HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITING;
A CRITICAL PROBLEM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
July 1980
-------
-1-
Our nation is now seriously addressing the task of establishing
a national system for the safe management of hazardous waste.
Regulations that set forth a program for the management of hazardous
wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) have been promulgated and will soon be implemented. This
summer, generators, transporters, treaters, storers and disposers of
hazardous waste must notify EPA of their activities. This fall, the
manifest system that tracks the movement of hazardous waste from the
point of generation to the point of ultimate disposal will begin
operation. Many existing treatment, storage and disposal facilities
will be receiving interim status in November; under the law, facilities
with interim status, if they meet the standards for interim status
facilities, will be allowed to remain in operation until their permit
application is processed. Many States will also begin to operate
the Federal hazardous waste program beginning this fall, as they
qualify first for interim and then for final authorization.
Implementation of the hazardous waste program is not expected
to be an easy task. A critical step will be the creation of new
facilities employing the most advanced waste management technologies.
But to establish newer, improved facilities, sites on which these
facilities can operate must be found. Establishing these sites will
be an exceptionally difficult task. For while everyone wants hazardous
waste managed safely, hardly anyone wishes it managed near them.
Yet if the program is to work—if public health and the environment
are to be protected—the necessary sites must be made available.
The problem is a difficult and complex one, and EPA has been
attempting to grapple with it for some time. In a speech to the
National Governors Association last year, the Administrator identified
hazardous waste facility siting as a critical environmental issue;
the Agency also initiated work aimed at better understanding the
nature of the opposition to facility siting at the same time. The
purpose of this paper is to outline EPA's current position on the
siting of hazardous waste faciliites, and to briefly describe what
EPA is doing to assist in addressing this aspect of the hazardous
waste problem.
I. BACKGROUND
The Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
to ensure that all hazardous wastes are managed in an environmentally
acceptable manner. The regulations promulgated this May identify
waste streams that are hazardous, and establish standards for
generators, transporters and facilities handling hazardous waste.
-------
-2-
The recently promulgated hazardous waste program is expected
to control approximately 40 million tons of hazardous wastes each
year. These wastes include toxic chemicals, acids, caustics and
explosives. Some 60 percent of the wastes are generated by the
chemical and allied industries, but many other industrial sectors
generate some amount of hazardous waste. According to current EPA.
estimates, the regulatory program will cover 67,000 generators of
hazardous waste.
Some hazardous wastes are treated, stored or disposed directly
by the waste generator on his own premises. However, there are
also approximately 5,000 transporters involved in shipping these
hazardous wastes by truck, barge or rail to facilities located
elsewhere. The total number of sites used for treatment, storage
and disposal that will be regulated is estimated at 26,400.
The successful implementation of the recently promulgated
regulations will require a transformation in the way in which
industry has historically handled its hazardous waste. However, a
number of forces are at work that will improve the implementation
process. Critical among these are the provisions related to public
participation. RCRA contains many opportunities for citizens to
exert meaningful influence on the management of hazardous waste.
It provides for public hearings as part of the process of permitting
facilities; it enables citizens to petition to add additional
wastes to the hazardous waste list; it provides means for citizens
to register complaints about existing facilities; and it enables
citizens to bring legal suits against those who are not in compliance
with the RCRA regulations. In addition, RCRA contains a number of
provisions designed to make those who handle hazardous waste legally
and financially liable for violations of the regulations. These
provisions should speed the implementation of more environmentally
sound technologies and programs.
II. THE NEED FOR FAGILITIES
Much of the hazardous waste generated in this country is disposed
of on-site, that is on land owned or leased by the generator. However,
many industries do not have land or facilities available for on-site
treatment, storage or disposal. In addition, preliminary EPA estimates
suggest that off-site facilities will be less expensive for a large
number of hazardous waste generators.
-------
-3-
Because of this, EPA estimates suggest that there will be a
considerable increase in demand for off-site capacity during the
early implementation phases of the hazardous waste regulations. One
study estimates that between 50 and 125 new sites may be needed over
the next several years. About 60 percent of these facilities are
expected to be treatment facilities, with the rest divided between
landfills and incinerators. Capacity needs will differ by region of
the country in terms of numbers and types of sites. For example,
the greatest capacity shortages are expected to occur in the northeast,
southeast and midwest, with the most serious shortages likely in the
southeast.
III. DIFFICULTIES OF ESTABLISHING SITES
Every citizen in our country has a strong interest in the safe
management of hazardous wastes. Nevertheless, securing sites for
hazardous waste facilities has been and will continue to be a difficult
problem. The principal difficulty lies in the intense opposition of
the local public to proposed (and some existing) sites.•*•
This opposition is based on fear, and is generally characterized
by extremely strong emotions, broad participation, and a willingness
to commit time and resources in the effort to forestall or close a
site. The concerned public perceives of each site as a potential
public health threat, a future Love Canal, and does not understand
that newer technologies that will minimize public health risks are
now available.
Opposition is usually motivated by four considerations:
1. Fear of hazardous waste, and lack of confidence in industry's
or government's capability to manage wastes safely,
2. Unwillingness to accept the expected stigma of being a
community in which hazardous waste is managed,
3. Expectations that property values will be lowered, and
4. The feeling that somewhere else would be better, either
because the wastes are generated elsewhere, or because
other locations might be safer.
1. Siting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities and Public Opposition,
Centaur Associates, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 1979.
-------
-4--
Th e opposition of the public stems in part from the fact
that the procecedures for citizen involvement have been neither
well thought out nor carefully applied. Further, the standard
mechanism for involving the public—the public hearing-routinely
becomes a crowded, highly emotional exercise in mob psychology.
