United States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA/530-SW-91-058A
Agency (OS-305) July 1991
&EPA Report to the
530SW91058A Senate Appropriations
Committee
Executive Summary
Regulation of
Wood Preserving
Wastes
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 15, 1990, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule designating three
categories of wastes from wood preserving operations as hazardous
waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). This rule was promulgated under a court-ordered
deadline to complete a listing determination for these wood
preserving wastes by November 15, 1990. The Agency determined
that the subject wastes met the criteria for listing set forth in
Section 3001(a) of RCRA.
Earlier, in September 1990, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations had directed the Agency to submit by March 15,
1991, a Report regarding the potential advantages, costs, and
risks associated with a multistatute approach to regulation of
wastes from wood preserving operations. As EPA regards the
multistatute approach, which was proposed by the wood preserving
industry during development of the final rule, the approach would
employ three statutory authorities to control wood preserving
wastes in the following manner:
1) Clean Hater Act (CWA) - regulation of wastewaters and
stormwaters;
2) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIPRA) - regulation of treated wood drippage and the
establishment of drip pad management standards;
3) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) -
regulation of process residuals.
ES-1
-------
This Report is in response to the Committee's directive to
look at the advantages, costs, and risks of the multistatute
approach. To do so, the elements of the multistatute approach
are examined qualitatively in Section One. As part of this
examination, a comparison of the multistatute elements to
analogous RCRA elements is included at various points. In
Section Two of the Report, the costs and risks of the
multistatute approach are examined, including a comparison to
those of the RCRA Subtitle C approach.
As one of the fundamental elements of the multistatute
approach, the Report examines the use of CWA authority for
regulation of wastewaters from wood preserving operations. Use
of effluent guidelines and standards, pretreatment standards,
best management practices, and stormwater management regulations
is considered. Although these CWA authorities can provide
substantial protection, the Report identifies two limitations in
use of the CWA: 1) a lack of specific groundwater protection, and
2) the fact that while the timber products processing industry is
among the categories under consideration for future revision, the
promulgation of revised effluent guidelines for discharges from
wood preserving facilities would not likely occur for several
years. Finally, th« Report examines the permit application
requirements for storm water discharges from industrial
activities such as wood preserving facilities that were
established under CWA authority in a November 16, 1990, rule.
ES-2
-------
The Report also considers the use of FIFRA authority to
regulate drippage from wood preserving operations. Specifically,
label change* and new regulations are considered. Major issues
surrounding the use of FIFRA include the ability to obtain 100%
participation of wood preserving facilities in a voluntary label
change and the time required to implement mandatory label changes
or to promulgate new regulations to achieve the necessary levels
of protection. The number of enforcement options, type of
enforcement actions, and penalties under FIFRA authority are
examined, as well as comparable provisions under RCRA authority.
Finally, because RCRA would be used to regulate process
residuals under the multistatute approach, the Report analyzes
this element. The wood preserving industry suggested listing of
these wastes under RCRA Subtitle c, which was done in the final
wood preserving rule.
The Report then discusses the RCRA-based framework for the
management and tracking of hazardous wastes from generation
through treatment and disposal. Several provisions of the
regulations under RCRA addressing comprehensive protection of
groundwater are noted, including corrective action, contingency
plans, waste management standards, and closure requirements. A
brief discussion of the final rule provisions is presented,
including: 1) the management and clean-up standards for both
existing and new drip pads (the major waste management units of
concern); 2) the staggered phase-in period provided to wood
preservers for the upgrading of existing drip pads to new drip
ES-3
-------
pad standards to account for a wide variability in the ages and
conditions of existing drip pads and to allow for reasonable
upgrade schedules; and 3) the 90-day generator provision for
those who utilize drip pads. A comparison of the RCRA-based
approach to the multistatute approach must necessarily factor in
these provisions, which bear directly on the scope of RCRA
requirements that any particular wood preserving facility may
have to meet.
In examining the potential costs and benefits of a
multistatute approach, the comparative analysis looks at a "less
stringent" multistatute approach and a "more stringent"
multistatute approach, as compared to the requirements
promulgated in the final rule of November 15, 1990. Both costs
and benefits under the "less stringent" multistatute scenario
would be less than those under the wood preserving final rule
primarily due to differences in three areas of requirements: 1)
liners and leak detection for drip pads; 2) no drippage off drip
pads; and 3) soil cleanup. Costs and benefits under the "more
stringent" multistatute scenario would be less than those under
the final rule primarily due to differences in requirements for
soil cleanup. Either type of the multistatute approach therefore
provides different levels of protection (especially of
groundwater) than the final rule promulgated under RCRA
authority.
In summary, the EPA has evaluated the multistatute approach
to regulation of wood preserving wastes and compared it to the
-4
-------
RCRA-based approach. A major element of the evaluation was
whether adequate protection of human health and the environment
was achieved, particularly in regards to groundwater protection.
Areas of concern related to groundwater protection include
remediation of leaks and spills, closure of waste management
units such as drip pads, and control of wastes through a
comprehensive management and tracking system. Although the
multistatute approach to regulation of wood preserving wastes
could have provided some environmental protection at a lower cost
than the RCRA-based approach, the Agency believes that the
multistatute approach would not protect human health and the
environment as well as the RCRA-based approach in this case.
It should not be construed that the RCRA-based approach in
this instance signals a precedent against future regulation under
a multistatute approach. Nor should it be construed that the EPA
will use a multistatute approach where a RCRA-based approach is
warranted under statutory obligations. The EPA has no objection
to use of the multistatute approach when the environmental
protection provided is consistent with statutory mandates. In
this regard, the Agency has instituted a "cluster" approach to
regulation of industries in which regulations written under the
various statutes are coordinated to most efficiently achieve
multit-media environmental regulation.
ES-5
-------
------- |