Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 1890 / Proposed Roles
This tight schedule requires that the
review of mercury emissions and
mercury emission control techniques be
done as rapidly as possible, and will not
allow for a longer comment period.
However, it should be noted- that the:
focus of the public comments requested
is narrow and the EPA believes the
material in category IV-M of the Docket
A-89-G8 caa be adequately reviewed
within this time period, in addition, the
comment period on other issues is not
being reopened. Only comments
pertaining to the specific issue of a
mercury emission limit wiii be accepted.
. Dated: September 25,1090.
Michael Shapiro, ,
Actiag Assistant Admfnistra tor for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 90-23178 Filed 10-4-9S; &45 anil
BILLING CODE 6S50-5C-M
40 CFR Pals 260-2S6, 268, 270, and
271
[FRL-3835-9]
Waste Minimization fncentFves
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment
on desirable and feasible incentives to
reduce or eliminate the generation of
hazardous waste.
SUMMARY: Section 1003[b} of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act [RCRA) establishes a National
Policy that, wherever feasible, the
generation of hazardous waste is to be
reduced or eliminated as expeditiously
as possible. EPA is therefore committed
to a National Policy that places the
highest priority on waste minimization.
EPA has implemented a variety/ of
measures directed at minimizing waste
generation since 1986. However, EPA is .
considering the feasibility and
desirability of putting in place
additional incentives that promote
reductions in the volume and toxicity of
hazardous waste generation. The
Agency is today requesting comment to:
(1) Learn whether the regulatory and
nonregulatbry incentives for waste
minimization that have been put in place
to date are effective, and (2) find out
whether commenters believe additional
approaches Eire feasible and desirable to
further national progress in waste
minimization. To faster full exploration
of potential avenues for waste
minimization, this notice summarizes
the current incentive programs and
outlines others that have been suggested
to EPA for consideration. This notice is
intended to prompt public discussion on
questions such ast Bo the RCRA
regulations contain impedimenta ta
waste minfanization? If so, whatare
they, and haw should they be
eliminated? Are the potential incentives
or ideas contained in. this notice feasible
and desirable approaches? Are there
other regulaf ory and nonregulatory
incentives that should be considered?
How can other incentives be promoted?
EPA will use the comments received in,
response to this notice, along wife other
information, to consider, evaluate and
establish priorities for hazardous waste
minimization program elements.
DATES: EPA .urges interested parties to
comment on this notice in writing.
Comments must be submitted on or
before December 4,1990.
ADDRESSES; All comments must be
submitted m triplicate (original and two
copies} to: EPA RCRA Docket (room SE
201, Mail Code OS-305}. US.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW.. Washington, DC 2046O.
Place ths docket number F-aeHlRGP-
FFFFF on your documents.
FOR FURTHER BNPORMATION CONTACT;
Contact: Manik R0y,{202} 245-3737 or .
the RCRA Hotline, tott free, at t«»J 42*-
S34e, or at (202} 382-3000.
Additional information on waste r
minimization is available for inspection
in the RCRA docket at the address
indicated above, EPA's 1988 Report to
Congress on Hazardous Waste
Minimization (EPA Document No. EPA/
530-SW-8&-043) can be found in the
RCRA docket. The five-volume report is
also available for purchase in hardcopy.
and microfiche from the National
Technical Information Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Springfield,
Virginia {703} 487-460O. Requestors
should cite title and document number
(See, NTIS Na. PB-87-114-328J when
ordering. Information on State and
Federal legislation and current
information OR the RCRA program can
also be found in the RCRA doefeet.
SUPPLEMENTARY JKFOBKATtOW:
I. Authority
II. Introduction
HI. Background ' "
IV. Are the Non-Regulatory Waste
Minimization Incentives that Have Been
Put in Place by EPA end the States
Effective?
V. WhicitLcaig Term approaches Will Speed
Industry Progress in Waste
- Minimization?
I. Authority
This notice is issued under the
authority of section 2002 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act of 137% as
amended, 4ZU.S.C. 6912, .
The Agency recognizes that industry
managers cannot do a good job of
preventing pollution without looking at
opportunities across all media.
However, to facilitate an effective multi-
media pollution prevention framework,
the Agency must correct any pollution
prevention impediments inherent in our
medium-specific programs; to this end,
we want to assure that our hazardous
waste minimization efforts are focused
on the'most important priorities. This
notice, therefore, seeks to promote the
identification of hazardous waste
minimization incentives that will help
the Nation's focus on multi-media
pollution, prevention work more
effectively. '
The Agency plans to use the
comments received in response to
today's notice in five ways:
1. To assess whether existing regulations
should be modified to better encourage
source reduction and environmentally sound
recycling: -
2. To develop information that wriB be used
as the Agency develops new regulations and
to incorporate waste minimization incentives
in those regulations;
3. To promote better Information exchange
between EPA and the regulated community
on waste minimization issues and! to gain a
better understanding of industry waste
minimization program;
4. To serve a* a source of Information for
reporting to Congress and for responding to
questions from tie Congress and the public
on future regulatory and legislative direction,
and
5. Ta Better understand State waste
minimization programs and to promote more
effective Federal and State government
program planning and implementation.
