BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
SECTION 3001 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:
IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
PART 261
SUBPART A - GENERAL
SECTION 261.5 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATED BY SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
APRIL 28, 1980
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1-1
II. Proposed Standard
A. Summary of Proposed Standard II-l
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard II-l
III. Information Used and Developed in Rulemaking
A. Damage Incidents III-l
B. Comments on Proposed Standard III-3
C. Environmental and Economic Impact Studies III-7
D. Examination of State Programs III-8
IV. Rationale for Final Regulation
A. Profile of Small Quantity Generators IV-1
B. Need for a Small Quantity Exclusion IV-5
C. Analysis of Approaches to Exclude Small IV-12
Quantity Generators
D. Analysis of Alternative Quantity Cutoffs IV-18
E. Phasing IV-24
F. Analysis of Options for Regulating Excluded IV-28
Generators
V. Discussion of Final Regulation V-l
VI. Appendices
Appendix A - Damage Incidents Involving Small A-l
Quantities of Hazardous Waste
Appendix B - Summary of and Response to Public B-l
Comments on the Proposed Standard
Appendix C - Summary of and Response to Public C-l
Comments on the Agency Studies
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In enacting RCRA, Congress was responding to a problem about
which it had little information. With respect to generators, the
House Committee stated:
One of the major problems to be addressed in the hazardous
waste area is the lack of information concerning the com-
ponents, volumes and sources of hazardous waste. To date
there has been no survey or other wide ranging investiga-
tion of the sources of hazardous or potentially hazardous
waste generation or disposal. As a result, little is known
about the actual volume of hazardous waste being generated,
the geographical distribution of the generators or the extent
to which hazardous wastes are transported.
(H.R. Rep. at 26}.
Despite the general lack of information, Congress did not explicity
provide EPA with a mechanism to exempt or exclude from Subtitle
C regulation any persons generating or managing hazardous waste.
The Agency conducted studies during final rulemaking on the
number of small quantity generators, the type and quantity of
waste they generate, and the cost to the Agency and the states
of regulating them. The Agency found that the number of haz-
ardous waste generators is enormous, approximately 762,000, and
that less than 10 percent of them generate 99 percent of all
hazardous waste. In addition, the Agency found that to fully
regulate all generators would exceed the capability of the Agency
and the states to fully and effectively implement and enforce
the Subtitle C controls.
The information developed in the rulemaking process has
led EPA to adopt in the final regulations a system which incor-
porates various aspects of the different approaches suggested
in the preamble to the proposed rule. The final regulation
1-1
-------
sets an initial general exclusion for generators of less than
a total of 1000 kg/mo of hazardous wastes; sets low (1 to
100 kg/mo) quantity exclusion limits for certain extremely hazardous
wastes; and conditions these exclusions to assure that excluded
wastes are disposed of in either authorized hazardous waste
management facilities or facilities approved by a state to manage
municipal or industrial wastes. This will allow EPA and the
states to initially focus implementation and enforcement of the
Subtitle C regulatory program on those generators who are presently
producing 99 percent of all hazardous waste.
In addition, EPA has determined based on data available that
a general exclusion level of 100 kg/mo would better achieve the
environmental protection objectives of Subtitle C. Thus, the
Agency intends to initiate rulemaking in not less than two vears
nor more than five years from the date of promulgation of Part
261 to expand Subtitle C coverage of small generators down to an
exclusion level of 100 kg/mo. During this process, the Agency
will consider the need for any special regulatory requirements
to deal with any unique problems associated with these wastes.
This document explains the rationale and basis of the Agency's
exclusion for small quantity generators. Chapter II discusses
the rationale for the proposed standard. Chapter III summarizes
the information used and developed in rulemaking: damage reports;
public comments on the proposed standard; and, Agency environmental
and economic impact studies of small quantity generator regulatory
approaches. State programs for regulating small quantilties are
also summarized. Chapter IV presents the Agency's rationale for
1-2
-------
the final regulation. Small generators are characterized, the
problems with determining de minimis quantities below which a
waste is not hazardous are presented, and the Agency and state
resource limitations are discussed. These analyses lead the
Agency to conclude that an exclusion must be provided. The
problems with using a degree of hazard system for determining which
generators and which waste should be excluded are discussed,
and the Agency's conclusion that an exclusion based on quantity
of waste generated is presented. Alternative quantity cutoffs
are analyzed which leads the agency to conclude that the initial
cutoff should be 1000 kg/mo, but that the cutoff should be lowered
within five years to expand Subtitle C coverage of small generators
down to an exclusion level of 100 kg/mo. Finally, various
options for regulating excluded generators are analyzed.
Chapter V discusses the final regulation language and suggests
an approach a generator might want to take to determine in
advance if he may exceed the generation limits in an up-coming
calendar month.
1-3
-------
II. PROPOSED STANDARD
A. Summary of Proposed Standard (S250.29)
The proposed standard exempted from regulation any person
who produced and disposed of no more than 100 "kilograms per
month (kg/mo) of hazardous waste provided that his wastes were
disposed in a facility that the state had permitted or certified
as meeting the land disposal criteria that the Agency was to
develop as required by Section 4004 of the RCRA, or in a permitted
hazardous waste management facility.
The standard also exempted from regulation any quantity
of hazardous waste (except waste oil) generated by retailers
provided that the waste was disposed as indicated above.
Pesticide-related hazardous waste generated by farmers
was also exempted under this Section. That portion of $250.29
dealing with hazardous waste generated by farmers has been
analyzed in the document supporting the Part 262 regulations
for generators.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
The Agency proposed a small quantity generator conditioned
exemption in an attempt to balance the need to protect public
health and the environment with the need to hold the administra-
tive and economic burden of regulating these waste within avail-
able resources. Given limited resources, the Agency proposed
to minimize the requirements on small quantity generators in
order to direct its attention to the greater hazards posed by
larger quantities.
II-l
-------
As expressed in the preamble to the proposed regulations,
the Agency based the proposed exemption on very limited data.
For example, no data was available to the Agency on non-manufac-
turing generators of hazardous waste. However, surveys of waste
production by manufacturing industries in five states (New Jersey,
Texas, Illinois, Tennessee and Maryland) and limited data pre-
sented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Subtitle C,
indicated that a cutoff of 100 kg/mo for hazardous waste genera-
tion would allow control of 99.5 to 99.9 percent if potentially
hazardous industrial waste. At the same time the proposed cutoff
would exclude up to 60 percent of the generators in the manu^ac-
turing industries (SICs 20-39). Thus, only a small fraction of
hazardous waste would be exempt from full regulation while 60
percent of generators would be excluded. The Agency proposed a
conditioned exemption to provide some protection against the
mismanagement of exempted small guantities of hazardous waste.
The Agency proposed the retailer exemption because the
Agency believed that retailers rarely generate hazardous waste,
and when they do, only in very small quantities.
The Agency acknowledged that only limited data was available
on the number of small generators and associated waste quantities,
waste types, management practices, and environmental and economic
impacts of regulatory options. Consequently, the Agency requested
comments on several regulatory options outlined in the preamble
to the regulation, and asked for suggestions for any other
approaches. The suggested regulatory alternatives outlined
in the preamble were:
II-2
-------
1. Conditioned exemption of waste generated in quantities
less than some other cutoff, up to 1000 kg/mo.
2. Conditioned exemption of a specific quantity of each
hazardous waste depending on the deqree of hazard
of the waste.
3. Unconditioned exemption under Subtitle C of waste
generated in quantities less than some cutoff where
the exempted wastes are regulated in an approved
manner by a State.
4. Reducing the administrative or technical requirements'
applicable to small quantity generators.
5. Phasing in the regulatory coverage of small quantity
generators over time.
II-3
-------
III. INFORMATION USED AND DEVELOPED IN RULEMAKING
A. Damage Incidents
The Agency has reviewed the more than 300 incidents
involving hazardous waste that were selected from the EPA
open files and summarized in the January 1979, Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Subtitle C Regulations
to identify those incidents involving small quantities. The
Agency also re-reviewed the open files to identify new
incidents that involved small quantities that were reported
since publication of the draft EIS.
Twenty-eight incidents have been reported that appear
to involve hazardous waste in quantities of less than 5,000
kilograms (kg)-* Twenty-one of the incidents involve quantities
of 1000 kg or less and are summarized below. All of the
incidents are summarized in more detail in Appendix A to
this background document.
These incidents must be interpreted with caution. First,
they may not be representative of incidents involving small
quantities because the Agency has not actively attempted to
obtain damage reports involving small quantities. Furthermore,
there is no direct correlation between the small quantities
involved in most of the incidents and the quantity of hazardous
waste produced by the generator in a particular time period
(i.e., the small quantities may have been generated by large
*For the purposes of this evaluation/ hazardous waste in
quantities of less than 5000 kg were considered to be small
quantities.
III-I
-------
generators). Nonetheless, these incidents do provide some indi-
cation of possible environmental impacts that can be associated
with small quantities.
The Agency believes that these incidents indicate that:
1. Small quantities of hazardous waste can pose substantial
hazard when indiscriminately dumped;
2. The handling of 55 gallon drums (with a capacity of
approximately 200 kg) of ignitable, reactive and corrosive
waste at managed landfills has resulted in damage to
public health;
3. The mismanagement of empty pesticide containers which
have been improperly decontaminated has resulted in
damage to public health.
Summary of Incidents Involving 1000 kg or less
(21 Incidents)
1. Indiscriminate Dumping (5 incidents). One incident
involved the contamination of a drinking water reservoir,
three others involved drinking well contamination, one
of which resulted in 13 illnesses. Three of the incidents
involved quantities of 100 kg or less.
2. Disposal In (and Transport to) Managed Landfills
(11 Incidents). Eight incidents involved single containers
(200 kg or less) of ignitable, reactive, or corrosive
wastes, two of which resulted in the deaths of landfill
operators and a third in an operator being burned over
80 percent of his body.
III-2
-------
No damage incidents were reported for quantities smaller
than 100 kg/mo disposed of in managed facilities.
3. Mismanagement of Pesticide Containers (5 Incidents).
These five incidents resulted from the reuse of impro-
perly decontaminated pesticide containers. Two incidents
resulted in deaths and the other three resulted in severe
illness.
B. Comments on Proposed Standard
The Agency received approximately 400 comments on the issue
of regulating small quantity generators. The comments offered
most fequently are summarized below, organized by issue. The
issues raised by these comments have been considered in develop-
ment of the final regulation and are addressed in the following
sections of this document. In addition, other comments ^rom the
public on the proposed regulations not specifically addressed in
those sections are presented and analyzed in Appendix R to this
document.
1. Consideration of quantity in defining a hazardous waste
- The RCRA mandates that quantity be considered in deter-
mining whether a waste is hazardous.
2. Should small quantity generators be exempted from
certain generator requirements?
a. No, because the RCRA requires that all quantities of
hazardous waste be fully regulated, and full regula-
tion is necessary to protect health and the environ-
ment.
b. Yes, because
III-3
-------
1) health and the environment cannot be effectively
protected if all generators are fully regulated.
Given the large number of generators and the
limited state and Agency administrative resources,
attention will be diverted from enforcement of
controls on large generators and the permitting
of storage, treatment and disposal facilities
which pose the greatest hazards, and,
2) the cost of fully regulating all generators
(i.e., small generators) is excessive and not
worth the protection achieved.
3. How should an exemption cutoff be establish?
a. Set an exemption cutoff lower than 100 kg/mo to
protect health and the environment.
b. Set an exemption cutoff higher than 100 "kg/mo (e.g.,
1000 kg/mo) because:
1) The capacity of treatment and disposal facilities
that can meet the Subtitle C standards is severely
limited. The limited capacity should be used
for large quantities of waste beause they are
more hazardous due to their quantities.
2) The cutoff should be higher to reduce the admini-
strative burden on the regulators so that limited
resources can be focused on the bicrger problems
posed by waste management facilities and large
generators.
III-4
-------
3) The cutoff should be higher because the high
cost of regulation to small generators is not
worth the environmental protection achieved.
c. Set exemption cutoffs based on degree of hazard
because:
1) The Agency has a legislative mandate to consider
degree of hazard. Several states developed
hazardous waste regulations based on degree of
hazard.
2) Some wastes are extremely hazardous in small
quantities and should be fully regulated while
other waste even in large quantities are only
moderately hazardous.
3) Limited Agency and state administrative resources
should be applied to only those waste Quantities
that are truly hazardous.
4) The economic burden on the regulated community
should be minimized by regulating only those
quantities that are truly hazardous.
5) Limited Subtitle C facility capacity should be
used only for the truly hazardous waste quantities
4. What requirements should apply to exemptedgenerators?
a. Facilities certified by states as meeting the land
disposal criteria promulgated under Subtitle D of
the RCRA ("D" facilities) will not provide adequate
protection of health and the environment for small
quantities of hazardous waste because:
III-5
-------
1) Without de minimis quantities for each waste
below which it is not hazardous or without exemp-
tion cutoffs for each waste based on deqree of
hazard, small quantities of extremely hazardous
waste will be disposed of in "D" facilities.
2) "D" facilities have no provisions for ground-
water monitoring.
3) There will be no way to monitor the quantity of
hazardous waste received in a particular "D"
facility; some "D" facilities may receive large
aggregate quantities of small generator hazardous
waste. "D" facilities are not required to comply
with any financial requirements as are "C"
facilities.
4) Hazardous waste will not be identified and thus
the operator is neither able to reject the material,
if desired (or if required under a permit), nor
aware that special handling precautions may be
appropriate; also, operators cannot anticipate
or control adverse effects of mixing wastes.
b. Allowing small quantity generators to dispose of their
waste in "D" facilities in lieu of "C" facilities will
not provide any actual economic relief because there are
no "D" facilities that are currently certified by states,
and there may be few facilities certified over time because
of slow, or lack of, state action. Therefore, disposal
in existing landfills and incinerators should be allowed
II1-6
-------
to effectively reduce the cost burden of disposal in "C"
facilities.
c. Miscellaneous comments:
1) Require disposal in a "C" facility but exempt small
generators from the generator reporting requirements.
2) Some commentors said that a manifest is required to
protect health and the environment and others said it
was not.
3) Subtitle C shipping requirements for generators and
transporters are necessary to protect health and the
environment.
5. Should small quantity generator regulations be phased?
a. Phasing would allow the Agency and the states to
focus limited resources initially on large quantities
(i.e., large quantity generators, transporters and
storage, treatment and disposal facilities);
b. Phasing would allow time for the expansion of "C"
facility capacity;
c. Phasing would provide time to enable the Agency to
collect data on the environmental and economic impacts
of regulating small generators to determine which
wastes need to be regulated in smaller quantities.
