EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/530-SW-86-027
July 1986
Solid Waste
Report to Congress
CNVIRONMENTA*
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
EPA Activities and llftlf
Accomplishments
Under the Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act:
Fiscal Years 1980 to 1985
-------
EPA ACTIVITIES AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT:
FISCAL YEARS 1980 TO 1985
Prepared by the
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
July 1986
-------
SSSi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 1 1 1986
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to transmit the Report to Congress on "EPA
Activities and Accomplishments Under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1985," pursuant to
Section 2006 of that act.
This Report describes the regulatory development and
implementation activities accomplished by EPA during the past
five years. This time period is important to the overall
history of the program because during these years, EPA developed
the foundation for the regulatory program that is now being
implemented by the regulated community, the Regions and the
States.
As part of this Report, hazardous waste program priorities
are described as well as a discussion of program challenges
emanating from the comprehensive and far reaching Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
The Report and appendices are transmitted in one volume.
/^Sincerely,
Lee M. Thomas
Enclosure
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 11 1986
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit the Report to Congress on "EPA
Activities and Accomplishments Under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act: Fiscal years 1980 to 1985," pursuant to
Section 2006 of that act.
This Report describes the regulatory development and
implementation activities accomplished by EPA during the past
five years. This time period is important to the overall
history of the program because during these years, EPA developed
the foundation for the regulatory program that is now being
implemented by the regulated community, the Regions and the
States.
As part of this Report, hazardous waste program priorities
are described as well as a discussion of program challenges
emanating from the comprehensive and far reaching Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
The Report and appendices are transmitted in one volume.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Thomas
Enclosure
-------
FOREWARD
This report was prepared by the Office of Solid Waste,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, with
support from a contractor, Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett. The
EPA manager was Jim O'Leary with technical guidance and
review provided by Marcia E. Williams, Director of the Office
of Solid Waste. In addition, Lorna L. Holloway and Joan
O'Callaghan assisted in the production of this report.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Summary of Program Accomplishments 2
Background 2
Accomplishments of the Regulatory Program
through 1985 3
Accomplishments of the State Authorization
Program through 1985 4
Accomplishments of the Permitting Program
through 1985 6
Accomplishments of the Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Program through 1985 7
Non-Regulatory Accomplishments 8
Priorities for the Hazardous Waste Program 8
Summaries of the Challenges of Implementing HSWA .... 10
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION 13
Chapter 2
HISTORY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE LEGISLATION 15
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 15
Resource Recovery Act of 1970 16
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 17
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 19
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 ...... 19
Chapter 3
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE EPA HAZARDOUS
WASTE PROGRAM FROM 1980 TO 1985 21
Hazardous and Solid Waste Regulatory program 22
Overview and History 22
Development of the Phase I Regulations 24
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste .... 25
Standards for Hazardous Waste Generators 25
-i-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Standards for Hazardous Waste Transporters 26
Interim Status Standards 26
Standards for Permit Issuance and
for Authorization of State Programs 27
Development of the phase II Regulations 28
Financial Responsibility Requirements 29
Standards for Storage and Treatment Facilities ... 29
Standards for Incinerators 30
Interim Standards for New Land-Disposal
Facilities . . . . 30
Standards for Land-Disposal Facilities 30
Regulatory Activity after Development of the
Core Program and before HSWA 31
Regulatory Development in Response to HSWA 32
State Authorization Program 34
EPA Efforts in the Implementation of the Program ... 36
Program Results 38
The Impact of HSWA .• . . 44
The Permitting Program ........ 46
Description of the Permitting Program ......... 46
Interim-Status Operating Results 47
Final Permits 48
Closure under Interim Status 49
Evolution of the Permitting Program ..... 49
Accomplishments of the Permitting Program 55
Identification of Regulated Universe 55
Issuance of Permits ..... 56
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program ...... 63
Evolution and Accomplishments of the RCRA Compliance
and Enforcement Program 66
Accomplishments of Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement Program 71
Future Priorities of the Enforcement Program 78
-11-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter 4
PRIORITIES FOR THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM 79
Implement Existing Regulations 79
Fill Gaps in Environmental Protection by
Implementing HSWA 83
Provide Remedies for Ineffective Current Rules 85
Lay a Foundation for an Integrated Technology
Performance/Risk-Based System ..... 87
Chapter 5
THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTING HSWA 90
Several Steps are Necessary for using an Integrated
Technology Performance/Risk-Based Decision Making
Framework 93
Other, Problems and Challenges Also Exist 96
The Regulatory Structure Also Requires Change 96
Potential Cross-Media Impacts Require
Careful Risk Assessment 97
EPA Must Reconcile Multiple Ground-water
Protection Approaches 98
The Potential Lack of Adequate Disposal
Capacity Makes Permitting Vital ..... 100
Insurance Availability May Be Limited in the
Short Term 101
Treatment of Federal Facilities Requires
Special Consideration 103
EPA's Regulations Operate at the Cutting Edge
of Technology 104
Lack of Compliance in the Regulated Community
Requires Aggressive Enforcement Action 106
EPA Must Continue to Train and Maintain a
Technically Proficient Workforce 108
Information and Data Management Require
Further Development 109
Greater Inter-Office and Inter-Program
Coordination is Necessary Ill
-111-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Annual Numbers of States Granted
Authorization for Subtitle C Programs
Authorization for the pre-HSWA Program by
State . c . . . . . . ,
Part B Permits Requested by Fiscal Year . .
Permitting Status as of January 1986 . . . .
1985 Actions Against Significant
Noncompliers
Page
39
41
57
60
76
-iv-
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comprehensive List of Recent Office of
Solid Waste Outputs
Appendix B - Guidance Documents Prepared to Support
Permitting Program 1983-1985
-v-
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) set forth the legislative authority to further the
national policy of (a) reducing or eliminating the generation
of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible, wherever
feasible, and (b) treating, storing, or disposing of waste
in a way that minimizes the present and future threat it
may pose to human health. These Acts identify a number of
specific programs and activities that must be conducted to
achieve their objectives and designate the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as the organization at the federal
level with the responsibility and authority to carry out
their mandates.
Following is a summary of the accomplishments of EPA's
programs in response to RCRA and HSWA, the priorities that
EPA's hazardous waste program has set for the near term, and
the challenges EPA will face in implementing HSWA.
-1-
-------
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Background
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
required EPA to develop and implement the hazardous waste
regulatory program. In many ways, RCRA was unique among
major federal environmental acts. First, unlike a number of
other acts that focused on end-of-pipe controls, the hazardous
waste regulations covered the entire life cycle of hazardous
waste from "cradle to grave." Furthermore, the nature of
hazardous wastes varies widely among generators, and the
potential for the creation of environmental problems is
extremely difficult to determine and control, given the
present state of technical knowledge. Thus, hazardous waste
regulations have had to be both comprehensive in coverage
and complex in technical detail.
Second, an unusually large number of facilities, each
with features presenting unique environmental and health
risks, were to be covered by standards that would apply to
all facilities. Thus, the challenge to develop regulations
that were universally applicable, easily understood, enforceable,
and that also recognized the significant differences among
facilities was particularly great.
-2-
-------
Finally, the federal hazardous waste program had to be
developed essentially from scratch. Little previous experience
existed at the federal level, and very few states had developed
hazardous waste programs that were anywhere near the scope
and stringency of the program envisioned by RCRA.
Accomplishments of the
Regulatory Program through 1985
From 1980 to 1985, EPA put into place a hazardous waste
regulatory effort that responded to all aspects of the RCRA
legislation. The development of the "core" program occurred
in two phases. During 1980, the Phase I program was promulgated,
This phase contained regulations concerning the identification
and listing of hazardous waste, setting forth standards for
hazardous waste generators and transporters, setting forth
permitting procedures, and providing requirements and procedures
for the federal authorization of state programs. In recog-
nition of the fact that numerous technical complexities and
risk-oriented issues would delay the promulgation of require-
ments and issuance of permits for hazardous waste management
facilities, the Phase I regulations also contained requirements
for facilities to operate under interim status. Phase II
regulations, or the remainder of the core program, were
promulgated during 1981 and 1982. These regulations defined
the technical and financial responsibility requirements, and
set forth the technical standards for storage and treatment
facilities, incinerators, and land-disposal facilities.
-3-
-------
Subseauent regulatory efforts before the 1984 promulgation
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) have
served to modify, clarify, or expand upon the initial core
program to improve its ability to respond to the legislative
objectives. HSWA has already resulted in several major
changes in the regulatory framework, including the codifi-
cation of 25 HSWA provisions on July 15, 1985.
Since the beginning of 1986, the Agency has issued its
proposal for restricting the land disposal of untreated wastes
for dioxins and solvents; issued waste-as-fuel administrative
standards, and the final rule for hazardous waste tanks; pro-
mulgated the final rule for small quantity generators (SQG);
and issued the final rule to streamline EPA approval of State
program revisions. (See Appendix A for a detailed list of
recent outputs.)
Accomplishments of the State
Authorization Program through 1985
The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that
amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act placed a major emphasis
on the partnership between the federal government and the
states in implementing the Subtitle C regulations. EPA's
objective is to have states conduct as much of the hazardous
waste regulatory program as possible. These responsibilities
include defining which wastes are hazardous; conducting the
manifest program for generators and transporters; permitting
-------
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and enforcing
compliance with the regulations.
The process of granting state authorization began in
1980, when EPA promulgated the Phase I regulations. Over
half of the states received interim authorization for this
part of the regulatory effort within the next two years, and
ultimately 45 states received Phase I interim authorization.
In 1982, EPA began authorizing states to implement their
regulations for storage facilities (Phase IIA) and incinera-
tors (Phase IIB). Authorization for Phase IIC covering
land-disposal facilities began in 1983. By the end of 1984,
25 states had received interim authorization for part or
all of the Phase II program. In that year, EPA began grant-
ing final authorization for the pre-HSWA regulatory program.
By June 1986, 41 states had received final authorization.
Of the others, seven had submitted applications, leaving
only six outside of the final authorization process. Of
these six, only Hawaii, Wyoming, and the Virgin Islands
had expressed the intent not to adopt the RCRA program.
As a result of federal funding and guidance, nearly all
the states have regulatory programs that equal or go beyond
the pre-HSWA federal RCRA program in breadth and stringency.
Perhaps as significant as the number of states authorized is
the improvement in the caliber of state programs over the
years. The number of personnel responsible for implementing
-5-
-------
these programs has greatly increased during this period, and
the experience and technical expertise of program personnel
have greatly improved as a result of the authorization and
implementation process.
Accomplishments of the
permitting Program through 1985
During its relatively brief existence, the RCRA permitting
program has had a number of major accomplishments. As part
of the state authorization effort, a viable federal-state
partnership has developed in the area of permitting. Working
in concert with the authorized states, EPA has made significant
strides in identifying the universe of sites to be regulated
and bringing them into the final permitting process.
As of June 1986, EPA had identified a total of 4,134
facilities requiring operating permits and, working with the
authorized states, had received Part B applications for
over 46 percent of that universe, including applications for
100 percent of land-disposal facilities. Of the 1,290 facili-
ties subject to ground-water monitoring, 88 percent had
well systems in place. In addition, the permitting process
had resulted in the exodus of almost 2,700 facilities from the
hazardous-waste-handling industry. Some of these facilities
had filed unnecessarily as hazardous waste management facili-
ties, but many were not environmentally sound. Another
major accomplishment of the permitting program has been the
-6-
-------
development of a staff at state and regional levels that is
capable of dealing with the multidisciplinary complexities
of the permit review process and is able to develop permits
that respond to past problems and minimize the risk of future
problems.
Accomplishments of the
Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Program through 1985
Since the 1980-1982 promulgation of the core RCRA program,
EPA developed almost from scratch a fully implemented compli-
ance monitoring and enforcement program. Largely through
the efforts of a RCRA unit that became part of the Office of
Waste Programs and Enforcement in 1983, EPA has produced
substantial legal, technical, and organizational guidance
that has enabled the development of a cohesive and focused
enforcement effort at state, regional, and federal levels.
As the program has evolved, there has been a growing
recognition that efforts should target major facilities with
violations that ultimately threaten ground-water supplies.
As a result, inspection programs, which have increased in
sophistication over the years, have been more effective in
identifying such violations, and enforcement efforts backed
by an effective penalty program have systematically addressed
major facilities with major violations and returned many of
th**rn to compliance. However, the continued existence of
widespread non-compliance by the regulated community will
-7-
-------
require the continuation of a highly directed and highly
visible enforcement presence.
Non-Regulatory Accomplishments
While much has been accomplished over the last several
years, probably the most important accomplishment has been
the level of consciousness that has been raised in the regu-
lated community and by the general public to foster better
hazardous waste management practices. Major in-house programs
have been instituted by private firms to manage hazardous
waste, including waste minimization, recycling, and environ-
mental auditing programs. The public has quickly awakened
to the problems of hazardous waste and demanded that hazardous
wastes will be managed only one way in this country—properly.
Together, with EPA's programs, these efforts have provided a
deterrent effect that is not measurable—but very noticeable.
PRIORITIES FOR THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
EPA's priorities for the hazardous waste program consist
of four distinct areas of activity. These are;
o Implement existing regulations to get facilities
cleaned up to continue operation or to close. There
are currently about 4,100 operating treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities subject to RCRA regulations.
Besides this, there are well over 1000 closed facili-
ties subject to RCRA. Each facility has different
-8-
-------
problems and is in a different state of operation.
EPA will therefore focus its corrective action,
permitting and enforcement resources on the highest-
risk facilities through an integrated facility
management planning concept.
Fill gaps in environmental protection by implementing
HSWA. Priorities include banning waste from land
disposal; controlling the burning and blending of
hazardous waste from industrial and non-industrial
boilers; regulating air emissions from all treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; expanding the
definition of "characteristic waste" to bring
additional amounts of organic waste into the regula-
tory system; tightening hazardous waste tank regu-
lations; and revising municipal (Subtitle D)
regulations.
Provide remedies for ineffective current rules by
fostering a more streamlined and efficient permitting
program, amending Subpart F ground-water regulations,
strengthening clean closure regulations, and allowing
greater flexibility for permit modifications.
Lay the foundations for a simpler regulatory system
by ensuring consistency among different disposal
methods to ensure that wastes do not all move to
the least regulated part of the system, regulating
-9-
-------
wastes and products consistently, re-examining and
simplifying our definition of hazardous waste,
encouraging waste minimization, and identifying and
fostering incentive-based private sector approaches
to hazardous waste management.
SUMMARY OF THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING HSWA
The passage of HSWA in 1984 broadly expanded EPA's
hazardous waste management responsibilities by expanding the
scope of regulated activities, adding restrictions on land-
disposal techniques, closing gaps in the regulations, mandating
an accelerated permit schedule, and adding enforcement autho-
rity. While this expanded program will promote the national
policy objective of reducing hazardous waste generation
where feasible and minimizing the present and future threat
to human health and the environment, its implementation will
challenge EPA's ability to manage an already technically
complex and unusually comprehensive program. To meet this
challenge, EPA has developed a number of major initiatives,
has identified potential problems, and has begun to implement
a variety of new programs to deploy its resources as effi-
ciently as possible. The central theme that guides EPA's
resource allocation is the maximization of environmental results,
-10-
-------
The challenges that confront EPA include: implementing
an integrated technology/risk-based decision-making approach
that enables the Agency to set priorities and develop more
effective regulations; the need to streamline our permitting
program to provide guidance and explanation for a technically
complex program; the challenge of managing an enormous number
of facilities as part of the cradle-to-grave approach of
RCRA; the demand of training and retaining a technically
proficient work force; and the complexity of developing a
responsive and efficient data management system to monitor
our progress and identify emerging problems. Other problems
include: the difficulty of developing regulations at the
cutting edge of technology; the need to reconcile multiple
lines of environmental defense; the necessity of accounting
for potential cross-media impacts; the possibility of disposal
capacity shortfalls; limited insurance availability; and
special administrative and coordination requirements across
offices (e.g., to reconcile RCRA and CERCLA and to regulate
federal facilities).
In each of these areas, EPA has already instituted
programs that will help to resolve the problems. These
efforts include new management procedures (e.g., the Facility
Management Planning process and joint regulatory development
and implementation strategy workgroups consisting of Headquarters,
-11-
-------
Regional and State personnel), work groups to improve coordina-
tion, training and public outreach programs, the issuance of
detailed guidance, and development of a new data management
system (RCRIS).
-12-
-------
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) set forth the legislative authority to further the
national policy of (a) reducing or eliminating the generation
of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible, wherever
feasible, and (b) treating, storing, or disposing of waste
in a way that minimizes the present and future threat it
may pose to human health. These Acts identify a number of
specific programs and activities that must be conducted to
achieve their objectives and designate the* U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as the organization at the federal
level with the responsibility and authority to carry out
their mandates.
