An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with

Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

January 11, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste
-1-

DISCLAIMER

Mention of trade names, products or services in this document does not convey, and should not

be interpreted as conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation, or lack

thereof.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded and managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Data

collection and presentation were conducted by ICF Environmental Consulting, Inc. under

contract to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Staff members of the Resource Conservation and Recycling Branch, Office of Solid Waste, EPA

Headquarters were responsible for providing objectives of the study, reviewing the methodology,

helping to identify cases for further investigation, reviewing draft writeups and drafting portions

of the report. The EPA Work Assignment Managers were David Eberly and Tracy Atagi. Dave

Fagan and Amy Lile were key contributors and reviewers.

Staff of ICF Environmental Consulting, Inc. were responsible for identifying and investigating

potential cases, assembling relevant information, contacting persons with knowledge of selected

cases, drafting descriptions of each case, and compiling summary statistics. EPA wishes to

acknowledge the contributions made by ICF staff members Stephanie Barrett (Research

Manager), Brandy Bones and Jennifer Brickett.
-2-

An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with

Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

I. Introduction

This study was conducted as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to

revise the current “definition of solid waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), as it pertains to recycling of hazardous wastes and other hazardous secondary

materials. The information in this report is expected to assist the Agency in making decisions as

to the scope and substance of these regulatory revisions.

In an October 28, 2003 Federal Register notice, EPA proposed to revise the definition of

solid waste by excluding from regulation hazardous secondary materials that are “generated and

reclaimed in a continuous process within the same industry.” See 68 FR 61558, October 28,

2003. That regulatory proposal resulted in more than two hundred comments being submitted to

the Agency, from a wide range of stakeholders. In general, the commenters’ reactions to the

proposal were less than favorable, for various reasons, and many commenters suggested

alternative approaches to resolving issues associated with the current definition of solid waste.

A number of commenters to the 2003 proposal criticized the Agency specifically for not

having conducted a thorough study of the potential impacts of these regulatory changes. These

commenters expressed the general concern that de-regulating hazardous recyclable materials in

the manner proposed could result in mismanagement of materials, and thus could create new

cases of environmental damage that would require remedial action under federal or state

authorities. Some of the commenters further cited a number of examples of environmental

damage cases that were attributed to hazardous material recycling, including a number of sites

listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).

In deliberating as to how to proceed with this rulemaking effort, the Agency decided that

additional data on recycling damage cases, as well as data on successful, environmentally

beneficial recycling practices, would benefit the regulatory decision process, and would provide

stakeholders with a clearer picture of the hazardous material recycling industry in this country.

Accordingly, EPA chose to conduct these recycling studies, and consider their findings, before

making decisions as to the appropriate direction for this rulemaking. This report documents the

findings of the Agency’s study of environmental problems that have been associated with

hazardous material recycling. A separate report entitled "An Assessment of Current Good

Practices for Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials" documents current good practices for

recycling of hazardous secondary materials, and is also part of the administrative record for this

rulemaking effort. In addition, a study of the economics of hazardous material recycling, entitled

"Potential Effects of Market Forces on the Management of Hazardous Recyclable Materials” is

part of the record.

II. Scope of the Study

The general goal of this study was to identify and characterize cases of environmental

damage that have been attributed to some type of hazardous material recycling activity, and that

are relevant for the purpose of this rulemaking effort. Specifically, we sought to identify the

following types of cases:
-3-

• Cases where environmental damage can be attributed to some type of recycling activity.

In conducting this study, we wished to identify damage cases in which environmental

damages were caused by some type of recycling-related activity. In this context,

“recycling-related activities” included accumulation or storage of materials by the

generator, the recycler or an intermediary, illegal disposal or abandonment of recyclable

materials or recycling residuals, transportation of recyclable materials, “sham” recycling

operations (i.e., illegal disposal or treatment disguised as recycling), production and/or

use of contaminated products from recycled materials, reclamation and/or production

processes, management of residuals from reclamation or production processes, or other

activities associated with the management of recyclable materials, recycling residuals, or

the products of recycling processes.

