of measures of hazard is not a

Table 42.—Factors Important for Hazard

Classification Criteria

Measures to distinguish

Hazard characteristics category boundaries

Physical data:

State of wast e

Concentrations . . .

Toxicity:

Acute toxicit y

Chronic toxicit y

Genetic Impairmen t

Environmental fate:

Persistence/degradation.

Bioaccumulatio n

Exposure potentia l

Safety:

Ignitablity ., ., . . .

Corrosivit y

Reactivity ... . .,

Solid, liquid, gas, vapor,

mixture, etc

Percent of total waste stream, actual

measurement

Short-term responses, e.g., lethal dose

ranges for terrestrial and aquatic

species

Long-term responses, e.g., severity of

morphological and functional

Impairments

Carcinogenic and mutagenic potency

Half-life in soil, air, and

water

Affinity for water or lipids in tissue

Distribution and partitioning

parameters—solubiliy, volatility,

sorption

Flash points, combustibility

pH ranges, buffering capacity

Immediate adverse (explosion) reaction

with water or release of significant

quantities of water

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

novel concept. Several methods have been developed, These include formal classification

systems and rank-order models.

Formal classification models categorize

waste constituents according to toxicological

criteria or to a combination of toxicity factors,

measures of environmental fate, and concentrations of waste constituents. 23 Threshold

values are assigned for each criteria. In order

to keep the systems simple and usable, most

of these models rely only on measures of acute

toxicity and identification of materials known

or suspected to be carcinogenic. These criteria

are rather limited for judging the overall hazard

of a waste or its individual constituents.

Rank-order models were developed in response to the mandates of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA).24 Compounds of concern

are assigned a separate score for each of several different criteria. The overall ranking is

based on a combination of these scores. Included is a broad range of factors: acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, persistence, bioaccumulation, esthetics, and chronic adverse effects. A modification of these rank-order models incorporates

an additional concept, commonly termed “redflagging. ”25 Within each criterion a minimum

score, termed a discriminatory value, is identified. This value serves to flag those chemicals

that may pose severe threats to health and the

environment.

To date, rank-order models have been used

only to set priorities for actions affecting

chemicals, rather than to establish classes of

hazard. It has been suggested that the system

can be used for ranking compounds by their

carcinogenic potency for regulatory purposes. 26 Also, Michigan has developed a rankorder model to provide a way of identifying

— 2JAPP~~d i ~ G presents exa rnpl~s of c ]assi flc at 10 n schemes

developed by various States. For a discussion of each, see ,wnnuclear industrial Hazardous Waste: Classifying for Hazard

Management-A Technical Memorandum, op. cit.

Z4pub] IC I.aw 94-469, 1976.

20S. L. Brown, “Appendix B. Systems for Rapid Ranking of

Environmental Pollutants, ” Scoring Chemicals for Health and

Ecological Effects Testing (Rock\ille, Md.: Enviro Control, Inc.,

1979).

26 Squire, op. cit.

9’3- 113 f) - 83 - lb
234 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

critical materials that may require the attention of State officials. 27

Although rank-order models were not developed for classification of industrial waste, they

might be adapted for such use. Critical factors

contributing to the inherent hazard of a waste

could be identified and an appropriate range

of scores defined for each factor. Ranges of

total scores could be grouped into hazard categories. Both hazard potential and environmental fate factors can be readily incorporated

into the system.

Waste classification systems have certain

problems that must be resolved. First, most of

the available models rely heavily on measures

of acute (short-term) toxicity and carcinogenicity. While these two criteria maybe important,

there are other chronic (long-term) health effects and environmental impacts that should

receive equal attention. The problem is that

there are few reliable ways to measure such

chronic effects as reproductive impairment,

immuno-suppression, and physiological dysfunction or damage of organs (e.g., heart, lung,

and liver). Criteria for these effects could be

developed on the basis of animal experiments

used to approximate human impacts, but data

even from animal tests are scanty. Obtaining

them will require long-term testing for several

years. No reliable short-term procedures exist

for measuring these chronic effects. Short-term

bioassays for mutagenicity and genetic impairments are used as rough measures of propensity to cause cancer, but they do not always correlate with the results of longer term tests for

cancer. Determining criteria for environmental effects is in its infancy. (This became a concern only with the passage of TSCA.) While

some testing methodologies are available, considerable development work lies ahead.

A second problem arises from the analysis

of individual constituents as a measure of the

hazard of a waste. It may not be prudent to

assume that the actual hazard posed by any

27see app, 6A for a description of each criteria used in this

model. Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Critical

Materials Register [Detroit, Mich.: State of Michigan, Environmental Protection Bureau, Environmental Services Division,

1980).

particular waste is the same as the “collective

hazard” of individual constituents. Most

hazard models do not consider synergistic or

antagonistic effects, nor do they evaluate

degradation products, and possible major interactions. Some proponents of classification

would argue that individual constituent analyses provide a conservative estimate of a hazard, but may not necessarily be true. Such an

analysis may suggest medium or low hazard;

if compounds interact, however, the actual

hazard of a waste could be high. Some compounds that do not, individually, produce

cancer in exposed animals, will do so in combination. Also, while a parent compound may

be low in hazard, the degradation products

could be more hazardous; degradation of certain compounds to nitrosamines is an example,

Finally, given the uncertainties in the analysis of hazards, a test result for any compound

always will have a certain level of error associated with it. Discrepancies in hazard classification can result and must be addressed. If

they are ignored, they could lead to endless

litigation between waste generators and EPA

over whether a waste really is highly hazardous

or merely represents medium hazard. For example, an “extremely hazardous” criterion

might be set at less than 50 mg/kg (the lethal

dose for half the exposed population) for oral

administration to mammals. Then questions

might be raised if a waste with test results of

49 + 4 mg/kg is assigned to the extremely hazardous category. The questions could multiply

if the test results for the waste were 49 for rats,

100 for mice, and 500 for dogs. While none of

these species has exact correlations with

human effects, all are legitimate test animals.

This last problem is not unique to classification of waste. It occurs with any standard, for

any material, To resolve the problem, classification boundaries must be set with clearly defined limits. A precedent for such action was

set in the regulations under the Federal pesticide law28 where EPA not only designated

standards, but also established criteria for

ZaThe Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as

amended in 1978.
Ch. 6–Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 235

determining confidence levels of test results

and guidelines for including these in evaluations of compliance.

Facility Classification

The underlying concept for classification of

waste management facilities is that the capacity to minimize release of harmful materials

varies from one facility to another. Although

the concept is new and highly speculative as

to feasibility and design, a classification system

has been proposed for management of lowlevel radioactive wastes.29 

Technical Basis

The technical basis for facility classification

is the concept of risk, defined as the probability

that a defined event will occur under a specific

set of conditions. In waste management, the

event is the release of harmful constituents,

given identified engineering designs and environmental conditions.

For each type of waste management option

(e.g., thermal destruction, land disposal, and

treatment facilities), ranges of design and environmental conditions can be identified. For

example, the risk associated with landfills

varies depending on the number of liners, the

permeability of each liner, and geological conditions of the site. For thermal destruction,

various designs (e. g., high-temperature incinerators, cement kilns, and boilers) offer different degrees of risk when a particular type

of waste is burned, The efficiency of waste

combustion is limited by process controls such

as air flow, residence time, and function of the

incinerator. Cement kilns, for example, can be

used to incinerate certain wastes, but their

original purpose is to produce cement particles, Similarly, industrial boilers are designed

to produce heat, although they also can be used

to incinerate waste. By contrast, the primary

function of a high-temperature incinerator is

destruction of combustible organics.

z~s’trlklng a Ba]an ~e T’o ward a Na tionaj PO]ICJ’ for hfanaging

lmu’-Z,etel Radioactit,e L1’aste: Kc}’ Issues and Recommendations

[Washington, D. C.: Conservation Foundation, 1981).

Determining the risk level associated with a

facility design can be a complex task. The risk

potential of a facility depends on more than the

hazard level of the material being handled. It

also depends on the type of environment surrounding a facility, meteorological factors for

the site, the impact of the management option

on the waste constituents (e. g., does it destroy

the waste, reduce its hazard potential, sufficiently isolate it, or contain it for a specified

period of time), and the technological limitations of the facility design and operating

conditions.

The aim of facility classification is to match

waste classes with appropriate categories of facility design and environmental conditions.

For each type of facility (e.g., land disposal or

incineration) an acceptable level of risk must

be identified for specific environmental conditions. The match among wastes and facilities

must not exceed this risk level. For example,

the overall risk arising from the match of waste

Class I and land disposal Class I must be the

same as for waste Class 11 and land disposal

Class II. Included in the match is the location

and environment of the management facility.

A waste class that would pose severe threats

if allowed to escape might be managed in a

facility where location and environmental conditions minimize exposure to humans and

other living things.

Models for Facility Classification

Because facility classification is a new concept, few models are available for implementing the approach. Classification schemes for

sites are available, but they have focused primarily on the hazard potential of abandoned

dumps .

30 31 With some modification these

schemes could be applied to landfill, incineration, or treatment facilities as well,

Table 43 illustrates the type of criteria that

could be used to classify management facilities.

‘oJRB Associates Inc., Methodology}’ for Rating the Hazard

Potent~a) of Waste Dwposal Sites, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980.

31 Mltre Corp,, s~~e Ranking Model for Determining Remedial

Action Priorities Among Uncontrolled Hazardous Substances

Facilities (McLean, Va,: Mitre Corp., 1981).
236 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control—

Table 43.—Proposed Measures for

Classifying Management Options

Characteristics Measures to distinguish categories

Design Measures of limiting process

controls (e. g., combustion levels,

number of liners, sophistication

of instrumentation, monitoring

programs)

Meteorological Climatic conditions

Site characteristics Distance to nearest drinking-water

well

Distance to nearest off site building

Land use/zoning

Critical environments

Distance to nearest surface water

Depth to ground water

Net precipitation

Soil permeability

Bedrock permeability

Depth to bedrock

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

The major factors include design characteristics, meteorological conditions, and site conditions. Appropriate design and meteorological

characteristics vary with the type of facility.

For example, containment capabilities adequate to the threat of floods or potential for

earthquakes would be important for landfills.

Incinerators would be classed according to

combustion capabilities and chamber designs,

together with consideration of wind patterns

or air inversions. The critical environmental

factors for any facility might include: distance

to drinking water sources, distance to nearest

population, existence of critical or endangered

environments, distance to nearest surface

water, depth to ground water sources, precipitation levels, soil permeability, bedrock permeability, and depth to bedrock.

Scores could be assigned for different levels

within each of these factors. Separate classes

may be designated based on some method of

combining scores. It may be necessary to develop classification schemes based on environmental media—e.g., land (land disposal facilities), air (thermal destruction), and water (treatment facilities). The criteria could then be related to minimizing release of hazardous constituents to the relevant medium.

Once a technology/facility/site combination

has been classified, waste groups then could

be matched to it. Thus, a waste which is highly

hazardous, moves readily through soil, and has

a low potential for natural degradation would

be restricted to facilities that could contain,

completely destroy, or immobilize such waste.

California has a scheme for classifying landfills. Permeability standards are used in conjunction with location of ground water sources

to place existing landfills into one of three

classes. It has recently completed a comprehensive study of hazardous waste and has

restricted certain waste to particular classes of

landfills. 32

The basis for facility classification schemes

is the ability of a facility to properly contain

the waste for a specified period of time, and

to match this period of time with rates for

degradation or mobility of a waste. Thus, facilities that can contain a waste for a specified time, or can destroy it completely (e.g.,

by incineration), could be selected to handle

waste that are highly persistent and nondegradable. If controlled release of the waste

from a facility is likely and if there is potential

for surface- or ground-water contamination at

some time in the future, then the waste handled at such facility location must have degradation potentials that match the expected time of

escape.

Feasibility of Classification: A Case Study

In an attempt to clarify some of the issues

on classification of waste and facilities, OTA

sponsored a study on the feasibility of such a

system.33 The study operated under several limitations. It used only currently available

classification criteria and readily obtainable

data. It examined only a selected group of hazardous wastes listed or proposed for listing by

EPA for which toxicity and environmental fate

data were available in EPA background documents; and it supplemented the EPA data with

toxicity information from the Registry of

32Departrnent of Hea]th Services, “Changes in Regulations of

the Department of Health Services Regarding Hazardous Waste

Land Disposal Restrictions (R-32- 82),” (Sacramento, Ca]if.: State

of California, Health and Welfare Agency, 1982].

“J. Harris, P. Strand, and T. Shea, Classification by Degree

of Hazard for Selected ]ndustrial Waste Streams (Washington,

D, C.: Office of Technology Assessment, Materials Program,

1982).
Ch 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 237

——. —

acteristics used in each system. Appendix 6A

provides descriptions of how waste constituents are scored in the two systems.

Nine wastes were chosen from the RCRA list

for this analysis, representing a range of

volumes and toxicity levels. The wastes are

shown in table 45, Because no schemes for actual management classification exist, the feasibility study reviewed only classification of

landfills, using environmental criteria developed by JRB Associates.36 The capacity to distinguish, by this means, among three existing

landfills was analyzed and used to indicate the

feasibility of management classification in

general.

Study Results

Although EPA treats the nine wastes included in this exercise as equally hazardous,

it is apparent from table 46 that further classification by degree of hazard can be made. Even

with the limited data available to the study,

it was possible to distinguish these wastes into

~fJ] K H ASS()(;]ateS Inc., op cit

Table 44.— Hazard Characteristics of Case Study Classification Models

Hazard characteristic - Washington system

a - Michigan systemb

—

Physical data:

State of waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None

Concentration . . . . . . Quantity/concentration Quantity/concentration

formula formula

Toxicity:

Acute toxicity ( L D

5 0

, L C

5 0

) ., . . . . . Oral, aquati c Oral, dermal, aquatic

Chronic toxicity . . . . . None Reversible, irreversible

Genetic impairment . ......... ., Carcinogenicity only Carcinogenicity

Mutagenicityy

Teratogenicity

Environmental fate:

Persistence/degradation ... ., . . . . Presence of polycyclic Persistent

aromatics and Degradable

halogenated hydrocarbons

Bioaccumulatlon . . . . . . . . . . None Accumulation

coefficients

Exposure potential . . . . . . . . . . Related to concentration None

of constituents in

waste

Safety:

Ignitability. . . . . . . . . . . . . RCRA criteria None

Corrosivity . . . . . . . . . RCRA criteria None

Reactivity ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RCRA criteria None —

aFiVe h~ard Classes + A, B, C D (least hazardous)

bFour hward classes A B, C, D (least hazardous)

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment
238 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 45. —Case Study Wastes

Waste

High volume/high toxicity:

● Bottom stream from an acetonitriIe

column in the production of acrylonitrile

High volume/low toxicity:

● Wastewater treatment sludge from

production of titanium dioxide pigment,

using chromium bearing ores by

chloride process

Medium volume/high toxicity:

● Brine purification muds from the mercury

cell process in chlorine production,

where separately prepurified brine was

not used

Low volume/high toxicity:

●

●

●

●

●

Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from

purification step of diaphragm cell

process, using graphite anodes in

chlorine production

Wastewater treatment sludge from the

production of toxaphene

Distillation bottoms from the production

of nitrobenzene by nitration of benzene

Ammonia still lime sludge form coking

Spent stripping and cleaning bath

solutions from-electroplating operations

where cyanides are used in the process,

except for precious metal use

Low volume/low toxicity:

● Light and heavy ends from distillation of

acetaldehyde in the production of

acetic anhydride — —

aAnnualvolumes taken from EPA background documents

bEpA d~l~~ted thl~ waste ~tream

EPA hazardous

waste number

KO13

K074b

K071

K073

K041

K025

K060

FO09

Not listed

Volume a

Production

(tons) sites (number)

337,000 6

900,000

42,000

(dry)

27

3,750 2

500 7

1,000,000 30’

22,500 10,000

gals

2,000 4

cprocegg being phased out by 1982 only 2 companies with a few Plants remal n

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

two to four classes of hazard. In most cases,

the hazard class for individual constituents of

a particular waste did not vary substantially;

it was possible to designate an average

classification for the waste. The method of

averaging was arbitrarily chosen for the purposes of this study. The class designation for

the majority of constituents determined the

waste average rank. For example, K060 would

be assigned to class B in the Washington State

system only, since four of its six constituents

have that classification. Depending on relative

concentration levels for both cyanide and

phenol, and the potential for separating these

two constituents from the waste before treatment/disposal, the overall classification could

be adjusted. For K073, an appropriate classification might be class C because of the distribution of ratings for individual constituents.

An important finding was that the actual

class designation for a particular waste is dependent on the model used, as illustrated in

table 47. It appears that greater discrimination

is possible using the Washington State system.

A sensitivity analysis would be required to determine which factors contribute to the greater

discrimination in this system.

Ranking of landfills using criteria based only

on environmental criteria was found to be possible, Though limited, this study shows that

even simple classification criteria can distinguish differences in risks posed by different

management facilities.

Limitations Encountered

Not surprisingly, the study found significant

limitations in data availability, variability, and
Ch. 6— Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 239

—

Waste

K071

K060

FO09

K013

Heavy

and

Light

Ends

K073

K041

K025

Table 46.— Results of Case Study Classification of Wastes

Washington system Michigan system

Average - Average

--

Constituent for wastea Constituents Constituents for waste

a

Mercury b

x

c

x

c Ad - Aa

Arsenic b B A

Arsenic trioxide B A

Arsenic pentoxide B B A A

Naphthalene B B

Cyanideb

x B

Phenol c B

Sodium cyanide B B B A

Potassium cyanide B A —

AcetonitriIe c B

Acrylonitrile c c B B

Hydrocyanic acid A B

Methyl acetate —e —e

Acetone D —e

Ethylidene diacetate D —e D B

Ethyl acetate D B

Chloroform c A -

Hexachloroethane B B

Carbon tetrachloride c A

1,1,2- trichloroethane c c B B

1,1,1- trichloroethane c B

Tetrachloroethylene c B

1,2- dichloroethylene D B

1,1- dichloroethylene c B

1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane c A

Toxaphene ;

.

x A –

Meta-dinitrobenzene B B B B

2,4-dinitrotoluene c B

K074 Chromium b (trivalent CrCl3) D B

-

Chromiumb (trivalent Cr203) D D B B

Chromiumb (hexavalent) c B

awhe~e dl~~fepan~ ,e~ ~CCu ~ amOng ~On~t ,t “ent~, an ~~blt~a~ class de$,l gfla~(on for the waste was chosen by US I ng the Val Ue

for the majority of constituents (e g K060) or where constituents were evenly dlvlded among classes, the average deslgna

tion for the waste equaled the highest class !ficatlon (e g FO09 rank-order)

b Mav be classified as EP tOXIC accordlno to either scheme depending On concentration

CX represents most hazardous, D least hazardous

dA represents most hazardous, D least hazardous

elnsufflclent data to determine cate90w

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Table 47.— Distribution of Wastes Among Classes

Hazard classifications

X

b A B c D

Washington K071 K060 K013 H Lends

system K041 FO09 K073

K025 K074

Michigan K071 K013

system K060 HLends

FO09 K073

K041 K025

K074 —

aLeft to r}ght represents decreasing hazard levels

bThls class Included only In the Washington system

HLends Heavy I!ght ends

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

interpretation. Data availability is a chronic

problem in the design and implementation of

environmental regulations, and classification

models are no exception. Both of the waste

classification models used in this study required more data than was available for some

of the waste constituents. Thus, the categorization of many wastes was based on no more

than one or two data points. It should be emphasized that this problem is not unique to

hazardous waste management, but occurs

often in the evaluation of hazards or risks for

any purpose.
240 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Data variability also created some difficulties.

Even when data were available, they were

often not the types required in the models. Currently, there are no standardized methods for

correlating test results across species or for different routes of exposure within a species. EPA

correlations for cross-species test results compare surface areas of the test animals involved,

although these comparisons are not generally

accepted by the scientific community. Again,

variability in data is a problem common to all

areas of scientific inquiry; it arises from differences in the measuring processes and from

variabilities in responses of organisms to chemicals. Although this type of variability can

never be wholly eliminated, it can be accommodated by using appropriate ranges of data

values for each critical factor in a classification model.

Because some of the defined categories in the

models had very specific criteria, data interpretation became increasingly important. For

example, the ranges of values defining a toxicity criterion were, in some instances, narrower than those given in the published data.

Thus, it was necessary to represent data rather

arbitrarily by a single point in order to assign

it to a hazard class. Other problems arose in

translating information from published data to

the specific requirements of a classification

model. For example, the scoring for chronic

adverse effects in the rank-order (Michigan)

model required information about the reversibility of an effect and concentrations at which

reversibility is observed. While published

descriptions of chronic effects are sometimes

quite detailed, often they do not provide indications of reversibility; to fill in this blank requires expert judgment. Among other problems

encountered were the correct interpretation of

common labels, such as “potential animal carcinogen. ” Also, it was difficult to interpret differences in data resulting from variation in the

structure of chemicals used in tests (e.g., chemical compounds that are identical except for

a particular geometrical relationship in one

part of the molecular structure can have substantially different toxicities).

A conclusion to be drawn from the case

study is that scientifically defensible and technologically feasible standards and criteria

would have to be developed for an acceptable

regulatory program based on hazard classification. The criteria must be based on accurate

characterization of waste and reliable toxicological information. The rationale for each

hazard criterion and its range of values must

be stated explicitly. Moreover, in designing a

classification system, judgments must be made

for such technical issues as:

●

●

●

Absolute v. relative toxicity .–Whether

actual values of acute and chronic toxicity should be used as hazard criteria, or

whether a scoring system should be devised showing relative toxicity values.

Equivalent concentrations v. single constituent concentrations as the basis for

regulation.—Whether to evaluate the hazard of the waste as a whole by combining

weighted values of its constituents.

The need to develop short- and long-term

bioassays for actual waste samples,

rather than for single constituents of the

waste—The interaction of constituents

may result in a different hazard level from

that of the constituents singly.

Problems and Advantages of

Classification Systems

Several advantages in using classification

systems are apparent. An industrial waste management system that successfully matches waste

classes with facility classes would provide a

consistent level of protection, while avoiding

excessive regulation. Highly hazardous waste

would be handled at facilities with the highest

performance standards; but less hazardous

waste would be handled at less cost in facilities

designed to less rigorous standards. Other advantages are that government regulations could

set priorities for establishing standards and

controls on the basis of degrees of hazards for

wastes and risks for facilities. In addition, the

system could give the public reliable information on the most effective and appropriate ways
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 241

of handling each class. This last point is particularly important, At present, the general

public tends to consider all industrial waste

equally hazardous. Moreover, many people be

lieve that government is doing very little to protect human health and the environment against

these hazards. These perceptions have played

a part in the efforts of concerned citizens to

halt or delay the development of new facilities,

(The section on “Siting” includes a more detailed discussion of these problems.) Use of a

facility classification system in regulation

could help to inform the public about the

broad range of hazards and risks related to

hazardous waste management. Use of the system certainly will not eliminate public concern,

nor perhaps, reduce it. But the result could be

to focus public concern more closely on the

level of hazard and the various technical possibilities for dealing with these hazards. For example long-term health and environmental

consequences of incineration, chemical or

biological treatment, and containment alternatives could be drawn to public attention and

compared.

Several practical problems, some mentioned

in the foregoing discussion, may make it difficult to design a successful system. The difficulties may be summarized as follows:

Mismatches of waste classified by hazard

and facilities classified by performance standards might occur. In some instances it may be

a mismatch to send only the most hazardous

waste to those facilities rated highest in performance. Incineration is an example. Different classes of facilities could represent differences in combustion efficiencies, from 90

to 99 percent. There is no information to suggest that a medium-hazard waste, classed as

such based on criteria of toxicity and persistence, presents an equal or lower risk when

burned at 95 percent efficiency as compared

to a high hazard waste burned at 99 percent

efficiency. It is possible that a very hazardous

material burns readily and could be incinerated

in an industrial boiler, a low-performance facility, thus posing no risk. In contrast, a

medium- or low-hazard waste burned in a similar facility may not be readily combusted. If

the material is not completely destroyed or if

it forms hazardous combustion products, overall greater risk may result than with incineration of the highly hazardous material.

The classification system might also mask

critical environmental considerations. A particular waste may have different levels of hazard in different environmental media. For example, a waste constituent may be readily

degraded in air but not in soil or sediment.

Thus, if incinerated it might pose only a low

risk, but for land or ocean disposal a very high

risk level could result, A material classed as a

medium hazard based on toxicity, genetic impairment, and persistence may be readily mobilized in a landfill. The hazard level results

from a weighting of several criteria, and

therefore, a waste may have medium hazard

for cancer, be highly mobile, and perhaps a

high hazard for chronic effect such as immunosuppression. The mobility factor, however, is

most important for the risk at a water source.

If placed in a medium secure landfill and

allowed to migrate to water sources, a mediumhazard constituent can cause the same type of

adverse effects on the exposed population as

a highly hazardous constituent; it may simply

require a higher accumulation of the material

before the effect is observed.

A related problem is that the wast e

characteristics that define a hazard may differ from characteristics that determine the

management choice. Waste classification

systems include a diverse range of hazard criteria. The overall hazard rank is a combined

weighting of all these criteria. However, from

the management perspective one specific

hazard characteristic often influences the potential risk associated with a particular management option. Such a characteristic could be

the high potential for reactivity, which requires

a management practice that protects against

a short-term hazard. Or if the mobility of an

organic waste is the prime concern, management must deal with long-term, cumulative effects. A hazard class could include various

waste requiring different technologies. Judgments about the type of waste to be managed

in a particular way currently are based on

knowledge of the constituents of the waste and
242 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

limitations of the facility. It is not clear how

sophisticated analyses of the hazard potential

of a waste before it enters a facility will improve these judgments.

The degree of hazard of a waste may be

changed in a management facility. Although

each generator can test for hazard characteristics of its particular waste stream, the results

may not define adequately the real hazard of

constituents released from a management facility. Most facilities are not “mono-” facilities,

i.e., they do not accept only one type of waste

from one source. Therefore, the hazard class

of one type of waste may have little real meaning for the risk potential of a facility. Mixing

of several kinds of waste could result in interactions that would change the hazard level of any

one or all by either increasing the hazard or

decreasing it. If the main concern is the risk

to workers at a facility, it may be quite appropriate to focus on the hazards of materials

as they enter a facility. But if risk to the general

population and the environment is foremost,

then the important hazard potential is in the

materials that are released from a facility.

These difficulties can be resolved. It should

be possible to design a system that addresses

these problems but does not become overly

complex and expensive and thus impractical

to implement. OTA’s feasibility study indicates

that such a system is possible. Because of the

advantages classification can offer for regulation of hazardous waste a further study to design an effective, practical system seems justified,

Monitoring

Monitoring provides information essential to

reasonable and equitable decisionmaking. The

importance of environmental monitoring in

pollution-abatement programs is well recognized. 37 38 The success of pollution control can

only be judged by measuring the presence of

constituents in all environmental media and

comparing these data with measurements

taken before the pollution controls were implemented.

Data collected for several purposes (i.e., both

to assess environmental quality and to determine compliance with environmental regulations) must be coordinated and available to

decisionmakers. Monitoring information is important for decisions on regulatory action by

agencies in the executive branch and it is also

important for congressional oversight functions. At a 1978 congressional hearing, Rep37U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Environmental

A40nitoring-lZ, hearings before the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere of the Committee on Science and

Technology, No. 93 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978].

s8Nationa] Research Counci], Environment] hfOnj~Orjng

(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Science, 1977].

resentative J. Jeffords (R-Vt. ) emphasized this

point:

39

As a result of . . . lack of an adequate national environmental quality monitoring program, those of us in Congress who are responsible for passing judgment on environmental

statutes do not have a solid basis for assessing the success or lack of success of the laws

we pass, Moreover, we continually face new

environmental crises because we lack the environmental monitoring that might have

warned us of emerging problems.

The several different but closely related purposes served by monitoring programs are illustrated in table 48.40 Adequate data on concentrations of specific compounds, their distribution patterns in the environment, and

cause-effect relationships are needed for informed judgments about contamination levels,

compliance with regulations, and appropriate

performance standards. Without monitoring

data, judgments about the effectiveness of

SOU.S. congress, House of Representatives, Op cit.

%ouncil on Environmental Quality, inter~gency Task Force

on Environmental Data and Monitoring (Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1980).
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste Ž 243

Table 48.—Description of Monitoring Functions

Monitoring function Description

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Baseline information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Routine monitoring and collection of

constituent information.

Standard development . . . ... . . Development of information bases for establishment or revision of constituent standards.

Compliance monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collection of constituent information to verify

compliance with regulatory standards set by

operations of Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector.

Monitor status of environmental control regions.

Research and development . . . . . . . . . . Provides information for model development,

instrumentation R&D, development testing, or

audit of measurement techniques.

Public or agency alert . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provides a warning system for agency action

and/or public alert.

SOURCE Council on Environmental Ouality, 1980

various waste management options may depend on political interests and individual

perceptions.

Monitoring data also provide tangible evidence to a concerned public that human health

and the environment are being protected. In

the absence of monitoring data, the extent or

success of protection offered to human health

and environmental stability is only conjecture.

In hazardous waste management, monitoring

activities are the only means of verifying that

a facility is operating properly.

Environmental Fate and Design of a

Monitoring Program

Several important distribution routes are

available to waste constituents once they are

released from a waste management facility, as

illustrated in figures 17 and 18. The constituents may dissolve in water and percolate

through soil into ground water supplies; if well

water is drawn for domestic or agricultural use,

humans, plants, and animals can be exposed

to the contaminated water. Chemicals mobilized through the food chain can present a

hazard to humans and higher organisms.

(Methylmercury is a well-known example of

this.) Chemicals dissolved in runoff water (e.g.,

materials released through accidental spills or

pesticides applied in fields) may enter streams

and accumulate in either sediment or aquatic

organisms. These materials could be transferred via streams and rivers to sites far from

Figure 17.— Potential Transport and Points of

Transformation for Land-Disposed Hazardous

Waste Contaminants

Atmosphere

Clay liner

Soil biota

Soil particles

To surface water

systems and aquatic

organisms

Ground water

SOURCE” Modlfled from G F Lee and R A Jones A risk assessment approach for evaluating the environmental slgnlflcance of chemical

contaminants In solld wastes, “Envlronmentai Risk Analysls for

Chemical s,” R A Conway (ed ), 1981

the point of release. Those chemicals with sufficiently high-vapor pressure may evaporate at

the point of release, and then maybe deposited

nearby via rain or snow, or they may be transported long distances depending on prevailing

wind currents. Airborne materials can be directly inhaled by organisms. Solid materials

(e.g., as powders) stored in surface piles may
244 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Figure 18.— Potential Transformations of

Hazardous Constituents in Aquatic Systems

retrial exchange

Biotic exchange

Particulate exchange

Resorption

(Chemical transformation)

Deputation Sediment exchange

1 Sediment

SOURCE Modlfled from G F Lee and R A. Jones A risk assessment ap

preach for evaluating the environmental significance of chemical

contaminants In solid wastes, “Environmental Risk Analysls for

Chemicals, ” R, A. Conway (cd.), 1981.

be blown about as dusts and consequently inhaled by humans and animals or deposited on

plant surfaces. At any point in the transport

of materials, a constituent can be transformed

into other compounds that may pose either less

or, of particular concern, greater hazards than

the parent chemical.

The fate of any substance depends on its interaction with living and nonliving elements

of the environment. As illustrated in table 49,

each environmental medium (i. e., soil, water,

Table 49.—Environmental Media and Examples of

Properties Influencing the Fate of Waste Constituents

Air

Temperature

Wind velocity

Humidity

Particulate levels

soil

Vegetation cover

Species composition

Organic content

Acid-base level

Soil composition

Soil pore size

Mineral content

Temperature

Water

Temperature

pH

Suspended solids

Flow rate

Sedimentation rate

Species composition

Oxygen levels

Salinity

Biota

Species tolerance

Age of individuals

Metabolic factors

Mobility

Species composition

SOURCE’ Office of Technology Assessment

air, and biota) has properties that may influence the way constituents are dispersed,

their reactions with environmental components, and their ultimate deposition. Examples

of transport and transformation processes that

influence environmental fate are presented in

table 50. In aquatic systems, for example,

organic constituents may be adsorbed on suspended particles and deposited in lake or ocean

sediment; thus, the amount of suspended particles and rate of sedimentation affects the

availability of these constituents to plants and

animals. Similarly in a terrestrial system microorganisms in the soil may degrade a hazardous

waste more or less completely depending on

the temperature and the availability of nutrients.

If the quality and quantity of waste constituents released from a facility can be identified,

and if general characteristics of the environment to which they are released are known

also, the potential for movement of the constituents can be estimated using fugacity equations.

41 Fugacity is defined as the escaping

tendency of a substance from a heterogeneous

system. Fugacity equations are mathematical

models, incorporating data on particular compounds and environmental media, for estimating this tendency. These mobility or fugacity

estimates can be used to develop profiles of environmental distribution.

Information needed for such profiles can be

obtained through laboratory analysis of the

chemical, physical, and molecular characteristics of a compound. Data. on physical characteristics provide indications of the relative

affinity between a compound and environmental components (e.g., whether it is water soluble, insoluble, or highly volatile). Knowledge

of the molecular structure permits estimation

of the degradation potential by chemical or biochemical transformations. For example, predictions that a constituent will bind to organic

components in soil rather than be transported

41D. Mackay, “Finding Fugacity Feasible,” Environmental

Science & Technology, vol. 13, No. 10, 1979, pp. 1218-1223; and

National Research Council, “Chapter 2. Factors Influencing the

Fate of Chemicals,” Testing for Effecis of Chemicals on Ecosystems (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1981).
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 245

Table 50.— Examples of Processes Influencing Fate of a Waste Constituent

Physical

Transport phenomenon

(flow path and rate) (D)

● Diffusion (D) ●

• Dispersion (D) ●

Ž Filtration (D) ●

Ž Sedimentation (D) ●

● Adsorption—

disorption (D)

(D) Dlstr{but~onltransport

(T) Transformation

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Chemical - Biochemical

Acid-base reactions (D) ●

oxidation—reduction (T)

Photolysis (T) ●

Hydrolysis (T) ●

●

to water or air can be made. Those constituents

that dissolve readily in water or volatilize rapidly into air also would be identified.

It is unlikely that any waste constituent will

be found solely in one environmental medium

(i.e., only in soil, or in water]; instead it is likely to be distributed across media, albeit unevenly, Figure 19 illustrates a hypothetical profile

of environmental distribution. 42 In this example, the chemical is more readily dissolved in

‘4; R, H ~(iu~; , j, I.’t~]Lo, .S, [;ohen, and C. R iorda n, 4’Role of ‘I’r;inspurt ant] Fate Studies ]n the Exposure A\ses>rnent and Screeni ng of ‘l-ox I(, Chemi[, a] 5,” ll~nami(, s, Expc)s(lre anri Hazard Asscssmen t of 7“0 vic Chem i[:als ( A n n Arbor, LI Ich.: Ann A rh[)r

Sc.lence Pub]lsher’, Inc., 1980).

Figure 19. —A Hypothetical Environmental Fate

Profile of a Chemical That Binds Strongly

With Lipid Material

I

;OU RCE H aq ue F alco Cohen, Rlordan, 1980

Accumulation—

concentration (D)

Mineralization (T)

Cometabolism (T)

Biotic transformations—

polymerization,

conjugation (T) — —

water than bound to soil or organic material.

Initial concentrations might occur in soil, air,

and water. (In a real-world example, the initial

distribution of a constituent would depend on

the point of release.) As environmental residence time increases, major accumulation

occurs in water and boiota. In contrast, if

chemical analysis indicated strong bonding

with organic particles (as illustrated in fig. 20),

the profile would differ, with increased concentrations of the constituent occurring in soil

or sediment over time. This compound might

accumulate in biota at those sites where soil

Figure 20.– Hypothetical Environmental Fate

Profile of a Compound That Binds Strongly

With Organic Material

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment
246 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

or sediment-dwelling organisms are present.

The final concentrations in air and water

would probably be minimal.

Knowledge of this potential distribution is

quite useful in designing a monitoring program

for a particular site. For a profile such as figure

19, monitoring efforts initially would concentrate on sampling all media. Over time, greater

efforts could be devoted to analysis of water

and biotic samples with a reduced effort in soil

and air sampling. Spot checks might be necessary to verify that there is not continual

release of constituents from a facility. In the

second figure, sampling of soil would have

highest priority, with lesser and decreasing emphasis on water and air analyses. Thus, the

ability to predict environmental fate of waste

constituents using fugacity equations can promote development of cost-effective programs

by indicating where sampling efforts may best

be concentrated.

Monitoring Activities: Types and Strategies

Monitoring includes a variety of activities.

It can refer to observation of the operation of

an industrial process (e. g., the chemical treatment of a waste), the inspection of the integrity of a facility, or the effects of an industrial

waste constituent on organisms. Five types of

monitoring—visual, process, source, ambient,

and effects—can be used alone or in combination with two different strategies—surveillance

and assessment.

Five Types of Monitoring

Most types of monitoring that can be applied

to waste management practices (i.e., all but effects monitoring) focus on identifying the occurrence and extent of releases of waste constituents to the environment. This monitoring

may be part of an information feedback system

for a facility operation; or it can provide data

needed for developing standards and to identify research needs (see table 48). Ambien t

monitoring also is used to establish baseline

data. Ambient and effects monitoring provide

data for setting research priorities and for

measuring quality of public health and the environment. Effects monitoring is aimed at determining cause-effect relationships between

hazardous constituents and adverse effects

observed in humans or other organisms.

1.

2.

3.

Visual monitoring is the simplest and

least costly method of identifying releases

of constituents from a waste management

facility. Routine procedures—checking for

container leaks and for proper storage of

materials as well as containers—are useful

in monitoring hazards associated with ignitable, corrosive, and reactive materials.

Visual inspections immediately identify

the potential for fugitive emissions, accidental spills, and generally unsafe conditions at a facility site.

The purpose of process monitoring is designed to determine that a process (e. g.,

waste recovery, incineration, or biological

treatment) is operating in accordance with

specific standards. Factors that control a

process (e. g., temperature and flow rate in

an incinerator) are checked for variations

from an established level. Process monitoring is based on the principle that chemical,

physical, and biological reactions are predictable, and that conditions under which

they occur can be controlled. This type of

monitoring therefore consists primarily of

surveying normal engineering information

provided on meters and gages. In many

large industrial facilities, continuous monitoring is performed with the aid of a computerized system. If a specified condition

(e.g., temperature) exceeds certain preestablished levels, the system automatically

shuts down the process and sounds an

alarm. Process monitoring can be extremely effective. Recordkeeping can be done on

a routine basis and the skill level required

is not high; the technician is required to

read gages or computer printouts. Costs

for this type of monitoring are primarily

for equipment and technician time. The

challenge is to channel the flow of this information from the plant operations level

to the risk management level.

Source monitoring verifies that the flow

of material from a facility to air, soil, or
Ch 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 247

4

water does not contain harmfu1 or unex -

pected constituents, In general, indicator

compounds and conditions, rather than

specific chemicals, are monitored continuously with such measurements as pH,

temperature, total organic content, specific metals, and oxygen levels (for water

sampling). If significant variations in these

measurements are detected, more comprehensive analytical tests can be conducted

to identify the specific problem. The

presence of unexpected constituents or increased concentrations in an industrial effluent (e.g., increased levels of total

organics) would signal that the facility may

not be operating correctly.

This type of monitoring activity is a second-stage alert system for an industrial operation, with visual inspections and process monitoring the first stage, With appropriate indicators, source monitoring

can be very effective. EPA has required it

for monitoring compliance of industries

with certain environmental regulations

(e.g., regulations promulgated under the

Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.) Automation and remote control of sampling and

analysis have made second-level monitoring activities relatively simple, as long as

outflow constituents can be identified for

analysis. More highly skilled personnel are

needed than in process monitoring; special

training is required in sampling and analytical methodologies.

Ambient monitoring is the third level of

activity. It can provide baseline data for

a specific area, and also provide data after

the release of hazardous constituents into

the environment for comparison. Ambient

monitoring is much more complex than

the first two levels, requiring carefully controlled sampling and analysis of a diverse

set of materials (e. g., soil, water, air, plant

and animal tissue). The environmental

components are themselves variable,

which can complicate interpretation of

results. With the availability of complex

analytical equipment (e. g., the gas chromatograph-mass spectrophotometer), the

identity and concentrations of many dif5

ferent constituents can be detected at very

low levels (parts per billion).

The cost of ambient monitoring is a

function of the degree of knowledge desired regarding the fate of constituents.

After a release of constituents into the environment, the precise form, concentrations, and locations of constituents becomes harder to determine with time. A

greater number of samples is required to

assess the full extent of contamination

over time. The level of detail and precision

desired also affect costs. Some relatively

simple analytical techniques can detect

classes of constituents by measurement of

chemical and physical processes. To determine more precisely the qualitative identity of a single constituent, or the extent

of its distribution, requires more complex,

costly equipment. The skills required for

these types of testing requires several years

of training in technical fields and extensive training on specific analytical equipment,

Effects monitoring entails observing

humans and other organisms for adverse:

or beneficial, effects resulting from the

presence of, or exposure to, constituents

above naturally occurring levels. It is expensive and time-consuming, since it often

takes several months or years for an effect

to appear (e. g., as illness or death in the

human population, or decreases in animal

population sizes). As discussed previously in this chapter, it is very difficult to

determine direct relationships between the

presence of a contaminant and particular

adverse effects for human health. Because

cause-effect relationships have not been established for most waste constituents, data

from this type of monitoring can be used

to set research priorities and to evaluate

environmental quality,

Of the five types of monitoring discussed

above, ambient monitoring has the greatest

potential to serve as evidence that risks associated with hazardous waste management

are kept to acceptable levels. Visual inspections along with process and source monitor-
248 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ing, if effectively carried out, can reduce the

amount of ambient monitoring needed; however, they cannot serve as substitutes. Only by

taking representative samples from potentially affected environmental media and analyzing them for a broad spectrum of indicators is

it possible to control risks reliably and

realistically. Increased use of fugacity predictions can contribute to more cost-effective ambient monitoring programs. Greater use of multimedia monitoring programs are needed.

Public health can best be protected by

preventing hazardous releases and minimizing contamination of the environment.

Should releases occur, ambient monitoring of

the environment can produce early warning of

threats to public health. The environment can

serve as a protective barrier. If contamination

of the air, water, and land is detected early

(before widespread contamination and actual

damages), corrective action can be taken, and

human exposure reduced. For example, a persistent hazardous compound might be detected

in soil surrounding a waste management facility, but nowhere else. If it can be removed, or

in some way immobilized before reaching

water or critical points in food chains, then exposure to humans and other organisms is prevented, Ambient monitoring, therefore, should

be given a prominent role in monitoring programs.

Two Monitoring Strategies

Monitoring programs serve two different

types of strategies: surveillance or assessment.

Surveillance monitoring usually is used to

verify compliance with regulatory standards;

it provides only limited information on trends

or changes in broad categories of monitoring

indicators. It could include visual, process,

source, and ambient monitoring activities.

Sampling efforts for surveillance strategies

should occur close to the source of constituents

for three reasons:

1. to reduce the number of environmental

processes that can interact with and thus

change the constituents of concern,

2. to restrict the number of sites that need to

be monitored, and

3. to allow early warning of contamination

problems.

Surveillance methodologies usually incorporate indicators for broad categories of contamination. The resulting lack of detail, however, limits the usefulness of these data. Surveillance monitoring indicates changes in

broad categories of constituents or environmental conditions, but does not provide detailed information on specific constituents or

potential impacts. Surveillance strategies are

usually focused on specific requirements for

environmental regulations, e.g., monitoring requirements in RCRA regulations.

Assessment monitoring serves two purposes: to show the extent of contamination

from release of hazardous constituents and to

indicate cause-effect relationships. Assessment

monitoring generally involves detailed ambient

and effects monitoring. Sampling techniques

and analytical procedures are more detailed for

assessment than in surveillance monitoring. A

wide range of sample types is collected for

analysis and very carefully designed protocols

are used. Reference standards and quality control procedures are essential to assure that the

data are valid and can be statistically verified.

Major Technical Issues in Monitoring

Several problems affect any monitoring effort. If valid conclusions are to be drawn from

an analysis of data, the analyst must recognize

and resolve problems of sampling frequency

and preparation, data compatibility, and limitations of analytical methodology.

Sampling

Sampling is one of the most critical and

most inexact steps in the monitoring process.

The objective in sample collection is to obtain

a number of samples that is both manageable

and representative of the system being monitored. The choice of medium (air, water, soil,

and biota) is a critical factor. Despite care in
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 249

the selection of samples, however, the inherent

variability of ecosystems, and the variations in

interactions of hazardous waste constituents

and elements within a system, result in a minimal level of uncertainty that can never be overcome.

As discussed previously, fugacity profiles

can determine major areas of concern and thus

simplify choices of sampling air, water, or soil.

Obtaining representative samples of biota is

complicated, Different species have different

reactions to waste constituents. Furthermore,

the site of accumulation in plant and animal

tissue varies. For example, certain crops such

as beets, lettuce, and tomatoes accumulate

toxic metals more readily than do beans or cabbage; also, the foliage of such plants will contain higher concentrations than do the root

structures .43

Location of the sampling effort is very important. Ecosystems are dynamic. For example, conditions along a large river may vary

considerably. Changes in temperature, even of

only a few degrees—depending on the amount

of shade along river banks—can affect the river

ecosystem and the impacts of constituents.

Changes in rate of flow may be observed and

may have similar effects, Thus, to properly

monitor a river, factors such as distance to

shore, water depth and flow, and type of constituents of interest will influence the optimal

sampling location. The desired frequency of

sampling depends on temporal variations. Environmental conditions fluctuate with the

season, month, day, and even hour. Random

weather events, such as storms, can affect the

quality and representative nature of samples.

Sampling techniques must also consider the

type of ecosystem being monitored. Because

there is less mixing in ground water aquifers

than in surface waters, a nonuniform distribution of constituents can be expected in the

former, thus requiring vertical sampling over

several horizontal locations to obtain a truly

representative picture. Surface water sampling

NE, Epstein and R, L. Chancy, “Land Disposal Of Toxic substances and Water Related Problems, ” ]ournal of Water Pollution Controi Fed, vol. 50, No. 8, 1978, pp. 2037-2043.

may, on the other hand, require only horizontal sampling if the water body is shallow. 44

Data Comparisons

An effective monitoring program must have

baseline or control data available against which

comparisons can be made. At present, there are

insufficient data to establish baseline values for

hazardous waste constituents in the environment. Therefore, it is difficult, but not impossible, to determine trends in human-caused releases vis-a-vis contributions of these constituents from natural sources. In the absence of

preexisting baseline information, the preferred

course is to monitor at the site of concern

before and after new sources of environmental contamination are expected or new facilities

are established, thus establishing baseline data

for the new site. The alternative is to obtain

control data in a nonaffected area (without industrial development) that has environmental

characteristics similar to the affected site.

Monitoring programs for existing facilities

must rely on this method.

Both approaches require the use of comparable standardized sampling and analytical procedures. If noncomparable protocols are used,

observed difference in the data could be interpreted as resulting from different sampling and

measurement methods rather than from

changes in environmental concentration of

hazardous waste constituents.

Unfortunately, standardized protocols are

usually unavailable. 45 The few that have been

developed are not often uniformity applied.

Even though a laboratory may rely on standardized methodology, modifications can be expected based on new research results or personal preferences of the staff. 46 Analytical

variations can arise even when different persons perform the same procedures using the

*U ,S, Environmental Protection Agency, “Procedures Manual

for Cround Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, ”

SW-611, 1980.

4sNational Research Counc ii, En vironrnen taf ~Onj~Or~ng

(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Science, 1977).

4U. S, Environmental Protection Agency, “Procedures Manual

for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, ”

SW-611, 1980.

99-113 3 - 8 ? - 1 ‘7
250 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

same equipment. Interlaboratory variation

caused by slightly different procedures and different equipment create even larger and more

complex problems for data comparisons.

A review of Federal monitoring programs by

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

indicated that quality assurance efforts within

a monitoring program were inadequate. 47 O f

particular concern was the lack of quality control regarding siting criteria, field methodology,

sample preservation, and sample storage. The

report states:

Although various quality assurance programs have been adopted by Federal agencies

with monitoring programs, many of these programs lack basic policy endorsement by agency management, suffer from insufficient commitment of resources, do not provide specific

guidance to field monitoring organizations,

and are not coordinated when more then one

agency is involved. Until these deficiencies are

corrected, a significant number of agency decisions and policies will be based on data of questionable and/or unknown accuracy.

An attempt to develop national quality assurance programs for hazardous waste analyses

is currently underway in the Environmental

Monitoring Support Laboratories of EPA. 48

The aim of this new program is to develop

standardized analytical methodology and to

provide reference standards for analytical

results. The problem of quality assurance, however, is far from being resolved through this

effort and continued work is needed. Two critical areas require further development:

●

●

standardized methods for sample collection, analysis, storage, reporting, and field

verification of results, and

certification of laboratories and development of suitable reference standards to increase the comparability of interlaboratory

data.

“Council on Environmental Quality, interagency Task Force

on Envimmmental Datti and Monitoring (Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1980).

% Miller, “Quality Assurance, Analytical Methods, and Hazardous Wastes, ” Environmental Science and Technology, vol.

16, No. 6, 1982, pp. 332A-336.

It should be emphasized that the purpose of

quality assurance programs is to provide the

user of the data with an estimate of its accuracy or uncertainty.

Degrees of accuracy, precision, and uncertainty of data are not always acknowledged;

nor are acceptable levels of precision and

uncertainty always identified for the particular

uses of the data (e. g., for policy or regulatory

compliance and enforcement). Not all programs or uses of monitoring data require the

same level of precision; this varies according

to the purpose of a particular program. For example, the precision required for surveillance

programs may be less than that required for

assessment efforts. Two questions might be

asked to determine the appropriate level of

precision: 49

1. How will the data be used?

2. What are the consequences of obtaining

imprecise data?

For data being placed in national data banks

some indication of the data’s precision is especially important. If data. leave a laboratory

without proper caveats, these data may be misused. It may be necessary to require this information for Federal data banks, as data are incorporated into the system.

Limitations of Analytical Methodology

Analytical methodology used for samples

from one environmental medium cannot be

easily transferred to another medium. For example, considerable R&D has been directed

toward developing analytical techniques for

water quality analysis. Before these techniques

can be used for hazardous waste surveillance

or assessment efforts, however, they must be

modified to suit the specific conditions and

materials of concern in hazardous waste management. Methods for air, soil, and biota can

be decidedly different in sampling techniques,

handling, preservation, and analysis because

‘IID. Friedman, “Validity and Reliability of Sampling Data, ”

unpublished paper (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Waste Analysis Program,

1981).
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 251

of the quality and quantity of sample that may

be required in each situation. The development

of proper methodologies and protocols is not

an impossible task, but it will require both

added funds and trained personnel—both currently in short supply in hazardous waste management.

Some attention should also be given to defining general test indicators for the diverse range

of hazardous constituents. For example, RCRA

monitoring requirements for land disposal require consideration of more than 387 compounds that are currently considered as hazardous by EPA (discussed in ch. 7). Current

capabilities for the detection of a majority of

these compounds with state-of-the-art analyses

is questionable. In some cases, appropriate analytical protocols are not available for waste

constituent analysis. In others, the detection

limits of analysis may be higher than concentration of constituents in waste. Depending on

the type and sophistication of the analytical

equipment, it is possible that a constituent

could be present but not detected by laboratory

analysis.

The use of indicator test compounds (i.e., one

or two compounds selected to represent the

presence or absence of a class of compounds)

has been suggested, While such methods provide economic advantages, continued environmental contamination may occur if the hazardous compounds in any waste do not behave environmentally in the same manner as the indicator compounds. Also, because of the nature

of many of these compounds (e. g., the complex

organics) equally hazardous degradation products may result from environmental transformations. Only limited information concerning

these transformations currently is available.

Monitoring efforts developed in response to

the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts have emphasized chemical analyses, and RCRA requirements followed these precedents. Because

of the extensive number of hazardous constituents that may require analysis even at the level

of surveillance efforts, reliance on chemical

analyses alone can become very expensive.

Therefore, it maybe prudent to investigate the

use of biological indicators. There has been

research on advantages and limitations of

biological monitoring programs, but specific

applications for hazardous waste management

must be explored. [See reviews of biological

monitoring applications.50)

Institutional Approaches to Technical Issues

Scientists, both in the public and private sectors, recognize the importance of proper sampling techniques, data compatibility, and limitations in the methodology. Yet, no major

governmental policy has been directed towards

developing solutions. These problems are not

unique to hazardous waste management. They

are relevant to all regulations intended to

reduce undesirable levels of contaminants in

our environment. Effective protection of

human health and the environment requires

concerted efforts to develop adequate monitoring programs. Three activities could help

to correct the current deficiencies.

First, it may be prudent to centralize monitoring activities responsible to resolve the

technical issues addressed here by drawing on

the help of government and nongovernment

laboratories and personnel, EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, for example,

might be charged with developing standardized sampling protocols, while the National

Bureau of Standards would continue its work

of developing reference test standards. The

American Society of Testing Material (ASTM)

could develop methodological protocols for

‘0], Cairns, Jr,, et al,, “Suitability of Some Fresh W’ater and

Marine Fishes for Use With a Minicomputer Interfaced Bioi(Jgical Monitoring System, ” Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 16, No.

3, 1980, pp. 421-427; J. Cairns, Jr. and D, Gruber, “A Comparison

of Methods of 1 nstrumentation of Biological Early Warning Systerns, ” Water Resources Bu])etin, vol. 16, No, 2, 1980, pp. 26 1-266;

]. Cairns, Jr., “Biological Monitoring—Concept and Scope, ” L“n\’ironmental Biomonitoring, Assessment, prediction, and Manage

men t—Certain Case Studies and Related Quantitite issues (Fairland, Md,: International Cooperative Publishing House, 1979],

PP. 3-20; D. Gruber and J. Cairns, Jr., “Industrial Effluent Monitoring ln{;orporated Recent Automated Fish Biomonitorlng Systern, ” Water, Air, Soi] Poiiution, \rol. 15, 1981, pp 471-481,

J. M. ‘rhornas, D, H. McKenzie, and L. 1,. Eberhardt, “Some

Limitations of Biological Monitoring, ” Entironrnent international, vol. 5, 1981, pp. 3-Io; and W. H. Van Der Schallle, et al,,

“Fish !3ioassay Monitoring of Waste Effluents,” En}~ronmenta/

Management, vol. 3, No. 3, 1979, pp. 217-235.
252 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

analytical work, and the National Science

Foundation (NSF) and universities could be

called on to help establish compatible and coordinated baseline data.

In 1978, the U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Environment and the Atmosphere, held hearings on a proposal to provide

for a demonstration of a coordinated management system for environmental monitoring

efforts. 51 The testimonies presented at subcommittee hearings strongly supported such an effort, indicating that it was both possible and

desperately needed. All the witnesses agreed

that cost-effective programs can be developed.

Because of the multidisciplinary and multimedia approach necessary to meet environmental monitoring needs, a second activity

might be the establishment of a pilot project

(as suggested by testimonies at the hearing), Its

purpose would be to identify the most effective strategy and to develop standard protocols

for sampling, analytical procedures, and data

storage. Such an effort is essential when addressing monitoring needs for hazardous waste

management, Standardized monitoring practices are imperative for identifying contamination and verifying concentration levels, Because of the possibility of widespread environmental contamination with only limited

resources for pursuing monitoring activities,

carefully designed and cost-effective programs

are the only means of providing information

to verify that the public and environment are

being protected under RCRA.

Monitoring programs have been established

for the seven major environmental statutes and

data collection activities are extensive, but lack

coordination. The third activity for institutional

improvements would be coordination of environmental monitoring programs. During

the late 1970’s, the executive branch expressed

concern about deficiencies in national monitor-

=l-U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, En Vhonmenfai

Monitoring—II, hearings before the Subcommittee on the Envinmment and the Atmosphere, Committee on Science and Technology, No. 93 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978).

ing programs, and an interagency task force

was formed to study the situation, The report

of this task force was released in 1980 by

CEQ.

52 It concluded that agencies generally

develop a monitoring program to meet a specific legislative need and do not consider how

the data might be used by both the public and

private sectors. The report concluded that:

This absence and/or lack of widespread user

awareness of the existence of the various systems is causing the development of new systems which overlap existing systems. In short,

there is a lack of government-wide efforts to

ensure that both existing and new Federal systems and data standards are properly coordinated to minimize duplication and to ensure

that such systems provoke the broadest possible services to users in the most cost-effective

manner.

There has been some effort to coordinate certain programs such as water monitoring data

and climate and ocean monitoring programs.

But the extent of this coordination is limited.

Many current monitoring efforts are designed for a single environmental medium. For

example, water data are collected for the Clean

Water Act, air data for the Clean Air Act, and

soil data are collected by the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS), Because of widely differing

methods used for sample collection, analysis,

and storage, it is very difficult to assess exposure and contamination across media, Such

an effort is particularly needed in waste management because of the multimedia nature of

risks associated with hazardous waste.

As illustrated in figure 21, the scope of environmental monitoring efforts within the Federal Government is wide ranging. Each of these

programs could augment a hazardous waste

management system, particularly in a national

scheme aimed at risk management. If properly selected, focused, analyzed, and integrated,

the data could provide a scientific basis for

regulatory action on waste management. Without a nationally coordinated data-gathering and

storage effort, and without proper quality assurance guidelines, the current data bases will

Szcounci] On Environmental Quality, op. cit.
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 253

Figure 21.— Ecological and Living Resource Information and Data Gathering Programs

Within the Federal Government

Vegetation

activities

Freshwarte“,,.

GS

EPA

‘ate SEA-AR Science & Education Administration

Agricultural Research

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BR Bureau of Reclamation

CE Corps of Engineers

DOD Department of Defense

EPA Environmental Protect Ion Agency

FS Forest Service

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GS Geological Survey

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

stration

NPS National Park Service

SCS Soil Conservation Sew Ice

State Agencies

SOURCE Council on Environmental Quality, 1980

remain inadequate for broad applications of environmental assessment, including the management of hazardous waste.

The following recommendations made by the

Interagency Task Force have direct application

to the monitoring needs and problems for hazardous waste management. No action has been

taken on these recommendations.

1. Establish a national program to provide

a governmentwide scientific focal point

for environmental information and analysis related to environmental assessment. A national program that coordinates

data collection, assesses its quality, and encourages its distribution would help eliminate problems of expensive, overlapping
254 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

2.

3.

A

Federal and State hazardous waste monitoring programs, inadequate environmental assessments, delays in formulation of

regulations, and poor intergovernmental

conditions.

The existing interagency coordination of

water data collection should be strengthened. The current emphasis on water data

related to hazardous waste management

is for ground water only; surface water

monitoring is also needed. By strengthening the existing data bases (e. g., EPA’s

STORET) and coordinating data collection

efforts, duplication of monitoring activities

by Federal and State Governments, universities, and industry could be avoided. At

a time when staff and financial resources

are limited for hazardous waste management, a coordinated monitoring program

has much to offer in the way of reduced

costs.

Establish a standing interagency group

to deal with the coordination of environmental and health effects data. This

recommendation is especially important

for hazardous waste management. Currently, the extent of integration of these

two types of data is very limited, but, if a

management program is to protect human

health, this integration is necessary.

4.

5.

6.

Siting

paradox exists between the public desire The

for safe hazardous waste management and tion

Quality assurance should be a major part

of any monitoring effort and should receive substantive consideration for design and funding. Without the existence

of data standards and definitions, it will

be very difficult to enforce the RCRA regulations uniformly. Industry has the right

to be assured that compliance requirements are uniform nationwide and that a

decision of noncompliance truly represents noncompliance rather than differences generated by monitoring methodology.

Implement an integrated Federal environmental data system that can be used

in making broad policy decisions. Such

a data base would provide the means for

multimedia analysis related to hazardous

waste contamination, Such analyses are

currently not possible.

NSF should initiate a program to support

projects that are aimed at long-term data

collection at a series of locations. These

should represent a cross-section of major

ecosystems in the United States. Such a

monitoring effort would provide baseline

measurements to which hazardous waste

monitoring data could be compared,

overwhelming reason for public opposiis a fear for personal health and safety.

public rejection of sites for specific hazardous This fear is not based on objective evidence of

waste facilities. The reasons for the dilemma cause-effect relationships between exposure to

are easily identified; solutions are more elusive. hazardous waste and adverse health effects,

The reasons for the almost universal opposi- Rather, it comes from perception of uncertaintion to hazardous waste facilities in one’s own ties surrounding these cause-effect relationneighborhood include: ships. As discussed previously in this chapter,

scientific data suggest a potential for long-term

●

●

●

●

fear of health or safety effects, chronic health efects from exposure to hazardfear of economic losses, ous waste. Most people do not wish to take the

uncertainty of industry’s ability to prevent risk, uncertain as it may be. Thus, the public

adverse consequences, and opposes siting and permitting of facilities near

lack of confidence in government. residences and workplaces.
Ch 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 255

The economic concern is twofold: the fear

of a decline in property values and knowledge

that compensation for any damage that may

occur to property or health is limited or nonexistent. Expeditious compensation for personal

injury directly related to the operation of a

waste management facility is by no means

assured. In fact, the barriers to recovering

some sort of damages through litigation are

substantial. Lawsuits are long and costly, and

it may be exceedingly hard to prove either

cause-effect relationships or negligence by the

facility owner. Under CERCLA, the owner of

the facility is liable for government costs of

cleanup, but not for compensation of personal

or property losses to third parties.

Because of past problems with the waste

management industry, the public appears reluctant to take a chance on new technologies.

This is particularly true for the siting of land

disposal facilities. Uncertainty about the capability to prevent adverse consequences extends

to other management facilities as well (e. g., incinerators). Concerns that the personnel at

waste management facilities are inadequately

trained and that good “housekeeping” practices will not be followed voluntarily, contribute to public fears,

Lack of confidence in governments stems

from several causes, First, many citizens are

concerned that Federal and State regulatory

programs are not stringent enough. (These programs are discussed in ch. 7.) There is concern

that government monitoring and enforcement

efforts are inadequate. Government responses

to citizen complaints have contributed to this

concern. For example, a waste facility in Wilsonville, 111,, was approved by the State several

years ago, despite strong public opposition. Opposition continued and the site was recently

closed by an order from the State Supreme

Court. The company has been ordered to exhume all materials, but unfortunately, toxic

organic solvents have already leaked from the

disposal site, At another site, in Sheffield, 111,,

organic solvents have passed through a barrier

wall within a few years, although the State regulatory agency claimed that the barrier would

prevent migration for 500 years.

Public mistrust of regulatory agencies is aggravated by government actions following the

discovery of hazardous waste pollution,

which often seem too late, ineffective, or

unresponsive to concerns of citizens. For example, homeowners near a large landfill in

southern California (the BKK landfill in West

Covina, Calif.) have complained for years about

the nuisance and danger to drinking water supplies posed by waste disposal at that site. The

State response was less than rapid. 53 Another

example is the actions of EPA and Colorado

in granting interim status to the Lowry Landfill near Denver, despite citizen legal action to

close the landfill based on the charge that toxic

waste leaking from it were contaminating Denver’s drinking water supply.54

A final, though less obvious, reason for public skepticism about the ability of government

to deal effectively with hazardous waste concerns is the lack of a real commitment by government to reduce the production and toxicity of hazardous waste. Many hazardous waste

management programs place great emphasis

on waste disposal, rather than on other

management options. The public’s reluctance

to accept new land disposal facilities may well

be linked to the limited attempts by government to promote preferable treatment alternatives and waste reduction.

Approaches to Addressing Public Concern

There are two approaches to answering public concern over siting of particular facilities.

The “technical” approach is based on requirements that sites meet protective siting

standards, and the provision of enough technical information to increase public understanding of proposed facilities. The “nontechnical” approach includes assurance of

public participation in siting decisions, compensation for victims of damage, a clear comSastate of ca]lfornla, office of planning and Research, ‘‘I mpro~’ernents in S]ting Hazardous Waste Facilities, Recornmendatlons of the Department of Health Ser\i(.es Ad\isory Committee , Sacramento, Ca]]f , June 1982.

wC. Maclennan, testimony before the LJ .S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Apr. 21, 1982.
256 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

mitment by government to enforcement of regulation, and possibly, incentives for communities to accept proposed facilities.

That public opposition to hazardous waste

facilities will be wholly eliminated is unlikely. But if public concerns are seriously addressed, some sites may become acceptable.