III. Background; How do the Resource
ConsenraUoa and Recovery Act and the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 Address Waste
Minimization?
A. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA}
The United States has made
substantial progress over the last 1ft
years in improving the quality of the
environment tiiroBgfe implementation of
medium-specific poEation control '
. programs administered by EPA and the
States. Even so, economic,
technological, and institutional factors
limit haw much improvement can be
achieved tender programs that
emphasize management of pollutants
after they have been generated {"ead-of-
pipe" control). As early as 1978, EPA
published as environmental auditing
poley fctt FR 358$ August 18,1978} that
recognized the limits to reducing threats
to human health and the environment if
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
40082
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 194 / Priday, October 5. 1990 / Proposed Rules.
we depend only on better methods of
control, treatment and disposal.
Also in 1976, Congress enacted the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCA) with the intent of ensuring
that hazardous wastes were managed
and disposed of safely. As a result, EPA
established the Nation's first "cradle to
grave" hazardous waste identification,
tracking and management system. The
first major body of RCRA regulations
was promulgated May 19,1980 (45 FR
33073).
B. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
In the late 1970's and early 1980's,
continued discoveries of ground water
contamination and other problems that
resulted from pre-RCRA land disposal
practices heightened public concern, .
and resulted in enactment of the multi-
billion dollar Superfund waste cleanup
.program and later the amendment of
RCRA by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
HSWA made two important changes
to spur the Nation's progress in waste
minimization. First, HSWA prohibited
land disposal of hazardous wastes that
do not meet a specified treatment
standard using the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT). These
tough "end-of-pipe" restrictions, in
combination with the effects of other
hazardous waste management
requirements that were tightened in
HSWA, were intended to increase the
level of human health and
environmental protection required
before wastes could be land disposed.
However, the stringency of the land
disposal restrictions (LDR) program had
a secondary effect of causing generators
to look for ways to reduce the volume
and/or toxicity of hazardous waste they
generated in the first place.
Second, and more important over the
long term, HSWA a national policy that
makes waste minimization a higher
priority than treatment and disposal in
managing hazardous wastes. Taken
together, these new policy directions
reflect Congress' concern about long
term reliance on end-of-pipe treatment
and land disposal standards as the '
primary means to protect public health
and the environment.
HSWA directed industry and ,~
government to implement the national
waste minimization policy in several
direct, but limited, ways. Hazardous
waste generators must certify on all
hazardous waste manifests that they
have a waste minimization program in
place and must report their waste
minimization activities every two years
in the RCRA Biennial Report. Similarly,
permitted hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal (TDS) facilities
must annually certify that they have a
waste minimization program. These
provisions require affirmative action by
facility owners and operators, but allow
great flexibility on what specific waste
minimization actions a generator or TSD
facility must take. That is, Congress did
not dicate to generators or facility
owners and operators exactly how
individual waste minimization programs
must function.
EPA has stepped in to take a
leadership role in pursuing hazardous
waste minimization as a primary
national strategy for pollution
prevention. To provide guidance to the
regulated community, EPA proposed
"Guidance to Hazardous Waste
Generators on the Elements of a Waste
Minimization Program" in the Federal
Register (June 12,1989) that: (1) Defines
activities included in the definition of
waste minimization, and (2) describes
several basic waste minimization
program elements that EPA believes
should be included in a facility's waste
minimization program as part of
HSWA's certification requirements. A
broad range of source reduction
techniques (e.g., equipment
modification, raw material substitution,
better management practices and other
process related changes) and
environmentally sound recycling (e.g.,
reuse, recycling, reclamation) activities
are included in EPA's definition of
waste minimization. In addition, the -
guidance provides broad flexibility to
hazardous waste generators and facility
.owners and operators on how to
implement several key program
elements in a way that fits the technical
and management needs of individual
facilities.
HSWA also required EPA to study the
issue of whether "standards of
performance or other additional
actions" for reducing hazardous waste
generation are "feasible and desirable,"
and to submit a Report to Congress
(RTC) in 1986 that discusses the
Agency's recommendations, if any, for
further action. In preparing the 1986
RTC, EPA found that, while some
companies have implemented.waste
minimization efforts, only limited
anecdotal information was available to.
measure how much waste minimization
was occurring, or the potential
reductions that could be expected. At
that time, neither the Federal
government nor the States had much
information or experience in designing,
implementing, enforcing or measuring
the effectiveness of government-
required waste minimization programs,
nor did the States or EPA know what
the impact of the other HSWA
requirements, particularly the land
disposal restrictions program, would be.