C. Environmental and Economic Impact Studies
To gather additional information on this issue, the Agency
conducted two studies on waste produced by small quantity
generators: Technical Environmental Impacts of Numerous
Approaches for Regulating Small Volume Hazardous Wastes Generators
III-7
-------
December 10, 1979; and Economic Impacts of RCRA Approaches
to the Regulation of Generators of Small Volumes of Hazardous
Wastes, January 5, 1980. These studies, hereinafter referred to
as "Agency studies," were released for public comment on January
10, 1980, and by notice in the Federal Register on that same
date, public comments on the data presented in the reports were
invited. Those comments are summarized and analyzed in Appendix
C of this document.
In addition, as required by Executive Order 1204A the Agency
has developed a report which defines the key activities and
associated resource requirements to implement all of the Subtitle
C regulations. The report is entitled, "Operations/ Resource
Impact Analysis: RCRA Subtitle C." A draft of this report was
developed in Fall 1978 and was included in the administrative
record for the Subtitle C regulations. The final report is dated
March 25, 1980.
D. Examination of State Programs
State hazardous waste programs were reviewed to determine
how states regulate small quantity generators. By January,
1980, 15 states were implementing generator regulations, 11
states had developed draft regulations, and many others were in
the drafting process. Most states without regulations in place
are apparently waiting for the Agency to promulgate final gene-
rator regulations under Subtitle C before issuing their final
regulations .
Eighteen of the 26 states with final or draft generator
regulations provide complete or partial exemption for small
III-8
-------
quantity generators. The other states concentrate (or plan to
concentrate) their resources on the largest generators. The
small generator exemption criteria and compliance requirements
for the 18 states are summarized in Table 1. About two thirds
of the states exempt small generators on the basis of waste type
and quantity.- while the others exempt them on the basis of waste
quantity only. Two-thirds of these states with exemption provi-
sions require that the exempted waste be disposed of in an
approved facility.
Based on this examination of State programs, the Agency
concludes:
1. Most states with hazardous waste control programs have
recognized the need to provide special treatment for
small quantity generators.
2. Most states with special provisions for small quantity
generators consider degree of hazard of the waste
but the degree of hazard systems vary substantially, and
3. Most states with special provisions for small quantity
generators still retain control over where the waste is
disposed (i.e., in an approved facility.)
The Agency did not develop or support the small quantity
generator standard on the basis of the state experiences. However,
it is interesting to note that the conclusions the Acrencv
reached as a result of its independent analysis of small generator
regulatory options reflect the experiences of the state programs
— small generators cannot be fully regulated, some control
over where the waste is disposed must be provided, and special
consideration must be given to extremely hazardous waste.
II1-9
-------
Table J
SHALL GENERATOR EXEMPTION CRITERIA AND WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
IN STATES HUH MANAGEMENT DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LARGE AND SHALL VOLUME GENERATORS
EPA
Region State
III. Maryland
II. Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
S. Carolina
Tennessee
V. Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI. Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
VII. Kansas
Missouri
X. Oregon*
Washington
Date of
Regulation
7/78
10/7g
/79
12/79
11/79
1/80
/BO
11/79
8/79
1/80
5/79
1/78
Status of
Regulation
I
D
E
0
t
P
C
0
0
0
t
I
I
!
I
1
I
Exemption Criteria
Waste Type and Quantity
Explicit
Cutoffs for
Specific
Cate-,
gorles1
X
X
X
X
X
100 kg/mo
General
Guide-
line?
X
X
X
No
Explicit
Guide;
lines3
X
Waste
Quantity
Only
100 kg/mo
1.3 tons/yr
100 kg/mo
100 kg/on
100 kg/mo
100 kg/mo
2000 Ibs/yr
Waste
Oil
Only
30 gal/yr
00 gal/ma
Compliance Requirements
Disposal
in SW
Facility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lesser
Admin.
Reqmnts
X
No
Compliance
Reqmnts
X
X
Reqmnts
Undecided
Unavailable
X-
X
X
H
H
H
12
I • In place
E • temporary emergency regulations
P * proposed
D » draft form
'State regulations contain specific quantit cutoffs for tine or more waste categories defined within the regulations.
A 100 kg/mo exemption cutoff is applied to most hazardous wastes; however, specific wastes considered more or less
hazardous than most may be assigned lower or higher cutoffs by the state.
State regulations allow exemptions to be granted on a case-by-case basis for generators of small quantities of
hazardous waste.
Oregon has two small generator exemption groups which have different exemption criteria and Management
requirements.
-------
IV. RATIONALE FOR FINAL REGULATION
A. Profile of Small Quantity Generators
In the preamble to the proposed regulations the dis-
cussion of the small generator issue stated that the Agency
had limited data on the number of small quantity generators
and the type and quantity of waste they generate. However,
the Agency believed that the number of generators were too
large to make full regulation of all generators practical.
The Agency has re-examined this premise in developing the
final regulations.
Number of Generators and Waste Quantities
The number of hazardous waste generators is immense,
totalling approximately 762,000 according to the Agency
studies. The number of generators begins to increase rapidly
at waste generation rates below 1000 kg/mo, and increases
tremendously at generation rates of less than 100 kg/mo.
(See Figure 1 and Table 2.) The waste quantities produced
by small generators are nearly insignificant compared to
the total quantity of hazardous waste generated annually.
For example, generators of more than 1000 kg/mo generate 99
percent of the total quantity of hazardous waste, and generators
of more than 100 kg/mo generate 99.8 percent of the total
quantity of hazardous waste. In terms of absolute quantities,
however, the aggregate quantity generated by these small
generators may be substantial: one percent of the total
quantity of hazardous waste generated annually amounts to
600,000 metric tons of hazardous waste. However, this
waste is widely dispersed nationally, as indicated by the
IV-1
-------
Figure I
Thousands of Cumulative %
Genoralori of Generator!
761.8
685.6
609.4
533.2
457.1
380.1
304.7
22U.C
152.4
76.2
100
- 20
• 10
NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PROFILE
ALL GENERATORS
\
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
. WASTE QUANTITY
Cumulative %
of Hazardous
Wattes from
Generators
±
1.000
2.000
3,000
4.000
5,000
if'
90
80
70
60
50
Millions of
Metric Tons
Par Year
60.7
54.6
48.5
42.5
36.4
30.3
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 H
24.3
10.2
12.1
6.1
oo
WASTE GENERATION RATE (kg/mo)
-------
Level (kg/mo)
0
100
1000
5000
Number
762,000
200,000
67,000
40,000
Percent
100
26
9
5
Types of Generators
concentration of small generators in the non-manufacturing
sector as discussed below.
Table 2
Hazardous Waste Generator Profile
Generator Exclusion Generators Regulated Waste Regulated
Metric ton Percent
(per year)
60,600,000 100
60,500,000 99.8
60,000,000 99.0
59,300,000 97.8
The types of business activities generating small quan-
tities of hazardous waste differ markedly from those generating
large quantities. In contrast to large quantity generators
of which more than 80 percent are from the manufacturing sec-
tor, over 89 percent of the small generators—those producing
hazardous waste at rates of less than 1000 kg/mo—are from
\
the non-manufacturing sector. These generators are scattered
among such diverse sectors as construction, special trade
contractors (e.g., plumbers, electricians), secondary
schools, and local transportation systems. Gasoline service
stations and automobile repair garages (for wastes other
than waste lubricating oil) comprise nearly 30 percent of
these non-manufacturing small generators of hazardous waste
(see Table 3).
IV-3
-------
Table 3
Industries With Large Numbers of Generators
of Less Than 1000 kg/mo of Hazardous Waste *
Industry
Gasoline Service
Stations
SIC(s)
5541
Construction,
Special Trade
Contractors (e.g., 1711, 1792,
Plumbers, Elec- 1751, 1761,
tricians) 1795, 1799
Auto Repair Garages
Painting, Paper
Hanging and Deco-
rating Contractors
Dry Cleaning Plants
Auto Body, Paint,
Upholstery Shops
Secondary Schools
Miscellaneous Repair
Services
Coin-Operated Dry
Cleaners
7538
Number of
Generators
130,000
125,000
32,000
1721
7216
7531-35
8211
76
7215
27,000
25,000
23,000
21,000
21,000
15,000
Waste Quantity
(Metric Tons/year)
189,000
15,000
50,000
5,000
34,000
10,000
6,000
64,000
7,000
* For purposes of this analysis, waste oil was not considered a
hazardous waste. Also, retailers and farmers were excluded
from this analysis.
IV-4
-------
B. Need for a Small Quantity Exclusion
De Minimis Quantities
The Agency has considered whether small generator
wastes are hazardous under the statutory definition in
Section 1004(5) of the Act and has determined that a
plausible mismanagement scenario can be developed for
many of the wastes listed or identified in Part 261 whereby
the waste meets the hazardous definition in any quantity.
The damage reports summarized earlier provide examples of
several mismanagement scenarios. For some wastes listed
or identified in Part 261, there may be a de minimis
quantity below which the waste is not hazardous. However,
the Agency has not been able to identify the de
minimis quantity for those wastes at this time on a before-
the-fact (i.e., damage) basis, and, therefore, considers
any quantity of waste listed or identified in Part 261 to
be hazardous.
The problems with determining de minimis quantities
were impossible to overcome during the rulemaking process.
Conceptually, to determine the de minimis quantity of a
waste, the greatest potential hazard to health and the
environment posed by a waste must be determined and then
an assessment must be made of whether that hazard is
substantial. The hazard a waste poses is a function of
its intrinsic hazard and the exposure of the public and
the environment to that hazard considering the quantity
IV-5
-------
of waste produced and plausible raismangement scenarios that
result in the greatest hazard. Secondary hazards created
during management (e.g., toxic combustion products formed
by incinerating the waste or by co-incineration with other
waste; toxic substances in leachate formed by the interaction
of wastes) must also be considered. All of these factors —
intrinsic hazard, waste quantity, plausible mismanagement
scenarios, seconary hazards created — vary for each generator
producing a waste listed or identified in Part 261. For
example, intrinsic hazard of a waste depends on factors such
as its relative toxicity, its carcinogenic, mutagenic, tera-
togenic, and bioaccumulative properties, its flash point,
and its corrosive and reactive properties. The hazard posed
by plausible mismanagement scenarios is a function of factors
such as proximity to population centers, rainfall, depth of
ground water, attenuation in the soil, biodegradation,
dillution in water, and other sources of waste in the same
area.
Thus, conceptually, a de minimis quantity should be
developed for each waste produced by each generator because
the factors that determine potential hazard are a function
of the characteristics of each waste and the plausible mis-
management scenarios available to the generator. Given
current knowledge and the legislative mandate for timely
control of hazardous waste, the Agency has not been able to
develop de minimis quantities and, therefore, considers any
quantity of a waste listed or identified in Part 261 to be
hazardous in accordance with the statutory definition.
IV-6
-------
Infeasibility of Fully Regulating All Generators
Agency and State Administrative Responsibilities. The
Agency's economic impact study estimated Agency and state
unit costs for implementing and enforcing the Part 262
generator regulations for generators of less than 5,000
kg/mo. These costs in terms of work-minutes per generator
are presented in Table 4.
These cost estimates indicate that only 12 percent of
small generator regulatory costs are one-time costs. Thus,
regulating small generators will continue to require
substantial resources after the first year of regulation.
An Agency and state administrative responsibility that
was not considered in the Agency study is assisting generators
upon request in understanding the regulations and their
responsibilities. The work load required for such assistance
could be substantial, especially for the smaller generators.
For example, few small generators (see Table 3) are likely
to be familiar with the hazardous waste regulations, including
relatively complex requirements such as the the Department
of Transportion shipping requirements adopted by the Agency
for generators shipping hazardous waste off-site. Not only
might the one-time costs of such assistance be substantial,
but recurring assistance requests may be substantial because
of the dynamics of small businesses (i.e., changes in manage-
ment, and openings and closings).
Administrative Shortfalls. The Agency considered data
presented in two reports in evaluating the administrative
IV-7
-------
Table 4
Agency and State Workload for
Regulating Small Generators
Work-minutes % % Excluding
One-time cost
One-Time Costs
Review notification documents 25 12
Recurring costs (i.e., annually)
Review generator exception reports 523
Enter annual generator reports into
ADP System 15 7 8
Inspection 16 8 9
Enforcement 144 70 80
Total work-minutes in first year 205
Total recurring work-minutes 180
-------
burden on the Agency and the states of regulating small
generators: the Agency economic impact study that evaluated
regulatory options for small generators (Small Generator Study),
and the Agency-developed "Operations/Resource Impact Analysis;
RCRA Subtitle C" (ORIA) that projected Agency and state re-
source requirements for the final Subtitle C regulations.
The reports used different methodologies in developing work-
load projections and projected different workloads. The
Small Generator Study used unit cost estimates of all Sub-
title C Agency and state activities to project workload
requirements from 1981 to 1985. The ORIA did not estimate
unit costs, but rather developed estimates of workload
requirements for each activity from 1981 to 1985. The ORIA
then considered factors such as the status of each state's
regulatory program, the relative size of the state program,
and the year in which a state is likely to receive interim
authorization under Section 3006 of RCRA.
The Small Generator Study projected resources available
to the Agency and the states for implementing and enforcing
the Subtitle C regulations from 1981 to 1985, and compared
resources available to resources required. The ORIA pro-
jected resources available only for 1981.
Although the two studies used different workload and
available resource assumptions, they both indicate that there
will be a substantial shortfall in available resources if all
generators are fully regulated (see Table 5).
IV-9
-------
Table 5
i
Projected 1981 Workloads And Shortfalls
Exclusion Level Small Generator Study* QRIA^
(kg /mo)
5000
1000
100
0
Workyears
2135
2180
2395
3315
% Shortfall
3
5
15
59
Workyears
1845
2060
2980
% Shortfall
0
12
62
* The small generator study projected that 2080 workyears would
be available in 1981. Workloads shown were calculated from
data reported in the Agency study.
t The ORIA projected that resources required would equal resources
available in 1981 at an exclusion level of 1000 kg/mo. The
ORIA did not consider workloads for lower exclusion levels.
Therefore, the small generator study workload requirements for
regulating generators of less than 1000 kg/mo were used to
project shorfalls using the ORIA baseline workload require-
ments at an exclusion level of 1000 kg/mo.
