A530-R-93-011 united States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA530-R-93-011
Agency (OS-305) August 1993
&EPA RCRA Environmental
Indicators
FY1992 Progress Report
ENVIRONMENTAL
i PROTECTION
f AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DALLAS TEXAS
RCRA Environmental
Indicators
FY1992 Progress Report
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS 1-1
What is an Environmental Indicator? 1-1
What is the Role of Environmental Indicators? 1-2
Indicators "Continuum" 1-2
Discussion of Environmental Goals 1-4
CHAPTER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS AND THE RCRA PROGRAM 2-1
RCRA Program Goals Supported by RCRA Indicators 2-1
Strategic Planning, Accountability, and Environmental Indicators 2-2
Challenges of Developing RCRA Environmental Indicators 2-2
The RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup Process 2-3
Summary of Past Efforts 2-4
CHAPTER 3. DISCUSSION OF DATA SOURCES 3-1
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) 3-1
Biennial Reporting System (BRS) 3-2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United Suites 3-3
CHAPTER 4. WASTE MINIMIZATION INDICATORS 4-1
Program Goals 4-1
Waste Minimisation Indicator Reporting for FY 1992 4-1
Next Steps 4-12
CHAPTER 5. SAFE MANAGEMENT INDICATORS 5-1
Program Goals 5-1
Safe Management Indicator Reporting for FY 1992 5-1
Next Steps 5-11
CHAPTER 6. CORRECTIVE ACTION INDICATORS 6-1
Program Goals 6-1
Corrective Action Indicator Reporting for FY 1992 6-1
Next Steps 6-8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
CHAPTER?. NEXT STEPS: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR FY 1993 7-1
Introduction 7-1
Subtitle C Environmental Indicator Development 7-1
Subtitle D Environmental Indicator Development 7-2
Other FY 1993 Activities Related to Environmental Indicators 7-3
APPENDIX A. RCRA ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1989, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) initiated an effort to identify environmental
indicators to measure progress in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
program. By the end of FY 1991, OSW established a framework for developing and reporting
indicators and created a broad list of candidate indicators, some for immediate reporting and
others for further evaluation. In FY 1992, reporting for 12 environmental indicators began and
substantial progress was made in further defining and evaluating others.
OSW IS NOW REPORTING 12 RCRA ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
OSW is now reporting 12 environmental indicators for the RCRA program. They span
each of three major RCRA program goals - waste minimization, safe management, and corrective
action - and pertain to hazardous and municipal solid wastes. These indicators are listed in
Exhibits ES-1 through ES-3.
Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste) Indicators are Based on RCRIS and BRS Data
The FY 1992 indicators for Subtitle C are based on data from the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). RCRIS,
the national program management and inventory system for RCRA, provides identification and
location data for all hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs). For TSDFs, RCRIS also provides information on permit/closure status, compliance
with regulations, and clean-up activities. Indicators in this report that are based on RCRIS data
reflect program activity through the end of the 1992 fiscal year.
BRS data originate from a census of large quantity hazardous waste generators that is
conducted every two years, as authorized in Sections 3002 and 3004 of RCRA. BRS provides
data on the quantity and disposition of hazardous waste, and on new efforts taken during the
reporting year to reduce the volume and tenacity of wastes. Indicators in this report that are
based on BRS data are derived from the 1989 hazardous waste census and therefore reflect waste
management practices for that year. The 1991 BRS data should be available during the coming
year and will be used in future RCRA environmental indicator reports.
Most Subtitle D Indicators are Based on Characterization ofMSW in the £LS.
Most of the Subtitle D indicators presented in this report are based on data derived from
EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, July 1992 update. This
study estimates municipal solid waste (MSW) generation and composition based on production
data for the materials in the waste, with adjustments for imports, exports, and product lifetimes.
ES-1
-------
RCRA INDICATORS WILL COMMUNICATE PROGRESS TOWARDS PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES
RCRA environmental indicators help measure and communicate the progress that the
RCRA program has achieved towards the overarching Agency mission of protecting human health
and the environment The RCRA program includes three major approaches to reducing potential
threats from solid and hazardous waste:
1. Waste Minimization: Reduce the quantity and toxicity of wastes generated and
disposed through activities such as source reduction and recycling;
2. Safe Management: Ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally safe
manner; and
3. Corrective Action: Identify, prioritize, and take action to clean up contaminant
releases.
The indicators presented in this report begin to articulate RCRA program
accomplishments in these three areas, either by reporting initial data for future trend reporting, or
by reporting actual trend data. As additional data become available in the future, these "early"
indicators will be further developed and added to, in order to better measure and communicate
the environmental results of RCRA activities. For example, with regard to corrective action, we
currently report the number of actions taken to control contaminant releases at high, medium,
and low priority facilities. In the future, we may be able to complete the story on how these
actions have resulted in increased protection of human health and the environment
WASTE MINIMIZATION INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992 (Exhibit ES-1)
Environmental Indicators Report Hazardous Waste Generation and Waste Minimization
The waste minimization indicators for Subtitle C in this document use 1989 BRS data to
report quantities of hazardous waste generated by various industries and the waste minimization
activities newly implemented by hazardous waste generators.- As data for additional years become
available, trends will be measured relative to the 1989 data. The data show the following:
1. Most of the nation's hazardous waste is generated by the chemicals manufacturing
industry. Manufacturers of Chemicals and Allied Products (Standard Industrial
Classification code [SIC] 28) generated about 88 percent of the nation's primary
hazardous waste in 1989, mostly from the manufacture of industrial organic
chemicals as well as plastics and synthetic resins and rubber. Other industries
generating one percent or more of the hazardous waste were Petroleum Refining
(SIC 29), Primary Metals (SIC 33), Electronics (SIC 36), Fabricated Metals (SIC
34), and Transportation Equipment (SIC 37). See page 4-4.
ES-2
-------
EXHIBIT ES-1.
WASTE MINIMIZATION INDICATOR REPORTING FOR *Y 1992
Subtitle C Indicators:
Hazardous Waste Quantity Generated
I. Quantities of Primary Hazardous Waste Generated in 1989, By SIC Code
2. Quantities of Hazardous Wastewater and Non-wastewater Generated in 1989,
By SIC Code
Number of Entities Implementing New Waste Minimization Programs
3. Percent of Hazardous Waste Generators that Initiated or Expanded Source
Reduction or Recycling Activities in 1989
Subtitle D Indicators:
Trends in Waste Quantity Generated
1. Trends in Total Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 1960 to 1990
2. Trends in Per Capita Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 1960 to 1990
Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Recycling
3. Trends in the Recovery of Municipal Solid Waste for Recycling, 1960 to 1990
ES-3
-------
2. The vast majority of hazardous wastes are wastewaters. About 95 percent of the
above-mentioned hazardous wastes generated in 1989 were wastewaters. The
remaining five percent were sludges and solids. See page 4-6.
3. One-fifth of hazardous waste generators initiated or expanded waste minimization
activities in 1989. Of the nation's 20,713 large quantity hazardous waste
generators, 14 percent had new or expanded source reduction activities, 4 percent
had new or expanded recycling activities, and 5 percent had both. Respondents
generating more waste were more likely to have new or expanded waste
miniipi^ation activities than firms generating less waste. See page 4-7.
MSW Generation Continues to Increase, But So Has The Proportion Recycled
Waste minimization indicators for Subtitle D monitor total and per capita MSW
generation and recovery from 1960 to 1990. The major findings are:
1. Total MSW generation has been increasing over time, from 88 million tons in 1960
to 1% million tons in 1990. See page 4-9.
2. Per capita MSW generation has also been increasing, but more slowly than total
MSW generation. This indicates the trend toward higher total MSW generation is
attributable to population growth as well as increases in per capita waste
generation. See page 4-10.
3. The proportion of MSW recovered through recycling has increased steadily over
time, from under seven percent in 1960 to 17 percent in 1990. EPA has set a
national goal of reducing the quantity of MSW destined for landfills and
combustion by 25 percent See page 4-11.
SAFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992 (Exhibit ES-2)
Environmental Indicators are Characterizing Hazardous Waste-Management Practices
The safe management indicators discussed here for Subtitle C use 1989 BRS data to
report the quantities of hazardous waste managed by various methods. Future trends will be
measured relative to the 1989 data.
1. Most hazardous waste is sent to treatment In 1989, approximately 82 percent of
hazardous wastes were treated, predominantly through various wastewater
treatment processes. About 15 percent of wastes were land disposed, mostly in
underground injection wells. Materials recovery and reuse captured about two
percent of the waste, while incineration accounted for less than one percent See
page 5-3.
ES-4
-------
EXHIBIT ES-2.
SAFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992
Subtitle C Indicators:
Quantity and Percent of Waste Managed. By Method
1. Quantities of Hazardous Waste Managed at Subtitle C Facilities in 1989, By
Management Practice
Amount of Waste Handled at Facilities With Zero Class I Violations Outstanding.
As of the Last Inspection
2. Number of Class I Violations Found at the Last Inspection During 1988-1989,
by Number of Facilities and Volume of Waste
Subtitle D Indicators:
Quantity and Percent of Waste Managed. By Method
1. Municipal Solid Waste Management Trends, 1960 to 1990
Number of Communities Implementing
Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs
2. Trends in the Number of Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs,
1980 to 1991
ES-5
-------
2. Most waste is handled at facilities with zero Class I violations1. Of the 2,182
facilities that both submitted a Biennial Report form and were inspected from
1988-1989, approximately 68 percent had zero Class I violations. These TSDFs
managed about 67 percent of the hazardous waste in 1989. See page 5-6.
The Proportion of MSW Landfilled is Decreasing, and Efforts are Underway to Keep Household
Hazardous Wastes Out of Landfills
Data from EPA's July 1992 update of Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States were used to examine trends in MSW management practices from 1960 to 1990.
