»EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
401 MSt., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1979
Solid Waste
Subtitle C, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
-------
<-:•:; STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D.C 20 :oO
January 5, 1979
ADDENDUM
Addressee:
We appreciate your interest in the Environmental
Impact Statement for Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) _ If yore
v;ish to comment on this document, please forwasrcl your
comments to Michael Shannon, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, V7H-565, 401 M Street, S.W_,
Washington, D.C. 20460. The summairy sheet in the
EIS states that the closing date for comments is 9O
days from the official public notice of availability
in the Federal Register; this is incorrect-
closing period for comments is 90 days after"
regulations viere proposed in the Federal Register-,
which was December 18, 1978. Therefore, the comment
period for the EIS closes March 16, 1979. Please sub-
mit your comments on or before that date-
Thank you very much.
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUBTITLE C, RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976 (RCRA)
PREPARED BY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
STEFFEN W. PLEHN
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR SOLID WASTE
JANUARY 1979
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
SUBTITLE C, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT OF 1976 (RCRA)
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
1. Type of Action
Administrative Action (Regulatory)
2. Brief Description of Action
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
Subtitle C, provides EPA with the authority to regulate the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the
environment. RCRA also authorizes States to implement their own
program for the management of hazardous waste if it is, at a
minimum, equivalent to the Federal regulations. Compliance with
the proposed regulations is mandatory; non-compliance is subject
to penalty of law.
3. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects
Promulgation of the proposed Subtitle C regulations would lead to
reduced releases of air, water, and soil contaminants from the
management of hazardous wastes and to resultant beneficial im-
pacts to air quality, water quality, public health, and eco-
logical systems. The regulations would increase the cost of
generating and managing hazardous wastes and could lead to some
industrial plant closings and to increased administrative and
paperwork requirements. Many existing facilities would have to
change their current hazardous waste management practices and
some could close due, at least in part, to increased costs and
more stringent requirements.
4. Alternatives Considered
a. Proposed Action
b. No Action
c. Phasing of Generators
d. Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection
e. Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection
ill
-------
5. Federal, State, and Local Agencies From Which Written Comments
Have Been Requested
The proposed Subtitle C regulations have been distributed to
hundreds of individuals and organizations representing all
sectors of our society. The draft EIS is also being distributed
to a diverse group of individuals and organizations including,
but not limited to, the following examples:
Federal Agencies
Department of Interior
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
Department of Defense
Department of Housing and Urban Development
State Government
50 State Solid Waste Management Offices
National Governors' Association
National Conference of State Legislators
National Association of State Attorneys General
Local Government
National Association of Regional Councils
National Association of Counties
National League of Cities/U.S. Conference of Mayors
Solid Waste Management Professional Groups
National Solid Waste Management Association
American Public Works Association
Professional Associations
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Consulting Engineers Council
Water Pollution Control Federation
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Mining and Reclamation Council of America
iv
-------
Environmental, Health, and Citizens Groups
Sierra Club
Environmental Action, Inc.
Environmental Action Foundation
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
National Environmental Health Association
Izaac Walton League
League of Women Voters
Citizens for a Better Environment
Central and Southwest Corporation, et al.
Trade Associations
American Mining Congress
American Petroleum Institute
Manufacturing Chemists Association
American Water Works Association
National Water Well Association
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
American Iron and Steel Institute
National Forest Products Association
6. Date Available To The Public
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been provided to the
Office of Federal Activities, EPA, for the purpose of publishing
an official public notice of availability in the Federal Regis-
ter. This notice is anticipated by January 8, 1979. The 90-day
public comment period for the Draft EIS begins with the issuance
of this notice. The Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Sup-
plement) is also available for public comment during this period.
Copies of these documents may be obtained by writing: Mr. Edward
Cox, Solid Waste Information Office, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 26 West St. Clair, Cincinnati, Ohio 45260. Copies
may also be viewed at the library of all EPA Regional Offices.
Comments should be sent to: Mr. Michael Shannon, Office of Solid
Waste, WW-565, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This voluntary Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the assistance
of the MITRE Corporation under EPA Contract Number 67-01-4641. The
Project Officer was Ronn N. Dexter, Office of Solid Waste.
vii
-------
PREFACE
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Subtitle C
of RCRA presents an analysis of the proposed Subtitle C regulations
as drafted in September 1978, as well as an analysis of alternatives
to the proposed regulations which were considered. It was necessary
to analyze the September 1978 version of the regulations due to time
constraints involved in preparing the proposed regulations and con-
ducting an environmental impact analysis of them. As one would
expect, the regulations as analyzed in this document and the regu-
lations as proposed, differ slightly. However, these differences
do not significantly change the impacts as identified in the Draft
EIS. The differences between the September 1978 regulations and
the proposed regulations are highlighted here to assist the reader.
Although an attempt was made to identify all the differences, it is
possible that some differences may not be noted.
Section 3002 differences:
• Generators who ship hazardous waste to a foreign country are
required to inform the foreign government by sending a copy
of the manifest to the appropriate regulatory agency of the
foreign country having jurisdiction over the designated
facility, within one week of the shipment.
• Clarification of the Waste Oil Assumption of Duties Contract,
and expansion to include all waste oil, not just automotive
oil.
Section 3004 differences:
• Special Wastes: Exemption of special wastes from human
health and environmental (Section 250.42), storage (Section
250.44), and treatment/disposal (Section 250.45) standards
ix
-------
for the present; insertion of specific general facility
standards (Section 250.43) for each special waste in the
regulations.
• Interim Status: Section 250.40(c)(2) has been included in
the proposed regulations. This section lists the applicable
standards for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
that have been granted interim status.
• General Site Selection: No longer prohibits location of
facilities in permafrost areas. Regulations regarding loca-
tion of facilities in 100-year floodplains has been replaced
by two regulations: (1) prohibition on facilities locating
in a "regulatory floodway," and (2) restriction on facilities
locating in a "coastal high hazard area."
• Air: Air human health and environmental standard specifies
compliance with Clean Air Act. Nonpoint source air contam-
inant limits placed in "Treatment/Disposal Standards" (Sec-
tion 250.45) as a "Note." ACGIH limits replaced by OSHA
permissible airborne contaminant exposure levels.
• Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring: Basis for deviation
has been added to the regulation requiring a minimum of four
groundwater monitoring wells.
• Storage: Storage tanks and containers must now also comply
with OSHA's standards for storage of flammable and combusti-
ble liquids.
• Landfills: No longer requires that landfilled wastes have
a percent solids content of greater than or equal to 20 per-
cent. Instead, bulk liquids will have to be treated so as
to make waste of a non-flowing consistency.
• Landfarms: Regulation prohibiting landfarming of wastes con-
taining arsenic, boron, molybdenum, and/or selenium has been
dropped. Addition of regulations which requires stoppage of
landfarming operations after wastes have migrated three times
the depth of the zone of incorporation. Growth of food chain
crops in landfarms prohibited.
• Incineration: Specification of control technology standards
(1,200 C, 3 seconds, 2 percent oxygen) for halogenated aro-
matic hydrocarbon wastes (PCBs, PBBs, etc.). Specification
of fuel and waste flow rate monitoring.
-------
• Human Health and Environmental Standards: Have been deleted
from all "Notes" as a basis for deviation; will only be used
to impose more stringent requirements as necessary when de-
sign and operating standards do not adequately protect human
health and the environment.
• Ignitable/Volatile/Reactive/Incompatible Wastes: Prohibi-
tion on disposal of these wastes in landfills, landfarms,
and surface impoundments, however, "Note" allows deviations
if facility owner/operator demonstrates it can be done
safely.
• Residential and Agricultural Use Restrictions: Have changed
the restrictions regarding using land where hazardous waste
has been disposed for residential and agricultural purposes.
New standard allows any use which does not damage the struc-
tural integrity of the site.
A separate draft economic impact analysis report has been
prepared for the proposed hazardous waste management regulations.
The report (entitled "Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of the
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Supple-
ment) - Draft Report") is a comprehensive analysis which measures the
economic impacts of Subtitle C Sections 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005,
and 3010 on the regulated manufacturing industries. The regulatory
alternatives analyzed in the EIS are also analyzed in the economic
report. As with the EIS, the economic impact analysis is based on
the September 1978 version of the regulations.
At the present time, the Agency is in the process of integrat-
ing the permitting regulations mandated by Section 3005 of RCRA with
similar regulations prescribed under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act and the Underground
Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Where EPA
xi
-------
implements the hazardous waste program, the end result of this pro-
cess is expected to be a single integrated permit covering the requi-
rements of all of the Acts. Thus, facilities subject to more than
one Act would only have to go through the permitting procedure once.
Because the final product of the integration effort has not been com-
•
pleted as this document goes to press, it has been necessary to use
the July 1978 version of the Section 3005 regulations. While the
integrated regulations are expected to be less complex procedurally
than those currently in use in granting NPDES permits, they are ex-
pected to be similar to the RCRA regulations used in this analysis.
However, there will be some inherent benefits to the regulated com-
munity due to the fact that only one application is required in place
of three. Therefore, the impacts of the permitting process estimated
herein are somewhat overstated.
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xxvi
LIST OF TABLES xxvii
CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
S.O SUMMARY S-l
S.I Introduction S-l
S.2 Description of the Proposed Action S-l
S.2.1 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste (Section 3001) S-2
S.2.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste (Section 3002) S-2
S.2.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes (Section 3003) S-3
S.2.4 Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (Section 3004) S-4
S.2.5 Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
of Hazardous Waste (Section 3005) S-5
S.2.6 Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs
(Section 3006) S-6
S.2.7 Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activities (Section 3010) S-7
S.3 Description of the Reasonable Alternatives S-7
S.3.1 No Action S-8
S.3.2 Phasing of Generators S-9
S.3.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental
Protection S-9
S.3.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and
Environmental Protection S-10
S.4 Impacts of the Proposed Regulations S-ll
S.4.1 Potential Primary Impacts S-13
S.4.2 Potential Secondary Impacts S-30
S.5 Impacts of the Alternatives S-39
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
S.5.1 No Action Alternative S-39
S.5.2 Phasing of Generators Alternative S-40
S.5.3 Enhancing Public Health and Environmental
Protection Alternative S-43
S.5.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and
Environmental Protection Alternative S-53
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Federal Legislation Leading to RCRA 2-1
2.2 RCRA and Subtitle C 2-4
2.2.1 Definitions Relevant to Subtitle C 2-6
2.2.2 Section 3001 of Subtitle C 2-8
2.2.3 Section 3002 of Subtitle C 2-8
2.2.4 Section 3003 of Subtitle C 2-9
2.2.5 Section 3004 of Subtitle C 2-9
2.2.6 Section 3005 of Subtitle C 2-10
2.2.7 Section 3006 of Subtitle C 2-11
2.2.8 Section 3007 of Subtitle C 2-11
2.2.9 Section 3008 of Subtitle C 2-12
2.2.10 Section 3009 of Subtitle C 2-12
2.2.11 Section 3010 of Subtitle C 2-13
2.2.12 Section 3011 of Subtitle C 2-13
2.3 Related Federal Legislation 2-13
2.4 The Status of State Solid Waste and Hazardous
Waste Legislation 2-18
2.4.1 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste 2-30
2.4.2 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Transporters of Hazardous Waste 2-31
2.4.3 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Off-site Treaters of Hazardous Waste 2-32
2.4.4 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Off-site Storers of Hazardous Waste 2-33
2.4.5 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Off-site Disposers of Hazardous Waste 2-34
2.4.6 The Status of State Hazardous Waste Definition,
Monitoring, and Enforcement 2-35
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3-1
3.1 Criteria, Identification, and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Section 3001) 3-1
3.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste (Section 3002) 3-2
3.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Waste (Section 3003) 3-5
3.4 Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (Section 3004) 3-6
3.5 Permit System for Treatment, Storage, or
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes (Section 3005) 3-11
3.6 Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs
(Section 3006) 3-12
3.7 Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activities (Section 3010) 3-14
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 No Action 4-3
4.2 Phasing of Subtitle C Regulations 4-5
4.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection 4-10
4.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental
Protection 4-19
5.0 EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES 5-1
5.1 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Generation 5-1
5.1.1 Hazardous Waste Characteristics 5-1
5.1.2 Sources of Hazardous Waste 5-11
5.2 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Transport 5-22
5.2.1 Generator/Transporter 5-24
5.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management Facility/Transporters 5-27
5.2.3 For-Hire Transporters 5-28
5.3 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal 5-32
5.3.1 Storage 5-32
5.3.2 Treatment 5-34
xv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.3.3 Disposal 5-35
5.3.4 Typical Management Practices for Hazardous
Industrial Waste 5-36
5.3.5 Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry 5-43
5.3.6 State Data on On-Site and Off-Site Disposal 5-48
5.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery 5-52
5.4.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Methods
and Operations 5-52
5.4.2 Resource Recovery and Recycling Estimates 5-56
5.4.3 Constraints to Resource Conservation and Recovery 5-71
6.0 QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES GENERATED AND CONTROLLED 6-1
6.1 Current Hazardous Waste Generation 6-1
6.1.1 Manufacturing Industries 6-1
6.1.2 Other Hazardous Wastes 6-4
6.2 Hazardous Waste Generators 6-10
6.3 Estimation of Future Hazardous Waste Generation 6-14
6.4 Hazardous Spills 6-15
6.5 Hazardous Wastes Under State Control 6-21
7.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 7-1
7.1 Potential Primary Impacts 7-4
7.1.1 Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated 7-5
7.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport,
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Practices
and Procedures 7-9
7.1.3 Administrative Changes 7-38
7.1.4 Air Impacts 7-58
7.1.5 Water Quality Impacts 7-107
7.1.6 Public Health Impacts 7-145
7.2 Potential Secondary Impacts 7-161
7.2.1 Impacts to Physiography and Soils 7-161
7.2.2 Biological Impacts 7-168
7.2.3 Social Impacts 7-183
7.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity 7-192
xv i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
7.2.5 Land Use Impacts 7-200
7.2.6 Water Use Impacts 7-204
7.2.7 Impacts to Resource Conservation and Recovery 7-206
7.2.8 Energy Use Impacts 7-207
7.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points 7-207
7.3 Significant Uncertainties in the Impact Assessment 7-212
8.0 IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 8-1
8.1 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the
No Action Alternative 8-1
8.1.1 Primary Impacts 8-1
8.1.2 Secondary Impacts 8-5
8.2 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the
Phasing of Generators Alternative 8-6
8.2.1 Primary Impacts 8-6
8.2.2 Secondary Impacts 8-20
8.3 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the
Enhanced Public Health and Environment Protection
Alternative 8-22
8.3.1 Primary Impacts 8-22
8.3.2 Secondary Impacts 8-48
8.4 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the
Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental
Protection Alternative 8-68
8.4.1 Primary Impacts 8-69
8.4.2 Secondary Impacts 8-99
9.0 MITIGATING MEASURES AND ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED 9-1
9.1 Redistribution of Hazardous Wastes 9-2
9.2 Impacts Unaffected by the Regulations 9-8
9.2.1 Siting 9-8
9.2.2 Transportation 9-10
xvii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9.2.3 Construction and Operation
9.2.4 Closure
10.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 10-1
11.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 11-1
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
APPENDIX A - STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS A-l
A.I Regulations Applicable To Generators A-l
A.1.1 California A-l
A.1.2 Georgia A-2
A.1.3 Illinois A-2
A.1.4 Maryland A-3
A.1.5 Minnesota A-3
A.1.6 Missouri A-4
A.1.7 Montana A-5
A. 1.8 Oklahoma A-5
A. 1.9 Oregon A-6
A. 1.10 Texas A-6
A. 1.11 Washington A-7
A.2 Regulations Applicable to Transporters A-7
A.2.1 California A-7
A.2.2 Maryland A-9
A.2.3 Minnesota A-9
A.2.4 Missouri A-10
A.2.5 Montana A-10
A.2.6 Oklahoma A-10
A.2.7 Oregon A-ll
A.2.8 Texas A-ll
A.2.9 Washington A-12
A.3 Regulations Applicable to Storers, Treaters,
and Disposers A-13
xviii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
A. 3.1
A. 3. 2
A. 3. 3
A. 3. 4
A. 3. 5
A. 3. 6
A. 3. 7
A. 3. 8
A. 3. 9
California
Georgia
Illinois
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Oklahoma
Oregon
A.3.10 Texas A-20
A.3.11 Washington A-21
A.4 Examples of Other State Control Mechanisms A-22
A.4.1 Nebraska A-22
A.4.2 Utah A-23
A.5 Hazardous Waste Legislation for the U.S. Territories A-24
A.5.1 Territory of Guam A-24
A.5.2 Territory of American Samoa A-24
A.5.3 Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands A-25
A.5.4 Puerto Rico A-25
A.5.5 The U.S. Virgin Islands A-25
APPENDIX B - PROPOSED SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS B-l
Subpart A - Criteria, Identification, and Listing of
Hazardous Waste B-l
250.10 Purpose and Scope B-2
250.11 Definitions B-3
250.12 Criteria B-5
250.13 Hazardous Waste Characteristics B-7
250.14 Hazardous Waste Lists B-15
Appendix I - Explosion Temperature Test B-29
Appendix II - Separation Protocol B-30
Appendix III - Structural Integrity Procedure B-32
Appendix IV - pH Adjustment Procedures B-33
Appendix V - Sampling Methods B-34
Appendix VI - Pesticides B-35
Appendix VII - Department of Transportation (DOT)
Classification Poison A, Poison B,
or ORM-A B-37
xix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Appendix VIII - Autoclave Speifications
Appendix IX - CDC Classification of Etiologic Agents
Appendix X - Radioactive Waste Measurements
Appendix XI - Detection of Gene Mutations
Appendix XII - Bioaccumulation Potential Test
Appendix XIII - Controlled Substance List
Appendix XIV - Priority Pollutants
Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste B-74
250.20 Scope and Purpose B-75
250.21 Definitions B-77
250.22 Manifest B-80
250.23 Reporting B-83
250.24 Recordkeeping B-91
250.25 Containers B-91
250.26 Labeling Practices B-92
250.27 Confidential Information B-93
250.28 Presumption B-93
250.29 Transfer of Liability Contract B-93
Subpart C - Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes B-97
250.30 Scope B-98
250.31 Definitions B-99
250.32 Identification Code B-101
250.33 Recordkeeping B-101
250.34 Acceptance and Transfer of Hazardous Waste B-102
250.35 Compliance with the Manifest B-103
250.36 Delivery of Hazardous Wastes to a Designated
Permitted Facility B-105
250.37 Spills B-105
250.38 Placarding/Marking of Vehicles B-108
Subpart D - Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities B-109
250.40 Scope/Applicability B-lll
250.41 Definitions B-113
250.42 Human Health and Environmental Standards B-127
250.43 General Facility Standards B-130
xx
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
250.44 Standards for Storage B-169
250.45 Standards for Treatment/Disposal B-172
250.46 Special Waste Standards B-210
Annex 1 - Drinking Water Standards B-212
Annex 2 - Threshold Limit Values for Chemical
Substances B-213
Annex 3 - TSDF Report B-221
Annex 4 - Incompatible Wastes B-222
Annex 5 - Methods for Determining Soil pH B-225
Subpart E - Permit System for Facilities Which Treat, Store
or Dispose of Hazardous Waste B-227
250.60 Scope and Purpose B-229
250.61 Definitions B-229
250.62 Permit Provisions B-235
250.63 Application for a Permit B-244
250.64 Formulation of Tenative Determinations
and Draft Permit B-253
250.65 Request for Public Hearing and Notice of
Public Hearing B-256
250.66 Administrative Record B-264
250.67 Emergency Action B-266
250.68 Computation of Time B-266
Subpart F - Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs B-268
250.70 Scope and Purpose B-269
250.71 Definitions B-269
250.72 Authorization B-271
250.73 Interim Authorization B-279
250.74 Federal Outsight of Authorized Programs B-282
250.75 Application Procedure B-285
250.76 Withdrawal of Authorization B-287
Subpart G - Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activities B-289
250.800 Scope and Purpose B-290
250.801 Definitions B-290
250.810 Limited Interim Authorization B-293
250.811 Application Procedures for States B-294
250.812 Responsibilities and Authority of the EPA
Regional Administrator B-295
xx i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
250.820 Who Must File Notification B-296
250.821 When to File Notification B-298
250.822 Where to File Notification B-299
250.823 Information Required in Notification B-299
APPENDIX C - CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
WASTES GENERATED BY SELECTED MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIES C-l
C.I Textile Industry C-3
C.2 Inorganic Chemicals Industry C-6
C.3 Pharmaceutical Industry C-7
C.4 Paint and Allied Products Industry and Contract
Solvent Reclaiming Operations C-12
C.4.1 Paint and Allied Products Industry C-12
C.4.2 Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations C-16
C.5 Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Explosives
Industries C-17
C.6 Petroleum Refining Industry C-17
C.7 Petroleum Rerefining Industry C-34
C.8 Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry C-35
C.9 Metal Smelting and Refining Industry C-39
C.10 Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industries C-46
C.ll Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries C-48
C.12 Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry C-53
C.13 Storage and Primary Batteries Industries C-55
APPENDIX D - TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES D-l
D.I Treatment Methods D-l
D.I.I Physical Treatment D-2
D.I.2 Chemical Treatment D-6
D.I.3 Biological Treatment D-9
D.I.4 Thermal Treatment D-13
D.2 Methods for Ultimate Disposal D-19
D.2.1 Open Dumping D-20
D.2.2 Landfills D-21
D.2.3 Landfarming D-23
D.2.4 Surface Impoundments D-24
xxii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
D.2.5 Incineration
D.2.6 Road Application
D.2.7 Detonation
D.2.8 Engineered Storage
D.3 Treatment and Disposal Practices by Selected
Manufacturing Industries D-28
D.3.1 Textiles Industry D-28
D.3.2 Inorganic Chemicals Industry D-30
D.3.3 Pharmaceutical Industry D-33
D.3.4 Paint and Allied Products Industries and
Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations D-35
D.3.5 Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and
Explosives Industries D-38
D.3.6 Petroleum Refining Industry D-44
D.3.7 Petroleum Rerefining Industry D-48
D.3.8 Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry D-51
D.3.9 Metal Smelting and Refining Industry D-54
D.3.10 Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Industries D-60
D.3.11 Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries D-62
D.3.12 Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry D-64
D.3.13 Storage and Primary Batteries Industries D-67
APPENDIX E - CHARACTERIZATION OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
TRANSPORT INDUSTRY E-l
E.I Generator/Transporter E-3
E.2 Hazardous Waste Management Facility/Transporters E-7
E.3 For-Hire Transporters E-10
E.3.J. Common and Contact Highway Carriers E-10
E.3.2 Rail Transport E-14
E.3.3 Air Transport E-20
E.3.4 Pipeline Transport E-21
E.3.5 Waterway Transport E-22
APPENDIX F - POTENTIAL RECOVERY OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
GENERATED BY SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES F-l
F.I Potential Recovery of Hazardous Wastes Generated by
the Inorganic Chemical Industry F-l
xxiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
F.2 Potential Recovery of Hazardous Wastes Generated by
the Organic Chemical Industry F-4
F.3 Potential Recovery of Hazardous Wastes Generated by the
Metals Smelting and Refining Industries F-4
APPENDIX G - INDUSTRIAL WASTE CLEARINGHOUSES AND EXCHANGES G-l
G.I Iowa Industrial Waste Information Exchange G-5
G.2 California Industrial Waste Information Exchange G-7
G.3 National Clearinghouses G-9
APPENDIX H - METHODOLOGY FOR THE DERIVATION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATION FACTORS H-l
H.I Methods of Quantifying Hazardous Wastes H-l
H.2 Data Sources H-4
H.3 Development of Generation Factors H-12
H.4 Limitations of Generation Factors H-15
H.4.1 Comparability of Data Sources H-15
H.4.2 Possible Biases in Industry Coverage H-19
H.4.3 Possible Inaccuracies Due to Company Responses H-19
H.4.4 Aggregation at the Two-Digit SIC Level H-20
H.4.5 Waste Generation per Employee H-23
H.5 Application of Generation Factors H-23
APPENDIX I - DOCUMENTATION FOR PHASING CALCULATIONS 1-1
I.I Methodology 1-1
1.2 Operation 1-4
1.3 Output 1-4
1.4 Limitations and Applicability of Methodology 1-7
1.5 Program Listing 1-15
1.6 Glossary 1-15
APPENDIX J - HAZARDOUS WASTE INCIDENTS J-l
J.I Generation Incidents j-1
J.2 Transport Incidents j-2
J.3 Treatment and Lagoon Incidents j-3
J.4 Storage Incidents J-10
J.5 Disposal Incidents J-17
xx iv
-------
TABLE-OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Page
APPENDIX K - UNITED STATES DISTRIBUTION OF MANUFACTURING
FIRMS BY SIZE, IN STANDARD INDUSTRIAL
CLASSIFICATIONS 20 AND 22 THROUGH 39 — 1972 K-l
APPENDIX L - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON GROUNDWATER
MOVEMENT AND CONTAMINATION L-l
L.I Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater L-l
L.2 Contamination of Groundwater L-6
L.3 Transport and Natural Attenuation of Contaminants L-7
APPENDIX M - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON INCINERATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES M-l
APPENDIX N - LITERATURE CITED N-l
XXV
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
Page
5-1 Geographic Distribution of Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities 5-45
6-1 Cumulative Size Distribution of Hazardous Waste
Generators 1975 6-13
6-2 Cumulative Hazardous Waste Distribution 1975 6-14
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
1-1 Cumulative Hazardous Waste Generation 1984 1-8
L-l Unconfined and Confined Aquifers L-2
M-l Air Emissions from Incineration of Selected
Pesticides of 1000 C and 2 Seconds Retention M-9
xxv i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
S-l Comparison of Potential Impacts of the Proposed
Regulations and the Enhanced and the Lesser Degree
of Public Health and Environmental Protection
Alternatives S-44
2-1 State Regulation and Control Authority 2-19
2-2 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Generators 2-24
2-3 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Transporters 2-25
2-4 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Treaters 2-26
2-5 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Storers 2-27
2-6 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Disposers 2-28
2-7 State Approach to Hazardous Waste Definition,
Monitoring, and Enforcement 2-29
4-1 Phasing of Generators 4-8
4-2 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection 4-12
4-3 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental
Protection 4-20
5-1 Sources of Chemicals for Inclusion on the Initial
List of the Toxic Substance Control Act Interagency
Testing Committee 5-6
5-2 Examples of General Types of Potentially Hazardous
Waste Constituents 5-12
5-3 Examples of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from
Selected Manufacturing Industries 5-14
5-4 Examples of Spills of Potentially Hazardous Materials 5-23
5-5 Relative Amount of Hazardous Wastes Transported
Off-Site by Mode and Industry Segment 5-25
5-6 Examples of Storage Practices in Selected Industries 5-33
5-7 Estimated Portion of Hazardous Wastes from Fourteen
Manufacturing Industries Disposed by Method, 1973-1975 5-37
5-8 Estimated Percentage of Total Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed On-Site by Various Methods for
Selected Industries - 1973 5-39
5-9 Estimated Percentage of Total Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed Off-Site by Various Methods for
Selected Industries - 1973 5-40
xxvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
5-10 Estimated Percentage of Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed or Recovered On-Site and
Off/Site 5-42
5-11 Estimated Percentage of Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed by Level I, II, or III
Technology for Selected Manufacturing Industries 5-44
5-12 Capacity of Selected Hazardous Waste Management
Service Industry Processes - 1974 5-47
5-13 Types of Hazardous Wastes Handled and Typical
Treatment/Disposal Methods for the Hazardous
Waste Management Industry 5-49
5-14 Estimated Percentage of Hazardous Industrial
Wastes Disposed by Location or Reclaimed for
Selected States 5-50
5-15 Distribution of Hazardous Waste Recovery Operations
in the United States 5-54
5-16 Examples of Hazardous Waste Recovery and Recycling
Practices in Selected Industries 5-58
5-17 Waste Oil Sources and Uses, 1972 5-62
5-18 Estimated Magnitude of Hazardous Wastes from
Selected Industries that may be Potentially
Recoverable or Recyclable 5-65
5-19 Generation and Potential Use of Organic
Chemical Wastes 5-68
5-20 Industries and Hazardous Waste Types Studied for
Energy Recovery Potential 5-69
5-21 Estimated Annual Waste Quantities and Total
Recoverable Energy 5-70
6-1 Summary of Hazardous Waste Generated by EPA Region-1975 6-3
6-2 Estimated Annual Generation of Potentially Hazardous
Non-Manufacturing Wastes 6-6
6-3 EPA Hazardous Substance Spill File Summary
(February 1977 - February 1978) 6-17
6-4 Types of Discharges Reported under Section 311,
PL-92-500 1976 6-20
6-5 Sources of Discharges Reported under Section 311,
PL 92-500 1976 6-22
6-6 Commodities Named Most Often in Hazardous Materials
Incident Reports 6-23
6-7 Summary - State Control over Hazardous Wastes 6-25
6-8 Hazardous Waste Control in Large Generator States 6-26
xxviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
7-1 Number and Types of Reported Incidents from the
Improper Management of Hazardous Wastes 7-3
7-2 Estimated Quantity of Hazardous Manufacturing
Wastes and Number of Establishments Excluded
from Regulation at a Generator Limit of 100 kg/mo 7-8
7-3 Number of Manufacturing Establishments by 2-Digit
SIC Code 7-46
7-4 Number of Manufacturing Establishments by EPA Region 7-47
7-5 Potential Hazardous Waste Generators within Selected
Manufacturing Industries by EPA Region 7-49
7-6 Estimated Number of Potential Producers of Hazardous
Wastes within Selected Categories 7-50
7-7 Estimated Number of Potential Permittees 7-54
7-8 Estimated Change in Vehicular Emissions in 1984 from
Transport of Hazardous Industrial Wastes under
Subtitle C Regulations 7-78
7-9 Gas Composition Data 7-83
7-10 Origins and Pollutants in 57 Cases of Ground Water
Contamination in the Northeast Caused by Leakage
of Waste Water from Surface Impoundments 7-128
7-11 Summary of Data on 42 Municipal and 18 Industrial
Contamination Cases 7-130
7-12 Groundwater Contamination from Industrial Waste
Land Disposal Sites 7-132
7-13 Properties of Wastes that are Hazardous to Living
Systems 7-169
7-14 Generalized Patterns of the Response of Biological
Systems to Increased Levels of Environmental Stress 7-171
7-15 Estimated Change in Fuel Consumption in 1984 from
Transport of Hazardous Industrial Wastes under
Subtitle C Regulations 7-210
8-1 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
First Year of Phasing (1980) by Region and SIC Code 8-9
8-2 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
Second Year of Phasing (1981) by Region and SIC Code 8-10
8-3 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
Third Year of Phasing (1982) by Region and SIC Code 8-11
8-4 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
Fourth Year of Phasing (1983) by Region and SIC Code 8-12
8-5 Estimated Change in Vehicular Emissions in 1984 from
Transport of Additional Hazardous Industrial Wastes
under Subtitle C Regulations 8-36
XXIX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
8-6 Estimated Change in Fuel Consumption in 1984 from
Transport of Additional Hazardous Industrial Wastes
under Subtitle C Regulations 8-67
8-7 Estimated Quantity of Hazardous Manufacturing
Wastes and Number of Establishments Excluded
from Regulation at a Generator Limit of 1,000
Kilograms Per Month 8-71
8-8 Estimated Change in Vehicular Emissions in 1984
from Transport of Less Hazardous Industrial Wastes
under Subtitle C Regulations 8-87
8-9 Estimated Change in Fuel Consumption in 1984 from
Transport of Less Hazardous Industrial Wastes under
Subtitle C Regulations 8-115
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
C-l Typical Waste Solvents Generated by the
Pharmaceutical Industry C-9
C-2 Typical Potentially Hazardous Wastes Generated
During Pharmaceutical Active Ingredient Production C-10
C-3 Selected Potentially Hazardous Waste Constituents
from the Paint and Allied Products Industry C-14
C-4 Potentially Hazardous Components of Selected Waste
Streams from the Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and
Explosives Industries C-18
C-5 Potentially Hazardous Waste Stream Components by
Standard Industrial Classification, Organic
Chemicals and Technical Pesticides Industries C-21
C-6 Potentially Hazardous Constituents of Petroleum
Refining Waste Streams C-30
C-7 Potentially Hazardous Materials Contained in
Petroleum Re-refining Sludge C-36
C-8 Potentially Hazardous Tannery Waste Constituents C-38
C-9 Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from Metal
Smelting and Refining C-40
C-10 Potentially Hazardous Waste Constituents Generated
by Metal Smelting and Refining Industries C-42
C-ll Typical Constituents of Potentially Hazardous
Waste Streams in the Special Machinery Manufacturing
Industries C-50
xxx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
C-12 Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from the Production
of Storage Batteries C-57
C-13 Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from the
Production of Primary Batteries C-59
D-l Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Textiles Industry D-29
D-2 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Inorganic Chemicals Industry D-31
D-3 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Pharmaceutical Industry D-34
D-4 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Paint and Allied Products Industry and
Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations D-36
D-5 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Organic Chemicals and Pesticides Industry D-39
D-6 Percentage of Hazardous Wastes Treated/Disposed
On-Site and Off-Site at Selected Organic Chemical
Plants in 1973 D-43
D-7 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Petroleum Refining Industry D-45
D-8 Estimate of the Percentage of Wastes Disposed/Treated
On-site and Off-site by Petroleum Refinery
in 1973 and 1983 D-49
D-9 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Petroleum Rerefining Industry D-50
D-10 Percentage of Potentially Hazardous Waste Disposed
On-site and Off-site or Recycled in 1975 D-52
D-ll Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry D-53
D-12 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Metal Smelting and Refining Industry D-55
D-13 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industry D-61
D-14 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Special Machinery Industry D-63
D-15 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Electronic Components Industry D-65
D-l6 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Storage and Primary Batteries Industries D-68
E-l Relative Amount of Hazardous Wastes Transported Off-
Site by Mode and Industry Segment E-4
E-2 Examples of Types of Vehicles Used by Generators Who
Transport Wastes E-6
E-3 Wastes Listed in the Hazardous Materials Table E-16
xxx i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
E-4 Estimated Annual Carloads of Selected Potentially
Hazardous Wastes Carried on Railroads in 1976 E-17
F-l Summary of Technically Demonstrated Alternative
Treatment Systems for Wastes Generated by the
Inorganic Chemical Industries F-2
F-2 Cost Comparison of Resource Recovery Treatment
Systems with Landfill Options for Wastes Generated by
Inorganic Chemical Industries F-3
F-3 Summary of Alternative Treatment Systems for Waste
Generated by the Organic Chemicals Industry F-5
F-4 Cost Comparison of Resource Recovery Treatment
Systems with Landfill or Incineration Options for
Wastes Generated by the Organic Chemicals, Pesticides
and Explosives Industries F-8
F-5 Summary of Alternative Treatment Systems for Waste
Generated by the Metals Smelting and Refining
Industries F-9
F-6 Cost Comparison of Resource Recovery Treatment Systems
with Landfill Options for Wastes Generated by the
Metal Smelting and Refining Industries F-12
G-l Comparison of Clearinghouses and Exchanges G-2
G-2 Approximate Quantities of Hazardous Waste Listed on
the Iowa Industrial Waste Information Exchange in 1976
and 1977 G-6
H-l Data Sources for Generation Factors H-14
H-2 Generation Factors for the Calculation of Estimated
Quantities of Hazardous Waste Generated by Manufac-
turing Industries (Based on Employment) H-16
H-3 Standard Industrial Classification Major Group 31 -
Leather and Leather Products H-22
H-4 Summary of Hazardous Waste Generated by EPA Region —
1975 (1000 Metric tons per year) H-24
1-1 Approximate Distribution of Hazardous Manufacturing
Wastes Subject to Regulation in 1984 - Generation Limit
100 kg/mo (All wastes in 1000"s of metric tons per
year) 1-5
1-2 Employee Ratios, 1975/1972 1-11
1-3 Ratio of total Employees by Interpolation to Given
Total - 1972 1-12
1-4 Program Listing 1-16
K-l United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Classifications 20 through 39 - 1972 K-2
xxx ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
K-2 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Industrial Classification 22 -
Textile Mill Products K-3
K-3 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Industrial Classification 23 -
Apparel and other Textile Products K-4
K-4 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Industrial Classification 24 -
Lumber and Wood Products K-5
K-5 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
25 - Furniture and Fixtures K-6
K-6 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
26 - Paper and Allied Products K-7
K-7 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
27 - Printing and Publishing K-8
K-8 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
28 - Chemicals and Allied Products K-9
K-9 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
29 - Petroleum and Coal Products K-10
K-10 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
30 - Rubber and Plastics Products K-ll
K-ll United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
31 - Leather and Leather Products K-12
K-12 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
32 - Stone, Clay, and Glass Products K-13
K-13 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
33 - Primary Metal Industries K-14
K-14 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
34 - Fabricated Metal Products K-15
K-15 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
35 - Machinery Except Electrical K-16
xxxiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
K-16 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
36 - Electric and Electronic Equipment K-17
K-17 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
37 - Transportation Equipment K-18
K-18 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
38 - Instruments and Related Products K-19
K-19 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
39 - Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries K-20
L-l Compounds Identified in Groundwater from Landfill
Well L-8
L-2 Range of Leachate Composition in 18 Sanitary Land-
fills in the United States L-10
M-l Characteristics of Incineration of Selected
Hazardous Wastes M-5
M-2 Trace Metals on Particulate Filters from Test
Incineration of Methyl Methacrylate Wastes M-6
M-3 Uncontrolled Emissions from Combustion of Selected
Munitions in Rotary Kiln Incineration M-12
M-4 Emissions Rates from Open Burning of Selected
Energetic Materials M-13
M-5 Detonation Products of Confined and Unconfined
Explosions M-14
M-6 Mass Spectrographic Analysis of Exhaust Gasses from
Fluidized - Bed Incineration of Solvent Recovery
Sludges from Paint Production M-16
M-7 Analysis of Ash from Incinerated Solvent Recovery
Still Bottoms at One Paint Production Facility M-17
M-8 Ambient Air Concentrations of Lead Near Various
Facilities Burning Waste Oil as Fuel M-19
xxx iv
-------
S.O SUMMARY
S.I Introduction
The objectives of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA) are to promote the protection of health and the environ-
ment and to conserve valuable material and energy resources. Sub-
title C of RCRA provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) with the authority to regulate the generation, transportation,
storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes in a manner
consistent with these objectives. Subtitle C also authorizes states
to implement their own hazardous waste management programs pursuant
to Subtitle C and directs EPA to promulgate guidelines to assist
states in the development of such authorized programs.
S.2 Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is the set of regulations and guidelines
being developed by the EPA under mandate of the following Sections of
Subtitle C:
• Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Section 3001);
• Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Wastes (Sec-
tion 3002);
• Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Wastes
(Section 3003);
• Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Section
3004);
• Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous
Waste (Section 3005);
S-l
-------
• Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs (Section 3006);
• Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste Activities
(Section 3010);
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) examines the potential
impacts that could result both from promulgation of the proposed re-
gulations and guidelines and from four regulatory alternatives. The
specific regulations and guidelines being assessed in this EIS are
summarized below, and the four regulatory alternatives are summarized
in the following section.
S.2.1 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Section
3001). The Section 3001 regulations define those wastes that are to
be considered hazardous and, therefore, subject to the other Subtitle
C regulations. Two mechanisms are provided for determining those
wastes that are hazardous: identifying characteristics and lists of
specific hazardous wastes and processes generating hazardous wastes.
Four identifying characteristics are specified for determining
whether a waste is hazardous: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
and toxicity. Any waste which exhibits any of these characteristics
or which is listed (see Appendix B, Subpart A), would be considered
hazardous and would have to be managed pursuant to the Subtitle C
regulations.
S.2.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Wastes
(Section 3002). The Section 3002 regulations establish standards for
manifesting and keeping records of hazardous wastes shipped off the
S-2
-------
site of generation; for containerization of hazardous wastes; for
labeling, placarding, and marking of hazardous waste shipments; and
for reporting the disposition of hazardous wastes. These standards
would apply to those persons or Federal agencies, except households,
who generate and dispose of more than 100 kilograms (about 220
pounds) per month of wastes identified as hazardous under the Section
3001 regulations. Any person or Federal agency producing and dis-
posing of 100 kilograms or less per month would not be required to
comply with the generator regulations; also any generator engaged
solely in retail trade or principally in farming would have to comply
with the regulations only with regard to waste automotive oil. Gene-
rators excluded from compliance with the Subtitle C regulations
would, however, still be obligated to dispose their hazardous wastes
in an acceptable manner, e.g., in a landfill that meets RCRA Subtitle
D criteria.
S.2.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Wastes
(Section 3003). The Section 3003 regulations establish standards for
the acceptance, loading, and stowing of hazardous wastes; for compli-
ance with the manifest system; for marking and placarding of trans-
port vehicles; for delivery of hazardous wastes; and for reporting
and cleaning up spills. These standards would apply to any person or
Federal agency transporting, within the United States, hazardous
wastes that require a manifest under the generator regulations and
also apply to any transporter importing a shipment of hazardous
S-3
-------
wastes from abroad. Portions of the standards would also apply to
any transporter who consolidates and transports hazardous wastes not
requiring a manifest. The transporter regulations would not apply to
persons or Federal agencies transporting hazardous wastes solely on
the site of generation or solely on the site of a permitted hazardous
waste management facility.
S.2.4 Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Section 3004).
The Section 3004 regulations establish standards for protection of
air quality, groundwater quality, and surface water quality; for
general facility practices and procedures including site selection,
financial requirements, training, emergency preparedness, monitor-
ing, recordkeeping, reporting, and closure; for storage operations;
for treatment/disposal operations including landfills, incinerators,
surface impoundments, and landfarms; and for management of 'special
wastes' (i.e., cement kiln dusts, utility wastes, oil drilling muds/
brines, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes, uranium mining
wastes, and other mining wastes).
These standards apply to owners and operators of any facility
that treats, stores, or disposes any quantity of any waste identified
as hazardous under the Section 3001 regulations, except 'special
wastes'. All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store,
or dispose 'special wastes', and no other hazardous waste, would have
S-4
-------
to comply only with selected general facility standards. The stan-
dards do wastes from abroad. Portions of the standards would also
apply to not apply to on-site storage by generators who store their
own wastes for less than 90 days prior to subsequent transport
off-site, but do apply to any such on-site storage which lasts for 90
days or longer.
Certain practices that are controlled under other Federal acts
are not regulated under the treatment, storage, and disposal stand-
ards. These practices include underground (deep-well) injection,
ocean dumping, discharges to municipal sewer systems, surface dis-
charges under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, and all treatment, storage and disposal activities at
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or by ocean dumping barges and
vessels. However the treatment, storage, and disposal regulations
would apply to above ground storage or treatment of hazardous wastes
prior to underground injection, on-shore facilities associated with
ocean dumping activities, and surface impoundments associated with
NPDES permitted industrial wastewater treatment facilities and
hazardous sludges from such facilities.
S.2.5 Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous
Waste (Section 3005). The Section 3005 regulations require that all
owners or operators of facilities treating, storing, or disposing
hazardous wastes obtain a permit prior to facility construction,
modification, or operation. The regulations establish standards for
S-5
-------
would be issued for the projected life of the facility. The owners/
operators of new facilities would be required to obtain permits prior
to construction, and would have to certify that construction was
performed in compliance with the permit before commencing operation.
Special permits would be available for experimental facilities,
qualified hospital and medical care facilities, POTW's, and ocean
dumping barges and vessels. Standards would be established for
including public participation in the permit review process.
S.2.6 Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs (Section 3006).
Section 3006 provides that states are to be encouraged to apply for
authorization to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste
program pursuant to Subtitle C. There would be three types of
authorization for which states could apply: full authorization, par-
tial authorization, or interim authorization.
Full authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C. Par-
tial authorization would allow a state to administer and enforce
selected components of a hazardous waste regulatory program estab-
lished pursuant to Subtitle C. EPA would retain responsibility for
the remaining components of the program. States would be considered
for partial authorization only if state legislative authority did
not exist for all required program components. In all cases, the
combination of the state and Federal program would have to meet the
S-6
-------
requirements of a fully authorized program. Partial authorization
would be granted for a period not to exceed 5 years, but could be re-
newed.
Interim authorization would allow a state to carry out a haz-
ardous waste program in lieu of the Federal Program under Subtitle C
for a period not to exceed 24 months, beginning on the date 6 months
after the date of promulgation of regulations under Section 3001.
The purpose of interim authorization is to allow the state to make an
orderly transition from its present program to a program eligible for
full authorization.
S.2.7 Preliminary Notitication of Hazardous Waste Activities
(Section 3010). The Section 3010 regulations require that any person
generating or transporting hazardous wastes or owning or operating a
facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes
notify the EPA Administrator of such activity not later than 90 days
after promulgation of regulations under Section 3001. Section 3010
specifies in detail who would have to file notification of hazardous
waste activity, when and where such notification would have to be
filed, and the information that would have to be supplied in the
notification.
S.3 Description of the Reasonable Alternatives
During the development of the proposed Subtitle C regulations,
numerous alternative regulations and regulatory approaches have been
considered. The proposed set of regulations was selected from among
S-7
-------
these many options based upon technical, environmental, economic,
institutional, and legal considerations. Because of the enormous
number of ways in which these various options could be structured
into alternative sets of regulations, the approach taken in this EIS
is to select and to develop a manageable set of meaningful alter-
natives that reasonably bracket the overall objectives and the re-
sultant impacts anticipated from whatever set of regulations are
ultimately promulgated under Subtitle C. With this approach it is
possible to show the range and types of potential impacts that could
result under various alternatives without having to explicitly con-
sider the almost infinite variety of options for accomplishing the
same or intermediate objectives.
Four different sets of alternatives have been selected and
structured to reasonably bracket the potential impacts that could be
expected to result. These alternatives are as follows:
• No Action;
• Phasing of Generators;
• Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection;
• Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection.
S.3.1 No Action. The No Action alternative has been selected
for the purpose of analyzing the potential impacts that could result
from taking no action, i.e., not promulgating regulations for Sub-
title C. For reasons discussed in Chapter 4, the No Action alterna-
tive assumes that no part of RCRA, including Subtitle C, is to be
S-8
-------
implemented and that hazardous waste management would continue as
currently practiced.
S.3.2 Phasing of Generators. The Phasing of Generators alter-
native has been selected for the purpose of analyzing the potential
impacts that could result from the promulgation of the proposed Sub-
title C regulations on a phased basis, rather than from their total
implementation at one time. For purposes of analysis, a five-year
time frame measured from the proposed implementation date, is assumed
for the phasing of the regulations.
While there are many different ways in which the levels for
standards and criteria could be phased in, most would have essen-
tially the same effect—a gradual expansion of the total quantity of
hazardous wastes being controlled by the hazardous waste program.
For purposes of analysis, the method selected emphasizes increasing
the quantity of wastes controlled during the first 5 years following
promulgation of the regulations by gradually expanding the number of
generators brought under control. With this approach, the level of
the generator limit established under Section 3002 is to be reduced
annually over a five-year period of time in order to bring the larger
generators into the program first and the smaller generators into the
program later. Furthermore, the generator limit is to be reduced so
that equal amounts of hazardous wastes are annually brought under the
programs's control over the five-year period, i.e., 20 percent of the
total industrial hazardous wastes per year.
S-9
-------
S.3.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection. The
Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection alternative has
been selected for the purpose of analyzing the potential impacts that
could result from modifications to the proposed Subtitle C regula-
tions designed to further increase public health and environmental
protection above that level afforded by the proposed regulations.
The basic strategy of this alternative is to expand the defini-
tion of hazardous waste in order to bring additional wastes under
control of the program; to remove exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to apply more stringent design and operational
requirements for storers, treaters, and disposers; to eliminate the
special standards for "special wastes'; to reduce reporting intervals
for storers, treaters, and disposers; to eliminate the use of
delivery documents in lieu of manifests; and to decrease the life of
permits and impose additional restrictions on obtaining permits.
S.3.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protec-
tion. The Lesser Degree of Public Health and Enviornmental Protec-
tion alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing the
potential impacts that could result from modifications to the pro-
posed Subtitle C regulations designed to provide a lesser degree of
public health and environmental protection than that afforded by the
proposed regulations.
The basic strategy of this alternative is to contract the defi-
nition of hazardous wastes in order to bring fewer wastes under the
S-10
-------
control of the program; to increase exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to reduce manifest requirements; to apply less
stringent design and operational requirements for storers, treaters,
and disposers; to eliminate regulation of 'special wastes'; to de-
crease recordkeeping times for generators, transporters, storers,
treaters, and disposers; to increase the length of permit exclusions
for generators who store prior to off-site disposal; to eliminate
restrictions on interim authorization; and to ease restrictions on
full and partial authorization.
S.4 Impacts of the Proposed Regulations
The potential impacts, both beneficial and adverse, that could
result from implementation of the proposed Subtitle C regulations are
summarized in this section. Two major types of impacts are identi-
fied: primary impacts and secondary impacts. Primary impacts
include those effects that would be directly attributable to the
implementation of the proposed regulations. Secondary impacts
include those effects that would be indirectly attributable to the
implementation of the proposed regulations. In some cases, secondary
impacts might not be observed until years, or even decades, after
implementation of the regulations.
Potential impacts are analyzed for two separate years: 1980,
the year of expected implementation of the regulations, and 1984, the
year by which the full effects of the regulations are expected to
become established. For the reasons discussed in Chapter 7, it is
S-ll
-------
anticipated that at least five years would be required for such
effects and resultant impacts to become fully established.
The impact analysis is both generic in scope and conducted on a
national level due to the extreme waste-specific, process-specific,
and site-specific nature of most impacts, and due to the data limi-
tations noted in the text. Because most available data relate to
manufacturing industries, the emphasis of the impact analysis is
necessarily directed toward manufacturing industries.
Over 300 reported incidents of damage from the improper manage-
ment of hazardous wastes were reviewed to assist in identifying the
potential for beneficial impacts resulting from promulgation of the
proposed regulations. From the way in which most of the incidents
have come to light, it is very likely that the vast majority of such
incidents go unreported, especially human health incidents which may
require many years of exposure and for which direct causative
relationships are difficult to trace or establish. The reported
incidents indicate that there is often a considerable time interval
between the occurrence of those events which lead to damage and the
time when the damage becomes evident. Since virtually all of the
reported incidents were discovered only after damage had already
occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant potential for many
similar damage incidents to be detected in the future from wastes
that have already been improperly transported, stored, treated, or
disposed.
S-12
-------
S.4.1 Potential Primary Impacts. The potential primary impacts
from implementation of the proposed regulations fall into the follow-
ing areas:
• Hazardous wastes to be regulated;
• Changes to existing generation, transport, storage, treat-
ment, and disposal practices and procedures;
• Administrative changes;
• Air impacts;
• Water impacts;
• Public health impacts.
S.4.1.1 Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. Approximately 35
million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes could be con-
trolled under the Subtitle C regulations in 1980, and approximately
40 million metric tons of hazardous wastes could be controlled in
1984. The wastes regulated would constitute slightly over 10 percent
of the total manufacturing wastes (hazardous and non-hazardous) gen-
erated annually in the U.S. The generator limit of 100 kilograms per
month could exclude about 29,000 metric tons per year of hazardous
manufacturing wastes from regulation. The excluded wastes would
represent less than 0.1 percent of the total hazardous manufacturing
wastes; approximately 26 percent of manufacturing establishments gen-
erating hazardous wastes would be excluded, by this generator limit,
from complying with the generator regulations. In addition to manu-
facturing wastes, an indeterminate portion of other large volume
wastes, such as waste automotive oil, coal ash, oil drilling muds and
S-13
-------
brines, cement kiln dusts, phosphate mining and processing wastes,
and uranium mining wastes, could be more substantially controlled
under the regulations.
S.4.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures. The Subtitle C
regulations would lead to a number of major changes in existing prac-
tices and procedures. The changes would be caused by the enactment
of more stringent environmental requirements than those that cur-
rently exist, resultant increases in treatment and disposal costs,
and specific procedural and operational requirements imposed by the
regulations.
Generation. The regulations would result in procedural changes
in the methods used by regulated generators for tracking and report-
ing hazardous waste shipments and for preparing such shipments for
transport. Every generator would be required to provide a manifest
for each off-site hazardous waste shipment—intrastate, interstate,
and international—sent to a facility not owned by the generator and
to file annual reports and keep records on such shipments. Genera-
tors designating hazardous waste for an off-site facility owned by
the generator and located in the same state as the generator would
have to provide a manifest, but would not have to comply with the
reporting or recordkeeping requirements (although the facility itself
would be subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements under
Section 3004); shipments to generator-owned facilities in other
S-14
-------
states would have to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. On-site shipments would not have to be manifested, but
would have to be sent to permitted on-site facilities and would have
to be reported to appropriate Federal or state authorities. All such
hazardous waste shipments would have to be containerized, labeled,
and placarded in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations. Currently, very few shipments of hazardous wastes are
subject to such requirements.
In addition, since one major result of the regulations would be
to increase hazardous waste generation, storage, treatment, and
disposal costs, generators would have an incentive to modify proces-
ses so as to reduce and/or change the types and amounts of hazardous
wastes generated, and to enable the increased recycling of hazardous
wastes as process feedstocks.
Transport. There are numerous reported instances of hazardous
waste transporters dumping wastes surreptitiously; rather than deliv-
ering the wastes to an environmentally acceptable storage, treatment,
or disposal facility. The manifest and reporting requirements should
significantly reduce, if not eliminate, such practices. Furthermore,
the regulations would impose requirements that all transportation-
related spills of hazardous wastes be reported immediately and be
cleaned up by the transporter. Requirements for accepting, loading,
and stowing hazardous waste shipments would potentially lead to fewer
accidents and spills from hazardous waste transport. However, the
S-15
-------
average distance over which hazardous wastes are transported would
likely increase as a result of the regulations. Increased transport
distances would increase the potential for vehicular accidents.
Increased transport distances would also increase the potential for
spills, and this could off-set some of the benefits indicated above.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. A major impact resulting from
the Subtitle C regulations would be the closing of those hazardous
waste management facilities (both off-site and on-site) that could
not or would not comply with the storage, treatment, or disposal
requirements. It would also lead to the modification of other
hazardous waste management facilities to enable compliance. It is
expected that a large portion of existing facilities would require
modification in order to comply with the regulations.
Those existing hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal
practices that are environmentally unacceptable according to the
Subtitle C regulations would be prohibited or restricted or would
have to be modified; some practices could be replaced by other, more
environmentally acceptable practices.
Existing practices that are likely to be prohibited or severely
restricted by the Subtitle C regulations include: open burning;
uncontrolled incineration; road application of hazardous waste oil;
the use of landfills without leachate collection systems and ground-
water monitoring systems; the use of surface impoundments without
leachate detection systems and groundwater monitoring systems; land-
farming of highly volatile wastes; the location of landfills, surface
S-16
-------
impoundments, and landfarms within 150 meters (500 feet) of func-
tioning public or private water supplies or livestock water supplies;
and the mixing of incompatible wastes in surface impoundments and
basins, except for the purpose of treatment. In addition, the Sub-
title C regulations specifically prohibit such existing practices as
open dumping; the placing of reactive wastes, ignitable wastes, and
highly volatile wastes in landfills, surface impoundments, or basins;
the mixing of incompatible wastes in landfills and landfarms; the use
of waste application practices that allow the zone of incorporation
of landfarms to become anaerobic; and the use of continuous feed
treatment facilities without automatic waste feed cut-offs or by-pass
systems that are activated when a malfunction occurs.
The Subtitle C regulations also impose specific requirements for
the closure of treatment/disposal facilities. For example, at the
time of closure, all disposal operations would have to be completed
and all wastes removed from storage and treatment facilities for dis-
posal in accordance with the regulations. Hazardous wastes and
hazardous waste residue would also have to be removed from all sur-
face impoundments that do not meet the standards for landfills and
disposed according to the regulations. Contaminated soil-filter
medium at landfarms could also have to be removed and disposed
according to the regulations. Monitoring and maintenance care would
have to be provided for a period that need not exceed 20 years from
closure.
S-17
-------
The Subtitle C regulations would likely lead to changes in the
portion of hazardous wastes treated/disposed on-site by generators
and off-site by the waste management industry. For reasons discussed
in Chapter 7, it is not possible to accurately determine the extent
of any shift that could occur under the Subtitle C regulations. For
purposes of analysis, a range of 13 to 25 percent off-site treatment/
disposal of hazardous manufacturing wastes in 1984 is used to assess
potential impacts of a shift in off-site disposal.
S.4.1.3 Administrative Changes. Implementation of the Sub-
title C regulations would necessitate a widesweeping series of
administrative changes that would affect industry, state governments,
and the Federal government.
State Administration of Programs. EPA staff estimates are that
between 45 to 50 of the 56 states and territories could qualify for
interim authorization under the Subtitle C regulations. Of those
which could qualify for interim authorization, 3 to 5 might also cur-
rently qualify for full authorization. No states would be able to
qualify for partial authorization before the end of the interim auth-
orization period.
Although RCRA encourages states to administer their own author-
ized hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program, states
are not required to administer such programs. If a state does not
choose to administer a program under Subtitle C of RCRA, there would
be a Federally run program in that state. RCRA, however, does not
prohibit states without authorized programs from enacting and
S-18
-------
enforcing their own more stringent or non-consistent hazardous waste
program to be run in the state in addition to the Federal program.
At this time, it is not known if any state would run such a program
in addition to the Federal program, or what regulations would be
promulgated under any such overlapping program. Such additional
state programs, if enacted, would have the potential for creating
various impacts, including the imposition of conflicting and/or
duplicative requirements on hazardous waste generators, transporters,
storers, treaters, and disposers.
Number of Generators Required to Comply with the Regulations.
It is estimated that on the order of 430,000 to 460,000 manufacturing
establishments, automotive service stations, hospitals, medical
laboratories, and research facilities could have to comply with the
generator regulations. An indeterminable number of other potential
generators (e.g., "special waste1 generators) could also have to
comply.
Number of Storers, Treaters, and Disposers Required to Obtain
Permits. It is estimated that on the order of 29,000 manufacturing
establishments, hospitals, Federal installations, and hazardous waste
management service industry facilities could be required to obtain
permits. An indeterminable number of other storers, treaters, and
disposers could also be required to obtain permits.
Paperwork Requirement Under the Regulations. The potential gen-
erators and permitters identified above would initially have to file
about 430,000 to 460,000 notifications, under Section 3010, with EPA
S-19
-------
or authorized states. An indeterminable number of transporters and
other potential generators and permittees would also have to file
such notifications. These permittees would also have to submit
approximately 29,000 permit applications and additional supplemental
material.
It is estimated that there would be between 350,000 and 690,000
off-site shipments of hazardous industrial wastes annually by 1984,
necessitating industrial generators to prepare between 350,000 and
690,000 manifests annually. The aggregated generators, transporters,
and owners/operators of hazardous waste management facilities would
each have to keep between 1.0 and 2.1 million manifests in storage on
an annual basis. Most transporters currently keep at least 3 years
worth of delivery documents in storage due to various company, state,
and Federal requirements. To the extent that transporters use ac-
ceptable delivery documents in lieu of manifests, or use manifests
in lieu of existing delivery documents, this recordkeeping require-
ment would not constitute an additional burden on transporters.
Each owner/operator of a permitted hazardous waste management fa-
cility would also have to keep an operating log for the life of the
facility, plus 3 years worth of specified records.
It is estimated that generators and hazardous waste management
facilities could prepare upwards of 547,000 to 577,000 reports annu-
ally for submittal to permitting authorities. Transporters could
have to file between 140 to 270 spill reports annually; some spill
reports are presently being filed by transporters under other acts.
S-20
-------
Most of this recordkeeping and reporting would represent addi-
tional requirements on generators and owners/operators of hazardous
waste management facilities, based upon the existing state
regulations.
S.4.1.4 Air Quality. Current hazardous waste generation,
transport, storage, treatment, and disposal practices involve a
variety of activities, each of which has the potential for releasing
air pollutants to the environment. The potential for the release of
air pollutants by each of these activities would be affected in dif-
ferent ways by the Subtitle C regulations. For the most part, the
regulations would lead to reduction in the release of air contami-
nants and to resultant improvements in air quality.
Generation. Subtitle C regulations would not have a direct
effect on air emissions resulting from activities generating hazard-
ous wastes. However, to the extent that the regulations change the
economics of disposal or treatment and, thus, result in process modi-
fications engineered to recycle hazardous wastes or to reduce or
alter the quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated, Sub-
title C could indirectly result in changes in process air emissions.
Transport. Current practices in the transport of hazardous
wastes have the potential to release air emissions in three major
ways:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
S-21
-------
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the trans-
port vehicle.
Containerization requirements applied to both intrastate and
interstate shipments of hazardous wastes would reduce the potential
for fugitive emissions from the transport of hazardous wastes.
Requirements for the acceptance, loading, and stowing of hazardous
wastes, especially incompatible wastes or leaking containers, would
greatly reduce the potential for explosions and spills to occur from
hazardous waste transport. Requirements for spill clean-up would
reduce the potential for the release of air emissions following
spills. Increased transport distances could result in increased vehi-
cular emissions; however, any such increase in emissions would be
extremely small compared to total national vehicular emissions.
Increased transport distances would also increase the potential for
spills, and this could off-set some of the benefits indicated above.
Storage. Current practices in the storage of hazardous wastes
can lead to the release of air pollutants in three major ways:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills, fires, explosions,
and other accidental releases of hazardous wastes and/or
their constituents;
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes.
The regulations contain provisions that would reduce the poten-
tial for the release of air emissions from each of these sources.
Hazardous waste storage operations would have to be conducted in such
S-22
-------
a manner that no discharge occurs; these storage operations would
also have to be monitored and inspected to detect any potential dis-
charge. Hazardous wastes which, if stored in an open manner, could
release air emissions that could adversely affect human health or
environment would be required to be stored in tanks or other closed
containers. Restrictions would be placed on the storage of incompa-
tible, explosive, ignitable, or highly reactive wastes to reduce the
potential for accidental releases to occur from improper storage.
Required spill containment measures and contingency plans could fur-
ther reduce the potential for accidental releases and the time neces-
sary to clean up any such accidental releases. Hazardous wastes
would have to be removed from storage operations during facility
closure and be disposed in accordance with the regulations.
Treatment/Disposal. The major sources of air emissions from
current hazardous waste treatment/disposal practices are as follows:
• Fugitive emissions from land-based treatment/disposal acti-
vities, such as landfills, landfarms, and surface
impoundments;
• Emissions generated by explosions, fires, and other acci-
dents ;
• Residuals from the combustion of hazardous wastes by inciner-
ation or open burning;
• Fugitive emissions from other treatment facilities.
The Subtitle C regulations contain requirements that should
reduce the potential for fugitive emissions from the land-based
treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes. For example, volatile
S-23
-------
wastes—those with a true vapor pressure greater than 78 mm mercury
at 25 C—would not be allowed to be treated/disposed in landfills,
surface impoundments, or basins; such wastes could be landfarmed only
if the facility owner/operator could demonstrate, before landfarming
the wastes, that the specified air contaminant levels would not be
violated. With regard to wastes that are landfilled, cover material
would have to be applied daily on active hazardous waste landfill
cells. At facility closure, a final cover would have to be provided.
Where gases are generated, a gas collection and control system would
have to be installed to control the vertical and horizontal escape of
gases.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should, to a
large degree, reduce the potential for fires, explosions, and other
accidents at hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities. The pri-
mary cause of most explosions and fires has been the mixing of incom-
patible wastes and the improper treatment/disposal of ignitable or
reactive wastes. The manifesting, labeling, waste analysis, and
training requirements would reduce the potential for the improper
management of such wastes. Restrictions on the treatment/disposal of
incompatible, highly reactive, or ignitable wastes and requirements
for contingency plans and spill containment measures would further
reduce the potential for the release of air emissions.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for the release of air contaminants from the combustion
S-24
-------
of hazardous wastes. The regulations would require the use of con-
trols for almost all combustion of hazardous wastes and would set
design and operational standards. Open burning of hazardous wastes
would be prohibited in most instances. All facilities would also be
required to comply with all applicable standards of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, in order to maintain their permits.
The regulations would also set specific standards for the incin-
eration of hazardous wastes. Incinerators would also have to be
designed, constructed, and operated such that fugitive emissions of
unburned hazardous wastes and combustion products are controlled and
such that waste feed is automatically cut-off if significant changes
occur in flame, combustion zone temperature, excess air, or scrubber
water pressure.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for fugitive emissions from other hazarous waste treat-
ment facilities (e.g., biological, physical, and chemical treatment
facilities). Fugitive emissions would be controlled, for the most
part, by the regulatory provisions previously discussed.
To the extent that the Subtitle C regulations result in modifi-
cations to or construction of additional hazardous waste storage,
transportation, disposal, or treatment facilities, there would be an
increase in construction-related air emissions. The major emissions
would include exhaust from motor vehicles, including construction
equipment, and fugitive dust raised by such construction activities
as grading, excavation, and movement of equipment.
S-25
-------
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose these
additional wastes under the regulations as compared to the unregu-
lated current practices. Such shifts would change both the types and
quantities of air emissions generated from the management of specific
wastes. For example, a shift from landfilling to incineration of a
particular waste would result in the increased release of combustion
products and the reduced release of particulate matter and/or vola-
tile gases. Such shifts could, to an indeterminable extent, either
enhance or reduce the potential for indicated reductions in specific
air emissions. Furthermore, the construction of new facilities could
lead to increased releases of air emissions in the vicinity of the
facility and along any transport routes. Closure of existing facili-
ties could lead to reduced releases of air emissions in the vicinity
of the facility and along transport routes. The net result could be
both a localized and/or nationwide reduction in the releases of many
air contaminants from hazardous waste management, and a localized
and/or nationwide increase in the releases of other air contaminants.
Thus, while there would most likely be improvements in air quality
under the regulations, there could also be some localized degradation
of air quality. All emissions and any localized degradation of air
quality would, however, have to be in compliance with all applicable
requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act, OSHA standards, state standards,
and Subtitle C standards).
S-26
-------
S.4.1.5 Water Quality. Surface water may be contaminated by
current hazardous waste management practices through spills; runoff
from storage, treatment, or disposal areas; discharges from generat-
ing or treatment facilities; or through discharges of contaminated
groundwaters. Groundwater contamination may result from infiltration
of spilled materials or wastes stored or disposed on permeable sur-
faces, from percolation of leachate or runoff which has been in con-
tact with hazardous wastes, from leakage or infiltration of fluids,
from poorly sealed or unlined waste impoundments, or from injection
of wastes into aquifers.
The Subtitle C regulations would potentially result in a small
decrease in the number and size of spills of hazardous wastes, pri-
marily through containerization requirements. However, any shift to
off-site treatment or disposal would necessitate more handling and
farther transportation distances, and could tend to off-set some of
the potential for a decrease in hazardous spills. The regulations
would, however, provide for more rapid notification of authorities
and for rapid initiation of clean-up procedures following spills.
The Subtitle C regulations would result in a considerable
reduction in other surface releases of hazardous wastes. The regula-
tions would require all generators to store, treat, and dispose of
their hazardous wastes in permitted facilities. All owners/operators
of such facilities would be required to construct and maintain diver-
sion structures to prevent surface runoff from entering active por-
tions of facilities and to collect any runoff or other discharges
S-27
-------
originating on the active portions. All discharges from the
facilities would have to be confined to point sources which comply
with the regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act. Storage
facilities would be prohibited from making any discharges. These
regulations would constitute a substantial improvement over the
present unregulated situation and should produce a decrease in the
number of surface water pollution incidents resulting from hazardous
wastes.
Since there are no estimates of the extent of existing
groundwater contamination due to hazardous wastes, it is not possible
to quantify the improvements that would result from the regulations.
However, numerous incidents of severe groundwater contamination have
occurred as a result of actions which would be prohibited by these
regulations. Although the regulations would not address the closure
and clean-up of existing abandoned sites, they would institute
siting, construction, operation, maintenance, and closure require-
ments designed to ensure that no contamination of any underground
drinking water source occurs as a result of any facility in operation
after the regulations are promulgated.
It should be noted, however, that there could be shifts in the
types of methods used to treat/dispose the wastes brought under regu-
lation by this alternative. As previously discussed, such shifts
could result in localized changes in the release of specific water
contaminants and, thus, could result in localized changes in water
quality.
S-28
-------
S.4.1.6 Public Health. Appendix J summarizes over 300 reported
incidents that have resulted from the improper management of hazard-
ous wastes. This improper management resulted in 49 separate
instances of traceable public health impacts, including death, and 84
instances of drinking water contamination, including contamination of
major aquifers. From the way in which most of the reported incidents
have come to light, it is very likely that the vast majority of such
incidents go unreported, especially human health incidents which may
require many years of exposure, and for which direct causative
relationships are difficult to trace or establish. The reported
incidents indicate that there is often a considerable time lag
between the occurrence of those events which lead to public health
impacts and the time when the impact becomes evident. Since vir-
tually all of the reported incidents were discovered only after
damage had already occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant
potential for many similar public health impacts to be detected from
wastes that have already been, or currently are being improperly
transported, stored, treated, or disposed.
The Subtitle C regulations should significantly reduce the
potential for such public health impacts to occur from future
management of hazardous wastes. The regulations would reduce the
potential for the release of air, water, and soil contaminants from
hazardous waste management and, thus, for resultant public health
impacts. Furthermore, requirement for recording where hazardous
S-29
-------
wastes are disposed and prohibitions against using such sites for
residential or agricultural purposes could prevent future public
health catastrophes, such as that which occurred at Love Canal in
Niagara Falls, New York (see Section 7.1.6).
S.4.2 Potential Secondary Impacts. The potential secondary
impacts from implementation of the proposed regulations include
impacts to the following areas:
• Physiography and soils;
• Biological environment;
• Water use;
• Hazardous waste management facility capacity;
• Land use;
• Social impacts;
• Resource conservation and recovery;
• Energy use;
• Special interest points.
S.4.2.1 Physiography and Soils. The principal areas of envi-
ronmental concern regarding physiography and soils are soil contami-
nation, alterations of topography, and loss and physical disruption
of soils. At present, impacts to soils from hazardous wastes are
widespread, primarily as a result of spills and unregulated dumping.
The manifest system and permit requirements would eliminate most
irresponsible disposal of these wastes. The closure of existing
S-30
-------
sites which do not meet the proposed standards would result in
additional impacts to both physiography and soils. In some cases,
significant volumes of clayey soils would have to be acquired and
placed at new disposal sites. Excavation of the clays would result
in alterations of topography. Creation of new disposal sites could
result in contamination of additional soils; however, any such con-
tamination would occur in a controlled manner and would be localized
in relatively few places, as compared to the present situation.
S.4.2.2 Biological Environment. The major routes of hazardous
waste transport to, and subsequent impact on biological systems are
by: groundwater contamination via leaching, surface water contam-
ination via runoff, air pollution, poisoning via direct contact,
poisoning via the food chain, and fires and explosion. The proposed
regulations would substantially reduce improper transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, and would result in the
containment and long-term separation of these wastes from biological
systems. Although the impact of the regulations cannot be quanti-
fied, many of the types of incidents of contamination and associated
biological effects which have been observed in the past would be
prevented by promulgation of the regulations. In general, biological
impacts due to contact with regulated wastes or from fires or explo-
sions involving regulated wastes would be minimized, while other
impacts would be reduced in proportion to the reduction of air;
S-31
-------
water, and soil contamination. Creation of new disposal sites would
necessitate the preemption of land from existing uses. Although
siting restrictions would protect wetlands and critical habitats of
endangered species, construction of disposal facilities in remote
areas could impact other habitat types that may be of value to wild
or domesticated animals.
S.4.2.3 Social Impacts.
Demographic Impacts. Promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations
would likely cause some plant closings and job losses in a few seg-
ments of some industrial categories (e.g., textile industry, inor-
ganic chemicals industry, organic chemicals industry, metals smelting
and refining industry, electroplating and metal finishing industry).
Such plant closings and job losses would have the potential to cause
relocations of some of the effected workers and their families.
There would be a potential for some out-migrations from communities
or areas for which plants being closed constituted the primary source
of employment.
Operational requirements for hazardous waste management, under
the Subtitle C regulations, would likely result in additional workers
being required to track the hazardous wastes; to transport the
wastes; and to store, treat, or dispose the wastes both off-site and
on-site. Additional workers would also be required to administer and
enforce the regulations at both the state and Federal levels.
S-32
-------
Construction workers would also be required for necessary modifi-
cations to existing facilities or construction of new facilities. It
is estimated that a total of at least 20,000 workers could be re-
quired nationally, by 1984, to store, treat, or dispose hazardous
wastes. Data are not available to estimate how many of these would
be new workers due to the Subtitle C regulations.
Some populations shifts could occur if the required number of
workers was not available where needed, particularly in the case of
treatment/disposal sites being located in rural or undeveloped areas.
Any such shifts in population are expected to be relatively small on
a national scale; however, there could be localized instances of a
relatively large influx of workers.
Social Conditions. Impacts to existing social conditions could
result from changes in the siting and operation of hazardous waste
management facilities and from any population shifts caused by the
regulations. The increased public health protection that would be
derived from the regulations would provide significant social
benefits. Many of the social costs related to the exposure of
workers and the general public to hazardous wastes and their resi-
duals, under current practices, would be reduced or eliminated.
The regulations, while not applying to household wastes, could
also focus more public attention on the problems associated with the
improper treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes, and could result in
S-33
-------
increased care in the disposal of hazardous wastes and a further
reduction in public health impacts from such disposal.
On the other hand, an increased public awareness of problems
that have been associated with improper disposal of hazardous wastes
could, in the short-term, add to the opposition to local siting of
hazardous waste management facilities. However, in the long-term,
promulgation of the regulations, accompanied by increased public
participation in the facility siting process and specific
demonstrations that the objectives of the regulations can be
achieved, could also serve to lessen such opposition in the future
and could lead to more effective siting of facilities.
Social impacts could also result from the expansion of construc-
tion of hazardous waste management facilities and from any increase
off-site transport of hazardous wastes. The construction and opera-
tion of new facilities, especially off-site facilities, would have
aesthetic impacts and could result in localized noise impacts, both
in the vincinity of the facility and along any transportation routes.
Shifts in population that may result from the Subtitle C regula-
tions would have the potential to cause social impacts. The magni-
tude of any such impacts would be site-specific and would depend upon
such factors as the size of the shift relative to the size of the
existing population in affected areas, the rate of the shift, the
existing infrastructure in the affected areas, and the adequacy of
advanced planning.
S-34
-------
S.4.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity. It is
estimated that there would potentially be sufficient process capacity
to manage hazardous industrial wastes shipped off-site in 1980. In
the case of 13 percent off-site shipment, there would potentially be
sufficient process capacity to manage hazardous industrial wastes
shipped off-site in 1984. In the case of 25 percent off-site ship-
ment, there would potentially be a shortfall of 2.6 million metric
tons of environmentally adequate off-site capacity for treating/dis-
posing hazardous industrial wastes in 1984. Approximately 45 addi-
tional off-site facilities could be required by 1984. Data are not
available to estimate if there would be any potential shortfall in
environmentally adequate, on-site, hazardous waste management process
capacity under the Subtitle C regulations.
Even in those instances where sufficient capacity is estimated
to be available nationwide, localized shortfalls of capacity could
occur as discussed in Chapter 7. Furthermore, treatment/disposal of
hazardous non-manufacturing wastes could create shortfalls or exacer-
bate existing shortfalls.
S.4.2.5 Land Use Impacts. More total land, off-site plus on-
site, would be required for hazardous waste management under the Sub-
title C regulations than for hazardous waste management under current
practices. The additional land would be required, both for the
construction of permitted facilities necessary to meet any additional
S-35
-------
capacity shortfalls that could occur under the Subtitle C regula-
tions, and for such conjunctive developments as construction of
roads, power lines, and pipelines. However, while more total land
would be required, in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment, there
could be less off-site land use and more on-site land use by 1984
than under current practices. In the case of 25 percent off-site
shipment, there could be more off-site land use and less on-site land
use by 1984 than under current practices.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporari-
ly, on all land converted to hazardous waste management areas. Fol-
lowing closure of the hazardous waste management facility and rehab-
ilitation of the site according to the closure plans, the land would
be available for limited new uses or, in some cases, previously
existing uses. Sites from which hazardous wastes have not been
removed would be precluded from residential and agricultural uses,
and may be precluded from some recreational and grazing uses
following closure. Any activity requiring excavation would also be
prohibited at sites where wastes are not removed. Further, since the
regulations would require records to be kept of the location and
types of all hazardous wastes remaining at the site, the potential
for incidents, such as that which occurred at Love Canal in Niagara
Falls, New York, would be reduced.
To the extent that the regulations would prevent other lands
from being contaminated by improper disposal, dumping, storage, or
S-36
-------
treatment under current practices and regulations, there would be a
potential for offsetting land use benefits.
S.4.2.6 Water Use Impacts. The potential for the degradation
of both groundwater and surface water would be reduced under the reg-
ulations. To the extent that degradation of water quality would have
resulted in a decreased supply of surface water or groundwater being
available to some or all consumers in the water use area, there would
be an additional supply of groundwater or surface water potentially
available to such consumers and fewer restrictions on the productive
use of such surface water and groundwater supplies. New facilities
would, however, be additional consumers of water.
S.4.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery. Since one of the
major impacts of the regulations would be to increase generator's
costs and the costs associated with hazardous waste transport, stor-
age, treatment, and disposal, there would be an incentive provided by
the regulations for generators to modify processes so as to enable
increased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks, to
reduce the quantities of hazardous wastes generated by specific
processes, or to alter the nature of the wastes generated by treat-
ment. Any changes would be extremely waste stream and process-
specific. Furthermore, since the regulations prohibit the placing of
ignitable wastes in landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, and
basins, the potential for increased incineration of such wastes, with
possible energy recovery, would be greatly enhanced.
S-37
-------
S.4.2.8 Energy Use. The facility modification and construction
that would be necessary under the regulations would result in
increased energy use. More energy would also be used for the
construction of new facilities under the regulations than would have
otherwise been needed due to requirements directed toward making
these facilities more environmentally secure. Increased energy use
would also result from required changes in storage, treatment, and
disposal operations under the regulations (e.g., higher incineration
temperatures and longer retention times). While any increase in re-
source recovery would also likely require the initial input of addi-
tional energy, energy savings from increase energy recovery, from
further reduction in the quantities of wastes requiring storage,
treatment, or disposal, and from materials recovery and reuse, could
result in an overall energy savings from resource recovery
operations.
The changes in energy use from the transport of hazardous wastes
would depend upon such factors as shifts in the portion of wastes
managed on-site and off-site and changes in transport distances. The
estimated change in energy use in 1984 ranges from a decrease equiva-
lent to about 20,000 barrels of crude oil for an average 100-mile
round-trip distance with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal, to
an increase equivalent to about 2.2 million barrels of crude oil for
an average 1,000-mile round-trip distance with 25 percent off-site
treatment/disposal.
S-38
-------
S.4.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. The Subtitle C
regulations contain provisions which, while not applying specifically
to the protection of special interest points, would provide indirect
benefits to special interest points and to the human enjoyment of
such features. For example, restrictions on the siting of hazardous
waste management facilities in wetlands and critical habitats would
reduce the potential for adverse impacts to such areas. Furthermore,
provisions that.would potentially reduce the release of air; water,
and soil contaminants from hazardous wastes management activities
would reduce the potential for these contaminants to infringe upon
special interest points and would increase, or at least maintain, the
opportunity for human enjoyment of such special interest points.
However, to the extent that additional lands would be disturbed by
facility construction and operation and by conjunctive developments,
there would be an increased potential for some infringement upon
other special interest points.
S.5 Impacts of the Alternatives
This section summarizes the potential changes in impacts, rela-
tive to those of the proposed action, that could result from imple-
mentation of each alternative. Impacts that would be substantially
the same as those of the proposed regulations are not presented in
order to avoid duplication.
S.5.1 No Action Alternative. Since implementation of RCRA is
mandated by an act of Congress, implementation of this alternative is
S-39
-------
not considered to be feasible without an additional act of Congress
repealing RCRA. However, if implemented, this alternative would
result in a continuation of current hazardous waste management prac-
tices, modified by: the requirements of any further legislation enact-
ed by individual states.
The overall control of hazardous wastes would be much less
effective than with a national program. The public health and
environmental problems previously discussed would continue to occur,
though they could be mitigated by the enactment of more stringent
state regulations than those that currently exist. In any state with
significantly less stringent regulations than it would have under the
Federal program, there could be a significant increase in public
health and environmental problems relative to those that would occur
under the Subtitle C regulations. Impacts could also extend to
neighboring states.
S.5.2 Phasing of Generators Alternative. Under this alterna-
tive, a total of approximately 74 million metric tons of hazardous
industrial wastes could be excluded from regulation during the first
four years following implementation of the Subtitle C regulations.
This would be about a 50*percent reduction in regulated hazardous
industrial wastes, as compared to the proposed regulations. There
would be no change in wastes regulated after the first four years.
During the first year, regulatory control would essentially be
limited to industries in SIC Codes 26 (Paper and Allied Products), 28
S-40
-------
(Chemicals and Allied Products), 29 (Petroleum and Coal Products),
and 33 (Primary Metal Industries), with about 75 percent of the
uncontrolled wastes being generated within SIC Code 28. While wastes
would be regulated within all EPA Regions, Regions III, IV, and V
would generate about 65 percent of the regulated wastes. Approxi-
mately 230 manufacturing establishments could be regulated nation-
wide.
During the second year, regulatory control would be extended to
SIC Codes 31 (Leather and Leather Products), 32 (Stone, Clay, and
Glass Products), 34 (Fabricated Metal Products), and 35 (Machinery,
Except Electrical), with about 60 percent of the controlled wastes
being generated within SIC Code 28. Control efforts would be more
pronounced in EPA Regions III, IV, and V, though their overall share
of regulated wastes could decrease to about 61 percent, with one-half
of that being in Region V. Approximately 1,500 manufacturing estab-
lishments would be regulated nationwide.
During the third year, regulatory control would be extended to
industries in SIC Codes 25 (Furniture and Fixtures), 30 (Rubber and
Miscellaneous Plastic Products), 37 (Transportation Equipment), and
39 (Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries). EPA Region V would gen-
erate about 29 percent of the regulated wastes, while Regions II,
III, IV, and V would each generate between 10 and 16 percent. About
4,300 manufacturing establishments would be regulated nationwide.
S-41
-------
During the fourth year, regulatory control would be extended to
establishments in all SIC codes except 23 (Apparel and Other Textile
Products), 24 (Lumber and Wood Products), and 27 (Printing and
Publishing). The distribution of regulated wastes among the EPA
regions would remain essentially the same as in the previous year.
Approximately 15,500 manufacturing establishments could be regulated
nationwide.
A major benefit resulting from this alternative would be the
gradual expansion of administrative requirements, rather than the
abrupt imposition of such requirements. Administrative requirements,
primarily paperwork, would be reduced during the first four years
following implementation of the regulations. There could be a 50
percent reduction in manifests and over a 97 percent reduction in the
submittal of annual reports during this period, compared to the
proposed regulations. Reduction in administrative requirements could
also encourage additional states to apply for interim or full author-
ization. The longer transition period would also provide an in-
creased opportunity for planning and instituting measures to mitigate
the potential impacts of any population shifts or of any shortfalls
in hazardous waste management facility capacity.
To the extent that the 74 million metric tons of hazardous in-
dustrial wastes excluded from the generator regulations, under this
alternative, were not to be managed in a manner equivalent to that
required under the Subtitle C regulations, there would be an
S-42
-------
increased potential for the release of air, water, and soil contami-
nants from these wastes. Changes in public health and environ-
mental effects would be directly related to changes in the relese of
air, water, and soil contaminants. To the extent that increased
releases were to occur, there would be an increased potential for the
occurrence of adverse public health and environmental impacts. Both
chronic health effects, related to long-term, low-level exposure to
such contaminants, and water quality impacts could continue for many
years following improper disposal of such wastes.
S.5.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection
Alternative. Table S-l indicates some of the changes under this
alternative, compared to the proposed regulations. These and other
major changes are discussed below.
S.5.3.1 Primary Impacts.
Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 57 and 65 million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing
wastes would be controlled, under this alternative, in 1980 and 1984,
respectively. This would represent about a 63 percent increase in
the hazardous industrial wastes controlled in both these years.
There would also be an indeterminable, but possibly quite large,
It should be noted that as discussed in Section 7.1.2, it is
expected that at least 5 years would be necessary to act upon and to
issue all permits under the proposed regulations. Thus, some inde-
terminable portion of the 74 million metric tons of hazardous waste
excluded under this alternative might not be managed under the
proposed regulations as adequately as would be required following
issuance of a permit.
S-43
-------
TABLE S-l
COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND
THE ENHANCED AND THE LESSER DEGREE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES*
Impact
area
Regulated manufacturing
wastes - 1984
Proposed
regulations
40 million
metric tons
Enhanced
protection
alternative
65 million
metric tons
Lesser degree
of protection
alternative
24 million
metric tons
Regulated non-manufacturing
wastes
Number of regulated
generators
Number of regulated
storers, treaters,
and disposers
Number of manifests
prepared annually - 1984
Number of reports
submitted annually
Number of workers required
to store, treat, or dispose
regulated wastes - 1984
Off-site process capacity
shortfall for hazardous
manufacturing wastes
1980
1984
13% off-site shipment
25% off-site shipment
Change in annual off-site
landfill requirements after
1984t
13% off-site shipment
25% off-site shipment
Potentially
large quantities
430,000-460,000
29,000
350,000-690,000
550,000-580,000
20,000
2.6 million
metric tons
(approximately
45 additional
facilities)
-160 to -320 acres
800 to 1,600 acres
Potentially
large quantities
^2.2 million
not determinable
Potentially
small quantities
110,000-140,000
not determinable
580,000-1,100,000 200,000-420,000
8.9 million 140,000-170,000
33,000 12,000
2.7 million metric
tons (approximately
45 additional facilities)
0.9 million metric
tons (no additional
facilities)
9.6 million metric -
tons (approximately
160 additional
facilities)
-260 to -520 acres -95 to -190 acres
1,300 to 2,600 acres 500 to 1,000 acres
*Based upon methodologies and assumptions described in Chapters 7 and 8.
tThere would be commensurate changes in on-site landfill requirements.
S-44
-------
increase in hazardous non-manufacturing wastes regulated under this
alternative.
Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment, and Dispo-
sal Practices. Additional changes to generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal practices, similar to those discussed for the
proposed regulations, would be likely to occur under this alternative
due to the additional wastes being regulated; due to the additional
generators, transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous waste man-
agement facilities being regulated; due to the enactment of more
stringent environmental requirements; due to resultant increases in
storage, treatment, and disposal costs; and due to the imposition of
additional procedural and operational requirements.
Administrative Changes. Several changes in the administration
of hazardous waste management programs would result from promulgation
of the regulations within this alternative. It is likely that fewer
states would apply for authorization under this alternative because
expansion of both the quantity of hazardous wastes and the number of
generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers being
regulated, plus the increases in reporting frequencies, would lead to
increased administrative and manpower requirements for authorized
states.
It is estimated that on the order of 2.2 million manufacturing
establishments, automotive service stations, hospitals, medical
laboratories, research facilities, farmers, and dry cleaning estab-
lishments could have to comply with the generator regulations under
S-45
-------
this alternative. This would represent over a 400 percent increase
in the number of generators being regulated, compared to the proposed
regulations. It is expected, however, that there would be only a
relatively small increase in the number of permittees under this
alternative.
It is estimated that the industrial generators could have to
prepare between 580,000 and 1.1 million manifests annually by 1984.
The aggregated generators, transporters, and hazardous wste manage-
ment facility owner/operators could each have to keep between 1.7
million and 3.4 million manifests in storage on an annual basis.
This would represent over a 60 percent increase in both requirements,
as compared to the proposed regulations. It is estimated that gener-
ators and permittees could prepare upward of 8.9 million quarterly
reports on an annual basis—over a 1,500 percent increase.
The identified generators and permittees would have to file over
2.2 million notifications under Section 3010—over a 400 percent
increase. Furthermore, since potential permittees would have to
renew permits every 5 years, rather than being issued one permit good
for the projected life of the facility as under the proposed regula-
tions, there could be up to a six-fold increase (in the case of a
30-year facility site life) in the paperwork associated with obtain-
ing permits. These potential permittees would also have to prepare
approximately 29,000 Supplemental Environmental Analyses as part of
the initial permit review procedure; these Supplemental Environmental
Analyses would not be required under the proposed regulations.