If all generators were fully regulated, then other
aspects of the Subtitle C regulatory program could not be
fully and effectively implemented and enforced. For example,
to offset the shortfalls in 1981 that would occur at various
exclusion levels, the Agency and the states could reduce
waste management facility permitting efforts as shown in
Table 6.
IV-10
-------
Table 6
1981 Reduction in Facility Permits To
Offset Resource Shortfalls At Various
Small Generator Exclusion Levels *
Small Generator Study ORIA
Exclusion Level
(kg/no)
5000
1000
100
0
Fewer
Permits
230
415
1310
4183 +
Percent
Reduction
5
10
31
100
Fewer
Permits
None
None
440
1140 +
Percent
Reduction
40
100
* The reduction in permits shown is actually a reduction in
equivalent permits calculated by dividing the workyear short-
fall by the average workload required to permit a facility.
The shortfalls at an exclusion level of 0 kq/mo exceed the
resources allocated to permitting in 1981. (The two studies
used different assumptions for the permitting workload in
1981, the workyear requirements per permit, and the number
of facilities to be permitted.)
Both analyses indicate that if all generators are to be
fully regulated, the Agency and the states cannot conduct any
permitting activities in 1981 and in addition, must reduce
other implementation and enforcement efforts to offset the
remaining shortfall.
The Agency belives that public health and the environ-
ment would be better protected by excluding some small
generators from full regulation and applying the available
Agency and state resources to the regulatory controls for
large generators, transporters, and waste management facil-
ities. Without an exclusion, other activities such as
permitting facilities must be curtailed in lieu of regulating
small generators.
IV-11
-------
C. Analysis of Approaches to Exclude Small Quantity Generators
From Full Regulation
After the Agency determined that some exclusion of
generators was necessary in order to implement the program,
the Agency considered two basic approaches to define excluded
generators: (l) setting different exclusion levels for each
waste or type or class of waste based on the degree of
hazard presented by the waste; or (2) setting a generator
exclusion level based only on consideration of the quantity
generated.
Degree of Hazard Exclusion Approach
Many commenters argued that basing exclusion levels on
degree of hazard would: 1) more efficiently apply limited
Agency and state administrative resources to the more haz-
ardous waste, 2) reserve limited hazardous waste treatment
and disposal facility capacity for the more hazardous wastes,
3) fully regulate small quantities of extremely hazardous
wastes/ and 4) reduce the economic burden on generators of
less hazardous wastes.
The suggestions made by the commenters varied substan-
tially as to the exclusion level for a given class of hazard,
and as to the complexity of the hazard classification system.
For example/ one group of commenters proposed that the
exclusion level be at or near zero for highly hazardous
waste and range to 100 kilograms per month (kg/mo) or more
for less hazardous waste. Others proposed that the exemption
level be 100 kg/mo for highly hazardous waste and range to
IV-12
-------
1000 kg/mo or more for less hazardous waste.
The consideration of degree of hazard relative to a
small quantity exclusion cannot be separate from the broader
issue of consideration of degree of hazard in developing
all of the Subtitle C controls. Many commenters argued for
classification of wastes by degree of hazard to accomplish
one or more of these objectives: (1) phasing regulatory
coverage of hazardous wastes to deal with the most hazardous
waste first; (2) tailoring of the waste management require-
ments to avoid over-regulating some wastes and thus, imposing
on unnecessary economic burden, and (3) setting threshold
levels for exclusion of small quantity generators from full
regulation. Suggestions on how to develop the degree of
hazard system varied significantly in approach and complexity.
Commenters generally suggested basing degree of hazard deter-
minations on either intrinsic hazard of a waste as determined
by its physical and chemical properties, or on the probable
exposure to the hazards of a waste based on its management.
The Agency's response to the degree of hazard comments
is contained in the Degree of Hazard Background Document.
As explained in that document, the Agency decided not to
incorporate a degree of hazard system in the final regulations
for two reasons:
(1) The Agency does not believe that any of the degree
of hazard systems suggested by commenters (or any
it could conceive itself) are technically and legally
IV-13
-------
defensible in terms of distinguishing different levels
of hazard and relating management standards to them,
and
(2) The Agency believes that the final regulations
when fully promulgated will achieve the objectives of
a degree of hazard system and, thus, a degree of hazard
system is unnecessary.
However, to the extent possible the Agency considered
level of hazard in establishing small quantity exclusions.
The Agency believes that a limited number of wastes clearly
present such a substantial hazard, even in very small quan-
tities, that a low exclusion level is necessary to adequately
protect public health and the environment. These wastes
include wastes related to certain commercial products such
as discarded products, off-specification nroducts, product
containers, and contaminated material resulting from a dis-
charge of those products. The exclusion levels for these
wastes range from 1 kg/mo to 100 kg/mo and are discussed in
other background documents to Part 261.
This provision for lower exclusion levels for extremely
hazardous wastes addresses the hazard posed by certain empty
pesticide containers. As discussed in Section III-A, the
Agency found five incidents of damage from empty pesticide
containers that were not properly decontaminated or disposed.
Three of the five incidents involved 55 gallon drums that
held parathion (see Appendix A) and the only deaths reported
IV-14
-------
(two) involved the parathion containers. Given that para-
thion is on the §261.33(e) list of extremely hazardous
commercial products and that §261.5(c) excludes only those
product containers that are smaller than five gallons in
capacity, the type of parathion container involved in the
incidents will be fully regulated.
The Agency expects to set low exclusion levels for addi-
tional wastes as data is available to support them. In
addition, a petition mechanism is established in Part 260
whereby the public can request amendments to the Subtitle C
regulations. This mechanism can be used to propose setting
lower exclusion levels for any hazardous waste or class or
type of hazardous waste.
Although the Agency considered degree of hazard to the
extent possible in establishing exclusion levels, the Agency
does not agree with some of the reasons several commenters
suggested for adopting a degree of hazard system. The
Agency does not agree that, given that some hazardous waste
must be excluded from full regulation, a degree of hazard
system is needed to reserve limited hazardous waste treat-
ment and disposal facility capacity for the more hazardous
waste. The total contribution of waste from generators of
less than 1000 kg/mo, for example, is only one percent of
the total quantity of hazardous waste, and accordingly, it
does not appear that sending these wastes to permitted
facilities would significantly exacerbate any capacity
shortfall.
IV-15
-------
The Agency also disgrees with the commenters arguments
that the cost burden to generators should be considered or
that the cost of regulation outweighs the resultant environ-
mental benefits. For reasons discussed in other documents
supporting the Part 260-265 regulations, the Agency may not
under the RCRA engage in cost/benefit analyses to develop
or support its regulations. Cost impacts may be considered
only to the extent that they may have environmental impact
ramifications, as discussed in other sections of this document.
Waste Quantity Exclusion Approach
In cases in which the Agency could not set exclusion
levels based on hazard alone, the Agency has decided to
identify an exclusion level for small quantity generators
based on waste quantity. The Agency believes that a waste
quantity exclusion approach is reasonable because small
generator wastes pose less hazard than large quantity generator
wastes in the aggregate, and, in most cases, individually.
The Agency has concluded that small generator wastes pose
less hazard because: 1) the hazard a particular waste
poses in a given management scenario is often proportional
to its quantity, 2) the Agency study of small generator
wastes indicates that there are no special or unique hazards
posed by small generator wastes (i.e., degreasing solvents
generated by small service stations generating less than
100 kg/mo are similar in inherent hazard to degreasing
solvents generated by mass transit service garages generating
IV-16
-------
3,000 kg/mo; and 3) small generator wastes (i.e., less than
5,000 Tcg/mo) in the aggregate amount to only 2.2 percent
of the total quantity of hazardous wastes.
IV-17
-------
D. Analysis of Alternative Quantity Cutoffs
In considering alternative exemption cutoffs between
zero and 5,000 kg/mo, the Agency considered both environ-
mental impacts and the administrative impacts on the Agency
and the states. Economic impacts on generators were also
evaluated but were not used to develop or support the Agency's
decision.
Administrative Considerations
EPA has evaluated the resource requirements on the
Agency and the States to regulate small quantity generators.
Administrative resource requirements for small generators
affect the overall level of protection of public health and
the environment because, given finite resources, they reduce
the resources that can be applied to regulating large quan-
tities .
The Agency and state administrative resource shortfall
increases as more small generators are fully regulated (see
Table 5). The Small Generator Study indicates that there
will be a shortfall even at a cutoff of 5000 kg/mo while the
ORIA indicates that shortfalls will not occur unless the
cutoff is less than 1000 kg/mo. However, both studies
indicate dramatic increase in the shortfall when the exclu-
sion level is lowered from 100 kg/mo to 0 (i.e., no exclu-
sion) because of the enormous increase — 560,000 additional
generators — in the number of generators regulated (see
Table 2). Although the shortfall at a cutoff of 100 kg/mo
is substantial, the shortfall at a 0 kg/mo cutoff is nearly
IV-18
-------
four times the 100 kg/mo shorfall according to the Small
Generator Study- and more than five times the 100 kg/mo
shortfall according to data in the ORIA study. At a cutoff
of 100 kg/mo, Agency and state resource shortfalls are sub-
stantial: 315 workyears according to the Small Generator
Study, and 215 workyears according to the ORIA (ee Table 5).
To offset those shortfalls, implementation and enforcement
of some other Subtitle C controls must be curtailed. Table 6
shows that waste management facility permitting efforts,
for example, would have to be reduced by approximately one-
third to offset the cost of fully regulating all generators
producing more than 100 kg/mo.
At a cutoff of 1000 kg/mo, the shortfall is reduced to
100 workyears according to the Small Generator Study, and
the ORIA indiates there will be no shortfall. The 100 work-
year shortfall projected by the Small Generator Study amounts
to a five percent shortfall which the Agency does not con-
sider to be subtantial given the level of accuracy of the
projections.
The Agency concludes from this analysis that an
initial exclusion level of 1000 kg/mo will provide a greater
overall level of environmental protection than lower levels.
This will allow the Agency to focus available resources on
fully regulating large quantities during the early years of
regulation implemenation rather than expanding the scope of
regulatory coverage and achieving ineffectual implementation
of a more ambitious program. This level will enable EPA to
IV-19
-------
direct its attention to the effective regulation of 99
percent of the total wastes generated, and will entail only
insignificant, if any, sacrifices in the task of permitting
hazardous waste management facilities.
The resource constraints and shortfalls have direct
significance for the operation of the entire regulatory
program. To expand the coverage to smaller generators would
require direct sacrifices from other elements of the program,
most notably regulation and enforcement of large generators,
permitting of treatment, storage and disposal facilities,
and enforcement of large generators, permitting of treament,
storage and disposal facilities, and enforcement and inspec-
tion of these facilities. Furthermore, with greater resource
demands and projected shortfalls, greater difficulties are
likely in the ability of States to obtain authorization to
administer the program in lieu of the Federal government.
Given the enormity of the implementation task and the
limited administrative resources, EPA has been forced to
make difficult allocation decisions. Expanding the coverage
of generators would entail direct sacrifices from other
essential program components. The determination of the
proper exclusion level in the final regulation represents a
complicated balancing of a variety of factors. The decision
reflects a judgment by the Agency that the overall environ-
mental objectives will be best served by selecting a level
which promises full and effective implementation of all
elements of the program rather than one that promises
ineffective implementation of a more ambitious program.
IV-20
-------
Environmental Considerations
The information on environmental impacts which the Agency
was able to develop was not fully conclusive in determining a
specific exclusion level. Of the factors considered, damage
incidents were the most revealing. The review of damage reports
tends to support a 100 kg/mo exclusion level. First, there were
only three damage incidents involving quantities below that level
and all three resulted from indiscriminate dumping rather than
from disposal in a managed facility. This suggested that disposal
of less than 100 kg quantities in a managed facility other than a
"C" facility might provide sufficient environmental protection.
In addition, the damage reports indicated that 55 gallon
drums of ignitable, reactive and corrosive wastes pose a substan-
tial hazard at managed landfills. These drums apparently contained
approximately 200 kg or less. The problem appeared to be that the
operators were not aware of the hazardous contents because the
drums were apparently not market or labelled. Even if they were
adequately marked and labelled, it is questionable whether typical
municipal and industrial waste landfill operators are properly
trained to handle these wastes in these quantities. Consequently,
these drums should be fully regulated to require compliance with
EPA and DOT shipping requirements and to require and ensure de-
livery to a facilty with trained personnel and adequate emergency
equipment and procedures (i.e., a facility permitted under Subtitle
C). A cutoff of 100 kg/mo would ensure regulation of all full
drums. A higher exclusion level would not provide this assurance.
IV-21
-------
The Agency, "however, has been relunctant to place too much
emphasis on its reports of damage incidents because the incidents
reported may not be representative of small quantity damage
incidents given that the agency has not actively attempted to
obtain damage reports involving smal quantities. In addition,
as discussed in Section III-A, these incidents may not be repre-
sentative of incidents actually involving wastes generated by
small quantity generators (i.e., the wastes may have been gener-
ated by large quantity generators).
The environmental impact analysis also indicated that small
generator hazardous waste are typically mixed bv the generator
with non-hazardous wastes and subsequently disposed with those
wastes.
At an exclusion level of 100 kg/mo, the Agency study reports
that non-manufacturing generators account for 92% of the genera-
tors and 82% of the hazardous waste. This has two important
ramifications. Because non-manufacturing establishments, espe-
cially those in this size group, can be expected to dispose of
their waste off-site with other mixed municipal waste, 82 percent
of small generator hazardous waste can be expected to be so
disposed. In addition, because non-manufacturing establishments
can be expected to be evenly distribured with population (e.g.,
secondary schools, plumbers, painters, dry cleaners) R2% of the
small generator waste can be expected to be evenly distributed
in the mixed municipal waste disosal facilities across the country.
Given that approximately 132 million metric tons per year of
non-hazardous solid waste are disposed of in these facilities.
IV-22
-------
this results in a non-hazardous to hazardous waste ratio of
approximately 900 to 1 at a cutoff of 100 kq/mo. For example,
a 200 ton per day municipal landfill could be expected to receive
only about 0.2 tons per day of small generator hazardous waste
if the exclusion level were 100 kg/mo.
Although the other 18 percent of the waste generated by
generators of less than 100 Tcg/mo is produced by manufacturing
establishments, most of that waste can also be expected to be
disposed of off-site with mixed municipal waste. Of the re-
maining fraction of small generator hazardous waste which may be
managed on-site, it is not known whether it will be mixed with
nonhazardous waste, or if so, in what ratios. Therefore, it is
not possible to access the hazard of disposing of that fraction
of small generator waste. Hypothetically, a small generator could
landfill 99 kg/mo of a hazardous waste on-site without being
required to comply with the "C" facility standards, which would
amount to 26 tons of hazardous waste in place after 10 years.
