HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES:
PLANS AND PROSPECTS
Presented at the
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium
Residual Management Land -Disposal
Tusaon, Arizona, February 23 1976
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1976
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES: PLANS AND PROSPECTS
By Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.*
It is a particular pleasure
for me to participate in this
conference on land disposal of
hazardous waste in the "orien-
tation" portion of the program.
For as essential as land
deposition is to any future
waste management planning, it
must be viewed within the overall
context of complementary options
and alternatives. Thus, from
the technical assistance perspec-
tive of EPA, the opportunity to
communicate with the research
community as to the direction of
our current guidance/guideline
programs is very important.
Not only does it afford us
an occasion to assess the
match between on-going research
efforts and current Agency
guidance/guideline plans,
but also a chance for dialogue
as to what future gaps need to
be filled if effective guidances
are to be issued.
The cornerstone of current
OSWMP guidance/guidelines
programs is the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended (SWDA).
The critical sections of this
Act relative to hazardous waste
bear some review as the
opportunities for formal guidance
in it are several.
Section 212 of the Act was the
origin of EPA's now familiar
Report tp_Con_gre_ss; Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes. Submitted to
Congress in June 1973, the Report
was our first major assessment of
the seriousness of the hazardous
waste problem. Among its major
conclusions were that (1) hazard-
ous waste legislation was a keyto
*Mr. Kovalick, who is Chief,
^Guidelines Branch, Hazardous
Waste Management Division, in
EPA's Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, presented
this paper at the Hazardous
Waste Research Symposium:
Residual Management Land
Disposal in Tuscon, Arizona, on
February 2, 1976.
-------
solution of the problem of
mismanaged wastes and (2) national
disposal sites were not a viable
waste disposal strategy, given the
available fledgling industry in
this field. In addition, the
President submitted the Hazardous
Waste Management Act for considera-
tion by Congress in February 1973,
because.of the significance of this
issue.
Secjtdon- 20,4 (a) of the SWDA Act
carries basic research,
demonst-ra*tion, and training
mandates. Much- o.f the heaKbth and
environmental effects! work,
disposal operation investigations,
materials and energy recovery
work, and waste system studies
now underway are authorized under
this section. Section 204 (b)
instructs EPA to collect informa-
tion and make it available through
publications and other means, to
cooperate with public and private
groups, and to make grants. This
part of Section 204 is significant
to our guidance promulgation
efforts, and I shall return to it.
The mandate for guidelines
for recovery, collection,
separation, and disposal systems
is contained in Section 209.
Such guidelines under Section 209
(a) are recommended to government
agencies at all levels - not
just Federal ones. Section 209(b)
calls for model codes, ordinances,
and statutes as well as issuance
of data on costs of constructing,
operating, and maintaining
technically feasible
methods for collection, separation,
disposal, recovery, and recycling.
Finally, Section 211 of the
SWDA adds some "teeth" to the
otherwise advisory guidelines
under Section 209(a), in that
all Federal agencies shall
ensure compliance with such
guidelines issued under that
section. You may be familiar
with some of the results of
such guidelines. For example,
the Bureau of Land Management
has recognized the EPA
Guidelines on Thermal
Processing and Land Disposal
of Solid Waste (Federal
Register, May,14, 1974) as well
as the Recommended Procedures
for Disposal and Storage of
Pesticides and Pesticide
Containers (Federal Register,
May 1, 1974) (also
published by EPA) as the
minimum requirements for use of
BLM lands for waste disposal.
In summary, the current
authorities of interest here
are Section 204(b)—the
issuance of recommendations
—and Sections 209(a) and (b)
--guideline issuances
and model ordinance drafting,
respectively.
Before addressing our plans
for hazardous waste guideline
development, some definitions
and clarifications are in order.
First, many of you are
familiar with the word
"guideline" in the context
of Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) where
"effluent limitation guidelines"
(ELG) are to be set in
accordance with best practicable
or best available technologies.