The most important ways to do this are to involve the public early in the process (possibly

at the point of establishing siting criteria) and

to make sure that all relevant technical information is readily available to the public, Already, the importance of public access to information during the siting process is generally

accepted. Procedures are established for making information available, and if trade secrets

must be withheld, the reasons and the conditions for secrecy are generally agreed on in advance. Public involvement could be further encouraged. Especially important is education in

hazardous waste management, participation in

the siting decision, and continuing “watchdog”

review to ensure government and industry accountability after the site is approved and the

facility is in operation.

Commitment to public participation seems

to have been the key to acceptance of several

proposed hazardous waste facilities. Many

State governments have recently established

siting procedures that are especially tailored

to hazardous waste issues and that include public participation. For example:

Minnesota is one of 10 States with a siting

board which is solely responsible for locating and acquiring suitable sites for hazardous waste disposal facilities within the

State. Citizens unaffiliated with government or the hazardous waste industry are

on Minnesota’s Waste Management Board,

and the State’s siting process offers frequent opportunities for public participation.

California is one of several States where

local government approval is a prerequisite for the siting of a hazardous waste

facility.

Massachusetts has a hazardous waste siting process that stresses negotiations be-

●

tween the community and the hazardous

waste facility developer and/or binding

arbitration. 55 Because the system is still in

the early stages of development, its success

has not yet been demonstrated.

New York has a streamlined State permit

process leading to a Certificate OF Environmental Safety and Necessity for hazardous waste facilities. These permits are

issued by the State and supersede, or preempt, local permit requirements. At least

six States have similar programs.

Different States take widely different approaches to siting. No one system is demonstrably superior, Success in siting appears to

correlate more with public understanding of

the process and public involvement in decisionmaking, than to the particular type of siting

process.

Technical Methods

One vehicle for improving public involvement in siting is the adoption of a comprehensive hazardous waste plan, jointly developed

by industry, government, and the public. The

purpose of the plan would be to provide accessible technical material. It would include accurate and detailed information on hazardous

waste quantities and types, sources of waste,

environmental conditions of the proposed site,

and potential adverse impacts on health and

the environment of the waste or its constituents. Most of the opposition to siting hazardous waste facilities has to do with sites for

land disposal. In these cases, opposition may

be less if it can be demonstrated convincingly that all options for waste management have

been pursued (e.g., that waste reduction, recycling, and treatment facilities have been

evaluated prior to the siting application). This

close consideration of alternatives should be

one of the requirements in a comprehensive

waste management plan.

~S The Sjtlng Book A Handhok /’or Siting Hazardous Waste

Facilities in Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal, October 1982.
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 257

Another way of responding to public concerns is to establish technical siting criteria.

The criteria might ban certain kinds of facilities

from specified areas (e.g., within a 100-year

flood plain or above a ground water recharge

area). If high-risk sites are eliminated by the

technical criteria, facilities may be sited in

areas more acceptable to the public.

Some States are considering the use of criteria and the siting process to identify a “bank”

of suitable facility sites. Some analysts have

suggested that the potential risks from a new

facility should be compared and related to risks

posed by other land uses in the community,

such as existing manufacturing plants that discharge pollutants, airports, fuel storage tank

farms with the potential for explosion, etc. The

comparison might shed a more favorable light

on a waste facility siting proposal, or it may

help to identify an area in the community

where the additional risks posed by a new hazardous waste facility are compatible with other

land uses.

An important part of openness in siting programs is the provision of information on the

roles of the major regulatory agencies involved

and on the companies in the waste disposal

business. Documents provided might include

applicable regulations, descriptions of current

and past enforcement efforts, reports on State

and Federal hazardous waste programs, annual

reports of leading companies in the industry,

and publications from industry trade organizations describing typical waste management

policies and practices.

Economic and Institutional Mechanisms

Several nontechnical measures can be taken

to address public concerns about hazardous

waste siting in the communities. For example,

information can be provided on the economic

advantages to the community. A community

may benefit from higher revenues, through a

tax on the gross receipts of a facility, property

tax, or treatment disposal fees.

Another potential economic benefit could be

new industrial growth attracted by the availability of waste management capacity. This

might increase regional employment, Similarly, a waste facility could help existing local industry by offering reasonably priced and reliable waste management services. A proposed

facility that presents clear-cut benefits to local

existing industry is more apt to win favor than

one that serves a wider area. This was demonstrated recently in New Jersey. A proposal to

construct an onsite landfill for hazardous waste

generated by a local chemical company (and

employer) was approved, while a similar proposal for an offsite chemical waste landfill serving a large geographical area was vociferously opposed and defeated.

A problem with economic benefits, however, is that the risks and the benefits do not

always coincide. The community or neighborhood nearest the waste facility may be running

the greatest risks, while the benefits are spread

out over a much larger community, even to society as a whole. This conflict is not unique to

waste facility siting, but because of the potential for adverse impacts, the disparity may be

seen as greater in waste management than in

other activities.

Another nontechnical means of answering

public concerns is for government to show

convincingly its intent and ability to enforce

hazardous waste regulations. Government officials can explain its monitoring and enforcement activities, and emphasize opportunities

for public involvement, such as provisions for

citizens’ lawsuits. Evidence of a firm commitment in terms of funds and personnel can be

particularly meaningful in times of restricted

Federal and State budgets.

The California “superfund,” enacted in 1981,

establishes a tax-supported fund for compensatingse victims of hazardous waste activities

for their medical expenses and loss of income.

New Jersey also provides a fund for victim

compensation as part of its comprehensive hazardous waste siting strategy.

Even when the best waste management technology is proposed for use at the most carefully

Warpenter-Presley -Tanner Hazardous Substances Account

Act, Statutes of 1981, ch, 756, California Health and Safety Code,

Div. 20, ch. 6.8.
258 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

chosen location for a hazardous waste facility

selected after the most open siting process, a

residual of perceived adverse environmental

and economic impacts is unavoidable. To compensate a community for these real or perceived risks, some form of incentive might be

provided, unrelated to the hazardous waste

facility itself. For example, government or the

developer of a waste disposal facility could

offer to finance public services for the community, for instance, as the purchase of fire

equipment or the construction of a new community building, or the gift of land for a park.

A developer can also take steps to prove a commitment to act as a good corporate citizen, e.g.,

by holding informal discussions to provide information or engage in negotiation, or by promising periodic public inspection of a waste

management facility after it is operating.

Role of the Federal Government

Direct Federal involvement in hazardous

waste facility siting is virtually nonexistent.

Few EPA regulations address siting issues.

Some general site location standards are included, and the Agency has published a few

reports describing the nature of siting problems. An expanded Federal role in siting is

possible to assist States. EPA could develop

model siting criteria, for example, or publish

information on different approaches States

have taken to the siting issue. These model

siting criteria could include both technical and

nontechnical means to address public concerns

about siting. Alternatively, EPA could include

siting criteria as a required element of State

RCRA programs. The Federal Government,

particularly the USGS, could play a stronger

role in providing States with hydrogeologic information necessary to determine the suitability of locations for waste management facilities.

Section 3005 of RCRA allows EPA to establish

location standards for hazardous waste facilities. Establishment of national mandatory siting criteria, however, would probably require

enabling legislation.

It has been suggested that Federal lands

could be used for regional waste management

sites thus facilitating site approval .57 Because

Federal lands are often remote, public opposition might be reduced. Long-term security of

the site could be assured as the Government

is unlikely to go “out-of -business.” On the other

hand, siting on Federal land maybe viewed by

many as an unfair subsidy to the hazardous

waste management industry. It would shift

some some costs of and responsibilities for

waste management from private industry to the

Government. In any case, siting facilities on

Federal lands is primarily an option for Western States, as there is little available Federal

land in the East. The idea is of little help to the

east coast areas that have an immediate need

for new facility sites.

A major function the Federal Government

could serve is to facilitate exchanges of information among all the parties. Conferences,

newsletters, information clearinghouses, and

the like, give people the o portunity to learn

from other’s experiences. The Waste Alert Program funded by EPA was a good model for

such an information exchange, but Federal

funding has been discontinued.

Representatives of the Federal Government

could act as formal or informal mediators arbitrating siting disputes. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service offers one model

of Federal involvement, in its program of mediation and voluntary arbitration as a means

of settling labor-management disputes. Similar

dispute-resolution approaches have been suggested for environmental and land-use decisionmaking. The Massachusetts siting program

includes, an as yet untested provision for

negotiation and arbitration in facility siting

agreements.

Another Federal role might be to help in the

development of interstate hazardous waste

management compacts, to ensure adequate disposal and treatment capacity regionwide.

RCRA provides for the recognition of such interstate compacts for solid and hazardous

waste management. They could be very useful

SW,s. En~rOnrnenta] protwtion Agency, “State Decisionmakers Guide for Hazardous Waste Management, ” SW-612, 1977.
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste ● 259

in areas of the country where interstate transportation of hazardous waste is common. A

precedent for Federal involvement is the assistance given by the Federal Government for negotiation of the multi-State water compacts to

allocate rights to water from the Colorado

River. It has been suggested that the Federal

Government might require States to provide

adequate management capacity for all waste

generated in the States.

Finally, the Federal Government might assist in the development of adequate compensation systems for victims of hazardous waste

releases. The CERCLA 301(e) study group

recently reported to Congress on the barriers

to recovery of damages by victims of hazardous

waste exposure under current law, and recommended the creation of a two-tier compensation system. The first tier would provide an expeditious Federal administrative compensation

system. The second tier would improve existing State remedies by reducing the burdens

of proof for injured claimants. The study group

observed that the adoption of such a system

might promote public acceptance of hazardous

waste facilities.

Appendix 6A. –State Classification Efforts

The following tables provide examples of classification criteria developed by Washington, Texas,

California, and Michigan.

A summary of the classification systems used in

the feasibility study is presented. Further details

can be obtained in the report prepared for OTA.58

The criteria for selecting these schemes addressed potential applicability to national regulations. Schemes that presented unique dimensions

of hazard assessment were sought.

The Washington and Michigan schemes have

several elements in common, including:

1. provision of management designations that

prequalify facilities,

2. employment of toxicity rating systems that are

based on waste constituent properties and not

the entire waste stream,

3. provision of criteria and standards for evaluation, and

4. consideration of concentrations.

The Washington scheme is unique in that it involved the calculation of a single summary value

representing the relative toxicity of a waste stream

with multiple constituents. This summary value is

called the waste’s “equivalent concentration. ”

Waste constituents are categorized according to

their toxicity as defined by five classes related to

four measures of acute toxicity, This method did

not consider synergistic or antagonistic effects of

constituents. Equivalent concentration is calculated

by applying weighting factors to the five classes and

summing concentrations of constituents. These

concentrations are plotted against waste quantity

‘Harris, Strand, and Shea, op. cit.

using a graph that represents levels of regulation.

Carcinogenicity is evaluated in a similar fashion

based on the presence of halogenated hydrocarbons

and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Three management levels are identified: undesignated,

dangerous waste, and extremely hazardous waste.

The Michigan scheme involved the calculation

of a hazard value for single constituents that is

based on several waste characteristics other than

just toxicity. This system used numerical ranking

formulae that address acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, hereditary mutagenicity, teratogenicity, persistence, bioaccumulation, and other adverse

chronic effects. Each constituent receives a score

for all using available data. The formula applies a

weighting scale to determine classes of toxicity. The

constituents are not ranked according to accumulative scores, There are no provisions for lack of

data. Once toxicity scores are assigned the constituent concentrations are plotted against waste quantity volumes on graphs specific for hazard categories,

The JRB system emphasizes environmental factors and waste management practices and was originally designed to evaluate land disposal sites containing hazardous waste to rank them for remedial

action priority. This system involves the consideration of 31 site- and waste-specific variables which

are grouped into four categories:

1. Waste characteristics.—The consideration of

types of potential hazards posed by the waste.

2. Waste management.—The consideration of

quality of the facility design, construction, and

operation.
260 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

3. Pathways. —The consideration of mechanisms tor. A sum for all factors is calculated for each of

of contaminant migration. the four evaluation categories. They are divided by

4. Receptora.-The identification of potential tar- the maximum possible score and multiplied by 100.

gets of chemical hazards. The higher the score the greater the hazard posed

A site is assigned a score of O to 4 for each of the by a facility.

31 parameters. Each has an assigned weighting facTable 6A=l.—Criterla for the Washington System of Degree-of-Hazard Classification

Extremely hazardous Dangerous

Oral, rat, LD50

a

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <500 mg/kg <5,000 mg/kg

Aquatic fish, LC50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <100 mg/1 <1,000 mg/1

Halogenated hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . >1‘Yo >0.01 0/0

Polycyclic aromatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >1 0/0 None

Concentration of heavy metals in EPA

leach test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 x DWSb

100 x DWS

Nonbioaccumulative carcinogens . . . . . — IARCc human or animal:

positive or suspected

Corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability . . . . . — EPA definition

aF~r pure ~~mpounds~ simple mixturea book dealgnation uaing the NIOSH Raolater and the deakmatlon dlaorw are Poaaible, aea appendix.

%lWS = drlnklng water standard. CIARc = International Agency for Cancer Reaaarch. This group weighs publlahad studies on suspected cancer cauaing

● gents and Iaaues findings.

SOURCE: Provldad by E. W. Tower, Solid Waste Management Divialon, Off Ice of Land Programs, Department of Ecology,

State of Washington, Olympia, Waah.

Table 6A=2.—Crlteria for the Texas System of

Degree-of=Hazard Classification

Class I Class II Class Illa

Hazard indexb . . . . <50 >50 >50

LDU measuresc . . . <500 mg/kg >500 mg/kg >500 mg/kg

pHd . . . . . . . . . . . . . <2.5, >12 2.5-1 2 2.5 –12

Corrosion rate” . . . <0.25 in/yr >0.25 in/yr >0.25 in/yr

Flash pointf . . . . . . <140° F >140° F >140° F

● - te~ f~ ~position~differancaa between Claaa II and Claaa Ill.

%apreaents the potential hazard to the environment if Improperly dlspoaad,

baaed on maasurea of toxicity and volubility of the aubatance.

cM~I~ leth~ do=; doaa required to kill 50 percent of a population expo~ to

the chemical of concern.

dMe~ure of ~ldlty m alkallnlty; pli 7 Indlcatea nOIJtrOl solution; <PH 7 indicatea acldlc aolution;*H 7 Indlcatea alkallna or baaic aolutlon.

etirosion rate on ateal (sAE 1020) ● t a toot temperature of 130”F M det~-

minad by NACE.

f ~~ln~by ● Panaky-Martene Cloaed CUP Teatar uaing ASTM Std. ~~73.

SOURCE sterling Hoba Corp. (12).
Ch. 6—Managing the Risks of Hazardous Waste • 261

Table 6A-3.—Toxicity Criteria in the California System of

Degree-of-Hazard Classification

Limits a

Extremely hazardous Hazardous

Mammals

Oral administration. . . . . < 50 mg/kgb

Exposure to skin . . . . . . . <200 mg/kg

Inhaled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <200 mg/1

Aquatic animals . . . . . . . . . —

Carcinogenicity. ... . . . . . Defined as carcinogen by

California law

Tests in animals indicate . . Carcinogenicity, high chronic

toxicity, persistence, or bioaccumulative properties

<2000 mg/kg

<1200 mg/kg

<4000 mg/1

< 500 mg/1

Defined as carcinogen by

California law or suspected

carcinogen by NIOSH listing

Chronic toxicity, persistence

or bioaccumulative properties

aAmounts that result In mortality for XI percent of the test population The lower the concentration the more toxic the

material Is to test organisms LDW for mammals and LCW for aquatic animals

%g Of mater(al/kg body weight of organism

SOURCE Sterling Hobe Corp (12)

Table 6A.4.—Michigan’s System for Rank-Order Assessment of Critical Materials

1.

Il.

Ill.

Iv.

Acute toxicity

Score Category

Oral LDW Dermal LDW Aquatic 96 hour LCW

mg/kg mg/kg mg/l

7 <5 <5 <1

3 5-50 5-200 1-10

2 >50-500 >200-500 >10-100

1 >500-5000 >500-5000 >1OO-1OOO

0 >5000 >5000 >1OOO ●

Insufficient Information

Carcinogenicty

Score Category

7 Human positive; human suspect;

animal positive

3 Animal suspect

2 Carcinogenic by a route other than oral or dermal;

strong potential carcinogen by accepted

mutagenicity screening tests or accepted cell

transformation studies

1 Potential carcinogen by accepted mutagenicity

screening tests or accepted cell transformation

studies

o Not carcinogenic

●

Insufficient information

Hereditary mutagenicity

Score Category

7 Confirmed

4 Suspect - multicellular organisms

2 Suspect - micro-organisms

o Not a hereditary mutagen

●

Insufficient information

Teratogenicity

Score Category

7 Confirmed

3 Suspect

o Not teratogenic

●

Insufficient information

v. Persistence

Score Category

4 Very persistent

3 Persistent

2 Slowly degradable

1 Moderately degradable

o Readily degradable

●

Insufficient information

V1. Bioaccumulation

Score Bioaccumulation Log P

7 >4000 >6.00

3 1OOO-3999 5.00-5.99

2 700-999 4.50-4.99

300-699 4.00-4.49

9 <300 <4.00

●

Insufficient information

VII. Esthetics

Score

3

2

0

Vlll. Chronic

Score

4

2

1

0

●

Category

Fish tainting/taste and Foaming, floating

odor (threshold level film, and/or major

In water - mg/1) color change

O.0001 -0.0’01

>0.001-0.01

>0.01-0.1 Yes

>0,1 No

adverse effects

Category

Irreversible effects

Reversible effects

Adverse effects by route other than oral, dermal or

aquatic

No detectable adverse effects

Insufficient information

SOURCE. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (27).
CHAPTER 7

The Current Federal-State

Hazardous Waste Program

Contents

Page

Summary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I: Federal Regulation of Hazardous

Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Identification and Classification of

Hazardous Waste-The Trigger. . . . . . . . . . . .

Exclusions From the Definitions of Solid

Waste and Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

265 Changes in the Universe of Hazardous Waste.

Special Exemptions for Certain Categories of

Hazardous Wastes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

262 Provisions of General Applicability to Hazardous

Waste Generators, Transporters, and

268 Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities . . . . .

Standards for TSDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

270 General Facility Standards for Permitting

Hazardous Waste TSDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

271 State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

276

276

277

281

288

296
Demonstration of Substantial Equivalence . . . .

Final Authorization of State Programs ., ... , ,

Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Federal Environmental Laws and

Hazardous Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonregulatory Approaches and Technical

support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal, State, and Private Compliance Cost for

the Current Hazardous Waste Management

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part II: State Responses to Hazardous Waste

Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Programs Under RCRA . . . . . . . . . . ..

Differences Between Federal and State Programs

Other State Regulatory Programs . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonregulatory Options for Management of

Hazardous Waste.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fees, Taxes, and Other Economic Incentives to

Encourage Alternatives to Land Disposal . . .

Part III: Implementation Issues of the

Current Regulatory System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Development and Environmental

Protection .., ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hazard/Risk Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Risk Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix7A.—Hazard Ranking System . . . .

Appendix7B .—Risk/Cost Policy Model . . . . .

List of Tables

Table No.

51. Identification of Hazardous Waste. . . . . . . .

52. Exemptions and Exclusions From the

Universe of Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . .

53. Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes. . . . . .

54. interim Status Standards: General

Administrative and Nontechnical Standards

for Interim Status Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55. Technical Performance Standards for

Containers, Tanks, Incinerators, Landfills,

and Surface Impoundments . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56. Ground Water Monitoring Program for

Permitted Land Disposal Facilities ....

57. National Contingency Plan—Phases of

Response Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58. Chemical Taxes Under Superfund . . . . . . . .

59. Toxic Water Pollutants Under Section 307 of

the Clean Water Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60. National Interim Primary Drinking Water

Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297

298

300

319

327

332

344

344

344

348

354

356

363

364

368

368

375

380

382

386

387

Page

271

273

274

61. Hazardous Air Pollutants Under Section l12

of the Clean Air Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62. Research Projects Planned by ORD in Support

of Hazardous Waste Management Program

63. Characteristics of the Commercial Offsite

Hazardous Waste Management Industry . .

64. EPA Estimates of Annualized RCRA

Compliance Costs by Subtitle C Section . . .

65. Total Annual Revenue Requirements for

Part 264 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66. Present Value of the Private Costs of RCRA

Financial Responsibility Regulations by Type

of Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67. Annual Cost of Financial Assistance Activities

per Facility for Owners and Operators of

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

68. Hazardous Waste Programs, 1975-81. ....

69. EPA Hazardous Waste Program Federal

Administrative Costs for Fiscal Years 1981-84

70. Federal Financial Assistance Grants for

Hazardous Waste Management by State,

1981-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71. Fiscal Year 1982 Federal Support of State

Hazardous Waste Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72. State Expenditures on Hazardous Waste

Program Activities for Selected States . . . .

73. State RCRA Program Authorization . . . . . .

74. Comparability of State Hazardous Waste

Programs to Federal RCRA Program. ..,..

75, Summary of State Small Quantity Generator

Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76. Summary of State Hazardous Waste Facility

Siting Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77. Summary of State Options for Encouraging

Alternatives to Land Disposal of Hazardous

Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78. State Fee Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79. State Fee Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80. Summary of State Superfund Legislation . .

81. Contamination of Ground Water by Industrial

Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

282

List of Figures

289

291

306

315

322

324

Figure No.

22. Remedial Action Process Under the

National Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23. EPA Hazardous Waste Program Budget

1975-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24. Sampling Well Locations for Ground Water

Monitoring Program, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25. Plume Migration May Not Flow With Ground

Water Due to Gravitational Influence and/or

Undetected Fractures in the Aquifer . . . . . .

326

331

332

334

335

338

338

339

341

342

343

344

346

349

352

355

356

365

366

369

373

Page

310

340

378

378
CHAPTER 7

The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program — .

Summary Findings

Delays in implementation.—Despite the

simplicity of approach of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), devising and implementing an effective program regulating hazardous waste with maximum public involvement mechanisms has

proved to be a complex, controversial task.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) implementation of requirements of

RCRA section 3004 to establish performance

standards for hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities has been a

process characterized by delay, false starts,

frequent policy reversals, and litigation.

Delays in rulemaking have meant delays in

compliance with standards to protect human

health and the environment, and uncertainty

for States and industry. The delays may have

been an additional incentive for some firms

not to seek effective and economic measures

to dispose of hazardous waste.

Universe of hazardous waste.—ldentification of a solid waste as hazardous is the key

to RCRA’S regulatory approach, The universe of hazardous waste is established by

statutory definitions of solid and hazardous

waste and EPA’s interpretations of these

definitions as further modified by various

regulatory exclusions and exemptions. Many

of these are not related to any determination

of the actual hazard of the waste. This ad

hoc system of exclusions and exemptions

allows certain potentially hazardous waste

to escape proper management or oversight.

Exempted or excluded wastes, such as the

small generator exemption, regardless of the

reason for or the status of the exemption, can

be disposed at subtitle D (municipal or sanitary) landfills that may not adequately control these wastes, Because of the design of

these facilities, hazardous constituents may

be released into the environment.

Lack of adequate, reliable, and verifiable

information on which to base decisions.—

States, industries, and environmental groups

have criticized the lack of information on:

the amount and types of wastes, the effects

of wastes disposal on the environment and

on human health, and the adequacy of design, operating, and permitting requirements.

inequities in application of regulatory requirements.—The current RCRA regulatory

system, because of its single hazard classification of wastes, and various exclusions

from regulation (including exemptions of existing facilities from certain land disposal

standards), has resulted in overregulation of

some wastes and facilities and underregulation of others. Existing facilities have been

required to meet differing standards of performance; for example, existing land disposal facilities do not have to upgrade their design and operations to the maximum extent

feasible to receive a permit. However, existing incinerators are being required, in

some places, to operate at the limits of available technology.

Lack of national consistency in hazard/risk

determinations.—Current regulations do

present the opportunity to consider degree

of hazard of wastes and levels of risk associated with particular facilities in setting permit conditions and granting variances from

standards but only in the most qualitative

and site-specific manner. Together with the

frequent lack of objective Federal standards,

this leads to little assurance of consistent

levels of protection nationwide.

Continued use of inadequate waste management techniques.—As a result of these

delays in implementation, there has been

continued reliance on landfilling and other

265

9 ? -11 ‘3 l-l - 8 ‘1 - 1 B
266 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

●

land disposal methods that have been proven

inadequate to contain hazardous wastes.

EPA’s final land disposal regulations authorize continued use of these waste management practices by existing facilities.

No incentive for innovative technologies.

—The total national expenditure on hazardous waste activities, including the public and

private sectors and RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (C ERCLA)

related efforts, was $4 billion to $5 billion

in 1982. Combined Federal and State expenditures were in the range of $200 million

to $300 million. Even at this level, the initial

economic analysis of the current RCRA regulatory program suggests that it will not provide a sufficient economic incentive to internalize the true costs of hazardous waste

disposal. Continued use of inadequate disposal practices will persist unless more effective means are implemented for internalizing costs and encouraging use of other

management options through, for example,

the imposition of waste generation fees. The

need to resolve current problems is compounded by the realization that we may not

be better equipped in the future, technologically or financially, to solve them. Because

of the potential for wide-ranging impacts on

environment and health, additional attention

should be focused on promoting the use of

alternative waste treatment or destruction

technologies.

EPA’s two-tiered approach for land disposal regulations.—OTA’s analysis of the design technology used in land disposal facilities indicates that complete containment of

hazardous waste constituents over long periods of time (30 years or more) is not possible with the current technology. All land disposal sites eventually will release mobile

constituents to the environment. The first

tier of EPA’s regulatory strategy for land disposal facilities, containment of hazardous

constituents and liquid management, provides only temporary protection against contamination. The effectiveness of EPA’s second-tier stratem of monitoring and correc- U.

tive action also has substantial technical

uncertainties. EPA’s monitoring requirements may prove inadequate to detect leakage before substantial contamination has occurred. Moreover, the long-term effectiveness of remedial action measures, which

are relied on in EPA’s second tier, such as

ground water pumping, in situ treatment,

and construction of barriers to ground

water movement, has not been demonstrated. Additionally, EPA’s own economic

analysis indicates that such measures can be

extremely expensive, particulary if long-term

corrective action is required. Given such

costs, the financial capability of land disposal facilities to pay for necessary corrective

action becomes a critical consideration in

allowing continued use of such facilities.

● Current regulations for monitoring RCRA

facilities are inadequate to provide assurance

that the public health and the environment

are being protected. EPA has emphasized

only ground water monitoring. If land disposal of all hazard levels of wastes is allowed

to continue (as the July 1982 rules seem to

permit), it is essential that a rigorous ambient

monitoring program be implemented at all

such facilities. Without it there can be little

assurance that exposure of humans and ecosystems to hazardous constituents will be

prevented through early detection and

prompt corrective action. Major problems

include the following:

—The number and frequency of required

sampling are such that large differences

between background and new samples will

be required before a statistically significant

change in ground water quality is shown.

—Proper location of monitoring wells is essential to the effectiveness of an ambient

monitoring program to measure background water quality and to provide early

detection of possible ground water contamination. However, location of sampling

wells during interim status is left to judgment of the facility owners. Final permit

guidelines for well placement are equally

vague.

—Due to limitations in the state of the art for

analytical methodology, certain data re-
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 267

quirements for compliance monitoring of

permitted land disposal facilities will be

difficult to meet.

The use of quantitative risk assessment in

environmental regulation is receiving prominent attention within EPA and Congress.

Available evidence suggests that the art of

risk assessment is not sufficiently advanced

to be reliable in some suggested applications

to hazardous waste regulation. Moreover,

much of the information required to perform

such assessment is not yet available. Results

of quantitative risk assessment must be interpreted with caution if they are to be incorporated into the decisionmaking process.

The difficulties of using risk assessment tools

are generated primarily by limitations of the

assumptions used in these models. Generalizations may be inaccurate for specific sites,

inadequate data bases may be used, criteria

for assessing hazard and risk are lacking,

and long-range performance cannot be predicted using currently available data.

Required insurance coverage for hazardous

waste facilities and increased civil liability

have had, and will continue to have, a substantial impact on waste management strategies, but these measures largely complement, or supplement the regulatory programs. Moreover, insurers depend on stringent regulatory standards and enforcement

as an incentive for them to underwrite the

risks associated with hazardous waste facilities. The adequacy of regulatory requirements will influence the availability of required insurance coverage.

Although legal remedies exist, private parties who are injured may not be compensated because of procedural and substantive

difficulties involved in such cases, the costs

and delays of litigation, and the problems of

collecting damage judgments against absent

or insolvent defendants.

Adequacy of funding and financial resources for implementation and enforcement.—Concerns over the adequacy of funding for the Federal program and for Federal

grants for State programs have been raised

●

●

repeatedly as EPA has sought to reduce its

regulatory budget. The need for adequate

financing at the Federal and State levels may

only increase as permitting of existing facilities proceeds. States will need additional

funds to administer and enforce hazardous

waste regulatory programs, On the average,

about 75 percent of State hazardous waste

program budgets come from Federal grants.

Existing State fees and taxes do not appear

to be sufficient to finance their regulatory

programs and cleanup actions.

Lack of integration.—Unlike major environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act

(CAA) and the Clean Water Act, which are

directed at control of pollution in a single

environmental medium, RCRA’S mandate

for assuring proper hazardous waste management requires a multimedia approach to

protect human health and the environment.

Passage of RCRA unavoidably created an inherent potential for duplicative regulation of

hazardous waste management under RCRA

Subtitle C and regulation of environmental

pollutants and control of hazardous substances under other Federal laws. Instead of

leading to an all-inclusive integrated framework of environmental regulations providing

better protection of human health and the

environment, selective implementation of

RCRA and other environmental laws has resulted in gaps in coverage so that some potentially serious impacts of hazardous waste

activities have remained uncontrolled. For

example, emissions of volatile organic chemicals from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal activities are largely uncontrolled under RCRA and CAA regulations.

Extent of Superfund cleanup.—The National Contingency Plan (NCP), the framework for Government action in cleaning up

hazardous waste sites, does not establish any

specific required environmental standard for

the level of cleanup to be achieved, such as

the maximum acceptable level of ground

water contamination. EPA characterized the

development of such standards for the hundreds (if not thousands) of substances that
268 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

could be found at uncontrolled sites as a

potentially time-consuming and costly task

that might detract from cleanup efforts.

Nonetheless, EPA declined to specify cleanup standards even where they have already

been set for other purposes. In contrast, the

regulations for land disposal facilities require corrective action at permitted facilities

to attain either background levels or the Safe

Drinking Water Act standards. The NCP

would allow contamination levels (that

would trigger corrective action at permitted

RCRA facilities) to continue to exist after

remedial response actions have been taken

or without requiring any response action at

all.

• State Superfund costs .—States can nominate sites for inclusion on the National Priority List as candidates for Superfund cleanup and can designate one site in each State

to be included in the 100 highest priority

sites. CERCLA requires that States contribute at least 10 percent of the cleanup costs

at privately owned sites and 50 percent or

more at sites that were owned by a State

when the hazardous substances were placed

Part 1:

The Resource

Federal Regulation of

Conservation and Recovery Act

The basic framework for a comprehensive

national regulatory program for the management of hazardous waste from generation to

final disposal was established by Subtitle C of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976 (RCRA).1 This “cradle-to-grave” system

consists of a minimum Federal program with

the following major components:

IPublic Law 94-580, 90 Stat. 2795, Oct. 21, 1976, as amended

by Public Law 95-609,92 Stat. 3081, Nov. 8, 1978, the Solid Waste

Disposal Act Amendments of 1980, Public Law 96-48294, Stat.

2334, Oct. 21, 1980, and The Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980,

Public Law 96-463, 94 Stat. 2055, Oct. 15, 1980. (Codified at 42

U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). Public Law 96482 changed the title of RCRA

to the Solid Waste Disposal Act. (In 1976, RCRA completely

amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, Public Law

89-272, 79 Stat. 997 (1965).) In this report, the Solid Waste

Disposal Act will be referred to as RCRA in keeping with common usage.

in them. However, States cannot determine

which, if any, of their nominated sites will

be cleaned up and when the cleanup will occur, This uncertainty makes it difficult for

States to plan their own cleanup efforts and

to arrange for financing of the required State

contribution for Superfund actions. According to some State officials, proposed remedial actions at some National Priority List

sites have not been taken because the States

involved could not provide the required

10-percent share.

● State responses to perceived inadequacies

of Federal program.—States are moving to

more stringent requirements such as: limited

bans on landfills, requirements for consideration of the use of feasible alternative

technologies before approval of landfilling,

imposition of hazardous waste fees and

taxes, and establishment of strict liability

standards for facility operators and generators for the consequences of hazardous

waste activities. Many of these State actions

were taken in response to the delays and

perceived inadequacies in requirements of

the Federal program.

Hazardous Waste Management

• identification and listing of hazardous

waste;

● a national manifest system for tracking

wastes;

● standards for hazardous waste management treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and

● a permit system for treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities.

All hazardous waste activities would be subject to the Federal program, however, RCRA

also provided for a State to exercise its primary

administration and enforcement authority over

hazardous waste in lieu of Federal regulation

provided that the State program was as stringent, comprehensive, and effective as the

Federal requirements.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 269

The House Report on RCRA summarized the

general advantage of having a Federal regulatory program, with optional implementation by

the States.z There would be uniformity among

the States as to how hazardous wastes are regulated; and uniform standards would be provided for industry and commercial establishments that generate such wastes. The establishment of this uniformity would also ensure that

States which, for economic reasons, might

otherwise decide to be dumping grounds for

hazardous wastes will not attract businesses

from States with environmentally sound laws.

The House Report added:

The committee believes that Federal minimum standards are necessary if the hazardous

waste problem is to be understood and solutions are to be found. Waiting for States to

solve this problem without Federal assistance

is not likely since each State would take a different approach and there would be too many

gaps in both the receiving of information and

enforcement. 3

Subtitle C was part of the larger statutory

scheme in RCRA for dealing with national solid waste disposal problems. Congress recognized that the hazardous waste problem presents serious dangers to health and the environment from improper disposal and very little information was available on which to establish

effective policies. Accordingly, the conference

committee report characterized the bill as

“making the best of a bad situation, ” and gave

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

broad authority to use its special expertise to

define and identify hazardous waste and its

characteristics and to develop a comprehensive system for the control of hazardous waste

management and disposal. As additional mechanisms for responding to hazardous waste

problems, Congress required maximum public

participation in the process and provided access to courts for review of rulemaking and

agency enforcement activities. RCRA includes

an imminent hazard authority for immediate

action to correct dangers posed by hazardous

waste management activities and created civil

and criminal penalties for improper hazardous

waste activities.

RCRA is one of the simplest environmental

laws enacted in the last decade. Unlike the

Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act

(CWA) (which set many technical standards,

emissions limits, and procedural requirements

in the actual statutory language), RCRA leaves

the task of designing and implementing a comprehensive regulatory system to EPA within

the broad directive of a single overriding statutory goal—the protection of human health and

the environment. Unlike implementation of airand water-pollution control strategies that developed incrementally over more than a decade, Congress directed EPA to establish a comprehensive regulatory program defining the

area to be regulated, the standards of protection, and a permitting system, all within a relatively short period of time.

The task was a large one. But faced with

growing public concern and its own perceptions of the problem, Congress felt immediate

action was required, even if the result might

be overregulation of some substances. The

RCRA scheme was sufficiently flexible to allow

continued tailoring or fine tuning of the basic

structure once it was established.

Despite the simplicity of RCRA’S approach,

devising and implementing an effective and

timely program with maximum public involvement mechanisms has proved to be a complex

and controversial task. It was widely believed

that if RCRA was to result in a comprehensive

hazardous waste management system, such a

system would have the following essentiaI attributes: 4

1. A minimum Federal regulatory program

would control and define the universe of

regulated hazardous waste, which would

evolve in response to greater knowledge

about the hazards of the wastes and their

interactions with public health and the

environment.

‘House Report 94-1491; 94th Cong., 2d sess. (1976), at 30

sId. 4

See generally, House Report 94-1491, supra note 2, at 24-32.
270 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

The combined Federal and State programs

would promote the availability of adequate

treatment and disposal capacity.

The program would encourage generators

to use process modification, product substitution, and recycling to reduce the volumes of wastes generated.

The program would receive adequate

funding through Federal assistance to

States (and other mechanisms).

Permitting and enforcement responsibilities eventually would be handled primarily by the States with Federal oversight.

The system would promote public participation in rulemaking (setting of standards)

and permitting of facilities and would recognize private lawsuits to alleviate hazardous waste problems in the absence of effective Federal or State action.

The act’s criminal and civil penalties for

noncompliance would be a further incentive to comply with standards.

The regulatory program would require financial responsibility of those parties

engaging in hazardous waste activities and

would end the system of anonymous

dumpers and unmarked, unrecorded sites.

The comprehensive regulatory system

would force internalization of the true

costs of hazardous waste disposal and

eventually would assure that hazardous

wastes are properly disposed, protecting

public health and the environment.

The system would combine onsite treatment ‘of some wastes with offsite treatment for others and secure land disposal

methods for residues that remain hazardous after treatment.

The Federal hazardous waste regulatory system still falls short of the ambitious goals of

RCRA. In the more than 6 years since passage

of RCRA, in 1976, implementation of the act

through required rulemaking by EPA has been

slow. Many important statutory deadlines were

missed and several major regulations were promulgated only after court orders directed EPA

to meet its responsibilities. Among the reasons

cited by EPA for these delays were budgetary

limitations, need for more scientific and technical information, and the complexity of developing a comprehensive regulatory program

based on a general statutory mandate.’ On July

26, 1982, EPA issued interim final regulations

governing land disposal facilities and final authorization of State regulatory programs. When

the land disposal regulations became effective

on January 26, 1983, the basic Federal regulatory program for hazardous waste activities

was in place. EPA acknowledges that the program is not complete—standards for permitting

chemical and biological treatment facilities

have not yet been promulgated, for example,

and further modifications and additions to the

rules already in effect will be made. However,

the institutional framework has been established by which most existing and new facilities can be permitted, and State programs can

receive final authorization to operate in lieu of

the Federal program, According to EPA, full

implementation of RCRA through issuance

of detailed technical standards, permitting of

all existing facilities, and final approval of

State programs likely will take an additional

5 to 7 years.

Identification and Classification of

Hazardous Waste–The Trigger

Hazardous waste enters the system at the

point at which it is generated. Under EPA

rules, each generator of solid waste must analyze its wastes to determine whether there is

hazardous waste. If waste is a hazardous waste

and not exempted by statute or rule, it must

be managed in compliance with EPA regulations or the requirements of an approved State

regulatory program. The waste must be properly packaged and manifested if shipped offsite, and must be sent for treatment, storage,

or disposal only to a hazardous waste facility

operated according to EPA standards.

The requirements of the RCRA Subtitle C

regulatory program are triggered by the identification of a solid waste as hazardous waste.

%ee preamble to EPA land disposal regulations, 47 F,R. 33,

27633,278, July 26, 1982 which summarizes the history of and

changes in EPA’s implementation of subtitle C.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 271

The universe of hazardous waste is established

by statutory definitions and EPA’s regulatory

interpretations of these definitions are further

modified by various statutory and regulatory

exclusions and exemptions, Solid waste is defined in section 1004(27] of RCRA as:’

any garbage, refuse, sludge . . . and other

discarded material, including solid, liquid,

semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining,

and agricultural operations, and from community activities . . .

Hazardous waste is defined in section 1004(5)

of RCRA as:7

. , . a solid waste, or combination of solid

waste, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious attributes, may:

(A)

(B)

cause, or significantly contribute to an

increase in mortality or an increase in

serious irreversible, or incapacitating

reversible, illness; or

pose a substantial present or potential

hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,

transported, or disposed of, or otherwise

managed.

Section 3001 of RCRA directs EPA to develop: 1) criteria for identifying the characteristics

of hazardous waste and 2) criteria for listing

particular hazardous wastes. In adopting these

criteria, section 3001 requires EPA to take into

account “toxicity, persistence, and degradability in nature, potential for accumulation in

tissue, and other related factors such as flammability, corrosiveness, and other hazardous

characteristic s.” Using the characteristics and

listing promulgated based on theses criteria,

EPA is to define the

waste to be regulated

Exclusions From

Solid Waste and

universe of hazardous

(see table 51).

the Definitions of

Hazardous Waste

RCRA excludes from this definition of solid

waste certain materials that are regulated

under other Federal laws or that would be im-

’42 U.S. C. 6903 (14).

7

42 U. SC. 6903 (5).

Table 51 .—Identification of Hazardous Waste

/s it 43 So/id Waste?

The material is an RCRA solid waste if:

1. It is garbage, refuse or sludge, or other solid, liquid, semiIiquid or contained gaseous material that:

a. is discarded or is sometimes discarded, or

b. has served its original intended purpose and is

sometimes discarded; or

c. is a manufacturing or mining byproduct and is

sometimes discarded; and

2. It is not excluded from the definition of RCRA solid

waste by statute or rule.

If the waste meets the above two conditions, it is a RCRA

solid waste irrespective of whether it is discarded, used, reused, reclaimed, or recycled, or stored or accumulated before

such activities.

Materials that do not meet these conditions are not RCRA

solid wastes and cannot therefore be regulated as hazardous

waste,

Is it a hazardous waste?

A material will be considered as RCRA hazardous waste if

it meets the following conditions:

1. It is a RCRA solid waste and is not excluded from regulation by statute or rule;

2. The waste is listed as hazardous waste or is a mixture

containing a listed waste, and the waste or mixture has

not been specifically del isted; or the waste (or a mixture

containing the waste) exhibits one of the characteristics

of hazardous waste: ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity,

or EP toxicity.

3. The waste has not been excluded by statute or rule from

the definition of hazardous waste.

SOURCES 40 CFR 261 4(b), 40 CFR 261.3, 260.20, 26022, and 40 CFR 261, SubDart G

practical to regulate under the RCRA scheme.

These statutory exclusions from the definition

of solid waste and thus from the universe of

hazardous waste are: materials in domestic

sewage and irrigation return flows, industrial

point source discharges permitted under CWA,

and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material defined under the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended.

EPA has further interpreted the meaning of

solid waste for purposes of hazardous waste

regulation as a material that:

• is discarded, or being stored, or physically,

chemically, or biologically treated before

being discarded; or

● has served its original intended use and is

sometimes discarded; or

● is a mining or manufacturing byproduct

and is sometimes discarded.8

’40 CFR 261 (1982].
272 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

The heart of EPA’s regulatory definition is that

the material is discarded or sometimes discarded. EPA defines discarded as “abandoned

(and not used, reused, reclaimed or recycled)

or disposed of or burned or incinerated or

otherwise treated instead of, or before, being

disposed of.” This broad regulatory concept of

solid waste excludes primary and intermediate

industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural manufacturing products, but asserts jurisdiction over the broad range of activities involving recycling, reclamation, and reuse. Materials that are recycled, reclaimed, or reused

are not regulated only when that is the universal practice in the industry.

There are two important regulatory exclusions from the definition of solid waste. EPA

excepts the burning or incineration of solid

waste as a fuel for the purpose of recovering

usable energy from the meaning of “discarded”

and thus from being a solid waste. EPA also

has excluded materials subject to in situ mining techniques which are not removed from the

ground as part of the mining process from the

definition of solid waste,

The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)

Amendments of 1980 temporarily exclude from

regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA, hazardous wastes from oil, gas, and geothermal energy exploration and production; from burning of coal and other fossil fuels; from mineral

mining and processing, and cement-kiln dust

waste. g

EPA is to study these wastes and to report

back to Congress with recommendations on

whether they should be regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. * During the study period,

management of these wastes will be regulated

under other Federal and State laws, including

Subtitle D of RCRA. The amendments provide

‘JPublic Law 96-482, sec. 7, 94 Stat. 2336, Oct. 21, 1980; 42

U.S.C. 6921.

*The EPA studies are to look at items such as: 1) the source

and volume of the waste, 2) present disposal/utilization practices, 3) potential danger to human health or the environment,

4) documented cases of proven danger, 5] alternatives to current

disposal practices, 6) cost of alternatives, 7] impact of alternatives

on the use of natural resources, and 8) current and potential use

of these materials.

that EPA may promulgate regulations governing disposal of fossil fuel combustion, mining,

and cement-kiln dust wastes under section

2002 of RCRA that require placing in the public

record the location of any closed disposal sites

and an analysis of the wastes deposited there.

This temporary exclusion is effective until at

least 6 months after submission of the required

report to Congress and promulgation of regulations on these wastes, or publication of

EPA’s determination based on these studies

that such regulations are unwarranted. For oil,

gas, and geothermal wastes, the amendments

include a “sense of the Congress” provision

that existing Federal and State regulatory programs governing these wastes during the interim period should require at a minimum the

recording of the location of any waste disposal

sites that are closed and an analysis of produced waters and drilling fluids deposited

there that are suspected of containing hazardous substances. The temporary exclusion for

drilling fluids, produced waters, and other

wastes for oil, gas, and geothermal energy exploration, development, or production is effective until Congress approves any regulations

recommended by EPA as a result of the study.

In addition to the statutory exclusions, EPA’s

regulations interpreting the statutory provisions exclude certain solid wastes from the

definition of hazardous wastes for the purpose

of subtitle C.10 These exclusions are shown in

table 52.

A solid waste is a hazardous waste if it is not

excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste

and it meets any of the following criteria:

●

●

●

it is listed by EPA in 40 CFR 261, subpart

D, and has not been specifically delisted;

or

it is a mixture of a listed waste and a solid

waste and has not been specifically delisted; or

it exhibits any of the four characteristics

for identifying hazardous waste in 40 CFR

261, subpart C: ignitability, corrosivity,

reactivity, and extraction procedures (EP)

toxicity.

1040 cFR 261.4 [1982).
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 273

Table 52.—Exemptions and Exclusions From the

Universe of Hazardous Waste

Exclusions frorn the statutory definitlon of solid waste:

● solid or dissolved materials i n domestic sewage;

● solid or dissolved materials i n irrigation return flows;

. industrial discharges that are point sources subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N PDES)

permits under sec. 402 of the Clean Water Act; and

● source, special nuclear, or byproduct material defined

under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Exclusions by rule from the definition of solid waste:

● statutory exclusions above;

. waste burned as fuel for purposes of recovering usable

energy; and

● in-situ mining wastes not removed from the ground,

Temporary statutory exclusions from the definition

of hazardous waste:

● driIIing f I u ids, produced waters and other wastes

associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy;

● fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas

emission control waste generated primarily from combustion of coal or other fossil fuels;

● solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals, including phosphate rock and the

overburden from the mining of uranium ore; and

● cement kiIn dust waste.

Solid wastes excluded from the definition of

hazardous wastes in EPA regulations:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

household waste;

agricultural and livestock raising wastes used as fertiIizers;

mining overburden returned to the minesite;

temporary statutory exclusions above;

certain wastes containing exclusively (or almost exclusively) trivalent chromium from leather tanning and

finishing industries, shoe manufacturing and other leather

product industries, and wastewater treatment sludge from

production of TiO, pigment from chromium-bearing ores

by the chloride process (if not hazardous under any other

provision except failure of EP toxicity test for chromium);

solid waste from coal mining and processing;

arsenical treated wood or wood products which: 1) fail the

test for EP toxicity and 2) are discarded by persons using

the wood or wood products for its intended end use (unless

the waste meets other tests for hazardous waste);

any waste, sludge, or residue for hazardous waste treatment that is no longer hazardous because it no longer

displays a characteristic of hazardous waste;

hazardous waste generated in a product or raw material

storage tank, transport vehicle, or in a closed manufacturing process unit or waste treatment unit before it exits from

or is removed from the unit;

samples of solid waste, or of water, soil, or air collected

solely for testing subject to special handling requirements

to qualify for this exemption); and

a delisted solid waste or sludge or residue from treatment

of a delisted hazardous waste (provided that it does not

exhibit any characteristics of hazardous waste). —

SOURCE 40 CRF 261 Subpart C

Hazardous Waste Characteristics

Section 3001 of RCRA requires that EPA develop and promulgate criteria to be used to

identify the characteristics of hazardous waste.

A waste which exhibits any of these characteristics will be considered as a regulated

hazardous waste. EPA regulations use the statutory definition of hazardous waste—i.e., the

potential effects that exposure to such waste

may have on human health or the environment

as two of these criteria. The third criteria is that

the characteristics must be capable: 1) of being measured by standardized testing protocols

that are reasonably within the capabilities of

the regulated community or 2) of being reasonably detected by generators of solid waste

through their own knowledge of their waste

stream. Using these critieria, EPA identified

four characteristics:

●

●

●

●

ignitibility—posing a fire hazard during

routine management;

corrosivity—ability to corrode standard

containers or to dissolve toxic components

of other wastes;

reactivity—tendency to explode under normal management conditions, to react violently when mixed with water, or to generate toxic gases;

EP toxicity (as determined by a specific extraction procedure) —presence of certain

toxic materials (as listed in 40 CFR 261.24)

at levels greater than those specified in the

regulation.

Table 53 shows in more detail the tests to be

used in determining whether a waste exhibits

a hazardous characteristic.

Other properties of some solid wastes that

pose a threat to health and the environment,

such as carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, infectiousness, and mutagenicity, are not included

in the characteristics for identifying hazardous wastes because EPA considers that reliable testing protocols for these effects are not

generally available to the regulated communi-
274 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 53.—Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes

Ignitability-(wastes that during routine handl

start fire or exacerbate fire once started):

● liquid with a flash point below 60° C (140° F);

● nonliquid capable under standard temperature and

pressure of causing fire through friction, absorption of

moisture, or spontaneous chemical changes, and, when

ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently that it

creates a hazard;

● ignitable compressed gas as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation; and

•oxidizer as defined by the U.S. Department of

Transportation.

Corrosivity-(wastes that under normal conditions could

corrode through their containers and leach out

other waste constituents):

Ž aqueous material with pH less than or equal to 2 or

greater than or equal to 12.5; or

● liquid that corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35

millimeters (0.25 inch) per year under specified test

procedures.

Reactivity—(wastes that are extremely unstable under

normal conditions with tendency to react violently,

explode, or give off dangerous gases):

●

●

●

●

●

●

normally unstable ‘material that readily undergoes

violent change without detonating; or

material that reacts violently with water; or

material that forms potentially explosive mixtures with

water, or when mixed with water generates toxic gases,

vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a

danger to human health or the environment; or

a cyanide or sulfide-bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate

toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to

present a danger to human health or the environment; or

material that is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a strong initiating source or if

heated under confinement or it is readily capable of

detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at

standard temperature and pressure; or

a forbidden explosive, Class A explosive, or Class B explosive, as defined by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.

Toxic/ty—(wastes are likely to leach out hazardous

concentration of toxic chemicals.) Waste is "EP toxic” if a

specified extraction procedure test yields an extract equal

to or exceeding following levels:

Maximum concentration

Contaminant (milligrams per liter)

Arsenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

Barium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

Lead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2

Selenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

Endrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02

Lindane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4

Methoxychlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0

Toxaphene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

2,4-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0

2,4,5-TP Silvex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

SOURCE 40 CFR 261 Subpart C

ty. Waste exhibiting these characteristics,

however, may be brought under the subtitle

C regulations through the listing mechanism.

Each ‘generator must determine if a solid

waste exhibits one or more of the specified

characteristics by testing a “representative

sample” of the waste. The testing maybe based

on protocols described in the regulations, on

other protocols approved by EPA as “equivalent,” or the generator may simply apply his

own knowledge of the solid waste or its constituents.

Unlike mixtures containing listed wastes

(which are automatically considered hazardous), mixtures containing unlisted waste are

considered hazardous and subject to regulation

only if the entire mixture exhibits one or more

of the specified characteristics.

Listing of Hazardous Waste

The second method for determining if a solid

waste is a hazardous waste is whether the

waste is listed as a hazardous waste or is a mixture of a solid waste and a listed waste. Section 3001 of RCRA requires EPA to develop criteria to be used in listing particular hazardous

wastes and waste streams. The listing criteria

are that the solid waste:

• hexhibits one of the four characteristics of

hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity,

reactivity, or EP toxicity); or

● has been found to be fal al in humans in

low doses or, in the absence of human

data, has been shown to be dangerous in

animal studies; or is otherwise capable of

causing or significantly contributing to an

increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness (such waste

is designated “acute hazardous waste”);

or

● contains any of the toxic constituents

listed in Part 261, Appendix VIII which

have been shown in scientific studies to

have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or

teratogenic effects on human or other life

forms, unless it is determined that the

waste cannot pose a hazard when improp-
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 275

erly managed. This class of waste is designated “toxic waste. ”

Based on these criteria and available scientific and technical information, in May 1980,

EPA published three generic lists of wastes that

are considered to be hazardous and subject to

RCRA Subtitle C regulation:

1.

2.

3.

hazardous waste from nonspecific sources

(40 CFR 261,31);

hazardous waste from specific sources (40

CFR 261.32); and

discarded commercial chemical products,

off-specification species, containers, and

spill residues thereof (40 CFR 261.33). The

discarded commercial chemical products

list is further divided into wastes designated as toxic wastes (40 CFR 261,33(f))

and as acutely hazardous wastes (40 CFR

261.33(e)).

Any listed waste is regulated unless it is

delisted either through removal of the listing

of the generic waste or of the specific waste

from a particular facility in response to a petititon for regulatory amendment.

Delisting of Hazardous Wastell

Because the lists of hazardous waste include

a broad range, it may subject some wastes or

individual generators to regulation in circumstances when their wastes do not pose a

threat to human health or the environment

even when improperly managed. To deal with

the potential for “overregulation,” frequently

inherent in precautionary health and safety

regulatory schemes involving complex scientific and technical issues, EPA has provided

an “escape hatch” through the delisting process.

Delisting is accomplished by petitioning for

a regulatory amendment as authorized under

section 7004 of RCRA. A delisting petition as

a rulemaking procedure is subject to requirements for public notice and comment. Delisting petitions generally fall into one of two

categories, One type of petition seeks a determination that a listed waste from a particular

1140 cF’R 260.20 and 260.22 (1982).

generator is not hazardous by demonstrating

that this specific waste under its individual circumstances does not meet any of the criteria

that caused the waste to be listed generically.

If the petition is granted, waste from that

generator only is no longer considered as listed

hazardous waste. The second type of petition

seeks to remove a listed waste from the hazardous waste lists by demonstrating that EPA

erred in its original generic listing and that the

waste in fact does not meet any of the criteria

for listing. If a generic delisting petition is

granted, the waste is no longer listed hazardous

waste. The delisting provision allows consideration of the variations in individual waste

streams resulting from differences in raw materials, industrial process technologies, and

other factors. It provides an incentive for some

firms to modify their processes or products so

that their wastes are not classified as hazardous wastes. By September 30, 1982, over 200

delisting petitions had been submitted to EPA

and were under review.

EPA rules provide for the granting of a temporary exclusion based on a finding of substantial likelihood that a delisting petition will

ultimately be granted. Temporary exclusions

can be issued without advance public notice

or opportunity for comment, however, EPA

retains an opportunity to reconsider its decision in the future based on new information

received in response to request for comments

published when the temporary exclusion is

granted. Several environmental groups have

criticized granting a temporary exclusion without the procedural safeguards of public notice

and comment. These groups contend that temporary exclusions lifting the requirements for

proper management and tracking of the waste

could result in inadequate protection of health

and the environment, during the interim before

a final determination is made, if more detailed

review in response to public comment indicated that the waste was properly listed as hazardous. On several occasions, EPA has granted

such temporary exclusions without prior opportunity for public comment. 12 In some cases

—.-. 

lzsee, for examp]e, temporary exclusions at 47 F. R. 52,667,

Nov. 22, 1982,
276 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

EPA’s final determination later modified its

temporary exclusion based on the comments

received and more intensive review. 13

The delisting of a facility’s waste does not

mean that it is not subject to hazardous waste

regulation. The facility must continue to analyze its solid waste, and if it exhibits one of the

four characteristics of hazardous waste or if

it later includes a listed waste, the waste is subject to subtitle C regulations. Generators have

the burden of demonstrating that their waste

is not hazardous because under RCRA they are

responsible for determining whether their

wastes are hazardous, and because they are

uniquely aware of the contents of their waste

streams.

Changes in the Universe of Hazardous Waste

In general, because of various exemptions

and exclusions and the listing and delisting

processes, the universe of waste covered by the

RCRA Subtitle C regulations can be expected

to change. Moreover, EPA is required to review periodically the lists and the criteria for

identifying waste, and to make appropriate additions and deletions as more information becomes available, However, EPA has not made

any additions to the list of hazardous waste

since 1980. Under section 3001(c) of RCRA,

State governors may also petition EPA to add

substances to the list. The Governor of Michigan, for example, has submitted a petition requesting that EPA add over 200 additional

chemical substances regulated as hazardous

waste in Michigan to the Federal list of hazardous wastes.

Special Exemptions for Certain

Categories of Hazardous Wastes

All wastes in the universe of hazardous waste

are not necessarily subject to the full requirements of the RCRA program, For example,

EPA regulations include special limited exemptions for generators which produce hazardous

waste in small quantities, for hazardous wastes

that are used, reused, recycled, or reclaimed,

Issee 47 F.R. 52,667, Nov. 22, 1981, at 52,685.

and for residues of hazardous wastes in containers. These limited exemptions have the advantage that EPA retains regulatory jurisdiction over the wastes and activities involved and

could impose additional requirements or invoke its enforcement authority where necessary to protect human health or the environment,

Small Quantity Generator Exemption

EPA has exempted certain small quantity

generators from the standards generally imposed on hazardous waste generators. These

small generators are exempted from the notification, recordkeeping, reporting requirements, and from the manifest system. As a consequence of this exemption, unknown quantities of hazardous waste exit the regulated

universe of hazardous waste. In the preamble

to the May 1980 regulations, EPA explained its

reason for creation of this administrative exemption because:

. , . (the) enormous number of small generators, if brought entirely within the subtitle C

regulatory system, would far outstrip the limited Agency resources necessary to achieve effective implementation.14

To qualify for the the small quantity generator exemption, generators must not generate

or accumulate more than a specified amount

of hazardous waste each month. The small

quantity limits are:

● no more than 1 kilogram per month

(kg/me) for acutely hazardous waste,

● no more than 100 kg/mo of residues or contaminated soils, water, or other debris

resulting from the cleanup of any spill of

any acutely hazardous waste; or

● no more than 1,000 kg/m.o (2,200 lb) of any

other hazardous waste, 15

1445 F.R. 33,104, May 19, 1980.

lbIdentified in 40 CFR 261, subpart C (1982). Many States have

been more restrictive than EPA in granting exemptions for some

of the small quantity generators. In some States, small quantity

generators are thought to be responsible for the most serious

hazardous waste problem, See the discussion of State small

generator provisions later in this chapter.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 277

In addition, the generator must either treat or

store the hazardous waste in an onsite facility

or ensure delivery to an approved offsite

storage, treatment, or disposal facility. This offsite facility must be a facility that has interim

status or is permitted under the Federal RCRA

program or an authorized State program, a

State-approved municipal or industrial solid

waste facility (subtitle D facility), or a facility

that beneficially uses or reuses or legitimately

recycles or reclaims the waste or treats it before

such reuse or recycling.

Small quantity generators who mix hazardous waste with nonhazardous waste may take

advantage of the small quantity exemption provided that the amount of hazardous waste in

the mixture remains below the specified limits

and that the mixture does not exhibit any of

the characteristics of hazardous wastes.

Exemption for Wastes That Are Used,

Reused, Recycled, or Reclaimed

EPA has recognized the need to achieve a

workable balance between the requirement in

subtitle C that hazardous waste be properly

managed and RCRA’S overall objective of promoting the use, reuse, recycling, and reclamation of energy and material from wastes. Despite objections that regulation might thwart

the resource recovery goals of RCRA, EPA has

included hazardous wastes that are used, reused, recycled, or reclaimed within the universe of hazardous waste, but has temporarily

exempted many of these wastes from most hazardous waste regulation until special provisions can be developed.

Listed hazardous wastes, mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes, and sludges,

which are transported or stored before being

recycled, are subject to limited notification,

recordkeeping, transportation, and storage requirements. However, other hazardous wastes

are exempted from regulation altogether if they

are:

●

●

being beneficially used or reused or legitimately recycled or reclaimed; or

being accumulated, stored, or physically,

chemically, or biologically treated prior to

beneficial use or reuse or legitimate recycling or reclamation; or

● spent pickle liquor reused in wastewater

treatment in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facility or that is being stored or

treated before such use .1 6

Exemption for Residues of Hazardous Waste

in Empty Containers

EPA has decided that any hazardous waste

residues remaining in an “empty” container,

or in an inner liner removed from an “empty”

container, are not subject to hazardous waste

regulation. A container is considered “empty”

if:

●

●

●

If a

it has held a hazardous waste that is a compressed gas, but the pressure in the container now approaches atmospheric; or

it has held an acutely hazardous commercial chemical, but has since been triplerinsed with an appropriate solvent or

cleaned by some other means shown to

achieve equivalent removal; or

it has held any other type of hazardous

waste, but all waste has since been removed using the practices commonly used

to remove materials from that kind of container (e.g., pouring, pumping, aspirating)

and no more than 2.5 centimeters (1 inch)

or 0.3 percent by weight of residue remain

on the bottom of the container or inner

liner.

16

container is not “emptv” according to one

of these three definitions then any hazardous

waste remaining in the container is subject to

full regulation unless the generator qualifies for

the small generator exemption or the container

residues qualify for the recycling exemption.

Provisions of General Applicability to

Hazardous Waste Generators, Transporters, and

Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities

Notification

Section 3010 of RCRA’7 requires that all generators, transporters, and owners or operators

of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

(TSDFS) must have notified EPA that they are

1840 CFR 261.7, as modified at 47 F.R. 36092, Aug. 18, 1982.

1742 U.S. C. 6930.
278 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

handling hazardous waste within 90 days of the

date EPA issues rules defining hazardous

waste (i.e., by Aug. 19, 1980). The generation,

transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal

of hazardous waste after that date is illegal if

the required notification has not been made.

EPA encountered practical difficulties in applying the notification requirement to firms

that engaged in hazardous waste activities after

the initial notification date had passed but that

had not been in violation of the requirements

on that date. (For example, small generators

who later exceeded the permissible 1,000

kg/mo level, generators whose wastes were

listed subsequent to the date.) Accordingly,

EPA provided that such firms are not in violation of section 3010 if they were not required

to notify EPA on the Aug. 19, 1980 notification

date. These firms must notify EPA that they

are engaged in hazardous waste activities after

they become subject to regulation.

The Manifest System

RCRA provides that EPA regulations must

require that waste generators, transporters, and

TSDFS comply with the manifest system. The

manifest system is an integral part of the comprehensive hazardous waste regulatory scheme

under RCRA as envisioned by Congress. All

waste shipped offsite of generation must be

manifested; the manifest must accompany

the waste and identify the waste; specify its

quantity, origin, and destination; and the

identity of the transporter. The manifest

allows tracking of the waste for enforcement.

The manifest requirement also works to discourage the practices that produced midnight

dumping and orphan dump sites. Additionally, it provides information on which to base

regulation. The requirement is largely self-executing because it relies on the regulated community to monitor compliance and to report

possible violations.

Originally, EPA declined to establish a uniform national manifest. Consequently, States

imposed their own manifest requirements. Interstate shippers of hazardous waste faced the

possibility of having to carry a different

manifest for each State they traveled through.

In practice, however, many States accepted

manifests of other States for purposes of complying with their requirements if the necessary

identifying information was included. In response to industry complaints about lack of

uniformity, EPA has proposed, but not yet

finalized, a national manifest form. 18

Regulation of Hazardous Waste Generators

RCRA places several critical responsibilities

on generators of hazardous wastes. The generator is responsible for assuring that hazardous waste enters the regulatory system by analyzing its solid waste to determine whether it

is a regulated hazardous waste. If it is, the

generator must meet notification and reporting

requirements, prepare a manifest for shipping

waste offsite, and properly pack and label the

waste for shipment. Generator activities are

not, however, as directly controlled as those

of hazardous waste TSDF operators. The 1980

RCRA Amendments to section 3002 emphatically placed on the generator the responsibility to assure that waste is transported to, and

arrives at, an appropriate facility. 19

EPA regulations define a generator as:

. . . any person, by site, whose act or process

produced hazardous waste identified or listed

in part 261 of this chapter and whose act first

causes hazardous waste to become subject to

regulation. 20

EPA’s definition of generator means that each

individual plant or facility that produces hazardous waste is considered a separate generator. The definition of generator does not distinguish between those who produce hazardous waste as a normal consequence of their

activities or processes, or those who create hazardous waste as a result of an accident or other

unusual circumstances. Exclusion of some substances (e. g., mine waste) from the definition

of hazardous waste has the effect of removing

the firms that produce these substances from

being considered as generators and from having to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Additionally, a generator

1847 F.R. 9,336, Mar. 4, 1982.

1042 USC. 6922.

Z040 CFR 260.10 (1982).
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 279

must obtain a TSDF permit if the waste is accumulated on the property for more than 90 days

or if the generator treats or disposes of the

waste on site.21

Requirements for Transporters of Hazardous Waste

RCRA directs EPA to establish standards for

transporters of hazardous waste. Safe transport

of hazardous waste from generators to disposal

sites is an important part of the comprehensive regulatory system. Requirements for hazardous waste transport were included to allow

tracking of wastes and to prevent the abuses

of midnight dumpers as well as the safety

threats posed by moving hazardous waste materials unlabeled and undisclosed in interstate

commerce and from accidents.