The Agency believes that the hazard posed by such a situation will
generally be minimal because a generator discarding hazardous
waste on-site must obtain prior state approval (as discussed in
Section IV-F). It is unlikely that a state would approve such a
facility unless an analysis of the intrinsic hazard of the waste
and the potential for exposure indicated the hazard was minimal.
At an exclusion level of 1000 kg/mo, the average dilution
ration is reduced to 200 to 1. Although there is no certainty
that a dilution ratio of 100 to 1 or even 1000 to 1 presents
adequate protection of human health, these levels of dilution
are high and minimize exposure and risk.
IV-23
-------
E. Phasing
The Agency has concluded that a general exclusion level of
100 kg/mo would provide adequate protection of public health
and the environment in most cases but that the exclusion
level must be 1000 kg/mo initially because administrative
resources are limited. Thus, initially, the 1000 kg/mo
exclusion level provides the best protection possible by
allowing limited Agency and state resources to be focused
on implementing and enforcing controls on large generators,
transporters, and waste management facilities.
To more fully meet the environmental protection object-
ives of RCRA, however, the Agency will initiate rulemaking
within two to five years to phase in expanded Subtitle C
coverage of small generators down to those generating 100
kg/mo quantities. The Agency believes there is a reasonable
expectation that the Agency and state resource shortfall
will decrease over time as discussed below to allow for
expanded coverage of those small generators without
sacrificing full implementation and enforcement of Sub-
title C controls on large quantities. The Agency does not
believe it is reasonable to expect that resourses will be
available in the foreseable future to fully regulate all
generators.
Projecting workloads and budgets into the future is in-
herently speculative relying on various assumptions and
estimates. The Agency's small generator economic impact
IV-24
-------
study projected that the Agency and state administrative
shortfall at any generator exclusion level would increase
over time although workload requirements were projected to
decrease. The shortfall was projected to increase because
administrative costs (primarily staff costs) were assumed
to inflate over time while the Agency and state budgets
remained constant. If, in fact, budgets keep pace with
inflation, (and Subtitle C staffing is not reduced) then
Subtitle C coverage can be expanded for additional small
generators in 1983 when the Subtitle C proaram development
activities are projected to be completed.
Another Agency economic analysis of the Subtitle C re-
gulations, the ORIA (see Section IV-B), projected that the
Agency and state Subtitle C workload would increase sub-
stantially from 1981 to 1983 and would then decrease somewhat
in 1984 and 1985. The ORIA did not project budgets beyond
1981. If the Agency and state budgets keep pace with the
resource needs projected by the ORIA and are not reduced
in 1984 (and keep pace with inflation in 1984 and beyond),
then under the ORIA's projections additional small genera-
tors can be brought under expanded Subtitle C coverage at
that time.
In short, although these analyses used different assump-
tions and different methodologies, it is clear that under
the scenarios described above Subtitle C coverage can be
expanded over time for additional small generators without
sacrificing full implementation and enforcement of the
IV-25
-------
Subtitle C controls on large generators, transporters, and
waste management facilities. In addition, the Agency will
seek any budgeting increases necessary to accomplish the
appropriate phasing of expanded regulatory coverage.
Finally, once the regulatory system in place and operat-
ing, the Agency will be able to reasses the ability to
achieve more comprehensive coverage. For example, several
commenters have pointed out that the Agency and state budgets
have been underestimated and the small generator administra-
tive workload has been overstated by the Agency studies.
The Agency agrees that it may appear that the small genera-
tor administrative workload can be reduced at the Agency's
discretion because nearly 80 percent of first year costs
and 90 percent of recurring costs relate to inspection and
enforcement which have a discretionary component. However,
it is not clear that the actual administrative workload for
non-discretionary actitities will be substantially less
than the total workload projections in the Agency studies
(See Table 4). The Agency and the states will be required
to initiate inspections and enforcement actions where apparent
non-compliance incidents are reported by others to the
Agency and the states. Non-discretionary inspections and
enforcement actions may increase as the small generator
exemption cutoff is lowered because of the dramatic increase
in the number of generators being regulated. Many of the
small generators may not comply with the regulations simply
because they are not aware of the regulations or they do
not fully understand them. Table 3 shows some of the types
IV-26
-------
of industries that have large numbers of generators of
less than 1000 kg/mo. Many of these generators are gener-
ally unfamilar with environmental regulation and may never
become fully aware of the regulatory controls that are appli-
icable to their wastes.
If the commenters are correct that workloads have been
overstated and budgets understated, Subtitle C coverage of
small generators can be expanded quickly and without direct-
ing resouces from other Subtitle C programs. Answers to
these questions should be apparent in two or three years.
IV-27
-------
F. Analysis of Options for Regulating Excluded Generators
The Agency considered various combinations of reduced
administrative and technical requirements for generators of
less than 1000 kg/mo quantities.* Based on data presented in
the Agency studies and analysis of comments from the public,
the Agency concludes that these generators should be excluded
from all of the Part 262 generator requirements except the
hazardous waste determination requirement of §262.11. However,
the excluded generators are required to manage their waste
(except for on-site storage in small quantities) in state-
sanctioned facilities or to ensure that their waste is trans-
ported off-site to a state-sanctioned facility.
The objective of the analysis of various requirements on
excluded generators was to develop requirements that would
provide adequate protection of public health and the environ-
ment from the hazards these wastes pose while minimizing the
Agency and state administrative burden. The Agency did not
want to create a resource shortfall in order to regulate
small generators at the expense of full regulatory control of
large generators, transporters, and waste management facilities
As presented below the Agency's analysis of the Part 262
generator requirements (and other requirements the Agency
* Two other approaches were considered and are analyzed
in Appendix B: Unconditioned exemption from Subtitle C control
of generators in states with regulatory programs approved by
the Agency; and, assumption of duties contracts.
IV-28
-------
conceived that relate specifically to small generators) indi-
cated that they were either likely to be ineffective or likely
to create a substantial Agency and state workload. Although
the Agency is not particularily comfortable with this conclu-
sion with respect to generators of 100 kg/mo to 1000 kg/mo
quantities because of the hazard they pose, the fact is that
none of these requirements appeared to effectively address
the potential hazards without increasing the administrative
workload and, thus, defeating the purpose of the exclusion.
In summary, any requirement on exempted generators must
effectively address the hazard posed, it must be self-imple-
mentable, and it must generally result in voluntary compliance.
Consideration of Part 262 Generator Requirements
The Agency analyzed the following generator requirements
as they might be applied to exempted generators: notification
under Section 3010 of the RCRA; the manifest, manifest exception
report and annual report; and management of hazardous waste
in an Interim Status facility or a permitted facility.
Notification Under Section 3010. The Section 3010 notifi-
cation will be used to assign the generator an identification
number and to enable the Agency and the states to effectively
manage the flow of manifest exception reports and annual
reports. These reports in turn, enable the Agency and the
states to monitor generator actitities and to assist enforce-
ment efforts. Because enforcement actions against small
generators will have low priority given limited resources,
the Section 3010 notification would have little value.
IV-29
-------
Even so, the Agency considered requiring notification of
generators of between 100 kg/mo and 1000 kg/mo quantities to
provide additional data for use in future rulemaking. However,
the Agency concluded that the Section 3010 notification is
not the most efficient tool for obtaining information on
small generators. Only data on the number of generators and
the type of waste they generate will be available from the
notifications and not data that may be necessary for rulemaking
such as quantities and specific characteristics (e.g., concen-
tration and type of hazardous constitutents, physical proper-
ties, etc.) of each waste stream produced by a generator,
collection and management practices, and the process or business
that generated the waste. The Agency studies have already
estimated numbers of generators and waste types, and thus,
additional data like that discussed above would be of more
value than a confirmation of the estimates already available
that the Section 3010 notification could provide. If addi-
tional data is required for future rulemaking, it would be
more efficient to survey representative samples of generators
rather than to require all generators to provide data.
Manifest and Generator Reports. The manifest required
under Part 262 is a tool for tracking the movement of a waste
to ensure that it reaches its designation and for identifying
its acute characteristics through the use of the Department
of Transportation (DOT) shipping name. Although the manifest
does provide basic information, it does not provide the type
of waste characterization information that a waste management
IV-30
-------
facility operator needs to ensure safe management of the
waste. Thus, the manifest system is principally a tracking
system intended primarly for monitoring and enforcement pur-
poses. Given limited resources, the Agency, and the states
in most cases, may not have the resources to aggressively
pursue enforcement actions against small generators. Because
the manifest by itself did not promise greatly increased
environmental protection, yet promised to greatly increase
the Agency's enforcement responsibilities, the Agency decided
not to require the manifest for small generators.
"C" Management. The Agency considered requiring excluded
generators to dispose of their waste in permitted facilities
or facilities in Interim Status (i.e., "C" facilities) even
though the generator would not be required to notify under
Section 3010 of the RCRA or to manifest his waste.
The requirement was considered initially for all excluded
generators, and then for only those generating more than 100
kg/mo. The Agency concluded that requiring "C" management
of the waste from any excluded generators could result in a
substantial Agency and state administrative burden because of
a substantial non-discretionary enforcement workload, and a
substantial generator assistance workload.
The enforcement workload is somewhat non-discretionary
because Section 3001 of RCRA requires that whenever the Agency
learns that a person is in violation of Subtitle C, the Agency
is required to notify the person. Given the cost of compliance
and the types of generators (i.e., overwhelmingly non-manufac-
IV- 31
-------
turing), many generators may not comply with this requirement
either unitentionally or intentionally. When incidents of
non-compliance are reported to the Agency and the states by
others, the Agency and the states will undertake enforcement
action even if this results in reducing implementation of
other Subtitle C regulatory controls such as permitting waste
management facilities.
Again, it appeared that, strictly from an environmental
perspective, a requirement that wastes be delivered to a "C"
facility without other requirements would not be effective.
Merely delivering the waste to a "C" facility does not ensure
proper management. The waste must be identified, analyzed,
handled correctly and treated or disposed properly. The "C"
facility operator has a number of responsibilities in handling
hazardous waste, including conducting waste analyses, handling
unmanifested wastes properly, and ensuring proper treatment,
storage or disposal. Simply requiring delivery to "C" facility
without requiring proper packaging, labelling, and shipping
papers greatly increases the burden imposed on the operator
of the facility. In practice, he may impose these types of
requirements on the generator as a condition of accepting the
waste.
Consideration of "D" Management of Excluded Wastes
The Agency's proposed small generator standard required
that excluded waste be disposed in a facility certified by
the state to meet the land disposal criteria the Agency was
IV- 32
-------
to develop under Subtitle D of RCRA (a "D" facility)-*
In the first years of the Subtitle C regulatory control
program, however, there will be few facilities actually certi-
fied or permitted by the states as meeting the criteria of a
"D" facility. In the absence of a "D" facility, small generator
wastes would have to be managed in "C" facilities. Although
this problem will be only temporary, it is expected that the
states will require several years to permit all of their
facilities.
Another drawback of this option is that the criteria
developed at 40 CFR part 257 under Subtitle D relate only to
land disposal. Thus, this option does not address management
of small generator hazardous waste in non-"C" storage and
treatment facilities. The Agency believes that non-"C" storage
and treatment of small generator hazardous waste should not
be precluded at the Federal level. For example, some municipal
or industrial incinerators and resource recovery facilities
may be able to effectively and safely manage ignitable wastes
provided the operators are aware of the presence and the
nature (i.e., comprehensive analysis) of the waste and are
properly trained.
* The Agency promulgated those criteria in September 1979
at 40 CFR Part 257.
IV-33
-------
Development of Controls for Excluded Waste
Management in State-Sanctioned Facilities. The Agency
concludes that excluded waste may be managed in other than
"C" facilities to minimize the Agency and state administrative
burden. However, to ensure that the state is aware of the
facility and has identified a responsible facility manager,
the non-"C" facility must have a state permit, license, or
registration.
Requiring excluded generators to manage their waste in
state-sanctioned facilities under Subtitle C provides a much
stronger deterent to indiscriminate dumping than is already
provided by Subtitle D of the RCRA. Subtitle D prohibits
open dumping of hazardous and other solid waste and provides
for enforcement through State and citizen suits. However,
Subtitle D does not provide for Agency enforcement and does
not fix responsibility clearly on the generator. The §261.5
requirements for small quantity generators assigns responsi-
bility on the generator and allows the Agency to take direct
enforcement action when necessary.
The Agency intends for this regulatory approach to be a
temporary expedient to requiring "D" management of disposed,
excluded waste. When §261.5 is amended to phase in expanded
Subtitle C coverage, the Agency will consider allowing non-"D"
and non-"C" disposal of excluded waste only instates with
approved solid waste plans. An approved plan indicates that
the State is in the process of implementing Subtitle D of
RCRA which prohibits open dumping and requires that open
IV-34
-------
dumps (i.e./ non-"D" facilities) be identified. Given that
state plans are not due to be submitted to the Agency until
January 31, 1981 and the Agency has six months in which to
approve or disapprove the plans, the Agency could not require
approval of state plans at this time.
The Agency considered requiring that non-"C" facilities
accepting excluded waste meet certain requirements of Parts
122 and 264 or 265. However, to do so the facility must be
regulated under Subtitle C and the excluded waste must be
identified so the operator can determine whether he is accepting
an excluded waste and is, therefore, subject to the reduced
facility requirements. This approach was not adopted because
of the attendant Agency and state administrative burden it
would have created.
The Agency is providing an exception to the requirement
for management of exempted waste in a "C", "D" or state-
sanctioned facility for wastes that are stored on-site in
small quantities. Virtually all generators store some quantity
of waste for short periods of time and few if any states
currently permit or license such storage. Thus, requiring
state-approval for storage would place a servere burden on
both the states and the generators with little environmental
impact justification provided that the quantity is limited.
The Agency has concluded that the accumulation limits for
certain extremely hazardous waste should range from 1 to 100
Kilograms as defined in §26l.5(c) and should be 1000 kilograms
for the total quantity of hazardous wastes in storage.
IV-J5
-------
If a generator accumulates quantities on-site in excess of
these limits, the hazardous waste accumulated is no longer
subject to exclusion under §261.5 and is fully regulated.
Thus, the generator must immediately comply with §262.34 which
requires marking and labeling of containers, limits accumula-
tion time to 90 days (unless the facility is in interim status
or has a permit) and requires that the waste be manifested
and managed in a "C" facility when removed from storage.
