THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
Supplement II
Volume I
Solid Waste
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
\
Supplement II
Volume I
Solid Waste
.M
\
>
JANUARY 1974
RUSSEL E. TRAIN
Administrator
-------
FOREWORD
America's journey to environmental awareness has been a rela-
tively recent one. Not so many years ago Americans were still living
under the illusion that a land as vast as ours was blessed with in-
destructible natural resources and beauty.
We continued the exploitation of those resources and scattered
unplanned communities across huge areas of open space. Large
amounts of fuel were needed for the autos that took us to work from
distant suburbs, and the air became laden with their dense emis-
sions. Pesticides were used indiscriminantly by persons unaware of
their effects on the food chain of plants and animals. Our rivers
became contaminated with waste from homes and industries. Our
landscape was marred by litter.
As the environmentalist movement gained impetus, attention
was focused on these matters. Rachael Carson's book, Silent Spring,
in 1962 awakened Americans to the hazards of pesticides. The oil
spills of the Torrey Canyon in 1967 and at Santa Barbara, Califor-
nia in 1969 dramatized another environmental hazard. The first
Earth Day on April 20, 1970, a coordinated program of teach-ins
across the nation, helped to focus Congressional attention on the
strength of the environmental movement.
Congress responded by approving the President's Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 which expanded the federal commitment to environ-
mental concerns and consolidated 15 Federal organizations under
the Environmental Protection Agency,
At the same time, Congress began enacting far-reaching legisla-
tion to provide EPA with specific authority for controlling pollu-
tion. These measures included the Clean Air Amendments in 1970,
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, Federal
Environmental Pesticide Control Act, the Noise Control Act, and
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, all in 1972.
Congress also passed the Resource Recovery Act in 1970 and ex-
tended the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1973.
As the Agency began taking action under these laws, Americans
gradually realized that very real changes were required in our ac-
customed ways of doing business. We realized that our effort
frequently conflicted with powerful and legitimate interests in both
the public and private sectors. Our administrative, judicial and
political processes now have the task of resolving these conflicts.
iii
-------
IV
They must do so by weighing all the interests which are affected in
a sensitive and informed manner. Quick access to the legal dimen-
sions of these problems is essential if conflicts are to be efficiently
and fairly resolved.
The work of the present day environmentalist is less glamorous
than that of four or five years ago, but it is essential if we are to
face the continuing challenge of protecting our fragile and perish-
able natural resources—and ultimately ourselves—from destruc-
tion. I hope you will find this manual helpful as we strive to create
a society where we can live and work in harmony with the natural
world surrounding us.
Russell E. Train
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were
cited in the Plan, it was decided that a compilation of EPA legal
authority be researched and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a working
document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a re-
search tool for the public.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome task
of developing a better environment.
LANE R. WARD, J. D.
Office of Executive Secretariat
Office of Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are for the general use of per-
sonnel of the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set
out by the President in creating the Agency. This work is not
intended and should not be used for legal citations or any use
other than as reference of a general nature. The author disclaims
all responsibility for liabilities growing out of the use of these
materials contrary to their intended purpose. Moreover, it should
be noted that portions of the Congressional Record from the 93rd
Congress were extracted from the "unofficial" daily version and
are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legis-
lative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Re-
ports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal
Compilation is divided into the seven following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste
SUPPLEMENT II
This edition, labelled "Supplement II," contains the additions to
and alterations of EPA legal authority not included in the original
set or Supplement I of the EPA Legal Compilation. Therefore, this
edition updates the Compilation through the 93rd Congress, First
Session.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compi-
lation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative
History begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Thus, any l.la, Lib, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws compris-
ing the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legisla-
tive history. The legislative history in each case consists of the
House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report (where applica-
vii
-------
Vlll
ble), the Congressional Record beginning with the time the bill
was reported from committee.
Example:
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §169 (1969).
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, De-
cember 30, 1969, P.L. 91-172, §704, 83 Stat. 667.
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969).
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969).
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
91-782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) :
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House, pp.
22746, 22774-22775;
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and passed
Senate, pp. 354586, 37321-37322, 37631-
37633, 37884-37888;
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 40718;*
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees to con-
-------
IX
statutes have been included where practical. These secondary stat-
utes are indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by a
bracketed cite to the particular section of the major Act which
made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used
throughout the Statute section of the Compilation. In four Stat-
utes, a parallel table to the Statutes at Large is provided for your
convenience.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.).
REGULATIONS
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2,
etc.). Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which
the Agency has direct contact.
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.).
In this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of
EPA, published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than
EPA's and inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency distri-
bution and made available through the U.S. Government Printing
Office in order to provide a current and accurate working set of
EPA Legal Compilation.
-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME I
SOLID WASTE
Page
1. Statutes and Legislative History 1
1.1 The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §3251
et seq. (1973) 3
l.le Solid Waste Disposal Act Extension, April 9, 1973,
P.L. 93-14, 87 Stat. 11 4
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 93-78, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.
(1973) 5
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973):
(a) March 21: Considered and passed House, pp.
H2000-H2007; 8
(b) March 27: Considered and passed Senate, p.
55703. 25
2. Executive Orders 29
3. Regulations
3.1 General Grant Regulations and Procedures, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§30.100-30.1001—3 (1972) 33
[See General 3.11 for subsection listing]
3.2 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.300-35.340 (1972) 33
3.3 Research and Demonstration Grants, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§40.100-40.165 (1973) 33
3.4 Training Grants and Manpower Forcasting, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§45.100-45.155 (1973) 34
4. Guidelines and Reports
4.9 Annual Report to Congress as required by 42 U.S.C. §3253.
4.9a Report to Congress on Resource Recovery by the En-
vironmental Protection. Agency, February 1973 39
4.9b Report to Congress on Hazardous Waste Disposal by the
Environmental Protection Agency, June 1973 117
XI
-------
Statutes
and
Legislative
History
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 3
1.1 THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, AS AMENDED
42 U.S.C. §3251 et seq.
§ 3259. Authorization of appropriations
(a) (l) * * *
**********
(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the provisions of this chapter,
other than section 3254b of this title, not to exceed $72,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1974.
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to carry out section 3254b of this title not to
exceed $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed
$140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed
$140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior
to carry out this chapter not to exceed $8,750,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971, not to exceed $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and
not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. Prior to
expending any funds authorized to be appropriated by this subsection, the
Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare to assure that the expenditure of such funds will be
consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
**********
As amended Pub.L. 93-14, Apr. 9, 1973, 87 Stat. 11.
-------
LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT n
Lie SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT EXTENSION
April 9, 1973, P.L. 93-14, 87 Stat. 11.
To extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, for one year.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) paragraph (2) of sub-
section (a) of section 216 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (84
Stat. 1234), is amended to read as follows:
"(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the provisions of this Act,
other than section 208, not to exceed $72,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974."
(b) Paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of section 216 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1234), is amended to read as follows:
"(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to carry out section 208 of this Act not to
exceed $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed
$140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed
$140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974."
(c) Subsection (b) of section 216 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended (84 Stat. 1234), is amended by striking "and not to exceed $22,500,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973." and inserting in lieu thereof
", not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and not
to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974."
[p. 1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 5
l.le(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, H.R. REP. NO. 93-78, 93RD CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1973)
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT EXTENSION
MARCH 15,1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5446]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5446) to extend the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act, as amended, for 1 year, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 5446 provides a 1-year extension of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act of 1967 (as amended by the Resource Recovery Act of
1970) by extending for 1 year at constant dollar amounts the
authorizations of appropriations in the act which would otherwise
expire June 30, 1973.
BACKGROUND
Hearings were held on the proposed legislation on February 26,
1973, at which time all testimony heard was favorable to the legis-
lation. The bill was ordered reported from the House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce without amendment by unani-
mous voice vote.
COST OF LEGISLATION
The authorizations of appropriations adopted by the committee
-------
6 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
for fiscal year 1974 are identical to those in the present law for
fiscal year 1973, as follows:
Authorizations of appropriations
Sec. 216(a). General authority $ 76,000,000
Sec. 208. Research and development grants 140,000,000
Sec. 216 (b). Department of the Interior 22,500,000
Total 238,500,000
[P-I]
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The funding authorizations for the Solid Waste Disposal Act ex-
pired on June 30, 1973. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce plans extensive oversight and legislative hearings on
this act to examine the many policy issues which have arisen since
passage of the act in 1970. Adequate time for responsible hearings
is not available before June 30,1973. Therefore, the committee feels
that a 1-year extension of the programs provided for in the act is
necessary to allow their careful and responsible consideration.
The committee also feels that clarity as to the fiscal year 1974
funding authorizations is necessary, as early in the 93d Congress
as possible, to provide guidance to the administration and the Con'
gress in budgeting and appropriating funds for these very im-
portant programs.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The legislation reported extends at constant authorizations each
of the three funding authorizations in the Solid Waste Disposal Act
by adding an authorization for fiscal year 1974 after each authori-
zation for 1973 which in each case is identical to the 1973 au-
thorization. The legislation also substitutes reference to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for refer-
ence to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to recog-
nize and conform to the changes effected by Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970.
AGENCY REPORTS
Agency reports are not yet available on H.R. 5446. However, the
following report concerning H.R. 4306 also applies to H.R. 5446 in
that the provisions for extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
contained in H.R. 4306 are identical to those in the reported legis-
lation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 7
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., March 9,1973.
Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee of Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House
of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to your request for the
comments of the Environmental Protection Agency on H.R. 4306,
"To extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, and the
Clean Air Act, as amended for 1 year."
We recommend that the bill be enacted.
On Monday, February 26, 1973, David D. Dominick, Assistant
Administrator for Categorical Programs, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, testified before your Subcommittee on Public Health
and the Environment on the matter of extending the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and on February 28, I testified before the same sub-
committee on the Clean Air Act extension. The statements. Mr.
Dominick and I made, articulated our position on the extension
proposed by H.R. 4306. Copies of these statements are enclosed.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
A dministrator.
Enclosures.
[p. 2]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
*******
TITLE II—SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
* * * * • * * *
APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 216. (a) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for carrying out the
provisions of this Act (including, but not limited to, section 208),
-------
8 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
not to exceed $41,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the [Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare] Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to carry out the provisions of this Act,
other than section 208, not to exceed $72,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30,1972, [and] not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, [1973.] 1973, and not to exceed, $76,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974-
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the [Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare] Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to carry out section 208 of this Act not to
exceed $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and]
not to exceed $140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
[1973.] 1973, and not to exceed $140,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30,1974.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
the Interior to carry out this Act not to exceed $8,750,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, not to exceed $20,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and] not to exceed $22,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, [1973.] 1973, and not to exceed
$22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June ,30, 1974. Prior to ex-
pending any funds authorized to be appropriated by this subsec-
tion, the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to assure that the expenditure
of such funds will be consistent with the purposes of this Act.
[p. 3]
Lie (2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 119 (1973):
l.le(2)(a) March 21: Considered and passed House, pp. H2000-H2007
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
EXTENSION
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker,
by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 315
and ask for its immediate considera-
tion.
The Clerk read the resolution as
follows:
H. RES. 315
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.E. 5446)
to extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended for one year. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed one hour, to he equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall
be read for amendment under the five-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
to final passage without intervening motion ex-
cept one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN) pend-
ing which I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker,
House Resolution 315 provides for con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 5446, which,
as reported by unanimous voice vote
from our Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, would extend the
Solid Waste Disposal Act for 1 year
and authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1974 at the fiscal year 1973 level.
The current law, which expires on
June 30, 1973, authorizes appropria-
tions in three categories:
First, the sum of $76 million to the
Environmental Protection Agency for
the development of new recycling and
waste disposal techniques and for
grants to State and local agencies for
the development of areawide disposal
plans;
Second, the sum of $140 million for
grants to States and municipalities
for the demonstration of resource re-
covery systems and for the construc-
tion of solid waste disposal facilities;
and
Third, the sum of $22.5 million to
the Department of the Interior for re-
search and demonstration projects on
the disposal of mining wastes.
Because the committee plans exten-
sive oversight and legislative hearings
on the Solid Waste Disposal Act to ex-
amine in depth the many policy issues
which have arisen since the act was
last amended in 1970, the 1-year ex-
tension is necessary to allow the com-
mittee's careful and responsible con-
sideration of these issues. Adequate
time is not available to the committee
before June 30, 1973.
The committee also believes that in
order to give uninterrupted life to the
solid waste disposal programs, the
funding authorization for fiscal year
1974 should be established as early in
the 93d Congress as possible.
Passage of H.R. 5446 is imperative
[p. H2000]
for the continued improvement of our
environment. If we should allow fund-
ing of these programs to lapse until
committee hearings can be held, we
would be making a grave mistake. And
if the President refuses to adequately
fund solid waste disposal programs
after Congress authorizes and appro-
priates for such expenditures, he will
be negligent in providing for the Na-
tion's needs. In this regard, it is to be
noted that the administration, while
favoring the continuation of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, budgeted only
$6.2 million to carry out the various
programs under that act in fiscal year
1974.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315
provides an open rule with 1 hour of
general debate, the time to be equally
divided and controlled by the chair-
man and ranking minority member of
the committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce, after which the bill
shall be read for amendment under the
5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the
consideration of the bill for amend-
ment, the Committee of the Whole
House shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted, and the pre-
vious question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without inter-
vening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 315 in order that
H.R. 5446 may be considered.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was
-------
10
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315
provides an open rule with 1 hour of
general dehate for the consideration of
H.R. 5446.
The purpose of H.R. 5446 is to pro-
vide a 1-year extension of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. The present au-
thorization expires on June 30, 1973.
The bill provides fiscal year 1974 au-
thorizations at the same level as fiscal
year 1973. The cost of this bill for
fiscal year 1974 is $238,500,000.
The 1-year extension will allow the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce sufficient time to hold ex-
tensive hearings before altering pres-
ent programs.
The administration supports this 1-
year extension of the present program.
Mr. Speaker I urge adoption of this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I
move the previous question on the res-
olution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 5446) to ex-
tend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, for 1 year.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill H.R. 5446,
with Mr. FOLEY in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. STAGGERS) will be recognized for
30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. NELSEN) will be rec-
ognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
would like briefly to explain the bill.
It came out of the subcommittee unan-
imously, out of the full committee
unanimously, and when this act was
passed in 1970 there was a rollcall
taken and the vote was 337 to 0, so we
can see that it has universal support.
We are not here to discuss the bill
because all we are asking for is an ex-
tension. I will briefly discuss what the
bill has, although I do not think it is
necessary at this time, because all we
are asking for is a simple extension of
the act as it was passed in 1970 since
it expires July 1 of this year. We
would not have time to go into it com-
prehensively and make the changes
that are probably needed, hear the
witnesses, and then bring the bill up
in time to get it passed.
I might say that the Senate has
passed an identical bill, and sent it
over to us. All we are asking is for this
extension, as I say, until July 1 of
1974.
When we passed the bill in 1970, we
had a Commission appointed, the Na-
tional Commission on Materials Policy,
to make a complete study of this sub-
ject throughout the United States and
report back to the Congress by July 1
of this year. We do not have the ad-
vantage of having that report yet and
will not until July 1. That is another
reason why we are not attempting to
pass a new bill now but simply an ex-
tension to give us time until we get
the report back.
Mr. Ruckelshaus appeared before
the committee and was in complete
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
11
support of the bill. He recommended
its passage. The money and every-
thing: in the bill is identical with the
reading of the bill as it was in 1970,
with the exception that we changed
the dates to 1974 instead of 1973.
I will just briefly explain what the
bill does. It gives a certain amount of
money to the States to set up their
own systems of disposal of solid waste
material. Several States have their
plans now in working order and sev-
eral have their plans in the planning
stage yet. Part of the bill also goes to
help, through technical assistance,
cities and communities which are plan-
ning their own solutions to their own
problems, and part of the bill goes
toward setting up demonstration
plants across the country; research
and demonstration plants.
An example of one of these cities is
Cleveland which is working very well.
The Federal Government through its
representatives helped Cleveland to go
over its whole system for collection of
garbage and waste material day by
day and devise ways to dispose of it
more efficiently and at less cost. This
is working well as one of the demon-
strations.
We also have a demonstration work-
ing in St. Louis. There, one of the pub-
lic utilities, I believe the St. Louis
Electric Power Co., is demonstrating
the use of waste material to generate
electrical energy. They are converting
waste material into something useful
through this project.
We are trying to do these things all
over the country in fact. In other
projects glass is being recycled and is
being used in the building of roads. We
are also trying to utilize the old cars in
America in useful ways. Tin and alu-
minum cans are being brought in to be
recycled. Some of the paper I have on
my desk here is recycled paper. These
are concrete examples we see as to how
effective the program has been. It is
useful. That is the reason we are ask-
ing Congress today to extend this for
1 year.
Just by simple arithmetic we can
comprehend how the amount of solid
waste produced in America by the
year 2000 would not leave us any place
to go or any useful way of living if we
did not convert it in some way. It
would run into the billions of pounds
per year. The problem had gotten to
such a point in 1965, when we passed
the original bill, that we recognized
something must be done to cope with
the increasing wastes in America. We
have already developed additional
ways of using the disposable bottles
and cans and the old automobiles that
are left in this country, as well as the
garbage produced in our homes.
As I say, this has been a very useful
program, one that has already proven
it is useful and needed, and for that
reason the committee recommends pas-
sage of this bill.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I
know that the distinguished chairman
of this committee is very conscientious
about making sure that the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee
offers bills authorizing only those that
are realistically close to needed appro-
priated dollars. I know the Appropria-
tions Committee is very concerned
about this matter. It is my understand-
ing that the administration is planning
or thinking of asking roughly between
$5 and $6 million to be actually spent
in this particular program. Why is the
committee asking for an authorization
of $238 million? Is that not the kind of
"overpromise" and "overcommitment"
that we are trying to avoid?
Mr. STAGGERS. I suggest the gen-
tleman look at the realities of the sit-
uation.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I am trying to.
Mr. STAGGERS. If the gentleman
will bear with me, the Senate has
-------
12
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
passed a simple extension. We are do-
ing this because we are waiting for a
report which will be coming in on July
1 this year from the Commission. The
[H 2001]
administration does not have control
of that and neither do we. The Presi-
dent appointed everyone of those mem-
bers with the approval of the Senate.
We hope this is what the administra-
tion is waiting for. The administra-
tion and the gentleman and I know
this is one of the most important
methods we have today of taking care
of the solid waste disposal problem.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I do not think
any of us disagree on that subject, but
we are talking about the dollars actu-
ally needed.
Mr. STAGGERS. I will get to that.
If we start changing this now from
what it was, regardless of what the
Committee on Appropriations comes
up with, and I hope they will come up
with more money than they did last
year since the need for it is there and
it has been shown by some of the ex-
amples which I stated heretofore that
it is a useful thing; that it is doing
good for the land; we certainly would
want to, during the next year when we
are going to study the problem and
come back with new legistation after
we have had the recommendations of
the Commission which has studied this
problem for 3 years then we want to
be sure it is funded enough to take
care of that.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding. I do not disagree
with the idea of extending this act for
1 year. I do not disagree with the wis-
dom of the committee in waiting for
the additional studies to be completed
and wanting to have additional hear-
ings to see what is really needed. But
what I do not understand and where I
think we as a Congress err, is when
we constantly ask in an authorizing
bill for so many millions of dollars
more than are actually needed, and
then when the Committee on Appro-
priations comes along and only appro-
priates, say $5 or $10 million for this
in the authorizing bill, and the whole
House have asked for $238 million, it
makes us look just plain stupid.
Mr. STAGGERS. Just a minute. I
do not like that word.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, all right.
That is my word. As to the position it
places this body, when nobody seems
to actually believe that amount of $238
million is needed.
Mr. STAGGERS. We are being real-
istic. We do not know what they are
going to ask for later and what they
are going to need. We are not chang-
ing the law. All we are asking for is to
extend this for 1 year.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I said that I
agree with the chairman, that the act
should be extended for 1 year.
Mr. STAGGERS. Why should we
start changing it?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Why should we
ask, though, for $238 million?
Mr. STAGGERS. Who is the gen-
tleman from California to say what we
are going to ask for? Does the gentle-
man mean to say that if we had to
have it—
Mr. ROUSSELOT. We can refer to
the actual dollars spent this year un-
der this act. It is no where near $238
million.
Mr. STAGGERS. I have heard that
story too many times; too late and too
little.
Let us have it. If they do not need it
they will not use it and it will not cost
the Government anything; it will not
cost the gentleman's taxpayers 1 cent
more, or any place in the country.
The gentleman might call it stupid
if he wants to.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I believe that is
stupid to ask for $238 million in an au-
thorization bill when we know in ad-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
13
vance that we -are only going to spend
$5 to $6 million.
Mr. STAGGERS. We do not know-
that at all.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. That is the re-
port that has been given to me as to
what has been asked for in the budget.
Mr. STAGGERS. I know what is
asked for, but we do not know what is
going to be spent before the end of
the year. If the gentleman from Cali-
fornia does know, he is a wiser man
than I am.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. My understand-
ing is that this is all that will be spent
of this authorization.
Mr. STAGGERS. Is the gentleman
speaking for the Committee on Ap-
propriations?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. No, I certainly
am not.
Mr. STAGGERS. In that case, I
should not be speaking at all; not say-
ing anything about it.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I have never
.pretended to speak for the Committee
on Appropriations. I am merely look-
ing at the record of actual expendi-
ture this last year and what the ad-
ministration says it will spend this
year.
Mr. STAGGERS. Is the gentleman
speaking for the administration?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. No, I am asking a
question of the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS). He is an
able legislator and man of facts.
Mr. STAGGERS. How does the gen-
tleman know what the Committee on
Appropriations is going to do?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. My understand-
ing is—
Mr. STAGGERS. From whom?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. It was made
clear that the rough amount of dollars
which will be needed to institute this
program will be roughly between $5
and $6 million.
Mr. STAGGERS. The gentleman
understands that from whom?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, if the gen-
tleman wishes me to say, by able col-
leagues here on the committee, on the
gentleman's subcommittee.
Mr. STAGGERS. Let me state that
the appointee of the President ap-
peared before the committee and rec-
ommended the passage of this bill as it
is now.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I understand
that they primarily testified for a
straight extension of the act.
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, an extension,
and not to change it, and that is all we
are doing.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. But that does
not mean that we cannot ask ques-
tions.
Mr. STAGGERS. That is right. I do
not mind the gentleman asking ques-
tions.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I said that it ap-
pears to me to be very stupid to .ask
for $238 million when only $5 or $6
million will be used.
Mr. STAGGERS. What would the
gentleman do when we change the bill,
when they said they wanted an exten-
sion?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. This agency is
only going to spend $5 or $6 million.
Mr. STAGGERS. I am asking the
gentleman a question. I want to ask,
what would the gentleman do if he had
been asked to extend the bill by the
administration? What would he do?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I would be hap-
py to respond. I would extend the act
for a year and include $10 or $15 mil-
lion authorization, which would be
more than adequate to cover any un-
usual contingencies.
Mr. STAGGERS. Oh, the gentleman
is going that way.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. If the gentleman
will yield further, it would provide the
extra amount of authorization, even
above what is being asked for, without
a recommendation.
Mr. STAGGERS. It would not be an
extension. That would be a substan-
tive change in the bill. What we have
done is just exactly extend it for 1
year.
-------
14
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Mr. EOUSSELOT. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding. I am sorry; I do
not really feel I obtained an answer to
my reasonable question.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Florida,
the chairman of the subcommittee.
(Mr. ROGERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 4292, which will
provide a simple, 1-year extension of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The
funding provisions of the act expire
on June 30, 1973, and it simply will be
impossible for the Subcommittee on
Public Health and Environment to af-
ford ample consideration to substan-
tive changes in the act prior-to that
time.
This is true for two reasons, Mr.
Chairman. In the first place, there are
12 health bills under the jurisdiction
of the subcommittee that expire at the
end of this fiscal year. Many of these
programs are the subject of intense
attack from the executive branch. In
fact, in some instances, the adminis-
tration is seeking to dismantle these
programs before the subcommittee can
act to extend, revise, or terminate
them. In order to protect the preroga-
tives of the Congress, our subcommit-
tee must commit the next 3 months to
these health programs.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, this action
is necessary because of the tardiness
of a series of reports to the Congress
which were to serve as aids to the sub-
committee in developing new solid
waste disposal legislation. One series,
mandated by section 205 of the act,
was to be on resource recovery. The
first annual report was not released
until 28 months after enactment of the
law and 16 months after the report
was due. It was completed by EPA
last summer, forwarded to the Office
of Management and Budget on August
[H 2002]
24, 1973, held up by OMB for more
than 6 months, and finally submitted
to the subcommittee on February 22
of this year. The section 210 report
was to have been submitted to the Con-
gress in October of 1971. It was sub-
mitted in January of 1973. The sec-
tion 212 report, due October 1972, is
scheduled to be submitted to the Con-
gress on June 30, 1973, hardly in time
for the subcommittee to use its in-
formation and recommendations to de-
velop new legislation.
The administration has submitted to
the Congress both through its budget
and recommended new legislation its
recommendations for solid waste dis-
posal activities. In simple terms the
administration's legislative program
proposes Federal guidelines for State
and local solid waste disposal pro-
grams but no new money for demon-
stration programs. It provides that
the Federal Government would pro-
vide only technical assistance for the
development of new waste disposal
systems.
The EPA budget for fiscal year 1974
in the solid waste field is the most sub-
stantial reduction in the history of
environmental legislation. It has de-
creased from over $30 million last year
to under $6 million this year. My
initial impression of the administra-
tion proposal is that it certainly needs
substantial review and probably is in-
adequate to deal with the problem. I
assure my colleagues that the Sub-
committee on Public Health and En-
vironment will consider the problems
of solid waste disposal and resource
recovery at length later this year.
Now, with respect to the remarks of
the gentleman from California, I
should like to point out to the gentle-
man, in conjunction with what the
chairman has said, that we simply are
proposing extending. this bill in order
to give the committee time to look and
see what needs to be done.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I want to make
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
15
it clear, I do not disagree with the
simple extension of this act at all.
Mr. ROGERS. I would hope the gen-
tleman would not. He has problems in
California, and he knows that funds
properly invested here might even help
the California situation with respect
to air pollution.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Fine.
Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman prob-
ably does not know that production of
paper from secondary fibers, through
recycling, instead of production from
virgin wood pulp, takes about 60 per-
cent less energy and will dump some
15 percent less pollutants into the
water and 60 percent less into the air.
In steel production, by using scrap,
air pollution is cut 86 percent. We find
this can be done in so many areas.
The gentleman comes from a State
where they have one of the most severe
air pollution problems in the Nation.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I understand
that.
Mr. ROGERS. I would think the
gentleman would urge this committee
to extend the law. Then, if we find it is
necessary to come to the House, we
perhaps might go over the $5 million
recommended in the budget. The gen-
tleman might support it and support
it strongly, even to the amount the
Administrator himself has supported
by this extension.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I hope the gentleman
understands the position of the com-
mittee very clearly.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. ROGERS. Certainly, I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I am familiar
with much of the material from which
the gentleman was quoting. I have
read the same article.
I am in complete agreement that
this is a high priority area. We are
very aware of it in California.
Of course, when we talk about air
pollution, in respect to this bill that is
really another covered by other acts
because we are talking about solid
waste disposal in the bill before us. I
am not speaking as to whether we do
or do not extend the act. I favor ex-
tending the act.
I believe the gentleman from Florida
might be able to help us, because it
was his • subcommittee which consid-
ered this bill. My question was why it
is necessary to authorize $238 million
when it is very likely only $5 or $6
million will actually be spent. The
chairman of the committee very graci-
ously asked me what I would do. My
answer to his question is, were I on
the committee I believe I would move
to strike the figure $238 million and to
make it $15 or $20 million, because
that would be more than adequate as
an excess above the $5 or $6 million
that is to be spent.
Mr. ROGERS. Would the gentleman
permit an interruption at that point?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Certainly.
Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman
know the Congress appropriated $36
million last year?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. And we are now go-
ing to hold them to $15 million?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. We may want to go
to $36 million. We may want to go to
$200 million, if we find there are
breakthroughs.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Can we not come
back to the basic question?
Mr. ROGERS. This is what we want
to consider.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I know the gen-
tleman is a very able legislator. Gould
we not come back to obtain that that
kind of increase. We are only talking
about a 1-year extension.
Mr. ROGERS. This is in con-
formance with what the administra-
tion asked, which was just to give
them a 1-year extension, until the
committee can consider this.
-------
16
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Let me make my
point once more.
Mr. ROGERS. Yes.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I believe the
charge is made that sometimes Con-
gress, in its deliberations and in its
process of authorizing and writing
programs, over asks for dollars that it
is not going to spend. I believe it
makes a mistake in doing it that way,
and it puts added pressure, in my
opinion, on the Appropriations Com-
mittee, which I do not believe is war-
ranted. It also creates a misleading
impression with the general public.
That is the only point I was trying
to make.
Mr. ROGERS. I understand the gen-
tleman. I believe the gentleman sup-
ported the bill when it was before the
House previously.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I did.
Mr. ROGERS. With all these figures
in it. He could have offered amend-
ments at that time.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Would the gen-
tleman from Florida disagree to an
amendment that would be offered to
amend the figure down in this bill, to
reduce it down to $38 million as an
authorization?
Mr. ROGERS. At this time I would
oppose that.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. That is difficult
reasoning to understand.
Mr. ROGERS. This is a very im-
portant extension. Now, we are not
sure what revisions are necessary yet
—we are waiting for the reports
which are late coming in—and the ad-
ministration may want to come in
with a supplemental request as soon
as the reports are in.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I know the gen-
tleman from Florida is a very able
legislator. However, there is a tre-
mendous difference between $5 and $6
million and $238 million. I am sure,
with his able staff and his able com-
mittee, they can come up with a better
estimate as to what will be needed
than this figure of $238 million, which
is way above $5 or $6 million.
Mr. Chairman, this is my only point
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I un-
derstand the gentleman's point, and I
simply say it is not valid at this time.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Minnesota (Mr. NELSEN).
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
think the colloquy has been valuable,
because many times an authorization
in an act leads people to assume money
to be available that really finally turns
out not to be available. However, I
would like to suggest that we pass this
proposal in its present form for these
reasons:
No. 1, it is only a 1-year extension;
and No. 2, on the second page of the
report, the committee states very
plainly that we plan oversight on this
program, and with the idea that it
needs clarification to determine
whether this program should continue.
Next, we have the recommendation
from Mr. Ruckelshaus suggesting the
1-year extension.
Mr. Chairman, all of these things
point toward what my good friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr.
ROUSSELOT) talked about, as to the
total budget, as to his thinking that
we ought to look at it a little more
reasonably when making the final de-
cisions.
Mr. Chairman, I do hope the bill
passes in its present form, and I rec-
ommend its passage.
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield,
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. WYLIE. The gentleman has in-
[H 2003]
dicated this bill provides just a 1-year
extension in authorization.
Mr. NELSEN. Yes.
Mr. WYLIE. And that was the sug-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
17
gestion made by the able chairman of
the committee, Mr. STAGGERS.
I wonder if the gentleman would
clarify something for me on funding
procedures, which I do not understand.
In H.R. 5446, on the first page it
says:
There are authorized to be appropriated . . .
not to exceed $72,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June SO, 1972—
Which has already passed—
not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 80, 1978
Which ends on June 30 of this
year—
and not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974.
Mr. Chairman, that refers to para-
graph 2. Then the same procedure is
repeated in the other two paragraphs.
May I ask the gentleman, did we au-
thorize ?72,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, and if so, why
do we need to have it repeated here?
Mr. NELSEN. I will yield later to
the chairman of the committee, if he
would in detail explain this. However,
it is my understanding that the way
the bill was drawn, it was just a
means of feathering out the dollars
that are in the authorization. It is a
matter of drafting style only.
Mr. Chairman, I will defer to the
chairman of the committee for a fur-
ther explanation.
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. I would say
to the gentleman that this is exactly
what was in the original bill, and we
just repeated it for those purposes.
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, I un-
derstand that, but those fiscal years
have already passed, at least one of
them has already passed, and there
has been an appropriation pursuant to
that authorization which has been
spent.
Now, is this an add-on ratification
procedure so that we can say there is
this much money being authorized,
and, therefore, we have to meet the
full funding need through the appro-
priations procedure?
If this is a simple extension, why
did the committee not just add one
authorization for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1974?
Mr. STAGGERS. I might say this
to the gentleman: We are just simply
repeating the language of the law as
it is now in order to make clear what
has passed and what is taking place
here.
Mr. Chairman. I think the explana-
tion is that in order to make the legis-
lative process clear, as the legislative
counsel has told me, this is the way
they would write the bill in order to
make it clear as to what has hap-
pened.
Mr. WYLIE. Well, Mr. Chairman,
as I say, I do not understand the au-
thorization procedure. If this is a sim-
ple 1-year extension, and I go along
with that, why do we need to refer to
passed years? Why are authorizations
for prior years included in this bill?
We have already authorized money for
fiscal year 1972, and money has been
appropriated pursuant to the authori-
zation for the program, beginning in
1967, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to
the bill.
I want the assurance, I guess, of the
chairman, then, that when we note
that about $41.5 million was appropri-
ated and spent for fiscal year 1972
that we do not now by authorizing $72
million add another $30 million, which
can be carried over to the present.
Mr. STAGGERS. I can assure the
gentleman it does not mean that at all.
The reason why we did not change it is
we could not change it. We wanted to
write the law as it is, because they
were just asking for an extension. I
can assure the gentleman it does not
have anything to do with that. We
wanted to write this legislation as an
extension in the way the original law
was written.
Mr. WYLIE. I thank the gentleman.
-------
18
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. NELSEN.J yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. If I might ask
an additional question of the chair-
man? Mr. Ruckelshaus asked for the
extension of this legislation. Again, I
wish to make it clear I agree with that
concept. But did Mr. Ruckelshaus ask
for a $238 million authorization?
Mr. STAGGERS. If the gentleman
will yield to me, let me put it this way.
He asked for a simple extension, and
the amount of money is in the original
bill, so we just extended it as it was
for the past year.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. So the answer to
the question is that he did not spe-
cifically ask for $238 million?
Mr. STAGGERS. But he asked for
an extension, and when he did that I
think he asked for what was given
last year to be continued.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. What did we
spend last year on this program?
Mr. STAGGERS. $31 million.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. $31 million. So
we are roughly $200 million over au-
thorized 'in this bill.
Again I wish to make the point that
I think our authorizing legislation
should not ask for so much additional
funding when we are not even coming
close to such a spending level today.
That is my point.
I believe that the Congress as a
whole makes itself look very ridiculous
and even borders on stupidity when we
authorize so much more money than
that which is actually needed. That is
my point.
Mr. STAGGERS. I am glad the gen-
tleman made it clear. I believe I un-
derstood him correctly when he said
that we were not stupid; and he did
not believe it was the whole Congress.
I disagree with him on the amount of
the extension, because I know of no
other procedure to follow in this in-
stance, because when you ask for a
simple extension, unless you go in and
change the bill comprehensively, which
would require a study of what you
think is needed, then we would have|to
go along with what we had before. We
did not undertake to conduct this
study, because this is to be done for
next year's authorization. We simply
have a simple extension of the bill this
year with the same authorization.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, one of the most serious environ-
mental problems facing this Nation is
that of solid waste disposal.
In 1920, this Nation had to dispose
of 2.75 pounds of solid waste per per-
son. By 1970, that figure had increased
to 5.3 pounds per person while there
were, of course, almost twice as many
persons.
Experts tell us that by 1980 we will
be faced with 8 pounds per person.
More explicitly, today's rate of solid
waste production for this country is
3.5 billion tons.
Continuing and increased efforts to
research and develop the means of re-
cycle solid wastes are vital if we are to
prevent the pollution of our environ-
ment. Solid wastes are now causing
air pollution, water pollution and land
pollution but I am convinced that we
can find the ways to end these prob-
lems and convert these wastes to our
benefit. This can only be done if we
devote our concentrated energies to
this task.
Let me take this opportunity, how-
ever, to remind the American people
that their growing awareness of this
problem must be coupled with growing
action in response to it. This bill be-
fore us today provides Federal sup-
port for research efforts but it cannot
come close to doing the job alone.
For example, the most recent esti-
mate of the cost of removing litter is
$500 million annually. One-half billion
dollars each year. Every month Ameri-
can motorists drop an average of 1,300
pieces of litter on every mile of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
19
Nation's vast network of primary
highways, or nearly 16,000 pieces of
litter per mile per year.
There is no monetary cost in saving
ourselves the half-billion annual cost
of littering. The answer, quite simply,
is discipline. That is all it takes. Dis-
cipline on the part of all of us. Over-
night we could wipe out a $500 million
annual debt.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly
endorse extension of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and simultaneously urge
each person to take it upon himself to
help fight this problem through his
own eiforts.
Mr. KYROS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in strong support of H.R. 5446, which
would extend for 1 year, at the current
authorization rate of $238,500,000, the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
This bill was considered on Febru-
ary 26 by the Public Health and En-
vironment Subcommittee, under the
able leadership of Chairman PAUL
ROGERS, and it was quite evident at
that time that responsible and thor-
ough consideration of the Federal
Government's effort and proper role
in this important field could not be
accomplished before the end of the
current fiscal year, when the funding
authorization for this act expires. The
Public Health Subcommittee intends
to hold extensive hearings on this act
to examine carefully the many and
varied issues which have arisen since
original passage of the act 3 years
ago.
Mr. Chairman, the cost of sanitary
landfills and other effective solid waste
disposal mechanisms looms as a tre-
mendous financial burden on many
small communities throughout my
[H 2004]
State of Maine and the Nation. Our
country currently produces some 256
million tons of municipal waste each
year. Most of this waste is now
handled by open dumping or burning,
in spite of the fact that this will be
iii violation of most States' air quality
standards within a short time.
Effective solid waste programs must
be made financially practical, which
they certainly are not at the present
time in most of our rural areas. The
Congress should have the time neces-
sary to carefully consider this major
national problem, and for that reason,
I urge adoption of this 1-year ex-
tension.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I support H.R. 5446, the 1-year
extension of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
This extension provides the Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce Commit-
tee the opportunity to undertake
extensive oversight hearings on the
act. Also, it maintains program con-
tinuity.
The bill before us authorizes $238.5
million for fiscal year 1974. This is the
same funding level authorized in fiscal
year 1973. The bill authorizes $140
million for demonstration and con-
struction grants to States and munici-
palities for resource recovery systems
and solid waste disposal facilities; $76
million for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to develop new recycling
and waste disposal techniques and to
award grants to State and local agen-
cies for developing area-wide waste
disposal plans; and $22.5 million for
the Interior Department for research
and demonstration projects on the dis-
posal of mining wastes.
The importance of this legislation
should not be overlooked. Unfortu-
nately, the administration has bud-
geted only $6.2 million to fund solid
waste disposal programs in fiscal year
1974. I feel this action is shortsighted.
This country faces a growing energy
crisis. Our research efforts must be
accelerated as to how recoverable ma-
terials and waste can be utilized to
meet this crisis.
For example, the Environmental
Protection Agency recently funded a
household trash recycling program in
-------
20
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
the St. Louis metropolitan area. The
program involves the Union Electric
Co. in St. Louis and the Granite City
Steel Co. in Illinois. The utility is
purchasing trash and converting it to
energy. The steel company is purchas-
ing the scrap metal and cans to pro-
duce new steel. While this is a pilot
program, it is the type of research
that needs to be undertaken.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, it
is my very earnest belief that the
House should overwhelmingly adopt
the measure presently under consid-
eration, H.R. 5446, the Solid Waste
Disposal Act extension.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this
bill is specifically designed to extend
the Solid Waste Disposal Act for a
period of 1 year and authorizes ap-
propriations for fiscal year 1974 at the
very same funding level previously
authorized for fiscal year 1973. Under
the various provisions of this measure,
our States and municipalities will con-
tinue to receive grants for the demon-
stration of resource recovery systems
and for the construction of solid waste
disposal facilities. The measure also
provides funds for the Environmental
Protection Agency to continue work
on the development of new recycling
and waste disposal techniques and to
award grants to State and local agen-
cies to assist them in developing area-
wide waste disposal plans.
Mr. Chairman, there can be no ques-
tion whatever concerning the critical
importance of solid waste disposal fa-
cilities for a great many areas
throughout our country, including my
own State of Massachusetts. I feel
very certain that we all recognize the
need for continuing, without any un-
necessary interruption, reasonable and
effective programs which substantially
contribute to wholesome improvement
in the quality of our environment.
Since this legislative measure re-
sponsibly extends existing solid waste
disposal programs, while extensive
oversight and legislative hearings
carefully examine the many policy
issues which have arisen since the bill
was originally enacted, and since the
measure represents a wholly substan-
tial and prudent attempt to continue
the fight to improve, protect, and pre-
serve our threatened environment, I
urge this House, in the overall na-
tional interest, to resoundingly ap-
prove the measure.
Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Chairman,
cleaning up our environment and es-
tablishing practices that will insure a
healthy environment for future gen-
erations is one of our Nation's highest
priorities today. We have embarked on
an ambitious multibillion-dollar pro-
gram to clean our waters by 1985, and
progress in the fight for clean air has
already been reported in a number of
communities across the country. How-
ever, we are losing ground in our
struggle with another, perhaps slight-
ly less glamorous form of pollution.
I am referring to our efforts to halt
environment degradation caused by
inefficient, antiquated solid waste man-
agement practices that are unneces-
sarily expensive and result in the loss
of valuable natural resources. Unless
this Congress takes decisive action
soon, we will not just continue to lose
ground slowly in the solid waste pol-
lution fight—indeed, we will be in
full-scale retreat.
In 1970, the Congress enacted the
Resource Recovery Act—Public Law
91-512—amending the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1965—Public Law 89-
272. This legislation indicated Con-
gress desire to see environmentally
offensive solid waste disposal practices
halted and the policy of resource re-
covery adopted. This legislation, which
is just beginning to bear profitable
results, will expire at the end of the
current fiscal year unless we vote to
extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
It is for this reason that I rise today
in support of H.R. 5446, a bill intro-
duced by the distinguished chairman
of the House Interstate and Foreign
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
21
Commerce Committee, Hon. HAELEY
O. STAGGERS, of West Virginia, to ex-
tend the 1965 Solid Waste Act, as
amended by the 1970 Resource Re-
covery Act.
Already, as we debate this issue
today, the administration is dis-
mantling the programs within the En-
vironmental Protection Agency which
are designed to combat an increasingly
serious solid waste problem. Even
though this Congress has not yet
acted, the Office for Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs, the Federal unit
administering the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act, is being decimated as its
staff is reduced from 320 to 120.
Mr. Chairman, conservative esti-
mates place our total annual bill for
collecting and disposing municipal
solid wastes at $5 billion. Through the
technical assistance provided by the
Federal solid waste program this fig-
ure could be significantly decreased,
without any reduction in the level of
collection and disposal services. In
Cleveland, Ohio, waste collection costs
were cut in half after a new system,
designed with the aid of Federal ex-
perts, was installed.
Meanwhile, our Nation is headed to-
ward a solid waste crisis. Already 5
billion tons of solid wastes are pro-
duced annually and per capita waste
generation is increasing at a rate of 4
to 6 percent—3 times the population
growth rate. Most municipal wastes
are disposed of in ways harmful to the
environment, primarily by open dump-
ing. Only 1 percent of municipal
wastes are now recycled. The propor-
tion of recycled materials relative to
virgin materials going into the produc-
tion of new goods has been declining
since World War II.
Through the Solid Waste Disposal
"&ct, we are beginning to reverse the
trend. Open dumps are being closed or
converted into sanitary landfills. Air-
polluting incinerators are being
equipped with control devices. New
technologies to separate and recycle
municipal wastes into useful byprod-
ucts are being developed and demon-
strated. In some cases, municipal trash
and garbage is actually being con-
verted to a low-sulfur fuel—a com-
modity in much demand today.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to
give up the solid waste fight now.
What might result in some savings
now will cost us much more in years
to come. I urge my colleagues to sup-
port H.R. 5446.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
Mr. STAGGERS. I have no further
requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a) para-
graph (2) of subsection (a) of section 216 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (84
Stat. 1284), is amended to read as follows:
"(2) There are authorized to he appropriated
to the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to carry out the provisions of
this Act, other than section 208, not to exceed
572,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 80,
1972, not to exceed $76,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed
$76,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1974."
(b) Paragraph (8) of subsection (a) of sec-
tion 216 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended (84 Stat. 1234), is amended to read
as follows:
"(3) There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to carry out section 208 of
this Act not to exceed $80,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed
$140,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and not to exceed $140,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974."
(c) Subsection (b) of section 216 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (84
Stat. 1234), is amended by striking "and not
[H 2005]
to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973." and inserting in lieu thereof
". not to exceed $22,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $22,-
500,000 for the fiscal year ending June SO,
1974."
Mr. STAGGERS (during the read-
ing) . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
-------
22
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
consent that the bill be considered as
read, printed in the RECORD, and open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
(Mr. CARTER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[Mr. CARTER addressed the Com-
mittee. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Extensions of Remarks,]
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the next to the last word.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
(Mr. ROUSSELOT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I, too,
have some question about this bill, al-
though I think an authorization is
necessary.
I do not understand why we should
be asked to authorize an expenditure
of $238.5 million. I believe that is the
proposal before the House, when all
the evidence seems to indicate that not
more than $5 or $6 million will be
necessary to fund the program that is
being proposed.
I would like to call the attention of
the members of this committee and the
Members of the House to the old say-
ing which goes something like this:
Nothing is easier than the expenditure of
public money. It does not appear to belong
to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming
to bestow it on somebody.
This offers the temptation to spend
much more—and I repeat—spend
much more than might otherwise be
prudent or provident.
So I regret that the committee
comes in with an authorization for
$238.5 million when all the testimony
indicates a fraction of that amount
will be sufficient. I regret that the
committee came out with the figure it
did, and I hope that next year when
we get to the authorization for fiscal
1975 it will not find that a consider-
able amount of money has been ex-
pended that the committee did not
contemplate. I would suggest, too, that
the Appropriations Committee take
note of the debate that has taken place
here today and limit the appropriation
to conform to the assurance that only
a fraction of the authorization will be
needed.
I would also like to say to the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
that I hope there will not be the ac-
cusation in this case that the Presi-
dent has impounded the difference
between $6 million and $238 million;
that no one will rise on the floor of
the House and try to make the point
that the difference between the two
has been impounded by the President,
and therefore charge it up to the total
amount that the President has im-
pounded.
I will yield to the gentleman from
West Virginia if he would like me to
yield.
Mr. STAGGERS. I thank the gen-
tleman from Iowa for his remarks. I
think they are well stated, but I think
that the gentleman knows also that we
are simply extending the bill from
1973 to 1974, and we used the same
language and everything else, all we
did was just to change the date.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker having resumed the
chair, Mr. FOLEY, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee having had under consid-
eration the bill (H.R. 5446) to extend
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, for 1 year, pursuant to
House Resolution 315, he re-reported
the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
23
The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read
the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a
quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify
absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were — yeas 392, nays
2, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 54]
YEAS— 392
Abdnor Broomfield
Abzug Brotzman
Adams Brown, Calif.
Addabbo Brown, Mich.
Alexander Brown, Ohio
Anderson, Calif. • Broyhill, N.C.
Anderson, 111. Broyhill, Va.
Andrews, N.C. Buchanan
Andrews, N. Dak. Burgener
Annunzio Burke, Calif.
Archer Burke, Fla.
Arends Burke, Mass.
Armstrong Burleson, Tex.
Ashbrook Burlison, Mo.
Ashley Burton
Bafalis Butler
Baker Byron
Barrett Camp
Beard Carey, N.Y.
Bennett Carter
Bevill Casey, Tex.
Biaggi Cederberg
Blester Chamberlain
Blackburn Chappell
Blatnik Clancy
Boland Clark
Boiling Clausen, Don H.
Bowen Clawson, Del.
Brademas Clay
Brasco Cleveland
Bray Cochran
Breaux Cohen
Breckinridge Collier
Brinkley Collins
Brooks Conable
jonlan
3onte
jorman
Coughlin
Crane
3ronin
Dulver
Daniel, Dan
Daniel, Robert W.,
Jr.
Daniels, Dominick V.
Danielson
Davis, S.C.
Davis, Wis.
de la Garza
Delaney
Dellenback
Dellums
Denholm
Dennis
Dent
Derwinski
Devine
Dickinson
Diggs
Donohue
Dorn
Downing
Drinan
Dulski
Duncan
du Pont
Eckhardt
Edwards, Ala.
Edwards, Calif.
Erlenborn
Esch
Eshleman
Evans, Colo.
Evins, Tenn.
Fascell
Findley
Fisher
Flood
Flowers
Flynt
Foley
Forsythe
Fountain
Fraser
Frelinghuysen
Frenzel
Frey
Froehlich
Fulton
Fuqua
Gaydos
Gettys
Giaimo
Gibbons
Gilman
Ginn
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Grasso
Green, Ores.
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Gross
Grover
Gubser
Gude
Gunter
Guyer
Haley
Hamilton
Hammerschmidt
Hanley
Hanna
Hanrahan
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen, Wash.
Harrington
Harsha
Hastings
Hawkins
Hays
Hechler, W. Va.
Heckler, Mass.
Heinz
Helstoskl
Henderson
Hicks
Hillis
Hinshaw
Hogan
Holifield
Holt
Holtzman
Horton
Howard
Huber
Hudnut
Hungate
Hunt
Ichord
Jarman
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Johnson, Pa.
Jones, Ala.
Jones, N.C.
Jones, Okla.
Jones, Tenn.
Jordan
Kastenmeier
Kazen
Keating
Kemp
Ketchum
Kluczynski
Kuykendall
Kyros
Landrum
Latta
Lehman
Lent
Litton
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Lott
-------
24
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Lujan
McClory
McCloskey
McCoIlister
McCormack
McEwen
McFall
McKay
McKinney
McSpaddeu
Macdonald
Madden
Madigan
Mahon
Mailliard
Mallary
Mann
Maraziti
Martin, Nebr.
Martin, N.C.
Mathias, Calif.
Mathis, Ga.
Matsunaga
Mayne
Mazzoli
Meeds
Melcher
Metcalfe
Mezvinsky
Michel
Milford
Miller
Mills, Ark.
Mills, Md.
Minish
Mink
Mitchell, Md.
Mitchell, N.Y.
Mizell
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead, Calif.
Morgan
Mosher
Moss
Murphy, 111.
Murphy, N.Y.
Myers
Natcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nichols
Nix
Obey
O'Brien
O'Hara
O'Neill
Owens
Parris
Passman
Patman
Patten
Pepper
Perkins
Pettis
Peyser
Pickle
Pike
Poage
Podell
Powell, Ohio
Preyer
Price, 111.
Pritchard
Quie
Quillen
Railsback
Randall
Rarick
Rees
Regula
Reid
Reuss
Rhodes
Riegle
Rinaldo
Roberts
Robinson, Va.
Robison, N.Y.
Rodino
Roe
Rogers
Roncalio, Wyo.
Rose
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roush
Roy
Roybal
Runnels
Ruppe
Ruth
Ryan
St Germain
Sandman
Sarasin
Sarbanes
Satterfield
Scherle
Schneebeli
Schroeder
Sebelius
Seiberling
Shipley
Shoup
Shriver
Shuster
Sikes
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Snyder
Staggers
Stanton, J. William
Stanton, James V.
Stark
Steed
Steele
Steelman
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wis. Wampler
Stephens Ware
Stokes Whalen
Stratton White
Stubblefield Whitehurst
Stuckey Whitten
Studds Widnall
Sullivan Williams
Symington Wilson, Bob
Symms Wilson, Charles H.,
Talcott Calif.
Taylor, N.C. Wilson, Charles, Tex.
Teague, Calif. Winn
Teague, Tex. Wolff
Thompson, N.J. Wright
Thomson, Wis. Wyatt
Thone Wydler
Thornton Wylie
Tierman Wyman
Towell, Nev. Yates
Treen Yatron
Udall Young, Alaska
Van Deerlin Young, Fla.
Vander Jagt Young, Ga.
Vanik Young, 111.
Veysey Young. S.C.
Vigorito Young, Tex.
Waggonner Zablocki
Waldie Zion
Walsh Zwach
NAYS— 2
Landgrebe Rousselot
NOT VOTING— 88
Aspin Karth
Badillo King
Bell Koch
Bergland Leggett
Bingham McDade
Carney, Ohio Minshall, Ohio
Chisholm Moorhead, Pa.
Conyers Price, Tex.
Cotter Rangel
Davis, Ga. Roncalio, N.Y.
Dingell onnfil
Ellberg L-D. ^W°J
Fish Rooney, N.Y.
Ford, Gerald R. Rooney, Pa.
Ford, William D. Saylor
Gray Sisk
Harvey Smith, N.Y.
Hebert Taylor, Mo.
Hosmer Ulhnan
Hutchinson Wiggins
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs :
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Fish.
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Gerald R. Ford.
Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Leggett.
Mr. Bergland with Mr. Bell.
Mr. Koch with Mr. King.
Mr. Bingham with Mr. Harvey.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
25
Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania with Mr.
McDade.
Mr. Badillo with Mr. Hosmer.
Mr. DinfceU with Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Bill- rg with Mr. Minshall of Ohio.
Mr. Gras with Mr. Price of Texas
Mr. Rangel with Mr. William D. Ford.
Mr. Carney of Ohio with Mr. Eoncallo of
New York.
Mr. Cotter with Mr. Aspin.
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Smith of
New York.
Mr. Karth with Mr. Taylor of Missouri.
Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania with Mr.
Hutchinson.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Saylor.
Mr. Ullman with Mr. Wiggins.
The rfisult of the vote was an-
nounced £,: ^ove -^corded.
A moticri w consider was laid on
the table.
[H 2007]
l.l.e (2)(b) MARCH 27: CONSIDERED AND PASSED SENATE,
P. 55703
EXTENSION OF SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL ACT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask the Chair to lay before the Senate
a. message from the House on H.R.
5446.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid
before the Senate H.R. 5446, an act to
extend the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, for 1 year, which was
read twice by title.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate proceed to the immediate consid-
eration of the bill.
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment.
If there be no amendment to be of-
fered, the question is on the third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to a third read-
ing, read the third time, and passed.