1. Landfilline is the most common MSW management practice, but the proportion of
MSW that is landfllled has decreased over the past few years. Larger proportions
of MSW are being recovered for recycling (17 percent in 1990) or combusted in
modern incinerators (16 percent in 1990). Seepage 5-8.
Data on the number of household hazardous waste collection programs in place from 1980
to 1991, using data supplied by the Waste Watch Center2, are also presented.
2. Household hazardous waste collection programs have increased dramatically. The
total number of programs (including one-day events) has grown from one in 1980
to 800 in 1991 and the number of permanent programs has increased to 96. See
pages 5-9 and 5-10.
CORRECTIVE ACTION INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992 (Exhibit ES-3)
EPA and the States Have Evaluated a Majority of Sites and Are Taking Action to Address the
Worst Sites First
The FY 1992 corrective action indicators focus only on Subtitle C since there are no
Federal corrective action requirements for Subtitle D facilities currently in effect RCRIS data
are used to depict the past and current status of Subtitle C treatments storage, and disposal
facilities in the corrective action program.
1. EPA has steadily initiated the corrective action program to address environmental
problems posed by past releases. As of the end of fiscal year 1992, EPA had
assessed problems at 3,519 of the 4,218 TSDFs subject to corrective action
'The definition of a Class I violation has evolved over time, but in 1989 (the first year for
reporting this indicator) a Class I violation was defined as: "A violation that results in a failure to:
assure that hazardous waste is destined for and delivered to authorized TSDFs; prevent releases of
hazardous waste or constituents, both during the active and any applicable post-closure periods of
the facility operation where appropriate; assure early detection of such a release; or perform
emergency clean-up operation or other corrective action for release."
2 EPA provided funding to the Waste Watch Center for the collection of the information that
is presented in this report
ES-6
-------
regulations, and detailed site investigations had begun or were completed at 614
facilities. An estimated 247 TSDFs bad taken action to control contaminant
releases in response to environmental problems. These actions represent steady
progress since FY 1990, when only 283 facilities had begun or completed detailed
site investigations and 136 facilities had taken action to control contaminant
releases. See pages 6-3 and 6-4.
EPA is addressing the sites posing the greatest threats first. EPA has assigned
priority rankings to 63 percent of TSDFs subject to corrective action regulations
based on health risks, and expects to rank all sites by the end of FY 1993.
Detailed investigations and actions to control releases are underway or completed
at substantially more high priority sites than medium priority sites, and at
substantially more medium priority sites than low priority sites. See pages 6-6 and
6-7.
EXHIBIT ES-3.
CORRECTIVE ACTION INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992
Subtitle C Indicators:
Number and Status of Assessments. Investigations, and Actions to
Reduce Risk and Control or Contain Releases Imposed or Underway
1. Status of Subtitle C Facilities in the Corrective Action Program
2. Number of Subtitle C Facilities Conducting Investigations and Controlling
Releases, By Priority Ranking
INDICATORS REPORTING WILL BE EXPANDED IN FY 1993
All 12 indicators presented in this report will continue to be reported in FY 1993. For
more meaningful trend analysis, some of these 12 will be refined. During FY 1993, OSW will also
develop and begin to report indicators for which data exist, but for which additional time is
needed for data compilation, review, and analysis. The possibility of new data collection efforts
may also be investigated.
The planned next steps for environmental indicators in FY 1993 - in addition to
continuing to report the 12 indicators presented in this document - are discussed below.
ES-7
-------
Waste Minimization Indicator Development in FY 1993
In FY 1993, 1991 hazardous waste generation rates will be available from the Biennial
Report, allowing examination of the extent to which waste generation has changed since 1989.
Because waste generation rates vary in response to factors other than waste minimisation
activities (e.g., economic conditions, wastes newly entering or exiting the Subtitle C system),
methods to "normalize" waste generation to account for the impact of these other factors will be
developed. OSW will also conduct a more in-depth analysis of 1989 and 1991 BRS data on newly
implemented waste minimization activities. OSW's Waste Minimization Measurement Project is
already investigating methods of normalizing waste generation and reporting waste minimization
activities. The RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup will coordinate with these efforts in
developing future environmental indicators. OSW will also use work currently underway to
develop methods to measure the effects of waste minimisation on demand for capacity.
Safe Management Indicator Development in FY 1993
The 1991 BRS data will be used to examine changes in hazardous waste management
practices relative to 1989. This effort will also begin to distinguish between land-based and non-
land-based management practices, and to report the extent to which waste is treated before being
placed on the land. In addition, RCRIS data on facility closures may be used as an indicator of
safe management
Corrective Action Indicator Development in FY 1993
Starting in FY 1993, reports on the two indicators presented here will be updated with FY
1993 data, and will include information on the number of facilities at which no further action is
needed. In addition, proposed changes to RCRIS will be analyzed to determine if they could be
used to refine the existing indicators.
THE RCRA ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS WORKGROUP WILL CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT INDICATORS DEVELOPMENT AND REPORTING
The RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup has continued to be pivotal to-the
success in developing and reporting indicators. Chaired by the Regulatory Analysis Branch
(RAB) of the Communications, Analysis, and Budget Division (CABD) and composed of
representatives of Headquarters, the Regions, and some States, the workgroup met several times
in FY 1992 to exchange ideas, assess data quality, and discuss strategies for obtaining new data.
OSW will continue to rely on input from the workgroup throughout the process of developing
and reporting indicators for the RCRA program.
ES-8
-------
INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS CHAPTER 1
EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is developing environmental indicators to measure
progress in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program. The process of
developing RCRA environmental indicators has been, and continues to be, an excellent team
effort, with active participation from the various programs at OSW Headquarters, the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),
EPA Regions, and the States.
Last year, the first in a series of annual reports was published summarizing progress made
in developing RCRA indicators and presenting plans for the future. This report, the second in
the series, summarizes environmental indicator achievements during FY 1992 and implementation
plans for FY 1993 and beyond.
This chapter provides a brief introduction to environmental indicators and their role in
EPA programs. Chapter 2 presents the basic framework for RCRA indicators and describes the
process by which these indicators are developed.1 Chapter 3 briefly discusses the data sources
currently being used to report RCRA environmental indicators on a national basis.
Chapters 4 through 6 discuss indicators for three major components of the RCRA
program: waste minimization, safe management, and corrective action. Included in each chapter
are indicator reports in the form of graphics and accompanying text, and a discussion of next
steps. Chapter 7 presents the overall strategy for further development and reporting of RCRA
indicators.
WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR?
An environmental indicator is a measure of the quality of the environment and its ability
to support human and ecological health. Any biological, chemical, and/or physical measurement
that describes environmental or public health conditions can be considered an environmental
indicator. Environmental indicators also include measurements that do not describe
environmental conditions explicitly but do measure factors known to affect environmental quality.
Examples include measures of pollutant loadings to air and quantities of solid waste disposed on
land.
1 This material is discussed in more detail in: EPA. 1992. RCRA Environmental Indicators:
FY 1991 Progress Report and Implementation Plan for the Future. Office of Solid Waste.
Communications, Analysis, and Budget Division. January 1992.
1-1
-------
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS?
Environmental indicators can be used to provide information on (1) environmental status
and trends and (2) the effectiveness of EPA programs in addressing environmental problems.
Indicators can be used to assist in program planning and management, and to communicate with
Congress and the public about the quality of the environment and how it has been affected by
EPA's programs.
Information on environmental status and trends is necessary to identify emerging
problems, assess their significance, and set priorities. One of the most important potential uses of
environmental indicators is to assess the success of EPA programs. Data on environmental trends
can be used to determine whether a program's activities are bringing about intended
improvements in environmental quality. When environmental indicators are used to assess
program performance, it is crucial to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between program
activities and changes in environmental conditions, and to isolate program impacts from the
influence of extraneous factors.
«
Some EPA programs already use environmental indicators to evaluate program
effectiveness; others have met with difficulties in linking program success to changes in
environmental quality. As will be discussed in Chapter 2, the RCRA program is faced with a
complex challenge in measuring program progress based on environmental results, since RCRA-
regulated sites have localized impacts on several media, and the cause-and-effect relationship
between program activities and environmental changes is difficult to establish for some major
RCRA program components.
INDICATORS 'CONTINUUM"
As discussed above, environmental indicators may be used to assess the effectiveness of
EPA programs. Program progress also can be ~ and historically has been — assessed by
monitoring the activities of the Agency or the entities it regulates. EPA has identified a
continuum of measures of environmental program effectiveness, shown in Exhibit 1-1. At the
left-hand side of the exhibit are activity measures, which measure-actions taken by EPA or the
States, or by the entities regulated by EPA or State programs. Examples of activity measures
include the number of permits issued to hazardous waste management facilities; the number of
inspections conducted or enforcement actions taken; and the number of sites at which
groundwater monitoring systems have been installed.
To the right are envimprpentahindicators. which are more direct measures of
environmental quality. Those furthest to the right are direct measures of human health or
environmental endpoints, such as the incidence of disease or the abundance of a species of
wildlife in an area. In the middle are measures of factors that contribute to human health or
environmental endpoints which are also considered "environmental indicators", but are not
themselves measures of those endpoints. Listed in decreasing order of their "directness" to actual
endpoints are measures which include: uptake or body burden (such as lead levels in human
blood), ambient conditions (such as concentrations of pollutants in groundwater near sites), and
loadings or emissions (such as pounds of pollutants released to surface water). In developing
RCRA environmental indicators, EPA will be working towards the right side of this continuum as
data on actual environmental trends become available.
1-2
-------
en
Cn
Cad
Z
fcd
U.
U.
fcd
O
tf
c.
ll
H Z
a
u.
O
en
a
en
O
U
CO
§
0)
CM
0)
-------
In the short term, the Agency will report more activity measures. Activity measures and
environmental indicators both play an important role in program management and evaluation, and
both are necessary. Activity measures provide a means for documenting Agency responses to
legislative mandates and public pressure, both for internal purposes and for communications with
Congress and the public. They are used to support short-term program management activities
such as determining the amount of work completed and additional work needed to be done.