Identification of Excluded Waste. The Agency considered
three alternatives for identifying excluded waste to enable
transporters and waste management facility operators to accept
or reject an excluded hazardous waste:
1) container labeling;
2) special manifest; and
3) notification of transporters and facilities
by the generator prior to use.
Indentification of excluded waste is desirable because of
the acute hazards of handling ignitable, reactive and corrosive
wastes and because non-"C" facilities are not designed to
provide the degree of containment that "C" facilities provide.
These requirements were considered only for excluded
generators who transported more than 100 kilograms per month
for several reasons. The environmental damage reports did
not indicate that quantities of less than 100 kilograms pose
a hazard when disposed of in a managed facility. In fact,
the Agency has no damage reports of less than 100 kilogram
quantities disposed of in managed facilities. In addition,
IV-36
-------
the Agency and state administrative workload would likely
have been substantial if any of these controls were applied
to all excluded generators either because of non-compliance
and the resultant non-discretionary enforcement workload, or
because of generator requests for assistance.
The Agency considered subjecting excluded waste trans-
ported off-site to the labeling requirement of §262.31 but
rejected the option. The Agency believed that, in most cases,
the labeled containers would be mixed with other non-hazardous
waste by the generator so that transporters would not know
that the waste was present. This situation is exacerbated
during collection so that the waste management facility
operator would not know whether a labeled container was in a
load of waste unless each container was examined. Thus,
labeling without a shipping paper or manifest is not effective
The Agency also considered requiring generators of 100
kg/mo to 1000 kg/mo quantities to accompany off-site shipments
with a special manifest or shipping paper that provided more
information than the Part 262 manifest for large generators.
The Agency considered requiring that the EPA hazardous waste
description be added to the DOT shipping name to provide
transporters and waste management facility operators a more
useful description of the waste. Even so, the EPA waste
description would not be an adequate substitute for a compre-
hensive analysis when large quantities are being managed
(i.e., 100-1000 kg).
IV-
37
-------
Another problem with requiring the special manifest is
that it makes little sense to manifest a waste without properly
packaging and labeling the waste so it can be effectively
managed. However, as discussed earlier, this may substantially
increase the Agency and state administrative workload because
of generator requests for assistance in interpreting the
complex DOT regulations and the increase in non-discretionary
enforcement resulting from increased numbers of generators.
Finally, to have generators communicate with transporters
and waste management facilities, the Agency considered re-
quiring generators to notify transporters and facilities prior
to use of the types and quantities of waste they would be
handling. This approach was rejected because the Agency was
unable to devise a notification system that would ensure commu-
nication of the appropriate information without entailing sig-
nificant administrative supervision or involvement. A one-time
notification to transporters and management facilities might
serve to forwarn these persons generally of the fact that they
may handle hazardous waste, .but this is information which if
they are familar with the regulatory system, they may know.
Such notification would not provide information on frequency,
rates, and quantities. To require notification with each
delivery (i.e., a shipping paper) has the problems which would
attend use of the manifest. Moreover, the Agency assumes that
many management facilities and transporters will, (or do) as
a part of normal business practice, learn of the wastes they
handle and adjust their management practices accordingly.
IV-38
-------
V. DISCUSSION OF FINAL REGULATION
Small quantity generators are excluded from full regula-
tion under Part 262, except as indicated below, provided they
discard (i.e., treat or dispose) their waste in, or ensure
that their waste is delivered to, a Subtitle C permitted
facility, a facility in Interim Status under Subtitle C, or a
facility permitted, licensed or registered by a state to
manage municipal or industrial solid waste. Small quantity
generators are generators who produce in a calendar month a
total of less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous wastes.
However, if more than specified quantities (from 1 to 100 "kg)
of extremely hazardous wastes are generated in a calendar
month by a small quantity generator, those particular wastes
are fully regulated. In addition, if a small quantity generator
accumulates on-site at any time more than 1000 kg of hazardous
waste i.g total, or more than specified quantities (from 1 to
100 kg) of extremely hazardous waste, those wastes are fully
regulated.
To determine if the 1000 kilogram limit is exceeded, a
generator must aggregate all hazardous waste generated in a
calendar month. Thus, small quantity waste streams produced
by large quantity generators are fully regulated, even though
those small quantities may pose a hazard similar to small
generator waste in a specific management/exposure situation.
The Agency is taking this position because to exempt small
quantities produced by large generators ignores a major portion
of the Agency's reasoning in providing a small generator
V-l
-------
exclusion. The Agency is providing the exclusion because it
is the most environmentally sound approach given the need to
focus limited Agency and state administrative resources on
large quantities. Large quantity generators will generally
already be in the hazardous waste regulatory system and,
thus/ the administrative burden to the Agency and the states
will not be reduced by excluding a portion of their wastes.
If a generator who produces hazardous waste on a con-
tinuous basis is not sure that he will exceed any of the
generation limits in an up-coming calendar month, he may
project the quantity expected to be generated in that month
based on the average monthly quantities of hazardous waste
generated in the three previous calendar months, or based on
daily averages if he has not been a generator for three months.
If the actual quantity generated proves to exceed the genera-
tion limit during the course of the month while the quantity
projected indicated that the limit would not be exceeded, the
generator is still an excluded generator. However, notwith-
standing this method of projecting quantities, if the generator
has reason to know that he will generate more than any of
the limited quantities, or if an unplanned incident occurs
which produces quantities greater than the limits, the waste
generated for the remainder of that month is fully regulated.
Examples of incidents are spills, fires, or floods.
The regulation language also allows a generator to be
subject to full regulation one month and excluded the next.
However, generators whose waste are frequently subject to
regulation have the option of managing their waste under
V-2
-------
Part 262 in all months.
All small quantity generators must comply with §262.11
which requires any generator of a solid waste to determine if
his waste is hazardous. If the excluded generator's waste is
hazardous, he must comply with §261.5.
Small quantity generators can determine whether a facility
is permitted, licensed, or registered by the state, and thus
eligible under §261.5 to accept their hazardous waste, by contact-
ing the facility operator. In addition, the states are expected
to develop lists of such facilities.
Small quantity generators can treat or dispose of their
waste in municipal or industrial incinerators and in municipal
solid waste resource recovery plants provided that the facility
has a state permit, license or registration and provided, of
course, that no state or local government regulation or ordi-
nance and no contractural condition prohibits such management.
Finally, the regulation provides that a small quantity
generator may mix his hazardous waste with non-hazardous
waste in quantities that exceed the exclusion limits and
remain an excluded generator, provided the resulting mixture
does not meet the characteristics of hazard defined in Subpart
C of Part 261. This is an exception to the Part 261 regula-
tions granted only to small quantity generators. Large quan-
tity generators who mix any listed hazardous waste with other
materials must manage the mixture as a hazardous waste. The
Agency believes that this exception is necessary to make the
regulation practical and to most appropriately protect public
V-3
-------
health. Without such a provision, generators would tend to
segregate and accumulate their small quantity hazardous waste,
This would increase their cost of storage and collection
substantially without any enrivonmental benefit because
separate collections would be required even though the waste
could be taken to the same disposal facility. Furthermore,
this could work against protection of public health since the
mixing and dilution of excluded hazardous wastes with non-
hazardous waste is in the Agency's view, less likely to cause
harm than concentration and accumulation.
V-4
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Damage Incidents Involving Small Quantities
of Hazardous Wastes
Appendix B - Summary of and Response to Public Comments on
the Proposed Standard
Appendix C - Summary of and Response to Public Comments on
the Agency Studies
-------
APPENDIX A
Damage Incidents Involving Small Quantities of Hazardous Wastes
Contents
Page
A. Indiscriminate Dumping
1. 25 Kg Arsenic-Containing Pesticide, A-l
Perham, MN
2. 35 Kg/mo Trichloroethylene-Containing A-2
Degreasing Solvent, Wolcott, CT
3. 100 Kg Toxaphene, Effingham, IL A-3
4. 300 Kg/mo Trichloroethylene-Containinq A-4
Degreasing Solvent, Oscoda, MI
5. 900 Kg Mevinphos Pesticide, Wataloo, IA A-5
6. 1700 Kg Paints and Solvents, Cornwells A-6
Heights, PA
7. 1700 Kg Trichloroethylene-Containing A-7
Sludge, Rehoboth, MA
8. 3500 Kg/mo Alkaline Liquids, Mercer A-3
County, PA
9. 3500 Kg/mo Solvents Containing Trich- A-9
loroethylene and Carbon Tetrachloride,
Canton CT
B. Disposal In (and Transport to) Managed Landfills
1. 200 Kg (55 Gallon Drum) Ethyl Acetate, Cook A-10
County, IL
2. 200 Kg (55 Gallon Drum) Paint Solvent, Dakota A-ll
County, MN
3. 200 Kg (55 Gallon Drum) Ignitable Wast|, A-l2
Edision Township, NJ
4. 200 Kg (55 Gallon Drum) Lacquer Thinner, A-l3
Southern California
5. 200 Kg (55 Gallon Drum) Ignitable Waste, A-14
Delaware County, PA
6. 200 Kg (55 Gallon Drum) Corrosive A~i£
-------
Page
7. 200 Kg (55 Gallon Drum) Corrosive Waste, A-16
Two Incidents, Edision Township, JSFJ
9. 1000 Kg Paint Thinner, Cincinnati, OH A-17
10. 1000 Kg Flammable Waste, MI A-18
11. 3200 Kg/mo PBB-Containing Waste, A-19
Gratiot County, MI
12. 3400 Kg Organic Liquids, Haywood A-20
County, NC
13. 4500 Kg Chemical Liquids, Haywood A-21
County, TN
C. Mismanagement of Pesticide Containers
1. Parathion Container, McAdoo, TX A-?2
2. Parathion Container (55 Gallon Drum), A-23
Dunning, NB
3. Daphnid Container (5 Gallon Drum), A-?A
Halifax County, NC
4. Disyston Container (55 Gallon Drum), A-25
Moore County, NC
5. Parathion Containers, Hughes, AR A-26
-------
A-l
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Arsenic-containing Pesticide, Perham, MN
(25Kg)
1. Personal Damage: Eleven persons developed arsenic poisoning. Two
required hospitalization and treatment.
2. Environmental Damage: Contamination of the soil and groundwater.
3. Economic Damage: Discontinued usage of contaminated well. Installation
of public water supply cost approximately $3,000, Removal and safe dis-
posal of contaminated soil estimated at $25,000. No estimates available
on medical costs, capping of wells and water analysis services.
4. Cause of Problem: Subsurface migration of arsenic compound from the
burial site to well 20 feet away.
5. .Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste Involved: Grasshopper bait, consist-
ing of arsenic trioxide, bran, sawdust, and molasses. Total quantity
disposed estimated at less than 50 pounds.
6. Source of Waste: Local farmers
7. Date: Burial of grasshopper bait estimated between 1934 and 1936. First
case of illness reported in May 1972, with other cases following during
the next 10 weeks.
8. Location: EPA Region V, Perham, Minnesota
9. Remedial Action: The well has been capped. Cost considerations have
prevented permanent correction of the situation at this time. Samples
from 12 nearby wells analyzed at six-month intervals by the State Health
Department.
10. Legal Action: None.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage Reports, EPA/530/
SW-151, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
-------
A-2
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Trichloroethylene-Containing Degreasing Solvent, Woloott, CT
1. Personal Damage: None report^KS/mo)
2. Environmental Damage: Private well owned by Mr. C. J. Brennan, 17 River
View Circle, Wolcott, CT contaminated with trichloroethylene, perchloro-
ethylene, hydraulic fluid, gasoline and other chemicals.
3. Economic Damage: Well was subsequently closed and a new well dug. No
estimates available on cost of closure of contaminated well or of digging
new well.
4. Cause of Problem: Approximately 100-150 gallons/yr of trichloroethylene
degreasing solvent were deposited on company-owned land located 200 yards
from a private well over a period of 10 years. Also, during this period,
unknown quantities of hydraulic fluid were piped into a nearly dry well
and gasoline was poured down floor drains at a service station across the
street from the private well. All 3 occurrences resulted in contamination
of the nearby private well.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 100-150 gallons/yr of trichloro-
ethylene over a 10 year period; also, unknown quantities of hydraulic
fluid and gasoline.
6. Source of Waste: Source of trichloroethylene solvent was Kras Tool and
Machine Company of Wolcott, CT. Source of hydraulic fluid was A.D. Bauman
Co. Source of gasoline was a Mobile Oil service station. *
7. Date: Well contamination was detected during inspection by Connecticut
Resources Commission on November 15, 1974.
8. Location: Contaminated well located at 17 River View Circle, Wolcott, CT
9. Remedial Action: Contaminated well was closed and new well dug. All
sources of waste were forced to discontinue dumping of chemicals onto
land, into pipes and floor drains. Floor drains at the Mobile service
station were sealed off.
10. Legal Action: Homeowner sued all 3 companies involved for damages. Suit
was recently settled out of court. No data available on litigation costs.
11. Miscellaneous: Just prior to the date of the incident, municipal sewers
were installed into the area. Some fracturing of bedrock may have
occurred during blasting operations involved in the sewer installation,
which may have contributed to the contamination of the private well.
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication with Mr. D. Pizzuto,
Hazardous Materials Management Unit, Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, State-of Connecticut, February 1, 1980 (S. Quinlivan, TRW). Memo
from E. Pizzuto, State Dept. of Environmental Protection, to R. L. Smith,
State Dept. of Environmental Proection, 11/15/74. Letter from R. L.
Smith, State Dept. of Environmental Protection, to D. E. Bottigliere,
Cardinal Engineering Co., 1/31/75.
-------
A-3
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
7 Toxaphene, Effingham, IL
"ClOO Kg)
1. Personal Damage: None document:^.
2. Environmental Damage: Contamination of public water supply reservoir
serving city of Effingham, Illinois. Also, 5-6 fish killed.
3. Economic Damage: No estimate available on the cost of clean-up action
taken by state authorities.
4. Cause of Problem: Employee cleaning up around State Highway Department
garage dumped 30 gallons of excess Toxaphene into parking lot drain.
Drain entered ditch which led to public water supply reservoir serving
the city of Effingham, Illinois. Ditch contamined water supply on a
rainy day.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 30 gallons of unused (several
years old) Toxaphene.
6. Source of Waste: Toxaphene used by State Highway Department for insect
control along highways.
7. Date of Incident: 1966
8. Location: Effingham, Illinois
9. Remedial Action Taken: All contaminated gravel and soil in parking lot
drain removed and disposed of properly. As a precaution, extra carbon
was used in the water supply treatment facility. •Contaminated ditch
was dug out. Bioassay testing and monitoring for poisoning was con-
ducted for 4 weeks. Maximum levels of toxaphene detected was 10 ppb.