This document reports to Congress on the hazardous
waste regulatory activities carried out by EPA under RCRA
from fiscal years 1980 to 1985. This period is extremely
important in terms of hazardous waste regulatory activities.
Althounh the Solid Waste Disposal Act dates back to 1965, it
was not until the RCRA amendments of 1976 that the control
-------
of hazardous waste became a major focus of national
legislation. Even then, during the years that immediately
followed, the work focused on defining the structure of the
hazardous waste program and preparing the regulatory standards
and procedures that would ultimately be applied.
From 1980 to 1985, the regulatory framework for the
program was promulgated and the various activities under the
program reached a state of maturity and full implementation.
This report addresses these accomplishments and discusses the
future direction of the hazardous and solid waste program.
Chapter 2 provides a perspective on the history of solid and
hazardous waste legislation and explains RCRA's objectives.
Chapter 3 describes the v-arious activities that are part of
the RCRA and HSWA implementation effort and describes the
major accomplishments of each activity during the five years.
Chapter 4 provides a discussion of future priorities of the
hazardous and solid waste program, with an emphasis on.the
activities required by HSWA. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses
a number of issues that will affect EPA's ability to carry
out the program and describes current EPA activities for
meeting these challenges.
-14-
-------
HISTORY OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE LEGISLATION CHAPTER 2
Despite the federal government's 20-year history of
involvement with solid waste management, it has only recently
been actively involved. As awareness of the extent of the
hazardous waste problem has grown, EPA's efforts to address
the problem have become increasingly comprehensive, having to
respond to an expanding universe of facilities and complex
technical issues.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT OF 1965
As the population of the United States has grown and
become increasingly concentrated in urban areas, and as the
standard of living has improved, the amount of solid waste
generated by the nation has grown dramatically. The growth
in tonnage of solid waste — including consumer packaging
materials, scrap, garbage, urban refuse, and other conventional
wastes — has increasingly posed a threat to the air, water,
and land resources of the nation, as well as to public health.
In response to these solid waste problems, Congress
passed the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) in 1965 with two
-------
primary purposes in mind: (1) to initiate a national research
and demonstration program for new and improved methods of
solid waste disposal, and (2) to provide financial and technical
expertise to state and local governments for the planning
and operating of solid waste disposal programs.
,Initially administered by the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare and the Department of the Interior,
the SWDA primarily focused on the management of open dumps.
There were two major components of the early solid waste
program. The first involved grants to public and private
agencies for research and demonstration (including construction)
of improved solid waste disposal technologies. This included
job-training projects to prepare people for professions
operating and maintaining solid-waste-disposal facilities.
The second major component of the program involved grants to
state and regional agencies for conducting solid-waste surveys
and developing state, local, and regional solid-waste-disposal
plans.
RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT OF 1970
In 1970, Congress amended the SWDA with the Resource
Recovery Act (RRA). This new act expanded upon the SWDA in
three significant ways, while continuing its focus on solid
waste. First, it enlarged existing programs under the SWDA,
including grants for training solid-waste-management profes-
sionals, technical and financial assistance for state and
-16-
-------
local planning, and grants for research and development.
Second, the RRA promoted development of sanitary landfills
as an alternative to open dumps by providing for promulgation
of increasingly strict solid-waste-management guidelines and
by providing grants for the construction of new or improved
disposal facilities. And third, the RRA extended the focus
of federal efforts beyond waste disposal to include conserva-
r
tion, recycling, and resource recovery. This was accomplished
in part by authorizing grants for the construction and demons-
tration of resource-recovery systems, and by expanding the
research and demonstration programs. The law also provided
for the establishment of a cabinet-level interagency resource
conservation committee to assist in developing a national
policy on solid waste management.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
While both the SWDA and RRA focused exclusively on the
problem of solid waste management, the passage of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) marked a new
recognition of the threat to public health and the environment
posed by poor management of chemical wastes. Although techni-
cally adopted as an amendment to SWDA, RCRA entirely revised
and superseded previous solid waste legislation through its
new focus on hazardous waste.
-17-
-------
Under RCRA, the Office of Solid Waste was established
within EPA to implement a comprehensive "cradle to grave"
system for managing hazardous chemical wastes. Subtitle C
of RCRA, which contained most of the major provisions, required
EPA to establish criteria for identifying hazardous wastes
and to publish a listing of hazardous wastes falling under
the new law. The cradle-to-grave system required EPA to set
performance standards for generators and transporters of
hazardous waste as well as for owners and operators of hazard-
ous waste storage, treatment, and disposal facilities.
Moreover, EPA was required to develop — and generators,
transporters, owners, and operators were required to comply
with — record-keeping, labeling, and manifest systems intended
to track operations involving hazardous wastes and ensure
compliance. Procedures for permitting facilities for storing,
treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes 'were also to be
developed and implemented. Finally, RCRA empowered EPA to
undertake enforcement activities and on-site inspections,
and to assess criminal and civil penalties against violators
in order to encourage future compliance.
RCRA also emphasized that a viable federal-state
partnership was to be established, and that the hazardous
waste program should be administered by states so long as
their programs were equivalent to and consistent with the
federal program, and they had the necessary resources to
-18-
-------
implement them. RCRA provided financial assistance to states
to facilitate their development of hazardous waste programs.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1980
In 1980, Congress passed a set of amendments to RCRA
that included conducting detailed and comprehensive studies
associated with mining wastes generated from the combustion
of coal and other fossil fuels (Section 8002); developing
Section 3004 regulations that distinguish, where appropriate,
between requirements for new and existing hazardous waste
management facilities; regulating recycled oil; determining
whether used oil should be listed as a hazardous waste;
establishing a state hazardous waste facility inventory;
and giving EPA the authority to order facilities to conduct
ground-water monitoring, testing, and analysis when the
Administrator determines the presence of a release may pose
a substantial hazard. These amendments also introduced a
provision enabling the EPA to bring legal actions against
persons whose handling of hazardous waste presented a known
danger to the well-being of others.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID
WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
In contrast to the 1980 amendments, the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA represent a substantial
evolutionary step in federal involvement with hazardous waste
-19-
-------
management, both in terms of its requirements for the hazardous
waste industry and in its implementational requirements for
EPA. In allf the 1984 amendments consist of 72 statutory
requirements, 69 of which must be completed by the end of fiscal
year 1988.
Expansion of the EPA's hazardous waste responsibilities
took place primarily in five areas. First, the new amendments
restricted land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes.
Second, it imposed more stringent regulations for wastes
that were still eligible for land disposal in order to ensure
protection of ground-water and air. Third, HSWA required
corrective action for prior releases of pollutants at hazardous
waste (Subtitle C) facilities. Fourth, it closed loopholes
in the program by bringing new types of facilities and addi-
tional categories of hazardous waste under regulation.
After HSWA, underground storage tanks, small-quantity genera-
tors (producing between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous
waste per month), burners and blenders of hazardous waste
fuels, and Subtitle D landfills accepting hazardous wastes
would be regulated. These provisions greatly increased the
number of firms subject to regulation under RCRA and HSWA.
And fifth, the goal of increased waste minimization was
elevated to the status of a national policy and provisions
were created to further the attainment of that policy.
-20-
-------
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE EPA
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
FROM 1980 TO 1985 CHAPTER 3
Subtitle C of RCRA requires EPA to undertake specific
activities. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement carry out those activities through four
programs:
o the regulatory development program, charged with
developing the comprehensive and complex regulations
required by RCRA;
o the state authorization program, which helps states
develop hazardous waste regulations and implementation
programs sufficient to warrant federal authorization
and create a viable federal-state partnership;
o the permitting program, responsible for calling
in, reviewing, and rendering final judgment regarding
issuing permits and closing facilities; and
o the enforcement program, which monitors compliance
and takes enforcement actions to ensure that facili-
ties are meeting permit regulations and other
regulatory requirements.
-------
Following are the evolution of these programs and
their major accomplishments through the end of fiscal
year 1985.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID
WASTE REGULATORY PROGRAM
Overview and History
RCRA contained Subtitle C provisions to establish
standards to ensure the proper management, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA
required EPA to develop criteria for determining what is a
hazardous waste; to identify hazardous wastes according to
such criteria; to develop standards for all handlers of
hazardous waste from the point a hazardous waste is created
to its final disposition; to develop procedural and technical
requirements for the permitting of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs); and to develop requirements and
procedures for authorizing states to administer the requirements
of Subtitle C.
Developing RCRA was unusually difficult for several
reasons. First, unlike most other regulatory programs which
apply to pollutants only after they have left a facility (so-
called end-of-pipe regulations, as for air emissions and
water discharges), the hazardous waste regulations cover the
entire life cycle of hazardous waste, from "cradle to grave."
At the same time, hazardous wastes vary widely from facility
-22-
-------
to facility, and their interaction with the environment can
sometimes be difficult to determine, given the present state
of technical knowledge. Thus, the regulation of hazardous
waste is unusually complex and comprehensive. Several years
were required simply to understand and assess the universe
of hazardous waste that would require regulation.
Second, an unusually large number of facilities — each
with features that uniquely affect the environmental and
health risk presented — were to become subject to EPA's
regulations. Nevertheless, RCRA contemplated the issuance
of detailed, design and performance-based minimum technical
standards that would apply to all facilities. Not surpris-
ingly, the job of balancing the many different factors present
at individual TSDFs, the need to promulgate understandable,
enforceable regulations, and the need to protect human health
and the environment from undue risk proved to be a difficult,
time-consuming task that involved unprecedented information
collection, public interaction, guidance, and revision during
the course of putting the regulatory structure into place.
Finally, the RCRA program was initiated with little
precedent and very little experience. Very few states had
any substantial hazardous waste programs in place in 1980,
and the requirements for RCRA implementation, which
Congress intended to be delegated to the states, required
implementation of new programs and substantial technical
training.
-23-
-------
Development of the
Phase I Regulations
From 1980 to 1983, EPA promulgated the regulations that
became the core of the hazardous waste regulatory program.
These regulations were promulgated in two phases. The first
phase included the following regulations, which were proposed
in 1978 and 1979, and promulgated during 1980:
o Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
(responds to Section 3001, now found in 40 CFR Part
261) — promulgated May 19, 1980;
o Standards for Generation of Hazardous Waste (responds
to RCRA Section 3002, now found in 40 CFR Part 262)
— promulgated February 26, 1980;
o Standards for Transporters of Hazardous Waste
(responds to RCRA Section 3003, now found in 40 CFR
Part 263) — promulgated February 26, 1980;
o Interim Status Standards (responds to RCRA Section
3004, now found in 40 CFR Part 265) — promulgated
May 19, 1980;
o Consolidated permit Regulations (responds to RCRA
Section 3005, now found in 40 CFR Part 270) —-
promulgated May 19, 1980; and
-24-
-------
State Program Requirements (responds to RCRA Section
3006, now found in 40 CFR Part 271) — promulgated
May 19, 1980.
Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste
Under 40 CFR Part 261, these standards identified four
characteristics of a waste that render it hazardous —
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction process
(EP) toxicity. In addition, they identified wastes that were
acutely hazardous or toxic. Finally, they identified and
listed hazardous wastes according to whether they were gene-
rated from non-specific sources (40 CFR 261.31), specific
sources (40 CFR 261.32), or discarded products, off-specifi-
cation wastes, container residues, or spill residues (40 CFR
261.33). This included 16 non-specific source wastes, such
as spent halogenated solvents; 69 wastes from specific sources
such as waste-water-treatment sludges from various production
processes; and 361 wastes from discarded products, spill residues
(§261.33(e) and (f)).
Standards for
Hazardous Waste Generators
Under 40 CFR Part 262, EPA required solid waste generators
first to determine if their waste is hazardous (i.e., if it
is listed or, by knowledge or testing, if it exhibits hazardous
characteristics). If so, they were required (1) to obtain
an EPA identification number, (2) to prepare a manifest for
-25-
-------
transporting wastes to an off-site TSDF, (3) to package and
label the waste as "Hazardous Waste," (4) to accumulate
waste on-site for no more than 90 days without a storage
permit, (5) to maintain records of signed waste manifests,
and (6) to issue annual reports and exception reports to EPA
describing waste generation.
Standards for
hazardous Waste Transporters
Under 40 CFR Part 263, EPA also required transporters of
hazardous waste to obtain an EPA identification number, to
comply with manifesting and record-keeping requirements, and
to initiate immediate action, notification, and cleanup of any
hazardous waste discharge during transportation. Transporters
also become generators of hazardous waste if they mix hazardous
waste of different DOT shipping classes.
Interim Status Standards*
Under 40 CFR Part 265, EPA issued interim final technical
requirements for TSDFs during the interim-status period (after
Under section 3005 of the 1984 Hazardous Waste and Solid
Waste Amendments to RCRA interim status is granted to any
person who owns or operates a facility required to have a
permit that was in existence on November 19, 1980 or is in
existence on the effective date of statutory or regulatory
changes under RCRA that require the facility to have a
permit if such person complies with notification requirements
under section 3010 of RCRA and applies for a permit in
accordance with section 3005.
-26-
-------
Part A** submission and before final determination). These
requirements governed preparedness and prevention of hazards,
contingency planning and emergency procedures, the manifest
system, record keeping and reporting, ground-water monitoring,
facility closure and postclosure care, the use and management
of containers, and the design of tanks; surface impoundments;
waste piles; land-treatment facilities; landfills; incinera-
tors;, thermal , physical, chemical, and biological treatment
units; and injection wells. In addition, EPA issued interim
final standards for issuing permits under 40 CFR Part 264
with respect to general requirements (e.g., obtaining an EPA
identification number, emergency procedures).
Standards for Permit Issuance and
for Authorization of State Programs
Under 40 CFR Part 123, EPA established requirements for
state programs under RCRA and the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) program (Safe Drinking Water Act). Under Part
122, it established several permit requirements (e.g.,
permit contents and revisions), and under Part 124, it put
administrative procedures for permit decisions, including
** Subsection 270.13 describes a Part A permit submission
to include, among other things, activities conducted by
the applicant; name and location of the facility; name
and address of the owner and operator; an indication of
whether the facility is new or existing; a scale drawing
of the facility; a description of the processes to be
used; and a listing of all wastes to handled.
-27-
-------
public participation, consolidated review, multiple permits,
and permit appeals. These parts were later revised and placed
under 40 CFR Parts 270 and 271.
Development of the
Phase II Regulations
From 1981 to 1983, EPA promulgated Phase II standards
which .created the technical and financial responsibility
requirements for storage and treatment facilities (Phase IIA) ,
incinerators (Phase IIB), and land disposal facilities (Phase
IIC) to obtain final operating permits. The following regula-
tions represented Phase II of the regulatory effort:
o Financial Responsibility Requirements (responds to
RCRA Section 3004, now found 40. CFR Part 264) —
promulgated January 12, 1981;
o Technical Standards for Storage and Treatment
Facilities (responds to RCRA Section 3004, now
found in 40 CFR Part 264) — promulgated January 12,
1981?
o Technical Standards for Incinerators (responds to
RCRA Section 3004, now found in 40 CFR Part 264) —
promulgated January 23, 1981;
-28-
-------
Interim Regulations for New Land Disposal Facilities
(responds to RCRA Section 3004, now found in 40 CFR
Part 267) — promulgated February 13, 1981; and
Technical Standards for Existing Land Disposal
Facilities (responds to RCRA Section 3004, now
found in 40 CFR Part 264) — promulgated July 26,
1982.
Financial Responsibility
Requirements
Under these standards, owners and operators of TSDFs
were required to estimate the costs of closure and postclosure
care, ensure financial responsibility for those costs through
several types of mechanisms, and maintain insurance for
environmental liabilities arising from facility operations.
Standards for Storage
and Treatment Facilities
These were the final design and operating requirements
TSDFs had to meet to obtain final permits. They governed
location, closure and postclosure care, financial require-
ments, use and management of containers, and the storage and
the treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, new surface im-
poundment facilities, and waste piles. These regulations
became effective on July 13, 1981.
-29-
-------
Standard for Incinerators
In addition to creating a number of standards relating
to operation and closure/ these permitting regulations required
incinerators to achieve a 99.99 percent destruction and
removal efficiency for all principal organic hazardous
constituents.
Interim Standards for
New Land-Disposal Facilities
Recognizing the need to be able to permit new facilities
while final regulations were being developed, EPA issued
these standards. They were intended to be effective only
until EPA developed final standards for land-disposal facilities
and allowed EPA to specify control requirements and other
permit conditions on a case-by-case basis.
Standards for
Land-Disposal Facilities
These standards consisted of technical requirements for
owners and operators of new and existing hazardous waste land-
disposal facilities, and corresponding procedures for permit
applications. Effective on January 26, 1983, they applied to
landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and all land
treatment units used to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes. They were composed primarily of two types of perfor-
mance standards: (1) design and operating standards, including
-30-
-------
required installation of liners and leachate collection
systems at landfills, and (2) ground-water monitoring and
response (corrective action) at each of the four types of
units.