Because environmental results are sometimes not manifested for years or decades, activity
measures also provide a valuable record of actions taken to address environmental problems. The
major shortcoming of activity measures is that they do not tell us whether the actions taken have
had, or will have, the desired effect on environmental quality.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
In addition to reporting changes in environmental status, environmental indicators can also
be used to measure progress toward specific environmental goals. The Agency has recently begun
an initiative to develop a short list of cross-program environmental goals. These goals will
represent the environmental problem areas of most concern and will present the potential for
progress in these areas. These overarching goals will differ from EPA program-specific goals
because they are not confined to the scope of a specific mandate or statute, but reflect more
broad-based, cross-media concerns. For cross-program goals that pertain to RCRA, OSW will
work to develop appropriate indicators to measure RCRA's contribution towards achieving those
goals.
1-4
-------
E. MRONMENTAL INDICATORS AND THE RCRA PROGRAM CHAPTER 2
This chapter discusses the basic approach to developing indicators for the RCRA program.
The first section discusses the three program goals that define the current framework for RCRA
indicators. The second section relates RCRA environmental indicators to strategic planning and
accountability. The third section discusses aspects of the RCRA program that have shaped the
approach for developing indicators. This chapter also discusses the process by which RCRA
indicators are being developed, and summarizes past efforts.
RCRA PROGRAM GOALS SUPPORTED BY RCRA INDICATORS
OSW has defined three major goals for the RCRA program, consistent with the objectives
and themes of the RCRA statute: waste minimization, safe management, and corrective action.
Environmental indicators are being developed for each of these three goals.
Waste minimization indicators are being developed to help determine the effect of RCRA
program activities to reduce the quantity, toricity, and hazardous properties of wastes; conserve
natural resources by reducing the use of raw materials; and reduce the use of toxic materials in
production. OSW is just beginning efforts in some of these areas.
Safe management indicators are being developed to measure the effectiveness of program
activities to prevent harm to human health and the environment from the mismanagement of
wastes after they are generated. This category of indicators encompasses the safe management of
wastes from "cradle to grave," Le., from the point of generation through transportation, storage,
treatment, and final disposal A wide variety of program activities are covered in this category,
including waste manifesting; treatment of wastes prior to land disposal (e.g., best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT)); location standards for waste management units; standards for the
design, operation, and closure of waste management units; and monitoring to identify releases
from waste management units to ensure that the units' design and operating practices are
effective in preventing releases.
Corrective action indicators are being developed to measure the effectiveness of activities
to control and clean up contamination from waste at RCRA facilities. Activities covered include
assessing sites to determine the need for corrective action, stabilizing and cleaning up releases,
and prioritizing site assessment and cleanup based on human health and environmental risks.
Although these goals apply to both the Subtitle C (hazardous waste) program and Subtitle
D (non-hazardous waste) program of RCRA, the two programs are administrated separately,
2-1
-------
cower different wastes, and have different data sources for environmental indicators.1 Therefore,
environmental indicators for each goal listed above are reported separately for Subtitle C and
Subtitle O.
STRATEGIC PLANNING, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
RCRA environmental indicators are closely tied with RCRA's Strategic Plan2 and are
focused on the objectives identified in that plan. They are also included in the RCRA
Implementation Plan (RIP)3 as a possible tool for better measuring RCRA program success. In
the past, RCRA program success has been measured by numbers of activities such as permits,
inspections, and enforcement actions. As OSW develops better measurements and systems for
reporting actual environmental trends, these .indicators will be incorporated into future Strategic
Plans.
CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPING RCRA ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Designing and reporting environmental indicators for the RCRA program is difficult in
many respects. First and foremost, success in two of the three major program goals — waste
minimization and safe waste management — is not linked directly or easily to improvements in
environmental quality. The focus of the waste minimization and safe management programs is
that, if one hundred percent effective, contamination is prevented and no environmental change
occurs. Measuring progress of preventive measures such as safe management in environmental
terms would require a prediction of the environmental damages that might occur in the absence
of the controls - a complex and difficult task.
Second, RCRA is a multi-media program. The RCRA program focuses on controlling the
contamination of air, soil, surface water, and groundwater by wastes. Solid wastes may affect any
of the environmental media, and these effects are difficult to separate from effects of sources not
regulated by RCRA (including natural sources). For example, EPA has authority under several
statutes to protect groundwater quality (e.gM RCRA, CERCLA, the Safe Drinking Water Act),
and a myriad of State programs also protect groundwater. It is difficult, particularly on a national
scale, to decipher the impacts of each program individually on groundwater quality. It is therefore
difficult to measure the effectiveness of the RCRA program by monitoring human health'effects,
the well-being of other species, or the physical and chemical characteristics of groundwater,
surface water, soil, or air.
1 Subtitle C of RCRA establishes a program to manage hazardous wastes Cram "cradle to
grave" and therefore regulates generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous wastes. Subtitle D promotes environmentally sound management of solid (non-
hazardous) wastes and includes minimum technical standards for solid waste disposal facilities and
guidelines for State solid waste management plans.
2 From Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Strategic Plan, FY1994-1997.
3 FY V3 RCRA Implementation Plan, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, April
1992.
2-2
-------
Third, RCRA regulates wastes that are generated and managed at specific sites. To
measure the impact of RCRA programs on the environment, surface water, groundwater, and air
monitoring data would have to be collected at each site. This information is not now collected
and compiled nationally.
Finally, the RCRA program is not fully in place. Many regulations governing the
management of hazardous waste are in effect and appear to have prompted significant
improvements in waste management practices. In contrast, the Subtitle D program is still
immature. Therefore, indicators that would show substantial progress when applied to the
Subtitle C universe might show little progress when applied to the entire universe of solid wastes
(i.e., Subtitles C and D combined). Also, these two universes are "moving targets" - facilities and
wastes frequently switch from one universe to the other due to the promulgation of new
hazardous waste listings or characteristics, delistings, and regulatory determinations for special
wastes. This makes it difficult to establish a baseline from which to measure progress.
These aspects of the RCRA program have helped to shape the overall approach to
developing RCRA indicators.
• OSW has elected to develop indicators in stages. In FY 1992, indicators were
developed that can be reported using readily available data. These indicators
reside toward the middle and left-hand side of the "continuum" shown in Exhibit 1-
1. OSW has recently begun developing strategies for obtaining and managing data
needed to support expanded reporting on environmental results. For program
goals that are not measurably linked to environmental quality, indirect measures
will continue to be used.4
• RCRA environmental indicator near-term efforts will focus on Subtitle C wastes
because national information systems are in place that either provide the needed
data or provide a framework for collecting it A limited set of indicators will be
reported for municipal solid wastes using data compiled by sources outside the
Agency. Indicators for other Subtitle D wastes (industrial, special wastes) will be
deferred until mechanisms are developed to collect and report data. However,
indicators developed for Subtitle C could be applied to all facilities and wastes
regulated under RCRA. The distinction between a Subtitle C industrial facility
and a Subtitle D industrial facility is not a meaningful one to the public or the
environment.
THE RCRA ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS WORKGROUP PROCESS
OSW formed the RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup in August 1991 to assist in
the development, evaluation, and reporting of RCRA indicators. The workgroup is chaired by the
Regulatory Analysis Branch (RAB) of the Communications, Analysis, and Budget Division
4 For example, to measure progress toward a goal of "reducing by 25 percent the amount of
municipal solid waste generated," the indirect indicator "changes in tons of municipal solid waste
generated over time" is a better measure than an indicator relating directly to environmental
quality.
2-3
-------
(CABD), and its members include representatives of OSW, other EPA offices such as Superfund,
OGWP, OPPE, all ten Regions, and some States.
The workgroup has met regularly since its inception. The early meetings focused on
discussing lists of indicator "categories"5 for each of the three RCRA program goals. Through
these meetings, the workgroup reached consensus on indicators to report in the short term, and
identified medium- and long-term indicator categories to analyze in more detail. The outcome of
the workgroup's early efforts is presented in the environmental indicator FY 1991 progress report.
In FY 1992, the workgroup has continued to exchange ideas about the advantages and
disadvantages of candidate indicators and has helped to assess the quality of data retrieved from
different sources. The workgroup has also begun discussing possible strategies for obtaining
information that is currently unavailable at EPA Headquarters. The results of these efforts are
reflected in the remaining chapters of this report
SUMMARY OF PAST EFFORTS
The process of developing environmental indicators for the RCRA program began by
reporting three indicators in 1990.6 This was only a first step, and for the past two years OSW
has been working toward developing and reporting a fuller set of RCRA indicators. RCRA
environmental indicator accomplishments during fiscal years 1991 and 1992 include:
• Establishing a framework for an ongoing effort to develop RCRA environmental
indicators by using RCRIS and BRS as information systems, using the expertise of
the workgroup, and reporting progress annually,
Completing the RCRA Environmental Indicators FY 1991 Progress Report and
Implementation Plan, which outlines a multi-year strategy to develop RCRA
environmental indicators and the messages that they support;
• Providing data summaries, analysis, and graphics on some short-term RCRA
indicators for OPPE's May 1992 .Agency-wide draft report £/M's Environmental
Progress Report: Strategies, Goals, and Environmental Results; and -
• Conducting analysis of short-term indicators, assessing data quality for some
medium-term indicators, and conducting preliminary investigations of strategies for
obtaining data needed for long-term indicators.
5 Indicator "categories" reflect general approaches to looking at program areas and activities.
Specific indicators that fall within a category express similar themes, have similar strengths and
weaknesses, and require similar types of data.
6 The three indicators that OSW reported in 1990 were: quantity of hazardous waste
generated; ratio of hazardous waste quantity to production activity; and number of generators
with waste minimisation programs hi place. These indicators were based largely on data collected
in EPA's 1986 Generator Survey.