Section 3003 of RCRA provides for EPA to

issue regulations for transporters which include requirements for recordkeeping, compliance with the manifest system, transportation only of properly labeled and packaged

waste, and transportation of the waste only to

the permitted or interim status TSDFS designated on the manifest.22 Transporters are not

themselves required to have permits under

RCRA, but they must obtain identification

numbers from EPA and they may not accept

waste from generators who do not also have

identification numbers.

Transporters of hazardous waste are subject

to both EPA’s regulations under RCRA23 (or

those issued under an approved State program), regulations issued by the Department

of Transportation (DOT) under the Hazardous

Materials Transportation Act24 (many of which

have been jointly adopted with EPA), and any

additional requirements of State laws. RCRA

imposes two additional responsibilities to the

DOT hazardous materials regulatory scheme:

notifying of hazardous waste activities and obtaining an EPA identification number and

complying with the manifest system, The

RCRA regulations do not apply to onsite transportation of hazardous waste by generators or

by owners or operators of TSDFS. They also

do not apply to transporters of waste from

small quantity generators or (except for limited

provisions) to transporters of recycled waste

or empty containers, because of their exclusion

from most of the subtitle C regulatory system.

Special rules may apply when a discharge occurs during transportation (i. e., when there is

an accidental spilling, leaking, pumping, emptying or dumping of hazardous waste onto or

into the land or water, Furthermore, transporters who hold waste for more than 10 days (except under limited circumstances) must comply with the applicable regulations for storage

and for obtaining a RCRA storage facility

permit.

25

Requirements for Hazardous Waste Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities

Section 3004 of RCRA authorizes EPA to promulgate “such performance standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities as maybe necessary to protect human

health and the environment,” The 1980 amendments require EPA to distinguish, where appropriate, between new and existing facilities

in setting these standards.28

The performance standards are intended to

serve a threefold purpose:

1.

2.

3.

to establish design and operating practices

that are adequate to protect health and

environment,

to provide the technical basis for permitting facilities, and

to set minimum standards for authorizing

State hazardous waste programs,

Section 3004 provides that the EPA performance standards must include, but are not limited to, requirements for:

● maintenance of records of all hazardous

wastes handled by the facility and of treatment, storage, or disposal practices used;

Z140 CFR 262.34 (1982).

2242 U,S. C, 6923,

2340 CFR part 263 (1982).

2149 u .S. C. 1801-1812, (1 978).

ZEJohn Quar]es, Federal Regulation of Hazardous Waste: A

Guide to RCRA (Washington, DC.: Environmental Law Institute,

1982], pp. 86-87,

2642 u,s.c. 5924,
280 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

●

●

●

●

●

reporting, monitoring, inspections, and

compliance with the manifest system;

operating methods, techniques, and practices for treating, storing, or disposing of

hazardous wastes;

location, design, and construction of the

facility;

contingency plans for effective action to

minimize unanticipated damage from hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal;

maintenance of operation of the facility

and such additional qualifications as to

ownership, continuity of operations, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable;

and

compliance with the requirements of

RCRA section 3005 relating to permits for

facilities.

Performance standards commonly are used

to establish the level of effectiveness that a

pollution control technology or managerial

practice must achieve—e,g., a requirement that

a landfill-liner system must prevent waste constituents from entering the environment for 200

years is a possible formulation of a performance standard. The use of the term “performance standard” in section 3004, however, is to

be given a broad meaning since the objective

to be met is the “protection of human health

and the environment” from the impacts of hazardous waste management activities. In the

achievement of this overall goal, section 3004

authorizes the use of both the typical performance standard and the more specific design

standard in setting detailed facility requirements. EPA has used both types of standards

in regulations on the operating methods, techniques, and practices, and the location, design,

and construction of hazardous waste facilities.

Regulated Facilities

Facilities must be operated and permitted according to the standards established by EPA

under section 3004. EPA regulations have defined “treatment,” “storage,” and “disposal”

quite broadly for the purposes of identifying

activities that are subject to regulation.

A hazardous waste treatment facility is an

operation that uses: “any method, technique,

or process, including neutralization, designed

to change the physical, che:mical, or biological

character or composition of any hazardous

waste so as to neutralize such wastes, or so as

to recover energy or material resources from

the waste, or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store or dispose of; or amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in

volume. ”27 This definition of treatment is broad

and includes such activities as dewatering or

neutralizing hazardous waste, or mixing a nonlisted hazardous waste with a solid waste to

render the resulting mixture nonhazardous. Recycling facilities are clearly within this definition, however, EPA has given them a broad exemption from most facility standards. The

cleanup of an accidental spill of hazardous

material may also fall within the definition of

treatment and thus trigger the regulatory requirements.

A hazardous waste storage facility is any

facility that is used for: “the holding of hazardous waste for a temporary period, at the end

of which the hazardous waste is treated, disposed of, or stored elsewhere.”28 EPA rules provide that generators may store hazardous waste

onsite for up to 90 days, and transporters may

hold hazardous waste for up to 10 days, without becoming subject to the storage facility

standards and permit requirements.

A facility operator is engaged in disposal activities under EPA rules if he engages in:

, , . the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,

spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste

or hazardous waste into or on any land or

water so that such solid waste or hazardous

waste or any constituent thereof may enter the

environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including groundwaters. 29

N140 CFR 260,10 (1982).

z840 CFR 260.10 (1982).

Z040 CFR 260.10 (1982).
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 281

However, EPA defines a hazardous waste

disposal facility more narrowly as: “a facility or part of a facility at which hazardous waste

is intentionally placed into or on any land or

water, and at which waste will remain after

closure. “3° The distinction between disposal as

an activity and disposal facilities is made to

allow EPA to maintain jurisdiction over an unintentional spill or other similar act that might

occur, without necessarily requiring a facility

permit based simply on the possibility of such

an occurrence. The key to being a disposal facility therefore is that the waste is placed in

the land or water so that it may enter the environment and that waste remains at the facility after closure.

Standards for TSDFS

EPA’s implementation of requirements of

section 3004 to establish performance standards for hazardous waste TSDFS has been a

process characterized by delay, false starts, frequent policy reversals, and litigation. 31 O n e

result of the complexity and delay encountered

in developing a comprehensive regulatory system for hazardous waste is that EPA has promulgated three different sets of standards for

TSDFS.

Interim Status Standards (40 CFR part 265).–

These regulations, originally published on May

19, 1980, establish administrative and nontechnical facility standards applicable to all existing

facilities operating under interim status and to

special technical standards for different types

of facilities. Existing facilities will continue

operating under these requirements until a

final facility permit is issued or denied.

General Status Standards (40 CFR part 264) (Permanent Program Standards) .—Regulations establishing these final technical standards for

permitted hazardous waste facilities were

published over a 2-year period. These standards are applicable to new and existing facilities at the time the facility permit is issued.

3040 CFR 260.10 (1982).

31This history is detai]ed in the preamble to the final land

disposal facility regulations issued in July 1982. See 47 F.R.

32,276-32,278, July 26, 1982.

They generally impose more stringent detailed

requirements that are adapted to the individual

facility conditions and that are specified in the

permit after the permit review.

Interim Standards for New Facilities (40 CFR part

267).—Because RCRA requires that issuance of

a permit before the construction and operation

of new hazardous waste facilities, the delays

encountered in establishing final permitting

standards threatened to stop construction of

additional waste treatment and disposal capacity and the development of new, safer waste

management technologies. EPA issued a set of

temporary interim standards for permitting

new facilities in January 1981 to remedy this

situation. (A new facility is any facility that

does not qualify as an existing “interim status”

facility,) These interim standards were superseded as part 264 final permit standards became effective.

Interim Status Standards (ISS)

RCRA originally provided that no hazardous

waste facility could operate without a permit

beyond 24 months after the passage of the act

(the date on which the original facility standards would have become effective if they had

been issued on time). Section 3005 provided

that an existing facility could apply for interim

status allowing it to operate as if permitted,

pending issuance of the standards and action

on the permit application. The 1980 RCRA

amendments changed the date on which facilities had to be in existence in order to qualify

for interim status to November 19, 1980 (the

effective date of the May 1980 implementing

regulations). 32

On May 19, 1980, EPA issued its initial hazardous waste regulations. This rulemaking included general administrative and nontechnical standards applicable for all TSDFS and

more specific technical standards for different

types of facilities. Table 54 summarizes the

general interim status requirements applicable

to most facilities.

szsolid waste llisposa] Act Amendments of 1980, Public Law

96-482, sec. 10, 94 Stat. 2338, C)ct. 21, 1980.
282 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 54.—interim Status Standards: General Administrative and Nontechnical Standards

for interim Status Facilities

General requirements for all Interim status facilities:

● Notify EPA of hazardous waste activities.

● Obtain EPA identification number.

Ž Submit Part A permit application.

Ž File annual or other periodic reports required by EPA.

● Comply with manifest system:

—Sign for receipt of waste shipment and return manifest

copies to transporter and generator;

—Inspect shipment and report to EPA any significant

discrepancies in amount, type of waste;

—Report unmanifested waste (except shipments from

exempted small generators); and

—Maintain manifest copy at facility for 3 years.

. Notify EPA before receiving waste shipments from outside

the United States.

● Notify new owner in writing of duty to comply with RCRA

regulations.

● Maintain facility operating record over life of facility

covering:

—Type, quantities, and location of each waste at facility;

—Method of treatment, storage, and disposal;

—Waste monitoring, testing, inspection results, and

analytical data (maintain monitoring data for disposal

facilities through post-closure period);

—Accidents requiring action under contingency plan; and

—Closure cost estimate (and post-closure costs estimate

for disposal facilities).

● Waste analysis:

—Prepare and follow written waste analysis plan specifying detailed chemical and physical analyses to be conducted, sampling methods, and special analyses for ignitable, reactive or incompatible wastes, and for inspecting shipments for compliance with manifest;

—Test a representative sample of wastes before treatment,

storage, or disposal; retest if change in waste generating

processes or if off site wastes do not match manifest

description; and

—Maintain record of waste analyses results.

● Inspections and monitoring:

—Prepare and follow written operator’s inspection

schedule describing types of problems to be detected,

and frequency of inspection;

—Inspect for spills at least daily; follow specific

technology inspection and monitoring requirements

under technical standards; and

—Maintain record of inspection results for 3 years.

● Ground water monitoring (landfills, surface impoundments,

and land treatment facilities only):

—By Nov. 19, 1981, develop and implement ground water

monitoring program for assessing the effects of the

facility on the uppermost aquifer underlying the facility. Program must include:

(i) written ground water monitoring plan, including

sampling and analysis specifications and methods;

(ii) installed system of ground water monitoring wells

(at least one upgradient well and 3 downgradient

wells); and

(iii) outline of ground water quality assessment program

to be implemented if contamination is detected.

● Conduct sampling and testing of ground water:

—First year: quarterly samples of all monitoring wells to

establish background levels of specified parameters:

(i) Maximum contaminant levels in National Interim

Primary Drinking Water Standards (21);

(ii) Water quality indicator parameters: chloride, iron,

manganese, phenols, sodium, and sulfate; and

(iii) Ground water contamination indicator parameters:

pH, specific conductance, total organic carbon, and

total organic halogen.

—Subsequent years: Test for each well quarterly for 6

background water quality indicator parameters; semiannually for 4 contamination indicator parameters.

• Continue monitoring program for Iife of facility and during 30-year post-closure period for disposal facilities.

● Report ground water monitoring results (for landfills, surface impoundments, and land treatment facilities):

—Waivers of ground water monitoring program available:

(i) by demonstrating low potential for migration of waste

constituents from facility via uppermost aquifer to watersupply wells. (Written determination is made by facility

operator and certified by qualified geologist or

geotechnical engineer.) and (ii) for surface impoundments neutralizing corrosive waste if demonstrate no

potential for migration from impoundment.

—Use of alternative ground water monitoring program

similar to ground water assessment program allowed if

monitoring of indicator parameters would show

statistically significant changes in water quality.

● Handling ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes—

waste analysis and special safety precautions such as

waste segregation, smoking restrictions, and limits on mixing these special wastes are required.

● Site security:

—Maintain site security to prevent unknowing entry, and

to minimize unauthorized entry into facility through

24-hour surveillance, barriers, fencing, posted warnings;

and

—Control entry to active portion of facility.

Ž Personnel training:

—Assure that facility personnel are trained in waste

management, operating, and emergency procedures; and

—Maintain personnel training records until closure.

• Emergency preparedness and prevention and contingency

plan:

—Provide internal alarm and emergency communications

system, fire, spill control, and decontamination equipment, and device for summoning local emergency

assistance;

—Test and maintain systems and equipment for emergency readiness;

—Develop written contingency plan for accidents and

emergencies;

—Designate emergency coordinator; and

—Provide written report to Regional Administrator within

15 days of events requiring implementation of contingency plan.

● Closure:

—Develop written closure plan May May 19, 1981, including:

methods of closing (or partially closing) facility at any

time during life of facility and at end of operating life,

estimate of largest inventory of waste in storage or treatment during life of facility, how facility and equipment

will be decontaminated; estimated date of closure;

estimated closure costs; and schedule for final closure;

—Notify EPA 180 days before closure begins;

—Submit closure plan within 15 days of loss of interim

status or receipt of order to stop receiving waste;

—Follow closure plan;

—Complete all treatment, storage disposal activities within

90 days after receiving last waste shipment; and

—Complete closure within 180 days of beginning of

closure period (unless date is extended by RA).
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 283

Table 54.—interim Status Standards: General Administrative and Nontechnical Standards

for Interim Status Facilities—Continued

●

●

●

Obtain engineer’s and operator’s certification that closure

is completed according to plan and all equipment and

facilities have been decontaminated or disposed of

according y.

Post-closure (disposal facilities only):

—Develop written post-closure plan by May 19, 1961, specifying monitoring and planned maintenance activities to

be carried on during 30-year post-closure period and

identifying responsible person;

—Follow ground water monitoring plan and reporting

requirements;

—File survey plat showing location, type and quantity of

waste i n disposal faciIity after closure, and amend title

records showing use of land for waste disposal and

restrictions on future use.

Financial responsibility:

—Maintain on file at facility: (i) written estimate of closure

SOURCE 40 CFR Part 265

The interim status standards have generally

been characterized as “good housekeeping” requirements. Except for the ground water monitoring, closure, and post-closure care for disposal facilities, the interim status standards

were intended by EPA to be “capable of being

interpreted and applied in a straightforward

manner without substantial expenditures by

September 19, 1980.33 (As explained later in this

chapter, EPA’s analysis of the ground water

monitoring, closure, and post-closure requirements indicated that these imposed the major

economic impacts of the interim status standards. However, of these, only ground water

monitoring requirements imposed significant

immediate expenses, and these were tempered

somewhat by economies of scale enjoyed by

larger facilities,)

Another significant feature of the interim

status standards is that they are largely selfexecuting. That is, the facility owner or

operator is responsible for being aware of, interpreting, and assuring compliance with the

regulations. EPA and the States will conduct

periodic inspections to determine if a facility

is in compliance. Adhering to the interim status

standards will not insulate a facility from having to comply with administrative orders or

being subject to an imminent hazard action or

3345 F.R, 33,159.60,

costs, adjusted at least annually for inflation, and (ii)

demonstration of mechanism facility will use to

guarantee coverage of closure costs.

● Liability insurance:

—Maintain liability insurance or self-insurance for at least

$1 million dollar per occurrence for sudden accidental

injuries to persons or property from faciIity operations

up to annual aggregate of $2 million (exclusive of legal

costs);

—Owners of surface impoundments, landfills, and land

treatment facilities must provide insurance or selfinsurance of at least $3 million per occurrence for nonsudden accidental occurrences up to an annual aggregate

of $6 million (exclusive of legal costs). (Variations may

be approved by RA for State insurance requirements or

for State assumption of liability.)

other enforcement measure if the operation of

the facility poses a threat to human health or

the environment.

Interim Status Ground Water Monitoring Requirements

Any interim status landfill, surface impoundment, or land treatment facility must have a

ground water monitoring program to assess the

effects of the facility on the uppermost aquifer

underlying the facility. The facility program

must be in place by November 19, 1981. The

program must be continued throughout the life

of the facility and during the post-closure

period for disposal facilities.34 The ISS ground

water monitoring program consists of three

parts:

1.

2.

3.

a written ground water monitoring plan

(including sampling and analysis plan),

an installed system of ground water monitoring wells, and

a written outline of a ground water quality assessment program to be implemented

if contamination is suggested by analysis

of monitoring data.

The ISS ground water monitoring system

must include at least one upgradient well to

monitor background water quality and at least

aAsee-~O cFR 26.5.gCl, 45 F.R. 33,239, May 19, 1980 and 47 F.R.

1254, Jan. 11, 1982.
284 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

three downgradient wells sufficient to detect

immediately any migration of a statistically

significant amount of waste from the facility

to the uppermost aquifer. The location, depth,

and number of wells must be sufficient to yield

representative measures of background water

quality and to detect contamination.

Initial background levels for all monitoring

wells must be established by sampling at least

quarterly in the first year. The operator must

test each well quarterly during the first year

for 31 specified parameters. These parameters

include the maximum contaminant levels established in the National Interim Primary

Drinking Water Standards under the Safe

Drinking Water Act regulationsss, ground

water quality indicator parameters* and four

ground water contamination indicator parameters. * * These results are to be reported to

EPA. After the first year, the operator must test

quarterly for the six background water quality parameters and semiannually for the four

parameters that indicate possible leakage.

By November 19, 1981, ISS facilities must

prepare a written outline of a ground water

quality assessment program to be implemented

if monitoring indicated a statistically significant change in ground water quality. The assessment program must be designed to determine whether waste constituents have entered

ground water, the extent of any contamination,

the rate and extent of migration, and the concentration of the contaminant.

Within 7 days of obtaining results indicating

significant changes in ground water, the facility must notify the Regional Administrator.

within an additional 15 days, the facility must

submit its ground water quality assessment

plan based on its previously prepared written

outline and implement the plan. Additional reports based on the assessment plan must also

be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator. The facility must continue to monitor

under the assessment program at least quarter-

‘!% 40 ~FR Part 265, App. III (1982).

“Chloride, iron, manganese, phenols, sodium, sulfate.

● *Specific conductance, pH, total organic carbon, and total

organic halogen.

ly until closure. Unlike the standards for permitting land disposal facilities, the interim

status standards do not require implementation of corrective action, only continued monitoring of the contamination. However, EPA

may accelerate the call up of the facility’s part

B permit application, or initiate imminent hazard action or a section 3013 administrative

order after receiving notice that the facility

may be affecting ground water quality.

All or part of the ground water monitoring

requirements can be waived under certain

circumstances. If, based on evaluation of certain specified site conditions, the operator demonstrates that “there is a low potential for migration of hazardous waste constituents from

the facility via the uppermost aquifer to water

supply wells, ” the facility need not implement

a ground water monitoring program. This demonstration must be in writing, certified by a

qualified geologist or “geotechnical” engineer,

and maintained at the facility.

The ground water monitoring requirements

may be waived for surface impoundments that

are used only to neutralize corrosive wastes if

the operator demonstrates that there is no potential for the migration of hazardous wastes

from the impoundment. This determination

must be in writing, and certified by a qualified

professional.

These waivers of the ground water monitoring standard are made by the facility operator

and are not reported to EPA or the State.

However, the determinations must be maintained in the facility file and will be reviewed

during compliance inspections and permit review by EPA or the State agency. If this review

indicates that the waiver was unwarranted, the

facility is subject to penalties for violation of

RCRA regulations.

The facility may implement an alternative

ground water monitoring system other than the

one specified in the regulations if the required

ground water indicator parameters would

show statistically significant changes in water

quality. The alternative ground water monitoring plan must be submitted to the Regional Ad-
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 285

ministrator and certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer.

ISS Closure and Post-Closure Requirements

Interim status facilities that close before a

permit is issued must comply with ISS closure

and post-closure requirements. These standards are similar to the permanent program

standards, except that they do not require more

extensive corrective action and ground water

monitoring requirements for land disposal facilities. Closure is a period after which hazardous waste is no longer accepted at facility, all

treatment, storage, and disposal operations are

completed, and the facility is closed by, for example, installing the final cover on a landfill

or draining and cleaning storage tanks. The

closure period generally will last 6 months,

Post-closure is the 30-year period after closure

when operators of disposal facilities must perform monitoring and maintenance activities.

The purpose of the ISS closure regulations

is to ensure that facilities are closed properly:

1) to minimize need for further maintenance,

and 2) to control, minimize, or eliminate postcIosure escapes of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment,

There are specific requirements for different

technologies as well as general requirements.

Under general requirements, by May 19, 1981,

all TSDF operators were to have prepared a

written closure plan to be maintained on file

at the facility and identify the steps necessary

to completely or partially close the facility at

any point during its intended operation and

at the end of its operating life.36 The plan also

must include estimates of the largest inventory

of waste that will be in storage or treatment

during facility life, the anticipated closure date,

and an estimate of closure costs, The operator

must amend the plan to reflect changes in the

TSDF operations affecting the closure plan or

planned closing date, The plan must be available to EPA on request and at inspection,

When an operator decides to close a facility, the plan must be submitted to the EPA Rew40 CFR 265, subpart G (1982).

gional Administrator 180 days before closure

begins (comments and hearings may be required). (If an operation loses interim status or

is ordered to stop receiving waste, it must submit a closure plan to EPA in 15 days.)

Closure begins when the last shipment of

hazardous waste is received, the operator then

has 90 days to complete all treatment, storage,

and disposal activities or to remove waste from

the site. All closure activities must be completed within 6 months or 180 days. This time

can be extended by the EPA Regional Administrator for certain conditions, Finally, the

operator and a professional engineer must certify that the facility has been closed in accordance with an approved plan and that all equipment and structures have been disposed of or

decontaminated,

Post-Closure Plan

By May 19, 1981, all disposal facility operators must also have a written post-closure plan

identifying the activities to be carried on for

30 years after closure. The plan must at a

minimum include provisions for ground water

monitoring and reporting, the planned maintenance activities to ensure the integrity of the

final cover or containment and the functioning of monitoring equipment; and the identity

of the persons to be contacted about the facility during post-closure.

Within 90 days after closure, the operator

must provide the Regional Administrator and

local land use authorities with a professional

survey plan showing the disposal areas, types,

location, and quantities of the disposed waste.

The owner must amend the deed or title records to note that the land was used for hazardous waste disposal and that its future use is

restricted.

ISS Financial Responsibility and Insurance Standards

The ISS financial responsibility requirements

apply to all TSDFS except those operated by

Federal or State Governments. They were imposed to assure that funds will be available to

pay for closure and post-closure care and to

compensate third parties for any injuries suf-
286 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

fered as a result of facility activities. The interim status financial responsibility and liability insurance standards are nearly identical to

the standards for permitted facilities.

Each facility must have on file a written estimate of closure costs (to be adjusted annually

to reflect inflation) demonstrating how the

facility plans to cover its closure costs. One or

a combination of several mechanisms can be

used to meet closure costs, including:

• a trust fund,

Ž a surety bond guaranteeing payment into

a trust fund,

• an irrevocable letter of credit,

● a financial assets test, or

● an insurance policy.

The same mechanisms can be used to demonstrate financial responsibility for postclosure care. For permitted facilities, the rules

allow the posting of a surety bond guaranteeing the performance of the closure plan as an

additional means of demonstrating financial

responsibility. The interim status standards

also impose liability insurance requirements

for hazardous waste TSDFS. The facility owner

or operator must maintain liability insurance

or self-insurance of at least $1 million per occurrence with an annual aggregate of $2 million for claims of sudden accidental injuries

to persons or property from facility operations

(exclusive of legal costs). Owners or operators

of surface impoundments, landfills, and land

treatment facilities must carry additional insurance of at least $3 million per occurrence

and $6 million annual aggregate (excluding

legal fees) for nonsudden accidental occurrences. These nonsudden liability requirements

will be phased in over 3 years beginning January 1983 for owners who obtain an optional

policy for both sudden and nonsudden occurrences that provide coverage of at least $4

million per occurrence and $8 million annual

aggregate (exclusive of legal fees) .37

variations in these requirements are allowed

to provide for use of State insurance requirements in States where Federal program re37~ 40 CFR 265.147 (1982).

quirements apply if the coverage is consistent

and includes at least the same amount of funds

and coverage. If a State assumes the responsibility for closure, post-closure care, or liability

coverage at a facility (an aspect of some State

siting programs), this assumption may be approved by the Regional Administrator as an alternative to liability insurance.

Interim Status Standards for Landfills

Interim status landfills are subject to the

general facility standards, some additional

technical standards for ground water monitoring, financial responsibility, and closure and

post-closure care. Basically, the interim standards are directed at controlling the general

problems associated with landfill operations:

fire, explosion, toxic fumes, and contamination

of surface and ground waters. The facility must

be operated to divert rainwater run-on into,

and to collect runoff from, the active portion

of the landfill. Measures to control wind dispersion of contaminated soils must be adopted (if

necessary). Ignitable and reactive wastes must

be treated or mixed before landfilling so that

they no longer meet ignitable or reactive waste

characteristics,

Specific requirements are imposed to limit

the disposal of liquids in landfills that could

form leachate that would allow waste constituents to enter the environment. The May 1980

rules banned most landfilling of free liquids or

wastes containing free liquids after November

19, 1981, An exception was made for disposal

of bulk liquids or noncontainerized liquids in

a landfill with a liner that is chemically and

physically resistant to the liquid and with a

leachate collection and removal system to remove any leachate. The rules also allowed landfilling of liquids in very small containers (e.g.,

capsules) and in containers (e.g., batteries) that

were not designed for the purpose of storage.

Among the exceptions to the original restrictions on disposal of liquids in landfill are the

following:

● containerized liquid Ignitable wastes until

May 26, 1982, if they were protected from
Ch. 7–The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 287

●

●

●

materials or conditions that would cause

them to ignite:38

labpacks (overpacked metal drums holding

smaller nonleaking containers of hazardous waste and absorbent material to absorb any leaks) as long as certain restrictions on ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes are met:39

liquid containerized waste that is treated

or stabilized so that free liquids are no

longer present (e.g., absorbent material is

added to the drum); and

containers holding free liquids if the

liquids are removed from the container or

absorbent material is added before landfilling so that free liquids do not remain.

The July 1982 land disposal regulations modified the interim status standards applicable to

landfills to make them consistent and conforming with final technical standards for permitting, Further provisions were added to landfilling of containerized liquid waste to reduce

the likelihood of subsidence and leading by requiring the filling of a container with

90-percent absorbent solid material or crushing, shredding, or “similarly reducing” the container in volume before landfilling.

The function and design of the final landfill

cover must be specified in the closure and postclosure plans. Also, the plan must include strategies to: control surface water infiltration and

migration of pollutants from the facility and

prevent erosion; maintain the final cover; monitor leachate and gas control systems; maintain

and protect surveying benchmarks; and restrict

access to the facility.

Interim Status Standards for Incinerators

The interim status standards for incinerators

impose general operating requirements aimed

at reducing the potential hazards involved. No

special technical performance or design standards were imposed. Additional analysis of the

wastes to be incinerated is required to determine their heating value, halogen content, sulfur content, and concentrations of lead and

SEAT F.R. B,SOT, Feb. 25, 1982, 40 CFR 265.312 (b).

3946 F.R. 56,592, NOV. 17, 1981, 40 CFR 265.316.

mercury. The incinerator must be operating at

steady state conditions before waste is added.

The existing combustion and emission control

instruments must be checked every 15 minutes.

Outside stack gases must be visually inspected

every hour, and the incinerator and associated

equipment must be inspected daily. At closure,

all wastes and residues must be removed from

the facility. Hazardous waste residues must be

sent to an approved facility. (Note: many incinerators also qualify as treatment and storage

facilities because they accumulate or treat

wastes before incineration and must comply

with those standards as well.)

EPA has made two significant exemptions

to the interim status standards for incinerators.

Boilers that burn hazardous waste to recover

energy are currently excluded from the definition of disposal by incineration and are not subject to any standards under Subtitle C of RCRA.

A limited exemption from interim status standards is granted to incinerators that burn waste

that is considered hazardous solely because it

is corrosive or ignitable, or both, or waste that

is listed because it possesses certain reactivity characteristics (described in 40 CFR 261.23

(a)(l),(2),(3),(6),(7), or (8)) and will not be burned

when other hazardous wastes are present in

the combustion zone.

The subpart O standards for additional waste

analysis, monitoring, and inspection are not required of these incinerators if the operator

demonstrates in writing that such ignitable,

corrosive, or reactive waste would not reasonably be expected to contain any of the Appendix VIII toxic constituents. The written

demonstration must be maintained at the facility and will be reviewed when the facility is permitted. These special incinerators, however,

must comply with the general facility interim

status standards including reporting, recordkeeping, initial waste analysis, facility operation and inspection, compliance with the manifest system and financial responsibility, and

compliance with the special standards for incinerator closure.

The interim status standards for incinerators

were amended in January 1981 and June 1982
288 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

to make them conform with changes adopted

for permanent program permitting standards.

Interim Status Standards for Surface Impoundments

Regulations imposing operating requirements for existing surface impoundments used

for storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous

wastes are intended to minimize or control the

major problems encountered with these facilities—leakage of hazardous waste constituents

to ground water, air emissions from volatile

wastes, and overtopping of the impoundments

and spilling of the wastes because of overfilling, precipitation, run-on, or wind.

The standards require that surface impoundments be operated to maintain at least 2ft of

freeboar 40 to protect against overtopping. Impoundments with earthen dikes must have protective covering such as grass, rocks, or plastic

sheeting to limit erosion and maintain structural integrity. Additional waste analyses are

required before use of the impoundment for

new wastes or use of new treatment processes,

Ignitable or reactive wastes must be pretreated

to remove the hazardous characteristics before

being placed in a surface impoundment. Incompatible wastes must not be put in surface

impoundments. The level of freeboard in an

impoundment must be inspected daily to detect

or prevent overtopping, and the structure and

associated equipment must be inspected weekly for leaks or deterioration. Surface impoundments must comply with the ground water

monitoring regulations for interim status

facilities.

At closure, all wastes, residues, and contaminated soils must be removed from the facility and sent to an approved treatment or

storage facility. If the surface impoundment is

a disposal facility, it must follow final closure

procedures similar to those for landfills, meet

financial responsibility requirements, and provide post-closure care.

*4O CFR 265.222 (1982).

General Facility Standards for Permitting

Hazardous Waste TSDFS

The interim status standards govern facility

operation until a permit is issued. Before a

facility is issued a final permit, it undergoes

a detailed review to determine that its future

generation will be in compliance with the general Phase II standards.

More than 10,000 existing facilities submitted

part A permit applications to obtain interim

status. Most of these facilities will have to be

permitted under the final standards. This process is expected to take 5 years or more. EPA

anticipates that a significant number of smaller

interim status landfills and surface impoundments will close rather than incur the expenses

of upgrading the facility to obtain a permit.

Table 55 summarizes some of the key elements of EPA’s final part 264 permit standards.

These standards incorporate and build on the

interim status requirements. For example,

ground water monitoring at landfills during interim status will indicate if any contamination

may have occurred and thus be used to decide

what type of monitoring and corrective action

may be demanded as a permit condition if the

facility continues to operate (see table 56).

A major criticism of the adequacy of interim status requirements has been that they

will govern TSDF operations until a permit

is issued-which could be 5 years. Neither the

interim status standards nor the permit standards have addressed whether more stringent

standards for inspection, prepermit reviews,

and monitoring are necessary to identify and

correct situations that may pose a threat to

human health and the environment before the

ISS facility is called in for its permit review.

The permanent program standards of 40 CFR

part 264 are largely identical to the interim

status requirements for waste analysis, personnel training, emergency prevention and preparedness, contingency planning, closure and
Table 55.—Technical Performance Standards for Containers, Tanks, Incinerators, Landfills, and Surface Impoundments

Design and operating conditions

Containers (Subpart 1)

Container and/or liners must be compatible with wastes.

Storage area containment system must control the

larger of 10 percent of the volume of the wastes or the

volume of largest container.

Storage area must have impervious base, run-on controls,

and collection system designed for control of and

removal of liquids, spills, and run-on unless containers

are elevated or protected from contact with liquids. No

spill containment system required for wastes that do

not include free liquids if the storage area is designed

so that liquids cannot come in contact with containers.

Containers must be closed except when adding or

removing wastes.

Tanks (Subpart J)

Applicable to all treatment and storage tanks, except

covered underground tanks that cannot be entered for

inspection. Tank must have sufficient shell strength to

prevent rupture or collapse; minimum shell thickness to

be specified by RA in permit. Tanks and/or liner must

be compatible with wastes. All tanks must have controls to prevent overfilling. Covered tanks must have

pressure controls. Uncovered tanks must have controls

for preventing run-on and maintain sufficient freeboard

to prevent overflow as specified by RA in permit.

Special contingency plan for spills or leaks must provide for expeditious waste removal and repair of tanks.

Incinerators (Subpart O)

Incinerators must achieve: 99.99 percent destruction

removal efficiency (DRE) for principal organic hazardous

constituents (POHCS) specified in permit and specific

emissions limits for HCI and particulate set in permit.

Facility must install monitoring equipment and process

controls necessary to assure operation within permit

limits at all times, to control fugitive emissions, and to

provide automatic waste feed shutoff if operations exceed permit conditions. Permit will specify acceptable

range in composition and operating limits for each

waste feed. Facility must burn only waste feeds

approved in permit under specified operating conditions

based on trial burn or alternative data.

Exemptions.’ Facilities burning only ignitable, corrosive,

or reactive wastes that contain no, or insignificant

amounts of, Appendix Vlll constituents and that will not

pose a threat to human health or the environment if incinerated can receive a limited exemption. These

facilities must be permitted and comply with Subpart O

waste analysis and closure standards and with general

Part 264 TSDF standards.

Inspection arm monitoring Closure/post closure

Weekly inspections of containers, storage areas, and

containment systems for leaks, spills, or deterioration.

Check overfilling controls and any monitoring equipment

daily. Check liquid level of open tanks daily.

Weekly inspection of aboveground construction and surrounding areas for corrosion or leaks. Schedule for

emptying of tank and entry for inspection of interior to

be specified in permit.

A Submit trial burn emissions monitoring results for dif -

ferent waste feeds for permit. Special ‘trial burn permit

for new facilities required.

B. During operation: daily visual inspection of incinerator

and equipment for spills, leaks, fugitive emissions;

continuous monitoring of temperature, feed rate, air

flow, stack gas CO, and other indicators of operating

conditions and possible malfunctions. At RA request,

sample and analyze waste feeds and stack gas emissions to verify compliance with standard. Weekly test

of waste feed cutoff system and alarms unless RA

specifies less frequent period.

Remove all wastes, residues, decontaminate containers;

send hazardous wastes to TSDF.

Remove wastes, residues, decontaminate tanks and

equipment. Send hazardous waste to TSDF.

Remove wastes and residues, decontaminate equipment;

send hazardous wastes to TSDF.
Table 55.—Technical Performance Standards for Containers, Tanks, Incinerators, Landfills, and Surface Impoundments—Continued

Design and operating conditions Inspection and monitoring Closure/post closure

Landfills (Subpart N)

All landfills (except existing portions) must have a liner

to prevent migration of wastes to soils, ground, or surface waters through closure. Material must prevent

waste passing into liner during active life of unit, resist

failure and degradation, and be compatible with wastes.

Liner must cover all earth likely to be in contact with

wastes or Ieachate. Liner base must support and resist

pressure gradients to prevent failure. RA will set liner

design and operating specifications to achieve performance standards in permit.

All landfills (except existing portions) must have a

Ieachate collection and removal system above the liner

designed and operated to prevent liquids accumulation

of more than 1 ft above the liner and to function without failure, clogging, or degradation through scheduled

closure. RA will set design and operating specifications

for Ieachate collection system in permit.

Exemptions from Iiner-leachate collection system requirements can be granted by RA if alternative design and

operating practices and locations prevent migration of

any hazardous constituent to ground or surface waters

at any time in the future. All landfills must install runon controls and runoff management systems sufficient to

control flow into or out of the unit from a 24-hr 25-yr

storm and control wind dispersal of particulate.

Disposal of bulk liquids in landfills is limited to facilities

with liners and Ieachate collection and removal systems.

Design and operating conditions necessary to achieve

performance standards will be specified in the permit

by RA.

Surface Impoundments (Subpart K)

All surface impoundments (except existing portions)

must have a liner that prevents migration of any wastes

out of the impoundment to adjacent soil, or surface or

ground water at any time during the active life of the

facility (including closure).

Exemption from liner requirement for alternative design

and operating practices and location characteristics

that prevent migration of any hazardous constituent

into ground or surface water at any future time.

Impoundment must be designed, built, and operated to

prevent overtopping from overfiling, run-on, malfunc - ~.-

tion, or human error.

Dikes and containment must be designed, built, and

maintained to prevent massive failure without relying on

the assumption that the liner will function without

leakage during the active life of the unit.

Special contingency plan provisions for immediate shut

down, spill containment, emptying of unit, and

emergency repairs.

The RA will specify all design and operating requirements necessary to meet these standards in the permit.

Inspect liner, Ieachate collection system and cover, during and after construction or installation for defects,

damage, or nonuniformities that may affect performance.

Inspect weekly for improper operation, deterioration, malfunction of run-on or runoff, and wind dispersal controls, and for liquids in Ieakdetection system or leachate in the Ieachate collection system and proper functioning of systems. All “regulated” units must implement

ground water monitoring program as specified in permit.

Exemption from detection monitoring program for

facilities that install double liners with leak-detection

system between the liners. If any liquid is detected between liners, facility must repair the liner or lose the

exemption.

Exemption from ground water monitoring may be granted

if RA finds that there is no potential for migration of liquid

from a regulated unit to the uppermost aquifer during the

active life and closure and post-closure care periods.

Inspect liner and cover during and after installation for

defects, damage, or nonuniformities that may affect

performance.

At least weekly and after storms, inspect for evidence of

deterioration, malfunction, improper operation of overtopping controls, drops in level of contents, liquids in

the leak-detection system, severe erosion, or deterioration in dikes or other containment.

Implement appropriate ground water monitoring program

specified in permit unless an exemption applies (see

landfills).

Final cover should minimize liquid migration through

closed unit, require minimal maintenance, promote

drainage, resist erosion or abrasion of cover, accommodate settling, subsidence while assuring cover integrity. Cover permeability should be less than or equal to

the liner or natural subsoils.

Facility must comply with permit specifications on closure and post-closure care for maintenance of final

cover, monitoring, and Ieakdetection systems. Leachate

collection system must be operated until Ieachate is no

longer detected. Ground water monitoring and response

program requirements must be observed.

NOTE: RA—Regional Administrator.

SOURCE: 40 CFR Parl 264.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 291

Table 56.—Ground Water Monitoring Program for Permitted Land Disposal Facilities

●

●

If

●

●

Sam-pie each monitoring well at least semiannually for the

indicator parameters, waste constituents, or reaction products specified in the permit; and

Determine ground water flow rate and direction in the uppermost aquifer at least annually.

detection monitoring results indicate a statistically significant increase over background values of ground water concentrations of any specified parameter at any well at the

compliance point, the owner/operator must notify the RA

and:

Immediately sample ground water at all monitoring wells

to determine the concentration of all Appendix Vlll constituents that are present in ground water and establish a

background value for each Appendix Vlll constituent at the

compliance point;

Submit a permit modification application for a compliance

monitoring program (including” a proposed concentration

limit for each hazardous constituent found at the compliance point) or alternatively, demonstrate that the

statistically significant increase is caused by a source

other than a regulated unit, or results from an error in

sampling, analysis, or evaluation.

Exemption from detection monitoring program is provided

for double-lined facilities with leak detection system between the liners and which are located above the seasonal

high water table. If liquid is detected between the liners,

the liner must be repaired and certified to maintain the

exemption.

Compliance monitoring program— To be implemented

whenever hazardous constituents are detected at the compliance point and to be carried out during a specified compliance period.

The owner/operator must track the migration and concentration of hazardous constituents from the regulated unit to

determine if the units are in compliance with the ground

water protection standard specified in the permit consisting of:

● A list of the hazardous constituents to be monitored; and

● A concentration Iimit for each hazardous constituent based

on:

(a) background level;

(b) maximum concentration limits (MCLS) for 14 constituents under the SDWA regulations, if the MCL is higher

than background level; or

(c) an alternate concentration limit approved by the RA,

Under the compliance monitoring program, the owner

●

●

●

If

●

●

operator must:

Measure the concentrations of specified hazardous constituents in ground water at each monitoring well at the

compliance point at least quarterly;

Determine the ground water flow rate and direction in the

uppermost aquifer at least annually; and

Sample all monitoring wells at least annually for Appendix Vlll constituents to determine if additional constituents

not identified in permit are present in ground water and

report any additional constituents to the RA.

monitoring results indicate that the ground water protection standard specified in the permit is being exceeded for

any hazardous constituent at any monitoring well at the

point of compliance, the facility owner/operator must notify

the RA and:

Submit a permit modification application for establishment

of a corrective action program; or

Demonstrate that the ground water protection standard is

being exceeded because of an error in sampling, analysis,

or evaluation or because of contamination from a source

other than a regulated unit.

Corrective action program— To be undertaken if compliance

monitoring indicates that the ground water protection

standard is exceeded and to be continued unitl the levels

of hazardous constituents are reduced below their respective concentration limits.

The corrective action program to be specified in the permit

If

consists of:

1. Specific corrective measures to remove the hazardous

waste constituents or to treat them in place to prevent

levels of hazardous constituents exceeding the ground

water protection standard at the compliance point; and

2. A monitoring program for determining the success of

corrective actions and for measuring compliance with

the ground water protection standard.

concentrations of hazardous constituents in the around

water between the compliance point and the downgradient

facility boundary exceed the ground water protection standard, the operator also must take corrective actions

specified in the permit to remove or treat in place those

hazardous constituents,

The owner operator must report annually on the effectiveness

of the corrective action.

Corrective action measures may be terminated and the facility

may resume compliance monitoring once the concentration of hazardous constituents is reduced to below the

specified limits,

If the owner/operator is conducting corrective action at the

end of the compliance period, the corrective action must

be continued until monitoring data shows that the ground

water protection standard has not been exceeded for a

period of three consecutive years.

SCURCE: 40 CFR 264, Subpart F
292 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

post-closure care, and financial responsibility

(see table 54 and discussion of these provisions

under interim status standards above). The permanent program standards do add some additional requirements—two location criteria for

facilities in seismically active areas and in

10()-year flood plains. The part 264 standards

impose more detailed monitoring and inspection than the interim status standards. During

permit review, the general standards of the

regulations will be tailored to the specific conditions of each facility, and special operating

stipulations will be incorporated into the permit by the Regional Administrator. EPA guidance documents will provide detailed instructions for interpreting and applying the part 264

standards and measuring the adequacy of each

permit application.

Among the most important part 264 standards are the requirements for permitting new

and existing incinerators and land disposal

facilities (landfills, surface impoundments,

waste piles, and land treatment units). EPA has

adopted general performance standards for

these facilities that will be converted into

specific and detailed permit conditions by the

permit writer based on consideration of information supplied with the part B permit application and EPA guidance materials. The general

strategy of the part 264 permit standards are

discussed below. Criticisms of the adequacy of

these standards are addressed in part III of this

chapter.

Storage Facilities

The standards applicable to surface storage

facilities (tanks and containers)* and their

related treatment operations focus on the containment of wastes to prevent their uncontrolled release into the environment. All storage facilities must have a primary containment

system to hold the waste and to prevent spills

and leaks. In order to detect cracks, corrosion,

deterioration, and leaks, an inspection program

is required, to the extent practical. Design

*Note: the storage facility regulations issued in January 1981

originally included waste piles and surface storage

impoundments—these provisions were superseded by the July

1982 and land disposal regulations.

specifications for the tanks will be reviewed

by the Regional Administrator who will require

a minimum shell thickness to be maintained.

This design standard will be set on a case-bycase basis by the Regional Administrator applying appropriate industrial design standaras. 41 Where primary containment devices are

easily damaged or are impractical to inspect,

a secondary containment system is also required. Standards for underground storage or

treatment tanks have not been promulgated.

Incinerators

The Phase II regulations, for incinerators include the “good operating practice” standards

established for interim status facilities as well

as additional performance and design requirements. Before an incinerator can receive a permit, it must conduct trial burns for the waste

feeds that it proposes to incinerate. New facilities must obtain a trial burn permit granted

for a limited duration following submission

and approval by EPA of a detailed plan for the

test burns. Permitted incinerators must meet

three performance standards: 1) a minimum

(99.99 percent) destruction and removal efficiency rate (DRE) for each principal organic

hazardous constituent (P(IHC) designated by

EPA for each hazardous waste feed; 2) a maximum emissions rate of 1.8 kg/hr or a minimum

removal rate of 99 percent for hydrogen chloride from the exhaust gas emitted from incinerators burning hazardous waste containing more than 0.5 percent chlorine; and 3) a

maximum emission rate of particulate of 180

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter. 42 I n

addition, incinerators must meet specified operating conditions, and provision must be

made for continuous monitoring with respect

to combustion temperature, waste feed rate, air

feed rate, and carbon monoxide content of the

exhaust. Daily inspections are required of incinerators and associated equipment, including

alarm systems and emergency shutdown controls. Incinerators must upgrade and install

necessary monitoring equipment and emissions controls. Limited exemptions for in4140 CFR 264.191 (1982).

4z40 CFR 264,343 (1982).
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 293

cinerators burning certain ignitable, corrosive,

or reactive wastes can be generated if it is

demonstrated that the waste either does not

contain or contains very small concentrations

of Appendix VIII hazardous constituents,

Land Disposal Facilities

Promulgation of final standards for land disposal facilities (landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment units)

was delayed owing to EPA’s decision in February 1981 to repropose these standards in a

form substantially revised from the approach

originally proposed in December 1978. The emphasis was shifted from the setting of uniform

design requirements to the use of more general

performance standards. (The original design

standard approach was subject to opportunities

for variances when alternative designs could

achieve equivalent environmental protection.

These variances included use of risk assessment.) The July 1982 performance standards

rely on a site-specific approach allowing

specific measures for the protection of ground

water and the environment to be developed

during the permitting process. Final regulations governing land disposal facilities were

promulgated on July 26, 1982, and became effective on January 26, 1983, 6 months later.43

These regulations are discussed in part 111 of

this chapter and summarized in tables 55 and

56.

Facility Permitting

Section 3006 of RCRA requires that owners

and operators of hazardous waste TSDFS must

obtain a permit. Permits are to be issued either

by EPA under the Federal part 264 final technical standards and part 122 and 124 consolidated

permit procedures or by a State under an authorized State hazardous waste program. Existing facilities that qualify for interim status

may continue operating without a permit pending review of their applications, Interim status

facilities are treated for purposes of RCRA as

if a permit has been issued.

4347 F.R. 32,274.

To qualify for interim status, a facility must:

1) have existed on November 19, 1980, 2) have

notified EPA of its hazardous waste activities

under section 3010, and 3) submitted its part

A permit application, The interim status is

valid as long as requirements continue to be

met.

EPA has divided the permit application for

hazardous waste facilities into two parts:

1.

2,

Part A.—The initial permit application,

which includes information on the facility location, design capacity, types and

quantities of hazardous waste handled,

and proximity to drinking water wells, and

which was in most cases to be submitted

by November 19, 1980.

Part B.—The final permit application to be

submitted to demonstrate compliance with

the part 264 general facility standards,

which includes more detailed technical information on facility design and operating

procedures.

With the promulgation of technical standards

for most TSDFS, it is now possible for EPA to

process part B applications. However, existing

facilities have been asked to wait until EPA requests them to submit their final applications.

The agency expects it will take several years

to complete the initial round of permit-granting

activities. Applications for new facilities are

being given a high priority since neither construction nor operation can begin without a

permit.

Each part B permit application is first reviewed for completeness. If it is complete and

indicates compliance with standards, a draft

permit is prepared and made available for public notice and comment, and (if warranted)

public hearings, The draft (and final) permit

will contain the specific conditions applicable

to each facility and may include additional requirements that the Regional Administrator

may impose (e. g., as added liability insurance

coverage, the specific indicator parameters to

be included in a ground water monitoring program, or the wastes that may be burned at an

incinerator), After considering the comments,

EPA issues a final decision on the permit ap-
294 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

plication responding to all significant comments. Appeals may be made within 30 days.

State procedures may differ slightly, but all

State procedures must include adequate opportunities for public participation.

Final permits generally will be issued for a

fixed term not exceeding 10 years. The facility operation will be reviewed at the end of the

permit term, before renewing the permit. (A

modification of the permit period from 10 years

to the lifetime of the facility is under consideration by EPA.) A facility must operate under a

permit throughout its active life and any postclosure period as well as during any compliance period required of the facility. The EPA

Regional Administrator can review a permit

at any time to determine whether it should be

modified, revoked, reissued, or terminated.

EPA will grant RCRA permits-by-rule to certain hazardous waste facilities that are permitted under other Federal laws provided that

they meet special RCRA conditions.44 Eligible

facilities include barges or vessels used for

ocean disposal of hazardous waste (Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act),

underground injection wells (SDWA), and publicly operated treatment works (CWA).

To simplify the permit application and review process and to avoid duplicative requirements, EPA adopted the consolidated permit regulations. These provisions allow an applicant to submit information required for several different permits on a single standardized

form. The rules also establish a uniform permit review and approval process applicable to

all permit applications under the following

programs:

● the Hazardous Waste Management Program under RCRA;

● the Underground Injection Control Program under SDWA;

● the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System under CWA; and

● the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Program under CAA, where this program

is operated by EPA.

%0 CFR 122.26 (1982).

Imminent Hazard and Enforcement Provisions

RCRA provides EPA with a variety of mechanisms to measure and enforce compliance

with the Federal program requirements and to

take necessary action to mitigate threats to

human health and the environment from hazardous waste management activities.

Section 3007 of the act authorizes any EPA

employee (or representative, such as a contractor) or an employee of a State with an approved

program, to inspect at reasonable times the

premises of any generator, transporter, or facility operator (including any person who was

engaged in such activities in the past).45 Access

to records and property relating to hazardous

waste is also required for inspection purposes.

Failure to cooperate with an inspection may

subject the party to enforcement penalties. This

inspection authority is not ‘Limited to hazardous

waste as defined in RCRA regulations, but may

also be used whenever EPA has reason to believe that the material involved may be hazardous under the broad statutory definition. (Generators or facilities that are currently excluded

or exempted from RCRA regulations are subject to EPA’s inspection authority to determine

if they are properly claiming such exclusion

or if a hazard exists.)

Section 3013 is an important informationgathering tool added by the 1980 amendments. 48 Section 3013 of the act authorizes EPA

to issue an administrative order requiring site

monitoring, assessment, and reporting. If EPA

believes that hazardous waste on the site may

pose a substantial hazard to health or the environment, EPA may order the past or present

owner or operator of an active or inactive hazardous waste facility to implement a monitoring and testing program. EPA has invoked this

provision on several recent occasions for facilities that have violated hazardous waste rules

possibly resulting in environmental contamination.

RCRA provides EPA with a range of administrative and judicial enforcement options

4542us-c. 6927,

’42 U.S.C. 6934.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 295

and civil and criminal penalties that may be

used against persons who violate RCRA, its

implementing regulations, or permit conditions. The civil enforcement options include

issuance of administrative compliance orders

requiring immediate action or action according

to a specified schedule for correcting violations

of subtitle C requirements. Alternatively, EPA

may sue in Federal court for an injunction requiring correction of the violations. Noncompliance may result in permit suspension or

revocation and/or imposition of civil penalties

of $25,000 for every day of violation.47

RCRA imposes criminal sanctions for violation of administrative or judicial compliance

orders. It is a Federal criminal offense for any

person knowingly:

1.

2.

3.

4.

to transport a hazardous waste to an

unpermitted facility;

to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous

waste without a permit or in knowing violation of any material condition of a permit;

to make a false statement or representation in any application, label, manifest,

report, record, or other document used in

the RCRA program; or

to generate, store, treat, transport, dispose

of ‘or otherwise handle any hazardous

wastes and knowingly to destroy, alter, or

conceal any record required to be maintained under RCRA regulations. 48

Conviction of these knowing violations can

result in fines of up to $25,000 or $50,000 per

day and imprisonment of up to two years.

These penalties are more severe than the criminal sanctions imposed under, for example,

CWA. Criminal proceedings may be brought

against corporations or individuals. Individual

employees of firms that violate RCRA hazardous waste regulations can be prosecuted, fined,

and imprisoned for their part in the offense.

The corporate shield does not insulate them

from the consequences of their actions.

The 1980 amendments created an additional

felony offense for particularly egregious viola-

... ———.

~PRCRA Sec. sC)Oa, 42 U.S. C. 6928.

4842 u . s.c . 6928 [d).

tions which carry severe criminal penalties or

fines of up to $250,000 for individuals or up

to $1 million for corporations and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years.49 A felony of “knowing

endangerment” exists if a person violates a

RCRA requirement with the knowledge that

another person may thereby be placed in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury,

and if the violator manifests an unjustified and

inexcusable disregard or an extreme indifference for human life. The RCRA violations covered by the knowing endangerment provision

are transporting waste to an unpermitted facility or treating, storing, or disposing of waste

without a permit or in violation of a permit or

omitting material from a permit application;

or failing to abide by interim status regulations

and standards for TSDFS.

Imminent Hazard

Under section 7003 of RCRA, EPA may sue

in Federal court for injunctive relief upon

receipt of evidence that the handling, storage,

treatment, transportation, or disposal of any

solid or hazardous waste may present an “imminent and substantial endangerment to health

or the environment. “50 EPA interprets “imminent and substantial endangerment” as posing

a “risk of harm” or “potential harm” but not

requiring proof of actual harm. EPA is expressly authorized under the 1980 amendments to

take any necessary action under the imminent

hazard section, including the issuance of administrative orders, to protect public health

and the environment.

Citizen Suits.-Section 7002 of RCRA provides

that any person may initiate a citizen suit

against any other person alleged to be in violation of a permit, regulation, or provision of

RCRA whether or not Federal authorities have

taken action. 51 Before filing suit, the plaintiff

must give 60 days’ notice to EPA, the States

involved, and the alleged violator. A citizen suit

may also be brought against EPA for failure to

perform a nondiscretionary duty under RCRA.

No advance notice need be given to EPA if the

@PUb]ic L~w 96-482, Sec. 13, 94 Stat, 2339; 42 U.S. C. 6928 (e].

5042 U ,S.C, 6973.

’

1

42 U.S.C. 6972.
296 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

hazardous waste provisions of RCRA are involved. Citizen suits are an additional and

potentially powerful mechanism for assuring

that the intent of RCRA is carried out by those

engaged in hazardous waste activities and by

State and Federal agencies. Section 7002 authorizes the award of attorneys fees and litigation costs to any party whenever the court determines that such award is appropriate. (The

party need not be the prevailing party in the

case to recover the costs of bringing the

lawsuit.)

State Programs

Under RCRA section 3006, States may exercise primary responsibility for administration

and enforcement of a hazardous waste management regulatory program under State law

in lieu of the Federal EPA program provided

that the State program meets certain minimum

Federal standards.52 RCRA also provides for interim authorization of existing State programs

that allow the State to continue to administer

its regulatory program instead of the Federal

program while the final Federal program is

being developed and the State permanent program applications are prepared and reviewed.

In States with interim authorization or final

authorization, generators, transporters, and

facility operators are subject to a single hazardous waste regulatory program—without such

authorization they would have to comply with

both the Federal and State program requirements.

Congress anticipated that all States eventually would assume primacy for regulating hazardous waste management. RCRA offers two

incentives for State participation: first, the opportunity for the State to administer its own

program instead of having the Federal Government regulate hazardous waste in the State;

and second, Federal grants and technical

assistance for development and operation of

State programs, Current economic conditions

and budgetary constraints have made the continued availability of adequate Federal grants

and technical assistance uncertain. Some State

5242 USC. 6926,

officials have suggested that uncertainty about

the availability of these grants may induce

some States to decline to regulate hazardous

wastes and to allow the Federal Government

to finance and operate the regulatory program

within these States. Those instances, however,

are expected to be few if Federal grants are

maintained.

State Program Approval

Section 3006 of RCRA establishes the requirements and procedures for approval of

State programs by comparing them to the Federal program. Implementation of the Federal

RCRA program was then a precondition for

State hazardous waste program development,

Delays in promulgation of the Federal regulations delayed State program efforts. To help

States develop acceptable regulatory programs,

RCRA directed EPA to issue guidelines for

State programs within 18 months (i.e., by April

1978). EPA missed this deadline. The guidelines were eventually issued in January 1980,

and implementing regulations were finally

issued in May 1980.

Section 3006 provides for two types of program authorization: interim authorization and

final authorization.

Interim authorization is available to State

programs in existence before 90 days after promulgation of the standards for the Federal permanent program (EPA has set this date as

October 26, 1982) if the State program is substantially equivalent to the Federal program

requirements. Final authorization is given to

State programs that are fully equivalent to the

complete Federal regulatory program.

EPA has divided the State interim authorization process into two phases which correspond

roughly with the phases in development of

TSDF standards.

Phase I Interim Authorization,–States may apply

for phase I approval to operate State program

requirements for identification and listing of

hazardous waste, reporting, a manifest system,

and preliminary standards for generators,

transporters, and interim status TSDFS.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 297

Phase II Interim Authorization.—States can receive interim authorization to permit TSDFS

under State programs before final authorization. Phase II authorization includes permitting requirements, standards of general applicability, and technical standards for different types of TSDFS. Phase II approval is

divided according to “components” corresponding to the facility standards issued by

EPA:

●

●

●

Component A.—Permitting of storage facilities: containers and tanks, based on

Federal permit standards published on

January 12, 1981, 53

Component B.—Permitting of incinerators

and other treatment facilities based on

EPA regulations issued January 23, 1981,54

and

Component C. —Permitting of land disposal facilities: landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment facilities based on EPA standards issued July

26, 1982. 55

States cannot be authorized to issue RCRA

permits for those TSDFS for which EPA has

not issued technical permitting standards, for

example, underground storage tanks, or chemical and biological treatment facilities, These

facilities remain subject to Federal permitting

and to any independent State requirements.

States applying for interim authorization must

obtain phase I authorization as a prerequisite

to receiving phase II authorization, however,

they may be granted simultaneously.

Demonstration of Substantial Equivalence

To obtain interim authorization, a State must

show that it has an existing State program as

defined by EPA rules, the State program is substantially equivalent to the Federal program

requirements, and the State has an acceptable

authorization plan outlining what changes will —

5346 F.R. 2804. Note, the storage iaci]ity standards including

standards, for surface storage impoundments and waste piles,

were modified and became part of component C land disposal

facilities published on July 26, 1982.

5446 F. R. 7666, Note, these were modified for incinerators on

June 24, 1982, 47 F.R, 27,520.

SS47 F.R, 32,274.

be made in the State program to qualify for

final authorization,

Three tests are applied to demonstrate the

substantial equivalence of a State program to

the Federal interim status program.

1. The State program must control substantially the same universe of waste as the Federal program so that there are no major gaps

in coverage. The State program must have provisions for identifying the characteristics of

hazardous waste and for listing hazardous

wastes so that the State program controls substantially the same universe of waste as the

Federal program. In practice, this has meant

that the States’s listing requirements and hazardous waste characteristics must be nearly

identical to the Federal regulations. If they are

not the same, the State program must effectively control the same universe of waste plus contain a commitment to expand the State program to cover currently unregulated hazardous

wastes within a reasonable period of time after

interim authorization. (States may regulate a

larger universe of hazardous waste than the

EPA program; however, all wastes regulated

under the Federal program must be in the

State’s universe of waste.

2. The State program must have adequate

regulatory authority to control generators,

transporters, and operators of hazardous

waste TSDFS including provisions for requiring compliance with permitting standards,

reporting requirements, and with a manifest

system. The State program standards for permitting TSDFS must provide substantially the

same level of protection for human health and

the environment as the Federal facility standards.

3. The State must show that it has adequate

funding and personnel for administration

and enforcement of the State program.

During the interim authorization period,

State programs can vary from the Federal program in listing and characterization methods,

States that do not control certain hazardous

wastes because those wastes are not generated

or disposed of in the State may receive author99-113 0 - 8 ? - 20
298 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ization provided that they commit to develop

regulatory requirements to cover those wastes

in the future.

A State may operate its program under interim authorization until it receives final authorization. Under RCRA, the State must receive

final authorization by January 26, 1985, or the

Federal Government will resume regulatory

authority over hazardous waste activities in the

State. If a State does not apply for or receive

interim or final authorization, hazardous waste

activities in the State are subject to both the

Federal program requirements and to other

State regulations, if any.

States may apply for interim authorization

at any time until close of the interim authorization period. With publication of the land disposal rules in July 1982, EPA announced that

establishment of the permanent Federal program was largely complete and that it would

begin to accept applications for final State

authorization. Interim authorization lasts until

24 months after the effective date of the Federal

permanent program regulations. EPA has announced that the interim authorization period

will expire January 26, 1985. In applying for

interim authorization, States commit to plan

for upgrading their programs to qualify for

final authorization by the end of the interim

authorization period. Obtaining interim authorization is not a precondition for receiving final

authorization. In fact, some States with existing

programs may skip the interim authorization

route and apply directly for final authorization.

As of November 1, 1982,35 States had qualified

for phase I interim authorization and 5 States

had received phase II interim authorization for

components A and B. (See table 73 in in part

II of this chapter.)

Partial Authorization and Cooperative Arrangements

Because some States may not have all the

necessary authority or regulations to operate

an acceptable State regulatory program during

interim authorization, EPA has initiated partial program authorization and cooperative

agreements.

Under partial authorization, EPA will approve those portions of a State program that

meet the minimum Federal requirements for

substantial equivalency with the Federal program while EPA administers and enforces the

remaining elements of the Federal program.

For example, if the State lacks adequate

authority under State law to require compliance with a manifest system, EPA will

nevertheless approve the rest of the State program for controlling hazardous waste activities

provided that the State plan specifies the steps

to be taken to get final authorization by the end

of the interim authorization period. EPA will

then administer and enforce the Federal manifest requirements for that State, while State requirements control other activities.

For States that cannot qualify for partial interim authorization, EPA has initiated a cooperative arrangement that allows the States to

administer some functions of a hazardous

waste management system for EPA, while EPA

administers and enforces the remaining functions under the Federal program. These cooperative arrangements are different from partial authorization. The purposes of cooperative

arrangements is to encourage States to adopt

a State hazardous waste program by allowing

them to administer portions of a State program

in coordination with EPA while giving the

States the time and opportunity to develop a

satisfactory State program that can qualify for

interim and/or final authorization.

Final Authorization of State Programs

Once final authorization is granted, the State

hazardous waste regulatory program operates

in lieu of the Federal program. The State

assumes full authority to administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory

system. On authorization, EPA’s regulatory

and permitting responsibilities will largely

cease. Thereafter, if EPA exercises its enforcement power, it will enforce compliance with

State program and permit requirements, not

the Federal standards. EPA will retain its oversight and enforcement authority over the State
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 299

program to ensure that it continues to operate

effectively according to its approved plan. The

Federal program requirements are not applicable in the State unless EPA revokes the

State’s final authorization. EPA will initially

retain some regulatory responsibility for those

waste management technologies for which

Federal permitting standards have not been

issued and which cannot therefore be permitted under an approved State program,

States can, however, regulate and permit these

facilities under State law, As EPA further

refines and adds to the Federal program, States

will be expected to make similar modifications

and additions to their State program and to

maintain equivalency and consistency.

Requirements for Final Authorization

To receive final authorization, a State must

demonstrate that its program meets the requirements of section 3006(b):

the State program is equivalent to the Federal program;

the State program is consistent with the

Federal program and with other State programs;

the State has adequate administrative resources to operate a comprehensive program regulating hazardous waste generators, transporters, facility owners, and operators; and

the State has adequate enforcement authority to require compliance with its

program.

