Hazardous Waste: EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations
Published: 2005-12-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulating hazardous wastes (such as mercury) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under RCRA, mercury-containing hazardous waste must meet specific treatment standards before land disposal. But, certain difficult to manage waste due, in part, to its large particle size, can follow alternate "debris" standards that provide diverse treatment options. This report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA uses to track the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity of this waste, (2) the extent to which EPA, states, and industry share a common understanding of the types of mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as debris, and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated debris.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: EPA uses its RCRAInfo database to maintain information on all hazardous waste, including mercury-contaminated debris. EPA reported that in 2003, mercury-contaminated debris constituted about 12,000 metric tons--or about 0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about 0.03 percent of all hazardous waste. However, EPA's data on mercury-contaminated debris may be incomplete. Reporting on the physical form of the waste (debris is one of many physical forms) is optional, and businesses did not submit this optional information in about 9 percent of instances when they reported treating and disposing of mercury-containing waste in 2003. In addition, EPA's reporting category for debris does not provide a complete list of items that EPA considers to be debris, and debris can be reported in other categories. The 48 states and the District of Columbia and the 14 commercial hazardous waste landfill operators that responded to our survey do not share a common understanding of the types of mercury-containing waste that EPA allows to be treated and disposed of as debris. For example, in their responses, officials in 21 states and operators of 6 commercial hazardous waste landfills identified as debris waste that is explicitly not debris, such as intact devices containing mercury, and may have used the debris regulations for such waste. Consequently, EPA cannot be certain that businesses are appropriately managing their mercury-containing waste as debris. EPA's mandatory waste tracking and documentation requirements serve as controls to monitor compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated debris. EPA and state oversight inspections and enforcement programs provide additional compliance monitoring with the alternative treatment standards for debris.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Mercury is a toxic element used in numerous products (such as  thermometers and dental amalgam) and industrial processes (such as  chlorine production). According to the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA), if mercury is released into the environment, it could pose a risk to  human health. For example, consuming mercury-contaminated fish can  cause neurological disorders in children.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the  management of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, EPA may authorize a state  to implement its own hazardous waste management program in lieu of the  federal RCRA program, so long as the state program is at least as stringent.  In addition, hazardous waste must generally be treated to reduce its  toxicity or mobility, so that threats to human health and the environment  are minimized, before it can be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill.
The treatment standards for wastes containing mercury (mercury-specific  standards) are based on the level of mercury concentration in the waste.  Wastes containing more than 260 milligrams per kilogram of total mercury  (high mercury-containing waste) must generally undergo retorting—a  process that heats the waste to separate and recover the mercury from the  rest of the waste—or incineration, if the waste includes organic (e.g.,  carbon-based) material. Wastes containing less than 260 milligrams per  kilogram of total mercury (low mercury-containing waste), must have their  toxicity reduced to specified numerical levels, which can generally be met  by stabilization (a process that involves mixing the hazardous waste with a  chemical bonding material, such as Portland cement).
In 1992, EPA developed alternative treatment standards for hazardous  waste debris—the debris treatment standards—because the physical  characteristics of debris make it difficult to meet the treatment standards  for the waste contaminating the debris. Specifically, EPA defines debris as  a solid material exceeding a 60 millimeter particle size (roughly the size of a  tennis ball) that is intended for land disposal and that is a manufactured  object, plant or animal matter, or natural geologic material. The alternative  debris treatment standards do not apply to certain items specifically  excluded from the debris definition or to waste types that have their own  alternative treatment standards, such as contaminated soil. Hazardous  debris, such as mercury-contaminated debris, must be treated prior to land  disposal under either the hazardous waste treatment standard applicable to  the waste contaminating the debris, or in accordance with the alternative  treatment standards for hazardous debris, which, according to EPA, are  also generally more cost-effective to use.
Thus, mercury-contaminated hazardous waste debris (such as bricks,  pipes, ruptured metal drums, or large chunks of concrete) may either be  treated according to (a) the mercury-specific treatment standards  described above (including retorting for high-mercury containing  hazardous waste), or (b) stabilization or encapsulation (fully enclosing the  hazardous waste in another material, such as a high-density plastic  container), regardless of the mercury concentration level. In 2003, EPA  issued guidance to states that, among other things, clarified the types of  waste that are eligible for treatment and disposal under the alternative  treatment standards for debris. EPA recently reported that it has not found  any evidence that there is a significant environmental problem associated with the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris under its  current rules.
Most businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste are  required under RCRA to report on their hazardous waste activities  biennially to their states, which, in turn, submit information to EPA. EPA  compiles and summarizes the data on the amount of hazardous waste  generated, treated, and disposed of in a biennial report, which is  information collected and stored in EPA’s RCRAInfo data system. EPA’s  most recent biennial Hazardous Waste Report for 2003 was released in  April 2005.
Our report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA uses to track the  treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity of  mercury-contaminated debris that is disposed of, (2) the extent to which  EPA, states, and industry share a common understanding of the types of  mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as debris,  and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor compliance with  EPA’s treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated  debris.