C. Post-HSWA Developments .
In its 1986 RTC, EPA could not make
definitive conclusions about the need for
additional hazardous waste
minimization requirements until: (1) The
land disposal restrictions program,
which was expected to affect a
reduction in waste generation and/or
toxicity, was fully implemented, and (2)
EPA could measure progress already
underway by industry. The earliest that
EPA projected it would be able to gauge
the effectiveness of the LDR program
and voluntary industry actions would be
1990. In the interim, EPA committed to
followup in three areas by: (1)
Developing a core technial assistance
program that encourages industry to
initiate source reduction and recycling
activities, (2) measuring and reporting
progress to Congress and the public, and
(3) assessing longer term options,
including regulatory and other
incentives for waste minimization.
EPA has put in place ongoing
programs for the first two areas,
providing technical assistance to .
industry and measuring and reporting
progress to the Congress and public.
EPA's efforts in these areas are
summarized briefly in the next section."
With regard to the third area, long
term options, a variety of approaches to
prevent pollution have been suggested
since 1986. Some are already in the early
stages of implementation. For example,
about 10 States have recently enacted
legislation containing various forms of
long term pollution prevention
incentives which are beginning to be
implemented. The U.S. Congress has
also proposed several other approaches
in pollution prevention bills. These
approaches are clearly directed at
reducing multi-media releases of
pollutants to the air, water and land.
(Copies of selected State laws arid
Congressional bills are available for
inspection in the RCRA docket.)
EPA is assessing the feasibility and
desirability of these long term incentives
and others for reducing hazardous waste
generation: In addition, many different
organizations have pointed out that the
RCRA regulations contain inherent
impediments to waste minimization.
Consequently, in addition to studying
long term multi-media pollution
prevention incentives, EPA has
identified; (1) Potential impediments in
the RCRA regulatory structure that may
need to be corrected, and (2)
opportunities to create waste
minimization incentives within specific
RCRA regulations, even where
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 194 / Friday. October 5. 1990 / Proposed Rules 40885
impediments are not apparent. These
impediments and opportunities are the
focus of this notice.
The identification of potential
impediments and opportunities stem
from analyses in a variety of areas,
including: A revietv of RCRA survey
data that contained questions on waste
minimization (including the 1986
. Hazardous Waste Generator Survey, the
1986 Treatment Storage, Disposal and
Recycling Facility Survey, and the 1987
RGRA Biennial Report); a review of
regulation development efforts in each
of the major RCRA program areas; pilot
projects directed at studying how
particular long term regulatory or other
incentives might work; and workshops
and inteviews with companies to
imporve EPA's understanding of facility-
specific examples of waste minimization
impediments.
The Agency is today requesting
comments on these ideas and any others
that would further the goal of reducing
the volume and/or toxicity of hazardous
waste generation. EPA's commitment to
this goal constitutes one of the primary
objectives within the Agency's RCRA
' program today, and will remain so. We
urge members of the public to devote
substantial time and effort m responding
to this notice and, in particular to
present in detail their analyses of the
ideas and issues presented.
IV. Are the Non-Regulatory Incentive
Programs That Have Been Put in Place
by EPA and States Effective?
EPA and many States have put in
place two types of nonregulatory
programs: (1) Technical assistance to
industry and (2} tracking and reporting
industry progress to Congress and
public. Summaries of these approaches
are provided below. EPA solicits
comments on the effectiveness of these
approaches and suggestions of other
non-regulatory approaches that may
prove useful.
A. Technical Assistance Programs'
EPA and the States have worked
cooperatively to put in place a variety of
technical information and assistance
programs that make information on
source reduction and recycling
techniques available directly to industry
and the public. Many of these programs
are summarized below. EPA would like
to receive public comment on a variety
of questions concerning whether these
programs are appropriate or whether
they should be modified. In particular:
(1) Is technical information easily
accessible to industry and the public?
(2) I» information from government
technical assistance programs useful?
(3) Should other technical assistance
approaches be considered? :
(4) How can EPA and the States better
measure the results of technical assistance
[5\ Are there other incentives associated
with technical assistance programs; that
should be considered?
EPA has developed several sources
that can be used to provide information
directly to industry, or through State
technical assistance programs. EPA
maintains a Pollution Prevention
Clearinghouse which contains technical
information on source reduction: and
recycling technologies, relevant
publications and expert contacts, a
calendar of training courses and
conferences, State technical assistance
services and industry success stories in
waste minimization. The Clearinghouse
' can be accessed using a compatible.
personal computer /modem system or by
using a toll-free EPA.hotline {(800J424-
9346), EPA also publishes a pollution
prevention newsletter, produces videos
and brochures on waste minimization
that are available to the public, and
sponsors workshops and conferences.