S-46
-------
Air and Water Quality. The regulations under this alternative
would have the potential to cause further changes, primarily reduc-
tions, in the release of air emissions and water effluents from the
generation, transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
wastes, as compared to the proposed regulations. To the extent that
the requirements under this alternative would cause further changes
in the economics of storage, treatment, or disposal relative to those
of the proposed regulations, there would be a greater potential for
generators to make process modifications designed to further increase
hazardous waste recycling and to reduce the quantity and/or types of
hazardous wastes generated; any such process modifications would
likely lead to changes in air emissions and water effluents released
by processes generating hazardous wastes. Furthermore, to the extent
that additional generators would be brought under control of the pro-
gram through the expanded definition of hazardous wastes and the eli-
mination of exclusions, the potential for such process modifications
and resultant changes in air emissions and water effluents would be
increased.
The additional 25 million metric tons of potentially hazardous
industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) estimated to be
brought under control of the regulations in 1984, by this alterna-
tive, would now have to be transported, stored, treated, or disposed
in accordance with the Section 3004 regulations. Since most of these
wastes would otherwise have been transported, stored, treated, or
S-47
-------
disposed by methods that are not likely to be environmentally accept-
able under the Section 3004 regulations, the overall potential for
the release of hazardous air emissions or water effluents from the
management of such additional wastes would be reduced.
Additional requirements imposed by this alternative would fur-
ther reduce the potential for the release of air and water contami-
nants from the management of both the additional 25 million metric
tons of hazardous industrial wastes controlled under this alterna-
tive, and the 40 million metric tons also controlled under the pro-
posed regulations. The major impact, with regard to air quality,
would result from changing the application of the Threshold Limit
Values (TLV) from an air human health and environmental standard to a
mandatory standard with which facilities must always be in compli-
ance, and the imposition of the TLV's as a maximum concentration not
to be exceeded at any time, rather than as a time-weighted average
not to be exceeded over an 8-hour day and 40-hour week. The major
impact, with regard to water quality, would result from requiring
lower permeabilities for soil liners for landfills and surface
impoundments.
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities would have to be modified or would have to be constructed
under this alternative, there would be an increase in fugitive dust,
vehicular emissions, and runoff from such construction activities.
It should be noted, however, that there could be shifts in the
types of methods used to treat/dispose the additional wastes
S-48
-------
regulated under this alternative, compared to the unregulated methods
that would have been used under the proposed regulations. As previ-
ously discussed, the net result could be both a localized and/or
nationwide reduction in the releases of many air and water contamin-
ants from hazardous waste management, and a localized and/or
nationwide increse in the total releases of other air and water con-
taminants. Thus, while there would most likely be improvements in
air and water quality due to this alternative, there could also be
some localized degradation of air and water quality. All releases
and any localized degradation of air or water quality would, however,
have to be in compliance with all applicable requirements (e.g.,
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA standards, state standards, and
Subtitle C standards).
Public Health. The regulations under this alternative would
have the potential for further increasing the public health benefits
to be derived from the control of hazardous wastes. The regulations
would reduce the potential for the release of air, water, and soil
contaminants from hazardous waste management and, thus, for resultant
public health impacts. Furthermore, since most of the additional
wastes to be regulated under this alternative would be potentially
toxic organic wastes, there could be a much greater potential for
significant reductions in chronic health effects related to long-
term, low-level exposure to residuals resulting from the improper
disposal of such wastes.
S-49
-------
S.5.3.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts that could occur, as a result of implementation of this
alternative, would result from the control of an additional 25 mil-
lion metric tons of potentially hazardous industrial wastes, plus
other hazardous wastes; the enactment of more stringent environmental
requirements with regard to transport, storage, treatment, and dis-
posal of hazardous wastes; and resultant increases in hazardous
wastes storage, treatment, and disposal costs. To the extent that
these changes result in reductions in the release of air, water, and
soil contaminants, there would be further beneficial impacts to the
biological environment, soils, water use, land use, and special
interest points, as compared to the proposed regulations.
The above changes would also provide increased incentives for
generators to modify processes so as to enable increased recycling of
hazardous waste as process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of
hazardous wastes generated by specific processes, or to change the
nature of wastes generated. Energy use could, however, be increased
by the additional facility modification and construction required
under this alternative, by required changes in facility operation and
closure, and by any increases in hazardous wa^te transport. Changes
in resource recovery could lead to other changes in energy use,
including additional savings in energy use.
Additional industrial plant closings or relocations due to the
increased costs, under this alternative, could lead to additional
population shifts and resultant impacts. Additional workers would
S-50
-------
also be required to manage hazardous wastes, to construct facilities,
and to administer and enforce the regulations. It is estimated that,
under this alternative, at least 33,000 workers could be required
nationally, by 1984, to store, treat, or dispose hazardous wastes;
this would represent over a 60 percent increase in this requirement,
compared to the proposed regulations. Additional population shifts
could occur in response to the increased personnel requirements; any
such shifts would be expected to be small on a national scale, though
there could be localized instances of a relatively large influx or
outflux of workers.
It is estimated that, under this alternative, there could be a
shortfall of 2.7 million metric tons of environmentally adequate off-
site capacity for hazardous industrial wastes in 1980. Approximately
45 additional permitted off-site facilities could be required in
1980, compared to the proposed regulations. In the case of 13 per-
cent off-site shipment, there could be a shortfall of 0.9 million
metric tons of environmentally adequate off-site capacity in 1984.
Since less capacity would be required in 1984 than in 1980 in the
case of 13 percent off-site shipment, no additional permitted off-
site facilities could be required in 1984. In the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment, there could be a shortfall of 9.6 million metric
tons of environmentally adequate off-site capacity in 1984. Approxi-
mately 160 additional permitted off-site facilities could be required
in 1984 to meet this shortfall. Based upon the estimated shortfall
under the proposed regulations, only 115 of the necessary permitted
S-51
-------
facilities would be attributable to this alternative. Data are not
available to estimate potential shortfalls in environmentally ade-
quate on-site process capacity.
More total land, off-site plus on-site, would be required under
this alternative than under the proposed regulations. This land
would be required both for the construction of the permitted facili-
ties necessary for the storage, treatment, and disposal of the addi-
tional wastes regulated under this alternative, and for such conjunc-
tive developments as construction of roads, power lines, and pipe-
lines. However, while more total land would be required under this
alternative, in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment, there could
be less off-site land use and more on-site land use by 1984, compared
to the proposed regulations. In the case of 25 percent off-site
shipment, there could be more off-site land use and less on-site land
use by 1984, compared to the proposed regulations.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporari-
ly, on all land converted to hazardous waste management uses. Exist-
ing animal habitats would also be disturbed on all such lands. Fol-
lowing closure of the hazardous waste management facility and any
rehabilitation of the site, according to the closure and long-term
care plans, the land would be available for new or, in some cases,
previously existing uses. The biological community on disturbed
areas could differ in species composition and diversity following
site rehabilitation.
S-52
-------
The construction and operation of the required facilities, espe-
cially off-site facilities, would cause additional aesthetic impacts
and could result in additional instances of localized noise impacts.
Public opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous waste
management facilities could be further exacerbated by the increased
requirements for such facilities under this alternative. However,
this opposition could be somewhat mitigated by the more stringent
environmental requirements under this alternative, by the require-
ment for the preparation of a Supplementary Environmental Analysis as
part of the permit review process, and by the requirement for permits
to be renewed every 5 years, rather than not at all.
S.6.3 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protec-
tion Alternative. Table S-l indicates some of the changes under this
alternative, compared to the proposed regulations. These and other
major changes are discussed below.
S.6.3.1 Primary Impacts.
Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 20 and 24 million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing
wastes would be controlled under this alternative in 1980 and 1984,
respectively. This would represent about a 40 percent decrease in
the hazardous industrial wastes controlled in both these years.
There would also be an indeterminable, but possibly quite large,
decrease in hazardous non-manufacturing wastes regulated under this
alternative.
S-53
-------
Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment, and Dispo-
sal Practices. Fewer changes of the type discussed for the proposed
regulations would be likely to occur to existing generation, trans-
port, storage, treatment, and disposal practices under this alterna-
tive due to the lesser amount of wastes being regulated; due to the
reduced number of generators, transporters, and owners/operators of
hazardous waste management facilities being regulated; due to the
enactment of less stringent environmental requirements; due to
resultant reductions in storage, treatment, and dispoal costs; and
due to the imposition of fewer procedural and operational
requirements.
Administrative Changes. Several changes in the administration
of hazardous waste management programs would result from promulgation
of the regulations within this alternative. Additional states could
consider applying for full, partial, or interim authorization due to
elimination of almost all restriction on granting of interim authori-
zation, elimination of restrictions on granting of full or partial
authorization to states with more stringent standards, and reduc-
tions in administrative and manpower requirements. However, the
elimination of the toxicity characteristic could also off-set such a
potential for increases in state authorization. If enough states
felt that the regulations were not adequate without the inclusion of
toxic wastes, there could be an overall reduction in authorized
states under this alternative. Furthermore, the less stringent
S-54
-------
standards and reduced amount of hazardous waste controlled under this
alternative could increase the potential benefits to, and, thus, the
likelihood of, a state enacting a more stringent, independent,
hazardous waste program.
It is estimated that on the order of 110,000 to 140,000 manufac-
turing establishments, hospitals, and medical laboratories could have
to comply with the generator regulations under this alternative. This
would represent a 70 percent reduction in the number of generators
being regulated, compared to the proposed regulations. Data are not
available to estimate the reductions in the number of transporters
and owners/operators of hazardous waste management facilities to be
regulated.
It is estimated that the industrial generators could have to
prepare between 200,000 and 420,000 manifests annually by 1984. The
aggregated generators, transporters, and hazardous waste management
facility owners/operators could each have to keep between 200,000 nd
420,000 manifests in storage on an annual basis. This would repre-
sent approximately an 80 percent decrease in both requirements, as
compared to the proposed regulations. It is estimated that genera-
tors and permittees could prepare between 140,000 and 170,000 reports
on an annual basis—a reduction of over 70 percent. The identified
generators and permittees could have to file between 140,000 and
170,000 notifications under Section 3010—a reduction of at least 60
percent.
S-55
-------
Air and Water Quality. The regulations under this alternative
would have the potential to cause fewer changes affecting the release
of air and water contaminants from the generation, transport, stor-
age, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as compared to the
proposed regulations. The primary result would be fewer beneficial
changes in air quality and water quality. To the extent that the
requirements under this alternative would cause fewer changes in the
economics of storage, treatment, or disposal relative to those of
proposed regulations, there would be less of a potential for genera-
tors to make process modifications designed to further increase
hazardous waste recycling and to reduce the quantity and/or types of
hazardous wastes generated; any such reductions in process modifica-
tions would likely lead to fewer changes in the release of air and
water contaminants by processes generating hazardous wastes. Fur-
thermore, to the extent that fewer generators would be brought under
control of the program, the potential for such process modifications
and resultant changes in the release of air and water contaminants
would be further decreased.
The 16 million metric tons of potentially hazardous industrial
wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) estimated to be removed from
regulation in 1984, by this alternative, would not have to be trans-
ported, stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with the Section
3004 regulations. Since most of these wastes would not likely be
transported, stored, treated, or disposed by methods that are
S-56
-------
environmentally acceptable under the Section 3004 regulations, the
overall potential for the release of hazardous air emissions or water
effluents from the management of such additional wastes would be
increased.
With regard to the estimated 24 million metric tons of potenti-
ally hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) that
would still be regulated under this alternative in 1984, the less
stringent requirements under this alternative would have the poten-
tial for increasing the release of air contaminants from the manage-
ment of these wastes, as compared to their management under the pro-
posed regulations. The major impact, with regard to air quality-.
would result from less stringent incineration requirements and from
allowing volatile wastes to be placed in landfills, landfarms, sur-
face impoundments, or storage tanks vented directly to the atmos-
phere. The application of the Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) as a
time-weighted average for a 24-hour day, rather than as a time-
weighted average for an 8-hour day and a 40-hour week, would further
allow an increase in air emissions from such non-point sources as
landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, and storage areas. The
major impact, with regard to water quality, would result from allow-
ing higher permeabilities for soil liners for landfills and surface
impoundments.
To the extent that fewer storage, treatment, or disposal facili-
ties would have to be modified or would have to be constructed under
S-57
-------
this alternative, there would be a decrease in fugitive dust, vehicu-
lar emissions, and runoff from such construction activities.
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose both
the regulated wastes and the wastes excluded from regulation under
this alternative, compared to the methods that would have been used
to manage these wastes under the proposed regulations. As previously
discussed, the net result could be both localized and/or nationwide
increases in the release of many air and water contaminants from
hazardous waste management, and localized and/or nationwide decreases
in the release of other air and water contaminants relative to the
proposed regulations. The likely result would be increased localized
degradation of air and water quality, along with some localized
improvement in air and water quality. All releases and any localized
degradation of air or water quality would have to be in compliance
with all applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act standards,
Clean Water Act standards, OSHA standards, state standards).
Public Health. The regulations under this alternative would
have the potential for reducing the public health benefits to be
derived from the control of hazardous wastes. As discussed else-
where, the regulations would increase (relative to the proposed regu-
lations) the potential for the release of air, water, and soil con-
taminants from hazardous waste management and, thus, for resultant
public health impacts. Furthermore, since most of the wastes to be
S-58
-------
removed from regulations under this alternative would be potentially
toxic wastes, there could be a much greater potential for significant
increases in acute and chronic health effects to result from the
improper disposal of such wastes.
S.6.3.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts (relative to the proposed regulations) that could occur, as a
result of implementation of this alternative, would result primarily
from the removal of approximately 16 million metric tons of hazardous
industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) from regulation annu-
ally by 1984; the enactment of less stringent environmental require-
ments with regard to the transport, storage, treatment, and disposal
of hazardous wastes; and potentially lower increases in storage,
treatment, and disposal costs as a result of these less stringent
regulations. To the extent that these changes result in increases in
the release of air, water, and soil contaminants, there would be
fewer beneficial impacts to the biological environment, soils, water
use, land use, and special interest points, as compared to the pro-
posed regulations.
The above changes would also provide less of an incentive for
generators to modify processes so as to enable increased recycling of
hazardous waste as process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of
hazardous wastes generated by specific processes, or to change the
nature of wastes produced. Energy use could, however, be decreased
by the lesser amount of facility modification and construction
S-59
-------
required under this alternative, by less stringent requirements for
facility operation and closure, and by any resultant decreases in
hazardous waste transport. Changes in resource recovery could lead
to fewer changes in energy use, including less recovery of energy.
Fewer industrial plant closings or relocations, due to the
reduced costs under this alternative, could lead to fewer population
shifts and resultant impacts. Fewer workers would also be required
to manage hazardous wastes, to construct facilities, and to adminis-
ter and enforce the regulations. It is estimated that, under this
alternative, at least 12,000 workers could be required nationally, by
1984, to store, treat, or dispose hazardous wastes; this would repre-
sent approximately a 40 percent decrease in this requirement, com-
pared to the proposed regulations. Fewer population shifts could
occur in response to the reduced personnel requirements; any shifts
would be expected to be small on a national scale, though there could
still be localized instances of a relatively large influx or outflux
of workers.
It is estimated that, under this alternative, there could poten-
tially be sufficient, environmentally adequate, off-site capacity to
handle all hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site in 1980 and
1984. Data are not available to estimate any potential shortfalls in
environmentally adequate on-site capacity; however, there would be
less of a potential for any shortfalls to occur.
Less total land, off-site plus on-site, would be required for
S-60
-------
the construction of any storage, treatment, and disposal facilities
needed under this alternative, and for such conjunctive developments
as construction of roads, power lines, and pipelines. Less addition-
al land would be required since fewer wastes would have to be sent to
permitted facilities; the wastes removed from regulation could use
existing facilities or other facilities that were not adequate under
the proposed regulations. However, while less total land would be
required under this alternative, in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment, there could be more off-site land use and less on-site land
use by 1984, compared to the proposed regulations. In the case of 25
percent off-site shipment, there could be less off-site land use and
more on-site land use by 1984, compared to the proposed regulations.
Existing land uses would not change on lands excluded from
hazardous waste management under this alternative; however, there
could be localized changes in land use from any additional shifts to
off-site management from on-site management, or to on-site management
from off-site management, as discussed above. There would be fewer
disruptions of ecological communities as a result of the lesser land
disturbances.
The construction and operation of fewer facilities, especially
off-site facilities, would cause fewer aesthetic impacts and could
result in fewer instances of localized noise impacts. While public
opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities could be reduced by the need for fewer facilities
S-61
-------
under this alternative, any opposition that occurs could be exacer-
bated by the less stringent requirements under this alternative.
S-62
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
addressing the potential effects of implementing proposed regulations
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA). Specifically, the proposed regulations addressed in
this document are being developed as Part 250, Hazardous Waste
Guidelines and Regulations, under Title 40. Subparts form the basis
of the regulatory action to be assessed. The Subparts are as
follows:
• Subpart A — Identification and listing of hazardous waste
(Section 3001);
• Subpart B — Standards applicable to generators of hazardous
waste (Section 3002);
• Subpart C — Standards applicable to transporters of
hazardous waste (Section 3003);
• Subpart D — Standards applicable to owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (Section 3004);
• Subpart E — Permit system for treatment, storage, and dispo-
sal of hazardous wastes (Section 3005);
• Subpart F — Guidelines for state hazardous waste programs
(Section 3006);
• Subpart G — Preliminary notification of hazardous waste
activities (Section 3010).
In addition to these major regulatory Subparts, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has responded to the mandate of all other
Sections of Subtitle C, namely:
• Section 3007 — Inspections;
• Section 3008 — Federal enforcement;
1-1
-------
• Section 3009 — Retention of state authority;
• Section 3011 — Authorization of assistance to the states.
A summary of the major aspects of these regulations is presented
in Chapter 3 of this document, and detailed descriptions of each of
the regulatory Subparts form the basis of Appendix B. However, it
should be noted that the development of regulations is a dynamic,
changing process and that specific details of these regulations may
be expected to change both before and after promulgation. In the
event of major changes to the regulations presented herein, and/or in
the event of additional regulations affecting large volume special
wastes (i.e., cement kiln dusts, utility wastes, oil drilling
muds/brines, phospate rock mining and processing wastes, uranium
mining/milling wastes, and other mining wastes) a supplemental En-
vironmental Impact Statement would be prepared.
The scope of this draft EIS includes all hazardous wastes within
the definition of Subpart A (see Appendix B). However^ the proposed
regulations, and thus the EIS, do not address those wastes excluded
by the Act or by Congressional intent, namely:
• Solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage;
• Solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows;
• Industrial discharges which are point discharges subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880);
1-2
-------
• Source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923);
• Household wastes.
1-3
-------
2.0 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
2.1 Federal Legislation Leading to RCRA
The first Federal legislation relating to solid waste disposal
was the Refuse Act comprising Section 13 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1899 (30 Stat. 1152). This Act states that:
...it shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit,
or cause, suffer or procure to be thrown, discharged, or
deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other
floating craft of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manu-
facturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse
matter of any kind or description whatever other than that
flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a
liquid state, into any tributary of any navigable water
from which the same shall float or be washed into such nav-
igable water; and it shall not be lawful to deposit, or
cause, suffer, or procure to be deposited material of any
kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water, or on
the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, where the
same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable
water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or
floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be
impeded or obstructed: Provided, that nothing herein con-
tained shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit the opera-
tions in connection with the improvement of navigable
waters or construction of public works, considered neces-
sary and proper by the United States officers supervising
such improvement or public work: and provided further,
that the Secretary of War, whenever in the judgment of the
Chief of Engineers anchorage and navigation will not be
injured thereby, may permit the deposit of any material
above mentioned in navigable waters, within limits to be
defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him, pro-
vided application is made to him prior to depositing such
material; and whenever any permit is so granted the condi-
tions thereof shall be strictly complied with, and any
violation thereof shall be unlawful.
Although the original intent of this Act was to prevent obstructions
to navigation, it did represent the first Federal regulation of open
dumping and is still in effect.
2-1
-------
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, passed in 1965, was the first Act
of Congress dealing directly with the solid waste problem and was
primarily aimed at establishing a national research and development
program for new and improved methods of proper and economic disposal
of solid waste. It authorized the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare to make grants to state and interstate agencies to conduct
surveys of solid waste disposal practices and associated problems.
In 1970, the Solid Waste Disposal Act was amended by the Re-
source Recovery Act, which shifted its objectives to include the pro-
motion of resource recovery programs and added provisions for grants
to these programs. It also required the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare to submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of
a system of national disposal sites for the storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes. That report (Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, 1974c) was an important step in dealing with the problems of
hazardous waste management. The Solid Waste Disposal Act has since
expired.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the Hazardous Waste
Management Act (S.1086) early in 1973. Although never enacted, this
Bill led directly to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA). There are several important differences between these
two pieces of legislation. The objectives of the Hazardous Waste
Management Act included Federal regulation of certain hazardous
wastes and Federal guidelines for state regulation of others, while
2-2
-------
RCRA aims to provide Federal assistance to state and local solid
waste management programs, thus giving the states more authority and
placing the Environmental Protection Agency in an advisory capacity.
The definition of hazardous waste in the Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Act was:
Any waste or combination of wastes which pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or living
organisms because such wastes are nondegradable or persis-
tent in nature or because they can be biologically mag-
nified, or because they can be lethal, or because they may
otherwise cause or tend to cause detrimental cumulative ef-
fects.
In the RCRA the definition was expanded to:
A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which be-
cause of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical
or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, il-
lness; or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Other changes involve the definition of storage, treatment, and dis-
posal. Under the Hazardous Waste Management Act, storage for more
than two years is considered disposal. Under RCRA, storage may be
either temporary or for a period of years, but is not to constitute
disposal. The definition of treatment was altered considerably from
"any activity or processing designed to change the physical form or
chemical composition of waste so as to render such materials non-
hazardous" in the Hazardous Waste Management Act to RCRA's "any
method, technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to
change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition
2-3
-------
of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste or so as to
render waste non-hazardous, safer for transport, amenable for recov-
ery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume." Under the Hazar-
dous Waste Management Act, disposal refers only to land disposal,
while RCRA considers disposal into or on any land or water3 including
groundwaters. RCRA also deals individually with generators, trans-
porters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous wastes, where-
as the Hazardous Waste Management Act considered them all together.
On October 21, 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (Public Law 94-580) was signed by the President and became
law.
2.2 RCRA and Subtitle C
RCRA has as its objectives the protection of health and the en-
vironment and the conservation of valuable material and energy re-
sources. These objectives are to be met by:
• Providing technical and financial assistance to state and lo-
cal governments and interstate agencies for the development
of solid waste management plans (including resource recovery
and resource conservation systems) which will promote im-
proved solid waste management techniques (including more
effective organizational arrangements), new and improved
methods of collection, separation, and recovery of solid
waste, and the environmentally safe disposal of nonrecover-
able residues;
• Providing training grants in occupations involving the de-
sign, operation, and maintenance of solid waste disposal sys-
tems ;
• Prohibiting future open dumping on the land and requiring the
conversion of existing open dumps to facilities which do not
pose a danger to the environment or to health;
2-4
-------
• Regulating the treatment, storage, transportation, and dis-
posal of hazardous wastes which have adverse effects on
health and the environment;
• Providing for the promulgation of guidelines for solid waste
collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal
practices and systems;
• Promoting a national research and development program for
improved solid waste management and resource conservation
techniques, more effective organizational arrangements, and
new and improved methods of collection, separation, and re-
covery, and recycling of solid wastes and environmentally
safe disposal of nonrecoverable residues;
• Promoting the demonstration, construction, and application of
solid waste management, resource recovery and resource con-
servation systems which preserve and enhance the quality of
air, water, and land resources;
• Establishing a cooperative effort among the Federal, state,
and local governments and private enterprise in order to re-
cover valuable materials and energy from solid waste.
In addressing these objectives, Title II of RCRA, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (the Act), is divided into eight subtitles:
• Subtitle A - General Provisions
• Subtitle B - Office of Solid Waste; Authorities of the
Administrator
• Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
• Subtitle D - State or Regional Solid Waste Plans
• Subtitle E - Duties of the Secretary of Commerce in Resource
and Recovery
• Subtitle F - Federal Responsibilities
• Subtitle G - Miscellaneous Provisions
• Subtitle H - Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Information
2-5
-------
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act calls for regulatory
action and guidelines within 11 separate categories as follows:
• Section 3001 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
• Section 3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazard-
ous Wastes
• Section 3003 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes
• Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Dis-
posal Facilities
• Section 3005 - Permits for Treatment, Storage or Disposal of
Hazardous Waste
* Section 3006 - Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs
• Section 3007 - Inspections
• Section 3008 - Federal Enforcement
• Section 3009 - Retention of State Authority
• Section 3010 - Effective Date
• Section 3011 - Authorization of Assistance to States
2.2.1 Definitions Relevant to Subtitle C. Several definitions
listed in Section 1004 of the Act are particularly important to an
understanding of the scope of Subtitle C and the mandate of each of
the Sections 3001 through 3011. These definitions, not detailed
elsewhere in the regulations, are:
• Disposal—the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spil-
ling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous
waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste
or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any
waters, including groundwaters.
2-6
-------
• Hazardous waste—solid waste, or combination of solid wastes,
which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics may:
(1) Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise man-
aged.
• Hazardous Waste Generation—the act or process of producing
hazardous waste.
• Hazardous Waste Management—the systematic control of the
collection, source separation, storage, transportation,
processing, treatment, recovery, and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
• Resource Recovery—the recovery of materials or energy
from solid waste.
• Solid Waste—any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treat-
ment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility and other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material re-
sulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities but does not
include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or
solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or
industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).
• Storage—the containment of hazardous waste, either on a tem-
porary basis or for a period of years, in such a manner as
not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste.
• Treatment—any method, technique, or process, including neu-
tralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of any hazardous waste
so as to neutralize such waste or so as to render such
wastes nonhazardous, safer for transport, amenable for re-
covery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume.
2-7
-------
2.2.2 Section 3001 of Subtitle C. Section 3001 of Subtitle C,
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, requires:
• The development and promulgation of criteria for identify-
ing the characteristics of hazardous waste and for listing
hazardous waste, taking into account toxicity, persistence,
degradability in nature, potential for accumulation in tis-
sue, flammability, corrosiveness, and other hazardous
characteristics;
• The promulgation of regulations identifying the character-
istics of hazardous waste and listing particular hazardous
wastes which are subject to the provisions of Subtitle C,
based on the above criteria;
• The ability of the Governor of any state to petition the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
identify or list a material as a hazardous waste.
2.2.3 Section 3002 of Subtitle C. Section 3002 requires the
promulgation of regulations establishing standards applicable to
generators of hazardous waste. These standards must establish
requirements respecting:
• Recordkeeping practices that accurately identify the
quantities of such hazardous waste generated, the con-
stituents thereof which are significant in quantity or in
potential harm to human health or the environment, and the
disposition of such wastes;
• Labeling practices for any containers used for the storage,
transport or disposal of such hazardous waste such as will
identify accurately such waste;
• Use of appropriate containers for such hazardous waste;
• Furnishing of information on the general chemical compo-
sition of such hazardous waste to persons transporting,
treating, storing, or disposing of such wastes;
• Use of a manifest system to assure that all such hazardous
waste generated is designated for treatment, storage, or
disposal in treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
2-8
-------
(other than facilities on the premises where the waste is
generated) for which a permit has been issued as provided
in this subtitle;
• Submission of reports setting out:
(1) The quantities of hazardous waste identified or listed
under this subtitle that have been generated during a
particular time period;
(2) The disposition of all hazardous waste reported
above.
2.2.4 Section 3003 of Subtitle C. Section 3003 requires the
promulgation of standards applicable to transporters of hazardous
waste. These standards must include, but need not be limited to,
requirements respecting:
• Recordkeeping concerning such hazardous waste transported,
and their source and delivery points;
• Transportation of such waste only if properly labeled;
• Compliance with the manifest system referred to in Section
3002;
• Transportation of all such hazardous waste only to the
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
which the shipper designates on the manifest form to be a
facility holding a permit issued under this subtitle.
These standards must be coordinated with regulations of the Secretary
of Transportation regarding the transport of hazardous wastes that
are subject to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (88 Stat.
2156; 49 U.S.C. 1801 and following).
2.2.5 Section 3004 of Subtitle C. Section 3004 requires the
establishment of such performance standards, applicable to owners and
operators of facilities for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
2-9
-------
hazardous waste identified or listed under Subtitle C, as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment. These
standards must include, but are not necessarily limited to,
requirements respecting:
• Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or
listed under this title which are treated, stored, or dis-
posed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated,
stored, or disposed of;
• Satisfactory reporting, monitoring, and inspection and com-
pliance with the manifest system referred to in Section
3002;
• Treatment, storage, or disposal of all such waste received
by the facility pursuant to such operating methods, tech-
niques and practices as may be satisfactory to the
Administrator;
• The location, design, and construction of such hazardous
waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;
• Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unan-
ticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal
of any such hazardous waste;
• The maintenance and operation of such facilities and re-
quiring such additional qualification as to ownership, con-
tinuity of operation, training for personnel and financial
responsibility as may be necessary or desirable;
• Compliance with the requirements of Section 3005 respecting
permits for treatment, storage, or disposal.
2.2.6 Section 3005 of Subtitle C. Section 3005 of Subtitle C
which deals with permits for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste requires:
• The promulgation of regulations requiring each person own-
ing or operating a facility for the treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste to have a permit; and
• The promulgation of regulations requiring certain infor-
mation to be contained in permit applications, including:
2-10
-------
(1) Estimates with respect to the composition, quantities,
and concentrations of any hazardous waste identified
or listed under Subtitle C, or combinations of any
such hazardous waste and any other solid waste,
proposed to be disposed of, treated, transported, or
stored, and the time, frequency, or rate of which such
waste is proposed to be disposed of, treated, trans-
ported, or stored; and
(2) The site at which such hazardous waste or the products
of treatment of such hazardous waste will be disposed
of, treated, transported to, or stored.
Section 3005 also discusses permit issuance, permit revocation, and
interim status for persons who have filed applications for permits
for existing facilities.
2.2.7 Section 3006 of Subtitle C. Section 3006 pertains to the
authorization of state hazardous waste programs. It requires the
promulgation of guidelines to assist states in the development of
such programs. Procedures are given for any state to apply for
authorization of its hazardous waste program and provides for interim
authorization of state programs which exist before the date 90 days
after the date required for promulgation of regulations under
Sections 3002, 3003, 3004, and 3005. Any action taken by a state
under an authorized program is given the same force and effect as
action taken by the EPA Administrator under Subtitle C. Procedures
are also established for withdrawal of authorization by the
Administrator.
2.2.8 Section 3007 of Subtitle C. Section 3007 requires any
person who generates, stores, treats, transports, disposes, or
otherwise handles hazardous wastes to allow access to records
2-11
-------
relating to these wastes to any officer or employee of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency designated by the Administrator or any duly
designated officer or employee of a state having an authorized
hazardous waste program. Such officers or employees are authorized:
• To enter at reasonable times any establishment or other
place maintained by any person where hazardous wastes are
generated, stored, treated, or disposed;
• To inspect and obtain samples from any person of any such
wastes and samples of any containers or labeling for such
wastes.
Procedures are given for conducting such inspections. In addition,
provisions are made for the public to obtain records, reports, or
information.
2.2.9 Section 3008 of Subtitle C. Section 3008 deals with
Federal enforcement of Subtitle C. Procedures are given for the
issuance of a compliance order and the commencement of a civil action
in the event the Administrator determines that any person is in
violation of any requirement of Subtitle C. A public hearing may be
requested by the person or persons named in the order or permit
revocation. Any compliance order shall specify the nature of the
violation and a time limit for compliance. Provision is made for
criminal penalties for violations of Subtitle C.
2.2.10 Section 3009 of Subtitle C. Under Section 3009,
Retention of State Authority, no state may impose any requirements
less stringent than those authorized under Subtitle C, except that if
2-12
-------
application of a regulation under Subtitle C is postponed or enjoined
by the action of any court, a state may not be prohibited from acting
on the matter until the regulation takes effect.
2.2.11 Section 3010 of Subtitle C. Section 3010 requires any
person generating or transporting hazardous wastes or owning or
operating any facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazar-
dous wastes to file a notification with the Administrator within 90
days of the promulgation or revision of regulations under Section
3001 identifying or listing such wastes as hazardous. The regula-
tions under Subtitle C respecting requirements applicable to the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste shall take effect six months after their date of
promulgation.
2.2.12 Section 3011 of Subtitle C. Section 3011 authorizes to
be appropriated $25 million for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 "to be
used to make grants to the States for purposes of assisting the
States in the development and implementation of authorized state
hazardous waste programs," and provides for the allocation of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated.
2.3 Related Federal Legislation
A number of other Federal Acts are specifically addressed within
RCRA. Section 1006 of RCRA states that "nothing in this Act shall be
construed to apply to...any activity or substance which is subject
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1151 and
2-13
-------
following), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f and follow-
ing), the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1401 and following), or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. and following), except to the extent that such application...
is not inconsistent with the requirements of such Acts."
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act contains several sec-
tions which apply directly to the handling and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
• Section 301, dealing with effluent limitations, prohibits the
"discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the
navigable waters."
• Section 304(f) requires EPA to publish guidelines for the
pretreatment of pollutants which are determined not to be
susceptible to treatment by publicly-owned treatment works.
In accordance with the Clean Water Act of 1977, EPA is also
directed to regulate the control of plant site runoff, spil-
lage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from
raw material storage which are associated with the industrial
manufacturing or treatment process of the designated
industries, which may contribute significant amounts of pol-
lutants to navigable waters.
• Section 306 deals with new source performance standards for
industrial point sources. EPA is authorized to determine the
best available demonstrated control technology, and require
its installation for specified categories of sources. If EPA
determines that a zero-discharge standard is practicable,
such a standard may be set.
• Under Section 307, the Administrator is directed to publish a
list of toxic pollutants and effluent limitations. These
limitations may constitute an absolute prohibition against
discharging. Additionally, EPA must publish pretreatment
standards requiring any industry discharging into a municipal
sewage treatment plant to pretreat its effluent so that it
does not interfere with the operation of the plant or pass
through the plant untreated or without adequate treatment.
2-14
-------
• Section 311 is designed to protect the navigable waters and
shorelines from "hazardous substance" discharges.
• Under Section 402, each state government is responsible for
issuing permits under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. While EPA issues guidelines for state
permit programs, it retains the right to review a state-
issued permit affecting another state's water resources.
• Section 405 requires that a permit be issued by EPA for the
disposal or relocation of sewage sludge that could affect the
navigable waters. Such disposal is prohibited without a
permit.
• Under Section 504, the EPA Administrator may bring suit
against any person contributing to a pollution source causing
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare. In accordance with the 1977 amendments, EPA is also
authorized to provide assistance in emergencies which may
present an imminent and substantial danger to public health
on welfare. EPA may authorize emergency assistance "to prev-
ent, limit, or mitigate the emergency; when "there is an im-
mediate significant risk to public health or welfare and the
environment;" and when "such assistance will not otherwise be
provided on a timely basis."
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 authorizes EPA to regulate
underground injection of wastes (and other substances) to protect
underground sources of drinking water. It also authorizes the EPA
Administrator to conduct a study of the impacts on underground water
supplies of surface water disposal of wastes.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
prohibits the marine transport and disposal into U.S. territorial
waters of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agents,
high level radioactive wastes, or any other material, except as
authorized by Federal permit. In the granting of permits for ocean
dumping, EPA must consider "appropriate locations and methods of
2-15
-------
disposal or recycling, including land-based alternatives, and the
associated impacts of such actions.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes both the
Atomic Energy Commission and private industry to regulate the
disposal of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials.
In addition to the four acts specifically referred to in Section
1006 of RCRA, several other Federal acts affect the management of
hazardous wastes. Selected acts are summarized below.
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 authorizes the regula-
tion of hazardous substances before they become wastes. EPA is
authorized to require that data be developed by manufacturers con-
cerning the effects of chemical substances and mixtures on health and
the environment when EPA feels that such chemicals present an unrea-
sonable risk of injury to health or to the environment. EPA may also
issue an order prohibiting or limiting the manufacture, processing,
distribution, or disposal of specified substances.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 (Section 112) and its amendments
authorize the EPA to set standards for hazardous air pollutants at
any level which provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. In accordance with the 1977 amendments, the Administrator
may instead promulgate design or equipment standards to protect
public health with an ample margin of safety. The control strategy
of standards and/or design plans is meant to protect the public
2-16
-------
health and welfare by placing the burden of standards compliance on
the air polluter.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is designed to
protect workers from occupational hazards, including hazards
associated with contact of hazardous materials. Section 6(b)(5)
deals specifically with toxic materials, requiring the Secretary of
Labor to "set the standard which most adequately assures...that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or financial
capacity" from regular exposure to such hazards.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as
amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972,
requires EPA to establish procedures and regulations for the disposal
or storage of packages, containers, and excess amounts of pesticides
and to accept at convenient locations for safe disposal, those
pesticides whose registration has been cancelled or suspended.
Under the authority of the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act of 1974, the Department of Transportation promulgated regulations
listing hazardous materials and specifying procedures to be followed
when transporting those materials. Furthermore, the responsibility
for documentation, prevention, and containment of spills of oil and
hazardous materials is divided between the Department of Transporta-
tion (including the U.S. Coast Guard) and the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977.
2-17
-------
The Armed Forces Appropriating Authorizations of 1971 prohibits
the disposal of any chemical or biological warfare agent "within or
outside the United States unless such agent has been detoxified or
made harmless to man and his environment unless immediate disposal is
clearly necessary, to safeguard human life."
2.4 The Status of State Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste
Legislation
Every state has addressed the hazardous waste problem to at
least a limited degree, with the level of state control over hazar-
dous waste presently ranging from essentially none to full and
comprehensive programs. The majority of states exercise their
legislative authority over hazardous wastes under their existing
solid waste legislation, with authority extended under broadly-
worded provisions that do not contain guidelines, criteria, or
regulations specifically dealing with hazardous waste. As a result,
enforcement and management are largely a matter of individual inter-
pretation by state regulatory authorities, with most states exer-
cising their legislative authority on a case-by-case basis. In some
states, the principal regulatory control of hazardous wastes is
divided between two agencies.
Table 2-1 presents a summary of the extent of authority and
control currently exercised by each state and U.S. territory, and the
principal regulatory agency responsible for control within each state
and territory. In accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, all
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-1
STATE REGULATION AND CONTROL AUTHORITY*
STATES
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Hew Jersey
Sew Mexico
New York
-North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Samoa
Pacific Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
AGENCY
Dept. of Public Health
Dept. of Health
P
Dept. of Nat. Resources
P
8 y
Dept of Environ Protection
Uater Resources s Environ. Health Ad.in.
Board of Health
Dept. of Nat. Resources
Dept. of Environ. Control
n™t . of Health 4 Welfare
Environmental Improvement Agency
Dept. of Human Resources
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
p Q y
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health & Environ. Control
Dept. of Environ. Protection
P
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Nat. Resources; Dept. of Health
Dept. of Water Quality
Environmental Quality Commission
Environmental Quality Board
Dept. of Public Works
SOLID WASTE
LEGISLATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
1969
1973
1971
1971
1972
1971
1971
1974
1967
1974
1972
1972
1970
1970
196}
1971
1971
1950
1973
1970
1969
1965
1970
1974
1973
1969
1971
1971
1 Q71
1970
1974
1972
1969
1975
1967
1971
1969
1968
1963
1972
197?
1971
1969
1974
1967
1971
1971
1973
1967
1973
1978
1976
DATE OK LATEST
AMENDMENT
1972
1973
1977
1977
1977
1975
1971
1976
1974
1976
1974
1973
1975
1977
1966
1975
1973
1973
1973
1976
1976
1977
1976
1977
1Q7?
1977
1977
1976
1976
1976
1978
1977
1977
1977
1973
1974
1977
1977
1976
1977
1974
1976
1974
1973
1975
HAZARDOUS, SPECIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL WASTE LEGISLATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
X
X
A
X
X
IATE OF
ENACTMENT
1978
1973
1977
1976
1977
1976
1977
1976
1976
1978
1978
1977
1976
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
(BILL OR AHEiJDHEND
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HAZARDOUS WASTE RECULA 1 IONS
OR GUIDELINES
proposed
proposed
X
X
X
X
X
X
proposed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HAZARDOUS WASTE c c w
DEFINITION £ 3 % o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
1J ..'AS
LATIO.f
11AZAR
E PROV
a
ee £
Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
X
X
! ADDRESSED AS A J2 8 "'
SEPARATE SECT I CM § ""
\
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SURVEY -COMPLETED
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
v-, °
II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1977.
A Garretaon et al., 1978
2-19
-------
states currently have laws regulating the management of solid wastes.
Even if no additional legislative action has been enacted within a
particular state, the management of hazardous wastes could be regula-
ted, to some extent, under this existing solid waste legislation.
However, the effective regulation of hazardous wastes requires the
application of significantly different management standards than does
the regulation of conventional solid waste. Furthermore, solid waste
legislation must often be interpreted broadly to be effectively
extended to the control of hazardous waste. Also, while various
aspects of hazardous waste management could be exercised under
existing authority, few designated regulatory agencies currently have
the resources or manpower necessary to run an adequate hazardous
waste program.
Enabling solid waste legislation is often derived from early
state environmental control laws in which the management of solid
waste was first addressed. As indicated in Table 2-1, specific solid
waste laws may date back many years, with updated versions presented
as amendments. Many of the more recent amendments specifically
address hazardous wastes, or mention hazardous wastes along with
solid wastes. Almost every state so far has found it necessary to
amend their current solid waste legislation at least once to meet the
increased need for more control. Each state and territory now has at
least one principal regulatory agency that has the enabling authority
to control hazardous wastes. State authority to regulate hazardous
2-20
-------
waste is difficult to compare from one state to another because the
individual interpretation of exercised authority varies widely.
Fifteen states have passed separate and specific laws govern-
ing the management of hazardous wastes. In these cases, authority is
clearly distinguished and hazardous wastes are defined for control
purposes. Although the comprehensiveness of these laws varies among
states, management plans and approaches generally follow the require-
ments given in RCRA. In addition to these 15 states, another 10
states and one territory have proposed legislation that is presently
pending approval of state legislatures. These proposed laws have
been presented either as a bill, separate from any authority de-
signated under a state's existing solid waste legislation, or have
been presented as an amendment specifically governing hazardous
wastes under a state's existing solid waste legislation. The re-
maining states use existing solid waste legislation to govern hazard-
ous wastes.
Most states do not have specific regulations or guidelines for
hazardous waste management. In those that do, the strength of
promulgated regulations may be a matter of the interpretation given
by the particular state. Regulations may take, the form of an amend-
ment to the existing solid or hazardous waste legislation, or may be
a separate document generated and used by the principal state re-
gulatory agency. In some states, the existing regulations may
clearly distinguish between the designated levels of authority over
2-21
-------
hazardous wastes, with specific criteria and procedures described,
while in other states the regulations may limit the scope of
authority to a particular hazardous waste category, such as pesticide
disposal. As shown in Table 2-1, 16 states have promulgated specific
regulations or guidelines for the management of hazardous wastes, and
an additional four states have proposed such regulations. No attempt
has been made to compare the equivalency of these regulations.
As indicated in Table 2-1, all but two of the states have addres-
sed the identification of hazardous waste in the definition section
of their general solid waste legislation or within a particular
section of the solid waste legislation. The other two states have
defined hazardous wastes under separate hazardous waste legislation
that has been proposed or passed.
Collectively, at least 37 states and two territories have thus
far addressed hazardous waste to a limited extent within their
existing solid waste regulations. As illustrated in Table 2-1,
hazardous wastes may be either addressed "in part" for the regulation
of a particular activity, such as disposal procedures, or may be
specifically addressed as a separate section within the general solid
waste regulations. When regulated under the authority of existing
solid waste laws, the management of hazardous wastes is usually
handled on a case-by-case basis, with little systematic control on
the various levels of hazardous waste management, particularly for
on-site activities.
2-22
-------
Most of the states have initiated an effort to identify the
sources of hazardous waste generation within their boundaries by the
means of a survey- In a few cases, a survey was not necessary since
such sources were previously identified for control through the use
of state tax department listings or through industrial directories in
conjunction with a working manifest system. As indicated in Table
2-1, at least 24 states have presently completed such a survey, and
an additional nine states have surveys in progress. Of the remaining
states, several are planning to conduct a survey in the near future.
Tables 2-2 through 2-7 are directed to the various aspects of
state hazardous waste management as they apply to generators, trans-
porters, treaters, storers, and disposers, respectively. The speci-
fic control mechanisms included in the tables are some of those
included in Sections 3002 through 3004 of RCRA, addressing standards
applicable to each group involved in the hazardous waste management
process. The tables should not be intepreted as a comparison of
equivalency but, rather, are presented to illustrate the presence and
form of the mechanisms by which hazardous wastes are currently being
managed. In four states, proposed regulations are far enough along
the legal path to be included in these tables for discussion pur-
poses. In many states, legislation is currently being drafted for
future consideration; however, the majority of states are waiting for
Federal regulations on hazardous wastes to be approved before issuing
their own state regulations.
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-2
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS*
//
Permit
Manifest
Record -
keeping
._
-
// /////// AV/// /*&/•? /A* */^ //«#"*/
States
Alabama (proposed)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida (proposed)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota (proposed)
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Hew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (proposed)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
/
Xt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
•Information presented in this table was received in personal communication with repres
from the State offices liated In Table 2-1 and the Environmental Protection Agency.
fFor extremely hazardous waste only.
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-3
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTERS*
States
Alabama (proposed)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida (proposed)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota (proposed)
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (proposed)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
//,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x+
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permit
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5$
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Manifest
%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Record-
keeping
//////
/ 5 ° / °o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reporting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inspection
/"<>
X
X
X
X
X
'*//
information presented in this table was
from the State offices listed in Tabl
tRegistration
received In personal communic
2-1 and the Environmental Prot
ation with rep
ection Agency.
resentatives
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-4
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATERS*
States A
Alabama (proposed)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida (proposed)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota (proposed)
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (proposed)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
//I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permit
7/t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Manifest
/ OJ° *»
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
//
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Record-
keeping
f
£//
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* I rg ,
/ 5? fl?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reporting
'//]
X
v_
X
X
X
X
X
'*///.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inspection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
Information presented in this table was received in personal
E-rom the State offices listed in Table 2-1 and the Environraenta
:ation with representatives
.ection Agency.
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-5
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE STOKERS*
X
States
Alabama (proposed)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida (proposed)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota (proposed)
Mississippi
• Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Norch Carolina (proposed)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
///
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permit 1 Manifest 1 keeping 1 Reporting I Inspection
*/£//*/?// */s//*/s//*/s//
y/*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7/1
X
X
X
X
X
X
xt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
//*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7/1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7&
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Y/j
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O / ~Y
f / 3
X
X
X
X
X
//£
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ 7
X
X
X
X
X
from the State offices listed in Table 2-1 and Environmental Protection Agency.
Applicable to off-site only
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-6
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSERS*
States
Alabama (proposed)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida (proposed)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota (proposed)
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
1 Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (proposed)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania .
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
/<
/ v 3
/•? »»
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permit
Manifest
f/mf//i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
from the State offices listed in Table 2-1 and E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Record-
keeping
3 $/ /§ ?/ . /
'mwmw
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
in personal communication w
ivironmental Protection Agency
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
///+ *////
W/////
® / 3 £ / S° *, /
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
th representat
X
X
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ves
toff-aite only.
-------
TABLE 2-7
STATE APPROACH TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
DEFINITION, MONITORING, AND ENFORCEMENT*
I Waste Definition 1 'tonitoring 1 Enforcement
A / /.*/&/,?/&/
/ $ / 3 / 5 sf / $ $ / IS o* / £ $ /
i r? / f /.V m / rV C / tS 'a / C-i i_ f
State
Alabama (proposed)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida (proposed)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (proposed)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
/ /
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ /
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
xt
/ /
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
* Information presented in this table was received in personal
from the State offices listed in Table 2-1 and the Environmer
A West Virginia - Standards for On-Site Only.
common ica t io ns
tal Protection
with repre
Agency.
2-29
-------
The various regulatory criteria presented in Tables 2-2 through
2-7 relate to general enabling authority or to more detailed stan-
dards or regulations. In a relative sense, the enabling authority
provides the formal power to regulate hazardous waste activities
while standards and regulations provide specific requirements. En-
abling authority usually indicates that the particular state has the
power to control a particular acitivity. In the absence of specific
standards or regulations, this authority may be exercised on a
case-by-case basis, or it may extend to the regulation of only a
particular management activity, such as disposal. In examining each
of these tables, it should be remembered that the status of state
legislation is in flux and that these tables are meant to present
only a general view of the nationwide status of hazardous waste man-
agement at this time.
Appendix A provides a description of the specific hazardous
waste management regulations for selected states as summarized in
Tables 2-2 through 2-7. These tables illustrate the general differ-
ences in existing regulatory approaches while the information in Ap-
pendix A provides more specific detail.
2.4.1 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste. Table 2-2 illustrates the status of
the regulatory criteria that are applicable to generators of hazard-
ous waste. Fourteen states report that they have, or will soon have,
the enabling authority to require generators who store, treat, or
dispose hazardous wastes to be permitted. Six of these states have
2-30
-------
(or have proposed) standards for permits. Twenty-five states cur-
rently have (or have proposed) the enabling authority over manifest-
type requirements pertaining to generators of hazardous wastes; ten
of these states have promulgated (or have proposed) standards for
such manifests. Twenty-three states have (or have proposed) the
enabling authority over recordkeeping requirements applicable to
generators. Seven of these states have (or have proposed) record-
keeping standards for hazardous waste generatiors; one additional
state also has recordkeeping standards. Twenty-three states
currently have (or have proposed) a reporting requirement applicable
to generators of hazardous waste. Eight of these states have (or
have proposed) reporting standards that apply to these generators;
one additional state also has reporting standards. At present,
twenty-two states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to
inspect a generator's facility; six of these states report that they
have (or have proposed) promulgated standards for such inspection.
Even where the enabling authority to control on-site activities does
exist, enforcement often depends upon voluntary compliance.
2.4.2 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste. Table 2-3 presents the status of
the regulatory criteria that are applicable to transporters of
hazardous waste. Twenty-three states report that they have, or will
soon have, the enabling authority to require transporters of hazard-
ous waste to be permitted. Ten of these states have (or have
2-31
-------
proposed) standards for the permitting of hazardous waste trans-
porters. Twenty-five states currently have (or have proposed) the
authority to initiate a manifest system applicable to such trans-
porters; eleven of these states have standards for manifests.
Twenty-three states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority
over recordkeeping requirements; twelve of these states have (or have
proposed) recordkeeping standards. Nineteen states have (or have
proposed) the authority to require reporting requirements; while
eight of the states have (or have proposed) reporting standards.
Eighteen states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority for
inspection of transporters; five of these states have regulations or
standards for inspection.
2.4.3 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Off-site Treaters of Hazardous Waste. Table 2-4 illustrates the
status of the regulatory criteria that are applicable to off-site
treaters of hazardous waste. Twenty-five states report that they
have, or will soon have, the enabling authority to require such
treaters of hazardous waste to be permitted; nine of these states
have promulgated (or have proposed) permit standards. Twenty-three
states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to require
treaters to comply with a manifest system; ten of these states have
promulgated (or have proposed) manifest standards. Twenty-two states
have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to regulate record-
keeping requirements; eight of these states have promulgated (or
2-32
-------
have proposed) recordkeeping standards for treaters. Twenty states
(or have proposed) the enabling authority to require reports from
hazardous waste treaters; six of these states have promulgated (or
have proposed) reporting standards for such treaters. Twenty-four
states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to inspect
hazardous waste treatment facilities; seven of these states have (or
have proposed) inspection standards.
2.4.4 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Off-site Storers of Hazardous Waste. As indicated in Table 2-5,
those states that have addressed the issue of off-site hazardous
waste storage have done so mainly from the standpoint of establishing
basic enabling authority. Twenty-five states have reported that they
have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to require permits of
hazardous waste storers; nine of these states have enacted (or have
proposed) permit standards for storage. Twenty-one states have (or
have proposed) the enabling legislation to require compliance with
the manifest system. Six of these states have promulgated (or have
proposed) standards for manifest compliance; one additional state
also has manifest standards. Eighteen states have (or have proposed)
the enabling authority to require recordkeeping by the storer; six of
these states have (or have proposed) recordkeeping standards. Seven-
teen states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to require
reporting by storers of hazardous waste; five of these states have
(or have proposed) standards. Twenty-three states have indicated
2-33
-------
that they have (or have proposed) specified authority to inspect
hazardous waste storage facilities; five of these states (or have
proposed) have inspection standards.
2.4.5 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Off-site Disposers of Hazardous Waste. The issue of the disposal of
hazardous waste has thus far received more legislative attention than
has any other hazardous waste management activity. Thirty-eight
states have reported that they have (or have proposed) the legal
authority to require permits for the operation of off-site disposal
facilities receiving hazardous wastes. Seventeen of these states
have promulgated (or have proposed) standards specifically relating
to the permitting of such facilities. Twenty-five states have (or
have proposed) the enabling authority to require compliance with a
manifest system; twelve of these states have promulgated (or have
proposed) standards for manifest requirements. Thirty-four states
have reported that they have (or have proposed) the authority to
require recordkeeping practices from hazardous wastes disposers;
fifteen of these states have (or have proposed) standards for the
recordkeeping requirements. Twenty-nine states indicate that they
have (or have proposed) enabling authority to require hazardous waste
disposers to report on the materials being handled; thirteen of these
states have promulgated (or have proposed) standards for reporting.
Thirty-nine states have (or have proposed) legal capabilities to
2-34
-------
inspect hazardous waste disposal sites; fifteen of these states have
(or have proposed) standards specifically relating to the inspection
requirements of disposal sites.
2.4.6 The Status of State Hazardous Waste Definition, Moni-
toring, and Enforcement. Table 2-7 presents the current status of
state hazardous waste definition, monitoring practices, and en-
forcement capabilities. While all of the states have a textual de-
finition of hazardous waste, several states have developed a more
specific definition of hazardous waste. Seven states presently de-
fine hazardous waste exclusively by the use of criteria; one ad-
ditional state defines hazardous waste exclusively by a listing of
particular substances; eight additional states employ the use of both
criteria and a list.
Both monitoring and enforcement refer to authority that is
generally exercised only over disposal activities; however, this
authority can be extended to include other hazardous waste management
activities. Thirty states report that they have (or have proposed)
the enabling authority to control monitoring activities related to
hazardous wastes; tweleve of these states have promulgated (or have
proposed) standards with regard to monitoring procedures and re-
quirements. One additional state also has such standards.
Forty-five states have (or have proposed) some type of enabling
enforcement capabilities over hazardous wastes; twenty-four of these
2-35
-------
states have (or have proposed) enforcement standards specifically re-
lating to hazardous wastes. In most of the states, the enforcement
power is interpreted as an extension of the authority vested through
existing solid waste enforcement capabilities.
2-36
-------
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the set of regulations and guidelines
currently being developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in response to the mandate of Subtitle C of RCRA. These regulations
and guidelines fall within several broad areas, as follows:
• Definition of hazardous wastes subject to regulation.
• Control of hazardous waste from the generator to ultimate
disposal.
• Guidelines for state hazardous waste programs.
Regulations have been developed under the mandate of Sections 3001
through 3006 and 3010 of Subtitle C. Because of the extensive nature
of the proposed regulations, a summary of the most relevant points is
presented in the following sections. The specific regulations being
assessed in this EIS are described in Appendix B.
3.1 Criteria, Identification, and Listing of Hazardous Waste
(Section 3001)
The Section 3001 regulations delimit wastes that are to be
considered hazardous and, therefore, to be brought under regulatory
control. The regulatory approach taken is to use both identifying
characteristics and lists of hazardous wastes, industrial processes,
and sources to be brought under regulatory control.
The characteristics used to delimit hazardous waste are as
follows:
3-1
-------
• Ignitability
• Corrosiveness
• Reactivity
• Toxicity
Any waste which exhibits any of these characteristics or which
is listed (see Appendix B, Subpart A), would be considered hazardous
and would have to be managed pursuant to the Subtitle C regulations.
The hazardous waste lists identify specific hazardous wastes (e.g.,
water-based paint wastes), sources (e.g., various departments of
hospitals), and processes which generate hazardous wastes (e.g.,
asbestos wastes from cell diaphrams in production of chlorine); and
indicate for each listed waste or waste stream the reason for its is
inclusion (e.g., ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic). A generator
producing a listed waste may be exempted from regulation providing
that he could demonstrate that the reason for listing that waste does
not not apply to his particular waste stream. The methods to be used
for such a demonstration include the four identifying characteristics
plus tests for low-level radioactivity, infectiousness, mutagenic
activity; bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity.
3.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste (Section
3002)
The Section 3002 regulations identify generators of hazardous
3-2
-------
waste who would be subject to regulation and specify the responsi-
bilities of these generators. The generator requirements would apply
to those persons or Federal agencies, except households, who produce
and dispose of more than 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds) per month
of wastes identified as hazardous under the Section 3001 regula-
tions. Any person or Federal agency producing and disposing of 100
kilograms or less per month would not be required to comply with the
generator regulations; also any generator engaged solely in retail
trade or principally in farming would have to comply with the
regulations only with regard to waste automotive oil. Generators
excluded from compliance with the Subtitle C regulations would,
however, still be obligated to dispose their hazardous wastes in an
acceptable manner, e.g., in a landfill that meets RCRA Subtitle D
criteria.
The requirements of the generators of hazardous waste fall
within the following broad categories:
• Compliance with the manifest system
• Reporting
• Recordkeeping
• Containerization
• Labeling
• Furnishing information on general chemical composition.
The key aspects of these regulations, and the greatest benefits
to be derived, revolve around the development of a manifest system
3-3
-------
and periodic reporting requirements. The manifest system would
require that detailed information regarding each shipment of haz-
ardous waste is recorded, accompanies the waste during transport, and
serves as the basis for filing periodic reports. This system would
serve to promote proper delivery and disposal of all hazardous wastes
consigned by the generator. Other aspects of these regulations
(e.g., containerization and labeling) have been developed to be
consistent with existing Department of Transportation (DOT) regu-
lations.
The full set of reporting and recordkeeping requirements under
this section would be applicable only to generators designating
hazardous wastes for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal in a
facility not owned by the generator. These generators would have to
submit both an annual report summarizing all hazardous waste
shipments and a quarterly report for hazardous wastes which were
shipped, but not received by a permitted facility (as evidenced by
the failure to receive the signed original of the manifest or
delivery document from the designated disposal facility). Generators
designating hazardous wastes for disposal at an off-site facility
owned by the generator and located within the same state as the
generator would not have to comply with any of the reporting or
recordkeeping requirements (although the facility itself would be
subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements under Section
3004).
3-4
-------
Generators designating hazardous wastes for on-site treatment,
storage, or disposal would be exempted from manifesting, contain-
erization, and labeling requirements, though they would have to make
an annual report, keep records, and comply with the Section 3004
regulations.
3.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (Section
3003)
The Section 3003 regulations identify those transporters who are
subject to regulation and specify requirements that fall within the
following broad categories:
• Recordkeeping;
• Acceptance and transport of hazardous waste;
• Compliance with the manifest;
• Delivery of the hazardous waste to the designated, permitted
facility;
• Emergency situations;
• Marking and placarding of vehicles.
Many of these controls are currently imposed upon some trans-
porters of hazardous waste by regulations under the Hazardous Ma-
terials Transportation Act. Therefore, proposed regulations within
this section are designed to be consistent with current DOT regu-
latory practices. Further, the proposed regulations would extend the
DOT regulations to intrastate, as well as interstate transportation
of hazardous wastes. The most significant additions to existing reg-
ulations of these transporters of hazardous waste are the manifest
3-5
-------
and delivery requirements that would assure that all hazardous wastes
are delivered to the designated, permitted facility. In the case of
spills during transport, the transporter regulations would require
the transporter to immediately notify the specified authority, to
file a written report within 15 days, and to clean up all spilled
hazardous waste or take such action as required so that the spilled
hazardous waste no longer presents a hazard to human health or the
environment.
The transporter regulations would apply to any person or Federal
agency transporting, within the United States, hazardous wastes that
require a manifest under the generator regulations and also apply to
any transporter importing a shipment of hazardous wastes from abroad.
Portions of the standards would also apply to any transporter who
consolidates and transports hazardous wastes not requiring a mani-
fest. The transporter regulations would not apply to persons or
Federal agencies transporting hazardous wastes solely on the site of
generation or solely on the site of a permitted hazardous waste
management facility.
3.4 Standards For Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Section 3004)
The Section 3004 regulations are intended to provide an adequate
degree of environmental and public health protection during the
treatment, storage, and ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes. These
standards include requirements relating to the general aspects of
facility operations (i.e., site selection, monitoring, training,
3-6
-------
security, emergency procedures, and contingency plans, inspections,
closure, financial requirements, and recordkeeping/reporting) as well
as standards applicable to specific types of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (i.e., storage tanks, containers, landfarms,
landfills, surface impoundments, basins, incinerators, and chemical,
physical, and biological treatment facilities).
With the few exclusions noted below, these standards apply to
owners and operators of any facility that treats, stores or disposes
any quantity of waste identified as hazardous under the Section 3001
regulations, except 'special wastes'. All owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose "special wastes', and no
other hazardous waste, would have to comply only with the general
facility standards. The standards do not apply to on-site storage by
generators who store their own wastes for less than 90 days prior to
subsequent transport of-site, but do apply to any such on-site
storage which lasts for 90 days or longer.
Certain practices that are controlled under other Federal acts
are not regulated under the treatment, storage, and disposal stan-
dards. These practices include underground (deep-well) injection,
ocean dumping, discharges to municipal sewer systems, surface dis-
charges under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, and all treatment, storage, and disposal- activities
at Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or by ocean dumping barges
and vessels. However, the treatment, storage, and disposal regu-
lations would apply to above ground storage or treatment of hazardous
3-7
-------
wastes prior to underground injection, on-shore facilities associated
with ocean dumping activities, and surface impoundments associated
with NPDES permitted industrial wastewater treatment facilities and
hazardous sludges from such facilities.
The Section 3004 regulations have been divided into five major
sections: . Human Health and Environmental Standards, General Facility
Standards, Storage Standards, Treatment and Disposal Standards, and
Special Waste Standards. Some of the standards are accompanied by
notes which either provide further explanation of the standard or
specify a basis for permitting authorities to allow deviations from
the standard. No deviation is allowed from standards which do not
have accompanying notes.
There are overriding standards for human health and envi-
ronmental protection: Groundwater, Surface Water, and Air. They
establish criteria for human health and environmental protection and
are intended to assure that the design, construction and operation of
hazardous waste facilities does not adversely affect human health or
the environment by degrading the groundwater, surface water, or air.
The human health and environmental standards are used by EPA in
drafting and evaluating more specific standards and can be used in
designing facilities. While human health and environmental standards
would be legally binding, they are not intended to be directly
enforced. They are designed to be used on a case-by-case basis only
3-8
-------
where there is reason to believe (e.g., a third party challenge) that
the standards are insufficient for human health and environmental
protection. In such cases, EPA may monitor to determine if the
facility is in compliance with the human health and environmental
standards at issue.
Furthermore, it is the burden of the government to show that a
facility is in violation of a human health and environmental standard
if the facility is in compliance with all other applicable standards.
Therefore, if a facility is in compliance with all other applicable
standards, but is, nevertheless, discovered to be violating a human
health and environmental standard, no penalty would be assessed to
the facility owner/operator for the period of time prior to that
discovery, and a reasonable time would be allowed for the facility to
be brought into compliance.
Specific standards which provide measurable criteria and a means
to achieve the human health and environmental standards are necessary
for practical implementation of these regulations, and are required
by the statute. Thus, the general facility standards, the storage
standards, and the treatment/disposal standards translate the human
health and environmental standards into us,efuLly enforceable require-
ments. The details of these standards are presented in Subpart D of
Appendix B.
3-9
-------
General facility standards apply to every type of hazardous
waste management facility. They must be complied with at all times
by all regulated facility owners/operators. If these standards are
not complied with, the facility owner/operator would be considered to
be in violation of these regulations, and could be subject to en-
forcement action for the entire period of the violation. Unless
exempted, the facility owner/operator has the burden of demonstrating
that he/she is in compliance. Facility owners/operators may be
required to monitor, report, and otherwise demonstrate compliance
with the general facility standards.
In addition to the general facility standards, facilities which
store hazardous waste must also comply with the storage standards,
which apply to storage tanks and storage containers, respectively.
The Act's definition of storage implies no discharge to groundwater,
surface water, or air. The storage standards reflect this intent.
In addition to the general facility standards, facilities which
treat or dispose of hazardous waste must also comply with the general
treatment/disposal standards. Facilities with incinerators; land-
fills; surface impoundments; basins; landfarms; or chemical, physical
or biological treatment processes must comply with the standards
prescribed under these subsections.
Several waste streams have been identified as being of special
concern due to their unique characteristics, and the techno-economic
3-10
-------
uncertainties regarding their disposal. These 'special wastes' are
high volume wastes which are often disposed on-site by generators,
for which traditional land disposal technology is techno-economically
inappropriate, and whose environmental risk is ill-defined. These
"special waste1 streams include: utility wastes (fly ash, bottom
ash), oil drilling muds and brines, cement kiln dusts, phosphate rock
mining and processing wastes, uranium mining wastes, and other mining
wastes. In the event these wastes meet a hazardous characteristic or
are listed, unique facility standards will be developed for them.
However, these wastes would presently be subject only to general
standards for recordkeeping, reporting, etc. EPA intends to
develop control technology standards for these wastes as soon as
possible.
3.5 Permit System for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes (Section 3005)
Section 3005(a) of RCRA requires "...each person owning or
operating a facility for the treatment, storage or disposal of
hazardous waste identified or listed under this subtitle to have a
permit issued, pursuant to this section." In these proposed regula-
tions as presented in Appendix B, Subpart E, a hazardous waste
management facility is defined as any land and appurtenances there to
used for the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous waste.
On the effective date of these regulations (i.e., 180 days after
their promulgation), no such facility would be allowed to accept
3-11
-------
hazardous waste unless its owner or operator had applied for a per-
mit. The purpose of such permits is to assure that facilities are
constructed and/or operated in a manner consistent with the objec-
tives of the Section 3004 standards.
The Section 3005 regulations would require that all owners or
operators of facilities treating, storing, or disposing hazardous
wastes obtain a permit prior to facility construction, modification,
or operation. The regulations establish standards for permit appli-
cations, permit issuance, and permit revocation. Permits would be
issued for the projected life of the facility. The owners/operators
of new facilities would be required to obtain permits prior to con-
struction, and would have to certify that construction was performed
in compliance with the permit before commencing operation. Special
permits would be available for experimental facilities, qualified
hospital-medical care facilities, Public Owned Treatment works, and
ocean dumping barges and vessels.
The Section 3005 regulations would also require the circulation
of a public notice of any tenative determination to issue, deny, or
modify a permit. Within 30 days of publication of the notice, any
person would be able to request a public hearing on the determi-
nation. The Regional Administrator would decide whether such a
hearing is appropriate at his discretion.
3.6 Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs (Section 3006)
Section 3006 provides that states are to be encouraged to apply
for authorization to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste
3-12
-------
program pursuant to Subtitle C. There would be three types of auth-
orization for which states could apply: full authorization, partial
authorization, or interim authorization.
Full authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C. Par-
tial authorization would allow a state to administer and enforce
selected components of the program. States would be considered for
partial authorization only if state legislative authority did not ex-
ist for all required program commponents. In all cases, the com-
bination of the state and the Federal program would have to meet the
requirements of a fully authorized program. Partial authorization
would be granted for a period not to exceed five years, but could be
renewed.
Interim authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazard-
ous waste program in lieu of the Federal Program under Subtitle C for
a period not to exceed twenty-four months, beginning on the date 6
months afer the date of promulgation of regulations under Section
3001. The purpose of interim authorization is to allow the state to
make an orderly transition from its present program to a program
eligible for full authorization. The guidelines describe the sub-
stantive and procedural requirements for States applying for auth-
orization, EPA's oversight of the State's hazardous waste program,
and for the withdrawal of authorization pursuant to Section 3006(e)
of Subtitle C. Specific guidelines are drafted with respect to
3-13
-------
equivalency of programs; consistency with the Federal program;
oversight; application procedures; and withdrawal of authorization.
3.7 Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste Activities (Section
3010)
These regulations (see Appendix B, Subpart G) define the
administrative procedures under which states may be granted authority
to receive notifications of hazardous waste activities (limited
interim authorization), and specify the procedures for filing such
notifications by persons generating or managing hazardous wastes.
These regulations would allow states to receive a limited, one-
time authorization (expiring six months after promulgation of the
Section 3001 regulations) to receive notifications of hazardous waste
activities from generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and
disposers. The states would not have authority to grant exceptions
to the filing requirements, and would have to maintain files of all
receipts, making these files available to EPA at the request of the
Regional Administrator.
The filing requirements would apply to every person conducting
a hazardous waste activity at the time of promulgation of the Section
3001 regulations. Such notification would constitute one of the
conditions for interim status for storers, treaters and disposers to
continue operations pending issuance of a facility permit. The pro-
posed regulations would allow combination of notification require-
ments with application for an identification code by generators and
3-14
-------
transporters, and with application for facility permits for storers,
treaters, and disposers.
3-15
-------
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the overall objectives of RCRA (see Chapter 2), the
major objectives for Subtitle C are to promote public health and en-
vironmental protection in the generation and management of hazardous
wastes, to enhance resource recovery from hazardous wastes, and to
encourage state participation in the hazardous waste management pro-
gram established under Subtitle C. The proposed Subtitle C regula-
tions, summarized in Chapter 3, have been developed to achieve these
objectives in a feasible and enforceable manner.
During the development of the proposed Subtitle C regulations,
numerous alternative regulations and regulatory approaches have been
considered. The proposed regulations were selected from among the
many alternatives based upon economic, technical, environmental,
institutional, and legal considerations.* The various alternatives
that were considered included changes in regulatory approaches (e.g.,
performance standards versus design and operating standards for haz-
ardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facilities) and changes
in the standards and criteria to be established by the regulations
(e.g., the level of hazardous waste generation at which generators are
designed for purposes of regulation under Section 3002).
Because of the enormous number of ways in which the overall ob-
jectives, regulations, and standards could be structured and developed,
*Background papers prepared by EPA for each Section of Subtitle C pro-
vide a detailed discussion of the major issues raised and the major
regulatory options considered during the development of the proposed
regulations.
4-1
-------
the approach in this EIS is to select and develop a manageable set of
meaningful alternatives that reasonably bracket the overall objectives
and the resultant impacts anticipated from whatever regulations are
ultimately promulgated under Subtitle C. The set of alternatives that
have been developed is meaningful in the sense that each is economic-
ally, technically, legally, and institutionally feasible and enforce-
able, and each provides an assessible shift in the potential impacts
that might result from the proposed regulations. Also, the alterna-
tives selected are within the scope of actions allowable under Sub-
title C (e.g., tax incentives to promote resource recovery are not
within the allowable scope of Subtitle C actions). By reasonably
bracketing the overall objectives and the resultant impacts, it is
possible to show the range and types of potential impacts that could
result under various alternatives without having to explicitly con-
sider the almost infinite variety of options for accomplishing the
same or intermediate objectives.
It is not meant to be implied that any one of the alternatives
selected and structured in this chapter would define the actual regu-
lations to be promulgated under Subtitle C. Rather, the set of alter-
natives should only be viewed as representative cases for purposes of
analysis and as guidelines for assisting in the planning and develop-
ment of the Subtitle C regulations.
Based upon the objectives of Subtitle C, four different sets of
alternatives, with respect to the proposed regulations, have been
4-2
-------
selected and structured to reasonably bracket the potential impacts
that could be expected to result. These alternatives are as follows:
• No Action;
• Phasing of Subtitle C Regulations;
• Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection;
• Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection.
For each of these alternatives, the purpose and rationale for the
selection and structure of the alternative are discussed in the fol-
lowing sections. To the extent practical, the major options that were
not considered to be reasonable for inclusion are also indicated, and
the rationale for their elimination is presented. In the discussion
of the structure of each alternative, all components of the proposed
Subtitle C regulations (see Appendix B) are assumed to be included
under each alternative, except for those specific modifications that
are indicated below.
4.1 No Action
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential impacts that could result from taking no action, i.e.,
not promulgating regulations for Subtitle C. There are two ways in
which the No Action alternative may be approached. One way is to
assume that No Action involves not implementing any portion of RCRA,
including Subtitle C. The other approach is to assume that No Action
involves implementing all portions of RCRA, except Subtitle C.
4-3
-------
Under the former approach, hazardous wastes would continue to be
generated, stored, transported, treated, and disposed in essentially
the same manner as is currently practiced. Under the latter approach,
hazardous wastes would also continue to be generated, stored, trans-
ported, and treated in much the same manner as is currently practiced;
however, disposal would be somewhat different due to the Subtitle D
regulations. Open dumps would be prohibited and criteria would be
established with which sanitary landfills would have to comply. How-
ever, Section 4003(2) of Subtitle D specifically exempts hazardous
wastes from the requirement that solid wastes be utilized for resource
recovery or disposed of in sanitary landfills or otherwise disposed
of in an environmentally sound manner. Thus, it is uncertain how Sub-
title D would affect hazardous waste disposal.
It is not currently possible to prepare a meaningful assessment
of the No Action alternative that assumes that all of RCRA, except
Subtitle C, is to be implemented. This conclusion is based upon the
unavailability of the final regulations and criteria under Subtitle D
for sanitary landfills, the unavailability of the state solid waste
management plan required under Subtitle D, and the many significant
uncertainties and lack of data about the ways Subtitle D and the rest
of RCRA would affect hazardous waste generation, storage, transport,
treatment and disposal. Therefore, the No Action alternative to be
assessed in this report assumes that no part of RCRA, including Sub-
title C, is to be implemented and that hazardous waste management
would continue as currently practiced.
4-4
-------
4.2 Phasing of Subtitle C Regulations
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential impacts that could result from the promulgation of the
proposed Subtitle C regulations on a phased basis, rather than from
their total implementation at one time. For purposes of analysis, a
five-year time frame measured from the proposed implementation date is
assumed for the phasing of the regulations. The primary objectives of
phased implementation are to ensure that resources (e.g., manpower,
disposal sites, and capital) would not be stressed beyond their capac-
ity to respond effectively to the proposed Subtitle C regulations.
There are two basic mechanisms for phasing the implementation
of proposed Subtitle C regulations. First, the regulations for each
of the different sections of Subtitle C (i.e., Sections 3001 through
3006 and 3010) could be promulgated one at a time, over a period of
time (e.g. , implementation of the 3001 regulations first, followed by
the implementation of the 3002 regulations 6 months later). Second,
the regulations for all the sections of Subtitle C could be
promulgated at the same time, and the levels for the standards and
criteria established by the regulations could be phased to their
proposed values over a period of time (e.g., the generator limit under
Section 3002 could be set at 1,075 metric tons per month the first
year, 303 metric tons per month the second year, ..., and 100
kilograms per month the fifth year).
4-5
-------
Since RCRA states that regulations for each of the different sec-
tions of Subtitle C (i.e., Sections 3001 through 3006 and 3010) are to
be promulgated within eighteen months after enactment of the Act, the
time phasing or any extended delay of the promulgation of regulations
for each of the different sections of Subtitle C is not a feasible
alternative. Additionally, the interdependence of the various sec-
tions of Subtitle C makes the phasing of individual sections unrea-
sonable. As a result, the second mechanism discussed above (i.e.,
phasing of levels for standards and criteria established by the Sub-
title C regulations) has been selected as the basis for assessing the
potential impacts that could result from the phased promulgation of
the Subtitle C regulations..
While there are many different ways in which the levels for
standards and criteria could be phased in, most would have essen-
tially the same effect—a gradual expansion of the total quantity of
hazardous wastes being controlled by the hazardous waste program. For
purposes of analysis, the method selected emphasizes gradually in-
creasing the quantity of wastes controlled by gradually expanding the
number of generators brought under control. With this approach, the
level of the generator limit established urider 'Section 3002 is to be
reduced annually over a five-year period of time in order to bring the
larger generators into the program first and the smaller generators
4-6
-------
into the program later.* Furthermore, the generator limit is to be
reduced so that equal amounts of hazardous wastes are annually brought
under the program's control over the five-year period, i.e., 20
percent of the total industrial hazardous wastes per year.
A second method based on gradually increasing the quantity of
wastes controlled through the mechanism of expanding the levels of the
characteristics used to identify hazardous wastes has been determined
not to be a reasonable alternative at the present time. While it is a
simple matter to change the levels of the characteristics to include
more wastes under the program's control, available data preclude the
setting of characteristic levels (e.g., specific changes in the pH
level) so as to increase the waste load annually by a specified
amount. At the very least, such an alternative would result in diffi-
cult program management and enforcement problems.
A further approach to phasing which involves the gradual phasing
of performance standards under Section 3004 and the permit require-
ments under Section 3005 has also been determined not to be a rea-
sonable alternative since no person can be reasonably expected to
construct a hazardous waste facility to meet regulations that would
be superseded by more stringent regulations in succeeding years.
Table 4-1 presents the specific changes to each section of the
proposed Subtitle C regulations that are to be included under this
fc
The generator limit is the upper bound on the amount of hazardous
wastes that can be produced and disposed monthly without being sub-
ject to the Section 3002 regulations.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-1
PHASING OF GENERATORS
3001 Modifications (Subpart A)*
• No changes.
3002 Modifications (Subpart B)*
• Phase in the generator limit (250.21[6]).*
1,075 metric tons per month during the first year;
303 metric tons per month during the second year;
125 metric tons per month during the third year;
34 metric tons per month during the fourth year;
100 kilograms per month during the fifth year.
• Phase in the 90-day exclusion for generators who tempo-
rarily store hazardous wastes prior to off-site disposal
(250.61[dd]).*
Twelve-month exclusion for the first two years, then
decrease to 270 days, 180 days, and 90 days over the
last three years.
3003 Modifications (Subpart C)*
• No changes.
3004 Modifications (Subpart D)*
• Phase in the time limit for reporting of unmanifested wastes
delivered to permitted facilities (250.43 - 6(a)(4)).
No reporting during the first year;
- Quarterly reporting during the second and third years;
- Monthly reporting during the fourth year;
- Immediate reporting during the fifth year.
3005 Modifications (Subpart E)*
• Phase in generator storage exemption as specified above under
3002 modifications (250.61[dd]).*
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Concluded)
3006 Modifications (Subpart F)*
• No changes.
3010 Modifications (Subpart G)*
• No changes.
*Section in Appendix B that is being changed by this modification.
4-9
-------
alternative. All components of the proposed regulations discussed in
Appendix B are assumed to be included under this alternative, except
for those specific modifications that are indicated in Table 4-1.
For ease in correlating the indicated modifications with the proposed
regulations summarized in Appendix B, the appropriate section of
Appendix B being modified is given immediately following the change
presented in Table 4-1.
While this alternative emphasizes the phasing of generators to be
regulated under the program, the modifications presented in Table 4-1
are not limited solely to this one change. Rather, two additional
modifications have been included to assist in fulfilling the stated
objectives of the phasing alternative. These additional modifications
phase in the time limit that generators may store hazardous wastes
prior to off-site disposal without being brought into the permit
system and the time limit for reporting of unmanifested wastes.
Since the proposed regulations provide for the phasing in of
state participation in the program through both interim authorization
and partial authorization, no additional modifications have been made
to promote phasing of state authorized programs.
4.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential impacts that could result from modification of the pro-
posed Subtitle C regulations designed to further increase public
health and environmental protection above that level afforded by the
proposed regulations.
4-10
-------
The basic strategy of this alternative is to expand the defini-
tion of hazardous waste in order to bring additional wastes under
control of the program; to remove exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to apply more stringent design and operational re-
quirements for storers, treaters, and disposers; to eliminate special
waste standards; to reduce reporting intervals for storers, treaters,
and disposers; to eliminate the use of delivery documents in lieu of
manifests; and to decrease the life of permits and impose additional
restrictions on obtaining permits.
Table 4-2 presents the specific changes to each section of the
proposed regulations that are to be included under this alternative.
As previously discussed, all components of the proposed regulations
discussed in Appendix B are assumed to be included under this alter-
native, except for those specific modifications indicated in Table
4-2.
Under this alternative, the definition of hazardous wastes in
Section 3001 has been expanded by adding characteristics for defin-
ing infectious wastes and radioactive wastes as hazardous. The char-
acteristic for identifying toxic wastes has also been expanded to
bring additional wastes under control of the regulations.
The exclusion from the Section 3002 regulations for generators
who produce less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous wastes has
been eliminated. The exclusion for those generators engaged solely in
retail trade or principally in farming for all hazardous wastes
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-2
ENHANCED PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
3001 Modifications (Subpart A)*
• Add characteristics for identifying infectious wastes and radio-
active wastes as hazardous wastes (250.13).*
(1) A solid waste is an infectious waste if it is generated from
the sources listed in Appendix B, Subpart A, 250. 14(a) (2) (i) ,
unless the waste does not contain microorganisms or helminths
of CDC Classes 2 through 5 of the Etiologic Agents listed in
Appendix B, Subpart A, Appendix IX.
(2) A waste is a radioactive waste if it is not source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and if a representative
sample of the waste has either of the properties listed
in Appendix B, Subpart A, 250.14(b) (2) (F) (i) and 250.14(b)
Eliminate the toxic waste characteristic based upon the EPA Primary
Drinking Water standards and replace with the following character-
istic for identifying toxic wastes as hazardous ( 250.13[4] ) :*
- A solid waste is a toxic waste if the extract obtained from
applying the extraction procedure (EP) in Appendix B, Subpart A,
250.13(b)(4) (i) to a representative sample of the waste has any
of the following properties:
(1) Gives a positive response in any one of a set of re-
quired tests for a mutagenic activity, described
in Appendix B, Subpart A, 250.14(b) (2) (G) (i).
(2) Gives a positive result in the Bioaccumulation Potential
Test, defined in Appendix B, Subpart A, Appendix XII.
(3) Contains more than the specified concentration of any
substance in Appendix B, Subpart A, Appendix XIII.
(4) Exceeds any of the following thresholds, when applica-
ble :
(a) Has a concentration of a substance, for which an
EPA Primary Drinking Water Standard has been es-
tablished, greater than or equal to 10 times that
criteria.
(b) Contains any organic substance, which has a calcu-
lated human LD50 of less than 800 mg/'kg, at a con-
centration in mg/1 greater than or equal to 0.35
times its LD50 expressed in units of mg/kg.
(c) Has a concentration of any substance listed below
greater than that specified:
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
Maximum Permissable EP
Substance Elutriate Concentration (mg/1)
Antimony ?
Beryllium ?
Copper ?
Dalapon 3.5
Dichobenil 10.
Diquat 50.
Fenac 1.0
Nickel ?
Picloram 0.1
Thallium ?
Zinc ?
3002 Modifications (Subpart B)*
Eliminate the 100 kilograms per month generator limit (250.21[6]).*
Anyone, except households, generating any amount of the
hazardous wastes identified under Section 3001 must comply
with the Section 3002 regulations.
Remove exclusion from Section 3002 regulations for generators
engaged solely in retail trade or principally in farming
(250.20[f]).*
Farmers and retail generators must comply with Section 3002
requirements for all hazardous wastes identified under Sec-
tion 3001.
Increase reporting frequency from annually to quarterly for all
generators (250.23).*
All portions of the "previous" annual report are to be re-
ported quarterly.
Increase the reporting frequency for manifests not received by the
designated facility from quarterly to monthly (250.23[aj[2j).*
Eliminate the use of a delivery document in lieu of a manifest
(250.21[3]).*
All hazardous waste shipments must be accompanied by the
manifest.
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
3003 Modifications (Subpart Q*
• Eliminate the use of a delivery document in lieu of a manifest
(250.31[a]).*
- All hazardous waste shipments must be accompanied by the
manifest at all times.
3004 Modifications (Subpart D)*
• Eliminate special waste standards for cement kiln dust waste,
utility wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes,
uranium mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines (250.46).*
These wastes, if hazardous under Section 3001, must comply
with all Section 3004 standards.
• Change the application of the threshold limit value for air con-
taminents from non-point emission sources (250.42-3[b]) .*
The threshold limit value is to be applied as a maximum
concentration that is not to be exceeded at any time
rather than as a t-ime-weighted average for an 8-hour
day and 40-hour week.
- The threshold limit value is to be applied as a mandatory
standard rather than a human health and environmental
standard.
• Increase the minimum distance active portions of facilities must be
located from the facility's property line from 200 feet to 400 feet
(250.43-l[h]).*
• Increase the minimum distance surface impoundments, active portions
of landfills, and treated areas of landfarms must be located from
any functioning public or private water supply or livestock water
supply from 150 meters (500 feet) to 300 meters (1000 feet)
(250.45-2[aJ[3], 250.45-3[a][3], and 250.45-5[c][3]).*
• Increase the financial responsibility required of owner/operators
of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities during site operation
from a minimum of $5 million to a minimum of $10 million (250.43-2
Lbj ;.*
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
• Increase the time during which the owner/operator of a facility is
to provide post close-out care from a period which need not exceed
20 years from closure to a period which need not exceed 40 years
from closure (250.43-8[k][1]).*
- The annual cash payment into the trust fund for post close-
out monitoring and maintenance is to be adjusted based upon
this 40-year period (250.43-2[aj[2]).*
• Add a requirement that all inactive treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities must comply with the Section 3004 regulations.'
• Add a requirement that all wastes be treated using the best prac-
tical technology (BPT) to reduce their waste solubility and over-
all toxicity before disposal.'
• For all landfills and surface impoundments, increase the required
permeability of the soil liner and of the final cover from less
than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, to less than or equal to 1 x
10-8 cm/sec. (250.45-2[bJ[10], 250.45-2[b][12][ii], 250.45-2[b]
[12][v], 250.45-2[c][l], 250.45-3[c][2], and 250.45-3[c][9]).*
• Add the requirement that any landfarm that has the potential to
discharge to groundwater must be monitored so as to detect any
discharge (250.43-9).*
Such landfarms must comply with the groundwater and leachate
monitoring standards.
• Reduce the maximum vapor pressure of wastes that may be treated,
stored, or disposed as indicated below from 78 mm of Hg at 25 C
(250.44-HaJUJ, 250.45-2[b] [5] liii] , 250.45-3 [b] [1] [v] , 250.45-4
[2][e], and 250.45-5[1][ii]).*
- Wastes with a vapor pressure greater than 53 mm of Hg at
25 C may not be disposed in landfills, placed in surface
impoundments or basins, landfarmed, nor put in storage
tanks vented directly to the atmosphere.
• Increase reporting frequency for report based on manifest informa-
tion from annually to quarterly (250.43-6[a][3]).*
• Add a requirement that for those hazardous wastes determined by the
permitting agency to have a recovery potential within the reason-
able forseeable future, any land disposal must be in a segregated
manner.T
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
3005 Modifications (Subpart E)*
• Reduce the duration of permits from the projected life of the
facility to a period no longer than 5 years (250.62-5).*
Permits may be renewed for the maximum time period (5 years)
an unlimited number of times.
• Eliminate special permits for experimental facilities, qualified
hospital-medical care facilities, ocean dumping barges or vessels,
and publicly owned treatment works (POTW) (250.62-6, 250.62-7,
250.62-8, and 250.62-9).*
- All these facilities must submit both Part A and B of the
permit application and a supplementary environmental analy-
sis described below (250.62-6[b], 250.62-7[b], 250.62-8[b],
and 250.62-9[b]).*
Experimental facilities and qualified hospital-medical care
facilities must comply with all Section 3004 requirements
(250.62-6[b] and 250.62-6[a][3]).*
- POTW's and ocean dumping barges or vessels must comply with
Section 3004 requirements applicable to storage of hazardous
wastes (250.62-8[b] and 250.62-9[b]) .*
• Owners/operators of facilities for the treatment, storage, or dis-
posal of special wastes (e.g., cement kiln dust wastes) must apply
for Section 3005 permits and comply with all Section 3005 permit
application requirements.'
• All permit applicants must submit a Supplementary Environmental
Analysis of the facility and its potential impacts. The Supple-
mentary Environmental Analysis is to contain:^
(1) An analysis of the impact of and methods proposed to comply
with the following Federal statutes and published regula-
tions where applicable: The Endangered Species Act; The
National Historic Preservation Act; The Historic Sites,
Buildings and Antiquities Act; The Fish and Wildlife Coor-
dination Act; and The Coastal Zone Management Act.
