530SW86041A United States Solid Waste and Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA/530-SW-86-041A Agency (OS-305) October 1986 EPA Report to Congress: Minimization of Hazardous Waste Executive Summary Printed on Recycled Paper ------- ------- Report to Congress on Minimization of Hazardous Waste EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report to Congress is submitted in response to the requirements of Section 8002(r) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HS WA) of 1984.! Under this section, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to submit a Report to Congress by October 1, 1986, recommending any legislative changes that are feasible and desirable to implement HSWA's policy with respect to the minimization of hazardous waste: The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment. Section 8002(r) requires the Administrator to evaluate specifically the feasibility and desirability of: 1. Establishing standards of performance or of taking other additional actions under RCRA to require generators of hazardous waste to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of the hazardous waste they generate; and Reflecting common usage, the amended Solid Waste Disposal Act will hereafter be generally referred to as RCRA. Additions to RCRA made by the 1984 amendments will be referred to in the text as HSWA. ------- Executive Summary 2. Establishing, with respect to hazardous waste, required management practices or other requirements to ensure such wastes are managed in ways that minimize present and future risks to human health and the environment Definition of Terms The following definitions, based in part on the interpretations presented below, are crucial to the recommendations made in this report (see also Figure 1): Source reduction refers to the reduction or elimination of waste generation at the source, usually within a process. Source reduction measures can include some types of treatment processes, but they also include process modifications, feedstock substitutions or improvements in feedstock purity, various housekeeping and management practices, increases in the efficiency of machinery, and even recycling within a process. Source reduction implies any action that reduces the amount of waste exiting from a process. Recycling refers to the use or reuse of a waste as an effective substitute for a commercial product, or as an ingredient or feedstock in an industrial process. It also refers to the reclamation of useful constituent fractions within a waste material or removal of contaminants from a waste to allow it to be reused. As used in this report, recycling implies use, reuse, or reclamation of a waste either onsite or offsite after it is generated by a particular process. Waste minimization means the reduction, to the extent'feasible, of hazardous waste that is generated or subsequently treated, stored, or disposed of. It includes any source reduction or recycling activity undertaken by a generator that results in either (1) the reduction of total volume or quantity of hazardous waste, or (2) the reduction of toxicity of hazardous waste, or both, so long as the reduction is consistent with the goal of minimizing present and future threats to human health and the environment In the broadest sense, the HSWA defines waste minimization as any action taken to reduce the volume or toxicity of wastes. That definition includes the concept of waste treatment, which encompasses such technologies as incineration, chemical detoxification, — u ------- FIGURE 1 WASTE MINIMIZATION TECHNIQUES RECYCLING ONSITE/OFFSITE SOURCE REDUCTION USE / REUSE 'Processed to recover usable product 'Regeneration •Ingredient in a process •Effective substitute SOURCE CONTROL GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES 'Waste stream segregation 'Inventory control •Employee training 'Spill/leak prevention 'Scheduling improvement INPUT MATERIAL MODIFICATION 'Input purification 'Input substitution PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION QH3I TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION 'Improved Controls 'Process Modifications 'Equipment Changes 'Energy Conservation 'Water Conservation ------- Executive Summary biological treatments, and others.2 The Agency has already embarked on a broad program for waste treatment; thus, this report focuses on source reduction and recycling, the two aspects of waste minimization where basic options still remain open. Section 1003 of HSWA establishes the general national policy in favor of waste minimization and refers to the need to reduce the "volume or quantity and toxicity" of hazardous wastes. EPA does not interpret this language to indicate that Congress rejected volume reduction alone (with no change in the toxicity of hazardous constituents) as being a legitimate form of waste minimization. A generator that reduces the volume of its hazardous waste, even if the composition of its waste does not change, is accomplishing beneficial waste minimization. EPA believes that waste concentration may occasionally be a useful waste minimization technique (e.g., in preparing materials for recycling). The key concept, however, is that waste minimization must be protective of human health and the environment. Because both volume and toxicity of wastes present dangers to human health and the environment, measuring the effectiveness of waste minimization will be complex. First, waste mu.imization measures are likely to be process and industry specific, implying that different measurement techniques might be needed in different contexts; second, any mandatory requirements for reducing the volume or toxicity of generated waste should directly relate to expected reductions in risk to human health and the environment EPA has already developed data and methodologies that can be used to evaluate the risks of many types of waste streams, as well as the risk reductions associated with waste management practices.3 These evaluation techniques will continue to improve and become more effective as a tool in regulatory decision making. EPA therefore intends to use such assessments as a means of measuring progress in. waste minimization and to help establish Section 1003(aX6) of HSWA states that the objectives of "promotting] the protection of health and the environment and conserving] valuable material and energy resources" can be done by "minimizing the generation of hazardous waste and the land disposal of hazardous waste by encouraging process substitutions, materials recovery, properly conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment" [italics added]. These include, for example, the Liner Location Model and the RCRA Risk/Cost Analysis Model (usually referred