United Statas ' June 1980
Environmental Protection OPA 110/0
Agency
vvEPA Hazardous
Waste: No
Quick Winners
-------
The Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery Act
Public Law
94-580
Thomas F. Williams
Deputy Director, Office of Public Awareness,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Presented at the Conference on the Disposal
and Shipping of Radioactive and Toxic
Chemical Wastes held on March 31, 1980,
North Carolina State University.
It is a pleasure to be here this morning and to have this
opportunity to share a few thoughts with you on the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with
special reference to the opportunities it provides for
public understanding and participation. In the first year
of this new decade, the major regulations required by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will begin to
have meaning. After that there will be difficult and
rewarding opportunities available to all the segments of
society who have crucial roles to play as we begin to
reverse a deplorable practice which has prevailed
throughout our history—the practice of disposing of
waste, hazardous or not, in the cheapest and easiest
manner possible,
RCRA is structured to ensure that from now on our
society must take its waste management responsibilities
seriously. Unfortunately, it was not until the Act was
about two years old and the Love Canal tragedy forced
our attention on the magnitude of the residues of past
neglect that we noticed RCRA's limitations. Except for
an imminent hazards provision, the Act does not address
critical problems which have recently come to light from
a dark legacy of incredibly careless waste management.
We now know that there are two hazardous waste
problems—the one we have inherited and the one RCRA
is intended to solve. We know also that neither can be
neglected except at the cost of extreme peril to ourselves,
our children, and people yet unborn.
-------
During this year, industry in the United States will
generate about 57 million metric wet tons of hazardous
waste. About 60 percent of these will come from the
chemical and allied products industry, 10 percent from
machinery except electrical, 8 percent from the primary
metals industry, 6 percent from the paper and allied
products industry, 4 percent from the fabricated-metal-
products industry, 3 percent from the stone, glass, and
clay products industry, and 9 percent from other
industries. About 60 percent of these hazardous wastes
will emerge from the manufacturing process in the form
of liquid or sludge. Quantities are expected to increase
by about 3.5 percent annually.
We estimate that 90 percent of hazardous waste is
currently managed by practices which will not meet the
new federal standards. Studies of industries that generate
the major portion of hazardous wastes in this country
indicate that about 80 percent of the wastes have been
disposed of on the generator's property. Eighty percent
of the wastes are disposed in nonsecure pits, ponds,
lagoons, or landfills. Ten percent are incinerated without
proper controls, and about 10 percent are managed
acceptably by controlled incineration, treatment to
render the waste nonhazardous or less hazardous, and
through secure landfills or waste recovery.
The major routes for environmental damage include
groundwater contamination by way of leachate; surface
water contamination by way of runoff or overflow; air
pollution by way of open burning, evaporation,
sublimination, and wind erosion; fire and explosion;
poison by way of the food chain; and direct human
contact.
With specific regard to the serious problem which we
have inherited and which is not specifically addressed by
RCRA, it is estimated that from 30,000 to 50,000
disposal sites in existence may now contain hazardous
waste and that from 1,200 to 2,000 of these sites could
pose potential danger to health or the environment.
Currently, the legal authority for coping with this
problem falls primarily under Sections 7003 of RCRA
through which EPA can initiate legal action to require
responsible parties to clean up a site that presents an
"imminent and substantial" danger to health or the
environment.
We are also using authorities under other acts that we
administer to respond to immediate hazardous waste
problems. These include the Clean Water Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act,
and the Refuse Act. Before going into some detail on
precisely how and when the cradle to grave regulatory
effort called for under RCRA will apply, let me draw
your attention to the tens of thousands of disposal sites
which exist all across the nation. Many are uncontrolled
-------
or abandoned. They need to be identified, analyzed, and
where necessary, brought under control. This will be an
enormous task by any measure.