Thus, the ELG for an industry
sector is, in reality, an
enforceable permit requirement,
not just technical advice as is
the case with solid waste guide-
lines. The only persons for whom
-------
solid waste guidelines are
mandatory are Federal agencies;
for all others, they are advisory.
Thus, the word "guideline" has a
unique meaning in the solid waste
legislation.
A second issue of definition
relates to the focus in the
FWPCA, as amended, and the Clean
Air Act, as amended, (CAA)
on performance standards. That
is, the standards or goals to be
met by a potentially polluting
activity should be specified
rather than the process or
technology to be used. We concur
with this approach as it leaves
technological options open and
encourages development of new
techniques.
Finally, one major contrast
between the FWPCA and CAA mandates
and the approach in solid waste
bears review. Both the air and
water laws require industry-by-
industry standards relating to
stationary emissions. That is,
specific levels of discharge to
the air and water environment
are to be set for each industry
sub-segment. In contrast to
this legally required strategy,
those dealing with industrial
wastes know that they can be
(and often are) shipped to
treatment/disposal facilities.
In addition, the solid waste
statute refers to systems
and methods without reference
to industry segments. As a
result, the current thrust of
our guidance/guideline
development efforts is on
pathways that wastes follow
and the systems governing
their flow.
What then are our plans to
develop guidances and guide-
lines? For ease of discussion,
we have defined the word
"guidance" as advice issued
by EPA in the Federal Register
under the authority of Sec. 204
of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. Such guidance represents
the Agency's best technical
counsel on an issue related
to hazardous waste management
systems or pathways; it does
not have regulatory status.
Guidelines are advice issued
by the Agency in the Federal
Register under the authority
of Sec. 209. Although only
advisory to everyone else,
Section 211 makes Sec. 209(a)
issuances mandatory for
Federal facilities. Again,
the guideline represents our
best technical advice, but due
to its impact on Federal
facilities, much more extensive
impact analysis and interagency
review are necessary than are
needed for guidances.
"System operations"
guidances refer generally to
the flow of wastes from
generator to storage, treatment,
,and ultimate disposal.
Potential subject areas are
many in number, but those in
which the States and others
seem most interested at present
are waste transport control
(through trip-ticketing),
wastes compatibility guides,
facilities management
suggestions, site selection
methodology, etc. "Pathway"
guidances would provide typical
performance specifications for
-------
incinerators, chemical waste land-
fills, chemical treatment pro-
cesses. As an example, an
incinerator guidance would
describe for the person who has
chosen incineration as his
disposal option, the optimum
temperature, dwell time, and
turbulence characteristics for
the waste type he has selected.
Obviously, our recommendation of
such minimum levels would be
based on test burn experiences
with wastes of the same or similar
kind from which we had extra-
polated.
Our strategy under current
legislation has two phases. First,
issue system operation and pathway
guidances under Section 204 as
soon as practicable. This approach
allows us (1) to make Federal
policy known to a very broad
audience (including industry),
(2) to address our technical
assistance obligations to the
States in a priority way, and (3)
to signal industry and the States
as to our intentions, if stronger
Federal authorities should come
about.
A second part of our strategy is
to simultaneously explore the
breadth and extent of the hazar-
dous waste management problem
among Federal agencies. To the
extent that specific problems are
serious enough and have not been
addressed through adherence to
the guidances, Sec. 209 guidelines
could then be issued.
Exhibit I is an interim plan
for the issuances of guidances and
guidelines under Solid Waste
Disposal Act. It describes our
schedule for guidance/guideline
issuance over the next several
fiscal years.
Like all good plans, it is subject
to change. It does, however-
give a sense as to when we
expect the results of several
technical studies to be sufficient
to issue advice.
Special comment regarding the
column marked Recommended
Procedures is warranted. Such a
procedure will represent our
best technical counsel on a
very specific problem (such as
disposal of wastes contaminated
with a certain chemical) or
advice on a specific industry
stream. The procedures will be
notable for their lack of wide-
spread applicability to many
waste generators and disposers
and/or their very specific
focus on single waste streams.