[S 5703]
-------
Executive
Orders
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 29
[RESERVED]
-------
Regulations
-------
SOLID WASTE 33
3. Regulations
3.1 General Grant Regulations and Procedures, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 30.100-30.1001—3 (1972)
[See General 3.11 for subsection listing]
3.2 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 35.300-35.340 (1972)
§ 35.300 Purpose
§ 35.301 Authority
§ 35.302 Definitions
§ 35.302—1 Intel-municipal Agency
§ 35.302—2 Interstate Agency
§ 35.302—3 Municipality
§ 35.303-^t Solid Waste
§ 35.302—5 Solid Waste Disposal
§ 35.302—6 State
§ 35.304 Solid Waste Planning Projects
§ 35.304—1 Management Planning
§ 35.304—2 Special Purpose Planning
§ 35.305 Grant Limitations
§ 35.310 Eligibility
§ 35.315 Application
§ 35.315—1 Preapplication Procedures
§ 35.315—2 Application Requirements
§ 35.320 Criteria for Award
§ 35.320—1 All Applications
§ 35.320—2 State Applications
§ 35.320—3 Local and Regional Applications
§ 35.330 Reports
§ 35.330—1 Progress Reports
§ 35.330—2 Report of Project Expenditures
§ 35.330—3 Final Reports
§ 35.340 Continuation Grants
3.3 Research and Demonstration Grants, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 40.100-40.165 (1973)
§ 40.100 Purpose of Regulations
§ 40.105 Applicability and Scope
§ 40.110 Authority
§ 40.115 Definitions
§ 40.115—1 Construction
-------
34 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 40.115—2 Intel-municipal Agency
§ 40.115—3 Interstate Agency
§ 40.115—4 Municipality
§ 40.115—5 Person
§ 40.115—6 Recovered Resources
§ 40.115—7 Resource Recovery System
§ 40.115—9 Solid Waste Disposal
§ 40.110-10 State
§ 40.120 Determination of EPA Research Ob-
jectives
§ 40.120—1 Environmental Research Needs
§ 40.120—2 Needs Statement
§ 40.120—3 Publication of Research Objectives
§ 40.125 Grant Limitations
§ 40.125—1 Limitations on Duration
§ 40.125—2 Limitations on Assistance
§ 40.130 Eligibility
§ 40.135—1 Preapplication Coordination
§ 40.135—2 Application Requirements
§ 40.140 Criteria for Award
§ 40.140—1 All Applications
§ 40.140—2 Solid Waste Disposal Act
§ 40.145 Supplemental Grant Conditions
§ 40.145—1 Solid Waste Disposal Act
§ 40.150 Evaluation of Applications
§ 40.155 Confidential Data
§ 40.160 Reports
§ 40.160—1 Progress Report
§ 40.160—2 Report of Project Expenditures
§ 40.160—3 Reporting of Inventions
§ 40.160—4 Equipment Reports
§ 40.160—5 Final Report
§ 40.165 Continuation Grants
3.4 Training Grants and Manpower Forecasting, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 45.100-45.155
(1973)
3.4a Training Grants—Subpart A
§ 45.100 Purpose of Regulation
§ 45.101 Applicability and Scope
§ 45.102 Authority
§ 45.103 Objectives
§ 45.105 Definitions
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 35
§ 45.105—1 Professional Training
§ 45.105—2 Scholarship
§ 45.105—3 Stipend
§ 45.105—4 Technician Training
§ 45.115 Eligibility
§ 45.125 Application Requirements
§ 45.130 Evaluation of Applications
§ 45.135 Supplemental Grant Conditions
§ 45.140 Project Period
§ 45.145 Allocation and Allowability of Costs
§ 45.150 Reports
§ 45.150—1 Interim Progress Reports
§ 45.150—2 Final Progress Reports
§ 45.150—3 Report of Expenditures
§ 45.150—4 Equipment Reports
§ 45.155 Continuation Grant
3.4b Manpower Forecasting (RESERVED)
-------
Guidelines
and
Reports
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 39
4.9 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS AS REQUIRED BY
42 U.S.C. § 3253.
4.9a Report to Congress on Resource Recovery
by the Environmental Protection Agency, February 1973.
PREFACE
Section 205 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272) as
amended requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) undertake an investigation and study of resource recovery.
This document represents EPA's Report to the President and the
Congress summarizing the Agency's investigations to date and
reporting the manner in which the Congressional mandate is being
carried out.
The findings of this report are based on a number of contractual
efforts and analyses by the Agency staff carried out since the
passage of the Resource Recovery Act. Extremely valuable as-
sistance in these investigations has been provided to EPA by The
Council on Environmental Quality.
The report is organized into a summary, four major sections,
and an appendix. The first section discusses the problem to which
resource recovery is the potential solution. Next, key findings re-
lated to resource recovery are presented. A section outlining major
options follows. The report concludes with a discussion of EPA's
program activities in resource recovery.
The appendix presents summaries of information about the
status of resource recovery by major materials categories and a
listing of existing resource recovery facilities.
A number of typographical errors that appeared in the first
printing have been corrected in the April 1973 printing, and the
references have been restyled.
-------
40
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
CONTENTS
Pane
SUMMAEY 41
Section 1 THE PROBLEM 43
Section 2 KEY FINDINGS 48
Section 5 DISCUSSION OF MAJOR OPTIONS 61
Section 4 DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 67
REFERENCES 76
APPENDIX
Paper Recycling 81
Ferrous Metals Recycling 88
Nonferrous Metals Recycling 96
Glass Recycling 105
Plastics Recycling 108
Textiles Recycling 110
Resource Recovery Installations 114
References for Appendix 115
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 41
SUMMARY
• This report presents an exploration of resource recovery as a
method of solid waste management and resource conservation. In-
formation developed over the past several years is summarized and
the many questions surrounding the complex subject of resource
recovery are discussed.
• The emphasis of the report is on the recovery of materials
and energy from mixed municipal wastes and other "post-con-
sumer" wastes that are discarded outside the normal waste collec-
tion channels. Although only 5% of the total national solid waste
load, these wastes tend to have the most frequent population impact
in that they occur in the nation's urbanized places. More than 50%
of the total waste load comes from agriculture and is usually re-
turned to the soil. More than 40% of the total burden is mining
waste, which occurs in the hinterland.
• Nearly all major materials are recovered to some extent by
recycling. Most recovered materials are derived from industrial
fabrication wastes. Post-consumer wastes are also recovered to
some extent (waste paper, old automobiles) ; post-consumer re-
cycling has grown in an absolute sense. However, the proportion of
the nation's materials requirements satisfied from recycling mate-
rials has remained constant or has declined in most instances.
• The level of recycling depends almost entirely on economics.
Recycling takes place to the extent that it is the most efficient use
of resources. In the absence of artificial economic subsidies for
"natural" or "virgin" materials more secondary or recycled ma-
terials would be used. The economics of recycling are also influ-
enced by apparently inequitable freight rates—both ocean and
(rail—which make the transportation of secondary materials rela-
tively more costly than the movement of virgin resources.
• There has been sufficient technology development to allow ex-
traction of materials and energy from mixed municipal wastes.
However, few full scale recovery plants exist. The Environmental
Protection Agency is funding the demonstration of the most sig-
nificant conceptual alternatives.
• The costs of recovery plants are estimated to be relatively
high, making recovery by technological means attractive only in
areas where high disposal costs prevail and local markets for the
waste materials exist. There is evidence that recovery by separate
collection is not only feasible but economically attractive provided
that the collection makes use of an existing transport system and
markets for the collected materials exist.
• Preliminary research and analysis indicates that, when com-
-------
42 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
pared with virgin materials extraction and processing, resource
recovery results in lower quantities of atmospheric emissions,
waterborne wastes, mining and solid wastes, and energy consump-
tion. There is substantial disagreement among experts about the
extent of such differential effects over time, particularly as
strengthened environmental constraints on use of both virgin and
secondary materials begin to narrow the differentials that now
exist.
• Recycling should become more economical relative to other
solid waste disposal options during the next several years. Energy
costs are rising, making energy recovery more attractive and more
economical. As pressures increase to bring about environmentally
sound waste disposal, the costs of disposal will rise and recovery
will become more attractive as an alternative. Finally, to the extent
that air and water pollution control regulations are intensified, the
incentives of industry for using secondary materials will improve.
• Other incentives for recycling also exist under existing Fed-
eral policies. The General Services Administration does not pur-
chase paper unless it contains a specified amount of recycled
paper. The military services are exploring procurement policies to
reduce waste quantities or to mandate inclusion of secondary ma-
terials. The Treasury Department has determined that tax exempt
industrial revenue bonds may finance the construction of recycling
facilities built by private concerns to recycle their own wastes.
• Additional Federal incentives for recycling are not consid-
ered desirable at this time. Studies to date indicate that the effec-
tiveness of specific incentive mechanisms that can be formulated is
extremely difficult to predict. New tax incentives may well distort
the economics of resource utilization much as preferential treat-
ment of virgin materials distorts them today.
• There is an obvious need for further exploration of the com-
plex issues of materials utilization in the Nation in the context of
total resource utilization. Resource recovery is an important part
—but only a part—of the larger picture. Before additional Federal
policies are developed—aimed possibly at overcoming institutional
and market imperfections in some areas—a better understanding
of the complex materials and energy situation must be developed,
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 43
Section 1
THE PROBLEM
U.S. Materials-Use Pattern. Resource recovery in its varied as-
pects must be seen as part of a much larger economic,structure—
the total materials and energy use patterns of the nation. Today the
recovery of waste materials supplies a very small part of the total
material and energy requirements of the U.S. population, and
while both population and materials consumption are increasing,
the use of materials from waste sources is declining relative to
overall consumption.
In 1971, the U.S. economy used an estimated 5.8 billion tons of
materials for its total activity, equivalent to 28 tons for each man,
woman, and child. Of this total approximately 10 percent comes
from agriculture, forestry, fishing, and animal husbandry (food
and forest products) ; 34 percent is represented by fuels; and 55
percent conies from the minerals industries in the form of metals,
construction materials, and other minerals.1
Materials use is growing at a rate of 4 percent to 5 percent
yearly. Per capita consumption was 22 tons in 1965, 24.7 tons in
1968, and 28 tons in 1971.2 During the same period, population
grew at a rate of 1.3 percent annually.
A high rate of materials and energy consumption means a high
rate of waste generation. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of annual
inputs to the economy represents accumulation of materials in use
(in structures, plant, and equipment, etc.) ; the rest of the tonnage
is used consumptively with residues discharged to the land, water,
and air, or is used to replace obsolete products and structures which
in turn become waste.3
Nearly all of the materials and energy required in the U.S. comes
from virgin or natural resources. The tonnage of fabrication and
obsolete wastes recycled is approximately 55 to 60 million tons,4
equivalent to less than 1 percent of total minerals tonnage required
overall by the nation.
If we disregard food and energy substances, the estimated 1971
demand for nonfood, nonenergy materials was 3.6 billion tons, and
waste recovery satisfied 1.5 to 1.7 percent of the total requirement.
Environmental Consequences of Materials Use. Any form of
materials use has environmental consequences. Materials resources
[p. 1]
must be extracted, purified, upgraded, processed, and fabricated
into products; in addition, there are transportation steps between
most of these steps.
-------
44 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
At every point, solid, waterborne, and airborne wastes are gen-
erated and either enter the environment or are removed from
processing steps at some expense.
The production of 1,000 tons of steel, for instance, results in
2,800 tons of mine wastes, 121 tons of air pollutants, and 970 tons
of solid wastes.5 Similar waste flows are associated with every
materials flow, although, of course, the magnitudes vary depending
on the types of materials obtained. The sheer growth in materials
consumption per capita indicates that more pollution and waste is
generated per citizen today than was generated in years past.
As will be discussed, reports at this time indicate that the
amounts of air pollution, water pollution and waste that result
from production systems that use recycled wastes are lower than
the effluents from production systems that rely on virgin resources.
Thus, any decrease in resource recovery relative to total consump-
tion means an increase in the quantity of residuals generated.
Solid Waste Generation. Ever-increasing per capita materials
consumption necessarily means that more solid waste is generated.
This can be illustrated graphically by trends in packaging con-
sumption since packaging is a short-lived product category which
becomes waste immediately after use.
Per capita packaging consumption (in pounds per capita) has
been increasing steadily as shown below.6
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970
404 425 450 475 525 577
The situation in packaging is merely an illustration of a general
phenomenon of waste generation resulting from a materials con-
sumption rate which grows faster than population.
The total quantity of waste generated in 1971 is estimated to
have been 4.45 billion tons, up nearly 1 billion tons from 1967.
The make-up of this waste is shown below:
Million Tons
Municipal*7 230
Industrial8 140
Mineral wastes 9 1700
Animal wastes 10 1740
Crop wastes 10 640
4450
« Includes residential, commercial, demolition, street and alley sweepings and miscellaneous
(e.g., sludge disposal).
[p. 2]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 45
The 230 million ton municipal waste load plus that portion of
industrial waste occurring in large metropolitan areas constitute
what is normally referred to as the "solid waste problem" in popu-
lar discussion.
One reason for the growing solid waste burden is that resource
recovery has declined relative to total materials consumption. A
second reason is the substitution of material-intensive practices
(practices which result in consumption of large amounts of raw
materials) for less materials demanding practices, e.g., one-way
containers for returnable bottles, paper towels for cloth towels,
and disposable one-time use products of all sorts—in the home,
the office, the hospital, etc.—for products designed for reuse.
The resulting solid waste load is especially burdensome in urban
areas because of greater population concentrations and because
disposal in urban area is particularly difficult. The urban popula-
tion, for example, has grown from 64 percent of the total popula-
tion in 1950 to 74 percent in 1970, thereby increasing the quantity
of solid waste in urban areas by a substantial percentage. Addi-
tionally, urban populations generate more waste than nonurban
residents—approximately 20 percent more per capita.11
Disposal in urban areas is an especially difficult problem because
in the city, waste disposal is, at the same time, an environmental,
economic, and political problem. Waste collection is labor intensive,
labor costs are rising rapidly, and the productivity of most munici-
pal waste collection systems is low. In many urban areas, land
suitable for waste disposal has disappeared or is rapidly being used
up. Movement of the waste across the boundaries of the political
jurisdiction where it occurs is difficult and sometimes impossible.
As cities are required to travel longer distances to dispose of their
wastes or alternatively are forced to process them to achieve vol-
ume reduction, the costs of waste management are increased. To
eliminate potential air and water pollution from landfills and in-
cinerators, the waste processing facilities must be properly de-
signed, located, and operated, and must include proper pollution
control devices. This degree of control is technologically possible
but often costly, particularly in the case of incineration.
Given these circumstances, many cities increasingly are viewing
resource recovery as both an environmentally and economically
desirable alternative to disposal. Unfortunately, this option is most
often not available because demand for materials from wastes is
nonexistent or severely limited.
The Recovery Rate. Nearly all major materials are recovered to
some extent by recycling. The recovery rate varies from nearly 100
-------
46 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
TABLE 1
RECYCLING OF MAJOR MATERIALS (1967)
Material
Lead
Zinc
Glass
Textiles
Rubber
Total consumption
(million tons)
.. 53.110
105.900
4.009
2.913
1.261
1.592
12.820
5.672
3.943
Total recycled
(million tons)
10.124
33.100
.733
1.447
.625
.201
.600
246
1.032
Recycling as percent
of consumption
19.0
31.2
18.3
49.7
49.6
12.6
4.7
4 3
26 2
Total 191.220 48.108 25.2
Source: Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid wastes. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972. p. xvii.
percent for solid lead (50 percent for all lead),* 50 percent for
copper, 31 percent for iron and steel, and 19 percent for paper and
[p. 3]
board, to 4.2 percent for glass (Table 1). The percentages refer
to the proportion of total consumption of the materials satisfied
from both wastes recovered in fabrication steps in industry and
wastes recovered from obsolete products like junk automobiles and
old newspapers.
Consumption of major materials—iron and steel, paper, non-
ferrous metals, glass, textiles, and rubber—was taking place at a
rate of 190 million tons in the 1967-1968 period. During this period
the total recycling tonnage of the same materials was 48 million
tons, equivalent to 25 percent of consumption of these materials.
Historical data in this aggregated form are not available for all
materials. In general, however, for most materials, the portion of
total consumption of that material derived from waste sources has
been declining. Consumption of these waste materials has gen-
erally not kept pace with total consumption.
• Paper waste consumption as a percent of total fiber consump-
tion has declined from .a rate of 23.1 percent in 1960 to 17.8 per-
cent in 1969.12
• Iron and steel scrap consumption as a percent of total metallics
consumption has declined slightly overall from the 1959-1963 to
the 1964-1968 period, from 50.3 to 49.9 percent. Purchased scrap
• A substantial proportion of lead is used in gasoline as an anti-knock additive; this lead is
dispersed and is unrecoverable.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 47
consumption,* representing the recycling of fabrication and ob-
solete wastes, has been losing ground: in the 1949-1953 period it
was 44.9 percent of total scrap; in the 1964-1968 period, 40.0 %.13
• Rubber reclaiming is a declining activity both absolutely and
in relation to total rubber consumption. In 1958 reclaim consump-
tion was 19% of total rubber consumption, in 1969, 8.8 %.14
• The major nonferrous metals—aluminum, copper, and lead—
are reused at a composite rate of around 35% of total consumption
and this percentage has remained fairly constant over time.15
Historical data on other materials are not readily available in
aggregate form, but declining recovery is generally the rule.
It is reasonable to assume that a secondary material, one that has
already been processed, should be a more attractive raw material
to industry than a virgin material that must be extracted or har-
vested and processed. The secondary material is already purified
and concentrated; scrap steel, for instance, is nearly 100 percent
steel while the iron ore from which it is made contains high pro-
portions of silicate materials which must be removed. Why, then,
the relatively low recycling rate found in the United States today?
The low rate is the result of the action of a number of forces,
among them the following:
(1) The delivered price of virgin raw materials to the manu-
facturer is almost as low in many cases as the cost of secondary
materials, and virgin materials are usually qualitatively superior
to salvaged materials. Consequently, demand for secondary ma-
terials is limited.
(2) Natural resources are abundant and manufacturing indus-
tries have directed their operations to exploit these. Plants are
generally built near the source of virgin materials (e.g., paper
plants near pulp wood supplies). Technology to utilize virgin ma-
terials has been perfected; due to the adverse economics, similar
technology to exploit wastes has not been developed.
(3) Natural resources occur in concentrated form while wastes
occur in a dispersed manner. Consequently, acquisition of wastes
for recycling is costly, and is particularly sensitive to high trans-
portation costs.
(4) Virgin materials, even in unprocessed form, tend to be more
homogeneous in composition than waste materials, and sorting and
upgrading of mixed wastes is costly.
* In the iron and steel industry, distinctions are made between "home" scrap, a process
waste in furnaces and in mills; prompt scrap, occurring in fabrication plants; and obsolete
scrap, from discarded products or obsolete structures. Purchased scrap is the combination of
the last two categories.
-------
48 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
(5) The advent of synthetic materials made from hydrocarbons,
and their combination with natural materials, cause contamination
of the latter, limiting their recovery. The synthetics themselves are
virtually impossible to sort and recover economically from mixed
waste.
(6) There are artificial economic barriers which favor virgin
material use over secondary material use. For example, depletion
allowances, favorable capital gains treatments, and apparently
favorable freight rates are available to virgin materials processors
but not to secondary materials processors. Also, producers pres-
ently do not have to internalize all costs of environmental pollution.
Section 2
KEY FINDINGS
The key findings of this report can be reduced to four major
points:
(1) The use of recycled materials appears to result in a reduc-
tion in atmospheric emissions, waste generated, and energy con-
sumption when compared with virgin materials utilization.
(2) The recovery of materials from waste depends largely on
economics. The cost of manufacturing products from secondary
materials is generally as high or higher than manufacturing prod-
ucts from virgin materials, and consequently only high quality and
readily accessible waste materials can find a market. Artificial
economic advantages available to virgin materials users (e.g., de-
pletion allowances and capital gains treatments, and inability of
the traditional market to internalize pollution and resource deple-
tion costs) appear to have been major contributors to this economic
situation.
(3) There has been sufficient technology development to allow
extraction of materials from mixed municipal wastes. However,
the cost of extraction is high, making recovery processes attractive
only in areas where high disposal costs prevail and favorable local
markets exist for the materials.
(4) Recovery of materials (as opposed to energy) from mixed
municipal wastes, while conceptually the best alternative to dis-
posal, cannot be instituted on a large scale in the absence of: a
substantial reduction in processing costs and/or upgrading in
quality, which is simply unattainable given reasonable projection
of technology; and/or a major reordering in relative virgin and
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 49
secondary materials prices, to make secondary materials more
economically attractive.
A more detailed discussion of each of these findings follows.
Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts of recycling
are of major importance. Studies conducted to date indicate that
resource recovery generally results in reduced consumption of
energy and materials and reduced effects of air and water pollu-
tion.
Resource recovery has three major environmental benefits: (1)
recovery and reuse of a material conserves the natural resources
from which that material is derived; (2) recycling of materials
eliminates disposal, thus, the negative environmental effects of
inadequately controlled solid waste disposal are reduced; (3) sub-
stitution of waste materials for virgin materials in the production
system results in decreased energy requirements and decreased air
and water effluents (based on studies of glass, paper, and ferrous
metals) and avoids other kinds of environmental degradation,
particularly in the extraction phase (e.g., strip mining). Data to
substantiate these points are presented below.
Glass. Environmental impacts occur at every step of glass manu-
facturing from the mining of raw materials to final waste disposal.
Changes in the amount of cullet (glass scrap) in the raw materials
batch are responsible for significant changes in environmental
effects.
Comparing the environmental impact of glass manufacturing
using 15 and 60 percent cullet mixes, it is clear that increased
cullet usage results in reduced quantities of residual discharge.
Table 2 illustrates the impact changes for the two cullet mixes. A
60 percent cullet batch would result in over 50 percent less mining
and postconsumer waste, 50 percent less water consumption, and
up to 22 percent less atmospheric emissions. The energy require-
ments either increase 3 percent or decrease 6 percent depending
on the recovery system used for obtaining the cullet.
Paper. There are significant changes in environmental impact
when waste paper is substituted for virgin wood pulp in the produc-
tion of paper products. Table 3 summarizes the environmental
impacts produced by manufacturing 1,000 tons of pulp from re-
cycled fiber rather than from virgin wood pulp. The recycled fiber
case requires 61 percent less water and 70 percent less air pol-
lutants.
If deinking and bleaching are required to upgrade the secondary
fibers for high quality finished products, recycling still produces
environmental benefits in almost every category. Table 4, which
compares virgin pulp with recycled deinked pulp, indicates that
-------
50 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
15 percent less water and 60 percent less energy are required, and
60 percent less air pollutants are generated. However, the water-
borne wastes increase significantly. The increase in solid wastes
generated in processing is more than offset by the recovery of paper
from municipal solid waste.
Ferrous Metals. There are also substantial changes in environ-
mental impact from utilizing recycled steel rather than producing
steel from iron ore. A comparison of the impacts of producing
1,000 tons of steel reinforcing bars from virgin ore and from scrap
indicates that 74 percent less energy and 51 percent less water are
used in the recycling case. Additionally, air pollution effluents are
reduced by 86 percent and mining wastes by 97 percent (Table 5).
The results presented in Tables 2—5, were derived from surveys
conducted from 1968-1970 and represent pollution in a relatively
uncontrolled situation. As air and water pollution control legisla-
tion and implementing regulations become more effective, some of
the costs of environmental degradation will be internalized. This
might result in an improvement in the environmental impacts of
virgin material utilization and decrease the cost advantage of
virgin versus secondary materials. EPA is carrying out further
analysis of this process and the attendant costs and results will be
presented in subsequent reports to Congress.
The results presented indicate that in most cases studied the
atmospheric effluents, waterborne wastes, solid wastes, energy and
water consumption are substantially lower for resource recovery as
compared to virgin material utilization. However, the full environ-
mental impact of this result is difficult to assess completely. Resid-
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF GULLET DEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FOR 1,000 TONS OF GLASS CONTAINERS, BY IMPACT CATEGORY
Environmental
impact
Atmospheric emissions (all
Water consumption (intake
Energy use
Virgin raw materials consu
New post-consumer waste
sources) - -
minus discharge)...
generation
15%
Gullet
104 tons
13.9 tons
200,000 gals.
16,150 X 10" BTU
1,100 tons
1,000 tons
60%
Cullet
22 tons
13 tons
10.9 tons
100,000 gals.
16,750 X 10« BTU
15,175 X 10« BTU
500 tons
450 tons
% Change"
-79%
-6%»
-22%'
-50%
+3%
-6%
-54%
-55%
• Negative numbers represent a decrease in that impact resulting from increased recycling.
b Calculated for the Black-Clawson wet recovery system for cullet recovery from municipal waste.
c Calculated for the Bureau of Mines incinerator residue recovery system for cullet recovery from municipal
waste.
" Based primarily on surveys conducted in 1967-1969.
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 51
TABLE 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMPARISON FOR 1,000 TONS OF LOW-GRADE PAPER
Environmental
effect
Virgin materials use (oven dry fiber)
Air pollutants b
effluents (transportation,
manufacturing, and harvesting)
Waterborne wastes discharged — BOD b
Waterborne wastes discharged — suspended
solids b
Process solid wastes generated
Unbleached
kraft pulp
(virgin)
1 000 tons
24 million
gallons
17 000 X 10° BTU
42 tons
15 tons
8 tons
68 tons
850 tons c
Repulped
waste paper
(100%)
-0-
ga lions
5 000 X 10a BTU
11 tons
9 tons
6 tons
— 250 tons a
Change from
increased
recycling (%)>
100
61
70
73
-44
-25
-39
— 129
1 Negative numbers represent a decrease in that category, or a positive change from increased recycling.
b Based primarily on surveys conducted in 1968-1970.
c This assumes a 15% loss of fiber in the papermaking and converting operations.
dThis assumes that 1,100 tons of waste paper would be needed to produce 1,000 tons of pulp. Therefore
850-1100 = 250 represents the net reduction of post-consumer waste.
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
TABLE 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 TONS
OF BLEACHED VIRGIN KRAFT PULP AND EQUIVALENT MANUFACTURED FROM
DEINKED AND BLEACHED WASTEPAPER
Environmental effect
Virgin materials use (oven dry fiber)
(transportation, manufacturing, and
harvesting) b
Waterborne wastes discharged — BOD *
Waterborne wastes discharged — suspended
solids
Virgin fiber
pulp
1,100 tons
47,000 x 10"
gallons
23,000 X 10« BTU
49 tons
23 tons
24 tons
112 tons
850 tons °
Deinked
pulp
-0-
40,000 X 10=
gallons
9,000 X 10" BTU
20 tons
20 tons
77 tons
224 tons
-550 tons3
Increased
recycling
change (%) *
-100
-15
-60
-60
-13
+ 222
+ 100
-165
" Negative number represents a decrease in that category resulting from recycling.
» Based on surveys conducted in 1968-1970.
c This assumes a 15% loss of fiber in paperworking and converting operations.
dThis assumes that 1,400 tons of waste paper is needed to produce 1,000 tons of pulp. Therefore, 850-
1,400 = -550 represents the net reductfon in post-consumer solid waste.
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
-------
52 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMPARISON FOR 1,000 TONS OF STEEL PRODUCT
Environmental
effect
Water use
Virgin materials
use
2 278 tons
16.6 million gallons
23,347 X 10° BTU
121 tons
67 5 tons
967 tons
2,828 tons
100% waste
use
250 tons
9.9 million gallons
6,089 X 106 BTU
17 tons
16.5 tons
— 60 tons
63 tons
Change from
increased
recycling (%) •
-90
-40
-74
-86
—76
— 105
—97
•Negative numbers represent a decrease in that category resulting from recycling.
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
uals and wastes produce different degrees of environmental damage
depending both upon their composition and the location in which
they are released. Emissions in high population areas could affect
public health and welfare, while in rural areas, plant and wildlife
ecology could be altered. Further research and analysis is needed to
evaluate the overall environmental impact of the different mix and
different location of emissions brought about by increased levels of
recycling.
Economics. There are a number of historical, technical, loca-
tional, attitudinal, and other reasons for the decline of resource
recovery, all of which can be translated into relatively high total
costs for waste recovery compared with virgin materials process-
ing. Secondary materials derived from municipal waste in almost
every instance have a higher cost to the material user than virgin
materials.
Again glass, paper, and ferrous metals provide illustrations.
Glass. Cost comparisons of glass manufacture from either waste
glass (cullet) or virgin raw materials depend primarily on the de-
livered cost to the plant of each raw material. Glass can be made
from cullet in existing plants with minor and inexpensive process
changes. The production costs are essentially the same with either
raw material. Similarly, a new plant designed to use cullet would
be very similar to a plant based on virgin materials and would be
no more costly to construct.
Table 6 compares the cost of using virgin materials with the cost
of using cullet. The lower end of the cullet price range reflects a
transportation distance of 25 miles or less. As distance from the
glass plant increases, the price obviously rises. Since most re-
covered glass would need to be moved more thn 25 miles, the upper
end of the range provides the best estimate.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 53
TABLE 6
COST COMPARISON FOR GLASS ($/TON)
Cost component
Raw materials delivered
Gullet delivered
Fusion loss
Incremental handling costs at glass plant
TOTAL
Virgin materials
$15 48
0
2 95
0
$18 43
Gullet
(waste glass)
£ 0
17 77 $22 77
Q
50 - 1 00
$18 27 $23 77
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
Glass manufacturers are not likely to make even the minor pro-
cess changes required to increase cullet consumption where the cost
of using the virgin materials from well established sources with
predictable supplies and prices is equal to or less than that of bring-
ing an unfamiliar, possibly contaminated substitute.
Paper. The comparative economics of using supplemental waste
paper in existing mills for manufacturing certain paper products
are shown in Table 7. These examples are by no means exhaustive
of the many paper industry products, but these cases representing
three products with different economic characteristics support
what would seem to be obvious from the current industry orienta-
tion. The cost penalty for increasing the use of paperstock is $2.50/
ton for corrugating medium, $3.75/ton for linerboard (corrugat-
ing medium and linerboard are the materials used to make corru-
gated boxes), and $20-$30/ton for printing/writing paper. The
latter cost differential is the result of substantial upgrading of
waste paper that would be required in the printing/writing grade
of paper. The cost of newsprint manufacture, however, is lowered
TABLE 7
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS OF PAPER MANUFACTURE
FROM RECYCLED AND VIRGIN MATERIALS
Product
Supplemental fiber use (recycled fiber
content).
Operating cost with increased use of recycled
fiber.
Net cost of increased recycled fiber usage
Linerboard
0%
$78.50/ton
250/o
$82.25/ton
$3.75
Corrugating
medium
15%
$79.50/ton
40%
$82.00/ton
$2.50
Printing/
writing
paper
0%
$80-$120/ton
100
$100-$150/ton
$20-$ 30/ton
Newsprint
0%
$125/ton
100
$98/ton
-$27
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
-------
54 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
by using 100 percent recycled fiber (deinked newsprint). This has
been the only major new market for waste paper in recent years.
The economics of constructing new mills based on either virgin
or secondary fibers also shows why the industry has preferred to
build plants utilizing virgin fiber. An analysis of folding boxboard
(combination board made from secondary fiber versus solid wood
pulp board made from virgin pulp) found the return on investment
for the virgin based plant to be 8.1% while that for a plant based
on waste paper (combination board) was only 4.5%. Under such
circumstances, construction of new combination board mills is
highly unlikely.
Ferrous Metals. The cost to an integrated steel producer of using
scrap versus ore is difficult to determine. The steel industry does
not maintain or at least does not report such figures. Estimates
have been made, however, which indicate that the cost of using
high-grade scrap is higher than the cost of using ore.16
The point of equivalency of scrap and ore in the production pro-
cess is the point where either hot molten pig iron or melted scrap is
used to charge a basic oxygen furnace (EOF). The total cost of
scrap at this point was estimated to be $44.00 per ton, including
$33.50 purchase price of the scrap, $6.00 melting cost, $3.50 for
scrap handling, and $1.00 for increased refractory wear caused by
scrap usage. The cost of molten pig iron (which competes indirectly
with scrap) was estimated at $37.50 per ton including $28.50 for
the ore and associated raw materials, and $9.00 for melting cost.
Thus, the cost of scrap ready for charging to a EOF is $6.50 per
ton greater than the hot metal derived from ore at the same point.
Thus, without a reduction in scrap cost of at least $6.00 to $7.00
per ton, it is unlikely that there will be a substantial increase in
utilization of scrap by existing steel mills in EOF steel production.
Nonintegrated steel mills using electric furnaces (which operate
on virtually a 100 percent scrap charge) of course, find scrap use
economical. These scattered mills are usually located near metro-
politan areas and transport cost of scrap is not a major expense.
The above cases illustrate the fundamental economic barriers to
the increased utilization of secondary materials. The economics of
recovery today result in the recovery of all waste materials that are
of high quality and can be obtained from reasonably concentrated
sources. Extraction of materials from solid waste is limited both by
the relatively low quality of such wastes due to contamination and
admixture with foreign materials, and by the relatively greater
effort required to acquire such materials.
Economic Disincentives. A part of the cost differentials between
secondary and virgin raw materials is in fact artifically created
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 55
by public policy actions. Virgin materials enjoy depletion allow-
ances and other subsidies such as favorable capital gains treat-
ments. For example, due to the 15 percent depletion allowance on
iron ore, the ore producer could lower his selling price by 13.5 per-
cent without reducing his profit margin. Publicly controlled freight
rates appear to discriminate against the movement of scrap mate-
rials. To a large extent, virgin materials prices do not reflect the full
costs of environmental degradation the materials create. Further-
more, the fuels required for energy to extract and to process the
virgin materials—which are high energy consumers—are also sub-
sidized by depletion allowances.
Environmental regulations will tend to internalize pollution
costs and may partially close the relative cost gap between use of
virgin and recycled materials. However, the overall timing and
impact of these measures is difficult to predict. Under the present
market conditions, pollution regulations may in some cases work to
the detriment of recycling. For example, in the paper industry
many combination board mills (the major users of secondary
paper) are already economically marginal operations and will find
it difficult to absorb additional pollution control expenditures. Also,
many types of environmental degradation resulting from virgin
materials use, e.g., strip mining are not currently subject to con-
trols.
Resource Recovery Technology. Technology to process mixed
municipal wastes for recovery as materials, commodities and en-
ergy has been and is being developed by private industry, generally
without Federal support.
EPA's resource recovery demonstration program, carried out
under Section 208 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is designed to
demonstrate the major technologies that have been developed in
areas where both economic and market conditions for successful
demonstration can be found.
The major technical options being considered are the following:
Materials separation into saleable components.
Composting of waste and production of soil modifiers.
Waste heat recovery in conventional incineration.
Waste heat recovery in high temperature incineration.
Direct firing of prepared waste as fuel.
Pyrolysis of waste to generate steam or gaseous, liquid, or
solid fuel.
Of these options, a number have already been or are now being
demonstrated.
Wet materials separation employing a system developed by the
-------
56 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Black-Clawson Company has been demonstrated at Franklin, Ohio,
with EPA support. After shredding, metals, glass, and saleable
pulp are separated.
A number of composting plants have been built and have been
operated successfully from a technical point of view (See Appen-
dix) . The majority have failed, however, because markets for the
compost products did not materialize. The rather high cost of pro-
ducing compost is not sufficiently offset by income from its sale.
Waste heat recovery in conventional incineration has been dem-
onstrated both here and abroad; this is also a well known practice.
(See Appendix).
Direct firing of prepared waste as fuel is now being demonstrated
in St. Louis, Missouri. Waste is shredded; ferrous metals are re-
moved by a magnet; and the remaining waste, including nonfer-
rous metals and broken glass, is introduced into a utility boiler
where it is burned with coal to generate steam for the utility's
turbines.
Partial separation of incinerator residues, i.e., the extraction of
steel cans by magnets, has been demonstrated at a number of loca-
tions.
Major technical options or variants that have not yet been dem-
onstrated include the following:
Total Incinerator Residue Separation as Developed by the Bu-
reau of Mines. This system recovers glass, nonferrous metals and
some fractions of the minerals in residues in addition to iron and
steel. A pilot plant has been operated by the Bureau of Mines.
Dry Mechanical Waste Separation. Various components of such
systems (such as shredders, magnets, grinders, conveyors, etc.)
are commercially available. An air separator which performs a
gross division of wastes into combustible and noncombustible
fractions has been employed as part of an EPA contract with Com-
bustion Power Equipment Co. in Los Angeles, California. Materials
separators have been widely used in other industries such as min-
ing and agriculture. To date application of these technologies to
solid waste separation has not been fully exploited by industry be-
cause secure markets for output products do not exist.
Waste Heat Recovery in High Temperature Incineration. Several
such incinerators have been developed; all operate in a similar
manner.
Pyrolysis. Several systems have been developed by high-tech-
nology companies (Monsanto, Hercules, Garrett, Union Carbide).
Like high temperature incinerators, these are also very similar in
operation. They can be designed to yield outputs of fuel gas, oil,
and char, or can be utilized directly to generate steam.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 57
Economic data on the investment costs, operating costs, and
revenues of major resource recovery system options have been de-
veloped by Midwest Research Institute under contract with EPA
and the Council on Environmental Quality. All of the major sys-
tems examined show a net cost of operation: revenues are not suffi-
cient to cover all operating costs. In a municipally owned plant with
an input capacity of 1,000 tons per day, net costs will range from a
low of $2.70 per ton for fuel recovery by direct waste firing to a
high of $8.97 per ton for incineration with electrical generation
(Table 8). While the costs indicate that resource recovery by pro-
cessing is not a profitable venture in those communities where dis-
posal costs are high, the lower cost resource recovery options offer
a means of reducing disposal costs.
Figure 1 shows that recovery system economics improve with
size. These data are based on current prices for secondary materials
(Table 9). The results show that recovery by processing could be
attractive in large cities generating large quantities of waste if the
increased quantities of materials recovered do not drive secondary
material prices down. Table 10 shows the sensitivity of system
economics to the market price of recovered materials. It can be seen
that, if higher prices are obtained, which may be the case if incen-
tives for use of secondary materials are instituted, system eco-
nomics are significantly improved. Using the case of materials
recovery as an example, a 50 percent increase in prices results in a
reduction of net costs from $4.77 per ton to $2.56 per ton. A
materials price decrease of the same amount would raise net costs
to $6.98.
The costs presented in Tables 8 and lO suggest that resource re-
covery is a more economical option than incineration. The fact that
there is no apparent move to install resource recovery systems is
partially explained by the fact that the markets for recovered com-
modities are uncertain. Cities are unable to obtain purchase con-
tracts with local buyers of waste materials at fixed prices. The
failure rate of compost plants, due to lack of markets, has solidified
feelings of market uncertainty. And finally, traditional municipal
reluctance to undertake large scale capital investment, particularly
where there is some element of risk, and other institutional prob-
lems have also contributed to the failure to move to resource re-
covery systems.
In summary, in most cases technology is available for imple-
menting resource recovery through the processing of mixed munici-
pal wastes. The technical processing route is costly but, in some of
the technical options, costs approach those of other means of dis-
posal. Although technological improvements would result in some
-------
FIGURE 1 NET DISPOSAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MUNICIPALLY-OWNED RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS AT VARIOUS PLANT
CAPACITIES (20-YEAR ECONOMIC LIFE; 300 DAYS/YEAR OPERATION)
ox
oo
z
o
h-
o
o
o
Q.
U)
14.00 i-
12.00 -
10.00 -
8.00 -
6.00 -
4.00 -
2.00 -
INCINERATION + ELECTRIC GENERATION
INCINERATION ONLY
INCINERATION + RESIDUE RECOVERY
INCINERATION + STEAM RECOVERY
REMOTE SANITARY LANDFILL
COMPOSTING (MECHANICAL)
PYROLYSIS
MATERIALS RECOVERY
SANITARY LANDFILL
FUEL RECOVERY
O
o
Ul
c|
I
a
250 500 1000 2000 CAPACITY (TONS/DAY)
Source- Midwest Research Institute, Economic Studies in Support of Policy Formation on Resource Recovery, Unpublished report to the Council on Environmental
Quality. 1972.
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF RECYCLING SYSTEM ECONOMICS «
System concept
Residue recovery after incineration
Incineration and steam recovery
Incineration and electrical generation
Pyvolysis __
Fuel use (supplementary)
Incineration _ __
Primary
type of
recovery
Material
Material
Capital
investment
($000)
11 568
10 676
11 607
17 717
12,334
17 100
7 577
9 299
Total annual
cost
($000)
2 759
2 689
3 116
3 892
3 287
2 987
1 731
2 303
Resource
value
($000)
1 328
535
1 000
1 200
1,661
1 103
920
0
Net annual
cost
($000)
1 431
2 154
2 116
2 692
1,626
1 884
881
2 303
Net cost
per input
ton($)
477
7.18
7.05
8.97
5.42
6 28
2.70
7.68
" Based on municipally owned, 1,000 TPD plant with 20-year economic life, operating
300 days/year, and interest at 5 percent.
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Resource recovery from mixed municipal solid
wastes. Unpublished data, 1972.
CO
I
CQ
Crc
-------
60
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
cost reductions, technology is not likely to dramatically improve the
marketability of products. If incentives for secondary materials
consumption were instituted, and improved prices for waste-based
commodities were established, further technology development by
the private sector could be expected.
Recovery from Mixed Municipal Waste
In order to achieve recovery of materials from mixed municipal
TABLE 9
QUANTITY AND VALUE OF RECOVERABLE RESOURCES
IN MIXED WASTE1
Resource
Glass
Oil
Steam _
Yield 3
45%
70%
90%
67%
100%
. — 100%
100%
100%
Recovered
quantity
available -
45,000 tons
16,800 tons
20,400 tons
1,200 tons
1,440,000 MBtu
2,700,000 MBtu
2,000,000 M Ib.
200 000 000 kw-h
75,000 tons
Estimated unit
value FOB plant
($/unit)
15.00
10.00
12.00
200.00
.70
0.25
0.50
.006
6.00
Total annual
revenues
($)
675,000
168,000
244,000
240,000
1,008,000
675,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
450,000
1 Not all of these values are additive. For example if paper is reclaimed as fiber it cannot also be recovered
as oil or fuel. '
a Assumes a 1000 TPD plant operating 300 days per year or 300,000 tons of waste. Also assumes recovery
rates based on technology assessment of available systems.
3 Yield equals the percentage of the material or energy in the waste which can actually be recovered. In
general, losses and technical limitations make this less than 100%.
• This assumes recovery from mixed waste. If recovery is from an incinerator residue, the value is assumed
to drop to $10 per ton, and only 12,700 tons are recoverable.
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Resource recovery from mixed municipal solid wastes. Unpublished
data, 1972.
TABLE 10
SENSITIVITY OF SYSTEM ECONOMICS TO MARKET VALUE
OF RECOVERED RESOURCES
System concept
Net cost per ton based on resource
selling prices as a percent of base value
No
150 100 50 resource value
percent percent percent recovered
Materials recovery
Incineration and residue recovery
Incineration and steam recovery.
Incineration and electric generation
Pyrolysis _ __
Composting
Fuel recovery
2 56
6 29
5 39
6 98
2 65
4 44
1 17
4 77
7 18
7 05
8 97
5 42
6 28
2 70
6 98
8 08
8 72
10 98
4 24
9 20
8 96
10 38
12 98
10 96
9 95
5 77
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Resource recovery from mixed municipal solid wastes. Unpublished
data, 1972.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 61
waste economics must be favorable at two key points. The munici-
pality must find the cost of resource recovery competitive with dis-
posal, and secondly, the user of the materials from these systems
must find the cost of these secondary materials competitive with
virgin materials substitutes. Recovery of materials from mixed
municipal waste requires processing. With the exception of a score
or so of very large cities, most communities have disposal costs
which are lower ($2 and $3 per ton) than the resource recovery al-
ternative. As shown above, recovery processing costs tend to exceed
revenues from the sale of products, and the resulting net cost is
higher in most places than current disposal costs.
Even in areas where disposal costs are already high—in excess
of $5 per ton—resource recovery is limited because no markets can
be guaranteed for recovery plant outputs at the tonnage levels at
which they can be produced.
From the standpoint of the municipality, then, two changes that
would bring about larger scale recovery of mixed municipal waste
are (1) higher prices for recovery plant outputs or—alternatively
—reduced recovery plant production costs and (2) an increase in
demand for waste-based raw materials.
These requirements, however, are somewhat at odds with the re-
quirements of the user who must purchase the outputs of such
plants. As has been shown, the economics of virgin materials use
are already more favorable than the economics of secondary mate-
rial use. Lower waste prices are needed to change this situation. In
order to insure a demand for secondary materials, they must either
decrease in price or—alternatively—their use must be subsidized.
Section 3
DISCUSSION OF MAJOR OPTIONS
EPA's studies have progressed to a point where the major op-
tions available to bring about resource recovery at an increased
rate—-where such action can be justified on environmental and con-
servation grounds—are generally identifiable. The fundamental
requirement is to create a situation wherein industrial materials
users will substitute secondary materials for virgin materials to
the extent this results in more efficient use of resources. This situ-
ation could be brought about by three types of activities: (1)
actions to inhibit the use of virgin materials, (2) actions to create
a demand for secondary materials, and/or (3) actions to create a
-------
62 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
supply of secondary materials of such quality and at such a price
that they will appropriately satisfy the new demand.
Inhibitory mechanisms, timed at restricting the consumption of
virgin materials, would normally take the form of disincentives or
regulatory actions. Actions to create demand or supply would nor-
mally require the provision of positive incentives. An analysis of
each of the major options follows.
Inhibition of Virgin Materials Use. If the supplies of virgin ma-
terials available to industry were denied or restricted, the cost of
the remaining available portion would rise as a consequence of con-
tinuing demand. In relation to secondary materials, then, virgin
materials would become more expensive, and more secondary ma-
terials would be used. Similarly, if the cost of virgin materials were
raised artificially (by taxation, by removel of depletion allowances,
capital gains treatment, or other means), the same consequence
would reseult.
The desirability of major intervention into virgin materials use
in order to increase recycling can be easily questioned on the
grounds that a very large materials tonnage (5.8 billion tons) may
have to be affected in order to increase a small portion (55 to 60
million tons).
Several "natural" events are likely to cause virgin materials to
rise in cost without any form of government intervention. These
events include: (1) tighter pollution control regulations and en-
forcement, resulting in higher pollution control costs; (2) increas-
ing energy costs, which will affect virgin materials proportionately
more because they are more energy-intensive than secondary ma-
terials; (3) depletion of high quality domestic reserves and the
need to exploit lean ore deposits or to import raw materials across
greater distances; (4) potentially adverse foreign trade policies;
and others. The timing and impact of these market corrections are
difficult to predict but are expected to be significant.
"Artificial" intervention is possible through the institution of
virgin materials taxes and/or the removal or modification of favor-
able tax treatment of virgin materials and energy substances, regu-
lation of virgin materials that are available from Federal land,
denial of markets to virgin materials through Federal procurement
policies, changes in transportation costs through Federal regula-
tion of rail and ocean freight rates, changes in Federally mandated
labeling regulations, and, at the extreme, the institution of national
materials standards that would limit the use of virgin materials in
major materials to some percentile below that now common.
The costs, benefits, and probable effectiveness of each major
action listed above are under analysis. Based on initial findings,
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 63
EPA sees justification for more aggressive Federal procurement
policies to limit the use of virgin materials in products (with all
the implied consequences of such a leadership posture), actions to
remove freight rate disparities that appear to favor virgin mate-
rials, and removal of labeling regulations that discourage consumer
purchasing of products that contain "waste" materials.
An example of Federal procurement changes already exists. The
changes introduced in 76 paper product specifications by the Gen-
eral Services Administration under orders from the President are
already having some impact on paper and board production. Inten-
sification of such actions is certain to have beneficial impacts on
resource recovery.
Fiscal measures (e.g., taxes to discourage virgin use) could be
addressed to the artificial economic benefits which now favor virgin
materials use. Such measures, however, would have a variety of
other impacts as well, which are being evaluated to determine
whether or not fiscal measures to inhibit virgin materials uses are
cost effective. In light of a series of natural events that will raise
virgin materials costs—especially rising energy costs—fiscal inter-
vention may not appear either necessary or desirable.
Regulatory actions are viable alternatives for increasing re-
source recovery, but such actions, as related to virgin materials
resource use, need further evaluation to determine their side effects,
which may be adverse.
Demand Creation. EPA's investigations to date lead to the con-
clusion that positive economic incentives may be desirable in order
to arrest the relative decline of materials recovery and to increase
the proportion of total national materials needs satisfied from
waste-based raw materials.
There is evidence that energy recovery from mixed municipal
waste will become a very real option to both private and public sec-
tor waste management organizations without incentives of any sort
and that limited materials recovery—steel, aluminum, and glass—
will accompany such energy recovery activities.
The most efficient incentive for materials recovery would be one
which results in the creation of new demand by industry for sec-
ondary materials, such as some form of tax incentive or subsidy
payment to users of secondary materials. If an incentive results in
a "demand pull" by industry, such demand will automatically re-
sult in changes in the way wastes are stored, collected, and pro-
cessed. The key to increased recovery is the waste commodity buyer
rather than the commodity supplier. Only if the buyer finds waste
materials a more economical alternative than virgin materials will
greater quantities be utilized. Incentives provided directly to the
-------
64 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
buyer are most likely to have the most dramatic effect on his ac-
tions.
Demand creation incentives can take a variety of forms. The
particular form the incentive takes is important from the adminis-
trative and legal points of view. Also, different types of incentives
have different efficiencies (cost—effectiveness). The important
point—regardless of mechanism used—is that the materials pro-
ducer (steel mill, paper mill, glass plant, etc.) should find himself
m a situation where the use of secondary material is to his eco-
nomic advantage.
Potentially, several types of incentives measures satisfy this
criterion: investment tax credits, tax credits for use of secondary
materials, subsidy payment or bounties, subsidy of plant and equip-
ment for processing or using secondary materials, etc. If the in-
centive is made available to the materials consumer directly, a
demand for waste materials will result.
Functionally, the incentive must be high enough so that—at the
point of materials consumption—the cost of the secondary material
to the buyer is at least the same (in the same quality range) as the
cost of the virgin material. Investigations are underway to identify
the level of necessary incentives. As shown in a previous section, it
appears that the incentive required to "equalize" the costs of virgin
and secondary materials would range from $2.50 to $30 per ton of
material recovered. These values are based on a limited number of
comparisons and should be viewed as somewhat tentative. It is esti-
mated that an "across the board" incentive sufficient to result in
substantial increases in resource recovery would range from $3 to
$5 per ton of material recovered. A subsidy of this magnitude
should be largely offset by savings in disposal cost since materials
recycled would be removed from the waste stream and thus would
not incur the cost of landfill or incineration. In addition, there
would be important environmental benefits from increased recycl-
ing.
Supply Creation. Incentives for demand creation are viewed as
sufficient inducement to bring about resource recovery at an accel-
erated rate. Such incentives, if appropriately designed, should spur
private and public investment in resource recovery plants and sys-
tems, to deliver to industry the types and quantities of secondary
materials it will demand.
As incentives bring about demand by consumers for increased
quantities of secondary materials, the demand will reverberate
down the chain of suppliers and will bring about some changes in
supply patterns. It is likely, for example, that increased "skim-
ming" of accessible wastes (removal from wastes before discard)
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 65
such as newspapers, corrugated boxes, and office papers would
occur from municipal and commercial sources and that such re-
covery would take place at lower overall costs than technological
sorting.
Most of the solid waste materials that would be demanded by
industry now pass through the hands of municipal solid waste
management organizations who collect waste in mixed forms. In
order to sell all proportions of waste now collected, these organiza-
tions face two alternatives: to collect waste fractions separately or
to process mixed wastes into separate fractions.
Both alternatives have drawbacks. Separate collection of differ-
ent waste fractions, while once widely practiced, has virtually dis-
appeared. Combined waste collection using the more efficient
compactor truck has become standard in residential, institutional,
and commercial waste collection practice. Reinstitution of sepa-
rate collection will require changes in practices and equipment.
The processing option is capital intensive. The economics of pro-
cessing require large plant sizes in order to take advantage of
economics of scale. In order for the economics to be attractive, plant
sizes of 1000 tons per day of input or higher are required. There
are few communities with such high generation rates.
If demand incentives result in higher secondary materials prices,
public and private waste management organizations would be able
to justify processing of municipal wastes for recovery in lieu of
processing for disposal. Higher prices for waste-based commodities
will also permit the use of smaller capacity plants; the higher
prices Will compensate for the higher processing costs of small
plants.
In smaller communities, where recovery by processing is not
likely to be economical, provision of supplies by separate collec-
tions is a possibility. The separate collection option, which was once
practiced extensively, will require technical, institutional, and so-
cial changes to become a part of today's society. At this point,
enough knowledge has been gained to see that citizen enthusiasm
for resource recovery (expressed in the institution of thousands of
neighborhood recycling centers), holds the potential for new and
innovative options for solid waste collection. Furthermore, the suc-
cessful experience of Madison, Wisconsin, where city crews collect
newspapers separated from other wastes by the citizenry, indicates
that alternatives to large scale recovery plants do indeed exist.
Such approaches to supply creation are still being analyzed as
part of EPA's resource recovery studies program.
Other Options. In addition to action programs that would impact
directly on resource recovery, a number of related activities are
-------
66 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
also under consideration whose consequences would be to attack the
broader problem of "excessive materials consumption" in the
United States rather than one aspect of that problem, low resource
recovery rates.
Source reduction proposals are usually aimed at a particular
product (beverage containers) or a class of products (packaging,
appliances).
Source reduction options fall into four categories: (1) bans or
other disincentives applied to a product or class of products; (2)
performance standard setting that will result in longer-lived prod-
ucts, whereby more "use" or "service" is obtained from a given
quantity of materials than is the case if rapid obsolescence is pro-
moted; (3) substitution of production processes with low waste
yields for waste-intensive processes, for instance, dry paper-
making in place of wet pulping; and (4) substitution of products
with low-materials requirements for those with high materials re-
quirements, for instance, electronic calculators for the more ma-
terial-intensive mechanical calculators or substitution of electronic
communications media for media that require paper.
EPA's investigation of source reduction concepts is currently
aimed at packaging and other disposables, products which are par-
ticularly significant in their contribution to solid waste quantities
and whose consumption has been growing rapidly. An EPA study
is underway to examine alternate taxing and regulatory measures
for reducing the quantities of packaging materials consumed.
Such measures might be successful in either (a) reducing con-
sumption of packaging and other disposables, (b) stimulating de-
signs of more recyclable packaging or products, or (c) providing
funds for defraying the litter clean-up, collection and disposal costs
presently associated with these materials. The secondary effects of
these measures, such as economic dislocations and employment
disruptions are also being examined.
Of the various major options available for increasing the rate of
recovery, intensified Federal procurement of waste-based products
and further exploration of positive demand incentives appear most
desirable in the long term, accompanied by activities to bring into
line virgin and secondary materials freight rates. More information
is needed about the necessity for and the effects, fairness, and work-
ability of both source reduction and resource recovery incentive
concepts before any such measures are implemented.
Demand creation would be achieved most efficiently by the direct
route of rewarding the waste consumer for using secondary ma-
terials. Incentives for demand creation, if properly designed may
bring about resource recovery at an accelerated rate and would
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 67
probably spur private and public investment in resource recovery
plants and systems to supply secondary materials. Certain changes
in supply patterns may emerge which will result in some waste ma-
terials circumventing the recovery plants. "Skimming" of accessi-
ble wastes such as newspapers, corrugated boxes and office papers
is such a change. For smaller communities where recovery by pro-
cessing is not likely to be economical, provision of supplies by sepa-
rate collection is a potential solution.
Actions aimed at removing certain artificial barriers are under
serious consideration by EPA, especially Federal procurement
policies to increase the use of secondary materials in products and
actions to remove freight rate disparities that appear to favor vir-
gin materials.
Taxes and regulation to reduce the consumption of certain prod-
uct categories such as packaging to reduce the load on the solid
waste stream are presently under investigation. Stimulation of
more recyclable package designs and provision of funds for litter
clean-up are secondary benefits of such actions.
Section 4
DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
The foregoing presentation and preliminary conclusion as well
as the data, information, and discussions of specific materials in-
cluded in the Appendix are based on EPA resource recovery pro-
gram activities, carried out both by in-house staff efforts and
contract research in support of internal analysis.