10. Legal Action Taken: None.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Memo from Mr. Franklin Levis, Public Water Supply
Division, Illinois EPA, Springfield, Illinois, July 15, 1975.
-------
A-4
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Trichloroethylene-Containing Degreasing Solvent, Oscoda, MI
(300 Kg/mo, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: None reported.
2. Environmental Damage: Contamination of 8 residential wells and
a spring located about 100 feet northest of the Thomson
plant.
3. Economic Damage: Recommended extension of the Oscoda Township
Municipal Water Supply system (1,000 feet north of affected
area) to provide a safe water supply to contaminated area
at an estimated cost of $140,000.
4. Cause of Problem: An auto parts manufacturing plant, Thomson
Products, dumped trichloroethylene and discharged cooling
water and parts rinse water containing trichloroethylene
on the open ground which led to contamination of nearby
wells.
5. Type and Quantity of hazardous Waste: Between 1968 and 1972
about 40,000 gallons of trichloroethylene dumped.
6. Source of Waste: Thomson Products-Hedblom Industries, Qscoda,
Michigan.
7. Date: 1968-1972 dumping occurred; April 1973 staff of the
Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources received a complaint regarding a contaminated
well near the plant.
8. Location: losco County, Oscoda, Michigan
9. Remedial ActioN: Proposed water supply system extension from
Oscoda Township to the affected area. Thomson company agreed
to replace any private wells in the area proved to be
contaminated.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: Concentrations of trichloroethylene in one
well and spring were reported at 10 mg/1 and 28 mg/1,
respectively. Other wells showed trace quantities.
12. Source of Information: Memo from Andrew Hogarth, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division,
March 10, 1978, US EPA files. Telephone communication with
Mr. George Liddle, District Engineer, Michigan Department of
Nautral Resources, (517) 275-5151 (P- Painter, TRW 2/28/80).
-------
A-5
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Mevinphos. Pesticide, Waterloo, IA
(900 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: None rep .uted.
2. Environmental Damage: Con .onination of soil surrounding a chemical plant.
3. Economic Damage: Cost of cleanup not reported.
4. Cause of Problem: Chemical manufacturing plant burned technical mevinphos
and dumped previously packaged material.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: Approximately 2,000 pounds (908 kg)
of packaged technical mevinphos (phosdrin).
6. Source of Waste: Chemical manufacturing company
7. Date: 1972
8. Location: Waterloo, Iowa
9. Remedial Action: The area was neutralized with alkali and some materials
were repackaged for disposal by a private hazardous waste disposal firm
in Sheffield, Illinois.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous:
12. Source: Aopendix 1; Case Histories of Accidents. Illegal DisEosals_and_
Pollution Tnr;idents Tnvnivinfr hagayr^rnjc! Wastes, from the files of Calif.
Dept. of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Management Section,
-------
A-6
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Paints and Solvents. Cornwells Heights, PA
(1700Kg, Estimateaj
1. Personal Damage: Several families forced to abandon their homes due to
fumes and fire danger.
2. Environmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: No estimate supplied on possible costs incurred for
families forced to evacuate their homes.
4. Cause of Problem: 500 gallons of paint and solvents dumped into sewer
line by industrial waste disposal .firm called Nugent Bros., Inc. located
in Cornwells Heights, PA.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: Approximately 500 gallons of paints
and solvents.
6. Source of Waste: Nugent Bros., Inc., an industrial waste disposal firm.
7. Date of Incident: 1978
8. Location: Cornwells Heights, PA area
9. Remedial Action Taken: Evacuation of families until danger had passed.
10. Legal Action Taken: Owner of Nugent Bros., Inc. (Mr. Gustav Propper,^
age 42), sentenced to 28.5 to 58.5 months in .county prison by BUGS
County Court for violation of the state's Clean Streams Law.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Mr. Mike Pelensky, U.S. EPA, Region III,.
Philadelphia, PA. Also, Chemical Week Report, March 1, 1976, p. 26
and April 26, 1976.
-------
A-7
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Trichloroethylene-Containine Sludges, Rehoboth, MA
(1700Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: None reported.
2. Environmental Damage: Contamination of private ground water wells with
toluene, trichloroethylene and ethyl acetate.
3. Economic Damage: Cleanup of contaminated soil at the site between
July 5-31, 1978 at a cost of $125,000.
4. Cause of Problem:- Illegal dumping of chemical wastes, mainly oil deriva-
tives and sludge from reprocessing solvents, onto a 30'xlO1 pocket located
on private property. Ground water wells at disposal site and on adjacent
property contaminated.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: Eight to ten 55-gallon drums
deposited at the site. Heavy black sludge containing toluene, trichloro-
ethylene, ethyl acetate and unknown substances covered the 30'xlO1 area.
6. Source of Waste: Illegal disposal of chemical wastes by a trucking
company.
7. Date: Rehoboth Health Agent informed of dumping on April 6, 1978.
8. Location: Rehoboth, Massachusetts
9. Remedial Action: Site cleaned up under state supervision and wastes
taken' to "NEWCO." Area graded and seeded.
10. Legal Action: State is seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs from the
owner in court. A $200,000 property damage suit has been filed.
11. Miscellaneous: Wastes dumped near Shad Factory Pond, a standby reservoir
serving the Bristol, R.I. Water Company. Surface water contamination
suspected but not proven.
12. Source of Information: Office of the Board of Health, Rehoboth, Mass.
Report dated April 26, 1978 sent to Mass. Division of Water Pollution
Control, Southeast Region. Oil and Hazardous Materials Section, U.S.
EPA Region I, Trip Report May 11-12, 1978 - Silva Chemical Waste Dis-
posal Problem, Rehoboth, Mass.
-------
A-8
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Alkaline Liquids, Mercer County, PA
(3500 Kg/mo, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: None reported.
2. Environmental Damage: Five-mile fish kill in a local stream.
3. Economic Damage: Sewer line clogged by the wastes was unclogged at the
expense of Sandy Lake Borough; expenses not reported.
4. Cause of Problem: Alkaline liquids dumped in swampy lowland on private
land. When the landowner drained the swamp with a bulldozer, the wastes
contaminated a nearby stream (resulting in a five-mile fish kill> and a
clogged sewer line of Sandy Lake Borough.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 20,000-30,000 gallons of highly
alkaline liquids (caustic soda, soda ash) with alkalinity 8640 ppin and
pH 10.6.
6. Source of Waste: Pittsburg Plate Glass Company of Sandy Lake Borough
contracted with a private hauler who disposed of its wastes in the swampy
lowland property.
7. Date: Wastes dumped between 1973 and 1975. On May 23, 1975 swamp was
drained and resulted in a fish kill and clogging of the sewer line.
8. Location: Mercer County, Pennsylvania
« »
9. Remedial Action: Clay wall built to re-impound the wastes not discharged
to the stream. The sewer line was unclogged.
10. Legal Action: Property owner arrested for polluting public waters and
fined $100.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Information obtained by A. Giles, Bureau of Water
Quality Management, Meadville, PA from J. Schmick, Bureau of Water Quality
Management and J. Ansell, Waterways Patrolman for Mercer Co.
-------
A-9
_ HAZARDOUS .WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Solvents Containing Trichloroethylene and Carbon Tetrachloride
Canton, CT (350Q Kg/mO) Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: „
None reported.
2. Environmental Damage: At least seven wells contaminated with carcinogenic
chemicals.
3. Economic Damage: Estimates $125,000-$379/000 to bring public water
supplies into the area where wells have been contaminated.
4. Cause of Problem: Chemicals dumped on open ground by a defunct chemical
processing firm contaminated soil and groundwater.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 800-1,000 55-gallon drums of chemi-
cals containing trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride
and traces of chloroform, ethyl alcohol and isbutyl acetate.
6. Source of Waste: Chemicals dumped on property of Auto World Realty, Ltd.
by a previous owner, John Swift Chemical Company
7. Date: Dumping occurred between 1969 and 1972.
8. Location: Canton, Connecticut at Rt. 44 and Colonial Road.
9. Remedial Action: State Dept. of Health to declare Canton's pollution an
imminent threat to community health to obtain an HUD grant to bring public
water into the area. State to sample marginal wells every 3 months for
contamination.
10. Legal Action: State Department of Environmental Protection has ordered
Auto World to investigate and clean up carcinogenic chemicals on its
property.
11. Miscellaneous: Auto World filed an appeal contesting the Dept. of Environ-
mental Protection's authority to order a landowner to do expensive cleanup
to correct a condition he didn't create.
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication with Barry Giroux, Connect-
icut Department of Environmental Protection, Hazardous Materials Management
Unit- (203) 566-5712 (P. Painter, TRW 2/28/80)
-------
B-l
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Eihyl Acetate, Cook County, IL
(200 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: Landfill operator died from second and third degree
burns.
2. Environmental Damage: None resulting from the incident.
3. Economic Damage: Compacting machine valued at $100,000 was lost.
4. Cause of Problem: A scavenger hauler deposited a load containing two
55-gallon drums of ethyl acetate at the landfill in the dark hours of
the morning. The first drum settled several feet into the fill; the
second settled on the surface and was struck by the compactor.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: ~Qne 55-gallon drum of ethyl acetate.
6. Source of Waste: Industrial chemical wastes deposited at the landfill by
a scavenger hauler.
7. Date: September 18, 1975
8. Location: Calumet Industrial Development Landfill, Cook County, Illinois
9. Remedial Action: None; the Illinois EPA has cleared Calumet Industrial
Development of responsibility for the incident since the landfill has a
supplemental permit for hazardous wastes.
10. Legal Action: Civil suit pending against the waste generator and/or
hauler by the family of the deceased.
11. Miscellaneous: -
12. Source of Information: Illinois EPA, U.S. EPA files.
-------
B-2
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Paint Solvent, Dakota County, MN
(200 'Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: Landfill employee suffered burns over 85% of his body
and was left lame; he required hospitalization for 4^ months and exten-
sive plastic surgery.
2. Evnironmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: Approximately $60,000 damage done to bulldozer.
Hospital costs for landfill employee totalled $125,000.
4. Cause of Problem: Bulldozer operated by landfill employee crushed and
ignited a container of paint solvent.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: One container of paint solvent.
6. Source of Waste: Waste generator was Standard Solvent Company; waste
hauler was Twin Cities Disposal Company.
7. Date: March 4, 1969
8. Location: Buriisville, Minnesota
9. Remedial Action: Landfill employee was hospitalized for 4% months.
10. Legal Action: Employee sued waste generator and hauler and recovered
approximately 1/3 of personal damages.
11. Miscellaneous: -
12. Source of Information: Personal communication with Mr. J. Little, Divi-
sion of Solid Waste, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MN,
February 1, 1980 (S. Ouinlivan, TRW); Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage
Report, U.S. EPA, EPA 530-SW-151, June 1975; Hazardous Waste Generation,
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Barr Engineering Co., Minneapolis, MN,
October 1973, p. B-2; Personal communication of Mr. Richard B. McGowan,
4748 Thomas Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN.
-------
B-3
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Ignitable Waste, Edison Township, NJ
(200 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: Bulldozer operator killed in explosion at landfill.
2. Environmental Damage: None which resulted from indicent.
3. Economic Damage: Bulldozer destroyed (approximately $91,000).
4. Cause of Problem: While burying and compacting 55-gallon drums of uniden-
tified industrial waste chemicals, an explosion occurred followed by addi-
tional explosion(s) and fire.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: From one to five 55-gallon drums
of unidentified industrial chemicals.
6. Source of Waste: Unknown industrial origin.
7. Date: October 11, 1974
8. Location: EPA Region II, New Jersey, Edison Township, Kin-Buc Landfill
9. Remedial Action: Management has agreed to make efforts to keep out
unknown chemical wastes.
10. Legal Action: OSHA issued six citations (covering 36 items) for viola-
tion of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. On March 4, 1975
a formal settlement of contested items was reached between OSHA and the
management.
11. Miscellaneous: During the first 10 months of 1974, six other chemical
waste disposal-related occupational injuries were recorded in the logs
of Kin-Buc Landfill.
12. Source of Information: Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage Reports EPA/530/
SW-151, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
-------
B-4
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Lacquer Thinner, Southern California
(200 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: Driver of a truck disposing of flammable
wastes was seriously burned when flames erupted from
the disposal area and engulfed the rear of the truck.
2. Environmental Damage: The truck was destroyed and several
nearby trucks were damaged by the fire.
3. Economic Damage: Cost of damage to the trucks not
reported.
4. Cause of Problem: the actual cause of-the fire is unknown,
It may have been the result of a chemical reaction of
the wastes with the refuse in the landfill or it may have
resulted from a spark created during the handling of
the drums.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 55-gallon drums
of waste lacquer thinner.
6. Source of Waste: Not reported.
7. Date: 1971
8. Location: Southern California.
9. Remedial Action: None reported.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: Drums were labelled as "Mud and Water,"
later verified to be waste lacquer thinner.
12. Source of Information: Appendix 1: Case Histories of
Accidents, Illegal Disposals and Pollution Incidents
Involving Hazardous Wastes, from the files of Calif.
Dept. of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Manage-
ment Section.
-------
B-5
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Ignitable Waste, Delaware County, PA
(200 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: None reported.
2. Environmental Damage: Fire resulting from explosion of a drum of chemical
waste burned trash and demolition wastes in an open dump. Chemicals from
firefighting activities leached into nearby creek.
3. Economic Damage: Bulldozer used in compacting operations at the dump was
destroyed; cost not reported. Cost of firefighting activities not re-
ported.
4. Cause of Problem: Chemical wastes in a drum hit by a bulldozer during
compacting operations exploded, causing a fire which spread throughout
the dump.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 55-gallon drum of unknown chemical
waste.
6. Source of Waste: Unknown
7. Date: 1972
8. Location: Mayer dump, Delaware County, PA
9. Remedial Action: Attempts to extinguish fire by covering it. Fire
smoldered until sometime in 1973 before it was extinguished.
10. Legal Action: Litigation had occurred since 1970 or 1971 to force dump
to adhere to proper disposal practices. In 1974 there was more litigation
requiring dump to make corrections in their disposal practices. Dump did
not comply and was closed in 1974.
11. Miscellaneous: There was a fish kill in Crum Creek next to the dump in
1973 but it was not associated with the fire. Fish kill was a result of
an oil spill at the site.
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication to Mr. Wayne Lynn,
Environmental Resources Division, Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
State of Pennsylvania, February 14, 1980 (P. Painter, TRW). Also, memo
from Mr. Wayne Lynn, August 14, 1975.