Regulatory Activity after Development
of the Core Program and before HSWA
Prom mid-1982 to the end of 1984 (when Congress enacted
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act), EPA issued numerous technical amendments
and further clarification and minor amendments to its Phase I
and Phase II regulations, and concentrated on the implementation
of these regulations through issuance of guidance documents,
technical training programs, and the authorization of state
hazardous waste programs. On January 4, 1985, EPA finalized
its clarification of which materials are solid and hazardous
wastes when they are recycled, and issued standards for
various types of recycling activities. These rules were
proposed on April 4, 1983, in response to the Solid Waste
Disposal Amendments of 1980 (Public Law 96-452, October 21,
1980), and became effective on July 5, 1985, with certain
exceptions.
Essentially, these regulations subjected four types of
recycling.activities to Subtitle C jurisdiction: uses
constituting disposal (e.g., placement of wastes onto the
land), burning waste for energy recovery, reclamation, and
-31-
-------
speculative accumulation. Furthermore/ all spent materials,
sludges, commercial chemical products, and by-products are
defined as solid wastes when recycled, except for reclaimed
or accumulated commercial chemical products and nonlisted/
noncharacteristic sludges and by-products. In addition,
secondary materials that are used as ingredients or feed-
stocks in a production process are not solid wastes. (To be
hazardous a "waste" must first be defined as solid waste.)
Reclaimed industrial ethyl alcohol and recycled lead-acid
batteries were excepted from regulation, and, in general,
uses constituting disposal and burning are regulated as
hazardous waste activities under Parts 262 through 265.
Regulatory Development
in Response to HSWA
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 have
set a number of priorities requiring a regulatory response.
In response to HSWA, EPA is actively working on regulations
concerning various technical standards and locational
requirements for land-disposal units. EPA is also revising
standards regarding the listing and delisting of hazardous
wastes and the handling of recycled material, and is considering
whether to bring a number of currently excluded wastes under
the Subtitle C regulations. Finally, EPA is evaluating the
regulations for a number of waste-handling facilities •— such
as boilers burning hazardous waste, municipal solid waste
incinerators, and municipal landfills — to determine whether
-32-
-------
additional regulations are required. A more extensive
discussion of major HSWA requirements is found in Chapter 4.
A number of regulatory provisions have already been
promulgated in response to HSWA. On January 14, 1985, EPA
listed dioxin-containing waste under 40 CFR Part 261 and
subjected it to more stringent management standards (including
a 99.9999 percent destruction and removal efficiency for
incineration). On June 26, 1985, EPA proposed standards for
secondary containment and/or ground-water monitoring for
underground hazardous waste tanks. Both provisions increased
the universe of regulated facilities. On July 15, 1985, EPA
codified 25 of the statutory provisions of HSWA, including a
ban on bulk liquids in landfills; redefinition of "regulated
unit" for purposes of ground-water monitoring and response;
corrective action requirements for solid-waste-management
units; new labeling and record-keeping requirements; creating
the loss of interim status for facilities failing to submit
Part B applications or failing to certify compliance with
ground-water monitoring and financial responsibility require-
ments by November 8, 1985; and requiring certification by
generators and owners or operators of TSDFs that they have
instituted a waste-minimization program. In recent months,
EPA has also issued proposals for a land disposal restrictions
program for dioxins and solvents, and waste-as-fuel administrative
standards; the final rules for hazardous waste tanks, and for
-33-
-------
small quantity generators; and the final rule to streamline
EPA approval of State program revisions. (See Appendix A for
a detailed list of recent outputs.)
Major future regulatory efforts to carry out the
requirements of HSWA include addressing the restriction of
other untreated wastes in land disposal facilities, the listing
and regulation of additional hazardous wastes, promulgating
regulations for underground storage tanks, municipal landfill
(Subtitle D) facilities, blenders and burners of hazardous
waste, and waste minimization.
STATE AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM
The RCRA amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
place a major emphasis on the partnership between the federal
government and the states in implementing the Subtitle c
regulations. Specifically, Section 1003 of the Act sta'tes
that a major objective of the Act is
... establishing a viable Federal-State partnership
to carry out the purposes of this Act and insuring
that the Administrator will, in carrying out the
provisions of Subtitle C of this Act, give a high
priority to assisting and cooperating with the States
in obtaining full authorization of State programs
under Subtitle C.
Consequently, to the extent possible, it has been
EPA's objective to have states conduct as much of the hazardous
waste regulations program as possible. These responsibilities
including defining which wastes are hazardous, conducting the
-34-
-------
manifest program for generators and transporters, permitting
treatment/ storage and disposal facilities, and enforcing
compliance with the regulations.
Section 3006 of the 1976 RCRA specifically required
EPA to promulgate guidelines to help states develop hazardous
waste-programs. Two types of authorization were described
in the Act: interim and final authorization. To receive
final authorization, a state program must be equivalent to
and consistent with the federal program and provide for
adequate enforcement. State programs, however, are not
restricted to the federal regulations and, as stated in the
Act, are allowed to be more stringent and broader in coverage.
The status of interim authorization was set forth in the Act
largely in recognition of the fact that very few state
programs existed at a level that would allow full equivalence
with the federal program in a short period of time. Conse-
quently, interim authorization allowed a state to become
involved in the regulatory process at an earlier point and
provided a period during which it could move toward full
equivalency. A state could be granted interim authorization
when its hazardous waste regulatory program was "substantially
equivalent" to the federal program. Under either interim or
final authorization for any part of the federal program, the
state laws, rather than federal laws, are applied.
-35-
-------
Due to the phasing of the promulgations of the core
RCRA program, interim authorizations also proceeded in two
phases. Under Phase I interim authorization, states adminis-
tered the portion of the program concerning the identification
and listing of waste; the application of standards to gene-
rators and transporters of hazardous waste; and the applica-
f
tion of the interim-status standards to hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Allowing states
to administer the permit program, the Phase II program was
divided into three components: Phase IIA — storage and
treatment facilities; Phase IIB — incinerators; and Phase
IIC — land-disposal facilities. States with Phase I authori-
zation could be granted authorization for any combination of
components in any sequence. States also had the option of
moving directly to final authorization.
EPA Efforts in the
Implementation of the Program
A major EPA activity at the initiation of the state
authorization program that has continued throughout its
existence is providing federal funds to states. Because very
few states had hazardous waste programs in place in the early
1980's that approached the federal program in terms of breadth
and stringency, these funds were essential in allowing states
to obtain qualified personnel who could help them put the
necessary enabling legislation in place and effectively adminis-
ter the resulting regulations. As state programs evolved,
-36-
-------
these funds plus matching funds from authorized states helped
expand and improve the experience of state personnel involved
in program implementation and enforcement. From $14.5 million
and $18.1 million in fiscal years 1979 and 1980, the total
amount of State grants to implement the Subtitle C program
has grown steadily to an estimated level of $57.0 million in
fiscal year 1985. These amounts indicate the substantial
f
expansion of efforts to regulate hazardous waste that has
taken place at the state level.
Another major activity undertaken at the federal level
to assist in the success of the federal-state partnership was
the provision of Program Implementation Guidance. Because an
authorized state was implementing state rather than federal
regulations, issues of consistency and substantial equivalence
rapidly became important in addition to the need to clarify
certain regulatory provisions. Consequently, shortly after
the initiation of the Phase I program, EPA began to send out
memoranda under a Program Implementation Guidance System to
provide interpretation of regulatory provisions and clarify
important issues. Under this program, EPA has sent out
numerous memoranda dealing with issues regarding listing,
delisting, permitting, and federal-state equivalency and
consistency.
The federal government has also been responsible for
the oversight of state programs throughout the authorization
-37-
-------
program. Because of the requirements set forth in RCRAr EPA
must constantly monitor the activities of states with hazard-
ous waste programs to ensure that these programs are maintain-
ing substantial (interim authorization) or full equivalency
with the federal program, are consistent with the federal
program, and are provided adequate resources for implementa-
tion and enforcement. This oversight function has assisted
states in a number of important areas, including the identi-
fication and resolution of unconstitutional or inadequate
state statutes, the identification of insufficient personnel
and/or funding to conduct programs effectively, the identifi-
cation and resolution of inadequacies in enforcement and
permitting procedures, and the identification and correction
of problems in the collection and management of essential
program data.
Program Results
The process of granting authorization to the states
began in 1980 as EPA promulgated the Phase I regulations. In
that year, six states were granted interim authorization for
the Phase I program. An additional 21 were granted interim
authorization in 1981, bringing the total to 27. As shown
in Table 3-1, 45 of the 54 states* ultimately received interim
* For purposes of the state authorization program, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands are considered as states.
-38-
-------
m
c co
nj
IT)
oo
en
oo
un ro in cri
r>i CN <-( co
00
r-l
1
ro
CD
Q a
Cd «
2 O<
U
Su
ag
H ^
Kg
feS
,_^
ro
00
(Ti
rH
cs
CO
ill o
III CN
VO 00 r-l
CN o
en
00
(Ti
O
00
00
r- r- I
cs
i !
O
•r-l
JJ
(0
N
I
< CQ CJ
•H
Cb
•
m
•H
c
3
i-H
o
0
U-l
o
JJ
•H
JJ
CO
8 o
P5 *o
w
o «5
JJ
CD (3
2 o
CO CO
CD CD
*o *o
rH rH
S H
I-I M
*
* *
a
(0
c
z3
fH
8
U-l
o
JJ
.f4
to
JJ
(0
•^
Q
CO
CD
•s
r-l
H
M
4.
zation expired. Seven state programs that had not obta
s of May 31, 1986, an additional two states have obtain
New York).
•H <
to T3
Q C
£ •
C JJ
•rH U 4J
0)
vo CD 2
00 i-l —
Sec
^•2 .2
rH JJ JJ
ro
-------
authorization for the Phase I program. Additional details
regarding dates of authorization by state is provided in
Table 3-2.
In 1981, regulations came into effect concerning storage
facilities (Phase IIA) and incinerators (Phase IIB). Regula-
tions for land disposal facilities (Phase IIC) were promulgated
in early 1982. In 1982f states began to receive interim
authorization for components A and B of the Phase II program.
In 1983, states started receiving interim authority to imple-
ment the Phase IIC program. By the end of 1984, 15 states
had achieved interim authorization for the entire Phase II
program, an additional eight states had received authoriza-
tion for components A and B, and two states had received
authorization for component A only.
In 1984, states began receiving final authorization for
the pre-HSWA program. Eleven states received authorization
in 1984. An additional 20 states received authorization in
1985, and eight more states had received final authorization
by the end of January 1986, at which time all interim authori-
zation expired. Of the remaining 15 states, tentative deci-
sions had been made to authorize two additional states, and
seven other states had submitted applications for final
authorization. Consequently, by the end of January 1986,
only six states were not in the final authorization process.
Of these six, only three — the Virgin Islands, Wyoming,
-40-
-------
*
*
w
EH
En1
W
^
CD
JH
^
K
O
o
a
04
(N S
1 W
ro 3?
. 1
W H
J 05
03 O,
03j
EH W
X
EH
OH
0
t,
Z
o
H
EH
(^J
N
H
OS
O
*
Z
o
H
EH
N
&
O
EH
jrf
i-3
rf«
z
H
EH
H
3
to
U
EH
1
Z
O
M
EH
C V4 ,2 DI C C C J-> C -Q ,Q ,Q jQ C O >--l ,Q >
1 1 0) "3 1 Ol 3 ITJ 0) 3 n3 1 1 <0 «J 1 U fti 0) 1 0) 0) 1 OJ P 0) D 0) O
1 1 Q *"0 IZ 1 ^3 S &H ^ ^ I 1 ^0^ IO^1*4 1 &4[x4 1 CM ^O Q ^ &4 55
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i T i i i i i i i i i r i i
^ LT) CN CN C*4 CN r* r^ ^" ^ P* ^- ^* T~ f^ *™ ^ ^* LO ^" r"
ofM o f^tNt— r-{ p. f-^ fj g ^.
Ol O3OO)33330)3I 1 331 3330)33O30)3l03(«
Z Z^Zfo<:rt-:i ifaZi i i i i i i fa 1-3 en ^ < i i < I i i i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
*tl* Q\ ^* ^j* Q\ ^* \Q c^ ro ^0
O >t C C Qt rH CT> en r-H
1 1 1 CU 1 1 3 1 O 0) TJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m ro (D D 3 1 131 1 13
1 1 l CO CN ^3 CO f ^~ *^
^D
« 00
•H cn
jQ <-
g
3 »
r-l O
O m
U w
4-> 0)
JJ M-l 4J -H C
ifl 3 O 0) Qj 3
•H U rtj W rd ft ^
WCO-r-lO)4J to >iC T33C4J-H.t-l (B
fQ (tj fO ^ T3 4J M O fd fl3 -rH fC ^ (Q C'"" rdOWSH'C^ ^
ErOCCnOT!UrS-flT3-H -H QC «U-H (CUtPtOWSCwrO O
^i ^if, 0 C ^W ^ Q) 5 ^ >r^ tj1 *r^ O C ^ fO 13 CO Q) rH fu "^ O "^ O ^ n3 TD
J5 W N (0 -rH 0 C ^ ^^ V^ ^ E (fl JTi *r^ *rH (Q W ^J *tH C« ^*i W »C C^ W W ^ ^ 03 03
rHi-H)Hl-l(OOOO)-HrHa)3lC'CHCOlOa)On3H3rO.H-H-H-HOO)a) *
-41-
-------
_»
•0
4J
C
0
o
*
4jg
W
EH
EH
CO
03
g
OS
O
O
os
0.
CN 5
1 CO
n S3
I
Cd W
.J OS
tn &4
EH W
23
EH
gj
2
z
o
l-l
EH
C*3
l-l
OS
o
s
EH
2
Z
O
M
^
N
M
o;
o
EH
3
"*•
J
Z
fa
02
EH
M
U
CO
EH
EH
CO
2
0
M
EH
N
M
OS
O
EH
D
s
H
OS
U
EH
Z
H
S
EH
M
CO
EH
EH
CO
TJ
0)
C
(0
U
o
Q)
•rH
i i
+*
(C
c
0)
EH
•o
0)
-P
JJ
•H
e
A
3
CO
U
H
M
Ed
CO PQ
EC
j^J
H
Cd
CO
I^J
ffi
w
EH
E^
CO
in in in vo ^* ^* in vo vo vo in ^* in ^* ^f in ^* i^ vo vo
CO 00 CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO OO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO
1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
iao>(0«30)Oi « to ro i ~H C .0 rH | rH rH ^ rH 1
0^DODn3?^PUOp?n30OODt J3 3 3 3 1
l^hjh^^jh^jgh^l^h^QjgiCl^S^'^&U'^ ^^^^
^* CO CO fO ^l1
CO CO CO CO CO
ii iii
.a c o a c
1 1 1 1 O 1 l^l 1 1 1 D I 1 Q) 1 (0 1 1 11 1 1
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
r^ ^* 10 «•" ^f
O CX O O CN
to ^f n CN CN CN (N^nro^}*
00 CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ITS Qj 0) 1 * I 10)1 1 1 1 O 1 1 ITS 1 (0 1 D 3 (t) 1 1
SrfWISI IQI 1 1 121 \ E \ <-> \ < < 31 \ 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1
t— i0 o vD fo ro ro^c^CNCO
fOOPOCN t- O fNCNr-OCN
m-*t*1fN CN •tfCN CN'S/fOM^
00 CO CO CO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO
1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 •
hMCUVl U >i > U C D1 d M >t
(dOiO)iiaiio)iiiiaoiiR3iioi33ioii o
2^ £l f~\ O O C ^ 0"* ^H C -P
OO)0)0)Q)Q)3(03iOOn30)l30)0)'OIO3tT3it3l O
2|ti4COQQQ^h3'73!SOS&4ll^QQ^IZ'33!SI*r}l ^H
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CM
(0
4J
C
0)
E
C
0
•H
C
id tti en
0) C C T3 T3 •
h -H 1C (0 "O -iH (fl C -H CO
•H rHJJ •MQC'-I-P (0 C •
jr>iOOo coiooo rHc-H 3
tnO)u ^ At «.HI-I>-I-^O) w OJTiC
giXMOQ E i o en q c c c > c c H
5CI"3£>H,C.C XOen^CUXI-CCUW Q-rH-H-r-l O-rH CJ
-p-poioc7»CM'o^j-Pcf8x;EcT>a>j2-Poe g
Q)0)0)0)OO£J«!V4fl)3tCOOO)0)-Pa)-H-H(dO)-H>i O
Z!ZZZZZOOOCMQ40SCOCOEHEH3>>>!£££!£3! CO
-42-
-------
and Hawaii — had expressed an intent not to adopt the RCRA
program. Of these three, there were indications that Hawaii
and Wyoming were moving to develop state programs.