These requirements are more comprehensive

than the substantial equivalency tests for interim authorization. The State must regulate

the full universe of waste controlled under the

Federal program with no gaps in coverage. The

State must regulate generators, transporters,

and TSDFS. The State facility standards must

provide at least the same degree of protection

of human health and the environment as the

Federal standards, The State program must

also have adequate opportunities for public

participation in program development and in

permitting procedures.

EPA has announced that it will now accept

applications for final authorization of State

programs.

56 Because RCRA requires a minimum period for review by EPA and public

comment and hearing, EPA estimates that final

program authorization will take a minimum of

6 months after submittal of a complete application. States must obtain final authorization by

the end of the interim authorization period. If

the State program is not given final authorization by the end of the 24-month period (by

Jan. 26, 1985), or if EPA makes a final determination rejecting the State’s final program

application, EPA must operate the Federal

program in that State. EPA and the State

must complete program development, review,

public participation, and program approval

within the next 2 years to meet EPA’s announced goal of final authorization of 45

States by January 1985.

One of the significant issues to be faced in

final authorization will be how to treat State

programs that are significantly different from

the Federal program. Guidance will have to be

developed to demonstrate equivalency, consistency, and adequacy. Under RCRA section

3009, once EPA has issued regulations dealing

with any aspect of hazardous waste activity,

any State regulations on the same subject may

not be less stringent than the Federal requirements.

57 The 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Act

amendments reinforced, however, that a State

may have more stringent provisions than the

Federal program. However, just how much

more stringent State program requirements

may be without being considered inconsistent

with the Federal or other State programs, or

being held unconstitutional as a restraint on

interstate commerce, is an open question.

This question will become more controversial as some States adopt considerably more

stringent restrictions on hazardous waste activities, such as banning land disposal of certain recyclable or extremely dangerous

wastes or imposing more difficult technical

requirements on existing and new facilities.

51347 F. Il. 32,382, July 26, 1982.

5742 U.S.C, 6929.
300 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Superfund

Introduction

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980 (C ERCLA), or “Superfund,” was a compromise measure.58 Legislation to provide for

emergency response and cleanup for chemical

spills and releases from hazardous waste sites

and to provide compensation for damages from

these incidents had been considered in previous Congresses. But such legislation had met

substantial opposition because of several controversial provisions dealing with liability for

damages and creation of a cleanup trust fund

financed by taxing the oil and chemical industries.

CERCLA authorizes the Federal Government

to respond directly in the event of chemical

spills and releases of hazardous substances

into the environment. The framework for coordinated Government response is established by

the National Contingency Plan (NCP). To pay

for emergency response and cleanup actions,

CERCLA created the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund financed by a tax on crude

oil, imported petroleum, and certain chemicals.

The collection of the Superfund tax is authorized for 5 years (until the end of fiscal year

1985) or until the total unobligated balance in

the Response Trust Fund established under

CERCLA reaches $900 million or a total of

$1.38 billion has been collected, whichever occurs first. The total amount expected to be

available in the Superfund trust fund is $1.6

billion. 59

CERCLA also created a second fund, the

Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund, to pay for

post-closure care, remedial action, and damages from releases at qualifying hazardous

waste facilities. The $200 million post-closure

trust fund is financed by a tax on hazardous

waste received at treatment or disposal facilSapub]ic Law g6-Ej Io, 94 Stat. 2767, Dec. 11, 1980; 42 U.S.C.

9601 et seq.

Seof the total $1,6 billion, $1.38 billion will come from the

Superfund tax and $0.22 billion from appropriated funds.

ities and which will remain in the facility after

closure.

One of the most important provisions of

CERCLA allows the Government to recover the

costs of such response and remedial action.

CERCLA imposes strict liability for the cost

of Government response actions and damages

to natural resources on those responsible parties whose actions cause release of hazardous

substances. The liability for cleanup costs

under CERCLA is far-reaching. It places the

ultimate responsibility for cleanup costs on the

past and present owners or operators of facilities, on the transporters who accepted waste

for transport and selected the facility, and on

the generators whose wastes were sent to the

facility.

Hazardous Substances Under CERCLA

The Government may take response action

under CERCLA whenever there is a release or

threat of release of a hazardous substance or

of any pollutant or contaminant which may

present an imminent and substantial danger

to public health, welfare, or the environment.

The range of substances for which response

action is authorized in CERCLA is significantly

broader than the universe of hazardous waste

under RCRA. A hazardous substance as defined in section 101(14) 60 of CERCLA includes:

(A) any hazardous substance designated pursuant to section 311(b) (2)(A) of the the Clean

Water Act;

(B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 102 of CERCLA;

(C) any RCRA hazardous waste;

(D) any toxic pollutant listed under section

307(a) of the Clean Water Act;

(E) any hazardous air pollutant designated

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act; and

(F) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture under section 7 of the Toxic

Substances Control Act.

Response actions are not limited to releases

of the hazardous substances defined above;

releases of “pollutants or contaminants” are

~4 Stat. 2769; 42 U,S.C. 9601 (14)
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 301

also covered. For example, a material excluded

from regulation under RCRA or other laws

could nevertheless be considered as a “pollutant or contaminant” under CERCLA. Under

section 104(b) of CERCLA “pollutant or contaminant” includes but is not limited to:

. . . any element, substance, compound, or mixture, including disease-causing agents, which

after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation

into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through

food chains, will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions

in reproduction) or physical deformations, in

such organisms or their offspring.61 

The definitions of “hazardous substance”

and “pollution or contaminant” specifically exclude petroleum, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquified natural gas, and synthetic gas

unless designated as a hazardous substance

under CERCLA or other laws.

Reportable Quantities,–Section 10262 of CERCLA

provides for the establishment of reportable

quantities of hazardous substances, Any release of these substances exceeding specified

amounts must be promptly reported to the National Response Center (NRC). The initial reportable quantity is 1 lb except for those hazardous substances for which different reportable quantities have been set under section

311(b)(4) of CWA. 63 EPA is authorized to adjust the initial reportable quantities, as appropriate, EPA may designate additional “hazardous substances” subject to the reporting requirements if release of such substances may

present a substantial danger to the public

health, welfare, or the environment, Failure to

report a release of a reportable quantity is

punishable by fine or imprisonment. To encourage reporting, section 102(b) provides that

neither the notification nor any information

derived from it may be used against the per13194 Stat. 2775; 42 U .S. C. 9604 (a)(2).

ez94 Stat, 2772; 42 U.S. C. 9602.

WA list of these reportable quantities is found at 40 C.F. R. 117.3

(1982).

son reporting in any criminal action except in

prosecutions for perjury or false statement,

Notification of Inactive Waste Management Sites

Section 103 of CERCLA requires that the location of any facility where hazardous substances have been treated, stored, or disposed

of and which is not permitted or accorded interim status under RCRA must be reported to

EPA by June 10, 1981. 84 This notification requirement applies to the past or present owners

or operators of the facilities and to any persons

who accepted hazardous substances for transportation and selected a facility for storage

treatment or disposal. The notification must

identify the location of the facility, the amount

and type of hazardous substance found there,

and any known, suspected, or likely release of

such substances from the facility. EPA is to

notify a State of the existence of any such facility in that State. Section 102 directs EPA to

issue regulations specifying the types of

records to be maintained by the persons giving notice. These records must be maintained

for 50 years from enactment of CERCLA or

from the date the record was established,

whichever is later.

Section 103 imposes stiff penalties for failure

to comply with notification or recordkeeping

requirements. In addition, persons who fail to

report as required may not invoke the defenses

against liability and the limitations on liability for cost recovery and environmental damages available to responsible parties.

The reportable quantities, notification, and

recordkeeping requirements are not applicable

to:

●

●

●

permitted or interim status facilities under

RCRA;

federally permitted releases (as defined in

sec. 101(10) of CERCLA); 65

application or storage of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA) registered pesticides by an agricultural producer;

%34 Stat, 2773; 42 U.S. C. 9603 (c).

8594 Stat. 2 768; 42 U. S.C. 9601 ( 10).
302 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

●

•

●

releases of a consumer product;

releases of hazardous substances that are

required to be reported or that are exempted from reporting under RCRA; or

continuous releases that are stable in quantity and regularity, and which have already

been reported to the NRC. (Continuous releases must be reported annually, and the

NRC must be notified immediately of any

statistically significant increases in

quantity.)

Response Authority Under CERCLA

Section 104 of CERCLA establishes an extremely broad Federal response mechanism to

deal with releases or threatened releases of

hazardous substances into the environment.66

The section authorizes the President to take

whatever action is deemed necessary to remove, arrange for removal, provide remedial

action, or any other action consistent with the

NCP necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment. By Executive Order,

the President has delegated primary responsibility for carrying out the response activities

under CERCLA to EPA.67

Direct Government action is authorized in

cases of a release or a threatened release unless

it is determined that response action will “be

done properly by the owner or operator of the

facility or vessel from which the release or

threat of release emanates, or by any other

responsible party.”68 The term “facility” is also

given an expansive definition in CERCLA:

. . . “facility” means (A) any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline

(including any pipe into a sewer or publicly

owned treatment works), well, pit, pond,

lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage

container, motor vehicle, rolling stock, or aircraft, or (B) any site or area where a hazardous

substance has been deposited, stored, disposed

of, or placed, or otherwise came to be located;

but does not include any consumer product in

consumer use or any vessel.69

—

‘%4 Stat. 2774; 42 U.S.C. 9604.

67 Executive Order 12316, 46 F.R. 42,237, May 12? 19814

%4 Stat. 2774; 42 U.S.C. 9604 (a)(l).

‘%34 Stat. 2769; 42 U.S.C. 9601 (9]. Vessels are separately defined as any watercraft.

CERCLA authorizes the President to take

direct Government action to remove or mitigate the threat in the event of a release or

threatened release of a hazardous substance,

pollutant, or contaminant which presents an

imminent and substantial threat to human

health and welfare or to the environment. Two

types of response actions can be financed by

the Response Trust Fund: removal actions and

remedial actions.

A removal action is a short-term emergency response action designed to remove or mitigate an immediate threat to health, welfare, or

the environment. Fund expenditures for removal actions are limited to $1 million or 6

months duration from the date of the initial

response. These limits may be exceeded if there

is a continued and substantial immediate threat

to human health and the environment and the

required action is unlikely to be performed by

any other party.

In contrast, remedial action is a long-term

action directed at a permanent remedy to remove or correct the threat caused by the release

of hazardous substances to the environment.

Remedial actions are limited to sites that are

listed on the National Priority List and where

no responsible party will take prompt effective

action to correct the situation. Before a fundfinanced remedial action can be taken, the

State must enter into a cooperative agreement

or contract with EPA to assure all future

maintenance of the remedial response at the

site for the life of the response action, to

assure the availability of adequate offsite

treatment, storage, or disposal capacity, and

to contribute 10 percent of total remedial action costs. [if, however, the site was owned

by a State or locality at the time the hazardous substance was deposited, the required

contribution is 50 percent or more of the costs

depending on the degree of culpability.)

CERCLA requires that any remedial actions

must be consistent to the extent practicable

with the NCP.

Government action under section 104 of

CERCLA is not limited to instances when the

occurrence or threat of a release is known. The

act authorizes investigative actions, monitor-
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-state Hazardous Waste Program • 303

ing, testing, and surveys to determine

whether a suspected release has occurred or

might occur. A release might be suspected on

the basis of an outbreak of illness or disease,

or complaints of illness or disease that might

be attributable to exposure to a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Section 104

also authorizes expenditures for any additional

planning, legal, fiscal, economic, engineering,

architectural, or other studies or investigations

necessary or appropriate to plan or direct response actions, or to pursue cost recovery and

enforcement actions under section 107.

Abatement Orders

In addition to direct Government response,

CERCLA also provides for administrative and

judicial abatement actions to compel cleanup

by responsible parties. Section 106 authorizes

EPA to issue administrative orders to owners

or operators of facilities or to other persons to

take necessary action to abate an imminent

and substantial threat caused by a release or

threatened release.

70 These administrative

orders are enforceable in Federal court. Alternatively, the Administrator may ask the Department of Justice to seek appropriate relief from

a Federal court, such as an injunction against

a responsible party requiring cleanup or performance of necessary investigations, or supplying alternate drinking water supplies to the

affected communities. Fines of $5,OOO per day

can be assessed for violations of abatement

orders. Additionally, the Government may seek

punitive damages of three times the cleanup

costs under a section 107 cost recovery action

if a responsible party does not comply with an

abatement order.

Cost Recovery Actions

Under section 107 of CERCLA, the Government may sue to recover the costs of remedial

action, damages for harm to natural resources,

and administrative costs.

71 In appropriate

cases, the Government may sue for punitive

TO(3A stat, 2780; 42 U.S. ~. gGOG.

71gA Stat, 2781; 42 U.S. C. ‘607.

damages from owners and operators of facilities, transporters, generators, site owners, and

other responsible parties.

It is generally agreed that CERCLA imposes

strict liability in cost recovery actions .

CERCLA specifies that it imposes the same

standard of liability as section 311 of CWA.

Courts have held that section 311 imposes strict

liability and joint and several liability. A major

issue in cost-recovery actions is the extent to

which CERCLA may impose joint and several

liability for remedial action costs, CERCLA is

silent on the issue. Language that would have

expressly applied the doctrine of joint and

several liability to Superfund actions was

dropped as part of the compromise to pass the

legislation. Congress left the issue to be resolved by the courts applying common law

theories. EPA and the Department of Justice

have taken the position that joint and several

liability is available under statutory and common law principles in Superfund actions,

A second issue is the degree of contribution

available from others to responsible parties

who have been held liable. This issue has not

yet been litigated to conclusion and is expected

to become increasingly prominent as Federal

and State enforcement actions proceed.

Initial settlements negotiated between the

Federal Government for several interim National Priority List sites have involved many

responsible parties, The potential availability

of joint and several liability may have prompted

many of these parties to settle. Section 107 can

also be used prospectively to seek advance payment for cleanup from parties who contributed

to the problem at a particular site. Before filing suit, notices of the planned section 106 and

107 actions are usually sent by Federal enforcement officials to potentially responsible parties

in an attempt to encourage the parties to enter

settlement negotiations with EPA to achieve

site cleanup. This advance notice and the opportunity for negotiations are not required. As

an incentive to negotiate, EPA might agree not

to proceed further against the settling parties

for additional site cleanup costs in appropriate

cases.
304 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

The National Contingency Plan

The principal mechanism for implementing

the Government response under CERCLA and

for determining the extent of liability under the

cost-recovery provisions of section 107 is the

NCP. Section 105 of CERCLA directs EPA to

revise and republish NCP—which was originally established under section 311 of CWA to deal

with oil and chemical spill emergency response

and cleanup—to include a new national hazardous substance response plan specifying the

procedures and standards for Government response to hazardous substances releases.72 The

revised NCP was to be published within 180

days of enactment of CERCLA after opportunity for public review and comment (i.e., June

1981). This deadline was missed, and the NCP

was eventually published under court order on

July 16, 1982. 73

NCP is intended to provide a comprehensive

framework for the national response program

for hazardous substance spills and releases.

Section 105 requires that NCP specify the procedures, techniques, materials, equipment, and

methods to be used in identifying, removing,

or remedying releases of hazardous substances.

It must also include methods for ranking sites,

analyzing costs, and determining the appropriate remedy. The plan should specify appropriate roles for Federal and State agencies

and nongovernmental groups in responding to

releases. After the revised NCP becomes effective, all response actions must be in accordance

with NCP to the maximum extent practicable.

By far the most important aspects of NCP

are the methods for evaluation of releases, for

determining the appropriate extent of remedy, and for assuring cost effectiveness of the

response action and the criteria for establishing the National Priority List (NPL). The July

1982 NCP sets forth EPA’s basic approach to

these congressional directives. Overall, EPA

has preferred a flexible, site-specific approach.

7294 Stat. 2779; 42 U.S.C. 9605.

7347 F. R, 31,180, to be codified at 40 CFR part 300.

The National Priority List

Criteria for Ranking Sites for NPL.–Congress

directed EPA to develop and apply criteria for

establishing priorities among sites for response

actions based on their relative degree of risk

or danger to public health, welfare, or the environment. In ranking the sites by the degree

of risk posed, EPA was to consider to the extent practicable:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

the population at risk;

the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at the facility;

the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies;

the potential for direct human contact;

the potential for destruction of sensitive

ecosystems;

State preparedness to assure State costs

and responsibility; and

other appropriate factors.

Based on these criteria and on consultation

with and recommendations from the States,

EPA was to publish, as part of NCP, the NPL,

which will rank actual or threatened releases

across the country. Sites must be on the NPL

to qualify for Superfund-financed remedial actions. Section 105 requires that the list contain

to the extent practicable at least 400 of the

highest priority facilities, to be referred to as

“top priority among known response targets. ”

Section 105 further provides that to the extent

practicable, the top 100 of these priority targets

should include one site designated by each

State as the facility posing the greatest danger

to public health, welfare, or the environment

among known facilities in that State. The States

are to use the ranking criteria in establishing

priorities among their sites, EPA is to revise

the NPL at least annually in consultation with

the States.

The NCP published in July 1982 did not contain the final NPL because more time was

needed to gather adequate information to complete the list, and to allow the States to apply

the ranking criteria to their recommended sites

as required under CERCL.A and the NCP. An
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program “ 305

initial proposed NPL of 115 sites was published

for comment in October 1981, and 45 additional sites were added to that list in July 1982.

EPA published in December 1982 its proposed

NPL of 418 sites as appendix B to the NCP. 74

The Hazard Ranking System.—In response to the

directive to establish criteria for setting priorities among releases of hazardous substances

for the purposes of taking removal and remedial action, EPA adopted the Hazard Ranking

System (HRS), published as appendix A of

NCP. (The HRS is also known as the “Mitre

Model.”) EPA and the States apply the HRS

using data from observed or potential releases

to obtain a score representing an estimate of

the risk presented by each release. The score

for each release is then used with other considerations in determining whether a site is

placed on the NPL.

The States apply the HRS in submitting their

recommended sites and in designating the sites

posing the greatest hazard. The EPA regional

offices will review the States’ ranking before

forwarding their recommendations for inclusion on the NPL. Among the most significant

practical problems encountered by the States

is that the HRS requires more detailed information on the sites than is generally easily

available, Although the system does allow the

use of standardized factors in the absence of

detailed site information, if too many data requirements are missing, the site cannot be

ranked. No Federal funds are currently available for States to obtain this information.

OTA and others have raised questions about

the adequacy or appropriateness of the methodology used in the HRS to distinguish between the relative degrees of risk posed at different sites. (See part III and the appendix to

this chapter for a discussion of some of the

scientific and technical difficulties in the design and use of the HRS.)

State Participation

Under section 104(d) of CERCLA, the Federal

Government can enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with States or local govern-

— 7447 F.R. 58,475, Dec. 30, 1982.

ments to carry out any authorized response actions in accordance with the NCP. Under such

an agreement, the States or local governments

will be reimbursed by Superfund for their

reasonable response costs consistent with the

NCP, These contracts will be subject to the

above cost-sharing requirements, Section 105

requires that the NCP specify appropriate roles

for Federal, State, and local government agencies. The NCP calls for State and local government participation on regional response teams.

Additionally, under a contract or cooperative

agreement, a State agency may be designated

as the lead agency and as the on-scene coordinator in response activities. Preliminary EPA

experience with site evaluations for response

actions has been that State agencies have assumed “lead” responsibilities in over 70 percent of these cases.75 EPA may advance 90 percent of the estimated evaluation costs to the

state agency under a contract or cooperative

agreement.

Responses to Hazardous Substance Releases Under

the National Contingency Plan

The NCP establishes the overall approach

that EPA will use in dealing with releases or

threatened releases of hazardous substances or

of pollutants or contaminants that pose a substantial and imminent danger. EPA has segmented its site evaluation and response procedures under the NCP so that fund-financed

activities are carried out in a series of limited,

highly structured, sequential phases. At the

same time, EPA will, in appropriate cases, pursue settlement negotiations or enforcement actions against known potentially liable parties

to secure private cleanup or to recover costs.

Under subsection F of the NCP, EPA has set

up a response procedure with seven phases as

shown in table 57. At various phases in the

response procedure, sites can be excluded from

further response activities.

Phase l–Site Discovery and Notification.–A

release or threatened release is reported to

“Remarks of William N, Hedeman, Director, EPA Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response Before the AL I-ABA conference on Hazardous Wastes, Superfund, and Toxic Substances,

Washington, D. C., Nov. 4, 1982.
306 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 57.—National Contingency Plan—Phases of Response Actions

Criteria Action

Phase 1: Site Discovery and Notification

Possible release or threatened release of hazardous substances indicated by notice of inactive site, of release in

reportable quantities, or of other complaint.

Phase ii: Preliminary Assessment

Site recommended for further evaluation or immediate removal. No further action at site recommended: 1) there is

no release; 2) a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant is not involved; 3) the source is not subject to

CERCLA; 4) release amount does not warrant Federal response; or 5) a responsible party is taking appropriate

action and government monitoring is not needed.

Phase Iii: immediate Removal Action

Rapid emergency response required if site poses threat of

immediate and significant harm from: 1) human, animal,

or food chain exposure to acutely toxic substances;

2) contamination of drinking water supplies; 3) fire or explosion; or 4) other acute situation.

Release reported to National Response Center and to

affected State.

Determine nature, extent, and source of release and the

magnitude of hazard based on available data. Make recommendation for further action.

Take appropriate immediate removal action, such as:

1) measuring and sampling; 2) removing hazardous substances from site; 3) restraining spread of release by

physical, chemical, or other means; 4) preventing access

to site by fencing or other means; 5) providing substitute

drinking water; 6) controlling source of release; 7) recommending evaluation of threatened population; or 8) any

other appropriate emergency measures.

Phase IV: Site Evacuation and Determination of Appropriate Level of Response

Conduct site evaluation, data collection, and site lnvestigations; determine type, amounts, and locations of hazardous substances and potential for migration; determine

appropriate level of response; recommend site for immediate removal, planned removal, National Priority List

remedial action candidate (apply H RS), or no further

action.

●

●

●

Determine whether site qualifies for planned removal.

Take appropriate response action to reduce or remove

serious risk to public or the environment: State requests removal and agrees to assure future operations

and maintenance at site, and availability of off site treatment, storage, disposal capacity and to provide State

cost-share.

Planned removal action completed when serious risk is

Appropriate level of response:

. . . - . -. .

● Immediate removal —emergency threat to health or the

environment (see Phase Ill).

● Planned removal —short-term, but not emergency response (see Phase V).

● Site recommended for National Priority List remedial

action (see Phase VI).

● No further action/evaluation recommended.

Phase V: Planned Removal

Planned removal is authorized where:

● Substantial cost-saving can be achieved by continuing

an immediate removal action; or

Ž A serious risk to public health or the environment

exists from exposure to hazardous substances which

requires short-term, but not emergency response at a

facility not ranked on the National Priority List. A

serious risk may involve: 1) actual or potential direct

contract with hazardous substances by nearby populations; 2) contaminated drinking water at the tap; 3) hazardous substances in drums, tanks, or other bulk storage containers; 4) highly contaminated soils at or near

the surface; 5) threat of fire or explosion; or 6) weather

conditions that may cause substances to mitigate.

Phase Vi: Remedial Actions

Responses to sites ranked on the National Priority List

that are consistent with a permanent remedy to prevent

or mitigate migration of release of hazardous substances

into the environment. The appropriate extent of remedy

is. 1) the lowest cost remedial alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effectively minimizes or mitigates danger to or provides adequate protection of public health, we/fare and environment. Remedial

actions include:

1. Infitial remedial measures—those measures which

should begin quickly if they are feasible and necessary

to limit exposure or threat of exposure to a significant

health or environmental hazard and if they are cost effective. Situations where initial remedial measures are

appropriate are similar to planned removals at unranked

sites.

abated or 6 months/$7

Evaluate National Priority

million Iimit is reached.

List sites and determine

priate remedy (see also fig. 22):

appro-

~ Conduct preliminary assessment of type(s) of remedial

action which may be appropriate:

—initial remedial action,

—source control remedial action, and

—offsite remedial action,

. Take initial remedial action if indicated.

● Perform remedial investigation to determine nature and

extent of problems posed by release and necessity for

and extent of proposed remedial action.

. Assess remedial alternatives:

—“initial screening’’—develop and analyze potential

alternative remedial actions considering relative

costs, effectiveness (including potential adverse

effects), and feasibility according to acceptable

engineering practices; and
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 307

Table 57.—National Contingency plan—phases of Response Actions—continued

.

Criteria

2.

3.

4.

Source control remedial actions—may be appropriate if

a substantial concentration of substances remain onsite and inadequate barriers exist to retard migration

offsite; alternatives include containing wastes at the

site or removing them.

Offsife remedial action—may be appropriate to minimize the migration of hazardous substances and the effects of such migration where source control actions

may not be effective to remove or reduce a significant

threat to human health or the environment,

No action—appropriate where response action may

pose greater danger to the health or the environment

than no action,

Approval of fund-financed remedial action at a site must

balance need for immediate action to protect health and

welfare or the environment at that site against availability

of money In the fund to respond to problems at other

sites.

Phase Vll: Cost Recovery and Documentation

Response Trust Fund will compensate authorized government or private response costs that are consistent with

the NCP. (Cost recovery action may be pursued against

responsible parties to reimburse Response Trust Fund).

SOURCE 47 F R 31213 July 16 1982 to be cod;fled at 40 CFR 300 Subpart F

NRC as a result of notification requirements

under CERCLA or Federal permits, or through

the inventory of inactive dump sites, citizen

complaints, or other action. NRC will notify

the appropriate State and Federal agencies to

begin initial investigation.

Phase n-Preliminary Assessment.–The lead

agency will make a preliminary investigation

of the site to determine the magnitude of the

hazard, the source and nature of the release,

whether non-Federal parties will take prompt

and appropriate response, and whether immediate removal is necessary. This assessment

is based on readily available data, interviews,

and site visits, if appropriate. The preliminary

assessment phase ends with a recommendation

for further evaluation of the site, a request for

any necessary immediate removal action, or a

recommendation that no further action be

taken at the site.

Phase 111–immediate Removal.—Short-term emergency response action is taken to prevent or

mitigate immediate and significant risk of

harm to human life, health, or the environment,

Circumstances under which immediate removal action may be indicated include threats of:

Action

●

●

—“detailed analysis’’—conduct detailed “feasibility”

study of limited number of alternatives selected after

initial screening with focus or relative costs.

Determine appropriate extent of remedy from alternatives.

Proceed with selected remedial action if State

assurances and contribution requirements are met (and

if timely and adequate response wilI not be taken by responsible parties or others) and if fund-financing request is approved,

Complete documentation of government response action,

including nature of release, circumstances of response,

costs to Federal Government, impacts on health, welfare

or the environment, and identities of potentially responsible parties,

● human, animal, or food-chain exposure to

acutely toxic substances;

● contamination of drinking water supplies;

● fire or explosion; or

● similarly acute situations,

Immediate removal actions are primarily defensive and include sampling, removing containerized wastes, fencing the site, or providing

alternative drinking water supplies, Immediate

removal operations are subject to an expenditure limit of $1 million or a duration of 6

months from the initial response unless continued response actions are urgently required

because of an emergency situation involving

an immediate risk to health or the environment

and no other party will provide the necessary

response on a timely basis.

Immediate removal operations are complete

when the original acute situation is abated and

any contaminated materials moved offsite have

been treated or disposed of properly.

Phase IV–Evaluation and Determination of Appropriate Response.—If a preliminary assessment indicates that further response is necessary beyond

any immediate removal actions, site evaluation
308 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

is begun to determine the appropriate response

required, if any. The lead agency will obtain

the necessary information and conduct a site

inspection to determine if there is any immediate danger to persons living or working nearby.

These efforts are directed at identifying immediate threats to the public or the environment,

the need for any immediate removal action; the

amounts, types, and location of the hazardous

substances at the facility; and the potential for

the substances to migrate from their original

location. As a result of site evaluation, States

may suggest that the facility be added to the

NPL. States must use the EPA ranking system

in recommending priority sites. The results of

the evaluation are used to decide whether the

site is a candidate for immediate removal or

planned removal, or should be added to the

NPL as a candidate for fund-financed remedial

action.

Phase V–Planned Removal.–For situations that

pose a risk to public health, welfare, or the environment, and that require short-term, but not

emergency response, planned removals may be

undertaken. Planned removals are contemplated under the NCP for facilities that are not

“ranked” (listed on the NPL) and where either

a substantial cost-saving could be achieved by

continuing a Phase III immediate removal action, or where the public or the environment

will be at risk from exposure to hazardous substances. Planned removals are a “hybrid” response created by EPA for the NCP based on

the two CERCLA response actions, removal

and remedial action, and on EPA’s general administrative authority over Federal grants.

Planned removals are subject to the $1 million

and/or 6 months expenditure limitation of removal actions and also to State contribution

requirements nearly identical to those for remedial actions.

Table 57 summarizes the factors to be considered in determining whether a serious threat

to public health and safety exists and whether

planned removal actions are appropriate.

Planned removal actions end when the conditions causing serious risk have been abated and

any substances moved offsite have been properly treated or disposed of, or when 6 months

have elapsed, or $1 million has been spent,

whichever occurs first. Planned removal actions can exceed the 6 month/$1 million limit

if an immediate threat remains or it is cost effective to continue cleanup.

Phase Vi–Remedial Actions.—Remedial actions

are responses to “ranked” sites on the NPL that

are consistent with a permanent remedy to prevent or mitigate the migration of a release of

hazardous substances into the environment. A

detailed evaluation of the proposed appropriate remedial action and the alternatives,

including relative costs, must be conducted

before a determination is made on the appropriate extent of remedy to be applied at the

facility. The NCP identifies three distinct types

of remedial actions: initial remedial measures,

source control actions, and offsite remedial actions. The appropriate extenlt of remedial action for a particular release may include one

or more of these options or a “no action”

response.

Initial remedial measures are actions that

should begin quickly if they are feasible or necessary to limit exposure to a significant health

or environmental hazard and which are cost

effective. Unlike immediate removal actions,

initial remedial actions are subject to State costshare requirements. Initial remedial actions are

begun before detailed analysis and final selection of an appropriate remedy.

Source control remedial actions might be

appropriate if a substantial concentration of

substances remains onsite and existing barriers

are inadequate to retard migration offsite.

Source control remedial actions may include

alternatives to contain the hazardous substances where they are located or to eliminate

potential contamination by moving the substances to a new location.

Offsite remedial action may be taken to

minimize and mitigate the migration of hazardous substances and the effects of the migration

that pose a significant threat to public health,

welfare, or the environment. Offsite measures

frequently involve ground water contamination

problems. These actions can include providing

permanent alternate drinking water supplies,
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 309

controlling of a drinking water aquifer plume,

or treatment of drinking water aquifers.

Assessment of Remedial Action.—The NCP requires EPA to assess the site before deciding

which type or combination of remedial actions

should be taken. This assessment process for

NPL sites is shown in figure 22. Scoping is the

first step in deciding the type and extent of

remedial action to be taken in response to a

release. The lead agency in cooperation with

the State will examine the available information and decide, based on factors in the NCP,

the type of remedial action needed. The scoping results will then be used as the basis for

requesting funding for remedial investigation

and feasibility studies. As the remedial investigation proceeds, the approach can be modified if indicated.

A remedial investigation is performed to determine the nature and extent of the problems

posed by the release, This may include sampling, monitoring, and other informationgathering sufficient to determine the need for

and the extent of proposed remedial action.

The lead agency then develops a limited

number of alternatives for source control

and/or offsite remedial actions depending on

the type of response identified as appropriate.

One alternative may be “no action” which

could be appropriate if the response action

could pose a greater environmental or health

danger than no action, The alternative remedial actions are developed based on the assessments of the factors considered for each type

of remedial action, 76 and the results of the

remedial investigation,77

The alternatives are then subjected to an initial screening to narrow the list of potential

remedial strategies for further detailed analysis, Three broad criteria are used in the initial screening:

● the cost of installing or implementing each

alternative remedial action, including operation and maintenance;

7

’47 F.R. 31,216, to be codified at 40 CFR 300.68( e],

7747 F.R. 31,216, to a codified at 40 CFR 300.68 (f_).

the effects of each alternative and feasibility according to each and feasibility according to each alternative; and

acceptable engineering practices.

After the initial screening, more detailed

analysis will be conducted of the remaining

alternatives; this analysis will include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5

refinement and specification of alternatives with emphasis on the use of established technology;

detailed cost estimation including distribution of costs over time;

evaluation in terms of engineering implementation or constructability;

an assessment of each alternative in terms

of the extent to which it is expected to mitigate and minimize damages to, and provide adequate protection of, public health,

welfare, and the environment relative to

the other alternatives analyzed; and

an analysis of any adverse environmental

impacts, methods for mitigating these impacts, and costs of mitigation,

Based on this comparative evaluation of the

alternative remedial actions, the lead agency will then determine the appropriate extent

of remedy. This alternative is to be the one

that the agency determines is cost effective

(i.e., “the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which

effectively mitigates and minimizes damage

to and provides adequate protection of public

health, welfare, and the environment’’). 76 I n

selecting the appropriate extent of remedy, the

lead agency must also consider the need to respond to other releases with fund money. Section 104(c) of CERCLA requires that the need

for protection at the facility under consideration be balanced against the amount of money

in the fund available to respond to other sites

present or future problems, taking into consideration the need for immediate action.

The determination of appropriate remedy

will decide what action, if any, will be taken

to remove or reduce the danger to the public

and the environment from a release, and how

—.. 

7847 F.R. 31,217, to be codified at 40 CFR 300.68(j).
310 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

z
Figure 22.- Remedial Action Process Under the National Contingency Plan-Continued

action 1 ● 4

SOURCE” Environmental Protection Agency, Off Ice of Emergency and Remedtal Response, November 1982
312 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

and to what extent the site will be cleaned up.

Because appropriate remedial action measures

under the NCP can consist of temporary or

“band-aid” approaches to stabilize sites that

pose a threat while leaving the hazardous

substances at the location, some choices of

remedy may be controversial. The discretionary aspect of the remedial action decision

under CERCLA and the requirement to balance

the need for cleanup or action at one site

against present or future needs to act at other

sites creates an internal tension in carrying out

the cleanup mandate of CERCLA. This dilemma between protecting the fund and removing risks to the public and the environment

is frequently referred to as the “How clean

is clean?” issue. Superfund cleanups under

the NCP’S flexible standard of protection may

not result in removal of toxic substances from

the site. Contaminated soils and ground waters

need not be restored to their original uncontaminated condition, but only to a level that

does not pose a substantial threat. In some

cases, the NCP provides that a “no action”

alternative could be an appropriate remedy for

an abandoned chemical dump site. Each decision will be made on an ad hoc basis; each

site will be treated as unique.

Phase V1l–Cost Recovery .—The final stage of

response action under the NCP is documentation and cost recovery. All documentation on

the extent of the release and remedial action,

the circumstances leading to the release, and

the identity of any potentially responsible parties plus an accurate accounting of all Federal

costs incurred and impacts on public health,

welfare, or the environment are forwarded to

the regional response team, to the national

response team, and to others as appropriate.

Claims for response costs against Superfund

must first be presented to the owner or operator of the facility or to other potentially liable

parties. If these parties cannot be identified,

or cannot, or will not, pay for the response,

then a claim can be made against the Response

Trust Fund.

Cleanup by Responsible Private Parties

In many instances, EPA anticipates that instead of, or in addition to, fund-financed

remedial action, private parties who are responsible for the release will initiate action to

clean up the site and to mitigate any threat to

the public or the environment. The participation of responsible parties maybe through voluntary agreement or as a result of administrative or judicial actions. Because sites considered for remedial action on the NPL have

been found to be a significant threat to public

health and the environment, the lead agency

will usually review the cleanup proposals submitted by the responsible private parties. EPA

may be asked to specify the level of cleanup

to be required through enfc~rcement action. In

judging whether proposed private cleanup actions will effectively reduce or remove the

threat, EPA will apply the same criteria used

in assessing fund-financed remedial actions.

The cost-balancing considerations required

under section 104(c) of CEIRCLA are not applicable to determining the appropriate extent

of responsible party cleanup.

Private cleanup may offer some significant

cost advantages over fund-financed action. For

example, in the Seymour Recycling settlement,

a group of 24 settling respsonsible parties estimated that surface cleanup costs (removal and

decontamination) were significantly less than

Government estimates ($7.7 million v. $15 million). The difference in part was because some

of the responsible parties would do work themselves. It remains to be seen whether the parties will be successful in meeting their advance

estimates of cleanup costs. In any event, in addition to the commitment of $7.7 million in estimated cleanup costs, the Department of Justice also required as a condition of the settlement a $15 million performance bond and a

judicially enforceable guarantee that the site

surface cleanup would meet specified standards without regard to the estimated costs or

performance bond limits. Thus, the total com-
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 313

mitment could be in excess of $22 million. The

Seymour settlement left nonsettling parties

responsible for less than half the wastes at the

site and potentially liable for remaining ground

water cleanup (estimated at $15 million) .79 A

second group of 171 settling parties agreed to

pay $3.5 million for soil and ground water

cleanup .80

Standard of Cleanup in Superfund Actions

NCP provisions for determining the appropriate extent of remedial action at Superfund

sites has been criticized by several States and

environmental groups because it does not establish any specific environmental standard

for the level of cleanup to be achieved, such

as maximum acceptable levels of contamination. EPA’s flexible approach calls for the

least costly technologically feasible alternative that “effectively mitigates and minimizes damages to and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare, or the

environment. “8l The NCP does not further

define how the effectiveness of the alternative

is to be measured or what level of protection

of the public and the environment is “adequate. ”

EPA responded to criticisms of the NCP for

not explicitly requiring that environmental

standards be used in determining the appropriate extent of remedy by noting that “environmental effects and welfare concerns” are

included among the criteria to be considered,

Moreover, as EPA observed in the preamble

to the NCP:

In some cases, this would allow EPA to consider applicable standards in selecting the appropriate remedy. It must be noted, however,

that circumstances will frequently arise in

which there are no clearly applicable standards. For instance, acceptable levels of hazardous substances in soil are not established, and

there are no generally acceptable levels for

7Warol Dinkins, Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural

Resources Division, hefore AL1-ABA conference on Hazardous

Waste, Superfund and Toxic Substances, Washington, D. C., Nov.

5, 1982.

‘Hazardous Waste Report, vol, 4, Jan. 10, 1983, at 14.

alpreamb]eto the NCP, 47 F. R. 31,182, JU]Y 16, 1982.

many other hazardous substances in other

media , . ,

EPA cannot develop new standards for the

hundreds of substances it will be confronted

with in response actions. Not only is the requisite legal authority lacking in CERCLA, but

such a task would also be enormous, costly,

and time-consuming, and would unduly hamper the cleanup of releases, which i s

CERCLA’S primary mandate .

82 

EPA is correct in stating that there are no established acceptable concentration levels for

hundreds (if not thousands) of hazardous substances that may be found at uncontrolled hazardous waste dump sites. EPA faces a similar

difficulty in setting the contaminant levels for

its ground water protection strategy under the

July 1982 land disposal regulations. Nevertheless, EPA has decided to use the existing

maximum concentration levels for contaminants set under the Safe Drinking Water Act

regulations and, where appropriate, the background contaminant levels for other substances

for compliance monitoring and corrective action purposes for permitting new and existing

land disposal facilities. Under NCP, existence

of contaminant levels that would require corrective action at permitted land disposal facilities under RCRA regulations could, conceivably, be allowed to continue after remedial response actions or without any remedial action being taken.

EPA’s selection of an appropriate remedy

also has implications for State actions, States

are required to pay a share of the costs to qualify for Superfund-financed cleanups, and the

States must provide for operations and maintenance at the site for the life of the remedial

action. The NCP does not specify the period

of time over which a response action must be

effective for controlling threats to human

health or the environment from a release of

hazardous substances, Several States have expressed concern that EPA may select less expensive, incomplete remedial actions that

leave the States open to substantially greater

costs in the long term, instead of a more ex8Z47 F, R. 31,185, July 16, 1982.
314 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

pensive permanent remedy that removes or

completely cleans up the problem caused by

the hazardous substances. EPA policy statements have indicated that when the State prefers a more costly alternative, EPA will contribute only 90 percent of the total cost for the

least costly alternative; the State would then

pay the remaining cost of the more expensive

alternative .83

An additional criticism raised by the States

is that the NCP and the HRS do not allow States

to determine which, if any, of their recommended priority sites will qualify for fundfinanced remedial action. This uncertainty

makes it difficult for States to plan for their

own cleanup activities and to arrange for the

required State contribution for Superfund actions. According to EPA officials, remedial actions at a number of priority list sites (about

one-third of the initial 160 priority sites) have

not been taken because States could not provide the required 10 percent contribution. It

has been estimated that as many as 42 out of

50 States may not have adequate resources

for the 10 percent share of Superfund cleanu p .

8 4

The Hazardous Substance Response

Trust Fund–” Superfund ”

Section 221 of CERCLA established the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund, or

Superfund. 85 This fund is to be used to pay for

response actions for releases of hazardous substances. Superfund will receive up to $1.38

billion from oil and chemical taxes and $220

million in appropriations authorized ($44

million in fiscal years 1981-85) to be paid in full

by the end of fiscal year 1985. Additionally, the

fund will receive any amounts received as reimbursements in section 107 cost-recovery actions, and any penalties or punitive damages

imposed under section 107 of CERCLA. Onehalf of remaining funds in the trust fund es-

’47 F.R. 31,217, July 16, 1982; 40 CFR 300.68(j).

MRemarks of William N. Hedeman, Director, EPA Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response, Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Feb. 15, 1983.

%14 Stat. 2801, 42 U.S.C. 9631.

tablished under section 311 of CWA also were

transferred to the Superfund.

According to the Department of the Treasury, as of August 31, 1982, the fund had a

balance of $327.4 million. Generator payments

during the month were $12.6 million. Total

EPA obligations from the fund from December

1980 to September 30, 1982, were $221 million.

88

Superfund Taxes.–Title II of CERCLA, the

Hazardous Substance Response Revenue Act

of 1980, imposes new excise taxes on petroleum and certain chemicals. Proceeds from

these taxes are deposited to the Hazardous

Substance Response Trust Fund to finance

response and cleanup actions. These taxes took

effect on April 1, 1981, and are to continue

until September 30, 1985, or until the amounts

collected reach $1.38 billion, whichever occurs

first .87

A tax of 0.79 cent per barrel is levied on

crude oil received at U.S. refineries and on imported petroleum products. Exports of U.S.

crude oil and domestic use of crude oil (except

that used onsite for oil and gas extraction) are

also subject to the tax.

A tax ranging from $0.2:2 to $4.87 per ton is

imposed on 42 listed chemicals manufactured

or produced in the United States or imported

for consumption, use, or warehousing. (See

table 58 for the schedule of chemical taxes.)

The tax is imposed when the chemical is sold

initially or used by the manufacturer, producer,

or importer. Limited exclusions are provided

for methane and butane burned as fuel, for certain chemicals used in fertilizer production, for

sulfuric acid generated as a byproduct of air

pollution control processes, and on chemicals

derived from coal.

Collection of the oil and chemical taxes can

be suspended if the unobligated balance in the

trust funds reaches $900 million on either

September 30, 1983, or September 30, 1984,

and if the Secretary of the Treasury determines

~Hazardous Waste Report, vol. 4, Jan. 10, 1983, at 4.

sTSee 94 Stat. 2796-99, 26 U.S. C. 2611 and 26 U.S. C. 4661; and

94 Stat. 2808, 42 U.S.C. 9653.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program • 315

Table 58.—Chemical Taxes Under Superfund

In the case of: Tax per ton

Acetylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Butane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Butylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Butadiene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Naphthalene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Propylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Toluene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Xylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ammonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antimony trioxide ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arsenic ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arsenic trioxide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barium sulfide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bromine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chlorine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chromium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chromate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Potassium bichromate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sodium bichromate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cobalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cupric sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cupric oxide.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cuprous oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hydrochloric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hydrogen fluoride. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lead oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phosphorus ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stannous chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stannic chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Zinc chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Zinc sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Potassium hydroxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sodium hydroxide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sulfuric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nitric acid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE Publtc Law 96.510, 94 Stat 2799, Dec ?0, 1980

$4.87

4.87

4.87

4.87

4.87

4.87

3.44

4.87

4,87

4.87

4.87

2.64

4.45

3.75

4.45

3.41

2.30

4.45

4.45

2.70

4.45

1,52

1.69

1.87

4.45

1.87

3.59

3.97

0.29

4.23

4,14

4.45

4.45

4.45

2.85

2.12

2.22

1,90

0.22

0,28

0.26

0.24

that the remaining unobligated balance in the

fund will exceed $50 million on September

300 of thefollowingy ear without collection of

further Superfund taxes.

Use of the Fund.–Superfund can be used to

pay for Government response costs under section 104 and the NCP. The range of authorized

actions and expenditures is extremely broad

and includes not only activity at the site to

remove or abate the danger caused by the presence of hazardous substances but also the cost

of necessary investigations, testing, monitoring, engineering and design studies, and plans

required to define and implement a cost effective and adequate response, The costs of pursuing cost recovery and enforcement actions

against potentially responsible parties also can

be paid out of the fund. Section ill(a) provides

that the fund can be used to pay the necessary

response costs incurred by other persons in

carrying out NCP, to pay for claims approved

under the review procedures of section 112,

and for certain claims arising under section

304 of CWA. Additionally, the fund is specifically authorized to pay for:88

●

●

●

the costs of assessing the amount of injury

or destruction to natural resources and of

the governmental effort to restore or replace natural resources injured or destroyed because of releases of hazardous

substances;

epidemiologic studies, the development

and maintenance of the national registry

of persons exposed to the release of hazardous substances in the environment, and

diagnostic services not otherwise available

to determine whether any of the exposed

population are suffering from long latency diseases; and

subject to limitations in the appropriations

bills, costs of a program for-enforcement

and abatement action against releases, the

costs of equipping, supplying, and maintaining damage assessment and response

capability for strike forces and emergency response teams under NCP, and the

cost of a program to protect the health and

safety of workers involved in response

actions.

Administrative costs or expenses that are reasonably necessary and incidental to the implementation of Superfund also maybe paid

out of the fund,

Liability of Responsible Parties Under CERCLA

Section 107 of CERCLA imposes far-reaching

liability for response costs and damages to

natural resources from releases of hazardous

substances.

89 This liability applies not with-

~4Stat. 2789;42 U.S.C. 9611(c).

6%4 Stat. 2781; 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).
316 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

standing any other provisions or rules of law

and is subject only to the defenses in CERCLA.

Prior agreements or arrangements or common

law defenses that might otherwise shield a

generator or facility operator from liability for

releases in lawsuits by private parties may not

be asserted against the Government in CERCLA

cost-recovery actions.

whenever there are response costs due to a

release or threatened release of a hazardous

substance from a vessel or facility, responsible parties may be held liable for:

●

●

●

all the costs of removal or remedial action

incurred by the Federal or State Government not inconsistent with the NCP;

any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person not inconsistent with the NCP; and

damages for injury to, destruction of, or

loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such harm resulting from the release.

Section 107 also defines the persons who can

be held liable under CERCLA. These responsible parties may include: the owner or

operator of the facility from which there is a

release or threatened release, the persons who

owned or operated the facility at the time of

disposal, any person who contracted or arranged with another person for disposal or

treatment of hazardous substances (i.e., generators), and any person who accepted hazardous substances for transport and selected the

disposal or treatment facility. Under section

107, the Government may proceed against any

responsible party for the full costs incurred for

response and for damages to natural resources.

The extent to which one responsible party may

make other responsible parties defendants in

a cost-recovery action or seek contribution

from them is not yet settled. The Federal Government has maintained that joint and several

liability is available under CERCLA and has

proceeded under this theory in several cases.

Representatives of the chemical industry and

other major generators, frequently targets of

CERCLA cost-recovery actions for abandoned

sites containing their wastes, maintain that the

availability of joint and several liability under

CERCLA was expressly left to the courts by

Congress and has not yet been established.

Defenses .-CERCLA allows only several very

narrow defenses to be raised by a responsible

party who would otherwise be liable for response costs or natural resource damages. A

responsible party may escape liability if it is

shown by the preponderance of evidence that

the release was caused solely by: 1) an act of

God, 2) an act of war, 3) the act or omission

of a third party, or 4) any combination of the

previous three defenses. [n raising the third

party defense, the defendant must show that

the third party was not his employee or agent

or under a contractual relationship with the

defendant. The defendant must also show that

he “exercised due care” with respect to the

hazardous substance involved and that he took

precautions against foreseeable action or omissions of any such third party and the consequences that could foreseeable result from such

acts or omissions.

A person who failed to notify EPA of the existence of an inactive hazardous waste site as

required in section 103(c) of CERCLA may not

raise any of the statutory defenses or limitations on liability in a cost recovery action.

Liability Limitations.—CERCLA limits the

amount of liability that can be imposed in the

event of releases of hazardous substances requiring response actions. Liability for motor

vehicles, aircraft, pipelines, or rolling stock

may not exceed $50 million per release or any

lesser limit established by regulation, but not

less than $5 million per release. (Liability for

releases into navigable waters is, however, set

at not more than $8 million,) For facilities

(other than the classes of transportation facilities previously mentioned), the liability limit

per release is set at the total of all response

costs, plus $50 million for damages to natural

resources.

The responsible party can be required to pay

the full and total costs of response actions and

damages to natural resources without any liability limitations if the:
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 317

●

●

●

●

release was due to willful misconduct or

willful negligence within the privity or

knowledge of the responsible party;

primary cause of the release was the violation (within the privity or knowledge of the

responsible party) of applicable safety,

construction, or operating standards or

regulations;

party fails or refuses to provide reasonable

cooperation or assistance requested by a

responsible public official in connection

with response activities under the NCP; or

party failed to notify EPA that hazardous

substances had been disposed of at the facility as required by section 103(c) of

CERCLA.

Punitive damages of up to three times the

costs incurred by the Response Trust Fund can

be assessed against a responsible party who,

without sufficient cause, has failed or refused

to take proper removal or remedial action in

response to an administrative order under section 104 or 106 of CERCLA. These punitive

damages are in addition to recovery of the

response costs, A responsible party, who fails

to cooperate with response actions or to comply with an abatement order, could potentially end up paying four times the original response costs.

Insurance and Contribution .—CERCLA further

provides that “no indemnification, hold harmless, or similar agreement or conveyance shall

be effective” to transfer liability from a potentially responsible party to another person.90 The

act, however, does not bar any agreements to

ensure, hold harmless, or indemnify a party to

such an agreement against any liability under

section 107. A responsible party could not,

therefore, escape liability, but could later invoke the benefit of an agreement to compensate him for any liability incurred, CERCLA

also provides that an owner or operator or

other person subject to liability under section

107 retains any cause of action for subrogation

or otherwise as a result of such liability or

release.

Recovery for Natural Resources Damage .—Section

107(f) provides that the United States or any

State may sue to recover for injury or destruction of natural resources. Natural resources include land, air, water, fish, wildlife, and biota

owned, controlled, managed, held in trust by,

or appertaining to the United States, a State,

local government, or a foreign government.

The President (or a State), acting as trustee for

the natural resources, can sue to recover damages in the amount necessary to restore or

replace such resources, Damages for harm to

natural resources cannot be recovered if the

injury occurred before enactment of CERCLA

or if: “l) the harm suffered is shown to be an

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of

natural resources in an environmental impact

statement or other comparable analysis; 2) such

impact was authorized in the decision to grant

the permit or license; and 3) the facility operated in compliance with that permit or

license. ”9l

The Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund

Under section 107(k) of CERCLA, the liability

of an owner or operator of a qualified hazardous waste facility that has been permitted

under section 3005 for response costs and damages under section 107 cost-recovery action is

transferred to the Post-Closure Liability Trust

Fund. Liability is transferred if the owner or

operator demonstrates that:

●

●

the facility and the owner/operator has

compiled with RCRA provisions and regulations regarding performance of the

facility after closure; and

the facility has been closed in compliance

with the regulations and permit conditions

and the facility and the surrounding area

have been monitored for a period not exceeding 5 years after closure to demonstrate that there is not a substantial likelihood that any migration or release from

confinement of any hazardous substance

or other risk to public health or the environment will occur.92 

%4 Stat. 2783; 42 U.S.C. 9607(e).

w94 Stat. 2783; 42 U.S. C. 9607 (f).

9294 Stat, 2784; 42 U.S.C. 9607(k).
318 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

The transfer of liability becomes effective 90

days after the facility owner or operator

notifies EPA (and the State with an approved

program) that it has met the requirements for

transfer, unless within that time EPA (or the

State) decides that the facility has not demonstrated compliance, or has submitted insufficient information.

After transfer of liability, the post-closure

trust fund will assume the liability of the owner

or operator under section 107 cost-recovery actions for response costs incurred and natural

resource damage. Additionally, the fund may

pay the costs of monitoring, care, and maintenance of a site incurred by other persons

after the monitoring period required under

RCRA regulations for facility closure and postclosure has expired. (For landfills, the postclosure period is 30 years.) Regulations for

transfer of liability to the Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund have not yet been promulgated.

The Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund can be

used for any of the same purposes as expenditures from Superfund. Additionally, the postclosure fund may be used to pay for any other

claim or appropriate request for the costs of

response, damage, or any other compensation

for injury or loss under section 107(k) of

CERCLA or any other State or Federal law

resulting from a release of a hazardous

substance at such a facility. The Post-Closure

Liability Trust Fund, therefore, is potentially

available to meet a broader type of claim than

Superfund because of the qualification of

claims payments under any other Federal or

State law. Presumably this could compensate

third parties for personal injuries or property

damage from leaks at closed hazardous waste

dump sites. In contrast, Superfund does not

compensate for personal injury or property

damage suffered by third parties.

Hazardous Waste Tax.–The Post-Closure

Liability Trust Fund is to be financed by a tax

of $2.13 per dry weight ton of hazardous wastes

received at a disposal facility that is permitted

or has interim status under section 3005 of

RCRA. The taxis payable by the facility owner

or operator. No tax is paid on any hazardous

waste that will not remain at the facility after

it is closed. The tax primarily affects land

disposal facilities and provides an economic

incentive of sorts to reduce the amount of hazardous waste sent to landfills.

Collection of the tax will begin on April 1,

1983, but will be suspended in any calendar

year if, on September 30 of the preceding year,

the unobligated balance in the fund exceeds

$200 million. Section 303 of CERCLA provides

that the authorization to collect taxes under

CERCLA will expire on September 30, 1985,

or whenever the total collected under the oil

and chemical tax provisions reaches $1.38 billion, whichever is sooner.

Over the long term, the Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund could face substantial

claims for response actions if the standards

for landfills and other land disposal facilities

under RCRA are not more stringent. As EPA

has frequently acknowledged, all containment

will eventually leak, and contaminants could

reach the environment. Land disposal facilities,

even with liners, final covers, and leachate collection systems, could be closed and maintain

their integrity over the required 5-year monitoring period to qualify for liability transfer,

and when they later begin to leak, the fund

could bear the substantial response and longterm care costs. one means of preventing this

is to apply a very stringent standard of proof

for the required demonstration that there is no

substantial likelihood of migration or release,

so that few existing facilities that did not

upgrade beyond minimum standards could

qualify for the liability transfer.

Alternative Insurance Coverage.–Section 107(k)(4)

calls for a study of the feasibility of allowing

private insurance coverage as an alternative to

the Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund. The

Treasury was to study the feasibility and the

necessary actions to make private insurance

a practical and effective option to the financing arrangements in the post-closure trust fund.

This study was completed in March 1982. 93

After a public hearing, the President (through

INU. S. Department of the Treasury, Hazardous Substance Liability Insurance, A Report in Compliance With Section 301(b)

and Section 10 T(k)(4] of Public Law 9&510, March 1982.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 319

EPA) is to decide first whether such an alternative is feasible, and then to prescribe minimum requirements for such private coverage

in lieu of participation in the Post-Closure

Liability Trust Fund. If a private plan qualifies

as a practical and effective alternative under

the rules established, facilities enrolled in and

complying with the terms of the plan will be

exempt from payment of the facility tax and

excluded from the liability transfer under section 107(k).

Other Federal Environmental Laws

and Hazardous Waste

In enacting RCRA, Congress declared that

it was closing “the last remaining loophole in

environmental law, that of unregulated land

disposal of discarded materials and hazardous

wastes.”= Congress further recognized that “as

a result of the Clean Air Act, Water Pollution

Control Act, and other Federal and State laws

respecting public health and the environment,

greater amounts of solid waste (in the form of

sludge and other pollution treatment residues)

have been created.’’” Before passage of RCRA,

hazardous wastes were subject to Federal regulation only to the extent that their improper

management might cause violations of other

laws, such as those governing protection of

public health, air quality and water quality, or

those controlling the products from which the

wastes were derived.

Passage of RCRA unavoidably established

overlapping coverage between regulation of

hazardous waste management under RCRA

and regulation of environmental pollution

and control of hazardous materials under

other Federal laws. This potential problem of

concurrent jurisdiction was recognized in

RCRA section 1006(b) which requires the

EPA Administrator to “integrate all provisions of this Act for purposes of administration and enforcement and to avoid duplication, to the maximum extent practicable, with

the appropriate provisions of . . . (other

‘House Report 94-1491, 94th Cong., 2d sess. (1976), p. 4.

wRCRA, sec. 1002@)(3), 90 Stat. 2797; 42 U.S. C. 6901 (b)[3].

related Legislation).ge However, implementation of these environmental laws has resulted

in very little overlap or duplicative regulatory

requirements; in fact, implementation has

left significant gaps in protection from the

adverse effects of hazardous substances in the

environment.

RCRA–Subtitle D–Regulation of

Solid Waste Management

The objectives of subtitle D of RCRA are to

assist in developing and encouraging methods

for solid waste disposal that are environmentally sound and maximize the utilization of

recovered resources, and to encourage resource conservation. These objectives are to be

accomplished through State solid waste management plans prepared in accordance with

guidelines published by EPA. Among other

things, such a plan must describe how the State

will meet the requirements of subtitle C governing hazardous waste management. States with

an approved solid waste management plan are

eligible for Federal technical and financial assistance. The variety of Federal technical and

financial assistance mechanisms for State solid

and hazardous waste management activities

authorized under RCRA are discussed later in

this chapter,

Section 4005(a)” of subtitle D prohibits “open

dumping” of solid waste.” To gain approval

of its solid waste management plan, a State

must, with EPA financial and technical assistance, conduct a survey of solid waste facilities

and develop an inventory of those judged to

be open dumps according to EPA-promulgated

criteria (under sec. 4004(a)) that distinguish

open dumps from sanitary Iandfills.98 The State

plan must provide for the closing or upgrading

of all existing open dumps within a period not

to exceed 5 years from the date of promulgation of the section 1008(a)(3) criteria. The plan

must also demonstrate the State’s authority to

’42 U.S, C. 6905. The acts are the Clean Air Act, the Clean

Water Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide

Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act.

’

7

42 U.S. C. 6945.

’40 CFR Part 257 (1982).
320 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

prevent the recurrence of open dumping by

means of a permit program for new facilities

and adequate surveillance and enforcement capabilities.

Enforcement of the ban on open dumping is

largely in the hands of each State. However,

solid waste activities are covered by the section 7002 citizen suit provision and section

7003 imminent hazard authority of RCRA.

Many existing “open dumps” and approved

sanitary or municipal landfills contain hazardous wastes that were deposited there either

before the subtitle C regulations took effect or

because the wastes were not regulated under

the subtitle C regulatory program (e.g., hazardous wastes produced by small-quantity generators).

In practice, implementation of the subtitle D

provisions has been incomplete, Most, but not

all, States have prepared a first round of solid

waste management plans, many of which have

received EPA approval. Partial inventories of

open dumps have been prepared by the States

and published in the Federal Register. Virtually

all Federal financial and technical assistance

under subtitle D for State solid waste plans has

been terminated. The fiscal year 1983 appropriations, however, include funds to support

the site inventory needed to complement efforts under the hazardous waste and Superfund programs.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)99

HMTA authorizes DOT to establish regulations governing the transport of hazardous

materials, including wastes. Under HMTA

“hazardous materials” are those that the Secretary determines may pose an unreasonable

risk to health and safety or property when

transported in commerce. DOT regulations

provide for the classification of hazardous

materials, disclosure requirements, shipping

container requirements, labeling and placarding standards, handling procedures for various

modes of transport, and reporting of accidents .

100

-9 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

1-49 CFR Parts 171-179 (1982).

In carrying out its responsibilities under

RCRA Subtitle C, EPA has adopted these same

regulations to ensure consistency between the

requirements of the two agencies as required

by section 3003(b) of RCRA. The section also

authorizes the EPA Administrator to make recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on hazardous waste regulations under

HMTA and on the addition of materials to be

covered by that act.

Although RCRA requires maximum consistency between the regulations of DOT and EPA,

each agency still retains separate authority to

promulgate and enforce its own regulations.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)lO1

TSCA directs EPA to inventory all chemical

substances in commerce, to require premanufacture notice of all new chemical substances,

to gather available information about the toxicities of particular chemicals and exposures,

to require industry testing under certain circumstances where data are insufficient, and

to assess whether unreasonable risks to human

health or the environment are involved. In

determining whether a substance poses an unreasonable risk, EPA must consider such factors as: type of effect (e.g., chronic or acute,

reversible or irreversible); degree of risk;

characteristics and numbers of humans, plants,

animals, or ecosystems at risk; amount of

knowledge about the effects; availability of

alternative substances and their expected effects; magnitude of the social and economic

costs and benefits of possible control actions;

and appropriateness and effectiveness of TSCA

as the legal instrument for controlling the risk.

EPA may prohibit, limit, or control the manufacture, processing, distribution through commerce, use, and disposal of substances posing

an unreasonable risk. These measures can

range from requiring hazard-warning labels to

banning the manufacture or use of an especially hazardous substance. l02

lm~blicLaw g4~69, 90 Stat. 2003 (1976); 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

10zTSCA, sec. 6, 90 Stat. 2020; 15 U.S, C, 2605.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 321

Regulations under TSCA have been issued

for two groups of chemicals: polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBS) and certain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS). The manufacture of PCBS has

been prohibited, except as allowed by EPA.

Rules governing the use and disposal of PCBS

in a variety of applications have been established. However, the disposal of about 40 percent of the PCBS still in use (largely contained

in small appliances and capacitors) has not

been regulated under TSCA. Some, but not all,

uses of CFCS have been prohibited. In general,

the standards for treatment and disposal of

PCBS under TSCA are more stringent than the

standards for hazardous waste under RCRA.

For example, under TSCA rules, incinerators

burning liquid PCBS must attain a 99.9999 percent destruction level; RCRA standards are

only 99.99 percent.103

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FlFRA)104

FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with EPA on the basis of submitted safety data, and prohibits the sale, distribution, and

use of pesticides except in accordance with

registered labels. To obtain registration, it must

be demonstrated, among other things, that a

pesticide, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice,

will not generally cause “unreasonable adverse

effects on the environment. ” The EPA Administrator is required, after consultation with

other interested Federal agencies, to establish

procedures and regulations for the disposal or

storage of packages and containers of pesticides.

Subject to trade secret exclusions, the EPA

Administrator must make public the data

called for in the registration statement of a

pesticide. Information obtained through

FIFRA reporting and testing programs maybe

useful in establishing whether a discarded pesticide should be classified as an RCRA hazardous waste.

Clean Water Act (CWA)105

The overall objective of CWA is “to restore

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. ”

Among the goals and policies used to promote

this objective are those of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by

1985 and prohibiting the discharge of toxic

pollutants in toxic amounts.

Section 301(a) prohibits the discharge of any

pollutant from a point source without a permit under section 402 (which establishes the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)), and except in conformance with

technology-based effluent limitations under

section 301, water quality-related effluent

limitations under section 302, new source performance standards under section 306, and

toxic and pretreatment effluent standards

under section 307. 106

Technology-based limitations are tied to

three categories of discharges—municipal, industrial, and toxic. Industrial discharges have

been subdivided into conventional pollutants

(biological oxygen demand, suspended solids,

fecal coliform, pH, oil and grease), toxic (included on a list of toxic substances), and nonconventional pollutants (other than conventional or toxic).

The 1972 amendments provided for the listing of toxic pollutants based on factors such

as toxicity, persistence, degradability, potential for exposure of organisms, etc. Toxic pollutant effluent standards providing an “ample

margin of safety” were to be promulgated on

a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.107 Because of difficulties and delays in the implementation of

this provision, and prompted by a court settlement, the 1977 amendments call for EPA to develop and issue “best available technology” effluent limitation guidelines, pretreatment

standards, and new source performance standards for 21 major industries covering 65 serious

pollutants or groups of pollutants (see table 59).