to as the Waste-Environment-Technology or W-E-T model). — iv — ------- Executive Summary priorities among or within possible waste minimization regulatory schemes. This approach is consistent with the general principle that any waste minimization regulations should seek to reduce significant remaining risks. Why Minimize Waste? The RCRA program over the past ten years has focused primarily on correcting the effects of years of poor management of hazardous wastes by bringing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities into compliance with national standards that are protective of human health and the environment. HSWA has continued this policy, but has also shifted the emphasis of the program away from reforming land disposal practices to a reliance on waste treatment. Because of its potential for contamination of other environmental media (e.g., ground water), land disposal—even under strict control—is recognized as the least desirable method of managing hazardous wastes. The move toward treatment is a major step forward, but is not a complete answer. Reforms in land disposal practices and installation of new hazardous waste treatment capacity are elective responses to managing this country's hazardous waste, but the> do not address the generation of these wastes. Both Congress and EPA believe that preventing the generation of a waste, when feasible, is inherently preferable to controlling it after it is generated. Waste minimization can be viewed as a means of reducing the introduction of hazardous constituents into all environmental media. Current environmental control programs are designed to protect human health and the environment. However, control technologies are never 100 percent efficient, and compliance with regulations under any environmental program can never be perfect, even with the most stringent enforcement program. Waste minimization can also address the risks of breakdowns in waste management systems. In addition to achieving human health and environmental benefits by reducing the volume and/or toxicity of hazardous wastes, waste minimization can also relieve shortages of treatment, storage, and disposal capacity. The capacity to accept wastes diverted from land disposal will be especially limited over the next few years while new facilities are ------- Executive Summary under construction and treatment alternatives are being developed. This process may be slow, since public opposition makes new hazardous waste facilities extremely difficult to site. Furthermore, land disposal will continue to be required into the foreseeable future, even if wastes disposed of in or on the land are detoxified first; hence, capacity needs will always be a concern. Finally, all forms of waste management—treatment or land disposal—must allow for industrial growth and thus the need for additional capacity. By reducing per unit product generation rates, waste minimization can provide at least a partial answer to these problems. Incentives and Disincentives for Waste Minimization Strong incentives already exist to promote waste minimization in the private sector, including (1) dramatic increases in the price of all forms of hazardous waste management, partially caused by Federal and State standards, (2) difficulties in siting hazardous waste management capacity, (3) permitting burdens and corrective action requirements, (4) financial liability of hazardous waste generators, (5) sharp increases in the cost of commercial liability insurance, coupled with a steep dropoff in its availability, and (6) public pressure on industry to reduce the production of waste. There are also countervailing disincentives. Figure 2 covers the incentives and disincentives that surround the various waste minimization techniques. Incentives for Waste Minimization Increases in the costs of hazardous waste management: EPA and State regulations have been the primary cause of increased costs in treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes, especially in relation to landfills, surface impoundments, and storage and accumulation tanks. The current series of land disposal restrictions under HSWA will limit the number of untreated wastes that can be disposed of on land and thus are likely to increase the cost of disposal. HSWA also imposes more stringent standards on surface impoundments, which will mean that about half of those now in operation will close. In addition, the recently promulgated hazardous waste tank rules4 will 51 FR 25421, July 14, 1986 • vi • ------- Executive Summary INCENTIVES Increased Cost of Waste Management Difficulties in siting new HW management facilities Permitting Burdens and Corrective Action Requirements Financial Liability of HW Generators Shortages of Liability Insurance Public Perception • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • DISINCENTIVES Economic Barriers -Lack of Capital -Financial Liability Technical Barriers -Attitude* toward unfamilar methods -Bateh Processes -Lack of information -Technical Limits of Process -Technical Quality Concerns Regulatory Barriers -Need to Obtain TSO Permit -Perceived Stigma of Man'g Hat Waste -Revisions to Other Env. Permits e e e • • e e e e e • • e • e • e • • e FIGURE 2 INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES FOR VARIOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION TECHNIQUES. — vu — ------- Executive Summary also increase waste management costs. Because of these three factors, generators must find alternative means for treating, storing, or disposing of their wastes. Prices for such alternative waste treatment are expected to rise as generators compete for scarce treatment capacity (such as incineration or chemical detoxification). EPA has, in fact, already identified shortages of treatment and disposal capacity for solvent and dioxin wastes in its proposed regulations.5 Overall, the increased costs of waste management provide a strong incentive for owners and operators to reduce the quantity of waste generated or disposed of through the use of source reduction and offsite and onsite recycling techniques. Difficulties in siting hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal capacity: The land disposal restrictions program, as mandated by HSWA, is creating a strong demand for substantial new waste treatment, storage, and disposal capacity. Hazardous waste managers are therefore seeking new sites and planning to expand existing ones, but in the process they are encountering the familiar problem of "not in my community." While thsre are some instances where States have been successful in helping to site new hazardous waste management facilities, local resistance tends to be extremely hard to overcome. This intense public opposition to the siting