The process of interim and final authorization not only
has served to put in place a viable federal-state partnership
for conducting the regulatory program but has also resulted
in a remarkable improvement in the caliber of state programs
in a relatively brief period of time. When the RCRA regula-
tions (Phase I and Phase II) were promulgated, a number of
states had some form of hazardous waste regulatory program
in place, but only a few approached to any degree the breadth
and stringency of the federal standards. The funding and
guidance provided by EPA as part of the authorization effort
has caused states to place a high priority on the regulation
of hazardous wastes. As a result, states have put in place
the enabling legislation and adequate technical and enforce-
ment personnel to conduct a comprehensive and effective
regulatory effort.
A review of state programs before and after the
authorization process highlights some of these improvements.
Nine states developed a hazardous waste program where none
had previously existed. In other states, hazardous waste
programs were broadened through the adoption of RCRA standards
and strengthened through the expansion of criminal and civil
enforcement authorities. In a number of states, the increasing
-43-
-------
awareness of the problems associated with hazardous waste
disposal has caused the promulgation of standards that go
beyond the requirements of the Phase I and II regulations,
taking such steps as imposing more stringent requirements
for small-quantity generators or banning the disposal of
liquid wastes in landfills. Finally, an improvement that
cannot be measured by tallying numbers or reviewing laws
is the increased capabilities of the personnel assigned to
RCRA activities. The evaluation of this program has resulted
in not only a larger but a more experienced and technically
sophisticated staff to implement the comprehensive and complex
set of regulations.
The Impact of HSWA
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 had
several major impacts on the state authorization process.
One of these was to set a deadline for the termination of
interim authorization on January 31, 1986, as specified in
Section 3006(c)» Another and perhaps more significant impact
of HSWA is found in Section 3006(g), which states that any
requirement or prohibition that is applicable to the generation,
transportation, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste as a
result of HSWA will take effect in each state having a finally
authorized program on the same date as the requirement takes
effect in other states. Previously, federal regulations and
statute changes could not be enforced in a state authorized
-44-
-------
to run the RCRA program in lieu of the federal government
until the state adopted such changes. HSWA provides that
the Administrator "shall carry out such requirements directly
in each state unless the state program is finally authorized
... with respect to such requirement."
As a result of the first provision, Phase II interim status
for four states and Phase I status for six states expired, with
the responsibility for program implementation reverting to
EPA at least temporarily. In all of these cases (seven states
are involved in total), EPA had received applications for
final status, and in two cases EPA had issued tentative
approval for final authorization by January 31, 1986. Conse-
quently, EPA must give high priority to close coordination
with these states in the period between January 31, 1986, and
final authorization to avoid major disruptions of the regula-
tory programs in those states. This should not present
major problems.
The second provision has more far-reaching consequences.
The HSWA amendments themselves place into immediate effect a
number of statutory requirements that differ from the pre-
HSWA regulations. The requirement that these provisions go
into effect simultaneously in authorized and unauthorized
states means that as the federal program changes, programs
in authorized states will no longer be equivalent to the
federal program. As a result, until a state receives
-45-
-------
authorization for HSWA provisions, it will have to share
program implementation responsibilities with EPA. It seems
unlikely that this shared responsibility can be avoided for
any length of time. HSWA has mandated that as many as 60
federal program changes take place through May of 1990 that
will necessitate state program revisions. Thus, a major
challenge facing the state authorization program in coming
years will be dual activities helping states receive authori-
zation for HSWA provisions as expeditiously and efficiently
as possible, while simultaneously providing adequate guidance
so that states and the federal government can achieve effec-
tive coordination in administering HSWA requirements for
which states are not fully authorized. To simplify the
incorporation of HSWA requirements into state programs, EPA
has already proposed a program whereby HSWA requirements
promulgated in various time periods would be clustered and
subsequently addressed by state programs en masse (see
51 FR 496-504), rather than on a one-to-one basis with a new
annual clock starting at every promulgation.
THE PERMITTING PROGRAM
Description of the Permitting Process
One of the major purposes of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act is to ensure that hazardous waste management
practices are conducted in a manner that protects human health
and the environment. To achieve this objective, Section 3005
-46-
-------
of Subtitle C requires all facilities involved in treating,
storing, or disposing of hazardous waste to be identified
and to have a permit for operation. Under Subtitle C, any
owner or operator of a TSDF handling wastes identified as
hazardous must notify EPA or a state with an approved hazard-
ous waste management program of its location and activities
within 90 days of its waste being listed as hazardous. Six
months after the initial listing of a waste as hazardous,
any facility that has not applied for or received a RCRA
permit is no longer permitted to handle the hazardous waste.
Interim-Status Operating Permits
The RCRA permitting process proceeds in several stages.
An existing facility (in operation or under construction on
November 19, 1980) that notifies EPA or an authorized state
that is handling a waste listed as hazardous under Section
3001 and that submitted a Part A application within six months
is granted interim status until a final determination is made
on the permit application. Under interim status, facilities
must comply with 40 CFR Part 265 standards. These standards
are largely self-implementing and less stringent than those
that must be met by facilities with final permits (under 40 CFR
Part 264). Interim status is also available to existing
facilities on the effective date of any new statutory or
regulatory changes under RCRA requiring them to obtain a
-47-
-------
Section 3005 permit, provided that a facility notifies EPA
and submits a Part A application by the time of the effective
date.
Final Permits
An authorized state or EPA (if the state had not received
Phase II interim or final authorization) may require a
hazardous waste management facility operating under interim
status to submit a Part B application. The state or EPA must
provide 180 days notice to the facility as part of this
process of "calling in" Part B submissions. Facilities are,
of course, allowed to voluntarily submit Part B applications
at any time.
For new hazardous-waste-management facilities, the
Part A and Part B submissions are combined. These facilities
must submit these applications and be issued a permit before
physical construction can begin.
Once the Part B permit application has been received,
it is evaluated at length by either the authorized state or
EPA. After this review, EPA or the authorized state provides
the public with an opportunity to comment on the draft permit
or notice of intent to deny the permit. After the public
comment period, a final determination is made. Once permitted,
facilities must comply with the more stringent 40 CFR Part 264
standards.
-48-
-------
Closure under Interim Status
An owner or operator of a facility that is operating
under interim status must have a written copy of a closure
plan for the facility. Owners or operators must submit a
copy of this plan to the regional administrator or director
of the authorized state at least 180 days before the date
that they expect to initiate closure or within 15 days of the
date on which interim status expires.
After a period of public comment, the regional
administrator approves, modifies, or disapproves the plan
within 90 days of its receipt. If the plan is not approved,
another 60 days is provided to arrive at a modified final
plan.' If any hazardous waste remains at the disposal facility,
postclosure care must continue after closure for a period of
30 years. This care includes such activities as monitoring
ground-water, taking corrective action, and maintaining the
integrity of any cover put on the site. The specific respon-
sibilities of postclosure care are generally implemented
through a postclosure permit or enforcement order.
Evolution of the Permitting Program
After the passage of RCRA on October 21, 1976, EPA had
first to develop regulations for hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). On May 19, 1980,
EPA promulgated final Phase I regulations, putting in place
-49-
-------
the core regulatory program for generators and transporters
of hazardous waste, and interim-status provisions for owners
or operators of TSDFs. Once these regulations were in place,
EPA was able to initiate its state authorization and permitting
program.
EPA's initial task was to identify the universe of
facilities that would require permit actions. This task
proved to be enormous. First of all, the regulations that
defined these facilities were extremely complex and compre-
hensive. Unlike most previous EPA regulatory and permitting
efforts, RCRA contemplated cradle-to-grave regulation of
hazardous waste disposal, .initially, when the Phase I regu-
lations were still in flux and the identification of hazardous
wastes that would require regulation was still undergoing
change, EPA estimated that as many as 428,522 facilities
(including gasoline service stations) might be handling
hazardous waste and that 26,000 might apply for permits.
With the May 19, 1980, regulation, generators and owners or
operators of TSDFs were required to notify EPA of their
hazardous waste activities within 90 days, to obtain an EPA
identification number, and (within six months for TSDFs) to
submit a part A application to receive an interim-status
permit.
Approximately 14,500 facilities notified EPA of hazardous
waste activities and submitted Part A applications. EPA's next
-50-
-------
task was to verify these notifications and to review Part A
submissions (many notifiers had filed with EPA on a "protective"
basis, since they were unsure as to whether a submission was
required), and to identify facilities that should have notified
EPA but had not done so. By the end of fiscal year 1982, at
which time Phase II regulations for final status permits were
in place, about 9,000 facilities had submitted Part A's and
were expected by EPA to require permits. Subsequent identi-
fication of protective filers indicated that the initial
TSDF universe requiring permits was closer to 6,000 facilities.
Starting in mid-1980 and continuing through 1983, EPA
anticipated that interim status would not persist at facili-
ties for very long after Part B applications were called in.
Facilities that appeared to be unlikely to seek a final
permit would still be subject to final closure requirements
and could be forced into compliance by calling in Part B
applications and then issuing final determinations. Thus,
through 1983 and into 1984, EPA focused on delegating permit-
ting authority to states under the state authorization program
and on developing and issuing guidance to the states and EPA
regions on the implementation of the RCRA regulations, issuance
of permits, and enforcement. EPA issued nearly 20 guidance
documents (see Appendix B) and succeeded in creating (sometimes
completely from scratch) viable state programs, as well as
delegating Phase I authorization to 39 states and Phase II
authorization to 25 states by the end of 1983.
-51-
-------
Once the Phase II regulations were in place (applications
for land disposal facilities were put into place on July 26f
1982, and became effective on January 26, 1983), EPA or
authorized states could begin to call in Part B applications.
In many cases, EPA attempted to coordinate these call-ins
with the state authorization process in order to avoid confus-
ing submittals to both EPA and the state. Unfortunately,
f
the process of reviewing Part B applications did not work
smoothly, and EPA was prevented from acting swiftly on
many facilities operating under interim status. Many Part B
applications were received with insufficient documentation,
reflecting inadequate ground-water monitoring and testing,
incomplete hydrogeological characterizations, and misunder-
standing of the regulatory requirements. On average, approxi-
mately three Notices of Deficiency (NODs) were required for
each facility before the Part B application could be subjected
to a complete review. Also, EPA and the states were still
gaining experience with a tremendously complex, comprehensive
new regulatory program, as well as preparing clarifications,
technical amendments and guidances. Permit writers needed to
have a command of many disciplines in order to assess large
volumes of diverse technical data (e.g., geologic assessments,
chemical tests, placement of ground-water monitoring wells,
engineering performance and design criteria, financial
-52-
-------
responsibility requirements, and safety procedures). These
factors tended to extend the permit review process, especially
for land-disposal facilities.
The enactment of HSWA on November 8, 1984, substantially
affected the permit process, state authorizations, and existing
regulations. Among the more significant provisions that
affected (and slowed) the permit process were:
o interim-status corrective-action orders [Section
3008(h)], which extended EPA's ability to address
potentially hazardous conditions during the period
of interim status;
o incorporation of corrective-action measures in
permits [Sections 3004(u) and (v)], including
corrective-action measures for solid waste
management units colocated with hazardous waste
units and corrective action beyond the facility
boundary;
o loss of interim status (LOIS) [Section 3005 (e)]
for land-disposal facilities failing to submit
Part B's and to certify compliance with ground-water
monitoring and financial responsibility requirements
before November 8, 1985;
-53-
-------
o interim-status double-liner requirements [Section
3005] for all new units at facilities with waste
piles, landfills, or surface impoundments;
o an accelerated permit schedule [Section 3005 (c)]f
including final determinations by 1988 for land-
disposal facilities, 1989 for incinerators, and
1992 for other facilities, for applications before
HSWA's date of enactment.
As a result of these new provisions, EPA reoriented its
permitting plan. First, while EPA had always emphasized
action on "environmentally significant" facilities, HSWA
placed a firm emphasis on action at land-disposal facilities.
Second, in part as a result of new statutory provisions, EPA
combined its enforcement and permitting capabilities under
Facility Management Planning (FMP) system. FMP recognized
explicitly that environmental results could be obtained
either through enforcement (e.g., corrective-action orders)
or through permitting action (NODs, permit denials, permit
corrective-action requirements and timetables, and closure
plan approval). In addition, FMP created a coordinated
program for assigning priorities to facilities based on
environmental significance.
On November 8, 1985, the LOIS provisions for
land-disposal facilities took effect. Of the approximately
1,550 facilities affected by these provisions, about.1,050
-54-
-------
failed to certify compliance either with the ground-water
monitoring or with financial responsibility requirements.
EPA anticipates that additional facilities will choose to
close, pending ongoing review and verification of the 500 or
so certifications submitted. Consequently, the permitting
program over the near term not only must give a high priority
to land-disposal facilities seeking final permits but must
also deal with the issue of approving closure plans and
postclosure permits for the large number of land-disposal
facilities that have not sought continued operation. In
addition, the program must balance the demands for action at
land-disposal facilities with the need to permit incineration
and other treatment facilities to ensure that adequate capacity
is available to meet not only existing demand but additional
demands that may be created by the banning of certain wastes
from land disposal. The priorities of the permitting program
are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
Accomplishments of the Permitting Program
Identification of Regulated Universe
With the development of the Phase I RCRA program in
1980, EPA and authorized states began the permitting program.
Initial phases of the program involved identifying the size
of the regulated universe through the process of notification
in the case of generators and transporters, and submission of
Part A applications in the case of treatment, storage, and
-55-
-------
disposal facilities. By the end of fiscal year 1982, the
universe of generators and transporters stood at approximately
54,000 and 13,000, respectively. Although these figures have
fluctuated through time, they have remained fairly constant,
standing at 56,002 generators and 12,549 transporters by the
end of fiscal year 1985.
As stated previously, approximately 14,500 facilities
initially submitted Part A applications. However, many of
these were "protective filers" that should not have submitted
Part A's but did so largely due to a misunderstanding of the
legal requirements. By the end of FY 1984, substantial
efforts to identify all remaining protective filers combined
with further closures, reduced the universe to be considered
for final permits to about 5,000 facilities. Of these, about
3,300 were for storage and disposal, 280 were incinerators,
and 1,500 were for land disposal.
Issuance of Permits
in 1982, EPA began the process of authorizing states for
the permitting program, and also began "calling in" Part B
applications. In that year, as shown in Table 3-3, over 900
Part B applications were "called in." Nearly all of these
were from storage and treatment facilities, since these
-56-
-------
Table 3-3
PART B PERMITS REQUESTED BY FISCAL YEAR
Applications Requested by Fiscal Year
Type of
Facility
Storage
Incineration
Disposal
Total
1982
879
35
7
. 921
1983
856
121
294
1,271
1984
539
51
603
1,193
1985
135
30
514
679
June
1986
34
7
10
51
Total
2,443
244
1,428
4,115
* Includes data through June 1986.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-57-
-------
regulations had been promulgated and took effect earlier than
those for land-disposal facilities. This number increased to
over 1,200 requests in 1983 and maintained similar levels in
1984. However, those years indicated a shifting emphasis
from storage and treatment facilities to land-disposal opera-
tions. In 1984, land disposal call-ins doubled and represented
over half of the Part B submissions requested during that
year. In fiscal year 1985, over three-fourths of the call-ins
were for land-disposal facilities. Fiscal year 1986 call-ins
have slowed considerably to concentrate on the permitting of
land-disposal facilities.
Overall call-in activity declined in 1985 from levels of
previous years. This was primarily caused by the need to
integrate the numerous HSWA requirements into the permitting
process, rather than proceeding apace and creating problems
for the regulated community that would ultimately slow the
progress of permit determinations. By the end of fiscal year
1985, 4,064 permit applications had been requested from a
regulated universe that initially numbered about 6,800 (opera-
ting or closed) facilities. Early in fiscal year 1986, the
LOIS provisions of HSWA increased the number of closed
facilities by causing all land-disposal facilities to either
submit Part B applications (accompanied by certification of
compliance with ground-water monitoring and financial
responsibility requirements) or lose interim status by
-58-
-------
November 8, 1985. Of 1,550 facilities affected, only about
500 submitted applications and certifications qualifying them
for continued status.
Table 3-4 contains information regarding the status of
the permitting effort as of June 1986. At that time, EPA
estimated that 4,134 facilities would require permits for
continued operation. This total consisted of about 3,338
storage and treatment facilities, 280 incinerators, and the
516 land-disposal facilities that had retained interim or
permit status after November 8, 1985. Permit applications
had been received for about 46 percent of these facilities,
including 100 percent of the land-disposal facilities, 64
percent of the incinerators, and 36 percent of storage and
treatment facilities. The relatively low percentage of
storage and treatment call-ins is due in part to the high
priority given land disposal and incinerator facilities in
order to meet the congressional deadlines of permitting
these facilities by the end of FY 1988 and FY 1989, respec-
tively. Final permits have been issued to 461 facilities,
and an additional 42 permits were in the draft stage.