10340 CFR 761.70. TSCA, sec. 6(e), directs EPA to prescribe

methods for the disposal of PCBS, 15 U.S.C. 2605[e).

IM7 U.S. C. 135 et seq.

YOE33 U,S.C. 1251 et seq.

1~33 U.s. c. 1311.

‘0733 U.S.C. 1317( a](4).
322 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 59.—Toxic Water Pollutants Under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act

Classes of toxic pollutants for which EPA must issue water quality criteria

1. Acenaphthene

2. Acrolein

3. Acrylonitrile

4. Aldrinidieldrin

5. Antimony and compounds

6. Arsenic and compounds

7. Asbestos

8. Benzene

9. Benzidine

10. Beryllium and compounds

11. Cadmium and compounds

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Carbon tetrachloride

Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolizes)

Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)

Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroethane,

1,1,1-trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane)

Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl, and mixed ethers)

Chlorinated naphthalene

Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed

elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated

cresols)

Chloroform

2-Chlorophenol

Chromium and compounds

Copper and compounds

Cyanides

DDT and metabolizes

Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzenes

Dichlorobenzidine

Dichloroethylenes (1 ,1- and 1,2-dichloroethylene)

2,4- Dichlorophenol

Dichloropropane and dichloropropene

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Dinitrotoiuene

Diphenylhydrazine

Endosulfan and metabolizes

Endrin and metabolizes

Ethylbenzene

Fluoranthene

SOURCE. 43 F. R. 4108, Jan 31, 1978

The list of industries, however, is not identical

to the list of generators under RCRA, and the

range of pollutants of concern under RCRA is

much broader. The EPA Administrator has

some discretion in adding to or removing pollutants from the list of pollutants, taking into

account the same factors used in preparing the

list initially. The Administrator may also issue

a more stringent toxic pollutant effluent standard if appropriate.

In relation to toxic and hazardous materials

that might enter the environment other than

through effluent discharge, EPA is authorized

to establish “best management practices” to be

implemented as provisions of NPDES permits,

37. Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; includes chlorophenylphenyl esters, bromophenylphenyl

ether, bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis(chloroethoxy)

methane, and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers)

38. Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere; includes methylene chloride, methyl chloride, methyl

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

bromide, bromoform, dichlorobromornethane,

trichlorofluoromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane)

Heptachlor and metabolizes

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Isophorone

Lead and compounds

Mercury and compounds

Naphthalene

Nickel and compounds

Nitrobenzene

Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol,

dinitrocresol)

Nitrosamines

Pentachlorophenol

Phenol

Phthalate esters

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene,

chrysenes, dibenzanthracenes and indenopyrenes)

Selenium and compounds

Silver and compounds

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

Tetrachloroethylene

Thallium and compounds

Toluene

Toxaphene

Trichloroethylene

Vinyl chloride

Zinc and compounds

for control of plant site runoff, leaks, spills,

sludge, waste disposal, and drainage from raw

material storage sites.

CWA requires promulgation of standards for

the pretreatment of industrial pollutants

discharged to publicly owned treatment works

(POTWS) that might create problems in sewers

(fire, corrosion, explosion), inhibit municipal

sewage treatment processes, or pass untreated

into waterways or the POTWS sludge, thereby

rendering it unfit for beneficial use or disposal. 108 However, subject to State and EPA approval, a municipality may provide at least par10033 USC 1317@).
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 323

tial treatment for industrial toxic wastes in a

way which allows the industry to reduce its

pretreatment costs. (Hazardous waste discharged into a POTW is currently excluded

from the definition of hazardous waste and

regulation under RCRA because of the CWA

pretreatment provision.)

Implementation of the pretreatment requirements has been subject to some delay. Amendments to the general regulations (originally promulgated in 1978) were promulgated in 1981,

then suspended by the Reagan administration

pending regulatory impact analysis, and later

made partially effective following court action.

Certain provisions remain suspended. EPA is

currently considering further changes, generally involving greater local control and responsibility for pretreatment requirements, as well

as a decreased emphasis on mandatory national technology-based categorical standards. 109

EPA has ruled that any non-domestic waste

mixed with domestic waste in a sewer system

leading to a POTW is not a solid waste. If this

non-domestic waste is not treated because of

the lack of pretreatment standards or because

the generator is not regulated under CWA, the

discharge into the POTW could be regulated

under subtitle C as a hazardous waste activity

if a hazardous waste (as defined in RCRA) is

involved. Furthermore, although a point source

discharge covered by a NPDES permit is not

subject to subtitle C regulation, any waste

management activity occurring before the flow

reaches the point of discharge may be subject

to subtitle C regulation if a hazardous waste

is involved,

Section 311 establishes procedures by which

EPA can act to prevent or respond to spills and

other nonroutine releases of oil and hazardous

substances into U.S. waters and can recover

the mitigation costs from the discharger. EPA

was required to prepare a national contingency plan (NCP) for oil and chemical and to establish a special fund for emergency assistance

to persons and communities in cases of pollul~fjee 47 F.R. 4,518, Feb. 1, 1982, 40 CFR Part 403, originally

published at 46 F.R. 9,404, Jan. 28, 1981.

tant and contaminant discharges. The program

is not limited to water pollution emergencies,

but covers “all releases to the environment. ”

The NCP established under CWA was expanded by CERCLA to include a comprehensive national hazardous substance response

plan to deal with chemical spills and releases

of hazardous substances into the environment.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)l10

SDWA provides for EPA to establish national

primary drinking water quality standards and,

as needed, to require application of specific

water treatment technologies. The act regulates

both public and private water utilities serving

from a few dozen to millions of people. The

primary standards, or “maximum contaminant

levels,” are intended to protect human health.

EPA may also recommend secondary standards for substances that do not threaten public

health but that cause aesthetic problems with

the odor, or appearance affecting the usability of water. The SDWA gives the main responsibility for enforcing the standards to the

States. Each State must adopt standards at least

as strict as the national standards, and must

be able to monitor and enforce compliance

with the standards by individual supply systems. If a State cannot or does not carry out

these responsibilites, EPA can conduct the program itself.

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLS) have

been established to date for 10 inorganic chemicals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,

fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium, and

silver), 6 pesticides (toxaphene, methoxychlor,

endrin, lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T), and trihalomethanes (which result primarily from reactions between natural organic chemicals present in raw water and the chlorine typically

used as a disinfectant). Maximum levels for

bacterial contamination, radioactivity, and turbidity have also been established (see table

60). 111 For a few compounds, interim nonbinding guidelines (Suggested No Adverse Response Level—’’SNARL" documents have

11042 U.S.C. 300 f-300j.

11140 CFR 141, subpart B (1982).
324 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 60.—National Interim Primary

Drinking Water Standards

Maximum

concentration

(in mg/l

Constituent unless specified)

Inorganic chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05

Arsenic ..........,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05

Barium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.010

Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002

Nitrate (as N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Selenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01

Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05

Fluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4-2.4

Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 tu upto5tu

Coliform bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I/1OOm-(mean)

Endrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0002

Lindane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.004

Methoxychlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1

Toxaphene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.005

2,4-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1

2,4,5-TP Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01

Total trihalomethanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1

Radionuclides:

Radium 226 and 228 (combined . . . . . . 5pCi/1

Gross alpha particle activity . . . . . . . . 15pCi/1

Gross beta particle activity . . . . . . . . . 4mrem/year

SOURCE: 40CFR. 141(1982)

been prepared for use by States and municipalities on a case-by-case advisory basis. MCLs

established under SDWA will provide part of

the basis for the ground water protection strategy adopted in the July 1982 land disposal

standards under RCRA.

SDWA also provides for a program regulating the underground injection of wastes and

other materials. Injection wells are a widely

used method of industrial waste disposal. EPA

is required to list States that are thought to require underground injection control (UIC) programs and to set minimum national requirements for such programs. EPA must approve

the adequacy of each proposal UIC program,

although the agency is specifically instructed

not to disrupt unnecessarily any State programs already being effectively enforced.

Where an adequate program is not being carried out by a State, however, EPA will administer the program.

Regulations promulgated by EPA in 1980 distinguish five different kinds of wells: deep

waste-disposal wells (or those below usable

aquifers), wells related to oil and gas production, wells for special processes such as solution mining and geothermal energy, shallow

wells (or those injecting into usable aquifers)

for hazardous waste disposal, and all others.

Following the settlement of legal challenges to

these regulations, EPA promulgated revised

regulations in February 1982. 112 Standards have

not yet been promulgated for wells in which

waste is injected above underground sources

of drinking water (see ch. 5), nor have standards been implemented in many jurisdictions

in which waste is injected directly into

underground sources of drinking water.

SDWA provides for controls over the underground injection of wastes. RCRA also authorizes regulation of hazardous waste disposal by

injection into or onto the land or waters so that

wastes might enter the environment. Because

of this overlapping jurisdiction, EPA has

promulgated a permit-by-rule approach for injection wells in the RCRA subtitle C program.

The owner or operator of an injection well

disposing of hazardous waste will be deemed

to have a RCRA permit if he: 1) obtains and

complies with UIC permit, and 2) complies

with special requirements under SDWA for

wells injecting hazardous waste.

In general, the UIC program requires that

high-risk types of wells must be authorized by

permits before they may be operated, while

lower-risk wells may be operated without individual permits under general rules. Where

needed, UIC permits impose both technological and administrative requirements on well

operators. UIC permit conditions generally

cover construction, operation, monitoring, reporting, special corrective actions, well abandonment, Government access to operator records and facilities, and provisions for permit

review, modification, and termination.

SDWA also contains an important provision

for protection of aquifers that supply drinking

water. SDWA prevents the use of Federal assistance for purposes that could endanger irreplaceable drinking water supplies. It applies

IWT F.R. 4,gg2, Feb. 3, 1982; to be codified at 40 CFR part 146.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 325

where EPA (on its own initiative or on receiving a petition from the affected community) determines that an area has an aquifer which is

its sole or principal drinking water source .113

If contamination of such an aquifer will cause

a significant health hazard, EPA may delay or

stop commitment of Federal assistance for any

projects or activities that could cause such contamination. By 1980, seven “sole source aquifers” had been designated.

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972 (MPRSA) 114

Enacted to implement international treaty

obligations restricting ocean dumping, MPRSA

has the purpose of preventing or severely limiting the ocean dumping of any material that

would adversely affect human health, welfare,

or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological system, or economic potentialities.

Practically, the act requires stopping all “harmful dumping” in the oceans by 1981. The critical phrase “harmful dumping” is defined as the

dumping of wastes that do not meet certain environmental impact criteria;115 such wastes are

likely to include all hazardous wastes as defined under RCRA. A 1977 amendment to the

act specifies that the ocean dumping of sewage

sludge must cease by 1981.

MPRSA directs EPA and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (subject to EPA review) to

administer permit systems to control dumping.

The permit responsibilities of the Corps are

limited to dumping of dredged materials.

The ocean dumping of municipal sewage

sludge increased between 1973 and 1978,

possibly reflecting implementation of CWA

and the resulting growth in the generation of

sludge. Ocean dumping of industrial wastes

declined during the same period, but increased

pressure to allow more such dumping might

be expected following implementation of the

full RCRA regulatory scheme. (See discussion

of ocean dumping in ch. 5.)

11342 u.sc. sooh-s, Regulations are found at 40 CFR 1464

(1982).

11433 u.s.c. 1401 et seq.

Ils40 cFR 227, subpart B (1982).

Clean Air Act (CAA)116

CAA requires EPA to establish national ambient air quality goals designed to protect

public health and welfare, and to take action

(if State and local governments will not) to see

that the goals are met. For the major pollutants

(currently including sulfur dioxide, carbon

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, particulate, ozone, and lead), the

EPA has set primary and secondary National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The

primary standards are designed to protect

public health (with an adequate margin of safety from adverse health effects). Secondary

standards designed to protect public welfare

such as protection of plants and animals, buildings and materials, and visibility from the

adverse affects of pollutants have also been

established. The States are required to submit

State implementation plans with emission limitations and other measures necessary to

achieve and maintain the NAAQS within the

deadlines established by Congress. If a State

either does not submit a plan or does not

receive EPA’s approval of its plan, EPA itself

is required to take the necessary actions to attain and maintain the standards in that State.

CAA provides for the establishment of national emission standards applicable to certain

major new and modified industrial sources.

The States are required to establish emission

standards applicable to existing industrial

sources. In areas that do not meet one or more

of the NAAQS (nonattainment areas), and in

areas subject to nondegradation controls,

major stationary sources must obtain a permit

and must meet stringent new source performance standards.

Section 112 of the act provides for the establishment of national emission standards for

“hazardous air pollutants” for which there is

no applicable ambient air quality standard.117

EPA may designate as “hazardous” any pollutant which “may cause, or contribute to, an

increase in mortality or serious irreversible, or

1N342 U. S.C. 7401 et seq.

1]742 U.S. C. 7412.
326 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

incapacitating reversible, illness. ” Within 1

year of listing a hazardous pollutant, EPA is

to issue standards for controlling hazardous

pollutant emissions. The resulting standards

must provide an “ample margin of safety to

protect the public health. ” Where an emission

standard is not feasible, EPA may prescribe a

design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard.

For stationary sources about to be built or

modified, hazardous pollutant standards become effective immediately upon proposal.

EPA has the authority to prohibit the construction or modification of any source that will not

comply with promulgated standards. Existing

sources must comply within 90 days of promulgation of final standards unless a waiver

is granted.

To date, EPA has listed and set final standards under section 112 for four substances:

beryllium, mercury, asbestos, and vinyl chloride (see table 61). 116 Three other substances

have been listed as hazardous, but final standards have not yet been issued: for benzene,

standards have been proposed; for arsenic,

they are under development; and for radionuclides they are under consideration. EPA

has been sued for its failure to meet the l-year

deadline for promulgating standards for these

substances. Among other pollutants that have

been considered for listing under section 112

are: coke oven emissions, polycyclic organic

matter, cadmium, ethylene dichloride, perchloroethylene, acrylonitrile, methylene

chloride, methyl chloroform, toluene, and trichloroethylene. 119 

“840 CFR Part 61.

llgIn lg79, EPA proposed a general methodology which was

intended for use in identifying, assessing, and regulating

suspected carcinogens that are emitted from stationary sources.

The proposal includes the listing under section 112 of any air

pollutant determined to present a significant carcinogenic risk

to human health as the result of emissions from one or more

categories of stationary sources. This listing would be accompanied, when applicable, by the proposing of generic emission

standards for source categories producing or handling significant quantities of the substance. Final standards would, at a

minimum, require sources to use best available technology to

reduce emissions, as well as additional measures (including the

closure of certain sources) as necessary to reduce any remaining risk deemed to be unreasonable. Further action on the airborne carcinogen policy has been deferred by EPA. 44 F.R.

58,642, Oct. 10, 1979.

Table 61 .—Hazardous Air Pollutants Under

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

Regulation

Listed pollutants Major source categories status

Status of toxic air pollutants regulation

Asbestos Mills, manufacturing, Promulgated

demolition

Beryllium Extraction plants, foundries, Promulgated

machine shops

Mercury Smelters, chlor.alkali, sludge Promulgated

incineration

Vinyl chloride Manufacture, polymerization Promulgated

Benzene a Chemicals and petroleum Proposed

Arsenic b

Copper smelter Under

development

Radionuclides c

Uranium mines, phosphoric Under

acid plants consideration d

Chemicals under assessment

Acetaldehyde Hexachlorocyc opentadiene

Acrolein Maleic anhydride

Acrylonitrile Manganese

Allyl chloride Methyl chloroform

Benzyl chloride (1,1,1 trichloroethane)

Beryllium Methylene chlcride

Cadmium (dichloronmethane)

Carbon tetrachloride Nickel

Chlorobenzene Nitrobenzene

Chloroform Nitrosomorpholine

Chloroprene Perchloroethylone

Coke oven emissions Phenol

o-, m-, p- cresol Phosgene

p-Dichlorobenzene Polychlorinatecl biphenyls

Dimethyl nitrosamine Proplyene oxide

Dioxin Toluene

Epichlorohydrin Trichloroethylene

Ethylene dichloride Vinylidene chloride

Ethylene oxide o-, m-, p-xylene

Formaldehyde

a No standards Yet issued.

bNo standards yet issued. EPA has been sued for failure to PromulrJate standards

within statutory deadline, Settlement in ne[]otiation.

CNo standards yet issued. EPA was sued by tho Sierra Club (and others) for failure

to promulgate standards within statutory period EPA now under court order

to issue proposed rules

dsources to be regulated not Yet determinecl.

SOURCE: Flearhgs orr Oversight ofl the C/can ,4ir Act, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 97th Cong., 1st sess., June 1981, pp

580-581

Air pollutants from hazardous waste facilities—or from the burning of hazardous waste

for energy recovery-might in principle be controlled under either section 112 of CAA or subtitle C of RCRA. However, the pollutant-bypollutant approach under CAA is cumbersome.

Only a few pollutants have been listed and

standards have been established for only a very

narrow group of facilities. The RCRA program

is better suited for the control of pollutants

from hazardous waste TSDFS, while other specific airborne hazardous pollutants generated

in a range of industrial processes might be

more readily controlled using section 112

standards.

Air pollution controls have themselves resulted in some increase in the generation of
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 327

hazardous waste. However, as mentioned elsewhere, fly ash waste and flue gas emission control waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels have temporarily been excluded from regulation under

subtitle C of RCRA, pending completion of

studies required by 1980 RCRA amendments.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

of 1977 (S MC RA)120

SMCRA establishes a nationwide program to

protect society and the environment from the

adverse effects of coal mining. Regulations

issued under the act by the Department of the

Interior cover three major areas:

performance standards for protection of

the environment and public health and

safety, permit applications, and bonding

requirements for surface coal mining and

reclamation operations;

procedures for preparation, submission,

and approval of State programs to control

mining and reclamation; and

development and implementation of a Federal program for any State that does not

develop an acceptable program.

The surface mining regulatory program includes standards and requirements for protection of surface and ground waters from contamination from mining wastes and overburden. Section 1OO6(C) of RCRA provides for

integration between RCRA and SMCRA in

controlling solid and hazardous wastes and requires consultation between EPA and the Department of the Interior on the adequacy of

these rules. l2l The Secretary of the Interior is

given exclusive responsibility for carrying out

the requirements of RCRA subtitle C with respect to coal mining wastes or overburden for

which a permit under SMCRA has been issued

or approved. Section 3005(f) of RCRA states

that a permit issued or approved under

SMCRA covering any coal mining wastes or

overburden shall be deemed to be a treatment,

storage, and disposal permit issued under

RCRA.

122 Subtitle C regulations are not be applicable to the treatment, storage, or disposal

of coal mining wastes and overburden covered

by such a permit.

Nonregulatory Approaches and Technical Support

RCRA and other laws contain nonregulatory

provisions (i. e., which do not directly require

compliance with standards or controls) that are

intended to influence hazardous waste management activities by State and local governments and the private sector. These provisions

include direct or indirect incentives to adopt

State programs or to develop alternative hazardous waste management practices. Among

the existing provisions are those that provide

for financial and technical assistance to States,

information distribution, research and development activities, and interstate cooperation.

Although, RCRA authorizes a broad range of

non-regulatory activities that could promote

the adoption of better waste management strategies by State and private industry, these measures have been largeley ineffective due to lack

of adequate funding and/or failure of implementation by Executive agencies.

Interstate Cooperation .—Section 1005 of

RCRA

123 allows two or more States to establish

agreements or compacts, not in conflict with

any U.S. law or treaty, for cooperative effort

and mutual assistance in the management of

solids and/or hazardous waste. These regional

compacts allow States to plan for regional

waste needs and develop consistent regulatory

policies.

Guidelines for Solid Waste Management.–Section

1008124 of RCRA requires the EPA Administrator to develop and publish suggested guidelines

for solid waste management which will establish criteria for defining solid waste and will

provide a technical and economic description

of the level of performance in protecting health

l~opub]ic Law 95-87, 91 Stat. 445, Aug. 3, 1977; 30 U.S. C. 1201

et seq.

U142 U.S.C. 9605, as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act

Amendments of 1980, Public Law 96-482, sec. 2, 94 Stat. 2334.

M142 U.S. C. 9625(fl, as amended by Public Law 96-482, sec.

11, 94 Stat. 2338.

12342 U.S. C. 6904.

12442 USC, 5907,
328 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

and the environment attainable by available

solid waste management practices.

Where appropriate, the guidelines are also

to include information for use in deciding the

adequate location, design, and construction of

solid waste management facilities, including

consideration of regional, geographic, demographic, and climatic factors.

Several solid waste guidelines were issued

by EPA under section 209 of SWDA before passage of RCRA.125 Since then, EPA’s guidelinewriting under RCRA section 1008 has been

minimal. The minimum criteria for use in

defining practices that constitute open dumping were issued not as a separate guideline

document but rather in combination with criteria for classifying facilities as sanitary landfills or open dumps, required by section 4004(a)”

of RCRA.

126

Section 6004 of RCRA provides that any

guidelines issued under section 1008 are binding on executive agencies and units of the legislative branch of the Federal Government. 127

Financial Assistance.–Section 3011 of RCRA

authorizes Federal grants to assist the States

in the development and implementation of hazardous waste management programs. i28 E P A

has determined that these grants are also available for States with partial authorization or

cooperative arrangements. Hazardous waste

grants have steadily increased as shown in

table 7 in the following section. Because the

subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory program

has only recently been promulgated in reasonably complete and final form, and because the

development, final authorization, and implementation of State hazardous waste programs entail a major effort yet to be completed,

EPA has been widely criticized for failing to

request or provide sufficient financial assistance to the States at a time when their regulatory responsibilities under RCRA will increase

dramatically. EPA has recently suggested that

Izspub]ic Law 89-272, 79 Stat. 997 (1965].

1m42 USC, 6944,

1Z742 U.S. C, 6931,

12042 U,S,C. 6931+

the State grants program be phased out and

that States finance their regulatory programs

through increased fees and State appropriations .

l29

Under section 3012,129 grants may be made

to the States for a continuing program to inventory active and inactive hazardous waste

sites. In fiscal year 1983, Congress appropriated $10 million from Superfund to carry

out this program. EPA had not previously requested such funds.

Under subtitle D, section 2007, 4007, and

4008 of RCRA provide for EPA to grant financial assistance to States and sub-State agencies

for the purpose of developing and implementing their solid waste plans. 130

Under section 4008(a)(2)(A), financial assistance may be provided for facility planning and

feasibility studies; expert consultation; technology assessments; legal expenses; construction feasibility studies; and fiscal or economic

investigations or studies, but it may not include

construction or land aquisition.l3l Applicants

for such assistance must agree to comply (with

respect to the project or program assisted) with

the requirement under section 4005 for the

closing or upgrading of open dumps and with

the requirements of the subtitle C hazardous

waste program, as well as agreeing to apply

practices, methods, and levels of control consistent with any guidelines issued under section 1008. 132

Provisions for financial assistance under subtitle D generally emphasize support for resource conservation and recovery; indeed, assistance provided under section 4008(a)(3) is

restricted to uses related to energy and mate1z94z u,s. c. Ggss, as arnerlded by Public Law 96482, sec. IT,

94 Stat. 2344 (1980).

l~osection Z007, as arnerlded, prov]des for general authorizations for appropriations for RCRA implementation and provides

that specified shares are to be allocated to the Resource Recovery

and Conservation Panels, (ZO percent or $5 million), to the Hazardous Waste Regulatory Program (:30 percent, excluding sec.

SO1l grants to States); and to sec. AOOB programs for State, local,

and regional agencies resource and material conservation and

recovery programs and State solid waste plans (25 percent of

total appropriated for sec. 4008 programs). 1s14z U.soc. 6848,

1s242 u.s.c. 6945,
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 329

rials conservation and recovery as described

in section 4003(b) (1).133 The primary emphasis

is on conservation and recovery in relation to

municipal waste, but section 4003(b)(2) refers

also to “other sources of solid waste from

which energy and materials may be recovered

or minimized” which could, in principle, include hazardous waste.

In practice, EPA provided grants under subtitle D (including grants specifically in support

of resource recovery) totaling $27,910,000 in

fiscal year 1980 and $12,936,000 in fiscal year

1981. However, these grants were phased out

at the end of fiscal year 1981, although recipients were permitted to spend in fiscal year

1982 any money that previously had been allocated but remained unspent. The phaseout left

States without Federal support for, among

other things, continued solid waste planning

and continued preparation of the inventory of

open dumps, as well as for plan implementation.

Technical Assistance .—Under subtitle D, section

4008(d) authorizes EPA to provide technical assistance to State and local governments for developing and implementing State plans. l34

Technical assistance on resource conservation

and recovery (in practice, largely applied to

municipal waste) may be provided through

“Resource Recovery and Conservation Panels. ” These are teams of personnel, including

Federal, State, and local employees or contractors who supply assistance at no charge to

States and local governments. 135

The delivery of technical assistance was

funded at the level of $4,304,000 in fiscal year

1980 and $3,198,000 in fiscal year 1981 but was

eliminated in fiscal year 1982 EPA budget.

RCRA also directed the Department of Commerce to provide technical support to encourage the commercialization of proven technologies for resource conservation and recovery.

The National Bureau of Standards was directed

to publish guidelines for specifications for

classifying materials recovered from wastes.

IW42 U.S. C. 6943(%)(1).

1

3442 U.S. C. 6948(d).

13542 USC. 6913.

The Department of Energy was given the responsibility for R&D programs for recovery of

synthetic fuels from solid wastes. EPA was

directed to coordinate and consult with DOE

on other energy related solid waste programs.

Research and Development.—Subtitle H, section

8001, of RCRA authorizes EPA to conduct or

assist others in conducting research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations,

surveys, public education programs, and studies on various aspects of solid and hazardous

waste management.

l36 Among the possible

areas for research and development activities

authorized under this section are: adverse

health and environmental effects of solid and

hazardous waste, financing and operation of

waste management programs, development of

solid and hazardous waste management technologies, resource conservation and recycling

technologies, and waste reduction techniques,

Section 8002 directs the EPA Administrator

to carry out a number of special studies including an assessment of the adverse environmental effects of solid waste from surface and

underground mines and the generation and

management of sludge, 137 Section 8002 also

describes the study required under the 1980

amendments to section 3001 for an assessment

of environmental and health effects of disposal

of hazardous waste from oil, gas, and geothermal energy expiration, development and production, from burning of coal and fossil fuels,

from mining and processing of ores and minerals, and from cement kiln dust.

Other agencies also carry out related R&D activities, such as the National Institute of Health

(screening and testing of carcinogenic, mutagenic, terotogenic effects of chemicals), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (protection of health and safety

of employees working in both industrial and

cleanup environments). The National Science

Foundation has in the past funded major R&D

projects related to toxic chemicals and hazardous waste management.

13642 U,s.c, 6981.

13742 U.S. C. 6982.

99-113 0 - 83 - 22
330 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

EPA Research Activities in Hazardous Waste

All research activities within EPA are the responsibility of the Office of Research and Development (ORD).138 ORD has defined the following five objectives to provide support to the

RCRA hazardous waste program:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Waste analysis and characterization: development of analytical methods and procedures for the detection and identification of substances, development of monitoring guidelines, and a quality assurance

program for development and enforcement of regulations.

Control technology: assessment of disposal and treatment technologies, development and evaluation of technologies for remedial actions, and assistance of the Office of Solid Waste in reviewing permit applications.

Risk assessment: development of data and

methodologies for determining risks to

human health and environment.

Spills response: development of methods

and guidelines to provide quick response

to emergency spills,

Long-term research: investigation of advanced technologies.

Since 1981, there has been a significant shift

of emphasis within ORD from longer term research projects (e. g., studies of the effects of

chemicals and new process developments) to

programs which directly support the promulgation of regulations. Some 15 to 20 percent of

ORD’S total budget is set aside for exploratory

research projects; however, little of a truly exploratory or long-range nature is being done

even in this portion of the program.

OTA has reviewed current research projects

planned for completion by 1986 (see table 62).

Major emphasis has been placed on risk assessments and analytical methods for detection and

measurement of specific chemicals. The control technologies emphasized are landfills and

land treatments. Research plans for incineral~lnforrnation on research activities Of EPWORD was Obtained

by OTA from ORD in spring-summer of 1982 and from EPA’s

fiscal year 1983 Budget Justification.

tion focus on the development of performance

standards for hazardous waste incinerators,

not the improvement in incinerator technology.

The investigation of new treatment technologies has been omitted even in the long-term

research strategy planning.

ORD’S research in support of the toxic substances program under TSCA and the Superfund program under CERCLA may also contribute to the management of’ hazardous waste,

Again, the emphasis appears to have shifted

toward relatively short-term research directed

at problems of immediate regulatory concern.

Collection and Dissemination of lnformation.–

Under subtitle H, section 8003 of RCRA directs

the EPA Administrator to develop, collect,

evaluate, and coordinate information on a

variety of aspects of solid and hazardous waste

management.

l39 A program for the rapid dissemination of information on solid waste management, hazardous waste management, resource conservation, and methods of resource

recovery from solid waste is to be implemented.

The Administrator is also directed to establish and maintain a central reference library.

Information in this library, to the extent practicable, is to be collated, analyzed, verified, and

published, and made available to State and

local governments and other persons. Additionally, the Administrator is to develop and

publish a model cost and revenue accounting

system, and to recommend model codes, ordinances, and statutes providing for sound solid

waste management,

Until 1981, EPA maintained a solid waste

technical information service in Cincinnati,

Ohio, which distributed free copies of EPA

solid waste reports. Relatively technical documents (e. g., EPA contractors’ reports) were

frequently omitted from this collection but

could be obtained for a charge from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

The service in Cincinnati has been discontinued, and only a very small number of copies

of EPA reports are typically made available by

13942 u,S.C, 6983 ,
Table 62.—Research Projects Planned by ORD in Support of Hazardous Waste Management Program

Risk assessment Control technology Waste analysis Long-term research Spills response

● Integrate existind risk assessment

methods into guidelines

● Develop predictive methods for

assessing health and environmental

impacts of specific chemicals

● Develop biological methods for

predicting health impacts

● Develop and standardize bioassay

methods for predicting impacts of

waste

● Develop processes for listing/delisting waste and mixtures using health

impacts, environmental impacts,

and mobility data

● Develop models for screenIng chemicals for predicting human exposure

● Develop data and methodology for

estimating health and environmental

impacts resulting from exposure to

levels of hazardous waste

● Develop methods for predicting

ground water impacts of pollutants

released from landfills

● Develop data and methodology for

determining likelihood of harm resulting from existing landfill facility

● Develop predictive methods for

assessing effects of technologies,

environments, and waste streams

. Develop data and methodology for

estimating impacts from ocean

disposal

. Develop methods for site selection

of ocean disposal

● Assess hazards for specific chemicals for use by permitting programs

. Assess health effects and risks of

specific sites in support of permits

● Develop guidelines for site evaluation based on pollutant migration

for use in permitting

● Predict health effects for use i n

regulatory impact analysis

● Evaluate risk assessments for use

in RIA for land disposal regulations

● Develop data and methodology for

estimating health impacts of exposure to various chemicals

● Develop improved methods for

predicting long-term environmental

effects of landfills

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

• Develop desruction

and control efficiency

data for incineration,

landfill, and land

treatment

Ž Develop data on

integrity of liners

● Identify and evaluate

on cost basis technologies for controlling

releases of waste from

TSDFS

● Identify technologies

for ocean incineration

● Develop data and

methodology for land

treatment

● Prepare guidance manuals for design and

performance standards

for disposal or treatment

● Develop guidance manuals for use by permitting agencies in control capabilities of

disposal and treatment

technologies

● Develop models for

estimating Iifecycle

costs of alternative

disposal technologies

. Refining extraction procedures using

waste for integration of effects and

water quality data

● Improve analytical methods for

detection of chemicals

● Improve dioxin detection methods

● Standardize waste characteristic

methods for impact analysis

● Develop data base for waste mixtures

● Provide quality control procedures

for automated analytical systems

for regulatory application

● Develop monitoring and analysis

methods for quality assurance of

disposal facilities

. Issue guidelines for post-closure

monitoring of land disposal sites

● Complete economic analysis of

alternatives to ground water

monitoring for land disposal

● Develop procedures for determining

when Superfund should be used for

monitoring and maintenance

. Prepare manuals for long-term

monitoring of disposal sites

● Develop criteria for qualification of

sites for Superfund

● Develop methodologies for screening waste for enforcement actions

● Develop biological methods for

demonstrating releases from

disposal facilities

● Develop methods for estimating

costs of long-term monitoring of

disposal facilities

● Focus on waste stream

mixtures:

—determine environmental and health

impacts and

—treatment and monitoring techniques

• Develop new detecting

methods, particularly

subsurface pollutants

● Destruction and recovery of organics

Ž Impacts of reactive and

corrosive waste in land

treatment facilities

● Definition of characteristics which are vulnerable to irreversible

damage as result of

exposure to chemicals

● Focus on persistence

and fate of chemicals

i n environ merit —biodegradation rates of

waste to form basis of

monitoring guidelines

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

•

●

Develop procedures to determine

health and environmental effects

due to spills of chemicals

Document impacts of chemicals

used in treatment of spills, such as

neutralizing agents

Develop methods to measure effects

of spills on crops and animals

Develop data to correlate responses

of aquatic organisms to toxic substances with human health effect data

Develop computer model for predicting toxicity of mixtures

Develop computer model to predict

environmental impacts of spills

Develop environmental tests for estimating hazards of spilled materials

Prepare prevention, control, and compliance studies of new techniques

for handling spills

Maintain emergency response capability for sampling, analysis, and

remote monitoring

Develop manuals for response teams
332 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

the agency itself. The apparent intention is for

most reports to be distributed in the future

through NTIS which, for some users, represents a significant increase in acquisition cost

and a considerable reduction in convenience

and ease of access to the reports.

Full-Scale Demonstration Facilities.—Under subtitle H, section 8004 of RCRA authorizes the

EPA Administrator to enter into contracts or

provide financial support for the construction

of full-scale demonstration facilities where certain conditions are met (e.g., that the facility

will demonstrate a significant improvement in

a technology or process, and that it would not

receive adequate support from other sources).140

No use has yet been made of this provision for

the construction of demonstration facilities for

hazardous waste management technologies.

Federal, State, and Private Compliance Cost

for the Current Hazardous Waste

Management Program

Introduction

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,

which establishes a comprehensive hazardous

waste management program, reflects the congressional belief that the benefits of the program will exceed the costs of implementation.

RCRA does not call for a balancing of costs and

benefits in regulatory decisions involving

hazardous wastes. Quantitative estimates of the

expected benefits, resulting from the increased

level of protection of human health and the environment from damages due to the mismanagement of hazardous wastes, are not available.

However, some information is available on the

costs, and this chapter provides a summary of

the estimates that have been made, EPA estimates focus on the potential incremental costs

(i.e., those directly attributable to compliance

with RCRA regulations) as opposed to those attributable to independent or pre-RCRA efforts.

(There are also costs incurred for the CERCLA

program; however, these are not generally considered as “regulatory” compliance costs,) Esti1w42 u-sect 6984,

mates of industrial compliance costs and Federal and State administrative costs are summarized in the following sections. A final section

presents total national costs associated with all

hazardous waste activities.

Industrial Compliance Costs

The Hazardous Waste Services Industry .—One

measure of the impact of complying with government regulations is the amount of money

spent by the private sector to manage hazardous wastes. This can be roughly estimated by

a two-step analysis. First, the sales are obtained

for those firms providing treatment, storage,

and disposal services at offsite, commercial

facilities. Second, the ratio of offsite to onsite

(i.e., generator) management of hazardous

waste is estimated. Using this ratio and assuming that noncommercial facilities have approximately the same level of costs per tonne of

waste, the onsite or generator management

costs are derived. Total costs to waste generators are then estimated by combining commercial and noncommercial waste management costs,

Two studies are available for obtaining the

sales of the commercial waste management industry. The summary data from these studies,

including projections to 1990, are given in table

63.

The analysis by A. D. Little was based on

1981 revenues from hazardous waste activities

for three categories of firms: 1) 9 full service,

nationally oriented firms with a subtotal of

Table 63.—Characteristics of the Commercial Off site

Hazardous Waste Management Industry

A, D, Littlea Frost & Sullivanb

1981 1990 1980 1990

Total hazardous waste generated

(millions of metric tons) . . . . . . 43(; 56 60 85

Proportion of waste managed off site

(percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 80 15 15-25

Average treatment/disposal price

(1981 dollars/metric ton) ... ... .. .$100 $200 – –

Estimated industry revenues

(billions of 1981 or 1980 dollars). . $0.9 $9 $0.5 $2.5

SOURCES: aJoan B, Berkowitz, “Outlook for the I+azardous Waste Management

Services Industv,” September 1982’, draft from A, D, Little.

bFrost & Sullivan, “Hazardous Waste tJarket —Handling, storage and

Disposal,” February 1981, CFrom EPA, December 19~.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 333

$301 million; 2) 222 regionally or locally oriented firms usually specializing in a limited

range of services with a subtotal of $179 million to $277 million; and 3)’’unpermitted”

firms* with a subtotal of $3OO million to $4O O

million, A. D. Little’s projections from 1981 to

1990 are based on an assumed annual growth

rate of 3 percent for hazardous waste generation (noting that the EPA estimate for 1981 may

be low), which is acknowledged to be conservative. Offsite management is assumed to

change from 20 percent at present to 80 percent of the total amount of waste in 1990; it is

acknowledged that this projection may be high.

The average price is assumed to double from

about $100/tonne in 1981 as landfill capacities

decline and regulatory actions force the use of

more costly options such as incineration and

chemical treatment. The increase in total sales

from $900 million in 1981 to $9 billion in 1990

corresponds to an average annual growth rate

of 29 percent.

The second study by Frost and Sullivan analyzes the 1980 revenues of seven large nationaltype firms and presents an extrapolation to all

of the commercial waste management firms,

a projection to 1990 assuming a growth rate

of 20—25 percent per year in revenues, an estimate for waste generation in both 1980 and

1990, and a modest increase in the fraction of

waste managed off site.

The results of both studies for current spending for offsite, commercial hazardous waste

management are in relatively good agreement.

They indicate that the total amount spent in

1980 and 1981 for both onsite and offsite hazardous waste management was probably in the

range of $4 billion to $5 billion annually (in current dollars). * * These figures, although approximate, are probably low for two reasons. Significant funds are also spent by the private sector on technical consulting and analytical services, but exact figures for these costs are not

● It is presumed that these unpermitted firms include a large

number of facilities that are generally exempted from RCRA

regulation such as recycling operations.

● ● The A. D, Little study indicates $4,5 billion for 1981, and the

Frost-Sullivan study indicates $3 billion for 1980, using their figures for revenues and their fractions of offsite management of

0.2 and 0.15, respectively.

available. Also, spending on transportation

services have not been determined exactly.

However, exclusion of these two cost areas

may balance the potential for overestimating

in the procedure used here. Assuming that onsite management costs are equal to offsite costs

probably overestimates total costs, as onsite

management is generally understood to be less

costly. This results from two factors: 1) onsite

efforts generally manage wastes requiring the

least costs; and 2) there are more economy-ofscale savings for large onsite activities which

often deal with fewer wastes than offsite

facilities.

The projections to 1990 with regard to the

fraction of the total amount of waste managed

offsite are also subject to some uncertainty.

However, both studies indicate a similar level

of total spending for offsite and onsite hazardous waste management in 1990. The A. D. Little study indicates $11 billion and the Frost and

Sullivan indicates $12.5 billion (not adjusting

for inflation).

To put these total present and projected levels of industry spending into some perspective,

hazardous waste management costs represent

about 1 to 2 percent of total annual sales for

the chemical and allied products industry,

assuming that about 50 percent of all hazardous wastes are generated by this industry,

which has generally been found to be the case.

Naturally, this percentage will vary significantly among different industries.

EPA Estimates.—This section provides available estimates of the costs to the private sector of complying with the RCRA Subtitle C regulations, based on analyses prepared for EPA

in support of the promulgation of these regulations. The analyses cover the expected costs

of compliance with the interim status standards, with the interim final design and operation standards for land disposal facilities, and

with the financial responsibility requirements

for hazardous waste facilities. Cost estimates

are not yet available for some of the facility permit standards either because they have not yet

been promulgated or because cost analyses

have not been completed. Consequently, published data are necessarily incomplete and do
334 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

not reflect the total compliance costs for the

RCRA regulations.

Although OTA attempted to locate alternative (non-EPA) estimates for purposes of

comparison and validation, these efforts

proved unsuccessful. An examination of three

of the best known annual surveys of industrial

expenditures on pollution control (conducted

by McGraw-Hill, the Bureau of Economic

Analysis, and the Bureau of the Census) did not

yield useful comparisons because some unknown portion of the reported expenditures are

attributable to solid waste activities and not to

hazardous waste regulatory compliance costs.

It is important to emphasize that the absence

of data comparable to the EPA cost analyses

inhibits any direct empirical validation of the

EPA results.

The costs of complying with the subtitle C

regulations will be incurred at various times

during the remaining lifetime of the facilities

involved and, in some cases, after closure. To

simplify comparisons, EPA has “annualized”

its cost estimates by presenting them in the

form of “annual revenue requirements, ” signifying the annual revenues that facilities

would have to obtain in equal installments over

a 20-year period to offset the costs of compliance. For annualizing each facility is assumed to have a remaining life of 20 years,

although costs associated with the financial requirements are taken into account over a

50-year period.

Table 64 provides a summary of EPA’s estimates of total annualized compliance costs for

implementation of the various sections of

RCRA. As mentioned above, these estimates

are incomplete since they do not cover all of

the anticipated Phase II regulations. Nevertheless, it can be seen from the table that the costs

of complying with the performance standards

for the owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (under RCRA sec.

3004) are expected to be significantly greater

than the costs associated with other RCRA sections. These other sections (providing mostly

for general operations such as manifest preparation, waste analysis, recordkeeping, etc.) are

Table 64.—EPA Estimates of Annualized RCRA

Compliance Costs by Subtitle C Section

(in millions of 1981 dollars)

Section Annualized cost

3001-identification and listing . . . . . . . . . . $68.6

3002-generator standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.5

3003-transporter standards . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6

3004 -TSDF owners and operators. . . . . . 916.2 -1,832.7

3005-permit requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . $1,045 .8-$1,962.3

SOURCES: Environmental Law Institute, “Cost:] of Implementing Subtitle C of

the Resource Consewation and Recovery Act,” OTA Working Paper,

October 1982; and A. D Little, Ecortomrlc Impact Ana/ysis of RCRA

h?terirn Status Standards, 1981.

a relatively minor portion of the total costs of

compliance. EPA analyses indicated that the

most significant cost impacts of the ISS regulations for land disposal facilities were for the

installation of ground water monitoring systems (an average of $23,000) and for closure

and post-closure costs, Only ground water

monitoring involves substantial immediate expenditures for existing facilities.

Compliance Costs for Land Disposal Facilities

The costs of complying with RCRA section

3004 requirements can be subdivided into the

costs associated with the interim status standards and those associated with the final (Phase

II) standards. Table 65 summarizes EPA’s estimates of the total incremental annualized

costs of meeting the Phase II requirements for

land disposal facilities. The estimates compare

Phase II incremental compliance costs with

baseline pre-ISS costs for landfills and surface

impoundments (e.g., land acquisition, excavation, and infrastructure costs) and ISS costs for

all land disposal facilities. The table includes

low and high estimates for the Phase II incremental costs, based on differing assumptions

about the installation of liners, the occurrence

of leaks, and the need for corrective action.

EPA estimated the total annualized incremental costs of complying with the interim

status standards for land disposal facilities at

$341 million. Implementation of the part 264

permitting standards would, according to EPA

estimates, impose additional annual revenue

requirements of $150 million to $1,145 million

depending on the need for corrective action.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 335

Table 65.—Total Annual Revenue Requirements for Part 264 Regulations

(millions of current dollars)

Compliance requirements for Base linea Incremental Part 264

existing facilities (pre-lSS & ISS) Low estimateb High estimate

c

Landfills (design and operating (D&O)

requirements) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface impoundments D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Adjustment for landfilled materials)f 

. . . . . .

Waste piles D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Adjustment for Iandfilled materials)f 

. . . .

Land treatment D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total D&O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corrective action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

$301d

534e

(190)

169

( 1 0

702

702

81

102

(57)

(3)

20

150

150

159

401

(118)

12

(6)

20

468

677

1,145

aBasell ne costs Include pre.lSS costs such as land acquisition, excavation, and tnfrast ructure expenses incurred (n establ Ish Ing

a land d Isposal faci I ity and 1SS compliance costs Imposed under May 1980 regulations Including CIOSU re and post-closure

care, ground water monitoring, and financial responsibility requirements Approximately 72 percent of the $341 mlllton ISS

costs included In the basellne are att rl butable to closure ($82 m ill!on), post. closure ($40 m!ll!on), ground water mon Itorl ng

($42 milllon), and f!nanclal assurance ($82 million) requirements Baseline costs Include est!mated pre-lSS costs for iandfllls

and surface Impoundments on Iy

b

Low estimate assumes installation of single synthetic I!ners at landfills and replacement of containment system for waste

piles to avoid ground water monitoring requirements No faclllttes leak, therefore, no corrective action required

Ctilgh CO st est!mate assumes I nstallatlon of double synt het IC I triers at Iandfllls, closure of al I existing surface Impoundments

and replacement t WI th new i m poundment with double synt hetlc I i ner Al I facll!t!es i mediately begin to leak and require extensive counterpumping corrective action for 150 years

‘Includes $181 mlllton in pre-lSS costs for landfills

elncludes$180 mllllon In pre.l SS for surface impoundments

f

Some materials, sludges, and residues from surface impoundments and waste piles are eventually sent to land d{sposal facllltles

Adjustment to total IS made to avoid double counting of compliance cost of Iandfilllng of materials from these facilities

gpre.fss costs not available for waste Piles

h Pre-lSS costs not avaliable for land treatment facilities

SOURCE 47 F R 32,338 JUIY 26 1982

EPA analyses of compliance costs of RCRA

regulations use a number of key assumptions

that can significantly affect the results,

including:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

the use of unit cost data;

the annualizing process;

the ratio of onsite and offsite disposal;

the number of facilities incurring compliance costs;

the costs incurred by new facilities;

ground water protection and the need for

corrective action; and

the rate of permitting and the timing of

compliance.

1. The use of unit cost data.—EPA’s analyses

are based on unit “engineering” costs. Hazardous waste facilities differ widely depending on

their particular characteristics. However, it is

common in EPA cost analyses to use model

plants that represent the average range of

facilities in the relevant universe. Once these

models have been specified, compliance costs

for each are based on the costs of unit operations. This approach usually leads to an overestimate of actual costs since it fails to allow

for technological changes and innovative regulatory responses that tend to lower average

costs in practice.

2. The annualizing process.—The annualizing process assumes a 7-percent inflation rate

in calculating future costs, and then uses a

lo-percent discount rate in discounting these

costs back to the present; thus, a “real” discount rate of 3 percent is used. No justification for this choice of discount rate has been

offered, nor is any analysis presented on the

sensitivity of resulting cost estimates to the discount rate selected.

3. The ratio of onsite to offsite disposal.—

EPA’s analyses make an arbitrary allocation between onsite and offsite disposal based on an

estimate of the volumes below which it might

be considered uneconomical to dispose onsite.

For this purpose, an assumption about the cost

of offsite disposal is necessary. This ratio does

not reflect the influence of other, noneconomic

considerations, such as liability, type of waste,

or age of the facility, in the onsite/offsite deci-
336 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

sion, This assumption could tend to indicate

higher total offsite disposal costs and lower

total onsite disposal costs.

4. The number of facilities incurring compliance costs.—EPA calculated the design and

operating compliance costs only for the 5,662

existing land disposal units that submitted part

A applications including:

●

●

●

●

573 landfills with 12 million tonnes per

year capacity;

4,240 surface impoundments with 11,169

acres surface area;

608 waste piles with 87 million cubic feet

of waste;

241 land treatment units with 12,100 acres

of operating area.

According to EPA, this will overstate the number of facilities that will actually incur compliance costs as some will close before permitting, and some facilities include several types

of units within a single operation and will

achieve some economies of scale in full-status

standard requirements, EPA calculated corrective action costs only for 2,484 disposal facilities—the number of disposal facilities that submitted part A applications which is less than

the total number of existing units because one

facility can have several units. This could overestimate the number of disposal facilities, but

could underestimate the number of corrective

actions. EPA assumed that extensive corrective action would be taken for an entire facility, not separately for each unit in the facility.

(See ch. 4 of this report for a more accurate

estimate of existing facilities.)

5. The costs incurred by new facilities.—

EPA did not calculate the incremental costs of

complying with part 264 standards for new

land disposal facilities because it was difficult

to project the number of facilities affected and,

moreover, cost estimates were not available for

the part 267 temporary standards for new facilities. Exclusion of compliance costs for new

facilities will tend to underestimate total costs,

6. Ground water protection and the need for

corrective action.—EPA could not predict how

the owners and operators of TSDFS will react

to the liner and ground water monitoring requirements (i.e., whether they will install liners,

monitoring systems, etc.). Nor did EPA attempt

to predict the incidence of leakage, the need

for corrective action, and the costs associated

with corrective action. For the purpose of producing estimates, EPA made two extreme sets

of assumptions: a low-cost case and a high-cost

case. The low- cost case assumes that all landfills use single synthetic liners, all waste piles

are replaced to avoid the need for ground water

monitoring, no leakage occurs, and no corrective action is needed, The high-cost case

assumes that all landfills have double synthetic

liners, all waste piles monitor ground water,

all surface impoundments are closed and replaced by new units with double liners, and,

even with all these precautions, all facilities

require immediate corrective action using an

expensive counter-pumping strategy for over

150 years. The two cases are so extreme that

it is difficult to estimate the costs of a probable

intermediate scenario.

7. The rate of permitting and the timing of

compliance.—EPA’s analysis assumed that all

facilities are permitted simultaneously and immediately so that compliance costs for all units

are occurred at the same time. An earlier study

for EPA of the costs of proposed final permitting standards found that the targetting and

rate of permitting efforts by EPA (i. e., how

quickly must meet permit standards and which

industries are permitted first) were among the

most important variables affecting annualized

compliance costs that are under EPA’s control. * Total annualized compliance costs are

probably overstated as a result of this assumption. Existing facilities will continue to operate

under interim status standards until permitting. EPA has estimated that initial permitting

of over 2,100 existing land disposal facilities

will not be completed until fiscal year 1988,

EPA’s analysis concluded that the compliance costs for the land disposal regulations

might lead to the closure of small onsite land-

*Development Planning Associates, 1nC., pope Reid Associates, inc., Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc., and Temple, Barker,

a~~ Sloane, Inc., Final Impact Analysis of Proposed RCRA-FSS

Regulations, 19801990, November 1!180, pp. 4-5.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 337

fills an the closure and replacement of small

onsite surface impoundments. EPA estimates

that there are about 225 small landfills (500

tonnes/yr or less) representing about 44 percent

of all landfills. The 2,760 small surface impoundments (one acre or less) represent about

65 percent of all surface impoundments. Com -

pliance costs for these facilities are expecte d

to be substantially higher on a per unit basi s

than for the larger commercial facilities .

EPA estimated that part 264 design an d

operating standards would add from $10 to $22

per tonne to disposal costs at a midsize landfill (l5,000 tonnes per year) depending on th e

type of liner installed. Corrective action cost s

would add an additional $2 to $21 per tonn e

in annual revenue requirements depending o n

the type and extent of remedial measures re -

quired, In contrast, a small (500 tonnes per

year) landfill would require annual revenues

of $62 to $104 per tonne to offset incremental

compliance costs for design and operating requirements and additional annual revenues of

$34 to $396 per tonne for potential corrective

action costs.

EPA estimated that commercial landfill disposal charges in 1981 ranged from $55 to $240

per tonne depending on the type of wastes and

excluding transportation costs. Compliance

with interim status standards and Phase II permitting standards are not expected to increase

these charges significantly for the larger

facilities even if corrective action is needed.

EPA did not analyze the impact of the land

disposal regulations on the use of alternative

treatment technologies. However, a comparison of available information about charges

at alternative treatment facilities and commercial landfills in California suggests that the

economic impacts of complying with EPA’s

land disposal regulations will not result in any

significant economic incentive to use alternative waste management technologies, * According to a California report, the charges for

landfilling hazardous wastes range from $20-

“Toxic Waste Assessment Group, Alternatives to the Land

Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: An Assessment for California

(Governor’s Office of Appropriate Technology: 1981).

$200 per ton depending on the type of wastes,

with the highest costs for containerized highly

hazardous wastes. The range of average costs

for alternative treatment options were: surface

impoundments, $20-$30/ton; incineration,

$250-$500/ton; chemical stabilization, $100-

$120/ton; and other chemical and physical

treatment processes, $30-$175/ton. Even assuming an initial 20- to 30-percent increase in

land disposal costs, landfilling will remain the

least expensive alternative for most wastes. For

highly-hazardous wastes, landfilling will probably still be less costly than incineration or

other suitable treatment alternatives under

EPA’s land disposal regulations,

Financial Responsibility Compliance Costs

EPA has promulgated regulations requiring

the owners and operators of hazardous waste

TSDFS to demonstrate adequate financial capability: 1) to close a site and conduct necessary routine post-closure activities; and 2) to

compensate third parties for damages from releases of waste constituents during the active

life of the facility.

These requirements, however, have undergone several administrative changes. The interim status standards initially required that the

facilities should create a trust fund based on

their estimated costs of closure and postclosure activities. Later revisions allowed more

flexibility in demonstrating financial responsibility, such as obtaining a surety bond, letter

of credit, closure insurance, or meeting a financial test. For third-party liability, the current

regulations require self-insurance backed by a

financial test or outside insurance coverage of

$3 million per nonsudden accidental occurrence with an annual aggregate of at least $6

million, and $1 million per sudden accidental

occurrence with an annual aggregate of at least

$2 million. EPA’s estimate of the total compliance cost of these regulations is shown in table

66 for four types of facilities. Since the cost for

any given mechanism depends on the absolute

closure cost or third-party damage and the risk

perceived by the institutions backing the facility, it is understandable that surface impound-
338 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 66.-Present Value of the Private Costs of RCRA

Financial Responsibility Regulations by

Type of Facility (in millions of doiiars)

Financial assurance Liability

Type Of facillity Closure Post-closure insurance Total

Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $89.6 $47.9 $137,5

Surface impoundment . . 69.6 $514.6 608.4 1,192,6

Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 268.4 193.7 496,7

Incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 0 6.9 22.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $209.2 $783.0 $856.8 $1,849.1

SOURCES Environmental Law Institute, “Costs of Implementing Subtitle C of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ” OTA Working Paper,

October 1982; and Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Regulatory Irrpact

Analysis of fhe financial Assurance and Llabi/lty Insurance Regulations, 1981, p.40.

ments ranked highest in terms of costs and incinerators lowest. The total cost calculations

were based on an assumed distribution of facilities using each of the alternative mechanisms shown in the table.

The distribution was considered by EPA a s

the most reasonable. EPA estimated that if the

percentage of facilities that can pass the financial test increases to 50 percent there will be

a decrease of 40 percent in compliance cost.

On the other hand, if the same percentage

drops to 10 percent there will be a 70-percent

increase in compliance cost.

Cost by the types of financial mechanism for

landfills are presented in table 67. Trust funds,

originally required by ISS rules, are the most

expensive form of financial assurance. EPA assumed that the facility pays 5 percent of the

Table 67.—Annual Cost of Financial Assurance

Activities per Facility for Owners and

Operators of Treatment, Storage, and

Disposal Facilities (1981 dollars)

Financial Percent of

mechanism facilities Amount

Trust funds . . . . . . . . .

Surety bonds . . . . . . . .

Letter of credit . . . . . .

Financial test . . . . . . .

Insurance policy

(closure) . . . . . . . . . . .

Insurance policy

(liability) . . . . . . . . . . .

17 ”/0 $ 1,834 (closure)

$4,844 (post-closure)

Negligible 0.85% of face value

17 ”/0 Negligible

33 ”/0 $595 (closure)

33 ”/0 $1,206 (post-closure)

$480$11,040 (sudden)

$21,120 (nonsudden)

SOURCES. Enwronmental Law Institute “Costs of Implementing Subtitle C of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ” OTA Working Paper,

October 1982; and Putnum, Hayes & Bartlett, Regulatory /mpacf

Ana/ysis of the Financia/ Assurance and Llabi/ity Insurance Reguk+

tlons, 1981

total closure and post-closure costs each year

into a fund during the interim status, and once

the permit is issued the remaining portion is

paid over the life of the permit for a maximum

period of 10 years.

The surety bond is essentially a contract between the facility owner or operator and a surety company which guarantees to pay for the

costs of closure and post-closure activities if

the owner or operator does not. The after-tax

cost of the surety bonds was calculated to be

about 1 percent of the face value of the bond,

A letter of credit is similar to the surety bond

and commits the bank holding the letter of

credit to pay for the cost of closure and postclosure activities if the facility does not. T h e

cost of the letter of credit consists of the fee

to the bank and the cost of providing som e

form of collateral or about 0.85 percent of the

value of the letter of credit. The facility ma y

also fulfill the regulatory requirement by buying insurance coverage which will pay for the

closure and post-closure costs if the facilit y

cannot. This is also true OF the liability in -

surance coverage except the premiums ar e

much higher. Finally, the cosi of a financial test

is minimal—the one-time cost of preparing a

special auditor’s report.

Because the financial requirement is mor e

of a performance standard than a design an d

operation standard, the unit cost per site i s

probably more important than the total cost,

although no one knows for sure the number of

facilities using each of the mechanisms. Al -

though the financial test mechanism appear s

to be the lowest cost option, the actual cost of

the regulation will depend on the stringenc y

of the test,

Federal Administrative Costs

To implement RCRA, the Federal Government must support a wide range of activities

from regulation development and the basic research underlying these regulations to enforcement of the final rules. The bulk of these re -

sponsibilities and costs falls on the EPA. This

section outlines the major cost components in
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 339

administering EPA’s hazardous waste management program. *

Data Sources and Limitations.—The Federal expenditure figures presented here come from

EPA’s 1983 and 1984 budget justification presented to the House Committee on Appropriations and from final fiscal year 1983 appropria -

tions for EPA passed in September 1982. Although the 1981 and 1982 figures represent ac -

tual expenditures, the 1983 and 1984 figures ,

as proposed, may not accurately reflect actual

outlays in those years ,

Some costs incurred by other program of -

fices in EPA may not be included in the estimates presented here, For example, the Offic e

of Planning and Resource Management con -

ducts some RCRA-related research, and th e

Water Office conducts RCRA impact studie s

in conjunction with the development of ef -

fluent guideline background documents. Al -

though this kind of work maybe funded in part

through the Office of Solid Waste and thus be

included in the EPA hazardous waste totals ,

any other program office expenditure (exclud -

ing enforcement and research and develop -

ment) probably will be missed, Not all hazardous waste program costs can be formall y

thought of as RCRA-induced. Presumably EPA

*There are other costs incurred by other Federal agencies as

a result of Subtitle C of RCRA, such as the costs of compliance

with the RCRA regulations at Federal facilities; however, available appropriations budget data did not provide specific cost

figures for hazardous waste control expenditures by agency, but

rather total environmental control expenditures. Other agencies

may incur small costs in implementing specific subtitle C requirements, but no estimates of possible administrative costs to other

agencies have been identified.

would be undertaking some hazardous waste

research (e. g., even in the absence of RCRA),

but no attempt is made here to estimate what

percentage of EPA’s activities would fall int o

this category .

These limitations and characterizations o f

the Federal administrative cost data sugges t

that the figures used here are lower boun d

estimates of actual RCRA implementatio n

costs. However, one would not expect the difference from the true costs to be great.

EPA Administrative Costs .—Total administrative

costs of EPA’s hazardous waste program for

the years 1975-83 are presented in table 68 and

figure 23. These costs are also broken down

into three general program activities :

●

●

●

Abatement, control, and compliance: includes regulatory activities, development

of regulations, guidelines and policies,

financial assistance to State programs, and

waste management strategies (coordinating regional office activities, permitting

State programs, and cooperative appeal

negotiations).

Enforcement: originally permit issuance,

compliance inspections, and enforcement

support (in fiscal year 1983 most responsibilities transferred to other divisions.)

Research and development: EPA technical support research on waste listing and

identification, environmental and health

effects, etc.

In real terms, expenditures during the year s

1975-78 show a generally upward trend wit h

relatively small percentage changes betwee n

Table 68.—Hazardous Waste Programs, 1975-81a (dollars in thousands)

Abatement, control, Research and

Year Total and compliance Enforcement development

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,184 $12,180 — $7,374

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,405 12,594 — 2,811

1977. , . . . . . . . . . . 18,688 14,456 $3 4,229

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,766 27,743 618 7,405

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,521 52,554 1,515 8,452

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,775 90,624 6,038 13,113

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,428 101,705 11,391 28,301

a[ncludgs gxpgndlturgs on Solid waste and resource recovery programs that have been largely discontinued in 198283. solid

waste and resource recovery expenditures were approximately $13 million in fiscal year 1981

SOURCE, Congressional Budget Office, “Preliminary Analysis of the Proposed 1983 EPA Budget, ” draft staff memorandum,

Mar 9, 1982
340 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

150

140

130

120

110

100

 9 0

 8 0

 7 0

 6 0

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 23.— EPA Hazardous Waste Program Budget 1975-83a

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

Fiscal year

al gTs.m BUdg~t ,nCl “de~ ~~lld ~a~t~, ~~~~”~~e ~eco”e~, and abandorlrnent sites, in 1961-83, solld Vfa?.te and resource recovery expenditures were discon -

tinued; abandoned site efforts were transferred to Superfund program

years in all activities except research an d

development, which dropped by approximately

49 percent. As expected with passage of RCRA

in 1976, expenditures from 1978 through 198 1

showed the largest percentage increases in real

and nominal terms, with total expenditures increasing by over 300 percent; abatement, con -

trol, and compliance by 290 percent; enforce -

ment by over 1,000 percent; and research an d

development by over 300 percent. The generally downward trend in hazardous waste pro -

gram expenditures in 1980-81 is primarily due

to transfer of abandoned site activities to th e

Superfund program .

The across-the-board decreases in 1982 an d

1983 expenditures reflect the budget cut s

sought by the Reagan Administration. The

largest cuts are in the enforcement budget,

which by 1983 will have declined by 86 percent from 1981 levels. However, part of this

decrease is due to EPA reorganization and the

consolidation of permitting and enforcement

activities and represents a transfer of expenditures to an all-EPA interdisciplinary office of

legal and enforcement counsel.

The three general program activities are

broken down into specific expenditure categories for the years 1981-84 in table 69 (unlike

the previous table, this table is for authorized

trends rather than obligations). The figures

demonstrate the relative activity emphasis

within the program and the probable changes
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 341

Table 69.–EPA Hazardous Waste Program Federal Administrative Costs for Fiscal Years 1981-84

Program component 1981 actual 1982 actual 1983 estimate 1984 estimate

Abatement, control, and compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regulations, guidelines, and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Financial assistance (grants to States) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste management strategies (regional offices

and permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RCRA permit issuanceb 

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

RCRA enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research and development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scientific assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Monitoring systems and quality assurance . . . . . .

Health effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environmental engineering techniques . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environmental processes and effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total hazardous waste program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$79,129.9

20,221.4

39,672.4’

14,385.5

4,850.6

632&4

3,259.7

3,068.7

2&301.3

548.3

157.1

9,398.1

464.9

17,160.3

572.6

$113,759.6

$73,472.8

21,474.1

42,344.8 a

9,556.4

97.5

6,707.0

3,191.5

3,515.5

29,246.9

715,2

178.9

6,734.3

1,332.4

16,930.5

3,355.6

$110.578.4 -

$8&2137

24,115.7

44,068.0

13,030,6

0.0

2,385.7

(b)

2,385.7

34951.5

1,543.7

(d)

7,283.0

1,068.4

18,078.6

4,977.8

$116,551.5

$79,213.9

20,592.3

42,500.0

16,121.6

0.0

3,509.5

(b)

3,509.5

27,389.3

1,511.8

(d)

7,016.4

968.1

13,251.8

4,641.2

$110,122.7

alncludes solid waste and resource recovery grants, discontinued In 1982-83.

transferred toWaste Management Strategies in fiscal year 1983

cpa~ofthePro~ram efforf transferred to officeof Legal and Enforcement Counsel In flscalyear 1983 Remainder includes technical @nforcementeffOfls In re910n’lofflces

dconsolldated Into intermedla programs in 1983

SOURCES 1981 actual: Hear/rrgs on HUD/ndependenf Agenctes Appropriations for 1983 Elei’ore .%bcornm(ftee of ffre House Cornrn/(tee on Appropriaf/ens, 97th Cong ,

2d sess part 3 1982-84: U S Enwronmental ProtectIon Agency Jusfif~cafion of Appropriation Estimates for Cwnrrr/ffee on Appropr/at/or?s FY 1984, January 1983

taking place over this period, Abatement, control, and compliance activities (regulatio n

writing and analysis, grants to states, regional

office funds to assist States, and public information programs) make up the largest portion

of overall program expenditures, with the State

grant program taking up the largest percentage

share (34 percent of the total budget request in

1983), The technical assistance category which

involves State, local, and public informatio n

programs was phased out in 1982 .