(2) A discussion of whether alternative methods for treatment,
recovery, or recycling of wastes to be stored, treated, or
disposed were considered, or whether the wastes will be
treated prior to storage or disposal.
(3) A description of how hazardous wastes will be transported to
the facility, including a listing of the access routes.
(4) The proximity of the site to population centers and size of
the population centers.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Concluded)
(5) A description of any easements, pipelines, utilities,
public roads, or rights-of-way located within the bounda-
ries of the facility.
(6) A description of applicable local and state zoning or land
use laws in effect.
(7) A description of adjacent land uses within one mile of the
facility.
(8) A description of the methods proposed to minimize and con-
trol impacts of dust, odors, and noise associated with
construction and operation of the facility.
(9) A listing of applications submitted or permits obtained
under local state, or Federal acts involving toxic or
hazardous wastes.
3006 Modifications (Subpart F)*
• No changes.
3010 Modifications (Subpart G)*
• Eliminate the exclusion for owners of inactive hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.'
The owner of inactive facilities must file a notification.
Section in Appendix B that is being changed by this modification.
tNo equivalent regulation appears in Appendix B.
4-17
-------
produced, except waste automotive oil, has also been eliminated. All
hazardous wastes produced by such generators are to be managed in
accordance with the Subtitle C regulations.
The use of delivery documents in lieu of manifests for hazardous
waste transport has been eliminated. The reporting frequency for the
generator report on manifests not received by the designated facility
has been increased from quarterly to monthly. Other reporting fre-
quencies for generators, storers, treaters, and disposers have been
increased from annually to quarterly. A requirement has been added
that owners of inactive treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
comply with all Section 3004 regulations.
Special standards for 'special wastes' (i.e., cement kiln dust
wastes, utility wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes,
uranium mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines) have been
eliminated; such 'special wastes' must comply with all Section 3004
standards. Design and operating standards for facility location,
non-point source air emission concentrations, post close-out care,
soil liner permeabilities, groundwater monitoring, financial
responsibilities, management of volatile wastes, and treatment and
segregation of wastes before disposal have been made more stringent.
The duration of the permit life has been reduced from the pro-
jected life of a facility to a period not to exceed 5 years; permits
may be renewed an unlimited number of times. Special permits for
experimental facilities, qualified hospital-medical care facilities,
4-18
-------
ocean dumping barges or vessels, and publicly owned treatment works
(POTW's) have been eliminated; the former two have to comply with all
Section 3004 requirements, the latter two have to comply with Section
3004 storage requirements. A requirement has been added that all
permit applicants submit a Supplementary Environmental Analysis.
4.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential impacts that could result from modifications to the
proposed Subtitle C regulations designed to provide a lesser degree
of public health and environmental protection than that afforded by
the proposed regulations.
The basic strategy of this alternative is to contract the defi-
nition of hazardous wastes in order to bring fewer wastes under the
control of the program; to increase exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to reduce manifest requirements; to apply less
stringent design and operational requirements for storers, treaters,
and disposers; to eliminate regulation of special wastes; to decrease
recordkeeping times for generators, transporters, storers, treaters,
and disposers; to increase the length of permit exclusions for gener-
ators who store prior to off-site disposal; to eliminate restrictions
on interim authorization; and to ease restrictions on full and partial
authorization.
Table 4-3 presents the specific changes to each section of the
proposed regulations that are to be included under this alternative.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-3
LESSER DEGREE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
3001 Modifications (Subpart A)*
• Eliminate the characteristic for toxic wastes (250.13[4] ) .*
Eliminate the listed wastes whose listing is based solely
on the toxicity characteristic or on the Administrator's
judgment (250.14).*
• Exclude the following wastes from being identified as hazardous
wastes under Section 3001: cement kiln dust wastes, utility
wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes, uranium
mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines (250.14[a]
3002 Modifications (Subpart B)*
• Increase the generator limit from 100 kilograms per month to
1000 kilograms per month (250.21[6] ).*
• Increase the length of the permit exclusion for generators who
temporarily store hazardous waste prior to off-site disposal
from 90 days to 1 year (250.61[dd]).*
• For off-site shipments of hazardous wastes by generators, replace
the Section 3002 manifest requirements with a new manifest require-
ment that all such shipments (interstate and intrastate) must be
accompanied by shipping paper/bill of lading which designates
delivery to a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal facility
and which meets the requirements of the DOT Hazardous Materials
Regulations (250.21[3] and 250.22).*
- For example, spill information need not be provided on the
shipping paper/bill of lading, and the shipping paper/bill
of lading need only be signed as required under the DOT
Hazardous Materials Regulations (i.e., must be signed only
by the generator shipping the wastes).
• Replace requirement for recordkeeping of manifest copy with a
requirement for recordkeeping of shipping paper/bill of lading
(250.24).*
- Decrease recordkeeping time for shipping paper/bill of
lading used in place of manifest from 3 years to 1 year.
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
• Eliminate the reporting of shipping paper/bill of lading not re-
ceived at designated facility (250.23[a][2]).*
3003 Modifications (Subpart Q*
• Replace the Section 3002 manifest requirements with a new manifest
requirement that all shipments (interstate and intrastate) must be
accompanied by shipping paper/bill of lading which designates de-
livery to a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal facility and
which meets the requirements of the DOT Hazardous Materials Regu-
lations (250.21[3] and 250.22).*
Eliminate need for signatures on shipping paper/bill of
lading, except as required under the DOT Hazardous Mate-
rials Regulations (i.e., must be signed only by the gen-
erator shipping the wastes).
• Replace requirement for recordkeeping of manifest with a require-
ment for recordkeeping of shipping paper/bill of lading (250.33).*
- Decrease recordkeeping time for shipping paper/bill of
lading from 3 years to 1 year, except where DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations specify retention times longer than
1 year.
• Eliminate special emergency spill regulations (250.37).*
- Eliminate requirements for the transporter to notify
appropriate officials in the case of a spill and to
file a report on the spill.
Eliminate requirement for transporter to clean up spill
or to take other action required to insure the spill no
longer presents a hazard to human health or the environ-
ment.
• Eliminate requirement that if a transporter consolidates shipments
of hazardous wastes that do not require a manifest, the entire
shipment must be delivered to a permitted facility (250.30[a]).*
3004 Modifications (Subpart D)*
• Eliminate special waste standards for cement kiln dust wastes,
utility wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes, ura-
nium mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines (250.46).*
Exclude these wastes from compliance with Section 3004
regulations.
4-21
-------
•
•
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
Change the application of the threshold limit value for air conta-
minants from non-point emission sources (250.42-3[b] ) .*
- The threshold limit value is to be applied as time-
weighted average for a 24-hour day rather than as a
time-weighted average for an 8-hour day and 40-hour
week.
Decrease the minimum distance active portions of facilities must
be located from the facility's property line from 200 feet to 100
feet (250.43-l[h]).*
Decrease the minimum distance surface impoundments, active portions
of landfills, and treated areas of landfarms must be located from
any functioning public or private water supply or livestock water
supply from 150 meters (500 feet) to 75 meters (250 feet) (250.45-2
[a] [3], 250.45-3[a][3], and 250.45-5[c] [3] ) .*
Decrease the financial responsibility requir.ed of owners/operators
of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities during site operation
from a minimum of $5 million to a minimum of $2 million (250.43-2
[b]).*
Decrease the time during which the owner/operator of a facility is
to provide post close-out care from a period which need not exceed
20 years from closure to a period which need not exceed 10 years
from closure (250.43-8[k] [1] ).*
The annual cash payment into the trust fund for post close-
out monitoring and maintenance is to be adjusted based upon
this 10-year period (250.43-2[a] [ 2] ) .*
For incineration, reduce the destruction efficiency of the princi-
pal components of the waste from 99.99% to 99.9%, the combustion
efficiency from 99.9% to 99%, and halogen removal from exhaust
gases from 99% to 90% (250.45-1 [b] , 250.45-1
[d], and 250.45-1 [h] ).*
For all landfills and surface impoundments, decrease the required
permeability of the soil liner and of the final cover from less
than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, to less than or equal to 1 x
10-6 cm/sec. (250.45-2[b] [ 10] , 250.45-2[b] [ 12] [ii] , 250.45-2[b]
[12][v], 250.45-2[c][l], 250.45-3[c] [ 2] , and 250.45-3[c] [ 9] ) .*
Limit to groundwaters that are underground drinking water sources
the requirement that all facilities, except landfarms, that have
the potential to discharge to groundwater must be monitored to
detect any discharge (250.43-9).*
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
There does not have to be monitoring "of potential
discharge to groundwaters which are non-underground
drinking water sources.
• For those facilities for which there is to be groundwater and
leachate monitoring, eliminate the quarterly monitoring and
minimum analysis of samples from both the leachate detection
system and the groundwater (250.43-9[b][4] and 250.43-9[b][5]).*
- Eliminate the quarterly reporting of this monitoring
data (250.43-9[d][l]).*
Retain annual monitoring and comprehensive analysis
(250.43-9[c][4] and 250.43-9[c][5]).*
• Eliminate the restriction on the maximum vapor pressure of
wastes that may be treated, disposed, or stored as indicated
below (250.44-l[a][1], 250.45-2[b][5][iii], 250.45-3[b][1][v],
250.45-4[2][e], and 250.45-5[1][ii]).*
Wastes with a vapor pressure greater than 78 mm of Hg
at 25 C may be disposed in landfills, placed in surface
impoundments or basins, landfarmed, or put in storage
tanks vented directly to the atmosphere.
• Increase the time interval for completing training of personnel
from 6 months to 1 year (250.43-5[a]).*
• Eliminate the regulation of commercial products made from
hazardous wastes (250.45-7).*
Such commercial products are not to be considered
hazardous wastes.
• Replace requirements for recordkeeping of manifest copy with a
requirement for recordkeeping of shipping paper/bill of lading
(250.43-6[a][2].*
- Decrease recordkeeping time for shipping paper/bill of
lading used in lieu of manifest from 3 years to 1 year
(250.43-6[a][2]).*
• Eliminate need for signatures on shipping paper/bill of lading,
except as required under the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations
(250.43-6[a][l][a]).*
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Concluded)
3005 Modifications (Subpart E)*
Increase the length of the permit exclusion for generators who
temporarily store hazardous wastes prior to off-site disposal
from 90 days to 1 year (250.61[dd]) .*
Eliminate the need for publicly owned treatment facilities,
qualified hospital-medical care facilities, and ocean dumping
barges or vessels to apply for a special permit (250.62-7[bj ,
250.62-8[b], and 250.62-9[b]).*
Such facilities are automatically granted the special
permits.
3006 Modifications (Subpart F)*
• Eliminate restrictions on granting of full or partial authori-
zation to states with more stringent standards (250.72[a][ii]
and 250.72[b][l]).*
• Eliminate all restrictions on granting of interim authorization,
except for the Memorandum of Understanding (250.73).*
All states desiring interim authorization are to be
granted it, providing that they have a Memorandum of
Understanding
3010 Modifications (Subpart G)*
• Retail generators need not notify (250.820[a]).*
Section in Appendix B that is being changed by this modification.
4-24
-------
As previously discussed, all components of the proposed regulations
discussed in Appendix B are assumed to be included under this alter-
native, except for those specific modifications indicated in Table
4-3.
Under this alternative, the definition of hazardous wastes in
Section 3001 has been modified to include fewer wastes by eliminating
the characteristic for toxic wastes; listed wastes whose listing is
based solely on the toxicity characteristic (including those listed
based on the Administrator's judgment) have been removed from the
Section 3001 lists. Special wastes (e.g., cement kiln dust wastes and
utility wastes) have been specifically excluded from being identified
as hazardous wastes under Section 3001.
The exclusion from the Section 3002 regulations for generators
who produce less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous wastes has
been replaced by an exclusion for all generators who produce less than
1000 kilograms per month. The 90-day permit exclusion for tempo-
rary storage by generators prior to off-site disposal has been in-
creased to a one-year exclusion. Retail generators have been excluded
from notification required under Section 3010.
For off-site shipments of hazardous wastes by generators, the
Section 3002 manifest requirements are replaced by a requirement that
all such shipments (interstate and intrastate) must be accompanied by
a shipping paper/bill of lading which designates delivery to a per-
mitted storage, treatment, or disposal facility and which meets the
4-25
-------
requirements of the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations.* For example
the spill information required by the manifest is not required for the
shipping paper/bill of lading, and the signature requirements of the
manifest are replaced by signature requirements under the DOT
Hazardous Materials Regulations (i.e., only the generator shipping the
wastes needs to sign the shipping paper/bill of lading).
The reporting of shipping papers/bills of lading not received at
the designated facility is eliminated. Recordkeeping requirements for
shipping papers/bills of lading are reduced from 3 years to 1 year for
generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers. The spe-
cial emergency spill regulations for transporters have been elimi-
nated.
Regulation of 'special wastes' under Section 3004 has been elim-
inated. Design and operating standards for facility location, non-
point source air emission concentrations, incineration, post close-
out care, soil lines permeabilities, groundwater monitoring, financial
responsibilities, management of volatile wastes, training of person-
nel, and commercial products have been made less stringent.
Permit requirements for POTW's, qualified hospital-medical care
facilities, and ocean dumping barges or vessels have been eliminated.
Such facilities would be granted permits by rule and would not have to
comply with any Section 3004 requirements.
The DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations are to be applied to both
interstate and intrastate shipments of hazardous wastes.
4-26
-------
All restrictions on the granting of interim authorization, except
the Memorandum of Understanding, have been eliminated. Any state
desiring interim authorization would be granted such status, providing
the state submits a Memorandum of Understanding that specifies how the
state plans to become eligible to attain full authorization at the end
of the interim authorization period. States may also impose
considerably more stringent standards than those promulgated under
Sections 3001 through 3005 and still be authorized for full or partial
authorization, even if there is no public health and/or environmental
protection basis for the more stringent standards.
4-27
-------
5.0 EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This chapter provides a characterization of the types of wastes
that could be considered as potentially hazardous under the Subtitle
C regulations and identifies potential sources of hazardous waste
generation; examples of the types of potentially hazardous wastes
generated by .selected sources are also presented. Prevalent trans-
port, storage, treatment, and disposal methods are described and
relevant aspects of typical hazardous waste practices are summarized.
Estimates of the quantities of hazardous wastes being generated are
provided in Chapter 6.
5.1 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Generation
This section first presents a general description of the charac-
teristics of wastes that are considered hazardous. This is followed
by selected examples identifying existing sources of hazardous waste
and the types of potentially hazardous wastes currently being gener-
ated. It is the intent of this section to characterize hazardous
wastes only to the extent necessary to provide a general under-
standing of the various properties, types, and sources of such wastes
rather than to present an exhaustive delineation of potentially
hazardous wastes and their sources of generation.
5.1.1 Hazardous Waste Characteristics. The Subtitle C regula-
tions and the alternatives to the regulations (see Chapters 3 and 4)
contain characteristics and lists for identifying wastes that are to
be considered hazardous and, thus, to be brought under control of the
5-1
-------
regulations. The specific characteristics considered for use in
identifying hazardous wastes are as follows:
• Flammability;
• Corrosiveness;
• Infectiousness;
• Reactivity;
• Radioactivity;
• Toxicity.
Appendix B (Subpart A) and Chapters 3 and 4 describe the
specific properties a waste must exhibit to be considered hazardous
under any one or more of these characteristics and list waste
materials which are considered hazardous.
Wastes to which these characteristics apply and which could thus
be identified as hazardous under Subtitle C include garbage; refuse;
sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or
air pollution control facility; and other discarded material,
including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities.* Wastes specifically
exempted from regulations by RCRA itself, and thus exempted from
Subtitle C, include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage;
solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial
discharges which are point sources subject to permits under Section
*However, the Subtitle C regulations contain provisions specifically
exempting household refuse and household septic tank pumpings from
regulation.
5-2
-------
402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat.
880); and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined
by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923). Any
waste, except those wastes specifically exempted from regulation,
which meets any one or more of the specified characteristics or which
is listed, would be considered as hazardous under the Subtitle C
regulations.
In attempting to characterize those wastes that could be consi-
dered hazardous under Subtitle C, it must be realized that most waste
streams consist of a mixture of waste materials and that it is this
mixture, not just individual components, which establishes the
hazardous nature of the waste. Very rarely do wastes consist of just
one material. The hazardous nature of every waste stream depends
upon several factors, including the types of materials present, the
concentration of each constituent, the interactions of the materials
present, and the physical form of the waste materials.
The types of materials (both hazardous and nonhazardous) present
in any waste stream, and the relative concentrations of these
materials, vary from waste stream to waste stream and are very highly
dependent upon such factors as the types of feedstock utilized by the
process or activity generating the waste, the specifics of that
process or activity, and the presence of any pollution controls and
waste treatment practices. No two waste streams are identical;
similar processes or activities can generate waste streams
5-3
-------
that are very different in nature. In fact, most waste generators
produce more than one type of waste stream, e.g., waste streams from
any generator may be in the form of liquids, solids, sludges, slur-
ries, containerized gases, or any combination of these and any one or
all of these waste streams may be classified as hazardous under the
Subtitle C regulations. (Section 5.1.2 presents examples of poten-
tially hazardous waste streams and waste stream constituents for
selected generators.)
With regard to the constituents present, the totality of the
waste streams generated in the U.S. is likely to contain, to some
degree, practically every type of substance or product produced in or
imported into the U.S. as well as nearly every type of material used
as a feedstock in a manufacturing process along with many of the
intermediate materials generated by these processes. Many of these
constituents are by themselves potentially hazardous and their
presence, in sufficient concentration, can make the waste stream
hazardous.
A number of studies have attempted to define the characteristics
that make materials toxic and/or hazardous* and to identify and rank
such materials. Most of these studies have dealt with pure sub-
stances and commercial products, rather than with wastes. Thousands
*Materials which are toxic are hazardous. However, toxicity is just
one of several characteristics for judging a waste to be hazardous.
Wastes do not necessarily have to be toxic to be hazardous.
5-4
-------
of compounds have been listed as potentially toxic or hazardous. For
example, the United States Toxic Substances Control Act, Interagency
Testing Committee has initially identified about 3,600 compounds as
representing the potentially most hazardous compounds within the
larger universe of around 60,000 chemicals used in U.S. commerce.
These 3,600 compounds represent a consolidation of nineteen separate
priority chemical lists compiled in recent years (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1978). Table 5-1 indicates the sources of these
other 19 lists, the number of chemicals included, and the main
selection criteria. For a more detailed discussion of the selection
criteria and the substances included on each list, see the individual
sources. Every one of the thousands of materials contained in these
lists may appear in some waste stream, and the presence of any one
could, in sufficient quantity, result in the waste stream being
hazardous.
While the types and the concentrations of materials present are
the prime determinants of the hazardous nature of the waste stream,
interactions among the various constituents can drastically alter the
hazardous nature of the waste stream. Interactions which can occur
include synergisms, antagonisms, complex formation, and chemical
reactions.
Synergism involves two or more materials acting together to
create a combined effect which is greater than the sum of their
individual effects or to lower the threshold level at which effects
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-1
SOURCES OF CHEMICALS FOR INCLUSION ON THE INITIAL LIST OF THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT INTERAGENCY TESTING COMMITTEE*
Source lists used
Number of
chemicals
included
Main
selection
criteria
1. Toxic Pollutants in Point Source Water 129 T
Effluent Discharge, Environmental
Defense Fund/EPA PL-92-500
2. Scoring of Organic Air Compounds, June 337 T & P
1976, MITRE, MTR-6248
3. Final Report of NSF Workshop Panel to 80 P
Select Organic Compounds Hazardous to
the Environment, April 1975, Stanford
Research Institute/National Science
Foundation
4. Potential Industrial Carcinogens and 88 T & P
Mutagens, National Center for Toxico-
logical Research
5. Occupational Carcinogens for Potential 116 T
Regulatory Action, Department of Labor—
Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istration (OSHA)
6. Chemicals Tested or Scheduled for Testing 174 T
at the Fish-Pesticide Research Labora-
tory, Department of Interior—Department
of Fish and Wildlife
7. Substances with Chronic Effects other — T
than Mutagenicity, Carcinogenicity or
Teratogenicity: A Subfile of the NIOSH
Registry (Source List 13)
8. Criteria Documents Prepared or Planned 127 T & P
by NIOSH, February 24, 1977
9. Suspected Carcinogens; A Subfile of 1,900 T
the NIOSH Registry
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-1 (.Continued)
Source lists used
Number ot
chemicals
included
19. General List of Problem Substances,
Environmental Contaminants Committee,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1977
160
Main
selection
criteria
E, T, 0
E & T
T & 0
10. Suspected Mutagens; A Subfile of NIOSH 100
Registry
11. Suspected Teratogens; A Subfile of the 200
NIOSH Registry
12. Department of Health Education and Wei- 21,453
fare, National Institute for Occupa-
tional Safety and Health, Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
1976
13. The Ecological Impact of Synthetic 9
Organic Compounds on Estuarine Eco-
systems, September 1976, EPA-1600/
3-76-075
14. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical 570
Substances and Physical Agents in the
Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1976, American Conference
of Government Industrial Hygienists
15. National Occupational Hazard Survey 7,000
(1972-1974)/National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
16. Chemicals Being Tested for Carcino- 372
genicity by the Bioassay Program DCCP,
National Cancer Institute, 1977
17. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances List 162
of Priority Toxic Chemicals, 1977
18. A Study of Industrial Data on Candidate 650
Chemicals for Testing, EPA Contract
#68-01-4109, November 1976, Stanford
Research Institute
T & 0
0, T, & P
T & P
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-1 (Concluded)
Number of Main
Other lists used for reference, chemicals selection
but not used as source lists included criteria
1. Research Project to Gather and Analyze 3,200 T & P
Data and Information on Chemicals that
Impact Man and the Environment, National
Institute of Health, National Cancer
Institute/Stanford Research Institute
2. Other Potential Modifiers of the Strato- 41 E & P
sphere, 1975, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences/Stanford
Research Institute
3. EPA/Office of Research and Development, 140 P
Chemical Production, 1975
KEY: T = Toxicity
P = Production/Use
0 = Occupational Exposure
E = Environmental Persistence
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
5-8
-------
begin to occur. For example, chlorinated aromatics become more toxic
in the presence of various solvents (Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, 1973). Antagonism is the opposite of synergism and
involves two or more materials acting together to create a combined
effect which is less than the aum of their individual effects or to
raise the threshold level at which effects begin to occur.
Complex formation in the waste stream involves the forming of a
chemical bond between a metal ion and a complexing agent, e.g.,
organic compounds. This complex formation affects the solubilities
and reactions of the materials involved. For example, the formation
of water soluble metal-organic complexes with heavy metals may
increase the concentrations of these constituents in leachate to
levels far in excess of their normal solubilities, while the forma-
tion of water insoluble complexes may decrease the concentrations of
these constituents in leachate. Chemical reactions in the waste
stream involve two or more materials combining to produce a poten-
tially hazardous material which is not originally present in the
waste or combining to neutralize or eliminate potentially hazardous
materials which are present.
The net effect of all such interactions can be to make waste
streams hazardous even if they do not contain any individually hazar-
dous materials and to render other waste streams nonhazardous even if
they contain individually hazardous materials.
5-9
-------
In addition to such interactions, the physical form of both the
waste stream and its constituents can also influence the hazardous
nature of the waste stream. For example, beryllium dust is toxic at
relatively low levels when inhaled; however, beryllium in water poses
little ingestive threat at equivalent concentrations (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1976a).
With regard to identifying hazardous wastes, a number of pre-
vious studies (Booz-Allen, Applied Research, Inc., 1973; Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1973; Ottinger et al., 1973; Arthur
D. Little, Inc., 1973) have attempted to delineate the specific char-
acteristics that make wastes hazardous, to list waste stream consti-
tuents whose forms and quantities could make waste streams hazardous,
and to identify sources of these potentially hazardous waste stream
constituents. A series of more recent studies (Arthur D. Little,
1976b; Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1976; Calspan Corporation,
1977; Jacobs Engineering Company, 1976; SCS Engineers, Inc., 1976;
Swain et al., 1977; TRW, Inc., 1976; Versar, Inc., 1975, 1975a, 1976;
Wapora, Inc., 1975, 1977, 1977a) have attempted to identify poten-
tially hazardous waste streams generated within selected industries,
using a few preselected hazardous constituents as the basis for the
determination.*
All of the above studies have indicated numerous problems in
identifying and characterizing hazardous waste streams and hazardous
waste constituents due to considerable data limitations, both with
*This group constitutes a series of EPA contractor studies on indus-
trial hazardous waste practices in selected manufacturing indus-
tries. For ease in referencing these studies, the entire set will
henceforth be called the Industry Studies (1975-1978).
5-10
-------
regard to determining what materials are actually hazardous and the
levels at which they are hazardous and with regard to determining
what materials are present in different waste streams and the concen-
trations and interactions of the various constituents. Furthermore,
the different studies have used different definitions of hazardous
wastes and hazardous material. Therefore, the types and sources of
wastes identified as hazardous have varied among the studies and, in
some cases, may be discrepant with the regulatory definition under
Subtitle C. Detailed descriptions of the waste streams considered in
the Industry Studies are presented in Appendix C. Table 5-2 lists
some of the general types of hazardous waste constituents most fre-
quently identified in the various studies.
5.1.2 Sources of Hazardous Waste. Waste is generated as a
byproduct of nearly every activity of man. Sources of hazardous
waste generation can be broadly grouped into four categories:
• Manufacturing processes;
• End use activities;
• Finished products becoming unusable, unneeded, or unwanted;
• Spills of hazardous, nonwaste materials during transport.
5.1.2.1 Manufacturing Processes. Manufacturing processes
generate a wide variety of potentially hazardous waste streams and
waste stream constituents. The types of hazardous wastes generated
by different manufacturing processes are characterized based upon the
findings of the Industry Studies (1975-1978). These studies identi-
fied potentially hazardous waste streams within each of the following
thirteen manufacturing industries:
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-2
EXAMPLES OF GENERAL TYPES OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
WASTE CONSTITUENTS
Acids
Caustics
Cyanides
Dyes
Explosives
Fluorides
Heavy metals and their compounds
Organics
- Oils
- Phenols
- Polynuclear aromatics
- Other organic compounds and organic residues
Paints
Pesticides
Radioactive materials
Solvents
5-12
-------
Textiles;
Inorganic chemicals;
Pharmaceuticals;
Paint and allied products and contract solvent reclaiming;
Organic chemicals, pesticides, and explosives;
Petroleum refining;
Petroleum re-refining;
Leather tanning and finishing;
Metal smelting and refining;
Electroplating and metal finishing;
Special machinery manufacturing;
Electronic components manufacturing;
Storage and primary batteries.
Table 5-3 contains examples of the potentially hazardous waste
streams and waste stream constituents generated by each of these
manufacturing industries. Potentially hazardous wastes from manu-
facturing processes very seldom consist of pure materials; the wastes
usually consist of a mixture of materials from one part of the
process which are then combined with other mixtures of wastes from
other parts of the process. A detailed description of each poten-
tially hazardous waste stream from each industry and an enumeration
of specific, potentially hazardous constituents within the waste
stream appears in Appendix C.
It should be noted that no one individual facility within any of
these industries generates all of the potentially hazardous waste
streams and waste stream constituents shown in Table 5-3. It is also
not meant to be implied that all waste streams and waste stream con-
stituents identified as potentially hazardous in Table 5-3 would
necessarily be considered hazardous under the Subtitle C regulations.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-3
EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS FROM
SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Manufacturing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Textiles*
(SIC 22)
Wastewater treatment
sludge
Discarded dye and
chemical containers
Solvents and still
bottoms
Heavy metals, dyestuffs,
chlorinated organic s,
other residual organics
Residual dyestuffs and
residual chemicals
Solvents and organic
residues
Inorganic
chemicalst
(SIC 281)
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Heavy metals, fluorides,
cyanides, pigments
Solids
Heavy metals, cyanides,
radioactive materials
Pharma-
ceuticals-f
(SIC 2831,
2833, 2834)
Waste solvents
Still bottoms, t«r»,
and muds
Solids
Organic solvents
Organic residue*
Heavy metals, contaminated
high inert content wastes,
active ingredients
Paint and
allied
products §
(SIC 285)
Raw material containers
Water treatment sludges
Solids
Waste products
Wash solvents and still
bottoms
Heavy metals, organic and
inorganic pigments, sol-
vents, additives
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals, solvents,
pigments, additives,
fungicides
Organic and inorganic
solvents, pigments,
organic residues
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Continued)
Manu facturing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Leather
tanning and
finishing§§
(SIC 3111)
Fleshings
Trimmings and shavings
Buffing dust
Finishing residues
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals, organic
solvents
Heavy metals
Metal smelting
and
refining ***
(SIC 33)
Sludges
Slurries
Dusts
Slag
Waste ammonia liquor
Waste pickle liquor
Heavy metals, fluorides,
cyanides, oils, phenols,
grease
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Phenols, cyanides
Heavy metals, acids
Electroplating
and metal
finishingttt
(SIC 3471)
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Process preparation
wastes
Miscellaneous process
solids
Degreaser sludges
Heavy metals, cyanides,
acid and alkaline cleaners,
solvents, oils, grease
Heavy metals, lubricants,
buffing compounds
Process chemicals, heavy
metals, acid and alkaline
cleaners, plating salts,
organic additives, sol-
vents, cyanides, paints
Heavy metals, oils, grease,
buffing compounds, organic
solvents, paint pigments,
abrasives
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Continued)
Manufacturing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Special
machinery
manufacturing'' ' '
(SIC 355 and
347)
Heat treating wastes
Electroplating wastes
Machining wastes
Coating wastes
Heavy metals, cyanides,
oils, additives, organic
solvents, acid and alka-
line cleaners, organic
residues
Heavy metals, cyanides
organic solvents, acid
and alkaline cleaners,
oils, grease, scale
Oils, organic solvents,
heavy metals
Paints, solvents, acid
and alkaline cleaners
Electronic
components
(SIC 367)
§§§
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Solvents and still
bottoms
Waste oils
Paint wastes
Metal scrap
Heavy metals, fluorides
Organic solvents, organic
residues, heavy metals,
oils,
Oils, heavy metals,
additives
Heavy metals, oils, sol-
vents, fungicides, resins
Heavy metals
Storage and pri- Wastewater treatment
mary sludges
batteries****
,„__ „,„, . Rejected and scrap
(SIC 3691 and
3692) battenes
Heavy metals, electro-
lytic solutions
Heavy metals
5-16
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Continued)
Manufacturing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Organic
chemicals
pesticides and
explosives **
(SIC 286, 2879
2892)
Petroleum
refining tt
(SIC 2911)
Liquid heavy ends
still bottoms
sludges
waste products
solids
semi-solids
See Appendix D.3.5 for
specifics
Tank bottoms
Process sludges
Filter clays
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Fines
Oil, phenols, polynuclear
aromatics, other organics
heavy metals
Oil, phenols, ammonia
salts, polynuclear
aromatics, other organics,
heavy metals, acids
Oil, phenols, polynuclear
aromatics, ammonia salts,
other organics, heavy
metals
Phenols, ammonia salts,
heavy metals, runoff
constituents
Phenols, ammonia salts,
heavy metals
Petroleum
re-refining++
(SIC 2992)
Sludges
Spent clay
Process water
Acids, caustics, heavy
metals, ammonia, cresol,
oils, polymers, other
polar compounds,
asphaltenes
Oil, heavy metals,
polymers, other polar
compounds
Heavy metals, oils,
polymers, other polar
compounds, phenols,
sulfur compounds
5-17
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Concluded )
*
Versar, Inc., 1976
fVersar, Inc., 1975
Arthur D. Little Inc., 1976
§
Wapora, Inc., 1975
j^
TRW, Inc. , 1976
Jacobs Engineering Company, 1976
#
Swain et.al. , 1977
§ §
SCS Engineers Inc., 1976
***
Calspan Corporation, 1977
ttt
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1976
Wapora, Inc., 1977
§§§
Wapora, Inc., 1977a
****
Versar, Inc., 1975a
5-18
-------
5.1.2.2 End Use Activities. Activities which involve the end
use of finished products generate four basic categories of poten-
tially hazardous wastes:
• Product containers with residual product;
• Spills of hazardous products;
• Used products containing hazardous materials;
• Residuals from product consumption.
End use generators of potentially hazardous wastes include, but
are not limited to, households*, governmental agencies, utilities,
agricultural activities, service industries, construction activities,
wholesale and retail trade, and transportation activities. For the
most part, the potentially hazardous waste streams from these end use
activities tend to be more homogeneous than those from manufacturing
activities.
Different end use activities use or consume practically every
product manufactured, produced, or imported into the U.S. As
previously discussed, many of these products are by themselves poten-
tially hazardous. Such products usually are packaged or container-
ized for delivery to the point of end use. Following this end use,
the product container or packaging is normally discarded as a waste.
These waste containers or packaging materials usually contain resid-
ual amounts of the potentially hazardous product and, thus, may
represent a potentially hazardous waste. These residues may include
pesticides, paints, cleaning fluids, and oils. Packaging materials
*Households are specifically exempted from regulation under Sub-
title C.
5-19
-------
containing pesticide residuals, for example, may be found in wastes
from households, agriculture, garden stores, golf courses, and
organizations engaged in right-of-way maintenance such as govern-
mental agencies, utilities, and railroads.
End use activities may also result in spills of potentially
hazardous products. Following cleanup, the spilled product is
usually discarded as a waste. Both this waste product and the
materials which are used to clean up the spill represent potentially
hazardous wastes.
A third category of potentially hazardous wastes from end use
activities are used, broken, or nonfunctioning products that are
hazardous themselves or that contain potentially hazardous materials.
These products may include waste automotive oils and solvents; used
dry cleaning fluids; spent batteries and fluorescent tubes containing
mercury; nonfunctioning capacitors and transformers containing poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCB's); nonfunctioning smoke detectors con-
taining radioactive materials; and waste construction materials
containing asbestos.
End use activities which consume part or all of a product may
produce residual materials which are potentially hazardous. For
example, coal-fired power plants generate coal ash which may be a
potentially hazardous waste, depending upon its constituents.
5.1.2.3 Unusable, Unneeded, or Unwanted Products. Unusable,
unneeded, or unwanted finished products that are potentially hazar-
dous represent a further source of potentially hazardous wastes.
5-20
-------
Finished products may become unusable, unneeded, or unwanted for a
variety of reasons, including governmental regulations prohibiting
the use of specific products; product recalls due to contamination,
decomposition, deficiencies, or other problems; and products becoming
obsolete or overage. For example, a number of pesticides, such as
DDT, chlordane, and mirex have had their registrations canceled for
some or all of their uses, and the existing supplies have become
potentially hazardous wastes. Recalled products that have become
potentially hazardous wastes include contaminated or decomposed lots
of Pharmaceuticals. Obsolete military munitions, such as initiating
agents, propellants, pyrotechnics, explosives, and riot control
agents, represent a third type of finished product that has become a
potentially hazardous waste.
5.1.2.4 Transportation-Related Spills of Hazardous Materials
That Are Not Wastes. Spills of hazardous materials that are not
wastes occasionally occur during transport and are a further source
of hazardous waste. When many hazardous materials particularly
liquids, volatile materials, and fine materials, are spilled, this
material is likely to become a waste and would be subject to regula-
tion under Subtitle C if it exhibits the properties in Appendix B,
Subpart A. Spills can also occur during the manufacture or end use
of any product or material; however, such spills are included in
existing waste streams from such activities and do not represent an
additional source of potentially hazardous wastes.
5-21
-------
Major sources of transportation-related spills of hazardous
materials include rail, truck, barge, and pipeline transport and
transfer operations. Table 5-4 shows examples of potentially
hazardous materials that have been spilled in recent years.
5.2 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Transport
The basic role of the hazardous waste transport industry is to
move hazardous wastes from the point of generation to off-site
facilities for purposes of storage, treatment, and/or disposal.
Hazardous waste transport includes intrastate, interstate, and inter-
national movements by highway: rail, air, pipelines, and waterway.
Three hazardous waste transport industry segments have been
identified in a study by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1978a). These seg-
ments are as follows: generator/transporter, hazardous waste manage-
ment facility/transporter, and for-hire transporter.
• Generator/transporters are hazardous waste generators who
function as private carriers by self-hauling hazardous wastes
off-site to hazardous waste management facilities (transport
by this segment is invariably by truck).
• Hazardous waste management facility/transporters are opera-
tors of hazardous waste management facilities who also
function as contract or private carriers in providing trans-
portation from generators to storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities (transport by this segment is invariably by
truck).
• For-hire transporters are common and contract carriers who
transport hazardous wastes (and other property as well) but
who do not generate, treat, store, or dispose of such wastes
(transport by this segment is primarily by truck, but
includes rail, waterway, and air).
5-22
-------
TABLE 5-4
EXAMPLES OF SPILLS OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS*
Acids
arsenic
chlorosulfuric
hydrochloric
muriatic
nitric
phosphoric
su If uric
Acrylonitrile
Ammonia solution
Ammonium nitrate
Anhydrous ammonia
Batteries and electrolytic fluid
Benzene
Butyl cellusolve
Caustic soda
Chlorine
Coolants
Copper sulfate
Creosote
Cyanide
Cyclohexylamine
Denatured ethyl alcohol
Dyes
Ethylene diamine
Ethylene glycol
Ferric chloride
Ferrous sulfate
Formaldehyde
Gasoline
Hexane
Ink
Kepone
Latex
Lead oxide
Linseed oil
Methyl alcohol
Methyl bromide
Naptha
Nitrofur izone
Oils
crude
cutting
fuel
hydraulic
lube
turbine
Paint
Paint thinner
PCB
P enta ch or o phe no 1
Perchloroethylene
Pesticides
Phenol
Phosdrin
Phosphorus
Potassium hydroxide
Resins
Seed corn (containing captan)
Sodium hydroxide
Solvents
Toluene-
Tr imethylam ine
* U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation
Bureau, 1976; personal communication, J.E. Aho, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, 1977; State of Ohio, 1974; personal
communication, J. Dobbins, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
1977; Illinois EPA Emergency Action Center, 1977.
5-23
-------
According to the Arthur D. Little, Inc. study, neither the
number of firms within each industry segment nor in the industry as a
whole is known, nor is the rate of firms entering or leaving the
industry. Furthermore, the quantity of hazardous wastes transported
annually by the industry is unknown, as is the distribution of waste
transport by mode or by industry segment.
To illustrate the magnitude of hazardous wastes being trans-
ported off-site, based upon the waste quantities in Chapter 6 and the
average off-site disposal factor in Table 5-10, there is on the order
of 8 to 10 million metric tons of potentially hazardous manufacturing
wastes currently being transported off-site on an annual basis.
Table 5-5 presents a qualitative estimate of the relative amounts of
hazardous wastes moved by mode and by industry segment. The vast ma-
jority of such wastes are transported by highway with a small amount
being transported by rail and even smaller amounts being moved by
waterway. Appendix E contains a detailed description of the three
industry segments, based on the Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1978a) study.
The following reiterates pertinent portions of that description.
5.2.1 Generator/Transporter. According to Arthur D. Little,
Inc., reliable data are extremely limited with regard to generator/
transporters; most of the information available on generator/trans-
porters is contained in the Industry Studies (1975-1978) prepared for
EPA. About 3.5 percent of the plants inventoried in the Industry
5-24
-------
TABLE 5-5
RELATIVE AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TRANSPORTED
OFF-SITE BY MODE AND INDUSTRY SEGMENT*
Mode
Air
Rail
Highway
Waterway
Pipeline
Generator/
transporter
None
None
Very small
None
Negligible
Hazardous waste
management facility/
transporter
None
None
Large
None
Negligible
For-hire
transporter
Negligible
Small
Large
Very small
None
Modified from Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a.
5-25
-------
Studies transported their own wastes off-site, and less than three
percent of the total quantity of waste hauled off-site was trans-
ported by the generator.
The tendency to self-haul is industry dependent. For example,
waste oil re-refiners self-haul over 50 percent of their wastes going
off-site while the melting, smelting, and refining industry does
little or no self-hauling. The limited data available suggest that
self-hauling firms tend to be the smaller firms in an industry and
tend to be located in rural areas where contractor services are not
available. Wastes transported by self-hauling firms are usually
transported a distance of under 10 miles, and often are moved no more
than 1 to 2 miles.
Wastes that are hauled by generators are typically transported
as generated, without treatment, and are usually taken either to a
site owned and operated by the company and dedicated specifically to
its wastes, or to a general-purpose municipal or private landfill
that also handles municipal wastes.
Generators, at least the major generators, do keep records of
how much waste is shipped, who carried it, and where it went. Such
records are usually kept for a period of at least seven years. Self-
haulers transporting to a company-owned site typically prepare a sum-
mary report monthly on the quantity of material hauled (Arthur D.
Little, Inc., 1978a).
5-26
-------
5.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management Facility/Transporters. In
1977, there were approximately 110 hazardous waste management facili-
ties in the U.S. (Straus, 1977). An estimated 50 to 67 percent of
these facilities also transport hazardous wastes (Arthur D. Little,
Inc., 1978a; Straus, 1977).
Transportation activities of the hazardous waste management/
transporters tend to be interstate; 64 percent of the facilities con-
tacted in the Arthur D. Little, Inc. study have interstate transpor-
tation capabilities. Further, 56 percent have locations in more than
one state or receive waste materials from out of state. Those haz-
ardous waste management facility/transporters who operate intrastate
tend to serve a relatively small geographical area or section of the
state. Those who operate interstate generally operate within one re-
gion rather than within several regions. The portion of wastes han-
dled by each type of operation is not known, nor is the portion of
the interstate operator's business that is done outside his home
state.
Nearly all the facilities contacted keep records which contain
limited information about the quantity, source, waste type, and
delivery point for each transport/disposal job. These records are in
various forms and include: billing records (invoices), shipping
documents or bills of lading, purchase orders or job tickets, and
self initiated or state required manifests. Usually these documents
are filed together and are retained for several years, based in part
5-27
-------
upon requirements by the Interstate Commerce Commission (3-year
retention), Internal Revenue (7-year retention), state tax depart-
ment, and other state agencies (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a).
5.2.3 For-Hire Transporters. For-hire transporters include
common and contract carriers that transport hazardous waste by high-
way, rail, air, pipeline, and waterway.
5.2.3.1 Common and Contract Highway Carriers. According to
Arthur D. Little, Inc., very few data are available with regard to
common and contract highway carriers involved in the transport of
hazardous waste, and as a result, it was not possible even to develop
a representative sample for study purposes. Thus, the information
reported by the study should only be considered as preliminary.
About one-half of the for-hire transporters contacted do not
transport any hazardous waste across state borders. Others indicated
that anywhere from 80 to 100 percent of their hazardous waste trans-
port is interstate. Within those states which required permits for
transporting hazardous wastes, the transporters usually indicated
statewide service. Smaller transporters tended to see states requir-
ing permits as the practical limit of their service radius. Exclud-
ing the national common carriers who provided no estimates, transpor-
ters indicated trip distances ranging from 25 to 150 miles, with most
companies responding at 50 miles. One common carrier indicated that
500 to 600 mile trips were normal. However, the above figure may not
be representative of the entire industry. Quantities of hazardous
5-28
-------
waste being transported interstate or intrastate could not be identi-
fied, nor, in most cases, could the total quantity of hazardous waste
being transported by individual companies.
Very sketchy information is available on the nature of the
wastes transported. Most of the firms contacted handled primarily
liquid wastes. General transporters who handled the following types
of waste were identified: liquids/solids/sludges, waste oils, sol-
vents for recycle, general hazardous trash, paint wastes, hydrocar-
bons, chlorine, acids, cyanide wastes, caustic wastes, hydrogen
fluoride, cleaning solutions, and radioactive wastes. Though some
general transporters specialize in a particular waste, such as waste
oil or spent acid, most handle many kinds of hazardous wastes.
All of the firms contacted keep records. The most common forms
for recordkeeping are the bill of lading and the weigh ticket. The
transporters indicated that records were retained for at least five
or seven years as a result of state, Internal Revenue Service, and/or
Interstate Commerce Commission regulations in addition to general
management practice.
5.2.3.2 Rail Transport. As common carriers under the ICC, the
railroads must accept all cargo tended to them that is properly pack-
aged and labeled. One of the most important aspects of the practices
and regulations in the transport of hazardous waste by railroad is
that the railroad does not directly handle the hazardous material as
such, but only transports rail cars ready for delivery. The shipper
must provide to the railroad the sealed or closed containers of the
5-29
-------
hazardous material or waste and certify in the bill of lading that
the shipment conforms to regulations.
A small amount of hazardous wastes is transported by rail as
compared to highway transport. Most rail shipments are by tank car.
Only a limited number of disposal sites accept hazardous waste by
rail, and only a small portion of the total hazardous waste trans-
ported by rail is believed to go to such disposal sites; most of it
is believed to go to reclamation and recovery facilities. For exam-
ple, nearly all spent sulfuric acid and petroleum refinery treating
wastes transported by rail go to recyclers who have rail sidings on
their own property.
The relevant documents for the transport of hazardous waste con-
sist of the bill of lading and the waybill. The bill of lading is
prepared by the shipper, the waybill by the railroad. For hazardous
materials, a copy of the certified bill of lading must be kept on
file by the original carrier for at least three years, in accordance
with ICC regulations (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a).
5.2.3.3 Air Transport. The amount of hazardous waste trans-
ported by air is very small, possibly on the order of several tons
per year. Small amounts of waste acids, flammable metal shavings,
radioactive materials, and laboratory samples of hazardous wastes
have been identified as being shipped by air.
The existing DOT and FAA regulations require that copies of
shipping papers, prepared by the shipper, must be carried onboard.
5-30
-------
The originating carrier must then maintain a copy of the shipping
•
paper for 90 days. In addition to shipping papers, the air carrier
is to prepare a manifest for the total cargo of the shipment.
5.2.3.4 Pipeline Transport. Off-site pipeline transport of
hazardous waste is extremely limited. On a national level, there are
no major pipelines for transporting wastes; the commercial pipeline
industry is almost entirely devoted to the transport of fuel
products. Waste transport by pipeline is generally limited to a few
concentrated industrial areas in the U.S. A number of isolated cases
of hazardous waste transport by private, not for-hire, pipeline were
identified by the Arthur D. Little, Inc. studyi
5.2.3.5 Waterway Transport. The quantity of hazardous waste
transported by barge on inland waters appears to be small relative to
highway transport. No vessels other than barges are known to carry
hazardous wastes. Shipments of hazardous waste move primarily on the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Mississippi River System in tank barges
with a capacity range of 1,200 to 1,500 tons. A typical one-way trip
may be on the order of 1,000 or more miles. Most often, the waste
transported includes spent acids, spent caustics, and waste glycol.
The wastes are generally in liquid bulk form with a water content up
to 90 percent and normally are transported to resource recovery
facilities.
5-31
-------
The bill of lading, weigh ticket, and shipping manifest papers
are the commonly used forms for recordkeeping. The companies contac-
ted by Arthur D. Little, Inc. stated that records are retained in
current files for 5 to 7 years because of legal requirements as well
as administrative procedures. In addition to the above forms, ship-
ping papers and a dangerous cargo manifest must accompany shipments
of hazardous packaged cargo and solids in bulk.
5.3 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Storage, Treatment, and
Disposal
Hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal currently oc-
curs both on and off the site of generation. When transported off-
site as described in Section 5.2, the hazardous waste goes to such
locations as dumps, hazardous waste management facilities, resource
recovery facilities, and municipal and private landfills and incin-
erators. This section presents a summary of typical hazardous waste
management practices; Appendix D provides a more detailed discussion.
5.3.1 Storage. Hazardous wastes are often stored before treat-
ment or disposal, both on-site by the generator and off-site by
treatment and disposal facilities. In the case of off-site treatment
or disposal, the wastes are usually also stored by the generator un-
til economically transportable loads are accumulated. Hazardous
wastes are typically stored in ponds, lagoons, basins, drums, tanks,
piles on the ground, tank trucks, and dumpsters (see Appendices D and
J). Table 5-6 shows examples of storage practices in selected indus-
tries.
5-32
-------
TABLE 5-6
EXAMPLES OF STORAGE PRACTICES IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES*
Industry
Type of waste
Storage mode
Storage time
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals
Paints and
coatings
Rinsed and crushed 5-gallon
metal insecticide containers
Radiocative material
Emulsion sludge from tank
washings - 18% solids,
82% water
Bin
Packed in drums
with vermiculite
Holding tank
3 months
3-4 months
1-2 days
Electroplating and
metal finishing
Waste oil re-
refining
Waste oil re-
refining
Plating sludges
Spent liquid PCB's
Tarry sludge
Oil soaked in earth
(filter medium)
Holding tank
55-gallon drums
Holding tank
Contractor sup-
plied containers
4 hours
5-10 days
3-7 days
5 days
*Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a.
-------
Engineered storage is sometimes used when there is no safe
method of treating or disposing a particular hazardous waste. Under
such circumstances the waste is containerized and buried or otherwise
stored until technologies are developed for treating or disposing it.
Wastes that have been subject to engineered storage in recent years
are discussed in Appendix D.
5.3.2 Treatment. The treatment of hazardous wastes is gen-
erally directed toward separating the hazardous components from the
non-hazardous components of the hazardous waste stream, concentrating
the hazardous wastes, rendering the wastes less hazardous, reducing
the volume of wastes requiring ultimate disposal, and/or recovering
materials or energy from the waste. There are four basic types of
methods typically used for the treatment of hazardous wastes: physi-
cal treatment, chemical treatment, biological treatment, and thermal
treatment.
Physical treatment consists of non-chemical means to remove sol-
uble and suspended constituents from aqueous waste streams and to
concentrate various constituents of the waste stream. Chemical
treatment involves alteration of the molecular structure of waste
constituents so as to render the wastes less hazardous or to
separate specific constituents of the waste stream. Biological
treatment involves the use of microorganisms to remove or degrade
organic materials present in wastewater streams by adsorption and
direct metabolism. Thermal treatment employs heat to destroy
5-34
-------
hazardous wastes, to render the waste less hazardous, and to recover
materials and energy from the waste. Appendix D describes typical
processes used for each of the four treatment methods and the types
of wastes amenable to treatment by each method.
Treatment of hazardous wastes is at times limited to the appli-
cation of just one of the methods discussed above. However, in many
instances, especially in the case of wastewater treatment or re-
source recovery, several of the methods are used in the course of
treating hazardous wastes.
The treatment of hazardous wastes using the above methods does
not typically constitute the ultimate disposal 'of the waste. Treat-
ment generally produces a residual (e.g., sludge, ash, still bottom,
concentrated waste) which may be hazardous and which is typically
disposed using the methods discussed in Section 5.3.3. For example,
many of the various physical, chemical, and biological treatment
methods are used as part of primary, secondary, or tertiary waste-
water treatment and produce a sludge which is potentially hazardous
(see Table 5-3) and which requires disposal.
Data are not available to estimate the portion of hazardous
wastes that are annually treated prior to disposal, nor to estimate
the portion treated using each of the four basic types of treatment
methods.
5.3.3 Disposal. Disposal of hazardous waste involves the dis-
charge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of
any of the waste into or on any land or water so that such waste or
5-35
-------
any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into
the air or discharged into any waters, including groundwaters. Meth-
ods typically used for ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes include:
open dumping, landfilling, landfarming, lagooning (surface impound-
ment), incineration, deep-well injection, discharge to municipal
sewer systems, surface discharge to rivers and streams, ocean dump-
ing, road application, and detonation. In addition, engineered
storage is used in some instances. Appendix D describes each of
these disposal methods and the types of wastes amenable to disposal
by each method.
Data are not available to estimate the portion of all hazardous
wastes disposed annually by each method. However, Table 5-7 provides
an estimate of the portion of hazardous wastes from 14 manufacturing
industries disposed annually by each method during the period from
1973 to 1975. The table also provides an estimate of the portion of
wastes disposed by each method that were disposed in environmentally
adequate and inadequate manners. Less than 10 percent of these
manufacturing hazardous wastes are estimated to have been treated/
disposed in an environmentally adequate manner.
5.3.4 Typical Management Practices for Hazardous Industrial
Waste. Typical hazardous waste management practices are charac-
terized for thirteen manufacturing industries in Appendix D. The
manufacturing industries discussed are as follows: electronic
components manufacturing; electroplating and metal finishing;
5-36
-------
TABLE 5-7
ESTIMATED PORTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM FOURTEEN
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES DISPOSED BY METHOD, 1973-1975
Ln
I
Disposal method
Surface impoundment
Dump 1
Landfill )
Incineration
Deep-well injection
Land spread ing
Road application
Sewer
Othert
Weighted average
Percent disposed
by method^
48 §
33
151
2
0.3
< 0.1
< 0.1
2
-
Percent
environmentally
adequate
< 0.1
7
37
-
-
-
-
N/Ali
10
Percent
environmentally
inadequate
> 99.9
93
63
100
100
100
100
N/AU
90
*0ffice of Solid Waste, unpublished data.
tPrimarily resource recovery
±Due to rounding, total exceeds 100%.
§An unknown portion of the wastes handled by this method were ultimately disposed by other
methods, primarily landfilling and dumping.
IINot available.
-------
inorganic chemicals; leather tanning and finishing; metal smelting
and refining; organic chemicals, pesticides, and explosives; paint
and allied products and contract solvent reclaiming; petroleum
refining; petroleum re-refining; pharmaceuticals; special machinery
manufacturing; storage and primary batteries; and textiles.
Tables 5-8 and 5-9 indicate the estimated portion of potentially
hazardous wastes treated/disposed by various methods in four manufac-
turing industries for which data are available. Table 5-8 shows
estimated on-site treatment/disposal. Table 5-9 shows estimated off-
site treatment/disposal. Some of the methods listed, e.g., inciner-
ation and recovery^ may generate hazardous residuals requiring
further disposal. Data are not available as to the disposal of such
residuals. It should be noted that the data in Tables 5-8 and 5—9
are based upon limited surveys of the industries and, according to
the various authors, may not be entirely typical of the industry as a
whole.
For the thirteen manufacturing industries, treatment of poten-
tially hazardous wastes is, for the most part, limited to dewatering
and some neutralization of hazardous sludges from wastewater treat-
ment, segregation of some waste streams or waste stream components,
and incineration of specific wastes or waste streams. Where recla-
mation and recovery is practiced, it is typically Limited to on-site
recovery of solvents, metals, oil, products, plating solutions, and
energy and to off-site recovery of solvents, metals, and oil.
5-38
-------
TABLE 5-8
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
ON-SITE BY VARIOUS METHODS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES - 1973*
Ln
LO
Treatment/disposal method
(percentage of total generated)
Industry
Organic chemicalst,§
Pharmaceuticals^, 11
Petroleum refining^,**
Petroleum re-ref iningt ,tt
Biological
treatment /lagoon
< 1
2
18
-
Deep-well Incineration Landfarm
2 70 #
37
1-8
-
Landfill
15
-
17
12
Recovery Application
8
-
-
& n
* 1975 data used for petroleum re-refining industry.
t Based upon dry weight of hazardous waste stream.
+ Based upon wet weight of hazardous waste stream.
S TRW, Inc., 1976.
It Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976h.
**Jacobs Engineering Company, 1976.
ttSwain et.al., 1977.
i+Small amount, data not available.
-------
TABLE 5-9
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
OFF-SITE BY VARIOUS METHODS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES - 1973*
•t*
o
Treatment/disposal method
(percentage of total generated)
Incineration Lagoon Landfill Recovery Road application
Organic chemical 2 - 4 -
chemicalt.§
Pharmaceuticals^,!!
Petroleum
refining^,**
Petroleum
re-refiningt,tt
51
21
9
34
70
6**
* 1975 data used for petroleum re-refining industry!
t Based upon dry weight of hazardous waste stream.
4= Based upon weight of hazardous waste stream
§ TRW, Inc., 1976.
II Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976b. "
**Jacobs Engineering Company, 1976
ttSwain et.al., 1977.
^Includes small amount treated/disposed on-site.
-------
Table 5-10 presents the estimated portion of hazardous wastes
treated/disposed on-site and off-site and the portion going to re-
clamation for each of the thirteen manufacturing industries. A
weighted average of about 82 percent of the hazardous wastes are
treated/disposed on-site and about 15 percent is transported off-site
for treatment/disposal. It should be noted that these figures for
on-site and off-site treatment/disposal must be considered slight
overestimates since they include a very small amount of hazardous
wastes that are recovered on-site or off-site, but for which separate
data are not available. It is estimated that such wastes comprise
less than two percent of the total hazardous wastes. The weighted
average of wastes for which resource recovery is practiced is thus
estimated to be three to five percent.
Three levels of treatment/disposal were identified for the thir-
teen manufacturing industries by the Industry Studies (1975-1978).
These levels are as follows:
• Level I - the level of treatment/disposal used commonly by
the industry for a particular waste;
• Level II - the best technology employed commercially by the
industry for a particular waste;
• Level III - the technology necessary for protection of
health and the environment.
It was possible (though unusual) for Level I to be the same as Level
II for a given waste. Levels II and III were frequently reported as
being the same (Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1978).
5-41
-------
TABLE 5-10
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
OR RECOVERED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE*
Industry
Electronic components
manuf acturing§
Electroplating and
metal finish ing §
Inorganic chemicalt
Leather tanning and
finishing^:
Metal smelting and
refining^
Organic chemical st
Paint and allied
products^
Petroleum refineryt
Petroleum re-refinery§
Pharmaceutical st
Special machinery
manufacturing §
Storage and primary
batteriest
Textiles^
Weighted average
Treated/
disposed
on-site
13
19
85-90
10
98
87
5
44
12
39
10
35
49
82
Treated/
disposed
off-site
66
81 11
10-15
90
2
5
90
56
76
60
90
65
51
15
Recycled/
reclaimed
21
*™
**
**
tt
8
5
*t
12
1
tt
tt
**
3§§
* Industry studies, 1975-1978.
t 1973 data.
$ 1974 data.
§ 1975 data.
f Includes 45% sent to sanitary sewer systems
**Data not available, small amount reclaimed included in off-site data.
ttData not available, small amount reclaimed included in on-site data.
rjrjData not available, small smount reclaimed included in off-site and
on-site data.
§§Small additional amount included in off-site and on-site data.
5-42
-------
Table 5-11 provides, for four manufacturing industries for
which data are available, estimates of the portion of hazardous
wastes generated by each—industry that was subject to Level I, II, or
III treatment/disposal during the year of assessment. Data are not
available to provide similar estimates for the other nine manufac-
turing industries. For the industries listed in Table 5-11, between
70 and 85 percent of the hazardous wastes were treated/disposed using
Level I technologies (i.e., one that is not the best technology com-
mercially available nor adequate for protection of health and
environment) and between zero and 5 percent were treated/disposed
using Level III technologies.
5.3.5 Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry. The hazard-
ous waste management service industry is engaged in the off-site
storage, treatment, disposal, and reprocessing/recovery of hazardous
wastes. The industry operates independently of hazardous waste gen-
erators; however, as a service to generators, over half the firms in
the industry transport hazardous wastes to their facilities from gen-
erators (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a).
In 1975 there were approximately 95 firms active in the indus-
try, operating about 110 hazardous waste management facilities. The
industry's facilities are concentrated in industrial areas, with
nearly 60 percent of both the facilities and the overall process
capacity located in EPA Regions II, V, and IX. Figure 5-1 shows
Process capacity consists of the throughput capability for hand-
ling hazardous wastes and includes storage, treatment, disposal,
and recovery capacity.
5-43
-------
TABLE 5-11
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
BY LEVEL I, II, OR III TECHNOLOGY FOR
SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Industry Level I Level II Level III
Leather tanning and 85 10 5
finishing*", 11
Paint and allied 70 25 5
prod'uctst,H
Petroleum re-refining^,** 78 22
Special machinery 70 30
manufacturing §,**
*SCS Engineers, Inc., 1976.
tWapora Inc., 1975.
:£Swain et.al., 1977.
§Wapora, Inc., 1977.
U1974 data.
**1975 data.
5-44
-------
U1
I
j NORTH DAKOTA
I
'SOUTH DAKOTA"
I MINNESOTA
\ !Xi^«^^~W
r^7 vrirM
i h7s<~—^ vs j V-Y r .2
! ! ^ fead^ >-- .asess^.
f..-. _ !
JNW MSOOO T±_.^ OKLAHOMA m
I [TEXAS ~ 9
I
'I
—j_:—-\y j
FIGURE 5-1
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Source: Straus, 1977.
-------
the geographic distributions of the facilities. Total employment
within the industry was approximately 2,000 persons in 1975 (Foster
D. Snell, Inc., 1976).
At the end of 1974, the process capacity for the industry as a
whole was nearly 7.3 million metric tons per year, with about 53 per-
cent of the overall process capacity being utilized on an annual
basis (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976). Since some hazardous wastes
require several process stages (e.g., treatment and disposal), the
total quantity of wastes that can be handled is somewhat less than
the overall process capacity. The Foster D. Snell, Inc. study es-
timated that about 5.3 million metric tons of the overall process
capacity might be considered environmentally adequate. The study
further estimated that the overall process capacity would expand to
8.2 million metric tons at the end of 1977, with about 6.2 million
metric tons being considered environmentally adequate."1" Table 5-12
shows, for selected processes, the daily capacity available in 1974
by EPA Region.
According to the Foster D. Snell, Inc. study, the low capacity
utilization is the result of poor regulations and/or poor enforce-
ment of regulations applicable to hazardous waste treatment/
disposal.
The Foster D. Snell, Inc. study considered incineration, secure
landfills, chemical treatment, biological treatment, and resource
recovery as environmentally adequate processes. Some unknown
portion of these processes, however, might not be considered
environmentally adequate under the Subtitle C regulations.
5-46
-------
TABLE 5-12
CAPACITY OF SELECTED HAZARDOUS WASTE .,
MANAGEMENT SERVICE INDUSTRY PROCESSES - 1974
Process capacity
(thousands of gallons per 24 hour day)
EPA
region
I
II
III
IV
i
$ V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Number of
facilities
6
18
9
7
27
10
8
1
19
5
110*
Chemical
treatment
46
71
265
20
1,530
70
250
t
57
28
2, 337*
Incineration
4
153
35
44
361
60
5
t
14
-
676*
Secure Deep well
landfill injection
4
239
15
46
230 100
135 795
66
t -t
639
325
1,714* 895*
Resource
recovery
9
57
35
315
230
50
tt
400
405
1.481*
*Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976.
tData are not available.
*Does not include EPA Region VIII.
-------
The hazardous waste management service industry generally
groups the wastes it handles into five categories: metals/metal
finishing; paints/solvents/coatings; organics; petroleum; and
inorganics. Table 5-13 lists, examples of the types of hazardous
wastes handled within each category and typical treatment/disposal
methods employed.
5.3.6 State Data on On-Site and Off-Site Disposal. Very few
states have at this time accumulated sufficient data to estimate the
*
portion of hazardous wastes generated within the state that are being
disposed on-site and off-site of the generation facility. Table 5-14
presents, for eight states and one EPA Region, recent estimates of
the portion of each state's hazardous industrial wastes that are
disposed on-site and off-site, the portion of the wastes whose
disposal whereabouts is unknown, and the portion of the wastes being
reclaimed. Table 5-14 also indicates the estimated portion of each
state's hazardous industrial wastes upon which the disposal and
recovery estimates are based. The fate of the remainder of the
hazardous industrial wastes in these states is not known.
Except for Texas and Illinois, the data in Table 5-14 were
collected as part of studies to assess existing hazardous waste
management practices in the state and to determine needed changes in
the state's regulatory approach to hazardous waste management. The
data for Texas and Illinois were reported to these states as required
under their hazardous waste regulations. Comparable data for dispo-
sal and recovery practices either prior to or after enactment
5-48
-------
TABLE 5-13
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES HANDLED AND TYPICAL
TREATMENT/DISPOSAL METHODS FOR THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
Market category
Typical
treatment/disposal
methods
Types of
hazardous
wastes handled
Metals/metal
finishing
Paints/solvents/
coatings
Neutralization
Chemical treatment
Sanitary landfill
Secure landfill
Deep well injection
Ocean disposal
Incineration
Chemical treatment
Sanitary landfill
Secure landfill
Acid solutions
Metals containing
sludges
Organics
Solvents
Organics
Petroleum
Inorganics
Incineration
Biological treatment
Chemical treatment
Sanitary landfill
Secure landfill
Incineration
Deep well injection
Chemical treatment
Ocean dumping
Secure landfill
Pesticides
Biologicals
Rubber
Plastics
Oily wastes
Aqueous
solutions of
salts, metals,etc.
Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976
5-49
-------
TABLE 5-14
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES
DISPOSED BY LOCATION OR RECLAIMED FOR SELECTED STATES
Ul
Ln
O
State
Flo r Ida*, §
niinoisir
Kansas**
Marylandtt,^
Massachusetts §§
MinnesotaHU
Region X***
Rhode Islandttt
Texasttt
Percent of
wastes Included
in estimate*
NA§§§
100
23
NA
100
9-16
NA
NA
100
Disposal location
On- site
85
50
39
12
-
65
63
1
36
Off -site
8
18
49
33
14
25
22
81
9
Othert
Discharges Deep-well
injection
7 §
21 - 10
5
51 #
65 10
3
_
- 14
20 - 31
Reclaimed
-
_
7
4
11
7
15
4
4
-------
TABLE 5-14 (Concluded)
* This is the estimated portion of the state's total, hazardous,
industrial wastes upon which the disposal and recovery percentages are
based
t Other includes disposal by methods which are not regulated under
Subtitle C. These include discharges to municipal sewer systems, surface
discharges under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
and deep-well injection.
:£ Carter et.al., 1977.
§ These data have been modified to eliminate a large volume of wastewater
containing a small amount of hazardous wastes that is discharge to
mun ic ipal s ewer s.
i 11 Personal communication, S. Miller, 1978.
H ** State of Kansas, 1977.
tt State of Maryland, 1977.
rjrj: These data have been modified to eliminate a large volume of wastewater
containing a small amount of hazardous wastes that is discharge to
municipal sewers and to streams.
§§ Fennelly et.al., 1976. If waste automotive oil is included, the
percentages are as follows: on-site - 0%, off-site - 8%, unknown - 68%,
discharged - 6%, reclaimed - 18%.
HH Battelle Pacific Northwest, 1977.
***Stiradley et.al., 1975. Region X includes Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington. .
tttRhode Island Department of Health, 1977.
££{:State of Texas, 1976.
§§§NA means not available.
-------
of the state's current hazardous waste legislation (or equivalent
legislation) are not available. Differences in the portion of wastes
disposed on-site and off-site in the various states are due primarily
to factors such as differences in types of industries and wastes gen-
erated by these industries, availability of allowable on-site and
off-site disposal locations, and specific state regulations and
enforcement policies.
5.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery
RCRA defines resource conservation as the reduction of the
amounts of solid waste that are generated, the reduction of overall
resource consumption, and the utilization of recovered resources.
Resource recovery is defined as the recovery of material or energy
from solid waste.
This section describes typical methods used for resource conser-
vation and recovery and the typical operations specializing in the
recovery of hazardous wastes. Estimates of the extent to which
hazardous wastes are presently being recovered or recycled are pre-
sented, along with examples of the potential for increasing the
recovery and recycling of hazardous wastes. Factors which have
tended to constrain the recovery and recycling of hazardous wastes
are summarized.
5.4.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Methods and Opera-
tions . There are three basic procedures for recovering materials and
energy from potentially hazardous wastes: separation, material
conversion, and energy conversion (Sittig, 1975).
5-52
-------
Separation involves the removal of specific waste constituents
using the physical and chemical treatment methods discussed in Appen-
dix D. Material conversion involves the transformation of waste con-
stituents from a form which is not acceptable for recovery or reuse
to one that is acceptable, using the chemical treatment methods dis-
cussed in Appendix D; the waste may not be in an acceptable form due
to such factors as its toxicity or its inability to yield to separa-
tion. Energy conversion involves the direct utilization of the waste
as an energy source either through combustion using the incineration
methods discussed in Appendix D or by using the waste to drive a
chemical process.
Operations that specialize in the recovery of hazardous wastes
can be categorized as follows: solvent reclaimers, mercury reproces-
sors, metal reprocessors, petroleum rerefineries, industrial waste
information clearinghouses, and industrial waste exchanges (Straus,
1977). Of these resource recovery operations, the industrial waste
clearinghouses and exchanges would likely have the most direct bear-
ing on increasing the recovery of hazardous wastes. These opera-
tions are described in Appendix G.
Table 5-15 presents the nationwide distribution of these types
of recovery operations. A total of 131 solvent reclaimers, eight
mercury reprocessors, seven metal reprocessors, 28 petroleum
re-refiners, eight industrial waste information clearinghouses, and
one industrial waste exchange have been identified. The states with
5-53
-------
TABLE 5-15
DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE RECOVERY OPERATIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES*
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
en
M
QJ
s
rH
U
0}
4-J
Q)
,3
&
i
4
11
1
1
1
2
3
14
5
7
4
2
» 2
2
9
4
1
10
6
1
0]
S
2
1
1
1
1
nj
AJ
0)
E
M 3
M O
en 01
O C!
O O
M C
Pi
1
1
1
4
0
M
§£
•H
^H QJ
0 M
M 1
01 ^l
&J
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
a
4J CO
CO 01
3 J5 3
nj rt so
•H B C
4J O h
2 Hi 3
3 Ci 0)
T3 °H rH
H
^
M
i
a
NA
NA
1 Waste
Exchanj
1
1
1
e
NA
., one firm ocean
dumps
1
ane firm ocean
dumps
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
5-54
-------
TABLE 5-15 (Concluded)
State
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
in
Q)
43
CD
O
4-1
g
O
CO
10
3
4
2
2
3
8
3
5
131
M
O
tn
to
0)
o
ex
Hi
d
u
01
1
1
_
ro
oJ
E
M
M P
M O
O V-i
VI 01
tn g
a T
o o
t-> C
o.
a;
Agent for ocean
8
7
to
QJ
C
r-l M
0 1
U 01
4-1 t->
QJ
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
QJ
iJ VJ
CO C M
Sod
•H O
1— 1 4-1 ,£
ra nj to
-H a c
•U O ^
vi n-i ro
d C Q)
-a -H --(
C! O
i—i
i
i
-going incineration ship
1
28
8
3
M
a
E
aj
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
*Straus, 1977.
5-55
-------
the greatest activity in this area are California, with 17 reclaimers
and one industrial waste clearinghouse, Illinois with 17 reclaimers
and one industrial waste exchange, New Jersey with 13 reclaimers, New
York with 13 reclaimers and one industrial waste clearinghouse, and
Texas with 12 reclaimers and one industrial waste clearinghouse
(Straus, 1977).
5.4.2 Resource Recovery and Recycling Estimates. This section
discusses the quantities of hazardous wastes currently being re-
covered and recycled and the potential for increasing the recovery
and recycling of hazardous wastes.
5.4.2.1 Quantities Recovered and Recycled. Extremely limited
data are available as to the extent to which resource recovery from
hazardous wastes currently occurs in the U.S. The available data
tend to be very industry and waste stream specific. As discussed
below, the available data indicate that only a very small portion of
the total hazardous waste stream is subject to any resource recovery,
probably less than 3 to 5 percent of all such wastes. This recovery
rate is similar to, but slightly less than, that for post-consumer
municipal wastes. In recent years between 8 and 10 percent of the
overall post-consumer municipal wastes have been recovered for re-
cycling, with waste paper accounting for over 85 percent, by weight,
*
of the material recovery (Office of Solid Waste, 1977b). Section
5.4.3 discusses factors that have tended to limit the recycling and
recovery of all waste materials.
5-56
-------
Table 5-16 presents examples of hazardous waste recovery and re-
cycling practices for the manufacturing industries analyzed in the
Industry Studies (1975-1978). Such practices are generally limited
to the recovery of solvents, oil, metals, and energy and to some
recycling of off-specification and rejected products back into the
production process (see Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of
recovery and recycling practices). For these industries, it is
estimated that on the order of 3 to 5 percent of the total hazardous
waste stream is annually subject to resource recovery (see Table
5-10).
Table 5-14 shows, for eight states and one EPA Region, the
percentage of the industrial hazardous wastes that are estimated to
have been reclaimed in recent years. These available data indicate
that four percent or less of the hazardous wastes are being reclaimed
in five of these states. Only in Massachusetts and EPA Region X are
more than 10 percent of the hazardous wastes being reclaimed.
The only specific hazardous waste components for which nation-
wide recovery data are available are waste oil and waste solvents.
Table 5-17 indicates sources of waste oil generation and uses of this
waste oil during 1972. Over 51 percent of the waste oil is estimated
to have been recycled, with about 44 percent used as a fuel and about
8 percent re-refined to lube oil.
Data are not available as to the total quantity of wastes sol-
vent generated annually; however, it is estimated that in 1974
5-57
-------
TABLE 5-16
EXAMPLES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING
PRACTICES IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES*
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practice+
Textiles (SIC 22)
Dye and chemical containers
Solvent and still bottoms
Recycled
Solvent recovery
01
I
Ul
00
Inorganic chemicals
(SIC 281)
Mercury contaminated wastes
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Chrome pigments production
Mercury recovery
Used inorganic chemicals
manufacture
Metal recovery
Pharmaceuticals
(SIC 2831, 2833,
and 2834)
Waste solvents
Heavy metals
Solvent recovery; energy
recovery; production of
low grade fuel
Zinc and chromium recovery
Paint and allied
products (SIC 285)
Discarded products and spills
Recycled in lower grade
products
Waste wash solvents
Solvent recovery
-------
TABLE 5-16 (continued)
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practicet
i
Ol
Organic chemicals, Heavy ends from mitrobenzene
pesticides, and production
explosives (SIC 286, Semisolid wastes from toluene
2879, and 2892) diisocynate production
Sludge from lead alkyls
purification
Red water
Energy recovery
Energy recovery
Lead recovery
Recycled to kraft pulp mills
Petroleum refining
(SIC 2911)
Crude tank bottoms
API separator sludge
Dissolved air flotation float
Slop oil emulsion solids
Spent lime
FCC catalyst fines
Spent catalyst
Oil recovery
Oil recovery
Oil recovery
Oil recovery
Recycled to spent acid
neutralization
Aluminum recovery
Metal recovery
-------
TABLE 5-16 (continued)
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practicet
Leather tanning and
finishing
(SIC 3111)
Trimming and shavings
Finishing residues
Used in fertilizer, animal
feed supplements, glue,
leather articles
Solvent recovery
i
c^
o
Metal smelting and
refining (SIC 33)
Primary copper dusts
Primary copper slurries
Primary lead sludge
Primary zinc sludge
Primary aluminum potliners
and pot skimmings
Iron and steel mill sludges
Iron and steel mill scales
Iron and steel pickle liquor
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
Cryolite recovery
Iron and tin recovery
Iron recovery
Acid regeneration
Electroplating and
metal finishing
(SIC 3471)
Degreaser sludges
Solvent recovery
-------
TABLE 5-16 (Concluded)
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practicet
Special machinery
manufacturing
(SIC 355 and 357)
Machinery wastes
Electroplating wastes
Heat treating wastes
Solvent recovery; metal
recovery; recovery and/or
reuse of oils
Metal recovery
Solvent recovery, metal
recovery
Ln
I
Electronics components Solvents
manufacturing
(SIC 367) Oils
Metal scraps
Solvent recovery
Recovery and/or reuse metal
recovery
3
Metal recovery
Storage and primary
batteries
(SIC 3691 and 3692)
Wastewater treatment sludge
Rejected and scrap cells
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
* Industry studies (1975-78)
t On-site and/or off-site reclamation practices
-------
TABLE 5-17
WASTE OIL SOURCES AND USES, 1972*
Quantity
Source and uses (million gallons)
Consumption of lube oils
Automotive 1,100
Industrial and, aviation 700
Other (includes government) 400
Total consumption 2,200
Generation of waste lube oils
Automotive 600
Industrial and aviation 400
Other (includes government) 100
Total waste oil generation 1,100
Current uses of waste oil
Fuel 480
Re-refined 90
Road oil and asphalt 200
Fate unknown 340t
Total 1>110
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974
t Includes 30 million gallons of re-refining wastes
5-62
-------
contract solvent reprocessing operations reclaimed about 270,000
metric tons of waste organic solvents and that an unknown amount of
solvents was also recovered on-site by generators (Wapora, Inc.,
1975). Two major categories of solvents are reprocessed. One
category is halogenated solvents, such as methylene chloride, tri-
chloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, which
result primarily from degreasing and metal cleaning operations. The
other category is non-halogenated solvents which includes aliphatic
hydrocarbons, aromatic and naphthenic hydrocarbons, alcohols,
ketones, and esters. These waste solvents are generated by the
chemical process industry, metal cleanings and coatings operations,
industrial painting operations, printing operations, solvent manu-
facture and distribution, and paint manufacture (Wapora, Inc., 1975).
5.4.2.2 Potential for Recovery and Recycling of Hazardous
Wastes. This section discusses the potential for increased resource
recovery and recycling of hazardous wastes. Any evaluation of the
potential recoverability of hazardous wastes is complicated by the
diverse nature of both the wastes themselves and the processes for
recovering or for recycling the waste material. Because of this
extreme diversity, each waste stream must be considered separately
within each industry, and often on a plant-by-plant basis, in order
to obtain an accurate picture of the recovery or recycling potential
for that type of waste. In addition, the processes required for
recovery or recycling must also be considered to determine their
5-63
-------
economic viability. The following examples are presented to illus-
trate the potential for increased recovery and recycling. Appendix F
presents several other examples of specific waste streams that have a
potential to be recoverable.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1976) examined the potential for trans-
ferring selected wastes from generators to other facilities that
could use the waste as a feedstock.* Individual hazardous waste
streams identified as having a relatively high potential for recovery
or recycling are those which contain: solvents, alkalies, concentra-
ted acids, catalysts, oils, combustibles, and high concentrations of
recoverable metals. Based upon these potentially recoverable consti-
tuents, Table 5-18 presents estimates of the types and quantities of
selected hazardous wastes that might have a potential for being
recovered or recycled. It should be noted that the quantities in
Table 5-18 are meant only as an order-of-magnitude estimate; the
listed wastes were selected by Arthur D. Little, Inc. based solely
upon the properties previously described, without regard to the eco-
nomic or technical feasibility of their recovery; the quantities
represent the estimated total amount of such wastes generated, not
necessarily the amount that could realistically be expected to be
recovered or recycled. The listed wastes represent about 25 percent
of the hazardous waste stream from the industries included in the
Industry Studies and about 3 percent of the total solid waste stream
The hazardous wastes examined were those identified in the
Industry Studies (1975-1978).
5-64
-------
TABLE 5-18
ESTIMATED MAGNITUDE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SELECTED INDUSTRIES THAT
MAY BE POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE OR RECYCLABLE*
Industry
Waste
Potential value
for recovery or
recycling
Quantity as
g enera t ed (me tr ic
tons/year)
Pharmaceuti cals
(SIC 283)
Paint and allied
products
(SIC 2851)
Organic chemicals
pesticides,
explosives (SIC
286, 2879, & 2892)
Petroleum refining
(SIC 2911)
Leather tanning
and finishing
(SIC 3111)
Halogenated solvents,
tars, still bottoms,
carbon filter aid
Spoiled paint or
lacquer batches and
wash solvents
Chlorinated hydrocarbon
liquid heavy ends
Other still bottoms
Coke fines
FCC catalyst
fines
Sludges and trimmings
Degreasing solvents;
cleaning or paint
solvents; fuel
Solvent recovery,
upgrading
Degreasing solvents
Fuel
Fuel
Catalyst recovery
Leather composites
160,000
14,000
247,000
1,600,000
13,000
117,000
12,000
-------
TABLE 5-18 (Concluded)
Industry
Waste
Potential value
for recovery or
recycling
Quantity as
generated (metric
tons/year)
Primary metals
(SIC 331)
Electroplating
(SIC 3471)
Special machinery
manufacturing
(SIC 355 & 357)
Primary batteries
(SIC 3692)
Total
Still pickle liquor
Begreaser sludges
6% sulfuric acid with
metals
Solvent recovery
Solvents, metals, oils, Recovery and reclamation
acids, and alkalis
Reject cells
Wastewater treatment
sludge
Metal recovery (17-70%
Zn, Hg, Pb, Cd)
Metal recovery (40% Cr)
3,500,000
105,000
73,000
1,200
25
5,800,000
* Modified from Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976.
-------
from these industries (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976). It should also
be noted that an unknown portion of these wastes is currently being
recovered (see Appendix D).
Table 5-19 shows, for selected industrial processes in SIC Code
28 and selected organic chemical wastes from these processes, poten-
tial uses to which the wastes might be recycled. Again any such use
would be very dependent upon technical, economic, and environmental
considerations (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976).
Reynolds, Smith and Hills (1977) examined the potential for
energy recovery from selected wastes from eight industries. The
industries were chosen based upon the following criteria: heating
value of their waste, annual volume of hazardous waste generated,
relative toxicity of hazardous components, and ability to use
recovered energy. Table 5-20 summarizes the industries selected and
the potentially hazardous waste streams studied. Table 5-21 shows
the total quantity of process related wastes (hazardous and non-
hazardous) from each industry, the total quantity of hazardous
process wastes included in the study, the estimated average heating
value of the waste streams studies, the maximum energy estimated to
be annually recoverable from the waste streams studied, and the esti-
mated annual fuel savings based upon this maximum energy recovery.
It should be noted that in determining the maximum recoverable
energy, it was assumed that the entire waste stream would be incin-
erated. Of the waste streams studied, those of the paints and
5-67
-------
TABLE 5-19
GENERATION AND POTENTIAL USE OF ORGANIC CHEMICAL WASTES*
Wastes Generated
Potential Uses
STtT
Product manufactured/process
Waste constituents
2869 Ethylene Glycol
2865 Phenol
2865 Phenol/Cumene
Glycols and water
Phenol, cresol, off-spec In water
Acetophenone, phenol, cumyl phenol
evaporation residue
2865 Iso and Tere-phthalic acids Phthalic acid, toluic acid, benzole acid,
trimellitic acid, aldehydes, acetic acid,
Bi, Mn, Co-still bottoms
2821 Acrylic acid
Aqueous acrylic acid and hydroquinone
2865 Phthalic anhydride/xylene Pitralic anhydride/maleic anhydride tar
2865 Maleic anhydride
2879 Carbaryl
2869 Aromatic amines
2843 Surface active agents
2821 SANpolymers
2869 Ethylene dichloride (EDC)
2869 Hexachlorocyclobutadiene
2869 Perchloroethylene (Perc)
2833 Pharmaceuticals
2869 Sulfonic Acids
2822 Urethane
2869 Tetraethylorthosilicate
2833 Penicillin
2833 Alkaloids
2865 Nitrobenzene
2869 Ethyl chloride
2869 Epichlorohydrin
2821 Methyl methacrylate
2869 Dicumyl peroxide
Maleic anhydride tars
Naphthol residues
Long chain amines (solid)
C-8-C-18 fatty alkyl acids, nitriles,
amines
Styrene and acrylonitrile
EDC, tri- and tetra-chloroethanes;
sludge
Chlorinated toluenes, pentanes,
benzenes
Perc., CC1;; chlorinated hydrocarbons-
liquid still bottoms
Various solvent wastes-chlorobenzene,
toluene, methanol, methylene dichlo-
ride, tetrachloroethane
Emulsified oils and sulfones
Mixed polyols and phosphate esters
Tetraethyl orthosilicate, iodine, alcohol,
Genusolu D
Butyl acetate and butyl alcohol
Chlorinated solvents
Benzene, nitrobenzene stripping
Ethyl chloride, chloroethanes,
trichloroethylene, etc. liquid still
bottoms
Hydroquinone; polymer heavy ends
Organic perioxides
Solvent reclamation
Wood preservative for boat or
fence post manufacture
Wood preservative
Film forming in paint manufacture
Acrylic emulsion paints
Polymeric binder for shingles
wood chips, grinding wheels,
retractory bricks, etc.
Polymeric binder
Dye intermediate
Ore Benefication
Ore Benefication
Film forming
Molding Compounds
Dry cleaning
Degreasing of metal parts
Degreasing solvents
Dry cleaning solvents
Degreasing solvents
Solvent recovery
Degreasing
Cleaning
Paints
Leather lubricant and treatment
Molding compound
Filler for wood, wallboard
Stone or concrete preservation
Mortar
Paints
Solvent reclamation (done
routinely)
Degreasing
Reclamation
Paint Formulation
Degreasing
Paint remover solvents
Degreasing
Paper board binder
Paint industry-film formers
*Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976.
5-68
-------
TABLE 5-20
INDUSTRIES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE TYPES STUDIED
FOR ENERGY RECOVERY POTENTIAL*
Industry
Types of hazardous wastes
considered
Organic chemicals
SIC 286
Distillation column bottom sludges,
evaporator residues, filter
residues
Plastics
SIC 282
Distillation column bottoms
Pharmaceuticals
SIC 283
Petroleum refining
SIC 291
Tires and inner tubes
SIC 301
Fabricated rubber products
SIC 306
Paints and allied coatings
SIC 285
Solvent reclaiming
Waste solvents (halogenated and
non-halogenated, organic chemical
residues, contaminated inerts
Tank bottoms, API separator sludges,
DAP sludges, slop oil emissions
Floor sweepings, air pollution
equipment dust
Air pollution equipment dust, floor
sweepings
Solvent recovery still bottoms,
waste solvents
Distillation column bottoms
*Reynolds, Smith and Hills, 1977.
5-69
-------
TABLE 5-21
ESTIMATED ANNUAL WASTE QUANTITIES AND TOTAL RECOVERABLE ENERGY*
Total process
related wastes
Industry (10^ metric
(SIC code) tons) (1977)t
'•Wet
Organic Chemicals 10900%
(286)
Plastics (282) 2335
Petroleum Refining 1504
(291)
Tires & Inner 236
Tubes (301)
l-n Fabricated Rubber 210
^, Products (306)
O (Dry Process Only)
Paints & Allied 450
Coatings (285)
Solvent Reclaiming 72
(No SIC Code)
Pharmaceuticals 19105
(283)
Total hazardous Average heating Maximum total Annual fuel
wastes considered value** recoverable savings (10^
(103 metric tons) energy (1977) equivalent
barrels of oil)
Wet KCal/Kg Btu/lb KCalxlO1^ BtuxlO12
3430 3900 7040 8.05 31.9 6700
n u u u n n
758 6010 10820 2.73 10.8 2275
223 7220 13000 0.97 3.8 808
210 7410 13340 0.93 3.7 778
14 8300 14940 0.11 0.44 88
72 6940 12500 0.30 1.20 253
66 6180 11120 0.25 1.0 204
* Reynolds, Smith and Hills, 1977
t Includes hazardous and non-hazardous wastes
+ This includes those streams which are diluted for hydraulic transport for deep well injection or lagooning.
Practically all wastes streams (ca.98%) are dry as discharged from the process.
§ This contains large quantities of mycellium which are non-hazardous.
' Not determinable
** For purpose of comparison, bituminous coal has a higher heating value of approximately 6,200 KCal/kg (12,000 Btu/lb)
-------
allied coatings industry (.SIC 285) had the highest estimated heating
value—8,300 KCal/kg (14,940 Btu/lb)—and those of the organic chemi-
cals industry (SIC 286) had the lowest estimated heating value—
3,900 KCal/kg (7,040 Btu/lb). These heating values can be compared
with an approximate higher heating value of 6,700 KCal/kg (12,000
Btu/lb) for bituminous coal.
The Reynolds, Smith and Hills study found that the organic
chemicals, plastic, petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, paint, and
solvent reclaiming industries have considerable potential for
incineration with heat recovery. The study found that the tire and
fabricated rubber industries do not have a high potential due to the
fact that hazardous wastes from these industries are primarily floor
sweepings with a large ash content.
5.4.3 Constraints to Resource Conservation and Recovery. There
are several basic factors that have tended to limit the application
of resource conservation and recovery measures to wastes in general
and to hazardous wastes in particular. These factors include:
national policies favoring the use of virgin materials, economics,
technological considerations, and institutional constraints.
The Federal government has historically played a major role in
stimulating natural resource development. Special tax laws relating
to mining and forestry and Federal subsidies for raw materials
exploration, research, and development all have favored virgin raw
5-71
-------
materials and encouraged a materials-intensive economy. In addition,
a number of laws and agency policies have tended to discriminate
against recovered or recycled materials and waste reduction measures
(Office of Solid Waste, 1977b). Similarly, most state laws have
either tended to favor the use of virgin materials or not to have
encouraged the recovery and recycling of waste materials.