This study did identify a number of cleanup sites at which a recycling process had

operated, but where other sources of contamination made it extremely difficult to

determine with any certainty that the recycling activity contributed to the environmental

problems at the site. These cases were not included in our compilation of damage cases.

• Relatively recent cases. Many of the damage cases that were examined in the course of

this study occurred before RCRA, CERCLA or other environmental programs were

established in the early 1980s. As a number of commenters on the 2003 proposed rule

noted, these environmental programs – most notably, the liability provisions of CERCLA

– have created strong incentives for proper management of recyclable materials and

recycling residuals. Several commenters further noted that because of these

developments, industrial recycling practices have changed substantially since the early

1980s, and present day generators and recyclers are much better environmental stewards

than in the pre-RCRA/CERCLA era. Thus, they argue, “historical” recycling-related

damage cases are not particularly relevant or instructive with regard to modifying the

current RCRA regulations for hazardous material recycling. The Agency generally

agrees with this viewpoint, in part because our companion study of current good

hazardous material recycling practices has documented that responsible generators and

recyclers do make considerable efforts to ensure that materials are recycled and otherwise

managed in a safe, environmentally protective manner.

In the course of this study it became apparent that while the CERCLA statute and the

initial RCRA hazardous waste regulations became effective in 1980, there was an initial

“phase in” period during which industry and other affected entities began to change their

practices with regard to hazardous material recycling, and during which federal and state

agencies were developing guidelines and procedures for implementing these new

authorities. Perhaps not surprisingly, our study identified a number of recycling damage

cases that occurred during the early 1980s that appeared to have been caused by

companies and individuals who were not cognizant of their new responsibilities and

potential liabilities under RCRA and CERCLA. Because we believe that recycling

damage cases that have occurred within the current environmental regulatory and liability

systems are most relevant to the definition of solid waste rulemaking effort, our study

identified and described only those cases in which some form of environmental damage

appears to have occurred during or after the year 1982. We did not however, exclude

cases where damages occurred both before and after 1982.
-4-

• Cases involving recycling of regulated hazardous wastes, or hazardous secondary

materials that are specifically excluded from RCRA regulation. This study was intended

to identify damage cases associated with recycling of regulated hazardous wastes, as well

as cases involving recycling of hazardous materials that are not regulated because they

are subject to a specific regulatory exemption or exclusion (see, for example, the

exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4). The Agency is interested in these types of damage cases

because they may indicate the extent to which environmental damages can occur even

when recycling is conducted under a stringent regulatory regime, and whether such

damages may be more or less prevalent for materials that are explicitly exempted or

excluded from RCRA regulatory controls. The study was not designed to identify cases

involving recycling of non-hazardous materials such as paper, glass, rubber or plastics.

III. Methodology

The initial task of this study was to identify recycling-related environmental damage

cases that were relevant to the scope and purpose of the study (the preceding section of this

report describes the types of cases that were considered relevant to the study). Potential cases

were identified from a variety of sources, including:

• Comments on the October 28, 2003 proposed rule

• The Superfund National Priorities List

• National EPA data bases maintained for the CERCLA, RCRA and enforcement programs

• Contacts with staff in state environmental agencies

• Contacts with staff in EPA Regional Offices

• State agency data bases maintained for state superfund programs and other environmental

programs

• Internet searches

• News media reports

It should be noted that because of time and resource limitations, the search for potentially

relevant damage cases was not exhaustive. For example, we did not systematically survey all

state environmental agencies for relevant cases, nor did we search paper files in EPA Regional

Offices. Because of these limitations, we believe that the cases we have identified and described

in this report in effect represent the cases that were relatively easy to find, and that there are

likely to be a significant number of additional relevant cases that we did not identify.

