United States December 1980
Environmental Protection SW 898
Agency
Siting
Hazardous Waste
Facilities:
Everybody's
Responsibility
***?
-*"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, iliinois 60604
-------
Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities:
Everybody's Responsibility
By Eileen Claus'-eri
Director, Office of Management, Information, and Analysis of the
U.S. Environmer 'p.l Protection Agency's
Office of Solid 1 aste.
This paper was u esented at the
National Leaguj of Cities' Annual Congress of Cities,
December 2, l:UO.
\
U,S. Environmental Protection A:pney
-------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is deeply
concerned about the siting of Ivii-ardous waste facili-
ties. Not that we have come u_> .vith any simple
answers to the very difficult questions that we
all face on this controversial topic. Nor do we
believe that any simple answers exist, But, EPA
is convinced that open and honest discussion between
government at all levels, the private sector, and
the public can lead to open and honest cooperation
between government at all levels, the private sector.
and the public. We are further convinced that this
cooperation can lead us toward the sound and success-
ful implementation of the goals of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—protecting
public health and the environment.
RCRA establishes a comprehensive program for
the management of hazardous waste. Regulations
that set forth a framework for this program were
promulgated earlier this year and are now being
implemented. Approximately 60,000 generators,
transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of
hazardous waste have notified EPA of their activities.
Roughly half are facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste. Generators who send
hazardous waste offsite are now required to use
the manifest system, a system that will track the
movement of these wastes from the point of generation
to the point of disposal. Treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities that notified EPA, submitted
the first part of their permit application, and were
"in existence" on November 19, 1980, have been granted
interim status by the RCRA statute. This means
that they can continue to operate until their permit
application is processed if they meet the requirements
for interim status facilities. Facilities that do
not have interim status are no longer allowed to
operate. Many States will also begin to operate programs
equivalent to the Federal hazardous waste program. The
State of Arkansas has already been authorized to do so.
Many other States are expected to be authorized over the
next several months.
But we still have a long way to go. RCRA establishes
a permit program for facilities that treat, store,
and dispose of hazardous waste. EPA is now working
on the technical standards that will form the basis
of facility permits. We expect that some of these
standards—for storage, treatment, and incineration
—will be promulgated later this year. The land
disposal standards, which are the most complex,
will probably not be issued until next year.
All of this means that the nation is now beginning
to exercise some control over hazardous waste.
It also means that our collective efforts to establish
new facilities employing the most advanced tech-
nologies must begin.
-------
We know, too, that the issue of hazardous waste
facility siting is not one where we need to stimulate
public interest. The public is already intensely
involved. The challenge before us is to channel
that involvement so we can together reach constructive
solutions.
We are attempting to develop programs that will
help us with this task. We have, for example, had
some preliminary discussions with a number of
public interest, industry, and environmental organiza-
tions to cosponsor and plan a series of workshops
across the nation. These workshops would be directed
toward broadening the understanding of community
leaders, State and local officials, and the hazardous
waste industry. We hope that these workshops
will result in the formation of coalitions of State-
level groups that can develop viable siting processes
and programs.
We are also planning a more aggressive and more
positive public education program. The Waste Alert!
program , which is now in the process of completing
its regional public awareness conferences, will
begin to concentrate on funding and guiding local
or State-wide citizen groups that can provide educated
and positive input to the State's hazardous waste
management program. We will move from developing
public education materials that concentrate on
describing "everybody's problem" to those that
will describe "everybody's responsibility." We will
be summarizing the handbooks described earlier
(on risks, siting criteria, mediation, mitigation,
compensation, and incentives) for the benefit of
the general public. We will be preparing and distribu-
ting summaries of key State siting legislation and
key State or regional programs. We will be working
with the States to assist them in developing their
siting legislation and their siting programs, consistent
with the three principles described earlier.
But this may not be enough. We must move quickly
toward open and honest dialogue. We must begin
to work together in a spirit of cooperation. No
single group, whether it is the Federal government,
the State government, local government, industry,
or the public, can move the nation toward a new
and better system of hazardous waste management.