EPA also promotes technical
assistance to industry indirectly by
supporting the development of State
technical assistance programs. State
personnel often have the primary day-
to-day contacts with industry for many
RCRA program matters. Over 35 States
have some form of technical assistance
program to help companies explore
waste minimization technologies. EPA
has provided partial funding to over 30
State programs through competitive
grants. Many of these grants are used to
fund innovative cooperative projects'
with industry. EPA also provides partial
funding for the National Roundtable of
State Waste Reduction Programs, an <
organization of State technical
assistance and regulatory program
representatives that meets regularly to
discuss technical and programmatic
waste minimization issues. The
Roundtable uses the EPA Clearinghouse
as a central repository for technical
information exchange and publishes
proceedings on state waste
minimization activities. EPA's research
office also funds several different types
of waste minimization research and
demonstration projects in a variety of
joint ventures with States and industry.
B. Measuring Progress in Waste
Minimization
Measuring progress in waste
minimization has proved, to be a
challenging task. EPA and the States
have found it difficult to assess and
compare waste generation and waste
minimization efforts among facilities
and production processes from- different
manufacturing sectors, and often among
facilities within the same sector. The
Agency solicits comment on a variety of
questions concerning the approaches
that are summarized in this section and
other approaches that may be feasible.
Among these are:
(1) What are appropriate data for the
Federal government to collect in order to
gauge industry's progress in reducing waste
generation? : . .
(2) Should this data be production process
specific?
(3) Should EPA collect data directly from
individual facilities or should EPA work with
the States to collect this data?
(4) With what frequency should this data
be collected and evaluated?
EPA and the States have used the
RCRA Biennial Report and several
specialized surveys to measure waste
generation and minimization across a
board spectrum of facilities. Both
government and industry have
historically characterized hazardous
wastes in terms of what is in the waste
just before it is treated, often without
regard to the production processes from
which the waste emanates, hi many
cases, facilities mix waste streams from
different processes without
characterizing individual process/waste
relationships. One of the keys to
identifying source reduction and
recycling opportunities and tracking
progress lies in developing data that
better relates production processes and
waste stream characteristics. Industry
representatives have pointed out that
the data collection method used by EPA
in the 1986 Generator Survey and the
1987 RCRA Biennial report, which
allows facilities to report the ratio of the
total volume of waste that goes to
treatment to units of production, does ,
not accurately reflect process specific
waste minimization changes, and could
lead to misleading results. An
alternative method could require
collecting process-specific wsate data.
However, this method might require
significantly more data, some-of which
may be proprietary in nature. Is process
specific waste data more appropriate fo?
measuring progress?
C. Awards to Industry. .
In certain states, facilities receive
environmental awards for their pollution
prevention efforts. This practice is not
utilized on a national scale. The Agency
has several questions concerning an
awards-based approach:
(1) Do awards or some other form of
recognition provide an incentive for waste
minimization?
-------
40884 Federal Register./ Vol. 55. No. 194 /Friday, October 5, 1990 / Proposed Rules
(2) Should EPA institute awards at the
regional, national or state level?
(3) Are there other award-based incentives
that would be appropriate at the Federal
level?
D. Research
Well known source reduction and
recycling technologies exist for some -
production processes. However, for
other production processes, little
information is available in the public
domain because some technologies are
considered to be proprietary information
or, in other cases, technologies have not
yet been developed, EPA explored
several routes for expanding hazardous
waste minimization and multi-media
pollution prevention research in a '
Report to Congress entitled, "Pollution'
Prevention Research Plan," (March 1990,
document number EPA-600-9-90-015).. '
A copy of that report is available for
inspection in the RCRA docket. This
, notice does not duplicate the issues
raised in that report, but instead asks
readers to comment on incentives
research provides as compared to those
provided by other potential regulatory
or nonregulatory incentives. Among the
subjects commenters should address
are:
(1) Would government-sponsored research
on source reduction and recycling
technologies, as a means to transfer more
technologies to the public domain, provide an
incentive for some companies to participate
In the research, and for other companies to
implement technologies that are developed?
(2) Are there other research-related
incentives that should be considered?
V. \VMch Long Term Options Will
Speed Industry Progress in Waste
Minimization?
In its 1988 RTC, EPA deferred final
conclusions on whether it was feasible
and desirable to adopt long-term
regulatory and nonregulatory options for
two principal reasons. First, EPA
believed it was necessary to allow the
Land Disposal Restrictions Program and
other requirements of HSWA to take
effect. Second, neither the Agency, the
States nor industry had sufficient
experience or information at that time to
design, Implement, track or enforce-
additional incentives.
Since 1986, EPA has learned a great
deal about the effects of the LDR and
other HSWA program requirements,
even through some aspects of HSWA
are not completely in place (for
example, the last phase of the regulatory
requirements for the LDR program did
not become effective until August, 1990,
except or some categories of waste that .
were given further extensions for
compliance. Furthermore,: EPA believes
tho States, environmental groups,.'''.'",
industry and the public also have a
better understanding of potential long
term incentives to preventing pollution
now than hi 1988.