EPA, the Justice Department, and the States are now
aggressively developing enforcement cases against such
sites. One of the major problems in this effort, as has
been a problem in other environmental areas in the past,
is that in many instances there is no one who can be
charged with the real responsibility for making the
corrections necessary to curtail the imminent and
substantial hazard. Congress is currently considering
legislation, referred to as a superfund, which would
provide resources either from those industries which
produce hazardous waste, or from the taxpayer, so that
problem sites can be cleaned up before, rather than after,
long periods of time consuming litigation, as well as
funds for the clean up of abandoned sites for which no
resources are now available. In recent months EPA
Regional offices and some states have redirected
hundreds of work years toward this effort. Hundreds of
sites have been investigated and a number of major
enforcement actions have been initiated. New incentives
for this effort have appeared in abundance since Love
Canal, and will no doubt continue to appear for a long
time to come.
With regard to the implementation of RCRA, last
month on the 26th of February, EPA issued regulations
defining the responsibilities of generators of hazardous
waste, of transporters, and the requirements of a
notification process. These regulations specify how
generators of hazardous waste are responsible for
tracking the waste via a manifest to its disposal, and how
the manifest system is to work. Next month, in April,
EPA will issue regulations defining hazardous waste and
will set forth operating standards for treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. We will also issue procedural
regulations stating how the permit program will work
and what States must do to be authorized to run the
federal program. Three months after promulgation of the
regulations, all firms which handle hazardous waste must
notify EPA. This autumn, all firms that store, treat, or
dispose of hazardous waste must apply for a permit.
Those who notify and do apply for a permit can obtain
interim status to continue their operations. Also this
autumn, the program takes effect and goes into
operation. The manifest system must be used for all
waste shipments. All sites with interim status must be in
compliance with the interim operating standards. This
fall EPA will issue the standards on which the permits
for storage, treatment, and disposal sites will be
developed. And in spring 1981, the permitting of facilities
will begin.
-------
Here, in brief, is how the Act intends that we
accomplish the cradle-to-grave regulation of Rosemary's
baby. We will publish a list of approximately 200 waste
streams that are hazardous as well as characteristic and
testing procedures whereby waste generators can identify
other waste streams of theirs which are ignitable,
corrosive, reactive, or toxic.
Generators will determine whether their wastes are
hazardous by consulting EPA's list or by testing the
waste.
When generators ship waste to offsite facilities they
must identify and approve the facility to which the waste
ought to go. They must contract with a transporter, take
it there, and they must initiate a manifest which will
track the waste through every step en route to its
destination. Both the transporter and the management
facility are required to sign the manifest and return the
signed copy to the generator.
Generators must follow-up in cases where a signed
manifest is not returned and inform EPA of any missing
wastes.
Transporters are obligated to follow the generator's
instructions and deliver the waste to the designated
facility.
All facilities which store, treat, or dispose of hazardous
waste, whether on site or off site, will have to comply
with a series of operating standards which includes
proper safety measures, development of emergency
procedures, monitoring and training of employees, long-
term financial responsibility, and must participate in the
manifest system.
Those facilities will also require permits based upon
the latest technological advances in waste management.
Facilities failing to meet standards must close down or
will not be permitted to begin operations.
As the new program begins, existing treatment, storage
and disposal facilities which notify EPA and submit a
permit application may receive interim status to continue
their operations until their permit applications can be
reviewed. Those facilities must comply with extensive
operating standards during interim status.
Because of the number of sites involved, the permitting
process will necessarily be implemented over time. The
most potentially dangerous sites will be reviewed first so
that they can be upgraded or closed. Priority will also be
given to new hazardous waste facilities.
During the 90 days following promulgation of the
regulation defining hazardous waste, every firm which
handles hazardous waste, whether a generator,
transporter, treater, storer, or disposer, must notify EPA
of this fact. EPA will then assign each firm which
notifies it, an identification number. The firm cannot
-------
continue any hazardous waste activities without using the
identification number.
To help inform those affected, EPA will mail
information about notification to over 350,000 firms
which it believes may be involved. The mailing will
contain a notification form to be completed and returned
to EPA. If any waste handler fails to be contacted, it is
still his responsibility to notify EPA within the 90-day
period. Subsequently, every firm which generates,
transports, stores, treats, or disposes of hazardous \vaste
will submit an annual report to EPA providing
information on what wastes were handled, in what
volume, and in what way.
In addition, generators must make sure that wastes
which are being shipped are properly containerized and
labeled. And transporters are obligated to take prompt
clean up actions and report spills or accidents to the
proper authorities.