Economic factors affecting resource recovery and recycling
include both the cost of recovery and the cost of the transportation
required to bring the wastes where needed, as well as the relation-
ship of recovery costs to disposal costs and to costs of virgin
materials. As indicated above, tax laws and subsidy policies have
tended to favor the use of virgin materials. Furthermore, due to the
nature of most wastes, recovery costs have tended to be high compared
both to disposal costs under existing practices and to virgin
material costs, thus also favoring the use of virgin materials (see
Appendix F). Historically, environmental costs from inadequate
hazardous waste disposal practices have tended to be borne by society
in general or by third parties rather than by the waste generators
whose disposal practices have caused damages; as a result, such costs
/
have not generally been included in the economic decision process.
Furthermore, the very limited data on the location and quantities of
wastes available for recycling and on the specific characteristics
of the diverse waste materials have tended to limit markets for waste
recycling (Office of Solid Waste, 1977b; Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1976; Sittig, 1975).
5-72
-------
Development of technologies for the recovery and for the reuse
or recycling of waste materials have tended to lag behind the
development of technologies for utilizing virgin materials due to the
factors discussed above. Technologies for recovering and reusing
many waste materials are still in a conceptual stage or have not been
commerically demonstrated (Versar, Inc., 1977; Arthur D. Little,
Inc., 1976; Sittig, 1975).
Institution factors include the general lack of industrial,
institutional, and public acceptance or encouragement of resource
recovery practices. For example, some generators hesitate to release
wastes to others for recycling purposes for fear either of possible
injury to their reputation for quality or of legal liability for
incidents associated with the transfer (Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1976). Federal agency policies and standards have also tended to
discriminate against the use of recycled materials (Office of Solid
Waste, 1977b). There have also been few formalized programs by
industry to encourage resource recovery, especially with regard to
potentially hazardous wastes. The National Ash Association, for
example, has a formalized program and has estimated that ash re-
cycling has risen to 20 percent from 12.3 percent in a recent 10-year
period (National Ash Association, 1977).
5-73
-------
6.0 QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES GENERATED AND CONTROLLED
This chapter presents estimates of the quantities of hazardous
wastes currently generated by both manufacturing and non-manufactur-
ing sectors, estimates of hazardous waste generation in 1980 and
1984, discussions of the magnitude of hazardous spills, and a discus-
sion of the amount of wastes currently under various aspects of state
control.
6.1 Current Hazardous Waste Generation
Estimation of the amount of hazardous wastes which is currently
generated in the United States is complicated by a lack of comprehen-
sive data. Data which are available are usually based on surveys
performed by many different groups with difference objectives who
consequently used varying definitions for hazardous wastes.
6.1.1 Manufacturing Industries. For the purpose of estimating
hazardous waste generation by the manufacturing industries at the
national level, data from the nine most consistent sources were used
to calculate generation factors for industry groups categorized by
the 2-digit SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) codes 20, 22-39.
The sources used represented data from eight states and one EPA
region:
• Illinois (Personal communication, S. Miller, Ohio Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977)
Kansas (State of Kansas, 1977)
Maryland (State of Maryland, 1977 and 1977a)
Massachusetts (Fennelly, et al., 1976)
Minnesota (Battelle, Pacific Northwest, 1977)
Mississippi (State of Mississippi, 1975)
6-1
-------
• Texas (.Personal communication, J. Carmichael, Texas
Division of Solid Waste Management, 1977)
• Washington (State of Washington, 1974)
• EPA Region X (Stradley, et al., 1975)
The generation factors were derived based on the assumption that
the ratio of the amount of hazardous wastes generated by an industry
to the number of employees in that industry is approximately constant
among all establishments in each industry (as grouped at the 2-digit
SIC code level). The methodology used is presented in Appendix H,
with a description of each data source, and a discussion of the
assumptions and limitations. As discussed in Appendix H, inaccura-
cies may have resulted from inconsistencies in data sources, possible
biases in the coverage of industries, errors introduced in the state
surveys, over-generalization of industry groups, and from variations
in actual hazardous waste generation per employee within industry
groups. Nevertheless, it is felt that the computed generation fac-
tors represent the best presently available method of estimating the
total quantities of hazardous wastes generated by manufacturing
industries in the U.S. The generation factors were used with U.S.
census data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977) to estimate the
amounts of hazardous wastes generated by each industry in each
Federal region. Table 6-1 summarizes the estimates by SIC code.
Based on these estimates, the manufacturing industries generated
approximately 47.5 million metric tons of hazardous wastes during
1975. Approximately 60 percent of this, or about 28.7 million metric
tons, was generated by industries in SIC code 28 (Chemicals and
6-2
-------
SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY EPA REGION — 1975*
(1000 metric tons per year)
Standard Industrial Classification
20 Food and kindred products
22 Textile mill products
23 Apparel and other textile products
24 Lumber and wood produces
25 Furniture and fixtures
26 Paper and allied products
27 Printing and publishing
28 Chemicals and allied products
29 Petroleum and coal products
30 Rubber and misc. plastics products
31 Leather and leather products
32 Stone, clay and glass products
33 Primary metal industries
34 Fabricated metal products
35 Machinery, except electrical
36 Electric and electronic equipment
37 Transportation equipment
38 Instruments and related products
39 Misc. manufacturing industries
TOTAL**
Percent of Total
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION
I
10
10
7.0
4.0
9.5
290
9.0
1,060
25
20
130
65
140
140
370
20
65
10
40
2,440
5
II
25
10
30
3.0
20
350
20
5,290
95
25
95
160
290
170
450
30
55
15
55
7,190
15
III
30
15
20
7.0
25
290
15
3,600
85
20
70
210
870
180
400
20
60
5.5
20
5,940
13
IV
45
100
40
20
75
530
15
5,920
50
35
90
230
350
180
420
25
80
4.0
35
8,240
17
V
70
3.5
10
10
50
760
30
5,770
160
75
120
350
1,520
700
1,830
55
350
15
60
11,900
25
VI
10
2.5
10
8.0
15
200
8.0
3,270
330
15
35
120
190
150
350
10
60
2.0
15
4,810
10
VII
25
0.5
4.0
2.5
7.5
120
8.5
1,230
45
10
85
60
110
85
290
9.0
60
2.0
10
2,170
5
VIII
9.0
<0.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
10
3.0
170
30
2.0
8.5
35
75
20
80
1.5
10
1.5
6.0
470
1
IX
35
2.0
10
8.5
25
180
10
1,880
110
20
10
130
200
160
400
25
150
8.0
20
3,380
7
X
15
0.5
1.0
20
2.5
130
2.5
460
20
2.0
1.5
30
95
25
60
1.0
45
1.5
5.0
920
2
Total
290
140
130
80
240
2,870
130
28,700
950
220
640
1,390
3,830
1,800
4,650
200
940
65
270
47,500
of Total
0.5
0.5
0.5
<0.5
0.5
6
0.5
60
2
0.5
1.5
3
8
4
10
0.5
2
<0.5
0.5
Ranking
10
15
16
18
12
4
17
1
7
13
9
6
3
5
2
14
8
19
11
1 1
CT>
I
U)
*See individual tables on state contributions to hazardous waste for footnotes on data sources.
**Totals may not balance due to rounding of numbers.
-------
Allied Products;. The next largest generators were industries in SIC
codes 35 (Machinery, except Electrical), 33 (Primary Metal Indus-
tries), and 26 (Paper and Allied Products), with about ten, eight,
and six percent of the total U.S. generation, respectively.
Also indicated in Table 6-1, about 25 percent of the wastes are
generated in the six north-central states of EPA Region V, while the
eight southeastern states of EPA Region IV account for about 17 per-
cent. Application of the generation factors to individual state
employment indicates that seven states account for approximately half
of the total U.S. generation. These states are in alphabetical
order:* California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsyl-
vania, and Texas. Following the national pattern, most (46 to 83
percent) of the hazardous wastes generated in these five states are
produced in SIC code 28, with industries in SIC codes 35 and 33 rank-
ing either second or third. These three industry groups account for
between 73 and 90 percent of the hazardous wastes generated in each
of the five states.
6.1.2 Other Hazardous Wastes. Besides the manufacturing indus-
tries, there are numerous other sources of potentially hazardous
wastes. These include non-industrial waste oils, hospital wastes,
Since the generation factor approach relies to a large extent on
averaging over large areas, its accuracy decreases when applied to
smaller areas such as states. Therefore, individual estimates of
waste generation are not presented on a state-by-state basis.
6-4
-------
agricultural wastes, household wastes, military wastes, fly ash, oil
well brines and muds, cement kiln dusts, dredge spoils, and phosphate
slimes. Additionally, administrative and other government agencies
often engage in activities such as research and demonstration proj-
ects and pest control, which produce significant amounts of hazardous
wastes.
The degree of hazard associated with the above mentioned wastes
varies considerably, both among and within the different categories.
Data on the amounts of waste generated and on the fractions of the
total which are associated with a particular degree of hazard are
incomplete. Table 6-2 and the following discussions present the best
available estimates of the amounts of potentially hazardous waste
generated in each category, though it should be recognized that
amounts meeting the definition of hazardous waste in Section 3001
may be significantly different.
The primary sources of non-industrial waste oils are from the
transportation industry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1974) estimates indicate that about 56 percent of the automotive and
aviation oils sold in 1972 were not consumed and hence became waste
oils. Applying this factor to the total U.S. 1975 automotive and
aviation oil sales (1.2 million gallons - U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 1977c) yields an estimated waste oil generation of 2.5 million
metric tons per year. This is approximately twice the Battelle
Columbus Laboratories (1978) estimate of 1.3 million metric tons from
service stations alone.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL GENERATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
NON-MANUFACTURING WASTES
Waste
Stream/ Source
Volume
(million metric tons)
Reference
Waste oils
Service stations
Hospitals
Pesticide containers
Households
U.S. Armed Forces
Coal ash - total
Fly ash
Bottom ash
Boiler slag
Oil brines
Drilling muds
Cement kiln dust
Dredge spoils
Corps of Engineers
Other
Phosphate slimes
Tailings and
benef iciation
Phosphoric acid
production
Administrative/government
2.5
1.3
.06
1-2
.02
10.5
Not Available
54
38
12
4
1.9
2.3
23.8
330-420
210
82
20-27
Not available
Based on U.S. EPA, 1974
and U.S. D.O.C., 1977c
Battelle Columbus Labs,
1978
Battelle Columbus Labs,
1978;
Based on Singer, et al.,
1973; and Kiefer, 1974
Trask, 1977
Based on personal communication,
Morris, OSW, 1977 and U.S. D.O.C.,
1977b.
Faber, 1976
OSWMP, 1977
Environmental Research Co .,
1978
Personal communication, Portland
Cement Assoc., 1978
Council of Environmental
Quality, 1975
American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1977
Personal communication, Palm,
G. F. Palm Assoc., 1978
Environmental Quality
Systems, 1976; and
U.S. EPA, 1974a
6-6
-------
Battelle Columbus Laboratories (1978) estimates the annual 1977
hazardous waste generation from hospitals as 58,000 metric tons. If
the rapidly increasing volumes of disposable items are included, this
number could reach 1 to 2 million metric tons (based on data from
Singer et al., 1973; Kiefer, 1974).
The primary hazardous wastes associated with agricultural activ-
ities are used pesticide containers which still contain residual
amounts of pesticides. Based on information compiled by Trask
(1977), approximately 98 million pesticide containers (mostly bags)
were used in 1971 by 2.5 million farmers. The total container weight
(empty) was estimated at 20,000 metric tons. Additionally, it was
estimated that 39 percent of the farmers using pesticides hired cus-
tom application services, and only 5 percent rinsed their containers.
Other estimates (Energy Resources Co., 1978) are that 25 to 40 mil-
lion small containers (made of glass, plastic, or metal) and 250,000
to 500,000 large containers (30 to 50 gallon steel drums) are used
annually.
Based on an estimated hazardous waste generation of 7.5 pounds
per household per year (Personal communication, M. Morris, Office of
Solid Waste, 1977) and 1975 Census data (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1977b), hazardous waste generation by individual households could
reach 10.5 million metric tons per year. This figure may include
some of the waste automotive oils discussed above, plus various
cleaning fluids, caustics, pesticides, and miscellaneous chemicals.
6-7
-------
The amounts of hazardous wastes generated by the U.S. Armed
Forces is unknown. However, the armed forces own and operate many of
their own supply and maintenance facilities, including munitions
plants, chemical production facilities, metal plating shops, and
foundries. The military services maintain large stockpiles of muni-
tions which must be periodically replaced due to deterioration.
Additionally, the military services store large quantities of unused
and retrograde chemicals, primarily pesticides, which no longer have
valid registration for use or have deteriorated. It can therefore be
expected that the amounts of hazardous wastes generated or stored by
the military are large and may approach the amounts produced by all
the manufacturing industries combined. Most of the services are be-
ginning to survey their hazardous waste generation as of the fall of
1978.
Estimates of the 1975 U.S. coal ash production are on the order
of 38 million metric tons of fly ash, 12 million metric tons of bot-
tom ash, and 4.2 million metric tons of boiler slag (Faber, 1976). Of
these amounts, about 8.9 million metric tons (16.3 percent) was uti-
lized in secondary products, primarily in the cement and concrete,
and in the manufacture of lightweight aggregates (Faber, 1976). The
inclusion of many of the potentially toxic trace elements and other
constituents (e.g., complex organic compounds) originally contained
in the coal may result in the designation of at least some ash as
hazardous.
6-8
-------
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers either conducted or contracted
for the dredging of between 310 and 390 million cubic yards (330 to
420 million metric tons) of bottom materials per year during the
period 1970 through 1975 (Council on Environmental Quality: 1975).
I
Of this, at least 24.8 million cubic yards (29 million metric tons)
was considered contaminated (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977). An
additional estimated 200 million cubic yards (210 million metric
tons) are dredged annually by port authorities, municipalities, and
other government agencies (i.e., U.S. Navy and Coast Guard) (American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1977).
Industry sources estimate that 135 million tons of overburden
and 90 million tons of tailings, clay, and mud ball slimes (excluding
overburden) are generated each year from phosphate mining and benefi-
ciation operations in Florida (the source of 78 percent of the phos-
phate rock mined in the U.S.) (Personal communication, G. Palm,
Gordon F. Palm and Associates, 1978). In addition, estimates of the
annual gypsum slime waste generation from phosphoric acid production
range from 22 million tons per year (Environmental Quality Systems,
Inc., 1976) to about 30 million tons per year (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1974a). These wastes are generally radioactive,
and contain fluorine and trace contaminants. The gypsum slimes from
acid production also exhibit very low pH.
The amounts of hazardous wastes generated by non-military gov-
ernment agencies are not known. Typical potentially hazardous wastes
6-9
-------
generated by such agencies include unused pesticides, empty pesticide
containers, waste oils and solvents, paint sludges, petroleum wastes,
laboratory wastes, expired and unusable medicines, pathological and
infectious wastes, and other miscellaneous chemical wastes. Bourns
et al. (1978) reported that non-military Federal agencies in Region
IX generate at least 5,000 metric tons/year (including 3,600 metric
tons of drilling muds), stating that the "quantities estimated prob-
ably are considerably less than those actually generated".
The wastes discussed in this section do not represent all of the
potentially hazardous non-manufacturing wastes generated in this
country. Other sources include mining operations; construction com-
panies; dry cleaning plants; testing, research and development labor-
atories; cleaning, disinfecting and exterminating services; retailers
and wholesalers of drugs, chemicals, paints, solvents, and other
products; marinas; and others. Although data on generation from
these sources are sparse, it can be concluded that the total amounts
of potentially hazardous wastes from non-manufacturing industries are
very large (on the order of several hundred million tons) and could
greatly exceed the 50 million metric tons attributed to the manufac-
turing industries.
6.2 Hazardous Waste Generators
U.S. Census data indicate that there were 313,000 establishments
engaged in the manufacturing industries in 1972 (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1976). SIC codes 27 (Printing and Publishing) and 35
6-10
-------
(.Machinery, except Electrical) contained the largest number of estab-
lishments with about 40,000 each. SIC codes 24 (Lumber and Wood
Products) and 34 (Fabricated Metal Products) accounted for 34,000 and
30,000 of the establishments, respectively. SIC code 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products), the largest generators, ranked tenth in the
number of establishments with 11,000.
Figure 6-1 shows the cumulative size distribution of hazardous
waste generators in the manufacturing industries. The horizontal
axis represents the annual waste generation of a single establish-
ment, and the vertical axis represents the number of establishments
which generate more than that value. Figure 6-2 shows the cumulative
percentage of the total amount of hazardous wastes generated as func-
tion of firm size (i.e., the fraction of total wastes generated by
all establishments exceeding a particular annual generation value).
These figures are plots of the output of the cycling option of the
phasing program as described in Appendix I. They were based on the
generation factors developed in Appendix H and on the U.S. manufac-
turing establishment size distribution data published by the U.S.
Department of Commerce (1976 and 1977). Examination of the two
figures reveals that although less than three percent of the manufac-
turing establishments generate more than 1,000 metric tons of hazard-
ous wastes per year, those establishments account for 78 percent of
the total hazardous manufacturing wastes generated in the U.S. Simi-
larly, the 25 percent of the establishments which generate more than
6-11
-------
M
to
O
&
H
g
w
O
H
O
W
CM
1UU
90
80
/O
30
20
J.U
n
\
V
^^
^— - —
annual g
• — •
eneration
••
amount g:
ven on he
rizontal
axis.
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PER ESTABLISHMENT
(METRIC TONS/YR)
800
900
1000
FIGURE 6-1
CUMULATIVE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS 1975
-------
w
H
I/I
a
o
H
o
Pi
PM
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
*Percent of total hazardous wastes generated by all manufacturing establishments
exceeding annual generation amount given on horizontal axis.
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PER ESTABLISHMENT
(METRIC TONS/YR)
FIGURE 6-2
CUMULATIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISTRIBUTION 1975
-------
25 metric tons per year are responsible for about 98 percent of the
total hazardous wastes. It should be noted that these estimates are
subject to several important assumptions, the implications of which
are in Appendices H and I. Additionally, they do not account for the
relative hazardousness of different waste streams.
6.3 Estimation of Future Hazardous Waste Generation
1980 has been selected as the base year, and 1984 as the target
year for estimating the full impacts of implementation of the Sub-
title C regulations. Estimates of the rate of increase of hazardous
waste generation were developed using data presented in the Industry
Studies (1975-1978) discussed in Chapter 5. The total increase in
hazardous waste generation projected by these studies between 1974
and 1983 is 42 percent, or about 3.6 percent per year. Much of this
increase is attributed primarily to increased sludge volumes result-
ing from the more effective air and water pollution equipment being
brought on line in response to recent environmental legislation.
Many other factors also affect future hazardous waste generation,
*
The Industry Studies (1975-1978) are a set of studies of hazardous
waste generation in 13 major industrial segments. They were per-
formed by individual contractors using their own definitions for
hazardous wastes. As a result of the differences in definitions and
the incomplete coverage of potential waste sources, these studies
were not used in the development of the hazardous waste generation
factors. However, it was assumed that the rate of increase of haz-
ardous waste generation projected by the studies was applicable to
all hazardous manufacturing wastes as estimated using the generation
factor approach.
6-14
-------
but there are no reliable means of estimating their effects. These
factors include changes in manufacturing processes, increased use of
coal and synthetic fuels, and growth in manufacturing industries in
general. Although different industries will be affected to different
degrees, the average rate of 3.6 percent per year has been applied to
all SIC groups in the absence of more complete data. The resulting
estimated annual hazardous waste generation from manufacturing indus-
tries is about 57 million metric tons in 1980 and 65 million metric
tons in 1984.
6.4 Hazardous Spills
Spills of hazardous materials must be handled as hazardous
wastes regardless of whether the spilled material was originally a
waste or a valued product. In addition to the volume of material
spilled, a much larger volume of soil, water, and/or sorbent or other
cleanup material often also becomes contaminated. In most cases,
such contaminated materials must also be considered and handled as
hazardous wastes.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the responsiblity for documentation
of, and dealing with, hazardous spills is presently divided between
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Department of Transportation (DOT), and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All releases of hazardous
materials (as defined in 49 CFR 172) during the course of transporta-
tion must be reported to DOT's Hazardous Material Regulation Board.
All discharges of hazardous quantities of oil or hazardous substances
6-15
-------
Us defined in 40 CFR lib and 118.) to navigable wastes must be
reported to the National or Regional Response Centers or to regional
offices of either EPA or USCG. Spills of materials not meeting the
definitions cited above, and spills which are not related to trans-
portation and which do not threaten the broadly interpreted "naviga-
ble waters" are not presently subject to reporting requirements.
Table 6-3 presents statistics on the spill incidents reported to
EPA during the one year period from February 1977 to February 1978.
Since the regulations listing hazardous wastes subject to reporting
requirements (40 CFR 116) were not promulgated until March 1978, the
non-oil wastes listed in the table were reported voluntarily. Of the
75 cases presented, 39 are either exclusively oil spills or are oil
mixed with other hazardous substances. Although oil-related spills
represent 52 percent of the total for the year, this figure may be
unrepresentative due to the lack of a definition and, therefore, of
specific reporting requirements for hazardous substances during that
period. Data on volumes are presented to give some idea of the quan-
tities of materials spilled in individual incidents. Calculation of
the total volume of material spilled during the period would be un-
realistic due to the number of estimated ranges that were given and
due to the number of incidents reported where the spill volume was
not even estimated. For comparison purposes, however, the volumes of
reported spills range from 500 gallons to as much as 150 million gal-
lons, though only two spills exceed 1 million gallons and most were
6-16
-------
TABLE 6-3
EPA HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SPILL FILE SUMMARY (FEBRUARY 1977 - FEBRUARY 1978)
DATE OF
REPORTED
OCCURKA11C£
3 Feb 1977
3 Feb 1977
3 Feb 1977
3 Feb 1977
21 Mar 1977
21 Mar 1977
21 Mar 1977
21 Mar 1977
29 Mar 1977
31 Mar 1977
31 Mar 1977
31 Mar 1977
1 Apr 1977
1 Apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
22 Apr 1977
29 Apr 1977
10 May 1977
13 May 1977
19 Hay 1977
19 May 1977
19 May 1977
3 Jun 1977
3 Jun 1977
o Jun 1977
24 Jun 1977
28 Jun 1977
28 Jun 1977
5 Jul 1977
5 Jul 1977
MATERIAL SPILLED
NR 6 oil
NR 6 oil
Oil
on
Oil
Gas
Oil
Oil and PCBs
pentadlene
Oil (sa 6)
Crude oil
Ammonium nitrate
Formaldehyde
PCB and oil
Crude oil
NR 2 oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Sodium aulfide
Crude oil
Anhydrous ammonia
NR 6 oil
2 ethyl, 4 methyl, i,J,
dioxolane, toluene,
xylene, methylene
chloride, heptane, iso-
Crude oil
Oil and chemicals
Naptha
Oil
NR 6 oil
PCB
Crude oil
Q
10,000 gallons
500 gallons
2,000 gallons
134,000 gallons
546,000 gallons
32,000 gallons
131,100 gallons*
38,000,000 cu ft*
210,000 gallons
600,000 gallons
25,000 tons sludge
21,000 gallons
20,580 gallons
Unknown
20,000 gallons
2,500 drums
42,000 gallons
2,000 gallons
2,000 gallons
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
3.5 tons
8,400-10,500 gallons
16,800 gallons
15,000 gallons
Unknown
1,000 gallons
16,800 gallons
9-10,000 gallons oil
24-30,000 gallons
chemicals
Unknown
5,000 gallons
168,000-210,000 gallons
165 gallons
12,600 gallons
UPLAND OR
Waterway Heating plant
Waterway Barge spill
Waterway Tanker spill
Waterway Tanker spill
Waterway Gas well blowout
Air
Upland Lagoon overflow
y
y p
Air Railroad spill
Waterway Railroad spill
Waterway
Waterway Pipeline break
Waterway Barpe spd 1 1
Waterway Ship spill
Waterway Unknown
Waterway Unknown
Waterway Unknown
Waterway Company spill
Upland Company spill
Waterway Pipeline break
Waterway Barge spill
Waterway Chemical company discharge
Waterway Lagoon spill
Waterway Company spill
Waterway Barge spill
Waterway Barge spill
Upland Company spill
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
Perch Amboy, NJ
Washington, D.C.
Buzzards bay, MA
Marcus Hook, PA
Atlantic Ocean
Cuazanilla Bay, PR
Louisiana/Texas
Oregon, Ohio
Os-;=go, NY
Louisville, FY
Rockingham, NC
Hardin Coundy , TX
Rockingham, NC
Sanford, NC
Diltner, MO
White Oak, TX
Philadelphia, PA
Cape San Martin, CO
Del. Bay, NJ
Key West, ri.
New Martinsville, VA
Grant County, OK
Mississippi
Baltimore, MD
Lenolr, NC
Crockett, TX
Kernersville, NC
Weirton, WV
Akron, OH
YorktowB, VA
Calcosiew, LA
Brookuood , AI,
Stuart, OK
6-17
-------
TABLE 6-3
(Concluded)
DATE OF
REPORTED
OCCURRENCE
6 Jul 1977
/ Jul 1977
13 Jul 1977
20 Jul 1977
25 Jul 1977
28 Jul 1977
28 Jul 1977
16 Aug 1977
16 Aug 1977
11 Oct 1977
2 Nov 1977
4 Nov 1977
10 Nov 1977
18 Nov 1977
1 Dec 1977
13 Dec 1977
5 Jan 1978
10 Jan 1978
11 Jan 1978
11 Jan 1978
16 Jan 1978
16 Jan 1978
19 Jan 1978
26 Jan 1978
26 Jan 1978
26 Jan 1978
26 Jan 1978
30 Jan 1978
31 Jan 1978
31 Jan 1978
MATERIAL SPILLED.
Oil
polymer emulsion
Hydrobromic acid
Malathion
Oil
Tritium
Crude .Jil
Xylene
Latex
magnesium sulfate;
paradichlo tubenzene;
monolsopropanolamine ;
dlene; monochlorobenzene
alcohol
end r in
PCB and oil
Crude oil
Gasoline
Anhydrous ammonia
Acrylamide
Hydrogen peroxide
ammonia
y
ethyl acetate; nitroben-
zene; PCB
Xylene
SulEurtrioxide
Gasoline
Crude oil
Crude oil
Methyl ethyl ketone;
Assorted chemicals
NR 2 oil
Edichlorohydrin
Oil
Acrylonitrile; LPG
NR 6 Oil
Liquid c>xygen
QUArfTm-SP-H LED-
42,000
38,000 gallons
280,000 gallons
10,000 pounds
550 gallons
20,000 gallons
9,000 gallons
60,000 gallons
unknown
Unknown
Unknown
21,000-126,000 gallons
8,000 gallons
Unknown
5,000-6,000 gallons
l^known
8,000-20,000 gallons
Unknown
84,000 gallons
Unknown
495,000 gallons
10,000 gallons
12,600 gallons
300 gallons/hr
12,000,000 gallons
20,000 gallons
14,000 gallons
150,000,000 gallons
15,000 gallons
20,000 gallons
50,000 gallons
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
UPLAND OR
WATERWAY SPILL
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Upland
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Upland and waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Upland ; waterway
and air
y
Waterway
Upland
Waterway
Air
Waterway
Upland
Upland
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Upland and waterway
Upland
Waterway
Air
Waterway
Air and waterway
TYPE OF SPIEL
Company spill
Pipeline spill
Company spill
Plane crash
Natural flood
Nuclear power plant spill
Barge spill
Railroad bpill
Unknown
Unknown
Railroad spill
Company spill
Company spill
Tank truck spill
Railroad spill
P
Railroad spill
Company spill
Pipeline spill
Company spill
Barge spill
Company spill
Railroad spill
Tanker spill
Railroad spill
Railroad spill
Lagoon spill
Company spill
Railroad spill
Barge spill
Railroad spill
Barge spill
Company explosion and spill
bhUbKAfHIt LULATIUN
Port Washington, Wl
Upshur County, TX
Rainey Park, NY
Dartmouth, MA
Rockwood, TN
Sheridan, WV
Johnston, PA
Pittsburg, PA
Anaheim, CA
Mile 161, LA
Novi, Mi
Ocean City, MD
N. Miami Beach, FL
Kennegaw, GA
Philadelphia, PA
Kansas City, MO
Alexandria, VA
Pensacola, FL
Evergreen, AL
West Virginia
Frankfort, KY
Logan Township, NJ
Danville, IL
Baltimore, MD
Long Island, NY
Hertford, NC
Dansville, MI
Uhric-bfiville, r>H
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Milstead, AL
Pond Eddy, PA
Pascagoula, MS
Dresden, NY
Point Pleasant, UV
Galveston, TX
Leon, KY
Portsmouth, Nil
Moundsville, W1'
*Assuming all 9.5 cu ft of gas and 104 bai
**Assuraing 1 ton = 500 gallons.
:ondensate produced per day escape to the air and the water, respectively For 4 days.
6-18
-------
less than 100 thousand gallons. Most of the reported incidents
involved spills to a body of water; however, it must be kept in mind
that the reporting of upland spills (not directly involving or
threatening U.S. waters) is not mandatory.
Table 6-4 shows all discharges recorded by the USCG Pollution
Incident Reporting System (PIRS), primarily oil and hazardous dis-
charges reported to the National Resource Center, or other USGS and
EPA offices, but also includes' releases subject to the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act, and other spills reported voluntarily
or collected from other sources. The PIRS file contains only those
discharges into, or which threaten, the waters of the United States.
Assuming a range of densities from six to ten pounds per gallon, the
total weight of the spilled materials shown in the table amounts to
90 to 150 thousand metric tons. Table 6-4 includes the 7.5 million
gallon spill of fuel oil by the Argo Merchant, which accounts for 22
percent of the total volume of discharges during the year. Excluding
that single spill the largest category in terms of volume is "other
pollutant", including sewage, dredge spoil, and chemical wastes, with
6.5 million gallons (about 25 percent of the total volume excluding
the Argo Merchant spill). Much of the volume of spills such as that
reported in this table cannot be recovered and therefore could not be
placed in RCRA-approved disposal facilities. However, as discussed
above, in the cases in which removal of spills is possible, the
6-19
-------
TABLE 6-4
TYPES OF DISCHARGES REPORTED UNDER SECTION 311, PL 92-500
1976
Number of
Incidents
Crude oil
Fuel oil
Gasoline
Other distillate fuel oil
Solvent
Diesel oil
Asphalt or residual fuel
oil
Animal or vegetable oil
Waste oil
Other oil
Liquid chemical
Other pollutant (sewage,
dredge spoil, chemical
wastes, etc.)
Natural substance
Other material
Unknown material
Total
2,667
909
658
251
34
2,063
132
93
1,217
2,636
296
130
94
146
1,329
12,655
% of
total
21.1
7.2
5.2
2.0
0.3
16.3
1.0
0.7
9.6
20.8
2.3
1.0
0.7
1.2
10.5
100.0
Vo lume in
gallons
4,990,691
9,780,886
764,168
462,140
95,317
1,100,133
4,982,195
94,513
131,377
724,294
2,110,048
6,468,940
6,468
2,120,386
20,274
33,851,830
% of
total
14.7
28.9
2.3
1.4
0.3
3.2
14.7
0.3
0.4
2.1
6.2
19.1
0.0
6.3
0.1
100.0
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, 1977.
6-20
-------
clean-up operations must usually remove a large volume of contami-
nated soil and water in addition to the original volume of spilled
material. This volume would greatly increase the amount of material
requiring disposal in RCRA-approved facilities.
Table 6-5 gives the distribution of spills by source category.
The largest category of spill sources was non-transportation related
facilities other than refineries, bulk storage, and production facil-
ities. These sources were responsible for 29 percent of the total
spill volume and 90 percent of the total non-oil spill volume.
Table 6-6 is included to illustrate the type of commodities
which were named most often in hazardous materials incident reports
as documented by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the period
from January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1975. This list does not imply
a ranking of risk or hazard to the public. For example, most of the
paint spills (comprising 20.5 percent of the total number of reports
recorded) were less than 5 gallon amounts, and most of the battery
acid spills (comprising 11 percent) were less than one quart amounts.
Many of the gasoline spills, however, (comprising 13.5 percent of the
total number of reports recorded) were of 100 gallons or more. This
table is intended to show only which commodities were reported most
often.
6.5 Hazardous Wastes Under State Control
As discussed in Chapter 2, existing state programs to control
hazardous waste range in scope from non-existent to highly
6-21
-------
TABLE 6-5
SOURCES OF DISCHARGES REPORTED UNDER SECTION 311, PL 92-500
1976
Vessels
Dry cargo ships
Dry cargo barges
Tank ships
Tank barges
Combatant vessels
Other vessels
Total
Land vehicles
Rail vehicles
Highway vehicles
Other/unknown vehicles
Total
Non-transportation-related
facilities
Onshore refinery
Onshore bulk/storage
Onshore production
Offshore production
facilities
Other facilities
Total
Pipelines
Marine facilities
Onshore/offshore bulk
.Cargo transfer
Onshore/offshore fueling
Onshore/offshore nonbulk
Cargo transfer
Other transportation
Related marine facility
Total
Land facilities
Misc. /unknown
Total
Number of
incidents
41
324
623
976
179
1,153
3,296
82
335
47
464
101
365
242
1,358
1,055
3,131
653
321
88
23
;.28
560
182
4,379
12,655
% of
total
0.3
2.6
4.9
7.7
1.4
9.1
26.0
0.6
2.6
0.4
3.6
0.8
2.9
1.9
10.7
8.3
24.6
5.2
2.5
0.7
0.2
1.0
4.4
1.4
34.6
100.0
Volume in
gallons
11,679
24,840
8,930,029
1,953,442
26,987
245,013
11,191,990
269,440
323,391
20,968
613,799
211,614
5,873,932
349,053
274,732
9,759,869
16,469,200
4,530,094
333,712
21,708
15,643
5,787
376,850
442,730
227,167
33,851,830
% of
total
0.0
0.1
26.4
5.8
0.1
0.7
33.1
0.8
1.0
0.1
1.9
0.8
17.4
1.0
0.8
28.8
48.0
13.4
1.0
0.1
O.C
0.0
1.1
1.3
0.7
100.0
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, 1977.
6-22
-------
TABLE 6-6
COMMODITIES NAMED MOST OFTEN IN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORTS
Section 172.5 Commodity
Paint and paint related compounds
Gasoline
Batteries and electrolyte fluid
Compounds, cleaning, liquid (Cor.)
Sulfuric acid
Cement, liquid, n.o.s.
Flammable liquids, n.o.s.
Hydrochloric acid
Corrosive liquids, n.o.s.
Insecticides, liquid (Poison B)
L.P.G.
Poisonous liquids, n.o.s. (Poison B)
Ink
Alcohol, n.o.s.
Acids, liquids, n.o.s.
Caustic soda liquid
Nitric acid
Resid solution
Anhydrous ammonia
Compounds, tree or weed kill (Poison B)
Compounds, cleaning, liquid (FL)
Total
Total of All Reports Received
Number of
Reports
(1971-1975)
6,590
4,243
3,593
2,194
1,081
903
844
825 '
714
422
395
364
355
337
316
304
265
240
222
215
211
24,633
32,000
Approximate % of
All 32,000 Reports
Received
2Qh
13*5
11
7
3>5
3
21-2
2%
2%
Ik
1%
1
1
1
1
1
0 3/4
0 3/4
0 3/4
0 3/4
0 3/4
77
100
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation
Bureau, 1976.
6-23
-------
comprehensive. Due to the variability in the degree of control and
the uncertainties in estimating individual state generation, the
amount of hazardous waste presently under state control cannot be
estimated with confidence.
Table 6-7 shows the number of states with legal mechanisms
allowing control of hazardous wastes, as summarized from Chapter 2.
Less than one-fifth of the states presently have standards or regula-
tions controlling any of the facets of hazardous waste activities,
although just over half of the states have provisional authority to
require permits for and/or inspect disposal sites. Only six states
presently have regulations instituting some type of manifest tracking
system.
Table 6-8 shows the status of state control in the seven states
which generate about 50 percent of the potentially hazardous manufac-
turing wastes in the U.S. The trend towards manifest systems in
these states is obvious, though only two of the states are presently
operating such a system under specific regulation. Also, apparent
are the relatively high degree of regulation over disposal and the
corresponding lack of authority over storers and treaters. Addition-
ally, two of the states have essentially no control over activities
other than disposal, and another has only provisional authority with
no specific standards.
It should be emphasized that both the comprehensiveness of exis-
ting standards and regulations, and the degree to which they are
6-24
-------
TABLE 6-7
SUMMARY - STATE CONTROL OVER HAZARDOUS WASTES
Permit
I
to
un
Generators
Transporters
Storer
Treater
Disposers
3
6
6
8
28
2
4
4
2
9
Manifest
p* s**
12
11
5
8
12
6
8
6
6
6
Record keep ing
p* s**
12
5
3
4
18
3
3
0
1
9
Reporting
p* S**
11
1
2
3
15
4
2
1
1
7
Inspection
p* s**
3
1
2
2
26
0
0
0
0
4
*Number of states with provisional authority.
**Number of states with regulatory standards.
-------
TABLE 6-8
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL IN LARGE GENERATOR STATES*
I
NJ
State
California
Illinois
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Totals
(S)
(P)
All
Specific State Legislation Applicable to:
Generators
(S) M, Rp
(PS) M
(P) M,Rc,Rp
(S) P; (P) M
(S)M,Rc,Rp
P M Re Rp I
13120
02110
15230
Transporters
(S) P, M, Rp
(PS) M
(P) M,Rc
(S) P; (P)M
(S)M,Rc
P M Re Rp I
23110
02100
25210
Storers
(S) M,Rp
(PS) M
(S)P; (P)M
(S) M
P M Re Rp I
13010
01000
14010
Treaters
(S) P.M.Rp
(PS) M
(P) P
(S)P; (P)M
(S) M
P M Re Rp I
23010
11000
34010
Disposers
XS) P.M.Rp.Rc.I
(PS) M.Rp.Rc;
(PS) P,I
(P) P,M,Rc,Rp,I
(S) P; (P) Rc,Rp,I
(S)P; (P)M,I
(P) P,Rc
(S)P,M,Rc,Rp
P M Re Rp I
43331
32324
75655
* These states generate about one half of the potentially hazardous manufacturing wastes in
the United States (see text)
Key: (S) - existing standards; (PS) - proposed standards; (P) - provisional authority only;
(PP) - proposed provisional authority; P - permit; M - manifest; Re - record keeping;'
Rp - reporting; I - inspection
-------
enforced, vary widely from state to state. The information presented
in the table is based in part on telephone interviews with state
officials. No attempts were made to evaluate the comparability of
various definitions, disposal requirements, or enforcement mech-
anisms. In fact, only 17 states presently have officially defined
hazardous wastes by either criteria or listings.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the existence of a provisional mech-
anism to regulate hazardous wastes indicates that the state has the
enabling authorities to control a particular activity, even though it
may lack specific regulations detailing the control procedures. The
extent to which the various states actually exercise such provisional
authority varies greatly. Many states (e.g., West Virginia) use
their provisional authority on a case-by-case basis and then usually
in response to specific incidents.
Some states may also exert limited control over hazardous wastes
based on solid waste or other legislation in the absence of regula-
tions or enabling authority specifically addressing hazardous wastes.
For example, the State of Illinois has been operating a manifest sys-
tem for several years without specific hazardous waste legislation.
The state legislature is presently considering a set of proposed
regulations which would revise and add additional authority to the
existing control system.
In summary, even when considering the subjective nature of the
data presented in Tables 6-7 and 6-8, it may be concluded that at
6-27
-------
present, state control of hazardous wastes is fragmented, and that,
although some states exert very good control, the potential for
damage from uncontrolled disposal of hazardous wastes is substantial!
6-28
-------
7.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
*
This chapter addresses the potential impacts, both beneficial
and adverse, that could result from implementation of the proposed
Subtitle C regulations. Two major types of impacts are analyzed:
primary impacts and secondary impacts. Primary impacts include those
effects that would be directly attributable to the implementation of
the proposed regulations. Secondary impacts include those effects
that would be indirectly attributable to the implementation of the
proposed regulations. In some cases, secondary impacts might not be
observed until years or even decades after implementation of the
regulations.
Where practical, potential impacts are analyzed for two separate
years: 1980, the year of expected implementation of the regulations,
and 1984, the year by which the full effects of the regulations are
expected to become established. For the reasons discussed in Section
7.1.2, it is anticipated that at least five years would be required
for such effects and resultant impacts to become fully established.
The impact analysis is, for the most part, both generic in scope
and conducted on a national level due to the extreme waste-specific,
process-specific, and site-specific nature of most impacts, and due
to the extensive data limitations previously indicated. Because most
available data relate to manufacturing industries, the emphasis of
the impact analysis is necessarily directed toward manufacturing
7-1
-------
m,
industries. To the extent the limited available data allow, impacts
are assessed quantitatively.
Over 300 reported incidents of damage from the improper manage-
ment of hazardous wastes were reviewed to assist in identifying the
potential for adverse impacts resulting from current hazardous waste
anagement practices. Appendix J briefly describes each of these
reported incidents. Table 7-1 summarizes the type and extent of the
adverse impacts that have been reported. From the way in which most
of the incidents have come to light, it is very likely that the vast
majority of such incidents go unreported, especially human health
incidents which may require many years of exposure and for which
direct causative relationships are difficult to trace or establish.
The reported incidents indicate that there is often a considerable
time interval between the occurrence of those events which lead to
damage and the time when the damage becomes evident. Since virtually
all of the reported incidents were discovered only after damage had
already occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant potential
for many similar damage incidents to be detected in the future from
wastes that have already been improperly stored, treated, or
disposed.
It should be noted that a potentially large category of hazard-
ous wastes, termed "special wastes," are only briefly addressed in
the impact analysis. "Special wastes" include cement kiln dusts,
utility wastes, oil drilling muds/brines, phosphate rock mining and
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-1
NUMBER AND TYPES OF REPORTED INCIDENTS FROM THE
IMPROPER MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES*
I
LO
Management
Method
Generation
Transport
Storage
Dumping
Landfill
Lagoon
Incineration
Resource
recovery
Other
treatment
TOTAL
Air
quality
impacts
1
6
5
5
1
4
2
2
5
—
31
Water
quality
impact s+
4
1
23
73
69
55
1
4
3
—
233
Soil
contami-
nation
-
-
2
4
3
2
-
—
1
—
12
Identifiable
public health
impacts
1
4
9
12
16
2
2
3
— —
49
Drinking
water
contamination
-
1
9
25
27
19
1
2
-
—
84
Identifiable
biological
impacts
2
-
7
37
20
19
1
2
2
—
90
*Summary is based on approximately 300 reported incidents listed in Appendix J.
+Includes drinking water contamination incidents.
-------
processing wastes, uranium mining wastes, and other mining wastes.
Any "special wastes" identified as hazardous under the Subtitle C
regulations would be subject to a limited portion of the Subtitle C
storge, treatment, and disposal regulations (see Sections 7.1.2.3 and
7.1.2.4). As a result, it is not likely that there would be any
significant change in the current storage, treatment, or disposal
practices for such wastes. EPA is presently planning to promulgate
specific Subtitle C requirements for the management of each of these
"special wastes". An additional environmental impact statement or
supplementary statement would be prepared for these "special wastes",
if warranted, at such time.
7.1 Potential Primary Impacts
The potential primary impacts from implementation of the pro-
posed regulations are analyzed within the following areas:
• Hazardous wastes to be regulated;
• Changes to existing generation, transport, storage, treat-
ment, and disposal practices and procedures;
• Administrative changes;
• Air impacts;
• Water impacts;
• Public health impacts.
In discussing the primary impacts of the proposed regulations,
especially air, water, and public health implications, a limited
number of incidents are used to illustrate the potential benefits of
the regulations. It should be noted that Appendix J contains many
7-4
-------
additional examples of adverse incidents that have occurred under
present hazardous waste management practices.
7.1.1 Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. The Section 3001 regu-
lations (Appendix B, Subpart A) define the wastes that are to be con-
sidered hazardous and, thus, subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Two mechanisms are provided for determining those wastes that are
hazardous: identifying characteristics and lists of specific hazard-
ous wastes and waste streams. The identifying characteristics are
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. Wastes which
exhibit any of these characteristics, or which are listed, would be
considered hazardous and would have to be managed pursuant to the
Subtitle C regulations.
Chapter 6 contains estimates of potentially hazardous waste gen-
eration within manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries. The
estimates for the manufacturing industries have been determined using
the generation factors described in Appendix H; the estimates for the
non-manufacturing industries have been developed as described in
Chapter 6. The quantity of wastes that would be identified as hazar-
dous under the Section 3001 regulations would, however, be less than
the quantities indicated as hazardous in Chapter 6 due to the pro-
posed definition of the Section 3001 toxicity characteristic. The
toxicity characteristic is to be based solely upon the EPA Primary
Drinking Water Standards and, as a result, many wastes that are po-
tentially hazardous due to other indicators of toxicity, especially
7-5
-------
organic wastes, would presently be excluded from regulations.*
However, many other such wastes are specifically included on the
lists of hazardous wastes and, thus, would be subject to the Subtitle
C regulations.
It is expected that the primary effect of the present toxicity
characteristic on manufacturing wastes would be to eliminate from
regulation a large portion of the potentially hazardous wastes pre-
viously estimated to be generated by industries within SIC Code 28
(Chemicals and Allied Products). EPA staff estimates are that about
35 percent of the potentially hazardous wastes previously estimated
to be generated within SIC Code 28 could be identified as hazardous
under the Subtitle C regulations. It is therefore estimated, based
upon Chapter 6, that approximately 35 million metric tons of manu-
facturing wastes could be identified as hazardous under the Section
3001 regulations in 1980, and that approximately 40 million metric
tons could be identified as hazardous in 1984. The distribution of
these regulated wastes among the manufacturing SIC codes and EPA
Regions would be essentially that shown in Table 6-1, except that the
wastes in SIC Code 28 would be reduced by 65 percent.
*EPA is planning to expand the toxicity characteristic to bring a
greater number of these potentially hazardous wastes under the
regulations in the future and would prepare an additional environ-
mental impact statement or supplementary statement for .the expanded
toxicity characteristic, if warranted, at such time. The specific
revisions are not known at this time. The "enhanced public health
and environmental protection alternative" assessed in Chapter 8
does, however, include an expanded toxicity characteristic.
7-6
-------
Only those persons or Federal agencies who produce and dispose
of more than 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds) per month of wastes
identified as hazardous under the Section 3001 regulations would be
considered generators subject to the Subtitle C regulations. As
shown in Table 7-2, this generator limit of 100 kilograms per month
could exclude about 29,000 metric tons per year of hazardous manufac-
turing wastes from regulation. The excluded waste would be less than
0.1 percent of the total hazardous manufacturing wastes. However,
about 26 percent of manufacturing establishments generating hazardous
wastes could be excluded.
For purposes of comparison, almost 350 million metric tons of
total manufacturing wastes (hazardous and non-hazardous) are estimat-
ed by EPA to be generated annually. Thus, over 10 percent of the
total manufacturing wastes would be regulated as hazardous wastes.
Over 60 percent of the manufacturing wastes identified as hazardous
in Chapter 6 would be regulated.
In addition to manufacturing wastes, the identifying character-
istics and the lists would identify other wastes as hazardous. Sev-
eral large volume, non-manufacturing waste streams are specifically
listed as being hazardous. The listed waste streams include uranium
mining wastes, phosphate mining and processing wastes, and pesticide
containers that have not been triple rinsed. As discussed in Chapter
6, phosphate mining and processing wastes amount to about 220 million
tons annually (however, as discussed in Section 7.1.2, these wastes
7-7
-------
TABLE 7-2
ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES
AND NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS EXCLUDED FROM
REGULATION AT A GENERATOR LIMIT OF 100 KG/MO
I
00
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
National
total
Number of
manufacturing
establishments
excluded
5,270
13,200
7,180
14,900
14,200
7,090
3,760
2,110
9,750
3,820
81,420
Percent of total
manufacturing
establishments
excluded
23
25
25
33
21
.29
26
33
26
34
26
Hazardous
Percent of total.
manufacturing hazardous
wastes excluded manufacturing
(1000 metric tons) wastes excluded
1.9
4.1
2.7
5.5
5.0
2.7
1.5
0.9
3.5
1.5
29.3
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
-------
would be subject to a limited portion of the Subtitle C storage,
treatment, and disposal regulations).
Waste pesticide containers from persons engaged principally in
farming or solely in retail trade would not be subject to the
Subtitle C regulations. This exclusion, coupled with the unknown
portion of waste pesticide containers already included in the
estimates of manufacturing wastes, precludes any determination of the
quantity of waste pesticide containers that would be subject to the
regulations. The remainder would, however, be subject to the
requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act of 1972, as amended.
The identifying characteristics could result in the regulation
of such other large volume wastes as waste automotive oil, coal ash,
oil drilling muds and brines, cement kiln dusts, and dredge spoils.
Estimates of the annual production of these wastes are presented in
Chapter 6. The portion of such wastes that could be identified as
hazardous by the characteristics is not known.
7.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures. Typical practices
and procedures used by generators, transporters, storers, treaters,
and disposers of hazardous wastes are discussed in Chapter 5. The
Subtitle C regulations would lead to a number of major changes in
these existing practices and procedures. The changes would primarily
7-9
-------
be caused by the enactment of more stringent environmental require-
ments than those that currently exist, resultant increases in treat-
ment and disposal costs, and specific procedural and operational
requirements imposed by the regulations. The intent of this section
is to indicate the scope of applicability of the Subtitle C regula-
tions and the major changes likely to occur in existing practices and
procedures as a result of the promulgation of the regulations.
It is anticipated that at least five years would be required for
the changes in existing practices and procedures to become fully
established. Several years would be required for hazardous waste
generators to become fully aware of the specific economic implica-
tions of the regulations, to assess the alternatives available to
them (e.g., process modification, increased recycling of hazardous
wastes, shifts in on-site and off-site treatment/disposal practices),
and to implement any changes. Due to resource constraints, several
years would also be required for EPA or authorized states to act upon
all permit applications and to issue permits to acceptable storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities. Facilities requiring modifica-
tions as a condition of their permits would then have up to three
years to complete such modifications. Furthermore, the necessary
integration and coordination of RCRA requirements with those of other
acts (e.g., Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Safe Drinking
7-10
-------
Water Act) requires that there be some delay in permit issuance. For
example, in those instances where a treater or disposer has a Nation-
al Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issuance of
the RCRA permit would be delayed until the time that the NPDES permit
is to be renewed. In addition, since very few states would currently
be qualified to attain full authorization, regulatory requirements in
those states granted interim authorization would be changed over
several years as the states become qualified for full authorization.
7.1.2.1 Generation. The regulations applicable to generators
(Section 3002 of Subtitle C) apply only to those persons or Federal
agencies, except households, who produce and dispose of more than 100
kilograms (about 220 pounds) per month of wastes identified as haz-
ardous under the Section 3001 regulations. Any person or Federal
agency producing and disposing of 100 kilograms or less per month
would not be required to comply with the generator regulations; also
any generator engaged solely in retail trade or principally in
farming would have to comply with the regulations only with regard to
waste automotive oil. Generators excluded from compliance with the
Subtitle C regulations would, however, still be obligated to dispose
of their hazardous wastes in an acceptable manner, e.g., in a
landfill that meets RCRA Subtitle D criteria.
The Subtitle C regulations would result in procedural changes
described below in the methods used by these regulated generators for
tracking and reporting hazardous waste shipments and for preparing
such shipments for transport. The regulations could also lead to
7-11
-------
process changes that would allow increased resource conservation
and/or recovery of hazardous wastes.
Manifest. Under the Subtitle C regulations, every generator
would be required to provide a manifest for each off-site hazardous
waste shipment—intrastate, interstate, and international—sent to a
facility not owned by the generator and to file reports and keep
records on such shipments. Generators designating hazardous waste to
an off-site facility owned by the generator and located in the same
state as the generator would have to provide a manifest, but would
not have to comply with the reporting or recordkeeping requirements
(although the facility itself would be subject to reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under Section 3004); shipments to
generator-owned facilities in other states would have to comply with
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. On-site shipments
would not have to be manifested, but would have to be sent to
permitted on-site facilities and would have to be reported to
appropriate Federal or state authorities.* Appendix B, Subpart B
describes the required content of the manifest and reports. The
major purposes of the manifest would be to ensure that off-site
shipments of hazardous wastes are sent only to permitted storage,
treatment, or disposal facilities and to ensure that all such wastes
are actually delivered to the facility to which they are sent
*0ff-site as used throughout this statement means any facility or
location not on a generator's property. On-site means any facility
or location on a generator's property.
7-12
-------
(Appendix J describes numerous incidents from the indiscriminate
dumping of wastes in transit)-
Currently, there are very limited mechanisms for tracking of
hazardous wastes. Based upon Tables 2-3 and 2-4, only 10 states have
(or have proposed) standards for manifesting of hazardous wastes by
generators and only two other states have standards for manifesting
by transporters; an additional 14 states have (or have proposed)
enabling authority to enforce manifest requirements, but do not have
standards. Nine states have (or have proposed) reporting standards
applicable to generators; 15 others have (or have proposed) enabling
authority for enforcing reporting by generators. In addition, for
the small portion of hazardous wastes that meet the Department of
Transportation (DOT) criteria of a hazardous material under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 CFR 100-189), any inter-
state or international shipment of such wastes by common or contract
carriers must be accompanied by shipping papers prepared and signed
by the consignor (generator). In addition, over 30 states have cur-
rently adopted, with or without modification, the DOT Hazardous
Material Regulations and apply them to intrastate shipments by common
and contract carriers.
Due to these limited tracking mechanisms, generators, state
authorities, and Federal authorities, have little or no information
as to what currently happens to a large portion of the hazardous
wastes that are shipped off the generator's site; state and Federal
authorities also have little or no information about what happens to
7-13
-------
a considerable amount of the wastes that remain on the generator's
site for treatment or disposal. Furthermore, in states which do not
have manifesting or reporting requirements, the ultimate fate of the
wastes is not known for a very large portion of the wastes; for
example, in Kansas the disposal location is not known for almost 80
percent of the industrial wastes generated in the state and
in Massachusetts the disposal location is not known for about 65
percent of the industrial wastes (see Table 5-14). Even in those
states with manifest and reporting standards, the disposal location
is not always known; for example, in Texas, the fate of about 20
percent of the hazardous wastes is not known.
To remedy this, the Subtitle C regulations would make the gen-
erator responsible for determining where his hazardous wastes are to
be delivered when sent off-site and for identifying those shipments
that may not have been delivered to the designated destination. The
manifest (or the equivalent delivery document) would have to be
signed by authorized representatives of the generator, the trans-
porter, and the designated delivery facility; after the waste is de-
livered to the designated treatment, storage, or disposal facility,
the signed original of the manifest (or equivalent delivery document)
would have to be returned to the generator to verify that the waste
has been delivered. Generators would have to file quarterly reports
on all manifested shipments for which a signed manifest copy (or
equivalent delivery document) is not returned. In addition, genera-
tors designating wastes for off-site shipment would be required to
7-14
-------
file annual reports based on the information in the manifests and to
keep a copy of each manifest for a period of three years. Generators
who designate hazardous wastes for on-site treatment, storage, or
disposal would also have to file annual reports identifying the types
and quantities of wastes managed on-site.
Containerization and Labeling. Under the Subtitle C regula-
tions, the generator would also be required to containerize all
wastes for transport in accordance with the DOT regulations on pack-
aging under 49 CFR 173, 178, and 179. If no specific packaging is
required, the generator would have to place the hazardous wastes in a
package in accordance with the DOT regulations on standard require-
ments for all packages (49 CFR 173.24(a), (b), and (c)(2)-(9)). In
addition, the generator would have to label and placard each shipment
in accordance with DOT regulations on hazardous materials (49 CFR
172) and mark each package in accordance with DOT regulations on
marking (49 CFR 172.300) or with the EPA hazardous waste name (see
Appendix B, Subpart A, 250.14), as applicable. Each package must
also contain the manifest document number and the generator's
identification number.
The DOT regulations cited above currently apply only to inter-
state or foreign shipments by common or contract carriers or to
intrastate shipments by common or contract carriers in those states
which have adopted the DOT regulations. The Subtitle C regulations
would extend these DOT regulations to all hazardous waste shipments.
7-15
-------
Process Changes to Promote Resource Conservation and Recovery.
In addition to these procedural changes, the Subtitle C regulations
would have the potential to cause generators to modify processes that
generate hazardous wastes in order to increase resource conservation
and recovery. Since one major result of the regulations would be to
increase generator's costs and those costs associated with hazardous
waste transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal, generators
would potentially have an incentive to modify processes so as to
reduce and/or change the types and amounts of hazardous wastes gen-
erated by such processes and to enable the increased recycling of
hazardous wastes as process feedstocks. According to a recent study
on hazardous waste management, (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976), there
is currently a trend in hazardous waste producing industries to
recover, reuse, or recycle waste products that were once either
treated or dumped; the primary reasons being economics and public
relations.
As discussed in Section 5.4, the potential for process modifi-
cations to promote resource conservation and/or recovery would be
extremely waste stream and process specific and would depend upon
such factors as the economics of disposal,, treatment, and transport;
the cost of raw materials and energy; the availability of markets for
and sources of recyclable hazardous wastes; and the availability both
of the necessary technology for specific resource conservation or
recovery applications and of environmentally adequate disposal meth-
ods. Due to the many complex interrelationships among these factors,
7-16
-------
the determination of specific process modifications and resultant
changes to waste streams that could occur as a result of promulgation
of the Subtitle C regulations is beyond the scope of the EIS.
7.1.2.2 Transport. The regulations applicable to transporters
(Section 3003 of Subtitle C) apply to any person or Federal agency
transporting, within the United States, hazardous wastes that require
a manifest under the generator regulations and also apply to any
transporter importing a shipment of hazardous wastes from abroad.
The transporter regulations do not apply to persons or Federal agen-
cies transporting hazardous wastes solely on the site of generation
or solely on the site of a permitted hazardous waste management
facility. While the transporter regulations do not apply to hazar-
dous waste shipments not requiring manifests, if any person or Fed-
eral agency consolidates for shipment and transports any quantity of
unmanifested hazardous wastes from more than one source, the entire
shipment would have to be delivered to a permitted facility and would
have to comply (for both interstate and intrastate shipments) with
applicable DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100-189)
concerning shipping papers, labeling, marking, placarding, and trans-
portation. Data are not available to estimate the number of trans-
porters that would be affected by the tranporter regulations (see
Appendix E).
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would signifi-
cantly curtail the 'midnight dumping' of hazardous wastes and would
likely result in changes in the handling of transportation-related
7-17
-------
spills, in the distances over which hazardous wastes are transported,
and in existing operational procedures and practices used for the
transport of hazardous wastes.
Midnight Dumping. There are numerous reported instances of
hazardous waste transporters dumping wastes surreptitiously rather
than delivering the wastes to an environmentally acceptable storage,
treatment, or disposal facility (see Appendix J). Because such il-
legal disposal often occurs at night, this practice has been termed
midnight dumping. Data are not available to quantify the total num-
ber of such incidents, nor the amount of wastes disposed annually
through midnight dumping; however, the following example illustrates
the potential magnitude of the problem. New Jersey shut down its
last legal land disposal site to chemical waste dumping nearly three
years ago. The site was handling about one million gallons of chemi-
cal wastes per week when it was eliminated. At this time it is not
known where most of the wastes that formerly went to such landfills
are currently being disposed, but there are reported incidents of
illegal disposal throughout New Jersey (Richards, 1978).
The manifest and reporting requirements discussed in Section
7.1.2.1 should significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the practice
of midnight dumping. These requirements effectively transfer the
opportunity for midnight dumping from the transporter to the genera-
tor and, to a lesser degree, to the receiving facility. To the ex-
tent that generators manifest all off-site hazardous waste shipments
and truthfully indicate the type and quantity of hazardous waste
7-18
-------
being transported, midnight dumping should be nearly eliminated, pro-
viding the receiving facility accurately confirms the contents of
wastes delivered.
Spills. Section 2.3 indicates existing laws for the reporting,
prevention, and containment of transportation-related spills of haz-
ardous substances. Only those hazardous wastes and other spilled
materials which meet the definitions and criteria for hazardous
materials under the DOT Hazardous Materials Transportation Regula-
tions or which are specifically listed under Section 311 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended would come under these
existing spill regulations. The Hazardous Materials Transportation
Regulations require reporting, but not clean up or containment, of
transportation-related spills of hazardous materials. These require-
ments, however, apply only to interstate commerce or to intrastate
shipments in those states which have adopted the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Regulations.
Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act applies
only to spills of* the listed substances which threaten navigable
waters and which are into or upon the navigable waters of the U.S.,
adjoining shorelines, contiguous zones, or which may affect appli-
cable natural resources. Section 311 requires the reporting and
clean-up of such spills by the responsible party.
The Subtitle C regulations extend reporting and clean-up re-
quirements to all transportation-related spills of hazardous wastes
or hazardous materials which become hazardous wastes under Section
7-19
-------
3001 when spilled. In the case of a spill, transporters would have
to immediately telephone either the National Response Center (U.S.
Coast Guard) or the government official predesignated as the on-
scene coordinator, pursuant to 40 CFR 1510; a written report would
have to be filed within 15 days with the DOT Office of Hazardous
Materials Operations. The transporter would also have to clean up
all spilled hazardous waste or take such action as may be required by
Federal, state, or local agencies so as to ensure that the spilled
waste no longer presents a hazard to human health or the environment.
Transport Distances. The average distance over which hazardous
wastes are transported would likely increase as a result of the Sub-
title C regulations. This increase would result from several
factors. First, the portion of wastes being shipped to off-site
facilities for treatment and disposal, rather than remaining at
on-site facilities, would most likely increase as discussed in
Section 7.1.2.4. Second, all hazardous wastes would have to be
transported to permitted facilities, not just to any nearby disposal
site. Since it would not likely be economically or environmentally
practical to site permitted facilities near every generator, the
average distance wastes would have to be transported should increase.
Third, increases in disposal costs resulting from the proposed regu-
lations should increase the distance over which waste may be economi-
cally transported for resource recovery purposes.
According to a recent hazardous waste transport study (Arthur D.
Little, Inc., 1978a), most hazardous waste transport is by truck with
7-20
-------
typical off-site transport distances ranging from 25 to 150 miles;
most of the surveyed firms reported transport distances of about 50
miles. However, based on the limited number of firms replying to
the survey- the study concluded that the reported truck transport
distances might not be representative of the industry as a whole.
Most hazardous wastes transported by rail or barge are reported to go
to reclamation or resource recovery facilities; transport distances
on-the-order of 100 or more miles are common for such shipments.
Data are not available to determine by how much typical transport
distances are likely to increase as a result of the Subtitle C
regulations.
Existing Practices and Procedures. The Subtitle C regulations
would modify existing practices that have in the past led to re-
leases of hazardous wastes during transport and would impose addi-
tional procedural requirements on transporters to enable easier
identification of both the transporter and the wastes being trans-
ported. For example, the regulations require that the transporter
not accept shipments of hazardous wastes unless such shipments are
accompanied by a manifest signed by the generator and are in con-
tainers which are not leaking or damaged and which are properly
labeled and marked. In addition, the transporter (and any other
subsequent transporter(s)) is to sign the manifest; insure that the
manifest (or equivalent delivery document) accompanies the shipment
at all times; placard and mark the transport vehicle; deliver the
entire quantity of hazardous wastes to permitted facilities; and keep
7-21
-------
a copy of the manifest (or delivery document) for at least 3 years.
If the transporter consolidates or mixes hazardous wastes from
different generators or separate wastes from the same generator, the
transporter would also have to comply with the generator regulations
if the consolidated mixture was no longer adequately identified by
the manifest.
Not all of the above requirements represent entirely new re-
quirements on all transporters. For example, as discussed in
Appendix E, most transporters presently keep delivery documents for
at least 3 years due to various Federal and state regulations. In
addition, common and contract carriers engaged in the interstate
transport of hazardous materials, as defined in the DOT Hazardous
Materials Transportation Regulations, have to comply with equivalent
placarding requirements and are not to accept shipments of hazardous
materials unless accompanied by shipping papers signed by the con-
signor (generator).
7.1.2.3 Storage. RCRA defines storage as the containment of
hazardous wastes, either on a temporary basis or for a period of
years, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal. The regula-
tions applicable to storers (Section 3004 of Subtitle C) apply,
except as noted below, to all storage at off-site storage, treatment,
or disposal facilities and to all on-site storage by generators prior
to on-site treatment or disposal; the regulations do not apply to on-
site storage by generators who store their own wastes for less than
90 days prior to subsequent transport off-site, but do apply to any
7-22
-------
such on-site storage which lasts for 90 days or longer. Facilities
specifically excluded from complying with the storage regulations
include Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and ocean dumping
barges and vessels. In addition, facilities that store only 'special
wastes', and no other hazardous waste, would have to comply only with
the General Facility Standards (e.g., manifest system, recordkeeping,
reporting—see Appendix B, Subpart D, 250.43) and not with any other
storage regulations. All facilities regulated would require permits
under Section 3005 of Subtitle C. Section 7.1.3.5 contains estimates
of the number of potential permittees. Data are not available to
estimate the quantities of wastes that would be affected by the
storage regulations.
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would result in
the elimination of current storage practices that lead to or become a
form of disposal and would result in changes in the current design
and operation of storage facilities.
Indefinite Storage. Currently there are few regulations, if
any, that limit the time that wastes may be left in storage. As a
result, there are a number of reported incidences of hazardous wastes
being placed in storage for indefinite periods of time, sometimes in
very large quantities (see Appendix J). In many such instances, the
wastes in storage are ultimately abandoned, rather than being dis-
posed in an acceptable manner, and are left to enter the environment.
7-23
-------
Even when the wastes are not abandoned, overly long storage times
have resulted in weathering and/or corrosion of containers and
weathering of storage piles, causing the eventual release of the
stored wastes into the environment.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that would
eliminate the indefinite storage of hazardous wastes. At facility
close-out*, all hazardous wastes would have to be removed from all
storage and treatment operations, including surface impoundments that
do not meet the Subtitle C criteria for landfills, and would have to
be disposed as required by the regulations (see Section 7.1.2.4).
Facilities would have to post a bond that would be held until the
completion of both closure and post close-out care to ensure com-
pliance, t
Facility Design and Operation. The Subtitle C regulations would
prohibit or restrict existing storage practices that result either in
the discharge of hazardous wastes or in the storage of such wastes in
an environmentally unacceptable manner. For example, the regula-
tions require that storage operations be conducted in such a manner
that no discharge occurs and such that storage facilities be moni-
tored and inspected for the purpose of detecting any potential
*Close-out is the point in time at which facilities stop accepting
hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal.
TClosure is the series of actions to be completed within 3 years
following close-out during which a facility is to be secured
pursuant to Subtitle C regulations. Post close-out is the period
which need not exceed 20 years following closure during which
required monitoring and maintenance activities are to be conducted.
7-24
-------
discharge; that all storage areas be constructed so as to be capable
of containing any run-off or spills that occur, plus have sufficient
freeboard to allow for collection and containment of precipitation;
that storage areas be constructed of materials that are compatible
with the wastes to be contained; that incompatible wastes (see
Appendix D, Subpart D, Annex 4 for examples) not be mixed together;
and that facilities not be located on or near active fault zones or
in areas where they could be inundated by a 500-year flood. As indi-
cated by the reported incidences listed in Appendix J, such regula-
tions would necessitate many changes both in the design and in the
operation of hazardous waste storage facilities. Data are not avail-
able to estimate the number of facilities that would be affected, nor
to determine the specific changes that would be required for most
such facilities.
7.1.2.4 Treatment/Disposal. With the few specific exclusions
noted below, the regulations applicable to treaters and disposers
(Section 3004 of Subtitle C) apply to owners and operators of any
facility that treats and/or disposes any quantity of any waste
identified as hazardous under the Section 3001 regulations (Appendix
B, Subpart A), except those wastes listed as "special wastes'. All
owners and operators of facilities that treat and/or dispose of
"special wastes', and no other hazardous waste, would have to comply
only with the General Facility Standards of the treatment and dis-
posal regulations (Appendix B, Subpart D, 250.43).
7-25
-------
Certain disposal practices that are controlled under other
Federal acts are not regulated under the treatment and disposal
regulations of Subtitle C. These practices include underground
(deep-well) injection, ocean dumping, discharges to municipal sewer
systems, surfaces discharges under a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and all treatment and disposal
activities at Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). However, the
treatment and disposal regulations would apply to above ground stor-
age or treatment of hazardous wastes prior to underground injection,
on-shore facilities associated with ocean dumping activities, and
surface impoundments associated with NPDES permitted industrial
wastewater treatment facilities and hazardous sludges from such
facilities. All facilities regulated would require permits under
Section 3005 of Subtitle C. Section 7.1.3.5 contains estimates of
the number of potential permittees under the Subtitle C regulations.
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would lead to the
closing or modifying of many existing treatment/disposal facilities
and to significant changes in current treatment/disposal practices.
In addition, the regulations would likely affect the portion of
hazardous wastes treated/disposed on-site and off-site.
Facility Closing or Modification. A major impact resulting from
the Subtitle C regulations would be the closing of those hazardous
waste management facilities (both off-site and on-site) that could
not or would not comply with the treatment/disposal requirements and
7-26
-------
the modification of other hazardous waste management facilities to
enable compliance with the requirements. Facilities requiring
modifications would have to make such modifications in accordance
with compliance schedules contained in permits issued to them under
the Section 3005 regulations. The modifications would have to be
made within 3 years from the original date of issuance of the
compliance schedule; for compliance schedules exceeding 6 months,
interim compliance requirements would also have to be met every 6
months.
Data are not available to estimate the number and type of
hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities that would have to
close down or be modified as a result of the proposed regulations.
However, based on the reported incidences in Appendix J and other
available data discussed below, it is expected that a very large
portion of existing facilities would require modification to be able
to comply with the treatment/disposal requirements. For example,
less than 10 percent of hazardous manufacturing wastes from 14 major
generating industries are estimated to have been treated/disposed in
an environmentally acceptable manner in recent years (see Table 5-7).
While some of this environmentally unacceptable treatment/disposal
could be made acceptable by the use of alternative treatment methods
instead of by facility modification, it is likely that the vast
majority of existing treatment/disposal facilities handling such
wastes would require modifications in order to comply with the
7-27
-------
treatment/disposal requirements. For example, of 80 estimated
hazardous waste management service industry landfills currently
handling some form of potentially hazardous waste, approximately 20
could meet secure landfill standards (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976;
Straus, 1977). Furthermore, according to the Industry Studies
(1975-1978), the vast majority of hazardous industrial wastes that
are disposed in landfills are disposed in general purpose landfills
rather than secure landfills (see Appendix D). Additionally, about
16,000 land disposal sites accepted municipal wastes in 1976; most
also received some industrial waste; only about 100 had impermeable
linings and only about 200 had leachate collection systems (Waste
Age, 1977). Appendix D discusses other examples of facilities that
could require modifications.
Changes in Current Treatment/Disposal Practices. Those existing
hazardous waste treatment/disposal practices that are environmentally
unacceptable according to the Subtitle C regulations would be pro-
hibited or restricted or would have to be modified; some practices
could be replaced by other, more environmentally acceptable prac-
tices.
Existing practices that are likely to,be prohibited or severely
restricted by the Subtitle C regulations include: open burning;
uncontrolled incineration; road application of untreated waste oil;
the use of landfills without leachate collection systems and ground-
water monitoring systems; the use of surface impoundments without
7-28
-------
leachate detection systems and groundwater monitoring systems;
landfarming of highly volatile wastes or wastes containing arsenic,
boron, molybdenum and/or selenium in concentrations greater than soil
background conditions; the location of landfills, surface impound-
ments, and landfarms within 150 meters (500 feet) of functioning
public or private water supplies or livestock water supplies; and the
mixing of incompatible wastes in surface impoundments and basins,
except for the purpose of treatment. In addition, the Subtitle C
regulations specifically prohibit such existing practices as open
dumping; the placing of reactive wastes, ignitable wastes, and highly
volatile wastes in landfills, surface impoundments, or basins; the
mixing of incompatible wastes in landfills and landfarms; the use of
waste application practices that allow the zone of incorporation of
landfarms to become anaerobic; and the use of continuous feed treat-
ment facilities without automatic waste feed cut-offs or by-pass
systems that are activated when a malfunction occurs.
The Subtitle C regulations also impose specific requirements for
the closure of treatment/disposal facilities. For example, at final
closure all disposal operations would have to be completed and all
wastes removed from treatment facilities and disposed in accordance
with the regulations. Hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residue
would also have to be removed from all surface impoundments that do
not meet the standards for landfills and disposed according to the
regulations. Any contaminated soil-filter medium at landfarms would
7-29
-------
also have to be removed. Monitoring and maintenance care would have
to be provided for a period that need not exceed 20 years from
close-out.
For the most part, data are not available to enable an estimate
of the quantity of hazardous wastes currently treated/disposed by
each of the above practices, the number of off-site or on-site
treatment/disposal facilities that would be affected by such pro-
hibition or restrictions, nor any potential shift likely to occur in
the quantities of hazardous waste treated/disposed by various methods
as a result of the regulations. Specific changes would be dependent
upon such factors as treatment/disposal economics; waste characteris-
tics; adequacy of available pollution control devices; availability
and adequacy of alternative treatment/disposal methods; and site-
specific conditions such as climate, soil characteristics, and
groundwater characteristics.
As previously discussed, available data indicate that about 90
percent of the hazardous manufacturing wastes from 14 major generat-
ing industries are estimated to have been treated/disposed in an
environmentally unacceptable manner in recent years. For each method
used for treating/disposing of these wastes, the portion of the waste
estimated to have been treated/disposed in an environmentally unac-
ceptable manner using that method is as follows (see Table 5-7):
surface impoundment—over 99.9 percent; dumping and landfilling—
about 95 percent; incineration—about 65 percent; other (road appli-
cation, landfarming, deep-well injection)—almost 100 percent.
7-30
-------
Table 5-11 shows, for four of these 14 industries, the esti-
mated percentage of hazardous wastes treated/disposed by environmen-
tally inadequate methods in recent years. Between 95 and 100 percent
of the hazardous wastes were treated/disposed by such methods in
these industries. Battelle Columbus Laboratories (1978) has esti-
mated, for selected hazardous waste streams from these 14 industries,
the percentage of the generating facilities in the industry that have
been using environmentally inadequate treatment/disposal methods in
recent years. For most of the hazardous waste streams reviewed, 70
percent or more of the facilities were estimated to have used
environmentally inadequate treatment/disposal methods.
Due to the enactment of more stringent Federal and state en-
vironmental regulations in the period since these 14 industries were
surveyed (1973-1975), it is likely that a somewhat greater portion of
hazardous waste is now being treated/disposed in an environmentally
acceptable manner in these industries. For analysis purposes, based
upon a hazardous industrial waste generation of about 40 million
metric tons in 1984, and assuming, as an upper limit, that 90 percent
of such wastes would continue to be treated/ disposed in an environ-
mentally inadequate manner without the promulgation of the Subtitle C
regulations, it is estimated that these regulations could result in
up to an additional 36 million metric tons of hazardous industrial
wastes being treated/disposed in an environmentally adequate manner
annually by 1984.
7-31
-------
Change in Hazardous Wastes Treated/Disposed On-site and Off-
site. The Subtitle C regulations would likely lead to changes in the
portion of hazardous wastes treated/disposed on-site by generators
and off-site by the waste management industry. Based upon the Indus-
try Studies (1975-1978), about 82 percent of all hazardous industrial
wastes are typically treated/disposed on-site by the generator; about
15 percent are treated/disposed off-site; about 3 percent are re-
claimed. The percentage treated/disposed on-site and off-site, how-
ever, varies widely from industry to industry (see Table 5-10).*
The trend in at least one industry is to increase the portion of
hazardous wastes being treated/disposed on-site. A study of hazard-
ous waste practices in the petroleum refining industry (Jacobs En-
gineering Company, 1976) indicated that on-site treatment/disposal
was expected to increase from 44 percent in 1974 to 73 percent by
1983; most of the change was expected to be due to increases in on-
site landfarming and landfilling. The major reasons reported to be
given by the industry (prior to the enactment of RCRA) for the poten-
tial increase in on-site treatment/disposal are as follows:
• The emerging stringent water and air emission requirements
dictate that increasing volumes of hazardous wastes may need
to be discharged to the land since'land disposal is not as
stringently regulated at the present time;
*These percentages are based upon a survey of a limited number of
establishments within each manufacturing industry. According to the
Industry Studies, while the numbers for each industry are typical
of those establishments which replied to the survey, they may not be
representative of each industry as a whole.
7-32
-------
• The legal protection surrounding the use of private property
(as observed in a review of existing solid waste laws as they
apply to private on-site versus public off-site disposal)
sometimes allows industry to dispose of industrial wastes on
its own property without the necessity of permit, monitor-
ing, or supervision and control by regulatory agencies;
• The present trend is one of increasingly stringent require-
ments by regulatory agencies surrounding disposal of in-
dustrial wastes to outside municipal or private landfills;
• The closure of many dumps, lagoons, and sumps over the past
few years has seriously reduced the availability of nearby
disposal sites;
• The cost of transporting large volumes of wastes long dis-
tances to certified secure hazardous waste disposal sites
would bring about significant economic and price dislocations
to a segment of the industry and place certain refineries at
an immediate disadvantage.
The Subtitle C regulations would likely reverse, or signifi-
cantly reduce, such a trend to on-site treatment/disposal since the
regulations contain stringent requirements for the treatment/
disposal of hazardous wastes and apply these requirements equally to
on-site and off-site treatment/disposal. Thus, one of the primary
advantages given for on-site treatment/disposal—little or no
regulation—would be eliminated.
Several factors would affect the portion of hazardous wastes
treated/disposed on-site and off-site under Subtitle C. For the most
part, these factors would be very industry; waste stream, and site
specific and, as a result, it is not possible to accurately determine
the extent of any shift that could occur ujader the Subtitle C regu-
lations.
7-33
-------
Factors that would tend to increase the portion of wastes
treated/disposed off-site under the Subtitle C regulations are as
follows:
• An indeterminable portion of the existing on-site treatment/
disposal facilities would not be able to be modified to
comply with the Section 3004 requirements and would have to
cease operation;
• A portion of generators, especially small generators, who
currently dump or otherwise dispose wastes on-site in an en-
vironmentally inadequate manner would not be able to afford
permittable treatment/disposal facilities or would not want
to construct such facilities and would have to ship
wastes off-site;
• Certain existing practices would be prohibited or severely
restricted and a portion of those on-site facilities
employing such practices would likely send wastes off-site
instead of using alternative on-site practices;
• In some states off-site treatment/disposal currently tends to
be more stringently regulated than on-site disposal;
enactment and enforcement of stringent regulations applicable
both off-site and on-site treatment/disposal would tend to
make on-site treatment/disposal less advantageous;
• Off-site hazardous waste management facilities in EPA Region
IX have the highest capacity utilization rates in the U.S.
for every type of treatment/disposal practice due to strict
and uniform enforcement of treatment/disposal in the region
compared to most other regions and due to siting problems re-
sulting in restricted hazardous waste management capacity
(Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976).
Factors that could tend to limit any potential increase in the
portion of hazardous wastes transported off-site include:
• Public opposition to siting of off-site facilities;
• The inability to locate permittable off-site facilities
relative to generator needs and the treatment/disposal
capacity available at such facilities;
7-34
-------
• Potential increases in volume reduction and in resource con-
servation and recovery practices as a result of Subtitle C
which could reduce the quantity of hazardous wastes requiring
disposal.
To quantify the potential shift in on-site and off-site dispos-
al, available state data were reviewed to determine whether such
shifts have occurred in states that have enacted hazardous waste
legislation, and the extent of any such shifts. As indicated in
Section 5.3.6, only a few states currently have accumulated suffi-
cient data to enable an estimation of the portions of hazardous
wastes generated within the state that are being treated/disposed
on-site versus off-site (see Table 5-14). Comparable historical data
are not available from these states to enable a determination of any
change in the portion of wastes treated/disposed on-site and off-site
following enactment of the state's hazardous waste (or equivalent
solid waste) legislation (personal communication with representatives
of the following state agencies: California Department of Health,
Vector Control Section, 1978; Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Solid Waste Section, 1978; Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Division of Land Pollution Control, 1978; Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Environmental Sani-
tation, Solid Waste Section, Hazardous Waste Unit, 1978; Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Environmental Health Admini-
stration, Division of Solid Waste, 1978; Massachusetts Bureau of
Solid Waste Disposal, 1978; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
7-35
-------
Division of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Section, 1978; Rhode Island
Department of Health, Division of Solid Waste Management, 1978; Texas
Division of Solid Waste Management, 1978).
In Illinois, on-site disposal is reported to be down and off-
site (including out-of-state) disposal up following enactment of the
state's solid waste legislation; the percentage change is not avail-
able (Personal Communication, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency: Division of Land Pollution Control, 1978). In California,
the hazardous waste going off-site is not expected to decrease as a
result of the state's hazardous waste legislation (Personal communi-
cation, California Department of Health, Vector Control Section,
1978). Estimates of the direction of any other potential shifts are
not available from the other states.
Of those states listed in Table 5-14, Illinois and Texas cur-
rently have hazardous waste regulations closest to those that would
be promulgated under Subtitle C. In addition, the data for Illinois
and Texas in Table 5-14 are based upon the required reporting of
current practices; the data for all the other states are based upon
less recent, limited surveys directed toward determining existing
hazardous waste practices in each state and needed changes in the
state's hazardous waste regulation. Furthermore, Illinois and Texas
have permitted facilities both on-site and off-site while several of
the other states, e.g., Kansas and Rhode Island, do not have
7-36
-------
permitted off-site facilities (most wastes go out-of-state in such
instances).
For the reasons cited above, the Illinois and Texas data are
used, solely for analysis purposes, to provide an estimated range for
the portion of hazardous wastes that might be disposed off-site by
1984 under the Subtitle C regulations. It should be noted that these
data are being used as a surrogate to analyze potential impacts that
could occur from a shift in on-site and off-site disposal, should
such a shift occur, and not as a firm estimate of the magnitude of
any such shift.
Under this surrogate method, and assuming that the wastes whose
disposal location is unknown in these two states are disposed on-site
and off-site in the same ratio as those wastes whose disposal loca-
tion is known (see Table 5-14), about 25 percent of the hazardous
wastes in Illinois and about 13 percent of the hazardous wastes in
Texas are estimated to be disposed off-site. For 1984, a range of 13
to 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal of hazardous industrial
wastes is thus used to analyze the potential impacts that could
occur from probable shifts in off-site and on-site disposal under the
Subtitle C regulations. For 1980, it is assumed that 15 percent of
hazardous industrial wastes would continue to be treated/disposed
off-site. It should be noted that the range used for 1984 includes
both eventualities previously discussed—a slight decrease or a
7-37
-------
moderate increase in the portion of hazardous wastes currently esti-
mated to be shipped off-site for treatment/disposal.
7.1.3 Administrative Changes. Implementation of the Subtitle C
regulations would necessitate a widesweeping series of administrative
changes that would affect industry, state governments, and the
Federal government. Potential effects are assessed in the following
sections with regard to:
• State administration of programs;
• Overlapping Federal and state hazardous waste programs;
• Number of generators required to comply with the regula-
tions
• Number of transporters required to comply with the
regulations;
• Number of storers, treaters, and disposers required to obtain
permits;
• Paperwork requirements under the regulations.
7.1.3.1 State Administration of Programs. As specified in
Section 3006 of RCRA, states are to be encouraged to apply to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for authorization to administer
and enforce their own hazardous waste program pursuant to Subtitle C.
There would be three different types of authorization for which
states could apply: full authorization, partial authorization, and
interim authorization.
Full authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C.
According to RCRA, a state application for full authorization must be
7-38
-------
approved unless the state program is determined: not to be equi-
valent to the Federal program; not to be consistent with the Federal
program or with those programs authorized by EPA in other states; and
not to provide adequate enforcement of compliance with the require-
ments of Subtitle C.
To be considered equivalent, a state program would have to have
legislative authority, published criteria and standards, a permit
mechanism, a manifest system, identification of resources, inter-
agency delineation of responsibilities (if applicable), and public
participation. To be consistent, a state program would have to allow
for the free movement of hazardous wastes (e.g., no ban on the impor-
tation of hazardous wastes from other states) and would not be al-
lowed to have standards that are more stringent than necessary (e.g.,
standards designed to discriminate against out-of-state wastes).
Adequacy of enforcement would be judged on a state-by-state basis; no
quantifiable standards have been set.
Partial authorization would allow a state to administer and en-
force selected components of a hazardous waste regulatory program es-
tablished pursuant to Subtitle C.* EPA would retain responsibility
for the remaining components of the program. States would be con-
sidered for partial authorization only if state legislative authority
*Individual program components include a waste tracking system (mani-
fest system); control of treatment, storage, and disposal of hazar-
dous wastes through a permit system; conducting inspections and
taking samples; and regulations governing hazardous waste generators
and transporters and owners/operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
7-39
-------
did not exist for all required program components. The state would
be expected to run those program components for which it had legis-
lative authority, providing the state program was enforceable, con-
sistent with, and equivalent to the Federal program. In all cases,
the combination of state and the Federal programs would have to meet
the requirements of a fully authorized program. Before granting
partial authorization, EPA would expect the state to agree to submit
proposed legislation to the state legislature so as to remedy the
deficiencies preventing full authorization. It is expected that
partial authorization would not be available during the two year
interim authorization period discussed below. Partial authorization
would be granted for a period not to exceed five years, but could be
renewed.
Interim authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazar-
dous waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C
for a period not to exceed twenty-four months, beginning on the date
six months after the date of promulgation of regulations under
Section 3001. The purpose of interim authorization is to allow the
state to make an orderly transition from its present program to a
program eligible for full authorization. To be eligible for interim
authorization, a state would have to have a hazardous waste program
pursuant to state law in existence prior to the the date 90 days
after the date of promulgation of regulations under Sections 3001 of
7-40
-------
Subtitle C. To achieve interim authorization, the state program
would have to be substantially equivalent to the Federal program and
would have to provide an Authorization Plan which describes the
addition or modifications necessary to qualify for full authorization
together with the schedule for such additions or modifications.
Substantial equivalency encompasses: legislative authority, iden-
tification of resources, a permit mechanism, surveillance and
enforcement, and public participation. In addition, the state would
have to agree with EPA on an oversight procedure which would allow
EPA to monitor the state's program to ascertain that the program was
being administered and enforced in accordance with RCRA.
To achieve full, partial, or interim authorization, a state
must have prior legislative authority to provide the necessary pro-
gram components. Chapter 2 contains a detailed description of the
existing and proposed state hazardous waste legislation. Currently,
15 states have separate and specific laws governing the management of
hazardous wastes; another 10 states and one territory have proposed
hazardous waste legislation. Thirty-six states (including the
latter 10) and two territories have currently addressed hazardous
waste management as a separate section within their solid waste
legislation. The state programs vary widely with regard to such
factors as wastes controlled, published criteria and standards,
7-41
-------
on-site and off-site control of wastes, and importation bans.*
EPA staff estimates are that between 45 and 50 of the 56 states
and territories that could qualify for interim authorization under
the Subtitle C regulations. Of those which could qualify for interim
authorization, 3 to 5 might also currently qualify for full authoriza-
tion. No states would be able to qualify for partial authorization
before the end of the interim authorization period.
7.1.4.2 Overlapping State Programs. Although RCRA encourages
states to administer their own authorized hazardous waste program in
lieu of the Federal program, states are not required to administer
such programs. If a states does not choose to administer a program
under Subtitle C of RCRA, there would be a Federally run program in
that state. RCRA, however, does not prohibit states without auth-
orized programs from enacting and enforcing their own more stringent
or non-consistent hazardous waste program to be run in the state in
addition to the Federal program.
At this time, it is not known if any state would run such a
program in addition to the Federal program or what regulations would
be promulgated under any such overlapping program. Such additional
*Six states currently have specific importation bans. These states
are Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont. In addition, Oklahoma has legislation equivalent to an
importation ban. Such bans preclude full authorization. .A recent
U.S. Supreme Court decision (No. 77-404; June 23, 1978; City of
Philadelphia et al. _y_. New Jersey et al.) struck down New Jersey's
statutory importation ban. It is not clear how importation bans in
other states would be affected by this decision.