An overview of the basic plan for carrying out the Congressional
mandate is shown in Figure 2. The problem is defined in terms of
the adverse environmental effects of materials processing and dis-
posal and efficiency of resource utilization. The broad solutions
identified to the problem are increased resource recovery and source
reduction activities. A number of policy options available to achieve
the solution are shown. Next, specific program activities to imple-
ment the policy option are shown arranged into "primary" and
"secondary" priority emphasis categories. Finally, an evaluation
procedure by which specific action programs will be selected for
recommendation is outlined.
Figure 3 shows the various alternatives available for reaching
the objective of increased waste utilization; Figure 4 illustrates
the alternatives available to obtain the objective of source reduc-
-------
FIGURE 2
OVERVIEW OF A PLAN FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY AND SOURCE REDUCTION
01
oo
PROBLEM
DEFINITION
SOLUTION
DEFINITION
IDENTIFICATION
OF POLICY
OPTIONS
PRIORITY OF
POLICY OPTIONS
AND PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
EVALUATION
PROCEDURE
Environmental
effects of material
processing and
disposal
Efficiency of
resource utiliza-
tion
• Resource recovery
• Source reduction
Resource recovery
Inhibit virgin
material use
Create demand for
waste materials
Create reliable
supply of waste
materials
Source reduction
Product design
Process efficiency
Disposal regulation
Primary
Demand creation
through incentives
Source separation
and diversion
Waste generation
and disposal
disincentives
Secondary
Virgin and waste
material regulation
Grants and loans
R&D for waste
uses, system design
and product design
• Goals
Baseline projec-
tion
• Wastes recovered
or reduced
• Resources saved
• Environmental impacts
• Savings
• Implementation
requirements
• Other
O
o
§
>T)
I—I
§
O
I
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
69
FIGURE 3
OBJECTIVE: TO INCREASE UTILIZATION OF WASTE
INHIBIT THE USE OF VIRGIN MATERIALS
\
PROMOTE THE USE OF WASTE MATERIALS
Regulate virgin
material supply
\
\ Create economic disincentives
for virgin
material use
CRiOF WASTELMATEERIA'LSPLY CREATE A DEMAND FOR" WASTE MATERIALS
Regulate virgin material use
7
Create economic
incentive for the use
of waste materials
Develop new uses
for waste
materials
OBTAINING WASTE MATERIALS COLLECTION OF SOURCE SEPARATED MATERIALS UPGRADING WASTE MATERIALS
DIVERSION OF MATERIALS EXTRACTION OF MATERIALS
BEFORE ENTERING WASTE FROM WASTE
Reguli
\
Create economic
incentive for source
separation
Create
for resc
1 Create mean
I of source se
1
Create disincentive for
or regulate disposal
Carry out RAD for
resource recovery system
UPG
economic incentive
urce recovery systems
Create disincentive for
or regulate disposal
Create economic incentive
for waste upgrading systems
UPGRADING PRQDUCTS THAT PRODUCE WASTE
Encourage source separation
Encourage new product
design
Create economic incentive
for product redesign
Regulate
product design
Carry out R&D
for new product design
RESOURCE RECOVERY POLICY OPTIONS
-------
FIGURE 4
SOURCE REDUCTION POLICY OPTIONS:
OBJECTIVE: TO DECREASE GENERATION OF WASTES
CHANGE PRODUCTS THAT
BECOME WASTES
Subsidize more efficient
material utilization processes
Encourage new
product decision
Create economic disincentive
for or regulate disposal
Carry out R&D for
new product design
Regulate product
design
Create Incentive
for product redesign
O
o
g
hj
-------
FIGURE 5
APPLICATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY AND SOURCE REDUCTION POLICY OPTIONS
Regulate virgin
material supply
Subsidize more
efficient material
processes
Encourage new product design
• Regulate product design
Carry out R&D for new product design
Create Incentive for product redesign
Create economic disincentive for virgin material use
Create economic Incentive for waste material use
Regulate virgin material and waste material use
» Develop new uses for waste material
I* Guarantee purchase of
I waste material
Create disincentive
VIRGIN
MATERIAL
ACQUISITION
I
MATERIAL
WASTE
VIRGIN
MATERIAL
PROCESSING
J
MATERIAL
f
>
PRODUCTION
»
WASTE
MATERIAL
PROCESSING
PRODUCT
WASTE
MATERIAL
CONSUMPTION
WASTE
MATERIAL
ACQUISITION
WASTE
i
i
DISPOSAL
Subsidize waste
material processing
tt-« Carry out R&D for resource
recovery systems
• Create incentive for collection of
source separated materials
• Create economic incentive for
resource recovery systems
Encourage, require or create an economic
incentive for source separation
-------
72 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
tion; and Figure 5 illustrates the points in the materials cycle
where the various action program alternatives would have their
impacts.
For purposes of discussion, EPA's program efforts can be classi-
fied into three types of activities: (1) background studies that pro-
vide for understanding the subject of resource recovery in its many
facets; (2) studies to formulate and to analyze action programs;
and (3) studies to evaluate the impacts and effectiveness of action
programs that appear to have merit. In what follows, the various
past, on-going, and projected activities of EPA will be discussed
under these headings.
Background Studies. Background investigations include data
collection, survey, and information classification in order to estab-
lish the status and trends of recycling and identify problems, bar-
riers and opportunities for increased waste use. To date a number
of background investigations have been completed and are nearing
publication. A list of completed studies is presented on Table 11.
These cover topics such as municipal resource recovery practices,
secondary materials recovery, unit processes in resource recovery,
and comprehensive recovery systems.
Review of this information is underway, data and information
gaps have been identified, and the need for further background in-
vestigations has been established in the following areas:
(1) Recycling base line—In order to assess an incentive mecha-
nism designed to increase recovery of wastes, it is first necessary to
project future recycling that is likely to occur in the absence of the
proposed incentive. Factors which could influence this base line
are:
• Rising municipal disposal costs.
• Environmental legislation.
• Recovery technology development.
• Rising energy prices.
• Change in labor productivity.
• Private sector and local government actions.
An investigation is being carried out to forecast this base line in
the absence of Federal Government activity.
(2) Available for recycling—It is also important to estimate the
practical upper limit on recovery in order to assess the effectiveness
of proposed recycling measures. It is not feasible to recover all of
the solid waste generated. The amount available for recycling is
determined by factors such as:
• Losses in processing, collection and handling.
• Amounts generated in remote areas.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 73
• Self disposal activities.
• Materials dispersed in trace quantities.
• Materials concealed or mixed in products.
The practical limits on recycling are being projected to serve as a
guide for evaluating recycling activities.
(3) Freight rates—Transport rates may have an unfavorable
effect on the prices of secondary materials as compared to virgin
materials. However, differences which exist may be justified by
cost to the carrier. An investigation of the basis and structure of
transport rates is being carried out in an attempt to:
• Compare actual freight rates for secondary and primary ma-
terials.
• Compare carrier cost of shipping and factors affecting this
cost.
• Establish the effect of rates on the relative prices of virgin and
waste materials.
(4) Source separation and collection—In order to analyze in-
TABLE 11
COMPLETED STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS
Background Studies
Salvage Markets for Commodities Entering The Solid Waste Stream—An Economic Study.
Midwest Research Institute, 1971
Studies to Identify Opportunities for Increased Solid Waste Utilization-Studies completed for Aluminum,
Lead, Copper, Zinc, Nickel and Stainless Steel, Precious Metals, Paper and Textiles.
Battelle Memorial Institute and National Association of Secondary Materials Industries, 1971
Identification of Opportunities for Increased Recycling of Ferrous Solid Waste.
Battelle Memorial Institute and Institute of Secondary Iron and Steel, 1971
An Analysis of Federal Programs Affecting Solid Waste Management and Recycling.
SCS Engineers, 1971
Catalog of Resource Recovery Systems for Mixed Municipal Waste.
Midwest Research Institute and Council of Environmental Quality, 1971
Recovery and Utilization of Municipal Solid Wastes.
Battelle Memorial Institute, 1971
Formulation and Analysis of Action Programs
An Analysis of the Abandoned Automobile Problem.
Booz-Allen Hamilton, 1972
Incentives for Tire Recycling and Reuse.
International Research and Technology, 1971
An Analysis of the Beverage Container Problem with Recommendations for Government Policy.
Research Triangle Institute, 1972
The Economics of the Plastics Industry.
Arthur D. Little, 1972
Strategies to Increase Recovery of Resources from Combustible Solid Wastes.
International Research and Technology, 1972
Evaluation
Economic and Environmental Analysis—Studies completed for Paper, Ferrous Metals and Glass.
Midwest Research Institute and Council of Environmental Quality, 1971
Preliminary Report on a Federal Tax Credit Incentive for Recycling Post Consumer Waste Materials.
Resource Planning Associates, 1972
-------
74 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
centives and policies to promote increased recycling, the reliability
and costs of obtaining wastes from different sources must be
known. There are three source separation techniques currently em-
ployed to collect wastes segregated at households or business estab-
lishments.
• Community recycling centers.
• Separate collections (by volunteer organizations, municipal or
private collectors, and secondary material dealers).
• Separation of wastes during regular household collections.
An example of the latter type of operation exists in Madison, Wis-
consin, where segregated newspapers are collected with other
household wastes and placed in a separate bin hung below the col-
lection vehicle.
In order to provide the background information needed to evalu-
ate these techniques studies will be carried out to assess:
• Consumer attitudes to source separation techniques.
• Costs involved in collecting segregated materials and trans-
porting them to users.
• Amounts of material that can feasibly be recycled through
these channels.
Formulation of Action Programs. Work in this area involves
identifying and formulating means of increasing recycling through
demand creation, supply creation and inhibiting virgin material
use. Studies of incentive alternatives that have been completed but
not yet released are listed in Table 11. These involve incentives for
automobile hulks, plastics, tires, beverage containers and combus-
tible wastes. These studies are presently under internal review and,
where appropriate, recommendations will be forthcoming. The
contract reports will be available for public distribution when the
review is complete.
Program plans are being developed for the following incentive
and regulatory measures which will be analyzed and evaluated in
the next year.
Economic Incentives:
• Recycling tax credit or subsidy for the use of post consumer
waste.
• Investment credit or subsidy for recovery equipment.
• Virgin material tax to increase cost of virgin material use.
• Waste generation tax to reduce the amount of waste produced.
• Government procurement to create a demand for waste mate-
rials.
• Depletion allowance adjustment to increase costs of virgin
materials.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 75
Regulatory Measures:
• Transport rate adjustment to equalize freight rates.
• Material standards specifying waste use in certain products.
• Virgin resource control on Federal lands.
• Regulation of waste and virgin material imports and exports.
Evaluation. Evaluation of the programs listed above consists of
determining:
1. The wastes recycled.
2. The resources conserved.
3. The environmental impacts.
4. The costs and savings.
5. The implementation requirements.
6. Other impacts such as employment, foreign trade, industrial
dislocation, etc.
Work in this area involves first developing a methodology for
carrying out the evaluation of the different aspects and secondly,
applying the methodology to the specific incentive and regulatory
measures. As indicated by the reports listed on Table 11, environ-
mental impact analysis for paper, ferrous metals, and glass has
been started and a preliminary cost effectiveness study has been
carried out for one type of incentive—the recycling tax credit.
As will be discussed below, additional work is required in the
areas of predicting waste recycling and estimating resource re-
quirements and environmental impacts. The costs and savings fol-
low directly from these measures. The implementation require-
ments and other impacts must be evaluated on an individual basis
for each particular incentive or regulatory mechanism.
(1) Predicted recycling—In order to predict the amount of waste
material that would be recycled as a result of an incentive or reg-
ulation it is necessary to estimate the elasticity of supply and de-
mand with price for the waste and the competitive virgin material.
This requires analysis of historical price-quantity data, financial
analyses to determine the effect on profit, return and investment
decisions, and analysis of material processing costs. Work is under-
way aimed at recycling through the major waste using industries
(such as waste paper, scrap steel, and glass).
(2) Environmental impacts and resource consumption—Work in
this area involves laying out the entire waste material use system
from acquisition to disposal. At each element of the system the air
and water pollution produced are calculated along with the energy,
water and materials consumed. Comparisons are made with and
without recycling and the net environmental impact is determined.
The work completed for paper, ferrous metals and glass will be ex-
-------
76 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
panded to include calculation of the pollution abatement cost sav-
ings due to recycling. Similar analyses will be carried out for
aluminum, rubber, textiles and plastics.
In summary, evaluation of the regulatory mechanisms and incen-
tives involves:
1. Determining the effectiveness of the measures proposed.
2. Comparing this to the recycling base line and practical upper
limit.
3. Estimating costs and benefits.
4. Making an informed judgment as to the value of the measure.
Program activities described above are aimed at providing in-
formation necessary to formulate meaningful resource recovery
policy. In the last half of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, rec-
ommendations will be made for measures to accomplish the goal of
increased resource recovery on an environmentally, economically
and socially sound basis. These measures will be described in the
Second Annual Report to Congress.
REFERENCES
1. Ayres, R. U., and A. V. Kneese. Environmental pollution. In Resource
Recovery Act of 1969 (part 2). Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate,
91st Cong., 1st sess., S.2005, Serial No. 91-13. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1969. p. 821.
2. Ayres, and Kneese, Environmental pollution, p. 821. (Data for 1968 and
1971 are extrapolations from the 1963, 1964, 1965 base data.)
3. Ayres, and Kneese, Environmental pollution, p. 819.
4. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid
wastes. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 187 p.
5. Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy forma-
tion on resource recovery. Unpublished data, 1972.
6. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. The role of packaging in solid waste
management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 1855.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. p. 105.
7. EPA extrapolation based on (1) data for 1967 from: Black, R. J., A. J.
Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hickman, Jr., and R. D. Vaughan. The na-
tional solid wastes survey; an interim report. [Cincinnati], U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, [1968]. p. 13. (2)
census data from: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of
the United States 1971. 92d ann. ed. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office. 1,008 p.
8. EPA extrapolation based on data for 1965 from: Combustion Engineer-
ing, Inc. Technical-economic study of solid waste disposal needs and
practices. Public Health Service Publication No. 1886. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. [705 p.]
9. EPA extrapolation based on (1) data for 1965 from: Air Pollution—
1969. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 77
the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., 1st sess., Oct.
27, 1969. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 244 p.
(2) U.S. Bureau of Mines estimates.
10. EPA extrapolation based on (1) data for 1966 from: Air pollution—
1969. (2) [Agricultural handbook, 1971.]
11. Black, Munich, Klee, Hickman, and Vaughan, The national solid wastes
survey, [1968], p. 13.
12. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 35, 45-7.
IS, Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 58-11.
14. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 81.
15. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 64-5.
16. Midwest Research Institute. Resource recovery from mixed municipal
solid wastes. Unpublished data, 1972.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 81
PAPER RECYCLING
Status and Trends
Paper is one of the major manufactured materials consumed in
the United States and the largest single component—35 to 45 per-
cent by weight—of municipal waste collected. In 1969, the Nation
consumed 58.5 million tons of paper, and by 1980 this is projected
to increase to about 85.0 million tons (Figure A-l). Paper, paper-
board, and construction paper and board are the three major paper
categories and accounted for 51.5, 40.8, 7.7 percent respectively
of the 1969 paper consumption.
Only 17.8 percent (10.4 million tons) of the paper consumed in
1969 was recovered for recycling compared with 23.1 percent in
1960 and 27.4 percent in 1950.1 Most of the remainder was dis-
carded as waste (put in landfills, or dumps, incinerated, or littered)
and a portion was diverted, obscured, or retained in other products.
Trends for disposal and recycling (Figure A-l), show that the per-
cent recycled to consumption has been steadily decreasing. This
downward trend in recovery ratio coupled with an increase in con-
sumption has resulted in an accelerated rate of waste paper dis-
posal. Between 1956 and 1967 waste paper disposal increased
nearly 60 percent from 22 million tons/year to 35 million tons/
year.2
Sources of Waste
Waste paper can be classified into four major grades: mixed,
news, corrugated, and high grades accounting for 27.4, 19.8, 32.6,
and 20.2 percent respectively of the waste paper recovered in 1967.
This waste paper comes from residential, commerical, and conver-
sion sources accounting for 16.6, 43.6, and 39.8 percent respectively
of the 1967 paper recovery. Table A-l shows the relationships be-
tween the waste grades and sources. The recovery pattern of paper
wastes follows directly from the characteristics of each waste paper
source.
Waste paper generated in conversion operations, where paper
and board are made into consumer products, is almost all recovered^
It is easily accessible, generally uncontaminated, and almost half of
such waste consists of the desirable high grades. This waste is often
baled on site by the converter and never enters the waste stream.
Quite the opposite, paper waste from residential sources is
widely dispersed and highly contaminated with adhesives and
coatings and also with other materials in the waste stream. It is
costly and difficult to remove by paper mills. Thus, almost none of
the mixed paper in residential waste is recovered.
-------
82
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
FIGURE A-l
PAPER TRENDS, CONSUMPTION, DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING
100 i-
z
o
in
z
o
20 -
1955
1960
1955
1970
1975
Source: Darnay, A., and
: Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid wastes.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. Chap. IV.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 83
TABLE A-l
WASTE PAPER RECOVERY BY GRADE AND SOURCE, 1967
1,000 TONS
Grade
Mixed
News
Corrugated
High grades
TOTAL
Percent of total
Residential
70
1 610
1 680
16 6
Commercial
1 860
50
2 300
200
4 410
43 6
Converting
850
345
998
1 841
4 034
39 8
Total
2 780
2 005
3 298
2 Q41
10 124
100 0
Note: Net exports add another 176,000 tons derived from converting operations.
Source: Darnay, A., and W. E, Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid wastes. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972. p. 45-23.
The only paper recovered in significant quantities from resi-
dential waste is old news. Those newspapers recovered are kept
separated from other waste by homeowners and usually collected
by charitable organizations. Some municipalities have started ex-
perimenting with collecting the newspapers along with the regular
refuse collection by placing them in special racks on the collection
vehicles. This offers promise for increasing the recovery of old
newspapers from residences.
Commercial waste consists largely of business papers, mail, and
packaging materials, especially corrugated boxes and is usually
concentrated at commercial/retail centers. It is obviously more
accessible and desirable than mixed papers from residential
sources but generally less so than conversion wastes. Corrugated
boxes comprise about 52 percent of the commercial paper waste
recovered. They are usually baled or at least kept separate from
other waste by the store or office. Significant quantities of mixed
papers are also recovered since they often occur at commercial
establishments in high concentrations with few contaminants.
Additional quantities of waste are potentially recoverable from
residential and commercial sources. Based on Midwest Research
Institute estimates in 1967 there were 35.2 million tons of paper
discarded as waste and not recovered—6.3 million tons were news-
papers, 8.6 million tons were corrugated and 20.3 million tons were
all other types.3 Of course, not all of this waste is potentially re-
coverable. A portion of the waste is discarded in rural or remote
locations and will never be practically recoverable. A portion is
lost in litter or burned, and a portion would be unusable for tech-
nical reasons. The MRI study estimated that the most likely re-
coverable tonnage is 10.2 million tons or 29 percent of the presently
unrecovered paper waste (Table A~2). Recovery of this additional
amount would have meant an increase in recycling of over 100
percent in 1967.
-------
84 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Approximately half of the additional recoverable tonnage is
made up of newspapers and corrugated board, two grades already
recovered in substantial quantities. Recycling of these wastes can
be facilitated by the creation of a demand for materials so that
they will be collected prior to discard. Prior separation and sep-
arate collection of these wastes holds forth the possibility of a
relatively quick and efficient means of increasing recycling of sub-
stantial quantities of wastes.
The remainder of the tonnage that is potentially recoverable is
mixed paper which would require further processing before re-
cycling.
A promising technology for recovery of paper from mixed resi-
dential waste has now been developed, however. This is the wet
pulping process developed by the Black-Clawson Company which is
currently being demonstrated in an Environmental Protection
Agency project in Franklin, Ohio. In this process about 400 pounds
of paper fiber are recovered for each ton of mixed waste input.
Ferrous metals and glass are also recovered during the processing.
The economic feasibility of large scale plants of this type looks
promising.
Markets
From a waste utilization point of view the paper industry is
made up of an integrated segment using primarily wood pulp and
an independent segment using primarily waste paper (called paper-
stock by the industry). Most recycling takes place in the inde-
pendent sector. Major products made from paper stock (and major
products of the independent segment) include combination board
(e.g. cereal, detergent, and shoe boxes), deinked newspapers, and
construction paper.
Figure A-2 shows the consumption of wood pulp and paperstock
TABLE A-2
ADDITIONAL WASTE PAPER RECOVERY POTENTIAL FROM
SOLID WASTE IN 1967
(million tons)
Newspapers
Corrugated
All other
TOTAL
Unrecovered
and discarded
as waste
6 3
8 6
20 3
35 2
Most likely
recoverable
2 2
3 0
5 0
10 2
Recoverable as a
% of presently
unrecovered
paper waste
35 0
35.0
24.6
29 0
Source: Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid wastes. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972. p. 45-24.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 85
in the three major product grades of the paper industry—paper,
paperboard, and construction paper and board. Paperboard ac-
counts for 79.0 percent of paperstock consumption, paper 13.4
percent, and construction paper 7.2 percent of the total paperstock
consumed. Thus, paper recycling is closely tied to trends in com-
bination board consumption.
Combination board production has grown at a substantially
slower rate than that of its direct competitor, solid wood pulp
board, made almost entirely from virgin pulp. From 1959 to 1969,
total paperboard production increased by 65%, solid wood pulp
board by 112%, and combination board by only 5 percent.* Herein
lies the major reason for the decrease in the waste paper recycling
ratio.
There has been only one major new market for waste paper in
recent years, the deinking of old newspapers to make newsprint.
Newspaper deinking is a very promising market for old news and
increased newspaper recycling will be influenced strongly by this
market.
Major Issues and Problems of Paper Recycling
There are many interrelated factors that have contributed to
the decline in the percentage of paper recycled; however, the two
primary direct causes are the lack of new markets and the decline
in combination board market share.
It is technically feasible to substitute paperstock for wood pulp
in many paper products (Table A-3). However, this is not prac-
ticed extensively due to economic factors and the present high
reliance of the dominant integrated industry on virgin pulp. Key
items which discourage use of waste paper are listed below.
Logistics. Paper must be collected from diverse sources, trans-
ported to a processor, and then transported to a consuming mill.
Combination board mills are usually within reasonable distances of
waste paper sources, but the integrated mills are generally located
in the South or West, near forests, but far from cities where waste
is generated. Thus, the high costs of collection and transportation
work to the detriment of paper recycling.
Contaminants in waste paper have affected recycling economics
unfavorably, and also have influenced industry orientation. Separa-
tion of waste paper by grade and removal of contaminants are
labor intensive and thus costly.
Waste paper prices have a history of wide fluctuation due to the
relative rigidity of supplies and the marginal costs of acquiring
new supplies in periods of demand upswing.
-------
86
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
FIGURE A-2
WOOD PULP AND PAPER STOCK RELATIVE TO MAJOR
GRADES PRODUCED—1967
Total Paparboard
66.6 33.4
Unbleached Kraft
100.0 Neg.*
J
J
| ] wood Pulp
|H Paper Stock
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PAPER,STOCK BY END USES
Paper 13.4 Pa per board 79.4
ii-i
"• c
c "
1 !
Z O
~
00
1
2
1
•t
•s
E
'I
1
a
1
«
1.
Construct!
7.2
i
s
Board 0.7 _^
Note: Other fibrous materials were excluded; expressed In percent of total wood pulp and
paper stock. Based on MR) estimates.
•Small percentage of paper stock used but cannot be verified in statistics.
Source: Da may. A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid wastes.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. p. 45-2.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 87
TABLE A-3
TECHNICAL LIMITS FOR RECYCLED MATERIAL FOR
PAPER AND PAPER BOARD
Paperboard Recycle limits (% paperstock)
Unbleached kraft — 10-25%
Semichemical pulp 100%
Bleached kraft __ 5-15%
Combination board 90-100%
Paper
Newsprint 100%
Office, communications 10-80%
Publishing, printing, converting — 10-80%
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
Improvements in wood pulping technology have enabled the
paper industry to tap abundant virgin raw materials at increas-
ingly lower costs.
Integration. Most paper mills own their own forests and most
paper equipment installed since 1945 has been wood pulp based
and located close to these virgin raw materials. The mills are de-
signed as continuous operations starting with wood, going into
pulp and ending with the finished product. By integration, paper
mills have also been able to exercise control over the supply and
price of their raw materials.
Tax Treatments. The cost of virgin wood pulp can be kept down
significantly by two tax treatments—a cost depletion allowance
(credit against income taxes based on timber owners' invested
capital in a forest and percentage of reserves sold) and a capital
gains allowance (profit from sales of timber is treated as a capital
gain if the timber has been owned for more than six months).
Economics
Most of the above problems have a negative effect on the eco-
nomics of waste paper use. If one examines the economics of using
waste paper in the manufacture of certain paper and board prod-
ucts, it is obvious that increasing the amount of paperstock in these
products increases the cost to manufacture them.
Table A-4 shows the comparative economics of using supple-
mental waste paper in existing paper mills for certain products.
These examples are by no means exhaustive of the many paper
industry products, but these cases support what would seem to be
obvious from the current industry orientation. The cost penalty
for increasing the use of paperstock is $2.50/ton for corrugating
medium, $3.75/ton for linerboard (these are the materials used to
-------
88 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
TABLE A-4
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS OF PAPER MANUFACTURE
FROM RECYCLED AND VIRGIN MATERIALS
Product
(recycled fiber content)
(recycled fiber content)
Operating cost with increased use of
recycled fiber.
Net cost of increased recycled fiber
usage.
Linerboard
0%
$78. 50/ton
25%
$82.25/ton
$ 3.75/ton
Corrugating
medium
15%
$79. 50/ton
40%
$82.00/ton
$ 2. 50/ton
Printing/writing
paper
0%
$80-$120/ton
100
$100-$150/ton
$ 20-$ 30/ton
Newsprint
0%
$125/ton
100
$98/ton
-$27/tor,
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
make corrugated boxes), and $20-30/ton for printing/writing
paper. The latter cost differential is the result of substantial up-
grading of waste paper that would be required to produce a product
of the present high standards. The cost of newsprint manufac-
ture, however, is lowered by using 100 percent recycled fiber (de-
inked newsprint). This has been the only major new market for
waste paper in recent years.
The economics of constructing new mills based on either virgin
or secondary fibers also supports industry's trend toward use of
more virgin fiber at the expense of secondary fiber. An analysis of
folding boxboard (combination board made from secondary fiber
vs. solid wood pulp board made from virgin pulp) found the return
on investment from a virgin based plant to be 8.1 percent while
that for a plant based on waste paper (combination board) was
only 4.5 percent.5 Under such circumstances, investments in new
combination board mills are very unlikely. The reason for the shift
in recent years of boxboard manufacture from combination board
mills to virgin based mills is obvious.
FERROUS METALS RECYCLING
Status and Trends
Ferrous solid waste (primarily in the form of food and beverage
containers and discarded consumer appliances) constitutes 7 to 8
percent of collected municipal solid waste and totalled roughly 14
million tons in 1970. However, a much more sizable amount of
used and discarded ferrous products (an estimated 38-54 million
tons) is generated annually and appears on our landscape in such
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 89
visible forms as abandoned automobiles, discarded farm imple-
ments, out of service rail cars, construction and demolition waste,
and other steel products.*
In 1967 American industry consumed about 83.5 million tons of
iron and steel scrap and 7.6 million tons were exported (Table
A-5). The domestic scrap consumption represented about 65 per-
cent of the raw steel production (Fig. A-3). Fifty million tons of
this domestic scrap consumption was "home" scrap that was gen-
erated in the iron and steelmaking process and was fed back into
the furnaces. Excluding home scrap and exports, 35 million tons of
scrap, or about 20 percent of the iron and steel consumption, was
recycled in 1967.
For the past 25 years, scrap as a percent of total metallic input
to steelmaking has remained essentially constant. However, the
amount of this scrap purchased by the steel industry (originating
from outside the steel plant) has been decreasing slightly while
that generated within the steel mills has increased. As shown in
Fig. A-4, purchased scrap as a percent of total scrap input to
steelmaking has decreased from 44.9 percent for the period 1949-
1953 to 40.0 percent from 1964-1968. In absolute terms while total
steel production increased 35 percent over the period 1950-1969,
and total scrap consumption increased 30 percent, scrap purchased
increased only 8 percent.
Sources
There are two basic types of iron and steel scrap, "home" and
"purchased."
"Home scrap", the ferrous waste product generated during iron
and steel production, includes ingot croppings, sheet trimmings,
and foundry gates and risers. Being generated in the steel mill, the
scrap is of known composition and purity, and the total amount
generated is normally consumed. Home scrap represented 60 per-
cent of the domestic scrap consumption in 1967.7
TABLE A-5
U.S. IRON AND STEEL SCRAP CONSUMPTION—1967
(Million short tons)
Domestic scrap consumption 85.4
Home scrap 50.2
Purchased scrap 35.1
Prompt 13.6
Obsolete 21.5
Exports 7.6
TOTAL 93.0
Source: Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid wastes. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972. p. 49 and 58-11.
-------
90
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
FIGURE A-3
DOMESTIC RAW STEEL PRODUCTION AND SCRAP CONSUMPTION
150-r
RAW STEEL
PRODUCTION
100- -
z
o
I-
o
I
co
en
z
o
50- -
TOTAL SCRAP
CONSUMPTION
PURCHASED SCRAP
CONSUMPTION
1955
1960
1965
1970
YEAR
Source: Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials In solid wastes.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. p. 58-1 and 58-11.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
91
FIGURE A-4
DOMESTIC HOME AND PURCHASED SCRAP CONSUMPTION
o
t
s
in
z
o
o
o
in
I
z
UJ
o
tr
UJ
a.
60
50
40
30
201
1945
PURCHASED SCRAP
1950
1955
1960
1965
YEAR
Source: Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials In solid wastes.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. p. 58-11.
-------
92 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
"Purchased" scrap is further classified as "prompt" or "ob-
solete.''
"Prompt" industrial scrap is generated by metal working firms
in their fabrication of products. Standard procedures have been
developed for the recycling of prompt scrap and it never really
enteis the waste stream. At least 90 percent of the available prompt
scrap is estimated to be recycled. The scrap is desirable because of
its known composition, condition, and freedom from contaminants.
In addition, it is considered a reliable material source because the
quantities available are predictable and recycling channels have
been established. Prompt scrap represented about 16 percent of the
domestic scrap consumption in 1967.8
"Obsolete" scrap comes from discarded iron and steel products.
Major sources are structural steel from building demolitions,
ships, railroad equipment, and abandoned motor vehicles. Ferrous
waste, of course, occurs in many other forms such as food and
beverage cans and home appliances which are not generally re-
covered due to logistics, contamination, or other factors. Obsolete
scrap represented about 25 percent of the domestic scrap consump-
tion in 1967.9
Not all of the steel consumed flows immediately into the waste
stream and is available as scrap. Considerable portions go into
semi-permanent use (buildings, machinery, etc.) and enter the
waste stream years later. It is estimated that the 21.6 million tons
of obsolete scrap purchased or exported in 1967 was 43-56 percent
of that available in the solid waste stream. Taking into account
scrap located in remote locations and probably not recoverable and
scrap disposed of by individuals, it is estimated that roughly an-
other 24-39 million tons of ferrous scrap could feasibly have been
recovered in 1967.10
Markets
The major markets for iron and steel scrap are the domestic steel
industry, the domestic foundry industry, and exports. In 1969, the
percentage of total scrap consumption by each was 73.8, 17.5 and
8.7 respectively.11 However, in terms of purchased scrap (prompt
and obsolete) foundries and exports weigh more heavily. For the
steel industry about 35 percent of scrap consumed is purchased,
while foundries purchase about 60 percent of their scrap consump-
tion, and exports are naturally purchased scrap.
The American steel industry is composed of approximately 110
companies of which 21 are fully integrated (coke ovens, blast
furnaces, and steelmaking furnaces), 9 operate mostly blast fur-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 93
naces, and 80 operate only steelmaking furnaces, with electric steel-
making predominating. These 80 companies currently produce less
than 10 percent of the nation's steel output, but are a significant
outlet for ferrous solid waste.
The type of furnace used in steelmaking has a direct bearing on
scrap usage. Three types of furnaces are used; open hearth, which
uses approximately a 45 percent scrap charge, basic oxygen (30
percent scrap charge), and electric (100 percent scrap). (These
charges are based on standard operating conditions which take into
account both technological and economic factors). Basic trends
have been: (1) the decline of the open hearth (from 87 percent of
steel production in 1960 to 50 percent in 1968) ; (2) rapid rise of
basic oxygen furnaces (from 3.3 percent of production in 1960 to
37.1 percent in 1968) ; and (3) moderate growth of electric furnace
steel production (8.4 percent in 1960 to 12.7 percent in 1968). To
date, declines in scrap requirements from decreased open hearth
steelmaking have been balanced by increased scrap needs from
rising electric furnace production.
In the foundry industry, scrap already accounts for about 85
percent of the metallic input, and product specifications dictate
that pig iron be a portion of the charge in some cases. The cupola
furnace which uses an 84 percent scrap charge dominates, com-
prises about 90 percent of the furnaces. Electric furnaces, which
make up most of the remainder and use 100 percent scrap have
been making inroads, however. Potential for increased scrap con-
sumption by foundries is limited, but factors such as increasing
trend toward replacement of cupola facilities with electric fur-
naces, geographic dispersion of foundries putting them closer to
scrap sources, and a growth rate in excess of domestic steel pro-
duction indicate that use of scrap by foundries should at least hold
its own and may increase slightly. However, the foundries do not
have potential as major markets for increased scrap consumption.
Exports are a significant market for iron and steel scrap, con-
stituting 24 percent of total purchased steel in 1970. Exports are
particularly important for movement of obsolete scrap, since a
large portion of the exports are from obsolete sources. Japan is the
largest consumer of export scrap, taking 48.8 percent of the market
in 1970.
Copper precipitation is the major market for steel can scrap at
present, but is quite limited. Only about 300,000 to 400,000 tons of
old steel cans and can-making wastes, a small percentage of the
estimated 5 million tons of cans produced each year, are consumed
annually by this market.12
-------
94 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
Issues and Problems
Differential Tax Treatment. Iron ore enjoys a 15 percent de-
pletion allowance, and in addition iron ore producers are allowed
to use certain capital costs as current deductions. Both of these
policies reduce tax liability and thus the price at which the ore
must be sold to maintain a given profit level. For example, the 15
percent depletion allowance permits a 13.5 percent decrease in the
selling price without reducing the profit to the producer. The per-
centage depletion allowance continues as long as income is derived
from the property, which is usually long after the capital invest-
ment in the property has been recovered. Thus, iron ore producers
enjoy a major tax subsidy which is not available for secondary
materials processors.
Steel Industry Structure. The integrated portion of the steel in-
dustry is iron ore oriented and has significant investment in ore
processing equipment. The integrated steel manufacturers gen-
erally own virgin raw material sources and are able to exercise
control over supply and price. Uncertainties in scrap price and
availability are inconsistent with the steel industry practices of
long range planning and long term commitments to equipment and
raw materials.
Scrap Quality. Rigid steel production specifications require that
scrap be processed in order to remove contaminants and impurities.
Home and prompt scrap are from known sources and are generally
higher quality than obsolete scrap (with the exception of certain
obsolete scrap such as rail, ship, and structural). Cans present a
special problem because of their contamination with tramp ele-
ments—aluminum from tops, lead from the seams and tin. For
example, lead can be harmful to furnace refractories and too much
tin causes undesirable properties in finished steel. Thus, except in
periods of peak demand or hot metal shortages, the availability and
low cost of higher quality raw materials tends to reduce the steel
maker's incentive to use the lower quality portion of obsolete scrap.
Changing Iron and Steelmaking Technology. Replacement of
open hearth furnaces by basic oxygen furnaces has tended to re-
duce scrap requirements. However, the increase in usage of electric
furnaces has kept total scrap consumption roughly constant over-
all. Future scrap consumption is tied closely to continued increase
in electric furnace melting. Investment decisions depend on com-
parative return on investment from various types of furnaces. The
ROI from an electric furnace which uses 100 percent scrap is ob-
viously strongly influenced by scrap prices.
The technical feasibility of using increasing scrap proportions
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 95
in other steelmaking furnaces has been demonstrated. The EOF
charge, for example, can be increased by preheating the scrap, but
since this entails additional costs, it can only be justified if scrap
cost decreases relative to ore cost.
Logistics. As with most materials occurring in solid waste,
logistics is a significant deterrent to recycling. Collection and trans-
port from diverse sources is costly. Recycling of large appliances,
steel cans, and other ferrous materials in mixed municipal waste is
strongly inhibited by high transport costs relative to scrap value.
Low Growth Rate of Consuming Industries. The domestic iron
and steel industries are not growing as rapidly as the rest of the
American economy, primarily due to increased imports, replace-
ment of steel by other materials, and increased use of lighter, high
strength steels. Over the past decade, while the United States econ-
omy has grown at an annual rate of over 5 percent, iron and steel
production has grown at about 3 percent.
Economics
Most of the above issues add up to an unfavorable economic
picture for scrap use in the steel industry, though their individual
impact is difficult to measure. The total costs to an integrated steel
producer of using scrap vs. ore in a EOF were estimated by Mid-
west Research Institute, in a study for the Council on Environ-
mental Quality.13 The comparative costs are difficult to determine,
since the steel industry does not maintain or at least does not
report such figures. Estimates have been made, however, which
indicate that the cost of using scrap is slightly higher than the cost
of using ore.
The chosen point of equivalency in the production process was
the point where either hot molten pig iron or melted scrap could
be used to charge a EOF furnace. The total cost of scrap at this
point was estimated to be $44.00 per ton, including $33.50 purchase
price of the scrap, $6.00 melting cost, $3.50 for scrap handling,
and $1.00 for increased refractory wear caused by scrap usage.
Molten pig iron cost was estimated at $37.50 per ton including
$28.50 for the ore and associated raw materials, and $9.00 for
melting costs. Thus, the cost of scrap ready for charging to a EOF
is about $6.50 greater than the cost of hot metal derived from ore at
the same point.
The mill operator may actually perceive an even higher relative
cost of scrap usage since there will be a tendency for him to asso-
ciate a loss with letting ore reduction facilities which are already
in place sit idle. The mill operator will also associate a cost (in
-------
96 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
this case a real one) with the possibility that end products made
from scrap may be rejected because they do not meet product
specifications.
Thus, without a reduction in scrap cost of at least $6.00 to $7.00
per ton, it is unlikely that there will be any increased utilization of
scrap in EOF furnaces by existing steel mills.
Usage Considerations
The reluctance of integrated steel industry to risk contamination
in situations where specifications are demanding is understandable.
However, for the small electric furnace operator serving the crude
steel rebar market—and not participating in specification steel at
all—there is no particular quality problem.
Table A-6 shows how well various steel products are suited for
input of lower grades of scrap, and it shows their tonnage figures
and percentages of total output in 1970. Rebars and hot rolled light
shapes can be produced from miscellaneous waste scrap with no
significant sacrifice in properties. In plants producing a consid-
erable variety of products, including high specification items, low
grade scrap would be unattractive even at low prices, since the
trend is to produce steel furnace output which can meet a wide
range of product specifications, and since low grade scrap could
result in lower quality home scrap.
The total market for rebars and light shape raw material would
be sufficient to handle the gatherable supply of low grade ferrous
scrap if all of these products were produced by electric mini-mills.
There is in fact a reasonably good fit between the ferrous solid
waste problem and the mini-mill requirements—in price, material,
and geography. However, the large integrated steel producers also
share in the rebar and shape markets and as stated above they are
reluctant to use the lower scrap grades.
NONFERROUS METALS RECYCLING
In 1969, a total of 10.5 million tons of aluminum, copper, zinc,
and lead were consumed in the United States, and 3.2 million tons
were recycled, an average of 30 percent of consumption. Figures
A-5 through A-8 show consumption and amount of these materials
recycled from 1960 to 1969. For 1969, recycling as a percent of
consumption for each was 23 percent for aluminum, 46 percent for
copper, 42 percent for lead, and 10 percent for zinc.14
Approximately 24 percent of the aluminum, and only about 4
percent of all the other major non-ferrous metals consumed occur
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
TABLE A-6
STEEL PRODUCT SUITABILITY FOR INCLUSION OF LOW GRADE SCRAP
97
Product
Reinforcing bars
Selected HR. light shapes.
Subtotal
Selected wire rods
Selected rail accessories
Subtotal ail above
Selected plates
Subtotal all above
Oil country goods _
Heavy structural shapes
Steel piling
Subtotal all above
Hot rolled strip
Hot rolled sheet
Subtotal all above
All other products
1970 net
tons shipped
(millions)
4 891
6 076
10 967
1.607
0.440
13 014
7.777
20 791
1.307
._ 5.566
0.495
28.159
. 1.293
12.319
41.771
49.027
Percent
of 1970
shipments
5 4
6 7
12 1
1.8
0 5
14 4
8 6
23 0
1.4
6.1
0.5
31.0
1.4
13.6
46.0
54.0
Suitability of
low grade scrap
as ingredient
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair or better
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal or better
Generally
unsuitable
Grand total all products 90.798
100.0
Source: Midwest Research Institute. Economic studies in support of policy formation on resource recovery.
Unpublished data, 1972.
in municipal waste. These four metals constituted less than one
percent or roughly 1.2 million tons of collected municipal solid
waste in 1968. Aluminum accounted for 83 percent of this total.15
Sources and Markets
Table A-7 shows the amounts of each of the nonferrous metals
recovered from prompt and obsolete sources. Copper and lead re-
covery from obsolete sources is a very important part of the
recovery, while for aluminum and zinc little of the recovered scrap
comes from obsolete sources. In all cases virtually all of the avail-
able prompt scrap from industrial fabrication is recovered. Re-
covery of the metals from obsolete sources is directly related to the
form in which the scrap occurs and to its location. Thus, large
quantities of lead are recovered from worn out batteries returned
to dealers by consumers. Obsolete zinc which is widely scattered
and usually appears in small quantities and in combination with
other materials is largely unrecovered.
The aluminum can recycling programs of aluminum producers
-------
98
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
FIGURE A-5
ALUMINUM AND ALUMINUM SCRAP CONSUMPTION
5.0 _
en
O
O
X
in
o
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
ALUMINUM
CONSUMPTION
ALUMINUM SCRAP CONSUMPTION
(EXCLUDING HOME SCRAP)
1960
1965
1970
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to Identify opportunities
for increased solid waste utilization. Book 1, v.2. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1972. {Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.
as Publication PB 212 729.]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
99
FIGURE A-6
COPPER AND COPPER SCRAP CONSUMPTION
CO
z
ir
O
co
z
O
COPPER SCRAP CONSUMPTION
(EXCLUDING HOME SCRAP)
1960
1965
1970
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities
for increased solid waste utilization. Book 2, v.3. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.
as Publication PB 212 730.]
-------
100
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
FIGURE A-7
LEAD AND LEAD SCRAP CONSUMPTION
1.4
1.2
1.0
en
o
a:
O
in
-. 0.8
0.6
0.4
LEAD CON-
SUMPTION
LEAD SCRAP CONSUMPTION
(EXCLUDING HOME SCRAP)
1960
1965
1970
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to Identify opportunities
for increased solid waste utilization. Book 2, v.4. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.
as Publication PB 212 730.]
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
101
FIGURE A-8
ZINC AND ZINC SCRAP CONSUMPTION
i-
ce
o
in
z
o
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
ZINC SCRAP CONSUMPTION
(EXCLUDING HOME SCRAP)
I960
1965
1970
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities
for increased solid waste utilization. Book 2, v.5. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.
as Publication PB 212 730.]
-------
102 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE A-7
AMOUNT OF OBSOLETE SCRAP RECOVERED FROM PROMPT AND OBSOLETE SOURCES, 1969
Material
Lead
Zinc
Source
obsolete
prompt
obsolete
prompt
- _ obsolete
prompt
obsolete
prompt
Amount recycled
(1000 tons)
175
855
657
832
497
88
41
141
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities for increased
solid waste utilization. Book 2, v. 2-5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212 730.]
and soft drink producers have been the most visible effort to re-
claim aluminum from municipal waste. In 1970, these programs
resulted in the removal of about 2,875 tons of aluminum from the
solid waste stream. This was 1.3 percent of the quantity of alumi-
num cans reaching the market.16
The feasibility of these programs depends on the continued vol-
untary delivery of aluminum cans to the centers at no more than
$200/ton. Thus far, this price has proved to be sufficient incentive
to persuade individuals, Boy Scout groups, and others to collect
cans and bring them to the centers. It has been estimated by one of
the major aluminum manufacturers participating in the recycling
program that the quantity of aluminum cans ultimately recover-
able by this method will be between 5 and 30 percent of that
reaching the market.
The major sources and markets for recycled aluminum, copper,
lead, and zinc, in terms of product type, are shown in Tables A-8,
A-9, A-10, and A-ll respectively.
Issues and Problems
Nonferrous metals are high value materials for which a steady
demand exists. Compared to other materials (paper, steel, glass,
textiles and plastics) the cost of collecting, transporting, and
processing nonferrous metal scrap is not as high a percentage of
its value. In addition, costs of refining virgin nonferrous ores are
high. Since handling nonferrous scrap does not run cost up in-
ordinately, the scrap is considerably cheaper than virgin material.
Thus, the scrap moves freely.
Probably the major reason that more nonferrous scrap is not
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 103
TABLE A-8
RECYCLING OF ALUMINUM SCRAP, 1969
Source
Building and construction
Transportation -
Consumer durables
Electrical
Machinery and equipment
Containers and packaging
Other
TOTAU
Sources of Obsolete Aluminum Scrap
Estimated available
for recycling
(1,000 tons)
71 0
329 0
197 0
70
. 61.0
486 0
183 0
1 334 0
Estimated amount
recycled
(1,000 tons)
9 0
100 0
25 0
6.5
15 0
2.0
17 5
175 0
Percent
recycled
13 0
30 0
13 0
93 0
25 0
0.4
9 2
13 1
Markets for Prompt and Obsolete Aluminum Scrap
Scrap consumption
Use (1,000 tons) Percent
Casting alloys _ _
Wrought aluminum products
Exports
TOTAI
741
255
77
1,073
69
24
7
100
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities for increased
solid waste utilization. Book 2, v.2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212 730.]
TABLE A-9
RECYCLING OF COPPER SCRAP, 1969
Source
Electrical wire and copper tube
Magnet wire
Cartridge brass _ _
Automotive radiators
Railroad car boxes
Alloying additives
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Sources of Obsolete Copper Scrap
Estimated available
for recycling
(1,000 tons)
471.0
158.0
112.1
53.0
22 6
703 3
96.9
6.1
1,623.2
Estimated amount
recycled
(1,000 tons)
19.4
13.5
35.4
48.5
20.0
213.9
0
6.1
656.8
Percent
recycled
68
9
31
91
88
30
0
100
40
Markets for Prompt and Obsolete Copper Scrap
Scrap consumption
Use (1,000 tons) Percent
Other
TOTAL
292
701
369
127
1,489
20
47
25
8
100
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities for increased
solid waste utilization. Book 2, v.3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [Disrtibuted by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212 730.]
-------
104 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE A-10
RECYCLING OF LEAD SCRAP, 1969
Source
Solder
Other
TOTAL.
Sources of Obsolete Lead Scrap
Estimated available *
for recycling
(1,000 tons)
485
130
65
33
29
80
„ — 100
922"
Estimated amount
recycled
(1,000 tons)
350
32
9
10
29
5
62
497
Percent
recycled
72
25
14
30
100
6
62
"5?
Markets for Prompt and Obsolete Lead Scrap
Scrap consumption
Use (1,000 tons) Percent
Type
Tetraethyl lead
Batteries
Solder
Cable
Bearings
Other .. _.
TOTAL-
- 28
75
. _ 400
31
19
._. 13
19
585
4.8
12.8
68.4
5.3
3.2
2.2
3.2
99.0
1 271,000 tons of lead used in tetraethyl lead for gasoline and 125,000 tons of lead used in oxides and
chemicals are not included since there is no possibility for its recovery.
Source: Battefle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities for increased
solid waste utilization. Book 2, v.4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212 730.]
recycled is the form and location in which it occurs. Most of the
nonferrous scrap that is easily accessible is recycled. However,
there are certain types of scrap that are too contaminated and too
widely scattered to allow economical recovery despite the high
value of the materials (dealer's buying prices range from $60 to
$920 per ton). For example, copper in cartridge brass and lead in
ammunition is usually widely scattered over the country-side.
Zinc is usually used as an alloying agent and coating and thus is
extremely difficult to separate. Aluminum occurring in consumer
durables, transportation vehicles, and construction is often only a
small part of the product and thus much of it is never recovered.
Aluminum used in packaging and ending up in the municipal waste
stream cannot be economically recovered at present. It could only
be feasibly separated as part of a large reclamation system where
other materials (constituting a higher percentage of the waste)
were also recovered.
An interesting perplexity of nonferrous metals recycling is that
for some of the metals, copper is a good example, the scrap dealers
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 105
TABLE A-ll
RECYCLING OF ZINC SCRAP, 1969
Sources of Obsolete Zinc Scrap
Estimated available
for recycling
Source (1,000 tons)
Zinc base alloys
Other
TOTAI
353
390
190
130
1 063
Estimated amount
recycled
(1,000 tons)
33
0
0
8
41
Percent
recycled
9
0
0
6
3?9
Markets for Prompt and Obsolete Zinc Scrap
Scrap consumption
Use (1,000 tons) Percent
Slab zinc
Alloys
TOTAL-
76
34
27
45
182
41 7
18 8
14 8
24 7
100 0
Source: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities for increased
solid waste utilization. Book 2, v.5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212 730.]
perceive that they are pulling in about all that is available. Their
estimate of the recycling ratio would be much higher than the
actual.
GLASS RECYCLING
Status and Trends
In 1967 the glass manufacturing industry produced 12.8 million
tons of glass. This production was divided among the three major
segments of the industry: containers, flat glass, and pressed and
blown glass. Containers, the most significant segment, accounted
for 8.9 million tons, while flat glass accounted for 2.1 million tons
and blown glass for only 1.8 million tons.
Glass constitutes only 6 to 8 percent by weight of municipal
solid waste. There is virtually no recovery of glass from mixed
waste, but a small amount of glass is recycled through voluntary
collection centers and cullet dealers. Compared to other materials,
glass is among the lowest in recycling ratios (about 4.5 percent of
consumption) when home scrap (scrap generated in the glass
manufacturer's plant) is excluded. Of a total of 12.8 million tons
of glass produced in 1967, purchased cullet consumption was ap-
proximately 580,000 tons.17
-------
106 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
Sources and Markets
Only a minute portion of glass waste (almost exclusively flat
glass), is associated with industrial sources. Thus, municipal waste
is the main potential source for old glass for recycling. In 1968,
there were about 11.6 million tons of glass in municipal solid
waste.
The best sources of quality cullet have been declining. Clear glass
milk bottles and returnable glass containers rejected from bottle
washing operations, major sources of cullet in the past, are grad-
ually disappearing. Sorting, collection, and delivery costs have
risen, principally because these operations are highly labor in-
tensive. Plants have not been maintained and equipment has not
been purchased due to limited capital of the few dealers still in
operation. As the quality and availability of purchased cullet has
deteriorated, its use in the glass industry has declined.
The glass container segment of the industry, which accounts for
over 70 percent of the total glass tonnage output, purchased only
about 100,000 tons of cullet or 1 percent of its raw materials con-
sumption in 1967. This percentage is significantly lower than in
the other two segments of the industry, largely because of an in-
crease in utilization of in-plant cullet. Flat glass producers pur-
chased 10 percent, or 244,000 tons, and pressed and blown glass
producers 12 percent, or 256,000 tons.18
In addition to the use of purchased cullet in glass furnaces, there
are several alternatives for cullet utilization. The most widely
publicized alternative is in "glasphalt," a road surfacing material
in which cullet replaces part of the asphalt aggregate. Initial test-
ing results at the University of Missouri indicate that glasphalt is
equal to or superior to conventional asphalt. However, cullet would
have to compete economically with asphalt aggregate, which ranges
in price from $1.50 to $5.00 per ton delivered to the asphalt plant.
Present cullet prices are significantly higher than this amount.
Other proposed uses for cullet include construction materials,
such as glass-cement blocks, and cullet-terrazzo. Experiments to
determine feasibility of cullet utilization in these products are
currently underway.
Problems and Issues
The glass industry has certain characteristics that make high
levels of recycling from waste much more favorable in the glass
industry than other industries. First, the manufacture of glass
containers is essentially a one-step process, starting with raw ma-
terials and ending with the finished product. And second, cullet
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 107
can be substituted for virgin raw materials in large percentages,
provided that the cullet meets minimum specifications of colors,
cleanliness, and purity. From a technology standpoint, glass manu-
facture from 100 percent cullet appears possible.
There are, however, two problem areas: comparative economics
and the recovery of cullet from mixed waste. With respect to eco-
nomics the cost of virgin raw materials averages $15.48 per ton
batch as compared to a range of from $16.00 to $22.50 per ton batch
of cullet (both include freight charges to the plant). Processing
cost differentials are not significant. The conversion of an existing
plant to use increased quantities of purchased cullet would cost
from $50,000 to $100,000, depending upon the plant, but the
changeover could be accommodated within a framework of normal
periodic plant improvements. A new plant designed to use cullet
would be no more costly than a new plant designed for virgin
materials.19
The recovery of large quantities of cullet from municipal waste
is dependent on the development of a technical process for separa-
tion and upgrading of the cullet. However, the possibility of source
separation of glass containers in the home for separate collections
is an alternative that cannot be eliminated. Neither traditional
cullet dealers nor voluntary citizen delivery of glass to recycling
centers are likely to increase the cullet flow by more than a few
percent.
Mechanical separation methods for removing glass from other
components of municipal waste are still under development. One
promising system that combines density classification and optical
color sorting is currently being tested at Franklin, Ohio, while
other methods, including one developed by the Bureau of Mines,
are not yet ready for a comprehensive test.
Until the technology is further developed, utilization of pur-
chased cullet on a large scale does not appear possible. Further,
since glass is only a small percentage of solid waste, complete glass
recovery from mixed waste is not likely to come about until full
scale recovery centers, that are concerned with all major materials,
are set up.
Unless source separation of glass containers is found to be
feasible, utilization of purchased cullet on a large scale appears to
be closely tied to development of full scale municipal resource re-
covery centers. The glass coming out of such systems will not be
attractive to the glass industry on a cost basis, however, unless
economic incentives are provided.
-------
108 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
PLASTICS RECYCLING
Status and Trends
Plastics are becoming an ever more important material in our
society as their growth rate continues at an impressive rate. From
1960-1970, plastics consumption increased at an average annual
rate of 11.8 percent, and totalled 8.5 million tons in 1969. Con-
sumption by 1980 is expected to reach 19 million tons.20
Today, plastics account for only about 2 percent by weight of
municipal solid waste and by 1980 will average about 3 percent.