2-4
-------
Recognizing that the success of this project hinges on close coordination with the Regions,
States, and other Headquarters offices, OSW sponsored or participated in several meetings and
events to involve these parties throughout this process. OSW will continue to rely on input from
the RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup throughout the process of developing and
reporting indicators for th. RCRA program.
2-5
-------
-------
DISCUSSION OF DATA SOURCES . CHAPTER 3
This chapter briefly discusses the major sources of data for the indicators reported in this
document Subtitle C indicators were based on data from the RCRA program's two major
national information systems: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
(RCR1S) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS).1 Subtitle D indicators were based mainly
on EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States.2
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY INFORMATION SYSTEM (RCRIS)
Background
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) directly supports
the management of the RCRA Subtitle C program by Regions and States. It is a national
program management and tracking system containing information on facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of Subtitle C hazardous wastes, facilities that generate such wastes (both large quantity
generators [LQGs] and small quantity generators [SQGs]), and those engaged in transporting such
wastes. RCRIS contains information on facility identification and location, permit/closure status,
compliance with Federal and State regulations, and clean-up activities.
State and Regional users update RCRIS on an on-going basis with current information as
program activities occur. On a monthly basis, the RCRIS national database is updated to reflect
State/Regional activity. Updates may occur as a result of several different types of activities;
examples include receipt of notification information from a generator, inspection of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility (TSDF); and completion of corrective action stabilization measures at
a site.
Data Quality
Indicators that are based on RCRIS data were developed with the assistance of State,
Regional, and Headquarters personnel who use and/or manage the data. These parties reached
consensus on three criteria for selecting RCRIS data for indicators reporting: (1) the data must be
available in Headquarters' national oversight reporting database; (2) the data must be of high
1 Additional general information on RCRIS and BRS can be found in the RCRA Hazardous
Waste Information Management Executive Summary, which also provides references for more
detailed information.
2 Additional information can be found in the report Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste
in the United States, 1992 Update, Final Report, July 1992, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste.
3-1
-------
quality overall on a national basis; and (3) there must be a programmatically sound
correspondence between the data and the indicator.
Indicators included in this report draw on the RCRIS Corrective Action module to
identify program progress in that area, and the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement module
in support of safe management The elements used for both indicators have high visibility from
the standpoint of actual program implementation at the State/Regional level, and at Headquarters
from a national program administration perspective. Projections for the quality of these data as a
function of their timeliness, national completeness, and basic accuracy are strong. As with any
national system, local variation in data quality may occur. However, by emphasizing data elements
with high national priority, the impact of such potential variance is minimized. Efforts are
underway to identify additions to RCRIS that can expand RCRA environmental indicator
reporting capabilities. Subsequent reports will reflect those efforts.
BIENNIAL REPORTING SYSTEM (BRS)
Background
Every two years, LQGs and TSDFs are required to report to EPA on the quantity,
composition, and disposition of hazardous waste, and on efforts undertaken to reduce the volume
and toxicity of waste compared to previous years. EPA collects this information under the
authority of Sections 3002 and 3004 of RCRA. Handlers provide this information to their State
or EPA Region by submitting a Hazardous Waste Report Form.
Beginning with the 1989 reporting cycle, OSW developed the Biennial Reporting System
(BRS), an automated data processing system that assists EPA and the States in compiling and
maintaining the data from the Hazardous Waste Report Forms. States are responsible for
collecting the information from facilities, reviewing it for consistency and completeness, and
entering it into the automated system. EPA Regions conduct additional quality control and then
transfer the flies to EPA Headquarters, who loads the data into the national system. EPA is
currently receiving State submissions of 1991 hazardous waste data. These data will be included
in the FY 1993 environmental indicator progress report*
Data Quality
OSW currently is using BRS data to report certain waste minimization and safe
management indicators. In particular, information on industry classification, the quantity and type
of waste generated, the management practices used for the waste, and the existence of a new or
expanded waste minimization program, are reported hi this document OSW is using 1989 data as
a basis for future trend analysis because (1) data from earlier reporting cycles were not
incorporated into the automated data system and (2) problems resulting from inconsistent
reporting by some States were generally reserved in the 1989 reporting cycle.
EPA emphasized assuring the quality of submissions from the largest generators and
management facilities and has verified the 1989 waste generation and management data for over
90 percent of the waste. However, the data on waste minimization activities from the generators
have not been verified.
3-2
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE UNITED STATES
Background
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste m the United States: 1992 Update is the most
recent in a 20-year series of reports sponsored by EPA to characterize municipal solid waste
(MSW) in the United States. It provides information on MSW generation and management from
1960 to 1990; MSW composition by volume and weight; and projections for MSW generation,
combustion, and recovery through the year 2000.
The report characterizes the MSW stream of the nation as a whole and does not reflect
local variations in waste generation rates, composition, or management practices. The information
was derived using a materials flow approach. This methodology is based on production data for
the materials and products in the waste. Adjustments are made for imports and exports, product
lifetimes, and diversions of products from the waste stream.
Data Quality
The information presented in this report is based on estimates rather than measurements
of MSW generation and composition. Although the estimates are based on the best data
available, they are subject to uncertainties associated with the methodology itself and the quality
of the input data. In this ongoing series of reports, EPA has updated previous estimates if better
information has become available, and will continue to do so.
Certain wastes that are frequently disposed in municipal landfills are not covered by the
materials flow methodology. MSW as defined in this report does not include construction and
demolition wastes, industrial process wastes, and a number of other wastes that may go to a
municipal landfill. Certain other materials are also not included, such as product residues in
containers (e.g., detergent left in a box). Therefore, the estimates of MSW generation presented
in this report are typically lower than those found in other sources.
3-3
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION INDICATORS CHAPTER 4
PROGRAM GOALS
RCRA's waste minimization goals focus on risk reduction and resource conservation, and
apply to all types of waste - hazardous, non-hazardous industrial, municipal, and special wastes.
The goals can be represented as follows:
• Reducing risk to human health and the environment associated with waste
management by reducing the quantity, toxicity, and hazardous properties of wastes;
• Conserving natural resources by reducing the use of raw materials; and
• Reducing the use of toxic materials in production.
RCRA requires hazardous waste generators and owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities to certify that they have hazardous waste reduction
programs in place. OSW has also undertaken a variety of non-regulatory actions to promote
waste minimization. For the municipal solid waste1 program, EPA fosters an Integrated Waste
Management (IWM) approach that encourages first source reduction, then recycling as preferred
waste management approaches. Other non-regulatory actions include developing guidelines for
Federal procurement of recycled materials to encourage recycling, providing grants to States, and.
making guidance materials and technical assistance available to States and industry. Other
powerful incentives for hazardous waste generators to minimfcg wastes include the increasingly
stringent waste treatment and disposal requirements, and the need to address capacity shortfalls
that have been documented in the 1989 State Capacity Assurance Plan.
WASTE MINIMIZATION INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992
Six waste minimization indicators are being reported in this chapter, three for hazardous
wastes and three for municipal solid wastes.
Subtitle C Indicators:
• Subtitle C Indicator No. 1. Quantities of Primary Hazardous Waste Generated in
1989, By SIC Code
1 In this report, "municipal solid waste" refers primarily to residential solid waste, with some
contribution from commercial, institutional, and industrial sources.
4-1
-------
• Subtitle C Indicator No. 2. Quantities of Hazardous Wastewater and Non-
wastewater Generated in 1989, By SIC Code
• Subtitle C Indicator No. 3. Percent of Hazardous Waste Generators that Initiated
or Expanded Source Reduction or Recycling Activities in 1989
Subtitle D Indicators:
• Subtitle D Indicator No. 1. Trends in Total Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
1960 to 1990
• Subtitle D Indicator No. 2. Trends in Per Capita Municipal Solid Waste
Generation, 1960 to 1990
• Subtitle D Indicator No. 3. Trends in the Recovery of Municipal Solid Waste for
Recycling, 1960 to 1990
Subtitle C Indicators
1. Quantities of Primary Hazardous Waste Generated in 1989. Bv SIC Code
In order to report hazardous waste minimization activities, OSW examined hazardous
waste generation rates over time. Looking at summary numbers from the 1987 and 1989
Biennial Reports, national generation of RCRA hazardous waste in 1989 was approximately 200
million tons, down from a reported 240 million tons in 1987. Much of this reduction, however, is
believed to be a result of waste management being shifted from surface impoundments, which are
subject to RCRA regulation, to tanks, which are often exempt from RCRA.
To rigorously analyze trends in hazardous waste generation over time, OSW has decided
to use 1989 BRS data to report the initial waste quantities for this indicator2. The quantities
include only waste specified by the 1989 Biennial Reporting System as "primary waste" - waste
generated on site from production processes, service activities, or the management of non-
hazardous waste. Excluded from these quantities are "secondary wastes" - hazardous waste
residuals resulting from the treatment or recycling of previously existing hazardous waste.3
Secondary wastes are excluded because they are not the target for waste minimization. Indeed,
2 OSW is using 1989 data as a basis for future trend analysis because: (1) data from earlier
reporting cycles were not incorporated into the automated data system, and (2) problems resulting
from inconsistent reporting by some States were generally resolved in the 1989 reporting cycle.
3 Examples of secondary wastes are solids resulting from stabilization processes and sludges
resulting from the treatment of hazardous wastewater.
4-2
-------
one might prefer thar secondary wastes increase because this could indicate that more hazardous
waste is being treated or recycled.4
Of the 200 million tons of total RCRA waste generation in 1989, 156 million tons were
primary waste. Exhibit 4-1 shows the 156 million tons of primary hazardous waste generated
broken out by various industries. The breakout by industry will allow monitoring of waste
generation changes within industries that might otherwise be masked. This exhibit excludes (to
the extent permitted by the Biennial Report data submissions) hazardous wastes managed
exclusively in units exempt from RCRA permitting requirements.5 Such wastes are mostly
wastewaters treated in tanks and discharged to a Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or to
surface water under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit In the
future, these quantities will be captured in an examination of trends in cross-media transfers.