To address these objectives, we analyzed 2001 and 2003 information from  EPA’s RCRAInfo database, which contains the state-provided data from  businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste. We  assessed the reliability of the data and found that they were sufficiently  reliable for our use. In addition, we surveyed the 50 states and the District  of Columbia and the 19 commercial hazardous waste landfills in the United  States to gather information on, among other things, states’ and hazardous  waste landfills’ current practices for treating and disposing of certain  mercury-containing wastes using EPA’s alternative treatment standards for  debris and any violations involving mercury-containing waste. We obtained  a list of state contact officials for hazardous waste from the Association of  State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials and the  Environmental Council of the States. We confirmed with each official, that  he or she was the appropriate state official to complete our survey on  mercury-contaminated debris or obtained the name of another official and  confirmed with that official. We obtained the list of hazardous waste  landfill operators from EPA and confirmed that each was the appropriate  individual to complete our survey on mercury-contaminated debris. Before  distributing the surveys, we conducted pretests with officials in 7 states  and operators of  2 hazardous waste landfills to ensure the validity of the  questions; we modified the surveys in response to their comments. We also  conducted follow-up interviews with the state officials who reported  violations with treating and disposing of mercury-containing wastes,  including mercury-contaminated debris, to discuss the nature of these  violations and the corrective actions taken. We reviewed EPA’s  requirements and policies governing the treatment and disposal of  mercury-contaminated debris and EPA documents related to the agency’s  rationale for developing the alternative treatment standards for debris. We  discussed the effectiveness of these requirements and policies for  protecting human health and the environment with EPA officials,  representatives from hazardous waste landfills, businesses that retort  mercury-contaminated debris, and environmental organizations. We  performed our work between March 2005 and November 2005, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which  included an assessment of data reliability and internal controls. Appendix I  provides a detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Mercury is a naturally occurring toxic metallic substance that exists as a  liquid or vapor in its elemental form and can be a solid or liquid in its  compound form. Elemental mercury is used in producing chlorine liquid  and caustic soda, in extracting gold from ore or materials that contain gold,  and in thermometers, barometers, and electrical switches.  Silver-colored  dental fillings (known as dental amalgam) typically contain about 50  percent metallic mercury.
Mercury forms inorganic compounds when combined with elements such  as chlorine, sulfur, or oxygen. Inorganic mercury compounds are used in  fungicides, skin-lightening creams, topical antiseptic or disinfectant agents,  antibacterials, preservatives in some prescription and over-the-counter  medicines, coloring paints, and tattoo dyes.  In combination with carbon,  mercury forms organic compounds, the most common of which is  methylmercury, which can build up in certain edible freshwater and  saltwater fish and marine mammals.
In recent years, mercury use has declined as the availability of  nonmercury-based materials has been developed. For example, the large  lamps that light parking lots used to be made with mercury, but are  increasingly being made without it. Also, the Mercury-Containing and  Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 severely restricted the  mercury content in batteries sold after the act’s enactment date of May 13,  1996. Today, the predominant uses of mercury are for the production of  chlorine-related products, the amalgam used in dental fillings, and wiring  devices that carry electrical current. As figure 1 shows, mercury use in the  United States generally declined between 1980 and 1997, according to the  U.S. Geological Survey, which compiled those data until 1997.
subsections: section_title: Debris Regulatory Framework
paragraphs: Debris contaminated with mercury can come from various sources—often  from a cleanup effort (such as a mercury spill) or demolition of a  mercury-contaminated building (such as a laboratory). It can also include  structural steel, glass, wooden pallets, cloth, and ruptured containers and  devices. When debris contains hazardous amounts of mercury or other  hazardous wastes, the hazardous waste debris must be treated to address  each of the hazardous wastes.
The debris definition excludes the following materials:   any material for which a specific treatment standard is provided in 40  C.F.R. Part 268, Subpart D (namely lead acid batteries, cadmium  batteries, and radioactive lead solids);   process residuals such as smelter slag and residues from the treatment  of waste, wastewater, sludges, or air emission residues; and   intact containers of hazardous waste that are not ruptured and that  retain at least 75 percent of their original volume.
A mixture of debris and other material (such as soil or sludge) is subject to  the hazardous waste debris regulations if the mixture is comprised  primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual inspection. Figure 2  provides a general description of categories of waste that EPA typically  classifies as debris and that could be contaminated with mercury.
Mercury-contaminated debris (such as bricks, pipes, ruptured metal drums,  or large chunks of concrete) may either be treated according to (a) the  mercury-specific standards described above (primarily including retorting for high-mercury containing waste), or (b) encapsulated or stabilized,  regardless of the mercury concentration level. If managed using the  mercury-specific standards, the waste or residue from the retorting process  must have their toxicity reduced to specified numerical levels before it can  be land disposed. Waste managed according to the alternative treatment  standards for hazardous debris does not generally have to be tested before  it is land disposed because, according to EPA, obtaining a representative  sample is often impractical. In addition, the leach test, which requires  grinding as part of the test procedure, may not be appropriate for certain  debris treatment technologies, such as encapsulation, since the grinding  step would defeat the protective mechanism of the treatment technology.
According to EPA officials, the agency encourages businesses that generate  mercury-contaminated debris to remove the mercury contaminated  material from the debris—a process referred to as source separation. Also,  according to EPA and industry, there are some debris items (such as debris  contaminated with mixtures of mercury and organic chemicals) that  remain difficult to retort; as such, the debris regulations are needed to  ensure that such debris is treated and disposed of properly. Table 1  summarizes EPA’s debris regulations and definitions of debris.
In 1999, EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to conduct  a comprehensive review of the RCRA hazardous waste treatment  regulations for mercury-containing wastes. EPA had identified mercury as  one of the more persistent toxic chemicals regulated under RCRA. EPA  stated that potential revisions, if any, would be based on the comments that  it received and data obtained from ongoing studies and other sources.  Among other issues, EPA requested comments on whether to (1) allow  alternative treatment options to retorting for high mercury-containing  waste and (2) require retorting for high mercury-containing waste that  meets the definition of debris.