Once a potentially relevant case was identified, EPA’s contractor personnel assembled

relevant information to determine whether or not the case fit within the scope of the study. If the

damage case was considered a likely candidate for the study, further information was gathered

with the intent of identifying certain key facts about the case that the Agency believed would be

particularly informative for the purpose of this rulemaking. These key facts included:

• Name, location and EPA Identification Number (if available) of the site

• Types of materials that were recycled, or intended to be recycled

• The government program responsible for overseeing the cleanup of the site, and whether

or not the site is or was listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)

• Brief description of the site
-5-

• Basic site history, including when the recycling occurred, and when the environmental

damage occurred

• Basic description of the recycling process

• The type(s) of environmental damage that occurred

• The types of activities or circumstances that caused the environmental damage

• Whether or not human health impacts, including deaths, were associated with the damage

• Whether or not those responsible for the environmental or human health impacts were

prosecuted for criminal violations

• Whether the materials were recycled on-site (i.e., at the generating facility) or at an offsite recycling facility

• Whether or not the recycler went bankrupt or otherwise went out of business

• Whether or not the recycling facility had a RCRA Part B permit for managing hazardous

wastes1

• Cost of cleaning up the site

• Other information that could help identify why the environmental damage occurred

Many of the cases that were investigated were well documented, and we were able to

assemble virtually all of this information. This was the case, for example, for many of the

Superfund NPL sites. However, in many other cases it was not possible given the limitations of

the study to document all of these facts. Often, there was considerable technical information as

to the nature and extent of the contamination at the site, but relatively little information regarding

the activities and circumstances that originally caused it. For some of the sites, we were able to

collect only very basic information.

For each of the 208 cases that fit within the scope of the study, a written description was

prepared, and key data for each site (as available) were entered onto a summary table. The

summary table is presented as Appendix 1 of this report, and is organized alphabetically by

State. Appendix 2 contains each of the 208 case descriptions, organized in the same way.

Appendix 3 is a listing of the damage cases that were reviewed but were not investigated in

detail, either because they did not fit within the scope of the study, or because there was

insufficient information to make that determination.

IV. Summary of Findings

This study identified 208 cases in which environmental damage of some kind occurred

from some type of recycling activity, and that appeared to clearly fit within the scope of the

study, as described above. In this context, we used the term “environmental damage” broadly, to

include leaks, spills, dumps or other types of releases of hazardous substances into the

environment that were serious enough to require some type of cleanup action. It also includes

situations in which materials were abandoned (e.g., in warehouses) without having been actually

released into the environment, but which posed potential threats and thus required removal

actions that were conducted by one or more government agencies, and involved expenditure of

public funds.

1 Note that RCRA Part B permits are not required for hazardous waste recycling processes or operations themselves;

in general, Part B permits are issued, as applicable, for storage of hazardous wastes prior to recycling.
-6-

We did not include in the study cases in which environmental regulatory violations

occurred, but did not result in actual damage to the environment or to human health. For

example, we found a number of cases where recycling facilities had been subject to enforcement

actions for RCRA regulatory violations (e.g., inaccurately completed manifests), but where there

did not appear to have been any releases to the environment that required cleanup. These types

of cases were not included in the 208 damage case profiles, though they are identified in

Appendix 3 to this report.

Types of Recyclable Materials

Exhibit 1 presents a breakdown of the primary types of materials that were recycled (or

were expected to be recycled) at the site where the environmental damage occurred. Note that

there is some overlap between these categories, since in many cases more than one type of

material was recycled at the site. For example, while scrap metals were the primary material

recycled at 17% of the sites, at many of these sites spent lead-acid batteries, or residuals from

their recycling, contributed to the contamination problems at the site. Only sites where batteries

were the primary material recycled (12% of sites) are identified specifically as battery damage

cases.