7-42
-------
state programs, if enacted, would have the potential for creating
various impacts. Some of the major potential problems that could
result from the enactment of overlapping Federal and state programs
are briefly illustrated below.
An overlapping state program would likely subject hazardous
waste generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers to
conflicting and/or duplicative requirements and regulations. For
example, storers, treaters, and disposers could be required to obtain
two permits, with potentially different requirements, before they
could construct or operate facilities. Generators could be required
to fill out two separate manifests for each off-site shipment or
could be required to manifest wastes that would not be considered
hazardous under the Federal program. Everyone generating or managing
hazardous wastes within such states could be required to prepare and
store two different sets of overlapping reports or to prepare and
store reports not required under the Federal program. Economic
dislocations could result to firms located within such states if the
more stringent standards significantly increased the firm's cost of
doing business relative to that of firms in other states. Under such
conditions some generators might choose to relocate to other states.
Increased transportation demands and distances could result if
more wastes had to be shipped further distances within the state or
to out-of-state facilities due to increased controls within the gen-
erating state, or if wastes formerly going to one state had to be
7-43
-------
shipped to a more distant state due to enactment of import bans.
However, transportation demands and distances could also be reduced
in some states if increased controls or import bans in adjacent
states significantly reduced the amount of wastes being shipped out-
of-state. Localized shortfalls in storage, treatment, and disposal
capacity could result from or be exacerbated by stricter regulations
and import bans. In the short run, there could be increased
instances of illegal or less desirable disposal in states with such
capacity shortfalls. In the long run, there could be additional
waste treatment or process modifications.
Furthermore, while an overlapping state program would likely
afford increased protection to the residents of that state, it would
likely hinder the effectiveness of the Federal program on a national-
scale and could result in a reduced level of protection for residents
of other states. For example, importation bans or other regulations
hindering the free movement and/or disposal of wastes could result in
some hazardous wastes being managed in a less effective or less de-
sirable manner than would otherwise have occurred.
7.1.3.3 Number of Generators Required to Comply with the
Regulations. Potential hazardous waste generators within the scope
of this EIS are expected to fall within the following SIC Codes:
• Agriculture, forestry, fishing (SIC 07-09);
• Manufacturing (SIC 20-39);
• Transportation and public utilities (SIC 40-46 49)-
7-44
-------
• Wholesale trade (SIC 50-51);
• Retail trade (SIC 52, 54-55, 58-59);
• Services (SIC 72-73, 75-76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 88-89);
• Public administration (SIC 95-97).
Not all producers of hazardous wastes within these SIC codes would be
required to comply with the Subtitle C regulations. Section 7.1.2.1
delineates those hazardous waste producers who would be considered
generators subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Available data generally relate to the manufacturing industries
and to selected other industry categories in which large numbers of
establishments are likely to produce hazardous wastes. These indus-
try categories are discussed below to illustrate the potential mag-
nitude of both the number of hazardous waste producers and the number
of generators required to comply with the regulations based on a
generator limit of 100 kilograms per month.
Magnitude of Potential Generators of Hazardous Wastes.
Manufacturing Industries. There are over 313,000 manufacturing
establishments in the United States (See Tables 7-3 and 7-4). While
every one of these manufacturing establishments is not likely to be a
potential producer of hazardous wastes, the limited data available
preclude an accurate determination of the number that are. An esti-
mate, solely for purposes of analysis, is made as described below.
A recent study (Fred C. Hart Associates, 1978) summarizes the
available data as to the number of establishments generating
7-45
-------
TABLE 7-3
NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS BY 2-DIGIT SIC CODE*
Industry
Food and kindred products
Textile mill
Apparel and other textile
Lumber and wood
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and allied products
Printing and publishing
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Rubber and plastics
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, and glass
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
Electric and electronic equipment
Transportation equipment
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
SIC code
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
-
Number of establishments
28,185
7,204
24,430
33,931
9,242
6,047
42,103
11,430
2,080
9,271
3,206
16,025
6,795
30,299
40,795
12,268
8,804
5,989
15,185
313,289
*Based on Appendix K.
7-46
-------
TABLE 7-4
NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS BY EPA REGION*
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Number of Establishments+
23,258
52,302
28,213
45,729
68,994
24,360
14,322
6,619
38,126
11,366
*Based on Appendix K.
+SIC Codes 20, 22-39.
7-47
-------
hazardous wastes within major industrial groups. That study cautions
that the data provided on the number of hazardous waste producers can
only be regarded as tentative because the data are based on many dif-
ferent reports in which different criteria were used for identifying
hazardous wastes and hazardous waste generators. Table 7-5 shows the
manfacturing SIC Codes considered in that study and indicates, by EPA
Region, the estimated number of establishments and hazardous waste
producers within the selected SIC Codes. Based on Table 7-5, an esti-
mated 90 percent of the manufacturing establishments in the selected
manufacturing SIC Codes generate some hazardous wastes. Assuming
that this percentage holds for all manufacturing establishments,
based on Table 7-3, it is estimated that about 282,000 manufacturing
establishments produce some hazardous wastes.
Other Major Categories of Generators. Other than the manufac-
turing industries, industry categories in which there would likely be
large numbers of hazardous waste generators include, but are not
limited to, automotive service stations*, hospitals, medical labora-
tories, and research facilities.! It is estimated that there would
be up to 283,000 potential generators within these categories (see
Table 7-6).
*Automative service stations include gasoline service stations,
general automotive repair operations, and motor vehicle dealers.
tAs discusssed in Section 7.1.2.1, any hazardous waste generator
engaged solely in retail trade or farming would be considered a
generator subject to the regulations only with regard to waste
automotive oil. It is expected that as a result of this exclusion,
there would be very few such generators subject to the regulations.
7-48
-------
TABLE 7-5
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS WITFIN
SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES BY EPA REGION*
I
-P-
Industry
Organic chemicals, pesticides
and explosives
Ferrous metals
Electroplating
Job shops
Captive shops
Inorganic chemicals
Nonferrous metals
Textiles
Petroleum refining
Plastics materials and
synthetics
Special machinery
Leather tanning
Paint and allied products
Pharmaceuticals
Petroleum re-refining and
processing
Rubber
Electronic components
Batteries
TOTAL
SIC codes
2861, 2865, 2869,
2879, 2892
3312, 3313, 332,
3399
3471
N.A.t
2812, 2813, 2816
2819
333, 33A1
22
2911
282
355, 357
3111
2851
N . A
N.A. t
2831, 2833, 2834
2992 + others
3011, 3021, 3031,
3041, 3069
367
3691, 3692
-
Number of
establishments
2,226
1,780
2,254
12,000
1,600
346
5,300
247
462
4,610
517
1,544
on
yu
45,000
1,100
1,544
1,539
2,855
262
85,276
I
72
1
326
1,741
2
10
258
36
439
103
81
5
54
178
367
17
3,690
II
336
15
277
1,476
16
37
367
7
53
715
71
294
17
282
23
186
588
17
4,777
Number of
III IV
286 401
63 37
176 157
936 327
15 27
41 34
206 998
18 16
59 94
322 528
15 11
120 182
7 10
115 106
15 37
128 193
230 173
24 44
2,776 3,875
potential
V
388
59
861
4,584
21
91
71
35
99
990
42
393
eeners
VI
275
12
99
528
34
40
30
80
55
192
4
118
23 /
215 68
37
495
524
52
8,980
23
82
132
24
1,803
tors In
VII
135
2
115
612
4
16
15
13
8
147
5
77
4
81
15
47
78
18
1,392
EPA reeion
VIII
75
3
31
168
4
12
4
29
2
47
5
14
1
20
9
18
36
7
485
IX
198
12
163
863
9
45
49
37
54
538
15
221
13
143
33
187
694
41
3,315
X Total
60 2,226
10 214
49 2,254
265 12,000
6 138
20 346
9 2,007
12 247
2 462
130 4,048
6 277
44 1,544
3 90
16 1,100
14 206
25 1,539
33 2,855
13 257
717 76,810
*Modified from Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1977.
tNot available. Captive shops are counted under the SIC Code of the parent
establishment.
-------
TABLE 7-6
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PRODUCERS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES WITHIN SELECTED CATEGORIES
Category
Number of
potential producers
Service industry
Hospitals*
Medical laboratories*
Research facilities*
Sub-total
Retail industry
Automotive service stationst
Special wastes
Cement manufacturing^:
Coal-fired utilities §
Oil drilling
Phosphate rock mining and processing
Uranium mining
Other mining
7,200
3,200
5,700
16,100
267,000
100
250-275
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
*Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1977.
tModified from Fred C. Hart Associates estimates based upon
EPA staff estimates that only 90 percent of gasoline service
stations would produce hazardous wastes; the other 10 percent
are self-service stations which are not likely to produce
hazardous wastes.
^Holberger et al., 1978.
SPersonal communications, National Ash Association 1978.
7-50
-------
With regard to 'special wastes' that would be hazardous under
the Section 3001 regulations, up to about 375 cement manufacturing
plants and coal-fired utilities could potentially be producers of
such wastes (see Table 7-6). Data are not available to estimate the
number of potential producers of other hazardous 'special wastes';
however, the number could be large. For example, 10,000 to 20,000
oil wells have been drilled annually in recent years with about 60
percent of these wells being successful (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1976); however, the number of currently producing wells
generating potentially hazardous brines and muds is not known.
Number of Hazardous Waste Generators Required to Comply With the
Subtitle C Regulations. The generator regulations provide that
establishments producing and disposing of more than 100 kilograms per
month of wastes are to be identified as hazardous waste generators
subject to regulation. Table 7-2 shows, by EPA Region, the esti-
mated number of manufacturing establishments producing less than 100
kilograms of hazardous wastes per month and the total amount of
hazardous wastes produced annually by such establishments. Over
81,000 manufacturing establishments could potentially be excluded
from complying with the regulations based upon a generator limit of
100 kilograms per month. While these establishments represent about
26 percent of all manufacturing establishments within the SIC Codes
considered, they produce less than 0.1 percent of the total hazardous
wastes produced by all manufacturing industries within these particu-
lar SIC Codes.
7-51
-------
Based upon this information and a study by Fred C. Hart Asso-
ciates (1976), the total number of manufacturing establishments
generating hazardous wastes that potentially may not have to comply
with the generator regulations is estimated to range between 81,000
and 112,000. The total number that potentially may have to comply is
estimated to range between 201,000 and 232,000. The establishments
required to comply are estimated to generate over 99.9 percent of all
hazardous wastes produced by the manufacturing industries.
With regard to automotive service stations, EPA staff estimates
are that about 35 percent of all gasoline service stations would be
likely to generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous
wastes; thus, up to 210,000 automotive service stations could have to
comply with the generator regulations. In addition, up to about
16,100 hospitals, medical laboratories, and research facilities could
have to comply (see Table 7-6).
Thus, there would potentially be on the order of 430,000 to
460,000 generators within these three categories who could be subject
to the generator regulations.
7.1.3.4 Number of Transporters Required to Comply with the
Regulations. Hazardous wastes are transported, by highway; rail,
waterway, air, and pipeline, with the vast majority being transported
by truck (see Appendix E). Hazardous waste transporters include
hazardous waste generators, treaters, and disposers as well as estab-
lishments engaged solely in transport activities. According to a
7-52
-------
recent study of the hazardous waste transport industry (Arthur D.
Little, 1978a), the number of firms currently transporting hazardous
wastes is unknown, both for the industry as a whole and for each of
its segments.
7.1.3.5 Number of Storers, Treaters, and Disposers Required to
Obtain Permits. Sections 7.1.2.3 and 7.1.2.4 delineate those hazard-
ous waste storers, treaters, and disposers who would be required to
obtain permits. A study by Battelle Columbus Laboratories (1978)
attempted to estimate the number of potential permittees under the
regulations. Table 7-7 shows the Battelle Columbus Laboratories'
estimate of the number of potential permittees for the manufacturing
industries (listed in Table 7-5), Federal installations, hospitals,
automotive service stations, and the existing hazardous wastes
management service industry. There are estimated to be about 29,000
potential permittees within these groups. According to that study,
data are not available to estimate the number of potential permittees
within other categories.
With regard to treaters, storers, and disposers of 'special
wastes', there could be potentially a large number of permittees.
For example, in Wyoming alone there are about 10,000 lagoons used for
the disposal of oil drilling muds and brines. Data are not available
to estimate the portion of 'special wastes' that would be identified
as hazardous, nor the number of potential permittees managing such
hazardous 'special wastes'.
7-53
-------
TABLE 7-7
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PERMITTEES*
Number of
Category potential permittees
Manufacturing industry
Electronic components 325
Electroplating and metal finishing
Job shops 7A4
Captive shops 4,000
Explosives 577
Inorganic chemicals 138
Leather tanning and finishing 30
Metals smelting and refining 549
Organic chemicals 845
Paint and allied products 235
Pesticides 512
Petroleum refining 143
Petroleum re-refining 7
Pharmaceuticals 421
Plastics 462
Rubber products 65
Special machinery 781
Storage and primary batteries 52
Textiles 190
Miscellaneous 11,659
Sub-total 21,735
Government
Federal installations 241
Service industry
Hospitals 7,174
Hazardous waste management HO
Sub-total 7,284
Retail industry
Automotive service stations o
Total 29,260
*Modified from Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1978.
7-54
-------
7.1.3.6 Paperwork Requirements Under the Regulations. The
Subtitle C regulations establish reporting and recordkeeping require-
ments for generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers
of hazardous wastes. Many of these reporting and recordkeeping re-
quirements would be in addition to existing requirements.
Generators would be required to prepare a manifest for each
off-site hazardous waste shipment, keep a copy of each manifest for
three years, submit a quarterly report on manifested shipments for
which the signed original manifest (or delivery document) is not
returned, and submit an annual report based on the manifests or on
wastes managed on-site. Transporters would be required to keep a
copy of manifests (or delivery documents) for a perid of at least
three years. Owners/operators of permitted hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities (i.e., storers, treaters, and disposers) would be
required to keep a copy of each manifest (or delivery document) for 3
years and also to prepare and keep for 3 years, records of specified
operating conditions, records of employee training, and records of
groundwater monitoring. In addition, each owner/operator would be
required to prepare and keep until facility closure a log containing:
the location and types of wastes disposed at the facility, required
waste analyses, required monitoring data, results of required visual
inspections, and records of any human health or environmental damage
caused by the facility. Each owner/operator would also be required
to submit both an annual report based upon manifests received during
7-55
-------
the year and a quarterly report on groundwater and leachate moni-
toring, if applicable. Each owner/operator would also have to submit
a permit application and appropriate supplemental material. In
addition, within 90 days following promulgation of the Section 3001
regulations, all generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and
disposers would be required to notify the EPA Regional Adminis-
trator (or an authorized state) that they fall into one of these
categories.
Number of Manifests. Based on the assumptions stated in Section
7.1.4.1, it is estimated' that there could be between 350,000 and
690,000 off-site shipments of hazardous industrial wastes annually by
1984, necessitating industrial generators to prepare between 350,000
and 690,000 manifests annually. An indeterminable number of mani-
fests could also have to be prepared by other generators. The aggre-
gated generators, transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous
waste management facilities would each have to keep between 1.0 and
2.1 million manifests in storage on an annual basis. Most transport-
ers currently keep at least 3 years worth of delivery documents in
storage due to various state and Federal requirements (see Appendix
E). To the extent that transporters use acceptable delivery docu-
ments in lieu of manifests or use manifests in lieu of existing
delivery documents, this recordkeeping requirement would not consti-
tute an additional burden on transporters. However, as indicated in
Chapter 2, most states do not require generators or hazardous waste
management facilities to prepare or retain records on hazardous waste
7-56
-------
shipments and, as a result, much of such recordkeeping under subtitle
C would represent an additional requirement.
Other Recordkeeping Requirements. Generators would also have to
keep records on wastes managed on-site to enable preparation of an-
nual reports. Each owner/operator of a permitted hazardous waste man-
agement facility would have to keep an operating log for the life of
the facility, plus 3 years worth of those records specified above.
Most of this recordkeeping would represent an additional requirement,
based upon existing state regulations.
Number of Recurring Reports. Approximately 430,000 to 460,000
annual reports could potentially be prepared by the previously iden-
tified generators, assuming that generators who dispose wastes both
on-site and off-site prepare one combined annual report for both
types of disposal. Permittees would have to prepare annual reports
only if they receive manifested wastes. Most of the potential permit-
tees listed in Table 7-7 would be on-site facilities and would not
have to prepare additional annual reports. Hazardous waste manage-
ment service industry facilities and Federal installations could
prepare about 350 additional annual reports. An indeterminable
number of additional annual reports would also have to be prepared by
other generators and hazardous waste management facilities such as
generators or disposers of "special wastes'.
Each permittee would also have to submit four monitoring reports
annually, if there was a potential for discharge to groundwater from
7-57
-------
the facility. Based on Table 7-7, there could be up to 117,000 such
monitoring reports submitted annually.
Thus, there could be upwards of 547,000 to 577,000 reports pre-
pared and submitted annually by generators and hazardous waste man-
agement facilities. Most of these reports would represent additional
reporting requirements, based upon existing state regulations.
Number of Non-recurring Reports. The previously identified gen-
erators and permittees would have to file about 430,000 to 460,000
notifications under Section 3010 with EPA or authorized states. An
indeterminable number of transporter and other potential generators
and permittees would also have to file such notifications.
Transporters could potentially have to file between 140 and 270
spill reports annually, based upon Section 7.1.4.1. Permittees would
have to file an indeterminable number of incident reports annually.
The potential permittees identified in Table 7-7 would have to submit
approximately 29,000 permit applications and additional supplemental
material. The permit application consists of two parts which may be
submitted separately or together. Most of these submittals would
represent additional requirements, based upon existing state regu-
lations.
7-1.4 Air Impacts. This section discusses potential impacts
that could occur with regard to air quality and climate as a result
of promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations.
7-58
-------
7.1.4.1 Air Quality Impacts. Current hazardous waste genera-
tion, transport, and storage, treatment, and disposal practices in-
volve a variety of activities, each of which has the potential for
releasing air pollutants to the environment. The potential for the
release of air pollutants by each of these activities (e.g., land-
filling, incineration, containerization) would be affected in differ-
ent ways by the Subtitle C regulations. This section discusses
current sources of air pollutants from each of these activities,
incidents that have occurred from current practices, and the ways in
which the proposed regulations could affect potential air pollutant
releases from these sources and practices.
Air Quality Impacts Relative to the Generation of Hazardous
Waste. The Subtitle C regulations would apply only to those air
emissions, and resultant air quality impacts, that are produced by
activities occurring after the generation of hazardous wastes. The
regulations would not apply to those air emissions produced during
the generation of hazardous wastes, nor to those air emissions pro-
duced from the reuse of hazardous wastes as an integral part of
subsequent process steps without intervening storage. Thus, the
Subtitle C regulations would not have a direct effect on air emis-
sions resulting from hazardous waste generation. However, to the
extent that the regulations change the economics of disposal or
treatment, and thus result in process modifications engineered to
recycle hazardous wastes or to reduce or alter the quantity and/or
7-59
-------
types of hazardous waste generated, Subtitle C could indirectly
result in changes in process air emissions.
Air Quality Impacts Relative to Storage of Hazardous Wastes.
Current practices in the storage of hazardous wastes can lead to the
release of air pollutants in three major ways:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills, fires, explo-
sions, and other accidental releases of hazardous wastes
and/or their constituents;
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes.
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would reduce, to vary-
ing degrees, the existing potential for release of air emissions from
each of these sources. In addition, any facility construction and/or
modification required by the Subtitle C regulations would affect
construction-related air emissions.
Fugitive emissions are currently likely to occur in a number of
ways. The loading or placing of hazardous wastes into storage con-
tainers, storage piles, or surface impoundments currently results in
the release of fugitive emissions containing the hazardous waste
itself. For example, the loading of solid wastes, particularly fine
waste materials, onto open storage piles is likely to result in
particulate matter which contains hazardous waste constituents
becoming airborne in the vicinity of the loading area. The loading
of hazardous wastes containing volatile materials into tanks or other
containers is also likely to result in the escape of fugitive air
7-60
-------
emissions. In both cases, the amounts of fugitive emissions emitted
is dependent upon the characteristics of the specific wastes being
stored, the degree of controls employed (e.g., dust or vapor recovery
systems), and the adequacy of maintenance operations, particularly
for pump seals, joints, flanges, and other equipment used with
volatile wastes.
A major current source of fugitive emissions is the escape of
air pollutants from hazardous wastes which have not been properly
covered or containerized during storage. Such wastes may be subject
to the release of particulate matter containing the hazardous waste
as a result of wind erosion. Volatile wastes stored in containers
without adequate controls are also a potential source of fugitive
emissions. The quantity of fugitive emissions produced is dependent
upon the volatility of the waste, the adequacy of the container and
its seals, and the effectiveness of any control equipment present.
Liquid wastes stored in surface impoundments and basins are also a
source of fugitive emissions due to evaporative losses and/or
volatilization of hazardous components.
While data are not available to estimate the magnitude of fugi-
tive emissions presently occurring from hazardous waste storage, the
following reported incidents illustrate the types of air quality
problems that have occurred under current practices (see Appendix J
for other incidents):
• Since 1867, asbestos product manufaturers have accumulated
nearly 2 million cubic yards of assorted industrial wastes in
open piles in a small Pennsylvania town. The original
7-61
-------
generator of the wastes went out of business in 1962. Since
then two other companies have been responsible for enlarging
the spoils piles. The air in the vicinity of the piles has
been observed to contain asbestos fibers due to wind erosion.
An air-monitoring program conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in October 1973 indicated ambient back-
ground levels of asbestos in the area to be 6 ng/m-*. An
asbestos level of 9.6 ng/m3 was found at a playground near
the largest waste pile. Values obtained near active disposal
piles ranged from 114 to 1745 ng/m3 (Office of Solid Waste
Program, 1974a).
• A firm engaged in the disposal of spent chemicals was storing
and disposing of toxic chemical wastes at two Louisiana
locations. At one of these sites, several thousand drums of
waste (s-ome with and some without lids) were in s-tora-g-e-^
Many of the drums were popping their lids and leaking; vis-
ible vapors were emanating from the area. The pine trees
beside the storage area were all killed as a result of this
leakage (Office of Solid Waste Programs, 1974a).
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should, to a
large degree, reduce the potential for such fugitive air emissions
from the storage of hazardous wastes. For example, the Section 3005
regulations would require that all owners/operators of hazardous
waste storage facilities, except storage facilities operated by
generators who store hazardous wastes for 90 days or less prior to
off-site treatment/disposal in an approved facility, obtain a permit
for such storage. To obtain and keep a permit, such storage facili-
ties would have to comply with the Section 3004 storage regulations.
According to these regulations, hazardous waste storage operations
would have to be conducted in such a manner that no discharge occurs-
these storage operations would also have to be monitored and inspec-
ted to detect any potential discharge. Hazardous wastes which could
release air emissions that could adversely affect human health or the
7-62
-------
environment if stored in an open manner would be required to be
stored in tanks or other closed containers. Hazardous wastes to
which this requirement would apply include those which could poten-
tially release air contaminants in concentrations, measured at the
surface of the storage area, exceeding the Threshold Limit Values
(TLV) listed in Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 2. For example, the
asbestos-containing wastes previously discussed would likely have to
be stored in closed containers under the Subtitle C regulations
rather than placed in open piles.
Furthermore, the regulations require that containers used to
store hazardous wastes must not be opened, handled, or stored in any
manner which could rupture the container or cause it to leak. Wastes
in containers whose contents begin to leak would have to be recon-
tainerized. Also, storage containers and tanks would have to be con-
structed of materials, or contain a liner, which are compatible with
the wastes stored. These requirements would apply, for example, to
the hazardous wastes stored in leaking containers at the Louisiana
storage site previously discussed. Under the Subtitle C regulations,
such wastes would have to be recontainerized and stored in another
manner less susceptible to leakage.
In addition, volatile wastes—those with a true vapor pressure
greater than 78 mm mercury at 25 C—would not be allowed to be stored
in surface impoundments or basins under the Subtitle C regulations.
Storage tanks with a capacity in excess of 19,000 liters (5,000 gal-
lons) would not be allowed to be vented directly to the atmosphere if
7-63
-------
they contained such volatile wastes. Examples of listed hazardous
waste constituents (Appendix B, Subpart A, Paragraph 250.14(a)) which
have vapor pressures greater than that specified above and which have
also been identified in hazardous industrial waste streams (see
Appendix C) include: acrolein, benzene, chloroform, methyl bromide,
trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride (Perry et al. , 1973). The
Louisiana landfill incident cited above illustrates one type of inci-
dent that has occurred from fugitive emissions from the storage of
volatile wastes.
Spills, fires, explosions, and other accidents represent a
second major source of potential air emissions from current hazard-
ous waste storage practices. Improper storage and mixing of incom-
patible wastes and the improper storage and handling of potentially
explosive or ignitable wastes have been major contributors to fires
and explosions in hazardous waste storage areas in the past. Incom-
patible wastes are those wastes unsuitable for commingling with
another waste or material because the commingling might result in:
extreme heat or pressure generation; fire; explosion or violent reac-
tion; formation of substances which are shock-sensitive, friction-
sensitive, or otherwise have the potential of reacting violently;
formation of toxic dusts, mists, fumes, gases, or other chemicals;
volatilization of ignitable or toxic chemicals due to heat genera-
tion. Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 4 presents examples of potential-
ly incompatible wastes.
7-64
-------
Volatile wastes and wastes composed of fine materials are those
most likely to release air contaminants emissions as a result of
storage accidents. In addition, ignitable wastes which catch fire as
a result of an accident are a further source of emissions. Fires
could also create and release additional hazardous air contaminants
not originally present in the hazardous waste itself (Appendix M
describes some of the emissions that could occur from the combustion
of hazardous wastes).
The following data illustrate the potential for such impacts
under current practices. In 1976 there were, from sources other than
transport activities, approximately 4,000 spills of hazardous materi-
als (not generally wastes) reported under Section 311 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (see Section 6.4.). Over 1,300 of the
total reported spills (transportation and non-transportation related)
involved waste materials, primarily waste oil. In 1976 in Ohio there
were another 160 reported spills involving potential air pollution
problems (this includes spills of both hazardous wastes and nonwaste
materials from storage and transportation). Of the 160 reported
spills, 39 involved hazardous air pollutants such as ammonia, chlo-
rine, acetone, hydrochloric acid, dimethoate, hexamethylene, para-
thion, vinyl chloride, propargyl alcohol, perchloroethylene, xylene,
butyl acrylate, titanium tetrachloride, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
hydrogen peroxide, ethyl ether, and nitric acid (State of Ohio,
1976).
7-65
-------
The following incidents identify some of the types of accidents
that have occured with a potential for releasing air pollutants.
Additional examples of such incidents are discussed in the section on
treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes and in Appendix J.
• In 1973, a major chemical company in Virginia contracted with
a processing firm in Alabama to pick up, haul, and dispose
approximately 10,000 drums of aramite waste, containing 30
to 80 percent sulfuric acid. Most of the wastes were shipped
in 208 liter (55-gallon) steel drums and 190 liter (50-
gallon) fiber drums. The wastes brought to Alabama were
never processed and remained in two open storage areas and in
one enclosed warehouse. Due to weathering, physical stress,
and the corrosive and harsh nature of the wastes, many of the
drums stored in the two open areas disintegrated and their
contents spread over the adjacent ground. In addition to
contamination of local waters (chemical analysis of samples
of drainage water from the storage site indicated very high
acidity and high concentrations of heavy metals), the storage
of waste at the three locations prsented a great fire hazard.
On March 9 and 10, 1976, a fire broke out at the site, and
two firefighters became ill, presumably due to inhalation of
toxic fumes.
• At a land disposal site in Southern California, a tanker
unloaded a waste listed as "waste acid" into a subsurface,
bottomless tank through an open stack above the ground.
Shortly after the unloading operation commenced, yellowish-
brown clouds of nitrogen dioxide began to emanate from the
open stack. The reaction appeared to have subsided when the
discharging of the wastes ceased. However, an hour later,
additional nitrogen dioxide started to spew from the stack.
The emission was halted by filling the stack with soil.
There were no reported injuries; however, there were many
complaints from nearby businesses, and a factory was
evacuated.
• The following incident while it did not involve wastes per
se, illustrates the potential for combustion of wastes due to
fire and the associated problems. In April 1971,.a fire
occurred in the warehouse in Okanogen County, Washington,
where about 2 tons of pesticides were stored, including
guthion, parathion, endrin, dieldrin, DDT, and other chlori-
nated hydrocarbons. Nearly 50 tons of fertilizer were also
stored in the building. Toxic emissions from the burning of
these chemicals forced the evacuation of nearby residents.
7-66
-------
Officials also feared the possibility of explosions caused by
the fertilizers. Nearly 2 million gallons of water were
required to extinguish the fire. Much of this water spilled
into the street and flowed through gutters and storm sewers
to the Okanogen River 1/2 mile away- Endrin at a level of
0.8 ppm was detected in the run-off into the river in early
April. Also, a city well about 500 feet from the fire site
showed a nitrate concentration of 34.4 ppm in early June.
Expectant mothers and small children were cautioned to avoid
drinking the city water for a period of 2 weeks after the
incident.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for fires, explosions, and other accidents at hazardous
waste storage facilities and the potential for impacts from any acci-
dents that do occur. For example, the Section 3004 regulations
require that storage containers holding wastes that are incompatible
would have to be separated from each other or protected from each
other in order to prevent the wastes from mixing should the con-
tainers break or leak. Storage areas would have to be constructed to
contain any spills that might occur. Explosive, ignitable, or highly
reactive wastes (see Appendix B, Subpart A, Section 250.13) would not
be allowed to be stored in surface impoundments or basins. Incompat-
ible wastes would not be allowed to be mixed in storage basins, nor
in surface impoundments except for treatment purposes.
One of the major causes of the mixing of incompatible wastes or
the improper storage of explosive, ignitable, or highly reactive
wastes has been the lack of accurate information about the waste
being provided to the waste handler (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous
Waste Management Division, 1978a). The manifesting and labeling
requirements under Section 3002 would make such information more
7-67
-------
readily available and would further reduce the potential for acci-
dents from the improper storage of such wastes.
In addition, owners/operators of storage facilities would have
to inspect storage areas daily for rust, corrosion, cracks, and
spills. Also, hazardous waste storage facilities would have to
prepare contingency plans to minimize human health or environmental
damage in the event of an accidental discharge of hazardous materials
to the surrounding air, surface, or subsurface environment (see
Appendix B, Subpart D, 250.43-4). To the extent that this latter re-
quirement and the spill containment requirement reduce the time
necessary to clean up spills or prevent additional accidental dis-
charges, there would be a reduction in air pollutants and resultant
impacts from any such accidental releases. Furthermore, other
reductions in fugitive emissions, as previously discussed, would
reduce the potential for fires and explosions from such emissions,
especially from volatile wastes.
A third source of air emissions are current practices in which
hazardous wastes are placed in storage for indefinite periods of
time; in many such cases the hazardous wastes are ultimately aban-
doned rather than being disposed. Such wastes may be stored in con-
tainers or may be stored in an open manner. Due to such factors as
weathering and/or corrosion, containers eventually rupture or leak
releasing their contents to the environment. As discussed above
volatile, flammable, or fine waste materials are the most likely
7-68
-------
sources of air emissions following such releases. Also, any such
releases increase the potential for the mixing of incompatible wastes
with the resultant consequences described above. Wastes which were
not originally containerized would be subject to erosion and/or
volatilization during the time that they were in storage.
Several incidents have previously been cited illustrating the
potential problems from indefinite storage of hazardous wastes (i.e.,
*
asbestos storage piles in Pennsylvania and aramite waste in Alabama).
The following incident further illustrates the potential problem:
• In 1971, a major chemical company in New Jersey contracted
with an independent waste transporter to remove and dispose
of 55-gallon drums containing petrochemical wastes. The
wastes included acrylonitrile, acetone, epichlorohydrin, and
a number of other chemicals possessing toxic, flammable,
explosive, and oxidizing properties. A total of about 6,000
of these drums were hauled away and were to be disposed of at
a landfill. However, approximately 4,500 of the drums were
dumped by the transporter on a section of a former chicken
farm in Dover Township, New Jersey. The land had been leased
to the transporter under the assumption that he was in the
drum salvaging business and empty drums were to be stored
there. A few months later the owners detected unusual odors
emanating from the leased land and discovered thousands of
drums, many leaking, buried, and strewn about. In 1974, it
was discovered that an unknown portion of the Cohansey
Aquifer, a major groundwater table aquifer, had been con-
taminated by the wastes (State of Minnesota, 1977).
The proposed regulations contain provisions that should, to a
large degree, reduce the potential for air emissions that result from
the indefinite storage of hazardous wastes. The Section 3004 regula-
tions require that at facility close-out, all hazardous wastes would
have to be removed from storage operations and disposed as required
7-69
-------
under Subtitle C. In addition, the manifest requirements under
Section 3002 would help to insure that wastes are delivered to
permitted facilities and not stored or abandoned in an environment-
ally unacceptable manner. It should be noted that acceptable
treatment/disposal methods would not necessarily exist for every
hazardous waste (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of wastes that have
required engineered storage in recent years), and any such wastes
could have to be stored for indefinite periods until treatment/
disposal methods were developed. However, any such storage would
have to be in compliance with all the requirements previously
discussed. Based upon Appendix D, large quantities of industrial
wastes are known to be stored in surface impoundments; such storage
quite often constitutes disposal.
One other source of air pollutant generation common to all
hazardous waste management activities would be the construction of
necessary hazardous waste management facilities and related con-
junctive developments (e.g., roads, pipelines, power lines, reser-
voirs). To the extent that the Subtitle C regulations result in
modifications to or the construction of additional hazardous waste
storage, transportation, disposal, or treatment facilities, there
would be an increase in construction related air emissions. The
major emissions would include exhaust from motor vehicles, including
construction equipment, and fugitive dust raised by such construction
activities as grading, excavation, and movement of equipment.
7-70
-------
Vehicle emissions during construction would consist primarily of
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. The emission
levels would be extremely site-dependent. The magnitude of fugitive
dust emissions would depend upon such factors as soil and terrain
characteristics, time of year, method of construction, size of the
area disturbed, and type of control measures utilized. Cowherd et
al. (1974) summarized the available information on emissions from
fugitive dust sources and found that while activity levels signifi-
cantly influence emission rates, the relationship can not be
quantified.
Air Quality Impacts Relative to Transport of Hazardous Wastes.
Current practices in the transport of hazardous wastes have the
potential to release air emissions in three major ways:
• Though fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the trans-
port vehicle.
t.
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would affect, to
varying degrees, the potential for the release of air emissions from
each of these sources. In addition, construction related air emis-
sions could be affected by construction and/or modification of trans-
portation facilities as a result of the Subtitle C regulations.
There are several potential sources of fugitive emissions from
the transport of hazardous wastes. These include emissions released
7-71
-------
during the loading and/or unloading of hazardous wastes that have not
been containerized or that have not been properly covered and/or
containerized for transport. Appendices D and E indicate that a size-
able portion of hazardous wastes are typically transported without
being containerized. Potential sources and types of fugitive emis-
sions from the loading, unloading, and transport of hazardous wastes
would be very similar to those discussed under storage and are not
repeated here. In addition, solid hazardous wastes which are not
properly covered or containerized during transport would be subject
to wind erosion and would be a potential source of particulate matter
emissions. Such particulate matter would be composed of the hazard-
ous waste material itself.
Fugitive emissions during transport could result in adverse
impacts in the vicinity of the route of travel, as illustrated in the
following examples:
• A truck driver noticed that one of the drums he was hauling
through the village of Mundelein was leaking titanium tri-
chloride, a chemical that changes to an hydrocloric acid mist
on contact with the air. Fourteen people were hospitalized
for exposure to the fumes. The four drums of chemicals were
neutralized and buried (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous
Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• In the San Francisco Bay Area, an attempt was made to recover
alkyl lead from organic lead wastes. The wastes were trans-
ported by truck to a recovery plant. Toll collectors on a
bridge along the truck route to the recovery plant became ill
as a result of vapors escaping from the transporting truck
(Office of Solid Waste Programs, 1974a).
The regulations contain provisions that should, to some degree,
reduce the potential for fugitive air emissions from the transport of
7-72
-------
hazardous wastes. The Section 3002 regulations would require that
every generator containerize his hazardous wastes in accordance with
the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations on packaging under
49 CFR 173, 178, and 179. If no specific packaging is required, the
generator would have to place the hazardous waste in a package in
accordance with the DOT regulations on standard requirements for all
packages under 49 CFR 173.14(a), (b), and (c) (2-9). Since the DOT
regulations currently apply only to interstate shipments of hazardous
materials, the effect of the Section 3002 regulations would be to ex-
tend the DOT regulations to interstate shipments of hazardous wastes
that are not identified as DOT hazardous materials and to most intra-
state shipments of hazardous wastes (about 27 states have adopted the
DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations in toto or have similar regula-
tions; about twelve others have adopted parts of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations). According to a study by Arthur D. Little,
Inc. (1978a), about one-half of the hazardous wastes transporters
surveyed did not transport wastes across state borders.
While the regulations do not contain specific provisions to
reduce fugitive air emissions from the loading and/or unloading of
uncontainerized wastes, nor from the placing of wastes in containers,
the air, human health and environmental standard would reduce the
potential for the release of such emissions at permitted faclities.
A second major source of air emissions from hazardous waste
transport are accidents which result in spills or other releases of
hazardous wastes. The two most likely causes of such releases are
7-73
-------
accidents involving the transport vehicle itself and explosions
occurring within the transport vehicle as the result of the mixing of
incompatible wastes. Once the waste material has been released,
those wastes which are relatively volatile or which are composed of
fine particles are most likely to become sources of air emissions.
In addition, wastes which are ignitable can catch fire following an
accident and become the source of additional air emissions. Such
combustion can create additional hazardous air contaminants not
originally present in the waste itself and would serve to disperse
those air pollutants generated.
The following incidents illustrate some of the types of air pol-
lutant problems that have occurred during hazardous waste transport:
• An industrial waste truck exploded in a truck bin on the Dan
Ryan Expressway in Chicago spewing barrels of flames over
cars and across all eight lanes of the roadway. The chemical
waste which exploded was believed to be sodium nitrate which
was part of the load being carried by the truck (Office of
Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b.).
« In Richmond, California, a hazardous waste hauler mixed a
liquid waste containing butyl acetate in xylene, with an
etching waste containing sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and
hydrofluoric acid. A hydrolysis reaction took place. Pres-
sure was generated in the tank, and the safety relief valve
was blown off while the truck was travelling through a
residential area. A private residence was sprayed with the
hazardous mixture. No one was injured, but considerable
clean-up was required (DeVera et al., 1977).
The regulations contain provisions that should reduce the
potential for explosions and spills resulting from the mixing of
incompatible wastes during transport. The Section 3003 regulations
7-74
-------
contain the.requirement that the transporter must load and stow
hazardous wastes so that those which are incompatible would not come
into contact with each other. The Section 3002 requirement that
generators must label hazardous wastes and must furnish information
about the general chemical composition of each hazardous waste on the
manifest to be provided to the transporter would aid the transporter
in identifying incompatible hazardous wastes. To the extent that
transporters can increase the identification of incompatible wastes
during transport, there would be a reduction.in air incidents from
the mixing of hazardous wastes during transport.
The proposed regulations do not contain provisions that would
directly reduce vehicular accidents, and subsequent spills, of
hazardous wastes during transport. However, the regulations do con-
tain provisions that would reduce the potential for air emissions
following such accidents and spills. The proposed regulations
require that the manifest provide either immediate response informa-
tion regarding what actions should be taken in an emergency situation
or a 24-hour telephone number for obtaining such information. The
manifest would also aid in identifying the general chemical compo-
sition of the spilled hazardous waste. This information would likely
aid in cleaning up the spill. To the extent that the time for clean-
up is reduced, the potential for the release of air emissions would
be reduced. It should also be noted that any reduction in the mixing
of incompatible wastes would also result in a decrease in accidents
7-75
-------
during hazardous waste transport and would result in fewer spills
generating air emissions. Based upon an estimated spill rate of one
transportation-related spill per 37,500 metric tons of hazardous
waste transport (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, 1978a) and 40 million metric tons of hazardous industrial
waste generation in 1984, it is estimated that under the Subtitle C
regulations these could be on the order of 140 spills annually with
13 percent off-site treatment/disposal and on the order of 270 spills
with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal. Based upon a typical
transport vehicle size of 14.5 metric tons (Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1978a), approximately 2000 to 4000 metric tons of hazardous wastes
could be involved in such spills. Data are not available to estimate
potential air emissions likely to be released by such activities.
The spill rate used above is based upon reported incidences from
the transport of hazardous materials which are predominantly not
wastes. Such hazardous materials are currently subject to essential-
ly the same containerization, labeling, and placarding regulations as
would be required for hazardous wastes under the Subtitle C regula-
tions. While the spill rate is a reasonable approximation of what
could happen under the Subtitle C regulations, it is not a reasonable
measure of what could happen without the Subtitle C regulations since
there would likely be a higher rate of spills due to improper con-
tainerization and to the mixing of incompatible wastes. Thus, the
reduction in the number of spills under the Subtitle C regulations
cannot be estimated using this spill rate.
7-76
-------
Another major source of air pollutants from hazardous waste
transport are emissions from the transport vehicle itself. To the
extent that the regulations shift hazardous waste transportation
patterns, there would be a change in the total amount of vehicle emis-
sions from hazardous waste transport. At present, the relatively
high cost of long-distance transportation of hazardous wastes and the
lack of hazardous waste treatment and disposal regulations combine to
minimize the distances over which hazardous wastes are hauled. As
discussed in Section 7.1.2.2, the regulations would likely increase
transport distances involved in hazardous waste management.
Table 7-8 presents estimates of the potential magnitude of the
change that could occur in vehicular emissions in 1984 as a result of
promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations. The estimates are
presented for both 13 and 25 percent off-site shipment of hazardous
wastes in 1984 (see section 7.1.2.4). Since data are not available
to determine the average transport distances likely to occur in 1984
under the regulation, the potential change in emissions is estimated
for four possible transport distances.
The estimates in Table 7-8 are determined as follows. According
to the hazardous waste transportation study by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
(1978a), most hazardous wastes shipped off-site are currently trans-
ported by truck with typical reported transport distances of 50 miles
(100 miles round trip) and typical vehicle capacities of about 14.5
metric tons (18 tons). Typical on-site transport distances are about
7-77
-------
TABLE 7-8
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT
OF HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
Change in emissions (metric
Wastes Round-trip
transported distance
off -site (miles)
13 percent 100
^ 200
i
" 500
1,000
25 percent 100
200
500
1,000
Carbon monoxide
-160
880
4,000
9,100
780
2,800
8,700
18,600
Hydrocarbons
-20
140
630
1,500
120
440
1,400
3,000
Nitrogen
oxides
-110
640
2,900
6,600
540
2,000
6,300
13,500
tons)
Particulates
-10
40
180
410
40
120
390
840
Sulfur
oxides
-20
90
390
890
80
270
850
1,800
-------
two miles round trip. These typical transport distances are assumed
to be the baseline for estimating the changes in vehicular emissions.
The change in the quantity of hazardous wastes transported on-site
and off-site on an annual basis in 1984 is determined as discussed in
Section 7.2.5. The estimated change is a decrease of 0.8 million
metric tons in off-site shipments in the case of 13 percent off-site
treatment/disposal and an increase of 4.0 million metric tons in
off-site shipments in the case of 25 percent off-site treatment
disposal. The change in the number of off-site and on-site hazardous
waste shipments is determined based upon the typical vehicle capacity
of 14.5 metric tons. For each of the four selected 1984 transport
distances, the change in emissions is estimated based upon emission
factors for heavy duty, diesel-powered trucks (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977a).
For purposes of comparison, total U.S. emissions of carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides particulates, and sulfur
oxides were 85.7, 26.1, 22.0, 14.3, and 25.9 million metric tons,
respectively, in 1975. Total U.S. area emissions from heavy-duty
diesel powered vehicles in 1975 were 0.7, 0.2, 1.5, 0.1, and 0.2 mil-
lion metric tons of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides,
particulates, and sulfur oxides, respectively (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1978a). The emissions in Table 7-8 for the
1000-mile round-trip distance with 25 percent off-site treatment/
disposal represent an increase of less than 0.06 percent in each of
7-79
-------
the total U.S. emissions and of less than '3 percent in each of the
total U.S. area emissions from heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles.
The emissions for the 100-mile round-trip distance with 13 percent
off-site treatment/disposal represent a decrease of less than 0.0005
percent in each of the total U.S. emissions and of less than 0.02
percent in each of the total U.S. area emissions from heavy-
duty, diesel-powered vehicles.
Air Quality Relative to Treatment/Disposal. The major sources
of air emissions from current hazardous waste treatment/disposal
practices are as follows:
• Fugitive emissions from land-based treatment/disposal
activities such as landfills, landfarms, and surface
impoundments;
• Emissions generated by explosions, fires, and other
accidents;
• Residuals from the combustion of hazardous wastes by
incineration or open burning;
• Fugitive emissions from other treatment activities;
• Fugitive emissions from facility construction or
modification.*
The Subtitle C regulations would affect the potential for release of
air emissions from each of these sources as discussed below.
Such land-based activities for the treatment/disposal of
hazardous wastes as landfills, landfarms and surface impoundments
currently release air contaminants through several mechanisms.
*These fugitive emissions are discussed under storage and are not
repeated in this section.
7-80
-------
Activities which result in soil disturbance, such as excavation,
trenching, covering, grading, and compaction, generate fugitive dust.
The magnitude of fugitive dust emissions depends upon such factors as
soil and terrain characteristics, time of year, type of equipment
utilized, size of the area disturbed, and type of control measures
employed. Vehicles and equipment used in land disposal are a further
source of emissions from such activities, as previously discussed.
Fugitive emissions also occur when the hazardous waste is initially
being deposited in the treatment/disposal site. Such fugitive
emissions usually consist of the waste and/or its constituents and
would be similar to those previously discussed under storage and
transportation.
Following placement of the waste in the treatment/disposal
site, gaseous materials that are potentially hazardous are often
generated and released under current practices. Such emissions
generally result from volatilization, sublimation, chemical reaction,
and/or decomposition of the wastes. The rate of generation and
release of such gaseous materials is a function of many factors in-
cluding the nature, water content, and depth of any cover material;
chemical characteristics and composition of the waste materials; and
temperatures in the treatment/disposal site and temperature of the
waste. With regard to volatilization, numerous instances of air
pollution problems have been reported under current practices, as
indicated below:
7-81
-------
• An industrial solvent reprocessing firm in Maryland dumped
large quantities of volatile organic liquid wastes, con-
taining benzene, carbon tetrachloride, acetones, ketones,
mythelene chloride, and other solvents into a sand and gravel
quarry. The wastes, even though volatile, were often left
open in an evaporating pool before being covered. Many of
the solvents contained in the waste were detected in signifi-
cant concentrations in the air in the vicinity of the quarry
(see Section 7.1.6, Public Health) (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• In July 1977 several truckloads of organohalides, amines, and
hydrocarbons were dumped by a waste disposal firm at a
disposal site near San Francisco, California. The wastes
were deposited in an evaporation pond, where they soon
floated to the top and began to evaporate. A visible and
odoriferous plume of white mist hovered over the area for
several hours, provoking nausea and other complaints from
residents downwind of the site. At least one building in
the area had to be evacuated (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
Air quality problems from existing land disposal practices are
also associated with the products of chemical and microbial transfor-
mations. Chemical reactions from the mixing of incompatible wastes
have occurred on numerous instances and are described in the subse-
quent discussion of explosions, fires, and accidents. The disposal
of organic wastes can produce gases through the decomposition and
chemical reaction of the waste material. Gases produced usually
include methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and
oxygen. Most studies of gas generation through decomposition of
organic wastes have focused only on municipal solid wastes. Streng
(1976) is studying the effects on gas production from the codisposal
of six industrial wastes with municipal solid wastes. Table 7-9
shows the gas composition data measured in the six industrial waste
7-82
-------
TABLE 7-9
GAS COMPOSITION DATA*»
•-j
I
oo
U)
Study cell contents^
Municipal solid waste only
Refinery sludge
Battery reproduction waste
Electroplating waste
Inorganic pigment waste
Chlorine production
brine sludge
Solvent based
paint sludge
02
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
N2
29.9
26.4
22.3
16.4
2.9
16.6
47.0
CH4
0.0
17.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
4.9
C02
69.2
56.1
76.5
81.9
96.9
83.3
41.0
H2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
*Streng, 1976.
tPercent of gas produced by volume.
fContents in addition to municipal solid waste.
-------
test cells and one municipal solid waste test cell at the time of the
report. According to Streng, most of the study cells were progres-
sing from an anaerobic nonmethanation stage to the early phases of
methanation at the time of the report. However, the addition of re-
finery wastes to the municipal solid wastes appeared to have sped up
the decomposition of the municipal solid wastes and the resultant
production of methane. In a later report, Streng (1977) noted that
the test cell containing the mixture of the solvent based paint
sludge and municipal waste produced less than the theoretical minimum
amount of gas expected to have been generated, indicating that this
industrial waste exerted an adverse effect on gas production.
Migration of methane and other combustible gases resulting from
current landfill practices has caused explosions and other problems.
For example:
• A landfill in Deck Quarry, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
accepted municipal and industrial wastes until it closed in
1969. Two explosions and the contamination of residential
drinking water resulted from the generation of methane gas
and its migration through rock fractures. Residents have had
to evacuate their houses permanently (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• Migration of gases from a landfill containing household and
industrial wastes, along with sewage sludge, resulted in the
deaths of over 70 peach trees in Glassboro, New Jersey be-
tween 1971 and 1975. Combustible gases and carbon monoxide
were found along with low oxygen concentrations in the root
zones of the trees up to 24 meters (80 feet) from the land-
fill (Flower, 1976). Many similar cases, some with the
potential for explosions affecting homes have also been re-
ported for municipal landfills (Flower et al., 1976, 1977;
DeGeare, 1976; James, 1977).
7-84
-------
The Subtitle C regulations contain requirements that should re-
duce the potential for fugitive emissions from the land-based treat-
ment/disposal of hazardous wastes. For example, the Section 3005
regulations would require that all hazardous waste treatment/
disposal facilities obtain a permit before construction and opera-
tion. To obtain and keep a permit, treatment/disposal facilities
would have to comply with the applicable Section 3004 air regula-
tions.
The objective of the Section 3004 air regulations would be to
insure that treatment/disposal facilities are located, designed, con-
structed, and operated in a manner such that air emissions from such
facilities do not adversely affect human health or the environment.
The air regulations applicable to non-point emission sources (e.g.,
landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments) would consist of two
sets of requirements: mandatory standards with which all facilities
must always comply and air human health and environmental standards
which would be applicable, on a case-by-case basis, only when there
is reason to believe (e.g., a third party challenge) that the manda-
tory standards are insufficient for human health and environmental
protection. If a facility is in compliance with all applicable man-
datory standards, it would be assumed to be in complaince with the
air human health and environmental standards; the burden of proof
would be on the permitting authority to show that the facility was
actually in violation of the air human health and environmental
standard.
7-85
-------
The air human health and environmental standard would require
that non-point sources of air emissions not contribute any listed air
contaminant (see Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 2) to the atmosphere,
at the surface of the non-point source, in concentrations exceeding
the listed Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for that contaminant, nor con-
tribute two or more listed air contaminants in a manner which causes
the sum of the individual concentrations divided by the individual
TLV's to exceed unity. Examples of air contaminants from the pre-
viously discussed incidences to which the air human health and
environmental standard could apply include acetone, asbestos, ben-
zene, carbon monoxide, carbon tetrachloride, methane, and methylene
chloride. However, the application of this standard could occur only
after the standard was violated; it would not be a means to initially
prevent release of air contaminants in violation of the standard.
The mandatory standards discussed below would, however, prevent the
initial occurrence of most such incidents.
All facility owners/operators would have to obtain an analysis
of each type of waste to be treated/disposed for the purpose of iden-
tifying the principal hazardous components and characteristics of the
waste so as to enable the waste to be treated/disposed in compliance
with the Section 3004 requirements. All ownerss/operators would also
have to sample waste shipments or batches received to confirm that
the contents match the previous analysis. Owners/operators of all
7-86
-------
treatment/disposal facilities would also have to visually inspect the
facility daily to determine if there were any fugitive emissions.
Volatile wastes—those with a true vapor pressure greater than
78 mm mercury at 25 C—would not be allowed to be treated/disposed in
landfills, surface impoundments, or basins; such wastes could be
landfarmed only if the facility owner/operator could demonstrate, be-
fore landfarming the wastes, that the air human health and environ-
mental standard would not be violated. Examples of air contaminants
from the previously discussed incidents which have vapor pressures
greater than 78 mm mercury at 25 C and which could not be treated/
disposed under the Subtitle C regulations in the manner that caused
the indicated incidents include acetone, benzene, carbon tetrachlor-
ide, methylene chloride, and vinyl chloride.
With regard to wastes that are landfilled, a minimum of 0.15
meters (6 inches) of cover material would have to be applied daily on
active hazardous waste landfill cells. Cells which do not have addi-
tional wastes placed in them for at least one week would have to be
JL,
covered with 0.3 meters (12 inches) of material. Where gases are
generated, a gas collection and control system would have to be
installed to control the vertical and horizontal escape of gases. At
facility closure, a final cover of at least 0.15 meters of clay soil
Different thicknesses or rates of application could be used if the
owner/operator could demonstrate that the air human health and envi-
ronmental standard would not be violated.
7-87
-------
under a minimum cover of 0.45 meters (18 inches) of soil would have
to be provided.* The facility would also have to be secured such
that discharges of wastes harmful to human health or the environment
would not occur. These requirements would reduce air emissions that
occur under current landfill practices which often do not employ such
measures (see Appendix J).
For example, emissions of hexachlorobenzene wastes are reported
to be reduced from 317 kilograms per hectare per year when disposed
uncovered to 4.564 kg/ha/yr. when covered with 0.02 meters of soil
and to 0.07 kg/ha/yr. when covered with 1.2 meters of soil (Farmer et
al., 1976). Other studies, however, have indicated that even cover-
ing some wastes may not completely prevent the release of air emis-
sions. A study by Markle et al. (1976) indicated background air
concentrations of about 0.1 to 0.3 ppm VCM exist at landfills where
PVC sludge has been disposed for several years. Peak concentrations
on the order of 1.0 ppm VCM were observed at normal breathing heights
as long as 24 hours after the PVC sludge deposits were covered. The
required gas collection and control system could remove such emis-
sions as well as volatile gases generated by waste decomposition,
including methane and carbon monoxide.
*
Different thicknesses or rates of application could be used if the
owner/operator could demonstrate that the air human health and envi-
ronmental standard would not be violated.
7-88
-------
With regard to surface impoundments, the Subtitle C regulations
would require that there be no discharges to the ambient air unless
the facility owners can demonstrate, before treatment/disposal, that
any discharges would not violate the air human health and environmen-
tal standard. Furthermore, upon close-out, all hazardous wastes and
waste residuals would have to be removed from surface impoundments
which do not meet the requirements for landfills. Also after clo-
sure, surface impoundments would have to be secured such that dis-
charges of wastes harmful to health or the environment would not
occur.
It should be noted that the Subtitle C regulations do not cover
all types of potentially hazardous fugitive air emissions from land-
based treatment/disposal. The air human health and environmental
standards only apply to those emissions for which there are TLV's
listed in Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 2. Other emissions which
could consist of the hazardous waste itself or various hazardous
constituents (e.g., trichloroethane) would not be subject to any
emission standards. There are also no specific requirements aimed at
reducing fugitive dust emissions from treatment/disposal activities
which result in soil disturbance.
Explosions, fires, and other accidents represent another major
source of air contaminants resulting from current hazardous waste
treatment/disposal practices. The primary causes of most such
explosions and fires have been the mixing of incompatible wastes and
7-89
-------
the improper treatment/disposal of ignitable or reactive wastes.
Often wastes involved in such accidents are those whose identity or
nature were not known prior to treatment/disposal. Resultant fires
have led to the creation, release, and dispersion of additional air
pollutants which have threatened persons living or working in the
vicinity of the treatment/disposal facility. Appendix M describes
types of emissions that can result from the combustion of hazardous
wastes. A less obvious danger of fire occurring within an under-
ground storage or disposal cell is the possibility of destruction of
liners meant to protect groundwater. While this has not been docu-
mented, since most liner materials cannot withstand temperatures in
excess of 150 to 200 C (3UO to 400 F) it is theoretically possible
(Office of Solid Wastes, 1977d).
Numerous instances of fires and explosions have been reported at
hazardous waste disposal areas. The incidents presented below illus-
trate some of these occurrences and the subsequent problems.
• At a sanitary landfill near Dundalk, Maryland, a 2,000-gallon
liquid industrial waste load containing iron sulfide, sodium
sulfide, sodium carbonate, and sodium thiosulfate, along with
smaller quantities of organic compounds was discharged into a
depression on top of an earth-covered area of the landfill.
When it reached eight to ten feet below the point of dis-
charge, the liquid started to bubble and fume blue smoke.
The smoke cloud quickly engulfed the truck driver and dis-
abled him. Several nearby workers rushed to his aid and were
also felled. During the clean-up operation, one of the coun-
ty firefighters also collapsed. All six of the injured were
hospitalized and treated for hydrogen sulfide poisoning. It
was not determined whether the generation of hydrogen sulfide
was due to the instability of the waste or the incompatibil-
ity of the waste with some of the landfill material (De Vera
et al., 1977).
7-90
-------
• At a dump in Contra Costa County-, California, a large number
of drums containing solvents were deposited in a landfill.
In the immediate area were leaky containers of concentrated
mineral acids and several bags containing beryllium wastes in
dust form. The operators failed to cover the waste at the
end of the day. The acids reacted with the solvents during
the night, ignited them, and started a large chemical fire.
There was possible dispersion of potentially hazardous beryl-
lium dust (De Vera et al., 1977).
• In Los Angeles County, a tank truck emptied several thousand
gallons of cyanide waste onto refuse at a sanitary landfill.
Another truck subsequently deposited several thousand gallons
of acid waste at the same location. Reaction between the
acid and the cyanide evolved large amounts of toxic hydrogen
cyanide gas. A potential disaster was averted when a local
chlorine dealer was quickly called to oxidize the cyanide
with chlorine solution (De Vera et al., 1977).
• A load of empty pesticide containers was delivered to a dis-
posal site in Fresno County, California. Unknown to the site
operator, several full drums of an acetone-methanol mixture
were included in the load. When the load was compacted by
a bulldozer, the containerized waste ignited, engulfing the
bulldozer in flames. The ensuing fire involved dispersion of
pesticide wastes (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Division, 1978b).
• A disposal site in central California accepted a load of
solid dichromate salts and dumped it in a pit along with pes-
ticide formulations and empty pesticide containers. For sev-
eral days thereafter, small fires erupted in the pit due to
the oxidation of the pesticide formulations by the dichro-
mate (De Vera et al., 1977).
• In October 1974, a bulldozer operator was killed in an ex-
plosion at an industrial landfill in Edison Township, New
Jersey, as he was burying and compacting several 55-gallon
drums of unidentified chemical wastes. The victim died as a
result of burns covering approximately 85 percent of his body
(Lazar, 1975).
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should, to a
large degree, reduce the potential for fires, explosions, and other
accidents at hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities. For
7-91
-------
example, one of the major causes of many such accidents has been the
lack of accurate information about the identity or nature of the
wastes being treated/disposed (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, 1978a). The manifesting and labelling require-
ments under Section 3002 would make such information readily avail-
able. The requirement that facility owners/operators obtain an
analysis of each type of waste handled from every source (e.g.,
generator) would enable a prior determination of how the waste should
be treated/disposed. The requirement that the facility owner/opera-
tor sample shipments or batches received to confirm that the contents
match the initial analysis would reduce the possibility of improper
handling due to undetected changes in the waste composition. Fur-
thermore, the requirement for training of all personnel in hazardous
waste management procedures relevant to the facility operation would
make such employees less likely to handle or mix wastes in a manner
that could cause fires or explosions.
Incompatible wastes, both containerized and non-containerized,
would also have to be disposed in separate landfill cells. Landfarms
would have to be constructed and operated such that potentially in-
compatible wastes do not come in contact. 'Incompatible wastes would
not be allowed to be mixed in surface impoundments and basins, except
for treatment purposes, providing the treatment does not violate the
air human health and environmental standard. Furthermore, highly
reactive or ignitable wastes, as defined in Appendix B, Subpart A,
7-92
-------
would not be allowed to be disposed in landfills, surface impound-
ments, basins, or landfarms. Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 4 lists
examples of incompatible wastes. Appendix C describes potential
sources generating many of these potentially incompatible wastes.
Examples of wastes identified as potentially hazardous due to reac-
tivity or ignitability (see Appendix C, Subpart D, 250.14) which have
been disposed in landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments in
the past include slop oil emission solids and DAF sludge from petro-
leum refining (see Table D-7) ; semisolid wastes from toluene diisocy-
nate production (see Table D-5); and solvent and still bottom wastes
from the textile, paint, organic chemicals, special and electronic
components industries (see Tables D-l, D-4, D-5, D-14, and D-15).
Hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities would have to
prepare contingency plans to minimize human health or environmental
damage in the event of an accidental discharge (see Appendix B, Sub-
part D, 250.43-4 for specific requirements). To the extent that the
contingency plan would reduce both the spread of the discharge with a
resultant reduction in the possible mixing of incompatible wastes and
the time required to stop and clean up the discharge, there would be
a reduction in the release of air contaminants and resultant impacts
from such accidental discharges.
The intentional combustion of hazardous waste as a method of
treatment, energy recovery, or disposal represents another major
source for the release of air emissions. The combustion of wastes
7-93
-------
typically occurs either as open burning or as controlled or uncon-
trolled incineration.
Open burning is defined under Subtitle C as the combustion of
any material without control of combustion air to maintain adequate
temperature for efficient combustion, containment of the combustion-
reaction in an enclosed device to provide sufficient residence time
and mixing for complete combustion, or emission of the gaseous com-
bustion products through a stack or vent adequate for both visual
monitoring and point source sampling. Open burning of hazardous
waste results in the uncontrolled release of hazardous gases and
particulate matter (see Appendix M for potential emissions from com-
bustion of hazardous wastes). In addition, open burning may result
in the release of smoke (i.e., particulate matter) which can inter-
fere with visibility. For example, smoke from open burning in a dump
resulted in a chain accident on the New Jersey Turnpike several years
ago (Lazar, 1975). Open burning is being phased out as a method of
most hazardous waste disposal due to implementation of the Clean Air
Act. It should be noted that open burning is currently used by the
military to dispose of explosive wastes which cannot be incinerated
or treated by other means (Shapira et al., 1978). Open burning is
currently the method most commonly used for such disposal (TRW, Inc. ,
1976).
Incineration is defined by Subtitle C as an engineered process
using controlled flame combustion to thermally degrade materials
7-94
-------
(e.g., hazardous wastes). Devices normally used for incineration
include rotary kilns, fluidized beds, and liquid injectors (see
Appendix D). To the extent that incineration produces an ash or re-
sidue which is hazardous under Section 3001, incineration is a treat-
ment method (e.g., volume reduction) rather than a disposal method.
It is estimated that in the period from 1973 to 1975, over 15
percent of the hazardous wastes from 14 selected manufacturing indus-
tries were incinerated or open burned with over 60 percent of this
incineration and open burning being uncontrolled (Office of Solid
Waste, unpublished data). It should be noted that the percentage of
controlled incineration is likely to be higher now due to require-
ments of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Tables 5-8 and 5-9 show the
portion of hazardous wastes estimated to be incinerated by selected
manufacturing industries during this period. Data are not available
to estimate the quantity of air emission released by such incinera-
tion of hazardous wastes.
In addition to the release of potentially hazardous emissions,
incineration of volatile, flammable, or explosive wastes have led to
many instances of explosions and fires in the past:
• The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania incinerator, for example, has
experienced explosions in both 1972 and 1975 as a result of
the incineration of hazardous wastes (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
Appendix M contains a detailed discussion of destruction effi-
ciencies achieved for the incineration of selected hazardous wastes,
potential air residuals from such incineration, and the nature of
7-95
-------
solid residuals produced by the incineration. Based upon this dis-
cussion, a vast number of different hazardous waste materials, rep-
resenting a broad spectrum of physical and chemical characteristics,
can be essentially destroyed or used for energy recovery by inciner-
ation. Generally speaking, organic materials are the prime candi-
dates for incineration. The amount of destruction of any specific
hazardous waste is dependent to a large extent on the relationship of
incineration temperature to dwell time (residence time in the incin-
erator) at that temperature and to a lesser extent on turbulence in
the combustion zone and the amount of excess oxygen available. The
higher the temperature used, the shorter the dwell time necessary to
achieve a given destruction ratio. As a general rule, the principal
components of most organic hazardous materials can be virtually com-
pletely destroyed at 1000 C (1830 F) with a dwell time of 2 seconds.
Many are destroyed at lower temperature/dwell time conditions; a few
require more rigorous conditions. However, the knowledge of specific
incineration criteria for individual wastes is very limited.
Very limited information is also available as to the fate of
hazardous waste constituents produced by the incineration. Most
studies of emissions from the incineration, of hazardous wastes have
considered only the fate of the gross components of combustion, com-
ponents for which regulations have been promulgated, or components
for which historical data have been accumulated regarding harmful ef-
fects. Most studies have not given consideration to emissions which
7-96
-------
result from side reactions, such as the formation of polynuclear aro-
matics (PNA's) from the incineration of wastes containing chlorinated
hydrocarbons, nor to the constituents of particulate matter entrained
in stack gases. Also, little is known about the potential health
effects from long-term, low-level exposure to many of the gaseous and
particulate products of hazardous waste combustion.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for the release of air contaminants from the combustion
of hazardous wastes. As indicated, in recent years over 60 percent
of the hazardous wastes that were burned (either by incineration or
open burning) were burned in an uncontrolled manner. The Subtitle C
regulations would require the use of controls for almost all combus-
tion of hazardous wastes and would set standards for the release of
many air contaminants. Open burning of hazardous wastes would be
prohibited unless the facility owner/operator could demonstrate prior
to such open burning that the air human health and environmental
standard would not be violated. All facilities would also be re-
quired to comply with all applicable standards of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, in order to maintain their permits.
The regulations also would set specific standards for the incin-
eration of hazardous wastes. Incineration used to thermally degrade
hazardous waste containing more than 0.5 percent halogens would be
required to be equipped with wet scrubbers capable of removing 99
percent of the halogens from the exhaust gases. Incinerators used to
7-97
-------
burn pesticide wastes or wastes which are hazardous due to toxicity
would be required to maintain greater than a 1000 C combustion zone
temperature, greater than 2 seconds retention, and greater than 2
percent excess oxygen during incineration. Such incinerators, except
for pathological incinerators, would also be required to be designed,
constructed, and operated to maintain a destruction efficiency of
99.99 percent of the principal toxic components of the pesticide or
toxic waste going into the incinerator. All incinerators would be
required to be operated at a combustion efficiency equal to or great-
er than 99.9 percent. All hazardous waste incinerators would also be
required to be operated in a manner that assures that emissions of
particulate matter do not exceed 270 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (0.12 grains per dry standard cubic foot) at zero excess
air. Compliance with this latter requirement could be achieved by
having particulate emissions that when corrected to 12 percent carbon
dioxide are less than 180 milligrams per standard cubic meter (0.08
grains per dry standard cubic foot).
In addition, incinerators would have to be designed, construc-
ted, and operated such that fugitive emissions of unburned hazardous
waste and combustion products are controlled and such that waste feed
is automatically cut off if significant changes occur in flame, com-
bustion zone temperature, excess air, or scrubber water pressure.
Also, owners/operators of hazardous waste incinerators would be
required to conduct trial burns for each hazardous waste that is
7-98
-------
significantly different than any one previously demonstrated under
equivalent conditions. The trial burn would have to include: an
analysis of the exhaust gases for concentrations of the principal
hazardous components, hydrogen halides, carbon monoxide, carbon diox-
ide, excess oxygen, and total particulates; an analysis of the ash
residue and scrubber effluent for the principal hazardous components;
an identification of sources of fugitive emissions and their means of
control; a measurement of the combustion temperature; and a computa-
tion of residence time, combustion efficiency, destruction efficien-
cy ; and scrubber efficiency in halogen removal.
Data are not available to estimate the extent to which the above
regulations would reduce the overall release of specific air emis-
sions from hazardous waste incineration. Any reduction would depend
upon such factors as changes in types and quantities of hazardous
wastes incinerated, changes in the types of incinerators utilized,
and changes in control devices employed. As previously indicated,
ignitable, volatile, and reactive wastes would, for the most part, be
prohibited from landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments. It
is likely that a large portion of such wastes would be incinerated as
an alternative means of treatment/disposal under the Subtitle C regu-
lations. Such a shift would likely result in the increased release
of combustion products from these wastes, but would also reduce the
release of other emissions, such as particulates and volatile gases,
that would have occurred from land disposal of these wastes. There
7-99
-------
would also be other shifts in the types of methods used to treat/
dispose other wastes under Subtitle C regulations compared to current
practices. All such shifts could either enhance or reduce the poten-
tial for reductions in specific air emissions under the Subtitle C
regulations. Furthermore, the construction of new facilities could
lead to increased releases of air emissions in the vicinity of the
facility and along any transport routes. Closure of existing facil-
ities could lead to reduced releases of air emissions in the vicinity
of the facility and along transport routes. The net result could be
both a localized and/or nationwide reduction in the total release of
many air contaminants from hazardous waste management and a localized
and/or nationwide increase in the release of other air contaminants.
This could cause both localized improvements in air quality and some
localized degradation of air quality; however all emissions and any
localized degradation would have to be in compliance with all applic-
able standards (e.g., Clean Air Act, OSHA Standards, RCRA Standards,
State Standards).
It should be noted that the incineration standards set limits
only for the destruction of the principal toxic components of the
waste feedstock and on the emission of halogens and total particu-
lates. As indicated in Appendix M, combustion of hazardous wastes
can also generate and release other combustion products such as cya-
nides, sulfur compounds, hydrochloric acid, trace metals, nitriles,
ammonia, pyrophosphates, cyanogen, polycyclic hydrocarbons,
7-100
-------
polynuclear aromatics, and other organics. While the regulations re-
quire that such combustion products from incineration be controlled,
no standards are set for such control. Thus, such combustion
products would still likely be released, but in quantities less than
those that would occur without the subtitle C regulations. Further-
more, there could be small releases of the hazardous waste and/or its
principal toxic components; up to 0.01 percent of the principal toxic
components originally present in the waste could be released. Little
is currently known about the potential for adverse health effects or
environmental effects from long-term, low-level exposure to such
potential emissions from hazardous waste combustion.
Appendix M also indicates that while 99.99 percent destruction
has been demonstrated for many hazardous wastes, such destruction ef-
ficiencies have not yet been reported to have been demonstrated for
most hazardous wastes. Furthermore, in spite of the impressive per-
formances of the incinerators reported in the literature in destroy-
ing hazardous wastes, it should be noted that most studies were per-
formed under extremely controlled conditions and only specific
products of combustion were sampled in many cases. Problems could
occur due to requirements for frequent maintenance and extensive
For example, as indicated in Appendix M, hydrogen cyanide is
generated from the destruction of nitrogen-containing pesticides.
Temperatures much higher than those required for 99.999 percent de-
struction of the nitrogen-containing pesticide are needed for de-
struction of this hydrogen cyanide.
7-101
-------
operator education in order to ensure proper functioning. Mainte-
nance could be an especially serious problem since many wastes burned
in incinerators are either extremely caustic or produce caustic
products when burned.
Other types of hazardous waste treatment constitutes a further
source for the release of potential air contaminants. Such treatment
can be classified as biological treatment, physical treatment, or
chemical treatment (see Appendix D). Fugitive emissions represent a
major source of emissions from such treatment. The potential for the
release of fugitive emissions during treatment would be similar to
that previously discussed and is not repeated here. In addition,
some chemicals and/or reagents used in treatment processes are poten-
tial sources of fires and/or explosions if not properly stored and/or
handled. The combustion of fuel to provide steam or energy to treat-
ment processes is another source of emissions, primarily particulate
matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydro-
carbons. The burning of coal could also result in aldehydes and
trace elements being emitted. The following two incidents indicate
potential problems from hazardous waste treatment processes (other
incidences from treatment have been previously indicated):
• Organic lead waste from manufacturing processes for alkly
lead in the San Francisco Bay area had been disposed in ponds
at an industrial waste disposal site. Attempts to process
this waste for recovery resulted in alkyl lead intoxication
of plant employees in one case. In another instance, not
only were plant employees affected, but employees of firms in
the surrounding area were exposed to an airborne alkyl lead
vapor hazard. Toll collectors on a bridge along the truck
7-102
-------
route to the plant became ill from escaping vapors from
transport trucks (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
1974a).
• The Air Compliance Division of the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection closed down two organic solvents re-
covery operations in Southington, Connecticut due to air pol-
lution caused by incineration of the wastes. A similar oper-
ation in Beaver Falls, Connecticut was also closed due to air
pollution problems (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, 1978b).
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for fugitive emissions from hazardous waste treatment
processes. Most of these provisions and potential impacts have pre-
viously been discussed under storage, treatment, and disposal and are
not repeated here. Additional requirements include the need for the
treatment facility to demonstrate the capability to handle hazardous
wastes during facility or equipment breakdown and for all continuous
feed facilities to be equipped with an automatic waste feed cut-off
or by-pass system which is activated when a malfunction occurs. All
hazardous wastes would have to be analyzed prior to selection of a
treatment process to determine if the waste contains components or
contaminants which could cause the uncontrolled release of toxic
gases or fumes or which could form highly toxic components with
treatment chemicals or reagents. These requirements in conjunction
with the previously discussed requirements would reduce the potential
for air emissions from hazardous waste treatment. However, any
increased treatment occurring as a result of promulgation of the Sub-
title C regulations could offset the potential for such reductions to
7-103
-------
an unknown degree. There could also be other offsetting reductions
in the release of air emissions if the treatment reduced the quanti-
ty of wastes requiring disposal.
7.1.4.2 Climate. The potential effect of specific actions on
global, regional and local climates is not well understood at pres-
ent. As a result, very few conclusions can be drawn as to the effect
of various hazardous waste management related actions on the climate.
Furthermore, even for those potential impacts that can be identified,
the effect on climate conditions would be so site-dependent as to
preclude quantification. The following discussion describes poten-
tial changes that could result both from any construction of addi-
tional hazardous waste management facilities and from changes in
operational procedures as a result of the Subtitle C regulations.
Average temperatures could be slightly increased in the vicinity
of a hazardous waste management facility as a result of both heat re-
leased from the facility and increased reflection of heat from
cleared and paved surfaces on the facility site. Heat would be re-
leased by incinerators, auxiliary boilers, and various treatment pro-
cesses. This heat would increase the temperature slightly in the
immediate vicinity of each facility. The heat would also cause local
convection currents, minor increased air turbulence, and slightly
greater instability in the immediate layer of air over the facility.
Low-level wind patterns in the facility area could be slightly
modified as a result of the facility structure and minor topographic
7-104
-------
changes. Wind speeds could be slightly decreased and air turbulence
increased. Aerodynamic effects of buildings could cause wake and
down-wash effects which could modify dispersion of low-level atmo-
spheric emissions. Any such effects would be very localized in
nature.
The creation of reservoirs and storage and treatment lagoons and
ponds would increase the surface area of water exposed to the atmo-
sphere and to solar radiation. This would cause increased evapora-
tion which could influence the microclimate of the surrounding area.
The significance of such changes is not well understood at present.
The precise role of airborne particulate matter and other aero-
sols emanating from hazardous waste management facilities with regard
to weather modifications cannot be determined completely. Their in-
fluence on the amount of short-wave solar radiation is well estab-
lished and has important implications both on a global scale
(Mitchell, 1971) and on a regional scale. In principle, aerosol par-
ticles could also act as condensation nuclei and either enhance or
inhibit rainfall. A considerable body of knowledge regarding cloud
seeding has been built up over the past 25 to 30 years (Byer, 1974;
Elliott, 1974) and numerous precipitation management programs are in
progress, notably in the U.S., Australia, Israel, and the Soviet
Union.
While certain aspects of intentional weather modifications are
still regarded as controversial, it is generally recognized that
7-105
-------
artificial nucleation can be effective in producing increases or
redistributions of precipitation under very specific meteorological
conditions and through the use of appropriate techniques. A defini-
tive answer as to whether or not a local change in the concentration
of atmospheric aerosols resulting from dust or industrial emissions
would cause a significant change in precipitation patterns cannot be
given (Simpson and Dennis, 1974). A few instances of anomalous snow-
falls have been recorded; industrial and urban emissions are thought
to be instrumental in producing generally light snowfalls in these
cases (Landsberg, 1974). An increase in cloudiness due partly to the
aerosol condensation nuclei and partly to the heating effect of
cleared surface areas appears to be a more likely phenomenon than
persistent alterations in precipitation characteristics.
The most frequently cited factor associated with inadvertent
climate modification is the increasing carbon dioxide content of the
atmosphere (Machta and Telgadas, 1974; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1970). The steady growth observed in carbon dioxide con-
centration is attributed to the rapidly increasing use of fossil
fuels since the turn of the century. Although the potential effects
of atmospheric carbon dioxide on global temperature and climate have
serious implications—the greenhouse effect through which the temper-
ature could increase—no significant localized or regional weather
effects from carbon dioxide emissions are anticipated from changes in
hazardous waste incineration. This is due to the relatively small
7-106
-------
quantity of carbon dioxide expected to be produced from hazardous
waste incineration in relation to the production from other sources.
7.1.5 Water Quality Impacts. The primary mechanisms by which
surface water may be contaminated with hazardous wastes are spills
(including deliberate dumping); surface runoff from storage, treat-
ment, or disposal areas (including overflows from impoundments);
direct discharges from generating or treating facilities; and dis-
charge of groundwater contaminated by subsurface migration of pollu-
tions. Groundwater contamination can occur with almost any facet of
hazardous waste handling and disposal as now practiced. It may occur
due to infiltration of spilled materials or wastes stored on perme-
able surfaces, due to percolation of leachate or runoff which has
been in contact with wastes either in storage or in landfills, or due
to leakage or infiltration of fluids from poorly sealed waste impound-
ments .
These mechanisms may be generalized into three major pathways
through which contamination can occur: spills, other surface releas-
es (including runoff and direct discharges), and underground dis-
charges (primarily off-site movement of leachates). The following
sections discuss the effects of the Subtitle C regulations on these
pathways with respect to each of the steps in the hazardous waste
management sequence.
A general discussion of the effects of the combined regulations
on each pathway is followed by discussions of the effects of any
7-107
-------
specific parts of the regulations which further control one of the
individual hazardous waste management activities (e.g., transporta-
tion) .
7.1.5.1 Spills. The Subtitle C regulations would potentially
result in a small decrease in the number and size of hazardous waste
spills. This would occur primarily as a result of the requirements
for maintenance of adequate containerization, and indirectly, as a
result of the increased awareness of the waste hazard due to the
manifest system and labeling requirements. The regulations would
not, however, significantly affect the frequency of major vehicular
accidents during transport resulting in spillage (available data on
the number and volumes of hazardous spills are presented in Chapter
6).
It is expected that the effects of any spill which may occur
would be reduced due to the requirements for prompt reporting of all
spills to the National Response Center and for immediate action to
remove the spill in the most expedient manner. These provisions
would complement those developed under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act, and in effect, would extend the National Contingency Plan to
include upland spills as well as those into navigable waters.
One of the side-benefits of the regulations would be the quanti-
fication of the amounts of hazardous material spilled, a presently
unknown figure, which is important for planning the size and deploy-
ment of emergency response teams as well as for assessing the need
7-108
-------
for more stringent transportation safety codes. At present it is
estimated that there may be about 2,000 spills of hazardous sub-
stances, including wastes, per year (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977b).
Transportation. The effects discussed above would apply to all
segments of the hazardous waste management sequence. As indicated in
Section 7.1.2.1, the generator regulations (Section 3001) would fur-
ther reduce the likelihood of spills through the imposition of speci-
fic containerization requirements for the transport of hazardous
wastes. These requirements would reduce the likelihood of rupture
and spillage of wastes during shipment. Further, the transporter
regulations also prohibit transportation of containers of hazardous
wastes which are leaking or appear to be damaged, or the transport or
consolidation of incompatible wastes. The regulations could also
prevent the types of incidents due to vehicle cleaning, as indicated
below:
• An insecticide (endrin) applicator rinsed and cleaned his
truck into the Cuivre River at Moscow Mills, Missouri. As a
result, approximately 100,000 fish were killed, and the river
was closed to fishing for one year by the Missouri Game and
Fish Commission (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
1974a).
Storage and Disposal. Spillage or other unintentional releases
from storage and disposal facilities would be decreased due to the
requirements to maintain waste container integrity by recontaineriz-
ing the materials whenever their original container begins to fail.
Additionally, any spills occurring at a storage or disposal facility
7-109
-------
would be contained at the site by dikes and impervious surfaces which
would prevent migration of the wastes until cleanup operations can be
completed.
7.1.5.2 Other Surface Releases. The regulations would signifi-
cantly decrease the number of, and environmental damage resulting
from, surface releases of hazardous wastes. Many parts of the regu-
lations apply. All generators of wastes designated as hazardous
would have to comply with all of the Subtitle C regulations. These
stipulate that all hazardous wastes designated for on-site or off-
site treatment, storage, or disposal would have to be sent to a
permitted facility. The regulations would institute a manifest and
reporting system to enable tracking of wastes to ensure compliance.
All storage, treatment, and disposal facilities would have to use
diversion structures to prevent runoff from upland areas from flowing
onto active portions of the facilities. Further, such facilities
would have to confine all runoff or any other discharge to a point
source which complies with the regulations promulgated under the
Clean Water Act of 1977. The combined effects of these regulations
would be to eliminate most non-point surface discharge of wastes
defined as hazardous. Specific effects of the various regulations
are discussed below.
Characteristics, Identification, and Listing. A large number of
hazardous wastes are either listed or fall under the characteristics
contained in the Section 3001 regulations. Many have been involved
7-110
-------
in past damage incidents. The occurrence of such incidents would be
reduced as a result of the regulations. However, many potentially
hazardous wastes are not listed and would not be included by the
characteristics. At present, numerous potentially toxic, carcino-
genic, or mutagenic organic chemicals would not be included by the
toxicity characteristic that is based entirely on EPA Primary Drink-
ing Water Standards. At present, Primary Drinking Water Standards
are promulgated for nine inorganic contaminants and six organic con-
taminants (all pesticides). Although the number of contaminants reg-
ulated under the Drinking Water Standards will probably increase in
the future, it is likely that many potentially hazardous wastes would
escape regulation under this rule. The Environmental Protection
Agency plans to expand this characteristic at a later time.
Generators. As mentioned above, generators of hazardous wastes
would not be allowed to dispose such wastes without also receiving a
permit as a disposal facility. However, there would be a few exemp-
tions to these regulations. Generators engaged solely in retail
trade or principally in farming would be regulated only with respect
to waste automotive oil. Household wastes would be entirely exemp-
ted. Further, generators who generate less than 100 kilograms per
month of hazardous wastes would not be subject to regulation. These
exemptions would allow a small quantity of hazardous wastes to escape
regulation. However, it is expected that the regulations issued by
EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
7-111
-------
(FIFRA) of 1972 would adequately control pesticides from farmers; and
it is estimated that the 100 kilogram per month generation limit
would exclude less than 30,000 tons of hazardous industrial waste per
year in 1984, less than 0.1 percent of the total hazardous industrial
waste. Wastes from these excluded generators could be disposed of as
nonhazardous wastes using current practices, could go into sewer sys-
tems or any other conventional disposal area, and could conceivably
eventually contaminate surface waters. The impacts of this genera-
tion limit are difficult to define. However, it is likely that the
excluded wastes would continue to cause essentially the same types of
impacts as they currently are causing. With proper disposal of the
regulated wastes, the total impact of hazardous wastes on surface
waters should be significantly reduced. Thus, although it is true
that some unregulated releases of hazardous wates could continue to
occur and that some hazardous wastes may cause significant damage in
any amount, such occurrences would be much less frequent and, gener-
ally, less severe than those which occur in the present uncontrolled
case.
Transportation. The transporter regulations would require that
transporters deliver all hazardous wastes io a- designated permitted
storage, treatment, or disposal facility. In addition, transporters
could not transport containers which are leaking or appear to be dam-
tat
aged. These requirements would eliminate willfull dumping of hazard-
ous wastes by transporters. A typical incident of 'midnight dumping1
7-112
-------
which could be precluded by the proposed regulations is as follows:
• In March 1972 a considerable amount of xylene was dumped into
a drainage ditch along the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The liquid
waste flowed down the ditch, across a field, and into a
nearby stream causing a fish kill (Cartwright and Lindorff,
1976).
As discusssed previously, the Subtitle C regulations would re-
duce the likelihood of spills of hazardous wastes and their associ-
ated surface water contamination by extending the DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations to cover intrastate as well as interstate
transportation.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. The human health and environ-
mental standard for surface water would require that all facilities
be located, designed, constructed, and operated so that no discharges
from the facility violate the Water Quality Standards promulgated
under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, or constitute a spill of
hazardous substances under Section 311 of that Act. As previously
indicated, more specific regulations (General Facility Standards)
would require the use of diversion structures to prevent surface run-
off from flowing onto the facility and the use of dikes or other con-
taminant structures to collect runoff originating on the facility.
All discharges from such facilities, including discharges from leach-
ate and/or runoff collection systems, would have to be confined to
point sources and must comply with the regulations promulgated under
the Clean Water Act. Further, siting limitations would restrict
facility siting on floodplains and in wetlands. Additionally, each
7-113
-------
type of facility (storage, treatment, and five types of disposal
facilities—incineration, landfills, surface impoundments, basins,
and landfarms) would have to meet other standards which are discussed
in following sections.
These regulations would constitute a substantial improvement
over the present unregulated situation and should result in a signif-
icant decrease in the number of pollution incidents resulting from
hazardous waste storage and disposal. However, even though a dis-
charge may meet all presently promulgated standards (including those
under the Clean Water Act), it could still decrease receiving water
quality up to the maximum allowable limit for each regulated constit-
uent. Since these limits were picked to ensure adequate protection
of the environment and human health, such an impact would likely be
minimal. In addition, there are many potentially hazardous constitu-
ents of these wastes for which no standards have yet been promul-
gated. This may be due to lack of adequate substantiation of
suspected human health effects, or to lack of information on toler-
able levels to ensure the absence of chronic health effects. It is
possible that some potentially harmful properties of other contami-
nants are not even suspected at this time. In this respect, waste
discharges could conceivably meet all applicable standards and still
contribute to environmental degradation with potential human health
effects. It must be emphasized, however, that such effects are now
occurring to a much greater degree without the controls that would be
7-114
-------
instituted by the proposed regulations. In addition, where the
permitting agency is able to document such a threat, they could
stipulate additional permit requirements on the authority of the
human health and environmental standard.
The potential impacts of regulating the various types of facil-
ities are as follows:
Storage. The Subtitle C regulations would require that hazard-
ous waste storage operations be conducted, monitored, and inspected
in order to ensure that no discharge occurs. Specific requirements
include impervious construction and the use of diversion and contain-
ment structures, such as dikes or trenches, to prevent the release of
runoff or spills. Provisions are included requiring leakproof con-
struction of storage tanks and containers and for recontainerization
of leaking wastes. Records of the identity and location of all
stored wastes must be kept during the entire storage period. In
addition, the proposed regulations would require that all hazardous
waste facilities must receive a permit and are subject to inspection
at any time to ensure that they are being properly maintained.
Since there are presently no requirements to report the loca-
tions or amounts of hazardous wastes in storage, there is no way of
quantifying even the existing pollution problems due to waste stor-
age, let alone the potential improvement due to the regulations. In
the current unregulated situation, hazardous wastes may be stored in
drums, sacks, or even in piles or unlined ponds. They might be
7-115
-------
housed in warehouses or sheds, or left in the open, occasionally cov-
ered with tarpaulins or other materials. In addition, hazardous
wastes may be stored for extended periods of time because all avail-
able methods have been considered too expensive to be utilized with-
out the legal requirement to do so. As a result, water pollution
incidents from improper storage of hazardous wastes are common. A
typical incident that could have been prevented by the proposed reg-
ulations is described in EPA files:
• A herbicide manufacturer stored many tons of arsenic salt
wastes on his plant site in Wisconsin. As a result, both the
Menominee River and local groundwater have been contaminated
with water containing up to 1.0 ppm arsenic (The National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard is 0.05 ppm) and
sediment containing up to 35 ppm arsenic (Office of Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
Other incidents have occurred in which unregulated storage piles
have produced surface water contamination as a result of fires:
• One and a half million gallons of water were used to extin-
guish a warehouse fire in Oroville, Washington where two tons
of various chlorinated pesticides and 50 tons of fertilizer
were stored. Much of the water flowed through storm sewers
to the Okanogen River, where 0.8 ppm endrin was detected.