With respect to allowing alternative treatment options to retorting for high  mercury-containing waste, EPA made available data to the public in 2003  on two studies that assessed the feasibility of land disposal for elemental  mercury and for difficult-to-treat high mercury-containing waste that had  been treated by stabilization. From these studies, EPA concluded that  treatment by stabilization may not result in a waste that is stable under  some hazardous waste landfill conditions. According to EPA officials, the  agency was concerned about using stabilization for elemental mercury in  certain landfill conditions where leaching was more likely to occur. EPA  did not change the existing hazardous waste regulations for  mercury-containing waste.
With respect to requiring that high mercury-containing waste that meets  the definition of debris be retorted, all of the comments that EPA received,  except one, expressed the view that EPA should not modify the alternative  treatment standards for debris to require the retorting of debris with high  concentration levels of mercury because debris is not always amenable to  retorting and because the alternative treatment standards for debris  provide needed flexibility to manage difficult-to-treat wastes. EPA did not  modify the debris regulations.
In 2003, EPA collaborated with the Association of State and Territorial  Solid Waste Management Officials and the Northeast Waste Management  Officials’ Association to discuss potential mismanagement of  mercury-contaminated debris. Based on those discussions, EPA issued a  debris memorandum in October 2003 to state waste managers that  provided guidance for managing mercury-contaminated debris. In that  guidance memorandum, EPA sought to clarify the types of waste that are  eligible for treatment under the alternative treatment standards for debris,  provide information on the improved capabilities of mercury “retorters” to  accept and recover mercury from debris-like waste, and describe how to  meet the performance standards for several debris treatment technologies.  In a May 2004 follow-up letter, the Administrator of EPA stated that EPA  had not found any evidence that there is a significant environmental  problem associated with the management of mercury-contaminated debris  under EPA’s current rules.
Figure 3 shows that mercury-containing waste comes from industrial and  nonindustrial sources. EPA requires the collection of data on hazardous  waste activities from industrial sources, but not from nonindustrial  sources. Nonindustrial sources generate mercury-containing waste, such as  household thermometers and dental amalgam, which may, if not recycled,  be generally disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills.
Under RCRA, hazardous waste landfills and businesses that retort  mercury-contaminated debris must meet federal standards designed to  protect public health and the environment. Among other standards,  hazardous waste landfills must meet minimum technological requirements,  including double composite liners, a leachate collection and removal  system, and a leak detection system, as well as provide for groundwater  monitoring. In addition, hazardous waste landfills may not operate without  a RCRA permit. Landfills must also meet other more stringent state  requirements, if any, which often include on-site state inspectors and  additional groundwater monitoring wells. According to EPA’s RCRAInfo  data, there are 19 commercial hazardous waste landfills in the United  States, most of which accept mercury-containing waste. Facilities that  retort mercury-contaminated debris may only retort wastes below  specified organic concentration limits or above specified heating values. In  addition, the facilities must comply with waste sampling and analysis  requirements. As of 2005, four companies reported that they operate seven  facilities that retort mercury-contaminated debris. Figure 4 show the  locations of the 19 commercial hazardous waste landfills and seven  retorting facilities in the United States.
section_title: EPA’s Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: Every 2 years, EPA compiles and summarizes data on the amount of  hazardous waste generated, treated, and disposed of. For this biennial  report, EPA requires businesses to submit information to the states on each  waste generated, treated, and/or disposed of. Among other things,  businesses report on the type of hazardous constituent(s) present in the  waste, the process (such as chlorine production) or activity (such as  demolition) that generated the hazardous waste, and the treatment or  disposal method used in managing the hazardous waste. EPA also requests,  but does not require, that businesses submit certain additional information  about the waste, including the portion of the waste that is debris. EPA  maintains the data in its RCRAInfo database. The states conduct data  reliability assessments (such as checking for missing values, out-of-range  values in each field, and inconsistencies and errors in the data) before  entering the information into RCRAInfo; EPA also conducts data reliability  assessments of RCRAInfo data.
section_title: EPA Tracks the Quantity of Mercury-Containing Waste Through Its RCRAInfo Data System, but the Information It Collects on Debris May Be Incomplete
paragraphs: EPA uses its RCRAInfo database, which began in 1999, to maintain data on  hazardous waste submitted by states. According to EPA officials,  RCRAInfo was designed specifically to track national trends of hazardous  waste generation, treatment, and disposal. In 1991, EPA began producing  its biennial reports, and it began collecting data on debris as a separate  category of physical form in 2001. EPA’s most recent biennial hazardous  waste report, for the 2003 reporting cycle, was released in April 2005.
According to RCRAInfo data, in 2003, mercury-contaminated debris  constituted about 12,000 metric tons of the mercury-containing waste;  about 0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about 0.03 percent of  all hazardous waste in 2003. Table 2 summarizes RCRAInfo’s data on the  total quantities of the hazardous waste, mercury-containing waste, and  mercury-contaminated debris treated and disposed of in 2001 and 2003.  Appendix II provides more information on mercury-contaminated debris,  such as the types of businesses and industry processes that generated the  debris and the total quantity of debris that was generated, treated, and  disposed of in each state.