Very little plastic scrap is recycled other than that reused within
the manufacturing plant in which it is generated. This, however, is
a fairly significant quantity. Plastics fabricators, for example, con-
sumed internal scrap equal to about 1.5 million tons in 1970.21
There is essentially no recovery of plastic waste from obsolete
products.
The plastics reprocessor is the recycling channel for all industrial
plastics recycled outside of originating plants. About 500,000 tons
of waste plastics were handled by reprocessors in 1970. Of the
plastics recycled through reprocessors about 55 percent came from
resin producers, 30 percent from fabricators and 15 percent from
converters.22
There are two types of plastics, thermoplastics and thermo-
setting plastics. The thermosetts—20 percent of plastics consump-
tion—cannot be softened and reshaped through heating and are
thus not recyclable. In addition, most of the plastics used as coat-
ings and adhesives are impossible to recycle. Thus, about 75 per-
cent of the plastics consumed are potentially recyclable.
Sources and Markets
Table A-12 shows the major markets for plastics. Packaging
and construction are by far the most significant, accounting for 20
and 25 percent respectively of consumption in 1970. Plastics from
packaging account for about 60 percent by weight of the plastics
in the solid waste stream (much of the other plastic consumed is
"held-up" in permanent and semi-permanent end uses). Although
some of the waste generated in the various stages of plastics pro-
duction is recycled, the portion that is not makes up about 15% of
the plastic in the waste stream. Thus, packaging and industrial
waste account for 75% of plastic waste.23
As a general rule scrap plastic has to be used in an end applica-
tion having wider specification requirements than the product
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 109
TABLE A-12
CONSUMPTION OF PLASTICS, 1967 TO 1969, TOTAL AND SELECTED
MAJOR END USE MARKETS, IN 1,000 TONS
Consumption in selected markets:
Electrical
Housewares . _ _ _
Packaging
Toys
1967
6 550
75 +
198
109
1 070
396
250 +
313
1,121 +
208
1968
7 558
85
238
334
1 215
452
273
373
1,508
243
1969
8 535
95
234
536
1 327
567
328
425
1,729
269
Source: Darnay, A., and W. E, Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid wastes. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972. p.88-5.
yielding the scrap. The primary markets for scrap plastic include
such items as hose, weather stripping, toys, cheap housewares,
pipe, and similar applications where (1) plastic properties and
performance are not paramount, (2) relatively noncritical pro-
cesses are used (compression molding or heavy extrusion), and
(3) where the cost of plastic resin is a high proportion of total
product cost.
Plastics also have potential as a fuel supplement for energy
generation due to their high BTU value of 11,500 BTU/lb. (The
BTU content of paper is about 8,000 BTU/lb. and that of coal is
about 12,000 BTU/lb.) This is particularly appealing for recovery
of plastics (or value from plastics) in municipal waste, where
plastics are hard to separate from other materials.
Issues and Problems
Technology. There is a fundamental difference between the
nature of plastics recycling and that of metals, paper, glass, and
other materials. Metals production, for example, begins with an
impure ore which is progressively concentrated, smelted, refined
and freed from impurities. Plastics production, on the other hand,
begins with high purity virgin polymer to which various additives,
colorants, and reinforcements are added. Thus, in the metals in-
dustries, there is a background of technology designed to purify
and upgrade ores and concentrates. Such technology can also be
applied to the upgrading of scrap. In the plastics industry, where
the basic raw material is progressively "contaminated" in produc-
tion, little technology has been developed which can be applied to
purify waste plastics.
-------
110 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Compatibility. The principal difficulty in recycling plastics is
that different polymers (polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, etc.) are
not compatible with each other and must be separated, a very diffi-
cult and costly task.
Economics. Continually decreasing cost of basic plastic materials
has made scrap plastic less competitive with its main competitor,
off-grade virgin resin. For example, since 1961, the price of low
density polyethylene has decreased from 24 to 13 cents per pound.
Scrap plastic, limited by rising labor and distribution costs, did
not drop as rapidly, and the price of the scrap is now only about
1 cent per pound under the offgrade resin price, versus about 3
cents in 1961.
Logistics. This problem, common to recycling of all materials,
is important to plastics recycling. The extremely low density of
plastics makes transportation very costly.
Separation. Separation of plastics from other waste is extremely
difficult, making recovery of plastics from municipal waste almost
impossible unless the plastics can be diverted from the waste
stream and kept separate.
TEXTILES RECYCLING
Statics and Trends
The United States textile industry consumed approximately 5
million tons of textile fiber in 1970, an increase since 1960 of 61.5
percent. Far more significant to textile recycling was the change in
the type of fiber consumed, with a major shift occurring from use
of natural to man-made fibers. In 1960, natural fibers constituted
69 percent of fiber consumption, and man-made fiber 31 percent. In
1970, the figures were 39 percent for natural fibers and 61 percent
for man-made. By 1980, the ratio of natural to man-made fiber
is expected to be 25/75. The implications of this change are dis-
cussed below.24
In 1970, an estimated 0.8 million tons of waste textiles were
processed by waste textile dealers and sold (recycled) to various
markets.25 In addition, an undetermined amount of used clothing
which potentially would enter the waste stream was collected by
social welfare agencies and redistributed.
There are not sufficient historical data available to show trends
in textile recycling. However, it is known that secondary textile
consumption in many traditional markets has been declining and
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 111
that others such as the important wiping cloth market have been
growing, at a slower rate than total textile consumption. Thus, it is
almost certain that the rate of textile recovery (waste recovered
vs. textile consumption) has been declining.
Textiles represent only a small portion of municipal solid waste.
In 1968, textiles in collected municipal solid waste totalled 1.2
million tons, 0.6 percent of the total. Most of the textile consump-
tion which does not appear in the municipal waste stream is either
collected by social welfare agencies, disposed of or sent to sec-
ondary textile dealers by industry, or is being accumulated in
households.
Sources and Markets
Fig. A-9 represents the major sources and markets for textile
waste. The mill waste is the "home" scrap of the textile industry,
the manufacturing waste the "prompt" portion and consumer dis-
cards "obsolete."
In contrast to most of the other materials discussed in this re-
port, the "home" scrap (mill waste) is not reused within the
generating plant, but instead passes through the secondary textile
dealers. Mill waste accounted for about 1/3 of the material handled
by waste textile dealers in 1970.
Waste from fabrication ("prompt") is a considerably less im-
portant source of recycled waste than in the case of many other
materials. It has been estimated that waste recovered from fabri-
cation is only about 60 percent of that generated.26 Fabrication
waste accounted for an estimated 20 percent of the waste handled
by waste textile dealers in 1970.
Obsolete waste accounted for the remaining 45 percent of re-
cycled textile waste. The waste is provided mostly by social welfare
agencies and institutions (such as Goodwill Industries) from items
deemed unsuitable for reuse as clothing.
Issues and Problems
The increasing trend toward use of cotton-polyester blends and
wool-polyester blends probably represents the major problem of
textile recycling of the 1970's. These blends are not only generally
unusable in themselves, but they tend to become mixed with other
usable waste textiles and thereby reduce the economic value of the
total waste supply. This has caused problems particularly in the
three major markets for cotton waste: (1) rag paper, (2) vul-
canized fiber, and (3) wiping cloths.
-------
FIGURE A-9
WASTE TEXTILE UTILIZATION FLOWS
GENERATORS:
Fiber Producers and
Textile Mills
\ \
\ \
r
Apparel
Home Industrial Miscel-
Furnishings Products laneous
\ \
0.5 billion Ib
SECONDARY MATERIALS
INDUSTRY:
/
Cotton Mill Waste
and
Fiber Blends
S
Padding
and
Batting!
/
/
/
\
\
\
<
\
v»
7
-V
WASTE
(Broker,
/
/
1
/
/
Cotton Mill Waste
and
Cotton Rags
/
/
/
Paper Mills
and
Vulcanized Fber
/
/ /
Discards
Collecting
* Institution
/ /
/ /
/
\
/
i-/
V
\^
TEXTILE DEALER
Sorter, Processor)
Cotton Rags
and
Cotton-Rich Blends
Wipers
450 million Ib
/
f
/
>
/
/
/
1.6 billion Ib
Wool and
Wool Blends
Reprocessed
and
Used
Wool
\
s,
Us
\
J
t
c
I
ed
Cfothing
snn mini
1"
t»
§
h
t
\ -^ r
\
\
Synthetics \
(Nylon, Rayon, \
etc.) \
Export
c
J-
I
Mixed Blends j:
Flock
and
Filler
\
\
h
Y
h
Roofing
and
Flooring
200 million Ib
200 million Ib
100 million Ib
150 million Ib
200 million Ib
So
urce: Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify opportunities for increased solid waste utilization. Book 3, v.9 U.S
Protection Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212 731.]
. Environmental
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 113
In the case of the first two markets contamination of cotton is
limited to a maximum of 1 to 2 percent. Thus, increases in blends
means greater control by the textile processors, resulting in in-
creased cost. It also greatly reduces the usable yield from used
textiles.
Fiber blends have essentially the same effect on the wiping cloth
business. Wipers are less sensitive to small percentages of polyester
fiber, but fiber blends with over 50 percent polyester do not have
satisfactory absorption characteristics. (Garments with polyester/
cotton blends of 50/50 and 65/35 are extremely common.) The
present percentage of such blends in mixed rag bundles is un-
known, but the increased replacement of man-made fibers by syn-
thetics is testimony that they are likely to increase, reducing usable
yields.
Another major problem of textile recycling is that used textiles
are losing ground in many traditional markets. Wool markets are
one of the most serious problems, due mainly to the Wool Labeling
Act (the effect has been a psychological one on consumers who
perceive that virgin wool is cleaner or purer) and increased com-
petition from secondary wool from foreign sources. Also, virgin
based materials are replacing used textiles in some markets. The
incentive for using secondary textiles as paddings, filler, etc. has
traditionally been their low cost. Now, development of virgin based
products such as urethane foams at competitive prices has resulted
in fading used textile markets.
-------
Resource Recovery Installations
TABLE A-13
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES (1969)'
Location
Altoona, Pennsylvania
Boulder, Colorado
Gainesville, Florida
Houston, Texas
Houston, Texas
Johnson City, Tennessee
Largo, Florida
Norman, Oklahoma
Mobile, Alabama
New York, New York
Phoenix, Arizona
Sacramento Co., California
San Fernando, California
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Springfield, Massachusetts
St. Petersburg, Florida
Williamston, Michigan
Wilmington, Ohio
Company
Altoona FAM, Inc.
Harry Gorby
Gainesville Municipal Waste Conversion Authority
Metropolitan Waste Conversion Corp.
United Compost Services, Inc.
Joint USPHS-TVA
Peninsula Organics, Inc.
International Disposal Corp.
City of Mobile
Ecology, Inc.
Arizona Biochemical Co.
Dano of America, Inc.
International Disposal Corp.
Fairfield Engineering Co.
Springfield Organic Fertilizer Co.
Westinghouse Corp.
City of Williamston
Good Riddance, Inc.
Process
Fairfield-Hardy
Windrow
Metrowaste Conversion
Metrowaste Conversion
Snell
Windrow
Metrowaste Conversion
Naturizer
Windrow
Varro
Dano
Dano
Naturizer
Fairfield-Hardy
Frazer-Eweson
Naturizer
Riker
Windrow
Capacity
ton /day
45
100
150
360
300
52
50
35
300
150
300
40
70
150
20
105
4
20
Type Began
waste operatine
Garbage, paper
Mixed refuse
Mixed refuse, digested sludge
Mixed refuse, raw sludge
Mixed refuse
Mixed refuse, raw sludge
Mixed refuse, digested sludge
Mixed refuse
Mixed refuse, digested sludge
Mixed refuse
Mixed refuse
Mixed refuse
Mixed refuse
Mixed refuse
Garbage
Mixed refuse
Garbage, raw sludge, corn
cobs
Mixed refuse
1951
1965
1968
1966
1966
1967
1963
1959
1966
1963
1956
1963
1969
1954
1961
1966
1955
1963
Status
Operating
Operating intermittently
Operating
Operating
Closed (1966)
Operating
Closed (1967)
Closed (1964)
Operating intermittently
Under construction
Closed (1965)
Closed (1963)
Closed (1964)
Operating
Closed (1962)
Operating intermittently
Closed (1962)
Closed (1965)
\
I
c
I
1-
h
I
h
C
,
C
c
Y
t
|
1
h
I
Source: Breidenbach, A. W., et al. Composting of municipal solid wastes in the United States. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 103 p.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
115
Resource Recovery Installations
TABLE A-H
INCINERATORS WITH MAJOR
HEAT RECOVERY OPERATIONS
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois (Southwest)
Miami, Florida -
Hempstead, L.I., N.Y. (Oceanside)
U.S. Naval Station (Norfolk, Virginia)
Braintree
Oyster Bay, N.Y.
Hempstead, L.I., N.Y. (Merrick)
Chicago, Illinois (Northwest).
Type of installation
Volund
Refractory
_ Waterwall
__ Waterwall
Waterwall
Design refuse
capacity TPD
700
1200
900
600
360
240
1600
Source: Systems study of air pollution from municipal incineration. 3 v. Cambridge, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
Mar. 1970. (920 p.) (Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB 192 378
to PB 192 380.)
REFERENCES
1. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in solid
wastes. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. chap. 4.
p. 35, 45-7.
2. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 45-13 and 45-14.
3. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 45-24.
4. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, chap. 4. p. 35.
5. Resource Planning Associates, Preliminary report on a federal tax in-
centive for recycling post-consumer waste materials. Unpublished data,
1972.
6. (1) Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 49. (2) Battelle
Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. Identification of oppor-
tunities for increased recycling of ferrous solid waste. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, [1973]. p. 116. [Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 213
577.]
7. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, chap. 5. p. 58-2.
8. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, chap. 5. p. 49.
9. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, chap. 5. p. 58-11.
10. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, chap. 5. p. 49.
11. Battelle Memorial Institute, Identification of opportunities for increased
recycling, [1973]. p. 118.
12. Battelle Memorial Institute, Identification of opportunities for increased
recycling, [1973]. p. 167.
IS. Midwest Research Institute, Economic studies in support of policy forma-
tion, 1972.
14. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify
opportunities for increased solid waste utilization. Book 2, v. 2-5. U.S.
-------
116 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212
730.]
15. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, chap. 6. p. 59.
16. Battelle Memorial Institute, A study to identify opportunities, 1972,
Book 2.
17. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, chap. 7. p. 65.
18. Darnay, and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 66-67.
19. Midwest Research Institute, Economic studies in support of policy
formation, 1972.
20. Darnay and Franklin, Salvage markets, 1972, p. 82, 83, 88-5.
SI. Milgrom, J. [Arthur D. Little, Inc.] Incentives for recycling and reuse
of plastics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972, p. 3—18.
[Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Va. as Publication PB 214 045.]
22. Milgrom, Incentives for recycling, 1972, p. 3-15, and internal communica-
tions from A.D. Little.
23. Milgrom, Incentives for recycling, 1972, p. 3-57.
2b Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to identify
opportunities for increased solid waste utilization. Book 3, v. 9, p. 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as Publication PB 212
731.]
25. Battelle Memorial Institute, A study to identify opportunities, 1972,
Book 3, v. 9, p. 16.
26. Battelle Memorial Institute, A study to identify opportunities, 1972,
Book 3, v. 9, p. 26.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 117
4.9b Report to Congress on Hazardous Waste Disposal by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, June 1973.
PREFACE
Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272) as
amended requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) undertake a comprehensive investigation of the storage
and disposal of hazardous wastes. This document represents EPA's
Report to the President and the Congress summarizing the
Agency's investigations and recommendations in response to the
Congressional mandate.
The findings of this report are based on a number of contractual
efforts and analyses by Agency staff carried out since the passage
of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
The report is organized into a summary, five major sections, and
appendices. The first section discusses the Congressional mandate
and the Agency's response to it. Next, the public health, tech-
nological, and economic aspects of the hazardous waste disposal
problem are reviewed. A section detailing the case for hazardous
waste regulation follows. The report concludes with a discussion
of implementation issues, and findings and recommendations.
-------
118
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
CONTENTS
Pags
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 119
Section 1 INTRODUCTION 123
Section 2 IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE
PROBLEM 126
Section 3 THE CASE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATION 144
Section 4 ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION 159
Section 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 180
REFERENCES 186
APPENDICES 190
A. The Impact of Improper Hazardous Waste Management
on the Environment 190
B. Hazardous Waste Stream Data 200
C. Decision Model for Screening, Selecting, and Ranking
Hazardous Wastes 209
D. Summary of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
Processes ': 215
E. Decision Map for On-Site Versus Off-Site Treatment/
Disposal 225
F. Summary of the Hazardous Wastes National Disposal
Sites Concept 236
G. The Proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of
1973 252
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 119
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• The management of the Nation's hazardous residues—toxic
chemical, biological, radioactive, flammable, and explosive wastes
;—is generally inadequate; numerous case studies demonstrate that
public health and welfare are unnecessarily threatened by the un-
controlled discharge of such waste materials into the environment.
• Based on surveys conducted during this program, it is esti-
mated that the generation of non-radioactive hazardous wastes is
taking place at the rate of approximately 10 million tons yearly.1
About 40 percent by weight of these wastes are inorganic ma-
terials, 60 percent are organics; about 90 percent of the waste
occurs in liquid or semi-liquid form.
• Hazardous waste generation is growing at a rate of 5 to 10
percent annually as a result of a number of factors: increasing pro-
duction and consumption rates, bans and cancellations of toxic
substances, and energy requirements (which lead to radioactive
waste generation at higher rates).
• Hazardous waste disposal to the land is increasing as a result
of air and water pollution controls (which capture hazardous
wastes from other media and transfer them to land) and denial of
heretofore accepted methods of disposal such as ocean dumping.2
• Current expenditures by generators for treatment and dis-
posal of such wastes are low relative to what is required for ade-
quate treatment/disposal. Ocean dumping and simple land disposal
costs are on the order of $3 per ton3 whereas environmentally
adequate management could require as much .as $60 per ton if all
costs are internalized.
• Federal, State, and local legislation and regulations dealing
with the treatment and disposal of non-radioactive hazardous
waste are generally spotty or nonexistent. At the Federal level, the
Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act provide control
authority over the incineration, water and ocean disposal of certain
hazardous wastes, but not over the land disposal of residues.
Fourteen other Federal laws deal in a peripheral manner with the
management of hazardous wastes, and approximately 25 States
have limited hazardous waste regulatory authority.
• Given this permissive legislative climate, generators of waste
are under little or no pressure to expend resources for the adequate
management of their hazardous wastes. There are few economic
incentives (given the high costs of adequate management compared
to costs of current practice) for generators to dispose of wastes in
adequate ways.
-------
120 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
• Technology is available to treat most hazardous waste streams
by physical, chemical, thermal and biological methods, and for
disposal of residues. Use of such treatment/disposal processes is
costly, ranging from a low of $1.40/ton for carbon sorption, $10/
ton for neutralization/precipitation and $13.60/ton for chemical
oxidation, to $95/ton for incineration.4 Several unit processes are
usually required for complete treatment/disposal of a given waste
stream. Transfer and adaptation of existing technology to hazard-
ous waste management may be necessary in some cases. Develop-
ment of new treatment and disposal methods for some wastes (e.g.,
arsenic trioxide and arsenites and arsenates of lead, sodium, zinc
and potassium) is required.5 In the absence of treatment processes,
interim storage of wastes on land is possible using methods that
minimize hazard to the public and the environment (e.g., secure
storage, membrane landfills, etc.).
• A small private hazardous waste management industry has
emerged in the last decade, offering treatment/disposal services to
generators. The industry currently has capital investments of ap-
proximately $25 million and a capacity to handle about 2.5 million
tons of hazardous materials yearly, or 25 percent of capacity re-
quired nationally. The industry's current throughput of hazardous
waste is about 24 percent of installed capacity or 6 percent of the
national total. The low level of utilization of this industry's services
results from the absence of regulatory and economic incentives
for generators to manage their hazardous wastes in an environ-
mentally sound manner. This industry could respond over time to
provide needed capacity if a national program for hazardous waste
management, with strong enforcement capabilities, were created.
This industry would, of course, be subject to regulation also.
• The chief programmatic requirement to bring about adequate
management of hazardous wastes is the creation of demand and
adequate capacity for treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes. A
national policy on hazardous waste management should take into
consideration environmental protection, equitable cost distribution
among generators, and recovery of waste materials.
• A regulatory approach is best for the achievement of hazard-
ous waste management objectives. A regulatory approach ensures
adequate protection of public health and the environment. It will
likely result in the creation of treatment/disposal capacity by the
private sector without public funding. It will result in the manda-
tory use of such facilities. Costs of management will be borne by
those who generate the hazardous wastes and their customers
rather than the public at large and thus cost distribution will be
equitable. Private sector management of the wastes in a com-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 121
petitive situation can lead to an approximate mix of source reduc-
tion, treatment, resource recovery and land disposal.
• A regulatory program will not directly create a prescribed
system of national disposal sites, however, due to uncertainties
inherent in the private sector response. EPA believes that the
private sector will respond to a regulatory program. However, full
assurance cannot be given that treatment/disposal facilities will
be available in a timely manner for all regions of the Nation nor
that facility use charges will be reasonable in relation to cost of
services. Also, private enterprise does not appear well suited in-
stitutionally to long term security and surveillance of hazardous
waste storage and disposal sites.
• Based on analyses performed to date, EPA believes that no
Government actions to limit the uncertainties in private sector re-
sponse are appropriate at this time. However, if private capital
flow were very slow and adverse environmental effects were re-
sulting from the investment rate, indirect financial assistance in
forms such as loans, loan guarantees or investment credits could be
used to accelerate investment. If facility location or user charge
problems arose, the Government could impose a franchise system
with territorial limits and user charge rate controls. Long term
care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities could be
assured by mandating use of Federal or State land for such facili-
ties.
• EPA studies indicate that treatment/disposal of hazardous
wastes at central processing facilities is preferable to management
at each point of generation in most cases due to economies of scale,
decreased environmental risk, and increased opportunities for re-
source recovery- However, other forces may deter creation of the
"regional processing facility" type of system. For example, the
pending effluent limitation guidelines now being developed under
authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act may force
each generator to install water treatment facilities for both hazard-
ous and nonhazardous aqueous waste streams. Consequently, the
absolute volume of hazardous wastes requiring further treatment
at central facilities may be reduced and the potential for economies
of scale at such facilities may not be as strong as it is currently.
• Given these uncertainties, several projections of future events
can be made. Processing capacity required nationally was esti-
mated assuming complete regulation, treatment and disposal of all
hazardous wastes at the earliest practicable time period. Estimates
were based on a postulated scenario in which approximately 20
regional treatment/disposal facilities are constructed across the
Nation. Of these, 5 would be very large facilities serving major
-------
122 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
industrial areas treating 1.3 million tons yearly each, and 15 would
be medium size facilities each treating 160,000 tons annually. An
estimated 8.5 million tons of hazardous wastes would be treated/
disposed of away from the point of generation (off-site) ; 1.5
million tons would be pretreated by generators on-site, with 0.5
million tons of residues transported to off-site treatment/disposal
facilities for further processing. Each regional processing facility
was assumed to provide a complete range of treatment processes
capable of handling all types of hazardous wastes, and, therefore,
each would be much more costly than existing private facilities.
• Capital requirements to create the system described above are
approximately $940 million. Average annual operating expendi-
tures (including capital recovery and operating costs) of $620
million would be required to sustain the program. These costs are
roughly estimated to be equivalent to 1 percent of the value of
shipments from industries directly impacted. In addition, admin-
istrative expenses of about $20 million annually for Federal and
State regulatory programs would be necessary. For the reasons
stated earlier, however, capacity and capital requirements for a
national hazardous waste management system may be smaller
than indicated above, and more in line with the capacity and capital
availability of the existing hazardous waste management industry.
• In summary, the conclusions of the study are that (1) a
hazardous waste management problem exists and its magnitude is
increasing; (2) the technical means to solve the problem exist for
most hazardous waste but are costly in comparison with present
practices; (3) the legislative and economic incentives for using
available technology are not sufficient to cause environmentally
adequate treatment/disposal in most cases; (4) the most effective
solution at least direct cost to the public is a program for the
regulation of hazardous waste treatment/disposal; (5) a private
hazardous waste management service industry exists and is capable
of expanding under the stimulus of a regulatory program; (6)
due to inherent uncertainties, private sector response cannot be
definitely prescribed; (7) several alternatives for government ac-
tion are available, but, based on analyses to date, EPA is not
convinced that such actions are needed.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed legislation
to the Congress which is intended to fulfill the purposes of Section
212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, and to carry out
the recommendations of this report. The proposed Hazardous
Waste Management Act of 1973 would authorize a regulatory pro-
gram for treatment/disposal of EPA-designated hazardous wastes;
the States would implement the program subject to Federal stan-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 123
dards in most cases. AH studies performed in response to Section
212 will be completed in time to serve as useful input to Congres-
sional consideration of our legislative proposal.
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
The Congressional Mandate
In 1970, Congress perceived hazardous waste storage and dis-
posal to be a problem of national concern. Section 212 of the
Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-512—an amendment to
P.L. 89-272), enacted on October 26, 1970, required that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepare a compre-
hensive report to Congress on storage and disposal of hazardous
wastes. That section stated:
"The Secretary* shall submit to the Congress no later than
two yearsf after the date of enactment of the Resource Re-
covery Act of 1970, a comprehensive report and plan for the
creation of a system of national disposal sites for the storage
and disposal of hazardous wastes, including radioactive, toxic
chemical, biological, and other wastes which may endanger
public health or welfare. Such report shall include: (1) a list
of materials which should be subject to disposal at any such
site; (2) current methods of disposal of such materials; (3)
recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery
or disposal of such materials; (4) an inventory of possible
sites including existing land or water disposal sites operated
or licensed by Federal agencies; (5) an estimate of the cost
of developing and maintaining sites including consideration
of means for distributing the short- and long-term costs of
operating such sites among the users thereof; and (6) such
other information as may be appropriate."
The EPA Response
This document represents EPA's Report to the President and
[p. 1]
* The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1970
transferred authority to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
t EPA requested and received a time extension for submission of this report until June 30,
1973, since appropriation of funds to implement the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 was delayed
for 8 months after enactment.
-------
124 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
the Congress summarizing the Agency's investigations and recom-
mendations concerning hazardous wastes in response to the Con-
gressional mandate. All information required by the mandate is
included in the report and its appendices. This report provides a
definition of current status, issues and options. It does not purport
to provide a complete solution to the hazardous waste management
problem.
Section 212 requires an evaluation of a system of national dis-
posal sites (NDS) for the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes
as a solution to the hazardous waste problem. To evaluate the NDS
concept properly, it is necessary to view it in the context of the
total problem. On probing the problem, EPA determined that
several means of accomplishing the NDS objective exist. To pro-
vide the Congress with maximum flexibility of action, EPA elected
to investigate and evaluate several alternative solutions.
A series of interrelated Contractor and in-house studies was
undertaken for the specific purpose of complying with Section 212
of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970:
• The first study, upon which subsequent efforts were based,
quantified the hazardous waste problem.6 From a thorough
literature survey and contacts with various trade and tech-
nical associations, government agencies, and industry, a list
of hazardous materials was compiled, and each candidate
substance on this list was rated according to the nature and
severity of its hazardous properties. In addition, volume and
distribution data (both by geography and by industry groups)
was gathered, and current hazardous waste handling and dis-
posal practices were surveyed. It was found that the magni-
tude of the hazardous waste problem was larger than
originally anticipated, and that current disposal practices are
generally inadequate.
• Next, a more detailed technical study on the properties of
these materials and their treatment and disposal methods was
conducted.7 A "profile report" was written on each listed
substance summarizing its physical, chemical, and toxicologi-
cal properties, its industrial uses, and the hazards associated
with proper handling and disposal methods. Each "profile
report" incorporated a critical evaluation of currently used
and available technology for the handling, storage, transport,
neutralization, detoxification, reuse, and disposal of the par-
ticular substance. Also, advanced methods of hazardous waste
treatment were surveyed, and research and development needs
were formulated. The study showed that treatment and dis-
posal technology is available for most hazardous wastes.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 125
• A favorable public attitude is essential for the successful im-
plementation of any nationwide hazardous waste management
program. Therefore, a third study was undertaken to deter-
mine citizen awareness and attitudes regarding the hazardous
waste problem, and reaction to the possibility of having a
treatment and disposal facility located in the vicinity.8 The
majority of citizens sampled were found to be in favor of
regional processing facilities for hazardous wastes since such
facilities would increase environmental protection and stimu-
late the economy of the region.
• A fourth study analyzed and compared alternative methods of
hazardous waste management.9 It was concluded that there
are three basic approaches: (a) process hazardous wastes
"on-site," i.e., at the plant where they are generated; (b)
process "off-site" at some regional facility (either public or
private) ; (c) combine "on-site" pretreatment with "off-site"
treatment and disposal. These basic alternatives were evalu-
ated with respect to economics, risk, and legal and institu-
tional issues. The study indicated that option (b) is preferable
for most hazardous waste streams* and option (c) is prefer-
able for dilute aqueous toxic metal wastes.
• A fifth comprehensive study examined the feasibility of a
system of national disposal sites (NDS) for hazardous
wastes.10 Potential locations for regional processing and dis-
posal sites were identified. Conceptual designs of hazardous
waste treatment and disposal facilities were developed based
on multi-component waste streams characteristic of industry.
Capital and operational cost estimates were made, and fund-
ing and cost distribution mechanisms were examined.
• Lastly, a strategy analysis was performed, based on informa-
tion from the previous studies. It was concluded that a regula-
tory program is the best approach to the hazardous waste
problem.
The case for hazardous waste regulation is discussed in Section
3. Issues of implementation are evaluated in Section 4 and findings
and recommendations are given in Section 5. A review of the
hazardous waste disposal problem precedes these discussions.
* In this report the term "waste stream" refers to mass flow in the engineering process
sense, and not necessarily to a liquid stream.
-------
126 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Section 2
IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM
Inadequate hazardous waste management has the potential of
causing adverse public health and environmental impacts. These
impacts are directly attributable to the acute (short range or
immediate) or chronic (long range) effects of the associated haz-
ardous compound or combination of compounds, and production
quantities and distribution.11'12 Many cases document the imminent
and long-term danger to man or his environment from improper
disposal of such hazardous wastes. For example:
• Several people in Minnesota were hospitalized in 1972 after
drinking well water contaminated by an arsenic waste buried
30 years ago on nearby agricultural land.
• Since 1953 an Iowa company has dumped several thousand
cubic yards of arsenic-bearing wastes on a site located above
an aquifer supplying a city's water. Arsenic content in nearby
monitoring well samples has been measured as high as 175
ppm; the U.S. Public Health Service drinking water standards
recommend an arsenic content less than 0.05 ppm.
• In Colorado a number of farm cattle recently died of cyanide
poisoning caused by indiscriminate disposal of cyanide-
bearing wastes at a dump site upstream.
Additional case studies citing the effects of hazardous waste
mismanagement are given in Appendix A.
Discussed in this section are: the types, forms, sources, and
quantities of hazardous waste; the current status of treatment and
disposal technology; and the economic incentives bearing on haz-
ardous waste treatment and disposal.
The Nature of Hazardous Wastes
The term "hazardous waste" means any waste or combination of
wastes which pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or living organisms because such wastes are lethal,
nondegradable, persistent in nature, biologically magnified, or
otherwise cause or tend to cause detrimental cumulative effects.13
General categories of hazardous waste are toxic chemical, flam-
mable, radioactive, explosive and biological. These wastes can
take the form of solids, sludges, liquids, or gases.
The sources of hazardous wastes are numerous and widely
scattered throughout the nation. Sources consist of industry, the
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 127
Federal Government (mainly the AEC and DOD), agriculture,
and various institutions such as hospitals and laboratories.
During this study waste streams containing hazardous com-
pounds were identified and quantified by industrial source (see
Appendix B). These waste streams were selected by utilizing a
decision model (see Appendix C)1* which is relatively unsophisti-
cated compared to that required for standard setting purposes.
Therefore, the hazardous compounds and waste streams cited in
this report should be considered as illustrative and not necessarily
those that should be regulated. From these data, the total quantity
of non-radioactive hazardous waste streams generated by indus-
trial sources in 1970 was estimated to be 10 million tons (9 million
metric tons), or approximately 10 percent of the 110 million tons
(100 million metric tons) of all wastes generated by industry
annually.15 This quantity includes most industrial wastes generated
from contractor operated government facilities.
Approximately 70 percent of industrial hazardous wastes are
generated in the mid Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast areas
of the United States (see Table 2.1). About 90 percent by weight
of industrial hazardous wastes are generated in the form of liquid
streams of which approximately 40 percent are inorganic, and 60
percent are organic materials. Representative hazardous waste
substances have been cross-indexed by industrial sources in Figure
2.1. It is important to recognize that these hazardous substances
are constituents of waste streams, and it is these waste streams
which require treatment, storage, and disposal.
Sources of radioactive wastes are: nuclear power generation and
fuel reprocessing facilities; private sources, such as medical, R&D,
and industrial laboratories; and government sources (AEC and
DOD). Quantities of radioactive wastes generated in 1970 from the
first two sources have been identified in Table 2.2. Only a limited
amount of information is available on source material, special nu-
clear material or by-product materials from government opera-
tions. Such information is related to weapons production and is
therefore classified.
Disposal of uranium mill tailings represents a unique problem
similar in magnitude to the disposal of all industrial hazardous
wastes. Several Federal agencies are working on the problem at
present; a satisfactory disposal or recovery method has not yet
been defined. Aside from uranium mill tailings, the quantity of ra-
dioactive wastes associated with the commercial nuclear electric
power industry and other private sources is estimated to be approx-
imately 24,000 tons (22,000 metric tons) per year" at present, or
-------
128 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
less than one percent of the total hazardous wastes from all indus-
try.
Toxic Wastes. Practically all of the estimated 10 million tons (9
million metric tons) of non-radioactive hazardous waste generated
annually in the United States falls into the toxic category. In the
context of this report toxicity is defined as the ability of a waste to
produce injury upon contact with or accumulation in a susceptible
site in or on the body of a living organism. Most toxic wastes belong
to one or more of four categories: (1) inorganic toxic metals, salts,
acids, or bases, (2) synthetic organics, (3) flammables, (4) ex-
plosives. There is considerable overlap within these waste cate-
gories. For example, a synthetic organic waste may be flammable
and explosive, and it may also contain toxic metals. Flammable and
explosive wastes are often categorized as separate hazardous waste
entities; however, they are generally toxic and will be discussed
here. Many radioactive and some biological wastes are also toxic,
but they will be discussed separately.
Toxic Metals. Approximately 25 percent of the metals in common
usage today are toxic metals.16 The concentration and chemical
form of toxic metals determine their potential health and environ-
mental hazards. Some metals are essential to life at low concentra-
tions but are toxic at higher concentrations.17'18 Also, a pure metal
is usually not as dangerous as a metallic compound (salt) ,19 The
largest quantities of toxic metal waste streams are produced by the
mining and metallurgy and the electroplating and metal finishing
industries. For example, arsenic-containing flue dusts collected
from the smelting of copper, lead, zinc and other arsenic-bearing
ores amount to 40,000 tons (36,200 metric tons) per year. Approxi-
mately 30,000 tons (27,200 metric tons) of chromium-bearing
waste is discharged from the metal finishing industry annually.
Synthetic Organics. Hazardous synthetic organic compounds in-
clude halogenated hydrocarbon pesticides (such as endrin), poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCB), phenols, etc. An estimated 5,000
tons (4,540 metric tons) of synthetic organic pesticide wastes were
produced in 1970.20 The Department of Defense (DOD) currently
has 850 tons (770 metric tons) of dry pesticides and 15,000 tons
(13,600 metric tons) in liquid form requiring disposal. Most of the
liquid form consists of agent orange herbicide (a mixture of 2,4-D
and 2,4,5-T) banned from use in South Vietnam.21 These stocks
contain significant quantities of a teratogenic dioxin. There are
disposal requirements caused by the increasing numbers of waste
pesticide containers as well. Over 250 million pesticide containers
of all types will be used this year alone.22
-------
TABLE 2.1
ESTIMATED INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY REGION*
(Tons/Year)
Region
New England __
Mid Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
West (Pacific)
Mountain -
TOTALS
Inorganic in aqueous
tons metric tons
95,000
1,000,000
1,300,000
65,000
230,000
90,000
320,000
120,000
125,000
3,345,000
(86,000)
(907,200)
(1,180,000)
(59,000)
(208,500)
(81,700)
(290,000)
(109,000)
(113,500)
(3,034,900)
Organics in aqueous
tons metric tons
170,000
1,100,000
850,000
260,000
600,000
385,000
1,450,000
550,000
5,000
5,370,000
(154,000)
(1,000,000)
(770,000)
(236,000)
(545,000)
(350,000)
(1,315,000)
(500,000)
(4,540)
(4,874,540)
Organics
tons metric tons
33,000
105,000
145,000
49,500
75,000
44,000
180,000
113,000
50,000
794,500
(30,000)
(90,600)
(132,000)
(45,000)
(68,000)
(40,000)
(163,000)
(103,000)
(45,400)
(717,000)
Sludges,!
slurries, solids
tons metric tons
6,000
55,000
90,000
18,500
80,000
9,500
39,000
30,500
11,500
340,000
(5,450)
(50,000)
(81,600)
(16,800)
(72,600)
(8,600)
(35,400)
(27,770)
(10,400)
(308,620)
Total
tons metric tons
304,000
2,260,000
2,385,000
393,000
985,000
528,000
1,989,000
813,500
191,500
9,849,500
(275,450)
(2,047,800)
(2,163,600)
(350,800)
(894,100)
(480,300)
(1,803,400)
(739,770)
(173,840)
(8,929,060)
Percent
of total
3.1
22.9
24.2
4.0
10.0
5.4
20.2
8.3
1.9
100.0
* Refers to Bureau of Census regions, as defined in Appendix B.
t Predominantly inorganic.
Note: Data for 1970
Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762
B
2
M
W
I
02
to
CO
-------
130
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
FIGURE 2.1
REPRESENTATIVE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES WITHIN INDUSTRIAL WASTE
STREAMS
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
INDUSTRY
.Mining & Metallurgy
Paint & Dye
Pesticide
Electrical & Electronic
Printing & Duplicating
Electroplating &
Metal Finishing
Chemical Manufacturing
Explosives
Rubber & Plastics
Battery
Pharmaceutical
Textile
Petroleum & Coal
Pulp & Paper
Leather
' T
X
X
X
X
X
X
r °'
X
X
X
X
pi1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
131
TABLE 2.2
ESTIMATE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE GENERATED IN 1970
Waste stream source
Mineral extraction*
(Uranium)
Commercial nuclear
Form
Sludge
Solid or liquid
Total annual
curies
9.0 X ID"
4.0 X 10»
Tons/year
4,400,000
2,240
Metric tons/year
4,000,000
2,000
Major radioactive
elements
Ra, Th, Pb, & Po
U,Th, Ra, Pu, Ag
electric power
Miscellaneous private Solid or liquid
sources
2.0 X 106
Fe, H, Mn, Nl, Co,
Ru, Cs, Ce, Sr, Sb,
Pm, Eu, Am & Cm
11,000-22,000 10,000-20,000 Co, Sr, Pm, Cs,
Pu, Am, & Cm
Government sources Solid or liquid Not available Not available Not available Pu, Am & Cm
All known sources Sludges, solids >4.0 X 107 >4,413,240
or liquids
'Uranium mill tailings from extraction of uranium ores.
Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762
>4,012,000
Flammables. Flammable wastes consists mainly of contaminated
organic solvents, but may include oils, pesticides, plasticizers, com-
plex organic sludges, and off-specification chemicals. Highly flam-
mable wastes can pose acute handling and chronic disposal hazards.
Hazards related to disposal may exceed those of transportation and
handling if sufficient waste volumes are involved. The nationwide
quantities of flammable wastes have not been assessed as a separate
category, but are included in the totals given previously.
Explosives. Explosive wastes are mainly obsolete or dance, man-
ufacturing wastes from the explosives industry, and contaminated
industrial gases. The largest amount of explosive waste is gener-
ated by the Department of Defense (DOD). An inventory by the
DOD Joint Commanders Panel on Disposal Ashore indicates that
the military has accumulated about 150,000 tons (136,080 metric
tons) of obsolete conventional ammunition.23 The former practice
of loading obsolete munitions on ships and sinking them in the
ocean has been discontinued. Final disposal is being delayed until a
more suitable disposal method is available. A Joint Army, Navy,
NASA and Air Force (JANNAF) group is working to resolve this
impasse. Most waste materials generated by the commercial ex-
plosives industry consist of chemical wastes that are not clearly
separable from wastes produced by large industrial chemical firms
(e.g., ammonia, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, some common organic
chemicals, etc.). These wastes represent a greater problem than
military wastes because of uncontrolled disposal practices. Open
burning of explosives, which is widely practiced, can result in the
emission of harmful nitrogen oxides and other pollutants.
Radioactive Wastes.2* Most radioactive wastes consist of con-
-------
132 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ventional non-radioactive materials contaminated with radionu-
clides. The concentration of the latter can range from a few parts
per billion to as high as 50 percent of the total waste. Frequently,
many radionuclides are involved in any given waste. Radioactive
wastes are customarily categorized as low- or high-level wastes, de-
pending upon the concentrations of radionuclides. However, the
long term hazard associated with each waste is not necessarily
proportional to the nominal "level" of radioactivity, but rather to
the specific toxicity and decay rate of each radionuclide. The most
significant radionuclides, from the standpoint of waste manage-
ment, decay with half-lives of months to hundreds of thousands of
years. For the purposes of this study, the term high level wastes re-
fers to those requiring special provisions for dissipation of heat
produced by radioactive decay. Low level waste refers to all others.
The biological hazard from radioactive wastes is primarily due
to the effects of penetrating and ionizing radiation rather than to
chemical toxicity. On a weight basis, the hazard from certain radio-
nuclides is more acute than the most toxic chemicals by about six
orders of magnitude. The hazard from radionuclides cannot be
neutralized by chemical reaction or by any currently practicable
scheme. Thus, the only currently practical way to "neutralize" a
radionuclide is to allow its decay. Storage of wastes containing
radionuclides under carefully controlled conditions to assure their
containment and isolation is necessary during this decay period.
The time period necessary for decay of radionuclides to levels ac-
ceptable for release to the environment varies with each waste.
Radionuclides may be present in gaseous, liquid, or solid form.
Solid wastes per se are not normally important as potential con-
taminants in the biosphere until they become airborne (usually as
particulates) or water-borne (by leaching). Consequently, environ-
mental effects and existing regulatory limits are based primarily on
concentrations in air and water.
Biological Wastes. Biological wastes were divided into two cate-
gories for this study: pathological hospital wastes and warfare
agents. Pathological wastes from hospitals are usually less infec-
tious than biological warfare agents. Both types of wastes may also
be toxic. For example, toxins produced by various strains of micro-
organisms may be just as hazardous as the associated infectivity of
the organism.
Approximately 170,000 tons (154,000 metric tons) of pathologi-
cal wastes are generated by hospitals annually, which is approxi-
mately 4 percent of the total 4.2 million tons (3.7 million metric
tons) of all hospital wastes generated per year.25'2* These wastes
include malignant or benign tissues taken during autopsies, biop-
sies, or surgical procedures, animal carcasses and wastes, hypo-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 133
dermic needles, off-specification or outdated drugs, microbiological
wastes, and bandaging materials.
Biological Warfare (BW) Agents. These are selected primarily
because of their ability: (1) to penetrate outer epithelial tissues of
plants or animals and (2) to spread rapidly. Antipersonnel agents
like Bacillus anthrax are cultured to affect a specific animal, where-
as anticrop agents like Puccinia graminis (Lx) (Rice blast) are
used to inhibit growth of specific plants. DOD representatives have
advised EPA that all stockpiles of biological warfare agents, in-
cluding antipersonnel and anticrop agents, have been destroyed.27
Due to the Administration's policy of restricting production of BW
agents, the total quantity to be disposed of should be small in the
future.
Chemical Warfare Agents. Production of chemical warfare
agents such as HD (mustard), GB, and VX has been discontinued,
but significant stockpiles of these agents must be treated and dis-
posed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Depart-
ment of the Army is in the process of demilitarizing HD (mustard)
at Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, and is presently studying
the feasibility of demilitarizing GB and VX by means of incinera-
tion. The exact quantity of chemical agents to be incinerated is
classified, but it has been estimated that after the treatment pro-
cess there will be approximately 70,000 tons (63,600 metric tons)
or residual salts that will require proper disposal.
Factors Influencing the Growth of Harzardous Wastes.
A number of factors will increase the quantities of hazardous
wastes generated in the future and will affect their disposal re-
quirements. Some of these factors are production and consumption
rates, legislative and regulatory actions, energy requirements, and
recycling incentives.
National production and consumption rates are increasing 4 to 6
percent each year, while resource recovery from wastes is declining.
During the period 1948 to 1968, U.S. consumption of selected toxic
metals increased 43 percent.28 Since 1954, production of synthetic
organic chemicals has increased to an average rate of 10.5 percent
per year.29 Included in the latter category are such materials as
dyes, pigments, and pesticides. Some of these products contain
heavy metals in addition to organic constituents. Similar data in-
dicating production growth can be cited for most industries which
generate hazardous waste. There is a correlation between the
amount of production and waste generated. Therefore, it can be
concluded that hazardous waste generation rates will generally
parallel industrial production rates.
-------
134 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Changing product material content also has an impact. For ex-
ample, increasing polyvinylchloride (PVC) plastics usage in more
mercury-bearing wastes from the chlorine production industry; in
the computer industry, changeover from vacuum tube technology to
integrated circuit board technology has resulted in increased gen-
eration of acid etchant wastes containing heavy metals.
The Nation's projected energy requirements are driving utilities
towards construction of nuclear powered facilities. As of Septem-
ber 1972, there were 28 nuclear power plants in operation, 52 were
being built, and 70 more were being planned. Operation of the ad-
ditional 122 nuclear power plants will definitely increase the quan-
tities of radioactive wastes.30 Shortages of clean burning high
grade coal have initiated a trend to utilize lower grades of coal,
which contain larger amounts of arsenic and mercury; therefore,
aqueous wastes from the scrubbers and ashes from coal burning
furnaces will contain increased quantities of toxic wastes.
Enforcement of new consumer and occupational safety legisla-
tion could result in product bans with attendant disposal require-
ments. More stringent air and water effluent controls, new pesticide
controls, and the new restrictions on ocean dumping of wastes will
result in larger quantities of hazardous wastes in more concen-
trated form requiring disposal. As air, water and ocean disposal
options are closed off, there will be increased pressure for improve-
ment in production efficiency, for recovery and recycling of hazard-
ous substances, and for disposal of hazardous wastes on or under
the land.
Public Health and Environmental Effects
In order for an organic or inorganic hazardous compound within
a waste to affect public health and the environment it must be pres-
ent in a certain concentration and form.
Public health and environmental effects are directly correlated
with the concentration and duration of exposure.31'32 This has been
better documented for acute effects resulting from high concentra-
tions over a short period of time than for chronic effects resulting
from low concentrations over a long period of time.33 Most of the
work to establish chronic effects has been done on lower animals,
and extrapolating the evidence directly to man becomes difficult be-
cause of species variations.34
Synergistic or antagonistic interactions between hazardous com-
pounds and other constituents within the waste can enhance or
modify the overall effects of the particular hazardous compound.
As an example, the effects of mercury salts with trace amounts of
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 135
copper will be considerably accentuated in a suitable environment.
The form of a hazardous waste is also very critical because it
determines if a toxic substance is releasable to the ambient en-
vironment. As an example, an insoluble salt of a toxic metal bound
up within a sludge mass that is to be disposed of at a landfill does
not present the same degree of immediate threat to public health
and the environment as a soluble salt of the same metal that is un-
bound going to the same landfill. The interaction between biological
systems and hazardous wastes is unpredictable, and in many cases
the end product is more lethal than the original waste. An example
is the conversion of inorganic mercury by anaerobic bacteria into
methyl mercury. Furthermore, persistent toxic substances can ac-
cumulate within tissues of mammals as do certain radioisotopes.
Under these circumstances, substances that are persistent in the
ambient environment even though in low concentrations will be
magnified in the living system. As a result, critical concentrations
may accumulate in tissues and cause detectable physiological ef-
fects.
Cancers and birth defects are only a few of the recorded physio-
logical effects that have been correlated with the presence of haz-
ardous compounds in man. Other milder effects have also been
recorded like headaches, nausea, and indigestion. In the environ-
ment, the effects of hazardous wastes are manifested by such events
as fish kills, reduced shellfish production, or improper egg shell syn-
thesis.35
This evidence points to the fact that hazardous wastes are detri-
mental to public health and the environment. Therefore, the real
issue is to document the fact that present management practices
for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous wastes do not pro-
vide the necessary reassurances that man or the environment are
being adequately protected.
Present Treatment and Disposal Technology
Treatment processes for hazardous waste streams should per-
form the following functions: (I) volume reduction where re-
quired, (2) component separation, (3) detoxification, and (4)
material recovery. No single process can perform all these func-
tions ; several different processes linked iri series are required for
adequate treatment. Residues from these processes, or all hazardous
wastes if treatment is bypassed, require ultimate disposal.
Treatment and disposal technology is available to process most
hazardous waste streams. Table 2.3 lists the hazardous waste
treatment and disposal processes examined during the course of
-------
136 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE 2.3
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Process
Physical Treatment
Carbon sorption
Dialysis
Electro dialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation-Settling
Reverse osmosis
Stripping-Ammonia
Chemical Treatment
Calcination
Ion exchange
Neutralization
Oxidation
Precipitation
Reduction
Thermal Treatment
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Biological Treatment
Activated sludges
Aerated lagoons
Waste stabilization ponds
Trickling filters
Disposal/Storage
Deep well injection
Detonation
Engineered storage
Land burial
Ocean dumping
Waste type:
Functions
performed
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduc./separ.
Vol. reduction
Vol. reduc./separ.
detoxification
Detoxification
Detoxification
Vol. reduc./separ.
Detoxification
Vol. reduc. /detox.
Detox, /disposal
Detoxification
Detoxification
Detoxification
Detoxification
Disposal
Disposal
Storage
Disposal
Disposal
1. Inorganic chemical w/o heavy metals
2. Inorganic chemical w/heavy metals
3. Organic chemical w/o
heavy metals
Applicable to waste
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
6
7
4. Organic chemical w/heavy metals 8
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
. R
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Types
45678
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X X X
X XX
X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X XX
adiological
. Biological
. Flammable
Forms
S L G
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
Waste form:
S— Solid
L — Liquid
G— Gas
Resource
recovery
'capability
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
. Explosive
Source: EPA Contract Nos. 68-03-0089, 68-01-0762 and 68-01-0556.
this study. General applicability of these processes to types and
forms of hazardous wastes is indicated. Many of these processes
have been utilized previously for managing hazardous wastes in
industry and government. Several processes have capabilities for
resource recovery. Selection of appropriate methods depends on the
type, form and volume of waste, the type of process required to
achieve adequate control, and relative economics of processes.
Several treatment processes perform more than one function, or
are applicable to more than one type or form of waste. For example,
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 137
evaporation provides both volume reduction and component sep-
aration for inorganic liquids. Carbon sorption and nitration pro-
vide component separation for both liquids and gases, and are
applicable to a wide range of heterogeneous waste streams. Both
carbon sorption and evaporation are capable of large throughput
rates. Neutralization, reduction and precipitation are effective for
separation of most heavy metals.36'37
Certain weaknesses are inherent in some treatment processes.
For example, the five biological treatment processes are inefficient
when waste streams are highly variable in composition and concen-
tration, or when solutions contain more than 1-5 percent salts.38
Furthermore, biological treatment processes require larger land
areas for facilities than the other physical or chemical processes.
The efficiency of removal or hazardous liquids and gases from waste
streams by carbon sorption is strongly dependent on pH. Similarly,
the four dissolved solids removal processes (ion exchange, reverse
osmosis, dialysis, and electrodialysis) are all subject to operational
problems when utilized for treating heterogeneous brines.39
Radioactive emissions and effluents from production or repro-
cessing facilities are routinely controlled by a variety of treatment
methods. High efficiency filters are used to remove radioactive par-
ticulates from gaseous effluents; caustic scrubbers of charcoal ab-
sorbers are used to remove radioactive gases. Liquid effluents
containing small quantities of soluble or insoluble radioactive con-
stituents are usually treated with conventional water treatment
techniques such as ion exchange, settling, precipitation, filtration,
and evaporation.40
Commonly used disposal processes for hazardous wastes include
land burial, deep well injection, and ocean dumping. Detonation
and open burning are sometimes used for disposal of explosives. In-
cineration is used for disposal of some organic chemicals, biologi-
cals, and flammables.
All disposal processes have potential for adverse public health
and environmental effects if used unwisely or without appropriate
controls.
Land disposal sometimes consists of indiscriminate dumping on
the land with attendant public health problems from animal vec-
tors, water pollution from surface water runoff and leaching to
ground waters, and air pollution from open burning, wind blown
particulates and gas venting.
Sanitary landfills are much preferable to dumps in that daily
earth cover minimizes vector problems, open burning and particu-
late transport. Unless specially designed, however, sanitary land-
-------
138 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
fills still have potential for surface and ground water pollution and
air pollution from gas venting.
Deep well injection of liquid and semi-liquid wastes can pollute
ground waters unless great care is taken in site selection and con-
struction and operation of such wells. EPA policy opposes deep well
injection unless all other alternatives have been found to be less sat-
isfactory in terms of environmental protection, and unless exten-
sive hydraulic and geologic studies are made to ensure that ground
water pollution will be minimized.
Environmental problems associated with ocean dumping have
long been recognized. The Congress recently passed legislation to
control ocean dumping of wastes (see Section 3).
Incineration, open burning, and detonation all can result in air
pollution unless adequate controls are employed. The residues from
incineration, and from associated pollution control devices, may
require special care in disposal.
Selection of appropriate treatment and disposal methods for a
given waste is a complex process. It is simplistic to assume that a
treatment and disposal process is applicable to all wastes of a given
category. For example, available treatment and disposal processes
for three types of heavy metal hazardous wastes are illustrated in
Figure 2.2. It can be seen that significant differences exist.
Transfer and adaptation of existing technology to hazardous
waste management may be necessary in some cases. Some hazard-
ous waste streams (e.g., those containing arsenites and arsenates
of lead, sodium, zinc and potassium, and arsenic trioxide) cannot be
treated or disposed of adequately with existing technology.41 Se-
cured storage is available until the appropriate treatment/disposal
technology is developed.
Synopses of treatment and disposal processes are given in Appen-
dix D.
Public Use of Existing Technology. The Atomic Energy Com-
mission and the Department of Defense presently utilize almost all
the processes identified in Table 2.3 for management of hazardous
wastes. High level radioactive treatment and storage sites operated
by AEC are located at Hanford, Washington; Savannah River,
South Carolina; and the National Eeactor Testing Station in Idaho.
Similar DOD operated non-radioactive hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal sites are located at a great number of arsenals,
depots, and ammunition plants throughout the country.
Private Use of Existing Technology. Some large manufacturers,
notably in the chemical industry, have established in-house hazard-
ous waste processing facilities which utilize some of the treatment
and disposal processes listed in Table 2.3. EPA-held data on such
-------
FIGURE 2.2
EXAMPLES OF. INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TREATMENT/DISPOSAL PROCESSES
A. CONCENTRATED HEAVY METALS
Hexavalent Chromium.