of many types of hazardous waste facilities may cause shortages to persist even when market demand is strong. Generators' only alternative in many cases may therefore be a reliance on source reduction and onsite recycling to reduce the amount of waste they would otherwise send to offsite management facilities. Permitting burdens and corrective action requirements: Even though the demand • for new treatment and disposal capacity will be high, permitting procedures will tend to delay the availability of that new capacity, temporarily driving up the costs of all forms of treatment and disposal. No new hazardous waste management facility may be constructed until it has acquired a RCRA permit—a costly process that usually takes several years to complete. In addition, all permits issued after November 8, 1984, include provisions requiring owners and operators to take corrective action for releases of hazardous waste, 51FR 1729, January 14, 1986 via • ------- Executive Summary regardless of when it was placed in the unit, both within and beyond property boundaries as necessary to protect human health and the environment This potentially very expensive requirement applies to all facilities seeking a new RCRA permit, including both existing and new facilities. Additionally, even though the demand for new treatment and disposal capacity will be high, permitting procedures will tend to delay the availability of that new capacity, temporarily driving up the costs of all forms of treatment and disposal. Thus, the increased costs of permitting burdens and corrective action provide still another strong incentive for owners and operators to reduce the quantity of waste generated or disposed of through the use of source reduction and offsite and onsite recycling techniques. Financial liability of hazardous waste generators: Generators using offsite treatment, storage, or disposal face financial liability for two reasons: (1) there is a potential for mismanagement of wastes by facility operators, and (2) there is the possibility of improper design of the disposal facility itself. Even careful evaluation of facility management cannot reduce these risks to zero. A generator risks incurring liability when the treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) owner or operator cannot or will not pay for remedial or corrective actions made necessary by migration of wastes. In t^ese situations, generators can be held liable under common law for absolute, strict, joint and several liability. In addition, the imminent and substantial endangerment provisions in Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), state a generator or generators can be held financially responsible for the entire cleanup or restoration of a facility. When less waste is generated, it reduces potential liability for future disposal and thus is an incentive for both source reduction and onsite recycling. Shortages of liability insurance: The traditional means for obtaining coverage for potential hazardous waste management liabilities is through insurance, but, for many generators and owners or operators of TSDFs, liability insurance is no longer available, or is available only at extremely high cost. This is particularly true of Environmental Impairment Liability (EIL) insurance, which until 1985 was an often-used financial instrument for generators and owners and operators of TSDFs to protect themselves from ------- Executive Summary third-party and government claims for damages resulting from environmental releases of hazardous substances. In recent years, premiums have increased 50 to 300 percent, policies have been cancelled even where loss ratios have been excellent, and many companies have difficulty obtaining coverage at any price. In order to insure themselves against liability, TSDFs who must comply with Sections 3004 and 3005 (e) of RCRA6 have resorted to creative methods to obtain coverage.7 Until fundamental changes occur in the insurance marketplace, many generators and TSDFs will continue to have difficulty meeting liability requirements. Increases in insurance costs or an inability to obtain insurance will result in higher treatment and disposal costs or the loss of available treatment or disposal capacity. This will provide a strong incentive to reduce the quantity of waste to be disposed of through the application of source reduction and onsite recycling techniques. Public perception of company responsibilities: While the strongest incentives for implementing waste minimization techniques are probably economic, many companies are establishing waste minimization programs out of sensitivity to public concern over toxic chemicals. This type of corporate good citizenship is felt to produce good relations between industry and the public. Available information indicates that the larger companies are most likely to perceive public relations benefits in waste minimization; however, some medium and small size companies are acting under the same motives. Disincentives for Waste Minimization Economic barriers: Even though waste minimization practices often lead to cost savings, availability of capital for plant modernization is often a significant obstacle to their implementation. Although major companies may have sufficient access to upgrade inefficient processes, small and medium sized companies often do not. Firms that have recently modernized their facilities have reduced incentive to reinvest in alternative 6 Generators do not have to obtain liability insurance under RCRA. 7 New instruments they have developed include: (1) formation of associations—captive stock or mutual insurance companies, (2) licensed carrier fronting programs for trust funds in which banks hold funds to cover liability, (3) letters of credit, (4) self insurance, and (5) corporate guarantees. ------- Executive Summary processes. Obstacles to plant modernization adversely affect the implementation of source reduction and onsite recycling when these involve process modifications. Financial liability can, in at least one circumstance, also be a significant disincentive for waste minimization because generators who send waste offsite may be liable under CERCLA and common law for damages caused by their wastes, even if the wastes have left the plant and are no longer under the firm's control. They may therefore not use available offsite recycling. Technical barriers: Some firms may be reluctant to make any modifications to their production processes for fear of risking the technical quality of their final product. While these fears may not be well-founded, they can be a significant impediment to innovation. There may also be, however, significant practical limits to waste minimization, especially with respect to