In addition, the media often highlight the fears of the opponents,
making rational decisions even more difficult to make.
Pressures from local citizens place the political system in
an extremely vulnerable position. Local officials have to respond
to the fears of local citizens. The broader social need for safe
hazardous waste management facilities often has not been strongly
represented in the siting process. A common result has been that
facilities have not been sited, and there has been no significant
increase in hazardous waste capacity over the past several years.
IV. WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ESTABLISHING SITES SHOULD LIE
EPA's policy is to encourage private sector solutions to the
problem of establishing sites. In cases where governmental involvement
is necessary, EPA believes that the States, either separately or
in regional groups, must assume prime responsibility for the
establishment of adequate capacity. EPA has adopted this policy of
reliance on the States for a number of reasons:
1. Congress intended that the States assume responsibility for
the implementation of the national hazardous waste management
program whenever possible. The creation of environmentally
adequate treatment and storage capacity is a key element of
an effective hazardous waste program.
2. The States are the effective units of regional government
in our Federal system; the planning for hazardous waste
facilities is generally, and should be, a regional activity
since most facilities will receive wastes from outside
their immediate geographic area.
3. The States have broad police powers, including land use
authorities and the right of eminent domain. EPA believes
that possession of these authorities is desirable for the
responsible party in a site selection process.
-------
-5-
4. T"he States can more easily tailor programs to local needs
and situations. This is critical in dealing with problems
that so acutely affect local citizens and their representatives
Despite the difficulties associated with the siting of hazardous
waste facilities, a number of States have demonstrated their under-
standing of the importance of addressing the problem. Twenty-four
States have enacted some form of siting legislation, and at least 5
others have siting legislation pending. Of the 24 States with siting
legislation, a number have comprehensive programs, including Michigan,
Minnesota, Connecticut, Maryland and New York. Michigan, Minnesota,
Maryland and Connecticut have the legislative authority to create
siting approval boards with the ability to preempt local ordinances.
The New York legislation creates a separate agency, the Environmental
Facilities Corporation, which plans to construct at least one facility
on State-owned land. While it is too early to judge the effectiveness
of these measures, the States' understanding of the issue—and their
willingness to take action—is highly encouraging.
As the States continue to move forward in their efforts to
address the siting problem, it is extremely important that they
carefully consider the inherent difficulties of placing in a single
agency the responsibility of being both a regulator of hazardous
waste facilities and an advocate of the establishment of facilities.
The early experience of the Federal government in the field of energy
regulation is instructive in this regard. While there are no easy
answers to this dilemma, the States may wish to consider establishing
separate organizations to act on site selection issues, rather than
combining both functions within the regulatory agency.
There are two other issues which the States will have to carefully
consider. The first of these concerns the need for inter-State
cooperation in the development and implementation of facility siting
plans; the second relates to early involvement of local officials in
the facility siting process. Based on our understanding of the
location of waste generators and facilities, we believe that there
will be many cases where States will need to work closely with each
other to determine appropriate locations for facilities that will
handle wastes from a number of different States. At the same time,
there may be a tendency among States to wait and see what neighboring
States will do before proceeding to site facilities within their own
boundaries. It may be helpful for States to begin regional planning
at an early stage to minimize the chances of the siting process
becoming a game of "old maid."
-------
-6-
Involving local officials at early stages in the planning process
is a somewhat different issue. In this case, States may wish to
consider establishing either separate organizations with local
representation or advisory groups of local officials to improve the
quality of the public consultation process.
VI. WHAT EPA IS DOING ABOUT THE SITING PROBLEM
In this context, EPA sees its role primarily as one of providing
assistance to the States in their efforts to see that adequate capacity
is available. EPA has therefore initiated a program that will:
1. Work with the States through a grant to the National *
Governor's Association to assist them in exchanging
information, analyses, and experience on the siting
process,
2. Provide assistance on the siting process that will, at a
minimum, involve:
a. the development and dissemination of information materials,
or handbooks, to assist States, local governments, the
public and the private sector in the process of establishin
sites on such topics as:
- how to consult with the public
- how and when to use a mediator
- what types of incentives to consider
- how to identify risks
- what criteria to use in selecting
a site,
b. the provision of some forms of technical assistance,
including assistance in developing public participation
programs, to States and localities developing siting
programs, and
c. the funding of innovative approaches towards siting, as
exemplified by the EPA grant to the New England Regional
Commission.
-------
-7-
3. Maintain a. continuous Agency review of hazardous waste
siting issues and progress, including:
a. analysis of the extent of the siting problem,
and
b. analyses of a wide range of alternative roles
for the Federal government and the States,
This EPA effort is based on three key principles:
1. A. complete technical analysis of all proposed sites
is essential prior to the selection of a particular
site.
This analysis should take into account both environmental
effects (e.g. from the hydrology, geology, ecology, etc.)
as well as factors based on the proximity and relation of
the facility to residences and institutions. EPA. will
assist in describing meaningful criteria for the analysis
as part of its series of handbooks.
2• Site selection must be accompanied by full
public participation.
This involvement should start at the beginning of facility
planning, and should continue through the site selection
and approval process. It should be accompanied by a broad-
scale public education effort, since the public needs to
become a knowledgable partner in site selection decisions.
EPA will assist in the implementation of this principle
through its series of handbooks, and potentially through
technical assistance.
3. The process of site selection should not be hampered
by blanket local vetoes.
No community should be able to remove itself from consideration
on political grounds alone. Everyone must take responsibility
for assuring that adequate sites are available.
EPA has already initiated work on this program. Handbooks and
assistance should be available by the late fall of 1980 and the
spring of 1981. In addition, EPA expects to have completed its
analytical policy efforts by the spring of 1981.
SW-865
------- |