RCRAInfo data on mercury-contaminated debris may be incomplete. EPA  does not require businesses to report to their states on the physical form of  the waste, including the portion of their mercury-containing waste that  they treated and disposed of as debris. Since reporting the physical form of  the waste is optional, the portion of a state’s mercury-containing waste that  was treated and disposed of as debris is not known for businesses that did  not submit such information. Our analysis of the 2003 RCRAInfo data  showed that businesses did not report the optional information on the  physical form of the waste in about 9 percent of the instances in which  mercury-containing waste was treated and disposed of. These instances  accounted for less than 1 percent of the total quantity of  mercury-containing waste (10,011 metric tons of the 3,145,726 metric tons  of mercury-containing waste). If businesses did not report the optional  debris information to states, then the states could not report it to EPA.  Businesses that did not submit optional information may have managed a  portion of the waste as debris or they may have managed none of this waste  as debris.
In 2001, the first year businesses reported on debris, RCRAInfo data  showed that businesses did not submit the optional information on the  physical form of a waste (including debris) in about 14 percent of instances  when they treated and disposed of mercury-containing waste. Specifically,  these instances accounted for about 4.5 percent of the total quantity of  mercury-containing waste treated and disposed of (about 51,179 metric  tons of the 1,124,900 metric tons of mercury-containing waste).
Furthermore, EPA’s biennially collected data on debris may be reported  incorrectly. The directions EPA gave states and businesses for reporting  data was ambiguous. EPA had a “debris” category in the Hazardous Waste  Report instructions, but it did not provide a complete list of debris items.  For example, ruptured metal drums are typically considered debris, but are  not included in the list of items in the debris category description and there  is a separate “metal drum” category. Thus, if businesses were reporting  ruptured metal drums, they might report ruptured drums in the debris  category or in the metal drums category. EPA told us that it intended  businesses to use the debris category to report all waste identified as  hazardous waste debris.
section_title: EPA, States, and Industry Do Not Share a Common Understanding of the Types of Mercury-Containing Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of as Debris
paragraphs: Businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of mercury-containing waste  are unclear about the types of mercury-containing waste items that can be  treated and disposed of as debris. In response to our survey, officials in 21  states and 6 hazardous waste landfill operators identified one or more  items as debris that do not typically meet EPA’s debris definition. For  example, state officials frequently identified intact fluorescent light bulbs,  soil, and intact containers (other than batteries), that include intact devices  such as regulators and thermometers, which may contain high levels of  mercury, as being subject to the alternative treatment standards for  debris. Intact containers (which are excluded from the definition of  debris) and the other items (which do not fit the definition of debris) must  be treated in accordance with RCRA’s mercury-specific hazardous waste  treatment standards. In addition, although EPA’s definition of debris states  that “debris means solid material exceeding a 60 millimeter particle size,”  officials in 3 states classified ruptured devices and batteries with particle  size less than 60 millimeters as debris. These ruptured mercury-containing  items may be high mercury-containing waste, which would require  retorting. However, if these items were managed according to the  alternative treatment standards for debris, they could be encapsulated or  stabilized and then disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill. EPA prohibits  this treatment and disposal method for high mercury-containing waste,  which must generally be retorted; the residual that remains must meet a  leach test standard before it can be land disposed. Figure 5 lists the  mercury-containing wastes that would typically not be eligible for  treatment and disposal using the alternative treatment standards for debris.
Table 3 summarizes the views of the state officials we surveyed on whether  they would classify certain types of mercury-containing wastes as debris.  The wastes listed in table 3 would not typically meet EPA’s definition of  debris. However, as the table shows, officials in several states identified  nondebris items as being debris, and officials in 21 states reported that they  would treat and dispose of at least one item listed in the table as debris  although the item would not typically meet EPA’s definition of debris.  Appendix III summarizes the state officials’ responses to our survey on  mercury-containing waste treatment and disposal practices.
In addition to these nondebris items listed in table 3, our survey also asked  about three debris items: ruptured drums, ruptured batteries with particle  size exceeding 60 millimeters, and other ruptured devices with particle size  exceeding 60 millimeters. According to our survey results, only one state’s  official considered as debris these three items that EPA would also  typically consider to be debris. Officials in 9 other states reported that they  classify all of the items on our list as hazardous waste and did not classify  any of these items as debris. For example, ruptured drums and ruptured  devices were wastes that these states typically classified as hazardous  waste, but which EPA classifies as debris.
Four of the 14 commercial hazardous waste landfill operators that  responded to our survey identified intact fluorescent light bulbs as debris  and 3 of the 14 identified intact devices as debris. These items would  generally be considered intact containers and therefore be specifically  excluded from EPA’s debris definition. The landfill operators responded  correctly about particle size requirements for debris. None of the landfill  operators identified intact drums as debris.
Table 4 summarizes the landfill operators’ views on whether they would  classify certain types of mercury-containing wastes as debris. The wastes  listed in table 4 would not typically meet EPA’s definition of debris.  However, as the table shows, some landfill operators identified nondebris  items as being debris, and 6 landfill operators reported that they would  treat and dispose of at least one item listed in the table as debris although  the item would not typically meet EPA’s definition of debris. Appendix IV  summarizes the commercial hazardous waste landfill operators’ responses  to our survey on mercury-containing waste treatment and disposal  practices.