The progress of the permitting program cannot be measured
solely by totaling the number of permits issued. RCRA was passed
largely in response to the recognition that a large number of
sites were not handling hazardous waste in an environmentally
sound manner. The permitting program addresses this situation
both by permitting facilities that comply with necessary
-59-
-------
11
S3
- W
JJ IJ
•rt Q)
*^ C
CN
m
in
41
ffl
CN
in
00
O 00 fi
^ •V ff\ VM J-l
^ °JJ
CD aj C
3 g i
8)
0)
JJ Q
CU & w
•4-i
4-1 (o
o • c
en i E
rH 00 ^D ^^ ^ ****^
CM r- rH rH 'CD
CN «-« m o\ . a 4) JJ
rH —4 CD rH Cn
•-< H
g w
C 3
ai -*H O
n. ^
*0>
U)
JM
,„ c S>
en -r< >
CD --j
m ^^ r*- co i <0
p« CN m m in
rH CN U C 01
CD 10 C
'c g %
3 IB Li
~ LI cp
S ffS1
Q^
13 8
n] 0)
§!
ij ^J
UH 0^ i-J
co O in f C tu ra
ro oo >-* ro -fH O C
n CN in i-i O
ro ^* *C CT <~1'
rH -rt O
rH C C
(0 C
0 CTcS
in 3; -H
JJ CD ,O ^
e* -H
S JJ e -H
>
•H
•H
IU
0
i
£
g U 0 "H
a (0 u o
10 a. a-i fl
2U-I
Q C
^ tn "(0 H S
•n U m in TJ
C Q 6 U B >,
to a Su a> — ' -H
(0 05 Uj — I G,
CO Ju fH pH CD fO Qd
g< m Q (0 K o <0
10 ^~ ^^
U "H T2 O
o g e H
JJ C (C
tO M J *
cn
3
jj
10
jj
cn
_
LI
S
•p-4
•s
cn
8
u
a
s
•H
rH
1
CD
JJ
B
u
o
U
"8
o
I**
O
•iH
JB
jj
i-H
•H
$
IU
S
•3
i-H
M
rl
*
cn
5
o
. en
c
w
cn
V
i-H
o
iji
CD
jj
in
i
cn
8
m
0)
u
S
cn
jj
cn
JJ
— 1
•IH
^
«-i
cn
CD
S
M
1— 1
•S
>
cu
<
c
o
JJ
S
Q
L|
r— t
JJ
C
C
s
«rt
g
u
e
to
H
B
-60-
-------
requirements and by closing facilities that cannot or will
not achieve appropriate operating standards. Table 3-4 also
contains information concerning the number of facilities that
have closed or have been denied permits from 1982 to June 1986.
The data indicate that a substantial number of facilities
have had to cease their hazardous waste operations during the
relatively brief period during which permitting has occurred.
About half of these are land-disposal facilities that failed
to meet interim-status requirements, but a substantial fraction
of the universe of storage and treatment and incinerator sites
are also involved, initial indications are that a large
percentage of these sites followed operating practices that
had created or had the potential to create environmental
harm. The large number of closures has also created a sub-
stantial workload for EPA to identify problems at closed
sites and initiate appropriate corrective actions as part of
the closure process. While difficult and time-consuming,
these actions at closed facilities could be of equal or
greater environmental significance than similar actions at
facilities seeking permits.
An additional accomplishment of the permitting program
that is not reflected in numbers of permits and closures is
the increased sophistication of the permit writers and the
resulting permits issued. RCRA permits are extremely complex
documents to produce. They must cover all facility operations;
-61-
-------
apply performance, design, and operating standards, rather
than using specific numerical targets; and address problems
affecting ground water, which is an environmental medium
that cannot be seen. To understand and assimilate the infor-
mation provided in Part B applications, recognize deficiencies,
and ultimately develop permits that provide adequate environ-
mental protection, a team of permit writers must represent a
wide range of skills, including environmental, civil, and
chemical engineering; chemistry; geology; hydrogeology;
toxicology; and finance. The complexities involved tend to
make the permitting process difficult and lengthy. For
permits issued in 1985, the average duration from submittal
to issuance was about 600 days. This time period is prolonged
to some extent by the deficiencies in Part B applications,
which require correction and resubmittal by the owner/operator.
However, even without such delays, it is estimated that from
1.5 to 2.0 workyears are required to issue a complete land
disposal permit. Recent HSWA provisions regarding corrective
action and minimum technical standards have served to increase
the effort required. Nonetheless, a major accomplishment of
the RCRA permitting program has been to identify areas of
particular difficulty, to issue guidance in such important
areas as ground-water monitoring, and to develop a larger
staff with greater sophistication in the disciplines needed to
develop permits.
-62-
-------
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
When drafting RCRA, Congress intended EPA to have the
authorities for inspection and enforcement necessary to
ensure that members of the regulated community were meeting
the Act's provisions. Several sections of RCRA provided
these-specific authorities:
o Section 3007 enabled EPA and authorized states (or
designated representatives) to have access to
— facilities generating, transporting, storing,
treating, or disposing of hazardous waste;
records relating to such waste; and
— samples of such waste.
o Section 3008(a) provided a number of enforcement
powers in cases in which a member of the regulated
community was found to be out of compliance with any
Subtitle C requirement. Under the powers of this
section, the EPA Administrator could issue an order
assessing a civil penalty for such violation or
commence a civil action. In the case of a violation
occurring in an authorized state, EPA is to give
the state 30 days notice before issuing an order or
commencing a civil action.
-63-
-------
o Section 3008(c) empowered the Administrator to
assess penalties as part of orders issued under
Section 3008(a) that are reasonable in light of
the seriousness of the violation and any good-faith
efforts to comply with applicable requirements.
o Section 3008(d) set forth criminal penalties for
persons who falsify hazardous waste documents or
who transport hazardous wastes to or dispose of
such waste in a facility that does not have a
permit under Subtitle C requirements.
o Section 7003 empowered the Administrator, upon
receiving evidence that a hazardous waste generator
or handler is presenting an imminent and substantial
danger to human health or the environment, to
bring suit to restrain the generator or handler
from continued endangering practices or to take
whatever action may be necessary to correct the
situation.
As part of the 1980 amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Congress expanded enforcement
authorities by adding two enforcement-oriented sections to
Subtitle C. Section 3013 enabled the Administrator to issue
administrative orders to compel the assessment of the nature
and extent of releases at facilities where information indi-
cates that the presence or release of hazardous wastes may
-64-
-------
present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.
Section 3008(e) created the ability to bring criminal actions
and impose fines against persons who knowingly handle hazardous
waste in a way that places another person in imminent danger
of death or serious bodily injury.
The Section 3013 powers allowed EPA and authorized states
to monitor releases from facilities that would constitute neither
an imminent and substantial danger (and thus be addressable
under Section 7003) nor a violation of Subtitle C regulations
(and thus be addressable under Section 3008). However, as
it became clear that facilities would operate under interim
status for considerably longer than initially anticipated,
Congress felt that the ability to monitor and assess releases
/
at hazardous-waste-handling facilities was insufficient.
Consequently, as part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments, Congress, in addition to clarifying and expanding
certain existing authorities, created Section 3008(h) to
expand the ability of EPA to deal with such cases. Under
this section, the Administrator may issue an order or initiate
a civil suit to compel corrective actions at interim-status
facilities where hazardous wastes have been released into
the environment. The Administrator may also revoke the
permit and assess civil penalties for noncompliance with
any order.
-65-
-------
Thus, as the legislation creating enforcement
authorities evolved, an increased emphasis was given to
providing authorities to deal with releases to ground water.
In particular, the legislation implicitly acknowledged the
unexpected persistence of facilities operating under interim
status and provided explicit enforcement powers to address
releases at such sites. The implementation of the enforcement
program and the major accomplishments are discussed in the
following sections.
Evolution and Accomplishments
of the RCRA Compliance
and Enforcement Program
In the initial years of the RCRA enforcement program,
from fiscal year 1980 through fiscal year 1982, no distinct
RCRA enforcement component existed. Hazardous waste program
resources at that time were being devoted to establishing
the regulatory framework. The enforcement activities that
took place were by a Hazardous Waste Enforcement task force
that focused on RCRA matters under Section 7003 authorities
and on Superfund cases. Inspections of hazardous waste
handlers were under way during the period, but were primarily
conducted under unauthorized state programs, and focused to
a large degree upon generators and transporters of hazardous
waste. During that period, EPA began to build the basis for
regional and state enforcement programs by issuing guidance
-66-
-------
documents regarding the use of enforcement authorities
under Sections 3008(a), 3013, and 7003.
Fiscal year 1983 was the first full year in which the
core regulations of the RCRA program were in place. In
particular, during this fiscal year, the interim-status
ground-water regulations went into effect, and the inspection
of facilities subject to these requirements became a major
enforcement priority, with 30-40 percent of state grant
monies to be dedicated to the overall enforcement effort.
What EPA learned through inspection results and through
subsequent analysis was that major problems existed in the
area of ground-water monitoring. Not only did this effort
indicate that a high degree of noncompliance existed in the
regulated community, but it also made EPA aware that developing
effective ground-water monitoring and assessment programs was
a far more complex technical issue than EPA had previously
thought." Issues of characterizing site hydrogeology, collecting
adequate samples, and properly analyzing the samples collected
were a result of the technical state of the art. Thus, the
basic regulations requiring at least one well upgradient from
a site and a minimum of three wells downgradient were exposed
as far too general to adequately protect ground-water resources.
-67-
-------
EPA also began to realize that the complexities inherent
in the hazardous waste regulations were going to prolong the
period needed to process Part B applications and issue permits.
ThuSr many facilities would be operating under interim status
for significant periods of time, and the permitting process
would not be sufficient to address facility releases in a
timely manner across the regulated universe.
As a result, a separate RCRA enforcement unit that had
been formed within the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(OWPE) and that had grown to nine people by the end of 1983
began to focus on how enforcement could alleviate the problem
of noncompliance under prolonged interim status. A major
effort was made to develop a National Compliance and Enforce-
ment Strategy that would accelerate the submission of accurate
and complete Part B submissions, and that would establish an
effective and visible enforcement presence at the regional
and state levels.
These objectives were reflected in the RCRA Implementation
Plan (RIP) for fiscal year 1984. This plan specified that
all facilities subject to ground-water monitoring were to be
subject to "comprehensive inspections to assure compliance
with the interim status standards, especially the ground-water
monitoring, closure, post-closure, and financial responsibility
requirements," and made such facilities the top national
inspection priority. The RIP indicated that regions and
-68-
-------
states were to undertake enforcement actions, such as warning
letters or administrative orders, in all cases of noncompliance,
During fiscal year 1984, an expanded OWPE staff (that
grew to 30 by the end of the year) worked to develop the
infrastructure for a cohesive, comprehensive, and effective
national program. These efforts focused on nearly all aspects
of the compliance and enforcement program.
o A RCRA Civil Penalty Policy was developed to
systematize the assessment of penalties under 3008
authorities. States were also surveyed to deter-
mine which had administrative penalty authorities.
o Work was completed in August 1985 to provide
guidance on how to write a comprehensive ground-water
compliance order. This was accompanied by the
initiation of a Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document (published in draft in 1985), which would
assist enforcement personnel and permit writers in
defining an adequate ground-water monitoring system.
o An assessment of needs for a technical enforcement
program was performed, including necessary inspection
manuals, field guides, and the identification of
performance standards in regulations requiring
extensive technical guidance.
-69-
-------
o A Program Quality Criteria document was developed,
which established performance expectations for
regions and states.
o Questions were developed to help states describe the
enforcement program and evaluate its effectiveness.
o A RCRA Compliance/Enforcement Guidance Manual,
consisting of a compendium of all enforcement
guidance procedures, was produced for the regions
and states.
The above activities clarified the enforcement roles of
the state and federal governments, strengthened enforcement
programs at state levels, and improved the abilities of
enforcement personnel at all levels to deal with the legal
and technical complexities inherent in the RCRA program.
During 1984, staff at OWPE also began work on a document
that would clearly present EPA's priorities for enforcement
activities. This effort resulted in the Enforcement Response
Policy, which was issued in December of 1984. The policy
strengthened the enforcement program by concentrating its
efforts on the most serious violators and by setting forth
enforcement sequences and timetables to deal effectively
with such facilities.
Fiscal year 1985 marked the first entire year in
which the enforcement program could be considered fully
-70-
-------
operational under the management structure established in
fiscal years 1983 and 1984. Not only had previous years'
efforts resulted in an effective organizational structure
operating under sufficient guidance, but the work on the
Enforcement Response Policy and the RCRA Implementation Plan
had resulted in an enforcement effort that focused on major
waste handlers with violations of ground-water, closure,
postclosure, and financial responsibility requirements.
Accomplishments of Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Program
The enforcement program for RCRA activity has grown
steadily and has refined the focus of its activities over
time. The initial focus of the effort was to support authorized
states in implementing compliance monitoring and enforcement
programs, and to assist states in the inspection effort
required to identify compliance problems in the regulated
universe. As the program expanded and EPA and authorized
states gained a greater understanding of the nature and
significance of the compliance problems, the enforcement
effort was able to classify sites and to set priorities for
conducting enforcement actions.
A series of policies were issued in fiscal years 1984
and 1985 that established a framework for a consistent,
equitable, and responsible enforcement program. This Enforce-
ment Response Policy set forth appropriate responses for
-71-
-------
various types of violators, under this policy, violators of
RCRA requirements are separated into three groups. High
priority violators are those handlers with one or more Class I
violations of closure, post-closure, financial or financial
responsibility requirements who either (1) pose a substantial
likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste, (2) has caused
actual exposure, (3) has realized a substantial economic
benefit as a result of non-compliance, or (4) is a recalcitrant
or chronic violator (including a handler who is violating
schedules in an order or decree). Class I violators are
handlers with one or more Class I violations who are not a
High Priority Violator. Class II violators are handlers that
have such violations as failure to make emergency arrangements
with local authorities, failure to maintain a copy of a
closure plan at the facility or failure to submit the biennial
report.
High priority violators must be addressed with administrative
orders or judicial actions within three months of violation
discovery? penalties should be assessed as well. The
remaining violator groups are to be addressed in longer
timeframes (generally) and enforcement may be initiated at
lower levels.
The impact of the increased understanding of the nature
and importance of various handlers and violations, and the
increased focus on ground-water-related violations, is reflected
-72-
-------
in both the inspection and enforcement efforts. As early as
1981, a significant number of inspections, 7,891, were being
undertaken under the RCRA program. In 1982, the number more
than doubled to 15,877; a number that compares favorably
with the 16,098 inspections conducted in 1985. However, it
would be a significant error to conclude that the similarity
in the number of inspections indicated nearly equivalent
inspection efforts. From 1982 to 1985, major changes occurred
in the nature and quality of inspections. First, inspections
in 1985 were focused largely on major handlers and other
facilities requiring ground-water monitoring, where noncom-
pliance would have the potential for the greatest environ-
mental harm. Second, and perhaps more important, inspections
by 1985 had grown tremendously in sophistication and focus.
In the early years of the program before the complexities of
ground-water problems were fully understood, inspections
focused on whether facilities subject to ground-water monitor-
ing had installed wells. By 1985, one-third of ground-water
monitoring facilities were subjected to Comprehensive Ground-
water Monitoring Evaluations, which are detailed investigations
of a facility's hydrogeological conditions, including well
structure and creation, ground-water monitoring systems, and
a facility's sampling and analysis program. In addition,
other inspections consisted of detailed reviews of facility
records to ensure that closure plans had been developed,
closure costs had been estimated, and the compliance with
-73-
-------
requirements was being attained. Consequently, inspections
were designed to identify the most significant types of
violations at the most significant types of facilities.
The impact of the improved inspection program can be
witnessed from results as recently as 1984 and 1985. In
1984, the compliance monitoring effort conducted 4,579 inspec-
tions at major handlers and identified 1,275 Class I violations,
In 1985, out of the 16,098 total inspections, 5,497 were of
major handlers. These identified 1,691 Class I violations at
major handlers. Thus, in both 1984 and 1985, approximately
one major violation was being found for every three inspections,
The increase in formal enforcement to address Class I
violations discovered by these inspections is evident in the
FY 1984 and FY 1985 statistics. In 1984, EPA issued 354
§3008(a) administrative complaints in addition to the States
352 administrative orders to major handlers. Thus, at least
55% of the Class I violations were addressed with formal
enforcement actions. In 1985, EPA issued 239 §3008(a)
administrative orders. Thus, at least 65% of the Class I
violations were addressed with formal enforcement actions; an
increase of 10% from 1984 to 1985. These figures do not
include EPA orders issued under other RCRA authorities
or any judicial actions by the States or EPA. The decrease
-74-
-------
in EPA enforcement actions and the concomitant increase in
State enforcement actions is primarily a result of the
increasing reliance on newly authorized State programs.