Cadmium, Arsenic, Mercury.
B. HEAVY METALS WITH ORGAN ICS
Heavy Metal
Reduction and Precipitation
Heavy Metal
Sulfide Precipitation
Heavy Metal Sludge Disposal
Polymer Encapsulation and Burial
Heavy Metal Sludge Disposal
Cement Encapsulation and Burial
g
I—I
a
Arsenic and Organic
(Dilute Hydrocarbon).
Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0556
Heavy Metal
Sulfide Precipitation
Heavy Metal Sludge Disposal
Cement Encapsulation a
-------
140 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
in-house operations are sparse. Based on available ocean and land
disposal data it is estimated, however, that only a small percentage
of the hazardous wastes generated by industry receive treatment
and are disposed of at in-house facilities.
The Hazardous Waste Processing Industry. In recognition of this
situation several private companies have built facilities to treat,
dispose, and recycle many hazardous wastes. These companies sell
waste processing services to industries in their area, generally
within a 500 mile (805 kilometer) radius. However, largely be-
cause of lack of demand for services, these regional waste process-
ing plants still are few in number (about ten nationwide) and
operate at about 25 percent of available capacity.
The total processing capacity of all facilities is approximately
2.5 million tons (2.3 million metric tons) per year. Operating at
full capacity, these private processing firms presently could handle
about 25 percent of the total nationwide non-radioactive hazardous
wastes. None of these facilities provide a complete range of treat-
ment and disposal processes capable of handling all types of haz-
ardous wastes. Table 2.4 presents a summary of information
available on these firms.
As stated earlier, nuclear weapons production facilities, commer-
cial nuclear power reactors and private sources generate a sub-
stantial quantity of high- and low-level radioactive wastes. High-
level wastes are controlled by the AEG. Management of low-level
wastes by private companies at AEG or cooperative State sites is a
highly specialized business with limited markets. As a result there
are only two companies engaged in handling and disposing of low-
level radioactive wastes. The quantities of radioactive wastes are
expected to increase exponentially starting around 1980, and as a
result the number of nuclear waste disposal companies should also
increase.
Economic Incentives
The costs associated with proper hazardous waste treatment and
disposal are fixed capital-intensive and vary widely, depending on
the particular treatment process that is required. Table 2.5 presents
typical capital and operating costs for a number of selected pro-
cesses that are applicable to medium-size regional industrial waste
treatment and disposal facilities. These examples illustrate that
environmentally adequate technology is expensive. Moreover, to ar-
rive at the actual costs associated with proper treatment of hazard-
ous wastes, a combination of several treatment processes is usually
required.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 141
TABLE 2.4
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
On Privately Owned Regional Hazardous Waste Processing Plants*
Number of regional plants Approximately 10
Estimated available capacity 2,500,000 tons/year
(2,272,000 metric tons/year)
Estimated utilization of available capacity 25 percent
Available capacity as percent of required nationwide 25 percent
capacity
Regional distribution Mostly in North Central, Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coast
regions
Total capital investment $25 million
Resource recovery Limited at present mostly to solvents and metallic
salts
•This table does not consider very small firms with limited facilities (e.g., those plants that consist solely
of an incinerator).
TABLE 2.5
COSTS OF REPRESENTATIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES
Process Capacity Capital Costs Operating costs
1.
2.
?
4
5.
fi
7.
Chemical oxidation —
of cyanide wastes
Chemical reduction —
of chromium wastes
Neutralization-
Precipitation
Liquid-Solids -
separation
Carbon sorption
Evaporation
Incineration
(1,000 gal. /day)
25
42
120
120
120
120
74 tons/day
(1,000 liters/day)
94.8
159
452
452
452
452
67 metric
tons/day
($1,000)
400
340
3 000
9,000
910
510
4,900
($/l,000 gal.)
68
29
50
40
7
10
95($/ton]
($/l,000 liters)
18
7.65
13.20
10.60
1.85
2.64
i 105($/metric
ton)
NOTE: „
1. Capital costs include land, buildings, and complete processing and auxiliary facilities.
2. Operating costs include neutralization chemicals, labor, utilities, maintenance, amortization charges
(7 percent interest), insurance, taxes, and administrative expenses.
3. Data corresponds to a typical medium size treatment and disposal facility capable of processing approxi-
mately 150 thousand tons (136 thousand metric tons) per year or 600 tons (545 metric tons) per day.
Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762
The comparative economics of proper hazardous waste manage-
ment versus presently used environmentally inadequate practices,
such as disposal in dumps or in the ocean, are illustrated in Figure
2.3. This figure also depicts the economies of scale that can be at-
tained by use of large waste processing facilities. The cost data
used in support of this figure were based on typical treatment and
disposal facilities capable of handling aqueous toxic wastes.
Figure 2.3 indicates that adequate treatment and disposal of
hazardous wastes costs 10 to 40 times more than the environmen-
tally offensive alternatives. With these kinds of economic differen-
-------
FIGURE 2.3
COST COMPARISON OF PROPER VS. IMPROPER HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
400 (106.00)
- 300 (79.40)
200 (52.80)
100 (26.40)
o
g 50 (13.20).
25 (6.60)-
15 (3.96)
5 (1.32)
25
(94.6)
120
(454)
200
(758)
1,000
(3,785)
Waste Volume, 1,000 gal./day (1,000 liters/day)
A = Environmentally adequate treatment and disposal
B = Land disposal
C = Ocean disposal
Note: For aqueous wastes.
Includes capital write-off but not transportation costs from the generator to nearest treatment or disposal facility.
Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762 & 68-03-0089.
to
O
o
i.
••a
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 143
tials, and in the general absence of pressures to do otherwise, one
realizes why the more environmentally acceptable methods are sel-
dom utilized. Available technology cannot compete economically
with the cheaper disposal alternatives. Clearly, there are substan-
tial economic incentives for industry not to use adequate hazardous
waste treatment and disposal methods.
Should a generator elect to process his hazardous wastes in an
environmentally acceptable manner, a basic decision must be made
whether the particular waste stream should be processed on-site or
off-site at some regional treatment facility, such as existing com-
mercial waste processing plants. The cost analysis of this problem,
as it applies to a number of commonly occurring industrial waste
streams, was conducted by means of a mathematical model that
produced "economic decision maps." 42 Typical examples are at-
tached in Appendix E. An analysis of the decision maps indicates
that cost factors generally favor off-site treatment and disposal of
industrial hazardous wastes with the exception of dilute aqueous
toxic metal streams. Other factors, such as the impact of pending
water effluent standards and transportation problems, may alter
this judgment.
Summary
EPA's findings relative to the current handling of hazardous
wastes can be summed up as follows:
1. Current treatment and disposal practices are inadequate and
cause unnecessary hazards to all life forms.
2. Techniques for safe and environmentally sound treatment and
disposal of most hazardous wastes have been developed. Adap-
tation and transfer of existing technology, and development
of new methods, is required in some cases. It is possible to re-
tain hazardous wastes for which treatment/disposal methods
are unavailable in long-term storage until their chemical con-
version to harmless compounds or their reuse in industrial
practice becomes feasible.
3. There are substantial economic incentives for industry not to
use environmentally adequate treatment and disposal meth-
ods. Such methods are substantially more expensive than
current inadequate practices, and in a climate of permissive
legislation or total absence of legislation, competitive eco-
nomic forces result in least-cost disposal regardless of the
environmental consequences.
4. A small industry has emerged to treat and dispose of hazard-
' ' ous and other industrial wastes. This industry is not currently
-------
144 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
operating at capacity because its services are being utilized
only by a few clients that are concerned about the environ-
ment, or have no cheaper disposal alternatives, or sometimes
find themselves forced to use such services because of environ-
mental regulations. This industry, however, has the capability
to expand to meet demands engendered by future Federal or
State actions.
It is evident that a need exists for bringing about environmen-
tally acceptable and safe treatment and disposal of hazardous
wastes. The next section will discuss the need for a regulatory pro-
gram in order to achieve this goal.
Section 3
THE CASE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
The previous section has shown the potential for public health
and environmental damages from mismanagement of hazardous
wastes and the lack of economic incentives for proper management.
There is a strong precedent for Federal regulation when health
damage is at issue. Regulation is used because the other conceptual
alternative, massive economic incentives, does not ensure compli-
ance. Some forms of regulation, however, may embody certain
types of economic incentives.
Federal and State statutes have attempted to regulate and con-
trol various parts of the problem, but there has never been an at-
tempt to regulate hazardous waste management in a comprehensive
manner.
The following discusses legislative precedents regarding hazard-
ous wastes and illustrates a legislative gap in the regulation of land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Existing Authorities for Hazardous Waste Management
A large body of Federal and State law exists today which exerts
a significant but peripheral impact on the land disposal of hazard-
ous waste. The following discussion reviews existing laws and as-
sesses their impact on the treatment, storage, transportation,
handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Federal Control Statutes. Thirteen Federal statutes have vary-
ing degrees of direct impact on the management of hazardous
wastes. Four additional Federal statutes are either indirectly or
potentially applicable to hazardous wastes. The Clean Air Act, as
amended, and the new Federal Water Pollution Control Act will be
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 145
discussed in some detail later in this section. The other statutes
and their impact on the treatment, storage, transportation, and
handling of hazardous wastes may be summarized as follows:
1. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970.*3 Section 212 of the Re-
source Recovery Act directs the Administrator of EPA to
study the feasibility of a system of national disposal sites for
hazardous wastes. The Act authorizes no regulatory activities,
however.
2. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.** This statute
authorizes the Atomic Energy Commission to manage radio-
active wastes generated in fission reactions both by the AEC
and private industry. High-level radioactive wastes from
weapons and reactor programs are controlled directly by the
AEC at its facilities; commercially generated low-level radio-
active wastes are generally disposed of at facilities licensed
and controlled by the States. Naturally occurring materials,
such as uranium mill tailings and radium, and radioisotopes
produced by cyclotrons are not subject to regulation under the
Act. There is room for improvement at the radioactive waste
storage and disposal facilities, but by comparison with other
hazardous wastes, high-level radioactive waste management
is well regulated.
3-7. The Department of Transportation is responsible for admin-
istering five statutes which affect the transport of hazardous
wastes. The oldest of these, the Transportation of Explosives
Act*5 prohibits the knowing unregulated transport of ex-
plosives, radioactive materials, etiologic (disease-causing)
agents and other dangerous articles in interstate commerce
unless the public interest requires expedited movement or
such transport involves "no appreciable danger to persons or
property." Supplementing this law is the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act of W70,*6 a non-regulatory statute which
authorizes the Secretary of DOT to evaluate hazards associ-
ated with hazardous materials transport, establish a central
accident reporting system, and recommend improved hazard-
ous materials transport controls. The Safety Regulation of
Civil Aeronautics Act *7 authorizes the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration to establish air transportation standards "neces-
sary to provide adequately for national security and safety in
air commerce." The Hazardous Cargo Act48 places regulatory
controls on the water transport of explosives or dangerous
substances, authorizing the U.S. Coast Guard to publish regu-
lations on packing, marking, labeling, containerization, and
certification of such substances, The Federal Hazardous Sub-
-------
146 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
stances Labeling Act™ authorizes the DOT Secretary to
identify hazardous substance and prohibits the transport of
such substances if their containers have been misbranded or
the labels removed. The Act authorizes the seizure of mis-
branded hazardous substances and requires the courts to di-
rect the ultimate disposition of such seized substances.
8. The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 B0
requires the Administrator of EPA to establish procedures
and regulations for the disposal or storage of packages, con-
tainers, and excess amounts of pesticides. EPA is also re-
quired to "accept at convenient locations for safe disposal"
those pesticides whose registration is suspended to prevent an
imminent hazard and later canceled, if the pesticide owner so
requests.61
9. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 52 prohibits the transport from the United States for the
purpose of ocean dumping any radiological, chemical or bio-
logical warfare agents, high-level radioactive wastes, or
(except as authorized by Federal permit) any other material.
In granting permits for ocean dumping, the EPA Adminis-
trator must consider "appropriate locations and methods of
disposal or recycling, including landbased alternatives, and
the probable impact of [such use] upon considerations affect-
ing the public interest." 53
10-11. The Clean Air ActB4 and the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act,55 examined in detail later in this section, provide ex-
tensive control authority over the incineration and water
disposal of certain hazardous wastes.
12. The Poison Packaging Prevention ActB8 authorizes the Secre-
tary of HEW to establish special packaging standards for
hazardous household substances whenever it can be shown
that serious personal injury or illness to children can result
from handling, using or ingesting such substances. Hazardous
household substances already identified in regulations include
oven cleaners, cigarette and charcoal lighter fluids, liquids
containing turpentine and methyl alcohol, and economic poi-
sons (pesticides).
13. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act6T prohibits the adultera-
tion and misbranding of certain consumer items and requires
the disposal by destruction or sale of any items seized under
the Act.
14. The first of the Federal statutes which have a general, non-
regulatory impact on the management of hazardous wastes is
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).88
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 147
Sec. 101 (b) of NEPA requires the Federal Government to
"use all practicable means" to attain the widest range of bene-
ficial uses without degrading the environment or risking
health or safety. In order to ensure that the environmental
policies expressed in Sec. 101 are effectively carried out, Sec.
102(2) (C) requires all agencies of the Federal Government
to prepare detailed environmental impact statements for all
"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment." All Federal hazardous waste man-
agement activities thus clearly fall within NEPA's ambit.
15. The Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization Acts of 1969
and 1970 59 prohibit the use of Federal funds for the trans-
portation, open air testing, or disposal of any lethal chemical
or biological warfare agent in the United States except under
certain conditions requiring prior determination of the effect
on national security, hazards to public health and safety, and
practicability .of detoxification prior to disposal.
16. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,™ in declaring it a
national policy to preserve and protect the resources of the
Nation's coastal zone, recognizes waste disposal as a "compet-
ing demand" on coastal zone lands which has caused "serious
environmental losses." Because applicants for Federal coastal
zone management grants must define "permissible land and
water uses within the coastal zone," an applicant's failure to
regulate hazardous waste disposal within such area so that it
qualifies as a "permissible use" can serve as a basis for deny-
ing program funds under the Act.
17. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 61 authorizes
the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory standards to protect
the occupational safety and health of all employers and em-
ployees of businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Sec.
6 (b) (5) deals specifically with toxic materials and other harm-
ful agents, requiring the Secretary to "set the standard which
most adequately assures . . . that no employee will suffer ma-
terial impairment of health or financial capacity" from regu-
lar exposure to such hazards. Employees of hazardous waste
generators, and treatment and/or disposal facilities, engaged
in interstate commerce thus are clearly entitled to the Act's
protection. It should be noted that standards issued under the
Act can directly impact some phases of hazardous waste man-
agement. For example, the OSHA-enforced asbestos regula-
tion requires that certain wastes be packaged for disposal.
State Control Statutes. At least 25 jurisdictions have enacted
legislation or published regulations which control hazardous waste
-------
148 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
management activities to some degree. The most effective of these
regulatory controls are currently placed on low-level radioactive
wastes, the Atomic Energy Commission having contracted with a
growing number of States for low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Non-radioactive hazardous wastes, however, are essentially unreg-
ulated in practice, for none of the 25 jurisdictions has fully imple-
mented its control legislation. The major reason for this failure is
the negative approach—broadly-worded blanket prohibitions—
utilized by virtually all of the States.
Legislative strategies which rely on blanket prohibitions rather
than comprehensive management controls are difficult or impossible
to administer in any meaningful, systematic fashion. In addition,
many of these States enact control statutes without providing for
acceptable treatment or disposal facilities. A recent survey 62 of
16 of the 25 "control" States reveals for example, that less than
half of them have treatment/disposal facilities located within their
boundaries (see Figure 3.1). By failing to specify acceptable alter-
natives to prohibited activities, such States encourage hazardous
waste generators to ignore the law altogether or to select and em-
ploy divergent disposal alternatives unknown to the State control
authorities which may be more environmentally harmful than the
prohibited activity.
Summary: With the exception of radioactive waste disposal,
which appears to be the subject of adequate Federal and State reg-
ulation, land-based hazardous waste treatment, storage and dis-
posal activities are essentially unregulated by Federal and State
laws. Because this legislative gap allows uncontrolled use of the
land for hazardous waste disposal, there has been little incentive
for the use of proper hazardous waste treatment and disposal tech-
nology to date. Until nationwide controls are established, the pres-
sure on the land as a receptor for hazardous wastes can be expected
to increase as the major hazardous waste disposal controls of the
Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the
new Federal ocean dumping statute are tightened. The latter
statute's mandate to the EPA Administrator to consider land-based
disposal alternatives when granting ocean dumping permits seems
certain to provide opponents of the practice of dumping toxic
wastes into the ocean with a new and powerful legal tool. Depend-
ing on the courts' interpretation of this statute, the Marine Protec-
tion, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 could add significantly
to the pressure on the land as the last disposal medium for hazard-
ous wastes.
The first two of these three statutes are analyzed in the discus-
sion which follows.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 149
Precedents for Hazardous Waste Regulation: The Clean Air Act
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Both the Clean Air Act6S and the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act64 include provisions which address the problem of haz-
ardous waste management directly. The former statute authorizes
the control of hazardous air pollutants and the latter controls the
discharge of hazardous pollutants into the Nation's waters.
Control Philosophy. The Clean Air Act best exemplifies a control
strategy designed to protect the public health and welfare by plac-
ing the burden of standards compliance on the air polluter. As with
most environmental control statutes, the costs of compliance are
internalized by the polluter and ultimately passed on to the con-
sumer, indirectly in the form of tax benefits to the polluting indus-
tries,66 or directly in the form of higher prices for goods and
services. In the past, Clean Air Act standards have been based al-
most exclusively on health effects. As a result of adverse court
decisions on ambient air quality standards, however, EPA has ex-
panded its efforts to consider, in addition to health and welfare
factors (1) beneficial and adverse environmental effects, (2) social,
economic, and other pertinent factors, and (3) the rationale for
selecting the standard from the available options.66'87'*8
The Federal Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 gener-
ally exemplify a control strategy based on factors in addition to
human health and welfare. Typical of the FWPCA's new regulatory
provisions are those keyed to "best practicable" control technology
and "best available technology economically achievable," deter-
minations which are to be made by EPA from studies of the age,
size and unit processes of the point sources involved and the cost of
applying effluent controls.
The Clean Air Act. Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the
Administrator of EPA to set standards for hazardous air pollut-
ants at any level "which in his judgment provides an ample margin
of safety to protect the public health." 69 Hazardous air pollutants
are defined as those which "may cause, or contribute to an increase
in mortality, or an increase in serious irreversible or incapaci-
tating reversible, illness" (Sec. 112 (a) (1)). Asbestos, beryllium
and mercury are three hazardous pollutants for which emission
limits under Sec. 112 have been promulgated.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The FWPCA contains
a number of provisions which impact directly on hazardous pollut-
ant-bearing wastes. Section 502(13) defines "toxic pollutant" as
"those pollutants ... which ... after discharge and upon exposure,
ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism . . . will
-------
FIGURE 3.1
SUMMARY OF STATE LEGISLATION SURVEY
California
Illinois
Nevada
New York
South Carolina
Solid waste
Disposal
regulations
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dev
Yes
Dev
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Ves
Yes
Licensing of
disposal sites
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Radioactive material
Regulations on
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Transportation
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Processing
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Storage
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pesticides
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regulations
on
Transportation Processing
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Storage
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
O
o
-
§
O
f
oa
3
"0
-------
Maine
Michigan
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Virginia
Disposal
No
No
- - Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Explosives
Regulations on
Transportation Processing
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Storage
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Transportation
DOT
Regulations
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Other •
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Industrial Safety
Regulations for
handling hazardous
materials
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Dev
Yes
No
Dev
Dev
No
Presence of
existing facilities
Radioactive
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Hazardous11
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Dev
Yes
No
Dev
Yes
o
I
2!
O
H
I
W
" Includes Hauling Permits, Vehicle Registrations, Material Registrations, Bills of Lading, Placard Attachment, and Vehicle Standards.
b Includes Pesticides, Toxic Substances, and other Chemicals.
Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762
-------
152 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
cause death, disease, behavorial abnormalities, cancer, genetic mu-
tations, physiological malfunction ... or physical deformations on
such organisms or their offspring." Section 115 directs EPA to
locate and contract for "the removal and appropriate disposal of
[in-place toxic pollutant] materials from critical port and harbor
areas." The potential for increased pressure for land disposal of
such toxic pollutants is evident.
Title III of the FWPCA contains four provisions authorizing
control over toxic pollutants discharged into water from point
sources. The importance of the FWPCA's distinction between point
and nonpoint sources cannot be overemphasized from a hazardous
waste management viewpoint, for discharges from point sources
only are subject to the Act's regulatory controls.* Because the Act
defines "point source" as "any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance," and offers as examples such things as pipes, ditches,
tunnels, etc.,70 Congress seems not to have intended that land dis-
posal facilities are to be included within the point source definition.
In fact the opposite appears to be true, for Sec. 304 (e) of the Act
requires EPA to publish nonregulatory "processes, procedures, and
methods to control pollution resulting from . . . the disposal of pol-
lutants in wells or in subsurface excavations" 71 (emphasis sup-
plied) .
Since the types of pollutant discharges normally associated with
improperly managed hazardous waste disposal facilities are runoff
into navigable waters and migration into ground water supplies, it
seems safe to conclude that, unless a disposal facility discharges
toxic pollutants into a waterway through a "discernible, discrete
conveyance" such as an outfall pipe, it will be exempt from the
Act's proscriptions.
Hazardous waste treatment facilities, however, should not es-
cape the Act's reach. Any toxic wastes produced by such facilities
and not treated on-site must be stored and/or eventually trans-
ported in some manner, and any container or confined means of
conveyance for such waste, by definition in Sec. 502 (13) of the Act,
qualifies as a potential "point source" of water pollution discharge.
The first of Title Ill's proscriptions against toxic pollutant dis-
charges may be found in Sec. 301 (f), which prohibits the "dis-
charge of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent,
or high level radioactive waste into the navigable waters." The
other statutory authorities which impact on the disposal of these
wastes were discussed above.
* Sec. 301 (a) established FWPCA's board prohibitions against the "discharge of any pollutant,"
Sec. 502(12) defines "discharge of pollutants" as ". . . any addition of any pollutant to
navigable waters from any point source . . ." (emphasis supplied).
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 153
See. 306 is the second reference to hazardous wastes. It requires
EPA to publish national standards of performance for new point
source categories reflecting "the greatest degree of effluent reduc-
tion achievable . . . , including where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants." 72 The Act singles out such
new source categories as the organic and inorganic chemicals
industries, well known generators of toxic wastes. These standards,
which must take into account the cost of standards' achievement
and "any non-water quality environmental impact and energy re-
quirements,"* must be published not later than January, 1974. Haz-
ardous waste generators and treatment facilities which otherwise
qualify as "new" clearly are comprehended in Sec. 306 (a) (3),
which defines new sources as "any building, structure, facility, or
installation from which there is or may be the discharge of pol-
lutants." This adds to the general qualification of such facilities as
point sources, discussed above.
The third FWPCA provision affecting toxic pollutants is Sec.
307 which requires EPA to identify and publish effluent standards
for a list of toxic pollutants or combinations of such pollutants.
Standards are to be set "at that level which the Administrator
determines provides an ample margin of safety," and are to take
effect not later than one year after promulgation.73 Even though
Congress' standard-setting process mandate to EPA under this
section was limited to consideration of toxicity data alone,** as
previously discussed other factors likely will be considered to pro-
duce judicially enforceable standards, given recent air pollution-
related court decisions.!
Sec. 311 is designed to protect the navigable waters and adjoin-
ing shorelines of the United States and the waters of the contiguous
zone from "hazardous substance" discharges. EPA must designate
as hazardous substances those elements and compounds "which,
*Sec. 306 (b) (1) (B). The FWPCA's legislative history, however, makes it clear that indi-
vidual new sources, rather than EPA, will determine which technologies will be used to achieve
Sec. 306(b)'s performance standards. Conference Report No. 92-1465, FWPCA Amendments of
1972, 92nd Congress Sess. (Sept. 28, 1972, at p. 128).
* * Sec. 307 (a) (2) requires the Administrator of EPA to publish proposed toxic effluent
standards (or prohibitions) which shall take into account (1) the toxicity of the pollutant,
(2) its persistence, (3) degradability, (4) the usual or potential presence of the affected
organism in any waters, (5) the importance of the affected organisms, and (6) the nature and
extent of the effect of the toxic pollutant on such organisms . . ." No other considerations are
mentioned in Sec. 307 or its legislative history.
tSee e.g., Kennecott Copper v. EPA, U.S. App. D.C. F. 2d , 3 ERC 1682 (Feb. 8,
1972) (EPA must explain in detail the basis for sulfur oxide standards promulgated under
informal rulemaking) ; Annaconda Company v. Ruckelshaus, D.C. Colorado, F, Suppl. ,
4 EEC 1817 (Dec. 19, 1972) (EPA must hold adjudieatory [formal rulemaking] hearing before
promulgating State sulfur oxide emission standard that applies to » single company); Inter-
national Harvester Co. v. RuelieUhaMS, U.S. App. D.C., . F. 2d , 4 EEC 2041 (Feb. 10,
1973) (failure to support auto emission standard with "reasoned presentation" requires EPA
to reconsider automakers' showing that technology is not available to achieve 1975 standards).
-------
154 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
when discharged in any quantity, . . . present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health and substantial danger to
the public welfare, including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wild-
life, shorelines, and beaches." Designed primarily to control spills
from vessels and onshore or offshore facilities, Sec. 311 requires
violators to pay a fixed cost for each hazardous substance unit
unlawfully discharged,* with the President alone authorized to
permit certain of these discharges when he has determined them
"not to be harmful." 75 Coastal zone-area hazardous waste genera-
tion and treatment facilities thus would clearly be subject to Sec.
311 controls and penalties.
Closing the Circle on Hazardous Wastes
The foregoing discussed the many Federal and State statutes
which have impact on hazardous waste management activities. The
more detailed analyses of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water
Pollution Act illustrate that, while the toxic effluents of hazardous
waste generation and treatment facilities will probably come under
control, land-based facilities for open storage or disposal of such
hazardous wastes remain essentially unregulated. As standards
and regulations published under recent environmental legislation
begin to close off water as a disposal medium, and as enforcement
of air pollution standards take shape, hazardous waste generators
can be expected to turn increasingly to land disposal as a means of
solving their hazardous waste problems. The need for regulations
for land disposal will become more acute.
The concluding part of this section discusses the persons and
activities which would be subject to control under a comprehensive
hazardous waste regulatory program; reviews in some detail the
type of hazardous waste standards considered to be appropriate
under such a program; and identifies and evaluates the strengths
and weaknesses of three alternative regulatory program enforce-
ment strategies.
Persons/Activities Subject to Regulatory Controls. In order to
forestall the type of environmental degradation likely to occur from
the uncontrolled use of the land as an ultimate sink for the Nation's
ever-increasing supply of hazardous wastes, the focus of any haz-
ardous waste regulatory program must first be on land disposal
activities and those who provide and utilize land disposal services.
Persons subject to disposal controls should include all generators
of hazardous waste who opt for on-site disposal, as well as those
* Sec. 311 (b) (2) (B) (IV) requires EPA to establish units of measurement based on usual
trade practices, with penalties for each unlawful unit discharged ranging from $100 to $1000
per unit.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 155
persons who receive wastes off-site for disposal. Long-term sealed
storage should be considered "disposal" for the enforcement pur-
poses of such regulation. The location of disposal sites should be
permanently recorded in the appropriate office of legal jurisdiction.
The next priority activity for regulation is treatment, since
utilization of the appropriate hazardous waste treatment processes
can often detoxify such wastes and render them safe for unregu-
lated disposal in sanitary landfill facilities or at a minimum reduce
the need for long-term "perpetual care" and environmental risks
inherent therein. EPA has proposed a regulatory program for
hazardous waste streams which incorporates treatment in order to
lessen the demand on land disposal alternatives. All persons who
treat the same hazardous wastes, either on-site (generators) or
off-site (by contract service organizations), should be subject to
the same treatment standards. Processes for recovery of recyclable
constituents from hazardous wastes should be controlled adequately
by treatment regulations, for the technologies employed are often
the same.
Other hazardous waste management activities which should be
subjected to improved controls are hazardous waste transport and
handling. As indicated earlier, the Department of Transportation
administers a number of Federal statutes designed to control the
transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce.
These statutes should be amended by DOT where necessary to en-
sure that hazardous wastes are properly marked, containerized and
transported (to authorized disposal sites). The packaging and
labeling provisions of all other Federal statutes which have a po-
tential impact on hazardous wastes should be reviewed by EPA
and amended where necessary to ensure their applicability to such
wastes.
It should be noted that control of toxic materials before they
become toxic wastes could greatly reduce the size of the overall
hazardous waste management problem. The proposed Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act, now pending before Congress, would provide
for regulatory controls over toxic substances before they become
wastes. The proposed legislation authorizes (1) testing of chemical
substances to determine their effects on health or the environment,
and (2) restrictions on use or distribution of such chemicals when
warranted. Such restrictions may include labeling of toxic sub-
stances as to appropriate use, distribution, handling, or disposal,
and limitations on particular uses, including a total ban. This
"front end" approach to toxic substances problems should dovetail
neatly with a hazardous waste regulatory program.
Types of Hazardous Waste Standards. The foundation of any
-------
156
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
regulatory program, of course, is the body of standards the pro-
gram establishes and enforces. The Clean Air Act and FWPCA
regulatory programs progressed from ambient air and water
quality standards to specific pollutant emission and discharge
standards, as practical experience with each statute's enforcement
revealed the necessity for such an evolution.76
Because of the nature of the discharges associated with im-
properly managed hazardous waste, two types of standards are
likely to be necessary in order to satisfactorily regulate hazardous
waste treatment and disposal:
Type of Standard
1. Performance
2. Process
Treatment
Restrictions on quan-
tity and quality of
waste discharged
from the treatment
process.
Specification of treat-
ment procedures or
process conditions to
be followed—e.g., in-
cineration of certain
wastes.
Disposal
Restrictions on per-
formance of disposal
site — e.g., amount,
quality of leachate al-
lowed.
Minimum site design
and operating condi-
tions—e.g., hydraulic
connections are not al-
lowed.
The performance standards correspond directly to the emission/
discharge standards of the Clean Air Act and the FWPCA and
would be designed to prevent hazardous pollutant discharges from
treatment and disposal facilities from reaching air and surface
waters in excess of acceptable air and water limits. A major ad-
vantage of this type of standard is the ability to use health and
environmental effects data and criteria already developed by EPA's
Office of Air and Water Programs and Office of Research and
Monitoring.
Process standards would be designed to ensure that certain treat-
ment technologies and minimum design and operating conditions
are employed. These standards assume double importance because
of the uncertainty surrounding the FWPCA's standard-setting
authority regarding discharges into ambient groundwaters,* and
the Act's clear lack of authority to regulate diffuse discharges from
nonpoint sources such as land disposal sites.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 157
Process (design and operating) standards, therefore, which are
intended to establish controls at the hazardous waste sources,
would be an important part of any regulatory program.
Strategies for Hazardous Waste Regulation. Hazardous wastes
can be regulated by three distinct control strategies: (1) Federal
only, (2) State only, and (3) Federal-State partnership. Each of
these alternatives is examined below.
1. Federal only. This type of control strategy requires the ex-
clusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government (Federal pre-
emption) over all management activities for hazardous waste. The
most obvious advantages include national uniformity of standards;
elimination of State pollution havens for industries controlling a
significant portion of such a State's economy; and uniform admin-
istration and enforcement. The major disadvantages of this control
strategy are the difficulty in proving conclusively that the hazards
of human health and the environment justify total Federal involve-
ment; the prohibitive costs and administrative burdens involved in
maintaining a nationwide Federal monitoring and enforcement
program; and the total disincentive for State involvement in what
is essentially a State problem. The only comparable Federal pro-
gram is that involving the exclusive disposal of high-level radio-
active wastes by the Atomic Energy Commission.
2. State only. Under this control strategy, the Federal Govern-
ment would establish "recommended guidelines" for hazardous
waste treatment and disposal which the States could adopt as a
minimum, modify in either direction (more or less stringent) in
response to local needs and pressure groups, or ignore altogether.
These Federal guidelines could be used to recommend what would
otherwise be process and performance standards under a Federal
regulatory program, as well as the minimum efforts the Federal
Government believes are necessary to administer and enforce an
effective State control program. States could finance activities
themselves; alternatively the Federal Government could offer tech-
nical and financial support to assist States in program develop-
ment and enforcement.
The major advantage of this approach is in its low level of
Federal involvement and correspondingly low Federal budget re-
quirements. Another advantage includes enhanced ability to tailor
solutions to particular problems which may be essentially local in
character.
The disadvantages of the State-only approach to hazardous waste
control include its total dependence on the States for voluntary
guidelines adoption and enforcement; nonavailability of Federal
"back-up" enforcement authority; its potential for extreme non-
-------
158 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
uniformity between the individual States adopting control pro-
grams ; and the much greater period of time needed to enact and
fully implement such a control system nationwide.
3. Federal-State Partnership. This is the control strategy which
had been adopted by the Nation's major environmental pollution
control statutes. The Federal Government would establish mini-
mum Federal hazardous waste treatment and disposal standards;
all States would be required to adopt these as minimum State
standards within a specified time period. The States would bear the
responsibility for establishing and administering EPA-approved
State control programs. Functions could include operating a State-
wide hazardous waste facility permit program; maintaining an
inspection and monitoring force; enforcing statutory sanctions
against violators; and filing program progress reports with EPA.
As in the Federal air and water pollution control programs, States
with approved implementation programs would be eligible for
Federal financial assistance. For those States which fail to submit
approved programs, or which do not enforce the Federal-State
standards, back-up Federal enforcement powers could be exercised
to ensure uniform compliance, or Federal program grant funds
could be withheld. Provision could also be made for a Federally-
administered control and enforcement program for certain hazard-
ous wastes determined to pose extremely severe hazards, an
approach already utilized by the TEC for high-level radioactive
wastes.
The major advantage of this control strategy stems from the
well-established legislative precedents discussed earlier; land pol-
lution control regulations employing this strategy would be capable
of being fully integrated with existing controls over air and water
pollution. Other advantages include utilizing the Federal Govern-
ment's superior resources to set standards and design programs,
while retaining the concept of State responsibility for what are
traditionally recognized as State problems; minimal Federal in-
volvement once the States' implementation programs are fully
underway; uniform minimum national hazardous waste standards,
with States retaining the power to set more stringent standards if
local conditions so dictate; and reasonable assurance that the
standards will be enforced ultimately by someone.
The disadvantages of the combined Federal-State hazardous
waste control strategy involve its potential for delay in final im-
plementation, since States can be expected to demonstrate varying
degrees of readiness and interest in gearing up State machinery
to run their respective control programs. The major drawback to
this approach, however, involves its potential for large expendi-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 159
tures of Federal manpower and funds, should the States choose
to sit back and "let the Feds do it"; even worse is the possibility
that Federal standards for hazardous waste control will be com-
pletely unenforced in laggard States simply because of the lack of
adequate funds to exercise the "reserve" powers mentioned above.
This problem seems capable of resolution, however, if adequate
incentives for State action are made available (Federal grants or
technical assistance) and if significant disincentives are applied
(withholding air and water program grant funds; characterizing
the State as "irresponsible", etc.).
Summary
The earlier parts of this section described the gap in Federal
and State hazardous waste management legislation, a gap in which
if not filled soon by Congress' adoption of a comprehensive hazard-
ous waste control strategy could well result in irreparable damage
to the health and environment of the Nation's citizens. The most
viable hazardous waste control strategy would consist of a Federal-
State regulatory partnership, in which the Federal Government
would bear the responsibility for setting process and performance
standards applicable to all hazardous waste treatment and disposal
activities, while qualified State governments would be responsible
for administering federally-approved control programs and en-
forcing the Federal standards.
Section 4
ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION
The previous section has spelled out the need for a regulatory
program. A hazardous waste regulatory program does not directly
create a national disposal site "system" as envisioned in Section
212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. However, such a system
would be ineffective unless its use is mandated via regulations.
Even with total governmental subsidy of its construction and
operation, such a system would not be assured of receiving all
hazardous wastes. Therefore, a regulatory program is needed in
any case.
EPA believes that private industry will respond to a regulatory
program, but there are a number of questions relating to that
response. Furthermore, several options are available to the Gov-
-------
160 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
eminent to modify a purely private sector system to circumvent
these questions if need be.
In this section, estimates are developed of a hazardous waste
management system required to implement a hazardous waste
regulatory program, the cost of such a system, and possible varia-
tions of the system. Issues related to cost distribution, private sec-
tor response and the role of Government are discussed thereafter.
Hazardous Waste Management System
A hazardous waste management program should result in crea-
tion of a "system" with certain characteristics:
• Adequate treatment and disposal capacity nationwide,
• Lowest cost to society consistent with public health and en-
vironmental protection,
• Equitable and efficient distribution of cost to those responsible
for waste generation, and
• Conservation of natural resources achieved by recovery and
recycling of wastes instead of their destruction.
This system should combine on-site (point of generation) treat-
ment of some wastes, off-site (central facility) treatment for haz-
ard elimination and recovery, and secure land disposal of residues
which remain hazardous after treatment.
Scenario. Estimates of total required treatment and disposal
capacity, and the mix of on-site and off-site capacity, are keyed
to hazardous waste source quantities, types, and geographical dis-
tribution; the degree of regulation and enforcement; and the
timing of regulatory and enforcement implementation. The haz-
ardous waste management scenario developed below represents,
in EPA's judgment, a system with the aforementioned character-
istics. It is based on the best available source data and technology
assessments/8'7'9-10 discussions with major waste generators and
disposal firms, and consideration of the following criteria: earth
sciences (geology, hydrology, soils, climatology), transportation
economics and risk, ecology, human environment, demography,
resources utilization, and public acceptance. The scenario assumes
complete regulation, treatment and disposal of all non-radioactive
hazardous wastes (as defined in Appendix B), and anticipates
issuance of regulations and vigorous enforcement of them at the
earliest practicable time period.
The scenario which follows and the cost estimates derived from
the scenario should be viewed with caution. Given any reasonable
degree of dependence on private market choices on the part of
waste generators and waste treatment/disposal firms, the actual
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 161
implementation of a hazardous waste management program in the
United States is not likely to follow predictable, orderly lines.
Numerous interactive factors are likely to influence the shape and
the cost of the system as it evolves—including such factors as the
impact of air and water effluent regulations on waste stream
volume and composition, the impact of uneven response to regula-
tory pressures from region to region, changes in technology, shift-
ing locational patterns, and the like. What follows, therefore,
should be considered as one of many possible permutations of the
system. Nonetheless, the scenario does represent EPA's current
best judgment of a reasonable, environmentally adequate hazard-
ous waste management system.
As noted previously, approximately 10 million tons (9 million
metric tons) of non-radioactive hazardous wastes are generated
per year. Of these, about 60 percent by weight are organics, 40
percent are inorganics; about 90 percent of wastes are aqueous in
form.
Economic analyses indicate that on-site treatment is generally
justified only for dilute aqueous toxic metal wastes and only where
the generation rate is high (see Appendix E). Based on analyses
of source data, it is estimated that about 15 percent of the total
wastes (1.5 million tons or 1.36 million metric tons) are in the
dilute aqueous toxic metal category and would be pre-treated by
generators on-site. Since on-site facilities are anticipated to be
small in scale compared to off-site facilities, about 50 on-site
facilities each capable of handling approximately 30,000 tons
(27,000 metric tons) per year would be economically justified.
About one-third (0.5 million tons or 0.45 million metric tons) of
pre-treated wastes would require further processing at off-site
facilities.
In this postulated scenario, therefore, most of the wastes (8.5
million tons or 7.7 million metric tons plus pre-treatment residues)
would be transported to off-site facilities for treatment/disposal.
The size and location of treatment plants is likely to correspond
to patterns of waste generation: larger facilities would be located
in major industrial regions, smaller facilities elsewhere. Back-
ground studies have identified the location of industrial waste
production centers and designs and unit costs of small, medium
and large size processing facilities (see Appendix F).
A reasonable prediction is that five large facilities, each capable
of handling approximately 1.3 million tons (1.2 million metric
tons) per year, would be created to serve five major industrial
regions in the U.S. and 15 medium size treatment plants each
processing approximately 160,000 tons (145 metric tons) would
-------
162 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
be built elsewhere to provide reasonable access from other waste
generation points. Such an array of treatment plants, taken in
conjunction with existing privately owned facilities, is capable of
processing all the non-radioactive hazardous waste generated in the
U.S. at present with a 25 percent margin for future growth in
waste volume.
Processing reduces aqueous waste volume by about 50 percent
and usually results in the elimination of hazard (detoxification,
neutralization, decontamination, etc.). If the appropriate treat-
ment processes are used, most processing residues will be harmless
and disposal in ordinary municipal landfills will be possible. A
small portion (5 percent—225,000 tons or 204,000 metric tons)
of residues containing toxic metals would require disposal in spe-
cial, secure landfills.
Under the assumption that maximum treatment for hazard
elimination and volume reduction of extremely hazardous waste
is carried out, no more than five (and possibly fewer) large scale
secure landfills would be required. Facilities would transport their
toxic metal residues to such land disposal sites rather than op-
erating secure landfills of their own given the scarcity of naturally
secure sites, the difficulty in gaining public acceptance of such
sites, the additional expense of artificially securing sites, and the
relatively low costs of long-haul transport.
Costs. Based on the above scenario, cost estimates have been
prepared for on- and off-site treatment facilities, secure disposal,
and waste transportation. The actual values used for estimation
purposes are shown in Table 4.1; more detail is presented in
Appendix F. Estimates are based on comprehensive engineering
cost studies. Each regional processing facility was assumed to pro-
vide a complete range of treatment processes capable of handling
all types of hazardous wastes, and therefore, each is much more
costly than existing private facilities which are more specialized.
Based on these estimates, the development of this version of a
national hazardous waste management system would require in-
vestments in new facilities of approximately $940 million. Average
annual operating expenditures (including capital recovery, op-
erating costs, and interest) of about $620 million would be re-
quired to sustain the program. In addition, administrative expenses
of about $20 million annually for Federal and State regulatory pro-
grams would be necessary.
For this scenario, system costs fall into five broad categories:
(1) on-site treatment (about 6 percent of total costs on an an-
nualized basis), (2) transportation of wastes to off-site treatment
facilities (16 percent), (3) off-site treatment (74 percent), (4)
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 163
TABLE 4.1
COST ASPECTS OF EPA SCENARIO OF A NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(Million $)
Cost per unit Total Total
Capital Annual Number capital annual
needed operating* needed required cost *
On-site facilities 1.4 .73 51 71 37
Off-site
Treatment (large) 86.0 57.1 5 430 286
Treatment (medium) 24.1 12.5 15 362 188
Secure disposal 2.5 1.2 5 13 6
Transport 63.0 f $ll/ton t 63 99
939"' 616
•' Includes capital recovery in 10 years and interest at 7 percent.
t Capital required based on new rail rolling stock.
t Transport required for 9.0 million tons (8.25 million metric tons) of waste; average distance from gen-
erator to treatment facility is 150 miles.
"Approximately $25 million has already been invested in current private sector off-site treatment facilities.
secure disposal (1 percent), and (5) program administration (3
percent). The largest element of cost is off-site treatment. Treat-
ment followed by land disposal of residues is not necessarily more
expensive than direct disposal of untreated wastes in secure land-
fills (see below). Treatment before disposal would buy greater
long-range protection of public health and the environment.
Variations. While the above scenario is reasonable and would
satisfy requirements for environmentally adequate hazardous
waste management, it is not presented as a hard-and-fast specifi-
cation of what a national system should look like. There is no single
"optimum" system given uncertainties of hazardous waste gen-
erator response to air, water and hazardous waste regulations, of
future directions in production and waste processing technology,
of timing and level of enforcement, of public reaction to site selec-
tion decisions, etc. However, some comments can be made about
variations in the system scenario presented above.
It is unlikely that more large scale and fewer medium scale
processing facilities would be constructed unless specifically man-
dated. The higher initial capital investment of large scale process-
ing facilities is warranted only where large market potential
exists, i.e., in the major industrial regions. Furthermore, at pres-
ent, addition of only two more large scale facilities (over the five
in the scenario) would provide sufficient capacity to treat all non-
radioactive hazardous wastes. Stated another way, two more large
scale facilities could handle all the wastes for which 15 medium
sized facilities were postulated in the scenario. Resulting increased
cests of transportation from generators to these larger treatment
-------
164 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
facilities (because average transport distances would increase)
would offset cost reductions due to better economies of scale (see
Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The net result would be a significant loss in
convenience and increase in transportation risks for a fairly in-
significant saving in capital cost and a higher operating cost.
Construction of a larger number of medium or small scale plants
(and consequently fewer large scale plants) tends to drive capital
costs up sharply (see Figure 4.1). Total system operating costs
also rise because transportation cost savings are not sufficient to
offset lost economies of scale (see Figure 4.2). Transportation risk
would decline due to shorter haul distances, but inspection and
enforcement costs would increase due to the larger number of
plants requiring surveillance. As discussed below, however, a
private sector system may consist of more smaller plants and thus
may result in higher total costs.
There could be fewer disposal sites than assumed in the scenario
if land availability/suitability and public acceptance problems
arise. This outcome is likely if, for instance, only arid lands with
no hydrologic connection to surface and ground waters are deemed
acceptable as disposal sites, i.e., if disposal siting standards are
extremely strict. Transportation costs would increase somewhat,
but not linearly with distance. For example, rail transport costs
are estimated at $35 per ton for 1,000 miles and $49 per ton for
2,000 miles distance. Transport risks would be greater, but disposal
risks and enforcement costs would decline because fewer sites
would be easier to monitor.
On the other hand, as a policy decision, the Government could
allow significantly more disposal relative to processing. Many more,
or at least much larger, disposal sites would be required in this
case since, for instance, approximately a forty-fold increase in
tonnage going to secure disposal sites would result if processing
were by-passed altogether. The total system capital cost would be
reduced since treatment represents a large capital expense (see
Table 4.2). If disposal siting standards were very strict such that
arid lands in the western States were the only acceptable sites,
transportation costs would increase substantially because of the
large increase in tonnage transported over longer distances. In
fact, in this case, annual operating costs for this "disposal only"
option exceed annual costs for the treatment/disposal system
scenario discussed above.
Aside from economic considerations, what is more important in
EPA's judgment is that the "disposal only" option could sig-
nificantly increase public health and environmental risk, perhaps
to an unacceptable level, given the long-term hazard of many toxic
-------
FIGURE 4.1
co
cc.
o
a
u.
o
co
o
co
O
o
2,800 _
2,400.
2,000_
1,600-
1,200.
800.
400.
FIXED CAPITAL COST SENSITIVITY OF A NATIONAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO FLUCTUATIONS IN NUMBER AND SIZE OF FACILITIES
273S
Legend:
L = Large facility, processing 1,330,000 tons (1,210,000 metric tons) per year
M — Medium facility, processing 162,000 tons (147,000 metric tons) per year
S — Small facility, processing 33,300 tons (30,200 metric tons) per year
20M + 176S
40M + 76S
56M
1L + 48M
3L + 32M
4L + 24M
5L + 15M
7L
6L + 7M
800
851
939
1070
1176
1234
1392
1497
1796
2246
2665
1
tn
INCREASINGLY SMALLER FACILITIES
Note: Each configuration includes $71 million for on-site facilities; $13 million for secure land disposal; and from $41 to $114 million for new transportation
equipment (based on average distance and estimated turn-around time).
-------
FIGURE 4.2
OPERATING COST SENSITIVITY OF A NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM TO FLUCTUATIONS IN NUMBER AND SIZE OF FACILITIES
K.
UJ
0.
CO
IT
O
a
LL.
O
0)
O
5
z
CO
O
O
1,400
1,200
1,000 .
800
600 .
400
200 -
Legend:
L = Lar(
M = Me<
S = Small facility, processing 33,300 tons (30,200 metric tons) per year
273S
(1334)
L = Large facility, processing 1,330,000 tons (1,210,000 metric tons) per year
M = Medium facility, processing 162,000 tons (147,000 metric tons) per year
20M 4- 176S
(1142)
Operating Costs
Transportation
Treatment & disposal
40M 4- 76S
(932)
7L
(627)
6L4-7M
(603)
5L + 15M
(616)
4L 4- 24M
(639)
3L + 32M
(677)
2L 4- 40M
(714)
1L + 48M
(751)
56 M
(788)
184
443
129
474
99
517
67
572
61
616
56
658
50
701
43
745
39
893
39
1103
39
1295
INCREASINGLY SMALLER FACILITIES
Note: Each configuration includes $37 million in annual costs for on-slte facilities and $6 million for secure land disposal.
OS
O
o
O
I
I
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 167
TABLE 4.2
COMPARATIVE COSTS OF REGIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT VS. DISPOSAL ONLY
(A) TREATMENT
Hazardous waste treatment on-site, million tons
Hazardous waste treatment off-site, million tons
Treatment cost, fixed capital
Treatment cost, annual operating
(B) DISPOSAL
Secured land disposal, million tons
Disposal cost, fixed capital
Disposal cost, annual operating
(C) TRANSPORTATION
Transportation cost, fixed capital
Transportation cost, annual freight charge
Total fixed capital
Total annual costs
Regional
treatment*
1.0
9.0
$863 million
$511 million/yr
.225
$13 million
$6 million/yr
$63 million
$99 million/yr
$939 million
$616 million/yr
Disposal
only t
0
0
$ 0
$ 0 /yr
10.0
$386 million
$257 million/yr
$252 million
$490 million/yr
$638 million
$747 million/yr
°As described on p. 39.
t Cost data for this option are based on two large secure land disposal sites—both in the western States.
10 X 10° tons per year of untreated hazardous waste is shipped directly to these sites.
The average distance between waste generators and secure land disposal sites is 2,000 miles.
NOTE: Secure land disposal costs are based on preliminary OSWMP estimates.
The indicated transportation costs represent a minimum, because bulk shipment via railroad in 10,000 gal.
tank cars was assumed for all cases.
substances, particularly if such substances are not converted to
relatively insoluble forms prior to disposal. Moreover, transport
risks would undoubtedly increase.
Cost Distribution to Users
Given a hazardous waste regulatory program, and the need for a
hazardous waste management system to implement such a pro-
gram, the fundamental issue is who should pay for creation and
operation of the system. The two basic options are:
• Hazardous waste generators pay, or
• Society pays.
This issue hinges on the principle of equity of cost distribution, and
on an assessment of ability to pay.
Equity of Cost Distribution. The usual aim in environmental
legislation is to cause costs to be internalized. Costs are internalized
when the generator pays the full costs of actions for which he is
responsible. In turn, he can either absorb the costs ("taxing" his
stockholders) or pass on the costs in the price of his products/
services ("taxing" those who benefit from the use of his products/
-------
168 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
services). Only those who have a direct relationship to the gen-
erator are required to pay for the generator's actions.
A publicly funded incentive distributes the costs inequitably by
assigning costs incurred by a special group to the population at
large—not in proportion to the use of waste-related products by
that public but in proportion to income levels.
The regulatory approach internalizes the costs of hazardous
waste management. It forces generators to pay for such manage-
ment while it ensures that the practices are environmentally ac-
ceptable. The only portion of the program's cost that must be
borne by the public as a whole is the small portion devoted to the
actual preparation of the regulations and their enforcement, and
the management of wastes generated by the Federal Government.
The regulatory strategy, therefore, results in equitable cost
distribution. Only those institutions and individuals who benefit
directly from the activities of hazardous materials production and
consumption are required to bear the costs of waste disposal, and
the costs borne are directly proportional to the amount and type of
wastes generated.
Most hazardous wastes are generated by industry and the Fed-
eral Government rather than municipalities. The strategy adopted
for dealing with air and water pollution from industrial sources
has been the regulatory strategy. Thus, this approach is consistent
with the total thrust of environmental control efforts. A subsidy
strategy to industry would represent a new departure.
It could be argued that if some sector of the economy is unable
to bear the costs of a regulatory program by nature of its institu-
tional situation, fiscal support of that sector may be justified to
enable it to meet the regulatory requirements without serious harm
to the economy or interruption of vital services.
However, generators of most hazardous wastes are either pri-
vate, profit-making industrial organizations or governmental en-
tities. Private corporations are capable of accepting the additional
costs of environmental control that may be imposed by a hazardous
waste regulatory program. They have the option of passing on
such costs to their customers or absorbing the costs by reducing
the return on investment to their owners. Government agencies
have the usual capabilities available to such entities to seek
budgetary support for legally mandated activities. Neither sector
would fall into the "hardship" category if it had to pay the full
costs of its waste generation.
Analysis of Cost Impacts. No detailed study has yet been per-
formed to determine the cost burden of specific hazardous waste
regulations relative to the sales, costs, investment levels, and em-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 169
ployment levels of the industrial sectors which would be affected.
Rough aggregate calculations have been done for the following
sectors: chemicals, chemical products, petroleum refining, rubber
production, ordnance, primary metal industries, pulp and paper,
and mining. These aggregate calculations indicate that the costs of
hazardous waste management would be roughly equivalent to 1
percent of the value of product shipments. Of course, the corre-
sponding percentage for some disaggregate categories may turn
out to be much higher.
A general principle which recurs throughout this report is that
the costs of hazardous waste management should be internalized
in the prices of the commodities whose production has generated
the hazardous waste. This principle is consistent with the Presi-
dent's environmental messages. The results of preliminary studies
do not indicate that hazardous waste management costs would
cause drastic industrial disruption. EPA is giving a high priority
to detailed analysis of the costs and cost impacts of hazardous
waste management.
Benefit-Cost Analysis. Given the cost and price impacts which
hazardous waste regulations could impose, careful consideration is
being given to benefit-cost analyses. Hazardous waste regulations
may be said to be "benefit determined" in the sense that they cover
situations in which the benefit to society in the form of a hazard
reduction is shown to be large. Thus, the first type of benefit-cost
comparison is that involved in placing a hazardous waste on the
regulatory list, as a result of demonstrating that some regulatory
option is preferable to the status quo. The second, and equally
important, type of benefit-cost analysis is the comparison of all
the options, each one involving different levels of benefit and cost.
One may speak rhetorically about rendering a substance completely
harmless, but in fact that is only one option. That option may have
to be chosen in cases for which the associated benefits are large
In other cases, cost-benefit comparisons may support a different
process alternative. To the extent possible, EPA tends to use cost-
benefit analyses to explore the full range of technological options
for each hazardous waste.
Role of the Private Sector
As discussed earlier, processing economics appear to favor off-
site treatment/disposal in most instances. A private hazardous
waste services industry exists which already offers off-site treat-
ment/disposal services, but currently available off-site capacity is
clearly insufficient to handle the entire tonnage of hazardous waste
-------
170 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
materials that would ultimately be brought under control. In light
of this, it is obvious that off-site capacity must be significantly
expanded if environmentally adequate hazardous waste treatment
and disposal is to take place.
EPA believes that private industry should and will respond to
the proposed regulatory program, but there are a number of ques-
tions related to the nature of that response:
• Will adequate capacity be forthcoming?
• Can environmentally sound operations be assured?
• Can reasonable user charges be assured?