Exhibit 4-1 suggests that manufacturers of Chemicals and Allied Products (SIC 28) are
responsible for 87.8 percent of all primary waste generation. Within this industry, Industrial
Organic Chemicals (SIC 286) is the largest waste generator category; it accounts for almost three-
fifths of the waste generated by SIC 28, and about half of all primary hazardous waste generated
in the United States. Another large generator category in the chemical manufacturing industry is
Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and Synthetic Rubber (SIC 282), which is responsible for
about 29 percent of all hazardous wastes. About five percent of all hazardous wastes are
generated by manufacturers of Industrial Inorganic Chemicals (SIC 281), and almost two percent
are generated by drug manufacturers (SIC 283).
Industrial sectors other than Chemicals and Allied Products that generate one percent or
more of the nation's hazardous waste are:
• Petroleum Refining and Related Industries (SIC 29) - 2J5 percent (predominantly
petroleum refining);
• Primary Metals Industries (SIC 33) - 23 percent (predominantly blast furnaces,
steel works, and rolling mills);
• Electrical and Electronic Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies (SIC 36) - 2.3
percent (predominantly manufacturers of semiconductors or cathode ray television
picture tubes);
4 Although "primary waste" excludes residuals from hazardous waste treatment practices, it
does not exclude residuals resulting from treatment mandated by other statutes, such as the Clean
Air Act. Thus. RCRA primary hazardous wastes may increase as a result of the implementation
of other statutes.
5 In cases where it is difficult to determine from the submission to the Biennial Report
System whether the waste was managed in a RCRA-regulated or RCRA-exempt process, the
waste was assumed to be RCRA-regulated.
4-3
-------
o>
00
CD
s
2
o
O
09
i
0)
1
CO
i
en
en
CD c
•c o
Os
CDS
S6*
O u)
D
i IS
.D ±:
x
UJ
o >.
eo.0
o
s c
c S
§ s
0 g
CD
•
•
o
«_
o
0
w
CO
^
CO
o
O
V,
C
e
(D
IT)
(0
o
CO
i
(0
CO
(D
CD
00
CO
4-4
-------
• Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment (SIC
34) - 1.8 percent (electroplaters, hardware manufacturers, ammunition
manufacturers, and others); and
• Transportation Equipment (SIC 37) - 1.0 percent (predominantly aircraft engines).
The remaining industries generate 2.3 percent of the primary hazardous waste and have been
collapsed into the "others" category.
2. Quantities of Hazardous Wastewater and Non-wastewater Generated in 1989. Bv
SIC Code
Data from the 1989 BRS, displayed in Exhibit 4-2, show that 95.4 percent of the primary
hazardous wastes shown in Exhibit 4-1 are wastewaters6. The remaining wastes are sludges and
solids, and comprise 4.6 percent of all wastes generated." Waste generation is broken out into
wastewater and non-wastewater in order to better monitor the types of waste generation changes
that might occur. As above, this indicator reports only primary waste and (to the extent permitted
by the data submissions) excludes hazardous wastes managed exclusively in units exempt from
RCRA permitting requirements.
Exhibit 4-2 also shows the distribution of non-wastewater generation among industries.
The Chemicals and Allied Products industry (SIC 28) dominates non-wastewater generation (342
percent), but not as dramatically as it does total wastes. The second largest generator of non-
wastewaters is Primary Metals (SIC 33), which is responsible for 22.8 percent of all non-
wastewater generation (predominantly blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling and finishing mills).
Other industries that generate relatively high quantities of non-wastewaters are similar to those
listed above.
Note that both the first Subtitle C waste minimization indicator and this indicator will
eventually monitor changes in waste quantity over time. (Because of a lack of hazardous waste
constituent concentration data, the indicator does not measure changes in hazardous waste toxicitv
over time.)
3. Percent of Hazardous Waste Generators that Initiated or Expanded Source
Reduction or Recycling Activities in 1989
The 1989 Biennial Report asked respondents to provide information on waste
minimization activities that were initiated or expanded in 1989, including the quantity recycled and
the quantity not generated due to source reduction activities. To aggregate these data, OSW
reported the number of facilities which not only reported that they have undertaken new or
expanded activities, but also listed a quantity of waste reduced due to these activities. The results,
shown in Exhibit 4-3, show that across the 20,713 large quantity generators, 14 percent reported a
6 Wastewaters are defined in the October 1992 BRS Care Exception and Verification Report
Technical Instructions as hazardous waste whose form codes indicate aqueous waste, scrubber
water or leachate, or whose system type codes indicate aqueous treatment, underground injection,
direct discharge to sewer, or direct discharge to surface water.
4-5
-------
Exhibit 4-2.
Subtitle C Indicator No. 2. Quantities of Hazardous Wastewater and
Non-Wastewater Generated in 1989, By SIC Code
Waste Generation Quantities Include Primary Waste Only
1989 Hazardous Waste Quantity
si SB Million Tons
Wastewater
149 Million Tons, 95.4%
Non-Wastewater
7 Milton Tons, 4.6%
1989 Non-Wastewater Quantify
= 7 Million Tons
Chemicals and Allied Products (SIC 28) 2JS Million Tons, 34.2%
Primary Metals (SIC 33) 1.6 Million Tons. 22.8%
Petroleum Refining (SIC 29) 0.49 Million Tons. 6.8%
3 Fabricated Metals (SIC 34) 0.45 Million Tons. 6.3%
| Transportation Equipment (SIC 37) 0.32 Milton Tons. 4.4%
3 Electronics (SIC 36) 0.24 Million Tons. 3.3%
Electric. Gas, and Janitorial Services (SIC 49) 0.13 Million Tons. 1.9°/
Machinery, Except Electrical (SIC 35) 0.11 Million Tons, 1.5%
Other Industry 0.79 MiUfion Tons 11%
Unknown Industry 0.56 Million Tons 7.8%
4-6
Source: 1989 Biennial Reporting System
-------
X
UJ
•»
O
s
75
a
S S
o s
X
UJ
So
§3
i
U
4>
g S
8
*v
A
V
A
v
A
8
"v i
eo
CM
s
0)
ffi
4-7
-------
waste quantity avoided due to new or expanded source reduction activities in 1989, 4 percent
reported a quantity of waste recycled due to new or expanded recycling activities, and 5 percent
reported a reduction of waste quantities for both types of activities.
Disaggregating these results according to the amount of waste generated by facilities
shows that facilities generating larger quantities of waste are more likely to report new or
expanded waste minimization activities. If these reported activities are in fact a reflection of what
is happening in larger facilities, it is important because the 76 firms that generated over 100,000
tons of waste in 1989 (59 percent of which had new or expanded waste minimization programs)
are responsible for more than 90 percent of all hazardous waste generated in 19897.
This indicator captures those waste minimization activities that are reported as producing
a measurable reduction in the quantity of waste. The indicator does not capture, however, those
activities that reduce the toxicitv of the waste, such as substituting chemicals with less toxic
alternatives. Future waste minimization indicators, developed in coordination with the Waste
Minimisation Measurement Workgroup, will report efforts to minimiye waste toxicity as well as
waste quantity.
Snbtitk D Indicators
1. Trends in Total Municipal Solid Waste Generation. 1960 to 1990
Exhibit 4-4 shows trends in the total quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated
in this country from 1960 to 1990. The data were derived from EPA's Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, July 1992 update. In 1990, the nation generated 1%
million tons of waste, up from 88 million tons in 1960. MSW generation has been increasing
steadily over time.
2. Trends in Per Capjta Municipal Solid Waste Generation. 1960 to 1990
Exhibit 4-5 shows trends in average per capita MSW generation rates from 1960 to 1990.
Again, these data were derived from EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, July 1992 update. Per capita waste generation has been increasing since 1960, but
more slowly than total MSW generation. This indicates that past trends toward higher total MSW
generation rates are attributable to population growth as well as increases in per capita waste
generation.
7 Although the increasingly stringent hazardous waste treatment and disposal requirements of
the RCRA program provide a strong incentive to minimize hazardous waste generation, it is
difficult to determine to what extent waste minimization activities are directly attributable to the
RCRA program.
4-8
-------
Exhibit 4-4.
Subtitle D Indicator No. 1. Trends in Total Municipal
Solid Waste Generation, 1960 -1990
200
CO
SO
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Source: EPA, Characteriztion of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1960 to 1990
(July 1992 Update).
4-9
-------
Exhibit 4-5.
Subtitle D indicator No. 2. Trends in Per Capita Municipal Solid
Waste Generation, 1960 • 1990
O>
Q.
o
0.
1960
1970
1980
1990
Source: EPA. Chaneteriztion of Municipal Sotd Waste in the United States. 1960 to 1990
(July 1992 Update).
4-10
-------
3.
Trends in the Recovery of Municipal Solid Waste for Recvclinc. 1960 to 1990
EPA studies show that the amount of waste recovered'(through recycling, including yard
waste composting) has increased steadily over time (see Exhibit 4-6). EPA's Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, July 1992 update, shows that less than seven percent
of our nation's waste was recovered in 1960, compared to 17 percent in 1990. This success is due
largely to the States' and local governments' strong efforts in implementing recycling programs as
well as business' increased use of secondary materials. EPA's current goal for the nation is 25
percent8
Exhibit 4-6.
Subtitle D Indicator No. 3. Trends in the Recovery of Municipal
Solid Waste for Recycling, 1960 -1990
o
If
« £
£o
3
H
o>
S
0)
Q.
Nationwide recycling
goal
1960
1970
1980
1990
Source. EPA, Craraaenzton of Municipal Solid Waste in the Unitod States, 1960 to 1990
(July 1992 Update).
8 From EPA, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. February 1989. The 25
percent goal is for both source reduction and recycling.