A discussion of incentives within each
of these areas follows. Specific ideas are
provide strictly as a basis for discussion.
They do not necessarily represent EPA's
current preferences, statutory authority,
or policy commitments. Thus,
commenters should not feel constrained
by these specific approaches. The
Agency wishes to explore any other
incentives that commenters believe
should be considered. Once all ideas
have been thoroughly examined, EPA
will be in a position to implement the
best ones as part of its ongoing waste
minimization commitment. -
A. Should EPA Consider Changing the
Definition of Solid Waste in Its.
Regulations To Promote Additional
Source Reduction and Environmentally
Sound Recycling?
Many have indicated that RCRA and
subsequent EPA regulations regarding , '
the definition of "solid waste", a key
jurisdictional term for EPA's RCRA
authority, actually contain impediments
to source reduction and recycling. The
focus of RCRA and subsequent
regulations was not always on
minimizing the amount or toxicity or
waste generated at the outset.
EPA is currently addressing many
comments received in response to prior
rulemakings on this issue (see 52 FR 519,
January 8,1988). The key issues raised
by previous commenters are
summarized below. However, EPA
' would like commenters not to repeat
points already made to us. Rather, the
Agency requests comments on broader
questions, such as:
(1) What are specific examples of public
benefit from recycling? How can we ensure
that recycled materials will be safely
managed? Are the benefits to recycling
sufficient to justify less restrictive regulatory
requirements for certain recycling activities '
compared to the requirements for treatment
and disposal? . , . '
(2) Do incentives that encourage recycling
discourage source reduction?
To craft a regulatory program for
proper management of hazardous waste,
EPA faced many difficult decisions
regarding the. appropriate place to draw
,the line between recycling practices that
are more production-oriented (and,
therefore, arguably outside the primary
ami of RCRA}, and recycling practices '
which more'closely resemble waste
management arid require waste ' ,
man'ag6ment:typeregulation. ,' ',t
Regulations 'defining whether recycling .,
activities' are regulated or npt are found'
in 40 CFR parts 26i and 266,' and1 are ,V <.
commonly referred to as "the definition
of solid waste." Over the course of
several rulemakings, EPA has solicited
comment on its jurisdiction over
hazardous waste recycling. During this
public dialogue and on other occasions,
many commenters have provided their
views on how the RCRA regulations
may impede hazardous waste recycling
activities. ; '
These views on impediments to
recycling fall into several major
categories:
Some commenters claim that the
Federal definition of solid waste is
complicated. The complicated nature
of the definition and EPA's
implementing regulations has caused
uncertainty for some generators in
understanding precisely what .
substances are hazardous wastes and
niust be managed as such, and which
are not because they are reused in a
way that is outside RCRA jurisdiction.
Commenters claim that without better
clarification, the uncertainty impedes
environmentally sound recycling, and
may encourage additional "sham"
recycling.
Commenters claim that the cur-rent
permitting process is cumbersome,
time-consuming and carries
associated regulatory costs and
liabilities. These impede business
entry into recycling operations.
Further, permitting brings with it the
responsibility to clean up hazardous
waste or constituent releases from
solid waste management units on the
facility, regardless of when the release
occurred. For some potential
recyclers, the potential cost of facility-
wide cleanup can be a strong
disincentive to any recycling activity
that might require a RCRA permit.
Commenters claim that the "mixture"
and "derived from" rules in the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations can
cause large volumes of residuals from
recycling operations to be pulled into
the hazardous waste management
system. They claim that added costs
of managing these materials as
hazardous wastes may discourage
recycling activities.
Waste-To-energy conversion in :
incinerators, furnaces and boilers
should be recycling activity.
EPA is continuing to evaluate .the ;
comments received to date as they
relate to possible impediments to waste .
minimizatiqn. However, EPA requests .
any additional cpmments ftyat /discuss
other ways the definitipnpf.solid.w.aste :'
may inhibit, waste mihimizatipn; j ,
-------
194'/' Friday, October 5, 1990 / Proposed Rules
40883
B. Should EPA Consider Marketable
Waste Generation Trading Eights or
Other Long Term Economic Incentives
To Reduce Waste Generation? -,
Many of the ideas that have been
suggested to the Agency reganding
.waste minimization function aa '
extensions to the current waste
management programs. Are there other
approaches that should be considered?.
Can long terms incentives that have '.
been put in place for other medium
. programs,' such as marketable rights. for
air emissions, be modified in a way that
provides incentives for hazardous waste
reduction? ' ! ,
For example, under this type of
approach, the government could issue
rights to generate a limited quantity or
toxicity of hazardous waste. By
establishing overall limits, and by
progressively reducing the total amount
of waste that can be generated in
successive years, this approach could
- promote the Congressional goal of
reducing or eliminating the generation of
hazardous waste. Under one variation of
this approach, a facility, in the first year,
would receive transferable rights for
the quantity of waste, it generated during
a base period. The next year the facility
would receive rights to generate a
smaller percentage (such as 5% less),
and so on over time. If.a facility
implemented waste minimization efforts
xvhich reduced its need for these rights,
it could sell them to other firms.