• Can the private sector provide long-term care of treatment,
storage and disposal sites?
These questions are taken up in what follows. The general issue
of the government's role is discussed separately.
Capacity Creation. The central question is whether or not a
regulatory program will result in sufficient investment in new
capacity by the private sector. Basic issues of capacity creation
include the availability of investment capital and the willingness
to invest capital in view of the risks involved, i.e., the factors in-
fluencing investment. Related to the broad question of private
investment are other issues dealing with the availability of trained
manpower and the availability of suitable land for facility siting.
These issues are discussed below.
Private Investment Sources. Under a regulatory program capi-
tal is likely to be available from at least three private sources:
hazardous waste service firms, generators, and solid waste man-
agement conglomerates.
In the initial stages of a regulatory program (e.g., the first
year), no major new investments are likely to be required. Existing
service firms will respond to new demand by increasing their
throughput. Soon, however, demand is likely to outstrip supply of
such services in a climate of vigorous enforcement, and new invest-
ments will be required.
The ability of present service firms to provide internal capital
and to attract outside investments has been limited because of
generally poor earning records in the past. This situation results
from the absence of regulatory and economic incentives for gen-
erators to utilize their services. Increased regulatory activity, how-
ever, should improve the fiscal abilities of these companies over
time by increasing their rate of facility utilization and (under
conditions of strong demand) by increasing the prices they can
command for services. In fact, the rates of utilization and earnings
rates of most of these firms have been increasing as industries
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 171
respond to water pollution control regulation. This will improve
the ability of this industry to retain earnings for investment and
also its ability to attract outside capital. This source of capital,
however, is expected to be limited in the early years of a regula-
tory program.
Two other sectors of the economy, however, are expected to be-
come more involved in capacity creation and to attract substantial
investment capital to the field.
Major generators of hazardous wastes—e.g., the chemicals and
metals industries—will have a strong interest in assuring that off-
site facilities will be made available for their use because off-site
handling will be more economical. These financially strong organi-
zations—some of which already operate treatment/disposal sys-
tems for their own use—may enter the service field by acquisition
or other routes or may underwrite the activities of others by pro-
vision of long-term contracts or use of other devices.
During the past five years large and financially strong private
solid waste management "conglomerates" have emerged, offering
management services for nonhazardous wastes. These organiza-
tions have established strong lines of credit at attractive interest
rates. Although most of these firms lack the technical know-how to
manage hazardous wastes today, they are likely to acquire know-
how and to enter this field under the stimulus of a regulatory
program in a logical extension of their current services to industry.
Some have already established a position in this field by the ac-
quisition of hazardous waste management subsidiaries.
From the above, it is concluded that sources of private capital to
build new capacity potentially is available. This does not mean,
however, that it will be forthcoming.
Factors Influencing Investment. Private sector investment in
hazardous waste management facilities entails significant risks,
and these risks generally increase as the size of the proposed
facilities increase. There are uncertainties regarding waste gen-
erator response to air, water and hazardous waste regulations;
generators may install new production processes which result in
fewer wastes or wastes with different characteristics; generators
may elect to treat wastes on-site; future breakthroughs in pro-
cessing technology may prematurely obsolete the proposed plant;
further environmental standards may impact on the proposed
plant; economic forces may result in geographical shifts in waste
generator plant locations; and there are uncertainties relating to
the future activities of competitors.
These factors may (1) deter investment of any kind, (2) lead to
investment in treatment processes only for wastes generated in
-------
172 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
high volume or for wastes which are relatively inexpensive to treat,
(3) lead to investment in smaller, less risky facilities which are
more expensive to operate on a unit cost basis, or (4) lead to pro-
cessing plant siting only in locations where major industrial waste
sources are assured.
In view of these uncertainties, the degree and timing of private
capital investment in new capacity will depend heavily on the
quantity of waste regulated and the level and timing of enforce-
ment. Also, the ultimate private sector network which results may
include many smaller facilities and therefore represent, in the ag-
gregate, a more expensive system than the scenario depicted.
Quantity of Waste Regulated. Regulations which affect a sig-
nificant tonnage of waste will spur investments more than regula-
tory activity aimed at a small proportion of the Nation's hazardous
wastes.
A regulatory program is most likely to be aimed at the control
of specific waste compounds rather than the waste streams in
which the compounds occur. Justification of regulatory action must
be tied to health and environmental effects, which can be estab-
lished most conclusively by studying the effects associated with
specific chemicals.
Unlike the regulator, the generator must dispose of and the
service firm must manage waste streams which may contain a
number of hazardous substances in mixture.
Background studies performed for EPA have provided useful
data on the composition of waste streams. These data indicate that
regulatory control of a limited number of the most hazardous sub-
stances could result in the treatment/disposal of a substantial
proportion of the total waste stream. Several hazardous substances
are usually present in chemical and metallurgical hazardous waste
discharges, and selective treatment of one or two components of
the waste does not appear to be economical. Not all hazardous
substances must be regulated immediately, in other words, to cause
most wastes to be treated/disposed of under controlled conditions.
This suggests that regulatory activity can move ahead based on
regulation of groups of a few substances at a time—in a manner
similar to that adopted to implement the hazardous effluent pro-
visions of air and water mandates—while still ensuring that sub-
stantial quantities of hazardous wastes will be treated.
Level and Timing of Enforcement. The key to capacity creation
appears to be vigorous enforcement of regulations to force the use
of existing capacity by generators. Enforcement of regulations
wherever possible will impose costs on generators which may ex-
ceed costs of treatment/disposal in new facilities more appropri-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 173
ately located relative to regions of waste generation and will build
pressure for rapid investments. Such enforcement will also create
incentives for new ventures by ensuring markets for services.
The regulatory approach most likely to result in private invest-
ment would be one which encouraged incremental additions to
capacity by mandating their use as soon as they are created. The
approach should be tied to a terminal date by which all regulated
wastes must be managed as mandated.
The "incremental" approach has the drawback that it initially
impacts more heavily on generators which are near existing treat-
ment/disposal facilities. Thus, other generators which have no
such services available to them have a potential advantage. How-
ever, the approach protects the public and the environment as
soon as possible wherever it is possible.
The above approach is contrasted to a strategy where regulations
are announced at one point in time but provide some "reasonable"
time for creation of capacity nationwide by generators or their
agents before any enforcement takes place. This latter approach
would provide fewer incentives for investment in increments of
capacity and, by "bunching" capital demand in the "reasonable"
waiting period, would also tax the fiscal capacities of industry to
respond. If no capacity is created by the deadline period, appeals
to delay enforcement would be likely.
In summary, timely investment of private capital to create ca-
pacity is anticipated if the regulatory program affects a sub-
stantial portion of the Nation's hazardous wastes and if a vigorous
but incremental enforcement approach over time is adopted. These
conditions will assure an investor that the facilities he builds will
be used, but will avoid excessive demands on available capital at
the outset of the program.
Government activity in some fiscal role can potentially speed up
timing of investments by private service firms where high invest-
ment risks must be overcome; this is discussed below in more de-
tail. A governmental fiscal role, however, is also subject to a
number of constraints.
Availability of Manpower. The technology of hazardous waste
processing is capital intensive and a significant increase in capacity
will require only a limited expansion of labor.
Much of the expertise required for the expansion of the hazard-
ous waste management industry already exists in the metallurgical
and petrochemical industries and the engineering and construction
firms that service these.
Similarly, the skills required at local, State, and Federal levels
-------
174 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
of government are essentially the same as those necessary for the
operation of air and water pollution control programs.
Capacity creation is not thought to be constrained by a shortage
of manpower under any reasonable implementation time-frame,
for example five years.
Availability of Land. Land suitable for the siting and operation
of hazardous waste treatment facilities has been identified as
part of EPA's background studies (Appendix F). There is no
shortage of appropriate land for treatment facilities in the vicinity
or immediately within the Nation's major hazardous waste genera-
tion regions.
Land used for disposal by burial should be "secure," i.e., it
should be sealed off from underlying ground waters by impervious
materials. Ideally, such sites should be located in areas where the
cumulative precipitation is less than the evapotranspiration so
that rain cannot accumulate in the "sealed" landfills. Such condi-
tions prevail only in the western desert regions.
Ideal conditions for disposal sites need not be present if the
secure landfill is located near hazardous waste treatment plants
where water accumulations can be removed from the disposal site
and treated in the plant. Sites with appropriate geological features
are available in areas other than the western States.
Probably the most important potential problem associated with
the land-use aspect of hazardous waste management is that of pub-
lic resistance to the location of such facilities in their communities.
Although EPA's public attitudes survey indicates public support of
central treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes under con-
trolled conditions, it is not at all certain that the public will express
the same attitude when faced with an actual siting decision.
While siting problems are anticipated by EPA, there are indica-
tions that such constraints can be overcome. The private hazardous
waste management industry and AEC contractors have been able
to obtain sites in most cases. Treatment and ultimate disposal
facilities will represent employment in areas which are of necessity
low in population density (if sites are chosen to minimize safety
hazard) and in need of industrial development.
Environmentally Sound Operation. The private sector, follow-
ing a profit motive, has incentives to run only as good a hazardous
waste management operation as it takes to obtain and keep busi-
ness and to comply with governmental regulations. Customers may
demand more stringent operations to benefit their image or for
legal and other reasons, but the private sector hardly can be ex-
pected to go all out to maximize the environmental soundness of
its operations.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPOKTS 175
It is anticipated, however, that environmentally acceptable op-
eration of private facilities can be assured by appropriate govern-
mental and citizen activities. The basic standards and regulations
governing hazardous waste management operations must not only
be environmentally adequate in themselves but also must provide
for effective administrative and legal sanctions against potential
offenders. Adoption of appropriate criteria for facility licensing
can filter out candidates who do not possess resources sufficient to
provide sound facility construction, operation, maintenance and
surveillance. Vigorous inspection and enforcement by government,
with the attendant threat of licensing suspension or revocation
actions, can assure sound operations over time.
If the regulatory legislation contains provisions for citizen suits,
which is likely given the trend of recent environmental legislation,
citizens may bring legal pressure to bear on both the government
and private industry to force compliance with existing Federal,
State, and local regulations.
Reasonable User Charges. The issue of whether or not a private
market situation will result in reasonable user charges is de-
pendent upon quite complex interactions involving facility scale
and location, risk, competition and transportation rates.
As has been discussed, significant economies of scale are possible
in the processing of toxic waste. To the extent that such economies
are realized and passed on to users of processing facilities, user
charges will be "reasonable." To the extent economies of scale are
not achieved or that economies are achieved but savings are ab-
sorbed as monopoly profits, charges for the use of processing facili-
ties may be unreasonable.
Unfettered operation of the market system may not result in the
construction of plants of optimal size initially. Due to a desire to
minimize or avoid the risk factors discussed earlier, there may be a
tendency to build a number of small, high unit cost plants where
one large economical plant would suffice. On the other hand, al-
though small plants may result in higher unit costs of operation,
their lower investment requirements may spur competition and
reduce opportunities for monopoly profits. Thus, in the scenario
described earlier in which large plants with large investment costs
and low operating costs predominate, there is potential for monopo-
listic behavior and, consequently, unreasonably high profits and
user charges. The possibility of monopoly is increased by the
relatively few companies nationally which have the resources and
technical qualifications to enter this field.
Factors other than the risks associated with large investments
tend to counter monopolistic behavior, however. Given the rela-
-------
176 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
lively low cost of transport in comparison to processing costs and
the relative insensitivity of transport charges to increase in haul
distances, trade-offs between transportation charges and at-the-
plant user charges should result in some overlap among service
regions and thus should stimulate competition. A second potential
limitation on unreasonably high user charges is the ability of
waste generators to operate their own waste processing plants if
projected processing charges appear excessive. Also, the Federal
Government could use the processing and disposal of its own
wastes, which would be sent to the low bidder on a service contract,
as leverage to keep charges reasonable. The revenue and cost
information which the Federal Government typically requires as
part of the procurement process should itself provide a means of
tracking the reasonableness of processing charges on a continuing
basis.
Although it is difficult to predict how these opposing forces will
operate under a free market situation, there is no indication at
this time of the need for additional government control (beyond
that derived from Federal Government procurement) of hazardous
waste service charges. Competition exists now in the general
absence of specific hazardous waste regulations, and additional
competition is anticipated if new regulatory legislation is passed.
Overall system costs, even if many small plants are the rule (see
Figure 4.2), should not be so unreasonably high that they merit
Federal intervention.
Long Term Care. As indicated earlier, some non-radioactive
hazardous wastes cannot be converted to an innocuous form with
presently available technology, and some residues from waste/
treatment processes may still be hazardous. Such materials require
special storage or disposal and must be controlled for long periods
of time.
In some respects such materials resemble long-lived radioactive
wastes; both are toxic and retain essentially forever the potential
for public health and environmental insult. There are differences,
however: non-radioactive hazardous wastes normally do not gen-
erate heat nor do they require radiation shielding.
Until recently, essentially all radioactive wastes were generated
by the Federal Government itself as a result of the nuclear weapon,
naval propulsion and other programs. This established a precedent
for Federal control of radioactive wastes which has carried over
to the commercial nuclear power generation and fuel reprocessing
industry. No such precedent exists for non-radioactive hazardous
wastes from industrial sources.
The AEC has established the policy of "engineered storage" for
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 177
long-lived radioactive wastes because of difficulties in assuring
long-term control of these wastes if they are disposed of on or
under the land or in the ocean. Designs of such storage facilities
will vary with the nature of the wastes involved, but the general
principle is to provide long-lived containerized or otherwise sep-
arated, easily retrievable storage units. These units generally will
require heat removal, radiation shielding, surveillance, and se-
curity.
The storage/disposal facility requirements for non-radioactive
hazardous wastes are anticipated to be less severe than for radio-
active wastes since heat removal and shielding are not required, but
many of the problems remain. Such facilities should be "secure"
in the sense that there are no hydrologic connections to surface
and ground waters. Long term physical security and surveillance
of storage and land disposal sites are required. Also, there should
be contingency plans for sealing off the facilities or removing the
wastes if hydrologic connections are subsequently established by
earthquakes or other phenomena.
From an institutional viewpoint, the private sector is not well
suited for a role in which longevity is a major factor. Private enter-
prises may abandon storage and disposal sites due to changes in
ownership, better investment opportunities, bankruptcy, or other
factors. If sites are abandoned, serious questions of legal liability
could arise. This issue led the- State of Oregon, in its recently
adopted hazardous waste disposal program, to require that all
privately operated hazardous waste disposal sites must be deeded
to the State and that a performance bond be posted as conditions
for obtaining a license to operate such sites.
Traditionally, waste generators pay a one-time fee for waste
disposal. If this concept were carried over to hazardous waste
disposal, private operators of disposal sites would have to charge
fees sufficient to cover expenses of site security and surveillance
for a long, but indeterminant, time period. Another option would
be to consider hazardous waste disposal as a form of long term
storage. Generators would then pay "rent" in perpetuity. Given
uncertainties of future market conditions, inflation, etc., neither of
these options would have appeal to either the waste generator or
disposer, nor would the options preclude legal problems if either
party were to file for bankruptcy.
There are grounds, therefore, to consider the role of the private
sector in hazardous waste storage and disposal as fundamentally
different in character from its role in hazardous waste treatment.
EPA believes that, given a regulatory stimulus, the private sector
can and will provide necessary facilities for hazardous waste treat-
-------
178 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ment which are operated in an environmentally sound manner
with reasonable user charges. However, the issue of long term care
of privately owned and operated hazardous waste storage and dis-
posal sites poses significant problems not easily resolved. Some
form of Federal or State intervention may be required. These op-
tions are discussed in what follows.
Role of Government
The implementation strategy described above assigns to govern-
ment the limited role of promulgating and enforcing regulations.
In view of the potential problems discussed above, however, a more
extensive government role may be justified under certain circum-
stances. Options for more extensive government intervention which
might be determined to be required include:
• Performance bonding
• Financial Assistance
• Economic Regulation
• Use of Government land
• Government ownership and operation of facilities
These options are discussed below.
Performance Bonding. The government could require a per-
formance bond of private firms as a condition of issuing a license/
permit for operation of hazardous waste treatment or disposal
facilities. The bond would help to ensure environmentally sound
operation of processing facilities and long term care of disposal
sites. This system is used, for example, by the State of Oregon for
all hazardous waste disposal sites and by the State of Kentucky
for radioactive waste disposal sites.
Performance bonding presents a paradox, however. The bond
must be large to be effective, but the larger the bond, the more
likely it is to inhibit investment. Used unwisely, the performance
bond concept could result in no private sector facilities, or in a
monopolistic situation with a very limited number of large firms
in the business.
EPA believes that a performance bonding system, wisely applied,
could be beneficial in establishing the fiscal soundness of applicant
firms (if fiscally weak, the firm could not be bonded). The bonding
system could be adopted within a regulatory program in the
licensing procedures with very little, if any, cost to government.
Financial Assistance. Some form of fiscal support of capacity
creation may be justified if the private sector fails to invest the
capital needed for new facilities. If that happens, environmental
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 179
damage will continue and the potential hazard to public health and
safety will increase.
Current indications are that private capital will begin to flow
under a regulatory approach. It may be argued, however, that
capital flow may be slow and uneven on a national basis. In some
areas capacity may be created, in others not. Investors might play
a wait-and-see game because of potential risks, etc. In such a
situation governmental fiscal support might speed up implementa-
tion or ensure that all generators have facilities available for use.
A governmental fiscal role in capacity creation is not warranted
—on equity and other grounds discussed earlier—unless capital
flow is actually very slow and adverse environmental effects are
resulting from the investment rate. If support is warranted, vari-
ous types of support are likely to have different effects.
Indirect Support. A loan guarantee program, probably the most
indirect form of fiscal support available, may be more effective in
speeding up implementation than direct, massive support of con-
struction. If capital is available (in the absolute sense), but is not
obtainable practically because of risks associated with investment
in such ventures, a loan guarantee program can induce investments
by removing or cushioning the risk. At the same time, such a pro-
, gram would be less vulnerable to budgetary constraints and less
likely to lead to a slowdown in private investments than direct
support.
A loan program, while preferable to direct support on equity
grounds, would depend on budget availability and would act to slow
down implementation.
Other indirect approaches, such as investment incentives based
on investment credits or rapid write-off provisions, are comparable
to a loan program in that they have a budgetary impact (by af-
fecting government tax income) but would be less likely to slow
down implementation because no positive budgetary action would
be required to implement such support.
These approaches, much like direct support, would be difficult to
justify for a part of the nation only—that is, to support building of
capacity only in areas where private action is not resulting in
construction.
Direct Fiscal Support. Such support might conceivably take the
form of construction grants or direct government construction of
facilities. Such action can ensure capacity creation. Programs of
this type, even in the environmental area, have often failed to meet
originally established timing goals because of budgetary con-
straints and other factors. To the extent that local government
involvement is sought in a Federal program, a further potential
-------
180 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
for delay is introduced. The availability of public funding also has
a stifling effect on private initiative. It is economically unwise to
invest private money if public funds are available.
This approach, while it can guarantee that ultimately capacity
will be built, does not promise to be effective in speeding up the
implementation rate. Where the objective is to provide capacities
in regions where investments are lagging, direct fiscal support is
extremely difficult to justify for only one area to the exclusion
of others.
The advisability of government construction support may also
be viewed in the content of government competition with private
industry. A fledgling service industry exists. These firms would
object to the entrance of the government into the field as a com-
petitor (direct government construction) or government action to
set up competition (grant programs). To the extent that private
resources have already been committed to this field, great care
would have to be exercised to avoid driving existing firms out of
the market with the resultant economic loss to the Nation. It may
be necessary on equity grounds to compensate existing companies
for their investments—by outright purchase or post-factum grant
support. Determining the value of these companies' investments
may be difficult in the face of probably increasing demand for their
services.
Economic Regulation. The Congress could mandate a hazardous
waste management system patterned after the public utility con-
cept. In this type of system, government could set up franchises
with territorial limits and regulate user charge rates.
The hazardous waste management field shares many character-
istics of currently regulated industries in any case. There are pub-
lic service aspects, relatively few plants are required per region,
and these facilities are capital-intensive. Further, there is potential
for natural geographic monopolies because barriers to a second
entrant in a given region are high.
Government control of plant siting, scale and rates could lessen
the potential for environmental impacts and provide greater incen-
tive for private sector investment since there would be no threat
of competition and consequently less risk of failure. On the other
hand, some companies may not enter the field on a utility basis be-
cause of potentially lower rate of return on investment. Further,
lack of competition could inhibit new technology development.
Economic restrictions can be applied directly via a governmental
franchise board or commission or indirectly via administrative
actions such as licensing and permitting. Government control of
franchising shifts the burden of market determination and related
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 181
business decisions into the public sector, which is not inherently
better equipped to make such decisions than private industry.
Licensing and permitting of treatment/disposal facilities ap-
pears to be a better approach for the exercise of economic control
since they can be used to influence (rather than dictate) plant lo-
cations, sizes and rates. Some form of government control over such
facilities is desirable in any case to ensure their proper operation.
Administrative rather than direct regulatory actions would be
less costly to government. New legislation would be required to
authorize either direct or indirect economic sanctions.
Use of Federal/State Land. Although suitable sites for hazard-
ous waste processing facilities are generally available to the private
sector, adverse public reaction to such sites may preclude their use.
If this occurs, it may be necessary to make public land available to
private firms. These lands could be leased or made available free of
charge depending on circumstances. As noted earlier, the State of
Oregon requires that hazardous waste facilities be located on State-
owned land; other States may elect to follow this precedent.
There are compelling reasons for the use of public lands for haz-
ardous waste disposal sites. The need for long term care of disposal
sites and the potential problems associated with private sector
ownership of such sites have been discussed previously. Publicly
owned disposal sites could be leased to private operating firms, but
legal title would remain with the governmental body.
Use of Federal or State lands for privately operated hazardous
waste processing or disposal sites is one means of reducing the
capital cost and risk of private sector investment while reducing
environmental risk as well. Conceivably, some form of government
influence over user charges could be a condition of the lease, in
order to avoid potential monopolistic behavior on the part of the
lessee. The initial cost to government of these measures would be
minimal; however, government maintenance of disposal sites may
be necessary if the lessee defaults.
Government Ownership and Operation of Facilities. This option
provides maximum control over the economic and environmental
aspects of hazardous waste management. The issues of potential
monopolistic behavior (and consequent unreasonably high user
charges) and long term care of hazardous waste disposal sites
could be circumvented. Environmentally sound construction and
operation of processing and disposal facilities could be assured, but
would be dependent on public budgets for implementation. Re-
source recovery could be mandated.
Public land suitable for hazardous waste processing and disposal
sites exists in the western States but may not be available in the
-------
182 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
eastern States. If government ownership and operation of facilities
is mandated by Congress, the government may have to purchase
private lands for this purpose. The potential for adverse public re-
action would be present.
The government does operate some hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities now, but these are generally limited
to handling wastes generated by government agencies. There is no
obvious advantage of government operation of facilities intended to
treat and dispose of hazardous waste originating in the private
sector. In fact, under government operation, there could be a ten-
dency for selection of more expensive technology than is actually
required and less incentive for efficient, low cost operation.
This option represents, of course, the maximum cost to govern-
ment of those considered here. If use of government owned and
operated facilities is mandated, capital and operating costs of pro-
cessing plants can be recovered through user charges. Some sub-
sidy of disposal operations is likely, however, since security and
surveillance of disposal sites is required in perpetuity.
Summary
Given a hazardous waste regulatory program, issues of imple-
mentation of a non-radioactive hazardous waste management sys-
tem hinge on the incentives for and inherent problems of private
sector response, and the appropriate role of government. Past ex-
perience with air and water environmental regulation over indus-
trial processes indicates that the private sector will invest in
pollution control facilities if regulations are vigorously enforced.
EPA anticipates that similar private sector investment in hazard-
ous waste processing facilities will be forthcoming if a regulatory
program is legislated and enforced. There is no real need for mas-
sive government intervention or investment in such facilities. The
makeup of a hazardous waste processing system fully prescribed
by free market forces is difficult to predict, however.
The storage and ultimate disposal of hazardous residues pre-
sents a significant problem of basically different character since the
private sector is not well suited to a role of long term care of dis-
posal sites.
Options for government action to mitigate this problem include
(1) making new or existing Federal- and State-owned and oper-
ated disposal sites available to private industry, (2) leasing Fed-
eral or State lands to the private sector, subject to a performance
bonding system, and (3) private ownership and operation of stor-
age and disposal sites subject to strict Federal or State controls.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 183
The optimum control scheme will depend upon the nature of the
regulatory program, but Federal or State control of storage and
land disposal sites is clearly implied in any case.
On balance, EPA believes that, with the possible exception noted
above, the preferred approach to system implementation is to allow
the private sector system to evolve under appropriate regulatory
controls, to monitor closely this evolution, and to take remedial
governmental action if necessary in the future.
Section 5
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Find/ings
Under the authority of Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (as amended), the Environmental Protection Agency has
carried out a study of the hazardous waste management practices
of industrial, government, and other institutions in the United
States. The key findings of this study are presented in this section.
... Current management practices have adverse effects. Hazard-
ous waste management practices in the United States are generally
inadequate. With some exceptions, wastes are disposed of on the
land without adequate controls and safeguards. This situation re-
sults in actual and potential damage to the environment and endan-
gers public health and safety.
. .. Causes are economics and absence of legislative control. The
causes of inadequate hazardous waste management are two-fold.
First, costs of treating such wastes for hazard elimination and of
disposing of them in a controlled manner are high. Second, legisla-
tion which mandates adequate treatment and disposal of such
wastes is absent or limited in scope. The consequence is that gen-
erators of hazardous wastes can use low-cost but environmentally
unacceptable methods of handling these residues.
. . . Authorities for radioactive wastes are adequate. Under the
authority of The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the man-
agement of radioactive wastes is placed under control. While the
actual implementation of the act may be improved, the legislative
tools for accomplishing such an end exist.
... Air and water pollution control authorities are adequate. The
Clean Air Act of 1970 and The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 provide the necessary authorities for the regulation of
-------
184 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
the emission of hazardous compounds and materials to the air and
to surface waters from point sources.
. . . Legislative controls over hazardous waste land disposal are
inadequate. The legislative authorities available for the control of
hazardous waste deposition on land—and the consequent migra-
tion of such wastes into the air and water media from land—are not
sufficient to result in properly controlled disposal. This legislative
gap literally invites the use of land as the ultimate sink for mate-
rials removed from air and water.
... Land protection regulation is needed. In order to close the last
available uncontrolled sink for the dumping of hazardous waste
materials and thus to safeguard the public and the environment, it
is necessary to place legislative control over the disposal of haz-
ardous wastes. In the absence of such control, cost considerations
and the competitive posture of most generators of waste will con-
tinue to result in dangerous and harmful practices with both short
range and long term adverse consequences.
... The technology for hazardous waste management generally is
adequate. A wide array of treatment and disposal options is avail-
able for management of most hazardous wastes. The technology is
in use today, but the use is not widespread because of economic
barriers in the absence of legislation. Transfer and adaptation of
existing technology to hazardous waste management may be neces-
sary in some cases. Treatment technology for some hazardous
wastes is not available (e.g., arsenic trioxide, arsenities and arse-
nates of copper, lead, sodium, zinc, and potassium). Additional re-
search and development is required as the national program
evolves. However, safe and controlled storage of such wastes is
possible now until treatment and disposal technology is developed.
... A private hazardous waste management industry exists. A
small service industry has emerged in the last decade offering waste
treatment services to industry and other institutions. This industry
is operating below capacity because its services are high in cost
relative to other disposal options open to generators. The industry
is judged capable of expanding over time to accept most of the Na-
tion's hazardous wastes.
. . . Hazardous waste management system costs are significant.
Estimates made by EPA indicate that investments of about $940
million and operating costs (including capital recovery) of about
$620 million per year will be required to implement a nationwide
hazardous waste management system which combines on-site
(point of generation) treatment of some wastes, off-site (central
facility) treatment for hazard elimination and recovery, and secure
land disposal of residues which remain hazardous after treatment.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 185
... The private sector appears capable of responding to a regula-
tory program. Indications are that private capital will be available
for the creation of capacity and that generators of waste will be
able to bear the costs of management under new and more exacting
rules. Private sector response to a demand created by a regulatory
program cannot be well defined, however, and the characteristics of
the resulting hazardous waste management system cannot be defi-
nitely prescribed. Uncertainties inherent in a private sector system
include
- availability of capital for facility construction and operation
in a timely manner for all regions of the Nation,
- adequacy of facility locations relative to waste generators such
as to minimize environmental hazard and maximize use,
- reasonableness of facility use charges in relation to cost of
services,
- long term care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facili-
ties, i.e., that such facilities will be adequately secured for the
life of the waste, irrespective of economic pressures on private
site operators.
. . . Several alternatives for government action are available if
such actions are subsequently determined to be required. If capital
flow were very slow and adverse environmental effects were re-
sulting from the investment rate, financial assistance would be pos-
sible in indirect forms such as loans, loan guarantees or investment
credits, or direct forms such as construction grants. If facility loca-
tion or user charge problems arose, the Government could impose a
franchise system with territorial limits and user charge rate con-
trols. Long term care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facil-
ities could be assured by mandating use of Federal or State land for
such facilities.
Recommendations
Based on the above, it is recommended that. . .
Congress enact National legislation mandating safe and
environmentally sound hazardous waste management.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed such legis-
lation to Congress, embodying the conclusions of studies carried
out under Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973 calls
for authority to regulate the treatment and disposal of hazardous
wastes. A copy of the proposed Act is presented in Appendix G.
The key provisions of the proposed legislation are the following:
-------
186 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
(1) Authority to designate hazardous wastes by EPA.
(2) Authority to regulate treatment/disposal of selected waste
categories by the Federal Government at the discretion of
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(3) Authority for the setting of Federal treatment/disposal
standards for designated waste categories.
(4) State implementation of the regulatory program subject to
Federal standards in most cases.
(5) Authority for coordination and conduct of research, sur-
veys, development and public education.
EPA believes that no further Government intervention is appro-
priate at this time. It is EPA's intention to carry on its studies and
analyses; and EPA may make further recommendations based on
these continuing analyses.
REFERENCES
1. Swift, W. H., Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous
waste national disposal sites, v. 1. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Contract No. 68-06-0762. [Richland, Wash.], Battelle Memorial
Institute, Mar. 1, 1973. p. 111-63. (Unpublished data.)
2. U.S. Congress. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Public Law 92-532, 92d Cong., H.R. 9727. Washington, Oct. 23, 1972.
12 p.
3. Smith, D. D., and R. P. Brown. Ocean disposal of barge-delivered liquid
and solid wastes from U.S. coastal cities. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971, p. 10.
4. Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste
national disposal sites, v. 2, p. IV-D-1 to IV-D-42.
5. Ottinger, R. S. Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization,
recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste, v. 1. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Contract No. 68-03-0089. [Redondo Beach, Calif.],
TRW Systems Group, Inc., June 1973. (Unpublished data.)
G. Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc. A study of hazardous waste materials,
hazardous effects and disposal methods. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Contract No. 68-03-0032. [Bethesda, Md.], June 30, 1972. 3 v.
7. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery,
or disposal of hazardous waste, 15 v.
8. Lackey, L. L., S. R. Steward, and T. 0. Jacobs. Public attitudes toward
hazardous waste disposal facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Contract No. 68-03-0156. [Columbus, Ga.], Human Resources
Research Organization, Feb. 1973. (Unpublished data.)
9. Funkhouser, J. T. Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes
at national disposal sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Con-
tract No. 68-01-0556. [Cambridge, Mass.], Arthur D. Little, Inc., May
1973. 2 v. (Unpublished data.)
10, Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste
national disposal sites, 2 v.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 187
11, Christensen, H. E., ed. Toxic substances annual list, 1971. National In-
stitute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication DHEW (HSM)
72-10260. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 512 p.
12. Council on Environmental Quality. Toxic substances. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Apr. 1971. p. 2.
IS. U.S. Congress. Proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973.
93d Cong., 1st sess., U.S. Senate, S.1086, introduced Mar. 6, 1973,
U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.4873, introduced Feb. 27, 1973.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aug. 1970, p. 107.
U. Swift, Feasibility study for the development of a system of hazardous
waste national disposal sites, v. 1, p. III-2.
15. Environmental quality; the first annual report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality together with the President's message to Congress.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 1970. p. 107.
16. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2.
17. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2.
18. Mahler, H. R., and E. H. Cordes. Biological chemistry. New York, Harper
& Row, 1966. 872 p.
19. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2.
20. Johnson, 0., Pesticides '72, Chemical Week, 110(25) :33-48, 53-66, June 21,
1972; 111(4) :17-^6, July 26, 1972.
SI. Jansen, L. L., Estimate of container number by size, type, and formula-
tions involved. In Proceedings; National Working Conference on Pesti-
cides, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md., June 30-July 1,
1970. p. 27-30. [Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va. as PB 197 145.]
22. Jansen, Estimate of container number by size, type, and formulations,
involved, p. 27-28.
23. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery,
or disposal of hazardous wastes, v. 14, p. 199.
24. Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste
national disposal sites, v. 1, p. V—1 to V—218.
25. Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc., A study of hazardous waste materials,
hazardous effects and disposal methods, v. 1, p. A-II-1 to A-II-22.
26. Proceedings; American Hospital Association [Institute on Hospital Solid
Waste Management], Chicago, May 18-20, 1972. v. 3.
27. Personal communication. Chemical Biological Warfare Office, U.S. Army
Material Command, Washington.
28. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 8.
23. U.S. Tariff Commission. Synthetic organic chemicals; United States pro-
duction and sales, [1954-1970]. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office. [15 v.]
30. Commissioner Ray stresses positive understanding. Hanford News
(Hanford, Wash.), p. 5, Oct. 27, 1972.
31. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or
disposal of hazardous waste, v. 2, p. 5.
3%. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2.
S3. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 9.
34. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 9.
35. Committee on Toxicology. Toxicological reports. Washington, National
Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1971. 219 p.
-------
188 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
36. Funkhouser, Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at na-
tional disposal sites, v. 1, p. 3.5.1.
37. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal
sites, v. 1, p. IV-11.
38. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal
sites, v. 1, p. IV-12.
39. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal
sites, v. 1, p. IV-12.
40. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal
sites, v. 1, p. 1-41-42.
41. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery or
disposal of hazardous waste, v. 1. p. 135-298.
42. Funkhouser, Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at
national disposal sites, v. 1. p. 3.24-3.33.
43. U.S. Congress. Resource Recovery Act of 1970. Public Law 91-512, 91st
Cong., H.R. 11833. Washington, Oct. 26, 1970. [9 p.]
44. U.S. Congress. Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Public Law 703, 83d Cong.,
H.R. 9757. Washington, Aug. 30, 1954. [41 p.]
45. United States Code, Title 18, chap. 39. Explosives and other dangerous
articles, sec. 831-5. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
46. U.S. Congress. [Federal Railroad Safety and Hazardous Materials Con-
trol Act]. Title III—Hazardous materials control, sec. 302. Public Law
91-458, 91st Cong., S. 1933. Washington, Oct. 16, 1970. [p. 7.] (United
States Code, Title 46, sec. 1761-2.)
47. U.S. Congress. Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Title VI—Safety regula-
tions of civil aeronautics, sec. 601. Public Law 85-726, 85th Cong.,
S. 3880. Washington, Aug. 23, 1958. [p. 45-46.] (United States Code,
Title 49, sec. 1421.)
48. United States Code, Title 46, chap. 7. Carriage of explosives or dangerous
substances, sec. 170. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1971.
49. U.S. Congress. Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act. sec. 17.
Public Law 86-613, 86th Cong., S. 1283. Washington, July 12, 1960.
[p. 9.]. (United States Code, Title 15, sec. 1261 et seq.)
50. U.S. Congress. Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972.
sec. 19. Disposal and transportation. Public Law 92-516, 92d Cong.,
H.R. 10729. Washington, Oct. 21, 1972. p. 23-24.
51. Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, sec. 19(a), p. 23-24.
52. U.S. Congress. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972. Title I—Ocean dumping, sec. 101. Public Law 92-532, 92d Cong.,
H.R. 9727. Washington, Oct. 23, 1972. p. 2.
53. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Title I—Ocean dump-
ing, sec. 102(a), p. 3.
54. U.S. Congress. Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91-604, 91st
Cong., H.R. 17255. Washington, Dec. 31, 1970. [32 p.] (United States
Code, Title 42, sec. 1857 et seq.)
55. U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. Public Law 92-500, 92d Cong., S. 2770. Washington, Oct. 18,
1972. 89 p.
56. U.S. Congress. Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970. sec. 3. Public
Law 91-601, 91st Cong., S. 2162. Washington, Dec. 30, 1970. [p. 1-2.]
57. U.S. Congress. [Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, 111. Legislative
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 189
Jurisdiction by U.S. Adjustment Act.] Public Law 90-339, 90th Cong.,
S.2452. Washington, June 15, 1968. [p. 1.] (United States Code, Title
21, sec. 1857 et seq.)
58. U.S. Congress. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Public Law
91-190, 91st Cong., S.1075. Washington, Jan. 1, 1970. [5 p.] (United
States Code, Title 42, sec. 4321 et seq.)
53. U.S. Congress. [Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization, 1970 Act.]
Public Law 91-121, 91st Cong., 2546. Washington, Nov. 19, 1969. [10
p.]; [Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization, 1971.] Public Law
91-441, 91st Cong., H.R.17123. Washington, Oct. 7, 1970. .[10 p.]
"(United States Code, Title 50, sec. 1511-18.)
60. U.S. Congress. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Public Law 92-
583, 92d Cong., S. 3507. Washington, Oct. 27, 1972. 10 p.
61. U.S. Congress. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. sec. 6(b) (5).
Public Law 91-596, 91st Cong., S. 2193. Washington, Dec. 29, 1970.
[p. 16.]
62. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal
sites, v. 1, p. IX32-IX33.
63. U.S. Congress. Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91-604, 91st
Cong., H.R. 17255. Washington, Dec. 31, 1970 [32 p.] (United States
Code, Title 42, sec. 1857 et seq.)
64. U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Public Law 92-500, 92d Cong., S. 2770. Washington, Oct. 18, 1972. 89 p.
65. Reitze, A. W., Jr. Tax incentives don't stop pollution. In Environmental
Law. Spring of 1972 ed. Washington, North American International.
66. Kennecott Copper v. EPA, U.S. App. B.C., F. 2nd , 3 ERG 1682,
(Feb. 18, 1972).
67. Anaconda Company v. Ruckelshaus, D.C. Colorado, F. Supp. , 4
ERG 1817, (Dec. 19, 1972).
68. International Harvester Company v. Ruckelshaus, U.S. App. D.C., — F.
2nd , 4 ERG 2041, (Feb. 10, 1973).
69. U.S. Congress. Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970. sec. 112 (b)
(1) (B). Public Law 91-601, 91st Cong., S. 2162. Washington, Dec. 30,
1970. [p. 16.]
70. U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Title V—General provisions, sec. 502(14). Public Law 92-500, 91st
Cong., S. 2770. Washington, Oct. 18, 1972-. p. 72.
71. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III—Standards and Enforce-
ment, sec. 304(c) (2) (D), Public Law 92-500, p. 36-37.
72. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III, sec. 306 (a) (1), p. 39-40.
73. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III, sec. 307(a) (4) (6), p. 42.
74. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Title III, sec. 311 (b) (2) (A), p. 48.
75. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III, sec. 311 (b) (3), p. 49.
76. Reitze, Tax incentives don't stop pollution, Environmental Law, chap. 3d
and 4g.
-------
190 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Appendix A
IMPACT OF IMPROPER HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Improper management of hazardous materials or wastes is mani-
fested in numerous ways. Waste discharges into surface waters
can decimate aquatic plant and animal life. Contamination of land
and/or ground waters can result from improper storage and han-
dling techniques, accidents in transport, or indiscriminate disposal
acts.
A few of the many cases documented by EPA which illustrate
hazardous waste mismanagement are listed categorically in the
following compilation. Most of these examples are water pollution
related because there have been more monitoring and enforcement
actions in this area.
Category I—Waste Discharge Hazards
(1) Improper Arsenic Disposal. Because of the lack of treatment
and recovery facilities, arsenic waste materials generally are dis-
posed of by burial. This practice presents future hazards since the
material is not rendered harmless.
As a result of arsenic burial 30 years ago on agricultural land in
Perham, Minnesota, several people who recently consumed water
contaminated by the deposit were hospitalized. The water came
from a well that was drilled near this 30 year old deposit of arsenic
material. Attempts to correct this contamination problem are now
being studied. Proposed methods of approach include (1) excavat-
ing the deposit and contaminated soil and diluting it by spreading
it on adjacent unused farm land, (2) covering the deposit site with
a bituminous or concrete apron to prevent ground water leaching,
(3) covering the deposit temporarily and excavating the soil for
use as ballast in future highway construction in the area, and (4)
excavating the material and placing it in a registered landfill. None
of these methods is particularly acceptable since the hazardous
property of the material is not permanently eradicated, but they at
least protect the public health and safety in the short run.
(2) Lead Waste Hazard. Annual production of organic lead waste
from manufacturing processes for alkyl lead in the San Francisco
Bay area amounts to 50 (45.4 metric) tons. This waste was
previously disposed of in ponds at one industrial waste disposal
site. Attempts to process this waste for recovery resulted in alkyl
lead intoxication of plant employees, in one instance, and in an-
other instance not only were plant employees affected, but also
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 191
employees of firms in the surrounding area were exposed to an air-
borne alkyl lead vapor hazard. Toll collectors on a bridge along the
truck route to the plant became ill from escaping vapors from
transport trucks. Currently, the manufacturers which generate
organic lead waste are storing this material in holding basins at
the plants pending development of an acceptable recovery process.
(3) Cyanide, Phenol Disposal. A firm in Houston, Texas, as early
as 1968 was made aware that its practice of discharging such haz-
ardous waste as cyanides (25.40 Ibs./day, or 11.5 kilograms/day),
phenols (2.1 Ibs./day, or 0.954 kilograms/day), sulfides, and am-
monia into the Houston ship channel was creating severe environ-
mental debilitation. The toxic wastes in question are derived from
the cleaning of blast furnace gas from coke plants. Based on expert
testimony, levels as low as 0.05 mg/1 of cyanide effluent are known
to be lethal to shrimp and small fish of the species found in the
Galveston Bay area.
Alternative disposal methods involving deep well injection were
recommended by the firm and the Texas Water Quality Board. EPA
rejected this proposal and the firm in question was enjoined by the
courts to cease and desist discharging these wastes into the ship
channel. Subsequently, the courts have ruled in favor of EPA that
deep well injection of these wastes is not an environmentally ac-
ceptable disposal method at this site.
(4) Arsenic Contamination. A chemical company in Harris County,
Texas, that produces insecticides, weed killers, and similar products
containing arsenic has been involved in litigation over the dis-
charge of arsenic waste onto the land and adjacent Waters. Charges
indicate that waste containing excessive arsenic was discharged
into, or adjacent to, Vince Bayou causing arsenic-laden water
drainage into public waters. This company and its predecessor have
a long history of plant operation at this site. Earlier, waste dis-
posal was accomplished by dumping the waste solids in open pits
and ditches on the company's property. This practice was aban-
doned in 1967 in favor of a proposed recycling process. However, as
of August 1971, actions were taken on behalf of the county to en-
join manufacturing operations at the plant because of alleged exces-
sive arsenic discharge into the public waters. No other information
is available regarding the current status of court actions or dis-
posal practices.
(5) Insecticide Dumping.
(a) In mid-1970, an applicator rinsed and cleaned a truck rig
after dumping unused Endrin into the Cuivre River at Mosco Mills,
-------
192 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Missouri. This act resulted in the killing of an estimated 100,000
fish and the river was closed to fishing for one year by the Missouri
Game and Fish Commission.
(b) In mid-1972, a chemical manufacturing company in Water-
loo, Iowa, burned technical mevinphos (phosdrin), resulting in
gross contamination to the plant area. Approximately 2,000 pounds
(908 kilograms) of previously packaged material were dumped arid
left for disposal. After discussion with EPA Region VII office per-
sonnel and appropriate Iowa agencies, the area was neutralized
with alkali and certain of the materials were repackaged for dis-
posal by a private hazardous waste disposal firm in Sheffield, Illi-
nois.
(6) Trace Phenol Discharge. During 1970, the Kansas City, Mis-
souri, water supply contained objectionable tastes and odors due to
a phenolic content. It was alleged, and subsequent investigation
indicated, that fiberglass wastes dumped along the river bank up-
stream was the source of the tastes and odors. The waste was coated
with phenol and was possibly being washed into the river. Action
was taken to have the dump closed and sealed.
(7) Fatality Caused by Discharge of Hydrocarbon Gases Into
River. In July 1969, an Assistant Dean at the University of South-
ern Mississippi died of asphyxiation while fishing in a boat in the
Leaf River near Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The victim's boat drifted
into a pocket of propane gas that reputedly had been discharged
into the river through a gasoline terminal "wash pipe" from a pe-
troleum refinery.
(8) Cyanide Discharge. Part of the Lowry AFB Bombing Range,
located 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) east of Denver was surplused
and given to Denver as a landfill site. As of July 1972, the Lowry
site was accepting, with the exception of highly radioactive wastes,
any wastes delivered without inquiry into the contents and without
keeping anything more than informal records of quantities de-
livered.
Laboratory tests of surface drainage have indicated the presence
of cyanide in ponded water downstream from the site. Significant
amounts of cyanide are discharged in pits at the disposal site, ac-
cording to the site operator. Short-lived radioactive wastes from a
nearby medical school and a hospital also are accepted at this site.
These wastes are apparently well protected, but are dumped di-
rectly into the disposal ponds rather than being buried separately.
The Denver County Commissioners received a complaint that
some cattle had died as the result of ingesting material washed
downstream from this site. Authorities feel this occurred because
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 193
of runoff caused by an overflow of the disposal ponds into nearby
Murphy Creek after a heavy rainstorm.
(9) Arsenic Dump—Groundwater Contamination. A laboratory
company in the north central United States has been utilizing the
same dump site since 1953 for solid waste disposal. Of the total
amount (500,000 cubic feet or 14,150 cubic meters) dumped as of
1972, more than half is waste arsenic. There are several superficial
monitoring wells (10-20 feet deep or 3.05-6.10 meters) located
around the dump site. Analyses of water samples have produced an
arsenic content greater than 175 ppm. The dump site is located
above a limestone bedrock aquifer, from which 70 percent of the
nearby city's residents obtain their drinking and crop irrigation
water. There are some indications that this water is being contami-
nated by arsenic seepage through the bedrock.
(10) Poisoning of Local Water Supply. Until approximately two
years prior to June 1972, Beech Creek, Waynesboro, Tennessee, was
considered pure enough to be a source of drinking water. At that
time, waste polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) from a nearby plant
began to be deposited in the Waynesboro city dump site. Dumping
continued until April 1972. Apparently, the waste, upon being off-
loaded at the dump, was pushed into a spring branch that rises
under the dump and then empties into Beech Creek. Shortly after
depositing of such wastes began, an oily substance appeared in the
Beech Creek waters. Dead fish, crawfish, and waterdogs were found
and supported wildlife also was being affected (e.g., two raccoons
were found dead). Beech Creek had been used for watering stock,
fishing, drinking water, and recreation for decades. Presently, the
creek seems to be affected for at least 10 miles (16.09 kilometers)
from its source and the pollution is moving steadily downstream to
the Tennessee River. Health officials have advised that the Creek
should be fenced off to prevent cattle from drinking the water.
Category II—Mismanagement of Waste Materials
In the presence of locally imposed air and water effluent restric-
tions/prohibitions, industrial concerns attempt to manage disposal
problems by storage, stockpiling, and/or lagooning. In many in-
stances, the waste quantities become excessive and environmental
perils evolve as a result of leaching during flooding or rupturing
of storage lagoons. Instances of this type of waste management
problem which have been reported are shown in the following:
(1) Fish Kills (one of many examples). On June 10, 1967, a dike
containing an alkaline waste lagoon for a steam generating plant
at Carbo, Virginia, collapsed and released approximately 400 acre-
-------
194 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
feet (493,400 cubic meters) of fly ash waste into the Clinch River.
The resulting contaminant slug moved at a rate of one mile/hr.
(1.6 kilometers/hour) for several days until it reached Norris Lake
in Tennessee; whereupon, it is estimated to have killed 216,200 fish.
All food organisms in the 4 mile (6.43 kilometers) stretch of river
immediately below Carbo were completely eliminated. The practice
of waste disposal by lagooning is a notoriously inadequate method
which lends itself to negligence and subsequent mishaps.
(2) Phosphate Slime Spill. On December 7, 1971, at a chemical
plant site in Fort Meade, Florida, a portion of a dike forming a
waste pond ruptured releasing an estimated two billion gallons
(7.58 billion liters) of slime composed of phosphatic clays and in-
soluble halides into Whidden Creek. Flow patterns of the creek led
to subsequent contamination of Peace River and the estuarine area
of Charlotte Harbor. The water of Charlotte Harbor took on a thick
milky white appearance. Along the river, signs of life were dimin-
ished, dead fish were sighted and normal surface fish activity was
absent. No living organisms were found in Whidden Creek down-
stream of the spill or in Peace River at a point eight miles down-
stream of Whidden Creek. Clam and crab gills were coated with the
milky substance and in general all benthic aquatic life was affected
in some way.
(3) Mismanagement of Heterogeneous Hazardous Waste. A firm
engaged in the disposal of spent chemicals generated in the Beau-
mont-Houston area ran into considerable opposition in Texas and
subsequently transferred its disposal operations to Louisiana. In
October, 1972, this firm was storing and disposing toxic chemicals
at two Louisiana locations: De Ridder and De Quincy. At the De
Ridder site, several thousand drums of waste (both metal- and
cardboard-type, some with lids and some without) were piled up at
the end of an airport runway apron within a pine tree seed orchard.
Many of the drums were popping their lids and leaking, and visible
vapors were emanating from the area. The pine trees beside the
storage area had died. At the same time, the firm was preparing to
bury hundreds of drums of hazardous wastes at the De Quincy
location, which is considered by EPA to be hydrogeologically un-
suitable for such land disposal. Finally, court action enjoined this
firm from using the De Ridder and De Quincy sites; however, the
company has just moved its disposal operations near Villa Platte
in Evangeline Parish, where the same problems exist.
(4) Arsenic Waste Mishap. Since August 1968, a commercial labo-
ratory in Myerstown, Pennsylvania, has disposed of its arsenic
waste by surface storage within the plant area. (Form of waste
materials not known.) This practice apparently has led to contain-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 195
ination of the ground and subsequent migrations into groundwaters
via leaching, ionic migration actions, etc., abetted by the geologic
and edaphic character of the plant site. In order to meet discharge
requirements and/or eliminate the waste hazard, the company has
had to design and construct a system of recovery wells to collect the
arsenic effluent from ground waters in the area. Recovered arsenic
and current arsenic waste (previously stored on the land) are now
retained in storage lagoons. Presumably, the sludge from these la-
goons is periodically reclaimed in some way. Lagoons of this type
are generally not well attended and frequently result in environ-
mental catastrophes. (As evidenced under case 1 above.)
(5) Contaminated Grain.
(a) Grant County, Washington. In 1972, mercury-treated grain
was found at the Wilson Creek Dump by an unsuspecting farmer.
He hauled it to his farm for livestock feed. The episode was dis-
covered just before the farmer planned to utilize the grain.
(b) Albuquerque, New Mexico. Three children in a family be-
came seriously ill, in 1970, after eating a pig which had been fed
corn treated with a mercury compound. Local health officials found
several bags of similarly treated corn in the community dump.
(6) Radioactive Waste; Steven County, Washington. Low level
radioactive waste is lying exposed on about 10 acres (4.05 hectares)
of ground and is subject to wind erosion. The waste comes from an
old uranium processing mill. County and State officials are con-
cerned because, although it is of low radioactivity level, it is the
same type that caused the public controversy at Grand Junction,
Colorado.
(7) Waste Stockpiling Hazard; King County, Washington.
(a) All types of waste chemicals have been dumped into the old
Dodgers Number Five Coal Mine shaft for years. Much of this
practice has stopped but sneak violations still occur.
(b) Expended pesticides have been stored in old wooden build-
ings in the area that are very susceptible to fire. Several fires have
occurred. In addition, large numbers of pesticide containers have
been stacked at open dumps.
(8) Chlorine Holding Pond Breach. A holding pond and tank at a
chemical manufacturing plant in Saltville, Virginia failed, spilling
chlorine, hypochlorites and ammonia into the North Fork Holston
River. River water samples showed concentration levels at 0.5
ppm hypochlorite, and 17.0 ppm of fixed ammonia. Dead fish were
sighted along the path of the flow of the river.
(9) Malpractice Hazard; Bingham County, Idaho. Several drums
-------
196 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
of a 15 year old chemical used for soil sterilization were discovered
in the warehouse of the weed control agency. It was taken to a
remote area where it was exploded with a rifle blast. Had it been
disturbed only slightly while in storage, several people would have
been killed.
(10) Explosive Waste; Kitswp County, Washington. Operations at
a Naval Ammunition Depot involved washing RDX (a high ex-
plosive) out of shells from 1955-1968, and the resulting wash water
went into a dump. In routine monitoring of wells in the area, the
RDX was found in the groundwater and in several cases the con-
centrations exceed the health tolerance level of 1 ppm.
(11) Unidentified Toxic Wastes. A disposal company undertook
to dispose some drums containing unidentified toxic residues. In-
stead of properly disposing of this material, the disposal company
dropped these drums off at a dump located in Cabayon, Riverside
County, California. Later, during a heavy flood, the drums were
unearthed, gave off poisonous gases, and contaminated the water.
Steps were taken to properly dispose of the unearthed drums.
(12) Container Reclamation. At a drum reclaiming plant in
northern California, 15 men were poisoned by gases given off from
the drums. It is presumed that this incident occurred because of
inadequate storage procedures by the company involved.
(13) Stockpiling of Hazardous Waste (Great Britain).* Several
sheep and cattle and a foxhound died, and many cattle became
seriously affected, on two farms close to a factory producing
rodenticides and pesticides. The drainage from the factory led into
a succession of ponds to which the animals had unrestricted access,
and from which they are therefore likely to have drunk. Investi-
gations showed that a field on the site was a dumping ground for
large metal drums and canisters, many of which had rusted away
their contents seeping into the ground. Residues from the manu-
facture of fluoroacetamide were dumped on the site, and percolated
into the drainage ditches leading to the farm ponds. Veterinary evi-
dence indicated the assimilation of fluoroacetamide compatible with
the animals, having drunk contaminated water. Ditches and ponds
were dredged and the sludge deposited on a site behind the factory.
All sludges and contaminated soil were subsequently excavated,
mixed with cement, put into steel drums capped with bitumen, and
dumped at sea. The presence of fluoroacetamide in the soil and
associated water samples persisted at very low, but significant
levels, and thus delayed the resumption of normal farming for
nearly two years.
* Case illustrates the similarity of problems that exist in highly industrialized nations.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 197
(14) Pesticides in Abandoned Factory. In the summer of 1972,
approximately 1,000 pounds (454 kilograms) of arsenic-containing
pesticide were discovered in an abandoned factory building in Cam-
den County, New Jersey. The building used to belong to a leather
tannery that had discontinued its operations.