Elevated levels of nitrate and pesticides were also detected
in the groundwater (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, 1978b).
Incidents such as this would be addressed under the regulations
only if the warehouses contained waste, outdated, or off-spec pesti-
cides awaiting disposal.
Treatment. The specific regulations for treatment facilities
stipulate that all facilities must have the capability to safely
handle hazardous wastes in the event of an emergency or equipment
7-116
-------
failure of any sort. Such capabilities include automatic cut-off or
by-pass systems on continuous feed processes, emergency transfer of
reaction vessel contents, and emergency storage capacity. Further-
all treatment chemicals, reagents, and wastes must be stored in com-
pliance with the regulations for storage; any basins used for treat-
ment must comply with the regulations for basins; and the entire
facility must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the human health and environmental standards. Any
wastes produced from a treatment facility would also be subject to
the Subtitle C regulations. If such a waste is hazardous in accor-
dance with the characteristics or listing regulations, the treatment
facility would have to comply with all other standards promulgated
under Subtitle C, including initiating a manifest and ensuring proper
disposal. Upon final closure of the facility, all hazardous wastes
and residuals would have to be removed and properly disposed.
The Subtitle C regulations would specifically exclude Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW's) which are in compliance with applic-
able regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act. The Subtitle
C regulations would require only compliance with manifest require-
ments for wastes received at POTW's by truck or rail. Industries
which discharge wastes into municipal sewer systems would not need to
comply with manifest requirements, but would have to meet all applic-
able pretreatment standards under the Clean Water Act, and would have
to obtain the approval of the municipal sewer system authority.
7-117
-------
Sludges from POTW's would be exempt from the Subtitle C regulations,
but would still have to comply with the regulations promulgated under
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act. Application of these regulations
could eliminate the following type of incident:
• In Louisville, Kentucky in March 1977, a wastewater treatment
plant was shut down after receiving large amounts of
hexachloro-cyclopentadiene and octachlorocyclopentene. Con-
centrations of "hexa" reached 47,000 ppm in sewer sediments,
and 32 plant employees experienced watering eyes, respiratory
ailments, or other ill effects due to the heavy vapors asso-
ciated with the contaminants. As a result, 105 million gal-
lons per day of raw sewage was discharged to the Ohio river
for more than two months. It was estimated that the total
diversion amounted to over 9 billion gallons of raw sewage
while clean up costs reached over $450,000 (State of
Minnesota, 1977).
Many similar, though less spectacular, incidents have also oc-
curred but would likely be avoided following implementation of the
proposed regulations. In such cases, wastes introduced to sewer sys-
tems often travel through municipal treatment plants without affect-
ing the plant and without being affected by treatment. These then
flow out with the discharge and may cause fish kills or water supply
contamination downstream, as illustrated below:
« Two fish kills were noted in August and November 1975 in the
Crow River near Hutchinson, Minnesota. It was determined
that they were caused by cyanide levels as high as 0.31 mg/1
in the stream. The source was identified as the Hutchinson
wastewater treatment plant which received ferrocyanide from a
local industry. Ferrocyanide dissociates in the presence of
sunlight to release ionic cyanide which forms highly toxic
hydrocyanic acid. This dissociation process is accelerated
with decreasing pH; therefore, the fish kills were only
noticed during periods when the pH of the river or sewage
effluent was lower than normal (State of Minnesota, 1977).
7-118
-------
Incineration. In terms of potential to cause water pollution,
disposal facilities using incinerators are essentially the same as
treatment facilities. Accordingly, the regulatory approach for pre-
vention of water contamination from the two types of facilities is
similar. Both are treated as temporary facilities which would have
to comply with storage regulations, treat any residuals in accordance
with the Subtitle C regulation, and remove all wastes at the time of
closure. Since incinerators have little direct impact on water qual-
ity- this segment of the regulations would not likely constitute a
significant improvement over existing conditions. However, applica-
tion of the general facility standards (including the storage regu-
lations) would help eliminate incidents such as one reported by the
State of Minnesota (1977), where sloppy housekeeping at a hazardous
waste incineration facility resulted in a fire and in possible water
contamination.
Landfills. Pertinent features of the Subtitle C regulations
applicable to surface water pollution from landfills include the
requirement that landfills be located or designed, contructed, and
operated to prevent direct contact between the landfill and navi-
gable water, and that all active portions of landfills must be at
least 150 meters from any public, private, or livestock water supply.
The regulations also specify that diversion structures would have to
be constructed to prevent surface runoff from entering the landfill
and to collect all runoff originating on the landfill for treatment,
7-119
-------
if necessary. The regulations would allow the use of one of several
designs. Where natural conditions allow, the bottom and sides of the
landfill would have to consist of at least three meters of natural
in-place soil exhibiting a permeability equal to or less than 1 x
10"^ cm/sec and which satisfies certain other plasticity; pH, com-
position, and grain size requirements. Such facilities would not
require a leachate collection system if it could be demonstrated that
liquids would not accumulate in the landfill to the extent that they
might be discharged to the surface in any manner or to the ground-
water in a manner that violates the groundwater human health and
environmental standard. Where naturally occuring soils do not meet
the above criteria, the regulations would require the use of either a
1.5 meter soil liner and a leachate collection system; or a one meter
soil liner, a 20 mil synthetic liner, a leachate collection system,
and a leachate detection system. Other designs would be acceptable if
it could be demonstrated that they could provide equivalent contain-
ment. Further, all landfills would have to either include leachate
collection systems or demonstrate that liquids would not accumulate
in the landfill such that they may be discharged to the surface in
any manner (or to the groundwater in violation of the groundwater
human health and environmental standard). Upon closure, the landfill
would have to be graded such that water would not pool over the land-
fill and such that erosion would be prevented.
7-120
-------
These regulations should result in a significant decrease in
surface water contamination from landfills. Quantification of the
magnitude of the impact is not possible since neither the number and
area distribution of landfills receiving hazardous waste nor the mag-
nitude of environmental problems associated with them are known with
any degree of accuracy. However, the Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs (1977) estimates that there are about 18,500 land
disposal sites in the United States which accept municipal wastes,
most of which also receive some industrial wastes. In addition, the
number of unauthorized and uncontrolled dumping grounds may reach
150,000 (TEMPO, 1973). Most of these were located without concern
for potential environmental contamination and, as a result, many of
them probably cause some degree of water pollution. Examples of sit-
uations which could be avoided are numerous. Many such incidents are
included in Appendix J. The following example illustrates a typical
incident which would be avoided as a result of implementation of the
proposed regulations:
• In 1974, an investigation sparked by the deaths of three head
of cattle near Byron, Illinois, discovered an abandoned dis-
posal area for many industrial wastes, including cyanides,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, petroleum products, acids, and
other wastes. Soil, surface water, and groundwater con-
tamination along with extensive damage to wildlife, aquatic
life, and local vegetation were documented. U.S. Drinking
EPA is currently expecting to develop an inventory of industrial
landfills during the second year following the publication of its
hazardous waste disposal criteria (Office of Solid Waste, 1977a).
7-121
-------
Water Standards were violated by at least five constitutents
in surface water entering Rock Creek, 1.5 miles from the
site: arsenic, 60 ppb; cadmium, 340 ppb; chromium, 17,200
ppb; cyanide, 365,000 ppb; and phenols, 8 ppb (standards for
these contaminants are 50 ppb, 10 ppb, 50 ppb, 200 ppb, and 1
ppb, respectively) (State of Minnesota, 1977, Cartwright and
Lindorff, 1976; Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Division, 1978b).
Surface Impoundments. Pertinent features of the regulations
regarding surface water pollution from surface impoundments include a
mandate against any direct connection with navigable waters; a mini-
mum separation of 150 meters from any public, private or livestock
water supply; a requirement for impervious natural or artificial
liners and leachate detection systems; and a system of dikes which
would prevent seepage of wastes either vertically or horizontally.
Design parameters for the liner and dike systems are specified which
include minimum thicknesses and permeabilities of liners as well as
minimum freeboard and capacities of dikes. In addition, periodic
monitoring and inspections and rapid correction of any deterioration
are required. At the time of closure, all wastes must be removed,
unless the impoundment meets the criteria for, and is closed in
accordance with, the regulations for landfills.
As in the case of landfills, surface water contamination due to
failure of hazardous waste impoundments would be greatly reduced by
the implementation of these regulations. Quantification of the mag-
nitude of the impact is not possible since neither the total number
7-122
-------
of existing lagoons nor the number of leaking lagoons is known.
It is currently estimated that there are a total of 100,000 indus-
trial impoundments in the U.S. and that 1.7 trillion gallons (6.4
billion cubic meters) per year of industrial wastewaters (not neces-
sarily hazardous) are pumped to oxidation ponds or lagoons in the
U.S. (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1977). It has been
further estimated that 100 billion gallons per year of the wastes
placed in the secondary treatment lagoons leak to the groundwater
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1977). The total leakage
from all lagoons is unknown, but is probably significantly greater.
It is known, however, that numerous incidents have occurred. Many of
them are described in Appendix J. A typical incident, described in
EPA files, is as follows:
• A copper reclamation company located in a mid-Atlantic state
from 1965 to 1969 bought industrial wastes from other plants,
extracted the copper and stored the remaining liquids in ce-
ment lagoons. Three of the lagoons developed open seams and
leaked toxic pollutants into an adjacent creek, killing all
its aquatic life. After an injunction was issued requiring
the wastes to be treated, the company defaulted, leaving 3.5
million gallons of toxic wastes on the site. Heavy rains in
April, 1970 overflowed the lagoons into a tributary of the
Delaware River, forcing county officials to build a dike
around the area. The wastes were finally neutralized and
ocean dumped at the state's expense of $400,000 (Office of
Solid Wastes, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
"fe .
EPA is currently expecting to develop an assessment of surface
impoundments and their potential for contaminating water. The
assessment will fulfill EPA's mandates under the Safe Water Drinking
Act and RCRA (Office of Solid Waste, 1977a).
7-123
-------
Basins. The proposed regulations would define basins as uncov-
ered devices constructed of artificial materials, used to retain
wastes as part of a treatment process, usually with a capacity of
less than 100,000 gallons, e.g., open mixing tanks, clarifiers, and
open settling tanks. Such structures are generally temporary, and
operated in conjunction with other treatment facilities. The regula-
tions would require impermeable construction and mechanical integrity
sufficient to prevent discharge of wastes to navigable water; daily
monitoring or inspection, and immediate repair of any damages; and
removal of all waste upon final closure. As in the case of surface
impoundments, these regulations would result in a decrease in surface
water contamination compared to that occurring in the present unregu-
lated situation. Due to the lack of data on the number of basins in
use, the degree of the impact cannot be determined.
Landfarms. Pertinent sections of the proposed regulations con-
cerning the potential for water pollution from landfarms include the
prohibition against the use of landfarms for certain water soluble
toxic inorganics; the requirement that landfarms shall be located,
designed, constructed and operated to prevent direct contact between
the treated area and navigable water; and a minimum separation of 150
meters between the treated area and any public, private, or livestock
water supply. Other requirements are that the potentials for stand-
ing water or erosion are both minimized and that waste application
shall not occur when the soil is saturated, or when its temperature
7-124
-------
is at or below 0 C. Although the regulations specifically pertaining
to landfarming would include no provisions for runoff control, the
general facility standards would require that all runoff be collected
and confined to a point source which is in compliance with the regu-
lations promulgated under the Clean Water Act.
Although the concept of landfarming has been applied to munici-
pal sludges for many years, experience with, and data on landfarming
of hazardous industrial sludges are sparse. The regulations contain
several provisions to reduce pollutant migration. They would limit
application of arsenic, boron, molybdenum, selenium, and volatile
wastes; require the use of fine grained soils consisting primarily of
silts and clays; require maintenance of a minimum pH of 6.5 and pre-
vention of anerobic conditions in the zone of incorporation; require
semi-annual soil monitoring; and would restrict the growth of food
chain crops. While these requirements would certainly reduce water
contamination relative to existing uncontrolled disposal methods, the
regulations would not address rates of application; they would not
specifically require runoff monitoring; and they would not address
other toxic elements or organic wastes, some of which have caused
concern in land application facilities for municipal sludges.
Although it is true that most municipal sludge landfarming oper-
ations were oriented towards agricultural crop production, and that
under aerobic conditions and at a pH greater than 6.5, most toxic
inorganics are relatively insoluble, the potential for water
7-125
-------
degradation would still exist. (It should be noted that the trans-
formation of Cr+3 to Cr+(> is favored by oxidizing conditions and
high pH; and that CrO^=, the predominant ionic form under those
conditions, was not adsorbed by the common clay minerals tested by
Griffin et al., [1976].) Additionally, the presence of acidic wastes
and wastes which exert high oxygen demands may make it difficult to
maintain the required pH and aerobic conditions, which could allow
dissolution of some previously precipitated toxic elements.
7.1.5.3 Underground Discharges. Groundwater pollution is pos-
sible in any situation in which hazardous wastes are placed in or on
the ground with a hydraulic connection to an aquifer. Such a hydrau-
lic connection consists of a permeable pathway from the wastes to an
aquifer. It may be composed of unconsolidated sands and gravels,
permeable bedrock such as some sandstones, or a system of fractures
or joints in the bulk rock. A more complete discussion of ground-
water and its contamination is contained in Appendix L.
There are no existing estimates of the amount of hazardous
wastes which presently contaminate groundwater. However, it is esti-
mated that there are about 18,500 land disposal sites in the United
States which accept municipal wastes, most of which also receive some
amount of industrial waste (Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, 1977). It is further estimated that these disposal areas
cover a total of approximately 500,000 acres and that they receive
approximately 135 million tons of refuse per year. Based on average
7-126
-------
infiltration rates, it is estimated that these sites generate a total
of 90 billion gallons of leachate per year (Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, 1977). In addition, the number of unauthorized
and/or otherwise unregulated dumping grounds in the U.S. may reach
150,000 (TEMPO, 1973). EPA is currently planning to inventory indus-
trial landfills beginning the second year following promulgation of
its hazardous waste regulations (Office of Solid Waste, 1977a).
It is estimated that there are a total of 100,000 impoundments
in the U.S. (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1977). Data
are insufficient to estimate the total volume of wastes sent to all
impoundments, but is has been estimated that secondary treatment
lagoons, such as oxidation ponds, receive 1,700 billion gallons of
industrial, though not necessarily hazardous, wastes per year and
leak 100 billion gallons (approximately 6 percent) (Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, 1977). Other types of surface impound-
ments may contribute additional hazardous leachates.
Tables 7-10 and 7-11 summarize some of the hundreds of reported
incidents of groundwater contamination due to hazardous waste dis-
posal in impoundments and in landfills. Table 7-10 summarizes in-
cidents due to leakage of wastewater from surface impoundments and
lists the major resultant pollutants, and Table 7-11 summarizes in-
cidents due to landfill leaching. The fact that Table 7-11 lists
more municipal landfills than industrial landfills is due to a lack
of data regarding the location and operation of industrial landfills
7-127
-------
TABLE 7-10
ORIGINS AND POLLUTANTS IN 57 CASES OF GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION IN THE NORTHEAST CAUSED BY LEAKAGE OF
WASTE WATER FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS *
Type of Industry or Activity
Number
of Cases
Principal Pollu-
tant (s) Reported
Chemical
13
Metal processing and plating
Electronics
Laboratories (manufacturing
and processing)
Paper
Plastics
3
3
Ammonia
Barium
Chloride
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Organic chemicals
Phenol
Solvents
Sulfate
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Fluoride
Nitrate
Phenol
Aluminum
Chloride
Fluoride
Iron
Solvent
Arsenic
Phenols
Radioactive
materials
Sulfate
Sulfate
Ammonia
Detergent
Fluoride
7-128
-------
TABLE 7-10 (Continued)
Type of Industry or Activity
Sewage treatment
Aircraft manufacturing
Food processing
Mining sand and gravel
Oil well drilling
Oil refining
Battery and cable
Electrical utility
Highway construction
Mineral processing
Paint
Recycling
Steel
Textiles
Number
of Cases
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Principal Pollu-
tant (s) Reported
Detergents
Nitrate
Chromium
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Chloride
Chloride
Oil
Oil
Acid
Lead
Iron
Manganese
Turbidity
Lithium
Chromium
Copper
Acid
Ammonia
Chloride
*Miller et al., 1974.
7-129
-------
TABLE 7-11
SUMMARY OF DATA ON 42 MUNICIPAL AND 18 INDUSTRIAL
CONTAMINATION CASES *
Type of Landfill
Findings Municipalt Industrial
Assessment of principal damage
Contamination aquifer only 9 8
Water supply well(s) affected 16 9
Contamination of surface water 17 1
Principal aquifer affected
Unconsolidated deposits 33 11
Sedimentary rocks 1 3
Crystalline rocks 2 4
Type of pollutant observed
General contamination 37 4
Toxic substances 5 14
Observed distance traveled by pollutant
Less than 100 feet 6 0
100 to 1,000 feet 8 4
More than 1,000 feet 11 2
Unknown or unreported 17 12
Maximum observed depth penetrated by pollutant
Less than 300 feet 11 3
30 to 100 feet 11 3
More than 100 feet 52
Unknown or unreported 15 10
Action taken regarding source of contamination
Landfill abandoned 5 6
Landfill removed 1 2
Containment or treatment of leachate 10 2
No known action 26 8
Action taken regarding ground water resource
Water supply.well(s) abandoned 4 5
Ground water monitoring program established 12 2
No known action 26 11
Litigation
Litigation involved 8 5
No known action taken 34 13
*Miller et al., 1974.
tMany of these municipal landfills also accept some industrial
sludges and liquids in addition to septic wastes and sewage sludges.
7-130
-------
and to the comparatively large number of well documented studies of
municipal landfills. In fact, it is estimated that, at least in the
northeast, industrial landfills are far more abundant than municipal
landfills (Miller et. al., 1974).
The fact that many currently operating landfills are leaking and
that this leakage may not be detected for significant periods of time
is amply illustrated by a recent study performed for EPA (U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 1977c). The study selected 50 landfill
sites representing a variety of geohydrologic and climatic condi-
tions, disposal methods, and a wide range of industrial wastes. The
sites were a minimum of three years old, with no history of known or
suspected contamination. Four of the sites had some kind of leachate
control system. Thirty-two sites had existing monitoring systems.
Five others had water supply wells near enough to be used for moni-
toring. At sites where no monitoring system existed, or where the
existing system was not considered adequate, new wells were placed.
Each site was covered by several monitoring wells and at least one
background well. The results of sampling are summarized in Table
7-12. It was determined that at 43 sites definite migration of haz-
ardous constituents had occurred. The seven other sites were also
contaminated by hazardous materials, though it could not be shown
that their contamination was due to the disposal sites. At 26 sites,
hazardous inorganic constituents in water from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded the EPA drinking water limits. Only one of the four
7-131
-------
TABLE 7-12
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION FROM INDUSTRIAL WASTE
LAND DISPOSAL SITES*
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Light Volatile Organics
Heavy Volatile Organics
Halogenated Organics
Alkyl Benzenes
Benzene
Butyl Alcohol
Camphor
Chlorinated Phenols
Cyanide
Heptachlor
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Napthalene
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Tr ichlor oe thylene
Toluene
Xylenes
# of Wells
Which Exceeded
Background
5
29
12
15
19
5
2
18
3
28
13
18
9
21
2
2
1
1
2
20
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
# of Wells
Above EPA
Drinking Water
Standards
3
3
3
t
2
1
t
4-
3
23
2
t
t
t
t
t
t
+
j-
t
t
4-
t
t
4.
j
f
Max Cone.
Observed
(mg/1.)
5.8
3.8
420
0.22
2.8
0.0008
0.24
0.67
19
0.59
240
1000
0.59
0.006
Detected
Detected
Detected
Detected
0.003
14.0
Detected
Detected
Detected
0.002
0.3
Detected
Detected
*Complied from data presented in U.S. Environmental Progection Agency, 1977c.
This study examined 50 disposal sites using a total of 112 monitoring wells in
addition to background wells at each site: Eighty-six wells at 43 sites con-
tained one or more hazardous substances which were determined to have migrated
from the site. Wells at 26 sites contained hazardous inorganic contaminants
which exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards. The wells ranged from 10 to 1500
feet from the disposal sites.
NOTE: Three additional wells were contaminated by heavy metals, one with
light volatile organics, and one with halogenated organics; however, no back-
ground data was available for comparison.
•"•Not presently covered by EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards.
7-132
-------
"controlled" landfills showed no contamination greater than back-
ground levels; one showed a slight increase in one constituent above
background levels; and the remaining two showed significant increases
of several contaminants. Both of the leaky landfills had design
failures which allowed portions of the leachate to escape. The con-
clusions reached by the study group were that:
• Groundwater contamination at industrial waste land disposal
sites is a common occurrence;
• Hazardous substances from industrial waste land disposal
sites are capable of migrating into and with groundwater;
• Few hydrogeologic environments are suitable for land disposal
of hazardous waste without some risk of groundwater
contamination;
• Continued development of programs for monitoring industrial
waste land disposal sites is necessary to protect groundwater
quality;
• Most old industrial waste disposal sites, both active and
abandoned, are located in geologic environments where
groundwater is particularly susceptible to contamination;
• Many waste disposal sites are located where the underlying
aquifer system can act as a pipeline for discharge of
hazardous substances to a surface water body;
• At sites presently monitored, the use of wells as an aid in
evaluating groundwater conditions is generally poor, due to
inadequacies with respect to one or more of the following
parameters:
—number of wells
—distance of wells from potential contamination source
—positioning of wells in relation to groundwater flow
—sealing against surface water contamination, or
inter-aquifer water exchange
—completion methods, such as development, maintenance, and
protection against vandalism;
7-133
-------
• At sites presently monitored, the sampling program is
generally poor due to inadequacies with respect to one or
more of the following parameters:
—obtaining a sample representative of aquifer water
—sample preparation
—frequency of sampling
—availability of background water-quality data
—selection of constituents to be analyzed
—availability of laboratories
—maintaining records in usable form.
These conclusions emphasize the care with which hazardous waste land-
fills must be located, constructed, and monitored.
With respect to surface releases, the Subtitle C regulations
would allow no surface or subsurface discharges of hazardous wastes
by generators, transporters, or storers. The specific regulations
applicable to storers would require impervious construction and mon-
itoring to ensure that no groundwater contamination occurs. Compli-
ance with these regulations would effectively eliminate contamination
of groundwater with the regulated hazardous wastes originating from
generators, transporters, and storers. Many of the incidents repor-
ted in Appendix J could be avoided under the regulations. The exis-
tence of the Section 3002 manifest system could make the following
type of incident highly unlikely to occur:
• In 1971 a major chemical company contracted with a trucker to
haul approximately 5,000 drums of petrochemical wastes, in-
cluding acrylonitrile, acetone, epichlorohydrin, and a number
of other toxic, flammable, explosive, and/or oxidizing chemi-
cals for disposal in a landfill. Instead, approximately
4,500 of the drums were transported to an abandoned chicken
farm in Dover Township, New Jersey where they were stock-
piled and subsequently dumped. Although the drums and some
contaminated soil were removed under court order in 1972, in
1974 it was discovered that a large but unknown portion of
the Cohansey Aquifer, a major regional aquifer, had become
7-134
-------
contaminated with petrochemicals, resulting in the condemning
of approximately 150 private wells. The cost of extending
public water supply into the area was about $300,000. More-
over, this incident resulted in adverse impact on local
building and development. The exact magnitude of the envi-
ronmental and economic damage has not yet been determined
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1976; State of
Minnesota, 1977).
The regulations for the other potential sources of groundwater
contamination (I.e., treatment and disposal facilities) are more
intricate. The groundwater human health and environmental standard
for the proposed treatment and disposal (Section 3004) regulations
states the objective that no facility shall degrade groundwater such
that Underground Drinking Water Sources (UDWS) anywhere off the
facility property would at any time be endangered. The proposed reg-
ulations would define UDWS as an aquifer which currently supplies a
public water system; has less than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved sol-
ids; or is designated as a UDWS by the Administrator of EPA after a
public hearing. The proposed regulations would consider a UDWS en-
dangered if operation of a facility caused the violation of a Nation-
al Primary Drinking Water regulation; made it necessary to treat or
increase treatment of the water for any present or future use; or, if
such practice could otherwise adversely affect the health of persons,
such as by adding a substance that would make the water unfit for hu-
man consumption.
The general facility standards for hazardous waste treatment and
disposal would require that discharges to groundwater not occur un-
less the facility owner/operator can demonstrate that the discharge
7-135
-------
will not violate the groundwater human health and environmental stan-
dard. Additional general standards would prohibit location of facil-
ities in the recharge area of sole source aquifers would require
periodic groundwater monitoring for all facilities except landfarms,
and would reuqire leachate monitoring for landfills and surface im-
poundments. Additional specific requirements that would affect each
type of disposal facility are discussed below.
Landfills. The proposed regulations for landfills would require
a minimum separation of 1.5 meters between the bottom of the liner or
natural barrier and the historical mean water table, unless the land-
fill owner or operator can demonstrate that no direct contact will
occur between the landfill and the water table. Further, the pro-
posed regulations would not allow disposal of bulk liquids or sludges
containing less than 20 percent solids; they would require a minimum
separation of 150 meters from any public, private, or livestock water
supply; and they would specify certain design characteristics, inclu-
ding minimum thicknesses, permeabilities, and other characteristics
of liner systems. Where natural geologic conditions permit, land-
fills would be allowed to use in-place soils (meeting certain thick-
ness, permeability and structural requirements) without a leachate
collection system. Otherwise, a leachate collection system would be
required. In some cases, a double liner system (one synthetic and
one soil liner), with a leachate collection system and a leachate de-
tection system would be required. Other designs would be acceptable
7-136
-------
if it could be demonstrated that they provide equipment containment.
The choice of design would have to be approved before construction of
the facility began.
Successful implementation of these regulations would result in a
significant reduction in groundwater contamination caused by hazard-
ous waste landfills. As discussed at the beginning of this section,
the extent of the reduction cannot be quantified since the amount of
contamination presently occurring is unknown. However, many examples
of situations which could have been prevented by these regulations
are summarized in Appendix J. A prominent example of the effects of
no control is as follows:
• Between 1960 and 1960, a large landfill near Llangollen, in
New Castle County, Delaware, accepted industrial wastes of
unknown character and origin, in addition to residential and
commerical wastes. The wastes were placed in an abandoned
sand quarry underlain in part by a thin layer of sandy clay
which separated it from the unconsolidated Potomac Aquifer, a
major source of water supply for the area. It turned out
that the clay layer was absent beneath part of the site and
that some of the clay was excavated for cover material at the
landfill. Groundwater contamination was first noted in 1972
in a well 800 feet from the fill. The resulting investiga-
tion discovered a large plume of contaminated groundwater
moving towards a well field producing 4 to 5 million gallons
per day (mgd) located about 5,000 feet from the hill. A mas-
sive pumping operation now removes 3 mgd from the aquifer,
while the well field is pumping at a reduced rate of 2 mgd,
the deficit made up by other sources at the County's expense.
Presently a dozen wells are pumping contaminated water to
create a cone of depression near the site, and 35 wells are
monitored monthly. So far, expenses have reached $800,000
for monitoring, pumping, and replacing water supplies. It is
expected that is will cost more than $20 million if the dump
must be moved, and that it will require 10 years to restore
full usage of the aquifer (Cartwright and Lindorff, 1976;
Garland and Mosher, 1975).
7-137
-------
Surface Impoundments. The regulations specific to surface im-
poundments would require the facility to be designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained such that no discharge to ground or surface
water would violate the respective human health and environmental
standards. Other requirements would prevent direct contact between
the impoundment and the water table; maintain a separation of 150
meters from any public, private or livestock water supply; and would
specify certain design parameters, including the minimum thickness
and characteristics of liner systems. Two types of design are cited,
though others could be acceptable if they provided equivalent con-
tainment. Where natural conditions allow, the bottom and sides of
the impounument would consist of at least three meters of natural,
in-place, clay-rich soils having a maximum permeability of 10~'
cm/sec and certain structural characteristics.
A leachate monitoring system would also be required. Under
other conditions, the impoundment would require a double liner system
and a leachate detection system. The regulations would allow an
artificial liner meeting given specifications. If such a liner were
used, the regulations would require removal of all wastes at the time
of facility closure. If an impoundment does not contain an artifi-
cial liner, and if it also meets the landfill standards, the proposed
regulations would allow its closure as a landfill. Otherwise, the
hazardous wastes would have to be removed at the time of closure.
7-138
-------
Implementation of these regulations would significantly decrease
the occurrence of groundwater contamination by hazardous wastes. As
in the case of landfills, the extent of the decrease cannot be quan-
tified due to the lack of information on the extent of present con-
tamination by improperly located and operated impoundments. However,
as discussed in the beginning of this section, the problem is known
to be significant. Numerous incidents of contamination have been ob-
served, some of which are summarized in Appendix J. The following
example illustrates the potential magnitude of a single incident:
• An aircraft plant, operating in South Farmingdale on Long
Island during World War II, generated large quantities of
electroplating wastes containing chromium, cadmium, and
other metals. It has been estimated that 200,000 to 300,000
gallons per day of these wastes were discharged into unlined
disposal basins throughout the 1940's. A treatment unit for
chromium was built in 1949, but discharge of cadmium and
other metals continued. The local groundwater occurs in
three unconsolidated aquifers resting on crystalline bedrock.
The uppermost aquifer consists of beds and lenses of fine-
to-coarse sand and gravel and extends to within 15 feet of
the land surface. Groundwater contamination by chromium was
first noted in 1942 by the Nassau County Department of
Health. Extensive studies in 1962 indicated that a huge
plume of contaminated groundwater had been formed, measuring
up to 4,300 feet long, 1,000 feet wide, and extending from
the surface of the water table to depths of 50 to 70 feet
below the land surface. _Maximum concentrations of both hexa-
valent chromium and cadmium were about 10 mg/1 in 1962.
(Hexavalent chromium had been measured as high as 40 mg/1 in
1949.) This huge contaminated plume cannot be removed or de-
toxified without massive efforts and will take many more
years of natural attentuation and dilution before it becomes
usable again. Meanwhile, it is still slowly moving, threat-
ening a nearby creek and other wells in the area (Tinlin,
1976; State of Minnesota, 1977.)
Landfarms. The regulations for landfarms would prohibit direct
contact with the water table; would require the use of fine grained
7-139
-------
silts and clays chosen to prevent vertical migration of the wastes
more than three times the depth of waste incorporation; would require
closing any caves, wells, or other direct connections to the subsur-
face environment; would require grading to prevent water from ponding
on the facility; would require maintenance of aerobic conditions and
a pH of 6.5; and would prohibit waste application when the soil is
saturated or frozen. With respect to surface waters, implementation
of these regulations would help reduce both ground and surface water
contamination by hazardous wastes. However, the regulations would
not require groundwater monitoring on the theory that any waste mi-
gration towards the groundwater would be detected by the required
semi-annual soil core analyses. Further, although the proposed reg-
ulations specify soil types and certain structural characteristics
(liquid limit greater than 30, and plasticity index greater than 15),
they do not specify permeability or compaction of the soils or re-
quire liners or other base preparation. While the soil types that
would be required are generally relatively impermeable and although
the regulations include the constraint that vertical migration of
hazardous constituents must not exceed three times the depth of waste
incorporation, the possibility of groundwater contamination would
still exist. Such contamination could occur due to variabilities in
soil permeability (e.g., due to the inclusion of local sandy zones
within the silts and clays), or due to variations in the thickness or
compaction of the soils. Additionally, although most toxic elements
7-140
-------
are relatively immobile at the required pH and in oxygen rich envi-
ronments, formation of the hexavalent form of chromium (CrO^~) is
favored under those conditions. Although the chromate ion may be
precipitated by the presence of a few other metals (e.g., lead),
chromate is not adsorbed by two of the major clay minerals—the only
two tested by Griffin et al. (1976).
Other Treatment and Disposal Methods. Discharges to ground-
waters would be allowed from treatment facilities and basins, provid-
ing that such discharges would not violate the groundwater or surface
water human health and environmental standards. The regulations
would also require facility maintenance to avoid leaks and emergency
releases due to equipment malfunctions, and would require compliance
with applicable standards for storage facilities or surface impound-
ments. These regulations would contribute to the reduction of water
contamination with hazardous wastes, though, as discussed previously,
quantification of the improvement is difficult.
The regulations do not specifically deal with underground injec-
tion or ocean disposal of hazardous wastes. It is anticipated that
these activities will be regulated by standards promulgated under the
authority of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and
the Safe Drinking Water Act. This ommission does not preclude use of
these techniques, and any storage or transportation of hazardous
wastes in conjunction with these activities would be subject to the
appropriate RCRA regulations.
7-141
-------
Taken collectively, the proposed regulations would eliminate
most of the pathways by which hazardous wastes presently contaminate
both surface water and groundwater. The regulations would, there-
fore, result in a substantial reduction in the number of incidents in
which such contamination occurs. However, a few pathways would re-
main, as discussed in the previous sections. The following incident
serves to point out the potential for contamination by hazardous
wastes which could escape regulation:
• In May 1972, when a private commercial well was dug for a new
office of a small contractor in Perham, Minnesota. Within
the same month, 5 of 13 employees became ill with gastroin-
testinal ailments. Six other employees also became ill with-
in the next 10 weeks, two requiring hospitalization including
one who lost the use of his legs for six months due to severe
neuropathy. After several weeks it was discovered that the
well was located 20 feet from a site where approximately 50
pounds of grasshopper bait had been buried between 1934 and
1936. The bait, which consisted of arsenic trioxide, bran,
sawdust, and molasses, had been buried at a depth of 7 feet,
while the affected well was 31 feet deep. Well samples con-
tained up to 21 ppm arsenic (U.S. Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards are 0.05 ppm). Soil samples contained up to
12,600 ppm of arsenic in the vicinity of the burial spot. To
date the affected well has been capped and an alternate water
supply obtained at a cost of about $300. Twelve nearby wells
are also monitored periodically to establish the threat to
the Perham municipal well field three-fourths a mile away.
It has been estimated that removal of the contaminated soil
would cost up to $25,000 (Walker, 1973; Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, 1975a; Cartwright and Lindoroff, 1976;
State of Minnesota, 1977).
During two years only 50 pounds (about 23 kg) of wastes were
disposed, and 40 years later 11 people was seriously ill as a result.
This amount of waste would easily qualify for exclusion from the reg-
ulations under the generator limit even if it was generated in one
7-142
-------
month. Wastes thus excluded are essentially unregulated, and may be
disposed in conventional landfills, sewers, or by other less-
controlled methods. As a result, although incidents due to the dis-
posal of large quantities of wastes would be reduced, the potential
for incidents, such as that which occurred at Perham, Minnesota,
would still exist.
Such random disposal of small amounts of wastes does not neces-
sarily result in discrete identifiable incidents. Perhaps a more
serious problem is the widespread increase in non-specific environ-
mental contamination by hazardous substances which has been occur-
ring across the nation, as evidenced by the following example:
• In May 1975, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration halted an
interstate shipment of carp taken from Lake Pepin (located on
the Mississippi River on the border between Minnesota and
Wisconsin) by a commercial fisherman. About 20,000 pounds of
fish were destroyed when analysis revealed that some of the
fillets exceeded the FDA limit of 5 ppm PCB. At about the
same time, an Inter-Agency Task Force on PCB's was formed to
investigate PCB contamination in the Mississippi River.
Their results indicate variable concentrations of PCB in the
water; concentrations of up to 500 ppb in sediments in Spring
Lake and up to 1000 ppb in sediments in Lake Pepin; con-
centrations in individual fish ranging from 0.03 to 33 ppm;
and average concentrations for fish species ranging from 0.04
to 3.97 ppm, with the highest concentrations in white bass,
carp, and channel catfish. Significant damages have been
sustained by both commercial fishermen and mink farmers. The
task force concluded that the contamination was probably
caused by a large number of small inputs including municipal
wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges, re-
suspension of bottom sediments during dredging, leachate from
landfills, and fallout from the air after burning PCB con-
taminated materials (State of Minnesota, 1977).
Following successful implementation of the Subtitle C regula-
tions and associated regulations under FWPCA and other acts, the only
7-143
-------
unregulated sources of hazardous contaminants to surface waters would
be resuspension of bottom sediments; leachate from presently leaking
landfills or other dumps which are inactive when the regulations go
into effect, or are inadequately sealed following enactment; leachate
or other discharges from facilities receiving nonregulated wastes;
and spilled materials which escape clean-up attempts. Thus, although
several of the major sources of contamination would be eliminated,
situations like this one may continue to occur due in part to uncor-
rected existing problems (e.g., abandoned dumps and contaminated
river and harbor sediments), and in part to unregulated waste streams
(e.g., those from households and from generators not producing more
than 100 kilograms per month, and unlisted, potentially toxic
wastes).
The problem of dealing with existing sites which cannot be modi-
fied to qualify for a permit is not specifically addressed in the
regulations. These sites include marginal operations which may be
abandoned rather than complying with the closure procedures outlined
in the regulations. It is likely that these facilities cannot be
properly closed without removing all the waste materials and the con-
taminated soils from the site, as illustrated .by the following ex-
ample:
• During the 1960's, chromium from a waste lagoon in New Jersey
contaminated several wells and a nearby stream. The contam-
ination continued for about 10 years before the problem was
recognized in 1970. By then, the total chromium concentra-
tion was 150 ppm at a well 700 feet from the lagoon. Since
then, the source of contamination has been eliminated, but
7-144
-------
again, the plume of polluted groundwater is still there. As
a result, a former municipal drinking water well is currently
used for industrial purposes only (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
In such cases, the regulations would provide the beneficial im-
pacts of identifying the unacceptable facilities and preventing their
continued use, although the procedures for preventing the on-going
pollution from wastes already in place at such sites are not clear.
An analogous situation is the problem of former disposal sites
which have already been abandoned. These sites may or may not even
have been recorded. Due to the often long time periods required for
groundwater contamination to progress to the point where it is iden-
tified, such sites have the potential for creating severe problems
over the next few years. This problem is particularly important in
light of the recent EPA study (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1977c) reporting that at least 43 out of 50 randomly chosen landfills
which had never been suspected of leaking, were, in fact, contribu-
ting to groundwater contamination, with wells at 26 of the sites
exceeding U.S. Drinking Water Standards. The major impact of the reg-
ulations would be to prevent the creation of such problems in the
future, though discoveries of groundwater pollution due to improper
hazardous waste disposal in the past would probably continue to occur
for some time to come.
7.1.6 Public Health Impacts. Inadequate hazardous waste man-
agement practices have frequently led to cases of injury to human
health. The two major pathways by which public health may be
7-145
-------
affected by hazardous wastes are direct contact (e.g., occupational
exposure) and secondary contact (through the media of contaminated
air, water, or soil). The severity of the potential impacts is
illustrated by the numerous incidents described in Appendix J. This
appendix documents 49 separate instances of traceable public health
effects, including deaths, and 84 instances of contamination of
drinking water, including major water supplies.
From the way in which most of the reported incidents have come
to light, it is very likely that the vast majority of such incidents
go unreported. Factors which contribute to under-reporting are the
long periods of exposure and/or gestation often required before
health effects are noted, the difficulties in establishing direct
causative relationships, and the synergistic effects of exposure to
pollutants from other sources in addition to hazardous wastes.
As discussed in Chapter 6, the quantities of potentially hazard-
ous waste generated are expected to increase both as a result of ex-
panding industrial outputs and the progressive implementation of air
and water pollution control programs, ocean dumping bans, and associ-
ated environmental legislation. Thus, in the absence of specific
regulations, inadequate hazardous waste management could be expected
to continue to result in numerous cases of potentially severe health
effects.
Further, as witnessed by the examples cited in Appendix J, there
is often a considerable time lag between the occurrence of a
7-146
-------
contamination event and the time at which its impact becomes evident.
Since virtually all the reported incidents were discovered only after
damage had already occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant
potential for many similar public health impacts to be detected from
wastes that have already been or currently are being improperly
transported, stored, treated, or disposed.
A major incident recently came to light which illustrates the
magnitude of the potential health effects which can occur in the ab-
sence of regulatory control. Although the incident was only recently
brought to national attention, its history dates back to 1947, when a
chemical company in Niagara Falls, New York used Love Canal as an
industrial toxic waste dump:
• Thousands of drums containing toxic chemicals were dropped
or buried into the receding water of Love Canal and its
banks. The site was last used as an industrial dump in
1952. In 1953, the surrounding land was sold and a school
and homes were built on the site. During the construction
of the La Salle Expressway to the south of the original
landfill site, noxious fumes, corrosive waters, and oily
materials were encountered, according to State personnel and
local residents. When other locations within the 16-acre
site were also developed, drums were exposed during excava-
tion work allowing the release of noxious fumes and oily
liquids, causing several work stoppages. Noxious fumes and
hazardous liquid chemicals were also detected in various
storm sewers throughout the site. To date, land subsidence
in the grammar school playground, located over the actual
canal and landfill, occurs regularly. The subsidence holes
are periodically filled with soil. School personnel have
reported to the County Health Department that children have
received burns while handling waste phosphorus (Fred C. Hart
Associates, Inc., 1978). Organic contaminants have surfaced
over the fill of the canal and in residential backyards.
All through the 1970's, residents have experienced unpleas-
ant odors in their cellars, particularly after rains during
the summer. Basement sump pumps have also been affected by
oily liquids.
7-147
-------
In 1976, after six years of abnormally heavy rains, the canal
overflowed its underground banks and at least 82 different
compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens, began percolat-
ing upward through the soil into backyards and basements of
the homes and school along the canal site. Air monitors
placed by the EPA in the basement of surrounding homes have
detected significant levels of benzene and 24 halogenated
organic compounds, with concentrations of total halogenated
organics ranging from 8 to almost 1800 micrograms per cubic
meter in seven locations (Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.,
1978).
The more common contaminants have been identified and mea-
sured in the analytical work done by several private con-
tractors. Several of the chemical compounds detected are
listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of
priority Toxic Substances, as established by the Natural Re-
sources Defense Council Consent Decree in 1976, and iden-
tified as potentially carcinogenic, teratogenic, and/or
mutagenic. Among the substances identified in samples of
ponded water by the Division of Laboratories and Research,
New York State Department of Health were trichlorophenol,
lindane, hexane, methyl cyclopentane, benzene, toluene,
chlorobenzene, benzychloride, dichlorobenzene, ortho-
dichlorotholuene, trichlorobenzene, and tetrachlorobenzene
(Fred. C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1978).
Although the site has not been used as an industrial dump in
25 years, the recent adverse effects to human health have
been numerous. Children and dogs have been burned while
playing in the fields, visitors have had the soles of their
shoes corroded through, backyard trees have been killed by
chemical action, gardens have been destroyed, fence posts
have been eaten away, and local residents have indicated that
many persons in the neighborhood have died of rectal, blood,
and breast cancer. New York State Department of Health
studies of the residents of the area indicate a prevalence of
problems in the areas of fetal malfunctions, miscarriages,
and liver disfunctions (Fred C. Hart Associates, 1978). In
the area to the south of the canal, four out of 24 children
were born with malfunctions. Malformations in the female
children included subcleft palate, deformed ears and teeth,
hearing defects, mental retardation, abnormalities of the
renal pelvis, and ureters with reflux. In the male chil-
dren, congenital deafness occurred.
7-148
-------
Data collected by the City of Niagara Falls identified 20
homes where wastes were volatilizing and infiltrating into
basements. Further investigation has indicated that an ad-
ditional 10 homes are also affected. According to Calspan
Corporation (1977b), extensive abatement measures will be
necessary to protect the health of the residents of these
homes. The recommendations include the installation of
sealed sump pumps, and the sealing of basement walls and
floors with an epoxy paint.
The specific causes of the health and safety hazards that
have occurred at Love Canal are numerous; however, the sub-
surface migration of hazardous pollutants continues to pose
the major problem. On June 21, 1978, an Emergency Health De-
claration under the State Public Health Law, Section 1303,
was issued for the Love Canal site. Further investigation on
this area is planned.
One of the major stated objectives of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act is to promote the protection of health and the envi-
ronment. Implementation of the proposed regulations would result in
the institution of a program of responsible hazardous waste manage-
ment which would decrease the incidence of uncontrolled releases of
hazardous wastes to the environment. This program is designed to
meet the above objective by limiting both direct and indirect public
exposure to hazardous wastes. Direct exposure would be reduced by
requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal in permitted facil-
ities with minimum separation distances from buildings, roads, and
water supplies; by facility personnel training requirements; and by
facility security requirements. Indirect exposure would be reduced
by limiting the movement of hazardous constituents of the wastes
through air, water, and soils, as discussed previously.
7-149
-------
The following sections briefly describe the public health im-
pacts of some of the specific sections of the regulations.
7.1.6.1 Public Health Impacts Relative to the Generation of
Hazardous Wastes. Except for incidents due to occupational exposure,
few health incidents have been documented as having occurred during
the generation stage of hazardous waste management. Most health
incidents are related to subsequent transport, storage, treatment, or
disposal.
Generators of hazardous wastes would not be permitted to dispose
of such wastes on-site without also receiving a permit as a disposal
facility and complying with the Section 3004 regulations. Further,
any on-site storage for 90 days or more would also require a storage
permit. As discussed previously, these requirements would effective-
ly reduce environmental contamination with hazardous wastes due to
illicit disposal activities or improper storage procedures by genera-
tors. However, as also discussed in previous sections, a small quan-
tity of potentially hazardous wastes would escape regulation due to
exemptions for households, retailers, and farmers, and due to the
generator limit of 100 kilograms per month. Although it is expected
that regulations promulgated under other Acts would partially control
these wastes, the uncontrolled fractions could be disposed as non-
hazardous wastes using practices such as discharge to sewer systems
or any other conventional disposal method (though such disposal would
have to conform to regulations promulgated under Section 4004 of
7-150
-------
RCRA). However, the reduced degree of control could conceivably
result in the eventual contamination of some surface waters and in
subsequent potential human exposure. However, the effects of these
exclusions would be much less harmful to public health than those
which occur now in the absence of any hazardous waste regulations.
Thus, although it is true that some unregulated releases of hazardous
wastes could continue to occur, and that some hazardous wastes may
cause significant damage in any amount, such occurrences would be
much less frequent, and generally less severe than those which occur
in the present, uncontrolled case.
7.1.6.2 Public Health Impacts Relative to the Transport of Haz-
ardous Wastes. The regulations regarding the transport of hazardous
wastes could be expected to favorably affect public health by reduc-
ing the potential for incompatible wastes to be combined for trans-
port, by requiring use and maintenance of adequate containerization,
by extending the DOT regulations to specifically include intra- and
inter-state transport of hazardous wastes, and by providing for spill
notification and abatement procedures. These regulations would en-
hance the measure of protection'afforded to persons involved directly
with the transport of a waste and to the general public.
Without the promulgation of regulations for the transport of
hazardous wastes, incidents similar to those described in Appendix J
could be expected to continue to occur. One of the more serious cur-
rent problems associated wi'th the transport of hazardous wastes is
7-151
-------
that, in the absence of a manifest tracking system, willful dumping
is very difficult to control. Such dumped material is frequently
placed in a location where environmental degradation can occur, with
resultant adverse public health effects. Both Sections 7.1.4 and
7.1.5 discuss the types of environmental degradation that can occur
in the absence of hazardous waste regulation during transport. The
institution of a manifest system would allow enforcement agencies to
relatively easily locate the responsible parties for any dumping in-
cidents involving hazardous wastes subject to these regulations.
These regulations, in combination with hazardous spill regulations to
be promulgated under the newly amended Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act, would act as a deterrent to anyone contemplating such activ-
ities.
Any increase in the amount of hazardous wastes transported to
off-site facilities, or in the distance over which the wastes are
moved, would create a potential for increased health effects due to
hazardous spills from transport accidents. Although the containeri-
zation and other requirements would reduce spillage en route due to
leakage or poor packaging, the regulations would not significantly
affect accidents due to collisions or derailments.
7.1.6.3 Public Health Impacts Relative to the Treatment, Stor-
age, and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. It is in this area that the
regulations would provide the most significant benefits to public
health. The Section 3004 regulations would effectively insulate the
7-152
-------
public from regulated wastes by requiring all storage, treatment, and
disposal to be restricted to permitted facilities that would be de-
signed and operated to prevent harmful discharges. As in the case
with transporters, implementation of a manifest system and periodic
reporting requirements would facilitate tracking the wastes to ensure
that they are received at a permitted facility. The regulations
would require periodic inspections by facility personnel and would
give the Regional Administrator authority to perform additional
inspections to ensure that the facility does not violate its permit
conditions. Restrictions on siting, including a minimum separation
of 200 feet between the active portions of a facility and its prop-
erty line, and 500 feet between active portions of disposal facil-
ities and public, private, or livestock water supplies would further
contribute to the reduction of adverse public health effects. Rules
for segregating wastes within a facility and prohibiting the mixing
of incompatible wastes, as well as rules requiring employee training
programs for hazardous waste facility personnel would reduce some of
the adverse health effects due to occupational exposure.
Public health would be further enhanced by the increased public
awareness of the potential dangers of hazardous wastes. The labeling
requirements for containers and transport vehicles used in connection
with hazardous waste and the public participation procedures which
would be required under the Subtitle C regulations, as well as other
related regulations, would act to reinforce the mounting publicity
7-153
-------
given to the potential dangers associated with the improper manage-
ment of hazardous waste. Thus, though these regulations specific-
ally exclude households, most retailers, and most farmers from the
requirements, the regulations may indirectly provide some reduction
of the harmful effects associated with wastes from these generators
as well. The following subsections discuss specific public health
benefits with respect to storage, treatment, and disposal of hazard-
ous wastes.
Storage. Although numerous reported incidents of environmental
contamination have resulted from improper storage of hazardous waste,
most reported incidents have not been directly identified as causing
adverse health effects. However, there have been several reported
cases of health effects due to occupational exposure. A typical
example of an occupationally-related incident from improper hand-
ling procedures at a storage facility is as follows:
• An employee was transferring two 5-gallon cans of waste vinyl
cyanide and water from a still to a supposedly empty waste
drum. As the employee rolled the drum to a storage area
across the road, it exploded. The exothermic reaction cata-
pulted the drum into a steel guard post, spraying the con-
tents, causing thermal and possible chemical burns to the em-
ployee (DeVera et al., 1977).
• In another incident 18 persons were exposed to deadly fumes
from a stored canister of rat fumigant. The stored canister
was leaking a mixture of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. At
least 21 persons were affected by the incident including
seven firemen who were hospitalized. Two of the firemen have
since retired with permanent disabilities. Among the effects
suffered from the gas incident are permanent lung damage to
two individuals, and possible brain damage to another (Office
of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
7-154
-------
As can be seen from the incidents presented, the lack of regula-
tion over the storage of hazardous wastes has resulted in impairment
to the health of many persons. Stored wastes have often been forgot-
ten or abandoned. The regulations for storage should significantly
reduce the possibility for stored wastes to be abandoned or left for
extended periods of time. In compliance with the regulations, any
generator who stores hazardous wastes for a period exceeding 90 days,
and all off-site storage facilities would have to obtain a permit and
would be subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements. As
discussed in Section 7.1.5, no discharges would be permitted from
storage facilities. Without these regulations, various occurrences
resulting in fires, explosions, the emission of toxic fumes or dusts,
and ground and surface water degradation due to reactions, corrosion,
or leaks have resulted. Each such unexpected occurrence would have
the potential to impact public health. See Section 7.1.4 for the
sources of emissions that may occur as a result of storage activi-
ties, and Section 7.1.5 for the related sources of water contamina-
tion that may affect public health.
Treatment/Disposal. The most common method of treatment for
hazardous wastes involves the use of lagoons or stabilization ponds.
This method of treatment relies on the process of settling and evap-
oration. Prior to the implementation of regulations, wastes have
been "treated" in unlined ponds or lagoons, or in otherwise unaccept-
able containment areas. Such "treatment" areas have frequently been
7-155
-------
subject to seepage and subsequent groundwater contamination; overflow
or rupture, and subsequent surface water contamination; and/or air
emissions of potentially harmful volatile substances. The potential
for, and interactions between these occurrences are discussed in
previous sections. Many such occurrences have considerable potential
for public health problems.
An example of the type of health effects which have occurred as
a result of both direct and indirect exposure to hazardous wastes
during unregulated "treatment" is as follows:
• A chemical company dumped chemical solvent wastes at a quarry
in Maryland between 1960 and 1974, often leaving the chemi-
cals open to evaporate before covering them up. Residents in
the quarry area as well as company employees had complained
of headaches, nausea and vomiting, chronic fatigue, weight
loss, and memory loss—classic symptoms of chemical fume ex-
posure. One doctor found that seven out of eight area resi-
dents he had examined had abnormalities of the liver and/ or
pancreatic functions. Another doctor foumd carbon tetra-
chloride, which is highly toxic to the liver and kidneys, in
the blood of three area residents. Cancer deaths from
lymphoma malignancies were found in the quarry area and among
employees to be 44 times higher than the national incidence.
The death rate was 2.2 times greater than that of the rest of
the county. The death rate due to cancer was seven times
greater than that for the county, the victims usually living
within direct proximity to the chemical plant. Among the
solvents dumped at the site were benzene, which is known to
damage blood-forming organs and to cause leukemia; carbon
tetrachloride, acetone, ketones, and methylene chloride.
Many of these substances, when measured, were found to be
present in abnormal amounts in the air at the site. The
company was ordered to cease dumping at the quarry in 1974,
and by 1975 had removed most of the wastes (Office of Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
The Subtitle C regulations would control such activities under
the requirements for surface impoundments and ponds. As discussed in
7-156
-------
the sections dealing with air and water impacts, the regulations
would significantly decrease the release of hazardous contaminants to
the environment from such facilities. Such decreases would result in
corresponding decreases in the adverse impacts of hazardous wastes on
public health.
Other forms of treatment addressed by the regulations include
incineration; landfarms (if wastes are removed at closure); and chem-
ical, physical, and biological treatment facilities. Except for
landfarms, each of these treatment methods is to be regulated in much
the same way. Each must comply with any other applicable regula-
tions, such as those for storage facilities and basins, and those
affecting facility si-ting, security, and personnel training; each
must manifest its wastes if they meet the Section 3001 regulations;
and each must remove all wastes during facility closure.
The effects of these regulations on air, water, and soil contam-
ination are discussed elsewhere. Any decrease in the contamination
of these media would result in corresponding decrease in adverse im-
pacts on public health. Additionally, the regulations would directly
affect the health of facility personnel, through improvements in em-
ployee training, standards for facility design, requirements for doc-
umentation and verification of waste composition, and through the
requirements for the creation of emergency contingency plans to deal
quickly and knowledgeably with any accidents.
7-157
-------
Two graphic examples of occupationally-related incidents that
occurred during the treatment of hazardous wastes resulted in fatali-
ties which might have been avoided if the personnel were adequately
trained:
• Two youths were cleaning scale from a cyanide plating waste
tank at a treatment plant. When they were checked during the
afternoon, they were using their safety equipment, the cya-
nide level in the tank had been checked, there was positive
purge in the air lines, and work was progressing normally.
Later, both were found dead, the compressor for the purge had
been turned off, and the gas masks had been removed. Appar-
ently a cyanide pocket had been encountered (Office of Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• Two men died as a result of fatal burns received at a metal
processing plant. One employee was working off an elevated
work platform while the other man was operating a forklift.
The resulting injuries were caused by contact with the ex-
treme temperatures of a hydrogen explosion and zirconium
fire. The explosion and fire were caused when zirconium
shavings, contaminated with oil and dirt, were dumped from an
unlined 55-gallon steel drum into an unlined steel hopper to
be scrubbed in water and detergent. Ignition of the shavings
through friction resulted in a violent explosion and fire
that engulfed the two workmen (State of Oregon, Accident Pre-
vention Division, 1975).
Landfarming may be considered as a treatment (if the wastes are
removed during closure), or as ultimate disposal (the proposed regu-
lations would not require removal of the wastes if the landfarm can
be closed so that food chain crops could be grown on the treated area
without violating specified human consumption standards). In evalu-
ating the use of land application for hazardous wastes, consideration
must be given to the potential for offensive odor nuisances and pub-
lic health hazards that are peculiar to the use of spray irrigation
systems. Groundwater quality is a primary consideration; however,
7-158
-------
the effect of aerosols, physical contact with the waste by the public
or facility employees, insects and rodents, isolation from the pub-
lic, stormwater runoff and erosion from the site, and contamination
of crops and potential for bioaccumulation, are all important effects
that are possible in any disposal method.
Odors generally result from the spraying of industrial waste-
water that has been inadequately treated or has not been treated at
all prior to land application or lagooning. The condition may be
compounded by excessive ponding at the irrigation site. Sludge ap-
plication to the land potentially poses a relatively more serious
odor problem if not handled properly. At this time almost all states
either prohibit or strictly regulate the use of this method of land
disposal in areas where crops are grown for human consumption (Was-
botten, 1976). Information on the causes of groundwater contamina-
tion, the resulting discharges to the environment, and on the impacts
of the regulations on such discharges can be found in Section 7.1.5.
To the extent that the regulations for landfarms would reduce the po-
tential for water contamination, they would also reduce the potential
for adverse public health effects.
The types of ultimate disposal facilities addressed in the pro-
posed regulations are landfills, some surface impoundments, and some
landfarms. The public health effects of the regulations concerning
surface impoundments and landfarms are discussed above. Additional
requirements affecting public health include minimum separations from
7-159
-------
water supplies, maintenance of permanent records of waste types and
locations, restrictions on the types of wastes which may be land-
filled, application of daily cover on active cells, and requirements
for postclosure maintenance.
These regulations should effectively prevent the creation of
future health disasters such as that which occurred at Love Canal.
Additionally, the regulations should also contribute to an overall
decrease in exposure to low concentrations of hazardous substances
resulting from environmental dispersion of hazardous wastes.
Several sources of potentially adverse health effects would re-
main unaffected by these regulations. As previously discussed, some
potentially hazardous wastes would not be regulated under the Sub-
title C regulations. Further, EPA does not have the authority to
promulgate regulations concerning inactive and abandoned hazardous
waste disposal sites. From the incidents discussed in this chapter
and those presented in Appendix J, it is apparent that there may be
many hundreds of such sites scattered around the country, whose loca-
tions may not even be recorded. The potential for health disasters
caused by these sites is considerable.
However, in spite of these omissions, it is evident that the
regulations would result in substantial benefits to public health
through the reduction of both chronic and acute exposure to contamin-
ation resulting from improper handling and disposal of hazardous
wastes. The regulations have the potential to control and require
7-160
-------
the safe disposal of nearly 40 million metric tons of hazardous
wastes per year by 1984. In the absence of the regulations, these
wastes would have a significant potential to cause environmental deg-
radation and subsequent severe human health effects.
7.2 Potential Secondary Impacts
The potential secondary impacts from implementation of the pro-
posed regulations include impacts to the following areas:
• Physiography and soils;
• Biological environment;
• Social impacts;
• Hazardous waste management facility capacity;
• Land use;
• Water use;
• Resource conservation and recovery;
• Energy use;
• Special interest points.
7.2.1 Impacts to Physiography and Soils. The principal areas
of environmental concern pertaining to physiography and soils
include:
• Alterations of topography;
• Loss and physical disruption of soils;
• Soil contamination.
Physiography and soils are impacted by hazardous wastes in many
ways. In the existing unregulated situation, the major adverse
7-161
-------
effects resulting from the management of hazardous waste relate to
soil contamination through indiscriminate disposal. If the proposed
regulations are implemented, adverse effects to soils and physiogra-
phy would still occur, though their nature and severity would change.
For instance, soil contamination would still occur, but in more con-
trolled situations where the physical area affected is limited and
contaminants are retained at one location. Erosion of disposal sites
would be reduced, though physical disruption of the soils may in-
crease during construction of facilities.
Because the proposed regulations would be expected to drive a
portion of the hazardous waste that is now disposed in environmental-
ly questionable on-site facilities to permitted off-site facilities,
it can be anticipated that there would be considerable effort made to
upgrade and expand existing off-site process capacity and physical
capacity and also to develop new off-site treatment and disposal
facilities. The effects of such activities would be site specific in
nature and would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. How-
ever, the types of potential impacts that could result can be dis-
cussed generically, in terms of facility construction, facility oper-
ation, and facility closure.
7.2.1.1 Facility Construction. The construction of new or
expanded hazardous waste management facilities would involve several
types of effects on physiography and soils:
7-162
-------
• Alteration of site topography;
• Alteration of off-site topography due to excavation of
materials for liners and soil barriers;
• Loss of soil through erosion;
• Alteration of soil physical properties by disturbance and
compaction;
• Degradation of soil quality by pollutants generated by
construction vehicles, equipment, and materials.
Most of these impacts are inevitable consequences of construc-
tion operations in general and are thus not unique to hazardous waste
facilities. Any such impacts would be extremely site-dependent.
The Subtitle C regulations would require the use of natural or
artificial liners of specific thicknesses and structural characteris-
tics for landfarms and surface impoundments. Storage facilities and
basins would be required to use impermeable, continuous bases. All
facilities would have to have diversion structures capable of divert-
ing the runoff from a 24-hour, 25-year storm, and would also have
to construct some means of containing any runoff from the site. Land-
farms would have to be graded such that their slope would be between
zero and 5 percent, and such that no ponding of water occurs. All of
these regulations would involve alteration of off-site and/or on-site
topography, and alterations of physical properties of the soil.
In most cases, the adverse environmental impacts of such actions
would be negligible. The most significant impacts would occur during
A storm of 24-hour duration whose frequency of occurrence is once
in 25 years.
7-163
-------
the construction of large landfills or surface impoundments which
cannot use the natural in-place soils as liners. A two acre landfill
not using a synthetic liner would require about 8,000 cubic yards of
silty clay soils for its liner, plus about 1,000 cubic yards of perme-
able materials for the leachate-drain layer. Additional soils would
be required for daily operation and closure. Surface impoundments
would require a larger amount of clayey soil for construction of
dikes around the impoundments.
7.2.1.2 Facility Operation. Principal impacts on physiography
and soils that may result from the operation of hazardous waste
facilities include:
• Erosion, sedimentation, and other geomorphic processes;
• Soil contamination by hazardous materials during the course
of normal operations or as a result of accidental
discharges;
• Alteration of the physical properties of soils by equipment
usage and other operational maintenance activities;
• Induced geological instability (e.g., micro-earthquakes).
Soil contamination would be an especially important concern,
especially because soils are widely used as an ultimate sink for the
disposal of hazardous wastes (Davidson, et al., 1976). Numerous
instances of soil contamination by accidental discharges of hazardous
wastes have been documented. Many of the incidents of hazardous
waste impacts that are cited in the sections of this chapter dealing
with impacts to air, water and the biological environment pertain to
soil and soil contamination and are not repeated here. Suffice it to
7-164
-------
note that the soil contamination is a frequent result of current haz-
ardous waste management practices. For example, during a recent 2.5
year period, more than 200 hydrocarbon spills were reported in
Pennsylvania; many of these spills resulted in soil contamination
(Osgood, 1974). For hydrocarbon spills that occur as a result of
transportation accidents, it is common practice to wash the spilled
materials directly into soil as rapidly as possible.
The Subtitle C regulations that would specifically address
physiographic and soil aspects of facility operation include the
following:
• Groundwater and leachate monitoring systems are to be in-
stalled at all hazardous waste treatment, storage, and dispo-
sal facilities (except landfarms) that have a potential for
groundwater pollution;
• Soils of the treated area of landfarms are to be monitored
for vertical migration of the waste or its consituents;
• Landfills and landfarms are to be located, designed, con-
structed, and operated to prevent erosion, landslides, and
slumping;
• Landfarms are to be sloped at less than 5 percent to prevent
erosion, but greater than zero percent to prevent wastes or
water from ponding or standing;
• All earthern dikes used for surface impoundments are to have
an outside protective cover to minimize erosion by wind or
water.
• Contingency plans are required at treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to minimize adverse impacts of subsurface
discharges of hazardous materials;
• Soils contaminated by accidental discharges from hazardous
waste facilities are to be considered to be a hazardous waste
and are to be managed accordingly.
7-165
-------
The regulations are expected to have the following impacts:
• A substantial reduction in the contamination of soils in
areas surrounding treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
owing to specific provisions pertaining to soils as well as
measures designed to prevent contamination of air and water
quality, including accident contingency plans;
• A substantial reduction in soil contamination resulting from
disposal of hazardous wastes at unauthorized and unsuitable
sites;
• A reduction in erosion, sedimentation, and landslides at
landfarms, landfills, lagoons, and ponds;
• Substantial upgrading of the disposal of soils subject to
accidental exposure of hazardous wastes discharges from
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
7.2.1.3 Facility Closure. The impacts on physiography and
soils that would occur as a result of facility closure are similar to
those which would occur during construction. Basins, some surface
impoundments, most landfarms, storage, and treatment facilities would
all have to be emptied of hazardous wastes, including any soils con-
taminated during operation. The only impacts that these facilities
would have would be due to the requirement for filling the empty
impoundments, and any changes in topography that occurred. The re-
moval of wastes from these facilities could increase any impacts
occurring at the ultimate disposal sites for the wastes (including
facility shortfall, as discussed elsewhere in this statement).
Landfills, some surface impoundments, and a few landfarms would
be the ultimate disposal sites of any hazardous wastes not treated or
incinerated. The minimum cover depth for a landfill would be 0.6
meters (2 feet). If deep-rooted vegetation is to be planted on site,
7-166
-------
the minimum cover thickness would be just over 1 meter (3.5 feet).
Surface impoundments would have to be treated to render their solids
content greater than 20 percent, and then closed in accordance with
the requirements for landfills. It is probable that a very large
volume of soil would be needed to adequately cover and contain such a
semi-solid mixture of hazardous wastes. Landfarms would have to be
closed such that food chain crops could be grown on the treated area
without resulting in human consumption of substances listed in the
EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards, or food additives banned by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Since the landfarm design and
operation regulations would prevent waste migration from the site
(i.e., all wastes would remain at the site), meeting the closure re-
quirements without removing the wastes could be difficult. Closing
such a facility would probably (at a minimum) require burial with
sufficient soil to prevent the roots of the crops from ever reaching
the wastes. Additionally, a protective impermeable layer may be nec-
essary to prevent leaching of wastes by percolating irrigation
waters.
7.2.1.4 Transportation of Hazardous Wastes. Provision for the
extension of existing interstate safeguards to the intrastate trans-
portation of hazardous wastes could reduce the relative frequency of
accidental spills and associated incidents of soil contamination.
Manifest requirements should eliminate most incidents of dumping and
7-167
-------
improper disposal and their resultant impacts to soils. Contamina-
tion incidents due to improper cleaning of vehicles also would be
prevented and improved spill contingency measures could reduce soil
exposure to hazardous wastes. Conversely, increases in the distan-
ces over which hazardous wastes were to be transported could result
in an increased number of spills and in subsequent incidents of soil
contamination.
7.2.2 Biological Impacts. This section addresses potential
impacts of the proposed regulations in terms of: 1) the welfare and
status of non-human biota, ecological systems, and habitats; 2) the
human amenities that are derived from these resources. The scope of
the section includes agricultural as well as natural systems.
Of particular importance from the perspective of biological
effects is the nature of hazards posed by waste materials to living
systems. Two relevant aspects are the hazardous nature of the mate-
rial in question, and the degree to which environmental systems may
be exposed to the hazard. The latter factor is dependent on the par-
ticular conditions under which hazardous materials are handled and
disposed. As shown in Table 7-13, the intrinsic harmful properties
of hazardous wastes to living systems include: flammability, reac-
tivity, toxicity, bioconcentration, and genetic change.
An equally important consideration is the response of biological
and ecological systems to the stresses imposed by hazardous wastes
and their management. The specific responses would depend on the
7-168
-------
TABLE 7-13
PROPERTIES OF WASTES THAT ARE HAZARDOUS TO LIVING SYSTEMS*
Hazardous roperty Types of wastes involved
Hazards to living systems
Flammability
Contaminated solvents
Oils
Pesticides
Plasticizers
Complex organic sludges
Off-specification chemicals
An acute and latent danger to organisms and habitats. Kill radii of 115 ft.
and 230 ft. may be associated with ignition of 9,000 gal. and 30,000 gal.
tank cars of flammable liquid. Because of large volumes of wastes, danger
at disposal sites may be greater than in transportation. Secondary fires
and detonations may occur. Flammability Is a hazard during all phases of
the hazardous waste cycle.
Reactivity
Explosive manufacturing
wastes
Contaminated industrial
gases
Old ordinance
An acute and latent danger to organisms and habitats. Detonation may be
caused by thermal or mechanical shock, electrostatic charge or contact of
incompatible materials. Kill radius is typically less than for comparable
volumes of flammable liquids. Detonation may result in secondary explosions
or fire. Reactivity may occur at all phases of the hazardous waste cycle and
may pose a greater danger after disposal if sufficient amounts of reactive
material are accumulated.
M
Toxiclty
Toxic wastes may be derived
from any industry. (Toxi-
city may result from pure
compounds, combined effects
of more than one component
or combined action of two
individually non-toxic
materials).
The capability to produce Injury upon contact with a suitable site on or in
the body. Wastes may be acutely or chronically hazardous to plants or
animals. Phytoxic wastes may reduce chlorophyl production, retard growth or
interfere with specific chemical processes when present in soil, atmosphere
or water. In mammals, acutely toxic wastes may cause damage via inhalation,
ingestion, or skin contact. Chronic toxicity may occur for materials that
are bioaccumulated or that cause cumulative irreversible damage. In aquatic
organisms, toxicity often results from the transfer of toxic materials across
the gill membranes. Water is probably the most common vector, but atmospheric
emissions may be more readily dispersed. Direct contact is the most easily
controlled route of exposure. Exposure of organisms to toxic substances may
occur in all phases of the hazardous waste cycle.
Bioconcentration
Various elements and compounds
including: cadmium, lead,
mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls, carbon tetra-
chloride
The hazard posed by materials that are concentrated In an Individual organism
or magnified at successive levels of the food chain until toxic concentrations
are reached. Threshold levels of toxicity often occur in vertebrates, Includ-
ing man, and may result in death. Bioconcentration generally occurs when a
contaminant is present in low ambient levels and is probably of greatest danger
following the disposal of waste materials.
Genetic Change
Potential
Dye plant wastes
Petroleum sludges
Carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenlc effects on organisms, as evidenced by
mitotic or meiotic malfunction. Exposure is usually by direct and continuous
route.
*Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1973 .
-------
amounts and types of hazardous materials involved, the modes by which
living systems were to be exposed, and other sources of environmental
stress, as well as the organisms involved. Because of the wide range
of materials and methods involved in hazardous waste management, and
of tolerances of different types of organisms, effects on living sys-
tems vary substantially and would be situation dependent. However,
as shown in Table 7-14, it is possible to generalize about the ways
in which living systems, from individual organisms to biological com-
munities, would respond to various levels of environmental stress. A
moderate degree of stress, such as low level emissions of aerial pol-
lutants from a treatment/disposal site, could affect the behavior of
individual organisms, reduce the competitive ability of various popu-
lation segments and species, and ultimately lead to a shift in spe-
cies composition of the community. At the other end of the spectrum,
extreme stress, as represented by the massive discharge of toxic
wastes into a stream, could result in the death of individual organ-
isms and the total collapse of the existing aquatic community.
On the basis of available literature, present knowledge regard-
ing the effects of current non-radioactive hazardous waste management
practices on biological systems are based largely on scattered re-
ports of individual incidents rather than comprehensive surveys or
investigations. Moreover, available reports deal largely with acute
effects from direct exposure of organisms to high concentrations of
hazardous substances and rarely consider chronic effects resulting
7-170
-------
TABLE ?-14
GENERALIZED PATTERNS OF THE RESPONSE OF BIOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS TO INCREASED LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS*
Degree
of Stress
Individual organism
Response at indicated level of organisation
Population Species
Community
Moderate
-Some metabolic and behav-
ioral Interference.
-Reduced competitive abl-
llty.
-Reduced resistance to
parasites and predators.
-Reduced capacity for re-
production .
-Reduced competitive ab-
ility of most sensitive
individuals.
-Some genetic selection
for more tolerant Indi-
viduals .
-Host sensitive popula-
tions undergoing selec-
tion for hardiest indi-
viduals, hence losing
genetic diversity.
-Most tolerant popula-
tions little affected.
-Noticeable shifts in re-
lative species abundance
as the most sensitive
species suffer reduction
In numbers while more
tolerant competitor spe-
cies remain the same or
increase in abundance.
Heavy
I
M
^J
-Individual under heavy
stress load.
-Survival not in jeopardy,
but individual^ weakened
and susceptible to para-
sites, disease, and pred-
atlon.
-Reproduction greatly
curtailed.
-Elimination of most
sensitive Individuals.
-Increase In more tol-
erant individuals.
-Population level may
or may not be affected.
-Reduction in genetic
diversity.
-Most sensitive popula-
tions eliminated.
-Most tolerant popula-
tions losing sensitive
individuals, hence los-
ing genetic diversity.
-Significant shifts in
species composition as
sensitive species are el-
iminated and hardy com-
petitors remain and often
increase.
-New hardy species ma; -;-.-
ter from.elsewhere.
Severe
-Severe metabolic and be-
havioral interference.
-Individual survival in
ques tion.
•Reproduction no longer
possible.
-Survival of only the
most toleranf individ-
uals .
-Population level may
or may not be reduced.
-Severe reduction In
genetic diversity.
•-Only the hardiest indi-
viduals of the most tol-
erant populations still
survive.
-Great shifts in species
composition.
-Most species reduced or
eliminated.
-Hardy species may become
very abundant.
-Total system greatly sim-
plified.
-Community metabolism
greatly modified.
-Stability severely reduced.
Total
Death
Elimlnat ion
Extinction
Collapse
*Darnell, 1976.
-------
from long-term exposure to low concentrations (Office of Solid Waste
Management, 1974a). The focus of most reports has been directed to
individual organisms or populations rather than to communities or
ecosystems.
Determination of hazardous waste effects is complicated by vari-
ous phenomena, including:
• Synergistic or antagonistic interactions between waste
constituents that could enhance or modify overall effects;
• The importance of the physical and chemical form of the waste
on the mobility of toxic substances;
• The physical and chemical conditions of the receiving waters
(such as pH, existing oxygen demand and availability, and the
presence of ions or materials which could immobilize toxic
substances by precipitation or adsorption or could combine
with them to increase their toxicity);
• Upredictable nature of interactions between biological
systems (e.g. , bacteria) and hazardous wastes such that the
end point is more dangerous than the original waste;
• Accumulation by mammals of persistent toxic substances such
that low ambient concentrations may be magnified in tissues
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1974a). It has
also been established that most pollutants are capable of
crossing the placenta of mammals; cross effects on features
have been demonstrated for high mercury and PCB exposure
(Susten and Raskin, 1976).
Despite limitations, the available information is sufficient to
establish that current hazardous waste management practices may pose
a substantial threat to biological systems. Appendix J and the pre-
vious sections of this analysis describe many incidents in which
improper management of hazardous wastes has resulted in damage to
ecological systems. Analysis of these incidents indicates that the
7-172
-------
major routes of hazardous waste transport to biological systems are
as follows (Lazar, 1975): groundwater contamination via leaching,
surface water contamination via runoff or spills, air pollution,
poisoning via direct contact, poisoning via the food chain, and fire
or explosion.
The potential effects of the proposed regulations on biological
species and processes can be perceived in terms of principal stages
of the hazardous waste cycle, discussed below:
7.2.2.1 Generation. Improper handling or containerization of
hazardous wastes by generators could expose biological populations
and habitats to hazardous residuals. Such exposure may result in
death and injury to organisms, the dispersal of hazardous materials,
and the degradation of aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric environ-
ments.
The proposed regulations would require all generators of hazard-
ous wastes to treat, store or dispose of that waste in a permitted
facility in accordance with all Subtitle C regulations. A manifest
and reporting system would be instituted to track the wastes and
ensure compliance. All generators designating wastes for transport
to an off-site facility must containerize that waste in accordance
with DOT hazardous materials transportation regulations in 49 CFR.
The generators managing wastes in on-site facilities must obtain a
permit under the Section 3005 regulations and must comply with the
standards under Section 3004.
7-173
-------
These regulations would result in a decrease in the release of
hazardous wastes to the environment from all generators covered by
the regulations. This decrease would result in reduced air and water
quality degradation as discussed earlier, and subsequently in reduced
exposure of biological systems. To the extent that some potentially
hazardous wastes would remain uncontrolled (see previous sections)
some adverse ecological impacts could continue to occur as they are
at present.
7.2.2.2 Transportation. Principal biological considerations
associated with hazardous waste transportation include:
• Emissions from improperly containerized wastes that may
degrade habitat values;
• Leakages and spillages of transported wastes that kill or
injure organisms, degrade habitats, and create odors and
other nuisances to organisms;
• Accidental large-scale discharges of hazardous wastes
resulting in fires and detonation;
• Vehicular emissions;
• Vehicular collisions with wild and domestic animals.
The regulations would require all transporters of hazardous
wastes to comply with the manifest system and to ship all hazardous
wastes to a permitted facility. They would require specific labeling
and containerization procedures, and prohibit the transport of leak-
ing or damaged containers. Further, the regulations would extend
certain DOT hazardous material regulations to intrastate trans-
portation and would reinforce hazardous spill notification
7-174
-------
procedures established by DOT and EPA through the National Response
Center.
As discussed previously, these regulations would have the poten-
tial for reducing air, water, and soil contamination from uncon-
trolled transportation of hazardous wastes. Additionally, the poten-
tial for hazardous spills caused by improper containerization during
transport would decrease. To the extent that these regulations would
reduce air, water, and soil contamination, there would be a corres-
ponding reduction in ecological degradation and other associated
adverse biological impacts.
7.2.2.3 Storage. The principal hazards to biological systems
associated with hazardous wastes storage may result from:
• Aerial emissions and effluent seepages from improperly stored
wastes;
• Accidental spills, fires, and explosions of stored
hazardous wastes during handling.
The impacts resulting from such events would depend on the
nature and amounts of materials involved and on site specific charac-
teristics. The regulations would allow no discharge from any storage
facility. They would require pe'riodic monitoring and inspection to
detect any potential discharges to air or water. They would require
construction of an impervious, continuous base for the storage facil-
ity and of sturdy, leak-proof tanks and containers. The regulations
would also require diversion of upland runoff and containment of run-
off and spills in the facility. With respect to water quality, these
7-175
-------
regulations would reduce the potential for water pollution from regu-
lated hazardous waste storage facilities. Any reductions in water
pollution would result in a corresponding decreased potential for
adverse ecological and biological impacts.
7.2.2.4 Treatment. As with other phases of the hazardous waste
cycle, the potential effects of hazardous waste treatment facilities
on living systems would be site-specific and would depend on the
types and amounts of materials handled, the processes employed, and
the ecological setting of the facility.
Any increased treatment of hazardous waste that could result
from the regulations should reduce the dangers associated with haz-
ardous waste disposal, but could increase those associated with the
treatment. Adverse effects that are principally associated with haz-
ardous waste treatment are:
• The substantial land requirements for lagooning and resultant
pre-emption of habitat and displacement of biological popula-
tions;
• Leachate and overflow problems for lagoons and ponds that are
improperly sited, constructed or managed and resultant
impacts on aquatic systems;
• Air emissions from incinerators that may degrade habitats.
All hazardous waste treatment facilities would be subject to any
applicable section of the standards for hazardous waste storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities. For example, a resource recovery
facility may be subject to the regulations for storage, treatment,
surface impoundments, basins, incinerators, and/or for commercial
7-176
-------
products from hazardous wastes. These regulations would greatly
reduce or eliminate hazardous discharges from facilities subject to
regulation, and would therefore significantly reduce or eliminate
adverse biological or other ecological effects due to improperly
conducted treatment or resource recovery operations.
7.2.2.5 Disposal. The ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes
poses unique and substantial environmental problems. Major site-
specific problems associated with the handling and disposal of haz-
ardous wastes include:
• Leachate contamination of surface and groundwaters resulting
in hazards to biota and ecological systems;
• Air pollution hazards to vegetation and fauna due to
fugitive emissions;
• Exposure of environmental systems to hazardous materials due
to indiscriminate or illegal dumping of wastes because of
insufficient or expensive disposal facilities (Washington
State Department of Ecology, 1977).
Improper land disposal of hazardous wastes could result in a
wide range of effects depending on the types and amounts of wastes
involved, site characteristics and facility safeguards. The princi-
pal single site-specific concern would likely be the contamination of
surface and groundwater systems, and resultant impacts on organisms
and communities, due to leaching of toxic effluents. In terms of
future changes, an increase in the number of facilities or in the
volume of wastes handled would be expected to increase the potential
for localized environmental problems while improvements in facility
safeguards and more stringent disposal standards would significantly
7-177
-------
reduce the potential for adverse effects. It is recognized that haz-
ardous wastes by their nature pose a potential threat to the environ-
ment, during either short periods prior to their destruction or over
very long periods for those materials not subject to detoxification.
A universal impact of hazardous waste disposal facilities, re-
gardless of types of wastes or site environment, is their preemption
of land from other uses including habitat for natural and agricul-
tural biota. An EPA study has determined that land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes is increasing because of the implementation of air and
water quality standards and legal limitations on other disposal meth-
ods such as ocean dumping (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
1974a). Legislation of particular importance in this regard includes
the Clean Air Act of 1973 as amended, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, and the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries of 1972, as amended. Thus, it is likely that terres-
trial biological systems may be subject to increasing potential
stress.
The regulations would eliminate discharges from hazardous waste
storage, treatment, and disposal facilities to groundwater unless it
can be demonstrated that the discharge would not endanger an under-
ground drinking water source (UEWS). The regulations would require
that all waterborne effluents including runoff and leachates must be
confined to point sources, and that all point source discharges to
navigable waters must comply with the regulations of the Clean Water
7-178
-------
Act. Since almost any aquifer which could be used as a water source
for wildlife would be classifed as a UDWS, and since navigable waters
is quite broadly defined, these regulations would greatly reduce the
occurrence of waterborne contamination of biological and other eco-
logical systems by hazardous wastes. One incident which is illustra-
tive of the type of impacts which could be avoided by these regula-
tions is as follows:
• Near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, complex hazard-
ous wastes (consisting of by-products of pesticides, herbi-
cides, and chemical warfare agents) stored in unlined holding
ponds infiltrated a shallow water table aquifer and migrated
through groundwater. As a result, crops on 6.5 square miles
of farmland were damaged and water fowl were killed. Results
of the groundwater contamination were still evident 24 years
following the initial report of damage and 15 years after
remedial action was taken.
Additional regulations would require specific design parameters
for landfills, surface impoundments, and basins that would minimize
leakage and emphasize structural integrity. Monitoring, inspection,
reporting, and permit requirements would reinforce these regulations.
This group of regulations would decrease the potential for environ-
mental damage and adverse biological impacts from failure of inade-
quately designed and constructed containment structures. Two
prominent examples of the type of incident which could be prevented
are as follows:
• In Pennsylvania the rupture of refining waste lagoons near
the Allegheny River resulted in the death of approximately
4.5 million fish in one incident, and the death of about
450,000 fish along a 60-mile stretch in another incident (Of-
fice of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
1978b).
7-179
-------
• A waste pond dike ruptured at a phosphoric acid plant at Fort
Meade, Florida, releasing 28 billion gallons of slime com-
posed of halides and phosphatic clays. The discharge contam-
inated the adjacent creek, the Peace River, and the estuary
of Charlotte Harbor. Extensive mortality of benthic biota
occurred, and no live aquatic organisms were found in the
Peace River up to 8 miles downstream of the adjacent creek
(Office of Hazardous Waste Management Programs, 1974a).
These latter wastes are specifically listed as hazardous under
the Section 3001 regulations, and are classifed as 'special wastes'
under the Section 3004 regulations. Since the Section 3004 'special
waste' standards for phosphate were not developed as of the time of
this document, their impact is uncertain. However, definition of
these wastes as hazardous and implementation of specific disposal
standards would certainly reduce the potential for adverse biological
impacts due to these wastes.
Other parts of the proposed Section 3004 regulations would
restrict open burning of hazardous wastes and require compliance with
the regulations developed under the Clean Air Act. These provisions
would reduce the potential for adverse biological impacts caused by
air pollution. Additional requirements and permit restrictions would
prevent the growth of food chain crops where they may contact hazard-
ous wastes, and would require fencing around active portions of
facilities. Further, implementation of the manifest and facility
permitting system in general would result in a large decrease in un-
controlled open dumping of hazardous wastes. The combined effect of
these provisions would greatly reduce the potential biological
7-180
-------
impacts caused by ingestion or other contact with hazardous wastes.
An example of the type of incident which could be avoided is as
follows:
• In September 1971, six or seven cows died from arsenic
poisoning, resulting from improper disposal of a cotton de-
foliant in a Texas City landfill. Approximately 100 boxes,
each containing four "empty" plastic containers holding a
small amount of residual arsenic, had been placed at the
landfill by a warehouseman of a chemical company. The graz-
ing cattle had entered the landfill from nearby pasture
lands.
In summary, the proposed regulations for preventing or minimiz-
ing the degradation of air, surface waters, subsurface waters, soils
and other physical features, could substantially reduce the stresses
imposed on living systems by current hazardous waste management prac-
tices. The implementation of such regulations would reduce the
direct exposure of biota and habitats to hazardous wastes. The over-
all benefits accrued would generally correspond to the amounts of
hazardous wastes brought under control and to the rate and uniformity
at which such control is implemented.
The proposed regulations would result in the closing of existing
environmentally inadequate hazardous waste storage, treatment, and
disposal facilities and the construction of new facilities that would
be in compliance with the regulations. This would have the following
principal impacts:
• Biological systems that occur in the vicinity of existing
sites which would be closed could be subject to a reduced
level of risk;
7-181
-------
• The construction of new hazardous waste facilities would
result in localized destruction and displacement of biota and
the temporary degradation of local habitats due to noise,
emissions, effluents and other construction impacts;
• Increased transportation of hazardous wastes would expose
biota and habitats along transportation routes to increased
outputs of vehicular emissions and increased frequency of
accidental spills;
• The establishment of new hazardous waste facilities and the
expansion of existing suitable facilities could reduce the
habitat available to wild and domesticated biota by a
presently undeterminable amount; a shift from on-site to
off-site disposal could result in the placement of some new
facilities in largely remote and rural areas, and thus could
preempt habitats that support fish, wildlife and other
natural biota in addition to exposing new communities to
hazardous waste management activities.
Although these regulations would afford a significant amount of
protection from contact with hazardous waste to the larger terres-
trial animals in the immediate vicinity of facilities and to biologi-
cal systems in a particular group of habitat types (e.g. , critical
habitats of endangered species and wetlands), the proposed regula-
tions do not include any special provisions for the protection of
waterfowl that may be attracted to hazardous wastes surface impound-
ments. Thus, incidents such as that reported by Snyder et al.
(1976), in which migratory waterfowl were killed by alighting on
storage lagoons containing residues from a waste oil refinery plant,
could continue to occur.
Additionally, the regulations apply only to safeguards at the
facility site itself. No provisions are specified for the siting of
facilities in relation to many other land use or habitat types that
7-182
-------
may be of value to wild or domesticated biota (e.g., prime agricul-
tural lands; upland wildlife habitats, habitats and ranges of state
designated rare and endangered species, areas in major migratory
routes, commercially valuable forests, unique plant communities,
etc.). It is likely, however, that permit application and review
procedures would provide a mechanism for considering such impacts
prior to facility approval. The regulations also make no specific
provision for compensation or mitigation of losses of habitat and
biota that may occur as a result of the installation or operation of
hazardous waste facilities or as a result of accidents that may
result during their operation.
7.2.3 Social Impacts. Two major types of impacts could occur
as a result of promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations: demo-
graphic changes and changes in existing social conditions.
7.2.3.1 Demographic Impacts. Potential sources of demographic
changes from the promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations include
closings or relocations of industrial plants; construction or modifi-
cation of hazardous waste management facilities; changes in opera-
tional requirements for hazardous waste management; and administra-
tive requirements for program management.