Activities for waste management strategie s

implementation show a marked decrease fro m

1981-82. This category includes the costs o f

operating the regional EPA office responsibilities for hazardous waste. The decline in cost s

shown for regional activities is not reflecte d

in 1983 totals because hazardous waste permit

issuance costs, a separate activity under en -

forcement in 1981 and 1982, are included i n

the regional category as of 1983. Presumably ,

part of the reason for the decrease is due to an

anticipated greater level of State-controlle d

programs .

The enforcement activity costs show the largest overall percentage decrease (80 percent) of

any program area. This is somewhat mislead -

ing, however, since the hazardous waste permit issuance category was included, as of 1983 ,

in the waste management strategies category ,

and enforcement responsibilities were in part

shifted to the Office of Legal and Enforcement

Counsel in another EPA program category .

Again, the justification for this decrease is not

clear; it may be a result of more streamline d

administration, greater State responsibility, o r

it may reflect a reduction in the priority attached to enforcement .

EPA research and development expenditure s

have remained relatively stable from 1981 t o

1983. But this total hides major increases i n

certain small budget activities, for example, the

research on environmental impacts of hazard -

ous wastes (environmental protection and effects). Extramural (external grant and contract)

resources declined for activities directed to -

ward waste-listing priorities (scientific assess -

ment); providing guidelines for identifyin g

wastes (monitoring and quality assurance); and

the generation of technical data bases to sup -

port regulation development. Overall, however,

expenditures increased substantially for scien -

tific assessment, health effects, and environ -

mental protection and effects. Expenditure s
342 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

centage of its own funds to the program. This

section presents estimates of State expenditures for developing and operating State hazardous waste programs under RCRA for selected States.

Data Sources and Limitations.—The data presented in tables 70 and 71 represent, in most

part, actual and budgeted State expenditures

for hazardous waste management programs.

Obtaining State figures is difficult. Although

OTA attempted to obtain this data from EPA,

only Regions V, VII, VIII, and IX provided

data. Further, only Region V could provide

budget figures by activity. Some additional information came from a survey conducted by

the Association of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management Officials.

decreased significantly in monitoring quality

assurance and environmental engineering

technology, both large-expenditure activities.

State Administrative Costs

Under the RCRA strategy for a national hazardous waste management system, States may

assume responsibility for regulating hazardous

waste activities by developing and implementing regulatory programs that meet certain requirements. To assist the design of a workable

system, and to make that system operational,

EPA makes funds available to States. Although

these grants can cover a large portion of State

expenditures for hazardous waste regulation,

each State must contribute a minimum perTable 70.—Federal Financial Assistance Grants for Hazardous Waste Management by State, 1981.83

(thousands of dollars)

Region/State 1981 1982 1983 estimatea Region/State

Region 1 :

————— —

Connecticut ... ... . . . . . . .

Maine ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire ... . . . . ...

Rhode Island . ...

Vermont . . . . . . . . ... . . . .

1981

202

984

150

279

2,993

280

265

468

150

305

173

150

150

192

150

380

2,376

150

150

150

150

150

259

166

396

439

1982 1983 estimatea

Region VI:

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Region V/l:

lowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region Vlll:

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . .

Utah ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming. . ... . . . . ... . .

Region IX

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . .

Trust Territories. ., . . . . . . . .

Guam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region X

Alaska . . . . ... ... . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . ... ... . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$358

150

639

150

196

150

893

1,682

170

150

150

410

1,637

319

554

150

585

760

511

520

205

589

440

771

1,403

924

1,229

360

1,637

570

$498

209

688

209

272

209

$420

176

749

176

230

176

282

1,368

209

388

4,160

237

1,244

176

327

3,506

Region II:

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virgin Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

389

370

651

209

329

311

548

176

1,241

2,338

236

209

1,046

1,971

200

176

Region Ill:

Delaware . . ... . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

District of Columbia ... . . . .

423

239

209

209

267

209

357

201

176

176

225

176

209

570

2,280

532

770

209

176

480

1,917

449

650

176

Region IV:

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . .

Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region V:

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

528

3,301

209

209

209

209

209

446

2,783

176

176

176

176

176

812

1,064

710

723

285

819

612

1,073

684

914

599

609

240

690

516

903 359

231

550

610

303

195

464

513

1,950

1,284

1,708

500

2,275

791

1,644

1,082

1,439

422

1,917

668

Total ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29,137 $41,700 $35,226

NOTE: Columns may not add to totals because of independent rounding.

al ~grants reflect EpA fiscal year I gs3 budget request, Congressional appropriate ions increased grantso State hazardous waste programs to $44 ml I I ion In fiscal Year

1983 to maintain programs at approximate 1982 levels.

SOURCES: Environmental Law Institute, “Costs of Implementing Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ” OTA Working Paper, October 1982; and

U.S Environmental Protection Agency, State Grants Office, July 1982.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 343

Table 71 .—Fiscal Year 1982 Federal Support of

State Hazardous Waste Programs

Percent of Percent of

total program total program

State cos t State

Alabam a

Alaska ,

Arizona ...

Arkansa s

Californi a

Colorado

Connecticut : : :

Delaware ., . ,

Florid a

Georgia .

Hawai i

Idaho ,

Illinoi s

Indian a

lowa . . .

Kansas 

Kentucky ,,,

Louisiana .,, ,,.

Main e

Maryland ,. .

Massachusetts

Michigan . . . .

Minnesota ., .

Mississipp i

Missouri .

75

40

77

75

43

58

100

75

89

75

85

82

79

75

62

73

83

59

100

65

48

69

41

59

64

Montana . ,

Nebraska .

Nevada . ,

New Hampshir e

New Jersey ,.

New Mexico,

New York 

North Carolina .

North Dakota. .,,

Ohi o

Oklahoma .

Oregon .. .

Pennsylvania. ,,,

Rhode Islan d

South Carolina

South Dakota :

Tennessee .

Texas . .

Utah .. ...: .:

Vermont ,. ...,..

Virginia .., .

Washington .. .

West Virginia. .,

Wisconsin .

Wyoming ,, .

costs

86

75

68

39

24

75

58

74

75

75

66

79

58

100

60

83

58

75

71

100

73

73

75

75

n/a

SOURCE Thornas W Curtis and Peter Creedon, The Sfate of States Managernen t of Env(ronrnen(a/ Programs In the 1980 ‘s, Comml ttee on Energy

and Environment National Governors Association, June 1982

As an accurate reflection of State administra -

tive costs, the data presented here have several

notable limitations, First, with the exceptio n

of the 1981 data (in some cases), the dolla r

figures are actual and are for proposed activities rather than actual expenditures. To the extent that, for example, budgets are revised ,

funds not appropriated, or fiscal year mone y

shifted forward, these figures can differ fro m

actual expenditures. Second, most of the State

cost figures are based on financial assistanc e

grant requests to EPA, Since the grant propos -

als generally include only the minimum Stat e

contribution [i. e., that which the State need s

to spend to comply with the terms of the grant),

the data may be only lower bounds of actua l

expenditures if States later choose to obligate

greater amounts to their programs .

Federal Financial Assistance Grants .—Actual and

budgeted Federal grants to all 50 States a r e

presented in table 70 for the years 1981-83 .

Total financial assistance program funds i n

any given year are allocated to the States based

on a formula that considers: relative popula -

tion (40 percent); relative amounts of hazardous

waste generated (40 percent); relative numbe r

of generators (15 percent); and relative lan d

area (5 percent). In addition, the regional ad -

ministrators have some discretion to vary th e

actual amounts. (EPA has indicated that thi s

allocation process will be changed.) The State s

use these figures in formulating their grant re -

quests to EPA, Although the components of the

grant requests vary among States, EPA has es -

tablished working guidelines that call for twofour-person-work years per State for organization and management of interim and fina l

authorization status, and approximate percentages for program activities: program manage -

ment (15 percent); permitting (50 percent); and

enforcement (35 percent). It is not clear ho w

stringently these guidelines are followed i n

practice .

In theory, the Federal grants provide 75 percent of total State expenditures on hazardou s

waste program development and implementa -

tion. State funds may be drawn from genera l

revenues or in some States from fees on gen -

erator, transporter or disposer activities. * I n

reality, State contributions vary depending o n

whether the State program is more stringen t

than that required by EPA and whether th e

State government is able or desires to appro -

priate additional funds. Table 72 shows the percentage of Federal support of State hazardou s

waste programs in 1982 .

State Administrative Costs.—Table 71 provides

budget expenditures for 22 States for the years

for which data are available from the relevant

sources. These figures represent State budget

expenditures for hazardous waste regulatory

programs. For example, the State’s share of

total expenditures ranged from 0.03 percent in

Illinois in 1980 to 70 percent in Minnesota i n

—

*For a review of State fee mechanisms, see: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Stud~’ of State Fee Systems for Hazardous Waste Management Programs, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, SW-956, July 1982. (Contrary to the generally optimistic treatment of fees and taxes as State funding mechanisms for hazardous waste activities in the EPA study, other

studies indicate that limitations on the use of these mechanisms

under State law present substantial impediments. Additionally,

the amounts received from fees and taxes are only a small portion of the total administrative cost of State programs. )
344 Ž Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

—

Table 72.—State Expenditures on Hazardous Waste

Program Activities for Selected States

(current dollars)

# of Iss

State 1980 1981 1982 facilities

Arizona ... ... $32,000

California . . . . 683,000

Colorado . . . ...

Hawaii ., . . . . .

Illinois ., . . 27,585

Indiana ., ... 99,523

Iowa. . . . ...

Kansas ... .

Michigan . . .

Minnesota 137,040

Mississipp i

Missouri ... ,

Montana ., ... ,

Nebraska ... ,

Nevada ., ..., . . . . 18,000

North Dakota . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . .

Pennsylvania . ......1,968,000

South Dakota, ...,..

Texas ,..., ,..., ,..

Utah. ,, ...,,,.., ,,.

Wisconsin . . . . . . . 375,051

$137,300

2,947,000

254,840

6,900

864,171

326,044

75,725

114,967

431,963

228,223

73,712

220,586

39,833

68,164

18,000

68,309

92,950

3,369,600

42,332

474,391

117,879

464,083

$233,100

4,385,000

15,000

679,702

428,120

237,739

123,034

569,648

457,724

135,957

216,833

69,633

108,000

580,480

2,000,000b

739,133

236,822

109

781

97

29

536

312

110

81

353

121

147

140

27

47

17

12

123

570

11

806

31

198

aNumberof facilities reporting under SectIon 3010

bProjected budget

SOURCES Environmental Law Institute, “Costso flmplementlngS ubtltle Cof

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,” OTA Working Paper,

October 1982, and EPA Regional Budget Office; Association of State

and Territorial Solid Waste Management Offlclals, State Measurement

#8eds%dy(Sept 30, 1981) lt should be noted that thedataforPennsylvania, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Texas appear to have been

drawn from actual State budgets, whllethe other State data reflect

the cooperative arrangement grant requests These latter figures may

underestimate actual State expenditures

1983, In Wyoming, EPA is operating the entire State program. Most of the data is fro m

Federal grant requests, which may or may not

provide an accurate indication of actua l

expenditures .

Current Total National Costs for

Hazardous Waste Control

Considering all spending on hazardous waste

activities, including those in the public and

private sectors and for both RCRA- and

CERCLA-related efforts, OTA’s estimate of

total national expenditures for 1982 is $4 billion

to $5 billion. Current combined Federal and

State spending is probably in the range of $200

million to $300 million, The previously derived

figure of $4 billion to $5 billion (in current

dollars) in private sector spending for 1980-81

must be modified by two factors: 1) industrial

activity and waste generation in 1982 is substantially lower than in 1980; and 2) private sector spending related to CERCLA activities is

substantially greater in 1982 than previously,

with a probable current level of $300 million

to $400 million. Finally, although the current

amount of waste generated is less than in 1980-

81, the unit costs of waste management are

higher. Thus, while waste generation may have

been reduced by 20-30 percent, costs probably

have increased by 10-30 percent, Considering

the lack of accurate detailed figures, the

estimate of $4 billion to $5 billion for total, national spending appears reasonable.

Part ll:State Responses to Hazardous Waste Problems

Introduction

This section describes approaches to regulation of hazardous waste under 1) authorized

State programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 2) State regulatory programs under State laws, and 3) alternative State programs.

The section also discusses various alternatives to “command and control” regulation

of hazardous waste through such indirect

measures as increased civil liability for

damages through legal action, additional insurance and financial responsibilitv requirements, State trust funds, fees and taxes on

hazardous waste activities, and other economic mechanisms.

State Programs Under RCRA

Under RCRA section 3006, a State may exercise primary responsibility for regulating

hazardous waste instead of the Federal program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if the State program

meets certain minimum Federal standards.

While the final Federal program is being develoded and State program a applications are be-
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 345

ing reviewed, existing State programs that are

substantially equivalent to the Federal program

can continue in effect under interim authoriza -

tion. The legislative history of RCRA indicate s

that Congress anticipated that the States eventually would assume primary responsibility for

hazardous waste management. Two incentive s

are offered for State participation: first, the opportunity to administer a State program in lieu

of a Federal program; and second, Federal financial and technical assistance for develop -

ment and operation of State program activitie s

and support of Federal programs. Federa l

RCRA grants can pay for up to 75 percent o f

State programs with the States contributing the

remaining 25 percent of the costs. Current economic conditions and budgetary constraint s

may result in substantially reduced financia l

and technical assistance. These reduction s

could induce some States to decline to appl y

for authorization and to allow the Federa l

Government to finance and operate a Federa l

program within that State. However, a recen t

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials (ASTSWMO) survey in -

dicated that only a few such instances migh t

be expected if funding is maintained .

141 T h e

current EPA administrator, Anne M. Burford,

has announced an intention to move toward

zero funding of State environmental programs. States would thus receive no Federal

funds for operating programs that EPA would

have to administer and pay for if the State

did not.

As of February 1983, 34 States* and 1 territory had received Phase I interim authorization and 16 States were operating under cooperative arrangements or partial authorizations.

Nine States had received Phase II authorization for component A, and many more States

were moving to gain Phase II authorization to

allow permitting. Still other States, such a s

Michigan, have announced their intention to

apply instead for final authorization. At least

one State (Wyoming) has decided not to apply

for authorization at this time. with the pro -

141Asso~iation of state and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO).

*For RCRA purposes “States” includes U.S. territories and

the District of Columbia.

mulgation of the land disposal regulations in

July 1982, EPA announced that States coul d

apply for final program authorization. The current status of State programs is summarize d

in table 73 .

In implementing the State programs fo r

RCRA authorization, at least 15 States have tied

their programs to the stringency of the Federal

program .

142 State programs can be classified

in whole or in part according to these thre e

types :

●

●

●

State programs that are the same or “mirror image” of Federal program requirements;

State programs that are “no less stringent

than” or “at least as stringent as” the

Federal program so that the Federal program provides the “floor” for State requirements.

State programs that are “no more stringent

than" the Federal program in which-the

Federal program imposes a “ceiling” o n

State requirements.

Depending on how the State’s legislative mandate is written, these restrictions on State programs can have different effects on a State’ s

ability to deal with hazardous waste manage -

ment in response to Federal action or inaction.

Under a “mirror-image” approach, as a result

of statute or policy decision, a State regulatory

program adopts the language of Federal reg -

ulations in whole or by reference. The Stat e

statute may provide, for example, that the State

program will be “consistent and equivalen t

with” or “the same as” or automatically incorporate the Federal regulations .

143 States wit h

a “mirror” approach depend on the adequac y

of the Federal program .

14ZTbe 15 States are: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,

Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia,

lqsI]]inois hazardous Waste legislation authorized the State

agency to adopt the EPA regulations as the State program so

that the State could quickly receive interim status authorization.

Promulgation of standards under Illinois procedures would take

a year or more to accommodate public review and comments.

In adopting the Federal program by reference, the State did not

anticipate that Federal minimum program standards later would

be suspended.
346 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 73.—State RCRA Program Authorization

State Current status Status of applications if known

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/25/81

Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase 1—8/18/82

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 11/19/82

Phase II received 4/19/82

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 6/4/81

Phase II received 1/1 l/83a

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . Phase I 4/21/82

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/25/81

District of Columbia. . . . Cooperative arrangement

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I 5/10/82

Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/3/81

Phase II received 5/21/82

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 5/1 7/82

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 8/18/82

lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/30/81

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 9/17/81

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase

Phase

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . Phase

Interim Authorization received 4/1/81

I received 1/28/83

Interim Authorization received 12/19/80

Interim Authorization received 3/18/81

Interim Authorization received 7/8/81

Interim Authorization received 2/25/81

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement since 6/79

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/7/81

Phase II received 8/31/82

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/26/81b

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 5/14/82

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

New Hampshire . . . . . . . Phase l receivedll/3/81

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I received 2/2/83

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

North Carolina . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/18/80

Phase II received 2/26/82

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/12/80

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative arrangement

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/14/81

Phase II received 12/13/82

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 7/16/81

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 5/26/81

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 5/29/81

South Carolina . . . . . . . . Phase I Interim Authorization received 2/25/81

Phase II received 11/3/82

Phase II to be submitted 1/83

Unsubmitted–scheduled to be submitted 9/83

Phase n-Expected 1984-85

Unsubmitted–planned 7/83

Pending

Request to submit 10/30/82

Phase Ii—unknown

Pending–to be submitted by 10/82

Phase II submitted 8/12/82

Unsubmitted

Unsubmitted

Will ask for full final authorization late 1983 or

early 1984 and skip Phase II

Unsubmitted

Phase Ii—to be submitted 8/82

Phase II submitted 3/l0/82

Phase II submitted 10/82

Phase II to be submitted 1/83-2/83

Phase II anticipated date

A - 2/15/83

B - 5/15/83

C - 9/15/83

Phase II to be submitted Fall 1982

Pursuing Phase l—expect submittal 10/82

Unsubmitted

Phase I to be submitted 7/83

Phase II to be submitted 7/83

Phase I & II submitted 9/82

Planned Phase II submittal 3/83

Phase II undecided as to all or part 9/82

Unsubmitted

Phase II submitted 10/82

Unsubmitted

Phase 1, II A, B to be submitted 1/83

Pending—Phase I submitted 1/12/82, Phase II

not known

Partial Phase I authorization only, MOUC for

generators, treatment, transportation

Phase Ii—unknown

Pending

Anticipate 11/82 Phase I

Anticipate mid 1984 Phase II

Phase II to be submitted 11/82

Phase II to be submitted 12/82

Phase 11, Part A, to be submitted
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 347

Table 73.—State RCRA Program Authorization—Continued

State Current status Status of applications if known

South Dakota . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia. . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . .

Cooperative arrangement

Phase I Interim Authorization received 7/16/81

Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/24/80

Phase II received 3/23/83

Phase I Interim Authorization received 12/12/80

Phase I Interim Authorization received 1/15/81

Phase I received 11/3/81

Cooperative arrangement

Cooperative arrangement

Phase I received 1/15/82

Cooperative arrangement

Phase I received

Unsubmitted—will submit Phase I & II 1/84

Phase II submitted

Note 2 different programs

TOWRd —2/82 received Phase I

TOWR—3/83 received Phase II

TDH—Phase I 12/80

TDH—Phase II 3/28

Phase II submitted

Phase II submitted by 12/82

Phase II submitted end 1982

Unsubmitted —submitted Phase 1, II A & B

expect approval 1/83

Unsubmitted

Phase II will go to final authorization 6/84

Unsubmitted

acal, fornla ,~ not authorized t. control storage or treatment In surface Impoundments ‘an A Only

bMontana received partial authorization for Phase I on 2/26/81 and complete Phase I authorization on 2/1 7/82 cMemorandum of understanding.

‘TOWR—Texas Office of Water Resources; TDH —Texas Department of Health.

SOURCE ASTSWMO Survey for OTA, Government Institutes, Inc , Hazardous Wastes Fac///ty Handbook, 3d ed. (1982), prepared by Tom Watson, Ridgway M Hall, Jr ,

Jeffrey J Dav!dson, and Dav!d R Case, and OTA Staff research

According to testimony presented before a

congressional committee, West Virginia’s State

legislation requires that the State rules be “consistent and equivalent with” the Federal pro -

gram and must be revised to reflect change s

in the Federal regulations. This approach ha s

caused difficulties for the State during EPA’ s

delay and suspensions in implementing th e

RCRA program. The regulated community i n

west Virginia, in commenting on propose d

State regulations, has argued that, when there

is an absence of Federal regulation due t o

suspensions, modifications, or delays in effec -

tive dates, the State cannot regulate in tha t

area. This group argues that State regulatio n

in areas where no Federal regulations are i n

effect would be inconsistent with the Federa l

program. West Virginia was challenged fo r

proposing financial responsibility require -

ments for hazardous waste facility operator s

when EPA delayed the effective date of thos e

Federal requirements. Thus, every time a void

in regulatory coverage is created by a shift in

Federal policy, States like West Virginia could

be challenged on the appropriateness of Stat e

action in that particular area. If this argument

is upheld in the courts, such States will have

to wait until Federal policy is established to

propose regulations. 144

The “floor” approach reflects a State statute

or policy decision requiring that the State program must be “at least as stringent” as the

Federal program. For States with “mirror” or

“floor” types of programs, a frequent concern

has been that less stringent or relaxed Federal

requirements could undercut State program efforts or might threaten State program approval.

More stringent State requirements could be

viewed as inconsistent with the Federal and

other State programs or as a constraint on interstate commerce.

The third type of approach, the “ceiling” approach, can cause problems for implementation of State regulatory programs when there

are delays or changes in the Federal program.

“Ceiling” approaches generally involve a

statutory requirement or policy decision that

the State programs must be “no more stringent

than the Federal program. ” Ceiling States are

144Testimony of Norman Nosenchuck, AS TSWMO, at hearings on RCRA reauthorization before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism, House Committee on Energy and the Environment, 97th Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 21, 1982.
348 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

dependent on the adequacy of the Federal

rules. Changes in the Federal program, or suspensions of Federal standards, can be disruptive and could bring State program implementation efforts to a halt. To gain Federal approval, the State requirements must be as

stringent as the Federal program, but to meet

State law, the State regulations may not be

more stringent than the Federal program.

When finally in place, these programs should

be effectively similar to “mirror” States ;

however, implementation during a period of

frequent changes and reversals in the Federal program might be difficult or impossible.

Colorado’s hazardous waste statute adopts

the “ceiling approach” and requires that the

State program be “no more stringent” than the

Federal program. Colorado is currently developing a State RCRA program and is operating

under cooperative arrangement. When EPA

suspended the Federal ban on disposal of liquids in landfills, Colorado was suddenly left

without any apparent authority under its State

hazardous waste program to stop the planned

landfilling of bulk liquids at the Lowry landfill while EPA “reconsidered” the Federal rule.

The adequacy of the landfill operation was then

under challenge by State and local officials. In

response to public criticism, EPA reimposed

the Federal ban. The Lowry dump was later

ordered to remedy design failures.

North Carolina’s “ceiling” provision also requires that State rules be “no more stringent

than” the Federal regulations. Following an initial determination by the State Department of

Natural Resources that the July 1982 EPA land

disposal regulations were not stringent enough,

the Governor imposed an emergency moratorium on the new landfill permit applications

pending further study and public hearings.145

If this review indicates that more stringent

State land disposal standards are necessary, the

State agency will petition the legislature to

amend the State law.

l~Ha~rdOUS Waste Report, vol. 3, October 1982.

Differences Between Federal and State Programs

During the interim authorization period, a

State program can receive approval to regulate

hazardous waste if the State demonstrates that

its program is substantially equivalent to the

Federal program and that it has adequate authority and resources to administer and enforce its program. This allows continuation of

an existing State program even though it may

differ from the Federal program requirements.

Without interim authorization, generators,

transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFS) would have to comply

with both Federal and State requirements.

However, once Federal regulations are issued,

the State cannot impose less stringent requirements on the same subject matter. Many existing State programs differ from the Federal

program in significant ways. Examples of such

variations are discussed below based on OTA’s

contractor surveys and informal communications from State agencies.l46 The primary areas

of difference during the interim period are

discussed below and in table 74.

Universe of Waste Regulated

The State program provisions for identification and classification of hazardous waste frequently will cover a broader or narrower universe of waste than the Federal program. The

State program may include different waste lists

or more characteristics for identifying hazardous waste, or its tests for establishing hazardous characteristics may cause more wastes to

be included.

California controls a broader universe of

waste than the Federal program, including

many household, agricultural, and mining

laASTSWMC) Survey for OTA; Citizens for a Better Environment, “Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management in

Selected States,” OTA Working Paper, December 1982; National

Conference of State Legislatures, Htizardous Waste Manage

rnent: A Survey of State Legishition 1!782 (Denver, Colo.: 1982);

and Michael S. Baram and J. Raymond Miyares, “Expanding

the Policy Options for the Management of Hazardous Wastes,”

OTA Working Paper, Feb. 1, 1982.
Table 74.—Comparability of State Hazardous Waste Programs to Federal RCRA Program

State Universe of waste Generators Transporters Facilities

Alabama

Alaska . . . . . .

Arizona

RCRA RCRA Permit required R CHA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent, plus expanded reactivity

critera

RCRA plus PCBS

RCRA plus PCBS, metals, waste oil,

mining waste, some recycled wastes,

and more stringent toxicity criteria

Some recycled/reused materials covered

by RCRA excluded under State law

RCRA by statute

Annual reports

Manifest copies to State

RCRA by regulation

Monthly reports for storage of less than 60 days

RCRA by statute

N.E. manifest

Annual report, copy of

manifest to State

RCRA by reference;

generator inspections

RCRA by reference

RCRA

Permit and State manifest

Registration, insurance,

inspection

RCRA by statute

License, insurance, bonding for hauler storage

License

RCRA; inspections

RCRA by reference;

Proof of financial responsibility;

quarterly report

RCRA

No exemptions in general. Special

permits for disposal of certain highhazard waste

Disposal sites revert to State

ownership at closure

Licenses; special requirements for

dewatered sludges

Special ground water monitoring

requirements

RCRA by reference; liability insurance

required

RCRA by reference

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

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware RCRA

Florida RCRA by reference

Georgia RCRA by reference

permit required

Hawaii . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . .

Illinois

. COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RCRA plus special wastes, infectious

hospital wastes

State manifest tracking

system

Permit required; all shipments must be manifested

Prohibits Iandfilling unless facility has

appropriate permit for each waste

stream received

RCRA

Facility must establish financial

responsibility consistent with risk

Waste disposal must be authorized

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

RCRA More stringent recycling

requirements

RCRA by reference

Liquid industrial waste

haulers must have a permit

RCRA by reference RCRA by reference

RCRA Must obtain disposal

authorization from State

before waste shipment

Equivalent

State manifest system

Registration, insurance;

State approval of disposal

requests before transport

Equivalent

Permit required

Kentucky

Louisiana

RCRA by reference

RCRA plus State waste list; more

stringent toxicity test

RCRA

RCRA Plus PCBS

RCRA plus waste oil, PCBS and

radioactive waste

RCRA plus waste oil, additional toxic

wastes, recycled wastes must be sold

for gain

RCRA plus waste oil, recycled wastes,

additional waste characteristics

RCRA by reference

Each TSDF unit permitted separately;

liability insurance required; quarterly

reports for onsite disposal

Licenses

State permit

License; liability insurance

License; certificates of waste disposal,

more frequent inspections

Monthly reports for off site TSDFS

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

N.E. manifest

RCRA

N.E. manifest

License, insurance

License

License. bond

Michigan State manifest system License

Minnesota Manifest returned to

State; generator waste

disclosure and

management plan.

Equivalent

Manifest returned to State;

generator registration

RCRA

RCRA by references

RCRA

Mississippi

Missouri

Equivalent

Waste oil, State-listed wastes

RCRA

RCRA by reference

Equivalent

License, insurance

Equivalent

Similar to RCRA, monthly reports,

certification of recyclers

RCRA

Equivalent

Montana

Nebraska

RCRA

RCRA by reference
Table 74.—Comparabillity of State Hazardous Waste Programs to Federal RCRA Program-Continued

State Universe of waste Generators Transporters Facilities

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire RCRA N.E. manifest License and insurance

New Jersey RCRA plus waste oil, PCBS, recycled State manifest; manifest License, operating

wastes copies to State requirements

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Pemit by rul e

Monthly ground water monitoring reports

RCR A

RCRA

RCRA

RCRA

RCRA; storage requirements for recyclers

Substantially equivalent

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

RCRA by statute

RCRA

RCRA

RCRA

RCRA plus PCBS, no exemption for

recycled wastes

No waste listing, regulate by waste

characteristics

RCRA by reference

RCRA

RCRA

RCRA

License

RCRA by reference

RCRA

Transporter registration

Registration, manifest for

recycled wastes

Oregon Manifest exemption for RCRA

generators shipping less

than 2,000 lb/load

Quarterly reports; manifest

to State; must get authorization from TSDF before

waste shipment

N.E. manifest

Manifest copies to States;

must obtain authorization from TSDF before

waste shipment

License Facility must authorize that it is

capable of handling wastes before

Pennsylvania Primary neutralization units

shipment

Licenses; recycling regulated;

quarterly reports for onsite TSDFS

Rhode Island

South Carolina

9 waste characteristics

License; liability insurance

No exemption for recyled waste; Permit

additional listed wastes; more

stringent corrosivitv test

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

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

“Equivalent

NO PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Equivalent “ “ “ “ “ “ Equivalent Ground water monitoring wells

approved by State geologist

RCRA RCRA, hauler storage is RCRA, liability endorsement

regulated

RCRA RCRA RCRA

N.E. manifest License Permit by rule, recovery operations

regulated

. . .

RCRA plus halogenated hydrocarbons

RCRA, waiver for some recycled wastes

19 classes of hazardous wastes,

additional wastes regulated

RCRA

Larger universe of waste, mining

Virginia

Washington

RCRA Permit RCRA

RCRA RCRA Insurance; location restrictions for

wastes, and degree of hazard system extremely hazardous waste facilities;

for extremely hazardous wastes buffer zones

West Virgini a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin RCRA, more stringent recycling Manifest to State, annual License License, quarterly report, treatment at

provisions report wastewater treatment facilities must

be permitted

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO PROGRAM (EPA PROGRAM OPERATING IN STATE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NOTES: RCRA = State program is nearly identical to Federal regulations.

Equivalent = State program is equivalent, but not identical to Federal regulations.

RCRA by reference - State program adopted Federal regulations by reference.

— = not classified.

SOURCES: Robert A. Finlayson, “Should State Rules Be Tougher Than EPA’s?” Solid Waste Management, vol. 25, pp. 78, SO-82, May 1982; Hazardous Waste /?egu/atory Guide: State Waste Lfanagement programs

(Neenah, Wis.: J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc., 1982); and Citizens for a Better Environment, Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management in Selected States, OTA Working Paper, December 1982,
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 351

wastes, along with drilling muds, sewage

sludge, tannery waste with trivalent chromium,

and cement kiln dust. Additionally, States may

use methods of identifying hazardous waste

that result in more wastes being classified as

hazardous. The California waste extraction

test, used to determine whether toxic constituents can leach into the environment, is generally considered to be more stringent than the

test required by the Federal regulations.

Several States use a “degree-of-hazard” type

of waste classification system. 147 California’s

waste classification scheme distinguishes between “hazardous” and “extremely hazardous” wastes. A separate disposal permit is required for each shipment and disposal of extremely hazardous waste. *

Exclusions and Exemptions From Universe of Waste

Many States have limited the small generator

exemption to exclude fewer generators than

the Federal exemption.l48 At least 20 states, including 5 of the nation’s 10 largest waste generating States, have no small quantity exemption, more stringent requirements with regard

to quantity than EPA’s exemption, or do not

allow hazardous wastes from small generators

to be disposed of in sanitary landfills. Half of

those States that have the same quantity cutoff

as EPA have some form of reporting requirement to keep track of the exempted waste and

its disposal, or to limit disposal options. One

significant feature of some States limited small

generator exemptions is that special provisions

may apply to these generators that are not as

extensive as for large generators. (Table 75 includes a summary of State small generator provisions,) Several States also include hazardous

waste recyclers under State regulatory pro-

“’OTA’s technical memorandum on degree of hazard describes other State approaches to degree of of hazard waste

classification systems. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment, Nonnuclear Industrial Hazardous Waste, Classifying for Hazard A4anagement-A Technical Memorandum, OTATM-M-9, November 1981.

*A description of the California degree-of-hazard classification system is presented in ch. 3.

l~state smal] generator requirements are described more fully

in OTA Staff Memorandum, “The RCRA Exemption for Small

Volume Generators,” July 1982,

grams. This is frequently done because the

States have experienced hazardous waste problems as the result of “recycling activities.”

Licensing or Permitting of Waste Haulers

Special inspection and/or licensing requirements for hazardous waste are imposed in

some States. They may also require special

training for haulers. California requires permits

for each shipment of hazardous waste. Liability insurance or bonding requirements for

waste haulers are another common difference

from the Federal program.

More Extensive or Detailed Manifest Requirements for

Tracking of Hazardous Wastes.

California, New Jersey, and Michigan are examples of States with manifest systems that require more extensive information than the Federal manifest. States may require that the generator, transporter, and disposal facility

operator each submit a manifest for the same

shipment. This “paper” trail has two advantages: 1) manifesting of all hazardous waste

makes any exits from the system more detectable, thus assisting in enforcement, and oversight, and providing an incentive for waste

handlers to comply; 2) more extensive manifest

information can assist the State in developing

waste management plans and regulatory programs, although this aspect has not been implemented extensively in two States where it

is used because of budgetary and practical limitations in processing the data.

More Stringent Facility Standards for TSDFS

During interim status and final authorization,

States may impose more stringent requirements than the Federal program—e.g., a

stricter standard for design of facilities.

By statute, since 1982, New Jersey has required installation of a system for leachate collection, interception, and treatment in all waste

disposal facilities. New Jersey also restricts the

siting of chemical waste facilities in or near

river flood areas.

While recognizing that only certain wastes

are technically or economically amenable to
352 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Control

Table 75.—Summary of State Small Quantity Generator Provisions

State Small quantity cutoff Difference from Federal standard

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

M aasachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

+

100 kg/mo

+

+

None

+

+

+

+

+

Cooperative arrangement

Cooperative arrangement

100-1,000 kg/mo exempt from

all but manifest

200 kg/mo

+

+ but manage 100-1,000 kg

as regulated

+

Must petition for

small generator exemption

+

+

20 kglmo

100 kg/mo

None

+

100 kg/mo

+

+

CA

100 kg/mo

100 kg/mo

None

1,000 kg/mo for M

100 kg/mo for State reg.

+

+

+

+

Varies by characteristic

+

200 kg/infectious waste

100 kg/mo

+

+

+

220 lb

+

May be required to submit plan to Board of Health before T/D

(onsite or off site)

Lower cutoff

Disposal in permitted hazardous waste facility

No small generator exemption

None

1) 100-1,000 kg/mo; A.R.

2) hauler permit

No disposal in landfill without approval

Some wastes classified as “special waste” require special

handling under solid waste program

All generators must manifest if produce more than 100 kg/mo

special waste

Disposal of small generator waste only in specified landfills

—

TSDF operator recordkeeping on source, quantity, disposal of

waste received

Small generators must register with State

Must petition—no plan to approve

Manifest for hazardous waste disposal in licensed hazardous

waste facilities

—

20-1,000 kg/mo must use manifest, licensed hauler and licensed

hazardous waste facilities.

Must use licensed hazardous waste facility

Small generator must comply with all requirements except

some papework

Guidelines for facility accepting small generator hazardous wastes

Lower limit

—

Disposal in landfill requires department approval; and

compliance with ground and surface water regulations

—

Lower limit—requires packing, labeling and proper disposal

Lower limit

No quantity exemption

Regulate quantities between 100 and 1,000 kg/me; A.R.

Disposal of hazardous waste at approved TSDF, correct

packing, storing, inspection

—

Approval of department for disposal of other than household

quantities

Must use permitted facility

—

Lower cutoff

None

No small generator exclusion—except infectious waste

Lower limit; State approval before disposal

Inspection of solid waste facility for small generator disposal

Small generator 100-1,000 kg must notify State

Requires written authorization for permitted facility to receive

small generator waste

Manifest for all industrial Class I and hazardous waste; A.R. for TSDF

None

Lower cutoff; State notification all generators; may require A. R.;

disposal in subtitle D facility; requires CBC approval
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program • 353

Table 75.—Summary of State Small Quantity Generator Provisions—Continued

State Small quantity cutoff Difference from Federal standard

Washington Varies by DOH classification Regulate to 0.18 kg/mo for some waste mixtures

West Virginia + Notification and recordkeeping requirements for small generators

Wisconsin + > 100 kg/mo must make A. R.; provide results of waste

determination; notice of delivery to disposal site operator

Wyoming — —

District of Columbia + All hazardous waste must be accompanied by manifest (will

lower to 100 kg/mo in 1 year)

Key + Same as EPA rules (1,000/kg)

A.R Annual Report

CBC Case by Case

DOH Degree of hazard

T/D Treatment/disposal

SOURCE ATSWMO Survey for OTA (1982), OTA Staff Memorandum, “The RCRA Exemption for Small Volume Generators, ” July 1982, J J Keller & Associates, Inc ,

Hazardous Waste Regulatory Gu/de, Sfafe Waste Management Programs, Neenah, W!s , September 1982

recycling, detoxification, incineration, or other

treatment processes that are generally recognized as alternatives to landfilling, and that

even these processes will result in some residues that will be landfilled, several States are

moving toward limiting land disposal of certain wastes. These bans are being implemented

to encourage the use of alternative treatment

and disposal options, to avoid the use of what

could become scarce capacity in suitable land

disposal facilities, and to reduce hazards to the

public and the environment from land disposal.

Standards for generators and hazardous

waste TSDFS under State programs have some

interesting variations that impose mor e

stringent requirements or incentives to promote alternatives to landfilling. By far the most

stringent are the restrictions on land disposal

of hazardous wastes. These range from outright bans on certain land disposal practices

to requirements that a generator demonstrate

that there are no feasible alternatives to

landfilling.

New York and California are currently developing limited bans on landfilling of certain

hazardous wastes. California’s ban is scheduled to be implemented in stages starting in

1983 with restrictions on landfilling of cyanides and toxic metals above certain concentrations, acid wastes, PCBS, and extremely hazardous liquid organic wastes. New York has

recently denied two land disposal permits on

the ground that the applicants failed to provide

adequately for technologies that offer alternatives to landfilling. Alternatives include the

requirement of pretreatment of liquids such as

neutralization, detoxification, solidification, or

encapsulation before land disposal. Michigan

bars landfilling of any liquid wastes without

some form of pretreatment to solidify the waste

or remove it from the waste stream. Governor

Thompson of Illinois has announced his intention to reintroduce legislation, which failed in

1982, that would ban landfilling of hazardous

waste. (Illinois already has a statutory provision that restricts land disposal of hazardous

waste after 1987 unless the generator demonstrates that there is no technologically feasible

and/or economically reasonable alternative to

landfilling.) Illinois requires a separate waste

stream permit for each waste stream received

from a generator for each facility in addition

to the basic facility permit. Similarly, Arkansas provides that no “high hazard” waste can

be landfilled if it could be destroyed by incineration, and further establishes a rebuttable presumption that incineration is feasible unless

demonstrated otherwise,

Other more stringent regulatory requirements may consist of more detailed and extensive permit and licensing reviews for land disposal facilities than for recycling or treatment

facilities. New York requires each major

facility to prepare a 10-year management

plan that would include a description of steps

the facility is taking to promote the development and use of alternative technologies to

reduce waste volume and toxicity and shortand long-term environmental emissions (air,

water, and solid waste). Michigan requires
354 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

that construction permit applications for new

facilities include an environmental assessment

evaluating the effect of the proposed facility

on air, water, and other resources, and an environmental failure mode assessment.

New York requires an onsite environmental monitor (State agency inspector) at certain

solid waste disposal facilities that pose potentially serious environmental damage or public health threats. The staff and equipment

needed for onsite environmental monitors are

to be paid by the operator. Depending on the

type of facility and the nature of hazard posed,

the State could require full-time, part-time, or

temporary onsite monitors. Certain facilities

would always be required to have monitors,

including commercial-secure land burial operations, commercial hazardous waste incinerators, and commercial treatment facilities handling acutely toxic wastes. Some onsite treatment or disposal facilities which manage acutely toxic hazardous waste are also likely to

require onsite monitors,

Several States do not vest regulatory responsibility for all aspects of hazardous waste activities in a single agency. In both Texas and California, the administration of the State RCRA

program is split between two agencies. In Minnesota, the State Pollution Control Agency

shares hazardous waste regulatory authority

with the county governments.

Other State Regulatory Programs

EPA does not require that a State enact specific RCRA-type legislation controlling hazardous waste in order to gain program approval.

States may obtain authorization based on their

regulatory and enforcement powers under any

State laws that are adequate to control hazardous waste. States have controlled the management of hazardous wastes or the effects of

waste disposal under a variety of laws dealing

with solid waste, air and water pollution control, wildlife protection, hazardous substances,

siting, land use, and public health and safety.

For example, State laws, which may be later

incorporated into the EPA authorized State

hazardous waste program, may limit the disposal of certain types of hazardous waste, or

may limit the disposal or treatment of hazardous wastes in certain areas-–such as residential or coastal areas—or within a certain distance of rivers, and other navigable waters or

flood zones. State law may require that the generator or facility operator demonstrate that

there is no economically and/or technically feasible alternative to land disposal or incineration. State laws may require additional permits

for hazardous waste facilities besides those required by RCRA and other applicable Federal

permits.

New York is moving to regulate air emissions

from the burning of waste oil and hazardous

waste mixtures under State air pollution control legislation. California’s Air Resources

Board monitors the air quality impacts of hazardous waste activities.

Some States have passed special legislation

to regulate the selection and approval of sites

for new hazardous waste management facilities (see table 76). Some of these siting laws

establish siting commissions which are independent of the hazardous waste permitting

agency and can impose additional, and more

stringent siting and land use controls than the

State regulatory program.

Several States are moving toward establishing a preferred hierarchy of’ hazardous waste

management techniques in their siting programs. Minnesota’s waste management plan

gives highest priority to alternatives to land

disposal including: industrial process modification to reduce or eliminate waste generation;

recycle, reuse, and recovery methods; and conversion and treatment technologies to reduce

the hazard of the waste in the environment.

Minnesota also requires the State Waste Management Board to consider technologies for

retrievable storage of hazardous waste for later

recycling, reuse, recovery, conversion, or treatment. States may require special siting board

approval or advanced submittal of waste facility siting proposals for consideration as part of

a comprehensive State waste management plan

and may condition permit approval on compliance with other legal requirements. These
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 355

: x

x :

x :

. .

. .

. .

. .

: x

x x Xxx x x

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

. .

.

. .

. .

. .

.

.

. .

: x

. .

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

: x

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

: x

x : :

. . . . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

: X x

: X x

x

x

x : : x

. .

. .

:x :

. .

. .

:x : x x x

, .

x

— : x x x

.

: x

x :

: x

: x

: x

: x

. .

x

x

x

x x

: x

: x

: x

. .

. .

. .

. .

x x

x x x

x

x

x

x x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

: X x

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

: X x

: X x

: x

. .

x : :

. .

. .

:x : x

. .

:x : x x

. .

a

: x : x x x

xx : x x xxx :

. . . . . .

. . . .

:x : x . . . x

x

. .

x x

x :

x x

x :

. .

. .

. .

. .

x :

x x

. . . .

Y

x x x x x Xxx x

. .

: x

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

: X x

. , .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

:x :

. .

: x

. ,

: X x

:x : x x x

. .

:x : x

. .

. .

:x : x : x

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

: x

x

. .

— : x x x

, .

x

x

x

:x : x

:x : x x

:x : x x x x

x

: x

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

: x

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

x x x

x

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

(n
356 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

may or may not be integrated with RCRA authorized programs. Table 77 summarizes State

options to promote alternatives to land disposal

of hazardous waste.

Nonregulatory Options for Management

of Hazardous Waste

Regulation is one approach to dealing with

the problems that hazardous waste pose to

human health and the environment. Control

over hazardous waste management is established directly through standard setting, permitting, and civil and criminal enforcement.

Through direct regulation, costs are internalized. Hazardous waste generators, transporters, and disposers are forced to pay the costs

of responsible management of hazardous waste

for protection of human health and the environment through compliance with regulatory

requirements.

Table 77.—Summary of State Options for Encouraging Alternatives to Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste

Fee Tax State State waste Regulatory Fast track R&D Land burial

State structures incentives Bonds ownership management plan exclusions permitting programs restrictions

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . x

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. x x

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . X x x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCES: ASTSWMO,SurveY for OTA, 1962; Citizens foraBetter Environment, “Approachest oHazardous Waste Managementin Selectsd Statest” OTAWorking PaPer,

December 1962; National Conference OfState Legislatures, llazafdous L%4w/eh fanagernentA Survey of State Leglslatlorr, 1982(Denvec Coloi 1962h The

Council of StateGovemments, Wastehfanagementln VreStates(Lexington, Ky~19611Fred C. Hart Associates, inc. (for EPA) ASurvey ofStateFeeSysfems

forHazardous Waste kfanagernent programs, EPA contract No. 66-01-5133, May25, 1962; National Conference of State Legi!flatures, ASurveyandArra/ysk

ofState Po//cyOptlorrs To Encourage A/temat/ves to Lar?d Dkposa/of Hazardous Waste (Denver, Colo:July 1961); Michael S. 13aramand J. Raymond Miyares,

“Expandingt hePollcy Options for the Management of Hazardous Wastes:’ OTA Working PapeC Feb. 1, 1962; and OTA Staff research.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 357

Other institutional mechanisms can induce

hazardous waste handlers to adhere to minimum standards of care and to bear the costs

of proper hazardous waste management or to

suffer the economic penalties of improper hazardous waste management, thus internalizing

costs, Nonregulatory approaches that are in use

or under consideration by various States include expanded liability under common law

and statutory provisions, insurance requirements, hazardous waste taxes and fees, trust

funds, and State superfunds, State hazardous

waste facility siting programs discussed previously also have nonregulatory aspects.

These alternative approaches are directed at

deterring improper waste management and

promoting sound alternative practices by requiring that responsible parties bear the costs

of their actions. Direct incentives such as tax

exempt financing, preferential treatment of

alternative technologies, fast track permitting,

State ownership of waste facilities, and State

research and development programs are other

nonregulatory approaches.

These nonregulatory approaches are independent of the regulatory system. They can

serve as an effective and complementary part

of a State’s comprehensive response to hazardous waste problems.

Liability

Increased liability for hazardous waste activities could encourage more responsible and

environmentally sound management practices,

Although there are only a few cases in which

damages for improper or illegal hazardous

waste disposal have been imposed, the legal

trends point clearly toward substantial damage awards in future hazardous waste cases.

The prospect of significant liability from past

and present activities is influencing State and

industry action. In the meantime, the legal barriers to winning lawsuits for damages or other

relief for the impacts of hazardous waste activities are being lowered through judicial decisions and State legislation.

Government officials, private attorneys,

and insurers have one message for generators, transporters, and facility operators: the

risks of substantial financial losses from liability for unsafe hazardous waste activities

are increasing rapidly. The prudent business

manager should take every available action to

reduce that risk by initiating better waste handling practices, or by avoiding generating and

disposing of hazardous waste where possible,

and by planning now to meet any future liability. If increased liability is to be an effective

incentive for generators and disposers to seek

alternative hazardous waste management options to remove the risks to human health and

the environment (and to their financial wellbeing), it is clear that substantial legal liability

must be seen as a probabIe, costly, and swift

result of unsound waste management activities.

Recent legal developments have mot-cd in that

direction.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) imposes liability for the costs to government agencies for cleanup, remedial action,

and emergency response and for damages to

natural resources, Other Federal laws impose

fines and punitive damages for violations of

regulations or statutory provisions and several

recognize citizen suits as alternative enforcement mechanisms. Many States have similar

laws, Except for limited coverage under the

CERCLA Post-closure LiabiIity Trust Fund,

however, damages for injury to private persons

or property are not now covered by CERCLA

or RCRA. Provisions dealing with liability for

injuries to third parties were dropped as part

of the compromise to pass CERCLA and were

deferred for further study, The CERCLA 301(e)

study group recently recommended adoption

of broad tax-based personal injury and property damage compensation measures for hazardous waste activities. l49

Lawsuits involving hazardous waste activities can be expected to increase as more sites

Idglnjuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Aria IJrsis

and Improvement of Lega) Remedjes: A Report to Congress jn

Compliance with Section 301(e) of the Comprehensive En~’ironmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 1980 (Pub

lic Law 9G510] buv the Superfund Section 301(e] Stud~r Group,

97th Cong., 2d sess,, 1982, 2 vols (hereafter 301(e] Study Group

report).
358 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

are discovered and the public awareness of

dangers from exposure to hazardous chemicals

grows. These lawsuits can seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief. The amounts

sought by private parties in such lawsuits can

be staggering. (One class action case involving

hazardous waste dumping in Tennessee is

seeking damages of $2.5 billion.) Courts can

also award punitive and/or exemplary damages

in appropriate circumstances. A court order

or injunction may compel a responsible party

(e.g., a generator, transporter, or facility

operator) either to take a specific action (i.e.,

remove the wastes, clean up the site, provide

an alternative water supply, provide long-term

health monitoring and care for exposed persons) or to refrain from taking an action (e. g.,

no more dumping) and to bear all the costs

entailed.

Theories relied on for recovery for injuries

and property damage from hazardous waste

management are based on common law causes

of action, sometimes expanded by statute, and

include negligence, strict liability, nuisance,

and trespass.

Legal Remedies for Injuries and Losses

From Hazardous Wastes

The traditional common law remedies for

personal injuries and property damage are

available in hazardous wastes cases .

1 5 0

Negligence and strict liability are directed at

compensating injuries due to the actions of

another. private nuisance and trespass are intended to protect possessor interests in land

against unreasonable interference from the activities of another. Public nuisance actions seek

to protect the broader public interest from

unreasonable land uses. Each of these theories

has aspects that make it an appropriate mechanism for redress in some cases and not in

others. In some instances, state statutory provisions have modified or replaced these common law remedies to ease some of the recurring barriers to recovery. Frequently, lawsuits

IWThoSe interested in a more detailed discussion Of liability

theories for damages from hazardous waste activies and of barriers to recovery under these remedies should consult the report

of the CERCLA 301(e) study group.

involving hazardous wastes will include several claims reflecting different theories of

liability. A consequence is that the court’s decision may be based on a blending of the various

concepts behind toxic torts and may not give

a clear indication of the precise theory invoked

to provide recovery.

Negligence .—Negligence is commonly defined

as a failure to conform one’s conduct to a legally recognized standard or duty of care. An action for negligence is brought to recover compensation for personal injury and for property damage from the negligent party. To prevail

in a negligence suit, the plaintiff must prove

four elements:

1. the existence of a duty or obligation recognized by the law to conform to the

standard of conduct for the protection of

others against unreasonable risks;

2. a failure by the defendant to conform his

or her conduct to the required standards;

3. a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and a resulting injury to the

plaintiff; and

4. an actual injury or loss. 151

The standard of care by which the defendant’s

conduct is measured in negligence cases may

be established by prior judicial decisions,

statute, regulation, or by analogy from other

cases with similar circumstances. In negligence cases of first impression, the standard

of care will be what the jury believes a reasonable or prudent person would do under similar conditions or circumstances. A generator

or facility operator might be held accountable

for injuries on the premise that it was negligent

not to have investigated the effects of various

disposal options available and selected an option reasonably designed to avoid the type of

harm suffered by the plaintiff. Alternatively,

a generator or operator’s failure to warn of the

hazards posed by the wastes might be considered negligent, especially if the plaintiff might

have avoided the risk had he been aware of it.

Many generators do not dispose of their own

wastes, yet they might be held liable for the

151w, prosser, Hand~ok of the Law of Torts, 143 (4th ed. 1971).
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 359

improper disposal actions of the facility to

which their wastes were sent for failing to anticipate or take precautions against the negligent actions of others. (The liability provisions

in Superfund make generators liable for the

Government’s cleanup costs for improper or

unsafe disposal resulting in release of hazardous substances without regard to fault—i.e.

whether or not the generator exercised due

care. )

Some formulations of the negligence standard use the concept of a duty to protect others

against an “unreasonable risk” of harm. An

unreasonable risk is defined as one of such

magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards

as the utility of the act or the manner in which

it is done. In hazardous waste cases, the community’s need for hazardous waste disposal

might thus be weighed against the requirement

to protect against unreasonable risks, and the

risks posed by the facility may be found not to

be unreasonable. In some States, however, statutory provisions or common law principles

have established that violation of certain statutes or regulations constitutes negligence per

se.

While recovery under a negligence theory in

hazardous waste cases is an available option,

establishment of a duty of care is only part of

the case. In some jurisdictions, it will be

necessary to show that the defendant knew, or

should have known, of the risks involved at the

time of the disposal because of the legal principle that there is no duty to avoid or warn of

unknowable risks. Given the insidious and

long-term consequences of hazardous waste

disposal, the dangers posed by the defendant’s

action may not have been foreseeable based on

the state of knowledge at the time. Another difficulty in negligence cases, and in most hazardous waste cases, will be the evidentiary

problem of proving: 1) a connection between

exposure to a particular waste, chemical substance, or mixture and the injury suffered; and

2) that the chemical originated in the defendant’s waste or disposal facility. Often the injury and the resulting lawsuit arise many years

after the disposal or exposure, thus adding

more difficulties in locating parties, witnesses,

and establishing a causal connection.

Strict Liability .-Negligence actions are based

on the premise that the defendant failed to take

reasonable care to protect others, but some activities are so inherently or abnormally dangerous that injuries or losses can occur even

when the defendant exercises the utmost care.

To deal with such circumstances, the strict

liability theory was developed. Under strict liability, anyone who engages in certain risky activities is legally responsible without regard to

fault (i.e., strictly liable) for any injuries

resulting from those activities. Many of the

early cases involved blasting and aerial spraying. Whether hazardous waste management

can be seen as one of the categories of activity

that are subject to strict liability under common

law principles is not yet clear.l52 Several States

have by statute imposed strict liability on hazardous waste activities and the standard of liability for cleanup of hazardous waste releases

in the Clean Water Act, section 311, and

CERCLA cases is strict liability.

There are various formulations of the strict

liability standard recognized in American

courts. Some jurisdictions hold that strict

liability is absolute without regard to the degree

of care exercised. Other jurisdictions recognize

some limited defenses that allow a balancing

of interests. A third formulation bases strict

liability on the magnitude of the risks involved

and the relative ability of the parties to sustain

the risks of loss.153 Activities covered by strict

liability differ from those that are considered

as negligence or public nuisance in that they

have some social utility, even though a serious

risk is imposed which is not a normal incident

of everyday life (so that the plaintiff would be

unlikely or unable to avoid the risk). Strict

liability awards compensation for the injuries

and losses suffered. Like negligence, it is invoked “after the fact, ” i.e., after the injury has

occurred. Strict liability eases the plaintiff’s

lszstrict ]iabi]ity for hazardous waste activities was found in

Department of Transportation v. PSC Resources, Inc., 175 N.J.

Super 447, 419 A2d, 1151 Div. 1980). But a different conclusion

was reached in Elwell v. Petro Processors, Inc., 364 So. 2d 604

[La. App. 1978), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 575 (La. 1979).

I Sssee SO I (e) study group report at 122. See also NeW7 ]erse~”

v. Ventron Corp, 182 N.]. Super. 210 (App. Div. 1981) where current and past owners of a mercur~’ processing plant were held

liable for costs of cleaning up the wastes dumped at the site and

the contamination of surface waters.
360 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

burden of proof somewhat by eliminating the

need to show “fault” and by limiting available

defenses. However, the plaintiff still faces

substantial evidentiary problems in demonstrating a causal connection or nexus between

the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s hazardous waste activities.

Nuisance.—Nuisance, in essence, is a common

law remedy that can be invoked whenever

one’s use of land unreasonably interferes with

another’s use and enjoyment of a right. This

right may be either a possessor interest in land

in private nuisance actions, or a more general

right of the public (e. g., to be free from unsafe

conditions or from unwarranted air, water, or

noise pollution) in public nuisance actions.

Public nuisance and private nuisance actions

are distinct in origin and in the rights protected. However, in both actions, the courts

frequently impose a balancing test that weighs

the relative social or economic utility of the activity involved against the rights of or harm suffered by the complaining party. In some hazardous waste cases, this balancing of the equities may recognize the social necessity of hazardous waste facilities and deny or limit the

monetary or injunctive relief sought by the

plaintiff as abatement of the nuisance.l54

A private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a person’s interest in the

private use and enjoyment of land. The person

bringing the nuisance action must be the one

whose possession of the land is impaired, i.e.,

the owner or tenant. Private nuisance differs

from trespass in that the interference with the

use or enjoyment of the property must be unreasonable and significant. under modern case

law, to be unreasonable, the nuisance must be

shown to be the result of the defendant’s negligent, intentional, or ultrahazardous activities.

To be significant interference, it must be more

than the consequences of ordinary community activity. The private nuisance theory

adopted by the Restatement (Second) of Torts

would require a court to balance the “gravity

of harm” suffered by the plaintiff against the

lmBOOrner v. Atlantic Cement CO., 72 Misc. 2d 834, 340 N.Y. S.

Zd 9 (1972).

utility of the defendant’s conduct in determining whether the conduct was unreasonable.l55

Nuisance actions have been successfully pursued in environmental pollution cases.l56 A c -

tual damage or harm to the plaintiff’s land or

a resulting injury need not occur for a nuisance

to be found. The threat of personal discomfort

or disease from a hazardous waste facility or

the prospect of future losses from the impacts

of the facility’s activities creates an interference with the use and enjoyment of property. This threat is a sufficient basis for the issuance of an injunction requiring removal of

the nuisance. Proposed hazardous waste facilities similarly could be enjoined under a theory

of prospective nuisance—that the facility if

built would cause interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of land.

Nuisance actions are not limited to the person who created the nuisance, (e.g., the facility operator or the anonymous dumper of toxic wastes). An innocent purchaser or owner of

land on which an artificial condition creates

a nuisance can be held liable if the new owner

fails to take action to abate the nuisance within

a reasonable period of time after he discovers

or should have discovered the condition. Unlike the plaintiff who must be in possession of

the land affected, the person who created the

nuisance but who transferred or sold the property on which it is located can be sued in a

nuisance action.

Public nuisance is defined as an unreasonable interference with a right common to

the community at large. The conduct is considered unreasonable and, thus, a nuisance if

its utility does not outweigh the gravity of the

harm it produces. This test allows a rough

balancing of the benefits and burdens from a

particular activity. Every state has a statutory

provision authorizing suits to abate public

nuisance.

157

lgsllestaternent (Second) of Torts, ~t~27.

l~private nuisance actions are appropriate for the interference

with use and enjoyment created by noise, by odors, and other

air pollution, by water pollution and the contamination or pollution of subsurface waters. See cases cited by 301(e) study group

at 105.

lsT301(e) study group report, vol. II at 171.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 361

Public nuisance actions differ from private

nuisance actions in that the right to be protected is one enjoyed by the public at large and

is not tied to interest in publicly owned land.

The cause of action arises out of a defendant’s

unreasonable use of his land for activities that

interfere with this public right. Public nuisance

actions are commonly brought by public officials, however, many State public nuisance

statutes also authorize citizens to bring these

actions on behalf of the public. Public nuisance

actions are generally directed at obtaining injunctive relief for abatement of the nuisance.

Private damages are not usually recoverable by

private citizens asserting public nuisance

claims unless it can be shown that the damages

they have suffered are in addition to and

distinct from the general harm to the public interest created by the nuisance. Many State laws

make the violation of statute or regulation, such

as regulations governing hazardous waste facilities, a public nuisance. A public nuisance

case may also require the weighing of equities

before finding a nuisance. As in the private

nuisance case, the fact that a facility is permitted is not an absolute defense, although it

may be raised to show public recognition of

the utility of the activity.

A private or public nuisance action can be

pursued to enjoin the defendant from entering

into an activity that will constitute a nuisance,

or from continuing a nuisance already begun,

or to seek compensation for the damages suffered. Damages can be recovered for harm or

loss to the plaintiff’s property and for any personal injuries suffered as a consequence of the

nuisance. A single nuisance action may seek

more than one remedy.

Generally, a prerequisite to injunctive relief

is a finding by the court that the harm to the

plaintiff is irreparable, i.e., it cannot be

remedied by the payment of compensation, Of

course, payment of compensation may not be

a complete remedy where the nuisance and its

harms are of a continuing nature.

Other remedies may also be fashioned by the

court in a nuisance action, such as a combination of damages and an injunction, a delayed

injunction, or an order for affirmative action.

A delayed injunction, which does not take effect until a specified period of time has passed,

may prove useful in developing technology

areas, where all possible adverse effects are not

known or the technology to minimize potential risks is unavailable at present. The delay

could give the defendant an opportunity to consider various alternatives to cure the nuisance.

Through the use of a remedy such as the delayed injunction, the courts can effectively

bring pressure to force improved technology

and to minimize potential risks otherwise imposed by hazardous waste management. 156

Trespass.—A right of action in trespass arises

out of the defendant’s interference with the

plaintiff’s right to the exclusive enjoyment of

his property. Originally, under common law,

recovery under trespass provisions was absolute upon showing of an actual invasion of

the plaintiff’s property by the defendant or by

an object or substance under the defendant’s

control. Trespass by environmental pollution

would seem to be another possible common

law remedy in hazardous waste cases. However, most State courts today require that the

invasion be shown to be intentional, negligent,

or the result of an ultrahazardous activity or

of an abnormal or unreasonable use of

property.

Injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence

or high-risk activities might also be remedied

by suing on a negligence or strict liability

theory instead of in trespass, since the defendant’s conduct is the major factual issue in

all three cases. However, in some States, the

longer statute of limitations applicable to

trespass cases may be advantageous in some

circumstances.

A trespass is “intentional” under the general

rule adopted in the Restatement (Second) of

Torts if the defendant acted purposefully to

enter, lead, or set an object in motion that

almost certainly would come to rest on the

lS81n Vj]]age of Wjlsonville v. SCA Services, as a result of a

public nuisance suit, a State-permitted hazardous waste facility

was ordered closed with all wastes to be exhumed and removed

from the dump site, and the site decontaminated. Compliance

with the site closure and cleanup order was phased to allow completion of necessary preparation studies. 77 Ill. App. 3d 618,396

N.E. 2d 552 (1979), affd No. 10052885 (11]. May 22, 1981).

99-113 0 - 83 - 24
362 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

plaintiff’s property. 159 Except in the case of

“midnight dumpers, ” the plaintiff faces a difficult burden in showing that the defendant intended that toxic waste constituents would

migrate onto the plaintiff’s property. Intentional action might be shown if the defendant

knew or should have known that rain, wind,

or surface runoff would carry hazardous substances onto the property. Whether land burial

of hazardous substances with subsequent migration of toxic constituents in ground water

would be considered an intentional trespass is

uncertain. Several commentators have concluded that existing precedent would not support such a finding because it would be difficult

to demonstrate: 1) that trespass with ground

water transport was an “almost certain” result

of land burial and 2) that the defendant knew

or should have known of such a probable

result .180

.

Trespass actions can result in a court order

barring further trespass and requiring removal

of the invasion and/or the recovery of damages

for injuries or property loss resulting from the

invasion. There have been trespass cases involving air and water pollution where substances have migrated onto the plaintiffs property from the defendant’s activities. 181 A major difficulty in trespass actions in some

jurisdictions is that the courts have not

recognized a landowners’s right to pure, un-

 contaminated percolating ground water, so

that even if an intentional invasion were

shown, it might not result in liability. As in

private nuisance actions, trespass cases require

that the complaining party be in possession of

the property affected. In trespass, there is no

balancing of the plaintiff’s exclusive right to

the use and enjoyment of his property against

the social utility of the defendants activity or

the relative costs to the parties.