(15) Ground Water Contamination by Chromium- and Zinc-con-
taining Sludge. An automobile manufacturing company in the New
York area is regularly disposing of tank truck quantities of
chromium- and zinc-containing sludge through a contract with a
trucking firm, that in turn has a subcontract with the owner of a
private dump. The sludge is dumped in a swampy area, resulting
in contamination of the ground water. The sludge constitutes a
waste residue of the automobile manufacturer's paint priming
operations.
(16) Disposal of Chromium Ore Residues. A major chemical com-
pany is currently depositing large quantities of chromium ore
residues on its own property in a major city on the East Coast.
These chromium ore residues are piled up in the open, causing
probable contamination of the ground water by leaching into the
soil.
(17) Dumping of Cadmium-containing Effluents into the Hudson
River. A battery plant in New York State for years was dumping
large amounts of cadium-containing effluents into the Hudson
River. The sediment resulting from the plant's effluents contained
about 100,000 ppm of cadmium. The firm now has agreed to de-
posit these toxic sediments in a specially insulated lagoon.
(18) Pesticide Poisoning. On July 3, 1972, a 23/2 year old child in
Hughes, Arkansas, became ill after playing among a pile of fifty-
five gallon (208 liter) drums. He was admitted to the hospital
suffering from symptoms of organophosphate poisoning. The
drums were located approximately fifty feet (15 meters) from
the parents' front door on city property. The city had procured
the drums from an aerial applicator to be used as trash con-
tainers. The residents were urged to pick up a drum in order to ex-
pedite trash collection. It has been determined that these drums
contained various pesticides, including methyl parathion, ethyl
parathion, toxaphene, DDT, and others. The containers were in
various states of deterioration, and enough concentrate was in evi-
dence to intoxicate a child or anyone else who was unaware of the
danger.
(19) Improper Disposal of Aldrin-treated Seed and Containers.
On July 9, 1969, in Patterson, Louisiana, the owner of a farm
noticed several pigs running out of a cane field; some of the ani-
mals appeared to be undergoing convulsions. It appears that aldrin-
-------
198 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
treated seed and containers had been dumped on the land in a
field and that the pigs, running loose had encountered this material.
Eleven of the pigs died. Analysis of rumen contents showed 230.7
ppm aldrin and 1.13 ppm dieldrin.
(20) Improper Pesticide Container Disposal. In May 1969, in
Jerome, Idaho, Di-Syston was incorporated into the soil in a
potato field. The "empty" paper bags were left in the field, and the
wind blew them into the adjacent pasture. Fourteen head of cattle
died, some with convulsions, after licking the bags. Blood samples
showed .0246 ppm Di-Syston.
(21) Ocean Dumping of Chemical Waste. The Houston Post re-
ported in December 1971 that large quantities of barrels contain-
ing chemical wastes had turned up in shrimpers' nets in the Gulf
of Mexico approximately 40 miles (64.3 kilometers) off the Texas
coastline. Aside from physical damages to nets and equipment, the
chemical wastes caused skin burning and eye irritation among
exposed shrimper crewmen. Recovered barrels reportedly bore the
names of two Houston-area plants—both of whom apparently had
used a disposal contractor specializing in deep sea disposal op-
erations.
Category HI—Radioactive Waste Disposal
(1) National Reactor Testing Station. In October 1968, the Idaho
Department of Health and the former Federal Water Quality
Administration made an examination of the waste treatment and
disposal practices at the AEG National Reactor Testing Station
(NRTS) near Idaho Falls, Idaho. There were three types of plant
wastes being generated: radioactive wastes, chemical or industrial
wastes, and sanitary wastes. It was found that there were no
observation wells to monitor the effects of the burial ground on
water quality, that low-level radioactive wastes were being dis-
charged into the ground water, that chemical and radioactive
wastes had degraded the ground water beneath the NRTS, and
that some sanitary wastes were being discharged into the ground
water supply by disposal wells.
In a report issued in April 1970, authorities recommended that
the AEG abandon the practice of burying radioactive waste above
the Snake Plain aquifer, remove the existing buried wastes to a
new site remote to the NRTS and hydrologically isolated from
groundwater supplies, and construct observation wells that are
needed to monitor the behavior and fate of the wastes.
(2) De-Commissioning of AEC Plant. The Enrico Fermi nuclear
reactor just outside of Detroit is closing. However, there still re-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 199
mains a substantial waste management problem. The owner of the
plant has set aside $4 million for de-commissioning the plant. A
preliminary de-commissioning plan and cost estimate have been
submitted to the AEC. However, the AEG acknowledges that costs
and procedures for de-commissioning are still unknown, since few
nuclear plants (and never one such as Fermi) have been de-
commissioned. As of this date, an answer is still being sought to
this waste disposal problem.
(3) Nuclear Waste Disposal. After a fire on May 11, 1969 at the
Rocky Flats plutonium production plant near Denver, Colorado, it
was discovered that since 1958 the company that operated the plant
had been storing outside on pallets fifty-five gallon drums of laden
oil contaminated with plutonium.* The drums corroded and the
plutonium-contaminated oils leaked onto the soil in the surround-
ing area. Soil sample radioactivity measurements made in 1970-71
at various locations on the Rocky Flats site indicated that the
surrounding area was contaminated 100 times greater than that
due to world-wide fallout. The increase in radioactivity as denned
by the health and safety laboratory of AEC was attributed to the
plutonium leakage from the stored fifty-five gallon drums rather
than any plutonium that might have been dispersed as a result of
the 1969 fire. Later the area where the plutonium contaminated
laden oil was spilled was covered with a four inch slab of asphalt
and isolated by means of a fence. The fifty-five gallon drums were
moved to a nearby building and the plutonium was salvaged from
the oil. The oil was dewatered and solidified into a grease-like
consistency. Then the drums and the solidified oil were sent to and
buried at the National Reactor Testing Station at Idaho Falls,
Idaho.
* Containing measurable quantities of plutonium.
-------
200 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Appendix B
HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAM DATA
Identifying and quantifying the Nation's hazardous waste
streams proved to be especially formidable, because historically
there has been little interest in quantifying specific amounts of
waste materials with the exception of radioactive wastes.
Distribution and volume data by Bureau of Census regions were
compiled on those non-radioactive waste streams designated as
hazardous (see Table B-l). Table B-2 identifies those states geo-
graphically distributed within the nine Bureau of Census regions.
The approach used is predicated on the assumption that the hazard-
ous properties of a waste stream will be those of the most hazard-
ous pure compound within that waste stream. Using threshold
levels established for the various hazardous properties, wastes
containing compounds with values more than or equal to these
thresholds are classified as hazardous. This approach takes ad-
vantage of the available hazard data on pure chemicals and avoids
speculation on potential compound interactions within a waste
stream. Table B-3 serves to illustrate what types of chemical
compounds in the Nation's waste streams could be regarded as
hazards to public health and the environment. It should be noted
that Table B-3 is not an authoritative enumeration of hazardous
compounds but a sample list which will be modified on the basis
of further studies.* Table B-4 identifies those radioactive isotopes
that are considered hazardous.f Detailed data sheets describing
the volumes, constituents, concentrations, hazards, disposal tech-
niques, and data sources for each waste stream are available in
EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762.
It is important to emphasize that while Table B-l is sufficiently
accurate for planning purposes, the indicated total national non-
radioactive hazardous waste volume of 10 million tons (9 million
metric tons) per year is not a firm number but an estimate based
on currently available information. A more accurate indication
of actual waste volumes will become available only after a compre-
hensive national waste inventory has been accomplished for specific
waste streams.
0 Compounds on the list should not be construed as those to be regulated under the proposed
Hazardous Waste Management Act.
t From a disposal standpoint.
-------
TABLE B-l
SUMMARY DATA FOR NONRADIOACTIVE WASTE STREAMS
Geographic Distribution—Fraction
\\c#
1031
333
1099
3312
331
331
1021
1092
3312
333
291
3691
3691
3692
3585
3555
3555
3555
3231
372
40
40
2879
2879
2879
Waste Stream Title
Arsenic trioxide from smelting industry
Duplicating equipment manufacturing wastes -
Aircraft plating wastes _ _' _
Arsenic wastes from transportation industry
Calcium arsenate contaminated containers ^ _
Carbamate pesticide contaminated containers
NE
.04
.02
.02
.05
.050
.001
.030
.117
.060
.013
.06
.105
.09
.123
.03
.0008
MA
.29
.33
.33
.05
.259
.03
.102
.236
.043
.138
.232
1.00
.19
.446
.25
.158
.02
.016
ENC
.01
.41
.42
.56
.404
.015
.175
.289
.556
.408
.20
.320
.23
.117
.655
.08
.382
WNC
.25
.01
.02
.02
.026
.07
.056
.111
.118
.049
.096
.08
.051
.01
.093
.154
.07
.070
SA
.01
.07
.09
.12
.068
.005
.019
.103
.117
.074
.040
.15
.019
.28
.057
.006
.16
.022
ESC
.04
.02
.02
.03
.055
.01
.031
.029
.019
.069
.06
.10
.013
.017
.16
.108
wsc
.04
.06
.03
.09
.044
.10
.417
.056
.017
.086
.09
.028
.04
.095
.35
.321
W
.19
.02
.02
.03
1.00
.72
.067
.07
.160
.134
.087*
.045
.04
.031
.325
.160
.03
.060
M
.13
.06
.05
.05
.28
.028
.70
.039
.012
.118
.011
.13
.019
.009
.09
.020
Volume (Ibs/yr)
5X10'
2X10»
8;:10*
5X108
6X10«
4X10' (Tacoma, Wa.)
5X10*
2X10*
8X108
5X10*
•M&W combined
2X10»
7X10= (Upstate,
New York)
4xl(P
9xlO«
4x10'
2X10* User
6X103 SIC #s
5X10»AG-01,02,07
•Classified by Bureau of Census regions.
NE = New England
MA = Mid Atlantic
ENC = East North Central
WNC = West North Central
SA = South Atlantic
ESC = East South Central
WSC = West South Central
W = West
M = Mountain
—
a
H
K
2
M
OQ
1
to
o
-------
TABLE B-l—Continued
Geographic Distribution—Fraction
K>
O
to
SIC #
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2879
2816
22
2865
283
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
2892
Waste Stream Title
Chlorinated aliphatic pesticide contaminated containers
Miscellaneous organic pesticide contaminated containers —
Miscellaneous organic insecticide contaminated containers--
Wastes from pesticide-herbicide manufacture (arsenites) —
Chlorinated aliphatic herbicide wastes (DOD)
Phenoxy herbicide wastes (DOD)
Halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon fumigant wastes (DOD)__
Chromate wastes from pigments and dyes
Chromate wastes from textile dying
Wastes from production of nitrocellulose propellants and
smokeless powder
Solid waste from old primers and detonators
NE
.381
.496
03
.02
.014
.148
.048
.043
035
.106
.017
.147
.005
168
.196
539
.0002
1.0
.005
.015
.101
015
056
—
—
MA
.168
02
.03
.162
.084
007
.125
.050
033
.085
.107
.121
.075
130
.062
200
059
.0001
.075
.170
.178
170
348
.041
.005
014
.060
.005
ENC
.076
.023
.08
.04
.385
.054
.047
.018
196
106
.019
.320
.145
009
.027
800
.0007
.145
.156
.034
156
183
.094
002
.046
.430
WNC
.418
.017
.07
.03
.068
.039
.028
.125
321
.033
.138
.372
.074
.074
.047
.005
047
.089
457
.394
002
.387
.454
SA
.228
17
.28
.162
.197
Oil
.441
.139
031
106
.306
.013
.299
.447
.649
343
.0008
.299
.156
.568
156
100
492
397
.477
.42
.001
ESC
.105
17
.32
.123
.143
764
.001
.192
030
424
.211
.003
.207
059
.849
.207
.111
.034
111
033
027
.19
.006
WSC
.010
.003
.35
.05
.041
.148
.218
.036
.175
.067
.042
.133
.011
.090
.010
.149
.090
.265
.014
265
060
004
718
1 0
.006
—
W
.010
.165
08
.22
.034
.170
.266
.208
.146
.095
.044
.011
.058
.246
.0004
.058
.060
.060
060
115
012
255
39
.014
M
.006
.03
.01
.014
.017
.007
.049
.141
.003
.024
.002
.046
.057
.0002
.046
.020
.006
.020
Oil
.009
023
009
.025
.084
Volume (Ibs/yr)
Forestry -08
2X10' Trans. -40,
41,42,44,45
1X10*
1X10*
4X10<
5X103
8X10*
1X10=
2X10B
9X103
2X10=
6X10'
3X103
5X103
2X103
8X10°
2X102
2X107 maximum
5X10°
9X10°
1X10'
8X10=
6X10=
6X10"
7x106
3X10=
o
o
g
1-3
I—I
o
CO
I
g
i-3
-------
TABLE B-l—Continued
Geographic Distribution—Fraction
SIC #
2892
2879
2879
2892
2892
2892
2892
0175
Oil
072
9711
2879
2879
9711
9711
9221
9711
9711
9711
9711
9711
9711
31
2822
2822
2824
281
28211
9711
Waste Stream Title
Contaminates and wastes from primary explosives
production
Contaminated and waste industrial propellants and
explosives
Spent filter media from military operations
Wastes from oroduction of chlorODicrin-
NE
076
076
002
05
017
115
076
47
22
046
.015
.10
MA
.096
.135
.135
.006
.088
.148
.135
.002
.138
.29
.07
07
.121
.170
.21
X
ENC
.001
.124
.124
.346
.01
.15
.371
.136
.124
.001
.189
.29
.14
.14
.101
.156
.21
WNC
.898
.080
.080
.174
—
.213
.073
.086
.51
.03
.018
.047
.16
SA
.156
.156
.218
.50
.33
.053
.141
.156
.015
.022
.086
.11
.11
.404
.156
.14
ESC
.001
.062
.062
.104
.22
.060
.057
.062
.031
.044
.05
.11
.11
.182
.111
.07
wsc
.108
.108
.127
.35
.081
.093
.107
.001
.252
1 0
.004
.50
.50
.101
.265
.10
X
W
.001
.200
.200
.001
.594
.266
.655
.09
.094
.183
.202
.926
.209
.02
.03
.07
.07
.027
.060
.02
XX
M
.003
.059
.059
.010
.406
.004
.344
.03
.023
1.0
.054
.058
.024
.144
.020
Volume (Ibs/yr)
4X10°
4X10»
4X10*
1X10?
2xlO»
5X10=
3X10*
Unknown
3X109 (Rocky Mountain
Arsenal)
3X108
2X10«
3X10«
3xlO«
2X10=
(Vance Air Force Base, OK)
215
2X10?
5x10° (probaly too dilute
to be of concern)
1X10«
8X10'
5X10'
Neg.
O
Gl
h-4
o
H
S
•7,
H
CD
fc
o
»
H
"O
O
W
i-3
tc
CO
-------
TABLE B-l—Continued
Geographic Distribution—Fraction
K)
O
sic#
2899
2818
2611
2818
2818
2821
2821
2821
2491
2865
2491
287
2819
3339
2813
2812
2869
2869
2819
2813
2819
2869
287
2819
2873
3339
2819
2869
2873
2813
2813
2813
Waste Stream Title
N-butane dehydrogenation butadiene production wastes
Residue from manufacture of ethylene dichloride/vinyl
chloride
Cyanide production wastes- _
Hydrazine production wastes ..
Intermediate agricultural product wastes — Nitric acid
Potassium chromate production wastes
Selenium production wastes ..
Tetraethyl and tetramethyl lead production wastes
Waste bromine pentafluoride-
Waste chlorine trifluoride __
NE
037
046
046
007
007
005
015
.02
.007
.007
X
.005
.19
MA
.221
.121
.021
.121
029
029
075
170
1 0
1.0
.11
x
x
.101
1 0
.101
x
.075
.06
.75
150
.05
ENC
.372
05
.02
.03
.101
.015
101
.117
117
145
.156
.10
x
x
.166
.166
.145
.015
.04
243
.09
x
x
WNC
.153
.018
.018
.060
060
.074
.047
.075
.075
.074
.005
.18
SA
.040
.05
x
.05
.404
.163
.404
.267
.267
.299
.156
.19
.147
.147
x
.299
.60
.437
.09
ESC
.041
.182
.171
.182
.141
.141
207
.111
.22
.207
.207
.207
.10
.15
wsc
.057
90
.93
.92
.101
.533
.101
.174
.174
.090
.265
.24
x
x
.147
.147
x
.090
.01
.170
.63
.29
1.0
x
W
.072
.05
.027
.117
.027
.162
.162
.058
.060
.12
.096
.096
.058
.01
.37
.14
M
.009
—
—
.042
.042
.046
.020
.054
.054
.046
.01
96
.25
Volume (Ibs/yr)
8X100
IX10" Sludge
2X155 Still bottoms
8X10= Sludge
3 XlO5 Sludge
2X10'
4X10"
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
IX 10s
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2X10=
1X108
IXlO" (dry basis
chromate)
2X101(particulates)
3X108
3X10S
2X106 (dry basis)
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
o
o
TJ
E
H
HH
O
CQ
a
>TJ
TJ
f
-------
TABLE B-l—Continued
Geographic Distribution—Fraction
SIC #
2819
2879
2879
2819
3339
2813
33
34
Waste Stream Title
NE
33
331
9711
281E
22
283
283
285
285
28
9711
Waste from production of barium salts .007
Organo-phosphate pesticide production wastes .115
Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide production wastes .115
Waste from manufacture of mercuric cyanide —
Thallium production wastes —
Arsine production wastes x
Metal finishing wastes .115
Aluminum anodizing bath with drag out .115
Brass plating wastes .115
Cadmium plating wastes .131
Chrome plating wastes .115
Cyanide copper plating wastes .115
Finishing effluents .115
Metal cleaning wastes .115
Plating preparation wastes .115
Silver plating wastes .115
Zinc plating wastes .115
Metal finishing chromic acid .244
Cold finishing wastes .03
Waste chemicals from military
Etiological materials from commercial production
Cooling tower blowdown .005
Cadmium-selenium pigment wastes
Mercury bearing textile cleaning wastes .101
Pharmaceutical arsenic wastes .056
Pharmaceutical mercurial wastes .056
Water-based paint sludge .044
Solvent-based paint sludge .044
Waste or contaminated perchloric acid
Military sodium chromate (stored) . —
MA
.101
.148
.148
1.0
—
X
.179
.179
.179
.285
.179
.179
.179
.179
.179
.179
.179
.198
.34
.150
.178
.348
.348
.243
.243
ENC
.166
.136
.136
—
—
X
.379
.379
.379
.321
.379
.379
.379
.379
.379
.379
.379
.149
.43
.170
.034
.183
.183
.269
.269
WNC
.075
.073
.073
—
—
—
.046
.046
.046
.045
.046
.046
.046
.046
.046
.046
.046
.095
.01
.060
.005
.089
.089
.072
.072
SA
.147
.141
.141
—
—
—
.050
.050
.050
.049
.050
.050
.050
.050
.050
.050
.050
.081
.07
—
.568
.100
.100
.103
.103
ESC
.207
.057
.057
—
—
X
.015
.015
.015
.023
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.032
.02
.58
.034
.033
.033
.041
.041
WSC
.147
.093
.093
—
1.0
X
.036
.036
.036
.036
.036
.036
.036
.036
.036
.036
.036
.031
.05
—
.014
.060
.060
.069
.069
W
.096
.183
.183
—
—
X
.169
.169
.169
.103
.169
.169
.169
.169
.169
.169
.169
.031
.01
—
.060
.115
.115
.147
.147
M
.054
.054
.054
.011
.011
.011
.007
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.041
.04
— — .035
.006
.011
.011
.012
.012
Volume (Ibs/yr)
Neg.
6X10'
2X108
Neg.
Neg. (small amount in
Colorado)
IX10*
4X107 Cyanide solution
8X108 Metal sludges
lxlO«
O
c!
5x10°
3X106
3X10
2X107 (as Chromate)
Neg.
Neg.
3X10'
4X107
Neg.
2,765 (Okinawa)
TOTAL approximately 2 x 10"> Ib/yr.
or 9 X 10° kilograms/yr.
(10 million T/yr or approx. 9 million
metric tons).
H
i
s
to
O
Ol
-------
206
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE B-2
STATES WITHIN BUREAU OF CENSUS REGIONS
New England
Maine
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
East South Central
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Mid Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic
New York Wisconsin
Pennsylvania Michigan
New Jersey Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
West South Central
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Texas
Louisiana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Mountain
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Arizona
New Mexico
Utah
Nevada
Colorado
West Virginia
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
District of Columbia
Pacific (West)
Washington
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Alaska
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
207
TABLE B-3
A SAMPLE LIST OF NONRADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS
MISCELLANEOUS INORGANICS
Ammonium Chromate
Ammonium Dichromate
Antimony Pentafluoride
Antimony Trifluoride
Arsenic Trichloride
Arsenic Trioxida
Cadmium (Alloys)
Cadmium Chloride
Cadmium Cyanide
Cadmium Nitrate
Cadmium Oxide
Cadmium Phosphate
Cadmium Potassium Cyanide
Cadmium (Powdered)
Cadmium Sulfate
Calcium Arsenate
Calcium Arsenite
Calcium Cyanides
Chromic Acid
Copper Arsenate
Copper Cyanides
Cyanide (Ion)
Decaborane
Dihprane
Hexaborane
Hydrazine
Hydrazine Azide
Lead Arsenate
Lead Arsenite
Lead Azide
Lead Cyanide
Magnesium Arsenite
Manganese Arsenate
Mercuric Chloride
Mercuric Cyanide
Mercuric Diammonium Chloride
Mercuric Nitrate
Mercuric Sulfate
Mercury
Nickel Carbonyl
Nickel Cyanide
Pentaborane -9
Pentaborane —11
Perchloric Acid (to 72%)
Phosgene (Carbonyl Chloride)
Potassium Arsenite
Potassium Chromate
Potassium Cyanide
Potassium Dichromate
Selenium
Silver Azide
Silver Cyanide
Sodium Arsenate
Sodium Arsenite
Sodium Bichromate
Sodium Chromate
Sodium Cyanide
Sodium Monofluoroacetate
Tetraborane
Thallium Compounds
Zinc Arsenate
Zinc Arsenite
Zinc Cyanide
HALOGENS & INTERHALOGENS
Bromine Pentafluoride
Chlorine
Chlorine Pentafluoride
Chlorine Trifluoride
Fluorine
Perchloryl Fluoride
MISCELLANEOUS ORGANICS
Acrolein
Alkyl Leads
Carcinogens (In General)
Chloropicrin
Copper Acetylide
Copper Chlorotetrazole
Cyanuric Triazide
Diazodinitrophenol (DDNP)
Dimethyl Sulfate
Di nitrobenzene
Dinitro Cresols
Dinitrophenol
Dinitrotoluene
Dipentaerythritol Hexanitrate
(DPEHN)
GB (Propoxy(2)-methylphosphoryl
fluoride)
Gelatinized Nitrocellulose (PNC)
Glycol Dinitrate
Gold Fulminate
Lead 2,4-Dinitroresorcinate (LDNR)
Lead Styphnate
Lewisite (2-Chloroethenyl Dichloroarsine)
Mannitol Hexanitrate
Nitroaniline
Nitrocellulose
Nitrogen Mustards (2,2', 2" Trichlorotri-
ethylamine)
Nitroglycerin
Organic Mercury Compounds
Pentachlorophenol
Picric Acid
Potassium Dinitrobenzfuroxan (KDNBF)
Silver Acetylide
Silver Tetrazene
Tear Gas (CN) (Chloroacetophenone)
Tear Gas (CS) (2-Chlorobenzylidene
Malononitrile)
Tetrazene
VX (Ethoxy-methyl phosphoryl N,N
dipropoxy-(2-2), thiocholine)
ORGANIC HALOGEN COMPOUNDS
Aldrin
Chlorinated Aromatics
Chlordane
Copper Acetoarsenite
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid)
DDD
DDT
Demeton
Dieldrin
Endrin
Ethylene Bromide
Fluorides (Organic)
Guthion
Heptachlor
Lindane
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
-------
208
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE B-4
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS RADIONUCLIDES'
Nuclida
H-3
Be-10
C-14
Na-22
Ci-36
Ar-39
Ca-41
Ca-45
V-49
Mn-54
Fe-55
Co-60
Ni-59
Ni-63
Se-79
Kr-85
Sr-90"
Zr-93"
Nb-93m
Nb-94
Mo-93
Tc-99
Ru-106"
Rh-102m
Pd-107
Ag-llOm
Cd-109
Cd-113m
Sn-121m
Sn-123
Sn-126
Sb-125
Te-127m
1-129
Cs-134
Cs-135
Cs-137"
Ce-144"
Pm-146
Pm-147
Half-Life, Years
12.33
1,600,000.
5730.
2.601
301,000.
269.
130,000.
0.447
0.907
0.856
2.7
5.27
80,000.
100.
65,000.
10.73
29.
950,000.
12.
20,000.
3,000.
213,000. -
1.011
0.567
6,500,000.
0.690
1.241
14.6
50.
0.353
100,000.
2.73
0.299
15,900,000.
2.06
2,300,000.
30.1
0.779
5.53
2.5234
Source t
1,2,3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2,3
2
2
1
1
1,3
1
1,2
2
2
1
1,3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,3
1,3
1
1,3
Nuclide
Sm-151
Eu-152
Eu-154
Eu-155
Gd-153
Ho-166m
Tm-170
Ta-182
W-181
lr-192m
Pb-210"
Bi-210
Po-210
Ra-226"
Ra-228"
Ac-227"
Th-228"
Th-229"
Th-230"
Pa-231**'
U-232"
U-233*'*
U-234"
U-236
Np-237
Pu-236"
Pu-238"
Pu-239
Pu-240"
Pu-241"
Pu-242*«
Am-241**
Am-242m"
Am-243"
Cm-242"
Cm-243**
Cm-244"
Cm-245"
Cm-246"
Cm-247"
Half-Life, Years
93.
13.
8.6
4.8
0.662
1200.
0.353
0.315
0.333
241.
22.3
3,500,000.
0.379
1,600.
5.75
21.77
1.913
7,340.
77,000.
32,500.
72.
158,000.
244,000.
23,420,000.
2,140,000.
2.85
87.8
24,390.
6,540.
15.
387,000.
433.
152.
7,370.
0.446
28.
17.9
8,500.
4,760.
15,400,000.
Source t
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
1,2
1
2,3
1.2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,3,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,3
1
1
1,3
1
1,3
1
1
1
'Criteria for inclusion of nuclides are:
(a) That they have half-lives greater than 100 days. Nuclides with half-lives less than 100 days are assumed
to decay to insignificance before disposal or are included in their long half-life parents. Note that this excludes
nuclides such as 1-131 with an 8.065-day half-life.
(b) That they shall not be naturally occurring because of their own long half-lives. This table excludes such
nuclides as K-40, Rb-87, Th-232, U-235, and U-238 with half-lives greater than 10« years. There are also
75 potentially hazardous radionuclides that occur in research quantities that have not been included in this
table.
t Source terms:
(1) Found in high-level radioactive wastes from fuel reprocessing plants, both government and industry.
(2) Found in other nuclear power wastes such as spent fuel cladding wastes, reactor emissions and mine and
mill tailings.
(3) Found in wastes of nonnuclear power origin such as nuclear heat sources, irradiation sources, and bio-
medical applications.
••Indicates hazardous daughter radionuclides are present with the parent.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 209
Appendix C
DECISION MODEL FOR SCREENING, SELECTING, AND
RANKING HAZARDOUS WASTES
This preliminary decision model was developed for interim use*
in order to screen and select hazardous compounds and rank haz-
ardous wastes. This appendix provides an explanation of the
terminology and definitions utilized, and the exact mechanism for
screening, selecting, and ranking.
It is essential to make a clear distinction between development
and application of criteria for purposes of designating hazardous
wastes and development and application of a priority ranking
system for hazardous wastes despite the fact that similar or related
data must be manipulated. The distinction is that the hazardous
waste criteria relate solely to the intrinsic hazard of the waste on
uncontrolled release to the environment regardless of quantity,
pathways to man or other critical organisms. Therefore criteria
such as toxicity, phytotoxicity, genetic activity, and bioconcentra-
tion were utilized.
In contrast, in the development of a priority ranking system, it is
obvious that the threat to public health and environment from a
given hazardous waste is strongly dependent upon the quantity of
the waste involved, the extent to which present treatment tech-
nology and regulatory activities mitigate against the threat, and
the pathways to man or other critical organisms.
Criteria for Screening and Selection
The screening- criteria are based purely on the inherent or in-
trinsic characteristics of the waste as derived from its constituent
hazardous compounds. The problem in seeking a set of criteria
becomes one of establishing for public health and the environment
some acceptable level of tolerance. Wastes displaying character-
istics outside of these predetermined tolerance levels are desig-
nated as hazardous. This approach requires that defensible
thresholds be selected for each tolerance level. For example, if the
toxicity threshold is defined as an LD50 of 5,000 mg/Kg of body
weight or less, all wastes displaying equal or lower mean lethal
dose levels would be designated hazardous. Similar numeric thresh-
old values were developed for other basic physical, chemical or
biological criteria utilized in the screening phase of the decision
* The decision model used for purposes of this study is not nearly as sophisticated as that
required for standard setting purposes.
-------
210 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
model. Ideally then, the decision criteria for designating hazardous
wastes could be based upon numeric evaluations of intrinsic toxi-
cological, physical, and chemical data.
In addition, a criteria system for screening hazardous wastes
must retain a degree of flexibility. This is self-evident because all
potential wastes cannot now be identified, let alone their compo-
sition. Consequently, it appears that a technically sound and ad-
ministratively workable criteria system must have levels of
tolerance against which any waste stream can be compared.
As a result a preliminary screening model was developed as
illustrated in Figure C-l. Each stage of the screening mechanism
compares the characteristics of a waste stream to some preset
standard. Qualification due to any one or more screens auto-
matically designates a waste as hazardous. Explanations of those
terms that have been utilized in the screening model in Figure C-l
are enclosed at the end of this appendix.
Priority Ranking of Wastes
There is little doubt that, on the basis of intrinsic properties
alone, many wastes will qualify as hazardous wastes. Therefore it
was necessary to rank these wastes in priority fashion so that
those presenting the most imminent threats to public health and
the environment receive the greatest attention.
To assess the magnitude of the threat posed by hazardous wastes
is difficult. Such a determination requires input concerning the
inherent hazards of the wastes, the quantities of waste produced,
and the ease with which those hazards can be eliminated or cir-
cumvented. These considerations were incorporated into numerical
factors, which in turn were used to determine the priority-of-
concern of a particular waste. The final numerical factor is de-
signed to represent the volume of the environment potentially
polluted to a critical level by a given waste. The assumption is made
that all sectors of the environment are equally valuable so that a
unit volume of soil is as important as a unit volume of water or
air. This simplification does not reflect the fact that atmospheric
and aquatic contaminants are more mobile than terrestrial ones,
but does recognize the problem of environmental transfer from
one phase to another.
The numerical factor is derived by dividing the volume of a
waste by its lowest critical product. This may be expressed mathe-
matically as
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 211
CP
where R = ranking factor
Q = annual production quantity for the waste being
ranked
CP = critical product for the waste being ranked
A critical product is the lowest concentration at which any of
the hazards of concern become manifest in a given environment
multiplied by an index representative of the waste's mobility into
that environment. Hence, for a waste which will be discharged to
water or to a landfill where leaching will occur, the product might
be the 96 hour TLm to fish for that waste (e.g. 1 mg/1) multiplied
by its solubility index. The solubility index is defined as a di-
mensionless number between 1 and infinity obtained by dividing
106 mg/1 by the solubility of the waste in mg/1. A waste soluble in
water to 500,000 mg/1 has a solubility index of:
SI = 10V5 X 106 = 2
This presumes that all wastes miscible in water or soluble to more
than 1,000,000 mg/1 will have similar mobility patterns and thus
should receive a maximum index of 1. The critical product for the
example waste would then be:
CP = 96 hr TLm X SI
CP = 1 mg/1 X 2 = 2 mg/1
Similarly, for atmospheric pollutants the critical product might
be the LCSQ multiplied by the volatility index. This index would be
derived by dividing atmospheric pressure under ambient conditions
by the vapor pressure of the waste. Potential for suspension of
dusts in air would be given a mobility index of 1.
The aqueous and atmospheric environments are of greatest con-
cern since discharge to the land represents major hazards in the
form of volatilization of wastes or leaching. Where data are avail-
able on phytotoxicity or other hazards related to direct contact
with wastes in soil, the critical product for ranking would be
derived from use of the critical concentration at which the hazard
becomes apparent, and a mobility index of 1.
Actual waste stream data is most desirable for use in the priority
ranking formulation. However, since such data are generally lack-
ing, the additive estimations recommended for interim use can be
employed for priority ranking until waste stream data become
available.
-------
212
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
FIGURE C-l
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION
OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE SCREENING MODEL'
WASTE STREAMS
DOES WASTE CONTAIN
RADIOACTIVE CONSTITUTES
>MPC LEVELS?
NO
IS WASTE SUBJECT TO
BIOCONCENTRATION?
NO
IS WASTE FLAMMABILITY
IN NFPA CATEGORY 4?
NO
IS WASTE REACTIVITY
IN NFPA CATEGORY 4?
NO
DOES WASTE HAVE AN ORAL LDM
<50 MG/KG?
NO
IS WASTE INHALATION TOXICITY
200 ppm @ GAS OR MIST?
LCao<2 MG/I AS DUST?
NO
IS WASTE DERMAL PENETRATION
TOXICITY LD«o<200 MG/KG?
NO
IS WASTE DERMAL IRRITATION
REACTION < GRADE 87
NO
•DOES WASTE HAVE AQUATIC
96 HR TLM<1000 MG/I?
NO
IS WASTE PHYTOTOXICITY
IU<1000 MG/L?
NO
DOES WASTE CAUSE GENETIC
CHANGES?
NO
OTHER WASTES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
HAZARDOUS WASTES
•Definitions of terms are given on p. 213.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 213
Definitions of Abbreviations Used in the Screening Model in
Table C-l
Maximum Permissible Concentration (MFC) Levels. These are
levels of radioisotopes in waste streams which if continuously
maintained, would result in maximum permissible doses to occu-
pationally-exposed workers, and may be regarded as indices of the
radiotoxicity of the different radionuclides.
Bioconcentration (bioaccumulation, biomagnification). The process
by which living organisms concentrate an element or compound to
levels in excess of those in the surrounding environment.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Category 4 Flammable Materials. These materials include very
flammable gases, very volatile flammable liquids, and materials
that in the form of dusts or mists readily form explosive mixtures
when dispersed in air.
NFPA Category 4 Reactive Materials. These are materials which
in themselves are readily capable of detonation or of explosive
decomposition or reaction at normal temperatures and pressures.
Lethal Dose Fifty (LD50). A calculated dose of a chemical sub-
stance which is expected to kill 50 percent of a population of
experimental animals exposed through a route other than respira-
tion. Dose concentration is expressed in milligrams per kilogram
of body weight.
Lethal Concentration Fifty (LC60). A calculated concentration
which when administered by the respiratory route would be ex-
pected to kill 50 percent of a population of experimental animals
during an exposure of 4 hours. Ambient concentration is expressed
in milligrams per liter.
Grade 8 Dermal Irritation. An indication of necrosis resulting
from skin irritation caused by application of a 1 percent chemical
solution.
96 Hour TLm (median threshold limit). That concentration of a
material at which it is lethal to 50 percent of the test population
over a 96 hour exposure period. Ambient concentration is ex-
pressed in milligrams per liter.
Phytotoxicity. Ability to cause poisonous or toxic reactions in
plants. „ ,
Median Inhibitory Limit (ILm). That concentration at which a
50 percent reduction in the biomass, cell count, or photosynthetic
activity of the test culture occurs when compared to a control
culture over a 14 day period. Ambient concentration is expressed
in milligram per liter.
-------
214 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Genetic Changes. Molecular alterations of the deoxyribonucleic or
ribonucleic acids of mitotic or meiotic cells occurring from chemi-
cals or electromagnetic or particulate radiation.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 215
Appendix D
SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES
The objectives of hazardous waste treatment are the destruction
or recovery for reuse of hazardous substances and/or conversion of
these substances to innocuous forms which are acceptable for un-
controlled disposal. Several unit processes are usually required for
complete treatment of a given waste stream. In some cases, hazard-
ous residues result from treatment which cannot be destroyed,
reused or converted to innocuous forms. These residues, therefore,
require controlled storage or disposal.
This appendix presents a description of each of the treatment
and disposal processes examined during this study. No claim is
made that these hazardous waste treatment processes or combina-
tions of processes and storage or disposal methods are environ-
mentally acceptable. Treatment technology can be grouped into the
following categories: physical, chemical, thermal, and biological.
These processes are all utilized to some extent by both the public
and private sectors. However, treatment processes have had only
limited application in hazardous waste management because of
economic constraints, and, in some cases, because of technological
constraints.
The physical treatment processes are utilized to concentrate
waste brines and remove soluble organics and ammonia from
aqueous wastes. Processes such as flocculation, sedimentation, and
nitration are widely used throughout industry, and their primary
function is the separation of precipitated solids from the liquid
phase. Ammonia stripping is utilized for removing ammonia from
certain hazardous waste streams. Carbon sorption will remove
many soluble organics from aqueous waste streams. Evaporation
is utilized to concentrate brine wastes in order to minimize the
cost of ultimate disposal.
The chemical treatment processes are also a vital part of proper
hazardous waste management. Neutralization is carried out in
part by reacting acid wastes with basic wastes. Sulfide precipita-
tion is required in order to remove toxic metals like arsenic,
cadmium, mercury, and antimony. Oxidation-reduction processes
are utilized in treating cyanide and chrpmium-6 bearing wastes.
Thermal treatment methods are used for destroying or con-
verting solid or liquid combustible hazardous wastes. Incineration
is the standard process used throughout industry for destroying
liquid and solid wastes. Pyrolysis is a relatively new thermal
-------
216 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
process that is used to convert hazardous wastes into more useful
products, such as fuel gases and coke.
Biological treatment processes can also be used for biodegrading
organic wastes; however, careful consideration needs to be given
to the limitations of these processes. These systems can operate
effectively only within narrow ranges of flow, composition, and
concentration variations. Biological systems generally do not work
on solutions containing more than 1-5 percent salts. Systems which
provide the full range of biodegradation facilities usually require
large land areas. Toxic substances present a constant threat to
biological cultures. In summary biological treatment processes
should be used only when the organic waste stream is diluted and
fairly constant in its composition.
Disposal methods currently used vary depending upon the form
of the waste stream (solid or liquid), transportation costs, local
ordinances, etc. Dumps and landfills are utilized for all types of
hazardous wastes; ocean disposal and deep well injection are used
primarily for liquid hazardous wastes. Engineered storage or a
secure landfill should be utilized for those hazardous wastes for
which no adequate treatment processes exist.
In Table D-l, each of the processes evaluated by EPA is de-
scribed in more detail. Also provided is an assessment of each
process's waste handling capabilities. The most widely applicable
processes are incineration, neutralization, and reduction.
-------
TABLE D-l
SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES
Physical Treatment Processes
Description
Waste Handling Capability
1. Reverse Osmosis—
2. Dialysis
3. Electrodialysis
4. Evaporation
5. Carbon Sorption
1. The physical transport of a solvent across a membrane boundary,
where external pressure is applied to the side of less solvent concentra-
tion so that the solvent will flow in the opposite direction. This allows
solvent to be extracted from a solution, so that the solution is con-
centrated and the extracted solvent is relatively pure.
2. A process by which various substances in solution having widely
different molecular weights may be separated by solute diffusion through
semi-permeable membranes. The driving force is the difference in
chemical activity of the transferred species on the two sides of the
membrane.
3. Similar to dialysis in that dissolved solids are separated from their
solvent by passage through a semi-permeable membrane. It differs
from dialysis in its dependence on an electric field as the driving force
for the separation.
4. The removal of solvent as vapor from a solution or slurry. This is
normally accomplished by bringing the solvent to its boiling point to
effect rapid vaporization. Heat energy is supplied to the solvent and
the vapor evolved must be continuously removed from above the liquid
phase to prevent its accumulation. The vapor may or may not be re-
covered depending on its value. Thus, the principal function of evapora-
tion is the transfer of heat to the liquid to be evaporated.
5. Sorption is said to occur when a substance is brought into contact
with a solid and is held at the surface or internally by physical and/or
chemical forces. The solid is called the sorbent and the sorbed substance
is called the sorbate. The amount of sorbate held by a given quantity
1. Almost any dissolved solid can be treated by reverse osmosis, pro-
vided the concentrations are not too high and it is practical to adjust
the pH to range 3-8.
2. The oldest continuing commercial use of dialysis is in the textile
industry. Dialysis is particularly applicable when concentrations are high
and dialysis coefficients are disparate. It is a suitable means of sep-
aration for any materials on the hazardous materials list which form
aqueous solutions.
3. Electrodialysis is applicable when it is desired to separate out a
variety of ionized species from an unionized solvent such as water.
lonizable nitrates and phosphates (e.g. PbfNOsJa, Has POt) are re-
moved with varying degrees of efficiency. With regard to NDS, electro-
dialysis is applicable for the treatment of waste streams where it is
desirable to reduce the concentrations of ionizable species in the inter-
mediate range (10,000 ppm to 500 ppm) over a broad range of pH
(e.g., pH 1 to 14). If an effluent of concentration lower than 500 ppm
is desired, the electrodialysis effluent could be fed into another treat-
ment process.
4. Evaporation processes are widely used throughout industry for the
concentration of solutions and for the production of pure solvents.
Evaporation represents the most versatile wastewater processing method
available that is capable of producing a high quality effluent. It is,
however, one of the most costly processes and is therefore generally
limited to the treatment of wastewaters with high solids concentrations
or to wastewater where very high decontamination is required (e.g.,
radioactive wastes).
5. Activated carbon sorption has been used to remove dissolved re-
fractory organics from municipal waste streams and to clean up indus-
trial waste streams. It has been used to remove some heavy metals and
other inorganics from water. Carbon sorption can remove most types of
§
^
U
H
i
to
-------
TABLE D-l—Continued
to
M
oo
Physical Treatment Processes
Description
Waste Handling Capability
of sorbent depends upon several factors including the surface area per
unit volume (or weight) of the sorbent and the intensity of the attrac-
tive forces. Activated carbon has been historically used to remove
organic and other contaminants from water.
6. Ammonia Stripping
.— 6. Ammonia can be readily removed from alkaline aqueous wastes by
stripping with steam at atmospheric pressure. The waste stream, at or
near its boiling point, is introduced at the top of a packed or bubble
cap tray type column and contacted concurrently with steam. Due to its
high partial pressure over alkaline solutions, ammonia is condensed
and reclaimed for sale, and liquid effluents from i properly designed
steam stripping column will be essentially ammonia free.
7. Filtration 7. This process involves the physical removal of the solid constitutes
from the aqueous waste stream. A slurry is forced against a filter
medium. The pores of the medium are small enough to prevent the
passage of some of the solid particles; others impinge on the fiber of
the medium. Consequently, a cake builds up on the filter and after the
initial deposition, the cake itself serves as the barrier. The capacity of
this process is governed by the rate of the fluid filtrate through the
bed formed by the solid particles.
8. Sedimentation (Settling) 8. This process is used to separate aqueous waste streams from the
particles suspended in them. The suspension is placed in a tank, and
the particles are allowed to settle out; the fluid can then be removed
from above the solid bed. The final state is that of a packed bed re-
sembling a filter cake if the process is allowed to continue long enough.
9. Flocculation 9. This process is used when fine particles in a waste stream are dif-
ficult to separate from the medium in which they are suspended. These
waste constitutes are in the low and fractional micron-range of sizes;
they settle too slowly for economic sedimentation and they are often
difficult to filter. Thus, this process is applied to gather these particles
together as flocculates which allows them to settle much faster and the
resulting sediment is less dense and is often mobile. The particles also
filter more readily into a cake which is permeable and does not clog.
organic wastes from water. Those which have low removal by carbon
include short carbon chain polar substances such as methanol, formic
acid, and perhaps acetone. This process is being utilized to treat herbi-
cide plant wastes. Also, full scale carbon sorption units have been
successfully used for petroleum and petrochemical wastes.
6. This process is quite useful in the treatment of ammonia bearing
wastes. However, it can also be used to remove various volatile and
organic contaminants from waste streams.
7. Most of the aqueous hazardous waste streams which contain solid
constituents will be treated by this process.
8. Sedimentation is widely used throughout industry for treatment of
waste streams for which there is a need for separation of precipitated
solids from the liquid phase.
9. Flocculation is also widely used throughout industry for treatment
of waste streams for which there is a need for separation of precipitated
solids from the liquid phase.
O
O
g
O
GO
3
Tl
-------
TABLE D-l—Continued
Chemical Treatment Processes
Description
Waste Handling Capability
1. Ion Exchange 1. The reversible interchange of ions between a solid and a liquid'
phase in which there is no permanent change in the structure of the
solid. It is a method of collecting and concentrating undesirable ma-
terials from waste streams. The mechanism of ion exchange is chemical,
utilizing resins that react with either cations or anions.
2. Neutralization ...
3. Oxidation —
4. Reduction
5. Precipitation
6. Calcination
2. This method is utilized to prevent excessively acid or alkaline
wastes from being discharged in plant effluents. Some of the methods
utilized to neutralize such wastes are: (a) mixing wastes such that the
net effect is a near-neutral pH; (b) passing acid wastes through beds
of limestone; (c) mixing acid with lime slurries; (d) adding proper
proportions of concentrated solutions of caustic soda (NaOH) or soda
ash to acid waste waters; (e) blowing waste boiler-flue gas through
alkaline wastes; (f) adding compressed COa to alkaline waste; and
(h) adding sulfuric acid to alkaline wastes.
3. This is a process by which waste streams containing reductants are
converted to a less hazardous state. Oxidation may be achieved with
chlorine, hypochlorit.es, ozone, peroxide, and other common oxidizing
agents. The method most commonly applied on a large scale is oxida-
tion by chlorine.
4. This is a process whereby streams containing oxidants are treated
with sulfur dioxide to reduce the oxidants to less noxious materials.
Other reductants which can be used are sulfite salts and ferrous sulfate
depending on the availability and cost of these materials.
5. The process of separating solid constituents from an aqueous waste
stream by chemical changes. In this process, the waste stream is con-
verted from one with soluble constituents to one with insoluble con-
stituents.
6. The process of heating a waste material to a high temperature but
without fusing in order to effect useful changes, such as oxidation or
pulverization.
1. Ion exchange technology has been available and has been em-
ployed for many years for removing objectionable traces of metals and
even cyanides from the various waste streams of the metal process in-
dustries. Objectionable levels of fluorides, nitrates, and manganese
have also been removed from drinking water sources by means of ion
exchange. Technology has been developed to the extent that the con-
taminants that are removed can either be recycled or readily trans-
formed into a harmless state or safely disposed.
2. Neutralization is utilized in the precipitation of heavy metal hy-
droxides or hydrous oxides and calcium sulfate.
3. Ths process is used in the treating of cyanides and other re-
ductants.
4. This process is used to treat chromium-6 and other oxidants.
5. This process is applicable to the treatment of waste streams con-
taining heavy metals.
6. Calcination is commonly applied in the processing of high-level
radioactive wastes.
1
3
to
l-i
CO
-------
to
to
o
TABLE D-l—Continued
o
o
g
T)
)—1
f
>
I
GQ
S
Thermal Treatment Processes
Description
Waste Handling Capability
1. Incineration
2. Pyrolysis
1. A controlled process to convert a waste to a less bulky, less toxic,
or less noxious material. Most incineration systems contain four basic
components: namely, a waste storage facility, a burner and combustion
chamber, an effluent purification device when warranted, and a vent or
a stack. The (11) basic types of incineration units are: open pit, open
burning, multiple hearth, rotary kiln, fluidized bed, liquid combustors,
catalytic combustors, after burners, gas combustors, and stack flares.
2. The thermal decompisition of a compound. Wastes are subjected
to temperatures of about 1200°F, (6480C), plus or minus 300°F
(148°C), depending upon the nature of the wastes, in an essentially
oxygen-free atmosphere. Without oxygen, the wastes cannot burn and
are broken down (pyrolyzed) into steam, carbon oxides, volatile vapors
and charcoal.
1. The type of waste for which each of these incineration units is best
suited is detailed diagrammatically in Figure D-l.
2. Most municipal and industrial wastes which are basically organic
in nature can be converted to coke or activated charcoal and gaseous
mixtures which may approach natural gas in heating values through the
utilization of pyrolysis.
-------
FIGURE D-l
TYPES OF INCINERATORS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
to
to
-------
TABLE D-l—Continued
K>
to
Biological Treatment Processes
Description
Waste Handling Capability
1. Activated Sludge Process — 1. The activated sludge process may be defined as a system in which
biologically active growths are continuously circulated and contacted
with organic waste in the presence of oxygen. Normally, oxygen is sup-
plied to the system in the form of fine air bubbles under turbulent
conditions. The activated sludge is composed of the biologically active
growths and contains microorganisms which feed on the organic waste.
Oxygen is required to sustain the growth of the microorganisms. In the
conventional activated sludge process incoming waste water is mixed
with recycled activated sludge and the mixture is aerated for several
hours in an aeration tank. During this period, adsorption, flocculation,
and various oxidation reactions take place which are responsible for
removing much of the organic matter from the waste water. The effluent
from the aeration tank is passed to a sedimentation tank where the
flocculated microorganisms or sludge settles out. A portion of this
sludge is recycled as seed to the influent waste water.
2. Aerated Lagoon 2. A basin of significant depth (usually 6 to 17 feet or 1.83 to 5.19
meters), in which organic waste stabilization is accomplished by a dis-
peresed biological growth system, and where oxygenation is provided by
mechanical or diffused aeration equipment.
3. Trickling Rlter 3. Trickling filters aie artificial beds of rocks or other porous media
through which the liquid from settled organic waste is percolated. In
the process the waste is brought into contact with air and biological
growths. Settled liquid is applied intermittently or continuously over
the top surface of the filter by means of a distributor. The filtered
liquid is collected and discharged at the bottom. The primary removal
of organic material is not accomplished through filtering or straining
action. Removal is the result of an adsorption process similar to acti-
vated sludge which occurs at the surfaces of the biological growths or
slimes covering the filter media.
4. Waste Stabilization Ponds __ 4. Waste Stabilization Ponds are large shallow basins (usually 2 to 4
feet or 0.61 to 1.22 meters deep) used for the purposes of purifying
waste water by storage under climatic conditions that favor the growth
of algae. The conversion of organics to inorganics or stabilization in
such ponds results from the combined metabolic activity of bacteria by
the algae and by surface aeration. Waste stabilization ponds have been
widely used where land is plentiful and climatic conditions are favorable.
1. The activated sludge process has been applied very extensively in
the treatment of refinery, petrochemical, and biodegradable organic
waste waters.
2. Aerated lagoons have been used successfully as an economical
means to treat industrial wastes where high quality effluents are not
required.
3. Trickling filters have been used extensively in the treatment of
industrial wastes such as: acetaldehyde, acetic acid, acetone, acrolein,
alcohols, benzene, butadiene, chlorinated hydrocarbons, cyanides,
epichlorohydrin, formaldehyde, formic acid, ketones, monoethanola-
mines, phenolics, proplylenedichloride, terpenes, ammonia, ammonium
nitrate, nylon and nylon chemical intermediates, resins, and rocket
fuels.
4. They have been used extensively in treating industrial wastewaters
when a high degree of purification is not required. More recently,
stabilization ponds have proven to be successful in treating steel mill
wastes.
o
o
I
$
-------
TABLE D-l—Continued
Ultimate Disposal Processes
Description
Waste Handling Capability
1. Landfill Disposal 1. A well controlled and sanitary method of disposal of wastes upon
land. Common landfill disposal methods are: (a) miving with soil,
(b) shallow burial, and (c) combinations of these.
2. Deep Well Disposal 2. A system of disposing of raw or treated, filtered hazardous wastes
by pumping the waste into deep 'wells where they are contained in the
pores of the permeable subsurface rock, separated from other ground-
water supplies by impermeable layers of rock or clay.
3. Land Burial Disposal
4. Ocean Dumping
5. Engineered Storage
3. Adaptable to those hazardous materials that require permanent dis-
posal. Disposal is accomplished by either near-surface or deep burial.
In near-surface burial, the material is deposited either directly into the
ground or is deposited in stainless steel tanks or concrete lined pits
beneath the ground. In land burial the waste is transported to the
selected site) where it is prepared for final burial.
4. The process of utilizing the ocean as the ultimate disposal sink for
all types of waste materials (including hazardous wastes). There are
three basic techniques for ocean disposal of hazardous wastes. One
technique is bulk disposal for liquid or slurry-type wastes. Another
technique is stripping obsolete or surplus World War II cargo ships,
loading the ships with obsolete munitions, towing them out to sea, and
scuttling them at some designated spot. The third technique is the
sinking at sea of containerized hazardous toxic wastes.
5. This is a potential system to be utilized for those hazardous wastes
(especially radioactive) for which no adequate disposal methods exist.
Such a facility would have applicability until such time as a method for
permanent disposal of these wastes is developed. Such a near-ground-
surface engineered storage facility must provide for the following:
(a) safe storage of the solidified hazardous wastes for long periods of
time, and (b) retrievability of the wastes at any time during this
storage. The ultimate goal is to transfer these wastes to a permanent
disposal site when a suitable site is found.
1. The utilization of landfill procedures for the disposal of certain
hazardous waste materials at a NDS, in an industrial environment, or
in municipal applications will undoubtedly be required in the future.
2. Subsurface injection has been extensively used in the disposal of
oil field brines (between 10,000 and 40,000 brine injection wells in
U.S.). The number of industrial waste injection wells in the U.S. has
increased to more than 100. Injection wells can be used by virtually
any type of'industry which is located in the proper geologic environ-
ment and which has a waste product amenable to this method. Industries
presently using this method are chemical and pharmaceutical plants,
refineries, steel and metal industries, paper mills, coke plants, etc.
3. At the present time, near-surface burial of both radioactive and
operated burial sites. Pilot plant studies have been conducted for deep
chemical wastes is being conducted at several AEC and commercially
burial in salt formations and hard bedrock. Land burial is a possible
choice for the hazardous materials that require complete containment
and permanent disposal. This includes radioactive wastes as well as
highly toxic chemical wastes. At the present time only near-surface
burial is used for the disposal of most wastes.
4. The broad classes of hazardous wastes dumped at sea have been
categorized as follows: industrial wastes; obsolete, surplus, and non-
serviceable conventional explosive ordinance and chemical warfare and
miscellaneous hazardous wastes.
5. This process is being proposed for the long-term storage of high
level radioactive wastes. Also, some low level radioactive wastes will
probably go to engineered storage facilities.