4-11
-------
NEXT STEPS
In FY 1993, hazardous waste generation rates will continue to be reported, using the 1989
and 1991 Biennial Reporting System data. The time series data will allow OSW to evaluate
changes in hazardous waste generation rates. It is important to understand, however, that the
nation's waste generation rates vary in response to numerous factors that are unrelated to waste
minimization activities. For example, an increase in the reported quantities of waste could result
from the coverage of newly regulated wastes in the Biennial Report Conversely, a change in
reported waste quantities could be attributable to a downturn in the nation's economy, which is
typically accompanied by lower industrial production and decreases in waste generation.
Complicating factors such as these need to be understood and accounted for when using waste
generation rates as an indicator of the success of waste minimization activities.
In FY 1993, the RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup will coordinate with OSWs
Waste Minimization Measurement Project to develop methods to "normalize" waste generation
rates to account for the impact of the factors other than waste minimization activities. OSW will
also continue to report the existence of new source reduction or recycling programs as reported in
the 1991 BRS, looking at trends by SIC code and State.
4-12
-------
SAFE MANAGEMENT INDICATORS CHAPTER 5
PROGRAM GOALS
When waste reduction is not possible, the second objective of RCRA is to ensure that
wastes are managed in ways that are protective of human health and the environment The goal
of EPA's waste management program is to ensure the safe management of wastes by properly
identifying and monitoring waste movements, siting waste management facilities in safe locations,
using waste management practices that reduce the potential for harmful releases, implementing
design and operating practices that prevent or minimise releases, and environmental monitoring to
ensure that technologies are performing as designed and that releases are detected.
EPA and the States have promulgated a number of rules pursuant to Subtitles C and D of
RCRA that have brought about improvements hi waste management practices. Since RCRA was
promulgated, EPA has brought millions of tons of waste and thousands of waste management
facilities into the Subtitle C regulatory system. Wastes regulated under Subtitle C must be
monitored from "cradle-to-grave" and must be treated before being placed on the land. Facilities
managing Subtitle C wastes must comply with a myriad of requirements including reporting, design
and operating standards, standards for closure and post-closure care, and groundwater monitoring.
Municipal waste management is governed primarily by State/tribal programs. EPA's role is
to promote nationally an Integrated Waste Management (IWM) approach to safely and effectively
handle municipal solid waste. EPA reviews and approves State/tribe municipal solid waste
programs and provides education and technical assistance. The recently-signed RCRA municipal
landfill rule, and the municipal combustor rules proposed under the Clean Air Act, are major
steps toward improving the management of municipal wastes nationwide. EPA is just beginning
to gather data on other types of Subtitle D waste. These data, when available,-will provide a basis
for measuring environmental improvements as the wastes are subject to Federal regulatory
requirements in the future.
SAFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992
Four safe management indicators are being reported in this chapter, two for hazardous
wastes and two for municipal solid wastes.
Subtitle C Indicators:
• Subtitle C Indicator No. 1. Quantities of Hazardous Waste Managed at Subtitle C
Facilities in 1989, By Management Practice
• Subtitle C Indicator No. 2. Number of Gass I Violations Found at the Last
Inspection During 1988-1989, by Number of Facilities and Volume of Waste
5-1
-------
Subtitle D Indicators:
• Subtitle D Indicator No. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management Trends, 1960-
1990.
• Subtitle D Indicator No. 2. Trends in Number of Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Programs, 1980 to 1991
Subtitle C Indicators
1. Quantities of Hazardous Waste Managed At Subtitle C Facilities in 1989. Bv
Management Practice
Exhibit 5-1 shows the management practices used for 197 million tons of hazardous waste
managed at TSD facilities in 1989. The data were derived from the 1989 Biennial Reporting
System. The quantity of waste reported as "managed" in this exhibit is greater than the amount
reported as "generated" in Chapter 4 because the quantity managed includes both primary and
secondary wastes. As in Chapter 4, this exhibit excludes (to the extent permitted by the data
submissions) hazardous wastes managed exclusively in units exempt from RCRA permitting
requirements.1 Such wastes are mostly wastewaters treated in tanks and discharged to a Publicly-
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or to surface water under a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
Exhibit 5-1 shows that in 1989, approximately 82 percent of hazardous wastes were treated
in some way:
• 77 percent of wastes were treated using wastewater treatment processes such as
biological treatment and chemical precipitation;
• 5 percent of wastes were treated using processes such as neutralization, sludge
dewatering, and stabilization.
Slightly more than one million tons of waste (less than one percent) were managed
through incineration in 1989. This is an increase in the amount of waste incinerated in 19872.
About 15 percent of hazardous wastes were land disposed in 1989, 14 percent (28 million
tons) in underground injection wells and one percent (3 million tons) in landfills, land application
1 In cases where it is difficult to determine from the information submitted whether the waste
was managed in a RCRA-regulated or RCRA-exempt process, the waste was assumed to be
RCRA-regulated
2 Waste management estimates from 1987 are from EPA's 7957 National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report, July 1991. Because the 1987 Biennial Report had some problems with
inconsistent reporting by some States, the 1987 data were not used as the baseline for this report
5-2
-------
o
0)
I
o
I
•o
CD
CD
CD
•5)
i
CO
CO
N
CO
«
"5
3
0>
Q.
o>
?
CO
to
o
S
CO
O)
o
Q.
0)
QC
is
c
£
CD
O)
oo
o>
o>
|
o
CO
5-3
-------
units, and surface impoundments3. Of the 3 million tons of waste managed in land disposal units
in 1989, 2 million were disposed in landfills, a drop from an estimated 3 million tons in 1987
Recovery and recycling accounted for about two percent (4 million tons) of the hazardous
waste managed in 1989. Over one million tons of this waste were managed through metals
recovery. Reuse as fuel and fuel blending accounted for about 1.5 million tons, with the
remainder managed using other types of recovery processes.
2. Number of Pass I Violations Found at the Last Inspection During 1988-1989. bv
Number of Facilities and Volume of Waste
The RCRA program conducts inspections of hazardous waste generators, transporters, and
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to determine whether they are in compliance
with applicable regulations. EPA tracks the occurrence and seventy of violations discovered
during these inspections and uses this information for various enforcement purposes.
The most serious violations are called Class I. The definition of a Class I violation has
evolved over time, but in 1989 (the first year for reporting this indicator) a Class I violation was
defined as:
'A violation that results in a failure to: assure that hazardous waste is destined for and
delivered to authorized TSDFs; prevent releases of hazardous waste or constituents, both
during the active and any applicable post-closure periods of the facility operation where
appropriate; assure earfy detection of such a release; or perform emergency clean-up
operation or other corrective action for release.'*
Class I violations include certain types of physical violations (such as environmental pollution
controls that are not properly installed or maintained) as weU as some types of administrative
violations (such as failure to maintain adequate groundwater monitoring records). While all Class
I violations could result in a situation that has the potential of being environmentally
3 In the Biennial Reporting System, the "surface impoundment" system code applies only to
surface impoundments that will eventually be closed as landfills, i.e., with accumulated sludges in
place. Wastes that are placed in surface impoundments that are dredged periodically and that
remove wastes before closing are not included among the quantities reported as land disposed.
These wastes are typically reported under the wastewater treatment system codes.
4 U.S. EPA. Enforcement Response Policy. December 1987.
-------
threatening5, the occurrence of a Qass I violation does not necessarily mean that a release has
occurred (Le., that a facility is not managing hazardous waste safely).
For this indicator, the absence of Class I violations at inspected TSDFs is acting as a
surrogate measure of safe management of wastes. This indicator does not specifically include
large quantity generators because (1) such facilities are not inspected as frequently as TSDFs, and
(2) those TSDFs that are also large quantity generators would be double counted.
Wastes managed at TSDFs that do not have Class I violations are considered to be
managed "safely" for the purpose of this indicator. There are several important caveats associated
with using compliance information in this way; these caveats are listed at the end of this section.
Exhibit 5-2 presents information on the occurrence of Class I violations at RCRA
hazardous waste TSDFs. Data on waste quantity were derived from the 1989 BRS and include all
hazardous waste managed in units subject to RCRA permitting, both wastewaters and non-
wastewaters. Data on the number of Qass I violations were drawn from the results of facility
inspections recorded in RCRIS for fiscal years 1988-1989. Thus, the universe of facilities shown
in Exhibit 5-2 is limited to TSDFs that submitted a 1989 Biennial Report form7. The
classification of facilities as TSDFs is based on 1989 BRS data.
Exhibit 5-2 shows the number and percent of TSDFs that were found to have zero, one,
two, or more than two Qass I violations during the last inspection. It is based on 3,062 TSDFs
that submitted a Biennial Report form in 1989 (an additional 16 TSDFs submitted forms but are
not included because they contain confidential business information [CBI]).
Exhibit 5-2 also shows the proportion of waste managed by these faculties. Of the 2,182
inspected TSDFs (that submitted a 1989 Biennial Report Form), 1,492 TSDFs had no Qass I
violations and managed 131 million tons (67 percent) of the hazardous waste. Class I violations
were found at 690 facilities that managed 61 million tons (31 percent) of the waste. Most (about
54 million tons) of this waste was managed by 456 TSDFs that had only 1 Qass I violation8.
5 Even an administrative violation can be environmentally threatening, for example, if it
precludes an inspector from determining whether a facility is in compliance with permit
conditions.
6 The RCRA program applies a rigorous definition of facility compliance. It is not sufficient
that a violator be on a compliance schedule. To be considered hi compliance, all outstanding
RCRA violations must actually have been returned to full compliance.
7 According to BRS, there were 3,078 TSDFs in 1989. RCRIS, however, reports the figure to
be more than 4,000. There are several possible reasons for the difference between these two
numbers. First, BRS does not include facilities that only store waste. Second, BRS does not
include closed and closing facilities that do not report any waste being managed.
number of faculties with no class I violations is probably slightly overestimated here
because not all States entered information on outstanding violations from before 1988 into
RCRIS.