source reduction, even where firms are actively seeking to minimize waste. Certain products simply cannot be manufactured without producing hazardous wastes; excessive waste minimization requirements would, in such cases, remove products from the market or put companies out of business entirely. A hazardous waste analog to the zero discharge policy, calling for across-the-board cuts of fixed percentages of waste generated, is therefore not realistic because, in some situations, possible source reductions may turn out to be minor and achievable only at great expense. Another technical consideration affecting waste minimization is that industries producing high volume or high toxicity wastes often operate largely through batch processes. This can present problems for certain onsite recycling techniques (e.g., while light colored off-specification batches of paint can be blended into subsequent darker colored batches, the opposite is not always true). Similarly, offsite recycling is often technically limited by process realities and administrative logistics. Off-specification chemicals (such as pesticides or Pharmaceuticals) are examples of products with little onsite or offsite recycling potential. Even where wastes are technically recyclable, it may be difficult to accumulate enough waste to make the activity economically attractive. With respect to offsite recycling, it may be hard to establish permanent and stable relationships, either onsite among various production lines — XI ------- Executive Summary or offsite among firms; generator and user processes have to be synchronized, purity may vary over time, volumes of wastes available may not meet minimum reuse needs transportation costs have to be acceptable, and price variations in feedstocks and in product prices inevitably play a crucial role. Finally, the most significant technical barrier to waste minimization may often be a lack of suitable engineering information on source reduction and recycling techniques. Available information suggests that this is most often the case with small and medium sized companies. Regulatory barriers: Some of the provisions of current environmental statutes including RCRA, tend to discourage waste minimization. Some examples include the following: I??6 red"ction sometimes requires the installation of new machinery that can, under RCRA, be considered "treatment " This '30 °btaln a PCnnit « a ™™M> ^ Commercial recycling facilities that wish to increase their operations might be reluctant to do so if the expansion were to require a revision of their NPDES water pollution permit to authorize a change in the composition of their discharges or allow for larger The new definition of solid waste, promulgated by EPA to eliminate loopholes in RCRA controls and inhibit unsafe (or "sham") recycling, brings some additional wastes into the hazardous waste system. This seems to be inhibiting some plants from sending these wastes offsite for recycling, since many companies perceive that manifested wastes present greater financial liability for offsite activities out of their immediate control. In addition, out of anxiety over potential financial liabilities, some companies not currently in the hazardous waste system may be reluctant to undertake any waste minimization program that would require them to accept manifested hazardous waste (e.g., certain offsite recycling practices) or take other measures that would bring them officially into the hazardous waste management system. — Xll — ------- Executive Summary Current Waste Minimization Requirements At present, there are three formal statutory requirements relating to waste minimization, all of them enacted as part of the 1984 amendments. 1. Section 3002(b) of HSWA requires generators to certify on their waste manifests (mandated under Section 3002(a)) that they have in place a program "to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such waste to the degree determined by the generator to be economically practicable." 2. Section 3005(h) of HSWA requires the same certification in relation to any new permit issued for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. 3. Section 3002(a)(6) of HSWA requires, as part of any generator's biennial report to EPA, that the generator describe "the efforts undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated" as well as "changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually achieved during the year in question in comparison with previous years, to the extent such information is available for years prior -to enactment of [HSWA] These requirements should increase the awareness of generators and facility owners and operators of the importance of minimizing hazardous wastes, and might serve as the basis for more specific and farther reaching requirements. However, the present requirements are not restrictive; the generator determines whether any particular waste minimization approach that might apply to his or her process is economically practicable. Although the biennial reports should provide useful insight into what generators are actually doing to reduce wastes, they are not likely to provide definitive information. The reports due this year (1986) will be the first to include waste minimization requirements, and the quality of information they contain is expected to vary widely. As yet, for example, there is no formal definition of the meaning of the term "toxicity," or any guidance on the way to measure waste volume. In addition, generators are not likely to provide information that they consider confidential. EPA is therefore conducting a study to determine how the waste minimization statement on the biennial report can be modified to improve the quality of information being — XIII ------- Executive Summary reported. The Agency plans to provide uniform guidance directly to the States and to generators on the content of these reports in time for their 1988 submission. Future information provided in the report will then allow EPA to better identify trends in waste minimization technologies applied by generating facilities. Evaluation of Available Options for Waste Minimization Congress specifically required the Agency to report on the desirability and feasibility of establishing mandatory standards of performance for waste minimization or of taking additional actions under RCRA to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste and of establishing required management practices to achieve minimization. It also requested any recommendations for legislative changes to implement the national policy of waste minimization. This report details EPA's evaluation of the following options to minimize hazardous wastes. Standards of Performance Mandatory standards of performance