—
o
H
E
2
H
CO
H
3
»
1-3
w
to
to
-------
TABLE D-l— Continued
to
to
O
o
Ultimate Disposal Processes Description Waste Handling Capability J5
_ _____ *~d
6. Detonation ---------------- 6. This is the process of exploding a quantity of waste with sudden 6. This technique is most commonly applied to explosive waste ma- 2
violence. Detonation can be performed by several means which include terials. However, several flammable waste streams can also be deto- I
thermal shock, mechanical shock, electrostatic charge, or contact with rated. I
incompatible materials. Detonation of a single waste may be followed ~p
by secondary explosions or fire. hg
£
a
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 225
Appendix E
ON-SITE VERSUS OFF-SITE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL
Assuming that a hazardous waste generator elects to treat or
dispose of his hazardous waste in an environmentally acceptable
manner, an important economic decision that must be made by
him is whether a particular waste stream should be processed on-
site or off-site at some regional treatment facility. In order to make
a sound business decision between these options an industrial
manager must consider a number of variables such as the follow-
ing : the chemical composition of the particular waste stream; the
on-site availability and unit cost of a satisfactory treatment
process; the quantity of the waste stream; and the distance to and
user charge of the nearest off-site processing facility.
To gain a general insight into the economics of this problem,
information was compiled on eight commonly occurring industrial
hazardous waste stream types, and a mathematical model was
formulated. The mathematical model resulted in economic decision
maps for each of the eight industrial waste categories. (Nine de-
cision maps are attached, because two maps are included for
heavy metal sludges.)
As a result of this analysis, it was concluded that economic con-
siderations favor the off-site treatment and disposal of seven out of
the eight waste stream types examined. Only in the case of dilute
aqueous heavy metals (Figure E-9) is the strategy of on-site
treatment more economical.
The decision map for concentrated heavy metals (Figure E-l)
is typical. The following discussion will identify and interpret,
point by point, those aspects of the map that are considered sig-
nificant.
Point A on the map represents data collected for a sample of
actual waste sources. This point is denned by the mean separation
between sources* and the mean source size (size as measured by
waste stream volume). The position of point A on the map shows
whether the on-site or off-site processing alternative is economi-
cally preferable. Here Point A lies comfortably within the OFF-
SITE region of the map, and off-site processing of wastes collected
from multiple sources is the most logical choice.
• The vertical lines corresponding to the smallest and largest
sources in the sample are also shown for perspective. For each of
* By "mean separation between sources" is meant the average distance between some waste
sources actually found within a particular region.
-------
226 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
the stream types an attempt was made to include the largest single
producer of the waste in the country.
Two other points on the map are of interest. Point B defines the
separation between sources that would be required if on-site
processing is to be feasible, assuming no change in the sample
mean. For concentrated heavy metals, this change-of-strategy sep-
aration distance is 360 miles (580 kilometers) compared to the
mean value of 81 miles (131 kilometers).
Point C defines the source size at which on-site processing be-
comes feasible for sources separated by the sample mean separa-
tion. For concentrated heavy metals, this size is 16 million gallons
per year (gpy) (61 million liters), compared to the sample mean
of 325,000 gpy (1.2 million liters) and a sample maximum of
950,000 gpy (3.6 million liters). Clearly, off-site processing is pref-
erable for concentrated heavy metal wastes. A mean volume con-
centrated heavy metals waste producer would have to be nearly
400 miles (640 kilometers) from any other similar waste producer
before on-site treatment becomes attractive.
Examining the succeeding eight decision maps (Figures E-2
through E-9), it becomes apparent that each is different because
each particular waste stream has its own cost characteristics as a
result of different treatment and/or disposal requirements. Only
in the case of dilute heavy metals (Figure E-9) is the above-
defined Point A within the ON-SITE region of the map. Accord-
ingly, the average generator of dilute heavy metal wastes would
logically choose on-site treatment.
Development of the model on which the decision maps are based
may be found in Keference thirty-six. Included among other im-
portant results of that particular study are discussions of location
and spacing of regional treatment facilities.
-------
FIGURE E-l
DECISION MAP CONCENTRATED HEAVY METALS
1,000
(1609)
(0
a:
UJ
t
2
o
ON-SITE PROCESSING
100
(161)
10
(16)
(1.6)1
Smallest Source
Mean Source
Largest Source
OFF-SITE PROCESSING OF
COLLECTED WASTES
Legend: Numbers in parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
English units.
O
a
i— i
a
OJ
s
10,000
(37,853)
100,000
(378,530)
1,000,000
(3,785,300)
10,000,000
(37,853,000)
100,000,000
(378,530,000)
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
to
to
-q
-------
FIGURE E-2
DILUTE METALS WITH ORGANIC CONTAMINATION
1,000
(1609)
a:
O
ON-SITE PROCESSING
10
(16)
Tannery
Wastes
Legend: Numbers in parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
English units.
(1.6)1
10,000
(37,853)
100,000
(378,530)
1,000,000
(3,785,300)
10,060,000
(37,853,000)
100,000,000
(378,530,000)
1,000,000,000
(3,785,300,000)
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
00
-------
(/>
£C
HI
o
tr
O
-------
FIGURE E-4
CEMENT ENCAPSULATION OF HEAVY METAL SLUDGES
1,000
(1609)
I
O
o:
O
Q
o
z
LJ
1U
CD
UJ
O
1
o
100
(161)
10
(16)
(1.6)1
Mean Source
Smallest Source
ON-SITE TREATMENT
C
Largest Source
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
OF COLLECTED WASTES
Legend: Numbers in parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
English units.
1,000
(1609)
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
(37,853) (378,530) (3,785,300)
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
10,000,000
(37.853,000)
O
o
—
I
I
1
-------
1,000
(1609)
FIGURE E-5
CONCENTRATED CYANIDES
Legend: Numbers in parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
11.6)1
1,000
(1609)
10,000
(37,853)
100,000
(378,530)
1,000,000
(3,785,300)
10,000,000
(37,853.000)
100,000,000
(378,530,000)
tc
co
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
-------
FIGURE E-6
LIQUID CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
10,000
(37,853)
1,000
(1609)
ON-SITE TREATMENT
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
OF COLLECTED WASTES
Smallest Source
Legend: Numbers in parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
English units.
(16)10
1,000
(1609)
10,000
(37,853)
100,000
(378,530)
1,000,000
(3,785,300)
10,000,000
(37,853,000)
100,000,000
(378,530,000)
to
00
to
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
-------
FIGURE E-7
DILUTE CYANIDES
CO
cc
111
5
o
K.
O
tn
LU
O
(E
13
O
at
z
Ul
111
z
g
a.
u
in
3
s
ON-SITE TREATMENT
100
(161)
10
(16)
(16)1
Mean Source
Smallest Source
Legend: Numbers In parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
English units.
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
Largest Source
1.000
(1609)
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
(37,853) (378.530) (3,785,300)
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
5
I
10,000,000
(37,853,000)
CO
CO
-------
FIGURE E-8
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON AND HEAVY METAL SLURRIES
>£••
S
O
or
O
in
UJ
O
ffi
O
O
CO
z
ui
ai
UJ
m
z
O
1C
CO
\
S
10,000
(37,853)
1,000
(1609)
100
(161)
(16)10
I
Mean Source
Smallest Source
at 1,000 gallons per year
ON-SITE TREATMENT
Largest Source
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
OF COLLECTED WASTES
Legend: Numbers in parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
English units.
10,000
(37,853)
100,000
(378,530)
1,000,000
(3,785,300)
10,000,000
(37,853,000)
100,000,000
(378,530,000)
1,000,000,000
(3,785,300,000)
O
O
-
s
r— (
O
I
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
-------
1,000
(1609)
FIGURE E-9
DILUTE HEAVY METALS
Si
a:
UJ
(u
s
o
a:
O
100
(161)
10
(16)
o:
£
UJ
en
.S
5
(1.6)1
1,000
(1609)
Mean Source
Smallest Source
10,000
(37,853)
100,000
(378,530)
E
2
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
Legend: Numbers in parentheses are
metric units, and those
without parentheses are
English units.
1,000,000
(3,785,300)
10,000,000
(37,853,000)
100,000,000
(378,530,000)
Source Size (gallons or liters per year)
to
co
en
-------
236 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Appendix F
SUMMARY OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
NATIONAL DISPOSAL SITE CONCEPT
In the course of investigating the concept of "National Disposal
Sites" for hazardous wastes as mandated by Section 212 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272 amended by P.L. 91-512),
important and relevant information was developed. Appendices B
and D, respectively, provide a list of hazardous wastes subject to
treatment at such sites, and summaries of current methods of
treatment and disposal. This Appendix summarizes the findings
related to: site selection, methods and processes that are likely to
be used at a typical site, and the costs for developing and maintain-
ing such sites. Reference one contains the detailed analyses per-
formed and the rationale for this information.
Siting of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities
The general approach to the site selection process was to first
regionalize the coterminous United States into 41 multi-county
regions. Spheres of influence for major industrial waste produc-
tion areas, which are closely related to hazardous waste produc-
tion areas, served as the basis for regional delineation (see Table
F-l). Thirty-six waste treatment regions were identified, based
upon the distance from the 41 major industrial waste production
centers, and are shown on Figure F-l. A distance of about 200
miles (322 kilometers) in the East and 250 miles (402 kilometers)
in the West was selected as the maximum distance any treatment
site should be from the industrial waste production centers in a
given subregion. Some of the regions do not contain an industrial
waste production center; however, their boundaries are defined
by surrounding regions containing waste production centers. No
region was generally permitted to cross any major physiographic
barrier. Notably, the regions are smaller in the East than in the
West.
Criteria for site selection were defined with the major emphasis
placed on health and safety, and environmental considerations. It
was recognized early that two general types of sites would need
to be identified: waste processing plant sites, and long-term haz-
ardous waste disposal/storage sites. Site selection criteria and
numerical weightings are presented in Table F-2.
Based on the site selection criteria, a ranking, screening, and
weighting procedure was developed and applied to all counties
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 237
located in the 36 regions which cover the country. The county-size
areal unit (3,050 counties in the coterminous U.S.) appeared to
be one of manageable size for the survey. The output listing of all
3,050 counties, grouped by regional ratings is contained in Refer-
ence one and is too voluminous for inclusion here. This listing
allows for the orderly and rational selection of counties within
each region, for site-specific reconnaissance, and for later detailed
field studies that would be required in order to prove out the
feasibility of a candidate site. From the total list that rates and
ranks all counties, 74 appear to be potentially the best areas for
locating hazardous waste treatment/disposal sites. These are pre-
sented in Table F-3. In addition, existing or potential Federal and
State hazardous waste treatment and disposal sites were identified.
Selected examples of these are presented in Table F-4. It should
be noted that these are candidate sites; the suitability of a particu-
lar site can only be determined by additional field studies, field
testing, and technical analyses of the data.
Hazardous Waste Management Methods and Costs
The approach used in this phase of the study involved develop-
ment of a "model" facility capable of processing a wide variety of
hazardous wastes (excluding radioactive wastes or chemical war-
fare agents generated or stored at AEG or DOD installations).
Conceptual design and cost estimates were prepared for a complete
waste management system to process and dispose of the wastes.
In addition to treatment and disposal, peripheral functions such as
transportation, storage, and environmental monitoring were also
considered.
The basic objective of waste treatment at a hazardous wastes
processing facility is the conversion of hazardous substances to
forms which are acceptable for disposal or reuse. Since the ma-
jority of hazardous waste streams are complex mixtures containing
several chemical species, treatment for removal and/or conversion
of certain nonhazardous substances from the waste stream will
also be required in order to comply with pollution control regula-
tions. In a number of instances, treatment for the nonhazardous
substances will dictate the type of process used and will entail the
most significant operational costs (e.g., acid neutralization).
Broad treatment capability in a central processing facility will
permit the processing of many nonhazardous wastes which could
give the facility the advantage of economy of scale. In order to
maintain a competitive position in the waste processing field in the
case of a privately operated facility, it is anticipated that all wastes
-------
238 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
which can be processed with some return on investment will be
accepted. It is possible that the volume of nonhazardous wastes
will exceed the volume of hazardous wastes, perhaps by wide
margins, in many areas. Inclusion of nonhazardous wastes pro-
cessing also increases the opportunities for resource recovery (e.g.,
recovery of metals, oils, and solvents).
It must be emphasized that the model facility developed in this
study was primarily designed for processing hazardous wastes.
Therefore, processing facilities designed for both hazardous wastes
and nonhazardous wastes may be different in many respects. A
number of factors will dictate individual design variations for a
given facility. Foremost will be the volumes and types of wastes,
both hazardous and nonhazardous, that will be received for pro-
cessing. One facility may require many different processes whereas
another may require only one. Furthermore, processes selected for
the model facility are not intended to be all-inclusive. A wide
variety of processes, in addition to those selected for the model
facility, is available to meet the needs of a particular location.
Description of Model Facilities
Hazardous Wastes Processing Facility. The model hazardous
wastes processing facility incorporates the various functions re-
lated to waste treatment and disposal at one central location. The
facility is basically a chemical processing plant which has design
features for safe operation in a normal industrial area. Effluents
discharged from the facility will be limited to those which meet
applicable water and air standards. Local solid waste disposal will
be limited to nonhazardous wastes which are acceptable for burial
at a conventional landfill. The conventional landfill may be located
adjacent to the processing facility or a short distance away. In
general, nonhazardous waste brines resulting from hazardous
waste treatment will be disposed by ocean dumping where appro-
priate to avoid potential quality impairment of fresh water sources.
Land disposal of these brines is a potential alternative method
which is less desirable and which will be used only in arid regions
and even there infrequently. All such disposal operations will be in
accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal standards.
In order to accomplish treatment and disposal objectives, the
facility will also contain equipment and structures necessary for
transporting, receiving, and storing both wastes and raw material.
Another important feature will be a laboratory which provides:
(1) analytical services for process control and monitoring of
effluent and environmental samples; and (2) pilot scale testing
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 239
services to assure satisfactory operation of the processing plant.
The latter normally is not required in a conventional chemical
processing plant, but due to the highly variable nature of the
waste feed in this case, pilot scale testing is considered essential.
Hazardous Wastes Disposal Facility. For purposes of the model
the hazardous wastes disposal facility will consist of a "secure"
landfill and the appropriate equipment and structures necessary to
carry out burial and surveillance of the hazardous solid wastes.
Special measures are to be taken during backfilling to minimize
water infiltration. It is possible that low level radioactive burial
sites currently used in arid regions of the western United States
could also be used with appropriate segregation, for disposal of the
hazardous solid wastes.
Process Selection. Conceptual design objectives for the model
facility included broad treatment capability to permit processing
of all hazardous wastes of significant volume generated across the
country. Important process selection criteria include demonstrated
applicability to the treatment and disposal of existing hazardous
wastes and flexibility to handle a wide variety of different waste
streams.
The objectives of waste processing at the model facility are the
removal of hazardous and polluting substances and/or conversion
of these substances to forms which are acceptable for disposal or
reuse. Based upon the hazardous wastes identification portion of
this study described in Section 2 and in Appendix B, it was deter-
mined that in order to accomplish these objectives the model fa-
cility should include treatment processes for:
1. Neutralization of acids and bases
2. Oxidation of cyanides and other reductants
3. Reduction of chromium-6 and other oxidants
4. Removal of heavy metals
5. Separation of solids from liquids
6. Removal of organics
7. Incineration of combustible wastes
8. Removal of ammonia
9. Concentration of waste brines
Processes selected for inclusion in the model facility are presented
in Table F-5. Also, Appendix D describes the major characteristics
of these processes. A conceptual flow diagram, which integrates
the various treatment steps in modular form (illustrated in Figure
F-2), was developed for the model hazardous waste facility. The
flow pattern represents that normally expected, and provides for
additional piping to permit alterations when necessary.
-------
240
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Cost Estimates. Design capacities, capital, and operating costs
for typical small, medium, and large size processing facilities are
summarized in Tables F-6, F-7, and F-8, respectively. The costs
include estimates for land, buildings, laboratory offices, and auxili-
ary equipment. It should be noted that these cost data are based on
preliminary estimates which have been developed from a number
of basic assumptions, and are only intended to indicate the norm
of a range of costs. Table F-9 identifies in sequence those basic
assumptions that have been utilized to arrive at the number, fixed
capital and operating costs of large, medium, and small hazardous
waste treatment/disposal facilities. This information was then
utilized to develop the configuration for the scenario of a hazardous
waste management system cited in Section 4.
A more detailed comparative cost analysis that identifies and
summarizes capacities, fixed capital, and operating costs associated
specifically with treatment facilities has been developed in Table
F-10. These data were utilized in developing the cost aspects of
the system scenario.
TABLE F-l
INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCTION CENTERS
1. Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellingham, WA
2. Portland, OR; Vancouver, Longview, WA
3. San Francisco Bay Area, CA
4. Ventura, Los Angeles, Long Beach, CA
5. San Diego, CA
6. Phoenix, AZ
7. Salt Lake, Ogden, UT
8. Idaho Falls, Pocatello, ID
9. Denver, CO
10. Sante Fe, Aubuquerque, NM
11. El Paso, TX
12. Fort Worth, Dallas, Waco, TX
13. Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, TX
14. Houston, Beaumont, Port Arthur, Texas City,
Galveston, TX
15. Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Bartlesville, OK
16. Wichita, Topeka, Kansas City, KS
17. Omaha, Lincoln, NB; Des Moines, IA
18. Minneapolis, St. Paul, Dulutn, MN
19. Cedar Rapids, IA; Burlington, Dubuque, I A;
Peoria, IL.
20. St. Louis, MO; Springfield, IL
21. Memphis, TN
22. Shreveport, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, LA;
Jackson, MS
23. Mobile, Montgomery, AL; Tallahassee, FL; Biloxi,
Gulfport, MS; Columbus, GA
24. Huntsvllle, Birmingham, AL; Atlanta, Macon, GA;
Chattanooga, Nashville, TN
25. Louisville, Frankfort, Lexington, KY; Evansville,
IN
26. Albany, Troy, Schenectady, NY
27. Indianapolis, IN; Cincinnati, Dayton, OH
28. Chicago, Kankakee, IL; Gary, South Bend, Ham-
mond, Fort Wayne, IN
29. Midland, Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Dear-
born, Flint, Ml; Toledo, OH
30. Columbus, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron, OH
31. Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Erie, PA
32. Charleston, WV; Portsmouth, Norfolk, VA
33. Charleston, SC; Savannah, Augusta, GA
34. Winston-Salem, Raleigh, Greensboro, Charlotte, NC
35. Baltimore, MD
36. Philadelphia, Allentown, Harrisburg, PA; Camden,
Elizabeth, NJ; Wilmington, DE
37. New York, NY; Newark, Paterson, NJ
38. Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown, NY
39. Boston, MA
40. Orlando, Tampa, Miami, FL
41. Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Hot Springs, AR
-------
FIGURE F-l
SITE SELECTION REGIONS
M
Ul
TJ
1
to
-------
242
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE F-2
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
General Criteria
Weighting
Earth Sciences
o Geology
o Hydrology
o Soils
o Climatology
Transportation
o Risk
o Economics
Ecology
o Terrestrial Life
o Aquatic Life
o Birds and Wildfowl
Human Environment and Resources Utilization
o Demography
o Resources Utilization
o Public Acceptance
31
28
18
23
TABLE F-3
POTENTIAL WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SITES
State
California
Colorado
Connecticut _
Georgia
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky _ _
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
County
Dallas
Inyo
Kern*
Ventura
Weld
Hartford
Dooley*
Vermillion
Livingston*
Ogle
Ellsworth
Franklin
Carroll
Franklin"
Worcester
Isabella*
Shiawassee
State
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
County
Nye*
Pershing
Washoe
Eddy
OtseV68
Steuben
Wyoming
Grand Forks
Atoka
Kay
Carroll
Wayne
D h t
Montgomery
York*'
State County
Texas - Bell
Erath*
Utah Tooele
Virginia Brunswick
Caroline
E
West Virginia Doddridge
Wyoming Campbell
•Denotes potential for large size processing facilities.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 243
TABLE F-4
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SITES
(FEDERAL AND STATE)
Existing Sites Operated by Federal Agencies
USAEC
Hanford Works, Benton County, Washington
Savannah River Plant, Aiken County, South Carolina
National Reactor Testing Station, Bingham County, Idaho
Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada
Oak Ridge, Anderson County, Tennessee
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos County, New Mexico
Pantex Plant, Randall County, Texas
Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson County, Colorado
Fernald, Butler/Hamilton Counties, Ohio
POD
Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland
Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado
Tooele Army Depot, Utah
Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama
Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado
Newport Army Ammunition Plant, Indiana
Lexington Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky
State Licensed Radioactive Waste Sites*
Morehead, Kentucky
Beatty, Nevada
Hanford Works, Washington
West Valley, New York
Barn well, South Carolina
Representative Commercial Radioactive Waste Burial Site Characteristics
a. Beatty, Nevada Site
Background
Ownership of site State of Nevada, leased to NECO
Population—density in area Desert, virtually uninhabited
Location re towns and cities About 12 mi (19.3 kilometers) southeast of Beatty
Area of (1) site; (2) controlled acres (1) 80; (2) desert, not controlled
Communications .Good; hwy U.S. 95
Precipitation (in.) (centimeters) 2.5-5.0(6.35-12.7 cm)/yr
Site Characteristics
Drainage Adequate
Bedrock depth and materials (est) 575 H-ft (175 meters); various sedimentary and meta-
morphic
Surficial material—depth; types <*>575 ft (175 meters) alluvial clay, sand, etc.
Groundwater—depth; slope -'- 275-300 ft (84-91.5 meters); SE~30 ft/mi (5.67
meters/kilometers)
Land and water use downstream Very little, desert conditions
General soil characteristics Semi-arid desert; deep soil
•Denotes potential for large size processing facility.
-------
244 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE F-4—(Continued)
Operation—Equipment and Methods
Monitoring instruments and devices 14 survey instrs; film, air monitors; etc.
Waste handling machinery Tank truck; trailer trucks; dozer; 35-T crane
Trenches—(1) dimensions; (2) design; (3) water (1) 650 (198m) x 50 (15.2m) X depth 20 (6.1m) ft;
pumped? (2) usual design, i.e., drain to sump, 4 ft (1.2m)
backfill; (3) no water collected
Waste handling—(1) transport by company; (2) pro- (1) yes; (2) liquids solidified; (3) sp. nu. mat. spaced
cessing; (3) burial procedures. at bottom, slit trench for high-activity materials
b. Morehead, Kentucky Site
Background
Ownership of site -State of Kentucky, leased to NECO
Population—density in area Rural, sparse (Maxey Flats)
Location re towns and cities 10 mi (16 hectares) northwest of Morehead
Area of: (1) site; (2) controlled acres (hectares) (1) 200 (81 hectares); (2) 1000 (405 hectares)
Communications -Fair; state hwy N and S
Precipitation (in.) (centimeters) 46 (117 cm)/yr (heavy storms)
Site Characteristics
Drainage Well drained
Bedrock depth and materials (est) 50-75 ft (15.25-22.8 meters) (?); shale, sandstone,
siltstone
Surficial material—depth; types.^ 50-75 ft (15.25-22.8 meters) (?); shale, clay, silt-
stone
Groundwater—depth; slope 35-50 ft (10.7-15.25 meters) ("perched" 2-6 ft
[0.61-1.83 meters]); erratic
Land and water use downstream Very little nearby, distant (no data)
General soil characteristics Very impermeable; good soil sorption
Operation—Equipment and Methods
Monitoring instruments and devices Essentially same as at Beatty
Waste handling machinery Usual—crane; dozer; forklifts; etc.
Trenches—(1) dimensions; (2) design; (3) water (1) 300 (9.15m) X 50 (15.25m) X depth 20 (6.1m)
pumped? ft; (2) usual design, sump; (3) yes
Waste handling—(1) transport by company; (2) pro- (1) and (2) same as Beatty (both NECO); (3) per "Ra-
cessing; (3) burial procedures. diation Safety Plan" (NECO)
... Hanford, Washington Site
Background
Ownership of site State of Washington, leased to NECO
Population—density in area... __ _No resident, inside AEC plant
Location re towns and cities 25 mi (40.2m) north of Richland
Area of (1) site; (2) controlled acres (1) 100 (40 hectares); (2) 1000 (400 hectares) state
owned
Communications Good, AEC Hanford reservation
Precipitation (in.) (centimeters) _ 6-8 (15-20 cm)/yr.
Site Characteristics
Drainage Well drained
Bedrock depth and materials (est) 250-450 ft (76-137m); basalt
Surficial material—depth; types 150-350 ft (47-10.7m); silty sand, gravel, clay
Groundwater—depth; slope 240 ft (73m); N and E co 15-35 ft/mi (2.8-6.6
meters/kilometers)
Land and water use downstream- Columbia River—all uses
General soil characteristics .Little precipitation; deep dry soil
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 245
TABLE F-4—(Continued)
Operation—Equipment and Methods
Monitoring instruments and devices As licensed—survey instrs, film, counters
Waste handling machinery Usual—crane, shovel, dozer, lifts, etc.
Trenches—(1) dimensions; (2) design; (3) water (1) 300 (92m) X 60 (18m) X depth 25 ft (7.6m);
pumped? (2) usual design; (3) no water collects in sump
Waste handling—(1) transport by company; (2) pro- (1) yes, 95%; (2) liquids solidified; (3) sp. nu. mat.
cessing; (3) burial procedures. spaced, separate trench for ion-exchange resins
TABLE F-5
PROCESS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN
MODEL HAZARDOUS WASTES PROCESSING/DISPOSAL FACILITY
Treatment Processes Disposal Processes
Neutralization Ocean dumping
Precipitation Landfill
Oxidation-Reduction
Flocculation-Sedimentation
Filtration
Ammonia Stripping
Carbon Sorption
Incineration
Evaporation
-------
FIGURE F-2
to
*>•
Ol
CONCEPTUAL MODULAR FLOW DIAGRAM
RECE
SEGREC
STOP
AMMONIA
STRIPPING ^
V\NG AQUEOUS ^
AGE WASTE
K.
UI
m
m
D
cc.
o
(/>
COMBUSTIBLE
fc
^
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
WATER + ASH
„ SCRUBBER
WATER
^ +4
NCINERATOR
DISTILLATE WITH AMMONIA
LIQUID- LIQUID
SEPARATION
— f r \
/•N
UJ
§! r^ -
V) 1
\
RESIDUE * SE
k r.ARHON
r SORPTION
NACE OFF-GAS +
NDFILL
CURED ^_
1
f
RECLAIM
WASTE
GASEOUS
WASTE TO
ATMOSPHERE
f
o
o
g
3
o
5!
H
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
247
TABLE F-6
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR SMALL SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
CAPACITY: 25,000 gpd (94,600 liters)
15 tons (13.6 metric tons)/day
260 day/year
TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $9,300,000
Aqueous waste treatment
Incineration
Operation
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Module
Fixed
capital cost, $
Daily
operating cost, $.
Receiving & storage 1,262,000 1,881
Ammonia stripping 298,700 461
Chemical treatment 1,827,300 3,298*
Liquid-solids separation 3,460,000 3,888"
Carbon sorption 363,000 758*
Evaporation 198,000 635*
Rounded totals 7,410,000 10,900
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST: INCINERATION
Fixed Daily
Module capital cost, $ operating cost, $
Incinerator 1,880,000 3,200
Scrubber waste-
water treatment (18,450 gpd)
(70,000 liters)
Ave. cost per 1000
gal (3,785 liters), $
66.20
18.40
150.50
80.10**
17.50
14.60
347.00
Ave. cost
per ton, $
213.00
185.000
Total
398.00
' Includes processing cost for incinerator scrubber wastewater.
' Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber wastewater.
-------
248
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE F-7
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR MEDIUM SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
CAPACITY: 122,000 gpd (462,000 liters)
74 tons (67 metric tons)/day
260 day/year
TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $24,070,000
Aqueous waste treatment
Incineration
Operation
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Module
Fixed
capital cost, $
3,270,000
773,800
4,734,000
_- 8,963,700
941,000
514,000
Rounded totals 19,200,000
Receiving & storage
Ammonia stripping
Chemical treatment
Liquid-solids separation .
Carbon sorption
Evaporation
Daily
operating cost, $
6,424
952
11,307*
9,516"
1,578*
2,173"
32,000
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: INCINERATION
Module
Fixed
capital cost, $
4 873 000
Scrubber waste-
water treatment
Daily
operating cost, $
7 000
(90,000 gpd)
(341,000 liters)
Ave. cost per 1000
gal (3,785 liters), $
46.40
7.80
84.70
39.60"
7.40
10.20
196.00
Ave. cost
per ton, $
94.60
80.60
Total
175.00
* Includes processing cost for incinerator scrubber wastewater.
*• Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber wastewater.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
249
TABLE F-8
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR LARGE SIZE PROCESSING FACILITY
Module
Fixed
capital cost, $
CAPACITY: 1,000,000 gpd (3,785,300 liters) Aqueous waste treatment
607 tons (550 metric tons)/day Incineration
260 day/year Operation
TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $86,000,000
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Daily
operating cost, $
Receiving & storage 11,543,000 38,150
Ammonia stripping 2,731,500 3,180
Chemical treatment 16,710,600 60,630*
Liquid-solids separation 30,915,700 34,687*
Carbon sorption 3,322,000 6,290*
Evaporation 3,413,000 15,947*'
Rounded totals 68,600,000 159,000
MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: INCINERATION
Fixed Daily
Module capital cost, $ operating cost, $
Incinerator 17,201,700 27,374
Scrubber waste-
water treatment (738,000 gpd)
(2,800,000 liters)
Ave. cost per 1000
gal (3,785 liters), $
33.60
3.18
53.83
17.18
3.62
9.16
121.00
Ave. cost
per ton, $
Total
45.10
55.70
101.00
' Includes processing cost for incinerator scrubber wastewater.
' Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber wastewater.
-------
250 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE F-9
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED FOR DEVELOPING THE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM SCENARIO
Number Basic Assumptions
1 All hazardous waste will be treated and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.
2 All hazardous wastes will be treated prior to being disposed of at designated sites to minimize hazard
and volume of wastes deposited on land.
3 Treatment and disposal facilities will be dedicated to hazardous wastes. Treatment facilities should
have those capabilities indicated in Tables F-6, F-7, and F-8.
4 Certain types and quantities of hazardous wastes will be treated on-site (at the source) and others at
off-site facilities.
0 The estimated total amount of hazardous wastes to be treated/disposed of is 1.0 X 107 tons
(9 x 10» metric tons) per year. Approximately 4.0 X 10s tons (3.6 X 10° metric tons) are inorganic
and 6.0 X 10° tons (5.4 X 10= metric tons) are organic.*
5 EPA economic studies indicate that on-site treatment facilities will be small plants treating primarily
dilute aqueous acidic toxic metal wastes which constitute approximately 15 percent by weight of all
hazardous wastes. Small on-site facilities will be capable of neutralizing wastes and precipitating
toxic metals from the wastes, but will produce a toxic residue which will require further treatment at
off-site facilities.
° Small facilities will have a capacity of 2.94 X 104 tons (2.6 v 10* metric tons) per year. Ap-
proximately 51 small on-site facilities will be required to treat the estimated 1.5 X 10° tons (1.36
x 10° metric tons) per year. Approximately one third of wastes treated on-site [5 X 106 tons (4.5
x 10s metric tons) per year] will be shipped to off-site facilities for further treatment.
6 To achieve economics of scale, off-site treatment facilities will be large or medium-size treatment
plants.
0 Approximately 9.0 x 10e tons (8.2 x 10° metric tons) per year will be processed at off-site
facilities.
0 Large facilities will have a capacity of 1.33 X 10e tons (1.2 X 10a metric tons) per year, and
medium facilities a capacity of 1.62 x 10B tons (1.47 X 105 metric tons) per year.
0 System variation studies indicate that the configuration combining least cost and adequate geo-
graphical distribution consists of 5 large and 15 medium size facilities. Therefore, large off-site
treatment facilities will process approximately 6.5 X 108 tons (6.0 X 10" metric tons) per year and
medium facilities will process approximately 2.5 X 10° tons (2.27 X 10" metric tons) per year.
7 Current treatment technology does not allow complete neutralization/detoxification of all hazardous
wastes. It is estimated that treatment residues constituting 2.5 percent of the incoming waste
[225,000 tons (200,000 metric tons) per year] will still be hazardous."
0 Hazardous residues resulting from treatment facilities will be disposed of in secure land disposal
sites.
° The most convenient location for secure land disposal sites is in association with the large
treatment facilities. Therefore, five large secure disposal sites would initially be required.
° Hazardous wastes generated at other off-site treatment facilities would also be disposed of at the
five large secure disposal sites.
•EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762.
-------
TABLE F-10
CAPACITIES AND COSTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES ASSUMED IN HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SCENARIO
Large facility
OFF-SITE
ON-SITE
Medium facility
Small facility Small facility Total costs
Capacity
(1) Processing capacity, gal/day (liters/day) aqueous wastes 1,000,000 122,000 25,000 25,000
(3,800,000) (462,000) (95,000) (95,000)
(2) @ 91b/gal, (1) expressed as tons/day (metric tons/day) 4,500 550 113 113
(4,080) (498) (102) (102)
(3) Processing capacity, tons/day (metric tons/day) combustible wastes 607 74 15 —
(550) (67) (14) —
(4) Total processing capacity, tons/day (metric tons/day) 5,107 624 128 113
(4,627) (565) (116) (102)
(5) Total processing capacity, tons/year (metric tons/year) [1] 1,330,000 162,000 33,300 29,400
(1,210,000) (147,000) (30,200) (26,600)
Cost
(6) Fixed capital, $ 86,000,000 24,100,000 9,300,000 1,400,000
(7) Operating cost, $/day 186,400 39,000 14,100 2,265
(8) Operating cost, $/yr. [2] 48,500,000 10,130,000 3,660,000 589,000
(9) Operating cost, $/yr., with capital write-off [3] 57,100,000 12,540,000 4,590,000 729,000
Total Cost
(10) Approximate no. of facilities required [4] -_ 5 15 —-51
(11) Fixed capital, $ million 430 362 — 71 863
(12) Operating cost, $ million/yr., basis (9) 286 188 — 37 511
O
C3
t—(
O
M
m
3
s
Notes: [1] Assuming actual plant operation of 260 days/year.
[2] Includes neutralization chemicals, labor, utilities, maintenance, amortization charges (@ 7% interest), insurance, taxes, and administrative expenses.
[3] 10-year straight line depreciation.
[4] Based on data from EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762 and EPA system variation analysis.
to
OX
-------
252 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT u
Appendix G
PROPOSED
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
ACT OF 1973
93D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION
IN THE U.S. SENATE
Bill S. 1086
Introduced by Senator Baker
March 6, 1973
Referred to Committee on Public Works
IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Bill H.R. 4873
Introduced by Representative Staggers
for himself
and Representative Devine
February 27, 1973
Referred to Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 253
A BILL
To assure protection of public health and other living organisms
from the adverse impact of the disposal of hazardous wastes,
to authorize a research program with respect to hazardous
waste disposal, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Hazardous Waste
Management Act of 1973".
FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that continuing technological progress, improvement
in the methods of manufacture, and abatement of air and
water pollution has resulted in an ever-mounting increase of
hazardous wastes;
(2) that improper land disposal and other management
practices of solid, liquid, and semisolid hazardous wastes
which are a part of interstate commerce are resulting in ad-
verse impact on health and other living organisms;
(3) that the knowledge and technology necessary for al-
leviating adverse health, environmental, and esthetic impacts
associated with current waste management and disposal prac-
tices are generally available at costs within the financial
capacity of those who generate such wastes, even though this
knowledge and technology are not widely utilized;
(4) that private industry has demonstrated its capacity and
willingness to develop, finance, construct, and operate facili-
ties and to perform other activities for the adequate disposal
of hazardous and other waste materials;
(5) that while the collection and disposal of wastes should
continue to be a responsibility of private individuals and
organizations and the concern of State, regional, and local
agencies, the problems of hazardous waste disposal as set
forth above and as an intrinsic part of interstate commerce
have become a matter national in scope and in concern, and
necessitate Federal action through regulation of the treatment
and the disposal of the most hazardous of these wastes, and
through technical and other assistance in the application of
new and improved methods and processes to provide for
-------
254 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
proper waste disposal practices and reduction in the amount
of waste and unsalvageable materials.
(b) The purposes of this Act therefore are—
(1) to protect public health and other living organisms
through Federal regulation in the treatment and disposal of
certain hazardous wastes;
(2) to provide for the promulgation of Federal guidelines
for State regulation of the treatment and disposal of hazard-
ous wastes not subject to Federal regulation;
(3) to provide technical and other assistance to public
and private institutions in the application of efficient and
effective waste management systems;
(4) to promote a national research program relating to the
health and other effects of hazardous wastes and the pre-
vention of adverse impacts relating to health and other living
organisms.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3. When used in this Act:
(1) The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) The term "State" means a State, the District of Co-
lumbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(3) The term "waste" means useless, unwanted, or dis-
carded solid, semisolid or liquid materials.
(4) The term "hazardous waste" means any waste or com-
bination of wastes which pose a substantial present or po-
tential hazard to human health or living organisms because
such wastes are nondegradable or persistent in nature or
because they can be biologically magnified, or because they
can be lethal, or because they may otherwise cause or tend to
cause detrimental cumulative effects.
(5) The term "secondary material" means a material that
is or can be utilized in place of a primary or raw material in
manufacturing a product.
(6) The term "generation" means the act or process of
producing waste materials.
(7) The term "storage" means the interim containment of
waste after generation and prior to ultimate disposal. Con-
tainment for more than two years shall be considered disposal.
(8) The term "transport" means the movement of wastes
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 255
from the point of generation to any intermediate transfer
points, and finally to the point of ultimate disposal.
(9) The term "treatment" means any activity or process-
ing designed to change the physical form or chemical compo-
sition of waste so as to render such materials nonhazardous.
(10) The term "disposal of waste" means the discharge,
deposit, or injection into subsurface strata or excavations or
the ultimate disposition onto the land of any waste.
(11) The term "disposal site" means the location where any
final deposition of waste materials occurs.
(12) The term "treatment facility" means a location at
which waste is subjected to treatment and may include a
facility where waste has been generated.
(13) The term "person" means any individual, partner-
ship, copartnership, firm, company, corporation, association,
joint stock company, trust, State, municipality, or any legal
representative agent or assigns.
(14) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, or other public body created by or
pursuant to State law with responsibility for the planning or
administration of waste management, or an Indian tribe or an
authorized Indian tribal organization.
(15) The term "waste management" means the systematic
control of the generation, storage, transport, treatment, re-
cycling, recovery, or disposal of waste materials.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR STATE REGULATION
SEC. 4. (a) Within eighteen months after the date of enact-
ment of this Act, and from time to time thereafter, the Admin-
istrator pursuant to this section and after consultation with
representatives of appropriate Federal agencies shall by regu-
lation—
(1) identify hazardous wastes;
(2) establish standards for treatment and disposal of such
wastes; and
(3) establish guidelines for State programs for imple-
menting such standards.
(b) In identifying a waste as hazardous, pursuant to this
section, the Administrator shall specify quantity, concentration,
and the physical, chemical, or biological properties of such
waste, taking into account means of disposal, disposal sites, and
available disposal practices.
-------
256 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
(c) The standards established under this section shall include
minimum standards of performance required to protect human
health and other living organisms and minimum acceptable
criteria as to characteristics and conditions of disposal sites and
operating methods, techniques, and practices of hazardous
wastes disposal taking into account the nature of the hazardous
waste to be disposed. Such standards shall include but not be
limited to requirements that any person generating waste must
(1) appropriately label all containers used for onsite storage or
for transport of hazardous waste; (2) follow appropriate pro-
cedures for treating hazardous waste onsite; (3) transport all
hazardous waste intended for offsite disposal to a hazardous
waste disposal facility for which a permit has been issued. In
establishing such standards the Administrator shall take into
account the economic and social costs and benefits of achieving
such standards.
(d) The guidelines established under paragraph (a) (3) of
this section shall provide that—
(1) with respect to disposal sites for hazardous wastes,
the State program requires that any person obtain from the
State a permit to operate such site;
(2) such permits require compliance with the minimum
standards of performance acceptable site criteria set by the
guidelines;
(3) the State have such regulatory and other authorities
as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act, in-
cluding, but not limited to, the authority to inspect disposal
sites and records, and to judicially enforce compliance with
the requirements of an approved program against any person.
(e) Within eighteen months of the promulgation of final
regulations under this Act, each State shall submit to the Ad-
ministrator evidence, in such form as he shall require, that the
State has established a State program which meets the require-
ments of the guidelines of paragraph (a) (3) of this section. If
a State fails to submit such evidence, in whole or in part, the
Administrator shall publish notice of such failure in the Federal
Register and provide such further notification, in such form
as he considers appropriate, to inform the public in such State
of such failure.
FEDERAL REGULATION
SEC. 5. (a) Within eighteen months after the date of enact-
ment of this Act and from time to time thereafter, the Admin-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 257
istrator after consultation with representatives of appropriate
Federal agencies may with respect to those hazardous wastes
identified pursuant to subsection (a) (1) of section 4 determine
in regulations those of such wastes which because of their
quantity or concentration, or because of their chemical charac-
teristics, could if allowed to be dispersed into the environment
result in, or contribute to, the loss of human life or substantial
damage to human health or to other living organisms.
(b) The Administrator may promulgate regulations estab-
lishing Federal standards and procedures for the treatment and
disposal of such wastes. Such Federal standards and procedures
shall be designed to prevent damage of human health or living
organisms from exposure to such wastes identified pursuant to
subsection (a) and may include—
(1) with respect to hazardous waste disposal sites—
(A) minimum requirements as to the characteristics and
conditions of such sites,
(B) minimum standards of performance for the opera-
tion and maintenance of such sites, and
(C) recommendations as to specific design and construc-
tion criteria for such sites; and
(2) with respect to hazardous waste treatment facilities—
(A) minimum standards of performance for the opera-
tion and maintenance, and
(B) recommendations based on available technology as
to appropriate methods, techniques, or practices for the
treatment of specific wastes.
(c) The Administrator may issue a permit for the operation
of a hazardous waste disposal site or treatment facility if, after
a review of the design, construction, and proposed operation of
such site or facility, he determines that such operation will meet
the requirements and standards promulgated pursuant to sub-
section (b).
(d) Within eighteen months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations estab-
lishing requirements for generators of hazardous wastes subject
to regulation under this section to—
(1) maintain records indicating the quantities of hazardous
waste generated and the disposition thereof;
(2) package hazardous waste in such a manner so as to
protect human health and other living organisms, and label
such packaging so as to identify accurately such wastes;
(3) treat or dispose of all hazardous waste at a hazardous
-------
258 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
waste disposal site or treatment facility for which a permit has
been issued under this Act;
(4) handle and store all hazardous waste in such a manner
so as not to pose a threat to human health or other living
organisms;
(5) submit reports to the Administrator, at such times as
the Administrator deems necessary, setting out—
(A) the quantities of hazardous waste subject to Federal
regulation under this subsection that he has generated;
(B) the nature and quantity of any other waste which he
has generated which he has reason to believe may have a
substantial adverse effect on human health and other living
organisms; and
(C) the disposition of all waste included in categories
(A) and (B).
(e) The Administrator may prescribe regulations requiring
any person who stores, treats, disposes of, or otherwise handles
hazardous wastes subject to regulation under this section to
maintain such records with respect to their operations as the
Administrator determines are necessary for the effective en-
forcement of this Act.
(f) The Administrator is authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with States to delegate to any State which meets
such minimum requirements as the Administrator may establish
by regulation the authority to enforce this section against any
person.
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 6. (a) Whenever on the basis of any information the
Administrator determines that any person is in violation of re-
quirements under section 5 or of any standard under section
4(a) (2) under this Act, the Administrator may give notice to
the violator of his failure to comply with such requirements or
may request the Attorney General to commence a civil action in
the appropriate United States district court for appropriate
relief, including temporary or permanent injunctive relief. If
such violation extends beyond the thirtieth day after the Ad-
ministrator's notification, the Administrator may issue an order
requiring compliance within a specified time period or the Ad-
ministrator may request the Attorney General to commence a
civil action in the United States district court in the district
in which the violation occurred for appropriate relief, including
a temporary or permanent injunction: Provided, That, in the
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 259
i
case of a violation of any standard under section 4 (a) (2) where
such violation occurs in a State which has submitted the evi-
dence required under section 4(e), the Administrator shall give
notice to the State in which such violation has occurred thirty
days prior to issuing an order or requesting the Attorney Gen-
eral to commence a civil action. If such violator fails to take
corrective action within the time specified in the order, he shall
be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each
day of continued noncompliance. The Administrator may sus-
pend or revoke any permit issued to the violator.
(b) Any order or any suspension or revocation of a permit
shall become final unless, no later than 30 days after the order
or notice of the suspension or revocation is served, the person
or persons named therein request a public hearing. Upon such
request the Administrator shall promptly conduct a public hear-
ing. In connection with any proceeding under this section the
Administrator may issue subpenas for the attendance and testi-
mony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books,
and documents, and may promulgate rules for discovery pro-
cedures.
(c) Any order issued under this section shall state with rea-
sonable specificity the nature of the violation and specify a time
for compliance and assess a penalty, if any, which the Ad-
ministrator determines is a reasonable period and penalty
taking into account the seriousness of the violation and any
good faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements.
(d) Any person who knowingly violates any requirement of
this Act or commits any prohibited act shall, upon conviction,
be subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each day of
violation, or to imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
SEC. 7. (a) The Administrator shall conduct, encourage, co-
operate with, and render financial and other assistance to ap-
propriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or local)
authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and
institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the
coordination of, research, development, investigations, experi-
ments, surveys, and studies relating to—
(1) any adverse health and welfare effects on the release
into the environment of material present in waste, and meth-
ods to eliminate such effects;
-------
260 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
(2) the operation or financing of waste management pro-
grams ;
(3) the development and application of new and improved
methods of collecting and disposing of waste and processing
and recovering materials and energy from wastes; and
(4) the reduction of waste generation and the recovery of
secondary materials and energy from solid, liquid, and semi-
solid wastes.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of the preceding subsec-
tion, the Administrator is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publication and
other appropriate means, the results of, and other informa-
tion pertaining to, such research and other activities, includ-
ing appropriate recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) cooperate with public and private agencies, institu-
tions, and organizations, and with any industries involved, in
the preparation and the conduct of such research and other
activities; and
(3) make grants-in-aid to and contract with public or
private agencies and institutions and individuals for research,
surveys, development, and public education. Contracts may
be entered into without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of
the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5).
(c) The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Mari-
time Commission, and the Office of Oil and Gas in the Depart-
ment of the Interior, in consultation with the Environmental
Protection Agency and with other Federal agencies as appropri-
ate, shall conduct within twelve months of the date of enactment
of this Act and submit to Congress, a thorough and complete
study of rate setting practices with regard to the carriage of
secondary materials by rail and ocean carriers. Such study shall
include a comparison of such practices with rate setting prac-
tices with regard to other materials and shall examine the
extent to which, if at all, there is discrimination against sec-
ondary materials.
INSPECTIONS
SEC. 8. (a) For the purpose of developing or assisting in the
development of any regulation or enforcing the provisions of
this Act, any person who stores, treats, transports, disposes of,
or otherwise handles hazardous wastes shall, upon request of
any officer or employee of the Environmental Protection Agency
or of any State or political subdivision, duly designated by the
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 261
Administrator, furnish or permit such person at all reasonable
times to have access to, and to copy all records relating to such
wastes.
(b) For the purposes of developing or assisting in the de-
velopment of any regulation or enforcing the provisions of this
Act, officers or employees duly designated by the Administrator
are authorized—
(1) to enter at reasonable times any establishment or other
place maintained by any person where hazardous wastes are
stored, treated, or disposed of;
(2) to inspect and obtain samples from any person of any
such wastes and samples of any containers or labeling for
such wastes. Before undertaking such inspection, the officers
or employees must present to the owner, operator, or agent
in charge of the establishment or other place where hazardous
wastes are stored, treated, or disposed of. appropriate cre-
dentials and a written statement as to the reason for the
inspection. Each such inspection shall be commenced and
completed with reasonable promptness. If the officer or em-
ployee obtains any samples, prior to leaving the premises, he
shall give to the owner, operator, or agent in charge a receipt
describing the sample obtained and if requested a portion of
each such sample equal in volume or weight to the portion
retained. If an analysis is made of such samples, a copy of the
results of such analysis shall be furnished promptly to the
owner, operator, or agent in charge.
(c) Any records, reports, or information obtained from any
person under this subsection shall be available to the public,
except that upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by
any person that records, reports, or information, or particular
part thereof, to which the Administrator has access under this
section if made public, would divulge information entitled to
protection under section 1905 of title 18 of the United States
Code, the Administrator shall consider such information or
particular portion thereof confidential in accordance within the
purposes of that section.
ENCOURAGEMENT OF INTERSTATE AND INTERLOCAL
COOPERATION
SEC. 9. The Administrator shall encourage cooperative activi-
ties by the States and local governments in connection with
waste disposal programs, encourage, where practicable, inter-
state, interlocal, and regional planning for, and the conduct of,
-------
262 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
interstate, interlocal, and regional hazardous waste disposal
programs; and encourage the enactment of improved and, so
far as practicable, uniform State and local laws governing waste
disposal.
IMMINENT HAZARD
SEC. 10. (a) An imminent hazard shall be considered to exist
when the Administrator has reason to believe that handling or
storage of a hazardous waste presents an imminent and sub-
stantial danger to human health or other living organisms the
continued operation of a disposal site will result in such danger
when a State or local authority has not acted to eliminate such
risk.
(b) If an imminent hazard exists, the Administrator may
request the Attorney General to petition the district court of
the United States in the district where such hazard exists, to
order any disposal site operator or other person having custody
of such waste to take such action as is necessary to eliminate the
imminent hazard, including, but not limited to, permanent or
temporary cessation of operation of a disposal site, or such other
remedial measures as the court deems appropriate.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 11. The following acts and the causing thereof are pro-
hibited and shall be subject to enforcement in accordance with
the provisions of subsection 6(d) of this Act:
(a) Operating any disposal site for hazardous waste identi-
fied pursuant to section 5 without having obtained an operating
permit pursuant to such section.
(b) Disposing of hazardous waste identified pursuant to sec-
tion 5 in a manner not in compliance with requirements under
section 5.
(c) Failure to comply with the requirements of section 5 in
labeling containers used for the storage, transport, or disposal
of hazardous waste.
(d) Failure to comply with (1) the conditions of any Federal
permit issued under this Act, (2) any regulation promulgated
by the Administrator pursuant to section 4 (a) (2) or section 5
of this Act, or (3) any order issued by the Administrator pur-
suant to this Act.
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 263
APPLICATION OP STANDARDS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES
SEC. 12. (a) Each department, agency, and instrumentality
of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal
Government having jurisdiction over any property or facility,
or engaged in any activity which generates, or which may gen-
erate, wastes shall insure compliance with such standards pur-
suant to subsections 4(a) (2), 5(a), and 5(c) as may be
established by the Administrator for the treatment and dis-
posal of such wastes.
(b) The President or his designee may exempt any facility
or activity of any department, agency, or instrumentality in the
executive branch from compliance with guidelines established
under section 4 if he determines it to be in the paramount inter-
est of the United States to do so. Any exemption shall be for a
period not in excess of one year, but additional exemptions may
be granted for periods of not to exceed one year upon the
President's or his designee's making of a new determination.
The Administrator shall ascertain the exemptions granted under
this subsection and shall report each January to the Congress
all exemptions from the requirements of this section granted
during the preceding calendar year.
(c) Within eighteen months after enactment of this Act and
from time to time thereafter, the Administrator, in consultation
with other appropriate Federal agencies, shall identify products
which can utilize significant quantities of secondary materials
and shall issue guidelines with respect to the inclusion of such
secondary materials to the maximum extent practicable in prod-
ucts procured by the Federal Government.
(d) In any proceeding initiated before the Interstate Com-
merce Commission or the Federal Maritime Commission after
the enactment of this Act where a determination is made by
such Commission as to any individual or joint rate, fare, or
charge whatsoever demanded, charged, or collected by any com-
mon carrier or carriers, a specific finding by the Commission
will be required that such rate, fare, or charge does not or will
not cause discrimination against secondary materials.
CITIZEN SUITS
SEC. 13. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) any person
may commence a civil action for injunctive relief on his own
behalf—
(1) against any person who is alleged to be in violation of
-------
264 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
any regulation promulgated or order issued under this Act;
(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a fail-
ure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this
Act which is not discretionary with the Administrator.
Any action under paragraph (a) (1) of this subsection shall be
brought in the district court for the district in which the alleged
violation occurred and any action brought under paragraph (a)
(2) of this subsection shall be brought in the District Court of
the District of Columbia. The district courts shall have juris-
diction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the
citizenship of the parties, to enforce such regulation or order, or
to order the Administrator to perform such act or duty as the
case may be.
(b) No action may be commenced—
(1) under subsection (a) (1) of this section—
(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice
of the violation (i) to the Administrator, (ii) to the State
in which the alleged violation occurs, and (iii) to any al-
leged violator of the standard, limitation, or order, or
(B) if the Administrator or State has caused to be com-
menced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal
action in a court of the United States or a State to require
compliance with requirements of this Act or order issued
hereunder;
(2) under subsection (a) (2) prior to sixty days after
plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Administrator.
Notice under this subsection shall be given in such manner
as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation.
(3) in such action under this section, if the United States
is not a party, the Attorney General may intervene as a matter
of right.
(c) The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought
pursuant to this section, may award costs of litigation (includ-
ing reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party,
whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.
(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any
person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or
common law to seek enforcement of any regulation or to seek
any other relief (including relief against the Administrator or a
State agency).
STATE AUTHORITY
SEC. 14. (a) If the Administrator has promulgated regulations
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 265
under section 5 no State or municipality may without the ap-
proval of the Administrator impose more stringent requirements
than those imposed under the provisions of section 5 on the trans-
port, treatment, or disposal of hazardous wastes.
(b) No State or municipality shall impose, on wastes originat-
ing in other States or municipalities, requirements respecting
the transport of such wastes into or disposal within its jurisdic-
tion which are more stringent than those requirements applic-
able to wastes originating within such receiving States and
municipalities.
AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION
SEC. 15. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Environmental Protection Agency such sums as may be neces-
sary for the purposes and administration of this Act.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
SEC. 16. (a) A petition for review of action of the Administra-
tor in promulgating any regulation pursuant to sections 4 or 5
shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia. Any person who will be adversely affected by a
final order or other final determination issued under section 6
may file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for
the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place
of business, for a judicial review of such order or determination.
Any such petition shall be filed within thirty days from the date
of such action or order, or after such date if such petition is
based solely on grounds arising after such thirtieth day.
(b) Action of the Administrator with respect to which review
could have been obtained under subsection (a) shall not be sub-
ject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for en-
forcement.
(c) In any judicial proceeding in which review is sought of an
action under this Act required to be made on the record after
notice and opportunity for hearing, if any party applies to the
court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shows to the
satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material
and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce
such evidence in the proceedings before the Administrator, the
court may order such additional evidence (and evidence in rebut-
tal thereof) to be taken before the Administrator, in such manner
and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem
-------
266 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
proper. The Administrator may modify his findings as to the
facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence
so taken and he shall file such modified or new findings, and his
recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of
his original determination, with the return of such additional
evidence.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS
SEC. 17. (a) This Act shall not apply to—
(1) any source material, special nuclear material, or by-
product material subject to regulation or control pursuant to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
(2) lethal chemicals subject to regulation pursuant to title
50, United States Code, section 1511, and the following, as
amended.
(b) This Act shall not be construed to relieve any person from
any present or future requirement arising from any other Fed-
eral law.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974 O—348-497
------- |