-------
B-6
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Corrosive Waste, York County, PA
(200 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: Inspector from the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources was splashed by the contents of a drum containing
corrosives as it was compacted by a bulldozer operator. He was burned
on the face and neck by the content.
2. Environmental Damage: None resulting from the incident.
3. Economic Damage: None reported on the medical costs incurred by the
inspector.
4. Cause of Problem: While investigating disposal of industrial waste in
a landfill not authorized to accept industrial wastes, an inspector was
splashed by the contents of a drum as it was compacted by a bulldozer
operator.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: Disposal records indicated that
1300 pounds of an unspecified corrosive had been delivered in two or
three improperly labelled drums. Damage was caused by one drum.
6. Source of Waste: Penn state Aluminum of Wellsville delivered waste to
Sunny Farm Landfill.
7. Date: Spring 1975
8. Location: Sunny Farm Landfill, North Cordorus Township, York County,
Pennsylvania
9. Remedial Action: None reported.
10. Legal Action: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources filed
a complaint with the local magistrate against Penn State Aluminum of
Wellsville for delivering improperly labeled hazardous materials and
against Sunny Farm Landfill for accepting materials they were not
authorized to handle.
11. Miscellaneous: -
12. Sources of Information: Telephone communication record: Ed Simmons of
EPA Region III Office (May 12, 1975), in EPA files.
-------
B-8
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Titanium Trichloride, Mundelein, IL
(200 Kg)
1. Personal Damage: Fourteen people (including policemen, firemen> local
citizens, etc) were hospitalized for exposure to fumes. Calligan & Co.,
a local firm, was temporarily evacuated during the incident.
2. Environmental Damage: Four 55-gallon drums of neutralized titanium
trichloride waste were trucked to a nearly vacant lot and buried. There
is current interest in excavating and relocating the waste to insure
environmental safety.
3. Economic Damage: Some costs incurred by IML Trucking Co. to neutralize
and bury 4 drums of titanium trichloride. No estimate of costs available.
4. Cause of Problem: One of four drums being hauled by truck driver, Mr.
George Spato of IML Trucking Co., leaked titanium trichloride as the
truck was being driven down Route 45 in the town of Mundelein, IL.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: Approximately four 44-gallon drums
(220 gallons) of titanium trichloride, which forms hydrochloric acid inist
on contact with moisture in the air.
6. Source of Waste: Chemical was being hauled by IML Trucking Co. to the
Anchor Hocking Co. in Mundelein, IL.
7. Date: May 2, 1974, 10:40 am
8. Location: Route 45, within the city limits of Mundelein, IL.
9. Remedial Action: Truck was driven to a nearby fire station in Mundelein
where it was washed down with water. Truck was then taken to a nearby
grassy vacant lot where the 4 drums of titanium trichloride were removed,
neutalized with lime and soda ash, and buried using a front-end loader.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: According to IEPA, Mr. Chuck Manson of Region V EPA is
currently investigating the incident and may wish to excavate and relocate
the neutralized chemical.
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication with Mr. J. Langley,
Division of Land and Noise Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Springfield, Illinois, January 31, 1980 (S. Quinlivan,
TRW) .
-------
B-9
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Paint Thinner, Cincinnati, Ohio
(1000 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: Employee (Mr. William Smith, 44) of privately owned
solid waste disposal dump was burned over 50% of his body and subsequently
hospitalized.
2. Environmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: No estimates supplied on cost of fire fighting, medical
expenses and legal expenditures.
4. Cause of Problem: Employee was burned when his bulldozer ignited drums
of toluene paint thinner which were illegally mixed in with solid waste.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste:- Approximately four 55-gallon drums
of toluene paint thinner.
6. Source of Waste: Clopay Corporation (the waste generator) and Sidney
Kohn & Co. (small holding company), of Cincinnati, Ohio
7. Date: June 11, 1976, 4:15 pm
8. Location: Elda, Inc. dump
(subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.)
5701 Este Avenue
Winton Place, Ohio
9. Remedial Action: Firemen were called to the scene of the fire and had to
run hoses 1/2 mile because the dump had no hydrants. After the incident,
workers at Elda Inc. dump refused to work until rigorous inspection pro-
cedures on incoming waste loads were implemented. Protective enclosures
were installed on heavy equipment to increase worker safety.
10. Legal Action: A court suit was brought by the injured employee against
Clopay Corporation and Sidney Kohn & Co. A monetary settlement was reached
close to the trial date.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication to Mr. Joseph Moore,
Office of Land Pollution Control, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, January 31, 1980 (S. Quinlivan, TRW) and telephone
communication to Mr. Daniel Owings, law firm of White, Getgey and Meyer,
Cincinnati, Ohio, January 31, 1980 (S. Quinlivan, TRW). Also,.memo of
Mr. Norm Schomaker, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Cincinnati, Ohio,
to Mr. Emery Lazar, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., and article in the
Cincinnati Post Enquirer, June 12, 1976.
-------
B-10
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Flammable Waste, Michigan
(1000 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: Bulldozer operator experienced dizziness
and eye irritation while burying drums containing unknown
waste and soon left his bulldozer.
2. Environmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: Bulldozer destroyed by fire after
operator left the machine.
4. Cause of Problem: Drums of volatile flammable substances
ingnited.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: volatile flammable
wastes of unknown quantity.
6. Source of Waste: Not reported.
7. Date: Not reported.
8. Location: Michigan landfill.
9. Remedial Action: None reported.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous:
12. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendices,
Prepared by Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, January
1979.
-------
B-ll
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
PBB-Containing Waste, Grat-iot County, MI
(3200 Kg/mo, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: None documented.
2. Environmental Damage: Contamination of soil, surface water and ground-
water at a county landfill with PBB (polybrominated biphenyls) dumped
illegally and improperly.
3. Economic Damage: Containment measures (capping and diking the landfill)
at estimated cost of $3.15 million with additional monitoring and main-
tenance costs of $85,000 - $114,000.
4. Cause of Problem: PBB dumped in the landfill seeped through a natural
clay layer into groundwater beneath the dump. A second clay layer remained
intact so PBB had not yet reached the lower groundwater aquifer used for
drinking water.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 80-90 tons of PBB.
6. Source of Waste: Michigan Chemical Company dumped PBB wastes in landfill.
7. Date: 1971-1973
8. Location: Gratiot County Landfill, St. Louis, Michigan
9. Remedial Action: Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources has capped and
diked the landfill to prevent contamination of drinking water.
10. Legal Action: Landfill closed December 1, 1977 by court order. The
former Michigan Chemical Company, now Velsicol Chemical Company ceased
operation at the plant site.
11. Miscellaneous: The plant site, also heavily contaminated with PBB wastes,
is currently being decontaminated and secured under the auspices of the
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources.
12. Source of Information: Lansing, MI State Journal, 7-27-78,8-3-79; inter-
office communication from B. P. Shah to F. B. Kellow, Resource Recovery
Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Telephone conversa-
tion with Mr. T. Rohr, Environmental Protection Division, Michigan Dept.
of Natural Resources, 2/28/80 (S. Quinlivan, TRW).
-------
B-12
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Organic Liquids, Haywood County, NC
(3400 Kg)
1. Personal Damage: None reported.
2. Environmental Damage: Contamination of stream waters and subsequent
poisoning of cattle. Three cattle killed.
3. Economic Damage: Compensation for killed cattle and cost of surface
skimming flowed over the top of a dike and into a tributary of Hominy
Creek which served as a water source for cattle.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: Approximately 1,000 gallons of
petroleum-based cleaning fluids.
6. Source of Waste: Textile-dyeing company in Arden, North Carolina sold
approximately 20 barrels of the fluid to a private citizen for resale of
the barrels. The fluid was poured onto a Haywood County landfill.
7. Date: Early 1974
8. Location: Haywood County, North Carolina
9. Remedial Action: Stream waters decontaminated by surface skimming;
cattle owner compensated for his losses.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Memo in U.S. EPA files.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMSGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Chemical Liquids, Haywood County, TN
(4500 Kg, Estimated)
1. Personal Damage: None reported.
2. Environmental Damage: Contamination of a stream with concentrated dyes
and other chemical liquids.
3. Economic Damage: Three cows fatally poisoned and many others rendered
ill after drinking contaminated water.
4. Cause of Problem: Toxic liquids illegally dumped in a landfill were
washed into a stream.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: 24 drums of concentrated dyes and
other chemical liquids.
6. Source of Waste: Not reported.
7. Date: Not reported.
8. Location: Haywood County, TN
9. Remedial Action: None reported.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendices prepared by
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, January 1979. "
-------
C-l
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Parathion Container McAdoo,, TX
1. Personal Damage: Man died of respiratory paralysis after inhaling
parathion.
2. Environmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: None reported.
4. Cause of Problem: Mr. McWilliams used an acetylene torch to cut the top
off a barrel which formerly contained concentrated parathion. He
experienced dizziness, loss of sight and died soon after.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: One barrel formerly containing
parathion (Red Barn Parthion 4).
6. Source of Waste: Improperly disposed barrel from unknown source.
7. Date: October 14, 1968
8. Location: McAdoo, Texas
9. Remedial Action: None reported.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: Label directions on the barrel instructed that the drum
not be reused.
12. Source of Information; tMemo, EPA files, Of fice_ of_Pesticide Program #68-144.
-------
C-2
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE- INCIDENT SfiMMARY SHEET
Parathion,Container Dunning, TIB
1. Personal Damage: Child died playing in a 55-gallon drum containing
pesticide.
2. Environmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: None reported.
4. Cause of Problem: Farmer cut the top off a 55-gallon drum which had
contained pesticide and filled it with water to use as a swimming pool
for his children
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: One 55-gallon drum containing
pesticide, parathion.
6. Source of Waste: Pesticide purchased for agricultural use.
7. Date: June 1968
8. Location: Dunning, Nebraska
9. Remedial Action: None reported.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous:. —
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication to Mr. John Wicklin,
Chief of Pesticide Branch, Environmental Protection Agency Region VII
(P. Painter, TRW 2/14/80).
-------
C-3
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Pesticide Container Halifax County, NC
1. Personal Damage: A seven year old femal. experienced nausea and vomiting,
lost the ability to walk, complained of difficulty seeing, and became
progressively unresponsive. She was admitted the following day to a
Halifax County, North Carolina hospital and was determined to be suffering
from organic phosphate poisoning. She rapidly responded to treatment and
recovered completely.
2. Environmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: No estimate supplied on costs of hospitalization of vicrim.
4. Cause of Problem: The girl had been playing with a 5-gallon drum of
Daphnid pesticide which was collecting rainwater in the backyard of her
home. Neighborhood children reported that she had filled a plastic spray
bottle with the contamined rainwater and sprayed some of it into her mouth
while making mud pies.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: One discarded 5-gallon container
of Daphnid, an organic phosphate pesticide.
6. Source of Waste: Pesticide purchased for home use.
7. Date: 1974
8. Location: A rural section of Halifax County, North Carolina
9. Remedial Action: The discarded pesticide container was removed from the
backyard of the girl's home.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: -
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication to Mr. Bill Williams,
Solid Waste and Vector Control, Department of Human Resources and Division
of Health Services, State of North Carolina, Raleigh, No. Carolina,
February 1, 1980 (S. Quinlivan, TRW). S. GeUback and w. Williams,
"Pesticide Containers: Their Contribution to Poisoning," Archives of
Environmental Health, Vol. 30, January 1975, p. 49-50.
-------
C-4
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Pesticide Container Moore County, NC
1. Personal Damage: Two brothers, aged one and two years, were hospitalized
for a sudden onset of vomiting, diarrhea and difficult breathing due to
organic phosphate poisoning.
2. Environmental Damage: None reported.
3. Economic Damage: No estimate supplied on costs of hospitalization of victim.
4. Cause of Problem: The two boys had been jumping in and out of an abandoned
55-gallon drum containing residual Disyston, an organophosphate pesticide.
Sufficient residue remained in the drum to cause poisoning by dermal
absorption.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: One discarded, nearly empty 55-
gallon drum of Disyston, an organophosphate pesticide.
6. Source of Waste: One Disyston pesticide had been formulated by Chem-Agro
Chemical Co.
7. Date: 1974
8. Location: Home located in Moore County near Southern Pines, No. Carolina
9. Remedial Action: None reported.
10. Legal Action: None reported.
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source: Telephone communication to Mr. Bill Williams, Solid Waste and
Vector Control, Dept. of Human Resources and Division of Health Services,
State of North Carolina, Raleight, North Carolina, February 1, 1980 (to
S. Quinlivan, TRW). Also, S. Gelback and W. Williams, "Pesticide Con-
tainers: Their Contribution to Poisoning," Archives of Environmental
Health, Vol. 30, January 1975, p. 49-50.
-------
C-5
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET
Pasathion Containers, Hughes, AR
1. Personal Damage: A 2^-year old boy was hospitalized for organophosphate
poisoning after playing among some empty drums containing pesticides.
2. Environmental Damage: Slight soil contamination of the area where the
drums were stored.
3. Economic Damage: Cost of hospitalization and cleanup of contaminated area
not reported.
4. Cause of Problem: City mayor obtained drums from an aerial applicator
to serve as trash containers for the city. Drums were stored on city
property and child played among them.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste: Ethyl and methyl parathion left
in drums.
6. Source of Waste: Empty drums from aerial applicator.
7. Date: July 3, 1972
8. Location: Hughes, Arkansas
9. Remedial Action: Drums decontaminated with caustic soda and buried.
Soil where drums stored decontaminated with lime.
10. Legal Action: None
11. Miscellaneous: —
12. Source of Information: Telephone communication to Mr. M. L. Anderson,
Chief of Pesticide Section, EPA Region VI (P. Painter 2/7/80)
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary of and Response to Public Comments
on the Proposed Standard
Contents
Paqe
A. Alternative Bases for the Exclusion Level B-l
B. Requirements for Excluded Waste B-2
*
C. Phasing B-4
D. Exclusion of Groups of Generators B-5
E. Measurement of Waste Quantity B-6
F. Testing Costs B-8
G. Miscellaneous Suggestions for Minimizing B-10
Small Generator Costs
H. Wording Changes B-12
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary and Response to Public Comments
on Proposed Standard
A. Alternative Bases for the Exclusion Level
Summary of Comments
1. The exemption cutoff should be based on the number
of employees in a facility.
2. The exemption cutoff should be based on the number
of drums of waste filled per month.