The increased emphasis of the inspection program on
major handlers and major violations was consistent with the
overall focus of the enforcement effort on correcting non-
compliance at Significant Non-Compliers (SNC's); i.e., those
major handlers with Class I violations of closure/post-closure,
ground-water monitoring, or financial requirements. The
major focus of enforcement in 1985 was to take the enforcement
actions needed to bring facilities known to be SNCs at the
beginning of the year into physical compliance and also to
address non-compliance at SNC's identified during the year.
The success of this effort is presented in Table 3-5.
Information in the table indicates that of 3,004 facilities
identified as major handlers, 7'06, or- nearly 25 percent, had
been identified as being in significant noncompliance. During
fiscal year 1985, 480 formal actions were taken against the
universe of facilities, which when combined with previous
actions addressed the problems at 634 sites, or 90 percent
of the facilities. Compliance efforts also brought 18 out
of 25 federal facilities that were beginning of year SNCs
into compliance.
The focused compliance monitoring effort undertaken
during 1985 identified a number of violations that turned
-75-
-------
Table 3-5
1985 ACTIONS AGAINST SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIERS
Major handlers
All Facilities
3,004
Beginning of Year (BOY)
Significant Noncompliers
(SMCs) 706
Formal Actions against
SNCs from Previous Years
that Have Not Returned to
Physical Compliance
bylO/1/85 210
Formal Actions Taken
in FY 1985 Against
BOY SNCS 480
Major Handler Facilities
Addressed by Formal Actions 634
BOY SNCs that Returned
to Physical Compliance
in FY 1985
Newly Identified SNCs
327
551
Federal Facilities
139
25
11
18
41
Formal Actions against
Newly Identified SNCs
Newly Identified SNCs
Returned to Compliance
End of Year SNCs1
144
112
818
16
13
35
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
!_/ Derived by subtracting BOY SNCs returned to compliance from
~~ BOY SNCs, adding newly identified SNCs and then subtracting
newly identified SNCs returned to compliance.
-76-
-------
551 facilities and 41 federal facilities into SNCs
during the year. Enforcement actions taken during the year
caused 112 of these and 13 of these federal facilities to
return to compliance.
The information in Table 3-5 documents the result of an
enforcement effort focused on addressing the population of
facilities of the greatest environmental significance.
However, the data also indicate the major challenges facing
the enforcement and permitting programs due to the widespread ,
noncompliance by the regulated universe. Among facilities,
nearly 25 percent were violating a significant provision at
the beginning of 1985. In spite of an intensive and effective
effort to return this group to compliance, additional SNCs
identified during the year caused the end-of-year population
of SNCs to grow to 818 facilities. A similar situation
occurred for federal facilities whose SNC population increased
from 25 to 35 during 1985. These numbers may be somewhat
misleading, since more SNCs were addressed through enforcement
actions during 1985 than were identified and, hence, on-net
progress was being made to bring this population into regulatory
compliance. However, the breadth and persistence of noncompliance
on the part of the regulated community is a major factor that
will continue to affect enforcement activities and all other
aspects of the hazardous waste regulatory program.
-77-
-------
Future Priorities of the Enforcement program
Looking forward, the enforcement program has several
near-term priorities. One is to continue efforts to bring
SNCs into compliance — in particular, those SNCs that
present an immediate threat to health or the environment and
those SNCs with inadequate or nonexistent ground-water moni-
toring systems,, Another major priority is to coordinate
enforcement program efforts with those of the permitting
program to assist in the effort to issue or deny permits for
all land-disposal facilities as required by HSWA. This
coordination is also required to permit new treatment capacity
to help ensure that adequate capacity exists to handle existing
wastes and wastes that may be restricted from land disposal.
Finally, the large number of land-disposal facilities that
have lost interim status due to failure to comply with the
requirements of HSWA by November 8, 1985, has created a
sizable universe of sites that must be properly closed. The
enforcement effort intends to monitor the progress of closure
closely at these sites and to take formal enforcement actions
to bring facilities into compliance with closure requirements
when needed. These priorities and the impact of HSWA on the
enforcement program are discussed in greater detail in Chapter
4.
-78-
-------
PRIORITIES FOR THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM CHAPTER 4
Priorities for the Hazardous Waste Program can be grouped
into four distinct areas of activity. These are:
o Implement existing regulations to get facilities
cleaned up to continue operation or to close.
o Implement HSWA to fill gaps in environmental protection,
o Provide remedies where our existing regulations do
not work, confuse, or hinder.
o Start today to lay a foundation for an integrated
technology performance/risk-based future system.
IMPLEMENT EXISTING REGULATIONS
There are currently more than 4,100 RCRA treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities that require operating
permits. Five hundred of these are land-disposal facilities
that want operating permits, 280 are incinerator facilities,
and the rest are treatment and storage facilities. In addition,
-------
there are approximately 2,700 facilities that have ceased
operation that must be addressed — including 1,000 land disposal
facilities that closed or were forced to close because they
failed to comply with HSWA operating requirements. At a
very high fraction of these operating and closed facilities,
the regulated unit or other solid-waste-management units on
the property have contaminated the ground water in the area.
Unless significant progress is made in cleaning up contaminated
areas and permitting new facilities, a capacity shortfall in
safe disposal alternatives could occur. For this reason, EPA
has identified the following four priorities.
o Focus our resources on the highest-risk facilities.
Our permitting, monitoring, and enforcement resources
must be integrated to address those facilities posing
the greatest known or potential risks. In view of
their limited resources, states and regions need a
system they can use to rank facilities on the basis
of the risks they can pose and to address the poten-
tially high-risk facilities first. Facility manage-
ment plans for all types of facilities will form a
basis for an integrated implementation program.
o Speed permitting for new and existing facilities.
This priority can be carried out in numerous ways,
-80-
-------
including using integrated enforcement and permitting
authorities, establishing teams of multidisciplinary
professionals to assess each facility/ having earlier
and increased face-to-face discussions with permittees/
and applying simpler, more timely guidance from EPA
Headquarters that reflects considerable input from
regional and state participants. This guidance
should include case studies and should be field
tested. Also, in the face of uncertainty, permit-
writing teams must use their best professional
judgment on whether to close a facility or to grant
it a permit to continue or start operating. Some
mistakes will result, but the price of reducing
uncertainty to zero is an unacceptably slow permit
program. Permits are living documents and can be
revised as better information is obtained.
Implement a workable corrective-action program. The
RCRA corrective action program for closing facilities
and cleaning up existing contamination at operating
facilities should parallel implementation of the
Superfund program, but should simplify it wherever
possible. The authorities under RCRA, CERCLA, and
the Toxic Substances Control Act should be used
together so that major contamination can be cleaned
-81-
-------
up on a facility basis, rather than a unit-by-unit
basis at each facility. Permitting and delisting
required for cleanup should be subject to expedited
procedures. Cleanup levels and priorities should
depend on the risk the contamination is posing to
people and the environment.
Speed delegation of the full RCRA program to the
states. In many instances, states can be more
responsive than the federal government to risks
posed by hazardous waste, since they are closer
to the problem. The achievement of authorization
strongly suggests the state's commitment to imple-
ment a strong program. The state authorization
process should be designed to evaluate performance
rather than regulatory procedures. As states take
on full responsibility for day-to-day implementation
of RCRA, EPA must receive more information on how
states are selecting priorities and how the environ-
ment has improved. The tradeoff for more flexibility
in state decision-making is better information at
the federal level. The state grant negotiation
process should reflect these considerations.
-82-
-------
FILL GAPS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION BY IMPLEMENTING HSWA
The HSWA requires EPA to implement a series of
short-deadline regulations/ longer-term regulatory remedies,
and reports to Congress. In total, HSWA places 72 require-
ments on EPA. Following are the highest priorities.
o Ban untreated hazardous waste from land disposal.
Under HSWA, untreated hazardous wastes are banned
from land disposal unless it can be shown no migra-
tion from the disposal unit will occur for as long
as the waste remains hazardous. EPA is in the
process of promulgating regulations to implement
this important and far-reaching program. These
regulations will dramatically change the amount and
nature of land disposal, will help to prevent the
need for future Superfund cleanups, and will create
demands for alternative treatment and disposal
technology.
o Control burning and blending of hazardous wastes.
Burning hazardous waste in industrial boilers and
burning off-specification fuel or hazardous waste
in nonindustrial boilers will be curtailed or con-
trolled under HSWA. These requirements will reduce
exposures in densely populated settings and should
ensure that waste banned from land disposal will not
go into the air.
-83-
-------
o Regulate air emissions. Controls will be developed
for air emissions from all treatment, storage, and
land-disposal facilities. This will be particularly
important as more volatile wastes are controlled by
treatment technologies, rather than by land disposal.
Moreover, unlike ground water, which moves slowly, air
emissions can result in exposures almost immediately.
o Expand the definition of "characteristic waste." The
current definition of "toxic characteristic waste"
focuses primarily on metals and not on organics.
Expanding this definition will bring significant
amounts of organic waste into the Subtitle C system.
o Tighten the hazardous waste tank regulations. There
are currently 15,000 hazardous waste tanks, plus an
approximately equivalent number of tanks used by
generators of small quantities of hazardous waste.
Without stricter regulations, these facilities can
release harmful levels of contaminants to ground
water. Moreover, as land-disposal regulations are
tightened, treatment in tanks should increase.
o Revise Subtitle D regulations. Large quantities
of waste are disposed of through the nation's non-
hazardous waste system. This includes hazardous
wastes from households and small-quantity generators,
= 84-
-------
and waste that may later be brought into the hazardous
waste system. Both incineration and land disposal
of these wastes can pose significant risks if not
handled and sited properly. Current regulations
must be examined and revised where appropriate.
PROVIDE REMEDIES FOR
INEFFECTIVE CURRENT RULES
The current regulatory structure is relatively inflexible
and complex, and has definitional inconsistencies within
itself and with other environmental laws. The following
existing regulatory areas are the highest priorities for
short-term fixes.
o Examine our current permitting regulations and review
practices. Not a.11 parts of our permitting regula-
tions have an equal effect on protecting the public
health and environment. Various parts of these
regulations can increase or decrease in importance
based on location, waste handled, proximity to popu-
lation, atmospheric conditions, etc. Our base RCRA
regulations must be examined in light of regional
and state experiences to identify these areas, examine
permitting/enforcement tradeoffs, and issue guidance
to both the applicant and permit writer to foster a
more streamlined and efficient permitting program.
-85-
-------
o Amend the Subpart F ground-water regulations.
Implementaiton of the ground-water regulations must
be amended by addressing problems within the scope
of monitoring requirements, indicator parameter
selection, definitions of "point of compliance" and
"uppermost aquifer," and use of statistical tests-
o Strengthen clean-closure regulations. Regulations
on clean closure of characteristic waste at facilities
must be strengthened to ensure protection of ground
water.
o Allow greater flexibility for permit modifications.
For faster permitting and adequate disposal capacity,
more flexibility is needed in modifying interim-status
and final permits, without requiring the submission
of major permit application requirements.
o Permit mobile treatment units. Mobile treatment
technology can greatly expand the current capacity
for handling hazardous waste and can reduce generator
liability problems. More flexibility is needed to
allow already proven technology to be used quickly
at new sites.
o Coordinate pesticide rinsate regulation. Better
coordination between the regulations under RCRA and
the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide
-86-
-------
Act is needed to avoid inconsistent regulation of
dilute pesticide washwater and to identify treatment
technologies that render these washwaters nonhazardous,
o Eliminate the dilemma of regulating radioactive waste.
Currently, EPA cannot delegate regulation of mixed
waste (radioactive plus RCRA waste) to authorized
RCRA states and cannot regulate such waste in dele-
gated states. EPA must write regulations and
authorize states for mixed waste to close this
loophole.
o Simplify the definition of hazardous waste. The
current definition is confusing and difficult to
interpret. EPA must examine this problem and revise
our definitions to allow the regulated community to
know what wastes fall under regulation.
LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN INTEGRATED
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE/RISK-BASED SYSTEM
Even with these corrections to the existing regulatory
structure, the current approach to regulating hazardous waste
is suboptimal because of its complexity and inconsistencies.
The following work is needed now to design an effective system
for the longer term.
-87-
-------
Ensure consistency among different disposal methods.
The nation's hazardous waste system should ensure
that wastes do not all move to the least regulated
part of the system. The system must be considered
as a whole. For example, releases from facilities
permitted under the air and water regulations should
be regulated consistently with RCRA waste require-
ments.
Regulate wastes and products consistently. Instances
may exist where incinerated wastes are controlled,
but emissions from air stacks in manufacturing plants
are not. Ideally, these differences should be care-
fully reviewed and minimized.
Examine the listing and delisting approach and
definition of "hazardous waste." More than 60,000
chemicals are manufactured or used today, creating
an even greater number of distinct waste streams.
Obviously/ EPA cannot review each of these. A
simplified constituent-specific, concentration-based
definition of "hazardous waste" would eliminate the
need for time-consuming listing and delisting of
waste streams.
Encourage waste minimization. Besides being
economically and environmentally advantageous,
-88-
-------
focusing on minimizing waste shifts more responsibi-
lity to waste generators. EPA needs to consider
regulatory and nonregulatory options in this area.
Identify incentive-based private-sector approaches.
These approaches include environmental auditing and
insurance schemes based on the levels of risks faci-
lities may pose.
-89-
-------
THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTING HSWA CHAPTER 5
This chapter discusses the problems that EPA may face
over the next several years as it attempts to achieve the
objectives and requirements of RCRA. Probably the most
difficult problem EPA faces is the setting of priorities.
The previous chapter has identified program priorities for
four distinct areas of activity. These priority activities
are based on achieving the greatest environmental results
with our resources. If we are to succeed, however, the
use of an integrated technology/risk-based approach should
be adopted wherever possible because such a process offers
several benefits that result in a more effective and efficient
regulatory structure.
Historically, RCRA has been implemented primarily as
a technology-based program to prevent future releases of
hazardous waste. The current framework places most of the
emphasis on the type of facility managing the waste, without
considering such factors as hydrogeological conditions, cur-
rent and future use of ground water, and the waste's toxicity,
-------
volume, transport, and fate. A risk-based approach,
in conjunction with technology performance standards
bridges that gap. The approach provides several necessary
benefits to implementing the hazardous waste program.
The process allows priorities to be set that maximize
environmental results. By defining the severity of the
problem, this approach allows decision makers to make choices
as to which problems to address first. This is particularly
important today when constrained resources require EPA to
make choices both among and within regulatory development and
implementation activities.
Developing information that encompasses both technology
and risks informs the public on exactly what we are doing and
why we are doing it. While the public is concerned about
technology controls, they are equally concerned about the
potential effect of a release, high emission rates, or an
accident on their health. Developing and providing this
information responds directly to community concerns. The
process establishes a common framework for identifying the
most important questions, identifying and evaluating possible
controls for review by both the permit applicant, permit
writer, and general public. This process incorporates into
the decision-making process additional information that helps
define the nature and extent of the problem such that more
effective decisions can be made.
-91-
-------
Overall, this approach focuses attention on achieving
the biggest payoff and ensures that technology, while critical
to control, will not force control to toxicologically in-
significant exposures. Finally, this approach ensures that
total risks are minimized across all environmental media
and that technology is not used merely to transfer pollution
from pne medium to another.
The challenge for the future is to simplify the
implementation of existing provisions and to examine new
opportunities for considering risk in conjunction with
technology. However, it is important to recognize that in
preventing future releases, technology controls will continue
to play a critical role. Because it is obviously desirable
and cost-effective to prevent future problems, technology,
coupled with available risk information, must be applied
without delay.
Examples of new technology performance/risk-based
decision opportunities include the following:
o Regulations on tanks containing hazardous waste
could vary based on tank owners with high or
low-risk hydrogeological situations or with high
or low toxicity wastes.
-92-
-------
Technology performance controls on land-disposal
facilities could vary based on whether wastes being
disposed of are highly or less toxic due to degree
of pretreatment.
SEVERAL STEPS ARE NECESSARY FOR USING
AN INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE/
RISK-BASED DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK
Successful implementation of a technology performance/
risk-based decision-making program requires that the EPA
place a greater emphasis on the following activities:
Get better data. Additional data on the toxicity and
fate of waste constituents are critical for effective risk-
based decision making. The data-gathering provisions of the
Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) can be used to require
chemical and pesticides manufacturers to generate these data.
And EPA's research program can play a critical role in pro-
ducing data on the effectiveness of innovative technology in
reducing exposures. These data can improve our ability to
set operational priorities for controlling future hazardous
waste and for cleaning up existing problem areas.
Continue to develop and validate fate and exposure models.
Research is needed to develop improved models for predicting
the environmental exposure from various technologies, management
-93-
-------
practices, and waste types. Once developed, the models must
receive widespread review by technical experts.
Develop regulations that create incentives for producing
lower-risk waste. Not all wastes, sources of water, and
disposal sites are the same. High-risk wastes and facilities
can be discouraged through more stringent control requirements.