Alternatively, the government could
allocate waste generation rights without
respect to facilities' individual current
waste generation rates. The amount
and/or toxicity of hazardous waste
which could be generated would decline
over time as the government issues
fewer rights. To allocate these rights, the
government could for instance hold
auctions (perhaps with restrictions on
the amount which could be sold to a
single buyer) with firms which have
bought the rights being able to trade
them to others if they did not need them.
Small quantity generators might, for
instance, purchase them from
commercial waste firms if they did not
wish to participate in the auction.:
. Under either approach to waste
minimization, EPA would expect that
firms-that can reduce waste least
expensively would do so, and then
either buy fewer rights or sell their
excess to other firms. Generators of
hazardous waste would have a direct'
financial incentive in reducing then-
waste and would weigh the costs of
current operations against the cost of
generator rights. Waste generation rights
could he specific to different types of
v waste to discourage particularly : .
undesirable wastes, Provisions may also
Be necessary to deal appropriately with
recycling. .. , ...,.-..':. ' .: , :
Certain issues would need to be. :
resolved before adopting such an
approach; For instance: ;...-...
(1) Should all hazardous waste be included
undsr this' scheme or should certain classes,
such as waste'from corrective action !
cleanups, be exempt? . . - ; ''-,-,
(2) What are appropriate, reduction, :..
restructions?, , . ;', :., \' . ',
(3) Would these righjts follow the waste as
part of the manifest? : :
(4) Should hazardous waste be treated
homogeneously, or should certahvhard-to-
Ireat wastes be a separate and more
restricted class? ' .
(5) Would such a scheme create a
undesirable new incentive for cross-media
transfer of pollutant generation? '
(6) How would the government implement
this approach? Is privatization a workable
option for implementation?
. (7) What other long term economic.
incentives are appropriate?
C. Should EPA Consider Waste
Characterization, Assessment and
Listing Incentives?,
EPA would like to know whether
commenters believe it is appropriate to
incorporate waste minimization
incentives in the RCRA/HSWA
hazardous waste identification and
listing regulatory process in a way that
causes^generators to reduce or eliminate
the generation of certain waste streams
that .are to be regulated under RCRA.
Two long-term incentive approaches are
summarized below. Are these and/or
other approaches appropriate?
A solid waste is hazardous if EPA,
either "lists" the waste through
ralemaking (listing is based on the.
results of exposure and risk assessment
analyses), or if the waste exhibits any
hazardous characteristics (e.g.,
ignitability, corresovity, reactivity and
toxicity).
One potential long .term option
focuses on expanding the data collection
and analysis portion of the listing
process (an initial' step in the regulatory
development process that is needed to
support waste characterization and risk
assessment analyses) to require
collection and dissemination of source
reduction and recycling information for
processes that generate the waste.
Listing decisions would still be based on
risk, but during the listing process,
generators would have an upfront ,
opportunity to reduce or eliminate
facility waste streams to avoid or
minimize the volume of waste subject to
RCRA regulation once the listing is
finally adopted. Specific questions
relating to this potential approach . ;
include;. .; *. -,;'<< \ :-,.
(1) Would collection and dissemination of
information on source reduction .and ,...;. -,'..
irecyqling technologies by EPA,'as.an early,
part of the listing regulation development','; .''
process, provide an incentive for the ''../ ,, ;
regulated .community'to implement source
reduction and recycling technologies and . '
reduce hazardous waste generation?
(2) Are. there other incentives that would
encourage upfront technical information
exchange and implementation of source
reduction and recycling technologies by ,. ;
.generators? i > ' * /: . ,
Another, suggested approach would; '
allow generators that become subject
either to a new listing requirement or the:
toxicity characteristic rule to enter.intp
an agreement with EPA in a way that
provides time for the generator to i
identify, design and install source . '
reduction and recycling technologies
that will either significantly reduce or
eliminate hazardous waste generation.
Many facilities have claimed that orice
they become subject to the.RCRA
regulations, the statutorily-based -
effective dates for the RCRA waste
management requirements,is too short;
i.e., that time is insufficient to put waste
minimization technologies in place:
Some commenters say that the result is
to limit the options available tb the
facilitymainly seeking available (and
costly) treatment and disposal capacity "
for wastes that have become RGRA
regulated (Le;, and e'nd-oj-pipe
situation). Consequently, capital spent
on mandatory treatment may '. :
significantly decrease capital available
for making waste minimization process
changes, which perpetuates waste
generation instead of minimizing it.
Questions that arise concerning ail
approach such as this one include:
{3} Would this approach be appropriate if it
were limited to selected waste streams?
(4) If so, what are appropriate criteria for '
selecting waste streams subject to this
approach?.