In addition to these nondebris items listed in table 4, our survey also asked  about three debris items: ruptured drums, ruptured batteries with particle  size exceeding 60 millimeters, and other ruptured devices with particle size  exceeding 60 millimeters. According to our survey results, only one landfill  considered as debris these three items that EPA would also typically  consider to be debris. Furthermore, while EPA allows certain  mercury-containing waste to be managed as debris, the commercial  hazardous waste landfill operators were sometimes stricter in what they  allowed. Specifically,  two landfill operators do not allow any mercury-containing waste that  we listed in our survey to be managed as debris;  two other landfill operators only allow one mercury item (ruptured  drums or ruptured batteries with particle size exceeding 60 millimeters)  to be treated and disposed of according to the alternative treatment  standards for debris; and  two landfill operators send debris with high levels of mercury (i.e.,  greater than 260 milligrams per kilogram) to retorting facilities,  including one who reported receiving mercury-containing waste  inappropriately labeled as debris, which they sent to a retorting facility  for treatment.
While our survey results show that officials in many states and most landfill  operators have a good understanding of the debris rule, there are some  instances in which states and landfill operators identified items as debris  that would not typically meet EPA’s debris definition. Since the 2001  Hazardous Waste Report cycle, there is a separate category called “debris”  and businesses that determine that their waste is “debris” will naturally use  the debris category to report their debris data. However, as discussed  earlier, there is confusion about the debris category and more wastes have  been reported as debris than EPA considers to be debris.
With respect to treatment methods that have been used for debris, EPA’s  RCRAInfo data showed considerable differences between the 2001 and  2003 cycles. For this analysis, we used the data reported for debris  contaminated only with mercury. We did not use data for debris that  contained mercury and other hazardous constituents because the method  used to treat the mercury was not readily discernable from the RCRAInfo  data. As shown in table 5, in 2001, businesses that generated mercury-only  contaminated debris treated most of the debris by metals recovery such as  retorting; in 2003, most of the debris was treated by encapsulation or  stabilization before land disposal. Most of that 2003 debris that was  encapsulated or stabilized before land disposal came from one facility.
EPA officials were surprised to learn from us that most debris was not  coming from hazardous material spill sites or cleanup sites that typically  have on-site state or federal oversight in treatment and disposal decisions.  According to our analysis of RCRAInfo’s 2003 data, debris was generated as  follows:  about 25 percent from ongoing routine processes, such as replacing  pipes at a chlorine plant;  about 41 percent from intermittent events, such as demolishing a   about 17 percent from EPA or state-managed sites, such as hazardous  material spills or cleanup efforts; and   about 16 percent from pollution control and waste management process  residuals.
Although businesses determine how to manage the majority of  mercury-contaminated debris, EPA officials told us they believe that  treatment and disposal decisions were made appropriately because of the  multiple oversight mechanisms in place. They specifically cited the  hazardous waste manifest system and the EPA and state inspection and  enforcement programs, discussed below. In addition, they noted that in  order to comply with RCRA, hazardous waste landfill operators must,  among other things, obtain a RCRA permit and develop a waste analysis  plan that documents the procedures the operator will follow to ensure the  facility only handles waste it is permitted to and to ensure proper waste  disposal. They also noted that hazardous waste landfills must meet  minimum technological requirements, including double composite liners, a  leachate collection and removal system, and a leak detection system.
section_title: Programs Are in Place to Monitor All Types of Hazardous Waste, Including Mercury-Contaminated Debris
paragraphs: EPA and the states oversee compliance with treatment and disposal  requirements for mercury-contaminated debris as part of their efforts to  monitor multiple types of hazardous waste. We identified four mechanisms  that monitor compliance with hazardous waste regulations, including the  debris regulations.
First, to ensure hazardous waste is properly managed, EPA established a  tracking system to monitor hazardous waste from its generation to its  disposal. The critical component of this system is the uniform hazardous  waste manifest, which is a form prepared by all businesses that generate,  transport, or offer for transport, hazardous waste for off-site treatment,  recycling, storage, or disposal. The manifest contains information on the  type and quantity of the waste being transported, instructions for handling  the waste, and signature lines for all parties involved in the disposal  process. Each party that handles the waste signs the manifest and retains a  copy for themselves. Once the waste reaches its destination, the receiving  facility returns a signed copy of the manifest to the business that generated  the waste, confirming that the waste has been received by the designated  facility. Each of these documents must generally be retained for 3 years.
Second, EPA requires businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of  hazardous waste to retain certain other records for 3 years. Businesses that  generate hazardous waste must send a notification with the initial shipment  of every waste. The information that the notification must include varies  according to the status of the waste. Facilities that treat hazardous waste  are required to send similar notifications along with shipment of the treated  wastes to facilities that dispose of hazardous waste. A certification  normally accompanies this notification stating that the waste meets its  treatment standards and may be land disposed. Facilities that dispose of  hazardous waste are the final link in the waste management chain. As a  result, these facilities have to test the waste residue that they receive to  ensure that it meets the treatment standards.
Third, EPA and states’ hazardous waste enforcement programs periodically  monitor compliance with EPA regulations, primarily through oversight  inspections of facilities and enforcement actions (such as fines and  imprisonment) to correct violations. As part of its oversight, EPA provides  compliance assistance and incentive programs to encourage businesses to  “self-police” and voluntarily discover, disclose, and correct violations of  RCRA requirements. In response to our survey, 29 states reported  violations related to the treatment and disposal of mercury-containing  waste during the past 5 years. Generally, the states discovered the  violations during inspections, and most of the violations concerned the  treatment and disposal of mercury-containing lamps, such as fluorescent  light bulbs. We confirmed in our followup conversations with these states  that very few of their reported violations were related to the treatment and  disposal of mercury-contaminated debris. In one instance, however, a state  agency fined a university $18,000 for hazardous waste violations, such as  inappropriately disposing of mercury-contaminated debris. The university  had failed to sample a building for mercury contamination before  renovating it, and mercury was discovered in several areas after the  demolition debris from the renovation had been removed.