for minimizing wastes could take various forms, but in all their variations they are markedly different in concept from the type of performance standards typical of the air and water pollution control programs. In these other programs, performance standards are end-of-pipe standards that allow flexibility to modify processes or add control technologies. Performance standards for waste minimization would depend substantially on internal modifications of industrial processes. Such standards would mark a major departure from past practice and would require statutory amendments. At present, mandatory performance standards are not authorized under RCRA. EPA has evaluated three variations of performance standards in this report: 1. Specific standards limiting the volume or toxicity of wastes, 2. Prohibition or restriction of specific waste streams, and 3. A phasedown permit system, wherein total waste generation levels for one or more industries or waste streams are specified and then XIV ------- Executive Summary reduced ("phased down") over time. Under this option, trades among firms for generation rights would be encouraged. EPA believes that all these options raise significant implementation concerns and should be adopted only after careful evaluation of emerging trends and patterns of waste generation. It is important that the option selected be the most effective method to minimize hazardous waste for a particular industry. All performance standard options would be costly and time consuming to design and would, therefore, be infeasible to implement in the next four to six years. If it becomes clear after implementation of the land disposal restrictions program that there are specific residual hazardous waste problems that are not being resolved through response to these requirements, then additional prescriptive action may be appropriate. EPA might find that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSGA), especially Section (6)(a)(A), is a more appropriate method than RCRA regulations to resolve residual hazardous waste problems. A comprehensive command-and-control performance standard program of the traditional type would cost on the order to $5 to $7 million per standard to design, -.nd implement, and would require staff commitments at least as high as the effluent guidelines program for water or the new source performance standards program for air. At rhe present time, however, there are hundreds of discrete industrial processes to examine, and it is difficult to project without further information how many may require standards. Under the most realistic circumstances, it would take at least ten years after Congressional authorization to design and fully implement such a program. Prohibition or restriction of specific wastes would presumably be simpler in regulatory structure and more selectively applied than performance standards, but would still require extensive research into processes and waste management techniques. Furthermore, responsible uscfof prohibition authority often requires substantial analysis of the feasibility of less severe measures and, therefore, can also be costly to evaluate. A phasedown permit system would be somewhat different in concept and operation from a command-and-control performance standard approach. Because it would not set specific engineering standards for each industry, the burden on EPA for developing the program would be considerably less than for a conventional, standard-setting process. — xv — ------- Executive Summary Incentives for trading among firms would be inherent in the system, since the number of permits would be limited to less than the current level of waste generated. The eventual value and distribution of permits would be set by the marketplace, with waste reductions coming from those firms that could reduce most cost-effectively. These firms would be able to sell any unused permits on the open market as "waste reduction credits." Moreover, since EPA would phase down the amount of waste generation allowed, the permits would increase in value over time, creating a continuous incentive to reduce waste further. Phasedown permits would cost society far less than other performance standard options for achieving a given level of waste reduction if there are sufficiently wide variations in unit control costs among generators and if trades are actually made among firms. They do, however, raise novel implementation problems. Two concerns are the initial distribution of permits and the degree of trading to be allowed. However, these issues may be resolvable, as demonstrated by EPA's recent program to phase down the lead content of gasoline. A third concern is how to determine the rate of the phasedown and the amount of hazardous waste allowed at the end of the phasedown period. Under any of these options, EPA would consider exempting small quantity generators from the requirements or would consider subjecting them to simplified and less burdensome requirements. Because small quantity generators collectively account for only a small fraction of the wastes generated annually,8 subjecting them to stringent and expensive regulations may not be cost-effective or provide additional protection of human health and the environment. Management Practices Management practices, as defined in this report, are procedures or institutional policies within a service or manufacturing operation that result in a reduction in hazardous waste generation. They are a step beyond the directives established by performance Small quantity generators regulated under RCRA are those who generate between 100 and 1.000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. According to the National Small Quantity Hazardous Generator Survey, conducted for the Office of Solid Waste in 1985, small quantity generators. including those who generate less than 100 kilograms per month, Collectively account for less ihun one half of one percent of the total quantity of waste generated annually. • — xvi — ------- Executive Summary standards and include requirements restricting particular disposal practices, requirements for the handling of wastes as they are generated, and requirements for controlling the waste generation system. Three management practices are discussed below. The first would ban the landfilling, treatment, or incineration of potentially recyclable wastes. The second would require the segregation of wastes to enhance recycling potential. The third would require mandatory waste audits. Banning the landfilling, treatment, or incineration of potentially recyclable wastes would likely be controversial and possibly inefficient. In addition, while it would be possible to make sure that no proscribed waste is landfilled, treated, or