Exhibit 1: Recycled Materials

Recycled Materials*

Other

32 Damage Cases

15%

Mercury

5 Damage Cases

2%

Drums

19 Damage Cases

9%

Used Oil

31 Damage Cases

15%

Scrap metals

34 Damage Cases

17%

Solvents

29 Damage Cases

14%

Non-ferrous metals

27 Damage Cases

13%

Batteries

25 Damage Cases

12%

Precious Metals

6 Damage Cases

3%

*For some damage cases, there was more than one kind of material recycled at the site. This

chart includes only the material which was recycled most often at the site.
-7-

In addition to batteries and scrap metals, other types of recyclable materials primarily

managed at multiple sites include used oil (15% of sites), solvents (14%), and non-ferrous metals

such as brass, aluminum, or magnesium (13%). Drum reconditioning sites accounted for 9% of

the sites, precious metals 3%, and mercury 2%. “Other” types of materials account for 15% of

the sites, and include a wide variety of recyclables such as foundry sands, pollution control dusts,

smelting wastes, combustion ash, asphaltic wastes, etc.

Types of Environmental Damage

Exhibit 2 summarizes the types of environmental damages that were found to have

occurred at the recycling sites that were investigated.

Exhibit 2: Type of Damage

Note that, as in Exhibit 1, there is some overlap with regard to the incidences of

environmental damages found at the 208 sites that were documented, since at a number of sites

more than one type of damage appears to have occurred (abandoned materials and soil

contamination, for example). The most common type of environmental damage was a

combination of soil and groundwater contamination, while a surprising number of sites (69)

involved abandonment of materials. Sites involving abandoned materials included those where

the materials caused environmental damages (e.g., leaking containers improperly stored out of

doors), as well as those where actual environmental problems directly associated with the

abandoned materials were not documented, but nevertheless required removal actions. The

relatively high incidence of abandoned materials likely reflects the fact that bankruptcies or other

types of business failures were associated with two thirds (138) of the sites investigated, though

business failure may not have been a direct cause of the environmental problems in all cases.

Type of Damage*

85

69

63

21

19

16

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Soil and Groundwater Contamination

Abandoned Materials

Soil

Air

Surface Water

Sediment

Groundwater

Number of Damage Cases

*For many damage cases, there was more than one type of damage. Every type of damage is captured in this chart, therefore there are more

damage types than there are damage cases.
-8-

Damage Causes

While our analysis did not attempt to probe in great detail the exact actions or

circumstances that led to contamination problems at these sites, in most cases we were able to

identify in general terms the primary cause of the contamination. These primary causes, and the

number of cases attributable to them, are presented in Exhibit 3. As with Exhibit 1, there is

overlap between these breakdowns for these primary causes, since for example, at a number of

sites damage occurred from improperly disposed recyclables as well as the residuals generated

from recycling processes.

Exhibit 3: Causes of Environmental Damage

Primary Causes of Environmental Damage

Mismanagement of

Recyclables

81 Damage Cases

40%

Sham Recycling

7 Damage Cases

3%

Unknow n

8 Damage Cases

4%

Abandoned Materials

30 Damage Cases

14%

Fire or Accident

11 Damage Cases

5%

Mismanagement of

Residuals

71 Damage Cases

34%

Mismanagement of recyclable materials prior to their reclamation or reuse was the most

common cause of contamination at these sites (40%), while almost as many sites involved

mismanagement of recycling residuals (34%) as the primary cause. Often, at the latter category

of sites, reclamation processes generated residuals in which the toxic components of the recycled

materials became concentrated, and these wastes were then mismanaged. Examples of this

include a number of drum reconditioning facilities, where large numbers of used drums were

cleaned out to remove small amounts of remaining product such as solvent, and these wastes

were then improperly stored or disposed.