Lastly, EPA and many states provide citizens with telephone hotlines, Web  sites, and forms to file complaints or report potential hazardous waste  violations. Some states that responded to our survey stated that some  mercury-containing waste violations were reported by citizens’ tips.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: We recognize that EPA developed the debris regulations to manage waste  that could not be readily addressed with the existing RCRA regulations.  With respect to mercury-contaminated debris, EPA has assessed the  potential environmental risks and determined that the debris standards can  be used for mercury-containing waste that meets the debris definition. EPA  also provided a guidance memorandum to states intended to clarify the  types of wastes that can be managed using the debris standards. However,  our analysis showed that states and industry in some instances considered  items to be debris that typically do not meet EPA’s definition of debris. As a  result, EPA’s information on debris may not be entirely accurate. We believe  EPA would have better information on debris in RCRAInfo if EPA would  clarify and provide a better description of the types of waste that should  and should not be reported in the debris category in the instructions for  submitting biennial data.
In addition, we recognize that mercury-contaminated debris represents a  very small portion of the hazardous waste that is treated and disposed of  annually in the United States. However, we are concerned that officials in  several states and operators of some commercial hazardous waste landfills  that responded to our survey reported that in some instances they would  consider items to be debris that typically do not meet EPA’s definition of  debris. EPA’s debris definition specifically excludes some of these items.  Thus, some waste items might be disposed of inappropriately and in a more  risky manner. EPA did not consider the impact of states and industry  misunderstanding the debris standards when it examined the use of the  debris regulations for high mercury-containing waste. Since there is  apparent confusion about what constitutes debris, we believe that EPA  should begin an outreach effort to communicate and clarify the types of  mercury-containing hazardous wastes that can be treated and disposed of  using the debris treatment standards.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better ensure that the businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of  hazardous waste are properly managing and reducing the risk of their  mercury-containing waste, we are making the following two  recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection  Agency:  clarify and better describe the types of waste that can and cannot be  reported under the “debris” reporting category and include the  definition of debris in the instructions for the Hazardous Waste Report  and  conduct further outreach to communicate to states and hazardous  waste landfills the types of mercury-containing wastes that can be  treated and disposed of according to the alternative treatment standards  for debris.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. In  oral comments, EPA stated that it agreed with our recommendations. EPA  also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report  as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and other  interested officials. We will also provide copies to others upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or at stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who contributed to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the mechanisms that  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to track the treatment  and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity of mercury- contaminated debris that is disposed of, (2) the extent to which EPA,  states, and industry share a common understanding of the types of  mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as debris,  and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor compliance with  EPA’s treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated  debris.
For the purpose of this report, we used the following terms:  businesses that generate mercury-containing waste—includes private  companies and government and university facilities and laboratories;  mercury-containing waste—includes hazardous waste that contained  any of the six mercury waste codes: (1) D009—mercury; (2) K071— brine purification muds from the mercury cell process in chlorine, in  which separately prepurified brine is not used; (3) K106—wastewater  treatment sludge from the mercury cell process in chlorine production;  (4) P065—mercury fulminate; (5) P092—phenylmercury acetate; and/or  (6) U151—mercury; and   mercury-contaminated debris—includes mercury-containing waste and  was reported under EPA’s debris reporting category.
To determine the mechanisms that are used to track the treatment and  disposal of mercury-contaminated debris, we reviewed EPA documents  and reports (such as EPA’s biennial hazardous waste reports) and EPA  regulations and policies. We also interviewed officials at EPA, Ohio’s  Environmental Protection Agency, the Association of State and Territorial  Solid Waste Management Officials, the Environmental Council of the  States, the Environmental Technology Council, and the Northeast Waste  Management Officials’ Association. In addition, we met with officials from  the departments of Defense and of Energy to discuss the types of mercury- contaminated debris that they generate. To identify the quantity of the  hazardous waste that is disposed of as mercury-contaminated debris, we  obtained RCRAInfo hazardous waste data for the 2001 and 2003 reporting  cycles. We assessed the reliability of the data and found that they were  sufficiently reliable for our use. We also developed a survey to gather  information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia on, among  other things, their treatment and disposal practices for mercury- contaminated debris and whether they collected data more frequently than  required by EPA’s biennial hazardous waste reports.
To determine the extent to which EPA, states, and industry share a  common understanding of the types of mercury-containing wastes that can  be treated and disposed of as hazardous debris, we used two surveys to  gather information on, among other things, states’ and hazardous waste  landfills’ current practices for treating and disposing of certain mercury- containing wastes using EPA’s alternative treatment standards for debris.  We surveyed the 50 states and the District of Columbia.  We obtained a list  of state hazardous waste officials from the Association of State and  Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials and the Environmental  Council of the States. We confirmed with each state official, that he or she  was the appropriate state official to complete our survey on mercury- contaminated debris or obtained the name of another official and  confirmed with that official. In addition, we surveyed businesses that treat  and dispose of mercury-containing waste. We included in this survey, the 19  U.S. commercial hazardous waste landfills identified by EPA. We obtained  the list of hazardous waste landfills by using 2001 and 2003 information  from EPA’s RCRAInfo Permit Module. We confirmed with each landfill  operator that he or she was the appropriate individual to complete our  survey on mercury-contaminated debris.  We did not survey federal and  private facilities that could also treat and dispose of this waste and  facilities that primarily retort mercury-containing waste, such as  fluorescent light bulbs.