Such issuances are contemplated,
for example, during FY 76
regarding PCB-contaminated waste
and during FY 78 regarding
the trade-offs of various
treatment methods for some streams
in the organic chemical and
petroleum refining industries.
Of special interest to this
group would be our plan to use the
fruits of our chemical waste
landfill demonstration project
along with other results in FY 79
to address waste-loading limits
for landfill sites and chemical
waste landfill design.
With the long time frame on
this interim plan, the question
of future Federal legislative
initiatives becomes very relevant.
As you may know, the Senate
Committee on Public Works has a
bill numbered S.2150 which has
been the subject of considerable
public dialogue for over a year.
On December 15, 1975, the House
Subcommittee on Transportation and
-------
Commerce issued a staff print of
a Solid Waste Utilization Act for
public comment. Thus, both Houses
of Congress appear to be ready to
address the issues of waste manage-
ment, including hazardous wastes,
in specific terms.
The concepts included in both
of these legislative initiatives
with regard to hazardous waste
are very similar. First, there
are special sections of these
comprehensive drafts devoted to
hazardous wastes. Second, the
Administrator must define or
identify hazardous wastes within
certain time frames in the
drafts in both Houses. Third, a
program for the permitting of the
storage, treatment, and disposal is
mandated in both drafts; the House
version also recognizes generator
reporting obligations and the
importance of the transportation
link to effective management. Both
drafts recognize operational tech-
nical, institutional, and economic
requirements for permit holders
through permit conditions.
Additionally, both drafts
suggest State implementation of
such a permitting effort via
approved Federal programs, and
outline monetary disincentives in
terms of withdrawn Federal grant
funds if the States do not assume
the program. In the case of the
House draft, only funds supporting
the implementation of a hazardous
waste program would be withdrawn
instead of all State implementation
money as in S.2150.
Even with this generalized over-
view, I think you can see the match
between our current activities and
prospective legislative initiatives.
Almost all of the guidances that
we have suggested could be trans-
lated into decision tools and/or
specifications for Federal or
State permit writers.
For that reason, we feel theri
is much to be gained from the
early dialogue that will take
place concerning guidance
issuances. Not only the researcJ
community, but also industry,
labor, public interest groups,
and the academic community
interested in effective hazardoui
waste management will be better
able to focus their effort if
Federal policy is clear and an
open subject for continuing
discussion in the months ahead.
Thank you very much.
-------
Guidance
(Sec. 204)
Exhibit I
Prospective
Hazardous Waste Management Federal Register Issuances
Recommended
Procedure
(Sec. 204)
FY 76 Policy Statement
on HW Mgt.
Site Selection
Criteria
Guideline
(Sec. 209)
Disposal of PCB-containing
Wastes
Disposal of VC-containing
Aerosol Cans
FY 77 Waste Transportation
Mgt. (Manifest Systems)
Model State HW
Statute (Sec. 209 b)
Compatability of HW at
Disposal Facilities
Policy on Use of Public
Lands for HW Facilities
Mgt. Aspects of HW Facilities
(Insurance, Bonding)
FY 78 Std. Sampling (and
Analysis) for HW
State HW Mgt. Program-
Resource and Organization
-------
(/> "C
s: Q
I H
on o>
o o
-P ID
Exhibit I (cont'd)
FY 78 (cont'd)
Definition of HW (including
Standard Leaching Test)
Reference Method for
Evaluating Chemically
Fixed Wastes
Incineration Processes
for HW
PCBTM* for Organic
Chemical and Petroleum
Industries
FY 79 Determination of Loading
Limit of Waste Sites
PCBTM* for Inorganic
Chemicals and Metals
Mining and Refining
Industries
Chemical Waste Landfill
Design
* PCBTM = Physical, Chemical, Biological Treatment Methods
------- |