As indicated in the Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Supple-
ment) , promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations would likely cause
some plant closings and job losses in a number of industrial segments
7-183
-------
(e.g., textile industry, inorganic chemicals industry, organic chem-
icals industry, metals smelting and refining industry, electroplating
and metal finishing industry). Such plant closings and job losses
would have the potential to cause relocations of some of the affected
workers and their families. The nature and extent of any such relo-
cations and population shifts would be site-specific and dependent
upon such factors as number of workers affected, local and national
unemployment rates, number and types of jobs available, worker
skills, age of affected workers, and willingness of workers to relo-
cate. There would be a potential for large-scale out-migrations from
any communities or areas for which plants being closed constituted
the primary source of employment.
The Subtitle C regulations would result in modifications to
existing hazardous waste management facilities and the construction
of new facilities. Due to the small number of construction workers
who would be required at any individual facility, it is unlikely that
there would be a significant amount of relocations or population
shifts due to construction requirements. However, there could be
some localized instances of worker relocations, especially in the
case of facility construction in rural or undeveloped areas. Any
such relocations would likely be of a temporary nature.
Operational requirements for hazardous waste management under
the Subtitle C regulations would likely result in additional workers
being required to track the hazardous waste (due to the manifesting,
7-184
-------
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements), to transport the wastes
(in the case of increased off-site disposal), and to store, treat, or
dispose the wastes both off-site and on-site. Additional workers
would also be required to administer and enforce the regulations at
both the state and Federal levels.
Some population shifts could occur if the required number of
workers were not available where needed, particularly in the case of
treatment/disposal sites being located in rural or undeveloped areas.
Any such shifts in population are expected to be relatively small on
a national scale; however, there could be localized instances of a
relatively large influx of workers, particularly for facilities
located near small towns or in rural areas.
Based upon a study of the hazardous waste management service
industry (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976), about 500 workers (including
clerical and professional employees) are required to handle a million
metric tons of hazardous wastes per year. Using this requirement as
the minimum number of workers likely to be required under the Sub-
title C regulations, it is estimated that at least 20,000 such
workers could be required by 1984 to handle hazardous wastes.
Approximately 2,600 to 5,000 of these workers could be required at
off-site facilities, and approximately 15,000 to 17,400 could be
This number does not include the additional workers that would
likely be needed to trace the hazardous wastes under the Subtitle C
regulations. Some additional operational employees could also be
required.
7-185
-------
required at on-site facilities. Based upon Section 7.2.4, this would
represent a decrease of 400 workers at off-site facilities in the
case of 13 percent off-site shipment and an increase of 2,000 workers
at off-site facilities in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment
(there would be equivalent, but opposite, changes at on-site facili-
ties). It should be noted that changes in employment at off-site fa-
cilities would be more likely to cause population shifts than changes
at on-site facilities. In 1975 approximately 2,000 workers were em-
ployed off-site at hazardous waste management service industry facil-
ities (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976). Data are not available as to
the number of workers employed at on-site facilities, nor to estimate
the increase in the total number of employees that would be required
at all facilities under the regulations.
7.2.3.2 Social Conditions. Impacts to existing social condi-
tions could result from changes in the siting and operation of haz-
ardous waste management facilities and from any population shifts
caused by the regulations.
The increased public health protection that would be derived
from the regulations would provide significant social benefits. Many
of the social costs related to the exposure of workers and the gener-
al public to hazardous wastes and their residuals under current prac-
tices would be reduced or eliminated. This exposure is known and/or
suspected to have caused numerous instances of adverse health ef-
fects, including death (see Section 7.1.6). Much of the individual
7-186
-------
grief and suffering associated with such incidences, as well as the
resultant economic losses, would be reduced or eliminated.
The regulations, while not applying to household wastes, could
focus more public attention on the problems associated with the
improper treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes. This could result
in increased care in the disposal of hazardous household wastes and a
further reduction in public health impacts from such disposal. A few
examples of health problems that have resulted from the improper dis-
posal of hazardous household wastes are presented in Appendix J.
This awareness could also result in more citizen pressure on authori-
ties to see that hazardous waste is properly managed and that gener-
ators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers comply with the
regulations.
On the other hand, an increased public awareness of problems
that have been associated with improper disposal of hazardous wastes
could add to opposition to local siting of hazardous waste management
facilities. Citizen reaction to the siting of hazardous waste facil-
ities has been mostly negative. A number of communities and states
have been unable to overcome citizen opposition in attempts to site
hazardous waste landfill or treatment facilities. Such opposition is
not usually centered upon specific data regarding the adequacy of the
proposed facility with respect to public health or the environment.
Rather, it is usually based upon reported incidents and the belief
7-187
-------
that such incidents could not be prevented from reoccurring, regard-
less of the precautions to be taken. For example, residents in
Bordentown, New Jersey, have recently shown extremely strong opposi-
tion to the siting of a chemical waste landfill whose construction
specifications appear to be well in excess of specific requirements
under subtitle C regulations (Waldron, 1978). This type of opposi-
tion represents an educational and attitudinal problem which solid
waste management officials could find to be a pivotal constraint and
issue in the development of alternatives and solutions. Any inabil-
ity to effectively site or to provide necessary treatment or disposal
facilities would render other steps less effective in providing envi-
ronmentally adequate hazardous waste management (Office of Solid
Wastes, 1977a). However, promulgation of the regulations accompanied
by increased public awareness and participation in the facility sit-
ing process, and specific demonstrations that the objectives of the
regulations can be achieved, could also serve to lessen such opposi-
tion in the future and could lead to more effective siting of facil-
ities.
Other social impacts could also result from the expansion or
construction of hazardous waste management facilities and from any
increased off-site transport of hazardous wastes. The construction
and operation of new facilities would have aesthetic impacts and
could result in localized noise impacts. Construction of new facil-
ities, especially off-site facilities, and conjunctive developments
7-188
-------
such as road construction would create new jobs, but would also rep-
resent an intrusion on the existing aesthetic environment. This
intrusion would consist of visual, auditory, and olfactory altera-
tions. Forms, colors, lines, textures, sounds, and smells could be
changed. The perception of these alterations would depend upon many
variables including the context in which the alteration appears, the
terrain masking the alteration, the distance from which the altera-
tion is viewed, the magnitude of the alteration, and the weather con-
ditions at the time of perception. Proper planning, while not able
to eliminate these aesthetic and noise impacts, could make them less
perceptible.
Facility construction and operation, including the additional
truck traffic associated with new facilities, could increase noise
levels in the vicinity of such facilities, especially in the case of
off-site facilities, and also along transport routes. Changes in
noise levels would be extremely site-specific and would depend upon
such factors as existing noise levels in the area, type of facility
constructed, increase in truck traffic, distance to population cen-
ters, local topography, and local meteorological conditions. Active
portions of facilities would have to be located at least 200 feet
from the facility's property line under the Subtitle C regulations.
Any changes in off-site shipments of hazardous wastes or in the dis-
tances such wastes are transported would also change the potential
for accidents from such transport. Assuming that the average round
7-189
-------
trip haul distance would increase to 200 miles and that there would
be 8.9 truck accidents per million vehicle miles (National Safety
Council, 1975), based upon Section 7.2.4 there could be about 270
additional accidents annually in 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-
site shipment and 850 additional accidents in the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment.
The Subtitle C regulations do not contain specific provisions
for planning the siting of hazardous waste management facilities or
transportation routes. However, the Section 3005 permit application
review procedure, including the opportunity for public hearings on
the permit application, would provide a means for consideration of
such factors at the state and local levels. Other Federal laws, such
as OSHA noise regulations, and state and local laws and ordinances
could also serve to mitigate potential noise and aesthetic impacts.
Implementation of the regulations could potentially have long-
term beneficial impacts through the establishment of a framework of
"equivalent" and "consistent" state programs. This could reduce the
likelihood for a state to implement importation bans or overly strict
standards directed towards preventing the entry of wastes into any
particular state. This could prevent states from becoming isolated
in terms of their ability to dispose of hazardous wastes. This con-
sistency between states could, in turn, reduce the potential for geo-
graphic shifts by industry to escape strict regulations. However, as
7-190
-------
previously discussed, in the near term there could be individual
plant closings or relocations from the enactment of the regulations.
Any shifts in population that result from the Subtitle C regula-
tions would have the potential to cause social impacts. The magni-
tude of any such impacts would be site specific and would depend upon
such factors as the size of the shift relative to the size of the
existing population in affected areas, the rate of the shift, the
existing infrastructure in the affected areas, and the adequacy of
advanced planning.
Large, rapid, population outfluxes could be unavoidable within
some areas if the regulations caused industrial plant closings or
relocations, especially if the plant were the primary source of
employment for the area. Such out-migration could have a deflation-
ary impact on the local area; however, the remaining residents could
also be hard-pressed to maintain existing public services and facili-
ties, and local tax rates could have to be increased. Unemployment
would increase in the retail and service sectors, and the number of
people requiring financial assistance programs would also likely
increase. Daily living patterns could be drastically changed for
many of the remaining residents. Stress would likely increase and
could lead to increases in mental and physical health problems.
Large, rapid, population influxes associated with relocation of
industrial plants or with construction of new hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities could create inflation, social tensions, and a
7-191
-------
shortage of housing and necessary infrastructure. Provision of
necessary services and facilities could result in increases in local
tax rates. Large, rapid, population influxes could also create
tensions and disputes between the existing population and the
newcomers, especially if the existing residents were forced to modify
their daily living patterns to accommodate the changes in their
environment. Increases in crime and in mental health related
problems (e.g., alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, divorce) have at
times accompanied large, rapid, population influxes (Institute for
Social Science Research, 1974). On the otherhand, any growth could
also provide increased job opportunities and an expanded local tax
base in the long term.
Population shifts need not necessarily result in adverse
impacts. Small shifts, which would be the more likely occurrence in
the case of construction or closure of hazardous waste management
facilities, could have beneficial impacts or no noticeable impacts.
For example, a small population influx could provide additional in-
come, tax revenues, and jobs in the local community without placing
any noticeable strains on the existing infrastructure or daily living
patterns. A small population decline could reduce any existing unem-
ployment and strains on public services and facilities without no-
ticeably affecting local income, tax revenues, employment, or daily
living patterns.
7.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity. There are
two measures of hazardous waste management capacity—process capacity
7-192
-------
and physical capacity. Process capacity represents the throughput
capability of the hazardous waste management facility for handling
hazardous wastes (e.g., tons per day, gallons per year). Physical
capacity, on the other hand, represents the constraint imposed by the
facility site itself on the total amount of wastes that can ultimate-
ly be stored, treated, or disposed at the facility (e.g., landfilling
of a total of 100,000 metric tons to a depth of 5 meters over the
life of a landfill).
7.2.4.1 Process Capacity. The impact of the Subtitle C regula-
tions on the availability of sufficient on-site and off-site process
capacity is addressed below.
Off-site Capacity. A recent study of the hazardous waste man-
agement service industry (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976) indicated that
at the end of 1974, the process capacity for the industry as a whole
was nearly 7.3 million metric tons per year, with up to approximately
5.3 million metric tons being considered environmentally adequate.*
The study further estimated that the process capacity would expand to
8.2 million metric tons by the end of 1977, with up to about 6.2 mil-
lion metric tons being considered environmentally adequate. This
represents a 4.0 percent annual growth rate for total process capa-
city and a 5.5 percent annual growth rate for environmentally ade-
quate process capacity.
*It should be noted that all capacity considered environmentally
adequate by the Foster D. Snell Study may not be considered
environmentally adequate under Subtitle C. Thus, the Foster D.
Snell numbers should be viewed only as an upper limit on
environmentally adequate capacity.
7-193
-------
Assuming that the 4 percent annual growth rate for total process
capacity would continue between the end of 1977 and the start of 1984
if the Subtitle C regulations were not promulgated, it is estimated
that there would potentially be 8.9 and 10.4 million metric tons of
total process capacity at the start of 1980 and 1984, respectively.
Assuming that "environmentally adequate", as defined in the
Foster D. Snell study, is compatible with the requirements of the
regulations and that the 5.5 percent annual growth rate of such
capacity would continue between the end of 1977 and the start of
1984, it is estimated that under the regulations there could poten-
tially be as much as 6.9 and 8.5 million metric tons of environ-
mentally adequate process capacity available at the start of 1980 and
1984, respectively.
Currently, about 15 percent of all hazardous industrial wastes
are shipped off-site for treatment/disposal (see Table 5-15). For
purposes of analysis, it is assumed that any shift in off-site
treatment/disposal under the Subtitle C regulations would occur
gradually and that approximately 15 percent of the hazardous indus-
trial wastes would continue to be shipped off-site in 1980 (the first
year the regulations would be in effect). As discussed in Section
7.1.2.4, for 1984, the fifth year the regulations would be in effect,
a range of 13 to 25 percent off-site shipment for treatment/disposal
is assumed for analysis purposes.
Approximately 35 and 40 million metric tons of hazardous indus-
trial wastes could be generated annually in 1980 and 1984,
7-194
-------
respectively. Thus, it is estimated that about 5.3 million metric
tons of hazardous industrial wastes could be shipped off-site in 1980
and that between 5.2 and 10.0 million tons could be shipped off-site
in 1984. This would represent no change in off-site shipments under
the Subtitle C regulations in 1980. The change in off-site shipments
in 1984 under the regulations would range between a decrease of 0.8
million metric tons and an increase of 4.0 million metric tons.
Assuming that treatment/disposal facilities would utilize on an
annual basis an average of about 90 percent of the available process
capacity, approximately 6.2 and 7.7 million metric tons of the envi-
ronmentally adequate capacity could be utilized in 1980 and 1984,
respectively. The estimated 6.2 million metric tons of environ-
mentally adequate capacity that could potentially be utilized in 1980
would be sufficient to handle the estimated 5.3 million metric tons
of hazardous industrial wastes shipped off-site. Even if there was
no growth in environmentally adequate capacity between 1977 and 1980,
there would still potentially be sufficient capacity in 1980.
The estimated 7.7 million metric tons of environmentally ade-
quate capacity that could potentially be utilized in 1984 would be
sufficient to handle the estimated 5.2 million metric tons of hazard-
ous industrial wastes shipped off-site, assuming 13 percent off-site
shipment. Again there would potentially be sufficient capacity even
if there was no growth in capacity between 1977 and 1984.
7-195
-------
In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there would poten-
tially be a shortfall of 2.6 million metric tons of environmentally
adequate capacity for treating/disposing hazardous wastes in 1984.*
Without any growth in environmentally adequate capacity, this short-
fall could be 4.9 million metric tons. Shortfall in process capacity
would first occur in 1984 in the former case and in 1981 in the
latter case. Based upon an average utilizable facility capacity of
60,000 metric tons per year (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976), approxi-
mately 45 additional off-site facilities could be required by 1984 in
the former case and approximately 80 additional off-site facilities
could be required in the latter case.
It should be noted that the estimated availability of necessary,
off-site, process capacity is based only on the treatment/disposal of
hazardous industrial wastes. As indicated in Section 7.1.1, an inde-
terminable quantity of other hazardous wastes would be generated and
an unknown portion of such wastes would be treated/disposed off-site
and could cause shortfalls in capacity. Furthermore, these estimates
assume that the available capacity would be of the type that is spe-
cifically required (e.g., secure landfills, incinerators, surface
impoundments). However, it is possible that there could be short-
falls of specific types of capacity even in those cases where the
total available capacity appears to be more than adequate. Further-
more, since not all of the available capacity would necessarily be
*The actual shortfall would be 2.3 million metric tons. However,
with a utilization rate of 90 percent, 2.6 million metric tons of
capacity would be required.
7-196
-------
sited where it is needed, there could be localized shortfalls of
process capacity even if the total process capacity were sufficient.
Any shortfall in on-site capacity as discussed below, could create
localized shortfalls in off-site capacity. It should also be noted
that if any generators were to send potentially toxic wastes that
would not be considered hazardous under the Section 3001 regu-
lations to permitted facilities in order to obtain more secure
treatment/disposal, there would be an increased potential for
localized shortfalls in off-site capacity.
On-site Capacity. Data are not available to estimate if there
would be any potential shortfall in environmentally adequate, on-
site, hazardous waste management process capacity under the Subtitle
C regulations. Based upon the assumption stated above, about 28.7
million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes would be treated/
disposed on-site in 1980 and between 28.8 and 33.6 million metric
tons would be treated/disposed on-site in 1984 • This would
represent no change in 1980. The change in 1984 would range between
a decrease of 4.0 million metric tons and an increase of 0.8 million
metric tons. As indicated in Section 7.1.2.4, the Subtitle C regula-
tions would likely result in an indeterminable decrease in existing
on-site process capacity and, as a result, could potentially cause
shortfalls in on-site process capacity in both 1980 and 1984. The
The remainder of the hazardous industrial wastes would be recycled
or sent to resource recovery operations, both on-site and off-site.
7-197
-------
requirement that at facility closure wastes must be removed from
permitted surface impoundments that do not meet Subtitle C landfill
standards could exacerbate any shortfalls, both on-site and off-site.
Increased resource conservation and recovery and use of more effi-
cient processes would lessen the potential for on-site shortfalls.
7.2.4.2 Physical Capacity. Few data are available to estimate
the overall physical capacity of facilities to store, treat, or
dispose hazardous wastes. EPA recognizes the need for data on
physical capacity and will be conducting a series of inventories
toward that end. Under the mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
an inventory of surface impoundments will be conducted. Under the
mandate of RCRA, an inventory of open dumps, solid waste landfills,
and sludge disposal sites will be conducted (Office of Solid Waste,
1977a).
Any increase in the use of on-site or off-site landfills would
accelerate the rate at which the physical capacity of such landfills
would be exhausted. Although the rate of exhaustioji of such land-
fills cannot be determined, it is possible to estimate the change in
the necessary on-site and off-site landfill acreage between 1980 and
1984. Assuming that the shift in on-site and off-site disposal would
be apportioned equally over this period (e.g., 15 percent off-site
treatment/disposal in 1980, 17.5 percent in 1981, 20 percent in 1982,
..., 25 percent in 1984), there could be a total decrease of 1.9 mil-
lion metric tons in hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during
this period, assuming 13 percent shipment off-site in 1984, and there
7-198
-------
could be a total increase of 9.3 million metric tons in hazardous
industrial wastes sent off-site, assuming 25 percent shipment
off-site in 1984.
Based upon Table 5-7, about 80 percent of hazardous industrial
wastes are disposed in landfills and surface impoundments. Since
wastes treated in surface impoundments would be required to be dis-
posed in landfills if the surface impoundments do not meet the
Subtitle C landfill standards and since approximately 99.9 percent of
hazardous wastes are placed in surface impoundments that are environ-
mentally inadequate (see Table 5-7), it is assumed, for purposes of
analysis, that up to 80 percent of hazardous industrial wastes would
ultimately be disposed by landfilling. Thus, there could be up to a
1.5 million metric ton decrease in off-site landfilling in the case
of 13 percent off-site shipment and up to a 7.5 million metric ton
increase in off-site landfilling in the case of 25 percent off-site
shipment.
Assuming an average waste density of 0.8 metric tons per cubic
meter and a landfill depth of 10 feet, one to two acres would be
required for every 5,000 cubic meters of waste disposal (personal
communication, J. Schaum, EPA, 1978). Thus, up to 400 to 800 fewer
acres could be committed to off-site landfilling between 1980 and the
end of 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment and up to
1900 to 3800 additional acres could be committed to off-site land-
filling between 1980 and the end of 1984 in the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment. In the former case, after 1984 there could be 200
7-199
-------
to 400 fewer acres required off-site annually compared to require-
ments without the regulations. In the latter case, after 1984 there
could be an additional 1,000 to 2,000 acres required off-site annu-
ally compared to total requirements without the regulations. There
could he commensurate changes in on-site land requirements in each
instance.
For purposes of comparison, based upon an average, secure, com-
mercial landfill size of 270 acres (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, 1977), these land requirements
would be equivalent to siting 1 to 3 fewer off-site secure landfills
by the end of 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment. In
this case, the equivalent of 1 to 2 fewer off-site landfills could
have to be sited annually after 1984. The land requirements would be
equivalent to siting 7 to 14 additional off-site secure landfills by
the end of 1984 in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment. In this
case, the equivalent of 4 to 8 additional off-site landfills could
have to be sited annually after 1984.
7.2.5 Land Use Impacts. More total land, off-site plus
on-site, would be required for hazardous waste management under the
Subtitle C regulations than for hazardous waste management under
current practices. The additional land would be required both for
the construction of permitted facilities necessary to meet any
additional capacity shortfalls that could occur under the Subtitle C
regulations and for such conjunctive developments as construction of
roads, power lines, and pipelines. However, as indicated in Section
7-200
-------
7.2.4, in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment there would be
fewer hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site by 1984 under the
Subtitle C regulations than under current practices. Thus, while
more total land would be required, there could be less off-site land
use and more on-site land use in this case. In the case of 25
percent off-site shipment, there would be more hazardous industrial
wastes sent off-site by 1984 under the Subtitle C regulations than
under current practices. Thus, there could be more off-site land use
and less on-site land use in this case. Estimates of potential
changes in off-site land requirements for landfills (and commensurate
changes in on-site land requirements) are presented in Section 7.2.4.
It should be noted that while shifts to on-site land use could
reduce off-site land requirements in the short term, such shifts
could also accelerate the exhaustion of the relatively limited
on-site physical capacity and could result in increased pressure for
off-site facilities in the long term. Increases both in resource
conservation and recovery and in treatment practices resulting in
volume reduction (e.g., incineration) that occur as a result of the
Subtitle C regulations would have the potential for reducing land
requirements, both on-site and off-site, in the long term.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporari-
ly, on all land converted to hazardous waste management uses. Some
agricultural, grazing, forest, recreational, and other lands could be
removed from their existing uses. The regulations would prohibit
7-201
-------
facility construction, and thus not affect existing land uses, on
100-year flood plains, on or near active fault zones, in wetlands, in
critical habitat areas, or in recharge areas of sole source aquifers.
Following closure of the hazardous waste management facility and
rehabilitation of the site according to the closure plans, the land
would be available for new or, in some cases, previously existing
uses. Sites at which hazardous wastes have not been removed would be
precluded from residential and agricultural uses, and may be pre-
cluded from some recreational and grazing uses following closure.
Any activity requiring excavation would be prohibited at sites where
wastes are not removed. Further, since the regulations would require
records to be kept of the location and types of all hazardous wastes
remaining at the site, the potential for incidents such as occurred
at Love Canal in Niagra Falls, New York would be reduced. (This
incident is discussed in Section 7.1.6).
To the extent that the regulations would prevent other lands
from being contaminated by improper disposal, dumping, storage or
treatment under current practices and regulations, there would be a
potential for offsetting land use benefits. Sections 7.1.4, 7.1.5
and 7.2.1 describe the potential for the generation of air, water,
and land residuals which could affect existing land uses under cur-
rent practices and regulations. These sections also discuss the po-
tential for reducing these residuals under the proposed regulations.
7-202
-------
In addition to land use changes brought about by facility
siting, operation, and closure, the proposed regulations could have
an impact on a few current land use practices associated with poten-
tially hazardous wastes. For example, landspreading of sludges is
specifically addressed in the regulations. The requirements that
landfarms be operated so as not to allow waste migration, and be
closed so that food chain crops could be grown on site would both
minimize the areal extent of contamination and would allow continued
productive use of the land after waste applications ceases. Another
example would be the regulation of road oiling for dust control.
This practice is not specifically addressed in the proposed regula-
tions, although numerous incidents of environmental contamination
have occurred as a result of road oiling. (Some of these incidents
are described in other parts of this chapter and in Appendix J.) The
proposed regulations would require generators of over 100 kilograms
per month of waste automotive oils to comply with the regulations.
Additionally, hydraulic and cutting oil wastes are listed as hazard-
ous wastes, and other waste oils may be included under the various
criteria. Therefore, any waste 'oils which are considered hazardous
under the proposed regulations would have to be treated so as to be
rendered nonhazardous before being used for road oiling. This pro-
cedure would reduce the environmental damage and resultant adverse
impacts to land use that have occurred due to unregulated road
oiling.
7-203
-------
7.2.6 Water Use Impacts. The Subtitle C regulations would
affect water use in two ways—through a reduction in groundwater and
surface water contamination and through increased water demand by
expanded and new hazardous waste facilities. It is estimated that
almost one half of the population of the United States depends on
groundwater as a source of drinking water, and that over one third of
the nation is underlain by groundwater reservoirs capable of yielding
at least 75,000 gpd to an individual well (Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs, 1977). It is further estimated that industrial
impoundments account for over 100 billion gallons of contaminant per
year to groundwater and residential, commercial and institutional
land disposal sites and account for about 90 billion gallons of lea-
chate to groundwater annually (Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, 1977). It is apparent that the potential dangers of uncon-
trolled disposal of hazardous wastes are a serious problem. With the
implementation of the regulations regarding disposal and treatment of
hazardous wastes, a significant reduction in groundwater leachate
should occur, thereby decreasing the potential danger to private and
public underground water supplies.
The potential for the degradation of both groundwater and sur-
face water would be reduced under the regulations. To the extent
that degradation of water quality would have resulted in a decreased
supply of surface water or groundwater being available to some or all
consumers in the water use area, there would be an additional supply
of groundwater or surface water potentially available to such
7-204
-------
consumers and fewer restrictions on the productive use of such
surface water and groundwater supplies.
Implementation of the proposed regulations would necessitate
that some existing facilities currently accepting hazardous wastes be
upgraded in order to make them environmentally adequate, and that new
facilities be sited to minimize potential capacity shortfalls. New
facilities would be additional consumers of water for purposes such
as:
• Dust control;
• Soil compaction;
• Washing and cleaning of equipment and containers;
• Biological treatment;
• Spill control;
• Laboratory requirements;
• Fire control and other emergencies;
• Site rehabilitation;
• Wet scrubbers for air pollution control;
• Miscellaneous uses, including cooling water.
Such demands would affect the water budget of the localities in
which the facilities were located to varying degrees depending upon
such factors as the type of facility sited, its water requirement,
and the potential water availability in the area. The additional
water requirement would be somewhat offset by the amount of water (if
any) that would have otherwise been used for the treatment/disposal
of these additional wastes under current practices and regulations.
7-205
-------
7.2.7 Impacts to Resource Conservation and Recovery. As
discussed in Section 5.4.2, approximately 3 to 5 percent of hazardous
industrial wastes have been subject to resource recovery in recent
years with most efforts directed toward the recovery of solvents,
oils, metals, and energy. The Subtitle C regulations contain few
provisions directed specifically toward increasing the portion of
hazardous wastes that would be subject to resource conservation and
recovery efforts.
However, since one of the major impacts of the regulations would
be to increase generator's costs and the costs associated with
hazardous waste transport, storage, treatment, and disposal, there
would be an incentive provided by the regulations for generators to
modify processes so as to enable increased recycling of hazardous
wastes as process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of hazardous
wastes generated by specific processes, or to change the nature of
the wastes produced (e.g., to produce wastes that are less hazar-
dous). In addition, the Section 3004 regulations direct that where
practical, disposal of hazardous wastes would have to be avoided and
alternatives, such as resource recovery, reuse, or other methods of
recycling, would have to be employed. Furthermore, since the
regulations prohibit the placing of ignitable wastes in landfills,
landfarms, surface impoundments, and basins, the potential for
increased incineration of such wastes, with possible energy recovery,
would be greatly enhanced.
7-206
-------
As previously indicated, the potential for the implementation of
process modifications or other changes to promote resource
conservation and/or recovery would be extremely waste stream and
process specific and would depend upon such factors as changes in the
economics of disposal, treatment, and transport; the cost of raw
materials and energy; the availability of markets for and sources of
recyclable hazardous wastes; and the availability both of the
necessary technology for specific resource conservation or recovery
efforts and of environmentally adequate disposal methods and
capacity. Chapter 5 presents some examples of the potential for the
increased resource recovery from and recycling of hazardous wastes.
Due to the complex interrelationships among the above factors, it is
not possible to determine the specific changes that could occur with
regard to resource conservation and recovery, nor the overall extent
of any such changes.
7.2.8 Energy Use Impacts. Promulgation of the Subtitle C
regulations would cause changes in energy use in the following areas:
hazardous waste management facility construction, facility operation,
hazardous waste transport, and hazardous waste resource conservation
and recovery.
The facility modification and construction that would be neces-
sary under the regulations would result in increased energy use (see
Section 7.1.2). More energy would also be used for the construction
of new facilities under the regulations than would have otherwise
7-207
-------
been needed due to requirements directed toward making these facili-
ties more environmentally secure (e.g. , requirements for site prepa-
ration, landfill liners, diversion structures, monitoring systems,
pollution control equipment).
There would also be increased energy use resulting from required
changes in storage, treatment, and disposal operations under the reg-
ulations. For example, requirements for application of daily cover,
for higher incineration temperatures and longer retention times, for
increased removal of potential air contaminants, for periodic moni-
toring and analysis, for removal of wastes from surface impoundments
at facility closure, and for post close-out care would all poten-
tially result in increased energy use. However, any increase in
resource conservation occurring under the regulations would reduce
the quantity of wastes that would have otherwise been stored,
treated, or disposed and could thus off-set the increase in energy
use. Previously discussed changes in resource recovery would also
lead to other changes in energy use. While any increase in resource
recovery would likely require the initial input of additional energy,
energy savings could result from increased energy recovery; from
further reductions in wastes requiring storage, treatment, or
disposal; and from materials recovery and reuse. This could result
in an overall energy savings from resource recovery operations.
The changes in energy use from the transport of hazardous wastes
would depend upon such factors as shifts in the portion of wastes
7-208
-------
managed on-site and off-site and changes in transport distances.
Table 7-15 presents estimates of the magnitude of the potential
change in energy use that could occur annually by 1984 from changes
in transport distances and shifts in off-site and on-site treatment/
disposal. Changes in transport distances are estimated as discussed
in Section 7.1.4.1; the change in energy use is estimated assuming
that trucks average 7.5 miles per gallon of fuel. The estimated
annual change in energy use ranges from a decrease equivalent to
about 20,000 barrels of crude oil for a 100-mile round-trip distance
with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal to an increase equivalent
to about 2.2 million barrels of crude oil for a 1,000-mile round-trip
distance with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal.
7.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. Special interest
points consist of natural, modified or artificial features of the
environment that are of special aesthetic, cultural, and recreational
significance. Such features include archaeological and paleonto-
logical sites; cultural areas; historical sites; parks and recrea-
tional areas; scenic areas and other aesthetic resources; unique
geological formations; wilderness areas; wild and scenic rivers; and
wildlife refuges and other natural areas. The extent to which
current hazardous waste management practices may have resulted in
adverse impacts to such resources is not documented. However, the
types of incidents previously discussed would have had the potential
to cause adverse impacts, primarily through the release of air,
7-209
-------
TABLE 7-15
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN FUEL CONSUMPTION IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT
OF HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
I
N>
O
Wastes Round -trip
transported distance
off-site (miles)
13 percent 100
200
500
1,000
25 percent 100
200
500
1,000
Change in fuel consumption
(million gallons)
-0.7
4
18
42
4
13
37
86
Crude oil
equivalent*
(1,000 barrels)
-20
100
460
1,100
90
320
920
2,200
*Assumes 95 percent efficiency in producing diesel fuel from crude oil.
-------
water, and soil contaminants that could disturb or degrade such
special interest points.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions which, while not
applying specifically to the protection of special interest points,
would provide indirect benefits to special interest points and to the
human enjoyment of such features. For example, restrictions on the
siting of hazardous waste management facilities in wetlands, perma-
frost areas, and critical habitats would reduce the potential for
adverse impacts to such areas. Furthermore, provisions that would
potentially reduce the release of air, water, and soil contaminants
from such facilities would reduce the potential for these contami-
nants to infringe upon special interest points located in the vicini-
ty of hazardous waste management facilities. Reductions in air,
water, and soil contaminants would also increase, or at least main-
tain, the opportunity for human enjoyment of such special interest
points. Requirements applicable to the closure of facilities such as
landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments would increase the
potential for revegetation of such facilities and would reduce the
potential for adverse aesthetic impacts.
To the extent that additional lands would be disturbed by
facility construction and operation and by conjunctive developments,
there would be an increased potential for infringement upon special
interest points. Construction of additional hazardous waste man-
agement facilities would represent an intrusion on the existing
7-211
-------
aesthetic environment and could also result in the disturbance of
archeological or historical sites. The clearing of trees or other
vegetation could result in substantial alterations to the visual
characteristics of the site. Noise, dust, emissions, and other
disturbances associated with site preparation, facility construction
and operation, and hazardous waste transport could adversely effect
nearby special interest points and could discourage their use or
enjoyment. The perception of these alterations would depend upon
many variables, as discussed in Section 7.1.3. Proper planning,
while not able to eliminate these alterations, could make them less
discernible. The Subtitle C regulations do not contain specific
provisions for planning the siting of hazardous waste management
facilities or transportation routes with regards to special interest
points. However, the Section 3005 permit application review proce-
dure, including the opportunity for public hearings on the permit
application, would provide a means for consideration of such factors.
Other Federal laws, such as the Archeological and Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1974, and state and local laws and ordinances would also
serve to mitigate any potential impacts to special interest points.
7.3 Significant Uncertainties in the Impact Analysis
The impact analysis is subject to a number of significant
uncertainties. Limited data are currently available with regard to
both the generation and the management of hazardous wastes.
Uncertainties exist as to the types and quantities of hazardous
7-212
-------
wastes generated by various sources, especially non-manufacturing
sources. Uncertainties also exist as to the number, distribution,
capacity, and adequacy of existing hazardous waste management
facilities. Data are sparse on the generation and release of
specific hazardous air, water, and soil contaminants by various
storage, treatment, and disposal methods. Data and methodologies are
not available, for the most part, for determining the movement,
transformation, and ultimate fate of most contaminants released to
the environment. Human and biological health effects which are a
function of both the concentrations of such contaminants and the
duration of exposure are, therefore, uncertain. Dose-response data
are not yet established for determining health effects from many
potentially hazardous contaminants. These limited data, coupled with
the site, process, and waste specific nature of most impacts,
necessitates a qualitative assessment. Estimates of the probable
range of changes and worst-case analyses have both been used to bound
the magnitude of potential impacts. The emphasis of the impact
analysis has necessarily been placed on hazardous manufacturing
wastes, though large volumes of some other hazardous wastes may also
be generated.
Furthermore, uncertainties exist with regard to the adequacy of
existing technologies and methods for controlling the release of
environmental contaminants. The long-term effectiveness of landfill
and surface impoundment liners in preventing the discharge of
7-213
-------
leachate and other water contaminants is uncertain. Over long peri-
ods of time even materials such as clay and polymeric membranes,
which are usually considered inert, may react with leachate or waste
components and may fail or become more porous. Considerable research
is currently underway to determine the long-term capabilities of
various liner materials. Also, while 99.99 percent destruction effi-
ciencies have been demonstrated for the incineration of many hazar-
dous wastes, such destruction efficiencies have not been demonstrated
for most hazardous wastes. Furthermore, in spite of the impressive
performances of the incinerators reported in the literature in
destroying hazardous wastes, most studies were performed under
extremely controlled conditions and only specific products of combus-
tion were sampled in many cases. Problems could occur due to
requirements for frequent maintenance and extensive operator educa-
tion in order to ensure proper functioning. Maintenance could be an
especially serious problem since many wastes burned in incinerators
are either extremely caustic or produce caustic products when burned.
7-214
-------
8.0 IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Four reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulations have
been developed to bracket the overall objectives and the resultant
impacts anticipated from the regulations to be ultimately promulgated
under Subtitle C. Each of the four alternatives is assessed in this
section to the extent that the proposed regulatory changes would
elicit changes in impacts as they would result from implementation of
the proposed regulations. Impacts of the alternatives that would be
substantially the same as those of the proposed regulations are not
presented in order to avoid duplication.
8.1 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the No Action
Alternative
As previously discussed, the No Action Alternative is defined as
meaning that no part of RCRA, including Subtitle C, is to be imple-
mented and that hazardous waste management would continue as current-
ly practiced, modified by any future state legislation developed
without Federal guidance. However, since implementation of RCRA is
mandated by an act of Congress, implementation of this alternative
would not be feasible without an. additional act of Congress repealing
RCRA. The No Action Alternative, therefore, is not realistically
considered a viable alternative at the present time. The following
discussion briefly outlines some of the potential impacts which could
occur in the unlikely event that this alternative were followed.
8.1.1 Primary Impacts. In the absence of a Federal hazardous
8-1
-------
waste control program under RCRA, the primary means of controlling
hazardous waste management activities would be through programs
developed by individual states and through various sections of other
Federal laws, notably, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and the Clean Air Act, as amended. Since
there would be no established mechanism to encourage states to enact
equivalent regulatory approaches and consistent means of control, it
is probable that the states would continue to take different
regulatory approaches and to exert very different levels of control.
Such approaches would depend on the individual needs, the types and
amounts of waste generated, and the political climate in each state.
Approaches could range from no control to regulations more
restrictive than the proposed Subtitle C regulations. Furthermore,
state programs would remain subject to pressures for sending most
hazardous wastes to other states, for banning hazardous waste
shipments from other states, and for the enactment of more stringent
or less stringent regulations than neighboring states. Differences
in definitions and in criteria for characterizing hazardous wastes
would likely be a common occurrence. The present splintered and
uncoordinated development of hazardous waste control programs would
continue. This inconsistency of programs would result in the less
effective control of hazardous wastes and would allow the continued
occurrence of those types of incidents previously discussed.
A detailed discussion of existing state regulations for selected
8-2
-------
states that have promulgated hazardous waste programs is presented in
Appendix A. Many of the states currently manage hazardous waste
problems on a case-by-case basis. At present, 35 states do not have
specified criteria or lists for identifying hazardous waste. Most
states instead identify hazardous materials through broad or
generalized definitions. At this time, 35 states have not enacted or
proposed permit system regulations specifically for the disposal of
hazardous waste; 39 states do not have any standards or regulations
for a manifest program; 31 states do not have any recordkeeping or
reporting standards or regulations; 35 states have no formalized
inspection standards or regulations for hazardous waste facilities;
and 38 states do not have a specific monitoring program standards or
regulations with regard to hazardous waste. Many of the states do,
however, have the enabling authority to control each of these
activities; however, most of these state have been waiting for
Federal action before proceeding with its own programs. Without such
action, it is difficult to determine the outcome of pending waste
management programs.
It is likely that on-site activities would continue to escape
regulation under many states laws. Existing regulations are often
times applicable only to off-site facilities, operated in a
non-private capacity. Without a Federal requirement for on-site
control, a large percentage of waste managed on-site could continue
to go unregulated. The widely used concept of case-by-case
management would also likely continue and, as a result, many wastes
8-3
-------
would continue to escape any control. Intrastate movement of
hazardous wastes would likely continue to be poorly controlled.
The present trend toward control of hazardous wastes is slowly
but steadily increasing, as more states extend the limits of their
enabling authority to include hazardous waste management. It is not
possible to determine whether this trend would continue to occur
independent of the requirements and goals provided by Subtitle C.
National awareness of the hazardous waste problem is increasing as
more environmental problems occur due to the improper management of
hazardous waste However, individual states desiring to initiate
hazardous waste programs would not have the aid of the Federal
funding authorized under the regulations. Depending on the extent of
the control needed, the financial requirements for effective program
implementation could be a substantial constraint to some states.
The impacts to air and water quality and to public health that
would occur as a result of this alternative would be a continuation
of the present effects previously discussed. In many cases, even
strict state control could not protect the state from air or water
pollution originating in neighboring states. Incidents such as those
described in Chapter 7 would continue to occur, though state regula-
tions may produce local reductions. Large amounts of poorly
controlled or uncontrolled hazardous wastes could contaminate many
water supplies, air sheds, and large areas of land in many
8-4
-------
scattered locations. Public health effects from these materials
could be manifested in many ways. Of particular concern are the
often insidious effects of long-term, low-level exposure to toxic
materials; such effects often may not become apparent for many years.
8.1.2 Secondary Impacts. Current impacts to physiography and
soils, ecological systems, social conditions, land use, water use,
energy use, resource recovery, and special interest points would
continue to occur, though they could be mitigated by the enactment of
more stringent state regulations than those that currently exist. The
implementation of strict state controls would not always protect
states from air and water contaminants originating in neighboring
states with less stringent regulations and from the secondary impacts
of such air and water contaminants. Incidents such as those
described in Chapter 7 would continue to occur, particulary in those
states that exert little control over hazardous wastes.
At present, most states do not have regulations or standards for
hazardous waste disposal sites or for disposing wastes in such sites.
As a result, even though there may actually be a shortage of
environmentally acceptable dispdsal sites, there is technically no
shortfall since few states have requirements to use such sites. As
additional states develop strict disposal regulations, local
shortfalls of environmental adequate treatment, storage, and disposal
capacity could occur.
Variations in the degree of control of hazardous wastes among
the states could also create a tendency for industries to relocate in
8-5
-------
states with the least stringent control requirements. Other indus-
tries might elect to ship their wastes to such states if treatment
and disposal costs in their own state were to be considered too high.
This indirect encouragement of industrial development in certain
states could lead to increased incidents of environmental degradation
and potential public health problems in such states. Any widespread
implementation of import bans, if constitutional, could have severe
effects on states whose soils, climate, and geologic conditions are
generally unsuitable for secure waste disposal.
8.2 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the Phasing of
Generators Alternative
This section discusses the potential changes in impacts (rela-
tive to those of the proposed regulations) that would occur as a
result of promulgation of the regulations contained in the Phasing of
Generators Alternative. To avoid considerable duplication in the
presentation, potential impacts discussed in Chapter 7 that would not
be changed under this Alternative are not repeated. Only major
changes in potential impacts are discussed.
8.2.1 Primary Impacts. The change in primary impacts that
could occur under this alternative are discussed below.
8.2.1.1 Hazardous Waste to be Regulated. The objective of this
alternative is to reduce the potential for overtaxing resources
(e.g., manpower, capital, disposal sites) beyond their capacity for
responding effectively to the proposed Subtitle C regulations. This
would be accomplished by phasing in, over a five-year period from
8-6
-------
1980 through 1984, the generators to be regulated (larger generators
first, then smaller generators), such that approximately twenty per-
cent of the total hazardous waste would be controlled during the
first year with an additional twenty percent being controlled each
subsequent year. This alternative would be implemented by changing
the generator limit defined in the proposed regulations. Under this
alternative, the generator limit would be quite large the first year,
and would be reduced each succeeding year, such that by the fifth
year it would be 100 kilograms per month. This procedure would
exclude those hazardous wastes that do not meet the generator limit
from compliance with the generator requirements, though certain
disposal requirements would still apply. Again, emphasis is placed
upon hazardous wastes generated by the manufacturing industries for
the purpose of analysis.
To develop phasing limits, data on hazardous waste generation
from the manufacturing industries have been analyzed to estimate
quantities of hazardous waste generated by SIC Code and by EPA
Region, as well as to estimate the number of generating firms.
Appendix H describes the methodology used for estimating the total
potentially hazardous waste generation in the manufacturing indus-
tries. Appendix I describes the computer program used to determine
the amounts of wastes and number of industries which would be con-
trolled in each year of the phasing alternative. As in the analysis
of the proposed regulations, this alternative is based on the assump-
tion that only about 35 percent of the estimated potentially
8-7
-------
hazardous waste generated in SIC Code 28 would be subject to
regulation, due to the nature of the toxicity characteristic (see
Section 7.1.1 for more detail).
Using these methods, the generator limit is determined for
each year of the five-year program. Then, using summary data from
Appendix K, the number of establishments and the EPA Region in
which they are located is determined. Tables 8-1 through 8-4 show
the distribution of the wastes regulated in each year. Because of
assumptions and data limitations discussed in Appendices H and I,
Tables 8-1 through 8-4 do not present the specific quantities of
wastes or number of firms that would be subject to regulation during
each year of phasing, but only indicate the EPA Regions and SIC codes
in which the regulated wastes are contained.
In order to bring 20 percent of the manufacturing wastes
that are hazardous under control in 1980, it is estimated that the
generator limit would have to be set at 12,900 metric tons per year;
all establishments generating hazardous waste quantities greater than
approximately 1,075 metric tons per month would be regulated during
the first year. This would limit control efforts to SIC Codes 26
(Paper and Allied Products), 28 (Chemicals and Allied Products), 29
(Petroleum and Coal Products), and 33 (Primary Metal Industries), as
shown in Table 8-1. About 75 percent of the controlled wastes would
be from SIC Code 28. All EPA Regions would be involved to some
extent; though, as indicated, Regions III, IV, and V would generate
-------
OO
I
VO
TABLE 8-1
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES DURING THE
FIRST YEAR OF PHASING (1980)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
Cod Totals
e
I II III
26 X X
28 XXX
29 X
33 XX
IV V
X X
X X
X
X X
VI VII VIII IX X
X X
XX XX
X X
X X X X
Wastes
(1000 metric
tons)
157
5170
263
1310
Number of
establishments
aff ectedt
c
f
c
d
Totals-
1000 156 964 1430 1570 1540 938 109 35 78 76 6890
metric
tons
Number of
establish- bdd d edaa aa
affectedt
*Based on a generator limit of 1075 metric tons/month, chosen to include approximately 20 percent of
the total estimated hazardous wastes (see Section 7.1.1). An "X" indicates that at least some hazardous
wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would probably be subject to Subtitle C requirements
in the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a=l-5;
b=6-10; c=ll-25; d=26-50; e=51-100; f=101-250; g=251-1000; h=1001-2500; i=2501 or more.
-------
TABLE 8-2
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES DURING
THE SECOND YEAR OF PHASING (1981)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
00
I-1
0
SIC Code
26
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
EPA Region
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
III IV V
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
X
XXX
VI
X
X
X
X
X
X
VII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VIII IX X
X X
XXX
XXX
X
XXX
X
X X
Totals
Wastes (1000 metric tons)
947
8790
619
8
104
2790
165
1440
Number of establishments
affectedt
f
g
e
a
d
g
e
f
Totals
1000
metric 552 2090 2380 2640 4090 1670 532
tons
Number of
establish- e f f f g f e
ments
affectedt
117
549 246
e d
14,900
*Based on a generator limit of 303 metric tons/month, chosen to include approximately 40 percent of the total estimated hazardous
wastes (see Section 7.1.1). An "X" indicates that at least some hazardous wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would
probably be subject to Subtitle C requirements in the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a=l-5; b=6-10; c=ll-25; d=26-50; e=51-100;
f=101-250; g-251-10001 g=1001-2500; 1=2501 or more.
-------
TABLE 8-3
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES DURING THE
THIRD YEAR OF PHASING (1982)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
00
I
25
26 X
28 X
29 X
30
31 X
32 X
33 X
34 X
35 X
37 X
39 X
Totals
1000
metric 1150
tons
Number
of g
establish-
ments
affectedt
EPA Regions
II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
XXX
XXXXXX X XX
XXXXXX X XX
XXXXXX X XX
X XX
XXXXXX X X
X X X X X X
XXXXXX X XX
XXXXXX X X
XXXXXX X XX
XXXXXX X XX
X X
2890 3140 3550 6380 2240 934 205 1120 419
g g g h g f a g e
Totals
Wastes (1000 metric tons)
9
2470
9960
898
9
360
360
3660
486
3000
803
6
22000
Number of establishments
affectedt
e
g
h
f
a
f
f
8
f
g
f
b
i
*Based on a generator limit of 125 metric tons per month, chosen to include approximately 60 percent of the total estimated hazardous wastes
(see Section 7.1.1). An "X" indicates that at least some hazardous wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would probably be subject
to Subtitle C requirements in the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a=l-5; b=6-10; c=ll-25; d=26-50; e=51-100;
f=101-250; g=251-1000; h=1001-2500; i=2501 or more.
-------
TABLE 8-4
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES DURING THE
FOURTH YEAR OF PHASING (1983)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
SIC Code
20
22
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Totals
1000
metric
tons
Number of
establish-
ments
affectedt
EPA Regions
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1740
h
II
JC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3970
h
III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4080
h
IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4740
h
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8830
i
VI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2940
h
VII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1430
g
VIII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
330
f
IX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1960
h
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
594
g
Wastes (1000 metric tons)
14
26
60
3,440
12,600
1,070
87
686
1,070
4,730
1,340
4,330
94
966
22
93
30,600
Totals
Number of establishments
affectedt
d
e
f
h
i
g
f
g
h
h
h
i
f
g
c
f
i
*Based on a generator limit of 34 metric tons per month, chosen to include approximately 80 percent of the total estimated hazardous wastes
(see Section 7.1.1). An "X" indicates that at least some hazardous wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would probably be subject
to Subtitle C requirements in the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a=l-5; b=6-10; c=ll-25; d=26-50; e=51-100-
f=101-250; g=251-1000; h=1001-2500; 1=2501 or more.
-------
about 65 percent of the regulated wastes. Approximately 230 estab-
lishments would be regulated nationwide.
In order to bring 40 percent of the manufacturing wastes that
are hazardous under control in 1981, it is estimated that the
generator limit would have to be set at 3,630 metric tons per
year;all establishments generating quantities of hazardous waste
greater than approximately 303 metric tons per month would be
regulated during the second year. This would extend control efforts
to SIC Codes 31 (Leather and Leather Products), 32 (Stone, Clay, and
Glass Products), 34 (Fabricated Metal Products), and 35 (Machinery,
Except Electrical), as shown in Table 8-2. About 60 percent of the
controlled wastes would originate in SIC Code 28. Control efforts
would be more pronounced in EPA Regions III, IV and V, though their
share would decrease to about 61 percent, with one-half of that being
in Region V. Approximately 1,500 establishments would be regulated
nationwide.
In order to bring 60 percent of the manufacturing wastes that
are hazardous under control in 1982, it is estimated that the gener-
ator limit would have to be set at 1,500 metric tons per year (125
metric tons per month). Control efforts would be further expanded to
industries in SIC Codes 25 (Furniture and Fixtures), 30 (Rubber and
Miscellaneous Plastic Products), 37 (Transportation Equipment), and
39 (Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries), as shown in Table 8-3.
Wastes from SIC Code 28 would still predominate, contributing about
45 percent of the total. EPA Region V would contain about 29 percent
8-13
-------
of the wastes, while Regions II, III, IV, and V would each contain
between 10 and 16 percent. About 4,300 establishments would be
regulated nationwide.
In order to bring 80 percent of the manufacturing wastes that
are hazardous under control in 1983, it is estimated that the gen-
erator limit would have to be set at 410 metric tons per year (34
metric tons per month). This control effort would now expand to
cover portions of the hazardous wastes generated by establishments
in all SIC codes except 23 (Apparel and Other Textile Products), 24
(Lumber and Wood Products), and 27 (Printing and Publishing), as
shown in Table 8-4. Again, SIC Code 28 would predominate, though its
share would be reduced to about 41 percent. Distribution among the
EPA Regions would remain essentially the same as in 1982, though an
additional 8.5 million metric tons would be controlled.
Approximately 15,500 establishments would be regulated nationwide.
In the fifth and final year of phasing, all hazardous waste
generators would be regulated except those producing 100 kilograms
or less per month. Table 1-1 presents the quantities of hazardous
wastes from manufacturing industries that would be phased into the
program in 1984, as well as the distribution of the regulated estab-
lishments. During this final year, industries in virtually every
manufacturing SIC Code and each EPA Region would be involved in
regulatory actions. Approximately 232,000 manufacturing establish-
ments would be regulated.
The net effect of this alternative is that a total of about 74
8-14
-------
million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes could be excluded
from regulation during the first four years following implementation
of the Subtitle C regulations. These wastes represent about 50
percent of the total hazardous industrial wastes that could be
regulated under the proposed regulations.
8.2.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures. Since this alter-
native only reduces the number of generators who would be subject to
the generator regulations during the first four years following their
implementation, there would be few changes in the impacts previously
discussed. Those changes that do occur would be limited to the first
five years following implementation of the regulations. Longer-term
impacts would not change.
Generators who continue to produce a quantity of hazardous waste
exceeding the generator limit in all years would not be affected by
this alternative. Generators who produce a quantity of hazardous
waste that exceeds the generator limit of the proposed regulations,
but that does not exceed the generator limit of this alternative,
would be excluded from the generator regulations under this
alternative. These excluded generators would not have to comply with
the manifesting, reporting, recordkeeping, or containerization
requirements discussed in Section 7.1.2.1. However, as in the case
of the proposed regulations, these generators would still be required
to treat/dispose their wastes in a responsible manner.
The major options available to these generators would be
8-15
-------
disposal in an approved sanitary landfill meeting RCRA Subtitle D
requirements (this would not be allowed for these generators under
the proposed regulations); treatment/disposal in a permitted off-site
facility; or treatment/disposal in a permitted on-site facility
(although the generating establishment would not be subject to the
generator regulations, treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes on-site
would still require permitting of the treatment/disposal facility,
unless it was an approved landfill meeting Subtitle D criteria). It
should be noted that without requirements for manifesting and
reporting of these wastes, there would be a greater potential for
generators not to comply with these disposal requirements and a
lesser potential for determining if generators did not comply. It is
therefore likely that additional wastes would be treated/disposed in
an environmentally unacceptable manner.
There would be few changes in transport, storage, treatment, or
disposal practices under this alternative. Transporters would still
have to comply with all regulations for the transport of manifested
wastes; however, there would be fewer such manifested shipments.
Transport distances would likely decrease during the first four years
since the excluded hazardous wastes could be sent to sanitary land-
fills which would likely be more abundant and situated closer than
off-site permitted facilities. To the extent generators would send
their wastes to Subtitle D landfills, there would potentially be a
lesser number of treatment/disposal facilities, primarily on-site
8-16
-------
facilities, that would have to be modified during the first few years
following implementation of the regulations. However, to the extent
that generators reverted to on-site treatment/disposal when again
subject to the generator regulations, their facilities would have to
be modified as before. There would be no change in the requirements
for facilities that store, treat, or dispose hazardous wastes.
It should be noted that this alternative would allow most gener-
ators a longer time to familiarize themselves with the implications
of the regulations before being required to comply. They would have
a better opportunity to develop plans for compliance and be less sub-
ject to making quick decisions. Also, there would be an opportunity
to detect any unexpected problems that arise from the implementation
of the regulations and to make any necessary modifications in the
regulations before all generators were included.
8.2.1.3 Administrative Changes. A major benefit resulting from
this alternative would be the gradual expansion of administrative re-
quirements, rather than the abrupt imposition of such requirements.
Administrative requirements, primarily paperwork, would be reduced
during the first four years following implementation of the regula-
tions. The reduction in these administrative requirements could also
encourage additional states to apply for interim or full authoriza-
tion.
The estimated change in the number of hazardous waste generators
who could be required to comply with the generator requirements is
8-17
-------
shown in Tables 8-1 through 8-4. Based upon the assumptions dis-
cussed in Section 7.1.3.6, it is estimated that industrial generators
could have to prepare a total of between 660,000 and 1.3 million
manifests during the period from 1980 to the start of 1984. This
represents about a 50 percent reduction in the number of manifests
that would have to be prepared by industrial generators during this
period under the proposed regulations. During the first year, the
industrial generators could have to prepare 72,000 manifests, an 80
percent reduction.
During the first 6 years,* the aggregated generators,
transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous waste management
facilities could each have to keep a total of between 3.2 million and
5.2 million manifests in storage; this would represent over a 30
percent decrease in manifests in storage during this period. During
the first year, 72,000 manifests could have to be stored, an 80
percent reduction.
During the first four years, it is estimated that industrial
generators could have to prepare a total of about 22,000 annual
reports; this would represent over a 97 percent decrease in such
annual reports. During the first year, about 230 annual reports
could have to be prepared, a 99.9 percent reduction.
*Due to the requirement for three-year storage of manifests, the
impact of this alternative on the number of manifests in storage
would continue for the first six years.
3-18
-------
It is estimated that transporters could have to file a total of
between 280 and 400 spill reports during the first 4 years, a reduc-
tion of over 45 percent.
As previously discussed, there would be, at most, a small re-
duction in the number of permitted facilities during the first four
years. As a result, there could be a small reduction in the number
of most reports prepared by permittees. However, since the addi-
tional hazardous wastes that would not be subject to the generator
requirements under this alternative and would have to be sent to
approved sanitary landfills or to permitted facilities, there would
likely be an increase in the number of unmanifested shipments
received at permitted facilities. Consequently, permittees could
have to prepare an increased number of reports on the receipt of
unmanifested wastes. The increase in the length of the reporting
interval for such reports under this alternative would serve to
reduce the number of additional reports prepared.
8.2.1.4 Air and Water Impacts. To the extent that a total of
74 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes excluded from
the generator regulations under this alternative were not to be
managed in a manner equivalent to that required under the Subtitle C
regulations, there would be an increased potential for the relese of
air and water contaminants from these wastes. These air and water
contaminants could be released as described in Sections 7.1.4.1 and
7.1.5, and could result in the types of incidents and impacts
8-19
-------
discussed in those sections. The release of air and water con-
taminants could continue for many years following the disposal of
such wastes.
8.2.1.5 Public Health Impacts. Changes in public health
effects would be directly related to changes in the release of air,
water, and soil contaminants. To the extent that increased releases
were to occur, there would be an increased potential for the types of
public health impacts discussed in Section 7.1.6 to continue to
occur. Chronic effects related to long-term, low-level exposure to
such contaminants could continue to occur for many years following
improper disposal of such wastes.
8.2.2 Secondary Impacts. To the extent that a total of 74 mil-
lion metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes were not to be man-
aged in a manner equivalent to that required under the Subtitle C re-
gulations, there would be an increased potential for additional soil
contamination, as described in Section 7.2.1. Changes in impacts to
the biological environment, to water use, to land use, and to special
interest points would be directly related to these changes in the re-
lease of air, water, and soil contaminants. To the extent that
increased releases were to occur, there would be an increased poten-
tial for the type of impacts discussed in Section 7.2 to continue to
occur. These impacts, especially biological and water use impacts,
could continue to occur for many years following improper disposal of
such wastes.
There would be less potential for demographic changes during the
8-20
-------
first four years due to reduced economic demands on generators that
would in turn reduce the potential for plant closings or relocation,
due to reduced demands for new hazardous waste management facility
capacity, and due to the reduced administrative requirements.
However, demographic shifts that were just delayed during the first
four years could start to occur following the fourth year. The
longer transition period would, however, provide an increased oppor-
tunity for planning and instituting measures to mitigate the poten-
tial impacts of any population shifts. The longer transition period
could also reduce the potential for some plant closings by providing
generators with an increased opportunity to evaluate alternatives
available to them.
With regard to hazardous waste management facility capacity,
Section 7.2.4.1 indicates that under the proposed regulations there
would potentially be sufficient capacity for managing hazardous
industrial wastes during the first four years, with one exception.
In the case of no growth of existing environmentally adequate capac-
ity and 25 percent off-site shipment, there could be a capacity
shortfall by 1981, the second year of regulation. Under the phasing
alternative, the potential for such a capacity shortfall could be
delayed until 1983, the fourth year of regulation. In addition,
there would be a lesser potential for any shortfalls to occur in all
the other cases examined in Section 7.2.4.1. Furthermore, there
would be increased time for planning the siting of any new facilities
that could be required.
8-21
-------
8.3 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the Enhanced Public
Health and Environment Protection Alternative
This section discusses the potential changes in impacts
(relative to those of the proposed regulations) that could occur from
the promulgation of the regulations contained in the Enhanced Public
Health and Environmental Protection Alternative. To avoid
considerable duplication in the presentation, potential impacts that
would not be changed under this alternative are not repeated. Only
major changes in potential impacts are discussed.
8.3.1 Primary Impacts. The major changes to primary impacts
that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative
are discussed in the following sections:
• Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated;
• Changes to Existing Generation, Transportation, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures;
• Administration Changes;
• Air Impacts;
• Water Impacts;
• Public Health Impacts.
8.3.1.1 Hazardous Waste to Be Regulated. Under this alterna-
tive, two additional hazardous waste characteristics would be added
to the Section 3001 regulations and the existing toxicity criteria
would be expanded so as to bring additional potentially hazardous
wastes under regulation. It is expected that the expanded toxicity
8-22
-------
characteristic would result in the regulation of most, if not all, of
the potentially hazardous organic wastes that would be excluded from
regulation under the proposed regulations, as discussed in Section
7.1.1. Additionally, this alternative would eliminate the 100
kilogram per month generator limit and the previously discussed
exclusion for generators engaged solely in farming or retail trade.
Thus, all generators of any amount of wastes considered hazardous
under the Section 3001 regulations (except household wastes) would
have to comply with all Subtitle C regulations.
Based upon the expanded toxicity characteristic and the proce-
dures described in Chapters 6 and 7 and Appendix H, it is estimated
that approximately 57 and 65 million metric tons of hazardous
manufacturing wastes would be controlled under this alternative in
1980 and 1984, respectively. The expanded criteria could also result
in the inclusion of potentially large volumes of non-manufacturing
wastes such as those described in Section 6.1.2. The portion of
these wastes which would be identified as hazardous by the
characteristics is unknown, but it could be quite large.
There could thus be a minimum of 22 and 25 million metric tons
of additional wastes declared hazardous and brought under regulatory
control with this alternative in 1980 and 1984, respectively, as com-
pared to the proposed regulations. This would represent about a 63
percent increase in the hazardous wastes controlled in both these
8-23
-------
years. The hazardous wastes controlled under this alternative would
represent about 16 and 19 percent, respectively, of the total annual
industrial solid waste stream currently estimated to be generated.
8.3.1.2 Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal Practices. Additional changes to generation, transport,
storage, treatment, and disposal practices would be likely to occur
under this alternative due to the additional wastes being regulated;
due to the enactment of more stringent environmental requirements;
due to resultant increases in storage, treatment, and disposal costs;
and due to the imposition of additional procedural and operational
requirements.
Generation. Under this alternative, many additional generators
would be required to comply with the generator regulations. The ad-
ditional generators to be regulated include those previously ex-
cluded due to the generator limit of 100 kilograms per month, farmers
and retailers who generate hazardous wastes other than waste automo-
tive oil, and generators who produce wastes that now meet the ex-
panded toxicity characteristic or the new infectious or radioactive
characteristics. Section 8.3.1.3 presents estimates of the number of
additional generators to be regulated. These generators would be
required to change their existing practices and procedures with
regard to manifesting, reporting, recordkeeping, containerization,
and labeling. In addition, these generators and the previously
regulated generators would be subject to shorter reporting intervals,
as indicated in Table 4-2.
8-24
-------
Due to further increases in hazardous waste generation, trans-
port, storage, treatment, and disposal costs under this alternative,
all regulated generators would potentially have an increased incen-
tive to further modify their processes so as to reduce and/or change
the types and amounts of hazardous wastes generated and to enable the
increased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks.
Transport. Due to the additional wastes subject to the generator
regulations, additional transporters would likely have to comply with
the transporter regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.2. As a
result there would likely be fewer instances of midnight dumping and
spills from the transport of these additional wastes, as compared to
existing practices. However, any increases in the average distance
over which hazardous wastes are transported under this alternative
could lead to an increase in vehicular accidents. This would off-
set some of the potential for a reduction in spills.
The average distance over which hazardous wastes are trans-
ported would be likely to increase due to several factors. The more
stringent treatment and disposal requirements under this alternative
would likely further decrease both the amount of existing on-site and
off-site treatment/disposal capacity that could be permitted and the
number of sites acceptable for construction of new facilities. Any
such decreases in available facilities and sites would potentially
lead to increased transport distances. Reductions in permittable on-
site treatment/disposal capacity could further result in additional
8-25
-------
wastes being sent off-site for treatment/disoosal. Increases in
treatment/disposal costs could also further increase the distance
over which wastes could be economically transported for resource
recovery purposes. However, increased on-site resource conservation
and recovery could reduce the quantity of wastes sent off-site.
The elimination of the use of a delivery document in lieu of a
manifest would further affect existing transportation practices. The
use of specific delivery documents is now required under Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) regulations for transporters engaged in
interstate commerce and under DOT regulations for the interstate
transport of hazardous materials; as previously indicated, some
states have also applied the DOT regulations to intrastate shipments
of hazardous materials. The requirement under this alternative that
all hazardous waste transporters use manifests, not delivery
documents, could result in those transporters now being required to
use delivery documents to also carry a manifest.
Storage. Due to the additional generators and wastes regulated
under this alternative, additional storage facilities would likely
have to comply with the storage regulations discussed in Section
7.1.2.3. Some of these existing storage facilities would be required
to be modified or to close. Existing practices at most of these
storage facilities would also have to be changed as previously indi-
cated. In addition, all regulated storage facilities would have to
8-26
-------
comply with the additional requirements contained in Table 4-2. As
indicated in Section 7.1.2.3, data are not available to estimate the
number of facilities that would be affected, nor the quantities of
wastes that would be affected.
Treatment/Disposal. Due to the additional generators and
wastes regulated under this alternative, additional treatment/
disposal facilities would have to comply with the treatment/ disposal
regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.4. Types of facilities likely
to come under regulation under this alternative include those
facilities used exclusively for 'special wastes' and those facilities
used solely by farmers. Some of these facilities would be closed
because they could not comply with the regulations or could not be
economically modified. Some previously regulated facilities that
would be permitted under the proposed regulations could be closed
under this alternative or could require additional modifications
because of the more stringent requirements. To the extent that
existing on-site facilities were closed, increased quantities of
hazardous wastes could be sent off-site; however, increased on-site
resource conservation and recovery applications could off-set such a
change.
Existing practices would have to be changed at most of the
additional facilities to be regulated under this alternative, as
indicated in Section 7.1.2.4. In addition, these additional facili-
ties as well as all previously regulated treatment/disposal
8-27
-------
facilities would now have to comply with the more stringent require-
ments contained in Table 4-2. Due to these more stringent require-
ments and due to the costs associated with them, there would also be
a potential for increases in the treatment of wastes for such pur-
poses as volume reduction, energy recovery, and resource recovery.
The regulation that the permitting authority could require poten-
tially recoverable wastes to be land disposed in a segregated manner
could further increase resource recovery from such wastes.
8.3.1.3 Administrative Changes. Several changes in the admin-
istration of hazardous waste management programs would result from
promulgation of the regulations within this alternative. These regu-
lations would affect:
• State administration of the program;
• Overlapping Federal and state programs;
• Number of generators required to comply with the regulations;
• Number of transporters required to comply with the
regulations;
• Number of storers, treaters, and disposers required to obtain
permits;
• Paperwork requirements.
State Administration of the Program. It is likely that fewer
states would apply for authorization under this alternative because
expansion of both the quantity of hazardous wastes and the number of
generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers being
regulated, plus the increases in reporting frequencies, would lead to
8-28
-------
increased administrative and manpower requirements for authorized
states.
Overlapping Federal and State Programs. Since Subtitle C
prohibits any state from enacting less stringent regulations than
those in the Federal program, the potential for overlapping Federal
and state programs would be reduced under this alternative. The more
stringent standards and increased amount of hazardous waste con-
trolled under this alternative would reduce the potential benefits
to, and thus the likelihood of, a state enacting a more stringent,
independent, hazardous waste program. It is not possible at this
time to estimate the number of states, if any, that would wish to
have their own independent programs in addition to the Federal
program under this alternative.
Number of Generators Required to Comply with the Regulations.
As indicated in Section 8.3.1.2, there would be an increase in the
number of generators required to comply with the regulations. Under
the proposed regulations, approximately 430,000 to 460,000 generators
are identified as potentially having to comply with the regulations.
The elimination of the generator' limit could result in up to an addi-
tional 81,000 manufacturing generators and 80,000 gasoline service
stations being required to comply (see Section 7.1.3.3). The elim-
ination of the exclusion for farmers and retailers, coupled with the
elimination of the generator limit, could result in up to 1.5 million
farmers (Trask, 1977) and up to 42,000 dry cleaning facilities (Bat-
telle Columbus Laboratories, 1978) being required to comply. An
8-29
-------
indeterminable number of other generators (e.g., 'special waste gen-
erators' and other retailers) could also be required to comply due to
the expansion in the wastes identified as hazardous as well as to the
elimination of the other provisions previously discussed. Thus, on
the order of 2.2 million generators within these identified cate-
gories could be required to comply with the regulations under this
alternative. This would represent over a 400 percent increase in the
number of generators being regulated.
Number of Transporters Required to Comply with the Regulations.
The increased amounts of regulated hazardous wastes that would poten-
tially be transported off-site would likely result in an indetermin-
able increase in the number of transporters carrying hazardous
wastes.
Number of Storers, Treaters, and Disposers Required to Obtain
Permits. Since there are no permit exclusions under the proposed
regulations for storage, treatment, or disposal facilities that
handle only small quantities of hazardous wastes, all facilities
storing, treating, or disposing hazardous wastes would be required to
obtain a permit under the proposed regulations with the exception of
generators who store for less than 90 days prior to off-site trans-
port. With one exception, only those facilities that handle wastes
that would not be classified as hazardous under the proposed regu-
lations, but that would be classified as hazardous under this alter-
native, would be additional -permittees. The exception is that the
8-30
-------
additional facilities that could be needed to satisfy the potential
capacity shortfall under this alternative (see Section 8.3.2.4) would
also require permits if they were to be constructed. Based upon
Section 8.3.2.4, approximately 120 additional facilities could
require permits by 1984. However, to the extent that additional
capacity would be added to existing facilities there would be a
lesser number of such additional permittees.
Paperwork Requirements. Based upon section 8.3.2.4, the indus-
trial generators could have to prepare between 580,000 and 1.1
million manifests annually by 1984. The aggregated generators,
transporters, and hazardous waste management facility owner/operators
could each have to keep between 1.7 million and 3.4 million mani-
fests in storage on an annual basis. This would represent over a 60
percent increase in both requirements as compared to the proposed
regulations. This increase would even be greater for any transpor-
ters who would now have to keep both a delivery document and a mani-
fest in storage. In addition, transporters would have to file a
total of between 220 and 440 spill reports annually—approximately a
60 percent increase.
The 2.2 million identified generators would have to prepare
about 8.8 million quarterly reports on an annual basis; this would be
almost a 2,000 percent increase in such annual reporting. As indi-
cated in Section 7.1.3.6, most potential permittees would be on-site
facilities and would not prepare additional quarterly reports based
8-31
-------
on the manifests. Hazardous waste management service industry
facilities and Federal installations could, however, prepare about
1400 such reports—a 300 percent increase. The permittees identi-
fied in Section 7.1.3.5 could prepare up to ir7,000 monitoring
reports annually; this would not represent any change. Thus, there
could be upwards of 8.9 million quarterly reports prepared annually
by generator, storers, treaters, and disposers—over a 1,500 percent
increase.
The identified generators and permittees would have to file over
2.2 million notifications under Section 3010—over a 400 percent in-
crease. Furthermore, since potential permittees would have to re-
new permits every 5 years rather than being issued one permit good
for the projected life of the facility as under the proposed regula-
tions, there could be up to a six-fold increase (in the case of a
30-year facility site life) in the paperwork associated with obtain-
ing permits. These potential permittees would also have to prepare
approximately 29,000 Supplemental Environmental Analyses as part of
the initial permit review procedure; these Supplemental Environmental
Analyses would not be required under the proposed regulations.
8.3.1.4 Air Impacts.
Air Quality. The regulations under this alternative would have
the potential to cause further changes, primarily reductions, in air
emissions resulting from the generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as compared to the
proposed regulations.
8-32
-------
Generation. As previously discussed, the Subtitle C regulations
would not have a direct effect on potential air emissions resulting
from activities and processes generating hazardous wastes. However,
to the extent that the requirements under this alternative would
cause further changes in the economics of storage, treatment, or
disposal relative to those of the proposed regulations, there would
be a greater potential for generators to make process modifications
designed to further increase hazardous waste recycling and to reduce
the quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated; any such
process modifications would likely lead to changes in air emissions
released by processes generating hazardous wastes. Furthermore, to
the extent that additional generators would be brought under control
of the program through the expanded definition of hazardous wastes
and the elimination of exclusions, the potential for such process
modifications and resultant changes in air emissions would be
increased.
Transport. As indicated in Section 7.1.4.1, there are three
major ways air contaminants are released by the transport of hazard-
ous wastes:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the
transport vehicle.
8-33
-------
As discussed below, this alternative would affect, to varying
degrees, the potential for the release of air emissions from each of
these sources.
To the extent that the additional 25 million metric tons of
potentially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes)
brought under the regulations by this alternative would otherwise
have been improperly covered, sealed, containerized, or segregated
during any transport, the potential for the release of fugitive
emissions by such transport and from any resultant spills or ex-
plosions would be reduced as described in Section 7.1.4.1. The
following example illustrates an incident that occurred from the
transport of a hazardous waste that would not likely be regulated
under the proposed regulations but which would likely be regulated
under this alternative:
• In southern Louisiana, industrial wastes containing
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a relatively volatile material, were
transported over a period of time to municipal landfills in
uncovered trucks. High levels of HCB have since been
reported in the blood plasma of individuals along the route
of transport. In a sampling of 29 households along the truck
route, the average plasma level of HCB was 3.6 ppb, with a
high of 23 ppb. The average plasma level of HCB in a control
group was 0.5 ppb with a high of 1.8 ppb (Farmer et al.,
1976).
Both the total quantity of regulated hazardous wastes being
transported and the average distance over which such wastes are
transported could increase under this alternative, as previously
8-34
-------
indicated. Additional transport would result in increased vehicular
emissions and in an increased potential for vehicular accidents which
could further release air emissions. However, transport of hazardous
wastes in accordance with the regulations discussed above would
reduce the potential for spills and explosions from improper trans-
port and from resultant vehicular accidents. This would off-set some
of the potential for increased vehicular accidents to result from
increased transport distances. The changes in both the vehicular
emissions and emissions resulting from accidents would be dependent
upon such factors as the increase in travel distances, the change in
portion of hazardous wastes transported off-site, and the increase in
the amount of regulated wastes being transported.
Using the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, the potential change in vehicular air emissions from the
transport of the hazardous industrial waste regulated under this
alternative has been estimated for four possible transport distances
for both 13 and 25 percent off-site shipment of hazardous wastes in
j^
1984 . Table 8-5 shows the change in vehicular emissions relative
to those of the proposed regulations (as presented in Table 7-8).
For example, for a 100-mile round-trip distance with 13 percent
*In this estimate, it is assumed that under the proposed regu-
lations there would be 15 percent off-site shipment for those
hazardous wastes that would not be regulated under the proposed
regulations, but which would be regulated under this alternative.
8-35
-------
TABLE 8-5
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT OF
ADDITIONAL HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
Change in emissions (metric
Wastes
transported
off -site
13 percent
25 percent
Round -trip
distance
(miles)
100
200
500
1S000
100
200
500
1,000
Carbon monoxide
-100
550
2,500
5,700
480
1,700
4,900
11,600
Hydrocarbons
-15
90
400
910
80
280
100
1,900
Nitrogen
oxides
-70
400
1,800
4,200
350
1,300
3,600
8,500
tons)
Particulates
-5
25
110
260
20
80
220
530
Sulfur
ox ide s
-10
50
240
560
50
170
480
1,100
-------
off-site treatment/disposal, the decrease in each air emission under
this alternative could be equal to about 60 percent of that which
could occur under the proposed regulations. For a 1,000-mile
round-trip distance with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal, the
increase in each air emission under this alternative could be equal
to about 60 percent of that which could occur under the proposed
regulations. In this latter case, the additional increase in each
air emission would be less 0.04 percent of the total U.S. emissions
of that air pollutant and less than 2 percent of the total U.S. area
emissions of that pollutant from heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles.
Based upon the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, there could be on the order of 220 to 440 transportation-
related hazardous wastes spills annually by 1984. As previously
discussed, it is not possible to estimate the number of spills that
would have occurred if the additional 25 million metric tons of
hazardous wastes were not regulated under this alternative.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. As discussed in Section
7.1.4.1, there are several major ways that air contaminants can be
released by current hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal
practices:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through fugitive emissions from ground-based treatment/dis-
posal activities such as landfills, landfanns, and surface
impoundment s;
8-37
-------
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions generated by spills, fires, explosions, and
other accidents;
• Through the combustion of hazardous wastes by incineration or
open burning;
• Through fugitive emissions from other treatment activities;
• Through fugitive emissions from facility construction or
modification.
This alternative would affect the potential for the release of air
emissions from each of these sources as discussed below.
The additional 25 million metric tons of potentially hazardous
industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) estimated to be
brought under control of the regulations by this alternative would
now have to be stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with the
Section 3004 regulations. Since, as previously discussed, most of
these wastes would otherwise have been stored, treated, or disposed
by methods that are not likely to be enviromentally acceptable under
the Section 3004 regulations, the overall potential for the release
of hazardous air emissions from the management of such additional
wastes would be reduced as described in Section 7.1.4.1.
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose these
additional wastes under this alternative compared to the unregulated
methods that would have been used under the proposed regulations.
Such shifts would change both the types and quantities of air
8-38
-------
emissions generated from the management of specific wastes. For
example, a shift from landfilling to incineration of a particular
waste would result in the increased release of combustion products
and the reduced release of particulate matter and/or volatile gases.
Such shifts could, to an indeterminable extent, either enhance or
reduce the potential for reductions in specific air emissions under
this alternative. Furthermore, the construction of new facilities
could lead to increased releases of air emissions in the vicinity of
the facility and along any transport routes. Closure of existing
facilities could lead to reduced releases of air emissions in the
vicinity of the facility and along transport routes. The net result
could be both a localized and/or nationwide reduction in the re-
leases of many air contaminants from hazardous waste management and
a localized and/or nationwide increase in the total releases of other
air contaminants. Thus while there would most likely be improvements
in air quality due to this alternative, there could also be some lo-
calized degradation of air quality. All releases of air contaminants
and any localized degradation of air quality would, however, have to
be in compliance with all applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air
Act, OSHA standards, state standards, and Subtitle C standards).
The following two examples illustrate incidents that occurred
from the disposal of hazardous wastes that would not likely be
regulated under the proposed regulations but which would likely be
regulated under this alternative:
8-39
-------
• The hexachlorobenzene wastes, previously discussed under
transportation, were disposed in landfill items in southern
Louisiana; some of this relatively volatile waste was covered
following disposal, some was not. Soil and plant samples
taken near the landfill area showed a decreasing HCB content
as distance from the landfill increased. The HCB levels in
the plasma of landfill workers was reported to range from 2
to 345 ppb; the average level in a control was 0.5 ppb with a
high of 1.8 ppb.
• Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) is retained in sludge wastes
produced during polyvinyl chloride (PVC) processing.
Following disposal, the gaseous VCM escapes from the sludge
if not removed before disposal. A study by Markle et al.
(1976) indicated background air concentrations of about 0.1
to 0.3 ppm VCM exist at landfills where PVC sludge has been
disposed for several years. Peak concentrations on the order
of 1.0 ppm VCM were observed at normal breathing heights as
long as 24 hours after the PVC sludge deposits were covered.
Other air samples collected in the vicinity of a New Jersey
landfill indicated that vinyl chloride was continuously
emitted from the landfill; vinyl chloride levels as high as
0.4 ppm were found in a residential area one mile from the
landfill (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, 1978b.)
Additional requirements imposed by this alternative would
further reduce the potential for the release of air contaminants from
the management of both the additional 25 million metric tons of
hazardous wastes controlled under this alternative and the 40 million
metric tons also controlled under the proposed regulations. The
major impact would result from changing the application of the
Theshold Limit Values (TLV) from an air human health and environmen-
tal standard to a mandatory standard with which facilities must
always be in compliance, and the imposition of the TLV's as a maximum
8-40
-------
concentration not to be exceeded at any time rather than as a time-
weighted average not to be exceeded over an 8-hour day and 40-hour
week. To the extent that non-point source emissions, such as those
from landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, and storage areas
(see section 7.1.4.1 for specific examples), would exceed the TLV's
under the proposed regulations there would be further reductions in
the release of air contaminants under this alternative.
The reduction in the maximum vapor pressure (from 78 mm mercury
at 25 C to 53 mm mercury at 25 C) of wastes that may be placed in
storage tanks vented directly to the atmosphere or treated/disposed
in landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, or basins would fur-
ther reduce the potential for the release of emissions from the
management of these volatile wastes, as described in Section 7.1.4.1.
Examples of wastes constituents which have a vapor pressure between
53 and 78 mm mercury at 25 C and which could be identified as hazar-
dous under the expanded Section 3001 lists and characteristics
include boron tribromide, 1,2-dichloropropane, methacrylonitrile, and
thiophene.
The requirement that owners/operators of inactive storage,
treatment, or disposal sites would have to comply with the Section
3004 regulations would reduce the potential for releases of air
emissions from wastes remaining in such inactive sites.
8-41
-------
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities would have to be modified or would have to be constructed
under this alternative (see Section 8.3.2.4), there would be an in-
crease in fugitive dust and vehicular emissions from such construc-
tion activities. These emissions would be extremely site dependent
as previously indicated.
Climate. Localized impacts to temperatures, humidities, and
low-level wind patterns could occur in those areas in which addi-
tional facilities were to be constructed and operated. Any such
effects would be expected to be extremely localized.
8.3.1.5 Water Quality Impacts. The regulations under this
alternative would have the potential to further decrease adverse
water quality impacts results from generation, storage, transport,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes as compared to the
proposed regulations.
Many of the potential changes to groundwater and surface water
impacts would occur in much the same manner as the potential changes
discussed under air quality. To avoid redundant discussions, such
changes are briefly summarized below rather than discussed in detail,
Following this summary, additional major changes are described.
Any process modifications designed to further reduce the
quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated or to increase
recycling of such wastes would likely lead to changes in water
8-42
-------
effluents produced by such processes, thus changing the potential for
groundwater and surface water contamination by such effluents. To
the extent that additional generators were to be brought under the
control of the program through the expanded definition of hazardous
wastes and the elimination of generator exclusions, the potential for
such process modifications would be increased.
Increases in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would reduce the potential for
midnight dumping and spills and for resultant impacts to ground-
water and surface water. However, increases in the average distance
over which wastes are transported would increase the potential for
vehicular accidents and could off-set some of the potential for a
reduction in spills. Increased transport distances would also result
in increased vehicular emissions and in an increased potential for
oil, grease, and the hydrocarbon and heavy metals contained in
vehicular exhausts to be carried into waterways by run-off.
The major beneficial impacts to groundwater quality would result
from the elimination of the special waste standards for facilities
dealing with large volume wastes (e.g., phosphate slimes); from the
added requirement that inactive facilities'must comply with the
Section 3001 regulations; from the lower permeability required for
soil liners for landfills and surface impoundments; and from the
8-43
-------
control of at least an additional 25 million metric tons of poten-
tially hazardous wastes by 1984.
Under the proposed regulations there is a requirement that there
be no discharge from a hazardous waste storage, treatment, or
disposal facility to the groundwater, unless it can be demonstrated
that such discharge does not endanger Underground Drinking Water
Sources anywhere outside the facility's property. (Endangerment
means degradation such that the water exceeds a National Interim
Drinking Water Standard, or that it becomes necessary to treat the
water more than would otherwise have been necessary for any present
or future use.) This alternative would have the potential for
further reducing discharges of hazardous wastes to groundwater (and
thus degradation of groundwater) over and above those reductions
which would occur under the proposed regulations. This would result
both from further reductions in discharges from permitted facilities
and from an increase in the amount of wastes subject to regulation.
Section 7.1.5 describes the potential for reducing groundwater and
surface water impacts by control of these additional wastes.
It should be noted, however, that there could be shifts in the
type of methods used to treat/dispose the additional wastes regulated
under this alternative compared to the unregulated methods used under
the proposed regulations. As previously discussed, such shifts could
result in localized changes in the release of specific water
8-44
-------
pollutants under this alternative compared to the proposed re-
gulations .
A number of incidents cited in Appendix J involve wastes which
might not be controlled under the proposed regulations, but which
would be controlled under this alternative. For instance, the inci-
dent of groundwater contamination by arsenic, discussed in Section
7.1.5, would escape control under the proposed regulations
due to the small quantities of waste involved (less than 100 kilo-
grams per month) and due to the fact that the waste was generated by
farmers. This alternative would eliminate both of those exclusions
and would require such wastes to be manifested and sent to a permit-
ted disposal facility.
8.3.1.6 Public Health Impacts. Under this alternative, the
potential for providing public health benefits would be increased
relative to that of the proposed regulations. Section 7.1.6
discusses public health under the proposed regulations.
In addition to the 40 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous manufacturing waste which would be controlled under the
proposed regulations, another 25 million metric tons would be brought
under control by 1984. Most of this increase would be attributable
to the additional toxic wastes that would now be considered hazardous
under the Section 3001 regulations. Part of the increase would also
be due to the inclusion of additional infectious wastes and
radioactive wastes. Based upon current practices, a large portion of
8-45
-------
these wastes would have been transported, stored, treated, or
disposal in a manner that would not be acceptable under this
alternative. Due to the inclusion of these wastes, there would be
less potential for the release of air, water, and soil contaminants
and for fires, explosions, spills and other accidents. As a result,
there would be less of a potential for the occurrence of associated
public health incidents. Furthermore, the more stringent standards
for hazardous waste management under this alternative would reduce
the potential for release of contaminants and for the occurrence of
associated health problems from the management of those wastes
already controlled under the proposed regulations (see Sections
8.3.1.4, 8.3.1.5, and 8.3.2.1).
Although the characteristics and lists under the proposed
regulations identify many hazardous wastes, a number of other
potentially hazardous wastes would not be regulated. In particular,
many potentially toxic wastes which are suspected to be carcinogenic,
mutagenic, or teratogenic substances are not specifically listed and
could be excluded from regulation.
The following examples illustrate health incidents that occurred
from the management of hazardous wastes that would not likely be
regulated under the proposed regulations, but which would likely be
regulated under this alternative:
• In southern Louisiana, industrial wastes containing
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) were transported in uncovered trucks
8-46
-------
and left uncovered at landfills. In a sampling of residents
from 29 households situated along the transport route, the
average plasma level of HCB was 3.6 ppb, with a high of 23
ppb. The range for the landfill workers exposed to HCB was 2
to 345 ppb. In comparison, the average plasma HCB level in a
control group was 0.5 ppb, with a high of 1.8 ppb (Farmer et
al., 1976). HCB is considered to be a moderately toxic
substance. In cases where persons were exposed to HCB
through oral ingestion, over long periods, the health effects
observed included cases of permanent focal alopecia, corneal
opacity, atrophic hands, and hypertrichosis with dermal
lesians. Recovery usually followed termination of exposure,
but relapses were known to occur (Gosselin et al., 1977).
• As indicated in Section 8.3.1.4, vinyl chloride monomer (VCM)
is retained in sludges produced during polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) processing. Landfilling of such sludges has resulted
in release of the VCM. In 1974 the deaths of four workers in
the polyvinyl chloride processing industry was believed to
be attributable to VCM exposure. Since that time,
angiosarcoma of the liver, a rare and fatal tumor, has been
identified in at least 15 workers in U.S. PVC facilities. In
addition, other forms of cancer, certain nonmalignant liver
diseases, and acroosteolysis, a unique occupational disease,
have also been found in such workers.
• In 1972 in Perham, Minnesota, eleven out of 13 persons using
a well that had been dug on a construction site exhibited
symptoms of arsenic poisoning. Five of the employees became
ill with gastrointestinal symptoms and others exhibited
symptoms of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.
Two persons required hospitalization and treatment, including
one victim who lost the use of his legs for about six months
due to severe neuropathy. After analysis, it was discovered
that the affected well contained arsenic concentrations of up
to 21 ppm. The drinking water standard for arsenic is 0.05
ppm. Human deaths have been reported in South Africa due to
water containing 12 ppm arsenic. The source of the
contamination was traced back to the mid-1930"s when about 50
pounds of excess grasshopper bait containing arsenic trioxide
was buried by farmers in the area (see Section 8.3.1.5)
(State of Minnesota, 1977).
Due to the small amount of wastes involved in this latter
incident and the fact that the wastes were generated by farmers, this
waste would not be controlled under the proposed regulations. It
should be noted that nature and persistance of arsenic is a health
8-47
-------
hazard in even small quantities. Other waste materials that would be
brought under regulation by this alternative could also constitute a
threat to public health from disposal of small quantities of the
waste.
8.3.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts (relative to the proposed regulations) that could occur as a
result of implementation of this alternative are discussed in the
following sections. These changes would result primarily from the
control of an additional 25 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous industrial wastes plus other hazardous wastes; the
enactment of more stringent environmental requirements with regard to
storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and further
increases in hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal costs.
8.3.2.1 Physiography and Soil Impacts. The major change in
impacts to physiography and soils under this alternative would result
from bringing an additional 25 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous manufacturing wastes under regulation annually by 1984,
from the elimination of exclusions for other hazardous waste
generators (e.g., farmers and retailers), and from the enactment of
more stringent regulations for the storage, treatment, and disposal
of "special wastes' (e.g., utility wastes).