With responsibilities clearly assigned, and with
standards of safe practice clearly defined, a new era
should begin in which industry will have a strong
incentive to put its best minds to work toward
developing new technologies and new approaches to the
problems of safe waste management.
Now, in explaining how the Act is to work, 1 have
mentioned EPA perhaps more than many of you would
have desired. In a sense, so much mention of EPA is
indeed misleading. Because this Act will not work unless
the major job is taken over by the States, industry, local
governments, and the general public. State involvement
is particularly critical to the success of RCRA. Under the
law, EPA can authorize States to implement and enforce
RCRA—on an interim basis for two years, and then on
a final basis. A State program must be equivalent to the
federal program to be authorized. At the beginning of
this year, solid waste legislation in 40 States included at
least partial authority to control hazardous waste; many
of these States are upgrading their authorities and are in
the process of planning specific hazardous waste
legislation.
EPA anticipates that many of the 40 states having
authority will apply and may qualify for interim
authorization. With interim authorization, States can
operate their own programs for two years after the
effective date of the federal regulations while upgrading
their programs.
Within two years of promulgation of the final
hazardous waste regulations, States with interim
authorization must apply for and secure full
authorization. The three main criteria for full
authorization are (1) equivalence to federal program, (2)
consistency with other federal and State programs, and
(3) adequacy of enforcement.
-------
Fiscal year 1980 grants specifically for hazardous waste
program development totaled 18.6 million dollars. The
President's budget for fiscal year 1981 requests 30 million
dollars for this purpose.
There is little question that RCRA calls for far
reaching changes in the way our nation handles waste,
with profound ramifications for all levels of government,
industry, and the public. Indeed, the solid waste
management problem is even more illustrative of the
need for sustained public understanding, involvement,
and criticism that are other environmental issues which
received national attention earlier. For decades now the
public has demanded air and water pollution efforts, and
the public has paid, directly or indirectly, for the controls
placed on automobiles, industries and municipalities.
Even though few members of the public have been
personally involved, almost all segments of the public
have been represented by public interest groups of all
varieties which in the past decade have influenced the
development of legislation and its implementation. Air
and water pollution problems, however, have not
presented anything quite comparable to the dilemma
faced by those charged with hazardous waste control
responsibilities. These people must somehow meet the
public expectations for protection against a long
neglected and insidious problem at the same time that
the public seems to feel that treatment and disposal must
be conducted on another planet or at least on another
continent.
The arduous long-term task of dealing with hazardous
waste is just beginning. Over time, our society will have
to accept the fact that there are many things that can be
done with hazardous waste besides burying them in a
landfill that will meet RCRA's requirements. Certain
wastes .can be recycled and sent back for reuse. Other
wastes can be used by others without processing. Waste
can be dealt with by incineration, chemical
neutralization, separating or blending to yield a usable
product or supplemental fuel for firing industrial
furnaces, and "biological destruction" in which.
microorganisms consume the hazard us material and
render it harmless.
Ideally, disposal should be the procedure of last resort.
Since RCRA's regulations will make this procedure
much more expensive than it's ever been before, the
widespread use of other methods should be achieved
eventually. For a good while, however, there is no
question that the procedure of last resort will be the
procedure of first and greatest use. Proper disposal,
moreover, will be needed even years from now when we
will have drastically altered our perceptions and practices
with regard to waste. There will still be a great many
materials that are too low in value to recycle, too
-------
difficult to degrade or to inject into deep wells, and too
contaminated with nonflammable materials to incinerate.
So, the problem of capacity, as it is sometimes called, is
a serious problem, indeed. And unless it can be solved.
the promise of RCRA will never become reality.
Nevertheless, nobody even slightly acquainted with this
field should be surprised at the general public
apprehension and skepticism about the siting of
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities. After
all, this is the same public which for decades industry
and government left under the comfortable illusion that
everything was going pretty well in this area. For many
years after passage of RCRA's progenitor, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act of 1965. the principal concern of all
levels of government dealing with the problem focused
on eliminating the open dumping of municipal wastes.