Thirty of the cases that were examined for this study (14%) involved abandonment of

recyclable materials as the primary cause of damage. In most of these cases, business failure

appears to have been the main reason the materials were abandoned. In 5% of the cases

examined (11 sites), fire and/or accident was the primary cause of damage. Seven of the cases

that were examined appear to have been outright “sham” recyclers. In most of these cases,
-9-

companies advertised themselves to local generators as recyclers and accumulated considerable

quantities of waste materials, but apparently did not intend to actually do any recycling. These

sites were also then abandoned. For 4% of the cases we examined, we were unable to determine

the primary cause of the damage.

On-Site vs. Off-Site Recycling

One of the questions we wanted to examine in this study was whether or not there may be

any significant differences in the frequency, type or causes of environmental damages with

regard to recycling that is conducted “on-site” (i.e., at the facility that generated the recyclable

secondary materials), as compared to off-site, commercial recyclers. In the preamble to the 2003

proposed rule (68 FR at 61575) the Agency requested comment on the option of promulgating a

regulatory exclusion for materials that are generated and recycled at the same facility. A number

of commenters to the proposal supported this regulatory option, arguing that this type of

recycling is considerably less likely to result in environmental problems than recycling at

commercial, off-site facilities.

Of the 208 damage cases documented in this report, 13 (6%) involved on-site recycling

by the generator, and another 7 (3%) involved on-site and off-site recycling. This relatively

small number of cases may indicate that this type of recycling is inherently less environmentally

“risky” than recycling at commercial facilities. However, it may also be that on-site recycling is

simply a less common practice, or that these types of damage cases are less well documented,

and thus more difficult to identify than cases involving commercial recyclers. In any case, it

should be noted that several of the on-site damage cases, including Standard Chlorine of

Delaware and the Monsanto P4 facility, were apparently among the most expensive cleanup sites

that we documented.

Oversight of Cleanup Actions

The great majority of damage cases we investigated involved removal or remediation

actions that were (or still are) overseen by, and often funded by, federal or state environmental

cleanup programs. Exhibit 4 presents a breakdown of the cleanup programs that have been

involved with oversight of these cleanup actions. Several sites were cleaned up under more than

one program.

The federal CERCLA program was involved with oversight of 101 of the 208 cases that

were documented, or 49%. Cleanup under CERCLA may involve emergency removal or

remedial, each of which can be funded by EPA, State, or Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)

funds, or a combination of these. Exhibit 5 indicates the types of cleanups that occurred under

CERCLA and the funds that paid for each. Almost half (48%) of the damage cases were cleaned

up under EPA-funded emergency removals, and 27% were cleaned up using a combination of

funding sources and remedial and/or removal actions.
-10-

Exhibit 4: Oversight of Cleanup Actions

Oversight of Cleanup Actions

20

65

30

101

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Unknown or Cleanup Not

Initiated

State

RCRA

CERCLA

Number of Damage Cases

*For many damage cases, there was more than one type of cleanup action. Every type of cleanup is captured in this

chart, therefore there are more cleanup actions than there are damage cases.

Exhibit 5: Funding of CERCLA Cleanups

Source of Funding for CERCLA Cleanups

Removal-PRP

13 Damage Cases

13%

Removal-EPA, Remedial

Action-State

2 Damage Cases

2%

Removal-EPA

49 Damage Cases

48%

Remedial Action-EPA

5 Damage Cases

5%

Combination of EPA and

PRP Funds for Removal

and/or Remedial Action

27 Damage Cases

27%

Remedial Action-PRP

5 Damage Cases

5%
-11-

Of the cases that were cleaned up under the CERCLA program, 46 were or are sites listed on the

National Priorities List (NPL). Five damage cases were listed on the NPL but have not yet had

cleanup initiated under CERCLA. The other 55 CERCLA cleanup cases not listed on the NPL.

State programs were responsible for oversight at 65 sites, and Exhibit 6 shows what source of

funds were used for these cleanups. The results are split almost evenly among state funds, such

as orphan funds or hazardous waste taxes, responsible party funds, and unknown funding. The

latter group consists of site where the funding source was not clear and included cases of

enforcement actions and consent decrees.