(5) Does this approach provide a better
incentive for some generators than others :
(i.e., for new sources versus existing sources,
since nsw generators coming on line may '
have more flexibility to consider source
reduction and recycling technologies in
process design)? ' ':
EPA would like commenters to ''. .
describe other waste minimization
related incentives that could be
incorporated in the listing Or :
characteristic process. '
D. How Can EPA Consider Modifying
Current Performance Standardsfpr Best
Demonstrated Available Treatment
(BJpA T) Technologies To Include Waste
MinimizatioiifTechnologies,? ;
EPA's 198S RTC looked ait the issue of
waste minimization performance
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 1990 /.Proposed Rules
standards in some detail, but deferred
final conclusions until Additional
information became available on the
effectiveness of the land disposal
restrictions program. EPA now has more
information available on the
effectiveness of the LDR and other
HSWA requirements. EPA requests
comment on whether it should consider
waste minimization technologies in
certain situations as a method to
improve control of hazardous
constituents in waste streams. Is the
approach summarized below
appropriate? Are there other approaches
commenlers believe should be
considered? -
In the course of putting the LDR
program in place, EPA Identified some
situations in which certain constituents
(e.g^ heavy metals) that, once in a waste
stream, cannot be destroyed, and must
either be recovered (if a technology
exists), or must be treated through
stabilization methods that, at best,
reduce the mobility of the hazardous
constituents In the waste. Hie toxicity
and volume of the hazardous
constituents in the waste. The toxicity
and volume of the hazardous
constituents In the waste are not
reduced or eliminated. EPA has
collected and analyzed available
technical information that demonstrates
the availability and effectiveness of
proven source redaction and recycling
technologies for some production
processes and waste streams. Some of
these technologies have been shown to
provide a net cost savings to facilities
compared to the costs of managing
hazardous wastes that Would otherwise
be treated'and disposed. For example,
tha BDAT technology specified for F006
wastes (electroplating wastewater
treatment sludge) is stabilization.
Stabilization immobilizes constituents
and therefore reduces exposure and risk.
However, stabilization does not destroy
hazardous constituents and therefore
requires long-term management In
addition, stabilization increase the
volume of wastes ultimately disposed of
in the land. Some F006 generators have
installed source reduction and recycling
technologies that have reduced waste
generation significantly (often resulting
in a net savings to the facility).
However, many generators have not yet
installed source reduction and recycling
technologies. Once the constituents end
up in the wastewater treatment sludge,
they cannot ba easily recovered. In
contrast, the BDAT standard for K061
wastes (electric arc furnacs dust), which
generally contain high levels of zinc,
requires recovery of honvy metals from
the waste. la this case, the KD61 waste Is
amenable to recovery because of the '
nature of the waste. r-,r -.
In appropriate .situations, a waste
minimization performance standard :
incentive approach might be devised
that provides more effective protection
than treatment alone. This approach
would set limits for the constituents
remaining in the waste treatment
residuals (per unit of production or some
other measure) after application of best
available source reduction and recycling
techniques. For example, electroplating
wastewater treatment sludge contains
much lower levels of heavy metals if
several proven and effective source
reduction and recycling techniques are
. in place, rather than if wastewater
treatment alone is the only method used
to control constituents in wastewaters.
Under this approach, LDR treatment
standards could be written based on
waste characteristics from processes
using source reduction and recycling
technologies as a method for controlling
constituent levels in the waste.
To set standards of this nature, the
Agency would have to study waste
minimization practices within well-
defined, relatively narrow generator
categories rather than the broader
categories now used. This type o!f
standard setting requires significantly
more data than setting performance
standards based on treatment
technologies alone, and it may not make
sense for all waste streams. Questions
that relate to this specific approach
include:
(1). Should EPA consider waste
minimization-based performance standards
as a more preventive approach for setting
waste management standards for selected
waste streams?
(2) Should specific criteria be used to select
waste streams for which waste minimization
performance standards should be set? If so,
what are these criteria? Among the
associated questions are:
Do treatment methods alone effectively
minimize long term risk?
Are source reduction and recycling
technologies readily available? Is the
information proprietary?
Is the process that generates the waste
widely used?
la ft a relatively simple process that
generates the waste, or is It highly complex
or highly variable from one plant tci
another? ' : "
Is adequate treatment capacity available?
Is the waste highly toxic, highly mobile,
and/or ubiquitous?
(3) Should recycling technologies Im this
approach be considered for thosa cases
where recycling may ba IBM effective than '
treatment in reducing releases to the '
environment?
'£ Should EPA Consider Waste
Minimization Incentives in the RCRA
Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD)
Perinit Process?
Two major issues arise at the outset.
First, is it appropriate to modify the
RCRA TSD permit process to include
waste minimization commitments as a
condition of permit approval? Several
variations of this approach are
summarized below. Second, do any of
the approaches described here provide
stronger incentives than others? Also,
are other approaches appropriate or can
additional incentives be added to one of
those discussed?