In addition, regulations that exempt or reduce regulatory
requirements on lower-risk facilities and generators are
highly desirable. Waivers or site- and waste-specific
petitions are one way to accomplish this, if they can be
developed and decided upon quickly.
Develop standard, simplified procedures for decision
making. The key to a simplified system is that the amount of
information required must relate to the amount of environmental
harm that comes from a wrong decision and the uncertainty
surrounding that decision. In most cases, estimates and
uncertainty ranges can be used in place of data. These
uncertainty ranges are essential to understand the possible
outcomes and the likelihood of those outcomes occurring. For
example, for each site/waste decision, a requestor can have a
tailored set of data and modeling requirements. As a first
cut, a requestor can use simple models and assumptions with
uncertainty bounds where he does not have site-specific data.
-94-
-------
If his results show a small band of uncertainty, he need not
spend more time or resources. A decision (grant or deny) can
be made at this point. If his results show a large band of
uncertainty, the applicant will need to obtain better site-
specific data to see if he can narrow this wide range. If
unable to, he can choose .to use more sophisticated models
with more extensive justification.
Develop training programs to educate the EPA, states, and
public in using technology performance/risk-based decisions.
Different training materials are needed for educating EPA and
state employees, petitioners, and the public. The training
should focus on how EPA develops hazard, exposure, and risk
estimates and then combines these elements with other information
(such as technology performance, cleanup time and use of the
contaminated resource) to decide how to sufficiently protect
public health and the environment. Besides training existing
personnel, EPA and state agencies need to hire employees with
skills in the risk field — toxicologists, modelers, and
people with risk communication expertise to complement our
engineers and to educate the public about this process.
-95-
-------
OTHER PROBLEMS AND
CHALLENGES ALSO EXIST
The Regulatory Structure
Also Requires Changes
The current regulatory structure is unnecessarily complex.
This complexity of the RCRA rules is intimidating and can
lead to inconsistent regulatory protection. Only an expert
familiar with the rules can determine which wastes and which
facilities they cover. The result has been a system with
many definitional boxes that sometimes blur together and
sometimes result in huge inconsistencies.
Similarly, our facilities standards too often focus in
voluminous detail on the means of carrying out regulations
and not the "end," which is a healthy population and a clean
environment. Unlike the air and water programs which pri-
marily concentrate on emissions or effluent standards, the
RCRA program consists primarily of detailed design, operating,
and performance standards that encompass the entire facility.
A permit application can run from 100 pages for a small,
single-process facility to over 2,000 pages for a multi-
purpose facility. Taken together, this complexity is a major
reason why few land disposal permits have been issued to date.
The challenge to EPA is to correct these inefficiencies
by, among other activities, implementing an integrated faci-
lity management planning system, supplying more efficient
-96-
-------
and timely guidance to regional and state personnel as well
as to the regulatory community, increasing communication
and technical assistance to this community, and working more
closely with interested parties as we develop future regula-
tions.
Potential Cross-Media Impacts
Require Careful Risk Assessment
Implementation of new HSWA requirements is likely to
result in banning the land disposal of hazardous wastes
unless they are first treated. These land bans may also
require destruction technologies, like incineration, to be
used before the wastes can be land disposed. As these land
ban decisions are implemented, the potential exists for
other environmental risks to increase by transferring solid
waste hazards to other media (e.g., water effluents from
treatment processes, or incineration exhaust). EPA is
currently addressing potential cross-media impacts by per-
forming comprehensive assessments that cover multiple media
wherever possible. For example, EPA is investigating whether
improvements can be made to Federal categorical standards
and local pretreatment controls to enhance control of hazard-
ous wastes discharged to sewers. EPA is also examining the
impact of air emissions from technologies used to treat
hazardous wastes. EPA's assessments will often be limited
-97-
-------
by the adequacy of current inter-media technical understanding.
EPA intends to meet the land-ban deadlines imposed by HSWA
even if these assessments are incomplete; thus, EPA may be
forced to exercise a substantial degree of technical judgment
using available information in order to complete the land ban
provisions on time.
EPA Must Reconcile Multiple
Ground-water Protection Approaches
EPA's current and future regulatory strategy for disposal
of hazardous waste embodies four potentially overlapping
components:
1. technical standards (e.g., double liners and leachate
collection);
2. location standards (e.g., with respect to nearby
aquifers, floodplains, earthquake zones, and unstable
geologic formations);
3. land bans and associated pretreatment standards?
and
4. monitoring, enforcement, and corrective action.
In some cases, regulations and guidance for each component
are developed under the environmentally conservative assump-
tion that other sources of protection will fail. For example,
-98-
-------
land-ban regulations will be based on an assumption that
liners will ultimately fail and that ground-water monitor-
ing will fail to detect a release. To some extent, these
different lines of defense address circumstances that may
occur at different points in time (e.g., enforcement and
technical standards provide near-term protection, while land
bans and locational standards provide long-term protection).
In addition, the reconciliation of multiple protection
strategies requires detailed assessments of technical
performance that are often unavailable (e.g., the long-term
performance of liners or landfill caps is uncertain, as is
the duration and effectiveness of postclosure institutional
care). However, imposition of all of these requirements at
every site could prove to be enormously expensive.
As technical performance and the risk associated with
this performance become better understood, EPA may need to
revise its standards. For example, factories that must be
sited at specific locations for other economic reasons (e.g.,
near a river for transportation) may be unable to comply
with locational standards, even though they use facilities
that otherwise comply with pretreatment requirements and
technical standards. As locational standards, land bans,
and new enforcement powers are implemented, EPA will need to
consider the applicability of these different environmental
protection mechanisms.
-99-
-------
The potential Lack of Adequate
Disposal Capacity Makes Permitting Vital
The existing supply of hazardous waste disposal capacity
is not known with certainty. However, current conditions
and trends suggest that a disposal capacity shortfall is
relatively.likely, at least at a regional and technology-
specific level. A number of conditions create this situation.
Currently, the pace of permitting of new facilities is rela-
tively slow, while facility closures are increasing rapidly.
In 1985 alone, approximately 1000 land disposal facilities
closed or were forced to close because they failed to meet
congressionally mandated operating requirements (by not
complying with ground-water monitoring and financial assurance
requirements, and by submitting Part B applications for a
final permit). Conversely, only ten disposal facilities have
received final permits to date. Of the nearly 500 land
disposal facilities that apparently retained interim status,
EPA expects that many more will ultimately lose interim
status as certifications and Part B applications are reviewed.
While new capacity additions are slow and capacity
closures apparently rapid, new regulatory requirements will
also shift the mix of capacity needed (from landfilling to
treatment and incineration). Evidence that incineration
capacity is already in short supply is relatively strong
(i.e., operating rates in excess of 90 percent and rapid
-100-
-------
price increases). In addition, phase-out of PCB-containing
electrical equipment has created a large demand for incinera-
tion capacity, together with CERCLA cleanup actions, which
competes with normal incineration demand from ongoing hazard-
ous waste generation activities, in other cases, while
capacity may remain available, fewer sites continue to accept
waste. As a result, generators are forced to transport waste
over a longer distance at higher cost.
EPA has a multi-pronged strategy nationwide to address
the potential capacity shortfall. First of all, by conduct-
ing a capacity study EPA will be in a much better position
to determine where and when capacity is a real problem.
Furthermore, EPA has assigned the permitting of alternate
treatment facilities a high priority. Finally, through its
RD&D permit program and Technology Transfer Task Force, EPA
is encouraging development of new capacity.
Insurance Availability May
Be Limited in the Short Term
Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 264 regulations requires
hazardous waste management facilities to maintain insurance
to cover potential property damage and bodily injury. (No
requirements currently exist for unexpected corrective action
costs that may be incurred during operation or closure.)
Recently, many facilities have complained that they were
unable to obtain the necessary insurance at reasonable cost.
-101-
-------
Of the land-disposal facilities that failed to certify com-
pliance with the financial responsibility provisions of RCRA
on November 8, 1985 (and thereby lost interim status), about
45 to 50 would have complied but for lack of financial in-
surance. While the insurability of these facilities is
unclear, as is the actual availability of adequate insurance,
it is-at least true that insurance providers have recently
suffered large property and casualty losses, and that many
no longer offer insurance or have raised rates substantially.
As a result, the effectiveness of the insurance industry as
a private sector mechanism to hf^p assure environmentally
acceptable hazardous waste management is currently limited.
In the short term, EPA is attempting to assist qualified
hazardous waste management facilities in identifying insurance
providers and providing a regulatory package to authorize the
use of a corporate guarantee as a method of demonstrating com-
pliance with liability requirements. EPA is also investigating
the use of other instruments such as indemnity contracts and
letters of credit. However, EPA's long-term strategy is to
foster private sector involvement as much as possible by (1)
monitoring sites to assure regulatory compliance, (2) encourag-
ing insurers to adopt risk-based measures in policies, and
(3) hoping to identify "good risks" through the permitting
and enforcement programs. EPA also maintains a list of com-
panies currently offering environmental impairment insurance,
and offers assistance to promote companies seeking to form
risk retention pools.
-102-
-------
Treatment of Federal Facilities
Requires Special Consideration
Federal facilities that dispose of hazardous waste
have certain unique features that require EPA's special
attention concerning permitting, enforcement, and compliance
monitoring. The Constitution prohibits any federal agency
from taking judicial action against another federal agency.
However, EPA can issue administrative orders and compliance
agreements just as for any other facility. EPA is currently
working with DOD and DOE to resolve problems related to the
management of hazardous waste (RCRA) and special nuclear and
byproduct waste (Atomic Energy Act). In the case of DOE
facilities, many disposal sites were designed for dealing
with radioactive waste (from the weapons program and other
research activities) in a manner that does not conform to
current hazardous waste disposal technical standards. Simi-
larly, permitting of federal facilities currently requires
that corrective actions occur at all solid waste management
units (SWMUs) with releases of concern anywhere in the same
facility (defined to include all contiguous property under
single ownership). Since many federal "facilities" are very
large (sometimes hundreds of square miles), assessment of all
SWMU's will be difficult.
EPA is currently in the process of developing a regulatory
package that addresses three issues that pertain to permitting
-103-
-------
federal facilities. The first issue addresses the question
of who "owns" a federal facility. The second issue addresses
concern that a federal agency could be held responsible for
corrective action on lands that an agency transferred to
another party. The third issue concerns national priorities
and limited resources and the need to address these resources
to the most contaminated sites first.
Another issue pertains to regulating radioactive mixed
wastes that are subject to RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act.
EPA is currently issuing a notice requiring states to develop
programs, or update programs, to manage and regulate the
hazardous components of radioactive mixed wastes.
EPA's Regulations Operate at
the Cutting Edge of Technology
As hazardous waste management requirements become
increasingly more protective, reliance on advanced technical
processes increase (especially on continuous testing and
performance monitoring technologies). In many cases, hazard-
ous waste management techniques are extensions of well-known
processes (e.g., landfilling, chemical treatment, and in-
cineration); however, current regulations require these pro-
cesses to be conducted in a far more controlled manner. For
example, experience with the performance of plastic membrane
liners in landfills and surface impoundments (especially in
-104-
-------
contact with a wide variety of hazardous materials), and with
incinerators reaching 99.99 percent destruction and removal
efficiency, is still relatively limited, in other cases, the
processes themselves are very new (e.g., plasma-arc and
high-pressure hydrochemical destruction technologies). Since
the performance of new and existing technologies plays a
fundamental role in EPA's regulatory effort, ongoing technology
assessment is vital to the program.
EPA is using a number of initiatives to address new
technology. EPA is working to streamline the permitting
process to facilitate recognition of technology change, and
is developing an improved RD&D permit program under HSWA.
In addition, EPA is in the process of instituting the Super-
fund Innovative Technology Evaluation program (SITE) in
order to foster alternative technologies and capitalize on
its experience at CERCLA sites. Additional programs are
also underway to develop exposure modeling techniques in
order to aid the use of an integrated technology/risk-based
management approach.
Lack of Compliance in the Regulated
Community Requires Aggressive Enforcement Action
While EPA has made substantial progress in bringing
sites into compliance with hazardous waste regulations, and
has closed a large number of sites not in compliance, EPA's
-105-
-------
enforcement task remains large. In 1985, EPA designated
706 as "Significant Non-Compliers" (SNCs) at the beginning
of fiscal year 1985, and thus assigned these sites a high
priority for enforcement action. Inspections and follow-up
activity by EPA and authorized states ultimately resulted in 690
enforcement actions for SNCs during fiscal year 1985. While
EPA's SNC designation focuses on major land-disposal facilities,
EPA suspects that a greater fraction of all Subtitle C facilities
are, in fact, out of compliance with some portion of current
regulatory requirements, perhaps as high as 30 percent. These
requirements include the ground-water monitoring provisions
of Subpart F regulations, the closure provisions of Subpart
G, and the financial responsibility provisions of Subpart H.
In the legal sense, waste management facilities are
only required to comply with the regulations EPA sets forth.
However, economic considerations provide an incentive to
the facility operators and generators to achieve compliance
at the minimum level possible. To some extent, this tendency
towards minimum compliance impedes EPA's ability to achieve
the environmental objectives of RCRA. For example, EPA
suspects that some land-disposal facilities (e.g., surface
impoundments that would require liner retrofits) never intend
to comply with the technical standards of 40 CFR Part 264
regulations for fully permitted facilities. However, these
-106-
-------
facilities are able to retain interim status until the final
permitting process is complete (for up to two more years).
Furthermore, EPA has found that final permit applications
(Part B applications) often arrive with insufficient technical
information. Thus, EPA must request more information in a
time-consuming iterative fashion, which tends to delay the
date by which the facility must achieve full compliance with
the 40 CFR Part 264 technical standards.
EPA has implemented a number of strategies to enhance
the effectiveness of its enforcement actions. In addition,
with the corrective action capability EPA now has (Section
3008(h) added by HSWA), EPA is in a much stronger position
to enforce its regulations aggressively, even during the
period of interim status. EPA's FMP program is the primary
mechanism for efficient coordination of enforcement effort.
In addition, EPA is focusing on creating a publicly visible
enforcement presence in order to create a credible deterrent
to noncompliers.
EPA Must Continue to Train and
Maintain a Technically proficient Workforce
Changes in hazardous waste management in the U.S. have
been rapid and far-reaching over the last few years. As
regulations have become more environmentally protective
and public participation in waste management activities
(especially siting) more substantial, the need for trained
-107-
-------
and experienced technical personnel has risen dramatically»
While reliable quantitative evidence of a lack of personnel
is lacking, anecdotal evidence for such a shortfall abounds
in the form of rising private sector salaries, and increasing
competition for personnel evidenced by high turnover. One
indicator of growing demand is the rate of growth of hazardous
waste,management firms (which are engaged in both RCRA and
CERCLA activities). These firms include those engaged in
the transportation and disposal of waste, and those providing
technical expertise in environmental exposure and risk assess-
ment, hydrogeological assessment, and other waste-related
engineering disciplines.
EPA's need for technical capability continues to rise.
Just as private sector requirements for hydrogeologic and
environmental assessment capability have grown, EPA requires
trained personnel to review permit applications, inspect
facilities, define and enforce corrective actions, and develop
regulations for increasingly sophisticated waste management
techniques. As much as possible, EPA has addressed the need
for ongoing training and technical support through the develop-
ment of detailed guidance documents. A wide range of guidance
materials are now available for permit writers, inspectors,
and enforcement personnel, including specific detailed guidance
in the complex area of ground-water assessment. EPA has
-108-
-------
conducted a detailed Needs Assessment to define its technical
capability requirements, has instituted a number of state
and regional training programs (e.g., on groundwater treat-
ment technology), and has created a Technology Transfer Task
Force to assist the training program.
Information and Data Management Require Further Development
In order to track the large number of hazardous waste
management facilities subject to the Subtitle C requirements,
EPA developed a large information data base called the Hazard-
ous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS). This system is
designed to provide information on facility-specific charac-
teristics (e.g., type of waste handled), as well as on per-
mitting, inspection, and enforcement status. To date, this
system has been difficult to use, and its data relatively
suspect. These limitations have led to the simultaneous
development of a number of use-specific companion systems
that were created on an ad hoc basis in order to fulfill
day-to-day management needs.
In part, the HWDMS problems developed because the system
was created during a period when information needs were largely
undefined and rapidly changing, and because states and regions
had little incentive to maintain the system (either to input
data in a timely manner or to verify the data). In addition,
some of the information was inconsistent or unavailable (e.g.,
some states define hazardous waste under state law in a manner
that is inconsistent with EPA).
-109-
-------
EPA has addressed these data management problems by
implementing a substantially improved version of HWDMS, by
instituting new data management procedures (which make the
states and regions responsible for the data inputs), and by
beginning development, in an iterative fashion, of a new,
more comprehensive system (RCRIS) that will be able to combine
information from the several smaller databases that were
(•
created for specific functions. As a result of detailed
surveys, the RCRIS system will recognize the very different
information needs of states, regions, and EPA headquarters
through the use of a flexible data base structure. At the
same time, the accuracy and responsiveness of EPA's existing
data management system has improved significantly, and can
now be used to monitor program accomplishments and to develop
environmental priorities more reliably.