Barriers to Recovery.—In bringing these actions,

plaintiffs face many procedural and evidentiary problems. There are, as well, substantial

lho~es~a~eme~~ (seco~~) of Torts, j\158, 165 (1965).

l~David, “Groundwater Pollution: Case Law Theories for Relief’ 30 MO. L. Rev. 117 (1974): Davis, “Theories of Water Pollution Litigation, ” 1971 Wise, L. Rev. 738; Phillips v. Sun Oil Co.,

307 N.Y. 328, 121 N.E. Zd 249 (1954).

IelSee 301(e) study group report at 101-104.

difficulties in gaining expansion of established

legal theories to cover hazardous waste cases,

although a clear trend exists. Among the common problems that are anticipated in these

cases are the statute of limitations, proof of

causation, identification of responsible parties,

and the availability of such theories as joint and

several liability, or enterprise liability in cases

involving multiple defendants.

Statute of limitations: The local rule that

lawsuits must be filed within a specified period

of time after the act that caused the harm, or

the discovery of the injury, can pose a barrier

to private damage actions involving long-term

chemical exposure, abandoned waste sites, diseases with long latency periods, or situations

where contamination of hazardous waste is not

readily apparent. In such cases, victims may

be barred from filing a lawsuit before they are

even aware of their injuries. This difficulty is

reduced somewhat in States that have adopted

a discovery rule that starts the period during

which a lawsuit must be filed when the plaintiff discovers the injury. l82

Proof of causation: The Superfund section

301(e) study group concluded that the burden

on the plaintiff of proving that the injuries suffered were the result of the defendant’s conduct may be a formidable problem in suits involving hazardous waste. l83 Developing the

evidence necessary to demonstrate liability

may involve expensive and detailed scientific

testing and presenting of expert testimony in

several different fields. The costs of preparing

a successful case may be so steep that only

those cases involving potentially high damage

awards would warrant incurring the expense

under the prevailing practice of contingent fee

arrangements for the plaintiff’s attorneys.

Identification of responsible parties: In

some cases, the victims may encounter difficulty in determining which parties to sue. Where

the possible defendants can be identified, many

years may have elapsed since waste disposal.

18ZThe 301(e, stucly group report at 43-45. The report notes that

39 jurisdictions have adopted some form of the discovery rule

either by statute or judicial interpretation at 133 n.4.

16sThe 301(e) study group report at 69-71.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 363

The whereabouts of facility operators or generators may be unknown, and companies may

have changed ownership or may have gone out

of business. In other cases it may be difficult

to ascertain the original wastes or their sources

so as to identify the responsible generators.

Joint and Several Liability/Enterprise Liability.—The availability to plaintiffs and to

potentially responsible parties of theories that

can be used to apportion fault and liability for

damages among a group of defendants can be

of some advantage in hazardous waste cases

when the responsible party cannot be distinguished from other group members under the

evidence available or when several defendants

contributed to the situation causing the injury.

These theories can slightly ease the plaintiff’s

burden of proof and can expand the pool of

responsible parties from which damages can

be recovered.

Insurance

Relevance to Waste Management

Insurance is one of the oldest and most commonly used techniques for dealing with risks.

Today, there are several different types of insurance coverage available to hazardous waste

firms. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policies offer full coverage for sudden

and accidental pollution on an “occurrence”

basis (i.e., covering all claims arising from

events occurring during the policy year whenever the claim is filed), Environmental Impairment Insurance offers coverage for nonsudden

pollution incidents on a “claims made” basis

(covering all claims made in the policy year

without respect to when the incident causing

them occurred), A third type of coverage, currently available only to generators in the chemical industry, combines coverage for sudden

and nonsudden pollution incidents in a single

comprehensive contract on a claims made basis, Because of the lack of loss experience and

the relative infancy of risk assessment in the

hazardous waste management area, insurers

are likely to move increasingly to the use of

claims made policies for hazardous waste activities.

The impact of insurance depends largely on

the underlying rule of liability and the terms

and availability of coverage. Payment of settlements and damage awards to injured parties is made part of a hazardous waste facility’s ongoing operating costs through liability

insurance coverage, Premiums for liability

coverage are tied, to some extent, to the loss

experience of the particular facility, and thus

tort actions are a form of economic incentive

to avoid health and safety risks that may produce a poor loss experience and ultimately

higher premiums. To the extent that premiums

are experience-rated, it is generally believed

that facility owners and operators will seek to

minimize the sum of the cost of safety measures, insurance costs, and uncovered liability

costs.

The availability and price structure of insurance coverage may create significant incentives for management to act affirmatively to

avoid losses due to environmental contamination. While such losses may be covered by insurance and therefore may not be incurred initially by the insured party, such claims will

substantially increase premiums, and loss

avoidance can become economically preferable. Reliance on an insurance mechanism

assumes that a private sector business will provide valuable oversight of its hazardous waste

activities, through routine inspection, monitoring, and risk evaluation, as well as eventually

through attempts to minimize premiums, in the

task of managing the risks from those activities.

But insurers generally have been wary of proposals that would cast them in the role of surrogate regulators,

If insurance brings about the results expected

in theory, it can be a strong incentive to achieve

some of the goals that otherwise would have

to be achieved solely through “command and

control” regulation. Insurance requirements

under RCRA, CERCLA, and State programs

can be seen as complementary to the regulatory

requirements,

On the other hand, insurance can blunt the

incentives created by other regulatory and

nonregulatory approaches to risk management.
364 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Insurance spreads hazardous waste risks over

time, and across the industry among like

situated firms and facilities. This spreading

may tend, in particular cases, to decrease the

economic incentive to avoid health, safety, and

environmental risks among individual generators, transporters, and facility owners and

operators, unless they are somehow convinced

that others are undertaking similar avoidance

measures.

Overall, the impact of insurance on the risk

management decision is an ambivalent one:

Without insurance, the existing regulatory or

nonregulatory incentives have little practical

impact on judgment-proof parties. Insurance

makes available an amount of money to be used

to respond to adverse judgments. Insurance

compensation to victims of hazardous waste

activities often can be made without resort to

the courts, thus avoiding the delay, costs, and

evidentiary burdens facing the plaintiffs in

liability actions. Moreover, judgments requiring abatement of or compensation for the

adverse impacts of hazardous waste activities

would lose their effectiveness as an incentive

for better waste management if generators,

transporters, or facility operators could avoid

the financial consequences by simply going out

of business.

For insurance to operate as an effective and

complementary mechanism in the existing

Federal and State system: 1) insurance coverage for hazardous waste activities must be

available and affordable; 2) the level and

scope of coverage must be adequate for the

magnitude of risks insured; 3) the coverage

must continue after closure of the facility;

and 4) more consistent and perhaps standardized risk assessment procedures must be

used.

EPA financial responsibility requirements

for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities require certain minimum

levels of liability coverage either through an insurance policy or self-insurance. EPA is currently considering whether to promulgate rules

for additional financial responsibility requirements for corrective action at land disposal facilities.

Fees, Taxes, and Other Economic Incentives

to Encourage Alternatives to Land Disposal

One of the key assumptions in setting up a

national regulatory program to deal with hazardous wastes was that as the program was implemented, hazardous waste disposal costs

would rise significantly, It would then become

economically attractive for generators to adopt

new processes and to seek alternatives to land

disposal, Preliminary economic analyses of the

cost impacts of the RCRA regulations, however, appear to indicate that while the costs of

compliance are significant, the cost increases

are not of such magnitude as to create a

substantial economic incentive to shift to other

disposal and treatment alternatives. By far the

most significant impact of the interim status

standards for land disposal operations was the

requirement to install a ground water monitoring system, but the cost per unit of waste deposited varied significantly depending on the

size of the facility. EPA’s analysis of the cost

impacts of the final land disposal rules indicate

that primary impacts will fall on small onsite

landfills and small surface impoundments, and

that significant economies of scale will dilute

the initial economic impacts at large commercial landfills.l84 Potentially, the most substantial cost component of the July 1982 land disposal regulations is corrective action (ground

water pumping and cleanup). However, currently there is no requirement for operators to

demonstrate their financial capability to carry

out corrective actions to receive such a permit.

Because it is now apparent that increased

regulatory compliance costs alone might not

be significant enough to induce a change in

disposal practices, many States are studying

the effectiveness of various financial incentives to influence hazardous waste management activities. Among the most typical approaches are fees, taxes, and direct financial

or technical assistance to preferred management technologies. Table 78 summarizes State

fee mechanisms; table 79 shows availability of

tax incentives and bonds.

l~see discussion of regulatory impact analysis in the preamble

to the land disposal regulations, 47 F.R. 32,337-32,348, at 32,342,

JUIY 26, 1982.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 365

Table 78.—State Fee Mechanisms

Facilities Transporters Generators

Alabama . . . . .

Alaska. ... . . .

Arizona . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . .

California . . . . . .

Colorado ... . . . .

Connecticut . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . .

Idaho, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois. . . . . . .

Indiana . . . .

lowa . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . .

Minnesota ., . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . .

Missouri . .

Montana. ., . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska ., . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . .

New Jersey ..., . .

New Mexico. . . . . . .

New York . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma. ..., . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . ..., . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . .

West Virginia. . ..., .

Wisconsin . . .

Wyoming ., . . . . . . . . .

I —

—

P,A,M

T,F

—

—

—

s

—

P

—

T

T

—

P,T

P,A,M

P,A

P,A,M

P,A

P

P,A

—

T

P,A,T

—

—

—

P,A

P,M,T

s

—

F

—

P,A

—

P,M

—

P,A

—

—

P,A

—

—

—

—

—

P,A

P,A

—

—

—

—

B

V,B,I

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

V,B

—

—

—

—

o

—

v

v

—

—

v

—

—

—

B

v

—

—

—

—

V,B

—

—

—

v

—

—

Q

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— —

T—

—

T—

G—

G,T—

—

—

T—

—

T

R,G

G—

—

—

—

T

T,G—

—

—

—

T—

—

—

T

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Key A = annual registration/other O = other

penodlc fee P = permit appllcatton fee

B = base Q = quantity

F = factllty fee R = registration

G = generator fee S = surcharge

I = InspectIon T = tipptng fee

M = monitoflng/surveillance fee V = vehicle registration

SOURCES ASTSWMO, SurveyforOTA, 1982, Cltlzens for aBetter Environment,

“Approachesto Hazardous Waste Management In Selected States;’

OTA Working Paper, December 1982, National Conference of State

Legislatures, l-fazardous Waste Managernerrf ASurvey ofState Leg/s-

/af(on 1982(Denver, Colo 1982), The Council of State Governments,

Waste &fanagernerrtlnfhe States (Lexington, Ky 1981), FredC Hart

Assoclatton, lnc (for EPA), ASurveyofState Fee Sysfernsfor#azard

ous Wasfekfanagernerrt Programs, EPA contract No 6841-5133, May

25, 1982, and Nattonal Conference of State Legislatures, A Survey

and Ana/ys(s of State Po/Icy Options To Encourage A/ fematlves fo

Land Dsposal of Hazardous Wasfe (Denver, Colo July 1981)

The creation of an economic incentive may

be only part of the reason for a State adopting

such an option. Some fees may be imposed to

deter land disposal and, additionally, to pay for

administering the regulatory system, or to provide funds for research and development of

alternatives, or for the State superfund for site

cleanups and victim compensation,

Facility Fees

A substantial number of States impose a fee

or tax of some kind on hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. There is,

as would be expected, a wide variation in the

types and applicability of these charges and in

the disposition of the proceeds. Among the different types of fees imposed are administrative

fees for permit applications, licenses, inspections, and similar government requirements,

and tipping fees or surcharges levied on wastes

received at facilities which may or may not

be passed on to the generator.

Administrative Fees

These fees range from minimal charges to assessments that are intended to reimburse the

agency for the full cost of administering its programs. There are three types of administrative

fees for facilities: permit application fees or

charges for filing an initiaI application or permit modification; permit renewal or annual

operating fees or other fees assessed on a

periodic basis for operating facilities; and

monitoring or surveillance fees assessed for

site inspection visits or monitoring which may

be required as a condition of a permit,

The basis for these fees varies. For example,

some States impose fees only on offsite facilities or exempt recyclers. State fees on hazardous waste facilities are set on one or more of

following criteria:

base fee—minimum charge with no variation among facilities;

onsite and offsite facilities;

commercial or noncommercial facilities;

size of the facility measured by capacity,

number of units, or the area of the site;

facility waste management category, i.e.,

treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling;
366 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Table 79.—State Fee Revenues (as of Apr. 1, 1982)

FY 1982 Hazardous Waste FY 1982 RCRA Hazardous Waste Program fee

Program Budget As a percent of As a percent of

State Total State share Revenue collected total program budget state matching share

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . $347,669” $65,777 $20,000 60/0 30 ”/0

California. . . . . . . . . . . . 7,686,012 4,384,628 4,384,628 a

57 100

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,500 15,000 Very minor Very minor Very minor

Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,172,587 293,147 Not collected yet o 0

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504,100 135,000 80,000 16 59

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . 872,883 149,805 87,000b

10 58

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000,000 960,000 900,000 45 94

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 564,000 300,000 300,000 53 100

Massachusetts . . . . . . . 1,547,000 803,000 18,000

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,277,664 569,632 t + +

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . 797,082 147,082 208,100 26 100

New Hampshire . . . . . . 531,000 325,000 t t t

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . 1,981,929 740,520 200,000’ t t

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,123,540 953,592 558,000b

18 59

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599,285 127,211 76,128 13 60

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 720,302 233,827 Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . 271,884 235,000 Not collected yet o 0

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 1,839,000 768,000 495,000d 27 64

West Virginia . . . . . . . . 792,000 198,000 + + + Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . 1,055,300 263,843 70,000e

7 27

tData not available.

aAgency budget p p ro osed for next fiscal year Includes expected fee revenue of $78 million.

bAnnualized estimate. clncludes solid waste fee ‘ e

Venue

‘No fees collected yet This is the expected revenue for the fiscal year with collections starting In April 1982 In fiscal year 1983 the portion funded by fees is expected

to Increase to 40 percent of total program funding

‘N. fees collected yet. Expected yearly hazardous waste ‘evenues

SOURCES NGA/ASTSWMO Survey, March 1982, Fred C. Hart & Associates, Inc (for EPA), A Survey of State Fee Systems for tii%?ardous Wasfe A4anagefr?enf Programs,

U S EPA contract No 68-01-5133, May 25, 1982; reprinted in Hazardous Waste Report, vol. 3, Sept 6, 1982

●

●

waste handling technology used at the facility: landfills, deep well injection, land

application, incineration, surface impoundment, chemical or biological treatment; and

volume or quantity of wastes received or

disposed of at the facility.

Transporter Fees.—At least 14 States levy fees

on hazardous waste transporters. Transporter

fees are generally imposed as vehicle fees (a

charge on each vehicle used to haul hazardous

waste), base fees (generally levied on each firm

engaged in hauling hazardous waste), or some

other type of fees. Three States utilize other

types of transporter fees. Maine charges transporters an import fee on waste generated in

other States. Tennessee bases its fee on the

amount of wastes transported. California

charges an annual inspection fee for waste

haulers.

Generator Fees.—California, Kentucky, Missouri, Florida, and Ohio impose generator fees.

These States use three different types of fees:

tipping registration, and waste generation.

Tipping Fees.—Tipping fees are charges assessed on the receipt of waste at a facility. They

are considered generator fees because they are

paid either directly by the generator or by the

facility operator. In the latter instance, the

facility collects the fees “as a trustee of the

State” and forwards the receipts to the State

agency. Tipping fees in the form of surcharges

are imposed at facilities where the generator

pays a charge for waste. These surcharge fees

may exempt onsite disposal operations where

no fee is paid.

Registration Fees.—Kentucky requires generators to pay an annual registration fee based

on the amount of hazardous waste to be generated. Besides providing a source of revenue,

this type of charge can provide reasonably accurate data on waste generation in a State.

Such information helps with receipt projections from other fees as well as other aspects

of the program.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 367

Waste Generation Fee.—This type of fee is a tax

on hazardous waste generation. It is assessed

directly on the generator. Missouri sets a $1

per tonne charge with a maximum annual

assessment of $10,000.

Other Tax Mechanisms

As an alternative to the negative economi c

incentives of imposing fees and taxes to in -

crease the costs of hazardous waste disposal ,

some States use positive economic mecha -

nisms such as tax incentives and financia l

assistance to encourage proper waste disposal

practices and the development of alternativ e

management technologies, For example, sev -

eral States provide for limited tax exemptions

or credits for business equipment and rea l

estate taxes for pollution control equipment or

hazardous waste treatment facilities, By ex -

cluding the facility from payment of highe r

taxes, a benefit is bestowed, Accelerated de -

preciation is another tax device to give favored

treatment to hazardous waste technologies .

Other States allow use of tax-exempt bonds as

financing for the development and construc -

tion of hazardous waste facilities. Some State s

favor alternative treatment technologies suc h

as recycling or incinerators over land disposal

facilities in their tax incentive programs ,

Use of Fee Revenues

Proceeds from these fees can be put to various uses. The fees can be deposited to a special

account to fund agency hazardous waste regulatory activities, deposited to general

revenues, or deposited to a special fund for a

designated use (e.g., as for cleaning up abandoned sites or sponsoring research and development on alternative waste management technologies, )

While there appear to be a variety of fee

mechanisms available to and used by States,

the amounts reported by States as generated

through this mechanism in most instances are

relatively small compared to funding needs.

Fees, however, are an appealing source of

revenue for State programs in a time of declining Federal grants (see table 79). Considering

the amount of money received and the various restrictions on its use, it is clear that fees

alone are not currently adequate to meet State

revenue needs for enforcing hazardous waste

programs.

At a time of increasing regulatory activity,

and with the prospect of declining Federal contributions, the significant limitations in

reliance on existing State fee mechanisms include the following:

●

●

●

●

The administrative fees frequently do not

cover full agency costs and would have to

be raised substantially if they were used

to sustain agency activities. (A permit application of $5,000 or even $25,000 may

not cover the costs of technical review and

hearings for a large landfill facility.)

Fee generation may not provide a stable,

predictable source of revenue. Fees based

on administrative procedures are dependent on a flow of permit applications and

renewals. Value and quantity fees are subject to fluctuations in business cycles.

The schedule of costs may not be

tailored to different types of facilities; thus

the fee charged might not be proportionate

to the administrative costs incurred (e.g.,

onsite storage tanks may not require the

same level of attention as a commercial

landfill).

The State government structure may limit the imposition or use of certain fees

through statutory or constitutional provisions. In such instances, the ability of

States to respond quickly to reduced Federal grants by promptly imposing or raising fees may be significantly constrained

by State law or constitutional considerations, such as biannual meetings of the legislature or the inability to obtain passage

of the required legislation. Michigan’s fee

structure to fund its waste facility and closure fund was held unconstitutional because the fee was not high enough to cover

the costs of potential post-closure liability.

The fees may already be dedicated to

another major State program, such as

cleanup of existing or abandoned hazard-
368 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

ous waste sites or compensation of victims

of hazardous waste activities. using the

fees to finance the regulatory program

would detract from other efforts.

State “Superfunds”

Many States have enacted laws which are

similar to CERCLA that provide for emergency response and cleanup for hazardous substance releases. These State trust funds may be

financed from special State taxes, from fees

assessed on hazardous waste generators, transporters, and facility operators, or may include

State general revenues appropriations.

At least two State funds, California and New

Jersey, provide for the compensation of victims

of hazardous waste activities. These States then

can proceed against the responsible parties for

reimbursement of any compensation paid to

“innocent” victims. Table 80 summarizes the

availability and scope of State superfunds for

hazardous waste cleanups.

one of the unresolved issues involving coordination of State superfund and CERCLA

cleanups is the extent of the limitation in

CERCLA on State taxes that duplicate the oil

and chemical taxes in CERCLA. Some industry

groups have argued that section 114(c) limits

the use of State superfund monies as the State’s

contributing share in CERCLA cleanups

because the State taxes would then be imposed

for the same purpose as Federal Superfund

taxes. In a case challenging New Jersey’s tax

on chemical and oil products, the Federal

courts deferred to State court jurisdiction. The

State courts interpretating State law have concluded that New Jersey’s tax is not in conflict

with section I14(c) of CERCLA.

In addition to imposing a tax financing a

trust fund mechanism for cleanup of hazardous

waste dumps, at least 15 States have created

statutory provisions concerning liability for

cleanup costs for those which cause or contribute

to hazardous waste dumps that must be cleaned up. The extent of liability and conditions for

recovery actions vary significantly among the

States.

165

10SFor a more exhaustive discussion see 301(e) study group

report vol. II and the NSCL report, lfazardous Waste Manage

ment in the States, 1982.

Part Ill: Implementation Issues of the Current Regulatory System

Technology Development and

Environmental Protection

Because Subtitle C of the Resource Recovery

and Reclamation Act (RCRA) is primarily directed at controlling hazardous waste at disposal, the point where the waste enters the environment, little attention is given to reducing

the amount of waste at the source of generation. Subtitle C focuses on establishing proper

operating standards for treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities (TSDFS). Other provisions of

RCRA authorize research and development

and informational activities to promote recycling, resource recovery, and waste reduction.

However, these programs have largely been

underfunded and ineffective in dealing with

hazardous waste problems. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) solid and hazardous

waste programs contain only a few incentives

to encourage the use or development of recycling and recovery techniques, source reduction methods, or other techniques to reduce the

hazardous characteristics of the waste. Overall, the effects of the current regulations continue to favor disposal technologies, particularly landfilling, over other waste management options.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean

Water Act (CWA), impose technology-forcing

standards on industrial polluters, thus stimulating generator participation in the development

of effective control strategies. In contrast,

RCRA standards for hazardous waste generators require only waste identification, maintenance of certain records and reports, and proper packing, labeling, and manifesting of wastes
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 369

Table 80.—Summary of State Superfund Legislation

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x .

Fund financing:

. . . . . . . . . . . x . x , . . . .

Uses of fund:

. . . x .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X X X X

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X X

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . X X X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X .....X X

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X X X X X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . X X . . . .

North Carolina. .,... . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . X x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... X

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X . . . . X X . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . x

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X............ x... .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCES National Conference of state Legislatures, Ha?ardous Wasfe Managernenf ASurveyofSfateLegis/at/on, 1982(Denver, Colo. 1982~The Council of State

Governments, Waste Managerrrenf In the States (Lexington, Ky 1981~ National Conference of State Legislatures, A Survey and Ana/ysis of Sfate Po/icy

OptIorIs to Encourage A/temaf/ves to Land Disposa/ o( Hazardous Waste (Denver, Colo July 1981L and OTA Staff research
370 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

before shipment offsite. This difference in environmental regulatory schemes between RCRA,

CAA, and CWA is in part explained by the fact

that disposal of hazardous solid waste does not

necessarily occur at the place it is generated;

thus, to control the environmental effects of

hazardous waste disposal, it was not necessary

to impose standards or limits on the amount

of hazardous waste generated.

In considering passage of RCRA, Congress

was concerned that such limits on waste generation might prove to be a complex, and perhaps

unworkable, strategy with the potential for inordinate disruption of industrial activities. Recognizing that generation of solid and hazardous waste is an unavoidable consequence of

a modern industrial society, Congress opted instead for a longer term, indirect strategy. By

significantly increasing the costs of waste

disposal through regulation of waste facilities,

industrial generators would be pressured to

reduce their output of hazardous waste and to

promote development of alternative waste

treatment technologies.

Recycling and Resource Recovery Technology

EPA has relied primarily on various exemptions and exclusions from hazardous waste regulations to promote recycling and resource

recovery activities. This approach has been

criticized as an insufficient incentive for

recycling and also for providing inadequate

protection against mishandling of such waste.

EPA is considering further changes in RCRA

regulations that wouId exclude some recoverable waste materials from being classified as

solid waste, if the waste is reclaimed and used

onsite as process feedstock.166 In contrast, no

exclusion would be made if the waste is sent

offsite to another firm which reclaims the material for use as feedstock, or if the process

waste is not used by the firm that recovers it,

or if the waste is first stored onsite and then

reclaimed. Without this exclusion, the material

is considered as solid waste and potentially

hazardous waste subject to subtitle C regulations. EPA would also reclassify waste burned

1eF347 F.R. SS,SBO, at 55,584, Dec. 1a, 1982,

as fuel, or as a component of fuel, as solid

waste subject to RCRA regulations. A maximum period for onsite accumulation of reclaimable materials would be set, and reclamation of a significant portion of the waste would

be required annually to qualify for the exemption. Although the approach is not without its

problems, it would significantly extend the

period of time that hazardous waste could be

held. It might promote increased generator efforts at reducing the amount of hazardous

waste produced. Offsite or commercial recycling activities and the burning of waste as fuel

would be subject to RCRA regulations and,

where appropriate, standards would be set for

recycling facilities.

The suggested changes exempting generator

recycling activities could have serious consequences for some commercial hazardous

waste facilities that derive a substantial portion of their revenues from the sale of materials reclaimed from solid and hazardous

waste. These commercial facilities will continue to be required to meet RCRA regulations

for operation and storage permits for recycled

wastes, and it could be difficult for them to

maintain a competitive position in the market

in reclaimed materials.

Land Disposal Regulations

On July 26, 1982, EPA published interim finaI

regulations for permitting land disposal facilities (landfills, surface impoundments, waste

piles, and land treatment units).167 EPA developed a two-tiered strategy in these regulations.

1.

2.

a liquids management strategy to minimize the formation of leachate and to contain the hazardous waste constituents in

appropriately designed facilities; and

a ground water protection and response

strategy consisting of monitoring to detect

and track any migration of hazardous constituents if the facilities fail to contain the

waste, and corrective action to remove the

contaminants from ground water if certain

specified concentration levels are exceeded.

“747 F.R, 32,274-32,388.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 371

Given the inadequacy and uncertainties

about current containment designs, such a twotiered approach presents substantial problems.

EPA’s strategy focuses on the effectiveness of

remedial action once contamination has occurred, rather than preventive measures for

protecting human health and the environment,

There is only limited experience in cleaning

ground water and soils contaminated with industrial hazardous waste. Moreover, EPA’s

monitoring requirements may not result in collection of adequate data for identifying ground

water contamination. If land disposal of all

hazard levels of wastes is allowed to continue

(as the July 1982 rules seem to allow), it is essential that a rigorous monitoring program be implemented at all such facilities. Without it there

can be little assurance that exposure of humans

and ecosystems to hazardous constituents will

be prevented through early detection and

prompt corrective action,

Analysis of the design technology used in

land disposal facilities (presented inch. 5) indicates that current technology cannot assure

complete containment of hazardous waste

constituents. EPA has also acknowledged that

all land disposal sites eventually will release

mobile constituents to the environment. Some

of the technical difficulties associated with

land disposal containment strategies are sumIllcll

1.

2.

Studies of existing landfills that incorporated the designs suggested by EPA indicate that leakage will occur. The causes of

these liner failures have been attributed to

one or more design, construction, or operation errors, No state-of-the-art technology

landfill design can be considered as providing an absolutely secure containment

system over many decades, Additional in

situ and ambient monitoring of new and

existing facilities is necessary to evaluate

their performance.

There is little long-term operating experience with liner and cover materials. All

liner materials are vulnerable to failures

that increase the rate of liquid migration

through the liner.

3.

4.

Current experience suggests that few failures of liners in landfill facilities can be

repaired; rather, corrective action often

must be used to reduce the effects of environmental contamination.

The fate of constituents released from a

facility is uncertain. Some may become

immobilized in soil; others may migrate

and be incorporated in food and water

sources. An adequately designed monitoring system is thus an essential element

of any protection strategy to detect contamination promptly and to assist in the

formulation of effective remedial measures,

Major Criticism of the Land Disposal Regulations,–

OTA has surveyed several reviews of these

regulations made by various groups.168 Several

points of concern are common to all.

A general criticism made by environmental

groups, citizen groups, academics, and industry is that the regulations use very general performance standards rather numerical performance standards or specific design standards.

This was done to promote flexibility in the permit process so that specifications could be developed for each facility. This approach places

a very significant burden on the permit writer

to determine whether a particular facility provides adequate protection of human health

and the environment. While most environmental regulatory strategies require some exercise of judgment by the permit writer, the

EPA land disposal regulations do so to an unusual degree. The general performance standards do not provide objective guidelines against

1E8David Burmaster, “Critique of the Monitoring Pro\’ isions

in EPA’s Interim Final Regulations for Hazardous Waste I,andfills, ” OTA Working Paper, Oct. 18, 1982: Environmental I)efense Fund (ED F], “[;omments on the Interim Final Hazardous

Waste I.and Disposal Regulation s,” No\. 23, 1982: I,eague of

Women Voters of the [Jnited States, letter to Rita La\relle, Oct.

5, 1982; testimony before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environ ment of the House

Committee on Science and Technology, Notr. 30, 1982; K. W.

Brown, Texas A&M University; H. Johnson, National Solid

Waste Nlanagernent Association; D, W, Miller, Geraghty &

Miller, Inc.; N, V. Mossholder, Stablex Corp.; P. A. Palmer,

Chemical h4anufacturers Association, H. (~. Robinson, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council,
372 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

which to judge the adequacy of a facility, Without these guidelines, facility operators cannot

anticipate what will be required of them for

permitting, and key decisions about the sufficiency of particular land disposal permit applications will be left to the judgment of the permit writers. This is a critical problem as the

availability of necessary technical expertise

(e.g., in ground water monitoring, corrective

action, and risk assessment) is limited throughout the Nation. This situation can lead to

uneven interpretation and enforcement standards of the land disposal. The effectiveness of

public participation in permitting is also diminished because concerned citizens have little

guidance as to the adequacy of the facility’s design and operation specifications or the appropriateness of the permit writer’s interpretation.

The land disposal regulations allow waivers

and exemptions from certain performance

standards to be made by the permitting authority if there is a lower potential for exposure to

hazardous wastes or their constituents. The

regulations do not require that more stringent

permit conditions be added for management

of more hazardous materials or for those situations with potentially high risk to human health

and the environment, although the preamble

suggests that the permit writer could impose

such stipulations upon consideration of the

hazard levels of the wastes and the specific site

conditions.

The regulations provide that land disposal facilities are not to be constructed within seismically active areas. New and existing facilities

in a 100-year flood plain must be constructed

to withstand flooding. The regulations do not

require consideration of other potential natural catastrophes, or of the protection of

drinking water sources, wildlife habitat, or

the presence of other sensitive environments.

Exemption From Detection Monitoring Program

The regulations grant a waiver from detection monitoring requirements for land disposal

designs using double liners with a leak-detection system between the liners, The exemption

is made to encourage use of the state-of-the-art

approach which EPA apparently assumes is effective in containing the waste and detecting

any liquid migration. Little information is available, however, about the integrity and reliability of such systems over time, The primary liners of several facilities with similar design features have begun to leak early in the life of the

facility. 169 Environmental groups argue that the

waiver is not needed as an incentive to use

state-of-the-art design, and that EPA could require all facilities to use that configuration.

Moreover, without a detection monitoring

system in place, the effectiveness of the

design cannot be determined, background

water quality will not be established before

contamination, and a post-closure monitoring system will not be in place to indicate

leakage and trigger the corrective action requirement. An additional complication with

the provision is disagreement over what constitutes evidence of a leak in such facilities. The

rules provide that the presence of any liquid

between the liners is presumed to indicate leakage. If liquid is detected, the liner must be repaired promptly to maintain the ground water

monitoring exemption, If such repairs are not

made, the facility must immediately initiate a

detection monitoring program (which may require a permit modification). Some industry

representatives advocate a modification of EPA

rules to specify that a leak exists when the

detection system indicates the presence of

“leachate” rather than “liquid,” between the

liners. These industry critics argue that the occurrence of liquid between liners is expected

in the landfill operation and does not indicate

a leak in the system. The use of leak-detection

systems should provide earlier and more reliable warnings of potential migration of waste

constituents. An important advantage is the

greater ability to take corrective action,

especially if the system is designed for pumpout control. The criteria used for determining

failure will require careful evaluation, in189Testimony of William Sanjour before the House Committee

on Science and Technology, supra, note 168. Peter Montegue,

“Four Secure Landfills in New jersey—A Study in the State of

the Art in Shallow Burial Waste Disposal Technology, ” (draft

report) [Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University, 1981).
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 373

eluding leachate characteristics and site

conditions.

The exemption removes any opportunity for

obtaining data on the reliable performance of

these facilities. Environmentalists and some

industry critics have suggested that all facilities, regardless of the type of design, should

be required to implement adequately designed

detection monitoring programs. This would

serve as a backup for the leak-detection system and could serve to verify that liquid does

not migrate through such liners and result in

environmental contamination.

Exemption of Existing Portions. -Existing portions of land disposal facilities are not required

to incorporate the same design specification s

new facilities or units constructed after permit

issuance, e.g. , installation of single liners and

leachate collection systems, EPA’s decision t o

provide a limited exception is not based on the

feasibility of installing such containment bu t

on concern for the potential interruption o f

facility operation during the retrofitting proc -

ess and on EPA’s interpretation of the 198 0

RCRA amendments providing for distinction s

between new and existing facilities in settin g

performance standards. The “existing por -

tions” exemption could have serious conse -

quences for the protection of human health and

the environment and on the development o f

safer treatment and disposal alternatives. Th e

existing active portions of interim status land

disposal facilities are not required to instal l

liners and leachate collection systems. More -

over, the rules do not require surface impoundments to install leachate collection systems—

a significant change from the January 198 1

standards for surface storage impoundments .

The “existing portion” is defined as the “land

surface area of an existing waste managemen t

unit described in the original Part A permit application on which wastes have been place d

before the issuance of a final permit. ’’170 EPA

has determined that each surface impound -

ment, or landfill cell or trench is a unit. Any

lateral expansion from the “Part A“ surfac e

area is not considered an “existing” portion ,

 .

‘7047 F,R, 32,349, ]uly 26, 1982; to be codified at 40 CFR 260.10,

but EPA does not limit the depth or height to

which waste may be placed within this area before or after permit issuance. EPA estimates

that it could take at least 5 years to review and

permit all existing land disposal facilities.

During the period before permit issuance,

existing interim status facilities can continue

to construct and use additional new landfill

and surface impoundment units without installing liners and leachate collection systems, even where such installation is clearly feasible without disrupting operations. The

only apparent limit on construction and use of

additional unlined units is that they may not

go beyond the boundaries of the original Part

A application and may not significantly increase the facility’s design capacity without

EPA approval, These units can continue to be

used without retrofitting after the permit is

issued. In contrast, a new facility which must

have a permit for construction and operation

would have to install liners and leachate collection systems at each of its units during the

same period,

The continued use of these unlined existing

facilities without any attempt at containment

or retrofitting could result in situations endangering public health and the environment

and require costly remedial action. Evidence

of problems experienced with past waste disposal practices is well-documented (see table

81).

Table 81 .—Contamination of Ground Water

by Industrial Wastes

Fraction attributed to:

Number of Industrial Landfill

State incidents wastea

Ieachateb

—. Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 30 ”/0 260/o

Connecticut . . . . . . . 64 44 —

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 35 —

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 21 28

New Jersey . . . . . . . . 379 40 —

South Carolina . . . . . 89 31 —

apr~..U~ablY ~uCh ~Onta~lnation Would & related to hazardous Industrial Waste

for the most part, rather than ordinary solld waste

bLandftlls could include both subtttle C and D types, but presumably the source

of the contamination IS hazardous waste

SOURCE V I Pye, “Groundwater Contam!natlon In the United States,”

September 1982 (date based on numerous surveys which are

documented)
374 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Existing units of land disposal facilities that

receive waste after Jan. 26, 1983, will be subject to ground water protection monitoring and

corrective action requirements (these are called

“regulated units”). However, because of the

limitations inherent in the detection monitoring program (similar to the interim status

standards (ISS) monitoring requirements discussed later in this section), contamination of

ground water sources by existing facilities in

many cases is not likely to be detected until

pollution has reached serious proportions.

The outcome of EPA’s decision on applicability

of containment and ground water protection

standards to existing facilities is likely to encourage the continued use of existing unlined

land disposal units, with potentially increased

contamination of ground water sources. An

alternative would be to define “existing” portion as only those facility units or portions of

facilities that were in use before the effective

date of the RCRA regulations—e.g., Jan. 26,

1983, or before Nov. 19, 1980. Additionally,

all existing facilities could be reviewed to identify those where retrofitting or installation of

other containment technology is technically

feasible.

Disposal of Liquids in Landfills

Although the first tier of land disposal strategy is to limit the amount of liquid in the facility that could form Ieachate or increase the

hydraulic head, the rules allow disposal of bulk

and containerized liquids if the facility has at

least one liner and a leachate collection and

removal system. In allowing this practice, EPA

expressed the opinion that few existing landfills would qualify. The leachate collected must

be removed from the landfill and treated. This

treatment could mean placing the liquids back

into the landfill, resulting in continuous recycling of the liquid. For certain wastes, this

could result in possible decreases in the concentration of hazardous constituents. Critics

emphasize that free liquids can migrate readily through a landfill, possibly dissolving harmful constituents that may be encountered in the

migration path. The adequacy and effectiveness of leachate collection and removal

systems over long periods of time in landfills

have not been demonstrated. EPA rules provide that the collection system must operate

over the life of the facility and at closure until

leachate is no longer produced. This could be

in excess of 30 years. Recycling liquids through

the landfill could delay and complicate the

eventual treatment of leachate or liquids. Furthermore, the continued presence of high volumes of liquids in a facility only serves to

enhance potential damage to side walls and

bottom liners.

Impact on Development of Other Technologies

Overall, the costs of complying with EPA’s

regulations of waste management appear to

favor the continued use of land disposal techniques over other alternatives, such as incineration, or biological or chemical treatments. Many in the waste management industry expected that implementation of RCRA

would make alternative treatment technologies

more cost competitive and encourage the

growth of an industrial segment devoted to the

alternative treatment of hazardous wastes. This

has not been the case: ’7’

To begin with, the construction of a high

technology facility requires a large amount of

capital. Furthermore, a great deal of that capital must be invested with the prospect of years

of waiting before it can begin to generate a

profit, Because of these two factors, disposal

of toxic wastes by high technology . . . costs

more than does unregulated Iandfilling. Therefore, there cannot be an economic return on

the invested capital for such a facility so long

as toxic waste which can be readily incinerated, treated, or stabilized is nonetheless directed to landfills because they are cheaper.

Apparently it has been the perception of those

who might have invested the capital that the

EPA is unwilling to adopt a set of regulations

which will result in high technology disposal

being an economically viable alternative.

“lStatement of H. Clay Robinson for the Hazardous Waste

Treatment Council in hearings on EPA’s land disposal regulations before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, and the Environment of the House Committee

on Science and Technology, 97th Cong., 2d sess., Nov. 30, 1982,

at p. 2.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 375

Several factors support this conclusion: 1) Exemptions for existing portions of land disposal

facilities allow them to escape more stringent

design and performance standards required of

new facilities and units; 2) There are insufficient restrictions on the type of wastes that c an

be placed in land disposal facilities; and 3) Differences in the quality and stringency of regulations for management technologies create a n

economic bias toward continued use of land

disposal.

For example, as discussed in chapter 5, regulations for incinerators force this technology

to perform much closer to its operational limits, Incinerators must achieve a destruction

removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99 percent o r

better. This is a difficult standard for som e

facilities to meet. In contrast, the land disposal

regulations provide only limited incentives for

the uses of more advanced landfill design (double liners with leak-detection systems and with

external monitoring). EPA, in acknowledging

that land disposal facilties eventually will release hazardous waste constituents to the environment, established the second-tier monitoring and remedial action strategy. By imposing

stringent requirements for technologies which

result in immediate, permanent destruction

(e.g., incinerators) and less stringent r e -

quirements for other technologies, such as land

disposal (which may require costly corrective

action, where feasible) EPA is effectively promoting the use of the latter. At the same time,

little attention is given to exploring incentives

that would encourage the use of those technologies that reduce the hazard of industrial

wastes.

Appropriate Use of Land Disposal Technology

It is widely acknowledged that there are appropriate circumstances for use of land disposal technologies for some hazardous

wastes. For example, treatment technologies,

such as incineration, produce residues that

must ultimately be disposed. Landfills are appropriate facilities for containment of detoxified and immobilized waste provided that the

facility is adequately designed and has an effective monitoring program. Biodegradable

waste constituents can be deposited in the land

if the facility can safely contain the wastes for

the length of time required for degradation of

the material. Treatment methods are available

that can immobilize most, and reduce the toxicity of many, toxic metals before disposal.

Regulations for land disposal reflecting the

most advanced state of treatment, containment, and monitoring technologies could promote the mandate of RCRA for protection of

human health and the environment by: 1) reducing the risks associated with land disposal

and 2) making the immediate costs of land disposal more comparable to other treatment

options.

There are substantial long-term and indirect

costs for containment options that the regulations do not address, such as the costs to future

generations for increased health problems o r

the costs to provide remedial action at landfills in the future, The actual level of these costs

and the extent to which they are incorporated

into the operational expenditures of a facility

will depend on: 1) Federal requirements for

demonstrating financial responsibility for remedial actions and liabilities for damages, and

2) the extent of effective Federal enforcement.

Current policies in these areas result in incomplete internalization of these costs, skewing the management options toward land disposal. However, not all generators have opted

for the least costly alternative. Some assessed

the potential long-term costs, liabilities, and

uncertainties associated with land disposal options and have chosen treatment and waste reduction techniques. While many companies

may wish to take this type of voluntary action,

for a variety of reasons they are unable to do

so—e.g., the size of the firm and of its com -

petitive position may preclude the additiona l

capital expenditures required .

Monitoring

Given the potential magnitude of environmental and health problems that could result

through mismanagement of hazardous waste ,

adequate monitoring requirements for RCRApermitted facilities are essential, Current EPA
376 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

regulations require air emissions and process

monitoring for incinerators, and ground water

monitoring for land disposal facilities. Although other environmental laws may impose

additional monitoring requirements, these

generally have not been applied to RCRA facilities.

A general criticism of the RCRA regulations for hazardous waste management facilities is that the monitoring requirements may

be insufficient to detect environmental contamination. Process and source monitoring

has been specified, however, ambient monitoring is primarily limited to ground water monitoring at land disposal facilities, Although

emissions of hazardous volatile organic compounds from surface impoundments and landfills has been documented as contributing to

air pollution problems, monitoring to determine if these emissions pose a health hazard

is currently not required under EPA regulations. The provisions for waivers and variances

from various monitoring requirements also

means that there may be no way to detect contamination during operation and after closure.

More expansive use of ambient monitoring

holds the greatest potential for minimizing

risks that might result from hazardous waste

management. Ambient monitoring provides

information on the appearance of statistically

significant levels of contaminants in air, soil,

water, and biota. By taking representative samples from potentially affected locations and environmental media and then analyzing them

for a broad spectrum of potential contaminants

it is possible to control risks reliably. If contamination of air, water, or land can be detected sufficiently early (before widespread

contamination and actual damage) and corrective action taken, the human exposure will be

reduced, Ambient monitoring, therefore,

should be given a greater role in the RCRA

regulatory program.

RCRA requires periodic operator inspections

of equipment and structures at all hazardous

waste facilities to assure that the facility is in

compliance with applicable standards. The frequency of these inspections is based on the potential for deterioration or malfunction of particular equipment within each facility. EPA

regulations establish specific inspection frequencies for different facilities and provide that

more detailed inspection programs are to be

set in the permit. Storage tanks, for example,

must be inspected weekly to detect leaks and

fugitive emissions. Inspection and monitoring

records must be kept onsite for a period of 3

years.

Regulations for treatment and storage

facilities primarily rely on visual inspections

and process monitoring to detect malfunctions

or possible releases into the environment. Monitoring requirements for incineration include

process monitoring (feed-rate temperature, carbon monoxide, etc.) and the destruction removal efficiency rate for principal organic hazardous constituents in the waste feed and on

emission rates of hydrogen chloride and particulate. Required monitoring of actual emissions from an incinerator is limited to trial

burns conducted as part of the permitting process. As discussed in chapter 5, because of the

criteria used to select principal organic hazardous constituents and the uncertainties about

the adequacy of surrogate measures for DRE,

this approach has been questioned.

Land Disposal

The monitoring requirements for landfills are

severely limited in scope. With the exemption

of land treatment facilities, primary emphasis

is given to ground water monitoring, and that

requirement can be waived under some circumstances. Testing of air, soils, vegetation,

and other organisms for possible contamination is not required.

In general, the detection monitoring requirements at land disposal facilities may not serve

as a reliable and effective early warning of environmental contamination. Significant contamination can occur before statistically significant changes in water quality can be detected.

Some industry commenters have suggested

that the EPA-suggested statistical method used

to determine changes in ground water quality

may tend to give a very high number of false
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 377

positives (indicating contamination wher e

none exists).

Under the compliance monitoring regula -

tions, as with detection monitoring, severe contamination could occur before statistically significant differences are noted between back -

ground levels and ground water samples. Ac -

cording to EPA, analytical methodologies have

been specified for all but 9 of 387 Appendi x

VIII constituents that during compliance monitoring must be tested for annually. However,

the state of the art in chemical analysis make s

it difficult to analyze for all 387 hazardou s

waste constituents even if it is required onl y

once a year. Moreover, facilities may petitio n

to drop certain Appendix VIII constituent s

from required monitoring. Although testing for

387 Appendix VIII constituents may appea r

burdensome, these substances represent onl y

a portion of the hazardous waste, and reaction

products that could be present in ground wate r

from a leaking land disposal facility .

Sampling is a critical and currently inexact

step in any monitoring program. EPA ground

water monitoring regulations for interim status

and permitted facilities provide little guidance

in designing monitoring programs for particular facilities. The minimum number and fre -

quency of samples required may not be ade -

quate for collection of meaningful data. Th e

regulations place the burden on the facilit y

operator for designing and the permit write r

for approving an appropriate monitoring pro -

gram and sampling schedule to provide “rep -

resentative” measures of water quality and to

detect possible contamination. More frequen t

sampling at more locations might provide better information on, and reduce uncertaintie s

about, (constituent behavior in landfills. Regardless of the statistical procedure used, dif -

ferences between background and the moni -

toring signal using only a small number of samples would have to be very large (i.e., in some

cases, order of magnitude changes) before statistically significant changes would be identified. Thus, ground water contamination coul d

be substantial before statistical analysis verified

that significant changes had occurred .

Seasonal variations also can influence constituent concentrations. Unless particular care

is taken in the timing of a sampling effort,

quarterly or semiannual sampling periods

might not reflect these variations adequately,

and thus misleading conclusions may be drawn.

Location and Number of Sampling Wells .—Proper

location, depth, and installation of monitoring

wells is critical to obtaining adequate and representative environmental samples of ground

water to establish background levels and to

measure any contamination. The number of

monitoring wells is also critical because of the

difficulty in predicting location of a plume

before migration has occurred. EPA rules apply a general standard that the number and

location of monitoring wells be sufficient to

measure background levels unaffected by the

facility and to immediately detect any migration of waste constituents from the facility.

EPA has suggested that a minimum number

might be one upgradient well and three downgradient wells. Given the uncertainties surrounding plume behavior and frequent lack of

hydrological information, three monitoring

wells may not be adequate. A 1977 EPA document recommended at least one downgradient

well for every 250 ft of downgradient site

border. However because of the complexity of

many ground water systems there appear to be

no universally acceptable rule of thumb that

could be applied.172 

Figure 24 illustrates a hypothetical problem

related to well location. Because of the position of the plume, contamination of ground

water is noted only in well B. The concentration of contaminants in a plume can var y

sharply over short distances. If the plume a t

well B carries a low concentration, contamina -

tion would appear significantly lower than it

is in fact, By the time contamination reache s

well C, a good fraction of this aquifer already

would be polluted. Typical corrective actio n

initiated at this late stage in plume migration

might not be adequate to restore the quality of

———-

‘ ‘ ( ‘ ,s. E l’A, }’1”()( (’(/[ 11’(’.s ,Il(ifl(l(ll /[)1’ [;/’()[111(/ 11’,i /(’1’ ,\l[)Jllt[)[’-

111~ rl f .%)/1(/ i \;; $ ~( ‘ ~~1 \{ J(),\,l ) 1<’d[’ 1/1 fl(].~, l~f),\)5~)(l/S\\’-[; 11, Allxllst

1977, ]). 41
378 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Figure 24.—Sampling Well Locations for

Ground Water Monitoring Program

Compliance point

aste

constituent

source

/

Figure 25.—Plume Migration May Not Flow With

Ground Water Due to Gravitational Influence and/or

Undetected Fractures in the Aquifer

Wast e

constituent \

sourc e

Ground water flow

Plume of contaminants

• Sampling wells, downgradient

● Upgradient well

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Complianc e

the aquifer or, if it is, it would be very expensive. Such a situation could be prevented if

more wells were required, if they were more

evenly placed, and if they were at different

depths over the aquifer rather than only at the

compliance point of a facility,

Furthermore, the movement of plumes of

contaminants may be different than the direction of flow in the ground water. Concentrations of contaminants that are lighter or denser

than ground water have been occasionally

found to move in unpredictable patterns. Monitoring downgradient wells in such situations

might not detect plume migration, and reliance

on one upgradient and several downgradient

wells may not provide the appropriate data.

Figure 25 shows another hypothetical case in

which undetected hydrologic features such as

fractures or solution channels may influence

ground water flow in unanticipated ways so
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program • 379

compliance monitoring program, This will generally require a modification of the permit to

specify the ground water protection standard.

(For existing facilities, where possible contamination is indicated during permit review, EPA

will require immediate implementation of a

compliance monitoring program as a condition

of the initial permit. ) The ground water protection standard consists of four elements:

1$

2.

3.

4.

the hazardous constituents to be monitored;

the concentration of each hazardous constituent that triggers the corrective action

requirement (the compliance level);

the compliance point at which the level of

contaminants is to be measured; and

the compliance period over which the

ground water protection standard is ap -

plied .

In establishing the concentration limits fo r

the contaminants, the Regional Administrato r

will use one of the following criteria :

●

●

●

the background level of the constituent in

the ground water; o r

the maximum concentration limits (MCL )

for the 14 hazardous constituents whic h

have been set under the Safe Drinkin g

Water Act National interim Primar y

Drinking Water Standards, if the back -

ground level is below the MCL; o r

an alternate concentration limit if the facility owner or operator can demonstrate that

the constituent will not pose a present or

potential hazard to human health or th e

environment as long as the alternate concentration limit is not exceeded .

During compliance monitoring, EPA will re -

quire testing for all of the 387 Appendix VIII

toxic constituents at least annually. EPA ha s

not established acceptable concentration level s

for most of these hazardous constituents; there -

fore “background level” will be the predominant ground water protection standard used .

One concern is that the hazardous constitu -

ents selected for detection and complianc e

monitoring may not be representative of th e

range of substances leaching into ground wate r

from the facility. An additional concern is that

background levels may not provide adequate

protection of public health and the environment in some areas, particularly if there is already some uncorrected contamination from

past waste disposal practices at or near the

facility. The land disposal regulations do not

specify that wells establishing background water quality be located so as to avoid contamination by waste migration from nonregulated

waste management units in the waste management area. 173

The second standard of pollution up to the

established MCLS for drinking water gives the

facility an additional margin of permissible

pollution before corrective action is required

in cases where contamination exceeds background levels. The maximum contaminant limits were adopted in 1975 based largely on the

1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water

Standards, including standards for bacteria,

turbidity, 10 inorganic ions, and 6 persistent

pesticides. These standards originally were intended to set minimum requirements for drinking water quality in public waste systems and

not as measures of acceptable environmental

contamination for ground water.

Approval of an alternate concentration limit

could allow contamination in excess of background or of the MCLS in individual cases. The

burden of establishing an alternate concentration limit is on the facility operator. The alternate concentration limit or “narrative criteria”

is probably the most controversial of the protection standards because it is set largely on

a site-specific basis. The regulations specify

factors for the Regional Administrator to consider in deciding whether to approve an alternate concentration limit for compliance monitoring at a facility where possible ground water

contamination has been indicated. In deciding

if the constituent will not pose a substantial

present or potential hazard to human health or

the environment, the Administrator will consider such factors as potential adverse effects

on surface and ground water quality; the characteristics of the waste; its potential for migration; hydrological characteristics of the facility and surrounding area; the rate and direc-

“’See 47 F,R. 32,352; to be codified at 40 [;FR 264.97 (a)[l ).
380 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

tion of ground water flow; distance to current

and future ground water users; other source s

of contamination; potential damage to the environment; and the persistence and permanenc e

of any effects of exposure .

Critics of the alternate concentration limit

argue that establishment of acceptable levels

of contamination on a case-by-case basis

raises significant public policy issues related

to potential exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic, embryotoxic, teratogenic, or otherwise

toxic substances that should not be left to the

discretion of the Regional Administrator or

State permit writer, but rather should be resolved on a uniform national basis.

Hazard/Risk Classification

In the initial development of regulations for

implementing the RCRA mandate, EPA chose

not to use a waste hazard classification system

because :

1 7 4

1. EPA considered that none of the proposed

systems was adequate for distinguishing

differences among industrial wastes; and

2. the Agency considered that the regulations

achieved the objectives of a hazard classification system.

EPA stated its intention that waste management regulations would eventually be tailored

to reflect differences in potential hazards of

wastes, as well as differences in environmental

conditions surrounding the facility site. Current regulations for waste identification and

facility permits include provisions that involve

some evaluation of the degree of hazard or risk

posed by the waste, but only in the most qualitative and site-specific ways.

At certain points in the process of listing and

delisting hazardous wastes, assessments of hazard levels are possible, but EPA’s decisions are

not based on any comprehensive degree-of-hazard system based on scientific criteria open to

external review. The generic lists of hazardous

wastes include those materials which are considered by EPA to be the most hazardous, and

‘7445 F.R. 33,164, May 19, 1980.

for which the most information concerning

health and environmental impact was available. In deciding to list a waste, EPA can consider such factors as toxicity, mobility, persistence, and possibilities of mismanagement,

EPA does distinguish between different hazardous wastes in the RCRA regulations by designating some listed wastes as “acute hazardous wastes’’ 175 or “toxic wastes. ’’ 176 Unde r

EPA’s small generator exemption, generally

available to firms that generate or accumulate

waste in amounts less than 1,000 kg/month, the

exemption level for wastes that are designated

as either acutely hazardous or toxic is reduced

to 1 kg/month. There does not appear to be a

sound technical basis for deciding which

wastes are acutely hazardous or toxic wastes.

EPA regulations authorize waivers of some

facility standards for certain types of hazardous waste. For example, EPA exempts incinerators that burn waste deemed hazardous solely

because it is ignitable, corrosive, or reactive

from some of the interim status incinerator

standards and from some of the permit standards, if the operator demonstrates that the

waste would not reasonably contain any Appendix VIII toxic constituents. EPA adopted

the exemption because such wastes do not pose

the hazards that the interim status and final

technical facility standards for incinerators are

intended to control.177

Current regulations suggest areas where formal risk-assessment methodologies might be

used to assist decisionmakers, such as in establishing individual facility permitting conditions, in granting variances or waivers from

ground water monitoring requirements, or in

granting variances in liability insurance coverage.

EPA considered the use of quantitative risk

assessment as part of its hazardous waste regulatory scheme in the February 1981, proposed

land disposal regulations “environmental performance standards. ’’178

1T5Ao cFR 261.33(e) (1982).

17640 CFR xjI.ss(fJ (1982).

“’See the Jan. 23, 1981, Phase 11 incinerator standards preamble, 46 F.R. 7666.

“

8

46 F.R. 7666.
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 381

Industry critics, who had earlier advocated

the use of more flexible performance standards

rather than design standards, characterized the

proposed EPA risk-assessment approach as

“potentially nightmarish in application. ” To

conduct the risk assessment, applicants would

have to supply detailed hydrological studies

and submit health effects data. EPA informally

estimated that such backup studies might cost

as much as $1 million per facility. In May 1981,

EPA published a notice that it was encountering “profound conceptual difficulties” in the

proposed risk-assessment approach and sought

further comment, The July 1982 land disposal

regulations did not require the use of formal

quantitative risk assessments in permitting

facilities or in granting variances.

EPA’s January 1981 proposed variance procedure for permitted incinerators also would

have incorporated the use of quantitative risk

assessment on a case-specific basis. In permitting incinerators, it would have allowed a more

detailed consideration of factors related to protection of human health and the environment

not addressed in the 99.99 percent DRE performance standard (e.g., the absence of any

limit on the actual mass of hazardous constituents emitted), site- and waste-specific factors,

toxicity, incinerator design, location, climate,

and population distribution. EPA observed that

use of risk analysis could provide flexibility in

determining the necessary level of protection.

In publishing its revised incinerator standard

in June 1982, EPA deferred action on the proposed use of risk assessment but did not rule

out its eventual application.179 EPA noted that

a risk analysis of the type proposed requires

extensive data, which are rarely available and

which therefore must be collected either directly or simulated by computer model, The accuracy and precision of the data and models used

must then be analyzed before meaningful risk

analysis can be conducted, A primary goal of

EPA’s ongoing regulatory impact analysis

(RIA) is to characterize the risks to human

health and the environment associated with the

incineration of hazardous waste, According to

‘7’47 F.R. 27,518, June 24, 1982,

EPA, “the RIA will provide valuable information regarding the feasibility of conducting

site-specific risk assessments, therefore any action on the January 1981 proposaI for use of

risk assessment to be used in setting variances

from the performance standard would be premature. ’180 EPA’s risk-cost policy model discussed in the appendix to this chapter is the

principal assessment model being used in its

regulatory impact analysis.

Certain solid and hazardous wastes are excluded or exempted from RCRA regulation by

statute and by rule, These exceptions frequently have been made without any assessment of

the inherent hazard of the wastes or the potential effects on human health or the environment

from improper handling of these wastes, In

contrast, listed waste and mixtures of listed

wastes must be managed as hazardous waste

without respect to the concentrations of such

hazardous constituents or their degree of hazard until and unless they are delisted. Critics

argue that this ad hoc system of exemptions

and exclusions allows certain potentially

hazardous waste to escape proper management

or oversight. Exempted or excluded materials,

regardless of the reason for, or the status of,

the exemption, can be buried in subtitle D landfills which may not adequately contain these

wastes. Because of the design of these facilities,

hazardous constituents potentially could be released into the environment.

One of the most controversial exemptions is

the small quantity exemption. Wastes from

small generators are not tracked through the

manifest system and can be treated or disposed

of either in permitted hazardous waste facilities

or in subtitle D sanitary 1andfilIs. EPA incIuded

this initial exemption in its regulatory program

because of the administrative problems in overseeing thousands of small generators, such as

drycleaners, gas stations, and paint stores. The

exemption was based on administrative convenience and not on the hazard posed by the

waste and its unregulated disposal.

A report by the Subcommittee on Oversight

and Investigations of the House Committee on

180Jd,
382 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Conrol

Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded

that:

small generators who produce especially

dangerous hazardous waste will not be adequately regulated. The amount of waste produced should not be the only criterion considered. The degree of hazard posed by the waste

generated is, in the Subcommittee’s opinion,

much more important.l8l

Some supporters of the small quantity exemption argue that a high rate of dilution will

assumedly take place when a limited amount

of hazardous material is disposed with large

amounts of nonhazardous substances. However, there is little evidence to support this

assumption. Sanitary or municipal landfills in

industrial regions will frequently receive small

quantities of hazardous wastes from several

sources so that the overall load of hazardous

waste in these landfills, which were not designed to contain them, could be substantial.

If the waste is primarily low-hazard material

that is rapidly degraded, there may not be a

serious problem. If, however, the material is

highly toxic, the consequences could be severe.

The proposed National Priority List contains

many solid waste landfills that received hazardous waste from firms that probably would be

considered small generators under current

rules. Past disposal practices at these sites pose

substantial threats today to human health and

the environment. Under a small generator exemption that focuses on the quantity of the

waste and not the degree of hazard that it

poses, these inadequate disposal practices will

continue.

Risk Management

The use of various methods for quantitative

evaluations of risk is receiving increasing attention in the Federal hazardous waste programs under RCRA and the Comprehensive

Environmental, Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA). Examples of different

risk estimation approaches include:

lmsu~ommittee on oversight and 1nvestigations, Committee

on interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hazardous Waste Disposal

(Committee Print), 96th Cong., Ist sess (1979).

1.

2.

3.

Risk

estimations of the risk associated with

operation of particular management facilities, used in granting waivers or variances

to RCRA regulations;

risk/cost models to be used in policy and

regulatory development for RCRA; and

use of the hazard ranking system in identifying priority sites for Superfund cleanup.

Estimation

In deciding whether a facility qualifies for

a waiver or variance of certain RCRA regulations, the rules specify that the potential for

harm to human health and the environment

must be considered. For example, land disposal

facilities can be exempted from ground water

monitoring programs if it is shown that there

is low potential for migration of the waste from

the facility to drinking water sources. Such risk

estimates are generally of a qualitative and

judgmental nature and do not follow any specified or formalized quantitative methodology.

As discussed above, EPA has considered incorporating the use of quantitative risk-assessment

techniques in the permitting of hazardous

waste land disposal facilities and incinerators.

The tools available for performing risk assessment are not yet at final stages of development;

therefore, results generated must be interpreted

cautiously if they are to be incorporated into

the decisionmaking process. The difficulties of

using risk-assessment tools are generated primarily by limitations on the assumptions used

in these models. Generalizations may be inaccurate for specific sites, inadequate data bases

may be used, criteria for assessing hazard and

risks are lacking, and long-range performance

cannot be predicted using currently available

data.

A recent study prepared by Engineering Science for the Chemical Manufacturers Association attempted to estimate risks associated with

incinerators and landfills. l82 Certain generic

problems were emphasized:

laZEngineering Science, Comparative Evahlatiorl Of incinerators and Landfills for Hazardous Waste Management, report

for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D. C.,

1982].
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 383

1. Because of the many assumptions required in determining most estimates, the result is at best an approximation of the actual

risk. This may be particularly true when calculations are required prior to actual operation

of a facility. In this situation, data are limited,

and assumptions about performance efficiency

will skew the results, The difficulties and uncertainties in predicting the environmental fate

of constituents (as discussed in ch. 6) also contribute to this problem.

2. Currently available data bases are inadequate for reliably estimating risks. Data relating to health effects from exposures are incomplete and are not standardized with respect to

test organisms, protocols used, and routes of

exposure. Also, published information may not

be conclusive. For example, one compound

may be considered carcinogenic in one study,

but noncarcinogenic in another; it may produce adverse effects in mice, but not in rats.

In addition, it should be emphasized that the

absence of evidence in any test situation does

not equal evidence of no effect. Because of

such problems, predictions of the potential risk

to human health resulting from future use of

a waste management facility will be very

uncertain.

3. Criteria for acceptable risk or standards

for acceptable environmental concentrations

of constituents do not exist for most hazardous waste constituents. Without such criteria

or standards, judgments about acceptable levels of risks resulting from operation of a facility

would be arbitrary.

4. The methodologies used do not consider

changes in risk over time for either facility

operation or the environmental fate of constituents. For example, if emissions from a facility are marginally acceptable, current models do not permit consideration of a decrease

in efficiency over time that could lead to potential accumulation and environmental buildup

of constituents, as well as low-probability accidental releases that may be larger than steadystate release values.

A major omission in EPA’s various proposals for implementation of risk estimation

is development of criteria on which to judge

whether such risk estimates represent an acceptable level of risk to human health and the

environment. A permit writer or RegionaI

Administrator must decide: 1) whether the

estimation methodology is appropriate,

Z) whether the quality of data is adequate, and

3) acceptable risk levels. Decisions on all of

these will be difficult if agency permit writers

do not have either training or sufficiently

detailed interpretive guidance documents.

Hazard Ranking System for CERCLA

In order to set priorities for remedial action

at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, CERCLA

requires that EPA establish specific ranking

criteria based on: relative risk or danger, population at risk, hazardous potential of a substance or substances at a site, potential for

drinking water contamination, potential for

direct human contact, and the possibility of

destruction of sensitive ecosystems. To meet

this mandate, EPA developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). 183 (It is also referred to as

“the Mitre Model” because it was initially developed by that group for EPA.) The HRS is

a tool for applying uniform technical judgment

regarding the potential hazards presented by

a facility relative to other facilities. EPA’s description of this system is presented in the appendix to this chapter.

An OTA review of the HRS identified certain problem areas in the methodology for assigning a hazard score for any site which could

result in a ranking that does not adequately

reflect the risk posed by releases at the site.