The environmental and other public interest groups who
have long supported air and water pollution control
efforts were not really involved. When they did become
interested, in the middle of the last decade, their major
area of concern was municipal waste recycling and waste
reduction. Interest in hazardous waste grew slowly and
had limited support almost up to the moment that
RCRA was passed at the end of 1976.
In contrast, public interest in water pollution has
grown steadily since 1948. and in air pollution since
1955. Current legislation in air and svater is the product
of an evolutionary learning process during which, despite
differences in opinion as to how, when, and where
control should be applied, the objective has always
remained constant. This cannot be said of hazardous
waste. Even though the original federal law appeared in
1965, our society did not focus on hazardous waste until
RCRA was passed in 1976, and did not take the issue
seriously, perhaps, until 1978 when the Love Canal
tragedy became known. And Love Canal was just the
beginning of a shock wave which moved quickly across
the nation. As Eckhardt C. Beck, EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Water and Waste Management has
written, "... what first appeared to be an isolated
health disaster of catastrophic proportions turned out to
be more ominous yet. After Lose Canal an explosion of
similar incidents burst forth across the nation—in North
Carolina. Kentucky, Michigan. California, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey. Iowa, Tennessee, Texas, and
many other states. We learned that Love Canal was
merely the first detonation of a string of chemical time
bombs literally strewn across the nation." Considering
how recently all this has happened, anyone who goes
about complaining—and many do—that he or she does
not understand why the public is so upset about the
siting of hazardous waste facilities is very seriously in
need of a course in Psychology 101. If we want the
8
-------
public to take us seriously and to cooperate in
implementing the important requirements of RCRA, we
are going to have to make a lot of special efforts to get
the public to understand what has happened and why
they can begin to trust us from nowr-ow,
1 nave brought with me, for distribution among you, a
number of information materials developed by EPA's
Office of Solid Waste. Among them is a new publication
entitled "Everybody's Problem—Hazardous Waste." I
sincerely wish it were possible for everybody to read it. It
is attractive and comprehensive. It explains what the
hazardous waste problem is, why we have it, what we
can and must do about it. The booklet pursues no
special villains and it is as upbeat as the facts will allow.
It says, in effect, that with public understanding and
involvement, RCRA, over time, can enable us to deal
safely and intelligently with a long neglected and serious
threat to the environment and public health. Yet, an
official from an industry association has recently
complained about this booklet in two meetings (in
Washington, D.C.) suggesting that it is one of the
reasons that the public is too apprehensive about the
siting of hazardous waste facilities. This is symptomatic
of a kind of obsolete thinking about public information
and participation efforts which has impeded
environmental progress from the beginning of time.
An honest effort to lay out all the facts—affirmative
and negative—and to base environmental change on a
foundation of the best available scientific and technical
data and to place it all before the public is infinitely
better than dreaming up a lot of half-false "quick
winners" and "success stories" fashioned to fit everyone
with rose-colored glasses. It is amazing how many
environmental bureaucrats in industry and government
have yet to learn this simple lesson. The key to public
support for environmental improvement is more public
understanding and more public involvement, not more
midnight dumping, either figuratively or literally.
Fortunately, the Solid Waste Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency has traditionally taken
its public information and participation responsibilities
more seriously than most environmental programs have.
It has within the limitations of resources and an
uncertain climate operated in accordance with the
principle that the general public has a right to
information and to a voice in the program's affairs. This
view was reflected in the development of the original
public participation guidelines published in January
1978, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. The guidelines underscored the need for developing
public information materials on a solid base of technical
information so that public participation could be
meaningful. The original guidelines lost something of
-------
their impact and clarity as they became integrated with
the public participation regulations under the Clean
Water and Water Quality laws to become Part 25 of
Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations which
was published in February 1979. Nevertheless, Chapter
40 does mandate information and education activities to
be an integral part of other elements of public
participation—meetings, conferences, workshops,
consultations with interested parties, proper notification
of the public, and so forth.