incinerated, it would be exceedingly difficult to ensure that all such waste is properly recycled instead, thus making it difficult to enforce. Noncompliance (e.g., illegal dumping) would potentially be substantial. A second possibility would be a requirement for segregation of waste streams and banning the mixing of waste streams that are potentially recyclable. This includes the isolation of hazardous materials from nonhazardous materials or the isolation of liquid from solid waste. The segregation of wastes does have the potential in selected instances to be economically attractive, and could, in fact, save some firms significant sums of money by reducing treatment and disposal costs, lowering expenses for the purchase of raw materials, and/or generating a reclaimed product that can be marketed or sent to a was,te exchange. Wa;te stream segregation might, therefore, become economically attractive without additional regulation. It is conceivable that new prohibitions on land disposal and dramatically increased costs for all forms of disposal, coupled with substantial efforts to increase industry awareness of recycling possibilities, could provide adequate information and incentive for segregation without making such action a regulatory requirement. Waste audits can be an effective means to identify opportunities for waste minimization, making audits mandatory, however, could undermine their effectiveness. While the direct costs of waste audits for industry are not extremely high (on average XVII ------- Executive Summary $10,000 to $20,000 per audit for an uncomplicated facility)?, requiring every waste generator to conduct an audit could have some detrimental effects. If they were seen as a Federal requirement rather than as a corporate initiative, plant personnel might tend to be less than forthcoming and the results of such audits often might be discounted and disregarded. A mandatory program might also require EPA to develop implementing regulations to address who is qualified to conduct waste audits and how audits should be conducted, and to monitor possible reporting requirements. Since it would be difficult to require compliance with the recommendations of a waste audit, such efforts do not seem justified. It appears more desirable for EPA to promote voluntary waste audits on their own merits as a useful waste management tool, such as through a technical assistance program implemented through the States (see below). EPA and the States could develop programs that would include State certification and listing of qualified waste minimization auditors, targeted assistance programs for onsite audits, and development of model checklists and protocols for conducting audits. In the context of a voluntary audit approach, such programs should be less burdensome to develop and more flexible to implement than under a mandatory regime; thus, it is suggested as an EPA initiative. Legislative Amendments to HSWA EPA currently interprets the certification requirement under HSWA Section 3002 (generator standards) and Section 3005 (permit standards) as prohibiting the development of substantive requirements to generators on what constitutes appropriate waste minimization. As the Senate Report on the certification process emphasizes, the intent of the current requirement is merely to encourage generators to consider specifically the desirability and feasibility of waste minimization; it does not require specific waste minimization action. The Agency believes that generators should continue to determine what their waste minimization options are and, at this time, that EPA should not make process related For smaller facilities, the costs could be substantially lower, perhaps under 55,000; however for large, complex facilities, the costs could be substantially higher. — xvai — ------- Executive Summary decisions to force waste minimization. However, EPA is further considering an option to amend the current legislation to allow EPA to define acceptable waste minimization practices. This authority could allow EPA to specify general practices that could or could not be certified as waste minimization (e.g., those practices that result in adverse cross- media pollution transfers). EPA is continuing to evaluate this change to the waste minimization certification statement, and will provide Congress a further assessment of the need to modify these requirements. Among possible options to consider include: • Prohibit, where appropriate, certification of certain types of waste management practices as waste minimization. • Specify what may be certified as waste minimization. • Define necessary documentation for certifications that state that waste minimization is not economically practicable. As additional information becomes available, the Agency could use this discretionary authority to focus on specific industries that continue to create potential risks to human health and the environment. While :;mall quantity generators might be subject to such additional reporting responsibilities under this option, EPA could consider subjecting them to less rigorous and burdensome requirements than those affecting large quantity generators. Other Options A number of other waste minimization options have been identified in the course of preparing this report. A full list of available options is found in the technical support document for this report, Waste Minimization Issues and Options. Several of the options listed there are not discussed here for various reasons: either they have been considered already under other authority (such as the provisions for a waste-end tax now under consideration as part of the CERCLA reauthorization), or they have been found, on further review, to be unworkable as part of RCRA (e.g., enforcement bounties). Appendix B to this report lists options that have not been evaluated or presented here and explains the reasons for their exclusion. — XIX — ------- Executive Summary Two basic options for waste minimization that the Agency believes should definitely be considered as part of a short- or long-term waste minimization strategy are (1) technical assistance for waste minimization, implemented in cooperation with the States, and (2) modifications to Federal procurement practices to avoid discriminating against recycled commodities and, where appropriate, to support development of markets in recycled commodities. An active, aggressive, and sustained program for technical assistance appears to be the strongest option available to promote waste minimization, especially in the near term. Carried out in cooperation with the States, such a program could be aimed primarily at small10 and medium sized companies, which currently have the least access to information