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. ------- |