Analysis and Response to Comments
The Agency has decided not to adopt either approach.
The commenters did not indicate why these approaches may
be better than those offered by the Agency in the preamble
to the proposed regulations and discussed here. Using the
number of employees to set the cutoff would not relate the
regulation to environmental impact because the Agency
studies showed that number of employees could not be corre-
lated to waste generation. Thus, a facility with 3
employees producing 1500 Tcg/mo may not be fully regulated
while a facility with 50 employees producing 75 "kg/mo
may be regulated. This would not result in adequate
protection of health and the environment.
The other approach relating cutoff to number of drums
filled per month appears similar to the aproach adopted.
The primary difference appears to be an issue of volume
versus weight in determining quantity. The Agency has
used a weight based cutoff primarily because it is generally
B-l
-------
easier to measure and is more indicative of the hazard
posed.
B. Requirements for Excluded Waste
Summary of Comments
1. Some commenters proposed to unconditionally exempt
small generators from Subtitle C regulation in states
with Agency-approved regulatory programs for those
generators because the states know local conditions
(e.g., waste management problems, types of waste
produced, and generator economics) and can administer
the program more efficiently. Other commenters said
that the states cannot be expected to implement
programs that are more stringent than the Agency's,
and deferring regulation of hazardous wastes to states
is counter to legislative intent and may result in
court challenges.
2. Allow exempted generators to enter into assumption of
duties contracts because this will relieve the gene-
rator's cost burden without severely reducing protec-
tion of health and the environment.
Analysis of and Response to Comments
1. The Agency believes that an unconditioned exemption
under Subtitle C where states implement hazardous
waste or Subtitle D control programs would not provide
adequate protection of health and the environment.
The small generator requirements under §261.5 enable
the Agency to take enforcement action against gene-
B-2
-------
rators that indiscriminately dump hazardous waste or
whose waste is indiscriminately dumped. Without
this requirement exempted generators could not gene-
rally be made responsible under RCRA to ensure their
waste was not indiscriminately dumped and the Agency
could not initiate enforcement action aqainst any
party responsible for indiscriminate dumping. (Under
Subtitle D, states and citizens, not the Agency, can
initiate civil actions against open dumping.) In
addition, notwithstanding the small generator require-
ment under §261.5, the states can implement more
stringent standards for small quantity generators.
Some states already regulate small generators more
stringently than §261.5.
2. Generators, large or small, can enter into contracts
with others whereby any Subtitle C responsibilities
can be assigned to a third party without the express
approval of the Agency. However, the generator is
not relieved of his responsibilities, as between the
Agency and the generator. If the Agency expressly
relieved exempted generators of liability provided
that they assigned their responsibilities to trans-
porters, the Agency and the states could still incur
a substantial administrative burden. If the exempted
waste were required to be manifested, packaged, labeled
and managed in a "C" facility, many generators could
be expected to request assistance in interpreting the
B-3
-------
DOT shipping regulations because the generator must
still properly package and label the waste. in
addition, the generator cost of "C" management could
still be expected to be substantial, although some
savings in waste analysis costs may be realized if
transporters pool similar waste from several genera-
tors.
Even if the excluded waste was allowed to be
managed in non-"C" facilities, the generator assis-
tance cost could be substantial.
C. Phasing
Summary of Comments
1. Phasing allows time for the expansion of "C" facility
capacity -
2. Phasing provides the Agency time to collect data on
small generators to determine the most appropriate
regulatory approach.
Analysis of and Response to Comments
1. Small generators do not substantially exacerbate the
"C" capacity shortfall in those areas where there is
a shortfall because all generators of less than 1000
kg/mo generate only one percent of the total quantity
of hazardous waste. Thus, the Agency has not used
this argument to support phasing.
2. The Agency is not phasing the exemption level speci-
fically to allow the Agency time to obtain sufficient
data to determine what regulatory controls should be
B-4
-------
applied to small generators. The Agency studies
provide adequate data to enable the Agency to adopt
the regulatory approach presented here. However,
given that phasing is necessary because of limited
administrative resources, the Agency will consider
any new information available on small generator
waste and waste management practices in developing
expanded Subtitle C coverage of small generators.
D. Exclusion of Groups of Generators
Summary of Comments
1. Retailers should not be given a blanket exemption
as proposed in §250.79, because their waste can be
extremely hazardous. Retailers should be regulated
like any other generator.
2. The Agency should set high exemption cutoffs (e.g.,
1000 kg/mo) for certain generators such as universities,
pesticide applicators, hospitals, utilities, and bulk
liquid storage facilities.
Analysis of and Response to Comments
1. The Agency agrees that retailers should not be
exempted from Subtitle C regulation because they can
generate extremely hazardous waste. For example,
drug or hardware stores can dispose of damaged con-
tainers of substances listed in §261.33., Accordinglv,
the definition of retailer in the proposed rules has
been deleted. The Agency studies on environmental
and economic impacts did not consider wastes from
B-5
-------
retailers because the Agency believes that establish-
ments that engage solely in retailing generate hazar-
dous waste infrequently, and then, only in very
small quantities.
2. These groups of generators felt they should be excluded
from regulation at high exclusion levels (e.g., 1000
kg/mo) for various reasons including: generator cost
would be high; their waste is currently managed
properly; and, it would be a hassle'to keep track of
small quantities generated from several sources (e.g.,
universities indicated that their waste quantity is
difficult to measure because many buildings generate
small quantities and the quantities fluctuate by
research project).
As indicated previously, the RCRA does not allow
the Agency to consider generator cost or hassle in
developing or supporting the regulations. In addi-
tion, the RCRA does not allow the Agency to consider
current management as the sole factor in determining
whether a waste is hazardous, and thus, subject to
Subtitle C control. If a waste may pose substantial
hazard under plausible mismanagement scenarios, it
must be regulated under Subtitle C.
E. Measurement of Waste Quantity
Summary of Comments
1. The rate of waste generation should be based on the
average monthly quantity produced over 12 months
B-6
-------
rather than monthly quantites.
2. Generators with several waste streams will have diffi-
culty measuring total quantites.
3. Recordkeeping costs will be substantial to document
non-generator status based on the quantity exemption.
Analysis of and Response to Comments
1. The Agency concludes that the rate of waste generation
should be based on the quantity produced in a monthly
period to minimize the health and the environmental
damage that could result under the approach of using
the average monthly quantities. Under the averaging
approach, establishments generating wastes on a
seasonal basis could conceivably produce 12,000 Kg in
any given month and no waste during the rest of the
year and be excluded from regulation. Ouantites of
this magnitude are more likely to result in damage
than the 1,000 Kg limitation provided by the monthly
quantity approach.
2. While some generators with several waste streams may
have difficulty measuring total waste quantity, this
hassle is unavoidable in order to assure protection
of health and the environment.
3. The Agency recognizes that small generators may feel
compelled to keep records to document that waste
quantities were below the exemption levels. However,
this cost is minor relative to the cost of the option
of full regulation. The Agency cannot think of an
B-7
-------
approach that would relieve small generators of this
burden, and none was offered by the commenters.
F. Testing Costs
Summary of Comments;
The high testing costs to small generators to determine
whether their waste is hazardous may result in some non-
hazardous waste being declared hazardous to avoid those
costs.
Analysis of and Response to Comments;
The projected cost to generators of less than 10DO
kg/mo for testing to determine whether their waste is
hazardous is approximately S455, other one-time costs
amount to $90, and the recurring cost of compliance with
Part 262 ranges from SR48-$1606. Thus, generators above
the exemption level are not likely to assume their waste
is hazardous when a $455 investment may save S800-S1600
annually.
For generators beneath the exemption level, the
commenter has a point because $262.11 requires any generator
of solid waste, whether large or small, to determine whether
his waste is hazardous. However, if an exempted generator
declares that his waste is hazardous to avoid the testing
costs when in fact it is not, the §261.5 requirements on
the generator will generally have little or no economic
-------
indiscriminately dumped. This should have no economic
impact on most generators because Section 4005(c) of
Subtitle D of the RCRA already prohibits "any solid waste
management practice or disposal of solid waste or hazardous
waste which constitutes the open dumping of solid waste
or_ hazardous waste". [Emphasis added]
A small generator's cost may increase in some situa-
tions such as:
- where excluded hazardous waste is banned from state-
approved facilities
- where states regulate excluded waste more stringently
than §261.5
- where a generator currently discards his waste on-site
in a facility that is not state-approved and the state
cannot or does not approve the facility
- where a generator currently stores, treats or disposes
his waste off-site in a facility that is not state-
approved .
In these situations, excluded generators may determine
that it is cost-effective to test their waste to determine
if it is actually hazardous rather than assuming it is and
incurring the higher cost of management.
Moreover, the Agency believes that many generators
will know whether their waste is hazardous because it is
listed or because they "know, for example, its pH or flash
point, and, thus, know whether it meets the hazard charac-
teristics. For some generators, the determination could
B-9
-------
be made at minimal cost to them by having trade associations
conduct tests that are applicable to most wastes produced
by its members.
G. Miscellaneous Suggestions for Minimizing Small Generator
Costs
Summary of Comments;
1. Extend the accumulation time restriction beyond 90
days for small generators before a permit is required.
2. Exempt on-site neutralization of small generator
wastes from the facility standards and permit
requirements.
3. The Agency should consider waste pooling strategies.
4. The Agency should investigate the opportunity for
recycling of laboratory chemicals by the original
supplies.
Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. Extending the §262.34 accumulation time restriction
beyond 90 days for small generators while requiring
compliance with the other Part 262 requirements would
enable generators to reduce some costs (e.g., manifests,
collection, sample testing) and would result in *=ewer
waste transporter trips and, thus, fewer spills.
However, this waiver alone would not reduce the major
costs to generators (i.e., recurring comprehensive
testing), and the major small generator administrative
costs to the Agency and the states (i.e., enforcement
and assistance).
B-10
-------
The Agency does not believe that the accumula-
tion time should be extended for any subset of
generators above the exemption cutoff (i.e., medium
size generators) because improper storage can pose
as great a hazard as improper treatment or disposal.
2. The neutralization or other treatment of waste
produced by exempted generators is regulated only
under §261.5 which requires that the exempted generator
treat his waste in, or ensure delivery to, a state-
sanctioned facility.
The Agency believes that the neutralization of
large generator wastes must be fully regulated under
Subtitle C, as discussed in the background document
supporting the waste management facility standards
on Tanks (Part 265, Subpart J).
3. The pooling of small generator wastes by transporters
or facilities is not restricted by §261.5 except that
the facility must have a state permit, license or
registration to manage municipal or industrial solid
waste.
The pooling of large generator wastes is not
restricted except that transporters and facilities
are regulated under Parts 263 and 264 or 265,
respectively.
4. The recycling of unused or reusable chemicals back to
suppliers is strongly encouraged by the Agency. Part
261 exempts facilities that recycle or reuse hazardous
B-ll
-------
waste from Part 265 regulation. Thus the cost of
managing a hazardous waste can be reduced by recycling
H. Wording Changes
Summary of Comments;
Several commenters suggested word changes to clarify the
proposed regulation (§250.29).
Analysis of and Response to Comments
The suggested changes in wording are not relevant because
of the changes in the regulation.
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C
Summary of and Response to Public Comments
on the Agency Studies
Contents
Page
A. Environmental Impacts of Discarding Small Quantities C-l
in "D" Facilities
B. Phasing C-3
C. Miscellanious Comments on the Analysis of Agency C-4
and State Administrative Costs and Generator Costs
-------
APPENDIX C
Summary of and Response to Public Comments on the Aqency Studies
A. Environmental impacts of discarding small generator wastes
in "D" facilities.
Summary of Comments;
The studies did not adequately address the impacts of discarding
exempted hazardous waste "D" facilities in that:-
1) Explosions have had a disastrous impact on municipal
waste resource recovery plants,
2) Fires at municipal landfills have occurred because of
hazardous waste disposal,
3) Co-disposal of hazardous and un-hazardous wastes is in-
adequately addressed because some states won't permit a
l-to-100 dilution ratio.
4) Co-disposal would not present a safety hazard if containers
properly were labeled and operator training procedures
were implemented.
5) "D" facility operators need to have ayance notice of
delivery and discretionary power to refuse shipment.
Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. Explosions at municipal solid waste resource recovery plants
have in many cases been attributed to waste typically
generated by households such as aasoline, paint thinner,
black power, military ordanance once used as souveniers,
etc. Such household waste is not subject to regulation
under Subtitle C. If explosives or any other waste are
C-l
-------
expected to present a hazard at incinerators, landfills,
or resource recovery plants, they can be banned contrac-
turally or by ordinance.
2. Although fires attributable to hazardous wastes have accurred
at landfills, the Agency's damage report files do not
include incidents of fires for waste quantities less than
100 Teg. (The files do not contain any reports of damage
from quantities under 100 kg. discarded in managed
landfills.) The Agency concludes that generators of waste
in these quantities will mix their hazardous waste with
their non-hazardous waste and the fire (and other) hazard
will not be substantial in most cases.
3. If states determine that, because of the hazardous to non-
hazardous waste dilution ratio or for any other reason,
the §261.5 regulations do not provide adequate protection
on a local or state basis, a state may develop more
stringent standards.
4&5. The Agency agrees that if small generator waste were labeled,
marked, properly packaged, and accompanied by a shipping
paper (i.e., manifest), facility operators could better
determine whether they could safely handle the waste or
were permitted to do so. However, this option
was rejected as discussed in Section IX-D of the document
because it did not substantially reduce Agency and state
administrative costs.
C-2
-------
B. Phasing
Summary of Comments
Phasing is not justified because the Agency and state administra-
tive burden is not overwhelming. The Agency studies overstate
the administrative burden and projected resource shortfalls
as follows:
- Enforcement costs are overstated because the estimate
of generators requiring enforcement action (3%) and the
*
number of days for each action (10) is overestimated.
The Agency and the states would establish priorities
and concentrate on larger generators
- State budgets will be increased especially considering
the attention hazardous waste issues are receiving;
states may also impose user fees to increase funding.
- The Agency budget will be increased.
Analysis of and Response to Comments:
As discussed throughout the background document, the Agency
and the states can use some discretion in administering the
generator regulations relating to inspections and resultant
enforcement actions, and report processing. However, some high
cost administrative tasks cannot be easily minimized such as
providing assistance in explaining the Department of Transporta-
tions shipping requirements and enforcement of non-compliance
actions brought to the attention of the Agency and the states by
others. Thus, the Agency and the states may not be able to
substantially reduce the administrative burden by discretionary
implementation and enforcement of the regulations.
03
------- |