All such wastes would have to be stored, treated, and disposed
in accordance with the Section 3004 regulations. To the extent that
these wastes would otherwise have been stored, treated, or disposed
by methods which would not be acceptable under the Section 3004
8-48
-------
regulations, the potential for soil contamination would be reduced as
described in Section 7.2.1.
Disposal of the large volumes of "special wastes' that could be
brought under control by this alternative could create a significant
demand for low permeability clays. Such a demand could be especially
significant in areas having a high density of such hazardous waste
generators, such as west-central Florida which produces over 200
million metric tons of phosphate rock overburden and gypsum slimes
from phosphoric acid production (see Section 6.1.2). Local clay
supplies in such areas may not be sufficient to meet the demand.
Even where sufficient clays are available, their extraction would
result in severe alternation of local topography.
Increases in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would reduce the potential for
midnight dumping and spills and for resultant impacts to soils.
However, increases in the average distance over which wastes are
transported would increase the potential for vehicular accidents and
could off-set some of the potential for a reduction in spills.
Increased transport would also result in increased vehicular
emissions and in an increased potential for oil, grease, and the
hydrocarbons and heavy metals contained in such emissions to be
carried onto soils by run-off.
An example of a soil contamination incident associated with
improper transportation and disposal of a waste that would likely be
regulated under this alternative, but not under the proposed
8-49
-------
regulations, occurred in Louisiana in 1972. This incident, which
resulted in contamination of soil, area residents, vegetation, and
beef cattle in a 200 square-mile area, is discussed in Section
8.3.1.4.
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities would have to be constructed to handle the potential
increase in the shortfall of capacity (See Section 8.3.2.4), there
would be a potential for further impacts to soils and physiography.
Additional land and soils could also be disturbed by conjunctive
developments such as construction of roads, power lines, pipelines,
and housing. However; all these additional land requirements would
be offset to the extent that land would also be required for the
storage, treatment, and disposal of these additional wastes under
current practices. Potential impacts to soils and physiography from
construction would be essentially the same as those described in
Section 7.2.1.
8.3.2.2. Biological Impacts. Existing vegetation would be
destroyed on the additional lands disturbed by construction and
operation of hazardous waste management facilities and conjunctive
developments. Present plant succession would cease on such lands.
Following rehabilitation of the site after closure of the facility,
the plant community on the disturbed areas would likely differ in
species composition and diversity.
These construction and operational activities could also result
in the direct destruction of animal habitat. Some of this
8-50
-------
destruction would be permanent; other areas would be impacted only
temporarily and would, over a period of time, recover in value as a
habitat. However, the habitat and, consequently, the wildlife
species composition following such recovery might be different from
that which existed prior to disturbance of the area. In addition,
the direct destruction of some wildlife could also result from
activities which excavate, bury, overturn, clear, or grade large
areas of previously undisturbed terrestrial habitat. While direct
mortality would be rare to big game and other animals which have the
ability to flee, many small animals with limited ranges may be killed
by construction and operation activities. Operations which cause
additional dewatering of aquatic habitats would result in the death
of fishes, aquatic invertebrates, and amphibians in certain life
stages. Furthermore, any increase in transport distances would
increase the potential for road kills and, possibly, spills that
could disrupt aquatic ecosystems.
These potential adverse impacts from land disturbance would,
however, be offset by several potentially beneficial effects of the
regulations under this alternative. An additional 25 million metric
tons per year of potentially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other
hazardous wastes) would be brought under regulatory control by 1984.
Based on current practices, a large portion of these wastes would
have been stored, transported, treated, dumped, or disposed in a
3-51
-------
manner that would not be environmentally acceptable under this alter-
native and would have had the potential to create the types of im-
pacts dicussed in Section 7.2.2. By bringing these additional wastes
under control of the program, the potential for such impacts would be
greatly reduced. It should be noted, however, that in bringing these
wastes under regulation, there could be shifts in the methods used to
treat dispose the wastes as described in Section 8.3.1.4. The
potential for beneficial impacts to the biological environment would
be modified to the extent of any such shift.
The following example illustrates an incident that occurred from
the disposal of a hazardous waste that might not be controlled under
the proposed regulations but which would likely be controlled under
this alternative:
• Waste oil containing dioxin was sprayed in horse arenas and
on an adjacent road in Missouri for dust control. This
resulted in the death of six dogs, 12 cats, at least 63
horses, and a large number of birds, rodents, and other
animals, there were also 26 abortions and six birth
abnormalities among horses from this incident (Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, 1975b).
For both the additional wastes to be regulated under this
alternative and for those wastes that would already be regulated
under the proposed regulations, the potential for water quality
impacts, and subsequent adverse impacts to both aquatic ecosystems
and wildlife using contaminated water supplies, would be further re-
duced by the requirements for the use of less permeable liners for
8-52
-------
landfills and surface impoundments. The potential for air quality
impacts, and subsequent adverse biological impacts, would be further
reduced as discussed in Section 8.3.1.4. Furthermore, the potential
for soil contaminant, and subsequent adverse impacts to biological
productivity, would be further decreased as discussed in Section
8.3.2.1.
The requirement for the preparation of a Supplementary Environ-
mental Analysis (SEA) as part of the permit process would provide an
additional means for mitigating or preventing adverse impacts to the
biological environment. The SEA would require that the permit appli-
cant analyze the impact of and methods proposed to comply with the
following federal statutes and regulations: the Endangered Species
Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
8.3.2.3 Social Impacts.
Demographic Impacts. Additional industrial plant closings
or relocations due to the increased costs under this alternative
could lead to additional populations shifts as described in Sec-
tion 7.2.3.1. In addition, there would be an increased need for
construction workers due to the increased facility modification and
construction under this alternative; there would be an increase in
the number of personnel required for hazardous wastes management
activities due to the additional operational requirements and the
3-53
-------
increase in wastes being regulated; and there would be an increase
in the number of personnel required to administer and enforce the
regulations due to the increase in both the quantity of hazardous
wastes and the number of generators, disposers, and permittees being
regulated. Additional population shifts could occur in response to
these increased personnel requirements as discussed in Section
7.2.3.1. Any such shifts would be expected to be small on a national
scale; however, there could be localized instances of a relatively
large influx of workers, particularly for hazardous waste management
facilities located near very small' towns, or there could be located
instances of a relatively large outflux of workers, especially in
a case where a plant being closed constituted the primary source of
employment in an area.
Based upon a minimum requirement of 500 workers to handle
(store, treat, or dispose) a million metric tons of waste per year,
it is estimated that at least 32,500 such workers could be required
nationally by 1984; this would represent over a 60 percent increase
in this requirement compared to the proposed regulations. Approxi-
mately 4,200 to 8,100 of these workers could be required at off-
site facilities; about 24,400 to 28,300 of these workers could be re-
quired at on-site facilities. This would represent over a 60 percent
increase at both types of facilities. To the extent that personnel
would still be required to manage these additional wastes even if
not regulated, there would be fewer new workers required nationally.
8-54
-------
Social Conditions. The increased public health benefits to be
derived from this alternative would provide increased social benefits
as discussed in Section 7.2.3.2. Reductions in chronic and acute
health effects would also reduce the social and economic costs asso-
ciated with such effects, e.g., increased mortality, birth defects,
lowered productivity, lost wages.
The increased potential for population shifts under this alter-
native would increase the impacts associated with such shifts. As
discussed in 7.2.3.2, any large, rapid, population influxes could
cause inflation, strains on the existing infrastructure, social ten-
sions, changes in daily living patterns, and increased physical and
mental disorders. Large, rapid, population outfluxes could cause
problems in maintaining the existing infrastructure, deflation, addi-
tional unemployment, social stress, changes in daily living patterns,
and increased mental and physical health problems.
Public opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous
waste management facilities could be further exacerbated by the
increased requirements for such facilities under this alternative.
However, this opposition could be mitigated by the more stringent
environmental requirements under this alternative and by the
requirements for the preparation of a Supplementary Environmental
Analysis as part of the permit review process and for permits to be
renewed every 5 years rather than not at all.
8-55
-------
Increases in the necessary construction of hazardous waste
management facilities and in the off-site transport of hazardous
wastes could cause several adverse social effects. Aesthetic im-
pacts would occur from the construction of new facilities. Noise
levels would increase both in the vicinity of new facilities and
along access routes to such facilities. Any increased transport
of hazardous wastes would also increase the potential for vehicular
accidents. Based upon the methodology and assumptions discussed
in Section 7.2.3.2, it is estimated that there could be about 170
additional vehicular accidents annually in 1984 in the case of 13
percent off-site shipment and about 540 additional vehicular acci-
dents annually in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment. This
would represent about a 63 percent increase in vehicular accidents
in both cases compared to the proposed regulations. The requirement
for the preparation of a Supplementary Environmental Analysis as part
of the permit process would provide an additional means under this
alternative for mitigating the above types of adverse impacts. The
Supplementary Environmental Analysis would require that the permit
applicant describe such factors as proposed access routes; the
promixity of the proposed site to populations centers; and the
methods to be used to minimize noise, dust, and odors associated with
the construction and operation of the proposed facility.
The requirement that inactive sites be required to comply with
the Section 3004 requirements cause adverse social and economic
8-56
-------
impacts. People who own property which contains an inactive hazard-
ous waste disposal site could be required to comply with the Section
3004 regulations even if they brought the property after all disposal
activities had ceased at the site and were unaware of such former
activities. The need to comply with the Subtitle C regulations in
such cases would undoubtedly be tested in the courts.
8.3.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity.
Process Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
described in Section 7.2.4.1, it is estimated that about 8.6 million
metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes could be shipped off-site
for treatment/disposal in 1980 and that between 8.5 and 16.3 million
metric tons could be shipped off-site in 1984. This would represent
an increase of approximately 3.3 million metric tons of regulated
wastes required to be sent to permitted off-site facilities in 1980
and an increase of between 3.3 and 6.3 million metric tons of regu-
lated wastes required to be sent to permitted off-site facilities in
1984.
Based upon the estimate 6.2 million metric tons of environmen-
tally adequate off-site capacity that could be utilized in 1980,
there could be a shortfall of 2.7 million metric tons of off-site
capacity in 1980.* Without any growth in environmentally adequate
*A11 estimates of shortfall are based upon a 90 percent utilization
rate for the additional capacity required. The indicated shortfall
is thus the difference between the quantity of wastes requiring
treatment disposal and the utilizable capacity, all divided by 0.9.
3-57
-------
off-site capacity between 1977 and 1980, this shortfall could be 4.2
million metric tons. It is estimated in Section 7.2.4.1 that under
the proposed regulations there could be sufficient off-site capacity
for hazardous industrial wastes. Based upon a utilizable facility
capacity of 60,000 metric tons per year, approximately 45 additional
permitted off-site facilities could be required in 1980 in the former
case and approximately 70 additional permitted off-site facilities
could be required in the latter case.
Based upon the estimated 7.7 million metric tons of environmen-
tally adequate off-site capacity that could be utilized in 1984, in
the case of 13 percent off-site shipment there could be a shortfall
of 0.9 million metric tons of environmental adequate off-site
capacity in 1984. Without any growth in environmentally adequate
off-site capacity between 1977 and 1984, this shortfall could be 3.2
million metric tons. It is estimated in Section 7.2.4.1 that there
could be sufficient off-site capacity for the treatment disposal of
hazardous industrial wastes under the proposed regulations in both
instances. Since less off-site capacity would be required in 1984
than in 1980 in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment, no
additional permitted off-site facilities would be required in 1984.
In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there could be
a shortfall of 9.6 million metric tons of environmentally adequate
off-site capacity in 1984. Without any growth in environmentally
adequate off-site capacity between 1977 and 1984, this shortfall
8-58
-------
off-site capacity 11.9 million metric tons. It is estimated in
Section 7.2.4.1 that under the proposed regulations there could be a
shortfall of 2.6 million metric tons in the former case and a
shortfall of 4.9 million metric tons in the latter case.
Approximately 160 additional permitted off-site facilities could be
required in 1984 in the former case and approximately 200 additional
permitted off-site facilities in the latter case. Based upon the
estimated shortfall under the proposed regulations, only 115 of the
necessary permitted facilities would
be attributable to this alternative in the former case and only 120
would be attributable to this alternative in the latter case.
Data are not available to estimate potential shortfalls in envi-
ronmentally adequate on-site process capacity. Industrial generators
could send 46.7 million metric tons of hazardous wastes to permitted
on-site treatment/disposal facilities in 1980 and between 46.8 and
54.6 million metric tons of hazardous wastes to permitted on-site
facilities in 1984.* This would represent an increase of approxi-
mately 18.0 million metric tons of regulated wastes required to be
sent to permitted on-site facilities in 1980 and an increase of be-
tween 18.0 and 21.0 million metric tons of regulated wastes required
to be sent to permitted on-site facilities in 1984.
*The remainder of the hazardous waste would be recycled or sent to
resource recovery operations, both on-site and off-site (see Table
5-10).
8-59
-------
It should noted that more stringent treatment/disposal requirements
under this alternative would likely result in a decrease in the
existing on-site capacity. Any such decrease would further increase
any potential for a shortfall in on-site capacity.
Section 7.2.4.1 discusses other factors that could affect the
size of the potential shortfall in both on-site and off-site process
capacity. In addition to those factors, the potentially large quan-
tity of 'special wastes' that could be hazardous would significantly
exacerbate any shortfall. Also, the more stingent requirement under
this alternative could reduce the number of sites at which facilities
could be located.
Physical Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
discussed in Section 7.2.4.2, relative to the proposed regulations
there could be a further decrease of approximately 1.3 million metric
tons in the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during
the period from 1980 through 1984, assuming 13 percent shipment off-
site in 1984, and there could be a further increase of 6.1 million
metric tons in the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site
during this period, assuming 25 percent shipment off-site in 1984.*
Up to 250 to 500 fewer acres could thus be committed to off-
site landfilling during this period in the case of 13 percent
*In this estimate, it is assumed that under the proposed regulations
there would be 15 percent off-site shipment for those hazardous
wastes that would not be regulated under the proposed regulations
but which would be regulated under this alternative.
8-60
-------
off-site shipment and up to 1,200 to 2,400 additional acres could be
committed to off-site landfilling during this period in the case of
25 percent off-site shipment. In the former case, after 1984 there
could be 100 to 200 fewer acres required off-site annually compared
to total requirements under the proposed regulations. In the lat-
ter case, after 1984 there could be 500 to 1,000 additional acres
required off-site annually compared to the total requirements under
the proposed regulations. In all instances there could be commen-
surate change in on-site land requirements.
For purposes of comparison, based upon an average, secure, com-
mercial landfill size of 270 acres (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, 1977), these land requirements
would be equivalent to siting one to two fewer off-site secure
landfills by the end of 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment. In this case, the equivalent of less than one fewer
off-site secure landfill could have to be sited annually after 1984.
The land requirements would be equivalent to siting five to nine
additional off-site secure landfills by the end of 1984 in the case
of 25 percent off-site shipment. In this case, the equivalent of two
to four additional off-site landfills could have to be sited annually
after 1984.
8.3.2.5 Land Use Impacts. More total land, off-site plus
on-site, would be required under this alternative than under the
proposed regulations. This land would be required both for the
construction of the permitted facilities necessary for the storage,
8-61
-------
treatment, and disposal of the additional hazardous wastes regulated
under this alternative and for such conjunctive developments as
construction of roads, power lines, and pipelines. However, as
indicated in Section 8.3.2.4, in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment there would be fewer regulated hazardous industrial wastes
sent off-site by 1984 under this alternative than there would be
total hazardous wastes sent off-site under the proposal regulations.*
Thus, while more total land would be required under this alternative,
in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment there could be less
off-site land use and more on-site land use. In the case of 25
percent off-site shipment, there would be more regulated industrial
wastes sent off-site by 1984 under this alternative than there would
be total hazardous wastes sent off-site under the proposed
regulations. Thus, there could be more off-site land use and less
on-site land use in this case. Estimates of potential changes in
off-site land requirements for landfills (and commensurate changes in
on-site land requirements) are presented in Section 8.3.2.4.
In should be noted that while shifts to on-site land use could
reduce off-site land requirements in the short term, such shifts
could also accelerate the exhaustion of the relatively limited on-
site physical capacity and could result in increased pressures for
*The total hazardous wastes consist of those wastes regulated under
the proposed regulations plus the additional wastes that would not
be regulated under the proposed regulations but which would be re-
gulated under this alternative.
8-62
-------
off-site facilities in the long term. However, additional increases
in resource conservation and recovery and in treatment practices
leading to volume reduction (e.g. , incineration) under this alterna-
tive would also provide a greater potential for reducing total land
requirements, both on-site and off-site, in the long term.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporar-
ily, on all land converted to hazardous waste management uses. Some
agricultural, grazing, forest, recreational, and other lands could be
removed from their existing uses. Following closure of the hazardous
waste management facility and any rehabilitation of the site accord-
ing to the closure and long-term care plans, the land would be avail-
able for new or, in some cases, previously existing uses. Sites at
which hazardous wastes have been disposed would be precluded follow-
ing post-close-out care from certain future uses (such as residen-
tial, recreational and grazing uses, and any activities requiring
excavation). To the extent that the regulations under this alter-
native would prevent other lands from being contaminated by improper
dumping, treatment, or disposal of the hazardous wastes not regulated
under the proposed regulations, there would be off-setting land use
benefits. Section 7.2.5 describes the types of land use benefits
that could occur.
8.3.2.6 Water Use Impacts. As previously discussed, the poten-
tial for the degradation of groundwater and surface water would be
8-63
-------
further reduced under this alternative. To the extent that degrada-
tion of water quality would have resulted in a decreased supply of
surface water or groundwater being available to or all consumers in
the water use area, there would be an additional supply of ground-
water or surface water potentially available to such consumers and
fewer restrictions on the productive use of such surface water and
groundwater supplies.
The additional on-site and off-site permitted hazardous waste
management facilities that could be required would be additional con-
sumers of the available water supply. This water could be required
for such purposes as dust control, soil compaction, biological treat-
ment, wet scrubbers for incinerators, and site rehabilitation. This
additional water requirement would be reduced to the extent that
water would otherwise have been consumed in the management of the
additional wastes now regulated under this alternative.
8.3.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery. The major changes
in resource conservation and recovery would result from bringing an
additional 25 million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes
under the Subtitle C regulations annually by 1984 and from the
further increased hazardous waste generation, transportation, stor-
age, treatment, and disposals costs associated with the more strin-
gent requirements under this alternative. As discussed in Section
7.2.7, these changes would provide increased incentives for gen-
erators to modify processes so as to enable increased recycling of
8-64
-------
hazardous waste as process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of
hazardous wastes generated by specific processes, or to change the
nature of wastes produced. In addition the requirement that the
permitting authority could require that wastes which could be re-
coverable in the foreseeable future would have to be land disposed
in a segregated manner would increase the potential for future re-
source recovery from such wastes. Chapter 5 presents examples of
the potential for increased resource recovery from and recycling
of hazardous wastes.
8.3.2.8 Energy Use. Energy use would be impacted under this
alternative by changes in facility construction, facility operation,
hazardous waste transport, and resource conservation and recovery.
The additional facility modification and construction that would be
necessary under this alternative would result in increased energy
use. The requirement for decreased permeability of landfill and
surface impoundment liners and for reduced non-point source air
emissions from these facilities would increase the energy use
required for construction of such facilities.
There would also be increased energy use associated with re-
quired changes in facility operation and closure. Management of the
additional 25 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes re-
gulated under this alternative would require increased energy use as
discussed in Section 7.2.8. The additional 20-year period over which
post close-out care could be required would increase the energy use
8-65
-------
associated with such care. Additional energy could also be required
for control equipment used to insure that the non-point source air
emission standard was not violated.
Previously discussed changes in resource recovery would lead to
other changes in energy use. While any increase in resource recovery
would likely require the initial input of additional energy, there
could be a net savings in energy from recovery operations as dis-
cussed in Section 7.2.8.
The changes in energy use from the additional transport of haz-
ardous wastes would depend upon such factors as shifts in the por-
tion of wastes managed on-site and off-site and changes in transport
distances. Based upon the methodology and assumptions described in
Section 7.2.8, Table 8-6 contains estimates of the magnitude of the
potential change in energy use (compared to that under the proposed
regulations) that could occur annually from changes in transport
distances and shifts in off-site and on-site treatment disposal.
The estimated change in energy use under this alternative ranges
from an annual decrease equivalent to approximately 10,000 barrels of
crude oil for a 100 mile round-trip distance with 13 percent off-site
treatment/disposal to an annual increase equivalent to approximately
1.4 million barrels of crude oil for a 1,000-mile round-trip distance
with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal.
8.3.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. To the extent that
unregulated treatment/disposal of the additional wastes brought under
8-66
-------
TABLE 8-6
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN FUEL CONSUMPTION IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT OF
ADDITIONAL HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
00
Wastes Round- trip
transported distance
off-site (miles)
13 percent 100
200
500
1,000
25 percent 100
200
500
1,000
Change in fuel consumption
(million gallons)
-0.5
3
11
26
2
8
23
54
Crude oil
equivalent *
(1,000 barrels)
-10
60
290
660
60
200
580
1,400
*Assumes 95 percent efficiency in producing diesel fuel from crude oil.
-------
control by this alternative would have disturbed, destroyed, or
intruded upon special interest points, there would be a commensurate
reduction in such adverse effects as discussed in Section 7.2.9.
However, the additional lands, especially off-site lands, that
would be disturbed by the increased requirements for facility
construction and associated conjunctive developments under this
alternative would increase the potential for the disturbance
and/or destruction of such special interest points as sites of
aesthetic, archaeological, historical, paleontogical, or recreational
value.
The requirement for the preparation of a Supplementary Environ-
mental Analysis as part of the permit process would provide an ad-
ditional means for mitigating such adverse impacts. The SEA would
require the permit applicant to analyze the impact of and methods
proposed to comply within the following Federal statutes and pub-
lished regulations, if applicable: The Endangered Species Act; The
National Historic Preservation Act; The Historic Sites, Buildings,
and Antiquities Act; The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; and The
Coastal Zone Management Act.
8.4 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the Lesser Degree of
Public Health and Environmental Protection Alternative
This section discusses the potential changes in impacts
(relative to those of the proposed regulations) that could occur as a
8-68
-------
result of promulgation of the regulations contained in the Lesser
Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection Alternative. To
avoid considerable duplication in the presentation, potential impacts
that would not be changed under this alternative are not repeated.
Only major changes in potential impacts are discussed.
8.4.1 Primary Impacts. The major changes to primary impacts
that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative
are discussed in the following sections:
• Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated;
• Changes to Generation, Transportation, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures;
• Administrative Changes;
• Air Impacts;
• Water Impacts;
• Public Health Impacts.
8.4.1.1 Hazardous Waste to be Regulated. Under this
alternative, the toxicity characteristic and wastes whose listing is
based solely on toxicity or Administrator's judgment (AD) would be
removed from the Section 3001 regulations identifying hazardous
wastes and 'special wastes' (e.g., utility wastes and oil drilling
muds and brines) would be specifically excluded from regulation.
Additionally, this alternative would increase the generator limit
from 100 kilograms to 1,000 kilograms per month. EPA staff estimates
are that eliminating the toxicity criteria and the wastes whose
8-69
-------
listing is based upon toxicity would result in the exclusion of about
40 percent of the manufacturing wastes which would be regulated under
the proposed regulations. Further, the 'special wastes' and some
portion of the other large volume wastes discussed in Section 6.1.2
(e.g., utility fly ash and toxic dredge materials) which may have
been included under the proposed regulations, would be excluded,
either directly (i.e., fly ash) or through elimination of the
toxicity criteria (i.e., dredge materials).
Based upon the procedures described in Chapter 6 and 7 and
Appendices H and I, it is estimated that approximately 20 and 24
million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes could be
controlled under this alternative in 1980 and 1984, respectively.
These estimates include an adjustment for wastes that would not be
regulated due to the change in the generator limit. Table 8-7 shows
the estimated quantity of hazardous manufacturing wastes and the
number of generating establishments that could be excluded from
regulation based upon a generator limit of 1,000 kilograms per
month (due to the reduction in wastes considered hazardous under
this alternative, some of these generators would also be excluded
even without the increase in the generator limit). In addition, an
unknown portion of the potentially hazardous non-manufacturing wastes
discussed in Section 7.1.1 would also be excluded from regula-
tion.
8-70
-------
TABLE 8-7
ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES AND
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION AT A
GENERATOR LIMIT OF 1,000 KILOGRAMS PER MONTR
00
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
National
total
Number of
manufacturing
establishments
excluded
13,300
34,200
16,100
28,300
35,500
14,800
8,300
4,400
23,900
8,000
186,500
Percent of
total manufacturing
establishments
excluded
57
65
57
62
52
61
58
68
63
70
60
Hazardous
manufacturing
wastes excluded
(1000 itietric
tons /year)
28
68
32
50
70
29
17
10
50
17
371
Percent of total
hazardous
manufacturing
wastes excluded
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
2
2
2
<;L
-------
There could thus be a decrease of at least 14 and 16 million
metric tons in potentially hazardous wastes brought under regulatory
control in 1980 and 1984, respectively, as compared to the proposed
regulations. This would represent approximately a 40 percent de-
crease in regulated hazardous industrial wastes in both years. The
hazardous wastes controlled under this alternative would represent
about 6 and 7 percent, respectively, of the total annual industrial
solid waste stream (hazardous and non-hazardous) currently estimated
to be generated.
8.4.1.2 Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal Practices. Fewer changes to generation, transport,
storage, treatment, and disposal practices would be likely to occur
under this alternative due to the lesser amount of wastes being
regulated; due to the enactment of less stringent environmental
requirements; due to resultant reductions in storage, treatment, and
disposal costs; and due to the imposition of fewer procedural and
operational requirements.
Generation. Under this alternative, fewer generators would be
required to comply with the generator regulations. Those generators
specifically excluded from regulation under this alternative include:
those whose generate between 100 and 1,000 kilogram per month of any
identified hazardous wastes; those who store hazardous wastes on-site
for 90 days to 1 year prior to off-site disposal; those who generate
8-72
-------
only 'special wastes'; and those who generate only wastes identified
as toxic under the proposed characteristics and listings. Section
8.4.1.3 presents estimates of the number of generators to be excluded
from regulation. These generators would not be required to change
their existing practices and procedures, as is indicated in Section
7.1.4.1, with regard to manifesting, reporting, recordkeeping, con-
tainerization, and labeling. In addition, those generators who would
still be regulated under this alternative would be subject to reduced
manifesting and reporting requirements, as indicated in Table 4-3.
Furthermore, due to likely reductions under this alternative
both in hazardous waste generation, transport, storage, treatment,
and disposal costs relative to those of the proposal regulations and
in the number of regulated generators, there would be a lesser incen-
tive for generators to modify their processes so as to reduce and/or
change the types and amounts of hazardous wastes generated by the
process and to enable the increased recycling of hazardous wastes as
process feedstocks.
Transport. Due to the lesser quantity of wastes subject to the
generator regulations, fewer transporters would likely have to comply
with the transports regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.2. As a
result there would likely be increased instances of midnight dumping
and of spills from the transport of these additional wastes.
Elimination of the requirement that generators report on hazardous
wastes not received at the designated facility would further increase
8-73
-------
the potential for midnight dumping. Any decreases in the average
distance -over which hazardous wastes a^re transported -under this
alternative could lead to a decrease in vehicular accidents. This
would off-set some of the potential for an increase in spills.
The average distance over which hazardous wastes are transported
would be likely to decrease due to several factors. The less
stringent treatment and disposal requirements under this alternative
would likely increase both, the amount of existing on-site and
off-site treatment/disposal capacity that could be permitted and the
number of sites acceptable for construction of new facilities. Any
such increases in available facilities and sites would potentially
lead to reduced transport distances. Furthermore, increases in
permittable on-site treatment/disposal capacity could result in fewer
wastes being sent off-site for treatment/disposal. Decreases in
treatment/ disposal costs could also reduce the distance over which
wastes could be economically transported for resource recovery
purposes. Elimination of the requirement that consolidated wastes
not requiring a manifest must be delivered to a permitted facility
would likely decrease the average distance such wastes would be
transported. However, any reduction in on-site resource conservation
and recovery could increase the quantity of wastes sent off-site.
The replacement of the proposed Section 3002 manifest require-
ments with a new manifest requirement that all shipments (interstate
8-74
-------
and intrastate) must be accompanied by shipping paper/bill of lading
which designates delivery to a permitted storage, treatment, or dis-
posal facility and which meets the requirements of the DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations would further reduce changes to existing trans-
port practices. The use of such delivery documents is now required
under Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulations for transport-
ers engaged in interstate commerce and under DOT regulations for the
interstate transport of hazardous materials; as previously indicated,
some states have also applied the DOT regulations to intrastate
shipments of hazardous materials. Thus, except for the requirements
that the shipping paper/bill of lading must designate delivery to a
permitted facility, those transporters now required to prepare
shipping papers/bills of lading would not have to modify their
existing practices. However, those transporters who make intrastate
shipments or who do not transport hazardous wastes that are also
identified as DOT hazardous materials would still have to modify
their practices. Similarly, the reduction in required recordkeeping
times would not likely affect those transporters currently required
to prepare shipping papers/ bills of lading since, as indicated in
Appendix E, most such transporters keep such records for at least 3
years due to various existing requirements.
The elimination of the emergency spill requirements for notifi-
cation and clean up would also not affect transporters carrying in-
terstate and some intrastate shipments of hazardous wastes that are
8-75
-------
also identified as DOT hazardous materials. Such transporters are
currently required to report and clean up such spills. Also, any
spill by any transporter that could threaten navigable waters or
which are into or upon navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or
contiguous zones, or which may affect applicable natural resources
would still have to be reported and cleaned up under Section 311 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Storage. Due to the lesser number of generators and quantities
of wastes regulated under this alternative, it is likely that fewer
storage facilities would have to comply with the storage regulations
discussed in Section 7.1.2.3. In addition, the increase in the per-
mit exclusion from 90 days to one year for generators who store on-
site prior to off-site disposal would further reduce the number of
generators subject to the storage regulations.
As a result, fewer storage facilities would be required to be
modified or to be closed. Existing storages practices would not
have to be changed at facilities excluded from regulation under this
alternative. In addition, those storage facilities that would still
be regulated under this alternative would be subject to reduced
construction, operational, and closure requirements as indicated in
Table 4-3 and would have to make fewer changes to existing practices.
Treatment/Disposal. Due to the lesser number of generators and
quantities of wastes regulated under this alternative, it is likely
that fewer treatment/disposal facilities would have to comply with
8-76
-------
the treatment/disposal regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.4.
As a result, fewer of these facilities would be closed because they
could not comply with the regulations or could not be economically
modified. In addition, fewer regulated facilities would be required
to be modified; in those cases requiring modification, the changes
would likely be less extensive. Regulated facilities would have to
make fewer changes in their existing operation and closure practices.
Due to the less stringent requirements, the associated reduced
costs, the associated reductions in costs, and fewer wastes and
generators being regulated, there would also be a lesser potential
for treatment of wastes for such purposes as volume reduction, energy
recovery, and resource recovery. Furthermore, to the extent that
fewer existing on-site facilities were closed and fewer wastes and
generators were regulated, there would be a potential for fewer
wastes to be sent off-site for treatment/disposal. However,
reductions in on-site resource conservation and recovery practices,
as described above, could off-set such a change in wastes sent
off-site.
8.4.1.3 Administrative Changes. Several changes in the admin-
istration of the hazardous waste management program would result from
promulgation of the regulations under this alternative. These
regulations would affect:
• State administration of the program;
• Overlapping Federal and state programs;
• Number of generators required to comply with the regulations;
8-77
-------
• Number of transporters required to comply with the
regulations;
• Number of storers, treaters, and disposers required
to obtain permits;
• Paperwork requirements.
State Administration of the Program. Several factors would
increase the potential for states to apply for full, partial, or
interim authorization under this alternative. Elimination of all
restrictions on granting of interim authorization, except the
Memorandum of Understanding, would make every state eligible to be
granted interim authorization. The elimination of restrictions on
granting full or partial authorization to states with more stringent
standards would also enable additional states, including the six with
importation bans identified in Section 7.1.1.3, to qualify for full
or partial authorization. In addition, reductions in the quantities
and types of wastes considered hazardous and the raising of the
generator limit would decrease the number of potential generators,
transporters, storers, treaters and disposers that the state would
have to regulate. This, plus the reductions in reporting require-
ments, would lead to further reductions for administrative and
manpower requirements for authorized states and could increase the
willingness of states to apply for authorization.
However, the elimination of the toxicity characteristic could
off-set any potential for increased state authorization. If enough
8-78
-------
states felt that the regulations were inadequate without the
inclusion of toxic wastes, there could be an overall reduction
in authorized states under this alternative.
Overlapping Federal and State Programs. Since Subtitle C
prohibits any state from enacting less stringent regulations than
those in the Federal program, the potential for overlapping Federal
and state programs would be increased under this alternative. The
less stringent standards and reduced amount of hazardous waste con-
trolled under this alternative would increase the potential benefits
to, and thus the likelihood of, a state enacting a more stringent,
independent, hazardous waste program. It is not possible at this
time to estimate the number of states, if any- that would wish to
have independent programs in addition to the Federal program under
this alternative.
Number of Generators Required to Comply With the Regulations.
As indicated in Section 8.4.1.2, there would be an increase in the
number of generators required to comply with the regulations. Under
the proposed regulation, 430,000 to 460,000 generators are identified
as potentially having to comply with the regulations (see Section
7.1.3.3).
The increase in the generator limit could result in approximate-
ly 105,000 additional manufacturing generators being excluded from
compliance with the regulations (see Tables 7-2 and 8-7). The total
number of manufacturing generators excluded would represent about 60
8-79
-------
percent of all manufacturing generators; however, they are estimated
to generate less than 1 percent of the total hazardous manufacturing
wastes. Some additional manufacturing generators could also be
excluded by the elimination of the toxicity characteristic and
listings, however data are not sufficient to estimate the number of
additional exclusions. EPA staff estimates are that most, if not
all, of the 210,000 automotive service stations and 5,800 research
facilities that could to be potential generators under the proposed
regulations could be excluded by the increased generator limit under
this alternative. An indeterminable number of other generators could
also be excluded. Thus, on the order of 110,000 to 140,000
generators within the categories identified could be required to
comply with the regulations under this alternative. This would
represent approxi-mately a 70 percent reduction in the number of
generators being regulated.
Number of Transporters Required to Comply with the Regulations.
The decreased amounts of regulated hazardous wastes that would poten-
tially be transported off-site would likely result in a decrease in
the number of transporters carrying hazardous wastes. However, since
the number of such transporters under the proposed regulations is not
known, it is not possible to estimate the decrease that could occur
under this alternative.
Number of Storers, Treaters, and Disposers Required to Obtain
Permits. Since there are no permit exclusions under the proposed
8-80
-------
regulations for storage, treatment, or disposal facilities that
handle only small quantities of hazardous wastes, all facilities
storing, treating, or disposing hazardous wastes would be required to
obtain a permit under the proposed regulation, with the exception of
generators who store for less than 90 days prior to off-site
transport. Thus, with one additional exception, only those
facilities that handle wastes which are classified as hazardous under
this alternative, would be excluded from the requirements to obtain a
permit under this alternative. The exception is that generators who
store hazardous wastes between 91 days and one year would also be
excluded under this alternative. Data are not available to estimate
the reduction in potential permittees under this alternative.
Paperwork Requirements. Based upon the estimated number of off-
site shipments (see Section 8.4.2.4), the industrial generators could
have to prepare between 200,000 and 420,000 shipping papers/bills of
lading annually by 1984. This would represent about a 40 percent
decrease in the number prepared under the proposed regulations. The
aggregated generators, transporters, and hazardous waste management
facility owner/operators could each have to keep between 200,000 and
420,000 shipping papers/bills of lading in storage on an annual
basis. This would represent about an 80 percent decrease in record-
keeping requirements as compared to the proposed regulations. This
decrease in both the number of new manifests prepared and stored
under this alternative would be even greater to the extent that
8-81
-------
generators and transporters were able to use and store shipping
papers/bills of lading that would also have to be prepared and stored
under other existing regulations (see Section 8.4.1.2).
The 110,000 to 140,000 identified generators would have to
prepare 110,000 to 140,000 reports on an annual basis; this would
represent about a 70 percent decrease in such annual reporting. As
indicated in Section 7.1.3.6, most potential permittees would be
on-site facilities and would not have to prepare additional annual
reports based on the manifests. Transporters would not have to
prepare any spill reports under this alternative as compared to
between 140 and 270 under the proposed regulations; however, some
transporters would have to prepare spill reports to satisfy require-
ments under other existing laws (see Section 8.4.1.2). The reduction
in the number of permittees is not determinable, but is expected to
be small as previously indicated. Due to the relatively small number
of off-site permittees (see Table 7-7) and due to the potentially
small decrease in such permittees, any reduction in the number of
annual reports based upon manifested wastes to be prepared by such
permittee should also be small. There could, however, be a large
decrease in the number of monitoring reports prepared by permittees
under this alternative. Permittees would have to prepare such
reports annually rather than quarterly. There could be up to 117,000
such monitoring reports under the proposed regulations. Using the
number of potential permittees from the proposed regulations as an
8-82
-------
upper limit of the number under this alternative, there could be up
to 29,000 monitoring reports prepared annually under this alternative
— a reduction of at least 75 percent. Overall there could be a
total of 139,000 to 169,000 generator and permittee reports prepared
annually under this alternative — a reduction of over 70 percent.
There would also be a slight decrease in the number of permit
applications prepared. Again using the number of potential
permittees identified under the proposed regulations as an upper
limit, identified generators and permittees could have to file at
most between 139,000 and 169,000 notifications under Section 3010—
a reduction of at least 60 percent. The likely reduction in the
number of regulated transportees would also reduce the number of
transporters who would be required to file notifications under
Section 3010.
8.4.1.4 Air Impacts.
Air Quality. The regulations under this alternative would have
the potential to cause fewer changes in air emissions resulting from
the generation, transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous wastes, as compared to the proposed regulations.
Generation. As previously discussed, the proposed regulations
would not have a direct effect on potential air emissions resulting
from activities and processes generating hazardous wastes. However,
to the extent that the requirements under this alternative would
cause fewer changes in the economics of storage, treatment, or
8-83
-------
disposal relative to those of the proposed regulations, there would
be less of a potential for generators to make process modifications
designed to increase hazardous waste recycling and to reduce the quan-
tity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated; any such reductions
in process modifications under this alternative would likely lead to
fewer changes in air emissions released by processes generating
hazardous waste. Furthermore, with fewer generators being brought
under control of the program, the potential for such process
modifications and resultant changes in air emissions would be further
decreased.
Transport. As indicated in Section 7.1.4.1, there are three
major ways air contaminants are released by the transport of hazard-
ous wastes:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the trans-
port vehicle.
As discussed below, this alternative would affect, to varying
degrees, the potential for the release of air emisions from each of
these sources.
By 1984, approximately 16 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) would be
removed annually from regulations under this alternative as compared
to the proposed regulations. As a result, transport of these wastes
8-84
-------
would not have to be in accordance with the Section 3002 contain-
erization requirements or the Section 3003 transport requirements
unless the wastes were also identified as hazardous materials under
the DOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act.* Thus, to the extent that
these wastes would be containerized or transported using methods not
acceptable under the proposed regulations, the potential for the
release of fugitive emissions by such transport and from any
resultant spills or explosions would be increased under this
alternative. Section 7.1.4.1 discusses the potential for the release
of air emissions from unregulated transport practices. Furthermore,
the elimination, except as previously noted, of the requirement that
transporters need to report and clean up spills would further
increase the potential for air contaminants to be released from such
spills under this alternative. The elimination of spill information
from the manifest could further increase the time for spill clean up
and thus increase the potential for the release of air contaminants.
Both the total quantity of regulated hazardous wastes being
transported and the average distance over which such wastes are
transported could decrease under this alternative, as previously
indicated. Any such reductions would lead to the release of fewer
vehicular emissions and to a reduced potential for vehicular
accidents to occur and to release air emissions. However, less
*In such a case, for all interstate transport and some intrastate
transport, these wastes would be subject to essentially the same
containerization and transport requirements as under the proposed
regulations.
8-85
-------
transport of hazardous waste in accordance with the regulations would
increase the potential for spills and explosions from improper
transport and from resultant vehicular accidents. This would off-set
some of the potential for fewer vehicular accidents to result from
reduced transport distances. The changes in both the vehicular
emissions and emissions resulting from accidents would be dependent
upon such factors as the decrease in travel distances, the change in
portion of hazardous wastes transported off-site, and the decrease in
the amount of regulated wastes being transported.
Using the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, the potential change in vehicular air emissions resulting
from the reduced transport of regulated hazardous industrial waste
has been estimated for four possible transport distances for both 13
and 25 percent off-site shipment of hazardous wastes in 1984. Table
8-8 shows the change in vehicular emissions relative to those of the
proposed regulations (see Table 7-8). For example, for a 100-mile
round-trip distance with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal,
there could be an increase in each vehicular air emission equal to
about 40 percent of that which could occur under the proposed
regulations. For a 1,000-mile round-trip distance with 25 percent
off-site treatment/ disposal, there could be a decrease in each air
emission equal to about 40 percent of that which could occur under
the proposed regulations. In the former case, the increase in each
air emission would be less than one one-thousandth of a percent of
8-86
-------
TABLE 8-8
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT
OF LESS HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
Change in emissions (metric tons)
Wastes Round- trip
transported distance
off-site (miles)
13 percent 100
Oo
23 200
500
1,000
25 percent 100
200
500
1,000
Carbon monoxide
+ 60
-350
-1,600
-3,600
-310
-1,100
-3,200
-7,400
Hydrocarbons
+ 10
-55
-250
-580
-50
-180
-510
-1,200
Nitrogen
oxides
+45
-250
-1,200
-2,700
-230
-800
-2,300
-5,400
Particulates
+ 3
-15
-70
-170
-15
-50
-140
-340
Sulfur
oxides
+6
-35
-150
-360
-30
-110
-310
-730
-------
the total U.S. emission of that air pollutant and less than 0.007
percent of the total U.S. area emission of that pollutant from
heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles. In the latter case, the
decrease in each air emission would be less than 0.03 percent of the
total U.S. emission of that air pollutant and approximately 1 percent
of the total U.S. area emission of that pollutant from heavy-duty,
diesel-powered vehicles.
Based upon the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, there could be on the order of 80 to 180 transportation-
related hazardous wastes spills annually by 1984 from the transport
of the regulated wastes. As previously discussed, it is not possible
to estimate the change in the number of spills that would occur from
the removal of 16 million metric tons of hazardous waste from
regulation by 1984.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. As discussed in Section
7.1.4.1, there are several major ways that air contaminants can be
released by current hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal
practices:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through fugitive emissions from ground-based treatment/
disposal activities such as landfills, landfarms, and surface
impoundments;
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions generated by spills, fires, explosions, and
other accidents;
8-88
-------
• Through the combustion of hazardous wastes by incineration or
open burning;
• Through fugitive emissions from other treatment activities;
• Through fugitive emissions from facility construction or
modification.
This alternative would affect the potential for the release of air
contaminants from each of these sources as discussed below.
To the extent that fewer storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities would have to be modified or would have to be constructed
under this alternative (see Section 8.4.2.4), there would be a
decrease in fugitive dust and vehicular emissions from such
construction activities. Such emissions would be extremely site
dependent.
By 1984, approximately 16 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) would be
removed annually from regulation under this alternative as compared
to the proposed regulations. These hazardous wastes would not have
to be stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with the Section
3004 regulations. Since it is likely that most of these wastes would
not be managed by methods that are environmentally acceptable under
the Section 3004 regulations the overall potential for the release of
air contaminants from the management of such wastes would be
increased under this alternative relative to the proposed
regulations.
With regard to the estimated 24 million metric tons of
potentially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes)
8-89
-------
that would still be regulated under this alternative in 1984, the
less stringent requirements under this alternative would have the
potential for increasing the release of air contaminants from the
management of these wastes as compared to their management under the
proposed regulations. For example, many of the incineration require-
ments under the proposed regulations apply only to the incineration
of pesticide wastes or to wastes that are hazardous due to toxicity.
The proposed regulations require that such wastes be incinerated at
1,000 C with greater than 2 seconds retention time and greater than 2
percent excess oxygen and that the incineration achieve 99.99 percent
destruction of the principal toxic components of the wastes.
Elimination of the toxicity characteristic under this alternative
would remove the incineration of almost all regulated wastes from
compliance with the above requirement.
Only pesticide wastes that are hazardous due to a characteristic
other than toxicity would still have to be incinerated under the
above operating conditions. The incineration would, however, have to
achieve a 99.9 percent destruction efficiency of the principal
components of the pesticide waste rather than a 99.99 percent
destruction efficiency; thus, there could be up to a 900 percent
increase in the release of the principal components from the
incineration of such pesticide wastes (however, as indicated in
Appendix M, incineration under the conditions specified above can
result in better than 99.99 percent destruction of the principal
8-90
-------
components of many pesticides). Incineration of other wastes
regulated under this alternative that would have been identified as
toxic under the proposed regulations (e.g., slop oil emission solids
from petroleum refining — see Table D-7) would also be removed from
complying with the incineration requirements noted above. Thus,
under this alternative there would be a much greater potential for
incineration of these wastes to release hazardous air contaminants.
Furthermore, the incineration of all regulated wastes would be
subject to less stringent requirements for combustion efficiencies
and for halogen removal under this alternative. Required combustion
efficiencies would be reduced from 99.9 percent to 99 percent;
required halogen removal efficiencies would be reduced from 99
percent to 90 percent. Thus, there could be up to a 900 percent
increase in the release of halogens and carbon monoxide under this
alternative. In addition, the reduced combustion efficiencies could
also result in the less complete destruction both of other combustion
products and of hazardous waste constituents with a resultant
increase in their release to the atmosphere. Thus, incineration
under this alternative would likely lead to locally higher ambient
air concentrations of many of the hazardous air contaminants
generated by the incineration. However, all emissions and resultant
changes in air quality would have to be in compliance with all
applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act standards and state
standards).
8-91
-------
Other changes that would potentially increase the release of air
contaminants under this alternative include the removal of the
prohibition against placing volatile wastes in landfills, landfarms,
surface impoundments, or storage tanks vented directly to the
atmosphere (see Section 7.1.4.1 for examples of volatile hazardous
wastes). To the extent that regulated volatile wastes would be
stored, treated, or disposed by such methods under this alternative,
there would be an increased release of air contaminants as described
in Section 7.1.4.1. The application of the Threshold Limit Values
(TLV's) as a time-weighted average for a 24-hour day rather than as a
time-weighted average for an 8-hour day and a 40-hour week would
allow increased emissions from such non-point sources as landfills,
landfarms, surface impoundments, and storage areas. The reduction in
the minimum distance that active portions of facilities must be
located from the facility boundary, coupled with the above changes,
would likely lead to increased ambient air concentrations of
hazardous emissions beyond the facility boundary. Increases in the
time interval for completing required training would also increase
the potential for personnel to improperly manage hazardous wastes so
as to cause fires, explosions, or other accidents that could release
air contaminants.
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose both
the regulated wastes and the wastes excluded from regulation under
8-92
-------
this alternative compared to the methods that would have been used to
manage these wastes under the proposed regulations. For example, the
elimination of restrictions on the management of volatile wastes
could reduce the incineration of such wastes and increase their
landfilling, relative to the proposed regulations. Such shifts would
change both the types and quantities of air emissions produced by the
management of specific wastes. For example, a shift from incinera-
tion to landfilling of a particular waste would potentially result in
a decrease in the release of combustion products and an increase in
the release of particulate matter and/or gases contained in the
waste. Such shifts could either enhance or reduce the potential for
this alternative to cause increases in the release of specific air
emissions in any given locality. All emissions and any localized
degradation of air quality would have to be in compliance with all
applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act standards, OSHA
standards, state standards).
Climate. Fewer hazardous waste management facilities would
potentially have to be constructed under this alternative than under
the proposed regulations. Thus, there would be fewer localized
impacts to temperatures, humidities, and low-level wind patterns from
such construction.
8.4.1.5 Water Quality Impacts. While the regulations under
this alternative would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to
water quality resulting from generation, storage, transport,
8-93
-------
treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes, the potential reduction
in impacts would be significantly less than the potential reduction
which would result from implementation of the proposed regulations.
Many of the potential changes to groundwater, and surface water
impacts under this alternative would occur in much the same manner as
the potential changes discussed under air quality. To avoid redun-
dant discussions, such changes are briefly summarized below rather
than discussed in detail. Following this summary, additional major
changes are described.
Since generators would be less likely to make process
modifications designed to increase recycling or to reduce the
quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated, this would lead
to fewer changes in water effluents produced by such processes and
thus to fewer changes in groundwater and surface water contamination
by such effluents. With fewer generators being brought under the
control of the program, the potential for such process modifications
would be further decreased. Furthermore, to the extent that this
alternative would bring less storage by generators under the Section
3004 regulations,* the potential for groundwater and surface water
contamination by spills and runoff from storage of these additional
wastes would be increased.
*Generators who store hazardous wastes for less than 1 year prior to
off-site shipment would not be required to obtain a permit under
this alternative; under the proposed regulations, this permit
exclusion would be limited to 90 days storage.
8-94
-------
Decreases in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would increase the potential
both for midnight dumping and spills and resultant impacts to
groundwater and surface water quality. However, decreases in the
average distance over which wastes are transported would decrease the
potential for vehicular accidents and could at least partially
off-set the potential for an increase in spills. The elimination,
except as previously noted, of the requirement that transporters need
to report and clean up spills and that manifests need to contain
spill information would further increase the potential for water
quality impacts to result from such spills under this alternative.
Decreased transport distances would also result in decreased
vehicular emissions and in a decreased potential for oil, grease, and
the hydrocarbons and heavy metals contained in vehicular exhausts to
be carried into waterways by run-off.
One major change in water quality impacts would result from the
removal of 16 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes
(plus other hazardous wastes) from regulation annually by 1984 under
this alternative as compared to the proposed regulations. These
potentially hazardous wastes would not have to be treated/disposed in
accordance with the Section 3004 regulations, though they could be
subject to applicable regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA and other
State and Federal legislation (e.g. , the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act). Based on current practices, most of these
8-95
-------
wastes would not be stored, treated, or disposed by methods which are
environmentally acceptable under the Section 3004 regulations. Thus,
the overall potential for groundwater and surface water degradation
would be increased. Section 7.1.5 describes the potential for
surface water and groundwater impacts from the treatment/disposal of
such wastes under current practices and requirements. Many of the
incidents reported in that section involve toxic wastes which would
not be regulated under this alternative. These include all incidents
exclusively involving pesticides or heavy metals (e.g. , the Moscow
Mills, Missouri endrin incident, and the groundwater contamination
incident involving chromium and cadmium from an aircraft plant in
South Farmindale, Long Island). Similar types of incidents would
also not be prevented by the regulations under this alternative.
Additional impacts to water quality could also result from the
enactment of less stringent regulations for the treatment/disposal of
the 24 million metric tons of potentially hazardous industrial wastes
(plus other hazardous wastes) that would still be under control of
the program. This alternative decreases the required minimum dis-
tance between the active portions of facilities and water supplies;
allows the use of more permeable soil liners for surface impoundments
and landfills; limits groundwater monitoring requirements to facili-
ties which have the potential to discharge to underground drinking
water sources; eliminates quarterly groundwater monitoring while
retaining the requirement for annual monitoring; and decreases the
8-96
-------
time requirement for post close-out care. To the extent that more
permeable liners would allow more rapid movement of leachates and
that less frequent monitoring would delay detection of liner failure,
there would be an increased potential for degradation and contamina-
tion of groundwater and of surface waters recharged by the ground-
water. Similarly; the other changes would also increase the poten-
tial for undetected groundwater and surface water degradation.
It should be noteds however, that there could be shifts in the
type of methods used to treat/dispose regulated wastes and wastes
removed from regulation under this alternative, compared to methods
used under the proposed regulations. As previously discussed, such
shifts could result in localized changes in the release of specific
water pollutants under this alternative, compared to the proposed
regulations.
8.4.1.6 Public Health Impacts. This alternative would have the
potential to reduce the public health benefits that would be derived
from the proposed regulations. The impacts to public health under
the proposed regulations are discussed in Section 7.1.6.
Approximately 16 million metric tons of potentially hazardous
industrial wastes would be removed from regulation annually by 1984
under this alternative as compared to the proposed regulations. This
decrease would primarily be attributable to the large quantity of
toxic substances that would be excluded from regulation. Based upon
current practices, a large portion of these wastes would potentially
be stored, transported, treated, and disposed in a manner that was
8-97
-------
not environmentally acceptable under the regulations. Also through
the imposition of less stringent standards, there would be a greater
potential for the regulated wastes to release air, water, and soil
contaminants that could cause adverse public health impacts (see
Sections 8.4.1.4, 8.4.1.5, and 8.4.2.1). The removal of all toxic
wastes from regulation would result in many wastes that are known
or suspected to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic being
excluded from regulation. Of particular concern is the possibility
for the occurrence of additional disasters similiar to that of Love
Canal in Niagara, New Falls, New York (see Section 7.1.6). In that
incident, an undeterminable quantity of toxic chemicals had been
improperly disposed, homes had been built adjacent to the disposal
site, and numerous public health problems resulted.
An example of wastes containing potentially toxic substances,
such as cadmium or chromium compounds, that might not be regulated
under this alternative, but that could be controlled under the
proposed regulations is as follows:
• An aircraft plant in Nassau County; New York generated and
disposed large quantities of electroplating wastes contain-
ing chromium, cadmium, and other metals during World War
II. An estimated 200,00*0 to 300,000 gallons per day of
these wastes were discharged into unlined disposal pits
throughout the s. Groundwater contamination by chromium
was first noted in 1942 by the Nassau County Department of
Health. Subsequent studies indicated that a hugh plume of
contaminated groundwater had been formed, extending from the
8-98
-------
surface of the water table to depths of 50 to 70 feet below
the surface. In 1962, test wells revealed concentrations of
hexavalent chromium up to 14 ppm, and concentrations of
cadmium up to 3.7 ppm. The contaminated plume cannot be
removed or detoxified without massive efforts and will take
many more years of natural attentuation and dilution before
it becomes usuable again. Meanwhile, it is still slowly
moving, threatening a nearby creek and other wells in the
area (Tinlin, 1976; State of Minnesota, 1977).
For comparison purposes with regard to this incident, the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard for chromium is .01
ppm and .05 ppm for cadmium, respectively. Although the harmful
effects of this incident are believed to be limited to groundwater
contamination, it is important to note that the incident which began
in the 1940's continued for over two decades. Although hexavalent
chromium has been found to be toxic to some aquatic species,
information on its chronic effects to humans is limited almost
entirely to data on occupational health effects. Lung cancer,
ulceration and perforation of the nasal septum, and other respiratory
complications and skin effects have been observed (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976a). In 1941, it was reported that a group of
29 school children experienced violent nausea after eating popsicles
containing 13 to 15 ppm of cadmium (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976a).
8.4.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts that could occur as a result of implementation of this
8-99
-------
alternative would result primarily from the removal of approximately
16 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes (plus other
hazardous wastes) from regulation annually by 1984; the enactment of
less stringent environmental requirements with regard to storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and potentially lower
increases in storage, treatment and disposal costs as a result of
these less stringent regulations.
8.4.2.1 Physiography and Soils Impacts. The major change in
impacts to physiography and soils would result from the elimination
of 16 million metric tons per year of hazardous industrial wastes
(plus other hazardous wastes) from regulation. To the extent that
these wastes would be stored, transported, treated, or disposed by
methods which are not environmentally acceptable under the proposed
regulations, the potential for adverse impacts to soils would be
increased. Section 7.2.1 describes the types of impacts to soils
that could occur from such methods. The potential for adverse
impacts to soils would be further increased by allowing longer
storage of wastes by generators without requiring a permit.
Reductions in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would increase the potential
both for midnight dumping and spills and for resultant impacts to
soils. However, decreases in the average distance over which wastes
are transported would decrease the potential for vehicular accidents
8-100
-------
and could off-set the potential for an increase in spills. Reduced
transport would also result in decreased vehicular emissions and in a
decreased potential for oil, grease, and the hydrocarbons and heavy
metals contained in such emissions to be carried onto soils by
run-off.
To the extent that fewer storage, treatment, or disposal facili-
ties would have to be constructed under this alternative due to a
potential reduction in the off-site process capacity shortfall (see
Section 8.4.2.4), there would be a lesser potential for physical
impacts to soils and physiography. Allowing the use of more per-
meable soil liners would allow more disposal sites to use natural,
in-place soils, and would therefore reduce the demand for, and
impacts of off-site excavation of clays. Less land and soil would
also be disturbed by facility construction and by conjunctive devel-
opments such as construction of roads, power lines, pipelines, and
housing. However, these reduced land requirements would be off-set
to the extent that land would still be required for the storage,
treatment, and disposal of the wastes excluded from regulation under
this alternative. Potential impacts to soils and physiography from
construction would be essentially the same as those described in
Section 7.2.1.
8.4.2.2 Biological Impacts. Land requirements for facility
construction and operation and for conjunctive developments would be
reduced under this alternative. As a result, the potential for
8-101
-------
adverse impacts to flora, fauna, and ecological systems from land dis-
turbance would also be reduced. In addition, the reduction in the
transport of hazardous wastes could lead to a reduction in road
kills.
These potential benefits to the biological environment would,
however, be off-set by several other changes that could occur under
this alternative. Approximately 16 million metric tons of poten-
tially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes)
would be removed from regulation. Based upon current practices, a
large portion of these wastes would potentially be stored,
transported, treated, or disposed in a manner that was not
environmentally acceptable under the proposed regulations. To the
extent that these wastes were to be handled in such a manner, the
potential for adverse impacts to the biological environment would be
increased. Section 7.2.4 describes the types of impacts that could
occur from practices not regulated under Subtitle C.
It should be noted, however, that in removing these wastes from
regulation, there could be shifts in the methods used to treat/dis-
pose these wastes. This could result in localized changes in the
quantity of specific air, land, and water residuals generated by the
treatment/disposal of these wastes as described in Section 8.3.1.4.
The potential for increased adverse biological impacts from these
residuals would be modified to the extent of any such shifts.
For those hazardous wastes that would still be controlled under
8-102
-------
this alternative, the potential for water quality impacts, and sub-
sequent adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems and to wildlife using
contaminated water supplies, would be increased by the use of more
permeable liners and by other changes discussed in Section 8.4.1.5.
The potential for air quality impacts, and subsequent adverse eco-
logical impacts, would be increased as discussed in Section 8.4.1.4.
Furthermore, the potential for impacts to soils, and subsequent
adverse impacts to biological productivity, would be increased as
discussed in Section 8.4.2.1.
8.4.2.3 Social Impacts.
Demographic Impacts. Fewer industrial plant closings or reloca-
tions due to lesser increases in costs under this alternative could
lead to fewer population shifts as described in Section 7.2.3.1. In
addition, there would be a decrease in the number of construction
workers required due to the lesser amount of facility modification
and construction necessary under this alternative; there would be a
reduction in the number of personnel required for hazardous waste
management activities due to both the less stringent operational
requirements and the decrease in wastes being regulated; and there
would be a decrease in the number of personnel required to administer
and enforce the regulations due to both the quantity of hazardous
wastes and the number of generators, disposers, and permittees being
regulated. Fewer population shifts could also occur in response to
these reduced personnel requirements as discussed in Section 7.2.3.1.
8-103
-------
Any such shifts would be expected to be small on a national scale;
however, there could still be localized instances of a relatively
large influx of workers, particularly for hazardous waste management
facilities located near very small towns, or of a relatively large
outflux of workers, especially in the case where a plant being closed
constituted the primary source of employment in an area. Based upon
a minimum requirement of 500 workers to handle (store, treat, or
dispose) a million metric tons of waste per year, it is estimated
that at least 12,000 such workers could be required nationally by
1984; this would represent about a 40 percent decrease in this
requirement compared to the proposed regulations. About 1,500 to
3,000 of these workers could be required at off-site facilities;
about 9,000 to 10,500 of these workers could be required at on-site
facilities. This would represent about a 40 percent decrease at both
types of facilities. To the extent that pesonnel would still be
required to manage the wastes excluded from regulation under this
alternative there would be a lesser reduction in the number of
workers required nationally.
Social Conditions. The lesser public health benefits to be
derived from this alternative relative to the proposed regulations
would provide fewer social benefits as discussed in Section 7.2.3.2.
Fewer reductions in chronic and acute health effects would also
result in an increase in the social and economic costs associated
with such effects, e.g., increased mortality, birth defects, lowered
8-104
-------
productivity, lost wages.
A reduction in population shifts would decrease the potential
for impacts associated with such shifts. However, as discussed in
Section 7.2.3.2, any large, rapid, population influxes could still
cause inflation, strains on the existing infrastructure, social
tensions, changes in daily living patterns, and increased physical
and mental disorders. Any large rapid, outfluxes could still cause
problems in maintaining existing infrastructures, deflation,
additional unemployment, social stress, changes in daily living
patterns, and increased mental and physical health problems.
Public opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous
waste management facilities could be reduced by the need for fewer
facilities under this alternative. However, any opposition that
occurs could be exacerated by the less stringent environmental
requirements for such facilities under this alternative.
Decreases in the construction of hazardous waste management
facilities and in the off-site transport of hazardous wastes could
result in several beneficial social effects. Reductions in facility
construction would eliminate the potential for noise impacts,
aesthetic impacts, land use impacts, water use impacts, and pressures
on existing infrastructures that could be associated with the
facility. Any decrease in the transport of hazardous wastes would
have the potential for a reduction in vehicular accidents. Based
upon the methodology and assumptions discussed in Section 7.2.3.2, it
8-105
-------
is estimated that there could be approximately 110 fewer vehicular
accidents annually in 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment and about 340 fewer vehicular accidents in the case of 25
percent off-site shipment. This would represent about a 40 percent
decrease in vehicular accidents compared to the proposed regulations.
8.4.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity.
Process Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
described in Section 7.2.4.1, it is estimated that approximately 3.0
million metric tons of regulated hazardous industrial wastes could be
shipped off-site for treatment/disposal in 1980 and that between 3.1
and 6.0 million metric tons could be shipped off-site in 1984. This
would represent a decrease of 2.3 million metric tons of regulated
wastes required to be sent to permitted off-site facilities in 1980
and a decrease of between 2.2 and 4.0 million metric tons of regu-
lated wastes required to be sent to permitted off-site facilities in
1984.
Based upon the estimated 6.2 million metric tons of environment-
ally adequate off-site capacity that could be utilized in 1980, there
would potentially be sufficient capacity to handle the estimated 3.0
million metric tons of regulated hazardous industrial wastes shipped
off-site. Even if there was no growth in environmentally adequate
off-site capacity between 1977 and 1980, there would still
potentially be sufficient capacity in 1980. Under the proposed
regulations there would also potentially be sufficient off-site
capacity available in 1980.
8-106
-------
The estimated 7.7 million metric tons of environmentally
adequate off-site capacity that could be utilized in 1984 would be
sufficient to handle the estimated 3.1 million metric tons of
regulated hazardous industrial wastes shipped off-site in the case of
13 percent off-site shipment. Again there would potentially be
sufficient off-site capacity even if there was no growth in capacity
between 1977 and 1984. Under the proposed regulations there would
also potentially be sufficient off-site capacity available in 1984.
In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, sufficient off-site
capacity would also potentially be available in 1984. However,
without any growth in environmentally adequate off-site capacity
between 1977 and 1984, there could potentially be a shortfall of
almost 0.5 million metric tons in 1984.* In this latter case, 1984
could be the first year of shortfall. Based upon a utilizable
facility capacity of 60,000 metric tons per year, approximately eight
additional off-site facilities could be required in 1984 in this
latter case. It is estimated that under the proposed regulations
that there could be a shortfall of 2.6 million metric tons of
capacity in 1984 in the former case and of 4.9 million metric tons in
the latter case. Thus, approximately 45 fewer permitted off-site
facilities could be required under this alternative in the former
*The actual shortfall would be 0.4 million metric tons; however, with
a utilization rate of 0.9, approximately 0.5 million metric tons of
capacity would be required.
8-107
-------
case and 72 fewer permitted off-site facilities could be required in
the latter case.
Data are not available to estimate the potential for shortfalls
in environmentally adequate on-site process capacity. Industrial
generators could treat/dispose approximately 16.4 million metric tons
of regulated hazardous wastes on-site in 1980 and between 17.3 and
20.2 million metric tons of regulated hazardous wastes on-site in
1984.* This would represent a decrease of approximately 12.3 million
metric tons of regulated industrial wastes required to be sent to
permitted on-site facilities in 1980 and a decrease of between 11.5
and 13.4 million metric tons of regulated wastes required to be sent
to permitted on-site facilities in 1984. It should be noted that
less stringent treatment/disposal requirements under this alternative
would likely result in an increase in the existing on-site capacity.
Any such increase would further decrease any potential for a
shortfall in necessary on-site capacity.
Section 7.2.4.1 discusses other factors that could affect the
size of any shortfall in both on-site and off-site process capacity.
The wastes removed from regulation would still have to be
treated/disposed, both on-site and off-site. While such wastes could
be treated/disposed in non-permitted facilities, their management
could increase the potential for an overall shortfall in capacity;
however, any resultant shortfall would be less than that under the
*The remainder of the waste would be recycled or sent to resource
recovery operations, both on-site and off-site.
8-108
-------
proposed regulations. The less stringent requirement under this
alternative would also increase the number of sites at which
facilities could be located.
Physical Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
discussed in Section 7.2.4.2, relative to the proposed regulations
there could be an increase of approximately 0.6 million metric tons
in the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during the
period from 1980 through 1984, assuming 13 percent shipment off-site
in 1984, and there could be a decrease of 4.3 million metric tons in
the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during this
period, assuming 25 percent shipment off-site in 1984.*
Up to 120 to 240 additional acres could thus be committed to
off-site landfilling during this period in the case of 13 percent
off-site shipment and up to 860 to 1,700 fewer acres could be
committed to off-site landfilling during this period in the case of
25 percent off-site shipment. In the former case, after 1984 there
could be 65 to 130 additional acres required off-site annually com-
pared to total requirements under the proposed regulations. In the
latter case, after 1984 there could be 320 to 640 fewer acres re-
quired off-site annually compared to the total requirements under the
proposed regulations. In all instances there could be commensurate
*In this estimate, it is assumed that under this alternative there
would be 15 percent off-site shipment for those hazardous wastes
that would be regulated under the proposed regulations but which
would not be regulated under this alternative.
8-109
-------
change in on-site land requirements.
For purposes of comparison, based upon an average, secure
commecial landfill size of 270 acres (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, 1977), these land requirements
would be equivalent to siting about one additional off-site secure
landfill by the end of 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment. In this case, the equivalent of less than one additional
off-site secure landfill could have to be sited annually after 1984.
The land requirements would be equivalent to siting three to six
fewer off-site secure landfills by the end of 1984 in the case of 25
percent off-site shipment. In this case, the equivalent of one to
two fewer off-site landfills could have to be sited annually after
1984.
8.4.2.5 Land Use Impacts. Less total land, off-site plus on-
site, would be required for the construction of any storage, treat-
ment, and disposal facilities needed under this alternative and for
such conjunctive developments as construction of roads, power lines,
and pipelines. Less additional land would be required since fewer
wastes would have to be sent to permitted facilities; the wastes re-
moved from regulation could use existing facilities or other facili-
ties that were not adequate under the proposed regulations. How-
ever, as indicated in Section 8.4.2.4, in the case of 13 percent off-
site shipment there would be more total hazardous wastes (those regu-
lated plus those removed from regulation) sent off-site than there
would be in the similar case under the proposed regulations. Thus,
8-110
-------
while less total land would be required, there could be more off-site
land use and less on-site land use in this case. In the case of 25
percent off-site shipment, there would be less total hazardous wastes
sent off-site than there would be in the similar case under the
proposed regulations and, thus, there could be less off-site land use
and more on-site land use. Estimates of potential change in off-site
land requirements for landfills (and commensurate changes in on-site
land requirements) are presented in Section 8.4.2.4. Existing land
uses would not change on lands excluded from hazardous waste
management under this alternative; however, there could be localized
changes in land use from any additional shifts to off-site management
from on-site management or to on-site management from off-site
management as discussed above.
It should be noted that while shifts to on-site land use could
reduce off-site land requirements in the short term, such shifts
could also accelerate the exhaustion of the relatively limited on-
site physical capacity and could result in increased pressures for
off-site facilities in the long term. Furthermore, any lesser
increases under this alternative both in resource conservation and
recovery and in treatment practices leading to volume reduction
(e.g., incineration) would also provide a lesser potential for
reducing total land requirements, both on-site and off-site, in the
long term.
To the extent that the regulations under this alternative would
result in additional lands being contaminated by improper storage,
8-111
-------
treatment or disposal of hazardous wastes, there would be off-setting
adverse impacts to existing land uses. Section 7.2.5 describes the
types of impacts that could occur.
8.4.2.6 Water Use Impacts. The potential for the degradation
of groundwater and surface water quality would be increased under
this alternative as previously discussed. Increased degradation of
water quality would result in a decreased supply of surface water or
groundwater being available to some or all consumers in the water use
area and increased restrictions on the productive use of the water.
Since fewer hazardous waste management facilities could be
required, less water would be required under this alternative for
operation of such facilities. This reduced water requirement would,
however, be off-set to the extent that water would still be consumed
in the management of the wastes removed from regulation.
8.4.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery. The major changes
in resource conservation and recovery would result from excluding 16
million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes from control
under the Subtitle C regulations annually by 1984 and from the
relatively lower hazardous waste generation, transportation, storage,
treatment, and disposals costs associated with the less stringent
requirements under this alternative. As discussed in Section 7.2.7,
these changes would provide less incentive for generators to modify
processes so as to enable increased recycling of hazardous wastes as
process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of hazardous wastes
8-112
-------
generated by specific processes, or to change the nature of wastes
produced. Chapter 5 presents examples of the potential for increased
resource recovery from and recycling of hazardous wastes.
8.4.2.8 Energy Use. Energy use would be impacted under this
alternative by changes in facility construction, facility operation,
hazardous waste transport, and resource conservation and recovery.
The lesser amount of facility modification and construction that
would be necessary would result in a decrease in energy use. Less
stringent requirements for soil liner permeabilities and for
non-point source air emission releases would further decrease the
energy use associated with facility construction.
There would also be less energy use associated with changes in
facility operation and closure under this alternative. Removal of 16
million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes (plus other haz-
ardous wastes) from regulation would reduce energy use as discussed
in Section 7.2.8. The reduction in the post close-out period from 20
years to 10 years would decrease the energy use associated with post
close-out care. Less energy would also be required due to less
stringent requirements for such activities as incineration and
leachate and groundwater monitoring.
Previously discussed changes in resource recovery would lead to
other changes in energy use. While any reduction in resource re-
covery would result in less energy being initially required for such
activities, there would be a lesser potential for net energy savings
8-113
-------
from resource recovery activities.
The changes in energy use resulting from a reduction in the
transport of hazardous wastes would depend upon such factors as
shifts in the portion of wastes managed on-site and off-site and
changes in transport distances. Based upon the methodology and
assumptions described in Section 7.2.8, Table 8-9 presents estimates
of the magnitude of the potential change in energy use (compared to
that under the proposed regulations) that could occur annually from
changes in transport distances and shifts in off-site and on-site
treatment disposal. The estimated change in energy use under this
alternative ranges from a decrease equivalent to approximately
870,000 barrels of crude oil for a 1,000-mile round-trip distance
with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal to an increase equivalent
to approximately 7,000 barrels of crude oil for a 100-mile round-trip
distance with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal.
8.4.2.9 Inpacts to Special Interest Points. To the extent that
treatment/disposal of the wastes removed from regulation under this
alternative would disturb, destroy, or intrude upon special interest
points, there would be less of a reduction in adverse effects to such
special interest points as discussed in Section 7.2.9. However, to
the extent that fewer lands, especially off-site lands, would be dis-
turbed for facility construction and operation and for conjunctive
developments under this alternative, there would be a lesser
potential for the disturbance and/or destruction of sites of
8-114
-------
TABLE 8-9
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN FUEL CONSUMPTION IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT OF
LESS HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
Wastes Round-trip
transported distance
off-site (miles)
13 percent 100
200
500
1,000
25 percent 100
200
500
1,000
Change in fuel consumption
(million gallons)
+0.3
-2
-7
-17
-2
-5
-15
-35
Crude oil
equivalent *
(1,000 barrels)
+7
-40
-180
-420
-40
-130
-370
-870
*Assumes 95 percent efficiency in producing diesel fuel from crude oil.
-------
aesthetic, archaeological, historical, paleontological, or
recreational value.
8-116
-------
9.0 MITIGATING MEASURES AND ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
In a sense, the Subtitle C regulations are themselves a miti-
gating measure acting to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of
uncontrolled storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. Although
these beneficial impacts are not discussed in this section, it is
recognized that they far outweigh any adverse environmental impacts
which may result from the regulations. The major adverse effects
which would result from the regulations would be economic. These are
discussed in the Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Supplement). Most
non-economic, adverse, environmental impacts associated with these
regulations could be mitigated by making each corresponding portions
of the regulations more strict (i.e., increasing the number of wastes
defined as hazardous, decreasing the allowable permeability for soil
liners in landfills, etc.). Many of these types of changes are
addressed in the Alternatives Chapter, Section 8.3 (Greater Degree of
Protection). Any such reduction in adverse environmental effects
would, however, be accompanied by increased economic costs.
The major, non-economic adverse effects of these regulations
would primarily be the continuation of impacts presently occurring
and may be grouped into two categories. One group of impacts
involves the redistribution of hazardous wastes and their associated
environmental problems (which would be at least partially
diminished). This would occur as existing treatment and disposal
9-1
-------
sites which do not meet the standards (including many on-site
facilities) close down and the wastes are sent elsewhere. The second
group of impacts arise from areas not covered or specifically
excluded from the regulations. Again, any adverse impacts resulting
from such exclusions would not be directly caused by the regulations
since the impacts are occurring now.
9.1 Redistribution of Hazardous Wastes
When the regulations go into effect, they could force the
closure of a large number of disposal facilities which currently
accept hazardous wastes. A recent EPA study (U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1977c) indicated that environmental contamination
from existing landfill sites may .be more widespread than previously
realized. Out of 50 randomly chosen sites which had never before
been suspected of leaking and of which 32 were already being
monitored, 43 sites were determined to be causing local groundwater
degradation, 26 to such a degree that one or more EPA drinking water
standards were exceeded. Poor groundwater quality was noted in six
of the remaining sites, but could not be definitely linked to the
disposal operation. Closure of1 a large portion of existing disposal
sites, primarily on-site facilities, could create an immediate and
potentially severe shortfall of facility capacity.
Another factor which would exacerbate any such shortfall would
be the closure of on-site disposal facilities. Since the total
9-2
-------
capacity of existing sites is not known, it is difficult to determine
the ultimate impact of this relocation of wastes. However, it is
essential that situations such as occurred in New Jersey do not recur
on a national scale. Enactment of strict environmental regulations
in New Jersey forced the closure of the last legal land disposal site
for chemical wastes in 1976. Since then, the costs of acceptable
disposal methods have increased tremendously; and many companies have
been faced with the alternatives of paying much higher treatment
costs or using illegal disposal methods. The result has been a
series of indiscriminate dumping of hazardous wastes throughout New
Jersey and in neighboring states (Richards, 1978).
Such a situation may be mitigated by one or a combination of
several methods. One temporary measure is to delay the closing of
currently polluting sites until there are acceptable alternate
disposal or storage methods for all of the wastes presently going to
each facility. This could be accomplished by delaying action on
permit application by such facilities for several years. The
advantage of such a strategy would be that, since these sites already
have large amounts of waste that must at some point be cleaned up, it
would not create any significant new problems to continue using them
for a short period of time. These sites should be prohibited from
accepting any wastes from new sources and every effort should be made
to relocate the wastes presently going to the sites as quickly as
9-3
-------
possible, but the consequences of immediately closing the site
without acceptable alternatives could lead to the creation of new
problems in previously uncontaminated areas.
Volume reduction, resource recovery, and recycling of wastes are
other measures which would help mitigate the problems of finding more
disposal capacity. These are partially addressed in the regulations
by the mandate that "where practical, disposal of hazardous wastes
shall be avoided and alternatives such as resource recovery, reuse,
or other measures of recycling shall be employed." As a further
method of coping with the short-term shortfall of capacity, this
requirement could be extended to include treatment for volume reduc-
tion.
A third measure to cope with the shortfall of capacity is to
provide assistance for the rapid expansion of existing facilities to
the greatest extent possible. Such assistance could take the form of
guaranteed loans, grants, large-scale demonstration projects, and
provision of technical expertise.
In addition, it would undoubtedly be necessary to site and
construct facilities in order to meet the increased demands for
disposal. This process could be greatly expedited by effective
cooperation between the permitting agencies (state or Federal), waste
generators, and disposers in order to compile and evaluate
information on needs, the quantities and types of wastes generated,
available transportation, and location of suitable disposal areas.
Information and advice should be solicited from the state geologic
9-4
-------
surveys, local offices of the Soil Conservation Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and other pertinent agencies early in the siting
search. In addition, experience in California, Illinois, and New
Jersey has indicated that there is substantial public resistance to
the siting of new facilities, resulting in long delays and
considerable expense. It is possible that a well-conceived public
information program on both national and local levels could help
alleviate this problem. Points that could be emphasized are the
required procedures to limit groundwater and air pollution, the
necessity of disposing of the waste in an acceptable manner, and the
physical and geologic conditions which make a particular location a
suitable site. It may also be advisable to prohibit the construction
of new facilities which would generate significant quantities of
hazardous wastes unless either an acceptable local hazardous waste
disposal facility has sufficient excess capacity to handle the new
wastes, or unless such a facility could and would be constructed in
conjunction with the new generator. Such a requirement would help
off-set the public aversion to disposal facilities with the economic
benefits of additional local employment and a larger tax base due to
the presence of the generating facility. This requirement could also
~--^,
reduce transport distances, result in lower costs, and reduce
potential for spills resulting from transporting hazardous wastes.
Relocation of waste shipments from existing environmentally
unacceptable disposal sites to acceptable sites may produce some
9-5
-------
local impacts in the area of the new sites. Since the regulations
require strict compliance with all state and Federal laws regarding
air and water quality, these impacts should be relatively negligible.
However, the creation of large facilities in remote areas (as may be
required by public opposition or the location of suitable geologic
conditions) could result in the loss of potentially valuable habitat,
range lands, or prime agricultural lands. In addition, some degree
of socio-economic impact could occur as a result of the added
manpower and support facilities which may be required to construct
and operate the disposal facilities. The Integrated Economic Impact
Assessment of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory
Analysis Supplement) addresses the latter types of impacts, while
coordination of planning efforts with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the USDA Soil Conservation Service should help mitigate the
former. Additional potential for hazardous spills and vehicle
emissions are also expected to result due to the necessity to
transport more wastes off-site and to the probable longer distances
to acceptable disposal facilities. Air emissions may also result
from the construction and operation of new resource recovery
facilities, though, again, these emissions are required to be within
all applicable air standards.
Impacts could occur to water quality as a result of discharges
of treated effluents from waste treatment facilities. Such discharg-
es would have to meet all applicable water quality standards includ-
ing those promulgated under the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500, as
9-6
-------
amended), and under the various state laws, and would have to be
approved by the permitting agency. However, even though a discharge
meets all applicable standards, it could still reduce receiving water
quality up to the maximum allowable limit. Since this limit was
picked to ensure adequate protection of both environmental and human
health, such an impact should be minimal, though it may involve some
loss of value to local water users. However, there are many
potentially hazardous constituents of these wastes for which no
standards have yet been promulgated. This may be due to lack of
adequate substantiation of suspected human health effects, or to lack
of information on tolerable levels to ensure the absence of chronic
health effects. In addition, it is possible that some potentially
harmful properties of these wastes are not even suspected at this
time. In this respect, waste discharges could conceivably meet all
applicable standards and still contribute to environmental
degradation with potential human health effects. It should be
emphasized that such effects are now occurring to a much greater
degree without the controls which would be implemented by the
proposed regulations. They could be further mitigated by requiring
that all waste streams be sent to permanent disposal facilities.
In spite of any local increase in impacts which might occur, the
net effect of the relocation of hazardous waste disposal operations
to acceptable facilities in other areas would produce a marked
decrease in the overall adverse environmental impact of the wastes.
9-7
-------
An additional group of adverse impacts would be associated with
increased paperwork requirements and the enlargement of the govern-
ment bureaucracy to deal with those regulations, It is estimated
that about 430,000 to 460,000 generators could be required to notify
EPA within 90 days of promulgation of the regulations. An additional
29,000 facility permit applications could also require processing.
Further, monitoring reports and annual summaries of receipts of mani-
fested wastes could produce up to 500,000 reports per year. Manpower
to deal with these documents is not presently available in either
EPA, or in most state governments. These regulations would therefore
require the establishment of new government jobs and procedures which
could both increase the size and unwieldiness of many bureaucratic
systems and the size of government payrolls. Reducing notification
or reporting requirements would, however, weaken the effectiveness of
control over hazardous wastes.
9.2 Impacts Unaffected by the Regulations
9.2.1 Siting. The proposed regulations prohibit locating haz-
ardous waste facilities on active fault zones, in wetlands, on 100-
or 500-year flood plains, in the recharge zone of sole source
aquifers, or in the critical habitat areas of endangered species,
with certain exceptions. In addition, it is required that landfills,
surface impoundments, and landfarms be located, constructed, and
operated so as to prevent landslides, slumping, and erosion.
9-8
-------
However, other siting considerations which could have or cause
adverse impacts are not addressed. These include siting areas prone
to subsidence or to geothermal activity; areas on migration pathways
or rangelands of important regional (though not necessarily
endangered) species; or in areas of prime agricultural lands.
Although formally increasing the permit review process to include
state geologic surveys, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and local soil
conservation services is not desirable due to resultant increased
paperwork and processing times, there should be some means of ensur-
ing coordination with these agencies in order to assure that all
potential problems have been considered. The information require-
ments for permit applications could also be expanded to include eco-
logical data on the site area which lists any local migratory path-
ways and identifies the occurrence of any browsing or burrowing ani-
mals which could obtain access to the material stored or disposed of
at the site.
As discussed previously; it may also be desirable to examine
siting considerations before beginning the construction of major new
facilities generating of hazardous wastes. This should be studied in
light of both the local environmental impacts, as well as the
location and capacities of potential disposal facilities.
In any case, all siting of hazardous waste facilities would also
be subject to a number of additional constraints, besides those cited
in the regulations. These include restrictions promulgated under the
following laws protecting fish, wildlife, and natural resources:
9-9
-------
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
• Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C 669)
• Protection of Wild Horses and Burros (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340)
• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742-754)
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667)
• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act (16 U.S.C.
1601-1610)
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321-4347)
• Administration of National Wildlife Refuge System (16 U.S.C.
668)
• Open Space Land (42 U.S.C. 1500)
• Protection of Bald and Golden Eagles (16 U.S.C. 668)
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287)
• Wilderness Act and Amendments (16 U.S.C. 11-31-1136; P.L.
93-662)
Other constraints would include national, state, and local forests,
parks, trails, and historic sites.
9.2.2 Transportation. The proposed regulations require that if
the waste meets the DOT definition and criteria for a hazardous
material (49 CFR 171.8 and 173)', it must be handled in accordance
with the provisions of certain DOT regulations in 46 and 49 CFR.
These regulations contain detailed requirements for the construction,
inspection, handling, and labeling of hazardous materials and other
containers. The proposed regulations for hazardous wastes also
specify that transporters must not transport containers which are
9-10
-------
leaking or appear to be damaged, and that leaks which are discovered
enroute be treated as emergency situations.
Except for the restrictions on accepting damaged containers,
there are no other provisions in the proposed regulations designed to
prevent spillage or other accidental releases during transport. This
could be alleviated by requiring studies to determine a route from
the generating site to the treatment/disposal site which presents the
least chance of an accident and which would involve the least amount
of damage to human health and the environment in general. Such
studies might prove especially useful if the total ton-miles of
hazardous waste transport increase.
9.2.3 Construction and Operation. The regulations mandate that
landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments "shall be located, or
constructed and operated, so as to prevent landslides, slumping or
erosion." This requirement does not specifically include the imple-
mentation of a sediment control plan during construction activities,
though the effective use of such a plan would mitigate most physical
impacts of construction. Requirements to minimize the construction
impact on wildlife would provide additional benefits. Such plans may
be required by state or local statutes.
Although the regulations require that "facilities shall have
fencing completely surrounding all active portions of the facility,"
they do not make provisions for securing the facilities against small
burrowing animals and birds. The case of waterfowl at ponds and
9-11
-------
lagoons may present particular problems. Burrowing animals may be
excluded by constructing fences which are buried several feet in the
soil, the exact depth determined by the types of animals which might
be present in the region. Solution of the problem of birds may be
more difficult, but may be attempted by growing non-palatable vegeta-
tion such as Phragmites (Martin and Uhler, 1951) or pine trees around
the perimeters of the area. Intermittent noise makers may also be
used when necessary.
The regulations would prohibit endangerment of underground
drinking water sources (UDWS). Such sources are defined as those
which currently supply a public water system; or an aquifer with a
total dissolved solids content of less than 10,000 mg/1; or an aqui-
fer otherwise designated as usable by the Administrator. It is pos-
sible, especially in water-short areas, that some groundwaters that
are not classified UDWS may at some point be required for salinity-
tolerant industrial uses such as dust control, ash quenching, or cool-
ing purposes. Contamination of these waters with hazardous wastes
could prevent such use and require the use of freshwater instead,
possibly contributing to existing water shortages. This occurrence
could be avoided by extending the regulations to protect all ground-
waters. Alternately, the Administrator could limit exemptions to
this procedure to areas which are highly unlikely to experience water
shortages, or could designate all aquifers in potential drought areas
as UDWS.
9-12
-------
Adverse impacts could occur as a result of potentially hazardous
wastes which are not covered by the regulations* or which are pro-
duced by generators who produce less than the generator limit and are
thereby excluded from regulation. These wastes would be subject to
all other applicable state and Federal regulations, including the
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Subtitle D
of RCRA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
others.
Any remaining impacts resulting from these uncontrolled wastes
could be further mitigated by specifically requiring proper labeling
and disposal of all potentially hazardous wastes (while excluding
generators producing less than 100 kilograms per month from the
paperwork and other requirements of the regulations).
9.2.4 Closure. One additional area not specifically covered in
the proposed regulations is the impact resulting from disposal sites
which already have been abandoned or which would be abandoned rather
than modified to meet the regulations. The Section 3004 regulations
would require that facility owners/operators close all portions of
their facilities which do not comply with the regulations. Such
closure is to be in accordance with the specified closure procedures.
However, most of the closure requirements are directed at new
*As discussed in Chapter 7, EPA is planning to expand the toxicity
criteria to regulate a greater number of potentially hazardous
wastes at a future time. An additional environmental statement or
supplementary statement would be prepared covering this change, if
warranted at that time.
9-13
-------
facilities and those existing facilities able to obtain permits;
previously abandoned facilities and those existing facilities which
could not Be modified to obtain permits could not satisfy many of the
requirements (e.g., financial requirements, submission of closure
plans before beginning operations, certification of closure in
accordance with permit, and preparation of a survey plat showing
types of waste and their location at the site). While some owners of
these latter facilities could be located, there are no specific
provisions for insuring proper closure, for financing the cleanup and
closure, or even for locating previously abandoned facilities. While it
is EPA's intent that all hazardous waste facilities be closed in
accordance with the regulations, some abandoned facilities may have
to be satisfactorily closed using public funds.
Lastly, it should be repeated that the regulations themselves
are an important and potent mitigating measure. The administrating
agencies must ensure that the location, design, construction, moni-
toring, and closing of all facilities are all carefully planned and
that all provisions of the regulations are strictly followed and
enforced. This point is emphasized^by the recent study (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977c) which discovered that a large
percentage of sites which were presumably secure and already being
monitored were actually causing groundwater pollution.
9-14
-------
10.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The Subtitle C regulations may result in some localized adverse
impacts, though as discussed previously, they would essentially be
continuations of adverse impacts which are already occurring. On the
other hand, the regulations would also result in a significant over-
all reduction in the impacts of hazardous waste managemen |