Before distributing the surveys, we conducted pretests of the questions  with officials who would be responding to the surveys in order to ensure  the validity of the survey questions. For the state survey, we conducted  pretests with seven states (Maryland, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, New  Hampshire, Montana, and Delaware) located in six EPA regions. For the  landfill survey, we conducted pretests with commercial hazardous waste  landfill operators in Texas and New York. As part of each pretest, we  interviewed the respondents after they had filled out a survey to ensure  that the questions were clear, unambiguous, and unbiased and that  completing the survey would not place an undue burden on the officials  completing it. On the basis of the feedback from the pretests, we modified  the questions, as appropriate. For the state survey, we received responses  from 48 states and the District of Columbia. We did not receive responses  from Alaska and Iowa because EPA has not provided these states with the  authority to implement RCRA requirements, and EPA has the lead for all  RCRA activities in these states. We received responses from 14 hazardous  waste landfill operators in 7 companies that manage 15 of the 19 landfills.  Two companies that manage four landfills chose not to participate in our  survey. We also interviewed officials at EPA, Ohio’s Environmental  Protection Agency, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials, the Environmental Technology Council, the  Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, the Chlorine Institute,  and the four companies that retort mercury-contaminated debris. Our  interviews included questions about the types of mercury-containing  wastes that they classify as mercury-contaminated debris.
To determine the controls that are in place to monitor compliance with  EPA’s treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated  debris, we conducted follow-up interviews with officials in 29 states  (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,  Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,  Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New York,  Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,  and Wisconsin) that had identified violations in the treatment and disposal  of mercury-containing waste. Our interviews included questions about the  type of mercury-containing waste involved in the violations that they  reported, the type of business or industry that committed the violation, the  way the violations were uncovered, and the type of enforcement actions  taken. We also conducted Internet searches on mercury-containing waste  violations and reviewed EPA’s requirements and policies for treating and  disposing of mercury-contaminated debris and EPA documents related to  the development of the debris regulations, such as Federal Register  notices. We discussed the effectiveness of these requirements and policies  for protecting human health and the environment with officials at EPA,  representatives from hazardous waste landfills, Ohio’s Environmental  Protection Agency, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials, the Environmental Technology Council, the  Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association, the Chlorine Institute,  and the four companies that retort mercury-contaminated debris.
We performed our work between March 2005 and November 2005, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which  included an assessment of data reliability and internal controls.
section_title: Data on Mercury-Contaminated Debris
paragraphs: This appendix provides additional information from RCRAInfo on activities  related to the generation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous debris  contaminated with mercury (mercury-contaminated debris) in the United  States during 2001 and 2003. In the first section, we discuss activities  related to the generation of mercury-contaminated debris, such as the  states where debris was generated and the types of industries that  generated the debris. In the second section, we discuss treatment and  disposal activities related to mercury-contaminated debris, such as the  quantity of mercury-contaminated debris treated and disposed of in each  state.
subsections: section_title: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation
paragraphs: According to RCRAInfo data, many states generate mercury-contaminated  debris. In 2001, 43 states and the District of Columbia generated 8,028  metric tons of mercury-contaminated debris. Nebraska, Ohio and West  Virginia generated about 59 percent of the total (about 4,771 metric tons).  Figure 6 shows the quantity of mercury-contaminated debris generated by  state in 2001.
In 2003, according to RCRAInfo data, 45 states and the District of Columbia  reported generating 3,966 metric tons of mercury-contaminated debris.  Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Arizona, and New York generated about 52  percent of the total (about 2,076 metric tons). Figure 7 shows the quantity  of mercury-contaminated debris generated by state in 2003.
According to RCRAInfo data, in 2001, about 95 percent of the total quantity  of mercury-contaminated debris (about 7,589 metric tons) was generated  by industries representing remediation and waste management services,  manufacturing (such as the textile and metals industries), wholesale trade  (such as businesses that sell mining products), mining (such as gold ore  mining), and utilities (such as power generation and replacing water supply  and sewage system equipment).  Table 6 summarizes the total quantity of  mercury-contaminated debris generated by type of industry in 2001.
In 2003, according to RCRAInfo data, about 95 percent of the total quantity  of mercury-contaminated debris (about 3,781 metric tons) was generated  by industries representing manufacturing (such as the textile and metals  industries, remediation and waste management services, educational  services (such as colleges and universities), utilities (such as electric  power generation and replacing water supply and sewage system  equipment), and government activities. Table 7 summarizes the total  quantity of mercury-contaminated debris generated by industry type in  2003.
With respect to the process or activity that generated the mercury- contaminated debris, RCRAInfo’s 2001 data reported that about 50 percent  of the debris (about 4,006 metric tons) came from ongoing production and  service processes. Remediation of past contamination and other  intermittent events or processes generated about 19 percent (about 1,529  metric tons) and 13 percent (about 1,073 metric tons), respectively. Table 8  provides more information on the types of processes and activities that  generated mercury-contaminated debris in 2001.