5-5
-------
I
CO
~S
II
£ o
•
i
0)
c
o co
=
• u
w co
±r «
5 5
x o £
UJ ». 3
8
00
00
O)
IS
O v
o>
a
O
z
o
73
u
T3
3
=
2
J5
?
i 0
S Q
o C
= D
c
'B
£
a
*S
o> e
~ J
on
l«
OL ca
To o
cO
i§
5 =
«l
25
in
s
5-6
-------
Note that while only 71 percent of the TSDFs that submitted a 1989 Biennial Report
Form were inspected; the inspected facilities managed over 98 percent of the hazardous waste in
1989.
'llie data presented in Exhibit 5-2 suggest that as of 1989, most TSDFs were in
compliance with RCRA regulations and most RCRA hazardous waste was being managed safely.
It is important, however, to understand three limitations associated with this indicator:
• Only inspected facilities have information on the number of violations. There is
no way to determine which uninspected facilities were managing wastes safely in
1989.
• The occurrence of a Class I violation does not necessarily mean that a facility is
posing actual threats to the environment; the lack of compliance only suggests the
potential to do so.
• Facilities not having Class I violations entered in the RCRIS database for fiscal
year 1988-1989 may pose a threat to the environment through unidentified
releases, or from outstanding violations from previous years.
OSW recognizes that this indicator is only a surrogate for safe management, and is
working to develop the capability to more realistically assess the number of facilities that manage
hazardous waste safely (i.e^ in a manner that limits risk to human health and the environment).
Subtitle D Indicators
1. Municipal Solid Waste Management Trends. 1960 - 1990
Exhibit 5-3 shows national trends hi municipal solid waste (MSW) management methods
from 1960 to 1990. The source of this information is EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States, July 1992 update. The exhibit shows that while generation rates of
MSW have been increasing over time, trends in the proportion managed by different methods
have varied over the past 30 years. An estimated 31 percent of MSW was combusted in 1960,
mostly in incinerators with no air pollution controls and no energy recovery. As old incinerators
were closed, combustion dropped steadily over the next 20 years, reaching a low of 9 percent of
generation in 1980. Over the past decade, MSW combustion has been increasing again. All
major new facilities have energy recovery and are designed to meet air pollution standards.
The amount and percentage of MSW placed in landfills increased in the 1960's and 1970's,
reflecting the declining use of incineration and the low rates of recycling and composting. By
1980, the percentage of MSW landfilled had increased to 81 percent of generation, from 72
percent in 1970 and 63 percent in 1960. In the 1980's, increased recycling and combustion caused
the percentage of waste remaining to be landfilled to decline. By 1990, 67 percent of MSW was
landGlled.
5-7
-------
u.
o
v>
I
2
Exhibit 5-3.
Subtitle D Indicator No. 1. Municipal Solid Waste
Management Trends, 1960 -1990
200
150.
100
Recovery for
recycling
Combustion
Landfill
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Source. EPA, Characteriztan of Muniapal So&i Waste in the United States. 1960 to 1990
(July 1992 Update).
5-8
-------
Trends in the Number of Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs, 1
to 199L
Exhibits 5-4a and 5-4b report the increased interest by local communities in reducing tbe
toxicity of their municipal solid waste by collecting household hazardous waste (HHW) separately.
Since 1981, the number of HHW collection programs, as reported by the Waste Watch Center9,
has grown dramatically. Exhibit 5-4a shows the total number of programs (including one-day
events and permanent facilities) from 1980 to 1991. The drop in the number of programs from
1990 to 1991 is a result of communities switching from a few one-day collection programs a year
to permanent facilities. This switch is shown in Exhibit 5-4b, with 56 permanent HHW collection
programs in 1990 and % permanent programs in 1991 - an increase of 71 percent.
Exhibit 5-4a.
Subtitle D indicator No. 2. Trends In the Number of
Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs,
1980 to 1991
IndudM one-day events and permanent facilities
1000
I
(II
•>
i
0.
"5
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991
Sewn: W«»MMcftC«nftr.19»l.
9 The Waste Watch Center is a non-proflt organization devoted to educational projects in the
areas of solid, hazardous, and household hazardous waste management; reduction, reuse, and
recycling; and pollution prevention. EPA provided funding to the Waste Watch Center for the
collection of the information that is presented in this report
5-9
-------
5-10
-------
NEXT STEPS
During FY 1993, OSW will continue to evaluate trends in hazardous and MSW
management methods over time.
In the future, the "quantities of hazardous waste managed" indicator will be refined to
distinguish between land-based and non-land-based management practices. Because some
wastewaters treated in surface impoundments are currently reported under "wastewater treatment"
instead of "surface impoundment," the quantities of waste that are treated on the land versus in
tanks is not captured. This distinction is important because one goal of the RCRA program is to
reduce reliance on land-based management practices such as surface impoundments and landfills.
In addition, the quantity or proportion of waste treated prior to placement in land-based
units will be repotted. This information could be used to help report progress achieved by the
land disposal restrictions program, which requires wastes destined for land management to be
treated. OSW may also identify specific indicators and investigate data sources relating to closure
of unsafe facilities.
For the municipal solid waste indicators, trends in municipal solid waste management
methods and in household hazardous waste collection programs will continue to be reported.
5-11
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION INDICATORS CHAPTER 6
PROGRAM GOALS
The overall goal of RCRA corrective action is to prevent or reduce harm to human health
and the environment from releases at RCRA facilities. EPA currently requires corrective action
only for Subtitle C (hazardous waste) facilities. The October 1991 rule promulgating revised
criteria for Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), which will become effective in
October 1993, will require corrective action for MSWLFs as well. To date, EPA has not
proposed any corrective action requirements that would apply to facilities that manage only
Subtitle D industrial or special wastes. Because no corrective action requirements are currently in
effect under Subtitle D of RCRA, the remainder of this chapter focuses on Subtitle C corrective
action. Subtitle D corrective action indicators will be addressed in the future.
The overall strategy of the Subtitle C corrective action program is to identify
environmentally threatening sites, prioritize the sites according to risk, and address the most
threatening sites first by stabilizing releases and reducing the further movement of contaminants.
While all sites with releases of concern will eventually be addressed, the process can take a long
time, depending on the complexity of the action, the immediacy of the threat, the facility's priority
for corrective action, and the financial viability of the owner/operator. Because the systematic
assessment, identification, and cleanup of all sites will take many years, EPA has implemented a
stabilization strategy whose basic goal is to take whatever actions are necessary to control releases
and reduce the further spread of contamination. After stabilization is achieved, EPA's focus will
shift to cleaning up releases to specified performance standards for long-term remediation.
CORRECTIVE ACTION INDICATOR REPORTING FOR FY 1992
Two indicators are being reported for corrective action:
Subtitle C Indicator No. 1. Status of Subtitle C Facilities in the Corrective Action
Program
• Subtitle C Indicator No. 2. Number of Subtitle C Facilities Conducting
Investigations and Controlling Releases, by Priority Ranking
Both of these indicators reflect the current status of Subtitle C treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) in the corrective action program. They measure in a direct and
straightforward way the progress EPA has made in taking actions to prioritize sites and to assess,
investigate, and respond to past releases. Additional work is needed to develop the capability to
quantify the direct environmental significance of these actions.
6-1
-------
1. Status of Subtitle C Facilities in the Corrective Action Program
Exhibit 6-la shows the current (1992) status of RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities in the Subtitle C coi.-ective action program. It is based on data from RCRIS (September
1992) for all 56 States and territories. Three general stages of the corrective action process are
shown:
i. Assessments: The RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) is a general assessment of
the site and an important step in identifying potential problems. EPA (along with
States and territories) has completed RFAs for all facilities reported in this
category1.
ii. Investigations: The RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) is a more detailed study of
sites that may be of concern, and the Corrective Measures Study (CMS) is a study
of actions that may be taken to respond to environmental problems identified at
the site. Facilities placed in this category have begun an RFI or CMS.
iii. Controlling Releases: Facilities placed in this category have initiated or completed
actions to address environmental problems. These actions include stabilization
(near-term risk reduction actions typically taken in the carty phases of the
corrective action process) and long-term cleanup activities.
The data presented in Exhibit 6-la show that EPA, along with the States and territories,
has systematically initiated the corrective action program and is working to address environmental
problems posed by past releases. Of the 4,218 TSDFs subject to Subtitle C corrective action at
the end of FY 1992, EPA has already completed RFAs (Le., has assessed problems) at over 80
percent (3,519 facilities). OSW estimates that about 25 percent of these facilities will need no
further action beyond an RFA meaning that an estimated 75 percent may require further
investigation. EPA has already begun or completed further investigation at 614 facilities, or 17
percent of those assessed. In addition, seven percent of TSDFs assessed have taken stabilization
or cleanup actions in response to environmental problems. ..
Exhibit 6-lb shows cumulative trend information on the progress of RCRA investigations
and cleanup or stabilization activities since 1990. FY 1993 marks the full implementation of the
RCRA corrective action strategy as defined in the RCRA Implementation Study (RIS)2. This
strategy, among other things, directs national resources towards achieving more near-term clean
up actions to control the most serious environmental problems. Future reporting of this indicator
will monitor the effects of this strategy.
1 An estimated 1,217 RCRA facilities received assessments under the Superfund program, and
are also included under "Assessments."
2 EPA 1990. The Nation's Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The
RCRA Implementation Study. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July 1990.
6-2
-------
s
O)
s
Q.
CO
§
3
co
0)
i I
- o
X
UJ
JQ
0)
CD
35
E. co
o
8
1
O
£
2
CO
0)
CO
co
0)
CO
CO
-.
82.
