United States
           Environmental Protection
             Office of Solid Waste
             and Emergency Response
             Washington, DC 20460
July 1986
           Solid Waste
Report to Congress

           EPA Activities and       llftlf
           Under the  Resource
           Conservation and
           Recovery Act:
           Fiscal Years 1980 to  1985

     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

                        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

     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.

                              Lee M. Thomas


                        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                             AUG 11 1986
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill
Speaker of the House of
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

     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.

                              Lee M. Thomas


     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



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

Chapter 2

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
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

                  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

                TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter 4

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

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

                        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






Appendix A - Comprehensive List of Recent Office of
             Solid Waste Outputs
Appendix B - Guidance Documents Prepared to Support
             Permitting Program 1983-1985

     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.



     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.

     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.


     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

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

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


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


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.


     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


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)


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


          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.


     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,

     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,

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).


     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.

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.


     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



     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


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-
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.
     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.

      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

implement them.  RCRA provided financial assistance to states

to facilitate their development of hazardous waste programs.
     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.
     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

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.

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


     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.
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


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



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

           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

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.

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.

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,


     o    Technical Standards for Incinerators (responds to

          RCRA Section 3004, now found in 40 CFR Part 264)  —

          promulgated January 23, 1981;

          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,

     Financial Responsibility
     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.

     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


     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

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


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


     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

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


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

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.


     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

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.

     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-
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,


 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

 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


     The federal government has also been responsible for

the oversight of state programs throughout the authorization

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.

c  co
                      un ro in     cri
                      r>i CN <-(     co

Q a
Cd «
2 O<
H ^


ill     o
III     CN
                         VO 00     r-l
                      CN o
                      r- r-  I
    i   !





8 o

P5 *o
o «5
CD (3
2 o
*o *o
rH rH

* *






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
£ • 
•rH U 4J
vo CD 2
00 i-l —
^•2 .2

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,





(N S
1 W
ro 3?
. 1
J 05
03 O,









 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 ^~ *^
« 00
•H cn
jQ <-
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^ ^
^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) *







CN 5
1 CO
n S3
Cd W
tn &4

















i i









in in in vo ^* ^* in vo vo vo in ^* in ^* ^f in ^* i^ vo vo
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
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

to ^f n CN CN CN (N^nro^}*
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

m-*t*1fN CN •tfCN CN'S/fOM^
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
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

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

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

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

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.


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


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

Section 3005 permit, provided that a facility notifies EPA

and submits a Part A application by the time of the effective


     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


     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

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


     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


     Approximately 14,500 facilities notified EPA of hazardous

waste activities and submitted Part A applications.  EPA's next

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.


     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,
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

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


     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;

     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


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


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

                            Table 3-3


                     Applications Requested by Fiscal Year
Type of
. 921
* Includes data through June 1986.

SOURCE:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


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

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



 - W
•rt Q)
*^ C
                            O 00 fi
^ •V ff\ VM J-l
^ °JJ
CD aj C
3 g i

CU & w
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. ^
,„ 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
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
g U 0 "H
a (0 u o
10 a. a-i fl
^ 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
tO M J *







. en




— 1
1— 1

r— t


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;

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.

     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.

     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


     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


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.

     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

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.

     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

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.

     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


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

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


     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

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

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

 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

                          Table 3-5

Major handlers
All Facilities

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
                                                Federal Facilities

Formal Actions against
Newly Identified SNCs

Newly Identified SNCs
Returned to Compliance

End of Year SNCs1




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.

 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.

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



     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.


     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,

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

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.

     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


     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.

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.
     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.

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

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

          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


     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.
     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.

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-


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,

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.


     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.


     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.

          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.
     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

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.

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.

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

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-

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

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


     1.  technical standards (e.g., double liners and leachate


     2.  location standards (e.g., with respect to nearby

         aquifers, floodplains, earthquake zones, and unstable

         geologic formations);

     3.  land bans and associated pretreatment standards?


     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,

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).


     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

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


     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

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.

        Appendix A

Recent RCRA Accomplishments

               Brief Description

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
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.

               Brief Description
Mining Waste Exclusion
Waste Oil (Used Oil)
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
Regulatory Amendments for
  use of Appendix 8 for
  Ground-Water Monitoring

Storage or Treatment of
  Hazardous Waste in
Mining Waste Renulatory
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.

               Brief Description
Toxicity Characteristic
90-day Accumulator Tank

Mining Waste Report to

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
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

               Brief Description
Surface Impoundment

Granted Final Authoriza-
  tion to 15 States
Public Involvement
  Training Course
Incinerator Permit
  program Study
Technical Assistance
  to the Regions
Mixed Wastes - State
RCRA Orientation Manual
Guidance for owners and operators ot
existing surface impoundments who wish to
seek an exemption from the retrofitting
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

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.

               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

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 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

 Permit Applicants'
 Gudiance Manual for
 the General Facility
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)

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
Draft RCRA Guidance
Document:  Land
Permit Writers'
Guidance Manual for
Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities
(2 volumes)

Landfills and Surface
Impoundments Performance

Lining of Waste Impound-
ments and Disposal
Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers

For permit applicants
Presents specifications
to comply with the
Part 264 Land Disposal

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)

Evaluation of Closure
and Post-Closure Care
Plans for Hazardous
Waste Landfills

Permit Writers' Guide
for Storage Facility

Technical resource
document for permit
applicants and writers
Instructions for permit
writers; Contains check-
list and technical
references list

                   1984 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

Waste Analysis Plan
Guidance Manual
Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Waste, 2nd edition
Designed and Development
of Hazardous Waste
Reactivity Testing
Permit Applicants' (PA)
Gudance Manual Land
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities

Procedures for
Modeling Flow Through
Clay Liners to
Determine Required Liner

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

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

Technical resources
document for permit
applicants and writers

              1984 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS   (con't)

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

Model Permit

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

                    1985 GUIDANCE  DOCUMENTS

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

Draft Guidance Document
for Research, Development,
and Demonstration Permits
under 40 CFR Section
Guidance for Implementing the
RCRA Dioxin Listing Rule
Statutory Interpretive
of Bulk Hazardous

Directory of Commercial
Hazardous Waste Treatment
and Recycling Facilities
Model Permit Application
for Existing incinerators

Permit Guidance Manual
on Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Demonstrations

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)

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

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

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

Permit guidance manual
for permit applicants
and writers
For Permit writers?
Presents five criteria
for acceptable location
of storage and disposal
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
Guidance on the Following
components of the QA/QC
program: dikes, soil
liners, flexible membrane
liners, anf final covers

             1985 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS  (con't)

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
Practical Guide for
Ground-Water Sampling

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

Technical enforcemnt
guidance regarding appropriate
design and implementation
of ground-water monitoring
at RCRA interim status

File report on 2-year study
related to ground-water
sampling procedures,
monitoring well construction