In 2003, according to RCRAInfo data, the majority of the mercury- contaminated debris came from ongoing production and service processes  and other intermittent events or processes, about 25 percent (about 1,001  metric tons) and about 41 percent (about 1,639 metric tons), respectively.  Table 9 provides more information on the processes or activities that  generated mercury-contaminated debris in 2003.
section_title: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treatment and Disposal
paragraphs: According to RCRAInfo data, 18 states treated and disposed of 10,484  metric tons of mercury-contaminated debris in 2001. Ohio and Nevada  treated and disposed of about 86 percent of the total quantity of mercury- contaminated debris (about 8,979 metric tons). Figure 8 compares the  quantity of mercury-contaminated debris treated and disposed by state in  2001.
In 2003, 26 states treated and disposed of 12,029 metric tons of mercury- contaminated debris, according to RCRAInfo data. Alabama, Missouri,  Nevada, and Ohio treated and disposed of about 75 percent of the total  quantity of mercury-contaminated debris (about 9,078 metric tons). Figure  9 summarizes the quantity of mercury-contaminated debris treated and  disposed in each state during 2003.
section_title: State Officials’ Responses to GAO’s Survey on Mercury-Containing Waste Treatment and Disposal
paragraphs: Q1. Which of the following hazardous debris treatment standards has your state implemented?
Our state has  no hazardous  debris  treatment  standards  (percent) (percent)
subsections: section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
paragraphs: l. Other ruptured devices with particle size exceeding 60 mm (for example, regulator)
section_title: Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment standards?
paragraphs: n. Process residuals (for example, smelter slag)
Q2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste (D009, U151). Does your  state allow treatment and/or disposal of the following wastes using hazardous debris or hazardous waste treatment  standards?
Q3. If there are others types of mercury-containing hazardous debris treated and/or disposed in your state, please provide a  brief description in the box below.
Q4. Does your state collect data on hazardous waste more frequently than required for EPA's Biennial Hazardous Waste  Report? (percent) (percent)
section_title: Q5. Does your state collect data on mercury-containing debris (as part of your state's hazardous waste data collection effort) more frequently than required for EPA's Biennial Hazardous Waste Report?
paragraphs: (percent) (percent)
section_title: Q6. For EPA's Biennial Hazardous Waste Reports, do you require your state's generators of less than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month to submit data?
paragraphs: (percent) (percent)
section_title: Q7. For EPA's Biennial Hazardous Waste Report, do you require your state's generators of between 100 to 1000 kg of hazardous waste per month to submit data?
paragraphs: (percent) (percent)
section_title: Q8. With respect to EPA's 2003 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report, approximately how many respondents from your state participated?
section_title: Q10. Which of the following data reliability assessments were done by your state on data received by your state for EPA's Biennial Hazardous Waste Reports? Did you check for . . .
section_title: Q12. During the past five years, has your state identified any violations related to treatment and disposal of mercury- containing waste?
paragraphs: (percent) (percent)
section_title: Q13. During the past five years, has your state identified any violations of hazardous debris treatment standards related to the treatment and disposal of mercury-containing waste?
paragraphs: (percent) (percent)
section_title: Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators’ Responses to GAO’s Survey on Mercury- Containing Waste Treatment and Disposal
paragraphs: 1. During the past 5 years has your landfill accepted any hazardous mercury-containing waste  (D009, K071, K106, U151, P065, P092)?  (Please check one.)
Yes   Please continue to Question 2 on the next page.
No  You do not need to complete additional questions.  Please fax this page   to:  202-512-2502 or 202-512-2514.   Attention: Diana Cheng.
For your convenience, a fax cover sheet is on the last page.  2. Assume that the items listed below are different types of mercury-containing hazardous waste  (D009, U151) and that these wastes were received from facilities that generated 1,000 kg or  more of hazardous waste per month.  Would your facility treat and/or dispose of any of the  following wastes according to alternative debris treatment standards?  (Please check one answer  in each row.)
Would this waste be treated and/or  disposed of according to alternative  debris treatment standards? d. Intact drums with at least 75% of their original volume  f. Intact fluorescent light bulbs  g. Ruptured fluorescent light bulbs  i. Ruptured batteries with particle size exceeding 60 mm  Ruptured batteries with particle size less than or equal  j. k. Other intact devices (for example, thermometer,  regulator)  l. Other ruptured devices with particle size exceeding 60  mm (for example, regulator)  m. Other ruptured devices with particle size less than or  equal to 60 mm (for example, thermometer)  n. Process residuals (for example, smelter slag)
3.
In the space below, please add any comments you wish to make concerning your answers in  Question 2.
11 respondents provided comments.
4. During the past 5 years, has your landfill had any instances where you refused to accept  mercury-containing debris?
Yes   Please go to Question 5   No   Please go to “Instructions for Returning” at the bottom of this page.   Uncertain   Please go to “Instructions for Returning” at the bottom of this page.
5. (If Yes to Question 4.)  Please describe those instances when your landfill refused to accept  mercury-containing debris.  If possible, please include a description of the material(s) involved  and the reason(s) for refusing the material(s).  (You may use the space below, or attach another  page.)
Reasons cited by respondents included  one or more of the following:  1. Landfill does not accept wastes  fluorescent light bulbs, switches, and  batteries  (N=5). 2. Mercury waste from medical,  containing a mercury concentration  greater than 260 milligrams per  kilogram. biological, or infectious waste (N=1).
2. Landfill does not accept metallic  mercury. 3. Landfill permit prohibits medical waste  in landfill.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, J. Erin Lansburgh, Assistant  Director; Diana Cheng; Anthony Fernandez; Richard P. Johnson; Jessica  Marfurt; Lynn Musser; George Quinn; Kim Raheb; Carol Herrnstadt  Shulman; and Jena Sinkfield made key contributions to this report.