Ifi*
ZS
co ,2
CO
6-3
-------
JC
X
LU
2
O>
O
•5
<
•5
£
o
O
o>
(0
"o
O
CO
CO
3
CO
o
o
CO
CD
CO
10
.2
CO 0)
O) =
•^= o
CO £;
® C
> O
£ o
o
1
TJ
C.
o
0)
JD
D
CO
0
*••
0
5
c
a
cr
I
C
a
a
T
C
a
o
a
cr
c
c
C
a
c
a
a
a
c
c
a:
6-4
-------
2. Number of Subtitle C Facilities Conducting Investigations and Controlling
Releases. Bv Priority Ranking
Another fundamental strategy of the Subtitle C corrective action program is to address
sites with the greatest environmental and health risks Grst. The National Corrective Action
Prioritization System (NCAPS) was developed in 1991 to help the Agency prioritize corrective
action at RCRA TSDFs. NCAPS is simpler than the Superfund Hazard Ranking System but
considers many of the same factors, such as the history of hazardous waste releases, area
hydrogeology, routes of continuing and sudden releases, waste types and quantities handled, and
likelihood of human and environmental exposure.
Using NCAPS, EPA "scores" facilities based on environmental and health risks and ranks
faculties as nigh, medium, or low priority based on these scores.3 Typically, high priority facilities
(the top one-third of the NCAPS list) are those with known releases to groundwater and/or soil,
or suspected releases to groundwater (with other exacerbating factors such as high potential for
direct human exposure). There are fewer high priority facilities with solely surface water or air
problems.
Exhibit 6-2 shows the priority rankings of the 4,218 TSDFs subject to RCRA corrective
action at the end of FY 1992. The exhibit is based on September 1992 RCRIS data and covers
all 56 States and territories. About 24 percent of TSDFs (1,021 facilities) have been assigned
high priority, 20 percent (831 facilities) medium priority, and 19 percent (785 faculties) low
priority. Priority rankings are unavailable in RCRIS for 37 percent of TSDFs because they have
not yet been ranked or have not yet entered their priority ranking into RCRIS.
Exhibit 6-3 presents data for Subtitle C Indicator No. 2. It shows the number of facilities,
by priority ranking, in each of two stages of the corrective action process: investigations and
controlling contaminant releases (defined above). The data demonstrate that EPA is addressing
the sites posing the greatest threats first Detailed investigations are underway or have been
completed at 345 high priority facilities, compared to 160 medium priority facilities and 56 low
priority facilities. Actions have been taken to control contaminant releases at 159 high priority
facilities, substantially higher than the 53 medium priority facilities and 13 low priority facilities.
In fact, although only 24 percent of the universe of RCRA TSDFs have high priority rankings,
they comprise 64 percent of all sites at which stabilization or cleanup actions nave been
conducted. Because facilities are prioritized based on the potential risk they pose to human
health and the environment, actions taken to reduce risks at high priority facilities should lead to
better protection of human- health and the environment overall.
5 NCAPS ranking is a separate process from the RCRA Facility Assessment process described
in corrective action indicator no. 1.
6-5
-------
Exhibit 6-2.
Priority Rankings of Subtitle C Facilities
4,218 Facilities Total
Medium Priority 20% .-55331^^ Low Priority 19%
831 Facjlities X^^aaaaaaaaaaaW 7B5 Facilities
High Priority 24%
1,021 Facilities
Unranked 37%
1,581 Facilities
Facilities indude only Subtitle C treatment, storage, and Disposal facilities (TSDFs).
•Unranked" also includes 2 facilities whose ranking is unknown.
Source: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). September 1992.
6-6
-------
(O
x
UJ
*-4
J 2
l!
(01
i u. u.
6-7
-------
NEXT STEPS
Starting in FY 1993, reports on the two indicators presented here will be updated with FY
1993 data, and will include information on the number of facilities at which no further action is
needed. In addition, proposed changes to RCRIS will be analyzed to determine if they could be
used to refine the existing indicators.
6-8
-------
NEXT STEPS: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR FY 1993 CHAPTEk7
INTRODUCTION
The previous three chapters have reported environmental indicators for which data are
readily available now. (These indicators were identified as "short-term" indicators in the RCRA
Environmental Indicators FY 1991 Progress Report and Implementation Plan for the Future.)
During FY 1993, OSW and the RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup will continue to
update these indicators and analyze trends over time.
The major challenge for the environmental indicators project in FY 1993, however, will be
to develop methods to report those indicators for which data exist but are not currently compiled
in a usable form. Data compilation, review, and analysis for these "medium-term" indicators (as
identified in the FY 1991 progress report) will be conducted during FY 1993. In addition, the
workgroup will begin to examine and perhaps implement additional data collection efforts or case
studies to allow reporting of more direct environmental indicators in FY 1994 and beyond ("long-
term" indicators).
This chapter discusses proposed next steps for developing additional environmental
indicators for FY 1993 and beyond.
SUBTITLE C ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT
Proposed Waste Minimization Indicators
1. Quantity of H^T^rdous Waste Prevented Due 'to Waste Minimization Activities
The quantity of hazardous waste prevented due to waste minimization is a more direct
measure of the waste minimization goal than the number of waste minimization programs.
However, it is inherently difficult to estimate the amount of waste that would have been
generated if source reduction measures had not been implemented. During FY 1993, OSW will
coordinate its environmental indicator development effort with the on-going work of the Waste
Minimization Measurement Project This project is sponsoring State pilot programs designed to
investigate different ways of estimating the effects of waste minimization activities on waste
generation. Results from these pilots will help develop better waste minimization environmental
indicators.
7-1
-------
2. Effects of Waste lAmimn»tmi\ on Demand for Hazardous Waste Disposal
Capacity
One of the goals of the hazardous waste disposal capacity programs is to address capacity
short-falls through waste minimization. The Capacity Programs Branch (CPB) of OSW is working
with the Waste Minimization Branch (WMB) to develop a method for using BRS to estimate the
projected effect of waste minimization on hazardous waste capacity and then measure the actual
effect against projections. During FY 1993, OSW will coordinate with these efforts to develop
indicators of the effects of waste minimization on demand for capacity.
Proposed Safe Management Indicators
1. Number of Land Disposal Facilities that Have Completed Adequate Closure
One of the initial goals of RCRA is to close facilities unable or unwilling to manage
wastes safely. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) provides
information on the number of facilities closed and closing. This information may be a good
surrogate for measuring progress towards the goal of closing unsafe facilities.
During FY 1993, OSW will examine the closure data included in RCRIS and analyze their
applicability toward environmental indicator development
Proposed Corrective Action Indicators
1. Quantities of Contaminated Media Treated or Removed
Quantities of contaminated media treated or removed is a useful indicator of interim
progress at corrective action sites, although these quantities do not necessarily reflect actual risk
reduction. This information is not collected in BRS, but the Capacity Programs Branch (CPB) is
beginning an effort to measure quantities of remediation waste (which includes waste at
Superfund and underground storage tank sites) generated for use in hazardous waste disposal
capacity planning.
During FY 1993, OSW will work with CPB to develop methods of measuring quantities of
remediation waste.
SUBTITLE D ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT
During FY 1993, OSW will begin to develop indicators for the Subtitle D (non-hazardous)
industrial waste program in the areas of waste generation, waste management, and waste
minimization. OSW will also examine the possibility of developing indicators for special wastes,
including cement kiln dust and wastes from mining, coal-fired electric power plants, and oil and
gas production. In addition, municipal solid waste indicators will be developed further as more
data become available.
7-2
-------
OTHER FY 1993 ACTIVITIES RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
EPA's National Environmental Goals
During FY 1993, EPA will develop and solicit comment on a set of national cross-program
goals. Developing these goals will require cooperation between State and Federal governments,
industry, environmental groups and the public. As this effort proceeds, RCRA environmental
indicators will also be developed, as appropriate, to measure progress towards these goals.
Workgroup Process and Responsibilities
During FY 1993, the RCRA Environmental Indicators Workgroup (see Appendix A) will
continue its role in reviewing and setting priorities for data collection, assessment, and reporting.
In addition, development of specific indicators, case studies, etc., may be carried out by smaller
subgroups of the workgroup.
OSW will continue preparing an annual RCRA environmental indicators progress report,
summarizing results of the year's efforts and discussing future work. OSW's Communication,
Analysis and Budget Division (CABD) has lead responsibility for developing RCRA indicators.
The Regulatory Analysis Branch and the Information Management Branch of CABD share
responsibility for this effort
7-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
RCRA ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
-------
EPA HEADQUARTERS
Office of Solid Waste
Communications, Analysis and Budget Division
Loretta Marzetti Barnes Johnson
Sara Rasmussen Myra Galbreath
Kevin Phelps John Fogarty
John Sager Tracy Alfredson
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Jim Lounsbury Daria Willis
Ellen Pratt Janice Johnson
Waste Management Division
Donna Perla Dan Derides
Mike Taimi Patricia Whiting
Laura Lopez Robert Burchard
Clare Lindsey
Permits and State Programs Division
Mary Felton
Vern Myers
Jim Brown
Characterization and Assessment Division
Ambika Bathija
Monica Barron
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Susan Absher
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Sandi Jones Rose Lew
Debbie Villari Karin Ashe
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Maurice LeFranc
Margaret Saxton
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Ed WeUer
Office of Water
Dick McDermott
Robin Htisler
-------
EPA REGIONS
Region I Ken Blumberg
Region n Agathe Nadai
Greg Zaccardi
Region m Gmerice Wilson
Region TV John Lank
Bob Reamer
Region V Rich Traub
Jane Ratcliffe
Dan Bakk
Region VI Guy Tidmore
Region Vn William Pedicino
Mary dark
Janet Hallier
Region VUJ Nick Robinson
Region IX Chris Prokop
Region X Susan Hutcherson
Judy Stone
-------
STATES
New Jersey:
Frank Coolick
Assist Dir. Haz. Waste Reg.
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
401 E. State Street - 5& Floor East
Trenton, NJ. 08625
Georgia:
Jennifer R. Kaduck
Program Manager
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Floyde Tower East, Suite 1154
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Louisiana:
Peter Romanowsky
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Post Office Box 82178
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 700884-2178
Oregon:
Stephanie Hallock
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
811 Southwest 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
------- |