Greater Inter-Office and Inter-Program Coordination is Necessary
As EPA's hazardous and solid waste programs have evolved,
they have required an increasing degree of coordination among
various offices within EPA» Coordination has become necessary
in two areas in particular: implementation of RCRA and CERCLA
actions, and administration of the permitting and enforcement
efforts of RCRA. In the former case, a large number of CERCLA
actions have resulted in substantial quantities of waste
-110-
-------
redisposal in environmentally acceptable RCRA facilities,
or have required (or will require) consideration of RCRA
standards for onsite waste redisposal at the CERCLA site.
While not required by law, current EPA policy is to conform
to RCRA standards at CERCLA sites whenever possible, and, at
a minimum, to ensure that RCRA facilities receiving CERCLA
waste are environmentally sound, since RCRA facilities must
be periodically inspected by EPA as part of ongoing permitting
and compliance monitoring efforts, sites designated to receive
CERCLA waste have been assigned a high inspection priority.
EPA has also adopted an inter-media approach to identify
potential problems (for example, with redisposal or treatment
options), and has formed a RCRA/CERCLA work group to coordinate
policy on corrective, action and cleanup standards. Other
issues include RCRA sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL), RCRA/CERCLA off-site policy, and the potential impact
of RCRA facilities that lose interim status on the CERCLA
program.
Within the RCRA program, EPA has recognized that its
environmental program objectives can be achieved through
mechanisms that involve both permitting and enforcement
procedures (e.g., by accelerating final permit determinations
for noncompliers, or by issuing administrative orders that
accelerate corrective actions). This interrelationship has
-111-
-------
become even more significant with the new corrective action
capabilities granted to EPA under HSWA. However, it is
necessary to ensure that corrective actions (which need
only address compliance with interim status provisions)
also satisfy final permitting conditions. In order to ensure
better coordination between permitting and enforcement divi-
sions, EPA has recently instituted a Facility Management
Planning (FMP) process, whereby the treatment of each facility
is planned in a coordinated fashion which includes identifi-
cation of the specific "tools" EPA proposes to use at each.
FMP also serves as a vehicle for monitoring EPA progress and
for setting permitting and enforcement priorities.
Finally, enactment of HSWA has also brought the RCRA program
closer to other environmental programs as well. Air emissions
regulations are required for RCRA treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities. RCRA staff must work closely with the
Office of Water in addressing corrective action at publicly
owned treatment works (POTW's), sludge regulations, domestic
sewage exclusion and the banning of wastes from underground
injection control units, similarly, RCRA staff must coordinate
activities with the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
in addressing PCB disposal.
-112-
-------
Appendix A
Recent RCRA Accomplishments
-------
Activity
Brief Description
REGULATIONS
Waste as Fuel Administra-
tive Standards
Land Disposal Restric-
tions - Schedule
Land Disposal Restric-
tions - Framework,
Dioxin and Solvents
Small Quantity Generators
Codification Rule - Part
1 - State Authorization
Codification Rule - Part
2 - Liners/Corrective
Action
Final Rule, prohibits the burning in
non-industrial boilers of both hazardous
waste fuel and of used oil that does
not meet specification levels of certain
hazardous contaminants. HSWA deadline,
November 1986.
Final Rule. Sets forth schedule for
reviewing hazardous wastes to determine
if they should be restricted from land
disposal. HSWA deadline, November 1986.
Proposed Rule. Established the framework
for the land disposal restrictions pro-
gram including the setting of treatment
standards for hazardous wastes prior to
land disposal, procedures for filing
petitions for ban exemptions, criteria
for setting effective dates for bans,
and procedures for case-by-case effective
date extensions. HSWA deadline for
dioxins and solvents, November 1986.
Final Rule. Provided standards for
wastes generated in quantities greater
than 100 and less than 1,000 kg/month.
HSWA deadline, March 1986.
Proposed Rule. Companion rule to EPA's
final rule of July 15, 1985 which
identified requirements specified by
HSWA which took effect immediately or
shortly after enactment. This rule
changes existing regulations to
assist in the implementation of the
new statutory provisions pertaining
to authorization of State hazardous
waste programs.
Proposed Rule. This rule addresses
performance-based design alternatives
to HSWA Section 3004(o) for double
liners and leachate collection systems
at land disposal units and and correc-
tive action requirements regarding
corrective action for contamination
beyond the RCRA facility boundary.
-------
Activity
Brief Description
Mining Waste Exclusion
Reinterpretation
Waste Oil (Used Oil)
Management/Listing
Standards
Proposed Rule. Currently all solid
waste from the extraction and treating
of ores and minerals are excluded
from regulation as hazardous waste
under RCRA. Only large volume pro-
cessing wastes (e.g., bauxite muds,
phosphogypsum and slags) would remain
within the exclusion. Wastes removed
from exclusion will be subject to
Subtitle C regulation if they are
hazardous. Court ordered deadline,
September 1986.
Proposed Rule. Provided standards to
list used oil as a hazardous waste
and to control used oil that is
recycled. Includes controls over the
generation, transportation, storage,
and reuse of recyled used oil. HSWA
deadline for proposed listing, November
1985; for standards, November 1986.
Hazardous Waste Export
Rule
Regulatory Amendments for
use of Appendix 8 for
Ground-Water Monitoring
Storage or Treatment of
Hazardous Waste in
Tanks
Mining Waste Renulatory
Determination
Proposed and Final Rule. Prohibits
exports of hazardous waste unless
prior written consent is obtained
from the receiving country; a copy of
the written consent is attached to
the manifest and the shipment conforms
to the terms of the manifest. HSWA
deadline, November 1985.
Proposed Rule. Modified list of hazard©
constituents referenced in the regula-
tions for use in ground-water monitoring
Final Rule. Regulations for the proper,
management of tank systems storing or
treating hazardous waste to control
risk posed by the migration of the
waste. HSWA deadline, March 1985.
Court ordered deadline, June 1986.
Final. Determined that regulations
of wastes studied in the Report to
Congress under Subtitle C is not
warranted at this time. Plan to
regulate under Subtitle D program
with added statutory authorities.
Court ordered deadline, June 1986.
-------
Activity
Brief Description
Toxicity Characteristic
90-day Accumulator Tank
Systems
REPORTS
Mining Waste Report to
Congress
GUIDANCES
FY 1987 RCRA Implementa-
tion Plan
Nonhazardous Liquids
Bulk Liquids
Proposed Rule. Expanded the toxicity
characteristic to include approximately
38 additional organic toxicants and
introduced a new extraction procedure
to be used in the toxicity characteristic
test. Replacement of current leaching
procedure with one suitable for organic
compounds. HSWA deadline for toxicity
characteristic, November 1986; March 1987
for toxicity characteristic leaching.
Announcement of advanced Proposed
Rulemaking. Proposes options for
requiring owners of tanks accumulating
wastes for less than 90 days to comply
with corrective action authorities
under RCRA.
Comprehensive assessment of possible
adverse effects on human health and
the environment from the disposal and
utilization of solid wastes from the
extraction and treatment of ores and
minerals. Metal, phosphate, and
abestos mining segments of the U.S.
mining industry were included in the
assessment.
Established the framework for determining
priorities and guidance at the national
and State levels for implementation
of the RCRA Subtitle C program.
Provided guidance to Regions, States,
and owners and operators about pro-
hibition/demonstration of placement
of nonhazardous liquids in hazardous
waste landfills.
Provided interpretation of and guidance
on the statutory requirements for
bulk hazardous liquids so that owners/
operators can comply with RCRA
regulations.
-------
Activity
Brief Description
Surface Impoundment
Retrofitting
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Granted Final Authoriza-
tion to 15 States
Public Involvement
Training Course
Incinerator Permit
program Study
Technical Assistance
to the Regions
Mixed Wastes - State
Authorization
RCRA Orientation Manual
Guidance for owners and operators ot
existing surface impoundments who wish to
seek an exemption from the retrofitting
requirements.
Delegated the pre-HSWA program to the
following States: Kansas, Nevada,
South Carolina, Arizona, Missouri,
Guam, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin,
New York, and West Virginia. This
brings the total number of States
authorized to forty-one.
Conducted training in ten regions for
permit writers to involve the public
in Agency decision making particularly
for obtaining informed consent in the
permitting of hazardous waste facilities.
Conducted a study of the incinerator
permit 'program. Objectives were to
develop accurate list of incinerator
facilities; and determine the priority
of incinerators being permitted in
the Regions and the length of time to
issue these permits.
Provided direct assistance to the
Regions/states on specific permit
questions concerning technical or
policy issues holding up pe^it
issuance. Permit Assistance Teams
(PATs) are formed using program and
other headquarters staff to provide
comments on selected land disposal,
incineration, and storage permit
actions.
Federal Register Notice. Announced
that States can apply for authorization
to regulate radioactive mixed wastes,
i.e., wastes that contain both RCRA
wastes and source, special nuclear,
or byproduct material waste subject to
the Atomic Energy Act.
Provided general information on the
RCRA hazardous waste program including
an overview, the extent of its coverager
and the way it works.
-------
-5-
Activity
Brief Description
Mobile Treatment Units
(MTUs) Study
Implementation Strategies
HSWA Authorization For
One State
Published Nine Delisting
Petitions Notices
Conducted a study to determine the
feasibility of procedures to expedite
the permitting of mobile treatment
units.
In conjunction with regulatory
development activities, developed
implementation strategies that outline
the schedule for implementation,
issues associated with implementation
of regulatory actions, and the specific
tasks and activities needed to imple-
ment a particular rule or guidance
document. Completed strategy for
small quantity generator rulemaking.
Federal Register Notice. Provided
tentative approval of revision to
Georgia's hazardous waste program
including HSWA requirements through
July 15, 1985.
Federal Register Notice. Published
nine notices covering 202 delisting
actions to grant or deny requests for
removal of certain wastes from the
hazardous waste listing program.
-------
Appendix B
Guidance Documents
1983-1985
-------
1983 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT TITLE
Permit Applicants'
Gudiance Manual for
the General Facility
Standards
Permit Writer's
Guidance Manual
for Hazardous
Waste Tanks
Guidance Manual for
Hazardous Waste
Incinerator Permits
RCRA Permit Writers'
Manual for Ground
Water Protection
(40 CFR Part 264 F)
DESCRIPTION
Guidance for permit
applicants addressing
general information
requirements of 270.14
(b)(1-12,19) and the 264
standards referenced by
those requirements
General information on
design, standards and
operation for tanks
Presents specifications
to comply with incineration
regulation. For use by
both permit writers
and applicants
Technical document to be
used by both permit
writers and applicants
Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment
Draft RCRA Guidance
Document: Land
Treatment
Permit Writers'
Guidance Manual for
Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities
(2 volumes)
Landfills and Surface
Impoundments Performance
Evaluation
Lining of Waste Impound-
ments and Disposal
Facilities
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
For permit applicants
Presents specifications
to comply with the
Part 264 Land Disposal
Standards
Technical resource
document for permit
writers and applicants
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
-------
1983 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS (con't)
DOCUMENT TITLE
Evaluation of Closure
and Post-Closure Care
Plans for Hazardous
Waste Landfills
Permit Writers' Guide
for Storage Facility
Permits
DESCRIPTION
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
Instructions for permit
writers; Contains check-
list and technical
references list
-------
1984 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT TITLE
Waste Analysis Plan
Guidance Manual
Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Waste, 2nd edition
Designed and Development
of Hazardous Waste
Reactivity Testing
Protocol
Permit Applicants' (PA)
Gudance Manual Land
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities
Procedures for
Modeling Flow Through
Clay Liners to
Determine Required Liner
Thickness
DESCRIPTION
Details specific guidance
on how to prepare and
evaluate Waste Analysis
Plans; required as part
of Part B permit application
Technical information on
testing of hazardous Wastes
for all applicants;
Updated on a regular basis;
Current update package
contains methods for use in
ground-water monitoring &
incinerator performance
measurements.
Test scheme (protocol)
including field test kit,
flow diagrams to determine
gross chemical composition
of waste materials in the field;
used to classify waste into
reactivity groups and thus,
predict compatibility
Similar, concept as the
storage PA's guide;
emphasizes use of TRD
series
Technical resources
document for permit
applicants and writers
-------
1984 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS (con't)
DOCUMENT TITLE
The Hydrologic Evaluation
Landfill Performance (HELP)
Model (2 vols)
Solid Waste Leaching
Procedure Manual
Soil Properties, Classi-
fication, and Hydraulic
Conductivity Testing
Data Management Strategy
for RCRA Ground-Water
Monitoring Data Using
STORET
Model Permit
DESCRIPTION
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
Strategy document for use
of STORET for ground-water
monitoring data
Companion to Permit
Writers' Guide? Boilerplate
language and modules for
different types of permit
conditions
-------
1985 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT TITLE
Guidance for the
Analysis of
Refinery Wastes
Petitions to Delist
Hazardous Waste; A
Guidance Manual
Asbestos Waste
Management Guidance;
Generation, Transport,
and Disposal
RCRA Preliminary
Assessment/Site
Investigation
Guidance
Draft Guidance Document
for Research, Development,
and Demonstration Permits
under 40 CFR Section
270.65
Guidance for Implementing the
RCRA Dioxin Listing Rule
Statutory Interpretive
Guidance—Treatment
of Bulk Hazardous
Liquid
Directory of Commercial
Hazardous Waste Treatment
and Recycling Facilities
Model Permit Application
for Existing incinerators
Permit Guidance Manual
on Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Demonstrations
DESCRIPTION
Analytical and quality
control guidance for
refinery waste samples
Addresses vast amount of
information required to
submit delisting
petitions by persons
who generate or manage
listed wasted
Summary of information on
asbestos quantities and
uses, generation, trans-
port disposal, cost of
handling, and Federal
regulatory programs
Draft guidance on implemnting
§3004(u) and § 3008(h)
For permit applicants and
writers; recommends informa-
tion to consider in preparing
permit applications and in
drafting permit conditions;
for evaluating proposals and
issuing RD&D permit
Guidance ot accompany Dioxin
Listing Rule; Addresses
implementation issues
Treatment methods acceptable
to company with the May 8, 1985
statutory prohibition
Cross-reference hazardous
waste treatment and recycling
facilities with types of
waste handled
For use of both permit
writers and applicants
Permit guidance manual
for permit applicants
and writers
-------
1985 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS (con't)
DOCUMENT TITLE
Permit Guidance Manual
on Unsaturated Zone
Monitoring for
Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Units
Permit Writers' Guidance
Manual for Hazardous
Waste Land Storage and Disposal
Facilities—Phase Is Criteria
for Location Acceptability
and Existing Applicable
Regulations
Method for the Storage
and Retrieval of RCRA
Ground-Water Monitoring
Data on STORET
Alternate Concentration
Limit Guidance Based
on §264.94(b) Criteria
Part I
Draft Guidance oh
Implementation of the
Minimum Technological
Requirements of HSWA of
1984, Respecting Liners
Leachate Collection
Systems
Draft Minimum Technology
Guidance on Double Liner
Systems for Landfills
and Surface Impoundments
—Design, Construction
and Operation
Draft Minimum Technology
Guidance on Single Liner
Systems for Landfills,
Surface Impoundments,
and Waste Piles—Design
Construction and Operation
Construction Quality
Assurance for Hazardous
Waste Land Disposal
Facilities
DESCRIPTION
Permit guidance manual
for permit applicants
and writers
For Permit writers?
Presents five criteria
for acceptable location
of storage and disposal
facilities
Guidance on use of
STORET for ground-
water monitoring
Information required in
alternate concentration
limit demonstrations
Applicability, notification,
good faith compliance
and variances for the
minimum technological
requirements in Sections
3004(o) and 3015
Detailed technical guidance
on double liner systems
Detailed technical
guidance on single liner
systems
Guidance on the Following
components of the QA/QC
program: dikes, soil
liners, flexible membrane
liners, anf final covers
-------
1985 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS (con't)
DOCUMENT TITLE
Permit Applicants'
Guidance Manual for
Exposure Information
Requirements under
RCRA Section 3019
Restriction on the
Placement of Nonhazardous
Liquids in Hazardous
Waste Landfills
RCRA Ground-Water
monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance
Document
Practical Guide for
Ground-Water Sampling
DESCRIPTION
Provides guidance to
owners and operators of
landfills and surface
impoundments for submitting
information on potential
for public exposure
to hazardous waste as
required by RCRA Section 3019
Provides guidance on HSWA
Section 3004(c)(3) which
prohibits the disposal of
nonhazardous liquids in
landfills; Information on
exemptions/demonstrations
Technical enforcemnt
guidance regarding appropriate
design and implementation
of ground-water monitoring
at RCRA interim status
facilities
File report on 2-year study
related to ground-water
sampling procedures,
monitoring well construction
------- |