Exhibit 6: Funding of State-lead Cleanups

Source of Funds for State-lead Cleanups

State funds

21 Damage Cases

32%

Responsible Party

25 Damage Cases

39%

Unknow n

19 Damage Cases

29%

RCRA Corrective Action, which is administered by both states and the US EPA, was in

effect at 30 sites (14%). For 20 sites, we were unable to identify which government program or

agency was responsible and/or whether cleanup actions had been initiated. An example of such a

case was the Thermofluids site in Oregon. Some of these sites may have been cleaned up by

facility owner/operators without formal oversight from a government cleanup program.

Regulatory Status

Another issue we were interested in assessing as part of this study was the number of

damage cases that occurred at facilities that, at one time or another, were operating under RCRA

Part B permits. RCRA permitted hazardous waste management facilities are subject to relatively

stringent, facility-specific requirements, and in general are given more oversight by regulatory

agencies than facilities without permits. For these reasons, these cases are of particular interest

to the Agency with regard to this regulatory initiative, and we may need to subject them to
-12-

further, more in-depth examination. The following are some preliminary findings for these

damage cases.

Twenty four of the damage cases studied were, at one time or another, operating under

RCRA Part B permits. However, only nine clearly appear to have been operating under RCRA

permits at the time the damage occurred. Two of these cases involved fires/explosions. At

thirteen of the twenty four permitted facilities, all or part of the funds used to clean up

environmental damages were contributed by the owner/operator of the facility, often under some

form of consent agreement. In at least two cases, it appears that these funds became available by

means of a RCRA-required financial assurance mechanism, such as a surety bond.

Thirteen of the facilities appear to have been cited for serious permit violations, either

before or as a result of the damage incident. In four cases, the facility permits were revoked

because of compliance issues. Eleven of the facilities were found to be no longer in business,

because of bankruptcy or for other reasons.

One company - Safety Kleen - a large, commercial recycler primarily of solvents and

other hazardous materials, was the owner/operator of five of the permitted facilities.

Cleanup Costs

For 89 of the damage cases, we were able to identify the costs, or at least cost estimates,

associated with addressing the environmental problems caused by recycling activities. A

breakdown of these costs is presented in Exhibit 7.
-13-

Exhibit 7: Clean Up Costs

Clean Up Costs*

8

10

14

20

12

11

8

6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Over $10 Million

$5 Million - $10 Million

$2.5 Million - $5 Million

$1 Million - $2.5 Million

$500,000 - $1 Million

$250,000 - $500,000

$100,000 - $250,000

$100,000 or less

*Cleanup costs may include costs for cleanup at the site not related specifically to damage from recycling operations.

Number of Damage Cases

It is entirely possible that these cost data are not a truly accurate representation of actual

cleanup costs for the entire sample of 208 cases. For one thing, cost data were much easier to

find for CERCLA-lead cleanups than cleanups done under other programs. Since CERCLA-lead

cleanups are likely to be skewed toward addressing relatively large, high-priority, expensive

contamination sites, the actual cleanup costs for all 208 cases are likely to be somewhat lower

than these data suggest.

Another uncertainty with regard to these cost data is that in some cases, it was not

possible to distinguish between cleanup costs that were incurred specifically to address

recycling-related contamination, and costs for other cleanup activities at the site. The Metachem

(also known as Standard Chlorine) site in Delaware, where total cleanup costs are expected to

exceed $75 million, is one example of such a site.

Additional Information

Further information is available in the attached appendices. Appendix 1 of this report is a

summary table of the cases, and is organized alphabetically by State. Appendix 2 contains each

of the 208 case descriptions, organized in the same way. Appendix 3 is a listing of the damage

cases that were reviewed but were not investigated in detail, either because they did not fit within

the scope of the study, or because there was insufficient information to make that determination.