on how to minimize their wastes. The program's purpose would be to encourage firms to include waste minimization efforts in their hazardous waste management planning, to provide access to technical information, and to encourage the development of markets for recyclers and recycled materials. No new legislative authority would be required to launch such a technical assistance effort, but adequate and sustained support by Congress would be necessary over the next ten years if it were to achieve its potential. RCRA already provides authorization for EPA to encourage revision of Federal procurement practices to promote the use of recycled products. Section 6002 of RCRA requires procuring agencies to amend Federal procurement practices to avoid unnecessary discrimination against recycled products, and requires EPA to promulgate procurement guidelines that actively promote the procurement of recycled products. This strategy may help achieve substantial increases in the market share of recycled products, particularly where the Federal government is a major consumer of a product. In such instances, a Federal preference for a recycled product may make the product economically viable. EPA should work with agencies that are in the best position to create such markets, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. 10 "Small" companies are not intended to include only Small Quantity Generators as defined under RCRA A technical assistance program would also be useful for small quantity generators, but the degree of emphasis on this group would have to be carefully reviewed. While small quantity generators do need (and often request) technical assistance, the available data suggest, as noted earlier, that they contribute only a very minor fraction (about one-half of one percent) of hazardous waste volume nationally. ------- Executive Summary Recommendations At this time, the Agency believes that generators should continue to determine which waste minimization techniques are economically practicable and that EPA should not specify requirements for waste minimization. If, after implementation of the other pertinent provisions of the HSWA, the Agency decides that standards of performance or required management practices are needed to protect human health and the environment, it will then request the necessary additional authority from Congress. EPA proposes to report to Congress on this issue in December 1990, the earliest date at which it believes a recommendation on the need for a mandatory waste minimization program could be made. EPA does plan to expand its waste minimization efforts as discussed below in the context of EPA's proposed three-point waste minimization strategy. The elements of this strategy are: 1. Information Gathering: Detailed data on industry's response to the land disposal restrictions program and other existing waste minimization incentives must be gathered in order to make a final determination on the desirability and feasibility of performance standards and required management practices. 2. A Core Waste Minimization Program: During the interval when the new provisions of HSWA are taking effect, EPA will launch a strong technical assistance and information transfer program through 'he States to promote voluntary waste minimization in industry, government, and the non-profit sectors of the economy. It will also work with Federal agencies to encourage procurement practices that promote the use of recycled and reclaimed materials. 3. Longer Term Options: Based on an analysis of the new data gathered under (1) above, performance standards and other mandatory requirements can be imposed, if necessary, once the — XXI- ------- Executive Summary HSWA amendments have taken full effect and their impacts on waste generation have been assessed. Information Gathering Agency actions to encourage waste minimization, whether through voluntary means or through future regulatory action, must be based on a full understanding of the present state of hazardous waste generation and management and of how that system is evolving under the many pressures to which it is now being subjected. The general patterns and trends of hazardous waste management systems are becoming clearer, but past trends may not persist through the next four to six years as HSWA's new provisions take effect, and as industry seeks to control the potential financial liabilities associated with hazardous waste management. Baseline and trends data: The best data available to the Agency on the amount and content of hazardous wastes were developed by surveys conducted in 1981 and 1983. These data are rapidly becoming out of date and are known to be of uneven quality because of reporting errors and the small and variable sample sizes from which information was extrapolated They must be supplemented with new data documenting the changes that have already begun and will continue to progress over the next few years. In order to make a final determination on the desirability and feasibility of mandatory waste minimization actions, the Agency must be able to document unresolved environmental problems for which such a new regulatory program would be ihe appropriate response. Examples might be waste streams for which treatment and disposal capacity remains inadequate even after the land disposal restrictions have been in place for a year or more, or a future EPA determination that a particular type of hazardous waste treatment method does not, in practice, adequately protect human health and the environment The types of data needed include detailed baseline information on the volumes and toxicity of wastes generated, trends data on source reduction and recycling, trends data on treatment and disposal capacity, and analyses of the human health and environmental impacts of treatment and disposal practices. EPA expects that existing statutory authority is • xxn ------- Executive Summary sufficient to gather this additional data. One potential source will the biennial reports, which will be upgraded to improve the consistency and coverage of the information submitted. Other sources may include a new generator survey or the 1986 TSD survey currently being undertaken, information developed by EPA programs outside of the Office of Solid Waste (such as under TSCA), and the reporting requirements that may be enacted under amendments to CERCLA. Data to support technical assistance and information transfer: Much of the same data can be used to set priorities for technical assistance programs to promote source reduction and recycling programs, targeting them where they will be most successful in reducing threats to human health and the environment. However, in-house research and cooperation with States and industry