One incentive approach would require
permittees to submit a waste
minimization facility plan (or waste
reduction impact statement) either as a
condition for issuing the permit or as
supplemental information that must be
submitted within a certain period of
time (such as 150 days) following the
issuance of a permit. Within the facility
plan, the permittee .must include
information on the amount and type of
hazardous waste generated,
identification of the source of waste by
waste stream, an analysis of technically
and economically feasible hazardous
waste reduction techniques, and a
program and schedule for implementing
the feasible reduction techniques. The
facility's waste minimization plan also
serves to verify the elements of the
waste minimization program in place, as
certified on manifests and any previous
permit operating records. This
information would be included as part
of the public information for review
during the permitting process. This
information could be inlcnded hi the
public hearing process and may increase
public awareness of efforts facilities are
(or are not) making to reduce their waste
generation. Waste minimization
commitments made by the companies,
such as testing of new production
technologies to reduce waste generation,
could also become enforceable permit
conditions.
At least six States have enacted
legislation that requires some form of
facility planning. Information on specific
State programs, can be found in the
RCRA docket. EPA asks commenters to
address: , . ;.
(l) Should EPA impose waste minimization
facility planning requirements through the
permit process? If so, what type of
requirement should be imposed?
(2) Will, this approach increase local public
attention and awarness of facility specific
wasie minimization plans during the public
comment and public, hearing portions of the
permit review and approval process? Will
thin process Improve communications '
-------
Federal Register,/ Vol. 55; No. 194 / Friday; October 5, 1990 / Proposed Rules'
40867
between government, industry £nd the
public? , . '";.-,.,. '-, : . ..
(3) What should the Federal and State roles
be in states that have passed such legislation,
and in States without such legislation?
(4) In setting priorities in the permitting
program, should EPA give a higher priority to
generators who are 'committed to ' ''' '
implementing measures that minimize waste
over facilities who do not make such. ..
conimitmeate? ...'...'-'
Another approach looks at the
impacts of multi-media reductions bn:
the RCRA permit process. EPA has
initiated a pilot project that examines
whether additional time should be ; '
.granted to facilities in their permit
revision schedules and/or whether
quantitative requirements should be
changed in RCRA or other media
specific permits in cases where
implementation of source reduction and-
recycling process changes would reduce
or eliminate releases to all media (air,
water and land), and possibly eliminate
the need to add restriction's to end-of-
pipe treatment technologies. In cases
... where additional time may be needed
for making revisions on-one medium
permit (e.g. for a RCRA permit), permit
»a vision dates'could move ahead for
other medium, so that all permits could
be issued or modified at the same time.
Is this an appropriate approach for
considering multi-media emissions
reduction's in the RCRA permit issuance
process? Are thera other incentives that
should be considered? Information on
this pilot project is in the RCRA docket.
F, Should EPA Consider Waste
Minimization Requirements in the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Capacity
Planning Requirements of Superfund
Amendments and Reaiithorization Act
of 1886 (SARA)?
.Ensuring adequate capacity for
hazardous waste treatment storage and
disposal is a primary focus on the RCRA
Program. Should EPA consider shifting
the focus of the SARA capacity
assurance planning process to .
emphasize additional waste
minimization incentives? Would placing
greater emphasis on waste minimization
by EPA in hazardous waste planning
result in greater reductions in waste
generation and/or toxicity? Additional
information on this approach is
discussed-below. Are other approaches
such as facility planning appropriate?
A secondary impact of the LDR
program was the creation of treatment
, capacity shortfalls of varying degrees
for certain wastestreams at the national,
regional and state, levels^ While the
shortfalls are expected to decrease over
time, facility owners,and operators, and. ;
government officials .are nevertheless.
looking more aggressively,toward waste
minimization as a partial solution to
capacity shortfalls.; - : ; :; '< * '
In EPA's guidance manual to' the '
States for the preparation of their SARA
Capacity Assurance Phins, the Agency
stated its preferenceifor plans that
included "sound analyses of arid - '
provisions for waste minimization," At
the same time, several states :have.,Dut
legislative or other requirementsi.'in' '
'place that require generators Ttb submit:
waste minimization plans that identify ;
specific past and future reductions. EPA
ia interested in exploring the potential
usefulness of this arid other approaches.
Questions of interest to the Agency
include:
(1) Should States be required to include
waste minimization in their capacity
assurance plans? :
(2) Should States ba required to request
facility specific waste minimization plans? .
(3) Should States include summaries of
their facility specific plans in their '.".'
submissions to EPA?
(4) What approach should EPA take in ,.
working with States that have authorities for
multi media facility planning? . /
G. Should Compliance MonitoMag and
Enforcement Play o Greater Hole in
Promoting: Wa'ste Minimization?
What innovative approaches
-------
------- |