Everybody's problem must become everybody's
responsibility. For without the positive involvement
of everyone we will fail to do what we must do
— protect public health and the environment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Daarborn Street
icago, Illinois 60604
-------
*.. t, it is clear to us that large segments of the
public fear hazardous waste and have little confidence
in the capability of either industry or
government to manage wastes safely. The public
involved in a siting dispute often argues that every
facility is a future Love Canal; that the technologies
for managing hazardous wastes are imperfect; and
that their community was selected on other than
objective criteria—that they are the losers in a
game of "Old Maid" because they are politically
weak or otherwise vulnerable.
We are very sensitive to these concerns. We know
that all facilities pose some risks. We feel strongly
that facilities should be sited where the risks can
be minimized. And for this reason, we believe
that a strong technical analysis that considers both
health and environmental effects and such factors
as the proximity of the proposed facility to residences
and institutions be conducted prior to selecting
any specific site. EPA is currently preparing a
handbook to guide the States in developing their
site selection criteria. We are hopeful that States
that have not already developed criteria will use
this guidance as they initiate their site selection
processes.
We also know that the procedures for involving
local governments and citizens in siting decisions
have often been neither well thought out nor carefully
applied. The standard mechanism for involving
the public—the public hearing—routinely becomes
a highly eraotional exercise in mob psychology.
In addition, the media often highlight the fears
of the public, making rational decisions more difficult.
We firmly believe that the only way for government
and industry to allay the fears and anxiety of the
public is through more public information and greater
public involvement. We believe that citizens, and
the local officials who represent them, must become
involved at the beginning of facility planning on
a State-wide or regional level. Further, we believe
that this involvement must continue through the
site selection and approval process. But we also
feel strongly that no community should, by means
of a blanket local veto, simply take itself out of
consideration for a hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal site. All areas must be carefully
analyzed in light of an objective set of criteria.
EPA is preparing a number of handbooks to guide
States, private developers, and the public on these
very difficult and sensitive issues. They will cover
the topics of how to involve the public; how and
when to use a mediator to resolve a siting dispute;
how to accurately describe the risks from a hazardous
waste facility; and how to use mitigation techniques,
compensation, and incentives to benefit a local
community.
-------
How serious is the need for new hazardous waste
facilities? A study recently prepared for EPA suggests
that for firms that process and dispose of waste
for a fee, capacity shortages exist now in some
parts of the country, particularly in New England,
the Midwest, the lower Midwest, and the Northwest.
The study also suggests that the Middle Atlantic
States and the South Atlantic States do not have
great capacity surpluses. We must recognize, though,
that the data on which this study was based are
still very rudimentary. We do not really know whether
implementation of the RCRA regulations will change
the amount of vvaste going to these offsite facilities.
Nor are we confident in our own estimates of the
amount of hazardous waste generated. These uncer-
tainties, added to the probability that some existing
facilities will either withdraw or be withdrawn
from the hazardous waste market over the next
several years, and the fact that siting a new facility,
no matter what the technology, will not be a simple
or speedy task, lead us to conclude that we are
going to have to apply ourselves in a concentrated
way to ensure that hazardous waste is managed
in a manner that protects public health and the
environment.
It is encouraging to know that we can begin our
discussion knov/ing that every citizen in our country
has a strong interest in the sjafe management of
hazardous waste. But it is discouraging to know
that.public anxiety and opposition, motivated in
part by fear and in part by the feeling that somewhere
else—anywhere else—would be better, has resulted
in few facilities being sited over the past several
years.
In August 1980, EPA transmitted to the nation's
Governors a concept paper describing the Agency's
concern that sufficient capacity be created to safely
treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste. In
this paper, EPA indicated that the States have
the primary responsibility for assuring that capacity
is available. The concept paper goes on to say
that EPA believes strongly that States should base
their siting efforts on three principles:
(1) That a complete technical analysis of all
proposed sites be completed before any single
site is selected,
(2) That site selection be accompanied by full
public participation, and
(3) That the process of site selection not be ham-
pered by blanket local vetoes.
Let me spend a little time describing to you what
these three principles mean to us.
------- |