trade associations will provide more detailed information on the cost and effectiveness of specific waste minimization techniques for the targeted industries. This information gathering program will enable EPA to develop an accurate profile of waste management trends and practices and selectively develop performance standards or other requirements as needed. A Core Waste Minimization Program As tliii report has already emphasized, it is neither desirable nor practical to research, promulgate, and enforce a major regulatory program mandating specific waste minimization standards over the next four to six years. During this time, industry will he making technical and financial commitments to respond to the changing requirements and incentives of the hazardous waste management system. Once made, these commitments will be difficult to change. It is therefore both practical and highly desirable to conduct outreach programs to support and enhance the use of waste minimization as part of an overall waste management strategy and to reduce threats to human health and the environment It should be noted that, in the event that mandatory controls are needed in the near term to control volume or toxicity of wastes generated by particular industries, EPA would use the authority that currently exists under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control ACL Elements of this initial waste minimization program will include: — XXlll ------- Executive Summary • Development and publication of an Agency policy statement on waste minimization including non-binding guidance to generators defining what constitutes waste minimization under the reporting and certification requirements of HSWA. To the extent possible, this guidance will be specific to particular industrial sectors and processes. • Expansion of EPA's role in providing for technical and information assistance to generators, including small generators. Because the States have more direct contact with the generators and hence have more awareness of generators' needs and problems, EPA's primary role should be to support and encourage the States in the development of their programs. An appropriate EPA-sponsored technical assistance effort includes the following elements: — Assistance for States to initiate and develop programs for providing direct assistance to generators, especially small and medium sized generators. — Technical support of research and development and economic feasibility studies that might serve an entire region or have regional application. — Development of a computerized information system on waste minimization, accessible by the States. • Encouraging voluntary waste minimization concepts within the review of new chemicals mandated under TSCA Section 5. EPA anticipates the preparation of a New Chemicals Information Bulletin advising submitters that waste minimization will be considered during the review of the relative risk* of the new chemical substances and their existing substitutes. The Agency should also establish a formal process of coordination with the States to ensure a continuing and responsive technical assistance and outreach effort over the longer term. In addition, EPA will continue to examine specific elements of the "core" waste minimization program and make recommendations for legislative changes to the existing waste minimization requirements, if needed, as part of the next RCRA reauthorization. Among the possible options to consider would be modifications to the existing certification for generators and TSDFs, including: — XXIV ------- Executive Summary Prohibiting, where appropriate, certification of certain types of waste management practices as waste minimization. Providing, where appropriate, formal guidance as to what may be certified as waste minimization. Such guidance could apply generally or to specific industrial sectors. (Flexibility for appeals and exceptions must also be provided.) • Requiring generators who have not undertaken any of the approved waste minimization activities, but who certify that there is no economically practicable alternative to their present waste reduction and management practices, to provide a written explanation of such certification. Longer Term Options Only after the land disposal restrictions and other principal provisions of the HSWA go into effect, and after EPA has developed the needed additional data on hazardous waste generation and management, will it be possible to determine whether standards of performance (including phasedown permits) or required management practices (?uch as waste audits) are necessary to achieve additional reductions in the volume or tov.-iry of wastes. The Azzncy therefore recommends that consideration of new mandatory programs be deferud unul after such data can be gathered and analyzed, and proposes to report hack to Congress c;, ihe desirability and feasibility of prescriptive approaches two years after the first of the land disposal restrictions has been fully implemented. Excluding the possibility of case-by-case extensions, the first of the land disposal restrictions will be fully implemented in November of 1988; EPA will, therefore, make its next formal report or tins subject in Decnr.ber of 1990. Conclusion EPA still has much to learn about waste minimization and recognizes that the cooperation of private and public waste generators will be invaluable as it moves toward the development of sound long term policy. It also believes, however, that the incentives and trends within the hazardous waste management system are unmistakable, and that the program presented here comprises the most positive and constructive steps that can be taken at this time. Aggressive action in favor of waste minimization is clearly needed, but a — xxv — ------- Executive Summary major new regulatory program-at least for the present-does not seem desirable or feasible. Incentives for waste minimization are already strong, so EPA must capitalize on them. Most lacking is access by generators to the information that will demonstrate the economic benefits of waste minimization to industry, overcome logistical problems, and help develop creative new approaches. This can be provided by a strong technical assistance and information transfer effort, which can achieve through voluntary means what would be inefficient and possibly counterproductive to attempt through regulation Unfortunately, non-regulatory programs have often failed at EPA for lack of statutory or regulatory deadlines and institutional advocacy. For such a program to work, it must be given strong organizational support within the Agency. EPA is willing to make this commitment, and seeks support from Congress to ifrC CM/V*AOe ensure its success. — XXVI — ------- |