What these regulations actually mean to programs
being conducted under RCRA is that every agency that
receives EPA financial assistance will be required to
submit as part of the grant application a public
participation work plan which reflects how public
participation will be provided for, encouraged and
assisted. All reasonable costs of pub';c participation
identified in an approved work plan will be eligible for
funding. The application of the public participation
requirements contained in Part 25 will be carried out in
the individual RCRA program regulations. These are:
The States' Solid Waste Management Plan Guideline:
under Section 4002(b) of RCRA;
The Regulations for Permit Programs for Hazardous
wastes under Section 3005;
The Regulations for State Programs for Hazardous
Wastes under Section 3006.
There is, 1 am happy to say, substantial evidence that
the entire staff of the Solid Waste Program of EPA has
itself taken public participation seriously. Since
December 1976 over 150 public meetings, workshops ar
public hearings have been held throughout the country
on every major aspect of the waste problem. Literally
thousands of drafts have been distributed to a wide
spectrum of interested persons. The information and
views received as a result of this effort have added
greatly to the quality of the regulations and to the
understanding of staff members.
Since the beginning of EPA, the Office of Solid Was
has devoted a significant portion of its resources to
public information and participation programs. Even
before the program was moved from HEW to EPA, it
devoted a substantial effort to a publications program
serving both technical audiences and the general public
This has continued. Moreover, since 1972 the program
has offered annual grants to civic, scientific,
environmental, consumer, labor, and other organizatioi
to conduct public educational activities suited to their
own constituencies on the full spectrum of solid waste
problems. I mentioned earlier the program's
accomplishments in developing and implementing the
10
-------
public participation provision of RCRA. The objective of
all this activity has been to help citizens develop
understanding of issues which we all now know to be of
critical importance and is therefore useful to state,
regional and local efforts. All of these efforts are being
continued and 1 am pleased to say are being supported
by EPA's Office of Public Awareness in a number of
areas.
I invite your special attention to one important activity
which has been initiated for the express purpose of
involving citizens in planning and decision-making at the
local and state levels as they face the difficult problems
of implementing RCRA now and in the years ahead. The
program is entitled "Waste Alert!," and will extend over
several years. It is intended to involve citizens,
ultimately, in all 50 states. While EPA is giving financial
support to the program, it is fundamentally the
responsibility of six nationally known organizations—the
American Public Health Association, the Environmental
Action Foundation, the Technical Information Project,
the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton
League of America and the League of Women Voters
Education Fund. "Waste Alert!" is involved in
conducting three-day conferences around the country on
issues related to the problems of abandoned waste sites,
siting of new facilities, implementation of RCRA
regulations, and other aspects of waste management.
Ten regional conferences in the first two years will
focus on identifying and training citizen leaders and
reaching appropriate communications media; developing
work plans for implementing RCRA at the State level;
planning for State conferences; and identifying State
action groups and assisting them, if they wish, in holding
State conferences. This is an unusually long-term public
information/participation program. Its objectives will not
be achieved, of course, unless it really moves from the
Federal to the State, and to the local levels.as time, goes
on. It is sigmfic:antithat ;EPA ifuridrng'Tlndef ^xibtitlelt
for the development of State '.public interest Goaiitidtts
and conferences to infor^m the%p"ublic is intended to grow
out of the '^^-Al^rt^efjoft''!;:;,,:,,4= ^ / :A!MiM
The hazardous waste problem that we confront today
underscores perhaps more certainly than any other
environmental issue the importance of the public
participation provisions which appear in recent Federal
legislation. The waste problem cannot be magically
solved by science and technology, and government and
industry alone cannot work out the means of applying
appropriate solutions. This has been underscored as we
have learned we are dealing with two discrete issues: the
management of wastes that are being generated today, or
will be generated in the future, and also with the
-------
management of wastes which have been improperly
handled in the past. It is not clear which is the greater
problem.
What is clear is that while it is easy to create
environmental problems in the dark of the night, in
ignorance or indifference, during decades of neglect, the
problems can be solved only in the light of day in an
atmosphere of open debate and shared knowledge.
RCRA offers real solutions but only if the public is
informed and involved. By now we should know that
shortcuts on the road to environmental responsibility
lead sooner or later to disaster.
m > "D m ~n -
~DCO ^ 3 o <
t> m y < (t> o
<" o- 3 =•
------- |