1. The score for hazard potential is based on

only the most hazardous substance in the site

rather than a composite of all constituents. In

contrast, all substances are used to quantify the

magnitude of this hazard. For example, one site

may contain predominantly low-hazard wastes

(e.g., 100 tons) with small quantities of a highly

hazardous substance (e.g., only 8 tons). Another

site might have the same amount (8 tons) of an

equally high-hazardous substance, but no other

1M47 F.R. 31,210-31,243, JUIY 13, 1982 to he codified at 40 CFR

Part 300.
384 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

material. This latter site, in comparison with

the first, would receive a lower score based

only on volume, although the hazard is equal.

2. Low-population areas will tend to receive

a lower score than high-population areas

using the HRS, making it less likely that

CERCLA funds for remedial action would be

allocated to sites in these mostly rural areas,

without regard to the relative number of persons actually exposed and the nature of the

hazard. One major component of the HRS is

based on the size of the population served. If

100 or fewer persons are being served by a

threatened water source, the score would be

less than if a larger number of people were involved. While it is reasonable to expect that

those sites near urban centers may present a

threat to large numbers of people, this is not

always the case. For example, if the dilution

potential were large (i.e., constituents from the

site migrate toward a large river), the actual exposure dose to the population may be quite

small. The number of people served by a potential water source is only an indicator of the

population at risk; it should be emphasized that

the number of people actually exposed to

hazardous constituents may not be proportional to the population served. If the HRS is used

to determine allocation of funds to priority

sites, then CERCLA funds will be used only

when large numbers of people maybe exposed,

and may not be allocated when relatively few

people are actually exposed, without regard for

the degree of hazard posed by a site.

3. Another component of the score is based

on distance to some specified point of exposure. For ground water, it is the distance to the

nearest well drawing water from an aquifer;

for surface water, it represents the distance to

the closest water intakes; and for air, it is the

distance to the nearest sensitive environments.

prior to a release from a site, these are reasonable factors to be used. The greatest hazard is

presumed to be located nearest the site in question. Following a release from a site, however,

distance to an exposure point has only marginal significance for the degree of hazard posed.

Because of the mobility characteristics of contaminant plumes within ground water aquifers,

it is possible that a well located 3 miles from

a site could have higher concentrations of hazardous constituents than a well located only

2,OOO ft from it. The important factor after constituents have been released to the environment

is whether direct evidenc:e of contamination

exists at any exposure point.

In addition to these three specific problems,

a more general criticism of the HRS is that no

provisions exist for incorporating additional

technical information about a site. The HRS

has merit as a tool for processing substantial

amounts of information on many sites. Certain

types of technical information, however, that

can be helpful for assessing relative degrees of

hazard are not used. Such information would

include:

10

2.

3.

4.

5.

amounts and kinds of observed releases

(e.g., whether a release involves the most

hazardous substances at a site);

possible attenuation of the released constituents along a route of transport;

particularly sensitive populations receiving known doses;

transient populations that may receive

acute exposures; and

populations at risk, which are located a t

distances greater than the 3-mile limit imposed by the HRS.

At issue is the extent to which the current

procedure may lead to inaccurate conclusions

about the hazards posed by any site. It is conceivable that a truly hazardous site may not

score sufficiently high to receive attention

and that a site, which may pose a relatively

lower threat, could receive a score that suggests high hazard. It should be possible t o

develop methodology so that HRS scores reflect actual hazard. For example, problems

associated with both waste quantity and population can be resolved by assigning a maximum score for both of these factors whenever

the toxicity-persistence Score is above a certain

level. The criticism concerning distance to exposure point could be addressed either by adding another factor to the scoring system that

indicated direct evidence of contamination at

exposure points, or by replacing the distance
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 385

resented by different levels—high, medium, or

low.

Any model that will be used to develop policy

and set priorities for regulatory reform should

describe realistic conditions as closely as possible. The risk/cost policy model incorporates inadequate data management practices and unrealistic measures of human health risks; thus,

the results could lead to policies and regulatory

changes that have detrimental rather than beneficial impact on a national waste management

approach,

The data base includes some wastes that currently are considered nonhazardous and are

regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA (solid, nonhazardous wastes). EPA is attempting to establish subtitle C policies and regulations using

a data base that is a mix of hazardous and nonhazardous substances. The technologies considered as major single treatments for the

wastes in this model are incineration and

chemical fixation/stabilization. Available information concerning waste management options

suggests that these are not the major alternatives currently used.

The measures used to assess risk for various

environmental conditions are so simplistic as

to yield inaccurate estimates:

1. Flow rate of surface water is the only

measure used to assess assimilative capac -

ity. The potential for assimilation in any

water system actually depends on a variety

of factors, of which flow rate is only one .

2. The only measure used to represent th e

contamination potential of ground wate r

sources is soil permeability. This oversimplifies the influence different factors have

on ground water contamination and doe s

not accurately represent the potentia l

migration through soil or movement of a

plume of constituents through groun d

water.

3. population density near a facility is as -

sumed to represent the population at risk.

This is inaccurate, as identification of a

population or individuals at risk depends

on several exposure factors and individual
386 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

sensitivities to the constituents involved,

more than the numbers of people residing

near a facility.

Modifications made to risk scores give disproportionate and unjustified weight to dilution capability and size of the nearby population without considering the actual environmental fate of the constituents. As the model

is formulated, a persistent compound released

into an environment with a low-population

density could receive a lower risk score than

a biodegradable constituent released at a location with a high-population density; thus, the

actual risk posed by a waste may be misrepresented through the use of this methodology.

Regardless of which waste or technology is

incorporated within a W-E-T combination, the

risk scores decrease with decreasing population density. Because of the way costs have

been identified for the various treatment options, there is a bias in favor of land disposal.

Thus, results of this model will represent land

disposal located in areas of low-population

density as having the most favorable costs

and risks when compared with other waste

management alternatives and population

densities.

Appendix 7A. –Hazard Ranking System

As part of the National Contingency Plan, EPA

developed a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to be

used to prioritize those uncontrolled sites that

might require CERCLA funds for remedial action.

The HRS methodology is applied by EPA and the

States using data from observed or potential

releases to obtain a score representing an estimate

of the risk presented by each release. The score for

each release is then used with other considerations

in determining its placement on the National Priority List. This system is summarized by EPA as

follows :

1

The HRS assigns three scores to a hazardous

facility:

●

●

●

  ✎

S M reflects the potential for harm to humans

or the environment from migration of a hazardous substance away from the facility by routes

involving ground water, surface water, or air.

It is a composite of separate scores for each of

the three routes.

S FE reflects the potential for harm from substances that can explode or cause fires.

S DC reflects the potential for harm from direct

contact with hazardous substances at the facility (i. e., no migration need be involved).

1 .\’{it I() [id] 011 d Il[i } i dzlr 1’(1[)(1 \ SLlt)\tii Il(. (,S ( :onl 1 r)gcr](, j Plar] , 47 F R

.) I , 180, ]Ul} 1 (;, 1982.

The score for each hazard mode (migration,

fire and explosion and direct contact) or route

is obtained by considering a set of factors that

characterize the potential of the facility to

cause harm . . . Each factor is assigned a numerical value (on a scale of O to 3, 5, or 8) according to prescribed guidelines, This value is

then multiplied by a weighting factor yielding

the factor score. The factor scores are then

combined; scores within a factor category are

added; then the total scores for each factor

category are multiplied together to develop a

score for ground water, surface water, air, fire

and explosion, and direct contact . . .

HRS does not quantify the probability of harm

from a facilitv or the magnitude of the harm that

T h e

.

could result, although the factors have been se -

lected in order to approximate both those elements

of risk. It is a procedure for ranking facilities in

terms of the potential threat they pose by describing:

● the manner in which the hazardous substances

are contained,

● the characteristics and amount of the harmful

substances, and

● the likely targets.

Table 7A.1 shows the factors used and the information required in applying the HRS.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 387

Table 7A.1 .—Comprehensive List to Rating Factors

Hazard mode/ Factors

factor category Ground water route Surface water route Air route — — -. —

Migration

Route characteristics ● Depth to aquifer of concern ●

● Net precipitation

● Permeability of unsaturated zone ●

● Physical state ●

● —

Containment ● Containment ● —

Waste characteristics .

●

Toxicity/persistence ●

Hazardous waste quantfty ●

Targets ●

●

Fire and explosion

Containment ●

Ground water use ●

Distance to nearest well/population .

served ●

Facility slope and intervening

terrain

One-year 24-hour rainfall

Distance to nearest surface water

Physical state

Containment

Toxicity/persistence . Reactivity/incompatibiIity

Hazardous waste quantity ● Toxicity

. Hazardous waste quantity —

Surface water use ● Land use

Distance to sensitive environment ● PopuIation within 4-miIe radius

Population served/distance to ● Distance to sensitive

water intake downstream environment

Containment

Waste characteristics ●

●

●

●

●

Direct evidence

Ignitability

Reactivity

Incompatibility

Hazardous waste quantity

Targets ●

●

●

●

●

●

Distance to nearest population

Distance to nearest building

Distance to nearest sensitive

environment

Land use

Population within 2-mile radius

Number of buildings within 2-mile

radius

Direct contact

Observed incident ● Observed incident —- .

Accessibility

—

● AccessibiIity of hazardous substances

Containment – Containmen t

—. —

— —

Toxicity ● Toxicity —

Targets . PopuIation within 1-miIe radius

● Distance to critical habitat

SOURCE 47 F R 31, 221, July 16, 19S3

Appendix 7B. –Risk/Cost Policy Model

In response to a request by the Office of Management and Budget to consider degree of hazard as

a basis for regulation, EPA has developed a risk/

cost policy model. This model was developed by

three consulting firms and presented in a report,

Risk/Cost Policy Model Project, Phase 2 Report. z

The abstract of the report states:

The RCRA Risk/Cost Policy Model establishes a

system that allows users to investigate how tradeoffs

of costs and risks can be made among wastes, environments, and technologies (W-E-T) in order to arrive at feasible regulatory alternatives.

zI(; F’, I n~., RCRA Risk/Cost POIJCJV Model Pro\ect, Phase 2 Report, sub.

m itted to EPA, Office Solid Waste, Washington, D C , 1982.

There are many components in the system. Eightythree hazardous waste streams are ranked on the

basis of the inherent hazard of the constituents they

typically contain, The system assesses these waste

streams in terms of the likelihood and severity of

human exposure to their hazardous constituents and

models their behavior in three media—air, surface

water, and ground water. The system also incorporates the mechanisms by which the constituents are

affected by the environment, such as hydrolysis, biodegradation, and adsorption.

A second integral part of the system is the definition of environments in which the hazard components are released. Thirteen environments including

a special category for deep ocean waters are defined

on the basis of population density, hydrology, and
388 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

hydrogeology. The system adjusts the exposure

scores of the waste streams’ hazardous constituents

to account for their varying effects in the three

media in each of the environments.

The third component of the system consists of the

technologies commonly used to transport, treat, and

dispose of the hazardous waste streams. This includes 3 types of transportation, 21 treatment technologies, and 9 disposal technologies. The system

determines cost and release rates for each of these

technologies based on the model’s existing data base.

It also incorporates estimates of capacities of the

technologies, the amount of waste to be disposed of,

and the proximity of the wastes to the available

waste management facilities,

The model contains a multidimensional frame -

work that combines various characteristics of waste

(W), environmental settings (E), and management

technologies (T), which includes treatment, dis -

posal, and transportation technologies. Each combination of W-E-T includes one waste, one environmental setting, up to three treatment technologies,

one disposal technology, and one transportation

technology. Scores (based on logarithmic scales) are

assigned to each W-E-T for cost and risk. Costs are

defined so as to represent real resource costs such

as capital and operating expenditures; the latter include labor, utilities, maintenance, and transportation. Risks are defined as risk to human health only

and are based on toxicity and exposure methods;

no consideration is given to environmental hazards.

The data base compiled for the model currently

includes 83 industrial wastes. Information has been

gathered regarding physical characteristics of the

wastes, toxicity data on hazardous constituents ,

concentrations of these constituents, an estimate

of the national amount generated for each, and an

average value that represents kg/day/generator.

Table 7B.l illustrates the technologies included

in the data base; a broad range has been considered.

Specific treatment options have been identified for

each waste based on engineering judgments of the

consulting firms. For each waste, several technology choices have been identified. For example, a

particular waste might have the following treatment

choices listed in the data base:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

chemical coagulation as a single treatment;

vacuum filter and evaporation/drying in combination;

incineration as a single treatment (assuming

pretreatment);

chemical fixation/stabilization as a single treatment; and

chemical precipitation and incineration i n

combination.

Table 7B.l.—Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal

Technologies for the EPA Risk/Cost Policy Model

Treatment Transportation Disposal

Phase separation

Chemical coagulation Onsite

Filter press Local

Centrifuge Long distance

Vacuum filter

Component separation

Evaporation/drying

Air stripping

Steam stripping

Solvent extraction

Leaching

Distillation

Reverse osmosis

Carbon adsorption (PAC)

Ion exchange

Chemical transformation

Chemical precipitation

Chemical destruction

Electrolytic decomposition

Chemical flxatlon/stabilization

Incineration

99.990/o DRE

99.900/, DRE

99.000/o DRE

90.00°\o DRE

SOURCE: ICF, Inc., 1982.

Double-lined landfill,

Single-lined landfill,

Unlined landfill,

Double-lined surface

impoundment

Single-lined surface

impoundment

Unlined surface

impoundment

Land treatment

Deep-well injection

Ocean

The technology element of each W-E-T combination includes a choice of one to three treatment

technologies, one transportation option, and one

land disposal option. Thus, a W-E-T combination

for the above example would include one of the

single or combined treatments, one of three transportation options, and one of nine disposal options.

For all technologies, typical routine release rates

representing some level of risk are included in the

data base. Costs associated with each treatment and

disposal technology also are provided.

The model identifies three environmental indicators of human health risk: assimilative capacity

of surface water located near a site, contamination

potential of nearby ground water sources, and population density near a site. Each indicator is represented by different levels—i.e., high, medium, or

low. All possible combinations of these indicators

representing 12 environmental settings are illustrated in table 7B.2. Deep ocean waters constitute

a separate environmental setting.

Two different levels are used to represent assimilative capacity for surface waters, Low assimilation

represents a high-risk situation and is identified by

the following conditions:

1. low-flow streams;
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 389

Table 7B.2.—Environmental Settings Used in the

EPA Risk/Cost Policy Model

Popultion density Assimilation

1. High (< 520 people/km2

) Low (<3 x 10’ m3

/day)

2. High Low

3. High High (<3 x IOa m

3

/day)

4. High

5. Medium (< 52 people/km’)

6. Medium

7. Medium

8. Medium

9. Low (<52 people/km2

)

10. Low

11, Low

12. Low

13. Deep ocean waters

SOURCE ICF, Inc , 1982

2. large streams where drinking-water intakes are

located downstream and within 6 hours of the

waste facility at an average flow rate; and

3. areas subject to frequent flooding-e. g., a 100-

year flood plain.

High-assimilative capacity represents high rates of

flow or high-volume surface waters–i.e., larg e

streams, estuaries, or lakes. This category is considered a low-risk situation in the model.

Criteria for determining low-risk levels for contamination potential of ground water include:

●

●

●

locations above aquifers already contaminated

to 100 times current drinking water standards;

soil permeability of less than 10-6 cm/sec a n d

depth to ground water saturation greater than

10 m; and

soil Permeability less than 10-4 cm/sec and

depth to ground “water saturation greater than

100 m.

High-risk levels for ground water contamination include all other conditions and those locations with

major earthquake threats.

Population density near a waste management facility is used to indicate the population at risk.

High-population density is defined as that with

greater than 520 people/km’, medium density as 52

to 520 people/km2, and low density as any area with

less than 52 people/km2.

Limitations in Use of the Model

As is evident by the following exerpts from the

Risk/Cost Policy Model Project, Phase 2 Report,

those most directly involved with development of

the model have a clear grasp as to its limitations.

EPA staff working on the model appear to understand that it is in at early stage of development, that

there are considerable uncertainties associated with

High

Low

Low

High

High

Low

Low

High

High

Contamination

High (0.2 km/yr)

Low (20 km/yr)

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

results, and that a need exists to spend more time

in development and validation of the model.

EPA’s purpose in developing the RCRA Risk/Cost

Policy Model is to assist policy makers in identifying cost-effective options that minimize risks to

health and the environment, The framework of the

system is intended as a screen—to identify situations

that are of special concern because of the risks they

pose and to determine where additional controls

may not be warranted in light of the high costs involved. The framework uses a data base that is too

imprecise and general to be the sole basis for regulations. The results of the model will be used in more

detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis to determine

whether some type of regulatory action is warranted. s

* * *

. . . results of the model will be used at a high level

of generality (to set priorities rather than to design

specific regulations) . . .4

* * *

Most important, this model cannot be used to

evaluate particular permit applications. 5

* * *

This degree of imprecision means that the results

cannot be used in a specific regulation-making context. We could, of course, use our general methodological approach to reach specific conclusions, but

to do would involve substantial effort and time,

which should probably be spent only on a very small

number of regulatory options of the highest priority.

Even if we used the tool in such a limited fashion,

we would have to make substantial changes in the

present assumptions, Because of the level of generality at which we operated, it would be improper to

apply the risk and cost values to a specific situation. 6 

31(~ F, 0~>. c it,. abstract

~It)l[i , [) 1 b

51bi[i , p I 8.

eIbKi., p 1 1(1
390 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

* * *

Although a number of assumptions hamper specific analysis, we believe that the tool is highly useful

at the general level of application for which it is

intended. 7

* * *

The risk/cost policy model provides a framework

for debate over alternatives, but requires restraint

in applications and interpretation. The major assumptions and simplifications render detailed insight into the specifics of a regulation impossible.8

Statements made by the Administrator of EPA

before congressional committees, however, suggests that the Agency intends to use this model for

regulatory reform and rulemaking. In the land disposal regulations and in several statements pre -

sented at congressional hearings (as illustrated below) during the past year by senior officials, EPA

has indicated that it will use the model quite soon.

It must be emphasized that while these statements

do not specifically refer to the Risk/Cost Policy

model, it has been referred to as the Agency’ s

degree-of-hazard approach.’

Reexamination of existing regulations—in light of

the extensive comments received on Phase I and

Phase 11 regulations, we are undertaking a major

reexamination, including: . . . An analysis of the

cost/risk/feasibility factors in managing various

types of waste to enable use to tailor standards for

the control of specific classes of hazardous waste; . . .IO

* * *

Even as we near completion of RCRA’S regulatory

framework, we continue our pursuit of the Administrator’s goals in the area of regulatory reform. To

this end, all our regulations are now undergoing a

degree-of-hazard analysis to determine whether the

requirements need strengthening or whether they

are already too stringent.11

* * *

Tailoring of standards for specific wastes—apart

from the specific regulatory activities discussed immediately above, EPA is conducting regulatory impact analyses for each of the various types of waste

management units, In addition, it is conducting a

degree-of-hazard study which will examine various

combinations of waste types and volumes, treatment

and disposal technologies, and environmental settings. This study is intended to identify ways in

which RCRA Subtitle C standards could be tailored

to better address particular problems. Based upon

these studies, EPA hopes to propose appropriate reg-

—

‘J[bid., ~. 1. I 1.

8

1 bid., p. 5.7,

W. Haymore, “EPA’s Degree-of-Hazard Program, ” Waste Age, January,

1982.

IOA .,M Gorsuch, statement before the U ,S. I~ouse Subcommittee on

Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, Oct. 21, 1981.

IIR, M. Lavelle, statement before the U ,S, Senate Subcommittee on

Environmental Pollution, June 24, 1982.

ulatory amendments in 1983 and promulgate them

in 1984. 12

OTA believes that it will be some time before the

model offers results of sufficient certainty to have

confidence in its use for policy development or

regulatory reform. At some time in the future, after

results are verified, it would be appropriate to use

it as a “screening” tool, to determine Agency priorities and areas for regulatory reform, and to “tailor”

or “fine tune” RCRA regulations. In conjunction

with other work, the model might be used to determine which wastes might be prohibited from landfills, what wastes would qualify for exemption from

small quantity generators, and what facilities might

qualify for regulatory exceptions and variances, or

for class permits.

OTA Critique of the Risk/Cost Policy Model

Preparing a critique of this model from the Phase

2 Report was exceedingly difficult. Important information about actual application was missing, and

many errors were noted. The report was poorly

written—therefore, several interpretations for appropriate use of the methodology were possible.

Only after a 6-hour meeting with the contractors

and EPA representatives did OTA feel that sufficient information was in hand to attempt this critique. This fact must be emphasized. If persons

trained in the various disciplines that are incorporated in the model have difficulty interpreting both

methodology and results, it seems unlikely that administrative officials will be able to apply the model

correctly.

Even when a model is to be used only as a screening tool for developing policy and setting priorities

for regulatory reform, it is important that its elements describe real conditions as closely as possible. Because the Risk/Cost Policy Model incorporates inadequate data about management practices

and unrealistic assumptions, reliance on its results

could lead to policies and regulatory changes that

have detrimental rather than beneficial impact on

a national waste management approach.

Inadequate Data

There are several problems noted with the data

base used in the Risk/Cost Policy model. The model

considers 83 industrial wastes, of which 80 percent

are currently considered as hazardous by EPA. The

IZU ,s, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Management System: Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Office of Solid

Wastes, Washington, D. C., 1982.
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 391

total volume represents 50 percent of EPA’s estimate for annual hazardous waste generation in the

United States. For some applications this data base

may be reasonable, especially for preliminary

screening functions; however, if used to set priorities or tailor regulations this data base may be

limited. Large amounts of federally unregulated

wastes, which some States define as hazardous, are

not included; this could lead to Federal policies that

do not consider adequately actual management

choices commercially available to deal with these

wastes, In addition, there appears to have been no

attempt to correlate this data base with the broad

diversity in quality of wastes currently being regulated. Thus, results from any analysis using this

model would not reflect current needs or problems

in hazardous waste management.

The data base includes wastes not designated as

hazardous and therefore are actually regulated

under Subtitle D of RCRA.

1.

2.

3.

wastes containing metals that are likely candidates for hazardous designation at some future

date;

a single nonhazardous waste that might compete for disposal space in subtitle C permitted

landfills; and

a single metal-fluoride waste that is water soluble and therefore may be classed as hazardous

at some future date.

This model treats these wastes as though they are

hazardous and regulated under subtitle C. The developers of this model apparently assumed that all

wastes would be regulated under subtitle C in the

future. while this situation would be preferable to

the exclusionary system currently being used by

EPA, it would seem inappropriate to tailor subtitle C regulations using a data base that does not

accurately reflect current management or hazard

conditions.

Although a broad range of technologies are included, actual matching of technologies with particular wastes are rather limited, Furthermore, the

choice of technology included in W-E-T combinations is not based on current management practices, but rather reflects engineering judgments

about how a waste might be treated. For example,

incineration is the predominant treatment technology in this data base and is applied as a single treatment to 47 of the 83 wastes. Only three waste

streams have incineration listed as an option in

combination with another treatment technology.

Such widespread use of incineration as a singletreatment option is not reflected in available data

for management of subtitle C wastes.

Chemical fixation/stabilization is the second most

predominant, single-treatment technology applied

to wastes in the data base. It is listed as a singletreatment option for 36 wastes and in combination

with other treatments for 27 wastes. Broad application of chemical fixation/stabilization is not representative of current disposal practices as this data

base would suggest.

Costs associated with each treatment and disposal technology are part of the data base. The basis

for the estimates of cost was engineering judgment

rather than actual costs associated with operating

facilities. In addition, differences in such factors

as treatability of waste streams, volume, and concentrations of hazardous constituents that will affect costs associated with treatments apparently

were not considered.

Inaccurate Assumptions Used in the Model

The Risk/Cost Policy Model attempts to make an

enormously difficult analytical problem more tractable by using restrictive and simplistic assumptions

about environmental exposure. While OTA would

agree that waste, environment, and technology are

the three important elements in determining risk

from waste management choices, the assumptions

used in the model for each of these elements are

so simplistic that inaccurate risk estimates may

be expected.

The concept of determining and using assimilative capacity of surface waters and contamination

potential of ground water as measures of environmental or human health risk has merit. The indicators chosen to represent these two concepts, however, have flaws in underlying assumptions and

contrary, to a statement in the abstract, the W-E-T

concept as developed in this model does not represent the environmental behavior of waste constituents.

Unfortunately, the criteria used for assigning

high and low levels of assimilative capacity and

contamination potential have little relation to the

meaning of these two ecological concepts. When

considering the first, flow rate is used as the only

measure and is considered to represent assimilative

capability of surface water. The assimilative potential of any ecosystem (forest, stream, or lake), however, depends on the capacity of that system to

remove, isolate, or destroy a constituent. This capacity is influenced by severaI factors incIuding:

1. physical factors of an ecosystem;

2. quality and quantity of biota present; and

3. chemical characteristics of a pollutant.
392 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Flow rate is only one physical factor of a surface

water system that determines distribution of a pollutant and certainly is not the most important factor. Distribution patterns may increase or decrease

the potential assimilation of a constituent into a

system. Thus, flow rate cannot be considered a direct measure of assimilative capacity nor can it be

considered a reliable measure of surface water contamination.

For example, the actual level of assimilation in

a given situation would depend on relative persistence of a constituent, its chemical reactivity within

the identified environment, the potential for photodegradation, the ability of biotic populations to

degrade it (thus, removing it from food sources),

and sedimentation or sorption rates contributing

to its long-term isolation. It is conceivable that both

degradable and persistent constituents in a slowflowing stream (a characteristic considered in this

model to represent low-assimilative capacity and,

therefore, high risk) could present the same level

of risk. If the persistent compound were isolated

from human contact by burial in sediment or accumulated in nonedible aquatic animals, the risk for

human exposure would be minimal. High-assimilative capacities (and therefore low-risk levels) are attributed to those locations that discharge into fastflowing streams, large estuaries, or lakes. However,

a persistent constituent could be discharged to a

lake, bioaccumulated through the food chain, posing an increased risk to human populations, Thus,

use of flow rate as the sole measure of surface

water contamination can hardly be considered as

representative of real conditions.

There are similar problems with criteria for assigning high- and low-contamination potential of

ground water sources, The model defines risk in

terms of an adverse effect on human health and

does not consider effects on the environment.

Therefore, it seems misleading to classify an environmental setting in which drinking water standards have been exceeded as a low risk. In addition,

the simplistic, dichotomous characteristics of soil

permeability that are used as indicators for contamination potential seem unduly rigid and ambiguous.

It is not clear how these relate to real conditions

of either natural soil profiles or engineering designs

of a facility. Many other factors found in subsurface environments influence levels of contamination potential.

The risk/cost model uses population density as

an indication of a population at risk. The number

of people residing near a site, however, has little

meaning for the probability that an adverse effect

will occur, the generally accepted definition of risk.

The chance of observing the effect is greater with

larger populations, but the risk to individuals and

the proportion of a population likely to be affected

are not changed by density. This is a factor that

EPA consistently ignores in many of the risk assessment models.

This misconception of risk suggests that EPA

does not understand the importance of actual dose

received by a population. The density within some

radius of a waste site is not relevant. Only that

group of individuals receiving a particular dose

is the population at risk; it can be either nearby

or far-removed from a site of contamination. Also,

the exposure may represent an acute situation—

i.e., one single dose, or a chronic situation with

several exposures occurring over time. In addition,

the dose may vary considerably. Such variations

may result from different levels of intake or routes

of exposure (e.g., amount of water consumed daily),

variation in concentration levels for each intake,

and variation in type of chemicals for each intake.

Moreover, there is the additional problem that sensitivities of specific individuals to chemicals can

vary greatly,

The concept that higher population densities result in greater risks is wrong. Population density

is not an adequate indicator of the likelihood of individuals being exposed to a hazardous constituent.

It is quite conceivable that only a few people in an

urban area would be exposed (e. g., if the major

source of drinking water is not drawn from the contaminated site); in contrast, if all local wells are affected, everyone residing in a low-density area

could receive contaminated water. If the exposure

is indirect (as in distribution of a pollutant in food),

density becomes even less important.

Methodology

Overall risk scores are compiled using measures

representing waste, environment, and technology

as discussed above and are represented logarithmically. Factors in the scores include:

1. waste—an inherent hazard score and an exposure score for either air, surface water, or

ground water;

2. environment-adjustments to exposure scores

based on population density, assimilative capacity, and contamination potential; and

3. technology—adjustments to a final risk score

based on release rates estimated for selected

treatment/transportation/disposal technologies.

Inherent hazard score is defined as the probability of a response per unit of intake, This score is
Ch. 7—The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program ● 393

determined for 140 compounds considered to be

potentially hazardous constituents of the 83 waste

streams. The scoring system used for assigning inherent hazard is based on identifying a minimum

effective dose (MED) for each compound. An MED

represents the smallest amount of a chemical required to produce an effect in a laboratory population. This effect could range from skin rashes to

death. Therefore, each MED represents some minimal level of response; for example, if the following

doses are identified for three hypothetical chemicals:

Chemical M E D Effect

Chemical A. . . . . . . . . 100.00 mg/kg body weight X

Chemical B . . . . . . . . . . 3 .OO mg/kg body weight Y

Chemical C . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 mg/kg body weight Z

It would indicate that some effect X is noted for

chemical A in a laboratory test population only

after administering a dose of 100 mg/kg; chemical

B and C produce effects that are qualitatively different from chemical A and at much lower doses.

Also, because the effects resulting from an exposure

are different for C and A, these MED values do not

imply that C is more toxic than A. Such an interpretation is possible only if the effects of both chemicals were identical.

Once a human MED has been identified or calculated from animal data, this dose is divided by a

factor of 10. Because an effect resulting from low

doses usually can be detected in 10 to 30 percent

of the test population, an assumption made in the

model considers that this division will represent an

approximation of that dose which would “yield a

l-percent probability of producing adverse effects,”

in the population at risk. An inherent hazard score

is then assigned for this value. The scale for the inherent hazard score has been set arbitrarily to represent an order of magnitude difference in each

unit change—i.e,, a score of 2 represents an inherent hazard that is 10 times greater than a score

of 1.

The score, however, may be misleading as the

model differentiates among doses not quality of effeet—e.g., cancer is considered equal to skin rashes.

Thus, although the doses represented by two scores

of 2 and 3 may be 10 times different, the quality

of effects could be reversed; the effect for a chemical with a hazard score of 3 (low dose) may represent skin rashes, while the effect for a chemical

with a score of 2 (higher dose) could be death.

In addition to an inherent hazard score, an exposure score is assigned for each compound for one

of three exposure routes (air, surface water, or

ground water], primarily based on half-life of the

chemical. In assigning this score, some consideration also is given for bioaccumulation potential [in

surface only), potential removal by conventional

water treatment (in surface water and ground

water), and adsorption to solid surfaces (in ground

water only). It should be emphasized that transport

potential of a compound is considered equal to degradation. Therefore, if a constituent is highly

volatile and might be transported readily from

water to air, the constituent is considered to be

degradable in water and the half-life relatively

short. However, there are several circumstances

where a volatile compound discharged into water

would not be readily transported to air—e.g., is adsorbed onto deep sediment or ingested into biota.

Certain modifications are made to individual

media exposure scores based on the three environmental indicators previously discussed.

1.

2.

3.

Modifications ‘to the surface water exposure

score for assimilative capacity increase the

score by one unit (one order of magnitude

change) for low assimilation (i.e., low-flow rate)

and decrease by one unit for high assimilation

(i.e., high-flow rate or large volume of water).

Such factors as actual concentration or amount

of compound being discharged and the volume

of water within which the compound is diluted

(for low assimilation) are not considered.

A similar problem exists when considering

modifications for ground water contamination.

Velocity of ground water flow is the deciding

factor. High velocity decreases a ground water

exposure score by one unit for compounds

with half-lives greater than 10 years. If the velocity is very slow, compounds with half-lives

of 100 years or greater have exposure scores

increased by one unit, The actual potential for

risk in this situation, however, would depend,

in part, on distance traveled prior to human exposure. Circumstances could arise where distances are short enough that human exposure

would be possible, particularly for compounds

with half-lives of 10 years. Also, there are documented cases when contaminant plumes do

not move at the same rate, or even the same

direction as the ground water flow.l3

A value judgment is made that all exposure

scores (air, surface water, and ground water)

should be adjusted according to density of

nearby populations. If density is high the score

is increased, thus, the overall risk value is increased. If population density is low, the score

~$David Burmaster, “Critique of the Monitoring Provisions in EPA’s

Interim Final Regulations for Hazardous Waste Landfills, ” OTA Working Paper, 1982.

99– 113 (J - 83 - 2 b
394 • Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

is decreased. Unit changes established for the

model are illustrated in table 7B.3 and reflect

a consistent bias against rural areas.

This modification scheme gives disproportionate

and unjustified weight to dilution capacity and size

of populations without regard to the fate of compounds in each medium.

Costs for each treatment, disposal, and transportation technology were estimated based on the “typical” facility. For treatment technologies these estimates were further rounded-off to a value closest

to the boundaries set in the cost score. These

boundaries represent a difference of two between

scores. (These scores are based on log z.) For example, a cost score of 3 represents technology costs

that are two times greater than a cost score of Z.

No attention was given to the fact that these costs

would vary depending on the waste being treated.

There is a potential inability to discriminate

among the W-E-T combinations solely on the basis

of cost in a manner that has real meaning. Given

two hypothetical W-E-T combinations, W-E-T 1 and

W-E-T Z, the costs associated with the latter must

be twice as large as the former before they will be

considered different in the model. Because of the

way costs have been allocated to various technologies in the data base, it is possible that no differences will be observed when using the same technology for two different wastes, Likewise, it is

unlikely that differences in costs for different technologies and the same waste will be large enough

to merit a change in cost score. Because costs do

depend on characteristics of the waste, real values,

however, might be very different when comparing

the use of two different treatments for one waste.

Misleading Results and Conclusions

As the model currently is formulated, there are

certain misleading outcomes that could have serious ramifications in setting RCRA policy and reguTable 7B.3.—Unit Changes for Population Density

Air Surface water Ground water

Half-life HML HM L H M L

3 minutes ... , . . . . . +2 + 1 – 1

30 minutes . . . . . . . . + 1 +1 – 1 +1 –1 –2

6 hours . . . . . . . . . . . + 1 0 –1 +1 –1 –2 +2 –1 –2

3 days ... , ... . . . . 0 0 0 +1 –1 –2 +2 + 1 –2

30 days . . . . . . . . . . . 000 00 0 +2 +1 –2

1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +1 –2

10 years. . . . . . . . . . . 000 00 0 +2 +1 –1

100 years. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 –1

1,000 years . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 –1

KEY: H—high density, M—medium density, L—low density,

SOURCE: ICF, Inc., 19S2

latory reforms. Concentrations of a specific constituent can vary considerably among wastes found in

the data base; such differences, however, are not

reflected in the inherent hazard score. For example, lead is found in waste from paint production

and in wastes from metal production; the concentration factor for the first is 0.01 and for the second,

0,03. Although there is three times the amount of

lead in one waste, the inherent hazard score assigned to each would be the same, Differences in

concentration would only be recognized if the treatment process affected original levels. More realistic

differences in hazard and perhaps in the overall

risk might be obtained if the inherent hazard score

were adjusted for differences in constituent concentrations in the waste.

A major outcome of this model is that for any

given waste, risk scores calculated for surface and

ground water decrease from high- to low-population density, as illustrated in table 7B.4. Thus, the

lowest risks, irrespective of waste type or technology choice, will always be those areas with lowpopulation densities. The implication of this use of

population density for determining overall risk is

alarming. When more people reside near a malfunctioning waste site, that site would have a

higher priority or would require more stringent

control technology than a site associated with a

lower density of people, regardless of the actual

level of hazard or degree of exposure. Determining

policy and regulatory reform on the basis of variations in population density (urban v. rural) poses

difficult political and ethical questions.

Misleading results about risks can arise in another way also. For example, determination of surface water exposure scores for two hypothetical

chemicals give the following results:

Chemical A, half-live=3 days . 2 2

High-population density . . . . +1 Low population ., –2

Low-assimilative capacity, . . + 1 Low assimilation. + 1

Modified exposure score . . 4 1

Chemical B, half-life= 1 year 4

High-population density ... , 0

High-assimilative capacity . . – 1

Modified exposure score . . 3

Although chemical A could be discharged into

water with low assimilative capacity (e.g., a stream

with a low-flow rate), the location near an urban

area results in an exposure score four orders of

magnitude as high as that in the rural environment.

Because chemical B is discharged into surface

water with high assimilative capacity (e.g., a stream

with a high-flow rate), it has a lower score than

chemical A even though chemical B is considered

more persistent. A situation could exist whereby
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 395

Table 7B.4.—Differences in Risk Score for Twelve Environmental Settings With Example Waste Streams

Risk scores by environmental settinga

EPA No Constituents Media 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

9 9 9

13 11 11

10 12 10

5 5 5

4 2 2

8 10 8

11 11 11

3 1 1

9 11 9

5 5 5

0 –2 –2

5 7 7

8 8 8

2 0 0

7 9 7

11 11 11

2 0 0

7 9 7

8 8 8

0 –2 –2

4 6 4

6 6 6

0 –2 –2

5 7 5

7 7 7

0 –2 –2

6 8 6

6 6 6

2 0 0

5 7 5

5 5 5

4 2 2

8 10 8

‘6 6 6

3 1 1

7 9 7

6 6 6

1 –1 –1

5 7 5

K060

Amonia still

lime sludge from

coking operation

999999 9

13 13 11 11 13 13 11

13 11 13 11 13 11 13

777766 6

775555 3

11 9 11 9 11 9 11

11 11 11 11 11 11 11

664444 2

12 10 12 10 12 10 12

555555 5

3 3 1 1 1 1 –1

868686 8

ArsenIC A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

13

11

6

3

9

11

2

10

5

–1

6

Y

13

12

5

4

10

11

3

11

5

0

7

68

2

9

11

2

9

8

0

6

6

0

7

7

0

8

6

2

7

5

4

10

6

3

9

6

1

7

9

9

5

9

9

3

9

4

3

8

4

12

11

3

11

8

1

Phenol

Cyanideb

Naphthalene

Chloroform b K073

Chlorinated

hydrocarbon

waste from

chloralkali

process

8 8

3 1

8 10

11 11

3 1

8 10

8 8

1 –1

6 8

6 6

1 –1

6 8

7 7

1 –1

7 9

8

1

8

11

1

8

8

–1

6

6

–1

6

7

–1

7

6

1

7

6

3

9

8

5

10

11

5

10

8

3

8

6

3

8

7

3

9

6

5

9

7

7

11

6

6

10

6

4

9

‘ 9 ”

9

9

9

9

7

9

7

7

8

7

13

11

6

12

8

4

888 8

533 3

8 10 8 10

11 11 11 11

533 3

8 10 8 10

888 8

311 1

686 8

666 6

311 1

686 8

777 7

311 1

797 9

Carbon tetrachloridec

Hexachloroethane

1,1,2 Trichlorethane

1,1,1 Trichlorethane

K026

Stripping

tails from

methyl ethyl

production

Pyridineb

6

3

7

6

5

9

6

4

8

6

2

7

9

9

8

9

9

6

9

5

6

8

5

11

11

4

10

8

2

6

1

9

6

3

11

6

2

10

6

0

9

9

7

8

9

7

6

9

3

6

8

3

13

11

2

12

8

0

A

s

G

A

s

G

A

-

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

9

s

G

A

s

G

‘ A

s

G

A

s

G

A

s

G

6 6 6

5 3 3

7 9 7

7 7 7

7 5 5

9 11 9

6 6 6

6 4 4

8 10 8

6 6 6

4 2 2

7 9 7

6

3

9

6

5

11

6

4

10

6

2

9

9

9

8

9

9

6

9

5

6

8

5

13

11

4

12

8

2

Phenol

K025

Still bottoms

from nitrobenzene

production

2,4 Dinitrotolueneb

6

2

8

6

0

7

9“

7

8

9

7

6

9

3

6

Nitrobenzenec

KO02, 3, 5

Mixed metal

sludges from

paint production

9 9 9

9 7 7

9 9 9

9 9 9

9 7 7

7 7 7

9 9 9

7 5 5

7 7 7

Lead 9 9

9 7

5 5

9 9

9 7

3 3

9 9

4 2

3 3

8 8

4 2

10 12

11 11

3 1

9 11

8 8

1 -1

7 9

9

7

5

9

7

3

9

2

3

8

2

10

11

1

9

8

- 1

7

Mercury bA

Thallium

KO11, 13, 14

Still bottoms from

acrylonitrile

production

Acrylonitrile b

8 8 8

7 5 5

11 13 11

11 11 11

6 4 4

10 12 10

8 8 8

4 2 2

8

3

11

11

2

10

8

0

Cyanide

Acetonitrile

10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 9
high contamination potential h}gh assimilative capacity

4—high population density low contamination potential

bconstltuent selected for use {n model based on highest concentration In waste

stream

cConstltuents having greatest concentration can vary among waste streams, thm

constituent often has highest concentration

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

drinking water is drawn from rapid-flowing streams

or that fish from such a stream serve as food for

the population; thus, the actual risk for chemical

B might be greater than chemical A, The fate of

chemicals in the environment have important consequences when assessing risks and these are not

addressed by the Risk/Cost Policy model. In addition, the effects on human health may not be represented by the relative risk scores. Chemical A

may result in a skin disorder and chemical B may

reduce the fecundity of females,

In many cases, the total volume of a given constituent can partition among all environmental

media and exposure could result from more than

one route—e. g., it could be in drinking water and

in food sources. The dose received could be greater

for a given constituent than indicated by this model

and thus, the probability of observing an adverse

effect could be greatly increased.

A second outcome of this model is that costs associated with technologies appear to be biased toward

land disposal. Because long-term costs (monitoring

costs and liability insurance fees) are not reflected

in a realistic manner, disposal on land without any

prior treatment may prove to be the least expensive for all wastes. Thus, regardless of the waste

and selected environmental setting, a major outcome of this model may be that those W-E-T combinations with the lowest risk/cost results will be

those associated with low population densities

and disposal in landfills.

A major difficulty in applying this Risk/Cost Policy Model is that EPA has blurred distinctions between roles of policy maker, regulator, and industry
Ch. 7— The Current Federal-State Hazardous Waste Program . 397

in the management of hazardous waste, RCRA policy was established by Congress—i. e., EPA was

charged with protecting human health and the environment from adverse effects that might result

through mismanagement of hazardous materials .

Because of the statutory language, EPA is constrained from balancing risk and costs. The use

of this model in changing or developing new policy appears to be a violation of the congressional

intent of RCRA.

Finally, EPA is attempting to determine which

technologies should be used to manage hazardous

waste and in assessing costs and risks for each possible waste and technology combination. This perhaps is a task more suited for industry than a regulatory agency, If the Agency were to set goals for

levels of acceptable risk or hazard by establishing

some type of standard for industry to meet, it could

then be left to individual companies to determine:

1) which technology is to be used to meet the standard, and 2) at what cost. For EPA to do an adequate

determination of the W-E-T combinations and evaluate them for risk and costs requires enormous

commitments of time and money on the part of the

Federal Government. If each industrial entity were

to do its own specific assessment, the cost could

be internalized within the industry and not be a

drain on limited governmental resources ,
Index
Index

Acurex, Inc., 155, 156

Agency for Toxic Substances, 126

Agent Orange, 169

air pollutants, 326

Alaska, 199

alternatives to disposal and dispersal of hazardous

waste:

advantages and disadvantages (table 13), 96

goals, 79-80

incentives, 28-33, 72-79

American Society of Testing Material, 251

Arkansas, 131, 353

Arthur D. Little, 119, 332, 333

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials (ASTSWMO):

report by, 57

survey for OTA, 120, 123, 125, 342, 345

Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 118, 155

B. F. Goodrich, 214

Booz Allen and Hamilton, 119, 120, 124, 130, 196

Bureau of Economic Analysis, 334

Bureau of Land Management, 203, 334

California, 12, 15, 30, 75, 77, 78, 82, 122, 123, 131,

156, 172, 189, 199, 236, 256, 257, 259, 337, 348,

351, 353, 354, 368

California Air Resources Board, 166, 196, 354

Canada, 166, 172

Carter administration, 99

Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 125

CERCLA hazardous waste sites, 131, 134

Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), 76,

131, 382

chlorofluorocarbons [CFC), 321

classification systems, 99-107, 229-242

considerations, 102

degree-of-hazard, 99-100, 102,

tables, 260-261

feasibility, case study, 236-240

limitations, 238

results, 237, 239

structure, 237

hazard/risk, 380

link between classification and risk estimation, 103

models, 233-234

problems and advantages, 240-242

waste, 229-233

characteristics that may pose a hazard (table 40), 230

chemical and physical factors, 232

specific process, 230

toxicological characteristics, 231

waste management facilities:

models, 235

technical basis, 235

class permitting, 27, 28, 69

Colorado, 348

Colorado River, 259

compliance costs with RCRA and CERCLA:

administrative, 338, 341

Federal and State, 58, 332, 338

private sector, 58, 334, 338

Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policies, 363

Congress:

House Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight, 381

House Committee on Science and Technology,

Subcommittee on Environment and the

Atmosphere, 252

considerations to bring high-priority waste under

regulation, 68-69

Continental Fibre Drum, 159

costs, near- and long-term, 5-6

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 250, 252

current regulatory programs, evaluations of, 7

data:

acquisition, priorities, 9, 133

health and environmental effects, 125, 126, 133

national, 117

requirements, 116, 117, 133

State, 120, 121

types of, 115

use of, 123

DDT, 203, 204

Department of Agriculture, 146

Department of Commerce, 118, 196, 329

Department of Defense, 47

Department of Energy, 329

Department of Health and Human Services, 126

Department of Justice, 303

Department of Transportation, 274, 279, 320

Development Planning and Research Associates

(DPRA), 118)

Disease Registry (DHHS), 126

District of Columbia, 122

Dow Chemical Co., 165

Eads, George, Council of Economic Advisors, 227

Eastman Kodak, 165

economic considerations, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 81, 195

appropriated funds for options II-IV, 97

clean up, 5, 6, 20

concern for international competition, 84

estimated public and private costs for hazardous

waste management, 97

Love Canal, 6

transfer to future, 58, 67

Energy Power Research Institute, 155

Engineering Science, 382

ENSCO, 165

environmental effects, 4, 5, 7, 8

data, 125 (table 19, 126,

laws, 319

Environmental Protection

16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24,

133

Agency (EPA), 8, 9, 11, 15,

27, 28, 30, 33, 36, 37, 46,

401
402 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71,

72, 74, 75, 76, 81, 83, 86, 91, 92, 93, 95, 99, 111,

116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 143, 159, 160,

161, 169, 182, 184, 188, 200, 205, 209, 227, 229,

236, 237, 247, 252, 258, 269

Burford, Anne M., EPA Administrator, 345

Cooperation with USGS, 93

delisting of hazardous waste, 275

Emergency and Remedial Response Information

System, 4

Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratories,

250, 251

extraction procedure (EP) tests, 69, 273

fiscal year 1983 R&D effort, 30, 74

hazardous waste program budget, 34o

Hazard Ranking System (HRS), 383, 386

imminent hazard and enforcement provisions, 294

citizen suits, 295

implementation of RCRA, 265, 269

integration of programs, 35-37

ISS closure and post-closure regulations, 285

Lavelle, Rita M., Assistant Administrator for Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, 16

long-term, systematic program, need for, 111

manifest system, 278

notice to generators, 119

notification from generators, transporters, and

facilities, 277

Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel, 341

Office of Planning and Resource Management, 339

Office of Reserach an Development, 94, 33o, 331

Office of Solid Waste, 128, 339

performance standards, 280

permit applications, 293

reduction of grants to States, 65

regulation of waste generators, 278

requirements for hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities, 279-280

Risk/Cost Policy Model (WET matrix), 64, 88, 100,

385, 387, 389, 390, 391

STORET, 254

survey of uncontrolled sites, 4, 20

two-tiered approach for land disposal

regulations, 266

unreleased study, 5

Waste Alert Program, 258

Executive Order No. 12291, 64, 385

facilities, permitting of, 56, 59, 104, 293

Federal exemptions, 3, 7, 9, 12, 27, 61, 116, 276

eliminating, 68

examples (table 17), 117

State definitions, 122

FederaI funding, loss of, 23

Federal hazardous waste program, 26

advantages and disadvantages (table 13), 96

goals, 60-67

scenarios, 98

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 258

fee systems:

affect to prices in market place, 85

CERCLA, 30, 31, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 98

State use of, 30, 31, 32, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83,

366, 364

focus of study, 7, 46, 47

Food and Drug Administration, 201

Franklin Research Institute, 211

Fred C. Hart Associates, 131

General Accounting Office (GAO), 25, 51, 126

general facility standards, 287

facihty permitting, 293

incinerators, 291

land disposal facilities, 293

storage, 291

General Portland Co., Paulding, Ohio, 166

Georgia, 123, 131

Good Year Tire & Rubber Co., 155

Guam, 120, 121

Hawaii, 199

hazard classification framework:

advantages and disadvantages, 96

congressional action, 86

costs, 90

degree-of-hazard considerations, 102

difference from other approaches, 100

elements, 86-87

examples, 89

facilities, 17, 34-35, 60, 85-88

goals, 88-90

in a risk management framework, 99

integrated risk management approach, 101

link between risk estimation, 103

protection of health and environment, 25, 88

summary, 34-35

wastes, 17, 34-35, 60, 85-88

hazardous waste:

acute hazardous waste, 274

amount of, 3, 5, 8, 44, 111, 119, 120, 124

average cost of disposal, 6

characteristics, 273, 274

chemical treatment, 16

classification, 17, 27, 33, 34-35, 86-87, 99, 221,

229-242, 270

compliance cost, 332

containment technologies, 12

data collection mandates, RCRA and CERCLA

(table 15), 114

data inadequacies, 3, 7, 8, 9, 54, 56, 58, 63, 81, 111,

161, 195, 265

definition, 7, 8, 36, 116, 123, 271

exclusion from, 273

degree of hazard, need for, 99

delisting, 27, 61, 69, 116, 275

determination of solutions (fig. 4), 112

dilemma, 52

dispersal, 13, 29, 31, 36, 52, 72, 73, 77

disposal, 6, 8, 14, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39, 52, 72, 73,

77, 292

empty containers, 277

estimates by EPA and the States (table 18), 121

exemptions, 3, 7, 9, 12, 27, 61, 68, 116, 117, 122,

276, 277, 351
Index “ 403

Federal Government, role of, 114

Federal regulation of, 268, 368

RCRA approach, 269

Federal-State program:

expenditures, 266

industrial compliance cost, 332

lack of incentive, 266

genetic delisting petition, 275

identification, 270, 271

industry, role of, 11 4

industry studies, 118

interim status facilities, 281

standards for, 282, 285-287

listing of, 274, 275, 276

management facilities, 127-133

management paths (fig. 5), 11 3

monitoring, 19, 20, 27, 33, 45, 52, 61, 104, 221,

242-254

OTA survey, 8

overriding issue, 5

public, role of, 114

recycling 11, 15, 16, 27, 31, 62, 68, 216, 370

regulatory criteria, establishing of, 271, 33, 56, 278

remedial actions, 21, 57, 63, 140, 205, 209, 211,

308-311

requirements for transporters, 279

solid waste excluded from definition of, 273

spent pickle liquor, 216

state programs under RCRA, 269-299

tax, 318, 367

technical performance standards [table 55), 289

temporary exclusion, 275

total National costs, 344

toxic waste, 275

transportation and accidental spills, 7, 47

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF),

277, 278, 279, 280, 295, 297, 326, 348, 353

permits, 288, 294

standards for, 281, 285-286, 351, 368

treatment technologies, 12, 14, 16, 17

under CERCLA, 300

waste type, 13, 44, 127

Hazard Ranking System (Mitre model), 64

hazard reduction, 13, 156-198

biological treatment, 174

boilers, 166, 167

cement kilns, 166

comparative unit costs for selective technologies,

195-198

comparison of technologies (table 21), 157

comparisons of thermal treatment (table 32),

163-164

destruction and removal efficiency standard (DRE),

159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170,

171, 173

fluidized bed combustors, 168, 169

fluid-wall reactors, 172

landfills, 174-186

bottom liners, 177, 178, 185, 186

control features, 176

cover, 179, 180

current practice, 1 8 3

regulatory issues, 185

site hydrology, 181, 182

siting restriction, 185

stabilization/solidification process, 182, 183

surface impoundments, 4, 5, 12, 13, 186-189

evaluation, 187

regulatory issues, 188, 189

use and evaluation, 175, 183, 184

waste characteristics, 182, 185

multiple hearth incinerators, 168

performance standards, 159, 160, 161

plasm-arc reactors, 172

principal organic hazardous constituent IPOHC),

159, 161, 162

product of incomplete combustion (PIC), 161, 162,

170, 173

recovery/recycle operation, case examples, 216-217

rotary kiln, 159, 163, 164, 165, 169, 172

super critical water, 173

thermal technologies:

fluid-wall reactors, 172

molten salt reactors, 170, 171

pyrolysis, 170

toxic combustion, 160

treatment, 139, 140, 156-173

at sea, 169

incineration, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164

liquid, 159, 162, 164, 166

metal, 159, 167

underground injection wells, 189

classification, 191

design, 190

evaluation, 192

location, 191

regulations, 193, 194

wet oxidation, 173

Hazardous Waste Compensation Fund, 76

health effects, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 43, 45

data, 125 (table 19?, 126, 133, 225, 243, 248

Illinois, 33, 69, 79, 353

Indiana, 123

Interagency Task Force, 253

integration of environmental programs, 35-37, 60, 91

advantages and disadvantages (table 13), 96

cost and problems, 95

goals, 94-95

interim status standards (1SS):

closure and post-closure requirements, 285

financial responsibility and insurance

standards, 285

incinerators, 287

landfills, 286

surface impoundments, 288

International Council for the Exploration of the

Seas, 203

issues and uncertainties, 44-46

1. T. Enviroscience, 173
404 ● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

Jeffords, J., U.S. Representative, 242

JRB Associates, 118

Kentucky, 30, 75

Kepone, 203, 204

land disposal, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 28, 62, 93,

132, 370

alternatives, 61, 71, 74, 79, 82, 89, 98, 356, 364

compliance costs for facilities, 334

criticism of regulations, 371

exemptions from monitoring, 372

facilities, 293

interim status standards, 286

monitoring, 376

risks, 15, 16, 20, 73

use of technology, 375

Ieachate, 4, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 183, 185,

187, 374

leaching, 5, 14, 132

legal remedies, 358

barriers to recovery, 362

identification of parties, 362

nuisance, private and public, 360

proof of causation, 362

statute of limitations, 362

trespass, 361

legislation:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 116, 271

Clean Air Act, 20, 36, 92, 160, 247, 251, 252, 267,

269, 319, 322, 325, 326, 368

Clean Water Act, 20, 27, 36, 61, 68, 92, 118, 128,

247, 251, 252, 267, 269, 271, 294, 295, 319, 321,

359, 368

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21,

23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40, 43,

47, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65,

66, 67, 70, 72, 75, 76, 78, 84, 90, 92, 93, 98, 99,

111, 114, 122, 127, 128, 140, 205, 225, 266, 357

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 57

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), 321

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 116, 199

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 279, 320

House Report 94-1491

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act,

36, 91, 160, 198, 203, 325

Occupational Safety and Health Act, 214

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37,

39, 40, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,

60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 81,

85, 86, 90, 92, 93, 98, 99, 111, 113, 114, 116, 120,

122, 125, 128, 159, 160, 175, 194, 195, 225, 227,

229, 237, 252, 258, 265, 268, 269, 274, 275, 276,

277, 278, 332, 335, 368

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 36, 91, 128, 191,

194, 268, 284, 294, 323, 324

National Interim Primary Drinking Water

Standards, 284, 324, 379

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 272

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA), 327

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 36, 92, 93,

125, 233, 234, 320

liability factors, 62, 93, 315, 357, 359, 363

London Dumping Convention, 199

Louisiana, 8, 123, 131

Love Canal, 6, 203, 224

Lowry Landfill, Denver, Colo., 255, 348

Management facilities:

EPA survey, 128, 129

Government data needs, 127

industrial data needs, 127, 128

monitoring, 127

offsite, 130, 131, 132

permitting, 127, 133

public data needs, 127, 128

siting, 127

State data collection, 131

management strategies, alternatives, 29-30, 48, 72-75

energy recovery, 29, 73

material recovery, 29, 73

waste separation, 29, 73

Massachusetts, 8, 256, 258

maximum concentration limits (MCL), 379

methyl mercury, 243

Michigan, 79, 131, 194, 233, 259, 276, 351, 353, 367

Millipore, 152

Minnesota, 31, 77, 78, 256, 354

State Pollution Control Agency, 354

State Waste Management Board, 354

Mississippi, 131

Missouri, 30, 75

Mitre Model, 383

Modar, Inc., 173

monitoring, 19, 20, 27, 33, 45, 52, 61, 104, 221,

242-254, 283-288, 292, 372, 375

description of functions (table 48), 243

environmental fate and design, 243

aquatic systems, 244

major technical issues, 248-254

analytical methodology, 250

data comparisons, 249

ground water requirement, 283, 284

institutional approaches, 252

RCRA facilities, 266

sampling, 248, 377, 378

strategies:

assessment monitoring, 248

surveillance monitoring, 248

types, 246-248

ambient, 19, 20, 247, 376

effects, 19, 247
Index Ž 405

process, 19, 246

source, 19, 246

visual, 19, 246

M.T. Volcanus, 169

McGraw-Hill, 334

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 325

National Bureau of Standards (NBS], 162, 291, 329

National Contingency Plan (NC P], 20, 54, 63, 64, 65,

140, 267, 268, 304, 323, 386

national fee system, 31, 32

National Governors’ Association, 76, 124

National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health, 125, 329

National Institute of Environmental Health Science, 125

National Institutes of Health, 125, 329

National Manifest System, 54

National Marine Fisheries Service, 203

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES), 116, 128, 321, 322, 323

National Priority List (NPL), 8, 20, 57, 131, 268, 302,

303, 304, 382, 386

National Science Foundation [NSF), 252, 254, 329

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 330

New Jersey, 122, 131, 184, 199, 257, 351, 368

New York, 30, 75, 77, 78, 189, 199, 200, 201, 256,

353, 354

Certificate of Environmental Safety and Necessity, 256

North Carolina, 79, 131, 348

Norway, 166

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 329

ocean disposal, 12, 13, 14, 36, 53, 140, 198-204

acids, 199

controversy, 200-203

arguments against, 201-202

arguments in favor, 200

legislative background, 199

municipal and industrial waste, 199

research and data needs, 203-204

sewage sludge, 199

technical regulatory issues, 204

toxic waste, 199

usage, 198

Office of Management and Budget, 385, 387

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 8, 17, 25,

30, 35, 38, 47, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 64, 65, 74, 75,

86, 88, 91, 95, 97, 120, 124, 131, 181, 184, 188,

236, 330, 334, 348, 383, 385, 390

Ohio, 330

Oklahoma, 131

Oregon, 79

Organization of Economic Community Development, 84

Philadelphia, city of, 201

policy options, 3, 24-37, 48, 51-107

advantages/disadvantages, 38, 96

four scenarios, 39-40, 51, 98-99

specific goals, 25-26, 52-59

Pollution Prevention Pays program, 3M Corp., 141

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), 13, 122, 160, 166,

169, 172, 173, 199, 202, 203, 204, 229

regulation of 92, 93, 146, 1.55, 321

Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund, 16, 93, 195, 319

process modifications, 213-217

chlor-alkali process, 213

vinyl chloride process, 214

metal-finishing process, 214

public concern, 21, 22, 48, 59, 67, 71, 80, 90, 95, 203,

222, 254, 255

Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 379

publicly owned treatment works (POTWS), 322, 323

Puerto Rico, 120, 121, 199

Putnam, Bartlett & Hayes, 119

RCRA program, 26-28, 40, 59, 98

advantages and disadvantages (table 13), 96

changes, 26-28, 40, 59

delays, 265

goals, 70-71

scenario, 98

RCRA Regulatory Impact Analysis, 119, 120, 128

Reagan administration, 99, 340

research and development (R&D), 4, 12, 16, 19, 40, 63,

72, 75, 81, 98, 127, 128, 162, 188, 226, 250, 330

assistance, 33, 59, 79, 85, 329

benefits, 133

EPA’s administrative cost, 341

EPA’s FY 1983 cost effort, 30, 74

projects planned by ORD, 331

risk management, 18, 19, 20, 33, 34, 45, 47, 63, 64,

71, 73, 101, 103, 104, 106, 267, 382

application of framework, 104

hazard evaluation, 102, 223

information needed, 54, 80, 88

link between risk estimation and classification, 103

objectives, 101

policy/management decisions, 228

risk assessment, 223

models, 224

risk, costs, and benefits, 226-228

transfer costs, 58, 67, 71

Rockwell International, 172

Rollins Environmental Services, 165

St. Louis, Mich., cleanup costs, 6

San Juan Cement Co., Duablo, Puerto Rico, 166

Seymour Ind., cleanup costs, 6

Sheffield, 111., 255

siting, 21, 22, 59, 127, 254-259, 355

approaches to addressing public concern, 255

economic and institutional mechanisms, 257

technical methods, 256

Federal involvement, 258

public concern, 90, 95, 222, 254, 255

solid wastes, 8, 23, 43, 47, 265, 271, 272, 273, 274,

319, 327

South Carolina, 131

Southern California Edison, Inc., 172

specific technical criteria, need for, 28, 70
406 . Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control

State involvement:

alternatives to land disposal, 356

comparability of programs to Federal RCRA, 349

data acquisition, 57, 58, 63, 64

differences between Federal and State programs, 348

expenditures on hazardous waste program

activities, 343

Federal relationship, 56, 57, 66, 328

fee system, 30, 31, 32, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83,

364, 365

funding, 21

implementing program, 23-24, 46, 54, 55, 65

lack of programs, 4

planning, 22

problems, 65, 66, 344

programs, lack of study, 56, 57

programs under RCRA, 296, 328, 344

RCRA/CERCLA participation, 65, 66, 71, 90

RCRA grants, 58

RCRA program authorization, 346

responses to delays and perceived inadequacies of

Federal program, 268

responsibilities, major concerns, 23-24, 55, 56, 57, 58

siting programs, 355

summary of small quantity generator provisions, 352

Superfund, 268, 305

zero funding, 345

Sunohio, 155, 156

Superfund, 300-319

abatement actions, 303

chemical taxes, 315

cleanup, 267, 312

cost recovery actions, 303

Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund, 314

hazardous substances under CERCLA, 300

liability, 315

National Contingency Plan, 305

table 57, 306

National Priority List, 304

notification of inactive waste management sites, 301

Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund, 317

response authority, 302

standard of cleanup, 313

State costs, 268

State funds, 368

State legislation, 369

State participation, 305

Sweden, 166

Tennessee, 358

Texas, 123, 131, 172, 259, 354

Thagard Research Corp., 172

3M Corp., 165

toxic water pollutants, 322

TRW, 119

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites:

advantages and disadvantages of control

technologies (table 38), 210

chemical analysis, 208

cleanup, 7, 8, 20, 21, 53, 54, 14CI, 205-207, 208

comparative ranking, 64

effectiveness of CERCLA, 20

environment] pathway control, 211-213

identification, 207

inspection, 208

most serious, 5, 8, 20, 21

remedial action, 205, 209, 211

survey of, 4, 20

waste control, 209, 211

Underground Injection Control Program, 194, 195

Union Chemical Co,, Union, Maine, 169

United Nations, 84

United Nations Environmental Program, Regional

Seas Program, 200

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 198, 200, 325

U.S. Bureau of Census, 119

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New

York, 200

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 53, 252, 258

cooperation with EPA, 93, 94

Toxic Waste-Ground Water Contamination

Program, 93

Utah, 69

WAPORA, 119

Washington, 238, 259

waste generators, 10, 12, 13, 55, 274

compliance costs, 9 5

data requirements, 116, 117, 13:3

exemptions, 276

fees on, 3, 30, 75, 77

notification to EPA, 277

number of, 123

reporting to EPA, 119, 120

State data, 120, 121

survey, 120

waste management:

compliance costs, 332

Federal financial assistance grants, by State, 342

inadequate techniques, 265

insurance, 363

key issues, 106

waste reduction, 7, 9, 12, 13, 29, 32, 47, 52, 59, 73,

82, 98, 140

advantages/disadvantages, 11

alternatives, 139, 141-156

capital needs:

Federal loan program, 32, 78

State exemptions, 79

tax credits, 32, 33, 78

comparison of models (table 22], 142

disincentives, 10, 11, 30

economic factors, 148

emerging technologies, 151

biotechnology, 152, 155

segregation technologies, 152

membrane separation, 152

chemical dechlorination, 155